Sunday Night Open Thread

Who will win Celebrity Apprentice, Marlee Matlin or John Rich? I'm looking forward to finding out. What I could do without: More of Neme, the desperate housewife from some city or another.

The Tyler Hamilton interview about Lance Armstrong is on "60 Minutes." I thought they did this Thursday. Here's Facts For Lance.

The New York Times takes a well-deserved swipe at Nancy Grace and her brand of TV injustice and rush to guilt.

Ms. Grace, a former prosecutor in Atlanta who was reprimanded for stepping over a line more than once, obliterates lines every night on “Nancy Grace.” Working with a contingent of experts who have all the independence of a crew of trained seals, Ms. Grace races toward judgment, heedlessly ignoring nuance and evidence on her way to finding guilt.


Ms. Grace knows what she knows with a great deal of certainty, but she was wrong about the now debunked rape charges against the Duke lacrosse team, she was wrong about who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart. She taped a corrosive interview in 2006 with Melinda Duckett, whose 2-year-old son had gone missing, and Ms. Duckett killed herself the next day. Ms. Grace broadcast the interview anyway.

Her audience is down to 583,000 from the 943,000 it was 2 years ago, and her network has taken away her night-time re-run show.

Unfortunately, she's not the only guilt-monger on the airwaves. As the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case shows, guilt still sells big-time in America, innocence not so much.

Update: What did Trump do differently this year? Right before he announced the winner he said he was going to do something a little different and then he just named the winner like he always does. Very odd. (Answer: reading around it seems like he usually fires the runner up before naming the winner. He didn't fire anyone tonight.)

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Pakistan Navy Base Attacked | Monday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So some excitement in my world: (5.00 / 12) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun May 22, 2011 at 08:53:09 PM EST
    I got my JD today!

    Now onto the bar. Time to actually learn law. . .

    Savor it; it is worthwhile...you earned it! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by christinep on Sun May 22, 2011 at 08:58:19 PM EST
    Congratulations!!!! (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Joan in VA on Sun May 22, 2011 at 09:00:37 PM EST
    Please accept a virtual bottle of fine champagne from me. :)

    Congratulations! (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by byteb on Sun May 22, 2011 at 09:07:12 PM EST
    And, now, after a brief celebration, if you haven't already, find a good bar review course and study, study and study some more. :)

    Yup, started before graduation (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun May 22, 2011 at 09:09:53 PM EST

    Good times. (none / 0) (#9)
    by byteb on Sun May 22, 2011 at 09:26:03 PM EST
    I took the NY bar at the Javits' Center with pigeons flying overhead and under some kind of air duct system. Every time it switched on, I had to hold down my papers and pull on the hood of my hoodie because it was so cold. Ah, the memories.;)

    I did my CFA exam at the Javit's center (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by vml68 on Sun May 22, 2011 at 10:26:00 PM EST
    and almost froze to death.

    Yup, that's where I'm headed (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun May 22, 2011 at 09:50:45 PM EST
    I took the MPRE there too.

    What a dump!


    Exactly. (none / 0) (#13)
    by byteb on Sun May 22, 2011 at 10:02:15 PM EST
    Heartfelt congratulations! (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Anne on Sun May 22, 2011 at 09:30:17 PM EST
    If your comments here are any indication, I have no doubt that we will be celebrating your passing the bar before too long (assume you are taking it in July)...

    Any thoughts on what area of law really gets your motor running, or where you see yourself settling in?


    Truthfully: wheresoever I get hired (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sun May 22, 2011 at 09:52:16 PM EST
    It's a cruddy market. . .

    Where do you plan to practice? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun May 22, 2011 at 10:03:50 PM EST
    Do 2000 MBE practice questions and you will do fine.
    Spot em the RAP, unless things have changed at best there will be 4.

    More importantly I hope you have good employment prospects.


    NY is the goal, but DC and PHL are options (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun May 22, 2011 at 10:10:53 PM EST
    And yes, I hope so too. I'm working on it!

    Don't take DC (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jbindc on Mon May 23, 2011 at 09:47:04 AM EST
    You can waive in with a decent (but not too high) MBE score.

    Nobody takes the DC bar.



    That's what I've heard (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:38:14 AM EST

    Hey, congratulations andgarden! (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 23, 2011 at 05:31:09 AM EST
    A huge accomplishment!

    You are so evidently brilliant, it's easy to predict you will be successful. I'm just eager to hear what direction you will go in.


    ::Blush:: (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Mon May 23, 2011 at 06:18:59 AM EST
    Thanks. I hope to do good things!

    did you attend NYU? A friend's daughter (none / 0) (#64)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:20:03 PM EST
    graduated Saturday...she's heading to wall street to corporate firms...

    Gettin' in on the grift? (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:22:33 PM EST
    Can't say I blame her...them student loans are a b*tch, and grifting is our only growth sector.

    I don't want to narrow down too much! (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:11:49 PM EST
    Congratulations! (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 23, 2011 at 06:18:28 AM EST
    Good luck with the bar!

    Congratulations (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 23, 2011 at 08:42:40 AM EST
    Have complete faith that you will pass the bar with flying colors. Hope some astute firm quickly adds you to their roster.

    You are so intelligent and fearless (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2011 at 08:53:28 AM EST

    O.K. (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    (as if we didn't have enough Jewish lawyers....oy vey.)

    I waited till most everyone here gave you their kudos before my saying, "Mazel Tov!"

    But that was only because, about a year ago, you said one of my comments was "lame." And I don't forget such things.

    So, hurry up and get your ticket already so I can hire you to sue BTD. He's called me a lot worse than "lame," and more than once I might add. lol


    I'm sure I can't recall what (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:25:03 PM EST
    I thought was lame. So if I was wrong (wink, wink!) I apologize!

    Look at that! (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:42:52 PM EST
    He's already lying like a lawyer.

    Ooh, you're gonna be gooood:)


    heh (none / 0) (#80)
    by andgarden on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:47:52 PM EST
    Actually, It's true that I can't remember.

    Actually, (none / 0) (#87)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 23, 2011 at 08:50:10 PM EST
    I wouldn't expect anyone would remember a post from that long ago, especially with my not giving a clue as to what I was referring to.
    But, you'll need your rest to study for your exam and I wouldn't want to be accused of causing you sleepless nights thinking, "hmm, what was that putz talking about?"

    So, to the best of my recollection (now I sound like a lawyer) it had to do with the Holocaust, and whether it was unique in the annals of human atrocities, or simply one of many.

    There, so good luck, and Ace that test!


    He doesn't remember because (none / 0) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 24, 2011 at 12:11:38 AM EST
    he's called all of us lame at least once at one point or another.

    btw (none / 0) (#37)
    by sj on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:47:56 AM EST
    Let us know what flavor of law you end up practicing.  As I've said before, if I need an advocate in ???  I'd like to know where to get one.

    I'd love to do voting rights, and in particular (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by andgarden on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:24:17 PM EST
    redistricting law. Not so easy to get in to that field, though. The DOJ turned me down (in favor of other exceptionally qualified candidates, I am sure).

    Other than that, I'm pretty into Administrative Law, and I would love to make a career at a Federal Agency. The current budget situation makes that more difficult than it would otherwise have been, though.

    I think I can say with confidence that I will never attempt to draw up anyone's will. That area of the law bores me to tears.


    Agree that will drafting can be (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Anne on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:39:45 PM EST
    boring, although it's amazing how much stuff comes out in the open when people are deciding what to do with their assets.

    And the administration of estates can be like doing field work for an advanced degree in social work and psychology; it still, after 30+ years of working in this area, amazes me how petty and vindictive people can be, and how adult children  are transformed into 5-year olds.  I had an estate once that cost a freakin' fortune to settle because the executors would not speak to each other (two of them were the decedent's children, and two were the decedent's husband's children).  And the one where Mom disinherited her daughter and her daughter's children, in favor of the other daughter - well, that one ended up in a caveat proceeding, and when all was said and done, the fees ate up 80% of the estate.  I had to testify in court in that one - not exactly boring!

    People who punish their survivors from beyond the grave don't seem to realize that whatever assets and cash they bequeath, their real legacy will be the pain they inflict and the years of continued dysfunction they guarantee.  Not what I would want to be remembered for, but to each his or her own, I guess.

    It's not for everyone, for sure, but it's bever been boring for me!.


    I'd be willing to bet that (none / 0) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 24, 2011 at 12:15:06 AM EST
    these wildly dysfunctional families would be at each other's throats no matter what the will said. The real "fun" is when people die without a will.  I've known families who fought viciously over "estates" that amounted to a no more than a few hundred bucks worth of personal possessions.

    As anyone who has ever lost a (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Anne on Tue May 24, 2011 at 08:49:13 AM EST
    parent or a spouse or close family member knows, death shakes up the whole family dynamic, and it takes a while for things to settle and for people to essentially assume new roles within the "new" structure and be comfortable with those roles.  Sometimes, there is a real power struggle that ensues - and that's before they get to the part about divvying up the assets!

    I am more convinced than ever that we are all dysfunctional to some degree, and so are our families; death tends to exaggerate whatever level of dysfunction there is, and in families with the worst dysfunction, it can get pretty bad.  

    I've worked with some truly wonderful clients and their families, have shepherded widows left frightened and anxious because they've never had knowledge of the family finances, have never paid a bill, to a place where they know and understand more and become confident they can manage on their own, and have seen families work through the grief and resolve their family differences in ways that allow them to move forward as a family - and that's a rewarding thing to be a part of.


    Side-note to andgarden (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by christinep on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:47:55 PM EST
    Tho retired from the feds--having 30 years in during the Bush II years--my very personal view is that being a lawyer with the federal government for all those years is a decision that I would gladly & proudly take again. Serving the public goes a long way in many ways...including sleeping at night, usually, with a clear conscience. (And, you will certainly learn quickly about the real admin law.)

    Good luck in the federal quest. A pointer: My experience suggests that a number of attys found their way to permanent slots through initial temporary or part-time slots; also, consider locations as a way in, for many seek appealing geographic regions, etc....but, other regions (a little different for different agencies) that may not be so sought after may need attornies. Subsequent transfers come up in ensuing years, etc. The advice about being flexible with location--whether federal employ or private practice--has strong bases in fact.

    Since I'm full of unasked for advice, let me add that you might want to look at legislative drafting and related via state legislatures. Working with the redistricting process at its heart could be fulfilling; and, it would provide the connective roadmap for later legal development. Just my 2 or 5 cents....


    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 24, 2011 at 12:17:02 AM EST
    and all your thousands of colleagues who've been willing to serve the country over the years rather than try to make big bucks in some more lucrative kind of practice.

    I truly appreciate it.


    That comports with the advice (none / 0) (#81)
    by andgarden on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:53:07 PM EST
    I've heard elsewhere. Thanks!

    Congrats andgarden (none / 0) (#91)
    by lilburro on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:24:13 PM EST
    and good luck!  Keep us updated.  I'm sure you will succeed and I'm looking forward to you sharing your new knowledge when our next big political/legal debate rolls around.  I miss the glory days of the Roland Burris debates!

    Now there's a name (none / 0) (#98)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 24, 2011 at 12:17:52 AM EST
    that I'm happy to say hasn't entered my mind for quite some time!

    Andgarden (none / 0) (#41)
    by samsguy18 on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:53:27 AM EST
    Congratulations ! Good luck with the Bar exams. Such a happy and exciting time for you. Enjoy.

    Congrats garden, (none / 0) (#50)
    by brodie on Mon May 23, 2011 at 12:00:46 PM EST
    and best of luck with the bar exam.

    Are you at liberty to tell us which law school you attended?


    Thanks (none / 0) (#70)
    by andgarden on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:13:09 PM EST
    And yes, I'm "at liberty" ;-), but I think it's prudent not to be so specific.

    andgarden, I am delighted to add to (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:12:49 PM EST
    this list of congratulations. Why, it seems like only yesterday I was reading your comments when you started law school.

    And, my two cents on your future, if you are interested in redistricting and/or legislative law, working at the state level is tough to beat for immersion in the nitty-gritty.


    Mother Nature hitting MO (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 23, 2011 at 08:59:10 AM EST
    hard this year.

    Tornado Kills 89 in Joplin

    A massive tornado tore through Joplin, Mo., Sunday and killed at least 89 people. Fire chief Mitch Randles estimated that 25 to 30 percent of the city was damaged, and said his own home was among the buildings destroyed. "It cut the city in half," Randles said.

    Between tornadoes and floods a large number of people across the country are being hit with additional hardships during these hard times.

    I'm certainly no meteorologist, but (none / 0) (#25)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 23, 2011 at 09:32:48 AM EST
    I wish the MSM would inform us more on what's going on.

    Just anecdotally, the weather all around the country, and the world, seems to be so erratic and extreme. And these tornadoes come on the heels of the terrible death and destruction in Alabama recently.

    Everything's a record. From Katrina to the earthquake in Japan, all you hear is the greatest this, or the greatest that. Whether its rain, drought, heat & cold, the charts have gone nuts!  


    one or two (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CST on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:25:55 AM EST
    scientists actually predicted this.

    They called it climate change.


    And the ones who knew what (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 23, 2011 at 12:32:48 PM EST
    they are taking about said that was not true.

    yea (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by CST on Mon May 23, 2011 at 12:54:24 PM EST
    they know it's really just the onset of the apocalypse.

    heh (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:21:15 PM EST
    The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.



    lets take science out of this for a minute (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by CST on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:36:30 PM EST
    because frankly, you're just wrong, but there is obviously going to be no convincing on that one.

    Have you ever been to LA Jim?  Or for that matter, have you ever been to San Diego and seen the smog in LA more clearly than that house down the block?  Are you really ok with the entire world looking like that?  Have you ever tried to breathe in a city with that level of smog?  It's literally suffocating.  Why on earth would you want to promote pollution, climate change aside?  

    Even if climate change weren't happening (and it is) - I would STILL want to reduce the levels of co2 we're pumping into the atmosphere.

    Anything that makes it easier to breathe is a good thing in my book.  If it helps keep the ocean from flooding my city in the next 100 years or stops the invasive species from moving further north every year, or stops shortening the sugaring season year after year - that's just a plus.  We have gotten to the point where anyone who uses their eyes can tell you that climate change is real.  We're living it.


    Yes, I have been to LA and San Diego (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:46:50 PM EST
    In fact I have been to all 50 states, Canada, Guam, PR, Cuba, Italy, England, France, Belgium,Thailand, Spain, Soviet Union, Iceland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, Mexico, Greenland and Denmark and some others........

    I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject but if being well traveled is important I qualify.

    You appear to confuse weather with climate change and environment with climate change.

    And of course, climate is changing and has been changing, etc., etc.

    The question is... is there such a thing as man made global warming.

    The fact is that MMGW was mostly hoax and some dedicated but wrong people.

    As for the sea levels:

    Back in the summer of 2009, we ran a piece titled "Sea Level Rise: An Update Shows a Slowdown" in which we showed that the much ballyhooed "faster rate of sea level rise during the satellite era" was actually slowing down.


    By now, this should come as no surprise--the rate of sea level rise continues to slow. The rate during the most recent 10-yr period is 2.32 mm/yr (or about 9 inches per century). This is not much above the 20th century average rate of 1.8mm/yr (7 inches per century), and FAR below the average rate of 10 mm/yr required to raise global average sea level by 1 meter (3.25 feet) by 2100--the new in vogue value for what the IPCC should have projected (rather then the ~15 inches that they did project) (see, for example, Grinsted et al, 2009; Vermeer and Rahmstorf, 2009).

    So LA and San Diego appear very safe for at least the next 100 years.

    Simply put MMGW is not happening. The global climate is now cooling.

    And that may be a real problem since veggies don't grow well in the cold.


    nothing to do with whether (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by CST on Tue May 24, 2011 at 10:02:22 AM EST
    you've travelled.  I'm questioning whether you use your senses though.

    It's not about weather either.  It's about not being able to breathe because there's so much pollution in the air.  And the smog is so thick you can see it from another city full of smog a few hours away.

    That's not a problem for you?


    Patrick Michael's blog? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Yman on Mon May 23, 2011 at 09:35:33 PM EST
    "World Climate Report"?


    Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians ... He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science.

    BTW - Guess who funds Michael's blog ("World Climate Report"), as well as his "advocacy science consulting firm", New Hope Environmental Services.  I'll give you a clue.  It starts with "oil", ...

    ... and ends with "companies".

    But at least he's a step up from Marc Morano and "Climate Depot".



    And Soros funds Media Matters (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 23, 2011 at 11:16:04 PM EST
    And your point is???

    My point is credibility (none / 0) (#103)
    by Yman on Tue May 24, 2011 at 07:47:57 AM EST
    Media Matters backs up their pieces with the actual quotes, facts, and links to the primary sources, not merely hyperbolic opinion posted in editorial pieces and books for sale, like Michaels.  There's a reason he hasn't published a single, peer-reviewed study to support his claims.

    He can't.

    BTW - Michael's also has a habit of misleading people about how much support he receives from the oil companies/Koch brothers.


    Media Matters is Sorors' child (1.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 24, 2011 at 08:38:37 AM EST
    It exists only to push his positions.

    Plus it is a master of out of context quotes.


    Strange, then ... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Yman on Tue May 24, 2011 at 11:51:16 AM EST
    ... that he would wait until just a few months ago to make his first donation to Media Matters.


    Hint - if you're going to make ridiculous accusations, at least try to come up with some kind of evidence ...

    BTW - Nothing on Michael's lack of peer-reviewed climate studies?



    Nice try - now find a climatologist ... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Yman on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:58:30 PM EST
    ... as opposed to Evans, a mathematician and engineer who has never published a single, peer-reviewed article on the subject of global warming.  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm .... I wonder why that is.

    From a critique thoroughly debunking Evan's claims:

    To sum up, once you weed through the considerable empty and inflammatory rhetoric in Evans' opinion article, the meat consists of a number of long-debunked myths and gross misunderstandings of basic climate science.  Evans' article is the "skeptic" equivalent of eating red hot candies: not much substance, empty calories, but it gets the blood boiling!

    Then perhaps you will accept (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 23, 2011 at 05:04:49 PM EST
    the comments of Dr Phil Jones of EAU.

    Among the messages that Sensenbrenner read was one from Jones, the East Anglia scientist, in which he wrote about a "trick of adding in the real temps" in an exchange about long-term climate trends. Holdren responded that the word "trick" did not mean manipulation of data, but about a "clever way" to tackle a problem. Another Jones' e-mail read, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."

    It occurs to me that if Jones would like to see it happen then he knows it hasn't happened.

    As for scientists...

    Did you know that the person in charge of the UN's IPCC is an engineer? A railroad engineer that is.

    Now, for others:

    More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming



    Of course he would like to be proven right (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Yman on Mon May 23, 2011 at 09:11:32 PM EST
    What scientist wouldn't, particularly when faced with such idiocy from the global warming "skeptics" like Marc Morano of "Climate Depot", who spew their laughable "science" for the ignorant to gobble up?  Of course, never mind the fact that 32 national science academies, dozens of prominent scientific organizations, 97-98% of climate researchers, 97% of earth scientists, etc., etc. etc... all support climate change theory, while there is not a single scientific organization or peer-reviewed study to support the "skeptics" silly claims.

    Not even a fair fight.

    As far as Pachauri, so what?  He's an administrator, not a researcher.  When he (as Evan's did) starts contradicting all of the actual climatologists who know what they're talking about, get back to me.

    BTW - I do appreciate the attempt at humor - a link to Breitbart.  Followed by an even funnier link to "Climate Depot" (is that like "Home Depot" or "Office Depot"?).  Of course, Climatedepot.com and Marc Morano and his laughable list of "scientists" are a joke.  His list of "scientists" is filled with people who are "so-called experts who are really weather broadcasters without advanced degrees", like Chris Allen (weather director for WBKO-TV in Kentucky), who is listed as a meteorologist on the report, even though he has no degree in meteorology.  In his report, Morano also misrepresents the work of legitimate experts like Dr. Steve Rayner (who does not dispute global warming), who actually asked to have his name removed from the report.  Climatedepot.com is also a branch of CFACT - a winger group funded by Richard Melon Scaife and (surprise, surprise) ExxonMobil Foundation.



    Gee, you don't like Phil Jones (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 23, 2011 at 11:14:54 PM EST
    in breitbart??

    Maybe the most egregious e-mail of the whole packet is not CRU Director Phil Jones's "hide the decline" post, but one where he declares: "As you know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political; it is being selfish."

    Well, here he is in the NY Post.

    And speaking of believing, you have posted nothing factual, just a paean of "It must be true!"


    BTW - An opinion piece ... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Yman on Tue May 24, 2011 at 07:57:32 AM EST
    ... by Stephen Hayward from the American Enterprise Institute in Rupert Murdoch's paper is supposed to be more credible than Breitbart?  Usually, your attempts at humor don't hit home, ...

    ... but that is funny.


    You didn't like one source (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 24, 2011 at 08:34:18 AM EST
    re Jones. I gave you the NY Post.

    Yet you still don't like it.

    I gave you an article refuting sea rise and you don't refute it.

    I gave you an article showing scientists going over to the opposition and you don't refute it.

    And you won't like this:

    The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

    Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

    So much for your impeccable sources, eh?

    Want a bit of truth?

    To capture the public imagination,we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective,and being honest.

    Stephen Schneider

    Nothing happening here. Move on. Nothing to see.... Leave your money in the box by the door.


    Breitbart and an opinion piece ... (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by Yman on Tue May 24, 2011 at 12:13:43 PM EST
    Uhhhhhmmmm - Lal and Schneider aren't "my sources", Jim.  I've never cited them.  However, I's put either of them up against "Climate Depot" and John Daly's blog (your sources) any day of the week.

    So the fact that Dr. Lal acknowledges that this single statement was not supported by peer-reviewed science means that his statement (or he, himself) isn't credible?!?  From a guy who cites Climate Depot and Evans, who hasn't published a single, peer-reviewed study to support his outrageous claims?

    That's funny.

    As far as Breitbart and a conservative AEI writer, they're sources alright - just not credible sources.  If you'd like, I can put up a couple of dozen links to actual, peer-reviewed scientific studies that conclude that man-made climate change is real, as opposed to unsubstantiated opinion pieces from people who aren't even climatologists.  You know .... real studies from real scientists who actually put out their data and studies for review and critique from other real scientists - as opposed to the "scientists" at Climatedepot.com.  Maybe if you'd cite just a single, national or international scientific organization that disagrees with the conclusion that surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases, maybe someone could support your argument.  Oh, wait... that's right .... you can't ...

    ... because there are none.

    BTW - The reason you think there's "nothing to see here" is because you have your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears.


    There's plenty of factual statements ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Tue May 24, 2011 at 07:38:36 AM EST
    And speaking of believing, you have posted nothing factual, just a paean of "It must be true!"

    ... in my post, as opposed to distortions of Phil Jone's statements and fake "science" from fake experts.

    Of course, never mind the fact that 32 national science academies, dozens of prominent scientific organizations, 97-98% of climate researchers, 97% of earth scientists, etc., etc. etc... all support climate change theory, while there is not a single scientific organization or peer-reviewed study to support the "skeptics" silly claims.

    Then there's all the stuff debunking "Climate Depot, Marc Morano, etc.

    They're just facts you can't refute.


    Nothing, Jim? (none / 0) (#112)
    by Yman on Tue May 24, 2011 at 12:15:47 PM EST
    Guess it's hard to argue with actual facts, rather than opinions.

    Yman, (none / 0) (#113)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 24, 2011 at 02:08:52 PM EST
    Our recent experience with the "rapture" has reopened the discussion previously highlighted by members of the Tea Party.

    The question was: How will the folks, the true believers, those who sold their homes, packed up their cars, gave away their furnishings, react when the time for the Rapture came, and went........and they were still here? Would they reject the theology, and walk away in disgust when faced with the reality that it was a hoax?

    Of course not. In all previous cases like this, the number of members actually increased significantly.

    Not to drag this out, but in a nutshell, the question remains, "why do some people, in the face of irrefutable facts, evidence, reality, and common sense, continue to behave and act against their own best interests?

    Its really a fascinating subject, just do a little googling and you'll find a thousand studies as to why some people have this hard-wired "truth deflector" gene imbedded in their pathology.

    I guess my point is, your attempts to impart rational, cognitively based reasoning in your debates with some of our commenters here are so predictably destined to fail that I would ask you.....why bother?

    So, my parting thought: "there are none so blind as those that will not see."


    I think it's as simple as ... (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by Yman on Tue May 24, 2011 at 04:22:02 PM EST
    Not to drag this out, but in a nutshell, the question remains, "why do some people, in the face of irrefutable facts, evidence, reality, and common sense, continue to behave and act against their own best interests?

    ... People believe what they want to believe ... some people in particular.  When confronted with facts that fly in the face of their preconceptions, they choose to ignore facts and go with their "gut", instead, no matter how unsupported or illogical.  Conservatives choose to be climate change "skeptics" because of their general disagreement with government authority to regulate the environment and spending money to protect the environment.


    Re The Rapture (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 24, 2011 at 04:40:22 PM EST
    The Bible says no one will know.

    Tea Party members know that.  Quit trying to slur folks based on fringe activities.

    Re MMGW.

    Lots of evidence that we have massive hoaxers and folks trying to make a living off of us by selling fear. I gave you Schneider. You can add Mann, etc.

    So instead of denying, why don't you provide some actual proof rather than just saying.... "They said so...."

    Remember it was a "They" that said the world was ending.


    Who are you responding to? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Yman on Tue May 24, 2011 at 05:36:10 PM EST
    I wasn't talking about the "Rapture".

    As far as Schneider and Mann (?), they "make their living" in climatology because they are scientists in their chosen field of study.  They no more make a living by "selling fear" than a doctor makes a living by warning people about the dangers of overeating, disease, or smoking.

    So instead of denying, why don't you provide some actual proof rather than just saying.... "They said so...."

    Remember it was a "They" that said the world was ending.

    What are you talking about?  You want evidence of climate change caused by man?  To what end?  I could cite dozens of studies confirming "MMGW", and you would still dismiss it and fail to cite a single scientific study supporting your theory that it's a hoax.

    Ostrich in the sand ...


    Site some (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:28:53 PM EST
    I will be waiting.

    This sould get you started (none / 0) (#120)
    by Yman on Sat May 28, 2011 at 07:22:03 AM EST

    Your turn.


    The AmericanGeophysical Union (AGU) (none / 0) (#121)
    by Yman on Sat May 28, 2011 at 07:50:55 AM EST
    ... is the primary place for reporting climate change studies.  They have a digital library full of thousands of studies.

    ... or you could just continue to cite "Climate Depot".


    I'll just go with this (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 28, 2011 at 09:11:35 AM EST
    More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming "consensus" -- features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.


    And this:

    While I'm not a degreed climate scientist, I'll point out that neither is Al Gore, and his specialty is presentation also. And that's part of what this blog is about: presentation of weather and climate data in a form the public can understand and discuss.


    And this:

    "To capture the public imagination,
    we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
    make simplified dramatic statements
    and little mention of any doubts one might have.
    Each of us has to decide the right balance
    between being effective,
    and being honest.


    I think we know where "honesty" lies with these folks.


    Hahaha ... "Climatedepot.com" again? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Yman on Sat May 28, 2011 at 09:21:17 PM EST
    Wow, Jim - not a single scientific study to support the denier's flat-earth theories?  What a surprise.

    BTW - Climatedepot.com is not a scientific organization.  It's a site run by Marc Morano - a global warming denier who was an aide to Inhofe.  He's a clueless flat-earther who worked for Rush Limbaugh and CNS.

    BBTW - The "report" cited by Morano is nothing more than a petition filled with signatures of fellow wingnuts rather than experts in the area of climatology.

    "... the report is filled with so-called experts who are really weather broadcasters and others without advanced degrees.

    Chris Allen, for example, the weather director for WBKO-TV in Kentucky, is listed as a meteorologist on the report, even though he has no degree in meteorology. On his Web site, Mr. Allen has written that his major objection to the idea of human-influenced climate change is that "it completely takes God out of the picture." Mr. Allen did not respond to phone calls.

    Mr. Grandia also said Mr. Morano's report misrepresented the work of legitimate scientists. Mr. Grandia pointed to Steve Rayner, a professor at Oxford, who was mentioned for articles criticizing the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 international treaty on curbing carbon dioxide emissions.

    Dr. Rayner, however, in no way disputes the existence of global warming or that human activity contributes to it, as the report implies. In e-mail messages, he said that he had asked to be removed from the Morano report and that a staff member in Mr. Inhofe's office had promised that he would be. He called his inclusion on the list "quite outrageous."

    Asked about Dr. Rayner, Mr. Morano was unmoved. He said that he had no record of Dr. Rayner's asking to be removed from the list and that the doctor must be "not to be remembering this clearly."

    Not even a half-decent try.


    BTW - Re: Schneider's quote (none / 0) (#124)
    by Yman on Sat May 28, 2011 at 09:39:34 PM EST
    Always a favorite among the wingers, but did you ever notice they omit part of it in their patently obvious attempt to distort it?

    See page 5 for the full quote and clear explanation of Schneider's distorted, out-of-context quote.  Schneider was not, as the winger deniers claim, advocating stretching or distorting scientific truths to support their theories.  Schneider was talking about the challenge scientists face trying to communicate complex, important issues without adequate time during media interviews.  The significant sections that were omitted were "This `double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each
    of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

    Not that the truth matters to the wingers.


    No no (none / 0) (#114)
    by jbindc on Tue May 24, 2011 at 02:23:34 PM EST
    Now the Rapture is going to take place on October 21....

    This particular year (none / 0) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 23, 2011 at 11:42:41 AM EST
    This particular year, the weather is likely more extreme because it's a La Nina year....and many scientists believe the increase in tornadoes is due to BETTER REPORTING of them, and not climate change...

    ...of course climate change likely has some impact on our current weather conditions, no doubt, but La Nina has even more....


    I really don't think that (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:33:32 PM EST
    "better reporting" has anything to do with unprecedented force 5 monster tornadoes slamming into urban areas.

    How big were those (none / 0) (#84)
    by Rojas on Mon May 23, 2011 at 07:06:20 PM EST
    "urban areas" 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago? The exponential population growth on the plains, in tornado alley in particular means it's just a matter of time until the "really big one" hits.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 23, 2011 at 11:19:21 PM EST
    AFP - US meteorologists warned Thursday it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes in the wake of deadly storms that have ripped through the US south.


    It's having to do with better (weather tracking) technology, more population, the fact that the population is better educated and more aware. So we're seeing them more often," Dixon said



    Big enough, my friend (none / 0) (#100)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 24, 2011 at 12:24:40 AM EST
    that somebody woulda noticed if they'd been hit by a storm that powerful and that big.

    Oh I remember (none / 0) (#101)
    by Rojas on Tue May 24, 2011 at 06:55:31 AM EST
    They call it Terrible Tuesday.
    I also remember when one actually could tell they had left one city before entering another when driving across DFW. The same could be said for the Oklahoma city metro.

    It's horrible (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:49:29 AM EST
    This has to be global warming

    false alarm (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by CST on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    Scott Brown is apparently not as stupid as I hoped he was.


    "Senator Scott Brown says he will vote against a House GOP budget that proposes overhauling Medicare, saying the current system should be improved instead."

    Although this has got to be the third or fourth time he's waffled like this on major legislation.  But I don't think the "flip flop" charge is that damaging, certainly nothing on "tried to eliminate medicare".

    His waffle is enough (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by andgarden on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:40:48 AM EST
    to make it an issue. I could write the ads!

    please do! (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:43:15 AM EST
    no one else seems to be doing it yet except the league of women voters.

    Scottsdale, AZ a winter White House? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:49:57 AM EST
    Former governor Sarah Palin is reported to have purchased a mansion ($1.6 million) in a gated golf course community in Scottsdale--the Republican vision for residential living with the added benefit of having once been a house in foreclosure.   Apparently, Ms. Palin will be a snowbird, living in Arizona just during the Alaska cold months. However, this event may serious affect her foreign policy expertise, being difficult to see Russia from there.

    Didn't her daughter Bristol (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Zorba on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:51:25 AM EST
    buy a house somewhere in Arizona last year?  I'm too lazy to look it up.  ;-)

    Yes... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 11:12:44 AM EST
    and I guess we should thank AZ, their little war on the paperless means they get the Palins and we get the paperless...I like that deal.

    Not so fast (none / 0) (#55)
    by sj on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:11:37 PM EST
    Apparently she isn't enjoying her descent into relative obscurity and will be in her very own reality show as she "moves from Alaska to Los Angeles with her son".  Arizona doesn't even get a mention even though she bought her house there after Dancing With The Stars.  

    I bet (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:54:38 AM EST
    Tina Fey could see the London Bridge there though!

    It's official... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 11:24:07 AM EST
    no tobacco smoking allowed in city parks, beaches, pedestrian plazas...because the Bloomberg admin. is smoking crack.

    Oh well what is one more law to break...civil disobedience fixin' to skyrocket in NYC.

    I can't believe the city is encouraging citizens to enforce this law...Bloomberg is gonna get people beat up encouraging that mess...mark my words, I give it two weeks before an anti-smoking zealot gets their clock cleaned.

    Pedestrian Plaza (none / 0) (#46)
    by daring grace on Mon May 23, 2011 at 11:47:50 AM EST
    What the heck's a pedestrian plaza?

    Is it a well recognizable thing that can be easily distinguished from, say...a sidewalk?


    They got them in Times Square... (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 11:58:42 AM EST
    now, they set up chairs and tables on expanded medians so you can sit and watch tourists walk slow and locals walk fast, while breathing in gasoline engine exhaust by the cubic yard.

    is that not the truth? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by sj on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:23:56 PM EST
    while breathing in gasoline engine exhaust by the cubic yard

    Can I just tell you how much I used to enjoy drivers of gas-guzzlers looking down on me for smoking?  Not saying smoking is health neutral but neither is exhaust, and at least my vice didn't contribute to climate change.  

    Also, being around smoke doesn't affect my sister's somewhat delicate constitution, while the very air during rush hour can bring on a rather violent backlash.

    Just sayin'


    Stop trying... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:53:26 PM EST
    to make sense and be reasonable sj...Me and mine are the root of all evil and all health problems, pay no attention to that tractor trailer idling behind the curtain!  

    And our nannies Bloomberg and Cuomo are gonna make us pay through the nose in taxes and fines for being so evil, as well as the (supposedly) sovereign Native American nations who trade with us at a infinitely more reasonable rate.


    As a former smoker - and not one of (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Anne on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:51:23 PM EST
    the militant kind, thank you - I have no problem with people smoking outside, with a few requests that seem reasonable, to me, anyway:

    1.  Please be mindful of the wind direction, and try to smoke downwind of others, if possible.

    2.  The world is not your ashtray: please don't use sidewalks, lawns, gutters or streets as places to get rid of your butts.

    3.  Please don't turn office building doorways into tunnels of smoke that others must make their way through to get in and out; some of us aren't so much bothered by breathing your secondhand smoke, as we are by ending up smelling like an ashtray.

    4.  If you're walking and smoking, try to be aware of who and what is around you - especially if you are in an area with kids and strollers: a lit cigarette carried at hip-level is also being carried at eye- and face-level of little children.

    In exchange, we who don't smoke will make an effort not to bathe in perfume, which can be just as hard for some people to tolerate as smoke.

    Reasonable requests all... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:00:30 PM EST
    Common courtesy all around goes a long way....tolerance baby.

    # 4 was a blast from my past...hangin' out with pops at the crowded OTB was like a minefield, dodging all the cigars and cigs at eye level while the men's eyes were glued to the races, arms sometimes flailing willing their picks to the finish.  Escaped with only minor burns:)


    Well, you could leave for friendlier climes.. (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 23, 2011 at 05:42:43 PM EST
    Of course cigs are not allowed because they smell bad.....whereas booze just causes you to act stupid and kill people....

    I recently quit smoking but I agree (none / 0) (#117)
    by Babel 17 on Tue May 24, 2011 at 05:12:29 PM EST
    Bloomberg is is not credible.

    If he was looking out for smokers, as he claims, all the blood money he raises in taxes on the smokers would go to helping them quit.

    Off topic but I used Allen Carr's method, "The easy way to stop smoking".

    Made a lot of sense and the small compilation from it that I bought at Borders Books was a great source of comfort.

    Some very helpful free videos at http://ffn.yuku.com/topic/12886/Video-guide-for-those-just-starting-their-quits#.Tdwsz0dmCUk

    I've got seven weeks under my belt.


    This one's for Kdog (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 22, 2011 at 07:36:47 PM EST
    A story in today's Philadelphia Daily News shows why it's so important that citizens be allowed to videotape cops - it can be citizens' only way to fight back against police abuse of power.


    My roommate... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Mon May 23, 2011 at 09:42:27 AM EST
    could have used a button cam or recording device last week.

    The way I see it, equality under the law demands citizens have the right to monitor and record interactions with law enforcement, if they are gonna have the right to monitor and record their interactions with us.


    As the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case shows (none / 0) (#2)
    by hilts on Sun May 22, 2011 at 07:55:02 PM EST
    We need to have a constitutional ban against the perp walk.

    The perp work serves no useful purpose.  All it does is muddy the waters by making many people think that anyone accused of a crime is automatically guilty.

    I'm not thrilled about (none / 0) (#3)
    by Zorba on Sun May 22, 2011 at 08:12:54 PM EST
    the whole media frenzy when high-profile arrests are made.  However, I think that we need to be very, very careful about amending the First Amendment to limit the freedom of the press.  
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
     Do you really want to mess with that?  I would prefer to educate the public about just exactly what "innocent until proven guilty" means, as opposed to limiting what the press can or cannot do.  Limit photos about the "perp walk" today, and who knows what limits on the press will be instituted tomorrow?  

    I did read something this morning (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2011 at 09:29:18 AM EST
    though via Meteor Blades about how law enforcment works with the press to make certain photos for stories are attainable when they arrest someone.  This sort of "working relationship" promises to start the trials ahead of time and taint the jury pool.

    That wouldn't surprise me at all (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Zorba on Mon May 23, 2011 at 09:37:43 AM EST
    It's still no reason to censor the press (although I would prefer a press that actually acts like an independent press, and not one that pushes either sensationalism or propaganda).  It might be a reason for judges to sanction the law enforcement guys who do this type of thing, though, if that is possible.  If not, maybe the laws need to be changed.

    I agree that something must be done (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2011 at 09:42:19 AM EST
    to get rid of the made for television and the front page perp walk.  If someone has been under investigation though and the press has been loitering waiting for arrest, that seems to me to be legitimate news and freedom of speech.  Documenting the perp walk should not be a steamlined event, it should take lots of sweat and create jobs :)

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Zorba on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:02:28 AM EST
    The more the press is "given" stories, photos, etc by the powers-that-be (as opposed to the press doing some- gasp- actual reporting), the more beholden the press becomes to the authorities, and the less likely they are to question those authorities.

    Incident to arrest coverage (none / 0) (#49)
    by brodie on Mon May 23, 2011 at 11:59:07 AM EST
    is fine.  But not staged events by the prosecution for the press in order to, as you rightly stated above, begin the trial early.

    There shouldn't be any place for this sort of malign jury pool influence in our system where we loudly and often pat ourselves on the back for allegedly adhering to the notion of presumed innocence.  Clearly the defendant's rights are being violated as he has no legal recourse to challenge the p.w. as he is being put in a very unflattering light that makes him look guilty.

    Lawyers, who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and adhere to all rules furthering the proper administration of justice including the right to a fair trial, should take the lead locally or at the state lege/bar ass'n level and begin to implement strict rules that will prevent prosecutors from ordering up such outrageous staged events that clearly disadvantage a defendant at the outset.


    Heartily agree--if same constraints (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by oculus on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:54:56 PM EST
    would apply to defense counsel and "media consultants" on behalf of same.

    They've had at least one court case (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Mon May 23, 2011 at 12:51:34 PM EST
    challenging it

    The New York Police Department doesn't make a practice of letting reporters know when a suspect is going to leave a precinct, but they also don't go to special lengths to sneak someone out when cameras are waiting outside. The department does not release mug shots.

    "These aren't scheduled events," said chief spokesman Paul Browne.

    Whether quietly tipped off by police eager to show off good detective work, or just employing savvy beat reporters, the media somehow always seem to know where the suspect is going to be, and there's no law prohibiting the practice.

    "The media is relentless. They'll follow police cars, and hang out of trees. They do whatever they have to do to get a picture," said Al Primo, a TV consultant who came up with the ABC "Eyewitness News" idea.

    A lawsuit in the late 1990s challenged what was known as the "staged" walk, where police sometimes paraded the suspect outside for no other reason than so media could take pictures. A judge ruled that staged walks violated the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights, but in 2003 a U.S. appeals court found that non-staged perp walks were constitutional.

    Defense attorneys say the images can be hard to counter, and can sometimes poison a jury pool, but they generally tolerate the practice as a necessary evil.

    Philip J. Dinhofer, the lawyer who argued the case against staged walks, said non-staged walks can provide a public service by showing the public who was caught so other potential victims can come forward. He said they also can help calm the public after arrests are made for high-profile violent crimes.

    More (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jbindc on Mon May 23, 2011 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    The Pros and Cons of the Perp Walk

    Didn't think about this:

    In New York City, at least, the perp walk is a transportation imperative (as well as an opportunity for the police to demonstrate that a prisoner was not interrogated too aggressively).

    Sounds like grasping at straws (none / 0) (#57)
    by sj on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:28:48 PM EST
    and rationalizations to me.  That may have been the case in the middle ages, but in theory, it shouldn't need a perp walk for that to be validated.

    If they do, then parade them all.  Including police officers accused of misconduct.


    They do (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:37:07 PM EST
    uh no, they don't (none / 0) (#60)
    by sj on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:47:22 PM EST
    The walk out to a vehicle is not what's under discussion here.  What's being discussed is the high profile, public, prisoner exhibition that -- protests to the contrary notwithstanding -- are often leaked to the media.  

    You said (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:58:16 PM EST
    If crooked cops were also subjected to perp walks.  Don't know about you, but in police corruption cases, I've seen them do the perp walk.

    And I agree with oculus - neither side should be able to get out and start the spin.


    Okay (none / 0) (#67)
    by sj on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:52:41 PM EST
    I think we agree more than not.

    Absolutely do not (none / 0) (#85)
    by Rojas on Mon May 23, 2011 at 07:22:15 PM EST
    In fact, the typical response is a complete lock down on information with the excuse that there may be civil exposure. This is not a two way street by any means or measure.

    Shrug (none / 0) (#105)
    by jbindc on Tue May 24, 2011 at 08:00:56 AM EST
    I know what I've seen.  YMMV.

    A mighty thin straw (none / 0) (#86)
    by Rojas on Mon May 23, 2011 at 07:30:56 PM EST
    but I suppose if you are gullible enough that looks like a veritable pillar that we can all rest our civil rights on.

    Anyone seen the news on DK about Pawlenty (none / 0) (#17)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 22, 2011 at 11:41:00 PM EST
    and the sex offender pardon?  Eeek!

    Geez, I don't know (none / 0) (#99)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 24, 2011 at 12:20:53 AM EST
    I'm reluctant to excoriate anybody who made an error of failing to foresee the future.  Was he told this guy was a likely re-offender?  If not, I'd say he did the right thing.  The overwhelming majority of these cases of "statutory rape" where the perp is barely older than the victim and both at least thinking they were in love shouldn't result in that kind of sentence to begin with, IMHO.

    SCOTUS (5-4), upholds release of (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Mon May 23, 2011 at 11:53:54 AM EST
    approx. 46,000 inmates from CA correctional institutions.  Kennedy writes majority opinion.  LAT