home

Thursday Open Thread: Longest Outage Ever

TalkLeft was down for 9 hours. There was an outage at the facility that hosts our server. No explanation yet from the company.

We do have a backup site where I post notices of outages (thankfully, they are rare.) You can also post comments there.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Wednesday Night Open Thread | House Hearing on Cartels and Extraditing El Chapo >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I am (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by lentinel on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 06:45:22 PM EST
    not really an addictive personality.

    But TalkLeft being down is more than I could bear.

    Cold turkey. (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 07:37:56 PM EST
    I see I picked a good day to go to a wedding! (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 08:28:27 PM EST
    Jeralyn - thanks for all your hard work (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by scribe on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 06:59:23 PM EST
    keeping the site up and going.

    And shame on your server people for not telling "why".  You sure they aren't running the anti-Castro Twitter site off the same server???

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 322 (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:17:54 AM EST
    She's thinking about hanging her husband with the laundry. (link)

    v. 321
    v. 320
    v. 319

    TGIF, my friends. My freelance gigs are dry right now, so I'll be heading into the city to meet my wife for lunch. That I have to go to SF's financial district, oh well, at least her bank is focused on green businesses. In other words, her bank is, as Norman Fell accused Dustin Hoffman of in THE GRADUATE, an outside agitator. They'll be lucky, truth be told, to be able to afford to stay in the financial district when they're lease is up. My wife is in charge of that issue, so I know. They are trying, basically, to shrink their square footage footprint to as minimal as possible. Poor lady, she has enough to worry about there, what with being in charge of IT and all. I just rub her feet, cook her dinner, and write her verse. A great woman deserves nothing less.


    Paul Krugman (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:48:08 PM EST
    presents a case for the success of ACA as well as the necessity of its being a "Rube Goldberg" device. (the best and easiest would have been extension of Medicare, but that was deemed unfeasible owing to (a) the power of the insurance industry, and (b) the perceived reluctance of those receiving insurance through employers for substitution with the unknown.)  So, the ACA was borne  as an "add-on" rather than as a replacement.

    While disputes and pathways for the  formulation of ACA are well-travelled, the outcomes, even initial ones, deserve commendation: extension of Medicaid (save for recalcitrant states--mostly the same states that opposed Medicaid 50 years ago), health insurance protection for more Americans, coverage despite pre-existing conditions, and continuation of children until 26 on parent's policies.  

    Moreover, there has been slowed growth in health care spending due, in all likelihood, to a combination of the recession and new cost measures, including those occurring and contemplated in Medicare, and, more broadly, by ACA.   Further cost savings are often suggested  through providers (fee for service to value based care) and consumers (better informed and capitalizing on incentives for lower costs).  

     For the first of these, the goals can be at cross-purposes; for the second, it is not entirely realistic and borders on the harebrained.  

     However, ACA may, ultimately, cut costs most by facilitating standardization of billing and claims. Lost in the relentless pursuit of "bending the cost curve" is the need to "straighten the  quality curve."   While efforts should and can be made to lower costs, the question seems more, lower the costs to whom?  Paul Ryan's coupon plan for Medicare shifts the costs to those over 65, and repeal of ACA, does so for the rest.

    But, health care is expensive and will become more so in keeping with the nature of progress in health care.   ACA through standardization of care, attention to preventative measures, and the inevitable  forthcoming public expectations for their insurance protection, may prevent the slide in quality under way for the past number of years to cut costs and jeopardize care.

    Conservatives? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 03:17:17 PM EST
    Of course, you don't find many Obamacare opponents admitting outright that 7.1 million and counting signups is a huge victory for reform. But their reaction to the results -- It's a fraud! They're cooking the books! -- tells the tale. Conservative thinking and Republican political strategy were based entirely on the assumption that it would always be October, that Obamacare's rollout would be an unremitting tale of disaster. They have no idea what to do now that it's turning into a success story.

    Ansd

    And the crossover we see here: those who sound like conservatives mouthing GOP political talking points. Not sure if it is spite or something else, but it seems to have to do with Obama.

    Parent

    One of those side "but-buts" (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 03:27:28 PM EST
    Since the 7.1 million <& counting> is getting harder to shake, the meme quickly turned to follow-on attacks by the Repubs & other detractors of the ACA.  As for the "but-but, we don't know how many of those enrollees are newly enrolled and getting insurance for the first time:"  Help is here, ye Repubs of little faith -- as various tracking & monitoring firms are weighing in, we are beginning to see a clearer picture of the many, many individuals obtaining insurance due to the ACA.  For example, the Urban Institute announced yesterday that it has calculated from tracking the Act's implementation since late September 2013 to early (read "early") March 2014 that 5.4 million people enrolled as a direct result of the ACA.  That translates to a corresponding 2.7% decrease in the nation's uninsured.  The facts are truly our friends :)

    Parent
    Ministry (none / 0) (#85)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 05:54:11 AM EST
    of propaganda is working some overtime. Has the press ever been more of a lapdog to the president?

    Like all "facts" originating from the white house, these will surely be "revised" down, and sign ups will be grossly out of step with those who paid for and got a policy.

    Numbers that mean something are still months away.

    Parent

    And yet ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:07:34 AM EST
    Numbers that mean something are still months away.

    ... you're quoting numbers from the comments section at Conservative Treehouse and trying to justify it because they (occasionally) post something that's factually correct.

    Too funny.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 11:28:17 AM EST
    the (Mikado Cat's) Ministry of Propaganda is working non stop.

    Making stuff up must be tiring even when you produce extremely bad fiction.

    You are definitely a lap dog for the right wing department of misinformation.  If making stuff up wasn't SOP, they would hang their heads in shame at the poor quality of your work,

    BTW, did you ever bother to find out how many people were uninsured in 2009. Here's a hint: The number was considerably higher than the 35 million you made up and used In one of your other  comments.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 11:28:36 AM EST
    the (Mikado Cat's) Ministry of Propaganda is working non stop.

    Making stuff up must be tiring even when you produce extremely bad fiction.

    You are definitely a lap dog for the right wing department of misinformation.  If making stuff up wasn't SOP, they would hang their heads in shame at the poor quality of your work,

    BTW, did you ever bother to find out how many people were uninsured in 2009. Here's a hint: The number was considerably higher than the 35 million you made up and used In one of your other  comments.

    Parent

    Maybe if Obama (1.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 06:54:24 PM EST
    had a shred of real transparency we would have better numbers, but NOTHING comes out of the white house without a partisan impact review and spin coating.

    Millions pay more, nobody gets healthcare that wasn't getting it before. Not a bit of real reform, just massive boondoggle.

    Russia has press more critical of its leaders than the US does right now.

    Parent

    The anti pot crowd (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 06:38:11 PM EST
    Is getting seriously desperate

    DEA Chief: Please, Think Of The Dogs Before You Legalize Pot


    I once had a witness in a case (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by scribe on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 06:58:07 PM EST
    who related how in earlier years he hosted a lot of parties for friends at his house.  Somewhere along the line, his lady (IIRC) had adopted a Labrador retriever and it lived with them.  What they didn't tell her when she was adopting the dog is that this dog had either been retired out of dope-finding or had washed out somewhere along the line.  

    Anyway, it got a little embarrassing all around the table, so to speak, when the host's pet dog started alerting on the party guests as they arrived.

    Parent

    years ago (none / 0) (#21)
    by ExcitableBoy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:51:07 AM EST
    I was in a convenience store with my sister, who had a joint in her pocket. A cop with a k9 was in front of her talking to the clerk while the dog buried his head in her pocket and started pawing at her leg. It was hilarious watching her nonchalantly smacking the dog to leave her alone, hoping the cop wouldn't notice.

    Parent
    No joke. (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by lentinel on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 06:59:42 PM EST
    I caught my pooch smoking a few days ago. Somehow, she figured out how to work the Zippo and got ahold of a roach a visitor had carelessly dropped on the floor.

    She's all different now.
    Won't take a walk without sun glasses.

    Tragic.

    Parent

    My dog all (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 07:04:11 PM EST
    Crowd around jostling for the coveted head in lap position when I'm smoking

    Parent
    "marijuana-infused butter"? (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 11:22:11 PM EST
    Really? Hmmmm . . .

    Just this week Rox slurped down yet another stick of reg butter . . . along with a turnip, parsnip, and potato . . . my counter is so self rewarding, lol!~

    Parent

    A new low... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 12:22:09 PM EST
    from the DEA, and ya know that's loooooowwwwww.

    Kinda makes sense as a last-ditch marketing strategy for tyranny though...when the "think of the children!" bullsh&t stops working, ya gotta think of something America loves more than childen and use that as a scare tactic...that leaves "think of the dogs!". ;)

    Parent

    I see dogs with signs in front of the DEA (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 04:19:34 PM EST
    "KEEP YER GUBMIT HANDS OFF MY MEDICAL MARIJUANA"

    And "DOGS ARE PEOPLE TOO"

    Parent

    If male college athletes unionize, what will be (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 11:49:05 PM EST
    the effect on female college athletes?

    NYT

    I'll predict that eventually, we'll be ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:35:37 AM EST
    ... looking around and asking, "What college athletes?" In all likelihood, most colleges and universities eventually falling under the NLRB ruling will probably end up shutting down their athletic programs, should any forthcoming legal challenge to that ruling be denied by the courts.

    Contrary to popular opinion, only seven out of 228 colleges and universities with NCAA Div. I status -- Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Nebraska, Purdue, Ohio State and Penn State -- have athletic departments which are wholly self-sustaining financially. The other 221 D-I programs require millions of dollars apiece in public and private subsidies, or fiscal transfers from other revenue-generating school programs -- in the University of Hawaii's case, the monies derived from its many lucrative research components -- in order to balance their operating budgets and stay out of the red.

    I seriously doubt that most taxpayers will countenance their tax dollars going at six figures a pop annually to college athletes participating in revenue-generating sports such as football and men's basketball. It's as though receiving a free college education counts for nothing in the eyes of some people. All this nonsense about college athletes being subjected to "indentured servitude" is just so much rhetorical hoohah. Nobody's holding them in chains and making them play against their will.

    For Div. II and III schools, the fiscal pressures are much more immediate. BYU-Hawaii, which has had one of the more successful NCAA Div. II programs in recent decades, announced a few days ago that it will be phasing out interscholastic athletics entirely over the nest three years, due to the high financial cost of program maintenance.

    If you're a football, basketball or baseball player who wants to cash in, then by all means, take your chances and declare your eligibility for your respective pro sports draft. But don't preclude other athletes in other sports of a chance to improve their own life's prospects, by foreclosing on their opportunity to use their own athletic skills to obtain a college degree.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    There's no reason colleges shouldn't have to (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by scribe on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 05:38:24 AM EST
    deal with unionized student-athletes, and no reason they shouldn't be paid.

    For the colleges, the student athletes create free advertising for the college - both to prospective students and, more importantly, to keep alumni coming back.  In return, the colleges say they are giving the students a valuable scholarship, but.  

    There's always a "but".

    The incremental cost to the college of giving a student an athletic scholarship is effectively zero.  The price to the university of the tuition component of the athletic scholarship - the cost of making that linebacker  butt #401 of the 400 already in the Survey of Psych 102 class, or #15 of 14 in the junior-year seminar - is zero.  Sure, if our linebacker would have to pay the full freight, the school would gladly charge and receive it, but they don't.  Telling the kid his free ride is worth tens of thousands of dollars is merely an introductory lesson to the accounting scams he'll face for the rest of his life.

    Likewise, the room and board component has to be looked at like one would look at a hotel room and meal plan.  If the room is empty tonight, it's gone - valueless.  

    In reality, the cost of putting the student athlete through school is the wholesale cost of his/her meals plus the (tiny) incremental portion of the cafeteria workers' pay and the professors' grading one more set of exams.

    The real expenses of the athletic programs are in facilities, staff, equipment, and travel.  Note I didn't say medical.  The long-term costs of the injuries student-athletes suffer get dumped on the athlete.  Facilities are often paid for, in large part, by alumni.  How many schools have "Alumni field" or "Alumni Gym".  How many more have their fields or gyms named after the rich alum who ponied up for the naming rights?  Staff, equipment and travel cost money, but colleges' accountants are nothing if not creative.

    And the athletes' performances generate money for the schools, make no mistake.

    Parent

    The only problem with your logic is why (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:33:42 AM EST
    Just college?

    I played both HS and College basketball and I have lingering injuries but none serious.   When did it start?   I played 9 years of basketball before getting to college.   How is college more guilty then the High School I played for or all the little leagues?

    The difference is obviously that college made money in some way off my services.  

    Also what about the non revenue sports?   Why should a college owe a women's lacrosse player money when the High School does not?   The college is losing money on all the non revenue sports.  Why would they owe these players anything more then a high school does?   Lots of athletes suffer lifetime injuries in high school and no one is clamoring for restitution.

    What we are talking about is big time revenue football.   Namely the power conferences because other then about 30 or 40 schools in D1 the rest are losing money.

    In fact even the big time schools lose money when you factor in their entire athletic departments.

    My opinion has always been if the schools provide an education then that is enough.   The players are not forced to play sports.   They choose to and injuries are frankly part of the risk just as they would be if you played in an office softball league.  

     However as the UNC Scandal shows us many big time schools are not delivering on that promise and that is the real issue with the current system.

    That has allowed the union issue and other things to start us down a path were the current model is unsustainable.

    I would caution everyone though that blowing up this system is not going to produce an outcome that we will like.

    I would prefer to make schools and coaches responsible for academic performance and keep the current model but that now seems unlikely because the institutions have let the system get out of control.

    The school presidents in my opinion are to blame for the mess.  The NCAA is often the whipping boy but they work for the presidents of the universities.   If they wanted to fix the system they would but the few schools who make money are in an arms race and they are dragging the rest of the NCAA schools down with them.

    If they don't change the calculus soon then the whole system is going to be changed forever and to me that will be a bad thing.  

    Parent

    Who makes a killing selling (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    Official specific HS gear, trinkets, clothing, banners, bedspreads even, along with televised game coverage?  The college kids are a meat grinder for a money machine that breaks many of them and then walks off.

    Parent
    This "losing money" thing.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 12:17:17 PM EST
    is total bullsh*t.  If a big-time Division I football or men's basketball program is losing money they're seriously mismanaging things.  Perhaps by over-paying their coaches and athletic department staff.  Or the NCAA and/or the conferences are robbing the schools almost as bad as they are robbing the talent.

    We're talking about a 10 billion dollar tv deal, just for men's basketball, just from one media company.  There is more money than god to justly compensate the talent...it's like a bookmaker losing money, it's impossible unless your crooked or incompetent, and neither is a good excuse to maintain this criminal status quo.

    Parent

    Okay. Provide some examples. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 06:02:03 PM EST
    Because thus far in this discussion, I've heard only a lot of rhetoric on your part. If you have the answers here, then by all means, please spell them out in detail.

    Don't just spew generalities, and then ridicule those persons who offer that the situation in college athletics is actually a lot more complicated than you either realize or care to acknowledge. It's a very tangled web which has been woven in college sports over the decades, and you're seeing nothing but straight lines.

    More to the point, I actually played college sports on scholarship and further, I've worked on developing state budgets where we've had to examine and provide for university funding down to the details, which included determining the actual costs of travel expenses and the compensation of various coaches and staff at both the University of Hawaii and the University of Hawaii-Hilo. In both those instances, you've done neither.

    There are opinions, and then there are informed opinions. I don't stake a claim to being the smartest guy in the room, kdog, but conversely I'm no fool either, and I'm really starting to resent your Rush Limbaugh-like insinuations that I somehow don't know what I'm talking about on this particular issue.

    Do you even know how the public universities in your own state -- you know, the SUNY in places like Albany, Stony Brook and Buffalo, all of which presently maintain active D-I athletic programs -- develop their respective operating and capital budgets to fund their various programs as a whole, which would also include their sports programs? Do you understand the role of public officials outside the SUNY system in overseeing, and in many cases amending, the implementation of those budgets?

    You probably couldn't even tell me off the top of your head within $100 million how much revenue we're actually taking about here, or who's really receiving the bulk of it, or the percentage of NCAA D-I institutions that truly and directly derive a financial windfall from all this money.

    Further, how much money are you willing to pay college football and basketball players, and where are you going to get it? Are you going to require that mid-major schools like Wyoming, Idaho and SUNY-Buffalo -- whose teams are rarely on national television -- adhere to the same wage-and-benefits scale as Ohio State, USC, Alabama and LSU, which make weekly appearances on our TV screens? Please, explain to all of us exactly how this scheme of yours is supposed to work.

    HINT: Most of the monies generated in big-time college sports get vacuumed up by the media networks, which are owned by corporations such as Viacom and Disney, and not by the schools.

    So, if you're thinking that the universities themselves need to pony up here, then you're simply advocating for further indirect public subsidies for already-profitable corporate interests through the backdoor. Because if college football players are allowed to organize, the management with whom they'll be negotiating isn't going to be found at CBS and ABC.

    And if you believe that greedy bass turds such as Sumner Redstone (nee Sumner Rothstein) over at Viacom are going to willingly part with any of that lucrative booty in order to help the schools pay football and basketball players -- well, Sancho, good luck tilting at that particular windmill. They'll bid the Wyomings, Kent States, Hawaiis and Fresno States a fond aloha.

    I can assure you that the taxpayers and state legislators in most parts of the country have far more immediate and pressing concerns on their plate, than that of paying college football players above and beyond the full-ride / six-figure scholarships they already receive. They won't take kindly to being hit up for even more bucks to support what is essentially nothing more than entertainment in the first place.

    Rather than open their wallets any further, state legislators will begin to shut down two-thirds of these programs so fast, you'll be lucky to not catch cold in the resultant draft. And in the end, what will be left of D-I college football will be but a shadow of once was, and everyone else will be left with nothing but their memories.

    :-P

    Parent

    The lifetime injuries that many incur (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 07:45:02 AM EST
    Also brings me to compensation, particularly in football.  Compensate these players!  They may spend the rest of their lives dealing with TBI that will steal everything from them, all because they went to college playing football.

    Parent
    My nephew (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 07:56:08 AM EST
    Had. Scholarship to UofA.  Messed up his shoulder bad enough that he can never play again.  No scholarship.  No college.

    Parent
    Oh yeah, that "catch" too (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:29:15 AM EST
    Remember the first H1N1 hit?  A local kid lost his baseball scholarship after he became unlucky enough that the bug sent him to the hospital and he missed training.  His recovery was slow, he never got his scholarship back.  

    Parent
    OT (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 12:25:01 PM EST
    Do you think John Snow and the blond dragon girl will end up getting together?

    Have not read the story so if anyone has don't tell me.  Only interested in speculation

    Parent

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 12:43:23 PM EST
    I saved the last book, but I know a few things.  You have requested not to be spoiled though :)

    Wouldn't they be a great couple?

    What about Arya and Gendry?  I notice we chose couples where it could be argued the men have more nurturing feelings than their women might :)

    A brave new world :)

    Parent

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 05:32:05 PM EST
    I was assuming the dragons would end up saving everyone from the snow zombies.  That would something to talk about on a first date.

    Parent
    And the dudes are still a couple of bastards (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 12:46:49 PM EST
    Now I'm cracking my own self up

    Parent
    Hard to pick side (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:16:16 PM EST
    But have to admit I'm really starting to like the dragon girl.  She may not exactly be nurturing but she hates despots and bullies.

    Parent
    Who doesn't like her except a Lannister? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:35:00 PM EST
    Beautiful, intelligent, understands strategy, self made, fabulous hair, always the height of fashion no matter the terrain or menu (horse hearts), rare expensive trained pets, royal pedigree, world traveled, she is the whole package.

    My husband likes her too, he liked Ygritte too but he's done with her now.  I am not kidding, when Ygritte shot John full of arrows my husband had tears in his eyes.  He will never recover from it.  He has always loved fire heads though.  I am not allowed to call them fire heads out loud, the men in my house have told me that is discrimination and aggressive prejudice.

    Parent

    Sorry for your husband (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:28:42 PM EST
    So do you refer to him as "Husband" while you watch the show? As in 'Husband, pass the chips'?  It seems appropriate.

    I am having unsettling emotions also, falling for a sistereffing, murderous charmer.  This can't end well.

    Parent

    Oh yeah...he's pretty (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 06:05:02 AM EST
    And he has that loyalty thing to the women in his life

    Parent
    Prrsonally (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 04:14:22 PM EST
    I hope blonde has more flashbacks with Jason Momoa.  Especially now that the season of Red Road just ended.
    Which by the way was really great.  I hope that show finds an audience.

    Parent
    I have Red Road recorded (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 06:06:22 PM EST
    Only because you rec'd it.  Just haven't watched all the episodes yet.  He's a good actor.  Joffrey is a good actor too.  I had to google him.  His name is Jack Gleeson.

    Something from Wired, with video of everyone killed in GOT in three minutes

    3 mins

    Parent

    That was (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 06:17:39 PM EST
    Completely and totally awsum.

    Parent
    So you're thinking... (none / 0) (#35)
    by unitron on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:23:22 PM EST
    ...Fire and Ice?

    Or Ice and Fire?

    For that to happen Martin will have to do some fancy literary gymnastics in the book or books to follow "A Dance With Dragons", but I'd think that Jon wouldn't have any particular interest in conquest for the sake of conquest, or playing second fiddle to her.

    His motivation would be fulfilling the purpose of The Wall, even if circumstances dictated a departure from the previous traditional methods.

    But she's going to be looking to impose herself on the lands south of there, so he's not likely to be of any particular strategic or political use to her.

    Maybe if she dyed her hair red she might have a shot at him on a purely personal level.


    Parent

    We're not supposed to be spoiling (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:25:36 PM EST
    Just fantasizing :)

    Parent
    Hey, MT (none / 0) (#38)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:44:54 PM EST
    Off the current topic, but how do Delilah and Ghost get along?
    What a lot of grooming!  I can't imagine having two poodles at once.
    I've had a poodle and a long-haired cat at the same time, and that was more than enough grooming for me!

    Parent
    Delilah reminds me of a teenage sister with him (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 02:07:26 PM EST
    My female GSD will take no crap from Ghost, and when he gets a warning growl for sharp little teeth here comes Delilah.  They play very hard together outside.  I have seen Delilah run at him and deliberately slam her chest into him and knock the wind out of him, and he still loves her.  She treats him as her equal and the reward has been that he already thinks he is her size.

    I am hoping to show Ghost in the UKC.  I was already going to get his obedience titles, but instead of falling apart as he grows he is coming together very correct.

    I have a small clipper that is cordless now, and they are very reasonable for a good one.  So once a month I do faces and tails one morning, then feet and tummies the next morning, shaping puppy clips is more difficult because those are scissored in.  If I am just doing a sport clip that goes pretty fast with a big professional Oster clipper.  That pocket rechargeable clipper though makes keeping them neat and clean so much easier, you don't have to drag everything out.  You can do it on the porch having morning coffee and sweep up the little clippings.

    When Ghost shows though I think I am going to have to have a little groom help for his full shaping. So right now I keep his coat clean and conditioned with Eqyss Mega Tek.  They say humans use Mega Tek on their hair too.  I haven't tried it yet but one of these days :)

    Parent

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 03:53:25 PM EST
    I love Delilah coming up to "protect" ghost from a German Shepherd!   Doesn't surprise me from a Standard Poodle, though.  They are so protective!  Loving, but protective.
    And I also like the idea of your showing him in the UKC, as opposed to the AKC.  I have always thought that the AKC was way more interested (actually, almost totally interested) in conformation, coat, "looks," etc, to the detriment of behavior and ability and everything else that makes up a breed, and the UKC, at least, in my admittedly limited knowledge, seems to be more interested in the "whole dog," not just looks.
    But yes, even with the UKC, you may have to have a bit of help with the "full grooming."
    Poodles have always done well in obedience trials.  They are smart dogs and learn quickly.  I always used to think, maybe "too quickly."  Sometimes I have thought that our Standards were one step ahead of us.  You establish a certain parameter, which they learn very well and quickly, but then they figure out a (shall I say, "legal") way around it.   ;-)
    Good luck, and let us know how Ghost does!


    Parent
    Thank you Zorba (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 04:42:42 PM EST
    Dogs that haven't been cosmetically altered can be shown in the UKC and they are on an equal footing. Ghost has his full tail.  Across the pond many European countries have made it illegal to dock poodle tails.  Because some bird hunters have gone back to using standard poodles I guess I might be able to see docking for that but you can also shave the tail down too and that looks very attractive on some dogs.  The UKC is pushing their total dog title, that is a dog that has their obedience and  conformation title, but your dog must be able to pull a specific weight in harness too to get their full title.  I haven't a clue on how you train for that lol, but several poodle owners are now training for it because their dog has the other titles.  

    I did see recently that a standard poodle won a big hunting trial too.  And the UKC has a special class too that I understand nothing about yet, but it is a field dog conformation class and some standards have won that and they are allowed to compete.  I suppose they are looking for heavy muscled athletes there, but haven't attended a show yet that had the class.

    Parent

    As far as docking tails is concerned, (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 05:05:44 PM EST
    Portuguese Water Dogs, related to Poodles, and Irish Water Spaniels, probably related to Poodles, seem to do perfectly well as retrievers with undocked tails.    ;-)  
    There is no good reason to dock their tails.  Or clip the ears of other breeds, for that matter.
    Poodles were originally bred as retrievers, so it is not surprising that they would do well at this.
    As far as pulling is concerned, I've got no d@mned idea.  Maybe consult some sled dog owners about training?  And I would think that, for Ghost, since he is young, getting him used to a harness, at least, would be important early on.

    Parent
    You want pulling? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 05:23:46 PM EST
    Try walking to Snow Dogs at the same time.

    Parent
    Well, yeh, Howdy (none / 0) (#55)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 05:46:27 PM EST
    That's kind of why I suggested that MT consult some sled dog owners.
    I know a couple who have Siberian Huskies, and they enter their dogs in sled dog competitions.  And those dogs can absolutely pull.
    And, BTW, the Disney movie Snow Dogs was absolute cr@p.  Cuba Gooding, Jr., should be ashamed of himself for acting in this film.    ;-)

    Parent
    Correct on all counts (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 06:00:46 PM EST
    Want to know what else.  If look quickly you will find my name in the credits of that movie.  Not one of my proudest achievements


    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#62)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 06:34:03 PM EST
    Most of your other films were better.
    Especially True Lies, Interview With the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles, and Strange Days.  IMHO.
    ;-)

    Parent
    Also tragically (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 06:06:14 PM EST
    Caused a wave of Huskies being adopted and abandoned

    Parent
    Wasn't that also true of (none / 0) (#64)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 06:35:37 PM EST
    a bunch of other films featuring specific breeds of dogs?
    Poor dogs!  People are idiots.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 06:43:17 PM EST
    Usually Disney films

    Parent
    Fire and ice (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 04:09:33 PM EST
    Yes.  It just seems like they are the only two well meaning people with any power.  True, he is a bastard but the pure bloods seems to be dropping pretty quickly and it's hard to imagine a dish like her to not having a love interest for long.

    In some brutal way I thought the final, so far, scene with the willing girl and Snow was touching.  Shooting him with three arrows was just showing him how much she cared.  She could have killed him.  I as really sad for her.  Arrows and all.

    Parent

    Grrrr (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 04:10:59 PM EST
    WILDLING girl and Snow.

    Parent
    I can't see that (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 08:37:34 PM EST
    Not sure why not, it just does not seem right to me. I have not read the books, so that is just my gut reaction. I think he either gets back with Ygritte or renews his 'Crow' vows.

    I really want dragon girl to end up with her advisor guy. Yes, I have a keen command of the names of characters in this show. I only started watching it 3 weeks ago in a binge session.

    Parent

    You are right I'm sure (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:03:35 PM EST
    And Dany seems sort of Elizabeth like.  Not that interested in a king

    Parent
    Yes - she said she would never have children (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:04:19 PM EST
    Which is good for the show if she takes the Iron Throne - more succession turmoil!

    Parent
    same (none / 0) (#27)
    by Amiss on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 12:18:48 PM EST
    With an uncle at Alabama for a relative.

    Parent
    A better solution would be ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 07:50:50 AM EST
    to turn all college athletics into non-profit entities.

    There would still be more than enough money to fund the programs.  But the poisonous environment created by the massive profits would be removed.

    It will never happen.  But it would be a better solution.

    Parent

    I like that... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 12:18:29 PM EST
    I think the workers would like that...the crooks riding the gravy train won't like that, and they're the ones with the power.

    So yeah, never happen.

    Parent

    Again, what "massive profits" ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 04:42:06 PM EST
    ... are you talking about? The monies received by NCAA schools from major revenue-generating sports get plowed back into the athletic departments as a whole. And as I said earlier -- apparently to no avail -- only 3% of all NCAA Div. I programs are self-sustaining financially. Conversely, this means that 97% of them are operating in the red -- many of them substantially so.

    (As an example, nearly 80% of the athletic department operating budgets at MAC schools Miami-Ohio and Northern Illinois come from revenues derived elsewhere, outside the respective departments. Do you really think believe that taxpayers and state legislators in Illinois and Ohio will be at all amenable to even further subsidizing that already substantial differential, should it be mandated that college football players be paid a salary for their services?)

    Speaking as someone who WAS a scholarship-athlete himself in college baseball, which constitutes a "non-rev" sport (that is, a sport which does not operate in the black) at most schools, and whose daughter was also one, I really don't understand why this is so hard a concept for people to comprehend.

    You have to look at a given school's athletic program in the aggregate, in toto. You can't just cherry-pick one or even two particular high-profile sports like football or men's basketball, which do so happen to produce quite substantial revenues for a relative handful of institutions (but most certainly not all of them), and then further pronounce them as representative of the overall good financial health of the school athletic program.

    That would be like saying publicly that Toyota's doing just marvelous, when all you've really done is examine the great sales figures for the Prius. Basing your findings on only one or two aspects of an organization's operations will all too frequently give you a terribly skewed and completely misleading picture of its overall general state of affairs, which in Toyota's case is not good at all.

    (And further, should those workers on the Prius assembly line be paid substantially higher compensation, than that which is received by Toyota workers who are assembling other less profitable models? I'd venture to speculate that 90% of you would say no, absolutely not -- which would also be hypocritical, given your advocacy of paying college football and men's basketball players, but not necessarily the other student-athletes on scholarship.)

    Further, college funding simply doesn't work this way, because university revenues are often co-mingled, and monies derived from an institution's more profitable programs are frequently used to subsidize other programs which don't necessarily operate in the black -- such as, let's say, the English, history and foreign language departments.

    And in many states, you ought to also consider that all revenues generated in excess of a public university's approved operating budget in any given fiscal biennium will instead be transferred directly into the state's general fund, rather than recycled back into the universities themselves.

    This means that if Cornhusker athletics is turning a tidy profit at the University of Nebraska, which it does, whatever monies there are above and beyond what the institution needs to balance its books overall will go directly into the Nebraska state treasury.

    You guys have embraced the idea of paying salaries to college athletes as one would other school employees, as though it's all so simple and easy, when it's really anything but. There are a lot of moving and interrelated parts here which you're either not seeing, or are refusing to acknowledge even exist.

    If D-1 football players are allowed to organize and demand compensation based solely on football program revenues, I predict that it will set into motion a chain of events that will eventually cause most schools -- especially those public colleges and universities that don't necessarily have or maintain high public profiles in collegiate sports, and which further rely on state legislative appropriations for a substantial portion of their operating budgets -- to see college athletic programs as white elephants which can neither be afforded or maintained any longer. Most of these programs will subsequently be dropped, and the overall quality of the student experience at these institutions will be much the poorer for it.

    (And you know who will really lose out here, should this ultimately all come to pass? The female student-athlete, because with rare exceptions such as women's volleyball at Hawaii and Nebraska and women's basketball at Tennessee and UConn, women's intercollegiate sports programs are generally money-losers and require extensive subsidization in order to be maintained.)

    So, be very wary of that which you are advocating, because should you ever succeed in achieving that goal, you could find that the final results may very well neither meet your preconceived expectations nor be to your ultimate liking.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The Final Four coaches have earned $850,000 (none / 0) (#137)
    by DFLer on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 09:54:34 PM EST
    in bonuses this year.

    In another report: link

    Each coaching staff and athletic department earns a huge bonus for making it to each round in the NCAA tournament. Kentucky freshman Aaron Harrison hit the biggest shot of his young college career when he hit a game winning three over Michigan's Caris Levert to win the East Regional final. That game winning shot earned the Kentucky coaching staff and athletic director $330,000. Coach John Calipari will get $150,000 out of that bonus and the assistants will get a cut as well. It doesn't stop there: Billy Donovan has already earned $250,000 in bonuses going into the final four and Kevin Ollie has earned up to $100,000 in the tournament. As for the student athletes who put in their work and earned their trips to the final four, they will get trip on a charter plane to North Texas where they get to compete for a national championship, not a cut of the bonus money that the coaches and athletic directors got.


    Parent
    Much of the views here (none / 0) (#141)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 06:37:33 AM EST
    makes me LOL, earning money is bad, oh the inequality of it all. :)

    Give it a few minutes of thought, money going to student athletes isn't going to come from coaches, the coaches will be getting MORE because the teams they manage will be worth more, at least at the top schools.

    Parent

    oh please Cat (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by DFLer on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 07:31:12 AM EST
    Not saying earning money is bad....just pointing out who is earning it. That's all.

    Parent
    Before (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 06:03:58 AM EST
    getting too excited, we should wait to see what the first "contract" looks like and what they get paid, if it occurs in our lifetimes.

    The speculation here is that its going to be big money, and it could just as well be a modest stipend. Having some of the big schools with athletes in a union isn't a checkbook, not until they have some leverage and that remains to be seen.

    Parent

    SITE VIOLATOR! (none / 0) (#13)
    by caseyOR on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 07:38:44 AM EST
    Trying to butter-up Jeralyn with a bit of praise for the site.

    Will the offender be discouraged (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 07:53:53 AM EST
    by the "1"?

    Parent
    Not likely (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:30:01 AM EST
    but it does give me an idea for a documentary. "Can Farming: The Rise of the Spam Empire"

    Parent
    That depends (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jtaylorr on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:38:42 AM EST
    Do robots feel shame?

    Parent
    Wasn't that the name (none / 0) (#32)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:10:16 PM EST
    of a Philip K. Dick novel?

    Parent
    Depends on (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:17:54 PM EST
    WHAT they dream about electric sheep.

    Parent
    Federal Judge Timothy Black, (none / 0) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 03:41:32 PM EST
    ruled that "I intend to issue a declaration that Ohio's recognition bans that have been relied upon to deny legal recognition to same sex couples validly entered into in other states where legal, violates the rights secured by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution."  " (they're) denied their fundamental right to marry a person of their choosing and the right to remain married."

    Seeking recognition of legal marriage from a state  that does not permit same sex marriage  seems like not only a good legal strategy, but also, a more likely, persuasive political argument.  Even for those opposed to  same sex civil marriage in their state may understand what it would be like if an opposite sex couple was married in one state, but found that that marriage was not recognized when traveling or if they changed state residency--essentially, losing the right to remain married.

    Isn't that pretty much (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 05:02:38 PM EST
    What happened it interracial marriage laws?

    Parent
    Yes, enough similarities so (none / 0) (#65)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 06:36:01 PM EST
    that Loving v Virginia has been cited in a number of cases: the overturning of Prop 8 (Perry v Schwarzenegger), and the recent Utah and Virginia cases.  The Supreme Court decision (unanimous)  on Loving overturned Virginia's miscegenation law on the basis of due process and equal protection of the 14th amendment.   While differences, of course, exist, it is interesting that the similarity with the Ohio ruling is that the Lovings were legally married in Washington, DC and returned to Virginia.

     However, In the Loving case, upon their return to Virginia, they were charged with a Virginia code that prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia. Virginia raided their home at night hoping to find them in a state other than just sleeping, so as to add-on to the charges.  The DC marriage license was considered evidence of co-habitating .  Both Lovings were sentenced to one year in prison, to be suspended for 25 years if they moved out of Virginia.  They did, to DC but were unable to visit relatives in Virginia.  The ACLU took the case as a violation of the 14th Amendment.

    Parent

    I have a question for the lawyers (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:13:21 AM EST
    If it's found that a state like mine must recognize same sex marriages from another state must they also allow and/or perform them?  Or can they simply be forced to recognize them for the sake of, say, state income tax filing but not allow them to be performed in the state.

    Parent
    The Ohio decision will (none / 0) (#97)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 11:06:33 AM EST
    not require Ohio to issue marriage licenses so as to  permit same-sex marriages within the state.  It would require Ohio  only to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states.

    In an earlier decision, Judge Black (same federal judge, ruling under appeal) ruled that death certificates in Ohio must acknowledge the marital status of surviving spouses in same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.  However, the   most recent ruling would expand that narrow application so as to require Ohio to recognize all valid marriages and for all purposes, such as taxation and birth certificates listings.  

    Therefore, recognition of same-sex marriages legally celebrated in another state, and the allowing sex-marriage within the state may be two different considerations.  When    the Supreme Court overturned a section of DOMA, requiring federal recognition of same-sex marriages, it did not address recognition by the states--that is now being considered at the District/Appellate level.

    Parent

    The Ohio decision will (none / 0) (#98)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 11:07:21 AM EST
    not require Ohio to issue marriage licenses so as to  permit same-sex marriages within the state.  It would require Ohio  only to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states.

    In an earlier decision, Judge Black (same federal judge, ruling under appeal) ruled that death certificates in Ohio must acknowledge the marital status of surviving spouses in same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.  However, the   most recent ruling would expand that narrow application so as to require Ohio to recognize all valid marriages and for all purposes, such as taxation and birth certificates listings.  

    Therefore, recognition of same-sex marriages legally celebrated in another state, and the allowing sex-marriage within the state may be two different considerations.  When    the Supreme Court overturned a section of DOMA, requiring federal recognition of same-sex marriages, it did not address recognition by the states--that is now being considered at the District/Appellate level.

    Parent

    Sorry, Captain, (none / 0) (#99)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 11:09:30 AM EST
    did not mean to respond twice--but I do feel doubly strong on this issue.

    Parent
    Ha (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 11:17:34 AM EST
    You and me both

    Thanks for the info.   That's about what I thought.

    Parent

    Narcos (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 04:44:00 PM EST
    Earlier this week Netflix announced, in a statement, plans to produce, "Narcos," a new series about the infamous Colombian cartel boss that will be directed by Brazilian Jose Padilha ("Robocop," "Elite Squad"), according to Spanish wire service EFE.

    The digital content provider has ordered one season -- 10 episodes -- for the series, which will star Brazilian actor Wagner Moura ("Elysium") as Escobar. "Narcos" is set to debut in early 2015 and filming will begin soon in Colombia.

    Padilha is most recently known for this year's reboot of "Robocop" and his Brazilian crime films "Elite Squad" (2007) and "Elite Squad: The Enemy Within" (2010) -- both of which starred Moura as Lt. Colonel Nascimento.

    wanna good laugh.. (none / 0) (#61)
    by desertswine on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 06:20:49 PM EST
    George Bush portraits of world leaders.  Paint by number anyone?
    Make sure to check out the slide show.

    Paint By Number? (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 06:34:55 PM EST
    Maybe you are thinking of him as POTUS? He seemed like a moron,

    But not sure why you would want to trash him as a painter. Or why you would suggest that these paintings are "paint by number" variety.

    I think he is pretty serious about painting, and, imo, he seems to be pretty talented at it.

    The paintings, imo, are good pairings.

    Parent

    I commented in another thread (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 06:42:29 PM EST
    That there way worse things he could be doing. And while he is not Caravaggio I was surprised how good I thought they were.
    And bless his heart he does seem serious about it.

    I was thinking they should called the show CREATING COLLECTIBLES FOR FUTURE ANTIQUES ROADSHOWS

    Parent

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 06:47:48 PM EST
    I think that he is way better than antique roadshow paintings, at least the generic ones. I am sure that it is possible to find a great painting at those shows, but in general most of the fare is dreck.

    Bush's paintings are on a much higher level, imo. He really has talent, and not just the type of talent that means being able to render, he puts something into the works, it rises to the level of art, imo.

    Parent

    Wasn't denigrating ARS really (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 07:16:31 PM EST
    I have seen some great stuff.  And while agree they are pretty good I still think the painter will always be a bigger reason for collecting them than the paintings.

    Parent
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 07:23:37 PM EST
    I think the former president shows talent--his portraits capture his subjects as informed by his experience with incorporation of his artistic insights.  Putin, for instance, is not only a more than decent pictorial, but also, a portrayal of the darkness of the former KGB colonel.  Following a similar indicia, I find his self-portrait to be the least interesting.

    It is probably understandable that evaluation of George Bush's artistic talent can be contaminated by what he is better known for, sort of like begrudgingly acknowledging Il Duce's prowess in running railroads, but we are assessing different things.  Not always easy, but always fair.

    Parent

    Hmm, not often we disagree (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 02:51:24 PM EST
    The Putin portrait is one of my least favorite of the portraits that G.W. produced.

    If I had viewed the painting on a stand-alone basis without knowledge of the artist or the theme of the paintings, I doubt that I would have been able to recognize that it was Putin.

    Also, I do not like the handling of the lights and darks in the painting.

    Parent

    Gee, I think it (none / 0) (#122)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 05:12:58 PM EST
    was the lighting that made me feel that if I got too close, I would get annexed.

    Parent
    Putin (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 07:43:11 PM EST
    Which is surprising considering the whole " looking into his heart" thing.

    Which always reminded me of that great line fromAll About Eve - "remind me to tell you about the time I looked into the heart of an artichoke"

    Parent

    Yes, Bush (none / 0) (#72)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 07:52:59 PM EST
    looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul.  Maybe, if Bush remembered little, sweet Eve Harrington, his naivete might have been brought into line.

    Parent
    W may have once seen Putin's "soul" (none / 0) (#110)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 03:01:42 PM EST
    so he claimed, anyway ... but if his first look inside revealed something positive, W must have taken another look ... because the fascinating Putin Portrait is an indictment at least.  Whether the tones & colors used convey a jaundiced Putin personality or an angry, pinched, off-kilter ego is anyone's guess.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 03:10:56 PM EST
    he definitely looks like he got a bad nose job.

    Parent
    I thought (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 04:33:55 PM EST
    Humid Karzai got the worst deal

    Parent
    Guess it is true that differences (none / 0) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 06:22:55 PM EST
    make the world go around.

    I haven't seen all of the paintings but from I've seen, along with Putin, Dubya didn't do Pappy Bush any favors with his portrait. He made his mouth look like what you would see on an early Charlie McCarthy puppet with tobacco dripping down to his chin.

    Parent

    Interesting excerpt from NYT: (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 12:11:26 PM EST
        "The paintings are kind of primitive and amateurish, which is kind of how I remember him as president," said Paul Chan, an artist based in New York. The initial works in particular looked as if "they were being painted by someone who had a very literal view of the world."

    Do you think a person looking at a painting is able to discern the political leanings of the artist?

    Parent

    Well, the paintings of W, the artist (none / 0) (#104)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 12:57:21 PM EST
    formerly known as President Bush,  all hang cocked to the right.  So, that does give some indication of leanings.

    Parent
    I read the quote as "liberal" (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    instead of "literal."

    Parent
    Another Review (none / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 01:41:14 PM EST
    An earlier review By Roberta Smith, from when Bush paintings were leaked on the internet. She is the top NYT reviewer. And, she is one of the few reviewers who I can read without throwing up. Top notch, imo, and has been at it for a long time. Not that I always agree with her, but even when I disagree, her writing has substance.

    The Secret Art of G.W.B.


    Parent

    Including Smith's musing re W's (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 02:08:42 PM EST
    motivation:

    The two paintings could be said to depict the introverted self-absorption for which Mr. Bush is known. Perhaps, he is trying to cleanse himself in a more metaphorical way, seeking a kind of redemption from his less fortuitous decisions as president.

    Apparently W studied w/a well-known teacher.


    Parent

    Is studying (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 04:30:49 PM EST
    According to his daughter on some cable show

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#126)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 06:59:09 PM EST
    If they think they know what they are beforehand.

    Parent
    Game of thrones question (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 08:21:19 PM EST
    Does anyone know why episode 29 is the beginning of season 4?  The final episodes of season three were. 30 and 31 skipping 29.  I found no answer to this when I googled.  In fact the numbers of episodes on wiki are incorrect.  It calls the last two episodes of season 3 29 and 30. And the HBO site was unhelpful.Caravaggio

    Is this just a dish network error.  Please check your listings if you have another provider.

    I honestly (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 08:22:43 PM EST
    Have no idea how Caravaggio got in there.  Please disregard.

    Parent
    I think it is likely just a Dish thing (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 08:46:14 PM EST
    My cable provider and also HBO Go both just say 'Season 3, Episode 10' and 'Season 4, Episode 1'. No fancy cumulative numbering.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:00:33 PM EST
    On demand lists them the same way.  But in the regular guid it lists the longer episode numbers.   It just seemed odd.  I can see dish leaving out a number but not why they would make it the first number of season 4.  It will be interesting to see what the next number is.  It will either be 30 or 32

    I too just became a fan and thanks to the stupid storm last night still have not seen the last 2 episodes.  I will gate another chance to grab them tomorrow thanks to the marathon

    Parent

    Oh boy, you must watch them. Soon. (none / 0) (#83)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:14:32 PM EST
    Buy them on iTunes if you must!

    Parent
    Figure I would just wait and grab them for free (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:05:55 AM EST
    I could do on demand but my internet services only gives me so much at super high speed.  I use that up fast if I watch HD on demand.  After using my super high speed bits it's still faster than my sisters DSL but I like the quick.

    Parent
    However (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:26:47 AM EST
    I can watch as much on demand or netflix as I like if I do it between midnight and 5am.

    I like the service.  It's way better than anything else around here.  It's Excede/Wildblue.  Super fast.

    Parent

    I can see how the last two episodes of Season 3 (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:12:23 PM EST
    would have been 29 and 30, like wiki says. There have been 3 seasons of 10 episodes per season, correct? So the last one of Season 3 would have been episode 30.

    Parent
    RIP Televisionwithoutpity.com (none / 0) (#81)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:08:52 PM EST
    My favorite pure time waster web site. Today was their last day. Many times their recaps are more entertaining than the TV shows.  Really sorry to see them go, and I hope the writers get good jobs elsewhere.

    We went to Winter Soldier last night (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 06:17:19 AM EST
    Very good, even for a mom.  The storyline has such a current feel, Hydra the vampire squid has grown inside Shield and now is trying to take over the world by compromising all of our security and stability and forcing us to rely on them for stability...weird current storyline.

    Not the first time (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:03:17 AM EST
    I have heard good things about it.

    Parent
    Josh did a movie party last night (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 02:04:06 PM EST
    Invited all his friends.  As they were leaving the kids were asking each other if they saw some guy make his appearance, yeah yeah he was the security guard.  I ask WHO?  The guy who created Marvel Comics mom!  I reply OH.  He makes a cameo appearance in every Marvel movie mom!  

    I'm so far behind I think it is safe to just stay here :)

    Parent

    Here (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 03:45:14 PM EST
    Excellent find!! (none / 0) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 11:19:28 PM EST
    I am all caught up in a flash

    Parent
    No Cameo in S.H.I.E.L.D.? (none / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 11:01:08 AM EST
    Sant Lee (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 03:40:27 PM EST
    He makes Hitchcock like cameos in all the marvel movies.  Every one so far.  

    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 03:41:44 PM EST
    Stan Lee.   He created all the characters in comic form.

    Parent
    He must be crazy brilliant :) (none / 0) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 07:37:20 PM EST
    Josh (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:38:34 PM EST
    might like this

    The man behind Spider-Man, The X-Men, The Incredible Hulk, and a legion of other superheroes tells his own amazing story in a book packed with punch, humor, anecdotes, and a gallery of never-before-seen photographs. Stan Lee is the most legendary name in the history of comicbooks. The leading creative force behind the rise of Marvel Comics, he brought to life some of the world's best-known heroes and most infamous villains. His stories, featuring super- heroes who struggled against personal hang-ups and bad guys who possessed previously unseen psychological complexity, added wit and subtlety to a field previously locked into flat portrayals of good vs. evil. Lee put the human in the super-human. In the process, he created a new mythology for the twentieth century. In this treasure trove of marvelous memories, Stan tells the story of his life with the same inimitable wit, energy, and offbeat spirit that he brought to the world of comicbooks. He moves from his impoverished childhood in Manhattan to his early days writing comicbooks, followed by military training films during World War II, through the rise of the Marvel empire in the 1960s to his recent adventures in Hollywood. The story of a man who earned respect by blazing new creative trails in a storytelling form once dismissed as just for kids, Excelsior! is an inspirational story about following one's vision, no matter the odds. Yet it's also the story of how some of the most exciting and memorable characters in the pop-culture universe came to thrill a generation.

    Parent

    I never liked comic books (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 07:43:52 PM EST
    Being Josh's mom with all this new tech and writing is like getting a second childhood.  I was way too serious for the first one anyhow.  I am grateful to get a second chance, and I mean that...seriously :)

    Parent
    Stan is like (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:28:13 PM EST
    The Hitchcock of comic books.  He invented so many never before used things that are now visual cliches.  Great man.  I got to meet him once when he toured DD.  Definitely someone to have a drink with.

    Parent
    How neat, to meet him (none / 0) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:30:47 PM EST
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 323 (none / 0) (#95)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 10:38:39 AM EST
    The CEO considers it a very "people centered" business. (link)

    v. 322
    v. 321

    Get your weekends on, my friends. Peace to all.

    Maybe Gov. Christie's in-house (none / 0) (#112)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 03:12:14 PM EST
    "self assessment" wasn't too convincing, because it seems that another assessment--or rather, a broader investigation--by a Grand Jury will follow.  The US Attorney is reported to have convened a Grand Jury in the matter of the infamous George Washington Bridge closure last year.

    Ah well ....  So, are we looking at Paul Ryan, the budget axman, as the putative political successor in talk of the Repub town?  Or, is Rand Paul trying to find the "middle" of the conglomerate Repubs?  Or, is Jeb Bush ready to go with the Bush rallying cry?  Or--my goodness--that Ted Cruz is turning up everywhere?

    Apparently (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 03:48:30 PM EST
    Mike Rodgers the current head of the house intelligence committee is not just leaving to start a radio show.  I saw him all but announce the other day.   He could be a serious contender.  He is a smart guy and as you suggest their cup does not exactly runneth over.

    Parent
    Maher on Roberts (none / 0) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 04:12:38 PM EST
    Did you also see the Jon Stewart segment (none / 0) (#121)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 04:35:41 PM EST
    ont hat decision? One of his best.

    Parent
    Finally saw the " red wedding" (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 06:25:14 PM EST
    Caught bits and pieces of the last episodes thanks to rain related signal loss but not that.   Wow.

    Nice touch that it was the first time to have no music in the credits.

    Parent

    Glad you saw it,didn't want to spoil (none / 0) (#138)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 10:28:23 PM EST
    I had heard  about  some wedding going off the rails before I knew anything else about the show, but as it got down to the final episodes of the season and there were multiple weddings in the works I didn't know which one was gonna be 'red'. I thought Joffrey was gonna go bizerk or something. Maybe that will be the 'redder wedding'.

    Parent
    Comcast apparently stuffs (none / 0) (#127)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 07:05:12 PM EST
    politicians pockets to the tune of $19 million a year, seems like the merger with TW is bought and paid for. Random info link

    If you count... (none / 0) (#131)
    by unitron on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 07:47:55 PM EST
    ...waiting until the situation is so bad you can get seen at an emergency room, then everybody has health care.

    But it's health insurance that people are getting who didn't have it before.

    Which means there's a chance at not having to wind up in the ER in the first place.

    But apparently superior outcomes aren't enough to wash off the socialism cooties.

    Emergency treatment in an ER is not (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:09:06 PM EST
    the same as having health care on an ongoing basis.

    Those people who waited until situation was so bad that they could be seen in the ER did not have health care during the period that they waited for their condition to worsen.

    People who are newly insured can now receive treatment at the onset of an illness - they now have health care that they didn't have before.

    Those who waited and then went to the ER got emergency care and were released. They did not get follow up care.

    People who are now insured can receive follow up treatment - they now have health care that they did not have before.

    I'm not a big fan of the private insurance based system that was adopted but it is IMO totally inaccurate to say that no one is getting health care who didn't get it before. They are getting the following types of health care that they did not get before: preventive care, initial care and follow up care.

     

    Parent

    Several physicians have written (none / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:19:26 PM EST
    At Dailykos that they can't really treat ongoing conditions at emergency rooms for the uninsured.  There are many diagnostic tests often needed to determine the protocols needed that they can't write orders for.  They can only write orders for the immediate emergency situation.  They can't really help and prescribe for someone uninsured who is in need of treating a chronic condition.

    Parent
    Depends on who you are counting (none / 0) (#145)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 03:38:59 PM EST
    2009 Politifact

    If you count everybody - in 2006, it was around 46 million (or up to 57 million, depending on how you look at the data). If you count the number of Americans ("citizens"), the number was close to 36 million.

    And, of course, that number doesn't mean all those people were uninsured for the entirety of 2009.

    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 06:14:36 PM EST
    And, of course, that number doesn't mean all those people were uninsured for the entirety of 2009.

    Actually, it does.

    From your link:

    The Census Bureau calls these people each spring, and it asks if they were insured at any time during the previous year. They run through a list of questions of all the ways people could have been covered to make sure. If a person had insurance for even one day during the year, they are not counted as uninsured.


    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#151)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 07:14:18 AM EST
    no, the questionnaire (The American Community Servicse) used for this data does NOT ask that question:

    Is this person CURRENTLY covered by any of the following types of health insurance or health coverage plans? Mark "Yes" or "No" for EACH type of coverage in items a - h.

    And if you go to the next 2 paragraphs in the same link:

    That seems like a nice, conservative way to measure, but the census number still has a few critics. Researchers have noticed that the census numbers tend to be a bit higher than some of the other government surveys collected for similar time periods. For example, in 2007, a survey from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found the full-year uninsured population to be 40 million, not 45.7 million.

    The researchers have a suspicion about the reason for the difference: people's bad memories. The Census Bureau calls people and asks them to think back during the past year as to whether they were insured or not. The other survey calls the people back every few months and ask if they're insured at that moment.



    Parent
    No idea why ... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 08, 2014 at 08:10:38 PM EST
    ... you think the ACS was "the questionnaire (The American Community Servicse) used for this data" - there's no cite or link to it in the article.  There is a link to the report published by the Census Bureau which clearly states that "People were considered insured if they were covered by any type of health insurance for part or all of the previous calendar year.  They were considered uninsured if they were not covered by any type of health insurance at any time in that year" (page 19).  precisely why your own link says that:

    If a person had insurance for even one day during the year, they are not counted as uninsured.

    It's an overcount because it counts noncitizens. Take out the 9.7 million noncitizens and the actual number is closer to 36 million.

    It's an undercount because it's old data from when the economy was doing much better, and it was for people who were uninsured for a whole year

    Precisely the same reasons yours is an undercount and (in fact) irrelevant to Mikado/MO Blue's discussion, in which they were talking about 2009 and were not talking about American citizens.

    Parent

    It also depends ... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 05:11:46 PM EST
    ... on the year you are counting, and both Mikado and MO Blue were talking about the number of uninsured in 2009, which was significantly higher than in 2006.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#147)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 05:22:05 PM EST
    My comment had a typo - that was the number of uninsured in 2007, not 2006 (released in 2009), so while it is not accurate, unless you can show a wide difference to 2009, then the point stands.

    And if you want 2009, the answer was still 47 million.

    And again, the data do not differentiate between those who were "unisured" for the entire year or just part of the year.

    Parent

    Happy to (none / 0) (#148)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 05:41:36 PM EST
    5 million more in 2009, when compared to 2007, 5.7 million more than 2006.

    Parent
    You do know that people who are (none / 0) (#150)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 06:35:46 PM EST
    not American citizens but in the country legally are allowed to get coverage on the exchange. They also get employer coverage if they work for a company that provides coverage.

    Immigrants here legally who don't get coverage through their jobs will be able to purchase health coverage through new state-based marketplaces called exchanges that open Oct. 1.

    FWIW, the cat did not qualify his statement to restrict the number uninsured to apply only to American citizens nor did he eliminate non citizens from his population numbers when he used the total population of the U.S. numbers to distort the percentages for those who purchased insurance.

    we were told there were 35 million uninsured in 2009

    In their final report the Census Bureau told us that there were 49 million uninsured:

    The number of uninsured people
    increased to 49.9 million in 2010
    from 49.0 million in 2009


    Parent
    MONEY MONEY MONEY (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 07:32:32 PM EST
    After months of being outspent on TV, Pryor emerges with slight lead in new poll.

    Mark Pryor is going to win this race.  And it is going to be - if he does - in large part thanks to the money.  

    Spent against him.

    More and more I am hearing people - not liberal democrat type people - talk about how much they resent the flood of out of state money being spent against Mark Pryor.  Even if they don't love all his votes they really seem to not like all the "outside money"
    That's what they are calling it.  Could this be a hopeful trend?

    NYT followed the mayoral race in (none / 0) (#154)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 08:21:36 PM EST
    Coralville IA. Lots of Koch Bros. money. But their candidate lost. link

    Parent