home

Wednesday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 08:53:23 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

RIP Gia Allemand, former Bachelor and Bachelor Pad contestant, who ended her life today at age 29. I always liked watching her, she was so photogenic. Condolences to her family, boyfriend and Bachelor Nation.

In other sad news, Bradley Manning addressed the court at his sentencing today. He could get up to 90 years. Jesse Jackson and his wife were sentenced to prison today, 30 months and 12 months respectively, which they will serve sequentially. And hundreds died today in Egypt.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome (except Zimmerman.)

< Wednesday Open Thread | Report: 8 Year Old Helped U.S. with Targeted Kill >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Night Open Thread | 108 comments (108 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    It's perfectly normal (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 06:30:14 AM EST
    for a person the given years in isolation and all the psychological and physical pressures Bradley Manning has endured, to do a complete about face and repudiate everything he's said previously, isn't it?

    Yes, of course it is.

    While there would be something (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 06:46:07 AM EST
    satisfying about Manning standing up for what he did, I can't blame him for going in the opposite direction; if I thought being contrite and apologetic would reduce the sentence I was about to get, I'd be the poster child for contrition.

    Parent
    Well, I suppose (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 06:52:51 AM EST
    getting a possible - what, 90 year? 100 year, more? - sentence reduced by a decade or so would be motivating enough for anyone....

    Parent
    It could be something else entirely (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:16:09 AM EST
    If viewed as sarcasm (or sarchasm) his statement stands miles above and is eloquent beyond anything I've ever heard said.

    Parent
    "given the" (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 06:31:39 AM EST


    Parent
    'Bout time... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 08:40:38 AM EST
    the police started doing something productive, really putting the serve in "protect & serve".

    Seattle cops to hand out free Doritos at Hempfest.  That's what I'm talking about!

    Fear Not... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 10:41:46 AM EST
    Texas: Cops Mistake Tomato Plants For Marijuana; Raid Hippie Commune

    Parent
    Never let botany... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 10:59:18 AM EST
    get in the way of a good hippie stomping...I think that's in the Arlington PD manual.

    Parent
    Here's hoping my local PD (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    knows the dif!!! I might land my a** in jail if they destroyed my garden  :)

    Parent
    I saw this one (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:28:38 AM EST
    And given the number of tomato plants, okra, etc that we grow, maybe Mr. Zorba and I should be alarmed at the prospect that a helicopter drug surveillance might lead to us being raided in similar fashion. :-( I cannot believe that the police were stupid enough to think that the plants they saw from the surveillance were marijuana. Hello, idiots! Tomato plants look nothing whatsoever like marijuana! And notice those big red (or yellow) ball-shaped objects hanging from the plants? What did you think they were, Christmas ornaments that they hung on marijuana plants to decorate them??? I think the cops may well have just wanted an excuse to harass the "hippies." Geez.

    Parent
    What's really wrong with this story (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:47:53 AM EST
    is the fact they gave the undercover cops a tour of the garden before this incident . . .

    Parent
    That's why (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 12:14:28 PM EST
    some of us are suspecting that they just wanted to hassle the hippies. They didn't approve of them or their lifestyle, and maybe wanted them to move away or something. Or maybe they thought that the "hippies" had marijuana plants hidden away somewhere. Who the he!! knows? I mean, we have 40 acres of woods on our farm. Anything could be growing out there, so maybe I should be worried. (Disclaimer to the local cops and the DEA, who may be monitoring my postings: No! Nothing is growing out there! Just trees and normal woodland flora!)

    Parent
    lol; about the only thing pot plants and tomatoes (none / 0) (#32)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 12:56:07 PM EST
    have in common is their love of sunlight.  Neither does well under tree cover.

    Parent
    Hahahahahaha! (none / 0) (#36)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 01:22:11 PM EST
    Too true. Although we don't walk every inch of our woods. I suppose that someone could have made a little clearing somewhere to grow sun-loving plants. We do allow some trusted neighbors to hunt in our woods, however, and they cover a whole lot of it. I would think that they might have mentioned it if they saw something suspicious. (And no, they're not at all the types to grow their own weed. In fact, I would suspect that they wouldn't even know what it looked like.)

    Parent
    Your friends... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 01:30:24 PM EST
    are qualified to be Texas paramilitary narcs then;)

    Now if you need somebody to search the woods for a grow-op clearing, I'd be happy too...as long as it is finders keepers;)

    Parent

    As Long as They Aren't... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 01:38:09 PM EST
    ...'dirty hippies' you need not fear the gestopo.

    Parent
    Well, but (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 02:09:06 PM EST
    maybe the local law enforcement people think that we're the "dirty hippies." ;-)

    Parent
    Kdog, (none / 0) (#45)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 02:07:26 PM EST
    Our hunting neighbors couldn't be less interested in working for law enforcement. And while you are more than welcome to come down here and search our woods, I have to warn you that there are armed people out there from time to time. Although we pretty much have an idea when they are going to be out there hunting. But we do get trespassers from time to time, and who knows what they are doing out there? Maybe looking for wild ginseng to poach or something? Not that I have any idea if there's any in our woods. I wouldn't know ginseng if it came up and slapped me in the face. Or, the trespassers are just looking for a place to drive their off-road vehicles. We've caught a few doing that.

    Parent
    Just joshin'... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 02:22:57 PM EST
    on all fronts my dirty hippie friend.

    Good luck with them rascally trespassers!

    Parent

    I don't even mind (none / 0) (#55)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 03:00:37 PM EST
    anybody trespassing, as long as they don't destroy the plants and trees, or make so much noise that it disturbs us, or hunt without permission. They can walk in the woods as much as they want, for all of me. Just be mindful of the growing things. (And be mindful that there may be hunters out there with guns, although the guys we allow to hunt are really very careful about what they're shooting at.) The problem with the off-road vehicle guys is that they trash the woods. And the uninvited trespassing hunters (we've had a few) simply do not know where people's houses and livestock are, unlike the locals. We had a neighbor's horse shot and killed a few years ago by, presumably, some idiot trespassing hunter.

    Parent
    Cherokee Purple and Black Krim - my first (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 12:54:23 PM EST
    tomatoes this year.  They're both a very dark red with green tinged shoulders.  Most excellent.  I planted nothing but heirloom varieties this year.  That's my idea of living dangerously.

    Not being able to tell the difference between tomatoes and pot plants is pathetic.  What's scary is that those paragons of discernment are entrusted with guns.

    Parent

    My Black Prince are just starting (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 01:12:01 PM EST
    to ripen :) One year I had about a 15 varieties of heirloom. So hard to decide which to grow, lol!~ This year I have about 16 volunteer plants out there along with what I planted. Thankfully, about 6-8 are paste tomatoes for canning . . . another 6 are yellow pear which I like to dry as they are like eating candy when sun-dried.

    Parent
    Amazingly pot plants (none / 0) (#70)
    by fishcamp on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:45:45 PM EST
    and tomato plants give off almost the same color with certain infra-red filters on cameras.  No link for that but I've used lots of different filters while working 17 years for ABC Sports.  They didn't really like my infra-red experiments.

    Parent
    Wouldn't they be able to see the (none / 0) (#71)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 10:11:21 PM EST
    fruit on the plants though? The guy's plants had tomatoes in various stages of ripe all over them . . . aside from the fact the undercover guys got a tour beforehand . . .

    Parent
    Oh man (none / 0) (#28)
    by sj on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:34:22 AM EST
    That's just sickening.

    Parent
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 99 (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 08:44:13 AM EST
    Sometimes even dummies have a subtle sense of humor. (link)

    Volume 98
    Volume 97

    Have a great day, peeps. Headed to SoCal with the family for a few days of R&R. Any TLers in the LA are on Sunday, check out this benefit show being organized by an old chum of mine, it's a great cause, Landmine Relief Fund of Cambodia, and should be a really funny show. It's at THE FAKE GALLERY, 4319 Melrose, L.A. at 8 p.m. Saturday the 17th.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY (a free comic a day)

    Yeah, that benefit's on Saturday... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 08:44:58 AM EST
    ...not Sunday like I wrote in that first sentence. Saturday. 8p.m.

    Parent
    It has been suggested that (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 10:32:26 AM EST
    mandatory gun safety classes in our schools would make children safer.

    I bet this guy would be great teaching gun safety in our schools.

    A gun instructor in the US state of Ohio has accidentally shot a student in the arm in a class for people seeking permits to carry a concealed firearm. link
    What a Load of BS (2.33 / 3) (#53)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 02:46:36 PM EST
    Your passive argument is dishonest enough, but to bring in the non-sequitur crap about "safety of our children" makes your comment 100% FOS.

    Terry Dunlap, 73, was demonstrating a .38-calibre pistol when it went off and struck Michael Piemonte, 26.

    Care to honestly make an argument?  

    Parent

    Because it's the age of the "student" (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 02:54:14 PM EST
    that matters, not the fact that he was shot by someone teaching gun safety.

    I guess our response should have been, "oh, well, as long as he only shot an adult, it's okay, because I'm sure he's way more careful when he's teaching the children."

    If you were taking driver's ed from someone who crashed the car, I'm sure you'd be fine with having this person teach your teenager how to drive...right?

    Don't look now, but I think the "load of BS" you're always pointing out is the one you're standing in.

    Parent

    WTF? (1.00 / 2) (#56)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 03:06:33 PM EST
    It has been suggested that mandatory gun safety classes in our schools would make children safer.

    Really Anne, the event MO Blue reported on has zero to do with alleged suggestion about children's safety. The conflation of children's safety and a 26 year old student getting accidentally shot is clearly a bogus argument. And MO Blue makes it passively. At least Anita Bryant stated her argument.

    Think of the children (and similar phrases citing the interests of children including what about the children) can be used to justify why something should, or should not, be done. When used as a plea for pity, this appeal to emotion can constitute a potential logical fallacy...

    Anita Bryant led a campaign called Save Our Children. By focusing on the idea that gays and lesbians were somehow threatening to children and biblical morality, Bryant created a rhetorical focus which rallied 70% of the vote to repeal the ordinance, removing those civil rights protections. In 1981, Jerry Falwell echoed her language in a fundraising letter that reminded his followers, "Please remember, homosexuals don't reproduce! They recruit! And they are out after my children and your children."[7]

    Wiki

    Parent

    Most Likely True (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:03:59 AM EST
    It has been suggested that mandatory gun safety classes in our schools would make children safer.
    And what else is most likely true is that there are, by far, more accidents in school wood shops, metal shops, football fields and school gymnasiums.  

    Parent
    I agree to disagree (none / 0) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 01:04:09 PM EST
    with you on this. Links on studies regarding children and guns provide originally by Yman. Link 1, Link 2, Link 3 and Link 4.

    More than 90% of the boys who handled the gun or pulled the trigger reported that they had previously received some sort of gun safety instruction.

    And what else is most likely true is that there are, by far, more children participating in daily school wood shops, metal shops, sports activities and school gymnasiums than are in school safety classes.

    Parent

    OH (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 01:51:07 PM EST
    I see, your point was to dishonestly argue that guns should be banned, because someone had an accident.

    What is your position on cars?

    Parent

    Squeaky once again you (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 02:04:40 PM EST
    are making things up. Your standard operating procedure. I refuse to interact with you when you pull this crap. Go find someone else to harass.

    Parent
    My Feeling as Well (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 02:12:39 PM EST
    Hate when they kill a good thread.

    Parent
    I might pay money to see (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 02:24:01 PM EST
    squeaky and jb go 10 rounds in a contest to see who is the first to accurately identify the point being made by a third party.

    My money's on...neither of them.  But it might keep them busy for a while.

    Parent

    Even funnier - the interests that (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 03:15:27 PM EST
    were made up for me were totally off the wall as well.

    I have never canned. The last pie I baked was probably 20 years ago or more. I have no garden and my tomatoes are nonexistent.

    Parent

    So your argument ... (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 03:34:46 PM EST
    ... is that canning tomatoes with Jerry Falwell while taking a gun class taught by a homo$exual in a car driven by Anita Bryant would be dangerous?

    Sorry ... having a little trouble following.  Maybe I should just skip over Squeaky's "points".

    Parent

    Yes (1.33 / 3) (#59)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 03:30:23 PM EST
    Funny..  must have mixed you up with some of the others who deflect to kaffee klatch discussions as a form of dissent.

    But none of that is nearly as "funny" as you making stupid arguments by bringing up Anita Bryant style rhetoric.

    Parent

    It's an Open Thread, squeaky... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 03:52:51 PM EST
    sometimes people need a break from the constant seriousness, hence the talk of gardening and cooking and pets and music.

    But there's no one stopping you from offering issues of more substance to discuss if that's what you're in the mood for.

    With regard to gun safety, I think the point was that if a gun instructor can't safely teach adults to use guns, why would we think mandatory gun safety classes for children would necessarily make them any safer?

    You're the one who decided MO Blue's real agenda was banning guns, so you could skewer her over it; guess it didn't occur to you that Blue might be someone who respects the rights of people to own guns, but doesn't think schools are the place where guns belong.

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    Some people have good comprehension (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 04:03:41 PM EST
    skills and others either do not have those skills or prefer not to use them. Your comment accurately highlights the meaning of my original comment and my position on the rights to own a gun.

    With regard to gun safety, I think the point was that if a gun instructor can't safely teach adults to use guns, why would we think mandatory gun safety classes for children would necessarily make them any safer?
    ...
    ...Blue might be someone who respects the rights of people to own guns, but doesn't think schools are the place where guns belong.


    Parent
    HAhahha (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 04:24:48 PM EST
    It is all about saving the children...  what a hoot..

    Parent
    Not to Post Old Comments (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 03:58:03 PM EST
    But MO Blue has been worrying about Saving The Children as a means to argue gun control.

    Nothing about cars deaths, poisoning, suffocation, or falls.. which account for the vast majority of children's accidental death.

    Using children in this way is poor, imo. and for those who are not shaking their head in agreement, transparent.

    Parent

    Is she arguing for gun BANS ... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 07:23:35 PM EST
    ... or merely gun control?  Because you've just backpedaled from claiming she was arguing for gun bans to gun control in just a few posts.  Of course, in reality, her comments speak to neither.  What she actually did was criticize a claim someone made the other day, namely that mandatory gun safety classes for school age children would be the most effective method of reducing accidental shootings.  She then provided link to an article showing an accidental shooting by a gun safety instructor in a CC class.  She also provided several links to studies which showed that gun safety instruction is not effective.

    The "load of BS" only comes in when you started putting words in her mouth.

    Parent

    you can post links all you want (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 11:16:54 AM EST
    and argue and talk about Squeeky as if she weren't here to see the rude comments (well, not you so much as Ann and a few others who are masters of the technique).  Teaching gun safety is not going to keep children from doing dumb things, particularly if they have careless parents.  But gun safety classes in schools are still a really good idea.
    Squeeky has made some good points and rather than passing out the petty zero ratings and being a holier than thou liberal mini mob why don't you all just admit that? Come on, you know from arguing with tea party types that you can find statistics to "prove" anything you want to prove.

    Parent
    I know links don't impress you (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 02:59:23 PM EST
    What impresses you is whether someone agrees with your preconceived conclusions, rather than facts and evidence.

    Squeaky was responding to MO Blue's comment about the gun safety instructor who shot a student and Mikado's earlier claim that mandatory gun safety classes in school were the best way to prevent firearm injuries.  Rather than discuss the issue, Squeaky immediately veered off the tracks and accused MO Blue of wanting to ban guns and otherwise put words in her mouth.  I'd be more than happy to admit it when Squeaky makes a good point, but the fact that you decided he did doesn't really carry much weight.

    BTW - Those aren't merely "statistics" being spouted by someone who has no idea of context or how to interpret them.  They're peer-reviewed, scientific studies by experts in their fields.  It's what most people refer to as "evidence", and it's a helluva lot more convincing than making baseless pronouncements as though they were fact.

    Parent

    Yman wasn't talking about squeaky; to my (none / 0) (#95)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 02:54:12 PM EST
    knowledge, it appears to be Mikado Cat who's been intractable when it comes to the issue of mandating gun safety for children.

    Mikado Cat has voiced the same kinds of opinions you are offering here - the kind that don't come with any links or other support.  When the shoe is on the other foot, there isn't a nanosecond that elapses before "the liberal mini-mob" gets taken to the woodshed for that same behavior.  "Because I said so," or "everybody knows," or "it's just common sense" do not settle the argument, and Mikado Cat's history here suggests he or she is just trolling out of boredom or ignorance.

    One more thing: if you are going to continue to invoke my name whenever you comment, could you at least spell it right?  

    Parent

    The link (none / 0) (#72)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:15:33 PM EST
    was to study with few details, omitting the most critical, what was the nature of the "safety training". The study proved nothing, at best it provided a data point to consider.

    I made the statement BTW, and see no serious reason to doubt it would be effective. Serious dialogue is how you get serious solutions, not tit for tat attacks.

    Parent

    "Serious dialogue"?!? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 16, 2013 at 07:40:53 AM EST
    "Serious discussion"?!?  Your idea of "serious discussion" is making unsupported, declarative statements and then - when someone provides links to several, peer-reviewed, scientific studies by experts that contradict your premise - dismiss the evidence as "proving nothing" while still failing to provide any evidence to back up your claim?

    BTW - The links are to summaries/abstracts of the four studies, as opposed to the full studies.  If you want the full studies, you can Google the titles and/or pay to subscribe to the service.

    Parent

    I followed the links, (2.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Aug 16, 2013 at 05:10:41 PM EST
    Googled for full sources, and still never found details like what the nature of the "safety training" was. I don't see the study as remotely neutral either, its like relying on the tobacco industry to tell us the health benefits of smoking.

    Seriously dialogue isn't linking to hit pieces.

    If a study shows 10% of kids open a drawer, remove a gun and pull the trigger after having "safety training" what that "proves" to me is the "safety training" was inadequate. 10 minutes of stern warning is no match for 20 hours a week of TV and games teaching guns are toys and pulling the trigger has no consequences.

    Parent

    "Hit pieces"? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 16, 2013 at 07:17:07 PM EST
    1.  You keep calling it "a study" (singular).  It's been pointed out (at least twice) that the links are to four studies.

    2.  Not sure which of the four studies you think isn't neutral, but it doesn't really matter.  These are peer-reviewed scientific studies by experts, not tobacco-industry hacks.

    3.  "Hit pieces"?  Scientific studies that contradict your baseless, evidence-free claims are "hit pieces"?  Frankly, I could care less what conclusions you draw from the studies, because your conclusions have no more basis in reality than your original claims.  You haven't provided a single bit of evidence to support your claim, and you won't ...

    ... because you can't.

    Several, peer-reviewed studies by experts versus Mikadocat's specious, evidence-free theory?

    It's not even close.

    Parent

    The link?? (none / 0) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 16, 2013 at 02:26:48 AM EST
    There were four (4) links with plenty of detail. Once again you have decided not to look at all the information that was presented.

    As usual, you have provided no links and no details to substantiate your POV on this subject. Not even one data point to consider. You think it is so and you have no doubt that it is so seems to make up all the detail you feel is needed to provide for serious dialog.

    How about you provide links to legitimate non NRA studies that back up your opinion?

    If you want people to believe that you want a serious discussion, maybe you might want to bring some actual facts to the table for discussion.

    Parent

    Hmm, seems to me . . . (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 04:05:52 PM EST
    you were the one who told me how to make celery salt . . .  :)

    Parent
    Yes (1.00 / 2) (#65)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 04:23:46 PM EST
    I love commenting about food.. my point was something different. Perhaps not something you have noticed or been interested in. It started during the primaries.. certain commenters (kaffee klatch) would fold ranks as a form of dissent, and discuss gardening, cooking etc..

    possibly a more refined way of plugging ones ears and repeating LALALALALALALALALA I can't hear you.

    Parent

    Oh (1.50 / 4) (#47)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 02:09:54 PM EST
    hahahaha..

    Any thoughts about gun training? gun ownership? or the 2nd amendment?

    or are you just posting comments meant for light conversation?

    how's the canning going? bake any pies lately? and your tomatoes?

    hhahaha

    Parent

    I can (none / 0) (#67)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 04:41:48 PM EST
    think of maybe a dozen specific stupid things I did below age 25 or so, without trying too hard, that could have been much much worse than they were and by luck alone were not.

    Most related to cars, second place food (oldest gambling game known to mankind, what happens if I eat this?), tools and sharp things, electricity, and one incident with an air rifle. By far the most serious were related to cars, and hiking foolishly.

    I'd argue both the cars and air rifle would not have happened if I had a safe place to use them.

    What sort of gun "safety training" results in 10% of the kids opening a drawer, taking out a gun, and pulling the trigger? I don't even understand the kids opening a drawer.

    Parent

    And... (none / 0) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 01:33:59 PM EST
    ...just because it's safer, and not saying it is, it's just another risk factor, keep piling on the odds of not getting hurt only increase.

    Parent
    Followed the links (none / 0) (#78)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 02:58:37 AM EST
    Full text is all paid access, but I Googled diligently and only thing I discovered is those four linked studies are found in dozen's of anti gun sites, but never with any discussion of content, only as something to accept and trust. Not something I do.

    Asking me to blindly trust a NIH study is no different from me asking you to blindly trust an NRA study.

    Parent

    Still waiting for you to begin (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:10:07 AM EST
    your end of the serious dialog that you claim you want on this subject.

    So far you have not provided a single bit of evidence to support your claim. To date, the data that you have provided consists of:

    o you think it is so and you have no doubt that it is so.

    Don't think anyone will take you seriously with that type of proof. I know, I don't.

    Parent

    "No different" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 08:18:10 AM EST
    Except that these studies aren't being produced by "anti-gun sites" - merely cited by them as evidence  Not to mention that the NIH is a group of highly educated scholars and medical experts publishing peer-reviewed scientific studies while the other is an extremist propoganda group funded by the gun manufacturers making fear-mongering propoganda.

    No, ... no difference at all.  

    Parent

    Yman and Blue: having looked at the (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 08:40:16 AM EST
    links Blue provided, and having read through the exchange between and among you and Mikado Cat, my unscientific conclusion is that it wouldn't matter how many studies or articles you provided, because this is someone who wants to believe what he wants to believe and no one is going to make him consider that he might be wrong.

    A secondary conclusion is: he's fking with you.

    As he fks with everyone on this and other issues.

    Another happy byproduct of the trial-that-shall-not-be-named.

    Parent

    No doubt about it (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 10:00:18 AM EST
    He almost makes some of our old right wingers look good.

    The unintended consequences of the trial-that-shall-not-be-named - the addition of far right wingers posting on this site.

    Parent

    Kind of funny (none / 0) (#85)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 02:45:44 PM EST
    when you consider many came here because of the fair handling of information and honest discussion, but didn't know it would be limited to a single closed topic.

    Parent
    Nope, topics aren't closed (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 03:44:43 PM EST
    by anyone other than Jeralyn.

    You are perfectly able to address any topic unless Jeralyn tells you not to address it or places limits on how many times you can discuss a certain topic.  

    Other people on the site are perfectly within their rights to challenge right wing talking points and ask for facts instead of just hot air.

    I and others can decide that since you refuse to provide any facts on this and other subjects you do not really want an honest discussion and are only here to promote your conservative agenda.

    Parent

    BTW there really is a reason (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 03:46:24 PM EST
    why this site is called Talk Left and not Talk Red State.

    Parent
    If I can't (none / 0) (#84)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 02:43:34 PM EST
    see the full methodology of a study, and I am not going to accept it conclusions blindly.

    Peer review means nothing is all the peers are like minded. NIH is not a neutral party, and if I can't see the peer review, can't find ANY discussion of the actual study, it leads me to believe it may not be all that credible.

    NSA is peer reviewed, how happy are you with them?

    Parent

    What "leads you to believe" ... (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 03:12:12 PM EST
    ... they (again, four studies) "may not be all that credible" is the fact that you don't like their conclusions.

    But I'm still waiting for you to post a single study (any study) supporting your theory - that mandatory gun safety education programs would be the most effective method of reducing accidental firearm injuries.

    Parent

    Since (none / 0) (#89)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 09:46:26 PM EST
    you must have read the full studies which I have no access to, can you discuss the details of the tests used in any of them or only the public summary?

    Parent
    I'd be happy to (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 10:06:22 PM EST
    Right after you cite a single study that supports your claim that mandatory, school-age, gun classes are the best way to reduce accidental firearm injuries.

    Parent
    I have no idea if (none / 0) (#93)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 11:26:48 AM EST
    I agree with you politically.  But I certainly agree with this comment you just made. There is no reason to take anything at face value if you can not read it for yourself.

    Parent
    Gee (none / 0) (#94)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 11:39:39 AM EST
    no opinion in that statement Yman.

    I admit there is a lot of crazy in the NRA. Even though I carry a gun, I do not belong.  But there is plenty of crazy on the anti-gun left too.  Here alone I have read some of the biggest dumb-*ss opinions I ever thought I'd see.
    Sitting right in the middle I see both ends as completely intolerant and entrenched.

    Parent

    "Sitting in the middle" - heh (none / 0) (#97)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 03:15:08 PM EST
    I admit there is a lot of crazy in the NRA. Even though I carry a gun, I do not belong.  But there is plenty of crazy on the anti-gun left too.  Here alone I have read some of the biggest dumb-*ss opinions I ever thought I'd see.

    "Plenty"?  Really?  Would you like to compare?  You provide the 10 craziest comments from the leaders of the "anti-gun left" and I'll provide the 10 craziest comments from the pro-gun right and we'll compare.  It's going to be more difficult on my end, given that I have dozens of statements from Wayne LaPieere, Ted Nugent, Jim Porter, etc. to choose from, but I'll weed through them to pick out the nuttiest.

    Don't worry too much, Teresa ... I don't really expect you to try.  Comparing the "anti-gun left" and the pro-gun Right isn't really a fair fight, and I know you're not big on backing up your claims with actual evidence.

    BTW _ No offense, but your opinion of what qualifies as "really dumb@$$ opinions" isn't really much of a standard.

    Parent

    Have any (none / 0) (#98)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 07:49:32 PM EST
    of you read the full text of any of the four studies?

    As I said, I did a lot of searching and found many sites that link to a summary, but never any discussion of details of the study.

    I am accused of not believing them because I disagree with the conclusion, and that is true, but something I am working hard not to do and to look at the details of all studies with equal scrutiny regardless of my own bias. I am suggesting you do the same.

    Parent

    Have you read the text ... (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 08:18:32 PM EST
    ... of a single study that supports your claim - that mandatory, school-age, gun safety education programs are the most effective way to reduce accidental firearm injuries?  Or even a single study that shows that such programs are effective at all?

    Because so far, you haven't provided so much as an abstract or synopsis of one study to support your claim.

    Parent

    Waste of (none / 0) (#100)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 11:21:17 PM EST
    time. I doubt a study exists that will please both of us, so serious discussion is moot.

    Parent
    You're not being asked ... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by sj on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 11:49:16 PM EST
    ...for a study that will please both of you. You are being asked for a real honest-to-goodness study that pleases you.

    But I do agree that attempting any serious discussion with you is moot. And a waste of time.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 06:26:56 AM EST
    Which, of course, is the real reason he won't (can't) provide even one study.

    Parent
    Don't studies, at least medical studies (none / 0) (#107)
    by fishcamp on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:41:41 AM EST
    have to be comprised of 200 or more people?  How many people need to be involved in these types of studies to be considered a true study?

    Parent
    The only time that's been wasted here (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 06:51:22 AM EST
    is that of anyone who began reading this exchange believing you were even marginally interested in a serious discussion; as many times as you claimed to be unable to consider any of the provided links because they didn't meet with your approval, not once did you offer any links to information or studies or articles or anything that supported your own position.

    Not once.  Not once.  

    At a minimum, you'd think you might have found something for others to consider, but perhaps you realized that you couldn't very well do that if what you found didn't meet the standards you set for everyone else's information.  

    So, now what?  Stonewall, dissemble, deny.

    Seems like an odd and dishonest way to debate an issue, unless you're just trolling - and golly, when you throw that possibility into the mix, what do you know - suddenly, it all makes sense.

    Parent

    Yep, you have wasted a lot of (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 07:50:35 AM EST
    time and ban width claiming you wanted a serious discussion without once adding anything of value to promote a discussion.

    You wouldn't know a honest or serious discussion if it bit you on your a$$.

    Parent

    Pot Meets Kettle (2.00 / 2) (#105)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 08:39:35 AM EST


    Parent
    There are a lot of us (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by sj on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:10:16 AM EST
    that could claim the pot/kettle/not-having-a-serious-discussion mantle at one time or another. Yourself included, definitely. Myself included.

    MO Blue is not one of them. If you ever really paid attention to what people say, you would have known better than that. She is always interested in a serious discussion, and will always have the links to back it up.

    Parent

    Really? (2.00 / 1) (#108)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:04:27 PM EST
    Well you must not be paying attention then,

    Parent
    Did The NSA Think The Public Can't Do Math? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    Attempt To Downplay Data Collection Fails Miserably

    Last week [TechDirt] wrote about the NSA's ridiculous attempt to justify its surveillance efforts, including this really wacky callout designed to show just how "little" data the NSA collects. ... This was bizarre on a number of levels, not the least of which is the wacky basketball court-to-dime scale. Next time, maybe we can play "is it bigger than a breadbox" with the NSA. But, as for what any of this meant, it hasn't been at all clear. Since the NSA has already redefined basic English words like "collect," "target," "datamine," and "relevant" it's not at all clear what is meant by "touch." However, some are starting to dig into the numbers, and contrary to the NSA's attempt to suggest that this is "nothing to fear," a bit of analysis certainly suggests they're collecting quite a bit of info.



    New Mammal Discovered... (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 01:53:05 PM EST
    ..in Ecuador, the olinguito, which is described as a cross between a teddy bear and a house cat, but with wicked claws.

    Picture. Link.

    Bassaricyon Neblina (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 02:03:49 PM EST
    The claws are to climb trees, where it lives, and peel fruit.. which is its main diet.

    The name olinguito means small or adorable olingo, but writing in the journal ZooKeys, the team give the animal a formal scientific name too, Bassaricyon neblina. The species name, neblina, means "fog" or "mist" in Spanish, a nod to the cloud forests where the animal lives. But it also means obscured. "That's exactly what the olinguito has been," Helgen said. "Lost in the fog."


    Parent
    It looks kind of (none / 0) (#50)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 02:18:22 PM EST
    Like a chubbier ferret. With huge claws. ;-)

    Parent
    Very cool (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 02:11:18 PM EST
    Thanks.

    Parent
    Its bloody (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:52:43 PM EST
    but Egypt may be on the right path, deciding for themselves what sort of country they want. Hands off and try to make sure other countries keep out seems the best we can hope for.

    If history tells us anything (none / 0) (#68)
    by Slado on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 05:02:25 PM EST
    is that ultimate peace comes from somebody winning.

    Obama is saying the right things, we need restraint, violence is wrong etc... but in the long run one side or the other needs to win for the violence to stop.

    US needs to stay out of this.

    Parent

    In Reality... (none / 0) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 16, 2013 at 10:43:59 AM EST
    ...history has taught us peace is an abstract notion.  Since the days of Jesus the world has only been without war for something like 70 days.

    Can't find a link, but read it years ago.

    Parent

    Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 08:48:08 AM EST
    says...

    Inalienable right to beg,
    Sweet Darlin'.
    Please don't arrest them,
    1st Amendment says so.

    Correct ruling, though another one I thought was rather obvious.  Hopefully the Michigan AG drops it now and accepts there is a right to peacefully beg.

    Big Banksters should be forced to beg (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:03:10 AM EST
    "I swindle for fiat currency" or "Why Lie? I want a 30 y.o. scotch and all your retirement money."

    But that's not gonna happen, this is a good second tho.

    Parent

    LOL... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:31:25 AM EST
    Sounds like material for a new cartoon...a bankster with a cup out the window of his Bentley and the "why lie?" sign, with the working stiffs lined up depositing their paychecks in the cup.

    Parent
    That's one way (none / 0) (#15)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:47:13 AM EST
    to get them supporting a raise in the minimum wage:

    ".....working stiffs lined up depositing their paychecks in the cup."


    Parent

    Good idea (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 10:55:11 AM EST
    Grassy-ass, mi amigo.

    Parent
    And on the other side.... (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:05:03 AM EST
    Hundreds of Convicted Killers Slipping Through Texas Loophole

    Parent
    Saved from Texas "Justice"... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:20:39 AM EST
    by a loophole...I kinda like it.

    The article mentions some convictions for heinous crimes, true...but all were committed 25+ years ago.  So anyone getting paroled has served 25+ years cage time.  Nobody is "getting away" with anything...all have served long long stretches of hard hard time.  

    I'm thinking Texas had it right the first time, before they amended the law in '87.  

    Parent

    Shrug (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:33:14 AM EST
    I don't think someone who kills 46 infants really deserves to get out.  YMMV.

    Parent
    Sick stuff... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:48:44 AM EST
    to be sure, she deserves a slow torturous death if she did what they say she did.  

    I think society deserves the practice of the concepts of parole and rehabilitation and forgiveness.  

    Granted that one is hard to stomach...I'm surprised she wasn't executed, this is Texas after all!

    Parent

    She was only convicted of 1 (none / 0) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 10:05:53 AM EST
    Although I probably side with you on this one

    Parent
    Yeah, and hundreds more get Texacuted (none / 0) (#83)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 10:14:55 AM EST
    as "hundreds" slip through Judge Roy Bean's fingers..

    So much for that wonderful detterant-to-crime they've got working down there..

    Parent

    Non English speaking jurors (none / 0) (#17)
    by ragebot on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 10:02:36 AM EST
    From the Las Vegas CBS TV station

    LV TV

    Still looking for a link to what the New Mexico SC said.

    All Email Providers Same as NSA (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 10:28:45 AM EST
    It is not just Google that snoops:

    When you trust an email provider, you are trusting that every employee in that organisation with knowledge and access is ethical.

    Most of us rest at night under the assumption that our emails are not interesting enough to warrant snooping on by bored sysadmins working the graveyard shift -- which is strangely the same reasoning I heard quite frequently when I attended a recent cybersnooping event that was open to the public with regards to the NSA.

    That's why if you actually care about your privacy, the solution to this situation is to get out of the system, trust yourself, and build your own email server.

    ZDNet

    Use land lines (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Visteo1 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 02:02:39 PM EST
    to send faxes or get software to use your modem for communication house to house.  Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the old wire-tap laws then apply?

    Parent
    I'm going back to... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    a Smoke Signal, just to be safe.

    You don't believe what you read in the paper
    You can't believe the stranger at your door
    You don't believe what you hear from your neighbor
    Your old neighborhood, ain't even there no more


    Parent
    Down here we tend to (none / 0) (#91)
    by fishcamp on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 07:40:09 AM EST
    meet out in the ocean to exchange "messages".

    Parent
    Wednesday Night Open Thread | 108 comments (108 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment