home

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

For those of you who do not like to read my posts, here is an Open Thread for your comments.

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Interesting story (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 09:26:16 AM EST
    happening in a little town not far from me-

    http://tinyurl.com/m57kdya

    Here's a fun story about a bunch of very corrupt looking cops and city employees cleverly trying to appear racist to avoid being investigated for illegal shenanigans.



    U are the reason I got here. Heh (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 09:45:14 AM EST
    I don't offer that much, but when I got in a argument with a DK front pager, I left there. And that was when all the candidates were up for discussion. You had left as Armando and returned as BTD.I had joined DK in 2004 but when I was truly insulted for no other reason except I was offering a piece of news that was not even my opinion but went against this 'new' anointed  diarist, then he was insulting in a put down way and I figured it was time to move on. So I went to see what BTD was doing at TL. I never looked back and I am always glad to see an opinion piece by you. Keep up the good work. Go U of F. My brother went there. Like you said, life it too short and flying by at a terrific rate.

    You and me (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 10:04:23 AM EST
    and probably a lot of others. I missed BTD/Armando's writing at DK. I've been back to DK on and off but I had the same experience you had and did not go back for literally years.

    Parent
    Can We Do Both ? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 01:33:34 PM EST
    For those of you who do not like to read my posts, here is an Open Thread for your comments.


    Supremes to Cops: Lie More Creatively (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 01:49:28 PM EST
    WASHINGTON -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police cannot detain drivers stopped for traffic violations in order to search for drugs without reasonable suspicion.

    The 6-3 decision was a victory for privacy groups opposed to police searches and a defeat for the government and law enforcement officials
    "A traffic stop does not license police to pursue unrelated investigations that prolong detention of car and driver beyond the time it takes to complete the stop's traffic-centered mission," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. A dog sniff, she added, "lacks the same tie to roadway safety."

    Ginsburg was joined by the court's liberal bloc as well as Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, both of whom tend to oppose police and prosecutorial overreach.



    And I'm sure cops will... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 03:01:07 PM EST
    but I'll take this sound ruling nonetheless.

    Parent
    Here's my comment (4.60 / 10) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 08:00:05 AM EST
    If you want to comment in MY posts (not Jeralyn's or Open Threads) I require you read and address what I write, not make up your own straw men.

    I'm not discussing why, I'm just banning folks from my threads if they decide to distort or be dishonest about the arguments.

    No warnings. No suspensions.

    Just bannings from my threads.

    Life's too short.

    Bless you (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 08:08:43 AM EST
    love the one.  

    Can you troll your own blog?  Who knew.

    Parent

    Highly recommended editorial (none / 0) (#5)
    by CST on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 09:58:08 AM EST
    Congratulations to Kathleen Kingsbury of the globe who just won the pulitzer prize for the editorial series: Service Not Included

    "The restaurant industry in the United States is exploding, just as the income gap is widening. The trends are related."

    "Americans have started asking questions about every aspect of a restaurant's operations -- except for how employees are treated."

    Really short version - the people who make the food are treated like absolute cr@p.

    Great food for thought... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 10:15:23 AM EST
    pun intended.

    It's clear the federal government has no will to address this national shame, and only select few state and local governments.  It is up to the consumer to give a sh&t...just as the workers have made some progress lately with strikes and public pressure, the consumer can add even more pressure.  

    And the same goes for other industries plagued by embarrassingly low wages...not just restaurants.

    Parent

    No doubt (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CST on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 11:15:31 AM EST
    when reading the comments on these types of things (I know...) you constantly see people responding with things like "well EMTs, Firefighters, etc... only make "X" so why should a cook (whoever) make more?"

    Those people should also be making more.  But that's not a good excuse to $hit all over everyone else.

    And since the service industry is one of the expanding industries in our "new economy" I think it's a good time to sit back and think about what that means, and what we can/should do about it.

    Seriously though, the wages of the back of house in particular are generally atrocious.  And this is true at fancier places as well where it is absolutely skilled labor.

    Parent

    No doubt... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 11:35:17 AM EST
    The time is now to address this...or institute guaranteed income.  It's one or the other in the 21st Century economy...cuz this sh*t ain't gonna work much longer.  You can only kick a dog so many times before it decides to bite.

    Parent
    The opening of (none / 0) (#14)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 01:01:54 PM EST
    Criminal in Utopia (PDF link) by Mack Reynolds:

    Rex Moran dialed his wrist teevee phone for the time and looked at the clock face that appeared on the screen. A robot voice said, "When the bell rings it will be exactly two minutes until eight hours." A tiny bell rang.

    This was written in 1968.

    Parent

    Capt howdy: (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 10:50:38 AM EST
    gratituous dig=

    To extend the metaphor above, I don't think Hillary is exactly Kate Winslet.  Maybe closer to Kathy Bates in the

    PS. You did "get" it.  Also, although I've seen the Molly Brown musical I somehow missed Kathy Bates in the movie. Mea culpa.

    Yea has usual (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 10:59:11 AM EST
    So much... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 12:55:46 PM EST
    for the cease fire on small-time marijuana busts in NYC's war on drugs...they pinched Marijuana Man over a nickel bag of funk.

    So much for the cease-fire on petty fines in the name of community relations too...busted for spitting.

    Hey Bratton...some of your mercs missed your memos.

     

    From our "Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs" file: (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 12:59:05 PM EST
    Quite honestly, some proposals and ideas are so obviously stupid and patently unconstitutional at first glance, that they really require no further explanation from their critics and detractors.

    Los Angeles Times | April 21, 2015
    California initiative would bar transgender people from bathrooms -- "A group that tried unsuccessfully to repeal California's transgender students rights act now has proposed a ballot measure to restrict the restrooms that transgender people can use. Called the Personal Privacy Protection Act, it would require people to 'use facilities in accordance with their biological sex' in government-owned buildings, including public schools and universities."

    (Sigh!) Obviously, some people simply have too much time on their hands.

    Well, you made me think of Bruce Jenner... (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 01:43:24 PM EST
    Isn't he still into women? Would Bruce be welcome in women's public restrooms just because he had some cosmetic surgery and wore a dress? Why do women prefer not to have men in their public restrooms?

    Parent
    what about lesbians (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CST on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 01:46:19 PM EST
    and gay men?

    Parent
    I propose... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 01:56:06 PM EST
    universal unisex bathrooms...let's all grow up.

    Parent
    No kidding. Women talk about all sorts of (none / 0) (#20)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 02:02:43 PM EST
    stuff in the bathrooms.  Men are too busy trying not to look at each other's junk.

    Dylan's Idiot Wind is a good (sung) description of American cultural norms.

    Parent

    I'd be cool with that (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 02:04:52 PM EST
    Although I guess I'd rather not deal with urinals.  Seems kind of awkward.  But I really don't care who is in the stall next to me.

    Parent
    I'm already used to it... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 02:09:17 PM EST
    a woman or three raids the mens room at almost every show I go to...I'd do the same, the ladies room line is ridiculous.  You'd miss half the second set waiting on that line.  And we fellas only use the stalls as a last resort anyway.

    Parent
    Put some (none / 0) (#25)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 02:12:42 PM EST
    Enclosures with doors around the urinals, have regular toilets behind doors, too, and everyone can use the same bathrooms.


    Parent
    Ya, I get that. But what I'm asking is (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 02:09:34 PM EST
    Why do women prefer not to have men in their public restrooms?

    Assuming Jenner finishes his process, I'd imagine some women might not care in the least that he's in their restroom.

    I'd also imagine some other women might not be so comfortable, that they might consider him, well, a guy who had surgery and wears dresses.

    I'm taking no position on this (and it does kinda bug me that I have to say that, but, wev) I'm exploring the subject.

    Again, why do women prefer not to have men in their public restrooms?

    Parent

    If everyone (none / 0) (#26)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 02:21:53 PM EST
    is "doing their business" in a stall with a door, I don't care.

    Parent
    Has anyone actually asked? (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 02:22:15 PM EST
    I did a (very brief) google search and came up with nothing.

    I am sure that some people out there care, most likely for religious reasons.

    I'm wondering if the longer-term solution isn't having a 1-person bathroom for people who care, and a larger unisex bathroom for people who don't.

    It would mean people who care would most likely have to wait longer for the bathroom, but everyone would still be accommodated.

    Parent

    F*ck that... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 02:36:56 PM EST
    make the people who care about such trivial nonsense hold it in until they get home...or they can piss/poop behind the dumpster in the alley;)

    Parent
    "Restrooms are still almost exclusively (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 02:48:38 PM EST
    "Restrooms are still almost exclusively gendered," writes Suzanne LaBarre at Fast Company. "It's a form of exclusion that's written into state building code, presenting an obstacle for gender neutral bathroom advocates."

    I didn't read the whole thing, but I bet those with planning-type interests would find it more interesting! :-)

    Parent

    not surprising (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 03:41:53 PM EST
    that it all comes down to old building codes.

    I can't imagine the people who wrote the first one in the 1887 would even fathom the world we live in today when they mandated female bathrooms in places with female employees.

    I wouldn't be surprised if they start changing them soon.  Honestly I could see this being the next culture war.  So there's that to look forward to...

    Parent

    Here's one for you (none / 0) (#34)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 03:26:05 PM EST
    How many women would have a problem with her in their bathroom?

    Like I asked below, how are they supposed to determine who can and cannot use the restroom?

    Parent

    unlike (I believe) Jenner.

    Parent
    So, transgender in a woman's bathroom (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 03:41:42 PM EST
    is okay if you are 'into' men, but not if you are 'into' women? What about non-trans women 'into' women?

    Maybe we need 4 bathrooms . . .  or 6?

    Parent

    Did you read my comment above? (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 03:50:46 PM EST
    Assuming Jenner finishes his process, I'd imagine some women might not care in the least that he's in their restroom.

    I'd also imagine some other women might not be so comfortable, that they might consider him, well, a guy who had surgery and wears dresses.

    I'm taking no position on this (and it does kinda bug me that I have to say that, but, wev) I'm exploring the subject.

    Again, why do women prefer not to have men in their public restrooms?

    Why do women prefer not to have men in their public restrooms?

    Parent

    well the link you posted (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 03:59:33 PM EST
    suggested it wasn't women who didn't want men in their bathrooms - it was men who didn't want to allow women to pee in their bathrooms.  So accommodations had to be made where there were female employees (I presume, based on the time period - 1887 - there was also some question as to whether employees in general were allowed to use the bathroom while at work).

    But most of these laws were put into place during or before the 1920s.  I'd be willing to bet public opinion on the matter has changed significantly since then.

    Parent

    How many women have you asked (none / 0) (#40)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 04:00:35 PM EST
    about this?  Because personally, I wouldn't care.  There are stalls with doors, so what's the big deal?
    But I also haven't polled my female friends about it, either.

    Parent
    I wonder how they plan to (none / 0) (#30)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 02:45:03 PM EST
    determine this "biological sex"?

    Gawd, I can't stand the pockets of nut jobs in my state.

    Parent

    I think the plan is... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 03:08:37 PM EST
    to hire this guy for enforcement.

    Parent
    BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic test now $249 (none / 0) (#22)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 02:07:00 PM EST
    BRCA1 and BRCA2 are arguably the best-known human genes because their mutations are linked to an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. When Angelina Jolie revealed in a New York Times op-ed that she'd tested positive for the mutation and decided to undergo a double mastectomy, she also noted that: "The cost of testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, at more than $3,000 in the United States, remains an obstacle for many women."

    Colors Genomics is currently available in 45 states and is on its way to comply with further regulations required in New York, Maryland, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Florida.

    DEA Chief (none / 0) (#28)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 21, 2015 at 02:23:20 PM EST
    Michele Leonhart is expected to step down.

    NPR