Eve of 4th of July Open Thread

Tomorrow is a day to celebrate our freedom and independence, and to be thankful we live in a nation, that with all its flaws, is still among the best at respecting individual liberty.

But tonight I'm also thinking about the freedoms we need to protect and defend, not just for our law-abiding citizens, but for all who are living within our country's borders, including those who continue to be detained at Guantanamo, who are languishing in our prisons, and who live in fear of being separated from their families and deported.

If you're looking for something to evoke a feeling of what this holiday is about, the graphic above is one of my favorites. Timothy McVeigh gave it to me one day during a jail visit.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Nobody could have predicted that 'religious liberty' accommodations would lead to Hobby Lobby | Wedding Bells for Joran Van Der Sloot >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I worked a little Independence Day into my risk (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:57:59 PM EST
    review slide package today. first slide: "We hold these risks to be self evident...."

    Really this is  a wonderful holiday for me, except the firecrackers that scare the dogs. I love a holiday about ideas.

    I love the Onions (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:05:11 PM EST
    Rules for a safe holiday

    1. Remember fireworks can't hurt you when you are drunk.  Nothing can.


    Complete (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:07:41 PM EST
    Remind me again why this guy is so awsum (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 08:54:33 AM EST
    COMING soon to a street near you: An exorcism. It's for real. The Pope has officially revived the medieval practice in a fresh fight against evil.
    Spearheading this fight against demonic domination are 250 priests from 30 countries. Now, the International Association of Exorcists has gone mainstream.
    The Vatican officially approves.
    Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano reports that a Vatican governing committee has put the exorcist organisation's constitution to the test -- and found it pure.
    "Exorcism is a form of charity that benefits those who suffer," the head of the association, Reverend Francesco Bamonte,
    His group of holy warriors are now a part of canon law.
    Unlike his recent predecessors, Pope Francis has a strong focus on the personification of the Devil. Satan is regularly mentioned in speeches and presentations.
    He was quite clear about the personification of evil in one of his opening speeches as Pope: "Anyone who does not pray to the Lord prays to the Devil," he declared.
    The Pope has even tried his own hand at exorcism: Last year he placed his hands on the head of a man said to be possessed by four demons. Exorcists say the words he uttered were part of a prayer of "liberation".

    A similar thing happened to Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 10:07:00 AM EST
    He got the Presidential gig, wanted to change and uplift, etc. etc. etc., soon discovered that there were huge constituencies, even among his own supporters, that didn't want anything to change, that wanted to continue doing the same old b/s.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 10:15:52 AM EST
    No one forced him to say the BS statement in bold.

    To be clear (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:18:31 AM EST
    This would be a criticism of leadership not membership.  I doubt most reasonable church members would see the need for an exorcism squad.

    Which btw I have been reading about for a long time.  They have been operating for years.  This is apparently just their coming out party.  


    It's very weird, Capt. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 10:21:58 AM EST
    It could be marketing.  As in trying to grow membership by offering extreme experiences to attract American bible belters bored with snake handling, holy rolling, and speaking in tongues.

    And I can see a reality TV show... exorcism SWAT teams.

    Roll the theme music:

    Kick, kick, kickin' in Satan's Door...


    I was thinking about (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 11:18:35 AM EST
    The movie the Exorcist and what a big deal was made of how frowned on it was and how difficult it was to get approval.  That was what 1973-4.  And supposedly had at least tacit approval of the church.  How times have changed.  Captain Howdy is popping up like whack a mole these days.

    Just browsing ... (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 12:02:57 PM EST
    This is from the exorcism wiki

    The Catholic Church revised the Rite of Exorcism in January 1999, though the traditional Rite of Exorcism in Latin is allowed as an option. The ritual assumes that possessed persons retain their free will, though the demon may hold control over their physical body, and involves prayers, blessings, and invocations with the use of the document Of Exorcisms and Certain Supplications.

    Solemn exorcisms, according to the Canon law of the Church, can be exercised only by an ordained priest (or higher prelate), with the express permission of the local bishop, and only after a careful medical examination to exclude the possibility of mental illness.[4] The Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) enjoined: "Superstition ought not to be confounded with religion, however much their history may be interwoven, nor magic, however white it may be, with a legitimate religious rite." Things listed in the Roman Ritual as being indicators of possible demonic possession include: speaking foreign or ancient languages of which the possessed has no prior knowledge; supernatural abilities and strength; knowledge of hidden or remote things which the possessed has no way of knowing; an aversion to anything holy; and profuse blasphemy and/or sacrilege.

    In the 15th century, Catholic exorcists were both priestly and lay, since every Christian was considered as having the power to command demons and drive them out in the name of Christ. These exorcists used the Benedictine formula "Vade retro satana" ("Step back, Satan") around this time. By the late 1960s, Roman Catholic exorcisms were seldom performed in the United States, but by the mid-1970s, popular film and literature revived interest in the ritual, with thousands claiming demonic possession. Maverick priests who belonged to right-wing fringes took advantage of the increase in demand and performed exorcisms with little or no official sanction. The exorcisms that they performed were, according to Contemporary American Religion, "clandestine, underground affairs, undertaken without the approval of the Catholic Church and without the rigorous psychological screening that the church required. In subsequent years, the Church took more aggressive action on the demon-expulsion front."[5] By the 1980s and early 1990s, exorcisms had become a common phenomenon.

    RTS (none / 0) (#114)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 12:14:41 PM EST
    And if the exorcism does not work there is always Religious Trauma Syndrome therapy.

    That is an excellent website IMO (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 12:33:20 PM EST
    I'm sure it does valuable work (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 12:41:47 PM EST
    But it's very depressing.  Depressing that it's needed that it even needs to exist.  
    That said I'm glad it does.  

    I understand (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 12:45:08 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 12:47:51 PM EST
    I think so... I know her... well met her a few times as she is a good friend of a good friend of mine.

    Her problem is that there are too many afflicted, many more clients than is possible for her to work with. IOW there is overwhelming demand from those seeking to be exorcised from Religious Trauma.

    Anyone thinking of going into the healing arts in the field of mental health, should consider this speciality as multitudes have been traumatized by religious organizations and particularly traumatized in the process of escaping from the fold.


    I have a friend (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    Who works with mostly former cult members.  Mostly children.  I have told him I am very glad he does what he does because I don think I could do it.

    I felt a little (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 12:20:09 PM EST
    Traumatized from that web site

    Traumatized? (none / 0) (#119)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 12:24:34 PM EST
    How so?

    Governor Bobby Jindal (none / 0) (#115)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 12:18:53 PM EST
    Nothing about that surprised me (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 12:22:27 PM EST
    The guy is from central casting.

    Great Comment (none / 0) (#118)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 12:23:29 PM EST
    Greg March 3, 2009 · 10:57 am
    How could one not believe in the devil? We all saw him. He was the US President for the last 8 years. ; )

    Yes, and there (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 01:42:44 PM EST
    is merit to the thinking of 'Angela':   March 12, 2009  "I'm more afraid of people like him (jindal) than I am of any "demon."

    There are the good things (none / 0) (#186)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 03:27:48 PM EST
    It's Sunday so I figured I'd post something from Pope Francis. I was raised a cafeteria Catholic but consider myself an Agnostic. However, Franics is winning me back. In my last post, Francis condemned all forms of torture. Today, he's speaking out for the environment:

    Since Pope Francis was elected to the papacy in March 2013, he has voiced strong support for protecting Earth's environment and especially preserving the rain forests in his homeland, South America.

    On Saturday, Francis, who took his name from Francis of Assisi, a 13th-century saint and the patron saint of animals and the environment, called environmental exploitation, such as chopping down the rain forest, a sin of modern times, Reuters reported.

    The Pope delivered a speech to students, laid-off workers and struggling farmers at the University of Molise, a southern Italian agricultural and industrial region. He said people need to respect the Earth and its resources without exploiting them.

    "This is one of the greatest challenges of our time: to convert ourselves to a type of development that knows how to respect creation," said Pope Francis, who is from Argentina. "When I look at America, also my own homeland, so many forests, all cut, that have become land ... that can [no] longer give life. This is our sin, exploiting the Earth and not allowing her to give us what she has within her."

    The pope is writing an encyclical about humans and their relationship with nature, according to Reuters.

    Following Francis' speech at the university hall, the pope led a Mass at a stadium for tens of thousands of people.

    Or this (none / 0) (#193)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 07:54:46 AM EST
    Pope seeks forgiveness in church sex abuse scandal

    Pope Francis met Monday with six victims of sexual abuse by clergy members, acknowledging that the failure of church leaders to act led to greater suffering.

    "Before God and his people I express my sorrow for the sins and grave crimes of clerical sexual abuse committed against you. And I humbly ask forgiveness," Francis said in a homily during Mass with the victims, according to a text of the statement provided by the Vatican.

    "I beg your forgiveness, too, for the sins of omission on the part of Church leaders who did not respond adequately to reports of abuse made by family members, as well as by abuse victims themselves," he said. "This led to even greater suffering on the part of those who were abused and it endangered other minors who were at risk."

    He said "sins of clerical sexual abuse against minors have a toxic effect on faith and hope in God."

    Are they anything like (none / 0) (#51)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:14:23 PM EST
    I just have this image in my head of them stalking down the street with the music playing.  "Who you gonna call?  Demonbusters!"

    Apparent they are (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:45:37 PM EST
    Dioceses across Italy, as well as in countries such as Spain, are increasing the number of priests schooled in administering the rite of exorcism, fabled to rid people of possession by the Devil.
    The rise in demonic cases is a result of more people dabbling in practices such as black magic, paganism, Satanic rites and Ouija boards, often exploring the dark arts with the help of information readily found on the internet, the Church said.
    The increase in the number of priests being trained to tackle the phenomenon is also an effort by the Church to sideline unauthorised, self-proclaimed exorcists, and its tacit recognition that belief in Satan, once regarded by Catholic progressives as an embarrassment, is still very much alive.

    So partly it's about closing down the competition.  I wonder if they ever considered that pandering to this nonsense might increase the demand.  
    If you have the stomach explore this long list of links


    I think that you may have hit upon something, (none / 0) (#57)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 01:12:28 PM EST
    Howdy.  "Closing down the competition."

    Frederick Douglass Independence Day Speech (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 10:26:03 AM EST
    What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?
    by Frederick Douglass
    July 5, 1852

    But the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors. It has made itself the bulwark of American slavery, and the shield of American slave-hunters. Many of its most eloquent Divines. who stand as the very lights of the church, have shamelessly given the sanction of religion and the Bible to the whole slave system. They have taught that man may, properly, be a slave; that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God; that to send back an escaped bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity....

     It is not that "pure and undefiled religion" which is from above, and which is "first pure, then peaceable, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." But a religion which favors the rich against the poor; which exalts the proud above the humble; which divides mankind into two classes, tyrants and slaves; which says to the man in chains, stay there; and to the oppressor, oppress on; it is a religion which may be professed and enjoyed by all the robbers and enslavers of mankind; it makes God a respecter of persons, denies his fatherhood of the race, and tramples in the dust the great truth of the brotherhood of man. ....

    You boast of your love of liberty, your superior civilization, and your pure Christianity, while the whole political power of the nation (as embodied in the two great political parties), is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the enslavement of three millions of your countrymen.

    Richard Mellon Scaife... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by desertswine on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:27:33 AM EST
    has died. See ya.

    It's to bad on a way (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 04:18:11 PM EST
    Richard Mellon Scaife, the Pittsburgh philanthropist and reclusive heir to the Mellon banking fortune, whose support for right-wing causes laid the foundations for America's modern conservative movement and fueled the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton, died on Friday. He was 82.

    That he didn't live to see another president Clinton.

    And this-

    Mr. Scaife (pronounced Skayf) inherited roughly $500 million in 1965, and with more family bequests and income from trust funds and investments in oil, steel and real estate, nearly tripled his net worth over his lifetime. But unlike his forebears, who were primarily benefactors of museums, public art collections, education and medicine, he gave hundreds of millions to promote conservative political causes.

    Strikes me as a bit ironic


    And what's even more ironic, ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 04:36:15 PM EST
    ... for all the money he threw at right-wing causes celebres, Scaife was apparently also a very generous supporter of Planned Parenthood. IMHO, that's not unlike President Reagan arming both sides in the Iran-Iraq War.

    It just strikes me as odd (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 05:00:13 PM EST
    That he would think that a system in which he was given a fortune and tripled it was not friendly enough to the rich.

    Well, as Bette Davis was purported to have said (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 04:30:28 PM EST
    when Joan Crawford died  (and the two of them  hated each other),
    "I was always taught to speak good of the dead.  Joan Crawford is dead.  Good."

    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 04:40:32 AM EST
    was deleted. We don't speak ill of the dead here, especially on the occasion of their death. While it reprinted a comment elsewhere, it would still show up as associated with TL.

    Here's some interesting footage (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by desertswine on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:59:34 PM EST
    More Firework Drone Videos (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 11:16:46 AM EST
    Looks like CG (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 09:22:37 AM EST
    I doubt if it was CG tho (none / 0) (#109)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 11:03:41 AM EST
    I saw a great display from a nearby hilltop deck last night - what a thrill!

    There are no dust bunnies under my bed (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 01:45:54 PM EST
    I have had three 80lb dogs under it for about the last 48 hours.

    Awww (none / 0) (#128)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 01:54:09 PM EST
    I feel for them.. years ago I had a 75lb dog rottweiler. He would tremble and hide for the most of june and well until july until the locals finished shooting off their wad..  I lived in Washington Heights where fireworks were seasonally almost as abundant as crack and smack.

    It was very hard to watch. Not much I could do to calm him.


    Portland always has lots of illegal fireworks (none / 0) (#131)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:25:24 PM EST
    going off all over the city. Watching from a hill one can see 3-5 municipal fireworks displays and the whole city is a flower garden for around 4-5 hours with that and the illegals. This year leaflets were distributed in parts of the city to not set off firecrackers (legal or illegal) in neighborhoods because of neighbor's dogs. Didn't seem to have any effect tho. Is there dog valium?

    There is doggie Valium (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:29:22 PM EST
    I used to get it for of of my dogs who hated riding in a car for some reason

    It's  not there yet.  I thnk they just discovered they like under there.   Like a clubhouse.  


    I gave my nervous girl a 'Pet-Eze' tablet (none / 0) (#153)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 06:38:15 PM EST
    An over the counter remedy with chamomile, and tryptophan. It seemed to take the edge off - plus we stayed in the part of the house furthest from the noise, with the TV on. She stuck to me close, but did not try to get behind the couch, like previous holidays.

    Really wish people would go to one of the many lovely free professional displays in the area. I don't even get the attraction of doing cheesy amateur stuff  in the back yard.


    We usually have a party (none / 0) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 06:47:33 PM EST
    Our dogs don't think the fireworks are great, but they don't freak out either thankfully.  The thunderstorms down here are wild :)

    But we did not have a party this year without our daddy person.  Josh was NOT in the mood for any shoddy substitute I might come up with.  So we went to the Japanese steak house.  It was deserted.  Everyone was on Fort Rucker, which we usually avoid too because it is a crazy mob.

    We had a nice dinner, things were pretty quiet in the neighborhood when we got home, there were some teens on one of the lake docks letting off bottle rockets but that was it.

    This morning though, Ghost decided that he loves to run through sprinklers.  He looks like a kid out there.  And he has a lot of hair in order to attend a show in September.  What a mess.  He gets a bath about every 10 days but I'm ready for that mess, not extras.  When he's really wet it is like broken pipes on a shag rug.


    Fireworks are big here (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 06:51:46 PM EST


    There are three firework stands in our tiny town.


    We are usually the biggest offenders (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 07:01:05 PM EST
    In our neighborhood :)  Last year Josh and Dad spent over $400 on their fireworks display for their party.  That is how I know crazy things are legal here.  They do their display over the lake for affect.  I told my husband that there were some different postings on facebook this year about how fireworks might adversely affect veterans with PTSD and he says fireworks are how he deals with his :)  We are fireworks offenders.

    I am neutral (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 07:05:22 PM EST
    I am glad it happens when you usually want to keep the doors and windows closed anyway.   It doesn't really bother me.   The dogs not so much.  

    It bothered me at first (none / 0) (#184)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:29:12 AM EST
    If it wasn't for the boy glee, I wouldn't have made peace with it.  We have PVC launchers set into the lakeshore, they set off a firework labeled artillery shells that do a sky burst.

    I will let you slide since you are NIMBY! (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 07:12:01 PM EST
    Shame on Murrieta, California (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 01:05:59 AM EST
    A white exurb that prides itself on being evangelical Christian.

    Tonight, these bigots were trying to block a busload of kids from Guatemala.

    We should take in all these kids from Guatemala.  We owe them.  

    I can't bear to watch the coverage of (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 07:21:35 AM EST
    this; all I have running through my head are the words engraved on the Statue of Liberty, most especially, "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."  Here we are, celebrating the 4th of July and all that that's supposed to mean - and here are these people claiming to be expressing their love for America by showing the world how much they hate.

    Okay, sure - maybe it is manipulative to send children alone on a journey to America - because who would hate on children?  To me, it's just desperation, plain and simple.  I have no idea what it's like to be so desperate I'd send my little child off alone hoping he or she would get here in one piece and be fed and sheltered on arrival.  And how are they greeted when they get here?  Like cockroaches.

    I know we can't save the world, and I have plenty of anger for the governments of these other countries, that they aren't doing more to improve the economic and social conditions such that the way fewer people feel compelled to come here.  But then, I have plenty of anger for my own government, that keeps trying to shrink the safety net for American citizens.

    But watching the news coverage of this story sickened me.  I guess I just don't get that level of selfishness and hate, and all things considered, I hope I never do.



    The governments of other countries (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 08:09:08 AM EST
    That is true.

    What is particularly poignant is that the government of Guatemala is largely a U.S. creation.   What the U.S. did to that country is horrific.


    What is all the upset (1.33 / 3) (#169)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 09:12:32 PM EST
    over 50,000 illegals a week?

    We have plenty of low skill jobs and obamacare to offer, plus free transportation once you get to the USA.

    If they were not reliable voters for Democrats Obama would have up a 10 meter electrified fence.


    You are one heartless puppy. (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 09:23:13 PM EST
    And slightly delusional. . . .

    Why don't you put your words into deeds? (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 03:23:18 AM EST
    Go to Murrieta, throw eggs and rocks at the next bus full of kids, and show all your friends watching Fox News what a great American you are.

    Get lost.


    We owe it to Guatemala (none / 0) (#174)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 11:49:19 PM EST
    at the least....

    And, even if not, they are just as human as you are.


    Should have told those... (none / 0) (#135)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:38:40 PM EST
    ..."good Christians" that we were bringing those kids in to save them from being aborted.

    Then watch heads get all 'splodey.


    Nah (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 04:53:21 PM EST
    The religious right has no problem banning abortion, banning welfare, impoverishing single mothers and their children. It is a one two punch, the second punch is where they support the police and jailers, mandatory minimums and tough on crime laws.  Private prisons are a very lucrative investment and they provide great opportunities for Christian Fundamentalists to get on the gravy train with their prison programs ($$) aimed at a captive audience: the incarcerated.

    In an era where the Bush administration touts faith-based organizations as engines of individual and social transformation, and is actively recruiting and funding religious organizations to deliver a bevy of social services, it isn't surprising that a high-powered politically-savvy corporation wants in on the action. The Corrections Corporation of America, the nation's largest owner and operator of private prisons, is trucking out a new product line with a little help from its fundamentalist friends: Prison Conversions to Christ.



    A friend just told ne (none / 0) (#165)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 07:53:50 PM EST
    some of the people being processed for release into the community have lice/scabies/TB. Is this accurate info?  No clue?

    That was what a protestor (none / 0) (#175)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 11:51:27 PM EST

    I tend to think the Feds would deal with such a health issue first.

    And, so what, if they had problems like that.  

    Perhaps Donald can tell us more about Father Damien from Molokai.


    According to (none / 0) (#176)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 01:00:35 AM EST
     Paul Beeson, chief patrol agent with the Border Patrol's San Diego division:

    Upon arrival in California, four detained children were taken to the hospital, two with fever and two with scabies, Beeson said. All immigrants taken from Texas to California underwent medical screenings in Texas, but certain communicable diseases can't be detected within several weeks of processing, he said.



    Father Damien and Mother Marianne Cope ... (none / 0) (#178)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:35:08 AM EST
    ... both attained their true moral stature at a time when good citizens were turning their backs to the suffering taking place on Molokai.

    They walked the talk, and freely gave of themselves to the victims of ignorance and persecution without hesitation and without expectation. Through their labor and their love, they transformed what was once a hell on earth into a blessed place of physical healing and spiritual renewal.

    Should you ever be fortunate enough to visit Kalaupapa National Historical Park, you can't help but to sense their presence, for you will truly be in the company of saints.

    And those of us who have borne witness to the shameful rejection of the young refugees in Murrieta, CA these last few days, surely won't be mistaking any of their tormentors for angels of mercy.



    Viral dog video of the day (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 09:07:12 AM EST
    IRS 10% tax on pot (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Lfrieling on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 07:29:02 PM EST
    Very interesting IMO.   Feds tax pot 10% in a clever sick way.  Federal employee withholding tax quarterlies must be paid by bank wire transfer.  IF they are paid in cash, say for an industry that cannot get bank accounts,  they can be paid at ONE location in the State of Colorado (a somewhat large state), by appointment only.  Bad enough.  THEN, because the payment is cash and not by bank transfer, there is a 10% IRS penalty.  I believe this is the Fed's way of keeping pot illegal while imposing a 10% tax on the business.

     Our Colorado NORML exec director Rachelle Gillette has filed suit against the IRS over this issue.  Many of us would love to see the feds legalize and tax marijuana.  Steal the 10% legally!  Most interesting, as pointed out in the complaint, is that the alternatives suggested by the IRS to solve the problem to avoid the penalty amount to fairly possible money laundering.   The  IRS says "pass the money through a third person."  Sure sounds like at least a suggestion of money laundering. Does that sound like an overly-oppressive government?  I'm NOT suggesting revolution, subversion, or any other extraordinary behavior.  I do think the lawsuit is a marvelous way to bring this issue before the public eye.
    Have a great and relevant 4th weekend!   Lenny

    Hoe About Banning Fireworks? (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 06:20:20 PM EST
    Apart from the glorification of war, AKA killing people with bombs, and making it pretty so that the patriotism goes down with a spoonful of sugar, THEY ARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER..

    The case for banning fireworks

    WIOW (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:09:27 PM EST
    The graphic is intensely appropriate, considering. Thanks for that Jeralyn.

    Here's another Fourth of July quotation (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 10:16:09 AM EST
    [T]here is at home and abroad an anti-democratic influence, even more cynical and sinister and dangerous than Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin combined. I refer to those who think democracy is a fair weather ideal - to guide us in soft times - but that when the going is tough we cannot save it without losing it. This doctrine has every base quality of fascism without either its candor or courage. Let us in America never forget that liberties trampled by conquest may be regained, but liberties abandoned by an indifferent people are never recovered. Nor are they deserved.

    - Robert L. Jackson, Address on the National Mall, July 4, 1941. Jackson was then Attorney General of the U.S.  His appointment to the Supreme Court had already been voted out of committee, but had not yet been confirmed by the full Senate.  Jackson later took a leave of absence from the Supreme Court to serve as chief U.S. prosecutor at Nuremberg.

    Great quote, Peter (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:07:27 PM EST
    Of course, it was Jackson's boss who ordered the internment of thousands of Japanese-Americans little more than a year and a half later.
    I guess FDR wasn't paying attention to his Attorney General's speech.

    Justice Jackson dissented (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 04:42:20 PM EST
    from the Supreme Court's notorious Korematsu decision, as he had a year earlier in Hirabayashi. (His middle initial was "H.," by the way, not "L." as I wrote above.)

    How about this one (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 05:10:38 PM EST
    "Those who love peace must learn to organize as effectively as those who love war."
    Martin Luther King Jr

    And another - perhaps the most famous (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 07:14:46 PM EST
    Independence Day oration ever delivered:  Frederick Douglass's renowned speech, delivered July 5, 1852, in Rochester, NY:  The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro.

    Sorry, Squeaky (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 09:48:36 PM EST
    Overlooked that you got there first (#37). Amazing essay by Douglass, both demolishing and at the same time upholding the Declaration.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 10:34:15 PM EST
    Douglas' speech is both eye opening and jaw dropping for his brilliance and courage.

    It deserves a double post, at the very least.


    Please decode (none / 0) (#36)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 10:20:29 AM EST
    I don't know, and can't find a source to explain, what "WIOW" stands for.  Squeaky?

    WOW (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 10:26:46 AM EST

    I love (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:14:25 PM EST
    The McVeigh story.

    Please explain (none / 0) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 07:29:05 AM EST
    See comment #4 (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 08:26:33 AM EST
    Very interesting Iraq article by (none / 0) (#6)
    by Green26 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:34:08 PM EST
    ALI KHEDERY in the WaPost. Built around Maliki.

    This is not a headline in a supermarket tabloid (none / 0) (#7)
    by Politalkix on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:45:40 PM EST
    This is Fox News that make supermarket tabloids look like real newspapers. No wonder Fox News watchers believe that victory is around the corner, just as they did on the eve of the general election in 2012. link

    That reads like it was written by someone (none / 0) (#9)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 10:14:43 PM EST
    who was fired from a soap opera for not being able to write . . . .

    Here's the newest comment at the (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:21:25 AM EST

    Ayers ,the convicted terroist is an example of what the liberal dem party is,has been and always will be.

    Sometimes I wish I was as ignorant (none / 0) (#13)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:44:18 AM EST
    as some (many?) on the right. Life would be much easier . . . or at least less maddening :P

    For the first time I got into it with someone on a friend's FB page. Luckily, my dear friend shares my views :D What shut her (nor my friend, the other one!) up was when I asked her if insurance covered a man's total body, shouldn't it cover a woman's? But earlier she wasn't buying that reproductive health products covered more than sex. She literally said "Like what?" {head desk} And some guy was chiming in about "in God we Trust", really not a good move on his part . . .  :D


    A. h. s. classmete "friended" me (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:52:33 AM EST
    and I've already blocked his posts. I did comment on the first few, which he was not apparently accustomed to.

    I had been ignoring things popping (none / 0) (#16)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 01:25:33 AM EST
    up on my feed, but I had just read some of the latest sh!t that happened re SCOTUS and apparently should have hid my keyboard. Luckily, I only get the stupid from folks posting on friend's posts and none from my friends directly. It pays to keep your friend pool small on FB! I have been pleasantly surprised that a few I friended (?) through Dalmatian groups have all turned out to be on the left side, lol!~ Bad enough we can get down and dirty over training and nutrition . . .  :P

    I got so tired of the BS (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 08:43:37 AM EST
    that I created a new page using my middle name and moved all the people I actually want to hear from over to the new page.  And if I want to communicate with the shallow end of the gene pool I still have the old page.  This may seem extreme but it had gotten so bad I couldn't take it any more and now I actually enjoy FaceBook again.
    Granted I may have more insane TeaParty relatives than most but it worked for me.
    And it's really not that hard.

    I unfamilied people after the posting (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 10:50:51 AM EST
    Of the photoshopped image with the Obamas and the banana.  I went off, and 3 cousins along with like their 12 children displayed that they were just evil racists.  That set a tone that was never overcome.  And in the end not only did I unfriend them I unfamilied them, after many alone tears and meetings with my heart and my soul.

    Since then things have been blissful.  I'm fairly certain  Conservative friends at this point block their items from my feed :). I have one remaining cousin who posts some questionable stuff, but the only reason I know is cuz my husband is his facebook friend.  Sometimes my husband calls and says, "My God, your cousin just posted......"

    I see none of it though :). And I'm good with that.  I'm not going to organize a witch hunt.  Whether he is willing to admit it or not, he is obviously not so sure of himself in this racist hate....and he will probably pass from this world a crazed cackling racist but I saw him not so sure off himself and his kids probably did too :). Good enough for now.  No reason to get in his face and have to have people come to his defense.


    My solution (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:12:21 AM EST
    Avoided any if that.  Plus they cannot comment on my posts.  
    And from the sound of it I had far more yahoos.  I started FB years ago and accepted requests from anyone which included past "friends" who didn't even know I was gay (they do now) and scads of insane family members.  I have a large family.

    Oh yeah....you lose in my scenario big (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:36:00 AM EST
    I'm from Colorado so my family insanity runs 50/50.  You my friend must employ different tactics this generation :). You have to massage them into considering maybe...just maybe ...they could change one thing up :)

    The left behinds are not going to change (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:44:48 AM EST
    They just aren't.  I retained many middle of the road family members.

    Sure, and you have people to work with (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:51:13 AM EST
    We all know where the power centers are in the South.  When people feel threatened they quickly devolve to those, and that makes those centers stronger.  The South requires a different route, more of a finesse, a subtle invasion of sanity :)

    My family knows better though.  We have no heritage in this racist crap.  Get this, my cousin who still posts the stupid crap is related to LBJ :). He just has an attitude disorder :). There is no reason for me to finesse him though, just zero.


    Desperation (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 02:23:53 PM EST
    The Republican talking point is she won't run.....They all say it now.   Lockstep.

    Because they know they could never beat her.


    Well, I guess that (none / 0) (#64)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 03:16:16 PM EST
    Karl Rove's "Hillary has brain damage" talking point didn't get  enough traction, so they're trying something else now.
    Yes, it smells like desperation.    

    Online privacy, NSA (none / 0) (#8)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 10:07:03 PM EST
    Another interesting article about the NSA and online privacy.

    I've tried to find ways to lower my digital footprint and I've downloaded the TOR browser.

    Looks like the government is making note of you even if you visit or research Tor Networks.

    I have a question for people who wish to think about the 1st amendment and anti-voyeurism laws such as those in Washinton state.

    A number of years ago, there were one or two fellow who were convicted of voyeurism in Washington state because they had taken some upskirt photos of gals.  They then appealed and said that the existing law did not criminalize photos taken in public.  The Wash state Supreme court sided with them and then the legislature changed the law.  The newer law, in Wash state, as of about 2003, forbids taking photos of underwear or a intimate body part, even in public, if the wearer/person being photographed has an expectation of privacy and if the photo is taken for a sexual purpose.

    It seems to me as if the law would tend to cut into a broad swath of what should be constitutionally protected.  I do not mean the photos which are done by a fellow positioning his cell phone on the ground while tying his shoe.  I mean the following:

    1. photos of Kate Middleton's butt or panties such as have been in the news for the last few years, when wind or circumstances caused her skirt to be lifted;
    2. photos of panties or butt of a cheerleader while she is being thrown into the air;
    3. photos of Janet Jackson's breast after her wardrobe malfunction;
    4. photos of panties and/or crotch of dozens of celebrities taken every week in California when Lindsay Lohan or Katy Perry or a dozen other female celebrities get out of a car . . .
    5. photos of Marilyn Monroe's underwear when she walked over an air vent . . .

    It seems to me as if all of these types of photos, all of which are commonly, generally accepted as legitimate expressions of art and photography could easily be criminalized by statutes identical or similar to the one in Washington state, and that all it takes is the mere assertion that such photos have a sexual intent or purpose and it would chill or destroy meaningful and interesting photos of art.

    Is there a constitutional problem here?  It seems to me as if there is.

    Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by sj on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:05:22 PM EST
    You have a hard time determining how much of your voyeurism is legal? Or appropriate?

    Is this the current statute: (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:38:57 AM EST
    Yes; panties are "intimate areas" (none / 0) (#15)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 01:06:14 AM EST
    Yes, that is the current statute . . .

    prior to about 2000, you could photo or film in public at least somewhat . . . and 2 fellows were prosecuted and their cases thrown out, cause they were in public . . . and so now, if a gal has a reasonable expectation that you won't photograph her panties or butt, it can be illegal . . . despite wind . . .


    I think the cheerleaders expect you (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 01:31:20 AM EST
    to see their 'panties' ;)

    Reasonable expectation seems to be pretty clear cut. I think guys need to check themselves if they are questioning what's proper when photographing a woman (not gal) in public (or anywhere else for that matter).


    crime here with Kate Middleton? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 01:43:30 AM EST
    Here is a crime, if the photos were taken in Washington state?


    and Kate Middleton and MM? (none / 0) (#18)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 01:39:30 AM EST
    So, you are suggesting that photograhping the panties of a thrown or jumping cheerleader is ok in WA state, but not Kate Middleton's butt or MM's panties or butt when the the wind blows?  of course, in the case of MM, she is/was an actress setting up a scene, but the fact is that from time to time, something like the MM scene happens to Kate Middleton or someone else in the presence of a person with a camera.  And Kate Middleton is not an actress under the direction of a director and neither is 90 or 99% of the gal whose skirts get blown . . . and the fact also is that some cheerleaders, esp of high school age, whose photos end up published on some cheerleader website, claim to be upset . . .

    I'm saying a Cheerleader's 'panties' are (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 02:01:51 AM EST
    part of her uniform. When she is on the field performing of course and wearing her full uniform. Since when has a cheerleader been thrown or jumped and shown her more personal panties? Their uniforms are designed for the task at hand. KM's skirt blowing up was unintentional, if you happened to be shooting and caught it, well, don't be a dick about it and it prob won't hit anyone's radar in WA state.

    Are you really this dense when it comes to what's proper and right in photographing women? Or are you the type that exploits innocent situations in to a more graphic image and want to know if the cops will be knocking on your door for child (HS CL) P0rn?


    I don't think (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 08:50:31 AM EST
    he's that dense.  I think he came here to deliberately stir some sh!t.  

    Dense? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 09:20:36 AM EST
    I dunno...  s/he has a point, imo. I think that the vagueness of the law is a problem and I think that it can be in conflict with the first amendment.

    The newer law, in Wash state, as of about 2003, forbids taking photos of underwear or a intimate body part, even in public, if the wearer/person being photographed has an expectation of privacy and if the photo is taken for a sexual purpose.

    Sexual purpose?  How would photographing celebrities (or the unfamous) going commando be treated in WA state if the police witnessed or had surveillance tapes of the photographers action?

    What about the protests at the Standard Hotel? Would a photographer be prosecuted for voyeurism? Or the protesters prosecuted for staring? What about the children? Would they be arrested too?

    More problems here.


    The initial commenter does not mention (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:22:57 PM EST
    this necessary element of the Washington statute:


    2) A person commits the crime of voyeurism if, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views, photographs, or films:

    MisDirect? (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:52:10 PM EST
    The comment question related to this:


    (b) The intimate areas of another person without that person's knowledge and consent and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place.

    Public place...


    It is not every photo (of what a very (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 01:35:25 PM EST
    long time ago was termed "unmentionables") that would subject the photographer or any who may see the photo to prosecution under Washington's voyeurism statue though, even though the person taking the photo and the person photographed were in a public place at the time of the photo. Without the requisite intent, as specified in the statute, these actions do not constitute this crime.

    Intent (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 01:45:39 PM EST
    Not so black and white as you may wish for.

    zaitztheunconvicted comment had to do with art and expression.
    Do you think that an artist has only one thing on his or her mind when creating art?

    It seems to me as if all of these types of photos, all of which are commonly, generally accepted as legitimate expressions of art and photography could easily be criminalized by statutes identical or similar to the one in Washington state, and that all it takes is the mere assertion that such photos have a sexual intent or purpose and it would chill or destroy meaningful and interesting photos of art.

    Is there a constitutional problem here?  It seems to me as if there is.

    Maybe so. Although the intent of (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 02:04:11 PM EST
    the person who may be prosecuted (artist or viewer)!must be "knowing" not "knew or should have known."   Worth googling though.    [One of the first cases I tried was a man charged w/being a "peeping tom."  He walked on a pedestrian sidewalk between bldgs. @ the Hotel Del. a couple was having sex in a hotel room. From where the man paused in front of the window facing the sidewalk, he could see them. No drapes closed, etc. He did this on two separate occasions.  Convicted. But one of the jurors (who had been accepted to Stanford law school but had not yet started law school) told the jury this was "transferred intent."  Which was incorrect. Kind of an ex post facto--if he only did it once they probably would have walked him.

    Well Then (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 02:19:27 PM EST
    All the puritans who are gawking at the sex on display at the Standard Hotel should be locked up. They are worried about the children.

    They know what they are looking at is sexually arousing.


    Did you get hot when looking at this scene or picture?


    Well no, but others would and we need to protect the children.


    How do you know others would get aroused?



    Guilty felony 3rd degree.

    Sounds like a really bad law to me.

    Ed Meese should also be locked up... oh wait there is a waiver for police types.


    A ground level sidewalk? (none / 0) (#87)
    by unitron on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:08:28 PM EST
    As in anyone passing by those not-closed drapes would almost have to go out of their way not to see the couple "doing it"?

    I think they made the arrest on the wrong side of the glass.


    perhaps but (none / 0) (#84)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 10:10:09 PM EST
    It is possible you are right, but in the case of state v Bohannon, which included a constitutional challenge to the child pornography law of Washington state, the appeals court ruled that having taken a photo of a nude 16-year-old constituted in itself and without more, the proof of sexual intent.  No sexual intent needed to be proven by any further indications than the original photo having been taken of a nude 16-year old and no proof was offered and the conviction stood.

    A guy who goes to certain games and photographs the cheerleaders can likewise be alleged to have sexual intent if and when he photographs some of their butt, simply on that basis . . .  Moreover, in some minority of cases, but some sizeable fraction, some cheerleaders who are thrown or jumping in fact a few times a year show more than they had realize or intended.


    Different statute. Why such a (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 10:39:25 PM EST
    concentration on cheerleaders?

    Maybe Because (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:11:48 PM EST
    Looking at a photograph of a cheerleader could be prosecuted as a felony under voyeurism statute in Washington.

    Thought crime?


    because (none / 0) (#92)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 12:33:12 AM EST
    The 3 main kinds of these photos are
    1. wind-blown as with kate Middleton;
    2. cheerleader thrown into air;
    3. celebrity shots, often exiting cars and walking in nearly transparent clothing.

    Washington state does not often host Kate Middleton and only rarely hosts female celebrities in less than usual clothing . . . but washington state has its share of cheerleaders.

    Has any person ever been (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 01:24:42 AM EST
    prosecuted for violating this statute for taking or looking at a film or photo of a cheerleader in uniform in a public place?

    after visiting some cheerleader sites . . . (none / 0) (#99)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 08:05:04 AM EST
    Think ahead for a bit.  Maybe you have never visited a cheerleader photo website or yahoogroup, but I have . . . and such cheerleader photo websites have included what appear to be genuine "wardrobe malfunction" photos that included showing the bare skin of pubic area in at least one case of professional cheerleaders, while a group of them were standing and lifting alternating legs in a form of dancing.  Sure, you can suppose that Seattle cheerleaders have never made or had such a wardrobe malfunction . . .  it does not mean that they never will or that such wardrobe malfunctions being photographed do not constitute protected speech when photographed.

    Also, there are kate middleton/Marilyn Monroe moments of dresses and skirts that are blown upwards for some few gals in most venues every year if the gal has worn a short skirt of light and loose fabric.  Some of those moments expose panties; some expose thongs and the butt and some expose the bare butt.  

    You are telling me you wish to regard all these photos as likely criminal to produce?


    It did not seem to me (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Zorba on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:15:33 PM EST
    at all that oculus was wishing to "regard all these photos as likely criminal to produce."  Rather, it seemed to me that she was asking a question about whether anyone had been prosecuted for such cheerleader and/or Kate Middleton photos.
    Very frankly, your harping about, I might even say obsession with, photos of cheerleaders, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Kate Middleton, and their panties, seems somewhat odd, if not a bit worrisome.
    I hesitate to even speculate on what would happen if you ran across a photo of Kate Middleton in a cheerleader's outfit, being thrown up in the air.

    Worrisome? (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:30:36 PM EST
    Is it worrisome that people have sexual feelings for things that are different than the things that turn you on?

    Really, what is worrisome is the tone of some of the commenters here regarding the question at hand.

    This is a legal site. Some here make TL sound like a fear generated lock em up, and make new laws to do it type site.

    No wonder we are prison nation, as many of the liberals are pointing fingers in order to feel safe, or something about morality.

    Or is it the children?


    The thing that I find odd (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Zorba on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:41:03 PM EST
    Is the tone and the many, many posts on the same subject, a lot of them basically saying the same thing over and over again.
     If he gets turned on by cheerleaders' panties, that's his thing and it's fine (well very frankly, it's fine IMO unless he is going to cheerleader contests and such involving very underage girls and taking pictures of their panties).
    That does not mean that we need to be subjected ad nauseum to his particular fascination.

    Ad Nauseum (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:53:18 PM EST
    Well the question was a legal one. And for whatever reason it makes you and other here nauseous. Is it that looking at up skirt or bulging swimming shorts (in the case of Phelps) leads to criminal behavior. Or is it that that sort of behavior should be criminalized?

    People are getting locked up for looking at pictures should be alarming to anyone who cares about the constitution, imo.

    But several commenters here appear to go into attack mode when questions about sexuality and the law come up particularly when it is assumed that the commenter is male and the subject is female. And for those who appear to care about the constitution, it always seems odd and wrong to me.


    ... back in the 1950s and earlier, when skirt-lengths were well below the knees and outsized pom-poms tended to obscure the view of whatever was left.

    Calves and Ankle"s? (none / 0) (#146)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 03:54:32 PM EST
    Although there were some up skirt shots at about 2:28...

    More is less?


    Other Types of Photos (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 09:57:39 AM EST
    Male sport, female sport photos. Or almost any category of photographs.

    If a person is looking at a pictures of basketball player for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire and the viewer is focusing on a part of the players body that fits this description:

     (b) The intimate areas of another person without that person's knowledge and consent and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place.

    it is a class C Felony.

    And what about people who get aroused at looking at armpits?
    or feet... both areas are intimate areas usually covered up..

    Sounds to me that if the jail business and police business was not so good for the economy, or better said: a favored class' economy, we would require everyone, male and female to be covered from head to toe as was common in the victorian days.

    And we laugh at the burqa. Seems like we have more in common with the religious extremists than we are ready to admit.


    Maybe a bit of a double standard? (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 11:01:41 AM EST
    I remember when photos of Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps were being madly 'circulated' by those who really 'liked' his physique. I doubt if he minded tho.

    Interesting Problem (none / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 11:13:13 AM EST
    If someone was arrested and put on trial in WA for looking at a Phelps or Lohan Commando pic, and Phelps or Lohan were called in to testify for the defense. They would say that they had no expectation of privacy and appreciated people getting aroused by their respective gentleman and lady parts, would Phelps or Lohan be arrested for a crime?

    Or would the aroused party get the charges dropped?

    It seems crazy to me that a sexual thought could land you in jail.

    Certainly there are tons of examples of art that are both sexually arousing and have depth as great works of arts. Where is the line drawn?

    To trust a police or judge or jury to make the right call in a very ambiguous situation, when years of jail time are at stake sounds insane. Not to mention what goes in our hallowed jails.


    Going Commando? (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 08:02:11 AM EST
    Is going commando part of summer fashion (read: uniform) of 2014?

    Was it Brittany Spears who popularized going commando?

    How does the WA law and innocent situations which are not so innocent square with the type of exploitation you are referring to?


    That was my thought (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 08:26:02 AM EST
    Don't want your panties seen don't wear any

    re cheerleaders (none / 0) (#32)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 10:06:47 AM EST
    It has been many years since I have visited for any more than a few seconds a cheerleader upskirt photo type of site.  I could be wrong, but I am pretty that some cheerleader upskirt photos have shown more than just a gal's panties . . . either in the front or in the back.  Do we tend to say that she lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy of wardrobe malfunctions?

    Gosh (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:15:47 AM EST
    If I didn't know better I would say you are making both sides of the argument for lack of response.

    I think J might deem (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 01:42:10 AM EST
    this "thread" perverse.

    hm . .. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 01:45:05 AM EST
    Are there a rule against that?

    It is my personality to find and thing about controversial problems and questions . . .


    ... than her noting that Joran Van der Sloot was married yesterday in a Peruvian prison? Both have the capacity to make people squirm a little as matters for public discussion, yet both subjects are also very topical from a legal standpoint.

    And as a longtime legislative analyst, I've long subscribed to the notion that when it comes to the drafting of law, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions, so I do appreciate the "slippery slope" arguments offered in this sub-thread when discussing legal limits on voyeurism.



    I think that for legislative purposes, ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 10:33:58 AM EST
    ... the operative term which I'd attempt to define here would be "an expectation of privacy."

    Look, people will find others attractive for a variety of reasons, and will glance at, stare at or even photograph them accordingly. That's relatively benign, as are public "wardrobe malfunctions." It might be embarrassing, tasteless and crass, but it's otherwise harmless. As a legislative analyst, that's not what I'd seek to prohibit or criminalize, because gawking is an expression of curiosity, which is an innate part of human nature.

    But purposefully going out of one's way to peek up a woman's skirt or dress or for that matter, looking up a man's cargo / Bermuda shorts, with neither that person's knowledge nor consent is the voyeuristic equivalent of groping.

    Would you approve of surveillance cameras in department store changing room or restrooms, videotaping or photographing customers in various states of undress without their knowledge or consent? I doubt it. Therefore, I should think that peeking up a woman's skirt is the equivalent. At that point, we're not talking about a benign act of circumstance but rather. one which is unnecessarily and even maliciously intrusive.

    At least, were I drafting such a prospective statute, that's how I would define it. Further, I would make clear the legislature's own intent in the attached committee report, which would also include a concise and unambiguous description of the problem that's being addressed by the measure, for such occasions as when the law -- if approved and enacted -- might be later challenged in court.



    I like your idea (none / 0) (#90)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:42:38 PM EST
    I would agree with criminalizing the fellow who has placed his cell phone or camera on the ground or in some other strange place where the human eye would not normally be in any reasonable circumstances . . . but not agree with criminalizing photographing cheerleaders who jump or are thrown or the Kate Middleton type of malfunction . . .

    One case is going to extraordinary efforts to peek up a skirt and the other is merely recording what the eye is able to see because of the wind or the cheerleaders choice of panties or shorts or her twirling happens to produce.

    Long ago I attended BYU and I had a variety of acquaintances who told me stories of their day.  Once a met a gal in the strict and LDS/Mormon university and she had been at some amateur-produced 10-minute play at which a guy had fallen over backwards, inadvertently exposing himself completely.  One in several hundred or a few thousand cheerleader does something nearly as completely once in a while--do some wish to say we can't photograph it?  That would be wrong!


    Finally (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 09:00:40 AM EST
    When "Top Ten" lists go awry: (none / 0) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:05:36 AM EST
    In an attempt to craft a 4th of July-worthy list of the "Most Patriotic Movies EVAH!", Melissa Leon of The Daily Beast fails to appreciate the difference between patriotism and jingoism, and accordingly offers readers the cinematic equivalent of stadium nachos.

    ... just not in a transparently self-serving and rah-rah flag-waving sort of way. But if there is a overarching patriotic theme here, it's that the protagonists in each of these films are motivated to do what they do by their own remarkably unique and profound love for and devotion to their country:

    "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (1939) -- Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) is appointed to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate, and refuses to surrender his idealistic notion of democracy in the face of double-dealing and outright corruption.

    "From Here to Eternity" (1953) -- Directed by Fred Zimmemann. When three Hawaii-based soldiers (Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift and Frank Sinatra) find themselves stationed in the same infantry unit, their lives inexorably become intertwined in the months preceding the Japanese military assault on Oahu and the U.S. entry into the Second World War, which in turn leads each of them to a radically different fate and destiny.

    "Seven Days in May" (1964) -- Directed by John Frankenheimer. When the president (Frederic March) signs a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union, a U.S. Army colonel who's personally opposed to the president's policy (Kirk Douglas) stumbles upon an active plot led by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Burt Lancaster) to remove the president and renounce that treaty, and he seeks to thwart the military coup before it can materialize.

    "All the President's Men" (1976) -- Directed with contemporaneous urgency by Alan J. Pakula, Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) and Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) and their editor Ben Bradlee (Jason Robards) attempt to unravel and dissect the story behind the June 1972 attempt by Nixon White House operatives to wiretap the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Hotel complex.

    "Friendly Fire" (1979) -- Directed by David Greene, and based on a true story. After Peg and Gene Mullen (Carol Burnett and Ned Beatty) bury their eldest son Michael (Dennis Erdman), who was killed in Vietnam in 1970, Peg -- who had privately opposed the Vietnam War, even before her son was drafted -- runs into numerous obstacles when seeking to learn the truth about his accidental death from misdirected U.S. artillery fire. The military's repeated attempts to thwart her inquiries eventually lead to the political radicalization of the formerly mild-mannered Iowa farm couple, who become renowned public critics of the Nixon administration's Vietnam policies.

    "Glory" (1989) -- Director Edward Zwick tells the story of the 54th Massachusetts Colored Regiment, an all-black unit of the Union Army composed primarily of former slaves and led by an young and idealistic white officer (Matthew Broderick), which valiantly but unsuccessfully assaulted the Confederate fortifications at Battery Wagner in Charleston, SC in May 1863, and was tragically shot to pieces for the effort.

    "Saving Private Ryan" (1998) -- Directed by Steven Spielberg. After surviving the D-Day ordeal at Omaha Beach in Normandy, an infantry company lead by Capt. John Miller (Tom Hanks) sets out to find a missing soldier who's to be returned to his mother, after several of his brothers were killed successively in the war within weeks of one another.

    "Black Hawk Down" (2001) -- In Ridley Scott's gripping recounting of the U.S. Army's failed 1993 attempt to capture Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid, American soldiers on the ground rise to the occasion for each other when their commanders fail them and the mission goes badly. Their very best individual and mutual efforts are absolutely needed, just to survive their predicament.

    "The Fog of War" (2003) -- A remarkably candid and contrite Robert McNamara speaks plainly on camera about his admittedly flawed judgment and leadership as LBJ's Secretary of Defense in the Vietnam War, grappling publicly with the sometimes bitter lessons he learned as a direct result of his own failings. With the obvious benefit of hindsight and retrospect, the elder McNamara confronts his own headstrong and impetuous younger self for posterity's sake, and posits how others in the future might learn from his mistakes and errors, leaving his audience the better for it.

    "Good Night, and Good Luck" (2005) -- As Edward R. Murrow (David Straithern) and his CBS News colleagues find themselves sited in Sen. Joseph McCarthy 's crosshairs in what became an historic and heroic confrontation, director George Clooney uses actual archived footage of the late senator to place him front and center, allowing the audience to see that red-baiting demagogue for the monster he truly was.

    "John Adams" (2008) -- Directed by John Hopper, this seven-part TV miniseries tells the remarkable and engrossing story of our country's second president (Paul Giamatti), spanning the period from his 1770 appearance in court as defense counsel for five British soldiers accused of murder in the infamous Boston Massacre, to his death at age 90 on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the adoption and signing of the Declaration of Independence.



    I have been hanging out today (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 04:12:27 PM EST
    Watching the twilight zone marathon and marveling at the innocence of it.  The charming naïveté of the imagined totalitarian states where oppressors proudly state their intentions to subjugate.  How convenient it would be if threats came so easily spotted instead of cloaked in words like "freedom" and "patriotism".  
    It turns out the future was far darker and more insidious than Rod Sterling could have ever imagined.  

    Well, sometimes they weren't so well cloaked. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 04:47:10 PM EST
    Remember "freedom fries"? Thank heavens so many of these yahoos proved themselves to be both not so bright and mostly incompetent.

    Yahoos or not (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 04:54:14 PM EST
    It's hard to deny they have been dragging the center steadily to the right ever since Reagan.  
    Mussolini described fascism as the merging of state and corporate power.

    Curious what you think (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 04:58:04 PM EST
    Of the mother jones article I just posted on BTDs Hobby Lobby thread

    Haven't read it yet. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:37:33 PM EST
    I'll have to get back to you on that.

    Someone at mother jones (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 03:21:47 PM EST
    Thinks the hobby lobby decision "pierces the corporate veil" and open the door for individuals being held responsibly for corporate debts

    I disagree (1.50 / 2) (#171)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 09:31:11 PM EST
    nobody at MJ thinks. They repeat, they react, but no thinking.

    If you've got a point to make here, ... (none / 0) (#172)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 10:36:29 PM EST
    Mikado Cat: "nobody at MJ thinks. They repeat, they react, but no thinking."

    ... then by all means, please expound as to how "nobody at MJ thinks." But you can't simply drop into the middle of a conversation, casually throw off a condescending and demeaning remark you picked up from AM squawk radio about a magazine you don't even bother to read, and then think that you won't get called on it.

    But I suppose such blather is entirely understandable and even predictable, coming as it does from someone who probably hasn't had an original political thought since the Reagan administration.

    Suffice to say that Mother Jones has been around a lot longer than you, and will still be around long after you and your right-wing friends become nothing more than one of the more embarrassing footnotes in U.S. history.



    That makes sense to me. (none / 0) (#149)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 04:56:01 PM EST
    If we are to allow corporations to be wholly reflective of the personalities of the individuals who own and manage them, why shouldn't those individuals then be held civilly and criminally liable for any illegal acts occurring during their stewardship?

    After all, if business profit is to be wholly privatized, then logic demands that so, too, should any of the risks undertaken to achieve that profit. We are not operating under a purely capitalistic, system when that system encourages profiteering through the socialization of risk assumption.

    I'll always be more than happy to let it all ride on the pair of deuces I'm holding in my hand, if I'm afforded the opportunity to wager with the house's money.



    FFs were the invention of... (none / 0) (#89)
    by unitron on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:20:45 PM EST
    ..."my"* congresscritter, who is turning out(although getting around to it a decade or so too late)to be one of the less crazy Republicans.

    *I never voted for him, just got gerrymandered into his district.


    My all Tim favorite TZ episode on now (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 05:42:09 PM EST
    To Serve Man

    ITS A COOK BOOK!!!!!


    You missed "Patton." (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 10:03:29 AM EST

    Donald presents an (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 01:31:34 PM EST
    excellent list of "patriotic movies."   "Patton" is a great movie.  The most famous scene--the first one--with Patton's (the excellent George C. Scott) rather blood-thirsty address to his troops, in front of an American flag that fills the silver screen, sets up the film's claim to "patriotism."    

    However, the movie is more a story of a strong and eccentric, if not a little nutty, personality than a story of battle.  More a story of vanity and courage than one of the horrors of war-- horrors that are a part of such conflict.    The military qualities and attributes of Patton are those wanted in a general in the midst of a world war, but not those desired in a president.  If the  super-glorification of the military ethic exemplified by Patton could be attenuated, the movie would be Fourth of July ready.  But, then, it would not be Patton.  


    I didn't miss "Patton." (none / 0) (#130)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:20:23 PM EST
    This is my own personal list, and I just didn't include it because I felt it didn't fit. Now, that's not to at all slight what is admittedly a very, very good film (Academy Award, Best Picture 1970), which was underscored by an astonishing and mesmerizing performance by George C. Scott in the title role (Academy Award, Best Actor 1970).

    But in the overarching theme of my own list, I chose those films which were about people whose own sense of patriotism motivated them to swim upstream and challenge the establishment. Whereas Gen. George Patton was first and foremost not only a creature of that establishment, he was actually one of that breed's more excessive and colorful variations.

    Without a doubt, Gen. Patton was an absolutely brilliant military tactician, whose battlefield exploits and successes are arguably on par with those once exhibited by Gens. Robert E. Lee and Winfield Scott as the very best this country has ever produced.

    But as "Patton" also showed us and refused to minimize, the general's Achilles' Heel was a truly abominable sense of statesmanship. He was an egomaniacal man consumed by his own personal destiny, which he further refused to distinguish from that of his own country as a whole. That level of self-absorption led him to undertake some breathtakingly impetuous and foolish actions at moments when he was otherwise on top of the world, which served only to greatly undermine whatever confidence he enjoyed at the time with his own immediate superiors in both London and Washington.

    President Franklin Roosevelt -- as shrewd a personal judge of character as our country's ever had in the White House -- had good reason to pass over George Patton for higher authority in favor of George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower and Omar Bradley, even though Patton had far outranked all three of those men in the U.S. Army's chain of command prior to the Second World War.

    (And in then-Col. Eisenhower's case, FDR had actually bypassed ALL of his generals in unprecedented fashion, by reaching deep down into the ranks to elevate that once-obscure staff officer to the lofty level of SCAEFE -- Supreme Command, Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe. And ever the sage politician, the president then smoothed over Gen. Marshall's ruffled feathers by promoting him to serve as his Army Chief of Staff in Washington.)

    The film's darker moments touched upon that very reason FDR had passed Patton over, which was at heart, the general was not a team player in a game that absolutely requires both teamwork and mutually supportive individual effort to achieve maximum collective success.

    Patton's "go it alone" trait allowed him to improvise to tremendous effect as an individual tactician on the fast-paced battlefields of north Africa, Sicily and western Europe. But it also rendered him a lousy strategic analyst who, for all his pretensions about being a student of history, could never really see beyond the immediate moment of his own frontline command to fully grasp the larger picture.

    As such, Gen. Patton's personal aims often placed him at odds with those who were charged with pursuing our country's long-term strategic goals. And within only a few short months of the war's end in Europe, he predictably proved himself counterproductive in the overall scene, and was quietly removed from command of the U.S. Third Army, relegated instead to a minor post in Luxembourg where he would spend the remainder of his days and couldn't do too much damage.



    I'm watching (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 03:08:07 PM EST
    Attack of the Crab Monster

    It's pretty patriotic


    I'm sure it is. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 03:48:55 PM EST
    However, one of the primary criteria for inclusion on my list is that such patriotic films must also be -- let's see, what's the optimal word I'm looking for, oh yeah, now I remember -- good.

    But please be advised that if ever I seek to resurrect "Mystery Science Theater 3000," or "Seymour Presents" from my SoCal childhood, you'll be the very first on my list of prospective co-hosts. I think that you and Cassandra Peterson -- aka Elvira, Mistress of the Dark -- would make a great team.



    How so? (none / 0) (#163)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 07:45:30 PM EST
    How is it patriotic? (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 07:52:24 PM EST
    It's a B&W scifi movie made in 1957.  It was part of the genre.

    We saw "Ida" yesterday. B & W, (none / 0) (#167)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 08:49:50 PM EST
    2014 release. Not patriotic.

    And it was directed by Roger Corman, ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 08:50:44 PM EST
    ... a legendary B-movie producer / director who could do more with less than anyone else in Hollywood. He was also a great judge of talent, and was the first to cast Jack Nicholson and Peter Fonda in significant roles. He also mentored directors such as Martin Scorsese, Peter Bogdanovich, Francis Ford Coppola, Jonathan Demme and Ron Howard, and gave each of them their very first opportunities to work behind the camera.

    Not surprisingly, Corman has a lot of very grateful friends in the movie industry. He's also appeared over the years in various cameo roles in films directed by his former protégés. Coppola cast him as the U.S. senator who was grilling Michael Corleone during a public hearing in "The Godfather, Part II." He was also FBI Director Hayden Burke in Demme's "The Silence of the Lambs."

    But Corman always returned to the B-movies he loved making, and most importantly, his projects always came in on schedule and at or under budget, and he made a ton of money for his investors. And if that's not quintessentially American and patriotic, then I don't know what is.



    Patriotism is in the eye of the (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:11:20 AM EST

    A recent poll reports that young people are less patriotic. Actually, they're less jingoistic.

    Keys and Donald Patton glorfied war (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 03:21:20 PM EST
    and it is thus terribly flawed.

    But  if you don't convince men they are going in harms way for glory, what's left??

    Money?? A "career?"

    I have always been for Universal Military Service for two reasons.

    First, everyone should have skin in the game.

    Secondly, we are creating a military that is separate from mainstream America. At some point we will pay a heavy penalty for that.


    I agree with most of that (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 03:24:33 PM EST
    I don't think "Patton" glorified war. (none / 0) (#147)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 04:23:26 PM EST
    It's primarily a biopic, albeit one that focuses on a specific period of the man's military career, rather than his life in full, not unlike what Spielberg did with "Lincoln." While the Second World War's violence is front and center throughout much of "Patton," it serves as the film's setting rather than its primary topic.

    Further, telling Gen. Patton's story as a military commander during the Second World War while leaving out that war's carnage, would be like writing a book about Richard Nixon's legacy as president and neglecting to mention Watergate.

    As far as your separate opinion about universal military service is concerned, I won't disagree with you on the concept of requiring a two-year commitment to national service. However, I would not limit such service to only the military per se, but would also include other federal agencies such as the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and the U.S. Health Service Corps, etc., and even local agencies within one's own state. There are many different means by which one can effectively serve our country and our people, of which the military is but one of them.

    And while I don't believe a peacetime military draft best serves our country's interests, I have no problem with instituting a system of universal conscription in times of national crisis when we face an imminent or immediate threat from overseas, or with requiring young people to register with the Selective Service Commission in order to effectively meet whatever contingencies as they might arise during such times.



    Well, the earth may had a small tremor (none / 0) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 05:55:52 PM EST
    but it didn't move.

    No. All those other things have nothing to do with the military and exposure to them doesn't educate the person as to what the military is all about and it doesn't provide civilian influence within the military.

    Two things I think or critical.

    Of course if the person wants to volunteer after their other service that's great.

    And although I enjoyed Lincoln it couldn't pop Patton's popcorn.


    Comment #2 made me do it (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 05:58:47 PM EST



    Gee MT, thanks for following me all the way (none / 0) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:49:29 AM EST
    over here to show me how correct I was with my analysis of how dumb defending Obama's mistakes in the ME is.

    Can't take it, eh??



    "Lincoln" and "Patton" ... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 07:08:57 PM EST
    ... approached their respective subjects from entirely different perspectives. I actually enjoyed both films immensely, but each for different reasons.

    Whereas "Patton" had a sweeping visual grandeur to it, entirely in keeping with the bombastic and over-the-top persona of the general himself, "Lincoln" offered a more intimate and nuanced portrait of its thoughtful title character in his final months.

    The one commonality shared by each film was the outstanding performances offered by their respective casts, in particular the lead actors.



    With regard to the military, ... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 07:28:45 PM EST
    ... I much rather prefer that civilians maintain and assert its paramount influence over the military, and not seek undue influence within it.

    Whereas civilians can and should question authority, the military's optimal performance depends upon its maintenance of a reputable and reliable chain of command. The presence of civilian influence within the institution itself, rather than from the top, can only erode that command structure, by fostering the notion that there can somehow be dissent within its ranks -- and such dissent never bodes well for the military's overall performance.

    If the president issues an order to the military, I expect it to carry out that order and not ask why. That's a question which is best left for policymakers in the civilian community.



    My point, which I may have not made clear (none / 0) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:45:47 AM EST
    was that I want "civilians" to have a societal influence. That is the day to day interchange of the individuals allows each to understand the other and thus preventing a "Praetorian Guards" atmosphere that could lead to all kinds of mischief.

    Long term a professional all volunteer force has all the ingredients for that.


    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 05:03:28 PM EST
    But we've long enjoyed that daily interface here in Honolulu, given that the island of Oahu is home to three major U.S. military installations -- Marine Corps Base Hawaii-Kaneohe Bay, Schofield-Wheeler Army Base, and Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam -- and three secondary installations at Lualualei, Whitmore Communications Center, Ft. Shafter and Camp Smith.

    Oahu is only 607 square miles in area, 44 miles long from Kaena Point to Makapuu Point, and 30 miles wide from Kahuku to Diamond Head. The City and County of Honolulu, which encompasses the entire island, is home to some 986,000 residents, of whom an estimated 115,000 are active duty military personnel and their dependents. And on any given day, we also host between 35,000 and 40,000 tourists.

    When you consider those demographics, it's pretty obvious that we can't help but have a societal influence on our military population, simply by virtue of our close-quartered proximity to one other. Military personnel and their dependents are our next door neighbors. They shop in our stores and malls. They hike our mountains, swim at our beaches, and flock to our restaurants and nightclubs during their downtime. And of course, their children attend our public schools.

    Further, that population has also been increasingly needy of a lot of social services, for which the military has been unable to sufficiently provide. Accordingly, the barriers have been coming down between the two communities, a trend that's been accelerating over the last 15 to 20 years.



    Having spent a lot of time in HI (none / 0) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 10:28:49 AM EST
    on several islands I have a good understanding of what you say and agree that the military is a large group and that both groups influence each other.

    But at the end of the day both groups go back to their own roosts.

    That isn't what I am after. I want them mixed full time in working and living together for an extended period of time in an environment that demands common goals so that both sides share real common experiences and that this influence extends all through the remainder of their lives.

    Rich man, poor man, beggar man thief. Doctor, lawyer, Indian chief.


    Spy vs spy (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    Reproductive Rights Around the World (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    Nathan's hotdog eating contest is about to go (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 05:38:33 PM EST
    Down.  They were showing clips of past winning and I started to gag.  Josh asks me what's wrong, don't I like hotdogs, what's so unappetizing about watching people eat hotdogs while spit runs down their shirt front and snot drips from their nose?

    Then Joey Jaws proposed to his girl on stage and she accepted.  Josh says that's how you get the ladies.  When are we having salad eating contests?

    I know, I can't watch that stuff... (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by desertswine on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 05:50:37 PM EST
    I just find it disgusting.

    July 4th LA style (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 05:55:57 PM EST
    I will never convert oculus (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 04:20:23 AM EST
    If you put stuff up like this.

    As for the driver of the stolen Tesla, gives new meaning to go big or go home.


    He tried to go home... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:42:37 PM EST
    ...by flying there, but the windshield got in the way.

    He's still alve though oculus (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 03:53:20 PM EST
    It wasn't a GM car :)  Cut the car in half with fireworks, and still alive :)

    But he did support NPR! (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 09:14:23 PM EST

    Do you think it was out of the goodness (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 04:10:52 AM EST
    Of his heart, or was it an attempt to lend some credibility to his other media ventures?

    He had so much money, it was likely a pittance. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 10:50:31 AM EST
    Maybe it explains the dumbing down of (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 07:14:44 PM EST
    Morning Edition. It is as good an explanation for the hiring of Steve Inskeep as I have heard yet.

    He had so much money, it was (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 10:51:49 AM EST
    likely a pittance.

    Jimi, all is by my side (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 06:22:51 PM EST
    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#166)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 08:22:00 PM EST
    Looks like a comedy... a not so funny one..

    My farmer's market added a new vendor. . . (none / 0) (#173)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 11:17:02 PM EST
    fresh caught fish :) Yup! Happy tummy tonight!

    My farmers' market has fresh caught wild salmon, (none / 0) (#181)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:01:03 AM EST
    as do many of the farmers' markets in Portland. It is such a treat.

    Lucky... I'm jealous. (none / 0) (#182)
    by desertswine on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:44:13 AM EST
    They did have wild salmon :) (none / 0) (#185)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 02:15:40 PM EST
    I went with the black cod and it was heaven. Our farmer's market is in a rather poor city, so this was def a good add and kinda unexpected. I'm guessing many other markets around the area have fish and I know they have other sustainable meats. Our demographic in the 'hood is changing (more artists moving in) and I know the market manager is trying to encourage new vendors.

    I do know they sold out of salmon steaks. They had one huge filet section and another big hunk left when I went by. I'll have to try and get there early next week for the salmon steaks :)


    My cop nephew was (none / 0) (#187)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 03:32:10 PM EST
    wearing one of these for the forth cookout

    Proudly wearing.  I would say.

    I made those shirts (none / 0) (#188)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:33:49 PM EST
    Josh and I iron the design on every morning and have them boxed up by noon for shipment :)

    Truly, I don't know why none of us are doing this.  We just have better designs and ideas than wingers.  Wingers don't care about the ethics surrounding the dollars they make, why do the lefties worry so much about ethics....there's millions to be made out there in Fight Club terms by selling their own fat a$$e$ back to them ; p


    IMO the world could use more (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:51:56 PM EST
    sitting and thinking

    Would you rather sit and think or get shocked? You'd be surprised

    Rolling Coal (none / 0) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:51:31 AM EST
    Just when you think it can't get more stupid

    it does

    Some truck enthusiasts are intentionally producing copious amounts of diesel exhaust, spewing black smoke into the air as a form of political protest. It's called "rolling coal." Vocativ covered the subculture in an article last month, reporting "coal rollers" can spend thousands of dollars altering their rides to produce ever greater amounts of smoke.

    This could get interesting (none / 0) (#194)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:28:19 AM EST
    Dave Weigel at Slate:

    Despite the very public, check-this-out nature of coal rolling, the practitioners I talked to were sometimes reluctant to appear in the media.One big reason: The EPA was cracking down on devices that allowed truck drivers to remove diesel particulate filters. Coal rollers spoke in worried tones about Edge, the Utah company that took a $500,000 hit for selling more than 9,000 of the units, which allowed drivers to improve their mileage at the cost of tons of new particulate emissions.

    "I talked to a guy today who was almost crying about it," one seller told me. "He said, I only get 10-12 miles to a gallon now. Before the filter, I was getting 20 mpg, and a whole lot more horsepower."