home

Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 03:27:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This is the brief from hell. Not because of the writing or research, but because of Tenth Circuit requirements on things like appendice, and this labor-intensive, highly technical mandatory electronic filing rule. I could be here all night. All of which means another open thread for you. Here's some things I would talk about, but the choice is your's.

  • Jeff Gannon updates and Democrats demanding investigations. Americablog is all over it, and says: " The issue here is whether we might have a male prostitute (or pimp) asking questions of the president and being leaked internal CIA documents." Cable news will feature it as well.

< Open Thread | White House Backs 'Real ID Act' >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues | 41 comments (41 topical)
    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#1)
    by nolo on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 04:01:57 PM EST
    My sympathies re Brief from Hell. I've got one of my own here that I'm banging away at. It doesn't help that it's due on Thursday and the key deposition transcripts didn't come in until two days ago . . . grrrrrrr ...

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 04:24:03 PM EST
    Government Freedom, killing little boys by police, scalping little girls by a nut case, and come on we all no bush and the cia are pimps, and congress is nothing but the great pimp. let us all understand what it is the rats rule and are, "nothing" don't be fooled by nut cases take this nation back and you can do it, in other words "see it for what it is" "Let us tell the world how to live" oh yes! where is bin laden and what just happened in iraq? and who voted for who?

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 04:33:18 PM EST
    Atrios says he heard a new shill in the press gaggle this morning, but he couldn't figure out who it was.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 04:36:15 PM EST
    Good lordy, that electronic filing thing reads like stereo instructions.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 04:40:22 PM EST
    2 important thigns no one is discussing: 1)marital rape in AZ - 'nuff said. 2) the ruling in the Justice Dept's suit against Big Tobacco. In civil RICO filings, past profits cannot be used to remedy/prevent future wrongs. Or something. What is the wider application of this ruling?

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#6)
    by Kitt on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 06:30:14 PM EST
    Well, the 'scalping' has taken a bit of a back seat to a local police officer who was gunned down early this morning; the first officer since 1931. His department is pretty freaked out. On call and up at 4:15 am makes for a long day. However, I'll take my days to lawyer days any day though. Plus - HP which is headquartered here, ousted Carly Fiorina as CEO.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 06:56:38 PM EST
    Earlier today I saw a quote from George Bush says that the Social Security Trust Fund is a myth and its all been used up paying for other government services. Here it is again:
    Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs.
    What's missing from the analysis of this quote is that the Trust Fund is not finished growing. Until 2018 those of us paying payroll taxes will pay in more than the system will pay out. If George Bush is right and there is no trust fund then he intentionally expects to steal our Social Security money and spend it for his own programs for the next four years and to help other Presidents do it for the next 13 years. It's not like Bush is saying that in the past the Trust Fund was raided and he's gonna put a stop to it. Nope, if Bush honestly believes the Trust Fund is a myth then he is happy to just keep on stealing the payroll taxes of the poor and middle class to provide governmental services that benefit not only the poor and middle class but also the rich who don't have to pay in after $90,000 of income. So now you have a choice: Bush is lying to us, or Bush is stealing from us.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 07:09:03 PM EST
    The federal court's electronic filing rules is just a way of throwin one inside at small firms and solos. It bites & is just another reason I avoid that forum at all costs. - k

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 08:06:18 PM EST
    It is amazing that the payroll tax increase of 1983 was specifically directed at the challenge presented by the baby boomers. The tax increase was the result of a truly bipartisan effort with broad support in both parties. Clinton suggested investing the trust fund surplus into the stock market. Contrary to Republican claims, the Democrats did not support a privatization scheme. The Democrats sougtht to create an investment in the financial markets in the same manner as state and local governments invest pension funds. Clinton's goal was to prevent future Republican and Democratic administrations from doing what the Bush administration has so blatantly done with the trust fund. We now know the proper answer to the lock box issue discussed in the 2000 election. At first, Bush claimed that a tax reduction was needed because of the burgeoning budget surplus. Then it was needed to spur the economy during the recession. Bush thought that pumping money into the hands of wealthier earners would lead to more jobs. Corporate investment has actually lagged behind that in other recoveries. Bush could have utilized the same investment of SS tax funds into the market during the recession thereby gaining the same advantage of superior returns of investment without risking individual retiree security and greatly simplifying administrative complexity and costs. I believe that this move would have garnered great support from both parties. The Republicans would have a success of its capitalist bent by placing the funds in the private market. The Democrats would have applauded the security provided to the SS system. It truly would have eased the divide between the parties and left a real legacy for the Bush administration. Oh yes, Bush still could have passed on some substantial tax cuts without anymore deficits than we are currently facing. The current administration keeps arguing that demographics prevent SS from continuing. You know, few in the 1930's guessed the advent of the baby boomers. The same uncertainty exists now with the future. Increased immigration and a change in population growth that would redress the current demographic problems are just as likely now. Forecasting 75 years in the future is just too problematic. The appropriate use of the trust fund would have permitted an appropriate time for the government to assess and adjust to actual conditions.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#10)
    by BigTex on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 08:44:33 PM EST
    Perhaps someone can explain this. Espically interested in TL, Roger, Dru Stevenson's, and any crominal attorney's out there take, but any explination is welcome. Th' reasonin' behind FRE 413-416 in lettin' in sex offender's past convitction is that there a high rate o' recidivism in sex offenders, somethin' along th' lines o' 90%. In most (if not all) other circumstanses FRE doesn't allow character evidence in durin' th' prosecution's case in chief. Given that th' recidivism rate is 90%, then by defination there's a 10% rate o' offenders who don't repeat. Given th' past history and th' high rate o' recidivism, th' ofenders who are falsely arrested fer a new crime are in all likely-hood goin' t' be convicted again. Considerin' th' number o' offenders, th' cutoff fer statistical tails is 5% and 95%, which means that a statistically significant number o' innocents are bein' incarcerated fer sex crimes they didn't commit. Congress has allowed th' FRE t' admit th' evidence so a 403 argument wouldn't work, though it seems that 403 shold exclude such information a a matter o' public policy t' protect th' innocent. 4th Amendment arguments can't be successful. What types o' arguments can be made t' not allow th' past convictions t' be entered? Seems like there's a constitutional violation somewhere, but I can't place m' finger on it.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 05:41:06 AM EST
    Poppy - There hasn't been a SS Trust Fund. Did you believe Al Gore when he talked about the "Lock Box?" It works like this. The FICA payments are put into the General Fund. Think of it as your checking account. Current recipients are paid. Think of them as "bills." What remains is "invested" in special treasury notes that pay 3%, which is credited back to the General Funds, but is shown as SS dollars. Problem is, the Treasury Notes don't really exist. They are backed by the government, which is the same organization that issued the Treasury Notes that paid the money...Think of this as taking money out of your right pocket and putting it in your left pocket. Quit blaming Bush. This has been going on for years. J Mohr - Are you telling us the Democrats would have applauded anything the Repubs did? Please, give us a break. Not a bad idea, of course, but who would have managed it? What would they have been paid? Who would have been responsible for lossess? And would you agree that we need a new term for "Trust Fund?" How about "Trust Me?"

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:16:44 AM EST
    Don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but apparently there were 52 warnings (subscription required to read article) between April of 2001 and 9/10/2001. According to the article, these accounted for about half of the warning received during this time frame.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#13)
    by cp on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:29:30 AM EST
    ppj, the treasury has all kinds of special bonds, all of which are required, by the constitution, to be repaid. you merely repeat the lies or, if you will, the economic and accounting ignorance, of mr. bush. let me provide an analogy: you put your money in a bank savings account. the bank records that transaction as a debit to cash (asset), and a credit to deposits (liability). the bank does not keep your cash deposit in an envelope in its safe, it lends that money to someone else, at a higher rate of return than they are paying you. it records this transaction as a debit to loans (asset), and a credit to cash (asset). note that, though the cash balance decreases, because of the loan, the balance of your deposit does not. this is essentially what happens with the ss trust fund. the only difference is that the loan is to the federal government, not a private individual or business. the balance of the fund does not decrease, due to this loan. it is still there, until such time as it is used to pay current benefits. the trust fund is just as much there as your deposit in the private bank is, and probably a lot safer. that's how it works, in GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principals), for both private and public entities. as an MBA recipient, mr. bush presumably should know this. of course, given his less than stellar academic performance, he may well have been drunk the day they discussed this in economics or accounting. in either event, the trust fund is most certainly there, and will most certainly have the bonds payed, just as every other investor, world-wide, expects the u.s. gov't to pay its legitimate debt.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimcee on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:46:47 AM EST
    Anyone see Prof. Churchill on CSPAN Wed. night? Care to defend his scholarship? How about those spotty boys standing guard in front of the stage with their arms folded on their chests? Anyone see the AIM members acting like bobble-head dolls behind him? Reminded me of Hitler's boys at his rallies. And please explain to me his answer to the fellow who asked about his disrupting the Columbus Day parade and how that relates to the Ninth admendment. I'll tell you what. You guys want this guy on your side? You can have him. The whole thing should have been filmed by Leni Refenshtaler (sp) as it was sort of a mini Nurmberg rally. Nice job, Ward. Keep up the good work.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:32:18 AM EST
    Well who is covering policing in America? Torture in America with a little robbery and murder thrown in for spice. Here is one about Russia vs US when it comes to stealing property. Guess what? The Great Instapundit is silent on the matter. Perhaps some one needs to inform him. I tried. But I'm just a nobody.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#16)
    by Kitt on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:54:50 AM EST
    I love CSPAN! Jimcee, I think you're confusing the defense of 'freedom of speech' versus the defense of 'scholarship.' Hoo - two very, very different issues. The thread on Churchill is apparently never going to die because there appears to be a lack of recognition regarding speech in this country - AND it applies to everyone - the Ward Churchills, the Ann Coulters, the Richard Butlers. And lest I forget, Mr. Churchill is a 'public employee' and 'public funds' shouldn't be paying his salary, he shouldn't be working....blah, blah.... Well - simply put, I don't want my money taken from my check every two weeks and in between to pay the salaries of the current administration, which is a good place to start and that's just the beginning.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#17)
    by Kitt on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:13:34 AM EST
    Well now, how very interesting: This was back on the 3rd of Feb but apparently overlooked. From the AP, "Churchill, whose pickup truck was vandalized with swastikas in front of his Boulder home sometime late Tuesday, has promised to sue the school if he is removed." How sweet....oh,probably just some student upset about their grade. Of course, it does nothing to remind people when Churchill originally penned his remarks. As Mr. Peter Goff stated when voting against the resolution brought before the Colorado legislature: '...saying he disagreed with Churchill but that the resolution provides him with undeserved attention and attacks free speech. Geez, the same thing I say about Bill O'Riley (and countless others).

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:16:26 AM EST
    M. Simon at February 10, 2005 08:32 AM Torture in America with a little robbery and murder thrown in for spice. a culture war, never thought of the drug wars like that, interesting. always believed it to be simply about profits, for both parties dealers & warriors, with joe citizen caught in the middle its so f__ked, only legalization will curtail these abuses. america has entered into perpetual war; drugs, terror, now culture. there will be no winners!!!

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:34:52 AM EST
    The LAPD presented forensic evidence last night that the car driven by the 13 yo was moving forward when the officer shot him. The boy missed his turn at 40-50 mph and ran up onto the curb. Then he put the car in reverse and backed up until he hit the police car whose passenger side door was open and was pushed closed as an officer jumped out of the way, his microphone is seen dangling from beneath the closed door. The boy backed 18 ft beyond the police car, then put the car in drive and went forward to the point where the driver was killed. The car's engine was running and the car was in drive when the boy died and remained that way until investigators arrived. This is inconsistent with the stories being circulated by neighborhood activists -- they say he backed up and ran into the police car and how could he have been a danger to anyone backing up. Activists are also saying that the car was not stolen, but that is untrue according to police reports from earlier in the evening (they have tapes). The local news has been running a very cute but outdated photo of the boy in his elementary school graduation outfit (white silk with a mortarboard). Talk about manipulative and inflammatory.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#20)
    by Kitt on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:53:43 AM EST
    What 13-year-old knows how to manuever a car like an adult, Sophia? It's more than likely about not being able to 'control' the car not realizing nor recognizing the power beneath the accelerator and the mechanical operation of the vehicle overall.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peaches on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:02:35 AM EST
    Jimcee, I'll tell you what. You guys want this guy on your side? You can have him. Some people defend him because they are in agreement with him. They are in the minority. Most of the people who defend him, defend him with the same intensity as they would defend the free speech of a professor who questioned the accuracy of the number of jews killed in the Holocaust. Or the professor who defends the bombings in falluja knowing the liklihood of civilian casualties. Or the professor who argues that pollution should be exported to third world countries because the value of a statistical life is less in these countries. We don't necessarily argue to protect Mr. Churchhill's job because we agree with his scholarship or his viewpoints. We defend him because we believe in America and the right to hold dissenting and unpopular viewpoints, no matter who signs your paycheck. This should not have to be pointed out, Jimcee, to a scholar and student of history such as yourself.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:48:10 AM EST
    The local news has been running a very cute but outdated photo of the boy in his elementary school graduation outfit (white silk with a mortarboard
    Let me see, the kid is 13, most graduate elementary school at 12, and the photo is outdated? Your bias is showing Sophia. Granted, I have bias too, but this killing still seems to be the poster child for out of control police. I wouldn't want an officer like this maniac anywhere near my neighborhood. Serve and protect?....seems more like Diserve and endanger.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:31:15 AM EST
    Peaches at February 10, 2005 10:02 AM kdog at February 10, 2005 10:48 AM logical and thoughtful posts. but you know, logic(or facts) and the right, like oil and water, just will not come together.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:38:17 AM EST
    Peaches - Yes, we have the right to hold unpopular opinions, and to express them. What we don't have is the right to hold a taxpayer paid job, and we all know tution is but a part of a universitiy's funding, if we practice hate speech and poor work. BTW - How's the boys and girls down at the Pub? Anybody punch anyone lately? kdog - According to Sophia it seems that there is more to it than just a simple "back up" into the police car. And there is the small matter of the police NOT knowing that the driver wa 13. Based on this, the policeman walks. It is sad, and if LA wants to prohibit their officers from using deadly force, that's their business. But as far as this officer knew, the driver of the other car was getting ready to drive back into traffic, and kill some other innocent driver. He had an obligation to protect the public from such probable actions. cp - If the money was actually in a trust fund, we wouldn't be talking about it not being there, now would we? And since the government is payment a lot more to borrow money than 3%, is that stealing from the tax payers? I have a bank line of credit which is prime plus 1.5%. Why wasn't my social security funds treated like this. And while you're spouting GAAP, can you explain Enron and their accounting firm.... You know. The one that went out of business following GAAP?? Steve A - Yes, and all 52 said that al-Qaida was going to hi-jack commercial airliners and fly them into the WTC, the Pentagon and the White House on the morning of 9/11. But Bush said, ignore'em. Not. What BS, eh? Do you remember that all agencies were told to go on "high alert" in mid July, based on the threat info? You do remember that don't you?

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#25)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:39:44 AM EST
    The independent commission that investigated the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks says in the months before the strike, the U.S. agency that oversees aviation failed to respond to dozens of warnings about possible terrorist action on U.S. airliners.
    The information is contained in a previously undisclosed report by the September 11 Commission.
    The report says the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) received 52 intelligence reports between April and September of 2001 that warned of potential terrorist action by al-Qaida and its leader, Osama bin Laden.
    52 Intellegence reports. I'm flabbergasted. Gimme a drink.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:56:09 AM EST
    He had an obligation to protect the public from such probable actions.
    No he didn't. He had an obligation to treat a suspect like a suspect, not like a homocidal maniac. He had no more ability to predict future actions by this boy than ability to predict he was 13. You defenders of this action act like it didn't matter that the boy was 13. The LAPD by repeating that "the officer didn't know" the kid's age assumes that if he did know, he wouldn't have shot him. They're not saying that the suspects actions were so aggregious and such an imminent threat to Los Angeles citizens they had to kill him regardless of how old he was. They're saying, "Oops! We thought he was a really bad guy." Which brings me to the point that I'm making and I'm sure is true, that the officer's on-the-spot assumptions about the nature of the threat were influenced greatly by his (negatively stereotypical) assumptions about the community he serves and it's children. Granted, his stereotypes may have been reinforced by being on the streets and having mostly negative experiences with local populations but I'm sorry - it's his job to avoid this kind of predjudice. For all you who think he's such a great guy, think a minute about how his partner's going to feel about hanging out with a paranoid, trigger-happy partner. Safe? Yeah sure.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#27)
    by Peaches on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:59:46 AM EST
    BTW - How's the boys and girls down at the Pub? Anybody punch anyone lately? Come on down and see for yourself. The Muddy Pig at Selby and Dale.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:02:27 AM EST
    He had an obligation to protect the public from such probable actions
    Wildly firing ten shots, some that even hit another cop car, is protecting the public? I think this officer posed as much risk, if not more, than the child. I don't doubt the officer felt threatened, I feel threatened when I walk by a police station, doesn't give me the right to shoot up the place. Bottomline, the officer could have tried to stop the vehicle without emptying his clip. He overreacted, and a child is dead because of it. I expect better from the police, and I expect this officer to be held accountable.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:03:57 AM EST
    He had an obligation to treat a suspect like a suspect, not like a homocidal maniac. Uh, I'm pretty sure the cop perceived that the diver was acting like a homocidal maniac. Hence his actions. Whether the his perceptions were reasonable or not remains to been seen.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peaches on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:06:26 AM EST
    What we don't have is the right to hold a taxpayer paid job, and we all know tution is but a part of a universitiy's funding, if we practice hate speech and poor work. The point is, as you should know ppj, as long as there are taxpayer jobs anyone with the proper qualifications has a right to the job regardless of their viewpoints. If you want to get rid of all the taxpayer jobs for everyone then that is another debate altogether. the fact that a jopb is paid through taxdollars does not give the gov't the right of censorship, at least not in the America I believe in. (that's the one where ignorant boobs get a sock in the nose if they go spouting their mouth off in working-class pubs.)

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:55:23 AM EST
    I'm pretty sure the cop perceived that the diver was acting like a homocidal maniac
    Obviously. The problem is, the actions of this kid did not imply in any way that he was. And scrutiny after the fact shows that the cop was gravely mistaken. I think the onus is on the badge, not on the kid. If he's so stressed out he fires 10 rounds into a thirteen year old trying to get away in a car then please get him off of the damn streets. And interestingly (and tellingly), the LAPD has revised their policy effective today based on this incident. So they're not on your bandwagon defending his actions, their on mine condemning them as not appropriate police action. For all of you who think this guy makes you safer

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    .... think again.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 12:57:34 PM EST
    mfox - First of all, he wasn't a suspect. Suspects don't back over a police car. At that point he was committing a crime. And given his erratic behavior, the police officer had every right to assume he might drive away and injure or kill someone else. And you have no knowledge as to his feelings towards the "community" he served, or its "children." peaches - The operative words in my comment were "hate speech" and "poor work." Is it your position that people, especially university professors, shouldn't be fired for hate speech and poor work? Doesn't the state have a right, and the taxpayers through the state, to expect something for their money? Go down to the Muddy Pig and have a drink. You need it.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 01:22:11 PM EST
    mfox And scrutiny after the fact shows that the cop was gravely mistaken. [snip] And interestingly (and tellingly), the LAPD has revised their policy effective today based on this incident. Apparently, by your post, you have concrete information that the cop's actions have been deemed by authorities to be not reasonable (perhaps by the LAPD? since you say they have revised their policy based on the incident) that I (we?) have no access to. I can find nothing to support your comments on google. Fwiw, I have no horse in this race, the cop either acted within policy/law or didn't. I'm waiting for all the facts to be released. If his actions are deemed by someone with some authority (a TL poster's opinion is not an authority) to be outside of policy/law, I say string him up. (metaphorically speaking) Anyway, do have a link to support your statements of fact above?

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#36)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 03:10:42 PM EST
    The cop who shot the boy obviously had a clear view of him but I do not know whether he was in front, in back, or to the side and this clearly makes a difference when deciding whether the officer felt threatened or whether he believed the public would be threatened if the boy continued his flight.
    I have read that he put five shots into his own police car which would seem to indicate that the police car was in between him and the 13-year old.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 03:24:01 PM EST
    ...or that the shots went past the stolen car into the cruiser. Or through the stolen car's windows into the cruiser. Or the cop and/or the stolen car was moving around and maybe these and other possibilities occured. Or... Haven't we all speculated enough?

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 05:43:07 PM EST
    desertwine - One more time. When he was shooting, he did not know the age. It is highly stupid of you to continue to bring the age up in an attempt to makem some point. Give it up.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimcee on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:36:48 PM EST
    Peaches, I didn't say he should be fired or his speech should be supressed just that if you watched his speech it was a series of non-sequitors that equaled a rant and not a well reasoned argument and that was a let down. As I have said before I don't believe he should be fired, on the contrary I think that he should be allowed to keep on spouting his hate speech on the Colorado taxpayers dime. They hired this fraud and they can live with him tenure and all. If people decide to not send their children to the U of C because of this clown then that is a market choice and one that I can understand. My main point being that it shows a serious lack of judgement on the part of the U of C to have granted this fraud tenure let alone a chair in a field unrelated to his major and one that he is obviously unqualified for. That he lied on his resume is enough in the real world to get him fired, I say let him stay after all academia is special; just ask the ghost of Timothy Leary. My thoughts are less conserative than some on this site pretend, I just want honest, open-minded people teaching on campus. I don't feel developing a cult of personality is a good way to open minds to intellctual diversity and that was the impression I got from watching Churhill on CSPAN Wed night. There were shades of cults, from Jim Jones to Fidel to Hitler that permeated his presentation and an undereducated, naive audience that cheered him on and that was depressing, afterall these were supposed to be kids at university and yet they seemed to be more sycophants than reasoned people. Overall I think that this would be a good time for the defenders of free speech to decide what hill they want to die on, and if this is it then they need to go back to the drawing board and redesign the model, so to speak. Nazis in Skokie did the same thing, go for it and see where that got them. A fake native-american who speaks in non-sequiters and spouts pseudo-fascist nonsense and inarticulatly to boot, being a Communications Prof and all, go for it. Speak freely, please. Free speech is free speech and I want more of it as it really says alot about those who support his views. Honestly though if one wants to support a facsist go for it it is after all a free country. Either way, what about that Ninth Amendment trumps a First Amendment speal that he gave? According to Churchill the First Amendment only applies to him but not to those that have a differnt view of things. He never really did answer the simple question posed to him by an audience member. Choose your allies as if they were your enemies because oftimes they are one in the same. Best as always, Jim

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#40)
    by cp on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 05:51:40 AM EST
    ppj, you truly can't be that ignorant, or can you? if the cash was in the trust fund, it wouldn't be earning any interest at all, now would it? you'd be griping about that. to the bank, your unsecured line of credit is a much higher risk loan than the t-bills purchased by the ss trust fund. hence, your rate of prime plus 1.5%. again, this is basic economics 101 or money and banking, take your pick. the higher the risk, the higher the rate of return. by law, the trust fund can only invest in government bonds, specifically because of their very, very low risk nature. with respect to enron and GAAP, every system has its weaknesses. enron management and arthur anderson employees colluded to exploit the rule regarding presentation, on the balance sheet, of equity ownership in related entities. further, they actually violated GAAP in the movement of some liabilities, off the books of enron, and onto the books of those related partnerships. had truly honest and independent cpa's performed the audits, those financials would never have been given an unqualified opinion. hence, the actions taken against both enron management, and anderson accountants. those of us in the accounting profession have long questioned just how independent you can be, when you are being paid by the client. mandatory rotation has been suggested as a fairly painless means of increasing that independence. if you know you aren't going to be there in three or four years anyway, you haven't anything to lose by being brutally honest. this would require a change in sec rules. a change fought tooth and nail by both the big boys of the accounting industry, and the large, publically held entities that hire them. just ask your local representative what their view is on the matter.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 01:55:05 PM EST
    What about Walmart shutting down a Quebec location rather than accepting their employees decision to unionize. The skeeziest retailer in the country just got skeezier. I have never shopped there, and will certainly continue not to shop there now.

    Re: Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:34 PM EST
    On what basis can you say that the copy was firing wildly, when he hit and killed the person he was aiming at and effectively stopped the car? Note that he did not hit or kill any bystanders, police or otherwise. The LAPD has not released any statement yet about where the officers on the scene were at various points in this event. The cop who shot the boy obviously had a clear view of him but I do not know whether he was in front, in back, or to the side and this clearly makes a difference when deciding whether the officer felt threatened or whether he believed the public would be threatened if the boy continued his flight. As I said before, the boy's age is irrelevant. Gang members 13 & 14 yo regularly commit horrific crimes in LA so a policeman cannot assume innocence or incapacity based on youth. Certainly the cop cannot know whether these boys were gang members, but they were engaging in a series of very serious criminal activites. I don't believe that earned them any forebearance. Innocent 13 yo's are not out cruising in stolen cars at 3 am. The LAPD does not know what the kids or the car was doing between 11:50 or so and 3 am. They did note that the driving indicated DUI. Some here seem to think that means the boy had a lack of skill. I think it meant he was under the influence of something. This is not an innocent or harmless kid, nor is this a prank, nor can the cops go lighting just because someone seems young. If they do that, they will die and so will other truly innocent bystanders. [remainder deleted due to length]

    Open Thread Two : The Brief Continues | 41 comments (41 topical)