home

Thursday Open Thread

More than 1,000 protesters held a "Free Shorty" march in Culiacan yesterday for Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman. Another report says there were 2,000 marchers.

Attorney General Eric Holder went to the hospital today after feeling faint and short of breath.

Schapelle Corby's first words after release revealed in interview that will air Sunday in Australia.

Alfredo Vasquez-Hernandez, one of the two defendants set for trial in May in the Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla case, will plead guilty without a plea agreement next week. His lawyer says it has nothing to do with capturing "El Chapo" Guzman. The second says he's likely to plead as well.

It's a court day for me, here's an open thread for you.

< Court Allows Live TV and Audio For Oscar Pistorius Trial | Kerry Kennedy Acquitted of Drugged Driving >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    More than 1,000 protesters (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:50:06 AM EST
    More than 1,000 protesters held a "Free Shorty" march in Culiacan yesterday for Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman. Another report says there were 2,000 marchers.
    Soon it will be remembered as "La Marcha de los Millones de Hombres."

    jbindc and I will be among the (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:01:19 PM EST
    counter-protestors:  Get Shorty.

    Parent
    In that case... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:07:55 PM EST
    why protest?  The pyrrhic victory is yours, relish it! ;)

    I caught a rundown of the scope of El Chapo's alleged operation...massive in scope and reach.  Makes Escobar look like a two-bit nickel-bagger.

    Parent

    He was a great criminal executive... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:28:57 PM EST
    ... could have run any of the major corporate bankster organizations.

    Parent
    I don't know... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:32:04 PM EST
    is he ruthless enough for the bankster rackets? ;)

    They say he was/is much more fond of the bribe than the bullet.  

    Parent

    isn't that a movie? (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:06:13 PM EST
    One of Elmore Leonard's funniest (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:27:35 PM EST
    My sense of humor must be (none / 0) (#30)
    by sj on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:33:13 PM EST
    more pedestrian. I was totally bored by that movie. I must admit, though, I am usually bored by those who think themselves so much more clever and substantive than the plebians they [think they] see around themselves. Although maybe I'm being too harsh.

    I know Elmore Leonard is/was well regarded, but I enjoy reading him as much as I did The Corrections. By which I mean I would have happily set the book on fire.

    Parent

    There aren't many authors as overrated (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:23:18 PM EST
    as Franzen. And he's insufferable when interviewed too.

    Parent
    You might try Leonard ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:12:58 PM EST
    ... when he's not trying to be cynical and funny. (Likewise, Get Shorty is not one of my favorites.) He initially started as an author of pulp westerns, which might come as a surprise to some given his considerable reputation as a crime novelist. (He died last year at age 87.)

    Leonard's early writings include such notable and well-received works as The Bounty Hunters, 3:10 to Yuma, Valdez Is Coming and Joe Kidd. And his 2001 short story Fire in the Hole became the basis for the FX TV series Justified. He was a great storyteller, when he really set his mind to it.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    When else have you had the chance to (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:47:48 PM EST
    see John Travolta in a quasi Howard Johnson's mowing people down?  (Actually, I recalled this is a Quentin Tarantino film. It isn't.)

    Parent
    Did that happen? (none / 0) (#60)
    by sj on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:09:43 PM EST
    When else have you had the chance to (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:47:48 PM MDT

    see John Travolta in a quasi Howard Johnson's mowing people down?

    I'm rather relieved to note that I didn't store that in my personal memory banks.

    Parent
    Erratum. That scene is in "Pulp (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:07:27 AM EST
    Fiction."  Sorry.  John Travolta is in both movies.

    Parent
    Seems like he's already been "Got," (none / 0) (#7)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:27:43 PM EST
    so maybe your theme should be "Keep Shorty."

    Parent
    Yeah, well, maybe if the DEA hadn't given (none / 0) (#10)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:32:09 PM EST
    him and his Sinaloa cartel a free pass for so many years he would have been "got" a long time ago.

    Parent
    Fair is fair... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:34:39 PM EST
    now one of Sinaloa's competitors gets a go at top dog...kinda like term limits.

    Parent
    Don't you anticipate there is an order (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    of succession w/i his empire?

    Parent
    An order of succession? (none / 0) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:58:35 PM EST
    Believe that depends on who swings the quickest bat.

    Parent
    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    but I also anticipate opportunities for competitors to gain marketshare while Sinaloa reorganizes.

    Parent
    The order of succession (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:07:15 PM EST
    Has in our history been blood drenched and not always a sure thing :)

    Parent
    On second thought... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:15:54 PM EST
    El Chapo is probably gonna captain his ship from prison...till his next escape.

    Parent
    It's been done before (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:19:53 PM EST
    Mexican prisons are notoriously pay to play. (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:51:51 PM EST
    The world is pay to play... (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 07:55:15 AM EST
    only some parts of the world come cheaper than others.

    Parent
    I really (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:15:05 PM EST
    enjoyed an article that is in the current issue of New York Magazine written by Alec Baldwin.

    I like his writing style, which reads as if he is talking.

    I like his honesty and the fact that he names names.

    I found it a breathe of fresh air that he expresses how he feels about events that have happened to him without the usual equivocation that is so common these days.

    The article is reprinted here.

    Alec Baldwin (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    All About Meeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    I was not able to get through so much self-absorbed rambling, guess I am not part of his fan base, or a celebrity gossip hound.

    But it must be tough to be rich and famous and having a feeling that his life should be free of the problems others in his position have.

    Parent

    I can relate to... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:33:06 PM EST
    his feelings about the PC police.  

    C*cks*cker, in common NYC parlance, is just a slang synonym of motherf8cker...the former has about as much to do with homosexuality (in this context), as the latter does with incest.  

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:59:00 PM EST
    But, I do not have any sympathy for him. He should either keep his mouth shut, or not whine when people decide that they do not like him or have a problem with what he says.

    Parent
    Bottom-line: if Alec Baldwin were not the (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:51:58 PM EST
    "Alec Baldwin," would he have been kicked off a commercial flight b/c he refused to turn off his cell until he completed his turn playing WWF?

    Parent
    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#139)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 07:58:22 AM EST
    I don't have much patience for whining either...like I tell my colleagues when they get to excessively whining about the downsides to our jobs, "don't like it, we know where the door is".  Alec could always go J.D. Salinger if the attention is too much.

    Parent
    Yep. He does have a dilemma (none / 0) (#174)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:30:51 AM EST
    He wants to enjoy his freedom of expression, and at the same time his livelihood depends on people liking him. He has wavered on that tightrope his whole career.

    Parent
    That is a funny image. Baldwin (none / 0) (#175)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:36:02 AM EST
    walking a tightrope.  

    Parent
    Interested though squeak (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:56:44 PM EST
    If you can get beyond how it is all about him, in your opinion of the "changing" of New York City.  He says that Manhattan has become a Beverly Hills and that Brooklyn is where what's happening goes down.  That's just one opine among many he made about the city changing, and he seems to derive much of his world social view around what he sees and perceives is happening in and to NYC.

    Parent
    Brooklyn... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:38:11 PM EST
    ain't far behind in become Robin Leach-land...did you guys catch Spike Lee's rant about the gentrification and hipsterization of Brooklyn?

    The special lady's sister lives in Bushwick...my eyes can't believe the change from when I was copping nickel bags of schwag there circa '94...different world.  

    All things must pass I guess...but I don't know where they're gonna bus in all the service workers in from to serve a NYC nobody can afford to live in, the projects ain't that big and will soon be replaced by multi-million dollar condos anyway.

    Parent

    Oh, yes (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Zorba on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:38:48 PM EST
    Brooklyn, at least many parts of it, has become pretty hipster.
    Daughter Zorba and her significant other moved to Brooklyn.  They both work in Manhattan, but that is too expensive for them to live in, so they got an apartment in Brooklyn.
    The live in Williamsburg.  Son Zorba and I went up to visit them recently, and Son's comment was,  "It's really hipster."
    But they do have some very nice restaurants, which, while pretty expensive, are not as expensive as the restaurants in Manhattan.  And neither is the rent there.    ;-)

    Parent
    IMO, Willaimsburg is Hipster central! (none / 0) (#58)
    by vml68 on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:03:06 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Oh, yes (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Zorba on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:52:36 PM EST
    It sure as heck is.
    I really felt like telling them, "Been there, done that."
    We did that whole scene back in the 60's.  And a lot of it went back to the 40's.
    But the biggest difference seems to be that they are much more cynical than we were, way back in the day.   ;-)
    Of course, I, too, have gotten more cynical than I was back then.

    Parent
    Of course the restaurants are (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:08:50 PM EST
    expensive. I inadvertently pd. $8 for 16 Assam tea "sachets" at the Amish Market!

    Parent
    OK (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:41:03 PM EST
    Did not get that far..  I am not so sure that he is capable of touching the ground, so I am sure that his opinion would be the same as others who not so rich and famous.

    Sure, everyone complains about Manhattan turning into a Hotel for the super rich, rents high etc..  but a lot of regular people live here too. Nostalgic for the old days?  Or taking the cool route by claiming brooklyn?  And the cool hip spots that Baldwins more than likely feels alive in are more expensive than less cool parts of Manhattan.  

    It is hard for me to take his portrayal of himself as a regular guy that just wants to be left alone seriously.... considering that he is worth about $65 Million

    Parent

    So, if you're a celebrity who's ... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:52:13 PM EST
    ... worth millions of dollars, do you forfeit your right to privacy?

    Parent
    Pining for Privacy? (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:21:25 PM EST
    Movie stars complaining about being rich and famous, pining for life pre-fame is uninteresting to me. Particularly when it is basically PR meant to repair damage to his image.

    Through no fault of his own, he is hounded...  hahahahahaha

    I am sure that if Alec Baldwin wants privacy he can find it, without  a feature article in New York Magazine. To tell 1.8 million weekly readers you are seeking privacy, including 6 pictures of yourself, is a the opposite of seeking privacy, imo.

    The article is a PR piece, written to aggrandize Alec Baldwin and make him more famous, not less famous, IMO.

    IOW a bunch of BS

    Parent

    What he should have done (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by nycstray on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:26:31 PM EST
    is speak with some of his famous friends who seem to do just fine wandering around NYC and other places without all the grief that he seems to attract . . .

    If he really wants privacy that is . . .  :)

    Parent

    Just leave me and my family in (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:54:18 PM EST
    privacy to grieve/heal/seek closure, says the recently victimized person on cable TV.

    Parent
    You didn't get that far? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by sj on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:36:38 PM EST
    And still you feel qualified to pass judgement? And somehow decide that his net worth should factor into whether or not squeaky takes him seriously?

    I'm glad I don't give a hoot whether you take me seriously or not, because clearly you make judgements without bothering to gather data.

    Parent

    Good God really? (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:09:58 PM EST
    I asked for a deeper opinion from squeaky and that turns into another opportunity for you to attack squeaky.  How phucking tiresome!!!!!

    I asked for the opine, not you.  But you can't wait to jump in at some point and stick a pitchfork in.  And it is an opinion, and I can also see where squeaky is coming from on the rest of it too.  And it isn't that I completely agree but maybe I do....who knows

    What has happened around here though?

    Parent

    Oh, for cripes sake (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:06:08 PM EST
    "It's not your blog" is getting tiresome. Anybody can post whatever comment they like unless Jeralyn calls foul.

    Parent
    Well, I suppose I could start (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:07:43 PM EST
    Emailing Jeralyn too.  I never have emailed her whining about anything, but there is always a first time.

    Parent
    Who emails her with whining? (none / 0) (#91)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:21:13 PM EST
    LOL (1.00 / 2) (#64)
    by sj on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:13:30 PM EST
    You ask what has happened around here? Funny, really.

    Parent
    What is wrong with you? Seriously? (4.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:22:24 PM EST
    I want a more global perspective of a place I just recently visited.
    And visiting is hardly being able to comprehend what living there is like.  I wanted a global understanding, which between kdog and squeaky I am beginning to get, the juxtapose of individuals who were raised there, continue to live there, and have to navigate living there daily.

     But if you have individuals cornered to the point that anything they say gets attacked, I have access to nothing other than your approved POV.  And this isn't YOUR blog either.


    Parent

    Yes, Alec Baldwin's (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:26:24 PM EST
    article does have a longshoreman's familiarity with words, but, overall, I find his essay to be more "ubi est mea" than mea culpa.  It is true that some salty language fits the bill of common parlance rather than the shrill of homophobia.

    However, it does seem disingenuous for an individual who claims to be "awash in gay people" not to realize that "toxic little queen" might be  offensive to anyone, even, it could be assumed, to Elizabeth II.  

    He may not appreciate Anderson Cooper, but calling him the "self-appointed Jack Valenti of gay media culture" seems more mean than clever.  Drawing from Alec's cauldron of fairness, I would say that the article is not without merit, especially the promise of its title.  And, he did get off a good line--"Mika B. is the Margaret Dumont of cable news."  

    Parent

    I reallythink "the rules" (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 09:37:47 PM EST
    should Latin quotes sine translation.

    Parent
    His t.v. show (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 10:39:41 PM EST
    had potential:  A in depth conversation in a diner with some interesting guests....It could get boring, but with the right guests and not overdone, it could have worked.

    Parent
    Good point (none / 0) (#134)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 07:24:15 AM EST
    Unfortunately since it was on MSNBC I just assumed it'd be another talking head show so I never checked it out.

    Parent
    He is frustrating because, really, he's... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:07:36 PM EST
    ...just a garden variety assh*le time and time again.

    IMO, he'd be a champion prick even if he weren't a celebrity.

    That said, I cannot deny the relative solidity of his intellect. Though honesty about the deep truth about himself, he ain't there yet.

    But this mortal coil has certainly produced much worse.

    Peace out.

    Parent

    Aren't we all, really, at some point or (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:36:03 PM EST
    another, a$$holes?  A$$holes who have the luxury of living in relative anonymity most of the time, which means that while we can irritate the crap out of our friends and family, most of us aren't losing jobs because we're at the mercy of a whole industry devoted to "getting" people for the perverse pleasure of a huge audience of readers/viewers who get off on watching other people's all-too-human-and-usually-ugly moments.

    I heard a celebrity the other day thanking God that cell phone cameras hadn't been around when he was running the bars and being stupid - the mistakes you made and the dumb things you did weren't instantly all over the Twitterverse and Instagram - you could deal with them like other human beings did.

    What I would hate the most if I were Baldwin is that I'd provided - wittingly or not, fairly or not - tons of fodder for a voyeur media that's only going to try harder to get a reaction from him.  How many of us would be able to keep our cool being constantly hounded by the paparazzi?

    Yeah, he chose this profession, but doesn't he get to set any boundaries?  

    Shoot, we average, not-famous people can't even control who's listening and watching to our comparatively boring lives - whatever privacy we have is probably illusory at best, and destined to evaporate altogether if the security state has its way!

    Parent

    Poor Baby Alec! (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:47:02 PM EST
    Just wants to be a regular guy...  

    He wants to be in charge of the narrative, the rest is BS. The whole point of the article is to increases his fan base, and convince any who strayed that he is not a gay basher.

    He wants privacy hahahahahahaha.

    Yes, and I am sure that the guy who works a jackhammer all day wants quiet.

    Parent

    I don't think someone who didn't (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:55:33 PM EST
    even read the piece is qualified to define the purpose and intent of it - but that's never stopped you before, so why should this time be any exception?

    Is this the part where I say "hahahahaha?"  Or is it where I have the thrill of saying "BS?"


    Parent

    Read (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:23:50 PM EST
    I do not have to eat a whole meal to tell that the food is bad.

    And, I have read several critical articles about the piece as well as a boat load of commentary.

    Reading his BS is not interesting, nor necessary for me to get it.

    But I do see that you empathize with him, must be that many misunderstand your hostility and bigotry as well.

    Parent

    First of all, I was responding to (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:18:04 PM EST
    Dadler, but you probably didn't read his comment, either.

    But I do commend you for once again writing another unintentionally funny comment...because I suspect there are many people who have this same thought

    Reading his BS is not interesting, nor necessary for me to get it.

    about many of your comments.

    And the part about what you "see?"  Comedy gold.

    Parent

    Heathers? (none / 0) (#170)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:46:18 AM EST
    Or is it a snootier elementary school version you are living?

    First of all, I was responding to Dadler, but you probably didn't read his comment, either.

    Looks like your school marm reflex to accuse others of acting like 5 year olds comes from your own self loathing. Interesting how name calling often reflects tendencies of the name caller.

     

    Parent

    "Welcome to the Dolls' House." (none / 0) (#171)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:51:03 AM EST
    (Couldn't resist.)

    Parent
    More unintentional hilarity... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:41:45 AM EST
    Interesting how name calling often reflects tendencies of the name caller.

    I can always tell - as can most people reading your remarks - when you haven't bothered to read the comments to which you respond.  You could have chosen to weigh in on what I actually wrote to Dadler, instead of just seeing my name and reading, what? the first sentence?  The subject line? and deciding you had enough information to respond to me as you did.

    Not that it matters to you, but I said nothing about what Baldwin was accused of - nor did I say much that could stand as a defense - my comment was more about the global lack of privacy and the the extent to which people feel entitled to intrude into the lives of others.  Including our own government.  What?  Nothing to say about that, squeaky?  

    It's okay - you don't have to admit you didn't read my comment to Dadler; it's clear from what you wrote that you were just using it to take another swing at me.  You'd think, though, that as often as you do it, you'd be better at it, but maybe you can get oculus to teach you to be more underhanded and oblique about it.

    Parent

    Sorry You Don't Get It (none / 0) (#180)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:05:12 PM EST
    I read
    your
    comment to Dadler and responded to it. If you expect me to comment on your specific attempt to defend Baldwin in that he is human and like all of us he has faults and human needs, forget it.

    From my POV Baldwin suckered you into his narrative. He is not a regular guy regarding the content of his writing. He is a famous actor who is trying to blame others for his sh!tty behavior. And he has tremendous power and influence, not to mention because of his fame and wealth he can get most any publication to print what he wants. The joke of it is that he just wants to be left alone.

    Well he can buy an island.

    Really Anne, I can't quite understand why you would defend Baldwin by trying to blame the media and all the people who have helped Baldwin become a superstar. As far as setting boundaries he cannot have it both ways, meaning being able to pick and choose which headlines get printed about him. That horse left the stable a long time ago for him.

    If he really cared about his image, he has more than enough resources, and I do not mean just cash, to create a huggable and lovable guy...  Oh, right. that is what he is trying to do here.

    Guess he needs to hire a better PR staff.

    Parent

    The comment wasn't a defense of (none / 0) (#188)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:28:11 PM EST
    Baldwin - that's what you're not getting. I'm not actually much of a Baldwin fan - does that surprise you?  It's why I refrained from taking up a defense of him, choosing to go more meta.

    I understand the argument that you want to have, but that wasn't the argument I was participating in.

    In fact, I deliberately did not get into the specifics of Baldwin's side of this whole story, choosing to respond to Dadler's calling him an a$$hole, by observing that we're all that way from time to time, but we don't have cameras and microphones in our faces 24/7 to blast it to the world.

    I don't agree that he doesn't have the right to set boundaries just because he's a celebrity; I'm sure he would agree that his work is fair game, but I don't think he - or anyone else - has to surrender a personal life.

    He's responsible for the consequences of his actions, of course, and there's simply no excuse for someone not knowing what is and isn't offensive.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#198)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 02:12:08 PM EST
    Although your comment sure sounds sympathetic (empathetic) to his problem.

    What I would hate the most if I were Baldwin is that I'd provided - wittingly or not, fairly or not - tons of fodder for a voyeur media that's only going to try harder to get a reaction from him.  How many of us would be able to keep our cool being constantly hounded by the paparazzi?

    Yeah, he chose this profession, but doesn't he get to set any boundaries?  

    Sure he gets to set boundaries, but he has chosen not to do so. He is complaining, as you empathize, that it is others who are the problem, not him. The part you may be missing is that his career, fame and wealth has been built on his success at  being a famous public figure. I would guess that putting yourself in the shoes of someone who has sought the public limelight to such a degree that everyone wants an autograph and picture is not something that you are easily able to do.

    He is supposedly renouncing it all now (we'll see), but complaining about what you sought in the first place in such a dishonest way, seems really poor to me.


    Parent

    No, that's not it. (none / 0) (#202)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 02:39:59 PM EST
    Let's try again:

    I'm saying that Baldwin has to know that he's responsible for providing the media with tons of fodder.

    At some point, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: he does whatever it is he's done, which makes the media draw closer.  The closer they get, the more agitated he gets, the more material he ends up providing the media.

    By stating that I don't know how well the rest of us would handle being dogged by the media takes nothing away from my acknowledging that Baldwin has brought much of this on himself.

    That's it - if you don't get it now, you're not going to.  

    One more thing: why do people seek an acting career?  Do they do it for the fame - is that the endgame?  Do they do it for the money?  I have a nephew who studied acting/theater arts/drama, who's been in NY for a couple years in search of an acting career.  He's not doing it for money, he's not doing it in hope of being "famous."  He just loves the craft.  You'd have to, in order to be willing to live hand-to-mouth, waiting tables, taking temp jobs, to get you from one acting job to the next.

    Parent

    I hope he has to accept a really lowball (3.50 / 2) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:59:57 PM EST
    price for his abode when he leaves Manhattan.

    I've read he does a really good job on behalf of the NY Philharmonic, but perhaps that is his redeeming quality.

    Parent

    Ha (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:16:49 PM EST
    I am certain that he does wonderful things with his money. And can be a wonderful guy..  but the subject of this thread is a PR piece pitched to 1.8 million readers claiming that what you said was taken the wrong way and some of your best friends are gay. Blaming others who recorded his words and disseminated them is really weak, disingenuous and in the end hypocritical.

    Rather than own up to his using obvious homophobic slurs (I did not know that was offensive.... hahahahahha) he is both telling us that we have him wrong and he is taking his leaving, taking his toys home, and we will be sorry that he is gone. Our fault... hahahaha
     He is asking for an apology from the public for getting him so wrong.  

    Parent

    The NYT article about Baldwin's NY Magazine piece, (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:46:08 PM EST
    which I confess I have not read, indicates Mr. Baldwin stated it used to be ok to spew homophobic remarks, but time has passed him by. This is a frequent excuse of sexual harrassers too.

    Parent
    No kidding. Harassers harass, (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:18:29 PM EST
    and make excuses when people call them out for it. I read the whole piece lentinel linked to and, honestly, Baldwin just seems all over the place with excuses, half-hearted apologies, and back to anger again. He goes off on about ten different people, and clearly has special distaste for Anderson Cooper. He's right about one thing though: he should take a break from public life, because his rantings just make him seem out of control.

    As a side note, I think if he ever wants to do theater again, he's burned his bridges with Dan Sullivan, who did not deserve the sanctimonious treatment Baldwin gives him. I used to know Sullivan a bit through actor friends when he lived and worked in Seattle. I have a lot of respect and admiration for him. He's worked hard and treated people very nicely throughout his career. I'll bet he held his tongue more than once while dear old Alec was pulling his prima donna trip.


    Parent

    How many times have we said, (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:58:28 PM EST
    let's say when were discussing politics, it's the "policy" not the rhetoric that counts. And, so, I agree with your take re: Alec Baldwin.

    A little while back I had seen an interview with him, a serious interview, and, knowing hardly anything about him, I mentioned how much his comments, and, thinking, impressed me.

    He could have been the Boston Strangler, yet, what would that have to do with his thoughts about a completely unrelated subject?

    But, Anne, maybe inadvertently, you hit upon the topic I've been "bi*ching about for quite a while. And, that is, there are posters here that, maybe not quite fitting the classical definition of "trolls," they seem to go out of their way to find something, anything, negative to say about the person you were highlighting Re: a recent laudable event.

    Anyway, this is just a long-winded way to add my ditto regarding Baldwin's views.

    Parent

    Truer words...... (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:10:22 PM EST
    Is that cryptic enough?

    Parent
    My thoughts (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:05:32 PM EST
    Why does someone that wants privacy go public?

    Some people thrive on the publicity in their quest for privacy.

    Parent

    I'm not getting into this general (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by NYShooter on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:04:44 PM EST
    Alec Baldwin discussion, however, regarding your point, "Why does someone that wants privacy go public?" I was somewhat surprised that you would stoop to the lowest common denominator method of debating, normally associated with FOX, Tea Party, Rush, etc. You're much smarter than that, C.G.

    The issue you're commenting on is not resolved by bumper sticker, one liners. Are you really implying that a person who strives to excel at his/her craft necessarily must be willing to surrender 100% of his "off duty" time to the public? I know you don't, and, so, I was just surprised that you joined in to this unpleasant rhetoric. I've almost stopped commenting here because of this growing, "you must be 100% this way, or, that way." If you did one thing in your life that displeased me, then, no quarter will be given; I will hate you forever. Got it??

    This kind of reminds me of when Warren Buffet went public with his assertion that rich people don't pay enough taxes, and, suggested that the Rich Class should pay a larger, fairer share of the tax burden. So, was he commended for this voluntary action? Of course not. The Mensa Class, of which our own jimakaPPJ is my permanent representative, shot back with his patented brilliance, "Well, if Warren Buffet loves paying taxes so much why doesn't he just sit down and write a big fat check to the government?" (paraphrasing, somewhat) But, you get the point.

    So, at the risk of continuing to bore you to death I shall sign off now.

    Only, you are better than that, and, I know that.

    Parent

    He chooses to loose his temper (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 10:34:35 PM EST
    And say hurtful and ridiculous things repeatedly to his ex-wife, daughter, camera guys and occasionally includes in the rants insensitive words that are obviously offensive.

    Past that what are we talking about?

    If he could learn to act like a professional in his personnel life there would be no need for an article or an escape to private life.

    There are thousand of celebrities and I can't think of one that acts as poorly over such a long stretch of time as Mr. Baldwin.

    I love his acting but he's just a pompous jerk who can't help himself and  if not for his celebrity he'd be just another guy acting like a jerk and getting away with it.

    Parent

    Mel Gibson? (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:14:02 PM EST
    Good one (none / 0) (#119)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:42:22 PM EST
    But he has the one major blow up.

    Alec has sustained jerk doom.  And Mel was waste.

    Parent

    He strikes me a a real narcissist (none / 0) (#41)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:19:48 PM EST
    He's the perfect example of someone who's got talent and intellect, but no self-awareness or self-control. Like a lot of people in public life, unfortunately,

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#111)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 10:37:08 PM EST
    And I'm tired of just assuming his intellect.

    A true intellect is aware of themselves and he is not.

    Parent

    Thank you for the link. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:49:17 PM EST
    Meant to read this the other day, but never got around to it. Alec Baldwin could have used a wise and judicious editor, because his piece is rather wordy, but he made several very worthwhile points about life in the public bubble / spotlight.

    But given that MSNBC's Rachel Maddow has since said that she's never met Baldwin, IMHO he really should have avoided making those rather disparaging personal remarks about her, an off-the-cuff comment which served only to underscore his ongoing anger management issues. He is certainly much smarter than the average bear, but he's also his own worst enemy when he loses it with people. He needs to control his own temper, instead of vice versa.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Alec Baldwin could have used a wise and judicious editor, because his piece is rather wordy


    Parent
    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 06:20:04 PM EST
    I'm really not in the mood. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:14:06 PM EST
    Pick a fight with someone else today, please.

    Parent
    Hopefully you don't just write my comment off w/o thinking about it...

    Parent
    Are you too timid (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:18:10 PM EST
    to react here to Anne's comment, above?  (I am.)

    Parent
    You don't strike me as the timid sort. (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by vml68 on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:41:34 PM EST
    I think I must be the only person here who enjoys reading Anne's and Donald's wordy posts even when I don't agree with them. IMO, they both write really well.

    I am no wordsmith myself, but there are a couple of posters here whose writing skills make my brain hurt. Thanks to texting, twitter, etc., I find that most peoples writing skills have seriously deteriorated. So, I really appreciate it when someone writes well. I guess, I am getting crotchety in my middle/old age.

    Parent

    I didn't read it. I will now! (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:27:44 PM EST
    Well, not to be a name dropper, (none / 0) (#73)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:41:14 PM EST
    but, eherm, we used to run into Alec and Kim at a local restaurant, back in the day when they lived in these parts. He was always very nice.

    Parent
    I actually did run into one of the Baldwins, (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Angel on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:51:21 AM EST
    or rather one of them ran into me.  Three of them were together in Las Vegas for some sort of event, all dressed very nicely in tuxedos, when one of them literally ran into me.  He immediately grabbed hold of me and sort of hugged me and was profuse in his apology. The other two stood by watching, acted very normal, and seemed concerned for me.  They are all gorgeous, tall, dark and handsome! To this day I don't know if it was Alex, Daniel or Billy who ran into me.

    Parent
    Very cool. (none / 0) (#200)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 02:21:31 PM EST
    Yes, I think all of us say things when we're angry that would not look good if printed in a magazine or something. And some of us don't have as much anger-management discipline as others...

    Parent
    true dat (none / 0) (#203)
    by sj on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 02:56:12 PM EST
    anonymity makes it possible to be both our best and our worst selves.

    Parent
    Kudos for the subject line, suo. (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 04:56:45 AM EST
    No, I wrote your comment off ... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 08:19:18 PM EST
    ... because it was an obnoxious and totally unprovoked personal attack. Is that answer short enough for you?

    Have a nice evening.

    Parent

    Read like... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:22:53 AM EST
    a little friendly ball-busting to me.

    Don't make me dose the lot of you with chill pills!

    We've talked about it for a long time, we really need to have that Talkleft convention stat...I think if we all met face to face 99% of the animosity and hostile tones would disappear.

    Parent

    First-ever video from inside the Supreme Court (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:02:21 PM EST
    chamber during oral argument.  Shows the "Citizens United" protest yesterday by the group 99Rise, as well as the process of argument itself. Quite something how at least 3 people seem to have smuggled in tiny video recording devices to use. Only one was caught -- the one who stood to speak.

    Thanks Peter G. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 06:29:03 PM EST
    I feel that the Supreme Court rule that bars video/television coverage is short-sighted.  Evaluation of the pros and cons, seems to me, to come down on the side of openness and the fostering ofpublic understanding and education.  David Souter was particularly adamant, I recall, in keeping the cameras away;  A particular mistake in his case, since his thoughtful questions and arguments were ready for their Mr. De Mille close-ups.

    Parent
    Yeah, well (none / 0) (#106)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 08:43:41 PM EST
    it's the old, "power corrupts, absolute....." well, you know the rest.

    Parent
    New study confirms (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:07:57 PM EST
    Breast-Feeding Benefits Have Been Drastically Overstated:


    A new study confirms what people like our own Hanna Rosin and Texas A&M professor Joan B. Wolf have been saying for years now: The benefits of breast-feeding have been overstated. The study, published in the journal Social Science & Medicine, is unique in the literature about breast-feeding because it looks at siblings who were fed differently during infancy. That means the study controls for a lot of things that have marred previous breast-feeding studies. As the study's lead author, Ohio State University assistant professor Cynthia Colen, said in a press release, "Many previous studies suffer from selection bias. They either do not or cannot statistically control for factors such as race, age, family income, mother's employment--things we know that can affect both breast-feeding and health outcomes."

    Colen's study is also unique because she looked at children ages 4-14. Often breast-feeding studies only look at the effects on children in their first years of life. She looked at more than 8,000 children total, about 25 percent of whom were in "discordant sibling pairs," which means one was bottle-fed and the other was breast-fed. The study then measured those siblings for 11 outcomes, including BMI, obesity, asthma, different measures of intelligence, hyperactivity, and parental attachment.

    When children from different families were compared, the kids who were breast-fed did better on those 11 measures than kids who were not breast-fed. But, as Colen points out, mothers who breast-feed their kids are disproportionately advantaged--they tend to be wealthier and better educated. When children fed differently within the same family were compared--those discordant sibling pairs--there was no statistically significant difference in any of the measures, except for asthma. Children who were breast-fed were at a higher risk for asthma than children who drank formula.



    As someone who had three kids in the last 8 years (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 10:47:10 PM EST
    I must say the peer pressure to breast feed was enormous.

    Not only from the media and from friends and family but literally in the hospital after the baby was born.

    We were repeatedly asked if we were going to breast feed with the question always being transmitted with a certain tone and suggestion.   Then the hospital sent special breast feeding consultants armed with pamphlets and all sorts of talking points favoring breast feeding.    

    We ultimately chose to do so but my Dad the doctor said while it could help he did not believe the hype.   He said he was bottle fed and he became a surgeon along with most of the other kids he went to medical school with.   How much difference could it make?

    There are tons of other baby advice points that have switched over the years.   My favorite is making the baby sleep on it's back.   We did that until we decided we'd prefer to sleep and once the little guy slept through the night on his belly we never looked back.

    Parent

    Not supposed to sleep on tummy now (none / 0) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:34:45 AM EST
    Either.  Last grandchild, he was supposed to sleep on his side as often as possible.

    Parent
    Sleeping on the back or side is (none / 0) (#165)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:23:19 AM EST
    a recommendation that came out of research on SIDS; apparently, back-sleeping babies have a lower incidence of SIDS than side- or tummy-sleeping babies.

    And back-sleeping is all well and good, but when the baby can roll him- or herself from back to front, there's not a whole lot you can do to prevent a baby from tummy-sleeping if that's the position he or she is most comfortable in.

    As for the breastfeeding, I'm sorry your Dad views the documented advantages of breastfeeding to be "hype," especially if he's basing it on how he - a bottle-fed baby - turned out (and what year was he born?  Been a lot of research since then).  That's like saying the dangers of smoking must be hype because look at all the people who smoke and don't get lung cancer or heart disease or emphysema.  

    I think women should be educated about their options.  I think they should do what works best for them, in their particular circumstances, and refuse to feel guilty about their choices.  

    You speak about the pressure to breastfeed as being "enormous."  You might want to consider that there still exists such prejudice and discrimination about breastfeeding that extra effort is required to push back against it.  See this, as an example:

    Delta Air Lines has apologized to a California woman for mistakenly telling her she would not be able to breastfeed her infant son on a flight unless she used a nursing cover after the exchange ignited a social media firestorm.

    On Friday, Lindsay Jaynes of Newport Beach tweeted @DeltaAssist, the carrier's customer service Twitter account, to inquire about the airline's breastfeeding policy ahead of her upcoming flight with her 10-week-old baby.

    She was taken aback when Delta replied she would not be allowed to nurse without a cover and suggested pumping ahead of the flight and bringing the breast milk on board with her.

    I breastfed both my kids, and I would venture to guess that on those occasions when I had to do it "in public," no one had any idea that's what I was doing.  We don't announce it, we don't haul out our boobs on full display, we don't act sexual - and yet, women who breastfeed are often treated as if they are doing something wrong, instead of what they're really doing: giving their baby a food that is perfectly balanced nutritionally, is soothing and comforting and natural.

    Parent

    So, the disgruntled draftee (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:32:52 PM EST
    Navy OB was correct after all.

    Parent
    I told my mom she was vindicated (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:38:28 PM EST
    As we were all formula babies.  :)

    Not by her choice.  I am the oldest [or, as I prefer, the most "experienced"] and would not take food from a boob.  By the time my three sisters came along, my aunt had married a very successful pharma rep who just happened to sell baby formula.  :)

    Parent

    Many babies in the 1940s, '50s and '60s ... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 08:36:48 PM EST
    ... were bottle-fed rather than breast-fed, and I've always found it amazing what some new mothers were told in order to discourage them from breastfeeding their infants, and use formula instead.

    When my older sister was born in 1954, the maternity ward nurse at Ft. Belvoir military hospital told my mother that she should bottle-feed her baby, because breastfeeding would otherwise cause her breasts to sag prematurely and her husband would cease desiring her.

    Mom can laugh at it now for the nonsense that it was, but like she admits, back then she was an entirely credulous 20-year-old who believed what the so-called "professionals" told her. And I'm sure she wasn't the only young mother who did so.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    My sisters and I (none / 0) (#167)
    by fishcamp on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:38:00 AM EST
    were all breast fed during WWll since there wasn't much milk available.  Probably didn't have formula back then either.

    Parent
    Whenever my moms... (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:31:55 AM EST
    gets on my case too hard to quit smoking, I'm quick to retort that if I had been breast-fed instead of bottle-fed I might not have this oral fixation that contributes to my adoration of smoking.  

    Parent
    I hope moms (none / 0) (#145)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:39:42 AM EST
    Gives you "the look" when you say stuff like that.

    :)

    Parent

    No doubt... (none / 0) (#146)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:46:51 AM EST
    with her brood of wise-arses, she's mastered the eye roll;)

    Parent
    My mom taught kindergarten (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:52:56 AM EST
    for more than 40 years.  I was always amazed when I would visit her classroom and there would always be some kid(s) who acted up and got "the look" and were oblivious to it.  I get scared when I occasionally still get "the look" and I'm 45!  :)

    Parent
    Nothing quiets most moms quicker (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:31:56 AM EST
    Than guilt.  And your kids always know where the quick and easy guilty buttons are

    Just wrong kdog :)

    Parent

    Hey now... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:42:53 AM EST
    I've never ever asked her where my foreskin is...I'm a good son! ;)

    Parent
    Oh Dear (none / 0) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:46:50 AM EST
    Masterful!

    Parent
    Unless baby has weak swallowing (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:45:48 AM EST
    And aspirates a little, then...formula leads to pneumonia and breast milk does not for some reason.

    Parent
    I'm interested in the link between (none / 0) (#95)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:50:44 PM EST
    breast feeding and asthma. Wish that had been expounded upon in the Slate piece.

    Parent
    Pregnancy and acetaminophen... (none / 0) (#102)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 07:44:32 PM EST
    It seems that there might be a link between ADHD and acetaminophen (Tylenol)use during pregnancy.
    The probability of a child developing ADHD symptoms severe enough to require medication increased the most -- by 63% -- when his or her mother took acetaminophen during the last two trimesters of pregnancy, researchers found. It also rose by about 28% when acetaminophen was used in the third trimester alone. The added risk was smallest -- about 9% -- when a pregnant woman reported taking the drug only during her first trimester of pregnancy.


    Parent
    A little more info (none / 0) (#124)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 04:11:49 AM EST
    in the press release, but its something like the asthma numbers being self reported, not actual diagnosis. Maybe something more in the full report.

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#123)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 04:08:30 AM EST
    Here is a link to the press release

    I like to see more than one side of opinions on the study before giving it weight. Statements like this make me wonder about studies that find what the researcher hopes to find.

    "I'm not saying breast-feeding is not beneficial, especially for boosting nutrition and immunity in newborns," Colen said. "But if we really want to improve maternal and child health in this country, let's also focus on things that can really do that in the long term - like subsidized day care, better maternity leave policies and more employment opportunities for low-income mothers that pay a living wage, for example."

    Question that comes to mind would be to look at why one sibling was breast fed and another was not, and see if the situation is neutral.

    Parent

    My take (none / 0) (#132)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 06:27:55 AM EST
    "I'm not saying breast-feeding is not beneficial, especially for boosting nutrition and immunity in newborns," Colen said. "But if we really want to improve maternal and child health in this country, let's also focus on things that can really do that in the long term - like subsidized day care, better maternity leave policies and more employment opportunities for low-income mothers that pay a living wage, for example."

    Was that, as Slado said above, there is now enormous pressure on women to breast feed, and those that don't are looked down upon.  I think this research is trying to show that women aren't failures as mothers if they don't breast feed and everyone needs to chill out.

    Parent

    My daughter, mother to an (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 07:28:35 AM EST
    almost 15-month old, is very enthusiastic about breast-feeding, for a number of reasons.  While it's true that millions of babies have thrived on formula, there are good and valid reasons for choosing the breast that have nothing to do with long-term benefits.

    It's a tremendous way to bond with your baby, and there are numerous studies about the advantages and benefits of the skin-to-skin contact that breast-feeding provides.  It's much less expensive to breast-feed; have you priced formula lately?  The store I shop in, located in an upscale area, has its formula under lock and key - just like the cigarettes - because so much of it was being stolen.  Feeding on demand is another positive - there are no ounce markers on the breast, so you feed until your baby doesn't want any more, not until a bottle is empty.  There's no early pressure on a baby to "finish" what's in a bottle, no early teaching that you are a better judge of how much the baby "wants" than the baby.

    I don't agree with any effort that results in women feeling judged for their decisions on what is a very personal choice.  Women who choose to breast feed don't love their babies more than women who choose to formula feed.

    To me, the breast v. formula wars are just one more way women end up being pitted against each other - and it's just so totally unnecessary.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 07:33:49 AM EST
    And baby formula isn't just being stolen by mothers who can't afford it - it's also being used to make meth.  

    People do crazy stuff!

    Parent

    In fact my wife was so guilt tripped (none / 0) (#137)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 07:44:44 AM EST
    That she pumped for 6 months so our 1st child would get breast milk.   He did not like the boob so she pumped and put it in bottles.  

    I would often say why don't we switch to formula but she would say let's just get to 6 months and I didn't want to argue with her.

    Luckily the next two had no issues with the old fashioned way.

    As my Dad says it probably does help in the first few weeks of life with certain infections etc... But after that it's just calories.

    Parent

    Oh, pumping your (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Zorba on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    breast milk for six months is above and way beyond the call of duty.  Your poor wife!
    I breast fed both of mine, but I had to go back to work when my first child was 6 weeks old.  I did pump at work for a few weeks (trust me on this, where I taught had absolutely no facilities for this, so I had to use the ladies room- ugh).  And I breast-fed her in the morning before work, and then after work in the evening.  Eventually, it just got to be so much of a hassle, I gave it up.  I was producing less and less milk, and Daughter Zorba got less and less interested in using the breast when it was available.
    Ah, well.
    While there are many advantages to breast-feeding, what with the immunity benefits early on, the bonding with the baby and such (and I found it incredibly convenient because you didn't have to worry about making up formula, sterilizing bottles, worrying about chilling the bottles when you were out, etc- you could just "plug the baby in" so to speak, when he/she was hungry), I also do not believe in pressuring anyone to do any one thing, or laying a guilt trip on moms who do not do so.
    Every woman needs to do whatever works best for her and her child, without the PC police hovering over her shoulder.

    Parent
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 288 (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:32:50 AM EST
    Not to change the subject or anything, (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:55:41 AM EST
    but does anyone have any thoughts on, as Charlie Pierce puts it, "the secret Clinton library files?"

    I can't be the only one who just heaved a sigh of, "oh, Lord, I don't know if I have the stomach for the sh!tstorm that this will unleash."

    Pierce:

    Did you know about the secret files? No, not the ones in the safe at the Mena Airport. And, no, not the ones that poor Vince Foster burned at Hillary Clinton's discreet pied a terre on Dupont Circle before she had him killed and transported to Fort Tryon Park. And no, not the ones that were buried under the billing records in the White House closet. The ones at the Clinton library. The Secret Clinton Files!

    [snip]

    How in the name of god is "the death of White House aide Vince Foster" a "Clinton-era scandal."? (Whitewater wasn't a scandal, either, but never mind.) The poor man got hounded by the sociopaths on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal until he couldn't take it any more and shot himself in the head. (He specifically mentioned this in his suicide note.)  These are the Clinton Rules coming back with a vengeance. "Scandal" is anything the courtier press says it is, and a "cover-up" is engaged any time every single document desired isn't produced immediately. Unfortunately, this time around, nobody can book rooms at Parker Dozhier's fish camp. As Gene Lyons -- on his own and with Joe Conason -- point out, over and over again, it wasn't so much the "vast rightwing conspiracy" that plagued the Clinton administration, but the limitless sweet-tooth of the "respectable" press for whatever came down the puke funnel.

    But, hey now. Secret files!

    Couldn't the media just take V!agr@ instead?

    I think the media (none / 0) (#185)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:14:17 PM EST
    Wants something to be there, but if the Clintons are as EEEEVVVIILLL as the media want to them to be, don't you think any real damning stuff would be gone?

    As for me, I could give a rat's behind what's in them.  I think most people couldn't even tell you that these files are being released.

    Parent

    I don't think that (none / 0) (#186)
    by Zorba on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:16:56 PM EST
    the media needs anything like V!agr@, which will only serve to "inflate" them.  I think they need to take anti-V!agr@ so they can be "deflated," so to speak.   ;-)

    Parent
    Talk about beautiful people (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    I dug up up this interview with Reginald Denny, probably the most visible victim of the violence of the '92 LA riots (link).

    Seeing this made me remember that I witnessed the '92 madness fairly closeup from my apartment in what was then the armpit of central Hollywood. I remember when the fires and sh*t worked their way up toward Hollywood Blvd. I headed for the roof of my apartment building, were I was joined by a completely representative and phucked up assortment of souls who inhabited that 70+ year old building, which is now pushing a century old. Those residents basically fell into three categories: wannabe heavy metal band members who were either junkies or becoming junkies; a few white college educated slummers like me; or elderly folks who'd lived in the building since D-day. My neighbor across the hall was a completely sweet and lovely lady whop was in her early 90s then, had moved into the building after getting divorced in 1930-something and vowing never to get married again. One day she knocked on my door and asked for help moving a dresser to the other side of the room. I obliged, obviously, but when I entered her apartment I was immediately struck by the decor and vibe of the place. It was literally as if 1945 had come to visit and had never left. She had photos of Clark Gable on the wall, for heaven's sake, and wallpaper so stained by her unfiltered Chesterfields (I saw the carton on her kitchen counter), it was like breathing tar inside time capsule. Strange days indeed...most peculiar, mama.

    Nobody told me there'd be days like these... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by sj on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:14:16 PM EST
    Was listening to that on the way in to work this morning.

    Parent
    What a difference... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:08:03 PM EST
    "and" and/or "or" might make if you're facing DUI charges in MO.  

    Mad props to Attorney Matt Fry...nice catch sir!

    An honest prosecutor. You read it at TL! (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:01:27 PM EST
    the regulations said breath analysis equipment was supposed to be tested to the level of 0.10 percent, 0.08 percent and 0.04 percent.


    Parent
    I agree... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:40:19 PM EST
    but will the judges in all those cases?

    To paraphrase Johnny Cochrane...if you did not calibrate at .04, you must emancipate for sure.  

    Parent

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 287 (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:12:21 PM EST
    Season 2 of 'The Americans' has started (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:01:27 PM EST
    Just getting to watch the premiere now.  Have waited impatiently.

    How is that show, really? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:37:11 PM EST
    Judging by its trailers and previews, "The Americans" looked very cheesy to me, like some paranoid right-wing Cold War fantasy, so I've skipped it thus far.

    But I know a lot of others who've since been raving about it, so I'm wondering whether I should perhaps reconsider my initial opinion and give it a try.

    Any thoughts?

    Parent

    I started watching it last night (none / 0) (#40)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:15:16 PM EST
    for the first time, and I was on the edge of my seat the whole hour. I think it's well done. As for being a cold war right wing fantasy, I don't think so...especially considering that the audience identifies with/roots for the KBG couple, rather than the creepy FBI goons.

    Anyway, Matthew Rhys stars in it, so that's enough for me.

    Parent

    I watched the first episode (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:29:49 PM EST
    of the first season and plan on bing watching Season 1 this weekend.  I agree - it kept me on my seat the whole time.

    Joe Weisberg, the creator of the show is a former CIA officer, but he has said that the Cold War and spy stuff is the backdrop for a story that's really about a marriage.

    Very intriguing concept, and one can easily see how this particular marriage might have its unique challenges.

    Parent

    For me...why the attraction (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:26:17 PM EST
    It takes me back to growing up, and my teens and Ronald Reagan making us all paranoid as hell.

    I don't know if Russia had such agents here, but it puts faces to all that paranoia that was gifted me :).  And the sets and the clothes, so much reminds me of the 70's to early 80's, they even have the dishes our mothers and grandmothers used.

    Parent

    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:33:40 PM EST
    they did

    The beige colonial boasts four bedrooms, an updated kitchen - and the chance to own a slice of Russian spy history that inspired the new television series The Americans.

    The U.S. Marshals Service is selling a Montclair, New Jersey, home whose previous owners were arrested in 2010 by the FBI and accused of being members of a Russian spy ring.

    Authorities said the home's former occupants went by the aliases Richard and Cynthia Murphy and led what appeared to be a banal suburban life.

    Lawyers for the couple said the man was a stay-at-home father to two daughters and his wife worked for a New York accounting firm and made $135,000 a year.

    It was all an elaborate, illegal ruse straight out of the popular FX series The Americans, which was in fact inspired by the real-life spy saga.

    Like in the show, which follows married Russian sleeper agents Philip and Elizabeth Jennings, the Murphys - whose real names are Vladimir and Lydia Guryev - were part of a group of deep-cover Russian operatives who had been living in the U.S. for years under the guise of leading seemingly normal lives.

    Guryevs and eight others - including the redheaded beauty Anna Chapman - were arrested in June 2010 after a decade-long counterintelligence probe that led to the biggest spy swap since the Cold War.



    Parent
    Don't you think there is some (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:44:53 PM EST
    Artistic license being taken here though.  I knew about the recent spies, but in the show they are in the 70's and 80's, when it did seem that Russia could be a threat.  Feeling and selling the threat of Russia in 2010, not so much.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:51:24 PM EST
    But the creator of the show said he didn't want it to be about these recent incidences. (He also worked for the CIA in the 80s.  As an aside, he has to have every script approved by the CIA, and sometimes things get vetoed for hitting a little too close to home on the details.)

    When you're writing The Americans, how concerned are you with accuracy and how much are you just having fun?

    It's a really crazy balance that sometimes changes day to day. I work pretty hard to try to make the show very accurate in terms of trade craft and in terms of what I learned at the CIA - not just about the intricacies of trade craft but about how espionage really works and how spies really live. Not just for the sake of being accurate, but because that's something that can make the show different and make it interesting and appealing. On the other hand, often those things do come up against trying to tell a good dramatic story to the budget realities of production, so I find myself constantly trying to weigh one against the other.

    SNIP

    You set it in the '80s obviously to kind of dial up the tension, but why did you pick that era and not the '60s and '70s?  

    I initially was drawn to the '70s because I grew up in the '70s too and loved that hair. I'm also more of a '70s music guy than an '80s music guy at the end of the day, but really it was about Reagan. Under Carter, the Cold War was dialed down, and then Reagan just took that dial and turned it as far and as fast as he could. That's what you want. You want the maximum degree of conflict and you want the American president who is avowedly and openly committed to destroying the Soviet Union. Nothing's going to fan the flames and make the KGB more scared and angrier and more active than that. We always think of Reagan as really a character in the show, he's such a vibrant and fascinating and interesting and powerful character himself so it just had to be Reagan.



    Parent
    What I'm reading though (none / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:04:00 PM EST
    Is that he only worked for the CIA for three and half years and it isn't the exposing of specific events that the CIA worries about, but his exposing of spy tradecraft that he was educated in.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#96)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:51:55 PM EST
    But it IS a fictional show, so just enjoy it for the drama.  Everything doesn't have to be correct.  I love shows with cops and lawyers, and they get things wrong all the time, but usually it's to help advance the story to complete in 41 minutes, so you just go with it.  :)

    Parent
    last season of the Americans (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 06:28:10 PM EST
    was great. I haven't watched last night's episode yet.

    Parent
    I guess (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:03:24 PM EST
    BTD is really busy. I do wish he would start posting here with his analysis again.

    Check DK. (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 09:35:44 PM EST
    I did (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:52:11 AM EST
    but it's not fun over there. They're like Nader Central and it's tiresome. I'm not against criticism but they don't know how to make it constructively.

    Parent
    I don't wade through the comments and (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    you can choose who is in your "stream."  The vast majority of comments are in no respect superior to what is available here.

    Parent
    Talkleft offline this am? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    TimeWarner did a modem something last night, but a few hours after everything else was fine Chrome couldn't find Talkleft.com. Like 3am PST.

    It had nothing to do with Chrome ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:29:32 PM EST
    ... or anything on your end. I have Microsoft IE as my browser, and noticed the same thing at 11:00 p.m. HST (1:00 a.m. your time). The TL server was obviously down for a little while, perhaps for routine maintenance.

    Parent
    Same here, when I couldn't get in via Chrome... (none / 0) (#94)
    by gbrbsb on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:47:31 PM EST
    I tried with Safari, and it was zilch there too, but I thought it was something to do with my IP address or router.

    Parent
    Nope, it was just down (none / 0) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 06:01:46 PM EST
    I couldn't access the site for several hours in the a.m. I go swimming @10:00 a.m and it was still down just before I left. Went out for a long lunch and I could access it when I got back around 2:00 p.m.

    Parent
    yes it went down (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 06:28:50 PM EST
    It was the server. I didn't realize it until mid morning and I called our webmaster Colin and he fixed it.

    Parent
    Happened to me, too... (none / 0) (#128)
    by unitron on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:34:33 AM EST
    ...but I was trying to access the site via Earthlink Dial-up, because my Earthlink over Time-Warner cable was down again, just like every other day this week.

    Of course it's impossible to get through to any actual networking engineers at either Earthlink or Time-Warner to get talk to someone who doesn't have to follow a script, and doesn't get confused by concepts like a cable modem generating it's own "web page" where you can see its status and logs, or who understands stuff like "I can ping IP addresses, but URL's don't resolve" or, "I can get through to the NIST time servers in Virginia and Utah, but not Michigan or Chicago" or any of that stuff that's as close to clue gathering as can be done on my end.

    /rant

    Parent

    Pro-Russian gunmen have ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:25:01 PM EST
    ... seized the state parliament building in the Crimean capital of Simferopol and raised a Russian flag, as Russo-Ukrainians installed a Russian as mayor of the nearby port city of Sevastopol and demanded the Crimea's union with Russia.

    Ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich showed up at a press conference in the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don to proclaim that he's still the lawful head of the country's government. He also appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin for protection from "extremists," in a statement released by Russian state media, which has further (and curiously) begun using the term "Kyevan Rus," which is a direct reference to "Russian Ukraine."

    Meanwhile in Kiev, interim Ukrainian President Olexander Turchynov has warned Russia against threats of military intervention in the Crimea or elsewhere in the country, and has asked that the Russian Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol stand down and not leave port. Arseniy Yatsenyuk was confirmed today as the country's new prime minister, and promptly accused Yanukovich and his friends of having looted Ukraine's government of some $37 billion.

    With his attention having been diverted by the Olympic Games in Sochi, Putin now suddenly finds himself on the brink of experiencing a significant and humiliating political setback in Ukraine, a country which he has been alternately courting and bullying for the better part of a decade, in an ongoing effort to discourage Ukrainians from seeking closer economic and political ties with the European Union.

    How Putin will react to Yanukovich's ouster remains to be seen. According to some regional experts, while direct military intervention on his ally's behalf seems unlikely given the corresponding risks of massive resistance by ethnic Ukrainians and a full diplomatic rift with the West, the Russian president still has several considerable options available as potential means to bend Ukraine to his will.

    Aloha.

    Brinksmanship as a Putin strategy (none / 0) (#52)
    by christinep on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:47:54 PM EST
    And, he cannot afford--from the strategic port perspective and historical perspective--to lose or cede the Crimea.

    Parent
    ... in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet Union's demise, in which the question was posed by my former history professor as to whether or not the Crimean peninsula -- which the Soviets had made part of the Ukrainian S.S.R., even though its population was mostly ethnic Russian -- was a potential ticking time-bomb poised to plague future relations between Russia and Ukraine.

    I must admit that I really didn't give it too much thought at the time, but in retrospect, it has since proved to be a rather prescient observation on my professor's part.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Too bad none of the people... (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by unitron on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:42:22 AM EST
    ...running the country at the time, who had been trying to bring down the USSR, understood any of the ramifications of creating vacuums, and therefore were completely unprepared to deal with the consequences of the collapse.


    Parent
    The downfall of a regime and ... (none / 0) (#197)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 02:02:27 PM EST
    ... the subsequent collapse of the established order are most always going to be rather messy affairs. Our country is fortunate that we've only experienced it once, and even that one time, the military and political collapse of the Confederacy in 1865 impacted only one region of the country. Most everyone else outside the South went on about their daily business.

    The Soviet Union and its eastern European satellites were at heart a corrupted society, and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact was inevitable. For all our Cold War hysteria, it might surprise people to learn that the overall size of the Soviet economy was actually similar to that which then existed in the State of Illinois. The U.S.S.R. simply did not have the economic heft and horsepower to compete effectively over the long haul in direct competition with NATO and the West.

    Thus the Kremlin discovered, as did the British lords and barons 40 years earlier, that while the establishment of an empire is the easy part, relatively speaking of course, its long-term maintenance is a very expensive and ultimately unsustainable proposition.

    And for that, I would argue that we should probably thank President Harry Truman and his Secretary of State, Gen. George C. Marshall, rather than the Ronald Reagan and his acolytes. Because for all its various shortfalls and pitfalls along the way, the Truman Doctrine and its attendant policy of Soviet containment actually worked.

    But if we don't pay attention, we'll soon find ourselves walking the same path of British imperialists and Russian commissars alike. And no doubt, others will be there, ready and eager to take our place as the guys with the big sombreros.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    glenn greenwald (none / 0) (#75)
    by ZtoA on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:43:31 PM EST
    Well this improbable soccer goal... (none / 0) (#103)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 08:10:32 PM EST
    Wow. (none / 0) (#173)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:28:10 AM EST
    Another Horror Story? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:04:25 PM EST
    Pet business won't expand because of ACA

    Good thing Harry Reid said all these stories are false!

    Well . . . (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by nycstray on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:37:20 PM EST
    The dude could open 2 more locations with one less employee . . . totaling 49 employees . . . or just one more location and when it does well open a third etc . . . I'm sure he could make the math work if he really wanted. Bottom line, he never wants to offer health insurance to his low paid employees.

    Parent
    But he would offer more jobs. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:44:23 PM EST
    Now because of the law people will have the "freedom" not to work.

    Parent
    So instead of increasing to 49 jobs (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by nycstray on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:02:19 AM EST
    he's choosing not to because he wants 50 but would then be required to give his low paid workers health insurance? Why doesn't he just act like all the other big-wig a-holes and offer less hours to more people so the exchanges can pick them up?

    Either way, more people earn income, but instead, he's just going to blame Obama. Sounds reasonable . . .

    Parent

    It's not a matter of "giving" (none / 0) (#133)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 06:51:13 AM EST
    anything - the requirement is that the employer offer a plan, but the matter of who pays the premiums is up to the employer.

    The ACA was to have "encouraged" employers to offer plans by imposing a "shared responsibility payment" as a penalty for not offering a plan.

    From the IRS (my emphasis):

    Under the Employer Shared Responsibility provisions, if these employers do not offer affordable health coverage that provides a minimum level of coverage to their full-time employees (and their dependents), the employer may be subject to an Employer Shared Responsibility payment if at least one of its full-time employees receives a premium tax credit for purchasing individual coverage on one of the new Affordable Insurance Exchanges, also called a Health Insurance Marketplace (Marketplace).

    I don't know what it costs an employer to offer a plan - could it be more than the $2,000 per employee penalty for not doing so?  But I can find nothing that says the employer has to pay any part of the premiums associated with a plan.  

    Reading through the IRS info, it looks to me like some thought did go into identifying ways in which employers would try to escape the requirements: if they offer a plan, that plan has to meet certain minimum standards related to coverage.  The premiums have to be "affordable" - no more than 9.5% of the employee's annual household income - but there are safe harbors built in.  And it isn't just whether the employer has 50 or more full-time employees - it's about whether the total hours for which employees were paid are equivalent to 50 full-time employees:

    To be subject to the Employer Shared Responsibility provisions for a calendar year, an employer must have employed during the previous calendar year at least 50 full-time employees or a combination of full-time and part-time employees that equals at least 50. For example, an employer that employs 40 full-time employees (that is, employees employed 30 or more hours per week on average) and 20 employees employed 15 hours per week on average has the equivalent of 50 full-time employees, and would be an applicable large employer.  

    Is there more paperwork and record-keeping?  To some extent, I would think so.  Is this an undue burden?  I don't know - how is that defined?

    There is always going to be some employer who will complain about any additional requirement, but it makes no sense to me that employers would be willing to stop growing their businesses because they don't want to offer - not pay for, just offer - an insurance plan to their employees.

    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#125)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 04:21:21 AM EST
    How these greedy job providers want to make a profit and not go out of business. Retail is nasty right now, warehouse stores and online sellers make running a brick and mortar operation risky.

    The choice of crossing the Obama threshold worried enough incumbents that its pushed off for an election cycle for many businesses.

    The important thing about Obamacare is that it isn't about care, its about payments, nobody is getting healthcare that wasn't getting it before, its just paid for differently.

    Parent

    You better get out of here (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by NYShooter on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 06:16:09 AM EST
    before Yman gets here; Pinocchio's like this one >>> "...nobody is getting healthcare that wasn't getting it before..<<< No need for an accelerant, his hair will self-ignite.

    Parent
    Isn't there a rating that goes beyond (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:08:51 AM EST
    4 Pinocchios? IIRC it is "pants on fire." You do him a disservice by not awarding him the highest rating.

    I can understand you not awarding him high marks for the fairy tales he writes here , but it is inexcusable not to give him the highest rating possible in this instance. .

    Parent

    Pinocchio is pathological (none / 0) (#187)
    by shoephone on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:20:58 PM EST
    Nothing an be done.

    Parent
    Hey shoephone... (none / 0) (#189)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:29:05 PM EST
    checkin' out your boy Tommy Malone again tonight, he is special guesting with Tab Benoit.  Stoked!

    Parent
    I'm jealous!! (none / 0) (#190)
    by shoephone on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:33:48 PM EST
    The 'dudes got back together again, briefly, but never toured out here. ;-(

    If only I could stowaway on the 2:20 flight to JFK, I might make it on time... Give him a smile for me. I know you're going to have a great evening!

    Parent

    There's plenty of time to make it to (none / 0) (#194)
    by vml68 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:49:51 PM EST
    the city for tomorrows show, Shoephone.

    Parent
    We were planning to see them tomorrow (none / 0) (#193)
    by vml68 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:47:46 PM EST
    at LPR on Bleecker St but have had a change in plans. Have fun tonight!

    Parent
    If you get back to Bleecker St (none / 0) (#195)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:53:03 PM EST
    Make sure you hit John's Pizzeria.

    I have eaten there, and my born and raised NYC BF (born and raised in the West Village) swears it is the best pizza in NY.

    Parent

    With there being so many options for (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by vml68 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 02:18:40 PM EST
    dining in NYC, I have had pizza only once there. And, that was when I made it myself. I took a bread baking class at Le Pain Quotidien (on Bleecker St) and we all got to make our own pizzas at the end of the class!

    Parent
    Will do. I am in that neighborhood (none / 0) (#196)
    by vml68 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:58:30 PM EST
    almost every week.

    Parent
    I have been there (none / 0) (#201)
    by Zorba on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 02:38:44 PM EST
    Daughter Zorba took us while we were visiting one time when she was still living in Manhattan.
    Great pizza.  I haven't been to any other NY pizzerias, but John's was, indeed, really, really good.
    Of course, this was a couple of years ago, so things may have changed since then.      ;-)

    Parent
    Poor business owners....sigh (none / 0) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 06:27:00 AM EST
    Price isn't the only factor in buying decisions unless I am working two minimum wage jobs trying to keep a roof over my child's head.  Having a strong middle class would improve brick and mortar survival.

    Can't tell you how many times I bought something online that had to be sent back. Employees in my community who don't have so many worries plaguing them that they can't really focus on their job usually provide better service too than someone hundreds of miles away.

    Parent

    Come on Slado, you can't really be (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:01:31 AM EST
    that gullible. One employee is somehow going to mean the difference between expanding or not expanding?

    There are so many ways this business owner could juggle his business model to stay under 50 employees that it is ridiculous.

    Either this owner is completely stupid or he has an agenda that doesn't really include opening 2 new stores.


    Parent

    Someone (none / 0) (#141)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:06:18 AM EST
    finally recognizes the story for what it is.

    or he has an agenda that doesn't really include opening 2 new stores.


    Parent
    If his margins are that thin (none / 0) (#177)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:48:54 AM EST
    it seems to me that any of a number of costs associated with opening brick and mortar stores could have been cited as the reason for not doing it - energy costs, rent, stocking, security, staff...but of course he chose to cite Obamacare as what put him over the top. Typical of all of these stories that don't stand up to scrutiny.

    Parent
    And the (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:59:40 AM EST
    guys was not offering his employees insurance before was he?

    Once again, no one discusses the real problem. I'm sure this guy would have no problem if he could get insurance for $25 a month but you can't Obamacare or no Obamacare.

    Parent

    College (none / 0) (#116)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:13:24 PM EST
    It ain't what it used to be.

    I'm just hoping this Bubble pops before my first is college age.

    10 years and counting left.

    Smile! (none / 0) (#148)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:00:39 AM EST
    Yahoo users with webcams may have been captured on British Intelligence Candid Camera...testing facial recognition technology on you unwillingly.  

    And probably wanking to the plethora of sexually explicit images.

    Thanks again Ed for letting us know!  

    Proably won't bother (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:04:20 AM EST
    These people.

    WARNING:  Although this is an ABC News link and perfectly legit, it does contain the word "p*rn" in the link.

    Parent

    Sh*t... (none / 0) (#150)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:20:44 AM EST
    all the limey spooks had to do was ask for volunteers...in this exhibitionist culture, they would have had no shortage of applicants.

    Parent
    Krugman leaving Princeton (none / 0) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:33:30 AM EST
    Krugman announced Friday on his blog that he'll be retiring from Princeton at the end of the academic year in 2015. He will join CUNY's Graduate Center as a professor in the Ph.D. program in economics and be named a distinguished scholar at the Graduate Center's Luxembourg Income Study Center.

    The columnist wrote that relocating to New York was part of his motivation for the change and that his work at the Times would not be affected. TPM



    He can now buy (5.00 / 4) (#154)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:42:23 AM EST
    one of Alec Baldwin's NY properties. TL solves another worldly problem.

    Parent
    Not so fast Paul... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:49:52 AM EST
    Oculus has her eye on the Baldwin residence....she wants me to squat it while she goes home to pack.

    Parent
    oculus only needs (none / 0) (#163)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:02:52 AM EST
    the $2.5 mil one bedroom pad Baldwin bought for the nanny. There are plenty to go around for both Krugman and oculus.

    Parent
    Nobody puts Oculus... (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:05:01 AM EST
    in the maid's quarters, not on my watch!

    Parent
    I may be rethinking. Opera at the Metropolitan (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:38:02 AM EST
    Museum was intriguing but the very chilly wind blew me back to midtown. Had to stop for a glass of retsina. Bartebder has a publisher for his novel (complicated plot). Guy next to me told us both he could not reveal his profession. But, he did.

    Parent
    Jack Frost... (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:01:05 AM EST
    is back in town allright...ruffian & MT got sooo lucky last weekend.  

    Parent
    Oc, you must be (none / 0) (#183)
    by Zorba on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:13:30 PM EST
    Greek, or have been Greek in a previous life.  I am Greek, and neither I, nor my brothers, like retsina.   ;-)

    Parent
    My Greek friends detest retsina but love Ouzo. (none / 0) (#191)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:38:03 PM EST
    I don't exactly love (none / 0) (#192)
    by Zorba on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 01:45:22 PM EST
    Ouzo, but I do enjoy it on occasion.
    But I hate retsina.  None of my relatives like it, either.   ;-)

    Parent
    Is CUNY (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:01:01 AM EST
    where Roubini is or SUNY?

    Parent
    The Official GCHQ (British NSA) simulator: (none / 0) (#204)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 09:44:21 AM EST
    As I recall (none / 0) (#205)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 12:14:47 PM EST
    a lot of Ouzo is like a lot of alcohol plus a dash of peyote (or the ancient Greek equivalent thereof.)

    Many moons ago I drank a fifth of Ouzo and towards the end of the night thought I was getting ready to set sail on Surfin' Safari in search of the Golden Fleece..

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 289 (none / 0) (#206)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 01:22:59 PM EST