Wednesday Open Thread

Here's a new open thread, all topics welcome.

< Syrian Army Posts Response to ISIS Beheadings | President Obama's Immigration Speech >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • When Bush I does it, when Reagan does it (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 06:51:52 PM EST
    No rending of garments, no hair pulling, no threats of shutting down the government.  You guessed it: Immigration Relief.  

    Post-election media perspective seems to have found--suddenly--that the practice of prosecutorial/enforcement discretion is traditional and honored.  Presidents have often opted to exercise this very legal option ... but, I guess that they weren't Obama (so, it was okay :))  Finally, movement in this area will come ... the announcement, as you have probably heard, is expected tomorrow, with the signing in Nevada on Friday.

    Wonderful!  Bravo President Obama!  This is the right thing to do ... policy, politics, and promise of a better deal.

    As an aside: What the he## could ever explain the blustering, red-faced, off-the-wall anger against immigration relief anyway? Talk about fear, talk about clinging to what never was....

    Dogs bark. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 08:16:42 PM EST
    The caravan passes.

    Maybe it's because (2.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 10:38:25 PM EST
    This is yet another talking point out out by the administration that is reversing itself after Obama repeatedly said for years the constitution doesn't aloow him to do so.

    The Atlantic

    It's a shame this is what supporters of the president have resorted to to defend his repeated lies and double speak.

    this action will do almost nothing to fix immigration, he doesn't have the authority to do it and it will poison the well going forward for any real legislation on immigration.

    Bravo indeed.  

    Also I'm totally expecting this Grand action to be quite underwhelming since he's going to plan to not deport people his administration never planned to deprt anyway.

    I guess this is what we can expect for the next two years of this dying presidency.

    Bravo for that.


    Per the Judiciary Act of 1789, ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 01:35:14 AM EST
    ... the executive branch has exclusive authority with regards to prosecutorial discretion, which in this case would be declining to prosecute classes of individuals who are otherwise in violation of federal immigration law.

    Sorry, Slado, but David Frum is a political consultant who's offering a political argument on this matter. He's not an attorney presenting a legal case, because legally speaking, he would actually have very little with which to work.

    Under federal law, public prosecutors -- who work for the U.S. Dept. of Justice and not Congress, BTW -- have exclusive discretion to decide whether or not to prosecute any crime that is supported by probable cause. Per the U.S. Supreme Court in Bordenkircher v. Hayes (434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)):

    "[S]o long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion."

    Further, standing requirements can bar a claim that a prosecutor has wrongfully failed to prosecute a crime. In Linda R.S. v. Richard D., the Supreme Court concluded that:

    "[A] citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution."

    As a result, neither a victim nor another interested party can contest a prosecutor's decision to not pursue a case. So, Congress wants to sue the president over this issue? Well, good luck with that.

    Finally, the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Armstrong (517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996)) further held that the separation of powers doctrine requires broad prosecutorial discretion, and that the decision to bring charges is constitutionally assigned to the executive branch. So a federal prosecutor also has discretion in deciding how to prosecute, and can choose when to grant immunity, accept a plea bargain and dismiss charges altogether.

    Therefore, the Obama administration can decline to prosecute those immigration cases in which probable cause exists that a violation of federal law has occurred. And unless or until Congress decides to change the law, it's fully within the president's discretion as the nation's chief law enforcement officer to make such a decision.

    (Peter G., if you read this tomorrow and have any corrections or clarifications to offer regarding my layman's legal analysis, please do so. You know constitutional law and the doctrine of separation of powers much better than I do.)



    The Federalist Society (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 08:19:32 AM EST
    agrees Obama has the power-

    When Boehner and Krauthammer, arguably the top political and intellectual leaders of the GOP, suggest lawsuits and impeachment, it comes with more than a dollop of significance.

    Across town, however, a far different type of conversation was taking place among an equally robust part of the conservative movement. At the Mayflower Hotel, lawyers gathered for the annual Federalist Society national convention -- one of the highest-profile conservative legal events of the year. The day's big draws were the opening speech by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and an evening event featuring Justice Samuel Alito.


    The talk was, well, lawyerly. Every conclusion seemed to have a qualification attached to it. But, by and large, the panelists agreed the president has wide legal latitude to prioritize and shape deportation laws, as regrettable for Republicans or the long-term balance of powers that may be.

    "I think the roots of prosecutorial discretion are extremely deep," said Christopher Schroeder, the Charles S. Murphy Professor of Law and Public Policy Studies at Duke Law School. "The practice is long and robust. The case law is robust. Let me put it this way: Suppose some president came to me and asked me in the office of legal counsel, `Is it okay for me to go ahead and defer the deportation proceedings of childhood arrival?' Under the present state of the law, I think that would be an easy opinion to write. Yes."

    Schroeder was speaking specifically about the deferred action program that Obama already has put into place -- the one affecting so-called Dreamers who were brought to the U.S. as children. But later, Schroeder expanded his legal reasoning.

    "I don't know where in the Constitution there is a rule that if the president's enactment affects too many people, he's violating the Constitution," Schroeder said. "There is a difference between executing the law and making the law. But in the world in which we operate, that distinction is a lot more problematic than you would think. If the Congress has enacted a statute that grants discretionary authority for the administrative agency or the president to fill in the gaps, to write the regulations that actually make the statute operative, those regulations to all intents and purposes make the law.

    For a dying presidency (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 08:41:52 AM EST
    he sure seems to be doing a pretty good job of setting the agenda.  IMO this is brilliant.  It will not only do good it will tie the republicans in knots.   After tonight they will be capable of nothing but reaction.  They will lose their mind.  It's exactly what Obama wants them to do.

    We'll see (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:24:18 AM EST
    once the new congress gets installed... Obama setting the agenda seems like a novel proposition...

    Let them Impeach Obama (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:16:37 PM EST
    over immigration.

    The Republicans will lose Latinos not for a generation but forever.


    TwSiting the government into (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:38:05 PM EST
    a pretzel in an attempt to defund anything he tries to do will have the same effect.  That is their plan A.  Looking forward to plan B.

    I hope after Obama gives his speech and (none / 0) (#169)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:55:39 PM EST
    we know his plans on immigration, we can spend more time on discussing the actual proposals and what it will mean for those who will benefit and also those who it will not benefit.

    The Republicans will lose Latinos not for a generation but forever

    Comments like these make me uncomfortable because it seems like Latinos are being used as pawns in a political "vote getting" game.

    Saw something on the news here (none / 0) (#185)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:31:37 PM EST
    where groups will study whatever he puts out there over the weekend and next week start breaking it out for folks around here so they understand what to do etc.

    Do folks understand that this effects more than just Latino immigrants?


    From what I have read, there is a sizeable (none / 0) (#195)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:48:42 PM EST
    Do folks understand that this effects more than just Latino immigrants?

    number of Asian undocumented immigrants too. I will admit to being surprised by that.


    On this coast, we have the 'Pacific Islanders' (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 05:17:03 PM EST
    and from what I understand, there are parts of the US that have heavy pockets of folks from the ME. And of course, we must not forget the 'other' Hispanics . . .  

    It really depends on where you live as to what you are familiar with. I live in one of the most (if not the most) diverse cities in the US, and my farmers market reflects that ;) Which reminds me, I need to get that recipe for bitter melon soup from one of my guys. Supposed to be good for winter ailments . . . :D


    Couldn't stand bitter melon as a kid, (none / 0) (#201)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 05:27:55 PM EST
    can only stomach it in small quantities now.
    I have never tried it in a soup. Would love to know how it turns out. Don't forget to post a "review"!

    I don't recall Republicans being (none / 0) (#29)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 06:57:40 AM EST
    outraged and wild-eyed over executive action when presidents of their own party were engaging in it - have we really gotten to the point where you expect us to buy that it's the political affiliation of the president that magically transforms executive action from constitutional to unconstitutional?

    Where were you in the Reagan and Bush years?  Especially the Bush years - immigration wasn't the only thing these presidents addressed by executive action, you know.  

    Republicans have done exactly ZERO on immigration - other than demagogue about it.  Republicans have allowed the Democrats exactly ZERO cooperation on any legislation, plan, proposal that has been offered.

    And yet, everyone does seem to agree that something needs to be done.  I guess the real problem is that Republicans want to be in total control so they can do the "something" that they want - which, I can goddamn guarantee you will call for actions and policies their heads would be exploding over if Democrats were doing it.


    I hope (none / 0) (#62)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:20:39 AM EST
    that Obama takes some executive action - specifically, I would like him to veto the pipeline if it passes once the Huns take over.

    But about immigration, I read that he is entertaining various propositions including allowing children to remain, but not their parents... If true, a major wft? Also things like, they can stay, but no access to ACA. Nice.

    I am so used to Mr. Obama caving on everything I care about that I will be surprised if he does anything bold whatsoever during his waning moments in a position of power...even if he supposedly has nothing to worry about anymore.


      the powers and duties of the President.

      The President can order DOJ not to prosecute certain cases. A writ of mandamus would not lie because a court can only order an executive agency to perform a mandatory duty. a court would find that the DOJ does not have a mandatory duty to prosecute each and every violation of federal law of which it is aware. As a practical matter prosecutorial discretion in necessary because choices must be made given resources, but the permissible  exercise of discretion is not contingent upon a prosecutor showing inability due to lack of resources or even reasonable prioritization of resources.

      On the other hand, the Executive would not have the discretion or authority to direct a subordinate to allow a person who is not qualified by statute to receive a governmental benefit (I'm referring to the mention of the ACA).

      Flip the situation though, and the President likely would have authority to direct a subordinate not to extend a benefit to  a class of persons who qualify under the statute if it was demonstrated that the amount appropriated was not enough to provide that benefit to every statutorily qualified person and proper administration of the funds available required executive prioritization of available moneys (assuming the prioritization was not to discriminate intended to be to the detriment of a protected class or in some circumstance regardless of intent had a demonstrable disparate impact which disadvantaged a protected class.)


    Just my opinion (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 10:07:41 AM EST
    but I think you are going to see another side of Obama in the next few weeks.  He will veto the Keystone.   He will take action tonight that will make republican heads explode.

    The next two years are going to be confrontation, lawsuits, vetos and talk of if not action on impeachment.

    The gloves are off.


    While it's certainly possible that (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 10:25:39 AM EST
    Obama could take the approach you suggest, I don't know what, over the last 6 years, would give anyone any confidence that he is going to abandon his conciliatory, conflict-averse, this-time-I-can-get-consensus aspects of his personality, and go balls-to-the-wall on a truly progressive Democratic agenda that will catapult us into 2 years of unrelenting ugliness.

    I fear his essential nature will prevail.

    It may be like the woman who's been abused for years saying, for the umpty-umpth time, that she's leaving the SOB, and at the last minute, giving in to all her fears of the unknown and deciding to stay.

    I just don't see him being up for a 2-year battle royal that the GOP will ratchet up and keep at DefCon1 level without pause.


    Anne, OT, but I want to thank you for (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 12:05:30 PM EST
    your link yesterday to David Kanigan's blog.

    Truly a delightful oasis of words and images.

    Great stuff!


    You're welcome, Sarc... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:52:01 PM EST
    someone posted it to Facebook, and I was pleasantly surprised at the sweetness of the story and the quality of the rest of the content on the blog.

    excellent analogy. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 10:58:58 AM EST
    On the other hand, since he can't win, period, at this point, there's no downside in tilting at windmills.  More B/S from the Bully Pulpit.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 11:08:28 AM EST
    at this point his job is to hold the line.   What else is he going to do.

    What line? (none / 0) (#142)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:51:59 PM EST
    What you describe is what I expect (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 11:13:30 AM EST
    i would think Obama knows he is going to get nothing from this congress.  This immigration thing is brilliant.  On many levels.  It has the potential of creating an actual democratic wave in two years.  
    That's what I think.  

    You might (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 12:16:50 PM EST
    be right. I'd like to think so.

    But I have seen that thought expressed throughout his tenure.
    And even before his tenure...

    When he was campaigning with the likes of Donnie McClurkin, and expressing his reservations about gay marriage, and associating himself with the likes of Joe Lieberman, and saying that he was not in favor of a public option... hopeful progressives expressed that he was saying and doing these things... but once elected he'd .....

    Then, it was, "once he's reelected, he'd....

    Recently, now, we await the "real" Obama to emerge after the midterms and for him to come out swingin'.

    Personally, I think we have seen the "real" Obama all along...
    Imo, a dishrag at best and an enabler of republican and corporate militarism at worst.

    But I hope you're right.
    It would not only be refreshing, but it would give me the faintest glimmer of hope that we might possibly see a more progressive agenda after 2016.


    I look forward to you (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:41:00 PM EST
    giving him credit for vetoing Keystone next year.

    Speaking as a "chronic critic" (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by sj on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:48:58 PM EST
    I will happily give him credit for vetoing the Keystone pipeline.

    I will too! (none / 0) (#190)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:37:33 PM EST
    I look (none / 0) (#192)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:38:22 PM EST
    forward to it too.

    My hope is that (none / 0) (#82)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 10:32:17 AM EST
    the president's executive action is bold.  He will encounter no less opposition from the Republicans than with action that is mild.   And, bold action will be just and justifiable.

    My wonderment in all of this, is why the president did not act prior to the November elections.  Certainly, the results would not have been much, if any, worse. And, it might possibly have moved the strategy away from hapless Democratic candidates distancing themselves from the leader of the party.  


    Why he didn't act? (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 11:16:35 AM EST
    Because Valerie Jarrett told him not to.  Gotta try to game every freakin' thing.  We've got a beltway full of crap addicts who actually believe they're smarter than everyone else and that their positioning, triangulation, and framing and every other variant of B/S fools us.  These parasites are so far from deserving our respect that they no longer know what earns it.

    Obama's been on a hubris I/V drip for the past dozen or so years.  Instead of an Emil Jones to spoon feed him legislation to "author," he got Harry Reid.


    A possible answer to your question... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 11:35:06 AM EST
    My wonderment in all of this, is why the president did not act prior to the November elections.  Certainly, the results would not have been much, if any, worse.

    I subscribe to this theory.

    This issue is not a Republican-liberal issue like, say, taxes and abortion, but an up-down issue, elites versus the public.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 11:06:07 AM EST
    hindsight is 20/20
    I think maybe you underestimate the freakout that is coming.  I think it could have made the election even worse.  This is going to be an honest to god consistitional crisis.  It will consume DC for at least the next two years.  

    Pass the popcorn.


    You know what's kind of annoying me (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 12:19:38 PM EST
    today?  After breathlessly announcing that Obama was going to give a prime-time address to the nation on the immigration thing, and telling us what a small percentage of the public supports Obama on this, the media cut to various clips and sound bites of Republicans having the vapors, and then said: "none of the three major networks will be televising the speech."

    So, here's what I'd like to say to that: if they're not going to give time to the president to speak without the filter of the media, then they damn well better not give the same time to the Republicans reacting to something they couldn't be bothered to broadcast.  I don't want to hear a Brian Fking Williams start a story tomorrow night with, "last night the president gave a speech and this is what he said," and then cherry pick the parts he'll then have Chuck Fking Todd explain and provide the political "analysis" of.  And I sure don't want to then hear, "and this is how the Republicans reacted to the speech."

    I'm sick of being gaslighted on the issues by a media that only cares about engineering a sh!tshow and getting better ratings for it than their competitors.

    Maybe I'm a little more than "annoyed."


    Most broadcast networks (none / 0) (#156)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:34:01 PM EST
    Will not be covering the speech.  Thursday night is when the networks pay their bills, so to speak, so they aren't about to give up millions of dollars in ad revenue for a speech that, like most presidential addresses, say nothing, and that can be seen on cable and on the internet.

    Not sure if the decision to (none / 0) (#103)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 12:15:04 PM EST
    delay was a lack of sight by the president or a lack of sight by the Democratic candidates who implored him to delay so as not to jeopardize their election possibilities.  The president, initially, was prepared to take executive action by the end of last summer.  

    You may well be correct that I am underestimating the freak out that is coming. But no reaction from reactionaries is not what I expected either.  

    Republicans wanted to savor their victorious electoral achievements and cower the president for the time remaining in his term.  Even the Republican governors are no longer so sure-footed in their victories--what with them being required to make derivative decisions--unpopular ones for them, such as eligibility for driver's licenses and school tuition charges.  A real dilemma for those governors with presidential ambitions--Bobby Jindal coming out in favor of fairness, Christie uncharacteristically soft spoken, and others looking to law suits to save their bacon.   Popcorn, indeed.  


    You know (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:47:28 AM EST
    there has been a bill sitting on Boehner's desk for quite a while regarding this issue. Why doesn't he bring it up for a vote? The reason why he won't even bring it up for a vote is because he knows it's going to be a screeching jihad again like it was last time when it came up during the Bush Administration.

    Here's the problem with the GOP: Their stance is whatever Obama is for they are against even if it's the same thing they would've voted for when George W. Bush was president. It would be nice if they would actually BE FOR something instead of just a bunch of knee jerkers.


    Reagan didn't and Bush didn't (1.50 / 2) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 08:58:19 AM EST
    Reagan signed a law and Bush used part of it to provide some selective relief.

    Obama is making law.

    All hail the Emperor!!!

    Oh, wait. Obama said he wasn't so he couldn't.

    Times change when you think you can do what you want and have no retaliation... like loosing elections.


    A bitty correction (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 11:10:42 AM EST
    While the Repubs have adopted the word "Emperor" in the past week or so to describe Obama ... if that is so, then Reagan was Emperor Ronnie in matters Immigration as well.  Check the facts, jim: As even Federalist Society legal specialists acknowledge, the proposed Executive Order action is not unusual and is within the law ... Reagan did it, Bush the Papa did it.  

    Granted the context of "bipartisanship" atmosphere differed, but the relief granted by the earlier Presidents was via Executive action.  Saying otherwise is only that ... no more than putting one's head in the sand to avoid it.)  Just a comment about what is the legal state of play as well as the real state of play.


    If the President can make (2.00 / 1) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:27:35 PM EST
    law then we no longer are a Republic.

    And making law is NOT what Reagan and Bush did.

    Making law IS what Obama is doing.

    I pray that this will go to the SC.

    And before you respond remember that I favor reform that would close the borders, give papers to those here and prosecute employers who employ undocumented.

    Note the words in bold.


    Then, Impeach Obama (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:19:02 PM EST
    Bring it on!

    Politics has been so boring lately.  Ibola???

    Overdoing ISIS???

    Okay, rev it up, Impeach Obama....


    Executive action via enforcement/prosecutorial (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:58:51 PM EST
    discretion is as old as the hills ... tried & true ... suggest that you'd be barking up the wrong tree on this one even with Scalia.

    You missed the point, not surprisingly (none / 0) (#60)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:17:43 AM EST
    Both Reagan and Bush I used the kind of executive action that Obama is going to do with regard to undocumented aliens during their respective Administrations.

    Please do try to keep up.


    Senator Coburn fears civil unrest: (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 06:56:17 PM EST
    The self-fulfilling prophecy? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 06:58:54 PM EST
    Will the Minutemen storm the White (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 07:01:44 PM EST
    House fence?

    Let's tell the watch dogs (none / 0) (#10)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 07:15:02 PM EST
    BTW, while the dogs are taking their positions alert for crazy critters ... it appears that even members of The Federalist Society do not question the legality ... or so I hear.

    Only if they can do it from their sofas (none / 0) (#92)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 11:19:30 AM EST
    ... or blogs.

    Maybe we should call out the (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 07:14:45 PM EST
    National Guard now before the situation gets out of hand.

    Dadler's birthday video (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 10:17:32 AM EST
    oops (none / 0) (#83)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 10:32:52 AM EST
    the first half of this vid is gold, the second is just a repeat without sound. Can't explain it, but like I said, the first half...gold. Rock it.

    Happy birthday, Dude! May all your Aces (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:41:43 PM EST
    stand up...

    But that's the worst version of that song I have ever heard.


    Maybe you'll like... (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:21:56 PM EST
    the King of Soul's version better old man...ladies and germs, Mr. Otis Redding.

    Happy Birthday Dadler-Man...hope the creaky back is behaving.  

    Oculus dropped a Willie Loman reference in the thread, and it reminded me of our brief meeting at Katz's Deli and your story of the best damn suit salesman in Downtown NYC who Loman'd you into a new suit for Lil' Dadler-Man.  


    This video made my day...:-) (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 11:57:27 AM EST
    It feels good to know that I have company when it comes to being embarrassed/humiliated by my dog!!

    OMG I'm laughing so hard. I've got two little (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Angel on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 01:22:31 PM EST
    rug rats, one of whom would have done the same as the golden!  If there's a treat or food anywhere nearby, and I mean anywhere, she's on it.

    A certain spotted doggie had (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 01:29:42 PM EST
    trouble with that task also. We finally stopped her at well over a minute and a half (we had to stop laughing) when she was 7mos old. There were treats spread all over the distance and they had to run through them. Rox hoovered those treats @ record speed. The recall, not so much :P And she was the winning-est doggie at all the other tasks that night . . .

    My husband was walking our lab a couple (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 01:51:26 PM EST
    of days ago and a lady and her kids who were driving by stopped to admire him. She told my husband our dog was gorgeous and of course our lab proceeded to act like an absolute loon.
    She then said "Aww, he is still a puppy!". My husband said, he just smiled because he was too embarrassed to say that our dog was 5 years old and still acting like a fool!

    Hey, life is short! (5.00 / 6) (#124)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 01:59:02 PM EST
    Why not enjoy it when you can!
    Love that dog.  He knows his priorities.
    Think of it as a dog who refuses to be brainwashed into "obeying The Man," when it is against its own best interests.
    You go, dog!  :-D

    The Benny Hill music (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:22:23 PM EST
    is perfect

    I kind of think of this dog (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:51:46 PM EST
    as our own kdog in a furry, golden coat.
    Don't let the Man oppress you!   :-D

    We just lost our Golden to (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:23:52 PM EST
    Megaesophagus....a weird name but apparently common ailment.

    So sorry for the loss. They are a wonderful (5.00 / 5) (#157)
    by Angel on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:35:39 PM EST
    breed.  We had one years ago, lived to be 12, had to put him down on a Monday morning due to organ failure.  Our other doggie, who was 14, passed away two days later.  We think he died from heartache.  

    I am sorry to hear that, MKS. (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:40:53 PM EST

    Very sorry, MKS (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:49:25 PM EST
    Our dogs really become part of our families.

    Awww (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by sj on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:25:47 PM EST
    I am so sorry.

    Hugs to you, MKS (5.00 / 5) (#189)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:37:22 PM EST
    The best of the best, that's what loving a dog and being loved by a dog is ... so deep within us ... when the dog has to leave, a part of us leaves too ... in loving exchange, our dog gifts us evermore with part of that spirit.

    Best thing I saw all day...thanks (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:08:17 PM EST
    My do-it-her-way doggie, Celeste, watched sitting next to me. (Well, actually, she went & did what she wanted to do when she wanted to do it.)

    fFrida State shoorting (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:45:50 PM EST
      Three students were wounded. Just heard a report that the one who was critically wounded is expected to survive (nothing said more specific than that) and the other 2 were much less seriously injured.

       The shooter was apparently a FSU alumna with a law degree from Texas Tech who most recently had worked as an assistant prosecutor in M.M. (but a public defender before that)

      Described as having psychological issues and having been "in crisis" recently but no more detail. He's dead so we will probably never know why he would pick the FSU library.

    I sometimes have trouble converting (none / 0) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:06:19 PM EST
    initials into the correct words.

    Could you please tell me where the shooter was an Assistant Prosecutor. I will probably go duh but I am currently drawing a blank on what M.M. represents.



    sooory typing on phone (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:08:19 PM EST
     New Mexico

    The US Supreme Court has let (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 05:28:49 PM EST
    same sex marriage start in South Carolina, making that state the 35th state where gay couples can legally marry.  A day after receiving a set of appeals, the Justices allowed the lower courts (appellate and district) decisions to proceed.  Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented.

    Yesterday, a federal judge made Montana the 34th state, issuing no stays.

    The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals based in Cincinnati is the only one that has ruled otherwise. In a 2 to l ruling, Judge Jeffry Sutton (a former Scalia clerk) ruled against, causing the only Appellate Court split.  The Sixth Circuit ruling has been attempted to be used in appeal arguments in other circuits by opponents of marriage equality, but has not been successful, so far.

    Cleanup (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 09:19:13 AM EST
    Yep -- I liked him. Now all that's left is a gaggle of backstabbers. But just wait until those couples start to get broken up. I had to laugh at Keith's vote for Reed. There is no honor amongst survivors.

    My guess for next week is Natalie as the power player between the 4 males and the 2 couples. I like her chances at this point -- to survive another week atleast and perhaps further.

    In other old news, according to these acoustic experts the final barrage of 10 shots lasted just short of 7 seconds.

    That means that since they ended at 12:02:14 then they must have begun at 12:02:07.

    This is a mere 7 seconds after Wilson ended his 12:02:00 radio dispatch calling for backup saying nothing about the shot[s] he had just fired from his SUV, that he had hit someone, and asking for EMS.

    He hangs up and then gets out of the SUV and races after Brown covering a distance of about 120 feet gun in hand and within 7 seconds has Brown turned looking down the barrel of his gun.

    So what was the rush??? What was the fear factor here??? Was it fear or anger that someone had gotten out of his grasp and might get away???

    Ferguson (4.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 10:59:41 PM EST
    Went to college and was a Fraternity brother with the Lt in the video


    Hope he and others do a good job keeping the peace no matter what happens.

    If peace happens (none / 0) (#61)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:18:22 AM EST
    it will not be because of St Louis County or and St Louis County Municipal or St Louis Metropolitan police forces.  

    It will be because Ferguson protestors never did anything but peacefully demonstrate for redress to their government and their fellow citizens of Missouri and American nation.


    Coroners Inquest (none / 0) (#91)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 11:17:15 AM EST
    A former Prosecutor from Cape Girardeau Missouri told a CBS radio host that the Grand Jury process used exclusively in the big cities of Missouori for  police shootings is the problem here dragging this thing out for months amidst suspicions, rumors, accusations of irregularities, and illegal leaks.

    He said that they never have these problems out in rural Missouri when there is a police shooting because they hold a Coroner's Inquest for police shootings in rural areas like Cape. 6 coroners from surrounding counties sit as a jury, hear evidence, and they come up with a decision to indict or not to within 6 days.

    And while depositions may be taken before witnesses appear, all testimony is public as it should be when witness memories are at their finest.

    He recommended that the laws be changed to get the city folk in line with the country folk to avoid these problems.

    Only one caller took issue with him -- a lawyer whose business would be affected by it.


    It must be torture to be a grand juror - (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 11:32:16 AM EST
    paid next to nothing and forced to listen to endless prevaricators and dissembling.

    The event transpired in twenty or thirty seconds.  

    I don't know what it's a testament to but it's a testament to something that the prosecutors have devoted and needed so much time to bury that brief interval.


    longest 3 minutes of Wilson's life (none / 0) (#97)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 11:48:04 AM EST
    but no time for moral thinking.

    And StLouis County Chief Belmar buries it all in a Report that is 1070 pages long, finally released last week.


    Excuse me, a 1077 page Repot (none / 0) (#146)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:05:31 PM EST
    Must be those 7 emails Jason Leopold's FOIA request received!

    I didn't know this (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:30:39 PM EST
    6 coroners from surrounding counties sit as a jury, hear evidence, and they come up with a decision to indict or not to within 6 days.

    And here I was thinking that a grand jury was supposed to be made up of the accused peers rather than the Kings Men.

    But I guess speed trumps right.


    The 30 Ft. Fallacy (3.50 / 2) (#2)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 05:28:54 PM EST
    Reconstructionist, in the previous open thread, poses the inquiry whether Officer Wilson could have had a reasonable fear for his safety, if he fired on Brown from a distance of 20 to 30 feet.  As recently as today, CNN "reports" that "Many told CNN in August that other witnesses allege that Wilson shot Brown at least 6 times as he stood about 30 feet from Wilson's police cruiser."  (Grand Jury decision on Ferguson officer Darren Wilson could come Friday."  This misinformation has been "reported" innumerable times.  It feeds the widespread supposition that Wilson, positioned beside his SUV, blazed away at Brown, standing 30 feet away.  The witnesses who told CNN, and others, that Brown fell some 30 feet from Wilson's vehicle have almost certainly perjured themselves.  The police car seen, in the photos, some 30 feet from Brown's body arrived later.  Brown fell about a hundred feet from Wilson's SUV.  According to the Post-Dispatch, one of the construction witnesses says that only 10 feet separated Brown from Wilson, when the latter began firing, retreating.  They indicate another witness says Brown fell only 4 ft. from Wilson.

    I hardly know whether to attribute such lapses to slovenliness or malice.  The stubborn refusal to acknowledge the significance, to Brown's likely state of mind, of the "leafy green" mentioned in the autopsy report (discussed in my comment on the Saturday open thread) comes, in my opinion, close to journalistic malpractice.

    Whitewash (none / 0) (#7)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 07:00:25 PM EST
    The witnesses who told CNN, and others, that Brown fell some 30 feet from Wilson's vehicle have almost certainly perjured themselves.

    That would be Chief Belmar of the County Police and  Chief Jackson of Ferguson who said in a public press conference days after the event that the crime scene was only 35 feet long. And he said it twice and was quite definitive.

    So I'm with you.  Charge them. And that's not all that Chief Jackson lied about in his press conferences in the days that followed.

    Now what were you saying???


    Seriously? (none / 0) (#18)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 08:46:41 PM EST
    It's an understandable mistake.  Unless, of course, one claims to have been an eyewitness to the proceedings.  Perhaps you will enlighten me on how the alleged deception, on the part of the chiefs, plays into your lurid conspiracy theories.  The entire "power structure" of St. Louis County is orchestrating a "cover up"?  Do you suppose Nixon is implicated?  Holder?

    It's an understandable mistake. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 10:47:47 PM EST

    And just how many "understandable mistakes" is a Chief of Police permitted before being charged with obstruction???

    People spent two weeks thinking that Brown's body was 35 feet from the wrong  police SUV. It took a cellphone video hitting You Tube to clear the air.

    And then lo and behold in that video was Chief Jackson standing 35 feet behind Wilson's at the very spot where Brown's body wasn't. Instead his body was another 100 feet further down the road.

    Chief Belmar was so embarrassed for repeating on camera what Chief Jackson told him that he avoided the cameras and reporters and  Jackson for two months.

    Chief Jackson also assured the public that only one shot was fired in the vehicle, that no one was hit by that shot, that Brown was only shot a couple times but not much more,...

    He's lied so many times that he is known as Chief Pinnochio.

    And now a new scandal is brewing in Ferguson: The FOIA requests for emails that the city is charging thousands of dollars for has uncovered that the city is not turning over all the emails that they are required to by law.


    There's more (none / 0) (#22)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 01:21:26 AM EST
    The off-duty PO in St Louis who killed VonDerritt Myers in Oct. has now been identified. The Lawyer of his parents released the name today out of frustration about the investigation. BUT get this. Here's how they learned the name: an envelope with the name inside was slipped into the body bag of their son when it was sent to the Mortuary. The mortuary personnel gave it to them. This PO has clear public visibility as a racist conservative and spouts rabid derogatory statements about the US President and First Lady, etc. No wonder Chief Dotson wanted to keep his anonymity.

    Another reason for the State of Emergency: arrests of Protestors are a completely different kind of arrest, more like martial law. At the FPD, LE enforcement Wednesday night arrested 3-4 people, clearly targeting leader in a "snatch and grab" technique. Among them was citizen journalist Bassem Masi was arrested "under warrants" because he has been arrested 3 previous times. Bail is going to excessively high and he will probably not be out any time soon. Several cops were not wearing ID or Badges and riot gear again.


    Ach, (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:37:42 PM EST
    poor Bassem, another hapless victim of the heteropatriarchal authoritarian state.

    "The activist [Bassem Masri] was shown footage of himself [on CNN] cursing at cops and wishing death on them, all while blaming Jews for the media coverage of the event."  (Sweep of bottle-throwing Ferguson protesters scoops up loudmouth mob leader, Bizpac Review, 11-20-14.)


    Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh (none / 0) (#148)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    are of the journalist class too.

    Vonderrit (none / 0) (#27)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:56:46 AM EST
    Vonderrit was a fractious lad
    Spoiling for a fight.
    He always packed his Ruger 9
    When he sallied forth at night.
    But grimed for want of proper care
    The chamber would not free
    Leaving him, alas, outgunned
    17 to 3.

    The off-duty cop who Killed VonDerrit Myers (none / 0) (#56)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:09:05 AM EST
    as a teenager was charged with the same offense that VonDerrit was awaiting trial for. Only he was white and skipped the consequences and was not gunned down at 7:20 in the evening in his neighborhood.  Two Americas

    Let me be (none / 0) (#26)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:50:54 AM EST
    less subtle.  On what reasoning does changing the distance from 100 to 30 feet put Wilson in a more favorable light?

    Whitecap (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 07:07:56 AM EST
    On what reasoning does changing the distance from 100 to 30 feet put Wilson in a more favorable light?

    135 feet -- not just 100.

    If it was only 35 feet then they might have been able to allege that he was shot at the SUV but  stumbled 35 feet away and fallen dead.

    Or they might have been able to allege that there was a struggle for the gun at the car that continued for 35 feet where he was then shot and fell dead.

    But when the altercation begins at the Suv and the body is found 135 feet away and all the shell casings are there, then the question has to be:

    "If you called in for backup at 12:02 at the SUV, then why didn't you wait there for backup??? What did you have to fear from a guy running so far away without shoes, without a gun, without intent of turning back, but with a bullet in him and bleeding and running a long way away???"

    Wilson was clearly no one to fear at that point.

    BTW the two Chiefs who propagated that 35 feet away lie have to this day never gone to the press to correct it. There are still reporters who repeat it for no other reason than the Chiefs said it.

    Let's hope that the GJ members have more on the ball than they do.


    I'll (none / 0) (#44)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 08:27:55 AM EST
    not follow you into that rabbit hole.

    It always was known as 100-150 feet (none / 0) (#55)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:05:04 AM EST
    There has been the knowledge of greater distance (100-150 feet) from Day One.  But the Coverup-on all levels-was effective. This is the deliberate corruption of Justice.
    Because corrupt system required less than 35 feet in order to have possible DW self defense and not immediately INDICT Darren Wilson for murder.

    Guys.... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:15:01 AM EST
      the distance between the vehicle and where Brown fell could be measured with a tape. It will be one of the few verifiable "facts."

      The thing you all  seem to be confusing, is that distance is not really crucial to assessing any element of the offense or justification defense.

      The important  distance would be the distance between Wilson and Brown when the fatal shot[s] occurred. Wilson was not glued to the vehicle. We do not know for certain how far from the vehicle Wilson had ventured. For example, if Brown's body was found 100' from the vehicle the shots could have been fired from 20-30' feet if Wilson followed Brown's  path for 70-80'.


    Reco (none / 0) (#69)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:41:27 AM EST
    Given that the body was clearly atleast 120+ feet from the SUV, then why did Chief Belmar make such a definitive point TWICE that the body was only 35 feet from the SUV at that big news conference when he was sitting right next to Chief Jackson who made no effort to correct the obvious misstatement???

    He made the misstatement in the context of alleging that the short distance from the SUV favors the officer and the officer's claim of self-defense.

    Given that it was actually closer to 135 feet, what does that do to that claim???

    When an officer's safe place is his SUV and he chases a guy down and kills him 135 feet away from there, it tells you that he wasn't shooting him out of fear for his life, as his 12:02:00 dispatch in the context of the timeline also shows.

    Fear for his life was clearly not a factor in that shooting. The only one in fear for his life was the kid shot and bleeding and running away.

    Perhaps you could send tape measures to both Chiefs for Christmas.


    I think there are reasons for the chief (none / 0) (#123)
    by leftwig on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 01:51:41 PM EST
    to repeat the 35 foot claim if it was say made by witnesses.  Clearly anyone who knows the details of the case would know that 35' is inaccurate, but witnesses who say they saw what happened and are making that claim would not, so why alert them of a fact that would allow them to change their story?

    I don't know if thats what the chief was doing in this case, but it wouldn't be the first time police purposefully put out wrong information to help identify credible from non-credible witnesses.  Crenshaw stated in early interviews that Wilson chased Brown 20 feet before being hit by a shot that turned him around.  Her friend Mitchell never provided a distance estimate.  If you have one eye witness claiming a certain distance and another eye witness not providing that detail, it makes sense not to provide them with the answer on distance to help provide them with credibility.


    The contortions people go thru to avoid a trial (none / 0) (#70)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:45:17 AM EST
    The fatal shot is somehow justified if Darren Wilson ran and after unarmed Michael Brown and aimed directly at his head.

    Distance (none / 0) (#74)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:54:34 AM EST
    will certainly be crucial if some of Chip's "star witnesses" took the bait, and put Brown's corpse 30 ft. from Wilson's squad car.

    Obviously, y'all ain't (none / 0) (#77)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 10:10:20 AM EST
     much interested in a reasoned discussion and nothing on God's green Earth could possibly even cause you to consider anything that doesn't support the outcome you desire.

       Realizing I am wasting my time, I will simply point out that none of you know anything you assert and you are each simply cherry picking and (and to some not inconsiderable extent outright fabricating) "facts."

      I'll also point out that nothing any person said at a press conference (including the chief or any other person in the world) is EVIDENCE. Those statements are not even admissible and will not be considered by the GJ or a petit jury if the case proceeds to trial.

       There is no possibility that such statements would even come in as impeachment because a police spokesman who  was not at the scene will not testify at all because he has  no first hand knowledge of any relevant fact. So, he can't be impeached. IOW, what he said or why he said it has no bearing on the court proceedings.


    Recon, why even clog the blog (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by fishcamp on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 12:57:37 PM EST
    with all your words, if you think they are already sinking in their own boats, with their thoughts?  I think you just like to hear yourself talk.

    Or (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 01:10:59 PM EST
    read his own words.     ;-)

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#120)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 01:41:23 PM EST
      I do and I'd daresay, if so, I'm like everyone else here in that regard.

      I do also like to listen to and discuss with other people who care to seriously discuss issues reasonably. That is where I am somewhat out of step with people who prefer to whine or shout down anyone who challenges them to think.


    "clog the blog?" (none / 0) (#128)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:16:54 PM EST
    Well, a quick count of comments on this topic in this thread shows:

    Palli 10 comments
    whitecap 9 comments
    Uncle Chip 7 comments
    Reconstructionist 7 comments

    Is it not the number of comments, but rather what the comments do or do not say that is the problem?


    sarc, you are correct by count, (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by fishcamp on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:24:58 PM EST
    but in this case I felt it was his unnecessary words that clogged the blog.  He sounds like a trial lawyer, and they do like to go on and on.  I find his legal information quite valuable, but when he strays into other less informative areas the information drops off.  You and I can disagree, but we still want to go fishing together.  Especially since I know where the fish live out here.

    in their own heads and present it as fact and/or  simultaneously ignore some or all of the facts that are actually known, are the real "blog cloggers."

    However, it is a fact that you do know where the fish live, so that's the last I have to say on that subject!


    An ignorant mob (none / 0) (#102)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 12:12:22 PM EST
    is demanding Officer Wilson's head on a stake, and you are going to lecture me for pointing out that what is known to date points to a finding that he acted appropriately?  You want to show me where I have ever "fabricated" a "fact"?

    no time to go through all UC, palli (none / 0) (#107)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 12:23:29 PM EST

    and your comments, but here's a couple of your comments

    "the newly released radio dispatches and other objective evidence leave no rational alternative to the conclusion that Brown attacked officer Wilson in a panicked attempt to escape serious jail time"

    What kills the prosecution, in view of the assault that had occurred only moments earlier, is Brown's advance on Wilson, from a distance of only 10 feet, continuing for 25 feet as Wilson fired, retreating


    Cute (none / 0) (#119)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 01:36:54 PM EST
    That is my opinion, and full disclosure was made of the information supporting it.  You didn't read my "Leafy Green" comment on the Saturday open thread, did you?  The autopsy report indicates that a "leafy green substance," identified as marijuana, had been "submitted into evidence" (see Saturday comment for cite.)  I hardly see how this could be taken to mean anything other than that the "leafy green" needed to make "blunts" of stolen "cigarillos" was found on Brown's person.  As earlier indicated, possession of marijuana is a serious offense in Missouri.  This goes to Brown's state of mind.  When Wilson backed up to him, he knew that he had just committed theft and assault.  He also knew that "frisking" would discover his stash of "leafy green."  The toxicology report, according to WaPo, indicates a high level of THC.  So, yes, it is my opinion that Brown having a compelling motive for escaping detention and inevitable search, attacked the officer.  As for Wilson's state of mind, the radio dispatches leave no room for doubt that a BOLO on the Ferguson Liquor theft had gone out, followed by an accurate description of Brown, and that Wilson was "on the lookout" for him. (Numerous cites in previous threads.)  Chip has twisted himself into a pretzel with the claim that Wilson never recognized Brown as a likely subject of the BOLO.  Wilson says he did, and I have heard no coherent reason to doubt him.

    Your second alleged "fabrication" comes straight from the Post-Dispatch interview of one of the construction witnesses.  I can dig up a cite, if you insist.  Old news, really.  You really need to do your homework before making so free with accusations of "fabrication."      


    Doesn't sound like my comment (none / 0) (#171)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:02:23 PM EST
    I've just skimmed the record of my posts and don't find this particular quote with comment attached.
    If you have it, please cite date & topis & #

    YES & YES, NO (none / 0) (#23)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 01:23:10 AM EST
    Let me answer you (none / 0) (#24)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 01:24:18 AM EST
    YES, YES and NO

    I'm saying that if Wilson hit Brown (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 08:52:14 AM EST
    multiple times while both were moving from either 30 or 100 feet or any point in between.... with a pistol.... he is one great shot.

    and a KILLER (none / 0) (#57)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:11:02 AM EST
    The question is justification (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:16:54 PM EST
    Jim (none / 0) (#72)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:52:29 AM EST
    .... he is one great shot.

    And it shows that he was not firing out of fear but with calculated determined intent. One shot from behind after calling for backup and he hits his target.

    And of course Brown could not have been moving very fast either given that he was overweight, was running with one shoe on and in his socks, and had been shot and was bleeding -- all things that Wilson well knew.


    How fast is fast?? (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:19:45 PM EST
    Neither of us know the answer to that.

    But he was moving towards Wilson and, from a much shorter distance than the 30' or 100' posited, he fired a volley at the man he thought was trying to harm him.

    And that was my point. He couldn't have been that far away.

    I'm done here.


    First... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 08:29:06 AM EST
      as I have endeavored to make clear throughout all my posts on this subject, I am merely attempting to illustrate how the law should be applied without "assuming facts not in evidence" and claiming I have actual knowledge of the important facts. That's why I use words like assuming, if, hypothetically, etc.  I don't have that knowledge and neither does anyone else here.

      When I attempt to discuss this I do not as you and Uncle Chip do, declare that all the asserted facts  that support my position are true and all the assertions that challenge my position must be false. In fact, I don't even have a position as to guilt or innocence precisely because I know I have far from sufficient knowledge upon which to base a valid opinion.

      That Whitecap and Uncle Chip have such strongly held and diametrically opposed opinions, shed little light on anything beyond the tendency of people to selectively perceive in order to support pre-existing biases.


    Lord knows (none / 0) (#75)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 10:00:17 AM EST
    Wilson has enough foaming-at-the- mouth accusers. He's entitled to an advocate or two.

    I think Wilson has more supporters (none / 0) (#125)
    by leftwig on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 01:59:17 PM EST
    than accusers (not on this particular site, just in general).

    I do agree with comments that reiterate that we simply don't know all of the evidence at this point, so conclusions that are completely formed can only be done based on preconceived beliefs.  


    Anybody (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 04:58:05 PM EST
    following the 51 inches of snow they got in Buffalo? I can't imagine having that much snow. A friend has a daughter who lives there and she put a picture where you can only see the top of the fence.

    'Looking right now at the news on TV (none / 0) (#3)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 06:35:30 PM EST
    Wow! Buffalo always has been known for huge snowstorms, but this one ... looks like the mountains after a powerful storm or a minor avalanche.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 07:39:46 PM EST
    I said 51 but apparently that was old news. It's 76 inches but also it's not in Buffalo. Apparently the City of Buffalo only got a few inches but further south got literally pounded with snow.

    They have to move all that snow (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 08:05:12 PM EST
    from the stadium for Sunday's game. They are giving away free tickets to get some bodies in there to help move the snow. Doesn't sound appealing to me, bust your butt out in the snow so you can sit there on Sunday and freeze it off to watch the Bills?! lol!~

    Haha (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 08:34:48 PM EST
    I'm sure there's plenty of enterprising young people who would love tickets to the game and that can take the cold. Besides I would imagine it's better to do it there than do it at home with mom and dad. LOL.

    All that means is that you (none / 0) (#28)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 05:52:50 AM EST
    don't understand Buffalo Bills fans.

    They continue to live in the Buffalo area (which is, to be fair, one of the prettiest places on earth in ... July and August) and put up with not only the weather but also teams that lose and lose and lose.  Even when they got to the Super Bowl, the one notable record they set was losing four - count 'em FOUR - in a row.

    So, going out to the stadium to sit in freezing cold after busting their butts for hours in freezing cold shoveling out the stadium is, on their scale of things, no big deal.

    (Or, as the saying goes, the definition of redundancy is "suicide in Buffalo".)


    The "lake effect" (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 08:05:22 PM EST
    I've always remembered when we lived in Erie, PA ... if only for a year as a child of 10.  What a winter; a fun winter to cuddle together as small family; and, the first time that I ever heard of "lake effect."

    A friend (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 19, 2014 at 08:35:56 PM EST
    of mine lived there for a while and she said Erie was the most depressing place she had ever lived in her entire life.

    I saw a post on facebook that said come to Buffalo for the culture but you can't leave because you cant find your car. LOL.


    Did we see this pic (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 08:28:19 AM EST
    No but (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 08:57:54 AM EST
    in a lot of ways that is not surprising.

    That's why I live out here, so I won't ever have to.

    JMM at TPM dissects a Senators rhetoric (none / 0) (#31)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 07:30:52 AM EST
    against undocumented immigrants and finds it wanting:

    And that made me think, I wonder what he(Tom Colbern R-19th Century) has in mind? What would that look like?

    Civil disobedience can take a myriad of forms. But in most of the cases we know from history it is either the weapon of an oppressed group or focuses on oppressive or illegitimate government action. Whatever you think of what the President is doing, though, it's difficult to see how either of those apply. In a very narrow sense, the whole game here is the President declining to act rather than acting.

    Now, declining to act can be as illegitimate as acting. I can think of numerous concrete examples that would illustrate the point. But in purely practical terms, it does challenge the idea of civil disobedience since there's little in the way of government action to pivot against or protest. Again, it's inaction.

    More substantively, who is the oppressed or injured group? Yes, you could manufacture some construct about how we're all collectively oppressed by an attack on the rule of law. But that's a bit strained - quite apart from the fairly broad agreement that the President has this power, whether or not it's prudent to exercise it. The concrete idea seems to be that anti-immigration Americans - and let's be honest, mainly white people - are oppressed in some way by having undocumented immigrants be able to walk around in the open and be able to work in the open.(Ed)

    Not to be too jocular but I guess anti-immigrant activists could lay down on the sidewalk in the way of undocumented immigrants trying to walk to school and challenge the authorities to arrest them or lay down in the streets in the path of undocumented workers driving to work?

    It's a bit like anti-gay marriage activists who wonder who will step forward to become the anti-gay marriage Rosa Parks. To liberals who see marriage equality as a freedom movement the whole idea is preposterous and offensive. But just in a basic nuts-and-bolts structural sense, it is hard to pull off the trappings of the righteous demand for your own rights when your own rights aren't in any question and what you're demanding is that someone else not get those rights.

    Jim Webb is in (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 07:30:55 AM EST
    Announces he's forming a presidential exploratory committee.

    "Over the past few months thousands of concerned Americans from across the political spectrum have urged me to run for president," he said in a video released on YouTube Wednesday. "I have decided to launch an exploratory committee to examine whether I should run for president in 2016. I made this decision after reflecting on numerous political commentaries."

    Sitting in front of a simple, blue backdrop, Webb detailed his military service and professional career during the 14-minute video. Webb emphasized his accomplishments as a public servant. Among the issues stressed in the announcement were the need to address criminal justice reform and growing economic inequality.

    Ugh. That's all. Just...ugh. (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 07:39:11 AM EST
    Or maybe, blech.

    Isn't there some other way these people could feel relevant?


    Well, (3.50 / 2) (#35)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 07:46:22 AM EST
    Liberals may like it because if she gets in, this could pull Hillary Clinton a little to the left.

    Since when do Democrats ever (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 08:03:52 AM EST
    move to the left when challenged from the right?

    It's like the Republicans' conservative message is an irresistible siren song that lures Dems into sailing into the rocks; it makes it appear that Dems don't believe in their own message enough to lead on it, instead second-guessing themselves into believing they have to be more like the Republicans in order to win.

    When the electorate senses that a candidate or a party doesn't even believe in his/her/its own message, they don't have enough reason to vote for that candidate/party.


    This liberal thinks the idea stinks (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 08:07:08 AM EST
    Really don't understand the logic that Webb will pull HRC to the left when his voting record was to her right.

    Senate votes.

    In May 2007, Webb joined with other conservative Dems to prevent cloture on Reed/Feingold which would have put a time frame on funding the Iraq invasion. Obama and Clinton voted for cloture.

    In September, 2007, Webb joined with other conservative Dems to prevent cloture on another  Reed/Feingold bill which also attempted to put a time frame ending the Iraq invasion. Obama and Clinton voted for cloture.

    Thanks to a post by Liberty Equality Fraternity and Trees at the Orange for additional information on Webb some highlights:

    The DW Nominate system scores members of Congress from -1.00 (most liberal) to 1.00 (most conservative). For the 112th Congress, Jim Webb clocked in at -0.193, between Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Tom Carper (D-DE). He is listed to the right of Max Baucus (D-MT) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT)....
    Jim Webb voted with Republicans and Joe Lieberman to oppose the Democrats' plan to extend the Bush tax cuts for only the first $250,000 in income. Webb wanted millionaires to get their full tax cuts, too.
    In 2012, Jim Webb was the only Democrat to vote against extending reduced interest rates for student loans. He was a staunch student loan reform in general. Link

    Read the whole post. It outlines his votes on the environment, closing tax loopholes for big oil and his stand on affirmative action.

    Please explain how you think this Reagan Democrat will pull anyone to the left because this meme truly confuses me.


    To the left? (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 08:09:47 AM EST
    The American Conservative Union rated Webb's time in the Senate as far more conservative than Clinton's time in the Senate. If anything, if he actually was a legitimate challenger, it would force Clinton to the right.

    Not with Bernie Sanders making noise (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 08:16:22 AM EST
    And Elizabeth Warren, while not running, but still a popular voice.


    This year, there could be three candidates running to the left of Clinton. In addition to Sanders, there might be Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (who says he's running, but hasn't succeeded in defining much of a theme yet) and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who spent most of the summer saying she wouldn't run, but recently modified that to "I don't think so."

    Meanwhile, former Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) has been talking about running as a moderate to Clinton's right.

    Challenges like these would be a good thing for Clinton.

    For one thing, they would give voters a reason to tune in to Democratic primary debates; otherwise, the brawling Republican field would get hours of television time all to itself.

    For another, if she has challengers on both the left and right, Clinton could conveniently cast herself as the woman in the middle, the champion of her party's broad center.

    And for the record - I didn't imply it would make her a lefty socialist, I said it could pull her left. As much as you don't like to hear it, most people in this country are neither "left" nor "right" but somewhere in the middle, and that's where we like our national elected officials to be.


    Still doesn't explain why or (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 08:22:56 AM EST
    how Jim Webb, a conservative Dem,, will pull HRC to the left. That suggestion has to be one of the least informed meme I've heard lately.

    For the record you (3.50 / 2) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 08:41:24 AM EST
    said that Jim Webb entering the race would pull Hillary to the left.  So far you have failed to explain how a conservative Dem will pull any candidate to the left. Changing the subject of the debate to the voters does not substantiate your original claim.

    In the general way you query, (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 08:54:43 AM EST
      as opposed to specifically Webb--Clinton at this moment in time, I could see entry of a "centrist" D pushing (not pulling which connotes bringing someone closer to one's own position)  another candidate to the Left.

      If you had a scenario where 2 or more candidates vying for the nomination  occupy a narrow sliver of the "centrist" band, one of them might believe there would be advantage to  shifting to the Left to distinguish himself or herself. This would become more likely the more crowded with "centrists" the race became.


    If we were discussing a generic (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:24:57 AM EST
    centrist Dem. what you say may have merit. But that was not what we were debating. We were debating whether or not a specific Dem, Jim Webb, would make liberals happy because he would pull HRC to the left. Their voting records clearly show that Webb is to the right of Hillary and was ranked among the conservative Dems.

    I really do not want to change the debate because I am strongly against centrist or conservative Dems erroneously stating what would make liberals happy. Even more to the point, I am strongly against conservative Dem politicians being promoted as representative of progressive or liberal  policies. That IMO is how Republican's p!ss poor ideas are validated and why the bar is consistently moved to the right.

    If I wanted conservative policies, I would vote for a Republican.


    I agree with that, (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:54:11 AM EST
      which is why I phrased my response as I did.

      I also would prefer that the Party espouse and fight for liberal ideals. Unfortunately, I see no remote likelihood of that occurring in the short term.

       As I see it we now have a "centrist" party ("us" whether we like it or not) and a right wing party. We will nominate a "centrist" whether it is Clinton or someone else. I can live with that because, again as a practical matter not my own philosophical preference, I can't counter the argument that if in 2016, the general is a contest between a "liberal" and a conservative" the conservative will win.

      I believe the Dems deserve a massive amount of blame for allowing the political reality to develop because we have failed miserably to make the case for why voters should support liberal candidates for a very long period of time now.

      I have elsewhere complained that we have been losing at all levels largely because we have abandoned liberal ideals and not having the courage and leadership to "fight the good fight" as I believe I put it. I very much believe that and believe we should start doing so, but I'm not persuaded that the fight should begin with a quixotic Presidential run in 2016.

      I think we need to build "from the bottom up" in the short term and dig in for a fairly long slog to reach the point where a "liberal" could hope to be elected President. I'm something of an idealist, but my pragmatic tendencies are strong. Envisioning the damage a Republican President abetted by control of congress would do, I'm willing to accept a "centrist" as easily the lesser evil.


    I agree that a truly liberal candidate (5.00 / 6) (#165)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:51:18 PM EST
    would not win in this environment.

    Where we part ways to some extent is what needs to happen NOW to stop Dems from continuing to migrate right and to create the atmosphere for more liberal candidates to win at all levels of government.

    While building from the "bottom up" is necessary, it is not IMO anywhere close to being enough as evidenced by the recent state elections.

    The rhetoric of the party needs to change NOW. First and foremost by normal standards there is no real far left in the U.S. A few scattered individuals do not make up a far left element. The actual party structure needs to stop discounting liberal policies and voters as being the far left or the radical left. Take a minute to think about what the party has accomplished by marginalizing liberal voters and policies instead of using them as a reasonable starting point or at least as a comparison. Policies that were standard Republican fare and center right are now being labeled socialistic policies when proposed by Dem politicians. Liberal voices and policies need to be heard loud and clear NOW.

    Individual Dem voters need to stop labeling liberals as the looney left, the far left, leftist etc.. Dem voters need to push back when the media and others assign the label moderate or liberal to conservative policies and politicians. Words do have meaning and conservative policies and politicians are neither moderate or centrist. The only way they represent the center is if you silence the left and thereby make center or center right the left of the spectrum.


    I wish I could (none / 0) (#168)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:55:38 PM EST
    give you multiple "5's" for this.
    It's exactly how I feel.

    Agree. Strongly (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by sj on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 12:36:45 PM EST
    I am strongly against centrist or conservative Dems erroneously stating what would make liberals happy.

    Moi, aussi. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 12:41:38 PM EST
    I'm a liberal and perfectly capable of telling anyone what I want, what matters to me, and so on.

    Fair enough (2.00 / 1) (#172)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:05:51 PM EST
    Of course, the rest of the country, including centrist Dems and independents really don't want liberals telling the rest of us what we want or what's good for us or that you know better.

    Oh brother (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by sj on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:22:40 PM EST

    You are conflating advocating for policy with telling someone else what is supposed to make them fat and happy.

    What you are saying is that liberals have no business advocating for policy.

    That is hardly news. "Centrists" have been saying anyone who actually cares about policy is "loony" for years.


    This statement makes absolutely no (none / 0) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 08:32:07 AM EST
    sense especially after your link down thread which states Jim Webb is to the right of Hillary.

    Don't always agree with you but you normally present info that has some ties to reality. This has to rank as one of your least intelligent comments which is why I rated it a 2.


    Sorry you can't understand it (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 10:58:59 AM EST
    If there is a very right "Dem" in the race, that leaves the rest of the field - ie. the "center" and the "left" open to grab votes from.

    It's a pretty simple idea, so I'm not sure why you can't understand that.  And because you didn't understand the logic, is no reason for a "2" rating, but whatever.


    You know what jb? (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by sj on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:35:25 PM EST
    Everybody talks out of their a$$ sometimes. Or has a misconception. Your original statement was one of those. It was wrong in its core premise.

    Instead of letting it go you decided to hunker down and defend the nonsense. Downrating liberals rather than admitting that you cannot speak for us is beyond petty.

    I'm not going to respond to anymore of your defense of your statement, because frankly, your position was stupid from the get-go, and your comments aren't getting any smarter on this issue as they continue.


    I think you should (4.00 / 3) (#111)
    by sj on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 12:43:48 PM EST
    just let go of the idea.
    ... that leaves the rest of the field - ie. the "center" and the "left" open to grab votes from.
    If you were a liberal, you would understand that it never works that way. We are considered in the "where else are they gonna go?" column.

    Seek our votes?

    As if.

    Someday I would love to be pandered to.


    You would be much better off speaking (3.50 / 4) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 01:33:34 PM EST
    for yourself and let liberals speak for themselves.

    You were not promoting Webb as a very right wing candidate in the comment that I gave a 2. You promoted Webb as some one who would make liberals happy and force HRC to the left. That IMO, is as I stated a completely poor assumption on your part and extremely poor logic. If HRC is challenged from the right, she doesn't need to move at all. She can stay very comfortably in the center or even right center. Anyone that thinks a right of center or DLC centrist candidate would make liberals happy  is not in touch with reality.


    Like I said (1.00 / 1) (#173)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:06:51 PM EST
    Sorry you don't understand a simple concept.  Guess you aren't really in touch with reality.

    I understand simple concepts but not pretzel (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:31:14 PM EST
    logic that tries unsuccessfully to change and distort what you actually said.

    What you produced as support for your comment that Webb entering the race would make liberals happy and push HRC to the left completely contradicts your statement. Let me post the contradictory part for you.

    For another, if she has challengers on both the left and right, Clinton could conveniently cast herself as the woman in the middle, the champion of her party's broad center.x

    You might notice that your supporting quote talks about helping HRC cast herself in the middle and not push her to the left.

    Once again changing the argument might make you think you can support a different argument but it definitely does not make Webb entering the race an element that will push HRC to the left or make liberals happy.


    Your "simple concept" (none / 0) (#179)
    by sj on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:24:23 PM EST
    suits a simpleton. Not a thinking being. Not sure where that fits on your [sur]reality spectrum.

    He may last for 2 caucuses and a primary (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 07:44:44 AM EST
    Less if his advisors are being paid to be honest.

    He's probably (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 07:57:22 AM EST
    going to be the lesser Mark Warner of 2016 if he runs. Mark Warner got nowhere and he had a lot more going for him than Webb.

    Just what the Democratic Party needs (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 08:13:01 AM EST
    A conservative Dem being advised as a progressive. Might as well just adopt the Republican platform and say it represents the best ideas and get it over with.

    In the contest, in the ring (none / 0) (#93)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 11:21:52 AM EST
    For want of any other reason ... every champ could use a sparring partner in the toning process.  Hillary Clinton may need to polish her debating/public positioning skills.  Having someone to allow that could be an assist.

    Promote Webb as a conservative Dem (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 01:45:11 PM EST
    who will make conservative Dems happy and you will get no argument from me.

    Anyone who wants to promote him as a progressive candidate or to the left of Hillary, better be able to put forth actual facts to support their position because his history does in no substantiate that designation.

    I shudder every time Dems do this. How in the h€ll do you think the Republicans were rehabilitated so quickly after the disaster that was Bush. How has the party moved to the right. It was by validating Republican policies as reasonable and having Conservative Dems selling these policies being labeled as the reasonable center or progressive.


    Webb is a conservative Democrat. Period. (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:17:19 PM EST
    The only people who would think otherwise might be viewing him from an even more conservative viewpoint.

    Wow how nice (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:37:47 PM EST
    We have found common ground. I totally agree. Webb is a conservative Dem. Period.

    I can and often do snark so I guess I better state that this is a sincere response and not snark.


    Thanks, MO. I understand. (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:45:35 PM EST
    So. What. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 12:37:38 PM EST
    Jim Webb's claim to political fame rests primarily upon two relatively high-profile moments, both of which are fading from public memory with the passage of time. First, he served as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy for two years in 1987-88.

    (Prior to that, he served as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs in 1984-87. And off topic, but why do we still have Secretaries of the Navy and Army, since we no longer have cabinet-level Depts. of the Navy and War?)

    Then, 18 years later, Webb ousted the odious Sen. George Allen (R-VA) in the 2006 midterms, albeit with considerable and quite fortuitous assistance from a certain Democratic Party field operative named S.R. Sidarth, aka "Macaca."

    I would also further argue that the farther one removes him- or herself from Washington, DC, one would be more likely to run across people who will personally recall Sen. Allen's infamous "Macaca" moment, than meet those persons who can actually remember the name of the guy who defeated Allen in that particular 2006 race.

    And that's because after a relatively nondescript single term in office, Sen. Webb declined to run for re-election and stood down, effective Jan. 3, 2013. Maybe Webb's since been inspired by Barack Obama's equally thin resume when he first declared for the White House. But he clearly doesn't share the president's charisma and personal communications skills.

    Anyway, good luck running for president on all that.


    The NYTimes (none / 0) (#54)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:01:07 AM EST
    has a front page article about a new threat issued by ISIS on video - urging attacks within France.

    Out of curiosity, I went to the French version of Huffpo, and to two of their newspapers - lemonde and lefigaro.

    Not a peep.

    Not a word.

    My thought was that this is the way the French are keeping their citizens "safe" - by keeping them in the dark.

    Feels familiar.

    If the French government (none / 0) (#63)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:21:17 AM EST
    has some influence on the Huffington Post, that would explain their perchance for sideboob.

    You know... (none / 0) (#67)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:29:41 AM EST
    it could just be the influence of self-censorship...
    A lot of that goes on - especially when it comes to reporting on a dangerous foreign policy.

    "Democratic" governments these days don't have to exercise direct control over publications - just let out a sense of what is patriotic and the rest just tumbles out.

    Or - there could just be the familiar rationalization in effect: keep unsettling information from the people because it will only cause a panic. What cr@p.


    Here's (none / 0) (#78)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 10:11:20 AM EST
    coverage by France 24 that wasn't in your search results.

    No, it's not... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 12:20:43 PM EST
    The link you provide to is coverage about some French nationals going over to fight for ISIS - and what the government is doing to try to stem the flow.

    What I'm referring to is a new video by ISIS in which they are calling for violent attacks in France by people sympathetic to its goals.

    See the report in the NYTimes.


    lentinel, this is true. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by fishcamp on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:03:09 PM EST
    My Parisian friends are very afraid of the ISIS members, of the  thousands of Muslims, that live around the Périphérique and the other two motorways that surround Paris.  They feel some type of jihad is eminent.  We have our immigration problems, but our immigrants do not want to rule the world, and kill all Westerners, Israelis and Americans, as some Muslim radicals have stated.

    I don't (none / 0) (#188)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:35:27 PM EST
    see it the way you do.

    The immigrants in France, the Muslim immigrants, are not necessarily the ones to fear, imo.

    The people going from France to fight for ISIS appear to be plain old white guys. These are the ones who I think are unbalanced enough to do something horrific.

    By and large, my sense is that the Muslim people around Paris are integrated into the mixed communities in which they live. They go to the same schools and patronize the same metros and the same shops. Any disgruntled Muslim would be hurting them as well as others were they to do some sort of attack.

    The people I fear there, as well as in the US, are the government bureaucrats who are placing the people of our respective countries in the crosshairs of these fanatics.


    The critical Ferguson Timeline for 8/9/14 (none / 0) (#59)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:16:18 AM EST
    Timeline based on St Louis Public Radio, the Post Dispatch, and Ferguson Police Documents:

    12:00:07 Wilson leaves earlier call about a half mile away.

    12:01:~ Wilson makes initial contact with the jaywalkers at Canfield.

    12:01:50 Call to Ferguson PD of 4230 Disturbance in Progress on Canfield: Ferguson Event Report #2014-029062 / Complaint 14-12391. [the substance and audio of this call has not been released by Ferguson and to date has been ignored by reporters]

    Per St Louis Public Radio this "12:01:50 call" was referred to by police dispatch as: "Shooting Event Opened" [Shooting Event??? Did the dispatcher hear a gunshot while on the phone with the caller???]

    12:02:00 Wilson calls dispatch saying: "21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car".

    12:02:14 Glide audio recording ends with 10 shots fired in sequences of 6 then 4. 135 feet from the vehicle Brown now lays dead on the street.

    12:02:22 2nd Ferguson PD Unit Arrival per Ferguson Event Report #2014-029062 [linked above].

    Video of immediate aftermath of the Ferguson shooting

    12:02:41 3rd Ferguson PD Unit 25 announces Arrival on Canfield.

    Brady video of police units immediately after Ferguson shooting [shows Unit 25 that had just arrived with Wilson and another officer on foot]

    12:02:48 4th Ferguson PD Unit 22 announces Arrival  on Canfield. [pulls in driveway up the street where Brady is filming and captured on video]

    12:03:13 An unidentified officer on the scene asks "Where's the other one?" [probably Unit 22]

    12:03:33 Unit 25 requests a supervisor aka Unit 23. [Why did it take them so long to call for a supervisor and what were they doing during this time???]

    12:06:00 Black Canseco Cellphone video of scene begins. [shows the 4 units still there at 12:06. Unit 22 in driveway then pulls away followed by arrival of black homicide cars and then Unit 23.]

    [Despite 3 months of FOIA requests from multiple sources the audio of the 12:01:50 911 Call[s] and the subsequent 12:02:22 police unit Arrival dispatch in response to it have not been released by Ferguson. Others have been released while these have not.  What are they hiding???]

    You are misstating the obvious (2.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:37:58 PM EST
    At one minute, 13 seconds after Wilson's call.....Eleven seconds later....Twenty seconds late  unit 25 called in to ask if the dispatcher could send a supervisor to Canfield and Copper Creek Court...."

    That is 104 seconds, one minute and 44 seconds.  And that's the beef. There is plenty of time for everything to have happened exactly as Wilson described.

    We ran all this by days ago. Why bring it back up?

    I'm done here.


    Add 11 Seconds (none / 0) (#164)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:50:36 PM EST
    That is 104 seconds, one minute and 44 seconds.

    It's unclear from the article whether it's 12:02:00 + 01:13 + 00:11 + 00:20 = 01:44 or 12:02:00 + 01:13 + 00:20 = 01:33.

    I chose the latter -- 93 seconds.

    Would it make you happier if I chose the former???

    If I chose the former you would argumentatively claim that I should have chosen the latter.

    Here is an "Add 11 Seconds Card" for the Timeline -- no charge.

    You can play it anywhere on that Timeline you want but it can be played only once.

    You're Welcome --


    It is not unclear at all (2.00 / 1) (#182)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:29:40 PM EST
    And it is from your own source.

    St Louis Post Dispatch

    At 12:02 p.m., Wilson says, "21. Put me on Canfield with two....

    At one minute, 13 seconds after Wilson's call, an unidentified officer has arrived and asks, "Where's the other one?" referring to Johnson.

    I am really done this time.
    Eleven seconds later, there's a brief burst of static and an unintelligible bit of speech. A dispatcher responds, "10-4 on Canfield."

    Twenty seconds later, unit 25 called in to ask if the dispatcher could send a supervisor to Canfield and Copper Creek Court.

    73 + 11 + 20 = 104 seconds or 1 minute and 4 seconds from Wilson's 12:02 call until unit 25 asks for a supervisor. Now we don't know if he did because he saw Wilson and Brown running at each other with Wilson shooting or if the action was over. But from the witness stated at 12:03 he had seen some one killed.


    Thank you, Uncle Chip (none / 0) (#66)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:26:40 AM EST
    What are they hiding? the guilt of a police officer committing the murder of an unarmed 18 year old African American citizen.  
    The corruption continues despite the slow revelations exposing the coverup.  This is america, folks.

    To be clear, this is your guess (none / 0) (#126)
    by leftwig on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:07:44 PM EST
    on the timeline based on information provided to date.  No one has said that Wilson called for backup at 12:02:00.

    To be Clear (none / 0) (#131)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:24:34 PM EST
    you are wrong --

    You must have missed this FPD FOIA release published by the StL Post Dispatch:

    At 12:02 p.m., Wilson says, "21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car."

     His call triggered at least two officers to head his way, including one who said he was close to Wilson.


    Whatever point you are trying to make (none / 0) (#137)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:45:01 PM EST
    is apparently predicated on, literally, seconds.

    Therefore the query to you was regarding your original post, regarding the specific seconds you chose to make up in your head and add to the FPD's approximate timemark, ie:


    I see above that you've now, wisely, decided to remove your personal addition of the seconds from the approximate timemark that the FPD provided, and you now write it as the actually FPD provided it, ie:


    I wonder why you would do such a thing?


    If you have a problem (none / 0) (#151)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 03:17:53 PM EST
    with the 12:02:00 or the 12:02 time stamp on that 12:02 dispatch, then take it up with the Ferguson Police Department or the Post Dispatch. It's their time stamp.

    So why are you bothering me???

    They list them and I post them --

    BTW -- It's now 3:15:00 -- Time for your nap.


    As you well know.

    12:02:00 (none / 0) (#176)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:17:14 PM EST
    So then if that 12:02 call didn't take place at 12:02:00 then perhaps you can tell us and the Ferguson Police and the Post just when that 12:02 call took place???

    How long after 12:02:00 did it take place???

    You are going to argue with me that the Ferguson people don't know how to add seconds to their time stamps if they need them???

    Ferguson is not back in the Middle Ages -- they do have "seconds" there and know how to count and list them if they show up.

    Afterall they knew how to list them in their Event Report for their "12:01:50" time stamp and their "12:02:22" time stamp.

    Looky at that -- they do have seconds there and know how to list them.

    You're Welcome --


    So silly. (none / 0) (#186)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:34:11 PM EST
    The sources that you reference also list, from the FPD, the timemarks of 12:00 & 12:01.

    However, now that I look at it, you've added ":07" to the 12:00, and "~" to the 12:01 in your newest "timeline."

    I'm sure you can supply us with links to support those additions?

    Lastly, please show us the links to support your contention that "12:02" is absolutely "12:02:xx" rounded down, and not "12:01:xx" rounded up.


    NYT obit for Mike Nichols: (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 10:22:50 AM EST
    A great writer slash everything (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 11:49:58 AM EST
    Iconic is overused but... some of his films were used to define a generation or two.



    I rewatched Postcards From The Edge (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 11:58:39 AM EST
    just the other night, love that flick.

    I first saw "The Graduate" with (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    a Belgium friend in Brussels. I thought it was great but he just shook his head and said.... "You Americans." We drank a bottle of wine and had horse steak while arguing about it.

    The death of Nichols, like others of near my age, bring back memories and make me feel old. And I am.


    Mike Nichols was one of the most ... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 12:59:55 PM EST
    ... versatile and talented performers and directors during his lifetime. I loved "The Graduate" and "The Bird Cage." But I saw "Carnal Knowledge" not all that long ago, and found that to be his most emotionally brutish effort, a beautifully rendered but devastating portrait of male ego, vanity and self-absorption that makes me squirm to even think about it. And his superb adaptation of Tony Kushner's epic "Angels in America" for HBO Films and the small screen is nothing short of brilliant.

    May he rest in peace.


    The Birdcage is one of my all time (none / 0) (#114)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 01:09:02 PM EST
    favorite movies.

    I really liked the original (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:14:12 PM EST
    French version of the movie best.

    Fortunately, I got to see "Desth of a Salesman," directed by Nichols w/Hoffman as Willie.


    I have not seen "La Cage aux Folles". (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:51:39 PM EST
    Will put that on my must watch list!

    "Fosse, Fosse, Fossee (none / 0) (#144)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:58:06 PM EST
    Ma-Donna, Ma-Donna"

    In other news (none / 0) (#96)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 11:36:35 AM EST
    In other news Jeremy was blindsided and voted out of Survivor last night.

    Is that a fact??? or am I assuming too much???

    should be alumnus (none / 0) (#140)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 02:51:18 PM EST
     the shooter was makle

    The shooting at FSU, of which you (none / 0) (#175)
    by fishcamp on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:10:31 PM EST
    were speaking happened at 12:30 am this morning, just after midnight.  It has been on the news all day and the shooter was killed after wounding three people.  One is critical, another is in the hospital with unknown wounds and the third person was released with minor wounds.

    You never know (none / 0) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 04:30:28 PM EST
    Two days ago a friend, really more my sisters friend but I know her very well, lovely vibrant 45 year old woman.  Funny and full of life.  Out of the blue, getting ready for bed, she had some kind of massive stroke or Aneurysm or something.  So far She never regained consciousness.  They are still doing tests.   It looks bad.  "Disconnecting her" has already been discussed.

    This is such stunning news.  I live surrounded by old people and I am used to hearing about their thinning.   This is so different.  I have mentioned her here before they are Foster parents.   Always have a house full of kids.

    Sorry Howdy. (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 05:19:07 PM EST
    My nephew in law had an aneurysm and he was about the same age. Fortunately he's about 80% recovered and I guess my niece was darn lucky she didn't lose him. They had only been married for two weeks when it happened.

    It is shocking when it happens. (none / 0) (#196)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 05:01:31 PM EST
    A couple of years ago my 30 year old healthy cousin went to bed, did not wake up.
    A few years before that it was another cousin's wife. 35 years old. Died in her sleep.

    You expect it to happen to older people or people who are sick or unhealthy, not to people who are young and seemingly healthy.


    Yes (none / 0) (#198)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 05:06:13 PM EST
    that too.  Unlike most people around here she was not at all overweight and seemed completely healthy.

    This conversation illustrates (none / 0) (#197)
    by NYShooter on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 05:04:12 PM EST
    the problem with labeling politicians: "Left, Right, Hard left, Way Out Right, and so on."
    I just think it does a big disservice to these individuals, and, unfairly, imprisons them into a stereotype they may not deserve. Yes, you can type Ted Cruz as "Right Wing," and/or, Bernie Sanders as Left Wing." But, most people (politicians) don't fit, precisely, into any one, specific label.

    I would bet that if you watched/listened to 100 interviews with 100 politicians, and, had never seen or heard of them prior, and, they were not introduced as Democrat/Republican/Liberal/Conservative, etc. placing them into neat categories would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that most people, those who are not avid political junkies anyway, watch a conversation with a candidate, and just come away with an impression. If you asked them what they thought about the person being interviewed they would say things like, "I liked him/her, or, I didn't like him/her." Maybe, "he had some good ideas, or, his ideas were nuts." "I liked when he said this, or, that, but when he said (that!) that finished him off as far as I was concerned."

    The point is that people would make up their minds about a candidate in descriptive terms, not in political labels.

    To conclude, and, why I wrote this post; I know I have watched interviews when I didn't know anything about the guest, and, came away with a very positive feeling about the person. Then, when the credits were rolling I was surprised to see my guy referred to as "Conservative" member of XYZ. Or something to that effect.

    Anyway, I hope I made some sense.

    And, it doesn't really matter as we're out of comments anyway.

    When it comes to politicians (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 05:30:33 PM EST
    I would not base my opinion or my vote on how he/she came across on an interview. I have watched Huckabee come across as a very likable guy in an interview but I sure wouldn't want him to become president.

    While in a more perfect world voters might react as you describe focusing on the value of the ideas etc., unfortunately that is not how it works in most cases.

    Most politicians have a history and promote a political agenda. That can and should IMO frame how a person views him/her as a future member of our government. The votes cast will effect you and the world around you in very significant ways.

    But too often, people do not spend the time to find out what they stand for. And most people who vote on a regular basis support  or lean towards a particular party.

    Ideas that were great ideas a couple of years, weeks or days ago are suddenly socialistic in nature and truly unAmerica. Ideas that were against the law and unconstitutional a few years ago are suddenly perfectly acceptable.  

    So I guess while I think your comment has some food for thought, I don't think it is what we need to get a better government.


    Survivor (none / 0) (#204)
    by Jack203 on Thu Nov 20, 2014 at 09:30:54 PM EST
    "In other news Jeremy was blindsided and voted out of Survivor last night.
    Is that a fact??? or am I assuming too much??? "

    Which really POed me off.  Jeremy was by far the best character on the show, and the only reason I was still watching.

    I pretty much can't stand every other character this season.  This is the worst Survivor season I've ever seen.

    Your endless confusion (none / 0) (#206)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 21, 2014 at 12:02:17 PM EST
    resulting from your personal "timeline" are simply answered by Wilson's explanation of what happened.

    Apparently his version is that he made the "12:02" call for backup just before he and Brown scuffled at the SUV.

    And then just after that scuffle, which included several shots fired, Wilson again called dispatch but the radio channel had been jarred during the scuffle and was changed to the wrong channel.

    I know, I know. It's so simple, yet it spoils all the fun of your conspiracy theory...