home

Wednesday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 03:52:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

We're due for an open thread. What's on your mind? All topics welcome.

< Majid Kahn and the Pentagon's "Let's Make a Deal" Strategy | Kim Dotcom Fires Back >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Open Thread | 102 comments (102 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I feel her pain, (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 04:50:00 PM EST
    albeit only somewhat.  I managed to pretty much ignore The Monkees.  I was way more a Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Buffy Sainte-Marie, etc. fan, back in the day (what can I say?  I'm an old hippie).  The thing I always found interesting about the Monkees was that Michael Nesmith's mother invented Liquid Paper.  
    My sympathies to Davy Jones' family.

    Old concerts (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 06:43:19 PM EST
    ...the best (of course.). Your list of favorites mirrors my own. Especially Dylan.  Two vivid memories: (1). Carrying only one album---an LP-- back to college in Indiana with me, The Freewheeling Bob Dylan"--still have it in the back of the closet (with all his other "albums".) and (2) Sitting along with my sister & her best friend in hefty trash bags at a stadium in Fort Collins CO waiting for and gratefully hearing what-became-known as the Hard Rain's Gonna Fall concert with Joan Baez (always laugh when I see a big Hefty trash bag.)

    My thoughts also with the Davy Jones' family.

    Parent

    He also wrote the lyrics for Different Drum... (none / 0) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 06:26:58 PM EST
    which was recorded Linda Ronstadt and the Stone Poneys and his lyrics were recorded by others including the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band and the Paul Butterfield Blues Band.   He was the driving force behind the creation of MTV.  His original program was called Pop Clips and appeared on Nick before being sold to Time/Warner who developed it into MTV in '80.  

    He went on to produce music videos for Lionel Richie (All Night Long) and Michael Jackson (The Way You Make Me Feel) and executive produced films like Repo Man.

    Author, musician, producer, lyricist--quite a varied and prolific career.      

    Parent

    Sorry... (none / 0) (#18)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 06:34:28 PM EST
    I was referring to Michael Nesmith, not Davy Jones.  

    When Jones was tried out as the drummer for the Monkees, he was too short to be seen in front of the kit and that's how he ended up being the frontman.  

    Parent

    Trying to recall when Buffy St. Marie last (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 05:31:33 AM EST
    crossed my conscious mind. Can't.

    Parent
    I don't think BSM had a big hit (none / 0) (#102)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 08:53:42 AM EST
    until sometime in the late sixties.  That's when I saw her probably for her first appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show.  

    Unfortunately, Ed in his intro made the ridiculous claim that Buffy was (paraphrase) "the biggest musical star to appear on our stage since the Beatles."

    Uh, I don't think so.  Until that one hit she had been known primarily among the folkie crowd and song writers and other industry insiders.  Not sure if she had many or any hits after her first one.  That's my non-googled forty year old recollection of her career anyway.

    Parent

    Congrats to Al and Charlie (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 06:16:23 PM EST
    And it's St. Ann's, and their students, loss.

    I'm at a domestic violence conference in DC (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Lil on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 11:19:56 PM EST
    and out of the blue, Bill Clinton showed up.  Another weather disaster in our country. Another school shooting. A monkey died. Strange and not strange.

    What do you say (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:43:14 AM EST
    when someone you truly despise dies?

    If there's an afterlife, you express your (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:53:09 AM EST
    global condolences to those already there, as in "so sorry - he's all yours now."

    And try to do it with a measure of sincerity.

    :-)

    Parent

    Yeah but after (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:35:17 AM EST
    the Afterlife comes Reincarnation, and bec he lived only a half life that means he'll be coming back sooner rather than later, possibly in our lifetimes and probably only marginally changed in subtle unconscious ways for the better.  Can I say that?

    Parent
    Nothing.... (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:54:49 AM EST
    If ya can't say something nice, say nothing at all.  

    Besides, our hostess frowns upon speaking ill of the dead here at Talkleft.

    Parent

    You're probably right (none / 0) (#62)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:01:49 AM EST
    on the second point, though I've always thought that rule applied more to a thread specifically about the passing of the person while Open Threads allowed more frank discussion.  Maybe Jeralyn can clarify.

    Parent
    Nope. Don't do it. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Towanda on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:29:56 AM EST
    J removes posts, even if not really derogatory, about the recently deceased that raise issues about the way that they lived their lives.

    Parent
    He also has a wife and young children, (none / 0) (#68)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:39:13 AM EST
    and while Breitbart couldn't let up even for a moment when those he despised died, I'd like to think that I can be bigger than he was and respect and acknowledge his family's loss.

    I don't know what he has waiting for him in the afterlife, but thankfully, I'm not involved in that aspect of things...

    Parent

    i agree (none / 0) (#76)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:39:30 AM EST
    to speak ill of the dead is unsporting, since they cannot show up to defend themselves

    though i suspect that another, primeval reason for such silence has to do with superstitious fears

    Parent

    Not superstitious here... (none / 0) (#77)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 12:32:17 PM EST
    But I do know the site's commenting rules disallow what I would really like to say.

    In the meantime, I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that Orson Bean--who I once revered--was Breitbart's father-in-law. I mean, Orson BEAN! That rascal who used to write for the LA Free Press in the 1970's. The forward thinking, experimental liberal. The guy who was blacklisted in Hollywood for having attended a few Communist Party meetings. Somehow, he turned into a conservative in later years and came to resemble nothing of his former impish self. That to me is sad.

    Parent

    "I've never wished a man dead, (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 12:54:29 PM EST
    but I've read many an obituary with great satisfaction."

        Clarence Darrow

    How does that work fer y'all?

    Parent

    Darrow obviously didnt (none / 0) (#79)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 02:03:30 PM EST
    live long enough to know about AH, Goebbels et al, or Pol Pot, or the Butcher of the Balkans Milosevich or so many others without whom millions wouldn't have suffered or met untimely deaths and without whom the world would have been a better place.

    Some people really deserve to have a full public airing of their deeds upon passing.  Osama and Kim Jung Eel in recent times for instance.

    So I don't subscribe to Darrow nor to John Donne and the stuff about each man's death diminishes us all.  Sometimes the world is better for it and we should note it.

    Parent

    Well in some cases the dead (none / 0) (#80)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 02:18:35 PM EST
    weren't very sporting themselves in their lifetime and wouldn't have cared a whit what we said on this lefty blog.  And at what point here or elsewhere do you think it's again permissible or somehow sporting to speak frankly and unfettered about them?  (That's a question for Jeralyn too).

    Constitutionally of course, there's supposed to be more freedom to speak about a public figure upon their passing.  Ironically, on this board that's devoted to promoting civil liberties and a strong liberal attitude towards the Bill of Rights, the opposite situation prevails.

    Just my 2 cents on the policy.

    Parent

    Maybe it has to do with (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 02:32:52 PM EST
    (1) not wanting the comments section to turn into a festering sewer of toxic ugliness, and/or

    (2) not wanting to attract the likes of people who thrive on that kind of ugliness.

    And there are places like that, and people who are drawn to them.  And however occasionally contentious it gets here sometimes, it never comes within miles of what I've seen written on other blogs - stuff that makes me feel hopeless and sick just to read.

    I get that people don't want someone to reap in death some level of respect he or she didn't merit in life, but, really - is there anything that can be said about Breitbart now that most of us, if not all of us, didn't think before he died?

    He's dead - we're not; seems like we got the better end of that deal, don't you think?

    Parent

    We should never (none / 0) (#84)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 03:12:39 PM EST
    be afraid of speaking the truth however ugly it is, and censoring ourselves just allows truly ugly untruths to go unchallenged.  As with a very laudatory, one-sided midday news item on NPR just now noting how "the tributes are pouring in" for AB and how he helped expose Rep Anthony Weiner.  Nothing mentioned on the downside, as if NPR were following the TL model.

    Parent
    The truth can be (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by sj on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 03:38:43 PM EST
    spoken without getting ugly about it.  And there is nothing wrong with waiting a day or two before getting pointed.  

    But remember:  TL is not NPR.  The commenters here are typically more well-informed than the average listener to NPR, and are pretty well-known to each other. That makes it a different ball game.

    If you want to go to NPR and set the record straight  (or rather, try to set the record straight) I think that's fine.  Better than fine.  But we are visitors here and we can respect the wishes of our hostess simply by choosing to refrain from using insults.  

    Parent

    I guess what I was trying to say is (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 03:49:59 PM EST
    that it isn't so much about being afraid to speak the truth, but that I think the truth was already out there - at least here; what more truth is there to tell about Breitbart?

    Should the media tell the truth about the dead?  Hell, they don't tell the truth about the living, so why would we expect them to tell the truth about the dead?

    Well, they didn't have any trouble telling the truth about Osama or Saddam, but again, they weren't telling us anything we didn't already know.  And I don't think Breitbart killed anyone, did he?

    So, how should "truthful" coverage about someone like Breitbart be framed?  "Before you all go getting weepy about the untimely death of this man, and feeling sorry for his family, here are a few things you should know."

    Because that is exactly how it would come across, and then there would be a brouhaha of a whole different dimension that would follow.

    The truth should be spoken in life, while those about whom people are speaking can defend themselves.  Not speaking ill of the dead is not a standard Breitbart ever adhered to, but I'm not sure what good the Breitbart standard did for the cause of truth.  And I mostly just don't really want to be like him, and I'm pretty sure you don't either.

    Like I said - he's dead, we're not; things could be worse.

    Parent

    Forgot to say, I've seen more (none / 0) (#86)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 03:21:59 PM EST
    ugliness on this board with the many poster spats of a nasty personal nature.  There is one poster here in particular who seems to set people off in ugly ways (no not one of our resident RWers).

    I don't think speaking the truth about a deceased public figure could possibly be that bad.

    And we shouldn't fear speaking the truth as a general matter even if it leads to a spirited discussion.  It's also a good way to prevent false myths about someone from getting an early toehold.

    Parent

    It's true that (none / 0) (#88)
    by sj on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 03:42:19 PM EST
    there have been some ugly conversations.  It's also true that often, if they are brought to Jeralyn's attention, those sorts of conversations are um... subjected to moderation.  

    But even if there is no ... moderation... there is no way that this site ever reaches the level of ugliness that some sites do.  It's one of the reasons I come here.

    Parent

    Personally (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by sj on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:34:23 AM EST
    I say nothing.  And I try to keep my face neutrally blank, too.  That's probably a dead-giveaway.

    And there was absolutely NO pun intended. If one exists.

    Parent

    I was thinking the same thing (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:20:58 AM EST
    Saw Breitbart on The Young Turks just last week. I guess I will just say with charity that I hope he DOES NOT get what is coming to him in the afterlife.

    Parent
    Super Tuesday States (none / 0) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 04:34:20 PM EST
    and who is currently favored to win based on most recent polls (if any polling has been done):

    Saturday Caucus:
    Washington - Santorum

    Tuesday:
    Alaska - ?
    Georgia - Gingrich
    Idaho - ?
    Massachusetts - Romney
    North Dakota - ?
    Ohio - Santorum
    Oklahoma - Santorum
    Tennessee - Santorum
    Vermont - Romney
    Virginia - Romney

    About Idaho (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 04:41:30 PM EST
    It has a large Mormon population.  Romney?

    Parent
    I'm kind of thinking (none / 0) (#8)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 04:57:58 PM EST
    yes, for Idaho.  Although, they also have a lot of anti-government militia types still there; you will remember Ruby Ridge, for instance.  Who knows how they will vote?  If they even vote in primaries, I don't know.  I'll bet the Mormons do, though.  ;-)

    Parent
    It will be (none / 0) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 05:05:09 PM EST
    a caucus.

    Nothing to compare with from 2008. Only McCain and Paul were on the ballot then.

    Parent

    North Dakota (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 06:08:26 PM EST
    is also a caucus state and was won by Romney in 2008. So although no polling, I'll give the edge in North Dakota next Tuesday to Romney.

    Parent
    N. Dakota is also (none / 0) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 11:20:20 PM EST
    almost drunk on the jobs and business from the new oil fields up there, and I'm thinking feeling very, very predisposed to look favorably on business types or investor types like Romney.  Don't expect they're worrying much about Satan these days there.


    Parent
    Weirdly enough, Vermont may (none / 0) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 11:23:23 PM EST
    end up going for Santorum.  Not that anybody does much polling of VT for national contests, but a new college-sponsored polling outfit just started up and found Santorum still behind but rising fast among VT's tiny number of GOP voters.  You've got to be a little bit perverse to still be a Republican in this state, especially on national elections, so I'm not all that surprised.

    Parent
    Washington (none / 0) (#72)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:07:43 AM EST
    has the 6th largest Mormon population in the country and has Seattle/Tacoma on the We(s)t side of the state with the more liberal-leaning Republicans.

    I think Romney will take Washington.

    Parent

    I always liked (none / 0) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 04:38:31 PM EST
    Daydream Believer

    Notes on Fuel... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 04:59:20 PM EST
    First 5 bucks a gallon sighting on Long Island...yikes!  Looks like the station owner getting ahead of themselves, but who knows what he paid for his last shipment.

    Insult to injury...law enforcement has set up shop on the shoulder of the LIE to spot check fuel trucks.  A joint task force kinda deal.  For safety, and to make sure all gas taxes have been paid. Caught seven trucks for alleged tax dodging. Ain't that a kick in the junk...some Sheriff of Nottingham sh*t right there.

    Should Robin Hood emerge, I hope he has better safety standards than this guy...even I gotta admit I don't wanna be driving behind no gas mule;)

    In gripe mode..... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ZtoA on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 10:05:13 PM EST
    my daughter (early 20s living in LA and has an actual job) got a ticket for jaywalking on a regular street. $194.00. She works in an OK job in IT at a legal firm. It is not that good a job to get a ticket for jaywalking evidently. And I recently got a $45 ticket in Portland for parking on a Sunday - apparently you need to read the fine print at each parking machine to see if Sunday counts now. A friend told me that she tried to change her name - to retake her maiden name after a divorce - and that it had been extremely complicated (this is a woman who started and established a world famous company so is used to red tape) and blamed the Patriot Act. She said you would not believe the folders the government has on each citizen.

    Parent
    For Future Reference (none / 0) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 10:57:40 PM EST
    When trying to revert to your maiden name, have it written into the original divorce decree by the judge and it's free and easy after that (or so I'm been told by family lawyers in Florida)

    Parent
    That is an important step (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Towanda on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 01:16:14 AM EST
    as I did it, but no, that doesn't make it free nor easy with credit card companies, utilities, etc.  As if they're suddenly gonna get good at customer service for divorcees -- note, few men have changed their names so deal with this mess -- when they can't get their CS together for anyone, anyway.  

    Parent
    Hold the phone... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 08:02:07 AM EST
    One Hundred Ninety Four Dollars!*@&!

    The Sheriff of Nottingham gets around...damn.  Lots of localities closing budget gaps by extorting their people with crazy pricey fines for stupid sh*t...not the righteous or noble way to fund a government, to say the least.

    Parent

    The Fuel Story... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 08:39:58 AM EST
     ...doesn't mention what was going on, but I wanted to comment on diesel and taxes.

    They put purple die in fuel meant for off road use, like my dad and his farm, or at work and massive generates used for testing.  It's tax free, aka very cheap.

    They die it so long haul truckers don't use it on the road because the taxes are directly fund transportation.  As you can imagine it's a huge problem.

    This is enforced by Troopers, who don't actually investigate crimes, at least in Texas.  They are the highway authorities, so even though it seems really lame, it's fairly important so people like my dad can get fuel without paying the exorbinate highway taxes on his farm.

    If you ever see a trooper putting white cloth like stick in in the fuel tax on a trucker, they are testing to see if it's died (purple).

    And although this is different, I used to work at BFI and had to file a IFTA report.  Which basically accounts for trucks, in our case garbage trucks, pay the correct tax in the correct state.  For example, if they refuel in Jersey, then run half that tank of fuel in New York, this report ensure New York gets their fair share of the tax since the trucks are using their roads.  Ditto for the long haul driver who fills up in California and crossed several other state on that tank of fuel, everyone gets what due to them.  I work in tax and find all of this very interesting, and unlike most taxes, it pretty cut and dried.

    Anyways, I guess my point is they take this tax fairly seriously, and not just on the enforcement end, they work hard so the cash ends up where it should.

    Parent

    The timing... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 08:54:45 AM EST
    is what caught my attention...gas prices are killing working people right now, and the state's chosen course of action is to step up tax enforcement to make sure their end is covered.  Sheriff of Nottingham sh*t.

    Not saying gas taxes aren't necessary to maintain the roads...but their timing sucks ya know?  Times like this we should be talking about gas tax holidays, not increased enforcement.  I also wonder how much the enforcement effort cost the state vs. how much extra tax they collected...does it even make financial sense?

    Parent

    Who Knows (none / 0) (#85)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 03:17:14 PM EST
    I wasn't arguing one way or another, just providing some info.

    I do suspect enforcement is up because the profit margin is increasing, like drugs, making the incentive a lot more attractive.  Let it stick and $5 and they'll be smuggling that S in the country in tuna cans and sofas.

    Parent

    Yeah man... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 03:42:58 PM EST
    like that last link I put up there...some clown with a couple hundred likely stolen gallons of gas in the back of a van busted at a toll booth.

    Scary from a safety persepctive, from an economic perspective I wondered where I could score some of that bootleg gas and what it goes for per gallon;)

    Parent

    I think it probably (none / 0) (#91)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 03:50:16 PM EST
    goes for the same price as "legal" gas, kdog... unless you're an "insider".

    This is from 1997... a $10 million bootleg gas scheme

    The investigation began in May 1994, after state police received information that large amounts of bootleg gas were being shipped to Long Island.

    During the probe, cops conducted surveillance of gas delivery trucks as they traveled from refineries in New Jersey to gas stations in Suffolk. Most of the gas wound up being sold by unaffiliated gas stations, prosecutors said.

    Catterson said the scheme was carried out for 18 months until last September, when 11 gas delivery drivers were arrested and search warrants executed.

    During that 18 months, the alleged bootleggers shipped 30 million gallons of gasoline through phony companies to avoid paying $10 million in sales taxes, Catterson said.

    -- NY Daily News



    Parent
    Go Get You Some Gas (none / 0) (#92)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 06:27:42 PM EST
    ... and cut it with washer fluid, then sell it.  Not sure how you unload 20 gallons of bootleg gas, but Craigslist would be a good start.

    Bootleg fuel comes from the places on earth without regulation, I can't imagine it would be near good ole' US of A refining quality petro and I am positive, some clown in the process is cutting it with something your car probably doesn't like.

    Vehicle schwag, you get what they iz selling, it ain't Walmart, and there iz no return policy.

    Parent

    I don't think so... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 07:55:31 AM EST
    I think its more likely good ol' USA refined petro that somebody siphoned out of a fuel truck in the middle of the night.

    I hear ya, not worth the risk to your auto...yet;)

    Parent

    I Saw Something A While Back... (none / 0) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:08:01 PM EST
    ...they had smuggled gas in 55gl barrels marked 'Washer Fluid'... Never mind, that was smuggle grain alcohol.

    Parent
    it's snowing! (none / 0) (#10)
    by CST on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 05:03:39 PM EST
    I can't believe this is only the second time all year I've seen snow in Boston.

    It's been insanely warm.  I bet everyone cancels school tommorow, just because they have an excuse.

    Back down to -30C here (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by observed on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 08:22:04 PM EST
    Oh well. In a month or two we'll be in the mud season. Yippee.

    Parent
    Braggart! (4.00 / 1) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 11:27:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Same here in VT (none / 0) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 11:27:28 PM EST
    We're expecting the first significant snow of the winter, about 6 to 8 inches where I am, up to a foot further north or in the mountains.  There's another big storm coming on the weekend, but they think that'll be mostly rain, so hoping the white stuff gets washed away.

    On the bright side, nature doesn't wait.  The first returning birds were seen today in my area, a killdeer a couple miles away and a Red-Winged Blackbird at my feeder.

    Parent

    I like to ski (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CST on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:41:58 AM EST
    So I would like nothing more than spring in MA and winter in VT :)

    Nothing stuck, it's raining again today.  I'm not sure it ever got much below freezing yesterday.  This winter is nuts.  This weekend I was walking down the street and one of those nasty gusts came through, and I just thought man, I haven't had that bother me once this winter.  It's one thing when that wind hits you in 40-50 degree weather.  It's an entirely different thing when it hits in 10-20 degree weather.  I'm not sure we've had a real bone chilling day all year.

    Parent

    We've had a few (none / 0) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:37:20 AM EST
    A number of nights dipping below zero and a few days only in the single digits.  But it's so much less humid here year-round than it is around Boston that it rarely seems as bone-chilling.  About the only time it does is when we get moisture-laden winds blowing up from your area!

    It's weird that a 30-degree day with a humid wind feels much, much nastier than 10 degrees and a northerly wind.


    Parent

    Jones and some of his (none / 0) (#12)
    by brodie on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 05:23:56 PM EST
    Oliver Broadway cast also made an important appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show in early 1964.  A really big shoe that night as it also featured the first live US tv appearance of the Beatles.  

    The Monkees made some quality pop tunes.  And it didn't hurt that they had people like Carole King and Neil Diamond providing them songs.

    You ask (none / 0) (#14)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 06:03:33 PM EST
    we deliver

    Davy Jones on Ed Sullivan

    Parent

    Wow, really? I remember that "shew" (none / 0) (#38)
    by Towanda on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 01:12:29 AM EST
    so well -- Beatles fan that I was, even before they came to these shores . . . and yes, I saw them on their first tour. (Ticket price:  $2.75.  I still have the stub.  But hey, that was a lot of babysitting at 15 cents an hour.)

    But I have no recollection whatsoever of the Monkees on the same show that night.  I really had no time for them -- like Zorba -- as a manufactured marketing brand.

    Hmmmm, I feel the need to go haul out my Beatles albums and spin some platters.  Yes, I still have the albums (and the Beatles trading cards and more) and keep a record player at the ready to get the real "garage sound" of ye olden days.

    Parent

    Not the Monkees on that Shew. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 01:52:10 AM EST
    The Monkees did not appear on Ed Sullivan that memorable February evening. Davy Jones appeared as part of the cast of Oliver. The Monkees had not yet been created.

    Like most in my particular segment of the baby boom, the Monkees were not my cup of tea. My younger sister, OTOH, was a big fan. I do believe that she still owns the complete boxed set videotapes of the Monkees TV show.

    I blame the Monkees for the plague of boy bands that came to populate the airwaves and deplete the piggy banks of tween girls in the '80 and '90s. The success of the Monkees showed entertainment executives that manufactured bands could successfully be sold to the public. A sad state for music.

    Parent

    The Monkees definitely (none / 0) (#46)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 08:47:19 AM EST
    appealed primarily to the under-14 set, though I would contend there is a difference between enjoying some of the songs they sang, penned by gifted musical artists, and being a fan of the silly tv show or being infatuated by an artificial put-together group of wannabe Beatles guys.  

    For instance, the song Pleasant Valley Sunday, written by Carole King iirc, is a worthy pop tune with relevant social commentary. Little Bit Me/You is another fine tune about the travails of a love relationship.  Several other tunes were well crafted and produced and still hold up today.

    My sense is that the Monkees were a secret guilty pleasure among many older teens and college agers at the time.  Definitely a socially dicey matter to openly admit liking their music beyond a certain age.

    Two other trivia notes:  Peter Tork beat out his roommate and friend Steven Stills to become one of the Monkees.  And guitar player Michael Nesmith wrote the tune Different Drum which became a great early hit for Linda Ronstadt.  That is musical talent.

    Parent

    Federal Judge's racist Obama email (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 06:43:46 PM EST
    The fact that this guy was deciding anyone's fate in ANY matter, Jaysus, retire to your ranch and stay there. (LINK)

    It's a 2-fer ... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Erehwon on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 12:51:03 AM EST
    Don't forget it is as misogynistic as it is racist ...

    Parent
    RIP Davy (none / 0) (#21)
    by chrisvee on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 06:47:11 PM EST
    Back when I was a wee lass of about 5,  Davy Jones was my first musical crush.

    Talk about tone deaf and starting out... (none / 0) (#22)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 06:58:49 PM EST
    on the wrong foot--new DEA Special Agent in Charge Barbara Roach:

    Right now, she is choosing a city for her husband and two children to live in where no marijuana dispensaries are allowed.

    "By federal law, marijuana is illegal," she said. "There is no medical proof it has any benefit. People are not taking into account what can happen to those who are growing it. There are homes with mold and water damage in the hundreds of thousands and there are children in there too."

    Kudos for Congressman Polis for calling her "nothing short of an affront to our entire state".

    Because... (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 09:37:07 PM EST
    ... it works for men.

    Parent
    It's the DEA, Donald; what else would (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 09:58:02 PM EST
    you expect from people who are making careers on enforcing the drug laws?

    And then there's the reality that stupid and ignorant are qualities that are not the sole province of men; it's entirely possible that those are qualities that serve her well because that's who she is and they help her do what she clearly and whole-heartedly believes in.

    Parent

    Mold? (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 08:24:04 AM EST
    Ya gotta be sh*ttin' me...the jackboot brigade is pulling the mold and water damage card?  

    Talk about grasping at straws.  Better fully prohibit all houseplants and place strict restrictions on the purchase of watering cans... war has been declared on mold and water damage people!

    She is undeserving of a fine name like Roach.

    Parent

    If we can decalre war... (none / 0) (#47)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 08:49:53 AM EST
    on water damage caused by idiot upstairs neighbors who leave their patio doors open in below zero weather and freeze their pipes and flood my unit, I might be on-board.  

    Parent
    War on Stupidity? (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:00:02 AM EST
    Not a bad idea...we can collar your upstairs neighbor and the Cock-Roach in one fell swoop!

    If a neighbor ever caused me to suffer water damage, I would hope it was due to growing...we could work that out in trade no worries;)

    Parent

    HR.347, 'Trespass Bill' will make protest illegal (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 10:12:13 PM EST
    Goodbye, First Amendment?  

    The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn't already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

    Don't worry. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn't mean he thought it was right.



    Yeah, if you can't protest (none / 0) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 11:34:03 PM EST
    right on the White House grounds, that totally ends the 1st Amendment fer sure.

    Parent
    OTOH... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:39:24 AM EST
    if our government can shield itself from ever having to see any protesting, what good is protesting gonna do?  

    I get the safety concerns and all, but first and foremost it's our f*ckin' house...every president resides there on a 4 year lease with an owners option to extend to 8.  They get in there and think they own the joint.

    Parent

    Eh (none / 0) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 02:59:31 PM EST
    kdog, they don't give a damn about protesters whether they can see them or can't see them.

    But it's really no longer possible to have uncontrolled crowds of people, especially angry ones, that close to the POTUS, especially a black one, sorry to say.

    Parent

    Gotta pierce that bubble somehow... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 03:11:06 PM EST
    the safety of our elected officials is secondary to the safety of our inalienable rights in my book.

    Parent
    We have never, ever (none / 0) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 07:12:08 PM EST
    had an inalienable right to go onto any property we want to for any purpose we choose.

    Never, kdog.  Your and my "inalienable rights" aren't even remotely being infringed on here.

    Having lived through the Kennedy assasination, followed a couple years later by the King assassination, followed by the other Kennedy assassination, then the near assassination of George Wallace, I perhaps have a better appreciation of why we selfishly do not want our elected and non-elected public figures being left open to being murdered quite so easily.

    Parent

    Personal safety is one thing (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by sj on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:01:04 PM EST
    But the bubble they want to create goes way beyond that.  I got a chill a few years ago when they first created the concept of "free speech zones".  A total oxymoron, imo.  What they are is a way to hide dissent.

    The elected officials are becoming courtiers, not representatives of the public that has elected them.  Or maybe I should put quotes around the word "elected".  When our only choices have been selected by other courtiers, what kind of choice is that, really?

    Parent

    I don't disagree, but (none / 0) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:47:18 PM EST
    keeping protests off the White House lawn isn't in the same category as keeping protesters a mile away from a political convention.


    Parent
    True dat (none / 0) (#96)
    by sj on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:16:46 AM EST


    Parent
    It's not like... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 07:41:53 AM EST
    elected officials are being mobbed at every turn...seems to me existing safety precautions are sufficient.

    Nobody is running around on the WH lawn now, not without a beatdown or worse.

    Parent

    So then what's your problem? (none / 0) (#105)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 04:25:22 PM EST
    And fyi, Jack Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were not assassinated by mobs, they were murdered by lone gunmen.  Bobby Kennedy was, however, murdered by a lone gunman hiding in a mob, and George Wallace nearly was.

    It's not the mob itself that's the problem, I would think it was obvious.  It's the homicidal nutjob using the mob as cover.

    Honestly, kdog, you can think better than this.


    Parent

    My problem? (none / 0) (#106)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 11:20:23 AM EST
    There is no pressing need for this legislation, especially in light of the potential further chilling effect it can have on legitimate vital protest...we need more of it, not less.

    Seems to me the man is planning ahead for hungry mobs, or the resurgence of OWS...the man should focus his efforts on the massive economic problems facing the poor, working, and middle classes...and not on further shielding themselves from us in a darker future.

    I'm kinda surprised you're defending the legislation G...ya know it would be whipped out and used on OWS, not some murderous whackjob.  

    Parent

    Non sequitur (none / 0) (#107)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 10:57:37 PM EST
    The legislation, as I understand it, would simply add codify in the law and add a criminal penalty for what has been the security practice around the WH for a long time, preceding even 9/11, I'm pretty sure.  No OWS folks are getting anywhere near the grounds, this legislation or not.

    This is a massive tempest in a teapot, IMHO.  It's far more an example of silly politicians posturing in an election year and wasting time than it is any kind of abridgement of anybody's rights.

    Let's save our outrage for genuine violations of civil liberties, of which there are plenty to complain about.


    Parent

    This is going to be a huge (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 11:31:03 PM EST
    issue at a lot of churches in the coming days.  A very large number of church choir directors and organists in every kind of church are gay, which most of the churches have probably figured out but avert their eyes from because good organists and choir directors are hard to find.  But when folks start getting uppity and deciding to get married, they either have to part company with them or deal with it.

    Several very good male church musicians here were (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 06:38:50 AM EST
    because their Presbyterian and Episcopal parishes decided they needed a family man" in that position. To the decided benefit of the Lutheran and Methodist parishes.

    Parent
    Site violator (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 07:04:06 AM EST
    persontest30

    In old threads.

    Hindustan Times cartoon: (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 08:57:53 AM EST
    In U.S. it only takes one ass (i.e., donkey) to trump an elephant (I.e., GOP).    Why does it take three asses to do the job in India?   It's election time.

    BSP party's national symbol is (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:11:14 AM EST
    The elephant.  

    Parent
    Andrew Breitbart dead at 43. (none / 0) (#51)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:00:58 AM EST
    Natural causes according to his website.

    Is God a natural cause? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by observed on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:09:30 AM EST


    Parent
    Which god? (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:13:42 AM EST


    Parent
    The beneficent one. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by observed on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:22:22 AM EST


    Parent
    Now I'm a Believer (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:23:23 AM EST


    Parent
    I saw him on the tube last week (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:25:00 AM EST
    and thought he was not looking good. I can't believe all that anger is healthy.

    Parent
    He was on Piers Morgan (none / 0) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:48:52 AM EST
    late Tuesday night after the MI & AZ primaries as part of a little panel of wingers Morgan's been having occasionally to talk politics.  He actually looked better than I've ever seen him.

    Morgan had teased him strongly the previous couple times about his hideous appearance-- unshaven, appalling hair, etc., and I was surprised to see he'd cleaned himself up.  I would have supposed his awful appearance was a deliberate badge of honor, but he seemed genuinely abashed about it.

    It was the first touch of actual humanity I've ever seen from him.  I was also surprised to learn from the obits that he was married and had three or four kids.


    Parent

    Wow. (Ambien?) (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:08:48 AM EST


    Parent
    Are you talking about the report... (none / 0) (#55)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:13:19 AM EST
    that supposedly linked taking sleep aids with early death?  

    Parent
    Yes, plus cancer. But a friend opines we are (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 05:36:54 AM EST
    tooare too old for early death!

    Parent
    Ambien causes cancer? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:10:08 AM EST
    Well, why should it be any different that anything else.  

    The problem with that study, IMO, is that it doesn't take into account the fact people who take sleep aids on a regular basis might have an underlying medical condition that necessitates the use of said aids.  That most likely would contribute to the "early death" more than anything.  

    I agree with your friend.  That point is in the rear view mirror.

    Parent

    No indication of that (none / 0) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:40:37 AM EST
    He's long had heart problems, apparently.

    Parent
    Attn.: kdog. Beware of plant life sniffing canines (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 05:46:54 AM EST
    @ Newark airport. Sussex out
    The apple in my carry on. Then the canine got a treat.

    Wednesday Open Thread | 102 comments (102 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment