home

Sunday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 09:59:51 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Open Thread.

< Cain Ends Campaign:A Book Tour Gone Bad, Plus the Return of the Donald | Sunday Evening Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Morning Open Thread | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    It starts... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:36:38 AM EST
    Iran shoots down US drone
    December 04, 2011

    Iran's military says it has shot down a US reconnaissance drone aircraft in eastern Iran, Reuters news agency reports, citing state television.

    ­"Iran's military has shot down an intruding RQ-170 American drone in eastern Iran," an unnamed source has reportedly told Iran's Arabic-language television network.

    According to Press TV reports, Iranian authorities managed to seize the unmanned aircraft upon being downed, which they claim received "minimum damage."

    The drone, reportedly an RQ-170 sentinel, "is a low observable unmanned aircraft system which the United States Air Force uses to "directly support combatant commander needs for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to locate targets."

    According to the semi-official Fars news agency, Iran says it will continue to respond in kind to any drones that have violated the country's airspace, even from outside the country's borders.

    The US military has yet to comment on the report.

    That rocky road to Damascus
    November 24, 2011

    As Tehran sees it, what's really going on regarding Syria is a "humanitarian" cover for a complex anti-Shi'ite and anti-Iran operation.

    The road map is already clear. A fractious, unrepresentative Syrian National Council - Libya-style - is already in place. Same for a heavily armed Sunni "insurgency" crisscrossing the borders in Lebanon and Turkey. Sanctions are already essentially hurting the Syrian middle class. A relentless, international campaign of vilification of the Assad regime has been deployed. And psy ops abound, with the aim of seducing sections of the Syrian army to defect (it's not working).

    A report [1] by a Qatar-based researcher for the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) even comes close to admitting that the self-described "Free Syria Army" is basically a bunch of hardcore Islamists, plus a few genuine army defectors, but mostly radicalized Muslim Brotherhood bought, paid for and weaponized by the US, Israel, the Gulf monarchies and Turkey. There's nothing "pro-democracy" about this lot - as incessantly sold by Western corporate and Saudi-owned media.

    [snip]

    As for the Pentagon, the name of the game is "repositioning". As in if you leave Iraq you go somewhere else in the "arc of instability", preferably the Gulf. There are 40,000 US troops already in the Gulf - 23,000 of them in Kuwait. A secret army for the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency is being trained by former Blackwater, "repositioned" as Xe, in the UAE. A NATO of the Gulf is being born. NATOGCC, anyone?

    When the US neo-conservatives ruled the universe - that was only a few years ago - the motto was "Real men go to Tehran". An update is in order. Call it "Real men go to Tehran via Damascus only if they have the balls to stare down Moscow".



    This doesn't appear to be... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by desertswine on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 01:20:07 PM EST
    the first drone or spy plane that they've shot down.

    Iran said in January that two pilotless spy planes it had shot down over its airspace were operated by the United States and offered to put them on public display. In July, Iranian military officials showed Russian experts several U.S. drones they said were shot down in recent years.

    Also in July, Iranian lawmaker Ali Aghazadeh Dafsari said Iran's Revolutionary Guard shot down an unmanned U.S. spy plane that was trying to gather information on an underground uranium enrichment site.



    Parent
    I guess Washington (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 01:44:53 PM EST
    didn't learn much from 1953 & 1979, did they?

    Parent
    Nothing. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by desertswine on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 01:58:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Surprised (none / 0) (#14)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:07:28 PM EST
    That we are running overt missions over Iran. I assume that is standard practice and one I don't have an issue with.  Bombing? Right now yes. Drone and other James bond stuff to keep track of what they are doing? No.

    I am not a hawk but I want us to use our tech to keep track of what they are doing.

    Parent

    Haaretz.com (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 03:55:32 PM EST
    The war against Iran's nuclear program has already begun
    December 02,2011

    The Iranians, and international media outlets, believe these operations are the work of Israel's Mossad and possibly also a Western partner such as the CIA or Britain's MI6.

    The Mossad's campaign to assassinate the Black September members behind the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre was code-named "Wrath of God." This week, when asked whether God had carried out the recent operations in Iran, former Mossad head Meir Dagan smilingly said yes.

    [snip]

    A senior American official went even farther. President Barack Obama's special assistant and coordinator for arms control and weapons of mass destruction, proliferation and terrorism, Gary Samore, said in May 2011, "I'm glad to hear they are having troubles with their centrifuge machines, and the U.S. and its allies are doing everything we can to make it more complicated." Do we need any clearer statement that humans are behind the "hand of God"?



    Parent
    Obama's signature may well (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 05:10:26 PM EST
    be use of covert forces and drones.  This is much better than invading an entire country with thousands of troops.

    I am fine with covert action against Iran....

    Parent

    In 1953, the Dulles boys (none / 0) (#16)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:13:56 PM EST
    had the CIA work to overthrow a democracy and install the Shah....

    The following year, they would do the same to the Arbenz government.

    Let's see if we actually work to overthrow the current Iranian government.

    Parent

    We haven't been? (none / 0) (#21)
    by me only on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:31:03 PM EST
    The Jade Revolt or whatever, wasn't us?  I call bullsnot.  Nobody revolts w/o a power backer.

    Parent
    Could be (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:43:32 PM EST
    A change of regime would be a good thing.   The issue is to avoid U.S. military intervention.

    Parent
    Yeah, a regime change would be (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by me only on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 08:14:32 PM EST
    a good thing for us and the Iranians.  Problem is w/o an Iraq style invasion we have no hope of doing it right.  We'll just pick some Karzai like fool just to pick somebody.  It'll just create another mess.

    And I don't think anyone wants another Iraq style invasion.

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:12:59 AM EST
    And, as a general rule, I would agree with your assessment, but Iran requires signficant monitoring.  It is not altoghether clear that the moderate Shia clergy aligned with al Sistani will predominate.    

    And, the ability to develope nuclear weapons is something that should concern us.  If we can prevent that from happening through various acts of espionage, great, let's do it.  And, if we can encourage the democratic forces or hinder the militaristic ones, we should do that as well.

    It is not full scale invasion or doing nothing at all.....

    This seems so painfully obvious--but who knows......

    Parent

    A non threatening regime (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 05:08:57 PM EST
    In 1953, we took out a Democracy.

    Parent
    For all kinds of reasons (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 05:42:23 PM EST
    Boiling it down, because a Shia Iran allied with a Shia Iraq threatens Sunni Saudi Arabia, and because a nuclear Iran threatens Israel.

    Parent
    You didn't respond to my post (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 07:02:55 PM EST
    Do you contend Iran poses no threat to Israel?

    I am not saying we should bomb or invade Iran but it is not neocon cant to understand that Iran poses a threat to the region, which may or may not be a direct threat to us.

    If Iran gets nukes, or gets closer to getting nukes, a war in the Middle East could ensue. A war in the MidEast would hold tremendoous dangers for us.

    Parent

    I am disappointed in the tone (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:24:33 PM EST
    of your post.

    The "1" is for the insult at the end of your post.

    So, eff you, Donald, for your inability to discuss this issue without resorting to name calling, and your unbearable self-righteousness.

    You haven't really responded to my points.  You lump me in blindly with others without making the effort to understand the point I am making.....

    Your post is a lazy, self-indulgent screed that suffers from the same faults as conservatives who impose a black-and-white absolutism on all they view.

    Parent

    Netanyahu aside...Donald,do you believe (none / 0) (#81)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 07:32:55 AM EST
    That the US has a special responsibility to Israel and it's people?  

    Parent
    Hezbollah (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 07:25:59 PM EST
    is not a threat to Israel?  Shia Iran has not lent any help to Shia Hezbollah, which has been at war with Israel?

    The Saudis summoned Cheney during one phase of the Iraq war because they were concerned that the minority Sunnis would be overun by the Shia majoirty in Iraq.

    Perhaps war would not break out between Iran and its Shia proxies and Israel, or others, but I don't think it is too speculative to understand the risk.  It is not a risk justifying bombing by us imo, but it certainly justifies an attempt to advance our policy interests in the MidEast, which, in spite of any vehemence to the contrary, is a strategic region for us because of two reasons:  Oil and Israel.

    If you really think Iran has never assisted Hezbollah, or that a Middle East war is unlikely (in spite of it happening once a decade) or would not hurt us (in spite of possible Saudi oil embargo if we support Israel in any war which we would), you are ignoring a lot.

    The Middle East is crucial for us.  It is very facile of you to state Iran poses no threat to us.   To suggest a concern over Iran is a neocon fallacy is to engage in the same binary, all-or-nothing thinking that plagues the neocons and conservatives.....

    Parent

    I'm puzzled why (none / 0) (#62)
    by observed on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 09:20:35 PM EST
    Saudi fears of Shia's are cited by you.
    You think Saudi Arabia is a source of stability????


    Parent
    No, source of oil for us (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:03:21 PM EST
    Here is an excerpt from a 2007 MSNBC article:

    Saudi Arabia believes the Iraqi government is not up to the challenge and has told the United States that it is prepared to move its own forces into Iraq should the violence there degenerate into chaos, a senior U.S. official told NBC News on Tuesday.

    And, this:

    The Saudi government has signaled in the past that it would oppose an early withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, fearing it would leave minority Sunni Muslims at the mercy of Shiite Muslim militias.


    Parent
    Strawmen (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:04:40 AM EST
    Not what I said at all.

    I do not agree that we need to take military action to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.  Did you read that, Donald?

    But, I also recognize that we have strategic interests in the region and cannot turn our backs on it.

    Why should we care about Saudi Arabia?  Come now, you are not that divorced from reality, are you?

    And we will always care about Israel, whether you like it or not.  The goal is to try and avoid having a situation develope where Israel becomes involved in a shooting war.  That means trying to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.  That is the real world, Donald, not some absolutist construct that you live in.

    Your positions will lack credibility if you do not acknowledge some basic facts including the one that Iran does pose a threat to its neighbors.   Note, I did not say an existential threat requiring a military strike by the United States.  That you cannot see the difference between dealing with threats through full scale military invasion and other means, such as covert action, etc., shows that you suffer from the same reductionist thought process as the Neocons.

    Parent

    That's not really an answer to my question. (none / 0) (#78)
    by observed on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 06:23:35 AM EST
    Yes, the Saudis make claims. Why believe what they say? Do we kill Sunnis on the Saudi say-so, just to secure our oil supply? In the case of Iraq policy, that seems to be close to what you are saying.

    Parent
    So, we should just ignore the Saudis? (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 11:32:16 AM EST
    They do not have a history of making rash statements and did participate in the oil embargo.

    Saudi Arabia and Israel make Iran relevent.  This should not be earth shattering.

    Parent

    The Saudis funded 9/11. That should (none / 0) (#92)
    by observed on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:51:07 PM EST
    be relevant.
    Of course I meant Shias, not Sunnis,
    and the question was pertinent.


    Parent
    I am not sure the disconnect here (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 01:22:09 PM EST
    I have never said the Saudis were not duplicitous.  

    I am not sure if there is any public information on who exactly in Saudi Arabia was aware of the money going to al Qaeda.  But by all public accounts, the U.S. agrees that the Royal family was not involved or aware. Perhaps a convenient fiction but it doesn't change the facts about oil.

    It seems that I have been caught in the vortex of a binary world:  you have to be totally against something, or totally for it, and there is no in-between.   So, anything that gives any credence to any aspect of what conservatives have said about Iran being a threat has to be opposed.

    It seems to me that one can do a better job of opposing those who want to bomb Iran by looking at policy alternatives that recognize that Iran is a problem and not like Costa Rica.  

    Parent

    And don't you have that backwards? (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 11:33:57 AM EST
    I do not think the Saudis would ever want us "to kill" Sunnis.  I assume you meant Shia Iran or the Shia majority in Iraq.

    Parent
    "Iraq policy"? (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 11:38:55 AM EST
    I have not given an opinion on Iraq policy.

    Your points do talk so far past mine that it appears you are making points from a different discussion with someone else.

    Parent

    The neocon nuts at AEI explain why (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 05:45:27 PM EST
    These nuts have apparently decided that telling the 'truth' will get them more warmongering support, because Iran is making them look bad.

    Suddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation. After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them. Suddenly the neoconservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the shift will be ephemeral.

    The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletkaz, head of the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neoconservatives in Washington, explained what the current obsession with Iran's nuclear program is all about.

    The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." ... And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.
    Hold on. The "biggest problem" with Iran getting a nuclear weapon is not that Iranians will use it but that they won't use it and that they might behave like a "responsible power"?

    Video here:
    American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes

    Parent

    Danielle Pletka, good effing god (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:22:57 PM EST
    can we just send her on a mission to Mars? now?

    Parent
    I think she's probably from Mars, isn't she? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 08:29:33 AM EST
    Or from somewhere way out there where there is very apparently little oxygen, judging from the utterances of most neocons.

    Parent
    We never learn (none / 0) (#96)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 03:08:11 AM EST
    The arms industry has bucks to spread around.  Money always gets in the way of critical thought.

    Parent
    Moscow is working with us, we are staging :) (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 09:27:12 PM EST
    in Russia right now :) I also feel a kind of certainty that U.S. special forces have been in and out of Iran pretty much at will for a few years now.  I do not doubt that Israel is in and out at will too.  They probably opened doors for us to be able to have some connections within.

    Parent
    Oh, really? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:45:36 AM EST
    but mostly radicalized Muslim Brotherhood bought, paid for and weaponized by the US, Israel, the Gulf monarchies and Turkey. There's nothing "pro-democracy" about this lot - as incessantly sold by Western corporate and Saudi-owned media.

    The US and Israel are now supporting radicalized Muslim Brotherhood??

    Well, given what we did in Egypt, maybe that isn't as far off as I thought on first glance.

    Naw..... Not even Obama could be that dumb.

    How easily you (wilfully) forget (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:04:56 AM EST
    How the CIA created Osama bin Laden

    In April 1978, the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) seized power in Afghanistan in reaction to a crackdown against the party by that country's repressive government.

    The PDPA was committed to a radical land reform that favoured the peasants, trade union rights, an expansion of education and social services, equality for women and the separation of church and state. The PDPA also supported strengthening Afghanistan's relationship with the Soviet Union.

    Such policies enraged the wealthy semi-feudal landlords, the Muslim religious establishment (many mullahs were also big landlords) and the tribal chiefs. They immediately began organising resistance to the government's progressive policies, under the guise of defending Islam.

    Washington, fearing the spread of Soviet influence (and worse the new government's radical example) to its allies in Pakistan, Iran and the Gulf states, immediately offered support to the Afghan mujaheddin, as the "contra" force was known.



    Parent
    And don't forget the Israeli (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by observed on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:22:24 AM EST
    support of Hamas in the past.

    Parent
    The Shadow War In Syria (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:29:55 AM EST
    Target Syria - the strategic prize that outstrips Libya. The stage is set. The stakes couldn't be higher. Libya 2.0 equals Syria? It's more like Libya 2.0 remix. With the same R2P ("responsibility to protect") rationale - starring civilians bombed into "democracy". But with no UN Security Council resolution (Russia and China will veto it). Instead, Turkey shines, fanning the flames of civil war.

    US Secretary of State Hillary "we came, we saw, he died" Clinton set the scene on Indonesian TV a few weeks ago, when she prophesied there would be "a civil war" in Syria, with a well financed and "well-armed opposition" crammed with army deserters.

    Now it's up to NATOGCC to make it happen. NATOGCC is of course the now fully accomplished symbiosis between selected North Atlantic Treaty Organization members such as Britain and France and selected petromonarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council, aka the Gulf Counter-revolution Club, such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

    So feel free to bask in the glow of yet another mercenary paradise.

    link

    Flash back a few months... to Libya: 'Humanitarian' Snow Job

    You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a "yes" vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya - the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973.


    Parent
    Osama was part of attacking the (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:07:28 PM EST
    Soviets.

    I don't think we consider Syria a huge threat.

    Parent

    We didn't consider Sadaam/Iraq ... (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 08:02:02 AM EST
    ... to be a "huge threat", either ... until Bush started his sales pitch for war, then some people were duped.  Of course, just a few years before in the 1980s, we were supplying them with materials to make chemical and biological weapons and develop their missile technology - even kept it up after Saddam used chemical weapons to kill thousands of his own citizens.

    Parent
    There's been all kinds of magical thinking (none / 0) (#11)
    by tigercourse on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 01:56:52 PM EST
    about the Arab Spring.

    Parent
    Well, the other shoe has now dropped with (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:33:34 PM EST
    the Muslim Brotherhood rolling up around 37% plus the Salafis getting around 24% in Egypt.

    Parent
    Tis the season.... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 01:18:47 PM EST
    Counted my first holiday gathering nearly spoiled by political shouting. One guy at our small company party last night literally yelling about Clinton's failure to get bin Laden in the 90's...no one was even disagreeing with him, so I don't know why he was so heated up. He has personal reasons to be upset these days, so OK, but gees did I have indigestion.

    Why do people even bring up politics at parties? Is it intentionally to spoil it for people? I don't get it.

    Yes, I know what you're saying, ruffian (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Zorba on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 01:23:03 PM EST
    I guess it could be worse, though- they could be shouting about religion.  Those are two topics that should be off-limits at gatherings like this.

    Parent
    I just knew you shoulda bailed (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 03:01:04 PM EST
    on that party!

    Parent
    You were right! (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 03:17:30 PM EST
    However I could not afford to endanger my bonus!

    I figured it out - the guy that usually starts the conversation is one of the few truly centrist guys I know.  I think he has no idea that some people really have firm opinions on this stuff. He always asks a question and then eggs the other guy on by seeming to really hang on his every word, until a full blown diatribe is in progress.

    Parent

    he sounds (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 03:25:21 PM EST
    like someone who likes to play with ditto monkeys and then sit back and watch much to the rue of the rest of the people at the party.

    I have a friend who has one of those husbands who gets all their info from talk radio. He continually makes an idiot of himself in front of everybody. These ditto monkeys think that everybody thinks like they do because they never get out of the echo chamber. I mean this guy was truly surprised that McCain didn't win in 2008 because he never moved out of his comfort zone. I told his wife that people like him are Obama's greatest advocates whether they believe it or not. She agreed and has asked him to not talk about politics at parties. The guy blaming Clinton was probably trying to absolve his guilt for voting for Bush or something. I guess it's kind of embarrassing to admit that you voted for someone who was in office when we had that large of a terrorist attack. And i'm sure that he wasn't lauding Obama for getting Bin Laden either.

    Parent

    We have some very real problems and pain (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 06:57:19 AM EST
    out there, larger than normal.  And we have all been spoon fed a ton of propaganda, as well as having our personal attachment to our party if we have one.  We are extensively polarized and no party leaders are seriously fighting to heal our economy right now.  I think we are all going to see a lot of this melting down with babbling propaganda talking points in our near future.

    Parent
    From the files (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:25:00 PM EST
    of a broken clock is right twice a day I present Maureen Dowd's thesis on Newt:
    link
    A sentence (none / 0) (#49)
    by lentinel on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 05:41:51 PM EST
    from Dowd that caught my eye was this one;

    He (Gingrich) sees colonialism as a complicated thing with good and bad effects rather than a terrible thing with collateral benefits.

    The first thing that sprung to my mind was how the United States should be judged from the point of view of colonialism. I am speaking from the point of view of the Native Americans who saw their lands colonized and their people massacred and impoverished.

    Would they consider the colonization of their country to be a complicated thing with good and bad effects? Or a terrible thing with collateral benefits? Benefits like being able to run casinos?

    Parent

    Their country??? (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 09:22:09 PM EST
    And that country was???

    Parent
    The "New" World (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by sj on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:57:25 AM EST
    What else?  Because naturally it didn't exist until Westerners named it.  Amiright?

    Parent
    Their (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 03:19:11 PM EST
    country was the land that they lived on for generations.

    Don't you know that?

    Parent

    Joe Kapp... (none / 0) (#9)
    by desertswine on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 01:43:05 PM EST
    mixes it up with football rival some 48 years later. Talk about holding a grudge.

    Touchdown Tebow (none / 0) (#13)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 01:59:16 PM EST
    A pass to a wide open receiver in the endzone....

    This after a horrible pass the play before.

    Another win again...??

    Another Tebow touchdown pass (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:20:26 PM EST
    on a play that had no chance but he didn't give up on it.

    Parent
    Track meet (none / 0) (#24)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:46:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Tebow: no Ints (none / 0) (#28)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 03:19:31 PM EST


    Parent
    And, now, we're tied with Oakland in 1st (none / 0) (#39)
    by christinep on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 05:02:27 PM EST
    Funny, nice, & kinda out there. 'Love it though. Go, T E B O W!!! With, as he so often says, the great teamwork of what-has-finally-become-a-team.

    Parent
    And no Von Miller (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 05:14:33 PM EST


    Parent
    You said it! (none / 0) (#40)
    by christinep on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 05:03:05 PM EST


    Parent
    So what is the going rate (none / 0) (#15)
    by me only on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:10:52 PM EST
    for the Tooth Fairy?

    According to my friends and neighbors (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Zorba on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:21:01 PM EST
    with young, tooth-losing children, it seems to be $5.00 per tooth.  Geez, 30 years ago, my kids got a quarter.  Inflation is rampant even with the Tooth Fairy.   ;-)

    Parent
    Only $1 here (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:44:32 PM EST
    Seemed pretty cheap to me (my wife is the fairy), but the kids seem happy with it.

    Parent
    Seems cheap to me, too (none / 0) (#25)
    by Zorba on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:52:54 PM EST
    At least to the going rate around here.  ;-)

    Parent
    Yikes, it was a quarter (none / 0) (#30)
    by Towanda on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 03:28:09 PM EST
    less than a quarter of a century ago.  I'll have to check the rate of inflation, but is anything else twenty times as much as it was in the late '80s?

    Parent
    maybe Newt's fat @ss (none / 0) (#68)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 10:24:38 PM EST
    is anything else twenty times as much as it was in the late '80s?


    Parent
    My wife was going to give our son (none / 0) (#20)
    by me only on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 02:28:55 PM EST
    a quarter.  I, ummmmm, colorfully explained to her that wasn't nearly enough.

    Parent
    I paid for teeth last year (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 09:28:12 PM EST
    and I shelled out $10 for the last one.

    Parent
    Why? (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Towanda on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 11:01:19 PM EST
    This isn't a supply-and-demand situation.

    Parent
    Pain, one premolar (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 06:51:34 AM EST
    had to be pulled.  I felt bad for him.  So the tooth fairy was paying $5 for uneventful and $10 for eventful.

    Parent
    My Brother Dished Out.. (none / 0) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 11:18:45 AM EST
    ... a Susan B Anthony coins because we used to get 50 cent coins.

    Cash seems odd to me and $5 ridiculous.
    Did we privatize the tooth fairy ?

    Parent

    Baaawaaaa (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 04:45:13 PM EST
    George Will takes on Gingrich

    As someone who has lived in GA for two decades I'm finding it hysterical that the rest of the country is seeing what kind of grifters GA has. I'm not sure which shooting match is going to be better when it's all over with. So far it seems that the shots aimed at Gingrich are a ton better than the ones aimed at Cain since Cain's were mostly due to one issue and the arrows are coming from everywhere with Gingrich.

    Gee (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 05:09:08 PM EST
    I wonder if will sprained something writing that. His tall buildings in a single bound leaps of logic in that article are awe inspiring. ;-)

    Parent
    Friends & I are thoroughly enjoying the Show (none / 0) (#43)
    by christinep on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 05:09:38 PM EST
    Which flip-flopper gets it...Mitt (aka Willard) or Newt?  BTW, which sling at Newt do you think does the most damage with the Repubs...immigration, Freddie Mac, Global Warming Ad with Pelosi, serial marriages/mistresses (while loudly proclaiming "values"), ethical censures in the House, health care multiple positions, and more?

    Which Newt will we see?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 05:22:22 PM EST
    it's certainly not his multiple marriages because unless you've been living in a cage you know about that but I wonder how many people know about all the other things. A Gingrich implosion is not going to be a pretty thing. Cain just kind of deflated over a short period of time. Gingrich will go out spectacularly and with tons of sound effects blaming everybody but himself for his problems.

    Parent
    I saw that kid (none / 0) (#52)
    by sj on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 06:24:50 PM EST
    on the Ellen Degeneres show.  It's hard to tell from your video* (live show) but he is an absolutely amazing guitarist.  Here he is without the crowd noise.

    -----
    * Lousy sound quality might be the cr@ppy speakers on my brand spanking new laptop.  Of course I might just be paranoid.

    But to your post: (none / 0) (#53)
    by sj on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 06:26:03 PM EST
    What is it going to take to get rid of this man?

    Gator Bowl is Ohio State v. Florida (none / 0) (#54)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 06:28:30 PM EST
    Talk about having to pick the lesser of two evils! Guess I'll be rooting for tie.  Urban's old team v. his new one is the main story line there.  Nice that the SEC gets a home game.    

    Iowa v. Oklahoma in the Insight.  Another interesting match-up from a coaching perspective.  

    The Hawkeyes will take on Oklahoma, the preseason No. 1 team. A team coached by Bob Stoops, a former Hawkeye player and coach. Who famously was interviewed by Iowa before taking the job at Oklahoma and Iowa hired Kirk Ferentz.
     

    Folks will be happy with the warm weather site.  Be nicer if there was a beach too, but oh well.  

    There IS a beach! (none / 0) (#85)
    by Amiss on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 08:59:05 AM EST
    Many beaches in fact. Why do you think the Navy has so many bases here? NAS, Mayport and Nuclear sub off the top of my head. Never can tell if they are coming or going. :)

    Parent
    Arizona is coastal? (none / 0) (#89)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 11:34:40 AM EST
    Did California fall into the ocean and I missed it?  

    Parent
    The important thing... (none / 0) (#90)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 11:36:18 AM EST
    is the Gators don't have to travel for this dumpster fire of a game.

    Parent
    Sheriff Joe Arpaio taking heat ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 04, 2011 at 08:32:06 PM EST
    ... for inadequately/not investigating cases of alleged child molestation.

    Turns out many of the victims were children of illegal immigrants.

    It's December (none / 0) (#77)
    by sj on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:37:19 AM EST
    Have I mentioned this month how much I hate these people?

    I know I should be working on compassion, but holy cow.

    Parent

    They make it awfully hard n/t (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 07:44:06 AM EST


    Parent
    Sunday Morning Open Thread | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment