Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread

Busy day here. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Update: Dominique Strauss-Kahn files $1 million counterclaim against the New York hotel housekeeper in the civil suit.

< John Edwards: Here's the Tape | Zimmerman's Medical Reports Show Broken Nose and Lacerations >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    More startling Stop & Frisk statistics... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:45:19 PM EST
    from the NYCLU....168,000 black men aged 14-24 stopped for an illegal search in 2011, but there are only 158,406 black men aged 14-24 who live in the 5 boroughs.

    Did the NYPD stop every young black man once and 10,000 twice?  Harassing black tourists? WTF???  

    I would never guessed we could do worse than Guiliani but Bloomberg has turned out to be far worse.  Where's the DOJ?

    People (none / 0) (#6)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:53:19 PM EST
    will assume that it isn't about race because no names were called and no crosses burned.

    That's not the way racism happens for the most part in 2012 though.


    Whatever (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:08:11 PM EST
    They all know it's about race, but they are too chicken S to come clean, so they will come up with 99 reasons detailing how it's not about race.

    But I do agree about the 21st century racism, it's the white hood, but instead of masking identity, it masking the motive.

    Hateful cowardice.


    Yep yep... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by kdog on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:13:14 PM EST
    and this is as real as racism gets...the power component is met and then some.  

    Institutionalized racism, and as long as the murder rate is down nobody gives a f8ck, except the innocent Americans getting harassed and dehumanized every damn day by the boys in blue.


    I Have Never Benn Stopped and Frisked (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:40:40 PM EST
    Although this seems like a NYC issue, it surely happens everywhere.  I have had some run ins with the cops, and the only times I have been pat down is when I was arrested and it was nothing like TV, basically checking my pockets.  

    I remember Chappelle doing a stand up routine about being shocked about the way his white friend was talking to the cops, with contempt.   Which at the time was shocking to me, I didn't realize that they never got to experience that little bit of gratification when getting a ticket.

    No point more than as a white guy I am so tired of these relics not being able to get over their GD selves and how it's just so damn old.


    when are they going to refine (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:19:47 PM EST
    a technique for "stopping and frisking" Mikey's thieves-of-the-century pals on WS..?

    Talk about the pigs picking on the weak kid on the playground..  


    I hear that... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:50:58 PM EST
    Bloomberg loves him some grifters, I believe he refers to them as "colleagues".

    But he sure hates guns (wonder why?), and he'll break as many good eggs as it takes to make his gun control omelette, so his "colleagues" feel safe as they rob the stopped and frisked blind.  


    Probably some ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:31:33 PM EST
    were stopped as many as 10 times.  But you also have to remember a massive amount of people pass through NYC daily who don't live here.  They are from Jersey, or Long Island, Connecticut or upstate.

    IIRC, the number of nonresidents who pass through Manhattan on a daily basis is more than the population of the entire burough.


    Yeah, I agree that the raw number and (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:11:28 PM EST
    skewing to the demographic are way too high, but I don't get what good it does comparing to the population of Manhattan, except for an attention grabbing headline. Makes no logical sense.

    It supports the story line (none / 0) (#65)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 16, 2012 at 12:10:58 AM EST
    Rhetorical questions by me... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Wed May 16, 2012 at 08:01:37 AM EST
    I'd imagine there are poor tyrannized slobs getting stopped and frisked once a week or more.

    I just thought it one helluva alarming statistic.

    Not that the age 14-24 black male population and the number of unjustified stops of age 14-24 black males are from all 5 boroughs though, not just Manhattan.  


    The Rolls Royces are out today, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:42:33 PM EST
    not trading Grey Poupon Dijon Mustard, but moving the smart people around DC to the Andrew Mellon Auditorium.  Pete Petersen, the Wall Street billionaire, (Nixon Sec of Commerce, Blackstone Group, Lehman Brothers, NY Fed Reserve, Geithner advocate)  who has never seen a social safety net that should not be "reformed", is hosting a "fiscal summit" bringing together folks like Geithner,  Bill Clinton, Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Rob Portman, Alan Simpson,  Tom Brokaw and George Stephanopoulos.

    It has not been reported if Jamie Dimon was present, although my guess is that he is preoccupied, alone in his board room, the smartest person in that room.  Bowles-Simpson appears to be back on the table as is a "grand bargain" for deficit and debt austerity.   Even the Bowles-Simpson committee did not vote approval of Bowles-Simpson, And, the citizens do not want benefit cuts, but that does not mean that the elites do not know what is best.

    Perhaps the cameras will, once again, catch Bill Clinton soothing the ruffled feathers of Paul Ryan and asking him to call him.  Senator Bernie Sanders and several organizations are protesting  cuts and/or elimination of social security, Medicare and Medicaid outside the Mellon Auditorium

    Charles Pierce (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by CST on Tue May 15, 2012 at 04:45:32 PM EST
    on a High School Baseball game.

    This basically describes my feelings towards a lot of the "issues" of the day:

    "no, I don't have to "respect" the stand they took, or the beliefs that prompted it"

    I saw that story a couple of days ago. (none / 0) (#31)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:29:49 PM EST
    As Charlie said, those boys just couldn't handle losing to a girl. The Catholic cult that runs Our Lady of Sorrows believes fiercely in the subjugation of women and their general unworthiness.

    One really has to wonder how a religious school qualifies for tax payer monies, except, well, this school is in Arizona, where all bets are off when it comes to sanity and reasonableness.

    And kudos to the boys on the Mesa Prep baseball team for standing by their second baseperson, and to the school's administrators for letting Paige tryout for and play on the baseball team.


    Gee, caseyOR, I heard baseball was a team sport (none / 0) (#36)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:06:30 PM EST
    Yet you feel free to impugn the courage of a bunch of boys you don't know due to the stupidity of the adults in their religious school. This girl wouldn't "beat" them by herself, clearly it was felt the "gentler sex" shouldn't be on the ball field with rough and tumble boys. Stupid, yes.

    Evidence of wanting to "subjugate" (Gorean slave girls?) women ? No, not unless you are attempting to redefine that word. Evidence of cowardice on the part of the school or the boys on that team? No, they have no choice about who their school and coach chooses to play against.

    I'll agree that religious schools, shouldn't, unless under very specific conditions get public money. I'll agree that I felt sad for the girl because I have an idea of fair play and I wish that such close-minded idiots had never been in the league in the first place. But I don't agree that you can infer more about this other than some religious schools are full of very stupid and bigoted people.


    Do some reading about the Society of Pius X, (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:38:19 PM EST
    and then come back here and question my use of the word "subjugate". I used the word in reference to the Society not the baseball team.

    People, groups organizations, what have you, who, like the Pius X people, believe that women should not attend college, work outside the home or, horrors! wear shorts are, IMO, advocating the subjugation of women.


    RIP Carlos Fuentes (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Dadler on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:17:13 PM EST
    Do you have a recommendation (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Tue May 15, 2012 at 10:57:49 PM EST
    for a newbie to Fuentes' writing?

    About DSK (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue May 15, 2012 at 08:22:14 PM EST
    I remember some feminists saying he'd settle the accuser's civil suit out of court because since he's obviously guilty, he'll want to avoid any courtroom.

    Seems they were wrong.

    Question (none / 0) (#109)
    by kmblue on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:53:34 AM EST
    If this bully wins, how will he collect?  Doesn't seem like a maid would have that kind of scratch.
    By the way, I have always believed the maid.
    Ol' Dom seems to have a history of being a sexual predator.  

    Do you remember which feminists (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed May 16, 2012 at 12:18:17 AM EST
    said that? I'm sure lots of people speculated on what he might do, not just feminists. Sometimes innocent people settle civil suits to avoid more controversy, and sometimes guilty people countersue. I don't see how DSK's actions prove anything about his guilt or innocence.

    Today (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 16, 2012 at 07:56:51 AM EST
    is D-day for the exam that is going to decide graduation. I guess I will find out soon enough what the answer is.

    Good luck! (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jbindc on Wed May 16, 2012 at 08:36:59 AM EST
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 16, 2012 at 09:22:52 AM EST
    turns out (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by CST on Wed May 16, 2012 at 01:49:34 PM EST
    one of the major forces behind the recent crackdown on U.S. nuns is none other than "disgraced" former archbishop of Boston Cardinal Law himself.

    Link  In case anyone was wondering, this is a pretty good recap of why he's disgraced.

    Boggles the mind.

    The nuns (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jbindc on Wed May 16, 2012 at 01:57:06 PM EST
    Should rap his knuckles with 1000 rulers.

    citizen's arrest (none / 0) (#85)
    by CST on Wed May 16, 2012 at 02:10:18 PM EST
    for obstruction of justice?  I'd like to see him get tackled by a bunch of nuns.

    oops (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by sj on Wed May 16, 2012 at 02:23:17 PM EST
    I foolishly clicked on your link before noticing that it went MSNBC.  Then went for a coffee refill.  If anyone else is hamstrung by the combination of MSNBC and browser controls/filters, here is a cleaner link.  I don't know if it has exactly the same information, though.

    Thanks, CST, for the heads up.


    yours is a better link (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by CST on Wed May 16, 2012 at 02:29:00 PM EST
    anyway, as it goes more in depth.  I just saw it on msnbc first.  Sorry I didn't realize they had browser issues.

    what is this, The Borgias 2012? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jondee on Wed May 16, 2012 at 02:25:31 PM EST
    or, unbeknownst to the general populace, has the family line and tradition been carrying on all this time just below the historical radar..

    I thought they were busy busting on Girl Scouts (none / 0) (#82)
    by nycstray on Wed May 16, 2012 at 01:59:53 PM EST
    these days . . . ?

    From the Orlando ABC Affiliate (none / 0) (#1)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:15:42 PM EST
    "SANFORD, Fla. --  WFTV has learned charges against George Zimmerman could be getting more serious.
    State prosecutors said Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, profiled and stalked 17-year-old Trayvon Martin before killing him, so the FBI is now looking into charging him with a hate crime."


    That would certainly change the discussions here I think.

    this is old news (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:28:08 PM EST
    they have been examining it for a while . There has always been a parallel investigation. There is no sign they are closer to finishing or what they might find. They are interviewing witnesses -- that's what cops do in an investigation. This is not a new development. The FBI told ABC it won't be done any time soon.

    Slow news day in Orlando (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:41:40 PM EST
    Repackage some GZ info. The other front page story is about the type of gun he used. Or maybe that was yesterday.

    There is a video tape (none / 0) (#35)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:03:08 PM EST
    from the neighborhood clubhouse the two were close to.

    Seems to me that it is possible that that tape could be pretty damaging to one side or another.  

    That seems like big news.


    I thought she was referring to the (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Tue May 15, 2012 at 10:05:24 PM EST
    part about the continuing FBI investigation. That is not news.

    Yes,the existence of the clubhouse video is news to me. Could be very interesting if it shows more than just the parties passing by the front.


    No charges (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:17:40 PM EST

    No charges before the last week of October.



    If you're thinking October surprise... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:37:18 PM EST
    that would probably hurt Obama more than help.

    Now if a plethora of Wall St. indictments came down in October, lock it up for Brand D, that's giving the people what they want...at least a better illusion of equality under the law.


    Kdog, you wanna know (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:58:02 PM EST
    why Obama is struggling so much against even a piece of #$@% like Romney?

    Read this, from Yves Smith, Devastating! (first article)


    Alotta good points.... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:37:48 PM EST
    if we had a third term of Bush and half the same sh*t went down we'd all be foaming at the mouth like rabid dogs...but because it is Obama it is a strangely acceptable brand of oligarchy.

    Great link, (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Zorba on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:50:31 PM EST
    NYShooter. But then, I'm a "DFH," so what do I know?    ;-)

    The article (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by lentinel on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:10:13 PM EST
    made me think.

    I agree that Obama's sudden light-bulb ending his interminably prolonged "evolution" regarding the right of gay people to marry was the result of pressure and the quest for votes. (Parenthetically, the time it took for ol' Barry to realize the obvious paints a picture of someone who ain't all that bright.)

    If that be true, and I think it is, isn't it time for other groups characterized as being on the left to apply pressure as well?

    How about a "end the war in Afghanistan now" pressure group?
    How about an "end the patriot act now" pressure group?

    You get my drift.

    The only group to have forced Obama's hand :) is the gay and lesbian lobby. Instead of telling Obama over and over that we will vote for him because the alternative is too awful to contemplate, we should let him know that he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting our votes if he keeps ignoring our concerns.


    Just read the comments directly below this one (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:59:52 PM EST
    and your question will be answered.

    the gay marriage people had courage and perseverence.

    The "I love Obama no matter how many times he uses me as a fire hydrant," makes progress a little harder.


    NYShooter (1.00 / 2) (#17)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:48:39 PM EST
    "Barack Obama, the Great Deceiver"

    Yeah that's some objective reporting right there.

    Let me do Yves one better without taking 2,000 words:

    It is a close race because the recession entered into before he took office was projected to take 10-15 years to correct, he was never going to fix it in his term and people are still hurting.  

    The real question isn't why he's doing so badly.  The question is why he is doing so well.  If he wins given the unemployment rate and the economy, it will be because people like what he's doing.

    You didn't think you could pass that sort of piece off as being fair or objective in any way, right?


    Awesome spin (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by jbindc on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:57:49 PM EST
    The real question isn't why he's doing so badly.  The question is why he is doing so well.

    He is Doing Badly... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:26:47 PM EST
    ...because he is losing the people that voted for him.  And sorry if deceiver bothers you, but it is accurate.  The big two, Gitmo & Medical M.  And until Friday, Wall Street would have been in the mix.

    Why do you think he is all of a sudden a liberal again.  His take on gay marriage pretty much defines his presidency, he's liberal when he needs votes.

    And commenting on JB's comment.  I often wonder why ABG isn't in politics, he's perfect, blind faith and devotion.  Like people of faith, facts be damned, he believes in something and he's sticking to it.  It's noble at some level, but mostly foolish.  You can still like the guy without acting like he's the bestest eva.


    He is not (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:39:51 PM EST
    doing badly.

    He is doing quite well and will likely win this fall.

    At which point the excuse, of course, will be that he won but he didn't win by enough or some such rubbish.

    Whatever makes the narrative that he's doing badly fit the unfortunate fact that he was reelected and actually has done quite well.

    It's hilarious to me that while people are beating the "he stinks drum" his overall approval numbers are steadily and more consistently moving higher and higher.  He's at 50% this week in the ABC/CBS poll and has had a positive approval rating in Gallup for weeks now.

    But in the NYShooter/Scott world, nothing at all has changed.

    Unemployment falls, he stinks
    Supports gay marriage, he stinks
    Ends war in Iraq, he stinks
    Kills Bin Ladin, he stinks

    Hell, a whole bunch of people are about to get checks from their insurance companies with "courtesy of Barack Obama" on the front [kidding but only a little] because of ACA and he still stinks.

    I am ignoring facts?  Pot, meet kettle.


    He's at 50% (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jbindc on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:49:11 PM EST
    for the first time in many months. Maybe that's good news to you - but that is an approval rating, and not a poll of how many people will vote for him. You are conflating the two. The poll numbers predicting voting patterns show Romney even or in some cases, slightly ahead (all within the margin of error). THAT is not good news for an incumbent.

    Bottom line (none / 0) (#33)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:50:12 PM EST
    If he wins, this is all kind of silly.

    Because, Obama "winning" is everything (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 15, 2012 at 07:06:53 PM EST
    Good governance for the American people will have to wait for a Democratic President.

    I (none / 0) (#47)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue May 15, 2012 at 07:18:04 PM EST
    Think he's governing well.  

    No (none / 0) (#78)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 16, 2012 at 01:20:59 PM EST
    That is just you spouting off.  Winning and votes isn't everything.

    It's just what we were talking about in the post I responded to.

    Stop trying so hard.


    Let me (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 16, 2012 at 02:05:11 PM EST
    just say something that maybe you can relate to. You think winning with Obama is winning no matter what the agenda is. The majority of us here think that winning with a conservative agenda is not winning and in fact is worse than losing because liberals get to be blamed for the failed conservative agenda instead of conservatives taking the rap for their own failed agenda.

    Much damage (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Wed May 16, 2012 at 02:16:08 PM EST
    Has been done to brand "D" since 2008.

    I think that (none / 0) (#102)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 16, 2012 at 07:10:33 PM EST
    We have two choices. And one of those choices is not perfect but doing a decent job.  The other choice would reverse the good the first choice did and then give us a whole lot that you detest.

    In that situation your anger is focused on the former while the latter is thrilled about it.

    Supporting Obama doesn't mean endorsing everything he's done. It means you see the big picture.

    What  path are you advocating exactly? My puts us in the better position and the logic is clear. What is yours?


    The problem (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 16, 2012 at 08:19:55 PM EST
    is that I see this as a lose/lose proposition in the fall. If Obama gets reelected he's like a bowl of jelly who can get pushed around so we get Romney's policies. If we get Romney, we get Romney's policies. So who wins in this? Not the middle class for sure. And that IS looking at the "big picture". Obama doesn't have an ideological compass so you know that with a GOP senate and house we'll get whatever they propose which might EVEN be worse than having Romney for president because with Romney the GOP can have a intra-party civil war in Washington and maybe they won't implement their agenda.

    And (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:30:05 AM EST
    If he wins, this is all kind of silly.

    If he loses, you look silly.

    I can't link to it right now, but there is a new USA Today / Gallup poll that shows that Americans are more optimistic about the economy (2/3 think things will be better a year from now, even though 71% rate it as poor right now).  

    Regardless of which party they support, most people still think Obama will win  (56-36). [four years ago at this point, most people thought Obama would beat McCain 52-41].

    Since becoming the presumptive nominee, Romney's favorables have jumped 50-41 (Obama's is 52-46),and Romney gets stronger ratings than Obama on who besst to handle the economy.

    The big number is that for the first time in the 2012 campaign, more people say they are likely to vote for a Republican congressional candidate (50-44).  This number was tied in February and the Democrats had a 7 point advantage last August (that's a 13 point swing in a 9 month period). (Although Nebraska may have gotten a little easier to hold on to in the Senate for the Dems since yesterday).


    If he loses (none / 0) (#103)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 16, 2012 at 07:11:09 PM EST
    I won't look good. Correct. I can admit that.  Can you?

    You don't look good (none / 0) (#110)
    by kmblue on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:56:45 AM EST
    right now.

    But He's Graded on a Curve... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:51:52 PM EST
    ...that includes Romney who wouldn't be there if the the only other options weren't Newt and Santorum.

    They don't want Romney and he's still competitive, that isn't a narrative, that's a fact, and acting like just because he's polling better means he is better is lame-O.

    And don't dump me in with anyone, you know damn well I am a liberal, my dislikes for Obama are completely different than NYshooter.  I don't hate the guy, but from my liberal view he is way too conservative and a bit of a chump when it comes to dealing with republicans.


    If you don't like Obama (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:50:52 PM EST
    I don't think you will like any President for a long, long time.

    This, alas, (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by sj on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:44:55 PM EST
    is no surprise.
    I don't think you will like any President for a long, long time.

    My take as to why... (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by kdog on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:52:33 PM EST
    his poll numbers are up is it has little to do with Obama and his performance, and a lot to do with Mitt Romney.

    Standing next to Mitt Romney makes anybody and everybody look better.


    Yep. (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by lentinel on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:14:00 PM EST
    He's doing just great.

    Many of us are just too self-involved not to realize that we are better off than we really are.


    You want (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue May 15, 2012 at 07:23:52 PM EST
    Economic teleportation.

    Instant arrival at utopia with no path in between. Did anyone here think we'd be at 5% unemployment is less than four years.  

    Correction, less than three years. The recession peaked later in this term.

    Take the best case Econ scenario any economist gave in 2008 for 2012 and if we were there, I think you'd call it a failure. Straight up.


    Straw man. (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by lentinel on Tue May 15, 2012 at 07:40:23 PM EST
    I see.
    People not convinced that they are doing well are actually people who wouldn't say they were doing well even if they were doing well.

    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jbindc on Wed May 16, 2012 at 07:09:23 AM EST
    Actually, ABG, I beleive YOU said we would have lower unemployment (lower than the 7% we had when Obama took over) by election day.

    Ironically (none / 0) (#25)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:43:25 PM EST
    Both Klein and Brooks (hated by many here but that's not the point) chime in today on the same subject:

    Why is Obama doing so well when he should be doing badly?

    "If you look at the fundamentals," writes David Brooks, "the president should be getting crushed right now."
    The rest of the column is an attempt to explain why President Obama isn't getting crushed right now. Brooks settles on Obama's "version of manliness that is postboomer in policy but preboomer in manners and reticence." But the premise of the column is wrong: If you look at the fundamentals right now, the president should not be getting crushed. In fact, he should be slightly ahead, which is pretty much where he is in most polls."




    Maybe Election Cycle Will... (none / 0) (#76)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 16, 2012 at 01:14:16 PM EST
    ...get Obama to pull another 180 and take a liberal stand once again on MM.

    In a just-released poll conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, three quarters of American voters (74%) want the Obama administration to respect individual state medical marijuana laws.



    Speaking as someone who ... (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 15, 2012 at 07:03:55 PM EST
    ... worked in politics for years and still serves as a state party official, when you support someone for election, as ABG does, it's usually advisable to not do so halfheartedly, i.e., "BARACK OBAMA 2012: Because, Oh Hell, Whatever." It just doesn't have that necessary ring of confidence, y'know?

    Okay, maybe we're not as far along as some here would have liked us to be, but is anyone besides Jim and Abdul really going to say that we'd have been better off had John McCain and Sarah Palin been calling the shots?

    Let's please not kid ourselves here and make the same foolish mistake so many did in 2000, when so many of us talked ourselves into believing that there wasn't a lick of diffference between Al Gore and George W. Bush, and either sat it out or went for a third-party candidate. Just as there were back in 2000 betwwen Gore and Bush, there are very real differences here between Obama and Romney.

    And just like four years ago, I'm entirely aware of Barack Obama's shortcomings, and my support for him is offered with my eyes wide open as to what and who I'm supporting because once again at some point, we're going to have to make a choice here between two entirely different paths for our country.

    ABG is entirely correct in pointing out that there was absolutely no way we were going to recover quickly from the economic disaster we incurred in 2008. It certainly wasn't going to be made any easier when the GOP took it upon themselves to throw up almost every sort of legislative and judicial roadblock imaginable in front of the incoming Obama administration, seeing their own ultimate political success as almost wholly dependent upon the president's failure, the well-being of the country be damned.

    And at some point, I'd have to say that the GOP undoubtedly succeeded at some level, because here we are, talking down our own candidates in an election year because boo hoo hoo, we didn't get everything we wanted. We didn't get Gitmo closed (blocked in the Senate), we didn't get the public option in the health care reform (again, blocked in the Senate) and we didn't get to see banksters perp-walked in orange jumpsuits on TV (because not everything that's unethical is necessarily illegal). So it's all Obama's fault.

    Okay, maybe it is. But then, is the answer Mitt Romney, John Boehner and Paul Ryan? I mean, Mitt "The Dog Really Like It Up There" Romney -- really? Because, simply put, that's the choice you have here. Does anyone here, save for Jim and Abdul, really think we'd be better off returning the keys of government to the very same people who so thoroughly trashed this country's economy in the first place?

    It is my earnest hope that at some point in everyone's lives, they will actually walk the walk instead of talking the talk and get directly involved in politics, either working directly on a campaign or with an elected official, or maybe ever running for office themselves. Because I speak from over two decades of practical experience, when I tell you that effective governance isn't nearly as easy or as cut and dried as some here seem to believe.

    Politics and governance is all about compromise. Rarely, if ever, do you get everything you want at the outset and oftentimes, some very unpleasant and painful choices need to be made, particularly in difficult times like these, because there are those holding positions of power who put their own interests ahead of their country's -- and like it or not, you have to deal with them.

    Let's remember that President Obama came into office under some hellacious economic circumstances, which required him to make some incredibly tough decisions very quickly, A few of them haven't quite panned out, but others were spot on, such as the auto industry bailout.

    We are better off now for him having made those calls, then we were four years ago, or would have been had people of Romney's mindset been in charge.



    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by lentinel on Tue May 15, 2012 at 07:29:05 PM EST
    remember many people thinking that there was no difference between Bush and Gore in the 2000 election.

    But, ultimately, maybe there wasn't.

    What I know is that Gore was a dreadful candidate.
    He picked Lieberman as his v.p. for god's sake.
    Lieberman even looked bad going against that snake Cheney in their "debate".
    Gore was doing his "sighing" routine against Bush and losing people by the millions in the process.

    Gore didn't even carry Tennessee.
    Gore also lost because of crooks like Katherine Harris and the corrupted Supreme Court. Blaming his loss on people who voted for Nader is just playing into right-wing hands. Now the left vilifies Nader as well as the conservative right.

    Bush won because Gore lost.
    And he lost because he ultimately stood for absolutely nothing.
    No wonder people were not enthused by this wooden figure.

    So - if people today are not inspired by the flaccid lackluster performance of the incumbent, it is not their fault. It's up to Obama to inspire people - to make them feel that he is trying hard and is on their side.

    So far, he has been one big flop as far as that is concerned.

    And if Romney, who is as dumb as a post, should actually threaten to defeat Obama, it will not be the fault of the people. The fault will lie with Obama.


    Small Point lentinel (none / 0) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue May 15, 2012 at 07:46:47 PM EST
    Gore didn't lose.  He was robbed.

    Sometimes you lose because the other guy plays dirty.  Just as they will this election.

    Romney could win simply because he is better able to spin common sense into nonsense.  

    And you blame Obama.


    Gore (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by lentinel on Tue May 15, 2012 at 08:00:36 PM EST
    should never have been in a position to be robbed.

    The economy was strong.
    Bush was universally acknowledged to be a dumbbell. A clown.
    A boorish frat-boy.

    And Gore still lost.

    He was robbed in Florida. That is true

    But the election should not have been even close.
    As I mentioned, Gore didn't even carry his home State. I blame Gore's loss on Gore.

    And, should Obama lose, I will place the blame squarely on Obama.


    Gore was a bore. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 09:49:51 PM EST
    Imagine if what happened to Gore had happened to a charismatic guy like RFK was.  There would have been fighting in the streets in support of counting every vote.  We'd have seen an uprising that would have put May '68 to shame.  And i mean May '68 in ANY nation, including Mexico, where students were machine gunned.  

    Lentinel (none / 0) (#55)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue May 15, 2012 at 08:20:25 PM EST
    Ok, then by that logic, if he wins he deserves all credit?

    Donald (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 16, 2012 at 09:34:52 AM EST
    That hot mess of a post is so full on non-sense it would take me half the day to refute all BS.

    So a couple bullet points:
    Gore Bush the same, pleaze.
    ABG is not actually in politics
    My issues with Obama are not related to the economy
    The GOP has nothing to do with my opinion of Obama

    I am so tired of this argument, Obama is the best candidate so STFU.  You mention not getting everything I want, that is pure garbage, everything ? I think you mean nothing.  Liberals have received nothing from Obama of substance, he has badly compromised away anything he has touched including health care.  Which I might add his party was in control of the House and the Senate and he still same out with a weak watered down 'Hallmark of his Administration'.  The goal was to get all Americans access to good affordable health care.  Failure.

    Gitmo, please, to me the only reason you ask Congress for funds to move military prisoners when you are the Commander in Chief is to ensure they stay put.  He is to the right of Bush on Medical M, he's ready to 'compromise' SS cuts, he refused to hold war criminals accountable, not one of the souls responsible for the economy collapse has ever feared any real accountability.  Friday proves Wall Street learned nothing.  You fools keep acting like the economy collapse was so severe it will take decade to fix, yet not severe enough to go after any of the villains responsible.  Don't even get me going on Geithner or the wars, and the future wars in Syria and Yemen which we already have sent troops to.  He's down with assassinating Americans and using drones to bomb 'suspected' terrorists.  He was down with Bush tax cuts before the election cycle, ditto for denying gay people and equal rights.  The shame trials in Gitmo are an abomination of the Constitution.

    Fine, he's better than Romney, awesome.  But really Donald, is this your definition of 'not getting everything', to me it's more like getting nothing with a nice bonus of extending many Bush era policies.

    I respect that you are part of the process, and like defense attorneys, they are a necessity in society, but not for most people.  It's takes a certain ability to compromise away principles that I, and many others don't possess.  So thanks, but no thanks.


    In the Yves Smith post at (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Anne on Wed May 16, 2012 at 10:18:48 AM EST
    naked capitalism that NYShooter linked to, she quoted extensively from a Glen Ford post at the Black Agenda Report, as follows (the ellipses represent additional writing that appears in Glen's original post):

    Let me say from the very beginning that we at Black Agenda Report do not think that Barack Obama is the Lesser Evil. He is the more Effective Evil....

    They [Wall Street] invested in Obama to protect them from harm, as a hedge against the risk of systemic disaster caused by their own predations. They had vetted Obama, thoroughly, before he even set foot in the U.S. Senate in 2004.

    He protected their interests, there, helping shield corporations from class action suits, and voting against caps on credit card Interest. He was their guy back then - and some of us were saying so, back then...

    I have no doubt that New Gingrich and Republicans in general have worse intentions for the future of my people - of Black people - than Michelle Obama's husband does. But, that doesn't matter. Black people are not going to roll over for whatever nightmarish Apocalypse the sick mind of Newt Gingrich would like to bring about. But, they have already rolled over for Obama's economic Apocalypse in Black America. There was been very little resistance. Which is just another way of saying that Obama has successfully blunted any retribution by organized African America against the corporate powers that have devastated and destabilized Black America in ways that have little precedence in modern times...

    The real Obama was the initiator of this Austerity nightmare - a nightmare scripted on Wall Street, which provided the core of Obama's policy team from the very beginning...

    The real Obama retained Bush's Secretary of War, because he was determined to re-package the imperial enterprise and expand the scope and theaters of war...

    He would make merciless and totally unprovoked war against Libya - and then tell Congress there had been no war at all, and it was none of their business, anyway. And he got away with it.

    Now, that is the Most Effective Evil war mongering imaginable. Don't you dare call him a Lesser Evil. Obama is Awesomely Evil.

    Not lesser of two evils - more effective evil.


    When a liberal claims (none / 0) (#77)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 16, 2012 at 01:19:30 PM EST
    that in the 3 years Obama has been president, they have gotten nothing they have asked for, you write them off because they are immune to facts anyway.

    Scott, based on your test of success (even moderate success) there was no reason for a candidate to even listen you your complaints. You are unsatisfiable in any real way.

    I could provide the typical list of accomplishments but it will do nothing.  Really doesn't matter what the list says anyway.  I will be absolutely thrilled if he wins in spite of such silliness and goes on to secure a fairly good legacy.

    And you have no idea what my involvement in politics is.


    Well (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by sj on Wed May 16, 2012 at 01:34:04 PM EST
    We only have your word to go on:
    And you have no idea what my involvement in politics is.
    And at various times you have provided us the the following information.
    1.  You have not been active in local party politics
    2.  You have not been active in GOTV
    3.  You are not registered as a Democrat nor is your family nor anyone you know.

    So while your point is taken that we have no idea what your involvement in politics is, you have been pretty specific in the past what your involvement is not.  I'm pretty sure that's what Scott meant, although I welcome his efforts to clarify his own comments and to not rely on mine.  

    I'm not even going to address this:

    When a liberal claims (none / 0) (#77)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 16, 2012 at 01:19:30 PM EST

    that in the 3 years Obama has been president, they have gotten nothing they have asked for

    Because that's a conversation I would only have with a fellow liberal.

    I Provides a List of Failures (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 16, 2012 at 02:51:55 PM EST
    I could provide the typical list of accomplishments but it will do nothing.

    So.... em.... you are too busy to even mention the list of failures I provided and... what was it... oh yeah, you won't mention his accomplishments because... ahh yes, the all encompassing "it will do nothing".

    Although I didn't need it today, that made for a great laugh.  

    And for me, settling is not a noble character trait, as you suggest, always striving for better and not being satisfied with the status quo is how I was taught to view the world.  Just one more thing we disagree on I guess.

    You have stated numerous times you are not involved in politics.  So unless you full of S, my statement is fact.


    I so agree with this (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by sj on Wed May 16, 2012 at 03:26:31 PM EST
    And for me, settling is not a noble character trait ... always striving for better and not being satisfied with the status quo is how I was taught to view the world.  
    That doesn't mean that I won't ever applaud a baby step on the way to the nursery.  Because I can, I will and I have.  But it sure as heck doesn't mean I have to be satisfied with it.  Nor do I have to swallow it as "the best we can do".  Especially if it's because that's all the effort that is going to go into it.

    Choices (none / 0) (#83)
    by christinep on Wed May 16, 2012 at 02:02:27 PM EST
    Donald is correct...there are & will be choices to be made...choices to be made by citizens.  Difficult choices are part of life.  Granted, one can always walk away from messy situations & life choices.  You get to do that....

    As for me, I stand with Donald's statement of political reality.


    And, I would expect nothing less. (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 16, 2012 at 07:33:09 PM EST
    It's not surprising that the well off, (or, ne'er-do-well off) are oh, so very patient with a slow rate of progress. It shows they have their eyes "wide open." They are being "realistic."

    So, please, align yourself with your fellow realists. Realists who betray their contempt for the group here at TL, a group who I dare say is every bit as educated, informed, knowledgeable, and realistic as they. Realists who can't even understand how elitist and derogatory a statement such as, "Rarely, if ever, do you get everything you want at the outset." As if we're spoiled children at Xmas who didn't get "everything we wanted."

    When "realists" chide and tsk, tsk us with introspective, and experience steeped histories, and  express their superiority with Talmudic insightz like, "boo hoo hoo, we didn't get everything we wanted,"
    I know all I need to know.

    Have a good evening; clink, clink, bottoms up.


    Lots of animosity? (none / 0) (#106)
    by christinep on Wed May 16, 2012 at 10:31:53 PM EST
    I've heard it said (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:40:01 PM EST
    "If anything I've said offended someone, I'm truly sorry. That wasn't my intent":)


    You know I love you, Christine. If I didn't know you could give, as well as take, I'd follow Archie Bunker's advice and "Stifle it!"

    My one complaint about you is, however, you don't post enough. You are, after all, what we call a "target rich" environment.

    cheers! (what is it tonight, white or red?)


    "You have nowhere else to go" (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Wed May 16, 2012 at 04:01:00 PM EST
    Is sooooo 2008....

    maybe (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by sj on Wed May 16, 2012 at 04:45:02 PM EST
    so 2000 and late.

    And... (none / 0) (#101)
    by christinep on Wed May 16, 2012 at 05:34:08 PM EST
    Yet it is sooooo true.  Reality.

    Maybe you're right (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by sj on Wed May 16, 2012 at 10:47:56 PM EST
    I have no place else to go.  So may as well stay home.

    did Donald claim there was no difference (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Wed May 16, 2012 at 03:15:33 PM EST
    between Gore and Bush? No. He stated that that's what many others were saying in 2000. Which is absolutely true.

    And, I might add, in the grand tradition of patterns taking on a self-perpetuating life of their own, it's hard not to notice that there's been a high 'tolerance' or respect or whatever it is, at this site for the meme Obama=Bush=Romney..

    Funny: what most people at this site claim they want from a President is, in actual reality, what Nader promised to dedicate himself to fighting for -- and of course, in the grand crazy-making tradition, it seems like just about EVERYONE here of course loaths Nader..



    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by sj on Wed May 16, 2012 at 03:35:45 PM EST
    Just don't conflate this:
    with "None of the above are acceptable".  Because the level short hand that you showed is so short as to be completely misleading.  Which I guess would make it wrong.

    Also I'm not sure where you got this idea:

    it seems like just about EVERYONE here of course loaths Nader..
    because that is patently not true.  Although I will say that just because someone is right on some things it doesn't mean that person is right on everything.  Or even necessarily stable.  Just saying.

    But agree about the Bush/Gore/no difference.  I recall Bill Maher in particular pushing that thought darn near every single night.  He'd say "Bush/Gore Gush/Bore" and pretend to be weighing things with his hands.  Although no one I actually know or talked politics with believed that for a second.  Neither Dems nor Republicans.


    What I said about the generally expressed (none / 0) (#96)
    by jondee on Wed May 16, 2012 at 04:12:13 PM EST
    sentiment here about Nader is true enough. I mean, you couldn't have been selectively reading THAT MUCH here for the last couple of years..Tell you what, dig up a post from someone-anyone here saying ANYTHING positive about Nader at any time at this site and I'll buy you the fantasy top shelf drink of your choice..

    But, my post mainly concerns a very discernable and largely uncritiqued pattern of discourse (and I'm looking in the direction of people like jb and Ga..) at this site which so far has passed muster with so many here why? Because some of us STILL have an overpowering emotional need to vent and swing wildly after '08, and that need for further catharsis must be respected at all costs..?

    But the REAl main point is that people quite often DO proceed from that conflation to "none of the above are acceptable". Which could be a problem.



    "stable"..the he's-a-nut meme (none / 0) (#97)
    by jondee on Wed May 16, 2012 at 04:20:33 PM EST
    "Mr Kucinich is it true that you claim to have seen a UFO..?"

    Crazy is, as Larry David said, thinking you're going to get a bj from a jewish woman and get away scott free..(and let me just reiterate, Larry David said it..)


    I'm at work with (none / 0) (#98)
    by sj on Wed May 16, 2012 at 04:37:28 PM EST
    no time for real research and I don't recall if I've ever publicly defended Nader myself or not.  But here's a TL story with comments both supportive and antagonistic.  And the post itself acknowledges good works in the past.  You even commented on it.

    I'll get back to you with the fantasy top shelf drink.  I have completely forgotten which vodka and need to go home and check.


    I knew there was something (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jondee on Wed May 16, 2012 at 04:48:47 PM EST
    I liked about that kdog..;-)

    And how about that self-righteous ranter jondee. Obviously skipped the Prozac that day..

    I DO notice that a good half those people don't post here anymore..And the rest, well, a rather mixed bag..

    Nice research though, sj. Now lets get fanatsy-hammered..


    Ah.... (none / 0) (#107)
    by sj on Wed May 16, 2012 at 10:45:03 PM EST
    I'm ready for my fantasy martini now.

    Dang (2.00 / 2) (#51)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue May 15, 2012 at 07:42:18 PM EST
    Don just summarized two years of my positions in one post and then hit us with

    "And at some point, I'd have to say that the GOP undoubtedly succeeded at some level, because here we are, talking down our own candidates in an election year because boo hoo hoo, we didn't get everything we wanted. We didn't get Gitmo closed (blocked in the Senate), we didn't get the public option in the health care reform (again, blocked in the Senate) and we didn't get to see banksters perp-walked in orange jumpsuits on TV (because not everything that's unethical is necessarily illegal). So it's all Obama's fault."


    Over on TalkRight in the alternative universe they are spending their time blasting Obama and talking about destroying everything that people here say they hold dear.

    We are blasting our guy because he only did half of what we want.  And the sad part is that we think we are helping the cause. If you hate your squad mate, you can go after him in the barracks, but when the real enemy is about to attack, you leave those squabbles until after the battle and rally with your fellow soldiers. That's the way war works.

    We are arguing about the righteousness of the battle we are fighting and strategic decisions we disagree with and the guy with enemy wins lobbing grenades at us and laughing.



    I don't think (none / 0) (#5)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:52:31 PM EST
    Trayvon is political at all at this point.  If there are hate crime charges, I would assume that the Feds, having looked at the Zimmerman process, will be pretty darn certain before bringing them.  

    I think Martin has now moved largely beyond politics, except for the issue of the SYG laws.  And that will be addressed in the state case, if anywhere.


    Conspiracy theories (none / 0) (#8)
    by Yman on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:58:39 PM EST
    Fun, ...

    .... but not very filling.


    please put your links in html (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:22:32 PM EST
    format, long ones skew the site and I have to delete the entire comment.

    Still Old News (none / 0) (#53)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 07:59:38 PM EST
    We discussed this on an earlier thread. It's old news, dressed up as new under a sensational headline. All the article actually says is that the FBI is investigating and interviewing witnesses.

    I agree here. What a BS article!!!! (none / 0) (#60)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 09:41:33 PM EST
    I'm dumbfounded thinking about how sloppy this sort of reporting is.  Was the news editor on vacation this day?  Or on drugs?  I don't usually react so strongly to crud like this but SERIOUSLY???  

    We were taught to write better than this in junior high school.  

    WFTV must be one low rent place to work.  They are dragging the bottom of barrel to call this journalism.  

    This tops even some of the stupidest things that appear on this site.  Even if it is 100% true and Holder himself comes and frog marches George to Leavenworth tonight, this is bad reporting.  


    WFTV article re: Hate crime is unfounded, sloppy (none / 0) (#59)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 09:35:15 PM EST
    What an incredibly unfounded article!  Seriously, what shred of proof is there that anything they are saying is truly happening???

    We have to go to the third paragraph before we actually find the lede:

    FBI investigators are actively questioning witnesses in the retreat at the Twin Lakes neighborhood, seeking evidence for a possible federal hate crime charge.

    This could be as innocent as a phone call or two, following up on an earlier FBI interview (they were there in March for a short time).  For all we know here, the DoJ is finishing it's investigation and has reached the conclusion that there was no racial element to the case.  

    I'm so tired of this sort of lousy reporting.  I've seen high school newspapers that were better than this.  

    The attached video is even thinner on proof.  

    There is literally not one more word of proof of the contention that the FBI is doing anything at all here in the article.  Don't even bother reading it.  Even if it is 100% true, we wouldn't know from this style of wafer-thin reporting.  


    SCOTUS to decide whether to (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue May 15, 2012 at 04:24:12 PM EST
    grant cert. in laser case out of Seattle.  Interestingly, the employer public entity did not petition.  The officers did, although 9th Circ. (2-1) decided no violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983 because a reasonable officer in 2004 would not have known it was a violation of law to taser a pregnant woman 3 times.  she wouldn't sign speeding ticket, which resulted in decision to arrest her.  She wouldn't vol. get out of her car.  


    LAT also has an article re this but behind firewall.  

    fetus is well protected (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by diogenes on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:55:00 PM EST
    From your link:
    "The Malaika Brooks case dates to November 2004, when police pulled Brooks over for driving 32 miles per hour in a school zone. She told police officers she would neither sign the ticket nor leave the car.
    "I have to go to the bathroom, I am pregnant, I'm less than 60 days from having my baby," Brooks said, according to court records.
    After repeatedly warning her, police shocked her three times and dragged her from the car.
    Two years later, Mattos was shocked by a stun gun after Maui police came to her home during a domestic dispute. When she was shocked, the 9th Circuit Court reported, Mattos was "attempting to defuse the situation by saying that everyone should calm down.""

    The fetus is in a protective bubble of fluid and would only get a slow infusion of adrenaline  from the placenta after a tasering.  
    The curious thing to me is how someone who is SIXTY days away from delivering a baby can somehow feel so above the rules that the rest of us live by that she decided to ignore repeated police requests to leave her car or even to sign the ticket.  If she were really tasered three times successfully (as opposed to the charge not going through clothes, etc), then I almost wonder whether she wasn't high on something and trying to avoid a field sobriety check.  Most sober people I know who were tasered said that they went down for the count after the first time.


    Why was she driving so fast in a (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Wed May 16, 2012 at 01:49:40 AM EST
    school zone w/ her kid in the car?  No the sharpest. Appar. she refused to sign b/c she thought she would be admitting guilt.

    re: "driving so fast in school zone" (none / 0) (#92)
    by sj on Wed May 16, 2012 at 03:21:21 PM EST
    I don't know about this ticket or this particular situation or how badly this pregnant woman had to go to the bathroom or this particlar school zone.

    I'm just going to say that most school zones in Denver have reduced speed limits only during certain hours in the morning and in the afternoon.   Moreover the beginning and the end of the zone are clearly marked. That doesn't appear to be true here in MD.  There could be any number of reasons why she was driving at the very high rate of speed of 32 mph.


    ABC: Zimmerman had broken nose, black eyes day aft (none / 0) (#42)
    by Cylinder on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:50:36 PM EST
    Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting

    A  medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.

    The evidence dump begins...

    WFTV: Martin autopsy results show knuckle injuries (none / 0) (#44)
    by Cylinder on Tue May 15, 2012 at 07:00:54 PM EST
    Autopsy results show Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles

    WFTV has confirmed that autopsy results show 17-year-old Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles when he died.

    The information could support George Zimmerman's claim that Martin beat him up before Zimmerman shot and killed him.

    The autopsy results come as Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara continues to go over other evidence in the case.

    I guessing they're be more to come.

    CAREFUL with these evidence news stories (none / 0) (#56)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue May 15, 2012 at 08:20:35 PM EST
    Be careful with any news you take from mainstream news sources about this case whether it seems to support Zimmerman or go against him. At the minimum make sure a story about the evidence is repeated in several different news sources. Best, if you can get one that links to the evidence itself. Given the way the press has bungled this case so far whether by incompetence and indifference or by ideological or corporate corruption, I truly do not trust most of the local news or ABC (as compared to the other 3 national networks) to get the simplest facts right.

    Agreed... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cylinder on Tue May 15, 2012 at 08:59:41 PM EST
    Agreed. It's new information and subject to confirmation.