Monday Night Open Thread

Long day, just getting home. I'm going to catch up with ISIS and other news.

DWTS has a new season tonight. Tommy Chong is one of the new contestants. This interview with him about the show and pot is pretty funny. (Added: I just saw Tommy dance, he was great. And Cheech driving the car was a great touch. The show is not shying away from his marijuana activism, which is great. He says in the interview he is going to dress in green most of the season. Medical marijuana couldn't have a better placed spokesman.) What happened to Julianne Hough? She's now a judge and looks like Harriet in Ozzie and Harriet. I don't know most of these contestants -- Some lady in red did her dance and then argued with the judges about her performance. She's going to be a pain. Betsy Johnson is a character, I wonder if they added her for comic value alone. She look s like a rag doll. On the other hand, being able to do a cartwheel and a twist at her age is no small feat. I'm surprised she got 5's. Her dancing was about a 2. The young dancer from Duck Dynasty talks like she has marbles in her mouth but what a great dancer.

Update: Anyone see Barbara Streisand on The Late Show with Jimmy Fallon? What an icon. You can watch her sing here.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Congress and White House One Step Behind on Syria Rebels | Pentagon May Ask for Boots on the Ground in Iraq >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Are we watching (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:27:17 PM EST
    The Roosevelts?  It pretty great.  Teddy was a character.  Quite the war monger.  Talking about San Juan Hill he sounds like Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore from Apocolypse Now.  Then turns around and does all this amazingly great stuff.   Quite a complicated character.

    I'm getting real tired of Peter (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by desertswine on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:53:02 PM EST
    Coyote's agitated voice.  He reads everything like its really, really important.

    Narration really can make a difference. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 10:02:02 PM EST
    I remember all those great nature documentaries that David (not Richard) Attenborough used to narrate; it got so that within minutes of hearing Attenborough's voice, my husband would be fast asleep.

    For me, I can't listen to Scott Pelley deliver the evening news; he speaks as if his entire audience is gathered in the TV room at the nursing home (which, given the commercials that run during the broadcast - incontinence products, denture cream, erectile dysfunction, arthritis - perhaps that is his primary demographic), with most of them leaking intelligence along with urine.  Sets my teeth on edge.


    You know who's great at narration? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 04:08:40 AM EST
    F. Murray Abraham has lent his voice to 32 documentary episodes of the PBS series Nature.

    I liked Sigourney Weaver (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:05:01 AM EST
    Doing Planet Earth.  But I am a bit if a Sigourney fanboy.

    It is the presence of George Will as a (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by caseyOR on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:18:15 PM EST
    commentator/analyst that has me gagging through every episode of The Roosevelts. So, Ken Burns couldn't find a single actual political historian to use? He was stuck with this rightwing hack? This is the guy Burns decided could tell the people of the U.S. the real scoop on the politics of these two presidents? Presidents who were universally reviled by big money, conservatives, corporations and anyone else who rejected the idea that the system should treat everyone, regardless of economic status, fairly?

    A huge fail on the part of Ken Burns.


    It bugged me too (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:26:15 PM EST
    But to be fair he is one of several.  And I have to say IMO he has had some interesting things to say.  

    Would add (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:29:06 PM EST
    He certainly did not whitewash Teddy history.  It was rather brutally honest.  Not a historian but I had never heard a lot if that awful stuff about him.  Some from Will.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#157)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 03:12:24 PM EST
    I was wary when I first saw George Will, but after watching the first two nights, I'd say he's been fair in his analysis and comments thus far.

    Ken Burns also used George Will extensively in his 1994 18-hour documentary "Baseball." I very much disagree with Will's politics, but when it comes to baseball, he and I are on the same page. He clearly has a keen eye for the game, and he certainly knows his stuff. And he's penned some wonderful books about the sport, including 1990's acclaimed "Men at Work: The Craft of Baseball."

    A die-hard Chicago Cubs fan from his childhood days in Champaign-Urbana, Will recently wrote "A Nice Little Place on the North Side: Wrigley Field at 100" (Random House, 2014), an insightful history of the classic ballpark and the team he affectionately describes as "a lifelong tutorial in deferred gratification."

    His recounting of the Cubs' infamous collapse in the 2003 National League Championship Series, when they were only one inning away from their first N.L. pennant in nearly 70 years, is as eloquent as it is heartbreaking -- even to this L.A. Dodger fan.

    Suffice to say that I think it's really too bad that George Will didn't just stick to talking about baseball. Personally, I much rather listen to him expound on that subject, than have to continue enduring the grating prattle of all those over-caffeinated blowhards who populate ESPN and Fox Sports.



    I consider his Cub fandom one of his (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 07:33:35 PM EST
    'Even a stopped clock is right twice a day' moments. Maybe the other is his assessment of Teddy. I did enjoy Men at Work, and I should probably try the new book about  Wrigley.  Thinking about 2003 still brings a tear to my eye. Not sure I can stand reading about it yet. Too soon!

    His segment on Colbert may have been the only time I saw Will speechless.  He made  a tongue in cheek statement  that the Cubs were responsible for winning the Cold War...and went on to explain that 'Dutch' Reagan got his start on radio as a Cubs announcer, etc, etc.  Colbert let him tell the story, then said 'By that same logic, did not the Chicago Cubs also sell arms to Iran?'  I about fell out of my chair. So funny.


    Will's "Men at Work" was an excellent (none / 0) (#198)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 07:37:22 PM EST
    read, including the chapter on Tony Gwynn. I have Will's book on bunting but haven't read it.

    Your first impressions regarding (none / 0) (#187)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 06:02:52 PM EST
    the presence of  the odious George Will was similar to mine.  But, as I thought more, I think it was a well-studied decision given the subjects Theodore, Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt.

    Will may provide  immunization against some viewer's inclination to switch channels and, thereby,  miss the opportunity to learn and be educated  to the enduring impact progressivism has had upon the nation and them, personally.  Of course, the series may, on first bounch, be watchable for such viewers on the basis of the character flaws, but, hopefully, other ideas will permeate.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:54:15 PM EST
    Only about 12 more hours

    I feel the same way (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:14:05 AM EST
    Love the content, and the visuals are wonderful, but his voice is always at the same tone, no variation.  I noticed it a lot during the National Parks doc also.

    I fell asleep last night (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:14:46 AM EST
     To episode one.  Such crazy dreams...whoa.  Teddy Roosevelt was a loon :)

    Totally. A loons loon. (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:17:06 AM EST
    But then he did such amazing stuff.  I just can't hate him.

    I admit I did too...then woke (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:15:44 AM EST
    up to the last part of the rebroadcast of episode two...missed a whole lot of stuff in there!

    I recommend recording it (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:46:26 AM EST
    I am enjoying it in small doses while doing other stuff but I don't think I could sit through 2hours.

    Oh yes, I am recording. Two hours is too hard (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 07:38:05 PM EST
    after a long day.  Really worth watching though, very glad it was made.  

    The Battle of San Juan Hill ... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:35:29 AM EST
    "It has been a splendid little war, begun with the highest motives, carried on with magnificent intelligence and spirit, favored by that Fortune which loves the brave."
    -- Secretary of State John Hay, in a letter to Theodore Roosevelt at the conclusion of the Spanish-American War (July 27, 1898)

    ... was fought in conjunction with the nearby Battle of El Caney on July 1, 1898, and marked the bloodiest day of the war. While the assault on San Juan Hill is better known due to the charge of Teddy Roosevelt and his "Rough Riders." the corresponding assault on El Caney proved the far bloodier affair. All told, 60% of all American combat deaths in the war occurred on that one bloody day.

    The twin battles cost the U.S. 5th Corps, which was then besieging the city of Santiago de Cuba, 10% of its front-line troops and nearly crippled the American effort to take the city. Fortunately for the Americans, the demoralized Spanish never knew that, and they made no effort to break the siege. Three weeks later, they surrendered and for all intents and purposes, the war was over.



    My Scottish grandfather fought (none / 0) (#28)
    by fishcamp on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 06:43:51 AM EST
    in that war but it was over by the time he ran up San Juan Hill.

    From the series (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:01:29 AM EST
    "It had been FUN" Roosevelt said when the battle was over.  "The great day of my life".
    "No hunting trip so far has ever equaled it in Teddy's eyes". Said a rough rider friend.  "He was just reveling in victory and gore"
    Historian - "there was a bloodlust in Roosevelt.  He was a killer.  You can't sanitize that"

    IOW (none / 0) (#59)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 09:53:36 AM EST
    He was a useless piece of sh*t whose "accomplishments" don't even come CLOSE to making up for of POS stuff. Then again, that is the story of EVERY U.S. President.  

    Hmmm. Short list (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 10:18:07 AM EST
    The breakup of Northern Securities, the cola strike settlement, the Panama Canal,  the Pure Food and Drug Act,  the Hepburn Act, end to the Russo-Japanese war, millions of wilderness acres preserved.  The fought for better working conditions and hours for workers.  Truly a short list.
    The man was a maniac but he did good things.  If only we got as many good things from every maniac who ever held office.

    Heh COAL stroke (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 10:18:46 AM EST
    Not cola strike.

    Righto, that's back when (none / 0) (#113)
    by fishcamp on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:46:33 PM EST
    Coca-Cola's secret formula included cocaine.  At first they used five ounces of coca leaf per gallon of syrup.  After 1904, instead of using fresh leaves, Coca-Cola used "spent" leaves- the leftovers of the cocaine-extraction process with trace levels of cocaine.  Coca-cola now uses a cocaine-free coca leaf extract prepared at a plant in Maywood, New Jersey.  It is the only company authorized by the Federal Government to import and process the coca plant.  They extract the cocaine and sell it to a pharmaceutical company in St. Louis, Missouri that is the only manufacturer in the United States licensed to purify cocaine for medicinal use.  Wiki words

    To be even more conflicted (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 10:53:52 AM EST
    His actions on race were just as mixed.  He was the first to invite a black person to dine at the WH.  when residents in Mississippi forced the black postmaster to resign he closed the post office forcing them to go 20 miles for mail.  But his actions in the Brownsville incident were cowardly and shameful.  And he clearly privately was deeply racist.

    A quote from a contemporary of Roosevelt (none / 0) (#79)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:19:12 AM EST

    H. L. Mencken

    "Race relations never improve in war time; they always worsen. And it is when the boys come home the Ku Klux Klans are organized. I believe with George Schuyler that the only really feasible way to improve the general situation of the American Negro is to convince more and more whites that he is, as men go in this world, a decent fellow, and that amicable living with him is not only possible but desirable. Every threat of mass political pressure, every appeal to political mountebanks, only alarms the white brother, and so postpones the day of reasonable justice."

    What's your point? (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:28:30 AM EST
    Just wondering if (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:00:30 PM EST
    The point was "everyone was racist".  Which is true of course.  But Teddy is reported to have said "it will take tens of thousands of years for the negr@ to equal the white man intellectually"
    Or words to that effect.  The quote was in part 2.
    Not exactly the genteel approach you cite.

    And I repeat.  The Brownsville incident was a shameful disgrace.  And unnecessary.  The white commander of the troops said they were innocent and a TX grand jury failed to indite any of them.  He still screwed them.  Took their pensions.  Disgraced them for life.  For nothing.


    It was about politics. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:31:54 PM EST
    Theodore Roosevelt was foremost a creature of his era, one in which white men resolutely sought to keep women and minorities firmly in their respective places. He was considered an enlightened progressive in his day, but would hardly be from today's standpoint, especially on issues of civil rights.

    If you ever want to read about ugly, you should learn about how violently the suffragettes were treated in this country at the turn of the 20th century, when all they were seeking was the vote for women.

    When assessing our country's historical figures, it's often necessary to do so on the basis of the times in which they lived, and to further resist the temptation to simply judge them by today's standards, because our society has evolved considerably over the last two centuries.

    It is similarly evident from contemporaneous writings that both Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln did not consider black man to be the white man's equal, although there is good reason to believe that their views had changed considerably on the subject late in their respective lives.

    If we dig deep enough into people's pasts, everyone is going to be found wanting in some regard. At some point, we need to ask ourselves to what purpose are we doing so, because in my opinion, personal reaffirmation of our own sense of moral superiority is a rather silly reason to be constantly tearing others down.



    It made me laugh to hear (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:42:49 PM EST
    That he refused to view the Reuben's nudes with his wife in the Louvre because "they were not appropriate for mixed company"  

    Btw (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:44:34 PM EST
    I am named after an uncle who was named after Teddy.  His first name was Roosevelt.  I got his middle name.  Word is Franklin made them regret that decision.

    WTF (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:09:52 AM EST
    is with the 1 rating?  Jesus.  

    Is the troll fairy back? (none / 0) (#110)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:36:12 PM EST
    Roosevelt (none / 0) (#18)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 10:32:44 PM EST
    It will definitely be a great series. The old photos are stunning.

    I was disappointed that they didn't spend more time telling us how Warren Delano made his fortune as it  was always one of those things that the family never wanted to talk about.

    Somehow saying he made it in the "China Trade" just  didn't do it.  


    Do we suspect... (none / 0) (#200)
    by unitron on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 07:39:21 PM EST
    ...that it's kind of like saying Joe Kennedy made his money in the "Scottish" and "Irish" trade?

    Selling the war: (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:22:30 AM EST
    How much additional evidence is really needed at this point to show that the establishment media are courtiers to power not independent journalists? Well, here is a little more anyway.

    According to Michael Calderone at the Huffington Post, President Barack Obama met with over a dozen "journalists" in an off-the-record meeting to get input on how he should sell his war against ISIS to the American people.

    The group, which met in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in an off-the-record session, included New York Times columnists David Brooks, Tom Friedman and Frank Bruni and editorial writer Carol Giacomo; The Washington Post's David Ignatius, Eugene Robinson and Ruth Marcus; The New Yorker's Dexter Filkins and George Packer; The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg and Peter Beinart; The New Republic's Julia Ioffe; Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll; The Wall Street Journal's Jerry Seib; and The Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky, a source familiar with the meeting told The Huffington Post.


    We have learned nothing.

    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:31:43 PM EST
    Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord was reputed to have said, of the House of Bourbon:
     Ils n'ont rien appris, ni rien oublié--They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

    We have apparently learned nothing, as well.

    True... (none / 0) (#126)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:18:41 PM EST
    We the people have probably learned nothing.

    The people running the show have, however, learned that the manner in which they manipulated the American people regarding Vietnam and Iraq still is viable and fully functional.

    And they learned that from the Reichstag fire.


    My brother-in-law is in the DWTS band (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 09:49:19 AM EST
    He'll be blowing sax, maybe some bass flute, on this season. Between IDOL, The Voice and DWTS, he's got a good rotating series of gigs.

    What a fun set of gigs! (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:20:37 AM EST
    I still miss Meryl Davis and Charlie White; I wish the show had delayed Charlie's appearance until this season, so his talent could have garnered the attention it deserves.....

    It took me till now (none / 0) (#176)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 04:47:39 PM EST
    To register what DWTS was.

    That's cool.


    CRIME ALERT - older gentelmen (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 10:41:21 AM EST
    Women often receive warnings about protecting themselves at the mall
    and in dark parking lots, etc. This is the first warning I have seen
    for men. I wanted to pass it on in case you haven't heard about it.

    A `heads up' for those men who may be regular Lowe's, Home Depot,
    Costco, or even Wal-Mart customers. This one caught me totally by
    surprise. Over the last month I became a victim of a clever scam while
    out shopping. Simply going out to get supplies has turned out to be
    quite traumatic. Don't be naive enough to think it couldn't happen to
    you or your friends.

    Here's how the scam works:

    Two seriously good-looking, college-aged girls will come over to your car or
    truck as you are packing your shopping into your vehicle. They both
    start wiping your windshield with a rag and Windex, with their breasts
    almost falling out of their skimpy T-shirts. (It's impossible not to
    look). When you thank them and offer them a tip, they say `No' but
    instead ask for a ride to McDonald's.

    You agree and they climb into the vehicle. On the way, they start
    undressing. Then one of them starts crawling all over you, while the other
    one steals your wallet.

    I had my wallet stolen Sep. 4th, 9th, 10th, twice on the 15th, 17th,
    20th, 24th, & 29th. Also Oct. 1st & 4th, twice on the 8th, 16th, 23rd,
    26th & 28th, three times last Monday and very likely again this
    upcoming weekend.

    So tell your friends to be careful. What a horrible way to take
    advantage of us older men. Warn your friends to be vigilant.

    Wal-Mart has wallets on sale for $2.99 each. I found even cheaper ones
    for $.99 at the dollar store and bought them out in three of their
    stores. Also, you never will get to eat at McDonald's.

    Got an Address ? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:49:11 AM EST
    I will save you a couple bucks as I have a shoe box full of old wallets.  

    Also, I would highly recommend getting a dash cam and installing it backwards, you know, for the police report.


    Hilarious (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 10:53:17 AM EST
    Cheap thrills... $2.99 lap dance..

    Mmmmm, chili (5.00 / 5) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 04:10:45 PM EST
    Just got off the phone with my sis.  She was complaining that my stoner nephew (who now, thank god, lives with her not me) had eaten the ham scraps they were saving to give to their dogs.  After swearing her to secrecy I told her about a morning when he was living with me.  One morning he and a couple of his loser friends home from a jagermeister binge woke me up so I come in the kitchen and in the process of making coffee I see an empty plastic container in the sink which I hold up and am about to say what happened to.....
    And he pipes slurred and drowsy "oh, we ate the chili.  Sorry"
    Using incredible will I said, "no problem.  There's always some in the fridge.  Help yourself"
    It's always in the fridge because to keep my dogs from getting bored with their dry dog food I keep a plastic container with some kind of canned dog food blended with enough water that I call it dog food soup.
    My sister was still laughing when I hung up.  She is probably still laughing.

    I'm on the tarmac at LAX and everyone around me (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by Angel on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 04:19:20 PM EST
    is wondering why I'm laughing so hard.  :)

    Tough day to be on the tarmac in LA. (none / 0) (#171)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 04:23:44 PM EST
    An innovation. Think of all (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 05:16:54 PM EST
    all the time you might possibly save.

    People who avoid conflict do not (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 05:18:28 PM EST
    read comments here.

    Haahha (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 05:25:05 PM EST
    Yes, tis true..  Fortunately TL is  not a kaffee klatch of full of empty nodding heads.

    And for someone who wants to avoid negativity and conflict he sure seems to like roiling and does not hold back punches.. go figure. Maybe he does not like that he gets mad so easily?

    I guess it is human nature to expect that you are divine and others are rolling in a sty.

    Mirrors do not seem to rectify the situation..  


    Factoid vs Factlet (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:26:48 PM EST
    I'll go with Safire

    For some, factoid signified a questionable or spurious piece of information, unverified, incorrect, or fabricated, that is, a brief statement which appears factual but lacks veracity; for others, it signified a small piece of true but valueless or insignificant information.[7] This new sense of factoid as a trivial but interesting fact was popularized by the CNN Headline News TV channel, which, during the 1980s and 1990s, used to frequently include such a fact under the heading factoid during newscasts. BBC Radio 2 presenter Steve Wright uses factoids extensively on his show. Occasionally these can be incorrect, such as in September 2012 defining a Googol as the number 1 followed by one million zeroes, when the correct definition is the number 1 followed by one hundred zeroes.[8]

    As a result of confusion over the meaning of factoid, some English-language style and usage guides recommend against its use.[9] William Safire in his On Language column advocated the use of the word factlet instead of factoid to express a brief interesting fact as well as a "little bit of arcana".[10] Safire suggested that factlet be used to designate a small or trivial bit of information that is nonetheless true or accurate.[10][6] A report in The Guardian identified Safire as the writer who coined the term factlet,[3] although Safire's 1993 column suggested factlet was already in use at that time.[6] The Atlantic magazine agreed with Safire, and recommended factlet instead of factoid, such that factlet would signify a "small probably unimportant but interesting fact", and that the term be used in place of factoid, which often has negative connotations.[7] The term factlet has been used in publications such as Mother Jones,[11] the San Jose Mercury News,[12] and in the Reno Gazette Journal.[13]

    The Heartland Speaks (1.50 / 4) (#2)
    by whitecap333 on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:30:40 PM EST
    The Post-Dispatch has just released a survey of the opinions of residents of St. Louis County about the Ferguson matter.  An astounding 62% of Whites say the shooting was justified.  The number of "undecided" Whites is not disclosed.  71% of Whites say that the officer shouldn't be arrested.  71% of Blacks say he should be.  77% of Whites say Brown wasn't targeted because of his race, 64% of Blacks say otherwise.  70% of Whites have confidence in McCulloch.  75% "overall" say the media has made matters worse.  

    This survey seems to represent a significant shift in opinion since the Rasmussen poll, conducted August 15-16.  At that time, 17% of Whites believed Wilson guilty, while only 2% were willing to say he acted properly.  The remaining 81% were "undecided."  As previously mentioned, St. Louis County is 23% Black.

    I do hope no one feels obliged to apologize for castigating me as some sort of right-wing bomb-thrower.  We all make mistakes.  Forget about it.

    Mother of god (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:35:09 PM EST
    Please make it stop

    Obviously, we should replace (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:36:05 PM EST
    the entire Justice system with opinion surveys.  

    It will work out great.  Really.


    We have (none / 0) (#26)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 04:51:40 AM EST
    joyfully replaced our system of representative government with opinion surveys, so why not?

    The gummint wants to bomb.
    It say that congress can approve, but that the ministration don't really need their approval.

    Opinion poll say that 173% of right thinking 'Mericans think we should bomb.

    Everything is clover.

    Got a problem with that?


    In other astounding news, dog bites man. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:56:26 PM EST

    I feel confident no apologies are coming your way, with or without your releasing us from the obligation (really?) to provide one to you.


    Anne, you know (none / 0) (#95)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:56:39 AM EST
    that these polls don't reflect what people actually believe; they state what people "feel."

    As an example, during the O.J. Simpson case polls said that blacks "believed" Simpson was innocent. No, they didn't. Blacks, just like whites, knew Simpson was guilty. They, simply, wanted him to be found not guilty.

    Big difference.


    I live in the area and (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 10:16:00 PM EST
    those results come as no surprise.There are quite a lot of extremely right-wing white people in St. Louis county who pretty much believe that if any black person is shot they deserves to be shot. Being part of that group is no great achievement.

    But of course it has nothing to do with race. Because nothing ever is about race.


    The "Heartland" - heh (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 10:40:09 PM EST
    No, thanks.  I'd rather listen to those of us in the Brainland.

    Re: The Brainland (none / 0) (#201)
    by unitron on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 07:44:55 PM EST
    I am so stealing that.

    Whitewash337 (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 10:45:51 PM EST
    That's not surprising --

    All it demonstrates is that the facts that we are discussing on this forum haven't reached a minority of blacks and a majority of whites yet.


    Are you trying to say (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 11:27:41 PM EST
    you aren't a right-wing bomb-thrower because "The Heartland" via the StL Post Dispatch speaks? Heh . . .

    I'll say one thing, whitecap. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 03:52:27 AM EST
    "He is indebted to his memory for his jests and to his imagination for his facts."
    -- Richard Brinsley Sheridan (1751-1816), Irish playwright and politician

    You sure aren't easily embarrassed.


    Really expected (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by whitecap333 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 07:02:09 AM EST
    to see more respect here for the collective wisdom of the workin' man.

    Now that the wheels have fallen off the "Git the Rope" bandwagon, I look for the "moral elite" to beat a retreat, under cover of a heavy smoke screen.  Wonder how Holder is going to extricate himself from this rat trap?

    What "workin man"? (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 07:47:29 AM EST
    The 71% that agree with you or the 71% that disagree?  Who needs facts, evidence or juries when you have polls?

    Good luck with those imaginary wagon wheels and eat traps.


    Let's Not Forget... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 10:50:04 AM EST
    ...that poll was of St Louis County residents, you know the folks who live in or very near Ferguson.  People who are fully aware of what is going on in that county.  

    Like a poll of Bull Connor in Birmingham County in 1969.

    Not that it matters, but a poll of all US residents would IMO be a more convincing poll of what the average person believes.  Narrowing it down to the people who know, and through voting, approve of the police isn't exactly unbiased opinions.

    Why not a poll of the Ferguson police department employees, that would certainly prove Wilson did the right thing.  Joke.

    Here is a graph I posted the other day.  It's warrants issued per thousand residents.  Notice St Louis county holds the top four positions in Missouri.  IOW, St Louis county is more or less the same as Ferguson as far as the police being heavy handed with it's residents.


    Look: (none / 0) (#73)
    by whitecap333 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:04:30 AM EST
    The grand jury was drawn, and any jury will be drawn, from St. Louis County.  As for the status of public opinion generally, we do have that Rasmussen poll (taken, I might add, before many of the participants had seen that devastating video.)

    Oh, for crying out loud! (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 04:05:45 PM EST
    Can't you take a friggin' hint? Nobody cares about your stupid St. Louis Dispatch poll.

    Seriously, dude, you've obviously mistaken us for people who actually give a Schitt regarding what white-wingers like you think about Ferguson -- or about anything else, for that matter. In March 2003, 71% of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein had WMD. That didn't mean they were right. You're clearly trolling here.

    Begone with you, before somebody drops a house on you, too.


    YAWN... (none / 0) (#98)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:05:29 PM EST
    ...take your agenda to someplace that might actually care what you think.  You're a child a pulling on a pant leg for no reason than to get some attention.

    We get it, you back Wilson's story, even though it's not been released.  Good job, the future called and it needs someone for their 'Precrime' division that knows things before they occur.


    Slightly off topic (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    As a lawyer, I hope you can answer this question for me:

    If a Grand Jury is considering whether or not to indict a person for second-degree murder, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter etc, is it usual procedure to invite that person to testify before the Grand Jury in his or her defense?


    I read and, I think, posted the Missouri (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:26:41 PM EST
    statuary g j procedures. As I recall, a potential criminal indictee may testify but cannot be required to.

    According to this article, (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 05:54:31 PM EST
    Wilson will be invited to testify; his attorney will not be present in the grand jury room, but Wilson will be able to leave the room to consult with his attorney. Note:  there is no citation supporting these assertions.

    St. Louis Public Radio


    Somehow the part about Wilson being able to leave (none / 0) (#194)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 07:01:59 PM EST
    the room to consult with his attorney seems to defeat the premise of not allowing outside attorneys into the procedure.

    Information (opinions) also contained in your linked article:

    Even though a grand jury is viewed as giving a prosecutor the advantage, Alex Little, a former federal prosecutor, told Vox that McCulloch appears to be using the grand jury as a "delaying tactic" that puts off justice for the Brown family.
    ...McCulloch has said the Brown/Wilson proceeding will take several weeks. He is quoted in the Wall Street Journal saying, "Absolutely everything will be presented to the grand jury. Every scrap of paper that we have. Every photograph that was taken."

    Little, the former federal prosecutor, told Vox this approach is more proof that McCulloch is using the grand jury as a delay process.
    ...he prosecutor's views are extremely influential. Richard Kuhns, who taught criminal procedure at Washington University Law School, said in an email:

    "The prosecutor typically has de facto control over the grand jury. Except for usually minimal instructions from the judge, the prosecutor is the only person the grand jury deals with. The grand jury can decide to call witnesses on its own, but that doesn't happen often. Usually the grand jury is pretty subservient to the prosecutor. If prosecutor wants an indictment, he can almost always get it."

    Other than the grand jury (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 07:09:05 PM EST
    proceedings being secret, i do not see much difference between indictment by a grand jury and a bindover obtained via preliminary hearing, which is public. The decision to bindoever is made by a judge. The defendendat is present and represented by counsel at the latter. It would be highly unusual for a defendant to choose to testify at a prelim. and/or call winesses. Pease note defendant is entitled to a complete transcript of the grand jury proceedings following his/or her indictment.

    I think the question was (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:32:04 PM EST
    Is it "usual procedure" to invite the person to be or not be indicted.

    Precisely (none / 0) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 03:04:43 PM EST
    The question was "Is it "usual procedure.""

    Thanks for your response (none / 0) (#141)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:50:46 PM EST
    I had originally read that the prosecution is under an obligation to advise the person in question that they have a right to testify prior to presenting the case to the GJ but is under no obligation to mention it after they start to present it to the GJ. At the time, didn't find anything about inviting them to testify.

    Since posing my original question, I sporadically did some additional research (in between other activities) on the subject and have come up with this information:

    "defendants do not attend unless they are testifying as witnesses." Since Darren Wilson was a witness to what happened on August 9, he might be invited to testify in court.

    "Usually an accused will not be invited to testify," Bruntrager told CNN. "But I would expect, in a case like this, that an invitation would be extended to him."

    Seems reasonable.


    Whitewash 338 (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 07:54:28 AM EST
    "Git the Rope" bandwagon

    As opposed to what -- the "Empty your weapon into a guy with his hands up" bandwagon???

    We all want Quickdraw to get a fair trial -- the fair trial he denied the guy he drew his gun on.

    Isn't that what you want???

    or do you have something else in mind???


    Now you are officially trolling. (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 07:57:02 AM EST
    This is the second comment you've left here for what appears to be the sole purpose of baiting people.

    Taken with so many of your other comments that attempt to put words in people's mouths, thoughts in people's heads, ignore an accumulation of witness accounts and video, employ hyperbolic descriptions and racial dog whistles to color and influence perception and opinion, and that increasingly rely on opinion polls as proof of something, it's impossible to take you seriously.

    It's one thing to have an opinion; it's another to be wholly disingenuous and increasingly dishonest about expressing it.  You seem very invested in "winning," almost as if you can't wait for the day when you can plant a rhetorical flag of victory in Michael Brown's dead body.

    Please stop trolling for apologies and respect; you aren't going to get any, at least not from me.  No one has misunderstood your intentions or agenda; in fact, reading the opening sentence of your comment, it's clear you left out a word: "Really expected to see more respect here for the collective wisdom of the white workin' man."

    Since you place so much stock in "public opinion," please take this as an unsolicited vote for you to go peddle your crap somewhere else.


    I second Anne's motion. (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 03:46:00 PM EST
    Get a life, whitecap. Seriously.

    The "Get the Rope" mentality belongs (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:06:42 AM EST
    more to those who support Wilson such as the KKK who has contributed funds to his defense.

    What the AA community is seeking is "justice" and are currently picketing for Wilson to be put on trial. They firmly believe that he shot an unarmed black teen who was trying to first run away and then had his hands in the air when fatally shot.


    Collective prejudice, you mean (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:09:42 AM EST
    This is just trolling (none / 0) (#75)
    by sj on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:09:07 AM EST

    The Book of Miracles (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:37:46 PM EST
    NYTimes review

    The manuscript is something of a prodigy in itself, it must be said: its existence was hitherto unknown, and silence wraps its discovery; apart from the attribution to Augsburg, little is certain about the possible workshop, or the patron for whom such a splendid sequence of pictures might have been created. The name of the Augsburg artist and printmaker Hans Burgkmair appears on folio 117r, on the page illustrating the birth of conjoined calves, and Borchert consequently proposes that, as Burgkmair the Elder died in the 1530s, the artist in question here must be his son, Hans Burgkmair the Younger, who is much less well attested by known works. But all in all, this Book of Miracles is a gorgeous unheralded surprise: a foundling of unknown parents, a virgin birth.

    I have a birthday coming up

    You should click the review link (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:39:35 PM EST
    Just to see the plates.  Incredible.  I must have this.

    New word of the day: (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:51:38 PM EST

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:50:39 PM EST
    A Renaissance Henry Darger.   pretty cool!

    Many renowned museums own work by (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 10:11:09 PM EST
    Darger. Must keep my eyes open!

    Love Darger (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 07:52:52 AM EST
    Pricy book Howdy... (none / 0) (#16)
    by fishcamp on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 10:19:32 PM EST
    When is your birthday?  Mine is Dec 2nd but I've been trying to skip them the last few years but, of course, that never works.  I'm on book five (1442 pages) of the eight books of the Outlander series "The Fiery Cross" and I think they are wonderful but I'm a Scotsman except for that  1/16th Iroquois Indian American heritage.

    November 8th (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 07:36:28 AM EST
    I will be two years from full retirement, pension windfall and major home renovation.  Pricy but looks totally worth it.   The best example of why all books will never electronic.  Taschen press produces beautiful stuff.

    Really enjoying Outlander. The series.


    Among other things (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:14:24 AM EST
    It is the most beautifully shot things on the tube.  Lighting, cinematography, costumes, locations - amazing.

    Do you have an opinion as to (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 10:31:22 PM EST
    whether Scotland should vote "yay" or "nay"?

    If I may (none / 0) (#25)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 04:45:24 AM EST
    throw in my two pence, were I a Scot, I would dearly wish to rid myself of any association with the British Empire in general, and the likes of David Cameron in particular.

    Definitely 'Yay' in Scottish vote. (none / 0) (#27)
    by fishcamp on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 06:40:52 AM EST
    My Edinburg friends and very distant relatives think they will separate from Britain but unfortunately I fear it's not to be.  

    I hearing and reading (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 07:31:02 AM EST
    That it just might pass.  A week ago not but they say yes is trending and the British are freaking.    It would be amazing it it passed.  I have no particular dog in the fight but I always like the idea of breaking away.  

    Krugman is Worried (none / 0) (#119)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Whether it's overall a good idea or not, however, independence would have to rest on a sound monetary foundation. And the independence movement has me worried, because what it has said on that that crucial subject seems deeply muddle-headed....

    ....Again, I can understand Scots grievances. But if they really want to do this, they had better get real about money.

    NYT  hat tip Peter G


    Donald and I spoke about this subject (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by fishcamp on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:24:31 PM EST
    the other day.  The Krugman article is good but he fails to mention the other seventeen countries and locations that have separated, print their own money based on the Sterling, and seem to be doing just fine.  Included in this group are the Falkland Islands and St. Helena where Napoleon was exiled and died.

    OK (none / 0) (#144)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 02:02:49 PM EST
    Wonder why Krugman did not make the comparison you bring up.

    Anyway, I would hate to see them go independent for good reasons and then suffer irreparable harm because of economics.


    But the Flakland Islands and St. Helena ... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 03:40:25 PM EST
    ... are NOT independent countries that have separated from the mother country. Rather, they are British dependencies with defined powers of self-governance, and they fly the Union Jack.

    Falkland Islanders in particular are very much dependent upon Britain for their sustenance and defense, and the British military has maintained a vigorous and continuous presence in the territory since the end of the 1982 war with Argentina, which refuses to renounce its claim to the islands.

    So it's not the same thing. Scottish citizens are actually voting on whether or not the country should be fully independent of London (like Canada, New Zealand and Australia), and not on some version of limited home rule.



    Cameron is now offering perks (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by fishcamp on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 04:58:06 PM EST
    to Scotland when in truth he's krapping his breeks in fear ye ken.   Yes I know the 17 outlying locations are English dependencies but not British Donald but our original conversation started with your announcement that Scotland would be a country without currency, which is not true.  I see you've been studying the subject.

    Donald, sorry about my mashed up comment (none / 0) (#188)
    by fishcamp on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 06:14:50 PM EST
    but just as I started typing a group of bowdy  Scotsmen telephoned from Edinburg screeching in Gaelic and a blond walked in the door to fix dinner.  My multitasking abilities have dwindled.  I do realize the Isle of Mann, Jersey and Guernsey rate their separate currency on Sterling as do the other fourteen outlying countries.  While I appreciate your knowledge of the Falklands and the support they received during the Argentine attempt to reconquer the islands I think most of us are aware of this fact.  I'm also quite sure if any foreign groups decided invade any of these locations including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand the English would be right there to defend them.  Our original conversation was about currency and none of these other subjects.  If I mistakenly stated these other locations separated from mother England I apologize.  You are a master historian and I am merely a Scottish fisherman.

    Other than the principal of the thing (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 06:26:08 PM EST
    Why is England so upset.  Probably a dumb question.  I admit I have not been reading all the comments on this.  Is there something they really need from Scotland?  Like resources.
    Or is it just an empire thing.  
    And is it comparable to, say, Texas seceding?

    Guid question laddie... (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by fishcamp on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 06:45:58 PM EST
    it's all about money...verra simple ye ken...money.  Thanks for asking Howdy.  Oh yeah the oil in the North Sea has a wee bit to do with the Hochmagandy (fornication) situation.

    Here is a list (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by sj on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 06:57:13 PM EST
    of 10 pros and cons. The "cons" are pretty lame, actually. This is a pretty good list of why to vote "Yes".

    As I understand it (and my understanding is only weeks old) mostly Scotland is tired of being bound to England's rightwing austerity march. As Avedon Carol (who lives in the UK) puts it:

    OK, the reason Scots want independence from Westminster is that Westminster is being run by a load of right-wing scum that seems to take special pleasure from screwing Scotland.
    Myself, I don't think it's anything like Texas as Scotland was a functioning nation until the Wars of the Three Kingdoms "united" Scotland and Ireland under England's monarchy.

    As to why England is so upset? Beats me. Probably the same reason it has historically kept Scotland and Ireland on such short leashes. Empire and resources.


    Very good sj and here's more reasons (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by fishcamp on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 07:53:41 PM EST
    the English don't want to lose Scotland: Scotch whiskey, Sean Connery, Susan Boyle, Edinburg Castle, Haggis (ugh), Gerard Butler, Robert Burns, and the Loch Ness Monster. Proudly plagiarized from Google News.  All those rowdy Scotsmen could screech over the phone were their favorite brands of single malt whiskey.  They're threatening to come here if I don't show up over there soon.  Not sure which would be worse.  They are very wild all the time.

    A hither-to untried-in the U.S. DNA (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:50:04 PM EST
    test to distinguish between identical twins:


    No troops for ISIL but (none / 0) (#45)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:20:50 AM EST
    3000 troops for EBOLA


    Fine by me (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:26:56 AM EST
    It's a much more immediate threat.  It is not being contained well at all.

    Better link than the Mail (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:33:24 AM EST

    The World Health Organization has issued a dire Ebola warning for Liberia, saying that the number of afflicted patients was increasing exponentially and that all new treatment facilities were overwhelmed, "pointing to a large but previously invisible caseload." The description of the crisis in Liberia suggested an even more chaotic situation there than had been thought.

    Ms. Johnson Sirleaf, who has implored Mr. Obama to do more to help her country battle the disease, traveled over the weekend through Monrovia, the Liberian capital, with the United States ambassador, Deborah R. Malac.

    "What is needed is on a scale that is unprecedented," a senior administration official said in an interview, speaking on the condition of anonymity because she was not allowed by the White House to talk on the record ahead of Mr. Obama's announcement.

    Reuters (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 09:26:29 AM EST
    (Reuters) - The United States announced on Tuesday it will send 3,000 troops to help tackle the Ebola outbreak as part of a ramped-up plan, including a major deployment in Liberia, the country where the epidemic is spiraling fastest out of control.

    The U.S. response to the crisis, to be formally unveiled later by President Barack Obama, includes plans to build 17 treatment centers, train thousands of healthcare workers and establish a military control center for coordination, U.S. officials told reporters.

    "The goal here is to search American expertise, including our military, logistics and command and control expertise, to try and control this outbreak at its source in west Africa," Lisa Monaco, Obama's White House counter-terrorism adviser, told MSNBC television on Tuesday ahead of the announcement.

    The World Health Organization (WHO) has said it needs foreign medical teams with 500-600 experts as well as at least 10,000 local health workers. The figures may rise if the number of cases increases, as is widely expected.

    Apparently Doctors without borders has been going solo on this for some time now... They are a really great organization, WOW..


    I Am Positive... (none / 0) (#72)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 10:57:53 AM EST
    ...there are 3000 troops who never thought they would serve America by going to Liberia to tackle the Ebola virus.

    I forget, why is America the only country doing this ?  I get that they need help, but damn, why do we have to be the fist ones in harms way, every single time.


    It's not helping them (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:09:16 AM EST
    Only Country? (none / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:46:34 AM EST
    You may want to read up on the epidemic. The US has been late to the table from some accounts.

    This is verrrrrrrrry serious stuff.  There really is not a cure for ebola yet, and it is not a pleasant death.

    Spreads fast.

    If I were you I would be applauding the US for lending their expertise and organizational skills to try to contain this disaster.

    Not something you want spreading to US or european urban centers.


    Please List... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:14:26 PM EST
    ...what other countries are sending the military to Liberia for Ebola.  Maybe I am biased as I spent three months off the coast of Liberia while it raged in civil war.

    The military is not the CDC.

    I have no problem sending qualified and willing people to help, but why the military, they aren't trained for this, and I doubt they are volunteering.


    Got It (none / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:28:13 PM EST
    Other nations - including Cuba, China, France and Britain - have pledged medics, health centers and other forms of support....

    Medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), which has some 2,000 staff fighting the disease in the region, said other countries need to follow the U.S. lead. The response had fallen "dangerously behind".

    ReutersAre you against US humanitarian aid and unhappy that the US is one of the worlds leaders?

    Sounds like you are complaining about the US bothering to step up to the plate, rather than urging other countries to follow our lead. Personally, I am applauding the US government for showing leadership and urge other countries to provide the much needed assistance to contain this epidemic ASAP.

    This is an effort for an ally Liberia, and we are not only doing it out of the goodness of our hearts but in the interests of national security. Do you think African nations are not worth the effort to help?

    Really I do not get your position on this, sounds both heartless and ill advised considering the danger of Ebola spreading.


    You Missed My Point... (none / 0) (#123)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:14:39 PM EST
    ... and your quote clearly shows you did not read my post.  But to answer my own question, it appears that no other country is sending troops.

    Other countries are sending volunteers with medical backgrounds, aka medics.  We are sending troops, who do not volunteer beyond enlistment.

    One group is going over by choice, the other is not.

    If that does not matter to you fine, but at least have the common courtesy to ready my post and reply accordingly.


    Courtesy? (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    I certainly would grant you courtesy if you were not such a regular a@@hole to me.

    And I did read your comments, and it is clear that you do not understand why troops are vital and quite appropriate in order to contain the spread of the epidemic.


    You know, of course (none / 0) (#117)
    by sj on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:00:59 PM EST
    that once a comment has been misinterpreted that s/he will stick to that misinterpretation until he|| freezes over, all the while telling you what you are saying.

    Used to Work With Someone... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:31:44 PM EST
    ...just like squeaky.

    The only person I said 'good morning' to every day.  It wasn't cause I liked her or say it to many, it was read how nutz my day was going to be.

    Today, around an 8 with squeaky.  Some days lucid as anyone else, other days I have to deal with this:


    "I have no problem sending qualified and willing people to help..."


    "Sounds like you are complaining about the US bothering to step up to the plate"

    "Do you think African nations are not worth the effort to help?"

    "Really I do not get your position on this, sounds both heartless and ill advised considering the danger of Ebola spreading."

    The missing link between what I wrote and what the squeaky read.  The 5th dimension making an appearance, but only for one person.


    Qualified To Help (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:42:52 PM EST
    I think that you do not understand what is going on in West Africa and the epidemic.

    Not only are US troops qualified to help stop the spread of this epidemic they are crucial.

    Troops deliver humanitarian aid and provide organizational support for containing a disaster like this.

    Liberia asked the US for the troops.


    Alright (none / 0) (#146)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 02:21:55 PM EST
    I guess you know better than all other countries who are sending volunteer medics, rather than forcing troops.  

    My point was no one should be forced to go to Africa and deal with Ebola.  But since no one wants to go, that is what we are doing, sending in people with no experience, with no medical backgrounds, and what will be quick and easy training.

    I have a problem with that.  Just like I would have a problem sending medics to fight ISIS or the police to fight fires or whatever other group of people that are not experienced in doing what they do best because it's all we got and doing via the threat of a bad discharge from the military.


    But we do have people in the (none / 0) (#148)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 02:30:13 PM EST
    military who are able to build the infrastructure that's so badly needed - they need health centers/clinics, and we can help them build those.

    And we also have medical personnel in the military whose input will be very helpful.

    It would appear to be in the best interests of the world in general to get this outbreak under control, so I'm glad we're doing it.

    I don't know, Scott - which is worse: being sent somewhere you could get blown up, or where you could contract a highly deadly illness?  Doesn't seem like much of a choice, but I don't think military service is known for its choices and options.


    Moral of the story... (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 03:19:36 PM EST
    joining the military is not a good way to make a living for those that value choices.  They don't call it "signing your life away" for nothing.

    Aside from the logistical help to scientists and doctors, soldiers will come in handy to enforce quarantines and shoot those who try to break quarantine.  Bad f*ckin' scene...probably the only deployment on earth worse than Iraq.  I'd take my chances with ISIS over Ebola all day every day.


    Bad Bet IMO (none / 0) (#159)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 03:34:01 PM EST
    Much safer in Liberia, imo. But we will soon see, as it does look like we will be able to compare the situation in Liberia to Syria and Iraq in the near future.

    Yup (none / 0) (#175)
    by sj on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 04:33:07 PM EST
    Moral of the story... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 02:19:36 PM MDT

    joining the military is not a good way to make a living for those that value choices.

    I was alarmed when my artist brother joined the Navy. I worried for four years. But he joined to see Australia and, incredibly, he did just that.

    As for the Ebola deployment, I hope you are wrong about the method of quarantine enforcement. Just a few short years ago I would not have given that possibility much thought. But after domestic policing has come to this it is harder to discount your concerns.


    Anne... (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 04:29:17 PM EST
    ...you sign up for one thing, and get trained inside and out for that.  Being shot at or blown up or whatever is something that you evaluate before getting on board.

    Then one day, they say here you go, a plane ticket to Liberia, no not to fight rebels or help evacuate an embassy, you are going into the heart of the Ebola outbreak to build infrastructure.

    To me it's not about dieing it's about the nature of what you decided to get into and them thinking, much like you have, that because you are willing to die on the battlefield, you are willing to die in anyway they think will be useful.

    Not saying I am right, it is my opinion, but damn, that would be a hard pill to swallow, that the government thinks you are basically disposable because you wanted to be in the military.

    "They knew the military was dangerous which means they should be willing to do anything dangerous."  I can't get on board with that, nor can I get on board with sending them into any situation outside the normal military duties just because no one else wants to.

    The fact that every military in the world can build stuff, and yet they aren't being sent, to me, validates my point.  They are sending medic related people who are volunteering, we are sending troops who have no choice.  We wouldn't send medics to Syria to fight ISIS, same rational; people who go into dangerous situations are not interchangeable.


    Worse Case Scenario (none / 0) (#178)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 04:49:54 PM EST
    If Ebola is not contained and becomes an epidemic in the US (not to mention world wide) the military will be called in to control the pandemonium here.

    Better to get it done in West Africa.

    The military is trained for all sorts of operations, not just shooting guns and crawling through hostile territory.

    We have 40,000 troops stationed in Germany...  they are not fighting.

    Out of the 160,000 active duty US troops stationed around the world, I am certain the the 3000 troops who are sent to Liberia will be best suited for the job there.


    Maybe it's a control thing, that (none / 0) (#196)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 07:25:57 PM EST
    somehow we've decided we're the only ones qualified to manage these kinds of operations - and if there's a chance there might be trouble, we want to be sure there's more of us than there are of them.  And...that if we're sending our doctors and nurses and assorted medical personnel into a hot zone, that we have some ability to protect them.  

    I'd like to think our government doesn't regard the military as disposable, but I sometimes am not so sure.


    hahaah (none / 0) (#149)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 02:35:13 PM EST
    Looks like you misunderstood ScottW714' s comment.



    I did not miss Scott's original point. (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 02:57:55 PM EST
    Here's the thing you don't seem to get: in good conversation, the back and forth generates additional points, it expands on original points, it considers the points being made by others.  

    Most people spend so much time trying to correct your mangling of whatever they've said that conversational progress is excruciatingly slow, and sometimes, just plain excruciating.

    I'd suggest that you be on the lookout for such phrases as, "no, that's not what I'm saying," and "now you're putting words in my mouth," and "how is it possible you can know what I think unless I tell you?" for clues that you've wandered off the conversational reservation.


    A sensible response (none / 0) (#152)
    by sj on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 02:47:49 PM EST
    And one that shows you got Scott's original point. And you were able to make it without laughing maniacally.

    Scott, I see where you are coming from, but the military never makes deployment a matter of choice. And it shouldn't be now, either. This is the most clearly defined mission that I've read about it in a long while.


    You Misunderstand The Situation In Liberia, IMO (none / 0) (#151)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 02:46:10 PM EST
    The US is sending medical help, as well as supplies. The troops are needed to provide organizational support and they are extremely well equipped to handle such an operation.

    There are thousands of medical workers there at the moment and thousands getting infected.

    People are fleeing due to the chaos, and spreading the virus to other parts of the world.

    The US military is perfectly equipped to handle this safely without risking infection to themselves. As Anne said, it is much easier work than dodging bullets, bombs and avoiding IED's.


    Trolling? (none / 0) (#121)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:10:00 PM EST
    or do you have something to add to the discussion about sending 3000 troops to Liberia to help contain the Ebola epidemic?

    Trolling? (none / 0) (#133)
    by sj on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:30:05 PM EST
    Not me. I'm not the one misinterpreting other people's comments so that I can castigate the commenter.

    Yes, Good Thing (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 09:29:53 AM EST
    Dr. Jack Chow, a professor of global health at Carnegie Mellon University, also warned that "the virus does not recognize national borders and will continue to spread where health care is inadequate."

    If it makes your inner keyboard kommando feel any better think of it as combating biological warfare.


    You want troops for ISIS? (none / 0) (#115)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:59:15 PM EST
    Don't worry.

    The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is already making noises about sending a "limited number" of troops if bombing fails to have the result they are looking for that is as yet unspecified.


    Just heard an interesting factoid (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:25:09 AM EST
    In discussing polling for the senate race it was just said that Arkansas is the number one state when it comes to cell phone user who do not gave land lines.   Hmmmm.
    That describes me but for some reason that surprises me.  Maybe because of the sh!tty cell coverage.

    Try this. No phone. . (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:44:35 AM EST
    No landline. Lost cell. Waiting for new one.

    Been there (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 09:00:28 AM EST
    Done that

    Party like it's... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 09:04:23 AM EST
    1989 kid...sounds like unplugged fun!

    What Do You Use for Internet ? (none / 0) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:22:06 AM EST
    I have DSL which came as part of my DirecTV package, which has a land line.

    I get that people don't use their land lines, but I didn't know that a lot of people didn't have them.

    I need it for the security system.  I never use it, but when I am gone, the gf says it gives her piece of mind.

    I wonder if Arkansas is the leading state because of regulation/deregulation or pricing.  It's certainly not technology.


    I have satellite internet (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:24:15 AM EST
    WildBlue/Exede. Works great.  Almost never loses signal because of weather like Dish.

    About the last sentence (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:27:13 AM EST
    Can't say.  On
    Y that the absolute cheapest land line is about 60 bucks a month.  And DSL  is a joke.   The way mine works is the amount of download at the highest speed is limited.  When I hit it I can no longer watch netflix etc.  BUT they do not turn it off it just slows down and even at the slow speed it's better than my sisters DSL.

    My DSL is Good. (none / 0) (#102)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:21:53 PM EST
    12MB download and 2 upload with land line for, I wanna say $50, but not 100% on that.  It's not bad and I think DirecTV knocks off $10.

    How do you upload, like when clicking a button.  I thought that had to go through a land line as your satellite is one way communication.


    I think it is for you (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:25:35 PM EST
    Not for me.  Or a company called HughesNet.  Which I had when I lived in Illinois.  I was stunned to find when I moved to Champaign in 2007 that DSL was not available.  It had been available here in the sticks for years.  That was my first experience with sat internet.
    I have not had a land line in many years.

    You are correct Scott. (none / 0) (#120)
    by fishcamp on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:09:43 PM EST
    My DSL comes in via my old ATT land line for $30 per month just without the telephone.  I'm still listed in the local phone books and they said I can keep my old number which they can turn on again if needed.  I too have Direct TV which, I think, has an internet setup if you have that type of new TV set.  Not 100% on the latter statement but Direct TV speaks about that in their ads.

    DirecTv and Dish (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:22:03 PM EST
    Both have internet service,  I looked into it.  They both require a phone connection for uploads.  Mind doesn't .  
    Also no special tv is required.  It's just regular internet service with a modem.  It requires a second dish.

    I Think You are Getting... (none / 0) (#142)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:57:14 PM EST
    ..two things confused.  Their on demand stuff requires and internet connection and can either use an internet enabled TV or their box.  But it requires you have internet service. Basically you order a movie/show, and it downloads it to your DVR.

    The other is the internet, which I am not sure about.  When I signed up 4 years ago they did not have, that is why I get my DSL cheaper, even though it's though a different company.

    But I know the other dish providers do have internet, very fast downloads through the satellite, and slow uploads via the phone line.  And now it sounds like they have dish internet that goes both ways, which requires two satellites.

    I recently bought a TV that came with Roku, which has a zillion channels, but I only watch Netflix and Amazon Prime.  Once in a while, the Smithsonian as it's mostly travel stuff in beautiful HD.  


    Not sure I understand your comment (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 03:36:10 PM EST
    Promise I'm not confused although I may not be clearly saying what I mean.  I have dish and use on demand with a separate internet service.  Until recently I did the same with DirecTv.

    However both companies offer internet service.  What I am not sure of is if this is the same everywhere.  It may change from location to location.  But here,  they do and require a separate dish from the one that receives tv programming and afaik the both also require a phone line for uploading.  I have friends who have the service from both companies.  And I have a friend who installs.   He installed my internet dish and while he was doing it we discussed the pros can cons of the different services.  He does dish, direct, HughesNet, and my company, Excede.  Dishes in general are popular around here.
    I think I read they are going to offer or already offer a service like mine that dies not require a phone to upload because, probably, so many people are shedding their landlines.


    Oops (none / 0) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 03:37:55 PM EST
    I see you were not responding to me.  Never mind.

    According to the Apple dictionary a factoid (none / 0) (#143)
    by fishcamp on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:58:33 PM EST
    is a brief or trivial item of news or information. An assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as a fact.  We all seem to use the word incorrectly.

    Websters Says Both... (none / 0) (#147)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 02:28:35 PM EST
    1.  an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print
    2.  a briefly stated and usually trivial fact

    Which doesn't make sense, it can be an invented fact or a trivial fact, but can't be both.

    Whew (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 03:40:00 PM EST
    What a relief



    As I recall... (none / 0) (#203)
    by unitron on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:18:57 PM EST
    ...the original meaning was the first one--something that appears to be a fact but actually isn't.

    Uhhh Huhhh (none / 0) (#53)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 09:25:50 AM EST
    Wilson Grand Jury given 3 more months

    Big meeting of US Senators, state legislators, mayors, top politicians was held yesterday in St Louis County -- with this announcement coming today.

    Any guess what that means???

    The fix is in? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 09:38:14 AM EST
    Give it a few more months for the furor to die down and our 21st century attention spans to move on to other things?

    My reaction also (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 10:08:44 AM EST
    It is being structured so that Wilson is never indited by the GJ.

    Here is an excessive force case that is getting immediate attention by the FBI. Incident occurred on Sunday. FBI investigating by late Mon. or early Tue.

    "The FBI Kansas City division has initiated an investigation into the allegations of excessive force by a member of the Independence, MO Police Department in reference to an altercation that occurred Sunday," according to the two-paragraph news release.
    Masters, a senior at Truman High School, is the son of Matt Masters, a veteran Kansas City Police Department officer who oversees the department's off-duty officer program.

    The FBI claims that their immediate involvement has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Masters' father is a police officer.

    While I am glad that this is being investigated, it will be interesting to see if the KKK raises money for the defense of Officer Tim Runnels or if the press investigate whether or not this 17 year old had a juvenile record.


    FBI & DOJ in Ferguson (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 10:33:36 AM EST
    It does not seem abnormal to extend the GJ term, IMO. As to your comparison to the case that had FBI assigned recently, 40 FBI agents were sent to Ferguson, as well as the DOJ civil rights division.


    On August 11, the Department of Justice announced that FBI agents were working with attorneys from the Civil Rights Division and US Attorney's Office to conduct what Attorney General Eric Holder promised would be a "thorough and complete investigation" into the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Since then, more than 40 FBI agents have arrived in the St. Louis suburb to interview witnesses and canvas the neighborhood where Brown was shot by a police officer on August 9.

    Mother Jones


    I agree the STL County GJ (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 10:38:23 AM EST
    Will likely roll over.  I do not think Holder will.   That should give our resident white hoods and their on line support community  the vapors.  

    Lots of older posts (none / 0) (#96)
    by ragebot on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:59:23 AM EST
    about how much harder it is to bring federal charges than local ones.  Just as with he who will not be named there is little evidence acceptable to courts proving Wilson's actions were raced bases as opposed to simple poor judgement (or good judgement depending on which side you are on).

    From Paul Cassell:

    "The tricky thing in a federal civil rights prosecution is proving mens rea -- that is, the defendant's state of mind.  As the jury instructions above make clear, federal prosecutors would have to establish that the police officer acted "willfully" -- i.e., with a "bad purpose or evil motive."  And because mens rea is an element of the offense, prosecutors would have to prove that state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt.

    In some of the discussions of the case that I have seen, this critical point has been overlooked.  Some commentators have assumed that the officer could be charged federally if he was negligent or reckless in assessing the need to use deadly force.  For a federal civil rights prosecution, that is untrue.  A federal civil rights prosecution in the Brown shooting will only be successful if the defendant acted with specific intent to deprive Brown of his rights."


    I think you are mistaken if you believe (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:59:47 PM EST
    the federal investigation will be limited to the specific incident with Wilson and Brown - given what we have all been reading about the use of ticketing and fines being issued at astronomical rates to predominantly black residents of the gazillion municipalities in the greater St. Louis County area, and excessive jailing as a result - not to mention the civilian complaints against local law enforcement for excessive force and abuse of power - I think it more likely that the investigation will have to include the practices of law enforcement and the judicial/municipal systems.

    It may well be that the evidence of such discrimination will be so glaringly obvious that it won't be as hard as you think to connect the dots from Wilson to denial of Brown's civil rights.

    I do not know if a civil suit can be filed against Wilson for action undertaken while performing his job as an employee of the Ferguson PD, but if it is possible, I expect one to be filed.


    Not a lawyer (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:06:18 PM EST
    An I certainly don't play one here.  But my guy tells me Holder won't let this go if there is any way to do otherwise.

    I have said from the beginning that the local GJ will do nothing.
    That said, I would love to be wrong.


    Um, my GUT (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:26:54 PM EST
    my guy doesn't do legal consulting

    Disappointed (5.00 / 6) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:33:55 PM EST
    And here I thought you had an in with Holder's office.

    For those who are snark challenged - this is a joke.


    McCullough's handling of another (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:30:36 PM EST
    Grand Jury involving police shooting black men.

    On the afternoon of June 12, 2000, two unarmed black men pulled into the parking lot of a Jack in the Box in the northern suburbs of St. Louis, just a few miles from where Michael Brown was killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, earlier this month.

    In the car were Earl Murray, a small-time drug dealer, and his friend Ronald Beasley. Waiting for them were a dozen detectives. By the time Murray realized it was a sting, he was surrounded. Panicked, he put his car into reverse but slammed into a police SUV behind him. Two officers approaching the car from the front opened fire. Twenty-one shots rained down on Murray and Beasley.

    McCullough put the case to a grand jury. The story presented to the grand jury was that Murray's car moved toward the two officers, who then fired out of self-defense. The GJ did not indict and McCullough is on record as agreeing with that decision.

    In the Brown case. McCulloch say he will release all the evidence he presented to the grand jury if they do not indict and invite Wilson to testify.

    Fourteen years ago, the two officers who shot Murray and Beasley were also invited to testify before the grand jury. Both men told jurors that Murray's car was coming at them and that they feared being run over. McCulloch said that "every witness who was out there testified that it made some forward motion." But a later federal investigation showed that the car had never come at the two officers: Murray never took his car out of reverse.

    An exhaustive St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation found that only three of the 13 detectives who testified had said the car moved forward: the two who unloaded their guns and a third whose testimony was, as McCulloch admitted, "obviously...completely wrong." McCulloch never introduced independent evidence to help clarify for the grand jury whether Murray's car moved forward.

    On the last day of testimony, McCulloch's office read out a list of every interaction Murray and Beasley had had with law enforcement including arrests that never resulted in charges.

    Now I have to admit that McCullough's handling of the Murray and Beasley GJ makes me a little skeptical of his objectivity when it comes to prosecuting police officers. One detail (among many) stands out more than any other.

    Why didn't McCulloch ever introduced independent evidence to help clarify for the grand jury whether Murray's car moved forward or inform them that

    Murray never took his car out of reverse.

    Source: Newsweek  


    One of the (1.00 / 3) (#60)
    by whitecap333 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 10:03:38 AM EST
    Daily Mail readers opines that they want the grand jury to wait until it gets cold to return a "no bill," to discourage looting.

    I suspect these politicians are being briefed on the fact that arresting someone without probable cause violates rights protected by the Fourth Amendment, and prosecuting someone to gratify "popular outcry" violates due process.  The veracity and credibility of witnesses, as touches upon this issue, will be weighed by jurors drawn from a predominately White judicial district.  Such litigation can be ruinous to local government finances.  


    Jesus Christ (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 10:25:08 AM EST
    This is a disgusting, ignorant, vile and racist comment.  
    Please stop feeding this troll.  

    Your responses (1.33 / 3) (#74)
    by whitecap333 on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:07:53 AM EST
    do tickle me, but please don't indulge yourself in the notion that I comment only to get a "rise" out of you.  Many open minded people pass through this site, without commenting.

    In other words (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by sj on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:18:18 AM EST
    You are leaving dog whistles for other white-garbed individuals who may saunter over.

    But are too smart (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:20:50 AM EST
    Or cowardly to comment.  What a delusional freak.

    That would explain (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:19:58 AM EST
    Your high ratings.

    If you ever "get a rise" out of me you'll know it.


    In this one particular instance... (none / 0) (#205)
    by unitron on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 08:36:52 PM EST
    ...I think there might be some validity to his "suspicion" about what the politicians are being told.

    I am much less likely to suspect the "Daily Fail" of any validity, however.


    The litigation... (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 10:44:45 AM EST
    that is killing local coffers across the country is litigation stemming from police brutality, not wrongful prosecution of police.  Good one dude.

    You should read this article, kdog - (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:25:36 AM EST
    it's long, but well worth your time; I'm sitting here still trying to wrap my head around what it must be like to live in St. Louis County - or why anyone would want to live there.

    It makes you realize that brutality doesn't have to be physical.


    Thank you Anne... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:53:07 AM EST
    just time for a quick skim now, will read in full later.  I thought the shakedowns and associated arrest warrants for the crime of being poor was bad in the NY...I too can't imagine living in St. Louie County, they got it much much worse. It borders on apartheid in the "heartland".

    A cruel and unusual heartless machine they got goin' on, manned by heartless bureaucrats and mercenaries.  Let's see what Holder can do about that parent problem, and not just the killing of Michael Brown.  


    I read that when it came out (none / 0) (#93)
    by sj on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:50:52 AM EST
    It's just as horrifying a second time around. A community under siege, basically.

    Nothing Unusual About It (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 09:53:17 AM EST
    The prosecutor's office is also presenting evidence to the grand jury as soon as it receives it, rather than waiting until the St. Louis County Police Department and the FBI have completed their investigations. Police probes are typically completed before a case is presented to a grand jury, county officials said....

    ...Pressure from the community for swift action and proof that a thorough investigation is underway also prompted McCulloch to move forward within days of the shooting, rather than waiting weeks or even months for county police and the FBI to complete their separate investigations.

    Magee said the dual probes are "winding down," but it is unclear how many additional weeks it will take before they are complete.

    The jurors, who were already empaneled at the time of the shooting, meet every Wednesday. Their term is set to expire this week , but they will continue to meet on the Wilson case until they have determined if they will indict the officer.

    WaPo September 7, 2014


    DWTS has the (none / 0) (#80)
    by sj on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:19:17 AM EST
    potential to be a really good season. I'm looking forward to it.

    I like that the Duck Dynasty chick (none / 0) (#103)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:25:18 PM EST
    goes to a school that doesn't allow dancing, yet they seem to think DWTS is okay for her . . . :P

    I hope ASjr finds his hips/feet . . . he still has a great smile/dimples.


    No dancing? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:29:44 PM EST
    I thought Footloose settled that once and for all 30 god damn years ago! ;)

    I thought so too! (none / 0) (#118)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:03:02 PM EST
    I tell ya, the more I learn about the rest of the country, the more I'm determined to stick to my "bleeding heart" states!

    I know, right? (none / 0) (#138)
    by sj on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:32:38 PM EST
    But as far as DWTS is concerned, I really wish they would stop bringing in the underage girls with (appropriately) hovering parents assuring that the dances are toned down. I'm sure it's a demographic thing, but... ugh.

    Although I guess that didn't bug me all that much in the scheme of things, but Lolo Jones sure did. Her "dancing" and the way she kept publicly beating herself up over it was very uncomfortable. Based on the video package, I think they cast her because they thought a professional virgin would make things interesting. Uncomfortable, actually.

    But once the truly bad dancers are gone I think this going to be very interesting indeed. Oh, and ditto on ASjr.


    "professional virgin"... (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 04:54:53 PM EST
    Now that's funny...well played sj.

    Info Requested (none / 0) (#87)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:26:26 AM EST
    Can anyone recommend a legitimate, reasonably-priced place in Canada from which to order Rx legally?

    Here (none / 0) (#114)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 12:52:11 PM EST
    come the boots.

    General to Seek Combat Troops if U.S. Air War Can't Stop ISIS
    Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress he would recommend sending limited Special Operations forces if airstrikes were not successful.

    And we have nothing to say about it.

    Nothing New About That (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:24:46 PM EST
    The military brass always wants to go fight. Not sure why you think that this is news.

    Fwiw (none / 0) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 04:27:12 PM EST
    They are now pushing this back. Saying the general was talking out his a$$.  Or words to that effect.

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#177)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 04:48:16 PM EST
    Joint Chiefs have a habit of doing that I suppose...
    But he's Obama's man.
    He's floating it. It doesn't fly, but it's out there and everyone will accept it when it happens. As if we have a choice.

    He's not the only one.
    Rumblings in Great Britain as well.

    It is pretty obvious whatever the orifice from which this verbal excrescence is being emitted, that troops will sent in.

    "Rescue missions".
    "Mopping up".

    Obama is the one, imo, who is speaking out of ....turn.


    As this (none / 0) (#122)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:12:18 PM EST
    mess in Iraq, and probably Syria and god knows where else, continues, I wonder in the final tally who will have wound up killing more civilians. Us or ISIS.

    Timeline of Brown shooting (none / 0) (#164)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 03:40:40 PM EST
    This is the latest timeline of the Brown shooting:

    Wilson left his previous call at 12:00:00
    Wilson made contact with jaywalkers at 12:01:00
    Disturbance on Canfield first reported 12:01:50
    Glide recording of shots created at 12:02:14
    2nd Ferguson PD unit arrived 12:02:22

    Note how quickly after the disturbance call re what was happening at the window that Wilson then emptied his weapon into the runaway 120 feet down the road.

    There is hardly much time there for someone who has run 120 feet away to then stop, then turn around, and then take many steps back into that final 8 second barrage.

    And the 2nd unit is there 8 seconds after the final shot.

    so many exact minutes in it, ie., 12:00:00 and 12:01:00.

    Could you link us to the source of this your "latest timeline?"

    Also, 120 feet is a very short distance. I would briskly walk that in, oh, 15 - 16 secs or or so, and it obviously would take much less time to run it.

    Clearly there is plenty of time for someone to do the things you list, even using your "timeline."

    My personal feeling is that trying to parse the technicalities of split seconds is not going to be a particularly fruitful endeavor (whatever your point may be by doing so) but maybe that's just me.


    That's just me -- (none / 0) (#184)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 05:41:16 PM EST
    Could you link us to the source of this your "latest timeline?"

    I could if I wanted to.

    Also, 120 feet is a very short distance. I would briskly walk that in, oh, 15 - 16 secs or or so, and it obviously would take much less time to run it.

    Since Wilson walked briskly after Brown, then catching up to him would have taken what 15 seconds for those 120 feet???

    So he heads after him at 12:01:50 and catches up to him at 12:02:05 when Brown would have turned around -- right???

    The final barrage of bullets began at 12:02:06 and took 8 seconds and was over at 12:02:14.

    So do your math --

    That leaves a mere 1 second between the time he turned around and the final barrage of 10 bullets began flying at him.

    Clearly there is plenty of time for someone to do the things you list, even using your "timeline."

    Do you want to rethink that statement???

    My personal feeling is that trying to parse the technicalities of split seconds is not going to be a particularly fruitful endeavor (whatever your point may be by doing so) but maybe that's just me.

    You're right -- that's just you

    Timelines are part of any police investigation -- in most cases the most important part as it will be in this case.


    I do not agree that you have the capability to analyze this one.

    Agreement??? (none / 0) (#190)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 06:32:33 PM EST
    I do not agree that you have the capability to analyze this one.

    I don't recall asking for your agreement


    I saw Barbara and Jimmy (none / 0) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 06:49:30 PM EST
    Today online.  She looks great. And sounds great.

    The Theory of Everything

    It stands or falls, of course, on its central performance. But Redmayne towers: this is an astonishing, genuinely visceral performance which bears comparison with Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot. His Hawking starts askew - the glasses, maybe the shoulders a touch - and over the course of two hours contorts and buckles into a figure at once instantly familiar and fresh. This is more than just skilful impersonation - it's inhabitation. To look on as his face and body distort is to feel, yourself, discomforted, even queasy.

    The film's emotional punch, however, comes from the trauma the disease wreaks on Hawking as one half of a couple. It manages that rare thing in any movie, least of all a well-upholstered biopic, and that is a realistic relationship, with grace notes, and a bedrock of respect and affection. Jones makes for a formidable opposite number; she's a consistently brilliant actor who needs a breakthrough.