Tuesday Open Thread

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

< Monday Open Thread | Lebanon's Claimed Detention of al Baghdadi's Wife and Child >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The LATimes (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 02:34:25 PM EST
    is reporting that Ashton Carter will be nominated by President Obama as Secretary of Defense, to succeed Chuck Hagel.   Dr. Carter has served as Under Secretary of Defense (2009-2011), and as a faculty member of Harvard's JKF School of Government. He holds a baccalaureate degree in physics and medieval history from Yale and a doctorate in theoretical physics from Oxford University where he was a Rhodes scholar.

    Senator McCain, the new chair of the senate armed services committee, has indicated that he will support Carter's nomination although McCain expects some intensive questioning.   The strategy on ISIS will be foremost in McCain's mind, and, of course, there is always Benghazi.  However, Dr. Carter's academic credentials in medieval history should be valuable as he works with Republicans, especially in communicating with McCain and his fellow warriors.  

    I read that as "Ashton Kutcher" (none / 0) (#13)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 02:45:03 PM EST
    Which is ridiculous but if Kal Penn (Kumar from Harrold and Kumar) can be an Associate Director in the White House Office of Public Engagement maybe the star of "Dude Where's My Car" could get a White House job too?

    an actor (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CST on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 02:49:46 PM EST
    being hired for a "public engagement" post, is a far cry from secretary of defense.

    Actually, Kal Penn (none / 0) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:18:10 PM EST
    is a good fit as Associate Director of Public Engagement.    He is not only an actor, but also, a film producer. His desire for public service came at some professional cost. Penn has been a visiting lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania and is a graduate of UCLA.

    Indeed, Public Engagement (formerly Public Liaison) has had diverse backgrounds.  But, maybe, the most storied, and typical for the Republican Administration of President Richard Nixon, the department was headed by by Chuck Colson, one of the Watergate Seven, who pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice.  Unlike Penn, Colson,  for his service, spent time in a federal pen.


    I admire Penn (none / 0) (#91)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:00:41 PM EST
    for walking away from an impressive film career to serve his country.

    Agreed. (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 02:49:56 PM EST
    reading correctly is important.

    If you were going for humor that was an epic fail. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Angel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:00:16 PM EST
    Here's a Fox news excerpt: (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:05:10 PM EST
    In national security circles Carter is closely associated with a concept he and former Defense Secretary William Perry championed in the 1990s. They called it "preventive defense." Its basic premise is that in the aftermath of the Cold War the U.S. could forestall major new security threats by using defense diplomacy - forging and strengthening security partnerships with China, Russia and others.

    Several of the wacko peanut gallery (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:10:58 PM EST
    seem a little too comfortable with this for my total comfort.

    Not that who think who fills that job makes all that much difference in the scheme of things.


    I thought he was a hockey player.. (none / 0) (#184)
    by desertswine on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:21:08 PM EST
    for Toronto.

    fishcamp - you asked for this in another thread. (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Angel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 02:59:21 PM EST
    Angel, please (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:19:54 PM EST
    let me join you in best wishes to the birthday boy, Fishcamp.

    Happy Birthday Fishcamp (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by ZtoA on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:36:28 PM EST
    BTW, Fish, here is the 'nice DMV'.

    Thank you for the kind birthday wishes. (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by fishcamp on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:26:51 PM EST
    I'm headed out to an early dinner, with no drinking nor dancing.

    Happy Birthday, Dude, (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 05:36:26 PM EST
    and many more.

    Plausible deniabillity, grammatically: (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 05:54:47 PM EST
    "[W]ith no drinking nor dancing."

    I may have found a home (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:29:19 PM EST
    for Garuda.  At ASU.  

    Wonderful. BTW, the San Diego (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:47:30 PM EST
    Museum of Art has a really fine collection of art from India. The Binney Collection. He made his fortune from Crayola Crayons.

    Hey, fishcamp, you scamp... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:37:11 PM EST
    have a happy, happy birthday!  Here's to good health, good fishing, good company, good food and good fortune in the year(s) ahead!

    Enjoy! (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:41:41 PM EST
    Well, I hope you enjoyed your day. (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:18:41 PM EST
    Because tomorrow, it's back to the same ol' grind -- fishing in the Keys and hoping to catch something good for dinner.



    ^^^ I feel like screaming. (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by Angel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:00:50 PM EST

    Comment #41? Or #8? (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:07:08 PM EST
    Or both?

    Both. Time to move on. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:22:54 PM EST
    Essentially all of them. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Angel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:23:14 PM EST
    How many times do we need to read someone's "facts" regurgitated from another thread?  

    UNTIL YOU SUBMIT (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:29:13 PM EST

    bahahahahahahaha (none / 0) (#150)
    by Angel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:22:55 PM EST
    Please, make them stop.

    'cuz you didn't link correctly.

    If I was you, not wanting to rewrite such a long post, I'd quickly make a copy of your post and save it to repost later, after you learned to link.

    For the benefit of whoever may need it...

    To link, with apologies if it's too basic:
    -highlight the URL of the web-page that you want to link to.

    -copy the URL ("edit" then "copy").

    -come back to TL and write something in your "Comment:" box.

    -highlight the word(s) in that comment that you want to be the link.

    -click the "URL" button above the "Comment:" box, it's the button that has
    an icon that looks like links of a chain. That brings up a link box, and your cursor is automatically in it.

    -hold down the "Ctrl" button on your computer's keyboard and then type "v". That copies the url into the link box.

    -click "OK."

    -click the "Preview" button below the "Comments:" box.

    -if the preview looks good - ie., the word(s) you selected to be the link
    are a different color from the rest of the text - click the "Post" button below the "Comments:" box.

    What do you mean by "correct"? (none / 0) (#63)
    by toggle on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:27:39 PM EST
    It's long been considered better etiquette to post links as urls, so someone who wants to follow them will know for sure where they're going.

    The links are functional, so I don't understand the complaint.


    "Correct" as in what our host prefers. (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:31:16 PM EST
    Your choice though...

    ... at TL, a long URL which you may have included in your post may not wrap around per the designated margins, and will instead continue on to the right. This in turn can sometimes skew the view of the entire page to the left. That's why your host asks you to hyperlink. It's not rocket science. Just read and follow the directions as related by others above.

    It is a hyperlink (1.50 / 2) (#83)
    by toggle on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 05:45:12 PM EST
    Maybe the problem here is that none of you seem to recognize that what I posted is, in fact, a hyperlink. It is also in "html format" as the comment policy requires. It just has the url as the text descriptor for the link.

    So I hope you can understand my confusion.


    Oh! (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 05:49:55 PM EST
    You're right!
    We were all confused.  Please continue as you were.

    bwa-ha-ha (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by sj on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 05:57:24 PM EST

    We understand your confusion quite well. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Angel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:20:01 PM EST
    The problem is you can't understand simple instructions.  So, as I see it, you're the one with the problem.  

    (Sigh!) Let's try this one more time: (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:36:40 PM EST
    (1) Copy the HTML you wish to hyperlink.

    (2) Using your mouse, highlight the word or phrase in your comment text that you wish to serve as your hyperlink.

    (3) Look to the six icons above the comment box in which you've typed your post, and click on the fourth one from the left. (That's the one which looks like a chain.)

    (4) Once the hyperlink box appears as a separate window, paste your HTML into that box and then click "OK."

    (5) Look below the comment box and click "Preview." Your comment should then appear with the appropriate hyperlinked text highlighted in blue.

    (6) Repeat the above five steps as many times as you desire for multiple hyperlinks.

    (7) When you are satisfied with your comment's appearance, click "Post."

    Like I said, this isn't rocket science. Aloha.


    The reason our hostess doesn't want (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:39:50 PM EST
    HTML is that they skew the site and cause problems.

    So just use links and there will be no problem.

    Here's some useful HTML info


    no you didn't post in "html format" (none / 0) (#211)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 11:43:17 PM EST
    you pasted in an unformatted url.

    See html formatting.


    Your link is to long (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:32:08 PM EST
    You have to do it in the proper format or Jeralyn will delete it.

    Trust us on this.


    THIS, I know (none / 0) (#67)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:32:36 PM EST
     Before you follow a link you can  right click on a short link and then hit "properties" and it will show the actual link.

    True, and even easier (none / 0) (#210)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 11:39:49 PM EST
    is letting your mouse hover over the link. The actual url shows at the bottom of the screen.

    Yes, action entertainment (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 05:45:58 PM EST
    cannot stay away from the drama of torture, it seems.  "Zero Dark Thirty," an otherwise good film, couldn't resist a rekindling of the debate as to whether torture of al Qaeda members helped find Osama bin Laden.  Kathryn Bigelow,  however, did not dwell on the fact that, even if torture was effective, it did not produce instant results.  Ten years passed (200l to 20ll) from 9/ll to killing.    So much for the necessity of torture for that ticking bomb--unless it has a rather long fuse.

    This is great (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:52:48 PM EST
    In the early 1600s, Galileo Galilei, who is often called the "father of modern science," dared support the astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus and his theory of heliocentrism, which postulates that the Earth orbits the Sun. For his defense of science, Galileo was brought before a Roman Court of Inquisition which found him "vehemently suspect of heresy". They forced him to recant and sentenced Galileo to house arrest, where he spent the remainder of his life. But as the story goes, after his sentencing, Galileo looked up at the sky and muttered in defiance of the religious court:

    "Eppur si muove." (And yet it moves.)

    And move it still does. Though they tried for a hundred years to promote the religious notion that the Earth was the center of everything, in the end facts always prevail. Today, even Fox News hosts accept that the Sun is the center of our solar system. That's why it is so hard to believe that in 2014, someone could be placed on the modern day version of house arrest (no Twitter) by their employer, just for politely defending a scientific theory - a theory much more widely accepted that heliocentrism was in 1615.  But it happened just this month to ESPN baseball reporter, Keith Law.

    He's a regular user of Twitter, usually commenting on baseball - or on food. Cooking seems to be his hobby. Or maybe it's eating. It's hard to tell. But when his fellow ESPN contributor, Curt Schilling, went on an epic 14-hour anti-evolution rant on his own Twitter account, Keith channeled his inner Bill Nye and introduced Schilling, a former Red Sox pitcher, to science.

    If you'd like to browse Schilling's evolution tweets, Deadspin, which characterized them as "showing his ass to the world" has collected them here for posterity. For those who prefer the abridged version, Schilling contends that while he might be able to accept that many breeds of dogs evolved from one progenitor dog, no one has ever found links that prove evolution happened between species.
    And for that Keith Law was suspended by ESPN and told to stay off Twitter.

    Keep in mind, Curt Schilling was never suspended or censured by ESPN for his anti-science rant.

    When news that ESPN had suspended Keith because he defended the Theory of Evolution on Twitter began gaining traction, the sports network must have realized how they had managed to cast themselves in the role of the Roman Court of Inquisition. They began spinning. They couldn't say why Keith had been suspended but it "had absolutely nothing to do with his opinions" on evolution. Suddenly, Keith was reinstated. ESPN gave him the green light to return to Twitter, tweet away Keith!"

    And so Keith Law did just that. He tweeted. Can you guess what his first tweet was?

    Eppur si muove.

    But but but but .... (1.00 / 3) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:56:50 PM EST
    The consensus was with the church..

    Thanks for reminding us.. And to double duty, since Mordiggan doesn't understand, here's a link explaining Popper and Falsifiability



    Sorry, but you use a truncated version (none / 0) (#192)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:39:15 PM EST
    Of one of his quotes, so you're hardly in a position to talk about him and falsifiability.

    As for evidence of AGW, it continues to be found all over the world:

    West Antarctic melt rate has tripled in last decade

    UCI and NASA glaciologists, including Isabella Velicogna and Tyler Sutterley, have discovered that the melt rate of glaciers in West Antarctica has tripled, with the loss of a Mt. Everest's worth of water weight every two years.
    The glaciers in the Amundsen Sea Embayment in West Antarctica are hemorrhaging ice faster than any other part of Antarctica and are the most significant Antarctic contributors to sea level rise. This study is the first to evaluate and reconcile observations from four different measurement techniques to produce an authoritative estimate of the amount and the rate of loss over the last two decades.

    "The mass loss of these glaciers is increasing at an amazing rate," said scientist Isabella Velicogna, jointly of the UC Irvine and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Velicogna is a coauthor of a paper on the results, which has been accepted for Dec. 5 publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

    Lead author Tyler Sutterley, a UCI doctoral candidate, and his team did the analysis to verify that the melting in this part of Antarctica is shifting into high gear. "Previous studies had suggested that this region is starting to change very dramatically since the 1990s, and we wanted to see how all the different techniques compared," Sutterley said. "The remarkable agreement among the techniques gave us confidence that we are getting this right."

    Facts be facts, Jim,

    No charge for the lesson.


    Facts be that the warming has stopped (none / 0) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:44:15 PM EST
    for 16-20 years...

    Facts be facts.

    Too bad you can't understand them.

    Have a nice night,

    And do study Popper. He will explain to you why consensus has nothing to do with science.


    My industry friends are pretty freaked (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:09:31 PM EST
    about the Sony Pictures hack

    After all who wants North Korea to have your social security number.

    Most people would just accept (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:06:56 PM EST
    the assistance we were trying to provide.   Personally I'm sorry we tried.

    I would just note (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:35:44 PM EST
    that in this very thread we all replied to two (2) other people on the same subject in the same way and oddly neither of them suggested we were idiots who didn't understand technology.

    They just took the advise.

    It is not an obscure rule (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:17:11 PM EST
    and the advice/lesson is given to many folks when they start posting here. Many folks commenting right now have gotten the lesson. It's much nicer than folks not saying anything and leaving it up to our host to have to spend her time to tell you the same thing and delete your comment which you spent time writing.

    Could you please point out which comments you consider nasty? Just curious . . . .

    HA (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:56:58 PM EST
    Right on cue.

    Lemme 'splain some thing about ratings here.   For one thing we mostly know each other and the rating matters, afaiac, relative to the person who rates.  I usually click on it to see who it's from.  Which means in your case they mean absolutely squat.  If we see a one on a reasonable comment we know where it's from.
    The other thing you should know is that Jeralyn doesn't like people rating 1s without a pretty good reason.  She has been known to delete all a persons ratings for doing that.

    Just fyi

    Gimme my one
    Gimme gimme gimme

    Isn't there a rule about blog clogging also (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:07:42 PM EST
    that could limit postings . . . ?

    Toggle makes a funny... (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:36:01 PM EST
    So, it's our fault you can't figure out how to format your links, in spite of numerous people taking the time to help you?

    And the problem is we're terrible at tech jargon?  And yet...we can all provide links in the format Jeralyn prefers, and you can't.  Or won't.

    Yeah, seems more like "won't."

    So, go ahead - just continue to format as you have; all things considered, it may not be such a terrible thing if Jeralyn ends up deleting your comments.

    Rick Perry, like Hitler, (3.50 / 4) (#70)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:48:13 PM EST
    executes the mentally ill..

    And some say he could be a GOP frontrunner for the presidency..

    What was all that talk about "us" demonstrably improving as a society?

    Protesting the application of capital punishment (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 05:29:40 PM EST
    to severely mentally ill murderers is a valid moral argument (with which I agree). Comparing it to Hitler's policies is ugly nonsense.

    Uh... (4.40 / 5) (#77)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 05:23:34 PM EST
    So did good old liberal Democrat Bill Clinton.

    He scheduled the execution of a brain-damaged man, Ricky Ray Rector, to take place a short time before the New Hampshire Primary to show he was tough on crime.

    Worked for him...
    A dandy precedent.

    Let's face it.
    Our political landscape is littered with cretins.


    Let's not forget (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:22:36 PM EST
    That Rector's mental state was a result of a botched attempt at suicide, not an inherent condition, is rarely mentioned.

    All true, (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:04:18 PM EST
    but the simple fact was that at the time of his execution, he was so brain damaged that he saved his dessert from his last meal so that he could have it after he was executed.

    Whether by his own hand, or by birth, the man was clearly incompetent and unable to understand what was about to befall him. The analogy with what Rick Perry is up to is rather clear, in my opinion.

    Putting it in political terms, Clinton did not want to appear soft on crime - so he let the guy be shot up with lethal chemicals.

    And it worked.
    And a new definition of liberal democrat was born. One strongly in favor of the death penalty.


    You (none / 0) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:10:02 PM EST
    could make the same case for any death penalty case. Like I said above Rector is about the worst example you can come up with to make your case against mentally handicapped people being executed since there are probably people who have had the problem all their lives and then end up being executed.

    I'm (none / 0) (#143)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:12:12 PM EST
    not making a case against mentally handicapped people being executed.

    I'm simply saying that what Rick Perry is doing is right out of the Bill Clinton play book, in my opinion.


    In my opinion (none / 0) (#185)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:21:34 PM EST
    It's not.

    That's the easy thing about opinions.


    And he tried ti kill himself (none / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:29:43 PM EST
    after he killed a policeman by shooting him in the back.

    But since he botched the job and just mentally destroyed himself is no reason to execute him.


    Really (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:07:48 PM EST
    that's more of an argument against the death penalty IN GENERAL than specifically against executing any particular type of person or a person with any condition.

    I can (none / 0) (#154)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:32:24 PM EST
    agree with that.

    But, to reiterate, I can't personally feel that what Perry is about to do is any worse or different than what Clinton did.

    And Perry, in the comment that started this thread, was being compared to Hitler!


    Rector (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:27:36 PM EST
    was brain damaged because he attempted suicide and botched it not because it was a life long condition and was not brain damaged at the time the he committed the crime. Frankly if you want to make an argument against executing mentally handicapped people Rector is about the worst example you can come up with.

    Much as it pains me to (none / 0) (#82)
    by sj on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 05:42:09 PM EST
    make the observation: there is a mindset that would actually view this situation as "demonstrably improving as a society"

    Soooo.... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:31:31 PM EST
    we are executing the wrong people.

    And now for something (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 01:27:47 PM EST
    completely different:

    Richard III's DNA

    Kinf of 'Related'... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 01:57:09 PM EST
    ...not sure if you have heard of the 'Global Family Reunion', but there is a.... movement, maybe, in which people are trying to create a world wide family tree.  Can't find the numbers, but I want to say that around 50,000,000 people have already been connected through this project.

    AJ Jacobs was on Conan explaining it and revealing who he and Conan are related to, and how.  It's pretty remarkable that he can produce the lines to show how he is related Conan, and also proved how Conan is related to his Andy.  Andy is the Ed McMahon of the Conan Show.

    From the transcript:

    Conan: You have proof that you and I are related. A.J. Jacobs: You and I are cousins.
    Conan: This is real. This is absolutely real.
    A.J. Jacobs: Yes.
    Conan: This is all the way -- starting with you, right?
    A.J. Jacobs: It starts with me.
    Conan: And goes through all this different chain of events and we get to me. Right here.
    A.J. Jacobs: You are officially my first cousin once removed husband's third great grandfather's fourth great niece's husband but I love you like a first cousin.

    Conan: I'm told the last one is kind of fun.
    Conan: Andy! Oh my God!
    A.J. Jacobs: There's a little nepotism here.
    Conan: How are we related
    A.J. Jacobs: He's your 11th cousin once removed husband.

    Conan: What it is you're hoping to accomplish?
    A.J. Jacobs: Well my hope and is it's a little idealistic. I hope once we realize we're all part of this big family and we share 99.9% of our DNA, that we'll actually be a little kinder to each other or at least a little less douchy.



    You mean I am related to (1.00 / 2) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 05:23:00 PM EST
    ....gasp..... Yman? Say it ain't so!  ;-0

    But it you assume a generation is 25 years, then if you go back 14 generations, 300 years, then you have 16,224 Grandiose Parents.



    "We are family." (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 02:08:19 PM EST
    Yet, another reason we Scots want to (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by fishcamp on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:00:17 PM EST
    separate from the illegitimate, mixed DNA of the English.  Thanks, oculus, for backing we true, pure Scots

    In Scottish is "backing we, pure Scots" (none / 0) (#214)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 11:58:32 PM EST
    a colloquialism?  The grammar enforcers will haunt you.

    oculus, the grammar enforcers can't (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by fishcamp on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:34:00 AM EST
    do any haunting to we Scots on their birthdays, or the day after, in this case.  

    Great timing - I have been reading a bio (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:22:35 PM EST
    of Richard III. His brother Edward IV, if indeed he was his brother, and also the older Prince in the Tower, Edward V, were described as blond, so there may have been a blond gene in there somewhere.

     My brother was blond until he was out of high school, now he has real dark hair...wonder what his genes would say?


    Dare you find out re your (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:56:56 PM EST
    brother's DNA?

     Have you read Jacqueline Tey's "Daughter of Time"?  


    Have you read ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:00:35 PM EST
    ... Jacqueline Susann's "Valley of the Dolls"?



    You've got to be kidding. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:49:59 PM EST
    Anyone into the space program? (none / 0) (#4)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 02:19:44 PM EST
    The New Horizon's spacecraft is finally approaching Pluto.

    It still has a ways to go.... won't get there until the summer but it will awaken from a low power hibernation on Saturday. I hope the mission goes well because we don't know a lot about Pluto or that Kuiper Belt area.


    Ok (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:27:11 PM EST
    if you are going to hang around you have to learn to link.
    Your comment will be deleted because a link that long will skew the site. (Skew, is that the right word?)

    You can do one of two things
    You can use the site called tinyurl.com to create a very short link
    You can use the linking icon above the window.  It take a little practice. Especially if you are using a tablet.
    To use the icon
    Select and copy the full URL
    Click on the link icon - a box will pop up
    Replace the text in the box with the URL and enter
    I can't reproduce the line because it's code and it won't show up up the line that appears in the comment window will end with these >< followed by a slash, an "a", and another >
    Place the linked text between the >< and enter.
    The link (what you typed in the previous step) will appear as blue indicating a link.

    It might take some practice.  You can use the preview button below the box to test the results.

    Good luck.


    But yes (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:33:55 PM EST
    i will be watching this.   I am a tech nerd and Pluto is my ruling planet.
    I think I also have to watch this on Sunday.

    Anaconda man speaks:  Why I wanted to be eaten alive


    Sounds like a lot of work but I'll give it try (none / 0) (#94)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:03:00 PM EST
    please do try, long urls (none / 0) (#189)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:34:43 PM EST
    skew the site since it is very narrow and I have to delete the comment. I can't edit comments.

    Reviewed your instructions again (none / 0) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:18:36 PM EST
    on how to link with iPad. After reading it again, I saw the missing piece on how you enter text like LINK after the fact rather than by highlighting as you do when using a regular computer.

    I still would like to understand how you use the brackets to see if it might be easier but at least I should be able to link better until I get my MacBook back.



    Copy URL. Paste (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:03:33 PM EST
    In body of comment. Place a bracket b/4 it and whatever words you wish to be visible.  Then place another bracket after the URL. Preview and post. .

    What symbol are you calling a bracket (none / 0) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:24:13 PM EST
    This symbol < or something else?

    This is what I am interpreting from your instruction. Please correct what is wrong since it doesn't work.



    [linkURL] (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:28:13 PM EST
    Thought I tried that (none / 0) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:46:09 PM EST
    version as well and it didn't work then but it works now. Must have fat fingered something the last time.

    Thanks. I think this will work better for me when using my iPad.


    That's how I always did it (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:28:03 PM EST
    its easier with a mouse but it works.
    Yer welcome

    don't Macs show the link button (none / 0) (#199)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:53:06 PM EST
    at the top of the comment box?

    There's a link button there. Type your sentence text, like, "The AP reported today...". Then use your mouse to highlight "AP reported" and click the link button. A box comes up with a space for you to paste in the url. Click the preview button to make sure it shows correctly.


    When using my MacBook (none / 0) (#215)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:03:59 AM EST
    I have no trouble doing the link the way you are describing. Been doing it that way for years without any trouble.

    iPad are different. On my iPad, you have to select "AP Reported" rather than highlighting the text. Once you select the text a dialog box appears allowing you to chose options such as cut, copy, paste etc. That box overlays itself over your icons on the top of the comments box thereby making them inaccessible.

    In this thread, people who have mastered doing links on an iPad have provided me with other ways of linking that will work.

    But thank you for taking the time to try and help me.


    It is POURING here. (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 02:20:42 PM EST
    Tears of joy.

    All my LA friends are (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:49:05 PM EST
    the happiest they have been since the OJ trial was over.

    You have unusual friends. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:53:24 PM EST
    Not what you hear on TV (none / 0) (#6)
    by CST on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 02:22:25 PM EST
    So not only is the violence rate in this country decreasing, but so is the divorce rate.

    Listening to the news you'd get the impression that we're the most deprived society we've ever been.  But the facts suggest we actually have our $hit together more than you'd think.

    Pretty interesting considering the narrative, but really, it makes a lot of sense that the divorce rate peaked in the 70s and 80s with the introduction of no-fault divorce in many places, and as the article mentions - feminism.  The old marriage model was broken, and it took some time for a new one to take it's place.

    depraved (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by CST on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 02:25:51 PM EST
    not deprived.  But you know.

    "I'm depraved (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 05:53:13 PM EST
    on account of I'm deprived."
    Officer Krupke.
    Sorry, that's all I could think of.
    "Gee, Officer Krupke, Krup you."

    what kind :) (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by CST on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 02:42:11 PM EST
    I imagine it's down in some ways and a bit "higher" in others.

    Dam kids. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:34:05 PM EST
    I'm of the the belief that things tend to get (none / 0) (#11)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 02:39:14 PM EST
    better in our society, not worse.  But many people love to pretend we're this horrible, violent, racist country.

    People think there's an epidemic of white people killing black people because the media loves to play up those events without putting them in perspective.

    There's also a similar panic whenever there's a school shooting.

    Can we improve? Of course, but let's give ourselves some credit first.


    unfortunately (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by CST on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 02:47:57 PM EST
    we still have sky-high prison populations (although it did decline slightly in 2014) and a military-police complex that treats every protester as a dangerous criminal (see occupy).

    When you consider that our society is less violent, you'd think that such heavy-handed police response would be less necessary.


    Give ourselves credit for what? (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 05:09:33 PM EST
    I don't know in which part of the country you so happen to reside, but suffice to say that your own life's experience isn't necessarily similar to that of a person of color who's living in an urban inner-city environment.

    (Speaking for myself, I live in Honolulu, which is the safest big city over 500,000 in population in the entire country, where we had only 15 homicides in all of 2011 -- of which only one was committed by firearm.)

    African-Americans presently comprise 11% of our country's population, yet 26% of all persons who are shot by the police annually are black. In fact, young black males between the ages of 18 and 29 are about 450% more likely to be shot by the police, than are members of any other ethnic demographic in that age range.

    While I was visiting my mother in SoCal in March 2012, an unarmed 19-year-old Kendric McDade was shot in the back and killed by Pasadena police on a city street after officers bit on a bogus 911 call, which falsely claimed that McDade was one of two black male suspects who had been identified in an armed robbery which had allegedly taken place only a few minutes prior.

    In fact, the subsequent police investigation determined that there had been no armed robbery, and that the officers shot McDade first and only asked questions ex post facto. The guy who called in the false report was indicted for manslaughter, and has since been deported. The City of Pasadena and McDade's mother are still in litigation over the matter, but the city's mayor has apologized personally to both her and her former husband for the tragedy.

    Now, let's look at the larger picture. There are over 283 million firearms presently in civilian hands in this country, which represents a nearly 50% increase in the total number of guns that were owned by civilians 20 years ago, which was 192 million.

    Further, about 110,000 Americans annually are victims of gun violence, which has further claimed over 31,000 lives annually in the United States over the last five years. That's about 85 deaths per day. Of that annual number, about 10,000 are classified as homicides.

    While it is true that the overall death rate from firearms violence has declined over the past two decades, that is directly attributable to the greatly improved trauma care that gunshot victims are receiving. While in fact more people are being shot today than 20 years ago, they're also much more likely to survive their injuries today than they were back then.

    Even so, homicide is still the second leading cause of death among all 15-24 year olds in this country, and it is the leading cause amongst African-American males. Between 80-85% of these homicides of young persons are committed with a firearm.

    You might also consider as a comparison that the population of Western Europe (444 million) is about 30% greater than that of the united States (313 million), yet their collective annual rate of firearms homicide is only about 10% of our own.

    While the overall percentage of gun-owning households in the United States has declined from 57% in 1977 to about 34% in 2009, the number of firearms per owner has actually increased by 68% during that same period, from 4.1 guns in 1977 to 6.9 in 2009. Clearly, our country is more awash in firearms weaponry than ever before, and perhaps more alarming, gun ownership is just as steadily becoming consolidated in a decreasing percentage of the U.S. population.

    But for what, exactly? Because according the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, our tendency for inflicting and encountering firearms mayhem is apparently limited mostly to ourselves and persons we know, than would involve random strangers or intruders.

    For example, if you reside in a U.S. household where guns are present, you are over five times more likely to become a victim of gun violence, than is someone who resides in a gun-free household in this country.

    If you are a conceal-carry type of person who loves to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights in public, you are over seven times more likely to be involved in a confrontation involving guns, than is someone who eschews the immediate possession of firearms on his or her person.

    You and members of your household are actually less safe with a gun in your abode, than you would be were you to forgo altogether the false sense of security that firearms provide. The statistics show that gun owners and gun-owning households are much more prone to experiencing gun violence, than are those households which are gun-free. And firearms assaults on family members and other close acquaintances are twelve times more likely to result in death, than are assaults with other weapons.

    Please also consider that for every time a gun is used in this country by someone in self-defense, one is used eleven times to attempt suicide (both successfully and otherwise), seven times in a criminal assault or homicide, and four times in an unintentional / accidental shooting death or injury.

    Finally, Second Amendment enthusiasts on the right side of the political spectrum who also consistently advocate for tax cuts might want to consider the following inconvenient fact: U.S. taxpayers are presently footing the bill for 49% of the $2.3 billion spent annually on lifetime medical costs incurred as a result of nonlethal gunshot injuries in this country.

    (That statistic does NOT include any costs related to the treatment of wounded veterans who were injured in conflicts overseas, which is another deplorable topic altogether.)

    Now, you are certainly free to believe whatever you want about the present state of affairs regarding gun laws and firearms safety in our country. But please note that your concept of reality doesn't necessarily jibe with the statistics.



    Speaking of statistics (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:01:46 PM EST
    you didn't provide your sources.

    FBI Crime in the US

    While the black population may be 11% the FBI says it commits 28% of the crimes, including 49.7% of the murders and non negligent manslaughter,  55% of the robberies, etc.

    Now I think those numbers are accurate BUT I also think that, somehow, they need to be weighted to show the crimes committed in the inner city, dope deals gone bad, etc.  

    IOW, change the environment and you change the person.

    Taking our guns, which you apparently want to do,
    doesn't change the environment.


    Statistics (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:57:23 PM EST
    Yet the disturbing truth, according to the FBI's most recent homicide statistics, is that the United States is in the wake of an epidemic of white-on-white crime. Back in 2011, the most recent year for which data is available, a staggering 83 percent of white murder victims were killed by fellow Caucasians.

    ...On the other hand, although people often see criminal behavior as a symptom of poverty, the quantity of murder committed by white people specifically in the United States casts some doubt on this. Per capita GDP is considerably higher here than in France -- and the white population in America is considerably richer than the national average -- and yet we have more white murderers.

    To understand the level of cultural pathology at work here, it's important to understand that 36 percent of those killed by whites are women -- a far higher share than you see with black murderers.



    Of course (1.00 / 1) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:43:36 PM EST
    most people kill people of their own race because that is who they associate with most of the time.

    But, if you don't want to use environment as the reason 11% of the people are committing 28% of the crimes, including 49.7% of the murders and non negligent manslaughter,  55% of the robberies, etc.
    Then what is the cause????

    And I didn't say poverty. I wrote environment. That, among other things, would include no father as a role model, etc., etc.

    Let me know when the fatherless child rate drops below 26%.


    Killing women (none / 0) (#169)
    by toggle on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:31:36 PM EST
    Black men kill black women at more than three times the rate white men kill white women. But it's nothing compared to the rate that they kill black men.

    And that's supposed to say something bad about white people? Honestly, that is absurd.


    Think you better read my comment again (none / 0) (#175)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:51:18 PM EST
    The comment clearly states that white men kill a higher percentage of women than black men do.

    Why do you care? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:20:11 PM EST
    When I've linked sources in the past on this very subject, you've pointedly ignored them and continued spewing your nonsense anyway. If you really want my sources, then look up my past posts on this very subject.

    So, we're a bad country? (none / 0) (#98)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:22:20 PM EST
    Does everything have to be negative?

    I think it's safe to say we have problem with violence in the African American community. I don't believe it's entirely the fault of the police.  I don't believe it's entirely the fault of our gun laws. At least some of it has to do with broken families and lack of role models.


    I didn't say that we're a bad country. (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:05:50 PM EST
    I simply noted that what you were saying about our country doesn't necessarily correspond with the reality of the present.

    Racism, ethnocentrism and economic inequality still exist in this country. You don't deal with those problems by minimizing them or worse still, by pretending that they either don't exist or have been resolved in their entirety, which simply serves as a means to absolve yourself of any responsibility for their resolution.

    Suffice to say that there are hardly ever any easy answers to solve complex and troubling issues, and further that the perpetual struggles of the African American community is one of those issues.

    There's a shopworn phrase, "My country, right or wrong,"  which is simply a misquoting of former German revolutionary-turned-American politician Carl Schurz (1829-1906), who actually said the following: "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right, and if wrong, to be set right."

    That is, if you truly love your country, then you must accept her for what she is, flaws and all, and then constantly seek her improvement and betterment.

    The only way to resolutely deal with such thorny social issues is by accepting reality as it is, and not as you might wish it to be. This means that you don't dismiss certain unpleasant facts out of hand, just because you find them to be inconvenient or too distressing to discuss.

    Because whenever you seek to resolve an issue by adhering resolutely to some preconceived narrative of the way things ought to be, you've actually taken the first step toward fashioning a solution to a problem which otherwise likely doesn't exist, save for in your own mind.

    And honestly, what good does that do anyone in the long run?


    Statistics abuse (none / 0) (#163)
    by toggle on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:21:14 PM EST
    You reach almost all of your conclusions about the dangers of gun ownership by considering suicide to be "gun violence."

    While I personally don't approve of suicide, and can't imagine myself ever doing it, I like to know I have control over my own life. I don't see having the ability to reliably end it when I want to to be a negative.


    That's not "abuse" (none / 0) (#187)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:33:40 PM EST
    It's reality.  The vast majority of those who commit suicide - including those who do so with guns - are doing so because they suffer from some mental illness/depression.

    ... gun deaths in the United States, and they outnumber homicides by firearms by almost a two-to-one margin. Further, those statistics you poo-poo also show that members who reside in households in which firearms are present are much more likely to be successful in their efforts to commit suicide, than those persons who live in gun-free households.

    By both act and definition, suicide by firearm is a form of gun violence. What else would you call it?


    Witness #10 -- Stunning (none / 0) (#8)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 02:27:13 PM EST
    Who exactly was this Witness #10???

    Was he a pawn or lackey???

    He was 100 yards away and yet he is believed over all the other witnesses some closer than 50 feet.

    What was his deal???

    I haven't been all that impressed with (none / 0) (#15)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 02:49:21 PM EST
    any of the witnesses.  Perhaps, the one good thing to come out this case will be the realization, by the public, that eye witness testimony is overrated.

    Dorian Johnson thoroughly debunked (none / 0) (#20)
    by Redbrow on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:10:20 PM EST
    In this compelling article from the Washington Post. It won't be news to anyone who actually bothered to read the evidence but might serve to educate some of the die-hard deniers.

    Why Michael Brown's best friend's story isn't credible

    Officer Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown, so Brown never had the chance to tell his side of what happened. But standing next to Brown for much of the time -- and observing the fatal shots -- was Brown's best friend, Dorian Johnson.  Johnson seems to have originated the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative. But Johnson's story constantly changed and diverged from the physical evidence. It seems hard to come to any other conclusion than that Dorian Johnson's version is simply made up.

    It's too late (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:53:56 PM EST
    A lot of people heard what they wanted to hear and ran with the "hands up , don't shoot narrative" without ever looking back.

    This is the problem with high profile cases.  People immediately choose a side and ignore anything that refutes their belief.  

    I'm not convinced Wilson's story is 100% correct but the physical evidence is on his side. None of the eyewitness testimony has impressed me.  Dorian Johnson would have been about as credible on the stand as Rachel Jeantel was in the Zimmerman case. This would have been an impossible case to win for any prosecutor.  


    Check the chart (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by whitecap333 on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:27:43 PM EST
    in the WaPo article Did Michael Brown charge? Eyewitnesses paint a muddled picture.  It sorts the witnesses out on this issue, with links to their testimony in the record of grand jury proceedings.

    One of the unanswered questions here is how far Brown traveled back towards Wilson, before the trail of blood spatter begins.  Several witnesses say Brown stopped at a light pole, opposite a driveway.  I don't see these reference points on the diagrams I've been able to pull up.  I see some of the sleuths on the Randi site peg the distance Brown traveled back at 49 feet.  

    Obviously, the several witnesses who claim that Brown barely, or not at all, came back towards Wilson let their imaginations run away with them.  This takes out Dorian, Piaget and Tiffany, who instigated the hue and cry after Wilson.  As noted in an earlier thread, our construction worker witness obviously has "issues."

    I thought one of the more interesting aspects of Johnson's testimony is his admission that the shop clerk did in fact threaten to report the cigar theft to the police, and that he feared arrest.


    Dorian is a piker (2.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:39:15 PM EST
    compared to prefabricating storyteller Darren:

    Darren Wilson changed crucial elements of his story

    The sworn testimony of Wilson's squad supervisor directly contradicts his account.


    The objective evidence (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Redbrow on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:21:30 PM EST
    In the form of the actual police radio recordings directly contradict the supervisor and support Wilson.

    If (none / 0) (#161)
    by whitecap333 on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:10:50 PM EST
    some of you guys wonder why I never "rate" comments, it's because I come her by way of Sony/Google TV, and can't perform certain functions.

    I do relish the 1's and 2's that are showered upon me.  It lets me know I'm drawing blood.


    A "1" rating here is very rare (5.00 / 5) (#165)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:22:45 PM EST
    and in no way justifies the inference that the commenter is "drawing blood." Mere disagreement does not trigger 1 ratings, nor does wounded pride. Disagreement triggers no ratings at all, in general. A "1" almost always means that the commenter is being judged a rank troll.  A "2," on the other hand, tends to mean that the comment has obvious logical flaws, patently lacks intellectual integrity or coherence, and/or willfully misses the point of the post to which it refers ... yet fails to sink to the full depths of "trollery." At least, that's been my take on ratings here.

    "1" ratings are not allowed (none / 0) (#213)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 11:52:05 PM EST
    based on point of view. They are only to warn of trolls or comments that violate this site's comment policy (profanity, etc.)  If I see someone rate a comment as a "1" based on their dislike of the commenter's point of view, I zap all that peron's ratings. I cannot delete individual ratings to a particular comment, I can only delete all ratings by a particular commenter.

    When someone consistently rates a regular commenter here as a "1", that's indicative of an improper use of the rating system.

    Other sites may have different rules.


    Objective evidence -- Police Radio Recordings (none / 0) (#223)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:25:04 AM EST
    The objective evidence in the form of the actual police radio recordings directly contradict the supervisor and support Wilson.

    Really -- you mean like those I charted in the Timeline here with links -- those that the PA put in the Grand Jury record BUT WITHOUT the timestamps:

    Here in part:

    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]...

    That's about it -- as documented by FPD FOIA requests and StL Public Radio and the Post Dispatch. And they searched all channels high and low and that's all they found from Wilson.

    Not one call from Wilson circa ~12:01 after encountering the two jaywalkers until that 12:02:00 dispatch which was sent after the shots in the Tahoe --

    And still no indication from him that he suspected the two he stopped were from the store, nor "shots fired", nor "officer assaulted", nor "struggle for gun", nor "send EMTs", nor "suspects spotted", nor "suspects resisting arrest", nor ....

    And yet 7 seconds after that 12:02:00 dispatch Wilson is unloading his weapon into a guy who all he knew to that point was just an insolent jaywalker who was stronger than him and broke his grip on him and got away albeit with a Wilson bullet in him.

    Now that's objective evidence.  It's also objective evidence that the Prosecutor got wrong in his press conference and concealed from the Grand Jury -- along with a lot of other things.


    link test (none / 0) (#25)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:30:39 PM EST
    Linking question (none / 0) (#28)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:34:36 PM EST
    I believe I finally have the inking thing down...

    but I see people saying you can use the preview before you post to see if you have it right. When I use it however I only see:


    That's not what I see! (none / 0) (#30)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:40:09 PM EST
      I see something that looks like: the desired url

     "less than a href="  ... a is greater than," enclosing it

      ( I can't type the actual symbols to show what I see because it results in apost fail error


    Did you answer your question? (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:43:13 PM EST
    you won't see the blue link until you hit enter

    What I mean (none / 0) (#34)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:49:27 PM EST
     is using preview doesn't show what the post will actually look like so it's not really helpful to me in determining whether the post will have the short version link that doesn't mess up the page.

      It would be simpler if "preview" actually previewed the appearance of the post


    for me.

    There is something about using brackets (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:00:30 PM EST
    that I never do.  Anyone up on that.  I think Anne described it the last time this came up.  

    I don't want to confuse them even more.


    I use brackets. Easy enough to do. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Angel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:03:43 PM EST
    Type your words or sentence here, beginning with the bracket symbol. Paste the html for the link immediately following last character of your word or sentence, then close with another bracket.  Preview, then post.

    I'll have to try that one. (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:12:28 PM EST
    I do like mine though...type, click, paste, click, post.

    Brackets would be easier when using iPad (none / 0) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:34:11 PM EST
    but I'm evidently doing this wrong. [linkhttp://*******] Wrong bracket? Wrong spacing?

    I've never made that work (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:37:36 PM EST
    Whenever I try to link the regular way (none / 0) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:54:31 PM EST
    on my iPad the box with the words cut/copy/paste etc. covers the icons for the link at the top of the comment box. Evidently I am doing something wrong there too. The only thing that I've gotten to work consistently is using tinyurl but that requires an additional step. Have I mentioned that I really hate linking and quoting using my iPad. The proper way to perform these functions completely is eluding me. My MacBookPro is back at Apple HQ. Something else that should be super easy is not functioning to the point that front desk people (who are pretty good) threw up their hands and said we will have to check it in for the super duper geeks to find out what is going on. Something tells me my horoscope should read Do Not Touch Electronics.

    That box covering thing happens (none / 0) (#217)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:08:53 AM EST
    if I try to add quotes. Here's my solution. After you highlight the text, push "copy."  Then the cues above the comment are visible again.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#219)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:17:27 AM EST
    I will try that next time.

    Thats weird (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:54:23 PM EST
    if you are doing it right it should look just like it will appear when posted.
    Everyone/anyone - am I wrong?
    Sorry about the cryptic comment.  Just trying to figure out the results you describe.   Linking is a bit of a pain until you get the hang of it.
    Sometimes it's easier to use tinyurl.com to just produce a short link you can post as is.

    I'm linking by (none / 0) (#51)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:09:58 PM EST

    1. copying the url of the page to which I want the link to direct

     2. typing a word to serve as the short link

    1. Highlighting that word

    2. clicking the link icon

    3. hitting CRTL V when the link box opens

    4. clicking OK when the url appears in that box.

      When I post, it looks as I want it to look and the link works, but if I hit preview it looks the way I described above.

      Weird, if it works for others. I've tried in IE and Chrome and it's the same in both.


    Are You sure the (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:12:27 PM EST
    preview window is not out of frame?  

    If it works I wouldn't worry


    Yes, this. (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:14:22 PM EST
    Recon, when you hit preview, scroll up or down and see if the real preview is there somewhere.

    For me I have to scroll up a short way...


    Aha! (none / 0) (#58)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:19:11 PM EST

       I feel stupid now. Yes, scrolling up I see the preview.  


    Been there (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:21:16 PM EST
    Maybe This Will Help (none / 0) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:52:22 PM EST
    This is what it should look like in html:
    <a href="www.talkleft.com">LINK</a>

    And in preview:


    It does preview the post and your link will be (none / 0) (#42)
    by Angel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 03:59:01 PM EST
    blue, not black.  Look above the box you typed your comment, that's where you'll see the preview.  It will be headed "Preview Comment."  "Post Comment" is below that.  

    If you're satisfied after previewing, hit Post (underneath the Post Comment box).  That's it.  


    Btw (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:06:44 PM EST
    you can even test the link - which is not a bad idea, especially at first - but I recommend using "open in new window" so you don't have to hit "back"

    Hope that's not TMI


    I usually test mine just to be sure... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Angel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:17:02 PM EST
    Or Right Clicking the Actual Link... (none / 0) (#57)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:18:27 PM EST
    ...in preview and opening it in another tab.

    You probably want to read the (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 04:02:00 PM EST
    linking discussion above.  Your comment will be deleted.

    We can only hope (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by sj on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 05:33:27 PM EST
    it was deleted (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 11:10:07 PM EST
    The site margins for the center column (where all the posts and comments are) are not wide enough to accomodate long urls. They skew the site.  If you want to link to an article or website or whatever, type the name and embed the link. There's a link button at the top of the comment box to help you.

    Readers here have explained multiple times. I've had this rule since 2002 when I started this site. We all learned how to do it. If you want to comment, you will have to either (a) learn how to link using html code (which is not the same as just pasting your link in the comment box) or (b) not use urls in your comments.

    This is not negotiable. I'm not going to have the site display improperly to accommodate those who don't want to follow the commenting rules.

    URL's within the body of the comment must be in html format or they will be deleted as they skew the site. Use the link button at the top of the comment box to paste in the url. You can also find a shorter link via tinyurl.com and post that.

    Also please use the preview button to make sure you've done it correctly.


    I've noticed (none / 0) (#74)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 05:15:41 PM EST
    that a number of cop shows - and pseudo-cop show - and others that are "entertainment" regularly feature torture as not only acceptable - but effective in extracting information.

    For examples in the "entertainment" sphere, I refer to "Revenge" and that truly god-awful "Scandal". (Not that "Revenge" isn't god-awful too.)

    Of course what I sense is good old corporate America coming to the aid of the Bush-Cheney mentality - and by inference - the ongoing mentality of the Obama administration.

    The argument against torture has been that - sure it's inhumane - but that's not the point - it is ineffective at extracting good intel.

    Not so sayeth these propaganda-laden entertainment vehicles.
    Torture works sayeth they. They found the dirty bomb with only seconds to spare thanks to pulling out some swarthy bastard's eyeballs.

    Jeez. I just wanted to relax...

    If you don't like what you're seeing, ... (3.50 / 2) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 05:37:16 PM EST
    ... well, that's why the good Lord invented the TV remote. Wield it effectively and wisely.

    I agree with you that Scandal and Revenge are both "god-awful." But in my opinion, that's because both programs and their respective audiences are taking otherwise deliciously campy material way too seriously for anyone's good. Either show would be much more entertaining, had someone with highly attuned camp sensibility been at the helm, like John Waters.



    With all due respect, (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:01:40 PM EST
    you're circumnavigating the point of my comment.

    My point is that these shows are portraying torture as acceptable, common, and effective. It is not about whether or not I am using the remote.

    What you call "deliciously campy material" is, in my opinion,  being used as a delivery system for, in this instance - the justification and promotion of torture.

    Of course one need not watch it.
    One need not watch Fox News either.

    But people here comment on the excesses and distortions being spewed out by the latter - and I felt like commenting on the former.

    Aloha ahiahi!


    But it IS deliciously campy material. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:40:05 PM EST
    Really, lentinel, what are you going to do about people who obviously have trouble distinguishing the reality of the world around them from what's being presented on a friggin' TV show? I know my own limits regarding what I can affect as an individual, and I resist the urge to place the problems of the entire world upon my shoulders. You should, too, otherwise you're going to be really unhappy all the time.

    no doubt you know as well as I do that Hollywood has long been notorious for conflating fact and fiction, and will often further dispense with truth altogether, were that truth to somehow interfere with its denizens' ability to tell what they believe to be a rollicking good story.

    You need only look to old westerns, and their irritating penchant for constantly portraying Native Americans in a "White man speaks with forked tongue, many pony soldiers die!" mode. And I'm sure that John Wayne's "The Green Berets" still sets more than a few people's teeth on edge.

    I think it's rather a stretch to impugn Hollywood folks with some dark and sinister ulterior political motive here, when all they've ever been trying to do for over a century of their existence is attract as many eyeballs to their onscreen products as possible. And more often than not, that means going with whatever's trendy and popular at the time, even if it does fly in the face of reality.

    (See "Rambo: First Blood Part II," which played upon the myth that Vietnam was still holding American POWs, years after the Vietnam War ended. Or "Red Dawn," which hyped the possibility of a Soviet invasion and occupation of this country.)

    One thing that Hollywood has learned over the decades is that with the occasional exception like "Gandhi" or "Touched by an Angel," shining examples of virtuous behavior generally don't go over too well with viewers. No sirree, when it comes to television, crap has long been king -- and long live the king.

    And as Nielsen ratings have repeatedly attested, audiences would much rather laugh with the sinners, than cry with the saints.



    I sort of sheepishly like Scandal (none / 0) (#204)
    by ZtoA on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 11:13:11 PM EST
    Mostly because of the female lead.

    I can understand your revulsion at people being interested in revolting things. In the car today I caught a snippet where some guy (author?) was saying that people are attracted to stories of about serial killers. Well, I am not attracted to those. I am actually related to a serial killer (he is dead now) and I have never ever been attracted to another serial killer since (or before). People loved the show Dexter, but I would never watch it.

    But that is my choice and other's too. Even tho I, personally, don't understand their interest in serial killers, I can make my choice not to watch and also respect their choice to be interested.


    So I guess you missed this: (none / 0) (#97)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:20:17 PM EST
    Baden's Grand Jury testimony:

    Dr Baden was quite insistent in his Grand Jury testimony that the shot to the right medial forearm came from behind:

    AUSA: "Now when you're referring to that shot to the medial forearm ... Does that definitely tell us that Michael Brown was shot from behind???"

    Dr Baden: "I think it's good evidence for that.... I think it's definitive evidence that the weapon at the time of the discharge was behind him ... behind from back ... it's definitive evidence of coming from behind."

    "insistent" testimony.

    No worries, I got you covered with some of what you didn't include:

    AUSA: You think it?s definitive evidence of that?

    BADEN: It?s a-it?s definitive evidence of-of coming from behind. Now, the-the a arms can be twisted in different forms so that if I have my hand here, that-that would (stutters).

    AUSA: And, just for the tape you have-you have your arm in front of you. Right?

    BADEN: Yeah, if I ah, so my palm is against my chest.

    A: Uh huh.


    A: So, it?s not 100 percent definite.

    B: Right.

    A: A-a because the arm is mobile enough to be twisted.

    Okay, alright. And that?s-that?s, well that was my question, it?s not definitive evidence necessarily that the muzzle of the firearm
    was behind Michael Brown at the time of the shooting. Is that fair?

    lt-it was behind the-the forearm at the time of the shooting but the forearm could take different positions like the back can't, ?cause the

    BADEN: Right.

    Sarc, have you actually read and (none / 0) (#159)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:53:23 PM EST
    cross-referenced everything McCulloch released?  (And, if so, why?)

    Ha! No, not at all. (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 11:20:35 PM EST
    I just wondered if Chip's claim was true.

    So I followed his link and quickly found that it was not, at all, true.

    What I quoted is directly from Chip's link. He just forgot to include it. Or something.


    Glad he had a chance to reconsider (none / 0) (#132)
    by toggle on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:00:11 PM EST
    As his initial findings seem to have been very sloppy.

    But it's not what he initially stated, at least according to the NYT.

    Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front.

    Short "html" link.


    13th shell (none / 0) (#100)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:28:05 PM EST
    And they found just twelve casings.
    That doesn't mean that some gumshoe didn't pick up the 13th  shell casing on the bottom of his shoe as they walked up and down the crime scene and as Wilson was bagging his weapon all by himself back at the station dropping in an unspent round.

    Lot of foresight (none / 0) (#133)
    by toggle on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:02:53 PM EST
    To somehow know that there'd be an audio recording of part, but not all of the shooting. Imagine if they'd gone through with that plan and it turned out that the audio recording included all thirteen shots. Then Wilson's face sure would have been red when he produced the gun with an unfired cartridge, eh?

    I mean, c'mon, that is just ridiculous.


    Wilson's testimony of his shots (none / 0) (#207)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 11:21:46 PM EST
    Have you bothered to chart Wilson's own testimony of the shots he fired -- it exceeds 13:

    He acknowledges the 2 at the Tahoe, and of course the final two series' of shots which we know in retrospect from the Glide recording to have been 6 then 4 making a total of 12.

    But Wilson also includes in his telling an additional series of "he doesn't know just how many" shots after Brown turns around but just before the last 6 and 4.

    So that's atleast 13 and maybe what? ...14? ...15? according him.

    Just how many bullets did he "find" in his chamber and drop in that bag???



    I was watching Jeb today (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:34:46 PM EST
    Talking about how he is not going to pander to the pinheads when he runs for president.  Which he basically said he was doing.
    It will be fun to see how long he stays on the high road and how far it takes him.

    This is Barbara "this is really working (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:48:34 PM EST
    out quite well for them" Bush's son, remember?  I can't imagine the apple could fall that far from the tree...

    The only road I want to see any member of the Bush family take is the one out of town, away from civilization.  And there are a whole lot of friends, minions, associates, lackeys and lickspittles who could go along on that ride.  

    One-way tickets only.


    Oh (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:55:25 PM EST
    Yes.   I just love the whole high road schtick.  

    Remember compassionate conservative?  Kinder gentler?  
    They always do this.


    And... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:10:15 PM EST
    remember "audacity of hope" and "change you can believe in" and "we're the ones we've been waiting for"...?

    All in the dust bin.

    Ready to be exhumed by the next messiah.


    Excuse me. It's (none / 0) (#218)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:15:29 AM EST
    "You are the one's you've been waiting for."  [See Samuel Beckett.]

    Who (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:07:46 PM EST
    are the pinheads to whom he is not going to pander?

    I can't imagine anyone voting for him other than pinheads - so if he is going to alienate that particular audience...


    Jeb has many positions (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:11:08 PM EST
    that are poison to the republican base.  For example his immigration views.  But not at all limited to that.  

    I'm willing (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:17:01 PM EST
    to bet that about 80% of his views and even his family are poison to the Republican base. If he runs he is truly clueless to the smacks upside the head he is going to get from the likes of Ted Cruz.

    How (none / 0) (#155)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:35:35 PM EST
    low have we sunk as a people that deadheads like Cruz are considered to be presidential material?

    Were you awake during (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:37:26 PM EST
    the last presidential primary?   Cruz is freaking Winston Churchill compared to Herman Cain.

    Churchill? (none / 0) (#160)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:04:41 PM EST
    I think not.

    Donald Duck maybe...


    Well (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:19:19 PM EST
    that's kind of why he's probably going nowhere. Who is his constituency? The pin heads and the pin heads hate him.

    It would be interesting though to see him writhe and wiggle and have to explain to the GOP base how he isn't his dad (who they hate) and the general public how he is not the second coming of George W.


    Well (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:30:21 PM EST
    that was Huntsman's schtick and it didn't get him very far and neither will it Jeb.

    The other interesting 2016 news today (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:09:28 PM EST
    was that Rand Paul officially announced he is running for the senate in 2016.  This is interesting because by KY law he cannot run for both senate and president.

    That is (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:15:42 PM EST
    very interesting. Of course, he's done so many 180's lately next year he may decide to run for president.

    The upside: The school now owes him a $3 million buyout. And given his overall record of accomplishment as a coach, Hoke will invariably be employed again before too much time has passed.

    Meanwhile, Rich Rodriguez -- Hoke's equally luckless predecessor at UM -- was named Pac-12 Coach of the Year today, after guiding Arizona to that conference's South Division title.

    The Wildcats will now face Oregon this Saturday in the Pac-12 Championship Game at Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, CA -- a potentially sobering prospect for Ducks fans, given that Arizona has won the last two meetings between the two teams, including this season in Eugene.


    A lead article in the NYT last week said U of M (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:17:13 PM EST
    may drop football. That'll be the day.  

    Gadzooks, Donald, you're right, horrors. (none / 0) (#197)
    by fishcamp on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:46:17 PM EST
    Cosby (none / 0) (#170)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:33:45 PM EST
    I had the courage to watch a little Nancy Grace tonight.  They were talking about the Bill Cosby allegations.  I believe Nancy said there are 12 women who are making claims against Cosby. Hard to believe they are all lying but some of the claims are stronger than others.

    One woman described being aggressively kissed.. which doesn't sound like a crime.  Another woman didn't really know what happened after she passed out but is convinced she was drugged.  I've heard others make the drugging accusation as well.

    I can understand why most of them didn't come forward years ago.  Bill Cosby was America's dad in the 80s and our society wasn't as politically correct as it is now.  But what I don't understand, is why they're coming forward now?  It's too late to file charges. They don't have any physical evidence and their memories aren't going to be perfect.  

    Cosby is ruined (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:43:15 PM EST
    I would think what they want is for the truth to come out.  Clearly money is not the point.
    If there are 12 why would you assume any are lying?

    I didn't assume any are lying (none / 0) (#188)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:34:30 PM EST
    nor did I assume any are telling the truth... but the more that come forward the harder it is to believe they're all mistaken or making it up.

    Sexual assault and harassment ... (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:02:59 PM EST
    ... stand as gross violations of our own inherent self-worth as individuals. It isn't necessarily something that we will ever just "get over," and I daresay most persons who make such claims likely aren't looking for a big payday in return.

    I remember my grandmother telling me when I was in college about a former manager at First Western Bank, for whom she worked as a secretary in the mid-1920s, and who loved to repeatedly corner her in the office and cop a feel even though he knew she was a married woman. Despite the passage of nearly six decades, the underlying anger and resentment she felt at having to endure such indecencies were still very palpable and real to her.

    Sometimes, people just need to admit to their own emotional pain and turmoil in front of others, and have it duly acknowledged in return -- even at a late date.



    Let us know when you are (5.00 / 5) (#182)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:17:20 PM EST
    on the receiving end of being aggressively kissed against your will by a powerful coworker, then maybe we can have a discussion on whether you think this is a "crime" or not . . .  

    Oh and next time you are in a social setting with a drink, do not let it out of your sight. If you forget, don't drink out of it, but grab yourself a new drink. Never know if someone put something in the unattended one . . .


    but is it an actual crime? (none / 0) (#194)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:39:35 PM EST
    What's weird is after she (Carla Ferrigno) was kissed she made a big deal about never being kissed by a black man before.  I'm not sure why she would bring that up?

    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:20:54 AM EST
    It's that fake crying jag that (none / 0) (#201)
    by fishcamp on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 11:05:12 PM EST
    Janice Dickinson goes on and on with, that makes me wonder.  Cosby may, or may not, have acted badly, but she seems to be acting to me.  If you seemingly break down in tears, and there are no tears, what's going on?

    She is like nails on a chalkboard (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 11:28:42 PM EST
    to me. I muted her on Celebrity Apprentice after the second or third episode. She was such a complainer and whiner. I haven't read her allegations, nor do I intend to. I used to be familiar with Autumn Jackson -- I did a lot of TV legal commentary on her case when she was charged with extortion. (She was convicted and it was reversed on appeal, story in the NY Times here.) I of course defended her on the extortion charges in my commentary. I don't remember the issue coming up as to how her mother got pregnant (consensual encounter or not)but I'm not inclined to put much belief in any of these women who are jumping on the victim bandwagon 20 years or more after the fact.

    I'll go with Cosby here. He's not even getting a trial, just the usual public assumption of guilt.


    She was one of the women on Nancy Grace tonight (none / 0) (#205)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 11:14:14 PM EST
    I'm not saying she's lying but it was weird when she insisted on pointing out she was the world's first super model when describing the alleged assualt.  What does that have to do with anything?

    But charges WERE made years ago (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by ZtoA on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:54:19 PM EST
    "Prosecutor who declined to charge Bill Cosby in 2005: `I didn't say that he didn't commit the crime'"



    True (none / 0) (#202)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 11:08:16 PM EST
    but many of these women are alleging crimes from the 80s and 90s.  

    I have a feeling Cosby was too popular back then and the media wasn't what it is today. No one wanted to hear that Mr. Huxtable might be a rapist.


    I think you must be a man (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by ZtoA on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 11:32:34 PM EST
    Many females understand that to actually charge a powerful man will only ruin them, personally, financially, and career-wise. If a lone woman brings charges of rape against a powerful man then she will not even be supported by other females - not even friends or family. He will sue her. She will spend years in this process. She will get death threats and be harassed. The police will mock her. The media will drag her personal and professional life thru the mud - or worse.

    Yes as you say "NO ONE" wanted to hear these female humans. Many were very tied up, financially with his earning power and the earning power he lent to them. Both males and females are involved in shutting down female protests against being raped. Both females and males are often anti-women.

    I am currently 61 and I would say that about 50% of my female friends have been raped. Yes, RAPED. and not one reported it to some police. It would have been so detrimental to them and not bring a bit of 'justice' to the rapist.

    You know, it is not difficult to google this. Google "why women have not historically reported rape". I haven't googled that (don't need to) but it might be informative to you.

    If you think it is all 'nice and good' today please look at the statistics on rape on college campuses and the frequency of rape in frat houses. I had to have 'the talk' with my daughter many times (still do tho she is now 26) on steps to take to stay safe and not be raped. It is not the same 'talk' given to a teen boy - of any color. Perhaps you do not have a young female in your life that you care about, but I do.

    And please take a look at this. It shows the reaction from "men's rights groups" to any female. Any female at all. These groups are not just fringe, but are expressing what many females know to be happening.


    Even if your statistics are accurate (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:07:09 AM EST
    that doesn't make the accusers' allegations against Cosby true. That x % of sexual assault victims (which include males as well as females) don't come forward at the time for whatever reason, doesn't make the allegations against Cosby more or less probable. You might also acknowledge the statistics of persons falsely accused of sexual assault. Nor does the number of accusers make their stories more or less likely to be true. Anyone can jump on a bandwagon.

    You don't have to be male to defend Cosby against this public outpouring of belated accusations. He is being charged and convicted in the the court of public opinion based on one sided statements by persons not subjected to cross-examination and the media is going along because it ups ratings.

    Even if the allegations are true, this is wrong and should be objected to. This site respects the law. He is presumed innocent here and will retain that presumption until and unless he is charged and found guilty by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


    All we need now is for Ben Carson to (none / 0) (#198)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:46:18 PM EST
    show up and educate us on how it's all because women don't know their place...

    "I think a lot of it really got started in the '60s with the `me generation,'" he replied. "`What's in it for me?' I hate to say it, but a lot of it had to do with the women's lib movement. You know, `I've been taking care of my family, I've been doing that, what about me?' You know, it really should be about us."

    Jesus God, this man wants to be president...

    J, Cosby will have his day in court (none / 0) (#212)
    by ZtoA on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 11:48:11 PM EST
    maybe. But for now he has his day in the court of public opinion. Nancy Grace is horrid and I never listen to her. But male rapists are hardly ever prosecuted and perhaps the nice progressive tendencies that you have also have unintended consequences which are that violence is actually promoted when violence is not prosecuted and is ignored or tacitly approved of.

    False rape is such a tiny percentage of even reported rapes but all the actual violent rapes are held to the idea that they are 'false', which, what is it - ~98%, are actual violence. Rapists and 'victims' - the other humans involved in the act of rape - do not get equal treatment under the laws (here in the US or anywhere on the planet). It is unequal treatment intended to protect but actually works to not protect half the humans in these interactions.

    I have no idea why you think (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 12:40:51 AM EST
    males are hardly ever prosecuted for sexual assault. Ask any state criminal defense lawyer how many cases they've defended or been asked to defend. Sexual assault cases make up a big part of state court practice. There is a huge body of appellate law on sexual assault -- appellate law is only made when someone is charged and one side or the other loses. (Prosecutors can't appeal acquittals but they can appeal decisions like suppression of evidence.)

    The last sexual assault case I wrote about in detail was Kobe Bryant's several years ago. My 147 posts on the case are accessible here. Suffice it to say, I disagree with your point of view.

    Guilt is an individual concept. It should be determined in a courtroom, not America's living rooms (or via keyboards and computer screens by persons with no first hand knowledge of the events under discussion.)

    As this recent Slate article (authored by a female)said:

    Seeking justice for female victims should make us more sensitive, not less, to justice for unfairly accused men. In practical terms, that means finding ways to show support for victims of sexual violence without equating accusation and guilt, and recognizing that the wrongly accused are real victims too. It means not assuming that only a conviction is a fair outcome for an alleged sex crime. It means, finally, rejecting laws and policies rooted in the assumption that wrongful accusations are so vanishingly rare they needn't be a cause for concern. To put it simply, we need to stop presuming guilt.

    J You know I totally respect your opinion and (none / 0) (#224)
    by ZtoA on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 01:35:23 AM EST
    view but in the cultural soup (which makes the laws over time) the court of public opinion DOES  count.  It was this way for civil rights and more recently LGBT rights. It was this way about the vietnam war. (and these issues were in my lifetime so I have personal experience with them).

    Maybe you only hear about cases that have been brought to the courts. I hear about rape that has never even been brought to a police report. These are two different things. Most female humans do not bring their rapes (or other violent acts against them) to some sort of court. They are not allowed to by 1) social restrictions and 2) procedural restrictions. This does not mean they were not actually never denied equal protections in 1) social/cultural 'court of public opinions' or 2) actual courts of the laws of the land.  Nor does it mean that these humans were treated fairly under either eyes. It is just a fact,  --IMO-- that certain humans in certain societies are not treated in a fair way and that the systems of those societies and their laws (which reflect their 'values') do not, in fact, reflect a true and equal, fair, pov. But I do 'believe' in evolution and the laws follow the evolution of social thinking/feeling (like in the case of african slavery culture in the US).

    J (none / 0) (#225)
    by ZtoA on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 02:03:16 AM EST
    I totally know about, personally, not wanting the state to murder a murderer. Mu uncle was a serial killer and he did kill his two daughters and tried to kill my aunt and he was caught (finally after killing who knows how many including his son) . He was in incarcerated and then locked away (which was good since he killed as a way of expressing his fantasy christisn 'views'). So I know about not killing-- my uncle, who as a kid I thought he was great - his daughters, who he murdered - their last words were "But we love  you daddy" - according to my aunt who survived and escaped) and being the human who was killed (my playmates and cousins who were decapitated).

    I am so not 'out' about this in my personal life, but here, on this legal forum, this is relevant. I would have loved it if you were the defense lawyer for my uncle (he was not murdered by the state - but I was only 10 so what did I know then?). But the other humans in the interaction, who are so dismissively called the 'victims' are also part of the interaction. They just lost. Does that loss mean they also lost all their rights??

    Facts be facts that the glaciers (none / 0) (#226)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 06:40:20 AM EST
    Are melting in many parts of the world, and if you can account for how that can happen, Jim the bragging Poker player, then perhaps you can falsify the AGW theory.

    But you don't understand how science works.  That's tha big fly in your ointment here.

    No charge for the education.