home

Wednesday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 03:33:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Our last open thread is full. Here's a new one, all topics welcome.

< Hillary on Death Penalty: Limit But Don't Abolish | The Changing Landscape of Heroin Use >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Open Thread | 203 comments (203 topical)
    No quit... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 03:57:51 PM EST
    in them KC Royals boy, much to my Game 1 chagrin.  KC takes it 5-4 in 14 loooong innings.  

    Mets could not touch the KC bullpen, nor their expected Game 4 starter journeyman Chris Young, who comes on for 3 of them scoreless relief innings.  The Dark Knight coughs up a 3-1 lead in the 6th, and our top rate closer Jeurys Familia could not preserve a 4-3 lead in the bottom of the ninth for his first blown save since July.  Oh yeah, and a lead-off inside the park home run by ALCS MVP Alcides Escobar that should have been a long out, if not misplayed by Cespedes and Conforto.  Brutal start, just brutal.

    Happens to the best of 'em, time to dust ourselves off and send our ace to the hill tonight to bring this puppy back to NY tied.  Go get 'em deGrominator...Lets Go Mets!!!  

    The Mets are favored tonight (none / 0) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 04:21:00 PM EST
    and favored again at home on Saturday.

    Do you know of any less crowded NYC Marathon viewing spots with easy subway access for someone that will cover more subway miles than those actually running it on Sunday?

    Parent

    Go Mets... (none / 0) (#7)
    by fishcamp on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 04:30:28 PM EST
    Even though I'm a Yankees fan, I love all the New York teams.

    It's stupid to have the debate at the same time as the game.  Even the president doesn't speak on game nights.  kdog your superior vibes should produce a win for the Mets esta noche.

    Parent

    Sorry CG... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 05:06:57 PM EST
    Out of my element, all I know of the marathon is its the one game all year the guy on my football team from Staten Island misses because the Verrazano is closed.

    Anywhere on the 1st and 5th Ave. parts of the route would be a couple blocks from the IRT, dodging the crowds yo no se.

    Parent

    What time are you viewing? (none / 0) (#38)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 08:20:44 PM EST
    I used to hop down to Bedford Ave in my old 'hood and catch the front runners. Not too crowded (when I lived there) and plenty of places for brunch plus the subway is right there (L train Bedford Ave stop) You catch the L @ 14th street in Manhattan It runs the length so connects to many lines).

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#40)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 08:51:33 PM EST
    I'll be chasing a friend around the 26.2. Thinking of trying to spot her around mile 5-12-18-23 which is twice in Brooklyn and twice in Manhattan. It should be interesting.

    Parent
    The Carson Campaign (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 04:17:12 PM EST
    ... seems to be a shell game that pays a lot of money to companies that have close ties to Carson.

    He is going to ride this one into he ground.  It's clear that the campaign is nothing more than an opportunity to milk a lot of people for money.  I wonder whether he even expected it to get as far as it did.

    Money hungry GOP at its finest (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 04:23:44 PM EST
    Spend your campaign money to raise more money. It's a helluva a gig if you can get it. And then you write a book and live rich happily ever after.

    Parent
    Yes, surprised Carson (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 04:28:37 PM EST
    will be at the debate tonight. Guess he is suspending his book tour campaign suspension. Maybe a book signing afterward, in a nearby church parlor.

    Parent
    Mostly small donations (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 05:32:50 PM EST
    From people who probably can't afford it.

    Parent
    The media (none / 0) (#22)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 05:51:17 PM EST
    are building Carson up.

    No criticism aimed his way.
    No matter what this wax-museum specimen says.

    Carson is so tight, so guarded, his views are so draconian -- all spoken in that repressed sound of his... I'm certainly looking forward to his numbers going down into the netherworld where they belong.

    Parent

    This is great (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 05:59:29 PM EST
    On Monday, a group of Catholic theologians published an open letter directly challenging Douthat, who reportedly has little if any formal training in theology or Church history. The signers took particular umbrage with his most recent article, but also appeared to decry Douthat's larger body of work on Catholicism -- especially his tendency to bat about accusations of heresy, often at Catholic theologians.

    The text of the letter is below:

    On Sunday, October 18, the Times published Ross Douthat's piece "The Plot to Change Catholicism." Aside from the fact that Mr. Douthat has no professional qualifications for writing on the subject, the problem with his article and other recent statements is his view of Catholicism as unapologetically subject to a politically partisan narrative that has very little to do with what Catholicism really is. Moreover, accusing other members of the Catholic church of heresy, sometimes subtly, sometimes openly, is serious business that can have serious consequences for those so accused. This is not what we expect of The New York Times.

    Initial signers of the letter included prominent theology professors affiliated with major Catholic universities, such as Georgetown University, Loyola University Chicago, and Catholic University of America. Dozens of other Catholic theology professors, academics, priests, and PhD students affiliated have also signed onto the letter since Monday, most hailing from other Catholic schools such as Boston College, Fordham University, and Santa Clara University, among others. Catholic theologian Francis Schussler Fiorenza of Harvard University, Douthat's alma mater, also added his name.
    Link
    Ross Douthat is a convert to Roman Catholicism. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 07:55:55 PM EST
    And as they say, there's no religious fervor quite like the "holier than thou" brand that's wielded by the converted.

    Parent
    Ouch (none / 0) (#24)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 06:21:58 PM EST
    That's gonna leave a mark.

    No it won't, because there is neither justice nor journalism left in the world.

    Parent

    Regardless,some things need to (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 06:45:07 PM EST
    be said and repeated as often as possible.

    Once reported, people, who share the same opinion, can do their best to make sure other people read it and cheer those who stand up for their beliefs.

    Parent

    Fishcamp's pet surveillance blimp crash lands (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 10:43:31 PM EST
    in a northeast Pennsylvania field.

    It was carrying, according to various breathless reports, billions in surveillance hardware and radar capable of surveiling an area the size of Texas.

    Surveillance blimps ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 06:30:33 AM EST
    ... were already obsolete by the First World War. Whose crackpot idea was it over at the Pentagon to resurrect the concept a century later? Hey, while we're at it, perhaps we could also rebuild the U.S. Navy's zeppelin squadron, and make effective use of those six 1920s-era dirigible hangers still standing in the San Francisco Bay Area, Tustin, CA and Lakehurst, NJ.

    Parent
    They haven't been obsolete (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 08:07:56 AM EST
    fishcamp just lost Fat Albert recently. That blimp hovered over the lower keys until it was sent elsewhere two years ago.

    When I heard the news of the blimp, I got misty eyed wondering if it was Fat Albert trying to fly south for the winter.

    Parent

    Fat Albert is the smallest (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by fishcamp on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:17:31 PM EST
    of those 11 blimps across the U S, Mexican border, Puerto Rico, and probably more locations.  They were given up by the Air Force a few years ago, but the next day Homeland Security, and several alphabet groups took them over.  Fat Albert gets towed around on small ships sometimes, but it usually returns to Blimp Rd. down in Cudjoe key.  Theres a boat launch and parking place there I use sometimes.  Radio Marti has a smaller blimp right there too, broadcasting to Cuba.  Theres not as many drug smugglers running around, since its all containerized and paid off at the big ship docks.  The cameras on the blimps have a 200 mile range and can spot speeding speed boats, but they miss a lot of incoming Cubans daily.  Too slow I guess.

    Parent
    These are Not You Daddy's Blimps (none / 0) (#78)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 10:14:54 AM EST
    They are supposedly for spotting rogue missiles on the east coast, I believe there were two up, they go up for 30 days.  The one that crashed was moored at the time, so it survived Hurricane Joaquin.

    They can view things in a 340 mile radius, or a circle with a diameter of 680 miles, which means they have to be way up in the air, as the curvature of the Earth allows for about 12 miles, line-of-sight viewing.

    The technology is called JLENS:

    The Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System, or JLENS, is a tethered aerial detection system designed to track boats, ground vehicles, cruise missiles, manned and unmanned aircraft (Airborne early warning and control), and other threats.The system has four primary components: two tethered aerostats which utilize a helium/air mix, armored mooring stations, sophisticated radars, and a processing station designed to communicate with anti-missile and other ground and airborne systems. Each system is referred to as an "orbit," and two orbits have been built. The Army-led joint program is designed to complement fixed-wing surveillance aircraft, saving money on crew, fuel, maintenance and other costs, and give military commanders advance warning to make decisions and provide notifications

    It's the modern day Star Wars missile defense, but with the added capability to track cars and human beings.  It can 'observe' 363,168 sq miles, for reference, Egypt is 387,050 sq miles.  It's always tethered.

    Here is a good article with pictures and capabilities.  According to the article they are already being used to track


    Parent

    Post-Benghazi Dem polling (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 10:54:44 PM EST
    Iowa Clinton +39.5 (avg of 2)
    North Carolina Clinton +37
    South Carolina Clinton +37
    Texas Clinton +49
    National Clinton +32

    Rumor has it Trey Gowdy is a paid Clinton staffer. Keep up the good work Trey.

    Texas +49! (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 10:57:11 AM EST
    I hope this is partly a sign and symptom of the women of Texas being hopping mad and ready to fight and vote.

    Parent
    One more update (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 11:46:18 AM EST
    Pennsylvania Clinton +34

    Parent
    I hope Bernie (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 11:31:36 PM EST
    does not get desperate and start attacking Hillary on non-policy grounds.....

    Parent
    Hillary (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 05:41:24 AM EST
    says she's not 40 points ahead in Iowa.

    Re Trey Gowdy: It's a scary thought that that moron was actually elected solicitor.

    Parent

    Of course she says that (none / 0) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 08:21:06 AM EST
    She can't exactly say publicly that she crushing the field in Iowa. That and Clinton just recently read BTD at DK.

    Meanwhile, the HRC staff that fully understands polling are high-fiving (exuberantly) across the land.

    Parent

    No more scary than the thought ... (none / 0) (#178)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 02:17:07 PM EST
    ... that the people of Kansas STILL re-elected Sam Brownback as their governor, despite the fact that his Never-Neverland fiscal policies blew a billion-dollar hole in the state operating budget, forced 20% cuts in public elementary, secondary and higher education, trashed what was formerly an excellent state bond rating and left the local economy in utter disarray.

    Democracy accords to citizens not only the right to self-governance and self-determination, but also the opportunity to sometimes get it horribly and terribly wrong. As I've noted before, when you vote for crazy stupid, you can expect similar results.

    And since Kansas voted for a reprise of the crazy stupid, its citizens are getting exactly what they asked for and deserve. So, too, for that matter and sorry to say, are the people of Wisconsin who, despite substantive public evidence that Scott Walker was a deceitful, conniving and corrupt sack of crap, proceeded to elect and then re-elect him not once, not twice, but thrice in a row.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    True to a point, but (none / 0) (#183)
    by Towanda on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 02:34:24 PM EST
    this does not factor in the suppression from the voters of that evidence by Walker and dominant media in the state -- and the voter suppression and election fraud, also unreported in national media sources that you would see.  

    But the evidence in there in local blogs that suggest that we well may have won the recall (think Gore v. Bush), the second of those three elections, which would have left Walker with only one win as well as in jail by now, along with five of his aides and one of his donors.

    And I bet that you also are unaware of what Walker won just this week, with the legislative revision of the law that now will prevent investigation of political corruption by . . . the governor and the legislature.

    If the mainstream media had done their job of fully reporting what went on in Wisconsin, Walker would have been out of office years ago and in jail.  Even the national media's turn to finally reporting some of this when he ran for president only began to inform the rest of the country -- and to expose how ill-prepared he was for even a modicum of scrutiny, precisely because of that previously minimal scrutiny.  

    Parent

    While I appreciate your comment about ... (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 05:17:40 PM EST
    ... voter suppression, unfortunately that only works during close elections, and none of those three elections were really all that close. In that respect, I'd offer that Wisconsin Dems went a long way towards suppressing themselves by going M.I.A. at the polls in those three races.

    Consider, for example, the 2012 recall, which Scott Walker won rather handily over former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett by a 53-46% margin. The turnout out in heavily Democratic Milwaukee was 56%, while in its Republican suburbs, it was pushing 80%. In places like Brookfield, Walker was pulling down 73% of the vote. Democratic voters in Barrett's hometown provided their candidate with no comparable margins to counter that suburban wave.

    With only the occasional exception, Democrats tend to not show up at the ballot box in large number during non-presidential cycle elections. As I've said before here at TL, Republican base voters may be bat-guano crazy, but they also turn out for each and every election, even if it's just a special election to fill a school board vacancy. We don't.

    In Colorado, we recently allowed two Democratic state senators to be recalled by an NRA-led campaign -- in Democratic districts, no less! -- because the Democratic turnout was only 31%, while the GOP's was more than double that per capita. Those two elected officials did what Democrats demanded by enacting sensible gun control legislation in the wake of the Aurora theatre massacre, but did we have their back when they needed us? Hell, no!

    And for that, I apportion no small measure of blame to the Democratic National Committee, which has become so myopically Beltway-centric in its electoral focus and thinking since Obama first won in 2008 that they've allowed state party organizations to wither and gasp for air.

    Unfortunately, this occurred at the very same time when Republicans were undertaking a major initiative to target local elections in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Not surprisingly, we've since gotten our a$$es kicked at the state level. Whereas in 2008 Democrats controlled 25 state governments outright, as of this year that number is now a paltry seven.

    And that's exactly what I told Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard -- who's also a DNC vice chair -- last weekend when she was back in the islands during recess, that she needed to be far more concerned with what the home folks were saying in the community, and spend much less of her time posturing during nationally televised appearances on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC.

    (Local Dems are getting pretty annoyed with Gabbard's very public dispute in the national press with DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz over the number of presidential debates -- not out of any love for DWS, but because they feel that it's coming at her Hawaii constituents' expense. All her national posing won't do her any good, if she loses her seat to a disgruntled Democratic challenger in the next primary.)

    We Democrats have to start taking care of our business at home, Towanda, by paying greater attention to downticket races in state legislatures and county boards, and not allowing ourselves to be distracted by the plaintive keening of the Beltway Dems at the DNC, DCCC and DSCC, who are otherwise completely self-absorbed. While electing a Democratic president is vitally important, it's of only limited use if we fail to provide a firm underpinning of Democratic support for that president at the local levels.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Did it ever occur to you that the Demo voters (none / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 05:34:51 PM EST
    in WI and CO disagreed with their supposed leaders?

    Parent
    "Did it ever occur to you" (none / 0) (#200)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 06:02:35 PM EST
    ... that specious claims phrased as "questions" are still just baseless claims?

    Parent
    kdog (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 08:30:33 AM EST
    Hopefully I'll bring a little Mets luck to NY this weekend. As a huge fan from the days of Rocky "Rock Hands" Swoboda and diminutive Buddy Harrelson, I'll do my best to bring some of that old Mets Magic into town tomorrow morning.

    Please do... (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 10:53:07 AM EST
    we need all the help we can get...Royals are kicking our arse!

    Jake is humming along till the 5th, then KC fires up the band and goes on a hit parade.  While Cueto made the October Mets look like the feeble June Mets.  A complete game two hitter, one of the greatest World Series pitching performances of all time....gotta give it up to Johnny.

    The plane back to NYC can't fly fast enough...I'm hanging my Mets cap on the fact that the last time we were down 2-0 in a series after a one run loss and a 6 run loss was 1986.  

    Game 3 at home we turn it around, Ya Gotta Believe!!!

    Speaking of Bud Harrelson, my moms calls me before the game irate that Pete Rose was on the pregame show..."How can they put that bastard on the air after he hit my Buddy!" Over 40 years later her blood still boils...


    Parent

    Go Royals! (none / 0) (#91)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 11:37:32 AM EST
    /Never forget '69

    Parent
    Checking my homer-ism... (none / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 11:58:45 AM EST
    for a moment, I can't help but admire the Royals.  They play old-school National League style ball, which is my kinda ball...aggressive mentality, contact hitting, speed, defense, pitching.  So far, all they can't do is bunt;)

    Parent
    I was surprised to see Pete Rose (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 12:05:48 PM EST
    holding forth post game. How long has this been happening?

    Parent
    People are weird (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by CST on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 09:53:31 AM EST
    Headline of the day:
    "Judge bars warlock from harassing witch in Salem"

    "a 75-year-old witch priestess and psychic asked a judge to stop a man who calls himself the "world's best-known warlock" from placing vulgar phone calls to her in the middle of the night."

    Just in time for Halloween.

    I absolutely love this story (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 10:39:11 AM EST
    Thank you😳

    Parent
    The guy sounds like (none / 0) (#109)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    he is a complete jerk, and a possibly scary one, if it's really him who placed those calls, and it appears he has done this before.
    And they both sound like nuts.
    But still, what a headline!


    Parent
    Looks like... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:25:32 PM EST
    I might be crossing an angry picket line of Zionists to see Roger Waters tomorrow.

    Good luck with that Simon Wiesenthal Center...it's Roger F&ckin' Waters!

    Gotta (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by FlJoe on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 10:17:29 AM EST
    love this "Marco is a risky bet" Will Jeb throw his old pal under the bus, stay tuned.
     
    and it bullet-points Rubio's "misuse of state party credit cards, taxpayer funds and ties to scandal-tarred former Congressman David Rivera."

    When Rubio was a state lawmaker, he used the state party credit card for personal expenses, a decision he later called a mistake. In 2005, he and Rivera jointly purchased a home that later faced foreclosure.

    Another bullet point says Rubio's "closeness with Norman Braman, who doubles as personal benefactor[,] raises major ethical questions."

    Braman, a billionaire auto dealer, is expected to pour $10 million into Rubio's White House endeavor, The New York Times reports. He's also paid Rubio's wife to oversee his charitable work.

    The Bush team also mocks Rubio's "tomorrow versus yesterday" argument as one that would be "widely ridiculed by media" should he run against the first potential female president.

    The most cryptic slight is left for last: "Those who have looked into Marco's background in the past have been concerned with what they have found."

    A Bush aide says that line refers to concerns Mitt Romney's team unearthed when they vetted Rubio for vice president in 2012.



    Spring Valley officer (none / 0) (#4)
    by smott on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 04:22:38 PM EST
    Ben Fields fired over the student-flipping incident.
    I'd actually avoided watching the video but did today.
    Shockingly violent.

    I thought it was horrible. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 05:12:37 PM EST
    As anyone who's ever been a parent of teenagers knows, they're prone to asserting their independence, and will further sometimes do so at the most awkward, inopportune or inappropriate of times.

    The questioning and / or defiance of authority is an integral part of how teenagers come to understand and grasp their sense of place in the world as individuals. Were we to see anything less from our teenaged child, then there's a chance that we're perhaps raising a doormat, which undoubtedly creates its own set of problems.

    Yes, I'll grant that the teenaged girl in that classroom was disrespectful, defiant and disruptive. But the discipline of students on school property is the sole province of teachers, school officials and parents. The principal should have called that unruly student's parent or guardian to come to the school immediately and remove her from the premises.

    The enforcement of everyday school discipline should never involve the use of law enforcement personnel, who should be called only when there's obvious criminal activity taking place on campus. The violence visited upon that student in response to her perceived transgression was clearly and vastly disproportionate to the actual nature of her offense.

    "Respect my authority, or I might just kick the living crap out of you." For all our expressed desires to break the relentless cycles of domestic violence that plague our society, that's one helluva counterproductive message to impart to young people, many of whom will become parents themselves within a decade of their high school graduation.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Questioning and even defying authority (none / 0) (#25)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 06:23:41 PM EST
    is also an integral part of being an adult citizen.

    But only if you haven't been conditioned and trained into a state of clichéd, abject servility, the natural terminus of most Americans' journey to adulthood.

    As the Great One, Bill Clinton, might have said, it depends on what your definition of authority authorizes.

    Parent

    Having worked in politics, I've met ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 07:26:44 PM EST
    ... a lot of adults over the years who were all about questioning authority, so much so that such defiance became their default response, regardless of the issue or topic at hand.

    In fact, during last night's public hearing of the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission on NextEra Energy's proposed purchase of Hawaiian Electric, my favorite forever-contrary couple showed up to testify. And predictably, they both proceeded to not only speak against the proposal but also accuse the commissioners of public corruption, as though the PUC's decision was already a done deal.

    (Trust me, it's not. My own group is one of 27 interveners in the upcoming contested case hearing, which starts next month and is likely to take well over a year before it's finally resolved, hopefully in our favor. NextEra's a bad corporate actor.)

    While I'm sure they're sincere in their belief that they're speaking truth to power whenever they do that, I would argue that such inflammatory outbursts are hardly an effective way to exert any positive personal influence over the deliberation of public policy. This being a small state and all, most everyone who's ever been involved in policy debates and discussions out here likely knows these two characters. And if they're at all like me, they probably also tuned them both out long before they ever stepped up to the microphone.

    Real adults learn from experience to pick and choose their battles wisely and with purpose. Personally, I believe that possessing a measured skepticism is not only healthy in adult life but also necessary. But raging in perpetuity against The Machine generally serves only to ensure one's own continued personal frustration and impotence in the face of power.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    this was quite bad (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 09:45:00 PM EST
    I am at times a parttime student in cc and at times have responded to a call and/or turned off the phone when it rang unexpectedly and somewhat inappropriately.

    Class survived.

    Would it have been better if I had turned off the phone first before class?  yes.

    Am I human and fallible?  yes.

    Class still lived.

    the video doesn't tell us what exactly she did with her phone prior to the confrontation.  It could has been as mild as looking at it, surfing the net briefly or texting.  Of course, I have surfed the net briefly in class on the class computer.

    At least, I don't know the school policy in that SC district is on the use of cell phones and how the use of the cell phone justified (or half-justified) the wild escalation into violence.

    Schools are capable of claiming there is a disruptive problem when the problem is very mild and often not sufficient to remove a kid from class or a kid from school.

    The officer in question was an accident waiting to happen.  He had a nickname in the school as officer slam and there had been other similar incidents though apparently less egregious.  The fact that an officer with the nickname of Officer Slam was working as a school resource officer suggests that both the school board and the sheriff's or police leadership has been exceptionally poor and careless.  We don't know if this guy was the worst of them, but obviously, at this point, the psychological fitness to serve of all the police or deputies and at least of every school resource officer needs to be reviewed.

    The girl apparently hit the officer or so it is being reported.  Supposedly she hit him in the chest with a fist.  Probably that wasn't the wisest thing for her to have done . . . though I have doubts that she seriously injured or threatened the well-being of the officer.  

    To topple backwards in a school-desk-chair and/or to throw a person several feet over the ground or into a wall seems extremely likely to have a serious risk of long-lasting or serious injury.  I am not sure if he was acting in anger or thinking he could do anything to effect an arrest or what.

    He had weapons and she did not.  He had the ability to call for back-up and she did not.  This fellow acted like a lot of dumb persons in bars do at 1 in the morning.  He had the power; he threw her around.  It makes you wonder what sort of de-escalation training the police and sheriff get in South Carolina.

    Certainly there is no need to hospitalize every slightly dumb person who bumps "you" or mildly touches "you" and I kind of hope that the sheriff dept in some SC counties has not been recruiting from the winners of barroom fights.  They might want to recruit from some martial arts classes where the teaching is to try to avoid getting into a fight.

    The Sheriff and the school board all need to be removed or to repent of being so careless, I believe.

    Parent

    The fault was entirely the kid's (1.00 / 9) (#9)
    by RCBadger on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 05:00:36 PM EST

    All she had to do was stop talking on her phone and/or leave the classroom when she was ordered to by her teacher and then the vice principal and principal.

    The cop did nothing wrong.  The only reason he's in trouble is because of PC nonsense where blacks have special rights and privileges and don't need to follow the rules.

    Parent

    Um, what??? (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 05:03:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Little wonder... (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 05:22:33 PM EST
    Why things are the way they are.

    Sounds an awful lot like "if dinner was on the table when I got home I wouldn't have to beat my wife".

    Parent

    Clearly (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 05:27:05 PM EST
    A new look at body language is something worth considering.

    For example when approached by Law Enforcement perhaps one could roll on your back exposing your belly and urinate.  A little.

    You know, communicate non hostility.

    Parent

    A truth hall of fame post, Capt. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 06:26:56 PM EST
    I'd throw in a little whimpering, as pitifully as possible.  Give the authority figure a memory he can go home and ** * to.  

    Parent
    She did not submit (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 05:14:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Forget it, jb. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 05:28:52 PM EST
    RCB's misguided notions of white supremacy are more to be pitied than anything else. It's probably best to just give him an all-day lollipop to suck on, and then go on about your business.

    Parent
    Rolling my eyes here (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by RCBadger on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 08:03:58 PM EST
    So it's RACISM if you expect people to follow the rules and obey the law?

    Parent
    There is nothing that kid did that (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 08:17:18 PM EST
    justifies the violence committed against her; and yes, when that kind of action is disproportionately taken against people of color, it's racism.

    I don't know how we expect our children to use non-violent ways to solve problems and resolve conflict when those in charge choose to solve and address them with physical violence.

    "All she had to do was..." Yeah, right.  What about "all he had to do was...?"  You know, like get down to where he could make eye contact, as opposed to looming over her.  Like model respectful behavior, instead of showing her that disrespect is acceptable if you're in charge.

    Maybe the officer's behavior works for you, but it doesn't work for me.

    Parent

    FYI (none / 0) (#156)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 08:45:20 AM EST
    When a South Carolina police officer brutally arrested a black student at Spring Valley High School, much of the debate focused on one question: Why was a police officer called into the classroom in the first place?

    The answer goes back to a misdemeanor offense for "disturbing schools." If that seems like an incredibly vague description of a crime, it's because it's an incredibly vague law: Students can be charged for "acting in an obnoxious manner" in a school. It carries a hefty punishment: a fine of up to $1,000 or jail time up to 90 days.

    It's under this statute that the student in Spring Valley High School was charged for refusing to put away her phone and leave the classroom per her teacher's request.

    Link

    Parent

    Law notwithstanding, the level of (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 09:05:26 AM EST
    violence by the SRO was disproportionate to the offense.

    I mean, if that's the response to not putting your phone away or not leaving the classroom, I hate to think what happens when there's something more serious to be addressed.

    And the teachers and staff?  They could use some training in better ways to deal with their students than sicc'ing an SRO with rage issues on them.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#158)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 09:13:26 AM EST
    Just pointing out the reason the SRO was called in.

    Parent
    No, RC, it's racism ... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 05:44:36 AM EST
    ... when you say the following:

    "The only reason he's in trouble is because of PC nonsense where blacks have special rights and privileges and don't need to follow the rules." (Emphasis is mine.)

    Go channel Archie Bunker someplace else.

    Parent

    It's Racism... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:25:09 PM EST
    ...if the over-reaction was due to race, and judging by the cops past incidents, he only seems to overreact with black folks.

    Talking on a phone is not against the law, and certainly not a rule with the punishment of physical violence.

    Not to point out the obvious, but kids talk on the phone in school when they are not suppose to, I would imagine it's something every single student has done at some point, funny how everywhere else they manage to deal with it without violence.

    In this case, I think the school district has pretty much spoken about his actions by banning him from every school in their district.

    Parent

    So are you trolling here? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by sj on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 05:39:13 PM EST
    Or is there a missing snark tag?

    While some states still permit corporal punishment in school, the idea of just handing this off to "law" enforcement instead is abhorrent. I could be wrong, but even the harshest, growling-est Mother Superior is no longer allowed to strike her students (except apparently in some states?).

    Teenagers are maddening. It's what they do. I have a huge problem with treating adolescence as a crime. School admin officials need to remember that respect may come with a default setting but its continued existence must be earned.

    And when adolescents are, in general, treated with respect this kind of behavior is far less likely to occur in the first place.

    Parent

    If only she had (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 06:26:10 PM EST
    ...a Second Amendment right to defend herself by force of arms against the tyranny of the jack-booted government thugs.

    But she's Black, so never mind.  She brought it on herself.

    /s

    Parent

    Troll... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 10:33:34 AM EST
    ...that apparently disagrees with nearly every human being on they planet including the cops superiors and the the school district.

    I suggest you find McBain and start a club for people who think violence against kids is a good thing.

    Parent

    Seems like it, (none / 0) (#116)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:22:51 PM EST
    doesn't it?

    Parent
    I don't know what cops are trained to do (1.25 / 4) (#41)
    by McBain on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 09:13:30 PM EST
    in that situation but I doubt he did nothing wrong. Flipping the girl over while she was still in her desk was extremely dangerous.  She could have broken  her neck.  My guess, is he didn't expect that to happen. He probably thought she would let go sooner.

    The girl does bare most of the blame.  She didn't listen to her teacher or the principal then really messed up by punching the cop.  My guess is she won't be prosecuted for her felony and will probably win a multi-million dollar settlement.  

    You're right about the PC nonsense.

    Parent

    The sheriff said Fields did not (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 09:58:42 PM EST
    follow his training or department procedures. So according to the sheriff and any reasonable person,  he did quite a bit wrong.  


    Parent
    Yes, but I'd still like to know what cops (none / 0) (#57)
    by McBain on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:16:46 AM EST
    are supposed to do.  What if the kid refuses to leave the room?  Is it OK to use any physical force? What exactly did the principal expect the cop to do... pick up the desk while she's still sitting in it and carry her away?

     

    Parent

    Perhaps a better question for you to ask ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 06:07:25 AM EST
    ... is why a sheriff's deputy was ever called to enforce school discipline in that classroom in the first place. There was no crime committed here. The teacher was right to call the principal when the student ignored the request to stop disrupting class, but that principal should've then called the girl's parents and told them to come get their daughter because she's been suspended for the rest of the day. That would've been a far better response, than bringing in Deputy Peckerwood to throw her around the room like she's a medicine ball.

    Parent
    My mom was a teacher (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 08:00:51 AM EST
    Kindergarten for 45 years and other lower-el grades before that.  Mom once called a parent about a child's behavioral issues and was emphatically told that she should NEVER call the parent at work again and that the child's issues were my mother's problem during school hours, and then promptly hung up.

    So while you are correct that this was not a police matter, it isn't always as simple as just calling the parents, although that should be part of the process.

    What should have happened first in this situation is that all the rest of the kids should have been moved out of the room, since this girl clearly wasn't going to change her actions and go quietly and comply - she was going to save face in front of her peers.  Then a teacher should have been present (and the principal too) while they tried to get this girl to give up her phone or move down to the principal's office.

    Parent

    Or the cop (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:20:55 PM EST
    Pardon me, resource officer, could have, with the help of the principal, pulled the chair/desk, with her in it, out in the hallway, closed the classroom door, and monitored her in the hallway while the rest of the class went on with their work.
    When I used to teach special education, with a whole lot of potentially volatile students, often aggressive and/or self-abusive (not just developmentally disabled, but also severely emotionally disturbed), we sometimes had to remove a kid from the classroom.  Sometimes, yes, we had to drag the chair they were in, with them in it, out of the classroom.
    And yet, I managed to do this, with the help of an instructional aide, and without a "resource officer." Sometimes, but rarely, we needed the principal's help.
    These were high school age kids, and young adults, so they weren't little kids, either.


    Parent
    Could've left her alone on the classroom (none / 0) (#77)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 10:03:38 AM EST
    with the SRO monitoring from the hallway. Call her parents and wait until they arrived.

    Parent
    According to reports, (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 03:34:04 PM EST
    the girl's mother recently died. She is an orphan and is in a foster home.

    If this girl was in the public school that my grandsons attended, the teachers would have been aware of what the girl was going through. She would have met with the school's professionally trained counselor at least once or twice and would have had a tentative relationship with the girl. IMO a trained counselor had a better chance of successfully handling the situation without throwing the girl across the room.

    Oh, BTW my grandson went to a predominately white school in an affluent neighborhood.

    Parent

    Thank you for that information, MO. (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 12:37:42 AM EST
    I would hope that the school administration would've known this. I must say, they handled this matter rather abominably.

    Parent
    That's how it was (none / 0) (#101)
    by sj on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 12:20:36 PM EST
    when I was in school, too. That isn't how it is now.
    Mom once called a parent about a child's behavioral issues and was emphatically told that she should NEVER call the parent at work again and that the child's issues were my mother's problem during school hours, and then promptly hung up.
    So you were correct years ago, but you are not correct now.

    Parent
    Move all the other kids out of the (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 08:27:30 PM EST
    classroom?  Doubt that would have happened.

    Parent
    Donald (none / 0) (#66)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 08:04:31 AM EST
    He was a resource officer at the school. It was his job. He didn't do it well, but it was his job.

    Maybe not in Hawaii but there are many public schools with a resource officer that is on the school grounds all day.

    Parent

    What is with this resource officer (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by sj on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 12:27:25 PM EST
    cr@p anyway. SO glad neither I nor my kid is in school now, though I worry for my nephews.

    Parent
    Then I have to question ... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:28:07 PM EST
    ... the judgment of the paranoid morons running the various state legislatures and school boards across the country, who evidently think that allowing deputized law enforcement personnel to become an integral and permanent presence on a public school campus somehow constitutes sound public policy. That's nothing more than a hammer looking for nails to pound.

    Parent
    SRO's (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:47:24 PM EST
    Have been around longer than you think.  The first documented one (according to Wiki, at least) was in Flint, Michigan in 1958.  The idea didn't really catch on much, but Fresno instilled them in 1968 as a way of fostering community relations.

    Today

    The National Association of School Resource Officers recommends there be clear agreements with schools on the role of the officers, prohibiting them from becoming "involved in formal school discipline situations that are the responsibility of school administrators."
    But once an officer is on school premises, teachers and administrators can be too quick to turn to them for help with routine student infractions, critics say.

    Jason Nance, an associate professor of law at the University of Florida law school, said he analyzed federal data from the National Center for Education Statistics and found that having a police officer at school increased the odds teachers will refer children to law enforcement for low-level offenses such as fighting.

    The number of school resource officers grew substantially in the wake of rising juvenile crime rates in the 1980s and 1990s, and escalated after the 1999 mass shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado. The school resource officers association counts as many as 15,000 officers nationwide.



    Parent
    I don't know if that's a better question (none / 0) (#92)
    by McBain on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 11:40:11 AM EST
    but it is a good one..... was that really a situation to be handled by a police officer?  

    Parent
    I have had disruptive students (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Towanda on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 12:10:04 PM EST
    owing to cellphone use or for other reasons, as well as actually threatening incidents by disturbed students.  And these were college students, many of them larger than me.  

    And I have armed state cops on campus with me -- but I never have called them to manage my classroom.

    The sheriff is correct in calling for a review with that school district about when to call the cops.  As he said, if you call the cops, they can respond by doing what cops do: arrests.  I am not interested in adding to the criminalization of campuses, schools, and above all, students.  

    (The sheriff also was correct, of course, in firing this cop for not doing what well-trained cops do first, in nonviolent situations: use their words.)

    Parent

    A 200 - 300 pound man against (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 07:12:46 AM EST
    a skinny 16 year old and he couldn't find a better alternative than body slamming her out of her desk and throwing her across the room. Are some cops, in your opinion, really that poorly trained, that stupid, violent and primitive that they cannot find a better alternative?

    As the sheriff said, what he did was against how he was trained and against his department's procedures.

    And yes, if the cop was incapable of spending a few minutes talking to the girl or taking some nonviolent action, picking up the chair and carrying it out of the room would have been a much better alternative.
     

    Parent

    Yeah, That Was the Only Option... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 10:42:49 AM EST
    ...to make a split second decision instead of discussing it with anyone.

    My parents and most parents managed to get kids, and not just their own, to do what they wanted without violence.  As a matter of fact, at 45 they still manage to get it done without threats or violence.

    I'm just glad my dad wasn't one of these types who think, like you, that violence against kids is a viable option.

    For the record, the school district, which is the principles boss' banned the cop from any school, so maybe they didn't express what should have been done, but they clearly expressed what should not be done, the very thing you are down with.  Sad really, as I don't believe anyone who defends that, was raised by reasonable people.

    Parent

    He should have done (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 03:12:14 PM EST
    this

    Parent
    She Should Be Fired... (none / 0) (#139)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 03:53:50 PM EST
    ...we can't have sensible, rational, cops not busting skulls and arresting people for crimes that didn't occur until the police show up.

    And the department should give her a good-bye beat down to show her how real police act.

    Parent

    Sadly (none / 0) (#141)
    by sj on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 04:17:56 PM EST
    Scott's sarcastic comment is an all-too-accurate paraphrase of the comments that accompany that article.

    Parent
    The Fields video and (none / 0) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 05:35:08 PM EST
    The one you linked should be included in training sessions for all new recruits and refresher courses for veteran police officers.

    The Fields video to display actions not to do because you will be fired.

    The D.C. Cop video to display creative ways to defuse a situation.

    The D.C. Cop actions should the type of policing that gets a medal.

    Parent

    Good article (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:04:38 AM EST
    ...on Deadspin, "There are no innocent Black people."

    Very appropriate.

    Parent

    Are you for real? (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 05:56:58 AM EST
    McBain: "My guess is she won't be prosecuted for her felony and will probably win a multi-million dollar settlement."

    The girl didn't throw any punch at the deputy. She was talking on her cell phone and pointedly ignored her teacher's request that she put it away and not disrupt class. In what universe is that a felony offense worthy of assault and battery by a law enforcement officer?

    >:(

    Parent

    She definitely threw a punch, Donald (1.00 / 2) (#97)
    by McBain on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 11:53:12 AM EST
    link

    The punch probably influenced the cop's use of force. She's not a good kid.  I hope she won't be treated as some kind of hero.

    Parent

    What I saw was the officer put his (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 03:49:29 PM EST
    forearm to her neck in a semi-choke hold as he prepared to flip her out of her seat, and as the desk starts to go backward, she strikes out at him.

    The officer was well into his use of force when she reflexively reacted to him.

    I guess you would have us believe that the appropriate response was for her to allow his violent actions to continue and hope that she wasn't about to be physically harmed, or have the life choked out of her.

    "She is not a good kid," means what, exactly?  Are only bad kids in foster care?  My understanding is that this girl was in foster care because her mother and grandmother had both recently died - yeah, that's bad all right.  Losing your mom and your grandma and having to go into foster care wouldn't make anyone act out, would it?

    I guess she's lucky he didn't decide to shoot her, eh?

    Parent

    Anne... (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 04:07:18 PM EST
    ...according to McBain, people should play possum when the cops show up, even like in Dallas when the girl was doing what she was told, she was still in the wrong.  

    I also love how the arrested folks are always suppose to have to validate every twitch while the people who are suppose to have control of themselves and the situation, can do whatever the F they want.  Only one person in an arrest is responsible for their actions, even though it requires two.

    IOW, cops are excused of every action because of the 'heat of the moment' while people being arrested should be in complete control.  It's like they are holding people to the degree that I always though people who enforce the law should be held to.

    I think McBain would have told the founding fathers to just shut-up and open the authorities.

    Parent

    Wish I could rate this a 10 (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by sj on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 04:20:04 PM EST
    IOW, cops are excused of every action because of the 'heat of the moment' while people being arrested should be in complete control.  


    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#143)
    by FlJoe on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 04:51:25 PM EST
    that's the apologists mantra in a nutshell.

    Parent
    Stupid Me and Spell Check... (none / 0) (#162)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 10:19:41 AM EST
    ...this:
    I think McBain would have told the founding fathers to just shut-up and open the authorities.

    Should read:
    I think McBain would have told the founding fathers to just shut-up and obey the authorities.


    Parent
    You're not allowed to strike an officer (1.00 / 4) (#146)
    by McBain on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 07:10:44 PM EST
    when he attempts to restrain or move you. Her proper response would have been to do as she was told. She put her safety and the safety of others at risk when she became disobedient and violent.  

    "She's not a good kid" means exactly what is says.  Her unfortunate family situation does not excuse her behavior.

    As others have pointed out, there may have been better ways to handle this situation than to bring in a police officer.  

    Parent

    question for McBain (none / 0) (#148)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 10:57:07 PM EST
    McBain, I have a question . . . If and when the police or sheriffs come by rounding up guns from people who have them . . . you are also "supposed" to co-operate by handing over your guns to them?  You are?  Are you?

    I realize that not handing over your guns may mean violence . . . but I also realize that police are not supposed to go around seizing guns from the general population without a warrant, but that is what they did after Katrina and perhaps in other situations . . .

    You do remember the battle of Concord?

    While there might be a general idea of not striking an officer, I am not sure it is an absolute moral rule . . .

    Parent

    Why would they seize guns from the general (none / 0) (#154)
    by McBain on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 02:30:50 AM EST
    population?  What a disaster that would be.  Aren't there organized people running around in camouflage, doing military like drills, preparing for that very day? Don't see it happening anytime soon but it sounds like a good B movie.

    I'm  not a gun person but if they came after yours, I recommend not doing anything violent.

     

    Parent

    Article does not claim what you state (none / 0) (#104)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 12:30:23 PM EST
    Why no charge of assaulting an officer?
    She definitely threw a punch, Donald


    Parent
    It's in the video (1.00 / 3) (#105)
    by McBain on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 12:39:14 PM EST
    take a look. You can see her throwing at least one punch.

    Parent
    Oh, for crying out loud, McBain. (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:13:27 PM EST
    Stop being so damned obtuse and contrary. The videos show no such thing. She didn't throw any punch. She was still seated in her desk, and she raised her arm in a vain attempt to both protect and defend herself. In no way did she instigate or deserve that violent physical attack upon her. That's entirely on Deputy Fields, which is why: (a) she wasn't charged with any crime, (b) he's been fired from his job, and (c) both the FBI and DOJ are now investigating his conduct.

    Parent
    That is What McBain Does... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:35:43 PM EST
    ...there is no other version.  He is the guy defending Warden Norton is Shawshank, if Dufresne would have just been a good little prisoner and just obeyed the corrupt law enforcers...

    He doesn't even try to pretend, for all we know he is blind, because he certainly blindly defends any cop for any action and it's clear he sees stuff even the the police department hasn't seen in the same video.

    Our resident defender of violent cops who have rage and race issues.  I am beginning to think he is a violent cop with race and race issues.  Certainly he's got some issues, he sees stuff no one else does, the violent cops whisperer.

    Parent

    Even the sheriff who fired the deputy (1.00 / 3) (#132)
    by McBain on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 03:05:54 PM EST
    admitted the girl threw a punch.  She instigated the situation with her bad behavior. The deputy messed up by flipping over the chair... that could have had horrible consequences but bad things happen when you punch a cop.  

    Parent
    The sheriff did not (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 03:38:16 PM EST
    admit the girl threw a punch. He claimed she did. Very different things.

    Parent
    Serious denial that..... (none / 0) (#114)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:18:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Rush to judgment much? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 09:41:45 PM EST
    My guess is she won't be prosecuted for her felony

    Pronounced guiltier than the cops who beat up Freddie Gray, by the guy who said that was a rush to judgment.

    and will probably win a multi-million dollar settlement.  

    Nothing says racism like a suggestion that prevailing in court over injustice is some sort of loser lottery win, only available to the dregs of society.  Because the courts, you know would totally bend over backward to award damages to this undeserving, sullen, sassy, uppity young expletive.  It's the whole reason we have courts, to reward losers.

    My Black friend got shot by a deputy who emptied his weapon in a crowded neighborhood over a TRAFFIC CITATION.  My friend "defied authority" by driving away on a suspended license violation, and for that he got shot, not exactly a measured response to a non-threat.  He is going to get paid, and we are going to party when he does, but he can't ever get un-shot.

    Parent

    If you left out the nonsense about racism (2.00 / 1) (#46)
    by McBain on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 10:13:57 PM EST
    I could take your post more seriously.  

    I don't know that she committed a felony.  It was a guess. I did see her punching the cop. Punching a cop is a felony. My guess is she won't be prosecuted for that.  

    I'm sorry your friend got shot but how do you know he wasn't a threat? Did he speed away from the cop? Car chases kill people.        

     

    Parent

    Why am I not surprised? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 12:15:18 AM EST
    Stupidity, Part One:

    I don't know that she committed a felony.  It was a guess.

    Stupidity, Part Two:

    I'm sorry your friend got shot but how do you know he wasn't a threat? Did he speed away from the cop? Car chases kill people.

    So, in both cases, you just shot your mouth off without knowing the facts.

    Nope. No surprise there.

    Parent

    do you know (none / 0) (#71)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 09:22:07 AM EST
    what she asked to leave for talking on her phone, for  texting or for surfing the net?

     How long was the alleged and hypothetical phone call, if I may ask?

    Lots of people will admit she made one or two mild mistakes . . . why would you think that the mistakes she made justify her being toppled backwards and then thrown across the room?

    Parent

    Seems to me that trying to (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 06:13:33 PM EST
    get someone to stop using their phone, in most all situations, is more disruptive than the person using their phone.

    Teacher could have told her to stop a couple of times, then made a note and knocked her grade for the class down, or there can be some provision for being marked absent if you are blatantly not paying attention in class.

    How much was she actually disturbing the other students?

    Parent

    Budget deal (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 04:30:58 PM EST
    Just passed

    Hastert pleads guilty (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 05:31:08 PM EST

    Hastert, 73, read a brief statement saying that he didn't want officials to know how he intended to spend the money he withdrew.

    The hearing got underway about 8:30 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin. Hastert was asked a series of questions about his competency to plead guilty and the rights he was giving up by doing so.

    "I understand, your honor," Hastert said. He said no one was forcing him to plead guilty.
    I just read that (none / 0) (#20)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 05:40:03 PM EST
    Lindsay Graham, that tower of frigid stupidity, just called Bernie Sanders a Commie.

    Great to be back in the '50s ain't it.

    He's My Commie, Right or Wrong. (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 06:29:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Yep. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 07:49:44 PM EST
    The Kids in the Hall called Lindsay Graham's number over 20 years ago:

    "Oh, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that this guy's some right-wing paranoid reactionary who had a horrible upbringing and whose father beat him every day with a Bible -- well, maybe that's true, but it never did me any harm!!"

    Life imitates art. LOL.

    Parent

    Lindsay Graham (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 05:48:54 PM EST
    also said he would marry Carly for her money. Why am I not surprised to hear that from him?

    Parent
    Yeah Lindsay had a few (none / 0) (#30)
    by smott on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 06:48:41 PM EST
    Zingers....the bit about Sanders going to Russia and "he never came back" got a laugh.
    But Graham just looks completely unhinged to me.

    He might just as well have answered every question by screaming "be afraid!! Be afraid!"

    Nauseating.


    Parent

    Is this supposed to be the 'grown up' (none / 0) (#39)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 08:24:39 PM EST
    GOP debate or the kiddie table?

    Parent
    I have a funny (none / 0) (#33)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 07:53:26 PM EST
    feeling that the media are poised to resurrect Jeb.

    I think they getting ready to pronounce him as the surprise winner of tonight's freak show.

    "He came out smokin'."
    "Did what he had to do."

    Things like that...

    I hope I'm wrong.
    Jeb, to me, is the most dangerous of the lot.

    Wow... (none / 0) (#37)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 08:20:07 PM EST
    Was I off base.

    These repubs are a bunch of slick mfs.

    Parent

    After tonight (none / 0) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 09:56:34 PM EST
    Jeb may officially be burnt toast.

    Can't see his money people coughing up anymore cash in the near future.

    Parent

    He looks like a prisoner of those glasses... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 10:26:18 PM EST
    Worse, J.e.b.'s dumber brother is beginning to look like the smart one.

    Parent
    Marco wiped the floor (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 11:30:05 PM EST
    with what was left of the low energy Bush.....

    Parent
    Trump slammed (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 11:33:35 PM EST
    Kasich....

    Result:  Rubio will be looking good soon.....

    Parent

    Geez, I just hate the (none / 0) (#48)
    by desertswine on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 10:28:36 PM EST
    Fox coverage of the World Series.  Those 3 mouths in the booth are nothing if not extremely annoying.  The worst thing to me are the commercials between batters.  When did they start doing that?  It won't be long and they'll have commercials between pitches..  If it wasn't for the Mets playing, I wouldn't be watching. I don't think I've ever seen worse baseball coverage.

    Good Lord d'wine... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 11:46:13 AM EST
    Fox's coverage is atrocious.  Joe Buck may be the worst baseball play by play man in America.  

    When they lost the feed in Game 1 and switched to MLB Network's international feed, I was hoping they'd never go back.  Matt Vasgersian and John Smoltz are pros.

    Then in Game 2 they try to capitalize on their epic technical Game 1 f*ck up, making a joke out of it to promote some sh*tty new Fox sitcom with Kevin Arnold and Dean Youngblood?  Is Fox for real with that sh*t?  Totally classless.

     

    Parent

    Well, he's certainly not (none / 0) (#125)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:58:48 PM EST
    anywhere near like his dad, Jack Buck.
    I grew up listening to Jack Buck call the Cardinals' games, with Harry Caray, and Joe Garagiola.
    Still miss those guys.   :-)

    Parent
    I watch (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 12:23:24 PM EST
    ...with the sound off.

    I know the rules, I understand what I am seeing, and the screen graphics fill me in on interesting stats.  When you go to the game, you just watch it, and all the announcer tells you is who the batter is.

    Parent

    Yuck, sounds horrible (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 05:23:17 AM EST
    I didn't know who was going to get the WS, but was hoping it would still be TBS. I thought they did a great job in the playoffs. Good commentary and very unintrusive. The things you mention are exactly why I rarely watch ports on TV anymore. Just can't take all the commercials and blather.

    Parent
    Bernie Calls for End to Federal Pot Prohibition (none / 0) (#56)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:10:23 AM EST
    Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders called for ending the prohibition on marijuana Wednesday evening at an event for college students at George Mason University in Northern Virginia.

    "In my view, the time is long overdue for us to remove the federal prohibition on marijuana," Sanders said to cheers. "In my view, states should have the right to regulate marijuana the same way that state and local laws now govern the sale of alcohol and tobacco."

    It's also a bit of an evolution for Sanders, who said in an interview with Yahoo! earlier this year that marijuana is a "gateway drug" that can lead to heroin and cocaine use.

    "gateway drug?"  Bernie, Bernie, Bernie...

    At least he's coming around. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 08:29:25 AM EST
    Around here, the gateway to heroin is pharmaceuticals like OxyContin and the DEA cracking down prescribers. If MJ was gateway drug, why aren't all the 50 and 60 somethings that I know who smoke (and there are lots and lots of them), aren't all junkies? I'm 56 years old and I don't know a single MJ smoker who has even so much as tried heroin.

    Parent
    The first gateway to Oxy and heroin (none / 0) (#169)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 12:29:19 PM EST
    may have been all that Ritalin, Adderall etc that young people in this country were loaded up with in the nineties..

    Parent
    I Doubt It... (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 03:38:55 PM EST
    ...those would be gateways to cocaine, not opiates.

    The gateway to opiates is opiates, one being the Walgreen version, the other being the needle version.

    I heard this on the news, in regards to pain medication, Alabama is leading the Nation with 134 prescription for every 100 people.  I can't find that anywhere to drill down on it, but I remember the numbers because it was so shocking.

    I also saw this, which I actually took a picture of:


    •    66% of traffic fatalities are caused by aggressive driving.
    •    37% of aggressive driving incidents involve a firearm.
    •    Males under the age of 19 are the most lik ely to exhibit road rage.
    •    Half of drivers who are on the receiving end of an aggressive behavior, such as horn honking, a rude gesture, or tailgating admit to responding with aggressive behavior themselves.
     I can source that.

    Parent
    Saw this and am wondering (none / 0) (#74)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 09:58:52 AM EST
    If this may not the best position to take at this time.

    To be clear I think weed should be legal, but I know most of the country is not so enlightened.

    Smacks of pandering a little, but it's to be expected of a pol.

    Parent

    actually (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 10:01:49 AM EST
    a slight majority of the country now thinks pot should be decriminalized.  Link

    Parent
    I stand corrected (none / 0) (#79)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 10:21:20 AM EST
    remains to be seen if that 51% will be voting in either the primary or the general.

    Parent
    How is (none / 0) (#87)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 10:53:30 AM EST
    this pandering?

    Who else is saying this?

    And it needs to be said.

    Parent

    Our opinions need not match (none / 0) (#89)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 11:09:01 AM EST
    IMO, pandering to the youth vote, YMMV.

    Parent
    Youth vote??? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 11:46:24 AM EST
    What country do you live in? The number I see most often lately is 58% support legalization (not decriminalization) of marijuana. As to 'youth vote', you gotta be kidding. The overwhelming majority of pot smokers I know are between 40 and 60.

    Parent
    Anecdotes aside (none / 0) (#106)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 12:51:25 PM EST
    The overwhelming majority of pot smokers I know are between 40 and 60.

    Statistics show that the numbers that increase are among what would be considered youth:

    Today it's the Democrats who are taking advantage of the ballot initiative process to push for a loosening of marijuana laws in states across the country and having some big successes. In fact, there's good evidence that while the youth vote overall stayed nearly exactly the same percentage of the electorate in 2012 as 2008, in the states where marijuana legalization was on the ballot, the 18-29 year old vote went way up:

    In 2008 young people made up just 14 percent of the vote in Colorado but this year it was 20 percent. Even more incredibly, in Washington State the youth vote went from just 10 percent of the electorate last election to 22 percent this time.

    That article also points up one of the points I'm trying to make - there is still a lot of opposition out there and it may be a little more motivated than those that "support" legalization.

    One of the states where Democrats have high hopes that the marijuana ballot initiative will result in a higher turn-out among younger people is in Florida where the party hopes to unseat the odious GOP governor Rick Scott.


    Parent
    I'm a little confused (none / 0) (#107)
    by CST on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 12:54:56 PM EST
    By your conclusion that the opposition is more motivated than the support, given the statistics you cited about increased youth turnout when it's on the ballot.  Frankly, as horrific as this is to consider, it seems like it's one of the few issues that really does in fact increase youth turnout.

    Parent
    Aside from the MJ question (none / 0) (#110)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:08:52 PM EST
    how have Dems fared in states when the initiative is on the ballot?  From my own research, aside from WA, Dems in both FL and CO lost.

    The GWU survey underscored the enthusiasm gap going into 2014 elections: 64% of Republicans say they are extremely likely to vote this year, compared with 57% of Democrats. Among young voters, who are a pillar of the Democratic base, 36% said they are extremely likely to vote.

    Also, the yute vote is only about 35% of the Dem block - according to that article.

    Parent

    I get what you're saying (none / 0) (#112)
    by CST on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:14:58 PM EST
    But it increased the percentage of youth that turned out for that election, meaning that more youth were motivated to vote for it than others were motivated to vote against it (otherwise the percentage would've remained the same).  That doesn't change the fact that youth turnout is still abysmal and that it wasn't enough to elect Dems in those two states.  But you seem to be implying that it would work against Dems, which given the demographics of the party and the turnout numbers of those elections - seems unlikely.

    Parent
    That is exactly what I'm saying (none / 0) (#120)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:30:03 PM EST
    Candidates pushing for legalization is what I'm talking about.  While the initiative passed in CO and FL, we lost a Dem senator and could not elect a Dem governor.

    That could've been because of $hitty candidates or could've been because of motivated opposition, or both, I don't know.

    Parent

    In Oregon in 2014 marijuana (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 03:43:05 PM EST
    legalization was on the ballot. It passed. In the same election both the Democratic governor and Democratic senator won reelection.

    Of course, this was in Oregon where the last Republican to be elected governor left office in January 1989.

    Parent

    We do know (none / 0) (#123)
    by CST on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:39:36 PM EST
    That the pot initiative passed in Colorado and won more than half the vote in Florida.  So I don't see how it would be due to motivated opposition to that measure.  If that was a significant portion of the vote they would've been able to defeat the measure itself.

    Also, the vote in Colorado occurred in 2012 when Obama won the state.  You might be confusing that with the 2014 election where the senator lost, but in that election pot wasn't on the ballot.

    Parent

    You're right (none / 0) (#126)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 02:00:47 PM EST
    I am confusing 2012 and 2014.  My bad.

    Nonetheless, we simply do not know whether inclusion of mj on a candidate's platform helps or hurts.  At best it's 50/50 based on evidence thus far.  Just because someone votes for the initiative, doesn't mean they'll vote for the candidate.  

    Parent

    I think the numbers suggest (none / 0) (#128)
    by CST on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 02:18:05 PM EST
    That it only helps a candidate if pot itself is also on the ballot.  And in that case it's not clear whether the position of the candidate on pot matters as much as the party.  But having pot on the ballot does increase youth turnout (relative to everyone else) and as a demographic they are more likely to vote for Dems.

    Also, the Dem who lost in Florida was the former Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, and he lost by less than 1%.  In an election that close it's anything and everything that made the difference.

    I also think when you look at the difference in Colorado between 2012 and 2014 you could certainly make a case that it had a pro-Dem impact in 2012.

    Parent

    Actually, (none / 0) (#129)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    In Colorado in 2012,around 1.3 million people voted for pot legalization, but 1.23 million voted for Obama and 1.13 million voted for Romney. Amendment 64 was more popular than Obama, b more than 50,000 votes.

    Parent
    keywords being (none / 0) (#130)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 02:44:20 PM EST
    pot itself is also on the ballot

    You could make an argument that by talking about it it's "on the ballot."  Reality though is this is a lot different than a state initiative.  Congress would have to get on board when 61% + of Republicans oppose.

    I just don't see this as helping much in a general election.

    Parent

    yea I don't disagree (none / 0) (#131)
    by CST on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 03:02:56 PM EST
    That it won't help much in a presidential general election for a candidate to take that position.  Although the numbers suggest talking about it is not the same thing - see Colorado 2014.

    I do disagree that it will help the opposition, since it hasn't been shown to do that in any form.

    I think if anything having it on the ballot in states will help Dems in those states, regardless of the particular position on the issue of said Dems.

    And JB, I know plenty of Republicans also vote for pot decriminalization, just like plenty of youth also vote for Republicans.  But it's a percentage/numbers game, and for the most part increased youth turnout helps Dems more.

    Parent

    Why (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 11:50:19 AM EST
    is it just the youth vote?

    The legalization of mj is something that concerns, or should concern, everyone.

    It is part of the dumb war on drugs that has been plaguing us for the better part of a century.

    It has criminalized thousands.
    Maybe hundreds of thousands.

    It separates citizens from the police force - which is charged with enforcement of these stupid laws - and is part of what turns what should be our protectors into our persecutors.

    This "war" is costly and futile. And dangerous.

    It is evident to me that it is not just "young people" who smoke mj. Several of our friends on this beloved blog have indicated more than a little affection for this lovely weed.

    And - it is, imho, much healthier than booze.

    Parent

    Stay low on the ladder (none / 0) (#108)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 12:55:18 PM EST
    you get no arguments from me.

    The legalization of mj is something that concerns, or should concern, everyone

    That is exactly my point - it DOES concern a lot of people.  Many, in fact that do no agree with you on the policy.  They get motivated also.  Maybe more so than those that agree with you?  Who knows?

    Parent

    why was help delayed in being sent? (none / 0) (#72)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 09:30:48 AM EST
    at 3:40 eastern time "we" were informed that the consulate was under attack.  The WH knew by 4 p.m. eastern time.

    we had forces in Croatia 3 hours away.

    why were they not sent?  Intelligence for Africa knew it was a terrorist attack.

    Clearly, you need a bigger shovel. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 12:43:03 AM EST
    :-(

    Parent
    Perhaps you should read the (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 08:10:10 AM EST
    unclassified report of the Accountability and Review Board, here.

    The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference. Senior-level interagency discussions were underway soon after Washington received initial word of the attacks and continued through the night.  The board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders.  Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response and helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans. In addition, at the State Department's request, the Department of Defense also provided a Marine FAST (Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team) as additional security support for Embassy Tripoli on
    September 12.


    Also    :

    The 2012 attacks in Benghazi have been investigated by seven different congressional committees: the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on the Judiciary, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.  These panels interviewed dozens of witnesses, reviewed tens of thousands of pages of documents, conducted multiple classified interviews and briefings, and held multiple public hearings. These committees, in addition to the independent Accountability Review Board, have issued nine reports on the attacks.

    Accountability Review Board Report

    Bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report

    Bipartisan House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Report

    Bipartisan Lieberman-Collins Senate Report

    Staff Report to House Oversight Committee Ranking Member

    Five Chairmen Staff Report to House Republican Conference

    Staff Report to House Armed Services Committee Chairman

    Staff Report to House Foreign Affairs Committee

    Staff Report to House Oversight Committee Chairman

    So, there you go: have at it.

    Parent

    The Commander of Africom (none / 0) (#159)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 09:16:46 AM EST
    And General Dempsey both testified that THEY made the decision to not send close air support because it was too risky. It doesn't do the Amb any good if you blow him up trying to save him.

    The two CIA personnel killed were SEALs. There were troops on the ground who were fighting, and they had situational awareness. The CIA did save lives that day even though four lives were lost.

    Parent

    Apparently (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 09:59:30 AM EST
    There's a bit of a push to get MA (or all of New England really) off of Eastern Standard Time, and onto Atlantic Time.  While I'd appreciate the extra hour of daylight during hours that I'd see it, I'm unsure about moving off of the same time zone as the entire east coast - which definitely provides an economic advantage.

    It has been hard to adjust (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 10:23:43 AM EST
    Moving to the east coast from Michigan (where we were still in the Eastern time I zone).  It gets so dark here early all year!  Growing up, summer was great - the sun didn't completely set until almost 10 pm, and I always thought it was weird to watch July 4th fireworks from Boston and DC at 8 pm!  Our fireworks never started before 10.  And the winter here on the east coast?  It's dark around 4:30!  Crazy!

    Parent
    Yea it's weird (none / 0) (#83)
    by CST on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 10:36:51 AM EST
    I always thought of daylight differences in a north/south way rather than an east/west way, but just reading about it - it makes a lot of sense to make the switch from a daylight perspective.  Maybe we just need the rest of the northeast to go with us!  Although New England does stick out further to the east than the rest of the coast, which exacerbates the problem.  It definitely gets rough in the winter when you just don't see any natural daylight during the week.

    Parent
    Paul Ryan (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 10:27:21 AM EST
    Just gave a speech that will have people wishing he was running for president.

    His speech had me wishing that ... (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:38:24 PM EST
    ... I had some aspirin. The guy is an walking exercise in disingenuous bullschitt.

    Parent
    I agree, but (none / 0) (#127)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 02:03:04 PM EST
    he's definitely far from the only politician who does this.  ;-)

    Parent
    I think it (none / 0) (#90)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 11:25:05 AM EST
    was Rubio who referred to giving his children a good "Christian" education.

    Makes me really queasy. To me - very un-American. But the new normal - wearing Christianity on ones sleeve. (Not what Jesus had in mind... but what did he know...)

    Of course, none of the wizards doing the questioning had a thing to say about it.

    I also must say that what a politician refers to "my plan" - I feel the my mouth moving in the shape it takes to register disgust.

    Rubio has been anointed as the big winner.
    They can have him.
    I just loved the way he talked about his humble origins - and how now he would want to limit immigrants to people with certain "skills" - and raise the age for social security benefits.

    "Fk u"  I wanted to yell at the screen.

    And - another one of those people - I don't remember which - Oh yes - It was Jeb - proudly announced that, under his "plan", those with a family of FOUR earning under 40,000 bucks a year wouldn't have to pay tax. Isn't that precious?

    ok . . . truth is (none / 0) (#134)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 03:31:33 PM EST
    in the Taylor Swift groping claim and counterclaim  .. .  lawsuit in the news . . .

    anyone have much idea what the truth is and why?

    Bad lip reading (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 06:17:42 PM EST
    Democratic debate

    Hawaii acting badly! (none / 0) (#149)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 11:29:02 PM EST
    Two gals were kissing mildly in public in a grocery store.  They were reprimanded and then attacked by a police-person who was off-duty.  One of them was thrown to the ground and they were charged with assaulting an officer--which seems a bit of a stretch . . . not sure how many women not trained as fighters wish to hit a police officer who is bigger than they are . . .

    Hawaii released them with the condition that they stay in the state, resulting in losing work and other opportunities and at times sleeping homelessly . . .  They had to pay more than $1000 each to bail .. .

    Charges of assaulting an officer were later dismissed . . .  Oh, boy . . .

    Honolulu Police Department Spokeswoman Michelle Yu told NBC News the department opened an internal investigation into the incident on Wednesday, a day after the women filed suit against Harrison and the city. . . .

    Well, that sure is great .  . .

    polanski extradition (none / 0) (#150)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 11:35:53 PM EST
    various new steps in trying to extradite polanski are in the news again . . .

    given that the girl in question has requested that the matter be dropped, I think it should be.

    Low fat diets not working (none / 0) (#153)
    by McBain on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 01:24:32 AM EST
    link

    The silly war on fat and cholesterol has been going on for decades.  This article is a step in the right direction but it still doesn't quite get it.

    Focusing on bodyweight is a bad idea. Using calories as a guide is another bad idea. It's amazing how inept our country is at preventative medicine.  

     

    you act like (none / 0) (#160)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 09:44:27 AM EST
    you are writing as if you had some secret and special knowledge of some things . . . knowledge that you have and most of the rest of society lacks . . .

    Do you wish to tell us a few more things that modern medical studies and/or research will "discover" in the next 15 years that YOU happen to know already and that most of the rest of us and most of the rest of the dumb doctors don't?

    Parent

    Information about the benefits of (none / 0) (#166)
    by McBain on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 11:00:28 AM EST
    a fatty diet have been around for a long time. I didn't have any secret knowledge, just wasn't brainwashed by the anti-fat propaganda.  

    Pretty soon, the medical community will admit, in some way, that high cholesterol (even high LDL) isn't such a bad thing. More emphasis will be placed on raising HDL and lowering inflammation.  Of course this will mean more overrated drugs.

    Another area that will probably change a bit, are the guidelines for type 2 diabetes / insulin resistance. Doctors are still waiting too long before telling people their blood sugar is too high.

    Parent

    Calories... (none / 0) (#168)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 11:45:57 AM EST
    ...are not all the same, 100 calories of protein is not the same as 100 calories of fat.  Same heat energy, but your body is a bit more complicated in that it takes a lot more energy and processes to turn most calories in fat, except, obviously fat calories.

    So for Halloween, go for the Sweet Tarts and Bottle Caps instead of the Snickers and M&M's.

    Also, muscles always uses energy, fat does not.  The more muscle you have the more calories your body naturally uses.  So maintaining your natural level of muscle, even by walking, will burn more calories than the actual walking.  IMO, this is the area where people fail the most.  There muscle mass declines and their diets are not adjusted.

    For me personally, I always though the carb diet stuff was non-sense, yeah, let's lose some weight while eating foods that clog the arteries.  Not to mention that most people doing it cheat, so they end up eating worse food than if they never dieted.

    I lover carbs, I could eat pasta and potatoes for every meal.  While I do eat meat, I don't eat much, for no other reason that is has animal fat, which is the worse thing you can possibly eat.  

    I know this is contrast to the link above, but that link is in regards to diets related to long term weight loss, I am speaking more about every day eating habits.  Know and control what you stick in your gullet and you won't have to concern yourself with what diet works best.

    Parent

    I love pasta too but it's very low (none / 0) (#181)
    by McBain on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 02:29:01 PM EST
    in nutritional value and can really spike blood sugar. Chronic high blood sugar usually means more weight and less health.   Losing/gaining weight and, more importantly, being healthy has more to do with nutrients and hormones than calories.  

    Breaking things down into fats, carbs and proteins helps but it doesn't address the micro nutrients.  You want to eat foods that are micronutrient dense (fresh vegetables, meats from healthy animals).  

    Similar thing with exercise.... calories are a very poor unit of measurement. Building and maintaining muscle and bone mass is extremely important... so is having a good amount of testosterone.  

    Walking and jogging (aerobic exercise) can "burn" calories but they won't do much for the muscles, bones and hormones.  Intense resistance training (anaerobic exercise) is the way to go.  

    Unfortunately, the health and fitness industries took a wrong turn years ago and promoted low fat diets and aerobic exercise.  Many doctors are still stuck in the 90s.  

    Parent

    moderator functioning in debates (none / 0) (#163)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 10:39:33 AM EST
    The moderator functioning in these debates seems strange to me.

    Right now, the "function" of the moderators seems to be to ask difficult, challenging, embarassing or provocative questions of various candidates.

    There are lots of "debate" formats and what "we" do not certainly not classical debate.

    1. Other candidates are certainly able and would do so if allowed to do so bring up challenges and embarassing questions or facts for their opponents or competition.  

    2. I would prefer that "moderators" had more of a fact-checking and fact-providing function, especially if and when facts are disputed between any two candidates.  If Trump and Kasich wish to argue over whether or not Kasich was on the board of Lehman when it collapsed or shortly before . . . why not let the moderator take 1 or 2 minutes on the Net and find out and tell us right then who is telling the truth and/or if "the truth" is misleading in some way.  Why not tell us the truth immediately, rather than waiting 1 or 2 days for some website to publish its fact-checking article?

    3. I find it very strange that so little attention in given in these debates to badly (at least, what I regard as badly decided) decided court decisions and what candidates believe should be done to remedy the poor decisions, whether it be through acts of Congress or through different judges.

    4. Maybe a good question should be to ask each candidate to name 5 court decisions he or she believes is flawed bad or wrong, and how or if it should be remedied.  


    also, fact-checking (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 10:47:12 AM EST
    Also,

    if and when the fact-checkers discover large errors and falsehoods or lies made by a candidate in debate x, why not bring up the fact in debate x plus one?

    "Sir, in the last debate, you said blah, bluh, bleh and in fact it is abc that is true and blah, bluh, bleh is false. The facts are here.  Do you wish to admit you were in error?"

    Where is the follow-up from one debate to the next in terms of confronting a person about his falsehoods?

    Parent

    "Springtime for Grifters" - Krugman (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 10:50:47 AM EST
    "At one point during Wednesday's Republican debate, Ben Carson was asked about his involvement with Mannatech, a nutritional supplements company that makes outlandish claims about its products and has been forced to pay $7 million to settle a deceptive-practices lawsuit. The audience booed, and Mr. Carson denied being involved with the company. Both reactions tell you a lot about the driving forces behind modern American politics.

    As it happens, Mr. Carson lied.

    He has indeed been deeply involved with Mannatech, and has done a lot to help promote its merchandise. PolitiFact quickly rated his claim false, without qualification. But the Republican base doesn't want to hear about it, and the candidate apparently believes, probably correctly, that he can simply brazen it out. These days, in his party, being an obvious grifter isn't a liability, and may even be an asset."



    Parent
    They are like little children: you ask them (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 11:15:05 AM EST
    to stop doing something, and they say - even as they are continuing to do it - "I'm not doing that."

    Do they think we're blind, or stupid, or maybe both?

    That's how I fee when these grifters - and they are grifters, make no mistake - look us right in the eye and tell us, no, they didn't do that, didn't say that.

    Near as I can tell, that's a technique that allows them to just keep doing and saying whatever they want: deny, deny, deny.  They know if they say it often enough, it will take on the veneer of truth, and the media's too lazy and/or incompetent to hang with anything, unless the name "Clinton" is attached to it.

    Parent

    well, well, well (none / 0) (#180)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 02:27:46 PM EST
    I happen to think that Carson my near favorite probably lied re Mannatech or whatever or spoke falsely and that Rubio my favorite spoke falsely about the implications of his tax plan

    and I also think that HRC has told several lies and falsehoods about Benghazi things and her email servers.

    I like Carson despite his lies and/or falsehoods because I think he is headed in the right direction  . . . though he is a bit kooky . . . and I also expect any Adventist to lie when it seems convenient.

    My question for you would be, why have a double standard about being able to recognize lies and falsehoods?

    I think the only one who is coming close to not having told lies is Sanders . . . At least I have not yet read any news reports of his lying or falsehoods.

    You believe that HRC has not told lies about Benghazi or her server . . . and she is morally different from the Republican candidates like Carson who may or may not be mixed up about his relationship to Mannatech MLM company or whatever it is?

    By the way, at least some Americans will believe that lying about a terrorist attack that left an ambassador dead is a more serious thing than lying about a supplement of unproven efficacy, one that Carson personally believes helped him.

    Parent

    I don't believe I've ever said that (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 02:46:42 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton - or any of the Democrats - are perfect, that they don't have flaws; ask anyone here and they will tell you I've been highly critical at times.

    Nine different investigations did not conclude that Clinton lied about anything, and other than repeating GOP talking points that she did, you have offered little in support of your argument.  

    There are a host of reasons why I don't put much stock in what you have to say, but it's come to this: if you think Ben Carson is "headed in the right direction," there really is nothing else you have to say that I have any interest in.

    Parent

    nine diff investigations . . . (1.00 / 1) (#189)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 03:38:49 PM EST
    Nine different Repub-led investigations . . .

    1) concluded positively that HRC has not lied about Benghazi or her server situations;

    or

    2) refrained from declaring positively either way that HRC has been lying (or has not been lying) about Benghazi and/or her server situations?

    cause it is a simple matter to check with at least some conservatives and/or Rep who do believe she has been lying and they include writers for National Review and it appears they include Rubio.

    CHRIS CUOMO (HOST): Is all the media the same?

    SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): No, of course not, all the media's not the same. But by and large, I think a great example of it is last week. There was this testimony before the Benghazi committee, and in that testimony it was revealed that Hillary Clinton knew early on and was telling her family and telling her friends that the attack on the consulate was by terrorists, Al Qaeda-like terrorists. And yet for a week, not just her, but a lot of people in the administration, were going around telling the families of the victims and the American public that it was due to a video. And the reason why they did that is because they were in the midst of the presidential election in which the president was arguing that Al Qaeda was defeated and on the run. And that reality, of what truly happened in Benghazi, it countered that narrative. Well that was revealed last week, and yet the media around the country hailed her performance as incredible, the best week of her campaign. I thought it was the week she was exposed as lying about Benghazi. And it's going to be a major issue in this election. For me it was an example of the bias.

    Washington Post: There Is Not "Enough Evidence" For Rubio "To Label Clinton A Liar." In an October 30 article, The Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler wrote that Clinton did not "deliberate[ly]" deceive the public but rather that evolving intelligence reports "caused confusion." Kessler asserted that Rubio "does not have enough evidence to label Clinton a liar":

    *

    Oh, boy, oh, boy, Clinton spoke wrongly and falsely but we are not yet sure we have enough evidence to call her falsehoods a lie . . .  She "told the truth" to her daughter in email within hours but somehow told other stories with other implications to the public for several days . . .

    Our African Intelligence knew immediately it was a terrorist attack . . .  I am not sure who else might have been telling her otherwise--Did Obama lie to Clinton and Clinton repeat a lie by Obama?

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by FlJoe on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 04:12:09 PM EST
    still have not quoted a single lie she spoke, all you can is point to someone saying she lied, who points to someone else saying she lied and on an on , a circle jerk of misinformation.

    Just a link and a quote, no hearsay please.

    Parent

    lets start here . . . (1.00 / 1) (#194)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 04:35:15 PM EST
    "Some [who, precisely, might that have been? where?] have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."

    hrc at 10:08 p.m. Eastern time 9/11/12.

    The attack had started at about 3:30 p.m. Eastern time.

    Now it may be that someone somewhere did justify the attack on that basis--Is it ok to ask who and when and what is our/her source for the claim?

    Also, where I am from, if a person asks you a question and you point in the wrong direction, that is considered lying, even if you did not say anything.  Do you wish to consider pointing in the wrong direction a lie, or do you wish to call it something else?

    z

    Parent

    Yep, you definitely need a bigger shovel. (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 05:30:11 PM EST
    You've still provided no direct or concrete evidence whatsoever to back up any of your mindless speculation about Benghazi. Your rote recitation of the same fact-free hoo-hah over and again doesn't make it any more truthful the last time you repeated it, then it was the very first time you first said it. At this point, you're trolling the issue and wasting TL bandwidth.

    Parent
    You didn't watch and haven't read (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 06:28:38 PM EST
    the transcript of her testimony, or the reports on the nine investigations - bipartisan investigations - so you pull a line here and an opinion there and think you know what the fk you're talking about.  You don't:

    CLINTON: Well, I wrote a whole chapter about this in my book, Hard Choices. I'd be glad to send it to you, Congressman, because I think the insinuations that you are making do a grave disservice to the hard work that people in the State Department, the intelligence community, the Defense Department, the White House did during the course of some very confusing and difficult days.

    There is no doubt in my mind that we did the best we could with the information that we had at the time. And if you'd actually go back and read what I said that night...

    JORDAN: I have.

    CLINTON: ... I was very -- I was very careful in saying that some have sought to justify. In fact, the man that has been arrested as one of the ringleaders of what happened in Benghazi, Ahmed Abu Khattala, is reported to have said it was the video that motivated him.

    None of us can speak to the individual motivations of those terrorists who overran our compound and who attacked our CIA annex. There were probably a number of different motivations.

    I think the intelligence community, which took the lead on trying to sort this out, as they should have, went through a series of interpretations and analysis. And we were all guided by that.

    CLINTON: We were not making up the intelligence. We were trying to get it, make sense of it, and then to share it.

    When I was speaking to the Egyptian prime minister or in the other two examples you showed, we had been told by Ansar al-Sharia that they took credit for it. It wasn't until about 24 or more hours later, that they retracted taking credit for it.

    JORDAN: Secretary Clinton...

    CLINTON: We also knew, Congressman, because my responsibility was what was happening throughout the region, I needed to be talking about the video, because I needed to put other governments and other people on notice that we were not going to let them get away with attacking us, as they did in Tunis, is they did in Khartoum.

    And in Tunis there were thousands of protesters who were there only because of the video, breaching the calls of our embassy, burning down the American school. I was calling everybody in the Tunisian government I could get, and finally, President Marzouki sent his presidential guard to break it up. There were -- is example after example. That's what I was trying to do, during those very desperate and difficult hours.

    JORDAN: Secretary Clinton -- if I could, Mr. Chairman -- Secretary Clinton, you said my insinuation. I'm not insinuating anything. I'm reading what you said. Plain language. We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. That's as plain as it can get; that's vastly different than vicious behavior justified by Internet material.

    Why didn't you just speak plain to the American people?

    CLINTON: I did. If you look at my statement as opposed to what I was saying to the Egyptian prime minister, I did state clearly, and I said it again in more detail the next morning, as did the president.

    I'm sorry that it doesn't fit your narrative, Congressman. I can only tell you what the facts were. And the facts, as the Democratic members have pointed out in their most recent collection of them, support this process that was going on, where the intelligence community was pulling together information.

    And it's very much harder to do it these days than it used to be, because you have to monitor social media, for goodness's sakes. That's where the Ansar al-Sharia claim was placed. The intelligence committee did the best job they could, and we all did our best job to try to figure out what was going on, and then to convey that to the American people.

    There were no lies.  There was a lot going on all at once, on a number of fronts; the situation was fluid, as was the information that was coming in.  

    But what am I bothering for?  You'll just find another little sound bite, another snippet of something, and you'll act like you just found the Holy Grail.  

    I'm beginning to think that even wearing a thong, you couldn't find your a$$ with both hands.

    Parent

    Easy (none / 0) (#203)
    by FlJoe on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 08:26:01 PM EST
    Fact: There were demonstrations and attacks occurring all across the Muslim world that were definitely linked to the video all justified by plenty of of people.

    The construction and language of the statement never really directly links the video to the attack. Justified smoke and mirrors at worst.

     

    Do you wish to consider pointing in the wrong direction a lie, or do you wish to call it something else?
    Sometimes it's called for. First of all this is the SD, diplomats you understand, that's what they do(by the way mostly for foreign consumption). More importantly, considering the feces was still flying in Benghazi and across the Muslim world, Hillary's first duty was to protect her staff across the globe, actually it would have been irresponsible for her or anybody to lay out what they really know in the heat  of battle.

    Bottom line is by 10:08, there was nothing to be gained by shouting "terrorism"(and possibly inspire copycats and/or compromise intelligence ) and plenty to be gained by addressing the widespread turmoil caused by the video(at least on the diplomatic level).

    Hillary never directly blamed the videos for the attack, much less in any way described it as arising out of "spontaneous demonstration" as                                                      

    Parent

    Because God is a Republican (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 12:52:28 PM EST
    he's willing to overlook minor faults like unfettered greed, lying-through-one's-teeth, hypocrisy and sanctimony -- as long as one still speaks up for the unborn and is willing to force one's self in between two men having sex.

    Parent
    That was immediately fishy to me (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 02:15:54 PM EST
    I had a friend involved in Mannatech - it is a "multilevel marketing" scheme,as I recall. Those groups never just hire a speaker or advertising model that is outside the group.

    It's like if Tom Cruise said he was not really a Scientologist, but rather just appears on their brochures and speaks at their meetings.

    Parent

    If you think that was fishy, (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 02:22:30 PM EST
    this just blows my mind:

    Carson even credited the supplements as being powerful enough that he didn't need surgery for advanced prostate cancer. Dallas Weekly reported in a 2004 interview that Carson "said his decision to have a medical procedure resulted from his concern for those people who might neglect traditional medical procedures because they had learned of his personal experience with supplements."

    The neurosurgeon told Dallas Weekly that he had his prostate removed to be a role model.

    "I knew that other people with my condition might not have been as religious about taking the supplements as I had been," Carson said.

    I mean, is that a sacrifice, or what?  Or maybe he didn't believe in the product as much as he says he did...

    No matter how you look at it, this man is off his freakin' rocker.

    Parent

    TCM (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 12:35:27 PM EST
    Is doing Hammer today.

    Happy Halloween

    This may have been pointed out before (none / 0) (#171)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 12:44:17 PM EST
    Now the interesting factoid about the Rubio & Cruz likeness may have more relevance as the political season continues.  A funny factoid: At or near the front part of the Repub primary pack are two 44 yr old Latino males from Cuba who are currently Senators ... and, I would add, that both Rubio & Cruz continue their similarities with a bit of the open distaste for the Senate (their jobs) mixed with rightwing crazy. Yet, imo, they differ slightly in that Cruz uses drawn-out didactic demagoguery as a favored technique, whereas Mr. Rubio has fashioned quick-talking, smooth deceits as his weapon of choice.

    I did not picture them the same age at all (none / 0) (#176)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 02:10:21 PM EST
    I thought Cruz was at least 50. I guess his advanced demagoguery skills fooled me. This race is getting more and more interesting. My immediate assumption when I heard about Cruz a few years ago was that his heritage was from Mexico or South America - it is really telling that the GOP frontrunners with Latino heritage are both from Cuba. Not surprising given the history, but telling. I am interested to see how much widespread appeal they have to other Latino voters.

    Parent
    Cuban-Americans are not at all politically ... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 02:32:27 PM EST
    ... representative of Latino voters as a whole, because their subset tends to skew much farther to the right of the spectrum. Purely anecdotal, but most of my Tejano in-laws in south and west Texas have already dismissed Ted Cruz as a dangerously unbalanced demagogue, and Marco Rubio as an opportunistic grifter.

    Parent
    And, the battles of the past (none / 0) (#198)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 05:51:23 PM EST
    The long-time Cuban divide vis-à-vis Castro and Batista often carried over here with the earlier Cuban exiles who did not want the largesse they realized under the Batista regime to end.  Miami became replete with that outlook and continues among some even as the battles of the past in Cuba have given way to Fidel Castro's successors in reality; and, outside of the Florida contingent, we have the fiery father of Ted Cruz who seems to filter politics through the old Cuban battles of his past.

    Those old battles die hard for the likes of the offspring, Cruz & Rubio ... and, as I recall, they still stand apart from most others in the US today on the matter of the new opening in diplomatic relations with Cuba.  (As Donald notes here as well, the Cuban community in Miami & environs has been conservative with large Republican turnout for years; tho, I understand that the younger progeny are changing in that regard.)

    Parent

    OH my (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 12:51:49 PM EST

    The Republican National Committee has pulled out of a planned Feb. 26 debate with NBC News after widespread criticism of this week's CNBC debate from both the party and campaigns.

    "We are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus wrote in a letter to NBC News Chairman Andrew Lack.



    I saw that announcement & wondered (none / 0) (#175)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    How far the Repubs would go ... because, as we all know, they typically demonstrate a going-too-far tendency.  Clearly, the media plays gotcha games; and, yes, the media questioners in this debate seemed to carry the cheap-tricks routine so far as to allow for a strong pushback by the candidates.  But ... how far can the Repubs (who, imo, don't take kindly to most questions whether fair or unfair) go with this theme?  Can or should they begin to expel all but known friendly media networks/personnel, etc.?  Can they reinforce their inaccurate "liberal media" chant to get contributions to continue their various campaigns?

    Will they all morph into Jeb's "I should take my marble and go home" from these meanies? IOW, will the Repubs do their programmed overreach after expelling NBC?  If so, then we won't have <fill in the blank> to kick around anymore ... ah, the memories!

    Parent

    Whatever the outcome (none / 0) (#192)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 04:21:26 PM EST
    ... the process will be fun to watch.

    Remember, this is the party that wants to rig elections that they can't win any other way.  Winning is much more important to them than actual democracy.

    If all you have is a hammer, you have to hit something with it to make it useful.  If all you have to win elections is rigging the process, that is the means that will be applied.  But this is the GOP primary, and all the others use the same strategy!  It can't work for everyone.

    The GOP nominating process is a game show like Survivor or Last Bachelor Standing, a process of one by one voting The Biggest Losers off the island, with elements of a horror film, with everyone wondering who will be eaten next and which of them is the homicidal maniac.

    Parent

    Exorcism live at 9 (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 12:56:10 PM EST
    Welcome to "Exorcism: Live!" airing at 9 p.m. Friday on Destination America, a cable channel owned by Discovery Communications. The two-hour telecast tasks a clergyman, a psychic and the team from the network's "Ghost Asylum" series to go into the spooky suburban St. Louis home that inspired "The Exorcist" book and movie. Ghost hunters insist that the house is filled with a dark, sinister energy, and "Exorcism: Live!" is determined to cleanse it.
    I can't wait (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 04:24:34 PM EST
    ...to see the kid's head spin around.

    Parent
    That sounds perfect for the type of audience ... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    ... which regularly tunes into shows that meticulously document their producers' never-ending quest for Bigfoot.
    ;-D

    Parent
    karma (none / 0) (#186)
    by thomas rogan on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 03:22:21 PM EST

    Spare me.

    link (none / 0) (#187)
    by thomas rogan on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 03:22:53 PM EST
    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/exclusive-manhattan-man-beatdown-insulting-cops-suit-a rticle-1.2417114

    Parent
    after a fairly public falling out (none / 0) (#188)
    by CST on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 03:34:39 PM EST
    With founder Bill Simmons, ESPN is officially cancelling grantland.

    Link

    And yes, the public falling out was over deflategate.  Which - whatever your opinions on the subject or writer itself - it feels really off that they fired one of their most popular writers because he strongly and loudly disagreed with the league.  Bill Simmons will be just fine I imagine, as he's moving on the HBO sports, but there were a lot of other good writers on that site (including Charlie Pierce) who will likely now be out of a job (not including Charlie Pierce).

    More 6 degrees of separation for y'all via Dadler (none / 0) (#199)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 05:51:41 PM EST
    Today it's Taylor swift, but I somehow am connected to the famous and infamous in many odd ways, as we all are I suppose. Just last week, I caught one of my old university chums, Vince Brown, now a Harvard history prof, waxing eloquent on the PBS Slavery documentary. And now here comes another college friend, in a situation not exactly full of any eloquent wax. He was quite the character in college, and for the last decade he's also organized the fantasy baseball and football leagues that myself and bunch of other UCSD guys I know play in. We were all kind of wondering why he didn't start up the fantasy football league this season. Now we know. Egad. (link)

    Wednesday Open Thread | 203 comments (203 topical)