Late to the Breaking Bad Party Open Thread

I'm always late to pop culture stuff, especially TV, for no good reason that I can discern. Maybe just to be contrary. I've yet to see an episode of Mad Men, for example. Mad Men? Feh. I'll tune in one day maybe for the mid-century furnishings.

 

So far I've missed all of Louis, as well. I've read that hardened big city culture critics have been reduced to weepy bowls of Jell-O by this season's run. And still I'm all, "Meh."

 

Until a couple nights ago, that was true for Breaking Bad, too. But we got this new TV that has built in WiFi, and my wife has been piggy-backing her brother's Netflix account, and he said we should watch Breaking Bad because it really is as good as everyone says. 

 

"Feh."

 

But she had the remote and after a second of futzing to get the stream started, there's the dad from Malcolm in the Middle in a gas mask and skivvies behind the wheel of a mangy Winnebago careening down a dusty desert road... and, well, you've all seen it.

 

We caught episode 2 last night. All I can say so far is that show is so well put together, so intense, so true to its premises and its characters, and really, to the world at large as I understand it despite how outlandish and unlikely Breaking Bad is, that it has given me nightmares two nights running. Work fills my imagination like that occasionally, when deadlines are fast approaching. Video games can do that. Novels have. TV? Never. I'm scared to watch the next episode and I'm scared that I won't.

 

Or maybe it's just the heat and the lack of air conditioning.

 

What's keeping you up late at night?

 

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon

(#287306)

 

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past."

 

Karl Marx (in regards to the failed revolution of 1848 to Louis Napoleon seizing power in a Coup d`etat on December 2, 1851).

+1.

(#287326)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

It doesn't repeat, but it kinda rhymes.  Path-dependence is a terrible thing....

Well, I Just Wanted to Give People the Opportunity to Read Marx

(#287329)

...or a little of him, spoon feed Karl Marx as you were, because he really was such a terrific writer...that is a fine sentence above, true for virtually all of us. Freud also was a great writer, imo, so I just like the originals.

 

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon is, according to many, Marx's best political writing...as classic as is Machiavelli's The Prince.

 

As one critic noted:

 

In addition, Marx was never one to write for the ease of his audience. In the Eighteenth Brumaire he seems even more inclined than usual to use irony, paradox, word play, obscure figures of speech, and time-dependent witticisms. 

 

None of which I consider to be a draw back...you would be attracted to The Eighteenth Brumaire and Marx's contempt for the "scum Proletariat." There is much of your own Philosophy here. It is a small book, less than a 100 pages...but dense in thought.

 

To conclude, the critic finishes with this flourish:

 

I think it's quite likely that a contemporary reader of the Eighteenth Brumaire would conclude that, in very fundamental ways, not much in the world of politics has changed between then and now. The lies, endless intrigue, mindless resurrection of long-abandoned ideologies now opportunistically rearing their ugly heads in difficult times, frightening many of us while filling others with boundless zeal, the lack of communitarian interest in the general welfare, except insofar as it serves political and self-interested economic ends ... All this is pertinent to American political life today.

 

snip

 

Tip O'Neill, a former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is given credit for the observation that "all politics is local." Maybe so. Given the opportunity, however, Marx might have countered with "all politics is corrupt and corrupting." Idealists who read the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte will feel the earth shift beneath them. Mid-Nineteenth Century French politics was heavy-laden with parallels with the contemporary U.S. Maybe being President really is just another line on Barack Obama's resume'. 

 

Hummmm

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

 

 

 

 

 

I'd say that Marxism, because of it association with the USSR

(#287378)
mmghosh's picture

Communist China, Pol Pot and other sundry dictators has done the worst possible service to moderate labour-based Social Democratic movements around the world.

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Would a Rose by Any Other Name Smell So Badly? (Kasparov)

(#287425)

 

...I suspect that you are correct. Regardless of the raw theoretical power that Marx brings to beginning to understand the idea of Social Justice...what, where, why and why not...the name itself has been irreparably damaged by the Totalitarian Governments you mentioned. They were not Marxist in thought, intent or in practice.

 

Time to move on, really...but in truth, Adam-like, naming the names, the Word, Marx needs a different name so that it can smell rose like again. Sincerely, I appreciate your good honest counsel in pointing this out to me.

 

I would only note that the Powers of the State remains a fierce beast, moloch-like eating its young as its whim takes it.

 

 

 

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

Random Observation

(#287487)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Garry Kasparov is the Dennis Conner of chess grandmasters--and not in a good way.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Dennis Connor the Sailor?

(#287492)

How so? Didn't think he has a bad reputation for anything much.

Dennis Conner Lost The America's Cup. . .

(#287496)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .for the first time in living memory (then won it back later)--Kasparov lost to Deep Blue after claiming that no computer would beat the best human player in the world for a very long time, if at all.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Ah, ok, I see it now.

(#287499)

He did great work for the cup though at a time where funding seems to have been harder to come by.

Foreign Word Of The Day

(#287287)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Toure' (French) -- Incompetent racist conspiracy theorist.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Charges of racism and homophobia

(#287422)

Charges of racism and homophobia against those involved in the 'disco sucks' phenomenon are nothing new. But like you, apparently, I have only recently come across them. Reading Steve Knopper's "Appetite for Self Destruction" about the music industry - not a great or even good book really, but its prologue was an interesting account of the events around 'disco sucks.'

http://www.amazon.com/Appetite-Self-Destruction-Spectacular-Industry-Dig...

 

As for the 9/11 thing, we should ask all the science experts (ie anyone who scored better than my 42) here how a building can fall into its own foundations at free-fall speed. There's nothing racist or conspiratorial in this question, is there?

 

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

1: they did NOT fall at free fall speed

(#287424)
brutusettu's picture

2: controlled demolitions of much shorter buildings have gone wrong, more than a few things could screw up any attempts to bring down the buildings.

3:  if a building starts down straight, unless one side or corner support was stronger, Newton would probably guess the 2 towers would  keep going  nearly straight down if they started to go down straight.

4: how the hell could a demolitions team just hide the amount of explosives it would take to attempt to bring down 3 buildings (buildings have fallen down during/after earthquakes with zero controlled explosions).  Hiding the explosives seems like it would be getting close to someone trying to fake all Apollo program launches (not the moon landings, but the launches)

5: The USS Maine wasn't blown up intentionally

6: There wasn't a staged attack at the Gulf of Tonkin

7: USS Cole, 1st WTC bombing etc weren't staged.

 

disco sucks phenomenon

(#287446)

I can't answer for "they" but according to a US government report on the collapse of a third tower in the WTC, building 7, there was free fall - for more than two seconds of the total 5.4 seconds collapse. Here's a link:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

Point 2, I think something did go wrong, ie two planes, three towers. My calculations indicate we are one plane short of a well staged terror spectacle.

Point 3, I don't get your drift.

Point 4, Offhand, I'd say misdirection. Illusionists, magicians etc rely on focusing attention on the inessential. Maybe they waited until all the occupants of the buildings were all watching "breaking bad." Don't make the mistake of assuming that the perpetrators were not equally or even more clever than we are.

Points 5,6,7, no comment. I was interested in discussing the remarks of the "crazy racist" who questioned the 9/11 attacks and the disco sucks phenomenon.

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

I missed the discosucks the 1st go around from the article

(#287473)
brutusettu's picture

I was thinking Dan Gainor only wrote about Toure hearing dog whistles when a Republican was telling potential voters about the angry blah man that was angry (and that that was the only "Incompetent racist conspiracy" MSE was referring to).

 

but back to "free fall"

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

The writer was lazy and even then, was pointing out the building collapsed at one point, at nearly free fall speed.

I wouldn't be shocked if it collapsed that fast when the building had the most downward momentum, and if the parts that would otherwise be supporting what was left of the building, were already weakened due to pre-buckling. that wouldn't be too much unlike a foot stomping down on an empty pop can.

 

 

 

having 4 planes, hit 4 buildings with only educated guesses on how they would fall before they actually do, having 3 of the buildings collapse "successfully", 2 of which would be the 2 tallest buildings to be taken down in a controlled demolition, all the while no conspirators leak they were part of the plan, all the while hiding the placement of the "explosives" and "hiding" the "explosions"....call me incredulous but I think a collision from planes + fire + structural failures + gravity + a metric merde ton of potential energy did the job in NYC

 

Toure seems to think security cameras can pick up a ton of frames of a  plane going 400+ mph and has a Todd Akin-like source for "little wreckage."

 

think of an apple

(#287503)

I don't know how you come up with the picture of a foot stomping on an empty beer can as a picture to how the building collapsed. I think you should reconsider it. It would result in faster than free fall speed, and that makes it a hypothesis to be rejected, as it doesn't conform to the observed facts. This is the essence of science. Think rather of an apple falling from a tree. Unless something slows it down, it will fall at the same rate as this building did. It's not a matter of the building falling through supports already weakened by fire and structural damage, it's a matter of falling through nothing - that's the significance of free fall speed.

Are you trying to convince me that the buildings couldn't have fallen at free fall because if they had, the plans of the conspirators would have leaked to the public or the means to bring down the buildings would have been detected? I detect a lack of rigour in your thinking. We start with the observed facts and go forth from there. We don't start out at the conclusion you desire and work backwards. That's not science, that's dogmatism. You have to resist these urges to talk about the Maine, the moon landings and the impossibility of people rigging a building to explode unnoticed. Deal with the facts as we observe them.

 

It's probably worth while to look at the videos of the buildings as they collapsed. You'll notice that the building turns instantaneously into dust as it goes down. If the mass of the building is in free fall it means not weakened support, but no support.

About the Pentagon, I haven't thought about it much. My advice, based on an examination of other wreck sites, devise a standard for expected amount wreckage and debris. Then ask how does the situation at the Pentagon compare to your standard. If it falls too far outside your expectations, then maybe you should start questioning the validity of your research or the truth of the plane crash  narrative. If you have other ideas how to proceed, I'd be happy to hear them.

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

Bodies falling from the upper floors? Jumpers? 911 calls?

(#287508)

Bodies exhumed from the wreckage?

 

If you're going to reexamine evidence you need to reexamine all of it, not just identify what you think are discrepancies with some bits of video.

 

Did conspirators kill several thousand people in order to pull off this elaborate hoax? Did they set a fire on the upper floors in order to drive people to jump from the windows? Did the conspirators spark an initial explosion in order to collapse the stairways and several floors of both buildings an hour before setting off the final charges? What would be the point of doing this? How could they be sure those actions wouldn't damage the main charges, especially the fire? 

 

Airplanes. Did airplanes hit the towers, or was that a hoax as well? Do you think the collapse was both/and (i.e. caused by airplanes and pre-planted charges)? Or was it just charges, no airplanes? How could anyone guarantee charges would still work after being hit with a 200 ton aircraft full of fuel? If there were no planes, why the elaborate hoax? Why not claim the towers had been bombed again, as in 1993? What about physical evidence (airplane debris all over the city, no semtex or similar explosive residue, tons of jet A residue, not to mention missing persons, funerals, ID'd remains, etc.)? Is all of that evidence fake?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

discrepancies

(#287511)

"what you think are discrepancies with some bits of video"

 

"Discrepancies" - that's an interesting word. In fact I don't look at video of the building in free fall collapse as a discrepancy, I look on it as evidence, and I invite others to formulate a hypothesis based on this evidence. If you look on the video as a discrepancy, then clearly you haven't taken the advice I offered earlier. Save the conclusions to the end, otherwise you will fall victim to circular reasoning.

None of the rest of your comment is relevant. There's more to science than memorizing the green questions in Trivial Pursuit. The essence of science lies in observing nature, offering a hypothesis, and working out (by experimentation and logic)  whether or not that hypothesis helps you to understand the observed phenomenon.

We've barely reached the first step, and then only with resistance, as brutusettu, first denied the free fall, and went on to offer the hand crushing the beer can model.

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

I guess "we're" not even at step one

(#287566)
brutusettu's picture

You 1st posted "how a building can fall into its own foundations at free-fall speed"

 

 

I thought you were parroting back stuff I haven't seen trotted out in years, apparently things have become more nuanced to for people just asking questions such as "how can a building collapse the fastest when it has the most downward force on it?"  The answer seems kind of self-explanatory to me.

 

We also ran into the possible question of whether "essentially" has a special meaning within the field of demolition or physics, if it doesn't have a special definition in related field, then we should now know the colloquial definition of "essentially" and "nearly" are effectively the exact same.

 

 

I don't know if you were expecting a building to never start collapsing downward or that a building that started to collapse downward would suddenly reach a floor that was stronger than all before it, and for the building to fall sideways at a hinge like a building did in the movie Cloverfield.

If the downward collapse was so unlikely to happen without controlled demolitions, I don't know exactly how engineers could secretly plant enough explosives in 3 towers, (3 towers taller than the actual tallest building brought down in a controlled demolition with was 134 meters , WTC 7 was 226, the 2 towers were about 410 meters) and then demolish the buildings all according to plan.

 

 

Just asking questions on whether there were silent and invisible explosives that secretly appeared in over 1,000 meters worth towers, that went off without a problem, even after  large Boeing aircrafts hit 2 of them and the other tower was next to the collapse of 2 separate 400+ meter towers, those questions are  supposed to be  more not-dogmatic????

 

---The USS Maine is a nice little lifeboat thrown out for those currently insisting just asking the question on whether 9/11 was the most flawlessly executed conspiracy done ever, and on a fairly massive scale. 

Ok, well here's the evidence as I know it:

(#287515)

on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, two airliners were seen by many witnesses and filmed by not a few as they slammed into the north and south towers of the World Trade Center. Smoke from the buildings poured out for the next hour or so, indicating an out-of-control fire on multiple floors in both building. Then, about an hour after the planes struck, first one building and then the other collapsed straight down into their own foundations. From watching the videos, it appears that the collapses began in the upper structures near the fire/damage zones. I particularly remember the top of Tower 2 tilting and and twisting northward ever so slightly before beginning to crumple. Once underway the collapse was extremely rapid, and I can remember the four corners of the buildings shearing away banana-peel style from the falling central mass. 

 

So much for video evidence. There are thousands of hours of professional & private video, still photography, 911 dispatcher recordings, fire & police radio communications, missing persons reports, site inventories, and multiple investigations including the massive NIST survey, one of the largest of its kind ever undertaken, all available to the public. 

 

Taken as a whole, all of that evidence as I've had time to review it over the years supports the central notion that planes striking the towers, impact damage and extremely hot jet fuel fires caused both towers to collapse. I haven't seen a single convincing argument for some other cause of collapse that doesn't ignore entire swathes of that evidence.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

If we assume that I wasn't implying some super form of gravity

(#287507)
brutusettu's picture

the beer can example isn't as bad then.

 

 

Are you trying to convince me that the buildings couldn't have fallen at free fall because if they had, the plans of the conspirators would have leaked to the public or the means to bring down the buildings would have been detected?

No.

 

The building fell fastest (near free fall speed, not free fall) when the weakened parts of building were collapsing on the ground and the building was expending what used to be potential energy at a massive rate.

 

 

We start with the observed facts and go forth from there. We don't start out at the conclusion you desire and work backwards. That's not science, that's dogmatism. You have to resist these urges to talk about the Maine, the moon landings and the impossibility of people rigging a building to explode unnoticed. Deal with the facts as we observe them.

 

Oh, "just asking questions" and everyone else is dogmatist and are the true ones not resisting urges, ​I'll take that as my cue.

Don't Go Yet!

(#287519)
M Scott Eiland's picture

We haven't had a mention of the mysterious laughing Israelis yet!

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

If you don't like dogmatism

(#287512)

The document I referred to mentioned a 2.75 second period when the collapse was in free fall or essentially in free fall. This is the period that interests me. Not your 'near free fall.'

 

I mentioned the 9/11 catastrophe and the disco sucks event in my comment. If you prefer to debunk the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or the Maine or the moon landing, then you are pursuing some other agenda than a discussion of the facts. If you don't like dogmatism, then don't practice it.

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

False positives can happen even for non-truthers

(#287356)
brutusettu's picture

at least he's just maybe seeing things that are there, but too often, instead having fantasies that security cameras are designed to pick up the slightest detail of a lightning strike and the like.

Consider the source

(#287360)

Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture.

 

 

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Speaking Of Liability. . .

(#287273)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .the Chicago Sun Times might be on the hook for negligently inflicting countless heart attacks among NFL fans who saw the headline "NFL players hope for the best but brace for likely lockout" on a piece that was actually about a looming N*H*L lockout, which will probably upset my brother-in-law and six or seven other people within the United States, plus some Canadians.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Ryan's 2013 Medicare Plan - Not as Bad as 2012.

(#287234)

In a credit-where-due post, Kevin Drum points out that the latest version of Paul Ryan's new budget doesn't gut the Medicare program by turning it into a fancy version of vouchercare. 

Ryan's 2013 plan is completely different. Under this plan, private providers submit bids for their Medicare policies. Their policies have to be equivalent to standard Medicare, which also submits a bid. Seniors then get a voucher equal to the second-lowest bid. Seniors still have to make the same premium payments they do today, but aside from that the voucher is guaranteed to cover 100% of the cost of at least two plans that are actuarially equivalent to standard Medicare. There's no risk of seniors being stuck with enormous bills because the voucher is too small.

If this looks familiar, it isn't because the proposal includes the word "voucher." It's because this is basically the same exchange structure as that set up by Obamacare. Providers bid on a regulated market exchange to provide guaranteed-coverage, guaranteed-issue health care. And then, seniors get a subsidy to go and buy whichever plan works for them.

 

Ryan's original proposal was to voucherize Medicare (and save money by tying the vouchers to PPI inflation rather than health care cost increases). 

 

But now, Ryan's proposing to Obamify Medicare. It's going to make it harder to hang the earlier budget around Republican necks, but on the other hand it'll also muddy the anti-Obamacare waters as well. 

 

I can't wait to see the CBO score (very much doubt it saves nearly as much as the earlier granny killer plan), and if savings aren't there it isn't at all clear what we would gain by upending the Medicare program in this way... but for now, credit where it is due: this is not nearly as bad a plan as the original.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Never give a sucker an even break

(#287258)

let them dig their own way out of the House passed Ryan Budget and the 2012 Ryan plan to 'save' Medicare.

 

Especially when it look like they aren't up to it:

"The nature of running a presidential campaign is that you're communicating direction to the American people," a Romney adviser said. "Campaigns that are about specifics, particularly in today's environment, get tripped up."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79814.html?hp=t1

 

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Ah, The Latest Checkpoint In The Idiot-Proofing Of Our Society

(#287222)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Woman sits on black marble bench in direct sunlight on 100+ degree day and is surprised by being burned, reacts by suing Dallas Cowboys. If it hadn't been the bench, it would have been the silly little twit sitting on her own car in the parking lot, or something similar. *Someone* was going to be sued because this moron who apparently lives in Texas never noticed that dark objects sitting in the sun on really hot days will burn you if you sit on them. Someone should warn her that French-kissing an automatic pickle slicer will be painful as well.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Unprecedented

(#287274)
M Scott Eiland's picture

It may be a frivolous lawsuit, but the incident--as some wags have pointed out--represents the only time in the last five years that anyone has been burned by the Cowboys' bench. :-P

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

3rd degree burns? I wonder

(#287235)

3rd degree burns?

 

I wonder if she was drunk and fell asleep on the bench.  It is hard to get 3rd degree burns like that without jumping up and shouting in pain.  Alternatively, she has deep 2nd degree burns and is elderly or diabetic and thus can't heal skin very well.

A New Twist

(#287275)
M Scott Eiland's picture

An article from the Star-Telegram adds some new information:

Wash said he didn't know how long Carrillo sat on the bench, but when she got up to use the restroom, she discovered her burns. She left the stadium and went to Huguley Memorial Medical Center, where she was examined. At first, doctors told her she had first-degree burns.

Several days later, Carrillo felt dizzy and was in a lot of pain. She said she returned to Huguley and another doctor told her she had third-degree burns. She was taken to Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, where she spent about a week undergoing skin grafts, Wash said.

--"he didn't know": I'll just bet he doesn't--that would get in the way of whatever line of b*****it he wants to spin;

--"At first, doctors told her she had first degree burns. . .she returned to Huguley and another doctor told her she had third-degree burns." I'd like the opinion of those with medical training here about just how incompetent that first doctor would have to have been, assuming that the burns seen on the second examination were the same ones as the first doctor examined.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

It does sound sketchy.

(#287304)

Hopefully the Cowboys will challenge, however the first degree burns originally diagnosed could still be the basis of a damage claim, I'd think.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Diagnosing burn depth isn't

(#287298)

Diagnosing burn depth isn't easy and should be done by someone who has seen actual 3rd degree burns.  Parkland (my alma mater) did grafts so it must have been serious.  They have a real-deal burn unit full of legit burn patients, one of the best in the nation.  There is a formula, the Parkland Formula, that they devised to tell clinicians how much fluid to give burn patients depending on the burn surface area.  Deep 2nd degree burns can require grafts too but like most things in medicine, the details matter and opinions differ.  I say diabetic, elderly, or drunk.

I Thought You Said "adds"

(#287279)

This only makes the story less clear, if anything.

 

So nerve damage from some earlier event in her life could possibly explain the lack of sensitivity.

 

What I don't get is how she could possibly have been diagnosed with first degree burns and then third degree burns for (supposedly) the same injury. I mean, first and second, if borderline, could be. Or second and third, also if borderline. But how do you skip from first to third without, um, going through second base (sorry some baseball slipped in there)?

 

Is this medically probable? I'm getting the feeling that the second doctor might be trying to be "helpful" with her lawsuit.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

"Adds". . .

(#287281)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .in that it suggests shady conduct by the plaintiff and/or medical malpractice/fraud by the medical personnel involved in the case (though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by those with genuine expertise in the medical field).

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Someone should warn her

(#287226)

you mean a 'bench warner?'

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

Oy. - nt

(#287327)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

+1 -nt-

(#287228)
M Scott Eiland's picture

.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Third degree burns requiring skin grafts?

(#287224)

I've got to say, that's some pretty terrible materials engineering right there. If you're going to build a bench and put it outdoors in a public place, why wouldn't you build it out of some material that doesn't accumulate radiant heat throughout the day?

 

Why would you even build a bench capable of causing 3rd degree burns?

 

Lots of kids go to football games. Imagine your five year old sat on this thing and got burned. 

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Except That It Wasn't

(#287227)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Meaning this woman is effectively dumber than every five year old who ever entered that facility. As to why the benches were black, football is generally a fall/winter game--having benches that get warmer under sunlight might actually be a feature, not a bug. Particularly if one assumes that people living in Texas aren't dumb enough to fail to notice that dark objects get hot in direct sunlight on summer days (they did arrive there in cars, after all--even light colored ones get really, really hot in direct sunlight on 100+ degree days). And until this d****it came along, they were apparently correct.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Is there no implied warranty of fitness?

(#287233)

It's a bench, not an exhaust manifold. If you see a bench in a public place, you generally assume that that bench is suitable for sitting, not a serious health hazard. 

 

Also & related, I grew up in Texas, and I'd expect anything exposed to full sunlight on a summer day to get hot, but I wouldn't expect it to get hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. Maybe the woman thought she might get warm in the tushy; why should she expect to get burned like she sat on an iron set to "linen/cotton"?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Don't get the 3rd degree burns

(#287236)

What heet said.  You can brush your hand against a hot frying pan or get boiling water splashed on you w/o 3rd degree burns.  Solar thermal panel designers using special absorbing coatings still can't get boiling water w/o a concentrator, so the bench definitely wasn't as hot as boiling water.

 

Maybe she was disabled and someone set her down and left her there, in which case,  has that person been arrested yet?

Just going by the reporting.

(#287247)

Maybe they aren't really 3rd degree burns. Does hot stone burn slower than hot metal, for example? It may be possible to sit on stone and not get an instant burn reaction, but still denature enough proteins in the skin over time to do some serious damage.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

I Just Conducted An Experiment

(#287240)
M Scott Eiland's picture

It's hot out today--plenty of vehicles in direct sunlight. I walked up to a black one and held my palm six inches over the hood and gradually lowered it. I could feel substantial heat coming from it while still two inches away, in spite of the fact that the hood was not hot enough to cause pain when I pressed my hand against the surface for a full second. In other words, if that woman was wearing light summer clothing and sat down on an object hot enough to cause third degree burns, she would have felt heat before sitting down, or would have quickly felt heat coming through the clothing before it got hot enough to burn her. So I'm adding "lying" to "stupid" if she claims that she did not have adequate warning that this was not a good place to sit.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

We agree about the woman.

(#287252)

The part I don't get is why you seem to be defending the idiot(s) who put that bench there to begin with. I mean, from an architecture or facilities point of view it's a major, major fail to place a black, high thermal mass bench in a public place where the climate is hot.

 

A very fast Google quickly turns up some typical, reasonable design criteria:

BENCH DESIGN GUIDELINES

The Seat

  • To be comfortable, there should be a 95-105 degree angle between the seat and the back, and the seat should be between 2 and 10 degrees off of horizontal.
  • The depth of the seat should be 12 to 18 inches for benches with backs and 30 inches for backless benches.
  • A seat height of 18 inches is generally the most comfortable.
  • The front edge of the seat should be curved rather than squared off.
  • The most comfortable seating surface is wood, which is resilient and does not readily conduct heat or cold.
  • Small bench slats (2 inches) spaced closely together and following a contoured form are generally more comfortable than larger slats (8 inches). However, in areas where vandalism is a factor a larger size (e.g., 3 inches x 8 inches) should be used.
  • The length of the seat should allow for twenty-four inches per person. However, people will sit closer to each other if there is an armrest separating them.

Italics mine.

 

Not rocket science, is it? Any professional designer worth the name would not have made this basic mistake.

 

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

Stone and concrete benches

(#287260)

are not some unique but ill-conceived idea dreamed up by the Dallas Cowboys and their employees.   They are a standard item you can buy at a home and garden shop.  If by some stretch anyone needs to be sued for failure to use wood it is the bench manufacturer. 

 

I suspect that if it was one of the Koch Brothers suing the woman for having a dangerous not-all-wood bench on her front porch, a lot of people's opinion on this would reverse*.   It has nothing to do with responsibility and everything to do with whether one likes the direction of wealth transfer.

 

*not you of course.

 

 

Not Me Indeed

(#287261)

I have extremely low tolerance for bad design. Mrs. Aurelius would gladly attest how annoying I can be in a badly designed building, pointing out the stupid mistakes.

 

This is one such case. I don't think the woman deserves to get any money. But the designer does deserve to lose it. Unfortunately one cannot happen without the other. A conundrum. Punish the bad designer, I say, is the priority.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

Thank you!

(#287263)

You've given me the opening I wanted to bring up my ideas on tort reform.  Just what you wanted to hear about, I'm sure.

 

1. There are actual monetary damages,  pain and suffering damages,  and punitive damages.   I have no problem at all with the first, and no real problem with the second as long as we realize the subjectivity and put some limits on it.   The third category, punitive damages, is intended to deter future misconduct.    My question:  why should punitive damages go to the victim?  Criminal fines serve the same purpose, but they go to the state. Why is this different?  Compensating victims for their suffering is one thing,  but going past that to make victim status profitable is actually bad for society.   I think punitive damages should go to the state.

 

2. Next up is division of responsibility.  Suppose that the woman claims $7K monetary,  $100K pain and suffering,  and $1M punitive.  The jury finds that the Cowboys are 50% responsible, and the woman is 50% for what happened.  I see the accounting as follows:

 

Cowboys:

Owe 0.5 x ($7K + $100K) = $53.5K to the woman.

Owe 0.5 x ($1M) = $500K to the state.

 

The Woman:

Receives the $53.5K from the Cowboys

Owes 0.5 x ($1M) = $500K to the state.

 

The State:

Receives $500K each from the Cowboys and the woman.

 

I don't see how anyone could argue with the above. 

Punitive Damages Are A Dodge To Get Around. . .

(#287270)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .proof beyond a reasonable doubt for what is really criminal conduct (at least for non-frivolous attempts to collect punitive damages)--they're illegitimately disguised fines. If state or federal governments want to punish behavior more than current fine structures allow, they should institute higher fine limits and make the argument in the courts that they don't violate the Eighth Amendment or state equivalents. Damages for plaintiffs should be limited to compensatory damages (for all losses that can be proven) and some form of mechanism to pay for reasonable legal fees (possibly some form of "loser pays" with an exemption for cases that are genuinely close calls).

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Damages should have a deterrent effect, as MA

(#287271)

points out below. There's nothing "illegitimate" about courts taking action not only to make a plaintiff whole, but to discourage the defendant from similar behavior. In civil cases, that generally means hitting them in the bottom line.

 

"Illegitimate"? Seriously?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Absolutely

(#287272)
M Scott Eiland's picture

If said conduct does not violate the criminal law, or can only be punished by X fine if the offense is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, how can punitive damages of 10X (or higher) proven by only "predponderance" or "clear and convincing" standards be legitimate? It's obvious, if one takes time away from the corporation bashing agenda to look at it. Raise the fine limits and take it to the criminal courts, if the conduct is unacceptable.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Two Words

(#287277)

Ford Pinto

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

I'd Have No Problem. . .

(#287280)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .if the criminal code were rewritten in a way that would allow fines large enough to deter such conduct--and I suspect that existing conspiracy law could be used to go after corporate executives who knew of life-threatening product flaws and chose to hide them.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

The Ford Pinto was up to existing official codes

(#287461)

they got sued anyway and that's usually looked on as a good thing.

So basically you'd prefer a Napoleonic legal system?

(#287303)

You think it's a good idea to supersede US case law with a super-sized civil/criminal code which tries to pre-determine cases, fines and outcome? Would you also tie civil courts' hands by legislating limits & caps on judgments, basically ending common law as a practice in this country? You have that much faith in legislatures?

 

Seems kind of...nanny statish to me.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

No

(#287310)
M Scott Eiland's picture

It's a system where criminal conduct is punished by the appropriate laws and standards of evidence, rather than pretending that the Sixth and Eighth Amendments are just advisory. Might want to send the Sniper Grandmas back to international law school if that strikes them as nanny statish or reminiscent of the Napoleonic Code.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

If you want to claim large jury awards against

(#287311)

extremely wealthy corporations violate either the 6th or the 8th amendments, are based on inappropriate law or standards of evidence, or even belong under criminal rather than civil codes, then you'll need to show your work. Outside of certain fringe pockets of malcontent, none of those claims seem to have presented the slightest obstacle to or conflict with our 220 year-old system of law in the slightest. 

 

You're basically talking about moving US law in the direction of a civil code and away from common law. Europeanizing the US judicial system, in other words. Not particularly conservative, or civil libertarian of you.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

I'd Agree With You. . .

(#287316)
M Scott Eiland's picture

if your comments were remotely in accord with reality:

During the era when the Constitution was written, it was understood that common law was alterable by legislatures. For example, Alexander Hamilton emphasized in The Federalist that the New York Constitution made the common law subject "to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same."

That's referring to a passage from Federalist #84, in case you missed it. You can take up your claim that altering the common law via legislative action makes it civil law with Alexander Hamilton--after mailing Hank his royalty check for the inept lift of his "but that doesn't follow my personal, inaccurate understanding of conservatism/libertarianism/whatever philosophy I don't personally follow or respect" riff.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Can you show me the passage where Hamilton says

(#287321)

that the common law of the states should be superseded entirely by legislative code? Because I can't seem to find that part.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Can You Show Me The Part Where Anyone Said That?

(#287322)
M Scott Eiland's picture

You claimed that legislative changes in the common law--to the extent that common law in the British meaning of the word ever existed in the US, much less these days after two centuries of Supreme Court decisions and constitutional amendments--amounted to changing to a civil law system. Alexander Hamilton begged to differ, in a rather well known document written *more* than 220 years ago and directly designed to address how the US Constitution was meant to function. You're interposing a straw man to avoid acknowledging that.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Nope, you're the one said you'd like to see *all*

(#287330)

punitive damage awards replaced with legislative fines, effectively taking away civil courts' ability to deter certain types of abuse. So I asked if you'd prefer a Napoleonic system where courts are entirely circumscribed by acts of legislature, and now you've decided to reductio ad eilandum rather than face the possibility that you might have continentalist predilections.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Your Second Sentence Has Nothing To Do With The First. . .

(#287332)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .and the second half of the first sentence is a non-sequitur, given that another set of courts would have the power to deal with such cases (along with cases where civil forfeiture--another abused type of action). But I'm used to reductio ad sniper grandma by now.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Well, it isn't a non-sequitur when you're talking

(#287351)

about defendants whose net worth is five or six orders of magnitude larger than the plaintiffs', and legislators tend to come down with a bad case of tiny ball syndrome when it comes to taking effective action from their end. The second sentence is simply probing to find out just exactly how far the courts should be circumscribed by our fearless and incorruptible legislators. But definitive answers to simple questions don't seem to be in the playbook, do they?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Europeanizing?

(#287312)

Where do you think the common law system comes from?

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Fine, Continentalizing...

(#287319)

I think his intent is clear. One can be forgiven for thinking the UK is not Europe. Certainly in legal matters.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

The US Isn't The UK, Either

(#287323)
M Scott Eiland's picture

It hasn't been for at least two hundred years, which was about the point where the US common law system had clearly changed to something noticeably different from the UK system that it was originally patterned after. This is not a controversial proposition, and was pretty much inevitable once the US decided to adopt a codified federal constitution that could only be amended by a specific, formal process (as opposed to how the Brits' "constitution" evolved over time).

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Totally Agree

(#287354)

Let me be clear that I don't think the American concept of common law, such as it is, is equivalent to the UK original. That said, there are some ideas from common law worth bearing in mind when discussing American law. Ideas that are essentially absent from continental law, Napoleonic code derivatives, and so on.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

Ha!

(#287269)

First of all, you are welcome.

 

I sort of agree with you regarding punitive damages. Though if you are defining the victim as the person who receives monetary and P&S damages, your notion that the victim should pay the state is contradictory with the notion that the victim is in fact the victim. I'm guessing you are joking here.

 

Anyway, on to the main point. Should a victim receive punitive damages? Almost by definition, no. We agree. Let's say the victim is a real victim. Somebody poisoned by hexavalent chromium, for example. Erin Brockovich is your lawyer, you have cancer, your family is dying.

 

Well, you do deserve a ridiculously large award. But that's only because your pain and suffering is great. The punitive damages are in the interest of everybody else (represented by the state in your argument, though alternatives are possible).

 

This would help fix a problem with award sizes. I think juries tend to have difficulty with award sizes in the hundreds of millions or higher, yet to large corporations amounts of less a couple of hundred million are so trivial they can be written down as a cost of doing business, instead of an effective deterrent. To prevent this, punitive damages need to be potentially large in proportion to company capitalization. Shareholders should be literally risking the loss of the company if it engages in wanton disregard for human life.

 

In fact, a judicial system where this was a realistic possible outcome would go a long way towards making much government regulation unnecessary, and even counterproductive (regulation can also act as a shield).

 

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

Bad experiment

(#287250)

The material of the hood is quite thin which is relevant to the discussion plus the thermal conductivity of the paint is probably rather low. Putting on my physics hat here is a quick analysis.

 

Burns are classified according to the depth of tissue affected. That in turn depends on both the temperature of the material you come in contact with, the length of time you're in contact with it and it's heat capacity and conductivity. So one can sit on a dry wooden bench in a sauna that's heated to 180 degrees for 20 minutes without getting a burn. Touch a large thick piece of metal heated to 180 degrees for 10 seconds though and you'll have third degree burns.

 

The reason people can walk through coals is because even though the coals have a very high temperature they have low heat capacity and conductivity.

 

In this particular case I would expect the stone bench to have a high heat capacity since there is a lot of material there. The thermal conductivity of marble is around 2 to 3 Watts/m-K which is much lower than most metals (cast iron is 55, stainless steel is 16) but much higher than wood (typically on the order of 0.1). Black marble in bright sun and temperatures over 100 degrees would almost certainly be able to get as hot as asphalt does under similar conditions so up to 150 degrees Fahrenheit and that is quite capable of causing 3rd degree burns given the noted heat capacity and conductivity.

 

However I don't think it could do so instantly and I presume that most people would jump up quickly when their posterior came into contact with such a surface. So either drunk or disabled in some manner seems to be the most likely scenario.

 

 

If we're going to the equations here

(#287256)

you're going to have to take into account the visible/near IR emissivity to get the power absorbed,  as well as the far IR emissivity to get the power reradiated.  Given that marble benches are usually highly polished both numbers are probably lower than for asphalt.  Assuming the ratio of near IR/ far IR emissivity is the same as asphalt, but both numbers are lower, the ultimate temperature without conduction or convection is the same as the asphalt, but with conduction and convection, which are present, it cannot get as hot as the asphalt.

 

So there.

If you want to nitpick

(#287257)

note that the asphalt is in close contact with a huge low temperature reservoir (the ground) while the bench is not. (Conduction through the legs of the bench is likely to be minimal). So I expect it to be wash.

Yes. . .

(#287253)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .but the thicker metal or stone would be radiating heat even more intensely than the hood, giving the woman more warning (insert relevant TV Tropes link here). Which would explain why the Cowboys haven't been sued repeatedly over this--almost everyone (if not actually everyone) noticed the heat coming from the bench and decided to look elsewhere for a seat.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Implied warranty of fitness?

(#287245)

You're probably better qualified to address the legal question than issues like heat transfer coefficients of different materials, no? It's a bench. Benches are for sitting.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Such an implied warranty

(#287249)
aireachail's picture

is typically between buyer and seller. This is what will get the Cowboys indemnified by the "architect" of that bench.

 

So the woman gets compensated, the Cowboys get reimbursed, and a questionable architect finds another line of work.

 

The system works after all!

Since we're speculating,

(#287241)
aireachail's picture

what if she weighs 320 lbs?

Hey Air, how about this for speculation?

(#287349)

What if the bench was a memorial.  Fits being black marble and all.  So the intended purpose becomes one of reflection or remembrance with the secondary function of being a public furnishing.  Does that change things at all?  I was thinking about it and was wondering just why the heck someone would use black marble at all, especially it Texas, and it occurred to me that a memorial is a likely possibility.

 

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

The One Thing Missing From This Story. . .

(#287366)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .is a picture of the bench. Why haven't we seen one yet? Were warning signs put up after Bacon @$$ started complaining, or was it removed altogether? I'd like to see where that bench was, what it looked like exactly, and whether any pictures exist of other people using it as a seat in August.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Well, if she weighed 320...

(#287283)

I'd have a tough time awarding for disfigurement. I might even sue myself where I on the jury and subjected to before and after pictures.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Where's your

(#287313)
aireachail's picture

spirit of adventure?

 

 

What If She Does?

(#287243)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Fat people don't feel temperature differences?

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Of course they do.

(#287246)
aireachail's picture

But I'm guessing that people who weigh 320 pounds probably cannot reverse direction as quickly as your hand 2" from a car's hood.

 

And I'm betting they can't just leap up from a hot marble surface.

 

 

 

What I don't get

(#287251)

is how the Dallas Cowboys are responsible for her being so heavy that any black object poses a potential danger to her between the months of April and October.   Even if it's not a bench,  she could fall on it, you know.

Again,

(#287255)
aireachail's picture

it isn't reasonably foreseeable that a (theoretical) 320 lb woman might want to pause a moment and sit upon a bench in 100 degree weather?

 

Not fall on it...not trip over it...not try to leap over it. Just sit on it. You know; like on a bench.

 

Of course, nothing stops the Cowboys from pursuing that line of defense at trial (except perhaps the judge)...

Her Attorney Is Being Coy About How Long She Sat There

(#287284)
M Scott Eiland's picture

I suspect that there is a reason for that.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

That's pretty much his job at this point.

(#287314)
aireachail's picture

Isn't it?

There Will Be A Lot Of Skepticism. . .

(#287315)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .regarding this case in the potential jury pool. Openly obfuscating regarding probably the most basic fact relevant to the case ("no comment" is, after all, a valid response to any questions regarding the case) is not going to help with that.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

So you're saying

(#287232)
aireachail's picture

that it wasn't reasonably foreseeable that a black marble bench...placed as a public accommodation...in Dallas, Texas... would be exposed to temps of 100 degrees or more...and that someone would actually decide to use it for its intended purpose?

 

She may or may not be one herself, but idiots are definitely part of the public. Having lived so many years in that area, I can assure you they are well represented there. You kinda have to factor that in when you design things for public use.

 

Unless you don't care about getting sued, of course.

The key element

(#287237)

here is that it was for public use but owned by a private organization with money.   I strongly doubt the city of Dallas would get sued for having black asphalt burning peoples feet or black marble monuments that people might lean up against.

I disagree.

(#287239)
aireachail's picture

The key element is the intended use. A bench is designed to be sat upon...that's it's sole reason for existence. That's what differentiates it from your two examples. There's even a strong argument to be made that the hotter the weather, the more likely it is someone will sit on the thing. Cripes...in hot Dallas weather a bench begs to be sat upon.

 

 

 

It's meant to be sat on

(#287248)

but not under any conditions.  If there is a thunderstorm, a hailstorm, a heat wave, etc one needs to consider the consequences of sitting on the bench and take responsibility for the decision.

 

Let's not kid ourselves about what's going on here.  Note who is getting sued:  the Dallas Cowboys.   They have a lot of money, can get rid of the benches if necessary, and want to avoid bad publicity, so the lawyer figures there's a chance they'll cave.  Note who is not getting sued*:  (a) the bench manufacturer,  (b) the city code inspector who approves the tiniest details of public facilities.

 

The manufacturers would have to fight the case or their whole business is gone,  the code inspector has immunity for most of his/her actions.  The lawyers are going after the easy money here.

 

*at least not mentioned in the article.

It's Texas

(#287259)

I would not be surprised if city building codes were far less specific than needed to prevent this particular problem.

 

The bench manufacturer may or may not be negligent. A black marble bench is fine in other sites, indoors, etc.

 

The designer who specified that particular bench for that location was definitely negligent. The Dallas Cowboys Facilities Manager was also negligent.

 

This is a case of bad design, and I for one have very little tolerance for people who do bad, careless design. Sue him.

 

The woman was negligent as well. The burns are her payment. I just don't see why one stupid person should be less liable than another stupid person. This is not like people using metallic ladders during thunderstorms, where the responsibility is fully on the user. This bench burning somebody's skin under an what should have been an expected condition of use (Hot in Dallas? Who knew?).

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

If her suit is successful,

(#287254)
aireachail's picture

I can pretty much guarantee you that the Cowboys will sue the folks who designed/built that bench.

 

The Cowboys are the target for the reasons you outlined, obviously. But also because they had the bench placed there...ostensibly for the benefit of and use by their customers. And they have an unavoidable duty of care to their customers.

 

And old-fashioned notion to be sure, but still operative.

Different expectations

(#287262)

When I pay money to see a sporting event,  my expectations are that the game will start on time, I'll be positioned to observe the action, and the players (if paid) will put on a decent effort.

 

I suppose some other people expect a full-up spa-rehab experience, a reliving of their early childhood where someone else will protect them from their own decisions and they can turn off their mind for a while and relax.

 

 

Really?

(#287265)
aireachail's picture

I think everyone is the same in that regard. I'm pretty sure even without it being stated in the article that she had pretty much the same expectation as you.

 

But whether it's at the top of your list or not, I've a hunch that there's also an expectation that you or your loved ones aren't going to be injured through the routine, intended use of some fixture at that event. Like taking a seat on a bench, perhaps. It's your choice whether or not you sue if something does happen to you, but that doesn't mean that you aren't fully within your rights to do so, or that the facility/owner isn't legally liable.

 

It's settled law that the venue owes the guest a standard of care that goes well beyond just putting on a good show and being punctual in doing so (neither of which they are legally bound to do, by the way).

 

Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder just what it is that you find controversial about it.

Don't know about you

(#287266)

but if it happened to me not only would I not sue,  I'd feel so stupid I'd probably risk going untreated.   While the infection was developing I'd be dreaming up a more dignified explanation to give the ER personnel.

 

Now if my assigned seat was a scalding hot black marble bench,  I might ask for my money back.

 

I have to admit that part of the reason I'm resisting here is that I'm skeptical of the whole story.  I can just barely believe a bench hot enough to burn someone seriously if they were forced into bare skin contact and held down.  I can't believe one that would burn anyone with reflexes consistent with not being in an institution or under 24 hour care.  The reason I'm skeptical is that I work with people who do solar stuff and it's damn hard to get that much heat without a concentrator.

Different issue...

(#287268)

I can see why you would be skeptical about third degree burns. I am too. Though second degree burns are not out of the question in this situation, due to the thermal mass being substantial.

 

If this happened to me I would not sue (even though I despise the Cowboys, but presumably I'd be a fan or something if I had been there in the first place). But I would write up an Op Ed in the local paper, freely admitting my idiocy but scolding the idiocy of the designer as well as Dallas Cowboy's facilities manager.

 

I certainly would not cower in a corner waiting to get infected. Humans make mistakes and I do belong to the species. However, professionals are paid to avoid mistakes, and they didn't in this case.

 

Oh, and aireachail does raise a good point. If it happened not to me but my daughters, I'd sue them with the best Dallas Cowboys loathing lawyers I could afford.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

I don't know.

(#287267)
aireachail's picture

And the reason I don't know is that I just don't have enough information in front of me to say. If I was the injured party, I don't think I'd be as apt to sue, but I can assure you that it wouldn't be out of any sense of embarrassment. If it was my mother or my wife or one of my kids? I'm pretty sure I'd pull that trigger...after I'd dragged someone out of the corner office and plopped them down for a sit on that bench.

 

If I found out they'd been warned about it previously or had settled with another patron about the same issue? I'd be looking to become the new owner. If I found out that the Cowboys, once they learned of this, didn't offer some appropriate apology, take some remedial action or offer to help her with her medical issues, I'd also say "screw 'em".

 

I note that the woman bringing suit here isn't asking for some outlandish specified amount by which she might enrich herself. If the story is accurate, she's asking that a jury decide what's appropriate. That carries some weight insofar as my assumptions about her veracity and motivation.

 

Reactions to stories like this follow familiar patterns. To this day, the McDonald's hot coffee case (Liebeck v. McDonald's) is shorthand for all that ails our "out of control" legal system. But every now and again, someone actually makes the effort to read the case and to look at the photos and to learn about McDonald's actions (or lack of same). And almost without exception in my experience, opinions shift.

Should you plan public facilities for the dim or the clever?

(#287231)
mmghosh's picture

-

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

It depends how much money

(#287238)

you have and whether you have your own legal staff.

 

If you have a lot of money but no legal staff on your payroll, the best thing to do is have a tall, unclimbable (but not barbed or electric) fence around your whole facility and not have anything the public can go anywhere near. 

 

Cities and governments aren't under such restrictions.  Take Yellowstone National Park, for example.  If some private organization operated such a place they'd likely be out tens of millions in lawsuits during the first year.   Boiling water spewing out of the ground,  bears running loose,  cliffs with no guardrails,  etc.

Yup...

(#287225)

The woman is a moron, but so is the architect who specified the bench. It's friggin' Texas. What the heck was he or she thinking? And how come the builder and the bench maker were morons also?

 

I'm tired of morons. Both the kind that build black benches in Texas and the kind that sit on black benches in Texas. They cost us all a lot of money, and as you rightly point out, are a danger to children.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

Anyone else feel this way?

(#287211)

I started watching BB through netflix streaming. Watched about 3-4 episodes and was liking it quite a bit - more than I thought I would!. But the next day or so, the thought of 80+ more HOURS of committing to this thing overwhelmed my urge to keep watching. I think if I had been following it from week to week I would be all-in. 

 

Maybe I just don't like TV all that much.

yes, same here

(#287502)
TXG1112's picture

This is pretty much why I stopped watching TV. My friends recommend various shows they think I would like, but even watching it at my own pace on Netflix I just can't invest the number of hours needed to watch a show. I still watch baseball, but I normally multi-task and it doesn't really matter if I miss a few games here and there.

 

There are just too many other things I'd rather be doing than watching TV.

--- I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.

When a Leisure Activity Becomes Work...Let It Go...

(#287212)

...I don't think that your attitude is unusual at all...80 hours is a commitment! Really.

 

No big...and not out of the ordinary.

 

Maybe even smart.....:>)}}

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

Original site founder

(#287191)

has a new gig at the Gaurdian:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gnm-press-office/9?newsfeed=true

 

His 1st post is a half assed apology/clarification:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/aug/16/2011-gaza-flotilla-tweet-clarification

 

comments so far don't appear to be all that welcoming or freindly.

 

and neither is Tbogg:

 

http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2012/08/16/josh-trevino-is-sorry-he-twitter-killed-a-man-in-gaza-just-to-watch-him-die/#comments

 

Edit - Ooops sorry Pranky

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

I went back

(#287207)

and read the comments (I rarely read comments unless it's something I'm really interested in).

 

Treviño is getting what he deserves. He spent years playing a hardcore hellfire and brimstone reactionary at tacitus, then scrubs the site. A real profile in courage. 

Too bad he scrubbed the site

(#287213)
brutusettu's picture

In high school I had to have a 7 paged cited paper, so I decided to yammer on about if the US was already willing to bomb North Vietnam civilians, stop that part to go to  peace negotiations, bomb NV civilians again, stop that part to go negotiate again.... the US military would have been better off just bombing NV civilians until NV came asking to surrender.  But I wasn't actually saying that was a barbaric plan that should be done,  or that the US really need to stop teh dominos, just one that would likely work better than what the US did. 

 

Ginger Goebbels is an embarrassment to us partial ginger beards.

LOL...We have All Written Crappy, (Can I use That Word?)

(#287214)

...things, things best left somewhere far behind.

 

Josh is an interesting case study, I was a little angry when he wiped the site...but in retrospect, I've written a lot more as have most other expats from Tacitus.

 

I've probably saved a lot of Tacitus stuff, but I never have time to look back over it anyhow...there are always new outrages to get puckered over...lol

 

in any case, I wish Mr. Travino well.

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

I've got an archive too...

(#287350)

But I never really bothered with it. It would be a lot of work to pull the good stuff and build some context around it. Also, my archive is incomplete, and from two separate scans.

 

It might be worth checking out some of his writings if he ever ran for anything significant. Cleary he wasn't happy about all of it. I stand by anything I ever wrote here, even the mistakes. I don't stand by everything I've written ever anywhere though. There is some garbage from my college days I hope has been lost forever. Pre-Internet, so it probably has. I mean I am sure some backup tape in some basement has it, but nothing anybody is likely to ever recover.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

Need the Links, Thanks...Pranky and Spartacvs...nt

(#287192)

t

Trevino

(#287190)

didn't mean what he said when he wrote what he was thinking. He was always very clear and precise in his writing, except for this.

 

And forget about the whole scrubbed tacitus site. Wingnut welfare's gotta take care of the trevañitos, and we can't let facts or history get in the way.

 

http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2012/08/16/josh-trevino-is-sorry-he-twitter...

The morbid fascination of watching Arctic ice melt at a speed

(#287181)
mmghosh's picture

unknown in records continues here - more data and animations here.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, crop yields are flattening.

 

 

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Random Science Quiz

(#287138)
M Scott Eiland's picture

I got 44 out of 50--not bad considering I'm well over a quarter century past my last science course at UCLA.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

46, bitchez.....

(#287333)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

Physics majors rule.  Just sayin'.  (Though apparently I have forgotten some of the periodic table....)

47

(#287346)

Physics too.

Which ones did you miss?

(#287348)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

I blew three of the periodic table based questions and one I can't recall at the moment.

The one about Pluto

(#287376)

Couldn't remember the name of the new body. Then the one about the Paleolithic era (picked Pleistocene) and the meaning of nimbus. I should have got the last two if I thought about them more. On the other hand I guessed on one of the biology ones.

Yeah, that's the one.

(#287382)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

I have trouble remembering which moons orbit which

(#287361)

planets. The classics help a bit...Jupiter's moons are mostly named after Jupiter's girlfriends, making it far and away the pimpest planet in the solar system. Saturn's moons are titans (i.e., his unruly kids), but who remembers the names of all the titans ferchrissake?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

I remember....

(#287383)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

.....Ganymede and Titan and the rest falls into place.

44 out of 50 for me, too

(#287220)
Jay C's picture

Which is shocking, considering my utter lack of any kind of scientific study - outside of the various categories on Jeopardy!, of course...

42

(#287218)

Which is, as it happens, the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything. So I got that going for me.

 

Extra clues from the classics & etymology helped more than they should've.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

42

(#287230)
mmghosh's picture

Try the global warming one, people.

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

I couldn't get past the

(#287219)

blatant attemopt to gain 50 clicks for the price of 1 and the very slow load on my PC. I did score 100% on the first question though - thank you Open University

43

(#287199)

Most misses in astronomy.  When I was in grade school, I would have nailed them.  Except for the planet beyond Pluto, of course.

42

(#287194)

Clearly weak in biology, plus atomic number 9.

 

Also a quarter century from my last science course.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

42

(#287173)

I got a 42, but I give as much credit to my knowledge of the Classics as to my 'scientific literacy.' Had I had to produce the answers cold, correctly spelled, without the multiple choice, I'd be lucky to have scored 20.

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

Yes

(#287176)

They gave away a lot of the answers by giving the etymology.

True.

(#287338)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

Though I think it's generally the case that multiple-choice exams give away a certain amount of info via their structure.  Unavoidable, I think. 

The Max "Planck constant" is -h-, that's just bollocks

(#287352)
brutusettu's picture

I missed a good deal of the physics/greek name questions.

 

38/50 with a good deal of correct educated guesses.

40 out of 50 here

(#287153)

It's a B-, but not bad considering that I've never done any physics and that all of my undergrad classes in science were of the "for non-majors" variety.

So... you know science and still vote Republican?

(#287148)

nt

Happily.

(#287334)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

I vote in favor of my money.  The rest of it ranges from unimportant to unlikely-to-change to epiphenomena.

You know, Tragedy of the Commons isn't meant

(#287399)

to be a How-to manual...

It's only a tragedy....

(#287407)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

....if I lose, man.  Or, as the Billionaires For Bush had it, we're all in this together.  Sort of. :^)

 

More seriously, I don't see TOTC here.  Calls-on-resources (i.e. money) aren't shared resources under no firm control or property right; quite the opposite, the whole point is that they are excludable and a firm owner/controller established.

The atmosphere, however, is.

(#287421)

nt

Making money and keeping the money made has little

(#287335)
mmghosh's picture

to do with the politics of the society are in.  

 

Money can be and is made in any society, from the most undemocratic to the most democratic.  What politics determines is the kind of society you want to live in. 

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Surely.

(#287337)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

"Money can be and is made in any society, from the most undemocratic to the most democratic. "

 

A subset of my relatives are proof of that.  But the system they had to work with produced crappier outcomes, far more variability (and danger) and required activities I'd find unpleasant.  So in a sense, you're correct.  What I'm voting for is keeping my money in this current social context.  I shall now proceed to dig into my cake with my fork.

Ah, so you sneakily confirm

(#287342)
mmghosh's picture

that modern America is the best of all worlds, and that you want to keep it that way!  I always suspected you were a softie under the tough guy pose.

 

How's the Napoleon novel coming on?

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Slowly, but I actually did start....

(#287347)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

...doing research and bits of writing again recently.  However, I've got a couple of other time-intensive projects going.  I'm hoping I can hit the anniversary of Waterloo. :^)

Why Not?

(#287151)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Reading the comments here has taught me that knowing history is apparently not incompatible with being isolationist.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

But isn't it harder to vote

(#287154)

for a party whose standard bearers mostly believe that climatology is a hoax to further communism, the life sciences are a hoax to further the aims of Satan, and (increasingly) that economics is a hoax designed to make us think that anything other than gold is money?

It is a mystery

(#287157)

MSE doesn't seem to exhibit the blinding level of ignorance regarding science that seems to be almost a requirement for being a Republican these days. And yet he doesn't seem to be concerned with the implications of that ignorance for society.

 

.

The republican party is an uneasy coalition

(#287160)

and some concerns trump all others, especially at election time.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

48

(#287143)

I always warn my students that changing answers on a multiple choice is usually a bad idea,  and sure enough, the two I changed my mind on were the two wrong ones.

I tied you

(#287206)
HankP's picture

Which you should consider shameful considering my depraved and dissolute lifestyle.

I blame it all on the Internet

28 out of 50

(#287141)

Scientifically illiterate & a bad guesser. Also, thank god for spell checkers.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

My wife and I were late to the party too

(#287122)

We started watching BB last spring after I managed to overcome my wife's objections--she hates watching gritty, violent TV last thing at night, or any time really--and to my amazement, she loved it. So we watched all 4 seasons in time for the premiere of S05. Years three and four suffer from occasional lapses in focus and quality, but these are easily explained by the budget cuts that AMC strangles all its shows with, including Mad Men.

 

2nd best show on American TV? Boss. I assumed it would be a bombastic hambone Kelsey Grammar vehicle--it isn't. It's stunning and superb, at least season 1 was; I can't speak for S02, which starts tomorrow night. Its ratings suck, so there won't be a season 3. Mostly they suck because it's on Starz, but they also suck because the show dares to accurately portray the Chicago machine politics that produced our Godsped Black Emperor.

 

3rd best: Southland. The most realistic procedural cop show ever, even better than The Wire. Headed for another season on TNT, unfortunately with its budget and cast slashed in half from its brief run on NBC.

 

4th best: Homeland, about to start S02 in a few weeks. Most realistic portrayal of the CIA you're likely to see on TV, though Charlotte looks nothing like DC. Great cast, great tension; dunno how the Manchurain Candidate theme can spin out for a whole second season though.

 

5th best. Mad Men.

 

6th best: Dexter.

 

LOts of back seasons on the latter two. Enjoy.

You were doing so well

(#287209)
HankP's picture

until you injected irrelevant politics into art, just like the Communists used to.

I blame it all on the Internet

"our Godsped Black Emperor"

(#287131)

Really?

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Not a fan I guess:

(#287140)

Canadian rock band?

(#287147)

Chicago politics?

 

Whatever, please refrain in future.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Refrain from what exactly?

(#287169)

References to Candian rock bands? Or name-calling? Should I have used "douche-bag", like on the front page of this site?

 

I'm confused here. I don't see your name on the list of moderators.

You tell me

(#287171)

what connection you intended to convey between a Canadian rock band and the 'Chicago Machine'?

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Birtherism? mainstream or fringe?

(#287109)

We report you decide.

 

Alex Castellanos on CNN: "I'd advise Mitt to release 10 years of tax returns when Obama releases 10 years of birth certificates."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/16/why-mitt-romney-isnt-releasing-his-tax-returns-part-563/

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Reading that article,

(#287117)
aireachail's picture

it strikes me that Mrs Romney ought to have said,

 

We have been very transparent to what’s required of us under controlling legal authority

 

I mean, that approach worked so well for Al Gore.

Is England Dancing on the End of a United States String?

(#287069)

I am finding it odd that Great Britain is going all in over the Julian Assange matter. This new position makes no sense to me, especially given the current trouble between England and Argentina. 

 

This puts me in a difficult place because I am generally strongly pro-British in all things except Ireland...(in which case it is all right to kill Ms. Thatcher and the Queen with a bomb). Considering this, I am  ever so thankful that the Troubles have been largely tapped down, (I was radicalized staying with refugees from County Tyrone in the late 80's.) So I am very grateful matters have been well handled by Britain re Ireland.

 

This Ecuador business is ham-handed to say the least...I am puzzled why the Foreign Office is handling this so badly....Your Opinion is sought to lessen my Confusion...

 

Under diplomatic protocol, Mr. Assange was thought to be off limits while in the embassy. But the BBC reported Wednesday that British officials had raised the notion of revoking the diplomatic immunity of the Ecuadorean Embassy, allowing British officials to enter. 

 

Earlier Wednesday, Ecuador’s foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, said that the British authorities had threatened to barge into the country’s embassy in London if officials did not hand over Mr. Assange. “Today we have received from the United Kingdom an explicit threat in writing that they could assault our embassy in London if Ecuador does not hand over Julian Assange,” Mr. Patiño said at a news conference in Quito, adding defiantly, “We are not a British colony.” 

 

Thanks, Traveller

 

Edit: I don't particularly care if you like Mr. Assange or hate him, the question proffered is why Britain is going all out on this? Invading another country's Embassy is a radical step...

The law they are threatening to invoke

(#287108)

was enacted in the wake of the shooting of a policewoman outside the Libyan embassy in London in 1984.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher

 

I don't think the facts support its use in this instance. Probably designed to exert maximum pressure on Ecuador.

 

Omagh is in County Tyrone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Maybe They Don't Like Asshat Much, Either

(#287072)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Or Ecuador is considered to be so pathetic that they're willing to break relations with them to do Sweden a favor. Or the Roman Polanski thing has the Brits sensitive to being seen as shielding a rapist (the charges look a tad shaky, but the behavior involved does make him look rather creepy at minimum). Or--if we're operating under the theory that this is all part of a master plot to spirit Asshat back to the US--the Brits may simply want to make an example of someone who orchestrates the public release of highly classified information with no care as to the consequences. Or all of the above.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

So Britain Makes Themselves the Equivalent of Iran in 1979...

(#287074)

 

...the last time something like this happened? And they would put their own Consular staff around the world at risk for Julian Assange? This would be a very bad precedence to set in the diplomatic world.

 

The only thing that makes some sense to me it that Mr. Assange still has what he I think called a cache like an atom bomb if released...or not.

 

Personally, I think that releasing all of these docs and videos was a fine thing...if the American Public doesn't want to see their Apache Helicopters shooting living human beings into death in their name, the American Public just needs to toughen up and stop being such p^^sies about what their tax dollars are paying for.

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

 

 

 

 

Apples To Oranges

(#287075)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Assange isn't an Ecuadoran national, and the Brits aren't threatening to detain the ones who are. What it amounts to is breaking diplomatic relations with Ecuador, a perfectly legitimate move (whether it is a wise one is another matter).

This is another one of those situations where I have to think that if everyone was out to get Asshat as much as he claims, the means to grab him and make him vanish were readily at hand, given that he seems to have zipper control problems and most Western intelligence agencies are quite capable of assembling a honey trap.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Legitimate but not Wise

(#287198)

This would be a good time for the UK to reinforce the principle that embassies are inviolable, except in the corner case of an embassy supporting violence (which is what that law was for).

 

This principle is far more important to the UK than to Ecuador, and certainly more important than Assange, who I am no fan of, but probably for different reasons from you, though he was clearly framed.

 

Also, what the heck is Mr. Wikileaks going to do, exactly? He can't hole up there forever, and Ecuador cannot get him out without the consent of the UK.

 

All they have to do is wait it out. If they storm the embassy and Ecuadorian guards shoot back, it would be a royal mess and UK embassies are likely to be under some danger in quite a few places, not just Ecuador.

 

I agree with Trav, it would be an incredibly dumb move.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

I thought that nowadays

(#287291)
HankP's picture

a "diplomatic pouch" can be just about anything, including a box that might possibly contain a human being.

I blame it all on the Internet

That Might Be The Real Purpose Behind The "Storming" Threat

(#287295)
M Scott Eiland's picture

They might never physically invade the embassy, but if the Ecuadorans send out anything big enough to hold Asshat the Brits will drop the hammer on it.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Waiting It Out Would Be My Choice, Too

(#287200)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Although the "embassies are inviolable" principle seems lately to mostly be honored in the breach, particularly in the Middle East. You're right, he can't stay in there forever--particularly since whatever women are in there are bound to steer well clear of him given his newfound notoriety in the alleged sex crimes department.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Consensual sex with or without a condom is not a sex crime

(#287202)

Consensual sex with or without a condom is not a sex crime in the UK, or Ecuador.

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

I Hope Everyone Can Parse The Farce of the Swedish Statement

(#287205)

Following Ecuador's announcement, Sweden said it took umbrage to the implication it does not guarantee the rights of those in its custody, and called the Ecuadorian ambassador there to a meeting.

"Sweden does not extradite individuals who risk facing the death penalty," a Swedish Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said..

 

What is left unsaid is that if the US gave assurances that Mr. Assange would not face the Death Penalty, Sweden could and would extradite Mr. Assange to face the secret, sealed indictment already handed down in Virginia.

 

Someone needs to put this question to the Swedish Government, strongly, often, at every public occasion a Government official apprears at.

 

I resent these governments treating us like we are fools...I will also note that the United States has blocked a number of asylum ideas floated by Mr. Assange, for example:

 

On 4 November 2010, Assange told Swiss public television TSR that he was seriously considering seeking political asylum in neutral Switzerland and moving the operation of the WikiLeaks foundation there.[127]

 

In December 2010, it was reported that U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland Donald S. Beyer had warned the Swiss government against offering asylum to Assange, citing the arrest warrant issued by Interpol.[133]

 

Regardless, I think that Great Britain has chewed off much more than it thought, or might still  think it can get away with. There is a meeting of the Union of South American Nations called for Sunday...mostly to support Ecuador I would presume though we will see...England will rue the day they issued the statement about Storming the Embassy in Knightsbridge.

 

South America is not amused.

 

I suggest some fence mending quickly...they true goal has long been achieved, Wikileaks is no longer a force in the world and Mr. Assange has been effectively silenced.

 

This risk taking by GB makes no sense at all...unless Mr. Assange does in fact have an Atom Bomb of devastating documents and information against the United States and Great Britain.

 

Also, it is just bad for London to be seen as a lap dog of the United States...as is Sweden.

 

Sweden could simply say that they will never extradite Mr. Assange to the United States and he would be in Stockholm in a flash.

 

This is easy...but England has chosen a hard road which she will come to regret.

 

Traveller

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, Chen Guangcheng

(#287103)
aireachail's picture

wasn't an American national either.

 

And yes...it would be a spectacularly "unwise" move to break relations with Ecuador and enter that Embassy uninvited for something like this.

And If The Chinese. . .

(#287110)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .had wanted to play hardball and completely break relations over that matter, they would have been within their rights--though it certainly would have been a deeply stupid move on their part.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

What did the Chinese do in

(#287129)

What did the Chinese do in retaliation? Was it smarter than breaking off relations?

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

I suppose they would have been,

(#287115)
aireachail's picture

if countries had rights. But of course they don't.

 

You obviously know that these are all matters of formalized protocols and agreements, and they generally don't get trod upon for such relatively trivial matters. Diplomatically, this is now more a matter between Ecuador and Sweden, as Assange is no longer under British control.

 

The most interesting gambit I heard of concerning this in that in theory at least, Ecuador could smack a hard ball back to the Brits by appointing Assange to some obscure ambassadorship.

 

And on it goes.

It's Been Done Before

(#287142)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Google Image "Joker ambassador Iran." Of course, Asshat is far more of a cartoon character than the Joker ever was.

The amusing thing is that Ecuador isn't exactly a "freedom of the press" stalwart--I suspect either blackmail or some quid pro quo is behind Ecuador's behavior, which makes me rather less sympathetic to Ecuador regarding whatever brass knuckle diplomacy the Brits resort to.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Rule of law doesn't matter if PetNames and nearly any

(#287079)
brutusettu's picture

South American country are involved?

I Think I'll Blog this Live..10 Officers just entered Embassy/nt

(#287080)

Traveller

There is a Police Van Waiting Down a Side Ally of the Red Brick

(#287082)

Embassy building, rather unimposing...if Assange is arrested, I suppose he will be brought out this side door and whisked away.

 

BTW, no crowd, maybe 20 people total and seems to be a media blackout as to normal media, Knightsbridge Tube Station, get yourself down there

 

Report, all cell phone inoperable near embassy?

The Timing Is Amusing

(#287083)
M Scott Eiland's picture

No worries any more of heavy handed interference from IOC officials. . .unless there are some leftover Asshat fanboys on whatever committee is reviewing London's candidacy for the 2064 Summer Olympics.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Well Nada, The Police are Still Inside...Live Feeds Keep Going..

(#287084)

..down. Currently the only one running is Revolution.tv....lol

 

I didn't even know that half of these feeds existed.

 

Protesting crowd, such as it is, has been moved far away from entrance, even opposite side of the street cleared.

 

Going to bed....lol

 

Be Good, we'll see tomorrow.

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

 

Edit Reuters now has a good feed, barriers being set up and installed, traffic being stopped?

Ecuador Is Scheduled To Make A Formal Announcement . .

(#287087)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .regarding the decision on asylum at 13:00 GMT. There's no real need to act until Ecuador commits itself, except to make sure the little weasel doesn't slip out.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

The UK has an embassy in Ecuador.

(#287139)

If I were Ecuador I wouldn't worry about a forcible entry in London unless I saw Brits evacuating from Quito. 

It's been a good illustration

(#287086)

that the BBC, when it matters, is a propaganda tool not a news organisation.

This is True, However....

(#287076)

...to accomplish this they would be far better hitting him in Ecuador.

 

No, this needs to be done publicly...for currently unknown reasons.

 

The charges really are trumped up, and, if the United States would simply state that they would not seek the extradition of of Mr Assange, as they have been asked and refused to answer, Julian would long ago have surrendered to Sweden.

 

Strange it all is...

 

Traveller

Just to Note How the World Has Changed...

(#287077)

...I am watching a live feed, apparently one of many, outside the Embassy in London...in real time.

 

And it is a nice morning in London.

 

And front and apparently side doors blocked by British Police...50,000 people on this stream? Hummmmm...this also must mean something.

 

Traveller

This is Really Quite Funny...People Keep Prank Calling Taxi's

(#287078)

...that are arriving in a steam to pickup 9 passengers, including Julian Assange.

 

Sigh....why can't I be there?

 

Traveller

The charges don't just look shaky

(#287073)

There are no charges. Assange hasn't been charged with anything. (Actually he was briefly charged, but then it was withdrawn the next day. That's not fishy at all.) The last two years that he's been in exile, he's been wanted for questioning in Sweden.

 

The dots aren't that hard to connect.

 

Assange published reams of classified US military info. and is now subject to unprecedented and coordinated international pressure.

 

You do the math.

 

Yes, to answer your question

(#287071)

The purpose of this unprecedented, international manhunt for Assange, who has never been charged with a crime of any sort, is to get him into US custody for publishing classified info.

 

The pattern of event so far speaks to a behind-the-scenes plan for the machinations to proceed under color of international law if possible, but if not, then Assange is to be brought to the US in violation of international law. 

 

I've been reading some gullible types this evening who believe these events are somehow part of a normal procedure for someone wanted for questioning in Sweden about a rape accusation, on which no charges have been made.

 

I defy such a person to produce any remotely similar case to Assange's.

Hank, tried a new bourbon today

(#287047)

new for me anyway.  Evan Williams Single Barrel Vintage.  If you don't like Maker's Mark then skip it.  If you do like Maker's Mark then just buy Maker's Mark.  It's Maker's Mark complete with the wax dipping but with a slight edge, not enough to call a burn, that I don't experience with MM.  Add an ice cube or two or water and it smooths out.  I'm waiting to see how the bottle finishes, (probably around 2am) and will reserve final judgment until then.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Darth, I tried a new bourbon yesterday

(#287290)
HankP's picture

Michters US-1 bourbon. I even got Jordan to try it. Very, very nice. Very smooth, not too sweet and very tasty. Nice rye warmth without burn. Unfortunately it was pretty expensive last time I saw it on sale in WA, I may pick up a bottle when I'm in Oregon next month. Also tried Elijah Craig 18 year, which was also very good. Much more complex and not as sweet as the EC 12 year old. Even gentler warmth. Unfortunately it's also pretty pricey.

 

It's funny, everyone here was telling me how expensive everything in NYC is, and that's certainly true for some things like parking. But the restaurant and bar prices seem comparable to Seattle, which tells me Seattle is pretty damn pricey.

I blame it all on the Internet

Hank, about that bourbon

(#287447)

Ok, the bottle has been open for a few days and it's helped.  In fact it's helped enough that it's turned me around a bit.  A new bottle straight might be a bit rough but 4 days opened and two ice cubes and some additional flavor really comes out.  Certainly Makers Markish with a bit of apple.  Not oaty like Cheerios!!!!!!!!  Though the finish reminded me of Fruit Loops :)  Seriously, starts with apple finishes with banana and I always get a mint taste with bourbon.  I'm told that comes from the oak sap....whatever.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Unfortunately for me

(#287450)
HankP's picture

as soon as you mention Makers Mark I lose interest. I've just been totally underwhelmed by it every time I try it.

I blame it all on the Internet

Never heard of it

(#287297)

Though a quick Google search showed it retailing at ~$45.  It'll go on my list of stuff to hunt for.

 

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Maybe They Should Be Called The Tampa Bay Goose Eggs

(#287023)
M Scott Eiland's picture

For the third time in four seasons, the Tampa Bay Rays fail to get a runner to first base in a game--this time against Felix Hernandez of the Seattle Mariners, who struck out 12 and threw 113 pitches in winning the perfect game 1-0. The only other team to suffer the indignity of three perfect games tossed against them is the Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers, who were victimized by Don Larsen in Game Five of the 1956 World Series, Tom Browning of the Cincinnati Reds in 1988, and Dennis Martinez of the Montreal Expos in 1991.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

In the meantime

(#287054)

The Nationals have the best record in baseball, and just put away the Giants 6-4. Wowsers. I feel like I'm living in an alternate universe. 

 

They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist...
-- General John B. Sedgwick, 1864

The Kid Is Missing The Party

(#287062)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Bryce Harper hasn't hit a lick since the All Star break--they might want to take a look at him.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

"we haven't run the numbers"

(#287013)

 

Are these guys for reals?

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Alas, yes. Yes they are.

(#287018)

<nt>

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Get The Attic Ready

(#287004)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Crazy old Uncle Joe may need to stay somewhere that reporters can't get to him for a few months.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

I got around the Tribune's digital member thing!

(#287065)
brutusettu's picture

If Joe gets the attic, where will Mitt stay?  Mitt has gotten fairly close to making clear-to-anyone-disparaging remarks about Santorum's blah people before.

 

Kass should stick with writing about 106 year old Cubs fans and stop embarrassing himself by still pretending in August 2012, that Obama wasn't talking about roads and infrastructure that certain businesses didn't create.

Joe isn't going anywhere

(#287012)

And neither is the Romney campaign, in trying to gin up manufactured outrage over this.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Melky, Melky, Melky. . .

(#287002)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .looks like that big new contract won't be headed your way this offseason. You might still win the NL batting title, though--if Selig and the other Powers That Be don't move to strip you of it to avoid embarrassment.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

New Swiftboat group gears up to confront the Prez

(#286997)

http://news.yahoo.com/special-ops-group-attacks-obama-over-bin-laden-011757844.html?_esi=1

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

UPDATE

(#287161)

Of course, it’s hard to take this seriously as “educational” when key members of the group have ties to the Republican Party. Scott Taylor, the president of OPSEC, ran as a Republican in Virginia’s second congressional district (he lost the primary). The spokesperson, Chad Kolton, worked in the Bush administration, at the Republican National Committee, and in the office of John Boehner. OPSEC also shares an address with two GOP consulting firms—the Trailblazer Group and TelOpinion. I’d be surprised if that were a coincidence.

The video itself throws doubt on the group’s intentions. It’s saturated with anti-Obama content, and goes so far as to doctor a quote—from his address announcing the death of bin Laden—to portray the president as ungrateful to the troops. In that announcement, Obama thanked the “tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals." OPSEC removes the line from its excerpt.

http://prospect.org/article/worst-ever-attempt-swiftboating

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Playing the plame game

(#286998)

/nt

Technically, I think that makes him a Crack Shot.

(#287007)

.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Well, it's certainly one way....

(#287008)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

It gives a whole new meaning to...

(#287037)

...15 in the magazine and one in the pipe.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

And to...

(#287042)
aireachail's picture

ball ammo

Mad-Eye Moody Would Have Said "Told You So!"

(#287003)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Don't put your wand into your back pocket! Better wizards then you have lost buttocks from it! --Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody advising Harry Potter on proper wand safety, Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Srsly, does anything say USA 2012

(#286996)

like "guy shoots himself in the butt in Nevada at the movies"?

If only his butt had been armed

(#287001)

it could've defended itself.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

With an assault rifle? n/t

(#287016)
mmghosh's picture

-

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

A society of armed butts is a polite society

(#287009)

.

The right to bare a$$

(#287040)

shall not be infringed.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

An Armed Society is a Death Cult Thing of Horror & Pain

(#287011)

 

The man standing at Norman Johnson's door that cold January evening was a stranger who might have seemed vaguely familiar.

Johnson, a retired high school instructor who taught English and coached tennis and football for 35 years in this unassuming town, probably didn't even have his door locked when he came to greet the bearded, gray-haired visitor. The man bluntly asked him, "Are you Norm Johnson?"

 

 

When the 72-year-old Johnson didn't answer quickly enough, the man asked again. When Johnson finally said yes, the intruder shot him twice in the face, leaving him to die on the doorstep of his tidy brown-clapboard home.

In Madison, where many of the 6,500 residents have known each other since childhood, people don't die this way, especially well-respected people like Norm Johnson. Most police officers who swarmed the scene had once sat in the classroom of the strict but fair instructor they still politely called "Mr. Johnson."

Following a tip, police the next day arrested 73-year-old Carl V. Ericsson, who for years had been treated for anxiety and depression. Charged with first-degree murder, Ericsson told investigators a story of obsession that would rattle this Midwestern farm town, where the last murder conviction came in 1917 and the lone police detective badgered locals not to leave the keys in their trucks when they ran about town doing errands.

Ericsson told them he had come to avenge a long-ago locker room prank: In high school, someone put an athletic supporter over his head for laughs. Nobody's really sure whether Johnson was the culprit or whether he'd just laughed the loudest or even if it happened at all.

 

~~~~~~

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-south-dakota-murder...

 

So many lives destroyed...

 

Now two families are left to cope with the aftermath. Ericsson's brother Dick, a popular lawyer and town councilman, lives with knowing his emotionally fraught older brother confessed to shooting a longtime neighbor and colleague. Dick Ericsson had served on the local hospital board with Johnson.
 

A gun means that Murder is easy...sometimes I sense that not many people know how really crazy, how dominant the reptilian side of our brain is...mine certainly and yours too...

 

Just telling you.

 

Traveller

I Wonder If It's Still Irresponsible Not To Speculate?

(#286982)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Security guard shot at Family Research Council.

No doubt Brian Ross will be on shortly to note that some Move On or OWS member has the same name as whoever the shooter turns out to be.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

I'd crow about it too if I'd

(#287059)

I'd crow about it too if I'd been on the wrong end of politically motivated shootings (politically speaking) for decades.

Which Brian Ross are you talking about?

(#287005)

Which Brian Ross are you talking about? You wouldn't want us to jump to any premature conclusions as you bandy about the name of some minor celebrity...

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

If You Can Name Another Brian Ross. . .

(#287024)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .who recklessly suggested without any evidence that an innocent individual with a political association he disapproved of was a mass murderer, please feel free to let me know and I'll be glad to stipulate that I'm not talking about him. Otherwise, I think we're good here.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

So you're complaining about Brian Ross

(#286999)
HankP's picture

while doing exactly what Brian Ross did?

I blame it all on the Internet

Given That. . .

(#287000)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .I haven't given the shooters name or attributed it to a specific person who happened to both have the same name and belong to a particular organization, your statement is false on its face.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

You're giving the act a political attribution

(#287014)
HankP's picture

which is what you complained about Ross doing. Nobody complained about him naming the shooter.

I blame it all on the Internet

No

(#287022)
M Scott Eiland's picture

It was because he pointed out a specific person who had the same name as the shooter and identified him as a Tea Party member, making it possible to track him down. Your accusation fails.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

And you're trying to conflate the shooter with OWS

(#287030)
HankP's picture

or was that unintentional?

I blame it all on the Internet

No, It Was Sarcasm

(#287031)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Particularly in that it implied that Brian Ross would have any interest in smearing left of center individuals and organizations without evidence.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

I don't think that's how the media works

(#287034)
HankP's picture

if you think a reporter would sit on a OWS - shooter link because of political preference, well, all I can say is that doesn't reflect anything I've ever seen in the news media. They all rabidly want to be first with big news, personal preferences trail far behind that.

I blame it all on the Internet

Way to

(#286983)

politicize a tragedy.

Republican voter supression efforts in PA get the nod

(#286956)

from Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson (a Republican, go figure) declining to impose a stay on implementation of GOP imposed voter ID requirements. State SC split 3/3 and unlikely to overrule, probably not enough time for the Federal courts to get involved and PA lies outside the provisions of the Voting Rights acts that apply to Ole Dixie.

 

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/15/13296590-court-clears-pennsylvania-voter-suppression-scheme?lite

 

Looks like PA is set to become the OH of 2012.

 

Also, just to rub it in - an exclusive contract for voter education on the new ID laws is awarded to a Romney bundler.

 

http://www.citypaper.net/blogs/nakedcity/Corbett-contracts-with-Romney-fundraiser-Voter-ID-campaign.html

 

They are shameless http://www.politicspa.com/turzai-voter-id-law-means-romney-can-win-pa/37153/

 

 

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

One of the Republican justices might be squishy on the whole

(#286985)

"party above all else" concept. Failing that, I imagine the federal courts can be persuaded to get involved. Placing a serious obstacle in front of a million voters just to prevent an average of (*checks data*) 0.2 in-person fraudulent votes per decade sounds like a federal election law issue if I've ever heard one.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

He'd need to be courageous too so not that promising I fear

(#286988)

..no doubt the GOP power structure will be lobbying furiously to stiffen his spine. On what basis could the Feds get involved? My understanding is that the Feds are loathe to intervene in such issues issues, absent specific obligations under the VR acts.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Hankday NYC

(#286927)

Hank, did you ever decide on thursday or friday, or did you get kidnapped by your daughter? We had some location ideas in the earlier thread. Seemed like Jay C and Wagster might make it. 

 

Stay tuned for time/place.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

HANKDAY NYC UPDATE: Blue Smoke @6:15

(#287120)

Hank wants dinner, so we're going after bourbon, bbq and live blues (if there's an early act).

 

Blue Smoke
116 E. 27th (Park/Lex)

http://bluesmoke.com/blue/

 

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

I'll be there

(#287126)

6:45ish.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Live Blog It

(#287163)

Please.

We ate bbq, we drank bourbon, we talked politics,

(#287186)

film, music, road trips, gardening, booze, business, drugs, New York in the 80s. If you ever get a chance to hang out with Hank for awhile, do it. Wagster too.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Unfortunately Jordan is not telling the truth

(#287208)
HankP's picture

Compared to my small gray wizened self I was among the gods of conversational brilliance. Jordan,who combines the earthiness and ruggedness of the Texas hill country with the sophistication of Manhattan, and Wagster the international ambassador of smooth. I was like a tiny ember in the presence of two novas.

But the BBQ and bourbon was pretty good.

I blame it all on the Internet

Can we just agree

(#287229)

that we're all equally charming, brilliant and funny?

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Well, if you insist nt

(#287289)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

Right you are, old chap, right you are. -nt-

(#287264)

.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Agreed...A Very Agreeable Fellow...nt

(#287188)

Traveller

I wonder.

(#287121)
aireachail's picture

Does Hank have a Hawaiian shirt w/a pork motif?

How about a barbecue sauce print? -nt-

(#287127)

.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

OK Jordan

(#287036)
HankP's picture

pick the place, best time for me is 6 - 8 PM. You can email me directly, I now have a phone that can handle it.

I blame it all on the Internet

Hankday NYC - On The Rocks (10th/49th) @6:30

(#287097)

Wagster's suggestion from the other day looks like a winner. Downsides are it's small, and a bit of a schlep over to

 

On The Rocks

696 10th Ave (near 49th)

 

But so are most of the other good bourbon places I could find. There's food nearby too. If we're getting dinner, Blue Smoke (Flatiron) or Lowcountry (W. Village) also have pretty good lists.

 

If there are any other suggestions, try to post them by midafternoon.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

othis is dinner for me

(#287106)
HankP's picture

So whichever one serves food is probably best

Jordan please email me its easier than loading this site on my phone

I blame it all on the Internet

Ah ok, then why don't we say Blue Smoke?

(#287114)

They have a decent bourbon list, though not as extensive as some, and the bbq's pretty good. Wagster said he was in the mood for bbq.

 

They're on E. 27th (Park/Lex).

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

I'll post something tomorrow & email you the deets. -nt-

(#287052)

.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Hey! Hey, The is Great, Being Paid not to Use Your Smart Phone!

(#287039)

I confess that I am guilty of the following sins:

 

Ever feel like a dinner out at the local restaurant feels more like a trip to Best Buy, with fellow patrons tapping on their smartphones or taking photos of their meal? One restaurant in Los Angeles is now paying customers to check their tech at the door.

Eva Restaurant on Beverly Boulevard is offering diners a 5% discount on their bill if they dump their digital devices before being seated, according to radio station KPCC. Owner and chef Mark Gold says it’s a tactic to keep distracted dining to a minimum.

About half of patrons have taken Gold up on the offer.

"For us, it's really not about people disrupting other guests. Eva is home, and we want to create that environment of home, and we want people to connect again," he told KPCC. "It's about two people sitting together and just connecting, without the distraction of a phone, and we're trying to create an ambiance where you come in and really enjoy the experience and the food and the company."

In recent years, technology has become unavoidable in restaurants. Diners have turned into food paparazzi, hustling to get the perfect snapshot of a well-plated dish. Others seem to tweet every other bite while reviews on Yelp and Chowhound come harsh and often.

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

 

 

Oh Joy, Text Hank...! Hell with email or Calling...

(#287038)

...now that I can receive texts, it both reaffirms my horror of them, both as a medium of communication and as having evidentiary value due to their long strings, but I do use it myself now..to avoid talking to people, (its real value), and to send immediate pics and whatnot.

 

A fascinating thing a smart phone is.

 

Traveller

True

(#287048)
HankP's picture

but I don't want to post my phone # on a public site. I get enough marketing calls already.

I blame it all on the Internet

Actually, I am sure about Thursday

(#287010)
Jay C's picture

...and unfortunately, it's a NOT - unwell spouse issues will keep me in the country tomorrow: sadly, I won't be able to meet up and guzzle bourbon do a face-to-face with our esteemed HankP: my sincere regrets, gentlemen.

I'm sorry

(#287035)
HankP's picture

that you SO isn't feeling well, that obviously takes precedence. I'm sure I'll be back in a few years.

I blame it all on the Internet

I'm still not sure about Thursday

(#286946)
Jay C's picture

Best thing to do would be to set up a time & location and post it here. I'll try to make it but can't guarantee; Sorry.

Yes, Thursday

(#286936)
HankP's picture

the earlier the better (after 5 PM, but maybe for dinner?). Let me know what you guys think.

 

I do have to warn you that I'm subject to other (crazy) family members, so I literally won't know until Thursday PM if I can definitely make it or not.

I blame it all on the Internet

Mediscare 2012 - new lying Romney-Ryan ad.

(#286901)

Spartacvs posted this highly effective, lying-a$$ spot put out by the R. Money campaign. So many lies packed into 30 seconds, it's kind of breathtaking.

 

"You paid into Medicare" - False. You paid for your parents' & grandparents' Medicare. Today's employees are paying for yours, and the costs have gone up several hundred percent.

 

"Now when you need it, Obama has cut $716 billion dollars from Medicare." The cuts do *not* affect benefits & coverage for senior citizens. Rather, they eliminate wasteful, inefficient programs. Paul Ryan's Roadmap makes exactly the same cuts, nearly down to the dollar, on top of privatizing & voucherizing the entire program in the future.

 

"Why? To pay for Obamacare." Nope. The Medicare reforms are separate from PPACA's universal coverage provisions. Again, Ryan's plan made the same exact cuts to hospital payouts, Medicare Advantage, and fee-for-service.

 

"Romney's plan protects Medicare benefits for today's seniors..." This is the only true claim in the entire ad. Yep, true. Romney & Ryan courageously save their benefit-slashing voucherization armageddon for those who won't turn 65 until 2020.

 

"...and strengthens the plan for the next generation." Unmitt-igated bullcrap. Outside of the Orwellian world of Republican cant & rhetoric, handing senior citizens a check and setting them loose to buy individual private insurance, decoupling payments from actual health care costs, ending guaranteed coverage, and ensuring that the value of vouchers will dwindle to insignificance over the course of a couple decades is *not* how you "strengthen" a public program.

So this is the Romney plan: just like in 2010, they're going to try to stampede seniors to the polls and ride Mediscare into victory. Won't work this time, boys. This ain't no midterm.

 

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Obamacare actually *expands* Medicare benefits for

(#286929)

current seniors, while saving them tons of money. Obamacare closes the doughtnut hole in prescription drug coverage and expands free preventive coverage. The Medicaid expansion also gives seniors greater access to long-term care. 

 

The Obamacare changes to Medicare Advantage ended massive and ridiculous subsidies to private insurance companies, and as a result of those reforms, enrollment has gone up by 10 percent and premiums fell by 7 percent.

 

HHS estimates the reforms will save Medicare beneficiaries an average of $4200 over 10 years, and between $3000 and $16,000 on prescription drugs during the same period.

 

Romney's suggestion that Obamacare cut Medicare benefits and/or increased costs is the exact opposite of the truth. What was that word again? That word for people who lie constantly like Romney & Ryan?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Like Butch to Sundance...Those Guys are Very Good!

(#286903)

...I don't have to agree with or like what is being said in this political advertisement, but I do admire it as a piece of political Art...it is very, very good!

 

Especially Ryan getting an apparent admiring hug from the gray haired old lady...a masterful touch.

 

Traveller

Yes, excellent ad.

(#286942)
mmghosh's picture

Very visual and hits the right note of concern.

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Too bad it's 30 seconds of lies that can be rebutted in 20.

(#286945)

But I'll agree that it's very well produced and would likely have a strong impact on the election if nobody were to point out the flim flam.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Accusations of flim-flam can be countered by allegations

(#287017)
mmghosh's picture

of partisanry.  I'm still with catchy!

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

My FB feed has a mid level Romney campaign staff member,

(#286990)
brutusettu's picture

the dude seems incapable of taking the giant leap that  30 year olds' medicare won't really be medicare by the time they qualify...apparently it's much easier to ignore the terrifying truth and sock a few zingers when sharing links on FB while others complain about this $700 million Obama apparently stole from Medicare, plus bonus DEATH PANELS talk.

Soledad O'Brien factchecks a furious John Sununu

(#286906)

I loathe CNN, but this could be a harbinger of things to come as Soledad rebuts Sununu making the exact same claim about Medicare

“I understand that this is a Republican talking point because I’ve heard it repeated over and over again,” O’Brien observed. “These numbers have been debunked, as you know, by the Congressional Budget Office. … I can tell you what it says. [Obama's plan] cuts a reduction in the expect rate of growth, which you know, not cutting budgets to the elderly. Benefits will be improved.”

 

“Soledad, stop this!” Sununu shouted. “All you’re doing is mimicking the stuff that comes out of the White House and gets repeated on the Democratic blog boards out there.”

 

“I’m telling you what Factcheck.com tells you, I’m telling you what the CBO tells you, I’m telling you what CNN’s independent analysis says,” the CNN host explained.

 

“Put an Obama bumper sticker on your forehead when you do this!” the frustrated surrogate shot back.

See how that works? Republican flack makes a scaremongering claim about drastic cuts to elderly benefits. And the CNN anchor actually checks out the claim, and asks said flack to respond to the facts. I feel like I'm watching TV 30 years ago.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

I Was Astonished to See her Do the Same With a Blond...

(#286908)

bubble headed Romney Flack on CNN yesterday. Pretty amazing, calling them out on the truth.

 

Maybe it will be a new day.

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

Maybe CNN, Mired in 3rd Place

(#286909)

in the cable net wars, still smarting after flubbing the SCOTUS announcement on ACA's mandates, has decided that there's an opportunity to had in fact-checking and confrontation.

 

We'll see. That kind of thing costs more to produce than bloviation and he-said she-said.

I'm not so sure about that

(#286919)
HankP's picture

how many fact checkers could you hire with Wolf Blitzer's salary? It couldn't be worse than break-even. Hiring two well-known people to play he-said she-said has to be pretty expensive, no?

 

It's funny that the TV news business doesn't use a more ruthless personnel policy. I wonder how that would affect the (overpaid) hosts views about labor vs. management?

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Who is in 2nd Place?...nt

(#286910)

Traveller

I Don't Know! OK, Wait. It's MSNBC.

(#286912)

I thought MSNBC had moved into the #2 spot.

 

Maybe they did. They aren't there now.

 

[EDIT] Crap. MSNBC IS in second. The numbers above aren't in any rational order. Who would present ratings that way?

 

 

 

 

Interesting

(#286920)
HankP's picture

I believe the middle column, the 25-54 demographic, is the key one that the stations use to sell advertising. I'm surprised at how small the total numbers are, and I'm surprised by how close MSNBC is to Fox in several of the measures.

I blame it all on the Internet

Humm, That Really Surprises Me...MSNBC? Who'd of Thought? nt

(#286913)

Traveller

Amazing What Amputating 230 Lbs Of Ugly, Deranged Fat. . .

(#286930)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .will do for one's competitive edge. Current TV probably had their ratings go up recently as well, though you'd need a microscope and a miner's cap to see them still.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

You Do Keep Your Hates Hot and at the Ready...and Yet....

(#286931)

...there probably is some essential truth in what you are alluding to...the exit of Keith, yes?

 

This is not to say that he was ugly or deranged or fat...but he did lend a tone and direction to MSNBC that it is now probably better off without having.

 

(I just loved the alliteration in the posting space)

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

 

 

Breaking Bad binge

(#286894)

We finally caught all the way up to season five just last week. It really is seriously entertaining stuff, and quality never really drops off. There may be one or two bum episodes out of the entire run. Now we're caught up to linear & forced to wait each week to find out what Walt & Co. will mess up next.

 

We can't get into Mad Men either. Couldn't get into The Wire. Archer and Louie are both out of the question (Mrs. Jordan can't tolerate stand-up comics or cheap animation). 

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

We just finished

(#286911)

Season five of Breaking Bad this weekend. It is top-rate. The moral decay of Walter from the beginning of the series onwards is  relentless and very interesting. And it's fascinating how it affects your identification with him. Tony Soprano started bad, Walter is breaking that way.

 

The great American genre is the gangster story, and I think we're at the advanced stage of the category where the variations are playing out: Gangster as suburbanite (Sopranos), Gangster as a terminally ill chemistry teacher (BB), Gangster as a widowed housewife (Weeds), Gangsters in Ghetto/Dickensian overview (The Wire), Gangster as a politician (Boss or Boardwalk Empire).

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Don't listen to jordan about The Wire

(#286899)

The girlfriend and I were rewatching this summer and it's awesome on a second go as well.

 

I've never seen a show build over a season like that and explore so many inter-related threads from so many angles.

 

Very satisfying.

Or really anything.

(#286902)

I've been meaning to try again. For some reason Season 1 didn't grab us...I believe we saw whatever's on the first disc, so the first 3-4 episodes.

 

Does it start slow?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Sometimes You Don't Have to Like A Show, or Even Watch It...

(#286905)

 

...I have friend all atwitter over my refusal to watch HBO's Newsroom. I liked Girls, stayed at home to see Julia Louis-Dreyfus in Veep, as well as GofT....Newsroom, I don't know, I suspect it is fine and I'll never see it.

 

The same with The Wire.

 

I'm sure these shows are as fine as can be...maybe I just don't want to be hooked on these shows.

 

This is not a dishonorable position, though my friends think me a traitor.

 

Odd.

 

Traveller

 

 

The Newsroom... would you want to watch Aaron Sorkin

(#286907)

basically rant against Republicans and corrupt news organizations for an hour each Sunday? I love Sorkin's other work, but here the man behind the curtain's a little too visible (and eye-rollingly, surprisingly naive...or maybe he just blew a gasket) for my taste.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

I caught the first episode

(#286917)
HankP's picture

while we were out of town and the hotel had HBO on cable. It was basically everything I hated about The West Wing (which is a fairly sizable amount to begin with) amped up to total unwatchability. Also like the West Wing it had some very good actors mouthing ridiculously unbelievable lines. So I guess I'm not a fan of Sorkin's brand of magical realism.

I blame it all on the Internet

It definitely builds

(#286904)

The first 3-4 episodes are much slower than the last 3-4.

 

That's true for each season. It's fun realizing when the different pieces click together and it's on.