Tuesday Open Thread

At the Bradley Manning trial: Former computer hacker Adrian Lamo testified today.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Appeals Court Reverses Zimmerman Judge: Crump to Be Deposed | Old News: Hitler's Soldiers Given Meth >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "Conscious vs. Subconscious" vol. 20 (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 03:04:41 PM EST
    "Conscious vs. Subconscious" vol. 21 (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 03:06:20 PM EST
    "Conscious vs. Subconscious" vol. 22 (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 03:13:06 PM EST
    "Conscious vs. Subconscious" vol. 23 (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Dadler on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 03:15:33 PM EST
    I love these, Dadler. I have been quietly (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 05:10:30 PM EST
    chortling at all of your cartoons. Not saying anything until now. Your take on the 1% is so searingly accurate, well, it's funny 'cause it's true.

    Keep 'em coming.


    Thanks, Casey (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 05:40:08 PM EST
    Glad you're enjoying them.

    Keep 'em coming, Dadler (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 10:52:57 AM EST
    My friends are enjoying them, as well.   :-)

    Today top military brass faced the Senate (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 09:04:52 PM EST
    Armed Services Committee in a hearing about sexual assault in the military and the Pentagon's weak weak response.

    The gaggle of military officers included one, just one lone female officer. The ASC includes seven female senators.

    The parts of the hearing I have watched make it clear to me that the proposal to take the prosecution of sex crimes out of the chain of command and give it to prosecutors is the way to go. After everything that has gone on, the brass showed a remarkable lack of self-reflection and awareness of the seriousness of the problem.

    The senators were not pleased. Their language got a bit profane, spoken in frustration and in context, perfectly appropriate. At one point Sen. Gillibrand referred to a "slap on the ass." At another, Sen. McCaskill, frustrated by the military answers, snapped out "Are you f^cking kidding me?" The brass looked a little startled.

    I think the military has proven, time and again, that they cannot or will not deal vigorously with the epidemic of sexual assaults. Today was a whole lot of CYA from the brass, and attempts to justify the dismal record of prosecutions.

    This issue needs to be yanked ... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 10:28:17 PM EST
    ... out of the military chain of command, and handed over to civilian authorities to resolve.

    Even sweet Claire is right (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 08:38:04 AM EST
    some of the time. This is one of those times.

    Yep - kudos to her (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 11:41:26 AM EST
    I was watching the report about this and thinking the exact same phrase when Saxby Chambliss blamed sexual assault on "hormones".

    Yay Sweet Claire!


    and then there was Jeff Sessions... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 12:01:36 PM EST
    never the brightest bulb in the pack, who dropped this into the hearing...

    SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just add a letter, a document here that was given to me from Morality in the Media. Pat Truman used to be in the Department of Justice. I knew him when he was there. He points out that, a picture here of a newsstand and an Air Force base exchange with, you know, sexually explicit magazines being sold. So, we live in a culture that's awash in sexual activity. If it's not sold on base, it's right off base. There are videos and so forth that can be obtained, and it creates some problems, I think.

    I mean, between the hormones and the p@rn, how can these men help themselves?

    Think Progress points out that his remarks were just left hanging - he never circled back to them, or attempted to incorporate them into his questioning.  So why even mention it, one wonders?


    I'm not sure (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 12:08:34 PM EST
    Why we even HAVE men in the military.  It's obvious they just can't control themselves, bless their hearts.

    You know - boys will be boys, and all that.


    I'm not sure (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 12:24:04 PM EST
    Why they are so resistant to pulling criminal matters out from under their purview?  Are they really that afraid of what is going to come out? (Yes, I think that's the answer).

    When you have a response to a question like this:

    Over hours of testimony, each officer expressed remorse. "I took my eye off the ball in the commands I had," said Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    then it seems to me you should be relieved of command.  If this involved the North Korean navy docking in Venice Beach and marching inland, and the chairman of the JCS said, "I took my eye off the ball," then he would be gone so fast, his head would spin.


    I Don't Exactly What They Want... (none / 0) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 03:14:14 PM EST
    ...to do and I am not on their side, but let's be real, Congress hasn't doesn't have the best record in regard to protecting US citizens who were doing contract work in Iraq.

    If I remember correctly, they kind of punted and a lot of women never got justice because they were not on US soil.  I still don't believe that has been remedied.

    Now they want to get involved in military matters that are going to happen outside the US.  I am no lawyer, but the jurisdictional issue and what Congress truly has the authority do do outside the US probably isn't as clear as we would all believe.

    Ditto for the civilian authority outside the US.  The DOJ claimed it didn't have authority over Contractors and the military didn't seem to care.

    The push back is because the logistics are a nightmare, add in the egos and caveman mentalities and it's fairly obvious why they don't want civilians involved.

    I was in during Tailhook and it's only gotten substantially worse.  20 some years and they are moving backwards, it a fricken shame, so is anyone who is out there defending their lackluster attempts to change.

    The mirror is the only thing they should be blaming and I hope Congress can straighten this out and this isn't another dog and pony show to make the people who fund this garbage and their existence, feel good.


    There's a bill (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 03:26:23 PM EST
    coming out of committee today :

    The outcry over the epidemic of sexual assaults in the military is spurring Congress to act, with a House panel moving ahead on Wednesday on stripping commanders of the ability to overturn convictions in rape and assault cases.

    The legislation is part of a sweeping defense policy bill that the House Armed Services Committee methodically pulled together during a daylong session expected to last past midnight. The $638 billion measure for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 included $86 billion for the war in Afghanistan as well as contentious provisions on the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and nuclear weapons.

    "It is paramount that we protect those who protect our nation," said Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the top Democrat on the committee. At the same time, Smith acknowledged that legislation alone will not solve the problem, and the military needs to address the inherent cultural problems in the services.

    "Hormones" (none / 0) (#54)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 12:22:52 PM EST
    Didn't pay attention to the hearing...did anyone bother to mention the fact that thousands of male soldiers are raped each year as well? Oops, that's probably not something the GOP can deal with, either publicly or privately.

    When the women senators spoke about the (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 12:35:56 PM EST
    victims of sexual assault in the military they talked about both men and women.

    The Hearing Highlights... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 08:38:52 AM EST
    ...clearly show the military is incapable of taking this matter seriously.  It's shocking that they couldn't find some folks to put on game faces like they have in the past.

    I don't like our idiotic Congress messing with the military chain of command, but in this instance, they really have no other choice.  The military simply doesn't care enough to address the issue seriously.

    I would add that the military is bad in policing itself period. But this is especially heinous in that the perpetrators in many instances were in the soldiers chain of command.


    From our "Run, Spot, Run!" file: (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 10:26:06 PM EST
    Mississippi Gov., Phil Bryant, responding to a question today about mediocrity in educational outcomes, said it's all the fault of working mothers in this country that little Johnny and Susie can't read. Uh-huh, right.

    Listening to Gov. Bryant -- whose own state has perennially ranked at the bottom in terms of the high school graduation rates for the better part of the past century -- tell us about the state of child literacy in this country, is not unlike hearing current L.A. Lakers head coach Mike D'Antoni lecture retired Lakers coach Phil Jackson on how one goes about winning an NBA title.

    What century are we living in again?

    At bottom, social conservatives' (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 10:35:07 PM EST
    views on culture and religion are primarily a reaction to the changing roles of women.  They just have not come to grips with modernity.

    Didn't Realize... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 08:46:23 AM EST
    ...Mississippi educated their barefoot and pregnant class.  When did they give women this kind of responsibility, thought men were the only ones capable of those kinds of decisions...

    Or is he saying those pesky independant woman aren't allowing men to make the big decisions and it's creating an illiterate class that wasn't there when men ruled the roost ?

    Good One.


    It appears (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 08:08:20 AM EST
    I may need to apologize to Chris Christie. After reading everything, it looks like with the exception of the price of the special election, he may have made the best choice possible for the residents of New Jersey while avoiding potential lawsuits. (And for himself too but that's not part of the apology)

    He could have named a place holder until 2014 which the GOP wanted. He could have set the election for this November and had it be free, but in doing so, by law, the party leaders could have named the candidates. Instead he opted for a special election and a primary so the people can choose their candidate.

    In a nutshell, New Jersey election law has to be rewritten and clarified so all those possible options aren't on the table in the future.

    Obama announcements coming today (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 08:53:19 AM EST
    Susan Rice to be named National Security Adviser, and Samantha Power to be named U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

    Republican heads must be exploding with all these women not staying in the kitchen.

    "Conscious vs. Subconscious" vol. 24 (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 11:45:14 AM EST
    45 years ago today, ... (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 03:25:53 PM EST
    ... our country's political trajectory was altered, when Sen. Robert Kennedy was gunned down at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, in the immediate aftermath of his triumph in the 1968 California presidential primary.

    Kennedy died the following day, and five months later, Richard Nixon was elected our nation's 37th president. It's sobering to consider what was lost that tragic night in Southern California, and what we subsequently got in return.


    That still breaks my heart (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by sj on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 05:47:28 PM EST
    A link to his eulogy by Ted Kennedy, and to his speech at Cape Town that Teddy quotes. I am still moved by these, as I am every year when I read and/or listen to them again.

    That day, and in largest respect, ... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 07:11:23 PM EST
    ... the 1968 presidential election itself, was perhaps the seminal moment in late 20th century American politics, when our country was clearly at a crossroads -- one fork being our pathway to continued socio-economic progress and enlightenment, while the other was a road to political atrophy and social perdition.

    While I recognize the arguments about whether or not Robert Kennedy could have wrested the Democratic nomination away from Vice President Humphrey at the Chicago convention, I happen to believe that his assassination ultimately served to rob the U.S. electorate of a real choice for course correction later that fall. As a result, when we could have zigged, instead we zagged.

    In that regard, RFK's death really had a much more profound and immediate political impact than that of his brother nearly five years prior, and we're still paying a very heavy price for Nixon's subsequent re-emergence upon the national stage.



    Well I think we've (none / 0) (#87)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 07:57:38 PM EST
    been over this same terrain here before.  Certainly what might have happened with the Dems and the country in 1968 had RFK lived and won the nom (only a little better than 50/50) and the election (more certain) have been topics of discussion on many left blogs.

    But that's the past and what might have been, we can't alter it and can only speculate about aspects of it.

    Of more interest to me is the ongoing re RFK, how he was killed and the intruiguing info which occasionally surfaces, Sirhan's shoddy and unjust trial,and the fact that 45 years later he's still in prison, unjustly, and yet with people working to get him a new trial and bring forth the truth.

    On this, the past can serve, in a fair and open system of justice, to bring forth new evidence and correct past injustices and the official whitewashed version of history.  Not that I expect, in the end, that this will happen.  But I applaud the legal efforts on his behalf, and on a blog devoted to legal justice, I think we should at least be bringing up this angle to the story on this anniversary, in addition to the rest.


    Sirhan Sirhan's imprisoned "unjustly"? (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 05:07:33 AM EST
    I'm sorry, but he was caught red-handed with the smoking gun -- literally.

    Now, given the professional opinion of some credible audio experts -- but not all -- that there are thirteen shots which can be heard on a primary audiotape of the actual assassination, I will readily concede in this case that he may not have been the only triggerman in the Ambassador Hotel's kitchen and pantry that night. Further, I'd also offer that Sirhan may have suffered from some form of diminished psychological capacity at the time of the shooting.

    But there is no doubt at all that Sirhan shot Sen. Kennedy. He had an eight-shot Iver Johnson Cadet .22 caliber revolver in his hand when immediately apprehended and neutralized by L.A. Rams foorball star Roosevelt Grier and Olympic decathlete Rafer Johnson, and autopsy reports confirm that RFK was shot by a .22 at close range. There are simply too many eyewitnesses to the murder who saw Sirhan do it, to otherwise credibly allude to his innocence.

    Eyewitnesses further noted that Kennedy had just turned to his left to shake hands with some of the hotel's banquet staff in the pantry, just as he had been doing while walking through the hotel kitchen, which would have exposed his right side when Sirhan emerged from behind an ice machine and opened fire at him. This would therefore account for the fatal head wound behind RFK's right ear, as well as the other two wounds beneath his right armpit.

    Several witnesses also insisted that Mr. Grier and Mr. Johnson both tackled Sirhan as he continued firing his weapon. Reporter Andrew West of KRKD-AM in Los Angeles, who had followed Kennedy into the kitchen and managed to pose the last question ever asked of RFK less than a minute before the shooting, recorded the chaotic scene on his audiotape, and he can clearly be heard frantically warning Johnson that Sirhan was still armed, and to grab his revolver from him.

    Who put Sirhan Sirhan up to the deed, if anyone, is certainly open to some speculation. But absolutely, he's guilty of the murder of Sen. Robert Kennedy, and he can rot in Hell for it.



    "may not have been the only (none / 0) (#99)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 08:06:36 AM EST
    triggerman"?  Well, yeah.  And does it interest you at all who the other shooter might have been and whether Sirhan -- suffering in your words from some undefined "diminished mental capacity" -- might have been the hypnoprogrammed patsy many people now believe he was?  Go read the cite I provided -- such a scenario is posited by several experts in psychology/hypnosis, who found the alleged assassin  a very susceptible type for hypnosis.

    And of course Sirhan fired shots -- but no credible evidence can put him close enough to RFK, and at the proper angle, to have been responsible for the fatal shot.  This is per the overwhelming majority of witnesses who put Sirhan well to the side and his gun no closer than 3' or so away from the side/front of Kennedy, and per the masterful autopsy report which had the fatal shot at powder burn (1" or less) range from the back of the right ear and at an upward angle.  Sirhan wasn't nearly that close and wasn't shooting as if from a crouch below.

    Finally, we have SIrhan's awful legal counsel at trial, and the allegations of ethical wrongdoing against his lead atty, not to mention his near-prosecutorial strategy against his own client, which, strangely, failed to highlight the remarkable findings of coroner Noguchi which led away from SIrhan's guilt and pointed towards a second gunman to the rear.  Instead, amazingly, defense counsel merely stipulated generally to the findings and thus failed to note the glaring inconsistencies between what the state was charging and what the scientific evidence proved wrt Sirhan.

    Sirhan is indeed rotting in hell in our prison system.  And legally if its true (as you suggest might be the case) that he suffered from some mental impediment at the time -- programmed against his conscious will to commit a violent act -- then it's indeed very unjust he should have been found guilty of M1and was given a life sentence.


    Curious (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:29:01 AM EST
    New World Order, Roswell, Fake Moon Landings, Chupacabras? Do you dive into the tin foil on everything, or keep your conspiracy cap reserved for the Kennedy's?

    I go where the facts and credible (none / 0) (#110)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 10:20:14 AM EST
    evidence lead, and not where establishment forces and social pressures ("tin foil hat", "conspiracy theories") want us to pull up short in our thinking, in Orwellian crimestop fashion.

    So there are as many conspiracies out there existing in our history as the facts and evidence allow.  Thus conspiracy in the JFK and RFK cases.

    Oh, MLK too.  Probably Malcolm X as well.

    Lincoln.  The attempted Wall St coup against Roosevelt.

    I have not seen credible evidence suggesting other than the official story on JFK Jr and Diana.  Ditto 9-11 (except as Junior was criminally negligent in not seeking more intel work, and greater protective measures against attack).

    We went to the Moon.  

    But did you have anything substantive to contribute on the discussion above re RFK or the circumstances of his death or Sirhan's appalling legal representation, or did you just want to get off an ad hom blast against me for failing to agree with Donald?


    The Moon... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 11:07:06 AM EST
    Using lazer ranging, anyone can validate that 5 man-made lunar reflectors were actually placed on the moon.  Two by the Russians.

    It's so accurate they have determined the Moon is spiraling away from Earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year.

    But there is literally no proof beyond them actually walking on the moon that will satisfy the idiot brigade.  I would add anti-evolutionists, whatever the group is that think the Earth is 5 or 6 thousand years old, and global warming deniers.  Which I would add have miraculously transformed from denying global warming to denying it's man-made once they realized how idiotic their original stand was.

    They will believe a couple of Industry paid 'experts' who tell the GW is a myth, and not every other independent scientist on the planet.

    But one clown tells them Iraq was behind 9/11 and they are locked in forever.

    There is literally no helping people who believe...


    Is it really a blast (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 12:02:57 PM EST
    if you acknowledge it? I was just curious as to how deep the tin foil mine goes. Now I know it's a pair of Kennedy's, Lincoln. MLK and Malcolm X. What about Garfield, McKinley, John Lennon, Marilyn Monroe, and Elvis?

    I think you've just (1.00 / 1) (#139)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 01:49:27 PM EST
    established that positing just one conspiracy wrt the death of either JFK, RFK or MLK gets one on your Tin Foil Hat enemies list.  Its also been established that you're unable to engage on the substance.  

    I am definitely (1.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Zorba on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 02:03:16 PM EST
    buying stock in whichever company now owns Reynold's Wrap.  It seems as though there are more and more individuals who need tinfoil hats, CG.

    Aluminum Company of America or... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 03:19:18 PM EST
    ...Alcoa.  Then no matter who they get their hats through you will cash in.  I think they are the worlds larger producer of aluminum.

    And since we are hatching conspiracies...
    The reason tinfoil hats don't work anymore is because the government mandated the removal of tin after WWII because too many folks were blocking their secret mind control technology.

    Now all these yahoos think they are blocking those rays with aluminum foil, when in fact it actually amplifies the signals.  Yet because of an unknown law drafted by FDR's DOJ, aluminum foil has to be called tinfoil by every person on the planet.  And oddly enough, there are no penalties for breaking the law, they aren't necessary since the government simply programs it's citizens to refer to it in accordance to the unknown law.

    Here's the LINK, and HERE, but beware, those dark forces may have altered the truth...


    Tin foil's a problem (none / 0) (#143)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 02:22:30 PM EST
    but a bigger problem, which leads to "tin foil" theorizing on the part of the public, is the government's reliance on what's known in CIA parlance as "legends" and p.r firm-concocted humbug..

    When the lies and dastardly lies become too thick and pernicious, as they did during the Cold War, private citizens start attempting to connect the dots themselves..



    How's this for a conspiracy theory? (none / 0) (#131)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    Tom Donlion all of a sudden resigns yesterday and Susan Rice is appointed head of the NSa.  

    Today we find out that the NSA has been spying on us more than anyone even knew through getting Verizon (and other carriers most likely).

    Coincidental timing...? Hmmmmm.....


    Seems that Donilon's resignation planning (none / 0) (#158)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 08:28:04 PM EST
    was known for some time, methinks.

    The loss of Bobby was, IMO, devastating (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 01:19:09 PM EST
    for the country, even more so than the death of his brother, Jack. Of course, it is all "might have been." We will never know for sure.

    For me, a most emotional and moving event was the funeral train that bore Bobby's body from NYC to Washington, D.C. for burial at Arlington. The train, traveling slowly down the tracks, was flanked all along the route by thousands upon thousands of people who lined the route to say goodbye to Bobby.

    There were Scout troops holding American flags and standing at attention. There were families, mom and dad and all the kids, some holding signs saying goodbye. There were construction workers and medical personnel. Students and waitresses and teachers and cab drivers. People all along the route.

    And then, when the funeral train pulled into the Baltimore station the waiting crowd of mourners began singing The Battle Hymn of the Republic. This crowd of strangers joining their voices to honor and say "farewell" to this man.

    Here is video of the journey of the funeral train. The voice-over is Teddy's eulogy given that day at Bobby's funeral.

    h/t to Susie Madrakfor tipping me to this video.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#161)
    by sj on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 11:31:22 AM EST
    Just thank you. I remember reading of and seeing clips of his trip to the Mississippi Delta.  This talks of a segment in the PBS documentary series "Eyes on the Prize" that I would very much like to see.

    I guess I haven't cried enough today.


    Transparency - according to our elected Saint, (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 11:16:49 PM EST
    means that it's ok for the NSA to force Telcos, in this putative instance, Verizon, to on a daily basis turn over to the NSA the call data on every call made.  It doesn't matter if it's around the block or around the world, the NSA gets it.

    Gotta admit, our government doesn't fool around when it goes fishing.  It just tosses some dynamite into the water and waits for the Constitution to float to the surface.

    from the Guardian.  

    (The Guardian article contains a putative link to the putative court order.)

    Beat me to it (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by shoephone on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 12:42:28 AM EST
    Was just about to post the link to the NYT article. OK, I will anyway.

    The disclosure late Wednesday seemed likely to inspire further controversy over the scope of government surveillance. Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies, a civil liberties advocacy group, said that "absent some explanation I haven't thought of, this looks like the largest assault on privacy since the N.S.A. wiretapped Americans in clear violation of the law" under the Bush administration. "On what possible basis has the government refused to tell us that it believes that the law authorizes this kind of request?" she said.

    For several years, two Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, have been cryptically warning that the government was interpreting its surveillance powers under that section of the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming to the public if it knew about it.

    "We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted Section 215 of the Patriot Act," they wrote last year in a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

    They added: "As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn't know what its government thinks the law says."

    I'm sure Verizon's not the only one being ordered to provide logs of all phone calls. AT&T has been spying on us for years now at the government's behest.

    Bush, Obama... seems to make no difference at all, does it? The Patriot Act was the most egregious act of Congress in my lifetime.


    There is a difference (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:01:25 AM EST
    Obama has taken what Bush started and expanded it.

    Frontline did an excellent piece on this called "Top Secret America: From 9/11 to Boston".

    In it they showed how the Security Agencies have grown beyond belief.   Huge bureaucracies with nothing better to do then spy on us.

    One can only conclude that this was inevitable.  


    Sad fact is that this is only a proof of concept (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:25:56 AM EST
    They want to work out the bugs and test their ability to store and handle the data.  At some point the actual content will be added, again with the acquiescence of the FISA court.

    One takeaway, better hope your favorite Pizza delivery isn't the same one favored by your local Terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrorist wannabe.


    Not much of a difference (none / 0) (#116)
    by sj on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 10:47:55 AM EST
    There had to be something to expand in the first place. There has been no event in Obama's term that would have guaranteed its enactment. He sure took advantage of it. Does that make it inevitable?

    For the sake of accuracy, the order applies (none / 0) (#107)
    by Farmboy on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:50:55 AM EST
    to Verizon business customers only, not all cell users. In addition, what's being collected are the records about who called whom and for how long, not the actual conversations.

    It was requested after the Boston bombing and is for a limited time frame.

    NY Times article


    Actually, (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 10:40:44 AM EST
    What was released was a Secondary Order, which logically implies there was a Primary Order, of which we do not have any information, so to say this is only about "Verizon business customers and not all cell users" may be incorrect.

    Also, this order has been renewed every 90 days since 2006, so your implication about this being only after the Boston bombing and for a limited time frame is also incorrect.


    I was referring to the evidence at hand, (none / 0) (#121)
    by Farmboy on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    specifically to the top secret US document released by Greenwald, and not to other unrevealed documents. You're right; we don't have any information about what may possibly be in documents that may or may not possibly exist.

    As to the dates of the order, the Greenwald article states:

    The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19.

    If his information is incorrect, possibly he has a corrections contact number.


    My understanding is that the (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 12:18:27 PM EST
    order has to be, in essence, renewed every 90 days, and the 4/25/13 order was just the latest 3-month renewal.

    In other words, that it wasn't specifically for Boston-bombing-related matters - if you read the order, it's completely generic.  In fact, Marcy Wheeler says (bold is mine):

    Here's the question, though: if this program is no big deal, as the Administration and some members of Congress are already claiming in damage control, then why has the Administration been making thin non-denial denials about it for years? If it is so uncontroversial, why is it secret?

    Is there anything about the order that tips people off to whom, precisely, is being targeted? Does it explain how good (or bad) NSA's data analysis tools are?

    No. The collection is so broad, it could never provide hints of who is being investigated.

    The WaPo suggests this order is just regular, routine collection, that quarterly 215 order sent to Verizon NBS. But even if, as I wondered last night, it's triggered to a specific investigation, is there anything in there that tells people what or who is being investigated?


    There is nothing operational about this Section 215 order that needs to be secret. Nothing. A TS/SCI classification for zero operational reason.

    The secrecy has been entirely about preventing American citizens from knowing how their privacy had been violated. It serves the same purpose as Alexander's obviously dishonest answer.


    The Administration wants you to believe that "all three branches" of government have signed off on this program (never mind that last year FISC did find part of this 215 collection illegal -- that's secret too).

    But our court system is set up to be an antagonistic one, with both sides represented before a judge. The government has managed to avoid such antagonistic scrutiny of its data collection and mining programs -- even in the al-Haramain case, where the charity had proof they had been the target of illegal, unwarranted surveillance -- by ensuring no one could ever get standing to challenge the program in court. Most recently in Clapper v. Amnesty, SCOTUS held that the plaintiffs were just speculating when they argued they had changed their habits out of the assumption that they had been wiretapped.

    This order might just provide someone standing. Any of Verizon's business customers can now prove that their call data is, as we speak, being collected and turned over to the NSA. (Though I expect lots of bogus language about the difference between "collection" and "analysis.")

    That is what all the secrecy has been about. Undercutting separation of powers to ensure that the constitutionality of this program can never be challenged by American citizens.

    It's no big deal, says the Administration. But it's sufficiently big of a deal that they have to short-circuit the most basic principle of our Constitution.

    Food for thought.


    Yes (none / 0) (#123)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 12:15:58 PM EST
    This order was signed for 3 months.  That is how these types of orders work - the NSA has to go back every 3 months and ask for renewal.  They can't just change the end date on the order - they have to get a new order.

    And while of course they may be lying because they are politicians, the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee seem to think this is just a continuation or add-on of previous orders:

    The statements by the two senators, whose committee positions give them wide access to classified data, appeared to rule out the possibility that the court order directing Verizon to turn over telephone records was related to the Boston Marathon bombings. The order was effective as of April 19, shortly after the bombings, which had sparked speculation about a link.

    Instead, the surveillance, which was revealed Wednesday by Britain's Guardian newspaper, appears to have been of far longer duration. Although the senators did not specify the scope of the surveillance, the fact that it has been in place since 2006 also suggests that it is not limited to any one phone carrier.

    The Obama administration defended the program Thursday, saying the data collection "has been a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States."

    That last statement from the administration, IMO and reading between the lines, seems to indicate that this data collection "has been a critical tool ..." for longer than the 6 weeks since April 25. Unless of course, we've had numerous threats since then. But the more logical interpretation of that statement is that it has been a "critical tool" over years, not weeks.

    Greenwald also says:

    It is not known whether Verizon is the only cell-phone provider to be targeted with such an order, although previous reporting has suggested the NSA has collected cell records from all major mobile networks. It is also unclear from the leaked document whether the three-month order was a one-off, or the latest in a series of similar orders.

    (But again - the fact that it is called a "Secondary Order" might be a good tip-off)


    Actually, while we know that Verizon (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 10:42:50 AM EST
    has been turning over the metadata on its business customers' calls, we don't know that the data for residential and wireless customers has not been requested or provided.

    Ask yourself this: if this is about terrorism, what is the likelihood that clues to any such plans are going to be found in business call data?

    Unless this is about cyberterror attacks, which might be more likely to be aimed at the corporate world.

    Either way, I have no confidence that whatever privacy rights we have will exist much longer, and equally little confidence that whatever it is the government is looking for, or trying to protect us from, can be found or accomplished on a timely basis given the massive amounts of data being collected.

    I am, however, much more confident that ways will be found to abuse the information being collected, putting more Americans than ever in the cross-hairs of their own government.

    I'd ask where all of this will end, but I'm afraid of the answer.


    Rand Paul (none / 0) (#115)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 10:46:42 AM EST
    I told you so

    I must admit.  He makes more sense every day.


    He can make sense for 5 minutes (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 11:14:30 AM EST
    and after that, all bets are off.

    I'll tell you something: I don't need Rand Paul to make a pronouncement in order to believe something is wrong; I'm fully capable of coming to that conclusion all on my own.  The nation shouldn't need Rand Paul - or Ron Wyden - to tell them the Constitution is under assault; anyone with enough brain cells for a quorum ought to know that.

    But people are too busy buying into the less-evil-than-the-other-side BS that is what now substitutes for critical thinking that they end up voting for people who really don't have that hard a time signing off on more and more abuses of power.  I mean, what's a little abuse of executive power when there are so many ways to line their own pockets and guarantee their own wealth?  Loss of privacy and civil rights?  It's too hard to work up a sweat over that when you're busy counting your money and enjoying the fruits of power.


    A broken clock ... (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 03:12:45 PM EST
    ... is right twice a day, ...

    ... but it doesn't "make sense" to buy one.


    ACLU (none / 0) (#111)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 10:26:12 AM EST
    In many ways it's even more troubling than [Bush era] warrantless wiretapping, in part because the program is purely domestic," says Alex Abdo, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project."But this is also an indiscriminate dragnet. Say what you will about warrantless wiretapping, at least it was targeted at agents of Al Qaeda. This includes every customer of Verizon Business Services.

    Another sign to me that our federal bureaucracy is out of control.  

    There really is only one defense of this for progressives.  

    We trust Obama to abuse federal power and we didn't trust Bush.


    Who is this "we" ... (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by sj on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 10:50:19 AM EST
    ... you are talking about?
    We trust Obama to abuse federal power and we didn't trust Bush.
    Do you have a mouse in your pocket? I'll speak for myself, thank you very much, and say that I trust neither.

    Me, too, sj (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Zorba on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 02:13:59 PM EST
    I never trusted either.

    Aprreciate your consistency (none / 0) (#127)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 12:34:01 PM EST
    But many on the right & left are simply trading positions on this because the opposite party is in power.

    At least Lindsay Graham is consistent right?


    HA HA HA HA HA.... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    By many, you are surely projecting your own failures onto us.

    You are not a serious person if that crack about Graham is not a joke.

    Let's not forget where all that power was derived from and it ain't Bill Clinton.  All you clowns handed Bush the keys to the castle, twice, and now you are all up in arms that they next admin didn't hand them back.

    No one on the left wanted Bush to have them nor would have given them to Obama regardless of what you have convinced yourself.  You guys rang the bell and we can't unring it.  Remember all that talk of treason and traitors during the post-911 legislative sessions ?  This is a product of all that grandiose Nationalism a decade ago brought to you by Fox News.

    A lot of people predicted this when Obama didn't throw about have of the previous admin in prison.  That each subsequent administration would only go further because no one was willing to hold them accountable.  I sure hope the next admin isn't as timid, but I doubt it.  

    Fear not, in a decade, this will all seem like weak tea, compared to where it will be if people like you keep acting like it's the other party.  It's both and criminals should be behind bars regardless of their party affiliation.


    It isn't the bureaucracy that's out of (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 11:02:22 AM EST
    control - to say that is the same as blaming the car for speeding, and not the person with his or her foot on the accelerator.

    "The bureaucracy" is only carrying out the policies and agenda of those at the highest levels - and with respect to matters of national security, that bureaucracy has ballooned to gargantuan proportions because of the decisions of those at the top.

    Now, maybe you can find some defense of Obama's decisions in places like Think Progress and among some of the so-called liberal pundits and media outlets, but I'm not seeing much, if any, of it here.  There has been almost universal condemnation and disgust at the extent to which Obama has exercised his executive authority - with many of us pointing to the fact that Obama's own failures to hold the prior administration accountable paved the way for Obama to take things to even more dangerous levels.

    It's not bureaucracy that's out of control, it's the power behind the bureaucracy that's responsible for where we are.


    Can't agree (none / 0) (#126)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 12:33:07 PM EST
    While our leaders are ultimately responsible at some point the bureaucracy becomes an inevitable reality.

    As Axlerod is fond to say..."The government is so vast...".

    The vast size and incomprehensible scope makes all this much easier for the politicians to abuse and use to their advantage.

    There is simply to much to maintain and control and it gets bigger every day.


    The libertarian, snake-oil cure-all (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 03:15:38 PM EST
    Smaller government will fix everything.

    Plus, (the real reason) - I get to pay less taxes.



    Except for the Ridiculously... (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 03:23:38 PM EST
    ...over-bloated military and rebate checks in time of war.

    How much money is being wasted on the (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 04:17:11 PM EST
    Benghazi non-scandal; the IRS hearings (at last count I believe there were five different committees investigating); and other senseless investigations.  They wasted well over $70 Million investing Clinton's bj.  If you want to talk about politicians "abusing to using to their advantage" let's start there.  

    Except in the case of (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 07:25:27 AM EST
    the most famous bj ever, most people didn't want Congress to pursue it.  In the case of the IRS, 76% of Americans want a special prosecutor appointed to investigate (including 63% of Democrats).

    And while over 70% also see the economy as the top issue, Bill Clinton got a larger pass because 1) the witch hunt against him was about mostly personal behavior as opposed to job-related,a nd 2) the economy was good (And his approval ratings increased after his State of the Union and stayed around 60% throughout the impeachment).  Obama doesn't have that luxury - considering that "Americans are divided 49 - 47 percent on whether Obama is honest and trustworthy," AND the economy is still not that great, he doesn't have his charm to pull him through.


    House Republicans vote to repeal (none / 0) (#157)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 06:50:45 PM EST
    Obamacare for the 37th time. Each vote costs the taxpayers $1.75 million.



    We also trust Obama not to bring (none / 0) (#133)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 01:22:26 PM EST
    along with him people who think the legitimate persuit of knowledge issues from "the pit of hell".

    Not a negligable concern.


    And Their Physical/GPS Locations (none / 0) (#114)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 10:45:57 AM EST
    It would be very odd for them to only collect one provider's info IMO.  Just because the Guardian only received the Verizon order does not mean it's the only one of it's kind in existence.

    What really ticks me off about this stuff is they are using it to help people when say, they go missing.  They make other law agencies find it on their own, wasting tons of time.

    I am so tired of this crap.

    It's all about screwing people because they are incapable of catching criminals without ripping up the Constitution and whipping the A's with it.


    Here's what they CAN find out (none / 0) (#129)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    They don't need much to know that you are you. (Emphasis mine)

    And, as a concurrent Guardian report points out, the government has long argued that this kind of data is perfectly legal to collect because it's similar to collecting the information on the outside of an envelope. But even that so-called "transactional" data--phone numbers, phone serial numbers, time and length of calls--can represent a goldmine of information. Collect a ton of data and you can use it later to identify individuals.

    That's a fact researchers at MIT and the Université Catholique de Louvain, in Belgium, recently highlighted in their own study of a giant set of phone data. After analyzing 1.5 million cellphone users over the course of 15 months, the researchers found they could uniquely identify 95 percent of cellphone users based on just four data points--that is, just four instances of where they were and what hour of the day it was just four times in one year.  With just two data points, they could identify more than half of the users. And the researchers suggested that the study may underestimate how easy it is:

    "For the purpose of re-identification, more sophisticated approaches could collect points that are more likely to reduce the uncertainty, exploit irregularities in an individual's behaviour, or implicitly take into account information such as home and work- place or travels abroad. Such approaches are likely to reduce the number of locations required to identify an individual, vis-a`-vis the average uniqueness of traces."

    And One Has to Believe... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 01:33:03 PM EST
    ...the United States Government can do a hell of a lot more than MIT when you consider the databases it can cross reference.

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 01:37:12 PM EST
    When this stuff first hit in 2006, I can remember every time I talked to my mother or one of my sisters on my (Verizon) phone, and we talked about politics (and how bad GWB was), I would always jokingly end the conversation with:

    "For the folks at the NSA who are listening, my name is jbindc and I will save you the trouble of looking me up.  I can be found at 123 Main Street."  I would also joke with the person to whom I was speaking and say, "And if I mysteriously disappear, please get a lawyer and try to find me in Guantanamo."


    Bill Would Make Annoying a Cop a Felony (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 12:19:18 PM EST
    ALBANY, N.Y. (WIVB) - A bill currently making its way through the State Legislature would make it a crime to annoy a police officer, a move that could have far reaching consequences.

    The State Senate passed the bill Wednesday that makes it felony to "harass, annoy, threaten or alarm" an on duty police officer by subjecting them to any physical contact.


    As if the NYPD needs any more protection from citizens.  This is insanity, who in the hell is getting away with harassing, annoying, or threatening a cop in New York ?  

    Seems like this a law directed at OWS.

    Poor little cops (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by shoephone on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 11:11:02 PM EST
    Having to put up with us "annoying" citizens all the time. Now they get to arrest us for "annoying" them, and that is the only excuse they need to then swab us for a DNA sample.

    Killing two birds, and all that.


    Sounds like (none / 0) (#141)
    by Zorba on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 02:12:56 PM EST
    an extreme First Amendment violation.  And a really, really disgusting idea, all the way around.

    I doubt it (none / 0) (#144)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 02:22:32 PM EST
    since the bill states that the "annoyance would have to accompany physical contact".

    There isn't a First Amendment protection of a physical contact of another that I am aware of.


    To Me... (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 03:40:13 PM EST
    ...it directed at OWS or similar circumstances.

    Like it's currently legal to put hands on a cop, there is no doubt that it's illegal and will result in some pretty deep S.  maybe not a felony, but you ain't gonna be home for dinner, you might even end up with a couple thumps on the noggin.

    Just seems like they are fishing for incidental contact by people who are annoying them, whom they can not currently arrest, who will now be felons.  

    I can't think of another instance in which someone can touch a cop on purpose and not go to jail, especially someone who is harassing, annoying, threatening or alarming them.

    It's law for a problem that does not exist IMO.

    I would love to read one story in which a cop was harassed and physically touched in which the person was not arrested and charged.


    You could be right (none / 0) (#150)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 03:52:53 PM EST
    But I bet there are plenty of cases where cops are harassed and physically touched all the time where there are no charges or arrests.  Cops diffuse situations all the time - break up fights or mobs or whatever.  They may separate parties who are fighting, and tell them to cool down (and in the processed get shoved or hit), but they aren't gonna arrest them or charge them.

    What you hear and read about are the times that arrests and charges happen, so the misperception is that it happens all the time, when more often than not, cops are in scuffles where nothing happens. So, how do you think you would hear about the literally hundreds of times per day this happens?

    But I can see your point about OWS and such....


    Good Point... (none / 0) (#151)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 04:17:00 PM EST
    ...especially fights, but how is this going to change that.  I was thinking more directly aimed at the cops and not at a 3rd party.

    Are they going to start slapping felonies on people they wouldn't arrest in the past.  I don't get were there was a lapse in the law that needed filling.

    Or rather where a misdemeanor needed felony upgrading in regard to what is probably already considered assaulting an officer, and already a felony in most states.


    It turns out that the mole (none / 0) (#5)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 04:22:09 PM EST
    we had in Al Qaeda was not done.  The plan was for him to return to Al Qaeda and say the bomb did not work.  The idea was to find the Al Qaeda bomb maker.

    The AP story pre-empted that.

    Walter Pincus at WaPo has the details.

    To this, all I can offer is the take (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 11:35:21 AM EST
    Marcy Wheeler had on it, which she refers to here, with her original comments from several weeks ago:

       ...to believe our mole was going to return, the former head of the CIA would have to believe that AQAP shows great tolerance for recruits who fk up and then return right after high ranking operatives get drone killed.

    Because to maintain that claim, you'd have to explain how an AQAP operative who had been entrusted with the latest version of Ibrahim al-Asiri's UndieBomb sometime in early April, had left (at least as far as Sanaa), had not apparently succeeded in his mission (which was, after all, meant to be a suicide bombing), could return to AQAP without the UndieBomb and infiltrate even further than he had the first time.

        "Oh, hi, AQAP gatekeeper" -- their story must imagine the mole saying as he returned to AQAP -- "I've both failed in my mission and somehow lost the bomb you gave me, but based on that would you be willing to let me spend some quality time with even higher-ranking AQAP operatives?"

    I'm sorry, I just don't buy the we-had-a-mole-we-weren't-done-with story - it just isn't believable.


    Whether it would work or not (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 02:11:29 PM EST
    we will never know.  It may have been worth trying....

    I find this a bit skeptical... that the ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Cashmere on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 05:25:48 PM EST
    mole would be asked to further endanger his/her self by claiming the bomb didn't work?  It just seems a bit "convenient", but I have not yet read Pincus' piece.  

    Here is the cite (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 06:26:45 PM EST
    Walter Pincus on AP leaks

    Picus went into more detail in a television interview with Fareed Zakaria yesterday.

    It would seem to facile to say that no national security issues were at stake in the AP leak probe.   There were.  The more salient issue would be whether the DOJ went too far in responding.  


    ... I won't rest until Fox News' entire prime-time line-up and senior management are all behind bars.



    Yeah, you could... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by unitron on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 05:52:33 AM EST
    ...sic the IRS on 'em.

    : - )


    Nah. Too Nixonian. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 10:46:18 AM EST
    Try as they might otherwise, Republicans are inevitably going to discover that the civil service reforms instituted at the IRS in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal and Nixon's resignation have in fact insulated that agency from the politics of the moment. The only scandal that currently exists at the IRS is the one in their own fevered imaginations.

    The real scandal (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 10:55:30 AM EST
    is that any of those who testified yesterday in great emotional terms received tax exempt status under 501(c)(4).  They should all have been denied because they were engaged in political activity.

    Lawrence O'Donnell appears to be making headway on this.


    Siccing the IRS on anyone (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 11:14:18 AM EST
    by the White House has not been really possible since Nixon--because of Nixon.

    Eureka! I've got it! (none / 0) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 03:42:42 PM EST
    I'll make Rupert Murdoch declare that Spirit Airlines is the official airline of Fox News, and then have them all arrested one by one for interference with the flight crew during the performance of official duties, when they openly rebel mid-flight upon discovery that they're seing served wine by the can.

    The DOJ went waaaaay... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 01:12:20 PM EST
    too far in responding.  Holder must go.

    The DOJ (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 01:31:56 PM EST
    has been going way too far in a whole lot of areas, kdog.  As you well know.
    Holder isn't going anywhere anytime soon.  What he and the DOJ are doing must have the approval of Obama, or it would not be continuing.  Obama could have demanded Holder's resignation well before now.  The fact that he has not is very telling.

    If Holder had half as much love... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 01:54:02 PM EST
    for Obama as Obama seems to have for Holder, he would have resigned by now...he's derailing any chance Obama has of furthering his 2nd term agenda with his shady bullsh&t.  

    Though I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing for we the people;)


    I think sparing Obama a confirmation (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 03:37:04 PM EST
    battle over a new AG is proof of love enough. I can't believe anyone wants that.

    Congress would... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 03:40:31 PM EST
    they'd have fun grilling or fawning, depending on the letter after the congress-critter's name.

    I nominate Ron Kuby!


    It's war time. Again. (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 01:21:37 PM EST
    In war time in this country, there's always been a Holder going way too far; in one way or another.  

    War isn't diplomacy by other means, it's totalitarianism by other means.


    anyone else following the turkey situation? (none / 0) (#8)
    by CST on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 05:37:35 PM EST
    I thought this was a decent round-up of events for anyone who's interested.  Reminds me of the occupy movement.  Good intentions followed by over-reaction of police, followed by escalating situation, and possible over-reaction of some protesters.  As bad as it is though, a military-coup would be worse.  Hopefully the situation is resolved before it comes to that.

    Hey, CST, how are you? (none / 0) (#12)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:09:52 PM EST
    The situation in Turkey is not good. The government reaction, via the police, was so far over-the-top.

    Now the Prime Minister, Erdogan, and the President, Gul, are publicly disagreeing about the government's response to the demonstrators. Gul has said that peaceful protest is good for a democracy. And Erdogan has disagreed that the protests are peaceful. This gets even murkier when one considers that these two may be running against each other for the PM job in the next election.

    From what I can figure out, Erdogan has been steadily eroding the strict secularism of Turkey's government which was such a hallmark of Ataturk, the first President of Turkey and essentially the father of modern Turkey.

    The military has tended to favor secular government over religious government. I don't know their position on this latest trouble.

    Don't you have family in Turkey? Or your sister does, in-laws maybe? Am I remembering this right? How so, what are they saying?


    Hey (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:59:19 PM EST
    I'm doing well, back on my summer island-retreat.  My sister's husband is turkish and they are planning on heading there in 3 weeks with their son if it's safe.

    My sister was the one who sent me that link.  It's complicated. It's true that this president is eroding the strict secularism of the Turkish state.  But depending on how you look at it that's not necessarily a bad thing.  One key word there is strict.  For example, it used to be illegal for women to wear scarves in school or for women who wore scarves to run for public office.  That is the kind of "strict" secularism we wouldn't stand for in this country - rightfully so, especially when you consider a huge portion of the population is Muslim.  And he's proposed banning the sale of alchohol late at night - which while it is a move towards religious rule - is also something we've had in MA for years as a blue-law state (when I was growing up you couldn't buy alcohol on sunday at all).  That being said, he's also gotten corrupt and power-hungry in his own way - so that's never a good thing.  And given the position Turkey has in the middle-east, with the type of strict islamic governments around them, I also understand the fear of moving in that direction even if it is a slow-moving thing.  However, this president was elected democratically, and the military, which has been rather coup-prone in the past - was not.

    So... it's complicated.  Like most of these things are.


    sorry prime minister (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 09:02:42 PM EST
    not president - my americaness is showing ;)

    Complicated? The Middle East? (none / 0) (#20)
    by unitron on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 05:51:06 AM EST
    Surely you jest.

    Alex Rodriguez and Ryan Braun (none / 0) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:03:18 PM EST
    to be suspended by Major League baseball over the Miami Biogenesis Clinic? That's the rumor.

    The Doctor... (none / 0) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 09:48:57 AM EST
    ...has agreed to roll over, but hasn't actually done it.

    Right now all they have are some names in notebooks.  But even if the doctor rolls over, it's going to be pretty hard to prove they actually used them.  There are no positive results, just a doctor caught with hand in the cookie jar trying to save his own a$$.

    There is no doubt both have done in the past.  Braun truly alluded suspension on a technicality, and I believe Arod tested positive several years ago.  But proving they did them just because they bought them seems like a rather large hill to conquer considering the legal guns they can afford.


    Legal Guns (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 10:03:04 AM EST
    serve little purpose in the court of baseball. This isn't a courtroom in front of a judge.

    I Guess Roger Clemens... (none / 0) (#36)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 10:27:35 AM EST
    ...wasn't privy to that memo.  While that was different, baseball certainly doesn't have the final word.  

    It will end up in court, that is way too much money for anyone to leave on the table, Arod has over 100 million on his contract.  And they are talking about 20 players and real suspensions and no one tested positive.


    There is an agreement (none / 0) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    between the players union and MLB known as Baseball's Joint Drug Agreement. Baseball can suspend them with proof that they used a banned PED; proof they possessed one; proof they did business with someone that sold them; or proof that they lied about what they did.

    Their only hope will be the arbiter which means, like Braun last time, they'll need to find a technicality.

    Clemens was in court. His case has nothing to do with this.


    Partly, it will depend (none / 0) (#43)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 11:06:35 AM EST
    upon if the players'  union decides that one man's word and a bunch of names on pieces of paper is proof enough.  Especially a guy who is trying to save his own @ss.  And anyone can write a bunch of names down on paper.  If the union decides to fight, we'll see.  Could get interesting.
    And I'll bet the Yankees would love to find a legal way to void the contract and get out of paying ARod all the bucks they owe him contractually.  Even if he never gets suspended, he sure isn't going be of much use to them as a player.  He's done, playing-wise.  And what other team would want him if they have to pick up that contractual obligation?

    OK... (none / 0) (#44)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 11:11:23 AM EST
    ...Let's rehash in October.

    Ha (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 11:18:55 AM EST
    your date for this to wrap up is probably pretty accurate. October it is.

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 11:28:47 AM EST
    I definitely have a feeling that this is not going to be wrapped up in a few weeks.  
    We need to all meet in a bar somewhere, in October, and as Scott said, "rehash" it.
    It ain't over 'til it's over.         ;-)

    I Have a Feeling... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 02:23:30 PM EST
    ...in about a week we are going to hear nothing but PEDs and by October we will be all Zimmermaned out on the subject.  

    Obama has to be praying this goes deep enough to drag Congress back into it.  He's probably got people planting stuff as we speak.

    Zorba, I am guessing the guy some sort of backup like payments or shipping labels.  But if these guys were smart, it wasn't going to their house and they weren't using their own CC's.  

    But if the past is any indication, they probably did.


    Oh, who the heck knows (none / 0) (#78)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 05:03:33 PM EST
    how smart or stupid they were?
    Baseball has a long history of players trying to enhance their performances with, if not illegal at the time, at the very least questionable substances.  Not just testosterone type substances, but amphetamines.  And others.

    Interesting take on Bradley Manning (none / 0) (#22)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 07:58:45 AM EST

    Your link isn't working (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 08:12:38 AM EST
    thanks (none / 0) (#57)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 12:49:24 PM EST
    don't know why I am link disabled on this site. I do not link enough to remember how to do it.

    Cheater Method (none / 0) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 02:31:55 PM EST
    Highlight the text you want the link to be attached to.  In my example below, it would be the word LINK.

    Hit the link button, and past the address.  I used your link in my example.


    Hot the 'preview' button to see if it worked.


    link would be helpful (none / 0) (#23)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 08:03:53 AM EST
    Apology? Good grief (none / 0) (#30)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 09:03:45 AM EST
    he made a mostly self-serving political choice that best helps him win by a large majority in Nov, thus setting up his prospects for 2016.

    Lawsuits?  They're going to come whether he called the election for Oct or Nov 2013 or 2014, but certainly the cost to the state to litigate won't come close to the cost Christie is making the taxpayers pay to hold an additional Oct special election -- estimated at $24m.

    As for the downside to a Nov '13 election choice, having the parties choose the nominees is a small price compared to the other considerations above.  And the people would have a chance with a Nov '13 election to still weigh in with their preferences prior to the next regular election a year from then.

    I only agree with your last para -- as I noted yesterday the state lege needs to step in to clarify these matters, preferably by making it mandatory to hold a special election at the next statewide election, thus consolidating things, keeping costs down and avoiding the kind of political manipulation of the law which Christie showed yesterday.

    Yes I prefer the route he chose (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 09:17:19 AM EST
    I don't like parties picking candidates. I like primaries. I also think all primaries should have a runoff if no candidate gets over 50% but that's another story. I'd prefer the general be the same date as the regular New Jersey election, but the way the law is written that probably isn't possible if there is also a primary.

    Christie is winning his election anyway. The only downside of this is the cost, and that's a result of poorly written New Jersey election law. I give him credit for letting the people decide their new Senator as soon as possible.

    There is a possible downside for Cory Booker. With a special election (should he choose to run) he will have to break his pledge to not leave office early. I doubt anyone holds that against him as death changes things. A special election also pretty much guarantees Booker will be the next elected Senator from New Jersey.


    While it does appear that (none / 0) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 11:40:49 AM EST
    Governor Christie is expected to have an easy glide to a second term, his decision to hold a special election just three weeks before the general election (it would seem possible to still hold a primary on August 13) sounds to me more like personal electoral concern than his claim of giving voters a "choice and a voice."  

    The easy glide is based on present polling and the relatively unknown Democratic challenger, state senator, Barbara Buono.  However, the situation reminds me of the unexpected close race (rather than the predicted blow out) of Michael Bloomberg last time around.  Many seemed to wonder why the Mayor was plowing over $90 million of his own fortune into what was considered a sure thing.  Bloomberg seemed to know something that 'everyone else" didn't, except for Bill Thompson and a lot of steadfast Democrats.  

    The theatrical bullying of Christie is appealing to some and his Sandy performance has given him electoral heft, but many of his Democratic supporters and funders appear to be overlooking his very conservative, albeit somewhat less extremist views (when compared to some, if not most,  Republicans). New Jersey is a blue state and it is my hope that the citizens of that state look at Christie's entire record.

    After all, for example, he did veto legislation to eliminate gender-wage gaps, cut funds for women's health, including funding for Planned Parenthood, holds anti-abortion views, K.O'd the mass transit tunnel project, opposed funding for early voting, and vetoed same sex marriage.


    "Hitler Dad" wears Nazi uniform to court (none / 0) (#32)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 09:33:30 AM EST
    The New Jersey man who is fighting to regain custody of his young children--one of whom he named Adolf Hitler Campbell--showed up today for a Family Court hearing wearing a full Nazi uniform and a Hitler mustache.

    Heath Campbell, founder of the Hitler's Order hate group, appeared this morning at a Flemington, New Jersey courthouse for a closed hearing on his request for visitation with his youngest child, a two-year-old boy.

    Would've loved to have been in that courtroom.

    Okay, so the article clears up for me (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 10:12:40 AM EST
    the answer to the question I had about the mother's role in all of this...even if I will never understand how people can think and act like this; "loving" parents don't teach their children to hate, they just don't.

    I hope the children can (1) stay together and (2) do so in a home with normal people who don't preach and teach hate.  And the names...can a guardian ad litem petition for name changes, so at least these kids don't have to suffer that indignity?


    I hope so (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 10:42:32 AM EST
    The sad part in all of this, of course, is the children.  If they are able to appoint a guardian ad litem, they would be able to petition the court to change their names.  There are some hoops to jump through, but generally a judge in NJ will approve a name change unless the reason for doing so is frivolous or wrongful (avoiding creditors, criminal prosecution, etc.).  OTOH, I have no doubt the parents would fight it and - barring an actual finding of abuse/neglect/incompetence -  judges are reluctant to override the wishes of the parents, in which case they'd have to wait until they were 18 to change their names.

    Thankfully, idiotic stunts like this are not likely to help Campbell's cause, although I have no idea what other evidence the state has.  Family court proceedings are closed, although an appellate decision in the case indicated the removal was based on allegations of domestic violence, not because of their names.


    I'm sure the names are the tip of a (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 10:55:54 AM EST
    very ugly iceberg...and I don't think the legal matters involving these children will stop the parents from having more children, either.

    I hope the kids can come out of this with some chance for a normal life.


    And, (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 02:25:24 PM EST
    This isn't the first allegation of abuse:

    The lower court judge did not consider claims made by Heath Campbell's former wife of abuse of her and her two children because it happened seven or eight years earlier. She provided detailed documentation regarding several incidents of physical and psychological abuse.

    The appellate judges ruled that the earlier evidence should have been deemed admissible because it shows a pattern of behavior that would put Campbell's current wife and children at risk. They noted that the father has never participated in counseling for domestic violence despite a conviction for making terroristic threats against a former wife.

    According to the 49-page decision, Campbell has been unemployed throughout his adult life because of medical and psychological disabilities. He can't read. He was married twice before and does not support or see his other children.

    He and his third wife, Deborah Campbell, have since split up. She was also unemployed because of physical and psychological conditions. She dropped out of high school in her sophomore year, the court document says.

    Both were abused as children themselves but neither has received adequate treatment for their serious psychological conditions, the court document says.

    This family does not stand a chance.

    DYFS became involved with the family on Dec. 16, 2008, after receiving a complaint that the children were being strapped and confined for unusual amounts of time in child booster seats and that domestic violence occurred in the home, the court document says.

    Deborah Campbell denied being abused by her husband. DYFS workers noted on Dec. 17, 2008, that the children appeared healthy and "that the home was clean and orderly, although it contained some unusual decorative features, such as skulls and knives," according to the court document.

    The next day another complaint was received and a neighbor called and said she had been handed a disturbing letter from the mother a few days earlier. The handwritten note, fraught with misspellings and dated Dec. 11, 2008, said that if anything were to happen to Deborah Campbell then it was likely her husband had done it. Deborah Campbell said in the letter she feared for her life and the safety of her children.

    When asked about the letter, Deborah Campbell first denied writing it, then offered several differing explanations about why she wrote it and what she meant, the appellate decision said.

    There were also police reports dating back to October 2007 regarding loud arguments between the couple, and a neighbor also provided tape recordings she had made of arguments in the home in 2006 and 2007.

    Deborah Campbell refused offers to take her and the children together to a safe place and eventually DYFS removed the children from the home.

    I just don't even have words for how (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 02:44:54 PM EST
    horrible this is.

    It's bad enough that the adults in this mess are damaged, but that they've extended the damage into the next generation is just heartbreaking.

    And this is just one family - I know there are way too many more just like them.


    Bu-bu-bu-but wait, ... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 06:31:36 PM EST
    ... the children appeared healthy and the home "was clean and orderly, although it contained some unusual decorative features, such as skulls and knives." You have to understand, Die Kinder müssen lernen, Disziplin und das Vaterland zu lieben.

    Anne is absolutely right, there are more folks just like the Campbells out there. We ignore the fascists amongst us at our own ultimate peril.


    NYU professor (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 03:06:10 PM EST
    Slammed for "fat-shaming" obese PhD. candidates (as he should be, IMO).

    He tweeted (which has since been removed):

    "Dear obese PhD applicants: If you don't have the willpower to stop eating carbs, you won't have the willpower to do a dissertation. #truth."

    Of course, this isn't his first controversial tweet.

    And let's also point out, that as a psychologist, one of the classes he teaches is called "Human Emotion". I wonder....

    Finally, the best part is:

    Plus, Miller has in fact sat on admissions committees for PhD candidates.

    Hmmm....wonder if he voted no on any candidate because they obviously lacked willpower....?

    That Stephen J. Gould was pretty svelte (none / 0) (#90)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 09:11:12 PM EST
    Morons, everywhere.

    File under: You can't make this stuff up (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 03:18:32 PM EST
    Virginia GOP Lt. Gov candidate says yoga will make Satan possess you.

    OMG. You know when even Ken Cuccinelli wants to distance himself from you, then you are completely over the edge.

    In his 2008 book, Ten Commandments to an Extraordinary Life: Making Your Dreams Come True:

    When one hears the word meditation, it conjures an image of Maharishi Yoga talking about finding a mantra and striving for nirvana... The purpose of such meditation is to empty oneself... [Satan] is happy to invade the empty vacuum of your soul and possess it. That is why people serve Satan without ever knowing it or deciding to, but no one can be a child of God without making a decision to surrender to him. Beware of systems of spirituality which tell you to empty yourself. You will end up filled with something you probably do not want.

    Ok, he doesn't ACTUALLY say Satan will possess you if you do yoga, his broader point being (I think) that if you eliminate God from your life, you are open to temptations that do not serve you or mankind well. (He IS a pastor, after all).  Or, as Aaron Tippin sang:

    "You got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything."

    (All right - I'm giving the crazy man too much credit, but I HOPE that's what he meant).

    But then he is on the record for stuff like this:

    He has compared Planned Parenthood to the KKK, he's said gays are "frankly very sick people," and that homosexuality "poisons culture."

    And my favorite:

    "While giving to the poor is important, the most powerful giving for wealth building is upward giving."


    LOL. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 03:28:18 PM EST
    Any Virginians who would vote for these clowns deserve to have their front yards fracked.

    At my evangelical Christian H.S.... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 03:41:29 PM EST
    ...they taught us the same thing, and that's why social dancing is sinful, because Satan can take over your body. Also, we were taught that many dinosaur bones and fossils were planted by Satan to fool us into believing evolution, but also that some dinosaurs, probably small ones, were most likely aboard Noah's ark. This I learned thanks to Biology for Christian Schools, Bob Jones University Press. Ah the memories!



    More Republican Non-Sense (none / 0) (#77)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 03:54:49 PM EST
    Rubio Threatens To Vote Against His Own Immigration Bill

    Gene Wilder explains it all to us ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 05:55:13 PM EST
    Hee, hee! (none / 0) (#81)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 06:21:05 PM EST
    "Morons," indeed.

    I don't mean to derail (none / 0) (#84)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 07:45:52 PM EST
    the conversation here, and I don't want to take it to a Zimmerman thread, and, since this is an open thread:

    What do you make of all the reports that G.Z. has gained 100 lbs. these past few months? ......reports say over 300lbs.

     I'm not getting into the details of the crime and/or trial, just this spooky phenomenon. I can't believe this is good for him, or his defense. Just wondering why we don't hear more about it, and what could be happening with him psychologically that induced this weight gain? I know the strain of what he's going through must be enormous, and my empathy goes out to anyone who's suffering this way, innocent, or guilty.

    Any thoughts? And, please, no snark.

    Depression (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:52:34 AM EST
    Regardless if he was justified he still killed a kid.  I never though he was a bad guy, just someone who made a grievous error in judgement and like most non-sociopaths, he feels guilt.

    Plus there is a real chance he could spend a large chunk of his life in the slammer.  His life will never be the same, he's broke, he can't work, I would imagine this is a huge strain on his marriage, a lot of people hate him, and he's confined to his home.

    It would be odd if he wasn't depressed IMO.


    Stress, I'm guessing. And he probably isn't (none / 0) (#85)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 07:55:37 PM EST
    going out in the public much (also a guess).  That's a lot of weight gain, but I seem to recall in photos that he was already kind of a stocky build.  

    What I meant was that he's probably housebound (none / 0) (#86)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 07:56:52 PM EST
    and when you're housebound you usually aren't getting the kind of exercise  you need, thus the weight gain.  

    I could understand if GZ packed on ... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 05:14:16 AM EST
    ... some serious poundage these past few months, because he appears to tend toward the heavy side to begin with -- but over 100 lbs.? He'd be an immediate candidate for a major coronary or stroke if he did that.

    I hear you, (none / 0) (#88)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 08:20:41 PM EST
    and those things could contribute to "some" gain, but, 100lbs? That's extraordinary! The guy's only 5ft.7-1/2in. tall. Something's going on, and, I'd bet it will have an impact on the trial. I'm just a layman, but, this much weight gain in such a short period of time just sounds like a freight train speeding towards a brick wall.

    Yes, it's a lot of weight to gain. I didn't know (none / 0) (#89)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 08:47:12 PM EST
    his height but now that I do it makes it even more extraordinary to me.  

    In what way do you think it could affect the trial?  


    Several ways........ (none / 0) (#91)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 09:33:18 PM EST
    First, similar to all studies that show good looking applicants (both male & female) have an edge over not-so-good-looking ones for job openings, all other things being equal, jurors have a lower opinion of overweight defendants than thin ones. Not fair, but, there it is.

    And, second, it could indicate an underlying sickness, either physical, or psychological, that could delay, or otherwise disrupt the normal  schedule/timing of a trial.


    I actually had considered illness when you posted (none / 0) (#92)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 10:01:56 PM EST
    the original comment about the weight gain.  I'm wondering if he has diabetes, hypertension or some ailment that causes weight gain.  Also, some prescription drugs cause weight gain.  

    If he's able, he should volunteer (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 12:58:47 AM EST
    at his local animal shelter to walk dogs. Reduces stress and weight. Plus, casts him in a positive light if needed . . .

    I walk my cats every evening (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:00:27 AM EST
    and the neighbors can't decide who is the kookiest, me or the cats.

    IIRC you live in Key West (none / 0) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 08:12:24 AM EST
    I am surprised to hear that your activities would be considered even close to kooky in your neck of the woods. ;o)

    He probably (none / 0) (#101)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 08:46:41 AM EST
    Can't go out much in public, especially with the trial so close.  Threats, and all of that.

    That's the beauty of using exercise (none / 0) (#103)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:23:37 AM EST
    equipment at home - and it doesn't have to be of the expensive variety, either.  You can jump rope, use canned goods or books as weights, an exercise ball, and so on.  I'd be surprised if he didn't already have some actual equipment, though - weights, a treadmill, etc.

    But he may be depressed, and he may be on medication for which weight gain is a side effect.  Who knows?


    He no longer burns calories (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:28:16 AM EST
    chasing kids around the neighborhood.

    Or fending them off (none / 0) (#108)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:51:27 AM EST
    Christie names (none / 0) (#128)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 12:53:11 PM EST
    More crazy courtesy of Texas. (none / 0) (#155)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 05:05:13 PM EST
    File this under delusional. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 05:32:56 PM EST