Monday Open Thread

I'll be in court today, which means a new open thread for you. Please be civil.

If you are interested in the Marysville WA school shooting, and learning the "cast of characters, I highly recommend you read this 3,000 word post, with photos, that I posted yesterday. Some of the media outlets have tried, but they tend to misidentify at least one of the principals involved, which I think is bad journalism. So i spent three days combing the FB, Twitter, and Instagram accounts of the kids and their siblings and parents, to compile a chronology and a "who's Who" list with photos and links to their twitter accounts, as well as a rundown of the media theories making the rounds as to Jaylen's possible motive, so you can read the source documents for yourselves. You needn't read it all in one sitting, but I spent a lot of time on it and think it is a handy guide for those wanting to learn more about the shootings, the relationship between individuals in the group, and the community reaction to the shootings and to Jaylen Fryberg.

Again, this is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< The Elusive Motive Behind the Marysville, WA Shooting | John Cantlie Gets a Day Pass From ISIS Jail >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Lots of chatter about Jeb running. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Angel on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 09:43:49 AM EST
    I certainly hope he doesn't, we don't need any more Bushes.  And I can do without Poppy and "Beautiful Mind" Barbara and Dubya and Laura.  It's bad enough that Jeb's son has carpetbagged Texas and will be the next land commissioner (stepping stone to his run for governor or senator).  

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 09:52:55 AM EST
    there is nothing Hillary would relish more than running against a Bush. Texas might still be in love with the Bushes but the rest of the country they make want to throw up. Talk about getting progressives on board with Hillary? The thought of another disastrous Bush administration would certainly do it.

    Besides how in the heck does he even get out of the primary? He likes all the things that the GOP base professes to hate. He's a big proponent of common core and a lot of other things.

    Texans apparently or at least those that vote in Texas are not too bright.


    Not to stick up for Texas (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 01:22:33 PM EST
    but this particular Bush is a Florida product. He could probably win the upcoming governor's race again here.

    I would not underestimate his appeal. He might be the most appealing prospect the GOP has...but that is not saying much.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 01:26:39 PM EST
    but you're looking outside of the GOP base. To the GOP base probably not so much. Even after he destroyed the school system in FL they would vote for him?

    And don't forget that he's pro choice isn't he? I would think that would kick him out of the GOP primary in a minute.


    I think most people agree (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 02:20:19 PM EST
    the school system was in better shape under him than it is under Rick Scott!

    Yes, destroying the school (none / 0) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 02:00:45 PM EST
    system may not mean much to many Floridians.  After all, given the elderly demographics of the state, they went ahead and elected Rick Scott, with his Medicare fraud background.  And, may re-elect him once again.  

    But, I think you are right, it may be hard for JEB to make it out of the primary gate, even though he may offer a decent chance for Republicans in the general election.  His pro-choice position is not clear to me, based on his Florida record.  His albatross, the Bush dynasty issue, may be blunted with a race against Secretary Clinton.  And, as opposed to his father and brother, he is smart.  And, dangerous.   He speaks Spanish and is a Catholic, which may help in some quarters.  


    I can (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 02:09:35 PM EST
    just see the tea party candidates having a field say with him turning him into a pinata. His stance on immigration alone would be enough for the majority of the GOP base to not vote for him. His stance on immigration is to the LEFT of Obama. Now that might help in a general election it's certainly going to do nothing for him in the primary unless he turns himself into a pretzel and starts renouncing all his previous stances ala Mitt Romney.

    There is another school of thought (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 10:09:54 AM EST
    that says a Bush would be the best thing to put up against Hillary.  Make it a Bush/Clinton race.  All about the past.  Dynasties.  Privilege.   Entitlement.
    Turn off enough people to the process and make enough stay home for a republican to win.

    Not saying I necessarily agree.  But it's not outrageous.

    I actually think a reason Bush might not run is because he wants his son to run and four really would be at least one too many.


    It (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 10:58:47 AM EST
    seems to me that a Bush Clinton faceoff would completely negate the whole dynasty argument against Clinton and actually make it even easier for her to win.

    I mean if it's a Clinton record vs. a Bush record that's a gimme with most voters.


    Like I said (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 11:16:41 AM EST
    i don't necessarily agree but I do think you underestimate the hatred out there for Hillary.  I do not doubt that she can win 50%+1.   But there is nearly half the country that will hate her every bit as much as they do the Kenyan.  
    And I would add that the one thing that the Obama era has definitely done is kick out all the stops for hate and venom.  They will feel free to engage in stuff that will make the Vince Foster crowd look reasonable.

    Expect it.


    Oh, (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 11:46:56 AM EST
    I am quite sure she has the rabid hatred of the 1/3 of the country, a very vocal minority. I have never doubted that. The difference between Hillary and Obama has been that she has never believed that she would be able to work with them or that they would be wowed by her "awesomeness". Obama was so naive to not realize what these cornered rats are capable of. They see everything going down the drain and instead of actually changing or modernizing they would rather blow up the entire country.

    Oh, I expect it. It's all the GOP has. And when that is all you have, you have to run with it. The good thing is though that all the hatred is now directly on the faces of the GOP. And this is precisely why I think someone like Ted Cruz will be the nominee because he feeds it and spews every ugly thing they want said. They think Romney lost because he didn't scream about Benghazi enough or one of their other manufactured scandals.


    He's gonna have a lot of work (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 12:28:56 PM EST
    To poll at higher than his normal 4-6% for the nomination then.

    Since (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 01:14:48 PM EST
    polling is what seems to matter you then you can replace Cruz with Rand Paul. Same difference. He's become indistinguishable from Cruz lately with his statements.

    Oh (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 01:15:26 PM EST
    and I should qualify that Rand Paul is leading in the polling.

    Rand Paul (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 01:25:55 PM EST
    and Ted Cruz appeal to very different sets of voters, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.

    Rand Paul is "leading" by .2% over Bush and .3% over Huckabee.

    And while all these polls are meaningless, Cruz is not going to come back in the next two years and sweep in and take over the nomination - unless every other major potential candidate (and some other not known, Republican governors) all get pulled up in the Rapture and he is the only one left.  Even THEN he will not be the nominee.

    But you keep beating that horse.


    Why are you (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 02:14:08 PM EST
    now saying they are meaningless when implying before that they were important?

    Who do you think votes in GOP primaries? The far right is who. Why do you think Romney turned himself into a pretzel renouncing all his previous moderate stances to the get the GOP nomination? It's all because of all the people who vote in GOP primaries.

    Ted Cruz knows how to work these people. He's already going around and building a base of support. You have to realize that most of these people who vote in the GOP primary think that we actually found WMDs in Iraq. You are not talking about rational people and states like SC have closed primaries.


    I am merely pointing out (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 02:43:02 PM EST
    that at this point in the game, if you are polling at 4%, and there is going to be a crowded field, you stand a snowball's chance in hell of capturing the nomination, barring some cruz-and-mike-huckabee-are-on-a-collision-course-catastrophic event, or an extremely favorable media.  Cruz will have neither. (And that's assuming Mike Huckabee isn't in the race - someone who, more than Rand Paul, takes the same voters and is at least more likable and personable than Cruz.)

    You prove my point.  You were very vocal that "Romney would never get the nomination!  The Tea Party won't let him!  Etc., etc."  Guess you were wrong on that one. Then you said it again all this year about the primaries - the Tea Party candidates would win - they didn't.  Maybe you don't understand that national mood and the Tea Party as well as you think.

    Who do you think votes in GOP primaries? The far right is who. Why do you think Romney turned himself into a pretzel renouncing all his previous moderate stances to the get the GOP nomination?

    Maybe - but it still wasn't one of your chosen Tea Party candidates who got the nomination, was it? More so, Romney still won 43 of 55 races in the primaries, including some of the deep South states (even with Tea Party candidates running). The party has wised up - they saw how they were destroyed in the Senate races in 2012 - races they should have won.  They got smart this year and smashed all those people down. You are not going to see someone like Michelle Bachmann on the stages being taken seriously as a candidate.  If Ted Cruz even gets in the race, and I think he will for his vanity, he won't make it out of February.

    (BTW - even at the earliest polls taken in 2010, Romney always had double digit numbers. Know who had Ted Cruz-style numbers?  People like Tim Pawlenty and Ron Paul.)

    Come back to me when Cruz wins the nomination.  I'll do a full mea culpa for all to read right here.

    But I won't be doing that - there will be no need. Cruz will not be the nominee. I have absolutely no fear of a Ted Cruz presidency.


    Mike Huckabee link (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 02:44:33 PM EST
    Apparently I cut and paste something weird.

    Here's the link.


    Ironically (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 04:12:47 PM EST
    your article proves my point. These people are desperate to not have another "moderate" and evangelicals are the bulk of republicans these days.

    Well (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 03:56:04 PM EST
    let's see. Huckabee is not running so who is going to pick up his voters?

    I have told you 1,000 times that I had Romney WOULD get the nomination. You can even go back and check my comments if you so wish. You keep confusing me with someone else on that account. But it's not 2012 anymore and the GOP has been kowtowing to the tea party even more now than they were then and if they take the senate expect more kowtowing to the tea party because if they take the senate it will prove to the GOP that they need the tea party to win. You have to realize that the GOP has become EVEN MORE radical since 2012. The tea party nuts keep moving the goal posts further right and the GOP keeps going there to meet them.


    Huckabee not running? (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 04:08:00 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 04:14:01 PM EST
    there's your GOP candidate in 2016 if he runs. He's the perfect candidate. Tea partiers love the guy.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 02:23:33 PM EST
    If it is picking between dynasties...I think most people would take the Clintons at this point.  

    GOP would be better off putting up someone fresh.

    I think there are and will continue to be reasons why any individual GOP candidate cannot get their nomination....but someone is going to get it.


    There are a lot of Texans who are sick of the (none / 0) (#15)
    by Angel on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 10:14:30 AM EST
    Bushes, including Republicans.  

    The problem with Texas is there are no good Democratic candidates so we get stuck with the same crowd of right-wing Republican nuts.  Wendy Davis has not been a good candidate, at least not good enough to win the election, sadly.


    I agree (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 11:29:05 AM EST
    i would be surprised if he runs.   But I have been surprised before.

    And if Jeb (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 09:53:58 AM EST
    is dumb enough to run he's obviously not the "smart one" in their family. Well, that or either the rest of the family is incredibly stupid.

    From what I see, the main problem ... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 04:16:34 PM EST
    ... with the Bushes has been that family's historical inability to stand for anything but their own selves. Generally, our recent policies in the Persian Gulf over the past two-plus decades have to a great extent reflected the Bush family's willingness to conflate their own business interests with the national interest.

    And that goes back to the time when Jeb's grandfather Prescott Bush -- a prominent Wall Street financier, founding partner of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., and co-director (with his father-in-law George Herbert Walker) of Union Banking Corp. -- was directly implicated in a fascist-inspired scheme to overthrow recently elected President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a military coup.

    The plot was apparently undertaken as a result of FDR's decision -- five weeks after taking office on March 4, 1933 -- to eliminate the gold standard, which had heretofore kept U.S. currency pegged at an artificially high value, and further hurt the ability of American business to compete affectively with cheaper British-manufactured goods. (Britain had dropped the gold standard in 1931.)

    Wall Street financiers were horrified by FDR's action, as they generally were with the rest of his "Hundred Days" agenda, because they were convinced that abandonment of the gold standard was a gateway to runaway inflation. FDR, on the other hand, saw the country as mired in a persistent cycle of deflation, which tended to make American-made goods expensive, suppress industrial production and fuel unemployment, which was then hovering well above 20%.

    What's even more fascinating about this tale was that its participants apparently had enough influence and caché in their times that once their confidence was breached by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC (Ret.), their names were subsequently scrubbed from the public record compiled by a House select committee chaired by John McCormack (D-MA) and Samuel Dickstein (D-NY).

    (The empaneling of that select committee marked the very first time in U.S. history that Congress actively undertook to investigate a reported plot against the government. Unfortunately, it also proved the congressional precedent to its immediate and far more dubious successor, the now-infamous House Select Committee on Un-American Activities.)

    For his part, Gen. Butler's testimony to Congress was publicly dismissed and derided by critics on Wall Street, and he was actively portrayed by their allies in the mainstream media as little more than a pompous buffoon with a vivid imagination.

    In that regard, it should be noted here that Gen. Butler served 34 years in the U.S. Marine Corps and was a two-time recipient of the Medal of Honor for valor. As a major during the First World War he attempted to return one of them, insisting that he did nothing to deserve it, but was instead ordered by his superiors to not only keep the medal, but to wear it conspicuously as well. He emerged in his retirement as a well-known liberal activist, who was not at all adverse to tweaking conservative noses and courting political controversy.

    For its part, the select committee's actual findings were sealed away in the National Archives for the better part of seven decades. We only learned about the extent of the plot, and who was involved, when those records were first made available to the general public in 2007. They reveal that Prescott Bush was both an active supporter and a willing participant.

    Further, it should also be noted that John McCormack, the select committee's co-chair who later rose though the ranks to become Speaker of the House, never once backed off his full support of Gen. Butler's contention about the active coup plot against FDR, and would defend the general as a "great and honorable American" until his dying day.

    Suffice to say that though it was dismissed at the time by Wall Street financiers and their allies in the media as little more than a fanciful tale, we now know that the planned "Wall Street Putsch" was actually quite real.

    And given what we also now know about the family's history, I think that eight decades of Bushes in American public life have proved to be more than enough.



    Donald, totally off topic, (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 05:56:40 PM EST
    But have they been able to evacuate the people in Pahoa village on the Big Island, and have they been able to build the temporary access roads to prevent "lava-lock"?  And what about the heavily-traveled Highway 130?
    Madame Pele is apparently angry.  Although, if she really, really gets ticked off, the lava would be flowing even faster.
    My thoughts and prayers are with those affected on the Big Island.  I have been there, and it still holds a place in my heart.

    At present, there is a long and narrow ... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 06:50:28 PM EST
    ... finger of lava which has descended inexorably down the Kilauea mountainside toward the village of Pahoa. The number of residents whose homes are actually threatened by Pele is actually quite small, and they are at present confined to the village's westernmost outskirts.

    As you noted, of greater concern is the fact that by as early as late this afternoon our time, this narrow flow will have probably breached Hwy. 130, which will effectively cut off some 10,000 residents in the district of Puna -- which, as you will recall, was hit pretty hard by Hurricane Iselle this past August -- from ready access to Hilo, which is the east Hawaii's largest town and where most people on that side of the island will go to shop, seek medical care, etc.

    This photo, which was taken several days ago by a friend of mine who works for the County of Hawaii, can offer you a good perspective of the present situation. In the photo, you're facing a southwesterly direction. Pu'u O'o, at the right top, is the particular vent that's emitting this particular flow.

    As of yesterday, this flow has crossed Cemetery Rd. (lower center of photo), and while it bypassed the HECO transfer station, it has covered old Pahoa Cemetery, which is at the bottom of the picture. It's moving northeast at about 10 to 15 yards per hour.

    I'd offer that the residents of Puna and Ka'u should be well-used to this by now, given that Kilauea has been in a perpetually eruptive phase since early 1983. When one chooses to live in an active volcanic rift zone, these sorts of things should be both anticipated and even expected, if only for purposes of contingency planning.

    I personally know a number of people who've been compelled to relocate by Pele. I distinctly remember the fun times we had in the old coastal village of Kalapana and at the adjoining black sand beach of Ka'imu, which was one of my favorite places to go on the Big Island. Alas, Pele has since reclaimed them as her own, and they no longer exist except in our memories.



    Thank you (none / 0) (#112)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 07:06:17 PM EST
    for the update, Donald.

    I'm (none / 0) (#13)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 10:05:59 AM EST
    afraid that he'd win...



    Well (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 11:02:14 AM EST
    any strengths he might seem to have right now will be completely destroyed by the GOP primary process where he is going to have to sign onto all these far right crackpot stuff. By the time he got through the primary he would be indistinguishable from Ted Cruz.

    Considering the short primary though it's unlikely that Jeb will be the nominee. It's probably going to be someone who has not been out of politics as long as he has and someone who has been spending time with the people who vote in the GOP primaries like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.


    You may (none / 0) (#33)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    be right...

    But the scenario I see is that the Dems destroy themselves - and then Jeb - who is recognizable and might symbolize some sense of security or comfort for a people seeking stability - walks in.

    I can't think of any democratic candidate who is the least bit appealing...

    Then Cruz and the other nuts on the other side cancel each other out..

    And in walks Jeb.



    That could (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 12:02:52 PM EST
    happen in a long primary but the GOP has compressed the primary season so it's unlikely that anybody is going to be able to come in a rescue the mess they have.

    makes me sick that Jeb is doing campaign ads for S (none / 0) (#166)
    by Amiss on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:17:45 AM EST
    Too many Floridians in a messed up gubernatorial race this year. Scott being the biggest crook IMHO.

    my brother-in-law up in Everett WA... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 10:16:33 AM EST
    ...actually knows the father of one of the girls who was killed. He and my sister-in-law were down here this weekend for Neil Young's Bridge Concert benefit, and all he could do was search the internet for word of whether his friend's daughter was dead. Beyond terrible.

    Sadly, (none / 0) (#18)
    by smott on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 10:37:43 AM EST
    Another young lady has passed away, I believe it was Gia...RIP

    New Jersey Governor Christie, (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 10:51:19 AM EST
    has allowed Nurse Kaci Hickox to return home, modifying his 21-day mandatory quarantine for anyone returning from West Africa who had contract with Ebola patients.   His previously expressed hard and fast "no second doubts," appears to have yielded to other factors including the nurse's essay on the website of the Dallas Morning News.  Ms. Hickox disputed Governor Christie's claim that she was "obviously ill" and the disorganized and undignified quarantine process. Ms. Hickox also threatened a lawsuit, although this, in my view, is not likely to be a controlling factor for Christie.  

    Governor Cuomo is also yielding, somewhat, in that the quarantine will be more of isolation at home with public health worker monitoring on-site.  

    The mandatory quarantine was announced by Christie and Cuomo without consulting or notifying Mayor de Blasio or Public Health Officials.  A political decision picked up upon by Governor Quinn of Illinois and Governor Rick Scott of Florida, both in tight re-election bids.  

    Armando (BTD) tweeted yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 10:59:38 AM EST
    something to the effect that maybe after the midterms we can return to sanity on this. I never re-tweet anything - did not even know how to do it on my phone - but I figured out how to re-tweet that...to my 2 followers....  

    It seemed incongruent (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 11:15:40 AM EST
    on the part of Governor Cuomo, especially after he participated as a major panelist in what I felt was an excellent news conference at Bellevue last Thursday.  Cuomo, himself, explained the communicability risks and did much to reduce the risks of hysteria.

    Christie is a horse of a different color so this action was not that surprising.  After all, Christie does have some experience with restricting access to populous areas.  


    Ebolagate. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Angel on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 01:16:15 PM EST
    Shameful... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 11:11:17 AM EST
    Christie & Cuomo are the anti-FDR's...feeding fear instead of quelling it.

    Good news that they're both already backtracking within 48 hours...better than standing their panicky fear-pandering ground. Would love to see a full retraction of the bone-headed policy though.


    Um, (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 11:38:40 AM EST
      In a manner of speaking, FDR "quarantined" the entire Japanese American population of the West Coast.  

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by sj on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 11:58:27 AM EST
    there is that. You're right.

    Damn that Ken Burns (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 11:45:52 AM EST
    and his "historical facts"

    Touche! (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 12:31:36 PM EST
    "We have nothing to fear but fear itself...and Americans of Japanese descent.  Americans of German descent are cool."

    Heh. Here's a true story: (none / 0) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 05:58:37 PM EST
    In the immediate aftermath of the Japanese Navy's surprise assault on Oahu on December 7, 1941, FBI agents combed the island looking for collaborators who may have scouted Pearl Harbor and other U.S. military bases for the enemy in the days and weeks prior to the attack.

    They ultimately arrested a German national and Nazi Party member named Julius Otto Kuehn, a Kailua resident who had been on the FBI's watch list after Japanese-American residents in west Honolulu had reported in early November that Keuhn had been in their neighborhoods and asking them suspicious questions regarding ship movements -- obviously laboring under the mistaken assumption that Americans of Japanese ancestry were natural agents of the Mikado.

    As a result of this information, Keuhn was soon arrested at his home after the Japanese attack. There, the FBI found evidence that he had been dutifully tracking U.S. Navy movements around Oahu on behalf of Counsel Otojiro Okuda and Vice Counsel Nagao Kita of the Imperial Japanese Consulate then located in Honolulu's Nuuanu Valley. Okuda and Kida then relayed Keuhn's information to Imperial Navy HQ in Tokyo.

    On the evening of December 4, 1941, Keuhn confirmed for the approaching Japanese warships that most of the U.S. Pacific Fleet was anchored quietly in Pearl Harbor. But he also informed them that three American aircraft carriers had left Pearl that same morning, and that although he had subsequently circumnavigated the entire island by automobile in an attempt to spot them, those carriers were nowhere to be seen at the time.

    That latter finding actually proved to be a very key point at the immediate moment of war's outbreak, because Vice Adm. Chuichi Nagumo -- commander of the six-carrier, 60-ship Japanese task force, which at the time was the most powerful naval strike force ever to be assembled in the history of warfare -- began to fear that his own ships could be set upon by those carriers while his planes were still over Oahu, which was 190 miles due south of the attack's launch point. Thus, Nagumo ordered the task force's immediate withdrawal to the west, once the second wave of Japanese aircraft began to return at about 11:00 a.m. on December 7.

    Ironically, Julius Otto Keuhn's warning to Admiral Nagumo about the prior departure of the carriers from Pearl Harbor actually spared beleaguered U.S. forces on Oahu from a potentially fatal assault by a third wave of Imperial Navy bombers, which most military experts and historians agree could've easily overwhelmed the island's remaining defenses and rendered the entire Territory of Hawaii prostrate for a subsequent Japanese invasion.

    Within seven weeks of the attack, Pearl Harbor was once again fully functional as a major navy base, American troops and supplies were pouring into Honolulu, and the Japanese military had probably lost its one real opportunity to compel the remaining U.S. forces in the eastern Pacific to fall back upon the California coast.

    By maintaining its grip on Hawaii in the wake of initial disaster, the United States soon managed to regain an effective balance of military power in the entire Pacific, and that ultimately had very fatal consequences for the Imperial Japanese Navy at the Battle of Midway six months hence.



    The isolation quarters (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    Governor Christie's set-up for Nurse Kaci to reside in for twenty-one days (see porta-potty, e.g.)may well have shown that nasty, bully part of the personality that he has learned to camouflage with joking and supposed effervescence.  Nurse Kaci's initial treatment exposed the under-wraps Christie again.  

    I hope that this heroine nurse will comfortably spend the remainder of her isolation at home, and emerge hale & hearty.

    I also wish that Governor's latest blowhard approach will prove to be a "bridge too far" for his obvious presidential candidate pathway.


    it may have been political (none / 0) (#34)
    by nyjets on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 11:53:54 AM EST
    However quarantine  was not a bad idea.
    If you are coming from an area with infectious disease, a quarantine is sometimes the only way to make sure it does not spread.
    Honestly, while I am sorry she was inconvenienced, the quarantine was nonetheless a good idea.

    Disagree... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 12:33:36 PM EST
    mandatory quarantine is security theater, just like the airport rig-a-ma-roll.  Might make us feel better to the detriment of other's civil rights, but that's about it.

    No it is not on both counts (none / 0) (#49)
    by nyjets on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 12:38:30 PM EST
    Yes nothing is 100 percent effective however quarantine can help curb an infectious disease. All that is asked of her is to be isolated for 21 days. After 21 days, you know she cant infect other and that is that.

    oy (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by sj on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 12:55:13 PM EST
    All she has to do is give up 21 days of her life to live in a tent.

    Resorting to the tent gives the lie (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 01:44:02 PM EST
    to the protestations, voiced here as well as elsewhere, that 'merica's mighty dollars can handle anything that arrives with obscenely priced and sterile spacesuit gowned perfection.

    That tent was a glimpse at reality.


    for the safety of other (none / 0) (#71)
    by nyjets on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    Yes, she was in an area working with doctors helping people with an infectious disease.
    It is common sense to make sure she is not infectious.

    I'm sticking with "oy" (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by sj on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 03:06:03 PM EST
    This "quarantine" wasn't medically determined, it was politically determined. Do you really not see the difference?

    do me it doe not matter (2.00 / 2) (#78)
    by nyjets on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 03:21:09 PM EST
    It is still medically necessary

    So it "does not matter" (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 04:21:53 PM EST
    to you if it was politically determined?
    You still think that it's "medically necessary," despite all the actual, you know, medical and epidemiological experts who say otherwise, who are basing their opinions on actual science, as opposed to your gut feelings?
    And where, exactly, did you get your degree in medicine, epidemiology, or virology?  Do tell!
    I echo sj's "Oy!"

    That is a scarily low standard (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 03:23:18 PM EST
    for quarantine. She was not infectious if she did not have a fever. Sending a health to take her temp at home 3 times a day, similar to what they are going to do now that they are sending her home,  would have been just as effective. She should not even have to stay in her house, IMO, as long as she gets regular temp checks, but if folks want to err on the side of safety, that is a more reasonable place to draw the line.

    The quarantine is wrong (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 12:58:31 PM EST
    in several ways.  It denies the public health and infectious disease science and experience.  Although, it does cherry-pick with a quarantine period of 21-days being safe (not less, not more).  And, it delays or prevents effective human and other resources from addressing the problem at the source--countries being ravished by the disease.  Maybe, a modification of the "Bush doctrine:" fight it there so we do not have to fight it here,  will resonate to some avail, with some.   And, it fans hysteria and comes close to criminalizing those who are suspected of having the disease, with confinement longer and conditions not much better than those suspected of crimes.

    Quarantine is not rational, but then, the emotion of fear may become overwhelming.  Accordingly, it behooves elected officials in authority to make informed and rational decisions for the citizens.  There is no end to irrational steps that will play to the scared crowds: prevent any flights in or out of NY or NJ, and, Dallas. Quarantine all TSA, flight attendants, state troopers--as ridiculous as this may sound, there are surely some who would be up for it.  And some politicians, if they spied a vote in so doing


    For those of us who have not followed this (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 01:41:20 PM EST
    to much extent, can you give us the medical specifics of how "It denies the public health and infectious disease science and experience."?

    LOL; Those were Weasel words. (2.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 01:45:06 PM EST
    May not have been clear... (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 01:45:25 PM EST
    can you give us the medical specifics of how "It [21 day quarantine] denies the public health and infectious disease science and experience."?

    Perhaps I was the one who (none / 0) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 02:27:54 PM EST
    was not clear.  A quarantine denies...the science and experience  (e.g, asymptomatic v symptomatic science and experience in communicability risk not accepted).  Although, the science and experience leading to the length of quarantine is not denied--it is accepted, to the day.  

    LOL (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 02:49:35 PM EST
    i am sorry (none / 0) (#70)
    by nyjets on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 02:43:17 PM EST
    Can you explain what you are saying. I know that you think the quarantine is wrong, but I do not understand why you think that

    There are a number of reasons why (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 03:12:34 PM EST
    quarantines are a bad idea, not the least of which is just how many people that would involve, how it would be handled, who would pay for the additional restrictions and  monitoring, where you are going to find that many public health workers to monitor people, and what effect it would have on the willingness to volunteer in the much-needed effort to treat Ebola in the countries where it is flourishing.  

    But assuming that a quarantine procedure is the less radical and restrictive alternative to an outright ban on travel - which is why I believe it is being instituted, sort of - why would such a thing be instituted here, at the arrival point, and not at the departure point?  Why wouldn't you want to isolate those most likely to be infected before they leave the country where they might have been exposed?  If you can isolate from an entire planeload of people only those at greatest risk, why can't you do that at the point of origin?  Wouldn't that be the safer way to go?

    But again, you'd have the same problems: where will those in need of isolation be housed, who will pay for it and who will oversee it?

    My feeling is that quarantines will simply drive people underground, where they will be least likely to get timely treatment and/or screening.  It will reduce the number of people willing to join the volunteer effort.  And, ultimately, I don't think it will prove to reduce the spread of the virus where it most needs to be contained and controlled.


    actualy that is a fair point (2.00 / 1) (#77)
    by nyjets on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 03:20:28 PM EST
    THe quarantine probable should be done from where she is coming from, not here. But if it is not being done there, then it has to be done here.

    Actually this is not fact based (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 04:41:07 PM EST
    it has to be done here

    The nurse is without symptoms. She tested negative for Ebola. Based on science, there is no medical reason for the quarantine.


    Quarantine is wrong.... (none / 0) (#96)
    by vml68 on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 04:41:31 PM EST
    but apparently "controlled monitoring" is not...:-)

    From your link: (none / 0) (#100)
    by sj on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 05:23:41 PM EST
    Officials could not explain why the group was being put under into controlled monitoring, which is counter to the Pentagon policy.

    Plus, their living conditions seem to be acceptable.

    senior military officials described the living quarters as one building with rooms equipped for between one and four people.

    The quarantined personnel will eat in a dining tent. They have a gym and they have access to both unclassified and classified means of communication, according to the official.

    Moreover, military personnel already belong to the government -- they are not forcibly separated from their livelihood. Nor are they separated from one another, apparently.

    Just saying.


    I'm not arguing in favor of either option. (none / 0) (#108)
    by vml68 on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 06:29:14 PM EST
    IMO, it just seems silly to do "controlled monitoring" if the government believes that a person is not contagious unless they are symptomatic. It sends conflicting messages to the "masses".

    It does (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by sj on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 06:50:33 PM EST
    It strikes me as another political decision.

    Unless You Are the One... (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 03:09:35 PM EST
    ...being quarantined and realize most Americans can't take 3 weeks off so the bedwetters can sleep at night.  They either have to burn their vacation and/or for hourly folks, they would have to go 3 weeks without pay.

    I don't know anyone who can take three weeks off of work, much less of their lives, again, so the bedwetters can sleep.

    Not to mention basic supplies, are you going to deliver food and other necessities, are you going to let others.  Why not just put them in a coma and lock them in a coffin, if they test positive just throw them the ground.

    100 times the people were killed with guns yesterday, should we permanently quarantine all guns, or just the carriers ?  Wonder why the bedwetters don't worry about something that has a small chance of killing them and freak over something that has, to date, a 1 in 300,000,000 chance of killing them.

    I know, I know, because it's someone else they are going to take away their rights...


    now you are being a tad melodramatic (none / 0) (#80)
    by nyjets on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 03:27:52 PM EST
    First off all, the number of people being quarantine is relative small. Therefore, the amount of food and supplies that is needed will not that be expense give.
    Furthermore, I have no problem with he people getting compensated. Though if you are knowing going into an infectious area, you have to know that a quarantine might be necessary.
    Also, no one is saying to lock them in the ground if they test positive. That is just ridiculous.

    Melodramatic on a blog... (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 03:35:36 PM EST
    to prove a point is much preferred to two melodramatic governors actually denying people their civil rights for 21 days without just cause, even if just a handful of people.  

    Fear is not a just cause...to my knowledge nobody has objected to quarantine when exhibiting symptoms, which should be the standard...not the standard of scoring political points with the bedwetting masses.


    medically speaking (none / 0) (#82)
    by nyjets on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 03:53:14 PM EST
    By the time a person starts showing symptoms, they are infectious and may have spread the disease to others.
    And reentered a country after treating people who had the infectious disease counts as just cause in my book.

    So Lock Up Anyone Who May Have... (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 05:26:59 PM EST
    ...HIV ?  I meant quarantine.
    The transmission is very similar, and I remember the freakout back then, hence the term bedwetters.

    I was being ridiculous on purpose, no more ridiculous then people freaking over a virus that requires bodily fluids for transmission.

    Just cause to deny someone their rights because they may have a virus ?  Very odd considering exactly one person has died in the US from it, oh and that pesky thing with all those Amendments...

    But this is different, they say, not sure why, but it's rather humorous that the people speaking loudest are the ones who don't know a damn thing about viruses, but miraculously, have very large political ambitions.


    No, not true. (none / 0) (#111)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 07:00:53 PM EST
    HIV is actually significantly more difficult to transmit HIV vs Ebola.

    HIV is not transmissible via sweat, saliva, urine, feces, etc., while Ebola is, according to the WHO.

    No arguments for or against the rest of what you wrote, just hoping that actual facts about the disease are presented.


    I Was Thinking... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 09:37:37 AM EST
    ...at the time HIV came out, when people didn't want to touch or come into close contact with anyone or anything HIV related.

    Similar in that Ebola can't be transmitted certain ways, but it's not stopping people from taking stands that don't match the science.

    It's not the same, good point, but to me the hysteria feels the same.


    the 2 are different (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by nyjets on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 09:44:41 AM EST
    With HIV it is virtual impossible to contract AIDS from an infected person unless you have 'relations' with the person, share needles, or get blood from the person.
    With Ebola it IS possible to get the disease by touching the person (you can get it from his sweat, etc.)
    Comparing HIV and Ebola is comparing apples and oranges.

    I Forget... (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    ...why did people not want to play BB with Magic ?  

    That was my point.

    He was diagnosed in the early 90's, HIV had been in the eye of the public for a decade and still the non-sense.

    But Ebola is different, just like pig flu was two years ago, and west nile two years before that, and if my brain cared, just like every other virus that people decided was the worse one ever.

    Never mind exactly one person had died form it in the US, and only 3 have contracted it here.  On death w/o quarantining people who test negative, remind why that isn't working...

    But you are correct, apples and oranges:

    HIV is the world's leading infectious killer. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), an estimated 36 million people have died since the first cases were reported in 1981 and 1.6 million people died of HIV/AIDS in 2012.

    The number of Ebola cases so far this year: 9,936. How many people have been killed by Ebola: 4,877. These are the official figures put out by the World Health Organization, widely regarded as the authority on the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

    An estimated 1.6 million people died from AIDS-related illnesses in 2012

    1,600,000 to 5,000, apples and oranges indeed.

    There is literally nothing less probable to die from in the United States.


    That's true (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by sj on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 11:28:39 AM EST
    the 2 are different (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by nyjets on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:44:41 AM MDT

    With HIV it is virtual impossible to contract AIDS from an infected person unless you have 'relations'

    But in the 80's that didn't matter. People behaved and talked about HIV as you are behaving and talking about Ebola.

    You are correct, (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:45:14 AM EST
    the disease course is different, of course, but the hysteria is not dissimilar to its early days.   HIVAIDS fear gave rise to rejection of those suspected of being gay--including waiters, with political threats for concentration camps for those with signs of the disease like scarcoidosis.   Mosquito bites were also a source of fear.    It was science and education that changed the public health outlook.  

    How many Juvenile and persos (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Amiss on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:59:13 AM EST
    With Diabetes 2 are in the US alone? That disease (which I am a victim of) is just one that attacks the auto-immune system. Is it fair to virtually sentence me or a child to Ebola because someone doesn't want to be inconvenienced.
    My thinking is "they knew about the quarantined in W. Africa BEFORE they went and went anyway.

    Well, I don't know if ... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 07:08:54 PM EST
    ... I'd call these folks "bedwetters," Scott. Given all the hyperbole emitting from them of late, I'd say that most of them seem to be more the "pantschitter" type.



    How is your treatment going? (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 07:12:23 PM EST
    I hope all is well?

    I got a good checkup from the doctor a while back. He says that he is probably going to drop me down to coming once a year. I hope and pray you get the same good news Donald.


    I'm having a good week. (5.00 / 6) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 12:18:05 AM EST
    I'm between treatment cycles, so I'm using the hiatus to catch up on work. I'm confident that a year from now, I'll be fine and cancer-free. I think a lot of the recovery phase involves keeping a positive outlook.

    A positive attitude (none / 0) (#174)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:38:46 AM EST
    doesn't guarantee anything, it can help.  I would suggest meditation/yoga if you're not doing something like that already. Also, watch a comedy movie or episode of a comedy series you like 2 or 3 times a week, whatever you can fit into your schedule.

    I don't know if laughter is the best medicine, but it certainly is one of the cheapest.  Mahalo.


    And 21 days may not be enough (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 08:39:20 PM EST
    "Once someone recovers from Ebola, they can no longer spread the virus. However, Ebola virus has been found in semen for up to 3 months. Abstinence from sex (including oral sex) is recommended for at least 3 months. If abstinence is not possible, condoms may help prevent the spread of disease."

    Center for Disease Control


    Well, the answer here is simple, Jim. (5.00 / 7) (#122)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 12:22:50 AM EST
    You should henceforth avoid sleeping with guys who have Ebola.

    Hmmm, never tried gay sex, Donald. (2.00 / 2) (#183)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 11:35:26 AM EST
    I love it when you, again, try to deflect a serious, accurate comment based on the CDC by making a completely off topic response that is supposed to insult me.

    As someone who has stated time and again that I support gay rights, including marriage, it is obvious that gay sex is regarded by me as the individuals business, not mine.

    But what I find interesting is that you intend your comment as an insult. Something that is supposed to insult me. I mean, you would not try to insult me with something you don't find insulting.

    It follows then that you have a problem with gay sex.

    Donald, you reveal yourself.

    I'll send Bubba to pick you up and you two can chug a few PBR's while discussing your long disguised personal views.


    Well played Jim... (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 11:51:50 AM EST
    that was a below the belt insult from less enlightened times, and you stayed classy.

    A testament to you sir.

    Love you too Don, but that was totally uncalled for and there is no place for that...here, or frankly anywhere outside the schoolyard circa 1982.    


    Inviting trouble, but what the heck (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 12:10:05 PM EST
      Am I the only one that notices that the handful of posters who are most frequently guilty of resorting to insulting and belittling language seem to be the same ones who claim to take offense when others do so?



    Below the belt (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 12:35:10 PM EST
    and fairly harmless eliciting an overly-defensive, sanctimonious response.

    Especially for a social liberal.  


    I've got thick skin... (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    and am a fan of good natured ball-busting and all, not to mention notoriously anti-pc, but even I thought we were a little more highbrow than that around here.  Our hostess has deleted and warned for much less.  

    And when I'm slightly taken aback, others are usually totally f*ckin' appalled.  I know everybody's favorite whipping boy was the target, but that should not matter.  


    Coffee (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:47:09 AM EST
    on the iPad

    Worth it


    BAD-A-BING, BADA BOOM. (none / 0) (#175)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:40:18 AM EST
    Howdy and Mordiggian (2.00 / 1) (#184)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 11:45:52 AM EST
    Interesting that you find Donald's comment funny while ignoring the CDC's remark.

    If abstinence is not possible, condoms may help prevent the spread of disease.

    The CDC's remarks are totally neutral in regards to sexuality.

    Yet we all know how important the use of condoms were in the slowing of the spread of AIDS.

    Your motivation, beyond the intent to insult me, is a puzzlement.


    You just wear that (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 12:23:21 PM EST
    hair shirt so well we never want you to take it off.

    Condoms are advisible to prevent (none / 0) (#197)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 12:42:16 PM EST
    any blood-borne disease from spreading.

    I doubt that anyone who has survived the disease will have sufficient levels of Ebola virus to infect anyone via their semen.

    Your new call to panic is duly noted.


    Oh, I don't know (none / 0) (#191)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 12:17:37 PM EST
    I think he should go right ahead.

    Best Burn This Month (none / 0) (#179)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 11:07:27 AM EST
    Do you live anywhere near the areas being consumed by lava ?

    And this may be a dumb question, but why don't they divert it to the sea using land movers or bulldozers.  I don't know if a trench would work, but seems like a giant wall of dirt would divert the slow moving lava.

    Or am I just being a dumb mainlander ?


    I guess you have a problem with gay sex (none / 0) (#189)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 12:05:18 PM EST
    if you use it as an insult.

    don't play games (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 12:39:44 PM EST
      Regardless, of Donald's or my personal values and beliefs, the intent to be insulting was not only unmistakable, there could be no other motive for the remark.

     You do make the valid point that Donald's desire to be insulting to someone with whom he disagrees led him to do something even he likely considers wrong in any other context.


    jim: if after 21 days from exposure, you (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 12:19:11 PM EST
    have no symptoms and have tested negative, you don't have any disease to spread to anyone.

    If, on the other hand, you contracted Ebola and recovered from it, you would want to be aware that your semen could contain virus for up to three months, and in an abundance of caution, you should either abstain from sex for that time period, or use condoms.

    21 days of observation/isolation after possible exposure or breach of protocol has been shown to be sufficient for determining whether someone is or isn't going to get sick.  

    If you don't ever get sick, you can't make anyone else sick.


    I think the recommendation for condoms (none / 0) (#198)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 12:47:57 PM EST
    is more based on the fact that virus is found in semen, not that that there have been any cases of Ebola found to have been transmitted that way.

    A little overcautious, I would say, but probably worth following.


    Wait a minute (none / 0) (#199)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 12:54:17 PM EST
    If you don't ever get sick, you can't make anyone else sick.

      As a general statement that is demonstrably untrue. Specifically as to Ebola, the most someone who truly understands    "science" and seeks to discuss it accurately  would state is that asymptomatic persons transmitting the disease have not been observed and the likelihood of it occurring is believed to be low.


    Looking forward to this (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by sj on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 12:13:35 PM EST
    Laura Poitras' film Citizenfour opens October 31 in Denver.

    Interesting photos of N. Korea... (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by desertswine on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 10:31:33 PM EST
    taken by a reporter on a trip across the country. Of course he had a "minder" with him the whole time. Still, some nice pictures.

    sports - college football (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by ZtoA on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 04:42:09 AM EST
    I am actually invited to watch a ducks game next saturday at my artist sports-nut's friends house. I am going to bring some french fries fried in duck fat (which I tried out Sunday nite---yum). I hope my friend further explains the rules of the game to me! I may even read the sports threads here too. I'm already a 'fan' of the ducks and  the UofO in general so this will be a new adventure for me!! (waking up in the middle of the night for me and thinking about the 'sports' to come this week!).

    I try to pay attention to college football (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:10:31 AM EST
    But I'm really interested in those French fries :)  Duck fat fried potatoes is ambrosia!

    Is it 2014 (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 07:58:51 AM EST
    or 1950?

    Last week, a statewide official in Georgia accused Democratic Senate candidate Michelle Nunn of cashing in on her father's reserve of political goodwill during her campaign. This is true, but she's definitely not alone. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Kentucky Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) also happen to have famous political dads and have run ads featuring their parents. They have mentioned their parents at events. In fact, no one voting this year could ever forget the connection.

    The difference between them and Nunn is that she stands accused of using a fake name on the trail, something Pryor and Begich never had to deal with. Being men, they had no choice but to run on their father's name. Nunn, on the other hand, decided not to take her husband's last name, Martin, and is getting some heat for it.

    The candidate told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "It really, frankly, didn't occur to me to change my name."

    Well, (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:02:54 AM EST
    that's the GOP for you.

    This is what (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:03:15 AM EST
    desperation looks like

    I would love it (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:06:40 AM EST
    to see one of the male candidates asked that question - "Why didn't you take your wife's name when you married?  Are you trying to capitalize on your father's name instead of standing on your own merits?"

    I would have said (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:18:49 AM EST
    at least I know who my father is.

    Which is why I am not (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:20:05 AM EST
    a politician

    Well (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:16:57 AM EST
    I have to tell you you would just literally barf at all the sexism and racism that has been coming out of the GOP camp during this senate race. It's the old segregationist white woman black man thing with pictures of Nunn and Obama. They're attacking her qualifications as if running a large nonprofit is not good enough. They're attacking her personally. Apparently its' the old women shouldn't be in leadership positions because they're not emotionally stable crap.

    I do hope those Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:09:09 AM EST
    get their a**es whipped and get sent home in defeat, along with their leader, Mitch McConnell.

    Don't we all but (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Palli on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:32:48 AM EST
    but after voter misinformation,
    and voter suppression,
    comes vote tabulation fraud.

    Pali you cannot copy entire text (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 09:55:23 AM EST
    It is a copyright infringement. email Jeralyn, tell her you are new to the blog and you didn't understand rules and request that she delete comments where you posted the entire article.

    What type of devise are you using to post (computor, ipad, phone)? You are not posting the link in the box correctly.

    I have to go out. Maybe someone else will help you while I'm gone. If not, I will help you when I return.

    Oh thanx, will do. (none / 0) (#168)
    by Palli on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:26:51 AM EST
    I  am using a Mac Desk top

    when I used the link on my post the article it was a phissing site


    Was gonna add that while (none / 0) (#200)
    by Amiss on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 12:55:17 PM EST
    You were at it, get her to tell you how to post a link so it won't mess things up.

    Happy posting!


    Was gonna add that while (none / 0) (#201)
    by Amiss on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 12:56:29 PM EST
    You were at it, get her to tell you how to post a link so it won't mess things up.

    Happy posting!


    Thanks again, MOblue and sorry to all (none / 0) (#171)
    by Palli on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:36:45 AM EST
    I'm usually conscious of copyrights. I usually excerpt but this writers narrative was so compelling I got carried away and did it unthinkingly.  

    Still can't make citation links work consistently here.
    Don't have a problem of the few other sites I use.


    I can't get into the linked article. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Green26 on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 06:20:45 AM EST
    Anyone else having this problem, or know the trick to getting in?

    It's from yesterday (none / 0) (#2)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 06:25:07 AM EST
    On the front/homepage, right below this post.



    Thanks, Yman. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Green26 on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 06:30:57 AM EST
    Suppose I could have read J's post more carefully here, and not just hit the link.

    Good article on ISIS fighting strategy (none / 0) (#3)
    by Green26 on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 06:29:35 AM EST
    in and around Baghdad. Good read for anyone interested in the nitty gritty of what is going on and what may go on in the future.

    Here's the link related to my post on ISIS article (none / 0) (#5)
    by Green26 on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 06:32:12 AM EST
    it was a very good article (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 08:59:46 AM EST
    With details I hadn't read before. Thanks for linking to it.

    It was (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 09:07:31 AM EST
    compelling stuff.  Pretty terrifying to think about.

    Boardwalk Empire? (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 09:00:48 AM EST
    thoughts on the series finale (beyond ladybugs)

    I thought they tied things up nicely.  IMO if could not credibly have a happy ending as much as we might have wanted one.  The intersection of the "then" and "now" stories was quite brilliant I thought.

    Also, Walking Dead! Holy sheets. The season, so far is absolutely living up to the gangbusters series premiere.

    Homeland, hate watching continues.

    Aw Nucky (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 08:16:55 PM EST
    "Nucky, we're gonna miss you and your kayak-sized footwear."- previously.tv

    Previously caught on to the 'Joe Harper is Tommy Darmody'  thing a few weeks ago, so I was expecting that. All in all very well done, tying it all together. and I adored Margaret's outfit in that apartment scene.

    Homeland: Saul: worst spy ever. Quinn: my hero.


    If Quinn and his (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 09:41:46 AM EST
    plus sized new girlfriend don't survive and get together I am going to be pi$$ed.  It's the very least they could do after making us sit through the rest of this mess.

    Haven't watched BE yet - will do after work (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 10:26:32 AM EST
    I don't really expect a happy ending, but I am glad to hear it was a good ending for the show. I think this final abbreviated season can very nearly stand on its own as a great mini-series. They really went out on top.

    Sorry for the spoiler (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 10:40:16 AM EST
    but we knew it would not end well right?

    It's ok, I knew I was reading at risk! (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 01:37:37 PM EST
    Thanks for not putting in the details of just how it does not end well!

    They did a great job (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 04:23:33 PM EST
    Making Tommy resemble James

    The serenade for the Commodore (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 05:09:28 PM EST
    made me squirm.

    I guess they didn't actually sing (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 05:13:40 PM EST

    We have not watched Walking Dead yet (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 05:41:53 PM EST
    It is recording though.  The episodes are stacking up in the DVR.  We are saving it for when Dad gets home, and then we will binge while he recovers from jet lag.  It's great to hear that it is going to be worth the wait.

    I love previously tv (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 06:17:10 PM EST
    Content Warning!
    This article has some content you might find disturbing!


    The thing about Gareth was that his upbeat, smug, can-do approach to the zombie apocalypse was almost convincing. Sure, it involved eating people -- there's no getting around that -- but at least the dude got things done, kept things at Terminus organized, and had a Gus Fring-like acceptance of how things are supposed to operate. Of course, you could say the same thing about the Nazis, so maybe we should just leave that there. And, if the people on Talking Dead are right, Gareth is also considered smoking-hot, the kind of guy working on his music startup you might meet at Starbucks and date for a while before he dumps you for a girl who wears purple glasses and performs GameBoy in a chiptune band. What was I talking about?

    Even the Boston Globe (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 09:35:05 AM EST
    I don't blame them. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 04:16:15 PM EST
    If I lived in Mass., I would vote for anyone but Martha Coakley She keeps running for stuff until she get elected to something. Me, I wouldn't make her dogcatcher. She was a horrible campaigner when she ran for Senate. She is the reason Scott Brown made it into the Senate. And her record as a prosecutor is abysmal. She has no interest in justice, only winning. No matter the cost to the people she has gone after.

    Prosecutors to appeal Pistorius decision (none / 0) (#25)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 11:14:07 AM EST
    Prosecutors to appeal Oscar Pistorius verdict, sentence

    Prosecutors aren't content with the five-year sentence imposed on Oscar Pistorius after he was found guilty of culpable homicide and will appeal both last month's verdict and the sentence....

    The appeal could be on the basis that Masipa misapplied a portion of the South African law "dolus eventualis" ...

    The law says the person in question should be found guilty if they recognized the possibility of killing someone and went ahead with the act anyway.

    Prosecutors would likely argue that Pistorius should've known the possible outcome when he fired four shots at close range through a bathroom door.

    Throughout the trial, Pistorius has maintained that he thought he was firing at an intruder.

    I just saw a graphic someplace (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 11:33:38 AM EST
    about how many senate races are in the single digits.  Many within one or two points.  And factoring in the democratic claim that their investment in get out the vote will add a point or two in every state they are really working.
    It creates a very different outcome for the election than is being predicted.

    I hope it's true.  We will know soon enough.

    The senate (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 12:07:10 PM EST
    and the governor's race are very tight here unexpectedly so.

    This is going to be a very strange year and I do not know why anybody is making predictions. This reminds me of 1998 when all the GOP did was scream about Bill Clinton and did not give anybody anything to vote FOR. To me it seems like the GOP just "expects" to win without really having to work for that win.


    Info (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 12:28:18 PM EST
    They definitely (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 12:38:04 PM EST
    are very close in a lot of states mostly I think that democrats outnumber Republicans and then you factor in the tea party enthusiasm. I have to say I would love to see McConnell sent back to the senate as not majority leader should he win against Grimes. Talk about a fruitless win and money down the drain from the GOP.

    I don't know where you are but down here all they're shopping is fear. Fear of black people aka Obama. I think that time has passed even here in GA. If Perdue wins it will be in spite of that kind of stuff though I have to think that they are going to think that fear wins and will be doubling down on it next election cycle.


    Run Brian Run (none / 0) (#35)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 11:56:32 AM EST
    I read the Playboy interview with Brian Schweitzer this month. I already liked the guy. Now I'm really hoping he throws his hat (cowboy hat?) in the ring. He is progressive populist (IMHO). He supports same sex marriage (he makes a good point that hetro's are particularly successful at it). He has no issue with legalizing Mary Jane. He knows prohibition doesn't work. He spent his early years in the mideast as agronomist. This is someone we need for POTUS. He has a far better knowledge of the Arabs than anyone else that could possibly be running in 2016. I'll take Schweitzer over Hillary in New York second. Run Brian Run! Please!

    Not a fan (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 12:11:26 PM EST
    Brian Schweitzer is a big advocate for the Keystone Pipeline.

    Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) is expressing frustration with the debate in Washington over the Keystone XL pipeline, which he strongly supports

    Schweitzer can be a compelling personality (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 12:12:56 PM EST
    While he was Montana governor (and would occasionally travel to Denver) I've heard him speak a few times, met and talked with him, even contributed to a gubernatorial run.  

    IMO, his current aim--if any--is the VP slot. He will get his name out, give sometimes thought-provoking speeches, and be visible enough to become known.  In the past, when he approached the national stage, he has had the occasional gaffe and set-back. And, be forewarned: Schweitzer is not at all the anti-Hillary.  In fact, he is pragmatically adept and may be a tad more polished than progressive in the long run.  

    Keep an eye on Brian Schweitzer as a potential VP choice.


    He lacks the (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 12:24:24 PM EST
    self discipline to run for President from what I've seen.

    Meanwhile in St Louis County today (none / 0) (#84)
    by Palli on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 04:07:53 PM EST
    "CLAYTON * A St. Louis County judge on Monday dismissed a pending felony drug case after Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson failed to show up in court.

    The 2013 marijuana possession case against Christopher A. Brooks, 28, had been on hold since early last month, when Wilson failed to appear for a preliminary hearing in the case, called for by Brooks lawyer Nick Zotos.

    The case resulted in a commendation for Wilson in front of the City Council earlier this year.

    St. Louis County Associate Circuit Judge Mary Bruntrager Schroder gave prosecutors until today to get Wilson to the grand jury -- an alternate path to advance the case to trial.

    The signed order says simply, "State not ready. Cause dismissed for failure to prosecute. State opposed.""
    Brooks was also alleging p o Darren Wilson used excessive force.  Although required Wilson did not complete a Use of Force Repot here either.


    Palli (none / 0) (#93)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 04:36:28 PM EST
    Wilson did not complete a Use of Force Repot here either.

    This seems to be an habitual problem up there with the Ferguson police.

    They're not setting very good examples for the youth  who probably do better turning in their assignments than the police do.


    Now we hear 5 other cases were dismissed (none / 0) (#118)
    by Palli on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 10:08:12 PM EST
    "Five criminal cases have been dismissed because the primary witness -- the cop who shot unarmed teen Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri -- didn't show up to court, prosecutors said Monday. Officer Darren Wilson "wasn't available," said Ed Magee, a spokesman for the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney. He said prosecutors would not take any action against Wilson, who has not been seen publicly since the Aug. 9 shooting that sparked weeks of unrest. "We don't get people in trouble for not showing up for court," he said."

    We know St Louis municipal courts do get regular people in trouble for not showing up for court!
    "Thomas Harvey, another of the three co-founders of ArchCity Defenders. "These are people who make the same mistakes you or I do -- speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, forgetting to get your car inspected on time. The difference is that they don't have the money to pay the fines. Or they have kids, or jobs that don't allow them to take time off for two or three court appearances. When you can't pay the fines, you get fined for that, too. And when you can't get to court, you get an arrest warrant."


    Of course he didn't show (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 07:43:05 AM EST
    This is a criminal defense blog - do you ever read the other posts?  Of course his lawyer is not going to let him get under oath in any other case while a current investigation is ongoing - that would pretty much amount to malpractice.

    From your link - even Brooks' attorney didn't expect him to show:

    "I expected it to be dismissed," Brooks's attorney, Nick Zotos, said in a phone interview with The Post. "I didn't expect the officer to show at all. Because he's probably listening to his lawyers. He's represented by good lawyers in his own defense. I would presume they told him `don't show.' He's an inactive police officer, there's nothing in it for him to appear."

    Wilson's attorney did not immediately respond to an e-mail.

    "We'd always rather win it on the facts of the law, but we'll take winning on procedure," Zotos said.

    As these were low-level drug cases, I don't think this really has the shock value you want it to have.  It's a complete legal strategy.


    How could being under oath (none / 0) (#126)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 07:52:50 AM EST
    in an unrelated case be a threat to the officer in question?

    Unless he doesn't want to undergo any questioning about his adherence to police procedure in the case case at hand, or in general.............


    Read this blog further (none / 0) (#127)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 07:56:10 AM EST
    It's written by a criminal defense attorney, and several here comment.  I'm going to bet none of them would do whatever they could to keep a client off the stand in another case - whether it was another unrelated criminal case, a civil case, or even depositions.

    They can explain trial strategy and the Fifth Amendment to you.


    jbindc, for all your talk about what you know (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Palli on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:30:06 AM EST
    you would do well to put your comments in the context of St Louis County law, particularly as I suspect you are not a lawyer for this police officer or practice in this neck of the woods.  You might start with the Washington Post articles by Radley Balko.

    Or read the direct observations of David Menschel, Criminal Defense Lawyer NYC; President, Vital Projects Fund, who sat through St. Louis Co. municipal court sessions watching the travesties in early October. Take heed ay his comments like:
    "Criminal justice system is like a factory, but instead of building things, it destroys things."
    "As a defense attorney it's weird to see a "court" without defense lawyers. Makes the whole thing seem illegitimate."
    "Also judge is so deferential, the court is effectively run by the prosecutor."
    (Oh, I forgot, you deride any information that is transmitted contemporaneously, in the first person, at the source.)

    And for your general education about police use of force read:
    Excessive Use of Force isn't about rogue cops it's about policy.


    Not sure what your comment (2.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:42:57 AM EST
    has anything to do with Wilson testifying or not testifying in unrelated drug cases.

    Your links don't work, by the way.  


    if links still don't work: copy to read (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Palli on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 09:28:56 AM EST


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/03/how-st-louis-county-missouri-profits-from -poverty



    text for Policy Brutality is Policy (none / 0) (#159)
    by Palli on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 09:39:00 AM EST
    Excessive Use of Force Isn't About Rogue Cops. It's About Policy. author Josh Michtom
    White fear and a presumption of black dangerousness are built into the way police and courts operate.

    A few years ago in juvenile court, a police officer was testifying about approaching my client, a teenager who more or less fit the description of someone who had recently stolen a pack of gum from a convenience store. At about 11:00 a.m. on a Sunday in the summer, my client, along with two other young men, was sitting on the front steps of an apartment building. When the police car pulled up to the curb in front of them, none of the three men reacted. They just sat there talking. When the door to the cruiser opened, no one ran. No one reached for a gun. According to the officer's testimony, the three didn't even seem to look up. Then, the cop testified, he drew his gun and pointed it at the three men as he walked toward them.

    "Had any of the men made any suspicious movements?" I asked.

    "No," said the cop.

    "Did you have any reason to think the men were armed?"


    "So why did you draw your gun?"

    Trial lawyers are taught never to ask a question to which they don't already know the answer, and I was breaking that rule when I asked the last question. But I figured no possible answer could hurt my client. Still, the cop's answer stunned me:

    "I was outnumbered."

    I looked around the courtroom, making a show of quietly counting on my fingers the other people there - the court reporter, opposing counsel, the clerk, the judge. Then I asked the officer, "Are you outnumbered right now?"

    It is hard to imagine moving through the world and seeing every other human being around you, no matter how ordinary, as a threat. If I lived like that, I wouldn't leave the house. But police are trained to see the world that way, and for at least fifty years, our courts have ratified their worldview.

    In court decisions and training manuals, the term "officer safety" comes up again and again, a shorthand for the inoffensive notion that cops have an inviolable prerogative to use force to protect themselves. But "officer safety" exists as a concept because we believe in a complementary but more sinister concept: civilian dangerousness. In a highly segregated society with a 400-year history of white fear of black violence, where criminality and blackness are deeply intertwined in the imagination of the majority, civilian dangerousness means black dangerousness. Culture teaches the members of our disproportionately white police forces to view young men of color with fear and suspicion. Police training reinforces the idea that every interaction with a civilian is a tactical operation fraught with peril. This is a recipe for interactions that turn into violent confrontations. This is our policy, and we are seeing its logical results around the country.

    White fear of black men has a very long history in this country, and innumerable innocents have seen the business end of a noose because of it. But the police procedures and legal presumptions that enshrine white fear today began to calcify in the 1960s. Toward the end of that decade, black Americans found themselves in possession of a series of long overdue legal victories that seemed to be good only on paper. The Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were the law of the land, but the South and much of the North still operated by the law of a sheriff's gun. School integration, too, was a battle won and yet lost. And of course, the unfair economic advantages of centuries of oppression were only being refined and entrenched, as TaNehisi Coates has eloquently explained. So when urban black America was finally convulsed by the sort of violence that we would expect from anyone in the face of such vicious and unceasing abuse, many white Americans, the bulk of them probably apolitical, some of them supporters of the civil rights movement, were suddenly and decidedly afraid.

    Not surprisingly, then, white flight hit its stride in the 1960s, timed perfectly to fuel the burgeoning suburbanization that the interstate system had made possible. Then, in the 1970s, the manufacturing economy that had drawn blacks from the South began to fizzle. The cities, which had lately become appreciably blacker, now became appreciably poorer as well. A divide was growing in this country, between the suburban, predominantly white middle class and the urban, predominantly black working class. Into this climate came police militarization: as Tamara Knopper and Mariame Kaba observe in Jacobin, "[T]he militarization of US police can be traced back to the mid1960s. . . The social anxiety and fear engendered by the Vietnam War and domestic urban rebellions led by black people provided license for the police to turn these new products on the marginalized populations of inner-city America."

    As downtowns deteriorated, suburban whites had fewer and fewer reasons to visit cities at all, and less and less contact with people of color. It became easier and easier to imagine black Americans as a faceless horde, unified in their hostility toward authority in general and white people in particular, and cloistered in fetid cities that were to be avoided at all costs. It wasn't an accident that when Boston's seedy downtown entertainment district was dubbed the "Combat Zone" by journalists in the 1960s, the name stuck - the concept of city-as-war zone resonated in the suburbs. At the same time, Readers Digest and Look began a sporadic series of salacious stories on urban welfare fraud. In 1976, Ronald Reagan, who probably did the scary-urban-black-people trope better than anyone in politics, made the largely fictional phenomenon of "welfare queens" the signal element in distinguishing himself from Jimmy Carter. By 1980, Billy Joel could catalog his own craziness in a song with just three examples: "been stranded in the Combat Zone," "walked through Bedford Stuy alone," and "rode my motorcycle in the rain" - never mind that the people who lived in Bed Stuy had to walk through the neighborhood alone all the time. Joel was a suburban white person singing to other suburban white people, and they knew what he meant.

    The development and institutionalization of this social anxiety can be neatly tracked just by looking at decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, where "officer safety" has developed into a talisman to be invoked against any restraint on the exercise of police power. By expanding, again and again, what may be done in the name of officer safety, the Court has made manifest its perception that there is a corresponding growth in the danger posed to police by civilians, and the measures that police must take to protect themselves. In practically every case that has defined this body of law, the civilian involved was black.

    The high court considered police officer safety as a justification for a cop's action for the first time in 1968, in the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio. That case involved a veteran beat cop who noticed two men standing on a street corner in downtown Cleveland in 1963. Here is how the Supreme Court explained the beginning of the encounter:

    At the hearing on the motion to suppress this evidence, Officer McFadden testified that while he was patrolling in plain clothes in downtown Cleveland at approximately 2:30 in the afternoon of October 31, 1963, his attention was attracted by two men, Chilton and Terry, standing on the corner of Huron Road and Euclid Avenue. He had never seen the two men before, and he was unable to say precisely what first drew his eye to them. However, he testified that he had been a policeman for 39 years and a detective for 35 and that he had been assigned to patrol this vicinity of downtown Cleveland for shoplifters and pickpockets for 30 years. He explained that he had developed routine habits of observation over the years and that he would "stand and watch people or walk and watch people at many intervals of the day." He added: "Now, in this case when I looked over they didn't look right to me at the time."
    Detective McFadden followed Terry and Chilton, who seemed to be taking turns walking down the street, looking into a shop window, and then returning to the corner. The officer thought they might be preparing a robbery. Ultimately, the officer approached Chilton, Terry, and another man, Katz, who had all gathered in front of the store. The officer asked them their names, they answered, and then, without saying anything else, he patted each one down and discovered that Terry and Chilton had a gun each.

    From this set of facts, the Supreme Court drew the following conclusion: "We cannot say his decision at that point to seize Terry and pat his clothing for weapons was the product of a volatile or inventive imagination, or was undertaken simply as an act of harassment; the record evidences the tempered act of a policeman who in the course of an investigation had to make a quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger, and took limited steps to do so." And thus was born the Terry stop - the idea that police can conduct a warrantless search if they have a reasonable suspicion that there is a threat to their safety.

    Since then, the breadth of what officer safety will justify has expanded. In 1973, in United States v. Robinson, the Court upheld an officer's full search of a man who was being arrested for driving with a revoked license. This wasn't just a search for weapons -- the officer did that and found none. Instead, after finding no weapons, the cop took a cigarette pack from the man's pocket, opened it, and found heroin inside. Still, the justification for that search was officer safety, which the court felt was only properly protected by full searches for any arrestable offense. The court declined to accept the notion "that persons arrested for the offense of driving while their licenses have been revoked are less likely to possess dangerous weapons than are those arrested for other crimes." Think about that: the Supreme Court said that anyone stopped for any arrestable crime (jaywalking, say, or selling untaxed cigarettes) is as likely to present an immediate danger to police as a person arrested for murder or armed robbery. It's a bold step away from the circumstances of Terry, where the officer had some concrete reasons to think an armed robbery might be in the offing. In Robinson, the Supreme Court said, in essence, "every suspect is dangerous." And of course, it is the police who determine who the suspects are.

    By 1977, officer safety had become a reflexive invocation entirely divorced from specific facts. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the Court extended Robinson beyond arrestable offenses to any interaction between a cop and a person in a car, saying that a routine traffic stop was enough justification for an officer to order a driver out of the car and pat him down, even without actual indications of danger. "The State freely concedes the officer had no reason to suspect foul play from the particular driver at the time of the stop, there having been nothing unusual or suspicious about his behavior. It was apparently his practice to order all drivers out of their vehicles as a matter of course whenever they had been stopped for a traffic violation." But, said the high Court, "we think it too plain for argument that the State's proffered justification - the safety of the officer - is both legitimate and weighty."

    In the nine years between Terry and Mimms, the danger faced by police on the job had grown, in the perception of the Supreme Court, from something to be conceded only in particular circumstances (men who appeared to be preparing for an armed robbery) to something to be presumed whenever cops interacted with civilians. And who were those civilians? When the Supreme Court quoted Detective McFadden's testimony that Chilton and Terry "didn't look right" to him, it left out another detail revealed in the same hearing: they were black. So, too, were Willie Robinson and Harry Mimms.

    In 1989, the Supreme Court synthesized some of its accumulated ideas about officer safety in Graham v. Connor, a case involving a man who sued the police for using excessive force in detaining him. Most importantly, the Court ruled that police use of force should be judged not from the perspective of a judge or an ordinary citizen, but from the viewpoint of a reasonable police officer. And "[t]he calculus of reasonableness must embody the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation."

    That view of the peril of police stops persists, and it informs police procedure. According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, on a web page titled "Traffic Stops are Dangerous,"

    Many officers are killed each year and thousands more are injured in traffic related incidences. For example, in 1999, over half of all officer, line-of-duty deaths were related to traffic incidences. In addition, when the use of weapons at the traffic stop are added, the percentage of traffic related deaths is over 55 percent. Every stop for a traffic violation has the potential for danger.
    Routine traffic stops, as they are sometimes called, sometimes turn out to be anything but routine. Officers find uninsured drivers, drivers with suspended licenses, impaired drivers, illegal firearms, drugs and fugitives. Discoveries like these are all in a day's work for many officers. This is why officers are trained to place a great deal of emphasis on their safety and take a defensive posture at the stop until the risk of confrontation or injury is diminished.
    The takeaway is that police work is highly dangerous and routinely presents highly volatile, unpredictable scenarios. As the NTHSA website suggests, this is the fundamental assumption that girds police training materials. A survey of widely used police training literature by law professor Seth Stoughton, himself a former police officer, reveals that

    [f]rom the time they are in the police academy, officers are taught that their single overriding goal every day is going home at the end of the shift. One of the most popular police training texts instructs officers to make tactical thinking a constant part of their working lives by considering, as they approach each encounter, their response to possible resistance. Police operating procedures enshrine the concept of tactical awareness. Suspicion is not reserved for suspects; a safety-conscious officer approaches witnesses and victims with similar care. An officer will take steps to control a scene well before they initiate contact with someone. For example, an officer who is going to conduct a traffic stop may delay by following the target vehicle until they reach an area that will provide some tactical advantage. Officers are trained to approach pedestrian stops in a similar manner; they select the location and environment, so far as possible, before commanding a civilian to stop.
    Here's the problem: the assumption that police work is especially dangerous is wrong. On-the-job police fatalities are statistically rare; the profession is not among the nation's most dangerous. Despite the notion -- oft voiced by defenders of police accused of using excessive force -- that cops must be eternally vigilant against assailants who will grab their weapons, that basically never happens. Of the roughly 780,000 law enforcement officers in the United States, only 105 died in the line of duty in 2013, and only 30 of those deaths were from hostile gunfire of any kind (including, presumably, incidents involving their own service weapons). A thorough analysis by Professor Stoughton revealed that police interactions with civilians are almost never "tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving," as the Supreme Court described them in Graham v. Connor. In the Tulane Law Review, Stoughton writes, "in 2008, officers used or threatened force in less than 2% of approximately forty million civilian interactions." And even the Supreme Court's theory that automobile stops are especially dangerous for cops crumbles under scrutiny: In Robinson and Mimms, the high court relied on a single study that indicated that 30% of incidents where cops were shot began with traffic stops (the NHTSA offers the even higher rate of "more than half"). As any student of basic statistics will tell you, that figure reveals almost nothing about how dangerous traffic stops are. (There could be three million traffic stops, only three of which resulted in officers' being shot, and the statistic would still hold true as long as seven officers were shot in other types of encounters). A 2001 review of ten years of national traffic stop data in the Journal of Criminal Justice estimated the risk of a police fatality during a traffic stop at between 1 in 6.7 million and 1 in 20.1 million.

    Why, in the face of these data, does police training continue to tell officers that they are targets? And why do courts continue blithely to ratify this view, holding cops blameless for conduct that would get most of us charged with a felony? The answer is in another set of data: Studies and polls routinely show that white Americans, and the American public in general, perceive blacks to be more violent than other groups and more prone to drug abuse, although neither of those assertions is demonstrably true. Americans generally overestimate the percentage of violent crimes attributable to blacks.

    We live in a nation where white and black people continue to live in separate neighborhoods, where most white people don't have any black friends, and where police forces and judiciaries are significantly whiter than the communities they serve. In that context, it's not really surprising that police training and practices are adversarial toward black people, that courts approve of the approach, or that the white majority largely fails to understand or be moved by the situation.

    There's a video, taken on September 4 of this year, of a white South Carolina Highway Patrol Officer stopping a black man for a seatbelt violation. The man, Levar Jones, has already parked at a gas station and is getting out of his car when the officer, Sean Groubert, pulls up and asks to see his license. Jones does pretty much what you might expect - he turns around and leans back into his car, as if to retrieve something. And then, in an instant, Groubert is screaming, "Get out of the car! Get out of the car!" as he runs toward Jones. It takes Groubert less than one second to say that, and then he shoots Jones multiple times from just a few feet away:

    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/b1EdDhmvvVA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    Jones (who was unarmed) survived, and Groubert was fired and charged criminally. But when you listen to Groubert's voice in the second before he starts shooting, you can hear something clearly: fear. He really thought Jones was dangerous, and he was well trained in how to react to danger. The South Carolina Public Safety Director described the shooting this way: "I believe this case was an isolated incident in which Mr. Groubert reacted to a perceived threat where there was none." But the incident is not isolated. We are a nation that has trained its police to treat people of color the way the white majority always has-the way that Sean Groubert treated Levar Jones: perceiving a threat where there was none. As long as that perception continues, young men of color will continue to die needlessly at the hands of the police.


    Just so you know (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 09:44:20 AM EST
    j prefers massive amounts of text be avoided and linked to with a paragraph or two included in the comment.

    Rather (none / 0) (#132)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:07:33 AM EST
    I bet ALL of them would do whatever they could to keep a client off the stand in an unrelated case.

    (needs edit function)


    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:49:59 AM EST
     I don't believe  his lawyer would have any meritorious grounds for asserting Wilson could not be compelled to take the stand and testify in an unrelated case.

     Possibly, Wilson could assert his 5th Amendment privilege not to answer certain specific questions, the answers to which would tend to incriminate him.

     I can't categorically state that situation could not arise, but I highly doubt any cross-examination questions where the answers could be incriminating would be substantively relevant to the unrelated cases.  AND, I also doubt that any questions eliciting responses related to  the facts of the Brown shooting would be permissible impeachment.

      At most,  the  impeachment would likely be limited to inquiring as to his current status (whether he is on suspension, subject to internal inquiry,  etc.) and only issues that do not require Wilson to provide any answers that would tend to incriminate himself in the Brown shooting.



    Thanks for being more responsive (none / 0) (#150)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:53:56 AM EST
    and answering my question in an informative way.

    Also, (none / 0) (#154)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 09:06:35 AM EST
      although I cannot speak authoritatively as to Missouri law and procedure, dismissal at the preliminary hearing stage is generally not a dismissal "with prejudice." Jeopardy has not attached and such dismissals are not adjudications on the merits. Therefore, everywhere I have ever practiced new charges could be filed (within the SOL period) based on the same allegations and the process would just begin anew. Typically, a dismissal at this stage would just mean that a defendant must be released from custody if incarcerated or released from bond if out on bond.



    Sorry, but if you can't explain how a question (none / 0) (#139)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:28:03 AM EST
    On an unrelated case could possibly be of relevance during a trial, I have to conclude that you don't really know what you're talking about.

    If you can't see possible (none / 0) (#145)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:43:47 AM EST
    5th Amendment issues, then I can't help you.

    And by the way (none / 0) (#147)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:47:19 AM EST
    This isn't just for cops.  Witnesses don't show up all the time if they are involved with other cases.  Usually, their attorney will let the prosecutor / defense attorney know and life goes on.

    If these were higher profile cases  - say a serial killer's trial, where Wilson's testimony was key to putting someone away for life, there would probably be a different outcome.  Schedules would be changed, things would be pushed back, etc. so he could testify after the grand jury proceedings were over or something like that.  

    Again, read a little on this blog.


    Wilson (none / 0) (#163)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 09:54:02 AM EST
    The dismissal of all these cases tells me that Wilson is wisely avoiding anyplace where he would have to give a statement under oath.

    And that goes for the Brown Grand Jury as well.

    No way a person in his position would appear there if he didn't have to and especially without legal  counsel which he did not apparently secure until a week after his alleged appearance.

    And here's the deal with that:

    Police Union Boss Jeff Roorda running as a Democrat for the Missouri Senate raised over $200,000 over the internet for Wilson's legal defense.

    Then this Jeff Roorda says "oh shucks -- all that money is taxable for Wilson even if he uses it for legal fees".

    So his solution is to keep the money inhouse and to persuade Wilson to hire Roorda's police union lawyer for his defense -- which he does.

    I sure hope that none of that money has worked its way into Roorda's campaign coffers.


    I believe (none / 0) (#173)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:37:58 AM EST
    That witness testimony before grand juries in Missouri, is under oath.

    And for those who still think it strange that a grand jury was called at all...(my bold)

    McCulloch's office says slightly less than half of the criminal cases go through grand juries. Marcia McCormick, who teaches criminal law at Saint Louis University Law School, says most of the high-level felonies in St. Louis County go through the grand jury. In addition, grand juries are almost always used in cases of alleged police brutality because they allow the prosecutor to gauge the credibility of witnesses.

    Help Help (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 04:21:51 PM EST
    I'm stuck in a Southern diner, and Fox is on.  The Hillary hate is spreading as fast and feverish in here as Ebola fear :)  

    Too bad we can't quarantine THAT! (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 04:37:34 PM EST
    Did (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 04:49:20 PM EST
    you expect anything different from Fox? It's all about keeping the old people voting for the GOP out of fear. But sooner or later Fox's viewers are going to die off completely. I wonder what they'll do then?

    They called her "Nails on a chalkboard" (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 05:39:03 PM EST
    Ya ain't just a kiddin when you say they have nothing new to offer anyone.  No solutions, not even an original analogy.

    And as soon as I posted that, what would the next step be?  A joke of course that involves Hillary and Ebola.  Just like grade school :)


    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 06:03:02 PM EST
    they having nothing new and only the failures of the past economic policies to offer Americans and of course trying to bring us back to the 1950's.

    I'm dreading the heehaw fundamentalist fest that's going to be coming down the pike in a few year. John Stewart will have more material than he knows what to do with though. Look at the bright side :)


    Just a small step to 'shrill' and (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:57:03 AM EST
    talking about her hair. And if history repeats,  that is just her potential Dem rivals. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

    US employed Nazis as spies? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 08:47:08 PM EST

    In the decades after World War II, the C.I.A. and other United States agencies employed at least a thousand Nazis as Cold War spies and informants and, as recently as the 1990s, concealed the government's ties to some still living in America, newly disclosed records and interviews show.

    At the height of the Cold War in the 1950s, law enforcement and intelligence leaders like J. Edgar Hoover at the F.B.I. and Allen Dulles at the C.I.A. aggressively recruited onetime Nazis of all ranks as secret, anti-Soviet "assets," declassified records show. They believed the ex-Nazis' intelligence value against the Russians outweighed what one official called "moral lapses" in their service to the Third Reich.

    The agency hired one former SS officer as a spy in the 1950s, for instance, even after concluding he was probably guilty of "minor war crimes."


    When the Justice Department was preparing in 1994 to prosecute a senior Nazi collaborator in Boston named Aleksandras Lileikis, the C.I.A. tried to intervene.

    The agency's own files linked Mr. Lileikis to the machine-gun massacres of 60,000 Jews in Lithuania. He worked "under the control of the Gestapo during the war," his C.I.A. file noted, and "was possibly connected with the shooting of Jews in Vilna."

    Even so, the agency hired him in 1952 as a spy in East Germany -- paying him $1,700 a year, plus two cartons of cigarettes a month -- and cleared the way for him to immigrate to America four years later, records show.

    Mr. Lileikis lived quietly for nearly 40 years, until prosecutors discovered his Nazi past and prepared to seek his deportation in 1994.


    In a classified memo to the House Intelligence Committee in 1995, the agency acknowledged using him as a spy but made no mention of the records linking him to mass murders. "There is no evidence," the C.I.A. wrote, "that this Agency was aware of his wartime activities."

    Hard to know what to say.

    Nazi scientists were brought to the U.S. to (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 12:18:20 AM EST
    work in the rocket program and NASA. The CIA and its predecessor the OSS scrubbed the paper trail of a number of Nazis so that they could be hired by our government.

     Werner von Braun,  who played a major role in our space program, was a Nazi.


    The Redstone MR-3 rocket that ... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 12:55:20 AM EST
    ... shot Alan Shepard into suborbital space on May 5, 1961 was actually a direct descendant of the German V2 from the Second World War, which was the world's first operational ballistic missile. To accomplish that task, Werner von Braun took his original V2 design, increased the size of the rocket's fuel tank by about six feet and substituted the Mercury space capsule for the missile's original warhead.

    Stephen Colbert (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:16:06 AM EST

    Louie Gomert
    Gay massage in the military

    what more do you need to know to click this link

    Alibis 101 (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:32:05 AM EST
    if you are going to claim self defense don't shoot your wife in the back of the head

    Responding officers found the pregnant woman dead at the scene when they arrived.

    Investigators determined that an argument between Sinclair and his wife began at around 6:30 a.m. on Sunday in their bedroom. The suspect said that he had thrown his wife's phone into the toilet, and she had chased him around the house with a kitchen knife.

    But Sinclair said that the victim could not catch him, so she locked herself in the bedroom. He explained how he retrieved a gun from underneath a recliner in the living room, and went to the bedroom to confront her. The argument escalated, until Sinclair said that Argrett lunged at him with the knife.

    He pulled the trigger, and she fell to the floor. But she got up again, so he shot her in the head, he told investigators. Sinclair then waited three hours before notifying police.

    Detectives, however, said that Argrett had sustained a gunshot wound to the back of her head at close range.

    After admitting that he wanted to kill his wife, Sinclair was charged with first-degree premeditated murder, murder of an unborn child and tampering with evidence.

    That whole story (none / 0) (#186)
    by sj on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 11:55:10 AM EST
    makes me feel sick.

    SNL (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:40:00 AM EST
    i watched SNL last Saturday hoping Carrey would do Rick Scott which he sadly did not.  But he did do a relentless running gag about the Matthew McConaughey Lincoln ads.

    I will never see them the same way again

    Thanks for posting that - I just (none / 0) (#170)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:34:39 AM EST
    HATE those commercials and glad Carrey skewered them, as only he could.

    Gotta postpone that trip (none / 0) (#151)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:58:20 AM EST
    Pfffft (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 09:11:44 AM EST
    Ken Ham interview-

    Employees at Ark Encounter don't just have to believe in God; they have to believe in Christ, the Holy Spirit, Satan (as "the personal spiritual adversary of both God and mankind"), Adam and Eve, "the Great Flood of Genesis," a 6,000-year-old Earth, and the eternal damnation of "those who do not believe in Christ." All employees must follow "the duty of Christians" and attend "a local Bible believing church." Just for good measure, employees must oppose abortion, euthanasia, gay rights, and trans rights.

    Ghostbusters interview-

    Do you believe in UFOs, Astral Projection, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness Monster and the theory of Atkantis?

    Coincidentally (none / 0) (#187)
    by sj on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 11:56:31 AM EST
    I heard the theme from Ghostbusters on the radio this morning.

    Robel Phillpos (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:05:32 AM EST
    Two counts

    DonkeyHotey (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:17:47 AM EST
    LMBO (none / 0) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:27:14 AM EST
    There is an advantage to having conservative friends on facebook. Today I learned that the number two owner of stock in Fox News Corp is a Saudi Prince also a Muslim of course. I think this might have exploded some heads this morning

    Here is (none / 0) (#181)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 11:16:24 AM EST
    more info.

    Murdoch owns over 80%, the prince owns around 6% and is a passive shareholder.


    acutally (none / 0) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 12:04:51 PM EST
    that must be old information because from what I read the Murdochs own only 12% and the prince owns 7%. Still it makes him holding the second largest bloc of stock in the company and Murdoch also has other businesses with the Saudi prince.

    is old. As of March of this year the Murdochs owned just under 40% of both News Corp and 21st Century Fox.

    Phillipos guilty (none / 0) (#180)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 11:15:37 AM EST

    The jury in the trial of the friend of alleged Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev found Robel Phillipos guilty of two counts of lying to investigators in a terrorism investigation. Each count carried a maximum sentence of eight years.

    Reporters in the courtroom said neither Phillipos nor his family members showed any emotion when the verdict was read. He will remain on house arrest until his sentencing, which is scheduled for January 29. Defense attorneys for Phillipos said outside the courtroom that they would file an appeal in the case.