Friday Open Thread

Here's a new open thread, all topics welcome.

< Obama Interview on ISIS, Iraq and Syria
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Congrats to Dadler Jr. and his band (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Dadler on Fri May 22, 2015 at 11:07:03 AM EST
    My man Eli... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by kdog on Fri May 22, 2015 at 11:52:59 AM EST
    It's awesome that he's sticking with the music D...I expect to see him one day in the horn section on the circuit!

    And good to see you off hiatus.  Hope all is well.


    I guess the Christian right will (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Anne on Fri May 22, 2015 at 11:28:22 AM EST
    have to find a different family to be the poster children for purity and perfection, now that it has been revealed that Josh Duggar, one of the "19 Kids and Counting" Duggar family, sexually molested underage girls (who, from the reading of the police reports, appear to have been his own sisters), and his family covered it up.

    It's giving me a serious case of the creeps.

    It get's way creepier (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CST on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:32:48 PM EST
    "When Jim Bob finally did turn Josh in, he took him to Arkansas state trooper Jim Hutchens who failed to report the case. Hutchens is now serving a 56-year sentence in prison for child pornography"



    Yes, Josh's mother told the later (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 11:27:14 AM EST
    Investigators that State Trooper Hutchens was a family friend....that they weren't very close to....but decided to essentially bury this report ????  Very creepy

    Josh, (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:52:46 PM EST
    Well, I'm sure his parents (none / 0) (#3)
    by Zorba on Fri May 22, 2015 at 11:43:39 AM EST
    Forgave him.  And, most importantly, I'm sure they all sincerely believe that God and Jesus have forgiven him.  (Don't know about the victims, though.)
    Ugh.  And he has kids of his own, doesn't he?  I'd be more than a little nervous about that, if I were his wife.    
    I'm creeped out, too.

    Well, it's practically beyond question ... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:43:36 PM EST
    ... that God has forgiven Josh Duggar, because Josh himself attested to that yesterday in his announcement that he's resigning his position as lobbyist for the Family Research Council. Maybe he and the Rev. Matt Maleka, the gay-bashing gay pastor who was outed the other day, can get together and form a new organization.

    (Sigh!) So many right-wing Christians, but so few lions.


    What do (none / 0) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:53:00 PM EST
    have against lions? Those meat puppets are rotten to the core, suitable only for rat poison at best.

    "Get that for me... (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 11:47:25 AM EST
    .....would ya Deidre?"

    Never seen the show.  No idea what their affiliation is, doubt it's Catholic.  But every time I see a reference to that show I think of the above.

    Personally anyone who wants 19 kids is a red flag.


    They are some kind of Protestant Evangelicals (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Fri May 22, 2015 at 11:53:45 AM EST
    Who are part of the Quiverfull movement.

    And while his behavior cannot be excused, the media reporting on this makes it was even creepier and suggest these things occurred while he was an adult, while in fact, he, too was underage (he was 14-15).


    The worst (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:05:39 PM EST
    part is the dad withheld the information though I guess it would be hard to accept that your child did this kind of thing.

    There is so much, it is hard to (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:34:06 PM EST
    rank which is the worst, but notably absent from much of what I've read is any indication that these young girls got any help dealing with being molested by their brother.

    One detail that just makes my stomach hurt is this:

    Jim Bob told police in 2006 that when Josh returned home in 2003, Jim Bob, accompanied by some of his church elders, took Josh to Arkansas State Trooper, Jim Hutchens. Jim Bob knew Hutchens personally. Hutchens did not take any official action and instead gave Josh a "very stern talk." As In Touch magazine reports exclusively in this week's issue, Hutchens is now serving 56-years in prison for child pornography. He took no action on the Duggar case.

    Makes me fear for Joh Duggar's children, too.


    Wow (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 22, 2015 at 01:09:29 PM EST
    that's even worse that what I have read granted I did not read deeply on this subject. I thought he had withheld the info for a year before turning in his son. According to that it was almost a decade.  I seriously doubt the girls will get any help unfortunately.

    Hard to accept (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:07:50 PM EST
    or ........

    Just sayin.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:12:31 PM EST
    I know. Evangelicals need to start cleaning up their ranks for sure. I have to wonder if they ever check anybody out. They seem really gullible to me.

    BTW liked your comment on the focus group. Beltway sure is out of touch for sure.


    Quiverfull (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 11:59:01 AM EST
    Learned a new word

    Quiverfull is a movement among some conservative evangelical Protestant couples, chiefly in the United States, but with some adherents in Canada,[1] Australia, New Zealand, Britain and elsewhere.[2] It promotes procreation, and sees children as a blessing from God,[2][3][4] eschewing all forms of birth control, including natural family planning and sterilization.[5][6] Adherents are known as "quiver full", "full quiver", "quiverfull-minded", or simply "QF" Christians. Some refer to the Quiverfull position as Providentialism,[7] while other sources have referred to it as a manifestation of natalism.[8][9] Currently, several thousand Christians worldwide identify with this movement,[5] although entire Christian sects hold many beliefs correlative to those who self-identify as Quiverfull adherents.


    That explains a lot


    Interesting I think (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 04:11:15 PM EST
    think of children as weapons.  Or ammunition.



    "Pull!" (none / 0) (#59)
    by Mr Natural on Fri May 22, 2015 at 06:37:57 PM EST
    It's good to be the king.

    The article Anne linked to (none / 0) (#14)
    by sj on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:08:34 PM EST
    makes his age clear.

    But that actually brings up another issue: very often abusers (especially young abusers) have been abused themselves. Where does this particular chain start, I wonder, and how far back does it go?

    Actually, I don't really wonder. It's more of an idle thought, and a reflection that this is all just so sad. And probably so much bigger for that family than it seems to be now.


    Perhaps the delay in this (none / 0) (#17)
    by nycstray on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:16:59 PM EST
    Being reported isn't helping with the media. Also, the family was less than truthful in admitting this, so several reports I've read need adjusting. I believe it was officially reported in 2006 by Harpo Productions, so that could add some age confusion. Still, at 14 you do not touch your sisters, especially the 4 yo  and not reach total creepy factor.

    Children who molest other children (none / 0) (#21)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:32:43 PM EST
    Often have been molested themselves.  There is no evidence yet one way or the other in this particular case, but it is worth noting,

    While he was underage, as well, (none / 0) (#25)
    by Zorba on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:40:01 PM EST
    Does anyone know the age of the victims?
    And most fourteen-year-olds, while still very immature themselves, would know enough not to fondle girls younger than they are, or even their age, if the girls were unwilling.
    The thing that makes it even creepier is how the family "handled" it.

    jbindc: "And while his behavior cannot be excused, the media reporting on this makes it was even creepier and suggest these things occurred while he was an adult, while in fact, he, too was underage (he was 14-15)."

    FWIW, the story I read in the Los Angeles Times said right up front that Josh Duggar was not yet an adult at the time.

    From what else I've read, apparently Daddy Duggar failed to report sonny boy's actions to the authorities for over a year, and the statute of limitations thus expired before they could finish their investigation and consider possible charges.

    Onward, Christian soldiers.


    Of course I do (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Fri May 22, 2015 at 01:13:46 PM EST
    The irony being, that around here among some commenters and authors at least, if we were talking about a 14 or 15 year old being put in jail or prison for their crimes - not the child of evangelical Christians - there would be more hooting and hollering about how the adolescent brain isn't fully developed, how we should try therapy not prison to save these youngsters instead if ruining their lives forever, yadda yadda yadda. (See Michael Brown, Joran van den Sloot, Trayvon Martin, Dzokhar Tsarnaev, etc.) I mean, there's even a whole section of this blog that is devoted to it.

    I have always maintained, that barring an extremely low IQ, or some sort of brain damage, that yes, 14 and 15 year olds know the difference between right and wrong, especially in clear cut instances such as this. I've been mocked for it and received scathing commentary, but now because it's a Duggar it's shocking that nothing was done.

    Delicious irony (or hypocrisy - your choice).


    I'm less concerned about 14 year old (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by CST on Fri May 22, 2015 at 01:25:26 PM EST
    Josh getting his come-uppance as I am about the fact that his parents covered it up for him, that it happened repeatedly, that he didn't receive therapy, that as far as we know nothing was done for the girls (regarding therapy), that the man they reported it to was involved in child pornography, and that he now uses his position to argue that gays must be kept away from people because they are child-molesters.

    There's a whole lot of reasons to be disgusted by this case, that have nothing to do with Josh's lack of a jail sentence.

    For that matter, I haven't seen anyone say that he should've been sentenced to prison or tried as an adult (which is what the majority of the people here are against in these types of cases).  And excuse me, but not a single person here suggested Tsarnaev didn't deserve prison.  And as far as Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin are concerned, I believe the issue is that they were killed.  So just stop it with the freaking straw person.  


    No straw man - just calling people out (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Fri May 22, 2015 at 01:50:09 PM EST
    1) It's perfectly fine to call the Duggars out on their hypocrisy and level of involvement.  But what about the other girls?  What about their parents?  Did they get any help (if they needed it?)

    2)I know you're smart can use your  brain and extrapolate things like using their age and defining their behaviors and what should be done about them. In many cases, folks around here want to make excuses - except when it deals with people they don't like.

    If you don't like the examples I provided, just comb through the hundreds of comments you and others have made here in relation to any juvenile who is in trouble with the law.  I provided a link to one post here, and there's a whole section here.


    and it's all about how juvenile's (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by CST on Fri May 22, 2015 at 01:59:06 PM EST
    shouldn't be tried as adults.

    Which no one is arguing against in this case.  Not a single person is suggesting that 14 year old Josh had the mental capacity of an adult.  So continue your crusade if you want, but I'm not buying it.

    And feel free to comb through all of my comments, but you won't find what you're looking for.


    IMHO, I think it's a little premature to ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 22, 2015 at 02:19:29 PM EST
    jb: "In many cases, folks around here want to make excuses - except when it deals with people they don't like. If you don't like the examples I provided, just comb through the hundreds of comments you and others have made here in relation to any juvenile who is in trouble with the law."

    ... "call people out" when in this particular instance, nobody here has thus far offered the sort of argument which you're attempting to rebut.

    Further, comparing this issue to Michael Brown, etc., is rather a stretch, and nobody thus far has done that, either, except for you.

    So, whether you realized it or not at the time while you were typing your replies, you've not only contructed a classic strawman, you've also managed to move the goal posts from Mt. Si High School to Juvenile Court.




    Oops! Never mind, jb. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 22, 2015 at 02:29:35 PM EST
    I accidentally conflated two entirely different sub-threads. What you've said makes perfect sense regarding the Duggars issue. I don't know why I thought I was still in the Mt. Si subthread.

    My bad, and my apologies.

    That should be my hint to disengage, and finish our packing. The movers are coming this afternoon at 3:00 p.m. to load up our stuff, so that we can ship it out on tomorrow's barge to Hilo.

    Aloha. ;-D


    Indeed, jbindc, you make a good point here (none / 0) (#41)
    by christinep on Fri May 22, 2015 at 02:11:24 PM EST
    Certainly, this 14 year old was well past the age of reason.  I don't excuse the wrong; and, I'm guessing that you do not condone the alleged actions either. The other obvious thing about this situation, tho, has to be the real and (possibly) presumed role of the father ... a role that could go toward mitigation.

    We all have a bit of the inconsistency--and, maybe, hypocrisy--in our human selves, don't we? So, that people might almost relish when those who preach intolerance are shown to have a dark, ashen double-life is a fact of life and fiction.  That is why Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter" is durable in our society.  It is natural, after all, to vent and say "ah ha" when the tables turn.  That urge is heightened in the case of those who preach the loudest and most vehemently against what they consider immoral behavior being caught in behaviors universally held to be wrong.


    I'd settle for him being listed (none / 0) (#178)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun May 24, 2015 at 09:42:32 AM EST
    as a sex  offender.

    If anyone should be behind bars, it should be the adults who covered the whole thing up.


    They are (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:02:33 PM EST
    independent fundamentalist Baptists which many people myself included consider a cult. Their 19 kids and counting family reminds me of some kind of Warren Jeffs freak show.

    Apparently the attraction (none / 0) (#15)
    by Repack Rider on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:10:49 PM EST
    ...of a show featuring morons is that practically anyone can look at them and feel better about themselves.  There are a plethora of such shows,
    Swamp People, Phil Richardson, the Duggars, the stupid wives of whatever, etc

    Of course, if I were to look at them at all, I would feel bad about myself for doing so.


    Ha (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:17:28 PM EST
    ive been saying this for years about reality shows.  I have found that people can be surprisingly unaware of their own movivations and unappreciative of having it pointed out.

    Well (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:30:26 PM EST
    speaking for myself only as someone who used to watch the Real Housewives I found it to be a replacement for soap operas. Then one day I realized that the whole thing was a farce and soap operas had actual story lines and character development and all these jokers did was encourage the cat fight culture in the media.

    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Repack Rider on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:31:41 PM EST
    I reached all your same conclusions just by HEARING about the show!

    You apparently (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 22, 2015 at 01:11:41 PM EST
    were not as bored as I was at one time. LOL

    Heh (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:53:29 PM EST
    speaking only for me.

    There is no degree of boredom that would have me watching Real Housewives or any soap opera.

    I would rather be bored in peace.


    The Police Reports just got tossed (none / 0) (#115)
    by Mr Natural on Sat May 23, 2015 at 01:23:38 PM EST
    down the Memory Hole.

    Arkansas police have destroyed the records of Josh Duggar's nearly decade-old molestation case.

    Springdale Police spokesman Scott Lewis told the Associated Press that Judge Stacey Zimmerman ordered the 2006 offense report destroyed Thursday. Zimmerman didn't return a request for comment on Friday.

    "The judge ordered us yesterday to expunge that record," Lewis said, adding that similar records are typically kept indefinitely. "As far as the Springdale Police Department is concerned this report doesn't exist."

    To "expunge" a record (none / 0) (#119)
    by Peter G on Sat May 23, 2015 at 01:52:07 PM EST
    normally does not mean to "destroy" it. Typically, although this can vary state to state, it means to seal the record against all but specified future uses. In Arkansas in particular, it appears that "expungement" essentially means "sealing" of records. I wonder if "destroyed" is the journalist's misinterpretation, rather than a fact.

    This made me laugh (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 04:09:05 PM EST
    Ex-Staffer: `I'd Rather Go to Iraq than Work for Carly Fiorina'

    Twelve ex-Fiorina campaign workers told Reuters that, if given the chance to work Fiorina again, they'd rather not. One anonymous senior staffer reportedly said they'd prefer to be sent to Iraq. Ouch.

    Ireland has become the first country (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by caseyOR on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:37:05 PM EST
    to enact marriage equality by national referendum. It looks like the Irish voted 2-1 for equality. Way to go, land of my people.

    This is quite and amazing vote. Of all the majority Catholic countries in the world, Ireland was arguably the one most under the thumb of Holy Mother Church. As we have seen time and again as more Church scandals have been uncovered, the Irish people suffered mightily under that thumb. This vote is a huge sign that Ireland has repudiated the Church's death-grip on the lives of the Irish people.

    Yea! Ireland.

    Yes, this is a great day (none / 0) (#130)
    by KeysDan on Sat May 23, 2015 at 03:30:18 PM EST
    for all the people of Ireland.  The Catholic Church has lost its supposed moral authority as a result of the widespread child abuse scandals, which was reflected in the vote.  But, I believe, too, that the Irish vote signifies the rapid social changes in the country with equality for all.   The two, though, are probably interrelated.

    In Ireland, apparently, any change at all to its Constitution requires a public referendum. While not wanting to be the skunk at today's garden party, I do want to register my general reservations with determining matters of human rights by popular vote.

    As Justice Kagan stated during the recent oral arguments on this issue in our country, "the Courts have a role in protecting minorities even when majorities made their views known at the polls....we are not a pure democracy, we are a Constitutional democracy."  

    The let the people decide is the old saw of the Scalias of the world (when the 'think of the children' mantra wears too thin}.    But, today is a day to share in the Joy of the Irish.  Tomorrow we look forward to the  US Supreme Court finding of equality for all Americans.


    If the Catholic Church has lost (none / 0) (#159)
    by Peter G on Sat May 23, 2015 at 09:10:10 PM EST
    it "moral authority" and political grip on Irish social policy, why does Ireland still have such restrictive anti-abortion laws?

    One step at a time,Peter. (none / 0) (#166)
    by caseyOR on Sat May 23, 2015 at 10:47:17 PM EST
    I would not be surprised if Ireland eventually loosens its abortion restrictions. That said, the Catholic Church is hardly the only opponent of womens reproductive autonomy. Witness the anti-abortion groups in the U.S. Many are not Catholic.

    Our bodies (none / 0) (#168)
    by nycstray on Sat May 23, 2015 at 11:07:29 PM EST
    are a religious free for all . . .

    The Irish sided with the (none / 0) (#179)
    by fishcamp on Sun May 24, 2015 at 09:56:25 AM EST
    English against the Scottish, at the battle of Culloden, thereby assuring the Scottish defeat.  The Scots still refer to the Irish as redcoats.

    English Bulldog (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 04:19:21 PM EST
    Ha.... that was one happy canine. (none / 0) (#145)
    by desertswine on Sat May 23, 2015 at 07:45:00 PM EST
    The somersaults (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Sat May 23, 2015 at 07:57:30 PM EST
    are hilarious..

    Just (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by jbindc on Sun May 24, 2015 at 09:02:05 AM EST
    came back from what has now become the pre-Memorial Day tradition for the BF and me. We got up early and walked up the trail across from the apartment, about a 1/4 mile up the trail is a footbridge that spans I-66.  We take a little breakfast and go up there and wave at the hundreds of motorcyclists that are in town headed for the beginning of the annual Rolling Thunder Run. (There are actually about tens of thousands that take part in the whole rise, but they come in from all over, so we only saw a small portion).

    It's really cool - there were a few other people on the bridge with us, a couple of small boys, and they were all waving flags.  We all waved and flashed "peace" signs to the bikers and their passengers as they passed under us, and most of them beep their horns, wave, and flash "peace" signs back.  And many of them are also riding really sweet bikes.  

    We are going to the baseball game later, so we won't be down around the Mall to see them do their annual ride, but maybe next year.

    Tomorrow, we may pop over to Arlington Cemetery, since it's only a couple of miles from our house (but early!  Before the heat, before the president gets there to speak and stops traffic, and before the millions of tourists!)  Last time I went to Arlington on Memorial Day, I literally (used correctly) walked off the metro and smack dab into the Westboro Church crowd, so I'm hoping there isn't a repeat of that.

    Have a good Memorial Day everyone.  Take a few minutes out of your grilling, swimming, and fruit baskets and remember the fallen.

    Sounds like a lovely day and (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Anne on Sun May 24, 2015 at 09:33:59 AM EST
    a nice tradition...

    We are a lucky family, not having lost any family members while serving in the US military, but I think of them, the ones who are no longer with us, and thank God they were allowed to serve and come home.  We wouldn't be, most of us, had that not been the case.

    And I think of all those who weren't so lucky, about the families that were ripped apart, about the families that never were.

    And, not to get too political, but I think about how I wish more people in power gave more thought to the solemn responsibility and sacred trust that's supposed to exist when deciding when and whether to send our military men and women off to war.

    Enjoy your day - and don't forget the sunscreen!


    Hypocrisy.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:04:38 PM EST
    NYC is abuzz over the rip-off artist selling 30 dollar dirty water dogs to gullible tourists near Ground Zero.

    Dude's a piece of sh*t, but just inside the 9/11 Memorial they're selling polo shirts for 175 dollars.

    Pot meet kettle.  And they both ain't got nuthin' on the Wall St. hustle!

    So much for sacred ground, eh?  Like Chris Rock said, there ain't nuthin' this country won't commercialize.  We're a few years away from 9/11 sales at Macy's.

    ... which has long been considered hallowed ground by many Americans. (In fact, the USS Arizona Memorial is the single most visited site in Hawaii.) But then, you want to see hucksters, hustlers and overpriced kitsch and chachkies, all you have to do is go seven miles east to Waikiki. There, "tacky and garish" is an art form.

    re speech suppression and "Tinker" (none / 0) (#10)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:04:44 PM EST
     I mentioned in previous open thread the situation with the suppression of the hot-or-not contest via facebook page re girls at Mount Si Hs near Seattle Washington. . . .

    the asst principal called me back and said that she regarded and/or the school regarded the H-r-Not contest as disruptive and therefore suppressible per Tinker.

    Agree or doubt?   If you agree or doubt, do you wish to indicate if you are a lawyer, law student or have legal training?

    I have no strong view . . . it is simply less obviously suppressible than the usual things . . .

    I wonder if they should simply have some legal bikini competitions instead . . .

    Speaking only for (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:06:51 PM EST
    my non legal self,  more information please.


    You can use tiny url


    Part of the issue is (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:33:15 PM EST
    All or most of the girls (it isn't clear from what I found) didn't consent to this and are trying to stop it.  Seems that alone would be enough for the school to claim a "material disruption" under Tinker.

    And to expound on that, ... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 22, 2015 at 01:52:39 PM EST
    ... the activity in question is exclusive to the Mt. Si HS student body, and further its clearly stated and intended target is Mt. Si female students. Those facts should give school administrators the requisite authority to put a stop to it, in the face of student and parental complaints.

    Personally, I'm of the opinion that the First Amendment does not exist simply for its own sake. Rather, it is part of a larger whole that is our Constitution, a document which preserves for us always our right to exercise sound judgment in accordance to not only the law itself, but also our own common sense.

    I believe that "Hot or Not" is a form of bullying and as such, it should not be considered as protected speech -- especially since we're talking about the victimization of underage kids.



    of course it's a form of bullying (none / 0) (#76)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 22, 2015 at 11:45:50 PM EST
    and the "scoring" is done in public, for only one purpose; to hurt girls' self-esteem, and just to hurt.....period.

    Yes. And sadly, it's adults who ... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 23, 2015 at 02:35:43 PM EST
    ... are turning this into some sort of contest about the First Amendment, not the male students at Mt. Si HS. Ask those boys what their motive was, and you're probably not going to hear a bunch of original thought from them about being free speech advocates. And if you do, it's more than likely because an adult has advised them to respond accordingly to any questions about the controversy.

    No, their obvious intent with "Hot or Not?" was to both humiliate and (perversely) admire some of their female classmates, for that universal reason known to most all straight adolescent boys since time immemorial -- which is that girls are simultaneously mysterious, desirable and threatening.

    In this instance, the boys' behavior is both non-constructive to the goal of education and further demoralizing to student morale, and school authorities are absolutely right to put a stop to it.

    Let's please keep out powder dry for those times when our rights under the First Amendment are clearly under duress, rather than take up arms in this particular instance on behalf of some teenaged boys who obviously think that some of their females classmates are either babes or b*+ches, and so therefore desire to put them in their respective places.



    If there were a similar site (none / 0) (#26)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:40:03 PM EST
    where the female students divided the boys into "Hunks or Skunks", there would've been lawyers calling up the school district faster than you could say Jack Robinson as soon as they appeared on Facebook.

    But some parents believe (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by jbindc on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:44:37 PM EST
    "Boys will be boys".

    Might have missed it but, (none / 0) (#75)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 22, 2015 at 11:40:27 PM EST
    what's "Tinker?"

    "Tinker" is the leading (none / 0) (#81)
    by Peter G on Sat May 23, 2015 at 10:52:03 AM EST
    U.S. Supreme Court case on the free speech rights of public school students.

    and . . . (none / 0) (#98)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:06:21 PM EST
    While it is very very murky to me (not a lawyer and not in possession of all facts other than some girls claim to be upset about it) about the constitutionality of suppressing the contest . . .
    given that you at least know the decision . . .

    do you tend to agree or doubt the constitutionality of suppressing it?


    re tinker . . . (none / 0) (#92)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:01:35 PM EST
    If a person wishes to evaluate a law or situation in terms of right and wrong and in terms of the constitution . . .  one helpful step is to read and consider the main constitutional precedents which relate to the case.  Of course, the US Supreme Court is at times morally or practically wrong and at times reverses or qualifies itself . . . but their decisions are a basic first step standard for evaluating at least some things, especially in a form of legal discussion.

    Your and my sense of right and wrong might be dramatically different, but we can at least agree upon the basic meaning of most SC decisions . . .

    In "tinker" the court evaluated the case of some kids who wore black armbands in protest of the US participation in the Vietnam war . . . in a school in which other kids were permitted to wear other symbolic items, including the iron cross.

    The court ruled for the kids, claiming that wearing black armbands did not rise to the level of sufficient disruption or risk of sufficient disruption to justify suppressing wearing them . .  . although wearing them did spark some arguments and irritated words from supporters of the war . . .

    Anyway, if and when "you" (any random member of the public) wishes to discuss or ponder suppression of various kinds of speech in or related to schools, then, Tinker is one decision that should be known . . .

    One real bad problem is that kids in high school, at least when I graduated, go to school and experience decisions related to their speech . . .
    and kids such as I, who participated in journalism, the school newspaper and the debate team, never heard of Tinker . . .  If the kids have never heard of Tinker, they have much less chance of conforming their speech to what might be defensible on the Tinker standard.

    And, that alone is not very good, whatever we might think of the Hot-Or-Not contest and whatever we might think of suppressing it or alternatives to the Hot-Or-Not contest.


    Ah, thanks all n/t (none / 0) (#157)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 23, 2015 at 09:03:55 PM EST
    For what it's worth, (none / 0) (#40)
    by Zorba on Fri May 22, 2015 at 02:11:16 PM EST
    TMZ is reporting that TLC has pulled the Duggar's  show from their line-up, but:

    Sources familiar with the situation tell TMZ, the fate of the show is uncertain, but there's now so much heat in the wake of Josh Duggar's molestation confession ... the network had to make the decision.
    We're told they absolutely have not made a long-term decision, but it's clearly a bad sign for the show.
    And there's this ... a rep for General Mills tells TMZ, they have already blacklisted the show and removed it from their company's current advertising schedule.

    Take it in what sense thou wilt.  This is TMZ, after all.

    Well (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 22, 2015 at 02:18:13 PM EST
    TMZ can be no more or less accurate than a lot of the other media these days. Usually they have decent Hollywood sources but not always. I would imagine that this is probably true. I would think they have one potato on their hands and are pulling it while they are trying to figure out what to do.

    I know several people who watch the show.


    Well, you're correct about (none / 0) (#45)
    by Zorba on Fri May 22, 2015 at 02:56:33 PM EST
    the "accuracy" of a lot of the media now.  Sadly.
    If the General Mills part is accurate, what is most likely to influence TLC (IMHO) would be if a lot of their advertisers pull out.
    After all, "money talks."
    That is also sad, but it's true.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:15:37 PM EST
    unfortunately money will probably be the deciding factor.

    I have to wonder about TLC though? Do they not do some extensive research on people before they sign these contracts? You would think TLC would have an army of lawyers so they didn't have this kind of thing happen.


    I'm sure it's a calculated risk on the network's (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:31:53 PM EST
    part. They made plenty of money on advertising on this show over the years. If the money goes away now, it is just a lot sooner than they expected, but they have not actually lost anything unless they were stupid enough to guarantee the Duggars a certain amount of time on the air.

    Well (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:47:13 PM EST
    what I really was talking about was before they even put the show on the air. I mean the show started in 2008 two years after the molestation was found out.

    In the case of companies sponsoring a TV (none / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:36:11 PM EST
    show, I don't find it sad that money talks. That is how shows get on the air on network and non-subscription cable TV.

    Not saying you are doing this, but I have seen many friends insisting sponsors should keep paying to keep shows on the air after some scandal the person personally disagrees with - Don Imus for example. No company is required to keep advertising on any show they find offensive.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by FlJoe on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:43:00 PM EST
    this is the invisible hand of the free market working as advertised. No brand wants to be associated with haters, hucksters and hypocrites.

    Makes you wonder how Fox manages (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Anne on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:45:20 PM EST
    to get any advertising, doesn't it?

    I (none / 0) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Fri May 22, 2015 at 04:08:44 PM EST
    think it was Charlie pointed out that the free hand has a side gig as a proctologist, case in point here.

    Amen (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:44:37 PM EST
    the talking of money is a very big reason to expect good news from the SC on marriage equality.

    And the reason Indiana and Arkansas right wing pols ran under the porch with their tails between their legs recently.


    That's how Rush Limbaugh's critics ... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 23, 2015 at 01:31:39 PM EST
    ... went after him indirectly, in the wake of his crude and incendiary on-air comments about Sandra Fluke's sex life. They successfully targeted both his advertisers and local stations which carried his syndicated program rather than directly confront EIB, the network which employs and promotes him.

    Once many of those sponsors and stations were made aware of exactly what Limbaugh was saying to his audience, they not only subsequently dropped his show but also issued public statements explaining why. KPUA-AM in Hilo was the first in the country to do so, and per its management:

    "We have always encouraged spirited discussion about national and local issues on KPUA and from time to time those discussions may be deemed by some to be objectionable. We are strong believers in the first amendment (sic) and have recognized Mr. Limbaugh's right to express opinions that often times differ from our own, but it has never been our goal to allow our station to be used for personal attacks and intolerance. The most recent incident has crossed a line of decency and a standard that we expect of programming on KPUA whether it is locally produced or a syndicated program like the Rush Limbaugh show.

    "While much of the national debate regarding this issue is now being framed in political terms, the decision for us is one of decency and responsibility. Regardless of one's political views on the issue being discussed, we feel the delivery was degrading and the continued comments over several days to be egregious. As a result, we are discontinuing the Rush Limbaugh program on KPUA effective immediately." (Emphasis is mine.)

    While Limbaugh is still on the air in most parts of the country, the prompt actions taken by his critics with his show's advertisers and syndicated stations ensured that his verbal assaults on Ms. Fluke ended up damaging his name brand significantly in the eyes of the public.

    Three years ex post facto, I would simply note that mainstream media no longer carry stories about Limbaugh's antics, as they once did with regularity prior to the firestorm which engulfed him. He's been marginalized and reduced, and that's good.



    So Fox (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 22, 2015 at 06:19:04 PM EST
    news here in Atlanta says TLC pulls Duggar family series amidst accusation of misconduct. ????

    Misconduct covers a lot of things but not this one.

    Hey (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 06:27:54 PM EST
    i was thinking about the republican debate dilemma.   I think I have a solution.  

    A cage match.

    It could totally be Pay per View.  I would pay.


    A friend (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 22, 2015 at 06:41:05 PM EST
    and I were talking about how they should do mud wrestling. That could be pay per view too. Maybe the Duggars could join in.

    There may be some bucks in it too. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by EL seattle on Fri May 22, 2015 at 08:03:55 PM EST
    Organizers of the Mitt Romney v, Evander Holyfield "boxing" match last week probably raised about a million bucks for CharityVision.

    Maybe the participants in every debate could be debating on behalf of a charity (a la Celebrity Apprentice).  Callers could vote for the hopefuls with donations via the same methods they use on The Voice and shows like that, and the winners would advance to something like the "League of Women Voters Round".

    Showbiz! Ratings Bonanza! Everybody wins! (But I guess that maybe I just want to see Carson Daly give Donald Trump a "so sorry" hug after he doesn't make the cut to the final round...)


    A mud wrestling cage match (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 06:47:43 PM EST



    My money (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 06:52:41 PM EST
    would be on Carly.   She would totally put those wimpy chicken hawks in short pants.

    Baa waa waa (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 22, 2015 at 07:50:44 PM EST
    me too. Did you see today where something like 12 of her former employees came forward and said they couldn't think of anything worse than having to work for her. They said despite her millions she didn't pay them.

    So yeah, baybee Carly would take them all out and then her former employees should show up shortly and take her out.

    It's the DEATH MATCH.


    And here (none / 0) (#67)
    by Zorba on Fri May 22, 2015 at 08:34:27 PM EST
    is the link regarding her ex-staffers.
    One anonymous senior staffer reportedly said they'd prefer to be sent to Iraq.

    Sorry, Howdy (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Zorba on Fri May 22, 2015 at 08:38:04 PM EST
    I posted this before reading your earlier comment #55.
    All credit to the Captain!

    Kids! (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 08:38:36 PM EST
    i posted this above the origin of this sub thread.  A little credit please.

    See my comment (none / 0) (#70)
    by Zorba on Fri May 22, 2015 at 08:41:37 PM EST
    Mea culpa!

    Ha (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 08:43:10 PM EST

    Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the corporate wonder I would say.


    Well, as kids we used to say (none / 0) (#73)
    by Zorba on Fri May 22, 2015 at 08:52:28 PM EST
    "Jinx, you owe me a Coke."  I guess the adult version would be "you owe me a beer."
    So I owe you a beer.   ;-)
    Carly was indeed not any kind of "corporate wonder."

    No, it's a "wonder" (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 23, 2015 at 01:03:22 AM EST
    she got as high as "Corporate."

    I've been a big booster for women in business since way back to my days as a junior executive trainee. ("Mad Men" era) In those days "red-lining" for the purpose of denying credit to certain groups was still legal. And, we were taught that, when hiring secretarial/administrative staff, bringing in good looking, zippy, effervescent young ladies was often more beneficial than hiring for experience/credentials. The idea was that "young babes" would improve/increase office morale, and thus productivity. But, hiring women for potential management positions was so laughable it wasn't even ever mentioned.

    But, even then, when I was in my early/mid twenties, and on the fast track to Corporate Sales/Management, I found that being a contrarian was often very useful. Not for any altruistic, high-faluten moral reasons, necessarily. Just that I remember thinking, "high sales" was my ticket to the "top." And, since women made up the majority of consumers, who better to know why, and/or, what women wanted, and would buy? But then, oh, how the ridicule and laughter came hurtling my way when I ran an ad in the
    paper, "XYZ Company" interviewing ladies for management training positions. (Gender specific advertising in hiring was, also, legal then.)

    Well, you can infer the results that eventually  came my way! Rocket ship to the stars!

    But, I learned another important lesson back then also. Hiring sales & management staff from a subset of women was a great idea. Hiring sales & management staff just because they're women......bad, bad idea.

    Which brings me to today, and Carly Fiorina.

    In every election cycle the Republicans like to do their peacock strut, "look how inclusive we are," and put up some sad-sack, nominal minority. I don't have to go through the list of A.A. Presidential Candidates who embarrassed not only themselves, but the Republican Party even more, in each of the past several elections. With so many qualified black politicians available (some even in the Republican Party I would imagine) how come they always end up with candidates that are embarrassments, especially to the many, thinking black voters out there? Answer? "They," the political strategists want them to lose, and lose big. Their biggest fear is that a qualified black candidate will appear, and make big inroads with the polls. Yikes! They just want a black face, not a black face, and a mind.

    And, since this post is about Carly Fiorina, simply replace "Black" with "Carly" and it all makes sense. And, having made my living in the Corporate World, and the Markets, over these past bunch of decades, I should know. And, I do.

    Carly Fiorina is to qualified women candidates
    Herman Cain was to qualified A.A. candidates.


    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 08:17:00 PM EST

    it's all over the right wing web.  Very surprised it has not been trolled here yet.

    Except.  She didn't .

    State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said, "It was not classified at the time. The occurrence of subsequent upgrade does not mean anyone did anything wrong."

    It was classified in the last day or so by the FBI.  It was not classified at the time.  But that hasn't stopped Boner and others from squealing like a pig stuck under a gate.

    Boner today (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 08:24:57 PM EST

    see how that works?


    as soon as (none / 0) (#84)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 10:58:44 AM EST
    You see "now classified" a normal, mildly intelligent person realizes they weren't "then" classified.

    If your point is (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:01:45 PM EST
    Boners audience is mildly intelligent I think I see the problem.

    no, I was talking about (none / 0) (#118)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 01:41:28 PM EST
    The rest of us.

    There is no "us" (none / 0) (#143)
    by Yman on Sat May 23, 2015 at 07:41:21 PM EST
    Most of us here would recognize it.  Most of the conservative base?  Not so much.

    I saw that (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 22, 2015 at 08:49:44 PM EST
    and started laughing. I thought well, at least the reporters will stop whining about her not talking to them and they can get all OCD reading all the emails.

    Can't blame Boehner. Fleecing the rubes has become very lucrative for them. Peggy Noonan has been chastising the GOP base about being so gullible. When you've got Peggy Noonan saying something like that apparently there's a big problem. Yes, obvious to you and I and most people that they swallow this stuff whole and makes us laugh.


    whining? (none / 0) (#78)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 09:35:42 AM EST
    You're fine with nominees taking essentially zero questions for a month at a time, deigning to speak to the peons in the media when the mood suits them? That's how you want your politicians to roll?

    First (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 23, 2015 at 10:19:59 AM EST
    of all she's not the nominee yet and secondly there's about 18 months before the election.

    And frankly so far the media has done nothing but wet themselves with stupid questions and asked nothing relevant to voters.

    You don't learn anything when the press asks questions do you? If they did ask questions relevant to the voters then maybe you would have a point.


    she's not (none / 0) (#82)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 10:54:20 AM EST
    The nominee, but she's been a declared candidate for long enough; how many of these 18 months should pass before she acts like one? New issues and situations pop up every day -- she shouldn't get to just stay silent, stick her finger into the wind to see what the "correct" position is. As for reporters asking stupid questions, (1) the idea that none of them are relevant or good, over this prolonged period of silence, is ridiculous; and (2) if she answered questions and acted like, I don't know, a candidate for office, maybe the media would stop acting like somebody who got pulled out of the audience to appear on The Price Is Right and ask better ones. The more questions, the better they'll be (until it gets so saturated they go back to the "if you were a tree" variety).

    Why (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 23, 2015 at 10:58:02 AM EST
    does she have to talk to them now? The times she has talked to them have actually backed up her reasoning to not talking to them.

    She's not going to let the press and the GOP set the rules. And she's done plenty of speaking to the press over the past 25 years. It's not like she has never spoken to them.


    different mindset, I guess (none / 0) (#85)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 11:13:44 AM EST
    The question to me isn't why does she have to talk to them now, but rather, but why is she allowed not to. She's seeking the highest office in the land, pretty much the world. She should have to answer questions and stake positions all the time (within reason for fact-gathering, of course). I'm put off by any pol who metaphorically waves me away and says maybe I'll answer that later, maybe I won't. I'll get back to you. Unless I don't. She, like any other politician, certainly wants the media to cover her events. She wouldn't want to answer the question (would never happen, obviously), what if they gave a campaign and nobody came.

    Who (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 23, 2015 at 11:48:08 AM EST
    should judge
    but why is she allowed not to
    . Where is it written how a candidate must interact with the pres, the Constitution? Federal statutes? Carved stone tablets from mount Sinai?

    They don't (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:03:40 PM EST
    she is communicating with voters.  That's what drives them crazy about the Clintons.   They have always been an,e to do that.

    The idea she has to talk with idiot reporters is laughable.  


    Oh. come on, Cap'n! (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:40:18 PM EST
    I mean, who wouldn't want to talk to the credulous likes of "Li'l Luke" Russert and Jonathan Karl? After all, Republicans have long since proved that such gullible Beltway stenographers can be played like a couple of cheap rentboys plied with a few bottles of Thunderbird.

    Then-House Intelligence Committee Chair Darrell Issa even got Karl to cite some phony e-mails about Benghazi in his reports which Issa's own committee staff had likely manufactured, and which Karl then dutifully and falsely attributed to the White House national security team in his report on ABC News.

    When it's that easy to traffic in rumor, innuendo and gossip in what currently passes for professional journalism with the D.C. press corps, what's not to be loved about such arrangements?



    I wouldn't call (none / 0) (#101)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:11:34 PM EST
    These often orchestrated dog and pony shows communicating with voters.

    You don't know what (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:14:23 PM EST
    you are talking about.  And the more you talk the more obvious that is.

    I don't understand the hostility. (none / 0) (#121)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 02:03:38 PM EST
    I've taken the rather banal positions that (1) a candidate for President shouldn't go a month or so barely engaging with the media, regardless of whether some, or even most, of the questions will be up to my, your or anyone else's standards; and (2) the "communication" sessions you speak of are not really open, but often choreographed, vetted appearances where the candidates could probably mouth the questions as they're being asked. Hardly incendiary rhetoric.

    And in return you speak to me in a way you probably wouldn't in person, unless you're in the habit of insulting people who disagree with you.


    "a month without engaging..." (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Mr Natural on Sat May 23, 2015 at 03:00:13 PM EST
    You see it as a problem.

    I see it as a feature.

    Really, the election is eighteen months away.  The best horse races are short.  Brief is sweet.  Less is more.


    Out here in the hinterlands (none / 0) (#133)
    by christinep on Sat May 23, 2015 at 04:19:46 PM EST
    and in all places outside the absorbed DC & NY political pundits, stories and narratives and local/regional news are reported in a number of highly effective ways.  Local/regional news media typically give extensive coverage to visiting "biggies."  When Hillary Clinton visits your state--and smaller cities & towns--it is NEWS ... and, regional media outlets tend not to play the role of the DC would-be know-it-alls.  The attention is magnified (and usually positive) when a person of Hillary Clinton's stature visits your town, talks with your businessmen, with your neighbors, with your students ... especially when those visits are calm, face-to-face chats, talks, Q & A with real people and early in the upcoming hectic cycle.  

    It is refreshing to witness HRC setting her own schedule, methodically building her candidacy in the early stages, meeting Americans individually on the highways & byways (& Chipotles) of the land.  The funny thing is that the <DC & NY> press is already overreaching ... and, to date, no pulse-taking via polls or otherwise is evidencing any real drain for her.  As the press stretch further and further to illustrate that she must be doing something bad or something--see Repubs & their stale Benghaziii theme--they are becoming the butt-end of jokes.  A nutty "accusation" today appears in WashPo with Ruth Marcus questioning why Hillary would take money for giving speeches ... that must be some new kind of offense (my, my--being paid no less for giving speeches that people get in line to hear.)  

    Whenever political pundits want, they have every opportunity to write about and analyze positions on substantive issues.  When they stop feeling ignored, rebuffed as a date, etc., journalism actually awaits. And, as Mark Shields suggested on PBS Friday News Hour, if the pundits cannot think of any "issues" than why-can't-they-find-something-newsworthy/incriminating among the multitude of released emails OR why-did-the-Clintons-have-to-contribute-so-extensively-to-worthy-causes, it might be a good idea to look at all the candidates emails. Yep ... Shields had the temerity to repeat: All the candidates should release all the emails and all their $$$$ intake & contributions ... sauce for the goose & gander type of thing.

    Personally, my earlier angry feelings at the rampage mindset of certain political pundits in matters Clinton is starting to be replaced by amusement as said lazy journalists copy each other and start eating their own. Hillary Clinton is wise to let them cool their heels, for there will be plenty of time for genuine issues that interest the public to be discussed.  The present skirmish is little more than that ... a warm-up skirmish for insiders that is of little or no moment to anyone else.  (Oh, did Cong. Trey whats-his-name postpone the latest of the Repub diversions on Benghazi ... looks as if there is still "no there, there."  So it goes.)


    better a question (none / 0) (#106)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:16:45 PM EST
    From an idiot reporter than a soliloquy. Eventually they'll get to a good one.

    I see it as a job interview (none / 0) (#99)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:08:37 PM EST
    Treat it like one. You declare, you ramp up the fundraising? Then you have to respond. I get it -- except for Bernie, she's the only one in the game, so she (and a lot of others, apparently) feels she gets to milk the shot clock. I disagree.

    No sorry (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:10:07 PM EST
    you don't get it.

    maybe I don't (none / 0) (#103)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:14:00 PM EST
    But if she had real competition, 4 or 5 others, would she be more responsive?

    For fvcks sake (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:15:30 PM EST
    if there was 4 or 5 others the press would not be obsessed with her.

    they would always (none / 0) (#109)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:33:02 PM EST
    Be obsessed with her. She's Hillary Clinton. And the presumptive Democrat nominee. And probable future president of the United States. Who's going to beat her, one of these sad-sack Republicans?

    ExcitableBoy, you just don't understand (2.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 23, 2015 at 02:36:22 PM EST
    or perhaps you now have a smell of it....

    No one is permitted to question Hillary. She will tell us what we need to know when she decides the time is right.

    I mean, what difference does it make???


    Gersh, maybe the press should (none / 0) (#148)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat May 23, 2015 at 07:57:46 PM EST
    be worried about asking the other candidate questions, like how Mike Hucklebee is dealing with the pushback on Facebook for associating with the Duggars, rather than ask Hillary about Benghazi for the umpteenth time.

    Had the media been subjecting ... (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 23, 2015 at 01:54:10 PM EST
    Excitable Boy: "You declare, you ramp up the fundraising? Then you have to respond. I get it -- except for Bernie, she's the only one in the game, so she (and a lot of others, apparently) feels she gets to milk the shot clock. I disagree."

    ... the GOP's own presidential candidates to a similar breathless scrutiny, you might have a point. But they're not, and so you don't.

    I mean, is anyone in the media grilling Jeb Bush about his very questionable actions during the Terry Schiavo controversy? How about Scott Walker's claim to be a political reformer, when five of his top aides during his tenure as Milwaukee County Executive were convicted of public corruption?

    Is the Beltway media holding Chris Christie's feet to the fire, in the wake of the indictments in the GWB scandal and the still-ongoing investigation into his administration? Are they talking about Rick Perry's own indictment in Texas for abuse of power?

    Of course, the answer is no, no, no and sadly, no. And let's please acknowledge that these are in fact very real controversies, as opposed to the manufactured variety that have been offered about Hillary Clinton and her husband on an almost daily basis.

    But these incessant attacks on Mrs. Clinton aren't resonating with the general public, and in fact her polls numbers are rising. And that's likely because voters detect a distinct double standard at work here, and are reacting accordingly.



    as I said, (none / 0) (#122)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 02:29:31 PM EST
    I'm not a political junkie. I haven't been studying everything asked of either side, or demanding Clinton answer questions about x or explain her positions on y. I just feel she has to engage. That's a completely different matter than the buffoonery of the scribes. Ask her foolish questions? She can show them how foolish they are; she's extremely intelligent. But I think this "she doesn't have to engage because they suck" attitude is wrong. That's all.

    You (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 23, 2015 at 02:41:41 PM EST
    presume to know how to play the game better then Hillary. Sorry but that makes you come off as arrogant.

    Right now the press needs Hillary much more then she needs them and she is playing cards as she sees fit, this isn't her first rodeo.


    "I'm not a political junkie" (none / 0) (#165)
    by Mr Natural on Sat May 23, 2015 at 10:24:15 PM EST
    lol; we're all [political] junkies on this bus.

    Not really (none / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 23, 2015 at 02:40:08 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 23, 2015 at 11:24:40 AM EST
    like I said there's 18 months. We're seven, eight months before anyone even votes. Who is going to be listening to any interviews at this point? Political junkies like yourself. If you want to get maximum mileage out of an interview and get your message to more people you do interviews before voting happens when people are paying attention and are making decisions on who to vote for.

    Case in point Bernie Sanders has been giving interviews and the press just treats whatever he says like it's a joke. And what have you learned from any of the interviews the GOP has given to the MSM? Pretty much nothign at this point. You've actually learned more by them going to friendly media like Fox.


    i wouldn't call myself (none / 0) (#95)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:03:57 PM EST
    A political junkie. If I am, I'm still snorting, haven't picked up the needle yet :P it's just getting more interesting and important to me the older I get. Not trying to badger you (and hopefully didn't come across that way), so I'll drop it for now. Enjoy the weekend.

    Well (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:03:53 PM EST
    you've got 8 months or more before you decide who you have to vote for. So i don't understand the hurry and she has put out policy statements already that you can read.

    The Beltway Press is so anti-Hillary (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Sat May 23, 2015 at 07:54:00 PM EST
    it is astonishing.....and have been for decades....

    They all breathlessly state that although she has done nothing illegal, it just looks bad--according to them....

    I would totally blow them off.....Self important, narcissistic press....gets mad because Hillary ignores them.....Right on.


    The press questions Hillary (none / 0) (#80)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 23, 2015 at 10:48:00 AM EST
    "Who does your hair?"

    "Do you believe those shoes make you look presidential?

    "You are a grandmother.  Do you believe that makes you too old to be president?"

    "How much do you weigh?"


    Seriously (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:05:11 PM EST
    if you want to see why talking to the press is pointless find the famous Andrea Mitchell's ambush of Hillary yesterday.   Maybe it wa ps the day before.

    well in that case (none / 0) (#107)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:18:19 PM EST
    Nobody should ever talk to the press. Let's just wait and vote.

    Yup. Then they would actually have to report (none / 0) (#112)
    by nycstray on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:49:11 PM EST
    on what the candidate is saying, not a gotcha question to satisfy the 24hr melodrama, I mean media, cycle.

    that's a good point. (none / 0) (#123)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 02:33:49 PM EST
    The never-ending news cycle, and the need to both fill it and take viewers and clicks from the other outfits, feeds this nonsense.

    Herman's back (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 09:04:23 PM EST
    but 999 is now 666

    The end is coming in January 2017

    A mailing that went out to 2012 presidential candidate Herman Cain's email list Tuesday said that President Obama (along with the Pope)  is secretly leading the United States toward the apocalypse.

    The email was a sponsored message from Nathan Shepard, who identifies himself on his website as a "Bible scholar" who "decided that he must become a survival expert, train and prepare for the worst disaster in human history."

    Shepard says that the United States is actually Babylon in the Book of Revelation, and "the end times" the prophets foretold will come for America in January 2017. He says America will be destroyed by Vladimir Putin's Russia in World War III.
    In this case, it's a $60 discount on a survival pack to help you get through the apocalypse:

    A bargain

    Another example of how difficult it is to (none / 0) (#88)
    by McBain on Sat May 23, 2015 at 11:31:31 AM EST
    convict a cop....

    Officer Michael Brelo was found not guilty of  voluntary manslaughter and felonious assault in the deaths of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams following a 20-minute car chase.

    Russell and Williams were black so there will probably be protests. I didn't follow this case but it looks like another example of how bad things can happen when people flee from the police.

    According to the article (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 23, 2015 at 11:45:31 AM EST
    ...the officer stood on the hood of the car after it stopped and fired 15 shots through the windshield.  But there was no video, so no harm, no foul.

    it looks like another example of how bad things can happen when people flee from the police.

    Are you saying that fleeing from police suspends any constitutional right to a trial.

    My Black friend was shot by a deputy, who emptied his weapon toward the driver's side of a car (and sprayed the neighborhood with a few misses) because he knew the driver had a suspended license.

    Deputy claimed he was in fear of his life while he stood at a right angle (i.e. not in front) to a non-moving vehicle.

    How many of your Black friends have been shot by police?  What were they doing to get shot?


    I'm of the belief that cops are like everyone else (none / 0) (#91)
    by McBain on Sat May 23, 2015 at 11:52:36 AM EST
    some are good, some are bad and all make mistakes at some point. I don't know which category this cop falls into.  

    I do know that fleeing from the police the odds of someone getting injured or killed go way up..... especially in a car chase. The smart thing to do is to comply and not flee.  


    Clue (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:06:03 PM EST
    thats because you are white and middle class.

    Do you have a different point of view? (none / 0) (#131)
    by McBain on Sat May 23, 2015 at 04:08:36 PM EST
    What I have is empathy (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 04:20:34 PM EST
    the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

    Does the that include (none / 0) (#136)
    by McBain on Sat May 23, 2015 at 04:47:27 PM EST
    the feelings of cops who are shot? People who are falsely charged and/or convicted?

    I'm the one (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 04:54:06 PM EST
    with three cops in my family.

    The "smart thing" (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    ...is for Police not to commit to a high-speed chase over a minor infraction.  

    I looked up the California guidelines for police pursuit.  Unfortunately they are protected from my posting parts of them here by severe copyright threats.  Police are apparently protected from Vehicle Code regulations if they engage in "legitimate" pursuit.  Legitimate v. non-legitimate pursuit is not defined, or if it is I didn't see it.

    They are not couched as requirements, but as "suggestions" for police departments.

    In general they suggest that officers consider a number of factors before initiating such a pursuit, PRIMARILY the safety of everyone not involved in the pursuit.  

    One section is entitled "Officer Restraint."  Paraphrasing to avoid copyright issues, it says officers shouldn't beat the crap out of a chase suspect after capture.  This will be news to a lot of officers.


    ... with residents in the County of Los Angeles, especially in those instances during which the cops and suspects are apparently auditioning for a Hollywood remake of "Bullitt." One innocent bystander was killed and four others injured during one such high-speed chase in east L.A. two years ago.

    "Serves them right," according to the (none / 0) (#114)
    by Mr Natural on Sat May 23, 2015 at 01:02:28 PM EST

    So, at what point should the please start to chase (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 23, 2015 at 02:43:25 PM EST
    a suspect??

    Can you provide us with your guidelines??


    Where I live (none / 0) (#153)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:26:09 PM EST
    ...the "please" don't chase anybody.

    The police do.

    However the guidelines leave much of that decision up to an officer.  Before deciding to give chase the officer must weigh multiple factors, primarily the safety of the public, but also the severity of the alleged crime, possible innocent passengers in the vehicle who might be at risk, traffic, weather, location, backup, et cetera et cetera.

    I submit that if an officer decides to give chase, and that chase ends in an injury to someone not involved, the officer should agree to retire from law enforcement forever, since the injury is prima facie evidence that he does not have sufficient judgment to be a police officer.

    If an officer's decision puts an innocent person at risk of death or injury that could have been avoided, he should bet his career on being right.

    I had a job where every day I bet my career on being right, so I think it is a reasonable standard.  Buffoons and fools and the CIA probably don't agree.


    Question: for sarcastic (none / 0) (#139)
    by Palli on Sat May 23, 2015 at 05:17:32 PM EST
    Cops are to ignorant to note and remember a License Number now?

    The Not Guilty verdict (none / 0) (#180)
    by jbindc on Sun May 24, 2015 at 10:05:55 AM EST
    Appears to be because of a technicality in the law, and if you read the opinion (embedded in the story), you will see that. You don't have to agree with it, but that's the way the judge interpreted it. The Cleveland Plain-Dealer breaks it down.

    (Strange that this was a bench trial - I haven't read or seen as to why).

    Why Brelo was not guilty of the voluntary manslaughter of Timothy Russell

    Russell was shot 23 times. O'Donnell found that based on the testimony at trial, four of those shots were lethal. Those shots came from three different directions. Two were to the top of Russell's head, but one was to the right side of his chest and another to the left side.

    "It is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that during that less than 8 seconds Russell was positioned, then repositioned, then repositioned again so that all four wounds came from the same gun in the same place," O'Donnell said.

    In other words, O'Donnell concluded that Brelo fired at least one of those shots, but could not have fired all four.

    To prove voluntary manslaughter, prosecutors would have had to show beyond a reasonable doubt that "but for" Brelo's actions, Russell and Williams would have lived.

    "I have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Brelo fired a shot that by itself would have caused Russell's death. But proof of voluntary manslaughter requires a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, either that his shot alone actually caused the death or it was the 'straw that broke the camel's back,'" O'Donnell said.

    While Brelo fired at least one lethal shot at Russell, other police officers also fired lethal shots that contributed to his death. Because medical examiners were unable to determine the order of the shots and ballistics could not tie individual bullets to shooters, there is no way to know which lethal shot came from which shooter. It is also impossible to establish which shot actually killed Russell.


    Why Brelo was not guilty of the voluntary manslaughter of Malissa Williams

    Malissa Williams was shot 24 times. Of those, O'Donnell concluded that based on the medical examiner's testimony, seven were lethal.

    O'Donnell said that those seven shots came from three different directions, so there was no way Brelo could have fired all of them.

    "The high improbability that Williams' body was contorted in such a way that she was exposed to those five downward shots and an upward shot to her lower abdomen and a straight-in shot to the left side of her head leads me to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Brelo caused at least one fatal wound to William's chest and maybe all five, but that one or two other officers inflicted two other fatal wounds," O'Donnell said.

    Therefore, just like with Russell, O'Donnell said he could not conclude that Brelo's shots alone caused the death of Williams.

    The article then goes on to break down the judge's opinion as to why Brelo was not guilty of the lesser included felonious assault charges.


    sickening (none / 0) (#108)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:22:47 PM EST
    Another example (none / 0) (#116)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 23, 2015 at 01:30:32 PM EST
    of the banality of evil. Cops capping citizens in the street is the new normal. First they came for the blacks, then they came for the bikers.........

    Here's video of the chase and shooting (none / 0) (#135)
    by McBain on Sat May 23, 2015 at 04:26:20 PM EST

    I don't see any problem with the chase.  Hard to tell about the shooting.  The cops claim they thought they heard shots fired at them.


    You don't see a problem with cops (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Mr Natural on Sat May 23, 2015 at 05:28:30 PM EST
    being so freakin' high on adrenalin that they can't tell the difference between the shots they're unloading into the bodies of unarmed civilians ...

    and the shots the unarmed civilian is not firing back?

    If Officer Friendly, the hood on the hood, had believed for a second that his prey was armed, jumping on the hood wouldn't have made any sense at all.

    It was an execution.


    I said, I don' see a problem with the chase (2.00 / 3) (#141)
    by McBain on Sat May 23, 2015 at 06:24:51 PM EST
    Impossible to prevent cops from getting a rush of adrenalin in situations like this. They're human.  I don't know enough about the shooting to reach any conclusions yet.

    I do believe if Russell and Williams had pulled over when instructed to, they probably would still be alive.


    You keep making this irrelevant argument (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Yman on Sat May 23, 2015 at 07:31:51 PM EST
    I do believe if Russell and Williams had pulled over when instructed to, they probably would still be alive.

    More blaming the victims.  Failure to pull over is not a summary execution offense.


    It (none / 0) (#144)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 23, 2015 at 07:43:38 PM EST
    is a
    summary execution offense
    in a police state, it's happening here, scary.

    If you don't do stupid things (none / 0) (#150)
    by McBain on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:11:09 PM EST
    the cops aren't going to shoot you.  All of the recent police shootings I can think of involved people doing stupid things before they got shot.

    Even if the cop is a jerk and you're 100% innocent of whatever he's accusing you of, don't run away, drive off, punch him, reach for his gun, point your toy gun or you risk getting killed.


    No one disagrees (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Yman on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:17:56 PM EST
    Don't do stupid things.

    Which is completely irrelevant to whether the police should use deadly force.  Doing 'stupid things' is not the issue.  But some people just like to point the finger at the victims.


    honest to god (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:24:21 PM EST
    What an unbelievably ignorant statement.  Even for you.

    Tell me, what exactly "stupid" did the guy standing in the Walmart toy department do.

    Jesus Christ.  I feel like I need a shower.


    So (none / 0) (#156)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:58:37 PM EST
    now the bar for summary execution is lowered to merely doing stupid things?

    Oh, no, Joe. (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun May 24, 2015 at 02:18:18 AM EST
    You have to be doing stupid things while black, or occasionally while Hispanic or poor white. In such instances, "stupid things" that can get you killed include driving a vehicle that backfires, as was the case here in Cleveland.

    "Stupid things" could also include walking in the road, hanging out at a bus depot (as the unfortunate Kelly Thomas - a harmless 135-lb. white schizophrenic -- was doing in Fullerton, CA when he was beaten to death by two police officers who were both twice his size), or carrying a toy gun in a state that otherwise allows people to carry the real thing.



    Where did I say that? (2.00 / 2) (#158)
    by McBain on Sat May 23, 2015 at 09:04:32 PM EST
    I said doing stupid things in front of cops puts lives at risk.

    You're blaming the victim (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Yman on Sat May 23, 2015 at 09:12:22 PM EST
    The issue is whether the cop was justified in using deadly force, not whether someone did something "stupid".

    BTW - You know what's "stupid".  Lumping things together which are clearly NOT an imminent threat to the officer (i.e. running away, driving off) with those that are (i.e. trying to grab his gun pointing a toy gun at him) and categorizing them all as "stupid things".  Do you really have no clue how transparent that is?


    Right here. (none / 0) (#161)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 23, 2015 at 09:18:12 PM EST
    If you don't do stupid things (none / 0) (#150)
    by McBain on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:11:09 PM EST
    the cops aren't going to shoot you.

    I understand the language, McBain. There is no way to prevent people from doing stupid things, even in front of cops. Therefore you are cool with people with being killed for stupidity. I'd buy a bullet proof vest if I was you.    


    Not even close (2.00 / 1) (#163)
    by McBain on Sat May 23, 2015 at 09:43:28 PM EST
    "Therefore you are cool with people with being killed for stupidity"  

    I never said that. I never said this either...

    "the bar for summary execution is lowered to merely doing stupid things?"

    You're making assumptions that aren't accurate.

    Your bullet proof vest comment is totally inappropriate. This is obviously an emotional topic for you and it's clouding your judgement. We don't have to agree but if you want to continue to discuss this and other topics with me you have stop the nonsense.    



    Hate to tell you (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 10:04:56 PM EST
    but if you post a comment there really is not that much you can do to stop that or any other person from discussing it.

    With or without you.


    McBain (none / 0) (#171)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 24, 2015 at 05:52:13 AM EST
    can not/will not defend his own words.

    not assumptions (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 24, 2015 at 08:05:15 AM EST
    simple logic. If you accept:
    If you don't do stupid things
    the cops aren't going to shoot you.
    then you must accept the corollary that there is a reasonable expectation of getting killed if you do stupid things.

    Your words unequivocally  drew the line between life and death as "don't be stupid" You took your twisted tape measure and set the bar at stupid.

    Simple logic is only "nonsense" in your world McBain.

    Hell yeah this is an emotional issue for me, watching our country becoming a police state, where citizens are gunned down for "stupidity" is extremely disturbing.


    McBain is basically saying (none / 0) (#173)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun May 24, 2015 at 08:50:27 AM EST
    He doesn't mind cops acting as judge, jury, and executioner, if some one does something stupid

    Not life-threatening, not menacing to the cop and/or civilians around , but stupid.  That's a pretty low bar, IMHO.

    What a great American he is.  


    He (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 24, 2015 at 09:29:18 AM EST
    says it then denies it then says it again. -

    He also seems to have a different bar for LEO, stupid killings by police(see John Crawford) rarely result in any serious sanctions, yet he screams bloody murder when somebody wants to hold them accountable.

    Like all apologists, he can accept such blatant double standards with ease.


    The job of (none / 0) (#177)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun May 24, 2015 at 09:40:17 AM EST
    unravelling some of the psycho-pathology behind his and others here who believe in the same thing is beyond my pay scale

    Only one was driving (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:32:05 PM EST
    I do believe if Russell and Williams had pulled over when instructed to, they probably would still be alive.

    So the passenger had to die because the driver committed a crime?  And the police knew for certain that the passenger was in on it, not screaming in fear and begging the driver to pull over?

    Tough crowd.


    If the passenger wasn't in on it (2.00 / 1) (#155)
    by McBain on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:48:31 PM EST
    the driver put him in an extremely dangerous situation, regardless if the cops messed up.  

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 09:21:51 PM EST
    the cops just "messed up"

    137 times.


    No sympathy for victims? (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 23, 2015 at 10:53:40 PM EST
    the driver put him in an extremely dangerous situation, regardless if the cops messed up.

    So it's okay for the cops to "mess up" and kill an innocent victim because somebody else committed a driving offense?  The cops had the option, shoot or don't shoot, passenger did not have the option of stepping out.

    Keep in mind also that these police are unloading weapons and undoubtedly did not put every round on target.  Should there be consequences for the police shooting into the dark and ""mess[ing] up" with a fatal result?

    If you "mess up" and your "mess up" kills someone who would otherwise not be dead, is it the kind of "mess up" that should result in a scolding?  

    What SHOULD be the consequences of "mess[ing] up" and just, ya know, kinda KILLING somebody who would NOT be dead if you hadn't "messed up?"  Vacation with pay?  Isn't that the usual?


    I think part of the problem is that you (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by Anne on Sat May 23, 2015 at 11:49:50 PM EST
    don't live in the same world these people do.  In your world, the police are there to protect you,  they are there to serve you and work with you.  You live in a world where you are not presumed to be guilty of something and treated accordingly.   You live in a world where the cops call your wife "ma'am, where you are "sir," where you get to explain before someone in a uniform jacks you up just because he can.  Because he knows no one's going to do anything about it.  You live in a world where you don't worry that being seen as doing something stupid could get you killed.

    In your world, it's all just so simple and easy.

    You just have no idea.  And that's why it all gets reduced for you to "just don't do anything stupid and you'll get to live."

    Did you even read the Baltimore Sun's in-depth report on the police brutality that cost the City of Baltimore millions of dollars?  Can you even imagine, in your world, cops coming into your home and beating up on your 87 yr old grandmother because they didn't believe that her grandson hadn't been shot inside her house?  

    Is it any wonder people who live in that world run when they see cops?  Wouldn't you run if you believed you were in more danger being in their presence than running away from them?

    People who think like you do are enabling the worst kind of policing, and making it harder for good cops to form trusting relationships in communities where poverty, drug use and unemployment are high.  The kind of policing you excuse and justify would not be tolerated in your world, which makes me wonder why it's so easy for you to tolerate it in someone else's world.


    Pothead becomes Compassion's Poster Boy (none / 0) (#138)
    by Mr Natural on Sat May 23, 2015 at 05:08:37 PM EST
    Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon has commuted Jeff Mizanskey's life sentence for marijuana offenses, allowing him a parole hearing - an indication of the public and political shift on draconian drug laws.

    The year before Mizanskey's 1993 bust for his minor role in a trafficking deal, Pew found that 73 percent of Americans favored the death penalty for "major drug traffickers," and 57 percent believed police should be able to search houses of "known drug dealers" without a search warrant. Today, only 32 percent of Americans favor mandatory prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.

    Why anything is possible .... (none / 0) (#181)
    by christinep on Sun May 24, 2015 at 10:12:39 AM EST
    The past two days provide two reminders that anything can happen--politically.  (1) In Ireland, the public voted by wide margin in favor of same sex marriage.  Yes, that would be IRELAND. (2) In Nebraska, the unicameral legislature voted by a large margin to abolish the death penalty in that state.  Yes, that would be conservative NEBRASKA.  

    IMO, the over-used exclamation "Amazing" would not be an overstatement at all for this duet of political change.