home

Tuesday Open Thread

Huffington Post has hired Dan Froomkin. Great decision by Arianna.

Al Franken has been sworn in as U.S. Senator. The Dems now have their 60 majority.

The family motorcade is leaving Forest Lawn for the Staples Center. The motorcade includes a hearse which contains Michael Jackson's casket. MSNBC has medical examiner Cyril Wecht, fresh off the heels of the dismissal of fraud charges against him, providing commentary. Lots of talk about whether the doctors committed a crime in prescribing drugs to Michael Jackson. (Wecht lashed out last week at Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan (of Tommy Chong fame, the one who is asking Obama to keep her on as U.S. Attorney even though she was a Bush appointee.) More on the Wecht's case at the Pittsburgh Gazette here. I rarely agree with Cyril, but I like him personally.

This is an open thread, all topics -- related to the "most important entertainer on the planet" (per CNN) or not - welcome.

< Monday Late Afternoon Open Thread | The Importance Of Froomkin And Greenwald >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Well, Al Franken (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:41:21 AM EST
    may not be the "most important entertainer on the planet," but I just watched him be sworn into the Senate.

    That was pretty gratifying.

    According to Harry Reid (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:20:53 PM EST
    Franken being #60 doesn't mean what we want it to mean. Instead, it means, "we all have to work together even harder now." At least that's what I heard him say yesterday on NPR.

    The Republicans must be thanking their lucky stars for the likes of the hapless Harry Reid.

    Parent

    Reid is a symptom (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:24:40 PM EST
    of a much larger problem.

    Parent
    The party (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    has 60 seats in the Senate and the Presidency and I dont know when it's been in worse shape. I feel like this is a repeat of the GOP years of 2002-2006 for Dems.

    Parent
    Mork? (none / 0) (#43)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 12:35:58 PM EST
    NSFW..GOP..BAK..PPJ..BDS..ODS..
                                             .
                                             .
                                             .
                                             .
                                             .
                                             .....NANU

    Parent
    That would be (none / 0) (#47)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 02:28:24 PM EST
    RFA to you.

    Get with it, will ya?

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:35:05 PM EST
    It is called America.

    Parent
    Said problem being (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 02:01:52 PM EST
    that in order to run for and stay in office, they ALL have to raise tons and tons of money ie:"speech", from interested parties who expect special favors in return for their largesse.

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 02:36:46 PM EST
    Most of the country is well to the right of where I stand.

    Parent
    Fritz was there! (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:16:28 PM EST
    Love that guy.

    Parent
    Ok, we've (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by eric on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:26:09 PM EST
    done our part here in Minnesota.  It took us long enough, but you now have two reliable, liberal votes, including full support for a public health care program.  Let's get some stuff done!

    Parent
    You know what? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    I think Steve M's diary about does Franken really win can be disappeared since we now have the answer.

    Aw! (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:16:04 PM EST
    My poor diary. :(

    Parent
    Hey (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 03:41:52 PM EST
    it was good while it lasted!!!

    Parent
    Looks Like an OD (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:15:23 PM EST
    The coroner's report is not yet in, but investigators are paying special attention to Propofol, one of the drugs found at Jackson's house, and the one that an expert says has a 100% death rate for most abusers.

    [snip]

    The only abusers who stand a chance are the few doctors who become addicted. Wischmeyer led a 2006-07 study of Propofol after a colleague died from the drug.

    link

    Looks like MJ's promoter AEG will be collecting insurance $$ as OD is covered, but not natural death.


    You can get addicted (none / 0) (#25)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 03:33:26 PM EST
    to an instant knockout drug?

    Upon further reading, users seem to like having an "instant nap" at their fingertips, with almost no lingering effects.  The real risk that they may simply
    not
    wake
    up

    doesn't seem to keep them from using it.

    Ah, well.  People who live incredibly dysfunctional lives and seek to sustain their dysfunctional lives with hazardous techniques like taking potentially fatal drugs are a bit beyond my comprehension.  Maybe it's the deliberate self delusion that I don't understand "I'm fine - I just need a quick nap exactly when I want one.  That's all.  What if I'm using a drug that could kill me - it's worked so far and it's worth it!".

    Accidental death - only because they didn't intend to die?  Or accidental suicide because they knowingly chose to take a fatal risk?  This is where the concept of sanity becomes fuzzy for me.  A soldier going into battle knowing s/he might die seems sane.  A person choosing to gamble with their very life while pretending what they are doing is safe - that doesn't seem entirely sane to me.

    Parent

    Honestly, if there were a safe instant nap drug (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 03:44:11 PM EST
    I'd want in on that.

    Parent
    Reading more (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 04:10:56 PM EST
    I found out a few things.

    1. Propofol addicts are addicts in the real sense of the word.  Digging used propofol syringes out of a sharps (used/contaminated needles & syringes) container?  That's multiple flavors of cringe!

    2. Propofol is not a restricted substance.  Oh, it's plenty dangerous - but it's not restricted.  That also means that there's no tight inventory control, so it's much easier to get - for medical professionals at least.

    3. It seems to be most popular with people with post traumatic stress disorder.  

    It's a tricky drug to use and there's little margin for error.  No wonder even medical professionals die while using it.

    Parent
    Obviously (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 04:02:57 PM EST
    You are not a highly stressed out person who has had a long problem with drug dependency. That is the group this drug appeals to. Evidentially it becomes a craving, the "sleep" must be a high of sorts, or maybe it is just being able to sleep deeply and wake with no hangover, absolutely alert.

    Not something I would mess with either. Seems like many non medical personal do not know the dangers of the drug, and it is not restricted.

    Parent

    I'll never understand (none / 0) (#30)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 04:14:38 PM EST
    how drugs are restricted.  There's no logic there.  If it was the danger a drug posed, Tylenol would be on the list.  Propofol would definitely be - it doesn't take much of an overdose to kill you.

    Heck, Lipitor would be restricted as well.

    Parent

    Fuel for the tin foil hat brigades... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:16:24 PM EST
    Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday called for a radical rethinking of the global economy, criticizing a growing divide between rich and poor and urging the establishment of a "world political authority" to oversee the economy and work for the "common good."

    Clearly, ACORN and the UN are behind this.

    Here's the entire encylclical (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:45:41 PM EST
    Link

    It's not all bad. Might want to read the whole thing.

    Parent

    I can't help but laugh... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:34:14 PM EST
    when Popes livin' the high life sitting on more gold, jewels, and booty than you can shake a stick at talking about poverty and the divide between rich and poor.  Start passing out rubies and emeralds on skid row, then call us back.

    The church heirarchy has been livin' off the sweat of the poor and working class pumpin' hard earned dough into collection plates since forever.

    Parent

    No word... (none / 0) (#23)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:04:08 PM EST
    ...on whether or not the Popester will be giving up his passion for Prada loafers for the greater good.  

    The Catholic Church--the oldest protection scam (and protector of paternalism) known to man.

    Parent

    Our local news... (none / 0) (#2)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:58:43 AM EST
    ...at least the channel I watch, has been spending a lot of time talking about the Class Action "Donning and Doffing" suit filed by some members of the Denver Police force.  Apparently, this particular action is being brought against cities all over the country.  

    Pretty gutsy to demand that you get paid to dress and undress for your job, IMO.  Plus, they want to get paid for taking their uniforms to the cleaners?!  Pffft.  Suck it up--if you don't consider it an honor to put on the uniform and serve your community, perhaps it is time to find another line of work.

    The city says it would cost us $200 million if they prevail--not something we can afford in this day and age. Somehow, I can't imagine this going any good for the image of cops as a whole.

    I think some law enforcement agencies (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:16:13 PM EST
    already compensate their uniformed employees for the time it takes to put on the uniform.

    Parent
    And the rest of us poor schmucks (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:24:56 PM EST
    have to show up, on time, ready for work.

    Should we demand to be paid for the time it takes us to get dressed?

    Parent

    To be fair (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:37:51 PM EST
    I know several police officers in different jurisdictions.  They are not allowed to wear their uniform to and from work or when they are off duty, so they must wear street clothes to work and change.  Does your job require you to completely change when you get to work and when you leave?

    This isn't novel - many manufacturing type facilities also pay for "prep"

    Can this be abuses?  Absolutely.  Maybe they need to make a rule that they will pay for 30 minutes total for changing time - 15 on the front end and 15 on the back, or however the officers want to divy it up.

    Parent

    I'd rather not have to wear a uniform. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:31:51 PM EST
    Actually (none / 0) (#22)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:47:48 PM EST
    I've never had a job where I had to wear a uniform, but my understanding is that there actually is a legal standard governing whether you're allowed to change on company time, or whether the company has a right to expect you to show up in your uniform ready to go at the appointed hour.  So this lawsuit isn't exactly exploring uncharted waters either way.

    Parent
    Some cities... (none / 0) (#8)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:31:26 PM EST
    ...like LA have settled.  The suit was denied in Phoenix.  I sure hope we don't settle.  

    Even though only about half of the force has signed on here, it still reflects badly on the entire department.  

    We'd all love to be paid for the time it takes every day to get ready for work, but that's not a realistic expectation--or a good use of taxpayer money.  

    Parent

    Some people have (none / 0) (#3)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:16:03 PM EST
    little problem selling their ethics for the right price.

    Anyone with enough money could probably find a doctor who would find a way to do what they want, even if the justification was "It's better if the patient takes dangerous drugs under my supervision than behind my back. (Well, mostly under my supervision.  Kind of.  In theory.)".

    I think my most persistent question WRT to MJ (and potentially other celebrities) is "Are/Were they mentally competent?".  Everyone makes foolish decisions and mistakes.  Some people have enough money to hire people to help them to make as few as possible.  Some people have enough money to make truly costly mistakes - over and over again.

    Some people have so much money that the people they put their faith in will do and say anything to keep their place on the gravy train.

    "No job, no money for Ward Churchill" (none / 0) (#24)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 03:18:39 PM EST
    so reports the Denver Post

    In a 42-page decision issued today, Naves agreed with the university that Churchill's presence on the Boulder campus would suggest that the university tolerated academic misconduct.

    "The evidence was credible that Professor Churchill will not only be the most visible member of the Department of Ethnic Studies if reinstated, but that reinstatement will create the perception in the broader academic community that the Department of Ethnic Studies tolerates research misconduct," Naves wrote.

    "In addition, this negative perception has great potential to hinder students graduating from the Department of Ethnic Studies in their efforts to obtain placement in graduate programs," he wrote.



    I think the same logic applies. (none / 0) (#31)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 04:54:55 PM EST
    You want it in your contract, fine--negotiate with the City to get it put in.  Why should the City have to shell out money we don't have because the union failed to do so?  

    They have a contract, so honor it.  This retroactive "oh, I've been wronged" crap is for the birds.  

    Another Endless Ethics Investigation (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 05:40:22 PM EST
    Dave Niewert was one of the people that drove Governor Palin to resign. He was investigating her connection with an Alaskan separatist group, the Alaska Independence Party.

    Last October, I went on CNN Newsroom with Rick Sanchez to talk about an investigative piece co-written with Max Blumenthal about Sarah Palin's longtime dalliances with Alaska's far-right elements, particularly the secessionist Alaska Independence Party.

    [snip]

    Now, it turns out that my short appearance on TV threw Sarah Palin into a tizzy and provoked a quarrel with Steve Schmidt of the McCain campaign. This from a CBS story by Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe:

    "Pls get in front of that ridiculous issue that's cropped up all day today - two reporters, a protestor's sign, and many shout-outs all claiming Todd's involvement in an anti-American political party," Palin wrote. "It's bull, and I don't want to have to keep reacting to it ... Pls have statement given on this so it's put to bed."

    [snip]

    "That's not part of their platform and he was only a 'member' bc independent alaskans too often check that 'Alaska Independent' box on voter registrations thinking it just means non partisan," Palin wrote. "He caught his error when changing our address and checked the right box. I still want it fixed."

    Now, the problem with this response is that it's just factually false. Palin's connections with the AIP ran much, much deeper than Todd's paper affiliation. As we explained in the Salon story:

    read on

    Well (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 07:32:51 PM EST
    You can't take this guy seriously - I mean, he only graduated from the University of Idaho, so he must not be too smart....

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 08:51:20 PM EST
    I assume you are joking. If not you show your ignorance, as usual.

    Parent
    Nice (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:20:32 AM EST
    More insults from you, though I expect nothing else - it's all you know how to do. Surprised you didn't try to reference Hillary in there somehow.

    Since you don't understand the reference, let me spell it out for you - I'll type slowly so you understand.

    The reference was to Sarah Palin, whom many (including here) like to believe is stupid because she only graduated from (wait for it) The University of Idaho

    Parent

    Reading Comprehension Problem? (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 11:31:04 AM EST
    I assume you are joking.
    Insult? Hardly....  Unless you have a guilty conscious.

    And as reactionary as Palin is, you do only her a disservice to repeat worn out stereotypes about her lack of intelligence, even as a joke.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 11:55:07 AM EST
    Tina Fey's routine was great, imo. She is a comedian and her satire was really entertaining, imo. jbindc, on the other hand is humorless and her or his clumsy attempt to insult three people in one silly swipe is more revealing as an indicator of intelligence or lack thereof, than any of Palin's speeches or biographical information.

    Parent
    IMO? (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 11:59:47 AM EST
    What Is That Ironic Again? (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 12:10:20 PM EST
    or something? google

    Parent
    Sometimes (none / 0) (#49)
    by CST on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 04:13:07 PM EST
    I really love my state.  From the Globe:

    "Mass. challenges federal Defense of Marriage Act"

    Go Martha Go!