Friday Afternoon Open Thread

I'll be busy the rest of the afternoon. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Update: The apartment house blocks Dominique Strauss-Kahn from moving in. Now what?

Instead, Mr. Strauss-Kahn will be staying at a corporate housing building used by the security company, Stroz Friedberg, that has been hired to guard him while he remains under 24-hour home confinement, according to the official at State Supreme Court in Manhattan.
How about renting a townhouse instead of an apartment?

< WI Upholds Life Without Parole for 14 Year Old | Saturday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    For my pal Oculus... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Fri May 20, 2011 at 01:35:29 PM EST
    Instant Karma just got me...I'll be working on a job quote for a prosecutor's office in Jersey for the rest of the day.  

    I will do my cube-jockey duty and resist the urge to undersize the sewage pumps so every toilet in the joint backs up...its a helluva urge though:)

    Keep focusing on that karma thing :) (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 20, 2011 at 01:37:06 PM EST
    It is what always helps me :)

    "I'm trying, Ringo.... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kdog on Fri May 20, 2011 at 01:40:58 PM EST
    I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd".

    I just know you can do it! Coraggio! (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Fri May 20, 2011 at 08:14:39 PM EST
    Women at the IMF (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:09:19 PM EST
    Have to put up with all kinds of boorish, if not illegal (by US standards) behavior from the men that work there.  Unfortunately for them, US law doesn't apply.

    Interviews and documents paint a picture of the fund as an institution whose sexual norms and customs are markedly different from those of Washington, leaving its female employees vulnerable to harassment. The laws of the United States do not apply inside its walls, and until earlier this month the I.M.F.'s own rules contained an unusual provision that some experts and former officials say has encouraged managers to pursue the women who work for them: "Intimate personal relationships between supervisors and subordinates do not, in themselves, constitute harassment."

    "It's sort of like `Pirates of the Caribbean'; the rules are more like guidelines," said Carmen M. Reinhart, a prominent female economist who served as the I.M.F.'s deputy director for research from 2001 to 2003. "That sets the stage, I think, for more risk-taking."

    Really creepy (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:42:07 PM EST
    speaking of (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CST on Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:47:47 PM EST
    has anyone been following the peace corps scandal?

    I'm surprised I haven't heard about it here with everything else in the news.

    Link 1

    Link 2

    Pretty atrocious stuff


    Chilling (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:53:55 PM EST
    sounds a lot like how the rape victims in combat under the Bush administration were treated.  Distracts from the mission I suppose so won't be tolerated until they are exposed and then suddenly...wow, they care.

    Sounds like the Peace Corps (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by brodie on Fri May 20, 2011 at 03:22:40 PM EST
    has been bringing in some awfully neanderthal people to run what used to be a first-rate organization.   Hard to believe that the people who initially ran and staffed that org -- good liberal people like Sargent Shriver, Harris Wofford and Bill Moyers -- would have tolerated even one instance of similar conduct, or themselves hired people with such uncaring and insensitive attitudes.  

    I know that Shriver was acutely aware that however noble the cause, the Peace Corps would be no better than the people he hired to help run and staff it, so each person was carefully vetted (one early concern, ca 1961, being that the CIA would attempt to infiltrate it).


    asdf (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Addison on Fri May 20, 2011 at 03:31:41 PM EST
    I don't deny that the Peace Corps has a lot of work to do on this issue, and some of the individual stories are very serious, but there are two important points to note:

    (1) Peace Corps necessarily sends people to areas that are potentially dangerous and occasionally very remote. This isn't a "bug" in the system, it's much of the reason why volunteers are sent in the first place. An adequate explanation and full disclosure of those risks would, in my mind, be better than destroying the programs efficacy or impact by attempting to eliminate all risks

    (2) Sometimes, and I have personal experience with this, the Peace Corps staff/organization was unable to discuss sexual assault or other assault incidences because of rules relating to the volunteer's privacy. They simply could NOT, by law and/or procedure, publicly broadcast that a specific incident had taken place in a specific area -- the overall stats per country were collected in aggregate each year. So a lot of these cover-ups (and, again, I have personal experience with this) were the result more of the rules regarding non-disclosure than callousness or embarrassment.

    That said, I think it's time that Peace Corps fully took responsibility for being an organization whose volunteers face danger, and should own that reality as much the Army does. Peace Corps volunteers should be told about the risks, but they should also be more free to take them -- that's part of why people join the Peace Corps in the first place.

    The Peace Corps should have much stricter procedures on briefing volunteers sent into communities with known and repeated assault violations, and find a way to balance that with former volunteers' privacy concerns.

    And most importantly and practically: Peace Corps should immediately and with no qualifications allow volunteers to live together. Currently volunteers are not allowed to live together in most countries (to avoid creating a "little America") and this policy leads to isolation and unnecessary risk to women.


    What is this "ASDF" please? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 20, 2011 at 11:06:28 PM EST
    Per Urban Dictionary: (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by oculus on Fri May 20, 2011 at 11:19:22 PM EST
    Used when an appropriate title cannot be ascertained. Or: In the subject bar of an email when no title is deemed worthy.
     (Definition no. 7.)

    Thank you (none / 0) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 21, 2011 at 11:18:24 AM EST
    asdf (none / 0) (#67)
    by Addison on Sat May 21, 2011 at 01:27:22 AM EST
    "asdf" is just placeholding nonsense when someone doesn't feel like thinking of a "title" for their comment. That comments on a blog even have subjects is weirdly anachronistic and has more to do with the vestigial remains of online bulletin boards and the importation of email convention into popular blogging platforms than anything useful.

    OK (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 21, 2011 at 11:19:59 AM EST
    Seems more anachronistic to me to use a term almost nobody knows anymore.

    Most people just put the first few words of their reply in the subject header.


    asdf (none / 0) (#75)
    by Addison on Sun May 22, 2011 at 01:44:28 AM EST
    Well, "asdf" is just the first four letters of the middle row, not really a "term". And it's not really unknown even here on TalkLeft, although maybe the convention is more or less well-known among different internet demographics, I don't know.

    I assume you weren't trying to be snarky or patronizing with your comment about what most people do, but you'll see I also often put the first few words in my reply. Or use "Haha" or "Well..." as you've used "Ok". Or make up some "witty" title. I just use asdf when I don't feel like splitting up my first sentence or coming up with a title. It's actually pretty rare that I use it, I guess (using it now for meta purposes). I don't really view any of this as important at all.


    No, you're right, not a big deal (none / 0) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 22, 2011 at 11:01:33 AM EST
    at all.  But you explained your use of the term with an argument about how "anachronistic" subject lines are, which invites a response.  Personally, I place a lot of value on clarity in communications.

    Personally (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by sj on Sat May 21, 2011 at 05:48:11 PM EST
    I like the subject line on comments.  It helps to facilitate a true conversation over a period of time by providing me with a short cut to a particular comment of my own.  Subjects for comments made by other people aren't particularly "useful" to me, but I still like them.

    Seems like a den of iniquity (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:44:13 PM EST
    Seems dangerous for women (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:49:22 PM EST
    maybe men too.  I mean, not all sexual predators prey on women.  If this is the environment under DKS though, he's the big cheese....obviously literally a monarch.

    Agreed. The IMF seems (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 20, 2011 at 04:05:25 PM EST
    to be in the dark ages, with a laissez faire  policy that states " intimate personal relationships between supervisor and subordinates do not, in themselves, constitute harassment."  A culture that is unsurprising when consideration is given to the fact that the IMF membership consists of 187 UN countries plus Kosovo.   Examples of such countries that are not customarily known to treasure human dignity in general and women's rights in particular are Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, and Angola. Only missing from this sorry line-up is, Uganda.  The referenced NYT article also happens to note that M. Straus-Kahn had not broken any IMF rules in sleeping with a female employee in 2008.

    The timing of the IMF focus on its medieval attitudes, however, is a part of the media milieu and trial by public opinion.  Not a defense of M. Straus-Kahn, but a defense of a fair trial.  A similar concern would be held if there happened to be a NYT article discussing the culture of hotel maids and that some were known to sleep with men who were not their husbands. And, then give a reference to a specific case with appropriate exoneration.   And, of course, the complaint is not one of harassment or sleeping around, but the violent crime of rape.


    Oh, ugh (none / 0) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 20, 2011 at 11:04:53 PM EST
    Do "boys have to be boys" even in major international institutions, for crying out loud?

    we've come a long way, baby . . . (none / 0) (#66)
    by nycstray on Fri May 20, 2011 at 11:55:54 PM EST
    lest anyone forget, moving sucks. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri May 20, 2011 at 03:20:31 PM EST
    I decided to give away all of my furniture except my bed. Last time I did that was moving from Arizona... funny, that moved worked out pretty well for me, lol!

    So, driving Miss Daisy... she has been withdrawing for a few months. I took her to the doctor's office, contradicted her on her mood swings, and then encouraged her to go to a concert tonight, then to the senior center monday, to give it a two week trial run.

    We'll see... tomorrow morning grass cutting early... if I wake the neighbors so be it!

    Are you living at your parents' now, jeff? (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 20, 2011 at 05:49:26 PM EST
    Any news on the job front?

    Sounds like your mother is having a very hard time. Did the withdrawing start with her car accident? Hopefully, she will enjoy the concert and find something to like at the senior center.

    I spent last weekend in the hospital having my appendix removed. Thankfully, I took myself to the ER before the d@mned thing burst. One lesson learned is that I react badly to most pain killers. Bad as in vomiting, which is made even worse if one is immediately post-op and hasn't eaten anything in over 24 hours. I found the post-op pain easier to take than the ill effects of the pain pills.

    And I want to give a big shout-out to whoever invented laproscopic surgery. So much better than having my abdomen cut wide open.


    Feel better soon, Captain Casey! (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun May 22, 2011 at 06:33:10 PM EST
    Can't have the master and commander laid up!
    In my mother's house, and probably a good thing, given her last checkup. Still have three months of parachute left, so when I head to South America in August I'll be searching in earnest, but still looking up here.

    MMore later... just cooked mom chicken and cheese enchiladas with green sauce, homemade refried beans, and corn on the cob...i can spoil her for a few weeks, lol!


    I hope (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 20, 2011 at 06:32:42 PM EST
    you're feeling better. Sorry to hear you were sick.

    Wow... that's no fun. (none / 0) (#59)
    by desertswine on Fri May 20, 2011 at 10:53:21 PM EST
    Have a speedy recovery.

    I've decided to toss all my (none / 0) (#47)
    by observed on Fri May 20, 2011 at 05:03:30 PM EST
    paperback fiction for my upcoming move.

    See if there's a literacy program, or (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Peter G on Fri May 20, 2011 at 05:47:20 PM EST
    a jail, that would like them donated, before you throw away books.

    thanks. actually (none / 0) (#57)
    by observed on Fri May 20, 2011 at 10:24:35 PM EST
    Thats what i meant by toss. I wont keep them, but they will rebach other readers.

    Getting rid of books is (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 20, 2011 at 11:09:50 PM EST
    one of the hardest things about a move, I think.  Very painful.

    I wonder though how much the Kindle (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 21, 2011 at 07:45:27 AM EST
    age will change that?  I have spent a lot of time and moola collecting these things, it used to be the only way to get to read the story but not so anymore.  When Josh started school we worried the size and weight of managing the books in his future, but by the time he's in high school it will all probably be on some kind of Kindle device.

    Ouch (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 20, 2011 at 03:59:57 PM EST
    Former LPS Employees Allege 30% to 78% Error Rate in Borrower Mortgage Records, Contradicting Banker/Regulator Cover-Up

    Is the bank mess never going to end?

    On a lighter note (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Nemi on Fri May 20, 2011 at 05:01:18 PM EST
    at a Fashion for Relief charity in Cannes, France, raising money for the Japanese Red Cross, kudos! - Jane Fonda owned the cat walk. Flirting with the audience, while displaying not only a body, a smile, charm, walk and self confidence to die for, but also ... selling that dress!

    Can't for the life of me understand why designers don't always want to present their designs that way.

    Perhaps a stand alone house in, say (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri May 20, 2011 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    Far Rockaway.  Wouldn't want the news media staking out my street/bldg.  

    ha! (none / 0) (#2)
    by CST on Fri May 20, 2011 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    I know some people in Far Rockaway who might object to media staking out their street too.  The houses aren't that far apart.

    No personal knowledge. (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Fri May 20, 2011 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Query re Lance Armstrong and other (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri May 20, 2011 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    athletes:  given many commenters here favor de-criminalization of controlled substances, what is sd. commenters view on whether an adult athlete should be restricted from ingesting?  

    alchohol is not illegal (none / 0) (#5)
    by CST on Fri May 20, 2011 at 01:06:20 PM EST
    but that doesn't mean it's ok for me to get drunk on the job.

    Granted that's more of a performance de-hancer than en-hancer, but I think it's fair to have a distinction between what is legal and what is professionally acceptable.


    I'd leave it totally up to... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri May 20, 2011 at 01:15:42 PM EST
    the leagues/governing bodies, and the athletes/athletes union to make their own rules and enforce same.

    asdf (none / 0) (#8)
    by Addison on Fri May 20, 2011 at 01:23:06 PM EST
    I think that it's very important to note that there's a difference between law and league/association rules.

    The law should be relatively more open than not on substances -- if the substance doesn't cause general societal harm when taken by an individual, there's really little cause for banning it.

    League/association rules have an additional layer of purpose and justification, which is that they ensure the game itself is "fair", that individuals don't feel the need to harm themselves with chemicals in order to compete, and moreover that their customers/sponsors are in alignment with their values and sportsmanship standards.

    So I don't think athletes who dope should be arrested. I do, in general, feel they should be barred from participating in the major sports leagues/associations.


    Therein lies the problem (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Fri May 20, 2011 at 01:51:52 PM EST
    ...if the substance doesn't cause general societal harm when taken by an individual...

    Hard to separate the two when there are connections to other crimes (i.e. the number of suspects that are arrested for other crimes who are high when arrested), diversion and rehabilitation programs, greater health problems, etc.

    That's why there's not really an easy answer.


    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Addison on Fri May 20, 2011 at 01:58:07 PM EST
    I agree it's a gray area. As with many "societal well-being versus individual liberty" debates there will be few "factual" bases for the lines drawn, and it will (ideally) depend on the will of the voting public to determine.

    But I also think the principle I stated and you quoted) should be the framework of the messy discussion -- as opposed to, let's say, some idea of chemicals as inherently immoral or conversely that the right to individualistic hedonism objectively and absolutely overrules the right of society to regulate behavior.


    I think one of the biggest (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by CST on Fri May 20, 2011 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    frustrations for people on the decriminalization side is the disparity in treatment between alcohol and other drugs.

    Alcohol can be very destructive, more so than many other illegal drugs, and yet it is accepted by society while other drugs that do not cause as much harm are not - and the people who use them are branded as criminals.

    Blieve me, I'm well aware that drugs can cause problems.  But it's completely hypocritical of society to brand one group of indulgers as criminals and the other group as functioning citizens when in reality it's just a difference of personal preference.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jbindc on Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:06:51 PM EST
    But I would say that overall, things like heroin and cocaine and crack are much more destructive than alcohol.  Stuff that can get you addicted the first time or cause cardiac arrest generally are very bad things.

    worse than alcohol - sometimes (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CST on Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:20:55 PM EST
    you can die from alcohol use as well.

    In my general sphere of troubled youth - I've known one person who died of a heroin overdose, one person who died from driving into a pole while on oxycontin, and one person who died of alcohol poisoning because they drank too many shots after finals.

    I've seen my fair share of addiction.  And alchohol addiction is as bad as any of them - if harder to diagnose because it's generally more accepted.


    No substance known to mankind... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by kdog on Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:27:35 PM EST
    leaves you physically addicted after one use...do not confuse taking a liking to something with physical addiction.

    Right (none / 0) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 20, 2011 at 04:16:30 PM EST
    Quite quoting 3rd grade 'scared straight' speeches JB.

    I remember in 5th grade these cops came in with a weed plant and portfolio of pills.  They unfolded the portfolio with all kinds of pills and explained the multiplier effect.  We were kids and they were all so colorful, pretty sure it wasn't the message they were trying to convey.

    I remember thinking the whole time, if this stuff is illegal, why do they get to carry it around.  And that if mixing drugs multiplies the effects, why is that bad if you are trying to get messed up.

    Little did I know then how much fun itty bitty pills can be or that most everyone I know could name at least half of them form memory.


    Don't get me started... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Sat May 21, 2011 at 09:53:11 AM EST
    on D.A.R.E. brother...that lil program can traumatize kids...its fairly evil imo.

    Or at least they traumatized me with their lies back in grade school...they told us reefer can kill you, then I found my older brothers rolling papers snoopin' in his room....I remember being really scared for him.  

    Not cool to do to a little kid.


    S.A.D.D. (none / 0) (#76)
    by daring grace on Sun May 22, 2011 at 08:19:30 AM EST
    Tell me about it, Kdog.

    A month ago, for my job,I was at an event for the Students Against Drunk Driving groups from all the schools in my county. My agency has nothing to do with substance abuse treatment per se so I have not been on the frontlines of the propaganda before.


    I'm sitting there listening to someone tell the kids to be careful of the pill someone hands them after they have a tooth pulled. It might be...an OPIATE like heroin etc. etc. Slippery slope...kids start out on painkillers end up on heroin...end up dead...Similar scare stories about pot...Ugly, over-funded culture...


    I D.A.R.E. to say... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Sun May 22, 2011 at 09:36:39 AM EST
    I don't know whether to be S.A.D.D. or get M.A.D.D grace.

    Well funded, but the funds haven't bought any clues...and when those on the receiving end of the propaganda find their own clues, any good that could come out of a fact-based education of the dangers of irresponsible drug and alcohol use is lost, because these orgs lie and exagerate so.

    And I do believe a fact-based education could serve society well...too bad D.A.R.E, M.A.D.D, & S.A.D.D aren't interested in any of that.


    DARE to Scare the Crop out of People (none / 0) (#80)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 24, 2011 at 09:10:03 AM EST
    Ya kdog I hear ya, I have a story about parenting and DARE that I can't repeat here at work, but I was in the starring lead and my parents were scarred enough to do some really bad stuff.

    I do remember them encouraging kids to rat out parents at school, schools to rat out kids, neighbors, families, you name it and they were ratting out one another.  Ruining lives and turning America into Russia where even you loved ones would turn you in to ride themselves of...  not sure what the purpose was.  Because now that god awful plant is legal in like 10 states.

    That and being scared to death of dying in a nuclear war is what I remember about being a child/teenager in Reagan's America.

    I wouldn't wish those fears on any kid.


    Alcohol causes not only more deaths, but (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by observed on Sat May 21, 2011 at 09:30:51 AM EST
    costs more in terms of hospitalization and lost work time. In fact, to my surprise, I learned recently that the health costs of alcohol exceed those of cigarettes. The proportion of people in the hospital at any time who are there due to alcohol-related issues is staggering.
    I learned about this on here a few months ago, when I was arguing about the effects of cigs versus alcohol. I had to look up some facts and get educated.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 21, 2011 at 12:15:53 PM EST
    .... and lost work time

    I suspect that's true because the damage that cigarettes do is long term. Most people are retired or close to it before CPOD or lung cancer pops up and it's hard to tie heart attacks to cigarettes.

    I would sell tobacco products ONLY in ABC type stores and we would have no advertising of any type of tobacco or alcohol products.


    also (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:29:35 PM EST
    I'd say cocaine and alcohol are closer together than you think.

    So close together... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:56:55 PM EST
    they share residence in coke bars throughout the country:)

    Not easy in regards to heroin maybe... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Fri May 20, 2011 at 01:55:44 PM EST
    reefer is that easy...but I guess your loverboy still has some re-educacation to do:)

    And in regards to the drugs that do cause society some real harm...like alcohol and heroin, I would say prohibition has failed to alleviate those societal harms, and in fact caused greater harms and new harms.  And like a doctor, the law should first do no harm.


    Hey (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:05:03 PM EST
    Loverboy doesn't do it in front of me.  If he gets caught with it - he's on his own.  :)

    Ice Ice Baby... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:13:18 PM EST
    Not even bail?  That's cold...give him my number:)

    He knew the consequences (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:16:18 PM EST
    before I came along, he knows them now.

    You makes your choices, you takes the consequences.

    But maybe I'll come visit him.  :)


    Or meth (none / 0) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 20, 2011 at 10:57:47 PM EST
    which is spectacularly destructive.

    Does the French Consulate have nothing? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Addison on Fri May 20, 2011 at 01:15:30 PM EST
    Does the French Consulate General in NYC have nothing it can offer?

    No apartments, no connections, anything at all?

    There was whole long (none / 0) (#61)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 20, 2011 at 11:02:37 PM EST
    meeting/negotation about where he could stay this afternoon in the courtroom, and we have no idea what was offered and what was rejected because of security issues-- DSK's personal security and the need to make sure they could effectively keep an eye on him.  (It's apparently not all that hard to defeat one of those devices they're making him wear.)

    IOW, the French consul may not have had anything suitable immediately available.  It had to be a place he could move into immediately or be stuck in jail for even longer.

    And honestly, I don't know how many unoccupied furnished apartments consulates have at their disposal.


    Why? (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Fri May 20, 2011 at 01:52:53 PM EST
    How about renting a townhouse instead of an apartment?


    It's not like corporate housing are generally slums.

    I think the idea is (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Fri May 20, 2011 at 01:54:49 PM EST
    no landlord to keep you out.

    How? (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:02:47 PM EST
    A townhouse that is rented is still going to have a "landlord" somewhere.

    touche (none / 0) (#26)
    by CST on Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:23:07 PM EST
    fewer nosy neighbors maybe?  I don't know.

    Which brings me back to my original question (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jbindc on Fri May 20, 2011 at 03:00:08 PM EST
    Why should he get a townhouse rented as opposed to an apartment?

    Think she means a single-family dwelling (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 20, 2011 at 05:11:36 PM EST
    where there are no obligations to other tenants.

    Libyan Kinetic Military Action-- (none / 0) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:08:06 PM EST
    Operation Hoodwink: A sixty-candle anniversary.  One for each day (not months) and one for each morphed mission:  No-fly zone, humanitarian intervention, prevention of Benghazi bloodbath, taking sides in a civil war, drones over Tripoli, bombing.  oil, Libyan ships, assassination attempts on Qaddafi, unfortunate collateral damage to Qaddafi family, arming rebels, killing rebels,  collateral damage to citizens, homes and cities, freezing and seizing assets,  oil, costs escalating with almost $1 billion spent to date and..................

    Someone brought up (none / 0) (#36)
    by brodie on Fri May 20, 2011 at 03:01:07 PM EST
    the Lindbergh baby kidnapping case and the accused and condemned Bruno Richard Hauptmann.

    From my readings in this case years ago (about the time of the 2d Trial of the Century, O.J.), he definitely should not have been convicted.  He certainly was the victim of inadequate counsel, and almost certainly prosecutorial misconduct.  Probably framed for the murder, with some in the victim's family -- to cover up a family accident or intentional killing -- colluding with police and prosecutors, leading them down a path that involved a completely false kidnapping story.  

    One theory I read which seemed to make the most sense as to actual perpetrators: the intentional/accidental killing of the baby might have resulted from the conduct of Lindy's sister-in-law, a woman who seems to have been experiencing some psychological upset at the time of the event, who might have been distraught that it wasn't she, who had first dated Lucky Lindy, instead of her sister, whom the Ace American Flyer and Hero decided to marry.  

    Lindy was able to almost single-handedly shape and direct the immediate and subsequent police investigation and had enormous sway over the man supposedly in charge, Norman Schwartzkopf, head of the Jersey State Police and very much star struck, apparently, over Lindbergh.

    Gov Hoffman, post-conviction in what was truly a circus atmosphere that worked significantly against the defendant's fair-trial interests, supposedly was suspicious that Hauptmann was the actual killer and came close to taking action in Hauptmann's favor, but ultimately failed to do so, the public being overwhelmingly against upsetting the verdict, and possibly because he was being threatened with outing on some of his own financial, political, personal scandals.

    That's my somewhat vague recollection anyway.  Quite a fascinating case, but bottom line, Hauptmann was badly treated by our legal/media system and didn't get a fair trial.

    Other famous American defendants clearly not-guilty as charged, framed or railroaded:  Lee Harvey Oswald (murdered conveniently 2 days after his arrest); James Earl Ray; Sirhan; Dr Jeffrey McDonald; Duke Lacrosse players.  

    Unsure about Dr Sam Sheppard, but Dr Richard Kimble was definitely innocent.

    And I'm still waiting for the Msississippi to (none / 0) (#38)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri May 20, 2011 at 03:21:10 PM EST
    recede  so I can play poker...Jim must be having a fit.

    Horseshoe and Gold Strike (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 20, 2011 at 03:45:57 PM EST
    opened today.

    Neither flooded. The others did and there's no estimate when they will open. A real nasty mess.


    What kinda poker players... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kdog on Fri May 20, 2011 at 03:50:02 PM EST
    ya got down there...strap on some galoshes, shuffle & deal!  The game must go on!

    Good luck getting settled, getting dry, and don't be a stranger Jeffrey.

    I gotta go mash the last softballs before the Rapture, weather permitting...enjoy your last day on earth parties tomorrow people, and don't be too disappointed when the Jesus Freaks are still here when you wake up hungover on Sunday.  Every party needs poopers, thats why we invited them.

    Fire at the Pageant


    Not a lawyer. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Tony on Fri May 20, 2011 at 08:08:54 PM EST
    Yes, but likely a pyrrhic victory. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Fri May 20, 2011 at 08:18:32 PM EST
    "Can't bleed a turnip."

    The entry of a default is only the first step (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Peter G on Fri May 20, 2011 at 09:10:17 PM EST
    toward a victory for the plaintiff (Kos Media).  If the delinquent defendant takes some action now, before a default judgment is actually entered -- for a specific sum, based on some proof -- the judge will often allow the matter to be reopened and the case to proceed.

    All true. (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Fri May 20, 2011 at 09:11:47 PM EST
    Chevy Chase & Gerald Ford in SNL (none / 0) (#58)
    by Politalkix on Fri May 20, 2011 at 10:51:15 PM EST