Monday Open Thread

I have a brief due today, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Israel Denies Hamas Captured Israeli Soldier | Feds Indict Fedex on Drug Conspiracy Charges >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    marijuana vs synthetics like K2 and Spice (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Lfrieling on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 07:07:17 AM EST
    Is synthetic marijuana really "synthetic marijuana?"

    While sharing a name, is synthetic marijuana really a lab-created chemical with a molecule, or chemical structure,  identical to grown marijuana?

    Grown marijuana,  cannabis sativa L (which is generally assumed to include or be is treated legally the same as cannabis indica), is a combination of approximately 80 to 105 different cannabinoids along with other plant material.  Much as endocannabinoids,  produced naturally by the body, these cannabinoids are also "accepted" by the body by our CB1 and CB2 receptors.  These receptors seem to perform no additional purpose and have been found in all parts of the body except for the brain stem.  It is theorized that since the brain stem is known to control the most basic bodily functions, such as breathing, and since there may be no CB1 and CB2 receptors in the brain stem, the lack of a deadly poisoning dose of marijuana may be explained.  Unlike opiates for example, marijuana cannot stop a person from breathing.

    The different effects of different strains of marijuana may  be the result of varying proportions of the varying cannabinoids.  Delta-9 THC tetrahydrocannabinol,  is the major psychoactive component of marijuana,.  Another cannabinoid, CDB, or cannabidiol is associated with recent successes in reducing or eliminating seizures in youngsters while avoiding the "high".  The specific strain of marijuana for youngsters medical needs contains a drastically reduced amount of delta-9 THC, avoiding the "high" of the other marijuana strains.  Such high CDB, low THC strains have been produced by cloning various strains of the marijuana plant.  Lab duplication of CBD alone has so far proved evasive.  Additionally, the role the many other natural cannabinoids may play in the  CBD seizure reduction success is not yet known.

    Synthetic marijuana is not the same thing as plant marijuana.  Variously called  Spice, K-2,  and other things, it is a at best a lab attempt to create a single cannabinoid resembling marijuana's natural psychoactive cannabinoid ,  delta-9 THC.  It is chemically different, although the molecule looks generally similar. At worst, it is an unknown chemical produced in uncontrolled labs and containing unknown additives of other potentially psychoactive components.  

    Several problems are presented by the synthetic.  First, it is not the same chemical as THC or as any other natural cannabinoid.  Moving  a single atom in a molecule can drastically change the chemistry, and its the properties of the  new chemical.  For Spice, the psychoactive effect is quite different, and apparently far more intense and potentially dangerous.  Additionally, what is marketed as one of the various these synthetics may have one or a vast assortment of chemicals added,  none of which are on the label, in an attempt duplicate marijuana, a complex organic substance.  Although chemically-molecularly resembling cannabinoids, the chemistry is NOT the same.  The attempts at duplication have been unsuccessful.  Not only do the ingredients vary, with no consistency in the various forms of the synthetics, the marketed products contain varying mixes of other unidentified chemicals.  The psychoactive effect varies in unpredictable ways.  Every time it is ingested, a new science experiment is being attempted, with unpredictable results,  and with the experimenter as the subject.  It is basic science that unless interested in a "Dr Jekyll- Mr Hyde" type of experiment, one does not experiment on themselves.    For all of the years of history of general safety and non-poisonous effects of marijuana, that is not the history of synthetic cannabis.  And why should it be expected to be similar?  Does synthetic sugar taste the same as cane sugar?  

    It is dangerous to confuse these two substances, one with a long history of use and experience, the other a lab creation of recent invention probably by John W. Huffman.  The drugs share part of a name.  Both are psychoactive.  The molecules appear generally similar.  The similarities end there.  The psychoactive effect of marijuana, although it varies, is generally similar.  That is Not true of the synthetics.  In addition to being of varying chemical structure, they are presented for sale in unknown combinations of generally unknown ingredients.  

    Regardless of ones opinion on whether the synthetics should be legal or not, we owe it to ourselves and to our friends and children to appreciate the difference,  and to not confuse Spice or K-2 or the flavor of the weak with the marijuana plant and its products.   They share almost nothing beyond  part of a name.  If my first name was Albert, that does not mean that my last name was Einstein, or that there is any other similarity beyond general organic construction?  Trust me; it is not hard to tell the difference.   My level of  functioning, as you might surmise, is different from that of Dr. Einstein's.  

    Do not let a similarity in naming for marketing purposes confuse anyone.  Do not use yourself as an experimental subject., risking unwanted, unexpected effects which may be associated with  taking the synthetics.  At least with marijuana, particularly with state oversight for purity, strength, and the like, there is a base-level of reasonable expectation of what is being consumed.


    Board Member Emeritus, Colorado NORML

    Here comes another debate (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 08:28:55 AM EST
    What is NORMLs biggest fear about the synthetics?

    NORML's fear about synthetics (none / 0) (#180)
    by Lfrieling on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 07:32:49 PM EST
    I can't speak for NORML, but I am guessing that possible confusion because of the similarity in names is a cause for concern.  Lenny

    I have tried nearly all the (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 08:45:36 AM EST
    Synthetics.  They work, after a fashion.  They don't last long and are simply no replacement for the real thing.

    I needed a professional opinion (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 09:22:51 AM EST
    I tried spice when it was legal here.  I don't know why.  Just curious, and how can I judge something without real knowledge of it.  I was impressed, but I have no stoned skills.  The last time I smoked real weed it was nothing like what is available now. I felt like I got hit  with a giant Valium cotton poof.  I am grateful the affects don't last long...and right there, that could be a plus.

    You know what I really want to know about Cannibis or synthetics?  Will they disrupt the formation of PTSD?

    Jeralyn had some postings a long time ago about opioids when ingested shortly after a very traumatic experience, disrupting the formation in the brain of the isolated PTSD loop that sufferers get to ride when they are somehow "triggered".


    averting PTSD (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Lfrieling on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 07:36:55 PM EST
    I gave this post a 5 because I believe it to be an important question.  While I have read of some substances, when taken, can minimize or avoid PTSD after a traumatic incident.  

    I don't know if this applies to marijuana, and would also love to know.  As much research a we have, which is a LOT, there is still more to learn.  Remember that we have at least 80-105 or more cannabinoids in the plant.  That means a huge number of combinations, all of which might vary in effect depending upon the various ratios of each.


    We have so many friends suffering (none / 0) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 08:27:45 AM EST
    From various degrees of PTSD after these past two wars.  I remember going into it, for those of us worried about PTSD developing, a bunch of what I will now call losers told us that will all the new SSRIs PTSD would be no big deal.

    They made these claims even though there was no real evidence that SSRIs treat PTSD.  And deep deep into this mess, which has become a daily hell for many young people, SSRIs are looking just about pathetic in PTSD treatment.

    The only real promising thing I ever saw on PTSD was disrupting its initial formation.


    MDMA Treatment (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 09:55:01 AM EST
    MDMA has been a very effective treatment for PTSD as well as treatment for other mental problems.

    I have read some about that too (none / 0) (#185)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 01:07:32 PM EST
    Not something available to the general population.  It is almost as if those who will really want to help themselves are going to have to take matters into their own hands.

    I watched a documentary about it.  It seemed in the documentary it worked well for a specific event. I think the most unfortunate thing about the vets coming out of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars is too many specific events. Years total of deployments. I can't even believe we allowed soldiers to experience more than one traumatic brain injury....survive more than one IED blast, but we did.

    I don't like practicing hyperbolic pessimism, I think that can become a habit.  I don't foresee a great future for the PTSD suffering vets from our recent wars.  Much of their PTSD is off the charts in severity when compared to the population of Vietnam vets because of the length and number of their tours.


    Works For Repeated Abuse (none / 0) (#186)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 01:16:54 PM EST
    Sarah lived in a basement for a few weeks when she was a child. But in a way, she lived there much of her life.

    Her father terrorized their family. He hit her, threw hot coffee at her, locked her in closets. Once, he held a gun to her sister's head. The winter Sarah was 11, she brought in the wrong wood for the fireplace, so her father locked her in the family's unfinished concrete basement. Her meals were brought to the top of the stairs. It was a freezing Christmas in Pennsylvania, more than 30 years ago.

    Basement for a few weeks but terrorized her whole childhood..


    Hey...here is an (none / 0) (#187)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 01:37:12 PM EST
    Article about a vet using it.

    USA Today


    F'ing Drug Companies and Cronies (none / 0) (#188)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 01:51:46 PM EST
    And the jury is still out on whether the potential therapeutic benefits of MDMA outweigh its associated health risks.

    That is hilarious considering the therapy is very short term, compared to years of taking pharmaceuticals.

    Let's see...  three or four MDMA trips at $.50 per dose, or taking
    several pills three times a day ($3./day to be generous, but probability more expensive) for 5 years..

    that is $1.50 of successful treatment, compared to $5,475 of not successful treatment...  

    If I were making $$$ off the PTSD crowd, I would bury MDMA as a dangerous drug, that can cause permanent brain damage by just looking at it.


    They make money off of them (none / 0) (#189)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 04:08:29 PM EST
    Until they suicide.  Either way, they make more money on them than if they were allowed to attempt to heal using MDMA

    Based solely on the way it makes me feel (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 09:28:15 AM EST
    I would believe it could help with such a thing.

    Many smoke after developing PTSD (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 09:37:04 AM EST
    In what often appears to me to be able to mute or buffer the horrible affects of that PTSD ride.  Sure would be wonderful if PTSD didn't get the chance to form.  At least for those who had really been through something traumatizing, to be given the option to try it once we got them someplace safe and stable.

    In the olden days it was common to hand someone a stiff drink after something terrible.  In my generation that became frowned on, distorting your reality, running from your feelings and such.  Now it looks like our ancestors may have understood something about trauma and how it develops into something lifelong crippling.


    HAIR GUY GETS A SPINOFF (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 01:54:56 PM EST
    HG who's name it turns out is Giorgio Is In Search of Aliens

    what else would he be?


    Watching an episode of (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 05:13:49 PM EST
    Ancient Aliens on Bigfoot.  Aparrently Bigfoot is an alien.    Or is at the very least, as Georgio just explained, the spawn of aliens and beautiful earth women.

    Must see tv right there


    Tsoukalos (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 06:06:24 PM EST
    or blowback as I like to call him and his ancient alien theorists.....

    my wife loves that show.


    It takes a special kind of chutzpah (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 07:02:52 PM EST
    To keep running the "world will end in 2012" shows in 2014.

    PTSD and pot (none / 0) (#179)
    by Lfrieling on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 07:31:39 PM EST
    What I think I know is that many who already suffer from PTSD are greatly aided by marijuana.  I have a cousin who went from in-patient violent to the fun sweetheart I remember him as being.  Of course that is anecdotal, and also dramatic and true.

    One of my concerns about synthetic is this.  While we have thousands of years of experience with pot (with at least 5000 years of documented medical uses) , and a proven safety record, we have little information about synthetics.  While the initial impressions of the "high" is of great interest to me, I am still concerned about the experimentation.  I too have experimented.  Generally, I don't recommend it, and sometimes it is really fun.  

    Most important is this:  synthetic marijuana is something different than cannabis, and we should not be confused by the similarity in the names.  Lenny


    Synthetic cannibis should only be used ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 11:47:33 AM EST
    ... while listening to a Pink Floyd tribute band.

    Now that's funny! (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 12:29:18 PM EST
    Never saw HofF, but I have seen (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 04:26:02 PM EST
    "Which One's Pink?" several times, and they are the bomb.

    Note perfect, they even have a bunch of kids on stage for "Another Brick in the Wall," a woman who's only there to solo "Great Gig in the Sky," a guy who does all the voice-over talking parts, etc., etc.

    Not the real thing of course, but if you are a Pink Floyd fan it is worthwhile!


    You should check out (none / 0) (#22)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 05:25:19 PM EST
    Australian Pink Floyd. They are eerily awesome!

    When done respectfully, ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 05:30:21 PM EST
    ... the work of tribute bands can serve to honor the original group's work without necessarily mimicking or exploiting it.

    I'm a huge Led Zeppelin fan and in my opinion, perhaps the very best LZ tribute band is Heart. Ann and Nancy Wilson, of course, are quite well known for their own rather extensive catalogue of original tunes, but being obvious fans of Led Zeppelin themselves, they and their bandmates incorporate a number of that band's songs into their own shows. They work diligently to maintain the integrity of LZ's music and the results can be rather astonishing, as this powerhouse cover of "Kashmir" attests.

    And when Kennedy Center honors were bestowed upon Led Zeppelin in 2012, Heart came onstage to close out the show with their cover of "Stairway to Heaven," an act of love and professional homage which clearly moved Page, Plant, et al., to tears. (The guy playing drums in both these clips is Jason Bonham, son of Led Zeppelin's legendary original drummer, the late Jon Bonham.)



    One of my favorite memories (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 06:33:32 PM EST
    Of my 70s backpack in Europe thing is a Zepplin concert at a roller rink in Amsterdam.  No seating.  The audience and the band was on the floor of this huge space.  How close you sat depended on when you arrived at the gate to wait to get in.  It was also free.  
    So my friend and I spent the entire day there doing whatever drugs came by.  Which was more than you would ever imagine.  So when they opened the doors we got seats about 5 feet from the band.  I was not in the first row of people sitting crosslegged on the floor I was in the second row.
    Anyway, as the night progressed Jon Bonhom was splashing me with sweat as he played the drums with his open hands.

    Missouri (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 10:02:36 AM EST
    President Obama expanded (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 02:35:28 PM EST
    an existing executive order that protects any employee of a federal contractor from discrimination by adding "sexual orientation and gender identify."   The president's modified executive order continues with the 2002 amendment of President George W. Bush that permits religious affiliated federal employees to prioritize hiring employees of their particular religion.  

     A sweeping religious exemption, as advocated by some religious organizations, was not included.  In signing the modified executive order, President Obama said: "American federal contractors should not subsidize discrimination against American people."

    So much bruhaha and (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 05:01:18 PM EST
    Speculation on the possibility of the exemption being included.  

    Oh.  It's not included.  Oh well.  What's next.


    True, and, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 07:08:14 PM EST
    the ACLU and several gay organizations may have over-reacted and mis-calculated in the withdrawal of their support from ENDA.  While I have the greatest respect for the ACLU and dislike supplanting my view with their generally solid legal and moral stance, I believe it is a progressive step to enact ENDA.  The Hobby Lobby decision was a bad decision but not a fatal blow or irretrievable bow to religious exemptions.  

    A Florida nurse who says her religion prevents her (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 04:16:40 PM EST
    Oh, for crying out loud! (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 06:26:16 PM EST
    Why would she even apply for a job there in the first place? What does she think the name "Tampa Family Health Center" implies? That would be like me applying for a job as a waiter at a Sizzler Steakhouse, but then publicly announcing that I'm an Orthodox Jew, and suing that establishment for violating my religious beliefs because management forced me to serve non-kosher meat to customers.

    I find it very hard to believe that this woman was ever serious about seeking a job at a federally qualified community health center. Rather, it's pretty apparent to me that she was likely motivated by other considerations, namely her ability to stir up controversy and cause trouble in the name of the Lord -- and by all rights, any court hearing her case ought to take that into account.

    It is incumbent upon you as a prospective employee to do some cursory research about a potential employer. If for whatever reason you take exception to some of their business practices, which would compromise your ability to do the job for which you'd otherwise be hired, then please do everyone a big favor -- yourself included -- and don't apply to work there. It's really that simple.



    Part of their agenda, Donald. (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 06:33:11 PM EST
    Well, were I advising ... (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 06:45:22 PM EST
    ... the family health center, I'd advocate that they file a countersuit against both the woman and her sponsors, because her sole intent all along was to cause them harm. They're violating OUR rights, and calling them to account for that should be OUR agenda.

    The case seems to be: (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 07:12:05 PM EST
    They won't give her a job she says she won't do.  

    I was trying to think of an apology (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 07:15:21 PM EST
    An allergic cat sitter?
    A bodyguard that can't swim?
    A one legged a$$ kicker?

    Um (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 07:15:54 PM EST
    ANALOGY that would be

    Typo correction makes (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 07:18:06 PM EST
    it more understanding.  Thanks.   And, lifeguard that can't swim, too.

    Wow. (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 07:22:46 PM EST
    Maybe I should do one thing at a time.



    Amazing (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 04:21:04 PM EST
    Let's hope it doesn't make it to the Supreme Court.  They, well the 5 catholic men, would probably agree with her.  

    That's what scares me - this getting to the SCOTUS (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 04:35:08 PM EST
    From our "Stating the Obvious" file: (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 07:09:34 PM EST
    You have to wonder sometimes about the quality of personnel presently writing for the Associated Press, when they come up with gems like the following sentence, from an otherwise sad story:

    "It's likely that Oppenneer died of some kind of head trauma, but that couldn't be determined without his head being found, police said."


    The British government has officially ... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 04:55:58 PM EST
    ... re-opened its inquiry into the assassination eight years ago of Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian dissident who apparently died of polonium-210 poisoning at the hands of Vladimir Putin's operatives while living in exile in London.

    As the Crown's appointed coroner Sir Robert Owen had concluded back then during a closed-door hearing, the evidence "[established] a prima facie case as to the culpability of the Russian state in the death of Alexander Litvinenko[.]" The deceased's widow Maria has since been pursuing a case in High Court to compel the government to formally open a public inquiry into her husband's death.

    It looks like the High Court finally agreed with her.

    Excellent (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 05:05:50 PM EST
    Hard to imagine what it's like to be the widow of someone everyone knows was murdered but no one is doing anything about.

    Flight 17 propaganda (none / 0) (#2)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 07:18:10 AM EST
    Turns out there's plenty of propaganda about Flight 17.

    On Russian media.

    So insane (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 09:22:40 AM EST
    Even large national and regional health care plans have been affected by the divergence in public health care funding schemes across America.

    Medical providers in states opting out of the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may soon experience increased financial trouble, even as the mostly Republican governors continue to spurn federal funding for people lacking health insurance.

    And speaking of synthetics, ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 12:01:59 PM EST
    ... it looks like Atlantic City is in decline again. But was it ever really back in the first place, after it decided 35 years ago to become an ersatz Las Vegas?

    Perpetual decline.. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:12:03 AM EST
    in Atlantic Sh*tty...no northeast monopoly no more, with casinos in PA, CT, and slots only joints in NY and real casinos forthcoming.  And AC was over-saturated with casinos as it was.

    Sh*t even the security budgets must be hurtin', Caesars AC just got held up for 180 grand.  I always thought casinos were harder to rob than banks...maybe an inside job.  A pre-emptive severance package before the layoffs, if you will.


    Happy birthday, Yusef Islam! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    The artist formerly known as Cat Stevens is 66 years old today. Maybe it's a coincidence, but given recent events, I've had this song running through my head all weekend.

    You know what (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 04:38:37 PM EST
    I listen to Cat Stevens a lot.  Afaiac the other guy can s@ck it.

    I'm very sad that this seems to be the No. 1 question people want to discuss. I had nothing to do with the issue other than what the media created. I was innocently drawn into the whole controversy. So, after many years, I'm glad at least now that I have been given the opportunity to explain to the public and fans my side of the story in my own words. At a lecture, back in 1989, I was asked a question about blasphemy according to Islamic Law, I simply repeated the legal view according to my limited knowledge of the Scriptural texts, based directly on historical commentaries of the Qur'an. The next day the newspaper headlines read, "Cat Says, Kill Rushdie." I was abhorred, but what could I do? I was a new Muslim. If you ask a Bible student to quote the legal punishment of a person who commits blasphemy in the Bible, he would be dishonest if he didn't mention Leviticus 24:16. [3]

    Although I can't argue with the logic he can still s@ck it.  And so could a Christian who quoted Leviticus.


    "Ooh, baby, baby it's a wild world." (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 05:48:56 PM EST
    "It's hard to get by, without some infidel blaspheming The Prophet Mohammed and having to slit his throat from ear to ear and then disembowel him."

    Given his experience over the years in dealing with the media, it was an incredibly obtuse and foolish of the former Cat Stevens to have allowed himself to be baited like that, and then rise to that bait. Regardless of the circumstances, what he said in reference to Salman Rushdie was both horrific and inexcusable. That he never bothered to either explain himself or apologize for it until over two decades ex post facto, only compounded the well-deserved damage to his formerly gentle reputation.

    Cat Stevens was an astonishing and gifted artist whose work helped to define the 1970s. As for his fundamentalist Muslim alter ego Yusef Islam, well, he can go phuque himself.



    I wasn't kidding (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 05:51:35 PM EST
    I have every CD.  Two copies of some sp they can live both in the car a the house.

    This afternoon (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 05:56:53 PM EST
    I have been watching DVRed episodes of Vicious.  I am becoming a fan.  I especially love the dog.  Not sure the dog was on the first show.  
    It's just a lump covered by a blanket that never moves and they occasionally poke with a broom to make sure it's still alive.
    "Make sure you turn him over on the side that still has fur"

    I just can't get into that show. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 06:37:27 PM EST
    I tried watching again, as I promised. But "Vicious" just rubs me the wrong way. I've concluded that Ian McKellan and Derek Jacobi both remind me of a former boss, a nasty and sniping old queen who I came to despise. That guy couldn't say something nice if his life depended on it, and the show simply brings back not so fond memories.

    I understand (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 06:49:56 PM EST
    I can't say I would choose to spend a lot of time with them.  

    I haven't watched the show... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 07:57:12 AM EST
    ... but it sounds like I might enjoy it.  I loved Fawlty Towers and Black Adder, both of which portrayed deeply unpleasant people.  It is television and I refuse to take any of it seriously.

    I thought the most recent episode had some great (none / 0) (#91)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 12:18:49 PM EST
    moments. "Oh look, there are people here older than us." "That's a mirror". Funny on multiple levels!

    I can see where in the hands of other actors it would be really bad, but these guys are obviously the best of the best.

    I especially like watching it jsut an hour and a half after I watch 'Last Tango in Halifax' - where Jacobi plays the most lovable average intelligent old Yorkshire grandfather ever -not particularly sharp toungued, but wise. The contrast shows his amazing range.


    I honestly did not realize that was ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 02:01:13 PM EST
    ... Derek Jacobi in Last Tango in Halifax, until I finally paid attention to the credits. He really is an amazing actor with an incredibly diverse range who's equally at home in either drama or comedy, and he just inhabits whatever character he's playing. Halifax's wisened elderly father / grandfather and that raging old queen in Vicious! could not be any more different from each other, and yet he pulls off both so effortlessly.

    It really is amazing to watch (none / 0) (#116)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 04:20:53 PM EST
    I know other great actors pull off the same feat regularly, but this one just happens to be on two current shows I watch on Sunday nights.

    Speaking of PBS on Sunday night, (none / 0) (#128)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 05:03:03 PM EST
    why was Morse shown in a prison cell in the final scene? Why did internal affairs haul him off while Thursday was being put in the ambulance? It sounded like Internal Affairs was investigating him for the murder of a police inspector, but I do not recall anything in Sunday's episode about the death of an inspector.

    Help me, please.


    The guy that shot Friday, and then Morse shot, (none / 0) (#135)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 07:52:02 PM EST
    was Inspector Deare, right? At least that is what I thought was going on! I will have to watch again to remember. It was a setup of some type.

    Delete that (none / 0) (#136)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:01:53 PM EST
    I forgot...did you see the scene when Deare was talking, right be fore the girl shot him, they showed someone strangling someone with Morse's scarf?

    I'm not clear on who exactly it was - one of the coppers involved in he plot I guess - tying up loose ends.


    Constable Standish (none / 0) (#137)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:04:52 PM EST
    I remember him from at some point in the episode....that was one of those episodes with way too many characters!

    Okay, thanks. Standish was one of the (none / 0) (#146)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 12:34:50 AM EST
    police guys playing golf with Landesman when Morse came onto the golf course to ask Landesman some questions.

    So, who did kill Standish? Was it Deare? I remember that Morse forgot his scarf in Deare's car.


    Thanks! (none / 0) (#149)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 06:07:39 AM EST
    Maybe it was Deare himself. Or else he gave the scarf to a henchman. Either way we know Morse gets out of jail :-).... Unless the whole Inspector Morse series was in the Twilight Zone.

    It was all a dream. :-) (none / 0) (#155)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 11:55:07 AM EST
    Wouldn't that be a shocker. And would that mean Inspector Lewis and Hathaway were just characters in our collective PBS dream-scape?

    Maybe Lewis wakes up next to Suzanne Pleshette! (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 04:22:27 PM EST
    Or Hathaway is in the shower when the door (none / 0) (#169)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 05:02:13 PM EST
    is pulled open by Victoria Principal.

    Range (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 02:06:36 PM EST

    And his Claudius was one of the better PBS things ever.


    And it would be unfair to talk about (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 02:09:39 PM EST
    "Range" without mentioning his goofy nelly pompous boyfriend was the Gandalf and a super villain  in not one bit two major current movie franchises.

    Yes, wonderful too (none / 0) (#138)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:13:06 PM EST
    Did I mention he is from Burnley England where my great grandparents were from? I'm sure we are related. :-)

    I recently saw (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:20:20 PM EST
    The Apt Pupil which is a Brian Singer movie based on a S. King story about a teenager who discovers a former Nazi (McKellen) is his neighbor and proceeds to get very twisted.

    Great movie with Elias Koteas in a great part as a murdered transient.


    But (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 04:48:48 PM EST
    If we are wishing Steven Georgiou 1948-1977 a happy birthday.  I'm down for that.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 05:53:52 PM EST
    I love Cat Stevens' music, but Yusef Islam still needs to apologize personally to Salman Rushdie.

    For me (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 06:22:38 PM EST
    It gies beyond apologies.  What he said, he meant.  Clearly it was a rare public moment of candor.  He has, pretty effectively I must say, spinning and back peddling for years but he said what he said.  And it's clear from later statements that he actually said exactly what he meant.

    The IMO in a phucked up way of thinking.   I was reading about his conversion today.  In truth he was a Moonie waiting to happen.  Takes nothing from his musical gift.  Many gifted people are messed up.


    New converts are usually zealots. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 08:56:27 PM EST
    Is he still perfoming?  He was in 2008.  Still has his chops, too.

    Father and Son - 2007.


    When he performs (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:56:12 AM EST
    The old stuff now he changes some lyrics.  Which bugs me.

    My motto is... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 11:07:41 AM EST
    ya gotta separate the artist from the art...lots of the best art humankind has ever produced was produced by arseholes. The art stands on it's own.

    Somewhat related, I've been catching alotta slamming of John Lennon amongst young social justice bloggers.  Calling him a racist and a mysoginist and all this sh*t.  Saying they hate The Beatles and his other music because of it.  Crazy talk! I consider John a great friend to human rights and social justice fwiw, but regardless of the person he was, his art is nothing less than stupendous and is separate from the man.

    As for Yusuf Islam, I think he's a good dude who got snookered by religion...happens to some of the best of them.  Watching his induction speech to the Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame I'll tell ya this...he's way cooler than fellow inductee Gene Simmons.  Now there's an arsehole of the month for ya!


    Last I saw though, ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 12:12:51 PM EST
    ... Gene Simmons never publicly approved of a death sentence proclaimed by an ayatollah upon a writer because he didn't like what he wrote.

    I can separate the music of Cat Stevens from the intolerant religion of Yusef Islam. I like the former a lot, but seriously detest the latter. He can try to walk back his initial approval of the late Ayatollah Khoumeini's fatwah upon Salman Rushdie all he wants now, but the fact remains that he allowed that approval to publicly stay in place for the better part of twenty years without saying anything otherwise. And that WASN'T way cool.



    "Intolerant religion"... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 12:18:28 PM EST
    isn't that redundant?  Though some are more intolerant than others.

    And if forced to chose between hanging out with Yusuf or hanging with Gene, I'm hanging with Yusuf warts and all...that Simmons guy seems insufferable company.  He's no Ace Frehley or Peter Chris!


    I've often quoted my late grandmother, ... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 04:21:16 PM EST
    ... who was a devout Catholic, and who used to say that people who would wear their religions on their sleeves do so because there's no room for faith in their hearts. In other words, religion ceases to be faith-based when it is misused for temporal purposes and / or personal gain.

    Those are the very people about whom Susan B. Anthony rightly warned us, when she acknowledged, "I distrust those who know so well what God wants them to do, because I've noticed how it always coincides with their own desires." They are the ones who specifically deserve our rebuke and censure. And suffice to say, not all faith-based people are necessarily willing to smite the heathen, or otherwise wield their religion as a weapon against others for whatever reason.

    Would you characterize the Quakers as intolerant? How about Father Damien, Mohandes Gandhi or Siddhartha Gautama (aka The Buddha)? Further, why would you somehow think that you're not actually being intolerant yourself, when you dismiss all religions as merely nothing more than various degrees of intolerance?

    You have the right to believe or not believe as you see fit personally, and our U.S. Constitution compels each of us to respect that right and not seek its abridgement, regardless of whatever may be our motive or purpose. Please incorporate that thought into your own daily routine and practices, and please don't be so flippant about religion, lest you wish to reveal yourself as equally narrow-minded and dismissive of any or all people who choose to put their faith into practice.

    Finally, who would ever force you to hang out with either Yusef Islam or Gene Simmons? That's a "straw man" argument if ever there was one. Why can't you instead choose "None of the Above," while simultaneously wishing neither man any ill?

    I don't believe that life can or should be reduced to a series of two-dimensional "either / or" propositions. In most instances, such self-imposed limitations can only steer us toward false choices, which in turn will serve to deny us potential opportunities for personal enlightenment and growth.

    There's most always a third way or middle path to our ultimate destination, if only we would undertake an effort to find it. In that regard, perhaps we should instead concern ourselves with what is right, rather than argue over who is right.



    Gene Simmons is a musical hack (none / 0) (#178)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 11:26:34 AM EST
    who never became embroiled in any political/religious controversies, and Cat Stevens was a gifted singer/songwriter who made some stupid public statements.

    In the cosmic scheme of things, it almost balances out.


    obamacare rumor, I hope (none / 0) (#28)
    by the capstan on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 06:08:55 PM EST
    Obama Care Highlighted by Page Number THE CARE BILL HB 3200 JUDGE
    BILL.   Judge KITHIL of Marble Falls , TX - highlighted the most
    egregious pages of HB3200 Please read this....... especially the
    reference to pages 58 & 59    JUDGE KITHIL wrote:  * Page 50/section
    152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if
    they are here illegally.
    Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an
    individual's bank account and will have the authority to make
    electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
    * Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government)
    for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations
    (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -
    Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be
    treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with
    * Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of
    specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.
    This is what they do in Sweden too. I know because Alf's daughter Ann
    is an OBGYN, and her husband, Thorsten, is a surgeon.........
    Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according
    to the patient's age.
    * Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on
    hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
    Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning
    consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an
    "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)
    ** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can
    write an end-of-life order.

    HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:  "Finally, it is
    specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of

    It's (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 06:16:47 PM EST
    lol; my rule of thumb re posts (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 08:57:48 PM EST
    is to ignore the shouty bits.  works like a charm.

    HB 3200 (none / 0) (#30)
    by the capstan on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 06:18:49 PM EST
    Sent without adding that you can find this in 2 separate Snopes entries.  Seems like I have old 'friends' who delight in creating mischief.  The part about the judge goes back to 2009, I think.  Be ready for the 'worst election e'vah.'

    Agree about the election (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 06:25:53 PM EST
    Not so much this year as 2016.  It is going to be legendary.  We have arrived at the Heart of Darkness.  After the Obama years nothing is out of bounds.

    Aliens (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 07:19:46 PM EST
    are damned

    "Life did not evolve but was specially created by God, as Genesis clearly teaches. Christians certainly shouldn't expect alien life to be cropping up across the universe," he continued. "Now the Bible doesn't say whether there is or is not animal or plant life in outer space. I certainly suspect not."

    But regardless of whether there was life in outer space, Ham asserted that it could not be truly "intelligent."

    "You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam's sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam's sin, but because they are not Adam's descendants, they can't have salvation," he explained. "Jesus did not become the `GodKlingon' or the `GodMartian'! Only descendants of Adam can be saved. God's Son remains the `Godman' as our Savior."

    Excellent.  Maybe I will finally get to meet one.

    I love considering what will happen to people like (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 07:31:37 PM EST
    Ham when and if it is proved that, as many suspect, life evolved on Mars before Earth.  
    Eden would no longer be in Missouri.

    OT: I no longer must login every time ai open (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 07:53:14 PM EST
    TL on my mini iPad. How about you?

    Never have to login on my MBP (none / 0) (#49)
    by fishcamp on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 08:18:51 PM EST
    but about half the time I do have to login on my iMac.  Strange.

    I do (none / 0) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 04:56:06 PM EST
    Just did.



    But now I have tvo on my phone. (none / 0) (#173)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 06:37:06 PM EST
    Can't win. A conspiracy.  

    lol. Your next film: (none / 0) (#56)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:09:52 AM EST
    Mars Needs Preachermen!

    America going from Emerson and Thoreau (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:13:33 AM EST
    to taking seriously people like Ham is Like Germany going from Goethe, Schiller, Mozart and Bach to voting in the National Socialist Party.

    The choice isn't between a Marvel Comics theology and a "secularist" no theology at all.


    Leave Marvel outta this (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:17:30 AM EST
    O.k, the WWF (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:24:10 AM EST
    with Satan as the Evil Wrestler and the 'roid engorged, free market, Aryan Jesus as the Good Wrestler.

    I've seen more than a few photos (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:23:36 AM EST
    of German Church prelates offering vigorous straight arm nazi salutes.  The man may have been evil but he was no fool.  He cultivated support wherever he could.

    Game Change (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:47:54 AM EST
    Somehow I never got around to seeing this.  Watching it now.   It really is great.

    That was excellent (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:59:02 AM EST
    If you have not seen it, and you probably have, you should.

    Federal appeals court panel deals major blow (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:52:11 AM EST
    to health law

    A federal appeals court panel in the District struck down a major part of the 2010 health-care law Tuesday, ruling that the tax subsidies that are central to the program may not be provided in at least half of the states.

    The ruling, if upheld, could potentially be more damaging to the law than last month's Supreme Court decision on contraceptives. The three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with plaintiffs who argued that the language of the law barred the government from giving subsidies to people in states that chose not to set up their own insurance marketplaces. Twenty-seven states, most with Republican leaders who oppose the law, decided against setting up marketplaces, and another nine states partially opted out.

    For some context (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:09:09 AM EST
    I haven't seen any reporting this DCA (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 11:53:16 AM EST
    majority opinion as a plus for the Obama administration and/or health care consumers. Why attack the messenger?

    What you call attacking the messenger (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 12:09:09 PM EST
    I call putting the story, and how it was written, in the context of her other stories.

    But then you think mentioning TV is "provocative"


    I do? (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 12:20:50 PM EST
    Can't find the comment right now (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 12:30:36 PM EST
    But yes, you do.

    I do find extensive threads re TV (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 12:45:32 PM EST
    stuff irrelevant to my purposes in participating at TL. But it is a free world, relatively speaking. Carry on.

    Oh, so now the court's decision is a (none / 0) (#98)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 12:46:13 PM EST
    "story?"  What, like a once-upon-a-time kind of story?

    A quick look at Google returns your choice of outlets and reporters if you're looking for a more acceptable messenger.

    Come on - the ruling is the ruling, regardless of who reports it.  The spin may vary from outlet to outlet, but not the decision.

    Here's Ed Kilgore at Washington Monthly:

    It's not the kind of definitive decision that should justify conservative gabbers dancing with joy at the prospect of denying millions of people of health insurance, while panicking many progressives. But no, it's not a good thing that a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a lower-court decision against a suit to invalidate tax subsidies for insurance bought on federally-created exchanges according to a reading of the Affordable Care Act that ignores congressional intent.

    Sticking to a mindless reading of the statutory language (one of those flaws that could have been fixed had not Scott Brown won a 2010 special election and narrowed the path to final enactment of ACA), two of the three judges on the panel argued that the explicit authorization of purchasing subsidies for policies bought on state exchanges excluded any other unenumerated subsidies, even though it reduces the whole structure of ACA to an absurdity (as the dissenting judge forcefully argued).

    The administration, however, will appeal the decision to the full DC Circuit, where the composition of the bench is more balanced. And even if the full Circuit agrees with the three-judge panel, the case will wind up at SCOTUS, since a Virginia suit with identical intent has already been dismissed.

    The Supremes upheld ACA once, albeit while striking a damaging blow by making the Medicaid expansion a state option. Will they do so again? Expect a lot of talk about that in the coming months.

    I watched some of the Washington Journalists (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:40:53 PM EST
    from PBS discussing this decision on TV over the week end.

    I thought they made a pretty good point when they said that, politically, this decision is more onerous, and, dreadful than others made. What they meant was that other anti ACA decisions were made "before" those parts of entire bill were passed. In this case, millions of very poor people are receiving subsidies today, and, getting, at least, some health care benefits for the first time in their lives.

    If this ruling stands you can just imagine the optics of so many truly poor people, with children, being "thrown off" the program (which they enjoyed for such a short time) and, into the cold, mean, reality of the indigent, uninsured.


    Well.. (1.50 / 2) (#63)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:20:57 AM EST
    as usual what she's intimating is how much better a presidential choice Elder Romney would've been.

    Context is almost always (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:23:55 AM EST

    Wow (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:59:39 AM EST
    Are you a fiction writer by profession because you sure do make a lot of crap up around here?

    As usual, you take a factual piece and write what the voices in your head tell you.

    Might want to get some help for that.

    2012 is over - time to move on.


    It was fun to wonder who was more (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 11:07:19 AM EST
    Excited by that headline, you or the reporter.

    Here you go (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 11:18:10 AM EST
    The Obama Cheerleading Network you love so much.

    In a potentially lethal blow to Obamacare, a federal appeals court has ruled that the federal government may not subsidize health insurance plans for people in 36 states that decided not to set up their own marketplaces under the law.

    OH NO (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 11:25:11 AM EST
    Is there

    endless wringing of hands and gnashing if teeth about HOW TERRIBLE IT WOULD BE IF IT HAPPENED.

    (Comment #64)

    No one could have predicted that!


    Let's see... 3 Courts to 1 (none / 0) (#94)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 12:27:06 PM EST
    Move over Halbig because: Approximately 2 hrs after the DC divided court decision that would deprive 4!/2 million Americans of financial assistance for medical insurance, the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit unanimously upheld the subsidies aspect of the ACA as "essential" to carrying out the Act and intention of Congress therein.  (Per quick DailyKos report, that would make the decisions rendered thus far as 3 to 1 supporting the subsidies.)

    Of course, particularly glaring with the DC Circuit's decision is the political persuasion of the decision-makers ... 2 Repubs and 1 Dem appointed.  Since the WH has announced that it will seek an en banc hearing, the for the ACA provision in that regard looks much more promising with a Dem majority (thanks to the brokered agreement pushed and won by Majority Leader Reid last winter to allow the filling of, I recall, 3 seats at the DC level.)  As an aside: It certainly underscores the significance of the Presidential elections and the filling of judicial seats.

    So, things move along through the political and legal paces still.  Yet--as highlighted in the press in the past few days, the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine writes that the ACA has accounted for 20 million insured under its provisions by its calculations.  A second obvious aside:  As the months pass and the number of insured in the US grows, it is highly unlikely that any perceived diminishment or reduction of ACA benefits will happen and/or be tolerated by the American public.


    Agreed. The political (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 03:11:51 PM EST
    process, if not the legal one, will intervene so as to enable a core intent of the Affordable Care Act--to provide health care/insurance protection, where needed and when eligible, with premium support or through Medicaid expansion.  

    The electorate's pressure will swell in those states that have neither expanded Medicaid nor set up state exchanges to their vast disadvantage in comparison with fully participating states.  The Affordable Care Act is gaining popularity over time; denial of premium support to some Americans based on national or state exchanges is politically untenable.


    It will become another third rail... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 08:09:33 AM EST
    I don't know why conservatives are so giddy about this.  It's going to pi$$ off a bunch of people.

    At the rate they're alienating people, pretty soon it will be the republican party that's so small it can be drowned in Groover Nitwit's proverbial bathtub.


    All depends on how the Media (none / 0) (#154)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 09:33:31 AM EST
    portrays it. And/or how the inept, "shoot for mediocrity, Democrats exploit their blunder.

    Personally, I'm not bubbling over with enthusiasm.


    A bunch of people in red states (none / 0) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 11:56:43 AM EST
    Like mine.  I have an Obama hating relative who's healthcare cost went from 700 a month to 70 a month.

    No doubt this will be appealed, but what (none / 0) (#55)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:09:21 AM EST
    does it mean in the interim?

    We know that the denial of federal subsidies was meant to encourage states to create their own exchanges - at least I think that was the idea.  What I don't understand is why it wasn't obvious which states were going to refuse to create exchanges - mainly states with Republican governors/legislatures - and why someone didn't consider what that would mean for the thousands of people buying directly from the federal exchange.  I mean, if you're going to create a consequence, shouldn't you consider the consequences of the consequence?

    And who here thinks there's a snowball's chance in hell that Congress can fix it so federal subsidies apply even if states opted out of creating their own exchanges?  Yeah - me, neither.

    One more: who here thinks this Supreme Court - where this is no doubt going to land - ends up allowing the subsidies to continue for people in the affected states?  

    And what if they don't?  What happens then?  How does the ACA work if millions of people are once again in a position of not being able to afford insurance?


    This is what happens (2.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Slado on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 11:02:04 AM EST
    When you right Partisan laws poorly.

    Too much was jammed into this too quickly with no input from the other side and this is yet another consequence.

    For those of us that thought this was a bad idea from the start this is just more evidence of it.

    This law has so many loopholes, band aids and gum stuck in it that it is easily challenged in the courts.

    Throw on top how poor the execution has been on many levels and the many, many exemptions and rewrites the administration has had to do on it's on just to make it functional and we really shouldn't be surprised by this ruling.

    Roberts had to bend over backwards to not strike it down the first time not sure if he'll be will to do it twice.

    A lot has happened since then and the administration isn't as politically strong as it was when the first ruling occurred.  

    We shall see.

    The only blame for this by the way should be laid at the feet of this administration, Pelosi and Reid.   Not being able to resolve this issue with any bipartisan consensus is why we are where we are.

    They controlled government when this law passed and the goal wasn't to do something good but instead to just get it passed.

    This is the result.


    I'm sorry (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 11:16:14 AM EST

    The only blame for this by the way should be laid at the feet of this administration, Pelosi and Reid.   Not being able to resolve this issue with any bipartisan consensus is why we are where we are.

    Is a remarkable statement.  You are aware that the night of his election a cooperate with nothing strategy was formed that is in play till today?  
    Where the phuck exactly were they supposed to find it?


    "When you right (sic) (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 04:26:01 PM EST
    Partisan laws poorly."  And, when laws written for the poor are decided by righty  partisans, laws may be interpreted wrongly.  When a decision is made by two Republican judges (and a strong dissent by a Democratic judge) that tax credits available as a form of subsidy to individuals who purchase insurance through American Health Benefit Exchanges established only by the  States, in keeping with an explicit Section, but not broadly in the explicit context of the entire Act, it smacks of ideology, not good law.  

    By including tax credit subsidies cloaked by the entirety of the Act, the IRS does not seem to be engaging in an impermissible use of discretion.  It certainly is not, in my view, arbitrary or capricious--as the two Republican-appointed judges found.  As for Roberts, it was better for him to "bend over backwards" than to cause so many Americans to bend over.  But, yes, we will see.


    AND WHAT IF (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:13:50 AM EST
    Jupiter careens out if it's orbit and smashes into earth????

    I'm surprised you could type with (none / 0) (#68)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:34:20 AM EST
    your eyes closed and your hands over your ears...toes?

    The federal subsidy is a major component of making the ACA work; without it, insurance becomes unaffordable for many of the newly-insured.  By extension, and because of the rest of the ACA mandates, insurance is likely to get more expensive for everyone - even people who would still qualify for subsidies.

    Maybe all legislation is like a game of Jenga, with the integrity of the structure dependent on it being able to stand even when pieces and parts are pulled out of it - but I'm not sure the ACA can withstand having such a major piece pulled out of it.

    I mean, you do realize that's why the various parts of it are being challenged, right?  Because those bringing these challenges want it to fail.

    I just don't think we can rely on the courts - especially the Supreme Court - to rescue the ACA from this ruling.


    WRT the Supremes... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 12:35:28 AM EST
    ...Roberts has already shown he'll perform whatever acrobatics are necessary to keep the insurance companies from losing all those new rent sources, I mean policy holders.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 11:02:26 AM EST
    For being the one person here asking intelligent questions regarding this rather than acting like a child.

    I dunno - I guess people who think this could spell trouble are all silly people who supported Mitt Romney I guess - people like Laurence Tribe.  But then, what does he know, right?


    Let me be clear (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 11:05:28 AM EST
    whatever does or does not happen as a result of this court case.  They will not take healthcare away from millions of people who have had it for a couple of years.  

    When THAT happens let me know.


    You're right (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 11:15:08 AM EST
    Maybe nothing will happen. It's always possible. And for now, nothing will happen.

    But then again, this is also possible (as there are other similar cases working through the court system now, so yes, the Supreme Court will likely hear this case).

    Experts estimate that the ruling, if upheld, could block roughly $36 billion in subsidies for roughly 5 million people and produce massive upheaval in the federally run exchanges.

    Some have speculated that consumers might even have to pay back the subsidies they already received from the government, an outcome that would be disastrous for the Obama administration.

    Or there's this analysis:

    In Obamacare's first year, 36 states defaulted to Healthcare.gov, the federally-coordinated exchange. An estimated 87 percent of individuals who enrolled through the website are receiving subsidies -- the precise subsidies that this court case calls into question.

    (Note: Though initially intending to set up state exchanges, Idaho and New Mexico defaulted to Healthcare.gov bringing the total number of federally-facilitated and partnership marketplaces to 36, not 34.)

    The success of the Affordable Care Act hinges crucially on the subsidies. The primary purpose of the law was to extend affordable health coverage to millions of Americans; the two main ways the law achieves this  is through the Medicaid expansion and through subsidized coverage on the insurance exchanges.

    Without subsidies, private insurance become unaffordable for many people who have already enrolled. The judicial process is still playing out, but according to recent analysis from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, this decision could affect over 7.3 million people expected to receive federal subsidies in 2016.

    So, you're right - it's no big deal. But of course, you as always know better than legal experts.


    Poor thing (1.00 / 3) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 11:17:46 AM EST
    Misses death panels I think

    We know that premium subsidies will not (none / 0) (#84)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 11:34:22 AM EST
    stop at this point - there is more litigation to come, and nothing will change during the appeals process.

    And maybe when it gets to the Supreme Court, the justices will consider the ramifications of rendering millions of people ineligible for subsidies and decide not to rescind eligibility.

    But there is no question that the federal subsidy is the key component of the ACA.  And given the possible consequences if the subsidy fails for those in states that opted out of state exchanges, there may be more pressure on those states to create exchanges  - but we've all seen how Republicans can maintain a position even if it - or maybe because it? - screws the less affluent residents of their states.

    I don't know what will happen - I just know that this development is not a good one.

    I don't know that insurance will be taken away from people, as much as they will get these little notices from their insurance companies that say things like, "We have no record of receiving payment for the current coverage period; if this payment is not received within 15 days, your policy will be canceled."

    And I don't see the insurance companies setting premiums for these people as if they were getting a subsidy, do you?

    I don't see how the fed will be able to subsidize premiums if the courts say they are prohibited from doing so - and I don't see the Congress passing a legislative fix that makes it all better.

    The DC Circuit's en banc (full judge) panel may indeed reinstate what the District Court just took away - with some reluctance, apparently; if it does, there's no way the issue doesn't go on to the Supreme Court - and I don't see the Court refusing to hear it.


    In following the links in that (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 11:47:24 AM EST
    Linked piece.  I ended up at Forbes.  So, I guess not everyone agrees with what the ultimate effect would be -

    Avalere Health's Elizabeth Carpenter blogs, "nearly 5 million Americans would receive an average premium increase of 76 percent if the courts ultimately rule that consumers in the federal exchange cannot receive premium subsidies." In another brief post, Linda Blumberg, John Holahan, and Matthew Buettgens of the Urban Institute estimate "7.3 million people, or about 62 percent of the 11.8 million people expected to enroll in federally facilitated marketplaces by 2016, could lose out on $36.1 billion in subsidies." These brief analyses are either misleading or outright false, because they fail to note three crucial facts.

    First, a victory for the Halbig plaintiffs would not increase anyone's premiums. What it would do is prevent the IRS from shifting the burden of those premiums from enrollees to taxpayers. Premiums for federal-Exchange enrollees would not rise, but those enrollees would face the full cost of their "ObamaCare" plans.

    So.  I accept the possibility that this could make premiums go up.  I do not think that will happen but I accept the possibility.  If my premiums increased 75% - and again, IMO this ain't gonna happen - but IF it did I would still have a helluva deal on healthcare.  So bring it.


    This is completely misleading (none / 0) (#184)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 12:43:47 PM EST
    First, a victory for the Halbig plaintiffs would not increase anyone's premiums. What it would do is prevent the IRS from shifting the burden of those premiums from enrollees to taxpayers. Premiums for federal-Exchange enrollees would not rise, but those enrollees would face the full cost of their "ObamaCare" plans.

    Strangely, what this "analysis" leaves out is that if this ruling stands then a) yes, those federal-exchange enrollees would face the full cost of their O-care exchange plans (in many cases, hundreds of dollars a month), but then b) many of them will also face increases as we go into the 2015 plan year (and every year after that).

    So bring it.

    Because it's all about you, right?


    Not sure I'm seeing the downside... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:14:41 AM EST
    ... less effective health care means right wingers will die off at a higher rate.

    I know they're selling this to their base as something that affects only other people, but that's not true.  Like John Donne said,

    Send not to knowe for whom the health care sucks;
    It sucks for thee.

    Clearly there would be a downside (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:16:19 AM EST
    IF it happens.  My state has no exchange.  It won't happen.

    This will be exactly like (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    The "exemption" scare mentioned in Dans comment above.

    A sweeping religious exemption, as advocated by some religious organizations, was not included.

    There will be endless wringing of hands and gnashing if teeth about HOW TERRIBLE IT WOULD BE IF IT HAPPENED.  
    And the it won't happen and it will slip into the void with death panels etc.  and it will never be mentioned again.


    In the interim (none / 0) (#107)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 02:24:55 PM EST
    It appears that subsidies continue.  

    Should there ever be a resolution on the subsidies issues totally unfavorable to the government (as was the DC Circuit's 3-judge panel). there is the strong possibility/probability of a workaround administratively whereby HHS accept a state's request to "deem" the federal exchange as its state exchange.  Via Secretary Burwell's administrative action, this approach--in one form or another--would seem to pass all forms of legal muster.  And, as for practical muster and musts: Again, as the months pass and more are insured and comfortable with the ACA (including its subsidies), the pressure on states to make such paper request will quickly mount.

    As this type of legal challenge wends its way, it is helpful to keep in mind the make-up of the current Courts of Appeal for the 4th and DC Circuits.  Unlike the DC 3-judge panel, the en banc situation for both appellate courts is decidedly Democratic in composition.  That may make a difference :)  If the result at en banc level is then positive for the government, there would be no split in the Circuits on the particular matter ... a circumstance that would make it much harder for the SC to intervene without very negative overreach.


    Charlie Pierce nails it - as usual: (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 03:35:36 PM EST
    Let us spend a few minutes in the real world, shall we? Millions of our fellow citizens have spent the last several months with a great weight lifted from their shoulders. Every ache and sudden twinge no longer felt like it could be the first step toward personal ruin. They have been able to look at their sleeping children without a familiar knot in their guts. They have been able to pursue happiness, like all of us have a right to do so, without feeling like they're running in leg shackles. All of these people have been tossed into uncertainty -- again -- because their government has been rendered dysfunctional by a political philosophy of nihilistic vandalism, which is being judged now by a judiciary fully politicized through a long game that has extended over decades. When Senator Professor Warren talks about the system being rigged, this is what she's talking about. Not the garish example of what goes on in the tax code, or in the regulation of the financial sector, but the way that people have been convinced that self-government doesn't work for them in their every day lives.

    Simply put, there is almost an entire half of our political system that believes that a great number of Americans simply do not matter enough to make it economically feasible to help them stay healthy. They do not count. It does not matter how many of them die preventable deaths. It is better for the country, this half of the political system believes, that they grow sick and bankrupt themselves. In his famous outburst on the House floor, Alan Grayson was low-balling it. This half of the system includes prospective presidents, members of Congress, think-tank geniuses, pundits, and a lot of other people who generally have one thing in common -- most of them have wonderful health care coverage either because they have really good jobs, or they're wealthy enough to afford it, or both. These are the health care chickenhawks. And we held them to a split decision today, and maybe that's enough for the moment.



    So on point ... like the statement ... lots (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 05:01:31 PM EST
    I think that the populist sentiment in our country today is taking hold in a kind of way that has not happened for some generations.  Or, so I hope.  The overwhelming $$$ in the mix, though, can blur the focus ... since what is engineered by $$$ and what is genuinely people-based, community-based can be hard to sort.  As for the ACA:  The passage of time and our growing experience with this healthcare system will weave the Act into the fabric of American life.  After all the political "repeal" chants of recent years, the down-to-earth situation has been rapidly shifting ... with the result that any noticed attempt to take away ACA guarantees/provisions would be met with genuine & focused populist backlash.  

    Thanks, Anne, for that link. (none / 0) (#121)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 04:32:06 PM EST
    I've really come to enjoy reading Charlie Pierce's analyses. He simply refuses to be spun like a cheap top.

    Today (Tuesday) GA Senate GOP Runoff (none / 0) (#69)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:52:38 AM EST
    Not much distance between Perdue and Kingston, although a couple of the tea party candidates from the primary are backing Kingston, and Kingston has a slight edge in the current polls (Perdue led in the primary)

    The Perdue campaign, still none too bright, has made 3 more phone calls to my South Florida phone asking me to vote for him.

    According to what I saw yesterday (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:54:55 AM EST
    Perdue runs better against Nunn.  Not by much.  Both are behind but better that Kingston.

    Fun if you care about the outcome (none / 0) (#133)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 07:32:40 PM EST
    With about 20% of the precincts reporting Kingston leads by 11 votes.

    With approx 30% reporting (none / 0) (#134)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 07:47:13 PM EST
    Kingston 118,606
    Perdue   118,523

    About 60% reporting (none / 0) (#140)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:24:17 PM EST
    Perdue up by 93 votes.

    IMO (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:27:15 PM EST
    Perdue is better for us even if he is closer to Nunn in the polls.

    Yeah, I am all for defeating the devil I know (none / 0) (#142)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:47:11 PM EST
    Kingston is horrible.

    Based on counties still not completely in (none / 0) (#143)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:04:40 PM EST
    Perdue should start to pull away.

    Perdue won. (none / 0) (#153)
    by Angel on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 09:21:20 AM EST
    Re FAA's barring flights landing at Ben Gurion: (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 12:08:46 PM EST
    If they wanted to hand the terrorists a prize they couldn't have chosen a better way," the (anonymous Israeli) official said, adding, "If it was safe so far, why would it not be safe now? Nothing has changed. The airport has been there since Day One."

    I'd say what is changed is that (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 12:25:18 PM EST
    people are shooting down passenger jets in war zones.

    Israelis need bomb shelters, but airline passengers are supposed to tough it out?


    It is a win... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 12:39:28 PM EST
    for militant Hamas though, necessary or not...I can picture high fives all around at war headquarters, "We shut down the infidel airport!  We're winning!"

    A market gets bombed in Israel, it's open the next day.  I don't think the airport should be any different...safety is an illusion anyway, the world is awash with surface to air missiles, what keeps us relatively safe in the air is 99% of the world population has no interest in shooting a commercial airliner down, thank goodness.


    I want to meet the person (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 01:39:45 PM EST
    Who wants to vacation in Israel right now.  

    That was one of the complaints.  It's the hight of tourist season??


    Israel's a beautiful country. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 04:36:44 PM EST
    I'm so glad that we visited there and Egypt (and Petra, Jordan) when we did. One would truly have to have No. 2 for brains to even think of venturing anywhere in the Middle East right now.

    They have great polymer artists (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 03:09:08 PM EST
    And even when some areas are under attack most of Israel remains fairly " normal".  I would visit :).

    Me too... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 03:17:44 PM EST
    can't live in fear...I hear great things about the night life in Tel Aviv.  Worse ways to go than partying it up in Tel Aviv...in fact that's probably one of the best ways to go!

    I prefer to not take uncalculated risks. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 01:45:15 PM EST
    And right now, travel to the Middle East falls into that category. To be sure, the odds are probably in favor of you not becoming a victim of the sort of political blood-feud violence that plagues the region. But then, good fortune has to remain with you for the duration of your visit, while those would seek to cause mayhem and harm to innocent bystanders only have to be lucky once.

    One maybe too very subtle point (none / 0) (#113)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 04:01:55 PM EST
    I was making is related to the every well orchestrated talking point I have seen on every TV news show from Israelis spokespeople for a week in their justifications for the attacks on Gaza - we have so many rocket attacks, we are running to bomb shelters every 5 minutes.....danger danger danger...

    Now it is 'hey, come here, it is tourist season? ' Does not compute to my feeble brain.


    Well (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 04:13:32 PM EST
    I got it

    Figured (none / 0) (#120)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 04:26:58 PM EST
    The 3rd or 4th repetition of the exact same words triggers my red flags, no matter who is saying it or what they are talking about.

    Plus  Bob Schieffer and other reporters (faux?) amazement...'why golly gee, just in the time I was talking to the government representative, an alarm controlled by the government went off - that really proved his point! It even happened when he was talking to the president!'

    Yes, i know I am cynical beyond belief.


    I have been watching (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 04:17:02 PM EST
    Aljazeera off an on.   Bit of a different take.

    What's Aljazeera saying? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 04:21:35 PM EST
    It not so much what they are saying (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 04:47:22 PM EST
    Or even how they are saying it.   It hard to put my finger on now that you mention it.  It feels like it's coming from a different place.  

    One thing I like is that you see a whole new cast of "analysts" for the most part.


    I was reading what they had (none / 0) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 04:49:15 PM EST
    After you referenced them.  Sometimes I forget to check with them.

    If you have dish (none / 0) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 04:49:37 PM EST
    It's channel 215

    Does anybody know the phrase Jeralyn (none / 0) (#99)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    uses referring to evidence gathered from a person's posting online?  The term has been used in several past postings and articles.  

    Cyber-Stalking? (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 01:23:05 PM EST
    Unless it's done by a government or corporation of course, then it's the more benign sounding "data mining" or "intelligence gathering".  

    But it's all cyber-stalking to me....


    You don't mean... (none / 0) (#145)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 12:26:19 AM EST
    ..."doxing", do you?

    As in hunting out "dox", or "docs", or documents.


    It wasn't doxing or cyberstalking... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 08:31:37 AM EST
    I seem to remember it having been used when the social network stuff was dragged into the Zimmerman trial.  The search function yielded more than 150 articles mentioning Zimmerman.  I poked through a few, with no luck and no more time. 150 articles sounds like a lot, but there were more.

    RIP (none / 0) (#106)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 02:13:18 PM EST
    Johnny Winter.

    Glad I got to see him... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 02:27:30 PM EST
    play before he passed...can't say the same for Tommy Ramone, the last of the original Ramones, who also recently passed.  Rough week for the music world.

    When I saw BB King Sunday night, he didn't know about Johnny Winter...the crowd told him, and he had some kind words for his brother in blues. Lots of other acts played tributes...the flesh is mortal, but the music never dies.


    JW was my first concert (none / 0) (#148)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 02:27:08 AM EST
    @ Winterland in SF way back in my first year in HS. I saw his brother in the same venue shortly after. Ticket prices back in the day, you don't wanna know . . . . it was either 5 or 7.50. I'm thinking it was 5, because I remember when the prices started up, so 7.50 was down the line . . .

    I had been seeing this story of Eric Garner (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 12:07:27 PM EST
    Being murdered by police but I am mortified to admit that I have been so desensitized to this kind of thing that until today I did not realize that his alleged crime was selling individual cigarettes

    NYPD has killed... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 01:02:59 PM EST
    over far less...like possession of a wallet.
    Cover up was well underway before the video emerged...the first police report of the incident makes no mention of a choke hold.  I too am desensitized, jaded, sick & tired and expect nothing less.  

    If ya really wanna vomit check out what they're saying on the pig blogs.

    "ERIC GARNER? Yeah! Sure you are! A Nordic/Germanic given name and Anglo-Saxon surname! How dare you steal our names! You are hereby posthumously renamed MOBUTU TAKANUKU!"

    "He probably never worked a legit job. The city will pay off the family and they will be in n*gger heaven for the rest of their lives!"

    Selling loosies, if the victim was in fact selling loosies, is far more honest & noble work than the police are doing on the regular.  


    So it's a crime to sell single cigs? (none / 0) (#160)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 01:52:46 PM EST
    Did not know that . . .

    Big time crime... (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 02:09:50 PM EST
    tax evasion, selling without a license, god knows what other crimes...you know NYC 'stray, our criminal code is clogged with so much bullsh*t it's not even funny.  Ya can't live without breaking laws.

    In saner times all the candy stores and bodegas sold loosies...that all went away with Emperor Bloomberg...now the only place to score a loosie is on a street corner from a street corner entrepenuer.  I guess you could call it job creation...if the NYPD wasn't killing over it.


    I wonder if they have undercover (none / 0) (#165)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 02:15:40 PM EST
    posing as those guys that approach you and ask if you can sell them a cig . . . :P

    That's just crazy. If the cigs were bought in NY/NYC, the tax has already been paid, hasn't it? And if you aren't selling to minors, what's the big deal? I've had folks on both coasts approach me cash in hand asking to buy. If I have one, I give it, but do appreciate the gesture.


    No big deal... (none / 0) (#166)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 02:21:49 PM EST
    is not a phrase in the NYPD handbook...every little thing is a chance to stop and search and harass and find a collar/collect a fine.  Especially if you're a black or hispanic young male.

    It's funny you say that because the smoking culture here has changed...nobody ever asks to bum a cigarette anymore, everybody asks to buy one off you...they could be undercover narcs lol!  

    That's one wrap they'll never pin on me, I always retort "No but you can have one, need a light?"


    Strange laws (none / 0) (#172)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 06:36:52 PM EST
    I bummed a cig at Penn Station last summer and this nice guy gave me one. I then gave him 1$. We chatted for the duration. I might be a law breaker! OMG!

    In America... (none / 0) (#177)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 08:15:42 AM EST
    never breaking laws is the cause for concern...if you're not breaking laws in America, you best check your pulse!

    That USA today link (none / 0) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 01:54:14 PM EST
    Was hard to take

    The KKK PD down in Fla... (none / 0) (#164)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 02:11:17 PM EST
    ain't the only department with racist problems.  

    Tyrant (none / 0) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 02:10:42 PM EST
    Is becoming more interesting.

    Happy birthday, Raymond Chandler. (none / 0) (#170)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 05:38:01 PM EST
    My favorite author -- whom writer Judith Freeman called "The Knight of Sunset Boulevard" -- was born in Chicago in 1888, abandoned by his father, raised in England as the sole offspring of a single mother, and moved to Southern California in 1912, where he lived in 35 different places -- from Santa Barbara to La Jolla -- over the next 47 years. He died in La Jolla at age 70 in March 1959, and is buried in San Diego's Mt. Hope Cemetery.

    (The cremated remains of Chandler's wife Cissy, who died in 1954 and then sat forgotten in a basement storage locker at a San Diego mausoleum for 57 years, were finally interred with him at Mt. Hope in 2012.)

    During his life's journey, Chandler was a devoted mama's boy, romanced and married a woman who was 18 years his senior, lost his job as an executive at the Dabney Oil Co. at age 44 due to his excessive drinking and womanizing, and then turned to his latent writing talent only because he and his wife desperately needed the money.

    As a direct result of this mid-life career shift, Chandler put the city of Los Angeles on the literary map with his critically acclaimed series of Philip Marlowe novels and stories, and was further nominated for two Academy Awards for best original screenplay -- with director Billy Wilder for "Double Indemnity" in 1954, and by himself for "The Blue Dahlia" in 1946.

    Chandler's Philip Marlow was the prototype cynical idealist living in the glitzy, glamorous and gritty urban jungle that was mid-20th century L.A., a dark place -- even in broad daylight -- teeming with two-timing femmes fatale, corruptible civic leaders and disreputable lowlifes, all of whom would freely take everything that wasn't nailed down, and offer very little in return. For that, Chandler is rightly remembered as the father of noir fiction, which has since become a literary and cinematic staple.

    Though he often stated how he longed to return to the England of his youth, save for one brief and liquor-soaked sojourn following his wife's 1954 death, Chandler was destined to live for the rest of his life in Southern California, where L.A. -- the city he loved to hate -- would continue to serve both as his literary muse and the haunting setting for some of the most compelling crime stories and mysteries ever written.

    In both remembrance and celebration, here is one of Raymond Chandler's early short stories, "I'll Be Waiting," which was first published in The Saturday Evening Post in October 1939.


    Correction: (none / 0) (#171)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 05:45:22 PM EST
    "Double Indemnity" was released in 1944, not 1954.

    Arizona Cements Guiness World Record (none / 0) (#174)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 07:00:45 PM EST
    Horrifying. (none / 0) (#175)
    by desertswine on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 08:58:06 PM EST
    ... a vastly more humane form of execution that what's recently happened. How long will we tolerate such barbarity?