home

New Year's Open Thread

As much as I disliked 2015, I have very positive feelings about 2016. I don't much believe in resolutions, so I can't offer up any, but here's an open thread for yours, and anything else that's on your mind.

< 2015 Was a Miserable Year | 2016: the State of Play >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I agree about 2016 (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 01, 2016 at 06:37:23 PM EST
    No doubt the campaign will be like non stop nails on a chalk board but I am quite optimistic about the results of that campaign.

    I have never seen the right so fractured and lost.  It warms the cockles of my black little heart.

    In addition to that if I survive it I will finally get my full retirement and my life will be a lot easier in 2017.

    To quote SpongeBob I'M READY

    I'm looking forward... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by desertswine on Fri Jan 01, 2016 at 06:49:58 PM EST
    to retirement this year, hope to do a little traveling.  Portland, for sure, to see the daughter and grand-kids, Nicky and Micky.

    Parent
    I highly recommend retirement (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 01, 2016 at 08:25:26 PM EST
    Being able to travel is a definite benefit as well as finding (or rediscoving) new and interesting activities. An added benefit -with each new activity, you often meet interesting people as well. Even on a limited budget, there are free or almost free things to do on a regular basis.

    Being able to see family members more often (especially grandkids) is also a definite plus.

    Parent

    I turn 65 (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 01, 2016 at 06:53:00 PM EST
    In November but I don't see the money until 3 months after that.  I guess they are giving me one last chance to die first.

    Parent
    Take care of your health (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 02:02:15 AM EST
    I was very healthy and my boss even remarked a few times how dependable I was. Working long hours and putting the company first. Then I had my heart attack and quad bi pass.  I was employed and so I did not have to sign up for Medicare right then. I was looking into it and figuring on retiring in a couple of years. I was lucky, Blue Cross paid the entire $80k. Then they raised the companies annual premium. So even though I went back to work after 6 months I was laid off. I was not ready to get out of the corporate world. I had been working since I was in high school and 16. I worked during college. I had some terrific jobs. It was a blow for me. I do love to travel and luckily during my lifetime I have traveled extensively and lived in some fabulous places.I don't want to be a Debbie Downer, but make sure you have a good supplemental policy. Yes, I can still travel but I hate to be a burden to others. Nerve damage. I think that Viking cruise looks so relaxing and interesting. So Captain, enjoy your retirement and make sure you take care of your health. More wine is good for you. Heh. Oh, and live where your state does not tax your 401k income.

    Parent
    One big reason (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:40:12 AM EST
    I am where I am is almost absurdly low taxes.  I only have to worry about my pension.  I no longer have a 401K.  I cashed it in to buy this house.  I took a hit but it was worth it.  Having no rent or mortgage payment has really saved me for the last 5 years.   But property  taxes for instance.  When I was looking for places I could afford in the northwest one thing I was checking closely was property taxes.  They were on average about 10 times more.  There is a thing called a Homestead Exemption.  Not entirely clear how it works.  I believe you have to be a certain age and have only one house but the bottom line is I pay no property taxes.  None.  The exemption covers my property taxes.  And my personal tax is leas than 100 bucks.  
    I would advise including looking at that as well.

    As far as a supplemental insurance program for Medicare.  Absolutely.  I have discussed the epic medical journey my sister has been for the last few years.  Because of their supplemental insurance it has not cost the one penny.

    Btw I agree about Viking River cuises.

    Parent

    If you were looking at Oregon (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 02:53:55 PM EST
    and Washington tax rates, Capt., the property taxes in those two states are higher because each state lacks one of the legs of the three-legged stool model of taxation.

    The  three stool legs are state income tax, which Washington does not have; state sales tax, which Oregon does not have; and property tax, which both states do have.

    If you can guesstimate what you would pay in income or sales tax you might discover it evens out for you.

    I do miss not having to pay sales tax.


    Parent

    Good to know (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 05:02:49 PM EST
    Thanks.    I did not know this.

    Parent
    I have two good friends, a married couple, that (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 11:21:18 AM EST
    retired last year and did the Viking River Cruise through Prague and other cities. They loved it. He recently started treatment for brain cancer - I am wondering if they already knew the diagnosis and just did not make it public. I am glad they got to do that trip.

    He is doing very well with the treatments so far - did another scan last week and I am waiting the hear the results.

    Enjoy every sandwich, in the word of the late great Warren Zevon.


    Parent

    I had to switch planes (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by CST on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 10:51:16 AM EST
    In Prague once, and since then it's been near the top of my wishlist.  What a gorgeous city - even just from the sky.

    My mother retired this year and walked the Camino de Santiago in Spain with a friend of hers for a few weeks.

    Retirement sounds nice.

    Parent

    Prague is incredibly beautiful (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by sj on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    I have a friend who lived there and it was amazing. Got box seats to the opera for $12 (in the 90's). The same opera was being sung in Paris when we were there a week later and the lowest ticket price was $120. Ten times the cost.

    When you go, the thing to get is Bohemian crystal.

    Parent

    "Bohemian crystal" (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 03:09:43 PM EST
    Sounds like something illicit I ingested in college...

    $12 opera tickets. Sigh. I just checked prices for a Wednesday performance at Seattle Opera, and the cheapest ticket (top balcony, all the way to the side) is $25. This is the seat "opera glasses" were invented for.

    Parent

    Viking River cruises do (none / 0) (#130)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 02:46:36 PM EST
    sound interesting. Perhaps we could pull together a VIking River cruise filled with TLers. Now that, I think, would be fun.

    Parent
    I would really like to do a Viking river cruise, (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:40:59 PM EST
    and especially would like to see Prague and Budapest. But everyone I ask says the passengers are almost always couples.

    Parent
    Want a date? (5.00 / 6) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:51:03 PM EST
    I'm available. But I'm not cheap.

    Parent
    And neither is Viking Cruises, Cap'n. (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 09:32:57 PM EST
    CaptHowdy: "I'm available. But I'm not cheap."

    My mother and her best friend did the cruise from St. Petersburg to Moscow in 2011. It was 13 days and $5,500 not including the airfare to and from Russia.

    Our next overseas trip will be Japan. Funny, but even though it's one of our closest neighbors, we've only spent time in Tokyo, and that was three years ago while on our way back from Vietnam. Now we're ready to see the rest of that country.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Recommendations: lots of time (none / 0) (#161)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 01:32:44 AM EST
    in Kyoto. Kobe is interesting. And visit an onsen.

    Parent
    Donald, Per person or per room (none / 0) (#179)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 08:43:23 PM EST
    If for the room, not too bad. Then they send me their booklet from time to time. TY PBS. I have been on 9 cruises but all Caribbean, Mexico, and Alaska. A lot of drinking and dancing and fun. Heh. The bar bill, Woe de me. So if it for room and then added air fare, it becomes affordable. I mean, the history would knock your socks off. I just keep sweet day dreaming.

    BTW, when I happen to watch H 5-0 I think, now that looks like a place I would be happy to live. Especially when it is currently 3 degrees in my area. We had such wonderful weather so far and now back to the winter norm.

    Parent

    I was going to recommend Kyoto too (none / 0) (#180)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 08:53:53 PM EST
    Really a 'must' to spend time there. Hiroshima was very moving as well, in a different way.

    Parent
    Well, it would surely be an (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 01:31:05 AM EST
    entertaining vacation. Dutch treat, right?  And don't count on me to discuss TV!

    Parent
    I've had single friends that went on trips (none / 0) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:53:03 PM EST
    where the passengers were mainly couples. There were couples that included them in with their group and they said they had a great time. If it is high on your bucket list, I recommend you go.

    Parent
    My list is rather long. (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 11:34:35 AM EST
    And pricey.

    Parent
    Well, the campaign has quite a bit (none / 0) (#4)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 01, 2016 at 06:56:17 PM EST
    of slightly-twisted entertainment value.

    Kind of like a David Lynch movie with lower production values..

    I have expect Trump to start morphing into Frank Booth from Blue Velvet before our eyes..

    "Mommy! Baby wants to...."

    Parent

    Are you familiar with (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 01, 2016 at 07:02:12 PM EST
    Not till now (none / 0) (#6)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 01, 2016 at 07:16:09 PM EST
    if Lynch isn't solid proof that beings from other worlds walk among us, I don't know what is..

    Parent
    Not sure how widely known it is (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 01, 2016 at 07:31:31 PM EST
    But he started out as an animator.  Some like Six Men Getting Sick Six Times are quite beautiful if disturbing.  Unlike Dumbland which is clearly intentionally not beautiful.

    LINK

    There is an excellent box set.   As much as I love the animated ones, I think The Amputee is my favorite.  I'm sure it's on YouTube.  I think you need to see it.


    Parent

    Here is a link to (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 01, 2016 at 07:39:34 PM EST
    The Amputee  complete with explanation of why he did it.  Which is laugh out loud.  I won't try to summarize just listen.  Even if you don't watch the short film which is absolutely horrific listen to the reason he did it.  Which is first.

    Parent
    I'm not sure I trust you (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 01, 2016 at 07:59:57 PM EST
    after that whole Von Trier Antichrist debacle..;-)

    I mean, if You say it's disturbing, it must be pretty bad..

    Parent

    Please keep in mind (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 01, 2016 at 07:49:03 PM EST
    however much of the film you make it through that the people it was made for had to sit through it twice.  Once for each video type.

    Parent
    I made it 3 min 51 seconds (none / 0) (#21)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 10:19:03 AM EST
    (snip... snip... snip... ) into the Amputee

    Ten minutes into Dumbland I knew I'd never get those ten minutes back.  The only way I could justify watching 23 more minutes was to multiplex my time, so I lifted dumbbells.  By the time he reached the Ant song, about 30 minutes in, my arms ached but my brain ached more.

    The Ant song reminded me of the Radiator song.  3-tooth's whole body cast enclosed scream reminded me of the opening scene (or was it the close?) of The Tenant.  The noise episode (Flies) reminded me of every second of Eraserhead's soundtrack.  The crawling ants reminded me of something by Dali.

    Y'know what 3-tooth reminded me of?  Donald Trump's base.

    Parent

    Trumps base (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 11:13:57 AM EST
    Is what started this sun thread.  Dumbland made fkesh.

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 11:18:44 AM EST
    The Amputee should not frighten you off watching the other short films,  it was cruel to start with that one.  It just makes me laugh every time.  The Grandmother is fetal Eraserhead.  Aplhabet is great.  I love them all.  Amputee is extreme even fir Lynch.  It make me smile every time I imagine him sitting in a room illuminated by one desk lamp trying to figure out what was the most unpleasant thing he could cheaply do to these "video people"

    Parent
    lol. I caved. I watched. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 06:09:10 PM EST
    But only after your description had sunk in.

    (The Ant Song softened me up.)

    After reading your last post, the Firefox tab was still open on the halted Amputee video.  I knew I'd never again be able to hold my head up around you if I didn't watch this bit of foundational Lynch.  So I moved the playhead a couple of minutes past the snipping that had queased me out.  

    The trouble was, I was hearing the same monologue.

    I scrubbed around some more. That's when I realized that I was seeing both tape tests back to back.  It wasn't a documentary.  He didn't film the identical wound care scene twice.  I had permission to breathe.

    That's when the audio rushed into play.  What were these hugely liquidy sounds?  The video sucked so badly I could barely make out the source.  It began sounding like someone enthusiastically plunging a toilet.  The Nurse was desperately grabbing wads of cotton, cramming them into place with both hands.  

    In that moment I saw Lucille Ball trying to keep up with a candy line.  I cracked up.  

    Spurt.  Spurt. The Nurse moved out of frame.  Stuff was still spurting.  Liquid sounds persisted.  The unworried patient continued writing and reading her letter aloud.


    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 06:12:34 PM EST
    I shouldn't be laughing.....

    Parent
    Your optimism... (none / 0) (#189)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:49:20 AM EST
    What are the results you are seeking that make you optimistic?

    I am seeking an immediate end to our military involvement in civil conflicts.

    I am not optimistic at all at the moment.

    Parent

    Oh, my (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 01, 2016 at 07:28:48 PM EST
    2015 was a tough year but not without some good points. I was looking back the other day and realized the last seven years have really been rough.

    Here's to a joyous 2016 for everyone!


    RIP, Natalie Cole (1950-2015). (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 01, 2016 at 08:25:08 PM EST
    The award-winning R&B vocalist, who emerged from the shadow of her legendary father Nat King Cole to carve out a very successful musical career in her own right, died in Los Angeles yesterday of congestive heart failure at age 65.

    And Wayne Rogers (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 01, 2016 at 08:45:46 PM EST
    Trapper John

    Parent
    When comedians and comic actors die, (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 10:20:36 AM EST
    you know it's getting serious.

    Parent
    Wayne Rogers was a super guy. (5.00 / 9) (#31)
    by fishcamp on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 12:17:54 PM EST
    I worked with him on a film in Monaco.  It was the Princess Grace Memorial celebrity pro-am tennis tournament.  He had vineyards in California, and knew one of France's oldest wine caves was under our hotel. We filmed a sequence down there.  It was old, and so was the man that ran the cave.  He invited me back for a glass every afternoon.  I think he said he had every year of every vintage, from France, for the entire century.  I miss those days.

    Parent
    I understand. I really do, (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 02:15:42 PM EST
    One day you're in control, Master of Your Universe with all kinds of responsibilities and people asking for your advice and permission.

    The next day you're just another Old Fart on his way to the bone yard.

    Turning loose is hard to do.

    Parent

    I was surprised (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 02:22:00 AM EST
    he was 82. The years do fly by. I worked in a couple of places where I came in contact with some legends also. One of the fun times was at a Pro Am Tournament in Florida. After it was over people assumed that everyone went back to Hollywood. Nope, they stayed an extra day to just play golf without a crowd. Leslie Nielsen was so nice. And very good looking. I have his picture. And one with Joey Bishop taken by Bobby Riggs. Joey insisted. Ha. And I met Guy Madison who said to me that I probably did not remember him. I was like, Oh Yeah, I remember Wild Bill Hickok. Ha. One of my favorites when I was a kid. And there were many more over the years. You just have to be in the right place at the right time. Memories can be fantastic.

    Parent
    Daily dog (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 08:51:35 AM EST
    sleeping puppies.  Your welcome

    why dogs don't play poker

    Also, I've decided what my New Years resolution is.  I resolve to NOT use entire rolls of toilet paper from a sitting position on top of the empty roll.   Totally doable I think.

    Har... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by desertswine on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 12:19:04 PM EST
    My favorite cartoon... or one of them anyway.

    Parent
    Here's (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by desertswine on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 12:22:25 PM EST
    The president and guns (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 09:10:08 AM EST

    Obama plans curbs on guns

    The president will meet Monday with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch to finalize a series of new gun control measures and will announce his package of proposals soon after, according to several individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan is not yet public.

    One of the main proposals Obama is poised to adopt would require some unlicensed gun dealers to get licenses and conduct background checks on potential buyers. The change is aimed at occasional dealers, including some who sell online frequently or rent tables at gun shows but do not have a storefront.

    However much good this does or does not do, I'm glad he is doing it.

    Well (none / 0) (#24)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 11:12:16 AM EST
    Gun sales will be going through the roof,

    Again

    Parent

    Probably (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 11:22:29 AM EST
    But it would be interesting to know how many of the sales are to new gun owners vs  people who are just adding to their existing arsenal.

    Hopefully, these responsible gun owners will secure their newly purchased weapons properly. Even without adding more guns, too many people are being accidentally shot by unsecured weapons.

    Parent

    What he is doing (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 12:01:58 PM EST
    Is in fact supported by huge majorities of the voting public.

    Parent
    Now that the TX open carry is in effect, (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 01:07:45 PM EST
    It will be interesting to watch what happens.

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 04:13:37 PM EST
    In the Chinese sense.  

    Parent
    Women (none / 0) (#28)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 11:47:07 AM EST
    Daily Beast

    because in the last few years the backbone of the gun control movement has been undergoing an evolution of its own. More and more women are buying guns. As the number of female gun owners has risen, so has the number of women expressing skepticism of gun control.

    More than a third of the women who participated in the National Sports Shooting Foundation's most recent survey identified as new gun owners. This data are consistent with those of other organizations, including the National Sporting Goods Association. According to the NSGA's Annual Sports Participation Report, the number of women who practice target shooting increased nearly 36 percent (from 4.31 million to 5.86 million) between 2004 and 2014, while the number of women participating in hunting increased 23 percent (from 2.68 million to 3.3 million). In response to a request for comment, an NRA spokesman reported tracking a 77 percent increase between 2004 and 2011 in the number of women who own firearms.

    Fortune Magazine

    "It's like somebody saying, `We're going to ban waffle irons,' and you don't even want a waffle iron, but you go out and buy three of them," says Brian Ruttenbur, an analyst with CRT Capital. "The best thing for gun sales has been the Obama administration. It's reverse logic."

    Dubbed the "Obama gun bubble," it lasted nearly two years, and then burst last summer when both Ruger and Smith & Wesson reported dismal earnings. Now, sales are up to a normal level, pre-boom. In addition, handguns didn't get hit nearly as hard as rifles did; Smith & Wesson is mainly a handgun maker.

    "The biggest driver is women getting into the shooting sports, and practicing concealed carry," said Ruttenbur. "When you look at the demographics, what has happened is there's been a rise in women being head of the household. So it started with concealed carry, as a protection thing, but now women are going and taking the family to the range for fun. You don't see it in the major cities, but go 10 miles outside the city, and gun ownership goes through the roof."

    Parent

    Hmm ...Independent research (none / 0) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 12:03:38 PM EST
    According to the latest General Social Survey:

    The survey also finds a shrinking gender gap in personal firearm ownership as a result of a decline in the percentage of men who own one, from 50 percent in 1980 to 35 percent in 2014.

    Fewer women than men own guns, but the percentage among women has held fairly steady since 1980, with 12 percent now saying they personally own a gun. link



    Parent
    So the decline (none / 0) (#35)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 01:08:30 PM EST
    In households basically correlates from 1980 to 2015, and is based upon the decline in hunting.

    According to the latest General Social Survey, 32 percent of Americans either own a firearm themselves or live with someone who does, which ties a record low set in 2010. That's a significant decline since the late 1970s and early 1980s, when about half of Americans told researchers there was a gun in their household.


    Parent
    Oh, well (none / 0) (#41)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 02:40:03 PM EST
    They go "through the roof" every time the paranoid gun crowd gets it in their minds that somebody's coming for their guns.  You can't let that deter good policy changes.

    Parent
    KY Medicaid expansion (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 04:36:48 PM EST
    This is good from ThinkProgress


    It looks like Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R) will be sticking to the promises about Medicaid he made towards the end of his gubernatorial campaign, instead of those made at its beginning. The Tea Party candidate laid out Wednesday his plans to "transform" -- rather than entirely dismantle -- the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

    "We are going to transform the way Medicaid is delivered in Kentucky and this transformation I think will be a model to the nation," Bevin said at a press conference Wednesday.

    By continuing Medicaid's expansion under Obamacare, Bevin will join a long line of GOP governors who have railed against the program but eventually come around to supporting it. The pattern is well-established and often includes negotiating with the federal government a special carve-out for a state-specific version of the program, a way to save political face by not seeming to have caved and become an Obamacare supporter.



    File it under (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 05:31:44 PM EST
    the things you learn on a legal blog but nobody would believe you learned it there.

    So many people have been talking about their new years' meals and I have been freaking them out about the not eating chicken thing on new year's day.

    My rescue dog was adopted today (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by McBain on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 05:38:33 PM EST
    A nice couple took him home from the adoption event.  I was sad to see him go but really happy to know he's going to have good living situation.

    I also got to talk to his previous foster owner.  Apparently, he was a stray dog for quite a while.

    I hit the "Rec List" (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 11:52:01 PM EST
    ...at the Great Orange Satan with this rant about the racism embodied in the Marin County Deputy Sheriff's Association appeal for contributions.

    Obviously, (none / 0) (#165)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 10:12:12 AM EST
    the cop had one of those shoot-around-the-truth guns.

    Disquieting photo, btw.

    Parent

    Big Pharma Drug Pricing (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 01:38:43 AM EST
    It sure as $#@*! isn't just Shrkreli.

    Whether it's drugs for HIV, Cancer, Hep C, or anything else, the for profit system is designed to keep medications out of the hands of the sadsack patients who need them, while the insurance and drug companies laugh all the way to the bank.  

    It's a wonder anyone with a life-threatening disease actually lives to tell the tale.

    In my opinion, (5.00 / 6) (#126)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 02:04:10 PM EST
    Obama made a deal with the devil in order to get his mishmash of a healthcare plan through.

    And the devil is now collecting - big time.

    Parent

    I agree with the first part of your comment (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 03:27:24 PM EST
    He did make a deal with the devil (and Max Baucus and Evan Bayh and Tommy Thompson).

    But the drug companies have been doing this for many years. They convinced a lot of people that they are justified in charging exorbitant prices because of the cost of R&D, when the truth is that they spend twice as much on marketing and advertising.

    At least some of these stories are being reported on now. Shining a light on the drug companies can't hurt.

    Parent

    I cannot help but think (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 04:58:15 PM EST
    that the drug companies are not too happy right now with Martin Shkreli and all the publicity surrounding his exorbitant drug price-hiking.
    Yes, they all do it.  And yes, they have been using the excuse of the price of R&D.  And yes, they spend an enormous amount on marketing/advertising.
    What they don't tell you is that a whole heck of a lot of the initial R&D is basic research, funded by our tax-payer dollars, that is being done at NIH, and by NIH-funded researchers at universities and private, non-profit research labs. This research is published and freely available to anyone.  Big Pharma does not pay one single dime to use this research in their drug development.


    Parent
    I was in the doughnut hole by June (none / 0) (#181)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 08:59:46 PM EST
    I picked up a necessary script today. $16. For the last 6 months of 2015, I paid $158 to $168 in Part D coverage for the same pills when I fell into the doughnut hole.. It is a total rip off.

    Parent
    Glad to hear (none / 0) (#183)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 09:50:03 PM EST
    you got the medication you needed for the fair price, finally.

    Parent
    There was an opportunity to (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 10:09:57 PM EST
    do something about the drug prices in this country but instead Obama chose to do a back room deal with Pharma. According to this deal, the drug industry agreed to deliver $80 billion in future savings and the president promised the government will not use its awesome purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. Well one part of the deal was real. The president promised not to negotiate lower drug prices. The drug industries promises were pure fantasy. Here is the reality:
    Some spending growth is expected, given that locally and nationally, more people have gained insurance,he said. But other trends are concerning, he said, such as the move by many drug companies to put high price tags not just on innovative medicines but on long-established drugs as well. The prices of some common generic drugs have surged 15, 25, and even 75 times what they were just two years ago. Link
    Let me repeat that so no ones misses it.
    The prices of some common generic drugs have surged 15, 25, and even 75 times what they were two year ago.
    It is a double whammy on consumers. Pharma charges exorbitant prices for generic drugs. The insurance companies use the high prices as an excuse to raise your premiums and then moves the generic drugs into different tiers so that the consumer has to pay most if not all of the cost of the drug.

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#147)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 07:50:26 PM EST
    those same stories were around during the early discussion about Obama's healthcare plan.

    People were comparing what we have to pay compared to what they pay in Canada.

    And Obama's press secretary ridiculed people bringing this up... I remember him saying something like, what do they want? What they have in Canada?

    Such contempt for us - it's breathtaking.

    So here we are, swimming in a swamp.

    Parent

    If I'm going to be in a "swamp" (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:05:57 PM EST
    I'm glad I have health insurance

    Parent
    I'm glad (none / 0) (#162)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 05:47:21 AM EST
    you have health insurance too.

    Otherwise, the IRS would be after you to pay a fine.

    Parent

    Yeah well (none / 0) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 08:15:52 AM EST
    I won't be paying a fine.

    IMO anyone who chooses to pay a fine and force others to pay for any healthcare they require instead of simply buying extremely affordable and completely acceptably insurance should either be refused care or go to jail.

    It's f@cking stupid and irresponsible.  The fine is not enough.

    Parent

    There are those (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 09:00:58 AM EST
    who are encountering significant cost increases... and are opting for the fine.

    I'm glad you're OK, but this system is really a chaotic mess compared to more advanced societies not dependent on catering to profit-making corporations for their healthcare.

    Healthcare should be a right.

    Parent

    The fine is going to continue to go up (none / 0) (#169)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 11:10:28 AM EST
    I'm wondering how many people will be surprised this year by the fine. It's $325 per adult and $162.5 per child under 18 or 2% of gross houshold income,  whichever is higher.  (That second part always seemed to get lost or downplayed in a lot of the coverage and push for the passage of the ACA).  Next year it will be $695 per adult and $347.50 per child under 18 or 2.5% of gross household income, whichever is higher. (With maximum limits in place).

    Parent
    In my opinion, (none / 0) (#171)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 11:41:34 AM EST
    the fine is only a symptom of the weirdness of this system.

    Expanding healthcare by fiat.

    Pay for it, or else.

    In societies that I would have to consider are more advanced, healthcare is a right. They don't have to threaten their citizens with punishment.

    And it's not as if the premiums have been frozen...

    Parent

    Please (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 11:47:15 AM EST
    It's a symptom of ODS.

    Parent
    lentinel, while I agree (none / 0) (#173)
    by fishcamp on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 01:18:01 PM EST
    with you regarding the right of healthcare in other societies, those same societies have much higher taxes to pay for those rights.  As I have mentioned before it took France 15 years to roll out their health care program.  I hope it doesn't take us that long.

    PS. my auto correct turns lentinel into sentinel.

    Parent

    The beginnings of the French (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:18:20 AM EST
    health care system was in the 1940s. We are only 70 years behind the curve.

    Parent
    To start (none / 0) (#186)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:32:50 AM EST
    Medical school is free in France and malpractice insurance is much less costly.

    Parent
    Higher education is free or (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:47:03 AM EST
    almost free in quite a few countries. Students in those countries do not start out their careers heavily in debt. We fall behind other countries in that area as well. Also, Insurance companies are highly regulated in several countries which result in lower insurance costs.

    Parent
    You'd think (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:46:06 AM EST
    that if we were really interested in universal healthcare, we could profit from the experience of those countries which have achieved it.

    But we're not, and we don't.

    Parent

    We pay plenty (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 04:01:47 PM EST
    in taxes, or so it seems to me.

    But instead of spending it on universal healthcare, we spend it on weaponry and military adventures around the globe.

    Our priorities are askew.

    Parent

    I like (none / 0) (#174)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 01:39:30 PM EST
    "sentinel"...

    Parent
    And these militia people (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 02:02:34 AM EST
    occupying Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Eastern Oregon are just off their rocker nuts.

    Cliven Bundy's spawn export (none / 0) (#122)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 11:54:41 AM EST
    their brand of rightwing craziness to an eastern Oregon county, much to the dismay of the actual residents of that county.

    Nobody in Harney County wants the Bundys there. Even the two people they claim to be fighting for, the Hammonds, have stated that the Bundys do not speak for them, that they, they Hammonds, want no part of this crazy and criminal enterprise.

    It will be interesting to see if the skin color of the Bundys and whatever supporters show up, they are caucasian, will protect them from the feds like it did at their father's big standoff in Nevada.

    If the Bundys were black, well, for one thing, they would really stand out in Harney County, but I can easily see the feds and local law enforcement deciding to go after them guns a'blazing.

    And god help us if anyone thought they were muslim.

    They are thugs who should have been arrested after that little "rebellion" in Nevada and charged with several crimes.

    Parent

    Fascinating that it was the forced imposition (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 04:05:20 PM EST
    of mandatory minimum sentences - which the original judge had refused to impose, finding them unjust - that triggered this act of sedition. Mandatory sentencing is indeed a form of tyranny (but not one that justifies armed resistance, needless to say): "Every punishment which does not arise from absolute necessity, says the great Montesquieu, is tyrannical." Cesare Beccaria, "Of Crimes and Punishments" (1764).

    Parent
    Seems like they're purposely trying to create (none / 0) (#127)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 02:18:01 PM EST
    another Waco-type situation. In both Nevada and in Oregon. Siege mentality prevails. And the Hammond family that they are purporting to defend has had several encounters with law enforcement--related to the fires, the poaching, and the criminal abuse of a minor.

    Parent
    Agreed. Nits turn into lice. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 02:50:09 PM EST
    The feds made a huge mistake in backing down to Cliven Bundy. They should arrest them and throw the book at them. And should they resist -- well, if some wingbats want to martyr themselves for the cause of illegal squatting on public lands, then who are we to stand in their way?


    Parent
    As long as you bear in mind that the crime (none / 0) (#149)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:11:33 PM EST
    remains S.W.A.  (Squatting While A***es)

    Here's a pic of the building they've made home.

    It reminds me of a Vietnam Era sit-in.

    When they get hungry, they'll leave.

    Parent

    When they get hungry (none / 0) (#152)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:27:09 PM EST
    they'll go hunting (illegally). Assuming they can get out of the building they're occupying. The surrounding area is a national forest and wildlife sanctuary.

    Parent
    Oddly enough... (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by desertswine on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 10:49:11 PM EST
     
    President Theodore Roosevelt established the refuge in 1908 after hunters nearly exterminated multiple species that gathered there by the thousands during the migratory season.

    These guys think that they have the right to shoot anything that moves.

    Parent
    That's why the Hammonds were convicted ... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 09:42:26 PM EST
    ... in the first place. They were poaching in the national wildlife refuge that Bundy, et al., are presently occupying, and then they set a fire in an attempt to cover up the evidence and burned a couple hundred acres. But to Bundy, et al., people like the Hammonds are victims. Simply amazing. The feds really need to make an example of these right-wing jackwagons.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    They only just moved there. (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 09:05:09 PM EST
    The Hammonds reported for prison tonight at 5PM.  As I read the story it mentioned that the Bundy's moved to this area just 8 weeks ago.Now there is a group that is looking for big trouble and I think they found it.

    Parent
    Times like this (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 10:29:30 PM EST
    It's fun to wonder what a Trump justice department might do.   He has been, for example, making the case for eminent domain.  Much to the chagrin of right wingers.  

    I think I have that right.

    Parent

    lol, i.e., move them out by (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 06:16:46 PM EST
    planting a hotel on their heads?

    Parent
    Cut off their water (none / 0) (#145)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 06:36:21 PM EST
    Cut the power.  No food  delivered.  Play loud rap music from speakers close to the building.  Cut off any form of communication by jamming their phones, alternatively compromise their communication by listening in and paying visits to whomever they call.  Wind up a siren at unpredictable intervals.  Shine searchlights into the building.  Park an armored vehicle a few feet from the door, let them think about when or if it gets used, but don't use it.

    Don't communicate with them on any level.  Isolate them.

    Those outside the building can relax at a distance while working in shifts to do everything possible to annoy them.  They should not be permitted to sleep.

    Make them beg to be allowed to leave, and then don't let them.  The only way they should be allowed to leave is in their underwear, crawling on their bellies with every video camera within fifty miles trained on them.

    But that's just me.

    Parent

    I like it (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 06:41:27 PM EST
    Some of those tactics are rather inconsistent (none / 0) (#150)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:16:33 PM EST
    with the fact that the place they are occupying -- and which they demand be dissolved and returned to private commercial use -- is a wildlife sanctuary.

    Parent
    I can't help but think (none / 0) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:18:13 PM EST
    If they are around the wildlife headed for the hills long ago.

    Parent
    How about we do something real (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:39:00 AM EST
    senseable like conducting background checks on everyone purchasing a gun, prohibit people who have a background of violent action like domestic abuse and committing crimes using a gun from purchasing one and requiring more training on gun safety and weapon use rather than eliminating the requirements.

    Your comment doesn't fool anyone. It is just a well known tactic to distort and distract from a serious debate and you do it poorly.

    One possible way to curb (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by fishcamp on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:55:03 AM EST
    the horror of the almost daily shootings is to ban all semi-automatic rifles.  There are many semi auto rifles out there that are not the assault looking weapons.  There is almost no good reason to use a semi auto for hunting.  Training and practice can make a person a good, but slower shooter, with a bolt or lever action rifle.
                                                                                                                             I did use a semi auto .22 rifle, with a scope, one summer, at my Aspen house.  A wave of moles came over the hill from the golf course and started digging up my land.  That was a rare occurrence.  

    Then if we banned semi auto pistols, which would never happen, people would be walking around with revolvers, like the old west, and very few people would be shot.                                                                                                                                                      

    I agree with this as well. (none / 0) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:58:39 AM EST
    Surfing bobble heads (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 09:21:52 AM EST
    Many are exploding at the possibility of anything happening on guns.  They are probably still scraping Laura Ingram's head off the FOX NEWS SUNDAY set.

    The funny part is after all the bursting heads they all agreed there is nothing they can do about it.   Maybe sue him.

    Parent

    Interestingly (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 09:37:26 AM EST
    After they scraped up her head in a later segment she solemnly predicted a split Republican Party in 2016.  On this we agree.

    Parent
    I believe (none / 0) (#116)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 10:58:29 AM EST
    Most of the daily shootings are gang related violence using handguns.

    http://tinyurl.com/zjxwc7d

    Politifact

    The Facebook post and the FBI stats are closely in tune. Except for a minor typo in the Facebook post's number for deaths by hands, fists or feet, the numbers are accurate.

    The number cited for rifles was somewhat less precise. While it's true that the FBI counted 323 murders by rifles, the agency also counted 1,587 murders by an undetermined type of firearm and 97 by "other guns." If gun usage in these two categories followed the same pattern as other gun homicides, that would add another 75 or so murders by rifle, making an estimate for the number of rifle murders about 400, rather than 323.

    Still, the larger point holds: Murders by knives, blunt objects and body parts each individually outweighed those committed using a rifle.


    Parent

    Why are they killing each (none / 0) (#129)
    by NycNate on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 02:38:23 PM EST
    Other?  Does it matter the type of gun?

    Parent
    If you are genuinely interested (none / 0) (#133)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    in investigating the question of why young (and other) men kill each other over what we/you might consider stupid stuff, I suggest you find a copy of Murder in America by historian Roger Lane, and read it.

    Parent
    The Second Amendment (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 03:02:24 PM EST
    wasn't written to insure your right to hunt.

    Parent
    What is door #3? (none / 0) (#177)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 04:47:49 PM EST
    The Second Amendment wasn't written to insure your right to hunt.

    600,000 Americans died proving that it wasn't about your right to oppose the United States government by force of arms.  We should honor their sacrifice.

    So if the purpose of the Second Amendment wasn't about your right to hunt, and if it wasn't about protecting your "right" to commit treason, what in your opinion WAS it for?

    Parent

    It would certainly cut down on the ability (none / 0) (#167)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 10:50:49 AM EST
    of cops to fill "suspects" and innocent bodies with bullets.

    The first semi automatics I encountered were shotguns.  In my state (Pa, then) a plug limiting capacity to three rounds was required in the cylindrical magazine.

    I can see semi automatic for duck hunting.  Maybe even deer hunting.

    After three shots you'd be flailing, however, and really freakin' dangerous to anyone else in the area.

    Parent

    Happy Birthday to ME :-) (5.00 / 7) (#118)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 11:24:39 AM EST
    The real New Years Day!

    Celebrating with a little Downton Abbey premiere party tonight with a couple of friends.

    I did not like 2015 much either, except for a couple of good weeks...glad to move on!

    Happy Birthday to you, ruffian. (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 11:44:04 AM EST
    Hope you have a great day and that 2016 is a much improved year for you.

    Pitchers and catchers report in about 7 weeks. 😎⚾️

    Parent

    Happy birthday to you (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 11:49:36 AM EST
    Happy Birthday ruffian! (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 02:22:44 PM EST
    I think Downton is going to be good this season. There are a number of fun Downton quizzes online. Enjoy your day, and remember: MOBlue believes in making it a birthday week. (I believe in milking it for all it's worth, with an entire birthday month.)

    Parent
    Thanks all! (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 05:32:04 PM EST
    I am considering blowing off tomorrow morning...and taking Thursday or Friday off because some friends will be in town for the Disney marathon...

    I will see what I feel like I can get away with!

    Parent

    Go for it! (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 05:56:20 PM EST
    And a very happy birthday, ruffian!

    Parent
    Happy birthday (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 06:19:27 PM EST
    May 2016 treat you with kindness.

    Parent
    Enjoy your your day. (none / 0) (#124)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 01:07:27 PM EST
    How do feel about your FB "friends" highlighting your age???

    Parent
    Yeah, I was laughing at that... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 05:28:54 PM EST
    She is the same age, so I guess it was fine!

    Parent
    And just for a smile, (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 04:13:01 PM EST
    I've been liking this story. Even though it hinges a bit too much on ego, it still has a sweet ending for all.

    Go Seahwaks!

    Star Wars Review with some SPOILERS (none / 0) (#15)
    by McBain on Fri Jan 01, 2016 at 09:31:14 PM EST
    It's been in the theaters for a couple weeks.  I think it's safe to review The Force Awakens, but don't read on if you haven't seen the film.

    I liked it.  Didn't love it.  How you feel about The Force Awakens depends how much the previous three films lowered your Star Wars expectations.  

    There really wasn't anything spectacular about this movie.  The plot was way too familiar and the action scenes a little flat.  A solid cast and good set design/special effects made up for most of the shortcomings.

    My main gripes were the death star plot (3rd time!) and the Kylo Ren character.  Adam Driver is a very likable actor and I'm sure he was following J.J. Abrams direction, but when he took off his helmet, he reminded me more of Rick Moranis in Spaceballs than Darth Vader. I have a feeling he'll mature into a better villain in the next installment.

    My favorite scene was the final one.  That gave me hope of a better sequel.

    I give J.J. Abrams a B-.  He played it safe and did the most important thing...  he made a Star Wars movie that didn't suck.  He also made it look like the same SW universe we grew up with. The previous three were too clean, too shiny, too CGI.

    The Force Awakens is a contender, along with Return of The Jedi and Revenge of Sith, for 3rd best Star Wars film.

    Anyone see it differently?

    BTW...  I pretty much feel the same way about Abrams' Star Trek reboot .

    The first one was great (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 09:00:03 AM EST
    The second not too bad.

    The third was boring.

    The rest have been just plain bad.

    But hey! A lot of money has been made.

    I'll wait til it hits either Netflix or I can buy a $3.00 DVD to see if I can watch the whole thing without leaving.

    Parent

    The "Kid Vader" character, Kylo Ren (none / 0) (#23)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 11:02:02 AM EST
    was an epic fail from the moment he removed his helmet and revealed his complete non-resemblance to either parent.  That may happen occasionally in real life but it was a breathtakingly inapt (stupid) casting decision.  Suspension of disbelief is fragile.  When he removed his helmet, the first thought in my head was, why is Oscar Wilde playing Leia's son?  The fail was epic.

    As for the element of the "Force" itself, what seems thoroughly ignored is the insignificant scale on which it gets utilized.  These guys aren't much more than close-up magicians.  Mano-a-Mano swordfights.  Mano-a-Mano Jedi mind tricks.  It never gets used on a galactic scale.  In one scene, Ren blocked a blaster blast in mid air.  Whoopee.  Relative to the scale of a galaxy, a star system, or even the geography of the planet on which they were fighting, it is microscopic.

    As for Luke, who had supposedly spent the last thirty years staring into the distance from a lonely mountaintop?  It looked more like he'd spent the last thirty years sitting on a couch eating potato chips.

    But as a whole, I loved the movie.  

    Parent

    J.J. Abrams is a competent director. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 03:46:43 PM EST
    But I don't consider him to be a great director, because if you look at the overall body of his work, many of his films are not necessarily original, mostly sequels and star vehicles. While he doesn't make bad movies, neither does he turn out films that are truly memorable.

    The one pervasive criticism I've read about "The Force Awakens" is that it appears in so many respects to be a retread of George Lucas' first three installments of the "Star Wars" franchise. I've yet to see it, so I'll reserve personal judgment until then. But honestly, that's the same sort of commentary which really dogged Abrams with "Star Trek Into Darkness," in which he literally ripped off the classic ending of the 1982 Star Trek film "The Wrath of Khan."

    Abrams strikes me as a director who tends to be risk-adverse, and he clearly prefers to play it safe. Just my opinion, obviously, but if he ever desires to be mentioned in the same breath as John Huston, Steven Spielberg, Clint Eastwood or Martin Scorsese, then he really needs to break out of his comfort zone and elevate his game.

    I'll likely see the latest "Star Wars" film when the lines thin out in a few weeks, but I'll also do so with tempered expectations.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Read Iain M. Banks' Culture novels (none / 0) (#73)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 07:34:45 PM EST
    to see where sifi can take you.

    Parent
    I read Banks' "Consider Phlebas" ... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 12:23:07 AM EST
    ... when it first came out in the late 1980s. I remember liking it, but it's been so long, I should probably reread it.

    I also took a class in science fiction lit in college. To be honest, I chose it because it sounded easy and I thought I'd cruise, and it turned out to be anything but. Still, it was probably the most enjoyable English class I ever took, and it turned me onto the genre.

    If I had to name a favorite sci-fi novel, it would be Ray Bradbury's dystopian nightmare Fahrenheit 451, followed by Philip Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, upon which Ridley Scott's 1982 film "Blade Runner" is based. I think the most heartbreaking sci-fi work is Daniel Keyes' Flowers for Algernon.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Time you read some new stuff, Donald (none / 0) (#166)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 10:36:46 AM EST
    Saddest ever?

    Sadness, by Timons Esaias, is a very short story in Gardner Dozois' 32nd Annual (2015) Year's Best collection. The story's premise: Earth has been taken over by Alien social engineering dilettantes.  As a result of their re-imagining of society, human life sucks on a whole new level.

    Esaias did it all in five pages.

    Parent

    Earlier I mentioned having watched the credits. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:47:14 AM EST
    While they raced up the screen I tried and failed to come up with a ballpark estimate of the body count.  Fortunately, IMDB has the cast and crew list.  With the help of a text editor, I counted just over 1600 names, less a few blank lines.

    I have only the vaguest notion about the way something that complex comes together.  

    All the dialogue taken together isn't much more than a short story.  That's what the producers, writers, and director are stuck looking at and listening to week after week for two years.  Change costs money and meetings.  Can you imagine rereading the same short story for two years?  I can't.

    Anyway, that's why I think Abrams did well.  The movie's a western.  It's no more complicated than good anthromorphs vs bad anthromorphs.

    I thought the work was seamless.  The word I used earlier was boundaries, but I was sleepy.  I was referring to seams between the actors, the models, and the wholly computer synthesis.


    Parent

    J.J. Abrams (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 09:06:39 AM EST
    Is a hands down genius.  And this is not news.  Watch Suoer 8.  He is the real deal.

    He has revived two classic dying movie franchises.

    As far as group effort.  No sh!t.  There really is no greater group effort you can be involved on than a major film.    I was lucky enough to work before they had the science of compartmentalizations down in digital effects.   In the Disney moves Dinosaur a few of us had freedom to do more than we had ever before and certainly since.  My credit for that was Lighting, Compositing and Effects.  That would never ever happen for a peon now.  There are several very complex effects shots that I was able to do all of that.  Never in a million years now.   There is in fact one 10 sec shot, a pretty good one, in which I did everything you see one the screen   Every single thing.  I found and color corrected the live background, I did the particle effects and chose and altered and color corrected the filmed water elements and I put it all together in the compositing phase.  (No characters in the shot, just shadows I simulated) 10 seconds of Dinosaur is ALL me.  That may not sound like a lot but it's actually unheard of.  Even then and would never ever happen now.

    Parent

    I liked "Super 8." (none / 0) (#123)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 12:49:26 PM EST
    But to be perfectly honest, I really found it to be nothing that Steven Spielberg hadn't already covered before in his own work (and better). And the end of "Super 8" was dismal, overly sentimental claptrap. What could've been a great film ended up being merely okay. I wouldn't go out of my way to see it again.

    As I said above, J.J. Abrams is a competent director, and in Hollywood that makes him very bankable. Now that's no small accomplishment in a cutthroat business where you're only as worthwhile as your last hit. I often have to remind myself sometimes that movie studios are in the business to make money, and not necessarily great art. And Abrams certainly makes them money.

    But while his movies are generally okay to good, there's nothing that Abrams has done so far which stands out to me as particularly special or memorable. I do think he did very stellar work on "Star Trek," which as you noted revived that franchise. But then he followed that up with the overblown "Star Trek Into Darkness," which was crippled by a dreadful ending that was blatantly ripped off from the 1982 film "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan."

    Abrams has long offered real promise as a filmmaker, but in my opinion he has yet to live up to his full potential. He's shown that given enough of a budget, he can effectively mimic the masters. Whether or not he can become one in his own right is an open question.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Big stink (none / 0) (#16)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 07:56:28 AM EST
    in the media about the appearance of a clip of Trump urging suspension of admitting Muslims to this country in a "recruitment video".

    I wonder what would have a greater impact on recruitment:

    Trump's proposal, or the relentless bombing of Muslim countries over the last 15 years.

    By the way, it already takes two years for citizens of Muslim countries to get here, and the Obama administration is setting out to make it even harder. So Trump needed worry.

    Self censorship is still censorship (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 09:14:06 AM EST
    Which is what way too many newspapers did when they wouldn't publish the Mohammed cartoon.

    That the Left thinks they can score political points by criticizing Trump's free speech rights is frightening.

    Even more so was the Reopub candidates attacking him.

    In both cases it shows how radical islamists have been successful in controlling us.

    As to them attacking us because we are attacking them, yes. But the reason we are there is the attacks years ago.

    And what would happen if we leave?

    I have posted this time and again yet some people claim they don't understand it.

    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    BIN LADIN:....So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

    America is part of "the whole world."

    Parent

    Self censorship is a choice (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 02:37:57 PM EST
    Actual/real censorship is not.  Neither one applies in Donald's case.  He's not choosing to censor his own thoughts which, fortunately for us, exposes him for what he really is, and there's no self-censorship.  The government is not preventing him from engaging in his rants, so there's no actual censorship.  Responses to his ridiculous garbage and demands to hold him accountable for his never-ending litany of offensive speech is just others exercising their own free speech rights.

    Parent
    Parsing again?? (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 08:12:41 PM EST
    You ignored my point re the Mohammed cartoons.

    And I wonder how many have criticized Trump because they are fearful of not doing so?

    Also, on a broader scale, nothing that we can NOT say will appease the radical islamists, as I pointed out, again, in the OBL quote.

    Parent

    The accusation that those who respond thoughtfully (5.00 / 9) (#91)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 09:40:21 PM EST
    to your comments are "parsing" -- that is, picking on a few of your words while ignoring your ideas -- is puzzling to me. You accused "the Left" of trying to "score political points by criticizing Trump's free speech rights." Are you saying you didn't mean "free speech rights" when you used those words, and that we should have realized that? Or are you saying that you don't know what "free speech rights" actually are? Or perhaps that you don't know what "parsing" is? Now I'm lost. Also, if you say two unrelated things (the self-censorship/Muhammad-cartoon point and the Trump "point," for example), and someone (say, me) chooses to respond to just one of them, it is no reply to say that the commenter failed to respond to your other point. True, that. But so what? No one is obligated to respond to each of your claims. (Those who sometimes try are only attacked for it anyway.) All I wanted to say on the subject is what I said: that Democrats (not the Left, in any event) are entitled to seek and score political points by attacking Trump for the recklessness of his comments, and when they do so, they are not disparaging or threatening his rights in any way.

    Parent
    Neocon wingnuts.. (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 08:48:34 PM EST
    who would strong arm and shame the media into publishing only what THEY want to see in print, sound like they l'd like to dictate content the way it was done in the old Soviet Union..

    Or the way it's still done to a large extent at outlets like Fox News.

    As far as Trump goes, he should be given the biggest media-shovel in the world to bury himself and the rest of the gop with..

    Why would anyone on the Left want to censor him?

    Parent

    Parsing again?? (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 08:12:50 PM EST
    You ignored my point re the Mohammed cartoons.

    And I wonder how many have criticized Trump because they are fearful of not doing so?

    Also, on a broader scale, nothing that we can NOT say will appease the radical islamists, as I pointed out, again, in the OBL quote.

    Parent

    I wonder how many never criticized Trump (none / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 09:40:18 PM EST
    because they fear critical thinking in general?

    Parent
    Speaking of what has been said before (5.00 / 10) (#42)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 02:43:30 PM EST
    Criticizing the substance -- or the likely consequences -- of what someone says publicly is not an attack on that person's free speech rights. Nor does it violate free speech principles to take the position, based on a person's expressed views, that s/he should not be elected to public office.

    Parent
    This (none / 0) (#67)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 06:21:54 PM EST
    has nothing to do with self-censorship.

    This has to do with major hypocrisy.

    People are feigning to be all aflutter with Trump's declarations.

    But no one is saying anything about the horrific consequences of the brutal policies being pursued by two successive regimes: The Republican one under Bush and the Democratic one under Obama.

    They are the source of our misery.

    Parent

    At this point.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by NycNate on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 01:26:35 PM EST
    short of gun confiscation, nothing is going to make a difference at this point. Millions of men and women are legally armed already. Somehow, if they were the problem, we would really have a problem on our hands.

    Hmm..good thing we don't have a problem :-( (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 01:50:48 PM EST
    This type of thing happens more than it should. At least 265 children under the age of 18 picked up a firearm and accidentally shot themselves or someone else with it in 2015, according to numbers compiled by the gun control advocacy group Everytown USA.

    That works out to about five accidental shootings by children each week this year. Of those, 83 resulted in death: The underage shooters killed themselves 41 times and other people 42 times. The tally only includes accidental shootings. It does not include homicides by teens and suicides.

    link



    Parent
    Thank gawd we don't have a problem :-( (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 02:16:53 PM EST
    About 500 American children and teenagers die in hospitals every year after sustaining gunshot wounds -- a rate that climbed by nearly 60 percent in a decade, according to the first-ever accounting of such fatalities, released Sunday.

    In addition, an estimated 7,500 kids are hospitalized annually after being wounded by gunfire, a figure that spiked by more than 80 percent from 1997 to 2009, according two Boston doctors presenting their findings at a conference of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held in Orlando, Fla.
    link

    NPR: THE U.S. IS A WORLD LEADER IN GUN DEATHS
     link

    "Firearm Access is a Risk Factor for Suicide
    Link



    Parent
    Furthermore, (none / 0) (#46)
    by NycNate on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 04:02:45 PM EST
    I just don't see a solution short of confiscation.  There are a group of Americans that have guns and I presume don't want to give them up. There are other Americans that abhor guns and wouldn't have a problem with the government taking the guns by some measure. How do you reconcile the two groups?

    Parent
    The fact you don't see (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 04:09:52 PM EST
    A solution does not in fact mean there is no solution.

    Stunning i know.  But still, true.

    Parent

    What would you suggest... (none / 0) (#60)
    by NycNate on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 05:58:09 PM EST
    Capt?  

    Parent
    Not listening to you (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 06:04:23 PM EST
    Sorry (none / 0) (#45)
    by NycNate on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 03:59:16 PM EST
    I was assuming incidents like San Bernadino and inner city crime are the focus of the gun control issue.

    I could be wrong. But Chicago had ~ 500 murders this year. Baltimore had nearly 350 murders. I don't see the angst and protesting for children shot by accident as much as I see for the murders in the cities across the country.

    In most cases, if a child is shot by a gun in someone's home, that person is going to be in big trouble. There are laws already in place for that. Based on your stats, that law is having no effect.

    Parent

    It's a good thing you know (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 04:06:24 PM EST
    What you are talking about

    Yet some of these cases are appalling. A man in Washington practiced drawing a loaded handgun and unintentionally shot and killed his girlfriend's daughter. A man in Florida twirled a handgun on his finger and killed a pregnant woman. A man in New Mexico handed a loaded rifle to his six-year-old daughter, who unintentionally shot her sister in the neck. None of these gun owners was prosecuted. The district attorney in the New Mexico case told the Farmington Times, "The father did not follow basic and universally accepted firearm safety rules" but "the problem is that the standard for criminal negligence is higher."

    why we don't treat gun negligence as a crime


    Parent

    Happy new year (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 04:43:50 PM EST

    It's the first day of 2016 and just after midnight, a nine-year-old girl was shot while walking out of church, the result of celebratory gunfire, Orlando police said.


    Parent
    Celebratory gunfire is illegal (none / 0) (#95)
    by NycNate on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 12:17:14 AM EST
    In Chicago, cops are told to find a viaduct to protect themselves on NYE. In fact, the police chief warned citizens not to do this.

    I just do not understand how someone can be so reckless. Millions of people own guns responsibly. I would be curious to know how this person was able to obtain a weapon?

    Parent

    Capt (none / 0) (#99)
    by NycNate on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 12:51:23 AM EST
    Not to bombard you. But this gun thing just gets me going. I read this article when this happened. Why can't something be done about this?

    Jonesboro Woman Sentenced After Buying Gun Used to Kill Officer

    Read more:

    A Jonesboro woman who bought a Glock semi-automatic pistol and 50-round magazine drum for a convicted felon from a Jonesboro pawn shop has been sentenced to six months of home confinement and a year of probation for lying on a federal gun purchase form, the U.S. attorney in Atlanta announced.

    Read More


    Parent

    Solution? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 01:02:30 AM EST
    Why can't something be done about this?

    Maybe after she serves her unbelievably light sentence for being an accessory to murder, she could get a really harsh scolding.

    That should deter others.

    Parent

    Capt (none / 0) (#62)
    by NycNate on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 06:04:45 PM EST
    In your post, you wrote:

    "The father did not follow basic and universally accepted firearm safety rules" but "the problem is that the standard for criminal negligence is higher."

    That seems to be such egregious behavior to go unpunished.  However, the law IS the law. Maybe it should be changed.

    Also, I can also assume the guns were purchased illegally?  I just don't see a good solution to the 2nd amendment when people do stupid things as highlighted in your post.

    Parent

    Should have said legally (none / 0) (#63)
    by NycNate on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 06:06:17 PM EST
    Instead of illegally.

    Parent
    As Capt points out your (none / 0) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 06:07:57 PM EST
    assumptions are wrong.

    Not only are these events being handled as accidents. states are moving to eliminate existing requirements. From Capt's link:

    The push for "constitutional carry"--gun carrying by anyone, anywhere, with no licensing required under the pretense that this is a right granted by the Constitution--has radically loosened restrictions on who can own guns and where they may carry them. In several states people may now carry guns on college  In Michigan, guns may be carried openly at K-12 schools. In Iowa, a resident may not be denied a permit to carry a gun in public based on the fact that he or she is blind. In Georgia and other states, guns may be carried in churches and bars. In six states, resident adults may carry concealed handguns with no licensing or training required.

    Let me repeat part of that for you.

    In six states, resident adults may carry concealed handguns with no licensing or training required.

    Buy from a gun show, no background check, no permit or license and no training.

    Parent

    I fail to see how (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 08:18:32 PM EST
    In Georgia and other states, guns may be carried in churches ....

    the government could have any say in the church matter.

    Parent

    An interesting point. And yet (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 08:25:45 PM EST
    these state laws purport to bar churches from prohibiting the carrying of guns on their premises or during their services. Now that you mention it, Jim, that does sound like a possible Establishment Clause violation. I agree with you (if that's what you meant).

    Parent
    While we're ruminating about the limits (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 09:13:29 PM EST
    of so-called "Second Amendment rights," I should mention that I believe states and localities would be within their authority under the Twenty-First Amendment to ban private guns' being carried into bars or other places where alcohol is sold or consumed.

    Parent
    The NRA and many gun advocates (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 10:08:46 AM EST
    seem to interpret Heller as giving people the right for
    "constitutional carry"--gun carrying by anyone, anywhere,
    Scalia in his majority opinion on Heller intentionally restricted his opinion to allow for gun regulations. John Paul Stevens;
    Thus, even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years. The failure of Congress to take any action to minimize the risk of similar tragedies in the future cannot be blamed on the court's decision in Heller.
    And maybe even more germane to this debate:
    A second virtue of the opinion in Heller is that Justice Antonin Scalia went out of his way to limit the court's holding not only to a subset of weapons that might be used for self-defense but also to a subset of conduct that is protected. The specific holding of the case covers only the possession of handguns in the home for purposes of self-defense, while a later part of the opinion adds emphasis to the narrowness of that holding by describing uses that were not protected by the common law or state practice. Prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, or on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, and laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are specifically identified as permissible regulations.
    link

    Parent
    A new plan! (none / 0) (#43)
    by sj on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 03:10:35 PM EST
    I'm way behind the curve. I hadn't heard about myRAs. But apparently we need ...
    ...a bolder plan, which we are calling the guaranteed retirement account (G.R.A.). Under our proposal, all workers and employers will have to make regular payments into a G.R.A., which builds until retirement age, then pays out a supplemental stream of income until that person and his or her beneficiary die.
    You mean... like Social Security?

    via Atrios

    Sometime you just can't cure stupid (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 07:29:05 PM EST
    Rather then experiencing economy of scale by expanding SS, set up two separate systems requiring twice the amount of record keeping, accounting etc. and two completely separate employment structures and incur almost twice the operating expense.

    Beyond stupid.

    Parent

    It is (none / 0) (#74)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 07:41:34 PM EST
    To replace IRA's, and supplement SS.
    There is some method to the madness, basically making it mandatory to save a minimum of 1.5% for retirement

    The current system -- a mix of 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts (I.R.A.s) -- is broken. These plans are individually directed, voluntary and leaky. Just over half of workers don't have access to a workplace retirement plan. According to the National Institute on Retirement Security, Americans between the ages of 40 and 55 have retirement savings of $14,500, when they will need between 20 and 30 times that amount.

    Parent

    Still be easier and cheaper to expand the (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 08:09:13 PM EST
    existing SS system rather than create one more vehicle.

    The SS system is already a mandatory system that requires contributions from both employees and employers.

    Parent

    How it works (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 08:22:09 PM EST
    As he intimated this will allow "we" and "us" to begin to chip away at the program.  He mentioned collecting it "later".  Soon to follow will be "means testing" which is a vehicle to then say it's a welfare program since it will no longer be a guarantee for everyone but only the "needy"

    Parent
    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 08:48:38 PM EST
    This sounds like the first step in replacing SS with private investment accounts that have a 3% rate of return.

    Parent
    It appears (none / 0) (#76)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 07:46:20 PM EST
    Some states are already on board

    This proposal would require federal legislation. Many states, like California, are now implementing a version of what we are proposing, but the plans aren't mature enough for us to know if they work. People in their 50s and 60s won't be helped as much as younger people, but some savings can help delay collecting Social Security.

    Parent

    More than stupid (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 08:45:29 PM EST
    to set up another government bureaucracy to do what can be better accomplished in the existing system.

    Instead, low-fee diversified retirement portfolios would be created by a board of professionals who would be fiduciaries appointed by the president and Congress and held accountable to investors. The fees and investments would be much less prone to corruption because the managers' income would not depend on the investments, the fees would be disclosed, and the accounts separated from government funds and owned by the individuals.

    This "plan" would also eliminate the current tax deduction for retirement savings to provide "a $600 refundable tax credit to pay for the contributions of households below median income." The guaranteed 3% rate of return (half of normal market return) is also ridiculous.

    Sounds a whole lot like the first step in replacing SS with private investment accounts, a long held goal of the super rich.

    Parent

    Never (none / 0) (#92)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 10:43:01 PM EST
    Saw any mention of replacing SS, just supplementing IRA's.

    Basically because SS cannot provide retirement security for people, and IRA's are not mandatory.

    And SS funds are not there, there is no special account with the SS money just waiting ,

    If the government were NOT allowed to ever touch this money, it might work.

    Parent

    Prior to implementation (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 08:24:46 AM EST
     ObamaCare  was not advertised  as a way to raise the eligibility age of Medicare either. Yet during the Cat Food Commision it was used as justification to do just that.

    In defense of raising the eligibility age, supporters also say that uninsured people ages 65 and 66 would be able to buy insurance through health care exchanges starting in 2014, as required by the recently enacted Affordable Care Act (known more commonly as "Obamacare"). Low-income seniors can receive subsidies for coverage under the ACA or are eligible for Medicaid.
    Link

    Little facts like  Medicare Part B premiums, which are based on expected average costs per beneficiary, would increase by 3% and costs for Medicaid and other programs that cover low-income elderly people would increase were ignored by the advocates.  They also ignored the fact that seniors under the poverty level in states that refused to expand Medicaid would be SOL. Too bad - so sad but those are the breaks.

    SS and Medicare are very popular programs. The powers that want to eliminate them are very aware that the best way to accomplish this goal is to make them less popular by increase costs, increasing means testing and turning it more into a welfare program than social insurance programs.

    Parent

    SS and Medicare are very popular programs (none / 0) (#115)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 10:47:46 AM EST
    Yes they are, and at one time were well funded, now the money collected yearly does not meet the outgoing expenditures.
    That needs to be corrected.
    I do not see anyone trying to eliminate them, just  shore up the funding required.

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 11:27:27 AM EST
    Republicans are just trying to help.

    How do you feel about means testing?

    Parent

    Hard to say (none / 0) (#125)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 02:02:51 PM EST
    It sounds reasonable enough,

    But there are detractors that would say it would change the programs to welfare as opposed to a earned and paid in entitlement.

    When they finally get around around to "saving" SS, I expect means testing to be included. As usual, the devil is in the details

    Parent

    "We" (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 08:04:03 PM EST
    "Us"

    Oy

    Parent

    Guess they'll STFU about this now (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 04:49:28 PM EST
    Terror group al-Shabab, al-Qaeda's Somalia-based affiliate, is using a clip from Donald Trump in a purported Islamist propaganda video -- and it's gaining traction among Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) online channels.

    The nearly hour-long video, produced by al-Shabab's media arm al-Kataib, uses a soundbite from the Republican front-runner's speech in December calling for the "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the country.

    Preceding the Trump clip, a bite from the now-deceased al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Yemen in 2011, warns "Muslims of the West" to be cautious and "learn from the lessons of history."



    Oh (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 05:30:24 PM EST
    I guess you haven't heard the latest then. The nuts on the right are talking about how it's not "professional" enough and had to be done by the Clinton campaign or vice versa. I can't remember it exactly.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 05:33:33 PM EST
    The nuts on the right are the only ones who will believe that.   We should certainly know by now that facts don't matter to them so who cares what they think or say.

    Parent
    But you are correct (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 05:38:22 PM EST
    STFU was the wrong acronym.  It should have been MSU-make something up.

    Parent
    Okay. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 05:53:18 PM EST
    I understand. You mean the yakkers on cable will finally shut up about it and Donald will shut up about it.


    Parent
    SOAP!!! (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 05:58:02 PM EST
    IFC is currently running several episodes of this wonderful 70s series on Saturday mornings.  I accidentally ran across it this morning and it was like seeing an old friend.  If you never saw it and especially if you did,set your DVRs.  It's only one of the best, funniest and most memorable things ever on the tube.

    In early March 1977, ABC screened the first two episodes of Soap for the executives of its 195 affiliate stations, many of whom were instantly appalled by the show's emphasis on sex and infidelity. Two of the affiliates, neither in a major market, privately told ABC that the show was "raunchy" and its subject matter not fit for television.[5]

    In June 1977, a Newsweek preview of the fall season written by Harry F. Waters panned the show while mischaracterizing some of its basic plot elements and offering exaggerated reports of its sexual content. Despite having not seen the pilot, Waters called the show a "sex farce" and claimed (erroneously) that the show included a scene of a Catholic priest being seduced in a confessional.[6] Waters also stated:

    Soap promises to be the most controversial network series of the coming season, a show so saturated with sex that it could replace violence as the PTA's Video Enemy No. 1.

    -- Harry F. Waters, Harry F. Waters (June 13, 1977). "99 and 44/100% Impure". Newsweek 90 (3): 92.
    Whether Waters' errors and misrepresentations were intentional or accidental is unknown.

    Within days of the Newsweek report, a number of local and national religious organizations began to quickly mobilize against Soap, despite the fact that they also had not seen the pilot. Among these were the National Council of Churches, the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the National Council of Catholic Bishops and the Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention,[7] the latter of which went so far as to divest itself of 2,500 shares of ABC stock "because the board does not approve of programming related to the abuse of human sexuality, violence and perversion."[8]

    WIKI

    SOAP! I loved that show. (none / 0) (#68)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 06:34:35 PM EST
    It was so smart, so funny, so a perfect tv show for the time.

    Parent
    It really was (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 06:49:20 PM EST
    It was culture war ground zero.  What I loved about it was it never talked down to the audience.  It was the first tv show I ever felt was made for me.

    Parent
    I was a fan of Richard Mulligan and the show, (none / 0) (#70)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 07:23:05 PM EST
    Remember Mary Hartman Mary Hartman?  Same era. The only plot I actually remember was the dog unit transplantation.  Martin Mull/Fernwood 2Nite.  Time passes.


    Parent
    All three of those shows (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by shoephone on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 10:51:02 PM EST
    were favorites of mine during my high school and college years. Soap introduced me to the true acting chops of Billy Crystal. And we looooved Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman, in particular. It came on at 11 pm. Everybody on it was superb.

    Parent
    Shirley Temple (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 07:32:43 PM EST
    With bad teeth tap dancing on an iron lung.

    Oy

    Parent

    Baby Irene (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 08:18:51 PM EST
    took me a while to find this

    I was surprised to find pretty much every Fernwood 2night episode on YouTube.

    For some reason I remembered bad teeth.  Shrug.  

    Parent

    Sorry just one more (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 09:01:36 PM EST
    Martin Mull (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 02, 2016 at 07:44:14 PM EST
    Grandpa Larkin was the Fernwood Flasher. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 12:36:36 AM EST
    It's snowing here (none / 0) (#136)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 03, 2016 at 04:00:16 PM EST
    It was forecast for a light snow by sometime tonight, but I really didn't expect it to fall so steadily or heavily (and stick). My Sunday walk will be a little prettier.

    Snowshoeing shoephone (none / 0) (#196)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 05:32:05 PM EST
    through Greenlake in the fresh powder.  But watch out for you know who, in his fur lined tanga.

    Parent
    Shrinky-dinks (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 05:45:16 PM EST