home

Sunday Night Open Thread

"Breaking Bad" begins tonight.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome (except Zimmerman.)

< New Yorker Feature on Forfeiture Abuse | Eric Holder: Changes in Mandatory Minimum Charging >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Which of the things (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 09:35:34 PM EST
    we've learned from Edward Snowden would you prefer not to know? Which part of the surveillance story that's come to light should have remained in darkness?

    I think the entrance of his father (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 11:12:03 AM EST
    Into the discussion is going to change this conversation in a way that President Obama is not going to enjoy and may come to regret if he isn't very very careful.

    Parent
    I imagine they are (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:18:55 PM EST
    hunkered down in late night secret meetings in the white house - maybe even comin' in some saturdays now - brainstorming ways to make sure all the spying is "legal and aboveboard" and figure out some way - any way - to make what's left of his supporters more "comfortable" with him spying on them.

    He knows he has not quite a spying and lying problem but a "messaging" problem, of course, yes?

    Parent

    I would assume the WH is also (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 02:04:47 PM EST
    putting together a team from the CIA to tail Snowden's father in Russia, to try and nab Edward. I'm not sure Snowden's father should be making too many public statements about his travel plans.

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:14:16 PM EST
    And I wonder, did one of the 22 approve his tapping and tracking and tracing surveillance or is Booz Allen just getting a wee bit of metadata on the guy via an email?

    Parent
    Probably. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 02:11:59 PM EST
    Besides the immorality of the idea, I think that would probably be illegal to do in Russia, and I imagine the FSB probably already has a team to tail the CIA trying to tail Snowden's father in Russia.

    Parent
    More Importantly... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 02:37:38 PM EST
    ...how does one plan a trip to Russian to visit to visit one's son knowing the US government is not only following their every movement and communication, but wants that person very badly.

    Probably like the mob, turning up the radio, swapping phones, and using intermediaries, but at an almost uncompromisable level of sophistication.

    Once they meet, ditching surveillance is going to be a cake walk.  

    Parent

    Spy vs. Spy (none / 0) (#106)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 07:04:20 PM EST
    There is still something that gets missed (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:33:43 PM EST
    Over and over again too.  Even in BTDs diary about the loophole where there is no direct FISA.  As far as we know that only applies to NSA proper.  Booz Allen is no more the NSA than Blackwater Security is the United States Army.

    It took years too to unwind that maze for the general public.  At first, many reports of soldiers shooting up the streets would hit the news, people were appropriately angry.  When I questioned my husband though or showed him photos he would identify those entities as contractors.  The first year in Iraq the soldiers didn't even know who the contractors were or who they answered to.  We should never forget either that contractors were specifically used to interrogate and torture to avoid legal oversight.  The Abu Ghraib gang went to jail but they were rookies, they were softeners at best.

    I would read diaries where people had torn apart the UCMJ to find exact law that made what the contractors had done illegal, but nobody knew the contractors were not under the UCMJ.  It took another year at least before the masses who cared would come to understand that contractors in Iraq answered to no legal authority.  But our leaders knew, our leaders always knew, and everyone who quietly plodded up and down that hill silently enabled that thuggery.  The list is long and shameful.  They all hoped to use that thuggery in a "meaningful" way to improve the world.

    We have no legal evidence at all that Booz Allen is under the sort of NSA supervision that we were just spoon fed.  I'm willing to make a wager that that oversight is only upon the NSA proper.  All these contractors involved in this soup are there to enable thuggery under the radar!

    Parent

    I'll take it a step further (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:58:57 PM EST
    I would say that contractors collect the data the we are all freely giving out to google and netscape and everyone and their dog too.  I would also say that there is some sort of classified legalese written about how it is appropriate for the government to force those companies to share that information with Booz Allen, and then Booz Allen contractually "shares it" with the NSA.

    Voila, no direct spying on any American was done by the NSA but they have all your $hit.

    Parent

    And it isn't spying (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:01:24 PM EST
    They are simply gathering together and storing things you are freely giving to others.  That's not spying, that's collecting...or hoarding depending on how many psychologists are involved working for who :)

    Parent
    One way to immediately smell the (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:42:47 PM EST
    Bull$hit is just understanding that between 500,000 to 1,000,000 people work for the NSA or the CIA or some other branch of "the secret brotherhood" along with contractors.  Now entertain the notion that 22 people are able to competently oversee that.

    Parent
    22 people able to competently oversee (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:47:58 PM EST
    500,000 to 1,000,000 people and an eight sentence full year report provides Congress enough information for through and vigorous oversight.

    Somehow I have trouble buying into that as well.

    Parent

    Like a many tentacled empire (none / 0) (#82)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:59:37 PM EST
    that's taken on a life and survival instinct of it's own now. Or a rapidly replicating virus attacking the immune system of it's host.

    Parent
    Well, they are making everyone appropriately (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:11:22 PM EST
    Paranoid.  That is not how you are supposed to feel when you live in a democracy.  You are supposed to feel confident unless you have knowingly done a great harm in democracy.

    If someone shows up with a warrant and they download everything they have on you to include fights with your brother who has stolen your aged parents bank accounts and all the threats you made there.  Boy, for me that includes some murder.  And the time you and your SA decided to make a spontaneous major purchase at the same time that overdrew your bank account and that ensuing fight.  And let's see, how about the conversation that that guy you went to homecoming with a thousand years ago tried to start with you on Facebook (hubba hubba) holy cow, I have no idea what they can make out of all of our stuff over a long period of time.

    I suppose we could all gently appear to morph into potential organized criminals of some kind with a good dose of selective analysis and selective proof...all of us possible thieves and pimps and dealers and addicts :)

    Parent

    Meanwhile (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:17:25 PM EST
    some clear thinking democrats say today that they think Snowden should be granted amnesty from whatever charges might be dreamed up against him to satisfy the childish revenge seeking vindictiveness of obama and the NSA.

    "I think it would be best if the American government granted him amnesty to get him back to America where he can answer questions without the threat of prosecution," McClintock said. "We have some very good laws against sharing secrets and he broke those laws. On the other hand, he broke them for a very good reason because those laws were being used in direct contravention of our 4th Amendment rights as Americans."

    Sorry, I mean republican. McClintock is republican. The Rep. for California's 4th congressional district since 2009.

    No democrat would ever say anything so ridiculous of course, considering that it was Snowden, not the spying, that made obama look so bad. Of course. Of course... @@

    Parent

    Whatever brings Snowden home (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 06:56:14 PM EST
    I think in McClintock's mind Snowden is hemorrhaging information and the only thing that can happen from here is that more questions are posed that must be answered before they go away.


    Parent
    Snowden is not leaking anything anymore. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 07:09:20 PM EST
    The Guardian and Gleen Greenwald have all the documents Snowden took from the NSA  - around 15-20,000 to be published over time. They have made multiple copies and arranged for them to be released if anything happens to Snowden.

    Snowden can stay in Russia while meeting Putin's condition that he not release any more information.

    I think Snowden is home wherever he happens to live, like you or I or anyone else is.

    The only reason obama has to want him is revenge.

    Parent

    If that is Obama's only reason (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 07:32:28 PM EST
    This will only go badly for him from here.  I knew that Greenwald was writing a book and of course the documentary maker was making a film.  So all the work is done where that is concerned?

    I knew that Russia said he could stay if he leaked no more.

    We are at revenge?  This never goes well, for the person who has a goal only of revenge.  This always goes very badly for them.

    Parent

    Yes... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 07:40:10 PM EST
    Binyamin Applebaum of the NYT (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:56:37 PM EST
    tweets...
    What I've learned so far: Obama is really mad at Edward Snowden for forcing us patriots to have this ctritically important conversation.


    Parent
    And now that I have broken out the red blend (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:53:24 PM EST
    Before dinner.  Fusion centers!  How are fusion centers legal?  I need someone to tell me!

    Parent
    It's a (none / 0) (#96)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:18:53 PM EST
    transparency thing, I think. No?

    Wait...

    Parent

    A fusion center has to have a room (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:22:31 PM EST
    in it that is isolated and built to receive and transmit classified information.  I saw it on the specs when those were available.

    What in the hell is going into and out of the fusion centers?  Why are some law enforcement getting information they have no legal right to have and are now attempting to illegally falsify how they acquired that information?

    Oh yeah, and fusion centers, they did get the Boston Bombers.

    Parent

    Lol. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:23:59 PM EST
    What are the legal parameters and boundaries (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 08:11:55 PM EST
    Around a fusion center though?  Law enforcement is supposed to have a warrant to look into our lives.  Are fusion centers enabling law enforcement to look into all of our lives without a warrant?

    We have evidence that local law enforcement is manufacturing false evidence trails to attempt to legitimize some of the evidence they mysteriously have. How is this occurring?  If they had the warrants nothing would need to be manufactured.

    Parent

    I have to admit (none / 0) (#115)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 08:55:09 PM EST
    I don't enough about them to make any informed comment about them, but they do sort of sound like the MERS of surveillance, don't they? Dump everything into one big database and never mind the titles to the properties?

    Parent
    The problem is none of us know (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 02:21:59 AM EST
    Enough to make an informed comment.  That is by design.

    Parent
    Former staffer of Ron Wyden asks Obama (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by shoephone on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 09:43:56 PM EST
    the following:

    "Really, Mr. President? Do you really expect me to believe that you give a damn about open debate and the democratic process?" Hoelzer wrote in TechDirt. "Because it seems to me if your Administration was really committed those things, your Administration wouldn't have blocked every effort to have an open debate on these issues each time the laws that your Administration claims authorizes these programs came up for reauthorization, which -- correct me if I am wrong -- is when the democratic process recommends as the ideal time for these debates."

    I won't blockquote too much of the article because  it's not that long, but this is the main point:

    "Congress and the public are prevented from having an informed, open debate on the Patriot Act because the official meaning of the law itself is secret," Hoelzer wrote, quoting from a 2009 Huffington Post piece co-written by Wyden and Sen. Mark Udall, How Can Congress Debate a Secret Law? "Congress and the public are prevented from having an informed, open debate on the Patriot Act because the official meaning of the law itself is secret," Hoelzer wrote, quoting from a 2009 Huffington Post piece co-written by Wyden and Sen. Mark Udall, How Can Congress Debate a Secret Law? "Most members of Congress have not even seen the secret legal interpretations that the executive branch is currently relying on and do not have any staff who are cleared to read them. Even if these members come down to the Intelligence Committee and read these interpretations themselves, they cannot openly debate them on the floor without violating classification rules."


    Breaking Bad tonight (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 10:51:44 PM EST
    Hi guys, tonight's Breaking Bad episode will not have any closing credits, instead it will have a dedication to Kevin Cordasco, the son of a dear friend of mine.

    6 years ago, at age 9, Kevin was diagnosed with stage 4 Neuroblastoma and spent the following 6 years battling the cancers like no warrior has ever fought before.

    His positive spirit, infectious laughter and profound kindness touched so many souls. For example, when he finally succumbed to the inevitable this past March, so many of his teachers from his elementary, middle and high schools attended his funeral that the school district did not have enough substitute teachers to cover the classes.

    There is so much more I could say about this brave soul, of how he touched and inspired those who ever had any contact with him, but this is not really the time or place.

    He was a warrior, through and through.

    Kevin, I'm blessed just to have known you.

    That brought tears to my eyes (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by shoephone on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 11:21:21 PM EST
    If you visit (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:00:42 PM EST
    a children's hospital, nothing is more wrenching than to see a dying child attempting to comfort their parents.

    Parent
    Thank you for sharing that (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:18:07 PM EST
    I saw the dedication at the end and knew it must be someone special. I hope the gesture brought some small bit of cheer to his family.

    Parent
    So sorry (none / 0) (#52)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:15:13 PM EST
    for your loss, and especially for your friend's loss.  It's so incredibly hard to lose a child.
    It sounds like Kevin was a very special kid.


    Parent
    Damn... (none / 0) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:47:47 PM EST
    ...that really got to me.


    Parent
    I noticed that at the end. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:08:03 PM EST
    We all know that Mother Nature can occasionally throw us a nasty curve ball, but few are more cruelly perplexing than the one which upsets what we perceive to be the natural order of things, resulting in parents having to endure the death of their own child. My sincere condolences to your friends on the loss of their young son.

    Parent
    Plant mines (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 10:53:15 PM EST
    Waging peace in Utrecht

    On saturday the 27th of July we hid our plantmines at the Vredeskermis in Utrecht to ambush unsuspecting passersby with an explosion of flower confetti!

    While walking peacefully in the park or along the sidewalk, enjoying the weather, you're suddenly blasted by a multicolor explosion of flowers! You're surrounded by a cloud of flower confetti, gently floating down around you. This can only mean one thing: you've stepped on a Plantmine!

    The plantmines are a new form of militant guerrilla gardening. Instead of the usual tactics of just planting flowers and plants at night, the plantmines have taken a page from guerrilla warfare. Using mines, boobytraps and roadside bombs they spread flowers, colour and happiness throughout the city, by any means necessary.

    When you trigger one of these plantmines they shoot a cloud of flower confetti at you. The flower confetti contains flower seeds, to create a permanent happy and colourful spot in the place of the plantmine explosion. The explosion of flower confetti also serves as an instant party to celebrate that you live in a country where you don't have to worry about stepping on a real landmine.

    Also, Dutch Artists Celebrate George Orwell's Birthday By Putting Party Hats On Surveillance Cameras

    Somebody obviously needs to spy on and monitor terrists like these people. If they can get away with planting plant mines in public and nobody knew they were doing it then we need a massive global surveillance operation created, in case they decide to have a conference call.

    You do find the most interesting things (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by shoephone on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 11:24:58 PM EST
    People can be (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:03:05 AM EST
    pretty good sometimes, can't they? ;-)

    Parent
    And activists in (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:23:08 PM EST
    Sweden have painted a rainbow on the crosswalk in front of the Russian embassy in Stokholm, to protest Russia's anti-GLBT law.
    Link.

    Parent
    I suspect (none / 0) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:27:35 PM EST
    we'll see more than a few small rainbow flags in Sochi during closing ceremonies in February.

    Parent
    I think so, too (none / 0) (#57)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:47:07 PM EST
    I wonder what the Russian authorities would then do?  

    Parent
    This might answer your question (none / 0) (#99)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:41:03 PM EST
    Russia Confirms Anti-Gay Law Will Be Enforced at Olympics

    The head of Russia's National Olympic Committee Alexander Zhukov stated it plainly.

    "If a person does not put across his views in the presence of children, no measures against him can be taken," Zhukov said. "People of nontraditional sexual orientations can take part in the competitions and all other events at the Games unhindered, without any fear for their safety whatsoever."



    Parent
    Don't ask/don't tell. (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:59:52 PM EST
    What constitutes 'putting across his views'? (none / 0) (#133)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 12:09:51 PM EST
    Are they going to ban children from the venues? That would seem to me to be better than making the athletes act any differently than they would at home.

    Parent
    This is Russia (none / 0) (#137)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 01:24:09 PM EST
    If Putin wants someone arrested they will be, if he doesn't they won't be arrested. Actions will mean less than how it might effect Putin or party officials directly.

    I don't think it would be a good idea for anyone to attempt to make a statement, but I am not against civil disobedience for a good cause.

    Parent

    Lynne Stewart (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by bmaz on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:38:23 AM EST
    So, within days of seeing to it that Lynne could not receive compassionate release, Holder and Obama are now going to announce, to big fanfare, a new initiative that will, in part, provide early prison release for non-violent drug offenders. To know this DOJ is to really loathe it.

    As to the big new drug plan, I applaud the desire to at least discuss implementation of diversion, saner charging guidelines and early release; but....at least in my district we used to have diversion available years ago. ALL of these things are things Obama and Holder should have had the courage to do on day one.

    Lets hear it... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 08:52:25 AM EST
    for Judge Scheindlin for correctly ruling the obvious...NYPD Stop & Frisk Program has violated the constitutional rights of tens of thousands of people.  A federal monitor will be appointed to try and make the law abide by the laws they find inconvenient.

    Good ruling IMO (none / 0) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 08:59:31 AM EST
    ...Judge Scheindlin found that the New York police had overstepped that authority. She found that officers were too quick to deem as suspicious behavior that was perfectly innocent, in effect watering down the legal standard required for a stop.

    She noted that about 88 percent of the stops result in the police letting the person go without an arrest or ticket, a percentage so high, she said, that it suggests there was not a credible suspicion to suspect the person of criminality in the first place.



    Parent
    Another important point regarding (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 11:11:31 AM EST
    It should disqualify him... (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 11:40:09 AM EST
    from remaining police chief...tens of thousands of cases of illegality on his watch.

    But it won't disqualify for either position..in fact it probably pads his resume for DHS head.

    Parent

    Unfortunately, you are probably right (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 11:46:36 AM EST
    that it probably pads his resume for DHS head. The willingness to implement unconstitutional actions have been in high demand since 9/11.

    Parent
    It would be a "contradiction" ... (none / 0) (#189)
    by heidelja on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:38:18 AM EST
    ... of immense proportions if Kelly is appointed to head the DHS. It would then be that the very Federal agency (TSA) accused over and over of "racial profiling"  and "intrusive body searching" going headed by one a Federal judge has ruled "has overstepped his authority" on all that!

    Parent
    The problem is that... (none / 0) (#191)
    by heidelja on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:40:33 AM EST
    ...Democracy only seems to play out these days when there is mass Conservative opinion (hysteria) expressed for a cause. (The Patriot Act comes to mind.)

    It would seem that at this juncture proponents of "stop and frisk" would be providing some ugly statistics for people seen exhibiting "furtive movements" to justify it. Opponents say that about 12% of those subjected to "stop and trial" (Who also exhibited furtive movements?) actually MIGHT be argued to have been justified by the contraband found.

    The unrevealed potential problem with "stop and frisk" is whether it has been used as any form of systematic performance (quota) measure by the NYPD.

    Parent

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 96 (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 10:56:19 AM EST
    "Casual Encounters" can't hold a friggin' candle to
    "Appliances For Sale." (link)

    Volume 95
    Volume 94

    Have a lovely Monday peeps. I have three 13/14 y.o. boys crashed on my living room floor, one of them my son, and I'm taking bets on what time they drag themselves into the realm of the living today. I have money on noon. Ah, adolescence!

    Peace.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY (a free comic a day)

    Donald... (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 11:21:50 AM EST
    ...to continue from a closed post.

    You mentioned your dog would look for a football behind the TV if it went off the screen and remarked something about not being that bright.

    There was a program on PBS that investigated the intelligence of mans best friend.  One of there tests was they used was to roll ball on the floor, there was an partition between the dog and the ball.  Same concept as you mentioned, they wanted to see if when the ball disappeared, the dog was smart enough to look on the other side partition before it cam out.

    My point, your dog was very smart, not many dogs understand motion once they can't see something.

    Side note.  They studied where dogs leave things, like toys, to see if there was some sort reason behind it.  While they didn't discover the reason, they figured out that they do it in patterns.  Always triangles no matter the number of toys and whether they are in the house will walls as barriers or outside.  Triangles of the same shape and size for all dogs.

    In a couple cases they mounted cameras on the roofs of houses with dogs that used doggie doors.  One doberman, I believe, put like 20 toys out there in very symmetrical and organized triangular patters that was very evident because of the camera allowed one to look down at the patterns.  Something that one would never notice from the ground.

    Who knows why, but I think the point is there is a lot more going on than we think there is.

     

    I would like (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by sj on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 11:34:20 AM EST
    to see that program. When did it air, and do you remember what it was called?

    Parent
    I Probably Saw it a Year Ago (none / 0) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:49:12 PM EST
    Now that I think about it, I think it was the History Channels Modern Marvels: Dogs, but not 100%.  

    Also I keep forgetting to watch the one on Netflix, The Science of Dogs.  I think that ones dives more into why they are our best friends and how we managed transform wolves into companions and highly effective tools.

    Parent

    Do you think it may have been (none / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:09:19 PM EST
    any of the four documentaries on this DVD?

    Parent
    I Honestly Don't Know (none / 0) (#69)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:27:01 PM EST
    I only guessed at the Modern Marvels thing because I DVR them.  But many of those are on You Tube.

    Parent
    I will have to watch for those patterns now (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:27:21 PM EST
    Maybe it will keep me from stubbing my toes on half chewed bones. I wonder if my 2 dogs share a triangle, or each have their own? Interesting!  

    Along those lines...I have two doggie doors, one in back of the house and one that leads into a little screened porch on the side. Sometimes I shut the sliding glass door that leads to the porch on the side. If my older dog goes outside via the back door, then wanders around to the side and can't come in the side door, he will stand there and bark - never try to go back the way he came. The other dog will figure it out in 5 seconds and go back in the back door the way she went out. Also, if she is in the house and wants to go out to the screen porch on the side to chase a lizard, but the sliding door is closed, she will go out the back doggie door and go up the side of the house and go into the screen porch that way. I think that is VERY smart to figure all of that out - or at least not supremely lazy like the other dog!

    Parent

    I will, too (none / 0) (#49)
    by sj on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    I will have to watch for those patterns now
    I wonder if my girl leaves her toys in the triangle. To me, it looked like she just left them where they were last tossed after she finished playing with them. Having said that, it does seem as though the toys tend to "congregate" in the same general places...

    Parent
    Maybe I need to rearrange my furniture (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:11:47 PM EST
    to accommodate ;-) Just another service I perform for them!

    Parent
    LOL! That's really interesting. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 02:40:53 PM EST
    Dolly is long gone, but I'm sure she'd doubtless appreciate the fact that some three decades after her passing, her master learned she was not the silly little bimbo he thought she was, after all.

    ;-D

    Parent

    An interesting Supreme Court (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 07:52:28 PM EST
    First amendment case.  Are taxes on strip clubs and lap dances in strip clubs a freedom of expression violation, especially considering the fact that ballet and Broadway dancing get tax exemptions?  Is this "content-based discrimination?"

    Daily Gazette.

    Business Insider.

    Nice to see the full court opinion (none / 0) (#123)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 10:35:15 PM EST
    "the club noted a section of tax code that states a sales tax is imposed on any "admission charge" for the use of any place of amusement in the state, except charges for admission to "dramatic or musical arts performances.""

    Makes me curious about who pays and who doesn't in the present system. Where would a merry go round fall in the tax scheme?

    Parent

    Years ago, (none / 0) (#177)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:19:19 PM EST
    I went to see a stage production of the musical "Hair." Towards the end of the show, the entire cast appeared on stage totally nude, while singing. But I guess this would be okay for tax purposes because it is " Broadway dancing." So who the heck knows? ;-)

    Parent
    Remember Clapper? (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 08:58:10 PM EST
    The NSA guy who lied to Congress? You know, the one everyone thought should be fired? Well, Obama's got something else in mind for him: Leading the investigation about people at the NSA who lie to Congress.

    You ever get the feeling that Obama is deliberately pi**ing in your face?

    That reeks of Big Brother (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 09:49:08 PM EST
    to such a degree it's hard to fathom people like Ron Wyden won't try to take Obama to the woodshed over it. Let's hope so anyway. Clapper committed perjury, and should be charged with that felony, IMO.

    Parent
    Had to check where the article was posted (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 10:01:27 PM EST
    It read too much like something that you would find in The Onion. Unfortunately, it is not.

    The NSA guy who lied to Congress has been assigned the duty of leading the investigation about people at the NSA who lie to Congress.

    Parent

    I've just emailed Senator Wyden (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 10:09:47 PM EST
    about it.

    Parent
    In light of this Clapper appointment (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 10:33:11 AM EST
    I think everyone needs to ask themselves now... just how stupid does obama assume you are?
    .......

    The other day Brad DeLong had a post on his site titled Obama: Please Be Nice to Me as I Fail to Deal with This Awful Mess I Created!

    One commenter there replied with, among other things in his comment, this...

    Perhaps I say this to my shame, but I really did not take a great interest in the Snowden revelations, because like many people I have learned to take for granted the idea that the government is either actually or potentially spying on everything I do. And so I have just learned to live with that belief and try to proceed as normal.

    But then Obama got his European cronies to force the humiliating landing of a plane containing a South American head of state, displaying the most damaging kind of throwback ugly gringo arrogance. And now he has cancelled a summit with Russia over this business. To me, this smacks of an administration that is becoming unhinged. They are putting long term diplomatic priorities and the nation's reputation at risk over this one guy and his hard drive?

    And why is it they are becoming unhinged? Because Snowden has revealed damaging national security secrets, and knowledge of vital programs that people didn't already know existed in some form? Maybe, but I doubt it. My suspicion is that they are becoming unhinged because the national security and homeland security apparatus of the United States is now crawling with compromised individuals who have spent a decade committing all kinds of crimes, and either lying about them outright, or relying on the many walls and layers of officialdom, bureaucratic flak and state secrecy to keep these deeds from becoming public. They are all worried that people have had enough with police departments armed to the teeth like armies, an oppressive GWOT that never ends, and a state that watches everything ordinary people do while letting criminal predator plutocrats skate free and hold multi-million fundraising dinners for our bought off politicians. They are worried that the dikes holding in the ten year reign of ugliness are about to rupture, and so they are putting enormous pressure on Obama to hold back the tide and save their rears.



    Parent
    No words really to describe this horse$hit (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 01:45:31 PM EST
    And now they have me dissing good fertilizer.

    I can't remember such blatant in your face go piss off attitude since 2008.

    This President needs to snap out of it.  Having some insomnia last night I rewatched The World According to Dick Cheney, and in the second half of the Bush administration when they truly earned worst administration in the history of the country, several chickens came home to roost all at once.

    There is another diary up at Orange, a person who is insured who was charged some really heavy fees for using an out of network provider that they didn't even know was out of network until...oops, too late.  This person just now discovered what I discovered about our reformed insurance, those charges do not apply to your high deductible nor the yearly cap.  President Obama, you need to fix this now.  This is going to destroy your healthcare reform my friend and any good that could have come from it.  I hope he's ready for this fight.  He had plenty of time to prepare, to see it coming, he had better come out swinging and knock the crap out of insurers first punch.

    You add this NSA stuff to that soup, things are not looking good for the White House.  Where does this attitude come from?

    Parent

    Well, now I see I am way behind the curve (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 01:53:12 PM EST
    Anyhow.  The Obama administration has granted transition relief to some insurers concerning these out of pocket caps.

    Have they lost their minds?  This country is still paycheck to paycheck for most everyone.  People were crippled and still can't get up, but we will have to pay for crap....by law, we will have to pay for crap, pay the uber super already sweltering wealthy more while we get nothing.

    They have lost their minds in the White House!  The Obamaroxers at Orange are having their arses handed to them right now too.  Because there is no way if you are a liberal, or a progressive, or a Democrat that you can honestly come to the conclusion that Obama rox today.  He can come to rox at a later date if he so chooses, but he can't possibly rox today.

    Parent

    Oh, honey (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by sj on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 03:53:13 PM EST
    ... you are way behind the curve. That really bums me out, too, because you were my success story. You and ABG's little brother. Even though I have had huu-u-u-ge doubts about the [un]ACA, it made me feel better that y'all were better off in some way.

    Parent
    I haven't completely given up (none / 0) (#178)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:33:47 PM EST
    It is what we have to work with.  The Patient's Bill of Rights is very important.  And they aren't denying Josh, but they are sending us crazy bills that I must fight and fight and fight.  And I win those fights so far, but medically stressed families having to fight and argue and fight and fight and fight?  It's crazy, the crazy was supposed to be over.  Obama spent almost all of his first term political capital on this.

    Are all these holes going destroy everything worth saving though?  There were things that were going to have to be worked on but as things stand right now there were so many holes the insurance companies can exploit I am beginning to doubt it will ever get off the ground.

    Separate legislation was passed specifying that Tricare must meet the ACA basic services and by God that is what they are trying to give us.  Being military though I can get my reps on the phone.  My spouse is a resident of FL.  We are discussing from here on out just sending all of these bogus medical bills to Alan Grayson and letting him do with them what he will if he is so inclined.

    The Tricare Patient Bill of Rights stipulates that my responsibility is to resolve all disputes through Tricare channels but they are already failing three times now...same fail, same fight...a bogus point of service fee that came to a total of around $25,000..  I think I have met my responsibility and now I'm done.

    Parent

    If this were an Onion article, (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 03:25:20 PM EST
    I would expect to read that Clapper's Presidential Review Group was co-chaired by Scooter Libby and Elliot Abrams, with Henry Kissinger as chief of staff.  And, the report's boiler plate was to follow that of the internal review by the FBi that concluded that the agency would not have been able to stop the Boston Marathon tragedy based upon the information that was available to it prior to the attack.   But, this was not an Onion article so this could never happen, right?

    Parent
    By obama... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 10:03:45 PM EST
    Well, he did promise transparency, after all.....

    Parent
    NSA, FISA and the DNA of Tyranny (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 10:14:12 PM EST
    With each passing day, it becomes more evident that the main purpose behind [the] illegal, warrantless domestic spying program is not collecting intelligence on terrorists and would-be terrorists - a task for which the government's existing draconian powers of surveillance were more than sufficient. As many people have noted, [the president] already possessed the legal right to order the immediate surveillance of any person in the country, subject to the sole restraint of having to seek approval from the secret FISA court within 72 hours. Given the established record of this court's near-total acquiescence to thousands of such requests over the years, it is simply impossible to believe that it would not grant its ex post facto approval to any surveillance ordered by [the president] which had even the most tenuous connection to a potential terrorist threat.

    This undeniable reality leaves us with only one logical conclusion: [the president's] secret spy program is designed for activities not covered by FISA's copious security blanket. It is now apparent that these activities include using the vast powers of federal, state and local governments to spy on the [...] Administration's perceived political "enemies" - a vast group, given that the [...] definition of an "enemy" is anyone who opposes any of their policies. ([they] don't have "opponents," in the traditional sense - honorable rivals in the give and take and compromises of ordinary politics ; like all radical extremists, they have only "enemies" who must be "destroyed.")

    by Chris Floyd at Empire Burlesque
    January 11, 2006

    (yes, you read that right: 2006)

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 97 (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 10:13:38 AM EST
    I'm angling to get in on this company's IPO (link).

    Volume 96
    Volume 95

    Peace out, peeps. It's psychotherapy day for Dadler, where he gets to talk to his shrink about what it's like to be the product of parents who have 9 marriages between the two of them. HINT: it's not good.

    But, hey, we all got our problems.

    The Hill (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 10:03:59 AM EST
    "reported on Tuesday that..."

    The Obama administration is denying that James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, will control a review of the government's surveillance programs.

    And that...

    The review is part of the president's push to restore public trust in the program

    And that all the president did was...

    sent a memo to Clapper on Monday, directing him to establish the group.

    So it appears that all Clapper will do is choose the people will make up the group.

    Which should help lay the foundation for plausible deniability.

    Heh.

    "It wasn't me! I was down the hall spying on someone when it happened."

    I have a question about TL policy (none / 0) (#3)
    by Politalkix on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 09:58:33 PM EST
    Are we allowed to provide a link or reproduce comments made by commenters on another thread to argue a point? Jeralyn, please let me know if you are reading this thread. You had told me some time ago that we could not. A commenter (Shoephone) is challenging me on this issue.

    No, you can't bring up (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 11:42:33 PM EST
    commenters' old comments to challenge them. It's too easy to take them out of context, and it leads to spats between commenters which distract from the topic of the post, and are unpleasant to slog through.

    Parent
    It is not uncommon for certain people to make (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:15:58 AM EST
    things up to discount what another commenter is saying. For example, not long ago someone rather than debate a particular point stated that I called everyone who disagrees with me a "hater." That was pure fabrication. I have never used that term since I believe it is a discounting technique and I throughly dislike anyone using it to avoid an honest debate. When I challenged the person who made this false accusation to provide one link where I had called anyone a "hater" it would have been very easy for the person making the accusation to cite your rule so that she could continue to make her false statements about this and other things.

    Parent
    And this isn't even about what one (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 06:25:26 AM EST
    commenter said to another, but about something Commenter One asserted about what Commenter Three had said in the past that Commenter Two did not recall.

    I'm Commenter Three, and in an effort to stop the squabbling between Commenters One and Two, expressed an opinion that more or less acknowledged that I had in fact expressed this same opinion in the past.

    It didn't help, because what Commenter One wanted was for Commenter Two to admit that she was wrong and he was right.  Worse, the point raised by Commenter One in the first place had nothing, really, to do with the actual conversation, but had been offered as a kind of slap in the face to me.  So, even without citing actual comments from the past, the spat continued, the thread got diverted and a lot of sand got thrown around the sandbox.

    The whole thing was ridiculous - and as you can see, got carried into this thread; I hope this is where it ends.

    Parent

    Is it alright for a person to make a (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:37:57 AM EST
    personal accusation about another commenter on TL and then when challenged about the accuracy of their personal attack claim that they are prohibited from proving that the personal attack is accurate because you forbid them from providing a link to substantiate their claim.

    Parent
    Get over it. (none / 0) (#15)
    by scribe on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:29:14 AM EST
    Whatever it was.

    Life's too short.

    Parent

    I personally do not think that debates (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 07:50:18 AM EST
    on issues are enhanced by people making things up and making false claims or accusations about other people. If you enjoy that type of interaction then I suggest that you can find others on this site that will accommodate you.

    If life is so short why did you feel the need to interject your little "get over it" into a comment that had absolutely nothing to do with you? Maybe you need to get over your need to lecture others.

    Parent

    Thanks Jeralyn (none / 0) (#101)
    by Politalkix on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 06:10:41 PM EST
    Why don't you let Jeralyn clarify (none / 0) (#5)
    by Politalkix on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 10:11:51 PM EST
    for the benefit of all since there seems to be some confusion in this regard. Nobody is freaking out.

    From My Experience... (none / 0) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 10:28:20 AM EST
    ...the policy varies on many things, but the two you can count on.  Do you agree with Jeralyn, if not you must walk a tighter line than the people who agree with her.

    The second and fairly obvious is Jerlyn's availability.  Some days, any slip of the keyboard is quickly caught, and at other times, days of ridiculous commenting with no intervention.

    It's been my experience as long as you aren't a total jack a$$ or straight up express opinions as facts, your post in OK.

    That being said, I have noticed certain repeat offenders are either held to a greater degree of scrutiny because of their past behaviors.  The folks who are continuously instigating squabbles have a far greater chance of having their post deleted.

    It's not a very consistent policy and of course the developer, interpreter, and enforcer of the policy is a lawyer who just happens to be the owner as well.  Which basically means the policy is a courtesy and she can has the right to regulate any post.

    Parent

    Jeralyn has made this clear repeatedly (none / 0) (#48)
    by bmaz on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:59:47 PM EST
    ...including to you here. Why don't you just accept it?

    Parent
    Politalkix does accept it (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:20:44 PM EST
    but was being asked to post old comments from someone else recently and refused, with the result being the insinuation of Politalkix being a liar for not posting the proof.

    Without taking any stand on the actual discussion, I can say Politalkix was right in his/her interpretation of the TL rules.

    Parent

    Somehow (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by sj on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 02:52:21 PM EST
    what has gotten lost is the initial hostility that resulted in the request for proof of the accusation. And yes, PK was correct in his interpretation of the rules.

    I don't consider PK to be a liar, but throwing dirt around knowing he doesn't have to "prove" it is a common technique of his.

    And I know that because I used the same method PK did: I recalled a history of that commenter and then chose only one aspect and applied to the whole spectrum of his comments. It's BS on the face of it. Asking for proof may have been a non-starter, but I understand the motivation behind it.

    Parent

    Hmm let's look at what (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:27:32 PM EST
    Jeralyn said:

    No, you can't bring up commenters' old comments to challenge them. It's too easy to take them out of context, and it leads to spats between commenters which distract from the topic of the post, and are unpleasant to slog through.

    There is no qualifier in that statement that says that rule only applies to links to past comments. It says:

    No, you can't bring up commenters' old comments to challenge them.

    When Commenter One very definitely asserted something about what Anne had said in the past into a debate how does that not break the rule just because no link was provided?

    No, you can't bring up commenters' old comments to challenge them.


    Parent
    Silly me - I thought that by confirming (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:34:10 PM EST
    that I had the opinion attributed to me that we could just sidestep the whole business of linking to actual comments - I didn't want to indirectly violate any rules, even though I would be providing links to my own comments.

    In retrospect, I should have never taken the bait both christine and Politalkix threw out, and just treated their comments as the non sequiturs they were.

    I will never learn, apparently.

    Parent

    Anne I thought for sure (3.50 / 2) (#79)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:51:06 PM EST
    when you verified you had spiked the entire discussion. I too was mistaken. But I remember the discussion heading downhill when it was a back and forth between Politalkix and shoephone. I never saw you take the bait. You acknowledged and backed out.

    Parent
    And I said I would accept credence (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:20:23 PM EST
    in whatever Anne acknowledged. Guess you forgot that part. The most ridiculous part of the entire squabble was when PK told me I needed to go look through all of Anne's comments (all five years worth??) to verify for HIM what he was claiming.

    Please. It is to laugh.

    Parent

    Coral Gables (1.67 / 3) (#103)
    by Politalkix on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 06:38:34 PM EST
    This is my last post on this issue.

    I got baited into continuing the exchange with shoephone because in my mind I was certain that she knew the TL policy. Jeralyn had told me about this policy a few months ago after I had reproduced a comment that shoephone had posted in another thread while arguing with her. Jeralyn mentioned the policy publicly at that time. I therefore felt that she was taking advantage of the policy intentionally to insinuate I was lying.

    I am not allowed to provide a link or reproduce what Anne wrote. I am therefore just referring to one of Anne's post that will clarify my original point (hope I am not breaking any TL rules; if I am, Jeralyn can delete this post).

    Please check Anne's comment (comment # 44) in the thread "The Jobs Crisis". The thread was started on June 01, 2011 by BTD, Anne commented on June 02, 2011. The thoughts in the comment have been repeated many a time by her in different forms.

    Parent

    I'm sure glad (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by sj on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 07:43:07 PM EST
    that this is your last post on the issue. I hope that this is also that last time that you spitefully pull in the name of a [third-party]commenter who is not involved in whatever spat might be in process. There is no way you could have provided a link to "Commenter Two" and still have been in compliance with site rules.

    What you don't seem to understand, however, is that your original statement was in itself in violation of the very same rule that you invoked.

    Parent

    Youb didn't get baited, Politalkix, you (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 08:32:29 PM EST
    started it when you decided the thread really needed to veer away from the president's press conference so you and christine could join forces to discuss pop psychology.

    And while I briefly indulged you in hope of stopping the sniping, the fact remains that you brought psychology into the discussion for the express purpose of somehow rendering my opinions and comments not credible; it had no bearing on or relevance to what was being discussed.

    So, stop playing the victim; there is no violin small enough to provide the musical accompaniment this crap deserves.

    I don't know why this is all so important to you, but your disingenuous search for guidance on the rules is belied by the little road map you provided to one of my comments.

    Parent

    Fun and games at Missouri State Fair rodeo. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 08:36:22 AM EST
    More often than not lately (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 09:01:22 AM EST
    I find myself embarrassed by the actions of people in my state.

    Parent
    I feel the same about the idiots from my state, (none / 0) (#27)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 09:25:07 AM EST
    and we've plenty of them beginning with our wacko governor.

    Parent
    So you're from NC too? (none / 0) (#113)
    by unitron on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 08:18:46 PM EST
    : - )

    Parent
    I don't like anything that (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 09:18:46 AM EST
    shows violence towards Obama.

    But "disrespect?" Yeah. I got a lot of that for him.

    Parent

    The report I read (none / 0) (#43)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:29:52 PM EST
    said that the clown had his own microphone and said, "Watch out for that bull Obama"

    Anybody have a full verified transcript from a reliable source?

    I've seen links to video's of the event, but can't watch a video with sound during the work day.

    Seems on the face of it an act of ridicule.

    Parent

    ... if a likeness of President Obama was hung in effigy before the crowd, or a strawfilled replica of the man was tossed into a cage at a public gathering to be torn apart by dogs or some other apex predators?

    At best, I find such base appeals to people's very worst instincts to be mindlessly incendiary.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Like (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:35:18 PM EST
    like this? Or this?

    Parent
    Oh, is that supposed to provide balance? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:43:57 PM EST
    I stand by what I said. Period.

    Parent
    Yes (2.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:58:06 PM EST
    They are ALL despicable.

    If you can't see that, well then you need to take off your liberal blinders.

    Parent

    Tell me, jb -- where exactly did I ... (4.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:11:57 PM EST
    ... qualify my original statement as being mutually exclusive to either political party?

    Honestly, sometimes I think you just like to provoke fights with others. Why don't you go write for Politico or WaPo's Glenn Kessler, where you can no doubt perfect your pseudo-egalitarian "But both sides do it!" schtick under the supervision of some real masters of the form?

    :-(

    Parent

    Where you said? (2.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 07:29:32 AM EST
    "Is this supposed to provide balance?" Because of course, any insult to Obama is heightened and the memory is short as to the nastiness and offensive beahvior that has occurred on the left side of the aisle as well.  But of course, that gets brushed under the rug - your comment says as much.

    Honestly, sometimes I think you should go write for Pravda or some other publication where discussion and dissent are not allowed, and one must always adhere to the party line, even in the face of things like facts.

    Parent

    This discussion began when it was (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 08:41:58 AM EST
    brought to our attention that:

    A clown wearing a President Barack Obama mask appeared at a Missouri State Fair rodeo this weekend and the announcer asked the enthusiastic spectators if they wanted to see "Obama run down by a bull."

    Someone else opined that it seemed like an act of ridicule.

    Which is where Donald came into it, with a question, essentially, as to what the commenter's boundaries were on "ridicule."  And he further opined that appealing to people's worst instincts in this way was "mindlessly incendiary."

    Your response was to provide links to some very ugly actions-in-effigy where Bush and Palin were the subject.  You provided no other commentary.  No expansion of thought.  

    So, when Donald challenged you on the purpose of your providing the links, you let him have it, telling him that if he couldn't see how despicable it all is, he must be wearing liberal blinders.

    Except Donald never indicated that the only despicable acts are those perpetrated against Democrats, did he?  No, he was simply engaged in a dialogue with someone on the particular incident, that happened to have an Obama element.

    But did you ever acknowledge that?  Oh, no - you took it as a way to launch even more nonsense Donald's way, about all the terrible things the left does always getting swept under the rug.  Which you say Donald's comment says as much.

    What?  On what planet?  In what language?

    It was as if Donald and Mikado Cat were making spaghetti sauce, and you dropped in to take the spoon away and insist that if they couldn't see that this was supposed to be chicken salad there was something wrong with them - and then you had a hissy fit when you weren't allowed to get away with that crap.

    Sorry, jb, but you hoisted yourself on a petard of your own making.  Again.  


    Parent

    If youy say so (none / 0) (#152)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 02:37:24 PM EST
    Sorry, jb, but you hoisted yourself on a petard of your own making.  Again.

    But no - I feel quite confident that I could find many instances on this blog and elsehwere where commenters gave a pass to such things as a George Bush head hoisted on stick in Game of Thrones, for example.  Or called people like Sarah Palin stupid.  It's ok if they are Republicans, right?  Because Democrats are soooo much smarter and advanced.  Those who complain are just being unreasonable, right?

    So, YMMV, but I am not hoisted on anything, except in your imagintion, thanks.

    Parent

    You could find a slew of examples of (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 02:53:38 PM EST
    that, and in the general sense, it's a legitimate issue, but the conversation wasn't about which side is doing what and trying to pretend that only the evil Republicans do these terrible things - it was about a clown at a rodeo asking people if they wanted to see Obama run over by a bull.

    It was really Mikado Cat who minimized what the clown did, and Donald who decried what the clown was egging the crowd on to get behind - so why you decided to go after Donald for something he neither said nor even tried to do escapes me.

    No one said it was okay for Democrats to mock Republicans in the way you describe, and no one has claimed the Democrats to be smarter or more advanced, not in that exchange, and not here in general for a long time.

    If that's an issue you want to talk about, by all means, put up a stand-alone comment to address it, and we can all talk about it, but don't jump into a conversation, change the subject and try to put words in people's mouths.

    Parent

    Oy (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by sj on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 03:41:04 PM EST
    but I am not hoisted on anything, except in your imagintion, thanks.
    It's too bad this going to get even worse.

    Parent
    It's the jb-zone, where (4.00 / 4) (#163)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 03:51:27 PM EST
    whatever it was you thought the subject was, jb's here to tell you it was something else...you'll know you're in the zone if you unconsciously start humming "Cover of the Rolling Stone."

    Which has once again, ear-wormed its way into my head, so I'm there!

    [Oh, and I'll see your "oy" and raise you a "Blecchhh," with a dollop of "aaarrrrgggghhh."]

    Parent

    No, it's the "Anne Zone" (1.00 / 1) (#201)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:06:19 AM EST
    Where if you disagree, then you are relegatd to a multiparagraph tome about how wrong you are, questioning why you insist on being wrong, and explaining the history of your wrong-ness.

    Parent
    Rodeo clowns (none / 0) (#121)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 10:12:45 PM EST
    are not hung, or torn apart by dogs, they act foolish with a bull. Its a simple obvious distinction, ridicule vs violence or intention to harm physically.

    Parent
    Also "obvious" (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 10:14:16 AM EST
    The difference between "ridicule" and what the announcer actually did, which was ask (repeatedly) whether the spectators wanted to see Obama "run down by a bull".

    Parent
    The main (none / 0) (#139)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 01:34:21 PM EST
    difference I see is that a rodeo clown expressed his political opinion and has been fired and banned from his livelihood, and no doubt the subject of threats of real violence.

    Nothing said was in any way a threat to the actual president, it was mockery, and should be protected speech.

    Parent

    As opposed to ... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 02:06:16 PM EST
    Nothing said was in any way a threat to the actual president, it was mockery, and should be protected speech.

    ... Donald's examples, a "likeness" or "straw-filled replica" being burned or torn apart by dogs, which would be a threat to the actual President?

    Heh.

    BTW - I would agree that such speech is protected, but "protected speech"/1st Amendment protections are not unlimited and they apply to government action.  While members of the Missouri State Fair Commission are appointed by the governor, they are not a government agency.  Also, the rodeo clown has also not been "banned from his livelihood" - unless he only works one fair (the Missouri State Fair) every year.

    No idea what death threats he has or has not received, or what the relevance of such threats (real or imagined) is supposed to be ...

    Parent

    I saw that today (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 02:08:53 PM EST
    MO banned a clown, for life :)  Take that you clown :)

    Parent
    Rodeo clowns (2.00 / 4) (#160)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 03:46:17 PM EST
    are never intentionally injured in any way. They run around in a parody of danger and silliness. The setup and parody of danger is part of the act, not incitement to actual violence.

    As this does not cross that line it should be firmly protected freedom of expression, doubly so as it is clearly political dissent.

    Now if only the bull had been named Benghazi.

    Parent

    Who says it isn't? (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:42:30 PM EST
    As this does not cross that line it should be firmly protected freedom of expression, doubly so as it is clearly political dissent.

    You seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that the clown's 1st Amendment rights were violated.  They weren't.  There must be government action in order for the 1st Amendment protections to apply.  The Missouri State Fair Commission is not a government body.  Just like any private employer in most circumstances, they fire/ban an employee or contractor who says/does stupid stuff.

    No idea where you were going with the Benghazi comment ... maybe the Benghazi conspiracy theories are funny, ...

    ... like a clown?

    Parent

    It does not appear (none / 0) (#200)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:04:10 AM EST
    to be a private employer, but rather a quasi-government commission.

    Missouri State Fair Commission

    Parent

    I thought rodeos were (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 02:17:59 PM EST
    all about capitalism, not free speech :)

    Can't help it, I've been to many rodeos, more than I care to count.  All profit driven as far as I can tell.  If a clown is going to upset "folks", and half of your crowd may not show up if you hire him next year...he gets fired.  That's called the invisible hand :)

    Parent

    What about (none / 0) (#162)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 03:50:25 PM EST
    when 10% don't like the political expression and seek to cut off funding, access to facilities, attack people in their day jobs, the standard hypocritical road map.

    Parent
    Mikado: You may be confusing private (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:17:03 PM EST
    with public actions.  As mentioned above, the response of firing here was in the private context by the rodeo group.  What you seem to be alluding to now, tho, appears to be government (state or federal) funding & action situations ... those situations involving government funding or other actions "under color of state law" can & do give rise to civil actions in accord with the First Amendment and Civil Rights violations.

    Again, if I'm not mistaken, you seem to be equating this clown's rather idiotic, offensive behavior (a social issue as well as a private employment matter) with concepts & realities of minority rights/protections (your ref to 10%?)guaranteed by the Constitution.  In short: You or I can do something ugly, stupid, disgusting in public without violating the law ... but, that doesn't mean that an employer cannot (or should not) respond ... because it is not about hypocrisy but, rather, that apple really does not compare to this orange.

    Parent

    How about you tell us exactly who comprises (5.00 / 4) (#176)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:06:39 PM EST
    the 10% who don't like political expression and seek to cut off funding, access to facilities, attack people in their day jobs, the standard hypocritical road map that you are describing.

    Specifically who are these people? What funds are they seeking to cut off? What facilities are they attempting to block and where? What people are they attacking on their day jobs and where?

    Links would be nice.

    Parent

    It probably sounds crazy to some (none / 0) (#187)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 11:33:49 PM EST
    But rodeo clowns are show draws.  Some people will show up to a rodeo specifically to see a certain clown preform.  They are as important to a financailly successful rodeo weekend as having the highest scoring broncs, bulls, and PRCA riders.  A rodeo clown is an athlete, they are an oddball athlete but they are there for the pleasure of the audience and they end up getting paid based on their popularity and their fans.  Like all athletes, apparently they sometimes forget that the lasting impression they are making may offend some of their fans and affect their job situation.  I bet if he skillfully apologized they would consider lifting that ban.

    Parent
    That clown was fired by (none / 0) (#140)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 01:44:16 PM EST
    a private operation in Missouri.  No federal nor other government action is involved in this sensible response to his non-sensible, hate-filled public demonstration.  It has nothing to do with "protected speech" invasion, then; rather, it has to do with common decency.  IMO, from a decency standpoint, that clown got what he deserved.

    Parent
    Please (none / 0) (#182)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 09:45:11 PM EST
    don't take this as any form of concession, but I don't see this forum as an appropriate place to advance my views on freedom of speech.

    Parent
    Strange, ... (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 10:18:39 PM EST
    ... particularly considering you've already done just that.

    Ignoring the fact that there was no government action (and consequently no violation of the clown's free speech rights) will not make it go away.

    Parent

    WHAT do we really know... (none / 0) (#190)
    by heidelja on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:04:15 AM EST
    ...for the clown? Or should it be what has the "liberal media" not told us that maybe we should know?

    In view of what FINALLY was revealed yesterday in the matter of Paula Deen that should have been stated straight up by the media in the first place...the Plaintiff is WHITE...all "newsworthy" reporting of "race based" events should never go seen with more credibility than that for being systemic media acts for "race baiting" the viewing audience.

    Consider with this the reported "outrage" RE: Oprah Winfrey for her "I said, she said" spat between two individuals whose native languages were "Swiss" and "American" involving a $74,000 handbag only an Arab Sheik would ever be seen buying!

    Parent

    It's not often (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 08:14:17 AM EST
    that someone conflates handbags, clowns, and cooking.

    Parent
    Not Sure Why You Keep... (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 10:55:33 AM EST
    ...pushing what is a really dumb point about PD.  You assumed they were black, I knew they were white because I had read it.... drum roll, in the media.

    I also read, never mind, but your Oprah non-sense is full of errors and language meant to inflame.

    Let it go or at least have the decency to get informed on the topics you think are worthy of discussing.

    Parent

    In my opinion, this person is (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:00:01 AM EST
    trolling, perhaps as a result of withdrawal from the-trial-that-shall-not-be-named.

    S/he tried it in the Wednesday Open Thread, too, largely without success.

    Parent

    Is this some new political term? (none / 0) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 09:15:39 AM EST
    "moderate Republican conservatives"

    I am completely dismayed that people writing on Democratic blogs coin phrases like that when discussing a push back by conservative Republicans on policies that are viewed too extreme by even the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

    Republican writers shout about the extreme policies proposed by the "radical far left" or "socialists" when even the slightest liberal policy is proposed. Democratic blogs coin inane descriptors "moderate Republican conservatives."

    Blah

    I understand your feelings (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 09:20:07 AM EST
    I have long noted that there are no "moderate" Democrats...

    Parent
    I then to agree that there (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 09:22:49 AM EST
    few if any moderate Democrats. There are plenty of conservative Democrats though.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 09:24:09 AM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    Hit post when I meant to hit preview (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 09:27:54 AM EST
    The comment should have read:

    I tend to agree that there are few if any moderate Democratic politicians. There are plenty of conservative Democrats who are often described as moderate Democrats though.


    Parent

    A lot of "moderate Democrats" (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by itscookin on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 10:09:22 AM EST
    are now "left-leaning Independents". And more than s few "moderate Republicans" are now "right-leaning Independents". Add that to the folks who have always been independent, and they've got the makings of a new political party if they ever really start talking to each other.

    Parent
    "Well we could try to reason, (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 10:23:27 AM EST
    Hey, MrK! I wanted to thank you for letting me (none / 0) (#40)
    by vml68 on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:09:43 PM EST
    know about the Dylan concert at the Hoboken Pier. The husband and I really enjoyed it.

    Parent
    Stupendous show... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:39:00 PM EST
    glad you guys enjoyed it too...and what a view!  A view that you're used too living there I'm sure, but not with that kinda live soundtrack.  

    Now it's on to Fish Head Stew featuring several members of The Radiators this Sunday out in Amagansett...the hits keep on comin'!  Summer ain't over yet;)

    Parent

    Yes, I get to see that view everyday but it is (none / 0) (#47)
    by vml68 on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:53:12 PM EST
    always better with music!
    The location worked out great too because my husband works at the NYC location of his company and I rarely plan anything because getting him out of there in time to make events is close to impossible. But his company also has a Hoboken location, the building right in front of the pier! So, all he had to do was walk out of the building and he was there!

    Parent
    That's probably where I parked... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    after hellish Holland Tunnel traffic, took 2 hours to get to the tunnel from the Willy B..I knew I shoulda took the Lincoln!  But we made it just before Bingham started so all was well.  

    Parent
    Jim has this idee fixe (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:49:17 PM EST
    that all the Democrats have been secret anti-war, treehugging radicals since 1968..

    Basically the Limbaugh-Hannity-Coulter line..

    Parent

    ... most all Republicans as nothing more that variations of THIS. So, it all kind of evens out.

    ;-D

    Parent

    I was picturing Ralph Stanley's Oh Death (none / 0) (#161)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 03:49:46 PM EST
    invocation in Oh Brother Where Art Thou..

    Parent
    Obamacare (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:25:16 PM EST
    James "Whitey" Bulger: Guilty! (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:42:11 PM EST
    A Boston jury this afternoon found the Irish-American mobster guilty of 11 counts of murder and assorted racketeering charges, committed over the years while he was head of the city's notorious Winter Hill gang. He now faces the very strong likelihood that he will spend his remaining days in prison.

    From our "Today in Douchebaggery" file: (none / 0) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:06:45 PM EST
    AOL CEO Tim Armstrong abruptly fires Patch Creative Director Abel Lenz during a conference call with Patch employees that was originally intended to boost sagging morale at the AOL subsidiary.

    I ahve no idea what Patch is (none / 0) (#89)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:42:14 PM EST
    ...but wow, that is a real morale booster!

    Parent
    PS. unless checks are handed out at the end of (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:43:33 PM EST
    a meeting, a meeting never boosts sagging morale.

    Parent
    Unless it's like firing Dick Cheney (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:54:10 PM EST
    Or Filner (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:54:51 PM EST
    Patch (none / 0) (#180)
    by chrisvee on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:59:56 PM EST
    It's that network of sites dedicated to community news and events isn't it?

    Parent
    What the hell is Patch? (none / 0) (#94)
    by caseyOR on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:59:25 PM EST
    Armstrong sounds like a total jerk. It would not surprise me if this company fails. Bad leadership takes its toll eventually.

    Parent
    The Moscow Summit (none / 0) (#102)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 06:36:22 PM EST
    Not a bridge too far, just a hill too steep and a yawning chasm too scary.

    kdog, for you: Bukowski reads (none / 0) (#105)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 07:02:55 PM EST
    Nice one mate... (none / 0) (#127)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 09:32:53 AM EST
    I'll check it out later when I have sound.  You knows what I like! ;)

    Parent
    Here's another one you can check out, Dog (none / 0) (#131)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 11:17:18 AM EST
    My moneymaker shakes better... (none / 0) (#138)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 01:30:52 PM EST
    to live music performed by musicians on instruments...I'm on it!

    Parent
    "Brainpickings" is a pretty cool site (none / 0) (#136)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 12:57:08 PM EST
    And for some reason, there seems to be a resurgence of interest in Bukowski these days. Over the last year or so, I've noticed a lot more articles about him, and more references to his work.

    Parent
    The great ones.... (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 01:48:05 PM EST
    never go out of style.

    Chinaski could be the poet laureate of the new economy and the sh&tty jobs that litter it's landscape.

    Parent

    An interesting theory (none / 0) (#132)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 12:06:58 PM EST
    200 Years of Books Prove That City-Living Changes Our Psychology

    UCLA researcher Patricia Greenfield has long suspected that the environment around us influences our psychology - not in the classic sense that our family life or peer groups sway our behavior, but in a much broader way. Human psychology adapts differently, she theorized, to rural settings than to urban ones.

    Rural living, with its subsistence economies, simpler technologies, and close-knit communities, demands of people a greater sense of deference to authority and duty to each other. Urbanization, on the other hand, generally comes with greater wealth and education, and complex technology and commerce. Adapt to life in a city, and a different set of values becomes more important: for starters, personal choice, property accumulation, and materialism.

    "When you have greater wealth, you have more choices," Greenfield says. When you live in a city, there are simply more paths to chose, more things to do, more ways you might spend your money. Greater education brings choice, too. In this way, personal choice - and an emphasis on the individual - becomes more central in an urban world to our values, our behavior, and our culture.

    SNIP

    But in some ways, this story of the rise of the individual, at the expense of the collective, appears to contradict the idea that cities force us to rely on each other. In politics, for instance, individualism is often celebrated as a virtue of rural living. In cities, by contrast, we must rely on shared parks instead of private back yards (or farms), and shared subway cars instead of private cars.

    But Greenfield says that kind of communal subway experience is different from the one early farmers experienced in rural America when whole communities got together to raise a barn.

    "We're talking about a crowd of individuals, we're not talking about interdependent people," she says of your morning commute. In the rural society that she is contrasting here, people know each other. In urban society, many of the people you encounter are interchangeable. Your fellow commuters are different (most days). "Even though a policeman comes to help you," Greenfield says, "you don't even know his name."



    Interesting points (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 12:53:13 PM EST
    and some of it rings true to me. But most of what rings true surrounds the wealth issue, and not the urbanization issue.

    After growing up in a big city and mostly living in cities all my life, I now find that the selfishness and small-mindedness of people living in the suburb of the forest community to be rather insufferable. Personally, I find people in the cities to be nicer. The difference in where I live now and where I lived before is that when I'm in the city I feel that I'm among the civilized. Yes, that's my conclusion based on personal bias, but the reality of the differences I see are striking.  And the myth of individualism is alive and well in both the cities and the rural burbs, from what I can tell. Furthermore, I only really "know" about half of my neighbors out here, and a good many of them are not terribly friendly. By contrast, I was very good friends with all my neighbors in the city, socialized with them regularly, and knew I could count on them in a pinch.

    Obviously, my "analysis" such as it is, is purely anecdotal, not scientific. But I find studies like this one rely on old stereotypes and generalizations, and don't take into account that in many cases, the rural areas are not too far from the urban areas, and have many of the same amenities.

    Parent

    I'm someone who's lived in the (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 02:04:08 PM EST
    country for over 30 years, but - with the exception of a couple of years when I was home with small children - I've always worked in the heart of downtown; work is about 25 miles from home, so it's a commute.

    I think people who live in the country place a high premium on privacy, which, if you're not tuned into that, if you're on the outside looking in, can make us seem standoffish and unfriendly, but really, we're really just like everyone else: our personalities are as individual and varied as we are.  

    To get to my front door, you have to drive almost a mile up a one-lane road, get out of your car, open the gate and drive down 100 feet of driveway, so we don't get a lot of people knocking on our door, and when we do, we tend to be guarded about it.  If someone's at my door whom I don't know, there is no one within earshot who can come to my rescue if something goes wrong.  Well, there might be if our neighbors across the street happen to be outside, but if they're in the house, no one's going to hear us calling for help.  It's not like suburbia where you are close enough to see what your neighbor is reading, or like the city where I know when you have your work boots on and when you're doing Zumba in front of the TV.

     And while we aren't in and out of our neighbors' houses all the time, we know them, they know us and we respect each other's privacy.  That's why we're out there - because it's quiet and peaceful and green, and there's room for dogs and kids to run and for vegetable gardens.  After a long day in the city, contending with the rest of the commuters, home is an oasis, and I feel lucky to have it.

    I feel plenty civilized here, and don't particularly regard the city dwellers - the wealthy, young and entitled ones I tend to encounter in the downtown area, anyway - as being as special as they seem to think they are.  

    I'm not sure we can all be categorized as stereotypically as the researcher suggests, but there are some interesting points and it makes for an interesting discussion.


    Parent

    Believe it or not, (none / 0) (#151)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 02:21:04 PM EST
    I have less privacy where I live now. Somehow the children here have all been trained to understand that they have dibs on everyone's yards, and to simply treat all lawns and yards as their own to play and scream in. I'm, apparently, one of the few holdouts in not wanting them screaming through mine and knocking flowers off all my plants. As for peace and quiet, there is a lot of that when people are at work or on vacation, and I love that! I can hear the multitudinous birds and the rustling of the trees. On the other hand, neighbors who think nothing of running power washers all through the dinner hour, or running skillsaws at 9:30 p.m. is the norm here, not the exception. Maybe the particular 'hood I'm living is uniquely filled with self-absorbed folks, but I don't think so.

    Or maybe the big difference is that there are noise  laws in the city, so if someone is being crazy inconsiderate at odd times, you have recourse (and can usually just call them on the phone and ask them to reign it in). Out here, asking someone to tone down the noise is considered uppity.

    Tradeoffs wherever you go, I guess.

    I would also make mention that, unlike in the city, most of my neighbors here are Republicans...for whatever that's worth.

    Parent

    What you're describing to me (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 02:43:48 PM EST
    is suburbia - and I couldn't deal with that, either.  I don't want to feel like I can't go out on my deck to read a book because my neighbor is on hers and I really, really don't feel like chatting.  Or that I can't go out with the dogs before bed, in my nightgown, because I might run into my neighbor putting out his trash.  If we want to eat dinner outside, we do, and we don't have anyone peering over to ask what we're having...

    But, I do remember the years when, in the long, cold months of winter, I used to yearn for neighbors with kids, so mine could fall out the front door and have someone to play with - instead of having to pile them in the car and take them to someone's house.  

    What I have here in my rural community are boundaries - with or without fences, people respect each other's space, whether it's one acre or 100, and you would never look out your front window to find a bunch of kids kicking around a soccer ball and trampling through your garden.

    I ponder sometimes what we will do when we are old, and the property is too much for us - I can't see either of us moving to a retirement community, or into an apartment or to some place where we are living on top of a lot of other people.  The idea of it just sets me teeth on edge.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 05:46:06 PM EST
    Exactly this, Anne. We're even more rural than you are, living on a 60 acre farm on top of a mountain in Western Maryland. But it is so peaceful here, and the neighbors do not intrude. Although, if there is a problem, they are quick with help. Bringing over food, taking care of your young kids, making sure that you have a ride to your doctor if you need one. And so on. And I also felt the same about wishing for close neighbors with kids, so I didn't have to pile them in a car to get them to playmates. Yet, the kids grew up, and they learned how to grow and preserve their own food, make repairs around the house, and be self-sufficient when needed. But they also learned about the appreciation of museums, the arts, great cuisine, and all that big cities do have to offer. We took the kids into both Washington DC and Baltimore frequently. They are both only an hour and a half away, and we made use of the resources there frequently. I also wonder about what we will do as we grow older and cannot maintain our farm. I, too, cannot see us living in some kind of retirement community or small apartment. But I suppose that is a problem for another day, my sister.

    Parent
    I grew up in the suburbs (none / 0) (#153)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 02:41:03 PM EST
    I live in the suburbs now, although I am only a couple mile drive to downtown DC.

    There are few better things than being able to get in my car at night, and leave the city for suburbia.  A place where I can walk to the store, or get in my car and drive to Target and not have to circle around to find a parking space.  I have my choice of several grocery stores, and within a half hour (except at rush hour), I can be in the country or the mountains if I want.

    I've entertained moving into DC, but then when I realize how crowded and noisy it is, I think, nope.  And while I have found people to be generally nice, it's nice to walk along quiet streets, maybe seeing some neighbors out for a walk or working in their yards.

    Parent

    I'm with you... (none / 0) (#157)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    the ghetto-burb gives the best of both worlds...relative peace & quiet compared to the city, but close enough to enjoy all that the city offers.  The city is a great place to visit but I don't think I could live there anymore. But I'm glad I grew up In Queens and all the street-smarts that enviroment bestowed upon me...the people who grew up where I live now missed out on that valuable street education.

    Living way out in the boonies in a cabin has often appealed to me, but as much as I love nature I think I'd probably get bored.

    Parent

    This is too funny (none / 0) (#168)
    by sj on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:12:47 PM EST
    right after I posted my question I read both your and jb's comments of appreciation for suburbia.

    For me suburbia means getting in the car to go anywhere and do shopping of any sort. All of the disadvantages of country life:

    • car ride distance from cultural activities/centers
    • car ride distance from the necessities of life, like food and clothing
    • car ride distance from the pleasures of life, except for maybe parks

    and all of the disadvantages of city life:

    • anonymity, emotional distance from neighbors
    • lack of peace and quiet

    and offers nothing in return. Except for the sounds of kids playing. And that's not nothing.

    So that is a completely different perspective than y'alls. For me it either the city or the village. I'm not willing to completely give up either of them. But I am so not up for suburbia.

    Thank you both for the perspective.

    Parent

    My ghetto burb... (none / 0) (#194)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:56:27 AM EST
    is not your typical suburb.  Diverse with a hispanic majority, train station in walking distance, bodegas in walking distance.  Neighbors will lend a hand, but never call the cops and mind their own business.  Pretty cool place to live...others might say too much crime but I guess I have a higher tolerance for that.

    Enough peace and quiet to have crickets sing you to sleep and birds singing as an alarm clock.  Sometimes though a screaming siren or motorbike will disrupt the quiet though.

    A more typical "Stepford"-type suburb, I'd be inclined to agree with you sj.

    Parent

    That sounds like... (none / 0) (#197)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 10:54:55 AM EST
    ... a suburb I could get behind.

    Parent
    I think it is over-generalizing (none / 0) (#165)
    by sj on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:02:04 PM EST
    to describe the comparisons as being between the city and the country. There are (in my mind) three "primary" lifestyles in the US: city, country and suburban.

    In my mind, suburban has all of the disadvantages of both country and city and none of the advantages.

    Truthfully the only advantage I can find in suburbia (other than purchase cost) is the yard for families. Am I missing something? Are there others?

    Parent

    In the city in the summer in Denver (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:35:39 PM EST
    You can hear the birds sing, the huge green trees (all different shades & types of green) sway in the early morning breeze, a runner here and there jogs by and, except for a few in-city big thoroughfares, the heavy traffic of morning & pre-dinner remains away and confined to the highways nearby the suburbs.  Once in a great while--when we are searching for someplace specific or someone we are visiting--we find ourselves in suburbia (or exurbia.) What a difference, especially on a week-end--heck, the song of the birds is obscured by the whirring sprinklers and loud lawn-mowers while too many cars speed by to/from the mountains and the city.

    I love our mountains.  And, I love the stimulation of the city.  Paradoxically, both the mountains and the city also offer long, tranquil, explorative walks.  Continual discovery.

    Parent

    I've only been to Denver once (none / 0) (#173)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:45:34 PM EST
    but I remember it as a place with real neighborhoods  near the city core -- in that sense, a lot like Seattle, which really has fantastic neighborhoods.

    Parent
    Yes, and double-yes, shoephone (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 05:48:53 PM EST
    And, if you are fortunate enough to live & walk with a dog buddy, the conversations and camaraderie allow for real neighbor-friends.  In 11 days, we will introduce a new puppy to our neighbors.  After our 15 year-old Valery had to take leave of this earth in the first week of January, things got blurred & obscured in the neighborhood (and everywhere else for me) for months; and, the neighbors were always asking after me during that time.  It sure helped. Now, my husband & I feel like turning cartwheels of anticipation to laugh again with the neighbors, the neighborhood dogs (& cats), and with our new family & neighborhood member ... and, hopefully, Valery watches from her angel post.

    It is that kind of neighborhood that you remember, shoephone.

    Parent

    Oh, I'm glad (none / 0) (#179)
    by sj on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:56:45 PM EST
    you're ready for another puppy. I know how heartbroken you were when you lost your Valery.

    What kind of puppy? May s/he bring laughter and love to your lives.

    Parent

    DItto on that (none / 0) (#181)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 08:36:06 PM EST
    What breed?

    Parent
    I will regale you with all the details (none / 0) (#183)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 09:52:00 PM EST
    as soon as we actually get her.  I'm one of those superstitious types who want so much to talk & talk & talk about what a spunky puppy she is; but, I'm still afraid to say so.  There have been lots of twists & ups & downs to this story.  

    Thank you, thank you sj and shoephone.  I will be back with more about this little love.  (Nuts, I start crying everytime I think about it now.  She is wonderful.)

    Parent

    We bring Celeste home on the 24th. (none / 0) (#184)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 09:57:00 PM EST
    We have a name already ... and, so much stuff, you'd think we were expectant parents or grandparents or something. She is a little spitz.

    Parent
    Hmm... a French name... (none / 0) (#186)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 10:43:18 PM EST
    Bulldog? Poodle? Papillon?

    Okay, okay. But I'll speculate while you keep mum.

    Parent

    "a little spitz" that christine refers (none / 0) (#192)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:32:20 AM EST
    to is to a type of dog; see here and here.

    Guess christine will have to let us know which of the spitz types she's getting!

    Parent

    I think you and Anne are right (none / 0) (#172)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:43:30 PM EST
    I'm more in a suburb than the "country." It just feels like being out there because its in the forest. And I have to drive to get to anything with real shopping or entertainment. Even the best parks are in the city. And you can forget about good restaurants around here.

    Parent
    I think the people on the subway (none / 0) (#134)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 12:24:09 PM EST
    and other urban situations are more interdependent than Greenfield is giving credit for in that last section. They depend on each other to follow the customs of the subway and the city or the whole thing gets mucked up. You become acutely aware of this as a tourist walking slowly on the sidewalk or not knowing how to stand in the subway. Maybe they are not dependent on people they know by name, but the organism as a whole can't function without everyone playing their part.

    Parent
    Interdependent... (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 01:59:41 PM EST
    in order for a modern city to function, yes I agree.

    Interdependent to survive like communal living...I'd say no.  But interdependent communal living is all but extinct in the USA anyway, rural or urban or suburban.  Like shoephone said even West Outer Bubblef*ck has internet, cable, and a Walmart now.

    Interesting topic...with the technological revolution we are experiencing I am noticing the isolationism thing accelerating across the board rapidly.  Social skills are suffering...people are forgetting or not learning how to interact and/or cooperate unless it's through an impersonal little screen and a keyboard.  It's frightening how socially inept some of the youth appear to be.  

    Parent

    I think you have correctly noted this (none / 0) (#148)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 02:08:22 PM EST
    with the technological revolution we are experiencing I am noticing the isolationism thing accelerating across the board rapidly.  Social skills are suffering...people are forgetting or not learning how to interact and/or cooperate unless it's through an impersonal little screen and a keyboard.  It's frightening how socially inept some of the youth appear to be.

    as the overwhelming cultural shift.  

    Parent

    Its different, glad to have a choice. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 01:56:02 PM EST
    I see urban life was more dependent, not interdependent. Socially interdependent, but food, clothing, and shelter all come from someplace else. What you eat in a restaurant is prepared by workers who live outside the city from food grown far away. The work in a city is largely abstract from what is consumed.

    I live in suburbia, so for me riding a subway is fun, and I will tend to get a pass when traveling and just ride around. Its curious how BART in SF, NYC subways, and the tube in the UK are similar and different.

    Parent

    Another Obamacare delay (none / 0) (#155)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 02:46:19 PM EST
    Caps on out-of-pocket costs.

    Wasn't that a selling point of the whole thing to begin with?

    WASHINGTON -- In another setback for President Obama's health care initiative, the administration has delayed until 2015 a significant consumer protection in the law that limits how much people may have to spend on their own health care.

    The limit on out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and co-payments, was not supposed to exceed $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family. But under a little-noticed ruling, federal officials have granted a one-year grace period to some insurers, allowing them to set higher limits, or no limit at all on some costs, in 2014.

    The grace period has been outlined on the Labor Department's Web site since February, but was obscured in a maze of legal and bureaucratic language that went largely unnoticed. When asked in recent days about the language -- which appeared as an answer to one of 137 "frequently asked questions about Affordable Care Act implementation" -- department officials confirmed the policy.

    SNIP

    Under the policy, many group health plans will be able to maintain separate out-of-pocket limits for benefits in 2014. As a result, a consumer may be required to pay $6,350 for doctors' services and hospital care, and an additional $6,350 for prescription drugs under a plan administered by a pharmacy benefit manager.

    Some consumers may have to pay even more, as some group health plans will not be required to impose any limit on a patient's out-of-pocket costs for drugs next year. If a drug plan does not currently have a limit on out-of-pocket costs, it will not have to impose one for 2014, federal officials said Monday.

    The health law, signed more than three years ago by Mr. Obama, clearly established a single overall limit on out-of-pocket costs for each individual or family. But federal officials said that many insurers and employers needed more time to comply because they used separate companies to help administer major medical coverage and drug benefits, with separate limits on out-of-pocket costs.

    In many cases, the companies have separate computer systems that cannot communicate with one another.



    Non English speaking juror (none / 0) (#166)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:04:42 PM EST
    Have not seen anything but this blurb

    LV TV

    from a Las Vegas TV station.  I will be interested in reading what the New Mexico SC really had to say.

    Seems like a juror who could not understand English would make any criminal trial lawyer (DA or PD) shake in their boots.

    Anyone know more details?

    LV TV link (none / 0) (#167)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:06:06 PM EST
    Laura Poitras featured in NYT Magazine (none / 0) (#188)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 12:47:51 AM EST
    Good read (none / 0) (#193)
    by Nemi on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:39:09 AM EST
    ... but

    Along with her reporting partner, Glenn Greenwald, a former lawyer and a columnist for The Guardian ...

    I'm a bit puzzled that an 'a' is used in front of 'former lawyer' and 'columnist for the Guardian'. If an introduction of Glenn Greenwald is called for, as it apparently is, I would at least have expected a 'the'.

    Parent