home

Monday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 02:14:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Big immigration news day: The Supreme Court strikes down Arizona's law requiring additional proof of citizenship for voter registration, and ICE raids and seizes 14 East Coast 7-Eleven stores .

On the Supreme Court Case, the court held

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 trumps Arizona’s Proposition 200. The federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< New Snowden Release: U.S. and U.K. Spied on Allies During G-20 | Zimmerman Jury Selection: 40 Pass First Round >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Open Thread | 176 comments (176 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Big news on the Fifth Amendment, too... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 02:52:19 PM EST
    bmaz is on it over at emptywheel:

    Today the United States Supreme Court let a bit of the 5th Amendment backbone right to silence slip away down the slippery slope. In the case of Salinas v. Texas, with Justice Alito writing for the Court (rarely a good sign), it was held that a criminal defendant's silence can be used against him at trial. This is a stunning decision placing a knife blade in the age old general rule that a defendant's silence cannot be taken against him at trial.

    The facts, as laid out in the court's syllabus are as follows:

       Petitioner [Salinas], without being placed in custody or receiving Miranda warn- ings, voluntarily answered some of a police officer’'s questions about a murder, but fell silent when asked whether ballistics testing would match his shotgun to shell casings found at the scene of the crime. At petitioner’'s murder trial in Texas state court, and over his objection, the prosecution used his failure to answer the question as evidence of guilt. He was convicted, and both the State Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, rejecting his claim that the pros- ecution’'s use of his silence in its case in chief violated the Fifth Amendment.

    Alito held that petitioner’'s Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not "expressly" invoke his privilege to silence affirmatively in response to the police officer’'s questions. The upshot is that the word "silence" in "right to silence" does not necessarily mean "silence". This follows a long line of similarly disquieting cases going back to the likes of the 1984 decision in Minnesota v. Murphy to the quite recent decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins, where the Court held that a defendant failed to invoke his Miranda right by remaining silent for nearly three hours.

    [snip]

    Salinas may, on the surface, seem like an incremental decision, but it has the characteristics of something more, and more dangerous. The concurrence of Thomas and Scalia is a dead give away why. The Roberts Court conservative bloc has a disdain for Miranda, not just as to evidentiary admission, but as to comment on right to silence as well. These are linchpins of a criminal suspect/defendant's constitutional rights, and the chipping away is being accomplished by big hatchets.

    And the hits just keep on comin'...

    Hey, Thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by bmaz on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:59:24 PM EST
    It is an absolutely horrid decision, even if mildly predictable.

    Parent
    No - thank you...you guys do great work, (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:22:25 AM EST
    and Marcy is just killing it on this NSA stuff - so much so that some days I'm a little afraid to see what dots she's connected...

    Parent
    The reality of what occurred. (none / 0) (#78)
    by ravenshrike on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 07:23:18 PM EST
    If by horrid you mean entirely in line with both the Griffin and Miranda decisions on the subject, then yes, horrid. Miranda was explicitly about coercion while in police custody not being valid grounds for testimony, as such a new right was created. Although it REALLY should have been codified through the sixth amendment and not the fifth. In any case, the idea that Miranda or the fifth applies to someone who comes into the police station, answers a bunch of questions, refuses to answer a very specific question by remaining silent but then makes no attempt to leave or ask for a lawyer and then continues to answer questions is just silly. In any case, all interactions with the cops outside of a routine traffic stop should first be met with "Am I free to go?" and if the response is no, then "I want my lawyer"

    Parent
    Another Supreme Court ruling (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:38:54 PM EST
    Thanks to the Supreme Court, it may soon become slightly easier to get the  cheaper generic version of some medications.  In the case of FTC v. Actavis, Inc. the Court decided 5-3 that the FTC has the power to try to stop "pay for delay" on anti-trust grounds.  This is a practice in which drug companies pay generic drug makers not to bring the generic version to the market. Without the competition the price of brand name drug remains high and the two companies basically split the extra profits.

    Justice Kennedy joined with the four liberals on the court to form the majority. Justice Alito recused himself. link
    More (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:44:19 PM EST
    SCOTUSblog:

    What was at stake in the case was a legal practice that has shown up most prominently in the drug industry: the so-called "pay to delay" practice under which a holder of a brand-name patent, after having its patent rights challenged, fends off the potential competition from a generic company with a big dollar payoff, running into tens of millions of dollars, in order to keep the patent monopoly intact.

    Although the new style of antitrust lawsuit that the decision will permit was not free from ambiguity, the majority opinion written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer made two things very clear: first, that the mere fact that the generic was being held off only during the remaining period of a patent's validity was not enough to make such a payoff immune to antitrust lawsuit, and, second, that such payment arrangements will not face a challenge under antitrust law in which they are presumed at the outset to be illegal.

    Challengers will have to prove that the payoff was harmful to competition and thus illegal, under the customary "rule of reason."  That is a theory under antitrust, not patent, law.  And, while the Breyer opinion expressed the expectation that this would not turn such antitrust cases into mini-trials on whether the patent was or was not valid, the dissenting opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., argued that patent validity will be at the core, severely complicating -- and raising the cost of -- such lawsuits.

    While Justice Breyer insisted that the Court was not really doing anything new or different, but merely applying conventional antitrust principles, the Chief Justice argued in dissent that the Court had never before -- in the 123 years of the Sherman Antitrust Act -- crossed the "Rubicon" of allowing antitrust law to dictate the legality of patent infringement settlements.



    Parent
    What I Find So Strange... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:52:22 AM EST
    ...about the entire Snowden debate is that people who generally despise this administration and big government, on the side of the this administration and big government program(s).

    It's certainly separated the true libertarians from he people who fancy themselves libertarians.

    All the Benghazi and IRS stuff is out the window and while not actually defending Obama, they are tripping over themselves to defend this program and to call Snowden every name in the book.

    Then there is Dick Cheney, who, on this issue is lock step with Obama.  This is got to be creating a lot of anxiety for people who love Obama, the GD devil is praising and defending their hero's work.

    I guess future presidents should take note, when you up to your neck in scandals, real or not, leak a secret intrusive government program and all will be right in the world.  You enemies will will defend your actions, and all the heat will be deflected to the poor sap that exposed the dark underbelly of your government.

    I would like to say I like the anti-Obama crowd defending his actions, but in reality, it just makes me sick to my stomach.  Apparently it's near treasonous to possibly lie about why an attack occurred on an Embassy in Libya, but recording the whereabouts and communications of every single citizen is okey dokey.

    I forget how many Congressional investigations are being held on Benghazi, the IRS, and PRISM ?

    Benghazi (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 12:54:36 PM EST
    never was anything and the IRS thing really was about the 504C problem with the law despite what the GOP has been telling people.

    What I'm seeing is an allegiance to Obama much like the allegiance to Bush and neither have an allegiance to issues it would seem.

    Parent

    Where do you see the blind (none / 0) (#60)
    by Teresa on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:59:56 PM EST
    allegiance to Obama? I don't see it, at least on the big orange blog. It looks to me like about 80% or more seem to have thrown him overboard and it worries me for 2016.

    Did anyone besides me watch the hearing this morning with the house intelligence committee?

    I know just enough to be dangerous, but I've spent nearly two weeks researching this. It seems we had a cheaper, legal program started under Pres. Clinton (Thinthread, I think) and after 9/11 it was trashed for an eventual failure, Trailblazer, where illegal warrantless spying really got going. I think the three whistleblowers in the USA Today article were regarding this program and illegal warrantless spying in general. Those three I consider to be true whistleblowers and the government (under Pres. Bush) didn't listen (or care). Whichever one (Drake, I think) that was prosecuted during the Obama admin needed to be left alone. He tried to follow proper channels and I'm glad charges were dropped.

    My general feeling after reading and watching the hearing, and thinking back about the controls I had to follow and enforce in accounting in a public corporation, the failure to protect us comes not from the upper levels of government, but from the huge lack of controls to prevent lower level outsourced IT people from breaking laws and spying on us. BTW, I don't know or really care if Snowden did this, only that it can be done. It's confusing - only 22 people can approve legally looking at my or your records. The laws seem to be in place, but not the controls.

    I was never a huge Obama fan and I swear I'm putting on my "think objective" hat. I think what the NSA and FBI need to know and have access to legally, with a court order/warrant has a place in today's world. Its start under Pres. Clinton was legal, its growth and application under Pres. Bush's admin was not, and Pres. Obama's administration has done a decent job making it legal and making it follow the constitution. The agencies themselves have many controls in place at the upper level, but very little at the lower level which is the most important level of all based on my accountant vs spy analogy.

    What Dick Cheney and the rest of the right says now is meaningless to me. What they're defending now isn't the same program they had in place for 7-8 years.

    Anne    , if you read this - help me. You're one of my life compasses. Where am I going wrong? You know I'm no blind Obama defender and lord knows I think Bush and Cheney were close to if not outright criminals. So why am I not as mad as I should be? Lack of knowledge? Gullible? I thought we already knew all this stuff under Pres. Bush so I'm confused. Except for some specifics and some graphics, what have we learned we didn't already know? As NSA Director Alexander, or maybe the FBI guy said, laws can be broken, but the laws are there. We did have warrantless spying and we knew that. We supposedly corrected that and we knew that, so what am I missing?

    I feel like a failure as a Democrat. Maybe I'm a social liberal and only care about the accused, the poor, the disadvantaged and the unhealthy. I keep reading/hearing people say "omg, they're listening to our phone calls". No they're not. They have to get a court order, a very specific one by law, to do that. Are they lying? Past calls are already gone by the time they get a warrant. (Jeez, I wrote this two or three hours ago and didn't hit post - I reserve the right to change my mind on everything I wrote.)

    Parent

    Hi, Teresa...good to see you. (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:33:19 PM EST
    A couple of thoughts:

    When years go by without any meaningful accountability, and life seems to be just perking along normally, we are lulled into a sense of acceptance: "what's so terrible?  I'm not doing anything wrong, and the government must be doing something right, we haven't been attacked in any kind of dramatic fashion, so what's the big deal?"

    We're like frogs in the soup pot, sensing now and again that, gee, the water seems a little hotter, but we've been swimming in it for so long, why get worked up over it?

    If you have the time to read Marcy Wheeler every day, I'd suggest you do that.  Marcy has an unbelievable ability to connect dots and see the discrepancies and remember the ever-changing stories.  Honestly, sometimes I have to read her more than once because it can get really wonky, but it's worth it.

    Maybe it's borne of increasing cynicism, or maybe it's just paranoia, but I keep getting the feeling that those in charge of these programs who know the truth aren't telling it to us, and may not even be telling it to those who are supposed to have oversight - that Congress is operating in some level of darkness, and just keeps resorting to trying to scare us with all the terror talk.

    When things get dicey, they just trot out a bunch of men in uniforms to tell us about terror plots that have been stopped - and since we have no way of knowing one way or the other, we can either believe them, or not.

    I'm not saying there isn't a place for surveillance, but I think we have to look closely at how the magnitude of these programs is undermining basic rights and freedoms, and I think we also have to follow the money: look at the movement and nexus around and between those who are creating or have created these programs, and those now in the private sector making boatloads of money off the security state.

    You haven't failed as a Democrat, Teresa - your party has failed you, failed to live up to the expectations, ideals, and platform that we used to feel connected to.  

    I don't know who Obama is, but he's no Democrat, not as I would define that.  What probably worries me more than him being successful in pushing some very conservative ideas is him failing at it - because he doesn't move left, he moves right and doubles down.  He's out there now being so disingenuous and dishonest, selling us something that I don't think exists - and for what?  So he can keep doing what he's doing.

    I don't know what the answer is - I wish I did.  

    Parent

    Thank you, Anne :) (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Teresa on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 12:05:48 AM EST
    Do you think Hillary would have let the surveillance continue, just beefing up the controls and making it legal as Pres. Obama did? Maybe I've thrown in the towel on Democrats getting anything done, but I think she would have due to the pressure of not wanting a bigger than a pressure cooker terror act to fall under her watch. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems we always give in. Get nothing done or Democrats give in. When we controlled the House and Senate, we still gave in. Giving in in advance is my biggest issue with Pres. Obama.

    Maybe I'm wrong and I do believe for sure she'd have fought like a dog to get her health care plan in when Obama seemed to get the least acceptable in. Least acceptable to chicken sh*t Congress to get it to pass. I don't know if she would have succeeded, but starting at a better bargaining place would have been better than compromising in advance. I think until/unless we get term limits, none of the politicians will ever vote in our best interests, just theirs in order to get elected.

    Frogs in the soup - oh Anne, don't do it to me. I love green beans, especially fresh, but my back won't allow me to have fresh ones often. Green beans are the only green vegetable I'll eat other than lettuces and okra. I saw a thing on TV a month or two ago about a woman finding a whole frog in her green beans. I read it's a place frogs like to hang out - green bean factories. I've now become too sick at my stomach to eat green beans. I'm waiting on it to pass and you just had to remind me of frogs in food!

    Parent

    More Useless Trivia, Part II: (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:13:34 PM EST
    In honor of the 65th anniversary of the LP  -- yes, that's the 33-1/3 variety -- here are The Top 25 Best-Selling Albums of All Time (Pre-CD / Digital Era), according to Billboard magazine. Frankly, Nos. 2 and 4 sort of surprised me:

    (25) Tina Turner, Private Dancer (1984), 20 million copies sold
    (24) Supertramp, Breakfast in America (1978), 20 million
    (23) Prince & The Revolution, Purple Rain (1984), 20 million
    (22) Phil Collins, No Jacket Required (1985), 20 million
    (21) Lionel Richie, Can't Slow Down (1983), 20 million
    (20) Boston, Boston (1976), 20 million
    (19) Blondie, Parallel Lines (1978), 20 million
    (18) Barbra Streisand, Guilty (1980), 20 million
    (17) Madonna, Like a Virgin (1984), 21 million
    (16) Whitney Houston, Whitney Houston (1985), 25 million
    (15) Simon & Garfunkel, Bridge Over Troubled Water (1970), 25 million
    (14) Carole King, Tapestry (1971), 25 million
    (13) Pink Floyd, The Wall (1979), 30 million
    (12) Dire Straits, Brothers in Arms (1985), 30 million
    (11) Bruce Springsteen, Born in the U.S.A. (1984), 30 million
    (10) The Beatles, Abbey Road (1969), 31 million
    (9) Eagles, Hotel California (1976), 32 million
    (8) The Beatles, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967), 32 million
    (7) Led Zeppelin, Led Zeppelin IV (1971), 37 million
    (6) Fleetwood Mac, Rumours (1977), 40 million
    (5) Bee Gees, et al., Saturday Night Fever (1977), 40 million
    (4) Meat Loaf, Bat Out of Hell (1976), 50 million
    (3) Pink Floyd, The Dark Side of the Moon (1973), 50 million
    (2) AC / DC, Back in Black (1980), 50 million
    (1) Michael Jackson, Thriller (1982), 65 million

    Other related music trivia from Billboard:

    • The very first LP to go platinum with over one million copies sold was Harry Belafonte's 1956 album Calypso.
    • Carole King's Tapestry was the very first album to break the threshold of 10 million copies sold.
    • The Bee Gees' Saturday Night Fever remains the greatest selling motion picture soundtrack LP, followed by -- not surprisingly -- The Sound of Music (1964). However, in the post-LP era, Whitney Houston's The Bodyguard (1992) has since eclipsed SNF as best-selling movie soundtracks go, with about 48 million copies sold.
    • 71 year old and still going strong, Bing Crosby's White Christmas remains the biggest selling single in history.
    • The album to remain longest at No. 1 is the motion picture soundtrack West Side Story (1961), at 54 weeks.
    • The Rolling Stones easily hold the record for most Top Ten recordings, with 36 of them. Close behind are Frank Sinatra at 33, Barbra Streisand (32), The Beatles (30), and Elvis Presley (27).
    • That said, The Beatles have spent 132 cumulative weeks as Billboard's No. 1 artist; nobody else even comes close. Elvis is a distant second (67), followed by Michael Jackson (51).
    • The very first album to debut as Billboard's No. 1 was Elton John's Captain Fantastic & The Brown Dirt Cowboy (1975).
    • The Kingston Trio are the only artists to have four albums chart simultaneously in Billboard Top Ten (Nov. - Dec. 1959).
    • Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon was charted in the Billboard Top 200 for 1,630 consecutive weeks -- that's over 31 years.

    Aloha.

    Music trivia is never useless! (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:55:05 AM EST
    It is not even trivial! Looking at that, I see that I must have stopped buying albums around 1980, when I had a car with a cassette deck - because I had that Streisand 'Guilty' on cassette.

    But then why do I have the Tina Turner on vinyl? Tis a mystery!

    I am very surprised at 2 and 4 also. I had no idea those were so popular - my sister did have Back In Black though, and she had very few albums, so I guess that should have been a clue.

    I never bought Rumours or Saturday Night Fever. If you did not get more than your fill of those songs on the radio in that era...I guess you did not have a radio.

    Parent

    My 2002 Toyota has a six CD player and a (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:49:59 PM EST
    player.

    Parent
    I've always found it amusing that ... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 05:52:30 PM EST
    ... the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack is still commonly referred to as a "Bee Gees album," even though the Brothers Gibb actually recorded only six of its seventeen tracks. (They also wrote Yvonne Elliman's monster hit from that album, "If I Can't Have You.")

    Parent
    Best use of "Stayin' Alive" EVER is (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 06:43:40 PM EST
    this montage of Rita Hayworth's dancing on film. I've seen it dozens of times, and I just think it's brilliant the way the guy edited it. Plus, if you know how sad her her entire life was, it's even more remarkable, because she really seems so happy when she's dancing. The whole thing makes me smile.

    Part of the reason that song is so infectious is because it's recorded to the regular rhythm of a human heartbeat...

    Parent

    What a great montage. It made me smile, too. (none / 0) (#169)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 07:31:56 PM EST
    I saw a story on the local news awhile back about CPR. It said that when performing CPR one should do the chest compressions to the tune of Stayin' Alive. Sing the song out loud of just in your head, but keep the beat with the compressions.

    Parent
    It may be trivia, but useless? No! (none / 0) (#90)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 12:42:12 AM EST
    I still miss the excitement of going out and buying an LP, but that was mostly because the music was so good. (Sorry, folks, but pop music today is pathetically bad). One of the main reasons I've saved about twenty of my old LP's is for the cover art -- which just doesn't translate well to any other medium. The best are my very early Vee-Jay recordings of the Beatles (I also have an alternative UA version of A Hard Day's Night.) And, of course, some jazz LPs from the 50's and 60's, where the cover art stands alone as great artwork. I'm thinking of such iconic covers as Mingus's Ah Um and Brubeck's Time Out.

    Parent
    I'm starting to get into earlier music ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:28:07 AM EST
    ... from the so-called "Big Band Era" of the 1940s and '50s; of late, I've been listening to early Doris Day, particularly her years when she was singing with Les Brown's band. (I love her cover of "Sentimental Journey.") Can't say that I'm a jazz aficionado, but that's because I haven't spent too much time listening to it as of yet. I'll probably get there eventually.

    Parent
    Oh, I have always liked the (none / 0) (#145)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:40:08 PM EST
    Big Band music. My parents were frequently playing it as I was growing up.  And they would start dancing to it in the living room.      
    Swing, and especially jazz.  
    Thelonious Monk.  Dizzy Gillespie.  Charlie Parker.  Miles Davis.  Louis Armstrong.  All of the Marsalis family.
    But I guess I just like good music, period.

    Parent
    As Much As I Love the Convenience... (none / 0) (#99)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:11:10 AM EST
    ...of digital music, I really miss flipping through albums with my friends.  And knowing I could maybe afford one album, and that the choice better count or I would be stuck with a dud until i could once again afford to buy an album.

    Now I just download the album of I like one song which is more than likely to suck.

    Pop music today is just as bad as back then, which for me was late 70's early 80's.  

    Parent

    Remember the Columbia Record Club? (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 10:08:12 AM EST
    I joined about 3 times for the 10 or 12 free LPs...then resigned after I made the required purchases.

    Also got many duds when I forgot to return the response cards. But thank god Columbia had Bruce Springsteen albums! I think that is how I first got into him.

    Parent

    I sure do... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 11:27:33 AM EST
    but for my generation it was cassettes....I think I still owe them money.  But that's what you get for extending credit to a 13 year old! ;)

    Parent
    My Mom... (none / 0) (#126)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 01:11:04 PM EST
    ...will strangle the person who brings that topic up.  Both me and my brother worked that system for so many tapes, we had so many accounts and never sent back the forms.  My mom would get so angry that we were learning nothing about financial responsibility, and worse, learning how to game that system.  It got to the point where she would just take a marker and write, "REFUSED, return to sender" and give it to the mail man.  Because we would have just kept them.

    I don't know how they made money.

    But that for me was post-LP, cassettes.

    Parent

    I think charging $12 for a record (none / 0) (#130)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 01:51:40 PM EST
    you could get for $7.99 at the store had something to do with how they made money!  "Shipping and Handling"

    Parent
    Good old shipping and handling... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:08:43 PM EST
    oldest trick in the book...double or triple the actual cost of the shipping, and what the f*ck is "handling" anyway?  One of the mfgs my employer reps charges $3 "handling" on every shipment, but they hide it in the freight charge with UPS as a co-conspirator.  We call it the "$3 rip".  I think it's unethical but I'm weird like that.

    Parent
    The demise of the Columbia Record/Tape (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 04:25:16 PM EST
    Club is one good result of digital music.

    Parent
    Analog Cats in a digital age! (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:46:59 AM EST
    Another score for vinyl...much easier to roll joints vs. the CD cover, forget about on an ipod;)

    There's lots of amazing music being made today though, new and creative music.  It's just not filed under popular.

    Parent

    Dg v Analog (none / 0) (#125)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 12:46:23 PM EST
    Yeah...different eras. LPs good for cleaning pot and rolling...cd boxes good for....snorting?

    Parent
    Now you're really showing your age;) (none / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:24:59 PM EST
    Pot doesn't have seeds anymore...regs are as dead as coke.  Sh*t pot is gonna be dead soon, it'll be all wax.

    Maybe the kids use CD cases to crush their Ritalin for snorting, who knows? ;)

    Parent

    Seriously? No more seeds? (none / 0) (#141)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:58:31 PM EST
    Is it cleaned before its sold, or is it bred that way like seedless watermelon?

    Parent
    Bred that way.... (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:13:53 PM EST
    like seedless watermelon none of the high end has any seeds...just mids and regs do.

    Parent
    You kids have it easy these days. (none / 0) (#146)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:46:57 PM EST


    Parent
    All the Male Plants Are Pulled (none / 0) (#154)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 04:38:15 PM EST
    ...so the females aren't pollinated and all the energy normally used to make seeds, goes into making THC.  It's why the potency has sky rocketed.

    But that is hydro, which is grown indoors under very controlled conditions.  You can still get good old schwag at about 1/10 the cost, and it comes with seeds because it's virtually impossible to keep plants from pollinating outdoors.

    If the males weren't pulled, they would produce seeds, they are not engineered to be seedless.  

    Parent

    Thanks. (none / 0) (#167)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 06:35:41 PM EST


    Parent
    it does if you buy cheap mex (none / 0) (#153)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 04:31:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Back in Black (none / 0) (#116)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 11:24:50 AM EST
    Amazing that is number 2. Some of the worst lyrics ever ("Given the Dog a Bone" takes the cake, I think, if memory serves), combined with hard rock licks of the most addictive sort. That was/is AC/DC in a nutshell, whether the Bon Scott era, when I started listening to them (link), or the Brian Johnson era of Back in Black. Listened to a lot of that album taking a bus to high school baseball games across the LA basin in the early 80s.

    Parent
    You and my sister.... (none / 0) (#129)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 01:39:41 PM EST
    Listened to a lot of that album taking a bus to high school baseball games across the LA basin in the early 80s.

    She played HS softball and basketball in Orange County in the early 80s.

    Parent

    I went to high school in La Habra (none / 0) (#143)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:31:21 PM EST
    Guadalahabra, we called it.

    'Tis indeed a small world. Well, sorta.

    Parent

    Yes, I remember it being called that (none / 0) (#157)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 05:01:05 PM EST
    My Mom lived in Buena Park, then the northern part of Fullerton,off Malvern, so I am well acquainted with the area. I was already in college in Illinois when the rest of the family moved out there, but I did a lot of chauffeuring the younger kids around on my vacations, and after I joined them there in '79 when I graduated. It has changed so much - it seemed huge even then, now it is unbelievable.  

    Parent
    Speaking of old stuff.... (none / 0) (#158)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 05:04:42 PM EST
    I still have my well-worn Orange County and Los Angeles County Thomas Guide map books from 79-80. I love looking at the huge empty spaces that are now south OC. Amazing. and sad.

    Parent
    If it weren't for Camp Pendleton... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 05:14:54 PM EST
    ...it would be one gargantuan (or MORE gargantuan) sprawl from the Mexican border all the way to Ventura County. I remember a chicken ranch, and buying eggs there in the early 70s, where a mega-mall now is.

    Parent
    My mother has my grandfather's ... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 05:18:03 PM EST
    ... old Thomas Guide from the early 1970s, and there is no city of Irvine whatsoever in that book, only references to Irvine Ranch. It's sort of amazing to consider the rapid urbanization of SoCal we witnessed in our lifetimes.

    Parent
    Not to Put a Kink... (none / 0) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:48:06 PM EST
    ...in your cool post, but that is not vinyl nor is it accurate according to Wiki.

    I only mention it because as a child of the 80's it seemed very odd that music coming out after the advent of the cassette and CD would have such high sales in vinyl.

    It's like Billboard just removed everything past 1985, but used the total sales figures.

    Here is the only list of vinyl sales I could find, it's considerably different than Billboard's list.
    Top 20 best-selling vinyl albums of all time

    Funny thing is that list is even more peculiar.  Thriller still number one, but at 29M vinyl copies sold.

    Parent

    Back in Black still at #6 (none / 0) (#144)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:33:46 PM EST
    Still amazing to me. But "You Shook Me All Night Long" goes a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG way to understanding it.

    Parent
    Then, Dadler, have I got a cover for you! (none / 0) (#162)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 05:22:57 PM EST
    It really doesn't get any more kitschy than THIS.

    Parent
    Egad (none / 0) (#170)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:25:52 PM EST
    Love the lyric tweaks, too. Ugh.

    Parent
    Those high numbers seemed a little suspect ... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 05:39:44 PM EST
    ... to me at first glance, too.

    In retrospect, i's not surprising that Billboard would inflate the sales numbers of classic albums above and beyond mere vinyl sales to also include the cassettes and CDs, etc. But as you rightly noted, 29 million vinyl copies actually sold v. 65 million in claimed sales for Thriller is indeed a wee bit too much of a stretch.

    But then, the crazy folks at Billboard was probably just trying to capitalize in a timely manner on the 65th anniversary of the LP, as part of their ongoing campaign to make themselves still relevant to the perpetual and evolving public discussion about popular music, and once again, accuracy simply took a back seat to ambition.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    "Jagged Little Pill," ... (none / 0) (#166)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 06:05:41 PM EST
    ... which was recorded / released by Alanis Morrisette in 1995, sold 16 million copies in vinyl? Now THAT, I find hard to believe.
    ;-D

    Parent
    RIP, Michael Hastings (1980-2013). (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 08:51:54 PM EST
    LAPD has just confirmed that the journalist who ended the career of Gen. Stanley McChrystal was killed very early this morning in a single car crash in the Hancock Park section of Los Angeles.

    "The Runaway General, " Hastings' 2010 Rolling Stone profile of the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, ignited a firestorm of controversy when the general was quoted as criticizing and belittling the civilian leadership in Washington. He was subsequently recalled by President Obama, who relieved him of command and compelled him to resign his commission.

    Rolling Stone has posted a very nice story on Hastings. He was a brave soul, and will be missed.

    Aloha, friend.

    This is sad news about Michael Hastings. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:19:09 PM EST
    What a loss to journalism. And what an even bigger loss to his family and friends.

    I read the LA Times story. Sounds like a horrific crash.

    Parent

    Oh no, so sorry to see this (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:39:51 AM EST
    What a loss for all of us. We need more journalists that actually think it is their job to look for secrets...not fewer.

    People, slow down in your cars please. You have families and friends that want to see you live past 33. trust me on this one.

    Parent

    Very sad about Michael Hastings. (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 10:54:23 AM EST
    Apparently, an awful fiery crash.  Hope there is an investigation.

    Parent
    Yes, it was - and yes, there should be. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 04:00:15 PM EST
    The accident occurred at about 4:15 a.m. on North Highland Ave. between Melrose Ave. and Clinton Street in Hancock Park. I actually know this area quite well, as an aunt and uncle used to live two blocks east of here at Oakwood and Las Palmas Aves.

    According to an eyewitness, Hastings was traveling due south at a high rate of speed along what is a very straight 4-lane divided road in a nice neighborhood, when he apparently lost control of his new Mercedes and struck one of the large 70-year-old date palms in the median strip. The resultant impact was so severe that the car's engine was thrown almost 100 feet from the wreck, and the vehicle caught fire and exploded. The L.A. Coroner's office is seeking Hastings' dental records in order to make a positive ID.

    I hesitate to speculate, since LAPD's investigation is obviously in its very early stages. But given the location, the time and the circumstances of the crash, I'd say at first glance that it looks like Hastings' rate of speed was the primary factor in this crash. And no doubt, the coroner's office will run a toxicology test on Hastings' body for the presence of alcohol and other substances. If all that comes back negative, then I'd look to other possible factors such as mechanical failure.

    Hastings was a tremendously astute and gifted journalist, but was apparently also known as a pretty intense individual. His colleague and friend at Buzzfeed, Cenk Uyger of "The Young Turks," noted to KTLA Channel 5 News last night his concern for Hastings' recent highly agitated mental state. No doubt, his death marks a very great loss to the world of investigative journalism.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Hancock Park (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 10:43:42 PM EST
    is a very interesting area.  Stately old mansions but still quite urban....

    One of the nicer areas with a lot of character...

    Parent

    Yup. I worked at Highland and S Monica for (none / 0) (#134)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:19:11 PM EST
    about 6 years and I used to drive the Hancock Park 'hoods at lunch sometimes just to relax.

    Parent
    It's a very nice neighborhood. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 04:12:14 PM EST
    As you undoubtedly know, North Highland Ave. runs straight as an arrow for several miles between Melrose Ave. and Wilshire Blvd., which makes the thoroughfare highly conducive to speeding. My aunt and uncle used to live near the corner of Oakwood and Las Palmas Aves. from the late 1960s to the early '80s, and my cousins and I all knew No. Highland Ave. as an LAPD speed trap and would try to avoid it.

    Parent
    I had a trippy few hours... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:30:26 PM EST
    ...one night a decade-plus ago in Shane Black's estate (he of Lethal Weapon fame) in Hancock Park, which he rented out parts of for various functions, one of which was a reading of screenplay I'd written. It included what they called the "Opium Room," which was basically a wood paneled, octagon shaped room with constellations and the moon painted on the ceiling. Also, there was a secret little passage into a tiny room inside one of the turrets. It was said to be one of the secret play rooms Rock Hudson used back in the day.

    Oddball night that was.

    Parent

    Oh, yay! FBI using drones in the US... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    but only, of course, "in a very, very minimal way."

    Which is how it always starts, right?

    Asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) about what privacy protections are used in deploying drones and storing the images they collect, Mr. Mueller said their use was narrowly focused on specific incidents.

    "It's very seldom used and generally used in a particular incident when you need the capability,'' said Mr. Mueller, who said he wasn't sure what becomes of the images recorded by such drones. "It is very narrowly focused on particularized cases and particularized needs.''

    Wasn't sure what happens to the images recorded?  Seems like this is something he should know, which makes me think he does know, but wants to wait for a more opportune time to let that cat out of the bag.

    Well, (none / 0) (#155)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    Bill Ayers wants Obama put on trial for using drones, so I'm sure he wouldn't like the FBI using them.

    Ayers told the website he "absolutely" believed the president was engaged in terrorism for his use of drone strikes in fighting the war on terror.

    "Absolutely. Every president in this century should be put on trial, every one of them," Ayers said. "For war crimes. Absolutely."

     "Every one of them goes into office, an office dripping with blood, and adds to it. And yes, I think these are war crimes. They are acts of terror."

    Ayers also said he would give the president a "failing" grade, while admitting that he liked him personally more than other recent presidents.

    When you've lost Bill Ayers.....

    Parent

    Well, I'm not convinced (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 05:37:00 PM EST
    that Obama ever "had" Bill Ayers, despite all the Republican caterwauling about it.  

    Parent
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 39 (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    "Conscious vs. Subconscious" has been renamed and given its own little blog. (link)

    Holy Sh*t! (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:07:50 PM EST
    I think that's my 7-11 in the NY Times photo, but only if the caption is incorrect.  It says Carleton Ave. in Islip Terrace, which is like one neighborhood over from me, but I don't think thats the Sevs in the photo, it looks like my local Sevs on Calebs Path in Central Islip.

    I know all 7-11's kinda look alike but I'm pretty sure that's the Calebs Path location...right down to the firewood and garbage pail location.  If I'm not mistaken the Carleton Ave has a different layout.  I gotta check it out on the way home, maybe I'm confused.

    What a shame if my spot did get raided...all the clerks are real nice guys and always let me slide when I'm a nickel short.  I know the owner is Pakistani, he seems like a good dude too.  

    What a shame regardless...I've never seen ICE in my neck of the woods like that, and I'm in a heavy immigrant population area.  It's creepy man.

    kdog...you gotta get outta that place (none / 0) (#23)
    by fishcamp on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:09:33 PM EST
    if it's the last thing you ever do and c'mon down here where you can stop wishin and start fishin...I know where they live and we're not even down to rock bottom...yet.

    Parent
    If the allegations are true, I think you would (none / 0) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 08:11:19 AM EST
    approve of this raid.

    "[O]wners of 7-Eleven franchises in New York and Virginia created a `modern day plantation system' in which undocumented workers were furnished with stolen identities and forced to work 100 hours a week for a fraction of their wages". link


    Parent
    Approve of... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:09:20 AM EST
    getting the employees their backwages and overtime paid, and punishing the owner and corporate for modern day indentured servitude...but I can never get down with the victims being victimized again via deportation. Too cold, too cold.

    Good news it wasn't "my" Sevs after all, so my buddies are safe and afaik are not being exploited.  Well at least not anymore than your average low wage worker in this country.

    Parent

    Direct link to ABC story (none / 0) (#123)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 12:38:42 PM EST
    here

    thanks MO

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:10:14 PM EST
    It didn't quite say that a criminal defendant's silence can be used at trial.  It said the silence by a suspect before arrest can be used at trial.

    From SCOTUSblog (sorry, no link)

    As almost all Americans who have ever watched television or gone to a movie know, the Supreme Court held in a case called Miranda v. Arizona that a criminal suspect who is in police custody must be advised of his right to remain silent; if the suspect chooses to remain silent, that silence cannot be used against him in a trial.  The question before the Court in this case was whether this protection of silence applies before a suspect is actually arrested.  The defendant in this case, Genevevo Salinas, voluntarily went to the police station, where officers interviewed him about a pair of 1992 murders.  When asked whether a shotgun given to police by his father would match shell casings found at the crime scene, Salinas did not answer.  At his trial for the murders, prosecutors used Salinas's silence as evidence of his guilt; Salinas was convicted and sentenced to twenty years in prison.

    Over the years, the lower courts had been divided on whether prosecutors can point to the "precustodial" silence of suspects.  Today the Court resolved that conflict, holding that because Salinas failed to invoke his right to remain silent in response to the officers' questions, his silence was fair game at his trial. The Court reasoned that the privilege against self-incrimination applies only when it is asserted, and that merely remaining silent in response to questions is not enough.



    So, you can't actually be silent until (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    you state that you are about to be silent.  

    Because no one would know for sure what the silence meant unless you told them.  I mean, it could be that God had struck you dumb, or you had a stroke and couldn't speak, or that your English wasn't good enough for you to understand the questions, or that it was Silent Saturday, not Talkative Tuesday.

    Jesus.

    Parent

    It would certainly seem to me (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:14:05 PM EST
    to be a strong argument for never saying anything whatsoever to the police in the first place without your lawyer present.  And for pity's sake, don't ever walk into a police station voluntarily to answer questions, even about outstanding traffic tickets, without having your lawyer there.
    Precustodial, my @ss.

    Parent
    Apparently, it isn't enough to not say (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:42:27 PM EST
    anything; it seems like there is a requirement in some situations to affirmatively state that you are invoking your right to remain silent - even if you're told that you're not under arrest.

    "I'm invoking my right to remain silent, and if I'm not under arrest, I'm leaving.  If you refuse to let me leave, I will need to speak to an attorney.  If you won't let me speak to an attorney, I'm putting you on notice that I have the right to remain silent, and am invoking that right from this point forward."

    Now, what are the chances that if you are poor, have no access to legal advice, may not have much education, or good English language skills, that you won't be taken advantage of when it comes to the right to remain silent?

    Pretty low, I would think.

    Parent

    Extremely low, I would think. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:56:49 PM EST
    Unfortunately.
    Everyone, memorize Anne's statement in any dealings with the police.
    "I'm invoking my right to remain silent, and if I'm not under arrest, I'm leaving.  If you refuse to let me leave, I will need to speak to an attorney.  If you won't let me speak to an attorney, I'm putting you on notice that I have the right to remain silent, and am invoking that right from this point forward."

    Print it out and carry it in your wallet.  
    Not that this will help the poor, the uneducated, etc, all that much.  If you know anyone in this situation, give them a copy, too, and explain it to them.

    Parent
    Well, I love the entire (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by fishcamp on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:21:11 PM EST
    statement except for the "Im putting you on notice".  That part could get you a ride downtown instantly here in South Florida.  Cops just do not like citizens down here.   Granted there's a lotta dumb citizens here and a lotta dumb co...oh oh are they watching me type?

    Parent
    They probably are. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:20:40 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    "...oh oh are they watching me type?" (none / 0) (#70)
    by unitron on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:03:08 PM EST
    Nah, why should they bother? They've got the NSA to do that stuff for them.

    Parent
    I Was Thinking How That Logic... (none / 0) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:19:38 PM EST
    ...would apply to the First Amendment.  

    Never realized that our rights had to be announced before they become effective.

    I kinda get it in this case, the police are asking him questions he's answering them, then they ask if his gun will match the bullets at the murder scene and he clams up.  And they want to mention it at trial.

    The real question to me is if he wasn't in custody or a suspect why did they ask him the question that started this whole mess.  Seems like a real incentive for the police to use this 'gotchcha' method for people they actually do suspect, but claim in court they didn't at the time.

    Parent

    He apparently (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:48:29 PM EST
    Walked into the police station, of his own free will, to answer questions about a 1992 murder. He was never in custody and was always free to leave.

    On the morning of December 18, 1992, two brothers were shot and killed in their Houston home. There were no witnesses to the murders, but a neighbor who heard gun shots saw someone run out of the house and speed away in a dark-colored car. Police recovered six shotgun shell casings at the scene. The investigation led police to petitioner, who had been a guest at a party the victims hosted the night before they were killed. Police visited petitioner at his home, where they saw a dark blue car in the driveway. He agreed to hand over his shotgun for ballistics testing and to accompany police to the station for questioning.

    Petitioner's interview with the police lasted approximately one hour. All agree that the interview was noncustodial, and the parties litigated this case on the assumption that he was not read Miranda warnings. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). For most of the interview, petitioner answered the officer's questions. But when asked whether his shotgun "would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder," App. 17, petitioner declined to answer. Instead, petitioner "[l]ooked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, cl[e]nched his hands in his lap, [and] began to tighten up." Id., at 18. After a few moments of silence, the officer asked additional questions, which petitioner answered. Ibid.

    Following the interview, police arrested petitioner that there was insufficient evidence to charge him with the murders, and he was released. A few days later, police obtained a statement from a man who said he had heard petitioner confess to the killings. On the strength of that additional evidence, prosecutors decided to charge petitioner, but by this time he had absconded. In 2007, police discovered petitioner living in the Houston area under an assumed name.

    And apparently, this isn't really new.  From the opinion:

    It has long been settled that the privilege "generally is not self-executing" and that a witness who desires its protection "`must claim it.'" Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U. S. 420, 425, 427 (1984) (quoting United States v. Monia, 317 U. S. 424, 427 (1943)). Although "no ritualistic formula is necessary in order to invoke the privilege," Quinn v. United States, 349 U. S. 155, 164 (1955), a witness does not do so by simply standing mute.

    Continuing on through pages 7, the opinion spells out exactly how an express claiming of the privilege has been settled law, and lays out the two exceptions where an express claim does not have to be made.  The Court also points out that neither of the exceptions apply here.

    Parent

    Oops (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:52:17 PM EST
    I missed a bit of the facts - after the interview:

    police arrested petitioner onoutstanding traffic warrants. Prosecutors soon concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge him with the murders....

    Sorry about that.

    Parent

    JB inDC... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by bmaz on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:21:05 PM EST
    ... If you didn't pay attention to the concurrence coupled with the majority, you don't have a full grip on what the decision both stands for now and importunes for the future. Even the majority absolutely said silence could be used against a defendant at trial. Full Stop. The fact that, in this case, a temporal distinction of before/after Miranda was made is of little solace.

    Parent
    Supposed to be in response to Anne (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:11:10 PM EST


    Parent
    While the Court may have struck down (none / 0) (#6)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:32:24 PM EST
    Arizona's law, it seems it left the door wide open, and provided a handy trail of legal bread crumbs over the threshold, with its ruling today.

    From Scotusblog:

    If a reader of the Scalia opinion stopped at the top of page 13, the impression would be very clear that Congress had won hands down in the field of regulating federal elections.   But from that point on, there is abundant encouragement for what is essentially a states' rights argument: that is, that the states have very wide authority to define who gets to vote, in both state and federal elections.

    On the particular point at issue in this case -- Arizona's requirement of proof of citizenship before one may register to vote or actually vote -- the Scalia opinion said that a state was free to ask the federal government for permission to add that requirement.   And, Scalia said, if that doesn't work -- either because the federal agency that would deal with such a request is either not functioning or says no -- then a state would be free to go to court and make an argument that it has a constitutional right to insist on proof of citizenship as an absolute qualification for voting, in all elections.

    The opinion seemed to leave little doubt that, if Arizona or another state went to court to try to establish such a constitutional power, it might well get a very sympathetic hearing, because that part of the Scalia opinion laid a very heavy stress on the power of states under the Constitution to decide who gets to vote.   Indeed, that part of the opinion said that the Constitution simply does not give Congress the power to decide who can qualify, but only how federal elections are run procedurally.

    It will be up to lower courts -- and election-law specialists -- to sort out just how to reconcile the two parts of the Court's majority opinion.   And it appears there may well be quite a few opportunities to do so, because of the rising number of efforts -- particularly in states in which Republicans have control of state governments -- to impose new voter ID and other restrictions on the right to vote.

    Sure makes me wonder how different things would look if we'd been able to have a Democratic president fill the seats Justices Alito and Roberts now hold...

    Wonder if (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:59:32 PM EST
    They will start going after people for perjury? The federal law allows:

    The federal law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, allows voters to register using a federal form that asks, "Are you a citizen of the United States?" Prospective voters must check a box for yes or no, and they must sign the form, swearing under the penalty of perjury that they are citizens.


    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:22:34 PM EST
    Arizona officials said they will continue to use state voter registration forms that require a prospective voter to prove citizenship, despite a Supreme Court ruling that struck down the requirement on federal forms.

    Hours after voting rights advocates were hailing Monday's Supreme Court decision, officials indicated that Arizona will take advantage of a provision in the ruling allowing the state to seek to continue requiring the added documentation while it appeals to a federal agency. In effect, the Supreme Court's ruling, which was viewed as a step forward in national voter registration law, could have a less of an immediate impact within the state.

    link

    Parent

    Congress can only regulate Congressional elections (none / 0) (#31)
    by kramartini on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:04:55 PM EST
    It would seem that Arizona can still request, but not require, those who use the Federal form to provide proof of citizenship.

    Those who provide the proof would be registered for all purposes.

    Those who fail to provide the proof would then be registered only for Congressional elections.

    Parent

    NCAA College World Series, Days 3 & 4: (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:15:13 PM EST
    Remember, it's a double elimination tournament in NCAA baseball.

    Game No. 1: Mississippi State 5, Oregon State 4.

    Game No. 2: Indiana 2, Louisville 0.

    Game No. 3: North Carolina State 8, North Carolina 1.

    Game 4: UCLA 2, LSU 1.

    Game No. 5 (Mon. 3:00 p.m. EDT): Oregon State v. Louisville
    (Loser will be eliminated, and winner will play the loser of Game No. 6 on Wed., June 19)

    Game No. 6 (Mon. 8:00 p.m. EDT): Mississippi State v. Indiana

    Game No. 7 (Tues. 3:00 p.m. EDT): North Carolina v. LSU
    (Loser will be eliminated, and winner will play the loser of Game No. 8 on Wed., June 19)

    Game No. 8 (Tues. 8:00 p.m. EDT): North Carolina State v. UCLA

    C'mon OSU, pull it together! (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:51:16 PM EST


    Parent
    The Beavers are looking good (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:59:24 PM EST
    Up 10-4 through 6 innings today in a win or go home game.

    Parent
    You have history on your side. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:11:16 PM EST
    I believe the Beavers played their way back through the loser's bracket to win the 2007 NCAA title.

    It's certainly not uncommon; the last team to do it was Fresno State in 2008. it's just that in order to do so, you have to win four games to get to the championship final rather than only three, as you otherwise would if you went through the winner's bracket.

    Parent

    And the Beavers win. They beat Louisville 11-4. (none / 0) (#33)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:31:07 PM EST
    The year the Beavs played their way back through the loser's bracket was 2006, not 2007. They won the CWS in both '06 and '07.

    Go, Beavers!

    Parent

    Thank you for the correction. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 01:05:37 AM EST
    I knew the Beavers did it in one of those two years. They went on to beat North Carolina in the finals both times.

    Mississippi State came from behind tonight in Game No. 6 (winner's bracket) to beat Indiana, 5-4. So, Oregon State will now face the Hoosiers on Wednesday in Game No. 9, which is another elimination game for the Beavers. The winner will have to beat MSU twice to gain the College World Series finals, while the Bulldogs only have to win once.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Professor Blastoff Podcast (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:21:17 PM EST
    Have to share my newest source of funny with you all. This is a podcast with 4 comedians that talk weekly about a variety of subjects, mostly something generally scientific, philosophical, or life in general in nature - no specific politics or media/cultural topics, which is a relief sometimes. They have a special guest 'expert' on the topic of the week -sometimes the expert is another friend that has a special interest in something, other times it is a listener that has some kind of credentials. It is the combination of learning, ruminating, and comedic riffing on a topic that makes it great. Like having a chat with your 4 funniest friends.

    They started this podcast in 2011, and since then one of them, Tig Notaro, got more exposure in a painful way when she was diagnosed with breast cancer last summer, and went on stage that night talking about it. Louis CK saw her and posted it on his site. She is since in remission after a mastectomy. I had not heard of the other 3 before, but looking at their credits they have done lots of work.

    I started listening a few weeks ago - basically picked one at random from the list in itunes to get me started...there are a few running jokes that take more than one listen to tune into, but you get into it pretty quick. One of the guys, Kyle Dunnegan, does really funny impressions and characters.

    It is hard to describe, but I am guaranteed one real LOL moment per podcast,which is enough to get me going in the morning.

    Look for the live show with Ira Glass from Dec. 2012 - it is pretty accessible to start out with, and had me doubled over laughing this morning.

    Blood on Trayvon's Hands (none / 0) (#27)
    by rickroberts on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:10:35 PM EST
    Did the autopsy report show George's blood on Trayvon's hands? If not, I wonder why not. Was it not there, or did the examiner miss it?

    Are you assuming that ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:26:13 PM EST
    ... there would've been blood on the deceased's hands at autopsy, without offering any supporting proof on your part -- and then further suggesting that prosecutors not only demonstrate to your satisfaction that George Zimmerman's blood was NOT found on the deceased's hands, but also that it was never there in the first place?

    How exactly does one prove such a negative?

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#29)
    by rickroberts on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:33:03 PM EST
    I'm not saying that at all. I have been of the opinion all along that GZ acted in self-defense, but the blood question keeps being thrown at me. I just wonder if there is an answer. Is there something I have missed, have not read, whatever?

    Parent
    There are lots of answers (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:51:54 PM EST
    Rain washed away any blood, there wasn't any blood to begin with, etc.

    I think the least likely explanation is that the coroner somehow "missed it".  In a case such as this, he/she would have paid particularly close attention to any blood, particularly on his hands.

    Parent

    Enough time for blood? (none / 0) (#52)
    by woodchuck64 on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 01:47:18 PM EST
    In a 60 second fight, it seems unlikely to me there would enough time for a lot of bleeding with Zimmerman's injuries (say 60 seconds for the nose injury and less than that for the injury to back of head given that it happened after the fight started).  

    But in any case, Zimmerman's blood was found on Trayvon Martin's clothing (ME-8), Zimmerman had injuries, Martin had a knuckle injury, and witnesses put the two of them together in a fight.  So what other explanation could there be?

    Unless there is reason to think that DNA forensics rarely underestimate DNA presence due to improper preservation, collection, contamination, and the effects of time, the issue seems more like a red herring.  

    Some discussion here: http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,1991.0.html


    Parent

    "Martin had a knuckle injury"--WRONG (none / 0) (#72)
    by unitron on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:09:40 PM EST
    There was a small abrasion on the ring finger of the left hand about where a ring would have been if he'd been wearing one, but the knuckles themselves were undamaged.

    Parent
    As predicted, Obamacare will benefit some (none / 0) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:22:20 AM EST
    while hurting others.

    "There are some underlying changes to the system that are having an impact, and we can expect lower increases as we come out of the recession," said Mike Thompson of PwC's Health Research Institute, which produced the study. Cost "is still going up, but not as much as it used to."

    The report comes with a caveat that sounds counterintuitive at first: Self-employed people and others who buy coverage individually could well see an increase in premiums in 2014.
    ...
    --Employers' ongoing effort to shift more costs to workers through higher annual deductibles, the amount people must pay each year before insurance picks up.

    link

    And, it may not be ready in time (none / 0) (#122)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 12:32:32 PM EST
    At least, according to the GAO.  But what do they know?  They hate Obama and America. <snark>

    Investigators with the congressional Government Accountability Office (GAO) found good and bad news as the Obama administration seeks to launch the marketplaces, which will make or break the law's effort to provide coverage to the uninsured.

    Federal health officials are taking the lead in 34 states that have refused to mount their own exchanges because of opposition to ObamaCare. This outcome was not anticipated by authors of the Affordable Care Act and could throw a wrench in the law's rollout, the nonpartisan investigators said.

    "Whether [the administration's] contingency planning will assure the timely and smooth implementation of the exchanges by October 2013 cannot yet be determined," the report said.

    SNIP

    The GAO cited many factors that raise questions about the law's readiness. The federal data hub that will power the exchanges has not been extensively tested, and the administration will need $1.5 billion in additional funds from Congress to operate the exchanges next year.

    About 7 million people are projected to enroll in the insurance exchanges next year.

    In a hopeful sign for the White House, the report noted that 15 of the 34 states where federal health officials are running the exchanges will play some role in their operation.



    Parent
    The 17 Greatest Things (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 07:04:28 AM EST
    About the Congressional baseball game.

    Who pays for this great event? (none / 0) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 07:26:10 AM EST
    What does it cost?
    How is this different than the much maligned IRS event?

    Parent
    According to comments (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:52:50 AM EST
    at the link, they raised $330k for charity

    Parent
    Froomkin via Digby (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:17:40 AM EST
    Since from the looks of things there aren't a huge number of reporters who think uncovering secrets is part of their job I think Dan Froomkin's idea may be the only way for citizens to stay informed

    [W]hat's needed is a new beat, to cover secrecy itself.

    NYPD Commish.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 10:29:38 AM EST
    Ray "Pay No Mind To That Bill of Rights Thingy" Kelly slams the NSA...

    "I don't think it ever should have been made secret. I think the American public can accept the fact if you tell them that every time you pick up the phone it's going to be recorded and goes to the government," Kelly said at an event dedicating two new harbor patrol boats.

    Un-f*ckin'-believable this guy...I wish he'd take a 3 hour tour on one of his new toy patrol boats and go live with Gilligan.  Monitor us 24/7/365 with a device made out of coconuts or something.

    Well (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 10:40:34 AM EST
    Translation:

    NYPD is ahead of the curve, suckers..  and it should be obvious.

    More federal money please!

    Parent

    Ray Kelly... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 10:51:43 AM EST
    knows what you had for lunch before you do Squeak;)

    Ya see how Holder pissed 'em off by merely suggesting there should be a federal monitor of "stop and frisk"?  If Holder was doing his damn job he'd put a stop to the rampant lawbreaking that is stop & frisk...maybe he just wants to monitor it for pointers for a nationwide unreasonable search program.

    Parent

    Couldn't believe that either (none / 0) (#45)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:22:04 AM EST
    Not only is he probably off base in terms of what the public will accept, he's spreading misinformation about what actually happens.

    Parent
    Misinformation is a given... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:29:38 AM EST
    when so much is kept secret...and I think the feds like it that way.  Think of it as domestic black ops false flag kinda sh*t.

    Parent
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 40 (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dadler on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:30:53 AM EST
    The newly renamed comic series continues, and it just got its own little blog. (link)

    Just another crackpot on a plane.... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 01:44:07 PM EST
    or is it?  

    "He never threatened any individual on the plane. He didn't threaten to blow up the plane. He didn't threaten to divert the plane. He was just saying he had information relating to Ed Snowden," passenger Peter Jones added.

    "He said he worked for the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi and he was being detained by the CIA and was being transferred and his life was in danger," Jones told Diamond.

    Stranger has been true.  And when so much is top secret, most anything seems plausible.  Like when hands free cell phones came about and it became difficult to determine if the guy talking to himself was schizo or on the phone.

    Sounds to me like (none / 0) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 01:57:53 PM EST
    he's im need of a psych evaluation.

    Parent
    That's what the CIA... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:05:49 PM EST
    wants you to believe CG;)

    Parent
    Appears to be (none / 0) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:18:49 PM EST
    what the passengers thought too

    Parent
    I'm looking forward to a Game 7 (none / 0) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:19:23 PM EST
    For your side though you might want to win tonight. I've found (I think) 6 times in the 28 years of 2-3-2 before tonight that it was 3-2 in games and going back to the home court of the team trailing for games 6 and 7. Three times the visitors won Game 6 and took the Title. Three times the home team won Game 6.  I found no instance where the visitor won game 7 on the road.

    Current line for tonight: Either Heat -6.5 or Heat -7 depending on your connection.

    For me...nothing more fun than a Game 7 so you know where my heart is tonight.

    Parent

    Spurs definitely... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:43:35 PM EST
    need to take it down tonight, if there is a Game 7 all the pressure diverts back to San Antone.

    Long Island's own Danny Green....Lebron's Cavs benchwarmer to D-League to Finals MVP?  Dude is en fuego!!

    Parent

    Don't leave out (none / 0) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 03:09:52 PM EST
    Green was also cut by Cleveland. And San Antonio cut him twice.

    Parent
    At the half (none / 0) (#80)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:20:23 PM EST
    Tim Duncan could be arrested for child abuse for what he's done to Chris Bosh.

    Parent
    According to the NBA, the 2-3-2 format ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 04:13:40 PM EST
    ... was first instituted for the 1985 Finals between the L.A. Lakers and Boston Celtics. Tonight's Game 6 will mark the eighth time the home team has entered the contest trailing, 3-2. You're right, the home team has won only three of those Game 6s to force a decisive Game 7. The other four times, they were closed out.

    In 1985, the Boston Celtics trailed the L.A. Lakers, 3-2, but lost Game 6 at home.

    In 1988, the L.A. Lakers trailed the Detroit Pistons, 3-2, but won Games 6 & 7 at home.

    In 1993, the Phoenix Suns trailed the Chicago Bulls, 3.-2, but lost Game 6 at home in rather dramatic and heartbreaking fashion.

    In 1994, the Houston Rockets trailed the New York Knicks, 3-2, and won Games 6 & 7 at home -- although if I remember correctly,  most of Game 6 was pre-empted so that we could all watch THIS instead.

    In 2006, the Dallas Mavericks trailed the Miami Heat, 3-2, but lost Game 6 at home.

    In 2010: the L.A. Lakers trailed the Boston Celtics, 3-2, and won Games 6 & 7 at home.

    In 2011, the Miami Heat trailed the Dallas Mavericks, 3-2, but lost game 6 at home in a mirror image of the 2006 Finals.

    Personally, I wish the NBA would scrap the 2-3-2 format for the Finals, and make it consistent with the other best-of-seven playoff series, which are all 2-2-1-1-1.

    More Useless Trivia: The 1978 NBA Finals between the Washington Bullets and the Seattle SuperSonics is the only championship series to have followed neither the 2-3-2 nor the 2-2-1-1-1 formats. Instead, that series went 1-2-2-1-1.

    Given that the Sonics had stumbled out of the gate that 1977-78 season with a 5-17 start, and because everyone had gotten so used to the Sonics going nowhere post-season, the Seattle Coliseum management felt confident in scheduling the lucrative Northwest Auto Show in the facility for two weeks in June 1978.

    Thus, everyone was caught completely flatfooted when the Sonics first went on a stunning 34-6 tear to close the second half of the season and make the playoffs, and then further surprised everyone by consecutively defeating the L.A. Lakers, the defending NBA champion Trail Blazers and finally the Denver Nuggets to win the Western Conference championship.

    The Sonics gained home court advantage when the Bullets defeated the heavily favored San Antonio Spurs and Philadelphia 76ers in the NBA Eastern Conference playoffs to make an equally surprising appearance in the 1978 Finals. But that Northwest Auto Show contract rendered Game 2 in the Seattle Coliseum problematic.

    So the NBA improvised by having the series first open in Seattle, and then shift back to Washington, D.C. for Games 2 and 3, before returning to Seattle for Games 4 and 5. And because the auto show was still ongoing, the NBA further moved Game 4 to the Seattle Kingdome, which set the record for the largest crowd at an NBA Finals game at 39,000-plus.

    The Bullets eventually beat the Sonics in seven games that year, in what was probably one of the most competitive NBA championship series ever played.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Conspiracy theories gone wild, methinks (none / 0) (#59)
    by christinep on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:48:02 PM EST
    Unless ...  Of course, the increasing pollution in the atmosphere has invaded brains (kinda like the mind-devouring worms from a long-ago Star Trek episode) and the brains of some, particularly one-time thinking skeptics, are taking a dive off the deep-end.

    Parent
    Just having some fun... (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 03:30:51 PM EST
    with the secrecy breeds conspiracy phenomenon...we've got no one to blame but ourselves and our collective's many secrets.

    otoh, they'd call you crazy in the 50's if you said the CIA dosed you with a powerful pyschedelic drug at a cocktail party.  So I'd say there is a slim chance the nut on the plane is telling the truth, ya can't totally rule it out.

    Parent

    NCAA College World Series Update: (none / 0) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:40:23 PM EST
    By Friday morning, there will be only four teams left in the CWS. Louisville is gone, and either North Carolina or LSU will be joining the Cardinals in the bleachers after this afternoon. The results thus far, and the upcoming games:

    Game No. 1: Mississippi State 5, Oregon State 4.

    Game No. 2: Indiana 2, Louisville 0.

    Game No. 3: North Carolina State 8, North Carolina 1.

    Game No. 4: UCLA 2, LSU 1.

    Game No. 5: Oregon State 11, Louisville 4.
    (Louisville is eliminated.)

    Game No. 6: Mississippi State 5, Indiana 4.
    (Mississippi State advances to Game No. 11 bracket final. Indiana plays Oregon State in an elimination game on Wed., June 19.)

    Game No. 7 (Tues., 3:00 p.m. EDT): North Carolina v. LSU.
    (Loser will be eliminated, and winner will play the loser of Game No. 8 at 8:00 p.m. on Wed., June 19.)

    Game No. 8 (Tues., 8:00 p.m. EDT): North Carolina State v. UCLA.
    (Winner will advance to Game No. 12 bracket final. The loser will have to play the winner of Game No. 7 in an elimination game on Thurs., June 20.)  

    Game No. 9 (Wed., 8:00 p.m. EDT): Oregon State v. Indiana.
    (Loser will be eliminated, and winner will play Mississippi State in Game No. 11 bracket final at 3:00 p.m. on Fri., June 21.)

    Game No. 10 (Thurs., 8:00 p.m. EDT): North Carolina / LSU winner v. North Carolina State / UCLA loser.
    (Loser will be eliminated, and winner will play Game No. 8 winner in Game No. 12 bracket final on at 8:00 p.m. on Fri., June 21.)

    Game No. 11 (Fri., 3:00 p.m. EDT): Mississippi State v. Oregon State / Indiana winner.
    (If MSU wins, the Bulldogs will clinch the first spot in the CWS Finals. But if OSU / Indiana defeats MSU, then there will be a rematch on Sat., June 22, with the winner of that game advancing to the CWS Finals.)

    Game 12 (Fri., 8:00 p.m. EDT): Game No. 8 winner v. Game No. 10 winner.
    (If Game No. 8 winner triumphs, that team will clinch a berth in the CWS Finals. But if Game No. 10 winner defeats Game No. 8 winner, there will be a rematch on Sat., June 22, with the winner of that game advancing to the CWS Finals.)

    The NCAA CWS Finals begins on Monday, June 24, and is a best-of-three series.

    Aloha.

    Another update: (none / 0) (#93)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:01:26 AM EST
    North Carolina eliminated LSU this afternoon, 4-2, while UCLA nipped N.C. State, in the nightcap, 2-1. The Bruin advance to the bracket final Friday night.

    The Tar Heels and Wolfpack will square off Thursday in Game No. 10. The loser goes home, while the winner will need to then beat UCLA on Friday night and again on Saturday, if they are to advance to the CWS Finals next week. The Bruins can close it out on Friday night.

    That's why it's tougher to come back from the loser's bracket in the NCAA tournament. Oregon State, Indiana, North Carolina and North Carolina State all have to win three straight games over the next four days to gain the championship series, while well-rested Mississippi State and UCLA need only win once.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Hillary in 2016, says Sen. McCaskill. (none / 0) (#64)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 04:28:16 PM EST
    Well, surely this is all Hillary was waiting for. Now she can run with confidence. The senator from Missouri, a former Hillary basher, has thrown her presidential support behind the former SoS.

    McCaskill, who TL regulars will recognize as a particular favorite of MO Blue, is, I believe, the first Democratic senator to hitch her star to the Hillary bandwagon. Given Claire's behavior in the 2008 primary, I would caution Hillary to watch her back.

    And if she wins (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 04:48:27 PM EST
    what happens then? the beginning of the slow but inexorable deconstruction of the national security state?

    And imediate pulling back from belligerent overseas sabre rattling, posturing, and fear mongering?

    Parent

    Jondee... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Teresa on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:19:13 PM EST
    And if she wins (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 04:48:27 PM EST

    what happens then? the beginning of the slow but inexorable deconstruction of the national security state?
     And imediate pulling back from belligerent overseas sabre rattling, posturing, and fear mongering?
     

    I would say the answer is likey no at least pertaining to national security. What happens if she's nominated and loses? Have we reached the point Pres. Rand is better? Or whichever nutjob wins the nomination?

    Parent

    Just curious (none / 0) (#75)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:27:16 PM EST
    which nutcase are you pushing for, a dead Ayn Rand or a brain dead Rand Paul?

    Parent
    An alive Paul as their nutcase (none / 0) (#89)
    by Teresa on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 12:10:42 AM EST
    nominee probably since he'd be easier to beat. At least I hope the American people wouldn't elect him as President. I think it would make the Republicans very uncomfortable to watch him run and I'd enjoy that.

    Parent
    I don't know... (none / 0) (#113)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 11:13:53 AM EST
    Ron Paul would draw some support from the crazy anti-war freedom loving left.  And any votes he'd lose from the right would stay home over voting for a D.  If Jill Stein and/or Gary Johnson don't run, sh*t I might pull a lever for the crazy motherf8cker.

    It would be fun to watch Team R squirm when Ron gets to talking about foreign policy and the drug war...while his lunatic positions draw applause. Go figure.

    Parent

    If a Rand runs in 2016, it won't be Ron. (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 12:43:10 PM EST
    The candidate will be his son Rand Paul. And the son, while just as idiotic on so many issues, not unlike his dad,shares , I  believe, none of his father's few okay ideas.

    Parent
    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 01:35:34 PM EST
    Rand strikes me as a phony opportunist trading on his old man's sincerity and somewhat recent popularity amongst the disillusioned.

    Parent
    How the worm has turned (4.00 / 4) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 10:31:10 PM EST
    I'm sure that due to her enormous popularity here in MO and throughout the U.S., her backing will make all the difference. Just look how her political clout put MO in the win column for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Oh, wait - strike that last sentence.

    I also would caution Hillary to watch her back when dealing with my sweet Claire.  

    Parent

    Ah, evidently her strategy is working (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 07:43:04 AM EST
    My sweet Claire is a Senator who votes with Republicans to take away benefits from the poor but had no problem charging the taxpayers for use of her private plane. A Senator who, along with her most conservative Democratic colleagues, signed at least 5 letters to the President requesting that he take action along the lines of Simpson/Bowles to reduce the deficit. A Senator who spoke about how we don't want Socialized medicine here in the states and did not support the public option. A Senator who under Bush and then under Obama has never seen a war funding bill that she didn't like.

    Also, just weeks after having Bill Clinton raise large amounts of cash for her went on television and stated that she would not want her daughter in the same room with Bill Clinton. An action that might warrant a warning that Hillary watch her back when interacting with my sweet Claire.

    Yet, voicing her backing for a Super PAC known as Ready For Hillary makes her someone to be defended.
     

    Parent

    MO Blue (none / 0) (#172)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 01:36:34 PM EST
    If you ever look at your ratings, I accidentally arrowed over and changed a 5 to a 3 on this post. I've never ever disagreed with you. I was re-reading this thread and saw you didn't have all 5s and thought "what idiot rated this less than 5?". It was me, but it was an accident! I was arrowing down instead of scrolling and I must have hit the left arrow instead of down arrow.

    I felt so bad I've been checking my ratings that go back two years. I never rate posts except for 5s. If I don't agree, I just don't rate it.

    Sorry!

    Parent

    No problem now that I understand (none / 0) (#173)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    The people who have commented on TL for several years have a history with each other. I have to admit based on what I remember about your comments over the years, I was rather surprised (to say the least) that you down rated my comment about my sweet Claire. As most people will attest, I have often been even more critical of my Senator from MO.

    Glad to see that it wasn't a knee-jerk reaction due to her sudden devotion (gag)to Hillary.

    Parent

    Oh I'm so glad you saw this! (none / 0) (#174)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 03:47:57 PM EST
    I've never like your Senator either. The only good thing I could say about her is she's not Alexander or Corker from Tennessee. I think we challenge Idaho now as the most red state. I almost want to move.

    Like you, I think if I were Hillary I'd be wary of her. She must see Hillary's high favorability ratings and is trying to jump on the wagon early unless some other "popular" person comes along like Obama did back then. I guess he's turned out to be more her style anyway the way he moved so far center/right.

    Anyway, like I said, I have never disagreed with you ever - not here or when we posted at DK. I felt so bad when I saw that. :( I saw you had posted in the most recent thread and I was getting ready to tell you again what I accidentally did when I saw that you had commented here. I think I may any way in case someone else noticed it. I'm going to be really careful from now on. I don't like how the ratings move here when you hit the wrong arrow key.

    Parent

    I think the moving rating has got many of us (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 04:09:07 PM EST
    at one time or the other. I know it has made me think "who could possibly give that comment an 1" only to find out that it was me.

    Parent
    Haha, funny. I wish they'd fix it. (none / 0) (#176)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 04:19:41 PM EST


    Parent
    As someone that voted for Hillary in Florida (none / 0) (#65)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 04:45:25 PM EST
    in the 2012 Primary, I welcome everyone's support should she decide to run in 2016.

    Parent
    Do you mean the 2008 primary? (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 04:49:38 PM EST
    To the best of my knowledge, Hillary did not appear on the ballot anywhere in 2012.

    Should Hillary decide to run, then, of course, just about everyone's support would be welcome. I do think it is a little soon to be tossing out endorsements, though. Maybe it's just me, but I find the eternal campaign to be wearisome at best.

    And, given Claire's less than complimentary stance on Hillary in 2008, I find this early jump well, amusing, if nothing else.

    Parent

    Guess 2008 would be right (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:01:15 PM EST
    old age is a bitch

    Parent
    I saw that (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:02:31 PM EST
    earlier today and talk about an about face. Does she feel like Obama "did her wrong" or what. I'm with you on the fact that I don't think this is any great shakes for Hillary.

    Parent
    I don't even get why McCaskill is doing it (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:07:07 PM EST
    I guess if I really cared about her I could read the article...she is probably just trying to make political points at home.

    Parent
    Get ahead of the train (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 10:56:49 PM EST
    If Hillary does run and wins, it would be good to be on the good side of the President.  She was not on Hillary's team last time and may want to be one of the first this time.

    Good political move.

    Parent

    "you" don't even get why (none / 0) (#177)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 06:15:29 PM EST
    McCaskill is doing it?"

    Her daughter made her do it.

    Don't you remember sweet Claire's rationale for jamming it to Hillary and flipping to Obama? I mean, Facebook is such a great source for divining who should be "The Leader of the Free World."

    just ask any 17 year old

    Parent

    Technically what she did (none / 0) (#73)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:11:13 PM EST
    was voice her backing for a Super PAC known as Ready For Hillary which is a group pushing for Hillary to run in 2016,

    Parent
    kdog (none / 0) (#85)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:29:24 PM EST
    Game 7

    Life is good

    Game 6: Wow. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:42:17 AM EST
    Now, THAT was a championship-caliber basketball game. Thursday night -- well, afternoon for us -- could be epic.

    Parent
    Great game, crazy finish... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 10:27:21 AM EST
    The Spurs were right there...one more free throw at the end of regulation and it woulda been over!  Woulda, coulda, shoulda....huge rebound by Bosh and Ray Allen is Ray Allen.

    I hope the Spurs can come back from it and bring it in Game 7...but it's advantage Heat.

    Parent

    Kdog: what say you? (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:40:48 PM EST
    When I read this op Ed today I tried to imagine your rebuttal.

    The Times

    Just reading the headline... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 08:19:41 AM EST
    ...I'll give you mine. It's one thing to openly and often toke in front of your children, it's another to take them to a festival or concert where some people are toking. But if we're talking safety of children, who among us can justify the air pollution we let our kids suck everyday from the tail end of cars and trucks and factories.

    Puritanical hypocrisy is almost every barb lobbed at weed. Don't abuse anything, that's your best bet.

    Parent

    not to mention alcohol (none / 0) (#98)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 08:23:27 AM EST
    don't hear much concern about how much it bombards youth every minute.

    Parent
    The Reefer Recap... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 10:14:22 AM EST
    of my sister bringing her girls with us to Mountain Jam is...it was no big deal.  The aroma was pungent, to be sure, but the kids didn't notice the difference from any other large gathering where reefer is not prevalent.  

    Fest goers were open yet courteous...if ya see a kid walking by you just don't exhale.  Simple;)

    I think you're good to go festing with Lil' Dadler...the kids had fun even if the music ain't quite their cup of tea yet.  And I thought it a good experience to let them spread their wings a little in a new somewhat wild and wacky enviroment.  

    Parent

    You have to pop in more often (none / 0) (#87)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:54:11 PM EST
    I miss your sanity

    Parent
    Ha. Got home last night. Be careful (none / 0) (#140)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:56:58 PM EST
    what you wish for !

    Parent
    That link (none / 0) (#94)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 06:32:46 AM EST
    is for subscribers only.

    Parent
    And there is already plenty... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:48:01 AM EST
    of ignorant intolerant haterade editorials available for free...sorry Oc;)

    Parent
    Not just about hate (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 11:13:00 AM EST
    It's about safety.

    Parent
    Oh lord... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 11:20:07 AM EST
    that's a new level of pearl clutching...the danger of the kids getting in the liquor cabinet or under the sink at home is so much greater, and nobody freaks out about booze and Draino and kids.  

    Parent
    You think this because, to you, the only (none / 0) (#118)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 11:44:32 AM EST
    form pot takes is the green, leafy, smoke-able one; what you don't seem to realize - maybe you didn't read the article - is that THC is being delivered via things like lollipops and soft drinks.

    One of our family members, who lives in Colorado, sent us some pot lollipops - they were even wrapped in Tootsie-pop paper - so I don't think it's crazy to see how kids could accidentally ingest it.  And it's not like they would know from the taste that they were eating something that could harm them.

    As for nobody freaking out about booze and Drano and kids, well, I think you will find that most responsible parents of young children keep poisonous household products and anything else that could harm a child behind child-proofed cabinets, and don't keep liquor within easy reach.  To leave these things where kids can get to them is just as negligent as leaving loaded guns within a child's reach.

    It's one thing to expose one's self to direct or second-hand smoke from cigarettes or joints, but it really is another to expose your child; I may not be able to stop my teenager from smoking, but I don't have to put my toddler/young child in smoky environments when there are other options.

    That's not pearl-clutching, by the way, that's just common sense.

    Parent

    I understood... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 12:00:37 PM EST
    they were talking about treats...and I agree you don't leave them sitting on the counter, you treat them the same as your sack of bud, out of the reach of children.  Common sense, no argument.  A far cry from a loaded gun though...nowhere near equal in danger.

    Acting like pot lollipops are some kind of grave threat is hysterical pearl-clutching though...you literally cannot die from it, unlike aspirin or booze or Draino or any number of common household items that are poisonous.  In excess it would be harmful to a child's development, but if a kid somehow accidentally ate one they will be just fine in a few hours.  I understand it might be a little unique because they're treats, and kids love treats, that's just all the more reason to fully legalize and regulate so everything has a warning label, sh*t put a silly skull and crossbones on the package if it makes people feel better.  

    I think the issue is bad parenting, not reefer.

    As to second-hand reefer smoke, I'm not sold as to it being particularly harmful, and regardless music festivals are held outdoors.  Worse fumes coming off the charcoal bbq and nobody freaks about that.  As for indoors, when I'm babysitting everybody smokes everything outside till the kids leave. I'm not an animal just because I don't clutch pearls and exaggerate danger;)

    Parent

    It may not be the worst thing (none / 0) (#120)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 12:13:33 PM EST
    But I think you greatly underestimate danger.

    Just because you like it, and (so far) have not had any effects or problems arising from your use, does not mean that marijuana is completely benign and is not harmful.

    And as for second hand smoke - it stinks and smells up anything around it. Just like nasty cigarettes.

    Parent

    Just because you can't die from (none / 0) (#121)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 12:27:41 PM EST
    something doesn't mean it isn't harmful.  Too much THC can cause children to hallucinate - and while you may find that to be an awesome possibility, neither you nor I know what effect that might have on a developing brain.  I don't even think you can say with any certainty that a child would be fine in a few hours if he or she accidentally ate a pot-pop.

    I just find it so interesting how cavalier you are, but perhaps that is partially because parenting is an abstract for you, not a reality.  And watching your siblings' kids isn't the same as parenting, just so you know.

    Oh, hell - I'm wasting my time on this.

    Parent

    As am I, as am I... (none / 0) (#127)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 01:30:13 PM EST
    Wasting time, but ya never know, worded the right way one of these days either one of us who could have a light-bulb go off in our heads and come to a new understanding.

    I have more real world experience with reefer, you with parenting.  Though I have been parented, and thankfully by two people who didn't clutch pearls to excess...I don't think I'd be the semi-well adjusted semi-productive member of society without their quality upbringing, though it may be considered scandalous by pearl-clutcher standards.  My moms puts it this way..."with the first born you worry about every little thing, by the third and fourth you learn not to sweat the small stuff."  And my moms did not sweat me finding my older brother's stash and eating it.

    Parent

    It's Also Dependant on Generation (none / 0) (#147)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:50:48 PM EST
    For example, no one even heard of a bicycle helmet growing up, now I see there are ordinances in which kids have to wear them.

    I am not that old and I find that a lot of things that were once no big deal, say seat-belts or child seats are now practically grounds for calling social services.  Sometimes its pearl clutchers, but often it's just people realizing that the ways of the past weren't so hot.  Realizing my kid has x-times chance of not getting injured if I use the seat, is responsible parenting.

    I can't read the article, but if you draw a parallel to the recent prescription drug hype.  Right now I feel like a responsible parent should not leave prescription medication in the family medicine cabinet.  That is something new and smart, even though I happen to also subscribe to the no big deal if a kids takes a pill or two.  There's a good chance they were prescribed to them to begin with and just because it's for a specific ailment, the development portion of that kid's brain doesn't know that, which seems to be the argument here, the unknown.  For example, methamphetamine is being handed out like skittles to kids.  But god forbid a sibling take one for fun, a real pearl clutching moment indeed because they are worried about the same thing differently.

    I do agree about some of the pearl clutchers, it's too much.  But, a kid getting high is not real bright, stupid if you will, but a rare exposure isn't going to change them in any conceivable or detectable way for the future.  If it could be they would be trotting out that is the latest and greatest reason to be scared of life.  But in reality, its not much different than my pops giving me an occasional beer.  A practice I would think is more common than not.

    Parent

    On the same page I think... (none / 0) (#148)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:59:25 PM EST
    I can't read the article either, but it reeks of finding an excuse to kick hippies who go to music festivals with their kids.  The same old culture war bullsh*t.

    As for general hysterics over what I consider minor stuff, I guess that's just a product of modern media saturation.  It's causing a general ninny-ism imo.

    Parent

    Speaking as a parent who indulged and ... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 05:07:10 PM EST
    ... as a former cigarette smoker, we went to great lengths to not expose our children to second-hand smoke. We did not allow any smoking inside the house, period, and the bong was always kept outside on the lanai (patio) and used there.

    Further, a person's optimal brain function and capacity isn't totally realized until one is in his or her early 20s. So, while it's one thing for adults to indulge in our preferred "recreational activities," since that's our choice, it's quite another to expose younger beings to such substances when their cognitive capacities have yet to fully develop.

    Always better to be safe than sorry, kdog.

    Parent

    Hmmm. I am not a subscriber. (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:55:14 PM EST


    Parent
    TWA Flight 800 (none / 0) (#96)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 07:44:45 AM EST
    Investigators Claim the Official Crash Story Is a Lie

    Hmmmm......

    Explosion (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:49:29 AM EST
    came from outside of the plane? If that's true then it would lend credence to what Salinger said about the the US Navy shooting down the plane.

    Parent
    I was reading the Wiki on it (none / 0) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:59:26 AM EST
    About inner plane damage not showing any evidence of an explosion and none of the human remains showed evidence of explosion.  My husband said that if it was hit by a heat seeking missile though those lock in on the engine heat and will tear holes in an airframe but seldom burn or damage passengers.

    Parent
    USN Oopsie Moment (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 10:13:03 AM EST
    That is what I remember...sure looked like it to me from the video that surfaced online at the time.

    Parent
    Crazy... (none / 0) (#136)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:39:02 PM EST
    if true, the tinfoil hate brigade is being vindicated left and right lately.  Who's crazy now b*tches? ;)  

    When does the full Kennedy assasination case file get released? 2017?  Then it's really on.  

    This calls for more Baby Cakes...Lies.

    Parent

    Well, some (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 04:18:36 PM EST
    are being vindicated. The ones conjured up by the Darryl Issa lately seem to be falling apart.

    Parent
    It's a promo for a documentary film. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 04:51:17 PM EST
    And its stars are six members of an NTSB team that probably numbered well over a couple hundred people at the time of the tragedy, given the breadth and scope of the investigation. So, regarding their claims, color me somewhat skeptical.

    Nevertheless, if anyone would have motive to contest the NTSB's conclusion that the primary cause of TWA 800's crash was structural in nature, it would be the good folks at The Boeing Company -- and sure enough, Boeing didn't quite accede to the facts stipulated in the NTSB's final report:

    "No evidence was found to support a conclusion that a specific electrical system or component of the 747-100 fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) ignited a fuel / air explosion and initiated an event sequence such as the one suspected in the TWA 800 accident. The 747-100 FQIS is designed specifically to preclude fuel tank vapor ignition. The FQIS is designed to tolerate environmental factors that could contribute to conditions that might cause electrical shorting or grounding. Exhaustive lab testing for potential ignition sources were essentially negative. Rigorous initial qualification testing by Boeing and its suppliers demonstrated regulatory compliance. Boeing has thoroughly tested the FQIS system as part of the NTSB accident investigation without detecting electrical event conditions that would cause an explosion aboard TWA 800."
    (Page 21, "Submission to the National Transportation Safety Board for the TWA 800 Investigation," April 1, 2000)

    In other words, Boeing said that it meticulously examined and tested fuel pump components under federal oversight, and concluded that:

    "None of the recovered fuel system components inspected and analyzed showed any evidence of being the ignition source that initiated the accident. The two CWT override / jettison pumps would have been turned off, and when they were inspected, they did not show any signs of arcing or other anomalies that could be suspected of being the ignition source." (Emphasis is mine.)

    It's certainly some food for thought.

    Parent

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 41 (none / 0) (#109)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 10:19:40 AM EST
    The sick humor continues (link).

    Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) (none / 0) (#115)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 11:20:30 AM EST
    comes out in favor of gay marriage today. Her op-ed on the subject is available

     HERE

    She could have left out the penultimate paragraph as it's for nothing more than political cover but the rest is very good.

    Monday Open Thread | 176 comments (176 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment