Thursday Open Thread

I had no idea my week would turn out so busy at work. The only things I'll be reading until Thursday night are legal briefs. Maybe I'll also take a few peeks at ISIS supporter Twitter feeds.

I think ISIS warrants its own set of music tunes. I bet it hates American music. Too bad. I'm still going to come up with songs for their dual personality that alternates between gruesome acts of violence and charitable missions. The first one I chose is the Rolling Stones, "Paint it Black":

I look inside myself and see my heart is black....

Feel free to add your suggestions in comments. This is an open thread, all topics welcome

< Heavy Redactions Coming for Torture Report | ISIS Slaughters Detained al Sha'etat Tribe Members >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Anytime innocent people... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 09:06:00 AM EST
    are dying for the sins of others I think of this powerful Willie Nile tune, penned after the train bombings in Madrid.  Cell Phones Ringing (in the Pockets of the Dead)

    Cell phones ringin' in the middle of the street
    History's tellin' stories that a sailor won't repeat
    Believers and infidels are fighting in the heat
    While bodies of the innocent are covered with a sheet

    Santa Claus and Robinhood are doin' what they can
    To feed the poor and soak the rich and help their fellow man
    While senators and congressmen are workin' on a plan
    To get some more vacation time to get a deeper tan

    One more Nile tune for good measure, One Guitar.  

    Some interesting stuff in this morning's WaPo. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Angel on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 09:57:48 AM EST
    Good? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 12:04:32 PM EST

    Why you would want to buy a less reliable firearm for self defense is beyond me.  

    This obsession... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:13:27 PM EST
    with self-defense is beyond me.  

    Defense from what?  The only threat to life and liberty I see is the government, and you're never outgunning their arse.  Better to stick to your wits for self-defense.


    Conservatives (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:22:14 PM EST
    are scared of everything. They are like little children who are afraid of the monsters under their bed. Fear rules their world.

    The irony... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 02:00:30 PM EST
    is what they should really be afraid of is people force-feeding them the list of things to be afraid of.

    The corporations (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 02:30:39 PM EST
    and the stock-price-trumps-everthing-else members of the investor class never threaten anyone's life and liberty?

    Who do I talk to about all the shite dumped into my water and air? How did all those jobs go to China and Mexico?


    Life, yes... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 02:38:22 PM EST
    liberty not so much...no (direct) arrest powers...though I suppose it's not outside the realm of possibility that the titans of industry can place a call to their partners in crime at the government office to get people locked up on demand.

    You're talking about liberty (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 02:55:35 PM EST
    in the most literal sense. Though there are reasons why some guys come out, take a look at whats become of their old neighborhoods through apathy and neglect and seem to want to go right back in again. Reasons beyond simple"institutionalizationl" I mean.

    What I'm getting at is that the answer isn't to stop teaching civics and start  third graders reading the Berenstein Bears version of the Fountainhead..


    No argument... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:07:36 PM EST
    Got no problem with civics less indoctrination.

    If I ever have a kid, the real education will be in the home...school is strictly for socialization and training in deceiving bueracracy.

    And no leashes! ;)


    kdog, what happens when someone (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:26:13 PM EST
    bashes in your front door and commences raping and killing???

    We're, a best, 30 minutes from police help.

    And that assumes the ADT system is set and works and the police respond as advertised.

    I'll keep by 20 guage pump with #4 shot.... just in case.


    Well, you see (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 12:43:33 PM EST
    they don't believe in self defense.

    Just ask the Israeli's.


    Hey Jim (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:30:17 PM EST
    what happens when one of these armed teachers, coaches, security guards, custodians, bus drivers, or lunch ladies flips out? We'll just cross that blood-spattered bridge when we come to it?

    And your proof (none / 0) (#165)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:22:08 PM EST
    is that properly vetted people will do that???

    I have no problem at all with (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 06:04:36 PM EST
    ... self defense.  But when someone advocates killing everyone "who is where the weapons are.  Men, women and children too," it is not "self-defense".  It is an inhuman war crime.

    Then you believe that our (none / 0) (#166)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:23:13 PM EST
    bombing of German and Japanese cities was a war crime.

    No surprise.


    Actually, I know the law (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 08:40:55 PM EST
    You advocate the indiscriminate killing of all people (including women and children) who are "where the weapons are", which, in Gaza, is everywhere.  What you are advocating is clearly a war crime, but you don't care, because they're (mostly) Muslims.  

    Your weak attempt at justification by pointing to WWII aerial bombardment demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge and - as you often falsely accuse others of - ignorance of history.  Prior to WWII, there were no international treaties protecting a civilian population from aerial bombardment/attack by aircraft.  Consequently, it was not a war crime.  So your feeble attempt to justify your own advocation of war crimes fails miserably.


    Had anyone else seen (none / 0) (#135)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:08:12 AM EST
    the list online of ex-military mass murderers?

    It's a VERY long, depressing list.

    So much for the idea that "well trained" automatically means our kids are  safe.


    ...and properly vetted... (none / 0) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:27:12 PM EST
    Properly vetted by who specifically? (none / 0) (#174)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:56:30 PM EST
    but wait, now you're sayjing people shouldn't have guns who aren't properly vetted?

    Lets have some details on what you think should be entailed in this vetting procedure.


    Btw (none / 0) (#176)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:05:38 PM EST
    the Fort Hood shooter was vetted by both the American Psychiatric Association and the military.

    I Was Going to Say... (none / 0) (#179)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:31:19 PM EST
    ...if we could properly vet gun owners we wouldn't need to worry about arming these people.

    I don't know about this (none / 0) (#183)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:54:03 PM EST
    whole "vetting" thing. Sounds a little pinko, a little anti-2nd Amendment to me..

    Could Comrade Jim being going a little soft on us? Knuckling under to leftie hoaxer propaganda and fear-mongering?


    Copyrights Case (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 11:05:29 AM EST
    So a photographer was hanging out with monkeys (crested black macaques) when one grabbed his camera and took a bunch of shots, including this awesome selfie.

    Some argue because a monkey took it and can't hold the copyrights, the image is public domain.  The photographer argues the if he had used an assistant, the copyrights would be his, therefore the monkey should be considered an assistant.

    I don't really care, I just like like the monkey selfie.

    Here other shots from the monkey.  Makes me laugh when I think about Seinfeld and the time Kramer got in trouble for throwing a banana peel at Barry 'The Monkey'.

    Truly laughing out loud in my little cubicle (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 11:29:29 AM EST
    Those are hysterical.

    I think the photographer should own the image - after all the monkey could not publish it himself...or could he? Looks pretty bright.


    I think the photographer owns the rights (none / 0) (#50)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 02:03:05 PM EST
    The photos would not exist without him. Call it his artist process ;)

    More songs... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 11:39:01 AM EST
    This song They Dance Alone by Sting originally written for mourning Chilean women whose loved ones were disappeared captures the sadness.

    Also Little Steven Van Zandt's Los Desaparacidos is more edgy and another song that captures the pain of people being killed or driven out of their own country.

    Similarly, the closing track ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:52:54 PM EST
    ... of U2's their landmark 1986 album The Joshua Tree is a very haunting and moving song called "Mothers of the Disappeared."

    But it looks as though we're about to be hit by two in rapid succession, starting this afternoon.

    My aunt (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 12:19:41 PM EST
    who lives in Kailua (but spends part of the year in Western PA with my grandfather) is worried about her house. (She is not there right now, thankfully).  Luckily her house is on the top of the hill and is inland, but there still could be serious wind damage.

    Stay safe.


    If your aunt's house is on top of a hill ... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:35:00 PM EST
    ... in Kailua, then I'm assuming that it's in the Keolu area, because that's the only part of Kailua where some homes on are hillcrests. As such, that area is not prone to flooding, but the exposure to any high winds will probably be considerable.

    We anticipate that Hurricane Iselle will pass directly over the Big Island this evening as a Category 1 storm, but will be at tropical storm strength by the time it makes landfall on Oahu tomorrow morning around 6:00 a.m. HST (12:00 noon EDT). We'll get an awful lot of rain tomorrow, probably in the neighborhood of 4-7 inches, but Iselle's sustained winds should only reach about 40-50 mph.

    The main threat posed by these two storms will not be their winds, but the prodigious amounts of precipitation which will likely accompany them. Because of our mountainous terrain, our islands are very vulnerable to upslope events. Basically, gravity will take its toll on any significant water accumulation in our mountains, which then plunges downslope in the form of flash floods and mudslides. For those of us who reside in valleys, as we do in Kuliouou, that's the threat most capable of causing us significant damage.

    This rather striking view of our Kuliouou Valley, taken by my neighbor in March 2012 from 2,000 ft. elevation on the lower Koolau ridgeline, gives you a pretty good upslope perspective. (If you click on the photo to enlarge it and then look at the residential area, we live on the far left side, just above the baseball field.) The panoramic view from that ridgeline point is spectacular.

    Younger Daughter is at school in Hilo, where they're especially prone to major flooding from upslope events, because they're in the shield of the two largest mountains on earth by bulk, Mauna Kea (13,795 ft. elev.) and Mauna Loa (13,690 ft.), with a long saddle in between the two that's 6,800 ft. elevation. Hilo will feel the brunt of the storm.

    We'll just have to wait and see what happens. Hopefully, it won't be too bad. Aloha.


    Heard you guys got hit with a bit of earth-shaking (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:51:33 PM EST
    this morning. Two hurricanes and an earthquake-- that seems like piling-on to me. No fair.

    I hope you and yours stay safe, and the damage is minimal.

    Please keep us as up to date as you can on your situation. I will be holding you in my thoughts.


    I'm offering better than even odds ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:40:15 PM EST
    ... that we will endure significant power disruptions tomorrow, so if that happens, you may well know more about what's going on out here than we do.

    But to the extent possible, I'll keep in touch. We're all stocked up, we have our hurricane preparedness kit, so we're ready for whatever comes our way.

    Mahalo for the good thoughts. Aloha.


    Best of luck, Donald (none / 0) (#72)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:48:02 PM EST
    To you and yours, and all your fellow residents.

    Good luck over there Donald, (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by fishcamp on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:51:39 PM EST
    We're kind of used to them here in the keys but they are always scary.  Let us know compañero.  Should be some monster surf on different sides of islands as it passes by.

    You are getting all of our hurricanes (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 12:14:44 PM EST
    Been pretty quiet here in FL

    That map is amazing (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 12:26:15 PM EST
    Stay safe. Even a cat 1 or 2 hitting such a small area must be intense.

    Is it a hurricane? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Slado on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:10:26 PM EST
    I thought Pacific storms were called Typhoons?

    Stay safe whatever it's called.


    They're called typhoons ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:49:07 PM EST
    ... when the storms originate in the central or western Pacific, and in the Indian Ocean. When such storms originate in the eastern Pacific and the Atlantic, they're called hurricanes. The two hurricanes heading our way -- Iselle and Julio -- originated off the coast of southwestern Mexico, west of Acapulco.

    Porch Shooter Convicted of Second-Degree Murder (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:14:04 PM EST
    The Detroit man charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter and weapons felony firearm for killing a 19-year-old woman on his porch was found guilty on all counts Thursday.

    It's about time a jury convict a quasi 'self-defender'.

    And on the flip... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:33:53 PM EST
    the latest Rolling Stone contains a piece about CeCe McDonald, the woman who did a year and half in prison in Minnesota for defending herself from a crazed violent hater.

    While some states have legalized murder or manslaughter and called it self-defense, other states have criminalized self-defense and called it murder or manslaughter.  


    I hate to be glad about someone going (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:36:41 PM EST
    to jail, but this idea that people can be shot for knocking on your door just has to stop. Really sad that people are so misguided and a young woman had to pay the horrible price.

    Amen sister... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:42:53 PM EST
    I'd love to know when a knock on the door became something to fear instead of a visitor to welcome.

    Thank goodness there are so many fewer Avon ladies or door to door salespeople these days...they'd be getting picked off left and right.


    How do you know... (none / 0) (#103)
    by unitron on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 06:00:10 PM EST
    ...it was a knock and not a pounding?

    The idea that she was seeking help is only conjecture.

    Wafer's neighbor testified to being awake and in his office at the time.  That means McBride (who was drunk enough for two grownups and a teenager) ignored the house with a light on for a completely darkened one.

    Do you really think Wafer was awakened in the middle of the night by a polite knock on the door and immediately said to himself "Finally, a chance to get away with random, senseless murder."?

    Home invasions aren't exactly an unknown phenomena in and near Dearborn Heights, so it's not surprising that his first thought might not have been "Oh goodie, a chance to play good Samaritan".


    So where in there (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by sj on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 06:03:54 PM EST
    does calling 911 come in to play? Isn't that what it's there for? If the person is still on the porch then likely it's still a manageable situation. No need to grab a gun.

    Calling 911... (none / 0) (#116)
    by unitron on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 09:44:46 PM EST
    ...on the phone he couldn't find?

    He wakes up to somebody banging on his front door, somebody banging on his side door, but nobody saying "Help" and he can't find his phone.

    And until he opens the door he doesn't know if anyone is on the porch or not because when he looked through the peephole a figure of indeterminate race and gender moves quickly out of sight.

    So he goes searching for his phone and someone starts banging on his side door, strongly enough to rattle the windows and vibrate the floor.

    Then the front door starts up again.

    He opens the door a few inches and sees the screen door already damaged, apparently from someone trying to pull it out of the frame.

    He opens the door wider to try to see what's going on and the figure suddenly lunges back into view right in front of him.

    Look at where her feet are in the picture of her body lying on his porch.  She was off to her right, not in front of the door backed up enough for someone to open the door and the screen and invite her in.


    Keeping the door shut was not an option? (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 10:02:58 PM EST
    Or, instead of the phone ... (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 10:06:06 PM EST
    ... he "couldn't find", he could have used the phone that was right in his front pocket of his jeans.  As far as the claims about the door, the floor, the "lunging figure", etc, - those are not established facts.  They are merely claims and characterizations made by the defendant.

    If you genuinely believe someone is trying to commit a home invasion or is seriously threatening you, why open the door?  Moreover, why would you do it with a gun you didn't even think was loaded (despite having loaded it yourself just 2 weeks prior)?


    That *was* the phone... (none / 0) (#134)
    by unitron on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 09:54:01 AM EST
    ...he couldn't find.

    His cell phone was the only phone in the house.

    It wasn't where he usually keeps it.


    I'm aware of that (none / 0) (#200)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 08:48:48 PM EST

    He was found guilty. (none / 0) (#123)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 12:08:08 AM EST
    The defendant argued those points, and the jury rejected his argument. At what point does one consider that argument to be discredited?

    Juries don't get it wrong? (none / 0) (#130)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 08:34:09 AM EST
    I mean we're talking about 12 people who weren't sharp enough to get out of jury duty...hardly a be all end all.  A different 12 mighta decided differently. A different prosecutor might have failed, a different defense attorney might have succeeded.  The human element is always a fallible element.

    The law says he's guilty, yes, but if you think about it that's just another opinion.  A more informed opinion perhaps, but otoh in some cases the jury isn't given the whole story because the judge rules a certain way.  Sometimes the general public knows more than the jury in a high profile case.  And some variables can never be known in any case.

    So to answer your question, nobody is bound to agree with a juries verdict, only forced to accept it.  An argument is discredited when a counter-argument discredits it in the mind of the doubter.


    You're partly right. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:23:24 PM EST
    People are free to believe whatever they want. But the notion that "an argument is discredited when a counter-argument discredits it in the mind of the doubter" is nonsensical.

    Going by such logic, should one therefore still presume the credibility of arguments offered by birthers that President Obama was born in Kenya, simply because those crackpots refuse to accept the documented evidence that he was born in Hawaii?

    How about the idea that the world is only 6,000 years old, because Christians who are Biblical literalists reject the voluminous evidence to the contrary? What about climate change? Are 97% of scientists therefore not credible because a loud little handful of deniers choose not to accept their findings?

    But getting back to the jury verdict, at this point the burden of proof has shifted to the now-convicted felon, to convince an appeals court that the jury got it wrong. The rest of us are no longer obligated to presume his innocence, nor to accept as credible those arguments based on points of contention rejected by the jury. The now-convicted defendant shot first and asked questions later, and the jury found him wholly responsible and legally liable for his actions.



    Good catch... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:07:54 PM EST
    that sentence is an abomination.

    Some things can definitively be proven and people can still deny proven truth.

    I should have something along the lines of "a debatable argument can only be discredited in the mind of the doubter when a better counter-argument discredits it in the mind of the doubter."  

    But trials ain't science.  I disagree that just because a jury finds a defense argument lacking doesn't mean it is lacking.  Because juries make mistakes...verdicts are not the result of a mathematic equation or a science experiment....they are a result of evidence and dueling arguments.  


    That makes a lot more sense. (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 09:03:40 PM EST
    If people are insistent upon being in denial, no amount of factual information is ever going to change their minds.

    Juries tend to deliberate upon the evidence that's been offered at trial. They will occasionally make mistakes based on that evidence, but not very often. If their verdict results in a miscarriage of justice, more often than not the blame should be directed at one or both of the opposing counsels, because either one or the other led jurors toward that conclusion.

    In this case, they didn't make a mistake. The defendant clearly engaged in reckless misconduct, and a series of very bad choices on his part resulted in a homicide. He didn't have to answer the door, he could've called 911, and he didn't have to open fire. At the very least, it was manslaughter. The jury concluded it was murder.



    Well, I Love Jury Duty (none / 0) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:25:48 AM EST
    It's like a paid vacation with a hands on criminal justice system class, and if selected, $20/day which can be donated to the local education fund.

    Doesn't hurt the small courthouse is like 5 mins from my place and they have a second shift that starts at 11 or 12, which you can request.

    I would do it once a month if I could.

    And the rule here, I believe, is innocent until proven guilty.  They proved to a jury the guy was guilty and there is no lingering questions about whether he was the guy, or a bad ID, or whatever, he was properly and legally judged by his peers.

    So the only disagreement can be with the law and not the verdict.  Or at least that is what we were told to believe about other similar cases with different verdicts.


    Me too... (none / 0) (#141)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:40:21 AM EST
    I think jury duty is fun, but we're weird Scott.  I think it safe to say most people dread it, and anyone with half a brain can get out of it pretty easy.  That leaves the weirdos like us who enjoy it, people with nothing better to do, and the dim filling all the juries.

    There is a difference between accepting a verdict and agreeing with a verdict.  We must accept them, but are under no obligation to have to agree.  I or any individual can disagree with laws and verdicts till the end of time...there just nothing we can do about changing verdicts, (absent the appeals process).  In theory we can change laws, but in practice, in a corrupt system such as ours, that too can prove difficult if not impossible.


    As someone who helped in a very small way (none / 0) (#146)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:59:12 AM EST
    Dennis Peron pass Medical MJ in San via the initiative, I can tell you that change is possible, but it is a Sisyphean task, not for the faint of spirit, heart, or imagination.

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 11:13:06 AM EST
    patience of a saint and the determination of a demon is required.

    Ya think it was hard in Cali, try NY.  Don't even bother without ten million bucks or so to get started.


    Don't know if you're a Dr Who fan (none / 0) (#157)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 11:51:31 AM EST
    but this is how I look at it:

    DORIUM: The asteroid, where you've made your base. Do you know why they call it Demon's Run?

    MANTON: How do you know the location of our base?

    DORIUM: You're with the Headless Monks. They're old customers of mine.

    KOVARIAN: It's just some old saying.

    DORIUM: A very old saying. The oldest. Demons run when a good man goes to war.

    I was disqualified for saying (none / 0) (#142)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:44:12 AM EST
    the hubbub over Janet Jackson's breast was much ado about nothing when one considered all the other things happeningi in the world at the time.

    Apparently my name went to the bottom of every list after that.

    I think the DA wanted me to say that she should be stoned for lewd and lascivious behavior or something.


    What was the charge in the case for which (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 11:00:26 AM EST
    you were a prospective juror?

    I honestly don't remember (none / 0) (#150)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 11:12:36 AM EST
    that's how long ago it was. And as I say, I haven't heard from them since.

    I just hope Sandy Doorley doesn't find out and call me a socially irresponsible monster, a festering pustule on the face of decent society in the media; after which she'll be forced to calm herself down with Xanax, martinis, and rough sex.


    you had to ask.. (none / 0) (#154)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 11:24:56 AM EST
    I received a summons last week for jury duty. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:31:44 AM EST
    I did get out of serving this time but it was due to previously scheduled obligations which they were willing to accommodate as they required a commitment of two weeks for potential service.  However, they are going to call me back in 90 days and I will not be able to get out of it at that time. And I'm glad because I think it's our duty to serve.  

    You too... (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:56:28 AM EST
    are in the minority Angel...it is our civic duty, but a duty I fear most people don't want or take the duty seriously. Until they are accused of a crime of course, then it's important.

    Sh*t if I do get called to serve on a criminal trial, I'd have to be less than honest about my prejudices to get chosen.  No prosecutor in their right mind wants me on a jury.  My often told story of my grand jury experience will likely be my last...if there's a blacklist at the DA's office, my arse is on it.


    I Did Not Get the Boot... (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 11:16:22 AM EST
    ...in a juvenile theft case when asked if I though two cops questioning a kid at school was fair.

    Not sure what happened, but that conversation never came up in trail.  But it's weird in that it planted a seed, that the cops has questioned him and yet there is no mention of it.

    I have been in school and questioned by cops and I know how intimidating it is, when they say we know you did it because this, that, and another person said so...  Only later to find out they did not, but when you think friends rolled on you, even for something you didn't do, it's very enticing to take the offer of lesser punishment.

    I did not admit to something I didn't do and answered truthfully in court as to believing two cops and kid isn't not fair.

    Miranda should include something about the fact that cops can lie there A off, because as a kid (not sure if I was read my rights), but I had no idea, and people should know that.


    Please answer the questions honestly. You (none / 0) (#148)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 11:02:35 AM EST
    Prospective jurors are under oath.

    I cannot tell a lie... (none / 0) (#153)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 11:17:41 AM EST
    unless somebody's freedom is on the line.

    When the going gets shady, the good best get shady too;)


    You really only need to point out to the lawyers (none / 0) (#155)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 11:29:21 AM EST
    and the judge that even if you determined, based on the evidence presented and, arguments of counsel, and the instructions of the court, that defendant was guilty, you would not vote "guilty."  

    Not gonna... (none / 0) (#156)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 11:40:30 AM EST
    free a defendant from an unjust prosecution that way Oc!  Ya gotta get on the jury before you can practice jury nullification...no way around it.

    problem is (none / 0) (#158)
    by nyjets on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 12:34:17 PM EST
    Problem is jury nullification is always wrong and illegal.
    As a juror, your job is to decide the case based on the evidence and the law.
    IF a person can not do that, that person should never be on a jury.

    "Saying it's your job... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 12:40:35 PM EST
    don't make it right Boss"

    - Cool Hand Luke


    Jury nullification can be wrong. (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:29:34 PM EST
    But it is not illegal. Jury nullification is a long-accepted tenet of jurisprudence. Were it otherwise, judges could set aside a jury's finding of "not guilty" at their sole whims, and substitute their own judgment.

    Don't hold your breath til (none / 0) (#163)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:20:22 PM EST
    you are on a jury!  

    I Understadn the Oath... (none / 0) (#173)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:54:39 PM EST
    ...my point was that I would imagine that there isn't a lot of honesty going on when asking jury questions.

    And how honest is it to bring up a police interview in jury questions and make no mention of it in court.

    Honestly is not black and white and it's been my experience, in traffic court, that no cop tells the truth.  So if someone feels compelled to right a wrong, well I ain't find that juror guilty if I agree.

    I would like to think I wouldn't do it, but for example, no way I would vote to put a kid in for life:

    A handful of pot legalization supporters welcomed Jacob Lavoro as he entered a Williamson County courthouse near Austin for the second time since his April arrest. He is accused of selling the brownies for $25 and is facing felony charges that carry stiff penalties, ranging from five years to life in prison.

    If that means I have to break the law to sleep at night, so be it.  I am not a robot, which is what prosecutors want, people who won't question right/wrong and just follow the law, no matter how unjust.  

    But it ain't me, babe
    No, no, no, it ain't me, babe
    It ain't me you're lookin' for, babe.

    I agree, (none / 0) (#180)
    by Zorba on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:33:31 PM EST
    and I have been summoned four times, three times by county and one time by state courts.  Never got on a jury, although I would have been more than willing to have served.
    Maybe I answered the voir dire questions too honestly, but I'm certainly not going to lie.  Or maybe it was just the luck of the draw.

    Not "the luck of the draw," Zorba. (none / 0) (#187)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:04:10 PM EST
    From all the jury trials I've been involved in, on both sides, I can tell you that lawyers look for jurors who they believe are leaning their way to begin with, or, feel their inclination is such that they can get them to lean to their side. If you come across as intelligent, fair, and, open minded.....forget it; you're out.

    Aw, you're such a (none / 0) (#188)
    by Zorba on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:18:33 PM EST
    nice guy to imply that I might be one of the "intelligent, fair, and open-minded."
    I would certainly like to think so.
    But I do admit, having sat through some voir dires, that nobody who seemed to know anything whatsoever about the case, whether civil or criminal, or anything about the subject at hand, was chosen to sit on those juries.
    Kind of a scary thought that both sides look for the least informed jurors.

    I was in a jury pool a few years ago for a medical (none / 0) (#189)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:25:59 PM EST
    malpractice trial.  They had the prospective jurors sitting by last name A to Z.  The judge asked if any juror had any reason they couldn't serve, a few people went and spoke with the judge, got dismissed.  Then the attorneys for both sides conferred for a few minutes, neither attorney asked any questions of any potential juror so there was essentially no voir dire and the jury was seated beginning with those whose last names started with A, then B, then C.  Before they got past the first two rows of prospects they had seated a jury.  It was not what I expected especially considering it was a medical malpractice case.  

    Interesting (none / 0) (#197)
    by Zorba on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 06:59:16 PM EST
    I have been subjected to voir dire on the jury pools I was in.
    Who knows why?  Different jurisdictions, different types of trials.

    I've served twice (none / 0) (#140)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:38:04 AM EST
    once here in town for a day and for a federal trial 90 miles to the north of here.  The latter would've been interesting because it was a bank robber who had operated around the Fresno area, but at the last minute the guy decided to plea, so we were all sent home.

    Good luck, and be sure to tell us all about it after the verdict is reached and justice(hopefully) has been served.


    I was speaking generally... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 06:17:42 PM EST
    Several cases of shooting at a stranger on the stoop   have hit the news, plus the ones that don't hit the news.

    Commenting on this "shoot first" vibe we got going, plus the gun obsession, and the fear...always the fear.

    That being said...knock or bang on the door in the middle of the night, my first thought would be someone is in trouble, not looking for trouble. Looking for trouble would break down the door or climb in the window...no?

    Of course it wasn't premeditated...but definitely reckless and irresponsible and totally unnecessary. Fear is a helluva drug.


    That being said 2x... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 06:21:47 PM EST
    I agree with ruffians that I take no joy in the guy going to prison...I would hope he has a conscience and it has punished him enough to change his ways without "corrections".

    ... and decided that Wafer committed 2nd degree murder. At some point, people need to learn that the term "man up" has nothing to do with firearms and acting tough. Rather, it means that you don't succumb to your own (often irrational) fears, and you take responsibility for your actions.

    "Well, I've got God on my side,
    And I'm just trying to survive.
    But what if what you do to survive
    Kills the things you love?
    Fear's a dangerous thing.
    It turns your heart black, you can trust.
    It'll take your God-filled soul,
    And fill it with devils and dust."

    - Bruce Springsteen, "Devils and Dust" (2009)



    Look what people can do ... (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by desertswine on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 12:08:11 AM EST
    when we're not killing one another.
    Rosetta comet mission in pictures..  that's a comet for crying out loud.

    thanks - who says we don't do big things anymore? (none / 0) (#127)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 08:08:08 AM EST
    4 billion miles and capturing such stunning images. Love the one with the 'face'. Looking forward to the scientific findings about how comets form.

    Listen, James @ comment #162 (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 08:13:06 AM EST
    You're the one who made the mistake of thinking that Obama had something to do with Medigap(Medicare supplemental insurance) when he didn't, and your the one who made the mistake on Medigap.

    Your ignorance isn't something I made up.  It is something you can remedy, if you just take off your anti-Obama blinders, quit listening to Fox News, and learn to think for your self instead of thinking in the same well-worn grooves of the 'social liberal mind' or whatever you want to call yourself.

    How about (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 05:48:26 AM EST
    "I'll be glad when you're dead you rascal you..

    Some of us seem to be dead (none / 0) (#2)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 07:50:11 AM EST
    at least from the neck up.  

    And some of us are (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 12:40:29 PM EST
    watching too much Fox News (none / 0) (#42)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:34:21 PM EST
    How 'bout a little Zevon... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 08:20:29 AM EST
    Mohammed's Radio

    You've been up all night listening for his drum
    Hoping that the righteous might just might just might just come
    I heard the General whisper to his aide-de-camp
    "Be watchful for Mohammed's lamp"

    Don't it make you want to rock and roll
    All night long
    Mohammed's Radio

    I wanna go back to Dixie (none / 0) (#4)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 08:50:55 AM EST

    I wanna go back to Dixie,
    Take me back to dear ol' Dixie,
    That's the only li'l ol' place for li'l ol' me.
    Ol' times there are not forgotten,
    Whuppin' slaves and sellin' cotton,
    And waitin' for the Robert E. Lee.
    (it was never there on time.)

    I'll go back to the Swanee,
    Where pellagra makes you scrawny,
    And the honeysuckle clutters up the vine
    I really am a-fixin'
    To go home and start a-mixin'
    Down below that Mason-Dixon line.

    By Tom Lehrer


    And where Damnyankee (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 12:42:14 PM EST
    is one word.

    You know, it's amazing.

    You prove someone wrong on something and they just nasty on for days and days.



    Yeah, you really should get over (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:33:24 PM EST
    your error on the Medigap issue, it's a mistake anyone could make.

    Quit making things up (1.00 / 1) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:19:48 PM EST
    Wasn't Lincoln... (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 02:53:27 PM EST
    ...a Damnyankee ?

    So is ScottW714 (1.00 / 2) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:20:48 PM EST

    And you <str</strong>ong>know what I think of you.


    Half and Half Jim (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:38:16 PM EST
    Born in Wisconsin, lived there for 24 years, 4 in Norfolk, and 16 in Texas.

    I don't remember the first four, so about 20 up north and 20 down south.  I am a Texans through and through, but not a southerner.


    That's obvious (none / 0) (#190)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:26:48 PM EST
    That's obvious (none / 0) (#191)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:26:48 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 06:04:24 PM EST
    A true Southerner would find the humor in a picture of Obama with a bone in his nose. Yessir.

    From Illinois (none / 0) (#74)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:54:45 PM EST
    His hunting song (none / 0) (#18)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 12:06:59 PM EST

    is pretty good too.

    How long is the US going to remain idle (none / 0) (#7)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 09:59:39 AM EST
    while ISIS takes more territory, seizes dams, terrorizes and displaces 100s of thousands of people, murders and sometimes beheads thousands of people, allows a major humanitarian crisis to continue to worsen, leaves 10s of thousands of kids to die on a mountain top, and ignores the pleas of Yazidis, Kurds, Christians, etc.?

    Newspapers like the Washington Post are calling for action.

    When is Obama going to take action? The stature and influence of the US is declining. I am embarrassed that our country is ignoring significant problems, including very large humanitarian problems, in the world and is not willing to help.

    I find this (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    highly ironic since we have a humantiarian crisis coming to our country from Central America and the conservative answer is to send them back. If we are turning away people who are walking here of their own volition, why should we spend trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in the middle east for continuing what has become a failed foreign policy venture?

    because war (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by CST on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:42:31 PM EST
    is apparently the only right-wing approved way of "helping people".

    The problems in Iraq are much more immediate (none / 0) (#79)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:14:55 PM EST
    and acute. People are dying and being slaughtered everyday. AP and Reuters are reporting: "The United Nations says approximately 40,000 of the Yazidis - as many as 25,000 of whom are children - are now are trapped on a mountain without food or water." Saw this in a DailyMail online article.

    I found it interesting that some of you seem to have no compassion or concern, and would rather deflect the discussion to other subjects that are irrelevant to this crisis. I thought that most severe partisanship was in politics, but it looks like it may be broader than that.


    I really would like to see at least an air drop of (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:22:45 PM EST
    water and food in this case, if possible - not sure what kind of weapons IS has at this point - can they shoot down helicopters?

    I feel like I am reduced to ineffectual hand wringing as IS progresses. I want to do as much humanitarian aid as possible, but is it right to send troops back in against them? I don't know - seems to me someone else rises up every time we fight one group off.


    Just had a breaking news thingy (none / 0) (#90)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:58:28 PM EST
    they are doing air drops. I didn't listen too close (working), but that's what I think I heard . . .

    Don't think this has occurred yet (none / 0) (#100)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 05:51:59 PM EST
    Just being considered. Just Googled again.

    I think this is what I heard (none / 0) (#108)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 06:07:56 PM EST
    Thanks, NYCStray--you're ahead on this (none / 0) (#111)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 06:21:14 PM EST
    NY Times is now reporting that airstrikes have begun in northern Iraq. Iraqi and Kurdish officials are saying the US is doing it. The Pentagon is denying that the US is doing it.

    Horn-honking and celebrations in the towns under seige, after the airstrikes started.

    Someone needs to tell the Pentagon that the US has started airstrikes. Ha.


    There comes (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:59:42 PM EST
    a point where we just make things worse even if we might be well meaning we never seen to really help when it comes to the middle east. We made things appreciably much worse for the Iraqis by removing Sadaam though you can argue he was a bad guy which he was but it would seem that maybe if we stay out they will get sick of the killing. And frankly our staying out has forced the Sauds and some others to actually do something instead of expecting us to do it.

    If you want to volunteer and do for the (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 10:30:34 AM EST
    Iraqis what they can't apparently can't do for themselves, go ahead.  

    Well, that "action" (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:29:40 PM EST
    being called for is bombing.   That's essentially cost free and involves only a few American pilots or pilot-less drones.  Easy, and no unintended consequences.  Right?  Wrong, oh, well at least we are doing something that McCain and Miss Lindsey would approve.  So what to do to stabilize a region we helped destabilize?   More money to Maliki?  Did we short-change him in the past?  Maybe, another $trillion would do the trick. Ground troops? And, how many and for how long?   Everyone in?  How about a war surtax?  A gas tax of $1 a gallon?  

    Of course, Iraq lacks a military able to retake the territory lost to ISIS, at this point.  Maliki's air strikes, as a war model, have killed civilians and become a rallying cry for militants (ISIS and tribal marriages of convenience) to recruit fighters.  The NYTimes reports that ISIS is loathed but actions to curb them are elusive.  Bombing may only further future blowback and do nothing substantial in regaining lost ground.   President Obama needs to get Rummy and Wolfie back into the loop so we can get this right.


    Yes, without boots on the ground (none / 0) (#44)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:40:51 PM EST
    to hold the territory gained after the enemy has been killed/driven off, using air power would only keep them from advancing, nothing more would be achieved.

    would only keep them from advancing (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 10:00:04 PM EST
    That would sound pretty good to the Shias, Kurds, Jews and Christians in front of them.

    Meanwhile, you do nothing for the (none / 0) (#121)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 10:43:46 PM EST
    various groups you mention already in the grip of ISIS.  Or have you forgotten about them in your haste to produce a reply more witty than reality based.

    If you do nothing but keep them from advancing
    they are able to consolidate their gains in the territory they've already taken, and do things like, I don't know, move women and children near their military positions where they'd be possible collateral damage from air strikes, put a ring of IED on major roads leading to their positions, and so ohn.

    Rolling up and getting them to retreat still requires boots on the ground. You don't have to be a Patton or his opponent Rommel to recognize that bit of basic military strategy.


    In your fevered desire to be (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 08:10:10 AM EST
    disagreeable you just make things up. I have never said anything that would lead you to:

    Meanwhile, you do nothing for the
    various groups you mention already in the grip of ISIS.

    Air strikes, supplies, etc now.

    Boots on the ground if that is what it takes.


    There are plenty of boots on the ground (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 08:14:06 AM EST
    worn by the Iraqi military we trained and equipped. If they were not being trained to take on threats exactly like this, then what were we training them to do?

    If one solution doesn't work (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:37:10 PM EST
    you have to find another.

    If one solution doesn't work (none / 0) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:58:30 PM EST
    you have to find another.

    Can we have a little context here? (none / 0) (#133)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 09:49:46 AM EST
    Yeah, that's what I said, you need boots on the ground to take the territory from the retreating enemy.

    Thanks for the feedback, Captain Obvious.


    Done my share (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 12:45:17 PM EST
    Your turn....

    Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accept the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay-and claims a halo for his dishonesty."

    ― Robert Heinlein

    If you're saying that (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:31:59 PM EST
    green26 is a pacifist because he's unwilling to get his a** shot off in Iraq right now, I couldn't agree more.

    I'd be happy to serve, but doubt (none / 0) (#76)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:57:01 PM EST
    they would want me. As mentioned previously, my former Army Ranger son deployed to Iraq twice. Got a 4-inch deep shrapnel wound in his back/shoulder on his first trip. Got hurt south of Baghdad in a triangle of death area, but spend much of his time fighting in Fallujah and Ramadi, before and during the Surge. Could have come home after surgery in Qatar, but insisted on rehabbing there and back at his base in Iraq, and then rejoining his guys to get back into the fight. Changed units after coming back to US, so he could get back for another deployment before ending his career. On edge of Sadr City that time. He was a shooter, not a desk clerk. Then went to law school and got a job.

    And then there's Ted Roosevelt (none / 0) (#81)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:19:33 PM EST
    Teddy's son. Played football at Harvard. Was in military. Rejoined for WWI. Was also in military during WWII. As a General, and at age 56 and needing a cane to walk, insisted on leading his men in the early waves landing on Utah Beach on D-Day. Gen. Omar Bradley later said it was the most inspirational thing he had ever observed. Ted died of a heart attack a few months later in France.

    And then there's Quentin Roosevelt, ... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 09:10:46 PM EST
    ... Teddy's youngest son, a dashingly handsome 21-year-old pilot who volunteered for duty with the American Expeditionary Force in France, as a member of the 95th Aero Squadron, 1st Pursuit Group, U.S. Flying Corps.

    Quentin's aircraft was shot down behind German lines in July 1918, and he was killed. It has been said that the Old Lion was broken emotionally by the news of his son's death, and he never recovered from the loss, following his boy to the grave six months later.



    Alfred North Whtehead (none / 0) (#160)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 01:36:15 PM EST
    fell out with Bertrand Russell over Russell's vehement public opposition to England's entry into World War I,  then Whitehead's beloved son Eric was killed in action and Whitehead said he could never read poetry again for the rest of his long life.

    "..If any question why we died/ (none / 0) (#161)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:02:57 PM EST
    tell them that our fathers lied"

    The Share Consists of No Details... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 02:57:27 PM EST
    ...just the word of known liar that he 'Done His'.

    I would describe your share as questionable and unproven.  Unless your share consists of promoting the killing of children, then you done more than everyone I know, combined.


    Scott, I have described you for what you are. (1.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 09:58:10 PM EST
    And, as I previously noted, you have no
    understanding of the real world.

    The deaths of non combatants, women, children, et al, are terrible.

    The issue is this. When war becomes necessary, what should you do??

    Your answer is that you must not attack the enemy if the enemy surrounds themselves with non combatants.

    What that means is that you cannot successfully prosecute the war.

    What that means is that you will fail to win the war.

    What that means is that you will leave your women, children and other non combatants open to the attacks of your enemies.

    Thus, by choosing to fight with your hands tied you are placing your people in harms way.

    This is exactly what is happening in Gaza. Hamas is using its women and children as human shields while it launches a continual stream of rockets against ALL inhabitants inside Israel.

    So Israel has a choice, just as we had during WWII. Attack, as best possible, military targets with the understanding that non combatants will be killed.

    Sad but unavoidable if we wanted to defeat Germany and Japan and sad if Israel wants to defeat Hamas.

    There is no other choice if you believe that Israel represents a civilized country that deserves to exist without being attacked.

    So yes. If I must choose, as our fathers had to choose and as the Israelis must now choose between protecting our families by attacking Hamas as they hide behind their families I will always choose to protect mine.

    Evidently you are silly enough to think that we can co-exist with Muslim radicals.


    Please State Your Source... (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 09:42:00 AM EST
    ...otherwise it's simply opinion.  I am looking for a paper, a manual, or some sort of documentation from a government stating your opinion as a valid from of warfare.

    Otherwise it's just a coward who never fought in a war stating his belief in how warfare should be conducted, and trying to pass it off as some sort of fact.  Israel doesn't count in that only a handful of countries with questionable motives actually support Israel.  The overwhelming majority do not.

    Copying and pasting the same lame statement again and again is only taking up bandwidth.  I get your view, there is no confusion, but you keep stating it as fact, prove it.

    And if you are going to make broad generalizations about a war 70 years ago, use examples where we intentionally killed children to get at a target.  Hint, start with the Nuremberg trials, because that is the only place you will find people who think civilians were fair game.


    Scott, you might be interested in this, (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:16:47 AM EST
    Basic Rules of the Geneva Conventions.

    Starting at about page 19, I think you will find what you're looking for, though I don't think jim will find it supportive of his position.

    The bottom line is that any nation engaged in armed conflict has a duty to protect civilian life; unless a case can be made that schools, hospitals and homes are fair game as military objectives, I think Israel has a significant problem in its engagement in Gaza.

    And, to the extent Hamas is targeting Israeli civilians, it also is in violation of the basic conventions.

    In any event, it may be instructive to check out the link, or you can go here, to read the text of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.


    Thanks... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:34:32 AM EST
    ...but it was rhetorical in that we all know Jim is talking out his A.  I mean really, a source document stating that killing kids is A-OK if it serves a greater purpose...  Maybe, if there is such a thing a terrorist handbook or field manual.

    I will definitely read it this weekend.


    Scott, I looked this up the other day after (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 11:04:47 AM EST
    I heard a brief- sort of drive-by - mention of the duty to protect civilian life on the news, and as usual, had to go educate myself since there's not much of that being provided via the media.

    People will - as they always do - argue that the Conventions don't apply for any of many reasons, but I think that, if nothing else - whether the nations in question are signatories, or whether there are any exceptions to be found - the Conventions can and should stand as a humanitarian guide to conducting war.

    I don't see the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians resolving itself anytime soon, but I'm beyond tired of people acting like Israel can do no wrong, and is entitled - because of what has been perpetrated upon them for centuries - to carte blanche.  

    The negotiations in Cairo hinge on whether Hamas and Israel can forge any kind of agreement which currently seems unlikely given what each side is demanding. Hamas is insisting that Israel must end the blockade and reopen Gaza's borders while Israel demands Hamas and all of Gaza be demilitarized. Needless to say neither side is enthused about the offers on the table. Israel has also said it will not hold negotiations during armed conflict, though Hamas claimed to have no problem doing so.

    While Israel is violating international law with the blockade, the US' veto at the UN prevents international sanctions and allows Israel to continue both the Gaza blockade and building of illegal settlements in the West Bank. All indications are if Israel is allowed to continue the blockade, they will.


    [As an aside, I've pretty much decided there is no value in engaging jim - he's not changing and all engaging does is keep him around.  But I did want to post the links so that those who do decide to get into it with him will have a good reference handy.]


    Both of you are arguing that (1.00 / 2) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:35:38 PM EST
    we committed war crimes in our bombings in WWII.

    I find that a despicable position.

    ISIS is killing and torturing and raping and watching people die of thirst and starvation...

    And you worry about what?? Some pretty words on a piece of paper??

    You both want to play politics by blaming Bush..

    Catch a clue. That doesn't save one innocent person.

    You both want to blame Israel for its response to Hamas's unending rocket attacks, claiming that Hamas has the right to protect its weapons by using women and children as shields.

    Really?? You really don't see how bigoted and anti-Jew that position is????????



    Jim Again... (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:07:48 PM EST
    ...just making it up, bringing in unrelated things to try and convince anyone who will listen that same point he made for a week, killing kids is Okey Dokey when you look at the big picture.

    Go yell at the kids on your lawn and let the grown folks be, to discuss grown folk business.


    He can't make up his mind what he (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:59:16 PM EST
    wants to talk about - and no matter what you think that is, he'll be right back at ya trying to make whatever you wrote apply to something completely different.

    So, why bother?  Why keep giving him what he wants?


    What exactly do Gesh (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 04:21:33 PM EST
    Heh mean anyway?

    Words from the unabridged Peckerwood Dictionary?

    The strategic bombings of WWII were a gross obscenity;  a time when mankind crossed a moral-spiritual Rubicon in the wrong direction. And they weren't done to slow down or end the Holocaust, so don't even try to go there.


    Nonsense (1.00 / 1) (#192)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:28:54 PM EST
    They were done to end the war.

    So I am there.


    Nonsense (1.00 / 2) (#193)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:28:54 PM EST
    They were done to end the war.

    So I am there.


    That's funny, because humans find ... (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 08:47:13 PM EST
    ... your advocating the indisciminate killing of all civilians for "living where the weapons are" despicable.

    BTW - You keep using that same, silly excuse to justify your desire to kill civilians, but you do know that there were no laws against aerial bombardments of civilians during WWII, right?

    Heh - what am I saying?

    Of course you don't.  Oh well - time to educate you.


    I Don't Blame You... (none / 0) (#182)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:53:19 PM EST
    ...but some days, it's fun, especially slow Fridays.  It's like watching a monkey smoke a cigarette, you can't help but laugh and cry at the same time.

    The Geneva Conventions are where one should look in questions about warfare, whether they are a signature or not.  But unfortunately instead of looking at it for guidance, all the war mongers see is loopholes and liberal non-sense.


    Do you really think ISIS (1.00 / 1) (#194)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:37:01 PM EST
    is paying any attention to the GC??

    Spout all the nonsense you want about lemonade streams, blue skies, buttermilk clouds and Unicorn herds but the facts are that you cannot fight an asymmetrical war in which only you agree to follow the rules and expect to win.


    It's people, including women and children (none / 0) (#122)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 12:05:19 AM EST
    Where's your compassion for humanity? Some of you need to stop letting your partisan get in the way in your humanity.

    Have no fear (none / 0) (#19)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 12:09:02 PM EST

    The Obama administration's "duty to protect" does not apply to everyone.  (or nearly anyone)

    Whereas... (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    ...the party of protection 'shocked and awed' a capital city to get one man, they didn't get that week, proceeded by an invasion of country with a couple million dead to get one man.

    With that kind of help, who need handouts.

    Are the Iraqi people better off now ?
    Wasn't that the million dollar question from republicans, guess it just doesn't matter anymore when you can blame people who didn't want the war to begin with for their trillion dollar failure.


    Obama now considering airstrikes and air drops (none / 0) (#84)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:30:09 PM EST
    in Iraq. Yippee. Must have been reading this thread today. Ha.

    Yes, yippee. (none / 0) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 05:27:18 PM EST
    The president has just noticed Iraq.  But, the consideration is for direct US airdrop follow-ups and possible direct US airstrikes.     The US military has already been helping the Iraqi government coordinate air drops to at least 40,000 Iraqis, mostly the Yazidi minority trapped on Mount Sinjar.  Also, Turkish helicopters have dropped humanitarian aid to the Yazidiis.  US special forces have been re-introduced into Iraq, probably as ground spotters for US air drops or possible air strikes.  US airstrikes would be a fateful step; there is no military solution to the failure of the Iraqi political mess.

    Maybe we could teach them how to pack (none / 0) (#102)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 05:59:52 PM EST
    containers of water and milk, so they don't break on impact. I read yesterday that lots of containers were breaking.

    If we bomb, bomb, bomb (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 06:08:57 PM EST
    per neocon desires, we will have more than spilt milk to worry about.

    Obama has authorized limited airstrikes (none / 0) (#115)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 09:34:55 PM EST
    in one city, if ISIS tries to take it or something like that. NY Times. Don't have time now to look to see if US airstrikes have actually occurred.

    I married Isis (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 10:49:20 AM EST
    on the fifth day of May, but I could not hold onto her very long, so I cut off my hair and I rode straight away..

    (Near) Naked Cowboy... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 11:25:00 AM EST
    better up his game, Times Square's new star is Buck Naked Supervisor...promoting his platform that includes the right to be buck naked as he runs for the Board of Supervisors in 'Frisco.

    In a city where you get choked to death for selling loosies, it is a miracle he wasn't locked up.  I know anybody can go topless, but bottomless is still illegal afaik.  

    Thank goodness (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 11:33:43 AM EST
    I know anybody can go topless, but bottomless is still illegal afaik.  

    Who wants to see that when you are out taking a walk or trying to eat lunch in a park?


    I'm with ya... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 11:40:48 AM EST
    but it's hard to argue with how Mother Nature made us and criminalize it.

    There's lots of things I'd rather not see out and about that I find offensive...armed civilians and cops, kids on leashes, clothes on dogs to name a few...but that's a cost of living in a free society, is it not?

    Besides, even if legalized, 99% of us ain't gonna forego our modesty just because it's legal.  Couldn't pay me to walk around naked anyway.


    my sister (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 12:50:03 PM EST
    recently broke down and bought her 2 year old son a leash.  Mostly because she has another baby now and occasionally needs to go out and run errands with both of them in tow.  She was mildly horrified, but exhausted.  He loves it.  Then again, I've often compared him to a puppy, (he likes to play fetch) so I guess it makes sense.

    I thought (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:26:49 PM EST
    they were bad too until I had children who were escape artists.

    I have a feeling (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by CST on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:36:45 PM EST
    This is one of those things where it's easy to armchair parent, but once you have your own kids sometimes you realize you have to do weird, creepy, societal-frowned-upon-things just for a little peace of mind.  It's all well and good to say "no tv/electronics" for example, but when the little $hit won't go to sleep or stop crying at 2am until you plop him in front of some moving pictures, all your well-intentioned ideas can go right out the window for the sake of sanity.  In other words, 15 min of TV may not be great for a small child, but it is better than a suicidal/homicidal parent/aunt/babysitter.

    Well said CST. Armchair parents, and (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 02:03:54 PM EST
    armchair dog owners, in my experience.

    And I most definitely used to be both!

    Now my younger (Boston) brother is 50 and has 3 kids under 5 y/o.

    Tee hee.


    My mom (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:00:00 PM EST
    Always wanted one for my sister (who had ADHD, and now just ADD), but she always thought it was mean.  But she has since changed her mind and it really makes sense as it is much safer for the kids - they can roam around a bit and have some freedom without getting away from mom or dad and doing something, like say, run into traffic.

    I'm Cool With the Child Leash... (none / 0) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    ...so long as it's not around their neck.  Hook it to a belt and that seems like a descent idea, especially in densely populated areas.

    Your sister must have drove you nuts, you don't seem like the type with a whole lot of patience for stupid sh!t.  Like me, I don't like human beings, even the little ones, who don't listen to reason.

    I would be the guy in the news who locked them in a closet just because I can and they drove me bananas.


    Which reminds me of our (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:19:12 PM EST
    going to see the Hope diamond in D.C.  Daughter was not walking yet but a very fast crawler. So I let her out of the stroller and attached her harness type leash and let her crawl on the museum floor. A grandmotherly female scolded me--but as I recall she didn't criticize the use of the leash. She thought it was unsanitary for my kid to crawl on the museum floor.  Kid survived.

    Hahahahahaha! (none / 0) (#71)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:46:34 PM EST
    Hey, how else are the kids supposed to develop a good immune system?     ;-)

    Say it ain't so! (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:55:08 PM EST
    Leashed in a museum?  I have no doubt your daughter was a fast crawler, but surely not fast enough to outrun you!

    Well the baby would have gotten a good (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:18:25 PM EST
    head start crawling while oculus was absorbed in an exhibit!

    I think a leash was a genius idea!

    I have no problem with kids on leashes, as long as they are not being hurt. if it makes the parents a little less stressed - go for it!


    I wonder if... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 05:48:11 PM EST
    if there any detrimental psychological effects to being tethered at a young age.  

    Eh what's the point...if parents don't f#ck their kids up too bad, the village surely will;)


    Just watch out for one of (none / 0) (#143)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:44:23 AM EST
    But I wanted to peruse the exhibits! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:54:52 PM EST
    Excuses, excuses...j/k (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 05:51:18 PM EST
    That Made Me Laugh (none / 0) (#77)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:10:42 PM EST
    I have a leash that is retractable, maybe 20 feet, which is more than enough for a kid to create some serious havoc.

    I can't believe she complained about the dirt, surely a museum floor is cleaner than most homes.

    What you should do is put SLIPS on her hands and knees, then all she will do is crawl in place.  Just kidding, but SLIPS is some really cool stuff.


    WOW oculus the Hope Diamond... (none / 0) (#92)
    by fishcamp on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 05:12:31 PM EST
    I would love to see it some time.  I know it's big and blue. Have you seen the gemstones in the Vatican?  Or the gold museum in Bogota? All are stunning.  

    I was underwhelmed by the gold museum (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 01:33:13 AM EST
    in Lima. Very dusty. And I found out later some of the "gold" is fake.

    At Least Your Toddler... (none / 0) (#185)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:59:29 PM EST
    ...didn't lock down the White House like this little fella:
    According to a White House press pool report, at approximately 8:10 p.m., there was a "brief commotion" among Secret Services agents when a daring--but probably just unaware--toddler squeezed in between fence posts on the North Lawn. The incident caused Secret Agents to race across the lawn to intercept the toddler and, per protocol, caused a brief White House lock down, with Pennsylvania Avenue shut down and gates closed for a short period.

    They should have him/her leashed, I say, but here is the money quote from the Secret Service:
    "were going to wait until he learned to talk to question him, but in lieu of that he got a timeout and was sent on way with parents."


    I am appalled CST.... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:02:26 PM EST
    appalled! ;)  But it's still a (quasi) free country, so your sis can rock on with her restraints unless the MA State legislature gets any bright ideas.

    Personally though I think it better and more humane to train the little animals to heel than to leash 'em...I find it so creepy, but I guess it's better than a electro-shock collar.  


    they're super creepy (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by CST on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:27:51 PM EST
    And she's actually in NY now, so it's up to you guys.

    I think she would greatly prefer to train him to heel.  Sometime before or after she trains him to use the bathroom on his own.  But in the meantime, she still occasionally needs to run errands, and can't always get a baby-sitter, and would prefer for her son not to run off to god knows where while she's busy carrying his screaming brother around and trying to remember why she had kids in the first place :)


    I have 15 & 12 y/o boys. (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 02:00:46 PM EST
    They still have not learned how to use the bathroom on their own, judging by the mess they leave in there...

    Sh*t... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 02:47:27 PM EST
    I live with grown-arse men with that problem.

    Right Here.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:43:27 PM EST
    ...sometimes in the morning I gotta go and there ain't a switch to flip to invert the facilities to accommodate my needs.

    That is when I miss the old oak tree, back on the farm, in Wisconsin.

    But I like cleanliness, so the buck stops with me and rubber gloves the stuff "with scrubbing bubbles that clean so I don't have too..."


    ScottW714: "[S]ometimes in the morning I gotta go and there ain't a switch to flip to invert the facilities to accommodate my needs. That is when I miss the old oak tree, back on the farm, in Wisconsin."

    ... but I bet that old oak tree probably doesn't miss you, or your unconvincing argument that it was merely raining.



    Stand closer (none / 0) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:40:42 PM EST
    I think hold (none / 0) (#52)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 02:15:18 PM EST
    as in Russell Crowe's "Hoollllddd!" from Gladiator would sound better.

    "Heel" w/the leash thing might be taking it too far.....

    it'll work for the potty training too.


    The naked cowboy (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 12:22:55 PM EST
    may have got'n off on "insufficient evidence."   This seems to be a real problem and should become our number one crime-fighting priority:  it undermines the value of witness description ( Q. what color was his shirt and pants?  A. um).  Thank goodness that our police forces have been militarized so as to cope with this menace.

    Would bring new meaning... (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 01:09:09 PM EST
    to the question "was the perp wearing a hoodie?"

    Ba-dum-dum.  Here all week, try the veal.  The Aristocrats.


    god forgive me, I laughed at that (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:14:10 PM EST
    Must be delirious coming off of the antibiotics.

    No divine forgiveness necessary... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 05:53:22 PM EST
    If there is a god, he/she/it is more perverted than I...with a more warped sense of humor.

    True, divine proxies, (none / 0) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 06:02:36 PM EST
    in the form of militarized forces,  will take care of all this:  Tanks only against tank tops only.

    Interesting op ed from NYT re (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 11:49:37 AM EST
    non-Israeli Jews whose support of Israel is declining:


    New topic: Senator John Walsh of Montana (none / 0) (#83)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:25:24 PM EST
    I see that he just dropped out of his Senate race. Involved in a major plagiarism scandal involving his thesis for his masters degree at the War College. Copied about 1/4 word for word from other papers, and didn't properly footnote the majority of the paper. The NY Times did the original story a couple weeks ago.

    Any views out there on this one? Anyone read any articles on it? Lots of NY Times and WA Post articles and editorials.

    I recall reading about this a while back, seem to (none / 0) (#85)
    by Angel on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:39:17 PM EST
    remember that he sort of brushed it off when it first came out.  I guess things changed.  

    I was kind of surprised (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:41:37 PM EST
    that he didn't take a leave of absence or something.

    Oh, well.


    He was supposedly trailing in the latest polls. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Angel on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 04:48:44 PM EST
    The Democrats have until 8/20 to find a replacement candidate.  Lots of luck.  This will go back to the R column.

    He probably turned himself in (none / 0) (#93)
    by fishcamp on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 05:20:52 PM EST
    so he could do a big apology on national TV and get re-elected.  Sorry I was aprés fishing too long today.  

    Not far off. (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 05:48:49 PM EST
    He said he is dropping out of the campaign so he "..can focus on responsibilities entrusted to me as your US Senator."    He could have said he dropped out of the campaign to spend more time with his family--but that line might be thought plagiarism.  

    It is puzzling as to how the US Army War College did not detect the apparently blatant plagiarism in his work.  If not his advisor, a plagiarism checker (a common procedure) should have given rise to suspicions.  Perhaps, the coming War College investigation will shed light on this matter.


    "But that line... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by unitron on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 06:01:57 PM EST
    ...might be thought plagiarism."

    Congratulations, you win the internets for today.

    And owe me a keyboard.  


    I wouldn't put anything past any of them (none / 0) (#95)
    by Angel on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 05:38:16 PM EST
    these days!

    Walsh has been down double digits (none / 0) (#96)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 05:40:20 PM EST
    all along. He wasn't going to win. I read somewhere that the national dem organization that passes out the funds was not supporting him prior to the disclosure of this problem--essentially meaning that they didn't think he had a chance to win and wanted t use the money elsewhere.

    The Oscar Pistorius trial comes to a close (none / 0) (#132)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 09:48:34 AM EST
    Here is the viewpoint of a Law Professor at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, SA...

    and why he believes Oscar is in trouble.

    Today on the TV... (none / 0) (#144)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    ...they said his lawyer was arguing that police tampered with the evidence in his closing arguments.  While not being a lawyer, that seems very odd to bring up in closing arguments.  Desperation comes to mind.

    Verdict is set for 9/11.