Wednesday Open Thread

It's a jail day for me, which means an open thread for you.

Anyone see the start of the new season of Justified? Looks like this season will be the final showdown between Raylan and Boyd.

I wonder if Japan will pay ISIS its ransom. I'm thinking it will not. India is hosting President Obama next week, and Britain just told India it's received intel ISIS may be planning an attack there soon.

Again, this is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< State of the Union | 2016: Hillary Leads Potential GOP Opponents by Double Digits >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 08:56:26 AM EST
    today I'm getting a kick out of the conservative meltdowns on facebook over Obama zinging them after he said he wasn't running another campaign.

    Yes, i guess I'm easily amused these days. LOL.

    It would be sweet (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jim in St Louis on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 09:08:13 AM EST
    if our President would lob one of these ghost written zingers toward the actual enemies of the USA.   ooooh! burn!

    Huh? (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 09:11:40 AM EST
    This is a perfect example of how crackpot the GOP is these days. They walked right into that one and he adlibbed a bomb at them.

    Please no one believes the Dick Cheney talking points anymore.


    Pretty sure he did (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 08:21:35 PM EST

    talk about "oooh - burn!" (none / 0) (#112)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 08:42:26 PM EST
    [high-five to Yman]

    I didn't watch it (none / 0) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 05:44:40 PM EST
    I got an allergy shot yesterday and sometimes afterwards I have to have an early evening.

    But spouse watched it.

    Josh and I got an earful this morning.  He is an Independent, he leans all over depending on the issue.  He had the meltdown this morning.  The SOTU is the President's once a year touching base with the people.  This rebuttal stuff, he's not crazy about it.  But he said this morning, "Five rebuttals?  If your party didn't win the Presidency sit down and STFU!"  Then he tells Josh that if he ever holds any kind of office or works civil service he will never disrespect his President as these people (not specific) have.  If Josh is a civilian he can say what he pleases, but if he serves the people he will not disrespect his President simply to encourage disrespect.  He asks Josh if he understands?  Josh said yes sir.  What the heck happened last night?  Are other Independents starting to melt over all this?

    I mean, I expect these people to be losers, I am very biased :). My husband expects them to be a contender and he is very upset :)


    It's always (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 06:45:40 PM EST
    interesting to hear what other people have to say about these kind of things.

    I did not realize there were five rebuttals but I do have to say that a non partisan friend of mine said that Joni Ernst was Michele Bachmann crazy. You and i already knew that though but I guess the crazy came shining through :).

    And yes, the crazy did not surprise me either. LOL.


    Once you realize (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 09:53:21 AM EST
    that the GOP is heavily dependent on fossil fuel companies for their funding, you understand why Republicans are always wanting us to dependent on fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use goes away and so does a major source of funding to the GOP.

    When the Koch Brothers are down to their (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 10:02:08 AM EST
    last billion dollars in the bank, and the Heritage Foundation has to hold bake sales to fund themselves,  that will be a clear improvement over what we have today.

    Also, Google Koch Brothers against solar power, if you want to see the extend of what they're willing to do to keep their profits from fossil fuels undisturbed.

    Since that's an unsympathetic argument, the utilities have devised another: Solar expansion, they claim, will actually hurt consumers. The Arizona Public Service Company, the state's largest utility, funneled large sums through a Koch operative to a nonprofit group that ran an ad claiming net metering would hurt older people on fixed incomes by raising electric rates. The ad tried to link the requirement to President Obama. Another Koch ad likens the renewable-energy requirement to health care reform, the ultimate insult in that world. "Like Obamacare, it's another government mandate we can't afford," the narrator says.

    That line might appeal to Tea Partiers, but it's deliberately misleading. This campaign is really about the profits of Koch Carbon and the utilities, which to its organizers is much more important than clean air and the consequences of climate change.

    When fossil fuels go away (none / 0) (#32)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:12:39 PM EST
    So will the lights in your house.

    Exactly how close do you think we are to not depending on fossil fuels?  

    It's really not a question of liking them or not it's a question of economics and reality.

    One parties partisans choose to live in the world of reality and science while one pretends we can wave a magic wand and switch over to renewables.

    Still waiting on the economic plan to switch over to renewables without affecting the economy.  If that's not the goal then lets start listening to things we're not going to do so that we can subsidize energy that is more expensive.


    So we just wait around (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:49:37 PM EST
    for the lights to go out? Reality and science seem to point to a future where fossil fuels are no longer a viable option. Would you rather we sit on our hands and do nothing. Would a Soviet style "5 year plan" make it easier for you to swallow? Of course you would disrupt part of the economy, I am sure that the horse and buggy industry took a major hit from the rise of the automobile. You seem to think that we are demanding an immediate switch over from fossil fuel when all sensible advocates realize that it will have to be more gradual change. You seem to think that America is not flexible or smart enough to respond to a changing world where new technologies are ALWAYS replacing old ones. Why do you doubt the ability of the American people and our industries to accomplish this?

    Oh, good (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 01:13:31 PM EST
    grief. Nobody is suggesting they all go away tomorrow but any decrease is usage is less money for the oil companies for campaign contributions. You have to look through that prism to understand that the GOP has a vested interest in not solving the problem of fossil fuels.

    Fossil fuels are finite. Maybe they won't run out when you're alive but your children could be stuck in the dark without electricity if we don't start working on changing things now.

    And the last thing the GOP supports is any kind of science these days. As a matter of fact they are anti-science to the point of using the tobacco industry's model of trying to confuse people about science. Remember all the junk science that said cigarettes don't cause cancer? Well, later, rinse and repeat with any science that effects the flow of money into the GOP coffers and remember tobacco was a big funder of the GOP for many years.


    Germany still has lights on (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 05:50:22 PM EST
    And leads the world in solar energy use, I think they are at 50% solar powered...still lit up ;)

    You think wrong... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Jim in St Louis on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 06:30:56 AM EST
    Bahahahahahaha! (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 07:43:06 AM EST
    I think I'll stick with The Guardian but thanks all the same.

    I will add (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 08:40:33 AM EST
    Germany, as well as most of Europe, will continue on the wind and solar path, and will continue to be miles ahead of us now in infrastructure, education, transportation, and healthcare while the U.S. having to deal with its knuckledragger clan will continue to have arguments about whether science is ever settled :). It's hilarious how mental energy is wasted in this country!

    Did you even read your link?  Cause I don't think that it says what you think it does.

    Spit it Out... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 12:33:56 PM EST
    ...if you have a quote or a link that doesn't use British Petroleum as a source for solar power, or something that disputes the claim, let's see it.  We can't guess what you are thinking.

    Tracy's point still stands, whatever point you were trying to make is still unknown.  

    From the article:

    Germany, with 1.4m PV systems, generated a peak of 23.1GW hours at lunchtime on Monday 9 June, equivalent to 50.6% of its total electricity need. According to government development agency Germany trade and invest (GTAI), solar power grew 34% in the first five months of 2014 compared to last year.

    Putwoo! (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jim in St Louis on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 01:48:18 PM EST
    Scott- gonna double down are ya?  

     The claim was made that Germany gets 50% of its energy from solar.   This is not what your quoted statement says.    They had a one time peak, on a sunny day in June.  The problem with solar has always been storage, how to get those watts generated in the heat of the day to be used in the middle of the night- Or for the weeks of cloudy weather in winter- or even when the snow covers the collectors.

    Solar is great- and when the technology is ripe it will pay its own way (and I have no doubt that it will do so)  but in the short term wits like yourself pretend that the number six economy in the world is running 50% on solar?  And that lying about solar's capabilities is somehow boosting solar energy? Or that telling lies somehow makes big petro cry? what? You think that lying about solar somehow is a leftist virtue?  What would make you repeat this piece of sillyness- and then jump up and pound the table and insist that this claim still stands.   I get very angry with liars and I get angry that they manuver me into positions where it seems that I am against solar or something. I'm not. I just think that intelligent people should talk honestly and not make up b.s.

    http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/veroeffentlichungen-pdf-dateien-en/studien-und-konzeptp apiere/recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf

    Germany's solar energy production is around 7%. see page 5.


    Really... (none / 0) (#67)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 01:54:26 PM EST
    You are just being a jack@ss just to be one, there is no plan to switch off every fossil fuel source next week.  Ideally as soon as possibly, which realistically would be like a 50 year plan.

    Most companies in the energy business can, and will, slide over to the renewable energy business, the dinosaurs that cannot adapt will be left in the junk heap of other companies that refused to see the writing on the wall.  Our energy needs are not going to disappear, just the source will, and that is a fact.

    So unless civilization destroys itself, it will have to either give up energy, or figure out how to turn on the lights and get to work without using fossil fuels.  

    It's not if they will, it's when.  Preferably before they use every last drop as the zillion other products that come from crude, like plastics, are far too valuable to be burning up on the way to work because.


    where every single drop of oil is not ultimately used, you are deluding yourself.

    I Didn't Say That... (none / 0) (#83)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    ...and I hope when the supplies get low we start realizing what a humongous waste it is to burn crude.

    IMO, humanity will destroy it's self way before we get most of it.  Not every soul, but enough where the infrastructure to get the oil currently available, no longer exists.  One Cuban Missile like incident and most of us, gone, one extraterrestrial rock, smash, one super volcano eruption, kaboom, humans are out like dinosaurs.

    And at some level it's nonrenewable, heat and pressure are always there, just need some biological material deep enough to be converted into fossil fuels, so in theory we could never run out as it's an ongoing process, slow, but the Earth has not stopped with the mechanics to make fossil fuels.


    Easy on the language Scott (none / 0) (#72)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 02:13:34 PM EST
    Really no need for it.

    My point is a lot of proponents for this give very little as far as a plan for how we are going to switch over.

    I'm all for using the energy that makes the most economic sense.  For me energy efficiency is a way better way to improve our energy plan as opposed to forcing renewables down our throat.

    Especially when it's based on unproven scientific theory.


    I Don't Even Know... (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 03:36:42 PM EST
    ...how to respond to 'unproven theory', let's add gravity and evolution in that camp.  Pretty much any scientist not believing that man is warming the Earth is a considered a crackpot by the science community.  And probably collecting a paychecks from Big Energy.  You are on the planet, you know it's been warming up since you were a kid.  In reality, the Earth is going through a cooling phase, but greenhosue gases are not allowing it to happen.

    How about CFL and LED lights, those were 'forced down our throat', which is an odd thing to call legislation.  A favorite of the party you aren't a member of.  If nothing was forced, it would look like Brittan during the industrial revolution.  A cesspool of industry with no restraint.

    Volunteerism and economic energy is how we ended up here, so if that is what you are for, then why comment, you are for cheap energy, which is energy that is high in pollutants and greenhouse gases.  This business were you pretend to compromise, is no compromise if the only bar is cost, and real science is to be neglected.


    The science is not settled (none / 0) (#104)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 07:05:49 PM EST
    That you think it is is your opinion.

    Science is never "settled" it is proven and repeatable.

    Since AGW doesn't pass this test pro scientists, politicians and their supporters have created a new kind of science were the old rules don't apply and we move on with solutions before the actual science is over.


    What do you mean, "not settled"? (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 08:13:43 PM EST
    By whose definition -- yours? Charles Krauthammer's? Newmax.com's?

    The fact that CO₂ heats the atmosphere is absolutely accepted by an overwhelming majority of climatologists and meteorologists, so it's settled science.

    So is the fact that the amount of CO₂ already emitted into our atmosphere is causing warming to occur at an unprecedented rate. And the longer we continue to emit CO₂ at this rate, the worse it's only going to get.

    While you have a right to your own opinion, facts should not be subject to opinion. There is more than enough documented evidence available to determine that the basic science is settled enough for us to act.

    Man-made climate change exists, Slado. Deal with it.


    Yes - you know better ... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 08:34:28 PM EST
    ... what constitutes science than the "pro scientists" (i.e. people who are experts and do it for a living"), or the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies they've produced supporting MMGW.

    Pfffttt ...


    Good Gravy... (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 09:25:24 AM EST
    ...now I guess magic just ended the Permian period and wiped out 90% of life on the planet.

    The CO2 levels had nothing to do with it, nor did the volcanic activity that releases the CO2, never mind the science, because apparently one can argue that proven theories are just opinion.  That past high levels of CO2 that lead to runaway greenhouse effects are not applicable to man made CO2 emissions today.  Apple & Oranges.

    It's just too damn bad the right doesn't require this kind of scrutiny for their actual unproven beliefs about jesus/god.  For that, a 2000 year old text, written centuries after the supposed events, is all the proof they need.

    What exactly qualifies as proof, because it seems like for some things you need 100% agreement of pseudo scientists with actual scientists, for others, just a person behind a pulpit stating it's true.

    I suggest reading about Clair Patterson and his fight with lead industry.  It's spot on in regards to industry hiring their own 'scientists' to cloud the issue.  Real scientists claimed the high levels of lead in nature and animals was due to leaded gasoline, industry and their 'scientists' claimed the high levels were natural and were not detrimental to human beings.

    Like all battles between industry 'scientists' and the actual science community, the industry 'scientists' were proven to be frauds.  It took 30+ years to regulate lead because industry muddled the science with their experts.

    Back to present day, everything scientist said would happen, is happening, and will continue to happen because it is not an opinion, its a fact that the Earth is warming due to human beings and CO2 emissions.

    It's also rather funny that, like Iraq, the 'cause' keeps changing.  First it did not exist, Global Warming was a myth.  When that was proven wrong, they switched to Global Warming is a natural occurrence, that of course has been proven wrong because the Earth should actually be in a cooling phase.  And now we are either questioning the findings of the scientific community or pointing to the Oceans and formulating some new reason as how a proven scientific theory is opinion.

    I don't believe there is any science or proof that will change the minds of the devoted.  Industry loves us and only wants the best for us, so when RJ Reynolds and their 'scientists' present 'proof' that smoking doesn't cause health issues, we should believe them.  Why would they want to kill their customers, and why would the Fossil Fuel Industry want to sell products that harm the environment, it's a complete mystery.


    Science is never Settled :) (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 07:47:12 AM EST
    Expect 5 silly ridiculous rebuttals!  Got it!

    How much proof (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 04:03:52 PM EST
    do you need? What about the rest of the deniers? Does every single human need to accept this theory before we do anything? How much certainty do you need? 50% ? Are you willing to bet the future on the flip of a coin ? You never heard of hedging your bets ?
    You ask us to completely buy your THEORY that a push for renewables would cause severe economic damage. Where is your DATA? Current climate data solidly points to rising global temps. So far real world data (ex. Germany, China)  has blasted your theory out of the water.


    as opposed to forcing renewables down our throat.

    The problem is that you deniers simply want to cross it off the menu just because it does not make money for the 'correct' sector.

    Your comment re plastics was spot-on (none / 0) (#92)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 04:49:44 PM EST
    FYI, 25% of My Home Energy Needs... (none / 0) (#69)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 02:06:00 PM EST
    ...are from renewable sources.  It's costs a little extra, but given that it's an option, I am most certainly not the only one.  In texas, in the summer, that is a lot of non-fossil fuel energy.

    So if you shut down fossil fuels, in theory, 1/4 of my lights would still be on.


    So that's great and Texas (none / 0) (#73)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 02:14:43 PM EST
    What about Bangladesh and the rest of the developing world?

    I am Positive... (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 03:11:31 PM EST
    ...their 'renewable' energy is being dirt poor and not being able to afford air conditioners, TV's in every room, and Escalades.

    They are already green due to poverty.  I bet the average American use 50 times the energy of any 3rd world citizen.

    Why are you deflecting to Bangladesh, thought this discussion was about America and it's energy needs.


    I wonder if there are any (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 02:49:35 PM EST
    primitive superstitions in the developing world more resistant to and divorced from the realities of nature, the biosphere, and the hope of survival into the future than what orthodox libertarianism has morphed into..

    Anyone at this point who still claims man-made greenhouse gases are an "unproven theory" might as go back to obsessing over Revelations and the Turner Diaries for all the help they are in contributing to a sustainable future.  



    Japan's Options... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 11:18:37 AM EST
    ...contribute money to help the fight against the people who kidnapped their citizens or pay the kidnappers, same amounts.

    Since they stated they do not give into terrorist demands, seems likely ISIS isn't going to get what they want.  They surely know this, but because the amount is the same as they pledged, I would imagine ISIS is trying to dissuade other countries from pledging money to fight them.

    No sane country is going to pay $100 million/per person.

    Latest on possible extradition of (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 11:37:48 AM EST
    Roman Polanski:


    From the Boston Globe: (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 11:44:35 AM EST
    Hospital shootings are so rare that they are sometimes compared to lightning strikes. A 2012 study of news reports by the Johns Hopkins Office of Critical Event Preparedness and Response identified 154 shootings from 2000 through 2011, with 235 injured or dead. The most common victim was the shooter, 45 percent, and physicians and nurses were rarely victims, the study found.

    "So rare"?  

    That it's rare isn't much consolation (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:55:57 PM EST
    when it's you or your loved one who gets injured or killed - or struck by lightning.

    But I guess everyone else can breathe a sigh of relief that they aren't likely to be shot while in a hospital...


    yea that was poor phrasing (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:16:06 PM EST
    I would like to take a moment to say however that it was a cardiovascular surgeon at that exact hospital who allowed me to continue having a father at this point in my life.

    Just a tragedy all around.


    Why do people care if a terminally ill person (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 08:21:15 PM EST
    makes a decision with their doctor to end their life before they suffer? I mean really, what business is it of these people protesting the right to die? I really just want to smack the guy that was just on my news basically calling terminally ill people liars . . . .

    That is all.

    Excellent question... (none / 0) (#154)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 09:37:49 AM EST
    maybe they just like to see people suffer, I really don't know how anyone could oppose death with dignity.

    The genius of Georgia. (5.00 / 5) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 08:21:36 AM EST
    First thing Nathan Deal wants to do is take away health insurance from bus drivers, cafeteria workers and all the non teachers who work in the schools here in Ga. Next thing is he wants to tax people who drive a Prius because they don't use enough gas. You know, he spent his entire first term handing out corporate welfare hand over fist and now the chickens have come home to roost from his decisions and he is going to hit up the middle class and the poor. A true tickle down apostle he is.

    I guess more people without insurance and more hospitals going under in GA is the goal of Deal along with being a whore for the oil industry.

    Belicheck (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by CST on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 09:39:17 AM EST
    Just went on record saying "It wasn't me" - essentially.

    The word on the street in Boston now is it was probably Brady or one of the receivers.

    The idea being that if now it turned out Belicheck was involved he's done.


    "Haywood what are you in for?... (none / 0) (#159)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 09:59:35 AM EST
    "Didn't do it...lawyer f*cked me."  ;)

    fair enough (none / 0) (#163)
    by CST on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:07:19 AM EST
    But he's got to be pretty confident at least that there is no proof that he's involved

    Otherwise he's an idiot

    And I think we can all agree that no matter what your feelings on the man are - he's probably not an idiot


    Just busting your chops... (none / 0) (#166)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:17:16 AM EST
    For sure he is no idiot, but he is arrogant...and arrogance has been the Achilles Heal to many a "genius".  And he also strikes me as a micro-manager who has his hands in on anything and everything to do with his football team.  

    The fact that he is saying more than "On to Arizona" raises a red flag....this is not Belicheat's normal style.


    Shocked -- Shocked I tell you (none / 0) (#164)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:08:17 AM EST
    Belicheck is the Master of Minutiae and the inflated pressure of balls is well within his mastery.

    Nothing gets by him and no amount of minutiae escapes him.

    And this is the most critical element on the field -- THE BALL.

    It's not an ancillary footnote. Whoever has it and can hold onto it wins the game.

    For that amount of deflation to have been done he would have had to order it in such a way to allow him plausible deniability.

    The fact that he stepped to the microphone today to deny that he knew anything about it tells us that it not only is a big deal but that it is a big deal for him to have even known about it.

    His answers today tells me that he should be and may just be suspended for the Super Bowl -- and beyond.


    John Madden is also of the opinion ... (none / 0) (#195)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:51:28 AM EST
    ... that the NFL's focus should be on QB Tom Brady, and further, said so yesterday before Belichick's denial. It would be a helluva thing, were the Patriots to have their QB suspended by the league for the Super Bowl.

    Read a good article on ESPN (none / 0) (#167)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:19:37 AM EST
    this morning, here.

    What are the chances Brady falls on his sword for Belichick?  Not too good, I'm thinking.

    Here's the thing: as we get deeper into this, it's starting to appear that maybe the Pats have been doing this all season - maybe the opening day loss in Miami scared them.

    So, Belichick is "shocked" about this: does anyone believe him?  Does he have any credibility?  

    As the ESPN article stated,

    Think about it: Big bad untouchable genius Bill Belichick, gazing out from under his hoodie like Darth Sidious? Turns out he's as scared and unsure as, well, every other coach, athlete or human being who came before him.


    Twenty years later, I stood next to Bill, then the head coach of the Browns (but not for long), under the bleachers of Cleveland Municipal Stadium as angry fans mocked him with chants of "BILL MUST GO! BILL MUST GO!" Belichick had a scrunched, indignant sneer on his face that couldn't quite mask all of the fear and disappointment he felt at having failed as a coach, as a man, and maybe, he thought, as a son, too. Never again, you could sense him thinking. Never again. No matter what it takes. Never again. I'll never be in this position again. I will never be made to feel this way again. No matter what I have to do.

    I hadn't seen that look on his face for twenty years. But when reporters bombard Belichick with inquiries about the Patriots' latest scandal, my guess is you'll see that face once again, that thinly disguised sneer; the worry, deep down, that after all the wins and all the championships, maybe Robert Kraft was right.

    If the Patriots win a fourth Super Bowl next week and Belichick is found to have cheated his way to the Lombardi, once again, he will likely go down in history, twice.

    As the game's best coach.

    And, just another in a long line of cheating sports schmucks.

    agree about Brady falling on his sword (none / 0) (#170)
    by CST on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:29:26 AM EST
    The problem is - Belicheck has plausible deniability - Brady doesn't.

    There is no way he didn't know at the very least.

    The other question to ask is - who does this benefit?

    The thing about spygate - which is where everyone gets the whole Belicheck impression - is that it directly benefited him by making his job (playcalling) easier.  The ball pressure doesn't really do that.  But it does make Brady/the receiver's job easier.  On a team who's motto is "do your job" - I think that's a reasonable question to ask.


    Who benefits (none / 0) (#185)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:19:21 AM EST
    The other question to ask is - who does this benefit?

    It benefits the person[s] handling the balls -- and the only ones doing that are the Deflationists Brady, his backs and receivers -- and ultimately the head coach and owners.

    Remember two weeks ago when there was a controversy about a tackle eligibility. What was Brady's response: "It's all legal -- what we did was legal -- read the rule book".

    But we don't hear anything like that in this case, do we???

    It's now gone from mock, mock, mock to shrug shoulders to deny, deny, deny ...

    Why -- because they got caught and it's illegal and it is a big deal and they know it because there are billions of dollars at stake not just for those who spend it on football this time of year but also for those who gamble it.


    Regarding Climate Change (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by CST on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 09:43:46 AM EST
    Here's the thing I don't get about people who are skeptical climate change - WHO CARES?

    If you're right - and climate change isn't a man-made thing, and in the meantime we get off fossil fuels - the air is still cleaner, we still have more beautiful natural earth, the water is still cleaner, and we are now no longer dependent on dwindling resources.

    If you're wrong - and we don't get off fossil fuels - disaster.

    So wouldn't you rather start getting off fossil fuels anyway?  Really, what's the harm?  Especially as alternative forms of energy are now becoming more economical.  And if we can subsidize big oil, and spend trillions of dollars bombing the $hit out of each other - you'd think we'd be able to spend a little extra on risk mitigation for the entire planet.

    Just saying.

    The potential harm... (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:12:39 AM EST
    is to some very connected & heavy pocketbooks...and sadly that's all it takes to thwart positive change.

    Aside from that, the hardest part is weathering the transition period...like I'm doing right now for a living in regards to high-efficiency heating equipment.  The stuff is great for the environment and users pocketbooks under ideal conditions when it's working...but it's like new cars, when it needs fixing nobody has the parts and too few have the know-how when a computer board is involved. Inefficient equipment is more dependable and easier to fix...it's no consolation to some poor slob who has been without heat for 3 days because nobody has the parts or know-how to fix his brand new super expensive 96% thermal efficiency boiler that he is saving the planet and saving money on fuel...he just wants the f8ckin' heat on.

    But such a transition period is unavoidable, and in 20 years nobody will remember how to fix an old standing pilot inefficient boiler.  


    Transition is always hard (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by CST on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:32:09 AM EST
    But if we'd started 10 years ago we'd already be 10 years in.

    Absolutely... (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:39:23 AM EST
    it's still worth doing, in fact it must be done.

    One factor we can thank for the super-friendly gas and oil prices right now is fuel efficiency standards passed years ago...NAECA 2015 is just the next step.  And a good one, even if it makes my work day a living hell right now;)

    But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't happy with my old inefficient oil boiler at home...when it went on the fritz last week my service guy had it up and running in a half hour with a 5.00 part.  


    This from the SOTU thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 09:17:33 AM EST
    new] Yes, if we go to renewable sources (none / 0) (#49)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 08:09:56 AM CST
    And stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere, that would be devastating, if you're one of the Koch brothers.
    Tell, me Slado, what would be the downside of switching from fossil fuels?  You're good at fear-mongering, but that's all you have.

    Downsides?? Well, you can start with losing about 95% of the energy needed to run the country. That would put a crimp in most of our activities.

    And Yetr Other Countries... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 09:31:11 AM EST
    ...are managing to do it, I guess they must have magic since Jim believes that is impossible...

    It will happen, it has to, fossil fuels are finite, and just because we have them today, doesn't mean they will be there tomorrow.  

    You would think that the person who votes based on National Security, would be the guy trying to get away prom the product that has created the most issues with National Security.


    Just think what it would mean (none / 0) (#36)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:24:32 PM EST
    for our country if we became independent of fossil fuels (oil.) We could get out of that godforsaken hellhole called the Middle East, just for starters. And, all those reactionary Jihadists would either go out of business vis-à-vis the U.S. or come up with another pretext to chop off American heads.

    Sounds like a pretty good deal for starters if you ask me.


    No Scott (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 05:10:32 PM EST
    Other countries aren't doing it. In fact, Spain and Germany are pulling back.

    And stating:

    You would think that the person who votes based on National Security, would be the guy trying to get away prom the product that has created the most issues with National Security.

    is nothing but a huge strawman. I would love a product, say cold fusion, that would get us away from carbon based energy BUT there isn't anything there. So yes we need a military.

    Life's a beach and then you die.

    But getting back to the flights of fancy about "green" energy, a few months ago I called Austin energy and inquired about their plan.

    So let's look at this. Spend $10,000 net and save $50 a month, $600 a year or $10200 in 17 years. Now if we look at the cost of money and say we invest $10,000 at 4%... at the end of 17 years we have $19479.

    And the savings ASSUME no increases in the power company's prices.

    I didn't ask him who paid for the $6000 rebate but that's obvious. All of AE customers.

    Comment 15 7/13 0700PM

    And here's some more 2/16/2010 8:34PM


    That there aren't affordable (none / 0) (#147)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 08:59:06 AM EST
    solar plans in your part of the country doesn't hold true for the rest of the country.

    Here, I Would Consider this... (none / 0) (#202)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 01:21:38 PM EST
    ...THE source on solar power in the US.  In breaks each state down with incentives, tax-breaks, sunlight available, and how long it will take to recoup your costs.

    Solar Power Rocks !!

    It pretty much proves what you wrote to be wrong, and that is being kind.  The worse state for solar power, Alaska, it takes 14 years to recoup your investment.  Even in the other unfriendly to solar power states, like Tennessee and Texas, 12 years is number of years it take to recoup the costs.  Whereas New York or Colorado that time frame is 8 years.

    You just made up numbers and pushed them out as fact, not unexpected, but still shameful.  

    You think gas and oil subsidies are necessary, yet renewable energy subsidies are the GD devil.  Who do you think is paying any of the subsidies Jim ?  Why is one better than the other ?

    Your logic keeps going in a circle.


    Sorry, but here in CA (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 09:39:49 AM EST
    we've gone below the 95% mark with no ill effects on the economy here:

    "The science seems to indicate that in the next 10 years, we need to have about one-third of our power from renewable sources," says Elkind. Today, while the U.S. gets about 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources (sun, wind and water), California is already at 22.53 percent and is on track to clear 40 percent by 2020 without breaking a sweat.

    Green energy development is going fast and furious in California. When the notion of making the high desert ground zero for solar power was proposed five years ago "there was a gold rush," says Lamfrom. "People just started picking places on maps."

    Of course, to be fair, that also includes The Geysers, the biggest geothermal field located in Northern CA, which supplies much of the electricity used between San Francisco and the Oregon border.


    meanwhile Germany (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CST on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 09:46:41 AM EST
    you know - that economic disaster of a country in western europe - gets 27% of their energy from renewable sources, has free college education for all, a high minimum wage, universal healthcare, and doesn't even have the sunshine that Cali does.

    But yea, all this stuff is an economic trainwreck right?


    27 what??? (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 05:32:34 PM EST
    Solar power in Germany consists mostly of photovoltaics (PV) and accounted for an estimated 6.2 to 6.9 percent of the country's net-electricity generation in 2014.[2][3] The country has been the world's top PV installer for several years and still leads in terms of the overall installed capacity, that amounts to 38,128 megawatts (MW) by November 2014, ahead of China, Italy, Japan, and the United States.[4]



    You're right, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 08:44:29 PM EST
    It's not 27%

    It's 31%

    ... from (as CST point out) renewables, of which solar is just one type.



    Lol (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 10:44:57 PM EST
    The country's solar power plants increased total production by 28 percent compared with the first half of 2013

    I had a nickel. Now I have a dime. I have increased my money 100%.


    More like 400% (none / 0) (#130)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 06:12:58 AM EST
    You claimed 6.2-6.9% by omitting all the other forms of renewable energy, and that 28% increase was in just one year.  Guess you wouldn't be happy earning "just" 28% yearly interest, huh?

    Oops again!


    It is somewhat pathetic (none / 0) (#146)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 08:56:32 AM EST
    that he feels the need to play these word games instead of dealing with the facts at hand, isn't it?

    Also, this was in the Wiki article about German (none / 0) (#148)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 09:05:24 AM EST
    solar power as well:

    The country is increasingly producing more electricity than it needs, driving down spot-market prices[7] and exporting its surplus of electricity to its neighboring countries (record exported surplus of 32 TWh in 2013 and 34 TWh in 2014).[1]

    Solar is so unreliable that they have enough electricity to export elsewhere outside of Germany.


    Germany (none / 0) (#102)
    by CST on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 06:20:22 PM EST
    Doesn't get a lot of sunshine.  I said renewable not solar.  You're forgetting a few things - like wind for example.

    And where will they get their power (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 05:16:50 PM EST
    when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow????????

    You should get more information from engineers and less from PR articles on Newspeak.


    Jim, please (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 05:45:31 PM EST
    don't blog-clog. You have enough posts about energy in this topic.

    Sunlight is pretty much 90+% (none / 0) (#121)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 10:26:27 PM EST
    In the desert, Jim.

    As for wind power, the answer is to place the generators in areas that have constant to almost constant wind in the area.

    That's how the Germans were able to produce 1 Gigawatt from wind sources last year:

    The German market for offshore wind energy projects broke through the gigawatt barrier in 2014. By 31 December, 258 offshore wind turbines in the German North and Baltic Seas with a total capacity of 1,049.2 MW fed into the grid. This figure was ascertained by Deutsche WindGuard on behalf of the four organizations VDMA Power Systems, the German Wind Energy Association (BWE), the Wind Energy Agency (WAB) and the German Offshore Wind Energy Foundation (SOW). According to the survey, 142 offshore wind turbines providing a capacity of 528.9 MW were newly connected to the grid. This represents more than a doubling of the capacity increase of the previous year. In addition to the grid-connected offshore wind turbines, the construction of a further 268 turbines with a capacity of 1,218.1 MW was completed in 2014, but these had not been fully grid-connected by the end of the year. The cumulated capacity of the 285 offshore turbines installed by the end of 2014 but not hooked up to the grid amounts to 1,303.1 MW. And another 220 foundations have been already put in position.

    That site is windpowerengineering(dot)com, so thanks for the suggestion about quoting engineers involved in wind power.


    So we just keep the status quo (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 10:23:52 AM EST
    until that 95% is threatened by war, terrorism or just plain depletion? What kind of scenario do you predict when the world runs out of fossil  fuel? Don't you think that would put a serious 'crimp' in our activities? Setting aside concerns about AGW and pollution, by not aggressively  pursing alternative energy now we are going to weaken our nation sometime in the not too distant future. Why do all the deniers want to weaken America?

    No, you don't wait around (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 05:23:44 PM EST
    you continue full bore research to develop these key items for solar:

    1. A battery that has a 50 year life span and does not require careful maintenance.

    2. A solar panel with a 50 year life span and can be encased in a package that will withstand the heat/cold/humidity it will be subjected to.

    3. An converter/inverter package that is 95% efficient with the above mentioned life span.

    Pretending that what we have now meets these goals is like a heavy smoker pretending smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

    The big news of the day: (none / 0) (#6)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 09:35:56 AM EST
    #DeflateGate (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 10:37:11 AM EST
    And also trending - #shrinkage

    I like... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 10:54:19 AM EST
    the New England Deflatriots.

    Or better yet, the Seadderal Seahawks vs. the New England Deflatriots.


    The Story Didn't Mention... (none / 0) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 10:37:58 AM EST
    ...that it was discovered after an Indy interception, which means that if a D player can feel the ball was under-inflated, it stands to reason the actual ball handlers, Brady, center, receivers, RB's, would have known.

    What a shame, to get caught cheating against a team that they were sure to beat, and did so easily.  And someone is going to have to really do the tight-line walk to proclaim the only two times the Pats cheated was the two in which they were caught.


    The Patriots remind me of Wall St.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 10:58:43 AM EST
    Wall St. got mo' money than god and a license to cheat but still cheat more...the Patriots got more talent than most and the best QB of a generation and still they cheat.  Winning, like greed, is a helluva drug.

    After catching a ball from my rec league QB that felt like it weighed ten pounds while playing in the pouring rain Sunday, I have a recent reminder of how much of an advantage a deflated ball can be, especially in inclement weather.  It's definitely easier to catch and throw a ball that is not fully inflated...no question.


    I wonder...are there any other teams (none / 0) (#19)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 11:09:30 AM EST
    where, in addition to coming up with a game plan, coaches have to factor in how that team might cheat to try to gain an advantage?

    And for those who are grabbing onto the Graham Gano tweet about balls deflating in the cold air as being the answer here, I'll put some stock in that when the league tells us that the Colts' footballs were also underinflated.  Or is it not reasonable to think the league also tested the Colts' footballs?

    Now, I understand there's some question about whether the balls used for kicking in the Ravens/Patriots divisional round game were underinflated; this would result in punts and kickoffs not traveling as far, and long field goals being more of an issue.


    you mean ball handlers (none / 0) (#52)
    by CST on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    like the refs who also touch the ball on every play?

    Excellent question... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 01:32:17 PM EST
    the refs have a lot to answer too, surely they must have noticed.  Their integrity is now in question too.

    Not really (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 03:00:02 PM EST
    Let me try again (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 03:01:50 PM EST
    They might not throw and catch... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 03:15:53 PM EST
    for a living, but refs handle footballs professionally (if part time).  

    A far cry from somebody who never holds a football not being able to notice.  It's possible the refs didn't notice, but for Wapo to say refs couldn't have noticed is a big stretch.  Personally I think the guy who spots the ball 100 times a game should damn well notice what a DB who touched it once that game noticed right away.  


    I suspect that with the refs (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 03:21:04 PM EST
    it's more a case of the peon who doesn't want to step up and make trouble syndrome.

    Like the people are perpetually in awe of or terrified of the cops.


    The plot thickens (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 03:42:28 PM EST
    Colts raised concerns to league about underinflated balls back in November after game against Patriots

    Seeming more and more that this wasn't "an accident by the equipment manager."


    Today on the TV... (none / 0) (#157)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 09:48:22 AM EST
    ...they said the last time the Pats were in the SB, was the year they were caught cheating.  Amazing coincidence...

    The Packers would like to thank the Pats for taking them out of the media loop.  Much appreciated.

    Now I have a team to cheer for, I hate to cheer for the team that beat the Pack, now it's no-brainer.  I hope the Hawks decimate the Pats.

    Now I am thinking, because the Colts complained earlier about soft balls, the Pats might have been doing this all season, and just might not be the team they are with regulation equipment.  One has to wonder if that miraculous turnaround wasn't due to more than team will.

    And the NFL is in a hell of situation, this is the year they are cracking down, rewriting agreements to show they are serious about the people who break the rules.  A fine next year and a draft pick is not going to go over well and will be the numero uno topic of the off season.

    I would imagine the owners are calling for someone's head as well.

    The odds of 11 of 24 ball being under-inflated and belonging to the same team, are approaching zero.  Anne alluded to it, but they did test the Colts balls, all 12 good to go.


    The TV was wrong (none / 0) (#160)
    by CST on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:00:01 AM EST
    you might be referring to superbowl wins - but if by "caught cheating" you mean spygate - which happened in 2007 - the pats were in the superbowl in 2011 and lost to the giants.

    Also - the year after spygate was the year they went 18-1 and lost in the superbowl to the giants.

    So you are right that they haven't won a superbowl since then, but they have appeared in it twice, and one of those years they went almost undefeated.


    Substitute... (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:36:27 AM EST
    ...'were in' with 'won'.  Probably my error, and the qualifier doesn't really make it any better.

    They also had a poll, 21% people agreed that the Pats should be allowed to play in the SB.  I am in that crowd, but beyond the ridiculousness of that passing for as a poll, there is no way in hell the Pats aren't on the field in 10 days.

    My take, at least 80% of the country dislikes the Pats a whole lot.  I think Belichick & Brady should be out for the game, large fines for everyone involved, and no picks in the draft.  Obviously the half million fine and a draft pick did not discourage cheating in Foxborough.

    And no more separate balls under the control of anyone but officials.  Still in disbelief that was happening.

    Belichick Today

    "I was shocked to learn of the footballs on Monday. I had no knowledge until Monday morning," Belichick said. "I'd say I've learned a lot more about this process in the last three days than I know, or had talked about it, in the last 40 years that I've coached in this league."
    I hear them comment on it from time to time, but I can tell you and they will tell you that there is never any sympathy whatsoever from me on that subject. Zero. Tom's personal preferences on his footballs is something he can talk about in much better detail and information than I can possibly provide.

    Brady is going to talk to the press at 4pm ET.


    qualifier matters (none / 0) (#174)
    by CST on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:42:03 AM EST
    Especially considering 18-1.

    It will be interesting to hear what Brady has to say.  There is no way he didn't know.


    The New England Deflatriots... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 11:02:05 AM EST
    ...should lose their coach for the Super Bowl and for all of next season with no contact with the team allowed. The Flats, er Pats, should be fined in the tens of millions of dollars (still chump change to an NFL squad), and they should lose high draft picks for at least 5 seasons. Coach Grump and QB Brady's legacies are forever tainted, since they are now repeat offenders and logic tells you they have cheated other times and not been caught. The organization should face unprecedented penalties and complete humiliation. But they won't. Hell, if it were up to me, seriously, the Colts would be awarded the game by forfeit and be going to the Super Bowl. That's what would happen to a high school team in a similar sitch. But too much money is involved, so ethics, pfft. My old friend Michael X. Ferraro has just written an NFL novel, CIRCUS CATCH, of similar ethical territory, a very good parody of the league. Get yourself a copy. (link)

    But it was probably a lone equipment guy (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 11:08:26 AM EST
    Just one overly loyal employee, on his own, trying to help win a big one for the 'Chik and Tom Terrific.

    Sure. But I'll swallow my whistle until all the "facts" are known.


    "Hell, if it were up to me," (none / 0) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 11:12:11 AM EST
    which ia why it's good that things are not left up to you.

    Any other level of sport... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    ...this would be a forfeit on their record. That's all I'm saying. But when the NFL and money is involved, it won't matter. Just sayin'.

    But if New England is found to be culpable in this scandal, then the NFL should not only suspend head coach Bill Belichick immediately for the Super Bowl, but also the entire next season as well, and the team should further be compelled to forfeit this year's draft choices.

    Belichick's well-deserved reputation is that of a coach who sometimes thinks he's bigger than the game itself, and I'd say that his well-documented willingness to repeatedly skirt league rules in the past precludes him from receiving any benefit of the doubt in this situation, if the organization is found responsible here.



    You are a hardliner here. But support (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 03:50:36 PM EST
    Penn State being reinstated; records too.

    Not that I care a whit about either.  


    Further, the situation regarding Penn State has absolutely nothing to do with this. And now, we're finding out that the Baltimore Ravens suspected the Patriots of having underinflated the footballs during their playoff game, too.

    I've long suspected that Bill Belichick and the Patriots have operated under the maxim that if you don't get caught, it's not cheating. And like I said, this isn't the first time they've been caught doing something underhanded in order to gain a perceived advantage. The damnedest thing here is that they're actually a great team, and they really don't need to be doing this sort of chickenschitt stuff to win.

    So, if the underlying cause to this latest scandal can be traced back to the Patriots' organization, yeah, the NFL will definitely need to do something here if league officials wish to protect the inherent integrity of the game itself.

    Sports is supposed to be something in which the concept of fair play is presumed to be inviolate. To that effect, you can't have one team repeatedly conducting themselves as though the rules somehow don't apply to them. If you think you have the right to bend / break the rules in order to maximize your possibilities of winning, then you shouldn't even be allowed to participate in the game. To argue that everyone else does it is to condone it.

    So, yeah, if the Patriots are found culpable for this latest malfeasance, then Coach Belichick needs to get the boot from the league and the franchise needs to pay a real price. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time before they're caught doing something else -- again.



    I qm opining b/c that is what people do (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 12:07:01 AM EST
    on blogs!  And because underinflated footballs seem much less consequential in the greater scheme of life than molested minors.  

    I think a few of their records (none / 0) (#115)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 09:08:18 PM EST
    are going to need some asterisks now. And Brady may want to think before he speaks . . .

    I can't figure out why they are cheating either.  Now if it were the Jets or the Raiders . . . lol!~


    And buy my friend's book, it's funny (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 11:34:18 AM EST
    Gotta pump the peeps. Pun intended.

    Better Dadler... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 11:36:57 AM EST
    than that hack Goodell! ;)

    To think that the 'hawks Lynch was almost prevented from playing in the NFC 'ship by the league office because he pimped out his cleats, yet the Pats can allegedly do something that threatens the very integrity of the game and face no real punishment for the Super Bowl is mind boggling...but that's the NFl for ya, where smoking a joint and uniform infractions are capital offenses, and capital offenses get swept under the rug.

    All that being said, doesn't mean sh*t, we're junkies who will continue to accept a total lack of integrity from the NFL league office.  They could find mass graves of old time NFL pensioners in Goodell's backyard and it wouldn't matter.


    Gooddell (none / 0) (#26)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 11:41:39 AM EST
    The credibility factor himself.

    Yeah, ain't nothin' gonna happen but a metaphorical slap on the wrist. Maybe, MAYBE, Coach Grumpy gets suspended for the game, which at the least would be fair, but it won't. He'll pay a few days meal money (comparative to his wealth), maybe lose some draft picks again, sit out a few early season games, blah blah blah.

    Go Hawks!!! (And I can't stand Russell Wilson's "I was saved at 14" bullsh*t, or my team's division rivals, so...)


    I'm pro-Hawks too... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 11:45:48 AM EST
    by default...I hate how Pete Carrol screwed over USC, and the god schtick is tiresome...but on the plus side I'm down with some Adderall...need to score some myself actually.  

    At the most, (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:41:36 PM EST
    the Patriots will get a fine, which they can well afford, and maybe lose a draft pick, which they can also afford.  And nothing will change.
    What Mr. Zorba said was: "Nixon would have won the election without resorting to a campaign based on dirty tricks. Being the better team and then/still seeking an unfair advantage is even less excusable than when the underdog does it..."
    True.  It just makes the guy (or team) who would most probably have won anyway, look like an even bigger disgusting pr!ck.
    I would, at the very least, besides fines and draft pick losses,  suspend Belichick for a year.  But they ain't gonna do that, any more than they would negate the result of the game and send the Colts to the Super Bowl.

    I Agree, But... (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 01:05:39 PM EST
    ...they suspended Sean Payton for a year over something he knew nothing about, and right now is not a time to be breaking rules in the NFL.

    If they are going to toss players on the Comish's exempt list until the details are sorted, it would be really bad not to do the same for coaches suspected of breaking the rules.


    Sean Payton (none / 0) (#62)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 01:31:37 PM EST
    is not exactly like Bill Belichick.
    And a possible "bounty" program to injure opposing players (highly paid players, I might add) would, I assume, seem worse to the NFL "powers that be" than cheating to win.  Deliberately going for injuring players would be seen as anathema to the NFL, already facing a huge lawsuit for ignoring the lasting effects of concussions at that time.  Although I definitely agree that there was nothing to prove that Payton knew anything about this, or that it even existed in the form that the NFL claimed it did.
    However, with Belichick, he's already been caught cheating once.  And I find it hard to believe that he only cheated once (or twice) in his entire career.
    And if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.  (Granted, however, that nothing has been definitely proven yet.)

    Credibility FACTORY (none / 0) (#27)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 11:42:22 AM EST
    A factor too, but not what I meant.

    Yes! and it does help to take the long view (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 11:46:50 AM EST
    and remember that although it is a multi-billion dollar industry, at the root it is only a game and subject to all kinds of flukes. In the 15 minutes of football I watched this season, I happened to see one playoff game touchdown catch get called back after a replay review . It was one that easily could have changed the outcome, and would have in any of the games of my youth before the high tech replays. So what did all that mean, when I was so emotionally involved in sports results in my youth? Not a lot. Makes me glad I have broken most of those sports watching habits.

    I'm the same way... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 11:52:36 AM EST
    I care less and less about pro and big time college sports every year...not nearly as emotionally invested as I was as a youth.  The business side of it just ruins the beauty of sports, and all the dirty gets harder and harder to ignore.  

    I still love to watch a good fair game...I just don't care who wins and loses so much.  Could just be a case of all my home teams being owned by morons and being perennial losers and/or underachievers;)  


    No doubt (none / 0) (#43)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:48:15 PM EST
    My wife is way more into it than I am. When the Niners lose a big game, don't talk to her about it, just don't.  Me?  When I was a kid, man, I would weep over a big Dodger or Laker or Rams or Kings loss. Now, pfft, I really couldn't care less, where's the new bag of tortilla chips? Mostly I am amazed how much my friend's NFL novel, CIRCUS CATCH, which came out in the last few months, has turned out to be very prescient. That and, well, in a game where people's necks can easily get broken, I find cheating like this to be a little more than unethical. Cheating in football can be dangerous, more than another sport except maybe boxing or UFC, which are really not sports as much as pure bloodbaths. Now, granted, at the bottom of a pile, shoot, you'll be lucky not to get an arm twisted, spit in your face, an eye poked. Rough sport full of bullies l and hotheads. So be it.  Go Hawks.

    cheating in football (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:54:44 PM EST
    or cheating like this in football?

    Because as far as I'm aware there is no likelihood of an increased injury to players from an underinflated ball.  On the other hand, the seahawks were fined $300,000 for hitting too hard in practice, which could certainly increase the risk of injury.  And yet no one seems to give a $hit.

    Look - I'll admit - the Pats look pretty freaking bad in this one.  But can we all take a moment and realize that the response is a bit overboard?

    I'll just leave this right here.


    Not defending the unnecessarily (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 01:27:23 PM EST
    hard hits, but is hitting hard cheating?  I don't think so.

    I feel bad for Pats fans who have been put in the uncomfortable position of having to defend something that is indefensible - and you'll be forced to defend it even if an NFL investigation - and how much confidence do we really have on that front? - concludes there's nothing to see here.

    I wouldn't get all indignant with people who don't appreciate a team that cheats - I'd save that for the coach who doesn't seem to be able to trust his team enough to win without cheating.

    If true, he deserves to be banned from the sport.


    It basically can be a penalty these days (none / 0) (#63)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 01:31:41 PM EST
    Is called a lot now with the altered rules meant to protect players, whether it does protect them is another matter. Again tho, that isn't the point. And I would challenge you to test the difference yourself between a legally inflated ball and one that is two pounds psi lighter. It's is not insignificant. And in a rain game, sorry, it's a huge help. But great minds can disagree. Just not with mine. Ahem. ;-).

    This one (if true)... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    is far worse than Spygate.  

    Granted, a universally reviled outside of NE team like the Pats will bring a stronger reaction than if the Jacksonville Jags were doing it...but that's a separate issue...this is serious on the field cheating...you can't understate the competitive advantage of a lighter, easier to grip football.  

    Take a couple pounds per square inch of air out a football and wounded ducks become spirals, stone hands become soft hands.  It's huge.


    Messing with ANY equipment... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 01:06:40 PM EST
    ...in a game of such violence, I just don't think that is anything you should countenance lightly.

    You can disagree, but come on, this is FUN to discuss and go around about.

    Look, I played a bit, quit after getting hit hard when in the air catching a tough screen pass, and snapping my collarbone in half as soon as I hit the ground -- it was hoops all the way for me after that. ;-)  But I know, if I don't have to concentrate or worry as much about the ball staying in my hands, I get a few milliseconds maybe that the receivers on the other team don't. And those milliseconds, sometimes, are the difference between having your clock cleaned or not.

    Again, just my opinion.

    Man, but remembering that play from my youth is making me kind of sick. Will always remember that sound. Cuz your collarbone is basically right next to your ear. Sounded like a piece of balsa wood snapping in half. Mmm, we have some leftover ribs in the fridge, think I'll go eat now.


    screw all you guys (none / 0) (#58)
    by CST on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 01:15:57 PM EST
    Go Pats!



    Hey, I like Tom Terrific (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 01:29:13 PM EST
    And, again, I cannot stand Wilson's religious B.S.  So really, I don't care who wins, unless I put money on it. BTW, you hear what Aaron Rodgers said about God and sports in the last day? Love it. (link)

    Just remember one thing: (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 01:32:14 PM EST
    karma's a b!tch.  And sometimes, she will not be denied.

    Believe me (none / 0) (#66)
    by CST on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 01:34:42 PM EST
    After 18-1, I know...

    Son Zorba basically agrees with you, Dog (none / 0) (#38)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:31:40 PM EST
    He said that most fans don't give a roaring rip about cheating or anything.  They just want to sit in front of their TV sets (or the TV set at the sports bar they frequent) and celebrate and holler when their team wins, and boo and hiss when their team loses.  

    That's not really true, Z (none / 0) (#41)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:45:26 PM EST
    They understand that there's cheating and, then there's CHEATING. In other words, rationally speaking, there is a difference between cheating that breaks some rules, but, doesn't affect the outcome of the game (as in the Pats/Colts game.) But, if there was cheating that definitely determined the winner and loser, you bet there would be a huge outcry.

    I mean, let's be realistic. I'm pretty tuned into the sports world, and I don't know anybody (with half a brain, anyway) who wasn't upset, and angry regarding (allegedly) the Patriot's cheating.

    Just running around screaming, with hair on fire, demanding the sports world equivalence of the death penalty just means no one will take you seriously.

    Yes, there was cheating, and, yes, there should be a penalty. Why do we have to go so overboard with this?

    Beats me.


    Death penalty? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:55:03 PM EST
    That analogy doesn't hold water because in football terms that would mean the Patriots would be kicked out of the league for a period of time, like SMU back in the day.  No one is calling for that. Suggesting they should forfeit is simply stating what would happen on every other level of sport, except maybve BCS college ball for the same reason...money. I just think suspensions and huge fines and losing draft picks are exactly what should happen. Seems logical. Also, go grip a football two pounds underinflated. HUGE difference. After all, it wouldn't have been done if it didn't make that kind of difference. You wouldn't take that chance for only a small chance at gaining an unfair competitive advantage. Patriots probably would've won anyway, obviously. But that's beside the point, or would be if it weren't for, you know, that green stuff. And I ain't talkin' weed. ;-)

    Dadler we all agree on the guilt (none / 0) (#79)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 03:05:34 PM EST
    we're now debating the punishment.

    It's only common sense that there will be big differences on what that should be. I used the term "death sentence" and look at what happened. You interpret it one way, and I, another.

    But just for reference, THIS is what I would say demands the most strict penalty:

    "New Orleans Saints players and at least one assistant coach maintained a bounty pool of up to $50,000 the last three seasons to reward game-ending injuries inflicted on opposing players, including Brett Favre and Kurt Warner, the NFL said Friday. Knockouts were worth $1,500 and cart-offs $1,000, with payments doubled or tripled for the playoffs.

    "The NFL said the pool amounts reached their height of $50,000 or more in 2009, the year the Saints won the Super Bowl.

    So, wrapping up; Everyone I've spoken to, and everyone I've read about, both Pats supporters and Pats haters, say the penalty should be:

    1. The coach sits out the 2015/2016 season
    2. The Team loses several of their top draft picks
    3. And, the owner pays oodles of money.

    And, as sure as god made little green apples, some will call that a slap on the wrist, while others will call it going overboard.
    But, Nobody says it's "no big deal" and everyone knows it's very, very serious.

    I would add... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 09:33:24 AM EST
    making Belicheat sit out the Super Bowl in addition to all of next year, and Kraft should not be allowed in the stadium for the Super Bowl or any games next year either...it's his team, the cheating starts/buck stops with him.

    And most importantly, my proposed rule change regarding gameballs...one set of balls used by both teams for all facets of the game.


    What would be the NFL's penalty if ... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 09:09:28 PM EST
    ... Bill Belichick got caught smoking weed?

    I don't know Shooter.. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:57:38 PM EST
    if the Pats did intentionally deflate balls, that's in your CHEATING category, not lowercase cheating.  It's a direct competitive on the field advantage...worse than players doping imo.

    Did it costs the Colts the game?  Probably not, the Pats are clearly the superior team.  Which makes it all the more perplexing.

    One thing for sure, the league needs to change their gameball rules...there should be one set of gameballs used by both teams and under the control of the refs and league personnel on the sidelines at all times to avoid these shenanigans. I'd also do away with one set of balls for kicking and another for running & passing.  One game, one set of uniform regulation Wilson balls...period.


    I agree About the Balls... (none / 0) (#59)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 01:24:10 PM EST
    ...and the fact that they did it for a game they were almost assured a win leads me to believe that this may be standard protocol.  They say it's easier to throw and catch, but do you really want to find that out in the AFC championship game, wouldn't you like to know TB likes a under-inflated ball before the second most important game in the season ?

    I suspect there a fall guy out there called the ball boy, or ball boys boss, who is going to admit to doing it without any team knowledge who will be given a ticker-tape parade by the fans.

    How did the refs not catch it, if a defensive player can feel it's under-inflated, the refs should know, they are the ones inspecting the balls before the game, presumably they know what a football should feel like.

    I always wondered why they stopped throwing balls into the stands and put up the net for FGs.  I mean WTF, they can't afford to toss out a couple goodies to the people paying for all of it ?  Now I know, those balls aren't the same, nor are they under the control of the NFL throughout the game, and that is shocking to me.

    Imagine baseball teams having control over game balls, and different teams having different balls, or special balls for bunting situations.  That is asking for trouble.


    Seriously... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 02:12:58 PM EST
    I knew there were separate balls for kicking, which was done years ago in response to kickers doctoring balls.  I had no idea each team used a different set of balls for regular play...that's so shady.

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#74)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 02:39:43 PM EST
    why the Refs can't check the balls more often.
    At the very least, when the ball is down for whatever reason, say after a player has been tackled and it takes a few seconds for everyone to get up and get into position again, what, a Ref can't feel the ball and determine that it may not feel properly inflated?  What would that take?  A few seconds?

    They already do... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 02:43:35 PM EST
    after every play one of the refs spots the ball before the next play begins.

    Well, then, (none / 0) (#93)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 04:56:19 PM EST
    the Refs were asleep at the switch.
    I would think that, if there is enough deflation in the ball to make much of a difference, it could be felt by anyone who was trained to detect this.
    Or maybe I'm expecting too much of the Refs.   ;-)

    The balls (none / 0) (#135)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 07:32:04 AM EST
    Were already supposed to be checked at halftime, thanks to a tip-off from the Baltimore Ravens to the Colts.

    And the balls were changed at halftime.  But they still got to play a half of football with the deflated balls - since no one was checking!


    Did only one team get the benefir of (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 03:55:55 PM EST
    the deflated balls?

    Yes (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 04:09:41 PM EST
    The Onion says it best (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:52:30 PM EST
    I prefer (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:56:56 PM EST
    This onion article myself :)

    This one from a few years ago ... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 09:14:49 PM EST
    ... is pretty good, too.

    Tom Brady (none / 0) (#42)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:47:04 PM EST
    Tom Brady Laughs at Deflategate

    Asked about the accusation during his regular Monday appearance on the Boston radio station WEEI, Brady laughed it off.

    "I think I've heard it all at this point," Brady said. "Oh, God. It's ridiculous."

    He went on to add: "That's the last of my worries. I don't even respond to stuff like this."

    Ohhh I'm sorry, Tom, this was two days ago. Would you like to take those words back and give us all a new response???

    I hope this question comes up in every one of his pre-Super Bowl interviews.


    Right... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 01:10:19 PM EST
    ...like Tom Brady doesn't know when a football is under inflated.

    The quote doesn't catch the inflection in his voice and the hesitation before answering.


    More cops gone bad (none / 0) (#33)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:15:28 PM EST
    apparently it doesn't take much to get tasered to my state of Indiana.

    Tasered at a gas station.

    Tasers and Gasoline... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:25:40 PM EST
    One of these days they'll start requiring cops to pass IQ tests.

    I Guess Sparks at a Gas Station Pump... (none / 0) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:43:11 PM EST
    ...are cool so long as you got someone to light up.  Stupid cops.  I believe it is illegal in Texas to talk on your phone and fill up because of... sparks.

    We have the same laws here, you are not obligated to pull over until you can find a well lit area and you are only obligated to roll the window down enough for ID to be slid through.  But cops only need one form and I htink that is for unmarked cars, but not 100%.

    This video demonstrates the problem with the police, their only purpose is arresting someone.  I don't think they even knew anyone else was in the car until after, nor are they in anyway interested in protecting the public, they only worried about the infant to increase the charges, just straight up arresting a person who didn't do what they wanted.  No crime was committed and the guy is looking at multiple charges including felonies, and the public is no safer.

    I also think if you ask uniformed cops in a patrol car for ID, you are asking for trouble.  Don't agree, but yelling at cops to show ID is not going to ever get the results wanted.  Being right isn't going to keep anyone out of jail.


    Sub-dude to Challenge Shoe-in (none / 0) (#35)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:24:27 PM EST
    So he can lose (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 12:49:28 PM EST
    For a third time (or would it be a 4th?)

    I think (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 08:41:27 PM EST
    everybody has lost count of how many times Biden has run at this juncture.

    The media shouldn't use quotation marks (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 10:25:04 PM EST
    on words that weren't actually said.

    What, no discussion of here of (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 03:59:35 PM EST
    the suit Michelle Obama wore the hear the State of the Union?

    Very understated and classy (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 04:10:35 PM EST
    Dr. Jill looked marvelous in green.

    It was a Michael Kors suit, (none / 0) (#122)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 10:32:54 PM EST
    a duplicate of a suit previously seen on Alicia Florek on The Good Wife.

    No federal charges expected for Michael Brown (none / 0) (#96)
    by McBain on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 05:21:12 PM EST

    If there aren't any charges will there be riots? protests? a civil suit?

    I predict no, yes, no.  

    Nothing is going (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 08:40:28 PM EST
    to happen because I'm willing to bet the people of Ferguson trust the process in this case.

    Reported tonight (none / 0) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 10:23:01 PM EST
    The feds will be moving forward with some sort of restructuring retraining of Ferguson law enforcement.  Looks to me like the Brown incident was simply the straw that broke the lame camel's back.

    Seemed obvious the people of Ferguson have suffered their law enforcement vs. being served and protected by their law enforcement.


    What does restructuring restraining mean? (none / 0) (#124)
    by McBain on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 11:15:04 PM EST
    Reported by who?  

    "Seemed obvious the people of Ferguson have suffered their law enforcement vs. being served and protected by their law enforcement"

    Are you talking about how the city handled the riots/protests or in general?


    In general (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by CST on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 09:26:23 AM EST
    The Ferguson police department is overwhelmingly white in a majority black location and issued more arrest warrants than there are people for mostly petty crimes.  That's a fact that pre-dates this particular incident.  The incident brought it to light and the feds are now involved.

    It's one of the reasons this exploded the way it did - because no one believes the Ferguson police department is working for the people of Ferguson.


    "To understand some of the distrust of police that has fueled protests in Ferguson, Mo., consider this: In 2013, the municipal court in Ferguson -- a city of 21,135 people -- issued 32,975 arrest warrants for nonviolent offenses, mostly driving violations."


    Seemed Oblivious... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Jim in St Louis on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 07:24:04 AM EST
    Perhaps some reform is in order with the local court system, no doubt some of the fines fall heavy on the poor, and a lousy way to fund government is with court fees. But that reform should be local and/or state run. Not from the AG office.

    Similar to the Martin incident in FL  which morphed into being about 'stand your ground'; the Brown killing has morphed into 'better policing'. And similar to Martin the distraction has been made to save face for all the people who thought they had an Emmett Till moment, but were so disapointed when the facts of the case came out.

    Typical liberal playbook- when forced to admit that their claims are false and lies or made up completly they shift to- 'Oh but this is good cause we need to have a conversation about race/rape/guns/capitalism/energy policy/body cams blah blah.'  

    How about for once the liberals let the people who live in Ferguson make their own decisions? If they want to vote the rascals out, then let them. If they want to fire the police chief then they have that power.   The condesending attitude of white liberals who pat the negro on the head and say, 'There there, I'll defend you from the awful racists and I'll take care of you since you are uncapable of knowing what is best for youself'.
    Screw em!  Let Ferguson decide what Ferguson wants.


    When the local authorities are (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 08:53:45 AM EST
    "uncapable" of instituting any reforms, it is time for the feds to step in.  Not out of any do-gooder, liberal nanny-state mindset, but because the problems and policies are so deeply rooted, ingrained and punitive that there simply is no other way to deal with it.

    The rest of your comment seems to have come straight out of the right-wing playbook, which doesn't seem to have undergone any updates since the days of the Confederacy and the reign of the Klan.

    Curious, though, why the right-wing's preference for allowing people to make their own decisions only seems to extend to those decisions that will ensure the preservation of racism, injustice and authoritarianism, and do not seem to ever extend to the most personal and private decisions people have to make.


    Who is best to make that call? (none / 0) (#161)
    by Jim in St Louis on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:00:54 AM EST
    Where do you get that uncapable characterisation?  "Simply no other way"    Seriously?  This is your diagnosis?  What do you think happend that requires AG attention?
    I'll predict that the AG will just issue a report or guidelines or something tame like that. Its still inappropriate for the AG- especially when there is no evidence of a federal crime and no evidence of civil rights violations.  Scratch a liberal etc etc. I wonder if the Brown shooting would have happend in your home town if you would feel the same?

    from my other post (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by CST on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:02:59 AM EST
    This isn't just about Brown.

    "In 2013, the municipal court in Ferguson -- a city of 21,135 people -- issued 32,975 arrest warrants for nonviolent offenses, mostly driving violations"

    Maybe everyone in Ferguson just really sucks at driving, but IMO, that is evidence of a civil rights problem.


    I agree the bastards who run traffic court are a bunch of jerks- but the traffic judges in Ferguson are all elected-- and they are all Dems- every single one of them.  If Ferguson's people  can't be bothered to vote- then I guess the situation is not that horrible.  
    I'm all for a voter registration drive, and I'm all for a get out the vote rally. But what is getting on my nerves is the noble and kind hearted white liberals riding to the rescue of those wayward and simple negroes who can't seem to find the voting booth.  What role does the AG have in any of this? nada.
    I followed the link to the NPR story- it does not say how many of the warrents were issued to city residents and how many were given to out-of towners. Not that I'm trashing the stat- its just I'm not sure it says civil-right-violation on its face.  Maybe a actual crime- or evidence of a crime would convince me.  

    Very good of you to admit that its not about Brown- I would say that it never was.


    The word is actually "incapable," not (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:48:23 AM EST
    "uncapable," just so you know.

    Also, as far as I know, the investigation into the policing practices by the Ferguson PD is ongoing; they are looking into training, arrest records and use of force complaints to determine if the overwhelmingly white Ferguson police force has demonstrated a pattern of racial bias in the majority black town.

    Your comments seem to be long on right-wing talking points and extremely short on facts, or even of a basic understanding of what the Department of Justice actually does.

    ::rolling eyes::


    Nice deflect from a non-nice person (2.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Jim in St Louis on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:17:31 AM EST

     I'm a big supporter of process- so lets just see what the DOJ comes up with. But since we just had a huge FBI investigation and that came up with nothing, I'll guess that this is going to result in nothing much.

    The link you posted says again and again IF there MAY be POSSIBLE etc. so many weasel words, well yeah, IF the investigation turns up something dirty of course I would want it taken care of. But I'm not sure that being accused of a crime on MSNBC is enough to have the feds take over local government.However it is enough for you- duly noted that you have your mind already pre-made up. Gotcha- thanks.  


    Playbook (none / 0) (#140)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 08:12:59 AM EST
    Typical liberal playbook- when forced to admit that their claims are false and lies or made up completly they shift to- 'Oh but this is good cause we need to have a conversation about race/rape/guns/capitalism/energy policy/body cams blah blah.'  

    Except in this case the typical liberal playbook has become the atypical conservative playbook as well. It has become topsy turvy.

    Conservatives are willing to accept police brutality against a black cigar thief followed up by prosecutorial brutality against the working poor -- black witnesses who dared to come forward with what they saw without the benefit of corroborating physical evidence that Wilson's side was allowed to look at before their testimonies.

    And let's be clear -- the best friend Obama has in St Louis is McCulloch who threatened to indict anyone who spoke out against him in his first electoral campaign in 2008.

    Thus this decision by the Feds is no real surprise.


    Not this Scotsman (none / 0) (#142)
    by Jim in St Louis on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 08:39:39 AM EST
    You are nutty if you think that cons support police misconduct.

    Not sure which conservative you think you can hang something on- there are no conservatives in office in Ferguson, Dems every single one of them- local county state and federal  (minus one US senator who is R).


    Jimstl (none / 0) (#158)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 09:52:40 AM EST
    You are nutty if you think that cons support police misconduct.

    I'm sorry -- I was thinking about those who refer to themselves as conservatives on KMOX radio like Rush Limbaugh and some of the local guys who propagated the BS coming from "sources close to the investigation" that all turned out to be lies.

    You know -- all those guys who can't bring themselves to read the GJ Report and are now embracing their most hated enemy -- Move On.

    And to this day they still refer to "the struggle for the gun" for which there was no evidence physical or otherwise.  Even the prosecutor himself in his statement could not bring himself to assert a struggle for the gun -- and yet that tired old meme comes across conservative lips everyday.

    BTW the first time the term "Gentle" was used by anyone in this case was by Chief Jackson on video when referring to Officer Wilson -- not Brown.

    And I'm the nutty one??? Get a grip --


    I wouldn't... (none / 0) (#153)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 09:35:48 AM EST
    there is no law enforcement entity in this country worthy of trust...not a one.

    And the primary reason for that isn't even law enforcement's fault, it's the fault of lawmakers, and ultimately those that elect them...aka us.


    Federal charges (none / 0) (#139)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 07:52:00 AM EST
    If there aren't any charges will there be riots? protests? a civil suit?

    I predict no, yes, no.  

    You forgot "political payoffs" -- you know, the quiet allocation of grievance monies to key individuals and organizations to make it go away.

    Or "penalty flag" thrown on the Ferguson Police Department for witness tampering and evidence destruction costing them a mere draft choice or two.

    None of which addresses the fraudulent grand jury  performance put on by the Obama's favorite Missouri prosecutor that was shoved down the public throat by the liberal always Democrat leaning Post Dispatch with the support of top notch Democrats throughout the region, not to mention the help of morons posturing as conservative talk show hosts who have now become fans of their worst enemy over the years popularly known as "Move On".


    Republicans beating war drums again (none / 0) (#109)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 08:38:30 PM EST

    They are taking recklessness to new levels.

    What's the proper punishment (none / 0) (#118)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 10:16:18 PM EST
    To paraphrase Neil Young, (none / 0) (#125)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 11:28:27 PM EST
    "I've seen the bottle and the damage done..."

    But there's plenty of blame to go around, not the least of which belongs to the Automobile worshipers at the Department of Transportation and planning authorities that provide nothing to protect bikers and runners - but a painted stripe on the asphalt.


    Another thought this morning (none / 0) (#132)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 07:04:56 AM EST
    I'm sure many lawyers would say the dumbest thing that happened here was the driver returned to the scene and talked to the police. To me this may be the only good thing this driver did Wednesday morning.

    My BF's mom (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 07:11:40 AM EST
    Was hit by a bicyclist on a boardwalk outside her home in Miami Beach last year.  The cyclist did not stop (he appeared to be a teenager), and BF's mom was left with a broken shoulder.

    As for this tragic and utterly avoidable case, I have no sympathy for a drunk driver. I'll reserve that for the two cyclists who were doing what they were supposed to be doing.


    Silencing debate and Free speech? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 01:32:54 AM EST
    After the events of the last few weeks and some recent posts on climate change it got me to wondering why many on the pro climate change side are so eager to claim unilateral consensus, call into question the intelligence of a "denier" and in essence end the ability of such person to voice their opinion because it is quickly ruled invalid.

    This phenomenon has not gone unnoticed.

    What is so remarkable is how many of us "deniers" there are and what a large group of people the assured are willing to pass judgment on.

    If we exclude the outright skeptic like myself what do we call the person who isn't concerned?  Thinks man is only partially responsible?   Thinks natural causes are more responsible?

    One realizes how many real scientists they place in this denier category when you consider all the possible positions listed above don't you?

    Are they allowed an opinion on this issue or should they also be brought in line?

    I mean according to Pew 21% of democrats don't agree with you and the experts.  Are they knuckle draggers?

    The pro AGW movement based on this attitude, one now echoed by our president, have moved in my view from a logical form of thought into the realm of faith or religion.

    Replace some of the words and pro AGW partisans sound like the guys with microphones preaching about the end of days at rock concerts.

    Saying consensus is so does not consensus make (and save me the dubious 97% talking point) and as I've already posted science doesn't work by consensus.

    But public policy does doesn't it.  We only need a slight consensus to push through policies, regulations and all the goodies that come with big government intervention.   Say no more.    

    If we can brand our political opponent as a cave man then we are one step closer to our agenda....oh and we'll be saving the planet too after all right?

    We are not silenceing anyone (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 07:42:10 AM EST
    You are free to say anything you wish. You are NOT free to bet the future of the human race on your skepticism. There is sound science (theory and observation) that points to the reality AGW.
    Your main point seems to be that "I am not convinced" so no need to even be concerned about it.
    Saying consensus is so does not consensus make (and save me the dubious 97% talking point)

    yet you calling something dubious is your whole argument.

    pro AGW partisans sound like the guys with microphones preaching about the end of days at rock concerts.

    If you can compare us to religious kooks, we should be able to compare you with trogloytes.


    Touché (none / 0) (#188)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:21:46 AM EST
    The religious snark was a bit out of line.

    No one is "silencing" anyone (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 08:50:57 AM EST
    We question the conclusions of the deniers because they are not based on science and they deny the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies by actual scientists because they don't like their conclusions.  Challenging the deniers is part of the debate - it isn't "silencing" anyone.

    What is so remarkable is how many of us "deniers" there are and what a large group of people the assured are willing to pass judgment on.

    Why is this remarkable?  35% is really not remarkable.  Many people know hardly anything about climate science and are ignorant about the actual science that supports it.  They hear the deniers muddying the waters and don't know that they have no science to back their claims, or that their "experts" are weathermen and other non-climatologists.  He//, it's less than the 40+% that believe in creationism over evolution - only one of which is based on science.  Or the 37% that believe that aliens have been in contact with the government.  

    Beliefs are easy - science should be based on facts and data.


    I agree (none / 0) (#187)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:20:37 AM EST
    And at this point in time the science does not prove AGW.

    The models are not repeatable, the predictions are more often wrong than correct, etc etc

    I worry that a rush hear at home will be meaningless if the rest of the world worries more about themselves.   Which they are going to do by the way.

    I am all for efficiency, new energy sources but I'm concerned that such unjustified certainty by the AGW crowd leads to bad policy and putting the cart before the horse.

    Case in point.  I work in the HVAC equipment industry.   Over the years through competition, better engineering the efficiency of the equipment always improved.   But then in 2010 we adopted the Montreal protocol and the entire industry not only had to increase efficiency but switch to new refrigerants because the theory was the old refrigerant was harmful to the ozone.  

    Millions of dollars were spent by dozens of manufacturers to reengineer all the products and while we did improve efficiency it was at a great cost that was passed onto you the consumer.

    Was this the right thing to do?  It's a debatable point but because it was decided by a few who were "certain" the rest of us didn't have a say.  

    Oh and the big winners in all this were the manufacturers who were more then happy to use the tax breaks and incentives to make more money then they otherwise would.


    Once again (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 12:09:07 PM EST
    And at this point in time the science does not prove AGW.

    it is not proven to your satisfaction. You put yourself up as the decider of what is proven science and what is not. Of course models and predictions are off, you can't expect a huge chaotic system such as the earths climate to be easily modeled or predictable. It is the trend lines that tell the true story and they all point in the direction of GW. Frankly I would be more suspicious of the data if the models and the predictions were dead on.

    while we did improve efficiency it was at a great cost that was passed onto you the consumer

    no one said it was going to be free and some of that cost is surely recovered by lower energy costs. You do not mention the incredible costs that will be passed on to future generations if you are wrong.

    Oh and the big winners in all this were the manufacturers who were more then happy to use the tax breaks and incentives to make more money then they otherwise would.

    So where are the economic hardships you predict?
    If the manufacturers are making more money why are they passing it on to consumers? Couldn't they split the difference and everybody pay a little bit towards a better planet?


    You're up late; I'm up early, (none / 0) (#128)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 05:15:29 AM EST
    Slado, and to your point, if there were a Ref on the field, the field would be covered with flags tossed for Unnecessary Impoliteness.

    Whatever one's position on the validity of global warming models, we all care about the condition of our planet.  Nobody here wants to see it pillaged down to the last tree in the rain forests, the last fish in the oceans, the last mountaintop leveled for the last ton of coal, the last aquifer pumped dry to free the last barrel of oil.

    There are huge forces in play and we don't have much influence over them.  At the heart of the problem is population pressure.  The water's getting warm, my fellow frogs.


    I like that analogy (none / 0) (#129)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 05:47:18 AM EST
    I'm for efficiency, innovation and exploration.

    My comment is that to be so "certain" when facts aren't results in water time and often policies that don't work.

    When you close debate you close off the ideas and contributions that a group might possibly give.   No one should ever so confidently claim to be on the side of the Angles.


    Netanyahu to Address Congress (none / 0) (#152)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 09:35:34 AM EST
    on the nuclear threat from Iran - ROTFL.  Has everybody seen him testifying in 2002 about the nuclear threat from Iraq?

    Newest polls from ABC/Washington Post (none / 0) (#168)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:23:13 AM EST
    Hillary vs....

    Bush - Clinton +13
    Christie - Clinton +13
    Paul - Clinton +13
    Romney - Clinton +15

    First GOP primary debate in August in Ohio...less than 8 months away.

    Reading (none / 0) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:23:43 AM EST
    on facebook about Adam Lanza's house being torn down in Newtown, CT, and the number of people responding who don't even think it ever happened is scary.

    Just read (none / 0) (#175)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:42:20 AM EST
    that Boehner invited Benjamin Netanyahu to address the Congress.
    He did so without consulting with Obama.

    A nice poke in the eye.

    Do you think that Obama might take something in about these manic Republican freaks - at long last?

    Netanyahu is not only going to inflame passions about Palestine, (which OBL named as the main irritant propelling him to attack us) but is also reported to be eager to sabotage any detente with Iran.

    If only Obama could have stuck it to those s.o.b.s during the SOTU, instead of his usual call for accommodation.

    As usual, it's Obama: pretty please, and Republicans: fkQ

    It's just a fact-finding mission... (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:19:29 AM EST
    the Knesset wanted to know if Boner is really orange or if something is wrong with all the color TV's in Israel.

    Ha! I thought the orange was used to (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:39:35 AM EST
    make his blue eyes pop. Complementary colors!

    Wev (none / 0) (#178)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:58:49 AM EST
    Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to Syria to meet with President al-Assad over the Bush administration's objections.

    It's an unusual move, but not really unprecedented.


    And Congress is a separate branch of government (none / 0) (#180)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:02:40 AM EST
    that can invite anyone they please.

    True, but (none / 0) (#183)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:11:27 AM EST
    That isn't the normal protocol for a visiting head of state. It's usually cleared through the White House.

    True, but (none / 0) (#191)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:35:21 AM EST
    normal ≠ necessary

    I have to say (none / 0) (#179)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:00:16 AM EST
    I'm in complete agreement with oculus...

    Underinflated footballs seem so inconsequential in the greater scheme of life...as are scuffed baseballs, pine tar on baseballs and bats, sticky substances or tacky gloves on receivers hands, or a league replete with human growth hormone.

    Then why have rules? (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:09:47 AM EST
    Why not have a free for all?  Why have rules against holding or interference or have the infield-fly rule?  Why not allow biting and kicking and wearing metal spikes?  

    No, in the greater scheme of things, it isn't the most important thing, but why can't you play fairly and put forth an honest product?

    Does this mean that the Patriots should be banned from the Super Bowl?  No, but should we all just laugh and turn our heads and shrug and say, "Oh well, everyone does it.  What's the big deal?"


    Well most everyone in sports does (none / 0) (#189)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:24:57 AM EST
    In sports parlance it's known as a competitive edge. In baseball, pitchers do it constantly.

    You make it sound like none of those things go on. Holding takes place damn near every single play by the offensive line of the Baltimore Ravens and every other football team.

    So in answer to your question...yes everyone does it until they make a rule that totally stops it. At one time field goal kickers all had their own personal football for kicking. Eventually it got out of control and that was taken away from them. This will end with the league controlling the footballs instead of the teams. Something that is hilariously overdue if they are actually concerned with it.


    Again (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    "Everyone else does it," is not a good enough reason to look away, especially where some player or team gets caught red-handed.

    Right up there with "boys will be boys."


    competitive edge (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:44:39 AM EST
    In sports parlance it's known as a competitive edge. In baseball, pitchers do it constantly.

    The Wolf of Wall Street does it too. Breaking the rules while everybody else keeps them is his competitive edge.

    So should he get a pass as well.

    Then let's open up the prisons and let everybody out who was just exercising their competitive edge.

    Afterall shopping at the Quick Trip at 2 AM when it was closed can also be characterized as a burglar just exercising his "competitive edge" as well.


    Typical idiocy (none / 0) (#200)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 12:34:13 PM EST
    comparing the air in a football to actions of convicted criminals.

    I don't notice you or oculus (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:41:00 AM EST
    offering any trenchant commentary on the consequential issues facing us, so this comment that you apparently "had to say" seems most inconsequential of all.

    I guess it's true: there's no honor among thieves.  So, whether it's Wall Street running a scam to cheat millions and nearly upend the economy, or government agencies stealing our privacy, or snatching away whatever humanity exists among our so-called enemies through the use of torture, or athletes and teams bending/breaking the rules to gain a competitive advantage, it's all of a piece.

    To trivialize the cheating in sports by saying something else is worse is to get lost in a descending spiral of relativism that serves only to make okay and acceptable things that we used to know were just wrong.  And for which there were consequences that made repeating the wrong behavior less attractive.

    Okay, enough from me.  You and oculus can go back to critiquing the relative importance of things others find worth discussing [which one of you is Siskel and which of you is Ebert?]


    In the Greater Scheme of Life... (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 12:19:28 PM EST
    ...what exactly is consequential, I mean seriously, do you think some tribe living on an Indonesian island cares about Charlie Hedbo, you think Americans in 200 years are going to give one iota about Darren Wilson or Ted Cruz ?

    It's all inconsequential in the grander scheme of life.  Not sure why people, who don't like sports, always need to explain how unimportant they are, in the middle of a threat that shows they are important to a lot of people.

    Obviously it's a topic the folks here, including myself, want to discuss.  Unlike politics and Global Warming and the criminal justice system, it's nice to have a topic in which almost everyone is in agreement with, which to me kind of makes it consequential in that it brings people together who are normally not in agreement, no ?


    It's all consequential (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 12:51:13 PM EST
    if you are trying to judge the current state of a society. What is acceptable to us as a people tells a story about us. Some people are ok with our former (we hope) torture program, some people are ok with cheating in sports. While it is sad that a lot of people sweat the small stuff such as deflategate while being indifferent or oblivious to major issues such as torture or police brutality, it is important that all transgressions against justice and fair play should be pointed out and discussed vigorously until they are eliminated or at least mitigated.

    Of course... (none / 0) (#182)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 11:10:04 AM EST
    but it's inconsequentiality is exactly why it's fun to discuss.  Consequential things are often complicated, nuanced, and/or beyond our comprehension.

    And the same could be said about presidential elections, fwiw...in the greater scheme they are meaningless and inconsequential.  And we pontificate on those every four years for two years.  

    At least the Deflatriots are a new and exciting topic! ;)