Tuesday Open Thread

I'm off to court and then to the office to pick up my new iMac, which was delivered early this morning.

Update: I'm home from court and about to set up my new iMac. Thanks again to the very generous TL reader who bought it for me, and those who contributed back in December. The contributions will be great for the accessories I'm sure I'll want to add. If you are going to order one, I suggest you have it sent to wherever you are going to set it up. It weighs about 25 pounds and is an odd shape, larger on the bottom than the top, making it awkward to carry. (I had to use a dolly, which is not easy with all the ice and snow around, to get it to the car. But we both survived.)

Back to regular blogging tomorrow. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Supreme Court Rejects FISA Surveillance Challenge | ICE Releases From Detention Are Overdue >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A case to watch (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:38:30 PM EST
    Maryland v. King - Does crime solving trump privacy? Arguments were today at the Supreme Court.

    Issue: Whether the Fourth Amendment allows the states to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes.

    With Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., pronouncing that "this is the most important criminal procedure case this Court has had in decades," even while letting on that he has no difficulty making up his mind on it, the Supreme Court returned on Tuesday to the idea of how much leeway the Constitution gives police to adopt new technology to solve crimes.  Amid much fretting on the bench about "cold cases" not yet wrapped up, the Justices examined closely whether routine warrantless police sampling of DNA of persons arrested for serious crimes will be allowed.

    The fact is that the Justices, hearing Maryland v. King (docket 12-207), were closely divided, in probably unusual alignments - for example, Justice Alito on one side, and Justice Antonin Scalia likely on the other.  Across the bench, the Justices seemed to be at odds on questions such as how much privacy an arrested individual can expect, when a court should give crime-solving superior rank over privacy, and whether the government can be trusted to limit how deeply it pokes into an individual's entire DNA in a database.

    More big news in the Prop 8 case (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 08:12:05 PM EST
    A whole buncha prominent (even if mostly retired) Republicans a signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.
     Best of all, they focused on conservative reasons for marriage equality. Clearly, even Republicans realize that we are at a watershed moment in history. They can either be remembered as being part of something momentous in American history as those who stood in the way of a landmark civil rights movement.

    They argue for a higher level of scrutiny when determining constitutionality of laws that discriminate against a suspect group such as homosexuals. Hopefully, they'll sway one of the five conservatives on the court.

    And in related news, Republicans have acknowledged the world isn't flat.

    But did they mention... (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by unitron on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 08:35:48 PM EST
    "And in related news, Republicans have acknowledged the world isn't flat."

    ...how much better things were when it was, and wish we could get back to that somehow?


    The way it was (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by NYLeft on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 08:43:07 PM EST
    These Republicans have remembered and honored their roots. It was a Republican president who freed the slaves. Many Republicans actually voted for the Civil Rights Act. It was the Democratic party that clung to  racism in the South. Republicans even fought for women's suffrage.

    Congratulations to these Republicans who came out of the shadow of the Religious Right to stand up for equal protection for all.


    We just had (none / 0) (#37)
    by cpresley on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:10:49 PM EST
    2 police officers killed in Santa Cruz,Ca. Their not giving out much info other than they have 4 schools in lockdown still at 7:00p.m. This is the first time ever that Santa Cruz has had a police officer killed in the line of duty, now their are two.

    I was trying to listen to this news (none / 0) (#41)
    by nycstray on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:42:33 PM EST
    with one ear while talking to Mom on the phone. Isn't a 3rd person also dead?

    Rare to hear bad news outta SC unless it's weather related . . .


    Yes, (none / 0) (#47)
    by cpresley on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:34:16 PM EST
    They think they got the shooter but are not sure he was the only one. The shooter is also dead. I guess he was being investigated for a sexual assault and was on parole from Oregon for a rape conviction.

    I understand he had 3 firearms on him, don't know what type. Maybe find out tomorrow when I talk to my daughter.


    Thanks. (none / 0) (#52)
    by nycstray on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 01:11:37 AM EST
    Listening to the news now (took a break to watch Makers on PBS)

    Very sad. Does your daughter live there?


    No she doesn't live in Santa Cruz, (none / 0) (#57)
    by cpresley on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 11:49:50 AM EST
    She lives in the same town we live in which is a small town about 12 miles away in the Mountains.She is a sheriff deputy though not in Santa Cruz county but one county over and down the Mountain ( Santa Clara).

    No time to get into this but, (none / 0) (#38)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:19:06 PM EST
    I take it that History wasn't your major in school.

    Oh well. (none / 0) (#39)
    by NYLeft on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:35:58 PM EST
    You get the gist.

    Of course I do (none / 0) (#46)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:54:16 PM EST
    and a good gist, too

    OK. How about this: (none / 0) (#48)
    by NYLeft on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:35:11 PM EST
    The "small government" House Republicans are spending $3 million of our tax money to defend this travesty in court. Conservative? Not!

    What does this mean? (none / 0) (#40)
    by caseyOR on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:41:22 PM EST
    I do not understand your comment.

    Simply that (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:53:38 PM EST
    the Republican Party of Lincoln is not the Republican Party of today. Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the two Parties soon thereafter switched sides.

    Yesterday's Liberals became today's racists.

    In other words a Party's philosophy, without a time frame, is meaningless.


    The signers are (none / 0) (#51)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 11:06:52 PM EST
    mostly out-of-office Republicans or former top officials.

    It's easier to stand by what you believe when your job isn't threatened by extremists.


    I come from a Republican family. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 02:20:20 PM EST
    My grandfather was an L.A. county chair in the California GOP back in the days when the enlightened Earl Warren was governor of the state.

    Those days of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism / libertarianism are long gone, and I don't expect their return anytime in the near or even distant future.

    With one loudmouthed exception (my Tea Party uncle), most all of the family on my mother's side voted for Barack Obama as their president -- twice. This is no small thing when the GOP loses people like my aunt, who had never voted Democratic in a presidential election at all during her entire adult lifetime until 2008, when she was 80 years old.

    Further, they also voted for Jerry Brown for governor, Gavin Newsom for lieutenant governor, and Kamala Harris for state attorney general in 2010. They support Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer as their U.S. senators, and Democrats Adam Schiff, Judy Chu and Julia Brownley as their U.S. representatives.

    And to a person, they'll insist that it wasn't they who left the GOP, but vice versa, when Republican elected officals ran off to their own private Idaho and curled up into a fetal position in own parallel universe.


    And yet... (3.00 / 2) (#69)
    by sj on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 03:43:15 PM EST
    And to a person, they'll insist that it wasn't they who left the GOP, but vice versa, when Republican elected officals ran off to their own private Idaho and curled up into a fetal position in own parallel universe
    ...you seem annoyed that some of us feel that way about the Democratic Party.  Why didn't your family take the route you advise for us ("work from within!").  Instead they switched the party they vote for (if not necessarily actual Party affiliation itself.)

    The difference is, I believe, a long-time Republican can fit into the current Democratic party.  A long-time Democrat cannot fit into the current Republican Party.  We have no true political home.  But to take the "work from within!" mantra is quixotic in the extreme.


    Long-time Democrats can't even (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 03:53:12 PM EST
    feel at home in the Democratic Party - at least this one can't.

    I still call myself a Democrat, but when disclosing my affiliation, I feel obligated to explain that I am not a centrist/Blue Dog/bipartisan-loving Democrat, I am more of an FDR/DFH-style Dem who believes in things like the Constitution, the safety-net, a single-payer health system, ending poverty and malnutrition, holding corporate criminals accountable, etc.

    And it annoys me every time I have to do it.


    I don't think it matters where (none / 0) (#71)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 03:59:28 PM EST
    you hang your hat, or what party you are a member of anymore.  Switch depending on what party's primary you want to vote in.  Getting too entrenched in one party can make you go along with a lot of policy you might not otherwise really agree with just because everyone else does.  
    I used to vote party not person because I thought the world was better off if democrats were in the majority.  Now I think women are the great untapped resource of the nation.  If there were a woman's party I would join it.  I think that would take more compromise than either women on the left or right are ready to make right now.

    Would... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Thanin on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 04:07:56 PM EST
    men be allowed to join the women's party?

    Out of curiousity (none / 0) (#74)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 04:59:10 PM EST
    If you had a conservative woman running against a liberal man, which one would you support?

    Colbert says that the Vatican (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:42:02 PM EST
    has gone "one Pope over the line, sweet Jesus."

    we need the pope in a pizza (none / 0) (#61)
    by fishcamp on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 02:07:18 PM EST
    You're seriously dating yourself, ... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 02:21:13 PM EST
    ... quoting Father Guido Sarducci like that.

    Yeah I know Donald... (none / 0) (#78)
    by fishcamp on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 07:15:52 PM EST
    but I know Don Novello, his pen name.  I shot a travel film with he and Angi Dickinson, Susan Sullivan, and Dick Cavett in Venice, Italy back when I did that stuff.  It was quite the wild scene.  We filmed in Murano and Burano and all kinds of cool places.  On rainy days we would be drinking coffee and suddenly it turned into wine and the shoot was cancelled while Piazza San Marco was flooding.  No problem.

    You guys (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 07:22:34 PM EST
    could turn coffee into wine?  Very impressive!

    They can walk on coffee! (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 08:41:56 PM EST
    I love that man (Stephen that is) (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 05:36:40 PM EST
    Yeah, I thought it was about (none / 0) (#79)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 07:22:20 PM EST
    the funniest line, and best pun, I had heard in I don't know how long.  Works on so many levels.

    Thank you for sharing it :) (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by nycstray on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 09:05:12 PM EST
    Watched my recorded episode (none / 0) (#83)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 05:07:47 AM EST
    well after reading this. That whole bit was great, but that was the funniest line, even if I knew it was coming!

    NYT re death of Van Cliburn: (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 01:47:01 PM EST
    Talking about Seth McFarlane last thread... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 01:45:27 PM EST
    Also... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 01:47:32 PM EST
    And finally... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 02:01:47 PM EST
    Melissa on McFarlane:

    "Welp, Seth MacFarlane did precisely as contemptible a job hosting the Oscars as I imagined he would, opening the show with a domestic violence joke, a song about seeing actresses' boobs in movies, and a gay joke. That's the point at which I started fast-forwarding through any appearance of his face onscreen. And then I fell asleep just before Quentin Tarantino won for writing, which was awesome. The falling asleep, I mean, not his winning. And I woke up just in time to see Ang Lee win for directing, which was well-deserved: Life of Pi was definitely one of my favorite films of the year.

    Other things: Adele was great. Daniel Day-Lewis is very charming. Michelle Obama! The end."


    Interested in thoughts on this comment (none / 0) (#8)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:13:22 PM EST
    following the article:

    It's point is to show how limited women's role in Hollywood is and how many men look past the artistic qualities of nudity in film by just exclaiming "Look. Titties" like some stupid caveman. The joke was made even more complex and intriguing by adding the cut-away's to actresses he was mentioning. Jennifer Lawrence giving herself a self-satisfied fist pump reminded me of those awful gossip girls in high school that called girls whores behind their backs. Even funnier was Charlize Theron hiding her face in shame looking as if she wanted to hide in a closet. This not only chastises people that dehumanize women in this way, but also the women whose pride gets killed so easily by such obvious human arrogance and cruelty.

    I don't know enough about Seth MacFarlane (or the show's producers, who I suspect should really get the blame/credit to know if he meant to be this deep, but the idea raised by the comment is an angle I hadn't considered.


    vicndabx... (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 04:26:08 PM EST
    My thoughts on that:  I have never found Seth MacFarlane to be 'deep' or 'profound' but rather the same old, tired, offensive garbage wrapped in a veneer of irony or profundity -- which is how people excuse him. These excuses are entirely predictable, but that is just my opinion. I think he catered to an obvious demographic in a pretty transparent way, as he does elsewhere too.

    It seems similar to me to how people talk about Tarantino -- i.e., oh he is such a Deep Ironic Artist and making Deep Statements about violence.

    If MacFarlane was trying to be profound and not offensive, I think he did a very good job of hiding that. I don't think it's particularly relevant whether Theron was in on it either.  Perhaps if MacFarlane wants to make deep statements about sexism, he should do it more directly?

    Taken in its entirety, including the remarks about the little girl, just BLECH.  I don't believe the interpretation above.

    YMMV tho.


    I'm a Seth MacFarlane fan. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 07:28:05 PM EST
    But I'm the first to admit that his brand of edgy and topical humor is definitely not going to be to everyone's liking. And that said, he was clearly out of his element at the Oscars ceremony, and thus a very inappropriate selection as its host.

    In retrospect, this was a train wreck waiting to happen from the moment MacFarlane was first announced to the media as the Academy Awards MC, which honestly left me wondering at the time what the show's producers were thinking.

    MacFarlane had me cringing at multiple points last Sunday night, simply because I knew people were becoming really uncomfortable with his schtick, and I started feeling embarrassed for him because he simply damned the torpedoes and refused to really respect the nature of his audience. Far better had he jettisoned a lot of his act and just played it straight.

    Comedy is as much about setting and mood as it is about timing and knowing your audience, and the Oscars offered none of that to the irreverent and often low-brow humor that is MacFarlane's forte. And so, it's hardly surprising that he went over about as well as an Airport Holiday Inn lounge act at a high school senior prom.



    What I imagine Lenny Bruce would say: (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 01:38:35 PM EST
    "I died so THESE putzes can tell jokes about date rape and actresses with yeat infections?!"

    I agree (none / 0) (#28)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 05:57:00 PM EST
    I don't think he was trying to be all that deep either. The comment by that poster made me wonder tho. I also agree it makes more sense to simply make a statement. At the very least it would give these performances a context that differs from what he presents in his shows.

    Except (2.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:22:09 PM EST
    The look that the author is quoting about Charlize Theron's reaction is wrong.  1) Charlize Theron was in on the skit, and 2) In the clip with the reaction, she has a dark blue/black dress on and long hair.  When she came into the show, on the red carpet, she had a white gown on and a short pixie cut. 3) Seeing as how she was part of the skit, in yet another white dress, she wouldn't have had time to run back into the audience, have that reaction, and be dancing back on stage.

    yes, however (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 03:09:17 PM EST
    who cares?  Several actresses took part, so what?  Many more mentioned did not.  As I said in comments there, I saw "The Accused" and even if Jodi Foster thought the mention of seeing her "boob" during the gang rape scene was funny, I did not.  So I was offended whether she was or not.  That scene upset me as a woman who had been molested as a child and been treated as an object as a young woman before I learned some tough lessons.  Many of those scenes mentioned were ugly and painful...not funny, not particularly sexual.  The song was not being sung only to those mentioned in it.

    Yes, it is fairly well documented (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:29:08 PM EST
    that Charlize and Naomi's reactions were rehearsed and pre-recorded. iow, their "reactions" were what Seth wanted for the skit.

    Apparently not (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    to the author of that article. (Not the commenter)

    Yes... (none / 0) (#9)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:21:02 PM EST
    ...the 10,000,000 things wrong with MacFarlane, and why exactly we will be tuning into every awards show and complaining that we aren't invited, but are the only ones who show up.

    Sorry, but the biggest weapon in a viewers arsenal is the remote, not the pen.


    Which is why I turned it off (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by shoephone on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:25:15 PM EST
    and did my laundry. Came back to watch the big awards at the end. I don't know where you get the idea that we TV viewers are upset we weren't invited -- I'm not even sure where that thinking comes from.

    Make no mistake. The only thing that matters is that the big name actors were pi$$ed off by MacFarlane. For that reason alone, he will not be back next year.


    Click the Link... (none / 0) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:46:43 PM EST
    ...in the post I commented to, it will make a whole lot more sense.

    the only thing that matters (none / 0) (#67)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 03:19:02 PM EST
    is the ratings.  The actors will show up next year if they are nominated and no one will be mad at McFarlane.  They were probably just bored.  If women actors were mad, no one will care in the least.  Ratings ratings ratings.

    I think you're right that if it were just women (none / 0) (#72)
    by shoephone on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 04:03:46 PM EST
    who were mad, the academy show producers would not care much. SOme things will never change. But Denzel Washington was not bored, he was clearly fuming. DeNiro looked both bored and disgusted. Clooney looked very pi$$ed as well. I think Washington, Deniro and Clooney have a lot more power than MacFarlane, and more power than Neil Merron, for that matter. MacFarlane has already said he doesn't want to host next year, but I feel confident saying that, if he did, he wouldn't get the gig.

    not true at all (none / 0) (#66)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 03:14:08 PM EST
    Unless you have a Nielsen's box, your biggest weapon is absolutely the pen.  Come on, you know that right?

    Not For Awards Shows... (none / 0) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 01:23:15 PM EST
    ...in case you missed it, this was their best ratings ever.  And I am positive they got a zillion letters, so time will tell, but I am getting offensive is not off the table and probably favored.

    "Cannibal Cop" trial... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 02:02:14 PM EST
    is big news in NYC, and Denis Hamill asks "Where's the beef?"

    There are no words for how sick and perverted the stuff this cop was into is, but I agree with Hamill...this is pure thought crime, absent some real evidence this is anything more than sick chatroom fantasy.

    From What I Read... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:43:17 PM EST
    ...they went beyond fantasizing to planning.  Not sure where the line is, but they had 100 women as targets but only interviewed 10 or so.  Which leads me to believe some were fantasy and some had plans in the works.

    And in reality, when you start discussing certain fantasies with others, you are approaching an area that isn't black and white, certainly gets gray real quick when you start using people in those fantasies, with their actual addresses.  Seems to me like there is a line, hey my neighbor so and so, is not the same as Jill at 101 Xxz way, apartment 676.  I doubt these woman would feel that they have the right to openly fantasize about abducting, killing, and eating them.  And in a free society the sense of safety should also be a consideration.

    If a man posted that he had violent rape fantasies about his daughters, should something be done.  Ditto for people who tell psychiatrists they have fantasies about killing their parents or shooting up a school.  To me when they start staring descriptive accounts of their fantasies, like logistics, it's time to step in, especially when they are in law enforcement and have used that to garner information about their 'fantasy' victims.

    And as much as fantasizing used to be a off limits, if we use terrorism cases, planning and fantasizing are one in the same.  Not saying I agree, but the line has defensively shifted this past decade or so.

    They should have used internet and found a willing participant like this guy did.  Just when you think it can't get no mo weird.


    Yes, I am not sure (none / 0) (#19)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:55:32 PM EST
    exactly where the line is drawn, either.  That's what makes this case so difficult to wrap my brain around.
    And I agree that the line has shifted, at least since 9/11, if not before.  I have a problem with some of the terrorism cases that have gone to trial, especially when they involved an under-cover agent who facilitated the "crime," because it's not clear to me that some of these bozos would have gone through with anything if the agent hadn't set them up and encouraged them to "buy" fake explosives.
    Sounds very close to Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and "thoughtcrime."

    Aren't there laws against conspiring to (none / 0) (#26)
    by caseyOR on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 05:08:37 PM EST
    commit certain crimes like murder? It seems to me that if they had gone beyond fantasy to planning and to choosing victims, that they have taken action to commit crimes. And isn't it taking action, not necessarily completing the crime, that is itself a crime?

    In other words, lawyers help me out here please, if three people talk in the abstract about kidnapping and murdering women, but do not do anything but talk about it, then no crime. If they take any steps toward committing the kidnapping and murder, identify a victim or stalk a victim or outfit a place to hold the victim, then they have left fantasy behind an committed a crime.

    So, if this cop made actual viable plans then isn't that a crime?


    What you're talking about ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 06:53:00 PM EST
    ... is the requirement that one of the conspirators commit an act in furtherance of the conspiracy.  At common law, no such act was required - merely the agreement.  Many statutes now, however, now require an overt act, although the act may be (relative to the target offense) fairly trivial.

    Not sure about this specific case, though.  I haven't read up on the charge or the elements of it.


    Just did a quick search (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 07:01:11 PM EST
    The complaint alleges several acts in furtherance of the conspiracy:

    According to court documents, the overt acts included phone calls between Valle and Van Hise (spelled Vanhise in court documents) and Valle's presence on the block where the intended victim resided.

    Though Valle is not named in the Van Hise complaint, and Van Hise is not named in Valle's complaint, the facts of each complaint mirror those of the other defendant. Both complaints also include conversations between the two outlining alleged plans for the kidnapping, including price negotiations.

    The complaint also contains a sworn statement from an FBI investigator who claims that Van Hise admitted to being the person who sent the kidnapping emails, as well as the person who engaged in multiple conversations with other individuals about kidnapping, raping, and murdering the aforementioned minor girls. At one point, he allegedly sent pictures of the children, as well as an address near the children's actual home.

    Yman, thanks for the clarification and (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by caseyOR on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:49:05 PM EST
    the links.

    I too thought of the... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 08:17:58 AM EST
    post 9/11 convictions and the people rotting in jail for thought crime as we type.

    I'm thinking the "planning" might just have been part of the fantasy for these s*ck fucks.  Like the planning of a bank robbery is part of a bank robbery fantasy...you might pick a specific real bank by name and location for your fantasy, but it's still just a fantasy.  

    I don't mean to discount the emotional distress & fear this must have caused his wife and the other women that were the subjects of these disgusting games...who wants some freak fantasizing about raping and eating them?  But unfortunately we have no right to keep people from thinking about us or talking about us in a chat room.  I could see maybe a crimnal threat or stalking prosecution being in order in a case like this, but they never came close to kidnapping, raping, or eating anybody from what I've read.  


    I pretty much agree (none / 0) (#5)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 02:42:49 PM EST
    that this is a "thought crime" and I also agree that he's a creepy sicko.  I don't think that he should ever, ever be a cop again, or even a security guard.  I wouldn't trust him with a gun, because he seems to have some sort of deep mental problem.
    Having said that, what has he actually "done" that would warrant locking him up for the rest of his life in prison?  For "thinking" of murder and cannibalism?  For discussing this with other creepy sickos?  I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me the only thing they could really get him for is using the police database for unauthorized purposes, which I'm sure there are rules and laws against.  Are there any indications that the websites he visited depicted any actually murdered women?  Because, if so, maybe he could be charged as some kind of accessory or facilitator of their deaths.  But from what I can tell, these were "make-believe" dead women- actresses (of a sort), I presume.
    I do wish, however, that he would get some really, really intensive therapy.  And I hope he never dates or marries again.

    it's going to come down (none / 0) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 02:43:54 PM EST
    to the experts......... psychiatrists, psychologists, and behavioral psychologists.

    Do you suppose the FBI has a profile (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:10:01 PM EST
    re cannibals?

    Of Course... (none / 0) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:23:34 PM EST
    ...aren't there a lot of serial killers who like the cusinene they kill ?  I am thinking of my home state Ed Gein, who started with digging up fresh bodies and ended with creating bodies.

    and I am thinking of the (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 04:07:25 PM EST
    Sandy Hook murders.

    If you'll recall all (many) of us putting on our amateur Dr. Brainiac disguises and analyzing Adam Lanza from every possible angle. Suddenly, we discovered all the clues he left behind....."if only someone had taken the time to care." And, so on.

    Of course this cop weirdo didn't actually "Do" anything. Why, he just "thought." And, golly gee, "can't someone just "think" any more?"

    No one is saying to lock him up for "thinking." But, if the experts who have devoted their lives to studying human behavior determine that some forms of "thinking" are precursors of more serious mental problems, well, it just seems prudent that someone should take notice, and intervene before "thinking" evolves into "doing."

    Oh, BTW, this is in no way a knock on you, Scott. Maybe your Ed Gein started out by doing some weird "thinking." Every ending has a beginning.


    Taking notice... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 08:20:51 AM EST
    is a far cry from a kidnapping conspiracy charge and possible life in prison, or an involuntary commitment to a mental institution.

    No easy answers, but I still say our principles demand we cannot lock people up on maybes or possiblies, no matter how disturbed we are by an individual.


    This is a very, very (none / 0) (#24)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 04:38:05 PM EST
    fine line, Scott.  Yes, everyone was saying about Lanza "if only someone had taken the time to care."  And I'm sure that the same could be said of a whole lot of people.  "Every ending has a beginning."  Sounds great, however, I must also point out that human behavioral analysis is far from an exact science at this point.  Despite how many years the psychologists and psychiatrists and criminologists have devoted to the subject.  They're getting better, but it isn't quite exact yet.
    And I do have a problem, as a long-time civil libertarian, with The State deciding that you may be a danger, so we need to either lock you up or forcibly compel you to get help.
    Although it wasn't the greatest film in the world, and the whole ESP thing was total science fiction, refer to the movie Minority Report (link) and ask yourself if you would want to live in that kind of society.  I certainly would not.  

    Sorry! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 04:55:58 PM EST
    I meant to edit to say "Shooter" not "Scott," but I clicked on "post" instead of "preview."
    Doggone mouse!  

    Oh, my Dear Ms Zorba (none / 0) (#43)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:47:11 PM EST
    I try so hard to minimize rather than sensationalize these kinds of issues. Of course, those who study, and treat, mental illnesses haven't "got there" yet. But, psychiatry is a 100 year old discipline now, and the study it takes to become a psychiatrist far exceeds that of almost all other medical specialties. Meteorologists don't always predict the weather perfectly, nor have Oncologists cured cancer yet. So, what do we do? We do the best we can, that's what, and in the study of mental diseases today's psychiatrists, while not perfect, are the best we have at this point in time.

    "And I do have a problem, as a long-time civil libertarian, with The State deciding that you may be a danger, so we need to either lock you up or forcibly compel you to get help."
    I hope you weren't referring to me when you commented about "The State" deciding things, and "lock you up.....forcibly compel" What were you thinking?? Did I make any reference, or even hint, at such a thing? Just a simple, benign statement of fact: whether the cop in question, or Lanza, two very disturbed people.

    So who are you going to call the next time some group concocts a conspiracy so evil it shocks the conscience to even contemplate it? The Veterinary Association?

    Oh, and for the record: No, I don't want to live in a society where you're arrested for possibly committing a crime maybe sometime in the future.....lol

    What are you saying, my friend? Jeeesh


    Sorry, Shooter (none / 0) (#58)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    I didn't mean to insult you in any way, or put words in your mouth (or keyboard, as it were).
    I think that we fundamentally agree, and I do think that there should be a way for obviously disturbed people to get help.  But I just do not see a good path that leads toward intervention for those that may be at risk for hurting themselves and others.  Advising, counseling, and other mental health help should be much, much more widely available than it is.
    Namaste, my friend.  Be well.   ;-)

    Nothing!! Do you hear me?? (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 05:01:36 PM EST
    Nothing will ever come between us my dear sweet lady (except, maybe my sainted mother's recipe for Ukraine stuffed cabbage. But that's another story for another day:)

    I know our thoughts and attitudes about things right and wrong, run pretty much parallel. The problem with posting is that it's not like talking. You have to write fast, and short. Can't see facial expressions, body language, or all the nuances you're feeling, but not always getting across in a short post. But, the good thing about getting to know someone on-line is that after a while the reader can fill in those things without every little detail having to be spelled out in the writing.

    Like, if you started a post with, "I HATE...... (fill in your race, religion, ethnicity, etc) a smile would immediately come onto my face because, knowing you (a little at least) you're incapable of real hate and what's coming will probably make me laugh my head off.

    Anyway, that reminds me of my biggest complaint about these kinds of blogs. There ought to be a special prison set up for people who take a commenter's words out of context, use them as a straw man, and then go on pontificating about how eeevil you are, and of course, how wonderful & saintly they are.

    And, (shhh) it sometimes happens right here on TL.

    Finally, I'm glad you felt secure enough in our relationship to write what you wanted to express without having to check, and double-check,  "Gee, did that come out right?" And, I'm doubly happy that I could retort in my overly tired, frenetic way, knowing that if I said something unbecoming you would just shrug it off with a, "oh, that's just that fruit loop from NY trying to say something coherent, but just tripping over his tongue instead."

    So now I gotta worry how that all came out, lol.
    anyway, see ya,
    Love ya, mean it,
    Ciao, and of course,



    Náse kalá! (none / 0) (#76)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 05:26:25 PM EST
    Be well!

    I am thinking (none / 0) (#18)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:48:45 PM EST
    David Flores case update (none / 0) (#21)
    by desmoinesdem on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 04:17:17 PM EST
    from the Des Moines Register:

    A man facing a new trial in an almost 17-year-old homicide says Des Moines police have been harassing him for nearly a year, pulling him over at least 14 times since his release from prison, according to a motion filed Monday in Polk County District Court.

    The court filing on behalf of David Flores accuses Des Moines police of performing an unconstitutional search, then seizing on the car he was driving on Valentine's Day as he was traveling with his son, David Flores Jr. The motion asks a judge to suppress the "unreasonable and unconstitutional stop," and seeks any other relief deemed appropriate.

    "The totality of the circumstances fails to generate reasonable suspicion to warrant the officers' seizure," the motion states.

    In response, Sgt. Jason Halifax told the Des Moines Register that "there's no organized effort to stop Flores or harass him."

    "We don't have a bounty on him or any directive to stop him as much as we can," Halifax said.

    A new trial was ordered in his case in December 2009, but he wasn't released from prison until May 2012. And he's been pulled over 14 times since then?

    Hagel Confirmed 58-41 (none / 0) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 04:21:51 PM EST
    Three Republicans, Thad Cochran, Mike Johanns and Richard Shelby voted for Hagel.

    How pathetic. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 07:41:06 PM EST
    The GOP Senate caucus's collective malperformance regarding Chuck Hagel's DOD nomination had the net effect of causing me to root for the guy's confirmation, even though I'm on record as not being very happy with his initial selection myself.

    And really, is there a more vile and contemptible U.S. Senator currently serving on Capitol Hill than the "Honorable Gentleman" from Texas, Ted Cruz? The guy appears to revel in his unhinged crackpottery, and has been nothing but a major league a$$wipe since taking office less than two months ago.


    11th dimensional chess (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by NYLeft on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:54:51 PM EST
    Obama does it again.

    Nominate someone the liberals don't want. Check.
    Pick someone the Republicans can fuss about but who they probably actually want. Check.
    Have a silly confirmation hearing with both sides posturing. Check.
    Get a few Repubs to swing onboard with the Dems, squeak through the confirmation of the nominee. Done.

    Wait. Who won here?  Oh yeah. The politicians.


    Huh? The Republicans WANTED Hagel? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 02:26:52 PM EST
    Gee, who knew?

    Apparently, right-wing Republicans aren't the only ones living in their own parallel universe.


    The ballet continues, (none / 0) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 05:09:37 PM EST
    but no red shoes.  The pope, on retirement, will continue to wear a white cassock, rather than the traditional black clerical garb that some expected.  The red shoes will be retired along with Benedict, in favor of comfortable brown loafers. Moreover, the Pope will be known as "His Holiness Benedict XVI" and either pope emeritus or Roman pontiff emeritus (your choice).

    It is reported that some Vatican officials were concerned that there would be two Popes within the vatican walls--retired and new.  Adding to the concerns, apparently, is that Benedict's long-time  assistant, Msgr. Georg Ganswein, named an Archbishop by the Pope last month, will be serving both the retired and new pope--living with Benedict at the monastery inside the Vatican and keeping his day job as  prefect of the new pope's household.

    Emeritus (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by DFLer on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 07:00:53 PM EST
    That reminds of when my friends made me retire from playing Risk, 'cause I always, I mean often, won.

    I agreed to do so on the condition that they name me "World Conqueror Emeritus" and engrave that on the game box lid.

    I was allowed to keep my red boots.


    I vote for "Pope Mum" (none / 0) (#68)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 03:39:40 PM EST
    J, glad to read you got your Mac :) (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:45:30 PM EST
    Surprised to hear it's so heavy. Of course, I'm surprised how heavy my 27" version before yours is! They look so light :) Keep us updated on how you like it!

    casey and Zorba... (none / 0) (#55)
    by fishcamp on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 11:31:27 AM EST
    I've taken your advice about Greek olive oil and the Mediterranean diet to heart.  There doesn't seem to be any Greek olive oil down here in the fabulous Florida keys but an "old" Greek girl friend from high school found me and is coming for a visit next week and is bringing olive oil and lots of other Greek food.  Picked up some walnuts today which reminds me of growing up in Portland.  We had many walnut trees in my hood and their wet slippery leaves were always on the street.  My buddies and I were always skidding through them on our bicycles trying to spin 360's but went down every time to be slimed by walnut goo.  Mom was not happy.

    Just re-watched WHEN WE WERE KINGS (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 11:47:48 AM EST