Tuesday Open Thread

I've got a busy workday. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< 9th Circuit Overturns AZ Ban on Drivers Licenses for Dreamers | A Night of Pizza, Beer and Pool for Obama in Denver >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Pres. Obama asks for $3.7B for border issues. (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 12:09:48 PM EST
    The Republicans won't fund the initiative, of course. And then, like clockwork, they'll appeal to their lowest common denominators and blame him for the problem.

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    Funding is useless (1.33 / 3) (#76)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:07:12 PM EST
    Money to house these people while we figure out what to do with them.

    Quick math shows that's about $80K/kid.

    What the hell is all this money for?   Are we sending them back?   Stopping the others from coming?

    They could rent a Bus for $80K and send 50 kids at a time back to their countries.

    President Obama doesn't know what to do.   Like most things when you don't know how to actually solve them you just ask for money and hope the news media moves on to something else.

    Once again a "crisis" has overwhelmed him.

    ACA Website

    The list is a long one.

    What a joke this administration is now.

    You can't even keep them all straight and just when one crisis gets hot another "unexpected" one is right behind it.

    Time for some pool and beer no?


    You know, Slado, when you talk in ... (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 03:21:32 PM EST
    ... such condescending tones solely for the purposes of exacerbating already-existing hyperpartisanship, I seriously doubt that anybody here really gives a rat's a$$ what you think, because you contribute nothing of substance to the discussion.

    Admittedly, the issues you listed are all President Obama's responsibility now, because he's the guy wearing the big sombrero until January 2017. There's nothing at all to be gained by casting aspersions and blame, because doing so really solves nothing.

    But since you seem to be unable to do anything but that, you might consider the fact that just like every single one of those "crises" you listed above, the problem on the border is actually the result of ill-considered policies pursued and enacted during the previous administration -- while you seem to foolishly believe that the history of these issues somehow magically began on January 20, 2009.

    You want to be taken seriously, then stop mouthing off to us with the AM squawk radio jargon, like we're a bunch of half-schnockered barflies slouched over our drinks at some local dive. We're not stupid people here.



    No need for $$$ (2.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 04:21:43 PM EST

    He's the president.

    If he's not up for the job he shouldn't have taken it.

    6 years is too long to blame Bush for things that are happening on his watch.

    Maybe in a single example you could make a case for such but all of them?   All of them are Bush's fault?


    This is the president who was going to run a new kind of government.   A smarter government.   The government we all needed after the Bush administration.

    I wish he had told us 8 years in office wasn't enough time to fix all the problems that Bush had left him.


    Again, blame is pointless. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 03:25:08 AM EST
    What does it solve? Yet that's all you're doing here, and further, you often seem positively giddy at the prospect of hanging the mantle of scandal around the neck of the current White House occupant. Indeed, you usually show up here for the primary purpose of attacking Democrats, despite your pretensions of political independence.

    Your approach is both predictable and tedious, regardless of the issue at hand, and appears to be prompted by what you hear in right-wing media rather than inspired by original thought. And like right-wing media, you simplify otherwise complex issues, and cherry-pick data, statements and evidence to underscore your argument.

    It's okay to be conservative. It's not okay to treat us like we're ignorant and incapable of thinking for ourselves.



    Easy to be condescending about Obama (none / 0) (#112)
    by ragebot on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:55:26 PM EST
    with his recent actions.

    Obama can go to the border or not.

    But when senators try to go to the holding pens where the illegal aliens are being housed and the jailers refuse sitting senators and reputable press from access to the conditions there something is wrong.

    When there are reports of too many different diseases to name and Obama's administration prohibits access I have no reluctance to be condescending towards Obama and his administration.

    Lets not forget the VA scandal and how poorly we are treating vets who are US citizens.  It is hard to make a case for providing more per capita spending for illegal aliens than US citizens.  Again I feel comfortable being condescending towards Obama and his administration.

    Donald what is your position on the most transparent administration by their own words prohibiting the press and members of congress from visiting the holding pens.


    ... for eight long years during the Bush administration, when Cher -- friggin' CHER!!!, you two-bit partisan jackwagon -- help lead a very public effort to buy helmet liners at $75 apiece to protect our soldiers from the lethal and debilitating effects of IED explosions in Iraq and Afghanistan, not long after Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld dismissed such concerns by stating that you go to war with the army you have.

    And further I heard nothing but crickets from the sorry white-wing likes of you when those same vets -- about whose welfare you're suddenly SO concerned -- were compelled to pay for the costs of their own meals while recuperating from their war injuries at Walter Reed Medical Center.

    Suffice to say that while the ongoing problems at the Dept. of Veterans Affairs are President Obama's responsibility, they actually long predate his tenure in office. Further, most all of it is due to the repeated refusals of Republicans in Congress to pay for the costs of the wars which they themselves were so eager to start.

    How convenient for you, then, that the history of the economic recession, immigration, veterans care and the wars in Middle East somehow all magically began on January 20, 2009. It's as though you've managed to convince yourself that the previous administration didn't even exist.

    So, thanks for offering your opinion, sorry piece of tripe that it is. Please give us a call when you decide to stop living in your own private Idaho, and your space pod finally re-enters the reality-based atmosphere of planet Earth.



    Nice job of changing the subject Donald (none / 0) (#123)
    by ragebot on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 09:30:21 PM EST
    I asked what you thought about Obama blabbing about the most transparent administration in history and then shutting out congress and press from the holding pens for the illegal aliens.

    Until Obama orders do nothing Holder to start criminal investigations of some of the VA administrators I am not buying your claim that he is doing anything.

    One more tip, insulting people by calling them names is a sure way to be taken seriously.


    I'm not changing the subject. (none / 0) (#130)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 03:50:09 AM EST
    Rather, the immediate subject now at hand is your willingness to come here while apparently armed with nothing more than second-hand right-wing prattle.

    You don't get to set the parameters of debate, simply because you desire to move the goalposts whenever the argument doesn't go your way. You want to discuss the issue of veterans health care, fine. Then you need to engage us honestly, which means actually doing your homework on the subject and not just spewing a fact-free opinion. Because if all you've got going for you is a printout of the latest squawk radio talking points du jour, there are any number of us here who are more than happy and willing to call you out and label your arguments exactly for what they are.

    This isn't Fox News, and we're not Alan Colmes, and I in particular won't play by your rules because I find whack-a-mole to be a tiresome exercise. I much rather prefer to just drop a stick of dynamite down the hole and blow up the entire colony of vermin where they live. And if you don't like that, tough. Grow a pair.



    Donald you are a coward (1.00 / 1) (#132)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 10:30:24 AM EST
    for failing to address the issue of Obama claiming to be the most transparent administration ever while covering up multiple scandals.

    There should be criminal charges in the VA scandal, the IRS scandal, the Fast and Furious scandal, and possibly the DOJ failure to investigate these scandals.

    But again I caution you calling people names is a sure way for people to ignore your arguments.


    Blah. Blah. Blah. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 12:13:55 PM EST
    Well, you certainly don't seem to be ignoring them. Remember saying this?:

    "Lets not forget the VA scandal and how poorly we are treating vets who are US citizens.  It is hard to make a case for providing more per capita spending for illegal aliens than US citizens."

    You're the one who brought up the VA, not me. I merely called you out for what you are, a two-bit patisan jackwagon who apparently came here armed only with his big mouth -- "there should be criminal charges in the VA scandal ...," yadda yadda yadda -- and has nothing else to back it up.



    So there are... (none / 0) (#128)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 01:32:41 AM EST
    ...God only knows how many and what kind of diseases, and you want to have them throw an open house for press and politicians who'll be hopping on planes and heading off in all directions the next day?


    There are reasons why people who travel from one country to another in a manner that involves having a passport inspected along the way are required to have had certain vaccinations, and there are reasons why plants, animals, and people are sometimes placed in quarantine before being allowed into a country.


    "Offsets" (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 12:12:39 PM EST
    They want offsets.

    I'm watching Alligator People.  1959.  Beverly Garlabd.


    How about some offsets in pot law enforcement (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 12:46:07 PM EST
    spending? seems like a no-brainer to me. But then I am not a GOP congressman.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 12:48:49 PM EST
    I don't remember hearing about offsets when Saddam was the issue and war without end was the objective.

    I getting more excited about The Strain.  Very positiv buzz.


    I've been going retro until (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 12:54:54 PM EST
    "Masters of Sex" comes back in a couple of weeks. After watching 'Endeavour' on Masterpiece Mystery, I have been re-viewing all of the old Inspector Morse mysteries. They are so good! I still never know whodunit on second viewing...and sometimes can't follow it even after he explains it all. And he is such a compelling character.  Also fun to see actors pop up in bit parts...in one episode Kate Stark's brother, the bridegroom at the Red Wedding, popped up in a one-line part as a police officer. Not to mention the first PC, and the huge shoulder pad suits on the women.  

    "Masters of Sex" and (none / 0) (#33)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 03:47:06 PM EST
    "Ray Donovan" - all kinds of shows coming back.

    Can't decide if I want to watch the new show with Halle Berry - "Extant;" I have a feeling this is a show where the previews are the best part, but who knows?

    Have really been enjoying "Murder in the First," on TNT, and also "Major Crimes."  And "Motive," too, on ABC.

    If it's going to be beastly hot and humid, might as well stay inside and watch TV!


    Good summer for that (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 03:49:47 PM EST
    Has anyone seen "The  Bridge"?

    I have been reading good things about the first season so I set the DVR to record the new season.  Now I have to binge the first season.


    I watched the first season of The Bridge (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 04:22:00 PM EST
    and liked it a little but not enough to convince me to watch the 2nd season. Maybe I will try the first episode and see what the crime of the season is.

    I was reading that (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 05:43:10 PM EST
    They are trying to avoid a "crime of the season" I think those words were used.  This year the drama is intended to be more diffuse.
    So they say.

    question for you , Anne (none / 0) (#56)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 08:18:45 PM EST
    I was looking forward to the new, "Closer" spin-off, "Major Crimes." I kind of liked the old cast, and, the sort of new, Captain Raydor (Mary McDonell) from a schmaltzy perspective. I do realize its reality, or, realism, is closer to "Andy Griffith" than to "Law and Order," but, so what. It's nice sometimes to put the nail biting, and/or gut wrenching realism on the shelf for a while, and, just enjoy a simple, well performed program.

    But, I have to tell you, the "kid" just grates me the wrong way. The producers had such an opportunity to come up with some great story lines, with great, experienced actors, and, they decided to center the show around, what to me, is just a bratty, irritating kid?

    I know I sound hypocritical when I say the show's not realistic, but, there's a limit to even that. In what police station in the world do the detectives sit around discussing the big homicide they're trying to solve......in front of The Kid, and, sometimes, his friends?

    Am I alone in my take here?


    For me, Shooter, Major Crimes is (none / 0) (#59)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 08:51:20 PM EST
    just entertainment - there's little realism about it, I would guess, and the characters are just that: characters.  There's the curmudgeon, the hot-headed Latino, the Asian computer geek, the wannabe film maker, the regular Joe, the requisite African-American.  And their leader - the strong woman with the soft heart who herds them all like a pro.

    I get what you're saying about Rusty - he can be kind of annoying at times, but his story line is of a young kid who's been through some things no kid should ever have to experience, so he's needy in a way that I can cut him some slack for - if that makes sense.

    Somehow, it all works for me - I'm entertained.  And if it's not "real," well, that's okay.  Sometimes television just needs to be an escape!


    I really like "Major Crimes." (none / 0) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 10:28:52 PM EST
    Like "The Closer," it's well written and acted, it has a sly sense of humor about it, and it seeks to engage its audience with challenging storylines.

    After the transition, the new show continued to y maintain the former show's strong ratings, which indicates that it successfully retained most of its predecessor's loyal audience. I've always enjoyed trying to figure out whodunit in a whodunit, and I watch it to be entertained, not for whatever realism the show claims to have. It's a TV drama, after all.

    As far as the character Rusty Beck is concerned, I think he's annoying in the way that most all teenagers can be annoying. Because if he didn't try our patience, then he wouldn't be reflective of a real teenager, which I think we'd find even more annoying.

    And as you noted, Rusty's a former street hustler who's been through things that no teenager should ever have to experience. I think his adolescent neediness serves to humanize and soften Mary McConnell's Capt. Sharon Raydor, because we see a side of her that we didn't see in "The Closer," in that she's a protective mother hen at heart.



    I tried to watch it too and had the same reaction (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 09:06:05 PM EST
    The 'kid' irritated the heck out of me.  Seems like shows just throw a teenager in to try to appeal to a younger demographic and I think it just  backfires. Does any young person want to watch a teenager sit around a police office mooning about his missing  drug addict mother? I doubt it.

    See, if I believed in that character for one (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 09:13:23 PM EST
    nanosecond I wouldn't be so harsh! I really seem deranged about it-  bad TV,  bad!

    Sometimes Mary McDonnell's voice (none / 0) (#63)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 09:51:18 PM EST
    makes me want to stick pins in my eyes, so maybe that's distracted me from the Rusty thing.

    Have you tried Murder in the First?  Again, not a particularly believable show, but I like the chemistry between the two main characters.

    Really looking forward to Masters of Sex - I love Lizzie Caplan, and Michael Sheen does a really good job with his Dr. Masters role.  It has its own, kind of sad, darkness.

    And Ray Donovan - what a collection of damaged characters.  And so, so dark.

    All that darkness needs something less damaged and "real" - and that's why some of these other shows work for me.


    I love Major Crimes (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 07:10:22 AM EST
    And while there are things about the show that are not believable, the most unbelievable thing to me (as with most cop shows) is the incredibly nice digs and high tech toys in both the sqaud room and the DA's office they have when we know most civil servants deal with constantly cut budgets.

    I always love the USA shows - Royal Pains, Suits, Graceland, etc.  I have been watching "Gangland" on Fox, and while I think it's an interestng premise, I just feel kind of "eh" about it (but as you said - it's something to watch on these incredibly hot nights).

    And of course, TNT - Rizzoli & Isles, Perception, and Murder in the First.  "Longmire" on A&E is a great show too.

    I have started watching "Hail and Catch Fire" on AMC, and it's interesting, but I don't see where they are going to go with the story after 1 season.

    (And I have a secret "like" of "The Fosters" on ABC Family, even though I am nowhere near their target demographic.  Maybe because I love Teri Polo).  :)


    Also a fan of the USA shows. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 07:49:44 AM EST
    Suits is a favorite, as are Royal Pains and White Collar.  For some reason, Graceland just never clicked for me.

    I do also like Perception as well as Rizzoli and Isles.

    I think I watch too much TV!  I find myself recording many of them to watch at other times.

    Have you seen "Reckless?"  It's pretty good.


    I have not seen Reckless (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 08:39:51 AM EST
    And I, too, watch way too much TV!

    Graceland is kind of dark -lots of time spent with and about drug use and abuse (which is not really entertaining, IMO), but I love the cat and mouse game that goes on between the two FBI agents who are basically investigating each other.


    Forbes (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 12:56:21 PM EST
    Comparing the series to the likes of The Walking Dead or even American Horror Story would be unfair as The Strain isn't attempting anything on the level of those two programs. It's not a depressing journey of post-apocalyptic survivors, nor is it a series built on the backbone of "let's see how far we can push the limits of audience tolerance." Much like many Del Toro films, The Strain exists in its own box off to the side where it can be compared to nothing else on television. From the prospect of originality, it's great. From the prospect of making sense, it's hit or miss.

    It'd be incorrect to say The Strain is a bad series, but it would also be incorrect to say it's a great one. The pilot is an interesting attempt at world-building, but it moves rather slowly. The second episode is sort of bland until the final scene. The third episode's rather good, and the fourth episode is fairly excellent. What's lacking so far is a sense of consistency. At times, the series delivers some of the best WTF moments since True Detective, but then other times it's as bland as NBC's Dracula. This isn't to say things couldn't level out by the end of season one, it's just saying the series requires a commitment far longer than first few episodes to truly get exciting.

    The series is following a series of books.


    He should (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 02:25:45 PM EST
    just start taking money out of the districts of the people that want the offsets. Of course, then I'm sure they'd start moving the goal posts again and say those can't be "offset". They want another "offset".

    ... I highly recommend the eight he directed between 1959 and 1964 that were directly based upon the works of Edgar Allen Poe. All of them, save for one, starred the great Vincent Price.

    FWIW, I like "The Pit and the Pendulum" the best. Corman shot that 1961 film in fifteen days, and per usual brought it in under its $1 million budget. He received a tremendous amount of critical acclaim for his effort -- which proved a huge hit with audiences -- and is credited for re-inventing the horror film in its current form, and with having inspired a new generation of filmmakers and writers in that genre.



    Those are (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 03:27:00 PM EST
    Some of the first DVDs I bought.

    Those movies have a "look" (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 03:36:14 PM EST
    That's not like anything else.  Before or since.  An entirely unique look.  The only thing I can think that would compare is the oroginal Star Trek series.  If I am channel surfing and i land on either of these it takes the brain less that a nano second to register what you are watching.  Just by the look.

    Those were so good (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 04:23:45 PM EST
    Perfect summer movies in theaters when I was a kid. We saw them all. Loved Vincent Price.

    Murder in the Rue Morgue (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 04:24:40 PM EST
    I think we saw that one more than once.

    They have been running Peter Jackson's (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 09:55:29 AM EST
    King Kong on MAX.  Forgotten how much I like that bloated self indulgent over-long remake.  I really do love it.  I even have the 4hour directors cut DVD.

    I loved it too! (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 10:26:22 AM EST
    And I did not expect to. Wish I had seen it on the big screen.

    I went to LA see it with (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 12:05:37 PM EST
    A bunch if friends who worked on it.  We sat in front of a group of three women who did not shut up one second in three + hours.

    Ugh, I hate that. (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 12:08:17 PM EST
    If they were not talking about how adorable Adrian Brody was in that movie...they should have shut up and enjoyed!

    I really liked the '76 "King Kong" ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 02:42:38 PM EST
    ... from Dino DeLaurentis, starring Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange, which came out when I was fifteen. So did my then-13-year-old brother. I think we saw that version four times on the big screen. My mother used to laugh and tell us that we were both off our rockers, but she kept giving us the money to go see it.

    Don't ask me how many times we both saw the original "Star Wars" on the big screen when it first came out in the summer of '77. I lost count. We first saw it in a matinee, and were so blown away by the film that when we got home we absolutely insisted to Mom that she had to see it, which of course was also an excuse for us to see it again. She was initially turned off by the original trailer, which gave her the impression that it was going to be the cinematic equivalent of Velveeta. (Looking at that trailer now, which really does do an injustice to the film, I don't blame her in the slightest for thinking that.) But she finally relented, and so we saw it again the next evening with her, and even she was impressed.



    '77 was the year Eraserhead (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 03:34:53 PM EST
    Started making the rounds for midnight shows.  I had read about it.  Being in St Louis for the summer doing freelance work that gave me a flexible schedule some of my unemployed friends and I went to a midnight show on LSD.  it was a religious experience so naturally we formed a club and did it every week for a whole summer.  LSD and Eraserhead.  It must be Wednesday.

    For midnight screenings, ... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 06:37:28 PM EST
    ... give me "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." We used to "do the Time Warp again" on Friday nights at the Guild 45th Theater up in Seattle's U District, when I was attending UW. That was a lot of fun.

    Even though I generally like David Lynch's films, I just never got into "Eraserhead." That movie really creeped me out the first time I saw it, and for that reason I find it unwatchable even today. But then, "creeped out" is certainly a relative term, particularly when discussing David Lynch.

    My all-time favorite Lynch offering is "Blue Velvet," which I consider to be one of the ten best films of the 1980s. But I have a friend who has a peculiar love / loathe relationship with that film. He freely acknowledges its artistic brilliance from a cinematic perspective, but also calls it a "visceral mindphuque," the sort of disturbing onscreen nightmare which he would never willingly endure again. Once was quite enough, thank you very much.

    I suppose I see "Eraserhead" the same way.


    make me grow brainiac fingers.. (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 03:50:28 PM EST
    An explanation for the recent (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 12:29:33 PM EST
    surge in unaccompanied minors from Central America crossing the border into the U.S.  And almost ending up in Murrieta:

    "This is a piece of legislation we're very proud to sign," a White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, told reporters on Dec. 23, 2008, as the president put his pen to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, named for a 19th-century British abolitionist. "This program has been very effective around the world in trying to stop trafficking in persons."

    Now the legislation, enacted quietly during the transition to the Obama administration, is at the root of the potentially calamitous flow of unaccompanied minors to the nation's southern border.

     [NYT,; Carl Hulse.]

    The only potential "calamity"... (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 01:45:42 PM EST
    is treating the child refugees like prisoners, or worse.

    Their arrivals aren't a calamity, they are an opportunity to do something good with our vast national wealth.  We have the food, the clothes, the space, the resources to track down parents or relatives...all we potentially lack is the will to do god's work.


    I Agree 100%... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 04:21:38 PM EST
    ...and the first step might be calling what is happening in Honduras the crisis, rather than kids trying to escape it at our border.

    I swear if I hear one more chowder head call child refugees "The Crisis at the Border" I am going to throw my TV in the trash, or change the channel.


    Amen to that... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 04:41:37 PM EST
    and Guatemala and Salvador...there's your calamity chowder heads.

    SF is reaffirming their status (none / 0) (#52)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 07:19:59 PM EST
    I feel sorry for these kids (2.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:18:22 PM EST
    But just like we can't fight the worlds wars we can't take in the worlds children.

    Not if taking them in means we ship them off to undocumented family members and they get forgotten about and end up uneducated and without work.

    We should do something.   We should help them.

    But housing them in warehouses and then slowly letting them seep into our country or just shipping them back aren't real solutions.

    So president Obama.  How about a real plan?

    How about making a statement that you'll do something good for a change?

    Put the beer down and do something.   Do something progressive or conservative or libertarian but stop throwing money at a broken system and flying off to fundraisers.

    Of course that would be asking our president to lead and he's just not that good at that.


    Oh, for crying out loud. (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 03:01:19 PM EST
    Perhaps you ought to turn off the T.V. instead, since it seems to have conditioned you to believe that problems can be solved in a matter of an hour or two, regardless of their size and scope.

    Logistical planning on the scale that's required here doesn't just happen overnight. This current situation is rooted in a policy that was first developed eight to nine years ago and then enacted in 2008. We're only now starting to grasp the enormity of the problem that was created as a result.

    Further compounding the issue is the fact that the federal statutes enacted in 2008 specifically grant these young immigrants from Central America the right to a hearing on a request for asylum. So the federal government is legally prohibited from simply packing them up and shipping them back.

    Until that law is changed, you can't just simply ignore its provisions for the sake of expediency, no matter what those melodramatic fools on AM squawk radio are telling you. And the sight of stupid white wingbats standing in front of buses full of kids and mothers in the middle of a road, while waving American flags and chanting "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!", contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion, and in fact only makes the problem worse.



    They may have a case even without 2008 (none / 0) (#95)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 03:24:36 PM EST
    DHS Link

    History of Refugee Legislation

    The first refugee legislation in the United States was the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, which brought 400,000 Eastern Europeans to the United States. Other refugee-related legislation included the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 and the Fair Share Refugee Act of 1960. The United States used the Attorney General's parole authority to bring large groups of persons into the country for humanitarian reasons, beginning in 1956 with nationals of Hungary and culminating with hundreds of thousands of Indochinese parolees in the 1970s.

    The 1967 United Nations Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (which the United States ratified in 1968) prohibits any nation from returning a refugee to a country where his or her life or freedom would be threatened. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of  1980 to comply with the requirements and principles of the  Protocol, which established a geographically and politically neutral  refugee definition. The Refugee Act of 1980 also made a distinction  between refugee and asylum status and allowed certain refugee  applicants to be processed while in their countries of nationality.

    I Got Through the First Sentence... (none / 0) (#101)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 04:10:06 PM EST
    ...and just skipped it, SSDD.

    How quick the right is to forget all the kids their little adventure in Iraq displaced and how we begged countries to take those refuges, whose numbers were vastly greater and the countries taking them far smaller and far less wealthy than the good old US of A.

    We got the room, the wealth, and it would literally be ungodly to accept them with open arms.  But gods warriors want none of it, we are full, can't afford it and F jesus and his hand-outs.

    I guess it's a plus that they don't want an invasion of Central America, at least not today.


    Mrs. Fienstien (none / 0) (#104)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 04:27:07 PM EST
    Who wrote the law disagrees.

    Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who helped write the measure, said the White House does not need new power to act. "That law already provides the administration with flexibility to accelerate the judicial process in times of crisis," she said. "The administration should use that flexibility to speed up the system while still treating these children humanely, with compassion and respect."

    But why listen to her when its easier to make excuses?

    This president is full of them and many would rather blame republicans and make excuses for Obama then hold him responsible for anything.


    How easy it is for people like you and Sen. Feinstein to glibly throw about catch phrases like that, when it's the system itself that's being overwhelmed by the floodtide of youthful Central American refugees.

    To conduct an administrative hearing, you need a federal judge well-versed in immigration law and an immigration attorney to represent and advocate for the child's interests -- and how many of those do you think we have lying about, waiting to activate? What is it about the art of logistics that you don't understand?

    Use some common sense for once, and for Christ's sake, stop trying to score cheap political points, especially since you're the only one here who seems to be keeping such a ridiculous score.



    That's ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 03:02:05 PM EST
    Have they announced that they are looking for foster homes?  I think this house could find an extra bed.  I need something to do anyhow besides read whatever ignorant spew you've put up for the day.

    I'd wager... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 03:20:03 PM EST
    a good percentage of those kids have a parent or relative in the US already...all the government has to do is connect child with family to ease the over-crowding in the refugee prisons.

    "All the government has to do," huh? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:48:29 PM EST
    kdog: "[A]ll the government has to do is connect child with family to ease the over-crowding in the refugee prisons."

    That's like saying all Brazil had to do yesterday was score eight goals.

    Suppose neither the federal government nor the child knows exactly where such family members are presently residing in the U.S., or even who those family members are? Ours is a huge country, after all. We're not Costa Rica or Slovenia.

    It's always easy for us to tell others what we think they need to do. It doesn't necessarily follow that it will always be easy or even practical for them to put such "advice" of ours into actual practice.



    Nothing worthwhile is easy... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 09:50:43 AM EST
    but there are ways to do it...set up a website for kids looking for relatives and relatives looking for kids to access.  Community outreach in immigrant communities.  Of course immunity from deportation would be required for anyone coming forward to claim their child.

    We sent men to the moon Don, if we have the will there is a way to reunite families torn apart by man-made borders and man-made problems in Central America, problems we had/have a major part in creating btw.


    One of my FB friends in San Diego (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 03:20:20 PM EST
    had a link about a charity group organizing volunteer foster homes..I think it was related to this although I did not make the connection at the time.

    When the mister gets home (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    He won't be deploying anymore.  Two parent home, Josh will have the majority of childhood surgery behind him......

    I would gladly give refuge and home to child trying to escape carnage.  


    Here is a wonderful article that put (none / 0) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 07:33:31 PM EST
    My mind at ease somewhat.  Article

    I hope that the powers overseeing the destiny of the children meet the expectations of this article.

    As kdog speculated, most of the children have a family member living here.  Those that can be safely returned to their homes and who are not escaping violence will be returned.  There will be a small group of children seeking foster homes because they have no one or no safe place to return to.  When they are available and seeking foster they will be through the immigration courts and will be " legalized" at that time.


    aka The Law of Unintended Consequences (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 01:48:07 PM EST
    There is something almost funny (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 02:39:27 PM EST
    About an administration so bad at PR they taking a position their base hates - they want to be able to return children more easily -  but they get credit for nothing like that on the right because no matter what they do it will never be enough like always.  

    Police Lying For Occupy Arrests COSTS NYC $$$$ (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 12:19:05 PM EST

    Given that NYC paid out $18Mil for the police shenanigans during the 2004 GOP convention, apparently there is no incentive for Police to learn that false arrest and lying about is expensive, because it is just business as usual.

    "Testilying". Did you create this word? (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 12:32:22 PM EST
    Hmmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 12:52:45 PM EST
    "Testilying". Did you create this word?

    Guess the link (headline of linked article) did not pique your interest.


    Busted. 1994. Mollen Commission. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 01:22:31 PM EST
    Free (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 06:46:38 PM EST
    Nice! (none / 0) (#50)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 07:01:37 PM EST
    All the trees (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 07:03:23 PM EST
    Are loaded.  Must be the cool wet summer.

    It might be their year also (none / 0) (#53)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 07:22:02 PM EST
    my apple tree is on it's heavy year, even with the drought. I have to keep thinning it just to keep the branches from hitting the ground. I swear it thinks it is a grape tree growing bunches of apples . . .

    You are (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 08:17:25 PM EST
    going to have plenty to give away.

    I'll take a dozen, thanks! (none / 0) (#60)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 09:04:49 PM EST
    Jeralyn has my email address, for sending them directly to me.

    Self service only (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 09:53:03 AM EST
    You and the deer.  But you better hurry.  I put the word out yesterday.  The relatives wil be swooping in today.

    Legal MJ impact in CO: (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 10:55:28 AM EST
    50% of Denver's drug related crimes (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 12:49:23 PM EST
    used to be pot related, and they expected legalizing it to increase crime? That is some pretzel logic there.

    Patience my friend... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 01:42:27 PM EST
    the new users aren't hopelessly addicted yet, another 3-4 months they'll be robbing old ladies' purses for their next thc sodapop fix.

    Or so the prohibitionists have always told us;)


    I predict a bloom of interest (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 12:28:56 PM EST
    In other states when they see these outcomes.  This is an issue who's time has come.  The next ten years will see big change.

    With the added possible benefit (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 12:31:24 PM EST
    of a substantial decline in the murder rate. Chicago should jump on this.

    Following the Obama-Perry (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 12:34:11 PM EST
    back and forth over the immigration issues. Perry won't respond to the offer to join the roundtable discussion, but does  reject the handshake on the tarmac invitation. Guess he does not want to deliver another letter. I loved Valery Jarrett telling him they welcome his help pressuring congress for border security funding. Glad she is still on the job.

    Perry (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 02:29:36 PM EST
    doesn't want to shake his hand because he's deluded enough to think that he could actually win the GOP nomination in 2016 and knows that shaking hands with Obama will be a photo op that will be used against him in 2016.

    Perry has to be one of the dumbest people out there in politics today.


    Reagan and Bush already crashed through (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 03:07:28 PM EST
    the stupid glass ceiling. Why couldn't Perry get the nomination? Wrong last name?

    Perry (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 03:13:39 PM EST
    couldn't last time so I don't see him being able to this time either. And he has a lot of competition in the dumb category this time.

    I just ran across an article that said Romney was going to run again and this time he would win the presidency. These people are completely deluded.


    They must have been (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 03:19:27 PM EST
    listening to Karl Rove again.    ;-)

    I think Romney could run (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 03:20:04 PM EST
    He is definitely thinking about it

    I think it could come down to the tea party and Romney.  

    You won't believe what happens next!!!!


    They bombard Fort Sumpter again? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 03:29:08 PM EST
    I hope Romney does run again (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 06:34:09 PM EST
    The thought makes me all warm and smiley on the inside :)

    Have you checked out the platform of (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 03:34:56 PM EST
    the Texas GOP?  You want to talk about stupid...jeez.

    Hendrick Hertzberg in the New Yorker:

    The pro-choice plank:

    We strongly support a woman's right to choose to devote her life to her family and children.

    The on-the-one-hand plank:

    We revere the sanctity of human life and therefore oppose genocide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.

    The on-the-other-hand plank:

    Properly applied capital punishment is legitimate, is an effective deterrent, and should be swift and unencumbered.

    Another on-the-one-hand plank:

    We strongly oppose any constitutional convention to rewrite the United States Constitution.

    Another on-the-other-hand plank:

    We urge the Texas State Legislators to take the lead in calling for an Article V Amending Convention of States, for the specific purpose of reigning in the power of the federal government.

    The Carole King-Aretha Franklin plank:

    We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman.
    And, for good measure:

    We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married.
    The Republicans of Texas are preoccupied with sex and its consequences, intended and unintended alike. Naturally, they devote hundreds of words to ideas for restricting access to abortion--pending the achievement of "our final goal of total constitutional rights for the unborn child"--and contraception. And their views regarding their gay fellow-citizens? Don't ask:

    Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that have been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nation's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, in public policy, nor should family be redefined to include homosexual couples. We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin.


    We recognize the legitimacy and efficacy of counseling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy.

    And that's just part of it.  The rest of it doesn't make it better - it just gets worse.

    Gays are here to stay, even in Texas, but there are plenty of things that Texas Republicans plan to do away with entirely--or, to use their preferred word, things they would subject to "abolishment." (For Calhoun conservatives, I suppose, "abolition" has regrettable overtones.) A partial list:

        * Personal-income taxes

        * Property taxes

        *Estate taxes

        * Capital-gains taxes

        * Franchise and business-income taxes

        * The gift tax

        * Minimum-wage laws

        * Social Security ("We support an immediate and orderly transition to a system of private pensions")

        * The Environmental Protection Agency

        *The Department of Education and all its functions

        * "Unelected bureaucrats"

        * "Any and all federal agencies not based on an enumerated power granted by the United States Federal Constitution"

        * Congressional pensions

        * Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights

        * The Federal Reserve

        * "Foreign aid, except in cases of national defense or catastrophic disasters, with Congressional approval"

        * Obamacare (but you knew that already)

    Charlie Pierce has some excellent advice I'm pretty sure the Dems will ignore:

    John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell, and especially obvious anagram Reince Priebus, who nominally presides over Bedlam, need to be asked every day which parts of the Texas Republican platform they support and which parts they don't. They don't get to use the crazies to get elected and then hide behind fake Washington politesse when the howls from the hinterlands get too loud. We allow ourselves only two major political parties. One of them is completely out of its fcking mind. This is a national problem.

    I don't know whether it's a "stupid glass ceiling," a glass slide that evidences the extent of the brain disease currently infecting the GOP, or what.

    But these people are seriously, completely and utterly bonkers.  


    Aaaaaarrrrgggghhhh! (none / 0) (#32)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 03:42:29 PM EST
    The stupid!  It burns!
    Can we encourage and allow Texas to leave the Union and put a big fence around it?  Perhaps a huge moat filled with alligators, as well?  (Of course, making appropriate provisions for the sane people in Texas to immediately emigrate to the United States.)

    I was wondering who would be (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 03:53:38 PM EST
    The first politician with the courage and the following to stand in front of the "fence" around Mexico and say

    "Mr. President, tear down this wall!"

    I don't think it will be Mr Perry


    If The South, (none / 0) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 08:24:09 PM EST
    (think, Texas) continues on its current course they will need "The Wall" to keep Americans in.)

    I think Mexico has a real opportunity here.

    Let's work out some "exchanges."


    Exactly what I was thinking (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 04:28:21 PM EST
    He is for sure running....or else he is such an empty suit grandstander he just cant do anything else. I guess the two things are equally possible.

    He's not running :) (none / 0) (#114)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 06:33:26 PM EST
    Just saw him shaking O's hand next to a big ol'  plane :P

    Kraut bastards... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 03:53:44 PM EST
    are laying a major-league whooping on westside host Brasil...5-Nil before the half.  Brasil is short-handed and all, but who woulda thunk it?  And Klose got the record for most men's World Cup goals, to add insult to injury.

    The hope for the new world raising the cup now lies with Argentina and Argentina alone....the last westside standing, barring a miracle comeback to rival Frank Reich and the Buffalo Bills v. Houston Oilers back in the day.

    But doesn't the USA lok better if Germany (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 04:31:13 PM EST
    takes it all? Or is that the Cubs fan in me talking? (I'm not a total loser if the guy that beat me wins)

    Not really imo... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 04:39:30 PM EST
    Group stage is a different animal...we didn't play this Germany.

    7-0 now...no mercy in their dojo, to be sure.


    Final: Deutchland 7, Brasil 1. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 05:29:24 PM EST
    That was some serious whoopa$$ laid on the home team in Rio. Should the Netherlands makes it past Argentina tomorrow, we could be in for one helluva World Cup final.

    I think Brazil took a beating because ... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 12:03:18 AM EST
    ... the Germans resented you calling them "Krauts." This isn't 1944, y'know.



    also ironic (none / 0) (#69)
    by CST on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 09:13:41 AM EST
    considering the number of Germans who moved to Brazil and Argentina around 1945ish.

    German Brazilians are about ... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 07:02:56 PM EST
    ... 1% of the country's population. Brazil also hosts the largest ethnic Japanese population outside Japan's home islands. Funny how we fail to consider that Brazil is every bit as much a melting pot of various ethnicities, as is our own country.

    That said, "Kraut" is still an ethnic slur, like "Polack" and "Wop." I don't care myself personally, even though I'm of German-Irish descent (more German than Irish).

    But on my father's side, I have any number of relatives who would take very vigorous exception to being called that term. But then, not a small number of them will also freely use the term "ni&&er," "Sp!c," "Ch!nk" and "J@p" in everyday conversation -- so I suppose we have it coming.



    Not sure where you get that 1% (none / 0) (#136)
    by CST on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 10:04:00 AM EST
    figure from.  According to wiki it's closer to 4% (1% for "Asian") - and there are some regions where it is much higher (35% in some southern states).  That being said most of them showed up long before 1945.

    I've always considered Brazil more of a true melting pot than the US - because as a population they've actually mixed more over the years.

    I know kraut is an ethnic slur.  That being said, I have a feeling most Germans would put up with any name these days as long as it isn't Nazi.  From my experience that's the one that's really tired.  Kraut is like calling a white American an "Ami" or  "Gringo" or even "Cracker".  Yes it's a slur, but not one that really hurts.  Speaking for me only (as a half-kraut who speaks German and got called "Ami" on the regular).


    I'm 1/8th Kraut myself... (none / 0) (#137)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 10:15:31 AM EST
    my German great-grandfather fought for the US in WWI against his brother, who fought for Germany.  I used to play with the spiked German war helmet he brought home as a souvenir.

    Kraut, like Mick or Guido, was once a slur...now it's a term of endearment in my culture.  Language evolves.


    and sometimes devolves.. (none / 0) (#138)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 12:08:56 PM EST
    makes me think of Yogi Berra laughingly talking about a friend who pitched for another team and used to throw at him sometimes: "He said,'Sorry Dago, gotta do it. You hit me too good."

    It's all about who's using the word and how they're using the word.


    Jerrys, Heinies, Fritzs... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 09:31:49 AM EST
    Vamos Argentina! ;)

    I know enough about Brazil (none / 0) (#133)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 11:35:47 AM EST
    to know those players are going to have words like "disgrace" and "national disgrace" ringing in their ears for the next few years..

    They'll be lucky if they're not all forced to barrel down the road in white Broncos with fake beards on.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 07:51:51 PM EST
    Boy, I could tell you a few stories ... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 08:34:56 PM EST
    ... about the time then-Rep. Kennedy was out here in Honolulu as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee back in '98, ostensibly to help my boss with his fundraising, as we were facing a potentially strong GOP challenger that year.

    Suffice to say that Junior K was partying so hard as to be just this side of useless, as was his equally inebriated entourage. But in order to get the help we needed from DCCC, we had to indulge them -- and not only that, but we also had to hire their people. After that election, I quit my staff job in D.C. and returned home full time to the state legislature. I wanted no more of that crowd.

    Both parties have set up a self-perpetuating racket inside the Beltway. First, they put the screws to their own members in Congress, telling them that if they want any campaign help, they have to devote four-plus hours each business day dialing for dollars, and then a couple more in the evening attending corporate fundraisers. Then, they've got it all neatly arranged so that it all the cash cycles back into their own pockets, by requiring the members to hire only the people they recommend.

    So now Baby Kennedy's "seen the light," huh? Well, phuque him. I've found few things more insufferable in life than a "reformed" dry drunk. All they do is transfer their addictions to new outlets, like that soapbox preacher over here on Fort Street Mall who tells everyone how he was once messed up on alcohol and drugs, but now, he's all messed up on the Lord.

    Well, at least Junior K's out of Congress. He was certainly not his father, and he really had no business being on Capitol Hill in the first place.



    VA Scandal (none / 0) (#77)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:11:41 PM EST
    Unless you forgot it's worse then we thought.

    Intimidation at the VA

    Not only was this agency incompetent but high level bureaucrats used intimidation against honest employees to shut up dissent and hide their problems.

    All while receiving huge bonuses.

    Oh well.  I'm sure we'll get this all fixed up and a giant government agency will act in the best interest of our veterans in the long run.


    Tyrant (none / 0) (#78)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:13:21 PM EST
    Hey Capt?

    You watching this on AMC?   I started it after Fargo wrapped up.

    So far OK but it just doesn't seem to have the production value that would be necessary to pull off such a ambitious script.

    Going to give it a few more before passing judgement.

    Have to agree (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:23:48 PM EST
    So far it's been sort of predictable.  Clearly the pediatrician  is going to end up in charge.  Just wish they would get on with it.

    Me too (none / 0) (#105)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 04:31:09 PM EST
    Obviously since he killed a guy in cold blood as a child, slapped his son when he talked back and has those dead blue eyes he has the potential for evil.

    Not looking forward to 6 or so episodes of him on that slow decent.

    But who knows.  It could get better.

    Also the subplot with his son seems out of place.  I can't see that ending well in a Middle Eastern country.


    Sons subplot (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:42:42 PM EST
    Honestly it seems almost exploitative.  I think it depends on where they go with that part of the story.  I was surprised that the middle eastern guy was the instigator.  What will that mean.

    And yes, I see a few episodes of downward spiral.  And Im curious if the crazy brother dies abdicates or what.  His wife and son are also a problem.  I think it's mostly well done so far.


    A stand-up prosecutor: (none / 0) (#79)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:17:34 PM EST
    A 17-year old Virginia boy received photos from his 15-year old girlfriend.  In return, he "sexted" a video of himself to her.  After the girl's mother filed a complaint, a Virginia county prosecutor forgot to certify that the boy was a juvenile and the case was dismissed.

    However, police quickly obtained new charges and a search warrant for his home. Police arrested the boy, took him to jail and took photos, against his will, of  his private parts. The boy is facing two felony charges, for possession of child pornography and manufacturing child pornography (apparently, the boy is the video subject).  

    Now, to help prove the case, prosecutors have obtained a search warrant for the police/prosecutor to take a photo of the boy's member in a state that matches that displayed in the video in question. Apparently, the earlier photos did not provide a good basis for comparison.  And, aware that the police environment for the proposed shoot may not, once again,  achieve the desired outcome, the plan may involve taking the boy to a hospital and forcing the desired result by injection of a medication.

     The medication is not mentioned, but if the customary ED drugs are contemplated, they may find that, even in a 17-year old, their mechanism of action is not triggered without the accompanying stimulation.  But, you can never be too zealous, right.   A crime is a crime.  Perhaps, the warrant provides for augmentation (e.g., police fluffer).  

    What sane hospital... (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:27:32 PM EST
    ...is going to put themselves at risk of an humongous lawsuit by administering this treatment that the patient and the patient's parents or guardians don't want administered?

    Which doctor is going to be eager to do the procedure and have it known to the public that they were?

    In addition to whatever might go wrong physically, this could very likely create psychological impotence which would be an absolute circus of a lawsuit on its own.

    Has anyone ever claimed their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid getting an erection before?

    And if it's legal to medically force one on this kid, how long before the cops get to administer "truth serum" before questioning witnesses and suspects?


    From the Washington Post, (none / 0) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:20:13 PM EST
    This is unbelievable. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Zorba on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 02:07:54 PM EST
    Yes, the kids were both stupid, but come on!
    The police, the prosecutors, and the judge are incredible, over-zealous a-holes.
    I thought that the boy's guardian ad litem had it exactly right.

    Carlos Flores Laboy, appointed the teen's guardian ad litem in the case, said he thought it was just as illegal for the Manassas City police to create their own child pornography as to investigate the teen for it. "They're using a statute that was designed to protect children from being exploited in a sexual manner," Flores Laboy said, "to take a picture of this young man in a sexually explicit manner. The irony is incredible." The guardian added, "As a parent myself, I was floored. It's child abuse. We're wasting thousands of dollars and resources and man hours on a sexting case. That's what we're doing."

    Who Exactly is Tasked with Comparing Boners... (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 03:56:56 PM EST
    ...and I would love to see that cross examination on how this particular person is an expert on the boners of children.

    The logic in charging a child with creating child pornography of themselves is beyond stooopid.  Where is it, they are protecting this child from exploiting himself by exploiting, shaming, and surely putting him on some sexual deviant list for life.  Yeah, that will show him.

    Jesus, so her daughter saw her boyfriends boner, that is not a matter for the police, especially when it's not even live.  Which raises a very interesting point, had she seen it live the kid would be in a whole lot less trouble.

    Parents using the lawman to parent is getting really old.  We get it, you don't like your daughters taste in older boys, get over it.  And PS, she's not saving herself for marriage, get over that too.


    Looks like the prosecution (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 04:38:54 PM EST
    was searching for a law to satisfy the mother's complaint.  The age of consent in Virginia is 18 with a close in age exception that allows teenagers 15, 16, and 17 to engage in sexual acts but only with a partner younger than 18.   So, let's convert teen selfies to child pron and the manufacturer thereof--using a law intended to protect not prosecute for teenage bad judgment.   And, the police work.... are these comparisons like DNA or fingerprints?   No two alike.   All these prosecutors can be certain of is becoming fodder for the late-night comedians.

    That's what got me first, also (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by sj on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 04:12:27 PM EST
    How is it that the boy, taking a picture of himself, is being charged with manufacturing child pornography, while the police -- who are actually assaulting him -- are not? This is sick and perverse in so many ways.

    And the sickness and perversion is not being demonstrated by the teenagers. They were only stupid.


    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 05:21:55 PM EST
    You know, Mme. Zorba, for all our oft-stated youthful pretentions about never wanting to be uptight like our parents were when we were growing up, I think we've since become the biggest bunch of stuck-up prudes when it comes to matters of sexuality.

    The public overreaction by authorities to this episode is way beyond mind-boggling, it's obsessive to the point of being borderline criminal behavior in and of itself.

    Teens are always going to be teens, and part of being a teenager is doing stupid sexually-oriented stuff like this. You certainly don't criminalize it and thus potentially traumatize them for life. Rather, these sorts of situations call for one of those occasional (and sometimes terribly awkward) parent-child conversations about the necessity of good personal judgment and public discretion.



    Can't say I have any respect for the substitute ju (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:27:06 PM EST
    Ok'd the s/w.

    BTW, why aren't the reporters revealing what the girl's photos depicted?


    One report (none / 0) (#96)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 03:25:52 PM EST
    alleges that the girl sent the boy explicit photos, and he reciprocated.  

    Anti Pryor commercials (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 02:43:02 PM EST
    I am a little amazed at how dumb they are.  Or rather his dumb they expect their audience to be.  We will see if it works.  I predict it will not.  Even here.
    The commercials are the oldest most tired most totally discredited stuff.  Millions got their plans cancelled, Medicare cuts, worst thing ever, Pryor was the deciding vote, repeal it now.  Blah blah blah.
    I get the feeling living here that most people have moved past this.  Even real Obama haters.  They like their insurance.  I have heard many individual stories of people who would never vote for Obama no longer willing to talk about repealing the ACA. They know this stuff is bull.
    it will be interesting to see how close this race is.  Tom Cotton is counting on there being enough stupid people in the state.
    I predict it will be close.

    What is the latest (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 02:48:36 PM EST
    polling and how mad are women there about the Hobby Lobby decision?

    The Hobby Lobby decision might make the difference in our senate race here in GA.


    I would think so (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 02:59:29 PM EST
    Probably not so much here

    Are the airwaves saturated? (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 03:02:44 PM EST
    They are here.  This is a very cheap media market so it's wall to wall.  I think this may backfire.  My conservative dem brother in law says people are really not happy about all the "outside money".  It's a real issue for some..  And it's all anti Pryor.  I don't remember when I last saw a positive Pryor  commercial.  I see the others every 10 minutes.

    I think (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 04:09:09 PM EST
    with a lot of it there's a saturation point. You know, the GOP promised the world was going to end if people got insurance. There has to come a point where people are sick of the gloom and doom. Even Frank Luntz admits that the button pushing of the GOP no longer works. They can use their "approved" word list but it has lost it's saliency for most voters.

    Hate is a very hard emotion to maintain ... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 07:49:54 PM EST
    ... for long periods of time. Further, it holds rich potential to provoke a serious and sustained backlash from the opposition. 20 years ago, the Republicans were on top of the world in California, holding seven of the eight statewide elected offices from education superintendent to governor, controlling both houses of the state legislature and a decided majority of California's congressional delegation.

    Then Gov. Pete Wilson and Co. decided to roll the dice with the blatantly discriminatory and anti-Latino Prop. 187 during the 1994 election, which won them that year's campaign but at the price of completely alienating the state's growing Hispanic population for a generation or more. And in 2003, the California GOP orchestrated a successful recall of Gov. Gray Davis for no reason other than they could, which state Democrats interpreted as a declaration of all-out political war and reacted accordingly.

    Today in 2014, take a good look at the sorry-a$$ed shape California Republicans are in now, after ten years of sustained Democratic counterattack. They're 0-for-8 in statewide offices, and hold only 11 of 40 state senate seats, 26 of 80 state assembly seats, and 14 of the state's 54 congressional seats. And from all indications, they're about to endure another electoral pummeling this coming November, which could drive those numbers down even further.

    That's the fate which awaits the GOP on a national level, if they don't wise up and jettison their current role as the old white obstructionist party. You may not see the bottom immediately and dramatically drop out from under them, as it once did back in 1932 and '36. But over time, attrition and demographics are going to exact a very significant toll on Republicans, the way it has in California. As Mitt Romney discovered in November 2012, it's simply not enough to take 60-65% of the white vote anymore, when you're losing everyone else by overwhelming margins.



    I must say (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 09:58:09 PM EST
    it's nice living in a state where the GOP is pretty much shut down :)

    Watching Obama live (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 06:21:33 PM EST
    He seems tired.  Drained.  Almost resigned.  I hope that is over reaction but listening to him speak is making me nodd off.    The energy is gone.  I understand why he would feel that way.
    But I hope he just needs sleep.

    Obama's back is against the wall (none / 0) (#119)
    by ragebot on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 07:17:06 PM EST
    Even the dems are saying he needs to do something.  Cuellar met with administration officials today to discuss tweeking the law so deportations of Central American illegal aliens can be done more quickly.  Perry wants the National Guard to be deployed to the border and there is increasing support for that.

    There still is the issue of Obama not letting congress or the press see the conditions the illegal aliens are being held under.  New joke is that the border should be made as secure as the holding pens.

    The Middle East is falling apart.  Looks like there are IRS emails saying be careful what you say or congress may here it.

    VA scandal is getting worse and congress is saying why is Obama treating vets worse than illegal aliens.


    The mayor of the TX detention site toured (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 10:03:58 PM EST
    the site and reported hot and cold running water, toilet facilities, appropriate age and gender housing nhe said he thought the federal government was doing a good job of caring for the minors given the sudden increase in numbers of juveniles to be processed.

    Don't ruin the conversation with facts (none / 0) (#126)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 10:30:33 PM EST
    Here's more facts: (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 10:48:59 PM EST
    Does the Pres. agree philosophically w/Gov. Perry's advocacy for use of Predator drones at our Southern border?  Whoa.

    Factoid:  The number of unaccompanied children at the border, which was 5,200 in 2012, has shot up to more than 52,000 this year.

    Washington Post


    CO gay marriage bans goes down! (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 06:37:55 PM EST
    Ruling stayed.

    "unconstitutional and unenforceable" (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 06:39:23 PM EST