home

Sunday Night TV and Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 08:39:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

There's so much on TV tonight, I don't know what to watch first. Probably Shameless on Showtime. Then Desperate Housewives, Brothers and Sisters, and the season premiere of Celebrity Apprentice. There's also a new Chopped and a new Iron Chef.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Feds Seek 15 Day Prison Sentence For Drug Using Ex-Federal Judge | Noticing The Madman Theory Of Political Bargaining >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Night TV and Open Thread | 58 comments (58 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    posted th is in an open last week (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:20:59 AM EST
    but I think it deserves another comment.

    The Someone You're Not

    Our packed prisons are starting to disgorge hundreds of mostly African-America men who, over the last few decades, we wrongly convicted of violent crimes. This is what it's like to spend nearly thirty years in prison for something you didn't do. This is what it's like to spend nearly thirty years as someone you aren't. And for Ray Towler, this is what it's like to be free.

    an amazing story about what its like to spend 30 years in prison for something you did not do and then what its like to be free.  which he makes sound almost as scary.

    denominator? (none / 0) (#8)
    by diogenes on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:51:12 AM EST
    Over the past few decades, hundreds were wrongfully convicted of violent crimes.  How many were rightfully convicted of violent crimes in the last few decades, given that there are always millions of people in jail and prison in this country and that many (though not all) people in prison for drug dealing crimes have committed violent crimes to stay in the business.

    Parent
    Scott Walker Hates The Little People (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:57:02 AM EST
    If you need a prima facie example of how this extremist Republican governor is taking the side of the big guys against the little guys, I've got one for you.

    Hidden in the 1,300 or so pages of his 2011-13 budget is the dismantling of Wisconsin's little-known State Life Fund, a small state-operated life insurance plan that was enacted 100 years ago this year by progressive Republican legislators in the wake of insurance scandals that rocked the state back then

    ---

    Yet Walker wants to freeze it in place come July 1 and close it to further purchases.

    It's a blatant giveaway to the private insurance industry, which has long bristled at the existence of the fund, insisting that it is "socialized insurance."
    And (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:31:06 AM EST
    Why Employee Pensions Aren't Bankrupting States

    A close look at state and local pension plans across the nation, and a comparison of them to those in the private sector, reveals a more complicated story. However, the short answer is that there's simply no evidence that state pensions are the current burden to public finances that their critics claim.

    Pension contributions from state and local employers aren't blowing up budgets. They amount to just 2.9 percent of state spending, on average, according to the National Association of State Retirement Administrators. The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College puts the figure a bit higher at 3.8 percent.

    Though there's no direct comparison, state and local pension contributions approximate the burden shouldered by private companies. The nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates that retirement funding for private employers amounts to about 3.5 percent of employee compensation.

    Nor are state and local government pension funds broke. They're underfunded, in large measure because -- like the investments held in 401(k) plans by American private-sector employees -- they sunk along with the entire stock market during the Great Recession of 2007-2009. And like 401(k) plans, the investments made by public-sector pension plans are increasingly on firmer footing as the rising tide on Wall Street lifts all boats.

    Boston College researchers project that if the assets in state and local pension plans were frozen tomorrow and there was no more growth in investment returns, there'd still be enough money in most state plans to pay benefits for years to come.



    Parent
    The question is (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:10:59 AM EST
    They're underfunded, in large measure because -- like the investments held in 401(k) plans by American private-sector employees -- they sunk along with the entire stock market during the Great Recession of 2007-2009. And like 401(k) plans, the investments made by public-sector pension plans are increasingly on firmer footing as the rising tide on Wall Street lifts all boats.

    Who guarantees the funds IF the market doesn't recover or if the market falls again in the future?

    Parent

    60 Minutes (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:07:20 AM EST
    had a good segment about children in poverty in America, link via Lawyers Guns and Money. It used the Orlando area as its focus, interviewing several kids who have lived in cars, neighbors houses, and hotels.

    What stands out is that there is a new generation of poor kids, and they have a lot more compassion for others than our current generation of pundits and leaders. There is hope yet if we can get these kids the opportunity go become future leaders.

    Dish subscribers here... (none / 0) (#1)
    by desertswine on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 11:30:56 PM EST
    have lost the local cbs and fox channels because of some sort of contract dispute... but they've given us 4 or 5 starz channels to make up for it.  Oh well, the local news is really crappy and the commercials drive me nuts anyway.

    The Starz channels (none / 0) (#2)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:28:09 AM EST
    were given to a lot of subscribers, including moi, who didn't lose their local stations, so enjoy it while it lasts.

    Got to hear Eric Clapton live tonight. (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:08:15 AM EST
    Terrific musician, with a couple good back up singers and virtuoso keyboard players.  Los Lobos first:  best when singing in Spanish and before they raised the volume to beyond listenable.

    EC has such a perfect blend of emotion and (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:31:04 AM EST
    expertise, for me anyway. Really connects.

    Thanks for suggesting my soundtrack of the day!

    Parent

    After the concert I started reading (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:58:14 AM EST
    "Clapton," a recent autobiography.  

    Parent
    Word to the wise... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:58:39 AM EST
    when you're rocking out with the likes of Eric Clapton and Los Lobos...trade in your listening device for a set of earplugs, rock novice:)

    Parent
    Ha. Took out my "listening devices." (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:56:57 AM EST
    But, in a misbegotten spirit of friendship, I had given the earplugs to my friend.  

    Parent
    You're a good egg... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:53:20 PM EST
    I wouldn't be caught dead wearing ear plugs...I likes it so loud your feel your spine vibrating and your ear drums rattling.

    Parent
    No holds barred attempt at disenfranchisement (none / 0) (#5)
    by Politalkix on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:07:57 AM EST
    Link

    From the article
    "New Hampshire's new Republican state House speaker is pretty clear about what he thinks of college kids and how they vote. They're "foolish," Speaker William O'Brien said in a recent speech to a tea party group. "Voting as a liberal. That's what kids do," he added, his comments taped by a state Democratic Party staffer and posted on YouTube. Students lack "life experience," and "they just vote their feelings."

    Republicans have no problems enlisting college kids and the young to the military to fight wars for America but think that they lack "life experience" to vote. What a bunch of hypocrits and losers!

    Old saying... (none / 0) (#9)
    by diogenes on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:52:37 AM EST
    "If you are twenty years old and Conservative, you have no heart.
    If you are forty years old and Liberal, you have no brain."

    Parent
    really old (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 09:55:08 AM EST
    and really really stupid

    Parent
    And if you're 50 years old... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:04:37 AM EST
    and not a little bit of both, you're a hopeless ideologue.

    Parent
    regardless (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:21:20 AM EST
    you have to be 18 to vote.  Not 40.  For a reason.

    considering the current state of things and how we got here, I'd say a lot of those older adults are pretty foolish too.

    "vote their feelings"...

    you mean like "I feel like I could have a beer with that Bush guy from Texas"

    I wonder how many college students even come into NH from other states vs. students who leave to places like MA.  19 year olds have to vote somewhere.

    Also, these students, if they are working (many are) are paying local income taxes.  All of them are paying local sales taxes.

    Parent

    Surprised... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:32:36 AM EST
    you dignified the buffoonery with a reasoned response CST, but well done.

    Sh*t...I don't think taxation should be the only arbiter either...if you're old enough to be arrested and be tried as an adult you should have the right to vote...that means 15 year olds, maybe 13?

    Parent

    the taxation thing (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:47:16 AM EST
    isn't about who should vote, but where.  One of the arguments in the article against college students is:

    "Average taxpayers in college towns, he said, are having their votes "diluted or entirely canceled by those of a huge, largely monolithic demographic group."

    I would argue that college students are also average taxpayers.  Who's presense in college towns probably significantly affect everyone else's ability to make a living and pay taxes.

    In any event, I think the proof is in the arguments used against college students by the politicians.  It's all about who they are, not where they are.  They don't want them voting at all.

    Parent

    heres a thought (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:50:38 AM EST
    "Average taxpayers in college towns, he said, are having their votes "diluted or entirely canceled by those of a huge, largely monolithic demographic group."

    move.

    I live in a college town and I hear this a lot.  

    Parent

    I'm sure the average tax payers (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:55:51 AM EST
    aren't complaining when that "huge, largely monolithic demographic group" are patronizing their businesses.  Or the professors for that matter.  Or administrative staff.

    Colleges provide a huge boon to local economies.  Sure, college students can be a pain in the @ss at times, but so can "average tax payers", or "average tax payer's kids".

    I live in a college city.  Sure, they are annoying at times, but they are also a big part of the reason why the economy here is doing better than the nation as a whole.

    Parent

    You're supposed to vote (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:54:49 AM EST
    At your permanent residence, which, for the vast majority of college students, would be at their parents' address.  It is not your dorm room for a year, or your fraternity house.  Why people in college cannot understand this fact escapes me.  It's the same reason why people who own cottages or summer homes are not allowed to vote in those jurisdictions - they are not permanent / primary residents.

    Parent
    actually no (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    the law as it is allows you to vote where you live.

    In any event, college is not a summer home.  If I moved somewhere for 4 years, I would vote there, regardless of whether I planned to move at the end of 4 years or not.

    And when you are in college, the city you live in is absolutely your primary residence.  A lot of students never move home again.

    As far as local politics go, you are much more in tune with the place you live than the place your parents live.  You pay local prices for things, you use local services, you pay local taxes.  The sales tax dispute going on in your home town is not going to affect your life.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:22:20 AM EST
    As far as local politics go, you are much more in tune with the place you live than the place your parents live.  You pay local prices for things, you use local services, you pay local taxes.  The sales tax dispute going on in your home town is not going to affect your life.

    Really?  You think a lot of college kids are in tune with who the mayor is of their college town?  Or members of the city / town councils?  You think they are heavily invested in whether the city builds a new playground. College kids (may) only indirectly pay property tax, if they live in apartment.  Do you think they follow that topic closely? Do you think many of them will become permanent owners in those small college towns after graduation?  Actually, besides big elections - do you think understand or care about anything local they vote on?  Seems to me where the biggest impact they have is on state and federal representation of an area - they pick a name or vote for a party of a state legislator or member of Congress and have no long-term vested interest in either.  

    And about paying local taxes - so what?  If you work in a city different than where you live, you pay local taxes and don't get a vote.  I live in Virginia and work in DC.  When I go out for lunch, I'm paying (a higher)sales tax in DC, but I don't get a vote in DC.  I use DC city services during the day (water, power, emergency, if needed), but I still don't get a vote for mayor or city council.

    If I had a vacation home where I spent 3 or 4 months out the year (and paid local taxes and patronized loval businesses) - guess what?  I still wouldn't get a vote there.  Why are college kids any different?


    Parent

    you think (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:39:49 AM EST
    they are more in tune with the local mayer and local issues of their hometown than where they live?  I sure don't.

    3-4 months a year (vacation home) is less than the amount of time most college kids spend at home.  I agree that you should vote in the location you spend 10 months living in rather than 2.  I would argue that for college students their "vacation home" is the one they grew up in, not the one they go to school and live in for the vast majority of the year.

    When I was in college I absolutely was more in tune with local issues where I lived than where I grew up.

    Again, you make these arguments about college kids not paying attention to issues.  That' snot an argument for where they should vote.  That's an argument for whether they should vote.  One that's already long been decided.  And frankly, the assumption that they don't care or don't pay attention is just that, an assumption.

    I'd care a lot more about the property taxes and playgrounds going up in the neighborhood I live in, than the one where my parents live that I maybe spend 2 months a year in.

    Parent

    long decided? (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:18:40 PM EST
    I'm not that old and college kids had to vote where they had their permanent address - absentee to their parents.

    Letting college kids vote where they are temporary residents is a relatively new phenomenon meant to capture those kids in large groups so as to drive up enthusiasm.

    And if you paid more attention to local politics of where you went to school, I'd say you were in the EXTREME minority of people on your campus.

    Parent

    i didn't say (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:40:00 PM EST
    i paid more attention than your average local resident, i said i paid more attention to local issues where i lived than where i grew up.

    I'd say that's probably true for a vast majority of college students.  You think they are following these issues at home?  At least at school they are right in front of you, on the news, you might hear someone mention it walking down the street, etc...  A lot can change in a place in 4 years.  Your hometown is not the same as when you left it.

    I see nothing wrong with driving up enthusiasm.  I would consider getting more people to vote to be a good thing.

    Parent

    See Ann Arbor, 1964, (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:41:15 PM EST
    LBJ v. Goldwater.  Michigan Daily

    Parent
    where (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:08:56 PM EST
    do you find this stuff?

    The ads alone...  really cool.

    Parent

    And the same college (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:06:31 AM EST
    will demand out of state tuition because you do not reside there.

    Parent
    Can they do that for all 4 yrs (none / 0) (#34)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:17:26 AM EST
    if you live off campus?

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:23:31 AM EST
    For most schools, to pay in-state tuition, you must live in the state for one year without being enrolled in school.

    Parent
    ah, that's the catch. thanks :) (none / 0) (#37)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:30:23 AM EST
     

    Parent
    which (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:44:39 AM EST
    IMO is a complete racket.  But that's a topic for another day.

    Parent
    State law (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:19:06 PM EST
    Take it up with the legislatures.

    Parent
    By your logic (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:41:01 AM EST
    If a 13 year old can shoot a gun and kill someone, they should be tried as an adult.

    Careful what you wish for!  :)

    Parent

    I'm saying... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:46:59 AM EST
    if you will be subject to adult justice, you should have the full rights of an adult, including voting...otherwise you must be charged as a juvenile.

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:51:13 AM EST
    And I'm showing you how your argument can be turned around using the exact same logic - if you can commit an "adult" crime, you should be held accountable like an adult. I don't think you want to use that logic to further your position, is all.  :)

    There's a reason (although somewhat arbitrary) as to why you can vote at 18.  It was only changed from 21 because of Vietnam, when soldiers were being drafted at 18, but couldn't vote.  Maybe they should standardize "adulthood" at age 21 to make it easier, instead of having different rules and age minimums for different things.

    Parent

    I was thinking... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:58:45 AM EST
    my idea would prevent kids from being charged as adults...we'd never let 15 year olds vote, for the same reasons we should never charge them as adults...they're not adults.

    Right there with ya on a universal age of adulthood though, but I'd make it 18.

    Parent

    then you would be at odds (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:05:40 AM EST
    with lots of countries who do it earlier.


    Parent
    True... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:16:08 AM EST
    but 18 has a prayers chance...the American people are not ready to roll like countries with no drinking age...puritan shackles still weighing us down.

    21 is way too old.

    Parent

    To paraphrase John W Campbell (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:03:44 AM EST
    All governments can be honest, just, benign and helpful.

    The question becomes, how do we find and put the right people in charge? And throw them out when we have made a mistake?

    That implies a certain amount of intelligence, maturity and competence in those who vote.

    A couple of hundred years ago voters had to be property owners. Now, you may think that wrong, but if nothing else, property ownership shows a certain amount of ability in taking care of one's affairs and that implies intelligence.

    Contrast that with the French Revolution in which the jails were emptied and democracy was declared for all. The result was anarchy and an endless parade of people to have their heads chopped off.

    In which direction do you think we are headed??

    Parent

    I think we've already decided (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:12:14 AM EST
    the question of who can and cannot vote.

    The french revolution did not happen here, despite making the decision that people between the ages of 18-22 can vote.

    Honestly, it's these types of arguments that make the whole "location" argument dis-engenuous.  This local political isn't even arguing about where they vote.  He's arguing that they're too liberal, young, etc...

    Well guess what, they get to vote somewhere regardless of what you think of their political idealogy.

    And frankly, I'd give the average college student the edge on "intelligence and competence" (maybe not maturity) over the average tea partier any day.

    Parent

    Given that the average (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:42:25 AM EST
    Tea Party member has paid for, or is paying for, a child's education with money they earned, despite being as stupid as the Left, in general considers them, I would say they have demonstrated a level of intelligence at least equal to that college student you refer to.

    And my reference to the French Revolution was to the "trend" line.

    I think we are near the 50% point of people who can vote but pay no Federal Income Tax.

    I am sure those who don't pay worry continually about those who do.

    Parent

    do you think those (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:48:04 AM EST
    ratios, the ones between the ones who pay federal tax and those who dont, could have anything at all to do with the fact that wages have so collapsed that nearly 50% of the country no makes so little they dont have to pay tax on it?

    Parent
    you could rephrase that question so many ways (none / 0) (#42)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:56:34 AM EST
    "I'm sure those that have money/power/health insurance worry so much about those who don't"

    Besides, even if you're not paying federal income taxes, federal laws still apply to you, you're still paying federal payroll taxes, sales taxes, gas tax, possibly even local property/income taxes.  Only about 10% of people pay no federal taxes at all.

    It's not like you aren't affected in any way by the government.

    Parent

    somthing I have tried to explain (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:58:13 AM EST
    to idiot relatives when I hear the "illegals pay not taxes" stuff.

    as you say they still pay a lot of tax. and the fact is many americans now do not make enough money to be required to pay federal tax on it.


    Parent

    I'm sure you also (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    want to count FICA.

    My point was FIT.

    Bid difference.

    Parent

    I realize (none / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    you were talking about FIT.

    My point was FIT is not the only measure of determining someone's personal stake in their government.

    Parent

    FICA is insurance and retirment (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:00:45 PM EST
    and you get back what you paid in.

    Factor that out and you have a very small number.

    Parent

    not necessarily (none / 0) (#55)
    by CST on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:06:20 PM EST
    "you get back what you paid in" - what if you die at 55?

    In any event, how many laws does the federal government pass every year? Income tax is not the only measure of having a stake in your government.

    If we revoke voting to only those who pay taxes, does that mean that federal laws only apply to those people?  Or that only those people ahould be eligible to serve in the military?

    Income tax is only one measure of government influence.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 02:52:57 PM EST
    but your minor children and spouse get some coverage.

    My point was that we need voters who are informed. Property ownership is only one possibility. What we don't need is some of things we saw on You Tube in 2008.

    Link

    Parent

    So true (none / 0) (#58)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 03:47:26 PM EST
    Although, it's pretty easy to come up with a video of a few uninformed (even idiotic) voters.  It's not very difficult.

    This one's pretty interesting, comparing red state/blue state IQ averages.

    Parent

    The level (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:30:14 PM EST
    existed before the current economic collapse.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:58:21 AM EST
    back to am radio with you Glen.

    The Fading Power of Beck's Alarms


     . . the erosion is significant enough that Fox News officials are willing to say -- anonymously, of course; they don't want to be identified as criticizing the talent -- that they are looking at the end of his contract in December and contemplating life without Mr. Beck.

    and this offered with no apparent ironic intent.

    Many on the news side of Fox have wondered whether his chronic outrageousness -- he suggested that the president has "a deep-seated hatred for white people" -- have made it difficult for Fox to hang onto its credibility as a news network

    via stinque.com

    when have they ever been (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 04:18:14 PM EST
    that interested in credibility?

    If they had been, they never would have employed so many wild-swinging 'commentators' to begin with..

    Parent

    Sunday Night TV and Open Thread | 58 comments (58 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment