Wednesday Morning Open Thread

More legal documents to review. You folks enjoy the GOP Convention. I'll enjoy my legal documents.

Tomorrow though, all college football all the time.

Open Thread.

< Isaac Makes Landfall, Perilous Time for New Orleans | Florida Appeals Court Removes Judge Lester From George Zimmerman Case >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ann Romney Stylist (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 12:28:19 PM EST
    Did the RNC use the stylist and speech writer for Evita Peron .  

    I thought we were looking for a President, not a husband.  The idea that women are supposed to take the wife's word and trust him is always aggravating in each presidential election.  This one is particularly insulting because of Mitt's positions, his history and the RNC in general.  Fist they give us magical body parts, then they ask us to abstain from using our judgement and intellect.  

    I have had enough of the wife as a character reference in politics.  I don't care who your mom was, is, I don't care about your daddy, your kids and your wife.  I care who you are, what you stand for and what you have done and will do.  

    Women are not idiots.  

    The spouse feels the same way. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:30:19 PM EST
    She thought Ann Romney came across as both patrician and patronizing: "Work hard and look pretty, and maybe you can be lucky enough to snag a rich husband, too."

    The Romneys looked like an aging Barbie and Ken last night up on the podium.


    Apparently, the task for Mrs. Romney (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:46:04 PM EST
    was to humanize her husband.  However,  using the loving wife to do so seems, at best, a skewed recommendation.  After all, probably some of the world's worst men were good to their families and their wives would readily attest to that.

    Moreover,  for Mrs. Romney to be an effective agent of humanization, someone would need to humanize her.   While her delivery was fine, after a few rough moments, her speech betrayed all the disingenuousness of her husband--the just regular folks stuff, their early financial struggles (chipping away at their stocks), her (Mormon) charities.

    And, she took her turn at the convention theme that her husband built Bain "with his own hands" (please take that Mr. Obama along with your socialism),  And, that "real marriage" line was a not too heavily veiled swipe at marriage equality.

    Of course, Mrs. Romney has experienced major health challenges and it is heartening to know that she has the health care needed to help.  But, all Americans are susceptible to sickness, and, to me, humanization would include a commitment to those who do not have the health care they need--not cruel policies to end or limit Medicaid, Medicare, or provide no coverage if jobs are lost. Get a job, lazybones. Maybe, Mrs. Romney was a force for Romneycare, but we did not hear that, nor will we--just too close to Obamacare for a happy tea party.  

    It is good that Mrs. Romney finds stress relief from dressage, but, knowing that this is not a viable option for anyone other than a Bain partner,  she should be among the first to show her and her husbands compassion for others who are down and out--or just down, for the moment.

    To me, Mrs. Romney is of the same mindset as Barbara Bush as epitomized by her comment to Hurricane Katrina evacuees at the Houston Astrodome: "What I am hearing , which is sort of scary, is that they all want to stay in Texas.  Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality.  And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working out quite well for them."


    Like I said yesterday, ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:59:12 PM EST
    ... it's really up to the Romneys to demonstrate that they empathize with the plight of the working poor and middle class. Ann Romney's speech showed me that the Romneys are expecting vice versa.

    If Mittster needs someone to (none / 0) (#142)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:13:09 PM EST
    humanize him...well, that's your problem right there.

    While Ann Romney and the campaign (4.75 / 4) (#23)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:17:08 PM EST
    strategists were no doubt thinking that she would provide a kind of proof that Romney must be okay if someone as nice and warm as she is was married to him, they failed to consider that the other possible effect might be that people would wonder if she was really as wonderful as she seemed to be if she could be attracted to, much less married to, someone who is just so jarringly "off."

    The truth is that parents are supposed to love their children, and children are supposed to love their parents, so having someone's mother or father or son or daughter give a speech about their wonderful family member is more than a little gratuitous.  Ditto with siblings and spouses.  

    And ditto for anyone else who gets tapped to do this kind of thing - no one's going to be given a microphone to give a 30-minute speech about what an egotistical, bullying, power-hungry, condescending d-bag the candidate "really" is, though that might actually get more people to watch.

    I hate these conventions.  If, next week, the Dems decided that instead of spending however-many-days engaged in non-stop grandstanding and political masturbation, they were going to caravan to areas hardest-hit by Isaac and really and truly do something to help real people in real time, I might have to break down and vote for a couple of them.


    This, I sort of agree with (none / 0) (#8)
    by sj on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:06:40 PM EST
    I mostly don't care at all what they say in support of a support of a family member running for office.  

    Unless the speaker also has credibility and a stature of sorts other than just being a family member of the candidate.


    Even then. The spouse can be a person (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:28:01 PM EST
    "in their own right"  (hate that phrase), but I don't really care about their for-public-consumption opinion of their spouse.  

    I think part of it is to show us the (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:28:22 PM EST
    potential first lady package, without having to say "I am running for first lady'.

    "Package." That's funny. (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:31:48 PM EST
    Well, they are sold as a product! (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:26:20 PM EST
    This one comes with 5 strapping sons (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:26:57 PM EST
    and 18 grandkids!

    And a Seamus (none / 0) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:30:45 PM EST
    I am reading Deborah Mitford's memoir, (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    "Wait for Me."  Included is a wonderful photo of her and her 17 great-grandchildren.  Lined up in profile according to height.  

    Coincidentally I have been reading some (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:51:20 PM EST
    Nancy Mitford! Will have to branch out.

    And on a completely different note..... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:47:32 PM EST
    Pickles!  More pickles canned today!  Green tomato pickles and sweet pepper pickles (with a bit of chopped hot pepper thrown in for some heat).  Plus more canned plum tomatoes.
    My back hurts.  My knees hurt.  OTOH, at least I can still do this (just barely), and we definitely will eat well this winter- the garden has been bountiful.  Tomorrow (assuming I'm up to it), canned green beans.  Our second batch is coming in very nicely.

    Thank you for that. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by magster on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:51:25 PM EST
    Sounds awesome. I love homemade pickles... as long as the pickles aren't racist.

    Well, they don't seem to be (none / 0) (#135)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 06:33:21 PM EST
    They are really either red or green, I have to say, but they all get along very, very well.   ;-)

    I read (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:17:11 PM EST
    that Romney is catching up to Obama. The gap is narrowing.

    What I will be curious about is whether Obama will try to narrow the gap by campaigning as a Democrat on social issues, economic issues, military issues, foreign policy issues and issues affecting our civil liberties.


    Will he seek to narrow the gap by moving to the right.

    In short, will he try to win back disaffected democrats, or will he go after the same sorry lot that are the prey and province of the republicans?

    Here's the (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:24:03 PM EST
    problem with the disaffected: why would they believe Obama. I mean I don't believe half the stuff Obama says he's going to do because 1. you know that he's not going to fight for anything and will just give up at the first sign of opposition and 2. why has he not done these things or started these things after having been in office for four years?

    I have (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 08:07:53 PM EST
    to agree with you.

    Not only would the disaffected not believe it, Obama wouldn't believe it either. That's not his true inclination.

    They are still some, I believe, who think that he "has" to campaign as a republican in order to win.

    i think that that way of going about things could insure a defeat.
    He can't out-Romney Romney - and those democrats or liberals alienated by his rightward tilt will be confirmed in their disillusionment.


    The Overton window (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 08:23:43 PM EST
    has moved both parties to the right.  And very frankly, anyone who thought four years ago (and even more so now) that Obama was some kind of great liberal savior was incredibly naive.  

    Jeralyn posted (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 06:36:51 AM EST
    this link years ago.

    It is a collection of clips from the campaign of 2008 in which McCain, the evil one, and Obama, the benevolent, are saying the exact same things with often the exact same words.

    So, yes. To have expected anything different than Bush 3 was incredibly naive.


    A tremendous win today (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 09:15:50 PM EST
    for one of those shovel ready projects from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 as it appears the  almost 2 mile long Lake Borgne Surge Barrier started in 2009 and finished last year kept Eastern New Orleans and the lower 9th ward from flooding. The surge was high enough to swamp both areas had the work not started and finished before Isaac hit.

    What's up with these GOPers? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 09:48:03 PM EST
    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
    -- John Adams, defending British soldiers accused of precipitating the Boston Massacre (1770)

    In his acceptance speech, Paul Ryan once again criticized President Obama for his failure to save the Chrysler plant in Janesville, WI that closed in 2008, before Obama ever took office.

    (Sigh!) Stephen Colbert was right. Reality has a liberal bias.

    Based on what I'm reading (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 10:02:17 PM EST
    The fact checkers have run through a year's supply of Pinnochios while analyzing the Ryan speech.

    I will be at the VU-USC game tomorrow night (none / 0) (#1)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    Am very excited about our new coach and the new attitude he's brought to the "Same old Vandy"

    Anchor Down!

    So there I was, thinking, ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:11:11 PM EST
    ... "USC? What's he talking about? USC is opening against Hawaii on Saturday."

    Then I realized that down South, the term "USC" refers to South Carolina, and not Southern California.

    Hope the Commodores do well. No doubt, they're more than long overdue to make some real noise in the SEC, and I'd love to see them become a contender.


    East cost bias, or should I say (none / 0) (#31)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:32:29 PM EST
    Redneck bias.

    Having grown up in FL and gone to Vandy we down hear don't even realize football is played in other conferences and after winning 6 straight BCS championships lets just say our feeling of superiority is not getting smaller.

    James Franklin is an awesome guy and like all downtrodden Vandy fans I worry that if he does too good he'll be snatched away by a big time program.

    Thankfully Vandy has gone all in and is paying him very well to stay, for now anyway.


    Coach poaching has always been ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:19:24 PM EST
    ... a big problem for less-wealthy programs. Even if a highly regarded non-BCS coach isn't inclined to leave, recruiters from the BCS programs would frequently float rumors about that coach entertaining lucrative offers from elsewhere, in order to poach high-profile recruits who may have been thinking about attending a non-BCS school. That used to happen to Hawaii a lot when June Jones was head coach out here.

    I've always hoped that the NCAA would address this sort of problem in a concrete manner sometime soon, as well as the myriad other issues exacerbating the differentials between the so-called "have" and "have-not" conferences and programs.

    It's not healthy for college sports in general to allow Big Money to corrupt schools and programs like it has. Otherwise highly-competitive mid-major schools like Hawaii and Fresno State simply cannot afford to pay a football coach a $5 million annual salary. I feel that if nothing else, it's horrifically bad educational policy to allow athletic coaches to be the highest paid personnel on college campuses -- and sometimes the highest paid public employee in the state if it's a public institution like Alabama or Tennessee.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#80)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:31:10 PM EST
    As a former athlete (walkon) and Vandy alum I like the balance my university has walked but at the same time want to be competitive.

    Vandy is in the unique situation like Stanford where they can use their wealth in the Academic area to fund their sports program at a loss.

    Big state schools that are not at the top, like Fresno State, have a hard time justifying such because they are funded by state money and without big donors can't compete in the arms race.

    That is exactly what it is.  An arms race for coaches, facilities and ultimately young athletes that sometimes (if we're honest) shouldn't even be in college.


    One of the things I admired ... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:03:54 PM EST
    ... about retired Hawaii football coach Greg  was his emphasis on the "student" aspect of the student-athlete. He expected his players to get an education, and expected them to be in class when they were supposed to be in class. You weren't in class, you didn't play -- period. And to his credit, every single one of his players has either graduated with their degree, or is on course to graduate pretty shortly. He would even attend graduation ceremonies.

    New football coach Norm Chow has kept McMackin's academic rules and policies in place, which included the recruitment of volunteer faculty and graduate students to ensure that his players' academic progress remains on track.  It proved to be a highly effective tactic.

    I was a full-scholarship athlete at University of Washington (baseball), and I am grateful for the opportunity to get a college education. Yes, it's tough sometimes, particularly when you were on a road trip, but it can be done. My daughter is a full-scholarship student-athlete, too.

    We should also note thankfully that acceptable academic performance is now an NCAA policy, as well. A school can lose athletic scholarships and even post-season opportunities if its player graduation rates are perpetually low (see UConn Basketball and Calhoun, Coach Jim).


    Vanderbilt (none / 0) (#136)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 06:43:23 PM EST
    is an excellent, top-ranked university academically.  I have a dear friend (from high school) who got her PhD in bio-medical science there.  Yes, they have managed to do what Stanford also does- they can have both an excellent academic program, as well as a competitive sports program.  Unusual, in this day and age.   ;-)

    Disgraceful Republicans at it Again (none / 0) (#2)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 12:11:44 PM EST
    Tampa, Florida (CNN) - Two people were removed from the Republican National Convention Tuesday after they threw nuts at an African-American CNN camera operator and said, "This is how we feed animals."

    {{Sigh}} (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 12:31:06 PM EST
    Is it my imagination, or has racism become increasingly overt in the past few years?  Yes, there has always been racism, but except among the truly hard-core, it was more hidden. Recently, it seems to be way more "out there."  More explicit racism, and way more "dog whistles."  Seems to me that it has increased since Barack Obama was elected.
    This does not say anything good about our country. I despair.  

    Speaking as a brown person, (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by sj on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    I would agree with you.  And yes, I think Obama's election sent it mainstream.

    I was emailing Mr. Zorba (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:16:23 PM EST
    about this, and his response was that it's the internet that has just made us more aware of these disgusting incidents.  I replied to him that this type of behavior at a national political convention would have gotten plenty of news coverage, even way back in the days of a young Walter Cronkite.
    Yes, it seems much worse, and more blatant.  Unfortunately for the USA.  :-(

    I Think The Rise... (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:47:50 PM EST
    ...of the extremist right is also a factor, but mostly the internet.  Certainly 9/11 didn't help, the wars, Fox News, Obama, the economy, all of it contributing to this almost defiant nature in some people to act civilized in public.  Nothing is off limits and the party is so slow and so cautious to slap one of their own, that it's surely enabling the behavior.

    I can say this, as a resident to Texas for 14 years, the immigration hatred was nothing like it is now.  I was actually surprised when I moved here at how harmonious it was.  Still is in Houston for the most part, but outside the city it's just getting ugly and hate filled.  And that's not reserved just for Texas.  The south in general has taking to straight up hating not only minorities, but homosexuals, and of course the hatred of liberals is epic.  And while I don't think they actually hate women, their view of their rights is diminishing pretty fast.


    I don't know if you saw the Kevin Drum (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:22:08 PM EST
    article I posted yesterday (here it is again).  It basically talks about how this political campaign is more racialized than ever, and how that may even be the new normal.  More for demographic trends than anything else.  It will be up to GOP leadership to condemn this behavior.  It's the only hope they have as a party, anyway.

    As this country becomes (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:54:48 PM EST
    ever-increasingly non-white-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant,  the Republicans, who seem to have hitched their fortunes to that demographic, will wind up becoming increasingly irrelevant and marginalized.  Unfortunately, this will take awhile, and it will become uglier and uglier as they fight to hold onto what they perceive as their "prerogratives".

    Actually I think the opposite will happen (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:18:13 PM EST
    As minorities become more pervasive the need to be a minority and band together will become less and natural political social divides will emerge.

    Remember in the 1800's the country wasn't white.  It was Irish, Italian, German, Nordic etc...

    Then it was Northern and Southern.  

    Then it was White and Black.

    Now we have Asian, White, Black, Hispanic, Indian etc...

    In the short term your point has merit but in the long, long run we'll find different reasons to disagree.


    The "need to band together" (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:57:42 PM EST
    as you rather questionably characterize it is not going to fade as long as the GOP attacks racial minorities with both a non-inclusive tone and with policies that disproportionately and negatively impact them.

    If the GOP wants votes from non-whites, their policies and attitudes will have to shift.  For ex., the GOP doesn't get much of the gay vote.  What's the reason for that?  LGBTs come from all sorts of racial and class backgrounds.  But the GOP's platform and tone creates the "need to band together."


    Or non whites (2.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:43:54 PM EST
    will realize that belonging as a large group to a single party no longer satisfies their differing needs.

    My point being is a block of people can't be held together simply by color.

    as that block grows it starts to take on other smaller sub groups and that will require more than one political party.

    It will happen eventually.  Just a question of how long it will take.


    Hardly (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:05:22 PM EST
    Hispanics were her long before the Anglos, black people have been free for 150 years, yet the divide is increasing.

    The GOP really doesn't like minorities beyond the election cycle when they pretend they do for some votes.  Even then they are spending inordinate amounts of energy trying to keep minorities from being counted.  They pretend it's just some strange coincidence that they happen to marginalize minorities when redistricting or making voter ID laws that always, miraculously, manage to keep more minorities from voting.

    But that's what they have to do to survive and as they become more and more the minority, the BS will only increase.  Because for the most part, the money is still in white hands.  And I am sorry, that is not going to bring anyone together.


    Not true (2.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:46:49 PM EST
    Reuplicans really don't care what color you are.   They just don't like pandering to certian groups for racial reasons.

    They have their own silly reasons.  Mostly Christian and socially conservative reasons, plus the obvious fiscal reasons.

    There are plenty of republicans who are Black, Hispanic and all different shades.

    Those people have decided for whatever reasons not to make their primary needs based on belonging to a larger sub group but instead to some other motivating factor like, capitalism or religion.

    I find it odd when these people are singled out as self loathing instead of what they are.  

    People who decided to define themselves politically on something other than race.


    Republicans don't really care what color you are.. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by magster on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:02:19 PM EST
    no really...




    I mean it.

    They don't.

    Each line is a separate link. And, this was from a "republican racist e-mail" google search that took 3 seconds.

    Quit pretending. Either police from within by going to a Republican blog site and calling it out, or expect to be troll rated by me every time you try to pretend Republicans aren't racist.


    Democrats are mysogynistic (1.00 / 2) (#101)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:06:29 PM EST
    and racist.

    Oh, yeah, Rove did it.


    Funny how your retort is to some anonymous... (none / 0) (#107)
    by magster on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:19:04 PM EST
    wiki editor, and all my links are to Republican office holders. Pathetic.

    Sure. Hide your head in the sand. (none / 0) (#113)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:38:39 PM EST
    This is what we call "false equivalency" (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by magster on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:43:53 PM EST
    Sarcasticunnamedone: BOTH SIDES DO IT!!

    Except one side sure does it a lot more.

    Are you Tom Brokaw by chance?


    Sure, both sides do do it. (none / 0) (#121)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:59:43 PM EST
    Without question, some Republicans are racist, as are some Democrats.

    I would have had no problem with your original comment if it did not choose to slander an entire group with a broad brush.

    fwiw, the "one side does it a lot more" is pretty thin gruel if that's what you're counting on to keep your belly full.

    For me, I acknowledge that everyone is racist, to some degree, and I'm happy that I'm less so than that dude over there, and try to remember that that he, and I, are both still works in progress and hopefully we'll both improve...


    We may all be racist (none / 0) (#133)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 06:29:36 PM EST
    but some people are more impacted by other people's racism, institutional and otherwise, than others.

    No, (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:04:14 PM EST
    there are not "plenty of Republicans who are Black, Hispanic, all different shades."  A recent NBC News/WSJ poll showed that Romney is currently getting 0% of the black vote.  So where are they?

    The GOP does pander, but only to white people who are culturally conservative.  So they alienate people from other backgrounds (as you do when you suggest that minorities vote Democrat out of a desire to "belong to a larger subgroup" aka they only vote Democrat because the rest of their race does, which is a racist assumption on your part).  That's on top of the fact that they only produce policy that benefits the overwhelmingly white 1%.

    If anyone is voting based on race, it's white people - see the "What's The Matter With Kansas"  argument.  For most people voting on the basis of economic issues Democrats are the answer.


    If anyone is voting based on race, it's white people
    Obama got something like 95% of the black vote in 2008, and your own comment puts it at 100% now. And Obama got 43% of the white vote in 2008.

    Pure claptrap from you.


    What are you suggesting? (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:21:08 PM EST
    How else do you describe a party as racially homogeneous as the GOP?

    when you said
    If anyone is voting based on race, it's white people
    Was it not stated clearly?

    Ok, I'm sorry (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:58:25 PM EST
    I will elaborate, since you decided to ignore the context.  Since I only get one sentence...

    If anyone is voting on race, it's the white people belonging to the Republican Party.


    Some, I'm sure. Not all, by any means. (none / 0) (#122)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 06:02:22 PM EST
    Similar, I'm sure to some blacks in the Democratic party.

    Um, excuse me for butting in... (none / 0) (#166)
    by coigue on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:07:27 AM EST
    If your point is that African Americans voted for Obama because he was black,  please remind me what percent of African Americans voted for Clinton, or any other Democratic presidential candidate.

    numerous times.

    But, since you asked, Bill C got 82 & 84%, vs. Obama's 95% (and is polling at 100% now, according to the OP)...


    er "Not my point, as I clearly stated" (none / 0) (#185)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 09:05:02 AM EST
    Clearly (none / 0) (#187)
    by coigue on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 09:34:51 AM EST
    It wasn't clear, as I still have no idea what your point was.

    Then why are 95% of the delegates ... (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:35:11 PM EST
    ... at these quadrennial Republican presidential conventions white?

    Why did former OK Congressman JC Watt complain in his memoir that delegates to the '96 GOP convention in San Diego actually ordered him to carry their luggage at the hotel where he was staying, apprently mistaking him for a bellhop?

    Why did a couple of GOP delegates throw peanuts at that CNN camerawoman yesterday, stating that this is what they fed animals? This sort of behavior has been going on for years in the GOP -- FOR YEARS!

    Why did then-Sen. John Ascroft in March 1998 praise the white supremacist Southern Partisan for "defending Southern Patriots" and scoffed at the notion that such Confederates were "subscribing ... to some perverted agenda."

    Southern Partisan, 2nd Quarter 1998, "Senator Ashcroft: Missouri's Champion of States' Rights and Traditional Southern Values," pp. 26-29: "Your magazine also helps set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending Southern Patriots like Lee, Jackson, and Davis. Traditionalists must do more. I've got to do more. We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda."

    Why did Georgia GOP Governor Sonny Perdue -- who had pledged during his 2002 campaign to restore the Confederate battle emblem to that state's flag -- derisively mock the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in his November 2002 victory speech, much to the delight of supporters?

    Atlanta Journal-Constitution (November 9, 2002): "As Perdue borrowed Martin Luther King's famous oratory -- 'Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty I'm free at last!' -- to underscore the end of Democratic Party dominance in Georgia, one of Perdue's supporters, standing in the background, waved a flag emblazoned with the Confederate battle emblem. The clash of symbols was startling.  The moment also served as a reminder of Perdue's unfortunate decision to include in his campaign arsenal a bit of race-baiting demagoguery."

    Why did North Carolina GOP Congressman Cass Ballenger note to the Charlotte News & Observer reporters in Dec. 2002 his "segregationist feelings" toward Georgia Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney, calling her a "black bitch"? And why, as Ballenger sought to hastily apologize in the media the following day, was one of his aides videotaped at the congressman's residence, painting white a black lawn jockey that was prominently posted in the congressman's front yard?

    Token displays of racial diversity, when offered without any sincere commitment to support policies promoting tolerance and equality, merely serve to obfuscate the underlying issues regarding the apparent Republican problem with race and ethnocentrism.

    When the avowed "Party of Lincoln" trolls for votes by repeatedly pandering to white resentment and animosity and neo-Confederate ideology, why do Republicans take offense when people rightly question such obvious hypocrisy?



    Hilarious... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:43:16 PM EST
    People who decided to define themselves politically on something other than race.

    You mean like Obama getting elected by everyone but republicans ?  The GOP highest ranking black woman is a mayor of a city of 20k, but propped up like she's the governor of Alaska.

    Nothing against her, but to a party that has to dig that deep to find a black woman while claiming, and I quote, "There are plenty of republicans who are Black, Hispanic and all different shades."

    Not sure what the republican definition of plenty is, but in the real word, that means more than 1%, which would surprise me if it was that high.


    I think Clarence Thomas (none / 0) (#167)
    by coigue on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:09:38 AM EST
    out ranks a mayor. Same with the RNC chair and the Secretary of State.

    They are making progress with the faces.


    Wearing Heels... (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 09:31:12 AM EST
    ...doesn't quality Thomas as being a female.  Ditto for former RNC chair, which I might add was despised by the party and barely managed to keep his job w/o getting the boot early.

    And not to point out reality, but secretary of state is a Democrat.

    But you really did make my point, you have to really dig, and in your case pull out people that used to hold positions.  Current black folks, especially women are so rare they hold up mayors from tiny towns.

    The GOP has never elected a black female to Congress.  The first was in '68 and 40+ since, not a single on with an R in their title.


    Condi Rice is a Democrat? (none / 0) (#188)
    by coigue on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 09:37:12 AM EST
    News to me. And I think I did read somewhere that Thomas preferred round heels.

    Sorry, bad joke.

    Anyhow, I am on your side, I was just pointing out that we should give credit where credit is due, and that ACCURACY is important.


    No, But She isn't the SoS (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:04:29 AM EST
    It's her title, but not her job.  You wouldn't refer to Bush as The President, but he is still called President Bush.  Accuracy and all...

    Not sure what you are trying to prove here, (none / 0) (#195)
    by coigue on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:23:18 PM EST
    exactly. I think her current title is Professor. My point is that the GOP has placed black faces up higher than mayor. Credit where its due and all. Seems like you are getting diverted by picking nits

    My Point Way Back... (none / 0) (#197)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:01:59 PM EST
    ...was the republicans highest ranking black female is a mayor of a small town.  I guess I should have said current, but that seems rather obvious.

    Notice the 'is', not a 'was'.  Condi falls in the 'was' category which wasn't the point I was making, and still isn't.  Not sure the point, you just double the percentage of black female republicans who ever held politic office, yeah.


    Ok. (none / 0) (#201)
    by coigue on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:57:25 PM EST
    They are trying this year (none / 0) (#190)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:10:00 AM EST
    The GOP has never elected a black female to Congress.  The first was in '68 and 40+ since, not a single on with an R in their title.

    Mia Love - and in the whitest state, to boot!


    I think when some things are near death... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:04:54 PM EST
    ...they spasm harder than ever. Speaking for myself, of course, and living in a city that is about 50% Chinese, I can only say that change is just, well, VERY hard for some people to accept.  

    The camera operator was a woman.

    However, pretty sure the harassers were Demo plants, agent provocateurs.

    I kid!

    However, question to you soccer fans, is this true?:

    This is a big problem in European soccer, where fans routinely throw bananas and taunt black players. Perhaps FIFA President Sepp Blatter can start a "Respect" campaign in American politics.

    Ethnocentrism in Europe is pretty bad. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:22:43 PM EST
    The worst I've seen is in France. Down south where my sister lives in Provence, it's often quite overt, particularly against French citizens of Arab ancestry, Romani (aka "Gypsies") and Corsicans.

    The island of Corsica in the Mediterranean is nominally part of France, but its people are pretty distinct from the rest of the country, much closer ethnically to Sardinians and Sicilians in Italy than to the Gallic French. Corsicans are derided so ruthlessly that it's no small wonder that the island is home to a nascent separatist movement.


    I googled around. (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:33:46 PM EST
    Looks like most of the abuse has been directed at  Mario Balotelli, an Italian of Ghanian extraction playing for Manchester City...

    Real Sports on HBO (none / 0) (#34)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:35:45 PM EST
    Did an excellent story about this.

    It's horrible.


    The English seem to despise anyone ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:01:09 PM EST
    ... who isn't English, and among the working classes who attend soccer matches, passions have sometimes turned ugly and violent in a big hurry.

    The demonstrable bigotry of English soccer fans was once so bad that it was called the "English Disease" by other Europeans. British teams were actually banned from European play for a while, after the lametable 1985 tragedy in Brussels since remembered as "Black Wednesday," in which a drunken English mob attacked Italian fans during a Euro Cup match, killing 38 and injuring 437.

    (It should be noted that there is no British national team in soccer, and that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all field their own teams in international competition.)

    That incident sparked an international crisis and huge waves of anti-British protests and demonstrations throughout Italy, and was the cause for a lot of serious introspection and expressions of remorse throughout Britain. The UK government under Margaret Thatcher afterward made a conscientious effort to crack down on soccer hooliganism in England and supposedly, it's not nearly as bad as it was then.


    Mario Balotelli racism market. He gets this type of abuse all over Europe.

    My French friends (none / 0) (#39)
    by fishcamp on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:57:17 PM EST
    in Paris used to refer to the Arabian people as being from Maghreb.  Maghreb includes most of North Africa.  I don't know what they call the millions of Muslims in France now that are from Pakistan, and all those countries.  Probably Muslims.

    I would tend to agree, Donald (none / 0) (#42)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:08:45 PM EST
    I have a very dear friend of French/Basque/Afro-Carribean ancestry, who grew up in France.  She frequently goes back to visit relatives.  She is of the opinion that, yes, the French are pretty bad in this regard.  The most hastles she has gotten there are from people who mistake her as North African/Arabic.  Plus, she says that the strain of anti-Semitism that has always been apparent in France has gotten worse in recent years.

    I heard an interview on NPR a few years (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:24:54 PM EST
    ago of an African American author who dropped out of an Ivy and moved to France.  She did not speak French very well.  The shopkeepers were quite helpful.  But when she got a handle on speaking French, she was not treated in such a friendly manner.  Her conclusion:  at that point the French people she dealt with thought she was an immigrant from Africa.

    My friend (none / 0) (#63)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:46:52 PM EST
    speaks French fluently, since she grew up there and went to school there- it is her first language. Yes, she would agree with the interview that you heard.  She is of mixed race, and would easily be mistaken as someone from North Africa.

    Same here in the US (none / 0) (#168)
    by coigue on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:11:08 AM EST
    for foreign blacks....or so I've heard.

    A few countries were fined (none / 0) (#41)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:08:27 PM EST
    for racism as part of Euro 2012 this summer IIRC.

    OT: Where did this cutesy, childish term (none / 0) (#109)
    by sj on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:21:17 PM EST
    of "Demos" come from?  For decades, the term "Dems" for Democrats, and "GOP" for Republicans functioned perfectly well as abbreviations.

    Although I've always thought GOP referred more to party officials than your average joe republican on the street. But that may just be me...

    I think you're right (none / 0) (#124)
    by sj on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 06:05:36 PM EST
    but that's how you used the term "Demos."  As kind of an umbrella to cover whatever is encompassed by the longer term Democrats.

    I see your point now, and I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 06:14:00 PM EST
    I saw that this morning (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by sj on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:00:06 PM EST
    and I was too disheartened to comment on it.  After all the disclaimers the other day about how Republican does not necessarily equal racist, this happens.  At the convention.  

    I get that tarring all delegates with this brush is inappropriate.  However the culture of the Republican party surely nurtured the covert racism and allowed it to become overt.

    And here we are.


    BTD just posted on the front page of Kos... (none / 0) (#14)
    by magster on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:41:05 PM EST
    ... his belief that the "U S A" chants from the convention floor had not begun during the Paulistas revolt, and that it was NOT a coincidence and was racist when the "U S A" chants began when the Puerto Rican lady tried to speak.

    Apparently that story is made up (1.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:49:22 PM EST

    At some point the media needs to calm down on this race baiting.

    It's getting embarrassing at this point.

    We get it.  Liberals think republicans are racist.

    Move along.


    Check the videos linked in Armando's DK post. (none / 0) (#140)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:06:20 PM EST
    Said front page post has turned into (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:31:10 PM EST
    a comment frenzy.  

    Don't know where to come down on that... (none / 0) (#45)
    by magster on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:15:01 PM EST
    It did seem upon viewing the clip that the USA chants were intended to shout down the "seat him now" chants from the clip I saw, but that the speaker was PR combined with the Republican's recent history to Latinos doesn't have me inclined to give anyone present in that convention hall the benefit of the doubt either.

    Pretty crazy clip in any event...


    I finally watched the second clip. No one was (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:26:42 PM EST
    shouting for awhile.  Then the guys in cowboy hats started shouting "USA."  The voice vote seemed pretty evenly balanced between yayes and nays.  

    Even if they weren't racists... (none / 0) (#61)
    by magster on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:41:49 PM EST
    those cowboy hat guys and the guys in suits and ties and baseball caps were insane. It was like watching a scene from "the Warriors" movie.

    It seems (none / 0) (#183)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 08:15:04 AM EST
    It was when a few Code Pink protestors started to disrupt the convention.

    Typical (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 06:16:07 PM EST
    republican who does not need evidence. Please get some evidence and come back with your claims.

    Evidence like that provided for the (none / 0) (#130)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 06:18:43 PM EST
    "Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years" claims?

    Romney (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:20:38 PM EST
    can solve that problem himself but the GOP likes to play guilty until proven innocent so Romney is getting a taste of his own medicine. Look something is in those taxes 'cause even Romney acts like there's something politically deadly or wrong with them.

    Typical democrat who does not need evidence.

    How do you account for all the Republicans (none / 0) (#193)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:33:25 PM EST
    that have been calling for him to quit with the nonsense and just release his g*dd*mn tax returns?

    to do so.

    In other words, (none / 0) (#198)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:21:59 PM EST
    complain about Democrats calling for the tax returns, but ignore, deny and pretend that Republicans aren't.

    Got it.


    Redonkulous. (none / 0) (#199)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:36:24 PM EST
    OP claims that
    Typical republican who does not need evidence.
    I point out a clear and recent example of the same behavior by the other team.

    Now you get it.


    Believe me, I got it the first time (none / 0) (#200)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:47:51 PM EST
    Or (none / 0) (#192)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:06:33 AM EST
    Save your post (none / 0) (#92)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:50:33 PM EST
    If it was done by liberals it was a republican plant.

    If it's a made up liberal report of their impression of a racial undertone...See all the previous stories...then it's proof of what we already knew.


    Funny Stuff (none / 0) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:36:56 PM EST

    Gov. Mitt Romney's campaign toasted its top donors Wednesday aboard a 150-foot yacht flying the flag of the Cayman Islands.

    The floating party, hosted by a Florida developer on his yacht "Cracker Bay," was one of a dozen exclusive events meant to nurture those who have raised more than $1 million for Romney's bid.

    "I think it's ironic they do this aboard a yacht that doesn't even pay its taxes," said a woman who lives aboard a much smaller boat moored at the St. Petersburg Municipal Marina.

    Yeah, but Romney wore a Kirkland brand ascot... (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by magster on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:42:55 PM EST
    that he purchased at Costco. He's a regular guy!

    Yachts are people too, (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:45:42 PM EST
    my friend.

    Just ask (none / 0) (#78)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:27:56 PM EST
    John Kerry.

    Who will intro Pres. Obama at Dem. (none / 0) (#141)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:07:26 PM EST
    convention.  Who made that decision????

    Awwww..... (none / 0) (#169)
    by coigue on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:14:58 AM EST
    I still love Kerry. Even though his loss shattered my faith in America.

    "Cracker Bay"... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:52:14 PM EST
    we damn well better keep them crackers at bay!

    Not good news (none / 0) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:48:38 PM EST
    in southern Louisiana.

    An intentional breach of the levee in Plaquemines Parish is being considered in an effort to save the levee. The decision won't be made until later today when they have everyone out.

    A great place for tax reform to start. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:52:53 PM EST
    What was up with ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:03:23 PM EST
    ... Gov. Chris Christie's keynote address last night? He barely mentioned Mitt Romney except in passing, and spent practically the whole speech talking about himself. One could be almost forgiven for thinking that HE was the nominee, instead of Romney.

    We can now add "selfish" and "vainglorious" to the lists of adjectives that describe this overblown blowhard.

    It was pointed out to that Ann Romney's (none / 0) (#22)
    by magster on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:07:43 PM EST
    "I want to talk about love" theme was followed by Christie's "Love is overrated, its about respect" theme and his not mentioning or thanking Ann Romney once.

    If the party base had their way... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:12:47 PM EST
    he would be the nominee...but Christie is too cunning for that.  2016 here he comes!

    I'm a big Christie fan (none / 0) (#82)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:32:38 PM EST
    but i didn't like his speech.

    I liked the core of his message but thought it was a poorly written speech and even poorly delivered.

    I could sense the room wanting the Christie we expected, ready to explode on a good Obama one liner and we never got it.

    Oh well.   He has 4 or 8 more years to get ready for prime time.


    He's not (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 06:18:21 PM EST
    prime time material and he's never going to be. I think that the GOP base loves him obviously but can't see him appealing ot much outside that and then he does have that mall problem to top everything off.

    Why Romney Will Lose (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:06:25 PM EST
    Romney Plans to Discuss Mormon Faith at Convention in Tampa

    Mitt Romney will talk about his time as a Mormon bishop at the Republican convention this week when he accepts the party's presidential nomination, as he works to persuade voters he is sympathetic to average Americans' concerns.


    Americans who know that Romney is a Mormon are the most likely to say they would vote for a Mormon for president. Those who do not know Romney's religion are the most resistant to a Mormon candidate.

    This suggests the possibility that as Romney's faith becomes better known this summer and fall, it could become more of a negative factor -- given that those who resist the idea of a Mormon president will in theory become more likely to realize that Romney is a Mormon as the campaign unfolds.

    He is in a bind (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:25:27 PM EST
    since his charitable work and his time in contact with working class Americans was his time as a church leader in Boston. I heard there might be some members of his former temple that will speak to the good works he did there.

    Can't get away from it.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#33)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:35:13 PM EST
    The argument is that he's an out of touch rich guy.  

    He wasn't always that person and spent much of his life, like all mormons, working with others and doing charitable work, as well as converting.

    Can't pretend your not a Mormon.


    I wonder about this (none / 0) (#126)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 06:10:36 PM EST
    spent much of his life, like all mormons, working with others and doing charitable work, as well as converting.


    I know he spent the time while I was in the Army in France, living in a very nice house and getting a deferment because of religion.  I am not aware of any specific examples of Mr. Romney doing something for anyone who could not do something for him.  Apparently you do, so please post 'em.

    (Aside: if the rest of the world had known being Mormon got you out of the draft, the LDS would have that entire generation.)

    We know that Mr. Obama was a community organizer, working directly with poor people in their own communities, but somehow working with people is derided, until there is a vague whiff that Mr. Romney might have met a stranger.  Then it becomes an important experience to reach out to people.

    Why wasn't it four years ago?  If Mitt has this experience, PLEASE tell me why he has such a hard time acting normal among strangers, while Mr. Obama is always comfortable with strangers.


    Business Question (none / 0) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:23:02 PM EST
    Has Amazon bought delivery company LaserShip? Any Amazon deliveries now come to me in an unmarked van with a driver wearing a LaserShip shirt instead of by UPS.

    Are you in an area where they are trying (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:26:25 PM EST
    out their new same-day delivery service? Maybe LaserShip is part of that.

    It wasn't same day. (none / 0) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:37:46 PM EST
    One tracking site said it shipped from Chattanooga. The box says Lexington, KY. The Lasership tracking says it originated in Miami. I really haven't a clue. I'm not complaining. Less than 48 hours when I had free shipping is usually faster than it leaves a warehouse.

    when stuff I ordered from Amazon (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:09:50 PM EST
    with Standard Shipping (5-7 or 7-10 days) started being delivered in 2, I realized there was no point in paying extra for super-duper fast shipping.

    I think there's a distribution facility within 50 miles of where I live, so maybe that's why it's so fast; whatever the reason, I feel like I'm saving money and not having to wait: win-win.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#51)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:26:16 PM EST
    and slightly stranger on mine...I actually bought these 3 new books on ebay at different times from the same person, for less than the amazon price, and they arrived packaged by and with a receipt from amazon in two days. Perhaps some small at home businesses now work through the amazon warehouse.

    Some marketplace sellers ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:41:01 PM EST
    participate in a program in which their products are "fulfilled (i.e. shipped) by Amazon".

    You should see the legend "fulfilled by Amazon" next to these products.


    Same thing happened (none / 0) (#36)
    by fishcamp on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:48:17 PM EST
    to me on a book from Amazon.  I didn't see the truck but the delivery box was from Lasership.  Maybe it's just Florida.

    No LaserShip (none / 0) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:27:23 PM EST
    But in July they started charging Texas sales tax which is 8.25%.

    Every month I buy dog food, even with the tax, it's way more convenient and considerably cheaper than buying locally.  

    UPS delivers it.


    Wish I could buy dog food like that. (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 09:03:06 PM EST
    But I don't think my two cats would appreciate it.



    More Neo-McCarthyism! (none / 0) (#47)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:23:49 PM EST
    Tomorrow Leah-Lynn Plante, 24 year-old "anarchist" and member of the occupy movement, will appear before a grand jury to give testimony about politically motivated vandalism in Seattle during this year's May Day demonstrations.

    As she did in a previous appearance on August 2, she will give only her name, exercising her constitution rights not to testify.  But this time she expects to be imprisoned.

    Ms. Plante is a resident of Portland, Oregon and apparently wasn't even in Seattle for the May Day demonstration.  In a post on her blog yesterday, she states:

    I believe that these hearings are politically motivated. The government wants to use them to collect information that it can use in a campaign of repression. I refuse to have any part of it.

    There appears to be more than a little justification for this belief.

    Background information here.

    Anti-government literature (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by unitron on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 06:19:47 PM EST
    Apparently they conducted an early morning raid, looking for, among other things, "anti-government" literature.

    I've got some anti-government literature around here somewhere.

    It's a copy of The Declaration of Independence.

    Remember when the Chicago 7 (or 8), were charged with conspiracy despite having never met up in person or communicated directly because they allegedly thought the same thoughts?


    And there are too many ostriches ... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 06:32:06 PM EST
    sticking their heads in the sand, and trying to convince themselves this isn't happening.  That our civil liberties are just as secure as they ever were.

    Looks like republicans don't have the (none / 0) (#48)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:24:20 PM EST
    market cornered on Racism.

    You DO realize... (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:25:51 PM EST
    ...that ANYone could have gone into that Wiki and altered the content, do you not?

    If I were to make the same leap in illogic about a conservative, I would hope you'd kick my rhetorical ace over it.



    You Forget... (none / 0) (#103)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:10:33 PM EST
    ...the wingers think Wikipedia is some sort of liberal conspiracy.  It's their MO, anything or anyone who is not on their page is treated like the enemy.

    So they did what they always do, create their own reality, Conservapedia.  Check out this gem on homosexuality, or the entry on Obama.

    Barack Hussein Obama II, (according the printed birth certificate he presented, was born August 4, 1961, in Hawaii) was elected the 44th President. Promoted heavily by liberals, as demonstrated by his unjustified receipt of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, Obama won the presidency despite a short and unremarkable political career by campaigning on promises of "hope" and "change" against his opponent John McCain in 2008.

    It's frighting to read what the Conservative really believes.  Imagine their good luck to find a liberal racist the day after their racism hits the headlines...


    I have an otherwise-liberal friend ... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 09:14:39 PM EST
    ... who's not racist, but boy oh boy, does he have a problem with misogyny! He thinks women in general are too emotional and aren't capable of upper-level administrative responsibility. I honestly don't know how he rationalizes it. And then he wonders why he's been married four times.

    So yeah, I can see how liberals could also be racist. After all, the North was full of bleeding heart abolitionists prior to and during the Civil War, who wanted to do everything they could to help the emancipated negroes down South. But the moment they started moving northward into the industiralized cities, northern white attitudes about African Americans coarsened and hardened considerably.

    Racism, misogyny and homophobia are inherently irrational at their core.


    Yup. Rove did it. (none / 0) (#106)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:16:01 PM EST
    Baa waa waa (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:20:33 PM EST
    how do you know it wasn't a republican that went in and altered her wiki? That's some pretty slim pickings there to try to prove a point.

    Rove did it. (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:26:47 PM EST
    Not for a lack of trying to corner the market ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by magster on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:25:15 PM EST
    Who's to say who did the editing?

    I guess I could argue (none / 0) (#83)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:34:14 PM EST
    How do we know the delegates weren't AstroTurfing.

    How do we know that anyone even said anything?

    Point is blog hysteria can quickly become overblown and only feed our previous perceptions.


    Grand Conspiracy... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:14:33 PM EST
    ...in with the RNC, who has already acknowledged and apologized for, is in on it to.

    Not sure what astro turfing means, but there is way too much security and the invites way to coveted to try and blame liberals for this one.  But that never stopped them before.

    And trust me, those perceptions have been well earned.


    When the perceptions of the targeted group... (none / 0) (#85)
    by magster on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:38:10 PM EST
    ... as reflected in polling is so overwhelmingly in support of the conclusion that YES, Republicans hate brown people and women, it's hard to claim that it's an open question.

    And of Course... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:46:40 PM EST
    ...their actual hatred of brown people.

    That is disgusting and I condemn it. (none / 0) (#170)
    by coigue on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:17:07 AM EST
    See how easy that was?

    Always nice when they admit it (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:58:04 PM EST
    SC Voter ID case not going well, no matter how much Nikki Haley brags about being sued by Obama.

    Hard to say there is nothing racial about it when you are emailing your constituents otherwise.

    Judge Lester gets more time to garden (none / 0) (#69)
    by Redbrow on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:03:22 PM EST
    He has been thrown out for being biased. What a disgrace.

    His potted plants need tending (none / 0) (#72)
    by Redbrow on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:17:11 PM EST
    I can see Lester walking down that primrose path with his tail between his legs and his head bowed down in shame!

    The opinion of Judge Evander's (none / 0) (#79)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:29:54 PM EST
    dissent seems to rest on a  "belief"  rather than an argued opinion.   Given the burden, the dissenting opinion  recognizes Judge Lester's "exceedingly strong belief" that Zimmerman flouted and tried to manipulate the system, but he does not reveal what would be required to "cross-the-line."  

    Fun times ahead (none / 0) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 06:47:09 PM EST
    for other defendants.

    Why is that? (none / 0) (#139)
    by bmaz on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:04:56 PM EST
    I think Jeralyn has been right on this motion all along. And I said so here.

    Hoe often are these motions granted (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:20:27 PM EST
    and upheld by an appeals court?

    Here is a precedent to cite.

    Come now, bmaz, this is great news for folks who want to file these motions.

    Suppose you are on a case now, you received an adverse ruling, and you don;t like the judge you got.

    You would not use this precedent?

    FTR, the rule is ludicrous imo. If it is what this court just said it was, any judge making a ruling that disbelieves the defendant is grounds for recusal.

    Sorry, I have stayed out of these discussions, but I've never seen a more ludicrous rule in my life.


    Hell (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:32:33 PM EST
    I could use that rule in New York federal court right now.

    I'd like to replace a judge on one of my cases.

    And this rule would let m do it.


    Now, now, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:38:14 PM EST
    I'm sure that a whole lot of lawyers would feel much the same way.  ;-)  

    Did I tell you that I'm a federal NY judge... (none / 0) (#149)
    by magster on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:40:06 PM EST

    Heh (none / 0) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:43:10 PM EST
    You know the thing is the judge is not dishonest or stupid. He just sees the law differently than I think the cases call for.

    I'd like to have a judge that sees it my way.

    Ergo, RECUSE!


    If you prefer judges seeing things your way... (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by magster on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:47:16 PM EST
    ... you should be a prosecutor.

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:52:03 PM EST
    I'm a civil lawyer.

    TeeHeeHee (none / 0) (#153)
    by bmaz on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 08:05:32 PM EST
    Yeah, no, cannot disagree with you in the least.

    You bet your ass i would cite that thing all day long! It would be ineffective not to.

    But, if you read my post, you saw I thought it a goofy rule Florida has, and there is certainly nothing like it in my jurisdiction, criminal, civil or otherwise. In state court, you get to - one time only - notice(i.e. bounce) a judge as a matter of right without cause, so long as you do so within ten days of that judge being assigned. After that, it is for cause, and you better have very strong cause.

    But, given their rule, and how Lester has comported himself, I buy the appellate decision. Only in Florida....


    I agree with that (none / 0) (#155)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 08:07:51 PM EST
    The statute is clear.

    Damn, I hate reading this stuff. (none / 0) (#154)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 08:06:49 PM EST
    Z-Man & Co. better be careful ... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 09:59:38 PM EST
    ... about rolling the dice like that too often. They just might end up with a pair of snake eyes, and a judge who doesn't look too kindly upon murder defendants and the attorneys who defend them.

    And how many judges have you ever seen.... (none / 0) (#178)
    by Jello333 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:39:09 AM EST
    ... who seem intent on making sure a defendant lives in fear, and is quite literally in danger? If that's not why Lester forced George to stay in Seminole County, why is it? Lester absolutely deserved to be booted from this case... I only wish the appeals court would have verbally slammed him while they were at it.

    Not a "close call" in your mind? (none / 0) (#181)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:56:19 AM EST
    I'm kinda 50/50 about Lester... ;) (none / 0) (#194)
    by Jello333 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:40:58 PM EST
    Bmaz (none / 0) (#175)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:00:24 AM EST
    thank you for those flattering comments. It's been great having you weigh in here on this case the past several months.

    "Disgrace"? (none / 0) (#165)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 10:59:01 PM EST
    Being overturned by an appeals court (in a "close call", nonetheless) makes one of the most highly respected jurists in the area a "disgrace"?



    Shirley, (none / 0) (#174)
    by bmaz on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:41:28 AM EST
    You jest.

    Hah! That's my (none / 0) (#176)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:01:23 AM EST
    Indian Ringneck's name :)

    Pic of (none / 0) (#177)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:04:40 AM EST
    Shirley, ... (none / 0) (#180)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 06:59:24 AM EST
    BTW - not kidding in the least (none / 0) (#182)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:58:13 AM EST
    A "disgrace" because of a 2-1 decision that even the majority states was a "close call" - even given the very low threshold under FL law?

    Funny stuff.


    No... (none / 0) (#71)
    by magster on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:17:10 PM EST
    Republicans aren't racists

    How is complaining about (1.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:37:01 PM EST
    Obama changing the rules on welfare inherently racist?

    More whites receive welfare then blacks.

    Isn't it racist to automatically think black when you discuss welfare?

    Maybe anti government handout.  

    Maybe even anti poor if you believe in progressive principles but racist?



    Sam Brownback says it's a lie (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:52:38 PM EST
    Brownback says Romney attack ad, claiming Obama changed work requirement on welfare, is a lie. You remember Sam Brownback, that former Kenyan socialist senator from Kansas...



    ...and current Kenyan socialist governor.. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:59:09 PM EST
    Sure, right (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:04:22 PM EST
    And when President Reagan talked about a welfare queen, most people pictured a white woman. Surely you know that what matters is people's perception of welfare recipients, even if that is at odds with reality.

    I don't believe all Republicans are racist, of course not. But I think the Romney campaign is pandering to those who are.

    Plus, you know, President Obama actually didn't change the rules in the way the Romney campaign suggested. But the out-and-out dishonesty of the Romney campaign is a topic for another time.


    I quote Dennis Miller... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:38:21 PM EST
    Chris Matthews weirds me out. I thought the point of getting post-racial was to get post-racial, not to get reflexively racial.

    Yeah, Dennis Miller (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:45:40 PM EST
    Now there's somebody whose opinion I really care about.

    So you agree with what he said (none / 0) (#93)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:52:32 PM EST
    or you don't care cause it doesn't fit your pre-programmed narrative?

    Who Exactly is Post-Racial ? (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:34:06 PM EST
    Stop using minorities to scare white people for political gain and stop devising laws to suppress legitimate minority voters and we can talk post-racial.  

    Otherwise go home and let Fox tell you why the party of 2 black people, 3 mexicans, an indian, and 200 million white people is just misunderstood by the rest of the world.

    Do you not find it odd, that all these voter ID laws and redistricting just happens to always, and I mean always, suppress minorities.  What a terrible coincidence for who doesn't have serious race issues.

    But I digress, you mentioned something about post-racial ?


    Baa waa waa (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 06:23:01 PM EST
    Your second paragraph had me rolling in the floor!

    LOL (none / 0) (#95)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:54:36 PM EST
    Apparently, Republican Sam Brownback is not following the pre-programmed GOP narrative... see below...

    How is it racist...? (none / 0) (#102)
    by magster on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:07:42 PM EST
    ... because Republicans say so privately (in terms of who is the target group of the ads) and because the welfare claim is a bleeping lie!

    among some at Daily Kos.

    It's a lie (none / 0) (#171)
    by coigue on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:19:35 AM EST
    and it brings up Reagan's racist "welfare queen" tactic. Which worked, by the way.

    But I grant you the racism is subtle. I'd rather people focus on the lie.


    And the "blame the poor tactics" (none / 0) (#172)
    by coigue on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:23:04 AM EST
    I'd love to talk about that. Since I DO believe in progressivist principles.

    And the "blame the poor tactics" (none / 0) (#173)
    by coigue on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:23:04 AM EST
    I'd love to talk about that. Since I DO believe in progressivist principles.