Friday Night Open Thread

As expected following the media's publication of multiple unnamed law enforcement leaks concerning Stephen Silva, (background here) Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's lawyers have renewed their motion to determine the source of law enforcement leaks. I'm glad to see they complained about the leak I thought was the most egregious -- you can read the leak here. As I wrote:

....leaks by law enforcement that this is bad for Jahar because it shows he was more than an errand boy are just speculation. And incredibly out of line for law enforcement, who have no business opining to the media on the specifics and strength of any defendant's defense.

The defense wants to know what steps the Government took after the June hearing at which the judge expressed his concern about leaks to avoid future ones.

Israel and Hamas have agreed to a 12 hour cease-fire tomorrow.

I wonder what ISIS has been up to the past 2 days. I'll write about it later if there's anything new.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Another Complaint About Auto-Play News Videos
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Video of a haboob.... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by desertswine on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:14:32 PM EST
    There's no mention of ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:51:52 PM EST
    ... the ongoing haboob that's engulfed Arizona's state capitol for the better part of the past six years.

    and 99% of statistics buttressing partisan (none / 0) (#22)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:22:14 AM EST
    debate - are pulled out of thin air.

    Cue the Herman Goering quote.  Give people an enemy and they'll follow you anywhere.  Is there a tenth circle of hell?  Sounds great.  Giddyup!


    If you have never seen a summer (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 11:04:22 PM EST
    sunset from the Santa Fe Opera, just do it!

    More on (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:42:31 PM EST
    the doomsday preppers. First of all one of them thinks that Obama shut down some kind of lead factory in Mo. I googled that one and apparently that was from George W Bush's EPA not Obama.

    Truthfully talk radio etc. has these people so worked up and hyped up on conspiracy theories that it's really scary.

    Ben Carson is going around saying that if another "progressive" gets nominated that it's going to be the end of America because they will get to appoint three more judges to the supreme court. What exactly these judges are going to do is beyond me. And how can anybody be more disastrous than the Roberts Court has been would be my question.

    How could it be more disastrous? (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:48:51 PM EST
    By replacing Kennedy with someone who votes with the other four ALL the time.  That's how.

    I have been wondering if this is really possible -

    WASHINGTON -- A top aide to President Obama said it's possible that Obama could be impeached by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

    I just saw a poll that said almost 60% of republicans want it.   Could they really be that insane?  It seems I am seeing many things as more possible that I once did.


    CNN/ORC poll (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:52:44 PM EST
    There's an obvious partisan divide, with 57% of Republicans but only 35% of independents and 13% of Democrats backing a move to impeach Obama.

    Look at those (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 10:12:40 PM EST
    numbers--60%. And can anyone say that Ted Cruz won't be the nominee? He's the main one shopping the impeachment line from congress.

    Yes, Ga (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 07:02:57 AM EST
    I can and will say that Cruz won't be on the ticket.

    Just as Hillary won't be.

    Both inspire part of the base. But neither can unite the party.


    I remember (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 07:08:31 AM EST
    your predictions of a President Perry. I understand he might be running again trying to drive the clown car. ROTFLMAO.

    Hillary will not unite the party?? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:50:22 AM EST
    Have you seen the polls?  She has a 60 point lead on everyone else.....

    I have supported Obama since the 2008 Primary.  I was unhappy with Hillary at that time.

    I am now a big time supporter of Hillary.  I will campaign for her time permitting.

    There may be qualms on the Left about her being a hawk, and I feel them on this.....And so a challenge from the Left to keep her on her toes a little bit, would be okay.

    Hillary almost won in 2008 and but for (in my opinion) and very unusual challenger and a bad campaign manager, she would be President now.

    You are carrying the water of the Right when you say she won't run.  You and the Right say this because you are afraid she will run and win.

    Why anyone would listen to you about who the Democratic nominee will be remains a mystery.


    You're a gambler (none / 0) (#20)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 07:28:32 AM EST
    Care to place a bet?  Because this is one of your more ridiculous claims - which is no small feat:

    Just as Hillary won't be.

    Both inspire part of the base. But neither can unite the party.

    This week's evidence came in the form of two polls -- conducted by NBC and Marist College -- of Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.  In Iowa, Clinton led Vice President Joe Biden 70 percent to 20 percent. In New Hampshire, Clinton led Biden by an even wider 74 percent to 18 percent. (That's not to pick on Biden; he was the strongest of Clinton's possible challengers.) Clinton's approval ratings in those polls are stratospheric; 89 percent of Iowa Democrats have a favorable opinion of her while 94(!) percent of New Hampshire Democrats say the same.

    "Hillary Clinton -- if she runs -- is going to have a cakewalk to the Democratic nomination, no matter how many political observers might want to see a race," wrote NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann. "She's going to win the Democratic nomination, whether she faces actual primary opposition or not."

    BTW - Clinton's national favorability rating among Democrats is 84% favorable to 9% unfavorable.


    Link (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 07:32:45 AM EST
    Crickets...chirp...chirp....chirp... (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:59:45 AM EST
    I think they should go for it. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:53:47 PM EST
    And then afterward, I'll make the popcorn and margaritas as we watch what happens to them at the ballot box.

    No (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:57:48 PM EST
    I completely agree.  If it happens they say it's more likely after the election.  And much more likely if the republicans take control of the senate ( they won't ) but I have also read that lots in the house want to do it even if there is no chance of removal in the senate just to put an asterisk next to his name.

    If they do that the dems will take filibuster proof control of government in 2016.


    Are they trying to boost (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 10:09:04 PM EST
    Obama's favorable rating before he leaves office?

    Well (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 10:10:02 PM EST
    from what I have read the GOP establishment is sweating bullets over that one because they know that doing it will be the end of the GOP for a long, long time. They are hoping that the tea party nuts quit talking about it. Even just having Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz talk about it makes them very nervous and afraid it's going to cost them the senate.

    Could Nunn really win? (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:56:55 AM EST
    Impeachment would drive up the Democratic vote, in Georgia, I would think.



    IMO she can win without impeachment (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:00:48 AM EST
    And I do take bets.

    I don't know. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:02:03 AM EST
    Probably drive up the vote on the D side but I'm not sure whether it would help or hurt the R side.

    Nunn is lucky that she has an awful opponent with the name of David Perdue and she's likely to do better in central and south GA than most D candidates. The polls are all over the place.


    Perdue (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:03:47 AM EST

    Mr Perdue tried to stir up the Republican base last night by reminding them how much they disapprove of Barack Obama and Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, before they toddled home for the night. But Steve Anthony of Georgia State University says the low turnout at the run-off does not augur well for Republicans, come November. Less than 10% of Georgia's 5m active voters bothered to take part (roughly half the number who voted in May's primary). Mr Perdue's slim margin of victory suggests that he has not exactly set Republican pulses racing.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:23:07 AM EST
    pretty much. I guess screeching about Obama and Harry Reid is all he has because he sure doesn't have a positive history as a CEO and I don't understand the screeching about Harry Reid.

    The GOP seems to doing a repeat of 1998 that worked out so well for them---NOT.


    Republicans just can't help it (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:06:08 AM EST
    Ever since Watergate, they have hungered for their own payback.....Watergate envy.

    Not a lot of rational thought going on in conservative circles....It is just their nature to impeach, just as it is their nature to hate on brown people and oppose immigration reform--even if it spells electoral doom.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 10:08:10 PM EST
    but what exact disaster is that going to put forth? The fact that conservatives and their beliefs will be sent out to the wilderness for a generation or more? That's all I can think of. I guess they are not smart enough to realize that the 1950's have passed and are not coming back. Even the current supreme court can't bring them back as much as they might want to.

    Two words... (none / 0) (#15)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 12:44:13 AM EST
    ...President Biden.

    He'd go into the 2016 election with the advantage of incumbency, and since it would probably be somewhere after January 2015 before Obama could be removed from office, he'd have most of the last two years of Obama's second term and still be eligible for two full terms of his own.


    From our "So Stupid It Hurts!" file: (none / 0) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:45:29 PM EST
    Stephen A. Smith, ESPN analyst extraordinaire, tried to mansplain the issue of domestic violence for his audience this morning on that sports network's "First Take."

    Quite understandably, fellow ESPN analyst Michelle Beadle was not at all amused by her colleague's backhanded suggestion that female victims of domestic violence are somehow responsible for having provoked their men into committing battery.

    Lest you think that this was a rare instance when Smith inserted his foot into his own mouth and proceeded to swallow, please rest assured that today wasn't this clown's first encounter with Da Stoopid. Just three days ago, he took to the airwaves to defend former Indianapolis Colts Coach Tony Dungy, who has a well-documented history of homophobic remarks.

    Refusing to see as controversial Dungy's latest suggestion that he wouldn't have drafted openly gay football player Michael Sam because the former Missouri defensive back courts controversy, Smith instead bluntly told Dungy's critics, "Get over it!"

    Smith's ignorant statements took aback "First Take" co-host Skip Bayless, who immediately responded, "I'm shocked that you don't see the problem here. I'm truly, utterly shocked."

    Suffice to say that if there were awards handed out for vapid self-righteousness in journalism, Stephen A. Smith would definitely give the folks at Fox News a very serious run for their money.


    Well, we're batting 500 (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 12:00:38 AM EST
    I totally agree with you re Smith.

    Not so re Mann.

    Remember that Dungy said this about Incognito:

    "Dungy added that hazing isn't something that has to happen but rather something that's allowed to happen. `It doesn't happen everywhere,' Dungy said. `It happens where you allow it to happen.'


    And dig a little further re Sam.

    "I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction," Dungy said. "Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction."

    To me that's a valid point. Distractions on sports teams are killers. At level of competition just one or two losses will keep a team out of the play offs. And while it is easy to say that Sam should have been drafted and the distractions dealt with you are asking a coach, a team and a fan base to "do the right thing" and suffer for it.

    And let me add I hope I am wrong and that the Rams turn it around and Sam has a great year.

    We'll just have to wait and see.


    ... about Michael Sam with his remarks -- and given his own high profile and history of homophobic remarks, how did he think the media was going to react when he said that he wouldn't have drafted the guy? He got enveloped by his own dust cloud.

    Everybody should just shut up and let Sam be, and let him play football. He was certainly no distraction to teammates at Missouri when he came out to them over two years ago, and he went on to become the SEC 12 defensive player of the year last season.

    Dungy's remarks were unfortunate, uncalled for and had no basis in reality given Sam's performance in college, but he's kinda / sorta apologized for them, so let's just move on and hope that'll be the last we'll hear about the subject from him.



    CA and have only this to say:

    GIGO only applies if there is, in fact, something wrong with the data.  You have no proof or evidence that there was(is) something wrong with the data, or that there was something wrong with the complex computer modeling done.

    You should try doing more than wave your arms in your reply the next time, since you seem to believe in being doubtful without a clue is a respectable intellectual position.

    Thanks for the feedback!


    Jackie Robinson created a distraction (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:02:22 AM EST
    Rosa Parks created a distraction too.

    Sports are not as important as people make it out to be....It is just a "game."

    Gay bashing fortunately only  boomerangs now.


    Interesting article... (none / 0) (#16)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 12:45:06 AM EST
    "a 70-percent increase in the price of oil: (none / 0) (#24)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:27:56 AM EST
    from $3.01 to $5.11 per barrel."

    Those were the days...


    Remember the republican (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:36:38 AM EST
    Who was kicked out for Coke?  This is his replacement.
    This made me laugh.  

    Freshman GOP Rep Confuses U.S. Government Officials For Indian Officials

    Freshman Rep. Curt Clawson (R-FL) tried to question two American government officials as if they were representatives of the Indian government, though both had already been introduced by their respectives titles at the start of the hearing. Can you say "awkward"?

    You have to watch the video for the reaction of the people he is addressing.  Who are Americans.

    I just saw it too (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:45:06 AM EST
    Those are some pretty good diplomats there to sit through that lecture. So funny.

    Meanwhile we all pay his salary and pension while he can't be bothered to learn who he is talking to.


    Love the look on his face at the end (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:07:36 AM EST
    So pleased with himself and the way he communicated so well with those brown people.  He thinkin "I got this"

    Looks (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:59:38 AM EST
    to be another tea party moron.

    Florida senator wants D'Souza film (none / 0) (#27)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:48:47 AM EST
    Good choice (none / 0) (#32)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:00:12 AM EST
    with a 9% rating @ Rotten Tomatoes(dot)com, this should make Commies out of the young Floridians in no time, if the proposal becomes law.

    Brownbackistan Experiment (none / 0) (#38)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:06:50 AM EST
    Blows up Laboratory of Democracy. - Joe Conason, RCP

    When Louis Brandeis wrote in 1932 that a "single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country," he was suggesting that state innovations might advance reform on the federal level. The progressive Supreme Court justice surely wasn't imagining anything quite like Brownbackistan [Kansas].

    Browhbackside (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:09:31 AM EST
    Is losing.   In every poll.  To a democrat.   In Kochistan.

    It seems (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:28:48 AM EST
    even Kansas has had enough of this cr*p.

    Antibiotic cheeseburgers (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 09:37:21 AM EST
    Public health advocates are fuming over a new court ruling that they say could hasten the coming of the next pandemic.

    In a 2-1 decision released Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration need not consider banning the use of antibiotics in healthy food-producing animals.

    "We believe that this decision allows dangerous practices known to threaten human health to continue," said Avinash Kar, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Adding antibiotics to farm animals' feed, day after day, is not what we should be doing. It's not what the doctor ordered and it should not be allowed."

    In March 2012, a federal court ruled that the FDA must act on scientific knowledge that the overuse of antibiotics in animals raised for food has contributed to the rise of antibiotic-resistant infections in humans. That decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by the NRDC concerning findings made by the FDA back in 1977. Feeding livestock low doses of penicillin and most tetracyclines, the agency had concluded, might pose a risk to human health. The FDA never acted on or retracted those findings.

    "This is a first and important step," Kar told The Huffington Post in 2012. "But the fight is not completely won."

    Kar's remark proved prescient with this week's court decision. Thursday's finding overturns two district court rulings in cases brought by the NRDC and other groups that would have compelled the FDA to withdraw approval for most non-therapeutic uses of penicillin and tetracyclines in livestock -- unless drug makers could prove those substances were safe.