home

Sunday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 01:19:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Aside from has-been Dick Cheney spouting off, what else is going on today? All but 20 of the 700 arrested yesterday during the Occupy Wall Street protest have been released.

Don't miss Prohibition tonight on PBS.

PROHIBITION is a three-part, five-and-a-half-hour documentary film series directed by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick that tells the story of the rise, rule, and fall of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the entire era it encompassed.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Debate Continues on Targeted Killings of U.S. Citizens | Monday Morning Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Open Thread | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Obama's evil twins once (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 03:53:56 PM EST
    again team up to call for cuts to Social Security and Medicare

    Morgan Stanley Director Erskine Bowles, along with his sidekick former Senator Alan Simpson, once again used the Washington Post oped page to call for cuts to Social Security and Medicare. The two made the call in the context of a piece urging the congressional "supercommittee" to produce a large deficit reduction package.

    They argued that it was necessary for cuts in "entitlements" to be part of any deficit package. "Entitlements" is the preferred euphemism for Social Security and Medicare for people who want to cut Social Security and Medicare. link
    Yes, twins they are. (none / 0) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 11:19:43 AM EST
    Only their mothers can tell them apart.  We, understandably, give attention to Simpson with his attitudes as reflected in the email to the Older Women's League executive dismissing concerns for cuts in social security as "babbling into the vapors" , and social security is " a milk cow with 310 million teats (my spelling)" , and of course, with the nice sign off of "call me when you get honest work."   However, Erskine Bowles should not be the overlooked member of the "entitlement cutting " pair, what with his ties, as a member of the board of directors, to General Motors and Morgan Stanley, both of which were recipients of government milk.  

    Parent
    Saw 'Moneyball' yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:15:51 AM EST
    Must see for baseball fans....and Brad Pitt fans...very very good film.

    Explores the big questions - what is more important in baseball - romance and instinct, or statistical truth?  No clear answer.

    Forget double dip recession (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:26:19 AM EST
    This is a W shaped recession.  Thank You :)

    latest Warren/Brown poll (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by CST on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:12:46 AM EST
    Link

    "Brown would lead Warren by 41 percent to 38 percent, which is within the margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percent."

    However, considering that "37 percent of respondents said they had not heard of her" - these are actually really good numbers.

    38% in a poll where over 1/3 of the respondents haven't heard of you?  I think we can fix that.

    This race is starting to look very winnable.  Especially when you consider:

    "Obama, despite bad poll numbers nationally, would win handily against potential Republican rivals.

    In a theoretical matchup against Governor Rick Perry of Texas, he won, 62-25. Against Mitt Romney, he won, 57-33."

    If I were her I would be thrilled (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:40:16 AM EST
    with a 3% race against a sitting senator, a year before the election. Very winnable indeed!

    Parent
    Any thoughts as to the reason why Brown (none / 0) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 12:04:54 PM EST
    is doing so well with independents.

    Brown does extremely well with independents, winning them 48 percent to 29 percent and is even impressively strong among Democrats, getting 16 percent of them compared to Warren's 65 percent. link


    Parent
    He's pretty much (none / 0) (#87)
    by CST on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 12:24:40 PM EST
    an independent himself.

    And Warren is making no bones about her alliegences.

    But one of the things that was missing from the Brown/Coakley race was union support.  The union vote just simply did not show up for Coakley in strong numbers.  The cadillac tax on union health care plans could not have come out at a worse time for that race.  I can't even begin to describe how that fell like a ton of bricks here.  Especially since everything else that's "good" in HCR, that MA residents traditionally support, is already in place here, so there was no upside.

    I would expect Brown to do well with independents, but I wouldn't worry too much about it.  The dynamics remind me of the governers race in 2010 where the Republican was polling well with indies and the "conservative areas" had high turnout.  It didn't matter, "conservative areas" are conservative by 5%-10% of the vote.  "Liberal areas" like Cambridge see things like a 90%-10% split on a regular basis.  In order for a republican to win statewide, they have to do better than simply winning the independent/republican vote.  They have to crush that vote statewide, and hope traditional Democrats don't show up.  Throw in a presidential election and I don't see how the numbers work out.

    Brown is personally popular, a "likeable guy" who hasn't done anything particularly controversial and has crossed the aisle a number of times on votes.  He has done exactly what he said he would do when he was elected.  So in that sense, he should be a good candidate.  It's really only demographics (like enthusiastic union support for Warren) that are working against him.

    Parent

    Thanks for the info (none / 0) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 12:59:40 PM EST
    I agree that the excise tax on union health care plans hurt the Dems in Brown/Coakley race. I hope that Warren garners the support of the rank and file union members and not just their leadership.

    Looks like she is running her own campaign that focuses on populist messages. Steering clear of endorsing less populist administration policies without saying anything negative about Obama seems to be the way to go IMO.  

    Parent

    p.s. (none / 0) (#88)
    by CST on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 12:29:06 PM EST
    the comments on that thread are funny.

    "She's gonna have to run as far away from Obama as possible to win"

    I guess they didn't see the polling on the presidential election.  Although I think she will run a largely independent campaign from them.  The dynamics are very different.

    But a Democratic president is not going to be a drag on the ticket in MA.

    Parent

    Disconcerting article by Ken Burns (none / 0) (#1)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 01:44:06 PM EST
    is in my newspaper today, promoting his series on Prohibition (a topic about which I know quite a bit, having researched it).  What was disconcerting yet again about his work is that he got wrong at least three facts -- incontrovertible facts, such as the name of an organization, the definitions of crucial terms, etc. -- in only a brief article of about 10 paragraphs.  At that error rate, I shudder to think about how many errors will arise in a series of several hours.

    So I will not be watching.  I do appreciate the work of public historians in getting the public to appreciate history, but once again, teachers are going to have to cope with students (and their parents and school boards and such) who say that the teachers and the textbooks are wrong, because television must be right.

    Please specify those errors (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Peter G on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 02:12:55 PM EST
    I'm very interested, having seen a preview of the documentary in Philadelphia a few weeks ago, and having found it very compelling and (I thought) informative.

    Parent
    He lumps together (none / 0) (#25)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 08:36:18 PM EST
    the Anti-Saloon League and the WCTU, for example, although the latter was not prohibitionist but for temperance (moderation).  The ASL was the lobbying org that pushed Prohibition, and it's useful today as well to understand distinctions and agendas.  (This is another example of Burns re gender history, a flaw in his also generally  fine Civil War series.)

    The other errors are more of the sort that Donald disdains, but I find attention to detail also useful when assessing the works of, say, lawyers.:-)

    From what I read, Burns gets the larger picture again, which always is good for those who don't know details so just can sit back and enjoy.  Btw, I enjoy a wonderful PBS "American Experience" piece in past, still to be found, on the beginning of Prohibition in Michigan, where Henry Ford pushed it through first.  The stories of Detroit at the time are marvelous but even more so the recollections by oldsters, the bon vivants and flappers of yesteryear who look like innocent grandmas and grandpas but tell all.

    Parent

    I just watched (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 09:03:03 PM EST
    He made the distinction between the ASL and the WCTU crystal clear.

    If I have one criticism, it's that he made it seem like ratification just happened by magic. He says that the wets thought it would never happen, and then it happened. Explain!

    I guess it was more sexy to end the episode quickly and move onto gangsters next week.

    Parent

    Glad he did so on the show (none / 0) (#41)
    by Towanda on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 01:08:47 AM EST
    so maybe he had the USA Today piece ghostwritten -- and needs a better staff to do so.

    Parent
    Or more likely (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:51:11 AM EST
    some USAtoday desk editor lacking detailed knowledge of the era snipped out a few sentences or graphs to make the piece fit the space and ended up mangling the meaning.  <been there, had it done to me> <not in a major newspaper, I hasten to add>

    Parent
    Seems to me that you have somewhat (none / 0) (#60)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:57:36 AM EST
    unreasonable expectations for a 1000-word article designed to promote a 5-1/2 hour documentary, that is quite overtly based on in-depth research and on-screen interviews with some half dozen well-credentialed historians.

    Parent
    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:06:29 AM EST
    I was not so impressed with the qualifications of a number of the people interviewed on screen.

    Maybe the academic historians who've spent their lives studying this topic aren't photogenic?

    Parent

    I didn't understand your comment at first (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by sj on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:51:48 AM EST
    Upon first read it sounded like you thought that the people interviewed on-screen weren't photogenic and you weren't impressed by that.  Since that didn't fit my take on you I had to reread.

    But yes, I agree that "television-ready" often takes precedence over knowledge.  Not long ago I watched part of a documentary about the New Mexico land grant history (part of my family history also) and part what made me stop and watch is that the contributors weren't high gloss*.  I wish I knew the name of it.  I'd like to see the whole thing -- it's a pretty complicated topic.  It didn't look new. Or high budget.
    ----
    * the other part that made me stop and watch was hearing that particular Spanish accent.  It made me homesick and really miss my Dad.

    Parent

    Apparently Burns relies heavily (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by brodie on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:54:28 AM EST
    on the recent book on this subject by the presumably non-academic non-professional historian Daniel Okrent, whose book got a good critical reception iirc.

    You don't have to be a professionally trained historian to write good and useful history.  And as we know, too many academics often are lousy writers;  more to the point they also often make poor or inappropriate interviewees for what is after all a film project designed for mass public tv (and later secondary education) viewing.  I wouldn't fault Burns on lacking enough academics in the mix so long as the overall history is factual.

    Parent

    I was thinking of the over-reliance on Orkent (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:56:30 AM EST
    AND the individual identified as "writer" (of what?) that he kept going back to.

    My point is that history is not "just the facts" because there is no one way to tell "the facts," even if you can agree on what's important. I just came away with the impression that Burns filtered a filter instead of filtering the various sophisticated perspectives out there. In other words, that he made a movie from the Cliff's Notes.

    Parent

    This is popular history made for tv (none / 0) (#90)
    by brodie on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:20:45 PM EST
    that is being offered here, so leaving out most of the various pov's on some of the secondary points is to be expected.  A history professor offering a course inthe subject I'd expect to fairly cover the various perspectives.  I also expect most filmmakers to present a strong pov.  That was a problem with the Civil War film -- not that it offered a pov but that it was either banal (the CW was a very costly conflict which still lives on in the national psyche) or badly flawed (a near moral equivalency in presenting the perspective of the Union and Confed sides).

    Not having seen the last five hours of the current film and not being at all an expert in the Prohibtion area, I don't have an opinion on whether the views Burns left out of his film amounted to a serious omission.

    Parent

    I guess if I can do anything (none / 0) (#91)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:48:39 PM EST
    with my BA in history, it's criticize Ken Burns's docs. (I mentioned earlier that I would have liked to see him discuss ratification. . .at all.)

    It's too bad, in a sense. I'd rather just be able to enjoy them!

    Parent

    Ditto. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Towanda on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:04:15 PM EST
    But despite the frustrations from knowing "too much," as some here apparently deem, there still is such a joy in seeing the past on the screen, as Burns does so well in what -- you may be too young to realize -- was a revolutionary use of visuals in his Civil War series.  

    So often, I just have to remember to not throw things at the screen.  And the news makes me want to do so far more than Burns or just about anything on PBS.  I do think that its American Experience series consistently does a better job, but it also has benefitted from Burns' creativity.

    Parent

    Seems to me that (none / 0) (#92)
    by Towanda on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:00:50 PM EST
    a rewrite of one sentence, if on a crucial point, would not have added that many words, and others could have been found for a crisp edit.

    But then, I understand that a lawyer could consider a thousand words to be another form of confinement, of cruel and inhumane punishment. :-)

    Parent

    Regarding Ken Burns.... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:32:03 AM EST
    I watched the 1978 Terence Malick film 'Days of Heaven' the other night. The opening credits are a series of Depression era photos, panned across in what has come to be known as the 'Ken Burns effect'. I am heretofore referring to it as the Terence Malick effect.

    Parent
    Beautiful day here. Time to go outside (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 01:46:51 PM EST
    and veg while reading more of "Last Man in Tower," a novel by Aravind Adiga, who won the Booker Prize for his earlier novel, "The White Tiger."  "Last Man" reminds me of "Shantaram," as both are set in Mumbai, slums, encroaching fancy high rise residences and corporate bldgs.  Good book.  Indian writer.  

    Oops. Blue Angels--last day. Here's (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 01:55:15 PM EST
    a really good place to cut defense spending.  

    Parent
    I would rather fund and watch those (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 03:07:22 PM EST
    incredibly talented pilots perform gasping entertainment than train them to bomb the people of other countries for the evening news.

    Parent
    PLUS - they generally go on from there (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 03:09:22 PM EST
    to safely fly us from place to place in the commercial world...I want a former Blue Angel flying my plane in case of trouble. IMHO, it is money well spent.

    Parent
    YMMV. Do they swoop over your roof? (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 03:11:17 PM EST
    jYes, the base was here b/4 my house was built.

    Parent
    Yes, when they are in town (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 03:20:23 PM EST
    I also purposely lived less than 2 miles from Luke AFB and never tired of watching peaceful manuevers and training exercises of those planes.

    Parent
    Here's a great video of a Blues high speed pass (none / 0) (#50)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:01:42 AM EST
    It says San Francisco, but it looks like it could be Seattle also.

    Parent
    It is San Francisco (none / 0) (#66)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:13:09 AM EST
    Seattle performances are also over water, but the surrounding scenery is much different from Lake Washington.

    Parent
    Ok cool (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:39:51 AM EST
    This is the coolest flyby I've ever seen. Never seen one this low to the water before.

    Parent
    I so dreaded their arrival (none / 0) (#30)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 08:48:28 PM EST
    overhead of where I used to live, days and days of upset pets and things falling off shelves and walls and even a cracked window.  Then the Blue Angels' accidents and cowboy problems finally put an end to those years.  Yes, fun to watch for an hour or two but not to live with for hours and hours for several days, and the fun went away when we heard about the accidents and the reasons.

    Parent
    Good time to not be home. (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 01:09:29 AM EST


    Parent
    they are truly artists (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 04:02:07 PM EST
    & superb ones

    Parent
    An embarrassment of riches (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sweet Sue on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 02:08:27 PM EST
    The sunday viewing schedule is too full for Prohibition.
    The Good Wife, Boardwalk Empire, Homeland and Breaking Bad.
    Thank God I can record live TV.

    No kidding (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 05:45:27 PM EST
    I fill up both my DVR's on Sunday night. I wish they would spread out the good stuff.

    Homeland is odd and likely to be a big hit. I saw the first episode via On Demand a few weeks ago. I'm not a big fan of Clair Danes or any of the main actors, except maybe Brody's wife.  I would have cast the show  differently because none of them are compelling to watch. If you miss it tonight it will replay all week. It took me almost the full hour to get interested in it, but by the end, I did appreciate the way you can't tell who's lying and who's telling the truth, which apparently is the premise of the show to keep people hooked all season.

    Breaking Bad:  Only two episodes left.  At least we know it will be back for another season.

    Parent

    Walter has to go (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 06:53:28 PM EST
    to his brother in law for help....state's evidence....

    Parent
    Hung is back tonight (none / 0) (#26)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 08:39:11 PM EST
    -- hurrah! -- and we're going to be checking out the debut of Homeland, which got good reviews from reviewers we like.

    And then there are all the others, yes, which give us an hour or so of tv per night all week, suiting our schedule more than one-night marathons, too.

    Parent

    p.s. re Homeland: The Salon reviewer (none / 0) (#27)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 08:41:08 PM EST
    based his plaudit on having seen three episodes.  Many a series -- Boardwalk was like this for me -- seems to start so slow, establishing characters and plot lines and the like.  Just fyi that Homeland may be worth giving three tries.

    Parent
    Haven't seen Claire Danes on TV (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 10:34:57 PM EST
    after "My So-Called Life," in which she was superb.  Maybe playing herself?  Who knows.  Movies I've seen her in--not very absorbing.

    Parent
    Temple Grandin (none / 0) (#39)
    by sj on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 12:38:01 AM EST
    I thought she was great in that.  I didn't see Clare Danes in that character at all.

    Parent
    Not to mention Dexter! (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:10:39 AM EST
    and The Amazing Race. I was sorry about last night's outcome. Two of the most watchable teams eliminated. Oh well, they messed up. It was fair.

    I had to shuffle my Tivo around - record some shows on their later viewing in the evening.

    Hung continues to be funny. I keep expecting it to get boring and one-note, but it never does.

    Dexter started out strong too.

    Will watch my recordings of Prohibition and Boardwalk Empire tonight...they seem to go together.

    Parent

    I watch Hung too (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:54:57 AM EST
    My husband hates it hates it hates it.  He says it is degrading and doing to men the same thing that has been done to women that is all wrong, man whores....it shouldn't happen to anyone :)  I think I'm going to have to sneak watch it, he really stomped out of the room last night.  There was more than one man whore on Hung :)

    Parent
    well if it is a race to the bottom of the (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:19:16 AM EST
    degradation slag heap, at least it is an entertaining one.


    Parent
    It is for me (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:36:50 AM EST
    But I'm going to have to keep it low key, or else according to him I'm just part of the damned problem :)  It really bothers him to experience men being objectified, really chaps him.

    Parent
    humorless masculist! (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:04:05 AM EST


    Parent
    Unbelievable (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 11:29:46 AM EST
    He calls home just now to tell me that he loves me.  I tell him that I still feel like I'm being overly judged for my desire to watch HUNG.  I tell him that after years of guys getting to objectify us it feels good to be objectifying them.  He says he doesn't believe me because that was what Baywatch was for.

    Parent
    So funny. He sounds like a great guy (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:46:56 AM EST
    despite his blind spot for Hung. I would at least have thought he would stay for the girl on girl action ;-)


    Parent
    Not to dwell on this topic (none / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:50:52 AM EST
    but is it really objectifying men to watch this one character embark on his chosen profession? He is not being abused, unless you count the scoldings from T-Brain.  Can I watch football with no guilt?

    Parent
    This is a topic that I like to dwell on (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:12:52 AM EST
    It is new territory in a way.  I had a hard time not just sitting their staring at Tony Dorsett's butt since I was about twelve.  The first time I coveted him I didn't even know he was black.  After discovering that I was so ashamed then, as if I wasn't already ashamed enough.  In 1977, white girls on the cusp of womanhood were not supposed to notice anyone, and certainly not a black someone.  You should never admit to such a thing, that such a man is beautiful.

    I have always tried to respect my sexuality though when I realized that it wasn't going to go away.  I was going to have to be responsible for it.  When I was single, that meant negotiating a sex life sometimes with someone that I had no intention of marrying and who had no intention of marrying me...just getting our needs met.

    I taught my daughter the best that I could what I honestly and profoundly discovered to be the truth about such things.  It has not made her any more unhappy than anyone else that I've noticed.  She is going to get married again next summer, and they seem very happy together....so I don't think I broke her.  She did say the other day though, "Mom, you and I are like men where sex is concerned".  Are we?  I don't know.  I know I'm capable of objectifying men though, I challenge myself to be a better person...a better woman.  And I can usually see the whole man in all men that are before my eyes, I am interested in their thoughts and their souls.  On occasion though, I do have to concentrate just a little harder with some :)

    That movie Thor, there is one scene where I had to remind myself to breathe normally or else my son and my husband would notice :)  It is an interesting topic, and I would never want to hurt anyone that I love.  I choose my husband over and over and over again.  He is the whole package and a bag of chips, I'm done...it's just scenery sometimes grabs me.  I will probably continue to concentrate and hide :)

    Parent

    Sounds healthy to me (none / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 06:24:43 AM EST
    I think there is a line between that and the degrading forms of objectification. I don't see you being the type to keep a guy around for no other purpose than lust without trying to get to know him a little better!

    Parent
    An actual word. Thought you made it up. (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 11:40:57 AM EST
    link

    Parent
    I thought I made it up too! (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:45:19 AM EST
    Just trying to figure out the linguistic opposite of 'feminist'!

    Parent
    More seriously, maybe it is related to the (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:06:43 AM EST
    sentiments expressed in these lines of a great Dylan song, "License to Kill". If any men are objectified, it is the members of the US Military. I don't blame him for being sensitive to it.

    Then they bury him with stars
    Sell his body like they do used cars


    Parent
    Rick Perry's hunting camp problem (none / 0) (#8)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 03:10:30 PM EST
    Can't imagine why anyone would be offended by the name of the camp.

    Heheheh (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:53:38 AM EST
    To be fair, Perry's family didn't name that camp.  It was a property they leased from time to time from somebody else.

    Parent
    Gee, Cain called Perry (none / 0) (#75)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:39:05 AM EST
    on the name--now let's see if Perry is able to get out of it. Just sit back and enjoy the show. If you want fair, watch FOX news, it is also balanced.:)

    Parent
    Assault with a deadly bible? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 05:03:08 PM EST
    Gives new meaning to the phrase "bible thumper".

    Welfare Queens (none / 0) (#14)
    by loveed on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 05:11:56 PM EST
     This is from a previous open thread.

     My mom raised 5 children,we were never on welfare. In the community we lived it was like a stigma. The welfare department could come in your house whenever they wanted to, go through your things. And tell you what you was allowed to have.
     My mom did day work, for a family. My grandmother also worked for them. She worked hard.
    We never went without,light,food,shelters, or
    clothing.
     The family my mom worked for, was wonderful to us. From hand me down clothes(most with the tags still on) bikes,ice skates. For Christmas there was alway subscription to some type of magazine. the family paid for our graduation pictures. My brothers always had summer jobs. They probaly did a lot of things I was not aware of.
     While going though my mom things,Ifound a letter to my mom from about 10yrs ago from the family.Address to my dearest friend.
     We were raised to take care of our responsibility.
     When I became a young mother at the age of 17,I got a part time job. With the help of my family,we raised her. When my youngest daughter became a young mother at the age of 16. I took care of her and her child.
     No one in my family have ever been on welfare. We were raised to take care of our own.
     Yes there was welfare queens. Yes there were people getting several checks,abusing the system.
     But in the late 80's welfare took a wicked turn. I worked in a hospital at that time. 15yrs old having there 3rd child,encourage by there mothers to bring more money in the house. Generations of mothers on welfare, this soon became the crack generation. Food stamps used for everything but food.
     I was born in 1953. The youngest of 5. Blacks had a sense of pride about themselves. Our children was protected by the whole neighborhood.Everyone parents worked,and the grandparents watched out for us.
     I was with Bill Clinton when he did welfare reform.

    And despite this... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dadler on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 08:44:12 PM EST
    ...the average stay on welfare was/is relatively brief, as was the story with my mother and I (my mother who now holds a PhD).  For most people, it short term assistance.

    For others, as you discuss, it became/becomes something else.  

    But...

    You can also trace the demise of the communities as you describe to the demise of unions and the middle class in general.  A lack of opportunity led to those things you discuss, IMO.  No doubt there were generations of families on welfare, just as their are generations of families who are racist dolts.  Add to that lack of opportunity, class and race issues, substance abuse, and it is no surprise that poor black folks (and many more white folks, it should be noted) fell into a pattern of dependency and despair.

    I would warn against lumping everyone together.  Not everyone had the family you had, Loveed, I know I didn't.  For that reason, I was not on board with Clinton, as I didn't feel that reform didn't even touch on the more difficult aspects of what sends people into that generational spiral.

    Parent

    I never needed welfare (none / 0) (#32)
    by loveed on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 09:57:54 PM EST
    In the 1970's living was easy. With the help of my family, I never needed it.
     The community college was $8.00 a credit hr. Case western reserve was 90.00 a credit hr. You could work a part time job and pay for college.
     I also worked with a lot of nurses whom acquired there degrees this way. A lot of people went to college this way. Food stamps were giving to college students.
     This is what welfare was intended for. But as I stated before somewhere in the 1980's things changed. You never had generational welfare before. Meeting 15yrs old with there 3rd child bothered me. The more children in the house the more money,from welfare. The crack explosion only made it worse.
     All my life I roamed the street of Cleveland without fear. It use to drive my mother crazy, when I would get up at 2:00am,and go to afterhour joints. I thought I knew everyone. That changed in the eighties.
     The once proud neighborhood left. Replaced with crack houses. The poor abused children. Six yr old with gonohhera. I saw some terrible things. And as always the root to evil is money.
     For the very poor,welfare became a tool of despair.
     

    Parent
    The correlation is clear to all (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Towanda on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 01:10:10 AM EST
    but I still don't see the causation.

    Parent
    Chicago Bears win! (none / 0) (#17)
    by caseyOR on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 05:52:47 PM EST
    Da Bears defeated the Carolina Panthers 34-29, evening their record to 2-2, which, since this is the Bears, is nothing to sneeze at.

    And props to Devin Hester who, with today's punt return TD, number 11 for Devin, nows owns the NFL record for punt return TDs.  Nice running, Devin.

    I have to say, Cutler is a much more effective QB when the running game dominates the Bears offense. Just sayin'.

    Next week it's the red hot Detroit Lions who will be staring down the Bears. Hey, I'm also a Cubs fan, so hope springs eternal. :-)

    They are not the Cubs, that's true. (none / 0) (#21)
    by caseyOR on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 06:43:39 PM EST
    Still, when they do have a good year it almost seems like it happens by accident. They never manage to put an entire team together. You know, a team where everything is working well. If the O-line is good, the defense sucks; if the running backs are outstanding (Sayres, Payton) they are mostly out there all alone.

    And why can't they recruit a stellar QB who can lead the team? One who can pass with accuracy and read a defense and manage the running game all in the same game?

    I love the Bears. They've been my team my whole life. Heck, a member of my extended family played for the Bears back in the day (love hearing his gossipy locker room stories).  That said, the Bears are a hit and miss team. And there is no good reason for that.

    Parent

    I still can't make the switch (none / 0) (#28)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 08:43:24 PM EST
    to the Bears so wallowed this weekend in victories for the Packers, the Badgers, and the Brewers in both games.  Friends on Facebook managed to get to almost all, as many as possible without having to be in two places at the same time, but it meant a lot of driving to do them all within 30 hours!

    Parent
    YES! (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:12:49 AM EST
    The Bears will never be a powerhouse passing team. Just not in their DNA. I know the whole NFL has gone to a predominantly passing game, but it is time for the Bears to start the trend back to the run.

    Parent
    I agree that the bias toward eastern schools (none / 0) (#20)
    by caseyOR on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 06:35:59 PM EST
    is absurd. Stanford is great team, probably the best in the PAC-12, and could more than hold its own against any other team in the nation.

    Boise State? meh. Yeah, I know, BSU is supposedly some kind of giant killer. Keep in mind, though, that they only play one really challenging opponent per season. There are a whole lot of teams out there that can get pumped for ONE game. The real test is whether that team can play tough games week in and week out. Boise State doesn't have that kind of schedule. So, put me down as someone who is sooo tired of all the Boise State whining.

    Michigan should be ranked about 11 or 12 (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 10:33:11 PM EST
    at 5-0  Some of the teams above them haven't played 5 games yet.  Guess the Wolverines should have piled up points against EMU and CMU as they did against Minnesota.  

    Parent
    If Michigan goes undefeated and (none / 0) (#36)
    by caseyOR on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 10:49:32 PM EST
    smacks Illinois and Wisconsin around on gridiron, they might get a little respect.

    That said, I am always wary of putting my hopes on a team that is so dependent on one player as the Wolverines are with their QB.

    Parent

    Hey, no love for either the BCS or the SEC (none / 0) (#35)
    by caseyOR on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 10:47:33 PM EST
    here. Oregon has the same problem Boise State does when it comes to scheduling home-and-home games with non-conference  BCS schools. There is no way LSU would ever agree to play at Autzen, nor would any other team in the SEC or any Big 10 team, or any of the big independents (hey, Notre Dame). They get all whily about the travel time and how it eats into practice time and their sleep, of course.

    And you are right, no team plays a tough opponent every week. I stand guilty of a bit of hyperbole there. Still, BSU does play a mostly candy-@ss schedule. Reno, really?

    And I wouldn't make too much of that win over Oregon State. The Beavers are in the midst of some very years. The Broncos did smack the Ducks around pretty good, though.

    Parent

    Yankees lost. (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 10:54:26 PM EST


    There is joy (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 12:02:38 AM EST
    across the land.

    Parent
    Vengeance (none / 0) (#44)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:04:41 AM EST
    will be ours on Monday.

    Parent
    A good Sunday (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:38:58 AM EST
    For the Tigers (double pleasure - they win and the hated Yankees lose, which is a good thing no matter who they play), and for the Lions (beat the Bears!)

    Parent
    Not to be too picky, but the Lions (none / 0) (#78)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:48:51 AM EST
    defeated the Cowboys, with help from Tony Romo...Jim Swartz was quoted as saying he was "glad the third-best wide receiver on the Cowboys is on our team."  I didn't see the game, but I imagine Romo was throwing to the other guys in blue and white/silver more than he was to his own.

    As an aside, I do so hope the Tigers get the job done against the Yankees...

    Parent

    A little help from Romo (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 12:06:40 PM EST
    Indeed, he did throw back to back picks that were returned for touchdowns, but at one point, the Lions were down by 24 points and came back to win the game.  It's the second time in two weeks that they came from 20+ points down to win the game.

    The comment by Swartz was dig at Dallas defensive coach, Rob Ryan, who said on Friday that (Lions' receiver) Calvin Johnson would be the third best receiver if he played for Dallas.  Johnson showed him by catching 2 touchdown passes on Sunday to not only continue to lead the league, but to become only the second player in NFL history to have 2 or more TD passes in each of the first four games.

    And the Lions are only of two teams left who are still undefeated.  :)

    Parent

    "Prohibition" (none / 0) (#40)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 01:02:13 AM EST
    will, hopefully, be the last of the Ken Burns rodeo shows. After his deeply tainted series "Jazz" and his painfully boring series on WWII, it's time to hang it up. I stuck with "Prohibition" for fifteen minutes before the same-old shtick made me turn the channel. Ken Burns is well past his sell-by date.

    Me too. (none / 0) (#45)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:12:03 AM EST
    Ken Burns in a persona non grata in my book.

    Jazz was indeed deeply flawed.
    That is because Burns knew nothing about Jazz.
    He was out to promote his views on race.
    So, instead of presenting Jazz, he presented a racist tome.

    And PBS paid for it and presented it using money from, what is their phrase... "people like you".

    Parent

    Fell asleep at some point in the (none / 0) (#59)
    by brodie on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:55:17 AM EST
    first half-hour.  Same old same old from Burns, and I found myself unable to stop noticing all the usual Burns stylistic touches as opposed to watching the content.  Well, at least he brought in Prohibition well under his usual 10-hour format.

    I much prefer the more adventuresome and opinionated documentary offerings by filmmakers like Michael Moore, Werner Herzog, Errol Morris and Oliver Stone, most of whom also tackle controversial subjects courageously.  Burns has always struck me as someone setting out not to consciously offend any large or powerful groups -- as with his Civil War which portrayed Confederate generals in an often heroic or sympathetic light -- as he proceeds to tell a simple story from his perspective at a very leisurely pace in the manner Burns has learned works for good ratings.

    Parent

    In terms of politics, "Prohibition" (none / 0) (#61)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:02:03 AM EST
    is a rather direct attack by Burns and Novick on moral-minority politics, with a clear anti-"Christian Right" and anti-Tea Party agenda.

    Parent
    Sounds rather un-Burns like and a little (none / 0) (#69)
    by brodie on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:42:28 AM EST
    too direct to be true.  Was this your impression from just the first couple of hours or did you somehow manage to screen the entire five and a half hours before it's airing?

    Could be that Burns finally got it right and didn't muddle the political and moral issues this time.  Can't comment further until I muster the stamina to sit through the whole thing.

    Parent

    Never mind -- just saw (none / 0) (#72)
    by brodie on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:00:18 AM EST
    your post above where you say you've already screened the entire thing.

    Be interested to hear whether others agree after viewing all five hours.  

    Parent

    Not happy with the CNN (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:04:27 AM EST
    coverage this morning of Occupy Wall Street on CNN.  They are still attempting to discredit the protest, won't talk about the fact that Unions and most common citizens support this protest.  I think the protest may need to rethink their choice about not having spokespeople or persons because the MSM refuses to read anything description they put out there and take that to mean anything and this morning they came off as treating them like silly children.

    Another "Duh" moment (none / 0) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:05:10 AM EST
    Laws do have consequences.

    "When one student drops out, it affects the funding for the entire system," she said.

    WASHINGTON - A federal judge's decision last week that left Alabama's strict new immigration law largely intact is already having a major impact throughout the state, as hundreds of Hispanic children stayed away from school.

    * Hispanic students have started vanishing from Alabama public schools in the wake of a court ruling that upheld the state's tough new law cracking down on illegal immigration.

    The judge allowed several aspects of the state's anti-immigration law to go into effect, including a provision that requires schools to check the immigration status of students.

    Federal law requires public schools to provide K-12 education to illegal immigrants, but the Alabama law requires that schools verify the immigration status of children enrolling for the first time. link
    Yeah, it didn't bother them to have (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:22:33 AM EST
    uneducated kids running around out of school, but once it starts affecting the funding for the rest of the system, look out!

    Parent
    Quite a day of football yesterday... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:30:22 AM EST
    and since the Ravens/Jets were the Sunday night game, I am dragging - more than usual - this chilly Monday morning.  Wasn't really convinced the Ravens had it in the bag until the 2-minute warning, and by then it was after midnight.  Hard to settle down enough to go to sleep, but I refused to look at the clock, so maybe I got more sleep than I think.  Yeah, sure...

    It was, at times, a wild game.  Flacco looked good in the first quarter, and then couldn't get anything going with his arm for two quarters; but the defense did what Ravens' defenses are always so good at, scored three TDs on turnovers.  And gave Mark Sanchez a whopping case of the heebie-jeebies, which really messed with their passing game.

    Condolences, kdog; Rex looked like a man who keeps waiting for someone to wake him up from the nightmare he's having.  Next week, the Patriots?  Yeesh.  I hope Mangold's good to go, but can it be that one player can make that much difference?  Maybe in people's heads, which is where a lot of games are won and lost.

    Ravens get a week off - time needed to get some guys fully healthy - and then we welcome in the Texans.  Houston is a dome team, so here's hoping it's cold and damp for that one.  Gotta thank the Texans, though, for putting it to the Ravens' rivals, the Steelers.  Oh, my, that was a fun game to watch.  Scares me, though, because the Texans are a good team - Arian Foster is something else.

    Well, it's Monday - again.  And it might rain - again.  It's getting so that seeing the sun for more than a couple of minutes is a real event.

    Imagine how scary good the Ravens (none / 0) (#65)
    by brodie on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:07:53 AM EST
    would be if they had an offense 25% better and more consistent, to complement their already famous defense.  Unbeatable, and heavy favorites to win the SB.

    Instead , alas, the Ravens are still working on not having their offense go out on the field and mess up all the good results their defense has produced.

    Good news for them is that they get the win against a quality Jets team and with a fair scoring cushion.  Also it's only Week 4, and so there's still hope that Flacco & Co will have time to get better.

    Parent

    Congrats! (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:57:12 AM EST
    The O-line is gonna get Sanchez killed, if the uber-predictable playcalling of Brian Schottenheimer doesn't do it first.

    Jets got mad problems...the only solid unit is the special teams right now, though the D showed signs of life after the 1st quarter.  The offense, fugly.

    Parent

    Thanks, kdog! (none / 0) (#82)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 11:19:50 AM EST
    As far as play-calling goes, I feel the same way sometimes about Cam Cameron and his offensive schemes; why on earth he had Joe flinging it around so much in the 2nd and 3rd quarters - to no avail - is a mystery to me.

    I see where Sanchez said he wasn't spooked by the Ravens defense, said he just needed to get rid of the ball quicker, but from what I could see, he looked like he really didn't' want to be the guy with his hands on the ball at all, and was getting rid of it as fast as he could to avoid getting slammed to the ground again.  Man, I bet he spends a lot of time in the ice tub...he might have an easier time of it in New England - I don't think their offense is quite as crushing if the points allowed in their first four games is any indication.

    I tell you, it is going to be a different world when Ray Lewis and Ed Reed retire; Ray's not the same Ray he used to be, but his level of passion for the game hasn't wavered.  And Ed?  He contributes so much, both on the field and in the locker room - I'm not sure you can put a price on how much these guys are teaching the next crop of players.

    Have to say, too, that I don't miss Derrick Mason - he already sounds unhappy, and maybe his attitude last night was a combination of frustration and regret - I think he could have come back to B-more, but he'd have had to take less money - but it's not good to see in Week 4 of a long season, I don't think.

    Once again, Ozzie made another good decision to help the Ravens get younger - I think we have a really good crop of guys who have the potential to be monster play-makers.


    Parent

    Sunday Open Thread | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment