Wednesday Open Thread

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) has introduced a bill to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act and allow states to decide whether to legalize it. The DEA would no longer have control of marijuana policy. Instead, the ATF would assume control. The ATF would be renamed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms. The bill is the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act. Polis' fact sheet on the bill is here.

A comprehensive report on the CIA's extraordinary rendition and secret detention programs under GW Bush was released this week by the Open Justice Society. The full report, Globalizing Torture, is here. It documents 136 individual cases and the participation of 54 countries in the two programs. On a related note, law prof Jonathan Hafetz discusses the "proxy detentions" of terror suspects in Djibouti and extradition to the U.S. to face criminal trials under Obama's administration.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< George Zimmerman Hearing: Aside From the Continuance | John Brennan's Confirmation Hearing >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A bit of humor (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 04:52:58 PM EST
    Five surgeons from big cities are discussing who makes the best type of patients to operate on.

    The first surgeon, from New York, says, 'I like to see accountants on my operating table because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered.'

    The second, from Chicago, responds, 'Yeah, but you should try electricians! Everything inside them is color coded.'

    The third surgeon, from Dallas, says, 'No, I really think librarians are the best.  Everything inside them is in alphabetical order.'

    The fourth surgeon, from Los Angeles chimes in: 'You know, I like construction workers...Those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over.'

    But the fifth surgeon, from Washington, DC, shut them all up when he observed:  'You're all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on.  There's no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains, and no spine..

    Plus, the head and the a$$ are interchangeable.'

    A bit of a puzzle (none / 0) (#58)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:08:55 PM EST
    This was emailed to me by a family member.
    I flunked:

    Reading test


    Count every "F" in the following text:


    HOW MANY 'F's?


    Count them again.


    WRONG, THERE ARE 6 -- no joke..


    Really, go Back and Try to find the 6 'F's before you scroll down.

    The reasoning behind this is further down.

    The brain cannot process "OF".


    But I think it's because the F in OF is pronounced like a "V" so that throws us off.... what do you think?

    Incredible or what?

    Anyone who counts all 6 'F's on the first go is a genius.


    I didn't like that... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by fishcamp on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:23:11 PM EST
    All caps is unfair (none / 0) (#61)
    by DFLer on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:22:57 PM EST
    typographically harder to read

    I knew it! (none / 0) (#62)
    by sj on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:31:13 PM EST
    I am a genius!  :)

    There are 7 if you count the "F" in "How many 'F's" and I couldn't decide if it was included until I saw the puzzle answer.


    I (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:43:09 PM EST
    already knew you were a genius sj.

    Bobby Kennedy Jr. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by fishcamp on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:34:58 PM EST
     is a long time friend.  We did an eagle relocation film , for ABC, American Sportsman, in Medford, Oregon back in the day.  He said we will never know the truth.  BTW eagles were trained by Genghis Khan to attack the eyes of the people he was invading.  Lady, the eagle, was staring at my reflective sunglasses while the boss man told that story.  She was on my arm at the time.

    Bobby Jr and his sis Rory (none / 0) (#78)
    by brodie on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:48:22 PM EST
    had a rare sit down in January with Charlie Rose, in Dallas, as the city began the 50th anniversary series of events.  THere he said his father thought the Warren Report was a "shoddy piece of craftsmanship" -- suggesting RFK's private views were 180 from his usual public pronouncements endorsing the WR.

    RFK Jr, iirc, himself suggested to Rose that anti-Castro Cubans, the mob, and rogue elements of the CIA were probably involved.

    I believe this was the first time Bobby Jr went so public with his suspicions, although a couple of authors in the field have published books stating the Kennedy family had private doubts all along.

    Funny thing though:  the interview with Rose was apparently not broadcast, even as the mayor, whose event it was, arranged for cameras to videotape everything. And no video or transcript of the interview is apparently available on the internet, last I heard.


    Conspiratorial suppression of the Charlie Rose (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:16:44 PM EST
    interview?  Which was conducted live in a theater before a large, paying audience? Sounds pretty suspicious to me.

    Personally, I think the only thing ... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:54:10 PM EST
    ... all this conspiracy stuff proves is that Oliver Stone is having the last laugh.

    I mean, I just keep reverting back to my standard question at these moments -- has any of these JFK conspiracy theorists has actually bothered to read the entire Warren Commission report (16 volumes) or even its one-volume synopsis?


    A synopsis ... (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by brodie on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:11:13 PM EST
    in 900 pages?  For what officials said was just a simple matter of one man killing another, an alleged "open and shut case"?

    And what exactly did you find credible and convincing in those 900 pgs or its foundation, the Magic Bullet Theory?  

    Btw, the way I understand is those 900 pages are the entire Warren Report.  The remaining volumes -- 26 volumes, not 16 as you state -- are the supposed supporting documents and testimony.  

    But one early WR critic -- who concluded after actually reading/plowing through the entire 900 pgs plus 26 vols that it was a conspiracy -- noted how often what was written in the main WR was contradicted by evidence published in the 26 vols.  As if the Commission wanted to give a small nod to the truth by publishing it but only in a place that would be hard to find.

    That author's name is Sylvia Meagher, an independent researcher who went on to publish her landmark book ripping the WR to shreds -- Accessories After the Fact.

    You might want to read that one, Donald.

    Another researcher who comes to mind who read the entire WR plus 26 vols -- the latter not so much read as slogged through -- New Orleans District Atty Jim Garrison, who like Meagher ended up being convinced by the reading that it was a conspiracy.


    I've discussed this with you before. (2.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:12:58 AM EST
    I think it's pointless to rehash something about which we're never going to agree. Suffice to say that whatever failures and shortcomings there are in the Warren Commission's work, they don't necessarily elevate the conspiracy theories promoted by Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone to the level of credibility by default.

    A prime element in any conspiracy is motive, i.e., why kill the president, and on that count, such a motive should have soon become apparent in the aftermath of the assassination.

    I've heard a number of otherwise fairly credible motives being offered over the years, but honestly, none have ever stood out, and that's the primary cause of my skepticism. If it was a conspiracy, then the specific "why" regarding the rationale for JFK's killing has never outed, and what we are left with is a lot of speculation and conjecture.

    If there was a conspiracy, then one can conclude at nearly 50 years ex post facto that it was 100% successful. But if there wasn't, then we're really wasting our time.


    (longer post just got wiped out) (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by brodie on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:04:05 AM EST
    Didn't you mean to say "a prime element in any murder case is motive?"  Why do you only put the burden on conspiracy advocates to find one?

    And if you'd read the WR you should already know the WC failed to find a clear motive as to their lone nut.  Just a grab bag of possibilities, something that looks suspiciously weak, which could apply to millions of people at any one time.

    Re Stone, I see that you want to denigrate him with the sort of wild-eyed conspiracy mongering tones or undertones that the MSM often uses to ridicule him or those who differ from the official story.  On the contrary, his JFK film led directly to important legislation opening up thousands of previously hidden govt docs (less the 1,100 CIA docs still being kept from the public for no good reason).  For that reason alone he should be applauded, not ridiculed.

    Ditto Garrison, the first and only person to bring a public prosecution in the case, flawed though it was.  That guy had integrity and courage.  A true patriot, trying to find out who killed his president, someone who took the time to actually read the govt's shockingly weak and unbelievable case.

    I'd be happy to exchange further on this, after you've read one or two of the books which aren't from the prosecution side.  In addition to the Meagher book, check out Gerald McKnight's more recent book on the WC, Breach of Trust.  Also the recent landmark book JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass, which goes into the many whys as to the several groups involved in the assassination, a book which RFK Jr read and appreciated, as per his phone call congratulating the author.


    Please don't misunderstand me (none / 0) (#104)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:51:32 PM EST
    By challenging what seemed to me like a very weak accusation of nefariosity against Charlie Rose, I didn't mean to suggest (as Donald seems to) that I think the Warren Commission got it right.  I actually don't.  I just bristle at poorly supported arguments, especially coming from someone I tend otherwise to agree with.

    Peter I don't recall (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by brodie on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:25:44 PM EST
    making any specific charge against Rose nor (i think) did I intend to imply one (much as I find Charlie a bit of a hack and Establishment Apologist, generally).  I just noted he was brought in to interview the two Kennedys.  I said the mayor -- to my knowledge, from reading a couple of assassination researchers -- was the one who set up or controlled the event.

    And so to the extent it could be just one person deciding things, namely the mayor of Dallas, there is no conspiracy alleged, at least strictly speaking.

    Really it was just noting what appears to be fact, that the event wasn't or hasn't yet been broadcast, and no video or transcripts are online, for an event held 3-4 weeks ago which made the newspaper front pages.

    Two solid authors in the field whose judgment and veracity I trust -- Jefferson Morley and Jim DiEugenio -- both have recently noted the above curious situation.  Right now it appears the Dallas mayor is the one to blame, but who knows who else in Dallas officialdom or elsewhere is weighing in  to appear to deep six this one.  


    I don't see any other way to read (none / 0) (#162)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:54:10 PM EST
    your comment stating:
    Funny thing though:  the interview with Rose was apparently not broadcast, even as the mayor, whose event it was, arranged for cameras to videotape everything. And no video or transcript of the interview is apparently available on the internet, last I heard.

    If that wasn't meant to imply a nefarious conspiracy to suppress RFK jr's comments, I don't understand what else it was that you were suggesting.

    Sure seems odd to me (none / 0) (#95)
    by brodie on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:59:41 PM EST
    that researchers in the field can't get a video or transcript of the event..  Which did make FP news for a day re RFK Jr's remarks about his father's view of the WR.

    Was what RFK Jr said too hot to handle for the reflexively anti-conspiracy MSM?


    ATMF (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by fishcamp on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:42:32 PM EST
    That is really a dopey name.  just sayin'.  

    I can think of all ... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:10:43 PM EST
    kinds of things that could stand for.  They should move that "M".  Or maybe it not.

    It's certain to increase hat and t-shirt sales.


    This should start your day off nicely (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 06:35:04 AM EST
    Britain's Got Talent

    Oculus may especially appreciate it.

    They're lovely aren't they? (none / 0) (#150)
    by sj on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:58:38 AM EST
    They did really well in the competition, too.  I think they came in second.  

    First place was a young girl and her dancing dog.  Which sounds like a total miscarriage of justice -- except that it was a really, really exceptional young girl and dancing dog.  :\


    It would have been a very hard choice (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:23:18 PM EST
    Ashleigh and Pudsey were very talented and scored over the top in charm.

    Unbelieveablely stupid comments (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:29:00 PM EST
    Consent Thingy

    Vickery said that when it comes to sexual assault, false accusations are not possible, despite cultural beliefs otherwise.

    "Some people think there are false accusations. There's really no false accusations. If someone feels they didn't give consent, then they didn't give consent," Vickery said. "Whether it's coerced or manipulated, that's still not consent. I think right now that's really a big issue on our campus and students are really confused about it."

    Well, it's nice to know there's no such thing as false accusations. The Duke Lacrosse 3 will be interested in knowing that.

    You sir... (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by fishcamp on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:41:15 PM EST
    are a complete fool.

    And, believe me, he likes to keep proving it... (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by shoephone on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:42:51 PM EST
    So, why get in his way?

    Now now... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 08:32:53 AM EST
    Gotta say I found the tone somewhat troubling...

    "If you are getting someone drunk to have sex with them, that is sexual assault."

    What if you're getting drunk with someone to get drunk with someone and end up hooking up consensually?  That can't be sexual assault unless we're gonna pass a new CUI law...copulating under the influence.  

    I'm all for sexual assault education & prevention, it's a real problem, especially in colleges and uber-especially in the military...but ya don't wanna make a mockery of it like DARE and spout nonsense either, that doesn't help anybody.


    Somehow, the whole idea of (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:40:03 AM EST
    getting drunk as a goal in itself seems just so...high school; sorry...that's probably my age talking, but the older I get, the less I find anything attractive about drunk people.  

    And there's nothing at all attractive about someone getting someone else drunk in order to have sex with them - that's just sad, pathetic and wrong.

    I enjoy a drink as much as anyone, and even in my old age -I turn 60 this year - I have been known to get a little wine buzz going now and again.  But drunk?  Why?  If I'm with people I like, love and/or enjoy, I'm having a good time anyway, and I know I won't pay for it the next day, or have to agonize over what stupid thing I said or did.

    I did enough of that in my 20's to last a lifetime, lol.


    I agree... (none / 0) (#141)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:48:02 AM EST
    I'm finally learning how to be a better drinker, I too don't enjoy the totally sh*tfaced feeling...but these are college kids we are talking about.

    We can try to educate all we want, but it is too true that there are some lessons everyone must learn for themselves...knowing when to say when is one of those lessons.


    Well, my little experiment worked (1.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:12:45 AM EST
    The given words are troubling and deserve to be roundly condemned.

    Instead a few rational people showed up, but at least two comments were simply attacks on me (but of course Jeralyn won't moderate THOSE) and nothing else.

    Insofar as this fruitloop of a woman has anything to do with constructing sexual assault policies, explaining sexual assault policies, or conducting hearings (thankfully there's no evidence of that, but one never knows what might happen in the future)anyone  falsely accused of sexual assault is at grave risk for their academic careers. I wouldn't recommend a son or daughter of mine attend this school. It's bad enough that rather than send sexual assaults to the police colleges have now decided to try them (with a few exceptions, thankfully) under the lowest standard of evidence possible (pre-ponderance of evidence), but having people affiliated with the school basically saying that accusation = guilt is not helpful and is sure to result in more Duke cases in the future.


    Shorter Zero: (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:29:39 AM EST
    "My trolling got a rise out of some of you, though not all of you. It worked! So, I'm just keep on being a troll! Ha ha!"

    Is there anything surprising here?


    Seriously? (none / 0) (#147)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:34:40 AM EST
    Seriously, shoephone.
    I linked to something. Made a very short comment about it. I thought the very comments were so outrageous that anyone of any moral decency whatsoever would at least agree they are wrongheaded. Instead all you do is attack me, the messenger.

    Childish and uncalled for. But you didn't surprise me.


    "Moral decency" (4.00 / 4) (#148)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:40:59 AM EST
    Make you sure you know what that is before posting. Your comment was the perfect example of trolling. And, of course, a typical example of your misogyny.

    But, please, by all means, throw another tantrum when you post nonsense and then get called out for it.


    The problem comes (none / 0) (#117)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 08:44:07 AM EST
    When someone is drunk or under the influence, they may not actually have the mental ability to make an informed choice, i.e. they are "incapacitated" (ergo, they cannot consent, and thus can be sexually assaulted).  Here's a good explanation from a Univeristy of Virginia policy:

    "Incapacitation" means the physical and/or mental inability to make informed, rational judgments.  States of Incapacitation include, without limitation, sleep, blackouts, and flashbacks. Where alcohol is involved, one does not have to be intoxicated or drunk to be considered Incapacitated.  Rather, Incapacitation is determined by how the alcohol consumed impacts a person's decision-making capacity, awareness of consequences, and ability to make informed judgments. The question is whether the accused student knew, or a sober, reasonable person in the position of the accused student should have known, that the complainant was Incapacitated.

    What I want to know is, (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Zorba on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:29:58 AM EST
    what if they are both drunk?  What if the man's blood alcohol level is higher than the woman's?  Would she then be sexually assaulting him?
    What if she is sober and he has had a few drinks?  Has any woman ever been charged with sexual assault of a man in such a circumstance?
    I am not in any way trying to justify any kind of sexual assault, and I think that drunken sex is a really, really bad idea.  But if the woman is incapacitated enough not to be able to give actual consent, would the man be able to defend himself by saying that he was incapacitated enough not to understand that she wasn't giving consent?  Or by saying that she assaulted him?

    I don't know (none / 0) (#176)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:38:47 PM EST
    The only things I can find about a woman committing sexual assault have to do with children. And, if you're talking penetration only as sexual assault, then that is going to be far away done by a man on a woman (or another man).

    And while I will defer to the criminal defense attorneys, it is my understanding that no, being drunk is generally not a defense to committing a crime.  It may be used as a mitigating factor in a sentence, or it may influence a prosecutor with how and if to bring a charge in the first place, but it is not an excuse.

    Alcohol Facilitated Sexual Assault

    Analyzing Consent and Distinguishing Rape from Drunken Sex:Defendant's Predatory Behavior

    Prosecutors will face perhaps their greatest challenge in AFSA cases where the defendant was drunk as well. Alcohol consumption by perpetrators and victims tends to co-occur.40 The reality is that approximately fifty percent of all sexual assaults are committed by a man who has been drinking. "Although alcohol consumption and sexual assault frequently co-occur, this phenomenon does not prove that alcohol use causes sexual assault." Nevertheless, many defendants will attempt to use alcohol as an excuse for rape. The public has a tendency to view rape of a voluntarily intoxicated victim as more of an opportunistic crime than a predatory crime.When a jury hears that the defendant was drinking, it is easy for jurors to assume that it was drunken sex as opposed to sexual assault unless prosecutors disenchant them of the idea. Jurors may think:"There but for the grace of God, go I (or my son or my friend)." It is the prosecutor's
    job to keep the focus on the defendant and his behavior.

    Most states do not recognize voluntary intoxication as a defense; however, some do. Even in states that do not recognize intoxication as a defense, it may be a barrier to prosecution. Prosecutors can overcome the hurdle of the intoxication defense by looking for the  defendant's predatory behavior. The prosecutor must look carefully at all the facts of the case to determine whether the defendant is a predator or just a drunk guy who did not intentionally rape anyone.Often, a successful predator will mask his actions in such a way that they appear opportunistic as opposed to predatory. The more predatory the defendant's behavior, the easier it is to prove that he is a rapist.

    It goes on to list a bunch of factors that can and should be considered in making this determination.


    Penetration (none / 0) (#179)
    by Zorba on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:57:16 PM EST
    as sexual assault is not the only definition.
    However, while I agree that penetration is almost always going to involve a man on a woman (or another man), it can involve a woman on a man.
    Much like female erectile response, male erectile response is involuntary,[21][22] meaning that a man need not be aroused for his penis to become erect and be placed in a woman's vagina; mechanical stimulation is all that is necessary. Penetration of a man by a woman is possible through forcible stimulation of external male genitalia or the anus, or by forced penetration of the anus with the use of strap-ons, dildos, other foreign objects which could include a tongue (inserted or external) in forced oral, forced digit manipulation, and digital penetration. A woman could also force a man to perform oral sex on her. Rape of a man by a woman could also occur when limited sexual activities are agreed upon and a man's penis is placed in a woman in violation of the limits that had been set. Rape of a man by a woman is thus possible in several ways.

    However, male victims of sexual abuse by females[23] often face social, political, and legal double standards.[24] While gender-neutral laws have combated the older perception that rape rarely occurs to men,[25] and other laws have eliminated the term altogether,[26] the double standards still remain.

    It's indeed rare, but it can happen.

    Not to get too randy... (none / 0) (#190)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:47:18 PM EST
    on a family blog, but an old flame had a habit of, how do I put this...helping herself to me while I was asleep.  I'd wake up in the act.

    She knew I didn't mind in the least, but I guess technically one could call that "rape".  


    Only if you said no (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:04:21 PM EST
    I can't tell if this is snark (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by CST on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:05:26 PM EST
    but if it isn't - you can't say no if you are asleep

    It was meant as a joke (none / 0) (#197)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:18:11 PM EST
    Although I think a person would have to be a very sound sleeper to sleep through the entire act and kdog did indicate that the lady knew he didn't object to what she was doing.

    I do think his comparison was a stretch.


    I think it depends on the type of relationship (none / 0) (#193)
    by CST on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:04:23 PM EST
    you have with a person.  I've had a friend who got really pissed off when their significant other did that, known other people who were fine with it or enjoyed it.  That's actually a tough one, but I think the best way to handle that is have a conversation about it in advance to find out if the other person is okay with it or not.  That goes for both genders.

    CST, this is (1.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Zorba on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 05:42:36 PM EST
    very sensible advice, and I agree that it "goes for both genders."
    I would hate to think that the times that I have approached Mr. Zorba, when he has had a drink or two, and I have had none, would be considered marital rape or something.  He is more than fine with this.  In fact, if I may say so, he is "over the moon" about it, as he has let me know many times.  Same goes for me if I have had a drink or two and he has not (although this is much rarer, since I drink pretty rarely.  Not that he drinks all the time or anything).  
    But then, we have been married over 40 years, and we each respect each other, communicate with each other, and also realize that when one of us is, shall I say "not in the mood," that is a definite "no."
    Communication and conversation about this is the key.

    A coed... (none / 0) (#120)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:05:50 AM EST
    sitting on a curb in her own puke is incapacitated, carrying her to your frat house is a sexual assault...no brainer.

    But UVA seems to be saying hooking up after a couple beers is sexual assault...I disagree strongly.  I mean what does this bit even mean?

    Where alcohol is involved, one does not have to be intoxicated or drunk to be considered Incapacitated. Rather, Incapacitation is determined by how the alcohol consumed impacts a person's decision-making capacity, awareness of consequences, and ability to make informed judgment

    wtf?  How is a person supposed to gauge the decision-making capacity of their date for the evening when the date isn't visibly drunk or intoxicated and has only had one or two drinks?


    I think (or at least I hope) (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by dk on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:33:48 AM EST
    the point of what UVA is trying to get across is that it's not enough of a defense simply to argue "well, she wasn't sitting on a curb puking, so therefore she totally wanted it."  Instead, what they are explaining is that it is incumbant on a guy to make a reasonable assessment, based on all facts and circumstances, of whether the woman is in a physical condition to make an informed judgment.  The key word there is reasonable.  

    Of course, the question then is who determines what is reasonable.  Does this mean we should be vigilant about making sure our arbiters of resonableness don't create any injustices?  Yes.  But, I also think it's fair to expect college-aged men to be take their share of responsibility in these kinds of situations.


    I know what you mean... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:43:47 AM EST
    I've certainly passed on a hook up with a woman I deemed to be smashed, as any gentleman should.

    But we must remember some people drink for the expressed purpose of loosening their inhibitions...it can be asking a lot of a young man, who is probably also buzzed if not drunk, to pass on a hook up where the woman is throwing themselves at him.  

    Regret is not the same thing as a sexual assault, I'd hope we can all agree on that.


    What ? (none / 0) (#153)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 12:35:30 PM EST
    Ridiculous, if this same person decided to drive home, the court would hold an entire different view of her ability to make rational decisions.  But it would be hilarious to here someone argue they were incapable of giving themselves consent to drive a car drunk.

    But more importantly, in this instance, where it's consensual, and both parties are drunk, arguing that the male should be responsible for another person's bad decision, is pretty damn demeaning to women.

    Unless of course this applies to men, which in most cases would mean neither person has the ability to give consent and yet by magic, they still had sex. Hmmm.


    I would argue (none / 0) (#177)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:41:32 PM EST
    That if some drunk man decided to "take advantage" / sexually assualt a drunk woman, then THAT is more demeaning to women.  YMMV

    I Would Argue... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:18:39 PM EST
    ...that using the logic of your earlier post, that no one could be taken advantage of because both parties are incapacitated, neither had the ability to give consent.  And one simply can't be taken advantage of by someone without the ability to give consent.

    What about two men or two women, who holds the responsibility of making the decision then ?  Or is equal so long as the two, or more, are all the same sex.  And does this apply to all facets of life, or just the ones where the weaker sex just isn't up to making the hard call.  And I was purposely being cheeky because your implication is that we are not equal.  That people engaging in the same activities, in the same states of mind, aren't held to the same degree of responsibility.  Non-sense.


    I believe there is a distinction (none / 0) (#199)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:33:44 PM EST
    between 'getting someone drunk to have sex with them' and 'getting drunk with someone to get drunk with someone and end up hooking up'.

       "If you are getting someone drunk to have sex with them, that is sexual assault."

    What if you're getting drunk with someone to get drunk with someone and end up hooking up consensually?

    There's a difference, isn't there, between (none / 0) (#138)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:36:47 AM EST
    an accusation of rape where no contact occurred, and an accusation of rape where contact did occur?

    I'm pretty sure men have been accused of rape where no penetration occurred - I would call that a false accusation.  It's wrong, and there should be consequences for putting someone through that experience.

    Where penetration did occur, there are a multitude of possibilities.  First off, no man is ever going to agree that he raped someone.  He's always going to take the position that (1) she consented, (2) he believed she was willing, (3) she never said "no," (4) she gave no other indications that she objected, either before or after.  

    What I think this person - Vickery - is saying is that an accusation of rape is not false if the woman's perception is that she was forced to have sex.

    I agree that it doesn't seem fair for someone to be accused of rape when he had no reason to believe his partner wasn't willing, but that, it seems to me, is the danger that more casual encounters carry with them.  As much as women have to be aware and be responsible and careful about situations that may take a turn to the intimate, men have the same responsibility to be aware that whatever it is their little head is perceiving may not bear much resemblance to what is really happening.


    Well, I'd hope everyone can agree (none / 0) (#146)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:32:13 AM EST
    Regret is not rape, and that if initial consent is given it is up to the person who is withdrawing it to make that withdrawal known. People are not mind readers.

    Lastly, it's my opinion that if you can't handle a few beers and sex you should give up one or the other and never combine them.


    Exactly... (none / 0) (#149)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:55:12 AM EST
    "regret (alone) is not rape", yes has to mean yes...if we can't agree on that we may as well call the whole thing off.

    That being said, a gentleman knows when to walk away.  But ya can't make not being the nicest guy in the world synonymous with sexual assault...sexual assault are very strong words, a very serious thing.  Those that wish to stretch the definition to absurd lengths do their noble cause no favors.


    Sure, but surely you can agree (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by dk on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 12:09:34 PM EST
    that having someone "throw themselves" at you at 10pm doesn't absolve you from being responsible (even legally responsible) for having to reasonably assess whether that person is consenting (or capable of consenting) to penetration at 1am.

    I've never had a problem... (none / 0) (#155)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:03:37 PM EST
    gauging consent, yes means yes and no means no and body language will tell you all you need to know. I don't know how I'd be expected to gauge blood alcohol content in the large grey area between stone cold sober and totally sh*tfaced, or why or what I should be held responsible for if I was told the next morning "I was too drunk to consent".

    We're not expecting people to sign contracts and consent to breathalyzer tests before getting amorous, are we?  


    That's the whole point of the initial quotes, (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by dk on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:14:01 PM EST
    namely, separating the concept of being drunk from the concept of being incapacitated.  It's not about judging how drunk someone is, it's about judging whether they are capable of consenting.  And expecting men to make a reasonable effort to gauge whether the person they are about to penetrate is capable of consenting doesn't seem like it should be controversial, at least in my mind (assuming, of course, we keep an eye on the artibers of reasonableness).

    I guess... (none / 0) (#160)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:29:03 PM EST
    our disagreement, if any, is how one is supposed to gauge capability of consent in a moment of passion.  And how you define "reasonable effort".  And all in the context of our culture's teenage/twenty-something mating rituals, which more often than not involve partying.

    It raises another interesting question...are people with mental disorders ever capable of consent?  Like say someone who is bipolar or manic depressive?  I say yes, but it seems like some university administrators might be saying no.


    I guess the crux is (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:27:23 PM EST
    Don't get yourself into a situation where you have to ask yourself, "Is my potential partner too inebriated to fully understand what we are doing?"

    In other words, try to keep a clear head if there's a possibility you may hook up with someone you don't know.


    This is (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Zorba on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:00:22 PM EST
    an excellent answer, jb.  I wish that everyone would follow such advice.

    That doesn't... (none / 0) (#181)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:03:25 PM EST
    sound like a lot of fun and adventure, and like I said above some people drink for the purpose of loosening their inhibitions.

    Luckily (or perhaps unluckily) this will never be a question for me personally, I'm the game-less guy sitting on the couch with a lady who is tapping her foot thinking "when is this guy gonna make a move already?" ;)


    Monopoly (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:08:50 PM EST
    As long as they don't replace the Top Hat. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 02:31:38 PM EST
    It's a family tradition in Monopoly that I am always the Top Hat.

    BTW (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:14:03 PM EST
    good to see you again. I hope everything is going okay for you.

    Hanging in (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:15:25 PM EST
    Thanks for the kind words.

    I hope your hubby finds a job soon - and look at moving as a great opportuntity to get rid of a whole bunch of stuff so you don't have to move it!  Hello tax deductions!


    Yeah, (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:16:12 PM EST
    I've been trying to declutter a little bit at a time but I really hope I do not have to move.

    I am so relieved (none / 0) (#74)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:26:45 PM EST
    that they saved the wheelbarrow.  Big local issue!

    Why oh (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:13:45 PM EST
    why do I even try to reason with a Republican on facebook. There is no way Karl Rove is going to win his "war" with the GOP I am quite certain. When your party base is essentially the very far right in this country, pleas for moderation are going to get you nowhere.
    For an update on the job situation with hubby--nothing happening right now. I'm getting kind of nervous but I've talked to the bank and they seem to think that they will be able to get a short sale approved should it come to that. I'm not looking forward to moving out of this house (I have way too much stuff) but we without another job we can no longer afford this house.

    I put this in the other thread not realizing it had gone over 200 comments.

    ATF (none / 0) (#6)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:16:22 PM EST
    Alcohol, tobacco and firearms... ATF - all things that have the capacity to kill people.

    Marijuana, to my knowledge, never hurt anybody.

    Though... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:21:48 PM EST
    no ATF agent ever pulled a gun on me over copping a pack of Marlboros, can't say that for the DEA and a bag of reefer.

    I'd love to see both the DEA and the ATF go away forever...but if forced to choose a lesser evil agency to police the buy/sell/trade of my sacrament, I'll take ATF for $200 Alex.


    can lead to accidents, just like driving under the influence of alc.

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:32:18 PM EST
    Marijuana, Firearms, and Texting While Driving???

    Has this actually been looked at? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by redwolf on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:43:45 PM EST
    We have lots of myths and guesses about what causes accidents and not a lot of actual studies.

    Yes (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:48:38 PM EST
    Here's just one study

    CBS) Marijuana smokers may want to put down the pipe before picking up their car keys. A new study shows smoking a doobie nearly doubles your risk of crashing your car.

    What's more, the drivers in the study were not necessarily baking behind the wheel. The study found using marijuana within three hours of driving raised risks for accidents 1.75 times, compared with crash rates among sober drivers.

    "Despite being regulated in many jurisdictions, cannabis (marijuana) is the most widely used illicit substance in the world," the authors write in the study, published in the Feb. 9 issue of the British Medical Journal. These results suggest, "that cannabis impairs performance of the cognitive and motor tasks necessary for safe driving, increasing the risk of collision."

    No sane, rational person can even begin to suggest that someone is perfectly fine to drive after smoking weed.


    Has anyone suggested... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 02:24:09 PM EST
    repealing laws against reckless driving?

    It's dangerous to make love while driving too, but we don't use that as a lame excuse to prohibit love making...we have laws against reckless driving instead.  And still will when the great scourge of marijuana prohibition is in history's dustbin.


    Mmm... (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 02:42:00 PM EST
    Different things.

    Making love while driving could lead to distracted or reckless driving.

    Driving while high is driving under the influence.

    Both can lead to injury or death, which means neither is a good idea.


    That's what I have never understood... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 02:48:05 PM EST
    what is the difference between being blindsided by some guy running a red light because he has getting a handj*b and being blindsided by some guy running a red light because he was "under the influence"?  Either way the other driver was reckless and caused you injury...one law can cover all, we don't need 2 or 3 or 8.

    It's Beyond Idiotic (3.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:03:51 PM EST
    In Texas if someone is hurt they take your blood, if it's clean, the mail you the ticket, if it's dirty, they arrest you.

    Two standards, so long as have clean blood you can get into a lot of wrecks before the state takes your license away.  Ditto for prescriptions, unless you are seriously jacked up, they won't charge you with anything so long as a doctor OK'ed it.  I doubt they even have quantitative thresholds for a lot of the new medications.

    They are not punishing drivers equally for equal bad acts/mistakes.  One group is held to a higher standard and that ain't right.

    And JB, stoned drivers might be twice as likely to get in an accident, but what is the likelihood that they won't get in the car and be on the road.  If safety is a concern, that number needs to be addressed.  It would be nice if they actually examined the accidents as well, twice as likely to back into a parking meter or twice as likely to kill someone.

    From your link:

    Gil Kerlikowske, director of National Drug Control Policy, said at the time that a recent report showed 3,952 drivers fatally injured in car crashes tested positive for drugs - about 18 percent of all fatally injured drivers.

    What drugs, and were they impaired of just in their system.  The article is about marijuana and they fail to mention how many fatal accidents were because of people under the influence of marijuana ?  Come on.

    What about the 82% who didn't have drugs in their system and killed someone, no one seems to care about that.  In reality, sober people kill a hell of a lot more people on the highway the chemically impaired drivers.  Where is MASD ?

    I am not defending the behavior, people shouldn't be driving while under the influence, I am just pointing out the ridiculousness of all of it.  Especially form JB who constantly rants against the people who make the pro-marijuana half-fact claims.  And while I agree with her, more or less, it's quite amusing to see her make the same half fact based claims against marijuana.

    We should punish people for acts they actually commit regardless of what is in their blood, not punish them because of what they might do.


    Of course (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 06:36:23 AM EST
    Let's not discuss the problem at hand, let's use the strawman of "Look over there!  There's something just as bad so we can't be honest about the subject at hand!"



    The problem at hand... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 07:54:04 AM EST
    is prohibition...not stoned drivers.  Polis is trying to address it, if the pearl-clutchers don't divert the issue to stoned drivers, which is (imo) a far lesser problem that we will face whether marijuana is illegal or not.

    Regarding our DUI laws, the driver found under the influence of something is automatically at fault, even if they are blindsided by a sober driver running a red light.  How anyone can call that justice is beyond me.


    Maybe because (2.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 08:49:45 AM EST
    1. Your premise is not completely true - a sober person who runs a red light and happens to hit a drunk will almost certainly be found at fault (your issue is that the impaired driver will ALSO be charged for driving under the influence, which they should); and

    2. The moment someone gets behind the wheel of a car and is inebriated or high and puts that car into motion, that person is statistically a greater threat one road than the average driver, and should get a ticket regardless of whether they hit someone or not.

    Like Scott said... (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:08:32 AM EST
    we want to punish people for what they might do.  That is tyranny, not justice.

    do you think there should be no gun/armament laws at all and we only punish people if they use guns/armaments to hurt someone, or to rob them, etc?

    su one (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:08:04 AM EST
    ...do you think there should be no gun/armament laws at all and we only punish people if they use guns/armaments to hurt someone, or to rob them, etc?

    Funny, you just described our current system.  There are no restrictions to buying a gun legally in the US that isn't a military grade weapon.  Certain criminals can't own them, but you covered those people.

    So yes, society concurs with you.


    Good question (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:17:54 AM EST
    I'd like to see fewer rules and regs, like if you wanna collect RPG's that's fine with me. Though there is an inherent danger to guns that isn't there with drugs...they're more similar to cars than drugs and should probably be regulated along those lines.  Just like we need stop signs, we probably need laws against say firing your gun in the air to celebrate the 4th of July.

    familiar to many a TL discussion where it all comes down to a matter of degree.

    To punish someone because they're driving under the influence and might hurt someone is tyranny, but to punish someone because they failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign and might hurt someone, or fired a gun up into the air on the 4th of July and might hurt someone, is justice.


    But the "might" also comes in degrees... (none / 0) (#174)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:24:38 PM EST
    my friend...I might be a small risk to others driving at a .09, but I would be a much greater  risk running a stop sign or shooting my gun at the clouds....no?

    Yet I get arrested if I blow a .09 while driving perfectly safely (a breathalyzer reading never hurt nobody ever), and only get a ticket for running a stop sign...that makes no sense.

    I'd like to think we can learn to tolerate minor risks in the name of freedom and happier lives, and focus on the major risks that we have no choice but to address, and even then err on the side of individual freedom and keep the punishments, when necessary, within reason.


    driving at .09 is waaaaaay higher than the risk to others from him taking a potshot at the clouds, but that's really beside the point.

    The point is once you start deciding that some things should be illegal because of their risk to others, then every thing that's a risk to others is fair game. And most disagreements about them come down to a matter of degree.

    If laws are tyranny then we all support tyranny, at least to some degree.


    And then there was my friend from (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:22:09 PM EST
    college...we were all high and on the move from the dorm for something to eat on a Friday night.  We piled into her car, started down the street, and she just stopped.  "Why are you stopping?" we all asked.  She paused and said, "I don't remember how to drive!"

    After we got over the utter hilarity of that situation - and it took a while, as I recall - one of us who did still remember took over the driving duties and we continued on our quest for food.

    That was - if you can believe it - 40 years ago; some days I am surprised we all survived.


    I found I could not drive while high. (none / 0) (#196)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:14:36 PM EST
    I'd find myself absorbed in looking at another car or a street sign rather than driving the car I was in.

    Maybe if I did it a lot I would have had more practice/comfort in doing it, not that that means it would have been safe.


    I'd take that bet... (none / 0) (#186)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:35:03 PM EST
    I'll drive with a .09 everyday and you fire a bullet straight up everyday, and lets see who hits something first! ;)

    Thanks as always for the food for thought.


    Ya, you made me google (none / 0) (#191)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:04:12 PM EST
    All of their tests, from the pig's head to the 9mm firing to the balloon, showed that a bullet fired perfectly straight up into the air is not lethal.

    Here's what "StraightDope" says:

    For further insight, we turn to Hatcher's Notebook (1962) by Major General Julian S. Hatcher, a U.S. Army ordnance expert. Hatcher described military tests with, among other things, a .30 caliber bullet weighing .021 pounds. Using a special rig, the testers shot the bullet straight into the air. It came down bottom (not point) first at what was later computed to be about 300 feet per second. "With the [.021 pound] bullet, this corresponds to an energy of 30 foot pounds," Hatcher wrote. "Previously, the army had decided that on the average an energy of 60 foot pounds is required to produce a disabling wound. Thus, service bullets returning from extreme heights cannot be considered lethal by this standard."

    If 30 foot pounds doesn't mean much to you, the bullet made a mark about one-sixteenth of an inch deep in a soft pine board -- about what you'd get giving it a good whack with a hammer.  Note that we're talking about bullets shot straight up. If the bullet is fired more or less horizontally, it may not lose much speed before returning to earth and could easily kill someone.

    Here's what SciGuy says:

    However, air resistance makes a big difference and cuts the final speed of the descending bullet to around ten percent of the muzzle velocity, or 150 mph, and its energy is the equivalent to a brick being dropped on your head from the height of four feet or so.

    Experiments conducted with real falling bullets have confirmed that this is enough to cause significant injury and there is anecdotal evidence that they may be lethal.

    Anyway, they all say, understandably, that it's not smart to do it, especially because if you shoot at an angle instead of straight up, the bullet could hit someone at a much higher, perhaps fatal, speed.


    Give Me a Break... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:42:56 AM EST
    The moment someone gets behind the wheel of a car and is inebriated or high and puts that car into motion, that person is statistically a greater threat one road than the average driver, and should get a ticket regardless of whether they hit someone or not.

    Not to point out the obvious, but if we are going to use average, then roughly half the people on the road are statistically bigger threats.

    The insurance industry has already classified people who are statistically more likely get in an accident/pose a greater threat.  They get non-standard(risk) insurance.  

    But this isn't about safety, it's about behavior that they don't like.  I guess I should just be thankful this idiotic 'statistical prediction' is only something for the road, because with my behavior and I am probably statistically prone to do a lot of bad deeds and these MADD types would have me locked up for life before I had the chance.


    There are a lot of drivers - they don't (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:10:28 AM EST
    necessarily know who they are - who ought to be glad we don't have "DWS" laws: Driving While Stupid; stupidity is, it seems to me, the greatest threat to safety, and it covers a lot of territory - texting, talking on the phone, eating, reading, putting on makeup, fixing one's hair, putting on nail polish, changing a baby's diaper (swear to God - I was in a lane next to a car that was kind of swerving a little, and because I was in a mini-van, I could see when I pulled alongside it that the driver had a baby on the seat next to her and was trying to change its diaper while going 60 mph) - and this is before you even get to the "under the influence" stuff.

    Absolutely true (none / 0) (#173)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    Of course, that doesn't account for those who "Drive while stupid" AND are under the influence (which is redundant, in my book).

    And driving while making love (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 02:43:56 PM EST
    Could also have the charges of indecent exposure attached.

    oh? (none / 0) (#90)
    by womanwarrior on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:42:56 PM EST
    Lots of variables:  how strong the weed was, how long since it was smoked, if you are British, etc.  I would rather ride with a person who had smoked a little weed, than someone who had a lot of alcohol, just theoretically, of course.    

    Well...as someone who used to drive stoned (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by shoephone on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:24:53 PM EST
    all the time, I know I did stupid, dangerous things on the road, and I'm lucky to be alive. I wouldn't want to be a passenger with a driver who just drank a martini, OR with his brother who just smoked a bowl.

    "if you are British" Ha! (none / 0) (#159)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:25:50 PM EST
    I don't know of any serious studies. (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:54:54 PM EST
    I'm mostly just reminiscing back to my misspent youth and me and my buddies laughing, afterward, over getting distracted by random stuff while driving stoned.

    I do remember Car & Driver magazine doing some "studies" on this years ago. They had their writers drive a course after 1, then 2, then 3, etc., shots of JD or something, and then also getting progressively more reefed.

    I think one of the "tests" was avoiding a baby carriage pushed out in front of them as they drove.

    Anyway, needless to say, their driving skills deteriorated pretty badly.

    Their comments in the C&D articles were pretty amusing though.


    Did C&D report any results ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 02:29:46 PM EST
    ... regarding what happens when a 90-year-old gets behind the wheel after a few hits from the bong and some Cuervo shooters?

    Yep (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:29:42 PM EST
    It doubles your risk of being in accident and potentially hurting you, but anyone in your car, or in your way.


    I once worked for a co who's mechanic was a 24/7 stoner and he forgot to put brake fluid in a truck I was driving, which I discovered as I entered a big intersection at about 45mph, and although I was able to avoid an accident, it definitely put my life at risk.

    That said, alc and tobacco and guns will kill you directly, I don't think MJ can.


    Sure (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:53:50 PM EST
    But it's not an "either / or" argument.  Just because alcohol, tobacco, and guns may have a more immediate impact, this is nothing to do with the effects of marijuana on driving or on general health.  

    Also, many people who smoke marijuana, as with those who drink too much, have a greater likelihood of engaging in other risky behaviors, (such as also drinking alcohol while being high), because their defenses are down, which can add to potential dangers associated with consuming marijuana.

    This is not to argue that it isn't time to legalize, regulate, and tax it - but those who want to make the argument that MJ isn't bad for you, or does not hold risks, only look foolish. (I know this isn't what you said, SUO).


    Ya I agree, just pointing out a difference (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 02:03:47 PM EST
    between MJ and A/T/F.

    not sure (none / 0) (#198)
    by CST on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:19:29 PM EST
    that it makes you more likely to engage in other risky behaviors.  I guess it makes you the type of person who is willing to engage in risky behavior generally since it is illegal.  But the act of being high doesn't necessarily make you more likely to engage in anything at all.  It kind of makes you lazy.  It's not the type of thing that makes you more likely to go out and get crazy.  That doesn't mean it's not bad for you, just that the behavior you are describing is not necessarily how it is bad for you.

    I agree that driving while high is a bad idea, as it slows down your reaction time.


    Wonder what the morbidity rate is (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 04:39:18 PM EST
    for lung cancer compared to reg. tobacco.

    Hard to tell (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 04:49:00 PM EST
    From what I've read, tobacco smokers tend to smoke way more than marijuana smokers (and sometimes smoke both), but MJ smokers tend to inhale more carcinogen-filled smoke and hold in in longer.  Antoher factor to consider -  since MJ is an illegal drug, use is way underreported by patients to their doctors.

    There is evidence that young MJ smokers could have a higher risk of contracting lung cancer.

    It has also been shown that men who are regular MJ smokers are at greater risk for contracting testicular cancer.


    probably also depends (none / 0) (#195)
    by CST on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:12:39 PM EST
    how you ingest it.

    So, (none / 0) (#41)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 04:42:23 PM EST
    should it be the division of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, firearms and cell phones?

    As More States... (none / 0) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:53:24 PM EST
    ...go legal, it will be become more like A&T in how it's packaged and sold, including the state taxing/stamping.  It's a legal drug, for some, just like A&T.  Of the four, firearms is the one that doesn't belong.  

    Marijuana is the 3rd musketeer IMO.


    From our "Atlas Shrieked" file: (none / 0) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:51:51 PM EST
    Idaho State Sen. John Goedde, chairman of the Senate Education Committee, introduced a bill that would require Idaho high school students to read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."

    Well, two can play at that game. I'm going to talk to the Speaker, and we'll introduce a measure requiring Hawaii high school students to read Jacqueline Suzann's "The Valley of the Dolls." Those who fail the compulsory exam on the novel will be further required to watch the 1967 movie.

    (I know the senator said that he introduced it to make a point and that he's not going to give the measure a public hearing, but once a bill's been introduced and assigned a number, it's now and forever immortalized as part of the public record. Further, his tongue-in-cheek motive behind it will eventually be lost to the passage of time, while some future low-watt wingbat will one day learn of the measure and perhaps believe that Goedde was actually serious.)

    But will the students who are able to (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by shoephone on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:48:36 PM EST
    stand up and tear it apart, as a boring, repetitive trope to fake capitalism and individualism, get suspended from school?

    Poor Idaho. Such a geographically beautiful state, pockmarked with so many thousands of ugly right-wing extremists..


    I read the (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:54:50 PM EST
    Stupid book when I was about 12 years old.  By the time I was 14, I decided that it was full of dreck and Ayn Rand was an idiot.         ;-)

    Here is a great summary of the book (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:38:06 PM EST
    Whoever wrote it can't get credit because the person reposting it only saved the summary when it was posted previously on DU.

    * Mr. Thompson: a lazy, unreasonable, unproductive, whiny, hypocritical, communist, physically repugnant, grammatically challenged head of state who is desperate . . . yeah I know, you get the idea by now, but I had to suffer through more than eleven hundred pages full of tiny little words of this shit, and I want you to feel some of my pain, okay?

    Never read it, just heard (none / 0) (#60)
    by brodie on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:21:36 PM EST
    it's a lousy book to support the notion of individual selfishness.

    Anecdote (amusing):  Recently had some time to kill in a major Secessionist state airport.  Walked past a very attractive dark-haired thirty-something woman who was holding a thick paperback book.  Curious in part about what book she was reading, and also hoping to strike up an interesting conversation, I ambled over to take an empty seat near her.

    Just as I was easing into the chair, she held the book such that I got a fair look at the front cover:  it was Atlas Shrugged -- in Spanish.  I got up immediately and decided to kill time elsewhere.

    The disease is spreading apparently.


    If I had to describe ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:10:49 PM EST
    ... "Atlas Shrugged" in only one word, that word would have to be "stupefying."

    kdog is absolutely right. Ayn Rand was in very serious need of a good editor. Further, I'd offer better than even odds that most people who cite her as a profound inspiration have never actually read the book.

    To the extent that Rand is considered an influence by so many conservatives, I might recommend "Atlas Shrugged" to anyone who's interested in trying to understand that woman's rather unique and pitiless perspective on the human condition.

    That said, however, I'd certainly never make "Atlas Shrugged" required reading as part of some class curriculum -- not unless I wanted to hazard being beaten to death by a stupefied student wielding that heavy volume as both a weapon and an ironic metaphor.



    I don't really understand (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:34:20 PM EST
    Why wingers think it represents anything meaningful.  It is a work of fiction.  Secondly, most of those who claim it is some sort of representation of capitalism at the pub....also often end up having to admit when probed that they have not read it.  Did you think it was kind of a chick book?  I did, I thought it was a bodice ripper.  It's a ton of projected sexual tension. Do the people who demand that kids read it understand that?  Have they read it themselves?  Cracks me up, hey kids, put down that useless Lord of the Flies and read this book about a sexually frustrated business woman.

    Ayn Rand was messed up in the head about sex (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by shoephone on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:16:37 PM EST
    Doesn't take much to see that in her books. Just read the first sex scene between Howard Roark and Dominique Francon in the "The Fountainhead": It's a rape scene.

    Almost all romance novels have rape scenes. (none / 0) (#107)
    by redwolf on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:31:33 PM EST
    Why should a romance novel about Capitalism be any different?

    I wouldn't know (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by shoephone on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:40:56 PM EST
    1. I don't read romance novels.

    2. To my knowledge, "The Fountainhead" has never been considered a romance novel.

    A Romance Novel (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 12:14:47 PM EST
    How did Atlas Shrugged get into the romance novel category?  Where's the romance?  Most romance novels have moments of shared tenderness mixed in with the lust.  If it is all just freaky lust that's erotica.  Everyone in the book is so incapable of human emotions, and you are reading along and reading along and reading along and the reader starts to feel like they are in an isolation tank.  You're thinking to yourself that something's gotta give here and it does, people breakdown and do each other so dirty dogs are ashamed, they bite, scratch, scream, beat, hit, force and whew....back to doing everything you can to have no true emotions again.  And it ends how?  Well part of it is Gault raping Dagney because she is so clever, and he must get some of that?  Who is John Gault?  Uhmmmm, he's some BDSM dude.  Let's line the kids up to read this.

    I haven't seen the movie, but how can any of that be in there if the rightwing nuttia hopes to use this story to brainwash kindergarteners and babies in the cradle?  If they want kids consuming this stuff, Atlas Shrugged the book must disappear.


    heh, darn, I'm not as clever as Dagney though (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    I misspelled Galt. It has been a long time. Once again I find that I will not be worthy of a good raping by the millionaires :)

    Actually, yes (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:17:16 PM EST
    I thought it was a bodice ripper, too.  That's why I read it when I was 12 and going into puberty.  You know, all those hormones surging around.     ;-)
    Then I got a bit older and realized what a complete waste of trees it was.

    Further, Ayn Rand was ... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:34:36 PM EST
    ... not very fond of flying. Hence, from her perspective in 1950s America, she foresaw in her adopted country's future a proliferation of passenger train service, having projected her own fears of flight upon everyone else in the country.

    One wonders what Rand must've thought of the later rise of transcontinental jet travel and the mega-airport (LAX, O'Hare, etc.), and whether she could ever bring herself to admit that the advances in modern air travel rendered her magnum opus even more silly, contrived and self-indulgent than when it was first published in 1957.


    I found (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:40:29 PM EST
    a volume at mom and dad's when I was home from college one summer and i probably was about 19 or 20. I could not make it through the first chapter it was so darn boring. To me it was like reading a text book which at that time I was doing quite a lot of.

    Required is a bit much... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 02:44:12 PM EST
    but it's not the worst idea in the world to make it part of the curriculum...reading is fundamental, and an eclectic reading list is all the better.  Though I would suggest the novella "Anthem", making the kids slog through the (in desperate need of editing) "Atlas Shrugged" could be considered a form of child abuse;)

    I'd imagine Goedde wouldn't want any Vonnegut up on the required reading list though, would he.


    We talked our American Lit teacher ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 03:03:42 PM EST
    ... into letting the class read Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five" instead of John Steinbeck's "The Red Pony," which she had planned to teach. She later admitted that it was the better choice, and we certainly had some very interesting and enlightening in-class discussions.

    Personally, were I to introduce high school students to Steinbeck, I'd choose "The Grapes of Wrath" or "Of Mice and Men." Just out of curiousity, I read "The Red Pony" later in life, and found it to be probably more appropriate for a middle school audience than for high schoolers on the cusp of adulthood.


    "Of Mice & Men"... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 03:13:47 PM EST
    I remember that was required reading in HS, and one of the few required readings I actually read...great book.  

    Tell me about the rabbits George...


    I read Steinbeck on my own. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 03:52:10 PM EST
    "The Grapes of Wrath" is one of my favorite books. The family of my late uncle (by marriage)migrated to California from Dust Bowl-era Kansas in the 1930s and settled in Modesto, when he was about 10 years old. He met my aunt in Southern California during the war, when he was in the Navy.

    I remember his mother telling us stories about the family packing up the farm and heading west, "taking with us pretty much everything that wasn't nailed down." She was a wonderful woman, a real hoot with an earthy sense of humor and she died in 2003 in Glendale at age 106. She was related to me only by virtue of her son's marriage to my aunt, but she was really like a grandmother to my siblings and me.

    Family histories can be facinating stuff, and more of us should try to record them for our own children and grandchildren.


    Having grown up in Cal, (none / 0) (#50)
    by shoephone on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:44:39 PM EST
    Steinbeck is my first literary hero. Anyone who loves "Grapes of Wrath" should also check out "In Dubious Battle," about the California migrant apple pickers going on strike. I think it was published a year or two before GOW.

    But just for great characters, I really enjoyed "Tortilla Flats," which I read shortly after moving to Santa Cruz for college.


    John Steinbeck had earlier written about ... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:42:48 PM EST
    ... the plight of migrant farmworkers in the American west as a journalist, and "In Dubious Battle" reflected his experience in that regard. While it's a wonderful and insightful work, I found its narrative to be curiously detached, as though Steinbeck was writing about his subjects strictly from the perspective of a dispassionate observer.

    In almost stark contrast, "The Grapes of Wrath" is at once ferocious and very personal in its narrative take, and one never doubts for a single instant where Steinbeck's sympathies lay and whose side he's on. This time, in preparation for his task, Steinbeck worked anonymously as a migrant worker in Arvin, CA for almost six months in 1937, and that experience shows in his prose.

    The book's dedication "To Tom - who lived it" is in reference to a U.S. Farm Security Administration camp manager named Tom Collins, who had arranged for Steinbeck to work in his camp.

    Collins was a man who obviously cared very deeply for his desperate charges, and his work serves as a moral center in "The Grapes of Wrath," having provided the welcoming and much-appreciated sanctuary for refugees like Steinbeck's fictional Joad family.


    Tortilla Flats is very good (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:38:26 PM EST
    East of Eden too.

    Log from the Sea of Cortez with his buddy Ed Ricketts....I still remember his observations about all kinds of things.

    Steinbeck was my favorite in high school and beyond until I discovered Cormac McCarthy.


    Steinbeck (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:44:14 PM EST
    is absolutely one of the best writers I have ever read. East of Eden is my favorite book and my dad's favorite was Travels with Charley.

    I have tried to read Grapes of Wrath a few times but  since I have to translate the dialect in my head, it seems to take me too long and I can't seem to get through it.


    I much prefer the Steinbeck (none / 0) (#68)
    by brodie on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:58:24 PM EST
    of the 1930s and Grapes of Wrath to the Steinbeck of the 1960s who got a little too cozy with LBJ and backing his War.  Iirc, one of Steinbeck's sons may have served over in Nam.

    Esst of Eden is my favorite too (none / 0) (#170)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:13:14 PM EST
    but they are all so good.

    Just read a synopsis (none / 0) (#32)
    by sj on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 03:31:11 PM EST
    of "The Red Pony".  It's another one of those books I don't want to read, no matter how well written it is.

    Well, there's certainly better Steinbeck, ... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 03:53:59 PM EST
    ... that's for sure.

    Driving while listening to "Slaughterhouse (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 04:46:24 PM EST
    Five," I s quite hazardous per my personal experience on a two lane mountain road w/o shoulders.

    Thank Gawd you weren't driving up there ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:02:19 PM EST
    ... while listening to "The Valley of the Dolls."

    8th Amendment question... (none / 0) (#102)
    by unitron on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:43:10 PM EST
    "...a measure requiring Hawaii high school students to read Jacqueline Suzann's "The Valley of the Dolls." Those who fail the compulsory exam on the novel will be further required to watch the 1967 movie..."

    So that Constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment doesn't extend to high school students?


    Read my lips: No new Texans. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 02:24:47 PM EST
    One year removed from a near-disastrous campaign for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, Texas Gov. Rick Perry continues to be a national political punchline.

    One week after Perry ran some pretty tacky radio ads out west urging California businesses to "come check out Texas," CA Gov. Jerry Brown laughed off Perry's poaching effort as "barely a fart," while Left Coast media have chimed in with some fairly harsh ridicule of their own:

    "Yes, come check out Texas. Check out a state that ranks dead last in the percent of its population with high school diplomas. Come check out a state that is last in mental health expenditures and workers' compensation coverage. Come check out a state that ranks first in the number of executions, first in the number of uninsured, first in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted and first in the amount of toxic chemicals released into water."

    Perry really ought to start tending to matters at home, where State Judge John Dietz just ruled that the Texas school finance system is unconstitutional.

    and, all those "benefits" (none / 0) (#96)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:05:36 PM EST
    are also the reason so many companies are flocking to Texas to set up facilities. Dumb, undemanding work force, pollution galore.....Heaven on earth for business.

    "We are simply not in a financial position where we can continue to make six-day letter delivery," Patrick R. Donahoe, postmaster general and CEO, told reporters during a morning news conference.

    I suppose that was inevitable. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    Congress has really done a number on USPS this past decade, and given their key role in ensuring annual post office revenue shortfalls, members have absolutely no business complaining about the resultant cut in service.

    What do you mean (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by sj on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 03:29:44 PM EST
    they have no business complaining about the cut in service?  What do you think the point was to begin with if not to weaken Post Office?  Just think of all that mail being delivered for less than a dollar when UPS or FEDEX could be making $20.30 for that same envelope!

    I know, I know. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 03:57:09 PM EST
    God bless private enterprise -- and the suckers who'll have to depend on it when the Post Office is dead and buried.

    The demise of the post office... (none / 0) (#88)
    by desertswine on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:38:28 PM EST
    reminds me of the one lesson I learned in school about the Ottoman Empire.  When you can't handle your own mail system you might as well turn off the lights, lock the door, and go home.

    It's the beginning of the death spiral; (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 03:56:42 PM EST
    it's not really going to save much - there will still be Saturday package delivery, so a bunch of trucks will still be out there, they just won't be delivering other kinds of mail.

    But businesses that depend on a 6-day delivery will likely not just go private for their Saturday mailings, but will end up going private for the entire 6 days.  That's just going to be more cost pushed off onto us - yay!


    Well, I won't go private. (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 04:01:43 PM EST
    I've always used USPS in my business, and have been quite happy with their service. The Post Office is certainly a lot cheaper than FedEx and UPS when I'm sending or receiving legal documents, and they're really just as reliable.

    all true Donald... (none / 0) (#80)
    by fishcamp on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:57:32 PM EST
    but you will no longer be using the USPS on Saturday anymore so get ready for the Fed-ex  bills.

    I generally do not work on Saturday. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:38:18 PM EST
    I only make an exception for meeting with neighbor island clients, because sometimes the only day they can come to Honolulu is Saturday. So the announced change in USPS delivery won't affect me at all.

    Jim Hightower has been doing some great writing (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by DFLer on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:36:28 AM EST
    about the USPS. This is an article from March, 2012

    The Lowdown

    Answering the lies that privatization zealots and FedEx are peddling

    The Post Office is not broke--and it hasn't taken any of our tax money since 1971


    That is an exceptional column (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by sj on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:54:00 AM EST
    But then it's from Jim Hightower.

    a subscription is only 10 bucks (none / 0) (#183)
    by DFLer on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:20:39 PM EST
    (or is it 15?)

    anyhoo, it's cheap. Sign up and support the cause.


    I'll do it first thing tomorrow! (none / 0) (#187)
    by sj on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:36:03 PM EST
    And it's both 10 and 15 bucks.  $10/year for online subscription.  $15/year for newsletter and online subscription.

    Health-Insurance Expansion Eroding (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 03:33:52 PM EST
    CBO predicts

    The number of Americans projected to gain insurance from the U.S. health-care law is eroding, by at least 5 million people, as the Obama administration struggles to implement the $1.3 trillion overhaul amid Republican opposition.

    About 27 million people are expected to gain coverage by 2017, according to a report today from the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO had projected when the law passed in 2010 that 32 million uninsured people would be on a health plan within a decade, and a year later raised its estimate to 34 million.


    There is concern "about a combination of factors, including the readiness of exchanges to provide a broad array of new insurance options, the ability of state Medicaid programs to absorb new beneficiaries, and people's responses to the availability of the new coverage," the CBO said.

    In addition, as many as 8 million people will lose health- care plans now offered through their employers, the CBO estimates. After the health law was passed, the CBO projected that about 3 million people who would otherwise have employer- sponsored insurance would lose that coverage.

    27 million is better than none, but how much lower is this number going to go?

    The problem (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 03:42:19 PM EST
    is that Obama failed at dealing with the root of the problem and that is the insurance business model.

    Imo (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:57:35 PM EST
    the root of the problem is also the stranglehold on the government by profit-making insurance companies. Obama lay down for them faster than a spinning pinwheel.

    Healthcare should not be a profit-making enterprise.



    "OMG"? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:42:28 PM EST
    "The Other Place" is a wonderful and (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:04:36 PM EST
    poignant piece of theatre. Bill Pullman just replaced Daniel Stern.

    NYT review

    'The Americans' is on again tonight (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:08:11 PM EST
    Second showing.  I'm already in love with it, 80's music and the cold war and all.  I have never watched this much TV in my life.  It seems that since the Sopranos television has blown it out of the water.  Always watched a lot of movies but not television.  Is it healthy?  It's so good I can't quit watching.

    Bummed about the soccer scandal.  It's the only sport I follow, I have always loved the coordination and problem solving aspect of it.  But I guess there were times when we did not get the best effort and remember all those games where it seemed the refs were all over one team, and those who seemed too easily carded vs the other player in the game who could no wrong and did a whole lotta wrong?  Bummer

    Big Tent will get to the bottom of it! (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:39:38 PM EST
    I hope so (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:49:38 PM EST
    I can't believe how bummed I am.  Sports don't affect my moods damn it.

    If Paul the octopus was in on the fix (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:51:55 PM EST
    too, that will break me.

    Paul had a contract (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:00:09 PM EST
    put on his head. He knocked down the syndicate's price during the World Cup when he picked the pre-determined winner. The code phrase to carry out the hit was "Strawberry Fields".

    And of course we hope (none / 0) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:54:27 PM EST
    Big Tent isn't in the middle of it. We haven't heard from him since the news broke. Is Jeralyn's license up to date to represent BTD in The Hague?

    Hadn't thought about that (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:16:21 PM EST
    I don't even understand his complex betting schemes.  I know you do.  It appears that hedging is involved?

    I think he's in trial (none / 0) (#110)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 12:45:37 AM EST
    this week.

    Good show (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:50:06 PM EST
    No music though this week (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 07:40:23 AM EST
    Like last week.  So that was a theme for that one episode.  A tiny bummer.  I love how carefully they have dressed the sets.  The Russian spy was wearing Guess jeans.

    One of the joys (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:24:11 AM EST
    of the movie Argo is the period clothing.   Big glasses in particular....Gawd, they were big.

    Yes great clothing there too (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:35:55 AM EST
    Women in palazzo pants in Argo and The Americans.  I'm tired of my butt falling out of todays britches.  Bring back Palazzo pants :)

    Speaking (none / 0) (#57)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:01:41 PM EST
    of the CIA's extraordinary rendition program, Obama's choice for CIA director, John Brennan, is a real pip.

    His qualifications:


    From his basement office in the White House, Mr. Brennan has served as the principal coordinator of a "kill list" of Qaeda operatives marked for death, overseeing drone strikes by the military and the C.I.A., and advising Mr. Obama on which strikes he should approve.



    As a top agency official under President George W. Bush Mr. Brennan had supported, or at least failed to stop, the use of interrogation techniques like waterboarding that are widely considered to be torture.

    Drone strikes. From a playroom in the basement.
    Targeting people not charged with or convicted of anything.

    Torturing and waterboarding people who were never convicted of anything.

    Torture and drones and the enduring stench of the Bush presidency.

    Only a few weeks into Obama's second term, I can't wait for it to be over.

    How refreshing it would be (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by brodie on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:39:27 PM EST
    for some brave soul on the senate committee to question Brennan about whether he will act to ensure the CIA finally releases the roughly 1,100 files it still has kept secret on the JFK assassination.

    Drones and presidential assassination orders are obviously very important to question him about.  So is the matter of that assassination -- probably involving high-ranking CIA officials -- that happened against our president 50 years ago this year.

    There's no excuse for withholding, especially in the context of the official story about it being only the act of a lone nut.  Of course most reasonable people don't buy that nonsense.  Neither does the Kennedy family nor RFK himself, according to his son Bobby Jr.

    Last I checked, the Agency is refusing to release any part of any of the remaining files.  That looks suspicious to me.


    For me, (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:53:32 PM EST
    the Kennedy assassination is the beginning of the era wherein the mob has taken over.

    The assassination itself is classic mafia. The hitman is killed, and the killer of the hitman is killed. Nice.

    And terms like, "take out", meaning to kill, are now part of the vocabulary of government officials.

    Interest rates are now what used to be considered usurious.
    The "vig" is set in stone.

    And when the government kills a rival mob government official, they take out the guy, his children and grandchildren. Classic.

    And someone who is a whistleblower is treated as a "rat" by the media.

    And it all started with the little adventure referred to as the "bay of pigs". Mafia and CIA. Hand in hand. Working together. And when JKF and his brother threatened to get in the way, g'bye.

    Conspiracy theory? Maybe.
    But if it walks like a duck, and lays duck eggs, it probably is in fact a duck.


    And the killer of the hitman (none / 0) (#83)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:11:26 PM EST
    "is killed" - huh?  Of lung cancer?  While awaiting retrial after being convicted of capital murder and winning his appeal?  How does the Mafia give someone lung cancer?

    I think they make the victim ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:45:02 PM EST
    ... sit in a room that's covered floor to ceiling in old asbestos fibers for ten years, all the time shoving whole packs of lit Marlboro Reds in his mouth and making him inhale.

    I'm glad you asked that question, Peter -- so I don't have to.


    You're (none / 0) (#134)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:27:57 AM EST
    being a little literal.

    My point is that the trail is cold, cold and cold.

    And another thing...

    I've never been convinced about Oswald as being the lone assassin.
    Nobody has been able to repeat his marksmanship.

    And, to my knowledge, no assassin of a head of state has ever said, when being apprehended, "I'm just a patsy".


    I always found the Mafia Did It theory (none / 0) (#92)
    by brodie on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:46:59 PM EST
    too simplistic, narrow, and politically convenient to the extent it absolves elements of the USG, ie CIA and probably military brass/intel.  

    They may well though have been enlisted by one of the above groups to act as the "mechanics" of the operation, but they weren't the masterminds or the ones running all the operational machinery of assassination in the before/during/after periods.

    Too many problems with the Mafia Alone theory.  Too many angles and pieces of evidence that aren't accounted for -- but many are accounted for with a CIA-Military-Anti-Castro Cuban Exile theory with Mafia contracts for special on the ground needs.


    OK (none / 0) (#93)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:53:25 PM EST
    Too many problems with the Mafia Alone theory.  Too many angles and pieces of evidence that aren't accounted for -- but many are accounted for with a CIA-Military-Anti-Castro Cuban Exile theory with Mafia contracts for special on the ground needs.

    Mafia plus.

    I'll buy that.


    The evidence is pretty well laid out (none / 0) (#106)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:26:39 PM EST
    in Wikipedia's article on Carlos Marcello.  Frank Ragano, Marcello's former lawyer, claimed it was true, but his assertions did not stand up well to scrutiny.

    Weight loss tips for Christie: (none / 0) (#124)
    by brodie on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:38:36 AM EST
    1. Avoid fad diets.  Don't try to lose it all in a month or two.  Go for a steady chipping-away approach and life style changes, not just corner-cutting approaches which can lead to later gaining back the weight.

    2. Food should be real not processed, mostly (85%) vegetarian including one salad w/raw veggies/day.  Seafood and pollo (baked not fried) ok but not every day. Try make 80% of calories consumed of the alkaline-reacting variety.  whole grains, raw almonds, lentils; fresh fruits.  Study up on what foods to avoid combining at same meal to avoid over-acidity.

    3. Drinking 2 parts Concord Grape Juice diluted by 1 part water 1/2 hr before each meal and as last drink before retiring can help stifle urge for sweets and starchy foods.  Prefer non-concentrated, organic Concord grapes. Do this daily at least until weight is off plus a decent period thereafter, then cut back to 5 days/wk.

    4. Drink plenty of fresh water daily, sipping not guzzling so body can easily assimilate. Eliminate sodas and all carbonated drinks -- hard for body to digest, does a number on teeth enamel over time.

    5. Exercise gradually daily until you can achieve a one-hour vigorous walk, working up a light sweat, with no foot/ankle pain.  No need run or do other hard-impact activities.  Half round golf ok if you walk the course, tennis too or gardening if that's your thing.  Outdoor workouts preferable for fresher air to invigorate lungs and get some natural Vit D (early am, late aft).

    6. Adequate sleep, keep stress levels down.

    That's most of it.  Worked for me years ago, albeit I had far less weight to lose than CC.

    Jesse Jackson, Jr to face jail time? (none / 0) (#127)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:55:17 AM EST

    Sneed has learned a plea deal is now on the table between former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and federal authorities probing allegations of campaign fund misuse.

    Sneed is told the plea deal includes Jackson serving time in federal prison.

    "Significant jail time is now definitely a part of the deal," said a top Sneed source close to the probe.

    "But I think [Jackson's wife] Sandi, feels like she was thrown under the bus by her husband, " now that a separate probe has begun on her, a second source added.

    Sandi Jackson claims she was stunned by campaign finance abuse disclosures against her husband, who has been treated for mental disorders and allegedly spent $40,000 on a Rolex watch purchased with campaign funds.

    That's really too bad. (none / 0) (#169)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    I hope that they work something out, and that Jackson, Jr. gets the help he needs.

    Suffice to say that purchasing a $40K Rolex watch with federal campaign funds isn't something that a longtime congressman or credible congressional candidate who was playing with a full deck would normally do. That alone should have been a sign that something was seriously askew emotionally and / or mentally with the guy.


    Mostly for Donald and BTD (and #5 for oculus) (none / 0) (#129)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:10:23 AM EST
    National Signing Day Recruitment site aggregate rankings for top classes using Scout, Rivals, ESPN and 247 sports:

     1 Alabama
     2 Ohio State
     3 Notre Dame
     4 Florida
     5 Michigan
     6 Mississippi
     7 LSU
     8 Texas A&M
     9 UCLA
    10 Auburn

    Could change slightly as one of the nations top running back recruits (Alex Collins from South Florida) didn't sign yesterday because his mother ran off with his letter of intent when she wanted him to stay close to home and he wanted to sign with Arkansas. My advice to him is, Arkansas may not be far enough and he should now consider Hawaii.

    How about Tailback U? (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:20:28 AM EST
    Or what used to be Tailback U.  Pretty far away...

    USC has been losing recruits ... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:03:30 PM EST
    ... of late who had given verbal commitments, and it's my gut feeling that Trojan Head Coach Lane Kiffin won't be around after this upcoming season. UCLA is on the ascendancy under Coach Jim Mora, and has been the direct primary beneficiary of USC's floundering.

    The Razorbacks do run the football (none / 0) (#132)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:22:17 AM EST
    So, the initial decision made sense.

    OSU could be good too.


    He visited (none / 0) (#136)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:35:19 AM EST
    Miami, Florida, Florida State, Arkansas, and Wisconsin. It's believed his first choice was Wisconsin until the Wisconsin coach went to Arkansas. I don't believe Florida is interested anymore. The mom wants Miami.

    The announcement was set with cameras at his school yesterday morning, which obviously had a last second cancellation. Still no signature from mom which is needed...nor word if anyone has caught up to the runaway mom yet.


    ... to find sanctuary at the University of Hawaii. That's how we ended up with eventual 2007 Heisman Trophy finalist Colt Brennan.

    He has signed with Arkansas this afternoon (none / 0) (#171)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:15:05 PM EST
    but it gets better.

    His father signed the Letter of Intent this afternoon after Arkansas sent another, and his mother has hired a lawyer. The father says he was not aware of any of this yesterday even though it was all over the sports channels and local tv and radio here. Does the father not even know his son plays football and was highly recruited?

    The son called his father last night and asked him to come sign for him. The mother has hired the Johnnie Cochran firm to represent the family. I guess they'll be digging into family court files of old. I now see why Florida backed out of the mess.


    Then it's best that Alex Collins stays ... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:46:16 PM EST
    ... down south, and not venture out west. His family looks like a perpetual case of high maintenance.

    A bizarre ongoing tragedy in L.A.: (none / 0) (#163)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:54:37 PM EST
    An old friend of mine, Jim Donovan, just became athletic director at Cal. St.-Fullerton, and the very first major issue he had to deal with was the then-apparently random killing of Titans assistant women's basketball coach Monica Quan and her fiance, Keith Lawrence.

    Well, this story has since escalated very quickly and very badly, as we learned that Coach Quan was the daughter of Randal Quan, a criminal attorney and retired LAPD captain who four years ago had once defended former LAPD officer Christopher Jordan Dorner in an administrative disciplinary hearing that ultimately led to Dorner's dismissal from the force for making false statements.

    Dorner last week posted a manifesto online, blaming numerous people including Randal Quan for his 2009 firing, and vowing revenge against those he held to have wronged him. Dorner then allegedly instead stalked and killed Quan's daughter and her fiance, shooting both of them in the parking lot at Ms. Quan's condominium in Irvine just after they arrived in the fiance's car.

    Dorner has since initially fled to San Diego, where he attempted to hijack a boat last night at Point Loma harbor and flee to Ensenada. Failing that, he traveled back up I-15 to Riverside, where he ambushed two Riverside police officers at a traffic light at about 1:00 a.m. this morning, killing one and wounding the other.

    He then headed to Corona, toward the house of one of the LAPD officers he named as a target in his manifesto, but got into a shootout with LAPD officers who had been dispatched to that house to protect the occupants. He shot the windows out in their vehicle, and one officer was slightly wounded in that exchange of fire, before fleeing into the night.

    Dorner targeted over 40 people in his manifesto, all og whom are now being protected by security details dispatched to their homes, and a massive manhunt is now underway for him across Southern California. The suspect is for obvious reasons considered heavily armed and quite dangerous, and the odds are pretty good that this ordeal will probably end very badly.

    It's been a big topic (none / 0) (#172)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:20:00 PM EST
    here in LA today

    Here is a the beginning of his manifesto:

    From: Christopher Jordan Dorner /7648
    To: America
    Subj: Last resort
    Regarding CF# 07-004281

    I know most of you who personally know me are in disbelief to hear from media reports that I am suspected of committing such horrendous murders and have taken drastic and shocking actions in the last couple of days. You are saying to yourself that this is completely out of character of the man you knew who always wore a smile wherever he was seen. I know I will be villified by the LAPD and the media. Unfortunately, this is a necessary evil that I do not enjoy but must partake and complete for substantial change to occur within the LAPD and reclaim my name.

    And he's now apparently up in Big Bear. (none / 0) (#188)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:39:29 PM EST
    The local schools are in lockdown, after a truck believed to belong to Dornier was found abandoned and set afire in that mountain resort community.

    SPAM Alert. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:59:53 PM EST

    Site Violator (none / 0) (#168)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:04:46 PM EST
    is my assumption when people peddle themselves and provide a link. Turkish ayn rand?