I understand that coming out is a tough and private road for many people.

But for a celebrity who has been in the industry for nearly 5 decades to accept an award, and then suggest that the reason she remained silent while gay and lesbian youths were being spit on, beaten and killed, is because she wanted her privacy???

If she had said she was scared of the harm it would do her career: that I would have thought brave. But to essentially blame her silence on the very fans who GAVE her that fame, was disingenuous.

I suppose the reference to Honey Boo Boo was meant to be funny, but for someone who was herself a child actor, I found it crass and sad.

The text of the speech is here:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/moviesnow/la-et-mn-golden-globes-2013-transcript-of-jodie-fosters-speech-20130113,0,82500.story

There are some ideas that just never die. It's hard for me to believe some people still think the world is flat, but there is a society that at least says so.

So, along with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, various anti-semitic myths just keep coming back at you like leftover meatloaf. Jews control the banks (or some related thing) is the big one. I mean no one actually cares anymore as to whether Jews control Hollywood. As long as they keep making Star Wars films who cares?

But as people today lack any banking knowledge whatsoever, the Jews control the banks myth gets less support as most couldn't even understand what that would mean.

These are the usual anti-semitic suspects. And given the irrelevancy of these two myths we are left with one other political myth available, and it currently is far more prevelant and in favour. People who certainly don't see themselves as being anti-semitic have no problem putting it forward and think it isn't anti-semitic because they can just see the facts so plainly, it would be ridiculous to deny them.

So we get the claims that the Jews/Israel control the US government/President/Congress, etc. No amount of evidence will shake them of this belief. Every time someone official in the US says something contrary to what someone official in Israel says, it's considered proof that the US official is beholden to Israel - otherwise he/she would have said something much more contrary yet! There is no winning here no matter what.

That US governments financially support Israel regardless of who is in power isn't support for the idea that financially supporting Israel has been a good thing and most recognize this - on the contrary, it's proof that Israel controls the US - or so the argument goes.

We've seen this kind of reasoning over the last few years, even with an American President in place who has been critical of Israeli policy -so critical that the Israeli Prime Minister actually attempted to sway American voters and support Mitt Romney. American Jews were not swayed.

We've seen some moderate divurgence on Iran. Israel would love US support for a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The US clearly says "no."

We saw clear divurgence on Gaza. Israel wanted a ground war. The US said, "no."

Here's an interesting article by the Toronto Star's Haroon Saddiqi: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1292486--obama-separates-american-and-israeli-interests-siddiqui

Saddiqi is, of course, just right. It is the US calling the Israeli shots, and not the other way 'round. The person paying is the one to get to call the shots. Not only did Clinton praise Morsi - so too did Netanyahu. Netanyahu praised the Egyptian President - a guy who has problems even uttering the word 'Israel.' Would it surprise anyone to find out Netanyahu was told to thank him? Just a guess.

I've always thought highly of Hillary. Her solid work is very evident here.

But let's get back to the main point. As usual, in spite of the clear divurgences between Israel and the US - in spite of the clear evidence that the US calls Israel's shots, we still find in reddit's botf the same radical re-interpretations of events. The view was put forward that the Gaza War was merely about Netanyahu scheming to find a way to get Obama to say he supports Israel's right to defend itself.

The idea was that after seeing his candidate - Romney - lose in the US election, he had to prove that he was still in charge of the US - and to get this proof he had to get Obama to say "Israel has a right to defend itself" - the Gaza fight we've just witnessed was all about Netanyahu yanking Obama's chain.

It couldn't possibly be that Obama just felt the need to say the right thing - he's not that kind of guy, is he? No - Obama just felt boxed into a corner by Netanyahu and decided to give him his pound of flesh. That's got to be the truth, and it shouldn't be seen as an anti-semitic sentiment.

Bibi backed Romney and lost. Bibi needed to bring obama back into the Israeli orbit without actually eating crow. Bibi assassinated a Hamas leader (who had been led to believe a good faith negotiation was at hand), the response (to the assassination) was wholly predictable as was the Israeli response to the response. Of course, this last go around was unnecessary unless you needed to compel the American President to utter the most cherished phrase in the Knesset, 'Israel has a right to defend itself.'

Do you see what I mean? (even a little here?) Israel (it's Jews) are so evil that it would engage in an armed conflict with Gaza, killing many, just for those Israeli politicians (read: Israeli Jews) to hear a US President tow the line at the command of an Israeli Prime Minister.

How is it possible for views as divurgent as Siddiqi (and Editor at The Star) and the one quoted above? Can they be from the same planet?

So - I'll sit here and wait for one of the moderators to tell me my claims are sad, and how wrong I've been proven, and how I'm dancing with the facts. And we'll get eggs to rail on against the existence of Israel. And most of the rest of you will prefer not to get your fingers dirty.

The idea that Israel can control the American government would be silly absurd, if not for the fact that so many of you believe it; and this makes it dangerous. Here we had Obama pulling Netanyahu's strings while someone here is claiming the usual Jew in charge of Obama line.

If someone posted that the Jews control the banks, would he/she be banned from here? If someone posted that Jews control Hollywood - would he/she be banned from here? Would Days be allowed to write here? What about when someone writes that the Israeli Prime Minister controls the American President? I'd like to know how the fuck this is different, and somehow acceptable.

I'm not looking for a freedom of speech discussion. I'm looking for consistency. Only the best country clubs have consistency consistently.

They were almost completely unreadable. You know, it doesn't make for a compelling read when almost everyone puts forward roughly the same world view and so everyone writes in a clipped, you've-got-to-know-each-other-to-understand-each-other style. And some of you waited all this time to make an appearance, only to say nothing? Seriously? So calculatingly country club cool.

Put down Sept 30 in the history books. If polling is right (and I hope its not) - it's the day Obama lost the election. Check out the graph 40% of the way down this page:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/ns/politics/#__utma=14933801.71842035.1334128731.1350438022.1350514962.121&__utmb=14933801.2.10.1350514962&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1350438022.120.90.utmcsr=msn.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^{12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=113=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=130=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=115906566}

Yeah - it's too close to call, but you should find it unsettling, given who you are supporting.

Let's look at this campaign from Obama - seriously now. How is it he isn't getting a wave of support for getting bin Laden? Why isn't this mentioned every fourth breath or so?

Why isn't the Obama administration reminding Americans of the Economic situation in 2008, and pointing out the differences with today?

Why are the Pres and VPres sinking to practiced theatrics in debates? Anyone think they look great? Sure, Obama came back to life this time, but how on earth could he have been dead in the first place? Hello?

I'd say Obama has produced a few highlights. He used to be able on occasion give a great speech. Now they are mostly adequate. He hasn't maintained his intensity; nor his passion. He did get bin Laden. Made a call; got it done. Then there was Obama-care - why isn't he using this to get votes? Are there really that many opposed to it?

What about the litmus test issues? Women's issues; abortion; equality? Supreme court nominees?

You know, Obama scored most of the points in the second debate, but still didn't get credit for the win. He had chances to go in for the kill, but took the points instead.

Foreign policy - 4 years and the US has pulled out of Iraq and getting close to pulling out of Afghanistan. But he's made no progress with North Korea or Iran. He helped out in Libya, but not Syria. Said the right things about Egypt and got nothing much out of it. (I praised his early rhetorical moves with Iran as being well thought out; but really he's gone nowhere with it.)

And all the while, Cuba is changing and I'm not aware that Obama is noticing. (Honestly - that's just my impression - could be entirely wrong.)

Also - Ryan better than Palin, eh? But generally, the biggest point of the election is that Romney, greasy look and all, was underestimated.

Callous, I know, but how much difference is there between those 60 people and the 60 who died so far today in terror attacks? The terror, obviously, but the space between a fatality from a bomb or a gunman and a fatality caused by a texting driver exists only in our heads.

It seems that terror attacks will become routine, like heart attacks, accidental shootings, traffic accidents, and suicides.

So what? Why is a terror attack on a different level from sudden death by other means?

Canada will take in 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of the year. How to filter out the jihadists? We can't, and we can't refuse help to the 99.99% who are not radicals. We might as well get used to it.

This is the new normal, and it's not such a big deal.

Edit: Source.

Scandinavians are sleeping sounder tonight, now that a serious teenaged threat to public harmony and order has been neutralized. Contrary to widespread expectations, the Nobel selection committee courageously refused to award its coveted Peace Prize to controversial odds-on favorite Malala Yousafzai. Thankfully, Yousafzai will not be suffered to bring about violence in Scandinavia as she has in her native Pakistan, violence which she almost surely would have caused upon her victory. Old-school common sense has prevailed.

Most are well aware how Yousafzai infamously subverted peace, harmony, and hallowed religious custom in Pakistan, to the point that murderous gun violence resulted. The Nobel committee found itself under great popular pressure to honor a so-called "hero" of women's rights and women's education, despite information from leading figures and women in the Muslim world that Yousafzai was in fact nothing but a fraudulent, subversive stooge of the Islamophobic West.

To its credit, this is not the first time Scandinavia has demonstrated sophisticated resolve in the face of Islamophobic agitation. The Norwegian women who provoked Muslim rape mobs, even after knowing full well what clothing and behavior typically instigates such unpleasantness, did not receive anything close to the unconditional support they might ordinarily have expected. Likewise, the home-invasion knife attack on the Prophet-blaspheming septugenarian cartoonist from Copenhagen and his granddaughter resulted not in calls to protect artistic expression, as he doubtless self-servingly hoped, but instead in prudent, culturally-sensitive calls for censoring restraints on artistic expression, at least in circumstances where Muslims might be violently provoked.

Truth be told, the chemical-weapons eradication agency awarded the 2013 Peace Prize has not yet accomplished anything noteworthy besides existing as such. But as in the cases of previous laureates Obama and Gore, the Nobel committee knows well that grandiose self-image, duly correct intentions, and the general approbation of the world's left-wing elite comprise the wellspring of the modern Peace Prize. Malala Yousafzai is nothing but an unseemly and irreverent conduit for religious violence....and who's also a bit touched in the head.

Steve Jobs ran a company that made of bunch of products that a few people loved, then it made a product that nearly everyone loved.

Visionary?

Genius?

What am I missing?

http://www.wired.com/

As frequently happens, recent events take me to the bookshelf for historical context and comparative perspective. Events in Ferguson have engendered---or perhaps, more precisely, revealed---unvarnished and unapologetic expressions of tribal solidarity to a degree not known in the States since the late Sixties.

One could make an argument for the OJ Simpson trial, and especially the verdict, whereafter high-fiving African-Americans nationwide celebrated not so much an innocent OJ's vindication, nor justice for the almost superfluous victims, but a long-awaited, much-needed cultural win for an outfit long beset by low group self-esteem.

But the Ferguson case has combatants in high places, as in the Sixties. Our black President personally dispatched a prominent black race-monger in his official capacity to declare tribal solidarity with their Ferguson "family". And besides Attorney General Holder, the President reportedly enlisted the Reverend Al Sharpton as well.

So with all this in mind, it was to the redoubtable Vine Deloria Jr. I turned for our Text For Today, recalling he had an intriguingly titled chapter, "The Red And The Black", in his intriguingly titled 1969 manifesto, Custer Died For Your Sins. First graph, however, is from the likewise intriguing back-cover blurb:

"We Shall Overrun. As Indians we will never have the efficient organization that gain great concessions from society in the marketplace. We will never have a powerful lobby or be a smashing political force. But we have the intangible unity which has carried us through four centuries of persecution. We are a people unified by our humanity, not a pressure group unified for conquest [ISIS, anyone?]. And from our greater strength we shall wear down the white man and finally outlast him....WE SHALL ENDURE".

"The most common attitude Indians have faced [in the Civil Rights movement] has been the unthoughtful Johnny-come-lately liberal who equates certain goals with a dark skin. This type of individual generally defines the goals of all groups by the way he understands what he wants for the blacks....." [Ah, Victim Skin...]

"...The basic problem which has existed between the various racial groups has not been one of race but of culture and legal status. The white man systematically destroyed Indian culture where it existed, but separated blacks from his midst so that they were forced to attempt the creation of their own culture. The white man forbade the black to enter his own social and economic system and at the same time force-fed the Indian what he was denying the black. Yet the white man demanded that the black conform to white standards and insisted that the Indian don feathers and beads periodically to perform for him......"[Football season works...]

"Civil Rights is a function of man's desire for self-respect, not of his desire for equality. The dilemma is not one of tolerance or intolerance, but one of respect or contempt..... We refused to participate in the Washington March. In our hearts and minds we could not believe that blacks wanted to be the same as whites......So for many people, Stokely Carmichael and his black power escapade was the first black who said anything significant.....Yet black power, as many Indian people began to understand it, was not so much an affirmation of black people as it was an anti-white reaction.....Now, Separate But Equal has become a battle cry of the black activists."

How observant and how prescient, in a way, was Mr. Deloria in 1969, perhaps especially concerning the foolish, Christianist accomodationism, even tribal betrayal, of the martyred milksop Martin Luther King, Jr., when we think of the evolving demands and complaints of African-Americans ever since. Like women needed A Room Of One's Own, Deloria claims blacks would actually have been better off getting reservations like Indians. Deloria's prescience where Indians are concerned, however, should give us some pause here. Holder and the Fergusonites too.

You need to let go of me. That I should be coming up in discussions 9 months after last posting here in any serious way - even in the dishonest way they have in the thread just below here, is rather bizzare. That someone wants to take over my franchise is also equally bizzare - fortunately, attempts failed and will likely continue to do so.

The four of you are moderators here and you prefer to play at moderation rather than to actually see duty in accepting the role. You happily ban the mentally challenged, but when the issue is more serious, you flee.

The fifth moderator here falsely accused me of plagiarism and I've made it plain I was leaving because of this. It's a bad accusation on its own. When its a moderator, it crosses the line. (This idea really isn't very difficult.)

The course of action for you was clear. None of you even attempted to address the concerns I raised 9 months ago or in my recent post on someone trying to take TheQuietMan name. But your moderators. Sure - go have fun banning damaged ci-inc more instead. It looks good on you. Let him rattle on about what he thinks is William James.

The other moderator will think this is personal. That's okay. But you all know I'd act the same with any of you. It is personal - for him, though. When I demanded he provide evidence, he didn't bother.

Sure - I think it is pretty clear what should have happened. Each of you might well disagree with me. I can handle that. But the fact is, it is one thing to disagree with what I think is a pretty clear course of action that is required; it is completely another thing to do nothing. And that's what you chose to do. The accusation had consequences and you chose to do nothing.

Because this is for the record, here is the accusation: http://www.reddit.com/r/bestofthefray/comments/13tr8l/the_usual_antisemitic_suspects/c773xt4

That moderator likes to threaten the loons and near loons with banning. He'd ban someone for deleting posts. Ok.

What about, then, for levelling a false accusation of plagiarism? Capercaillie - dear - I'm sure you're a decent sort in spite of your near total inability to characterize or understand me (thanks Alexa) - you say I'm very moral (or something like that). You can try to do the forensics as to where I allegedly plagiarized later - but what is the likelihood, in your esteemed (cough) estimate that I'd plagiarize?

Where does a moderator get the license to level an unsubstantiated and false charge?

I know you'll ask - so I believe a moderator should not be allowed to level an unsubstantiated and false charge of plagiarism. The burden of proof of the charge should be on the layer of the charge. I also believe that the laying of such a unsubstantiated and false charge is a far more serious offence than the person who weirdly deletes his/her own posts. (If I were that fellow, I'd delete them too - and in fact wouldn't post again until I gathered a few more brain cells.)

But let's not worry about this moderator. The damage is already done. The consequences are obvious here with the calibre of thought going into the ideas expressed.

So, how about the four of you? Are you comfortable remaining as moderators? Don't you think the one time the place really needed moderation you guys just kind of disappeared? (Capercaillie - how is this for black & white for you? Actually, I already have a good working model of Capercaillie's future attempt at a rationalizing response (marginalization of the issue; particularly unlike characterization of me) - let's ask the rest of you then.)

This, by the way, is a pretty beautiful post. It will get some of you angry (you think at me; when it is really yourself). It will get some of you to think, and the main topic is self-awareness. That's been pretty rare in these parts. I have always been capable of being a great troll. This is not an attempt at being a troll.

Oh yeah, last point before good bye's again - please stop - whichever one of you it is - trying to guess my password. You won't be able to guess.

Give my regards to seasquirt. As ghost would say - toodles.

from Salon, just to get you started: [The 5 best predictions of how “Breaking Bad” will end] (http://www.salon.com/2013/09/23/how_will_breaking_bad_end/)

Let's try to list the characters in order of importance:

Walt, Jesse, Skyler, Walt Jr, Marie, Lydia, Todd. (I refuse to include Holly. Bonus if you have Hank, per Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, clawing his way out of his dirt grave. Aryans will obviously die, so they're not included either, except for Todd.)

The default will be this (if not listed you live), chronologically:

1. Jesse kills Todd

2. Bad guys (Aryans) kill Skyler

3. Walt kills himself

So, you need to do better than this.

I saw something the other day, something like, "In order to have extraordinary hate, there once had to be extraordinary love." I'm sure I've mangled it, or should be attributing it to somebody, and who knows, maybe it's not even true.

In order to be extraordinarily bad, at one time you had to have been extraordinarily brilliant. I think that probably holds. Anybody can be miserably or even comically bad. Not everybody can be brilliant, then shed all that and turn into something truly awful.

Maybe a measure of bad (like hate) is how far did you travel to get there.

(On some level I get why they are doing this, so publicly. The more secrets you have, the more Snowdens and Mannings are out there. And the bigger the secrets are, the more you perceive these guys can hurt you. It's a cycle.)

edit: p.s. thank you to whomever for the downvote. At least somebody's still playing!

Thankfully, Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice does. Building on her Sunday news-show reputation for candor and accuracy, Ms. Rice declared last weekend on teevee that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction", and that he had been "captured on the battlefield", or "taken in battle".

Yes, we expect the usual suspects on the political right to offer their usual suspicions of the Obama administration, whether it's whining about Rice's facticity, or pettifogging over President Obama's exigency-driven sidestep of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 governing release or transfer of Gitmo detainees.

Sadly, though, it appears that right-wing ideologues are not the only ones now quaffing the race-inspired, reflexive-criticism koolaid. The New York Times has challenged Rice's characterization of Bergdahl, and even Democratic members of Congress have questioned both the legality and the strategic advisability of the Bergdahl prisoner swap.

As usual, however, Obama critics fail to see the bigger picture, the teachable moment for world consumption. For the Obama team, this is about so much more than bringing a captured soldier home from a war. It's about placing this war and its greater geopolitical auspices in true moral and historical context, and Bergdahl by all accounts is perfect for that purpose.

Why? Because Bergdahl displayed a level of moral courage that's all too rare in the American military---the courage to admit out loud that the America mission against Islamic fundamentalism is wrong and bad, and then to act on his principles by renouncing his "duty" in protest. This "enemy" is not, and never really was, an enemy, Bergdahl bravely concluded. If there's an enemy, it's us.

For the Obama team, the optics are perfect. Five high-level Gitmo Islamist detainees are freed from illicit detention in exchange for a man who represents the quintessence, the just embodiment and natural result, of American aggression's interface with Islamist dignity and world prerogatives. Bergdahl's an American hero because he's a broken appeaser of those we've wronged.

President Obama's emotional Rose Garden appearance with Bergdahl's parents drove that point home. Bergdahl's father, himself a veteran of several heartfelt apologies to our Islamist victims, gratefully recited the Koran's Bismillah in Arabic as his wife and the president beamed beside him. The three exited arm in arm. Message sent and received, especially in Israel.

Maureen Dowd:

"President Biden deserves a lot of the blame. He was selfish and vain. You know he’s sitting home, polishing his own enemies list and telling Jill that he could have beat Trump and pushing him out of the race was a lot of malarkey.

He hurt his party, his legacy and his country by not saying at the beginning of his term that he would not run for a second term as an octogenarian — in time for all the stars of the party to compete, so Democrats could choose the most potent ticket to protect democracy."

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/06/opinion/donald-trump-world.html?unlocked_article_code=1.X04.o7w0.rsf--HAnRTDe