Wednesday Open Thread

I've missed a few big stories making the rounds of the blogosphere today, so here's a place for you to discuss them, or anything else that's on your mind.

And stories not making the rounds:

  • Qwest former CEO Joe Nacchio filed his appeal brief today in his bid to overturn his insider trading conviction. I've uploaded it here (pdf) and am about to read it before heading to Boulder for the rest of the day.
  • Real Lawyers Have Blogs has an interview with me on lawyering and blogging and the future direction of TalkLeft should a Democrat be elected in 2008.

< Hillary Does Not Support Torture | 20 Lawyers File Complaint Over Courthouse Closure in Texecution Stay Request >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Racism Is Alive And Well (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 02:40:12 PM EST
    Not just in the south (Jana HS).
    NEW YORK -- Students and faculty at Columbia University expressed outrage over the discovery of a hangman's noose dangling from the door of a black female professor at its Teachers College, prompting the school to call a town hall meeting to discuss the matte

    link via HuffPo

    You posted that (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 03:14:53 PM EST
    to give the wingers something to ignore and avoid discussing, right?

    But... but... saddam wanted nukes. What don't you get?


    Those pesky subpoenas (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 03:16:55 PM EST
    Over two months ago. the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten.  As we all know, these subpoenas were ignored, with no consequences to the recipients.

    If you have a minute, call committee chairman Pat Leahy's Senate office at 202-224-4242 (a publicly listed number, BTW), and ask why these three have not been arrested, when we can expect to see the enforcement of these subpoenas, and what form that enforcement will take.

    Remind the staffer that executive privilege must be claimed in person, and is not an authority to ignore a subpoena.  Remind the staffer also that Bill Clinton was required by subpoena to appear in a civil matter of no importance to the nation, and ask why a civil court has more authority than the Senate.  You might also ask why Mr. Rove et al have legal privileges that the president does not, at least when that president is named Bill Clinton.

    If nothing else, the squirming and lack of information on the subject make wonderful entertainment for the cost of a phone call.

    Just when you thought it was safe... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 03:58:44 PM EST
    to have a smoke on your couch in Belmont, CA....link.

    Big Brother has invaded your living room.

    Belmont might have some of their residents (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 04:32:58 PM EST
    bursting into flames over this... instead of just smoking.

    Whatever happened to "leave well enough alone"?


    More zealotry... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 05:42:14 PM EST
    from the Motion Picture Association of America.

    From the best gootball column with limited polictical/social commentary, Gregg Easterbrook's TMQ.

    Tuesday Morning Quarterback asked in 2005, "If Hollywood won't show smoking because viewers are impressionable, how come the movie industry eagerly glamorizes violence, torture and murder of the helpless as forms of cool recreation?" This question is worth asking again in wake of the recent decision by the Motion Picture Association of America to factor depiction of smoking into movie ratings. So Hollywood wants to discourage scenes of people lighting up -- but scenes of young women being tortured to death, that's fine, show 'em in the mall! Even given that Hollywood's leading product is hypocrisy, this development borders on surreal. The movie industry trade association is very, very worried about depictions of legal use of a lawful product -- TMQ doesn't smoke, so I've no brief here -- yet has no problem with the glamorization of slow-motion slaughter. The same month the MPAA wrung its hands about lighting a cigarette, the MPAA gave its blessing via an R, rather than an NC-17, to "Hostel II," which graphically depicts pretty girls being tortured to death with power tools. Because of the MPAA's ratings favor, this depraved flick was shown in suburban shopping malls. But should someone want to light up, the MPAA has pangs of conscience!

    True colors? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 05:56:02 PM EST
    "If Hollywood won't show smoking because viewers are impressionable, how come the movie industry eagerly glamorizes violence, torture and murder of the helpless as forms of cool recreation?"

    Don't get me wrong.... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:27:08 AM EST
    I enjoy a good shoot'em up as much as the next guy, I just find it ridiculous that future celluloid assasins can't smoke butts anymore.

    Hat tip to pfiore8 at Docudharma... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 06:05:49 PM EST
    Republicans attack a 12-year-old
    When Halsey and Bonnie Frost agreed to go public with how the State Children's Health Insurance Program helped them after a car crash left two of their children comatose, the Baltimore couple expected to hear from critics of government-funded health care.

    But while the Frosts were helping a bipartisan majority in Congress sell a plan to expand the program, they were not prepared for comments such as this one, posted over the weekend on the conservative Web site Redstate:

    "If federal funds were required [they] could die for all I care. Let the parents get second jobs, let their state foot the bill or let them seek help from private charities. ... I would hire a team of PIs and find out exactly how much their parents made and where they spent every nickel. Then I'd do everything possible to destroy their lives with that info."

    So has begun the education of the Frosts, the young family of six who volunteered to advocate for the program for moderate-income families - the expansion has been approved by Congress but vetoed by President Bush - and now find themselves the focus of a nasty national debate.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 06:10:33 PM EST
    Also Malkin was stalking their home and trying to get dirt from their neighbors.

    Crooks & Liars has the story.


    This is pretty ugly stuff... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 06:16:36 PM EST
    As pfiore8 put it: This is a story of a Republican movement totally detached from even trying to deceive us anymore. They are hateful.



    Subhumans? (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 09:11:59 PM EST
    Isn't that what the Native Americans, Africans, etc., were considered by many at one time? How Hitler viewed the Jews? How some view murderers? How some view the unborn? How some view people of a different political par...er...faith?

    More Along the Lines of (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 09:24:10 PM EST

    Cutthroat a-holes, (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:23:53 PM EST
    but human, all too human.

    That better, s.u?


    Subhumans. Insects. Pieces of sh*t. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:40:37 AM EST
    I have lots more adjectives if you need 'em.

    I'd think twice about defending or excusing subhuman behavior sarc.


    As long as your hate is justified. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 12:23:47 PM EST
    That witch.... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:40:58 AM EST
    is cold man...ice cold.

    We need National Health Care (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:57:20 AM EST
    It appears that we have a guy here who is struggling to start his own business and got dealt a terrible blow. If NHC was in force all of these political points would never come into play.

    Instead we have the Demos using a 12 year old child, because "no politician will attack a child." It is an old strategy, and mostly successful. What I would like to do is ask her parents why they would do that. I would have thought that their home has had enough tumult and stress to last a lifetime, yet they decide to invite more. Perhaps unthinking, but the result us the same.

    So shame on them. And shame on the Demos for using her. And shame on the bloggers who say nasty things about the family. And shame on the Repubs who don't tell those on the Right to shut up.

    But they won't because the Demos won't try and shut down their attack teams. So we are stuck in a  nether world of heated uncivil rhetoric and nasty politics that solves nothing.

    I find that sad.


    Good points.... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:44:11 AM EST
    The Dems are using this family to win votes, the Repubs are smearing this family to win votes.  I'm willing to give the family a pass, for all I know they came forward to help others in their situation.

    Solving the problems of our health-care system?  Neither party is interested in that...there are profits to protect.


    Perhaps you missed this (none / 0) (#40)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 10:13:38 AM EST
    But the SCHIP passed congress, and plenty of Republicans voted for it.  So you should spread your accusations around to include the GOP members who supported it before the veto, and who therefore must share responsibility for allowing this kid to speak up for his own treatment.

    Perhaps you remember nine year old Noah McCullough, who spoke in support of the president's Social Security non-plan?  Like he knew more about Social Security than a twelve year old knew about his own medical treatment?

    I don't remember that kid being harassed for being put on the stage to talk about a subject that he could not have known much about.  Did anyone drive by his house, or publish his address?  Greame Frost certainly was familiar with his own medical treatment, his sister's and what it had cost his family, and had more of a right to an opinion on that subject than McCullough, who had not really EXPERIENCED Social Security.

    Question: Was McCullough "used," and of so, by whom?  Should he have been subject to the same harassment from the Left that Frost was subjected to by the Right?  Why DIDN'T the Left Harass him?


    What's also sad is that we've (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:49:53 PM EST
    been sold a bill of goods by an economic elite that want us to equate the public good with their interests.

    NHC is an issue concerned with the public good that isnt percieved by the elite as furthering their interests or as being congenial to their most deeply cherished world-view; from hence comes so much of the difficulty in making a start on instituting saner, more humane policy.


    Jeralyn, do you have or know any bloggers (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 01:23:06 PM EST
    who have agents?  Snippet in yesterday's NYT includes info about a video-blogger who was terminated.  Her agent didn't return phone calls.

    Ny guess is (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 01:27:36 PM EST
    and the future direction of TalkLeft should a Democrat be elected in 2008.
    the biggest "change" in TL will be when Iraq is done...if it ever is done.

    You better get to work then, sarc! (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 01:32:11 PM EST
    No change then.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 02:21:07 PM EST
    I'll bet the house we will be in Iraq even after 8 years of a Dem controlled congress and presidency.

    yup. (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 02:38:02 PM EST
    ENDA-torial in the SF-Guardian (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ellie on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 03:09:35 PM EST
    "Compromising on civil rights is always unacceptable"

    But the full bill, without the cuts, is still very much alive, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) needs to move it to the floor and bring it to a vote.

    HR 2015 has been a priority of the Human Rights Campaign and other national LGBT groups for years. The bill, also known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, in its original version would have outlawed employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

    The second part of that phrase is critical, not just to transgender people but to queer workers in general: as the American Civil Liberties Union points out in a legal analysis of the changes, the gay and lesbian people most likely to face discrimination in the workplace are those who don't hew to traditional male and female roles. Effeminate men and butch women are far more at risk than, say, a gay man who can easily pass as straight. "The more masculine a gay man is or the more feminine a lesbian is, the less the likelihood of discrimination," the ACLU notes. [" ... more ..."]

    fisa (none / 0) (#13)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 05:44:38 PM EST
    So how about an amendment for "Civil death" of any company, corporation, etc. convicted after its passage for the intentional violation of electronic surveillance laws under color of law? It sure would put ol' Steny in a different bargaining position.

    Right or Left Brained? (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 05:55:25 PM EST
    Here is a simple test. According to this I am right brained

    link via robot wisdom

    I first (none / 0) (#19)
    by Patrick on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 06:51:17 PM EST
    saw her going clockwise...Then looked to read what that meant and when I looked up she was going counterclockwise......Each time I looked away she changed direction, but never while I was watching...Weird.

    Sounds Like (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 07:00:22 PM EST
    You are right brained but your left brain is unhappy with the situation so it buds in. Funny... not that I know anything about neurology or whatever studies right brain/left brain functions.

    I can't seem to get it to go counter clockwise when I look away, or even when I try to force it. After reading the description though it makes sense for me as I am in, and have always been in, the creative arts.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#22)
    by Patrick on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 07:19:17 PM EST
    I'm whole brained or no brained...I went back and can still get it to switch, but I have to look away...The first impression both times was clockwise.  

    I saw it the same way, Patrick (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:35:13 AM EST
    Except that she started counterclockwise, then kept switching, but stayed clockwise longer than not.

    similar here (none / 0) (#35)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:45:27 AM EST
      I first saw her going clockwise then when I clicked on the explanatoty link  she was going counterclockwise in the new window and then when I looked back at the graphic after reading the L/R columns she was going clockwise again. Then when I tried to perceive her going counter-clockwise I couldn't.

    I think it's backwards (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 07:12:47 PM EST
    I know I'm almost completely left-brained but it turns clockwise for me and I can't see it any other way.  Are there any other tests?

    Who Knows (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 07:49:33 PM EST
    Maybe it is a plot to get people to think that they are more creative and intuitive than rational and reality based.

    Anyone see it going counter clockwise out there?


    I've looked at it about ten times. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:53:04 PM EST
    Pretty much always starts out counterclockwise.

    Tons Of Tests (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 08:09:16 PM EST
    But not as quick as the linked one. Here are a bunch of multiple choice tests for anyone interested.

    The first question (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:21:08 AM EST
    that came into my brain was, what science do they have backing this up??

    That seems to indicate a hard headed left brainer.

    Yet the dancer spins clockwise.


    Well, (none / 0) (#36)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:53:32 AM EST
      maybe it's because Perth is in the Southern Hemisphere and it's like the water in the drain.

    Ah, indeed. Yes. I see . ;-) (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:03:52 AM EST
    Maybe you're not (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 11:58:48 AM EST
    as completely left-brained as you think, Jeralyn.

    I've often thought that logic and reason (left brain stuff) is what we use to implement or actualize our goals and desires (right brain stuff).

    So maybe being completely left-brained means you're completely right-brained? ;-)

    I can't think of any way to test the theory, though...


    Hmmmm (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:46:30 PM EST
    Whole body, clockwise. Can't change it.

    Only legs... either way

    Only torso .... either way..

    Middle brained???

    I think Decon got it right.

    It's a southern hemisphere thing...


    not sure about the right brain vs. left brain bit (none / 0) (#44)
    by Peaches on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 12:33:56 PM EST
    But I found it easy to switch at will.

    When I scrolled down and just watched the legs (Hey, I'm a leg man and she has nice legs!), I can make here turn whatever way I wish at will and then scroll up to watch her whole body turn the direction I wanted to by, first, watching her legs.


    that works (none / 0) (#45)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 12:39:16 PM EST
     I looked at it with just the legs showing and I could see it either way too, even after I scrolled the screen to show the whole body. (Maybe before I was involuntarily focusing on the derriere?)

    btw, (none / 0) (#46)
    by Peaches on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 12:40:23 PM EST
    I just posted a diary asking a question with a poll.

    I've been following the discussion between Patrick and Michael Gass on the florida cop/teenager curfew violater and was curious if anyone else has an opinion on who is more credible between the two. My reaction to the video was disgust over the cop, yet after listening to Patrick I became convinced that the cop was responding reasonably in the legal sense of the term.

    SO go take the poll.


    Patrick's legal reasoning.... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:00:52 PM EST
    is sound, I agree, but that doesn't make the manhandling reasonable...at least to this knucklehead.  

    I've enjoyed your diaries bro, glad you're back posting, keep up the thought provoking work my man.


    Clockwise to me (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:18:11 PM EST
    but if I look away and visualize her spinning one way or the other, when I look back that's the way she's spinning.

    Dick Cheney, and the new US dictatorship (none / 0) (#27)
    by Aaron on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:11:17 AM EST
    Frontline -- Cheney's Law

    Next Thursday, October 16th on PBS.

    For three decades, Vice President Dick Cheney has waged a secretive, and often bitter battle to expand the power of the presidency. Now in a direct confrontation with Congress, as the administration asserts executive privilege to head off investigations into domestic wiretapping and the firing of U.S. attorneys, FRONTLINE meticulously traces the behind-closed-doors battle within the administration over the power of the presidency and the rule of law.

    Correction (none / 0) (#28)
    by Aaron on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:25:59 AM EST
    Sorry that's,

    Next Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 9 P.M. ET on PBS.

    Frontline -- Cheney's Law

    ["The vice president believes that Congress has very few powers to actually constrain the president and the executive branch," former Justice Department attorney Marty Lederman tells FRONTLINE. "He believes the president should have the final word, indeed the only word on all matters within the executive branch."]

    Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#29)
    by MSimon on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:42:29 AM EST
    Some Med Pot folks made Romney look really bad:


    Let's turn up the heat.

    Every contender should get the question:

    "Will You Arrest Me?"

    Ron Paul of course will waltz right through with a good answer.

    All the front runners need the heat.