Tuesday Night Open Thread

Where in the world should Edward Snowden seek asylum? Early this morning I suggested:

Maybe he should go to New Zealand and hang out at the Dot Com mansion. NZ might not be so willing to provide mutual assistance in arresting Snowden after the debacle of the Kim Dotcom raid.

Australian barrister Geoffrey Robertson also thinks Snowden should go to New Zealand and join Kim Dotcom in fighting extradition to the U.S. He says Russia is another possibility, while Hong Kong is not a good idea because China might interfere.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< EFF Launches "Stop Watching Us" | Whitey Bulger Trial Begins in Boston >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think Russia's not a good idea (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by shoephone on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 09:05:56 PM EST
    I wouldn't trust any despot who jailed three rock singers for a mere 40 seconds of protest.

    Did you see the HBO doc... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 09:38:06 AM EST
    on P*ssy Riot?  I watched it last night...truly inspiring women.  Truly embarassing "criminal justice"...things are tough all over kids.

    Not to mention the fact that Putin ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 10:16:26 PM EST
    ... just browbeat the Duma (lower house of the Russian parliament) to pass legislation prohibiting "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations" -- in other words, any pro-LGBT civil rights discussion -- by a 436-0 vote.

    This guy is worth keeping an eye on, because he's looking more and more like very bad news.


    Not to say anything nice about Putin... (none / 0) (#10)
    by unitron on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 07:22:46 AM EST
    ...(Pat Buchanan having gotten that one oh-so-right), but they were trespassing and going out of their way to disrespect the religious beliefs of others at the time.

    And that justifies their arrest and detention? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 10:30:41 AM EST
    Well, yeah, according to unitron. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 10:56:54 AM EST
    Why, those women should be happy they weren't subsequently burned at the stake for heresy.

    But (none / 0) (#31)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 10:09:09 AM EST
    you must admit that there is some humor to be found in the fact that Russia would attempt to improve its image regarding freedom of expression by giving asylum to Snowden.

    Then, we would retaliate:  We offer asylum to one of their dissidents.

    Since neither country is about to improve its own record on human rights or freedom of speech or of the press by being tolerant of its own nationals, we can just swap theirs for ours and ours for theirs.

    In a few years, we will have a population of millions of Russians, and they'll have millions of Americans. Then we can relax the rule about a president being born here. We can elect Putin, and they can have Obama, or Hillary or Biden.


    CONSCIOUS vs. SUBCONSCIOUS, vol. 31 (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 07:32:14 AM EST
    I (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 09:58:19 AM EST
    prefer that A.G. Holder be seeking asylum in some remote spot somewhere, and Snowden be named as his replacement by unanimous acclamation.

    Snowden Should Come Home (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Michael Masinter on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 10:06:39 AM EST
    Civil disobedience, the foundation for the successful movements Dr. King and Gandhi inspired, requires both a willingness to violate an unjust law and to publicly accept the consequences for the unlawful act.  Dr. King did not write "Letter From an Auckland Jail." Daniel Ellsberg stayed home to fight prosecution for disclosing the Pentagon Papers.

    If Snowden thinks he performed a public service by disclosing classified documents, shouldn't he come home, let the government prosecute him if it chooses to do so, defend the prosecution aided by the first rate lawyers who will eagerly represent him, and if convicted, serve his sentence?  Anyone can violate the law and run away; civil disobedience requires a willingness to accept the consequences.

    I think (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 10:18:39 AM EST
    being exiled from your own country is enough of a consequence.

    Today's government is potentially poised to put the guy in jail for the rest of his life. And, although I suspect it is unlikely, they could go for treason and kill him.

    And such a tribunal would most likely be held in secret.

    He has made his point.

    He has provided us with information that our government, both executive and legislative, had withheld from us. It only concerns us and how we are being treated. What does the rest of the world, friend or foe, care how our government treats its own citizens?

    It is up to us to deal with it and do something about it.

    So far, the deflated, exhausted, humiliated, unemployed and betrayed American people have greeted this news with indifference. Why should Snowden be Joan of Arc to people who, when presented with evidence of abuse, couldn't care less?


    Masinter & history (none / 0) (#46)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 11:09:50 AM EST
    Masinter looks at courage as standing firm & taking the consequences ... I also believe that.  To have that kind of courage always required defying rulers, kings, despots, powerful empires and the oft-times lethal consequences of doing so; yet, history is replete with that kind of story of true heroism.  

    Whatever else may or will be said (lots from all points of view, I'm guessing), he left.  Walk, run, exile ... he left.  As Josh Marshall on TPM indicated yesterday, how we perceive Snowden is a kind of Rohrshach (sp?) test.  In part, he says, it starts from what our view is of our system of government; and, how we view who-gets-to-decide in a democratic society.  (Now, even tho your comments about the potential interchange/exchange are really funny, in a society with an authoritarian model such as the 1000+ years in Russia are viewed by Russian historians, the answer is clear==the person decides.  And, that person is Putin.  As in the recently overwhelmingly passed ban respecting info about gays, we see the dictate of one person.  My real concern, as you must know, is when the opinion of one person can govern everyone else by that person's actions.)


    My view has nothing to do with (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by sj on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 11:30:53 AM EST
    what our view is of "who gets to decide". My view on which consequences he has chosen to accept is through the lens of "who do we trust". And while Snowden has not been a known quantity long enough to trust, the US government has been shown to be an abuser of trust and so therefore decidedly not trustworthy.

    And I echo lentinel that being exiled from one's own country and facing the possibility of never again seeing loved ones are huge consequences.


    I love ya Christine... (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 11:37:13 AM EST
    but your nuts...in a rigged game such as ours, you'd have to be a lunatic to stay and "face the consequences".

    The whistleblowing and looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life is plenty heroic in my book, no need for any more self-sacrifice than that.  


    Could be (none / 0) (#60)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 01:09:40 PM EST
    But, dear heart, those in power in any society have a bit of a rigged game ... nothing new there. I'm deliberately pushing on this issues because it appears to me that there are some who are "trying to have their cake & eat it too."  We'd all like that; but, sometimes our choices set up consequences that are less than palatable.  

    From what I've read that you have written, kdog, I respect that you do not whine (usually.)  You take a position to act in a certain way & you accept the consequences.  Sure, once in awhile, you strongly criticize the consequences...but, it strikes me that you have the integrity to accept them.  I respect that.

    What I don't respect is an individual who chooses to place himself outside the law (disclosing classified documents) & yet preach about the law while leaving the country in an apparent attempt to have it both ways.  

    Now, I'm no dummy, nor neophyte ... and neither are you...and, if I were looking down the road, I'd expect that Snowden will find outstanding legal representation here in the US because the episode hits so many major issues.  For all the surmise that the government will viciously tear him asunder, I don't think that this will be the "pound of flesh" drama that some expect.  It may satisfy noone, in fact.


    Yes... (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 01:28:22 PM EST
    the rigged game we call the justice system is nothing new, and it fosters more and more disrespect for the law with every passing year. Less and less faith in justice being found in our system make Snowden's actions perfectly logical and predictable...and wise.  Better this than the two other alternatives...saying nothing and playing along and getting a promotion, or facing the prison cell a day in court would surely lead to.

    I may not be the stand up guy you think I am...if I decided to throw caution (and my love and respect for my landlady) to the wind and start my own massive grow op in the basement, and got caught, I'd post bail and run for the border baby.  Not because I felt I've done something wrong, my conscience would be clear (except for my landlady's house possibly being seized, which is why I wouldn't do it).

    I ain't trying to be my hero Thoreau, who gladly accepted his cage for conscience.  If I were there to advise him I'd say refuse to pay the taxes to an unjust war mongering government, and then go run and hide.


    Add... (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 01:34:08 PM EST
    What I don't respect is an individual who chooses to place himself outside the law (disclosing classified documents) & yet preach about the law while leaving the country in an apparent attempt to have it both ways.  

    You must not have any respect for certain individuals in government and finance and corporate america if that's how you really feel, except they don't even have to leave the country...they're "too big to prosecute".


    You ARE honest, methinks. (none / 0) (#65)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 01:39:14 PM EST
    I try to be honest... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 01:45:42 PM EST
    but not in court!  

    "Yes your honor, no you honor, I'll never do it again your honor".  Lies!  All Lies!!! ;)


    Yeah.... (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 03:42:42 PM EST
    ...because the US is known for its open and fair trial in regards to National Security and terrorism.  He would be a fool to come back and face a trial in which all the evidence against him is labeled National Security and never sees the light of day.

    You line of reasoning ludicrous, he has just exposed the most powerful country to ever exist, who has a track record of torturing it's political enemies, who still has people locked in boxes without charging them or giving them a trails, who was just caught spying on every single one of its citizens, and you think he should buck up and face the music.  That the government he just exposed is going to give him all the rights the Constitution offers.  

    Pleaze, just got caught spying on all of us, a clear violation of the Constitution.  Clearly they don't 300+ million the respect of the Constitution, and you believe the guy who just exposed their vileness is going to get rights they don't give anyone else.

    Even the country of Ecuador knows what we have become, Assange is still holed up in their embassy because he fears the long arm of the US government will ensure he is arrested in London and flown to the US should he steps out the door.

    He's not a US citizen, he's in England, and his 'crime' is printing classified materials in another country.  Same thing the Guardian did, but going after as large foreign media company would probably outrage the world.

    You statements about getting a fair trial do not match reality.  Nor do they acknowledge the guy who committed these crimes was exposing criminals. LINK


    Josh Marshall again? (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 12:27:06 PM EST
    The same Josh Marshall who supported the Iraq War? Please. The man is not worthy of such fawning references when it comes to constitutional issues.

    I opposed the Iraq War (none / 0) (#64)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 01:37:05 PM EST
    and organized with several community representatives a teach-in event prominently reported on by the Denver Post prior to the start of said war.  That is not said to back-pat myself, but rather to underscore the depth of my opposition openly from the beginning.  SO, I thought Marshall was wrong then.  

    That one is wrong (IMO) in one stance does not mean that they are wrong in all instances.  He makes some thought-provoking points in the commentary to which I referred yesterday.  His construct of how to approach the question of individual vis-a-vis government in the Snowden instance is worth a look ... and, I think you will find that he is not being dogmatic about it & acknowledges a state of flux. Do not misinterpret my positive response to that kind of commentary as "fawning."

    Since you speak with fervor about your beliefs, I assume that you would find it worthwhile to not close off and test your position against those with whom you disagree.


    OK, I'll back off on you "fawning" over (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 02:33:24 PM EST
    him. But why do you continue to quote him? As far as he's concerned, Snowden is just "some young guy I've never heard of before who espouses a political philosophy I don't agree with and is now seeking refuge abroad for breaking the law." Apparently, that's enough for Marshall to question Snowden's motives and whether he was right to make these disclosures. Funny, Marshall has no problem opposing the government going after journalists over leaks, but as he likes to remind us..."I'm a journalist."

    Worse, he closes by writing, "And I'm very skeptical of the notion that what Snowden did is awesome just because leaking state secrets is always a heroic act."

    Need I point out that that's not at all what the NSA critics are claiming? The critics of the PRISM program are questioning the constitutionality of blanket sweeping up of millions of phone calls that originated here in the U.S. and Marshall knows that; he's being disingenuous in order to justify his law & order based outrage. FISA stands for "FOREIGN" Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the phone calls, emails and internet searches were made by Americans, in the United States. This is a huge problem, and Marshall is ignoring the broader constitutional issue and making Snowden the issue, attacking the messenger. And that's why I have no use for his comments on the subject.


    His closing position (none / 0) (#85)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 03:39:00 PM EST
    is what you say it is, shoephone.  But, the background discussion with which he opens notes that the way one views a government in general effects how one views Snowden/whether or not one trusts him, etc.  (In that regard, sj has indirectly set out that position ... saying that sj's distrust at this point in the government leads to his non-trust of the entity's position in this case.  I appreciate that.) Marshall goes on to note that Snowden may be regarded this way or that...but, underscores what might lead a viewer to a particular point of view.

    Quoting someone less than a handful of times over the course of years does not amount to any kind of pattern  of quoting.  


    I only meant how often you had quoted him (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 04:14:08 PM EST
    on the Snowden situation.

    You're right about this: We have different levels of trusting government. You do, Marshall does. I don't (and apparently, neither does sj). Especially when it comes to civil liberties. We've been had too many times. Obama has gone after leakers with a vengeance, and prosecuted more whistle blowers than Bush.


    When people come here seeking asylum (4.60 / 5) (#59)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 12:45:26 PM EST
    from repressive governments that torture, imprison and punish them for speaking out or wanting to be free, do we mock them for not staying and standing up to those governments and conditions?

    No, I don't think we do.  

    Did we call those who left Iraq and Libya and Syria and Egypt cowards?

    Christine, you seem to be under the impression that this is still a bastion of democracy and freedom, that we have no reason to fear our own government, that the oaths we take in our jobs are binding even when we believe what we are being asked to do, or what is being done in our names is illegal, immoral or unethical.  Good Lord, even soldiers are told that they have a duty not to obey orders they believe are illegal.

    Your vision of what this country is seems to have ignored the last couple decades of increasingly anti-democratic policy and action - it is so jarringly out-of-sync with reality that it's impossible to take seriously.  It is less rose-colored-glasses than it is black-out-lenses.

    Maybe you hear patriotic music playing in the background of these high-minded comments you've been making, but all I hear is the gently baa-ing of sheep.  


    We may not be the pure bastion (none / 0) (#61)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    that we would aspire to, but....  But, here goes (with a variation on a position with which I suspect you differ):  I do think the justice system is a mite different in Yemen, China, Russia, Egypt, Syria, etc.  Now, let me preemptively state that I do not believe that we should lower the justice system standards to referred to countries here and in your comments nor do I believe that we don't have lots of room for improvement.  It is just that, looking at the trajectory of judicial history in our land since the beginning of the country, it is my contention that civil rights have improved much more than deteriorated.  Starting with elemental matters of who can vote or not, who can bring a legal challenge & who can sue, legal representation in general, etc.  

    Nope.  Choices are never easy. There is law & there is morality ... it is good when they mesh, but sometimes they don't ... ethical choices are a reality.  And, the rule of law must be a reality too.  No rose-colored glasses here; no baa-ing; no personal attacks through cute-sy turns of phrases.  

    The optimism that I have is that this will lead to a revisitation of the security interests & privacy interests we all seem to share.  How to reconcile them is not irreconcilable.  That broader, most important issue is different than whether an individual violated the law ... intertwined but different in reality.


    Apparently not (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 07:22:53 AM EST
    It only concerns us and how we are being treated. What does the rest of the world, friend or foe, care how our government treats its own citizens?

    Snowden gave an interview to a Chinese newspaper and told them the US has been hacking Chinese networks.

    If true, this might become a whole new ballgame then just "concerning us".


    I see (none / 0) (#107)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 10:24:07 AM EST
    your point, but this is not what the US government was reacting to originally. It was disclosers about the NSA and what it was doing domestically.

    About the hacking... I doubt this comes as news to anyone - especially the Chinese - but it is amusing considering the blustering by the US over alleged Chinese hacking.

    It seems as if every nation that can do so, is supporting a totally useless industry of spying - spying which reveals information that is useless to everyone and anyone - but keeps the spyers well fed.


    The guest on (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by sj on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 11:41:29 AM EST
    Anderson Cooper last night was waxing on and on about how much computer hacking China conducts against the US. Apparently there are whole buildings dedicated to that task. Which may be true, who knows.

    Two things I noticed in all those words: first that he never mentioned any Chinese activity that might have originated in the US, and second that he used the entire segment without hardly taking a breath.


    Snowden (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 01:40:00 PM EST
    made a point in his original interview in the Guardian that China and the US are not enemies - but in fact are major trading partners.
    In short, they are in business together.

    But, the people running the show, and running us around in circles, need an "enemy" to keep us jumping through hoops while they spend our money on weapons, spies and assorted gadgets - and to keep themselves in power where they enjoy the good life.

    Meanwhile -- it seems to me that the victims of Sandy are still looking for aid... and veterans are still waiting for months and even years for treatment.


    Yes, because that approach has (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 02:29:21 PM EST
    worked out so well for people like Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou and Bradley Manning.

    Maybe Snowden should come home and have a chat with the man who thinks this:

    Faced with questions about the disclosure that the National Security Agency has been collecting phone and email records of citizens, Graham pointed to a World War II-era program in which the federal government censored mail. He said it was appropriate at the time and that he would support reinstating the program if it aided security efforts. "In World War II, the mentality of the public was that our whole way of life was at risk, we're all in. We censored the mail. When you wrote a letter overseas, it got censored. When a letter was written back from the battlefield to home, they looked at what was in the letter to make sure they were not tipping off the enemy," Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters on Capitol Hill. "If I thought censoring the mail was necessary, I would suggest it, but I don't think it is."

    The mind boggles.


    Snowden, Drake, Kiriakou and Manning (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 04:31:59 PM EST
    are whistleblowers not practitioners of civil disobedience. The terms whistleblowing and civil disobedience are not interchangeable. Their actions are not in the same category as those of Gandhi or King.

    In the United States we claim to protect the whistleblower. We have laws that set out those protections. Whistleblowers are not supposed to be subject to prosecution.

    Civil disobedience involves intentionally breaking the law to make a political statement. Thus, people committing an act of civil disobedience are subject to arrest and trial and, if convicted, jail. Sit-ins and marches and Occupy encampments, these are acts of civil disobedience.

    Exposing fraud and malfeasance, whether by a corporation or an industry, like Big Tobacco, or by the government, is whistle blowing.

    Arrest and prosecution  is not supposed to happen to whistleblowers. Under our current president the protections for whistleblowers have been ignored and trampled. Just look at what the government did to Drake and Kiriakou.

    Given what happened to Drake and Kiriakou and what is happening to Manning, if Snowden had stayed here instead of leaving the country, I would be questioning his sanity if not his intelligence.


    As to your list: (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 10:48:33 AM EST
    a woman who would go to the lengths described in A, B or D is probably not going to go looking for Plan B, or seeking an abortion, I wouldn't think.  

    Plan B is about preventing pregnancy, so your screed about the usurpation of family power - a phrase that sounds like it came out of some male-dominated cult and is too creepy for words - is a non-sequitur (Latin for "talking out of your butt").

    Interesting views on women popping up today . . . (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 11:55:38 AM EST

    I fear your tenure here (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 03:26:19 PM EST
    May end sooner than later. That is a very offensive comment.

    Insults, name-calling, bullying (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 04:02:09 PM EST
    Slayerezo:  If there is a citation for Verbal Spit than you have spewed more in your past few comments than I thought possible.  If there is a low-bar for direct personal attack on another, you may have set a new low. I present to you the Citation for Spewing Forth Verbal Spit.  

    You owe Anne an apology.

    On the lighter side (3.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 09:55:07 AM EST
    A commenter notes on this takeoff of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of The Moon Prism Martin Rowson cartoon on the NSA surveillance revelations at the Guardian that "Obama through the prism shows as a mix of Dick Nixon and Uncle Joe Stalin while Hague bounces around and the cash still pours through the good old British Parliament into the troughers' swag bag."

    I think he's a little off with the Nixon comparison.

    Nixon was an amateur. Obama is a true professional at fascism.

    I wanted to for years get onto Nixon's Enemies List but always bombed. Obama makes it a piece of cake. A couple of head exploding comments on a blog is all I need.

    Well...think of what Haldeman would have done (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 03:15:56 PM EST
    with the internet before you go making pronouncements like that!

    I have. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 10:05:36 PM EST
    Haldeman was an amateur too.

    What do you think of Gloria Steinem? (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 11:07:21 PM EST
    China and Al Qaeda would love (none / 0) (#3)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 10:52:56 PM EST
     to capture and "debrief" Snowden.  

    Not so sure he thought about others aside from the U.S. when he decided to go public....

    He will be hunted by many.....

    How is Snowden going to make (none / 0) (#4)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 11:00:57 PM EST
    a living in New Zealand?  I suppose he is employable because he is so bright, but he may be too radioactive.....

    Life on the run will be no fun.....

    Who will pay for his security and new identity?

    Yeah, it's not like... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by unitron on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 07:24:25 AM EST
    Kim DotCom has any use for someone who's good with computers.

    Isn't KIm Dotcom in custody (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 09:07:25 AM EST
    in New Zealand?

    Snowden has more to worry about than just the U.S.


    He better hope he can write (none / 0) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 07:08:26 AM EST
    because I'd say his employment possibilities are zero. His potential intelligence may be nullified by his total paranoia. Someone that puts a hood over his head and his computer so hidden secret cameras in his hotel can't steal his password has bigger issues to deal with than a job.

    lol. Paranoia would have been a resume plus (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 08:51:45 AM EST
    at his last employer.

    Jeralyn, (none / 0) (#5)
    by Pugfrench on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 12:54:23 AM EST
    I had a question about jury selection. I know that the zimmerman potential jurors were chosen from the drivers license records and that they are then asked to fill out a questionnaire, and that some potential jurors will be able to leave based on their answers. Once they have done that how do they decide what order to call the jurors in to question them? Is it random, or is there some kind of method to it?

    It's both (none / 0) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 06:55:39 AM EST
    It's a random method. You're given a number when you report for jury duty the first day you arrive. They then run by number. The murder trial I was on in Florida brought us in 50 at a time. None were dismissed based on the questionnaire prior to being questioned by the Judge and lawyers. (A few were dismissed before going in if they weren't fluent in English)

    Okay, I'm burned out on Edward Snowden. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 01:00:08 AM EST
    How about the NBA's best team money can buy, the Miami Heat, having their butts handed to them by the San Antonio Spurs, 113-77? LeBron James decided to take a breather tonight; he looked totally passive. The Heat have two days to figure out what happened tonight and turn it around, and LeBron better bring his A-game next time.

    Otherwise, it'll be Aloha, Heat -- as in Adios.

    Best team money can buy? (none / 0) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 06:45:11 AM EST
    That's one of those false narratives. You do know James, Wade, Bosh, Haslem, and Allen all took less money to play for Miami than they were offered elsewhere right?

    The LA Lakers have three players being paid more than anyone on the Heat.


    Best team.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 09:41:17 AM EST
    free agent collusion can buy...not that there is anything wrong with that, key word "free", free to play with whom and where you want.

    Though Larry never woulda colluded to sign and play with Magic, and vice versa;)

    Go Spurs!  Hope Tony's ok.


    On that you may be right (none / 0) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 10:19:40 AM EST
    It's not often you find a group of athletes that put others above their own paycheck.

    Udonis Haslem took less so he could play close to his mother (and Wade and LeBron gave up salary to help keep him). Colluded to have Mike Miller on the team? Yup. LeBron said give him some of my money so we can afford him. Bosh? Yup Lebron gave up money to him too.(LeBron now makes $10 million a year less than Kobe Bryant) Ray Allen? He took 3 million less a year, probably because he couldn't stand Rajon Rondo.

    Worried about tomorrow? Nope. All the Heat need is to win one of the next two.


    Greed ain't the reason... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 10:35:03 AM EST
    Larry & Magic never teamed up...the desire to play against the best, and beat the best, did.  The essence of competition.  That's all I'm saying...the one title (and hopefully only title;) won in Miami just can't feel as fulfilling as winning one with the Cavs would have been...but to each their own.

    Sh*t, Lebron has a chance for the best of all worlds if he ends up back in Cleveland and wins one (or more) there.


    But the Lakers were hardly the best team, ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 10:45:32 AM EST
    ... are they? They played at a sub-.500 pace most of the season, barely made the playoffs (and only because Kobe Bryant played lights out and willed them there), and were blown off the court four straight games in the first round by the Spurs.

    Ergo, the Lakers were the most mediocre team od aging castoffs Li'l Jimmy Buss could buy with Daddy's money. And consequently, that makes the Heat the best team money can buy, simply by default. Neither team should be confused with Sacramento Kings, who were the best available team that nouveau riche money could buy at an inflated price of nearly $600 million.

    We'll see if the Heat remain together in the offseason, if they don't make it out of San Antonio alive.



    Lakers? (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 11:37:51 AM EST
    Old and slow....

    The Lakers did try the Dream Team approach awhile ago when they brought in super starts Karl Malone and Gary Payton.....And they got old and slow....


    Joe Scarborough is on this morn (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 07:40:02 AM EST
    Freaking out about PlanB and how this is all about young girls getting to make all these mistakes in private, he's having a little difficulty remembering that male participation is required for a pregnancy.

    Now he is walking it back, when that reality is visited in his head, suddenly horrible girls is replaced with the fact that the burden of it all is placed largely on women.   He has no cure for all that, he is concerned though, so I guess while he stands there studying us with furrowed brow nothing can happen other than women will become unwantedly pregnant.  But long gone from his voice is the hiss of $luts.  Now he wants all choices for those who must bear the burdens paralyzed by his "concern" for us.


    To quote Father Mulcahy (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 07:51:16 AM EST
    Joe would be saying "I'm incensed! I am outraged! Where is your decency, man? Your humanity? I am acrimonious!"

    The biggest problem for Joe, and the one he'll never be able to wrap his head around, is the Judge that made the ruling was appointed by Reagan. Thus making it a non-political issue for the Republicans because they can't attack Obama for it.


    Ever notice that it's always the men (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 08:03:29 AM EST
    who freak out about those with ovaries being able to control their reproductive lives?

    And act as if pregnancy happens via immaculate conception?

    I am just so over these people who are obsessed with making the personal, private matters and decisions of others their business.


    Not quite true (none / 0) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 08:15:01 AM EST
    Because, you know, (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 09:13:42 AM EST
    it's got to be all about the men...

    ::rolling eyes::


    You have a sudden onset of (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 09:54:06 AM EST
    misandry today?

    ::rolling eyes::

    You said it was only men. I gave you a woman who is pissed about the ruling saying it hurts women.

    I like the ruling, and it came down just as I suggested it would weeks ago here.


    I didn't say it was "only" men, I said (none / 0) (#34)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 10:29:57 AM EST
    it's "always" men - perhaps you would say that's a distinction without a difference, and maybe it is. Although if I believed it was "only" men, I would have written that.

    I appreciate your finding a conservative woman who doesn't share the party line - I'm sure there are others - and I'm equally glad about the ruling (even if it still does just tick me off that it even came to this).

    I guess it just sets my teeth on edge every time some man - like Joe Scarborough, whom Tracy referenced in her comment - gets on the soapbox to tell us women how we should - or even if we should - make decisions about our own bodies.


    On that we can agree :) (none / 0) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 10:39:59 AM EST
    Slight correction (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 08:24:01 AM EST
    You mean virgin birth, not immaculate conception.

    PlanB: Obama threw us a bone (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 09:04:11 AM EST
    to distract our attention.  What spying?  Be grateful, little people.  Or, if you object to PlanB, start a big fight.  Either way works.

    Yeah, I know. Call me cynical. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 09:05:18 AM EST
    I fully agree with you (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 08:59:14 AM EST
    On where the fight disappeared into on this :)

    Not Likely (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 10:51:41 AM EST
    The Judge was adamant.. FDA had no case, and the FDA had already lost the injunction to stop the two step plan B..

    IOW Plan B waa going on sale whether or not the FDA continued their appeal of the one step Plan B.

    To imagine that Obama threw us a bone on this is a bit... um ... over imaginative, imo.


    Oops, sorry Donald, messed up posting (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 07:40:52 AM EST
    That's okay. (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    Had you not done that, we would never have read Zero's heartfelt post about scheming women who victimize unsuspecting men for child support by stealing sperm from the garbage.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#48)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 11:27:38 AM EST
    it would behoove us as a great service to both slayer and the country if in this case someone suggests flushing rather than tossing in the recycle bin.

    Bad move... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 01:43:21 PM EST
    a flushed rubber wreaks havoc on sewage waste systems...clogging waste pipes, clogging sewage pumps...don't do it.  Pee, poop, and toiler paper are the only things that should be flushed, anything else you could be standing in sh*t in short order.

    From the expert on sump (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 02:14:01 PM EST
    pumps!  I did handle a lawsuit against a correctional officer. The female inmate did manage do capture some of the male officer's semen. Saran Wrap or something. Shot holes in his denial.

    No expert... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 02:49:20 PM EST
    just too familar with having to tell customers they're not getting credit on the sewage pump that failed and flooded the basement because upon factory inspection they found a rubber wrapped around the impeller and it blew the motor.  Warranty void.  

    Speaking of lawsuits involving screws...this screw didn't like being treated as he treats others for a living.  I found it humorous.


    Why is he squatting in the photo???? (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 02:58:09 PM EST
    PTSD? n/t (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 02:58:50 PM EST
    Oh snap. I recently saw an (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 03:10:37 PM EST
    article about a possible preventative medication, I.e., b/4 a person has the PTSD-inducing experience.

    Since you're telling me... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 03:20:31 PM EST
    it musta been reefer, the wonder herbal medicine that works wonders.

    I don't think so, but, no (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 03:42:07 PM EST
    segue, when I came out of the opera house a couple nights ago, an outdoor "symphony rock" concert (David Garrett) was just finished on the immense plaza in front of the opera house. As we all mingled to reach the street the smell of your fave was quite strong. Not the opera crowd most likely, although the opera audience included many young people. (Everything is relative.)

    As Elder Daughter learned at age 13 when ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 04:21:39 PM EST
    ... she tried to flush a tampon down the loo. Ah, the folly of youth!

    Ecuador could take Snowden (none / 0) (#26)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 09:48:08 AM EST
    Ditto for Venezuela or Cuba. He would just need to not do anything to upset their governments. Or, he could stay at Glenn Greenwald's home in Brazil.

    Lovin' It! (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 10:37:44 AM EST
    Ho Ho, Hey Hey, Operation Troll the NSA!  

    Papa likes! (none / 0) (#79)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 03:17:12 PM EST
    Same reason I make sure to do five minutes of so of bullsh*t searches on Facebook or Google or whatever corporate site I'm using, just to phuck their ad data. Give it a try, it's fun.

    Happy Father's Day? (none / 0) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 11:31:53 AM EST
    An interesting albeit non-scientific poll on mothers.

    As we approach Father's Day, AshleyMadison.com (remember I said non-scientific) polled a little over 100,000 of their married female members and found 9% have a child from an extra-marital relationship and their husband thinks the child is his. In addition, another 16% have a child and they aren't sure if it's by their husband or an extra-marital affair.

    That's up to 25% of their husbands that think they are the father of a child and may not be. Which takes me back to a line that, while true, once caused all sorts of havoc at a family gathering when I said...Women always know it's their child, men never know for sure.

    So this Sunday, lots of women will look at their husband and say Happy Father's Day (and under their breath...Bazinga)

    Take a look at this one... (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 03:24:32 PM EST
    even the little picture if the video does not play anymore.



    Is the site slow to update (none / 0) (#56)
    by sj on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 12:15:06 PM EST
    for anyone else today or is it just me?

    Perhaps an email to J? (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 04:23:58 PM EST

    I just received an email about (none / 0) (#103)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 09:45:34 PM EST
    Slayerzero's comments and agree they are insulting and filled with personal attacks on other commenters. Slayerzero is in time out until I review the remainder of his comments and decide if there is a place for him here.

    I'm also deleting comments in response to his comments with similar insults to him.

    Personal attacks are not welcome here against anyone. Offensive comments should be reported to me as I don't read all the threads.