Monday Open Thread

A busy work day. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Supreme Court allows taking DNA swabs from arrestees.

< Bradley Manning Trial Begins | James Holmes Pleads Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Robot Abuse (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 02:54:50 PM EST
    Humans have a measurable emotional response to robots, as evidenced by a recent brain-scan study. Out in Germany, test subjects were shown videos of robots being hurt, followed by videos showing violence to human beings. fMRI showed that the viewers' brains responded similarly to each, and also responded similarly when robots and humans were shown affection.

    Back in 2007, a group in the Netherlands crafted a devious experiment: After a robot cat helped participants win a game, they ordered the players to shut off the cat. Only, when they went to do it, the cat would plead with them not to. If the cat wasn't much help during the game, the shut-off switch went down easily. But if the cat seemed smart, and helpful during the game, participants found it very hard to power it down.

    THIS is a real interesting article about human interactions with robots, mostly for the elderly.

    O.K. I put my bid in for two (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 06:17:52 PM EST
    A house/yard robot (do all the house and yard work) and an adorable pet robot.

    That Car Commercial... (none / 0) (#70)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:53:57 AM EST
    ...with the female robot kinda freaks/creeps me out, it's very suggestive. LINK

    I am dreading the day my dog dies.  I have never been this close to a dog and I think it's because she is easily the smartest one I have ever have.  She's getting older and it sux.

    With a pet robot the hardest part of owning an animal would be eliminated.


    Yes, that commercial is suggestive (none / 0) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 09:07:14 AM EST
    Maybe my house/yard robot could be an attractive male version.

    Yes, losing pets is definitely hard on the owners. That aspect would be eliminated with a robot. Another advantage would be you would not need to worry about the care and feeding of the pet if you wanted to travel.


    "Conscious vs. Subconscious" vol. 19 (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 02:57:02 PM EST
    More on the false Martin "fight" video (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 05:04:05 PM EST
    This just keeps getting weirder and weirder.  It looks like the defense knew about this video clip 9 months ago - describing it as "a video connected to him [Trayvon Martin] in some way regarding a bicycle" - not the way O'Mara falsely described it last week in court.


    The whole thing is fishy, (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 05:20:59 PM EST
    waiting until all 500 prospective jurors were selected before dumping the load of mostly, or totally, inadmissible videos. It's like a lawyer asking a prejudicial, or inflammatory question in court, knowing the objection to it will be sustained. Like they say, "you can't un-ring a bell." And, when did he "apologize" & recant "the fight" video? Sunday morning, when as many as four people nationwide were watching.

    Smells of desperation to me.


    Link please? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 05:06:37 PM EST

    Specifically... a link about the "9 months... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 05:13:59 PM EST
    ago"....  reference.  

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 05:15:53 PM EST
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 05:24:43 PM EST
    It's a discovery-demand letter ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 05:23:25 PM EST
    ... from Don West to Bernie de la Rionda dated September 19, 2012.



    You mentioned that you had seen a video connected to him [Trayvon Martin] in some way regarding a bicycle. We were previously unaware of anything like that, but later saw a clip taken from his cell phone SIM card that may have been what you were referencing.

    Sounds like a bum fight video. (none / 0) (#41)
    by redwolf on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 06:45:03 PM EST
    Such things are normally staged by offering an object to the winner of the fight.  In case it might have been a bicycle if it was in fact a bum fight video.

    "Normally" - heh (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 07:01:09 PM EST
    But you're not accusing Martin of staging this fight and offering a bicycle as an incentive, since that would be yet one more baseless, specious accusation.

    Seems like a minor distraction to me (none / 0) (#55)
    by Slayersrezo on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 11:23:54 PM EST
    Now if only the state would apologize for all its documented abuses of process, overheated rhetoric, oh and that little "oopsy" it had with some of Zimmerman's records a few months back, we might be able to go on and get going with the trial...

    A musical farewell (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 06:20:35 PM EST
    to Michele Bachmann.


    Movie Recommendation: (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 06:30:05 PM EST
    "Mud,"  sort of a teenager rite of passage, where two boys (Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland) encounter a fugitive (Matthew McConaughey) and help him evade bounty hunters and find his true love (Reese Witherspoon).  But, you care a lot more about the fate of the boys.  Good acting, including by McBongo, and a good story.  

    Aloha, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (1924-2013). (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 07:54:46 PM EST
    The 5-term senator from New Jersey died today from complications of viral pneumonia at age 89.

    Sen. Lautenberg is probably best known for leading the fight in 1984 to establish nationwide conformity in alcohol laws, rather than leave all that up to individual states, with a minimum age for drinking at 21 and national blood-alcohol content at 0.08. He's also the guy who led the fight to get rid of smoking on airline flights.

    Because New Jersey, unlike Hawaii, does not have a requirement that the person chosen to fill a Senate vacancy be of the same political party as the person who vacated that post, Gov. Chris Christie is expected to replace Sen. Lautenberg with a Republican, which would cut the Democrats' majority margin to 54-46 (two of the senators in the majority are independents).

    Rest in peace, Sen. Lautenberg.

    Christie (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:37:37 AM EST
    Has a couple of ways he can go with this - both at some risk:

    The option that is being pushed by many in Mr. Christie's own party would be to name a Republican to hold the seat and then delay an election on a replacement until 2014. This would give his national party an unexpected gift: a reliable vote in the Senate -- for a year and a half, at least -- from a state that has not elected a Republican to the upper house in 41 years. But it would also open Mr. Christie up to allegations of sidestepping the electoral process.

    The alternative, lawyers in both parties said, would be for Mr. Christie to set a primary election as early as August, which would mean a special election in October. This would leave Democrats in a stronger position to win the seat. Mr. Booker, in particular, benefits from a high national profile and strong fund-raising, though he would be quite likely to face a primary challenge. But it would also open Mr. Christie to accusations that he was wasting some $24 million in taxpayer money by holding those two extra elections ahead of the regular November balloting for self-interested political reasons.

    Or the state lege could meet (none / 0) (#102)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 11:54:04 AM EST
    to tweak existing law making it mandatory to hold an election to fill the remainder of the term at the next scheduled statewide election (i.e. Nov).  Seems like a good enough compromise as it would still give the gov power to name a replacement, but not also give him the power to select a date for election.

    The DNA thing (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Slayersrezo on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 11:38:00 PM EST
    Is just another of a long list of depressing political developments in what is rapidly becoming a mockery of a free country.

    In the past there were of course times when liberty was diminished or people were treated unequally before the law and you don't even have to go back to slavery for examples.

    There was Jim Crow.
    There was involuntary sterilization statutes.
    There was the Comstock law.
    There were 'indecency' prosecutions.
    During wartime we had internment camps for segments of the population.
    There was Cointelpro, and things like involuntary/semivoluntary drug experiments conducted by the Army and CIA in the 60's and seventies.
    HUAC and McCarthyism.
    Like it or not, Roosevelts threat to pack the SCOTUS.
    The confiscation of Gold.
    The last two arguably done during a time of dire economic and political emergency.
    Nixon and price fixing ..or was that Ford?

    However the thing about most of these abrogations of liberty is that they either applied during LIMITED WARS (wars that had a pre defined enemy and end), were later reversed, or applied (disgusting as it is) to merely a subset of the population.

    Nowadays the governmental reach is near absolute involving family, school, public spaces, private businesses, even ex-pats in countries around the world. And while this reach has expanded the permanent bureaucracy as well as the politics of short attention spans has led to Unconstitutional encroachments in all these areas. It used to be that  political freedom in this country would arguably take two steps forward, one step back. Now we almost never hear of rollback of an abridgment, and there seems to be almost no political pressure for expanding/protecting rights whatsoever, except arguably in a very few cases where some big governmental/private players have a stake. I refer to the fight against regulating the internet via SOPA and other bills.

    I don't think this is going to end well.

    There are answers (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:35:23 AM EST
    Congress can pass a press shield law.   And the FISA court can be reinvigorated.

    The question is who will support it.


    You should be banned for this (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:37:07 AM EST

    I truly apologize to Donald and everyone (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cashmere on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 11:39:12 AM EST
    for my snippy comments above and fully understand this was against the board rules.

    I deleted your comment (none / 0) (#150)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 09:38:03 PM EST
    and the responses and won't ban you but please try to be more careful.

    Won't you come home, Bill Bailey???? (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 02:52:17 PM EST
    Interesting findings (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 09:19:54 AM EST
    from the College Republicans this week: Millennials Don't Hate Big Government.

    The College National Republican Committee goes where the Republican National Committee wouldn't dare in its 2012 election autopsy -- they admit that it's not just the party's positions on gay marriage and abortion that repel young voters. It's the economic policy, too. The most eye-catching part of the College Republicans' analysis is that focus groups were "brutal," saying the GOP was "closed-minded, racist, rigid, old-fashioned." But Mitt Romney's presidential campaign didn't center on 1950s values or birtherism or banning gay marriage. The report points out that the GOP's core economic message is not all that popular either.

    "Conscious vs. Subconscious" vol. 20 (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Dadler on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 11:33:17 AM EST
    Yeah, that's a 5-star rating for sure! (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 11:36:35 AM EST
    I think Jeralyn would like this one (none / 0) (#111)
    by Dadler on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:41:03 PM EST
    J, what say you?

    Rental car company recommendations needed. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 01:13:57 PM EST
    Later this month I will be traveling to the old hometown to see my mother. I need to rent a car while I am there. So, i am asking for recommendations from anyone who has more or less recent experience with Budget, Alamo or Avis.

    These are the companies that a) rent at the airport in my hometown. b) have the lowest rates I could find via the intertoobz.

    The absolute lowest cost is Budget which makes it the leader. So, if anyone has had a good or bad situation with Budget, please let me know.

    Also, anything I should look for/be careful of about renting a car? I haven't flown in an airplane or rented a car in over 10 years. And the landscape has changed.

    This is the first time I have booked a ticket online. And I understand that I can print out my boarding pass at home. Does this mean that, having no checked luggage (no way I'm paying to take my clothes with) , I can go directly to the security line and bypass the United counter?

    Does this email United sent, with the subject line "eTicket itinerary and Receipt for Confirmation", my ticket? Is it the new paper ticket?

    The last time I flew nobody charged for checked bags. The airlines fed you. It was mostly crappy food, but there was no extra charge. Nobody cared how many ounces of liquid or gels you had in your carryon bag.

    So, any and all advice and tips are welcome.

    I've only used... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 02:23:07 PM EST
    Europcar and will never use them again, but I don't think they're big in the USA.  Tried to screw me over a scratch that was on the car when I rented it...but I was able to talk some sense into 'em after a harrowing few moments.

    Ya gotta go over the rental car with a fine tooth comb at the lot, and make sure you document every little existing ding, dent, or scratch in the rental agreement.  And if you should scratch or dent it during the rental period, try to pop that dent out or rub out that scratch before you bring it back.  If they find the slightest thing they'll try to screw you....though maybe the American outfits are better, I don't really know.

    Yeah, you can print your boarding pass from home within a certian time frame of the flight, or they have these self-serve kiosks in the terminal that you can use to print your own boarding pass to avoid the ticket counter lines, as long as you're not checking bags.  Shaves some time of the whole check-in security theater rig-a-ma-roll.



    Thanks, kdog. (none / 0) (#142)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:11:29 PM EST
    Checking the car over carefully does sound like a good practice.

    Be sure to read up on the restrictions as to liqui (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 02:44:57 PM EST
    AAnd prohibited items in carry on bags.

    My 2 cents...if only car rentals were that cheap (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 02:57:31 PM EST
    I hate renting cars these days - it seems to be the most expensive part of the trip. I had good experience with Enterprise at DIA most recently. The car was not as new as the Hertz and Avis fleets usually are, but it was fine, and the price and service were good.

    With United, yes, that emailed itinerary is as close as you will get to a paper ticket. If you print your boarding pass at home - or even have it on your smart phone at some airports - you can go right to the gate and not stop at the counter.

    No food will be provided - I bring a snack of my own because knowing there is no food makes me hungry!

    Liquids and gels are a pain. Get a quart size ziplock bag and put little travel sizes in there. Or just don't bring any if you are staying someplace that will have what you need.

    Wear shoes that are easy to take off and put back on in the security line. Loafers are the best. And no jewelry - they make you take it off for your full body naked scan. Enjoy!

    that's all I can think of at the moment...I'm sure more will come.


    Thanks, ruffian. I have slip-on shoes. (none / 0) (#143)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:14:54 PM EST
    Thanks for the remember to wear them. I will bring something to eat. Probably some energy bars. I do not fly well, and rarely eat on the plane, but I agree that the knowledge that there is no food could stimulate hunger pangs.

    Rental cars: (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 03:19:28 PM EST
    Be sure to note the local taxes/fees that will be added to your rental costs.  In some areas -- like Houston Bush (sic) Airport -- they are some of the highest in the land, adding another 40% on top of what the car rental co charges.  Ridiculous.  

    Also the gas fee -- they say it's cheaper to pay to fill the tank up front, and that's what I do.

    United Airlines:  They have computer screen self check-in kiosks if you haven't done it by email, or don't have a printer at home.  Takes 2 min to have a physical boarding pass printed, a/o paper receipt, if you prefer this method, or just want the last-minute security at the airport of knowing everything re your flying that day is on track, etc.  Of course you can always use the computer-code display on your mobile device that was emailed to you.

    Also during TSA screening:  you can carry cash bills in your hand, which I always do, through the scatter machine.  I never liked the idea of having to take out my billfold full of money to go through the x-ray machine, so this is one small break the security people give you.


    car rental info (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by BBQinDenver on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 03:26:53 PM EST
    The Budget franchisee that I use in Denver tells me that they receive rate changes 3 times a day. In the last year, I have rented from Enterprise, Budget, Advantage, and Alamo, and you could describe me as a (very) "value-oriented"(frugal) consumer. (1) when do you arrive (date/time) at your destination, and when do depart (date/time)? (2) what is your destination? (3)Do you own a car, and have insurance? (4)Can you do with a small car? (5) Do you have a Costco card (or named on someone elses card? AARP? AAA?  I have an email address listed if you want to respond directly.  Louis (BBQinDenver)

    I am flying to a small city in central IL. (none / 0) (#144)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:20:08 PM EST
    I will fly from here to O'Hare and then catch a small commuter plane to my hometown. I get in mid-afternoon on a Sunday and leave mid-afternoon the following Thursday.

    I do have car insurance, and it will cover me in the rental. My personal car is a compact, so renting a compact is exactly what I will do. No Costco, but I am a member of AAA. I need to spend the least amount of money possible and still get a functioning rental.

    Since I will be driving both my elderly mother and my elderly aunt, I do need to get a 4-door car. It doesn't have to be big, just needs the 4 doors.


    You'll be just fine (none / 0) (#147)
    by shoephone on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:26:21 PM EST
    You don't require a lot.

    I haven't rented in Illinois before, but have rented cars at LAX a number of times and usually spend no more than $35 a day with Budget, on a no frills compact 4-door. (It does need AC though, it being warm LA...)

    Good luck, Casey. I think you'll find the TSA may be the most annoying thing, but they are different at different airports. Sea-Tac seems to be one of the worst, while Reagan Int'l has always been quite easy for me.


    How I Rent a Car (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 03:28:35 PM EST
    I got to priceline.com and find the best price, then go to the website directly, say Enterprise.  Go through the booking process to make sure it's the same rate.  The Google 'Enterprise Coupons', find a code and punch it in, usually about 15%.

    Keep in mind rates change either Monday or Tuesday morning, so if you see a good deal on the weekend it might now be there Tuesday.  Wait for a really good deal, it will come eventually unless you are going to a tourist area.

    I got a full size in Milwaukee for a week $150 which included taxes a couple months back.  It was an Ultima, but my great deal was negated when I forgot to fill it up and they dinged me for $60.  Sucks because I literally had nothing to do for hours and I just straight up forgot.

    Also, the new thing is paying up front discount which is around 5%.

    Depending what airport you are flying into, the larger ones have substantially higher tax rates, like O'Hare & SeaTac are a couple that stand out. O'Hare is something like 25% tax/fees on car rentals.

    I never used to print because I always have a checked bag.  But last time they made me check in on the computer, aka doing their job.  It was a headache, so going forward I will print at home so I don't have to mess with the airports check in BS computers.  Either way you have to check the bag, so no time savings.

    Southwest is cheapest, check to see if they go where you are.  You buy each way, and if you book far enough ahead of time you can get some serious deals.  They do not let anyone else book tickets, so they will never show up in searches.  The earlier you check in, the better place you get in line, so there is a real incentive to checking in at home.  there is no assigned seating, but bags are free whereas all the other airlines will charge $25 a checked bag.  That's $50 cheaper off the bat.

    All the searches for flights usually have the same results, Priceline is what I use, use to use Expedia, but not as good as it once was.  I believe priceline shows a day forward back so you can if leaving a day sooner is cheaper.


    Scott, for some reason it did not occur (none / 0) (#145)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:23:32 PM EST
    to me to keep checking back for better prices on the car. Thanks.

    I am booked on United for this trip. SW doesn't fly to my destination.


    I've used all three (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 03:42:34 PM EST
    and all are good and offer pretty much the same services.  Only difference beyond price; I found Alamo to be cheapest on a trip last year to Buffalo/Niagara, is after hour availability should you have a problem.  I'd rank them in this order, Avis, Budget, Alamo.  Honestly it depends on where you're renting from.  If the airport, they probably all have the same hours.

    Also, on the LDW (loss damage waiver) insurance, see if the card you are using provides coverage, you can save and avoid LDW per day costs.  You will have a bit more of a hassle if you have an accident (second claim to the other insurer).  The LDW absolves you of any responsibilities whatsoever and generally removes all worry from the rental, but then again, how often does one have an accident or suffer damage while in a rental?


    Good info on the LDW. I have been trying (none / 0) (#146)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:25:30 PM EST
    to figure that one out. I am just about certain that if I do not have the coverage I will, of course, find that I need it.  :-)  I will check with my credit card and see if the card provides that coverage.

    If you haven't flown for 10 years you are in for a (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 03:47:48 PM EST
    shock.  Not a good one.

    I am not looking forward to all the (none / 0) (#148)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:27:03 PM EST
    hassle of air travel. But I have to make the trip, and flying is the most efficient and cost effective way.

    Another thought to ponder (none / 0) (#157)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 02:05:13 PM EST
    Don't know if this would be feasible for you casey, but, let me tell you what I do when friends of mine fly in for extended visits and need transportation for more than a day, or two:

    Many "used" car companies, besides selling those cars, also rent them out.  Since those autos just sit there accumulating interest charges the dealers are more than happy to defray some of that cost by renting them out.

    Some of the benefits vs. traditional rental cos:

    1. Cost.......less than $20/day (by the week, even cheaper)
    2. Huge choice of vehicles
    3. Unlimited mileage
    4. A simple, cursory inspection upon return

    Like I alluded to before, renting out these cars isn't their primary source of income, so it's just "+" business for them, and they tend to be less exacting, and much more "user friendly" in their dealings. I've done this many times, and, for my experience, will never use a traditional rental agency again.

    Who knows, something else for you to think about.


    MSNBC (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:06:28 PM EST
    Not "the place" for breaking news.

    No wonder they've plunged in the ratings behind not only Fox and CNN, but Headline News as well.

    Sounds like there's a lot of excuse making in this article.

    As If They Needed More Reasons... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:16:35 PM EST
    ...to print 'news' before it's confirmed or investigated.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:18:06 PM EST
    Investigating instead of cheerleading would be a welcome change.

    But MSNBC's the place to be ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 06:13:10 PM EST
    ... if one wants to be privy to the inner workings of state prisons and county jails.

    Personally, I've never looked to MSNBC as a primary source of breaking news. That said, I actually thought Rachel Maddow performed quite admirably when that killer tornado tore through Moore OK, because she made a real effort to get viewers the most accurate and up-to-date information and first-person accounts about what was happening on the ground. The rest of her cohorts that night, though, not so much.



    Plenty of room at Msnbc (none / 0) (#98)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 11:48:34 AM EST
    to open things up a bit, and still keep their brand of Politics, by rolling out a show or two that would cover more than just strictly political topics and opinion.  How about for instance giving the Msnbc audience a glimpse once in a while of what's going on in the rest of the world beyond our borders.  And domestically how about hitting the climate change/energy crisis issue a little harder on a regular basis?

    They have politics and the economy covered, to a fault.  Show after show, back to back to back, tend to cover the same narrow areas.  Diversify for chrissakes.

    Of course, it would help (in addition to dropping the replay of Tweety's late aft show) if the greedy execs dropped the embarrassing ratings-and profit-driven Prison Bloc programming.  Maybe too shift Sharpton to the weekends only (before phasing him out in a year or so) and put Chris Hayes back in his weekend morning show where he's a better fit. Replace him weekdays with Eliot Spitzer or Jennifer Granholm.

    While they're at it, also replace Joe Scarborough with Joe Conason-- so they could still keep the "Morning Joe" label.  Then tell Mika Brezezinski to either bone up and start bringing something substantive to the discussion or take her potted plant act somewheres else.


    Chris Hayes's show is bombing (none / 0) (#121)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 01:55:21 PM EST
    a 30% drop off from Ed Schultz.....

    As lead in to Rachel's show, he is hurting her ratings too.



    He is much better in print (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 02:04:10 PM EST
    than in person.

    Even I, as an unrepentant Liberal, can't watch him for more than a couple of minutes.


    I wonder if he seems a bit (none / 0) (#134)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 03:22:40 PM EST
    pressed, for time perhaps, on his new weeknight hour-long show.  On the weekends, he had two hours.  He does seem to be interrupting guests more than I recall on his weekend show.

    Dude is smart though, and well informed.  Opinionated too.  His weekend replacement, whose name escapes me, nice guy, pretty good but not quite the same energy or info level as CH.


    yup, that seems pretty obvious, (none / 0) (#139)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 04:24:57 PM EST
    the super-rapid talking to, and, over, his guests. His ideas, and ideals, are fine, but not everyone is gifted in everything.

    I'd love it if he had a show like Charlie Rose, one hour, uninterrupted, and no commercial breaks that really screw up the free flow of a conversation.


    I will let this speak for itself (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:12:48 PM EST
    Actually, (none / 0) (#7)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    he makes a good point.

    Most recently, HPV infections have been found to cause cancer of the oropharynx, which is the middle part of the throat including the soft palate, the base of the tongue, and the tonsils. In the United States, more than half of the cancers diagnosed in the oropharynx are linked to HPV-16 (8).



    iiieee Zorba... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by fishcamp on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:37:40 PM EST
    glad I'm consuming 4 tablespoons of Kalamata olive oil every day and drinking green tea too.  I used to know Michael Douglas.  He had a mansion on 35 acres outside Aspen with the first wii game we had ever seen.  For some reason it was big fun.

    you're a sort of savant (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:59:52 PM EST
    gravitating to all sorts of exciting sh*t. write a memoir some day, or let me write it for you. ;-)

    we could do that Dadler... (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by fishcamp on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 09:27:53 PM EST
    did I tell you about the Hells Angels Frisco chapter film I made back in the 70's?  True excitement.  Lotta fun.  Scary.

    You have one sale (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by sj on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 09:34:11 PM EST
    Right here.

    His case is yet another reason (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 04:04:06 PM EST
    For young people, both male and female, to get the HPV vaccine.  I am talking about people under the age of 26.  See the CDC recommendations:


    For older people, either be very careful and sure of your partners, or use a barrier method.  (I am suggesting dental dams, here.  Google it.)

    Hey, apologies to anyone offended by the subject matter.  I'm married to a molecular biologist/virologist, and while I am a layperson, I have learned way more than I want to know about this stuff.


    When it comes to the maintenance of ... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 05:33:12 PM EST
    ... one's own health, Mme. Zorba, ignorance is most assuredly not bliss. In the regard, your frankness is refreshing, and I applaud your willingness to broach the subject.

    Last I heard, Queen Victoria is still deceased. So as far as I'm concerned, using the excuse of personal embarrassment or squeamishness about sexual matters to avoid any candid discussion about the potential consequences of one's personal behavior is way beyond silly and dated. In this day and age, it's foolish.

    We really need to get over ourselves on the topic of human sexuality, because our children and grandchildren should know that STDs are still out there, and some of them are potentially lethal. We're never going to stop people from having sex, but we can certainly convince them to at least modify their personal behavior.



    Obviously, I agree, Donald (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 06:16:13 PM EST
    We were always very open and honest with our kids.  They learned about human reproduction, sexually transmitted diseases, and how to protect themselves, very early on. We were always frank with them about the risks of STD's, and also unintended pregnancies.
    If you are going to have sex (and most people do), know your partner and use protection (barrier methods) until you are very sure that you are in a mutually monogamous relationship.
    I worry about all the kids in those states that are teaching "abstinence only" sex education.  And about those kids whose parents refuse to get them the HPV vaccine.
    Big mistakes.  You are correct- ignorance does not equal bliss.

    Halarious... (none / 0) (#73)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 09:09:29 AM EST
    ...dental dams.  I think there were 3 sold since they were invented.

    This is one of those areas where the cure is worse than the disease, or rather the chance of getting the disease.  My opinion.

    Or of course the method you overlooked, cunnilingus abstinence is even more effective.  Man this is one comment I never thought I would make, nor would I ever think someone would actually recommend a dental damn in a public forum.

    Oh, and Michael Douglas can't walk his comment back fast enough, if only they didn't have that pesky video.


    Total abstinence (none / 0) (#114)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 01:00:11 PM EST
    From all forms of sex (except masturbation) would be absolutely 100% effective at preventing all sexually transmitted diseases (not to mention unwanted pregnancies).
    But that ain't gonna happen.    ;-)

    Exactly (none / 0) (#151)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 10:38:20 AM EST
    Regrets (none / 0) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:30:20 PM EST
    He doesn't regret this:
    Douglas also told the Guardian he didn't regret his years of smoking and drinking.

    But apparently he regrets this:

    Without wanting to get too specific, this particular cancer is caused by HPV (human papillomavirus), which actually comes from cunnilingus.

    Hmmm, if he do it all again, he wouldn't change a thing, but the cunnilingus giving.  Hilarious.


    I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:31:31 PM EST
    the women in his life (especially his wife) would prefer that he give up smoking and drinking.

    Pretty Sure... (none / 0) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:36:46 PM EST
    ...his wife would prefer he stop using the term cunnilingus, especially in public.

    No one should ever use that term! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:38:28 PM EST
    It sounds like a disease!

    But it did give us... (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:52:50 PM EST
    the idiom "cunning linguist", that counts for something.

    And I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#19)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 04:17:32 PM EST
    That his wife should get tested for HPV, as well.
    HPV is skin-to-skin-contact transmissible.
    But take heart.  Oral-genital transmission is still fairly rare.

    Dudes all over... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 03:32:58 PM EST
    looking to get out of their amorous duties have a new excuse.  Me...I like to live dangerously;)

    Seriously though...this sucks! Between this HPV stuff and the drug resistant gonorrhea going around it's hard out there for lovers.


    Well, I lived dangerously for years, ... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 04:11:14 PM EST
    ... being outdoors in SoCal and Hawaii, soaking up the rays, partying like it's 1999, etc. And man, given that I was an athlete, did I look fine in high school and college, if I do say so myself -- blond-haired, blue-eyed and tanned to a golden brown. I did exactly what I wanted, pretty much heedless of potential consequences. After all, I was invincible.

    Thirty years and one major bout with melanoma later, among other health issues, that bloom's long since fallen off the rose bush. And in obvious retrospect, living large for the immediate moment doesn't appear to have been as smart a life's strategy as I once thought.

    I've since learned that there's often a fine line between calculated risk and foolish recklessness, which is mostly invisible to us when we're younger. Now, I take full responsibility for those choices I made earlier in life, but all the same, it would be nice if I could help someone curb their excesses, and avoid what I've experienced with regards to the possible compromise of my immune system. Chemotherapy and skin grafts at age 50 and later really isn't worth some of the chances one takes at ages 20 to 30.



    Just use protection, kdog. (none / 0) (#26)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 05:16:46 PM EST
    A dental dam is just a condom for the lady bits. And just like you learned how to use a condom during sex, you learn to use a dam. Not that big a deal. Seriously.

    And certainly no excuse for anyone to limit the amorous possibilities.


    Protection for intercourse.... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 09:13:33 AM EST
    always.  But for oral sex?  I'd rather not perform it than perform it with a dental dam Cap'n...that's too much safety at the expense of pleasure by my personal risk-reward calculations.  I can't say I know anybody who has actually used a dental dam, and condoms for fellatio are almost as rare. Fine for sex-ed textbooks, but in the real world, we all know how it goes.  It's all about striking the balance you're comfortable with between safety and risk.  I mean you can catch herpes from kissing, and I don't know anybody who french kisses with a dental dam either

    I've been tested for HPV, so far so good...and it's not like I'm very promiscuous...I'm more about making love than just f&cking randoms.  


    Tend to agree (none / 0) (#93)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 11:29:25 AM EST
    On the dental dam question, pleasure wins out over risk, otherwise forget the whole thing.

    There was a segment last night on Lawr O'Donnell where he brought out an M.D., presumably specializing in this area or std's, and LO displayed for the audience one of these dental dam things, with much the same reaction I have:  Oh, so this is what one looks like.  Hmm, no thanks.

    His guest seemed to agree, or understand the skeptical attitude.  She helpfully suggested an alternative:  Saran Wrap.

    Heheh ...


    First time I saw a dental dam... (none / 0) (#113)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:54:29 PM EST
    was at the university dental clinic, the students actually use them so they don't drop an instrument down your throat.

    I never went to a "real" dental practice that actually used them....they even make dental work unbearable.


    Kdog, don't make me come up (none / 0) (#43)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 06:57:58 PM EST
    to New York and school you on how to protect yourself.  When it comes to STD's, for pity's sake, do not, and I mean do not, "live dangerously."
    And besides drug-resistant gonorrhea and HPV, HIV-AIDS is till around, my friend.  Not to mention Hepatitis C.  Do I have to give you the same education I gave my kids when they were way, way younger than you are now?  You should know better by now.  Don't take unnecessary risks.

    Zorba my dear... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 09:20:28 AM EST
    see my reply to Casey.  

    Safety is all well and good, but there are limits.  Ya gotta enjoy life too.  It's for each individual to decide how much risk they are comfortable with, and when it comes to sex risks as long as your honest with your partner(s) it's all good imo. The simple act of living on planet earth means being exposed to disease.  


    Kdog, be glad you live in the 21st Century (none / 0) (#45)
    by shoephone on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 07:21:42 PM EST
    Sex was a lot more dangerous in the many thousands of years between the first known cases of syphilis  (15th C.) and the 20th, when penicillin and and antibiotics were finally discovered, and developed for treatment of a whole long list of STI's.

    And, please don't live dangerously! There is so much good prevention/protection out there.


    Ha. I meant "many hundreds" of years, (none / 0) (#46)
    by shoephone on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 07:23:58 PM EST
    of course.

    No Offense... (none / 0) (#81)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 09:46:42 AM EST
    ...but in all seriousness, this is like a miniscule chance.  Not judging at all, but if you are worried about getting cancer the cigs, smoke, and drink would be a far more productive area to concern yourself with.

    It is estimated that every year in the U.S., more than 2,370 new cases of HPV-related oropharyngeal cancers are diagnosed in women and about 9,356 are diagnosed in men; they are most common in white men.

    The National Safety Council puts the odds right between dying from:

    - Exposure to excessive natural heat 1 in 11,111
    - Exposure to electric current, radiation, temperature, and pressure 1 in 12,146  

    And that is being diagnosed vs dying.  The odds of dying from it are so low I can not find any numbers.

    Here the top 10 odds of dying, same link as above:

    -Heart disease 1 in 7
    -Cancer 1 in 7
    -Chronic lower respiratory
    -disease 1 in 28
    -Intentional self-harm 1 in 106
    -Motor vehicle incidents 1 in 108
    -Unintentional poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances 1 in 123
    -Falls 1 in 158
    -Assault by firearm 1 in 340
    -Car occupant 1 in 415

    None taken... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 09:54:14 AM EST
    you're right, I'm certainly not loosing sleep about potentially exposing myself to HPV.  

    But it still kinda sucks...a world without HPV would be much cooler, even if the risk is small compared to driving or any other number of mundane activities.

    Like I always say, you start dying the day you're born.  It's not about quantity so much as quality years on this planet.


    Agreed... (none / 0) (#152)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 10:42:13 AM EST
    ...if you eliminate all the tiny ways to die, you probably going to live longer.  But that would probably make one OCD.

    If you spend all your time trying not to die, (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 10:50:29 AM EST
    how much living are you really doing?

    Which is not to say people should be careless or reckless - I guess each person has to decide what risks he or she is willing to take - and consider the consequences to others, as well.

    I had never, in all my almost-60 years, gotten a flu shot, but a month or so before my daughter had her baby - she delivered in December - she asked all of us who were going to be in close contact with the baby to get flu shots and the tDap (tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis) vaccine.  I got the shots - not so much for me, but for my grandson, and for my daughter's peace of mind.

    And I'll probably get a flu shot in the fall - it seems like such a small thing to do, but the consequences of not doing it could be huge.


    I have a friend who got a flu shot this past fall (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 04:51:10 PM EST
    and her doctors think it triggered Wegener's granulomatosis, an autoimmune disease that had been dormant in her body.  She's very sick. I haven't had a flu shot in about three years and plan to not get one again.

    Or did she have previous ones that did not have this effect?

    Yes, I believe it was. She had just turned 62 (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 07:51:21 PM EST
    and of course they say that all "old people" should get the shot so she did.  She is now unable to work, is mostly housebound, has dialysis three times a week, and her heart has been damaged as well.  It has been 7-1/2 months since she got the shot and it's been a downhill spiral since.  I know these happenings are rare, but when it's someone you know it hits hard.  

    I had a student (none / 0) (#162)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 07:42:13 PM EST
    once who contracted Guillain-Barré Syndrome, also an autoimmune disease, from a flu shot.  It's rare, but it happens.
    Fortunately, the student did recover, but it took months.

    GBS is a more common reaction, I believe. (none / 0) (#164)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 07:53:09 PM EST
    We were stunned when we were told of her autoimmune diagnosis.    

    Crump can be deposed.. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 04:01:35 PM EST
    Appellate court rules George Zimmerman attorneys can depose Benjamin Crump


    Please make sure to (3.67 / 3) (#22)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 05:10:55 PM EST
    call your doctor if your erection lasts for more than four hours...maybe thinking about O'Mara's "oopsie" will help.

    Is this in reference to my link above? If so... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 05:41:58 PM EST
    WOW.  Just wow.  I am female.

    Just a wild guess (none / 0) (#36)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 06:14:57 PM EST
    I think it was a reference to a metaphorical $tiffie.

    Perhaps... I just found it odd... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 06:47:17 PM EST
    ...especially as I rarely post, yet seem to already have a "reputation".

    Yes, that's exactly what it was; (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:42:48 AM EST
    perhaps a bit irreverent and certainly snarky, but not intended to offend.

    As I've said many times, I have not immersed myself in this case to the extent others have - I get the sense, Yman, that you have ended up getting down into the details so that you can recognize the BS when you see it.  And I'm glad someone has, because it's much needed, even at the risk of comments being deleted.

    The reason I posted the comment I did, to Cashmere, is that for all the noise those who think George is getting railroaded have made about everyone on the Martin side of things, the place went remarkably silent when news of the O'Mara misrepresentation broke.  So, when Cashmere posted the comment about Crump being able to be deposed, it felt - not saying it was - like a bright, shiny object being dangled to divert attention away from the defense in this case.

    Things should get really ugly once the trial starts - am thinking it would be a good time to take a TL break, but I probably won't be able to stay away.

    We'll see.


    As "ugly" as the trial is apt to be, (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    it will pale in comparison to what may occur when a verdict is rendered.

    As to the Crump deposition, I think there is less there than what Z's supporters hope for.

    The legal consensus that I've read strongly points to this being a political, "cut the baby in half," decision. The courts, undoubtedly, are worried about potential civil unrest, regardless of which way the final verdict comes down. Since Crump has become a lightning round for "all that is wrong" with this prosecution, or "persecution," in their eyes, The Court probably felt that giving in, to a very limited degree, on the deposition request by O'Mara might dispel any bias questions that could be brewing.

    As I said, the scope of the questioning is tightly restricted. It will basically rehash Crump's affidavit.

    After listing all the restrictions on the questioning that will be allowed, The Court concluded with:

    "The deposition contemplated by our opinion should be relatively short and straight forward. We are confident that the trial judge will be able to take the steps necessary to ensure the deposition is limited to the subject areas describe above."

    And, finally, FWIW, the decision was
    a "per curiam" opinion.......in other words, no judge took credit for it (or wanted to, imo)


    For whatever that's worth. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 05:14:17 PM EST
    Being as we are one week to voir dire, defense counsel Mark O'Mara would be well-advised to concentrate upon jury selection and defending his client against the evidence at hand, and not further distract the court with such sideshows. The foolishness regarding the contents of Trayvon Martin's cellphone, for which O'Mara was compelled to apologize, only further serves to remind us that the deceased is not in the defense docket here.

    The supposed circumstances surrounding Benjamin Crump's interview with Witness 8 are actually the least of George Zimmerman's problems, because that's not where the case against him will be won or lost at trial. Rather, I'd offer that Zimmerman's counsel needs to convince the jury that at no time was it ever his client's intent to shoot and kill the deceased, because the prosecution will no doubt remind the jury time and again that in fact George Zimmerman did shoot and kill an unarmed Trayvon Martin.

    Therefore, it's the inherent nature of the defendant's intent -- from the moment he first set eyes upon the deceased and started following him as he was walking home from the 7-11, up until and including the actual moment of physical confrontation and shooting -- that's really at the heart of the second-degree murder charge against him, and not whatever Benjamin Crump and Witness 8 may have talked about with one another in the period after the shooting. The jury's ability to grasp and understand the defendant's lack of personal malice toward the defendant could well be the difference between, let's say, their returning a verdict of involuntary manslaughter versus a conviction for murder.

    But if the defense rolls the dice for an outright acquittal, by attempting to make George Zimmerman the hapless scapegoat of the government's willingness to excuse the violent depredations of a ruthlessly undisciplined teenager, well, I think that's a strategy which holds rich potential for courting a spectacular backlash from the jury, given the obvious lack of any documented prior history of aggressive and / or violent behavior on the part of the deceased towards others.



    Jill Kelley, the Tampa woman involved in the (none / 0) (#52)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 10:16:42 PM EST
    Petraeus scandal, has filed a lawsuit against the government alleging violation of her privacy.  

    She's looking to extend (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 10:54:14 PM EST
    her 15 minutes of ignominy.

    ... ever hook up with this woman -- and why?

    She is in the Right on This One (none / 0) (#107)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:03:34 PM EST
    Her character should not matter.

    She call contacted the FBI because she's getting threatening emails which turn out to be from a member in the military.

    Then her name is 'leaked' as some sort of evil person when in fact she committed no crimes, and the General walks away as the man unable to resist the temptress.  Even though he was having an actual affair with another married member in the service who secretly threatened a civilian out of jealousy.

    The story doesn't even mention that Broadwell was mistress number uno, which is a crime since she is actually in the military, ditto for Petraeus.  All criminal acts under the UCJM and yet this woman is the bad one of all three.  And all they have ever put on her is two inappropriate emails.  

    Pleaze, she should have been a side note to a scandal, not the face of the scandal.


    Please, CBS, for the love of humanity, ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 02:29:25 AM EST
    ... cancel Hawaii Five-O. I just caught a portion of tonight's show, and downtown Honolulu does not have violent bank heists in which multiple people are gunned down in the lobby, nor does the city allow Victoria's Secret to hold lingerie shows on Waikiki Beach in which models mill aimlessly about, looking for all the world like they're comparing breast sizes. This has to be one of the worst programs on television.

    If That's the Criteria... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 11:03:52 AM EST
    ...nearly all the crime dramas should be pulled.

    The masturbating dog killer is on the loose again. 'He'll kill the owner, but at least the dogs are happy.'

    But that show was was especially bad, horrible acting, lame plots, and just over-dramatic non-sense IMO.  I watched the original and was really looking forward tot he show, forced myself to watch about 3 episodes and that was that.


    Gee... (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 07:20:12 AM EST
    And here I was thinking it was reality TV.



    I love the show (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:32:14 AM EST
    But I always wonder about why the criminals stick around to get caught.  From what I remember when I visited there, there aren't tons of roads or places you can drive to (relatively speaking).  Why don't they all hop planes or helicopters or boats or something?

    But the scenery is beautiful, I love the "in-car" chats between Dan-o and McGarrett where they sound like a married couple bickering, and of course, there is the occasional shot of McGarret coming out of the ocean or shower all wet and barely clothed. That ALONE makes the show worth watching!  :)


    The old show was better (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:36:56 AM EST
    The plots on the old show were interesting.   Wo Fat was a lot more clever and much less violent.

    Well the old show had that (none / 0) (#105)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:01:13 PM EST
    great Ventures (?) music to go with the opening credits with the giant waves and the surfers.

    But even the classic show didn't quite make the Ten Best Written TV Shows Ever, as noted last night on Lawr O'Donnell's show.

    The Sopranos (a show I've never seen) came in first.  Seinfeld #2 (seen maybe 5 min total of that show).  Twilight Zone in third (should have been #1).  All in the Family made the list.  Mary Tyler Moore Show.  The Wire.


    As someone says in this article, (none / 0) (#62)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:24:06 AM EST
    The weekend in gun violence (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:52:48 AM EST
    Copyright trolls get whumped by judge (none / 0) (#71)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 09:01:43 AM EST
    According to the judge, the attorneys had forged the name of Steele's former groundskeeper on a copyright assignment and had otherwise engaged in a pattern of deceit and subterfuge, involving shell companies and elusive law firms, to mask the reality that they were the only beneficiaries of the suits they brought. "The principals' web of disinformation is so vast that the principals cannot keep track - their explanations of their operations, relationships, and financial interests constantly vary," Wright wrote. "Though plaintiffs boldly probe the outskirts of law, the only enterprise they resemble is RICO." - Alison Frankel, Reuters, May 29

    kdog (none / 0) (#77)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 09:31:42 AM EST
    you get 2 more weeks of your White Hot Heat little blue pill.

    Two more weeks of this will be great

    But hopefully not two more weeks of this

    LOL.... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 09:45:33 AM EST
    Beiber's a Heat believer? My condolences;)

    Pacers gave 'em a run...now it's up to the Duncan/Parker/Ginobli old guard.  


    Why not? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 09:34:39 AM EST
    Why not indeed. (none / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 10:13:08 AM EST
    As with many other things, Bush set a precedent for using secret email accounts to avoid oversight.

    The Committee of Oversight and Government Reform has released its initial findings after investigating the use of parallel email accounts by officials in Bush's White House.

    According to the Presidential Records Act, White House officials are obliged to keep and preserve all communications which they send on official government business. But some 88 Bush officials ignored this law. Instead, they used addresses supplied by the Republican National Committee (RNC), which raises funds and promotes the Republican Party.

    It also appears that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales knew officials were using these accounts for official communications but did nothing about it.
    n March 2007, the White House said only a handful of officials had such accounts. That number has now risen to 88.

    Many of these emails have been destroyed. The RNC has no emails for 51 of the accounts, although it has saved over 140,000 emails sent or received by Karl Rove. But there are big gaps - only 130 emails to or from Rove exist from the first Presidential term - the first Rove email the RNC preserved dates from November 2003. For many other officials there are no emails dated before autumn 2006. link

    So (2.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 10:22:00 AM EST
    Because Bush did it, it's ok for this administration?

    Because it was O.K. when Bush (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 10:48:24 AM EST
    did it (i.e. no punitive action was taken) is why it is occurring now.

    Somehow, I just can't join those who cheered or excused every illegal action taken by the Bush administration in their outrage over Obama duplicating the same actions. IMO it tends to fall under the category of what did you expect would happen once you accepted that Bush was above the law, the Constitution was just a d@mn piece of paper and the Bush administration would establish their own reality.

    Either fix the system so that neither party can act above the law or accept that this will continue to happen.

    What I won't accept is a system that establishes that a Republican president is above the law but a Democratic one can be impeached for the same or lesser actions.


    Try as I might to find anything in (4.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 10:47:39 AM EST
    MOBlue's comment that suggests she thinks it's okay for the Obama administration to carry on in the tradition of George Bush, I don't seem to be able to...

    I can, however, see that this is just one more benefit that accrues to executive power from not holding Bush, in this case, accountable for his administration's actions, either at the time they were occurring, or afterward.

    If you were someone who was new to TL, I might understand why you could respond the way you did, but you've been here long enough to know how MOBlue - and many others - feel about Obama's extension of so many of the Bush policies.

    So, your comment just seems gratuitous and disingenuous and not as clever as you thought.


    As I've said before, nobody would forego using (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 02:39:38 PM EST
    ... all those cool new presidential superpowers.  


    As improbable as it may somedays seem, there will be another republican in the White House, and she will inherit what today's administrations forge.


    Feeling feisty, are we? (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 11:02:48 AM EST
    So, your comment just seems gratuitous and disingenuous and not as clever as you thought

    Funny - I thought the exact same thing about your comment. Definitely not clever.

    My point was, is that every time something bad is brought up, we (including me) always seem to find "But so and so did it first!"  It doesn't matter that the Bush administration did it, only in the fact illuminated by MOBlue below. But we are (supposedly) dealing with the "most transparent adminstration ever."  I don't care if GWB stood on his head and spit nickels - what I care about is happening in the here and now.  Of course, what DOES matter is the fact that if GWB did it, then there's really no room for Democrats to run around and act superior and above the fray when their guy does it. (And yes, I know MOBlue is not an Obama acolyte, either, before you jump on me and try to accuse me of that either).

    I have no problem with MOBlue's comments, and actually think she's one of the few people around here who will actually engage in a discussion, instead of jumping all over someone with whom she disagrees. MOBlue can defend herself, and doesn't need an attack dog, but, in this case, since she doesn't even need to do that (since I wasn't criticizing her, but rather asking a question), your comment was just errata and not even close to being warranted or relevant.

    Now, is having multiple email addresses a big deal?  Probably not in the grand scheme of things, but there are definitely potential problems, as stated in the article - people leave and no one knows they are supposed to search for other email accounts in response to subpoenas and FOIA requests.


    Actually I do think that using (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 11:47:26 AM EST
    secret e-mail accounts to conduct government business is just a way to get around the Presidential Records Act whereby White House officials are obliged to keep and preserve all communications which they send on official government business.

    It allows the officials to destroy damaging communications and avoid oversight.

    The committee first learnt of the parallel email system when investigating which White House officials had contact with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Karl Rove's PA, Susan Ralston, sent an email to Abramoff's associate Todd Boulanger, which said: "I now have an RNC BlackBerry which you can use to email me at any time. No security issues like my WH email."
    Many of these emails have been destroyed. The RNC has no emails for 51 of the accounts, although it has saved over 140,000 emails sent or received by Karl Rove. But there are big gaps - only 130 emails to or from Rove exist from the first Presidential term - the first Rove email the RNC preserved dates from November 2003. For many other officials there are no emails dated before autumn 2006.

    I do think it is important that WH officials adhere to the provisions of the Presidential Records Act and not conduct government business on non WH email accounts. Rather than spending months on fake "Obama outrage," we would be better served if we had a law (effective upon signing) that specifically made establishing secret accounts punishable by jail time and a stiff fine.


    On the 24th Anniversary of Tiananmen Square (none / 0) (#79)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 09:44:52 AM EST
    How to temporarily beat the Chinese censors with an Internet meme that is too good for words

    Yup, they've now blocked searches for "Big Yellow Duck" on Chinese web search site Weibo

    IRS Scandal about to explode (none / 0) (#82)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 09:48:07 AM EST
    We'll see.

    I think it's safe to say this was not just low level employees.

    This is going to drag on forever if they keep stonewalling.  

    Hot Air. Drudge. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 10:29:08 AM EST
    Consider the sources.  

    I do agree that this is going to drag on forever, but for different reasons, primarily that Darrell Issa won't accept the truth.  


    What truth would that be? (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 11:05:44 AM EST
    Or are you still going with "liberal groups were targeted as much as conservative groups" theme? (Even though the IRS itself has admitted to targeting conservative groups)?

    The truth that so far there has been no (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 11:17:24 AM EST
    proof or any indication at all that the White House was behind this.  That truth.  And, by the way, don't even begin to think that you know what my thoughts are - because you do not.  

    Someone high up was invovled (none / 0) (#99)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 11:49:44 AM EST
    NYT's and others have reported as much.

    I doubt this takes Obama down but come on Anne.  Is there a better example of why the tea party was formed in the first place.

    Look at the defense being put out there by Obama and Co....

    Governments too big.

    This would be too stupid to be political

    On and on.    The adds in 2014 write themselves.

    Want too big too stupid government?   Vote democratic.


    Uh...Angel is the one who made the (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:20:39 PM EST
    comment you're replying to, not me...

    But since you dropped my name into this thing, here's what I think:

    I'd have been much happier if there had been half as much attention to, and a quarter as much interest in, holding the appropriate people accountable for (1) getting us into Iraq, (2) decimating our constitutional rights, (3) taking our economy to the brink, (4) reforming the health care system by taking it out of the hands of private insurance, (5) creating false crises as an excuse to bring and end to the social safety net - as there has been in Benghazi and the IRS "scandal."

    I'm sick of Republicans of all varieties thinking we can't see how grossly hypocritical they are on almost every issue I can think of, and I'm especially sick of panty-sniffing, holier-then-thou, tea-party Republicans who lower the country's IQ every time they open their mouths and who hate government unless it can help them get rich, get guns or get over on everyone else.  


    Perfect. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:43:13 PM EST
    "...and I'm especially sick of panty-sniffing, holier-then-thou, tea-party Republicans who lower the country's IQ every time they open their mouths and who hate government unless it can help them get rich, get guns or get over on everyone else.

    Brought to you courtesy of the Tea Party (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 04:57:58 PM EST
    At a congressional hearing Thursday on an abortion bill that would ban the procedure after 20 weeks of pregnancy, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told a female witness that she should have carried her pregnancy to term even though doctors had discovered the fetus had no brain function.
    "Ms. Zink, having my great sympathy and empathy both, I still come back wondering, shouldn't we wait, like that couple did, and see if the child can survive before we decide to rip him apart?" Gohmert said.

    Another example of what you get when you vote Republican:

    Gohmert is not the first politician to suggest that a woman should carry a severely disabled fetus to term. While debating a similar 20-week ban last year, Georgia state Rep. Terry England (R) compared women to farm animals.

    "Life gives us many experiences," England said in response to concerns that a woman would have to carry a fetus to term that was not expected to live. "I've had the experience of delivering calves, dead and alive -- delivering pigs, dead and alive. ... It breaks our hearts to see those animals not make it."


    Rep. Gohmert Caucus Membership:

        Congressional Prayer Caucus
        Republican Study Committee
        Immigration Reform Caucus
        Tea Party Caucus

    So if you want politicians in your bedroom controlling your sex life, if you want politicians making medical decisions for you and dictating what you can do with your body, if you want women to be grouped with farm animals, if you want Creationism to replace science in your schools and universities and you want Christianity to become the national religion, vote Republican.  


    Also brought to you courtesy of the Tea Party (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 09:12:42 PM EST
    Evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are major underpinnings of mainstream science. And Georgia Republican Rep. Paul Broun, a physician who sits on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, says they are "lies straight from the pit of hell." link

    Paul Collins Broun, Jr. (born May 14, 1946)[2] is the U.S. Representative for Georgia's 10th congressional district, serving since 2007. He is a member of the Republican Party and the Tea Party Caucus.

    Just in case you missed it, evidently the Tea Party feels that someone who does not believe in science should be on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.


    Oy! (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 11:23:05 AM EST
    Please tell me that this idiot is not still practicing medicine.
    It just seems to me that so many politicians, especially of the "Tea Party" persuasion, are trying to take us ever-backward.

    More great things courtesy of the Tea Party (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 11:10:58 AM EST
    "I'm going to be real honest with you," Emanuelson said in May at an event for the Dallas County GOP. "The Republican Party doesn't want black people to vote if they are going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats.", said Tea Party leader Ken Emanuelson at a Republican Party event in Dallas, TX.   Update:  He's now backtracking. Source

    Cite, please. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 11:58:53 AM EST
    Someone high up was invovled.  NYT's and others have reported as much.

    He feels it in his gut (none / 0) (#140)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 04:30:40 PM EST
    They know this just the way the knew Romney would win in a blow out, and that Saddam Hussein had WMD.

    The IRS scandal is just recycling the same story.   It will need new facts, not speculation, and it does not have any.


    Well, we all know Big Government (none / 0) (#156)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 01:07:58 PM EST
    comes straight from the firey pit of Hell, the same way mainstream science does..

    Is Rep. Gohmert completely ignorant (none / 0) (#166)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 11:07:32 AM EST
    of the Constitution or is he just trying to con the other rubes in the Tea Party?

    Gohmert noted that NSA spying was just the latest example of executive branch overreach because the Obama administration had also gone after the phone records of Associated Press reporters.
    "But that's on top of the freedom of the press that's also granted in the Second Amendment," he added. link

    He is also ignorant of the history of legislation.  He should be referencing "Bushphones" rather than "Obamaphones" in his rhetoric.


    What we really should see is all the (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 02:59:56 PM EST
    stuff these poor, persecuted "social welfare" organizations are really up to, don't you think?

    No More Mister Nice Blog shares a few interesting items about one of the groups, and Charlie Pierce has a few things to add:

    If you don't want the IRS to wonder whether or not you're engaging in inappropriate political activity, don't produce and distribute crazy-ass videos about Agenda 21 and sharia law. (And I'm not sure that, "We wouldn't have been paying that much money, anyway" is a defense against doing things that the law forbids you to do. Stick up a fruit stand and it's not going to matter to the cops that you only got ten bucks.) There is a fearsome price to pay for empowering ignorance and paranoia in a democracy, no matter how great the short-term political gain might be.

    "Safe to say" (none / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 11:11:38 AM EST
    Because Drudge says so ...

    ... citing unnamed "Hill sources".



    We'll see (none / 0) (#100)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 11:50:55 AM EST
    Just asking a question.  Not making a statement.

    You can always be relied on to attack the source however.


    That's not a question (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    I think it's safe to say this was not just low level employees.

    You can tell, because there's no "?" at the end.  Neither is this:

    Someone high up was involved.  NYT's and others have reported as much.

    I just have issues with baseless, specious accusations.

    BTW - When the source is Drudge paraphrasing unnamed "Hill sources", and statements like yours are based on it, it kinda cries out for a little mockery.


    No, it is not safe to say (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 01:57:35 PM EST
    Issa misrepresented the interviews with the Cincinatti agents.

    Show us the evidence.....Not speculation and hackery from hacks...


    Well (none / 0) (#158)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 03:38:09 PM EST
    Issa's crusade has taken out two more IRS employees for taking improper gifts - including the guy who was in charge of implementing Obamacare (Director of Implementation Oversight for the ACA office).

    While it seems like small potatoes, my guess is, these won't be the only employees (along with Lois Lerner) to be "placed on leave".  With seeral scandals brewing in one agency, I don't think Issa is going to back off now.


    Pretty good testimony today (none / 0) (#101)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 11:51:46 AM EST
    Skip to about 3:30 to get to the good part.


    Anyone still doubt that this was politically motivated?

    Does Anyone Think.... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 04:15:43 PM EST
    ....you care about really happened, why do you keep posting the same stuff with the same quips, we get it, you think Obama is the devil.

    I get why republican are christians, the persecution complex is grandiose 24/7.  You would think they were all about to get nailed to two pieces of wood.  I hate to see how they would react to being actually discriminated against, on a level equivalent to they discrimination they have levied on minorities for over a century.

    They can sure dish it out... but god forbid their political committees don't get tax exempt status.


    Yes. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:02:20 PM EST
    Wait - do you mean ... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 12:10:39 PM EST
    Anyone still doubt that this was politically motivated?

    ... the IRS was scrutinizing groups applying for tax-exempt status because it thought they might be engaged in political activity?!?  Or are you just operating under the mistaken assumption that Becky Gerritson's application was scrutinized only because it was a conservative group, and the IRS didn't ask for the same type of information from liberal groups?


    If it keeps deranged transvaginal (none / 0) (#115)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 01:09:02 PM EST
    probe-wielding jokers, who'd publicly accuse a President of premeditated murder and drug dealing away from the levers of power, it's not "politically motivated" so much as it is pro-mental health motivated..

    And yes, this story is primed to "explode": all over talk radio and the wingnut blogs (the same ones that are still talking about Mena, Arkansas and Vince Foster)

    Chris Christie (none / 0) (#116)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 01:13:33 PM EST
    Chris Christie (none / 0) (#118)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 01:18:14 PM EST
    sets the date for the US Senate race in New Jersey, and it's expected to cost the state about $25 million.

    The Senate special election will be on Wednesday October 16, just 3 weeks before the regular election day in New Jersey. The only logic is to prevent any chance of losing his own re-election in November. His comment as to the extra cost to run two elections instead of just one?..."I don't know what the cost is and quite frankly I don't care."

    This should be an interesting quote to use (none / 0) (#119)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 01:42:48 PM EST
    against him in future elections.

    "I don't know what the cost is and quite frankly I don't care."

    Isn't he kinda-sorta (none / 0) (#120)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 01:51:56 PM EST
    the "Rino" McCain of the Northeast anyway..?

    With cholesterol-laden substituting for dotty?

    The snakehandlers and neo-confedarates are never gonna be inspired by Christie..


    Home prices rising fast where you live? (none / 0) (#125)
    by shoephone on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 02:25:44 PM EST
    Might not be those cute young couples looking for starter homes who are responsible for the new housing bubble. Could be the Wall St. investors gobbling up "damaged" properties they helped to foreclose on in the first place -- and then renting those houses back to the plebes, just until prices rise enough for them to sell and make a new killing on their investment.

    The new American economy: the biggest fraud of all time.

    Home prices are going up where I live. And (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 02:49:53 PM EST
    suddenly there are many houses for rent in my neighborhood. CPA says people are buying as an investment and not particularly concerned if house doesn't attract a renter.

    Renters are being squeezed like crazy (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by shoephone on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 02:59:08 PM EST
    in my area. I'm looking to move back into town and the rental rates are outrageous. And some of the places are real dumps. The newest tactic is landlords charging new tenants $200-$400 non-refundable "administration fees."

    It's a racket.