home

Martin Luther King Day Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 12:24:16 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Today is a day to remember Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his significance to the global struggle for peace, justice, and reconciliation.[More...]

I encourage everyone to take a few minutes and visit Stanford University's King Papers Project, featuring Dr. King's" most significant correspondence, sermons, speeches, published writings, and unpublished manuscripts. Here is their recommended document page.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Indonesia Executes Six Drug Traffickers, More Planned | Johnny Depp and George Jung Catch Up >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Martin Luther King Day Open Thread | 154 comments (154 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    These two cool nature videos ... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 08:26:18 PM EST
    ... are courtesy of Richard German of Laguna Beach, CA, who recorded his recent encounter with a small pod of orcas while paddleboarding along the Southern California coastline, and Roy Yamashiroya of Honolulu, who was surprised by a 30-foot whale shark while fishing the Penguin Banks area between the islands of Molokai, Lanai and Oahu.

    Enjoy.

    Has anyone seen Selma yet? (none / 0) (#1)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 12:47:59 PM EST
    It got 99% approval of critics on rottentomatoes.com.  American Sniper got 73%, which is a good score, but I wonder if there's some Hollywood critic bias going on there?  Both movies got around 90% approval from the audience score.

    I haven't seen Selma but I enjoyed American Sniper and thought it was a better film than Boyhood which got 98% from the critics.  

    One person who didn't seem to like Clint Eastwood's film was Seth Rogen who tweeted

    "American Sniper kind of reminds me of the movie that's showing in the third act of Inglorious Basterds."
    http://tinyurl.com/ozn8txx

    Rogen is refering to a Nazi propaganda film.

    We saw "Selma" last night (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 03:46:09 PM EST
    and thought it was terrific.  A very compelling drama based on real historical fact, with remarkably little distortion of those facts. It does a pretty good job of pointing out that King was not the only leader of the Movement, just its most public face.  It gives almost the amount of credit that is due to the many young (and older) leaders who were right up there with him:  Jim Bevel, John Lewis, Andrew Young, Diane Nash (underdeveloped as a character, in this case, relative to her significance), James Forman, Bayard Rustin, and James Orange. Manages to include references to many important factors about how 1965 unfolded, including FBI harassment and surveillance, the tense relationship between M.L. King and Malcolm X, King's courtship of the press and willingness to play on the local authorities' propensity for violence for the "good" publicity it produced, and the role of U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson (played by Martin Sheen, entirely uncredited).

    Parent
    I watched a book signing affair (none / 0) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 04:55:22 PM EST
    on PBS recently where Tavis Smiley, who was speaking about his new book, "Death of a King: The Real Story of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Final Year," laid out a fact I was unaware of. It seems that King's outspoken views regarding the Viet Nan war brought about an almost total rejection of that position from, virtually, all his civil rights allies, including Thurgood Marshal, and all (most) of the allies you mentioned. According to Smiley, at the time of his death, King stood alone, isolated, and denounced (Re: V.N.)

    Just wondering if the movie portrayed this aspect of King's life?

    Parent

    No, To the contrary (none / 0) (#35)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 05:15:01 PM EST
    while the movie focuses entirely on 1964-65, and thus does not get into the rift over Vietnam that developed in 1968, the references that are heard in passing to the war are all negative, as I heard them.  Particularly how it distracted Johnson from the civil rights struggle and undermined the potential for federal support of the Movement by pulling away both money and potential National Guard protection.

    Parent
    Yes, thanks (none / 0) (#112)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 04:44:50 PM EST
    Maybe I missed it, but, the question that wasn't answered by Smiley was whether King's adding the Viet Nam war to his list of issues (and, which resulted in such strong blowback) was because his supporters truly believed in the goals of the war, or, whether it's addition would result in diluting support for the Civil Rights struggle?

    In either case, I found it fascinating how totally complete his isolation instantly became (over this issue,) and, how everyone, even his very closest supporters & admirers, acted in such complete unity.

    In any case, Peter, I don't really expect a definitive answer from you; I just wanted to share this, heretofore, new-found (for me) tidbit, that's all.

    Parent

    Well, I'm wondering whether Seth Rogen ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 02:30:58 PM EST
    ... actually saw "American Sniper," or is just fishing for further publicity. I found that to be both a cruel and unfair comment on his part -- particularly in light of his last rather dubious film project, in which a supposed assassination of a real-life leader is used as fodder.

    I happened to see both "Selma" and "Sniper," and would recommend both films to everyone, albeit for entirely different reasons, and with the added caveat that "Sniper" is probably not for the squeamish.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    you are fairly critical of a film (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CST on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 02:40:24 PM EST
    you haven't seen.

    Just saying.

    Parent

    What makes you think I haven't seen it? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 04:04:01 PM EST
    As a matter of fact, Elder Daughter downloaded "The Interview" from Netflix almost two weeks ago, and we watched it with her and her boyfriend. Well, for my part, I sat through the first 40 minutes, which was more than enough to confirm that my initial instincts about the film's tasteless premise were in fact correct, and further that I was really wasting my time because I was not enjoying it.

    At least I didn't pay for the privilege, such as it was. And to be fair, there's an offhand chance that perhaps subliminally, I didn't find "The Interview" amusing because I had already convinced myself that it wasn't going to be funny. But then, to be perfectly honest, Seth Rogen has never been my cup of tea, so to speak.

    It's hard to explain why that's the case, because I do like Seth McFarlane's work -- except for his last one, "a Million Ways to Die in the West," which was just insipid -- and the two share a somewhat similar irreverent sense of humor.

    I think it's because from my perspective, I see McFarlane as taking a more subversive approach in his work, while Rogen's shtick often strikes me as bombastic, and bombast in any form generally rubs me the wrong way.

    How Rogen and James Franco -- who I think is an awesome actor, BTW (and memorably creepy as Mr. B, a high school soccer coach and closet pedophile who preys upon virginal teen Emma Roberts in Gia Coppola's promising 2014 directorial debut, "Palo Alto") -- ever got together as a team is beyond me.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    fair enough (none / 0) (#26)
    by CST on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 04:17:57 PM EST
    I was thinking about comments you had made prior to it's release, and assumed you still had not seen it.

    As for how those two got together - Freaks and Geeks.

    Rogen as an actor - I could take him or leave him.  But I have enjoyed a number of his films, particularly Superbad, This is the End, and Zach and Miri make a porno which I thought was a pretty underrated movie.

    As for the Interview - if you didn't like the first 40 min I don't think the second half would've sold you.

    I have not seen American Sniper.  I have really mixed feelings about the trailer.

    Parent

    I did, too, when I first saw them. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 05:34:18 PM EST
    IMHO, those trailers really do not do "American Sniper" justice, because they're trying to sell it as an action / suspense film. While it is that on a certain visceral level, Clint Eastwood's work is considerably more complex than that, and can hardly be described as a "pro-war" onscreen screed by any stretch of the imagination.

    Because Eastwood doesn't pull any punches with his gritty depictions of urban combat in Iraq, the sheer relentlessness of the onscreen turmoil actually serves to paint a very bleak picture of our overall involvement there.

    In the beginning, the American troops are at least trying, often in vain, to interact with the local populace, and in some instances it does go horribly wrong. But by the end, they're building a wall around an entire section of Baghdad (Sadr City), in a rather forlorn and pathetic attempt to separate themselves from the "bad guys."

    I think that as a director, Clint Eastwood is at his very best when he urges us to confront, or at least reflect upon, our own preconceived notions about the nature of the human condition and our relationship with both present and past. I found that to be the case here, and in that regard, his minimalist focus in telling the story of Chris Kyle gives "American Sniper" a very potent punch.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    But the ending (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 10:00:15 PM EST
    was very disturbing.

    Kyle's military record was summarized as breaking the record for confirmed sniper kills, and then the scene shifts to apparent real footage of people lining the streets to watch his hearse pass by, as if he were a dead President.  And his funeral was held in Cowboys Stadium.

    There are so many who served honorably and were KIA.  And for the salient feature of Kyle's service be how many people he killed, is a bit creepy.....as Tracy has said....Too much focus on his exploits...

    Parent

    I think the whole thing is disturbing. (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 08:20:21 AM EST
    I think it's disturbing that we were ever in Iraq to begin with.  I think it's disturbing that we don't seem to want to face the toll killing takes on those who do it with the government's approval - especially those who see the faces of those they're killing.

    I think it's disturbing that we're not very far removed from the ancient Christians v. Lions mentality.

    I think it's disturbing to applaud killing of any kind, and it's even more disturbing for the killing to be treated like an accomplishment in one arena and as a crime in another.  If you kill 160 "terrorists" at the point of a gun, you're a hero; if you killed that many regular Americans, you'd be branded the most vile serial killer of all time, and we'd be discussing whether you should get the death penalty.

    Does this make sense to anyone?  Oh, war is different.  Well, that may be, but we're not; the level of mental gymnastics that have to take place in the psyches of most people in order to be "okay" with killing other human beings takes a toll we can't begin to comprehend.  

    Call me a bleeding-heart liberal, but I've just had enough of death and killing.

    Parent

    Yes, he did convey the situations very well (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 07:27:24 AM EST
    but I just wanted to say out loud - we aren't supposed to be there at all!

    Another thing I thought was interesting, and a nice detail on his part, is that he does show the increasing progression of sophistication of our weaponry as the years go by. From basic SUVs at first to the full up huge armored vehicles in Kyle's last tour.  And still they meet resistance by lightly equipped forces. I wonder what some of the yay-hoos in the theater with me thought about that.

    Parent

    Perhaps, without ever having actually said it ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 01:56:10 PM EST
    ... out loud, that's Clint Eastwood's point. We can honor our soldiers, sailors and marines for having done their duty, and yet still be aghast at the misbegotten mission in a benighted land.

    I do hope "American Sniper" gets people, especially those "yay-hoos" you mentioned, to finally start asking themselves how in the world we ever got ourselves caught up in such a f---ing mess, and to further realize that real patriotism often requires so much more than merely waving Old Glory and singing the national anthem on the 4th of July.

    Sometimes, true democratic patriotism demands that we not simply acquiesce to the judgment of the powers that be, but instead step out of our comfort zone to challenge our own political leadership, and pose to them those difficult questions which many others are thinking privately, yet are for whatever their reasons hesitant to broach.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Sniper defnately struck me as pro-Iraq War (none / 0) (#99)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    film. Every Iraqi in the film was some sort of treacherous, murderous enemy combatant or "terrorist" in embryo. I suppose that was done in order to convey the sort of paranoid pressure cooker soldiers experience in a war zone..  

    That said, on a technical level, Eastwood succeeded in what he was trying to do with the film and the performances were first rate.

    Strictly as a war film though, I thought the sleeper Fury was at least as accomplished as American Sniper.

    Parent

    I don't know, Donald; it just seems to me (none / 0) (#100)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 02:26:42 PM EST
    that there has to be honor in the service, and that has to be more than just the ability to follow orders.

    I don't think the mere wearing of the uniform entitles anyone to honor - it's what one does, or doesn't do, while wearing it that matters.  I can honor the choice to put the uniform on and take the oath, but after that, the honor needs to be dependent on the quality of one's service.

    Yes, Kyle was just doing his job, which happened to be killing others at the end of a scope, but at what point does the honor of someone's job depend on there being honor in the mission?  That someone did well what his country ordered him to do may not be deserving of honor if there was no honor in what he was ordered to do.

    Hope that makes sense.

    I guess where I am with this is that I think you're trying too hard to justify both the pedestal on which Kyle was placed for being good at killing people, and your own interpretation of the meaning of the movie and the inner workings of Clint Eastwood's mind.

    Is a movie ever just a movie for you?  And is it really necessary that we all agree with your deconstruction of every movie, TV show and musical number down to the molecular level?  Sometimes, your analysis wears me out to the point where I just don't care anymore.


    Parent

    We honor the troops, Anne, because ... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 05:49:54 PM EST
    ... regardless of whether or not we agree with the mission, they are our own -- and we take care of our own. And in a better time, that concept really should be considered universal, and have nothing to do with our respective individual politics.

    Unfortunately, there are far too many people holding public office today who are more than willing to send our troops into the fires of Hell for the sake of the Red, White and Blue, yet who are also noticeably reluctant to account for any or all of the direct and attendant costs which, of course, comprise the immediate and long-term consequences of such decisions.

    With regards to my analysis of "American Sniper," we're presently engaged in what I believe to be a thoughtful discussion here. If you're weary of reading my posts, then please feel free to ignore them.

    I daresay there have been any number of people here who've said the exact same thing about your own analysis, Anne. But speaking for myself only, I certainly wouldn't want their objections to discourage you from continuing to provide it.

    The fact that others might occasionally tire of our respective posts, it shouldn't then follow that therefore, we don't have something worthwhile to offer or say.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by sj on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 07:00:15 PM EST
    We honor the troops, Anne, because ... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 04:49:54 PM MDT

    ... regardless of whether or not we agree with the mission, they are our own -- and we take care of our own.

    Are they any more our own than our school teachers, struggling single parents and their children, the homeless, or even our homegrown serial killers?

    There are reasons to honor the sacrifices made by those who chose to wear a uniform. But it seems to me that "because they are our own" is not really one of them. There are lots of "our own" that we degrade, and that have no honor of their own.

    Parent

    Speaking Of Seth McFarlane... (none / 0) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 04:32:50 PM EST
    ...he is a Producer of the updated Cosmos series with Neil Degrasse Tyson which is a tribute and update of the origin series by Carl Sagan.

    And I would add, pretty fricken good.  It's easily the most comprehensive series out there dealing with our place in the universe and how we got there.

    The two Seth's comedy is completely different, apples and oranges, you need only be a 3rd grader to get Rogan, whereas McFarlane's humor is often related to references that are well above some adults.  Both funny, just for completely different reasons.  I have never Googled a Rogan joke to see what the hell he was referencing and he rarely goes after pop culture or himself/program.  

    McFarlane likes to offend and if you had asked me a year go which Seth would jump start some sort on international incident, Rogan would not have been my answer.  Then again, I doubt the N Koreans would have understood a McFarlane dig.

    Parent

    Seth McFarlane is a lot more ... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 05:50:38 PM EST
    ... nuanced, layered and sophisticated than many people are willing to give him credit for. I appreciated his effort to bring the updated "Cosmos" to public television, and introduce a new generation to the wonderful world of science.

    The very fact that the residents of Orange County, CA are presently enduring a wholly unnecessary outbreak of measles in their communities, thanks to the refusal by increasing numbers of them to get their kids vaccinated, is testament to the insidious and corrosive impact that knuckle-dragging know-nothings are having on our society.

    TV shows like "Cosmos" render the mysteries of our universe readily accessible to mainstream audiences. We actually need more programming like that, to counteract the foolish and misleading missives being publicly disseminated by the ignoramuses amongst us.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Mcfarlane is to humor and satire (none / 0) (#94)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 01:41:28 PM EST
    what dog and cock fights are to sports.

    Of course, maybe there's some subtly avant garde, creative spark hidden beneath all those jokes about actresses with yeast infections and the murder of Marvin Gaye that I've been missing.

    I would definitely agree that he makes Bill Maher seem more nuanced and sophisticated.

    Parent

    Pretty sure the anti-vaccine crowd (none / 0) (#97)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 01:58:37 PM EST
    isn't going to be watching "Cosmos," Donald...

    Parent
    I thought they did about as good job with (none / 0) (#49)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 10:33:58 PM EST
    the new Cosmos as possible.  They weren't going to top the original for many reasons but it was still a very well done series.

    I like some of McFarlane's humor but he didn't sound like he understood the science of Cosmos when I saw him on Bill Maher. Maybe he misspoke but he said "When our universe was one second old it was the size of a marble".  It was a lot bigger than that.

    Parent

    That is Not Disputable... (none / 0) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 08:59:11 AM EST
    ...and not really important, IMO.

    The only reason the size is small is because it's the logical conclusion going backwards, not because anyone has any idea of it's actual size.  It's a placeholder until someone else comes along with a better theory as to how the Big Band was ignited.

    I tried watching the original and like Sagan, but that between the 70's film production and aging information, I can't get through them.  But I bet they were something else when released.

    I would be shocked if McFarland didn't have a pretty solid understanding of the Cosmos, and he most certainly knows the Big Bang wasn't bridled by the laws of nature and exploded faster than the speed of light, before light, before rules about how the matter should act.

    Maybe he was dumbing it up for Maher's audience.

    Parent

    I think the Big Band Theory (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 09:18:21 AM EST
    was best expressed by Glenn Miller's 'In the Mood'..but that controversy still swirls.

    Sorry, I could not resist.

    Parent

    He was making a joke (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 09:37:12 AM EST
    About how dense and hot our universe used to be, double entendre stuff.

    I know this because I have been exposed to the segment more than once by Josh.  Who loves Seth so much Josh just calls him Seth.

    Josh is a big big Magic player.  I can't believe I'm still paying good money for Yu Gi Oh. When he saw the episode where the jihadist got his virgins he said that sometimes Seth is an a$$**.  

    Parent

    I Can See That... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 10:36:33 AM EST
    ...here is the LINK.  I didn't realize that was a real game.

    Can't really dig MacFarlane without being offended or insulted, occasionally.

    Parent

    I died laughing because I had just spent (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 06:11:47 PM EST
    Good money on a starter deck, and some booster cards.  At the local comic book store they meet and play on Thursday nights :)

    Parent
    I think he was dumbing it up (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 01:45:55 PM EST
    before then.

    I'm surprised he didn't make some crack about the expansion being faster than lines disappearing in front of Charlie Sheen or some other bit satiric genius.

    Parent

    And yet, you obviously continued to watch. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 02:10:56 PM EST
    Okay, we get it, you don't like Seth McFarlane. That's why they put the mute and channel buttons on the TV remote.

    Parent
    For Mcfarlane (none / 0) (#101)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 02:27:30 PM EST
    is there a volume lower than mute?

    Just asking.

    Awhile back he made some crack about Sam Cooke being killed. How ironic. Mocking the death of a guy who had more talent and class in what he blew into his handkerchief on a cold day than McFarlane will ever have in this lifetime or the next one..

     

    Parent

    yes, I'm forced to overhear (none / 0) (#103)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 02:34:13 PM EST
    this shite sometimes..

    I even force myself to listen to Bill O'Reilly one in awhile. One has to stay in touch with the zeitgeist.  

    Parent

    SNIPER serves no purpose, IMO (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 03:49:53 PM EST
    I preface this by saying I am sensitive to your family history, Donald. But I heard the makers of this film saying, "No, this isn't a political movie, it's just a character study." WTF??? They are either incredibly effing stupid (which I think they are) or completely dishonest (which I think they are), because the subject matter is DE-FACTO political. Saying it isn't IS EXACTLY THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEM with a nation that sticks its head in the sand before, during, and after we, time and time again, send people to commit acts of state sponsored mass-murder. Instead we end up deifying people like Kyle, people we shouldn't (there are much more deserving and representative soldiers), and we treat the entire military as somehow above us, treat our own need to be political and active and harshly critical as, oh well, they know better than we do, we're just stupid civvies, shut up. You and I both know that to loudly criticize the military in public, say, in a vigorous debate in a coffee shop with another free American, something that is really the only thing freedom means, comes with a measure of fear. To speak passionately against the military party line in this country is to risk getting punched -- hence you almost NEVER hear Americans talk politics/war in public. We are afraid to speak up, afraid to criticize. I played poker with a marine last year who spent then entire night bemoaning the "elected yahoos" that are in charge, dreaming of a day when the military could control itself. He had no understanding of what civilian control of the military is or why it exists. He frightened me. Literally. This story is part of the problem, IMO. Who on earth lacks the imagination to understand that state-sponsored mass murder destroys people? Who needs to see a movie in this day and age? Who? A nation of people like ours, which treats the military and war as something above or beyond politics or not worthy of our reasoned and loud debate/disdain.

    And sorry, Clint Eastwood just doesn't possess the commerical-free intellect to make a film on this subject that would be useful beyond manipulative entertainment.

    Better to read General Daniel Bolger's mea culpa from Harper's Sept 2014 issue, HOW WE LOST AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ:

    I am a United States Army general, and I lost the "global war on terror." It's like Alcoholics Anonymous; step one is admitting you have a problem. Well, I have a problem. So do my peers. And thanks to our problem, now all of America has a problem, to wit: two lost campaigns and a war gone awry.

    As for "not for the squeamish," I don't even know what that means when anyone who cares to see what war REALLY is can hit the internet and see it for themselves in endless grotesque video clips. Because of this, war films, unless they are going to go beyond the usual commercial limits, are useless.

    That said, it's not like THE INTERVIEW was any piece of useful satire. Didn't even rise to the level of decent parody. So I do think it odd that Rogan is saying this right now, but, you know, free country and all. Supposedly. Just don't act too free too publicly, or if you do, keep your fists curled.

    Peace out, my man.

    Parent

    See also: James Fallows' piece in Atlantic, (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 05:46:36 PM EST
    Chickenhawk Nation, oops, I mean, The Tragedy of the American Military.

    The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can't win.

    Besides, yellow ribbons are cheap.

    Parent

    For the Record... (none / 0) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 04:43:25 PM EST
    ...the soldier in question, Chris Kyle, stating in interview that he would like to be remembered for all the people he saved.

    Parent
    Dadler, I would respectfully suggest that you ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 05:07:14 PM EST
    ... first see Clint Eastwood's film, before you dismiss it out of hand and rant any further like that. Because from what I saw onscreen, he studiously avoided making any overt political statements about the virtue of the Iraq War.

    In fact, the primary focus of "American Sniper" is a pretty bleak character study of the main character, the late Chris Kyle. As director, Eastwood methodically chronicles the gradual devolution and emotional unraveling of the once gung-ho and high-strung Navy SEAL who, with each successive deployment to Iraq, becomes disabused of his initial impressions that what he was doing over there was somehow honorable.

    In fact, most all the Marines and SEALs with whom Kyle served "in country," along with his own exasperated wife back home, become similarly disillusioned and disenchanted over the entire course of the film, with both the military's ostensible mission in Iraq and the resultant carnage which ensues in their wake.

    Because for Kyle and his comrades in arms, while the war obviously continued to drag on with no apparent purpose and / or direction, they kept getting redeployed over and again into evermore untenable situations. They were trying in vain to remedy a problem they'd long since come to comprehend as both grievously misidentified by their own leadership, and ultimately unresolvable in any readily understandable terms.

    (Eastwood effectively conveys this numbing reality with remarkable simplicity, using simple subtitles saying "Third Deployment" and "Fourth Deployment" as we watch the troops slog through increasingly degraded conditions. Toward the end, the director has them huddling together inside large, high-walled and heavily fortified compounds, expressly designed to protect them from the very people whom they had once believed they were saving, during an earlier and more hopeful / delusional time.)

    In the process, the troops in Iraq were being broken as human beings, and the film's true horror is that they (and their loved ones) fully realized it. By the end of "American Sniper," they recognized that their mission was really no longer about advancing American ideals -- if it ever was that in the first place -- but rather, whether or not they could protect one another and survive their mutual ordeal. And in that regard, "American Sniper" is a tragic tale indeed.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    What's tragic is that Americans have to (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 10:01:30 PM EST
    learn that in a movie, Donald.

    You and a few film critics watched it as a character study, but I'd argue that most of its colossal box office was the result of people who just wanted to see Americans killing "terrorists" after the twin massacres in Paris.  Eastwood got lucky the same way the producers of the 1979 film, China Syndrome, got lucky when Three Mile Island reactor 2 melted its way into America's consciousness.


    Parent

    Definitely a portion of the audience (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 07:21:29 AM EST
    in the showing I went to was there to cheer the killing of the "savages". I suppose I should be glad there were only a few of that type.

    It was a well done film, and Bradley Cooper was excellent. But I found it very sad, knowing how it was going to end for Kyle, and what we put our soldiers through, and the majority of Iraqis through, for no good reason.  Most of them just want to be left alone to live their lives, and it looks like that is never going to happen.

    My main gripe was that it goes right from 9/11 and Kyle joining the military...to Iraq. No mention at all about how we got there and implies it had a direct connection to 9/11. It did make me feel compelled to give my friend my Iraq war diatribe at dinner afterward. She was the one that chose that movie - she asked for it!


    Parent

    It's still an open wound (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 10:35:08 AM EST
    It will take decades of flushing that wound out.  It will heal slowly from the edges in.  We can only heal partially, because spouse still serves.  We can only explore that betrayal up to a point, and then it threatens the authority of the existing President so you have to bookmark it.  When the rest of the military that was there retires, then we can really get into it.  I had better see some films!!!!

    I don't expect Eastwood to take on any sort of cinematic discussion of Iraq though.  As Josh says, he is the guy who held a discussion with and argued with an empty chair at the Repubican convention. And just kept going with it even when nobody else in the audience wanted him to continue :)

    Parent

    Intreresting Take... (none / 0) (#74)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 10:39:30 AM EST
    ...considering your disdain of snipers in many posts here.

    Parent
    I wouldn't call it disdain for snipers (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 10:50:59 AM EST
    It's disdain for sniper glorification.  It is a horrific job.  It was never glorified until recently.  It used to be the battlefield tactic the military never liked to admit to or talk about.  And I suppose that is also damaging in a way, so yeah talk.

    It was only recently though that snipers began emblazoning their vehicle windows with a giant sniper decal.  You don't find that unsettlingly?  Because I do.

    When posting about the sniper school in Syria.  My disdain was only about how scary and dangerous it was being portrayed. I think snipers are dangerous, but all sniper training is not equal, and sniper technology is not equal either.  My disdain the Syrian sniper school was only towards attempting to portray them as efficient and affective and BOO! very very scary indeed.

    A sniper trained by our sniper schools and outfitted in the gear YOU paid for, incredible amounts of treasure, much more deadly and proficient.

    Parent

    No, It Was Straight Up... (none / 0) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 12:02:48 PM EST
    ...disdain of snipers, not glorification, not a school, or a stickers, or sniping; snipers.

    You referred to them as surgical assassins and questioned their humanity, and just a general dislike of the profession.

    LINK

    You have made numerous, of that nature, about snipers, and the only reason I remember is because I always though they were odd comments to make, and always stuck out in my head.

    Not a big deal and it would seem that you have backed off that mem.

    Parent

    Nope, sorry Scott (none / 0) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 03:12:16 PM EST
    I questioned sniper culture....still do, and pondered if it had to do with possessing a lack of humanity.  Pondering is not straight up, nor is my pondering all that original in its nature, outside the military or inside the military.

    Parent
    With decent gun I could be a sniper (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 10:53:27 AM EST
    You could be sniper

    But neither one of us would a SEAL sniper.

    Parent

    Local Maryland legend recounts that ... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 04:36:46 PM EST
    ... the city of Baltimore was saved by two teenaged snipers on September 12, 1814 as a large 5,000-strong British raiding force approached its eastern outskirts. Fresh off the sacking and burning of Washington, D.C., the British had turned their attention toward their real target in the Chesapeake Bay region.

    From a strategic standpoint, Baltimore -- with its premier harbor facilities and valuable naval stores -- was much more important to the British than was Washington. But as British Maj. Gen. Robert Ross personally positioned his forces along the important Philadelphia Road for a forthcoming assault on the American position at North Point, it is said that Pvt. Daniel Wells and Pvt. Henry McComas, members of 1st Rifle Battalion, Maryland Militia -- who were both probably no more than 15 years old -- picked off the commander with two clean shots from a concealed position, knocking him clean off his horse.

    While Wells and McComas were subsequently chased down and killed by British troops, the damage was already done. Gen. Ross's death left the British command on the ground in utter disarray at a key moment, and the sight of his blood-drenched horse galloping along the forward line without its rider demoralized the ranks.

    By the time order was finally restored by the overall commander, Vice Adm. Sir Alexander Cochrane, a whole day had been lost and the American lines had been further strengthened by the arrival of additional local militia and a battalion of U.S. Marines and sailors, who had been deployed from their blockaded vessels in Baltimore Harbor and sent to the front to meet the emergency.

    When the delayed British assault at North Point finally got underway, it was repulsed. Afterward, the confident Americans withdrew a short distance westward to an even more fortified position at Hampstead Hill astride the Philadelphia Road, clearly daring the British to mount another frontal attack. But the late Gen. Ross's newly-appointed successor, Col. Arthur Brooke, refused to rise to the bait, and he wisely kept his forces in check and did not follow.

    After Vice Adm. Cochrane's corresponding day-long naval bombardment of Fort McHenry at Whetstone Point failed to force the entrance to Baltimore Harbor the following evening, he called off the overall attack on the city, and ordered Col. Brooke and the British troops still holding their positions at North Point to withdraw and return to their ships.

    With Baltimore still in American hands, the battle marked a turning point in the War of 1812, which up until then had really not gone well at all for the United States. Had that city fallen in September 1814, British military assaults and depredations would have likely continued all along the eastern seaboard, and Royal Navy records from that period further indicate that both Philadelphia and New York were its next targets.

    It is of considerable note that Boston and Providence were to be studiously avoided by the marauding British forces, as anti-war sentiment throughout New England was at a fever pitch, and London hoped to convince the entire region to secede from the United States with a few more military successes. (In fact, New England merchants continued to trade briskly with both Britain and Canada throughout the war, in open defiance of U.S. law.)

    Therefore, the Battle of Baltimore is also considered one of the seminal military engagements in American history, because the twin British repulses at North Point and Fort McHenry convinced a war-weary London -- completely spent after 20 years of desperate struggle with Napoleonic France -- to accept an offer by the Netherlands to facilitate peace negotiations with the United States in Ghent. The War of 1812 had really been little more than an irritating sideshow to Great Britain, and with Napoleon's return to power in Paris looming on the horizon, they wanted to be done with it.

    The Treaty of Ghent was signed by both sides on Christmas Eve in December 1814. The political status quo which had existed prior to war's outbreak 30 months earlier was restored with the British military withdrawal from recently-occupied Maine and other American territories in the Midwest, the fervent opposition in New England to President James Madison's administration soon dissipated, and the physical integrity of the United States remained intact.

    (The much-celebrated Battle of New Orleans occurred only two weeks later on January 8, 1815, and with communications being what they were in the early 19th century, it was fought with the opposing forces being wholly unaware at the time of the war's actual end. Thus, the Treaty of Ghent rendered Gen. Andrew Jackson's subsequent smashing victory both strategically meaningless and politically irrelevant.)

    Aloha.

    Parent

    And this is what I am often visited with (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 05:02:00 PM EST
    Facts, that snipers can save lives.  They change the fight.  It is a nasty piece of battlefield work.

    Glorifying it though, dangerous IMO.  Existing military sniper culture and its fan clubs, dangerous.  It is a tactic.

    Glorifying sniper schools in Syria when kids are looking for reasons to join, dangerous.

    It is proper to put up the facts.  When you attend this school in Syria you will not be provided with a weapon that is comparable to any existing first world military's sniper weapon.  What has Assad been supplied with?  And Ghillie suits?  Something used in basic sniper school just to get your badge.  Snipers in combat though have the ability to hide their heat signature.  What capabilities does Assad have?  And a Ghillie suit will not hide you from coalition forces, you would be just as detectable naked.

    We have watched two Army Ranger sniper families crumble.  The first we knew of problems before he even did his first deployment.  Why?  Both families suffered horrible family violence, the soldier sniper making awful threats and following through with some.  Why?  Both snipers seemed to be completely out of touch with how to act appropriately or even have realistic expectations.  Both came home bullies, but I can confirm that one was a bully before he even deployed as a sniper.

    I think glorifying snipers leads to malformed soldier personality.

    Parent

    I think we have to remember that ... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 05:12:21 PM EST
    ruffian: "My main gripe was that it goes right from 9/11 and Kyle joining the military...to Iraq. No mention at all about how we got there and implies it had a direct connection to 9/11."

    ... in March 2003, just prior to our invasion of Iraq, a Gallup poll showed that 71% of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein had facilitated the al Qa-eda attacks on 9/11. Thus, in most people's minds at the time, there really was no disconnect. (It still makes me simultaneously sad and angry to think about that.)

    In that regard, it's entirely understandable why "American Sniper" declines to acknowledge what we now know about the Bush administration's cynical public relations campaign to conflate 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Eastwood's film is being told from the contemporaneous standpoint of the soldiers who fought in Iraq and not from our own, one decade ex post facto. And I think he trusts his audience to know that.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Here's what Laura Miller at Salon (none / 0) (#59)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 08:26:03 AM EST
    said about the American Sniper in question:

    Eddie Routh, the veteran who shot Kyle and his friend Chris Littlefield, had reportedly been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his experiences in the war. In the immediate aftermath of Kyle and Littlefield's murders, many people expressed incredulity at the notion of taking a person troubled with PTSD to a firing range. One-time presidential candidate Ron Paul provoked a firestorm of criticism by questioning this choice and tweeting, "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." (Word of advice: Twitter, like video games, is not an appropriate forum for complex argument.) In fact, controlled exposure to triggering stimuli is an established treatment for PTSD. It works much like phobia therapies that have patients, under a therapist's guidance, first imagine and then gradually encounter the objects of their fears. Over time, the triggers can be desensitized.

    But Routh also appears to have had other underlying mental health and substance abuse issues. He'd been hospitalized multiple times for threatening to kill both himself and family members. He may have had problems that pre-existed his service or that were exacerbated by it. Furthermore, there's no indication that Routh was receiving any kind of psychotherapy or that Kyle and Littlefield had run the firing range idea past a therapist who was familiar with his case. Why should they? What would some egghead, like the brass and the politicians, who had never been in the sh*t, know about it, anyway, compared to someone like Kyle who had actually been there? Routh was not just an American, but an American soldier, a person who was by definition incapable of doing anything evil.

    As for Clint Eastwood, after his "performance" at the Republican Convention in 2012, I don't want to support any production he is involved in,  as he has all the political judgement of a raccoon that has gotten into a liquor cabinet and emptied a couple of half-filled bottles therein.

    Parent

    Love the art not the artist (none / 0) (#104)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 02:48:38 PM EST
    Keep in mind Eastwood caught a lot of flack for making a WWII movie completely from the Japanese soldiers perspective in "letters from Iwo Jima".

    Eastwood doesn't make war movies.  He makes soldier movies.

    The films are about how war effects the soldiers and the bond that they develop during wartime.   His point with letters was to show that war is not just a fight between nations but a fight between individual men who care more about each other then they do about the mission.

    I would hope an empty chair speech wouldn't keep you from enjoying good art when you see it

    Parent

    I agree with Slado. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 04:52:34 PM EST
    I certainly don't agree with Mr. Eastwood's politics, and I thought his "empty chair" moment at the 2012 GOP convention was both silly and embarrassing for not only him, but also his entire party. But I refuse to let any of that preempt my ability to appreciate his work and artistry as one of our country's most celebrated film directors.

    Parent
    I have not seen either film yet (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 09:16:20 AM EST
    Last year was just delightfully too busy.  But many are saying American Sniper fully displays the public's disconnect from soldier reality.  For that reason I will assume until I see it that it serves an important purpose.

    One of the things most startling to me is how people react when they find out my spouse still doesn't sleep.  If he is in a bad sleepless cycle I find somewhere else is to sleep because my movements in the night wake him up.

    Everyone always acts so shocked.  And I'm to the point now I'm beginning to get angry because the public just doesn't get it.  None of them sleep anymore.  Anybody who has deployed, they don't sleep, not in what the rest of us would classify normal. That's gone forever. They tried to survive in a war zone for sometimes over a year per deployment.  There was no rear to decompress in.  Unless you are fighting a conventional war, there isn't one.  These people will never sleep again normally.  Every household on post other than the newest ones is dealing with this reality. That's just one of the fees war requires, particularly one where evidence later proved you had no business whatsoever being there. So many things civilians don't know or understand about how war changes everyone.

    Everyone thought if the Repubs were wrong about Iraq we could just roll that all back.  Holy crap!  What do you mean we can't do that?


    Parent

    I wonder... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 11:10:36 AM EST
    ...if the enemy soldiers suffer these kinds of issues ?  Are there wives in Iraq an Afghanistan saying the same things behind closed doors about their men ?

    I only ask because we are a fairly progressive country where things like this are discussed, whereas in a closed societies they are probably forced to deal with alone. Surely they get less time to come home and decompress and there are probably no resources for mental health.

    Parent

    I think when the war (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by CST on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 11:12:01 AM EST
    is happening at home - the wives probably have ptsd as well.

    What do you do when your whole country has ptsd?

    Parent

    I would think they have to (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 11:22:54 AM EST
    We are all only human beings.  If you have a close relationship you have to acknowledge the changes.  They are there.

    Your children have issues too.  Because a parent runs off to battle either the child becomes enmeshed and becomes a little soldier, or they violently hate the parent for being stupid with their life, or they apply lots and lots of distance because this parent may end up abandoning you.  Either way if your child is old enough to fully comprehend, it is a moment that becomes frozen in time, and may thaw in a few years or never.

    Parent

    Since they are human beings (none / 0) (#135)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 05:35:03 AM EST
    I'd say they have the exact same base emotions.

    However one could propose that their culture and the different dynamic between men and women would make it much harder for them express outwardly.

    Parent

    I Would Think... (none / 0) (#140)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:12:34 PM EST
    ...that the heavy casualties and being on their soil would make it worse, you never here about a foreign soldier having a meltdown and shooting people because of PSD.

    Same with history and all the cultures that were more or less in perpetual war that was surely more face to face with horrific and far more casualties with people everywhere getting basically no medical care or even drugs to help the pain.

    I just wonder if our relative cushy life in the US doesn't make war that much harder on the soldiers, whereas people who have little, whose live we would consider very hard, are better equipped to deal with war in that they never decompress, that unimaginable stress is just a part of their normal lives, like living under Saddam for example, always on edge, always in fear.

    Parent

    I think the lack of connection (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:03:04 AM EST
    Makes PTSD worse..  We have a lot of evidence indicating that.  A person experiencing trauma in an unfamiliar setting has fewer neurons connected to it to resolve the event.  When a trauma occurs most of our brains encapsulate it at first so it can be resolved slowly and reduce stress, it's a survival mechanism. When everything surrounding the trauma was unfamiliar there are too few pathways into the encapsulation, so instead of finding resolution in someone's mind it stays encapsulated and plays over and over again.  

    Other things we have noticed, particularly with the National Guard that was sent into combat the past 10+ yrs, is that tossing someone into uniform quickly, then combat, then home out of the uniform, makes their PTSD worse.  For soldiers that transition more slowly, remaining in environments that are soldier familiar while they process traumatic events, less severe and lifelong PTSD.  Keeping traumatized soldiers in uniform with other soldiers and not in combat helps them heal, kicking them to the curb damages the healing process.

    One of our friends who suffered horrible PTSD was one of the first soldiers I know of to go through the slow transition.  Even then it was very bumpy, particularly when he finally took his uniform off.  He said it was an enormous relief, but big emotions came with it too at first.  

    Parent

    Tracy, I have a question for you. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 06:53:51 PM EST
    Well, actually, it's a question for your husband, and, I'll get to that in a minute. But, first.....

    I've always been pretty hands off when it comes to talking about our soldiers "over there" and some of the accusations regarding their, alleged, war crimes, or some other reported atrocities. Maybe some are true, maybe not, but what I know is that none of us here are in any position to honestly debate their situation. No one should misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying we should just forgive, and, forget. I'm saying "we" aren't the ones equipped to be making these types of judgments.

    What I'm getting at is, as you well know, is that most veterans who have experienced life and/or death battlefield situations, simply, don't talk about them much. And, again, I know you know why that's so. No one who hasn't been there can, possibly, understand it. Now I don't want to get into all the psychology of this stuff, suffice to say it's just the way it is. It's probably also the reason many people who've seen UFO's don't talk about them either. The feeling being, if you weren't right there, experiencing the thing with you, no one would/could believe or, understand it.

    Anyway, here's the thing, and, here's why I'm talking about it vis-à-vis the Eastwood movie. Maybe there are battle veterans out there who would disagree with me on this, but, no one that I know, none of my buddies, none of my Viet Nam brothers, no one ever talks/talked about killing the enemy in the manner the hero of this movie does. A caveat: I didn't see the movie, just going by what I read. So, O.K. Yes, sometimes when we get together we talk about some experiences a little bit, and, we probably also embellish our stories a little bit (after a few brews, usually.) But no one, ever, talks about killing another soldier in the way this Kyle character does.

    No one brags about it, no one, even, admits to it. The closest someone might say about it is something like, "so, I lines up "emmie" (M-16,) takes a deep breath, and, pow! Not sure to this day if I hit'm, or not, but, I never seen'm again that's for sure."

    So, now, finally, the question for your husband; is his experience today the same, or, similar, to mine from way back then? Do guys who, actually, do the shooting talk about killing the (insert whatever slur you want?) Again, maybe it's just me, and, my circle of friends, but I don't think it is. I sure as crap wouldn't ever claim such a thing, even if I was sure I had. It's just something no one wants to be known for, even among ourselves, our life-long band of brothers. Let me know what you, and/or husband think about this, o.k?


    Parent

    They really only talk about things when they (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 03:47:28 PM EST
    Are together.  They don't need to have served together, just been there.  I have never heard anyone brag or talk about successful killing.  I have heard discussions about things you can't control, miscalculating something, being in a difficult situation where you have to make the call like having someone firing at you but a woman with a child behind them.  The ROE would allow you to fire back but you choose not to because someone innocent could have been hurt, then they second guess themselves, what if their decision later on ended in a fellow soldier's death?

    One of the snipers I spoke of, he posted photos he took while in position in combat of the area that didn't know he was there. Kind of a documentation of his menacing.  And he posted them on Facebook. He is no longer serving.

    Even a few soldiers that have to control their crude expression, I have never heard that type of brag.  Even from those who are avid hunters whatever the season, I have not personally heard bragging from them about killing anyone in combat.  If they can adjust/transition to being home, a door between here and there sort of closes.  But I guess the act of sleeping opens the door.

    My husband experienced one of those near death experiences, phoned me that day and seemed "normal".  I went to a family meeting though and everyone else knew.  They all wanted to know what I thought and I didn't even know what they were talking about.  When I asked my husband he chuckled and said they were making a lot out of nothing.  It wasn't until he got home that I discovered even part of what had happened.  I was stunned, but he said he will not have a close call and then tell his family at home.  That would only drive them crazy.  

    I did not hear the full story for seven years though, he was relaxing with another Vet, a couple of beers.  They share crazy mortar stories about what was taken out in different locations that they were living at (how can others relate, being mortared is not normal but it had to become a normal for them).  The Vet he was relaxing with was an electrician.  The last time he held a weapon was bootcamp, but he has been diagnosed with PTSD because of the places he was bringing electricity to and had to survive in.

    I wish the VA would get serious about creating new Veterans groups all over the country.  They need the shared intimacy.  I grew up in a community that had a VA hospital.  There were Veterans meetings locally every night.  It feels like DC wants to have some control over that sharing and the healing intimacy. A lot of really horrible war stories come out in those Vietnam groups though. I think there is some fear at the Pentagon that the military will have to survive public scrutiny and they will suffer a Vietnam II PR problem.  Things were different those early years in Iraq.  It was an awful mess, leadership was all over the place, Iraqis were pounded by the BushCo fist (they really thought they would gain something doing that to other human beings) rules of engagement were allowing inhumane things to happen.  The Pentagon IMO is afraid of those truths coming out and soldier faces attached to them.  At least that is what I think.

    Parent

    I realize I'm not Tracy (none / 0) (#123)
    by CST on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 07:17:52 PM EST
    But the closest I've heard to that is:

    "They taught me how to kill and I was good at it".

    It wasn't bragging though.  More like wtf am I supposed to do now.

    Parent

    Rare, and thanks (none / 0) (#126)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 09:14:39 PM EST
    I'm trying to find out why my experience is what it is. I think most people are a little edgy about being around someone who has killed another human. Just my guess, though.

    Parent
    In this context (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by CST on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 09:54:24 PM EST
    I think the intent was honesty and letting me know that there is serious baggage, and also perhaps to determine my level of edginess with said baggage.  I think he wanted to see how I handled hearing it as well.  So you aren't far off.  It certainly wasn't a casual conversation.

    Full disclosure - I've been attempting to date an ex-marine since May with mixed results.  I guess you could even say we are dating now but it's not simple or easy.  And part of the reason I'm even mentioning it here is because its not easy and I don't really have anyone in my life I can talk to about it.

    Parent

    CST, I have never been in (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:02:20 AM EST
    your situation, but I felt that your comment about mentioning your on/off relationship here because you don't have anyone in your life you can discuss it with, well, I thought that needed a response.

    I have said things here, personal things, that I did not feel I could say to anyone in my non-TL life. People here can be very supportive and helpful and caring. Yes, commenters disagree and argue and get a bit testy, but all that is set aside when when someone brings up personal things.

    I don't know how much you want to say here. How ever much that is I think you will find people to be caring and sympathetic.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#139)
    by CST on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 09:51:08 AM EST
    I don't really know what I want to say here either, I'm kind of surprised I mentioned it at all, but I know it can be a good outlet and there are certainly more people here with that kind of experience than anywhere else in my life.

    Parent
    anytime, cst (none / 0) (#142)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 03:26:03 PM EST
    and if you don't want to talk publicly, my address is in user info

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 09:15:21 PM EST
    My husband says he has only heard snipers and fighter pilots brag about killing others.  He had a lot to say about it.  Their career success is based on tracking their kills, even though fighter pilots arent tested much anymore.

    He has empathy for snipers but had a lot to say about how destructive he thinks a long career in it is.  He said you don't have the relationship with the enemy that other soldiers have.  Snipers most often kill people before they become a direct threat.  They have a different mission than other soldiers too.  Instead of a mission to take or hold or protect a position or real estate, they get the mission that reads "kill people".  He said no matter how you slice it, killing people is not natural to anyone (he forgets Ted Bundy), so being a sniper for a stretch can only be damaging to the sniper in his opinion.  The more self actualized you are, the more damage you are doing to yourself in his opinion.

    But he also touched again on snipers do save lives.  He says though he has heard snipers brag about their kills during this snapshot in our military history.

    Parent

    Thanks Tracy, (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 03:31:48 PM EST
    There's an article in The New Yorker that I think everyone should read.

    LINK

    The most important thing I got out of all this is how badly post theatre medical/psychological treatment is needed. And, I'm ashamed to say, how badly we provide that.

    Parent

    They are so far behind. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 09:05:53 PM EST
    Haven't read your link yet.  The Veteran electrician who is a very good friend, his daughter just received her bachelors in biology.  She is in the process of contracting with the military, they will pay for 4 more years of school and I she is shooting for one of the psychology degrees.  She will enter service as an officer and probably go right into the system attempting to help people who have suffered as her dad has.  They are making a lot of these deals, but it takes a long time before this investment pans out and they are so far behind.

    Parent
    That's just tragic all the way around (none / 0) (#152)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:13:03 PM EST
    And poor Routh, but poor Chris too making up stories they he shoots bad guys and when the police run your name there's just a hero number to call.  Making up stories about killing Katrina looters (which for a soldier is a violation of the Geneva Conventions).  The entire story is a box of nightmares.

    Parent
    Most tragic is this country dresses one (none / 0) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:17:17 PM EST
    Man the hero and not suffering, not delusional at times, but the other is the villain.  That fan club stuff, are we living the movie Idiocracy?

    Parent
    "Selma" (none / 0) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 03:49:52 PM EST
    is an excellent movie. The performances, direction and screenplay coalesce to tell one of the most dramatic stories in our country's history.  It has been nominated for Best Picture and Best Original Song.  But, the Academy of Motion Pictures has been criticized for overlooking the director, Ava DuVernay, and the other actors.

    While, of course, unaware of the thinking of the Academy, from my perspective,  "Selma" was an ensemble film--it took the magic of movie-making components to make it work as it did.

    Moreover, in biopics, I find acting conflated with impersonation, and, hence, good acting equates with good impersonation.  For example, in Oliver Stone's film "Nixon," Anthony Hopkins (Richard Nixon) and Joan Allen (Pat Nixon) were excellent actors (although both were nominated for best actor and best supporting actor, respectively), but it was hard not to consider the acting as being impersonations, with measurements of how accurate.

    David Oyelowo (MLK, Jr) and Tom Wilkinson (LBJ) presented parallels in Selma and their individual performances were encapsulated into the whole.  

     As for the criticism of  inaccuracy in the treatment of LBJ, any artistic license presumed by the director did not take the record beyond the complexities of historical truth.    Indeed, it is clear from the film that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have gone through Congress without a partnership of ideas and harmony of purpose between MLK, Jr and LbJ--and among good Americans of all stripes.  

    After so many decades, this is the first movie about Martin Luther King, Jr.  And, for young people, perhaps the only exposure as a theater-goer.   It is important, therefore, that the film makers got it right--or mostly so.   I think they did, at least mostly so.  Perhaps, some will be able to learn more from an even more powerful (and free) film  that is shown every hour at the MLK, Jr. National Park Service Site at Atlanta.

    Parent

    The best video footage for learning about the (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 08:01:24 PM EST
    Civil rights movement is "Eyes on the Prize," which I really hope young people are introduced to by parents or schools. Have not seen "Selma" though.

    Parent
    I was surprised at how much at least several (none / 0) (#36)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 05:22:05 PM EST
    of the African American actors resembled the historical personages they were portraying -- I recognized "Andrew Young" immediately, before the character was identified, for example -- while the white actors did not at all.  Wilkinson looks nothing like LBJ, and to my ear didn't even try for the voice or put on the Texas drawl; nor did the actor playing George Wallace try to look or sound like Wallace.  

    Parent
    The actor who plays George Wallace ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 06:15:14 PM EST
    ... in "Selma" is the versatile English thespian Tim Roth, whom people will most likely recognize as either "Pumpkin," one of the two hapless stickup artists (alongside Amanda Plummer's "Honey Bunny") robbing a coffee shop in the opening / closing scenes of "Pulp Fiction," or as Archibald Cunningham, the malevolent English dandy in "Rob Roy," a role for which he received an Oscar nomination as supporting actor.

    Parent
    Yes, that was my (none / 0) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 09:30:42 AM EST
    observation, as well.   As a movie-goer, I find myself evaluating performers of biopics in relationship to my recollections or impressions--uncanny in similarity or mannerisms to that of a "free-lanced" interpretation.  Sometimes the "uncanny" is equated with good acting, sometimes "interpretation."  Probably, unfairly so, to the acting and actors.  But, in good historical movie making (such as 'Selma',) it needs to be formulated and viewed as an ensemble piece.    

    Parent
    I don't understand why everyone is up in arms (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 10:19:31 AM EST
    Over the tweet.  Without seeing the film I'm going to assume he is implying how gritty and dirty and completely on board I was during the 3rd act of Inglorious Basterds.

    Sometimes I like to think I am incapable of certain depths of emotion or understanding, and then Quentin Tarantino exposes me.  I don't even like the guy.  Sometimes I think I watch his movies waiting for that brilliant moment when he will instead be exposed as just some fortunate idiot.  But I skipped that Grindhouse stuff, no thanks.  Then he bounced back like the fortunate idiot that he must be.

    Parent

    Go Pats! (none / 0) (#2)
    by CST on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    I missed the second half of the game last night because I was flying home from New Mexico but it appears all I missed was the Colts getting their butts handed to them.

    What a spectacular run for a sports team.  It wasn't that long ago that all the sports writers were saying at the beginning of this season that Brady was done.  HAH

    I was just thinking last night (none / 0) (#3)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 12:54:43 PM EST
    it seems like Brady has been there forever. Aka, who in the heck was your QB before him? You would think as someone who cheered (or tried too!) for the Jets for 17 years I would remember a QB besides Brady :P

    Parent
    New England owes... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 01:13:09 PM EST
    it all to a gentleman named Mo Lewis, former pro Bowl outside linebacker for the Jets, # 57.  

    It was Week 2 of the 2001 season when a crushing hit on Drew Bledsoe by Mr. Lewis sent the Pats QB to the injured list, opening the door for an unheralded 6th Round pick out of the University of Michigan to take the helm of the Patriots...and the rest is history.  

    Tommy Boy better ask Lewis to give his Canton speech, that's all I got to say about that.

    Parent

    Drew Bledsoe (none / 0) (#4)
    by CST on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    He got injured, TB stepped up, and we never looked back.

    In fact, Tom won his first superbowl with Drew as the backup QB - which was huge because he actually got injured in one of the playoff games (AFC championship I think) and Drew won that game.

    The pats actually made it all the way to the big game once with Bledsoe as QB - lost to Brett Favre and the Packers.

    Parent

    Oy, I don't know how I could (none / 0) (#5)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 01:07:51 PM EST
    have forgotten Bledsoe! Thanks! {head desk}

    SB should be a decent game.

    Parent

    haha no worries (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 01:19:44 PM EST
    Don't ask me who the QB was before Drew...

    I'm excited. I truly feel spoiled these past few years as a Boston sports fan, but the big game never gets old.

    I may also be one of the only people in the city who hopes we get the Olympics too, but it's a great sports city so I think it could be an awesome capstone.

    Parent

    It's good to live in cities with good teams! (none / 0) (#13)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 02:45:11 PM EST
    I'm a SF/NY gal, so I'd have a prob in a city without winning teams/strong sports :P

    Parent
    Then you have no worries. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 03:18:28 PM EST
    The San Francisco Giants just won their third World Series in five years, and the Golden State Warriors presently have the best record in the NBA.

    And speaking of the Patriots, let's hope that these allegations aren't true. I don't think they are, but the mere fact that the NFL feels compelled to look into them makes me nervous.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Does each team get to use (none / 0) (#106)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 02:53:51 PM EST
    their own balls?

    If not, the deflated balls sure didn't help the passing-game-oriented Colts..

    Parent

    From ESPN: (none / 0) (#107)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 03:01:16 PM EST
    Former NFL official Jim Daopoulos, in an interview with ESPN on Monday morning, explained the process in which footballs are managed. Two hours and 15 minutes before each game, officials inspect 12 footballs from each team and put a mark on them to indicate they meet the proper requirements and are good for usage. Then those footballs are given to the ball attendant.

    There also is a second set of six footballs, used specifically for the kicking game, that are marked appropriately and remain in the possession of officials at all times.

    "Officials check balls as they go into the game, and if the ball doesn't feel perfect, they can throw it out," Daopoulos said. "There is always the possibility that balls can lose air due to the conditions."

    A team can be fined if it is found to be knowingly altering the weight of the football.

    Link


    Parent

    Well Kerry Was in the Kraft Luxury Box... (none / 0) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 02:54:36 PM EST
    ...presumably to discuss Boston and the Olympics.  LINK

    Speaking of, the other open thread closed, but Kerry was running around France using JT's song "You Got a Friend", and I though maybe he should be using the other JT song "I'm bringing sexy back".  That JT being Justin Timberlake and the song is actually SexyBack.  

    I would have been a little less creepy.

    Parent

    I have decidedly mixed opinions about that (none / 0) (#16)
    by CST on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 03:06:07 PM EST
    1 - Kerry is a tool - never did like him much.

    2 - Politicians should be able to have lives, no one should be that surprised when a rich dude hangs out with another rich dude and has better seats.  Everyone else from MA was watching the game too.

    3 - France... Oy.  I'm with BTD.  Je suis Voltaire.  France is not down with freedom of speech on this issue, or freedom of religious expression, or many other things - unless it fits the French agenda.  IMO.  And the whole thing with the politicians protesting for something they are attacking left and right just left a bad taste for me.  So the fact that Kerry wasn't there for a hypocritical photo-op is not really on my "things to be pissed about" list.

    Parent

    I Agree... (none / 0) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 03:44:44 PM EST
    ...and only mentioned Kerry because you mentioned the Olympics and that you were the only one trying to get them to Boston, if that is why Kerry was there.

    It's the optics of seeing politicians so chummy with special interests.  Those are not the best seats and the only reason they are there is because they are friendly, which is fine, but at least try they could at least not be blatant about it.  People would freak out if some politician was sitting in the Bank of America or Exxon suite, but no problem in the owners suite.

    I posted the same regarding the French and their problem with illegal antisemitism and legal anti-muslin stands.  But who cares if Kerry didn't March on France.  

    Parent

    yea (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 04:22:09 PM EST
    I guess I'm just used to seeing him up there.  And Boston is such a small city that you know the money all runs in the same circle.  It's not surprising or even controversial anymore.  That's not to say you're wrong, just that that wasn't how I reacted to it.  I didn't assume he was there for the Olympics - I assumed he was there for the game.

    Also - they may not have the best view, but in New England, in January, in that weather - I'd take the box.

    Parent

    The reason (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 04:45:53 PM EST
    this Kerry bit of b.s.

    So the fact that Kerry wasn't there for a hypocritical photo-op is not really on my "things to be pissed about" list.

    is on my sh-t list is because France is one of the few countries actively involving itself in the American-led military effort to defeat ISIS - or ISIL or whateverthefkyouwanttocallit.

    They are paying for it in blood and money.

    The French felt the killings at Charlie Hebdo as we felt 9/11. While nowhere as large in scope, it made them feel vulnerable. So, a little pat on the back from the US would have been a good idea, imo. Instead, the US yawned and went about its business - whatever that is.

    And then, a week later, they send in Mr. Wooden to intone some verbiage that meant nothing to anybody.

    My hope would be that the French, in the personage of their President Hollande, would decide to reverse course - and disengage from Obama's costly - and I think doomed - military response to a regional and civil conflict with lone wolves scattered all over the place.

    Without the illusion of a "coalition", maybe Mr. Obama might be forced to decide that putting the US in a position which I consider to be potentially disastrous is not such a good idea.
    He seemed to think that way too until a few months later when he didn't.

    So, France's disenchantment with Mr. Obama might ultimately be a good thing. We'll see where that goes.

    Whatever you felt about the "photo-op", millions of French people were stunned and disorientation by the attack, and a bit of timely compassion from a world leader and coalition partner - Mr. Obama - would have been kind and soothing to the people of France who have a high regard for the US, but are now reconsidering the validity of their emotional ties.

    Parent

    if you think (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by CST on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 04:52:37 PM EST
    France's involvement in a fight with ISIS/ISIL has anything to do with Obama and not everything to do with France - I really don't know what to say.

    Parent
    I do agree (none / 0) (#45)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 08:13:27 PM EST
    that it has to do with France - but only in the respect that I believe that Hollande, whose popularity is near the bottom of the barrel, figured that by hitching his star to the USA and a military adventure, his fortunes would improve.

    He certainly wouldn't be the first head of state to seek to quiet criticism by engaging in a military adventure.

    It usually works - at least in the short term.

    Parent

    that's not what I meant at all (none / 0) (#68)
    by CST on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 10:19:25 AM EST
    I meant France is involved because they are the ones who are "threatened" by it - more than we are.  They are doing this on their own behalf, not on ours.  Obama could say "hey, I'm leaving them alone" - and France would probably still be involved.

    For example:Link

    "The aircraft carrier will significantly raise France's profile in the operation - which the French parliament voted to continue on Tuesday in a nearly unanimous vote - and Hollande vowed to increase the country's involvement further if needed."

    "France was one of the first countries to join the U.S.-led coalition to fight ISIS in Iraq and arm rebels in Syria, launching its first airstrikes in the middle of September, just weeks after the coalition was formed. The country has Europe's biggest Muslim population and more than a few ISIS sympathizers, according to one poll."

    Emphasis mine.

    Parent

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#75)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 10:41:12 AM EST
    I know.

    You're saying, I believe, that they're doing this because they feel threatened.

    I saying that I believe they're doing this for domestic politics - for a weak government to suddenly appear strong.

    As for the result - they had no incidents for years - decades - and now....

    So now they are threatened.
    As are we.

    Full circle.

    Parent

    you were also implying (none / 0) (#77)
    by CST on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 10:49:09 AM EST
    that they were doing this under pressure from Obama the U.S.

    It is entirely about domestic politics/immigration/anti-Muslim sentiment in France.

    They also had riots back in 2005, and in July 2014 from their own Muslim population.

    Parent

    As far (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 07:56:39 PM EST
    as Obama is concerned, yes. I am saying that it is a symbiotic relationship. Obama gets his "coalition", and Hollande gets to strut around.

    Parent
    I watched the first half of the Pats game, ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 03:02:51 PM EST
    ... saw the direction it was going, and we decided to head over to Kailua and visit some elderly friends we hadn't seen in a while and take them out to dinner.

    As I did so, I initially started to reconsider my decision, given how the Seahawks turned on the afterburners in those final few minutes of yesterday's NFC championship game and blew right by the Packers -- but then again, the Colts aren't the Seahawks.

    It should be an awesome Super Bowl.

    Parent

    This (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 10:11:27 AM EST
    Would not surprise me if true.

    Oh Bill Belechek - more dirty tricks?

    Parent

    I really want to give you a bad rating for that (none / 0) (#70)
    by CST on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 10:26:59 AM EST
    but I'll refrain...

    I'll just say that the Seahawks were actually fined $300,000 for illegal practices and no one cares.

    And this is all based on them taking a ball out of the game - which apparently happens all the time - especially considering the weather was terrible.

    Maybe it got deflated when it bounced off the helmet of the guy attempting to return a kick.

    Parent

    Whatever it is . . . (none / 0) (#109)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 03:51:57 PM EST
    it's fun for twitter humor :) (I mean this in a nice way, it could be any team)

    Parent
    How can you be so naive, CST? (none / 0) (#128)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 11:46:12 PM EST
    You can't possibly believe that the NE Patriots have run up the most enviable record in the NFL these past 15 years because of Bill Belichick's brilliant coaching and Tom Brady's unparalleled skills and leadership, could you?

    Nah, you're way too smart for that. Why, if Belichick hadn't, somehow, figured out a way to bleed out 5lbs. of air in the footballs when the Colts were on offense, and, reflated them for the Pats, there's no doubt in anyone's mind the game would have ended 45 - 7, COLTS!

    And, don't even get me started on how they won all those games the other 14 years. Guys like Brady, Reid, Ridley, Gronkowski, Collins, and, Browner had NOTHING to do with it. Cheating every season, every game, even every quarter was the ONLY reason they keep on winning.

    Jeez, everybody knows that, even me, and I'm a life-long Giants fan, and, I hate the Patriots.

    Open your eyes, and get a life, CST. O.K?  

    Parent

    Well the latest report says... (none / 0) (#129)
    by desertswine on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:00:02 AM EST
    that the Patriot balls were underinflated by 2lbs.  The question is, what are they going to do about it, nothing?

    Parent
    Wouldn't that affect both sides equally? (none / 0) (#131)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:54:41 AM EST


    Parent
    Each Team Get's 12 Balls... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 09:11:43 AM EST
    ...and there are 6 used for kicking.  The 12 are kept by the team ball boy who runs up and down the field, while the 6 are kept by the officials.

    This was uncovered when Indy intercepted the ball and notified the refs that it felt low.  Turns out 11 of the 12 Patriot balls were at least 2 lbs under pressure.

    Why they would cheat against Indy is a complete mystery, planning for the SB, otherwise it doesn't make sense.  But if the D noticed the flat ball, there is no way Brady, the center, and anyone else who touched those balls didn't know they were low.  Not saying they were in on it, just that they knew the were balls soft.

    The refs check the balls and mark them before the game, so someone let the pressure out of 11 balls, and it seems very unlikely, but not impossible, that the ball boy did it all on his own.

    Belichick was fined a half million dollars and the Pats were stripped of a first round draft pick over cheating about 5 years ago.  If he is involved, IMO, they are going to throw the book at him and the Pats.

    Cheating is cheating, regardless, and Belichick is a known cheat, so Pat fans, please stop, it's not unreasonable to assume a known cheater was involved in cheating.  And regardless of the score, this isn't right, and that score is not the score of every game, seems very odd for a team to cheat the one time they got caught, strike that, seems odd for a team to cheat only the two times they were caught.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 07:28:43 AM EST
    Some QB's prefer more air, some less. Aaron Rodgers was talking about this and he days he prefers more air. It's all about grip, hand size, etc.  

    (And of course, they use different balls to kick with them what is used to throw or carry).

    Sorry CST - down rate away.  The fact is you have a coach who likes to push the envelope, which seems unnecessary with the talent on your team.  And since you wanna play the "yeah, but" game, just know, I really don't like Seattle either.

    Parent

    MLK Day... (none / 0) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 01:26:25 PM EST
    ...in this day and age I will never understand why this is not a work sanctioned holiday, but Presidents Day is.

    We are very diversified as we are global, so why the tone deafness on this date.  In Louisiana I kid you not, there holiday schedule swaps Presidents Day for Fat Tuesday.  Canada has several varying holidays, so why not at the very least make this one floating, you get this or President's Day.

    Ditto for veterans Day, we have a lot of Veterans, and we used to get a nice feel good email from the CEO, but nothing for years.

    My only conclusion is timing, this holiday is at year end wrap up as our numbers are released, usually, on the 31st.  And everyone just had a lot of time off, so Presidents Day is simply more practical.  

    No point other than it's just odd, especially considering I work in tax and no one is open for business today.

    I don't have either day (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CST on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 01:34:59 PM EST
    But we have a good amount of vacation time and are expected to use it, the idea being that most holidays are kind of arbitrary and you should be able to decide when you are off.

    I did take advantage of the free parking meters today though.

    Parent

    I do think a lot of it is timing (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 03:51:40 PM EST
    We get some fixed holidays, and 4 floating holidays, but are expected to use the floating ones for the shutdown between Christmas and New Year. We just got back to work on the 5th - the only ones using a a floating holiday or vacation day so soon are parents whose kids ore off.

    We don't get Presidents Day either.

    I wish it were a fixed holiday like Memorial Day...maybe it would have been if it happened to take place in March instead of January.

    Parent

    I work in the defense industry (none / 0) (#92)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 01:15:22 PM EST
    and the government is our only customer, yet we work on MLK Day, President's day and yes, Veteran's Day. This at a company where a very large percentage of the workforce are veterans (yes, even me).

    You are correct about N'awlins. I lived there many moons ago. Fat Tuesday is a paid holiday for just about everybody but bartenders and cops.

    Parent

    Packers (none / 0) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 02:45:02 PM EST
    Man what a game, my boys got beat by a team that is better than them, but a game the Pack should have beat.  Disappointing, but the best team won an the Pack had a fantastic season and went out fighting.  And most importantly, the game was decide by the play on the field and not some controversial call by the refs.  It was football at it's finest, and I am predicting, a better game then the SB will be.

    Got my confirmation, and I am going to the SB, it would have been nice to have a team to cheer for, as the Pat or the Hawks while good teams, not teams I am particularly fond of.  But owners manage to do it every year, so maybe I can just enjoy the the game.  If there is a silver lining, the VIP passes we have before the game are for some sort of player pregame party, now there is a possibility I could run into thr Pack.  I used to date a girl form GB, and it was not odd to see Favre and his crew out. I will be sporting my jersey and a Sharpie.  Not much, but something, so if you see a tall white dude wearing a Nitschke jersey next to a short Asian dude wearing JJ Watt Jersey, you know who it is.  The idiots from Houston.

    And Slado, last week I was not challenging your football skills, I was simply pointing out that if/then statements aren't much of analysis, and something that ESPN has made into an art form.  If Rogers is mobile... blah, blah, blah.  You mean if one of the best QB in the league doesn't have one of his main weapons, they will lose, really.  It's like saying if the Seahawks play better, they will win.  ESPN has formalized a way to to stay non-committal, yet sound like they are actually analyzing the game.

    I didn't provide an analysis as I will never publicly admit, before a game, that someone is better than the Pack, and I am certainly not going to break it down.  Not one of the analysis mentioned anywhere, discussed 7 turnovers, onside kicks, red zone failures at the 1 yard line, 2 point attempts, or any other the other craziness of the game.  It's all jibber jabber and in my mind, the only way the Pack was going to pull it off is if Seattle gave it to them, and they did, but the defense kept them in the game and for 2 mins Seattle played like the best team in the NFL.

    I just felt lucky they beat Dallas, and even though the catch was called correctly, that rule stinks as any fan know that was a catch.  I felt like the Pack had momentum and would have marched down the field, but who knows.

    I had money on Seattle, and still... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 03:54:53 PM EST
    ...I found myself rooting for Rodgers and the Pack. Then, when Seattle pulls out the miracle, or when Bostick fails to pull down the ball on that onside kick, same thing, all that went through my head was...the point spread was 8! Bah!!!

    Parent
    Well first of all if you had just said (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 04:13:21 PM EST
    You were a Pack homer up front I wouldn't have even argued with you.  Enough said.  

    However you must admit a little healthier Rogers (you could literally see him gimping on a run for a late first down) could have helped him on several occasions.  Also I didn't realize how much practice time he'd missed.  You could tell on some throws and timing and a couple more plays made in the passing game means possibly more points and a W.

    But all of that is meaningless sports chatter now because you should have won the game.  The better team did not win yesterday.  98 tmes out of 100 the Pack is going to the super bowl.

    Pack should have won

    On most days Seattle might be better but yesterday they were totally outplayed by Green Bay until 5:05 left in the game and then a series of events only possible in sports began.  

    I'm impressed you've come to accept this historic turn of events so well because the Pack fans I know cannot believe they blew that game.

    Parent

    I am From Wisconsin... (none / 0) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 05:05:13 PM EST
    ...and I though that was common knowledge here.

    If you can't beat a team with 5 turnovers, they are better than you, healthy QB or not.  He and Wilson were off for most of the game.  One or two plays does not a game make.  

    I haven't even looked at total yards for each QB, but I bet it's a record.

    It was a team loss, no given play lost the game, it was at least 5 critical plays that the Pack just could not stop Seattle.

    Parent

    There is apparently a saying (none / 0) (#38)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 05:39:20 PM EST
    among chess players, which Mr. Zorba often cites, that says "the man who wins is generally the one who makes the second to the last mistake."
    I think that this may well be true in the case of this game, too.

    Parent
    The final numbers tell the story. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 07:50:58 PM EST
    I think most people are surprised to learn that Seattle actually outgained Green Bay in total offense yesterday, 397-306. Aaron Rodgers was 19-34 in passing for 178 yards and 1 TD and 2 INTs, while Russell Wilson was 15-29 for 209 yards and 1 TD with 5 INTs.

    Arguably, Seahawk RB Marshawn Lynch may have been the X-factor for Seattle yesterday, with 157 yards on 25 carries and 1 TD, while Packer RB Eddie Lacey finished with 73 yards on 21 carries.

    Of course, it should be noted that over two-thirds of that Seahawk yardage was piled up late in the game, when the Packer defense was gassed.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The wonderful thing about hindsight ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 19, 2015 at 07:33:39 PM EST
    ... is that it's always 20/20. From my perspective, as well as Green Bay played in the first half in thoroughly dominating Seattle, both the Packers' coaching staff and players somehow changed their mindset (likely unconsciously) sometime during the second quarter.

    They set aside that instinct for the jugular, which had served them so very well during the first quarter in particular, and instead started playing not to lose, with the sort of self-consciousness which is always dangerous against a superbly talented team like Seattle.

    As the game progressed, the Packers gradually lost their nerve and proceeded to hang on for dear life, while for their part, the Seahawks never lost their composure even as they repeatedly failed to execute throughout much of the game.

    The Packers mounted an admirable effort yesterday, but once the Seahawks finally got their act together late in the game, they rolled right over the Green Bay defense on those final three drives with a rather stunning efficacy of purpose. Was it an "historic collapse," as some journalists (particularly at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) have since claimed? I really don't think so.

    Rather, what probably happened was that the Packers' defense had likely been absorbing as much punishment as they gave during the first 55 minutes, to the point that during the final five minutes of regulation and the subsequent overtime, they simply had nothing left in the gas tank against a big-play Seattle offense that finally peaked at the opportune moment.

    Consider, too, that Green Bay rang up 137 yards in total offense during the first quarter, but only 170 yards during the remaining three periods, and further converted on only 3 of 14 third-down situations. And as the recipient of five turnovers, including three of them inside the Seattle 30-yard line, Green Bay was only able to garner six points total out of all those gifts.

    All told, those numbers probably say as much about the tenacious nature of the Seahawks' defense yesterday, as they do about the tentative and cautious nature of the Packers' coaching staff.

    The Seahawks further had only 60 yards in total offense and one first down during the entire first half in a rather stunning display of offensive ineptitude, and yet they still found a way to win.

    (Absent all those turnovers and the Seahawks' propensity to shoot themselves repeatedly in the foot as they did for most of yesterday's game, and I'd offer that the result might well have resembled yesterday's game in Foxboro, MA. The Seahawks did not bring their A-game to bear until the very end, and it nearly cost them dearly because there were no guarantees that they'd be able to turn it on at will.)

    And for their part, the Packer offense played with such an overabundance of caution during the second half that they inexplicably declined to challenge a very much injured CB Richard Sherman, whose ferocious reputation belied the fact that -- as he admitted afterward -- he probably wouldn't have been able to raise his left arm effectively to defend against a receiver running a straight post pattern downfield.

    Sherman's presence in the Seattle secondary during the entire 4th quarter was pure bluff, and Green Bay QB Aaron Rodgers, Coach Mike McCarthy and his entire staff failed to call his number, to their likely detriment.

    As it stands, though, the Packers still had a lot of good things that happened yesterday, which they can use to better prepare them for next season's run. I was very much impressed by how well the offensive line protected Aaron Rodgers in the pocket, and further opened up big gaps for the Green Bay ground game. As I noted last week, that O-line's performance would be one of the keys to any chance the Packers might have enjoyed in pulling the upset, and they certainly did their part.

    If there's one lesson McCarthy and his staff can learn from yesterday's heartbreak, it's that once you decide to open up full-throttle against a great team, and you've further caught them off-guard with your audacity, you then need to maintain that go-for-broke posture and not take your foot off the accelerator, until such time as you've foreclosed completely upon your opponent's chances of mounting any sort of comeback. That didn't happen, and it cost them the game.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Good points all Donald but (none / 0) (#50)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 05:44:29 AM EST
    Quite simply with 5:05 left in the 4th Qtr Russell Wilson and the Seahawks trailed 19-7 and he threw his 4th INT of the game.

    The game was over.  As I linked mathematically the Packers had a 98% chance of winning.

    Only the incompetence of an entire team working together as one unit of mutual distruction could lead to the final result.   The packers managed to discover that formula and gave the game away to what on that day was the inferior team.

    The horror show of a collapse started when the Green Bay safety who intercepted the ball chose for some unknown reason to go immediately to the ground instead of running for extra yardage and possibly putting the a packers in scoring position.

    Then Mike McCarthy runs three times in a row with Eddy Lacy on the bench and uses Starks instead.   All NFL teams run a 4 minute offense to close out games in this situation.   McCarthy chose to abandon that and just run it.   Not an indefensible call but the start of the collapse.

    Over the next 4 minutes the following occurs...

    GB defense disappears in prevent mode. TD
    Seattle recovers an onside kick
    GB defense again disappears in prevent mode. TD
    Packers allow a Hail Mary conversion that could have easily been knocked down by Dix and now they are down three instead of one
    Packers then show signs of life and drive into FG range with almost a minute left on the clock but McCarthy slows it down and they play fort the tie.
    Packers all of sudden play zero safety on the final play and the DB plays the coverage wrong by not using inside position and the collapse is complete.  TD, ball game the miracle in Seattle is complete.

    I'm sorry but you can't go back now and pretend that this was nothing more then a giant team choke job that cost the Packers a shot at the Super Bowl.

    Sorry Scott.  I feel for ya but this game will be remembered in history as a game the Packers gave away.

    Parent

    Grantland (none / 0) (#51)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 05:57:55 AM EST
    Great sports site by the way.  Highly recommend it.

    Good article on the collapse.

    Parent

    McCarthy's decisions to go for (none / 0) (#52)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 07:02:10 AM EST
    field goals instead of TD's early in the game was a sign that there would be nothing bold or ballsy about the game plan.  You're within 18 inches of scoring 6 points and you don't go for it on 4th down?  Do you have that little confidence in your defense that you don't think it can stop Seattle from going 99 yards?

    And he did that twice.  

    Green Bay scores at least one TD off the turnovers and we're not having this discussion, and Marshawn Lynch has to put his gold-soled shoes away for another year.

    As annoyed as I am by the outcome of that game, I have to hope they have one more win left in them, so I can watch Tom Brady with his head in his hands and Bill Belichick going down in defeat.  

    Or maybe I'll just skip the Super Bowl altogether.

    Parent

    Those didn't help (none / 0) (#53)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 07:19:16 AM EST
    But bottom line is when you're up 12 with 5:05 to go and you have the ball you should win 98% of the time.

    That was the position the Packers were in.

    And some how they blew it.

    Parent

    I don't believe in karma but... (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 09:39:21 AM EST
    The 'Boys beat Detroit on what is arguably the worst missed call in the history of play off games. Then the Packers beat the 'Boys on a very questionable call. Then the Seahawks beat the Packers  with a fake field goal, a recovered on side kick and a hail mary..  

    And look what the AFC has to offer. Denver tries to win on deep throws from an injured Peyton. A game plan so bad that the head coach was fired immediately. Then the Pats are accused of cheating by deflating the balls to help Tom Terrific beat Indianapolis...

    I just can't wait for the Super Bowl. I expect nothing less than a meteor strike wiping out both teams with the game tied and 2 seconds to go...

    Parent

    Not a Questionable Call Jim (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 09:23:25 AM EST
    The rule is questionable, but the call was 100% correct, the only controversy, as it was with Megatron years ago, is the rule.

    Which I dislike myself, but it wasn't at the end of the game and would have put the Cowboys up by 2 with the Packers having momentum.  It did not decide the game.

    So you believe in a magical being in the heavens who can do anything, but choose to allow horrors to happen because of some silly notion about free will, that if people actually exercised, that magical being would send their souls to damnation for an eternity.

    But Karma is where you draw the line.  A concept that is practically Newtonian, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

    Then you go on to describe how if there was karma, this is how it fits the blueprint.  That is fricken halarious.

    Parent

    That no-catch call in the GB-DAL game was good. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 03:23:33 AM EST
    After all, it's in the NFL's rules. But that said, it sure is a lousy rule.

    ;-D

    Parent

    Bryants non-catch (none / 0) (#149)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 01:50:41 PM EST
    was the most magnificent non-catch I've ever seen.

    It was a non-catch that would've been a catch all through the sixties, seventies, eighties, and probably nineties.

    The reason the ball moved was because he went up so high that he had to put one arm out to keep from getting hurt on the turf on landing. Bryant went up in the air like David Thompson when he was back at NC State. As Pele used to say, he rose up like a salmon..

    I was rooting for the Packers, but ya gotta give credit where credit is due. Even if it didn't count.

     

    Parent

    His Decision to Not Go For It... (none / 0) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 10:29:59 AM EST
    ...I believe war rooted in one of the losses were they went for it and didn't get it at the 1.  Whereas a field goal would have in the end, won the game.

    I can't remember the game, but it stuick in my head and I was like kick the points.

    One fo the palys that hasn't been discussed is the last interception.  Burnett went down, has he ran it out there is a good chance the result would have been a FG.  They, like dveryone, was positive they had it wrapped up.  It's what Donald mentioned, they lost their nerve, and at that point, even though they were in the prevent defense, that was the mindset, prevent a comeback, which like the prevent defense, doesn't work as proven Sunday.

    The thing that is really eating at me, I can't turn on the TV, read the news, or come to talk left without being reminded of what the media has dubbed, 'The Collapse'.  Even at work, people saying good game only reminds me of the chain of events on Sunday.  Granted I started it here, but after commenting all year about the greatest team to ever take the field, I felt like it was my obligation to start a thread here.

    But this is my last comment, time to move on, and end with "Good job Green Bay on a great season."  They ended up where they should have as far as strength, Seattle is a better team right now.  Plus they beat the Cowboys in the playoffs, and that was a fricken awesome.

    The bad news, finishing 2nd in the conference means a harder schedule next year and lower draft picks.  Seattle is probably not going to have Lynch and Wilson next year and the Cowboys got some decision to make about Bryant and Murray.  But who knows where everyone will land, same with draft pics, but the Pack are set pretty well, should have the same team for the most part.

    Parent

    Scott, for the life of me, I could not (none / 0) (#85)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 11:27:42 AM EST
    understand why, after intercepting the ball, and with some fairly open space in front of him, Burnett just went to the ground.

    And yeah, I can kind of get why McCarthy decided to go for the sure 3 - twice - but for me it sent a message that the Packers weren't going to take any chances, there were going to play safe.  Which is fine - most of the time - but with a team like the Seahawks, "safe" isn't safe at all.

    Couple of times this year, the Ravens went for it on 4th down, near the goal line, and didn't get in. Leaving aside for the moment the play-calling that went into those failed 4th down plays, Harbaugh's explanation was that if they didn't get in, the other team was going to be starting practically from the end zone, which can be hard to play out of, and have to go 99 yards to score - and he liked his chances of getting the ball back before that happened, and with good field position.

    No guts, no glory, I guess, or "the rewards go to the risk-takers," or something like that.

    On to next year - Ravens will be on their 4th offensive coordinator in 4 years, which doesn't thrill me, but what are you gonna do?  I wish Kubiak well in Denver, but I don't think that's going to be the funfest some people think it will.  I wonder if it has any influence on what Manning decides to do next year.  We'll see.

    I can tell you, though, that the taste of losing the 2011 season AFC championship to the Patriots on a Lee Evans drop and a Billy Cundiff muffed field goal didn't go away until we put Brady on his butt in the 2012 season AFC championship game. Which is where I prefer to see Brady, usually: on his butt.

    Parent

    We had Kubiak... (none / 0) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 12:10:27 PM EST
    ...nice guy, great coordinator, but head coach...

    He is no John Fox, but Elway seems to have a soft spot for Kubiak, and like all these player/coach combinations you never know until they play.

    I am guessing the Packers special team coach is looking for work, same with Bostick, who I read is getting death threats for not blocking on the onside kick.

    Parent

    If Kubiak is responsible (none / 0) (#90)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 01:10:14 PM EST
    for calling the play that ended the Ravens game against NE (2nd down, 5 yards to go for a 1st down, 1:49 on the clock), then I say good riddance.

    Why on earth would go for the end zone with that much time left, it's 2nd down and only 5 yards for the first down? Stupid, stupid, stupid. Ravens can only blame the Ravens for losing that game against NE. Even if they had scored on that play, it was poor clock management. It would have given NE time to tie it back with field goal. Ravens shouldn't have gone for end zone until there 30 seconds or less left on the clock.

    Parent

    Sigh...yeah, the interception that ended (none / 0) (#93)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 01:34:13 PM EST
    the game...

    All things considered, and especially given the terrible secondary, it's hard to believe the Ravens game didn't turn out like the NE/Indy game, in a blowout for NE; it really could have.  

    I'm not always in agreement with the play calling; sometimes it seems like the definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over (running someone up the middle for no gain, and sometimes a loss) and expecting different results - but seriously, given that they only made the post-season on sheer luck, which carried over to the Steelers game, where Le'veon Bell didn't play, they were eventually going to run out of the house money they'd been playing with.

    I'd still have rather it ran out in the Super Bowl than to Tom Fking Brady and one of the most classless head coaches in the league.

    Parent

    A key loss, about which I see nothing (none / 0) (#116)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 05:42:19 PM EST
    said was Clay Mathews being sidelined.  That is when the Seahawks became a different team.  Sigh.  

    Parent
    Hey, Towanda, how (none / 0) (#118)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 05:52:39 PM EST
    are you? It has been a long time since I last saw you around these parts.

    Parent
    Hi, Casey (none / 0) (#141)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 02:30:28 PM EST
    I'm doing fine.  Married off my dotter, dealing with my spouse in retirement, as well as a lot of other changes in life, health, and the like.  How are you?

    Parent
    I'm doing okay. Still in the Land (none / 0) (#144)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 04:30:35 PM EST
    of Lincoln. After my sister died, my god it has been nearly a year now since she died, I stayed here to settle her affairs and to be with my mother.

    My plan is to stay here as long as my mom is alive. Then I will go back home to Portland. I know that staying is the right thing to do, but oh my, I get so homesick for the Pac NW.

    Parent

    Well, quite obviously, ... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 03:16:55 AM EST
    Slado: "Quite simply with 5:05 left in the 4th Qtr Russell Wilson and the Seahawks trailed 19-7 and he threw his 4th INT of the game. The game was over."

    ... it wasn't, because somebody clearly forgot to tell that to the Seahawks.

    "I'm sorry but you can't go back now and pretend that this was nothing more then a giant team choke job that cost the Packers a shot at the Super Bowl."

    So, I'm not quite sure what you're implying with that statement. Are you insinuating that the Packers deliberately tanked? Why on earth would they do that?

    Strange things can sometimes happen in sports, Slado. That's why they actually play the game on the field, and don't simply run a computer-simulated model. That's why Yogi Berra famously quipped, "It ain't over 'til it's over." When you factor in the human elements, and then the gods conspire to have events unfold a certain way, all sorts of weird / unbelievable possibilities can suddenly materialize.

    That's how Chaminade beat No. 1 Virginia in December 1982, in what's still regarded as the greatest upset in NCAA basketball history.

    That's how lightly regarded Buster Douglas, a 42-1 underdog on the Vegas line, literally came out of nowhere to knock out undefeated heavyweight champion / tabloid fodder Mike Tyson in February 1990.

    And that's how the Philadelphia Phillies' ace closer Mitch Williams could blow a seemingly insurmountable five-run lead against the Toronto Blue Jays in the ninth inning of Game 5 in the 1993 World Series -- and then compound his faux pas two days later in Game 6, losing another lead and the Series itself game by giving up a 3-run walk-off HR to the Jays' Joe Carter.

    (I'll also throw in here the Chicago Cubs' historic 9th inning collapse in Game 6 of the 2003 NCLS, when they were but one out away from a date with the New York Yankees in that year's World Series, because that's possibly the most obvious low-hanging fruit of all in this category, and because -- well, that one game pretty sums up the Cubs' legacy as a baseball team.)

    The human element ensures that sometimes, things don't quite unfold according to everyone's preconceived expectations.

    That's why we watch.

    Parent

    Old response but I'd thought I would (none / 0) (#154)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 06:52:19 AM EST
    Anyway since I love talking sports.

    I do not think the Packers tanked on purpose far from it.

    As you reference that loss by the Packers joins a long list of sporting events were the winning team comes back from an impossible position.

    My point to Scott and maybe to you was that the blame or credit for the loss should go entirely to the Packers.   They had the game in hand and only through a series of mistakes and poor coaching was it even possible for Seattle and Wilson to come back.

    However, this brings up one of the oldest debates in sports.   When these amazing comebacks occur do we celebrate and credit the winner for finding a way to win?   Or do we criticize the loser for finding a way to lose?   More often then not most sports fans seem to enjoy and do the later.

    As a father of new sports fans I think it is my responsibility to encourage them to celebrate achievement rather the criticize defeat.

    So after sitting back and thinking on it for a few days I now tend to want to credit the amazing talent and performance of Mr. Wislon.   To find the will and skill he displayed so late in the game when he clearly wasn't in possession of it for the first 55 minutes and lead and inspire his team to victory should go down as one of the greatest plays off performances in the history of the NFL.

    So in conclusion should the a Packers have won, yes.   But because they made plays and decisions that jeopardized their previously stellar performance they opened the door for Mr. Wislon and his fellow Seahawks to play 5 amazing minutes of football to tie the game and then Seattle was simply to good be denied after that.  

    It's why we love sports.  

    Parent

    TV reminder- Jeralyn I know you are busy (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 07:30:57 AM EST
    but the final season of 'Justified' starts tonight!  Garrett Dillahunt is going to be the 'adversary' this season...a stranger that comes in and starts buying up land. Love him, and he and Olyphant together again will be a mini-Deadwood reunion.

    Tonight meaning Tuesday, to be clear (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 07:35:00 AM EST


    Parent
    AMERICAN SNIPER screenplay (none / 0) (#66)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 10:02:13 AM EST
    If you want to read it and not give the studio any money for making it, here it is in PDF, at the top of the list. (link)

    that could well be copyright infringement (none / 0) (#76)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 10:43:33 AM EST
      I know Scribd now says it has a filter in place to screen out infringing works but I highly doubt permission has been granted.

    Parent
    Every screenplay you want to read (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 10:56:15 AM EST
    Is on the internet now. I used to have to go to HOLLYWOOD BOOK AND POSTER on Hollywood Blvd. to buy scrips. And with this subject matter, with my own brother having been eaten up by these wars, phuck it. Peace.

    Parent
    Too funny, I also bought scripts there. (none / 0) (#84)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 11:23:30 AM EST
    Back in the day day.

    Parent
    It's still there (none / 0) (#148)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 12:12:36 PM EST
    I mostly bought TV scripts when I was writing a bunch of spec samples for agents: Simpsons, Seinfeld, Murphy Brown, Coach...

    So funny to remember, bet I still have them somewhere in the boxes.

    I don't go searching for TV scripts, so I don't know if you can find those online as easily. Maybe HB&P is still the place to go for those.

    And on an NFL note: Come Home, My Rams!!!

    Parent

    Some funny type-os in that script. (none / 0) (#88)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 12:17:06 PM EST
    For example:
    FIVE MEN IN BAKLAVAS stand over an AMERICAN HOSTAGE in an orange jumpsuit.


    Parent
    Just so everyone is clear (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 02:49:21 PM EST
    That wasn't my baklava they were wearing.   ;-)

    Parent
    Thanks, Dadler! (none / 0) (#91)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 01:13:34 PM EST
    They also got this midget sniper they
    drop off in a suitcase.

    It gets really weird on page 79.

    Parent

    anyone seen (none / 0) (#89)
    by ragebot on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 12:38:30 PM EST
    The Man In The High Castle and if so what do you guys think of it.

    It was a great novel. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 07:07:05 PM EST
    Some of the preliminary reviews liked it.

     Wildly different from the book but still great.

    First footage from... looks good.

    Parent

    something lighter (none / 0) (#102)
    by CST on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 02:33:26 PM EST
    And a bit of a dig at the patriot "haters" in the thread (yes I know that's pretty much everyone but me).

    Link

    Also this

    I'm with Brady :)

    Don't really care for the NFL (none / 0) (#125)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 08:40:44 PM EST
    but do love the way the Patriots run their team from top to bottom.  


    Parent
    Show of hands (none / 0) (#110)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 04:30:06 PM EST
    State of the Union - National Journal

    Who is going to watch this thing tonight?

    The (Faux) Muslim "No Go Zones" (none / 0) (#121)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 07:05:26 PM EST
    The mayor of Paris has decided to sue Fox News for their reporting, just days after Fox apologized and admitted there was no evidence to support the "No-Go Zone" claims.

    Uh-oh. (none / 0) (#132)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 01:36:44 AM EST
    And here I was only yesterday, discounting this story. But right now, it looks like there may be a bit more to it than some sour grapes in Indy:

    Sports Illustrated | January 20, 2015
    Report: NFL finds 11 Patriots footballs were under-inflated - "The NFL has determined that 11 of the footballs the New England Patriots used in Sunday's AFC Championship Game were under-inflated by 2 pounds each, reports Chris Mortensen of ESPN. The NFL reportedly did not add comment and the Patriots will cooperate with the investigation. The game officials discovered at halftime that footballs used in the first half were under-inflated, testing each ball twice with different gauges, according to Ben Volin of The Boston Globe."

    If these allegations are indeed true, and it's further determined that Patriots staff deliberately did this with clear intent to give their team an unfair advantage in Sunday's AFC championship game against the Indianapolis Colts, then the NFL has some hard decisions ahead of them.

    While it's unlikely that the league would ever go so far as to strip New England of the conference title, perhaps compelling the team to forfeit next year's draft choices or handing Coach Bill Belichick a significant suspension of a year or more would be an appropriate response / remedy.

    Stay tuned.

    Martin Luther King Day Open Thread | 154 comments (154 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment