Monday Morning News and Open Thread

Time to get back to real life after the Oscars. I've got a big court hearing Weds. in a 20 defendant case I'll be prepping for until then, and going to see Bon Jovi tomorrow night. This should my final week of having no time to be online or read the news. Hopefully, BTD will be around, and I'm sure I'll check in from time to time.

If there's news your interested in talking about, here's a place to do it. This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Post-Oscar Thread | The Progressive "Victories" In The Health Bills >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    As a tea drinker, I resemble this: (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:50:14 AM EST
    Tea industry hurt by tea party movement

    Money quote:

    Purveyors of fine tea and tea enthusiasts in general find themselves steeped in a linguistic shift, . . .

    Controversy brewing ... n/t (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:29:53 PM EST
    What about the damned Coffee Party (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:35:52 PM EST
    Stealing my drug of choice trying to promote Obama love.  I guess it's time to get smoked up with kdog....until some sheeples glom onto our means of coping and steal it right out from under us for purely mind numbed political pursuits.

    Always room in my circle... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:11:56 PM EST
    for you kid:)

    Ya know kdog (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:36:40 PM EST
    If you can end up getting a crowd from the intel community stoned, they'll never get their security clearance renewed :)

    Sounds like some... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:41:20 PM EST
    black ops I could believe in!

    Slip those mofos some of the California Medicinal Tootsie Rolls I've gotten my hands on recently till nobody got no damn clearance.

    Downright scrumptious those sweets...especially an hour after eating:)


    We are evil (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:06:52 PM EST
    For the record... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:11:24 PM EST
    it ain't righteous to dose nobody with nothing without their knowledge and consent...no matter how much good it would do the world:)

    Standards from stoners :) (none / 0) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:16:56 PM EST
    What will Jim think?

    I think Jim's allright... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:27:31 PM EST
    with my kind...kidneystones, otoh:)

    If you guys could get some weed (none / 0) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:00:00 PM EST
    used as an antioxidant seasoning on Top Chef, the sky is the limit on mass conversions :)  Hey, if we are ever both broke at the same time....we could start an epicurious type blog  with all recipes cooking with pot :)  I think we have a winner here.  I will be in charge of teaching herb garden growing techniques.

    Oh please (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:46:38 PM EST
    The article sets a new record for whining.

    It's an open thread (none / 0) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:37:59 PM EST
    open to what eva we want to do outside of constant fighting :)

    Follow the bouncing ball (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:43:28 PM EST
    and you will discover I was referring to the linked to article about tea.

    Hard day?



    That's what I was talking about (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:06:08 PM EST
    I'm having a creative day...you know, where different neurons meet for the first time :)

    Well then you should give me the (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:27:36 PM EST
    latitude to say that attacking tax protesters because you are having problems selling your product is.....whining.

    But whining is allowed in this thread (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:01:13 PM EST
    And so is wining.

    Interesting story about early releases (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 08:52:35 AM EST
    On Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm's plan to release inmates early to help the state's budget.  Her plan seems good, although I think some of the criticisms put out there (yes, by people running for her job, so they definitely are speaking to a specific constitutency) are at least worthy of a discussion.

    Lansing -- Gov. Jennifer Granholm's plan to cut the prison population through awarding "good time" credits, opening halfway houses and hiring parole officers is raising concerns among law-and-order activists of a possible crime wave.

    Experts say her plan to release 7,500 prisoners and close five facilities follows a nationwide trend that supporters say shows community support services do more to reduce crime than long jail sentences.

    The proposals, part of Granholm's budget for fiscal year 2011, have had a first hearing before the Senate Judiciary and Corrections Committee. Still, fears over prisoner releases prompted Senate Majority Floor Leader Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, to offer an alternative that would result in fewer released convicts and smaller savings. Granholm is trying to wipe out a $1.7 billion budget deficit.


    Under Granholm's plan to shave $139 million from the Corrections budget next year, "good time" credits for prisoners would be restored. They were eliminated for some violent crimes by ballot Proposal B of 1978, a ban later expanded to all felonies. Granholm also would undo the 1998 Truth in Sentencing law that requires felons to serve at least their minimum sentences.

    She would resurrect community residential programs, also known as halfway houses for prisoners, which were banned under the Truth in Sentencing law, which requires all sentences to be served behind bars.

    Some of the estimated savings of $139 million would be reinvested in more parole officers and increased support for parolees, such as substance abuse programs, job training and housing assistance.

    Way to go Granholm... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 09:16:58 AM EST
    it would be cooler if it was a "right thing to do" thing as opposed to an economic thing...regardless, I'll take it...good news to start the week!

    Hopefully the politics of fear strategy of her opponents fails miserably.


    Well, like I said (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 09:27:01 AM EST
    There is the other side to the story:

    "You can't balance the budget on the backs of public safety," said former state Court of Appeals Judge Bill Schuette, a Republican candidate for state attorney general. "You're shutting down prisons and putting dangerous criminals out on the street, and at the same time local communities have fewer cops enforcing the law."

    Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard, who is running for the Republican nomination for governor, said crime will skyrocket if the prisoners are let out before they've been rehabilitated.

    Michigan has the fewest local law enforcement personnel per capita among Great Lakes states despite having the region's highest crime rate, according to a study by the Council of State Governments Justice Center.
    Cropsey has offered an alternative plan that would, among other things, hold the line on Truth in Sentencing, ensuring that people in prison continue to serve no less than 100 percent of their minimum sentence. But prisoners, with the exception of lifers, would never serve more than 120 percent of their minimum sentence, effectively reducing the maximum sentence for many prisoners.

    The Cropsey plan also limits jail time for first-time parole offenders to nine months. And offenders would have to be released at least nine months before reaching their maximum sentence to be sure they spend at least that long on supervised parole in the community.

    Cropsey's plan would reduce the prison population by 433 the first year, for a savings of $2.2 million. By 2014, 4,669 prisoners would be released, and savings would total $35.3 million.

    More time in prison equals (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:52:39 AM EST
    a greater likelihood of rehabilitation??  I thought everyone gave up the fiction that prison rehabilitates.....The current is idea is to punish, no?

    Well... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 09:53:52 AM EST
    you sure can break the budget by over-punishing and over-incarcerating and over-policing...I guess Schuette would rather lay off teachers than precious cops and prison guards...I like the gov's idea to fix the books better.

    The Michigan laws are super-harsh. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 10:35:53 AM EST
    No credit for time served for any felony?

    Here is the Los Angeles County Sheriff's solution:


    Nope (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:04:53 AM EST
    That's what they are referring to when they talk about "Truth in Sentencing" - you get sentenced for 25-life, you're serving 25 years.

    Now of course, as with everything, there is a caveat.  Any time you spent in jail awaiting trial / plea and sentencing is counted as time served and is taken off your sentence.

    Michigan also has a sentence enhancement for habitual offenses as well as a felony firearm enhancement (2 years added on for first conviction, 5 years added on for second and 10 10 years added on for subsequent convictions).


    And I quote: (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:11:03 AM EST
    Under Granholm's plan to shave $139 million from the Corrections budget next year, "good time" credits for prisoners would be restored. They were eliminated for some violent crimes by ballot Proposal B of 1978, a ban later expanded to all felonies.

    Those being released (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:50:26 AM EST
    are non-violent offenders.  And they are getting out only a little early--usually a couple of weeks, etc.

    I would note that the article that you link to says that a guy who was released early was serving four months in jail for a second DUI--a conversation here earlier talked about 5 and 6 DUIs being met with just a slap on the wrist....

    This phenomenon you note is occuring throughout California as a result of a new law allowing early release of non-violent offenders....


    I would argue (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:00:35 PM EST
    That a second DUI and only 4 months IS a slap on the wrist.  I'll bet all the money I have that it certainly wasn't the second time that guy drove drunk.

    You only get to sentence people (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:07:58 PM EST
    to crimes they actually commit.

    And I understand you like long, harsh sentences....

    A second DUI where no one is hurt--that is the Paris Hilton crime....She served some 20 odd days....    


    Paris Hilton? (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:16:48 PM EST
    That's your argument?  

    Speaking of a slap on the wrist....

    I believe in sentences that fit the crime.  And a second DUI - whereby you put your life and the lives of everyone on the road on the line.


    Finishing my thought (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:21:48 PM EST
    And a second DUI - whereby you put your life and the lives of everyone on the road on the line....

    Seems like 4 months isn't enough time.  Obviously didn't learn his lesson the first time when he was probably locked up for 90 days or so.


    Only you're forgetting... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:34:38 PM EST
    that a DUI doesn't necessarily mean you were driving recklessly or putting anyone at risk.

    But, the thing is that you never know (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:54:05 PM EST
    how it's all going to turn out until it's too late to undo it.  You could drive without incident 100 times after having a nice glass of wine with dinner and an Irish coffee afterward, and that 101st time...well maybe that's the day you felt like you were getting a cold, so you took something after lunch.  Or maybe that's the day you skipped lunch and just kind of picked at that dinner.  Or maybe you were up until the wee hours the night before - with a work problem or a sick kid, or good ol' insomnia.  Maybe between the time you go into the restaurant and the time you leave, it's raining hard, so visibility is down - or maybe it's just started to sprinkle and the roads are slick.  Or there's fog, or sleet.  

    And that's the time you get into trouble.  Maybe it would have happened anyway, but maybe that one factor - that alcohol - when added to the other variables, is what made the difference between getting home in one piece - or not.

    There's nothing like having kids to make one think a little differently about people who drive after they have been drinking - just as I imagine everyone else worries about the teenagers driving home from the inevitable parties they all go to.

    Here's the thing:  you drink, you drive, you take your chances that (1) you make it home without hurting someone else or yourself, (2) you don't get stopped for something else - speeding?  Erratic driving? - that puts you in the bull's eye - but regardless - you take your chances, you suffer the consequences.  You want to cry about the injustice of it all, get a lawyer and make that case to the judge.

    Good luck.


    Remember the old saying of (none / 0) (#163)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:25:54 PM EST
    you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich?

    I think you can convict a ham sandwich of DUI....

    A number of cases I researched last year were plenty scant of evidence but convictions were plentiful.....The most astounding aspect was the ability to convict people of prescription-drug DUI.  The labs do not release the quantities of the drug in the defendant's system.  The prosecution relies instead on the arresting officer's field observations in place of an expert medical opinion based on lab results....The arresting officer would have taken a two week course and received a certificate as a Drug Recognition Expert.

    So, add to the list of things where you "take your chances":  driving while taking prescribed medicine in appropriate doses such as Prozac, over-the-counter cough medicines, anti-cancer drugs, or any regularly taken prescription medication....


    That's bad, I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:37:41 PM EST
    Are they also relying on those standard warning labels - "do not drive or operate machinery while taking this medication" - to justify these charges?

    I know a couple of things - there are too many people on the road, and they seem to be there all the time, too many of them are not paying enough attention to what they're doing while driving 20 mph over the speed limit, and if we had a better public transportation system, more of us could get off the road.

    I don't know what the answer is, I really don't.  That there seems to be some abuse on the part of law enforcement and prosecutors' offices needs to be addressed, but in the meantime, it doesn't mean people should not be making the conscious decision not to drink and drive - or be willing to take their chances of being stopped, with whatever consequences ensue.


    Personally, I wouldn't (none / 0) (#169)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:47:43 PM EST
    drink or drive....

    More mass transit....trying to eliminate drinking and driving will be like trying to eliminate illegal drug use or prostitution.....

    BTW, the new trend in land use is to immitate the old-style medievel European village.  Developers are building new structures with the downstairs being devoted to commercial use and the upstairs to residential use.....like the cobler who lives upstairs....Communities where you can walk everywhere would be nice.

    Back to the real world:  There is increasing reliance on supervised electronic confinement and alternative sentencing because they are cheaper and may work better.  


    I live in an old neighborhood like that (none / 0) (#174)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:18:07 PM EST
    and call myself urban Amish, walking everywhere.  After too many years of having to drive 25,000 miles a year, often in bad weather with even worse drivers, it's just wonderful.

    And nearby, a few miles away in a burb, is one of those "new urbanism" communities recently rebuilt from an old shopping center.  It is a model being watched nationwide, and the good news is that it was so well done that it is a huge success -- so that may encourage more such design.  

    A side benefit, to envision it, is that it is full of lane-like streets now, so when taking a very elderly relative on a shopping trip, I can park almost to the door of a shop, drive her on to the next one, etc.  Far better than the huge parking lots (plus this place looks so much better with buidings right up to the bordering streets, also much safer than huge parking lots difficult to police) of standard malls.

    And no one parks for long, because the lane spaces are metered -- and if anyone does stay too long and is ticketed, the fines go to local charities.  Just a few reasons for its success!


    I saw a t.v. special (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:42:46 PM EST
    where architects explained that narrower streets are perceived as better, more friendly etc, by humans.  They have reduced it to a ratio.  The shorter the building, the narrower the street should be....

    They showed photos of narrow streets bracketing two story buildings, and of wide streets with large setbacks for single story strip centers, etc.  The wide street versions just looked desolate--the examples they used were from suburban Texas....


    If you're on the road (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:47:31 PM EST
    in a multi-thousand pound weapon, and you have dulled reactions and perceptions, you are putting someone at risk.

    You've probably just described (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    the majority of people driving today, whether they are burned out after a difficult day at work, yukking it up with the other members of the carpool, worrying about their bills, mentally working out the logistics of kids' schedules, trying to remember what it was he or she was supposed to get at the store, planning what to have for dinner, caught up in sports-talk radio, looking at the GPS screen...

    I mean who - really, who - gets behind the wheel these days fully focused on the task at hand?  If you've ever been driving home from work and realized you don't have any memory of the last mile you just drove, you are as impaired as the person who's going to blow a .06 or a .08 on the breathalyzer, and just as capable of killing someone or yourself because you weren't paying attention.

    I want drunks off the road, too, but if the standard is "dulled reactions and perceptions," the roads would be almost empty.


    You said it Anne... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:15:52 PM EST
    I fear in jb's world 99% of us would be eligble for cage time.

    Safe roadways only exist in Neverneverland jb...get used to it.  Save the cages for those who are reckless and leave a victim in their wake.


    I was trying to be nice (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:30:18 PM EST
    Instead of saying soneone geting behind the whell of a multi-thousand pound weapon knowingly with alcohol or drugs in their system, which slows reaction time and inhibits judgment.

    Can we avoid all accidents?  No.  But again - there is not one single excuse for driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.  None. Zip.  Nada.  Not with the advent of the cell phone where you can call someone.

    This is a completely stupid argument - people actually defending those who drive drunk?  If you feel the need to imbibe - be responsible.  Is that really too much to ask?  (Apparently it is with this crowd).


    It is the definition of "impaired" (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:36:40 PM EST
    and also the sentences that you would seek to impose.

    No one is for drunk driving.....


    What you're missing is... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:44:17 PM EST
    there is drunk, and there is had a glass of wine or two with dinner and totally fine to drive...yet both could fail a breath test and be convicted of DUI.

    A .06 or .08 is a far cry from a drunken menace...but don't try and tell the psychos at MADD, they'll bite your head off.


    Or iow... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:48:30 PM EST
    blood alcohol content is really no measure of how you're driving.

    I say repeal all the drinking and driving laws, the texting while driving, the cellphone while driving...and keep the laws against reckless driving, it covers the lot of it.

    But then we can't harass people who had a few and drive perfectly fine...I guess thats the issue.


    I say repeal (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:54:10 PM EST
    those peace-disturbing, air-befouling, gas-guzzling, body-mangling monstrosities.

    Now thats an idea... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:57:18 PM EST
    but much like the AK47 and the ballistic nuclear missile, we can't uninvent the farkin' things...so they must be permitted, otherwise only "criminals" will have them.

    We may not be able (none / 0) (#110)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:02:00 PM EST
    to uninvent them, but we can always replace them with something better and saner.

    That I leave to the Buckminster Fullers of the world.


    .08 on person of moderate weight (none / 0) (#189)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 05:32:27 PM EST
    is two drinks, neither of which has burned off yet.

    One glass of wine will put most (none / 0) (#197)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 06:18:54 PM EST
    women in the danger zone--especially the larger glass that a lot of expensive restaurants use.  

    "This" crowd is a criminal defense blog (3.00 / 2) (#92)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:39:02 PM EST
    Why you constantly seek to burden this blog with your pro-prosecution (and ill-informed) rants is beyond me.

    Funny thing, that (none / 0) (#101)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:49:59 PM EST
    Most criminal defense attorneys I know or have ever met are not nearly as pie-in-the sky as the few who are on this blog.  They are reasonable people who actually know that some people commit crimes in this world and many times, their clients have had to go to jail.  None of them has ever said that the government is a big, scary place who just have mean ol' prosecutors out to get their clients.

    Diversity of opinions is usually tolerated on this blog with the exception of a few fringe folks.


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:00:48 PM EST
    Calling Jeralyn et al unreasonable freaks? Not very gracious behavior for someone who has invited you in their virtual living room, is it?
    Long-haired preachers come out every night,
    Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
    But when asked how 'bout something to eat
    They will answer with voices so sweet:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

    Joe Hill


    Nice strawman (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:19:17 PM EST
    Causing trouble as usual, eh, squeaky?

    I never called Jeralyn anything (and I didn't call anyone a "freak - reading past a a 2nd grade level is important - you might want to try it). And trying to get someone in trouble or banned for your own projections is also second grade behavior. I said some on this blog are fringe.

    But I'll bow out of this conversation because it's reached the point where I realize it's become the old axiom about arguing with fools....


    Strawman? (none / 0) (#131)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:27:14 PM EST
    Hardly. I quote you:

    Most criminal defense attorneys I know or have ever met are not nearly as pie-in-the sky as the few who are on this blog.  They are reasonable people...

    Jeralyn has directly told you that this is a criminal defense site not a victim's rights site. She is not reasonable according to your point of view, and according to your provocative statement is one of the few criminal defense lawyers who is out of touch with reality, or " pie in the sky mentality" as you put it. That would qualify her and the other "few" you characterize as freaks.


    anomaly, aberration, rarity, oddity, unusual occurrence; fluke, twist of fate.

    There are significant abuses (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:09:09 PM EST
    In my view, Democrats decided about 20 years they had to adopt a tough stance on crime to get elected.  So, they tried to out-do the Republicans in locking up and executing people.  That I believe eliminated any balance in the system.

    Now, the system is totally unbalanced with innocent people on death row--and innocent people probably having been executed.  If that can happen in a capital murder case with all its procedural hurdles and supposed protections, it can certainly happen in cases wiht lesser charges too.

    If Democrats would stand-up for the rights of the criminally accused, perhaps this imbalance could be solved.

    As to your views, they are uniformly and stridently pro-prosecution.


    Wow (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    The world must be a really scary place for you..

    Only where (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:31:24 PM EST
    people think the rights of imparied drivers trump those of on the road who are trying to get where we are going safely.

    Oh, I See (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:35:26 PM EST
    A theoretical fear, aka rhetoric with a large helping of hyperbole.

    No one has said or implied that. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:41:07 PM EST
    And of course (none / 0) (#55)
    by Rojas on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:47:32 PM EST
    it does not even mean that you were drunk. For most of the ladies here one glass of wine is enough, certainly two.

    You got it exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:02:40 PM EST
    As I have pointed out, John Kerry's daughter was recently arrested for DUI at .06 blood alcohol.  And, in California as in most states, you can be arrested for DUI at a blood alcohol level below the per se statute of .08.

    I sat in on a random DUI trial last year and heard the State's expert witness opine that absolutely everyone is impaired at .05 and some people at less than even that.  And toss in being allgedly impaired while taking medication, or vitamins or whatever, and the cops can nail many, many people for DUI.

    So, according to jb, if you have one glass of wine and the cop thinks you are impaired, off to jail you go for 90 days....Where will this scythe not cut?


    I will take you to a graveyard I know (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:01:41 PM EST
    and you can ask a young lady I knew how she feels about that.

    A tragic loss should not be compounded (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:12:02 PM EST
    by over-reacting.....

    Just as we over-reacted by invading Iraq after 9/11, some over-react with respect to criminal justice issues....


    Ah yes, let us not demand that people (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:22:43 PM EST
    who knowingly do things that are likely to hurt, maim and kill others suffer punishment.

    I mean, really.


    It goes to the discussion of impaired (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:30:31 PM EST
    It is not just being drunk....

    LOL (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:30:39 PM EST
    But of course in your selective rule book, indefinite detention without due process with large doses of cruel and unusual punishment, torture, and shooting looters, are obviously excluded.

    Ah, squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:00:08 PM EST
    long time no read... Attacked anyone because of their grandparents sins lately?

    I'll give you last word.


    No one suggested there should (none / 0) (#140)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:35:28 PM EST
    be no punishment for drunk drivers who hurt others....

    What would be your suggestion for (none / 0) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:01:25 PM EST

    It all depends on the situation (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:10:55 PM EST
    Was someone actually hurt?  But to equate an accident with someone pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger goes too far.

    A heavy emphasis on treatment.   Use of home confinement....This is the trend anyway, I am glad to say.  The tough on crime people who gravitate to long, very harsh sentences are finding a smaller audience now that state finances are tight....Republicans are on board in surprising numbers....

    The tough on crime folks are holding up as a strawmen the sentences of 30-40 years ago as being too lenient.  Those days are long gone, and DUI sentences are very, very tough now...


    My previous comments indicated that young (none / 0) (#185)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 05:15:51 PM EST
    girl had been killed by a driver who was DWI. She was 14.

    He was a piece of trash who just couldn't grasp the fact that he shouldn't drink and drive.

    After all, he was a good driver, great reflexes, great vision and would never, never, never harm, anyone.

    Short sentences? I'd give him 5 minutes at the end of a rope and do it just after we have all the beer commercials on any given NFL game.

    Education? Rehab? Is there a person who is even semi-conscious that doesn't know NOT to drink and drive?

    Of course not. They all just want to do what they want to do when they want to do it.


    I think most people drink and drive (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 05:26:44 PM EST
    They all believe that they are not impaired....

    Every bar and restaurant lets loose drinkers and drivers....Millions every day.  Who drinks just at home?  How many people who eat at restaurants don't have wine or beer too?  Every pizza joint on Saturday night.

    Capital punishment for drunk driving?  That does tend to devalue capital punishment....


    Devalue? Are you kiding me? (none / 0) (#194)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 05:55:33 PM EST
    No state has capital punishment (none / 0) (#195)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 06:00:06 PM EST
    for even felony drunk driving resulting in the death of someone else.  

    To get where you want to go, you have to do serious damage to the requirement of intent as an element of a capital offense, assuming that one supports capital punishment in the first place.


    Paris Hilton was by way of example (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:49:37 PM EST
    that everyone seems to have knowledge of....She served more than the average because she was a celebrity and thus got singled out for excessive punishment--given the trend in LA County at the time.

    You advocate 90 days for a first offense DUI?  Most people's lives would be destroyed by a sentence like that.  They would lose their jobs, etc.  Do you realize how many people are arrested for DUI every year?--it is well over a million people nationally.  

    Fortunately, your draconian views on sentencing are not employed or advocated by anyone.  No one could afford to lock up so many people for so long....

    A first offense DUI in California usually results in no jail time aside from the 6 hours or so after an arrest--everyone is processed out of the local county jail.  There is a license suspension of typically 6 months.

    You appear to not be well-informed with respect to DUI prosecutions.


    You appear (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:56:13 PM EST
    Not to be well-versed on the dangers of driving while impaired.

    I hope you never have to find out, since you want to make apologies for those who choose to drive when they shouldn't.


    I am very well informed (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    And the prosecution has created a lynch mob type mentality on this issue....

    Sheer economics will prevent the vengeful sentences that you advocate--and without much knowledge of the criminal justice aspect to this.


    I'm not so much for vengeful (none / 0) (#71)
    by observed on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:09:20 PM EST
    sentences as for taking licenses away early and often. Zero tolerance for impaired driving should be the rule---and that includes talking on cell phones, with or without handsets.

    Then no conversations... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:18:02 PM EST
    ...between passengers and driver either, right?

    I really don't know what the right (none / 0) (#79)
    by observed on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:20:06 PM EST
    line is, but in this country we are far too lenient.
    Talking on cell phones while driving is known to cause impairment similar to drinking; I'm not aware that any studies have shown the same thing for live conversation.

    If the alternative to "too lenient" (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:07:41 PM EST
    is "too tyrannical", I'll take lenient.

    Subjective (none / 0) (#145)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:48:59 PM EST
    It's only too lenient when it's others. I wonder how they'll react when it's them or one of their's that finds themselves in the net? Anyone that thinks it can't happen is only fooling themselves.

    Amen friend... (none / 0) (#160)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:17:46 PM EST
    I'm in Police State NY State...half the people I know got a dee-wee on their record...some made a mistake and deserved it, some were no threat to anybody and got screwed by the man.

    Saw your comment on your experience...I apologize on behalf of a tyrannized nation.  That's farked up.


    I'll take not allowing reckless (none / 0) (#172)
    by observed on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:01:49 PM EST
    drivers to endanger the public, thank you.
    Anyone who can't forego talking on the cell phone while driving isn't responsible enough to drive.

    No way (none / 0) (#180)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:26:43 PM EST
    They can't even go to the restroom without a cell phone!

    The definition of "impaired" (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:18:15 PM EST
    is a moving target....

    Most people think of the fall-down drunk....Not so.  Impaired can mean just getting nervous and failing a field sobriety test after a big glass of wine.....or having taken cold medicine.

    People are being convicted for DUI without corroborating lab tests indicating the level of prescription drugs in their system--based on the testimonay of a cop they have dubbed a Drug Recognition Expert.....which means he passed a two week course....But he is "super-cop" and can say, without knowing how much of any prescription drug was in a person's system, that the person was under the influence of a prescription drug.

      MADD is going after Prozac users now.  It is just vengeance....becoming quite irrational.


    Mandatory Sentencing (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:47:34 PM EST
    I got a DUI several years ago. It was 9:00 AM and I was returning from a business trip. I was definitely sober. (I rarely drink at all and definety not for breakfast)! I passed the test and the cop said it didn't matter. If I would give him $100 he'd let me go. He said the DUI would cost me a H#ll of a lot more than that.

    It cost me over $2000 and the judge dismissed the case because I had passed the test. But by today's standards, I could very easily have been carted off to jail and lost my job and everything all because I wouldn't pay off a corrupt cop.

    Justice should never be a black and white mandatory world. Our system has become guilty until proven innocent rather that the other way around.


    The fact that enforcement (none / 0) (#199)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 07:59:41 PM EST
    and convictions are being handled in an arbitrary fashion does not mean that the goal of keeping impaired drivers off the road is wrong; it means that there should be specific markers of what's grounds for arrest or whatever, and those markers should be based on -- dare I say it, science.  I personally think drunk drivers are a menace, but I would fight like heck to make sure a client accused of drunk driving was not subject to arbitrary rules or selective prosecution.

    There is a difference between DUI (none / 0) (#191)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 05:37:19 PM EST
    and driving with BA .08 or higher.  Also, given how many potential jurors do drink and drive, it is very difficult to obtain a guilty verdict when the BA is at or about .08.  Burn off.  

    Saw it done (none / 0) (#196)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 06:12:03 PM EST
    Hence, the prosecution witness who said everyone is impaired at .05.  That's true, right?  The prosecution experts say that on cue....according to a literal script....

    Saw it done more than once on prescription drugs.  No lab results showing how much of the detected drug was in the system.  True, too?  I am talking about a jurisdiction that I believe you are familiar with...

    Because of prosecutor overreach, there are more and more not-guilty verdicts....



    why is guilt or innocence up (none / 0) (#200)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 08:01:28 PM EST
    to a witness and not according to a standard of which we are all on notice?  

    Perhaps rehab is in order . . . . (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:39:29 PM EST
    Earl and friends (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 08:58:20 AM EST
    Quite the little menagerie (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 09:00:10 AM EST
    You have going there, huh?

    no kidding (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 09:03:43 AM EST
    if I adopt the two chinchillas I will be getting close to the entire food chain.

    That courthouse (none / 0) (#6)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 09:17:22 AM EST
    It's Jefferson County in Colorado, right? I've seen it, it's a beautiful building.

    I bet that corridor is super warm when (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 10:36:32 AM EST
    the sun hits those windows.  

    Massa quote (none / 0) (#12)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:08:43 AM EST
    "Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn... He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."

    -- Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY),

    I guess he's not a big Rahm Emmanuel fan!

    Sad part of it is:  if Emmnuel really wanted to get the votes, he'd pay attention to the base of the party.

    It's one thing to trash the progressive wing. It becomes a totally different thing when you go after the unions and women. Those groups encompass all segments of the party.

    So can we have it both ways? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Farmboy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:35:47 AM EST
    The consensus across blogtopia is that the White House has done nothing for 14 months. Yet, Rep. Massa claims the Chief of Staff would "sell his mother" for a vote.

    One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn't belong...


    No (none / 0) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:59:49 AM EST
    Thanks for pointing that out.

    Sounds to me like Massa is or has come unhinged.


    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:20:08 PM EST
    regardless of what you think of Rahm, Massa's going Blagojevich- he's on Beck tomorrow to complete the implosion.

    That was often the Soviet's argument (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:37:58 PM EST
    when dealing with people who didn't toe the party line yet were too well known to execute.

    Do you ever (none / 0) (#198)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 07:29:21 PM EST
    make comments that actually make any kind of logical sense?  Or do you just have a bunch of stock phrases you throw out when a particular word catches your attention?

    Not exactly contradictory (none / 0) (#143)
    by Left of the Left on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:45:13 PM EST
    Hands off approach is to make it so anything=win. No PO? Not his fault. No National exchanges? Not his fault. Sell out any person, place, thing for a vote? Of course, a wins a win.

    Maybe the votes he's looking for (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:13:30 PM EST
    Sad part of it is:  if Emmnuel really wanted to get the votes, he'd pay attention to the base of the party.

    don't come from the base of the D party.


    If what Massa allegedly sd. to his (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:18:54 AM EST
    assistant is language used in Battlestar Galactica and, according to Urban Dictionary, is a nerdy substitute for a much stronger word, should Massa have resigned?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:31:24 AM EST
    Sounds like someone using jock talk between guys.

    But the real reason he is resigning isn't out. He is afraid of what Obama's people will do to him.

    Shades of Nixon.


    This is what he is saying (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:38:59 AM EST

    Seems like he's blaming the WH -doesn't seem like he's at all afraid of them.

    Massa said that forcing him out of office would make it easier for the House Democratic leadership to pass healthcare reform legislation.

    "This administration and this House leadership has said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this healthcare bill. And now they've gotten rid of me and it will pass. You connect the dots."

    Massa opposed the healthcare bill in November because he believed its provisions were not strong enough to effect change in the health insurance industry.

    That's why (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:26:47 AM EST
    I thnk there's more to the story.

    But the "more to the story" (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:16:36 PM EST
    that may be there is probably not the "more" that you have been so sure there is...

    As TPMDC explains, Massa, who announced last week he will resign today, was a no vote on health care. His departure will mean the threshold for passing the bill would drop by one vote, to 216.

    According to Massa, either the Obama Administration or Dem congressional leaders -- or both -- caused the ethics committee to begin an investigation of him after he announced March 3 that he wouldn't seek reelection for health reasons.

    He announced he would resign two days later, on March 5. And Massa says that didn't hear of the harassment allegations until after the announcement he would not seek reelection.

    "It wasn't until after I stood in front of the American people and said I simply can't do this anymore ... did anyone say anything to me about a House investigation concerning [the harassment allegation]," Massa said on his radio show. He continued:

    "And then you turn to Roll Call newspaper this morning -- 'Massa's resignation good news for health care backers' -- and the light comes on. That with the departure of Congressman Neil Abercrombie, who is running for the governorship of Hawaii, and with the tragic, and very sad passing of my personal good friend Jack Murtha, mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill.

    And this administration and this house leadership have said, quote unquote, 'they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill.' And now they've gotten rid of me and it will pass. You connect the dots."

    Is it actually the deciding vote - I don't know - but between Obama, who never let anything stand in the way of what he wanted, and Emanuel, who isn't known for playing nice, I don't think Massa's suspicions should be dismissed out of hand.


    I didn't dismiss anything (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:20:11 PM EST
    Actually, it was others who jumped on the "Of course, it's his health, why would you believe this story out of Politico about his behavior?" bandwagon.

    I think that his health is one part, probably his vote is another, but I think there's more to the ethics probe than one random comment he made at a wedding.

    And while I don't think Obama is above Chicago-style mob tactics, I think the fact that Massa has now changed his story a couple of times in a matter of days says a lot.


    Says something (none / 0) (#146)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:51:50 PM EST
    that Massa is now going on 'Beck' also.

    What is may say (none / 0) (#201)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 08:08:37 PM EST
    is that other media outlets for being critical of the powers that be are rather limited.

    PRICELESS video of Rahm & Massa, c. 2006 (none / 0) (#148)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:54:17 PM EST
    a tea bag too far (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:09:33 AM EST
    from republico

    A group that includes leading conservative lawyers and policy experts, former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr  and several senior officials of the last Bush administration is denouncing as "shameful" Republican attacks on lawyers who came to the Obama Justice Department after representing suspected terrorists.

    Senate Republicans have demanded details of the lawyers' past work and Liz Cheney's group "Keep America Safe" has questioned their "values."

    "We consider these attacks both unjust to the individuals in question and destructive of any attempt to build lasting mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications," wrote the 19 lawyers whose names were attached to the statement as of early Monday.

    The statement cited John Adams's defense of British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre to argue that "zealous representation of unpopular clients" is an important American tradition.

    Yeah but (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:11:43 AM EST
    Liz Cheney is just as crazy as her father.  Seems like these guys realize it too.

    It's a ruse (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:50:53 AM EST
    any way. Red meat for the teabaggers.

    This has been part of the Thugs strategic mo since Nixon: the media dirty tricks people, the Cheneys, Cristols, Becks, Limbaughs etc make sure the story gets out there in circulation and then, weeks later, the more dignified, respectable right wing issues it's "Not US..WE"D never say anything like that.." disclaimers.  


    the difference being (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:15:35 AM EST
    now that she is stepping on their toes, they are saying it in public.

    Scotus Blog's Right-Wing Bias (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:26:40 AM EST
    Matt Sundquist of Scotus Blog seems to be trying to push forward a right-wing agenda on scotus blog.  See how he reacts to different polls on the Supreme Court decision.

    Concerning the Washington Post and Greenberg Quinlan polls (which indicated people were against the decision), Matt Sundquist waxes philosophical about how poorly the wording of the poll was when the polls asked people whether or not they agreed with the Supreme Court decision.

    To the contrary, he had no problem today with uncritically referring to a right-wing backed opinion poll purportedly about the Citizens decision even though the poll was so evasive, it never even asked the polled whether or not they agreed with the Supreme Court decision (seriously, read the poll yourself).

    Irony alert (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:40:52 AM EST
    Why would they (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:14:19 PM EST
    choose to go THERE? Isnt that the Peoples Republic of Canada, where "the state" makes you wait a month to get Ibuprofen?

    Paging Wile & co for clarification.


    ?? They sell Tylenol with codeine OTC (none / 0) (#39)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:19:57 PM EST
    in Canada.

    Extreme sarcasm, I.G (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:31:01 PM EST
    :) Ahhh (none / 0) (#142)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:42:18 PM EST
    Thanks for the clarification....I read it too literally.  

    As a child, not as an adult or parent (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:17:44 PM EST
    In a speech in Calgary, Palin called it "ironic" that while growing up in a small Alaskan town near the Canadian border, her family used to sneak across the border to take advantage of the Canadian healthcare system.

    Living in a state that borders Canada, I know a lot of people who have gone north to get procedures done for less, bought medications OTC that are only available by prescription here, had dental work done, and had surgeries that were not yet approved here. Many people go to Europe for medical treatments that aren't approved here, too.


    I would call it more (4.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:54:40 AM EST
    of a hypocrisy alert

    I'd call it typical... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:04:12 PM EST
    of "free market" (lol) people...what they really mean is a market they can scam.

    Read the article behind the link (none / 0) (#41)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:20:45 PM EST

    What article.... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:39:35 PM EST
    the medicine news link?  It's not workin' for me.

    The one that started this (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:47:54 PM EST

    She was taken to Canada by her parents for medical treatment. It's not actually necessary to sneak into Canada for anything. Hard to attach hypocrite to her for any of that.

    She has so many flaws and political drawbacks, that I just don't understand why the media keeps pushing the petty, and ridiculous.


    a blog of all things. No video, no recording, no multiple source confirmation, etc.

    She has said something similar before, but that time the story was that her brother went to Juneau for burn treatment, not Canada.

    She is supposed to have said this took place in the 60's; socialized med didn't make it to the Yukon (where she purportedly went for treatment) until the 70's.

    I'm pretty sure you need some sort of Canadian ID to get involved in their med plan, although I'm also sure the docs and hospitals, etc., would be very happy to take your cash money if you're not in the Canadian HC system.

    If she did say it, I think her point was that in the 60's the Canadian HC system was good, and now, not so much...


    I think she's snuck a lot of things (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:13:19 PM EST
    Palin has also told an alternate version (none / 0) (#84)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:30:38 PM EST
    Palin has also told an alternate version of the story that had her family traveling south by ferry to Juneau from Skagway for treatment of her brother's burned foot, rather than to Canada, according to a 2007 report posted by the Skagway News.

    I know people who order Canadian (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:41:37 PM EST
    drugs through the mail because they cannot afford them at US prices even with Medicare Part D, and pay the rest of their bills.

    Yet they also oppose Obama taking $500 billion from Medicare, destroying same.

    Fancy that! People pushing their self interest!


    Looks like this is going to be my (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:28:20 PM EST
    last litter of pups for a really long time.  Last year we didn't have too much problem activating German Shepherd Rescues, pulling dogs out of the pounds, placing them in foster homes and then adopting them out.  There is seldom a huge problem homing purebred dogs.  The caca has hit the fan though.  I don't know how those of us who make the effort are going to be able to absorb the numbers of GSDs being surrendered this month and probably in all upcoming months too for a long time.  Another breeder here who bought some really excellent dogs phoned me the other day asking if I wanted to purchase any from him.  I just got Gretel from him a few months back.  These dogs have hefty champion bloodlines, both are around two years old, the perfect age to finish them and then add them to the gene pool.  Zero takers though, maybe if he was giving them away.  He has paid a couple of thousand dollars for each though.

    Animal shelters (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:55:38 PM EST
    I read an article about how a lot of shelters are being overwhelmed with dogs that people are turning in because they can't afford them anymore. It was really depressing. The shelters were running out of money to handle all of them.

    I keep reminding my two bassets how lucky they are to have a doting owner like me! Both my "little" girls weigh close to 85 pounds. So they haven't gone without too many meals.


    Awwww (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:00:32 PM EST
    I love Bassets, two are way better than one.  



    It is hard to believe the number (none / 0) (#173)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:11:29 PM EST
    of German Shepherds being turned over to shelters.  We have people who the shelters call when they get a purebred in and then those people hit the yahoo groups lists and usually foster homes are taking them in in about three days, and they go to new homes in 30 to 60 days.  Everybody is spayed or neutered in the process if they weren't yet.  But when you have 10 or 15 in each major city shelter and 3's and 4's in more minor shelters, I don't think we handle this.  We can't foster them, and everyone is so broke I don't know where the new homes will come from.

    Bob Somerby takes Rachel Maddow (none / 0) (#44)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:29:37 PM EST
    to the woodshed.  Again.  Equates her to Hannity.

    He's not wrong.

    Yes he is (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:48:59 PM EST
    that's just ludicrous.

    What's actually MORE Hannity-like is equating Maddow with Hannity.

    I wouldnt have before, but I'd have to give Sommerby this weeks Hannity award for that one.


    Basically (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:52:51 PM EST
    Didnt-publicly-go-to-the-wall-for-Hillary = condemned for life.

    We might as well be honest about it.


    Somerby went from (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:21:52 PM EST
    must read to a never read somewhere around March of 2008.

    Was Somerby a vocal Hillary backer? (none / 0) (#63)
    by observed on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:56:34 PM EST
    I missed it. Do you have some problem with today's column about Maddow? Seems pretty good to me!

    You dont feel that way? (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    I read far fewer blogs than I did 5 years ago. (none / 0) (#74)
    by observed on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:12:30 PM EST
    I stopped reading DH because I was mad at Somerby's crusade agasint Joe Wilson. In general I think he's very good. If you think he's unhinged about the  Hillary issue, I could believe it, with evidence, but the column I just read is quite a good hit on Maddow.

    I dropped DH (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Farmboy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:28:50 PM EST
    because of some of Somerby's habits. For example: he's always right about a given topic, and everyone else involved is a rube/idiot/hack/fool/etc. You don't agree with him? Then you're a rube/idiot/hack/fool/etc. You can't have a reasoned conversation with someone whose only tactic is the insult.

    But the biggest thing - which drives me up a wall to this day - is that he's the only person who thought Al Gore got a raw deal in 2000. No one in the media, no one online, no one else on the planet thought this - but him. And he'll keep reminding his readers, pretty much at the drop of a hat, that he's the only one who ever noticed - whether it's germane to the topic or not. Health care reform in trouble? It's just like in 2000, when I told you about Gore being beat up by the media. Earthquake in Haiti? I told you back in 2000 about Gore, didn't I!


    Somerby can be far too (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:07:31 PM EST
    harsh against some media libs such as the imperfect but otherwise essentially correct Maddow, to the point where I wonder who out there doing regular media or journalism consistently meets his rather lofty standards for precision and fairness.  Not sure if he's ever offered up a name.  Instead, his M.O. is mostly in pointing out the faults, at times splitting hairs to do so.  I read him less frequently today.

    That said, he was the only media watcher I'm aware of who, in RT and daily, dissected the MSM's atrocities against Gore 2000, and he's also the only one who consistently since then has reminded us about what a given, favored left-of-center MSMer of today said back then during that ugly media campaign against Gore.  For this, he deserves great credit.

    There is a lot to be said about what would have been different if more good people had spoken out back during the media attacks on Gore, but Somerby has beaten that one to death for some time.  Maybe he needs to finish that book on the subject he promised a while back, get it out of his system and move on.


    He has a web site for the book (none / 0) (#120)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:13:39 PM EST
    He is kind of writing it on line chapter by chapter.

    I tend to agree with your post - I've not been sure because I don't watch Maddow, so maybe he is right. It just seems like he has been repetitive for a while, so I have not been reading as much. But he is the authority on the media treatment of Gore.


    Sounds like a description (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:21:54 PM EST
    of Alexander Cockburn.

    he's got the personality of an (none / 0) (#86)
    by observed on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:32:28 PM EST
    annoying crank, but his columns are worth reading, most of the time.

    Isn't she much smarter than Hannity? (none / 0) (#51)
    by observed on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:43:19 PM EST
    I'm not excusing her--actually I hardly know her show---but she is well-educated and does prep for her interviews.

    If you havn't watched her show very much (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:49:53 PM EST
    why do you think she is smarter?

    Education does not relate to intelligence, just a memory good enough to write what you have been told down.

    I mean these "Left smart Right dumb" arguments are self defeating.


    Give us some scintillating (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:56:36 PM EST
    examples you can think of... some penetrating insight's from Hannity-Limbaugh-Beck brain trust and maybe some will shut up about it.

    The floor is yours. sir.


    Where did I claim (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:46:34 PM EST
    that Hannity et al was super smart???

    Check your local adult education establishment for a reading comprehension class.



    Well (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:18:30 PM EST
    as a proven backer, you should be able to give us a couple of examples of why Sean & co seem to be seen by so many as the voices of a certain "silent majority".

    Come now (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:24:27 PM EST
    You have no proof for your claim.

    Why not just give up with the falsehood?


    lol (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:31:50 PM EST
    I do remember the days when you used to link to O'Reilly and Whirled Nut Daily..or, I did I just dream all that?

    This is when we need a two-thousand word explication - with links - by ...someone. :)


    I have also linked KOS (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:36:33 PM EST
    and the NYT.

    Your point is??

    Heck, jondee, I even watch Larry King (sometimes... but I never miss "24!"



    And both times (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:54:54 PM EST
    you linked to KOS and the NYT it was because..:)

    mostly I agree with you, but I think (none / 0) (#61)
    by observed on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:55:05 PM EST
    Hannity is actually dumb-ish. It probably doesn't matter, since the staff does so much of the work.
    I went to Daily Howler and read the latest.
    Ugh! She's pathetic.
    To me, what's so weak is not that she's distorting the facts for political ends---it's that she's bad at it!
    Who CARES if Republicans are hypocrites (true or not)? If Orrin Hatch is a hypocrite, that doesn't make Obama's HCR a good thing.

    By the way, I've only seen one interview she did. That was the interview of this hateful ex-gay whose propaganda has been used by the Uganda govt in their  kill the gays pogrom.
    She was totally prepared, AND she was professional and respectful in her tone. The interview was devastating.
    Apparently she spends much of her time smirking and sneering at the idiots on the right, esp. the "teabaggers". If so, very bad work on her part.


    Maybe she was "prepared" (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    Because the topic was one near and dear to her heart and her guest really had no leg to stand on?

    Sure, that's obvious. What I liked was (none / 0) (#70)
    by observed on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:07:00 PM EST
    her professional demeanor. From what I've read, she's a clown a lot of the time.

    All the talking heads...on both sides.... (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:51:59 PM EST
    speak what they think their audience wants to hear.

    That's just the nature of the beast.


    Rhodes Scholars don't generally (none / 0) (#149)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:54:33 PM EST
    have to defend their intelligence level. My ex- was a Rhodes Scholarship finalist....that's not easy to achieve.

    Linkey-dinkey, for your convenience (none / 0) (#53)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:47:15 PM EST
    hanks, Ron... (none / 0) (#164)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:25:57 PM EST
    The key points (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:54:14 PM EST
    This sort of thing goes on each night on Maddow's remarkable program. Let's be fair: It may be that Maddow's staff does terrible work, and Maddow doesn't know this. If not, we'd have to say this: We've rarely seen anyone so baldly dishonest on cable news of any stripe. This is Hannity-level dissembling, perhaps worse. Here's why it actually matters:

    First, when millionaire broadcasters play you this way, they're expressing contempt for your being. Hannity has done this sort of thing for decades. "Our side" is now catching up. (Presumably, this is good for business. It brings rube eyeballs to the screen, justifying large salaries.)

    Second, and far more important: A progressive broadcaster who works this way will never produce winning politics. She will never help progressive viewers understand the world as it is. This type of screeching and dissembling has worked quite well for Hannity-types down through the years. But even if we're willing to tolerate this type of dissembling on our programs, we think it's very unlikely that it will ever work real well for us.

    Final point: Maddow seems to want to argue "character" rather than "merits." That is: Instead of finding ways to explain: Health reform is good and here's why, she seems determined to argue this: The other tribe is dishonest.

    This type of argument makes the liberal choir feel good. (Good for ratings!) It probably isn't very effective at convincing undecideds or conservative-leaners..

    But so what? Night after night, Our Own Rhodes Scholar plays this remarkable game

    Somerby nails it.


    Oh come on (none / 0) (#72)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:10:49 PM EST
    Once in awhile they do something legitimate.  

    If you want drivel (OMG C Street! OMG) hers is the show to watch.  :)


    Hahha.. indeed. What exactly was the (none / 0) (#75)
    by observed on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:13:14 PM EST
    scandal about "pro-life" people having dealings with C Street?

    Rent (none / 0) (#138)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:34:35 PM EST
    But whooooo is subsidizing the rent at C Street? !!?!!   Whooooo?!!!  (note: I am staring earnestly in the camera with my head slightly cocked)

    Fellow music freaks.... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:22:28 PM EST
    going to see John Hiatt Wednesday, and am somewhat embarassed to say I am totally unfamilar with his work.

    Can anybody break it down for me...am I in for a rockin' good time?

    OMG, you are sooo in for a treat (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:57:05 PM EST
    John is great live. Since you are unfamiliar, I will fill you in - he wrote a lot of the songs Bonnie Raitt had hits with, most famously 'Thing Called Love'. Couple more too. Also, 'Memphis in the Meantime' that has been a hit for more than one artist. You will recognize songs you did not know he wrote.

    He does a wide variety, from hard charging blues-rock, to some more country/folk songs. I love 'Buffalo River Home' and 'Angel' the best.

    Travels with a great band, and has a really fun stage personality.

    I'm going to see if he is coming down here on this tour.


    and Icy Blue Heart (none / 0) (#106)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:59:19 PM EST
    Great song. "She came on to him like a slow moving cold front"

    The Weather Channel (none / 0) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:31:27 PM EST
    replaces Momma? Trains? Prison? Old dogs?

    Is nothing sacred?


    Thanks ruffian... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:01:30 PM EST
    sounds like my kinda scene...and well worth breaking my pre-vacation save my ducats self-imposed hermitude:)

    Oh yeah, if anything is worth some of (none / 0) (#111)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:02:24 PM EST
    your hard earned vacation cash, this is it!

    If you like the show (none / 0) (#112)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:03:54 PM EST
    his 'John Hiatt Comes Alive at Budukan' CD is a favorite of mine. Or would be good one to get for show prep.

    You are indeed in for... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:23:59 PM EST
    ...a rockin' good time, my friend.  JH is a sublime and far too over-looked artist.  Especially if you going to see him in a small venue.  

    I'm hoping to go see John Doe this weekend at a small little dive.  Got to love up close and personal!


    The trifecta of respected opinions... (none / 0) (#152)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:00:01 PM EST
    is complete.  Irving Plaza qualifies as an intimate venue.

    Enjoy your show man...get 'em in before 2012!


    thanks! (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:24:17 PM EST
    I've never tried lala - they have lots of Hiatt. More live stuff than I knew about.

    I first heard him when he was (none / 0) (#121)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:14:28 PM EST
    playing in Ry Cooder's band back in the early eighties. John's a soulful road warrior whose been though the fire and passed through all the best "schools" and back.

    Unless Hiatt is really, really off, you should have yourself a good old time, kdog.


    Thats 2... (none / 0) (#125)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:20:44 PM EST
    reco's from uber-respected sources.  

    Now I know I made the right call to spend 40 bucks plus I have no business spending...besides, I'm too big to fail:)


    He's in the Levon (none / 0) (#130)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:26:10 PM EST
    end of the cosmic wavelength (or whatever it is)..lets put it that way.

    Now I'm salivating... (none / 0) (#139)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 02:35:01 PM EST
    Speaking of Levon, check here often to see if he adds a Midnight Ramble at his farm for July 4th, I believe he will...and act fast before it sells out.

    There is no experience like it in music today...and I'd love to see ya there brother.  

    Same for the rest of the TL crew.


    Supreme Court (none / 0) (#154)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:00:24 PM EST
    The case is brought by a Maryland father whose son's 2006 funeral was picketed by members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan. Westboro pastor Fred Phelps contends that the deaths of American soldiers are punishment for the nation's tolerance for homosexuality.

    Where does this guy get all the money to conduct all these protests and get to the S.C.?

    Another reason why churches should be taxed. Why should his organization be tax exempt?

    The Phelps crew... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:12:48 PM EST
    are beyond the pale, but I believe they have a consitutional right to do how they shamefully do.

    But I also believe the grief stricken should have the right to chase them away with baseball bats:)

    As Carlin might have said..."no one is offering a better deal than that".


    Yeah I'm pretty (none / 0) (#178)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:25:08 PM EST
    close to a free speech absolutist and I feel pretty mixed about the Phelps funeral thing- I mean its private property but given the content of their signs I think it could be argued that the protests are a massive example of the "fighting words" exception.

    Public property (none / 0) (#179)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:25:31 PM EST
    I meant to say.

    Free speech (none / 0) (#181)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:33:02 PM EST
    I don't object to their free speech. I object to them doing it under the guise of a church. If they're a church, we should all be churches and all exempt from taxes!

    the final solution initiative (none / 0) (#165)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:33:01 PM EST
    sorry, the FAIR solution initiative:

    Group: Law Should Force Gays Out of Utah

    A local group called Patriots for a Moral Utah has petitioned Lt. Gov. Greg Bell to submit what it calls the "Fair Solution Initiative" to referendum vote this November.

    According to the bill's text, published this morning on the group's Facebook page, the initiative seeks to change state law to provide for "the involuntary redistribution and relocation of homosexuals to municipalities outside state boundaries or, to their rehabilitation in state sanctioned facilities."

    To do this, the bill would create an office of relocation and rehabilitation, a volunteer board of Utah residents to assist with the process, and public transportation options for homosexuals who will willingly leave the state. It also outlines guidelines to prosecute "delinquent homosexuals" or those who harbor them.

    seems sort of extreme to me but nothing surprises me anymore.

    sorry (none / 0) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:33:25 PM EST
    Ya know, Capn, (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:23:08 PM EST
    over the past week or so that I've been paying attention, it seems nearly everything you post has been riddled with questionable factuality, this being the latest in a long line...

    It's a friggin' hoax.

    Can you not spell google?


    can you spell (2.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 05:00:27 PM EST

    when the title says "Real or Hoax?" it might be a red flag.


    No one reads links. Apparently. (none / 0) (#186)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 05:16:58 PM EST
    btw, CA Sen Ashford came out on a radio show this AM...

    I was just gonna (none / 0) (#187)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 05:19:49 PM EST
    make another joke about the archrival group Moralists for a Patriotic Utah getting involved and tying everything up in committee..

    A pretty good one though (none / 0) (#183)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 04:49:50 PM EST
    It is almost believable....It is Utah, after all.

    god (none / 0) (#168)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 03:40:34 PM EST
    really - god.

    Beyond my obvious dismay and contempt for religion fueled hysteria, on a practical level I'm glad they think their state coffers are so full that they can afford a full on witch hunt.


    Got some stick time in a (none / 0) (#190)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 05:32:35 PM EST
    Little Bird yesterday. First time in almost 20 years. Nice to have old friends who are now CW 5's.

    I miss it. however, the eyes are gone. The reflexes are about gone. I dreamed of flying NOE, but that's now 1,000-1,500 feet AGL, lol.

    I think that was my last ride in the right seat or left seat. Time to leave it to the kids. Sigh.

    People try to put us d-down (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
    Just because we get around (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
    Things they do look awful c-c-cold (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
    I hope I die before I get old (Talkin' 'bout my generation)

    Guess it is clear that fading away is a viable option. Make room for the new kids. Maybe move to a beach where drinks are served with parasols, the beer is always served in an ice bucket, and the fish is so fresh the gills are moving. Sigh.
    right now I'm waiting on kdog's report from his trip. I always did like locations south of here. Usually the Caribbean side, though.  

    I here ya, Jeff (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 05:39:50 PM EST
    Just trying to grow old gracefully. And doing so in a warmer sunnier clime always sounds good at this time of the year.

    Old rugby injuries are coming back to haunt me. A little less rain in my life might be called for.

    Okay, kdog, I, too, await your report from south of the border.


    Heh. We can start a new type of expat colony. (none / 0) (#193)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 05:45:19 PM EST
    The aching body TL expats!