home

Monday Morning Open Thread

BTD has hearings this week, and is taking the week to prepare for them.

I'm not seeing much in the news this morning: Dr. Conrad Murray, Michael Jackson's doctor, heads back to court where the DA is asking the judge to strip him of his medical license as a condition of bail. They tried it before with an earlier judge and lost. I think Dr. Murray's lawyers are correct, unless the state can show changed circumstances, the bail conditions should not be changed.

The latest tawdry celebrity couple news in the air pertains to Bruce Springsteen. Remember the woman whose husband claimed she had an affair with The Boss when the two got friendly at a New Jersey gym? He's filed court documents claiming she did have an affair with Bruce, She's now filed papers saying her husband made it up, thinking Bruce would pay to keep it quiet. She's also alleging he's a physical abuser who had numerous dalliances during their marriage. Someone ought to deliver a washing machine to the front door of all these couples (Jesse James, Tiger Woods, etc.) so that instead of foisting these personal, embarrassing details on us, they could be reminded to take care of their dirty laundry themselves.

One person in trouble who was impressive last night was Rod Blagojevich, who got "fired" last night on Celebrity Apprentice. [More...]

Rod's team lost, and while he was project manager, he had made Poison's Brett Michaels the creative head of the project. Trump really wanted to fire Brett and kept asking Rod why he wasn't bringing Brett back to the boardroom with him to be fired, and Rod kept saying, Brett did nothing wrong. He was loyal to the end, and who knows, maybe it will strike a chord with his jury in June. He went out proud, refused to diss anyone else, acknowledged what he could have done better and seemed like a nice guy. Of course, he's not doing this to influence a jury pool, but for the money. He's pretty unemployable these days and racking up hundreds of thousands in legal fees.

Update: Blago's comments in the limo after getting the boot:

Life is filled with ups and downs, sometimes you win and sometimes you don't. The real test of who you are is how you deal with it," ... "I was not going to sell out [Brett Michaels]. I think it would have been very disloyal and very wrong. I'm the project manager, I take full responsibility and I got the boot."

I'll try to cover some politics (as well as crime) in BTD's absence, so let me know in comments what topics you'd like addressed.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Sunday Night Open Thread | Philadelphia to Ease Prosecution Policy on Marijuana Possession >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    something of a shaky Easter (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Jen M on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 06:11:59 AM EST
    in southern Cali.

    Easter Earthquake (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:39:35 AM EST
    Rolling back that stone (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 12:07:10 PM EST
    sealing the tomb was bound to have repercussions eventually.

    Parent
    Army birther... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:47:14 AM EST
    ...refusing deployment unless Obama shows him the birth certificate.  

    A Greeley native who says he's an Army lieutenant colonel says he won't go to Afghanistan until President Obama provides his birth certificate showing he's eligible to hold office.

    Somehow, I don't think that's going to end well for him.


    He's asking for it. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:24:48 AM EST
    I am sick to death of people like him. His orders came from Personnel in the Pentagon. It's time for the Army to play hardball with someone, and since this guy has stepped up to the plate, this might be a good case.

    Insubordination and conduct unbecoming, to start with.
    It was a different time and a different military when I served...

    Parent

    when you served (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:43:10 AM EST
    there was a white CIC

    Parent
    but the entire (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:46:36 AM EST
    chain of command was racially integrated. I hate to think that the race of the CIC makes a difference. I say hammer this guy and every officer who takes a similar stand.

    Enlisted folks have more leeway in their gripes. Not officers.

    Parent

    hate to think that too (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:57:24 AM EST
    but it sure seems to be happening more.

    Parent
    yep. (none / 0) (#77)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 12:07:14 PM EST
    Chances are he wouldnt believe (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:22:31 PM EST
    it was an authentic document even if he got to hold it in his hands.

    This is one of those "paranoid style of the right", true believer movements."I have here in my hand the names of 200 people in the State Department"..

    he's probably misguidedly holding out for the possibility of starting a birther Seven Days in May uprising.

    Parent

    may I just say (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:33:42 PM EST
    if I never hear the name Tiger Woods again I will die happy.


    Per my Mom... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:37:07 PM EST
    ...a smug as$.

    Parent
    A suggested topic (none / 0) (#1)
    by lentinel on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 05:31:00 AM EST
    could be the deteriorating war in Afghanistan and the left's silence about it.

    Bob Herbert wrote an excellent column in last Sunday's NY Times comparing it to our involvement in the Vietnam war.

    For the Vietnam war, the Left was identified mightily with forces that were trying to end the war. There were street demonstrations.
    There were student demonstrations. People were threatening to refuse to pay the portion of their income taxes that went to the war.

    Today, the war in Afghanistan is not even a topic of discussion for the left. Neither is the war in Iraq.

    There was a bit of a populist uprising in 2006. It was about the war in Iraq. The republicans were swept out of leadership positions in both houses of congress. But the democrats betrayed the electorate by agreeing to an increase of forces instead of the withdrawal for which people had voted.

    And of course, we have a Democratic president in Mr. Obama who repeats the same talking points as his predecessor. That does make many democratic party loyalists hesitant to criticize what has now become a democratic party war.

    During the Vietnam era, there were daily reports from the front from the likes of CBS news. It helped keep the war in front of the American people and helped to generate disgust among us for the war and increased the pressure to end it. Today, the war(s) are seldom even mentioned.

    It is up to the Left to talk about this war and hopefully bring an end to it.

    The war wouldnt' play well on TV (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by observed on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 07:01:36 AM EST
    People like to see tanks,  heavy artillery and big explosions.
    They don't want a story.


    Parent
    During the Vietnam era (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Emma on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:45:14 AM EST
    there was a draft.  The anti-war movement was really an anti-draft movement, at least the portion of it dedicated to "bringing the war home" and which was responsible for all the real civil unrest.  

    Abolishing the draft was genius because now nobody who doesn't want to go war has to worry about being drafted.  Nobody has anything to lose in this war, except the volunteer military.  And they accept that it's their job to go so, unlike the draftees in Vietnam, there's no internal anti-war movement in the military.

    Completely professionalizing the military is always a huge mistake, IMO, as it really does create the necessary conditions for empire.  That and offloading huge portions of our military responsbilities onto highly paid american mercenaries.  Probably the biggest "anti-war" legislation contemplated by the Congress recently was the bill to outlaw use of outfits like Blackwater and KBR.  Of course, the current president didn't support that bill, so it was always clear to me where his priorities were.

    And the current anti-war movement isn't willing to do what the anti-draft/war do to "end the war" (but really end the draft).  So, I just don't see any possibility of a real populist uprising.

    Parent

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by lentinel on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 10:10:53 AM EST
    with what you said about the antiwar movement in the Vietnam war era being, in essence, an anti-draft movement.

    Martin Luther King and many others spoke of it as a matter of decency and morality.

    Mohammed Ali spoke of it as a manner of racism.

    The students who were protesting and tying up traffic had deferments.

    Racism is still playing a role in this, I think. I just can't feel it as a coincidence that we are only dropping bombs which kill civilians on people whose skins are darker than the American ideal of white.

    What happened to the women who were killed in Afghanistan recently by our troops - and the attendant cover-up is all too reminiscent of the way we treated the "enemy" in Vietnam.

    The comatose way that people are letting Obama do what he wants has more to do with our spiritual and moral decline. We finally absorbed much of the mentality that Bush/Co imposed upon us.

    The congress is fat and wealthy.
    The media are fat, wealthy and corrupt.
    And the Left is moribund.

    Even if some of the fervor in the 1960s had to do with the draft, the immorality and racist and imperialistic actions of the government provoked reactions from the Left.

    But now there is little or nothing.


    Parent

    To be clear: (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Emma on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 10:47:29 AM EST
    I think there was an anti-war movement in the 60s.  I just think the effective movement was the anti-draft movement because they were willing to do anything, riot, destroy presidencies, bomb buildings, etc., because their butts were on the line.  "Bring the war home" was not MLK, was not the pacificist elements of the anti-war movement.  It was the anti-draft movement.

    Why do you think there is no effective anti-war movement now?  Because nobody is willing to do what is actually necessary to end the wars, that is to ruin Obama's presidency over the wars he's waging.  There will be no '68 Democratic convention, IOW, by this anti-war movement.

    Moreover, an anti-war movement led by a grieving mother is ineffective from the git-go because it fits well within the paradigm of war/anti-war.  Of course a grieving mother is against the war -- it's right there in the paradigm of war, it doesn't challenge war, it doesn't require action, it doesn't even support peace making.  And, second, Cindy Sheehan was never really anti-war, she just wanted to know why her kid died.  That can't possibly be the face of an anti-war movement b/c it's not anti-war, it's anti-my-dead-kid.  And of course nobody wants kids to die, but that's what war is all about about, dontcha know.

    The present so-called anti-war movement is too firmly and perhaps unreflectively ensconced in the dominant cultural paradigm of war making to make an effective stand against any war.  Witness the "support the troops, not the war" garbage that's everywhere.  How can you be against the killing while supporting the killers?  How can you be so co-opted by a line of "argument" that is at its core "don't bother them right now, they're killing people"?  A putative anti-war movement can't be effective like that.

    Also, this "movement" measures its "effectiveness" on how many people it can get out on a march to sing 1960s protest songs.  Big whoop.  It'd be better off measuring its effectiveness by how uncomfortable it can make those in power by, among other things, making them look like they can't govern b/c of the "loony left" they have no control over.  But that would  prove its total ineffectiveness, so it will never do that.

    Parent

    Lentinel is right (none / 0) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:19:54 AM EST
    the vast majority of active student anti-war protesters had deferments and every prospect of being able to continue those deferments through graduate school.  It was very much a middle-class movement, not the kids of the working class.

    Secondly, although students spearheaded the protests, there were many, many participants who were beyond draft age.

    No question the draft "brought it home" because all of us had friends who'd had to go or were in danger of going or who fled to Canada to avoid going.  But to characterize the opposition to the Vietnam war as solely or even largely an anti-draft movement is simply not right.

    Rioting, never mind bombing buildings, involved an almost infinitesmal fraction of the anti-war movement, a fraction that was greatly feared by the rest of us, not admired or supported.

    Parent

    Pointing out the bombings-- (none / 0) (#46)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:29:27 AM EST
    yes, there were a couple of terrorist attacks related to the anti-war movement. Very few, though. But ask young people (College age) today, and they think a civil war was going on.

    I think that's part of the right-wing propaganda, but I can't pinpoint exactly where or when it started. Any help finding it would be appreciated.

    Parent

    Yep, the "bring the war (none / 0) (#51)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:38:07 AM EST
    home" faction was the Weather Underground faction that split off from the peaceful SDS when they found it to be too slow in ending the war.

    These violent types, few in number for sure, were indeed effective for a while -- in smearing the rest of the antiwar movement with an unwarranted violent and dangerous reputation.

    Of course, WU came about around 1969, iirc, along with the threats, the stupid manifestos and demands, and the occasional bombing.

    Before that, the most alarmed the establishment had gotten was over that March on the Pentagon in 1967, when McNamara and those inside thought there might be some violent incident outside with protesters and the soldier-guards, and that the building would be overrun and DoD officials taken hostage.  (SecDef McN, to his credit, made sure the soldiers rifles were empty of bullets.)

    Oh, there were also those threats by some march leaders like Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin that they would meditate en masse to "levitate" the Pentagon building.  I don't believe that actually occurred however.

    Parent

    So... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Emma on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:39:49 AM EST
    who ended the war in Vietnam?  And why did it end?

    Parent
    Not one group alone, (none / 0) (#69)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:54:05 AM EST
    ended it, though the peaceful antiwar movement helped shorten it.  Some media coverage too helped.  Along with shocking situations like the Tet offensive and various horrendous photo images of war, and stories like My Lai.

    Basically people by year 4 and 5 began to get fed up and tired of it all.

    Parent

    The Vietnam War (none / 0) (#83)
    by Emma on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 12:50:24 PM EST
    lasted more the 4-5 years.  And we're moving into year 9? 10? w/Iraq and Afghanistan.  It's not just people getting tired of it.

    There was a sharper stick the anti-war/draft movements used to prod the government in the 60s and 70s and I don't think it was peaceful protests or an academic ground for anti-war efforts.  I think it was violence and the perception that the country had become ungovernable b/c of it.   There was other violence, to be sure:  violence against protestors, violence against civil rights workers and protestors, violence against peaceful protests.

    But, without the violence and the threat of violence, created by what people now want to define as incidental fringe elements to an otherwise peaceful movement, Kent State never happens and never becomes a defining moment of the anti-war movement.  I think there's a direct line from the '68 Democratic Convention to the National Guard troops killing students at Kent State.

    Parent

    Disagree about (none / 0) (#130)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 04:09:50 PM EST
    your take on what ended the war.  Sorry, it wasn't the Weather Underground and a few violent types on the fringe.  It was the public getting fed up, starting in yrs 4 and 5 (though it began probably by 67).  

    The "sharp stick" was something called the elections:  LBJ, who ordered us up that awful war, forced to withdraw from seeking another term.  His VP, representing mostly the status quo and forced himself (he thought) to toe the admin's line, was defeated by a "change" agent on the war -- albeit a very deceptive one.

    Nixon by his own promises and the nature of the conflict and the great public dissatisfaction -- nothing to do with violent protests or threats of same, though some in authority always think the worse of them noisy protester types -- had to either choose to win it militarily or get out.  He chose the latter, dragged out over 4 yrs of course, with plenty of bombing before we left for good.

    Afghanistan just doesn't have all the massive numbers of US troops and deaths and lacks the draft element and the total lack of faith in an unpopular president waging that war, as people turned against Johnson with his Credibility Gap.  Not that Obama has a blank check:  he's pledged to begin withdrawing by next yr, and failure to adhere to that, in this very long involvement, will lead to plenty of grumbling and probably some Johnsonian problems in credibility beginning to plague him.  

    Parent

    I don't actually (none / 0) (#131)
    by Emma on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 04:24:59 PM EST
    think the anti-war movement, any part of it, "ended" the Vietnam war.

    I think that LBJ's presidency was ruined by the Vietnam war and that that ruination was brought about, at least in part, by the violence in the anti-war movement that created the appearance, if not the reality, that Dems could not govern the country because of the Vietnam war and the violent demonstrations against it.  It's a more subtle point than "the violence of the anti-war movement ended the war".

    LBJ didn't run again because the Vietnam war was a political liability.  It was a political liability in part because of things like the '68 Democratic Convention and other acts of violence in U.S. streets.  Nixon ended the war because of what happened to LBJ, i.e. the Vietnam war became a political liability.  And, of course, the scope and nature of the liability is many-faceted and complex.

    But the basic point stands:  You want to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Destroy Obama's presidency the way LBJ's was destroyed.  The next President will end the war.  Guaranteed.  But, of course, there is no will to do that.  It's not a question of morals of or apathy by the general public.  It's a question of what the anti-war movement is willling to do.  If it's not willing to ruin Presidents and presidencies, it has no real will to end the wars.

    Parent

    Well, if your argument boils (none / 0) (#135)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 04:58:21 PM EST
    down to the turbulent 68 Dem Convo being a key event that might have tipped the election to Nixon, the "change" agent in the contest who'd pledged to enact his secret plan to end the war, then of course the violence in Chicago was a major factor that might well have turned off enough people from the Dems to make a difference.

    It wasn't the reason LBJ withdrew from the race of course -- that had been announced months earlier.  And up to that point in early 68, the violent antiwar protests were few (and no deaths, iirc) and mostly caused by wild police overreaction (UWis 67).  Plenty of violence in the inner cities though, though not necessarily there primarily because of the war.

    Fact is, in addition to the mounting US death count in VN, it was the largely peaceful protests, then the entry into the race of RFK and Gene McC, as Lyndon's poll #s stayed low, that caused LBJ to drop out which paved the way for a different approach by a new admin.  People had had 4 yrs of the same old gradual escalation and bombing by Lyndon, with no end to the killing in sight as this country was being split apart.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#136)
    by Emma on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 05:05:12 PM EST
    That isn't what my argument "boils down to".

    Parent
    Beg to differ somewhat with all of you (none / 0) (#143)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 08:44:09 PM EST
    I just checked out my recollection, and it is this: In 1969, a lottery began for selection of those born 1944 to 1950 who would be drafted to serve in 1970; same thing happened ff'g year.  As a result 24-26-year olds were drafted; they had finished college and most no longer had student deferments; these former students subjected to the draft were largely from middle class homes. It was at this point that the anti-war movement gained great momentum, as middle class families were faced with having their sons serve or leave the country to dodge the draft.  The middle class turned against Johnson, he knew it, and he made his famous speech stating he would not run for a second term, knowing he had lost public support.  The violence at the Dem convention in 1968 was, among other things, an expression of exasperation by some in the antiwar movement following the death of RFK, the political defeat of Eugene McCarthy -- the antiwar candidates, and the nomination of pro-Vietnam War Humphrey.  There were many who were antiwar who did not condone violence.  The violence, however, had little to do, IMO, with ending the war.  The war ended largely, in my opinion, because Nixon, who, as a Republican, had "strong on defense" credentials that would not be questioned as he ended what had come to be a highly unpopular war, and could get away with describing the ending of the war as "peace with honor."  By the way, the massively unpopular nature of the lottery and then the Vietnam War was, in effect, acknowledged when amnesty was granted to those who had fled the country rather than be drafted.

    This is not to say that there are no parallels between the Vietnam and Afghan wars, but rather that some of the statements above are inaccurate.

    Parent

    What I saw was anti-draft (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    because they knew at some point they would no longer be deferred.

    Most of the leadership was anti-US. Fellow travelers looking for useful idiots to use as cannon fodder.

    If you want to get us out of these "little" conflicts, put Universal Military Service in place. Say two years for those not outward bound for becoming a professional military man. Said service done immediately after high school or age 19, which ever comes first, with NO deferments for any reason. (At least most college freshmen would have an idea of what they actually wanted to become.)

    If not, be prepared eventually for the military to decide that since they are paying the price they will have a much bigger seat at the table of government.

    Parent

    or just watch (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 04:30:23 PM EST
    or read Starship Troopers

    Parent
    I understand you would (none / 0) (#146)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:13:56 PM EST
    not favor UMS.

    That is no surprise.

    Parent

    The cover-up... (none / 0) (#31)
    by desertswine on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 10:43:34 AM EST
    that you mention is particularly heinous.

    The admission immediately raised questions about what really happened during the Feb. 12 operation -- and what falsehoods followed -- including a new report that Special Operations forces dug bullets out of the bodies of the women to hide the nature of their deaths.


    Parent
    See today's Glenn Greenwald post. (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:13:52 AM EST
    Also, today's NYT article is at A-4 of the print edition, with a four line front page blurb below the fold.

    Parent
    It's a wonder... (none / 0) (#74)
    by desertswine on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 12:05:20 PM EST
    that any truth at all comes out of Afghanistan.

    Parent
    Just read that Greenwald piece (none / 0) (#112)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:11:23 PM EST
    and I'm ready to tear my hair out. As if the mistake in killing those people was not horrible enough, the lying and coverup is infuriating and brings shame on our country. So easy to jump to 'honor killing' as a cover story when the media and populace are more than willing to run with that story with no investigation.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:15:55 PM EST
    This is pretty crappy too.

    Parent
    Very disturbing indeed. (none / 0) (#124)
    by desertswine on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:49:32 PM EST
    About that college draft deferment (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:21:48 AM EST
    -- you are forgetting that Nixon's threat to drop the college deferment precipitated the change from a small (if vocal) antiwar movement on campuses into a mass movement.  And so he backed off from that.  But he did go to the lottery system, as well as go with other decisions, that kept the masses mobilized.

    Compare the numbers, mass events, etc. pre- and post-1969 and the threat to drop the deferment.

    Parent

    "So what you are saying is". (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:57:47 AM EST
    <snark>.the reason Harlan Hatcher, President of U of M, was on stage at a huge rally on campus in 1969 was because he was afraid enrollment would be gutted?  

    Parent
    Well, now that you mention it -- (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:55:13 PM EST
    we could go wandering off into the interesting studies analyzing just why women's enrollments in colleges finally started to take off at the end of the '60s, with the soaring numbers of men sent off to Nam and Nixon's talk of ending the college draft deferment.  Coincidence?  We think not -- no more than were the first-ever admissions of women to many colleges and universities during the Civil War.

    But that's another story.  American history, it has a million of 'em.  But it truly is fascinating to see how advanced education has been manipulated in this country for -- or not for -- minority men and all women.  Another intriguing stat to mull and think about whether it was coincidence that the percentage of women in the U.S. population in the 1920s plummeted in the post-suffrage backlash, to the point that there were even fewer, proportionately, in college by the 1950s into the early 1960s.

    Society needed its breeding machines. . . .

    Parent

    There were also important voices (none / 0) (#79)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 12:30:46 PM EST
    from scholars such as Hans Morgenthau, professor at the University of Chicago, who provided an intellectual grounding for "delusions" as he called them about the Viet Nam war, that influenced students.  The deferments, surely played a role in the anti-war movement, as did the statistical threat of the lottery, but after what began as a student movement, moved into mainstream disenchantment.

    Parent
    And there was MLK (none / 0) (#144)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 08:49:16 PM EST
    whose anti-Vietnam War speech at Riverside Church exactly 1 year before he died was cited in Bob Herbert's column over the weekend.

    Parent
    Professionalizing the military has (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:48:28 AM EST
    huge pluses, but it comes with huge minuses too, one being that if the civilians lose interest in what the professional killers are doing and not doing........in such a case they are the only check on absolute power.

    Parent
    You're right (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Emma on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:53:22 AM EST
    about the benefits of a professional military.  I think one good thing is that the U.S. military probably has one of the highest standards of conduct and effectiveness in the world.  

    I think professionalizing a smaller military is probably the answer.  Something akin to pre-WWI levels, maybe.  A professional core that needs to be supplemented by draftees in order to actually go to war.

    Because right now, IMO, our military is big enough to get us into trouble but not big enough to do the empire building we're asking of it.  And nobody cares.  During Bush, everybody was all over the "broken military".  Now, not a peep.  Why not?  It's still as "broken" now as it was then.  Any time you've got guys going on 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. deployments, there's a huuuuuuuge problem, IMO.

    Parent

    I agree with most of what you've said, (none / 0) (#75)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 12:06:00 PM EST
    Emma. I think the current size of the Army might need to be maintained-- roughly 500,000. Pre WW1 there were about 101k to 105k on active duty. With the changes in complexity of weapons systems, and the lack of need for so many folks at the sharp end of the point, the combat arms troops, an active duty component of 400k to 500 k for the Army seems reasonable. That's half of what it was during the Cold War, and there's more specialization.

    It takes up to two years for an infantryman to be completely trained-- yes, basic and AIT last about 16 weeks, but unless you are just looking for a body, one to two years of training-- small-unit (squad) through regimental or brigade (combined arms)isn't a fast process, and requires a lot of practice.

    As to the broken military, the amount of folks on thos 3rd and higher tours is negligent. Thanks to the "fight a war with the Army you have..." mentality, soldiers and equipment are worn out.

    Need to ask MT to ask hubby how many folks would have been categorized as not combat effective based on multiple deployments under the 'old' rules, pre Iraq, who were and are deployed as combat effective now.

    Parent

    Proportional numbers (none / 0) (#81)
    by Emma on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 12:39:56 PM EST
    By reference to pre-WWI I wasn't talking about absolute #s, 100,000 v. 500,000, for example.  I was thinking more proportionally.  

    Parent
    I'm in favor of reinstituting the draft (none / 0) (#145)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:01:46 PM EST
    During WWII, the armed forces served to bring together Americans from all walks of life. The forced contact brought knowledge of those were not alike. We now no longer have any institution in which rich and poor, fortunate and less fortunate, rural and urban, etc. come together and get to know their fellow Americans.  But perhaps more importantly, I think that the tragedy of the Iraq and Afghan wars is that we have not sacrificed as a country, but sent off the few to sacrifice for us; in this way, many of us are allowed to defer consideration of whether these wars are wars we are willing to sacrifice our lives for.  I'd like to think that had we all been forced to make this decision, it would have been made with far more deliberation.  

    In addition, I think that all Americans should have to serve their country in some capacity.  To me, patriotism is not about waving flags, but about service.  Whether service in the armed forces, the Peace Corps or Vista, I believe some service should be required of all.  We have a generation now that is highly entitled, and thinks most things that are hard can be contracted out, not worked through.  And we have a legislature in which most members look to see what they can grab for those in their legislative districts, and little if any incentive for caring about what's best for the country as a whole.  

    Parent

    It isn't a topic anybody will touch (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 08:20:50 AM EST
    You are right.  And Marja is very long term, it was a Taliban town.  I can't say that the effort is deteriorating.  I can say that the forces involved are a little surprised that the situation will call for twice the determination than most originally thought, but they all knew this wasn't going to happen overnight...not even close.  The President on down though knew that we were going to be in Marja to affect a paradigm shift there for a long time.  So now it comes down to Obama being dishonest about his statements concerning his troop withdrawal goals.  Either he was being dishonest or he was being naive, so which one is it?

    Parent
    With all due respect, this does not (none / 0) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 10:59:38 AM EST
    seem to be the first time that the "forces were surprised" that the military effort required more than initially expected.  And, Marja is still a challenge, especially the Taliban nights.  But, then, why are we concerned about those Taliban, when our partner in counter-insurgency says that he may become a Taliban.  Karzai is angry with the pressure but his comments do not help in that key aspect of the war strategy--to convince (bribe,cajole, power share) "moderate" Taliban to come on over.   As Peter Galbraith says, even if the mission is laudable, if it is not achievable, why sacrifice our troops to hopelessness.

    Parent
    this one statement sums up my thoughts (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:09:35 AM EST
    As Peter Galbraith says, even if the mission is laudable, if it is not achievable why sacrifice our troops to hopelessness.

    I have not seen what I consider an achievable mission put forward. I think the society and political structures there are way too complex to 'solve' militarily. Are we going to put a military governor in place in Marja or Kandahar to keep Taliban out?

    And the drug trade throws in another monkey wrench.

    I have not seen Obama explain the plan to me in a way that makes sense. He has not been forced to because of the general lack of opposition to his plans. I wish there was more vocal opposition from the left, or the right for that matter.

    Parent

    I generally subscribe (none / 0) (#42)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:22:23 AM EST
    to the Afghan-VN parallels, with the exception that Afghanistan is far more complex a situation with all its tribes making up something of a fiction of a country.  At least in VN you had some ethnic cohesion in both N and SVN to go with a general attitude among all, as in Afghan, that ultimately they didn't want to be occupied by or governed by foreigners or their puppets.

    I'd prefer to think that Obama knows it's unwinnable, and that adding even more troops for a few more yrs is the path to another quagmire.  

    I can live with the realpolitik possibility that he's just hoping to keep the lid on in the short term, then after re-election and a decade or more of US effort over there with no end in sight, he can be freer to get out.  There are some places where traditional notions of winning just aren't going to be possible.

    Parent

    As Helen Thomas was quoted (none / 0) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:51:24 PM EST
    as saying, Americans should protest a war that is not explained, in response to her repeated, and repeatedly unanswered questions, of "why do they hate us?".   She did not believe that because they hate our freedoms was an adequate response.

    Parent
    With all due respect (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    nobody ever talks about the parts of the mission that go well or go as planned either, only the parts that don't.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 05:08:14 PM EST
    With all due respect, after spending three trillion dollars, killing 100's of thousands, displacing 2.25 million people, and making Iraq a toxic waste dump that will affect generations of children, I think looking on the bright side is out of the question.

    Parent
    We aren't talking about Iraq here (none / 0) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 05:58:37 PM EST
    catch up

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 08:03:17 PM EST
    A few more years and we will be caught up with what we did in Iraq.

    Parent
    From my perspective, it seems (none / 0) (#125)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:51:36 PM EST
    that the parts that are going well are emphasized and the risks and uncertainties minimized by the government and their media colleagues. A lot of positives presented (including the mission du jour).   The president deliberated for months listening to the smartest in room, 30,000 troops will do it,  on top of the 17,000 troops sent while mulling the options, we are routing the Taliban, al Qaeda is down to 100, the drones are taking out insurgents, we got another number two, the Afghan militia will soon be able to take over, Pakistan is waking up to the dangers .....   The problems only seep out, but, once again someone sees the light at the end of the tunnel.

    Parent
    Obama almost never (none / 0) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 06:00:27 PM EST
    emphasizes anything in war that he has done well.  He just doesn't do it.

    Parent
    Actually there were two uprisings in 06 (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 08:50:20 AM EST
    And the one that helped the Democrats was the illegal alien bill that the Repubs thought they could ignore their base over.

    Afghanistan isn't shown because it has become Obama's war and his strategy of telling the enemy to just hang because we'll be leaving.. and giving them a date... isn't working very well.

    As a side note, Arctic ice is thicker than it has been in 10 years.... Man made Global warming is widely thought to be the cause. ;-)

    Link

    Parent

    The Global Warming hoax (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:42:22 AM EST
    Another sure sign of it is that big white box in Jim's house with all the ice in it.

    Those agenda-driven, liberal scientists never bring that up, do they?

    Parent

    OMG. Tiger's p0rn star (none / 0) (#4)
    by observed on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 07:06:30 AM EST
    mistress is having another press conference with Gloria. She's unhappy  that  she didn't get an "apology" ($$). Then, she and Gloria are going down to watch the Masters.


    I'm sick of it (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 08:23:12 AM EST
    The rest of us have sex too.  How can we be so fascinated by all this that these people can actually get a press conference together...sheesh.  There are 6 billion people on the planet, that has to be almost as many actual sexual acts that have taken place.

    Parent
    I'm sick of it too (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 08:33:17 AM EST
    Front page story this morning about the ins and outs of heckling Tiger on the golf course. Not sure what's worse - the mind set of people who heckle golfers at all, much less about their sex lives, or the fact that we get non-stop news coverage of it.

    What I really hate is how all of the peripheral crap around all sports has sapped my enjoyment of sports over the years.

    Parent

    We do? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 08:35:07 AM EST
    I must be dragging the curve down.

    Parent
    Everybody gets some (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 08:38:40 AM EST
    strange via Craigslist I've been told :)

    Parent
    Or... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:04:59 AM EST
    ...down in Old Mexico.  We'll see about that when I'm down there next weekend!

    Parent
    And a Lady or Gentleman (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 08:52:01 AM EST
    does not tell.

    Of course no one said these people were.

    Parent

    Speaking of being sick of certain (none / 0) (#153)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:34:41 PM EST
    headline-grabbers, I just read that Oprah scored an interview with Rielle Hunter.  I don't think Oprah should be giving the likes of Hunter an audience.

    Parent
    WTF, is Oprah afraid (none / 0) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:50:17 PM EST
    that Glenn Beck is going to be numero uno next year or something?  I expected so much better from her.

    Parent
    David Shuster in big trouble (none / 0) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:02:48 AM EST
    at MSNBC.  He apparently secretly filmed a pilot for a news program at CNN with Michelle Martin without informing MSNBC he was diddling with their competition. (Major desperation and complete directionlessness, IMO, if somebody at CNN thinks that's a whoop-de-doo idea that'll help their ratings disaster.)

    How is Anderson Cooper doing? (none / 0) (#15)
    by observed on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:20:57 AM EST
    He sure uses a lot of resources for his shows.
    That's the amazing thing about CNN---they must have a zillion times the reporting resources of the other networks, but they don't have a good product.

    Parent
    CNN is better then FOX or MSNBC. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by tigercourse on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 10:51:11 AM EST
    Though none are any good. BBC or Euro News are so far ahead of the American media, it's ridiculous.

    Parent
    Because they don't really believe in it (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:23:51 AM EST
    IMHO.  Anderson Cooper can do good things, but then half his program ends up endlessly rehashing tabloid gossip and sensational crime stories.  And then they repeat the hour immediately, take a break for the Larry King repeat (snore), and then repeat Cooper again two more times in a row.

    What made Peter Jennings and Dan Rather or early CNN compelling was their passion for news.  They don't trust their material anymore, so they try to "lighten it up" with foolishness, and in the process  fail to satisfy either the news watcher or the frivolous gossip devotees.

    Parent

    Cnn looks in recent yrs (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:46:09 AM EST
    to have sunk a lot of money not in actual reporting out in the field, in this country or abroad, let alone in any long-term investigative reporting (with the occasional exception of religious cults, a CNN specialty it seems), but rather in paying their star anchors oodles of millions each year to look pretty and sound reasonably sober and semi-informed.

    Oh, they've also apparently spent a lot on expensive gimmickry studio sets.  Lots of computer gee-whizzery lately.  Including that 3-D hologram stuff they trotted out in the last presidential election, iirc.

    Cnn domestic is pathétique when it comes to delivering more than the same 3-4 stories endlessly throughout the day, to go with the usual horserace and D vs R political backing and forthing, often including one David Gergen and usually one far-right whackjob.

    Not sure if this is all in keeping with Ted's original idea, but, hey, the guy is still around and if he's terribly ticked off about the network, I haven't heard about it.

    Parent

    Notnotnot (none / 0) (#155)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:13:42 PM EST
    Ted's idea.  He no longer owns the net, but he's not going to make a fuss publicly and add to its woes because it's still his baby. He may also just have detached emotionally from the whole thing.

    Early CNN was weird as hell and got a lot of things on the air that were wrong (I remember a breathless Wolf Blitzer break-in during the Lewinsky mess to announce that the White House was talking resignation...).  But man, they really cared about news, all found it fascinating, and communicated that fascination to the viewers.

    They're now so into "news you can use" and happy talk BS, they barely make time for actual news anymore unless there's a disaster Anderson Cooper can go agonize over on the scene.

    Parent

    Yeah, and look what happened to Dan Rather. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Angel on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:50:21 AM EST
    I don't watch television "new" anymore.  

    Parent
    "news".....! (none / 0) (#68)
    by Angel on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:51:13 AM EST
    I didn't say the brass (none / 0) (#156)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:15:30 PM EST
    cared!  Besides, Dan Rather had a really long run with very high ratings.  He wasn't canned because of ratings but because of politics.

    Served him right, actually, since he engineered Walter Cronkite's even more unseemly booting.

    Parent

    They wallow in it and blame the audience (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 12:37:17 PM EST
    ... for "making" it newsworthy, when I find the lastest cr@ptastic train wreck increasingly difficult to avoid.

    Maybe if the spInformation Super-Mass-Media-Highway had pooper scooper laws, I wouldn't have to look down at the festooning dreck all the time.

    Parent

    Interesting meta take on the iPad (none / 0) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:06:44 AM EST
    from Boston media critic/analyst Dan Kennedy.

    "The case against the iPad is based on two different but related arguments. First, critics say the iPad is designed mainly for consuming rather than creating content, and that it thus represents a corporate-driven attempt to put the Internet genie back in the bottle and return us to our former status as passive couch potatoes. Second, the iPad is a closed system controlled entirely by Apple, and will therefore stifle the sort of innovation that gave rise to such phenomena as Google and Twitter.  Both propositions are true. Yet they strike me as overblown."

    Also, I love it that the company with (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:42:12 AM EST
    around 10% of the computer market share is all of a sudden the one that is seen as the corporate overlord. Funny.

    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 10:02:59 AM EST
    its a lot like that republican tactic of calling your opponent what you are.

    but I am reading stuff like this all over from jaded techies who wanted to be a snob about this:

    Jobs is known for hyperbole, and we're not quite ready to dub the iPad a "game changer." We have several iPads being put through the gauntlet here in the Orbiting HQ, and most of us are liking it more than expected. Keep your eyes peeled for our extensive review and analysis, which we expect to have ready Tuesday.


    Parent
    Uh-oh (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:01:05 AM EST
    more saps getting sucked into the vortex of good design. How will they ever be happy with crap user interfaces again?

    Parent
    It is interesting (none / 0) (#16)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:37:04 AM EST
    There was a similar story on NPR this morning, perhaps it referenced that article.

    I think it is overblown in that it seems to assume that the iPad is going to replace other types of computers. It isn't even meant to do that. Also, there are plenty of more open tablets already on the market. People that want total freedom of development can use those.

    How does something that makes the internet easier to use, and gets all of that content data from the internet put the internet genie back in the bottle? Lack of Flash? please.

    I think it is a natural reaction to want to combat hype - I do it myself. They have to write something.

    Parent

    btw (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:42:30 AM EST
    there will be another wave when the 3G comes out.
    which is what I am waiting for.

    Parent
    totally (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:43:19 AM EST
    these people dont get it.  at all.

    Parent
    Just to be clear (none / 0) (#28)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 10:08:15 AM EST
    Kennedy himself thinks these criticisms are way overblown.

    Parent
    I pretty much agree with Kennedy (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 10:19:36 AM EST
    on the meta-aspects, though not on the usability aspects. He admits he only got to use one for 10 minutes, so perhaps he'd change his mind on that.

    Parent
    seems to strike many others (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:37:44 AM EST
    so as well.

    (MarketWatch) -- Gains from Apple Inc. highlighted a broad advance in the tech sector Monday as Apple said it sold more than 300,000 iPads during the first day of the touchscreen computer's release.


    Parent
    I'm in the camp (none / 0) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:47:02 AM EST
    that doesn't touch I-anything because it locks you into the Apple system.  

    I drag and drop my music to my music player from Windows Explorer or a Linux based system.  No convoluted ITunes used, no locking into ONE app that has to be used for everything.

    I never got an Iphone AND WON'T.

    I won't get an "Ipad killer" product until I'm sure it supports Ubuntu -- well.  I'm hoping like heck that the market moves no closer to Apple or Windows.  I want control over my system. I don't want one company to bless/drive my content.

    The I-products are definitely an attempt to funnel all content through one system.  

    Parent

    To each his own (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 10:02:34 AM EST
    I used to use Linux, and still use Windows at work, but I like iTunes better than dragging and dropping. I don't see it as convoluted. I'm a compulsive organizer, and I like sorting and building playlists based on whatever strikes me at the moment, eg. songs that remind me of my dog, songs from when I was in high school, etc.

    I rarely buy songs from itunes - I still buy cds and import them. I like to have the option of the better sound quality of a cd player and cd rather than mp3. So apple is not limiting me at all there. I can mail myself or use my shared disk any books I want also. I don't have to buy them from the apple store.

    I think the iDevices are not as locked down as far as content as people think. As far as applications, yes they are, but it has always been true that all apps don't run on all platforms. You just pick the platform that suits you.

    Parent

    and I feel the same way about Microsoft products (none / 0) (#64)
    by Farmboy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:46:11 AM EST
    By using their software you're locked into a backwards/upside-down/inside-out system that was intentionally designed to be counter intuitive and user unfriendly (you access the Start button to shut off the machine? really?).

    I'm glad I never bought a device that supported Microsoft's "plays for sure" media. I can't support a company that forced its developers and users into a non-standard media format and then abandoned them a few years later - for another non-standard media format.

    Their current media players are a great example: the Zune family of products only works in Windows - unlike the iPod/iPhone/iPad family which works with both OS X and Windows.

    Redmond's monopoly in the workspace has no relationship with quality; it only exists because of price: about 90% of the PCs that cost less than $1000 have Windows pre-installed, and business buys what's cheap. Their monopoly conviction should have been followed through on, and as punishment the company forced to pay restitution then split up.

    Parent

    I think many people (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:56:16 AM EST
    are reaching the same point I have reached.  
    it took me years.  I have owned 5 or 6 windows driven PCs.
    but with the most recent virus infection and the horrors it brought I have decided I will never never EVER buy another windows product.

    ever.


    Parent

    IMO (none / 0) (#40)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:20:43 AM EST
    echoing Capt Howdy's "they just don't get it" comment, the idea that the iPad is consumption oriented cannot (in my mind anyway) be true.  Apple products make creating easy - the GarageBand and film editing features especially.  I've been jealous of people who own Apple products for that alone.  Do these commenters think that netbooks and PCs are setting the pace for creative programs?  I'll believe it when I see it.

    Parent
    But you can't do that stuff (none / 0) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:28:20 AM EST
    with the iPad, apparently, is the point.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#49)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:36:54 AM EST
    I think it's a matter of time.

    Parent
    Nothing about the ipad (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:39:07 AM EST
    Precludes anyone writing apps that do that. There are several  music and art apps already. If the touch interface is not adequate people can use a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse.

    You could also write the great American novel.

    The vast majority of people will use it for consumption, just as the vast majority of other computer users do. But it can be used to create also.  

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 12:23:56 PM EST
    But with all the innovations that Apple et al. have introduced, more and more people are choosing to be creative rather than passive couch potatoes.

    After mixing a garage band track and producing a iMovie (or whatever) video, you need a place to watch it. THe iPad seems just the thing to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

    IOW, the exact opposite theory can be deduced about iPad and it a ploy to encourage a new generation of couch potatoes.

    Parent

    Funny. One of the first things I did (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    was transfer my own iMovie to the pad, then watch it.

    Funny that having one more way to consume media is seen as a killer to production of media.

    Parent

    Maybe Apple will come up with (none / 0) (#88)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    iPad versions of GarageBand and iMovie. I don't see why not.

    Parent
    several of my coworkers (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:11:00 PM EST
    are also professional musicians.  they are excited about the iPad because of the size.  
    the iPhone has great music apps but the size makes it not really practical to use while performing.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:17:17 PM EST
    Although it sounds like a very fancy monitor/wiFi device that can easily hook up to or share a HD that is or was connected to a computer work station.

    It seems like a good idea to separate the work station from a simpler viewing device in order to keep the monitor light and portable. ...

    Parent

    they do keep talking about (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:35:30 AM EST
    how its not for creating content.  but so what.
    its not like there are not a zillion other products for creating content.
    for this one to do that it probably would have had to cost a lot more for applications very few actual people would use.

    what they, it seems to me dont get, is that every single device does not have to be for creating content.  and the fact that one device is not will not in any way "stifle" the creation of that content.

    IMO

    Parent

    shorter version (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:36:44 AM EST
    the big selling point of this device is the price.


    Parent
    it's a giant touchscreen! (none / 0) (#52)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:39:05 AM EST
    I think it's inevitable that it will become a huge content creator.  It should be able to do at least what Mario Paint and Mario Paint Composer could do almost 20 years ago.

    Parent
    a lot more than (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:40:14 AM EST
    that.  I hope.


    Parent
    Adobe already has a neat (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:41:12 AM EST
    Painting app for sale. If I were at all artistic I'd get it. Maybe I will anyway and discover a latent talent!

    Parent
    and in case you were wondering (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:36:34 PM EST
    yes.  it will blend.

    pretty tough little box though.  took three whacks.

    Parent

    Opinion piece calling for (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:10:14 AM EST
    stopping prison rapes: LAT

    I was afraid to look (none / 0) (#115)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:15:22 PM EST
    at the comments section on that piece. Amazingly, no one is arguing against that op-ed. There is hope for this country yet.

    Parent
    it really seems (none / 0) (#119)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:27:35 PM EST
    that it has become an accepted part of "punishment" in this country.

    weird.


    Parent

    there is no such thing as secutity (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:37:32 AM EST
    Oh, just cheer me up some more (none / 0) (#60)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:42:42 AM EST
    capt... sigh...

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:44:34 AM EST
    Any advice on how to make my new (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:50:06 AM EST
    TSA-approved suitcase combo lock useable?  I programmed it b/4 reading the instructions.  Now it is inoperable.

    Parent
    there is probably a youtube video (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:13:52 PM EST
    that will tell you how to crack it.

    Parent
    I'm thinking of asking TSA next time I (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:38:49 PM EST
    am at the airport.  What do you think?

    Parent
    A very scary video (none / 0) (#58)
    by SeeEmDee on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:41:21 AM EST
    Your tax dollars at work:

    "I Don't Need a Warrant, Ma'am, Under Federal Law"

    All thanks to the DrugWar's destruction of civil liberties...for the children, don't ya know?

    iPad accessories (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 12:02:22 PM EST
    I would advise against the fancy dock. I'm using a regular old easel style photo frame holder while I eat my lunch at the moment and it is working quite well.

    Modulr is coming out with a neat looking wall mount in the summer. I will be getting that for the kitchen.

     I ordered the case from Apple and it comes tomorrow. It serves as a stand too. I may not need the photo easel after that.

    Jeralyn was also asking about apps. So far I've mostly used the web browser, mail, and different news readers like USA Today and NY Times. Both were made for the pad and use it very effectively.

    I'll try out more apps tonight. I was too busy yesterday to play much.

    Casual use over two days- battery at 46%.

    to the classical music aficionados (none / 0) (#82)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 12:43:26 PM EST
    of this board...can anyone recommend a recording of The Magic Flute to me?

    Recordings (none / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 12:52:40 PM EST
    Makes sense to get more than one recording, imo. so that you can see how different it is under different interpretations.  Klemperer is famous one..   James Levine is really a great conductor with the Met..  and the Ferenc Fricsay one that has original instruments would make a good comparison as well.

    here  is a list

    o

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#158)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 08:07:26 AM EST
    I will have to order one of those this week.  

    The reason I'm seeking out The Magic Flute actually is Bergman...I like him very much and he made a few great comments about the music.

    Parent

    How about the DVD of the Bergman (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:15:27 PM EST
    film?

    Parent
    Afghanistan/Vietnam comparisons (none / 0) (#85)
    by CST on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    a few things stick out to me as being key difference makers between the two with regards to the comparisons between the two:

    • Lack of a draft means there is a certain feeling that those who are there have chosen to be there, and lack of fear from those who aren't there that they will be sent.

    • American casualties are far far lower, which means we don't feel it as much at home.

    • The reasons for being there are vastly different.  We invaded Afghanistan after we were attacked on home soil.  Afghanistan is not directly responsible, but the greater perception is there that we are defending ourselves from a very real attack.  And that the people responsible were being trained and/or supported by the government in Afghanistan.

    • Iraq.  In a lot of circles, Iraq was the wrong war, and Afghanistan was the right war.  But whatever you feel, they are clearly not the same war, so comparing the responses to the two is not necessarily relevant.  I don't assume all of the opposition to Iraq was knee-jerk anti-war sentiment.  There was a logical assumption that we were misled into that war and lied to, and that we never should have been there to begin with.  That's not the case for Afghanistan.


    No, that is not logical (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:12:05 PM EST
    There was a logical assumption that we were misled into that war and lied to, and that we never should have been there to begin with.  That's not the case for Afghanistan

    and is totally unproven.

    Bush acted on the information he had available at that time.

    Parent

    this is nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:14:05 PM EST
    they have admitted what CVS said.

    Parent
    ha (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:15:03 PM EST
    sorry not the drug store who I just called bu our own CST

    Parent
    acted on the information.. (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:06:09 PM EST
    said information being that the post-9/11 climate in the U.S provided a once-in-lifetime-opportunity to initiate operation regime change in the ME, regardless of conflicting intelligence reports, the moral qualms of many, human and economic costs..

    Parent
    also said (none / 0) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:12:46 PM EST
    they would have done it if they has known there was no WMD

    Parent
    Let me be blunt (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 03:20:23 PM EST
    I don't believe anything either of you say.

    At best you are the Kings of Context

    Now, provide some proof that "Bush knew."

    Parent

    To name just one thing (none / 0) (#128)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 03:42:43 PM EST
    The full Downing Street Memo.

    Want more? Go here

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:19:30 PM EST
    C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

    Thank you for proving my point.

    Parent

    And you consider these as sources? (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:20:22 PM EST
    lol

    Parent
    not that I care what you believe but (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 04:00:03 PM EST
    Cheney: WMD or not, Iraq invasion was correct
    Vice president says `we would do exactly the same thing' regardless of intel

    President Bush would have ordered an invasion of Iraq even if the CIA had told him that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday


    Parent
    Basically, proove (none / 0) (#133)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 04:39:52 PM EST
    a self-deluded person dosnt believe their delusions.

    The party of personal responsibility is going with the insanity defense these days.

    Parent

    its (none / 0) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 04:40:47 PM EST
    going around

    Parent
    Do you have anything to contribute? (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:16:54 PM EST
    Cheney's speculation (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:16:18 PM EST
    is not proof.

    And your next is?

    Parent

    So many people used (none / 0) (#92)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:13:04 PM EST
    Afghanistan as 'The war I support' in contrast to Iraq, that I think they are having a hard time rethinking that support now.

    I wish we could talk about the merits of both of those wars without the Viet Nam comparisons at all, but it looks like that is not going to happen any time soon. I think there is fine line between learning from the mistakes of that past and trying to see everything through that lens.

    Parent

    it doenst help that (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:15:58 PM EST
    it became the Soviets Vietnam.


    Parent
    agreed (none / 0) (#103)
    by CST on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:38:14 PM EST
    I think it is not so cut and dry as all that.

    The problem is, even if you supported the war from the get-go, that's not the same thing as believing that 10 years later we can still accomplish what we set out to accomplish and dropped the ball on the first time.

    And it is further complicated by the fact that it's not in the news much, there's not a ton of information available, and frankly, you can't necessarily trust the news on this one given their track record of reporting on recent wars.

    Parent

    the mission in Afghanistan (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:13:31 PM EST
    may be vague and seem open ended but it is nothing compared to the vagaries of the Vietnam mission.

    Parent
    Yes, and this seems to (none / 0) (#108)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:02:32 PM EST
    be the lesson learned from Viet Nam.

    Parent
    Born to Run (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:09:05 PM EST
    Run, Bruce, Run ...

    The latest tawdry celebrity couple news in the air pertains to Bruce Springsteen. Remember the woman whose husband claimed she had an affair with The Boss when the two got friendly at a New Jersey gym? He's filed court documents claiming she did have an affair with Bruce

    (Metaphorically) join Sandra Bullock wherever she is, sensibly not letting a few dim-bulbs appear to be of a higher wattage by connecting to a stronger power source.

    Bad enough having to sidestep the media poop of attention grabbing star-f*ckers, now it's the ambitious spouses of the star-f*ckers too? If there was an App to get them off my media menu like a bug-zapper, I might buy some wheezing iProd just for that.

    Reminds me of the Tom Petty song (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:17:58 PM EST
    'You're Jammin' Me'. LOL - in looking it up, I see it has a verse especially for you!

    You got me in a corner
    You got me against the wall
    I got nowhere to go
    I got nowhere to fall

    Take back your insurance
    Baby nothin's guaranteed
    Take back your acid rain
    Baby let your t.v. bleed

    You're jammin' me, you're jammin' me ,
    Quit jammin' me
    Baby you can keep me painted in a corner
    You can look away, but it's not over

    Take back your angry slander
    Take back your pension plan
    Take back your ups and downs of your life
    In raisin-land

    Tak e back vanessa redgrave
    Take back joe piscopo
    Take back eddie murphy
    Giv'em all some place to go

    You're jammin' me, you're jammin' me
    Quit jammin' me
    Baby you can keep me painted in a corner
    You can walk away but it's not over

    Take back your iranian torture
    And the apple in young steve's eye
    Yeah take back your losing streak
    Check your front wheel drive

    .
    .
    .

    Parent

    1987 BTW (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:25:39 PM EST
    dang I'm old....so is Tom...video here

    Parent
    Drama at the Met re revival of (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:41:52 PM EST
    zefferelli production of Verdi's "La Traviata."  Conductor Leonard Slatkin withdraws after initial performance.  NYT review

    "Mistakes happen," says Slatkin. (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:48:30 PM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:59:44 PM EST
    La Traviata was a big mistake, Verdi too, imo...

    Parent
    II am debating whether to see a third (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:07:19 PM EST
    live performance version w/i 12 months.  This one would be local company starring Elizabeth Futral as Violetta.  She is a terrific actress.  It is really interesting to me to see how different each production is.  

    Parent
    I Am Not A Fan (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:08:36 PM EST
    Of Italian opera, IMO it is pop music that has lasted waaaaay too long..

    Parent
    Oculus, did you happen (none / 0) (#149)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:18:45 PM EST
    to see Romeo & Juliet at the Met with Netrebko & Joseph Kaiser? Kaiser is a Canadian whom I think has an extraordinary voice.  Last season I looked to see if he was appearing in anything, but couldn't find him. Have not had time to look or attend this season. You?

    Parent
    Will be at Armida and Dutchman (none / 0) (#154)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 10:29:41 PM EST
    in late April.  Have seen many of the Met HD movies this season also. Oh, and also got to see Salonen, one of my heros, conduct "From the House of the Dead," by Janacek.  

    Parent
    An op-ed in today's NYt (none / 0) (#118)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:20:01 PM EST
    by Michael Lynch, an "energy consultant" and former MIT director of Asian energy and security group opines that the Obama proposal to allow drilling off Alaska, the East Coast and the eastern Gulf is bold and rational--as far as it goes and it does not go far enough.  Besides, it will take too many years, too little oil, and too little tax revenues.  But, there is a better way, he says,  to provide more oil and to bring in more tax revenue, and that is to go for the black gold off the coast of California.  Southern California would be particularly ripe and these are proved reserves. We foolishly, stopped extracting there in 1969, after a Union Oil platform off Santa Barbara spilled 80,000 barrels.  He concludes by stating that by not re-starting the California drilling, the federal government is forgoing at least $20 billion a year in taxes. I could not help but thinking as I read, gee $20 billion, that would support our Iraq and Afghan adventures for almost two months.

    And further deflect our attention (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 09:20:06 PM EST
    from coming up with renewable resources and thinking about energy independence.  

    Parent
    Tebow (none / 0) (#120)
    by CoralGables on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:30:45 PM EST
    pockets #300,000 from Nike for the year in his first endorsement deal.

    is it mean of me (none / 0) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 05:18:51 PM EST
    to enjoy taunting my insecure coworkers who grew in the 1980s that GI Joe was a doll.

    its was a DOLL

    Not at all. (none / 0) (#139)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 05:35:20 PM EST
    in the 60s we called them GI Joe dolls. Not "action figues."

    Parent