Recent Feed Comments
Recent Splice Original Comments
Recent Multimedia Comments
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 27, 2016, 09:28PM
    Oh, yeah. How come it's not necessary to "expose" Hillary's close relationship with a Klan biggie? I speak of the conscience of the senate, Robert Byrd. A democrat elected over and over by democrats.
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 27, 2016, 05:44PM
    Chris. The dems have been saying this every election cycle for half a century. Nobody's believed them for decades. But when it's all you've got....
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 27, 2016, 09:57AM
    Baloney. Obama concentrated, as you noted, on Obamacare and the disastrous Dodd-Frank bill. Had he wanted immigration reform, he could've pushed.
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 26, 2016, 06:37PM
    Like the ones I write about pretty much every week here? Sure. Barrowman has just been in my feed lately and my nerd friends are all over him for various "sassy gay friend" bullshit. I'm tired of pointing this shit out and then having everyone go silent because they don't want to admit their fave is problematic.
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 25, 2016, 10:07PM
    Kind of stale when you're outraged about something that happened in 2014. Aren't there any more current outrages?
    Responses to this comment
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 24, 2016, 02:56PM
    Me too. But pickle jars were last decade's news. I takes me five minutes to open artisanal bags of potato chips.
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 24, 2016, 02:51PM
    I love this comment so much.
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 24, 2016, 02:45PM
    Can't wait for tomorrow's exciting installment. 500 words about last week's nearly five minute struggle to open a pickle jar.
    Responses to this comment
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 24, 2016, 02:21PM
    When it's close, things can be done. See the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback wrt ACA. Obama might have been able to do it, if he'd had the brains and wanted to spend the political capital. Remember, a cause not done remains a potent instrument of political rhetoric. You may be tool old to recall the lapel-tearing over the "oil depletion allowance" which could have been ended any time those clowns had a quorum. They finally did and....had to find something else. Most inconvenient. What is "rational"? That's usually the honey spread on the broken glass you're expected to swallow.
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 23, 2016, 10:11AM
    Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count. National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in presidential elections in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate. In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate). And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to candidates. With National Popular Vote, presidential campaigns would poll, organize, visit, and appeal to more than 7 states. One would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80%+ of the country that is currently conceded months in advance by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 23, 2016, 10:10AM
    There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform. To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Instead, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions. The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538. All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority. The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect. http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 22, 2016, 05:05PM
    Couldn't agree more about Clintons doing what is good for Clintons over country first. That said, can't believe you are resorting to the long debunked talking point that Obama had a filibuster proof majority and therefore could have passed immigration reform or anything else with ease. He may have had a simple majority but the republicans/McConnell et. al. made it perfectly clear that they would (and did) filibuster every measure that Democrats proposed, not to mention the fact that with DINOS like Bernie and Lieberman, the Dems never could have a filibuster proof majority (thank god). I'd have far preferred that Obama focused om infrastructure and immigration initially over the disastrous Obamacare but lets not pretend he had much choice considering the lines drawn by both sides long before the real battles began.
    Responses to this comment
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 27, 2016, 09:54PM
    That’s real woke that you were a fan of a team about thirty years with blacks on it, but how many of them were queer people of color, or was that a matter that didn't concern you at the time?
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 27, 2016, 09:25PM
    Childe. Missed the sarc tag again. In my defense, I was a fan of the Pistons when, long ago, they were hot. And they were entirely diverse except for Bill Laimbeer. Question: Why is your opinion supposed to interest me? Second question: If you're running a club which happens, by accident, not to include gays in the repertoire of performers or composers, or blacks, ditto, how much money are you prepared to lose when you get some of the marginalized group up there and their music doesn't interest the paying customers? I know. It's not your club and the guys who do own it should go bankrupt to prove to Childe they're down with the struggle. BTW, I did civil rights work in MS in the Sixties when people who talked like you pissed themselves at the thought of going south of Cincinnati. Ever think of how....funny you look?
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 27, 2016, 07:10PM
    You listen to your Perry Como and sing along to Papa Loves Mambo and think that makes your white ass diverse? What a joke. You're about as woke as a coma.The only diversity panel you'd attend would be at NASCAR on the diversity of Budweiser flavors sold to your fellow rednecks at the race. I doubt you listen to any music by queer people of color or even have one diverse friend, but if you do I’m thinking they’re of the native informant variety. Yes, I’m talking about a rented Negro, my cracker.
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 27, 2016, 05:43PM
    Childe. You forgot the sarc tag. Presuming you're right, I'd be a damned fool to give it up, wouldn't I?
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 27, 2016, 03:56PM
    You're obviously not a woke white person, and really there's no other way to be white. You wear your white supremacy on your sleeve.
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 26, 2016, 09:45PM
    Speaking of receipts, as in "show me the money", it's possible those booking the artists are thinking of the receipts. So you have an alt-rock club, presuming that's a thing, and you book a rapper. How much money does the club make showing the alt-rock audience what a bunch of racists they are for walking out? How much money is the club supposed to lose trying to effect "change"?
    Responses to this comment
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 25, 2016, 11:01AM
    Mary, I just saw Air Supply for the first time this year and have seen them three times since. I don't know why I waited so long. I am now obsessed with seeing them in concert. They put on such a great show. Love them! It is such fun meeting them, too. Graham's laugh is infectious, and Russell is just quite witty. I hope they keep touring.
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 25, 2016, 06:00AM
    Adelstein is a CIA officer.
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 24, 2016, 02:24PM
    You need to be the flavor of the day. Considering all the horrors white people have caused, it'll be a cold day down south before we amass the sinned-against creds of the other groups.
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 23, 2016, 07:59AM
    By changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions. The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538. All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority. The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect. NationalPopularVote
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 23, 2016, 12:45AM
    I know this is crazy late for this post, but I think this article really helped me gain a deeper appreciation of these books. Think of it this way, if you were a guy telling a story of your life, wouldn't you embellish it and say that every woman you ever met threw themselves at you? Severian's depiction of women's reaction to him specifically is entirely unbelievable. Either the writer is a hack, or it is the beauty of the unreliable narrator. Think about your comment about all of the dialogue sounding similar, wouldn't that be how the voice of past events would end up if you were recalling it years later? All the voices in the narrative are supplied by Severian's recollection. Is it lazy writing, or is it genius? You decide. Maybe a different look at the text might elevate your opinion.
  • Go to comment.
    Aug 19, 2016, 09:44AM
    So it's clear you can't stand Hillary, Mr. Harris. Does that mean you're voting for Trump?