Monday Open Thread

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Drug Mule's Cocaine Pellets Burst on Plane | My First Tornado >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    More comedy... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:41:21 PM EST
    in the Brooklyn Bridge White Flag incident...NYPD Intelligence (oxymoron alert!) took a little field trip and climbed the bridge to "look at the process for taking the flag up and down."  With the chopper and police boats in tow.

    The comedic gift that keeps on giving, I swear, I hope this investigation makes it all the way to cold case because it's just so f8ckin' entertaining!  

    In serious news, "Broken Windows" policing broke another poor slob's head over the weekend.  Where's the hope and change DeBlasio/Bratton?  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Huh? I'm sorry, but ... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:03:37 PM EST
    kdog: "Where's the hope and change DeBlasio/Bratton?  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

    ... this isn't some TV show, where everything is neatly resolved in one episode. Given that Bill de Blasio's only held the mayor's office for seven months, I would expect that it's going to take a little more time than that to alter the collective mindset of an entire police bureaucracy, never mind one which has been in place and set in its ways for the better part of a century or more.

    And if you can't see that, then you're likely as much a part of the overall problem as the cops on the street. Because from a political standpoint, you're really nothing more than a fair-weather constituent who can hardly be counted upon to support the mayor in his struggle to reform the manner in which NYPD conducts business. And rest assured, if and when Mayor de Blasio and NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton do finally undertake the reform of NYPD's ranks, they will face significant political pushback.

    And when I'm talking pushback, I mean the sort of emotional button-pushing "law and order / quality of life" folderol that once got you the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Bernie Kerik as Hizonner and Commish, respectively. Giuliani's 1993 election not only retarded the cause of NYPD reform for almost an entire generation, it actually served to exacerbate the department's longstanding ethical and behavioral issues, in particular its often rocky relationship with the city's various minority communities.

    You don't think that can't happen again? Well, it can and it will, if you and your fellow decent-minded New Yorkers don't show some testicular fortitude of your own and demonstrate to Mayor de Blasio that you have his back. Because honestly, why would either de Blasio or Bratton even attempt such a monumental task as the reform of NYPD, if they felt that the average NY voter has no real stomach to sustain such an effort on their part?

    Human nature being what it is, there are very few elected officials who are willing to allow their professional fate to rest in the hands of such a fickle voter base, and even fewer appointed officials who would willingly fall on their swords for reform simply as a matter of principle.

    As I've said earlier, if you seek real change, then you must resolve to become an effective instrument of that change. And that requires you to play the long game politically, which means standing behind the guy you supported for NY mayor in the recent election, and affording him and his team a real opportunity to prove themselves -- not throwing up your hands in impatient despair after only seven months, and writing them off for the duration.



    The mayor speaks... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:45:29 AM EST
    Broken Windows is here to stay...

    According to Mayor de Blasio and Police Commissioner Bratton, the NYPD will continue to strictly enforce laws against loosie peddlers and subway dancers. "I can understand why any New Yorker may say, that's not such a big offense," de Blasio said. "But a violation of the law is a violation of the law."

    And another case in point..."nobody bbq's on my beat, does John Law have to choke a pregnant lady?"

    A violation is a violation, right Mr. Mayor?  Except violations of civil rights, personal space, human dignity...of course.


    Excerpt from NYT re undercover law (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:19:11 AM EST
    enforcement arresting subway dancers:

    The crackdown has unsettled the group's second-youngest member, the 8-year-old break-dancer Marc Mack, who aspires to join the police. "I want to be a cop that will let people dance," he said.


    Sorry kid... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:59:26 AM EST
    you're talking oil and water...stick to dance!

    I have been on a Cage binge (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:50:44 AM EST
    Since we were talking about him the other day.
    The las couple of days I have been listening to Indeterminacy
    Amazing.  It just never gets old.  Apparently the whole thing is on YouTube.  
    Indeterminacy is a long work by Cage that is 100 ( I think) one minute stories set to the wonderful music of David Tudor.   Some stories are long so he talks fast. Some are short so......he.......talks.......like........
    I think it's my favorite Cage.

    Thank God! (none / 0) (#127)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:00:21 PM EST
    When I read your heading I though you meant Nicholas Cage.

    No (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:02:12 PM EST
    Isn't the mayor in Italy? (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:43:41 PM EST
    He was... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:51:32 PM EST
    Just got back this weekend.  He didn't cut the vacay short over the rash of citizens winding up bloodied or choked to death on the streets of NY.

    Sh*t even the white flags didn't get him to change his flight! ;)


    More serious would be (none / 0) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    two US Marshals and an NYPD detective being shot today while attemting to serve a warrant in the West Village at West Fourth Street and Avenue of the Americas.

    I expect stuff like that to happen... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:58:14 PM EST
    go to slap chains on people, they might try to defend themselves.  Go figure.

    4 human beings got shot fwiw...the suspect is dead, the marshals and cop are in stable condition.


    Are you serious? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:03:32 PM EST
    Yeah... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:16:30 PM EST
    serving arrest warrants is dangerous work...you don't expect some suspects to resist violently? Unfortunate, but understandable.  

    What one doesn't expect is to be choked to death for selling loosies, or getting stomped for rolling a joint.  ymmv


    loosies.. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:10:05 PM EST
    that's so utterly pathetic. They've got a special police detail downtown here in Roc City that rounds up these old guys out-of-money-at-the-end-of-the-month who are trying to make a couple of bucks (literally); meanwhile I can go four blocks away and get a bag of heroin in a few minutes.  

    Nobody deserves to be treated like that, ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:43:37 PM EST
    ... especially by members of a public agency which depends upon taxpayer funding for its operations. After all, it's 2014, and not 1910.

    Sorry kdog. (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 07:34:42 AM EST
    I don't think the suspect is going to get much sympathy from the general public

    A $1 million bench warrant was issued for Mozdir's arrest on June 15, 2012, after he skipped an arraignment in San Diego Superior Court on child sexual assault charges, according to Steve Walker, a spokesman for the San Diego County district attorney. He had posted $250,000 bail.

    Mozdir was wanted on five counts of lewd acts upon a child younger than 14 and a charge of attempting to keep a witness from prosecuting a crime, according to the criminal complaint.

    His case had recently been featured on CNN's "The Hunt with John Walsh." Mozdir was accused of abusing a young boy while babysitting him and authorities later found evidence of child pornography and bestiality on his cellphone and computers, according to the show's website, quoting federal authorities.

    Authorities have searched for him in Coronado, Georgia, California and Mexico, according to the show.

    I did not expect any... (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:02:28 AM EST
    the shooting looks totally justified...no problem with it.  I just don't think it's the top local law enforcement story just because 2 marshals and a cop got shot...that's gonna happen serving warrants.  Live by the gun, die by the gun.

    A handy distraction for DeBlasio/Bratton to the issue at hand though...police brutality and broken windows destroying community-police relations and doing more harm than good.  It'll be cop worship week on Discovery channel now.


    These law enforcement officers trying to serve an (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 09:54:51 PM EST
    arrest warrant on a suspect who jumped $1,000,000 bail and didn't show up for court on a felony child molestation charge in San Diego County. Perhaps he preferred "death by cop."  

    Could be (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:06:39 AM EST
    we know what happens to child molesters in prison...lowest rung in the prison caste system, you'd be better off dead. But based on the reports, it sounds like he was shooting to kill and not just shooting to get shot.

    Put your hands together... (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:59:32 PM EST
    for the Satanic Temple, using the Hobby Lobby decision for good instead of evil.

    "My dark lord said to stick your informed consent up your arse!  Got a problem?  Take it up with Reverend Roberts."

    NFL (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:11:06 PM EST
    Ray Rice knocks his future wife out cold and gets a two game suspension.  But he gets paid for one of the games.  Video, at 1:00 mark.

    Of the 39 substance use suspensions in 2013, two were for a single game, two for two games, one for three games, and the rest, 35 people, were four games or more.

    In the NFL eyes, taking Adderall or Ritalin is a far greater offense than knocking out a woman cold.  It's not like Rice is some phenom, he had 660 yards in 2013.

    The NFL isn't even trying to defend this non-sense, which IMO is indefensible.  Knocking out a woman cold in public, especially by a pure muscle machine, should have landed Ray Rice in jail for a month and sitting out a year from football.

    The NBA suspended an owner from ever attending a game because of words, yet the NFL can't find it in their reasoning to suspend a wife beater for at the least the same length of time as someone who tried Adderall at a party.

    Man it sucks to watch a game you love run by idiots who hate women.

    Looking at the main TL page I saw (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:59:27 AM EST
    I had missed 109 comments in the open thread yesterday...that always means a fight of some kind. I see now - KO!

    There are two schools of thought (none / 0) (#114)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:01:07 AM EST
    on KO:

    He's had enough sh*t to last a lifetime.

    He hasn't had enough sh*t yet to last a lifetime.


    I refuse to spend my day (none / 0) (#159)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:38:10 PM EST
    Overly concerned about KO :)

    I think you'd really appreciate ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:28:46 PM EST
    ... Keith Olbermann's spot-on take on the subject, which he delivered on the air at ESPN last Thursday to rave reviews. It's the sort of no-holds-barred editorial takedown which once endeared him to mainstream news audiences at MSNBC a decade ago, before his acerbic personality served to alter his career trajectory.

    Keith Olbermann is still in love with (1.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:46:05 PM EST
    Keith Olbermann.  Anyone who would so deliberately misstate the consequences of the league's substance abuse policy isn't interested in truth, he's interested in himself.  You don't get suspended for an entire year the first time you violate the substance abuse policy - but there's Keith, making it seem like you do, comparing Rice's first-time violation of the personal conduct policy to what someone would get after multiple violations of the substance abuse policy.

    He may have made some good points, but I can't get past his utter blowhardiness.  Maybe some people find him endearing, but I'm not one of them.


    Keith Olbermann (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 07:31:46 AM EST
    Talking about misogyny in the NFL???

    What a joke - from the king of misogynistic comments.


    The King? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:18:48 AM EST
    You must live a very sheltered life.

    Olbermann apologized for (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:30:58 AM EST
    some remarks he made on his news program a couple of years ago against two women, including a particularly sexist one against Michelle Malkin.

    So if he's the king, than that jerk on ESPN who blamed violence towards women on women when talking about the Ray Rice case is the Planetary Ruler when it comes to misogyny.


    Let's not forget (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:33:46 AM EST
    His comment re: HRC and him wanting her to drop out of the 2008 race:

    "Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."

    Then, add to that the comments against Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin (and yes, while they are vile people, his comments were totally inappropriate and showed his true colors).

    He really can't be taken seriously as a defender against misogyny.  What a joke.


    And he apologized for that remark as well (none / 0) (#73)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:36:06 AM EST
    But hey, let's not focus on the misogyny Mr. Olbermann was talking about, let's just make him a target instead.

    Maybe if Mr. Olbermann would leave the (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:06:01 AM EST
    commenting - or should I say "pontificating" - about misogyny to those who don't have a documented history of engaging in it, it would allow the focus to be where it will do the most good.

    That he would prefer to hog the spotlight with his tiresome Edward R. Murrow-wannabe rants and fail to see the utter hypocrisy of his comments is why I prefer not to regard Olbermann as having much in the way of moral standing to be lecturing anyone.

    Clearly, your mileage varies, but I will be curious to see whether your "but he apologized" standard is one you apply equally.


    Yes, let's indict Olbermann for misogyny (none / 0) (#85)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:11:07 AM EST
    and not talk about the ESPN host who blamed violence against women on women themselves.

    That's really a winning stratergy.


    We can do both (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:34:13 AM EST
    but it seems the subject at hand here is the hypocrisy of KO.

    Hypocrisy Not the Subject (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:57:31 AM EST
    The subject of this sub-thread is the video of Olberman criticizing the Sexism of Women in Sports. Then the nasty statement that jbindc made naming Olberman the KING of misogyny.

    But if you get more satisfaction to focus on hypocrisy and Olberman's past insulting statements slamming women and men, many of which he apologized for, well then knock yourself out.


    "knock yourself out?" (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:33:04 AM EST
    Poor choice of words there, I think...unintentional?

    It's not what Olbermann said that is the problem - it's that the words were delivered by someone who simply has no credibility or moral authority on the subject of misogyny.

    It's not like he's the lone voice expressing these views, and we'd all just be walking around with our eyes closed to the problem without his impassioned rant.  There has been a veritable chorus expressing these views, and all I suggested was that perhaps, given his history, if what he really was interested in was the message, it was better left to others to deliver it.

    But Keith is Keith, and he just had to choose the spotlight over the cause.


    Yah know what, with Olbermann (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:58:17 AM EST
    I wish he was still on cable TV, but I don't lose any sleep on it.

    It's not like he's the lone voice expressing these views, and we'd all just be walking around with our eyes closed to the problem without his impassioned rant.  There has been a veritable chorus expressing these views, and all I suggested was that perhaps, given his history, if what he really was interested in was the message, it was better left to others to deliver it.

    I don't see how you are qualified to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't say about a given topic, based on what you think about them and think you know about their past history.

    He's a bit of a blowhard, he sometimes comes from a POV of total moral certitude, and sometimes he engages in humor that doesn't befit a journalist of his stature. Fortunately, we don't have to worry about the last-named when it comes to what you write here.  

    There are certainly good reasons not to like him, and since I'm not a sports nut I've found no reason to watch him since he started with ESPN last year.



    Keith Olbermann doesn't work for me, so (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:16:45 PM EST
    I have no say in what he does or doesn't say about anything - all I can do is choose not to watch or listen to him.

    If what he says rings true for people, great.  But, for me, it would be like Jamie Dimon expressing outrage over corporate misconduct, or Keith Alexander ranting about some other country spying on us - their words may be on point, but I'm not likely to take them as particularly sincere or delivered for the right reasons.  It's the reason I don't buy it when Republicans talk about how they care about the old, the poor and the sick - their history suggests otherwise.

    My point wasn't that Olbermann had no right to say what he did, it was that he may not be the best spokesperson on the subject of misogyny.


    Oh Anne of Delicate Sensibilities (1.00 / 1) (#141)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 01:12:00 PM EST
    Afraid of using the fainting couch? Is that what would happen if you dared to view Olberman's rant against sexism in sports?

    Why let go of grudges and anger when you seem to relish in the pleasure of contempt.

    Sad.. imo.

    And when did Jamie Dimon apologize for his corporate misconduct?
    Or Keith Alexander apologizing for NSA spying or for anything? No

    Your analogies fall far short, apparently for the sake of savoring your contempt for Olberman.  Poor baby..  


    Can you say the same thing about (none / 0) (#134)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:21:52 PM EST
    Mr Smith?

    That's my final question to you.


    Has Smith made misogynistic comments (none / 0) (#136)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:54:12 PM EST
    about specific women, because that's my issue with Olbermann.

    I don't think Smith accused Palmer of provoking Rice, did he?  I think he made comments suggesting that women needed to be careful they weren't doing anything to provoke being hit, even as he went on to say that it still doesn't make it okay if a man hits a woman after she hits him - or something to that effect.

    Look, for me, it's the equivalent of telling women they have to be careful about how they dress if they don't want to be sexually assaulted, or that they have to not go certain places if they don't want to be treated like sluts.

    And that's wrong.  "No" still means "No" whether a woman is covered from head to toe or her boobs are barely contained and her ass is hanging out.  Is what Smith said as wrong as Olbermann's prior comments about specific women?  Maybe it's all of a piece, and wrong is just wrong, and overall reflective of a mindset or attitude that isn't helpful.  I can tell you that, as a woman, I get tired of feeling like dominion over my body is subject to the whims of some man who gets to take it into his head that something I did or said meant I was "asking for it," and use it as an excuse for what follows.

    I am a huge sports fan, but not particularly into the commentary aspect of it - in their own way, they are just as hard to take as the talking heads in news and politics.  


    I'm sorry, does it have to rise to the level (2.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:57:15 PM EST
    of misogyny when it targets a particular woman?

    What? Are you under the impression that (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 01:54:27 PM EST
    misogyny can't be specific?  

    Well, as many women as Olbermann has been specific about, I think reasonable people might conclude that he has a rather global misogyny problem.


    For as misogynistic as Olbermann's history (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 03:53:37 PM EST
    might show ....  A satisfying turnabout thought just occurred to me that the newly "enlightened" commentator could be used to offer a series of lectures to other media types who have had a troubled history involving misogyny.  For example:  Perhaps, Keith O. might want to lecture Andrew Sullivan (after reading some of his recent remarks about Hillary Clinton) along this rehabilitative path.  There definitely could be a large audience that needs this new form of talking too.  

    So, we might want to encourage the newly developing feminist, Olbermann, as he does this media-type penance.  With a string of adages: Let bygones be bygones as we make lemonade with the lemons.  


    I think its more insulting to advise (none / 0) (#151)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:06:00 PM EST
    'women' in general like Mr. Smith than specific women like Olbermann has done, so thanks for showing us how to move goalposts here.

    I watched him for a long time (none / 0) (#187)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:40:54 PM EST
    on MSNBC and CurrentTV, and I can't recall an example where he displayed a global kind of misogyny lecturing women like Mr. Smith did.

    I must applaude your effort at moving those goalposts, they won't get there on there own.


    A game (none / 0) (#192)
    by sj on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:58:39 PM EST
    many people play on anonymous message boards is building an image of a regular commenter based on the totality of his or her contributions.

    Some people are very difficult to "profile". Neither you nor I are among them.

    Mental gender orientation for mordiggian 88: undoubtedly male


    Anne's Poodle (aka lap dog) Speaks (1.00 / 1) (#193)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:59:56 PM EST
    Aww honey... (none / 0) (#195)
    by sj on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 06:07:20 PM EST
    Anne's Poodle (aka lap dog) Speaks (none / 0) (#193)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 04:59:56 PM MDT

    did you lose your forever home? Don't be bitter, I'm sure you'll find another if you can just pretend that you're friendly long enough to get the adoption papers signed. Oh, and learn to use a litter box.

    Wait! [doubtfully] are there adoption services for beings that squeak?


    Pathetic (1.00 / 1) (#199)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 06:17:34 PM EST
    Your passive aggressive attempts at insult are as lame as your aggressive aggressive attempts.

    Weak tea, befitting a lap dog


    Wait (none / 0) (#201)
    by sj on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 06:29:57 PM EST
    You're whining about insults in the very same comment you say this:

    Weak tea, befitting a lap dog
    To quote ... uh, you:


    I hadn't laughed in the last hour, so thank you for that.

    Really, the people most hateful and obnoxious to others are also the most aggrieved when their actions and behavior are reflected back at them. Your comment (quoted) is Exihibit A.

    Or maybe we should use hexadecimal: Exhibit AAAA.


    Do you do ballon animals at parties as well? (none / 0) (#196)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 06:11:17 PM EST
    Oh, and since I said I wasn't into sports (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 06:13:04 PM EST
    That was a giveaway clue as well.  Well-played sir(or madam), well-played.

    Nah... (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by sj on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 06:22:04 PM EST
    Interest in sports (or lack thereof) is not an indicator of gender. At least not any longer.

    Another sign of the times: referring to one's wife or husband is also no longer an indicator of gender.


    Nope (none / 0) (#198)
    by sj on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 06:15:00 PM EST
    Do you do ballon animals at parties as well?
    I leave that to Koons. For more info contact the squeaky one.

    Unintentional (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:00:54 PM EST
    Living in the past is silly imo...  Did you listen to Olberman's rant that Donald from Hawaii posted?

    I would say someone like Olberman who has made many insulting comments toward a variety of people, and has reflected on his tendency, and publicly apologized, has tremendous credibility when it comes to Sexism.

    Moral authority?

    Did Olberman claim moral authority"

    It seems to me moral authority is something that you like to imbue your comments with. Quite frankly I think implying or making the claim of moral authority is an academic exercise and two dimensional pursuit aka lacking depth.  


    Wow. Where to you get this satisfaction crap? (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:03:49 PM EST
    The way I see it, no hypocrisy, no sub thread. If he didn't have such a history of poor comments (and apologies), jbindc may not have made that "nasty" comment. Although I would hardy call that a nasty comment, I don't agree with it. There are many others bending over backwards for that title.

    Maybe instead of hypocrisy I should have said "Oh, the irony!" ?


    Satisfaction (none / 0) (#139)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 01:01:26 PM EST
    Well if it is not satisfaction in calling out a hateful misogynist
    rather than having to rethink your position because of the current you tube link, I am not sure what it is keeping you focused on Hypocrisy.

    I never said he was a hateful misogynist (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 01:41:46 PM EST
    and I said I did not agree that he was the king of it all. But, he would not be getting these types of comments if he didn't have the history he does. Take it for what you will, but quit over projecting on me (& simple comments I write), who is not over projecting or over commenting on it/him.

    Why do you think the comments took the turn they did? And if you are going to say they are 'haters' or some BS like that, perhaps you can elaborate on why they would feel that way, iyo.


    Yes (none / 0) (#147)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 01:51:37 PM EST
    Sorry for overreacting, but calling Olberman a hypocrite seems wrong in this case, because he has admitted to his own failings and has apologized.

    He is not calling out NFL institutionalized sexism while being in denial about his own behavior.

    Whether or not you think he is pompous and difficult to bear, calling him hypocrite in this case seems unjust, imo.


    No Prob :) (none / 0) (#152)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:08:54 PM EST
    How's this, 'I find it a tad amusing/ironic that a serial foot in mouth/habitual apologizer is the one pontificating on this issue'?  :D

    Serial? (none / 0) (#155)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:26:12 PM EST
    I do not follow Olberman, but his hall of shame website that apparently calls out his sexism and other gaffes, has a last entry in Oct 2009.

    Sounds like he has reformed, from being a sexist pig, no? If that is what he was..

    He always annoyed me, so I did not follow his serial foot in the mouth/ habitual apologizer routine.

    And I would think it ironic had he not apparently reformed his sexist schtick.


    He annoys me also (his style etc) (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:38:31 PM EST
    and I was never much of a follower. Just some of his foot in mouth was kinda hard to miss there for awhile :) Didn't he have a parting of the ways in 2009? with whatever network he was on and eventually come back to just do sports elsewhere? Covering mostly male sporting contests would seem to resolve his 'problem' (including probs other than just sexist comments).

    See, it's real obvious I keep up with the guy, lol!~


    Yes (none / 0) (#162)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:47:34 PM EST
    you are way ahead of me regarding Olberman's history, save for my googling his misogyny ...  just saw the current youtube, and thought it was good..

    Sounds like the dude... (none / 0) (#166)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 03:14:37 PM EST
    could use some of that "Right To Be Forgotten" action they got going in the EU.

    Aside from the fact that you've (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:39:38 AM EST
    greatly over-stated and over-simplified Smith's comments on ESPN, I have no idea why you are so hot to talk about what he actually said: he's apologized.

    Isn't that all it takes for you?  

    It worked for you where Olbermann is concerned, and he made flagrantly misogynistic comments about specific women on more than one occasion.

    Make up your mind, would you?


    You folks are the ones who brought up Olbermann (none / 0) (#108)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:51:09 AM EST
    and you can't have it both ways:

    If you want to criticize him for misogyny, then his past apologies wash the sin out of him, as the apology that Mr. Smith issued does for him.

    If, OTOH, misogynistic remarks, apologized for or not, are to be condemned, then I would gladly excoriate Olbermann and Mr Smith equally, in the interests of consistency.  

    As for over-simplified, let's look at the record, shall we?

    But what I've tried to employ the female members of my family, some of who you all met and talked to and what have you, is that again, and this what, I've done this all my life, let's make sure we don't do anything to provoke wrong actions, because if I come, or somebody else come, whether it's law enforcement officials, your brother or the fellas that you know, if we come after somebody has put their hands on you, it doesn't negate the fact that they already put their hands on you.

     But at the same time, we also have to make sure that we learn as much as we can about elements of provocation. Not that there's real provocation, but the elements of provocation, you got to make sure that you address them, because we've got to do is do what we can to try to prevent the situation from happening in any way.

    If you actually watched the clip, ... (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:12:51 PM EST
    ... Olbermann posted pictures of himself and Hillary Clinton while obliquely referencing his own prior comments about her as equally unacceptable.

    Scott...there has never been any (none / 0) (#23)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:40:30 PM EST
    definitive statement by anyone - by law enforcement, by the courts, by the parties involved, by the NFL, by the Ravens - as to what happened inside that elevator.  ALL anyone in the general public has seen is the video of him dragging her out of he elevator.

    So, when I hear people in the media, and the general public, state some version of "Ray Rice beat up his now-wife," I have to ask myself why people are so willing to state something they don't know to be true.  It's like they don't really care what happened, they just saw the aftermath and made up their minds what happened before those elevator doors opened.

    Reporting on this has been all kinds of terrible, with people who are supposed to know better seeming to deliberately be misleading the public.  Well, nothing new there.

    Don't get me wrong, please: I am not condoning any act of violence against women.  I'm not making excuses for Rice, I'm not assigning any blame to his wife.  Saying a woman provoked a man to hit her is the same as saying a woman "asked" to be raped or abused because of what she was wearing.

    I've had two thoughts on the whole thing: (1) if there was video of him cold-cocking her, I truly believe it would have made its way into the media.  That leads me to think it wasn't as clear-cut as him just hauling off and hitting her.  I think they were probably both hammered and close to falling-down drunk, and something between them got out of hand.  Which still doesn't excuse the incident.

    (2) We're still waiting for the Jim Irsay punishment, and someone today suggested the Ray Rice leniency was because what they're going to hand out to Irsay will be even more lenient.

    Please don't make the mistake everyone else is making, and compare this to the violations of the substance abuse policies - those are collectively bargained consequences, and every player in the NFL knows what those consequences are; the same is not true for violations of personal conduct.

    But at least tell the truth: he did not knock her out in public.  He just didn't.  We don't even know if he did knock her out - maybe he pushed her and she passed out.  Still not right, but please: there is no video that any of us have seen of him knocking her out.  There just isn't.

    If there was video that showed that, why did law enforcement let them go home together?  Don't you think that if he'd cold-cocked her, this would have been elevated to something a lot more serious from a legal perspective than simple assault?

    There's been more intervention in this case than the average domestic incident - and that's a good thing.  If this incident kept these two people from spiraling into something much, much worse, that's a good thing, too.  

    Trust me - this will dog him the rest of his career, just as there are still idiots who claim Ray Lewis murdered two people.


    YAWN. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:57:28 AM EST
    There is a police report and Rice is entering a anger management program in hopes of getting the charges dismissed.

    It's public because it was caught on video, not the one I posted, but the one in the elevator.  I don't see any distinction between knocking ones gf out with a fist, a shove, or a howdoyoudo, you do.

    And for a person not claiming to defend Rice, that is one hell of defense.  If only there was a person that could clear this up, someone with first hand knowledge of what happened to explain how the gf came to be unconscious, someone to say, "That is not what happened"...

    That's right, he's going into an anger management program to avoid prosecution.  You know, because NFL players are infamous for taking responsibility for things they didn't do.

    We could discuss the other 20 off season Raven arrests so you can not defend them as well.  Just kidding, but clearly you can not be objective when it comes to the Ravens.  Fear not, this will happen again, and hopefully it won't be a Raven so we can discuss how the NFL doesn't take domestic violence seriously.


    Doesn't matter, my point was against the NFL who doesn't need proof beyond any conceivable doubt.  Whatever happened in the elevator, the outcome was: Rice was arrested, the GF was unconscious, and Rice is entering an anger management program to avoid being charged with aggravated assault.

    My point was, and still is, had he been busted that night smoking a joint, his punishment would have been greater, and that is a GD shame.  And for anyone to claim you can't compare drugs to personal conduct, well that is ridiculous, if the NFL can't get their punishments in line with the conduct, it's their fault, not the union's or whatever else the NFL spin machine is putting out as the excuse for not dolling out an adequate punishments to grown men who assault their women.  Rice ain't the player to hit his woman in anger and get a slap on the wrist from the league.

    And for the record, Rice is nowhere out of the woods on this one, one slip and he's gone.  The NFL won't have their chance to give Rice a timeout because he will be incarcerated, like a regular guy who can't control his anger.


    Scott...I'm sure if we could have this (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:02:27 PM EST
    discussion face to face, we'd both realize that we agree on this more than we disagree.  But here we are, limited to the written word, which isn't always the dialogue we want it to be.

    I'm really not defending Ray Rice.  I don't have any fondness for people who resort to violence of any kind as a way to handle conflict - whether they were drunk out of their minds, or having a bad day, there's no excuse.

    My objection is to the story people have woven out of the little they know, and treating it like fact.  I don't understand why that is a problem, or why that means I'm defending Rice.  Do we not care about dealing with the facts now?  Don't we have enough of a problem with that in the media?

    Look, I think the NFL is still in the Dark Ages on a lot of issues - and I keep getting the feeling that, just like in the non-sports corporate world, what's keeping it from making progress is an irrational fear that somehow doing the right things will mean less money in their pockets.  I mean, look at the concussion/brain injury thing.  These people knew for years - years - that the game was causing long-term harm to its players and - just like Big Tobacco - refused to acknowledge it.  That was all about money.

    One of the problems, I think, is that the NFL wants its players to be angry and aggressive and confrontational on the field, and look to any excuse or reason to downplay physical violence off the field out of fear that if players learn to manage their anger off the field, maybe they will be less effective on the field.  For all the incidents we hear about, I imagine there are many, many more we don't, because they get "handled," to protect players from suspension - because - oh, no! - we can't lose Player X if we want to win!!!

    The off-season arrests of Ravens players is unacceptable - I'd like to see the team exact some consequence, but so far, I'm not seeing much other than, "now, now, let's not do that again."  

    As for Rice in particular, he's been such a positive influence during his tenure here that I think people were truly shocked at whatever that was that happened.  And I think they're hoping he gets it together and can be the Ray Rice we've seen up to that point.  I don't know the man, so I don't have any personal investment in his success or his failure, but I can't think of a reason to want him to fail.  I don't know who or how that helps anything or anyone.


    Probably... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 01:35:08 PM EST
    But I would strongly disagree with this statement for you and every sports fan:
    I don't know the man, so I don't have any personal investment in his success or his failure, but I can't think of a reason to want him to fail.

    So you have no interest in how the players of your team perform ?  I can't figure out if that is a misstatement or if you aren't thinking clearly, but I know for a fact you want your team to go to the SB.  That requires all players doing very well, and then some.

    All sports fans have vested interests in the players on their teams.

    He assaulted his wife and the NFL gave him a two week time out, that is what I wanted to discuss, not whether the actual assault was being reported exactly as it happened. Or why the media can't get their facts right, or Obermann, or that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.  Which of course doesn't work when there are programs in lieu of guilt.

    I only wanted to discuss the NFL's blase' view of domestic violence.  It will take a dead body before they take it seriously, maybe, and as a die hard fan that is a hard pill to swallow.  


    I was referring to his success or (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 01:50:07 PM EST
    failure as a person, as a husband, as a father - that's what I have no personal investment in.  Of course I want the team to win, and of course I want him to succeed on the field - I want all the team's players to succeed there.

    That's really the only thing I have a front-row seat for - the game.  

    I don't know what crawled up your ass today, but I was trying to engage you, not fight with you, and it's why I specifically mentioned the disconnect between encouraging aggression and violence on the field and "managing" it off, and how I think it all comes down to money.

    But feel free to pick at this comment too, because it isn't what you want to discuss.


    It's Reading Wrong (none / 0) (#156)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:27:16 PM EST
    I wasn't trying to fight and I didn't realize that you meant personal connection.  And the other stuff wasn't directed at you so much as nearly all the comments.  Sorry about that, not my intention to fight with the one of the few people here that I pretty much agree with all the time.

    It wasn't meant that way.


    Edgar Allan Poe (none / 0) (#26)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:46:09 PM EST
    wouldn't be that loyal a Raven's fan; even if they paid him royalties.

    Seriously, my first thought when I saw the video was "Man, that woman's trashed!" Is there any record of her being examined by anyone for marks or bruises?


    I am a Cowboys fan (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 08:45:56 PM EST
    And this level of loyalty is admirable, I suppose.

    But ever since Lance Rentzel, when players get in trouble, I learned to not make excuses....It is after all just a game.....


    Anne, both Ray Rice and his then-fiancée ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 06:48:08 PM EST
    ... Janay Palmer were arrested by Atlantic City police after the altercation -- and it was a physical altercation, by the couple's own admission. Further, Rice subsequently pleaded no contest to a charge of aggravated assault, the acceptance of which was deferred pending his successful completion of a domestic violence interdiction program, while the charges against Palmer were dropped.

    Obviously, there was some physical evidence that Rice punched Palmer out, and Atlantic City authorities have further stated that they possess surveillance video footage from that elevator clearly showing that he socked her, which they have declined to release to the public. I would have otherwise taken such a publicly unsubstantiated claim for what it was worth, had not Rice pleaded no contest to that aggravated assault charge. Why would he take a DANC plea, had Palmer simply passed out drunk in the elevator?

    Rice further courted public controversy after the incident, when he told the media during his May 23 press conference, after he entered his no contest plea:

    "I won't call myself a failure. Failure is not getting knocked down, it's not getting up."

    Personally, that doesn't sound to me like someone whose actions have been misconstrued. At the very least, I find that to be a remarkably revelatory (if very poor) choice of words, given what had happened. In my opinion, those were the tone-deaf remarks of someone who was not quite fully repentant about what he did to the woman he supposedly loves, and who was somewhat unconcerned about any further potential public fallout from the matter.

    Sorry, Anne, but I have to respectfully disagree with you here. You're absolutely correct in noting that Ray Rice did not coldcock Janay Palmer in public, and in pointing out that both may have been inebriated at the time of the incident. But by his own public admission, Rice punched Palmer in that elevator -- and for an NFL player to do that to a woman who's significantly smaller than he is, regardless of the alleged levels of provocation and / or inebriation, well, that's simply unconscionable.

    Not too long ago, the NFL suspended Pittsburgh QB Ben Roethlisberger for six games (later reduced to four) after he was implicated in an alleged sexual assault, an incident for which he was never legally charged with a crime by Georgia law enforcement. That the league would now find Ray Rice's actions worthy of only a two-game suspension seems inexplicable to a lot of people, and rightly so.



    If Ray Rice admitted to punching (none / 0) (#28)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 08:19:28 PM EST
    her in the elevator, why can't I find any link to him saying that?  Why were there no flaming headlines that "Ray Rice admits to punching out Janay Palmer?"

    See, Ray Rice said nothing, not one word until after his case was adjudicated.  It was radio silence for months.  Pleading to something does not tell the whole story - haven't you learned anything after all these years of reading here?

    I agree that Rice's comments once he finally made a public statement left a lot to be desired; I found it troubling that of all the people he apologized to, his wife wasn't among them.  And if talking about getting up when you've been knocked down isn't the most awkward thing to say given the situation, I don't know what would be.

    A lot of people have had a lot to say, much of it not grounded in the facts, but by doing the same thing you've done: take this piece and that piece and proclaim that you know the whole story.  I think the only people who know are Rice and his wife - even the elevator video is only video, there's no sound.  And what was going on before they got on the elevator - has anyone mentioned that?  I don't think so.

    Here's the thing - I'm not defending Rice; there's no excuse for whatever it was Rice did.  And even though there's never been even a whisper of trouble with Rice, I always worry that if this is how people act in public, what's going on behind closed doors when no one else can see?

    And I have to be honest - as a Ravens' fan, I'm more than a little ticked that Rice has ensured that for the entirety of the football season, from city to city, we can look forward to the blather of the announcers that will be just as loose with the facts and the truth.  He'd better be darn sure that he plays the best football of his life this season; it's going to be the only thing that dials down the noise.

    I hope this is a wake-up call, that with all the support they've gotten,  they are on a better path.


    And Ray Lewis? (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 08:47:19 PM EST
    That's the NFL equivalent of (none / 0) (#31)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 08:59:49 PM EST
    Godwin's Law...I knew someone would have to go there.  

    ::rolling eyes::

    Yeah, that Ray Lewis, he was nothing but trouble his entire career. That Atlanta thing?  Just the beginning.  Suspensions, failed drug tests, arrests...I mean was there a season when he wasn't in some kind of trouble?

    Oh, right...there was none of that.  

    Time will tell with Ray Rice.  But there's always one in every crowd who won't ever entertain the idea that someone could turn his life around.

    Must be nice to be that perfect.


    Yeah.... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:31:38 AM EST
    ...I doubt the dead guy whose blood was found in Lewis' limo would agree.

    Spare us on the Godwin reference, which states any online discussion will eventually devolve into a Nazi reference.  Unlike this discussion, which is Raven specific.  I would expect a discussion about German history to include Nazi references just like I would expect a discussion about criminals/violent Ravens to include Ray Lewis.

    We could call it Lewis' Law, where any discussion about violence/crimes by Ravens players will always include the god fearing Ray Lewis.  But that is hardly a law, more like giving the King his homage.

    Get over it and just accept, like Cowboy fans, that your beloved team has a lot issues with violence and the law, roughly one arrest a month on the off-season which means that 25% of all players arrested in the off season are Ravens.


    There are flaws (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 10:51:13 PM EST
    and then there are flaws.

    Then why did Rice take a DANC ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:16:31 AM EST
    ... on a felony aggravated assault charge, and enter a program for first-time offenders? Isn't that an admission of culpability on his part?

    That said, people make mistakes, and if Janay Palmer can stand by her man, then I hope this serves as a wakeup call for Mr. Rice, too -- because a repeat performance will most certainly short-circuit his career.



    Anne, I did some further research ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 04:04:26 AM EST
    ... after oculus noted that New Jersey prohibits no contest pleas on felony indictments, and it appears that the source I was referencing about Rice's deferred acceptance of no contest plea was wrong. (See my explanation below.)

    Rather, he pleaded not guilty to one count of felony aggravated assault, and then applied to and was accepted for the state's pre-trial diversion program for first-time offenders, which he will have to complete successfully to the court's satisfaction if he is to avoid prosecution on the original felony charge.

    So, my prior statements about a DANC being entered are clearly incorrect, because New Jersey has no such provision in its statutes which would allow it. I apologize for my error.



    Anyone who saw the video (none / 0) (#41)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 06:06:10 AM EST
    knows that there's no soundtrack that would justify what happened to his fiancee on tape. I know, what should we believe, you or our lying eyes.

    What happened to his fiancee? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 07:05:44 AM EST
    Seriously, what did you see on that video?  Did you see Rice hit her?  No.  Did you even see an altercation?  No.

    What you saw - what everyone has seen - was a woman, clearly either unconscious or so drunk she couldn't function, being dragged out of the elevator.  Period.  You don't know what her condition was before she got on the elevator, and you don't know what transpired on the elevator.

    So, tell me again: what happened to Janay Palmer?  What have you seen that no one else has?  Something apparently did happen that Rice feels responsible for, and he's accepted that responsibility, but that doesn't mean you know any more than the rest of us what took place in that elevator.

    Neither Rice nor his wife has spoken one word to the media about what happened.  There has been not one word of, "well, I said this, and then she said that, and we both had too much to drink and then..."  

    The truth is that what happened - whatever it was - was between them.  They had a duty to handle it with law enforcement, with the NFL and the team - and they have.  

    We'll see what happens from here.


    I know what happened in there because of (none / 0) (#43)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 07:23:55 AM EST
    the police report:

    Both Palmer and Rice were subsequently arrested, and according to the report police said they've obtained video from the casino showing both attacking each other.

    I also know, that human nature being what it is, most people wouldn't be dragging out the unconscious body of a supposed loved one out of an elevator like a sack of potatoes unless they had something to do with the state said loved one is in, in the first place.

    Your lawyers' tricks are no match for my Jedi logic, Anne.

    The truth is that what happened - whatever it was - was between them.  They had a duty to handle it with law enforcement, with the NFL and the team - and they have.

    I see, they have no duty to the truth itself.  And why should they?  A little tiff, someone knocks some else out, it's not a big deal.

    We'll see what happens from here.

    You deploy cliches like they were weapons.  I would advise against that in the future.


    You didn't answer the question. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:50:09 AM EST
    What did YOU see?  The same thing everyone else in the general public saw.  

    And this:

    I also know, that human nature being what it is, most people wouldn't be dragging out the unconscious body of a supposed loved one out of an elevator like a sack of potatoes unless they had something to do with the state said loved one is in, in the first place.

    is just more assumption and speculation, and supports your interpretation of what you think happened, but certainly isn't definitive.  If we don't know anything else, and all we see is that video, there is NO reason to assume that the person trying to get an unconscious person out of the elevator is responsible for whatever rendered the person unconscious.  You, on the other hand - and a lot of other people - are backing into a sequence of events based on the last thing you saw, and media reports that are working off the same lack of information you are.

    I never said Rice and his wife had no duty to the truth.  What I said was, something happened between them and whatever it was, it was handled by law enforcement, the courts, the NFL and the team.  That's not really "no big deal," but apparently, it hasn't been a big enough deal for you.

    But if it's truth you're interested in, you might want to stop speculating and making assumptions based on your understanding of human nature, when you just do not have the whole story.  He appears to have taken responsibility for whatever it was that happened, but it seems he is bearing the brunt of people's unhappiness with how the legal system and his employer chose to handle the rest of it.  Is that really on him?  

    "We'll see what happens from here" is not a cliche.  It was shorthand for, we'll see whether this was an isolated incident, whether he returns to the community causes and programs he was involved in before this incident, whether this was a detour from what had been, by all appearances and all accounts, a good life, and he's back on track, or whether he's headed for more trouble.

    You know, we'll see what life has in store for him, and how he handles it.  

    I don't think it will matter to people who have formed an opinion based on speculation, and it's really kind of sad that those people don't seem to be rooting for him to succeed going forward, but for him to fail.  I hope they realize that rooting for his failure may also be rooting for someone else - his wife, perhaps - to be on the receiving end of more physical violence.

    Might want to think about that one for a minute or two.


    Ridiculous (2.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:57:53 AM EST
    If we don't know anything else, and all we see is that video, there is NO reason to assume that the person trying to get an unconscious person out of the elevator is responsible for whatever rendered the person unconscious.  

    As I noted, we know what the police said in the report that the video showed.  Let the video come out, so we can see what happened then.

    And, dragging them out like a sack of potatoes, that's just what people do with their loved ones do when they suddenly lose conciousness in an elevator, don't try to carry them out, just drag them on the ground.

    Please, you're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.  Stop while you can.


    If my loved one... (none / 0) (#140)
    by unitron on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    ...with whom I was sharing the elevator was suddenly rendered unconscious and not by me, when the doors opened I'd be more likely trying to get help for them into the cab than dragging them out like luggage.

    Stick with your dedections... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:15:28 AM EST
    I wouldn't quote a police report as an authority on anything...a police report can be accurate, or it can be a fairy tale.

    Since there's physical evidence (none / 0) (#52)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:42:25 AM EST
    (in this case, video tape) that presumably other hotel employee(s) saw, I would believe them, and the fact that Rice didn't fight the charges by going to trial where it could've been introduced as evidence is significant as well.

    But, as I stated above, the way he dragged his 'fiancee' out of the elevator is enough evidence for me, even if it wasn't enough on a legal basis to convict him.  


    No doubt... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:59:11 AM EST
    At best I think it's clear Ray Rice did what no man should ever do...manhandle a woman.  Doesn't matter if she hit you first...you walk away.

    My only point is police reports are not evidence...they are too biased.  Even guilty pleas prove nothing...innocent people take pleas all the time because trials are expensive and risky, and prosecutors love to over-charge to force pleas down people's throats.


    Case in point (none / 0) (#63)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:05:45 AM EST
    The CHP officer caught on video beating a woman in Southern California falsified his report on the incident.

    You're right, unsupported testimony from a cop should always be viewed with extreme suspicion.


    A cursory google search (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 09:36:34 PM EST
    (New Jersey no contest plea) reveals that persons charged with crimes under NJ state law do not have the option of pleading no contest.

    ... into a six-month pre-trial diversion program for first-time offenders, which requires him to undergo counseling for anger management and stay out of trouble for the duration of the program if he is to subsequently avoid trial and have the charges dismissed. And therein lies the key.

    It was reported by Sports Illustrated last May that Rice had pleaded no contest to one count of felony aggravated assault, as a condition of his acceptance into that program. But what you noted about New Jersey law made me curious and got me looking to other sources, which reported that Rice instead pleaded not guilty and then applied to the pre-trial diversion program.

    So I'll have defer to your reading of New Jersey law, and say that the Sports Illustrated article I read initially about the no contest plea was incorrect -- as were my subsequent statements about it.



    ApparentSI is not a reliable source (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:10:02 AM EST
    re NJ criminal procedure.  

    NJ PTI

    [No, I care not a whit about Mr. Rice or what really happened inside that elevator.]


    Perfect comment (none / 0) (#109)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:52:41 AM EST
    No, I care not a whit about Mr. Rice or what really happened inside that elevator.

    Though you could have added....and neither should all the pompous pontificators espousing their bombastic self-righteousness.


    alliteration makes it better (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 01:38:45 PM EST
    and neither should numerous pompous pontificators posting their bombastic biased blather.

    Slow news day or something. (none / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 01:19:19 PM EST
    But why am I even reading this contentious thread?  (Rhetorical question!)

    Just one more reason why (none / 0) (#150)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 01:59:31 PM EST
    "misogyny" was one of the words or phrases I thought should disappear from TL. Guess we can't just throw it under the bus.

    Sure, we can - but only if we also ... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:25:05 PM EST
    ... agree to throw under the bus the tedious and overused phrase "throw under the bus."



    Over Your Head? (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:28:56 PM EST
    CG was being clever in that Obama was the King Misogynist here for some time, and he was always throwing women under the bus.

    And giving them the finger and calling them sweetie while doing it.

    A sort of sarcastic double entendre.


    ... and Keith Olbermann's qualifications to discuss misogyny given his own '08 comments about Hillary Clinton, how do you figure that CG was really referencing Obama and the "sweetie" remarks -- you know, without him actually referencing Obama and the "sweetie" remarks?

    Over my head? Hardly. I'd say that it's a little early in the afternoon for you to be doing Cuervo shooters.



    Cuervo? Perish the thought... (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:30:35 PM EST
    I'm sure nothing as plebeian as Jose Cuervo can be found in the squeakster's liquor cabinet...

    My recollection is that coverage of Clinton was rife with misogyny, to the point where it became something of a sport.

    Not that she was the only target; somehow it became open season on women all across the political spectrum, with plenty of it dished up about conservative women.

    It was actually kind of breathtaking to find out the depth of animosity toward women who were threatening the male hold on political power and territory.

    I fully expect it to bubble and boil over again in the 2016 campaign, and possibly be even uglier than it was 8 years ago.

    And I also expect so-called progressives to condone it with respect to any of it that gets leveled at Republicans; this ability to find it acceptable with respect to some women is one reason why it's been nearly impossible to make any progress on getting rid of it. By all means, go after someone's position on the issues, on her record, but attacking women on the basis of their looks or their age is just not acceptable.


    But you quite obviously care about the law. (none / 0) (#153)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:22:04 PM EST
    Sports Illustrated has traditionally prided itself on its journalism, and indeed, they have often been recognized for their excellence in the past.

    But in this case, SI's writer misreported a basic legal fact which should have otherwise been first verified by speaking to Mr. Rice's attorney, before going to post. As for myself, I mistakenly assumed that the SI article was accurate, given that magazine's past performance. And I was wrong to do so, because I then furthered conveyed that original misinformation to others here. So, your own inquiry into New Jersey law prompted me to recognize and rectify my error.



    That knocked down, get back up... (none / 0) (#36)
    by unitron on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:06:46 AM EST
    ...phrasing is the kind of thing you hear in sports all the time, and that's likely why it came to mind for him as a metaphor for his situation, and not because he actually knocked somebody down. (I have no idea if he did or not--I wasn't there and don't follow sports)

    According to the police report, he did (none / 0) (#44)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 07:24:48 AM EST
    See above, my reply to Anne.

    But I don't think... (none / 0) (#138)
    by unitron on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:58:02 PM EST
    ...there was any connection other than co-incidence between what he allegedly did back at the beginning of all this and his choice as a metaphor of something he's probably heard on the practice field every day of his life since early childhood.

    Enough already in Gaza (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 01:11:24 AM EST
    Eye for an eye was about proportionality.

    Firing rockets that hurt few does not justify bombing hospitals and killing children.


    Baloney (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:58:53 AM EST
    All of our current problems stem from "proportionally."

    Sane policies don't dictate that you fight wars in a proportional manner.

    If you aren't interested in defending yourself, your family, your friends, and your country then you should just surrender.

    Israel has chosen to fight.

    It is sad that Hamas, a well known Muslim terrorist organization, has decided to hide its weapons in schools, hospitals and other locations were civilians are sure to be.

    But they have.

    Just as a surgeon must remove good tissue while cutting out a tumor, Israel must kill civilians will stropping the cancerous rockers and tunnels.

    Simply put. Hamas uses its people to protect its weapons. Israel uses its weapons to protect its people.


    Children and hospitals (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:11:27 AM EST
    are like tissue to be cut out?

    I expect nothing less of you, Jim.

    Kill the children, then.    


    Sadly, yes. (1.00 / 4) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:16:46 AM EST
    Kill everyone who is where the weapons are.

    Men, women and children too.

    And when Hamas stops the rockets and leaves let me know.


    From the guy who just yesterday ... (5.00 / 6) (#149)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 01:57:31 PM EST
    ... was existing such deep concern for the young girls allegedly facing female circumcision/genital mutilation...

    "Kill em all".



    "expressing such deep concern" (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:38:32 PM EST
    D@mn autocorrect...

    I believe that (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    the 'use people to protect the weapons' strategy, if you can call it strategy, is predicated on the assumption that moral nations would not do what Israel is doing. Well, I guess Israel called that bluff.  

    You are advocating War Crimes (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 03:05:53 PM EST
    This type of killing of civilians would constittute a war crime along the Nuremberg principles.

    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:30:01 PM EST
    The apparent broad-brush for killing men, women and children where ever weapons are, or might be, could not have been said better by Goebbels. But, as a more legal and moral point, there is no evidence, at this point, that Hamas and other militants force civilians to stay in areas under attack--the legal definition of a human shield under international law.

    The asymmetric urban war puts all houses in Gaza as legitimate targets since all houses are potentially non-houses, just munitions depots.  All citizens become collateral damage, since fleeing is not an option and all exits are closed. Hamas is their elected government and will live, or not, by it.  The civilians are left with there being no place like home.   So, the legal question becomes: is a war strategy of  "shooting fish in a barrel" justified in this case?  


    Stops the rockets (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:59:59 AM EST
    Rockets that are largely ineffective....

    And kill the children until the adults overthrow Hamas?

    What a monstrous approach.


    And enough already (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:15:35 AM EST
    of that snappy Krauthammer line about using people to protect weapons.

    It was not accurate when coined.  

    Gaza is so densely populated, and the people have no place else to go.  So, it is inevitable that "people" will be near military targets in Gaza.


    The "people" could and should (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:18:49 AM EST
    get rid of Hamas.

    And yes, some would be killed by Hamas in the effort.

    They choose not to.

    They live and die with that choice.


    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:55:50 AM EST
    that is the Israeli view I am afraid.

    Kill the Children to punish the adults.

      It is really not about military issues but about control.  

    Only monsters believe in this.


    Nonsense (1.00 / 5) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 04:22:00 PM EST
    The in Gaza have had Hamas there for years.

    They have been complacent while Hamas built tunnels to use to attack Israel.

    They have been complacent while Hamas imported rockets, hid some/launched some from population centers.

    And being attacked with rockets is as military as it gets.

    The people are getting what the chose and what they deserve.

    Sooner or later you get what you deserve.

    The children are just your excuse to hate Israel.


    Murdering children to influence (5.00 / 5) (#179)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 04:35:52 PM EST
    their parents behavior makes you nothing less than a full-blown advocate of terrorism. Every bit as much any cutthroat member of Hamas. Jjim.

    Sooner or later you get what you deserve. You should keep that in mind.


    Scratch a conservative (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 04:41:43 PM EST
    Christian in this country and all-too-often a wannabe SS officer starts showing beneath the surface.

    How many innocent children have to die (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:09:41 AM EST
    in order for Israel to feel that it has sufficiently protected its' citizens.

    Correct answer:  "All of them, Katie."


    Almost correct. But the answer is: (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:13:28 AM EST
    "All of them put in harms way by Hamas."

    BTW - How many German and Japanese children do you think we killed in WWII??



    And yes, Hamas has threatened to destroy Israel.  That's about as serious a threat as it would be if I were to say that I would destroy the state of Tennessee.

    But then Israel isn't facing the same threat from Hamas that we were facing from armies not limited to using long-range rockets in order to continue there warfare.

    Should they ignore it, no, they should sue for peace instead of killing more civilians and children, which doesn't do anything to stop the Hamas attacks from what I can see.

    It isn't working.

    That's the bottom line. You can make all the phoney comparisons to WWII, WWI, the American Civil War, the American Revolutionary War, etc., but that's the bottom line.


    ... died in the crossfire during the Battle of Normandy (June 6 - August 14, 1944) in the Second World War, and tens of thousands more fled the region to escape the fighting. Don't they count?

    Further, the air war turned both the Japanese and German homelands into battlefields, and Allied air forces deliberately and indiscriminately targeted civilian populations in both countries.

    By our own definition of the term, one could make a cogent argument that the destruction of Dresden by 772 British and 527 American heavy bombers on February 14-15, 1945 -- which by current estimates killed about 25,000 to 40,000 German civilians -- constituted a war crime, given that Germany was obviously a defeated nation at that point. Then again, history is written by the victors, isn't it?

    But that said, the horrific firebombing of Dresden forever haunted the late author Kurt Vonnegut, who was then being held as a prisoner of war by the Germans in that city, and thus witnessed the carnage first-hand. He ultimately related that searing experience in his critically acclaimed and bestselling 1969 semi-autobiographical novel Slaughterhouse-Five.



    I'm thinking of (none / 0) (#169)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 03:40:52 PM EST
    things like the Battle of the Bulge, specific operations, but, as you point out, the difference between battlefield and civilian land depends on the fortunes of war.

    Found this quote by Siegfried Sasson while doing a little research today:

    Let no one ever, from henceforth say one word in any way countenancing war. It is dangerous even to speak of how here and there the individual may gain some hardship of soul by it. For war is hell, and those who institute it are criminals. Were there even anything to say for it, it should not be said; for its spiritual disasters far outweigh any of its advantages.

    As quoted by Robert Nichols in his introduction to The Counter-Attack and Other Poems (1918)

    Judging from the hugely (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:20:23 AM EST
    Disproportionate death toll

    Simply put. Hamas uses its people to protect its weapons. Israel uses its weapons to protect its people.

    Israel's approach seems to bee working better.


    A successful war effort (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:15:02 AM EST
    always has a disproportionate death toll.

    Your blase attitude towards killing is appalling. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:23:42 AM EST
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:25:48 AM EST
    Must be true colors Tuesday

    I think you guys are missing the obvious... (none / 0) (#135)
    by unitron on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:49:37 PM EST
    ...which is that Jim was pointing out the obvious(in what is, in a way, just a recapitulation of  CaptHowdy's point)-- military success generally comes about by doing a much better job of killing the enemy than they do of killing you.

    Although it this particular conflict both sides seem to have expanded the definition of "the enemy" to mean "the actual enemy and anyone in close geographical proximity to them".


    Ah yes (1.00 / 2) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 04:25:43 PM EST
    But Israel is warning the bystanders even though the bystanders have enabled Hamas.

    And there is no expansion. Civilian deaths have happened forever.

    He who shoots the first rocket should expect to be shot at. If he chooses to stand next to a child then he is the guilty one.


    Bat$hit nucking futz (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:49:35 AM EST
    A successful war effort always has a disproportionate death toll until you are part of the death toll...and then you'd like to argue what the concept of successful war is...but you can't, cuz yer a crispy critter now.

    Sometimes Jim, I just wish sedatives on you :)


    This is not going to be a success (none / 0) (#164)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 03:00:20 PM EST
    Kristoff: An Idiot's Guide to Inequality (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:03:46 AM EST
    We may now have a new "most unread best seller of all time."

    Data from Amazon Kindles suggests that that honor may go to Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," which reached No. 1 on the best-seller list this year. ... All five of the passages that readers on Kindle have highlighted most are in the first 26 pages of a tome that runs 685 pages.

    The rush to purchase Piketty's book suggested that Americans must have wanted to understand inequality. The apparent rush to put it down suggests that, well, we're human.

    So [here is] my own "Idiot's Guide to Inequality:"

    -Nicholas Kristoff, The New York Times, 2014/07/24

    Art Market (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:17:51 AM EST
    The problem is that there can only be one hottest car on the block. So the lawyer who buys a Porsche is foiled by the C.E.O. who buys a Ferrari, who in turn is foiled by the hedge fund manager who buys a Lamborghini. This arms race leaves these desires unsated; there's still only one at the top of the heap.

    Good think that there is an art market which is currently on fire.

    More than likely it will be strong for the next 15 or more years.

    Too bad it is being fueled (at the top) by backwards thinking status seekers from countries that are regressive.


    Nicholas Kristoff would (none / 0) (#183)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:04:49 PM EST
    have made a better contribution if he had highlighted information well beyond the first 26 pages and, an even better contribution if he had encouraged readers to stay with it.  Maybe, even another 26 pages.  

    True, it is not an easy read, not exactly a page-turner.  But the quest for "understanding inequality" takes work, and an appreciation for the scholarly work of others, that includes data and analysis.   Kristoff' should stick to reporting the slave trade in Cambodia.  There he makes a real contribution, sometimes a little creepy reporting, but real.


    Tracy Emin's Bed (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:31:53 AM EST
    Good news:

    Before her infamous piece My Bed (1998) hit the auction block at Christie's London earlier this month, Tracey Emin said: "What I would really love is that someone did buy it and they donated it to the Tate."

    Now her dream has come true. Well, almost.

    The buyer has just been revealed as Cologne-based Count Christian Duerckheim, and although he won't fully part with the legendary artwork, the German collector has committed to loan it to Tate for a minimum period of ten years.


    Priorities (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:45:17 AM EST
    From think progress

    Just days before its international debut at an airshow in the United Kingdom, the entire fleet of the Pentagon's next generation fighter plane -- known as the F-35 II Lightning, or the Joint Strike Fighter -- has been grounded, highlighting just what a boondoggle the project has been. With the vast amounts spent so far on the aircraft, the United States could have worked wonders, including providing every homeless person in the U.S. a $600,000 home.

    Yeah, it was (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by sj on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:52:11 PM EST
    Pretty low blow (none / 0) (#184)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 04:29:13 PM MDT


    It is also prototypical jim. I realize that earlier you were taking his comments seriously and thought bringing facts into your exchanges would be meaningful.

    The sad fact is that you were unwittingly feeding him.

    Jim: It is one thing to be a realist about (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:54:51 PM EST
    the war-is-hell consequences (even to be a cynic.)  It is entirely in another dimension--beyond the pale, I would say--to express the last two sentences of your immediate preceding comment.  To voice that the "local population has chosen to accept Hamas" with your smug, impassively judgmental conclusion that civilians "are getting what they accepted. Death" is the ugliest comment I have ever seen on this blog.  Unless I've missed something, one would have to lack a semblance of conscience or a soul to be that dismissive of the human beings who are Palestinians.

    I deleted the "low blow" comment (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 12:16:13 AM EST
    And this thread is now full. A new one is up.

    Coming soon to a parallel universe near you! (none / 0) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:08:34 PM EST
    This is totally John McCain's fault -- and all for only $9.95 per month:

    "People are nuanced. They have different layers and different levels. Too often people in public life are reduced to easily digestible cartoons [...] What we're excited about is giving voice, for literally thousands of people who are out there, to someone who's got passion and something to say and has a rabid audience that wants to hear it."
    -- Jonathan Klein, former president of CNN's U.S. operations, announcing that "The Sarah Palin Channel" is up and running as of 9:00 p.m. EDT last might.

    "Nuanced" isn't exactly the term I'd use to describe Mrs. Bullwinkle's rabid fan base. I was thinking more along the lines of "insipid" and "gullible." The worst day's work the Arizona senator ever did in his life was the day he chose that flagrant opportunist as his 2008 running mate.

    And that concludes today's "Beam Me Up, Scotty" moment. Aloha.

    "has a rabid audience" (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:36:11 PM EST
    Put them down.   Poor things.

    If word-salad politics from the right (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:24:26 PM EST
    are your thing, delivered in a voice that could cut through 1/2 inch-thick steel plating, the Quitbull can be all yours now for 10$/month.

    Ha! I hate to admit it, but ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:12:31 PM EST
    ... Sarah Palin's voice sounds exactly like my younger sister's. Now, I love my sister dearly but that said, hers is a voice which can corrode the copper wiring of telephone transmission lines. (Good thing she doesn't read this blog.)

    9.95 (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:57:11 PM EST
    seems to be the going rate for cult membership these days. I guess she can't let Glenn Beck get all the action.

    What percentage of subscribers (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:08:23 PM EST
    Do you think will be press?

    Depends (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:34:03 PM EST
    on how many followers she gets. If she gets a million, probably a good 10,000 will be from the press corps. They seem to have a morbid fascination with watching the trainwreck named Sarah Palin. I'm QUITE SURE the GOP DC political establishment is not happy about this because at least when she was speaking at gatherings it was somewhat canned. Can you imagine what kind of stuff she's going to say when there is no one there to present any sort of filter? I mean it's already bad enough with the limited one there is now.

    Hmmm Let me see, GA (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:42:38 AM EST
    Shall we compare resumes??

    On State Champ BB team... successful marriage... elected mayor... elected Guv.... party nominee for VP....

    Your turn


    Resigned as Gov half-way through her term. (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:44:04 AM EST
    Just a reminder of her complete record.

    No thanks are necessary.


    i.e., a Quitter (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:56:20 AM EST
    ? for you (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:03:05 AM EST

    What's the difference between a rising GOP star and a quitbull? One year.

    From the Urban Dictionary.


    I just finally saw Game Change (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:01:38 AM EST
    It's worth seeing if only to see how she helped to sink the McCain campaign.

    Helped a LOT.


    She resigned to stop the harassing law (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:58:09 AM EST
    suits and the many many personal attacks on herself and her family.

    Who can forget the lie that she said she could see Russia from her home??

    Who can forget the lie that she banned books??

    Who can forget the lie that she tried to pass off her challenged baby as her's when it actually was her daughter's??

    Who can forget the lie that she called Obama a "Sambo?""

    They were  lies, but you laughed. After all, it was done to help elect The new Leftie Messiah from Chicago. How's that working out?

    And I wonder if the Secret Service showed up after this hit the air and cable waves???

    Palin's newly notorious Paul Revere remarks came up for discussion and Titus had this to say: "You know what, man? I am going to literally -- if she gets elected president, I am going to hang out on the grassy knoll all the time, just loaded and ready -- because you know what? It's for my country. It's for my country. If I got to sacrifice myself, it's for my country."


    And who can forget such classy Leftie acts as this:

    Letterman referred to Palin, Alaska's governor, as having the style of a "slutty flight attendant."

    A slutty flight attendant?? He insults hard working females dedicated to the safety of airline passengers and uses that to insult Palin. And you worry about Dungy saying the NFL's first Gay player will be distraction?

    What a complete and total ass he is. But he wasn't done.

    One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game," Letterman said, "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

    David Letterman

    And of course Maher couldn't stand to be left out.

    And when I point out that Sarah Palin is a vainglorious braggart, a liar, a whiner, a professional victim, a scold, a know-it-all, a chiseler, a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and the leader of a strange family of inbred weirdos straight out of "The Hills Have Eyes," that's not sexist. I'm saying it because it's true, not because it's true of a woman


    And then we have her accurate description of what will ultimately be the end game of Obamacare:

    Death Panels. That really set you folks off.

    Yes, she quit.

    But she has achieved much in her life.

    You two??  What is your claim to fame??


    I love Bill Maher (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:05:03 AM EST
    And of course Maher couldn't stand to be left out.

    And when I point out that Sarah Palin is a vainglorious braggart, a liar, a whiner, a professional victim, a scold, a know-it-all, a chiseler, a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and the leader of a strange family of inbred weirdos straight out of "The Hills Have Eyes," that's not sexist. I'm saying it because it's true, not because it's true of a woman

    Yo, Jim. Where was your righteous indignation (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:13:02 AM EST
    when the GOP and their assorted haters were making up lies about Hillary and Bill Clinton, and making fun of Chelsea?  Please do tell.

    Russia From Her Window (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:14:07 AM EST
    During that appearance, interviewer Charles Gibson asked her what insight she had gained from living so close to Russia, and she responded:

    "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska"


    So the insight that VP candidate Palin had about Russia from living in Alaska was that someone could see Russia from Alaska????

    Wow she knocked that one out of the ball park. Her insight as to Russian politics must be vast, considering the vast wasteland someone could see from Alaska.

    What a moron.


    Jim you seem to conveniently forget ... (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 03:59:29 PM EST
    ... that Gov. Sarah Palin was publicly cited by the Alaska State Legislature -- a GOP-controlled body, BTW -- for her repeated abuse of the powers of her office, by which she allowed family members to use her authority as governor to conduct a vendetta against her former brother-in-law Mike Wooten, an Alaska state trooper.

    State legislators got involved after she dismissed Alaska Public Safety Director Walt Monegan, purportedly for refusing to fire Wooten from the state police force, and its Branchflower Report was adopted and released in October 2008.

    That report found that while Gov. Palin was within fully her rights to fire Monegan because cabinet appointees serve at the governor's pleasure, seek Wooten's termination she violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska State Ethics Act, which states:

    "The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."

    Specifically, legislative investigators concluded that Gov. Palin wrongfully allowed her husband, Todd Palin, to use state resources to pursue having Trooper Wooten fired, and stated for the record that she "knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda."

    That thin-skinned and vindictive woman was certainly no victim, and Alaska was much better off for her having quit.



    Very funny bit (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 04:30:44 PM EST
    About this in Game Change -

    - Man: Governor Palin,
    what's your response
    to the findings
    that the Alaska state
    legislature's report
    on your involvement
    in the troopergate scandal?

    Plain - I was thrilled to be
    cleared of all wrongdoing.

    Schmidt- You know you're not
    supposed to be here.
    Go back to the press risers,
    please. Thank you.
    You can't say you were
    cleared of all wrongdoing.

    Plain - Why not?

    Schmidt - Because you weren't.
    The report stated that
    you abused your power.
    That is the opposite of being
    cleared of all wrongdoing.

    Plain - Then why was I told otherwise?

    Schmidt - You weren't told otherwise.

    Palin - And why haven't you
    released a statement
    saying that Todd
    was never a member
    of the Alaska
    independence party?

    Schmidt - Because that would be untrue.
    He was a member.

    Palin - He checked the wrong box.
    He registered by accident,
    and rectified the error

    Schmidt - He was a member
    for seven years!
    I'm sorry,
    Governor, but...

    It was a comedy routine (none / 0) (#80)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:02:10 AM EST
    Who can forget the lie that she said she could see Russia from her home??

    That was an SNL routine:

    Two days later, on the 2008 season premiere of Saturday Night Live, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler appeared in a sketch portraying Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, during which Fey spoofed Governor Palin's remark of a few days earlier with the following exchange:
    FEY AS PALIN: "You know, Hillary and I don't agree on everything . . ."

    POEHLER AS CLINTON: (OVERLAPPING) "Anything. I believe that diplomacy should be the cornerstone of any foreign policy."

    FEY AS PALIN: "And I can see Russia from my house."

    When you start labeling a comic routine as a lie, you're either insulting your intelligence, or the intelligence of the America electorate.


    That's kind of the point Mordiggian (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:59:39 AM EST
    It was a comedy routine that became lore and many people to this day believe Sarah Palin actually said it.

    Wonder if it's the same ones (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:01:16 AM EST
    Who think Al Gore said he created the internet.

    Nope (none / 0) (#117)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:05:11 AM EST
    Those would be the conservatives.  It's liberals and the blogosphere who kept the "I can see Alaska from my house" meme alive....

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:09:47 AM EST
    So the same ones who think the president said "you didn't build that". Or maybe the one who think the president waived the work restrictions for welfare? That one showed up in a Boner statement about the "lawsuit" just a couple of days ago. Oh, I know, it's the ones who think the president was born in Kenya

    Yes (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:04:58 AM EST
    What she actually said was stupider, in response to the question. The Saturday night live rendition at least takes the question out of the picture, which helps..

    And I would also guess that many people who believe Palin actually said that she can see Russia from her window actually believe that she could.


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:11:49 AM EST
    Believes that she can see Russia or that she would say she can.

    Hahahah (none / 0) (#121)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:20:51 AM EST
    good one!

    My guess is that ppj, believed that Palin said it and that it was true that she could see Russia from her window.

    Took him a while to sort out that it was SNL who, um, 'paraphrased' Palin's remark


    AFAIK (none / 0) (#118)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:07:47 AM EST
    Nobody has been promoting it as something she actually said, but this, OTOH, is funny.

    Played (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:05:08 AM EST
    basketball in high school? You really have to reach that low to find qualifications for her?

    I really don't care. Sarah is the gift that keeps on giving to Democrats. She's crazy as a bed bug and in her latest rant she comes off as drunk but I figured you would make excuses for her. Whatever.


    It took going to a number (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:12:31 AM EST
    of colleges to complete her degree, wonder why they aren't on his list as well.

    Oh, you mean she graduated?? (1.00 / 2) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:09:47 AM EST
    Thanks for reminding me.

    But actually I don't regard a primary degree in anything except the hard sciences with much regard.

    Hired and fired too many of'em.


    You certainly have an unrivaled sense of (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:26:35 AM EST

    It's the (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:34:17 AM EST
    Dunning-Kruger effect at work.

    The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias manifesting in two principal ways:

        Unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.[1]

    Those persons to whom a skill or set of skills come easily may find themselves with weak self-confidence, as they may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. See Impostor syndrome.

    David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[2]

    Yes. I had enough Psychology classes in (none / 0) (#104)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:37:46 AM EST
    college and life experiences to have him figured out.  

    So, I guess my BA in Biology (none / 0) (#94)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:22:14 AM EST
    is more impressive than the Quitbulls' academic record.

    Good to know.


    You mean you personally ... (none / 0) (#191)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:55:50 PM EST
    ... "hired and fired to many of 'em" (people with a primary degree in anything except the hard sciences), or you did it while working for people with other degrees?



    Can you bounce a ball?? (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:07:08 AM EST
    She was point guard on a state champion. Now I doubt you understand what a point guard does and I ain't gonna explain it.

    And she's drunk?? Really?? She wants to impeach Obama? Wow. Not that I don't agree that he should be, if for nothing more than his public lies, but I am against it because of his value as an example of what a real "Progressive" is to our enemies.

    Where's your friends who want to lynch Justice Thomas??



    "Can you bounce a ball?" (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:24:22 AM EST
    That's a low bar.  Even for her.

    Can't you bounce a ball.  I can.  Well, the last time I tried.  


    Watch the tape (none / 0) (#97)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:25:19 AM EST
    and judge for yourself.

    Whether you like her politics or not, you probably agree that Sarah Palin is a dynamic speaker.

    But the former Republican vice presidential candidate didn't show that maverick speaking prowess in Denver recently.

    While giving a speech to the Western Conservative Summit on July 19, Palin appeared to slur her words and rambled.

    The video is going viral and several websites are slamming her: Truthyism says she was "possibly drunk," Crooks and Liars says her "oddball" speech sounds "downright inebriated" and Austinisafecker describes her speech as a "drunken word turd."

    You decide. Here's the speech.

    Watching that (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:31:47 AM EST
    I think, based on having a couple of serious prescription drug addicts in my family, it looks like some kind of prescription high.

    It would be irresponsible (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:41:45 AM EST
    to speculate as to whether or not she got a hold of "Magic Dolphin Peggy Noonan pills" before she gave her speech.

    What a coincidence! (none / 0) (#172)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 04:20:59 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ: "[Sarah Palin] was point guard on a state champion."

    So was Barack Obama. His Punahou School team won the Hawaii boys' state basketball championship in his senior year (1979).

    And for the record, Sarah Palin -- No. 22 in the photo --  was also the co-captain of her Wasilla High School team.


    Heh - Interesting new standard (none / 0) (#189)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:52:34 PM EST
    Shall we compare your resume to Barack Obama's next time you decide to criticize him?



    There is also a new NEWSMAX (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:41:19 PM EST
    Channel on dish.

    Newsmax Media today announced that it has reached a distribution agreement with satellite TV provider DISH Network Corp. for Newsmax TV, expanding the reach of the forthcoming news, information and lifestyle channel to nearly 35 million satellite homes and businesses when it soft launches on June 16.

    The new distribution deal puts Newsmax in more than one-third of U.S. cable and satellite homes. Last week the company announced a distribution deal with DIRECTV, the nation's largest satellite provider reaching more than 20 million subscribers.

    In announcing the DISH agreement, Newsmax Media CEO Christopher Ruddy said he expects Newsmax TV's distribution to grow by the time the channel, which targets the interests and needs of an underserved Baby Boomer audience officially launches this fall.

    "Newsmax TV's agreement with DISH further accelerates our path to initial carriage in 40 percent of U.S. homes," Ruddy said.

    Under served?


    Underserved (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:10:56 PM EST
    is the same thing I was thinking. LOL. There's plenty of channels for the nuts already.

    Christopher Ruddy! (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 04:25:10 AM EST
    That crackpot is still around, huh? Jeez, I remember him from the mid-'90s when he was one of Richard Mellon Scaife's scolytes at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, trafficking in misinformation, gossip, innuendo and conspiracy theories about the Bill and Hillary Clinton. He used to be the go-to guy for all things Vince Foster, which made him a regular guest on the late George Putnam's radio show in L.A. What a total douchebag!

    I was thinking (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:46:47 AM EST
    He must be excited about a Clinton candidacy

    I had no idea he was behind Newsmax. (none / 0) (#158)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:35:27 PM EST
    Explains a lot.

    Another thing that reminds me I would be a lot richer if I would do or say anything for money.


    (Gasp!) Why, if you did that, then ... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 04:29:24 PM EST
    ... you'd be nothing but a paid w-- a paid wh-- a paid who-- oh, I just can't say it on a family-oriented site! You know, one of those people like Christopher Ruddy!

    A sawbuck a month... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:44:14 PM EST
    for The Onion Network doesn't sound like a bad deal at all.

    LB (none / 0) (#203)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 06:43:14 AM EST
    Not quite deleted, I'm afraid. But thanks for trying.