Skip to main content

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  That Tom Tomorrow panel is even funnier (5+ / 0-)

    out of context.

    Midday Open Plug--New Ad: “Newsreel”

    The direct link to video
    The morning plug diary about it

    I live under the bridge to the 21st Century.

    by Crashing Vor on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 12:05:03 PM PDT

  •  The anti-vaxxers make me see red. (20+ / 0-)

    We should not be seeing outbreaks of pertussis. This will kill people and cost us millions in unnecessary health care costs. I am old enough to remember polio. My kids received ALL their immunizations on time. When I had the measles (before the MMR vaccination), I had a fever of 105 and saw bugs crawling up the walls. I would not wish that on anyone.

    •  Agreed bjm (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue jersey mom, tb mare

      I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

      by a2nite on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 12:20:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You will see outbreaks regardless of vaccinations (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wa ma

      In San Diego, 85% of whooping cough cases were up to date with their vaccines.  Vaccines don't offer lifetime immunity, and the majority of the adult population has no protection anyways.  This has nothing to do with "anti-vaxxers" who should more accurately be labelled "pro-vaccine-choicers."  I'm not saying "don't vaccinate" I'm saying "do some research and decide for your family."  I'm just fine with you vaccinating yourself and your kids.

      Further, vaccination rates have not varied significantly in decades, and do not correlate with outbreaks of measles.

  •  Presenting Randy, the little guinea pig who could (0+ / 0-)

    And did. Over and over and over again.
    Loved by all. Envied by some.

    "Each and every one, a wirgin!"

  •  In case you didn't know . . . (6+ / 0-)

    chewing tobacco killed Tony Gwynn. The people who market that shit are murderers.

    •  Except that the victims are willing accomplices (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gentle Giant

      No one in this day and age can claim ignorance about the dangers of tobacco.

      •  Not at all . . (0+ / 0-)

        It was aggressively marketed to children, the tobacco companies denied the science for decades, and then claimed that smokeless tobacco was a safe alternative, and it's addictive. Gwynn didn't start yesterday -- he probably started 40 years ago.

        •  I don't know when he started (0+ / 0-)

          But anyone his age - even as a teenager back in the 70s - who believed anything said by the tobacco companies was engaged in wishful thinking.

          And he apparently kept up the habit for most/all of his career, even though warnings started appearing on cans around 1987.

          The tobacco companies are evil, but they're only successful because people make a choice to ignore reality.  Tony Gwynn was a bona fide sports legend, but even legends are human.  

  •  Gwynn died from chewing tobacco (11+ / 0-)

    Or so he believed--he died of cheek cancer, and it makes sense. I wish it was the headline everywhere. It's a nasty, disgusting habit anyway, but worse, it can be deadly.  Your fifties may sound old when you're in your teens or twenties, thinking about chewing tobacco, but it sneaks up on you quickly.

    Is it still common among baseball players? I don't really watch anymore.

    Anyway, RIP Mr. Gwynn. You were a great baseball player, and sounds like a good all-around guy.

    •  it's still prevalent (3+ / 0-)

      -- one of the issues where the union was definitely in the wrong in fighting baseball on this during the last collective bargaining.  it's banned during media functions, but not during games.  My favorite player, Chase Utley, dips, and  i really hope this doesn't happen to him.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 12:17:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believe it's banned in the minor leagues (0+ / 0-)

        which is where most of the major leaguers who chew got their start; hopefully it will merely be a matter of attrition when it comes to getting it out of the major leagues. (Should ask my ex-pro player Twitter buddy if he ever chewed; don't remember offhand when I watched him pitch 30 some-odd years ago.)

        There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

        by Cali Scribe on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 02:53:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Too bad he labored in relative obscurity (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomFromNJ, Chitown Kev

      I never realized his career BA was that high and he played in the NL West with my Giants. He could have been a real superstar if he'd played on a team in a bigger market. What is really unfortunate is that he bought into that "a little pinch between the cheek and the gums" thing. Its really discouraging to see so many young players doing the same thing. MLB needs to take strong action to stamp that shit out of the game.

      Oh my god, it's full of cheese! - 2001 first draft

      by sizzzzlerz on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 01:03:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I remember 1994 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        when he was flirting with .400 -- killing the season sucked, and is probably one of the reasons why the owners and league turned a blind eye to PEDs and "better living through chemistry" because the home run numbers were bringing people back to the parks after swearing off baseball in 1994. I'll give him props for staying with the Padres instead of chasing the bright lights (and big paychecks) up the road in LA or across the country in NYC.

        A bit of irony I learned this morning -- he struck out 3 times in a single game only once. The pitcher? Bob Welch, who passed away last week.

        There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

        by Cali Scribe on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 02:57:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting title of this post (10+ / 0-)

    In this case, the Oxford comma would be a good idea: "letter to George Will, and . . .".

    Great Questions of Western Philosophy: How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

    by Mnemosyne on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 12:11:03 PM PDT

  •  There may just be a missing comma in that title :) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Terrapin, OLinda

    In space, there's always a bigger rock. -- Stephen Hawking

    by here4tehbeer on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 12:11:16 PM PDT

  •  Not sure Marion Barry is doing it right... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, citizenx

    ...but I am not an expert on cocaine.

    Please do not be alarmed. We are about to engage... the nozzle.

    by Terrapin on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 12:12:59 PM PDT

  •  Hahahaha LeBron (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb mare

    that's all I got.

  •  Tony Gwynn was all class (8+ / 0-)

    As a hard core Giants fan the Padres were always a rival but never as hated as the Dodgers.  But Tony Gwynn was different.  If a Giant couldn't win the batting championship it was cool if Tony did.  He had THE best swing in baseball.  Every at bat was a clinic on what to do as a batter.  He was the person most of us wished Barry Bonds could have been.  

    THoughts and prayers to his family.  RIP Tony.

    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

    by ksuwildkat on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 12:17:17 PM PDT

  •  MSN.COM poll on Iraq (5+ / 0-)

    The daily poll question today is "Should the US send military personnel back into action in Iraq?". So far, with over 330,000 people responding, the results are;

    Yes - 9%
    No - 68%
    I support limited and temporary action; 21%
    No opinion - 2%

    I have to mention that I view these MSN daily polls quite a lot, and they normally lean pretty heavily RW in results. So that's a pretty stunningly strong 'stay the eff out of there' response. If Republicans had sense, they'd stay away from this issue.

    But they have no sense, and all they care about is their insane base. So....please proceed.

    "Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail." - My President

    by Fordmandalay on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 12:18:16 PM PDT

  •  Damn! Tony Gwynn is my age (4+ / 0-)

    and I well remember the NL playoffs in 1984. As a Cub fan I loathed Tony Gwynn because of his performance in that series, but I mourn his loss with great sadness today.

    BTW, Rick Sutcliff and others are VERY WRONG about the last game of that series being moved to San Diego instead of taking place in Chicago because Wrigley lacked lights. The fact is the game was always scheduled to take place in the home park of whatever team won the NL West that year, that's the way they scheduled the playoffs and the World Series then: rotating the home field advantage each year between the two divisions for the playoffs and between the leagues for the World Series.

    •  Best three games for Padres fans ever (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      At least up to that point.  Even if it took a former Dodger's homerun to get them to Game 5.

      I don't remember that Gwynn did especially well in the playoffs that year, although he did have a key hit in Game 5.

    •  I was tempted to snarkily ask (0+ / 0-)

      if he's always been your age, but then clicked on the link. Sad. I'm not that much younger. Shows you that no matter how fit and rich you are, nature has the find word. My condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 01:05:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  George Will is just another angry white guy who (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, wintergreen8694

    tried to stay commercial.  He failed.  You now can view him on Fox News, like his failing partner, Brit Hume.  Conservatism is not wrong in and of itself.  There's nothing wrong in opposing new ideas, without a comprehensible explanation for the basis of change.  People have a natural problem (or fear) with change, which the conservative thought masters are always opposing.  The problem with conservatives is that, like the religious leaders of any major religion, it is not in their best interest to be open to change, as this brings on too many questions for them to answer, where they have no answers.  Additionally, it brings on the added baggage of unknown consequences that conservatives do not wish to think about.  This is why both Roosevelt Presidents are held in high esteem.  They went against the conservatives, and had a basis to explain to the people why they chose the path for the country.  Example one...TR and the National Parks he started.  Example two...FDR and Social Security.  Aw shit, I rambled again.  

    By the authority vested in me by Kaiser Wilhelm II, I pronounce you man and wife. Proceed with the execution...and the kiddie pool needs to stay open 24/7!

    by HarryParatestis on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 12:23:03 PM PDT

  •  Wee Beastie (0+ / 0-)

    I'm mired 3/4 through an upgrade on Wee Beastie. Wee Beastie is has the body and registration of a '79 porthole Pinto, the transmission and engine internals of a SVO, and the engine externals and ECU of a XR4Ti. I've spent the past few days bring the engine up to all SVO. Right now I'm trying to get unstuck adding the extra wires to the ECU.

    "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

    by Stude Dude on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 12:55:13 PM PDT

  •  Question about Google searches (0+ / 0-)

    Perhaps I'm just being paranoid and imagining things--or just spoiled by the internet--but it seems like over the years my Google search results have been less and less useful, and it increasingly "feels" like they've been tailored not only for the obvious commercial reasons, but also to keep me from knowing certain things, based on my past search, browsing and posting history.

    Is there any evidence or other reason to believe that Google does this, either on its own behalf, or on behalf of other entities, especially the government?

    I'm specifically asking this now because my mom has a Caller ID app on her smartphone that recently offered to update itself to a newer version that includes something they call "Dark Caller ID", which sounded, well, dark and ominous to me. So I googled it, and came up only with links to official sites associated with this app, but no 3rd party comments or reviews. Which seemed strange to me as there's almost ALWAYS comments on just about all apps in various blogs and tech forums.

    I know I'm going out on a limb here, but placing specialized AI software in-between end-users and web servers or other end-users that could filter out, block and/or recompose data sent back and forth, be they email, texts or web pages, seems like an obvious way for government and other entities to control the public. Thus, you could search for information that is readily available on the internet, but come up empty, because this middleware would not only block you from getting it, but from even knowing that it exists.

    I understand that countries like China and N Korea already do this, albeit in cruder form. But is it possible to do this in more sophisticated form, with far more granularity, and in a way that's hard to detect, and if so is there any reason to believe that it's already happening here?

    Which, of course, if it is, any useful responses I get will be blocked. :-)

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 12:59:40 PM PDT

    •  yes google results are tailored (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      based on your past history. I don't think there is bad intent but your results can lead to google highlighting results that are self-reinforcing and disregarding results that challenge you.

      One way to stop this tailoring is to use your browser's private browsing mode.

    •  Though I too would wait on reviews (0+ / 0-)

      the concept of a "dark caller ID" function is somewhat appealing.   My old land line rings off the hook from dawn til night with "Unknown caller", one or two in particular.  I'd love to be able to track what numbers and better yet, owners, are making these incredibly invasisive abuses of my line.  

      As far as our governement exerting pressure to tailor what you DON'T see, based on your individual history ... I'd be surprised if that was the case, and haven't heard any evidence thereof.  I'd think it would have come out in Snowden or Wikileaks disclosures, willy-nilly.

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 01:29:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I tend to agree that the government (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        is likely not doing this--yet--as anything government does tends to be slow and inefficient and rather clunky, at least at first, and if it ever did do this it's probably years away, at least on a mass scale. A few slip-ups and the secret would be out with potentially devastating effects on economic activity.

        However, I wouldn't put it past Google to be doing this, not merely in the ways we already know about, e.g. promoting ads and search results on companies it does a lot of business with, but in more subtle and insidious ways, so that, for example, negative information on and views of Google and companies and organizations it does business with, such as about their business practices, or links to information about technologies and capabilities that they and these companies and organizations would prefer the public not know much about, especially wrt their involvement in NSA surveillance, with would be knocked down in ranking such that you'd be less likely to see them.

        All the more so the more detailed and on-target such page hits might be. It's almost certainly legal for them to do this, and in certain ways in their interest, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were doing it. And, given, that they do do a lot of business with the government and are in other ways subject to its immense power, if they were doing this on topics that involve government, it would an indirect form of government censorship of the sort I speculated on.

        All I know is that with each passing year my Google searches are less and less useful, and seem more and more targeted in not just commercial ways. Maybe I'm just spoiled, or too lazy to master Google searches, or paranoid. But something just hasn't "felt" right about Google searches to me for the past few years, and given Snowden and others' revelation, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm not completely imagining this.

        "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

        by kovie on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 05:56:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good point that the likelihood (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          is much higher (and likely quite legal) for them to manage their business image in this way.  Of course there ARE rival search engines, Bing and others, who would have every motive to HIGHLIGHT any negative reports re Google, so some interesting comparisons could be attempted there.

          As far as an "off" feeling around one's search results ... what I notice is that the searches are tilted more and more towards natural language processing and common/predictable phrases, while being tilted less and less towards my exact search terms.  It used to be possible to swithc to an "advanced" search page to use fixed logic, and now its not.

          "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

          by lgmcp on Tue Jun 17, 2014 at 08:51:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Certainly this can be explained various ways (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            But given what we know about the business practices of most if not all of the major internet outfits, who are all for-profit, operating in a very competitive field, and under the government's regulatory and legal thumb, and of the establishment media in general, I wouldn't put it past them to engage in some selective and nuanced "nudging" to make it harder to come across information that might in some way hurt their and their partners' profits.

            I mean, the establishment media spins and distorts the news in ways that appear to protect its bottom line both directly and indirectly. E.g. don't be too hard on the right lest it accuse it of being too liberal (as if), or the government lest it sic its regulatory pit bulls on it. And don't be too negative lest you turn off viewers and decrease ad revenue. I can see how the same dynamic might be at work with search engines. But it would have to be very subtle and sophisticated to not be obvious and backfire.

            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

            by kovie on Tue Jun 17, 2014 at 09:08:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  This has been bothering me for AGES (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but could we PLEASE fix the alignment of the orange gnocchi? It's tilted ever-so-slightly to the right and it makes my design eye twitch like whoah.

  •  . (0+ / 0-)
  •  Ah, That Explains It! (0+ / 0-)
    an open letter to George Will and Marion Barry's penis
    Now I see -- George Will is hoping that if he's "macho" (i.e. misogynistic) enough, someday he get out of the timeshare and have a penis of his very own.

    On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

    by stevemb on Mon Jun 16, 2014 at 02:28:46 PM PDT

  •  85% who got pertussis were vaccinated (0+ / 0-)

    From the article:

    Most of the people who got whooping cough in San Diego County so far this year were up to date with their immunizations, according to county data.

    Of the 621 people who contracted the illness, 85 percent had all their preventative shots — calling into question the efficacy of the vaccine.

    I'm not saying "don't vaccinate," I'm saying you should gauge risk to your family, and that's a personal choice I can't - and don't want to - make for you.  Read the inserts, and do some homework.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site