home

Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:36:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm at the office for a few more hours yet. Here's an open thread for you, all topics welcome.

< Yes We Can . . . Try | DC Sniper Seeks to Halt Execution >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 91 comments (91 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Poor Joba.... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:46:13 PM EST
    his first World Series and he's dealing with some serious family strife...his moms pleaded to selling meth on Monday and could get up to 20 years.

    What a terrible thing for a family to go through...unfortunately its all too common under prohibition.

    Dude (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:00:52 PM EST
    People die from that stuff!  Let's stick to legalizing pot and stuff, and not start making martyrs out of people who sell frickin' meth.

    Parent
    Dam prohibitionist. (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:05:39 PM EST


    Parent
    As to a bleeding heart libertarian. (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:08:20 PM EST


    Parent
    People also use it to treat (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:09:54 PM EST
    ADD. At therapeutic doses, it's not considered any more dangerous than Adderall.

    It's probably easier and cheaper to kill yourself with a bottle of Jack Daniels.

    Parent

    You can get a LOT (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:19:05 PM EST
    of therapeutic doses out of what people use to get high.

    Any stimulant raises your blood pressure and can increase your heart rate.  If you have a heart problems, it can kill you.

    Those are just the direct effects.  The secondary effects are bad, especially with long term use.

    And there's addiction, which is yet another set of health complications.

    Parent

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:38:10 PM EST
    And you can get a lot of vodka tonics out of a bottle of Everclear. I'm not saying that we should have an open market for amphetamines (though I have a libertarian inclination in that direction), but I think we're really inconsistent about how we treat potentially dangerous substances.

    Parent
    Yes, we are. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:17:53 PM EST
    The problem is really that there a LOT of potentially dangerous substances and we don't have the resources to regulate all of them tightly.

    So, in a game of perpetual whack-a-mole, we chase after the most often abused substances.  It has a certain logic as it pertains to public health, and I wouldn't mind if we did it properly.  

    The legal system is rarely concerned with public health issues and the two systems do NOT get along.  Imagine if the judicial system was in charge of pandemic response.  We'd die while the judges and the lawyers hammer out the most impartial way to deal a rapidly spreading infectious disease.  

    Parent

    Huffing is probably still killing (none / 0) (#39)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:24:11 PM EST
    kids. If someone really wants to experiment with danger, they can find it in a variety of otherwise safe products.


    Parent
    And with some substances the ability for users ... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ellie on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:15:27 PM EST
    ... to dose within functionality or non-addiction gets obliterated when their systems get outright slammed before they can adjust.

    Meth is off-the-scale for what it does to people. Same goes for ecstasy, the fine Coke Family (TM) of brain wreckers, heroin &c &c.

    I'll take my two glasses of wine with dinner and/or liqueur with coffee, any day, thanks.

    Parent

    Meth really is horrific (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:31:47 PM EST
    I worked with an upper management, middle-aged woman who suddenly stopped coming to work and, when she did she was unkept and confused. Within a couple of months she was dead from an overdose.

    Dreadful drug and society shouldn't be patient, or turn a blind eye to it.

    Parent

    Not sure what the answer is... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by otherlisa on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:46:26 PM EST
    But though I tend towards tolerance on drug issues (and out-and-out legalization for marijuana), meth is a Bad Thing. I played in bands a number of years, so, you know, around a fair amount of drug use, and that's one of the few drugs that lives up to its boogie-man reputation. It just does terrible things to people.

    Parent
    Designer element meets Instant Total Gratification (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ellie on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:59:48 PM EST
    In drug dealer economics, the dealer's profit motive was the faucet, meting out a little, bit by bit, to get a new customer hooked.

    Even the logistics of heroin supply (poppies, transportation, distribution) form enough of an obstacle to give users a window to break free.

    Meth has none of that because of the DiY element that cooks up and dispenses it. It can take a mere week or two and whammo, the user's done.

    Parent

    Well hey (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:26:41 PM EST
    if you told me she was just brewing some up for her friend with ADD then I guess I'd feel differently.  I think that's probably not the smart way to bet, though.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:10:46 PM EST
    I was just responding to the notion that it's necessarily evil, evil, evil.

    Parent
    Or couple bottles of malt liquor (none / 0) (#40)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:24:18 PM EST
    shared with your friendly neighborhood serial rapist/murderer.

    That's what one of survivors did with Anthony Sowell.  The one identified victim was a woman who had a long history of struggling with substance abuse.  So did Sowell.  

    Parent

    People die from alotta things... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:54:00 PM EST
    brother...people can sell bullets, bombs, oxycontin, grain alcohol, high fructose corn syrup, tobacco, you name it...why single out a couple items for cage time?  It is the definition of ludicrous.

    I used to agree with ya btw, just gimme my weed and f*ck the rest...but then it dawned on me that really it boils down to a question of taste.  Who am I to tell Andre Agassi he can't tweak up?

    Parent

    Why you want them to die sooner (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:48:22 PM EST
    and spread the suffering around to others around them is what I don't get about you, kdog.

    You don't realize it, I know, but you really are being quite cruel to people in need of help.

    Parent

    What you don't realize Cream... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:03:30 AM EST
    is that prohibition only adds to the suffering of an addict and their family...look around, prohibition has little to no effect on the availability and/or use of the worst drugs...prohibition only makes them less safe, with the added bonus of problems with John Law.  

    It is the prohibitionists who want addicts to die sooner, or suffer in a cage.  I want them to reap no more misery than they reap on themselves.

    Parent

    I've heard it can be as easy as (none / 0) (#43)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:27:45 PM EST
    a brown paper bag and a can of Pam to get high.

    Parent
    I don't feel sorry for people who (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:09:10 PM EST
    sell meth and get caught doing it, or for people who kill other people with their cars while texting, or the people who steal money from those who trusted them with it; you talk all the time about "choice," but can't seem to accept that these people did make choices, in full knowledge and understanding that, as much as anyone believes what they did should be legal, or that it would just be such a nicer world if we could all just do whatever we wanted, when we wanted and to whomever we wanted, that's just not the reality of the state of play right now.

    Parent
    How many mil. does Joba pull in (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:59:12 PM EST
    per year?  How about sharing?

    Parent
    Sharing with an addict? (none / 0) (#18)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:41:54 PM EST
    She has addiction issues, giving her money is like giving her meth, enabling and all that.

    Parent
    He could have shared by (none / 0) (#19)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:43:07 PM EST
    giving her a ride to the nicest rehab center in the country.


    Parent
    So not that easy (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:19:38 PM EST
    and he was raised by his father, so this has been going on for years it seems. From what I can tell, it takes a few rehabs before they finally clean up for good. If they ever do that is. And they have to want it, that ride won't do diddly until they are really ready.

    Parent
    I miss Dick Tidrow (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:16:48 PM EST
    Great moustache, good arm, no baggage. These crazy kids today, with their rock and roll and sending all those sexy ebay twitters, and their twisted lineage, it's like a Farrelly Brothers movie on crank.  

    Parent
    This would $uck (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 03:57:34 PM EST
    Casino says $166 million dollar win was the result of a malfunction

    A Daytona Beach man thought he hit the jackpot. He thought he won $166 million on a slot machine at the very popular Hard Rock Hotel and Casino near I-4 in Tampa.

    However, as soon as the crowds departed, the celebration ended. The casino told him that he didn't win a thing. The casino claims the slot machine malfunctioned.
    How often do the casinos win the (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:35:01 PM EST
    lawsuits that come from such events? They know it malfunctioned because......why......they had the machine fixed never to pay out?

    Parent
    I'll give you 5 to 1 there is a lawsuit (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:08:17 PM EST
    in his future.

    Parent
    Needs a busload... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:12:49 PM EST
    or two of Hard Rock leather-arsed slot regulars to picket the entrances...thats what he needs. A lot cheaper than an attorney...they'll do it for 20 dollar vouchers:)

    Parent
    Yeah, that's not.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:32:26 PM EST
    the first time these slots have "malfunctioned."

    And then try and navigate thru the tribal justice system.

    Native American tribes, as independent nations, have their own court systems and can be sued in state courts only under limited circumstances.

    Parent

    Good to know... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:58:47 PM EST
    I stay away from the slots anyway, now I definitely won't play 'em at N.A. casinos.

    That's messed up...the max payout at the machine at a minimum, the whole nut is the right thing to do...the casino is responsible for the machine/action.

    Parent

    Ummmm, is there an excellent lawyer (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:02:13 PM EST
    on here willing to take this one on for 50%.

    Parent
    House health care vote on Saturday (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by magster on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:17:36 PM EST
    they added an ethanol rider on this health care package to reduce the overall cost of the bill and likely placate midwestern blue dogs.

    Ahhh, sausagemaking at it's finest....

    Should be interesting then (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:18:57 PM EST
    to hear the pundits talk from Saturday through January, as Harry Reid said he probably won't get a bill to the Senate floor before next year.

    Parent
    Did Harry Reid say that? (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:18:39 PM EST
    I know that the AP story by D Espo said that Reid had "signalled" that he might not meet the President's deadline.  BUT, I could not find any explicit or even semi-explicit statement to the effect that the Senate would not move/pass the legislation on health care until the next calendar year? Any direct quotes?

    Parent
    All he said (none / 0) (#66)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:36:18 PM EST
    was that they were not going to be bound by any timelines, in response to a question whether a bill would get passed this year.

    Parent
    Here's the scoop (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:54:59 AM EST
    In a blow to the White House, the Senate's top Democrat signaled Tuesday that Congress may fail to meet a year-end deadline for passing health care legislation, leaving the measure's fate to the uncertainties of the 2010 election season.

    Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., spoke as Democratic officials said it could be December before Senate debate begins in earnest on the issue atop President Barack Obama's domestic agenda, months after senior lawmakers and the White House had hoped. The drive to pass legislation has been plagued for months by divisions within the party's rank and file.

    SNIP

    "We're not going to be bound by any timelines. We need to do the best job we can for the American people," he said after the weekly closed-door meeting of rank-and-file Democrats.

    A few hours later, Reid's office revised his remarks. "Our goals remain unchanged. We want to get health insurance reform done this year, and we have unprecedented momentum to achieve that. There is no reason why we can't have a transparent and thorough debate in the Senate and still send a bill to the president by Christmas," said spokesman Jim Manley.

    SNIP

    Despite the late-afternoon statement, numerous other officials said it could be early December before the Senate begins work in earnest on long-delayed health care legislation, making it a virtual impossibility for lawmakers to send a compromise to Obama's desk by the end of the year.

    Link

    Parent

    War in Afghanistan (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:18:47 PM EST
    I was listening to the BBC today - and it seems obvious that they are preparing public option to accept the inevitability of an escalation and prolonged war in Afghanistan.

    This, coupled with the hasty declaration by the Obama administration that Karzai's government is "legitimate" leaves me with virtually no hope.

    Civilian casualties - not a issue.
    The Taliban is the new WMD.

    How they gonna sell that (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:20:19 PM EST
    next year, when the elections roll around?

    The "right" war?  

    Parent

    Selling (none / 0) (#27)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:10:32 PM EST
    They'll do the same thing Bush did.
    Scare us.
    Clinton will do a Colin Powell.

    Parent
    Tough feat (none / 0) (#42)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:27:26 PM EST
    given Al Queda no longer in Afghanistan.  

    Parent
    It's way harder to "scare" liberals (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:38:37 PM EST
    They always want to meet this enemy, see it in the flesh :)  "Maybe we can talk to them, have any of you even tried talking to these people?"

    Parent
    Liberals turn... (none / 0) (#71)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 06:57:05 AM EST
    "Liberals" get scared pretty easily, IMO.
    Al Franken was on the radio in NYC at the time of the PR campaign and he went for everything hook line and sinker. "Mushroom cloud".. . OOOOh.

    And the "liberal" politicians ... Kerry, H. Clinton, et al...

    The only voice of reason I heard from from Senator Byrd -- and the media quickly reminded us that he had belonged to the Klan - and so we could forget about Byrd and his opinions.


    Parent

    Did Franken go that way (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:23:18 AM EST
    during the runup of Iraq?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#89)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 04:11:48 PM EST
    Yes, he did.

    I actually called in to his show and asked him why he had been drawn in. He said he was "ashamed".

    I wasn't interested in "shaming" him.
    I just wanted to know if he had figured out why he had been drawn in - but before I could ask him, I had been cut off.

    The "why" is important to me because if we can't figure this out, we risk repeating the same behavior over and over.

    Parent

    I think it's great you called in!!!!!! (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:22:28 PM EST
    And Franken isn't dumb, he has a voice and he knows he has one and many were listening to him and he got sucked in.  Shame is a normal thing to feel after Bush got done with many of us.  I was fiercely ashamed that I didn't protest before my spouse went.  I knew that something wasn't right, and I couldn't quit reading stuff that wasn't on page one.  I swore silently to myself we were all being played but I said nothing much out loud.......then it turned out we were all being played.  I was ashamed.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 10:51:32 AM EST
    I think it is worth giving yourself credit for having a functioning bs detector. We all had a lot going against us trying to act on it --

    Parent
    Switcheroo (none / 0) (#72)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 06:58:24 AM EST
    Al's not there anymore?

    No Problem.

    And the winner is.......   The TALIBAN!

    Parent

    This would be exactly how it would (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:08:54 PM EST
    go too given how every other tough situation has been tackled.  They leave this decision publicly hanging in the wind, just flapping away....so the public begins to collect more information on the conflict and about how this will be much more difficult than anything dreamed of during the Hopey Changey campaign.  And then just when the most people possible are caringly paying attention and beginning to understand that we really need to just leave, THEY PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THE ESCALATION.  It couldn't have been done any stupider if anyone cares about the politics of the decision.

    Parent
    Is he (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:19:23 PM EST
    going to look for the Taliban under his desk?

    Parent
    My predictions... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:59:54 PM EST
    are looking good...2016 and beyond for these occupations...or till we go broke.

    Parent
    Aren't we broke now? (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:11:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Apparently not my friend... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:55:46 AM EST
    I mean I sure hope Mr. MT's well-earned paychecks aren't bouncing...that would mean we're finally broke.

    Parent
    Yes, we are well on our (none / 0) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:27:01 PM EST
    way toward quagmire-building.  Our man Karzai even bears uncanny similarities to Ngo Dinh Diem who came to power in 1955 in  South Viet Nam as president after a fraudulent referendum.  I know, I know, this is different and we will never repeat all those mistakes like being occupiers and relying on corrupt officials. Nor will be be engaged in pacification  This time it will be just to provide "security" to the tribes that includes not only safety from the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but also, comprehensive development of a land that is larger than NY and California combined.   This will take a lot of resources and a long time to do it right, but, President Obama has all that unerring military advise and he knows what he is doing, right?

    Parent
    by now probably everyone has seen (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:45:19 PM EST
    the Avatar trailer?

    heres the funniest part:
    Delgo vs Avatar
    make sure you click on the thumbnail images.
    Delgo, as you may or may not know, was as the article point out the most disastrous wide opening in movie history.
    but wait. its gets better. if you check out IMDB you will see if you scroll down that the Visual Effects Supervisor was, well, me.
    to make it even stranger I was around in the early days of Avatar.
    in 1995. you read that right. 1995. I have an Avatar tshirt from 1995.

    ps
    that Grubb guy had nothing whatever to do with the effects in Delgo. I have tried to get that credit changed but not that hard really.

    I've read Avatar described as (none / 0) (#21)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:49:22 PM EST
    "Dances with Wolves" meets "Fern Gully". Which seems about right.

    Parent
    very dissappointing really (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:55:27 PM EST
    we first saw the script when I was at Digital Domain in 1995 and i seemed so cool.  it was shelved at the time because (it was said) the technology was not "there" yet.  but seeing the trailer the technology has been there for years now.
    nothing all that groundbreaking.
    and it tickles the hell out of me that it is being compared to our little bargain basement movie.

    Parent
    Yeah, the effects really don't look (none / 0) (#30)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:53:25 PM EST
    much different then something out of the first new Star Wars movie or Fellowship of the Ring. I don't know how much the supposed 3d will add.

    Parent
    That's what I thought (none / 0) (#33)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:07:54 PM EST
    and I wondered how bad the movie was when they included the directors hit movies . . . .

    Parent
    Digital Domain? (none / 0) (#49)
    by otherlisa on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:48:07 PM EST
    Did you know Wook?

    Parent
    indeed (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:19:53 AM EST
    he is still a friend on Facebook

    Parent
    you are not the lisa (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:27:02 AM EST
    from DD are you??

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:28:44 AM EST
    not facebook.  one of the others Plaxo or Linked in maybe.

    Parent
    I should get the "bargain basement" (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:01:35 PM EST
    movie for him too if it's out there to be had.  There isn't anything of this sort he doesn't love.

    Parent
    its out there (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:05:18 AM EST
    link

    Parent
    I just bought it for Christmas (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:19:04 AM EST
    on Amazon....thanks mucho.

    Parent
    and my 401K (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:05:54 AM EST
    thanks you!

    Parent
    Did you work on the new Avatar? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:58:45 PM EST
    I don't care what anybody says about it, Joshua can't wait to own it.  He watched the Avatar series cartoon religiously.......I guess that would be Joshua's religion since he told me he isn't much for this Jesus stuff :)

    Parent
    the cameron (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:04:19 AM EST
    Avatar is not related to the cartoon series.  completely different thing.  there is a movie being made of that story (Avatar, the last air bender) but Cameron had the name first and made them drop the Avatar part.  it is just being called the Last Air Bender.


    Parent
    So there will be also an "Air bender" (none / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:12:36 AM EST
    flick...whew.  You are a precious resource for a mom like me.  Josh was bummed that the avatar in the new movie was all blue with no arrow on his head.  We all thought it was a new improved Aang, but it isn't Aang at all.  Can you believe that in the end he had even me following that series?  This is good news.  Now I have three possible movies coming up to get him.  He is such a collector of this stuff, makes good grades and we pay for grades so he always has the dough to buy all this stuff for himself, then Christmas or his b-day show up and I've got Nuthin.  Then I get him clothes and I get the frowny face.

    Parent
    but Im sure (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:06:34 AM EST
    he will love the Cameron movie anyway.
    it will look incredible for sure.

    Parent
    It appears that (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:45:35 PM EST
    a past local TV celebrity is the new winner of a city council position in my little burby berg.  Said celebrity was fired from his TV show for wanting too much money I suspect -- he was otherwise quite popular -- so he's foraying into politics.    His only real qualification is that he's a celebrity and he lives in my little burby berg.  He did not impress me with his vast understanding of issues in my town.

    So sad how elections are popularity contests.

    Oy. Curley. (none / 0) (#65)
    by shoephone on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:33:16 PM EST
    There was a time when the local TV guys were not bad picks for politics. Royer, Compton... Oh wait. They were actual journalists.

    Curley came out of the Almost Live crew, didn't he?

    His council career will definitely be interesting to watch -- from the other side of the pond!

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#68)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:19:47 PM EST
    Conan of the PNW. I found his humor to be as goofy as Conan's and don't think I ever successfully sat through an entire Evening program. Him and his sidekick, what'shisname.

    I didn't realize he was fired, though. He was there for months after his departure was announced (or, maybe it just seemed that way). Since I don't watch KING for any programming any longer, I miss all the trailers and don't have a clue who replaced him.


    Parent

    Greenwald's on fire about WH Anonymice infestation (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Ellie on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:48:03 PM EST
    That infestation is also IMO endemic of the Passivity Disease plaguing Obama and "his" administration. (How many of these Nonnymice can fit under the Oval Office desk anyway? It's as if the desk is this admin's version of the Bush/Cheney clown car.)

    I left out the embedded links below because this is worth a visit and a thorough read (including the jumps). This paragragh also serves as a concise summary:

    A White House official who is too cowardly even to attach his own name to his comments -- who has to hide behind Politico's permanently extended fetal wall of anonymity in order to criticize a member of Congress -- simultaneously accuses Anthony Weiner of being a coward and failing to "man-up."  ...

    And I quote this part for being as good a smackdown as any for powerful pol/media complaints about bloggers:

    Beltway mavens love to deride "bloggers" for writing anonymously, but at least even anonymous bloggers create pseudonyms that enable ongoing accountability; moreover, many of those anonymous bloggers are just ordinary citizens, with no power, who are too vulnerable to write under their real names.  But powerful political officials who will spew insults and criticisms only while protected from accountability are just frightened and weak.  The fact that one of those cowards, in this case, has to hide who he is while boldly accusing Weiner of being a coward -- the same Weiner who is willing to step up and criticize Obama with his name attached -- is unintended irony so extreme it's hard to express. ...
    But Rahm actually has a pseudonym (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by shoephone on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:40:28 PM EST
    He's referred to by others as "The Killer".

    It really would be so much easier for the media rags to just write things like, "When asked for the administration's position, The Killer said, 'I could take Weiner down with my bare hands!' Weiner's office did not respond."

    Since everyone knows who the source is anyway...

    Parent

    Bidenisms (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:06:18 PM EST
    Link

    My daughter voted for Obama (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:19:55 PM EST
    in New York.  She just walked into the kitchen and asked me what I'm blogging about tonight.  I told her mostly about how much I think Obama sucks right now.  She found this uninteresting and began looking for food.  I asked her if she thinks that Obama sucks and she said, "I dunno".

    He was a Rock Star! (none / 0) (#57)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:54:33 PM EST
    Pity, I should have written in David Bowie....oh, he's a Brit.

    Parent
    I guess the (none / 0) (#56)
    by JamesTX on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:35:06 PM EST
    main stream media has decided the election has put us right back where we were -- "moving to the right" -- as if we weren't already past being as far right as it is possible to go, and having been there for 20 years, we are suffering daily from the fallout of that failed political philosophy.

    But, alas! As long as we are peddling insanity, it's time to start up on the sex offender thing again! LAST ONE TO PILE ON IS A ROTTEN EGG! ABC is telling us that the system for controlling sex offenders is suddenly "broken" and badly in need of more state power and money.

    What more could they possibly do to this class of people? They have already been relieved of all constitutional rights and protections, far beyond anything allowed under any other criminal charge.

    Here we go again. It was nice reprieve for a few months.

    Hey, Anthony Sowell (none / 0) (#58)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:59:53 PM EST
    would give anyone a start.  The one serial rapist/murderer that I can think to compare him to is Dahmer - except that Dahmer hadn't been previously convicted of a sexual offense.

    A commenter elsewhere asked if Sowell had a psych eval in prison.  Probably not.  I'd love it if every felon had mandatory annual psych evals, but we don't take mental illness seriously enough to actually spend money on it.

    Parent

    People like this (none / 0) (#60)
    by JamesTX on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:31:20 PM EST
    and cases like this will always exist. Like you said, Dahmer wasn't even a suspect. There is no social policy or criminal justice policy which will ever guarantee that this can never happen. Making an offense punishable by summary execution does not reduce the occurrence of that offense to zero. Nothing can do that.

    The fundamental metaphor used by the media here is getting old. It is blatant manipulation of political ignorance in favor of powerful authorities, and it is shameful. The metaphor they use is that the system is "broken". It isn't "broken". "Broken" implies a need for a fix, which presumably means more state power to run roughshod over the rights of an entire class of people (of which only one in a million is anywhere near the kind of danger that Sowell was). It will be used as a rationale for making more laws that we don't need -- laws that won't help or change anything -- laws that will simply lead to more desensitization and support for violations of constitutional rights.

    The system isn't "broken". It is the most severe, strict, and unyielding system in the world. The rise of "sex offender" legislation during the conservative movement has spawned the most complete disregard and disparagement of individual rights this country has ever seen. If the point was to do that, then nothing is "broken". It is working quite well, as any Romeo and Juliet lover can tell you.

    Planes sometimes crash, regardless of policy. People kill, regardless of policy. Ships sink, regardless of policy. But the sex offender mania movement continues to prey on overly simplistic reasoning in suggesting that simply giving the state more power to violate individual rights will stop things like this from happening. It won't. That is a lie. And it is a lie that is causing America to lose its sense of justice. And it is wrong.

    Parent

    Wrong. Dahmer was reported (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:00:12 PM EST
    when one of his targets got free, got to the streets -- and a neighbor helped him ask for help from the cops.  But she was a  woman, and an African American woman.  And the Asian?  The cops figured that he must be old enough -- they all look alike, y'know -- and that it just was some homosexual spat or something.

    So the cops dismissed it all and went for doughnuts.

    I know this story well.  I knew one of Dahmer's next victims.

    There ARE things we can do to TRY more.

    Parent

    I understand there (none / 0) (#69)
    by JamesTX on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:46:45 AM EST
    is always some new policy or some new measure which would theoretically prevent a case from happening. It is an infinite series, save perhaps the end point where we decided that if everyone were just dead, it could never happen. But that is where sex offender mania goes from reason to madness. The measures to prevent it are always considered to be cost effective, regardless of the cost. So, we simply continue to enact preventative measures regardless of the cost in terms of human rights. Sure, we could imprison everybody who anyone specifies as being a potential offender, or label them for ostracism. This would also work for murder, or for robbery, or for anything else. The point is, we don't even consider it for anything else. We place individual rights above the general suspicions and discomforts of the population at some level. Reasoning about sex offenses has gone beyond any sense of balance between rights and potential threats.

    Yes, it is bad that racism and sexism of the sort you describe causes actual offenses to be overlooked or ignored. The fact is, that problem isn't unique to sex offenses, but to all offenses. The police respond to some people's complaints, and they ignore others. It doesn't matter if it is a sex offense or littering. They simply see some of us as being worthy of being taken seriously, and others not. That is bad, but it isn't unique to sex offenses.

    The point I am trying to make here is that it doesn't make sense to carry caution to extremes in this area, when it isn't in others. We need to get rid of unequal protection in all areas -- not just sex offenses. We are already at an extreme level of protection in this area.

    Yes, it is true that there is always something more that could be done. That is an infinite theoretical series. The fact is that there is already more being done about this than most other things, save perhaps protecting the property of the wealthy or the safety and comfort of police officers. We have a very, very elaborate system for labeling and identifying known sex offenders. It goes beyond what is done for any other crime. Regardless of your perspective, you must admit some of it gets very close to violating constitutional protections, as if it were some kind of special class of crime where the law doesn't apply. This has been going on for twenty years, and the system is very, very elaborate, powerful, and advanced. You can probably find the closest sex offender to your residence right now on the internet quicker than you can find the closest murderer, and just as easily as you can find the closest pizza store. To call for "more" every time a new crime gets reported is going to have to stop somewhere, or this issue is going to spill over into a major assault on constitutional rights.

    Parent

    Yes, this is predictable. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 04:14:28 AM EST
    Yes, we will always have the worst of the worst among us.

    What I find amazing is that looking over a list of known American serial killers, that almost none had a prior felony conviction.  Sowell did.  That makes him the exception, rather than the rule which isn't a comforting thought.

    If you want to talk about what could actually help prevent this, then let's talk an effective public mental health system for everybody and mandatory psych evals for every inmate who is convicted of a felony.  Sowell apparently knew there was something wrong with him.  He self medicated throughout his life.  He asked to be included in sexual offender counseling in prison.

    Jeralyn's post about the death penalty and mental illness is painful.  It's looking through the wrong end of the telescope.  The time to pay attention to mental illness isn't at the end of the judicial process, it's at the beginning and even before then.

    Too bad mental illness is so stigmatized that people would rather look for their solutions in a bottle, a pill, a drug.

    Parent

    I respect your (none / 0) (#79)
    by JamesTX on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:03:51 AM EST
    position that quality mental health services should be available to those who want it, and there is some level of mental health evaluation which might be due those convicted of crimes. Having said that, with my decades of experience in that field, it is important to understand that mental health services are not a panacea. We are inclined to seek help from science whenever we are confronted with a social problem we can't solve, and we have been conditioned to have absolute faith in doctors. Unfortunately, mental health is not something that is in a very advanced state of scientific understanding, regardless of appearances. The field has changed dramatically over the last few decades with the conservative movement. The conservative movement shifted attitudes about mental health, and people moved away from seeking answers from mental health professionals to seeking answers from religion. At the same time mental health became somewhat stigmatized. Seeking therapy became less popular, and came to be viewed as a sign of weakness or punishment. Religion made vast inroads into mental health organizations, and a great deal of science was rejected and ignored by the religious people who slowly took over many parts of the field with the aim of substituting their faith for the scientific method.

    Training is also an issue, as well as the peculiar ethical entanglements of providing psychotherapy. The fiduciary obligation of the psychotherapist is to the client. The moment you start using the mental health professional as a tool to protect public safety, their true role as a mental health provider ends, and they become a de facto police officer.  That is essentially what they are in many, if not most, settings and roles in which they find themselves today. The therapeutic relationship is impossible under those circumstances, because all allegiance is to a third party -- some authority.

    As mental health professionals have been incorporated into the role of "jailers", their training and competencies have been commensurately reduced.

    I agree that quality mental health services should be available to everybody, but the notion that we can force those services in some way to protect public safety is misguided. It is like trying to force a noodle through a telephone pole -- it collapses when force is applied. Then you are simply left with situation where the person has fewer rights and more intrusive authority, with no potential for benefit. It approaches cruel and unusual.

    I tip my hat to your idea, but I'm sure you understand there are almost insurmountable problems in making it a realty. My point here is that someone will be raped and killed somewhere by some mentally ill offender quite often in a population the size of the United States. The media will broadcast that case to give the public the feeling that it happened next door and that it is likely to happen to them. Both of those ideas have been discovered, strangely enough by cognitive psychology, to be predictable cognitive errors or illusions. People inflate the probability of things they hear a lot about (on the news), and they downplay the probability of things that are not widely publicized. Many people will die today in auto accidents, from medication errors, and from malnutrition. Many more than will be raped and killed. Why aren't we doing something! The system is broken! We need a law!

    Parent

    I guess (none / 0) (#83)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:28:53 AM EST
    we'll just ignore mental illness until someone breaks the law and then we'll chuck them in jail and ignore their mental illness there.

    Just like we've always done.  Yay, us.

    Parent

    I don't really mean (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by JamesTX on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:16:07 AM EST
    to be that extreme. I'm sorry if it came off that way. It is just that forcing someone into treatment is a big decision, and there is a competency question that would be in order just like any other situation. Unwanted medical treatment, if the individual is competent to consent, is torture. It is intrusive beyond anything the criminal justice system does, save lethal injection.

    Mental health treatment is the same. The question of whether they should be committed to involuntary mental health treatment would be a traditional competency question separate from their conviction of a crime.

    Parent

    According to TMZ (none / 0) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:58:27 PM EST
    Carrie Prejean demanded more than a million dollars during her settlement negotiations with Miss California USA Pageant officials -- that is, until the lawyer for the Pageant showed Carrie a XXX home video of her handiwork.

    We're told it took about 15 seconds for Carrie to jettison her demand.... She pockets nothing in the settlement.

    Can't be.... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:20:19 PM EST
    this was the highly religious girl who could not compromise her church's doctrine against others. Seems she either doesn't really have a problem breaking their rules, or they approve of young girls documenting their XXX antics on film.


    Parent
    Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 91 comments (91 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment