Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, January 15, 2018

OTP 15 January 2018:Mississippi’s anti-gay marriage law is hurting two college baseball teams

The “stick to sports” mantra took on a life of its own in 2017, as the interweaving of sports and politics was undeniable and, ultimately, angered quite a few sports fans. Still, protests during the national anthem or political tweets by athletes never actually got in the way of the action or stopped games from being played.

But politics have halted a college baseball series between the University of Southern Mississippi and Stony Brook University, a public school in New York. The two schools were scheduled to meet in a three-game series in February, but dueling declarations in each state have now made that series impossible. The kicker? It has absolutely nothing to do with baseball.

 

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 15, 2018 at 03:13 PM | 2103 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: college baseball, off topic, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 20 of 22 pages ‹ First  < 18 19 20 21 22 > 
   1901. Stormy JE Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:16 PM (#5610218)
If I'm thought to be a Trumpista then surely Jason is. The hilarious part is that if you ask David point blank if Jason is a Trumpista David will either not answer or say no. Most likely David will not answer. Which tells you about all you need to know on the subject of David's objectivity when it comes to matters Trump.

Go ahead, David. I dare you to answer the question of whether Jason is a Trumpista.
OMG, Ray, are you back in the seventh grade? :)

Anyway, now you know why I always make it a point to buy David the first round.
   1902. Count Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:18 PM (#5610220)
A) I've posted this here a bunch before, but one more time so you can see it and have a better understanding of what you've been peddling for a year and a half.
Thanks for linking to a libertarian author who has never worked inside the federal government, let alone DoJ or the Bureau. Not to worry though, I won't waste your time with links to any number of articles from former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy that claims otherwise.
B) How is the Weiner thing responsive at all? What point are you trying to make?
You can't even acknowledge that Huma should be in legal hot water over classified information showing up on her husband's computer.

And by the way, Comey didn't publicize the letter. It was leaked. But if you think he cost Hillary the election, well, maybe he's overflowing with Kompromat too. Check it out!


It's not relevant at all that he never worked inside the federal government; it's just a legal analysis. Feel free to link to McCarthy's articles. He is a crazy right winger but at least you would be posting something substantive!

I thought we were talking about Clinton, not Huma. What's the theory for Huma being in trouble for classified info on her husband's computer? (Also, wasn't it a tiny amount of emails, which were not actually marked classified? I genuinely don't recall where it washed out).

Comey wrote a letter to Congressional leaders. I wouldn't call it a "leak" that it was then published. It's not like it was secret.
   1903. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:19 PM (#5610221)
Most of the people who support him acknowledge a version of this but they were done with the left bullying them and smearing
them and ignoring them at every turn. Simply done with it. And this is the result.

I understand this, I honestly do. But it's part of the problem - people apparently think relatively petty grudges like this are enough to justify supporting a total national disgrace (to say nothing of a potentially disastrous administration).
   1904. Count Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:21 PM (#5610222)
I'm defending him because I've become increasingly convinced over time that the previous administration undertook extralegal/illegal acts to first, affect the outcome of the election (Hillary server, initial investigation and FISA warrant), and then undermine the surprise winner of the election.


Right, the Hillary server investigation ended as it should have with no charges, but the FBI director still blasted her on the way out and issued the October letter, while the FBI didn't acknowledge it was investigating Trump. The Russia investigation has already resulted in two guilty pleas and four indictments, and you pretend to support it. Your takeaway from all of this is that the Obama administration took illegal acts to affect the outcome of the election. Man, they did a bad job!
   1905. Count Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:28 PM (#5610223)
I understand this, I honestly do. But it's part of the problem - people apparently think relatively petty grudges like this are enough to justify supporting a total national disgrace (to say nothing of a potentially disastrous administration).


I understand it in the sense that conservative media is dedicated to making people feel like victims and building resentment. It is wildly ignorant and destructive. And frankly pathetic; the "left" bullied us and called us racist so we had to support a racist!
   1906. Shredder Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:29 PM (#5610224)
Nunes doesn't act in good faith; his unmasking thing this year was ridiculous. He views his role as covering for Trump.
Hey, give the guy a break. That spittle ain't gonna lick itself.
   1907. Stormy JE Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:30 PM (#5610225)
Feel free to link to McCarthy's articles. He is a crazy right winger but at least you would be posting something substantive!
McCarthy successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheikh and others implicated in the '93 WTC bombing but I'm very happy that you tracked down a libertarian willing to write on behalf of a government non-prosecution. What were the odds?
   1908. Stormy JE Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:34 PM (#5610227)
The Russia investigation has already resulted in two guilty pleas and four indictments, and you pretend to support it.
Great. How many involved campaign collusion with the Kremlin?
   1909. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:37 PM (#5610228)
I understand this, I honestly do. But it's part of the problem - people apparently think relatively petty grudges like this are enough to justify supporting a total national disgrace (to say nothing of a potentially disastrous administration).


But from the perspective of the right wing the nuts and bolts of what Trump is doing -- if you set aside the circus -- are largely acceptable to them. Much moreso than the whole of what Hillary would be doing.
   1910. Stormy JE Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:37 PM (#5610229)
Your takeaway from all of this is that the Obama administration took illegal acts to affect the outcome of the election.
We already know that senior Bureau officials have been replaced/demoted for inappropriate activities.

And I'll remind again that it wouldn't come a shock to some people if we learn Obama officials engaged in wrongdoing. It's happened before.

And of course, Team Hillary, with its quiet hiring of Simpson, was in closer proximity to actual collusion activity than Team Trump.
   1911. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:40 PM (#5610231)
The Russia investigation has already resulted in two guilty pleas and four indictments,


Please stop repeating this as if all of these things had to do with collusion.
   1912. Hysterical & Useless Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:40 PM (#5610232)
I would like to join in the softball game one of these days.


Please do! We need some people with a sense of humor.

And aside from the horns & tail Jason is actually pretty all right.*



*The cloven hoofs are just a rumor AFAIK.
   1913. Count Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:41 PM (#5610233)
Seriously, link the McCarthy articles. Or you know respond to what I posted with an substantive comment.
   1914. Count Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:43 PM (#5610234)
Lying to the FBI about contacts with agents of the Russian government definitely relates to collusion. Money laundering *might* depending on what else comes out; at this point it's just a lead.
   1915. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:43 PM (#5610235)
But from the perspective of the right wing the nuts and bolts of what Trump is doing -- if you set aside the circus -- are largely acceptable to them. Much moreso than the whole of what Hillary would be doing.

I disagree that a lot of what Trump is doing is in any way consistent with conservative principles, but let's say that it's true for the sake of argument. I would say that still doesn't justify support for Trump. At some point, there has to be an acknowledgement that the "circus," as you call it, is not just a sideshow - it's an inseparable and real part of (read: whole of) Trump, it is substantive, and it can't be simply ignored or waved away in favor of the "nuts and bolts." The Trump shitshow is at least as much a part of his presidency as the nuts and bolts, and it has real consequences as well as implications for who we are and what stand for as a society.
   1916. Count Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:46 PM (#5610236)
1910- this is another version of "you're the colluder!" Hillary's campaign hires a lawyer who hires Fusion who hires a former intelligence agent to look into Trump = collusion. Lying repeatedly about campaign contacts with Russians, then firing the FBI director for investigating, all while repeatedly denying that Russia interfered in the election even though you were told the Russians had emails and dirt on Hillary before the jacks were publicly released = nothing to see here.
   1917. Count Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:49 PM (#5610239)
By the way, the House GOP immigration proposal is atrocious. Big cut back on legal immigration, making asylum much harder, criminalization of DACA recipients who make less than a certain income, and more. Unfortunately the bipartisan bill that the Trump White House rejected was also pretty bad (ends the visa lottery and has some other bad restrictionist elements), but it's much more tenable. The House GOP is really being led by the white nationalist crowd on these issues.
   1918. Stormy JE Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:49 PM (#5610240)
Seriously, link the McCarthy articles. Or you know respond to what I posted with an substantive comment.
Let Google be your friend, Count, as I'm off to dinner. Also, my comments have been plenty substantive and, unlike your "shop around" versus "leak" claim and other assorted nonsense, I don't fudge the details.
   1919. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:50 PM (#5610241)
I disagree that a lot of what Trump is doing is in any way consistent with conservative principles, but let's say that it's true for the sake of argument. I would say that still doesn't justify support for Trump. At some point, there has to be an acknowledgement that the "circus," as you call it, is not just a sideshow - it's an inseparable and real part of (read: whole of) Trump, it is substantive, and it can't be simply ignored or waved away in favor of the "nuts and bolts." The Trump shitshow is at least as much a part of his presidency as the nuts and bolts, and it has real consequences as well as implications for who we are and what stand for as a society.


You're asking people on the right to, in a general election in which Trump is the candidate (*), either vote for the Democrat or abstain or vote third party and make it more likely that the Democrat wins. I just don't see how that's a realistic ask.

(*) Remember that -- as David will tell you -- most Republicans didn't want Trump and thus didn't vote for him in the primaries. So Trump can't be blamed on most Republicans. Once we get to the general all of that --
the significance of most Republicans not wanting Trump -- changes. At that point Trump is the absolute worst outcome for them... except for the Democrat winning.
   1920. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:54 PM (#5610242)
You're asking people on the right to, in a general election in which Trump is the candidate (*), either vote for the Democrat or abstain or vote third party and make it more likely that the Democrat wins. I just don't see how that's a realistic ask.

Well, I'm asking them not to nominate a POS like Trump in the first place. Trump should have received a nationwide vote total equal to or less than the number of members of his immediate family. So a general election in which Trump is the candidate is already past the point of being acceptable. But, in those dire circumstances, yes, that would be exactly what I would ask, because some things are more important than party allegiance. I can promise you that if the Ds ever somehow managed to nominate a total POS like Trump, I would absolutely not vote for him/her.

But more importantly and more relevant to the present, I'm asking them (and you) to take a hard look around you, see who you're in bed with, acknowledge the reality that your bed looks roughly like that scene in Trainspotting, and engage in some reflection about how we got here and how not to get back here again. That's what needs to be done, and it starts by acknowledging that Trump is a POS rather than justifying it by blaming it on the overbearing left, or trying to spin it so that he's not so bad, or waving it away as a sideshow.
   1921. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:56 PM (#5610244)
At that point Trump is the absolute worst outcome for them... except for the Democrat winning.


No it would not have been the worst thing, you ####### child. The R's control the house and the senate. Moron.
   1922. Count Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:57 PM (#5610245)
Let Google be your friend, Count, as I'm off to dinner. Also, my comments have been plenty substantive and, unlike your "shop around" versus "leak" claim and other assorted nonsense, I don't fudge the details.


Seriously, have a nice dinner! But this is pretty typical behavior - you just change the subject or ask other people to google.
   1923. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 20, 2018 at 07:03 PM (#5610249)
No it would not have been the worst thing, you ####### child. The R's control the house and the senate. Moron.

Joe, I get your frustration and I share it. But come on, this sort of tone is not helpful at all. I know we all snark probably more than we should, myself included, but this is unnecessarily venomous. It also entirely plays into the "elitist left wing bully/right wing victim" narrative.
   1924. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: January 20, 2018 at 07:11 PM (#5610250)
Joe, I get your frustration and I share it. But come on, this sort of tone is not helpful at all. I know we all snark probably more than we should, myself included, but this is unnecessarily venomous. It also entirely plays into the "elitist left wing bully/right wing victim" narrative.



The Dancing Monkeys deserve no less.
   1925. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 20, 2018 at 07:21 PM (#5610257)
Ray asked earlier how I’d change the system to avoid someone like Trump being elected in the future. Simple: replace the senate with a proportional legislature like they have in the Netherlands and New Zealand. Getting rid of First past the post allows for multiple parties to co-exist rather than forcing factions to take over one of the two major parties to have any power. The 24% of Americans who strongly approve of Trump can go make their “America First Party” and be represented accordingly. The House can be kept the same so people have local representatives.

Secondly, get rid of the electoral college and do a top-2 runoff system for president like they do in France.
   1926. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 20, 2018 at 07:28 PM (#5610260)
The Dems have a good argument (The one of them who has seen it so far? I heard there was only one.) that there's nothing much there but people will overreact to it and spin it and thus it makes sense not to disclose it.

That's their good argument? That the people can't be trusted to evaluate something that may put the prior administration in an unfavorable light?
   1927. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 20, 2018 at 07:37 PM (#5610264)
No it would not have been the worst thing, you ####### child. The R's control the house and the senate. Moron.


For Hillary to have won, she would have had to win MI, WI, and PA. If she wins the latter 2, The D's likely pick up 2 Senate seats, in PA (Toomey won by 85,000), and WI (Johnson won by 99,000). So no, the R's wouldn't have had both houses.
   1928. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 20, 2018 at 07:40 PM (#5610266)
Ray asked earlier how I’d change the system to avoid someone like Trump being elected in the future.

That was an easy one. If I'm God, I would say "I'm God. I get to pick the president."
   1929. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 20, 2018 at 07:42 PM (#5610269)
I went to my local women’s march today. It was smaller and less enthusiastic than last year. People are exhausted and burnt out. However, unlike last year there were a lot of booths set up by various organizations. We’re going to be a lot more organized this year than we were in 2016.
   1930. BDC Posted: January 20, 2018 at 07:42 PM (#5610270)
refusal to tackle entitlement reform, and approach to negotiations with Capitol Hill, particularly on Obamacare repeal-and-replace but those comments don't receive any attention

Well, yeah, I’m not going to get super-excited when you complain about Trump not being conservative enough :-D
   1931. Count Posted: January 20, 2018 at 07:44 PM (#5610272)

That's their good argument? That the people can't be trusted to evaluate something that may put the prior administration in an unfavorable light?


Eh, more like the Nunes memo is very likely BS. Of course if it was legitimate the GOP could release it, they obviously control the House and the presidency, which is why it's pretty funny they're all tweeting RELEASETHEMEMO.
   1932. Count Posted: January 20, 2018 at 07:47 PM (#5610274)
1929 - I more-or-less accidentally ended up walking the length of the women's march on the UWS. I'm sure it was smaller than last year but still pretty good turnout. There were also a few Trump supporters at Columbus Circle with anti-muslim and anti-"illegals" signs, presumably because they were sick of being bullied by the left.
   1933. Count Posted: January 20, 2018 at 07:51 PM (#5610275)
Funny and maddening account of our wildly unfit President:
In a remarkable, televised 55-minute meeting with about two dozen Democratic and Republican lawmakers earlier this month, President Trump twice proclaimed that any immigration deal would need to be “a bill of love” — setting an optimistic tone for averting a government shutdown with a bipartisan solution.

After the president ordered cameras out of the Cabinet Room that day, the group delved into the details. Kirstjen Nielsen, Trump’s homeland security secretary, and her staff passed out a four-page document on the administration’s “must haves” for any immigration bill — a hard-line list that included $18 billion for Trump’s promised border wall, eliminating the diversity visa lottery program and ending “extended family chain migration,” according to the document, which was obtained by The Washington Post.

But one person seemed surprised and alarmed by the memo: the president.

With Democrats and Republicans still in the room, Trump said that the document didn’t represent all of his positions, that he wasn’t familiar with its contents and that he didn’t appreciate being caught off-guard. He instructed the group to disregard the summary and move on, according to one of the lawmakers in the room, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation.

...
Two days into the negotiations, on Jan. 11, Trump the negotiator seemed to signal he was ready to deal — inviting Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) to the White House to present their ideas for a compromise to stave off a shutdown.

But when Durbin and Graham arrived, they found an angry president, surrounded by hawkish immigration opponents and no longer amenable to the deal he’d praised in phone calls just hours earlier. At one point, Trump dismissed immigrants from African nations as coming from “shithole” countries and wondered why he had to allow them into the United States. He also said he would prefer people from countries such as Norway. The racially charged remarks reported by The Post thrust the president into yet another controversy of his own making and further complicated the shutdown talks.

...
As the shutdown loomed, the president grew more erratic. In the first week, he set off a 101-minute scramble after tweeting that Congress should vote against a foreign surveillance bill that his own White House was championing after watching a segment on “Fox and Friends.” This past Thursday, he did it again — taking to Twitter to suggest that the Children’s Health Insurance Program should not be included in any short-term spending bill. The stance directly contradicted the strategy of congressional Republicans, who were attempting to use CHIP to lure reluctant Democrats into supporting the plan.

A White House official called it “deja vu.”

The president, however, did not seem to fully grasp just how problematic his CHIP tweet was for his own party. Minutes after tweeting his criticism, Trump spoke by phone with McConnell, according to people familiar with the conversation. Trump praised the Republican bill, showed no reluctance when McConnell explained his plan to forge ahead with it and made no mention of his tweet, these people said. Trump also reassured House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) that he liked the bill as it was.

...
Over cheeseburgers in the private dining room just off the Oval Office, Trump and Schumer discussed a comprehensive deal that would include an immigration component and keep the government open, along with disaster relief and budget caps. Schumer signaled he would be open to considering funding for Trump’s border wall and providing more defense spending, but he wanted the president to agree to a five-day measure to keep the government open to give both sides time to negotiate something longer term.

At one point, Schumer asked Trump to tweet in favor of a short-term bill to pressure others, officials said. The top Senate Democrat left the meeting buoyed, telling others that Trump seemed willing to strike a deal.

But as the day wore on, McConnell urged Kelly to not give in. Worried White House aides began making calls to their counterparts on the Hill, assuring them that Trump wouldn’t “give away the store,” in the words of one top Republican aide. The president summoned Meadows and Rep. Raúl R. Labrador (R-Idaho), another member of the Freedom Caucus, to the Oval Office for a long meeting, even as aides to Trump and Schumer discussed possible deals in writing.

Trump called Schumer a few hours later and said he understood there was a deal for a three-week measure to fund the government — the first that Schumer had heard of any such deal, according to one person familiar with the issue. At another point, Kelly called Schumer, telling the Democrat that his immigration proposal was too liberal and would not work for the administration.

   1934. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 20, 2018 at 08:37 PM (#5610279)
Ray, #1893:
Although at this point NOT releasing the memo allows Rs to make an untold amount of hay with it without ever having to prove anything. It's a blank slate of OH MY GOD TOP FBI OFFICIALS SHOULD BE IN JAIL THIS IS THE STUFF OF THE KGB THE KGB THE KGB OH MY GOD NOT IN AMERICA!!!. So eventually it becomes counter productive for the Dems not to push to release it as well.


But counterproductive for which Dems? The poor Dems on cable news? The poor Dems on OTP? The poor Dems in the House whose suggestions on what to release and what not to release are uniformly ignored anyway?

Because I haven't seen a whole lot of indications that the Mueller investigation gives any kind of shit about any of these political charges. Where have the reactive updates from the investigation been, to deflect from criticism, or neutralize any slurs? Virtually every piece of information about the Mueller team's status/progress is already months old whenever we first hear about it.

If anything, the public polling numbers monotonously show that the anti-Mueller attack campaign has paid few real dividends outside the circle. Which makes the necessity for, and the buildup to, Memogeddon! seem like the ineffective desperation pass that it is likely to be. The untold amount of hay may be untold because it's not worth telling.
   1935. Srul Itza Posted: January 20, 2018 at 08:41 PM (#5610281)
The House GOP is really being led by the white nationalist crowd on these issues.



The House GOP-- hell the GOP as whole -- IS the white nationalist crowd.

   1936. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: January 20, 2018 at 08:41 PM (#5610282)
The shutdown seems to be a game of "gotcha" to some posters here. As a former government employee who worked through several of these shutdowns, it is not a game to many government employees and I assume many people needing government services. A fair number of government employees live paycheck to paycheck and they don't know how they will pay their bills in the shutdown goes longer than a few days. I remember a new college hire in the #Gingrichshutdown who was literally crying at her desk after being informed the morning of that shutdown she was going to be furloughed without pay if the shutdown happened. As a brand new hire, she literally had no local support system and had no savings to use if she wasn't being paid. While I don't know how widespread that level of panic is (was) in the government employee community, it was certainly not unique.

For all those arguing whose fault the shutdown is, the real question is why do we have the shutdown at all? Everyone agrees that there has to a bilateral funding compromise at some point. The shutdown deadline should be just as much the crisis point that Congress seems to need to do anything as an actual shutdown.

Paul and Lee are correct (this is something I never thought I would type) that running the government by CR is not appropriate. Too many important things are left hanging and can't happen under a CR. At some point, it is important to stop doing CRs and fund the government for the year. Given that there have already been two CRs, it is not that there hasn't been enough time to develop a funding compromise. It's just been a lack of will. Does anyone think that kicking the can down the road another few weeks will lead to a breakthrough? If the Democrats/fiscal Republicans don't make a stand at some point, aren't we likely to just get a series of CRs through next fiscal year. So forcing the shutdown now instead of after some random CR down the road at least forces the compromise to happen earlier so that the government will have solid funding and can operate at its normal efficiency (as little as that might be) instead of crippled by a CR.
   1937. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 20, 2018 at 08:59 PM (#5610287)
Donald Trump:
Beautiful weather all over our great country, a perfect day for all Women to March. Get out there now to celebrate the historic milestones and unprecedented economic success and wealth creation that has taken place over the last 12 months. Lowest female unemployment in 18 years!


And Twitter tweeters tweak back:
All of the women marching hate you.

Happy Anniversary Chump

Playing it this way would actually be sort of funny if we didn't all know the televised images—reminders of his inauguration humiliations— are absolutely infuriating Trump, all while he's sitting around stewing over missing his big party.

So many more of us will be employed as elected officials in 2018.

I hear he personally employed one female to the tune of $160,000

Another top pick for the Museum of Gaslighting and Propaganda.

Lmao I will never get close to your level of trolling. Fucking amazing.

Generations to come will scarce believe that a trolling God such as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth

Considering the #womensmarch exists because of @realDonaldTrump, I'd say he can whatever credit he wants with it.

Millions of strong women just grabbed you by the pussy.

Grab 'em by the midterms.

this tweet is backfiring as much as Ivanka's #TimesUp tweet

Please note the lack of Nazis at our marches
   1938. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 20, 2018 at 09:47 PM (#5610297)
And this is what makes the Hillary defense (the one proffered here by her supporters, I mean) of "I thought it was generally true" so ridiculous. Comey and his team are very well versed in this area. And upon seeing it, THEIR thought - or at least Comey's - was "salacious and unverified." THAT is how an actual professional with extensive experience in the field viewed the dossier upon presentation. But somehow we're supposed to believe that when Hillary saw it she generally trusted its contents. So either she's completely naive and stupid, or she's a complete hack who had her team run with it even though it was "salacious and unverified" on its face.
This argument doesn't even rise to the level of bad faith; it's not coherent enough for that.

First, you apparently don't know what salacious means; calling the dossier "salacious" isn't an indictment of its accuracy, so the fact that Comey described it as such has literally nothing to do with this conversation. Second, Comey calling the dossier "unverified" is perfectly reasonable; it makes perfect sense for a prosecutor or law enforcement person (or a journalist, for that matter) confronting allegations against a person to say, "We haven't confirmed these yet." But (a) that isn't a claim that those allegations are false; and (b) it makes no sense for the person who commissions an investigation to say that the investigation is unverified. Third, saying "Hillary¹ didn't act the same way as "an actual professional with extensive experience in the field" is... not really a damning criticism of her.

You keep inventing these phony dichotomies and pretending in bad faith not to understand where Hillary is situated in all this. If someone presents a campaign with a report of his/her opponent's wrongdoing, it's not the campaign's responsibility to verify the report. It's law enforcement's job. Or the media's job. The campaign is neither naive nor evil nor any other pejorative term you come up with for not hiring someone to re-investigate the report that they just received from the person they hired to produce it. The only way the campaign did something wrong in that scenario is if they knew the report was false -- not unverified, but false -- and passed it around anyway. (And by "knew" I mean knew -- not suspected, or realized the possibility, but knew.)


¹ I love how you pretend that Hillary personally did anything one way or the other -- but Trump's son and son-in-law have a meeting, and it's like "Trump who?"
   1939. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 20, 2018 at 09:55 PM (#5610299)
You're God and you can change anything in the US or the world to prevent someone like Trump being elected president again. What do you do?

This question can apply to anything: our system of government, our Constitution, our courts, etc. Even to non-systematic things. Such as (since the conventional wisdom is that white nationalists/racists were responsible for Trump's victory), you can change the makeup of the country to make it only 10% white. You're God. You can do it. Or anything. But your changes must be limited to doing something for the specific purpose of preventing a Trump from becoming US president again.
I'm puzzled by this question. I'm god ("I'm a god. I'm not *the* God"), and I'm worried about who becomes president?

And I'm omnipotent, and the only thing I can come up with is changing a law, or maybe amending the constitution? Not, say, just making it not happen?
   1940. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 20, 2018 at 10:01 PM (#5610300)

If it didn't go to her then that's the worst indictment of her yet.
Yes. Amazing how that always happens with you. "My opinion is X. Therefore, any new fact just proves X."
Her campaign was doing this on her behalf (paying people to pay people to deliver a dossier) and she didn't know about it or have anything to do with it? Is that really what you want to argue? Because that makes her look like a completely ineffective and bumbling leader.
No. It makes her look like someone who doesn't micromanage.
I've given her more credit than that. These things were being done in her name.
So?
If she looked the other way -- e.g., she deliberately didn't want to see the dossier -- then it was willful blindness or it was the equivalent of a mafia boss nodding his head to the underling.
Once more: you don't understand the concept of "willful blindness."
   1941. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 20, 2018 at 10:05 PM (#5610301)
1898. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:10 PM (#5610215)
I guess I'm not talking about making specific policy criticism. I'm talking about acknowledging, at a 30,000-foot level, that the guy is a total disgrace in just about every way imaginable, and that the number of people willing to vote for him, many of whom actively support/defend him, is indicative of some major problems in America.


1920. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 20, 2018 at 06:54 PM (#5610242)
But more importantly and more relevant to the present, I'm asking them (and you) to take a hard look around you, see who you're in bed with, acknowledge the reality that your bed looks roughly like that scene in Trainspotting, and engage in some reflection about how we got here and how not to get back here again. That's what needs to be done, and it starts by acknowledging that Trump is a POS rather than justifying it by blaming it on the overbearing left, or trying to spin it so that he's not so bad, or waving it away as a sideshow.

No disrespect, but you've got a better chance of getting Trump to admit he lost the popular vote than you have of getting JE or Ray to acknowledge this sad reality about him.
   1942. Omineca Greg Posted: January 20, 2018 at 10:06 PM (#5610302)
Well, as promised, I watched an old-timey movie tonight. I thought I would go with one that people here had been talking about, as I thought my perspective, as unschooled as it is, might prove interesting to help move conversation along. I hadn't seen too many movies on anybody's lists, so I went with My Man Godfrey, as it seemed a little bit controversial: great movie or greatest movie? In a way that isn't the biggest gap, but I know when people get passionate about things, small differences in opinions can seem huge. I'll write down my own thoughts, even if it's intimidating to be putting my ideas out there when there's so many experts around...

Firstly, let me say I really liked the film. I laughed a lot, it had a poignant social message, but probably the best thing about it was the snappy dialogue. Of course, nobody really talks like that, it's not realistic in any way, but it's still fun to see virtuoso actors having fun with a great script. As good as the acting was, I have to say, I thought the casting was a little off.

In one way the titular Godfrey was well cast; the lead was dashing and suave, matching the script perfectly. But on the other hand, I'd seen him in so many other films that were so such more dramatic, that the relatively miniaturist plot of this one was sometimes anti-climatic. Once you've seen someone with a licence to kill, or flying around the world in a hot-air balloon, or portraying the craftiest of cat burglars, stealing one of the world's most famous jewels, being a butler, no matter how charming and witty, seems like a generous come down. But I got used to it. That wasn't my biggest problem.

Maybe it shows how shallow I am but my biggest problem were the actresses that played the two sisters that vied for Godfrey's affections.

SPOILERS: BUT SPOILERS WITH HOT CHICKS!

The sister Godfrey ultimately went with, she was plenty cute, don't get me wrong, but the other sister?! VA-VA-VA-VOOM! She was totally glamorous, like champagne in the bathtub (magnums guys, magnums) glamorous. I don't think it was fair to June to have to compete with that. I thought that was a big flaw in the film.

NO MORE SPOILERS:

You guys watch more of these classic movies than I do, to be honest I don't know much about them, I could be making a total ass of myself for all I know, maybe all old movies are like that, couldn't tell you.

So that's my review in short. If anybody has any comments on it, that's fine, this is a discussion board after all, but remember I'm a novice at this, so if I've made any mistakes, or missed something important, please be gentle with me.
   1943. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 20, 2018 at 10:07 PM (#5610303)
Your party took kids' health as a hostage.

That's ####### despicable. Own it.
And your party refused to rescue the hostage because they hoped they could gain political benefit from letting the hostage be killed. That's just as despicable.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm accepting your framing for the sake of argument.
   1944. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 20, 2018 at 10:13 PM (#5610304)
Yes, Fusion GPS shopped it around; they didn't actually leak it.
I'm unclear on the distinction here. Fusion gave the dossier to people. How is that not leaking it? (The fact that none of the people they gave it to published it doesn't change the character of Fusion's action.)
   1945. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 20, 2018 at 10:15 PM (#5610305)

We have known since at least November of last year that FBI leadership had originally concluded that her activities constituted "gross negligence" before it got altered to a fictional "extreme carelessness."
Old hotness: "How dare the FBI come to a premature conclusion before their investigation was complete?"
New hotness: "How dare the FBI alter the conclusion it came to prematurely, after finishing its investigation?"
   1946. Srul Itza At Home Posted: January 20, 2018 at 10:45 PM (#5610307)
you apparently don't know what salacious means


Once more: you don't understand the concept of "willful blindness."


If you try to chronicle every word and concept he either does not know or does not understand, you will use up the internet.
   1947. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 20, 2018 at 10:45 PM (#5610308)
Your party took kids' health as a hostage.

That's ####### despicable. Own it.

And your party refused to rescue the hostage because they hoped they could gain political benefit from letting the hostage be killed. That's just as despicable.

I thought the prevailing meme among conservatives was supposed to be that you don't negotiate with hostage takers.
   1948. tshipman Posted: January 20, 2018 at 10:45 PM (#5610309)
And your party refused to rescue the hostage because they hoped they could gain political benefit from letting the hostage be killed. That's just as despicable.


In what moral universe is failing to rescue a hostage as bad as taking one?
   1949. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 20, 2018 at 10:48 PM (#5610310)
The White House released this candid shutdown photo today, to prove to the country that Donald Trump is on the job and working very, very hard at presidenting.
   1950. greenback slays lewks Posted: January 20, 2018 at 10:52 PM (#5610311)
Continuing the theme from #1933 and #1949:
On Saturday, the president was left alternately defiant and angry, self-pitying and frustrated. He argued to aides that he did not deserve the blame he was taking, but without a credible deal on the table, there was little for him to do. Irritated to have missed his big event in Florida, Mr. Trump spent much of his day watching old TV clips of him berating President Barack Obama for a lack of leadership during the 2013 government shutdown, a White House aide said, seeming content to sit back and watch the show.

   1951. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 20, 2018 at 10:56 PM (#5610313)
Quick quiz: When has David in his life ever argued that the remedy for people who have been targeted for abuse of power by the government is simply for the government to release the contents of the search warrant which was part of the abuse of power? Warrants can be based on many things including hearsay which could serve to defame (in a factual way, not in a legal way) the person; even a bogus showing in a warrant would further victimize the victim.

Answer: Never before Trump.
Ray is completely wrong, about both me and the facts. The dossier is already public; if the warrant was based on the dossier as alleged, then there's nothing to "further victimize." And I routinely argue that government secrecy is used to hide government malfeasance. Colleges do that all the time -- they punish a student for some dubious reason and then hide behind FERPA to avoid justifying the punishment. (Worth noting that one of the few times an attorney can reveal client confidences without the consent of the client is if necessary to defend himself against that client's accusations; a client cannot attack a lawyer and then hide behind attorney-client privilege to prevent the lawyer from refuting those attacks.)
   1952. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 20, 2018 at 10:59 PM (#5610314)
By contrast, Jim Comey improperly released a letter that may have decided the election,
Comes didn't release the letter. He sent it to Congress. Congress released the letter.
   1953. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 20, 2018 at 11:08 PM (#5610318)
You keep inventing these phony dichotomies and pretending in bad faith not to understand where Hillary is situated in all this. If someone presents a campaign with a report of his/her opponent's wrongdoing, it's not the campaign's responsibility to verify the report. It's law enforcement's job. Or the media's job. The campaign is neither naive nor evil nor any other pejorative term you come up with for not hiring someone to re-investigate the report that they just received from the person they hired to produce it. The only way the campaign did something wrong in that scenario is if they knew the report was false -- not unverified, but false -- and passed it around anyway. (And by "knew" I mean knew -- not suspected, or realized the possibility, but knew.)


I don't subscribe to this.

It's interesting that you conclude Hillary has no responsibility at all for what went on.
   1954. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 20, 2018 at 11:10 PM (#5610319)
In what moral universe is failing to rescue a hostage as bad as taking one?
I didn't say "failing to rescue a hostage." I said refusing to rescue a hostage for political gain. Saying, "Go ahead and kill the hostage; it'll make you look bad and so I'll benefit" is completely immoral.
   1955. Morty Causa Posted: January 20, 2018 at 11:11 PM (#5610320)
The one Godfrey ultimately went with, she was plenty cute, don't get me wrong, but the other sister?! VA-VA-VOOM! She was totally glamorous, like champagne in the bathtub (magnums guys, magnums) glamorous. I don't think it was fair to June to have to compete with that. I thought that was a big flaw in the film.

I don't see it as a big flaw, but, yes, in an alternate universe, I would like to see the movie work out where Godfrey ended up with Cornelia. Carole Lombard was of course a huge star and Gail Patrick's acting career was more or less restricted to playing the losing other women (see My Favorite Wife), which she was expert at. (She also late in her career produced the Perry Mason series.) Lombard seems a giddy school girl compared with Patrick's mature formidable vamp, and Patrick was actually younger than Lombard.

Generally interesting and perceptive comments, Greg.
   1956. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 20, 2018 at 11:14 PM (#5610321)

I don't subscribe to this.
Well since in 1826 you admitted you didn't actually know how campaigns work, I'm not sure how your unwillingness to admit you're wrong is relevant.

   1957. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 20, 2018 at 11:14 PM (#5610322)
As I deemed was the most likely scenario, David didn't weigh in on whether he considers Jason a Trumpista.
   1958. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 20, 2018 at 11:27 PM (#5610324)
In what moral universe is failing to rescue a hostage as bad as taking one?


I didn't say "failing to rescue a hostage." I said refusing to rescue a hostage for political gain. Saying, "Go ahead and kill the hostage; it'll make you look bad and so I'll benefit" is completely immoral.

Not only is that ascribing motives to Democrats that at most were secondary, it also overlooks the fact that Schumer offered Trump funding for his wall in exchange for keeping the DACA program intact.

Which only reinforces the point that negotiating with hostage takers is not only morally questionable, it's also not likely to produce results. How can anyone trust a president who keeps changing his mind about every fifteen minutes?
   1959. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 20, 2018 at 11:37 PM (#5610325)
Which only reinforces the point that negotiating with hostage takers is not only morally questionable, it's also not likely to produce results. How can anyone trust a president who keeps changing his mind about every fifteen minutes?
Trump doesn't really change his mind; he literally doesn't know anything about the substance, so he doesn't know what he is or isn't agreeing to. When he says that he supports X and then later says that he doesn't support X, it's not that his views have shifted, but that he didn't know what X consists of, and so when people tell him that X contains A, B, and C, he realizes that he never actually supported X in the first place.
   1960. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 20, 2018 at 11:41 PM (#5610326)
Not only is that ascribing motives to Democrats that at most were secondary, it also overlooks the fact that Schumer offered Trump funding for his wall in exchange for keeping the DACA program intact.

The linked article indicates that Schumer only offered funding for less than 10% of the wall's estimated cost:
White House budget director Mick Mulvaney disparaged Schumer for claiming to have agreed to funding the wall — he actually agreed to only the $1.6 billion the administration asked for in 2017.

It appears that the Dems are trying the "Srul Strategy" - agree to some aspect of the wall and then renege when the issue is revisited.
   1961. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: January 20, 2018 at 11:43 PM (#5610327)
Trump doesn't really change his mind; he literally doesn't know anything about the substance, so he doesn't know what he is or isn't agreeing to. When he says that he supports X and then later says that he doesn't support X, it's not that his views have shifted, but that he didn't know what X consists of, and so when people tell him that X contains A, B, and C, he realizes that he never actually supported X in the first place.


David you're a concise writer usually but I think more simply what you're saying is: he's stupid.
   1962. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 20, 2018 at 11:49 PM (#5610328)
The legless Sen. Tammy Duckworth:
I will not be lectured about what our military needs by a five-deferment draft dodger.

And I have a message for Cadet Bone Spurs: If you cared about our military, you’d stop baiting Kim Jong Un into a war that could put 85,000 American troops and millions of innocent civilians in danger."
   1963. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: January 20, 2018 at 11:57 PM (#5610329)
@MattGlassman32:
The key novel feature of this funding lapse (and this Congress) is that POTUS has shown neither the desire or ability to coordinate negotiations or position of his party.

Most of the observed chaos flows from this. Yes, GOP has faction. Normally, POTUS leadership solves that.
   1964. Omineca Greg Posted: January 21, 2018 at 12:00 AM (#5610330)
My #1942 post was a failed joke. It's a review of the 1957 Niven/Allyson/Hyer remake, where I pretend not to know that everyone was talking about the 1936 Powell/Lombard/Patrick original.

Upon reflection, I can't really explain as to why I thought that would be funny. I tried to write it so it wouldn't be obvious that's what I'd done for as long as possible, but sometime while reading it a few people would notice that it was screwed up. I guess if you don't click on the links, the whole thing could easily slide under the radar.

Hmmmm.

Oh well, can't win them all.

Anyway, I did watch the original earlier in the evening, and I've never seen the remake, so most of my comments are applicable to my viewing experience of the original, except the ones about the casting.

I am pretty weak on classic films, although interestingly I have seen all (I think)The Thin Man movies, as when all four of us were living at home it was one of two series that the whole family would like equally(Red Dwarf was the other one). William Powell then is someone I'm familiar with, and he is great as Godfrey, it's hard to imagine the film without him. I mean, presumably if they had cast someone else, the different actor could have been potentially great as well, but as it sits, he is fundamentally important to the success of the project. That unbalances it some for me, it seems like The William Powell Show sometimes. But the dialogue is wonderful, and everybody does a very good job with the timing, it's like watching precision clockworks. Probably a lot harder than they make it look. I had a good time watching, even if the subject matter of class distinction, which is just as current today, robbed me of some of the escapist fun I was looking for.

Oh, Gail Patrick was a very sexy woman. I don't think I've seen her in anything else. But she did cut a compelling figure on screen, that's for sure.
   1965. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: January 21, 2018 at 12:08 AM (#5610331)
The key novel feature of this funding lapse (and this Congress) is that POTUS has shown neither the desire or ability to coordinate negotiations or position of his party.


I thought he was a mastermind persuader? What you say you, Scott Adams?

The legless Sen. Tammy Duckworth:


Cadet Bone Spurs is awesome. I like that.
   1966. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: January 21, 2018 at 12:20 AM (#5610333)
@ericgeller:
"During a Jan. 4 phone call in which the South Korean leader briefed the American president on the plans for talks with North Korea, Trump asked Moon to publicly give him the credit for creating the environment for the talks..."


@NinaHachigian:
It’s just so embarrassing. And also dangerous when the focus is not on solving the problem but getting the credit. America has resolved untold numbers of issues without publicity because quietly is sometimes the best way. Insecurity is a lousy quality in a commander in chief
   1967. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 21, 2018 at 12:21 AM (#5610334)
Not only is that ascribing motives to Democrats that at most were secondary, it also overlooks the fact that Schumer offered Trump funding for his wall in exchange for keeping the DACA program intact.


Where "funding" is so abstract a term as to be meaningless.

But the insistence by Schumer on DACA being maintained only shows what I said the other day: Democrats are putting the interests of non-citizens over the interests of citizens.
   1968. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 21, 2018 at 12:28 AM (#5610336)
Which only reinforces the point that negotiating with hostage takers is not only morally questionable, it's also not likely to produce results. How can anyone trust a president who keeps changing his mind about every fifteen minutes?

Trump doesn't really change his mind; he literally doesn't know anything about the substance, so he doesn't know what he is or isn't agreeing to. When he says that he supports X and then later says that he doesn't support X, it's not that his views have shifted, but that he didn't know what X consists of, and so when people tell him that X contains A, B, and C, he realizes that he never actually supported X in the first place.


Every word of what you write is true, but at some point we're going to need more than an ouija board to figure out what Captain Bone Spurs is thinking.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the insistence by Schumer on DACA being maintained only shows what I said the other day: Democrats are putting the interests of non-citizens over the interests of citizens.

Never mind that the vast majority of citizens want the DACA program to remain intact, without building a wall.
   1969. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: January 21, 2018 at 12:35 AM (#5610337)
Where "funding" is so abstract a term as to be meaningless.


I'm not sure if you've noticed but in politics -- symbolism is important. It was a concession regardless of how an abstract project in and of itself (Trump's wall) actually got funding allocated. It doesn't make the Democrats look great conceding the talking point is the point. Honestly, the whole thing is an exercise in the absurd. It's sad it's come to this. We could really use election reform, the two party system is toxic. As the GOP senator John Kennedy said yesterday (he himself not exactly lucid as displayed during the Yates hearing)

"Our country was founded by geniuses, but it's being run by idiots"
   1970. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 21, 2018 at 01:32 AM (#5610340)
Me, on p. 14 of this thread:

Senate Democrats filibuster funding the government

Schumer Shutdown

favoring illegal aliens over U.S. Citizen



Talking points, SOUND off!


Yep, the memo must have gone out. I'm certainly not gonna watch, but I would be interested to know how often these phrases are used verbatim on Fox News today.


Breitbart headline now: "Lou Barletta: Dems Put Illegal Immigrants over American Citizens with Schumer’s Shutdown"

RDP now:
But the insistence by Schumer on DACA being maintained only shows what I said the other day: Democrats are putting the interests of non-citizens over the interests of citizens.

Did I nail it, or did I nail it?

   1971. Greg K Posted: January 21, 2018 at 07:40 AM (#5610346)
My #1942 post was a failed joke. It's a review of the 1957 Niven/Allyson/Hyer remake, where I pretend not to know that everyone was talking about the 1936 Powell/Lombard/Patrick original.

It confused the hell out of me, as Gail Patrick and the woman in your linked photos did not seem even close to the same person.

As it stands, with the physical appearance of Hyer and Patrick the only things I know about the movies, I'm interested in seeing the re-make!
   1972. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:11 AM (#5610348)
The linked article indicates that Schumer only offered funding for less than 10% of the wall's estimated cost:


That’s 10% more than I was told the American taxpayer would have to pay. Is there some poorly-publicized speech where the Doughy Dimwit proclaimed, “I’m going to build a wall, and Mexico is going to pay for less than 90% of it”?
   1973. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:46 AM (#5610351)
Did I nail it, or did I nail it?


Nailed it. You’re like an oracle for predicting the actions of morons. You’re a Moralce.
   1974. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:49 AM (#5610352)
As I deemed was the most likely scenario, David didn't weigh in on whether he considers Jason a Trumpista.


He's obviously not your Dancing Monkey.

Enjoying your Sunday morning, child? All snuggled up in your jammies, with your hot cocoa and Lucky Charms?
   1975. Morty Causa Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:49 AM (#5610353)
1964

Your links were perplexing.
   1976. Stormy JE Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:34 AM (#5610356)
I've been wrong before. I'll be wrong again.

Perhaps the tax reform measure IS starting to make a difference:
Washington (CNN)As the midterm election year begins, a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS finds the Democratic advantage on a generic congressional ballot has tightened to a narrow 5 points among registered voters, but those voters who say they are most enthusiastic about turning out to vote this fall favor Democrats by a wide 15-point margin.

The new poll's 49% Democrat to 44% Republican margin among registered voters is almost identical to Democrats' standing in January of 2006, the last midterm election year in which they made significant gains in the House of Representatives.

But it represents a large shift from CNN polls conducted in the past three months, in which Democrats held double-digit advantages over the Republicans. Preferences among all adults have shifted less dramatically, but are also tighter than last fall, with Democrats currently 10 points ahead of Republicans among all Americans.

Enthusiasm about voting in this year's contests has grown as the calendar page has turned, with a spike among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents from 32% feeling extremely or very enthusiastic about casting a ballot in December to 43% saying the same now. Democrats still hold an advantage in enthusiasm, however, with 51% saying they are that enthusiastic about voting in this year's midterm elections.
   1977. BDC Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:57 AM (#5610358)
I watched an old-timey movie tonight

Two nights ago I saw The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, which I guess now qualifies as old-timey. It is 54 years old now. (I saw the original, not some remake :) A surprising number of people who worked on it are still alive, including not only Catherine Deneuve (who will be 75 this year) but also Anne Vernon, who played her mother and is old enough to be her mother (Vernon just turned 94). Michel Legrand is not only alive but steadily working. A major film just opened in France last month, a WWI picture called Les Gardiennes, and the posters promised music by Michel Legrand. I figured this must be some old stuff they'd recovered and re-used, but no, Legrand wrote the score for Les Gardiennes at the age of 85 and he's probably working on his next one as we speak.

Anyway, a political connection: like so many French films of the period, even the ones that don't seem to be much about it, this one hinges on the war in Algeria. The whole plot is galvanized by the young male lead (Nino Castelnuovo, also still alive), who wants to marry Deneuve's character but has to go off to war (if it takes forever, I will wait for you, etc.)

If you don't know this film, it's fantastic – an amazing blend of impossible Technicolor, light opera, and banal, matter-of-fact trying to get by among the small bourgeois of a provincial town. Damien Chazelle was much-quoted as trying to achieve, in La La Land, what Jacques Demy (the writer/director) achieved in Cherbourg. La La Land is also showy, tuneful, and very well-made. But my one complaint about it was that the characters' problems didn't seem very problematic. Somebody replied "That's what movie musicals are like." Fair enough.

Thinking again, though, my problem with La La Land is that the characters' problems don't amount to a hill of beans in terms of the characters themselves. The leads basically break up because Ryne Goslin is chafing at his well-paid job as a sideman for a popular music act. Who gives a ####? Even he doesn't seem to give much of a ####. There is no real obstacle to him getting together with Emma Stone, so the poignancy of the final scene is lacking, despite its technical brilliance.

In Cherbourg, though, the plot structure is similar, but the problems the characters encounter are very believably scaled to their social class, their desires, and their place in history. Great film. Unless (like one of the characters) you hate singing …
   1978. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:17 AM (#5610361)
I generally hate musicals with a passion. At most there are about 10 or 12 I can even bear to watch past the opening credits.** But somehow The Umbrellas of Cherbourg managed to charm me out of my socks. Maybe it's just Catherine Deneuve. As for the plot, I've almost forgotten it entirely, but then the only worthwhile musical with a conventionally dramatic plot is A Star Is Born, which in many ways makes it a non-musical.

I recorded La La Land out of curiosity, but after about 15 minutes my inner Ray kicked in. Fortunately it only set me back the 25 cents for the DVD.

** If Howard Keel is still alive, he should be drawn and quartered.

   1979. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:23 AM (#5610363)
I recorded La La Land out of curiosity, but after about 15 minutes my inner Ray kicked in.

You actually got up and walked to a different room of the house?
   1980. Greg K Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:24 AM (#5610364)
Thinking again, though, my problem with La La Land is that the characters' problems don't amount to a hill of beans in terms of the characters themselves. The leads basically break up because Ryne Goslin is chafing at his well-paid job as a sideman for a popular music act. Who gives a ####? Even he doesn't seem to give much of a ####. There is no real obstacle to him getting together with Emma Stone, so the poignancy of the final scene is lacking, despite its technical brilliance.

This makes sense. I watched La La Land a few weeks ago, and was trying to put my finger on why it didn't seem to do much for me.
   1981. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:27 AM (#5610365)
You know how I avoid walking out on bad movies? I don't go to see them in the first place. It's not that difficult. Rely on reviews that you trust. Avoid genres that don't interest you. That's pretty much all there is to it.
   1982. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM (#5610366)
Thinking again, though, my problem with La La Land is that the characters' problems don't amount to a hill of beans in terms of the characters themselves. The leads basically break up because Ryne Goslin is chafing at his well-paid job as a sideman for a popular music act. Who gives a ####?

But, musical integrity, man!! Jazz!!
   1983. Greg K Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:40 AM (#5610367)
The leads basically break up because Ryne Goslin is chafing at his well-paid job as a sideman for a popular music act.

The persistent and deliberate undermining of Canadians in Hollywood is the real racism scourge in America today.

Ryan Gosling will have his revenge!
   1984. BDC Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:45 AM (#5610368)
I love movie musicals – because of the music, oddly enough :) – but I subscribe to the standard critical distinction: if it was written for the screen, it has a chance; if it is an adaptation of a Broadway show, it is almost certain to be regrettable. All those films in the '60s that won Best Picture: West Side Story, My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music, Oliver! … geez, their maximum upside was going to be bland inoffensiveness. And they didn't reach it.

The exceptions might be Cabaret, which was completely rethought for the screen, and A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, which they handed to Richard Lester and said "do something Hard-Day's-Nighty with this." And a lot of people like Milos Forman's Hair, done as a kind of period piece in 1979, but I think I missed that one somehow.

So yeah, Howard Keel, no. He might have been OK on stage but he is loud and annoying in movies.
   1985. Hysterical & Useless Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM (#5610369)
My #1942 post was a failed joke. It's a review of the 1957 Niven/Allyson/Hyer remake, where I pretend not to know that everyone was talking about the 1936 Powell/Lombard/Patrick original.


OG, if I'd been here last night I would've asked which "Godfrey" you were writing about. I haven't seen the remake, but IMHO (disagreeing with Morty here) Lombard is utterly, totally, completely adorable in the original. And I remember there was a sister, but she made no real impression on me.

Red Dwarf


Great show! Need to rewatch. They need to stop making so much new stuff so I have a little time to give to that needed 2nd or 3rd (or 8th or 10th) viewing of all the stuff I already know I love.

ETA: didn't click links in OG's original review post
   1986. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:53 AM (#5610370)
Ryan Gosling will have his revenge!

Canadian revenge = waiting a couple days before apologizing.
   1987. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 21, 2018 at 11:05 AM (#5610373)
Joe, I get your frustration and I share it. But come on, this sort of tone is not helpful at all.


Why attempt to be "helpful" to a group of interlocuters who have absolutely no will or ability to engage practically or rationally. Look at the last 100 posts of this thread. The people who claim to not *really* support Trump, but find his #### sac deep in their holsters regardless, are literally spinning the narrative that they have no choice to do so because Barack Obama was secretly directing his Deep State henchmen to throw the election to Hillary.

At some point you, and others like you still trying to hem and haw a way into "engaging" the ####### nutjobs and shitstains who support this regime, need to come to reality. They're unapproachable. Mere proximity to the event horizon of the Trump horror show degrades once reasonable people into internet jackoff sessions about Deep Staitz conspiracies against Dear Leader.

There are two groups of people who support Donald Trump. Idiots, and bastards. Neither of them deserve anything other than a traitor's justice.
   1988. BDC Posted: January 21, 2018 at 11:31 AM (#5610380)
I guess what I don't understand about My Man Godfrey is why it seemed to anyone like a good idea to remake it in 1957. The premise is so tied to the Depression that it seems weird ever to remake it.

Though maybe it should have been remade every 20 years. There could have been a Decline Godfrey c1979 and a dot-com bust Godfrey another ~20 years later.

And then in 2017 … you have this good-looking, very cool Ivy-League hipster who gets terminated from his job at Gothamist. He goes to the coal country of Deplorable, WV to starve. He is sitting at the unemployment office playing with his smartphone (because of course they all have one) and this donor-class Trumpista, in town to connect with real Americans, spots him and sees that he knows how to click and swipe, so he hires Godfrey as his social-media coordinator. Hijinks ensue.
   1989. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: January 21, 2018 at 11:39 AM (#5610382)
@Kyle_Feldscher:
The White House scrambled to find a way to make sure troops could watch today's NFL conference championship games because the Armed Forces Network stops during the shutdown. This, after months of ripping NFL players for disrespecting the troops by protesting during the anthem.

@KT_So_It_Goes:
goes perfectly with the E-A-G-L-E-S texts I have received this weekend from people who told me in September they were done with the NFL
   1990. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: January 21, 2018 at 11:42 AM (#5610383)
@JamesFallows
1) No one asked me, but: IMO this is *the* battle for future American greatness.
Argued nearly 30 years ago in ‘More Like Us’ that ability to absorb tumult of immigration was *the* crucial American advantage.

2) Japan can’t do so, thus its population is aging and shrinking.

China can’t really do so, thus its talent pool is limited to Chinese people—that’s a lot! But America has potential worldwide draw.

3) In forthcoming book @FallowsDeb and I argue that, city-by-city, most parts of the US still recognize and are open to this renewing power of immigration, despite inevitable disruptions.

Yes, even in Steve King’s district.

4/4) National rhetoric, in my view, is the outlier and lagging-indicator.

We’ll see as this Congressional showdown, and subsequent politics, play out. /end/

@waltmossberg:
This is absolutely spot on, Jim. If countries had business plans, the U.S. business plan starting in the beginning would have been the world’s best. It said we would take the most ambitious people from every competing country and turn them into Americans. And it worked.
   1991. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 21, 2018 at 11:47 AM (#5610386)
Okay, here's a complete list of musicals I would ever watch more than once, or more than about 15 minutes the first time:

A Star is Born (1954 version).... Garland's not only a great singer, but a seriously underrated dramatic actress, and this is her masterpiece. James Mason is great, and Jack Carson is perfect as the agent whom you both hate and have to sympathize with at the same time. Garland's final line still chokes me up after seeing it half a dozen times.

42nd Street*.... "Getta load of Minnie the Mountaineer" --- "That's Anytime Annie: The only time she said 'no', she didn't hear the question" --- "Must've been tough on your mother, not having any children". Great musical numbers, and a predictable plot that's saved by the never ending string of memorable one-liners and the final scene of Warner Baxter listening to the exiting theater-goers telling each other how "lucky" that Julian Marsh (Baxter) was to have such a great show fall into his lap.

Little Big Shot.... You can have Shirley Temple. There's never been a more adorable child star than Sybil Jason, whose career was kiboshed by studio politics. It's got a Runyonesque plot with Glenda Farrell, Robert Armstrong and the usual collection of character actors, but the highlight is Jason singing and tap dancing on the New York City sidewalks trying to raise money to keep the family together.

My Fair Lady.... Audrey, Audrey, Audrey. Most enchanting actress of all time, in the musical with the best soundtrack, even if she's lip-synching Marni Nixon. Rex Harrison is also at this best, and I love that "Where the devil are my slippers?" closing line that he delivers with the look of smug satisfaction that only Rex Harrison can give.

Footlight Parade.... Forgettable plot, but there's never been a better musical number than Cagney and Ruby Keeler's "Shanghai Lil". And the bar scene that introduces the number (which is in the link) may be the best collection of benign stereotypes to be found in any pre-code film. "That Oriental / dame is detrimental / to. our. in.dus.try." - "She said she von't be mine / for all of Palestine---Oy!"

Gold Diggers of 1933.... The least of the 3 great 1933 Berkeleys, but seeing Ginger Rogers sing "We're in the money" in pig latin is but the first of many fabulous numbers, culminating in "Remember my forgotten man".

Singing in the Rain.... The title song's the only truly memorable musical number (never was much of a Donald O'Connor fan), but the plot is played out in deadpan style perfection by Gene Kelly, Jean Hagen, and a key supporting part by the great craggly faced character actor Millard Mitchell. (Oh, and there's Debbie Reynolds, but she's no Audrey.)

Damn Yankees.... The film version of the Broadway version of the novel The Year the Yankees Lost the Pennant, and even as a Yankees fan it's hard to resist. And for a Washingtonian, there's a bonus of film footage from Griffith Stadium, even though most of the baseball scenes were shot in Wrigley Field in Los Angeles.

Guys and Dolls.... Let's just say that the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts, either because of or in spite of the forced Runyonesque dialogue on the part of the mobsters, who sound like Yogi Berra being channeled through Dan Daniel, if you know what I mean, which you probably don't, but it's still true.

Cabaret.... Not much to recommend it beyond seeing and hearing a young Liza Minnelli before she went to seed, plus Joel Grey at his best, but that's enough for me. The documentary footage of a time-traveled Trump rally featuring a blond-wigged Stephen Miller singing "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" is an added bonus.

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg.... See #1978 for why this one rates.
   1992. Omineca Greg Posted: January 21, 2018 at 11:47 AM (#5610387)
The persistent and deliberate undermining of Canadians in Hollywood is the real racism scourge in America today.

It never ends!

EDIT: Here, I'll just copy and paste it in here, it's too funny for people to miss...

WASHINGTON, D.C. – NAFTA talks took another nasty turn as the U.S. Commerce Department announced an immediate 300% tariff on all Ryans imported from Canada.

“The United States remains committed to free, fair and reciprocal trade,” stated Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, “but we cannot sit idly by when Canada cynically dumps its excess handsomeness onto our markets.”

Ross cited Canada’s universal healthcare as an unfair subsidy that allows Canada to produce smouldering hunks at a fraction of the U.S. cost. Ross said, “Americans believe the government has no business in proper nutrition and medical care, which is why 30% of our Ryans suffer from lethargy, rashes, and hair loss caused by scurvy. They can’t compete with your Reynolds and Goslings. Besides, now that Seacrest is starting to turn into leather, all we can offer in return is Ryan Lochte, and nobody wants him.”

President Trump has made clear his loathing of the current state of Canadian-American attractiveness trade – although experts speculate that this is because he knows that every Canadian, from pop star to politician, makes him look like a rotten pumpkin topped with a puked-up hairball. Rumours are circulating that further draconian trade restrictions are being considered including a 50% cut to imports of RnB artists from Toronto and a blanket ban on Justins.

Canadian negotiators were left scrambling to counteract this surprise move. Retaliatory proposals included a broadcast blackout on late-night hosts named Jimmy and a rejection of all superhero movies that do not include Robert Downey, Jr.
   1993. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 21, 2018 at 11:50 AM (#5610388)
The film of "West Side Story" is not nearly in the same category as "My Fair Lady," "The Sound of Music," or "Oliver!" It has very creative editing, lighting, choreography and real-world staging, even the credits sequence-- it's a real movie, not just a branded transfer.
   1994. BDC Posted: January 21, 2018 at 12:20 PM (#5610394)
Geez, Andy, you like a lot of those musicals more than I do :)

My own favorites are the early Rodgers and Hart experiments (Love Me Tonight, Hallelujah I'm a Bum), Astaire & Rogers, Yankee Doodle Dandy, the high MGM Technicolor of the Minnelli/Freed era (Singin' in the Rain is the most famous, but The Band Wagon is better IMO), the Menken/Ashman films for Disney (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast). Pretty standard taste. There is a degree of camp involved, I admit. You can't really seriously approve of An American in Paris, for instance, but the music and dancing are really fabulous.

Sometimes one of the Broadway adaptations at least preserves a stage performance. You can see why people loved Ray Walston in Damn Yankees, for instance. More often, of course, you get things like Hepburn in My Fair Lady, Rosalind Russell in Gypsy, Vanessa Redgrave in Camelot, and WTH was the point?

Garland singing "The Man That Got Away" in A Star is Born is one of the greatest things ever, for sure.

And Gonfalon, you're correct that they were trying something unique in West Side Story. I just don't think they succeeded. You still have these big stagey dance numbers, and the camera just can't convey them. I think it's a pretty boring film that made too many compromises (including the casting of Natalie Wood, in the category I mentioned above).
   1995. Morty Causa Posted: January 21, 2018 at 12:23 PM (#5610397)
I like the musicals Jolly Old mentions in 1991, especially those with Busby Berkely dance routines.

But, my favorite musicals are probably the Astaire-Rogers ones of the '30s. They were at their peak. Astaire was as distinctive and elegant and accomplished a singer-dancer as ever lived, and Rogers was beautiful and appealing. The songs by Berlin, Porter, Kern, the Gershwins can't be beat. And to top it all off, they were fine screwball comedies with witty scripts and stellar supporting players. In the end, those well-scripted comedy movies to go along with the peerless dancing and fine singing are what makes Fred #1. He had Ginger and those movies. Gene didn't.
   1996. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 21, 2018 at 12:27 PM (#5610398)
Why do so many musicals feature Nazis like "The Sound of Music", "Cabaret", "Springtime for Hitler", and "The Blues Brothers"?
   1997. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 21, 2018 at 12:29 PM (#5610399)
Add "Bugsy Malone," "The Wizard of Oz," "Fame," "Willy Wonka (V. 1)," "42nd Street," "Hair," "The Rocky Horror Picture Show," "Sweeney Todd," the best of the Disney films, "Yellow Submarine," and especially "All That Jazz."
   1998. BDC Posted: January 21, 2018 at 12:30 PM (#5610400)
He had Ginger and those movies. Gene didn't

Yes. I love Gene Kelly almost as much, but Astaire's greatest moments all involve dancing with Rogers. Kelly's greatest moment is dancing with Jerry the Mouse.
   1999. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 21, 2018 at 12:32 PM (#5610401)
Why do so many musicals feature Nazis like "The Sound of Music", "Cabaret", "Springtime for Hitler", and "The Blues Brothers"?


Don't forget the best song from Beauty and the Beast: "Gaston." That guy was SS through and through.

Or "If I Were a Reich Man."
   2000. Morty Causa Posted: January 21, 2018 at 12:33 PM (#5610402)
"Yellow Submarine" reminds me that A Hard Day's Night is probably my favorite musical comedy (not much dancing, though, except for Lennon hoofing to the chorus girls). And, yes, it is a creation and not a documentary.
Page 20 of 22 pages ‹ First  < 18 19 20 21 22 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2472 - 11:48pm, Nov 16)
Last: Athletic Supporter is USDA certified lean

NewsblogSale of Baseball Prospectus
(318 - 11:34pm, Nov 16)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogMichael Wilbon Weighs In On Jacob deGrom With Worst Baseball Take Of Year | MLB | NESN.com
(8 - 10:45pm, Nov 16)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Sox TherapyLet’s Get Off-Seasoning!
(5 - 10:40pm, Nov 16)
Last: Jay Seaver

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(433 - 10:09pm, Nov 16)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogMarlins get rid of orange, cite South Florida cultures with new look
(28 - 8:57pm, Nov 16)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogHow Kevin Brown Became Baseball's First $100 Million Man
(9 - 8:46pm, Nov 16)
Last: TVerik, who wonders what the hell is "Ansky"

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-16-2018
(10 - 8:30pm, Nov 16)
Last: crict

NewsblogIndians' Trevor Bauer pleads his own Cy Young case using a spreadsheet on Twitter
(24 - 8:01pm, Nov 16)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogFox Sports inks multi-year rights agreement with Major League Baseball
(30 - 8:00pm, Nov 16)
Last: QLE

NewsblogJoe Mauer Retires After 15 Seasons
(84 - 6:44pm, Nov 16)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(1216 - 5:35pm, Nov 16)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogYelich, Betts Win MVPs
(54 - 5:28pm, Nov 16)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

NewsblogHow Mets, deGrom could get their contract extension done
(4 - 5:18pm, Nov 16)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogAL Central Offseason Preview
(16 - 4:51pm, Nov 16)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 0.8503 seconds
46 querie(s) executed