Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread

We're headed to 100 degrees today and I have to go to the dentist.

The Barefoot Bandit is deported after pleading guilty to illegally landing a plane and paying a $300 fine. (Updated, original version of CNN article said he was sentenced to three months in prison or fined $300.) The NY Times has more on the deportation.

John Wyma, whose information led to the Blagojevich wiretaps, is testifying today. The prosecution seems close to resting and the judge may delay the trial a week for Blago to begin his defense. His lawyers say they will argue lack of criminal intent and reliance upon advice of counsel and others.[More...]

The defense in this case is a lack of willfulness,” said Sam Adam Sr., the dean of Blagojevich’s large legal team. “The defendant had no criminal intent in the things that he said and the things that he did.” “The defendant has the right to show he did not intend to commit a crime. He relied on many people, some lawyers and some not … who gave him advice as to what he could do and what he couldn’t do. He relied on it … That shows his lack of willfulness.”

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< NY Judge Refuses to Dismiss Ahmed Ghailani Case | Scott McInnis: Hasan Foundation Critical of Plagiarism Response >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Indecency bad, profanity ok (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:06:53 PM EST
    Here's one for kdog....

    FCC Swear Word Censorship Policy Tossed By Federal Court

    ["By prohibiting all `patently offensive' references to sex, sexual organs and excretion without giving adequate guidance as to what `patently offensive' means, the FCC effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive," the appeals court wrote.

    "To place any discussion of these vast topics at the broadcaster's peril has the effect of promoting wide self-censorship of valuable material which should be completely protected under the First Amendment," it added.]

    Cool ruling... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:12:37 PM EST
    thanks waldenpond.

    Sometimes there is no other word to use but a "profane" one...glad more of our vocab is available to broadcasters.


    Victims of the crimes Harris-Moore is accused of were happy to see him in custody.

    "These people that support him, they've never been violated by having him break into their homes or businesses," said Joni Fowler, manager of a cafe on Orcas Island north of Seattle where Harris-Moore is accused of taking as much as $1,500.

    "Just knowing he has a huge network of supporters makes me really worry about the state of this country."

    Fowler said she hopes Harris-Moore's arrest and upcoming court appearances will pop his mystique and fame -- "once everybody figures out he's no God."

    so many leaps (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:56:04 PM EST
    not one thinks hes a god, first, and second I strongly suspect that as with all famous "serial offenders" many of the crimes he is credited with were probably done by others and finally there is a strong possibility (fact in my case) that in spite of not being robbed by him we have been robbed give up the pity party and get over the fact that many people acknowledge he did some amazing things.

    2 years on the run... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 04:01:02 PM EST
    in this day and age?  He has some super-natural god-like qualities to pull that off alone, never mind the self-taught flying.



    a crook is a crook is a crook (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 06:37:32 PM EST
    True... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 07:27:23 AM EST
    but this one has style, and stones the size of bowling balls.  A god amongst common thieves.

    I thought you of all people might have a soft spot for him too buddy, with your aviation background...not impressed at all?

    Oh well, if not enjoy the series of perp walks from the Bahamas to Miami to Washington...John Law is gonna milk this one for being taunted and ridiculed by the young outlaw.


    Well, I do have a soft spot for him just because (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:14:04 PM EST
    of his style... but the fact is he is a crook and has injured people.

    And yeah, paybacks are heck and he is gonna get some.


    Ha! (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 06:58:29 PM EST
    Husband, friends, & myself laughing (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 04:17:22 PM EST
    all morning. (Actually, the outline of McInnis' mess was first divulged on our local ABC outlet last night.) 'Would suggest that those interested in a "plagiarism" story (much better than the Repubs favored-variety ala onetime Professor Ward Churchill) read the headlined story in today's Denver Post. And, look at the graphic reprints by the Post's staff accompanying the story.

    Actually it IS a big story. As the comparisons make clear, this isn't just a slip or few slips of the tongue trying to capture a phrase(s) in someone else's speech. What you have here are pages of reproduced words, structure, and thought. To emphasize, the Post interviewed a reputed expert on the subject of plagiarism, who said that plagiarism can be based on words or ideas...and, she found that in the McInnis instance, the material plagiarized met both criteria (theft of words and ideas.)

    Should Republican McInnis go on to win his gubernatorial primary on August 10th, well...you can imagine the Democratic references all the way to November. But wait! His Republican opponent--whats-his-name Maes from the further right reaches (who has a story about himself today on the second section's front page) has some $$$ issues of his own, having just agreed to pay a reduced penalty for violations of campaign financing law. With those two ethically challenged candidates...maybe Colorado citizens will be spared the usual "Republican values" campaign this time around.

    For more potential Republican implosion in Colorado, see the internecine ideological battle in the Republican Senatorial primary. There, Jane Norton and Ken Buck are vying for who can move to the purist right. Maybe soon-to-be-outgoing Utah Senator Bob Bennett got it "right" when he observed recently that there is trouble in that Republican paradise due to purity positioning and other infighting. (He cited Nevada, Colorado, and Kentucky as examples.)


    Equally as big a story... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:52:57 PM EST
    ...may turn out to be whether or not the Hussan Foundation (funded by an uber-wealthy/powerful CO Republican family) paid Scooter the 300K for this "research grant" in an attempt to circumvent campaign funding laws.  It sure doesn't seem to pass the smell test.

    And also whether or not Lawyer/Lobbyist/Plagiarist McInnis will be de-barred over this.  That will have an ever more profound effect on his long-term future and viability as a politician/lobbyist.

    Regardless, somewhere Bob Schaffer is smiling today.  And like I said on this very blog months ago--say hello to Governor Hickenlooper.


    hey (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:55:03 PM EST
    nice to see you. virtually.
    havent seen you for a while.  at our age that is concerning.

    Thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:59:10 PM EST
    It's been an uphill battle...

    hang (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 06:01:55 PM EST
    in there

    Nice to see your comments, MileHi (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 06:37:38 PM EST
    'Hope all is well or getting better.

    Excellent point about the Foundation. If not that kind of pass-through, the history of water law and western slope expansion political issues would be another place to look.


    Just trying to take it... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 06:53:28 PM EST
    one day at a time.  Thanks for the good thoughts!

    As to the Foundation, I look at it this way--CO is lousy with "experts" on water law and Scooter isn't someone who comes to find when looking for one.  

    Did you see his interview on Channel 7?  Pathetic.  


    Good to have you back, MileHi (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:59:00 PM EST
    I was getting a little worried. Hope your recovery is on track.

    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#64)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:37:32 PM EST
    What an interview! But, what language was McInnis speaking...pretzel-ese? (Ferrugia was pressing. Nice to see that.)

    BTW, I seem to recall that it was Lowell Thomas who practiced laughter and watching humorous video to promote healing. It does help. And, with the McInnis & Maes antics, we have 2/3 of The Three Stooges.


    And with... (none / 0) (#89)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 02:14:43 PM EST
    ...Norton and Buck we have 4 Stooges!  Throw in Wadhams and we have a quintuple...

    Hope (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    You are on the mend!

    Hi Mile Hi Hawkeye (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:01:48 PM EST
    Nice to hear from you, we were getting worried...  Glad to see that you are back.

    You are here :) (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 12:26:10 PM EST
    I hope all goes well, you have been in my thoughts.  It is nice to see your comments up and about.

    i think blogo (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 04:24:21 PM EST
    would be better off using "i am stupid" as his defense. were i on the jury, i'd aquit.

    To: Donald from Hawaii (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 04:31:23 PM EST
    Just saw your response to the feigned "yawn."  While I make light of the scenario in Colorado, your comments about the nature of plagiarism reflect my long-held beliefs. Theft of thought is very similar to having your person violated.  

    In the present case, it is important to look at the passages by McInnis (or his ghostwriter)--the length and intricacy. This is one of those rare instances where someone's conduct really fits the almost trite descriptor "mind boggling."

    Ditto to Donald (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:37:41 AM EST
    As another who has been plagiarized many times, I can tell you that it is not just some intellectual event.  It. Hurts.  

    Every time got me gasping for oxygen.  Every time still feels like an open wound that never will be healed.  When a researcher has spent years of hard work and sacrifice -- often a sacrifice by family, too -- in developing a new idea, and then has worked hours on every word and phrase to communicate that idea . . . for someone to just lift it in a matter of seconds and claim it as their own . . . well, the pain is indescribable.

    And few of us get rewarded with a third of a million for it, either.  I hope that he has to send that money to the authors.  And I hope that there is a special h*ll for plagiarists.


    Is it an actual mental illness? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:28:36 PM EST
    I know they don't like facts, but it looks more serious than that....

    "That's been the majority Republican view for some time," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. "That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

    last night (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:35:44 PM EST
    for whatever reason I ended up looking at FOX news.
    I caught the end of Oreally and the beginning of Halnnityjob.  
    and there, first up, was the witch of Wasilla going on about how awful, absolutely AWFUL, it was of anyone to use "rhetoric" and misinformation to scare people.

    now, let that sink in for a minute.
    its not a mental illness.  its a disease.


    As someone whose Mother was (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 06:44:56 PM EST
    called every election cycle and told if a Republican was elected she would lose her Medicare and Social Security...... I share your concern.

    Wicked Witch (none / 0) (#62)
    by dead dancer on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:11:19 PM EST
    Darn that Wasilla witch. She also kept calling my mums. Sneaky repugs!

    Not only that (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:48:10 PM EST
    She was in middle school at the time..

    Or perhaps she has a Time Machine...


    hate to break it to you (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 09:05:08 AM EST
    but if republicans are elected she could lose medicare and social security.

    have you not been paying attention?


    Hate to break it to you, capt., (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 11:16:08 AM EST
    but we may all lose that Social Security and Medicare if the Democrats win too. Obama seems bound and determined to out Republican the Republicans when it comes to destroying those programs.

    His deficit reduction committee is chaired by two men committed to slashing SS and Medicare and Medicaid, and the committee is stacked with people who hate those programs. This is Obama's committee. He formed it after Congress wouldn't.

    I can be pretty cynical, but I never thought I'd see the day Social Security was put on the chopping block by a Democratic president.


    its a fact (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 11:22:29 AM EST
    that changes are going to have to be made to the program.  
    its just a fact.  presidents and congresses can not continue to ignore this.
    if you call things like means testing and possible raising the retirement age slowly over several years gutting social security I simply dont agree.

    its a rather courageous position IMO.  Obama my really be content to be a one term president if he is able to do some of the things president have been unable to do for decades.

    and if you think what Obama and the democrats would to is in any way equivalent to what the republicans would do, well I think that is just delusional.


    Social Security is fine. (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 04:26:52 PM EST
    All federal programs should be in the position of being fully funded for the next two decades. You might want to do a little reading on this. SS is not in danger of running out of money.

    I don't understand the hold Pete Peterson has over Obama, but it is a hold that does not bode well for the rest of us. Peterson has been devoted to killing SS since the "80s. Wall St. has always lusted after that money. With SS dollars safely tucked away in gold plated treasury bonds Wall St. doesn't get to rake in all the $$$  it could make in fees.

    Means testing would "gut" SS. A big part of its popularity comes from everyone getting the benefits. As soon as it becomes a program tilted to those of less means it gets labeled a welfare program. That's is never a good thing for the survival of a gov't program.

    Raise the retirement age to 70? Well, okay maybe if you sit behind a desk. Not so okay if you work in a physical job or are on your feet all day. And what about all those over 50 year olds who lose their jobs and cannot find work? Such they starve for 20 years in the hopes that they live long enough to collect SS?

    A simple change that would take care of any worries about the SS trust fund would be to eliminate the income cap on contributions (make all income subject to FICA), and raise the contribution by just 1 %. Problem solved into the next century.

    If we make any changes to SS right now it should be to raise benefits. Thanks to he fecklessness of Wall St. and its federal regulators the next couple of generations of retirees, at the least, will be even more dependent on SS for survival. 401Ks are decimated; housing values are decimated. There is no way boomers or even gen xers will ever make up those loses. And, given the deplorable job situation for the millenials, they will be behind the financial 8 ball for their whole working lives. They will never be able to make up for the financial hits they are taking at the beginning of their work lives.

    Oh, and Medicare? Medicare's problems will be solved when the health care crisis is solved. A move to single-payer would take care of it all. Too bad Obama opted for the health insurance co. bailout instead.

    Do some reading on this, Capt. You seem to be very susceptible to the same right-wing talking points that Obama, tragically, keeps buying into.


    yeah (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 04:48:48 PM EST
    I have always been susceptible to right wing talking points.
    like these in the NY Times.

    WASHINGTON -- Even as Congress hunted for ways to finance a major expansion of health insurance coverage, the Obama administration reported Tuesday that the financial condition of the two largest federal benefit programs, Medicare and Social Security, had deteriorated, in part because of the recession.

    As a result, the administration said, the Medicare fund that pays hospital bills for older Americans is expected to run out of money in 2017, two years sooner than projected last year. The Social Security trust fund will be exhausted in 2037, four years earlier than predicted, it said.

    20 years.  wow. thats a long time.  


    What is driving the need for changes? (none / 0) (#90)
    by BTAL on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    Just a few days ago it was strongly argued that SS was completely stable and all those Treasury bonds were golden assurances and how fine the condition of SS really is.

    argued? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 02:30:45 PM EST
    by who?

    Starting at comment #23 (none / 0) (#92)
    by BTAL on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 03:27:24 PM EST
    yeah (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 03:36:21 PM EST
    I stated my opinion

    Well, you have the results right (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:19:34 PM EST
    but the party wrong.

    My mother is dead and my Medicare is going to be rationed by a death panel appointed by a Democrat.

    BTW - I have this neat letter in front of me concerning a drug the Doc wanted my wife to take.... NO, says the Insurance Co... under Medicare rules we want her to take THIS...

    Of course no one besides her Doctor has seen her..

    So the methods and procedures are in place and in use.


    is gravity an illusion? (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:42:45 PM EST
    A Scientist Takes On Gravity

    on another mind bending subject I was talking to a friend today about the whole "universe as hologram" thing I was reading about and googling I found this:

    The Holographic Universe

    Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.
    Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light.

    This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.

    Holographic Paradox (none / 0) (#61)
    by Raskolnikov on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:08:10 PM EST
    Neat stuff, makes a lot of sense in a crazy sort of way...I think this is my favorite "theory of everything" I've read so far.

    I agree (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 09:27:44 AM EST
    a couple of days ago I was reading something else that challenges some of the stuff in there.  the Expanding Universe part.  this has been believed because the science has found that the universe is expanding or flying apart at an accelerating rate.  not only that it seemed that the farther into space (and back in time) they looked the faster things were going.  they could not explain this so "dark energy" was sort of made up as the mysterious force that was causing it.
    now this guy is saying that dark energy is bunk and the reason things seem to be moving faster the farther away and back in time we look is because time itself is actually slowing down and will eventually stop so when we look at cosmological things that are billions of light years away we are seeing the universe move when time itself was moving faster.

    Scientists: Time Itself May Be Slowing Down


    Snoop Dog tried (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 07:27:30 PM EST
    but failed to rent Liechtenstein.

    The whole country, that is.

    That's so wild...gotta love it! (none / 0) (#53)
    by DFLer on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 07:59:36 PM EST
    Shucks. I misread this post just a little bit.... (none / 0) (#67)
    by EL seattle on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:07:59 PM EST
    ... at first glance, and I had a sudden mental image of Snoop Dogg going to MoMA to rent a few props for a music video.  

    Which would have been really cool, actually.

    But then again, I think that he probably had a better chance of renting the country, anyways.


    Epic TdF stage today (none / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 01:33:39 PM EST
    If you have Versus on your cable, watch it tonight. Epic.

    if nothing else (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 01:47:33 PM EST
    you sort of have to appreciate the honesty:

    We must preserve our racial identity

    I am running as a candidate for state representative in Grafton County District 8. I am running as a Republican, but I have been endorsed by the American Third Position. I am also the American Third Position state chairman of New Hampshire. The American Third Position is a political party that stands for the interests of white Americans.

    New Hampshire Candidate Running On "Pro-White" Platform

    Paging KeysDan... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:13:46 PM EST
    is the oil spill really capped or is this more BS from BP and their government & media co-conspirators?

    They don't know yet (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 12:20:29 AM EST
    because they don't know whether the well is damaged way down in there.  This cap and the gradual sealing off of the vents will tell them a great deal about whether it is damaged where they can't see it or not.  If they start closing the vents and the pressure from the oil goes up the way it should, the well pipe is intact.

    If they get way less pressure, that means it's fractured or cracked or damaged somewhere down below and tightening the cap will add pressure at that point of damage and result in a truly uncontrollable breach coming up through the sea floor.  That potential for under-floor damage is what everybody's afraid of and could be the explanation for why other things like the "top kill" didn't work.

    Luckily, they're apparently a bit ahead of schedule on the first relief well and now quite close.

    If they can't tighten that cap all the way and kill the well from the top, the new cap will at least allow them to attach equipment that can siphon off pretty much all the oil coming up and load it into the waiting tankers.

    IOW, unless a big rupture occurs somewhere down deep as a result of this fiddling with the cap pressures, they very likely are within days of essentially stopping the leakage into the ocean-- unless another hurricane comes along and they have to detach the ships and send them off to safety while it passes.


    In process (none / 0) (#6)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:21:06 PM EST
    Old flange off, flange spool on, capping stack on... now they are pressure testing.  I have no idea when they are to attach a pipe and start pumping.

    More?.... try the Oil Drum (best) or doomers (less than best, but they typically post pictures if you don't want to watch video)


    Double Thanks...n/t (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:23:49 PM EST
    Even once capped (none / 0) (#56)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 08:19:56 PM EST
    there will still be leaks, and the damage to the environment and the food supply will last decades.  But the new 'cap' will enable BP to capture thousands of gallons per day of the liquid $.  

    Sorry, Kdog, too far away to hear (none / 0) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 04:08:53 PM EST
    the cyber-page until now.  Admiral Thad Allen said that "we" think it looks good and may be able to capture all the oil (if it works, they will order up some additional surface vessels in a week or two to capture the oil!)  While encouraging, it seems a little premature, but "we" will know shortly. Obama Admin./ BP (I guess is the "we") is running pressure tests to determine if (a) the casings/wellbore are compromised (not a good thing) and (b) if the pressure is such that the cap can be completely closed.  Also, a seismic test was conduced which should give information about questions raised about other sea floor leaks or cracks.  Many are questioning why this cap was not put into place much earlier, but the the answer becomes as unclear as the drilling mud, what with the difference perspectives and biases of oil engineers and oil patch guys. My question is why now, when the relief wells are supposedly so close--scheduled originally between now and early August.  With BP's history, skeptics may think that the cap permits a slow down of the relief wells so as to sell as much oil as possible. It may be that the cap permits preparation for the relief wells success. And, at least the second relief well, if not used, can be converted to a drilling well

    I sincerely hope (none / 0) (#26)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:16:07 PM EST
    that this will work, but I'm not entirely optimistic.  (Sigh)  (KeysDan, have you gotten your "FUBP" t-shirt yet?  I understand they've gotten quite popular in the Gulf regions.)  

    Not yet, Z (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:57:39 PM EST
    but that T-Shirt does denote an evolutionary realization that BP is not really our dear friend and it may not have been the wisest course to put the problem they caused in their dirty hands to make it all better.  

    Well, at least there are (none / 0) (#39)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 06:13:03 PM EST
    some who have realized this.  I'm very tempted to buy some and mail them to Mary Landrieu, Joe Barton, and many others.  I wish the best outcome for all concerned, people, animals, and environment.  I have vacationed in the Gulf, I swam and skin-dived in the waters.  A beautiful, beautiful place.  

    BP is pretty upsetting, of course, (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 07:52:55 PM EST
    but they are what they are, a foreign corporation with responsibility to their stockholders, Board of Directors and Wall Street analysts.  BP has a tawdry history from the get go in  190l, when the very wealthy Wm Knox D'Arcy was granted a concession by the Shah of Iran to form Anglo-Persian Oil.  The Iranian "partnership" was one of regent to subject--a fine tradition that we see carried on by the modern BP  in the management of the spill.  The real concern, from my viewpoint, in the deference and obsequiousness of the Obama administration (and to keep it politically steady, previous administrations).  But, the catastrophe happened on Obama's watch and it was his response that needs to be evaluated. Most Americans are not ready or willing to go much beyond faulting BP at this point, but should truth ever come out, it will be a sad story of governance by and for the corporations

    I'm afraid that (none / 0) (#55)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 08:12:06 PM EST
    you're all too correct, KeysDan.  Both parties, and the administrations that they produce, are far too beholden to the big corporations, instead of to the citizens of this country.

    I dunno (none / 0) (#57)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 08:22:21 PM EST
    polls seem to indicate that the Admin is being faulted for inadequate response

    That would be (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 08:51:14 PM EST
    appropriate in terms of accountability.

    hey, its better than living in Angola (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:32:24 PM EST
    LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul says the poor in America are "enormously better off than the rest of the world," citing an old Cold War film that showed even impoverished homes had color

    What is it (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:24:13 PM EST
    with libertarian/conservatives and their obsession with color televisions?  Yes, in many ways the poor in this country are, in fact, enormously better-off than the poor in, as you say, Angola.  Or Somalia.  Or a number of other Third-World countries.  But the United States is also vastly richer than Angola or Somalia, and we should be able to expend our resources to make sure that our poor are better educated, have safe neighborhoods, decent health care, decent nutrition, and have jobs that allow them to live much, much better than they do.  The fact that "Oh, well, we're better than Angola" is certainly nothing to brag about, and Rand Paul is an idiot.  

    yeah (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:37:53 PM EST
    heres a clue for Randy. tvs dont really cost that much. and for what you got as far as escapist potential it was a totally worthwhile investment. we had one. we did not have indoor plumbing but we had a color tv.

    I only wish Randy could have visited us to see how the other half lives.



    TV's are cheap because the labor is (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 06:36:02 PM EST
    zip in China and other countries...Maybe if we had some manufacturing base then all the poor folks would have jobs..

    Of course green jobs are gonna make us all rich...

    I know because Obama told me.


    used teevees are REALLY cheap now (none / 0) (#50)
    by DFLer on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 07:51:24 PM EST
    Have you tried to sell a nice big CRT TV lately?

    Can hardly give them away.


    well (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 11:14:15 AM EST
    he is talking about the cold war era.  they were not all that expensive then either.  

    I think my day bought our first color tv for 20 bucks if I remember correctly.  which while a lot of money at the time everyone would have agreed it was worth it.


    $20?? (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:11:24 PM EST
    New 21" B&W's went for $200 plus in the early 60's. The first color sets were in the $800 range.

    I bought our first color set for around $450.


    was it used (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:26:07 PM EST
    were you in rural arkansas?

    have you contributed to Randy yet?


    well if heshe's talking about tvs from China (none / 0) (#96)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 03:58:20 PM EST
    that isn't the 50's . That's now.

    I'm just trying to say that having a color tv is no indication of wealth or status anymore because of the almost free availability of used crt tvs...not just because of cheap chinese labor


    I think his point is that our poor in many parts (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 06:05:06 PM EST
    of the world would be considered rich.

    I think that is a false argument. They aren't in Saigon (or pick one you like) but in our cities and
    Appalachian areas.

    Besides, we all know that the rule is, no poor or homeless stories while a Demo is Prez.


    wait wait (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 06:16:15 PM EST
    this is good even for you,
    you are saying that Randys callous dismissal of the plight of the poor is a "poor or homeless story"

    I guess technically it is.


    Capt - have a link for this article please? (none / 0) (#51)
    by DFLer on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 07:52:19 PM EST
    here ya go (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 10:13:10 AM EST
    By August 1987, Biden's campaign, (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:51:35 PM EST
    By August 1987, Biden's campaign, whose messaging was confused due to staff rivalries,[124] had begun to lag behind those of Michael Dukakis and Dick Gephardt,[121] although he had still raised more funds than all candidates but Dukakis, and was seeing an upturn in Iowa polls.[122][125] In September 1987, the campaign ran into trouble when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech that had been made by Neil Kinnock, leader of the British Labour Party.[126]
    Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign's communications director, today accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of committing "plagiarism" in a speech in Milwaukee on Saturday night.


    Obama closely echoed a passage from a speech that Deval Patrick, now the Massachusetts governor, used at a campaign rally when he was running for that office in 2006.


    You think Biden's case and (none / 0) (#21)
    by observed on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 04:39:03 PM EST
    McGinnis's are comparable????
    Are you nuts?
    If not, please explain.
    As I understand it, Biden attributed part of his remarks to Kinnock on many occasions.
    On the particular date when he was "caught", he did not.

    See my post below -- (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by brodie on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 04:52:43 PM EST
    first, it wasn't just lifting from Kinnock -- and in that instance, let's recall, Biden was caught lifting not just the guy's words but his life story, ferchrissakes.  

    Biden's speechwriter (Caddell, iirc) lifted non-attributed from RFK frequently, and non-advisor observer Bob Shrum noticed it enough to warn the campaign (I think) to stop being so sloppy.

    Arguably he could have survived just that, but as I recall the events it then came out that Biden had been accused of some similar type of honesty charges as a college (or law, I forget) student (or badly misleading voters later about his academic record).  That seemed to present a long troubling pattern of dishonesty for voters to consider.  


    I don't like to come down (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by brodie on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:30:02 PM EST
    so hard on a pol I happen to like, as with Biden.  But, checking my source (one and only one, Bob Shrum), the situation as I recounted it here is substantially correct.

    Turns out his pollster, Pat Caddell, was perhaps attempting to play Ted Sorensen by taking on add'l duties like speechwriting, in addition to his one specialty, polling.  Bad idea.

    And the massive unattributed lifting problem was first noted by Shrum in January 1987 -- 7-8 months before the story broke -- at the CA Dem Convention.  Shrum (advising Gephardt that yr) contacted Biden's finance chair, but obviously the problem was not corrected.

    RFK lifted w/o attribution, in copious amounts.  Kinnock, as mentioned.  Also Shrum (a masterful speechwriter who'd studied past major pols well) spotted Biden lifting and not attributing from Hubert Humphrey that season.

    The "priors" in law school then were revealed by the NYT (MoDo, iirc).  A charge of plagiarism on one law paper; and, as I noted, misrepresenting later to voters what was really a mediocre and unnoteworthy academic record.

    As all that was breaking, Biden was about to chair the Jud'ry on the Bork nom -- not exactly the time to have these allegations hanging out there as you're about to pass judgment, negatively, on a pretty radical nominee.  

    Biden, to his credit, made the right choice in withdrawing from the race.  But, man oh man, the guy was given plenty of warning to correct things -- and from an opponent's advisor at that.


    if Donald is nuts (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 04:43:07 PM EST
    nuts is what I want to be

    I don't even think Biden (none / 0) (#23)
    by brodie on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 04:45:55 PM EST
    waited for the primaries to actually begin.  He left the race, in disgrace, not long after the major plagiarism allegations were surfaced, along with some other related stuff from his college yrs, iirc.

    Something to do with his major speechwriter (the awful Pat Caddell??)  not taking care to properly cite or re-work the language.   Biden and/or the speechwriter had previously been warned, too, about too much of others' speeches being lifted wholesale -- to his credit, Bob Shrum spotted it early on (Biden using but not citing RFK), tried to warn the campaign, but to no avail.

    And agree about Obama.  Some light occasional lifting I think is par for the political course, or most professions actually.  Misdemeanor at worst.

    But Biden 1987, a few famous popular historians from the 1990s and 2000s, and that prolific anti-political conspiracy theorist reporter for the Daily Beast fired recently, all of those were truckloads full of liftings, and on more than one occasion.  All felony offenses worthy of punishment and banishment, in my book.  


    and because the partisanship is so obvious. I would have thought that was obvious.

    I do not yawn because of a lack of concern regarding violations of intellectual integrity.


    Looks like we may have to start (none / 0) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 06:03:05 PM EST
    working on winning the hearts and minds of our southern neighbors in Costa Rica.  The US has sent 46 US warships, helicopters, and 7000 troops to Costa Rica to "help stem the flow of drugs northward." Costa Rican government approved the action for the period July l to Dec 31, but an anger reaction is brewing in the country, with claims that previous agreements only involved use of US Coast Guard not military.

    Forty-six ships? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 06:18:50 PM EST
    Got the link?  That would be a huge fleet now-a- days.  The logistics tail would blow the mind.  I find that a little hard to believe.  

    Maybe they are using the ones (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 06:47:29 PM EST
    Obamna rejected for use on the oil well blow out...

    Here's (none / 0) (#48)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 07:16:53 PM EST
    one link- 46 warships and 7,000 Marines (there are other links).  To fight drug trafficking.  The Costa Rican government invited them.  Many Costa Ricans are not happy.  

    Willie, I would not (none / 0) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 08:00:15 PM EST
    kid you.  Honest.

    Forty-six ships would be over (none / 0) (#102)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 02:17:16 PM EST
    100,000 sailors.  Nary a word here in Tidewater, the world's largest Navy base.  Needless to say Forty-six ships would pretty much strip all of the available ships from the other fleets, nary a complaint either.

    Plus most VR (logistics) squadrons would be required to be deployed just to carry the mail.  None of those are gone either.  


    BTD, How 'bout a post on (none / 0) (#58)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 08:31:00 PM EST
    Alterman's Kabuki Democracy?


    Holy cow Back (none / 0) (#59)
    by DFLer on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 08:42:24 PM EST
    that essay is 12 pages long, at pt8 type size, average 7 paragraphs a page. When can BTD find time?



    American Splendor (none / 0) (#63)
    by desertswine on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:19:15 PM EST
    Harvey Pekar and Tuli Kupferberg....  thanks for the honesty.

    The NL is back! (none / 0) (#69)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:56:42 PM EST
    Beanie Mac MVP! Go Braves!

    Katerina Justice (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:20:36 PM EST
    digby has a good post up on the Danziger bridge shootings.

    Six officers with the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) were charged today in connection with the federal investigation of a police-involved shooting on the Danziger Bridge in the days after Hurricane Katrina, the Justice Department announced today.

    via digby

    dont make me cut yer mike!!! (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 10:34:37 AM EST
    this is great.  apparently someone didnt get the memo about race baiting:

    Megyn Kelly flips out

    Thanks Cap'n! (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:32:51 PM EST
    I missed seeing Kelly skewer the "journalist" whose defense starts out by condemning the hoorah over this and finishes by saying that two wrongs make a right.

    Funny.. very funny stuff from someone who admnits she hasn't even read the info but did talk to the Justice Department.


    Fox News host (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 11:11:55 AM EST
    "Bush and Cheney should have been indicted"

    h/t Huff Po (sorry, no link)

    Fox News contributor and host of Fox Business' new libertarian show Judge Andrew Napolitano said over the weekend that President Bush and Vice President Cheney should have been indicted over their administration's conduct around Guantánamo Bay.

    In an interview with Ralph Nader on C-SPAN, Napolitano blasted the former administration for suspending habeas corpus.

    "What President Bush did with the suspension of habeas corpus, with the whole concept of Guantánamo Bay, with the whole idea that he could avoid and evade federal laws, treaties, federal judges and the constitution was blatantly unconstitutional -- and in some cases criminal," Napolitano said. "They should have been indicted. They absolutely should have been indicted. For torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrants. I'd like to say they should be indicted for lying but believe it or not, unless you're under oath, lying is not a crime."

    Napolitano added that "the evidence...is overwhelming...that George W. Bush as President and Dick Cheney as Vice President participated in criminal conspiracies to violate the federal law and the guaranteed civil liberties of hundreds, maybe thousands, of human beings."

    But will he say this to Hannity? (none / 0) (#94)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 03:52:37 PM EST
    on whose show he is a frequent guest..hmm?

    Just got (none / 0) (#95)
    by CST on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 03:53:05 PM EST
    my new phone set up.  Going from a phone&text-only device to a smart phone is kind of exciting.

    As someone who has never had a smartphone before I find the Droid to be really intuitive and responsive.  Haven't gotten everything figured out yet, but it does what I want it to do pretty quickly.  The keyboard was weird at first but in the first day of use I am already finding it much easier than it was in the beginning.

    TL should make a phone app though!  I would definitely download that.  Right now it's the only internet site I check regularly that doesn't have an "app for that".

    wow, a defense of the MA marriage ruling (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 05:02:24 PM EST
    from none other than freakin Reason.com.

    Who's Afraid of Federalism?
    Gay marriage and the 10th Amendment

    Last week a federal judge confounded both sides of the political spectrum by ruling that the 10th Amendment requires the federal government to recognize state-approved gay marriages. Progressives worried that U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro's reasoning cast doubt on the constitutionality of many existing federal programs, while conservatives worried that it required equal treatment of same-sex unions.

    Since I am one of the few Americans who welcome both of these outcomes, perhaps you should take my opinion with a grain of salt. But it seems to me that conservatives are engaging in the sort of result-oriented constitutional analysis they so often decry when they shrink from a consistent application of federalism because it lends support to a social trend they fear.