home

Saturday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 07:01:50 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.

< What Will U.S. Do With Umm Sayyaf? | U.S. Targets and Kills Algerian AQ Terrorist in Libya >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saturday Open Thread | 207 comments (207 topical)
    I just watched on YouTube (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 09:01:29 PM EST
    the film, "Point of Order", which is a filmed record of the Army-McCarthy hearings.

    It was gripping.

    Here is the link.

    I wish we could have hearings now about what Bush and Cheney knew and when they knew it.

    I would really like to see that.
    Live.
    On television.

    Well, in among all the death and killing, (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 10:20:30 PM EST
    and electoral politics and other depressing stuff, I am very happy to report that I'm going to be a Grammy again!  Our older daughter is due to give birth at the end of December, so our 2 1/2 yr old grandson will have a brother or sister in about 6 months - although he doesn't know that yet!

    We're all very excited, of course, although my daughter didn't exactly plan for another December baby - this one was helped by the intestinal virus that she thinks had her throwing up her birth control pill for a couple days - something she didn't put together until after they were looking at a positive pregnancy test...

    She'll know in about 8 weeks whether it's a boy or a girl - so more exciting news to come!

    Congratulations (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 10:23:20 PM EST


    Parent
    What great news. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 10:37:44 PM EST
    Congratulations to your daughter and son-in-law. And to the proud grandparents, also.

    Parent
    congratulations, Anne, to you (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 11:26:01 PM EST
    & your family

    we certainly do enjoy our two boy critters, 3 years old and 9 months old, even if the younger one did go through a phase of gnashing his tooth at us

    Parent

    Congrats Grammy! (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by desertswine on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 11:27:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Thanks, everyone! (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 11:47:48 PM EST
    This grandparenting thing is just the best - and we're so lucky to have our children close by, and be able to spend a lot of time with them and their babies...our younger daughter's baby boy is almost 8 months old, and he's a little boy with a motor now - crawling, standing, wants to be everywhere at once.  The 2 1/2 year old never stops talking - we have these long conversations now, peppered with the inevitable "Why?" about all of it.

    Really, just a wonderful experience that we're so glad to be soaking up!

    Parent

    Many congratulations, Anne, (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Zorba on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 02:57:19 PM EST
    To you, your daughter and her husband, the "big brother to be" and the rest of your family.
    You are so lucky to have them close by, Grandma.  And they are lucky to have a grandmother close by who can help them out with babysitting and such.
    The two siblings and their cousin will all be pretty close in ages, and will essentially grow up together.  My siblings and I were very, very close to our cousins.  We got together all the time, not just holidays, but many times in between.  The extended family parties/dinners/picnics and just casual get-togethers, were frequent, and fun.  The cousins were all like siblings.
    Many, many years later, we are all still close, even though we live in various parts of the country now.
    I treasure those times when I was growing up.

    Parent
    PS (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Zorba on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 03:00:36 PM EST
    Although, to be perfectly honest, I'm sure there were times when we all got together when all the parents thought that they were raising a pack of young, unruly wolf cubs.  Ahem.  ;-)
    But we had great times.

    Parent
    Congrats.... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by unitron on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 01:21:53 AM EST
    ...I feel reasonably safe in saying that the kid has already won the grandma lottery.

    Parent
    That's wonderful news, Anne. (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 04:14:26 AM EST
    Looks like we'll both be welcoming a grandchild at about the same time, although ours is tentative scheduled for a mid-December arrival.

    We've completed our move and are now officially Hilo residents, although we're still settling in. Elder Daughter is going to convert her old bedroom at the townhouse in Kuliouou to a nursery. My mother is over there right now, helping her with wedding arrangements, and then they're all coming over here next weekend for our housewarming.

    Exciting times ahead. It's great for your daughter that you're close by, and I'm sure she'll welcome her mother's assistance with both her newborn and her young son. I feel kind of bad that we're not going to be living close to Elder Daughter, but we're only a 50-min. flight apart, and my wife is planning on spending three weeks there in December to help with the baby after he or she is born. So it looks like we'll be spending the holidays on Oahu.

    Congratulations to your entire family.

    Parent

    My sister who is a couple in years older than you (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 06:02:35 AM EST
    i guess is about tho become a GREAT grandma for the first time.  This is the one who had the recent serious health problems so it's sort of doubly great for her.

    Around the same time.  Late in the year.

    Parent

    Congrats! (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by CST on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 10:13:31 AM EST
    In about a week I'll be an aunt for the third time.  My parents only had girls, and so far, the next generation is all boys.  This will be the first one for my middle sister, my older sister has 2 already.

    It's amazing how going from 1 to 2 little kids around changed the dynamic of family gatherings, I imagine the third will further that.  There's officially a new "kids" group that no longer includes my sisters and I.

    Parent

    Congratulations, auntie! (none / 0) (#160)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 10:57:15 AM EST
    Like being a grandparent, being an aunt is pretty special.  The best part is being able to be a presence in these little ones' lives, watching them grow and change and having your own relationship with them that can be a source of support both for them and for your sisters.

    When and if parenthood is in your future, you're going to be an expert!

    Parent

    thanks! (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by CST on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 11:32:27 AM EST
    For now, I'm happy just playing the aunt role.  You can give them back at the end of the day :)

    Parent
    Congrats (none / 0) (#200)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 02:21:11 PM EST
    Grandchildren are one of lives great treasures.

    Parent
    The Festival Flamenco Internacional... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by desertswine on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 12:13:47 AM EST
    winds down tonite.  This year we had the pleasure of seeing Pastora Galvan and this guy, who was absolutely electric. I'm already looking forward to next year.  

    Standing up for your rights in the face of police (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 11:16:14 AM EST
    Apparently I am the only white person on this forum who has firsthand experience with cops violating rights and lying in official reports.  I was acquitted in a traffic case (seatbelt violation) when I demonstrated to the court's satisfaction that a "professional law enforcement officer" had lied his a$$ off to the court because he was trying to screw me over.

    I loved the judge's comment in acquitting me.  "Officer X, I do not find your testimony credible.  Mr. Kelly, you are free to go."

    That (seatbelt) citation was from the same traffic stop in which a deputy acting as "backup," who had already "frisked" my two Black passengers informed me that he was going to frisk me, which of course would have been a 4th Amendment violation just as it was when he frisked my passengers.  Since you can't get your rights back by being "un-frisked," it was incumbent upon me to defend my rights before he did so.

    You only have seconds to come up with a response, or you are going to get frisked.  It is important to take immediate psychological control of such situations.  I told him in a commanding voice, "You are going to keep your @#$% hands to yourself!"  

    That stopped him in his tracks long enough for me to finish.  I took off my shirt, pulled up my pants cuffs, and dropped my pants and shorts to the ground, showing him that the only weapon I had was no danger to him.  When I did that my passengers and the CHP who had pulled me over couldn't help laughing.

    The purpose of a "frisk" of a non-dangerous subject is just to show him who is boss.  He had already run a warrant check and knew that I was 63 years old, no warrants, no criminal record, never even been arrested.  I had been cited for a seatbelt violation, which does not confer reasonable suspicion that I might be armed.  

    My unexpected response had turned the psychological tables, and now Black men and a fellow officer were laughing at the deputy.  Only time in my life I ever made a police officer cry.  Even more satisfying than seeing that, was beating the citation later in court and hearing the judge tell the CHP officer that he had lied to the court.

    Does anyone else here stand up for their rights?

    BTW, first question I heard when the CHP looks into my truck and sees an old hippie and two young Black men was, "Any weapons or drugs in the vehicle?"  Do white people driving BMWs hear that question?

    "Apparently I am the only white person... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by desertswine on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 01:29:22 PM EST
    ...on this forum who has firsthand experience with cops violating rights and lying in official reports."
    You are not, sir.  But I don't feel like getting into all of that right now.

    Parent
    Been (none / 0) (#66)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 01:47:22 PM EST
    there myself.

    Parent
    When you add up all the pre-cellphone (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 03:25:02 PM EST
    stories about cops treating people like $$$t to all the cellphone videos (now) of cops treating people like $$$t, you've gotta wonder if there are more than "just a few bad apples."

    Parent
    no, you are not (none / 0) (#55)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 12:53:48 PM EST
    Apparently I am the only white person on this forum who has firsthand experience with cops violating rights and lying in official reports.

    ask your friends who were gay before it was cool

    raids on bars, raids on baths, cops routinely taking down license numbers of cars parked at same, cops producing false warrants & dragging people out of same, cops with nightsticks coming into same & bashing heads, off-duty cops coming into gay neighborhoods at night & working people over

    & lying about all of it

    Parent

    Friend are Relative. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 02:15:37 PM EST
    ask your friends who were gay before it was cool

    My brother, you mean.  But he isn't on this forum.

    Now he gets to marry his boyfriend, and that seems like progress.  Black kids are still getting killed, and that doesn't.

    Parent

    Was anyone arrested? (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 01:05:35 PM EST


    Parent
    "Was Anyone Arrested?" (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 02:27:31 PM EST
    For a seatbelt violation?  It's not even a moving violation, it's more like a $50 parking ticket.

    I never get arrested, but because of the (cough*Black*cough) company I keep, I get a lot of interaction with police that other people manage to avoid.

    Backing down isn't my style, especially when the rights violation, such as a "frisk," can't be undone.  Allowing somebody to put his hands on me without permission is huge in my book, and I would have to be arrested for that to happen.  So far I haven't been, after something like five decades of challenging police.

    Parent

    Of course no one was arrested (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 02:46:23 PM EST
    for a seatbelt violation. To be more clear, it it correct that no person in that car was arrested?

    Parent
    There was no crime, so no arrest (none / 0) (#155)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 10:45:02 AM EST
    To be more clear, it it correct that no person in that car was arrested?

    The "charge" was a seatbelt violation.  You don't get arrested for that, but if you are Black, you get frisked.  Even if you are just there and are not cited.

    Two of us were cited for seatbelt violations, myself (the driver) and the shotgun passenger.   I was acquitted when I challenged mine in court, and the court found that the officer was a lying sack of...acquittal.

    The third party, a 25 year old Black man who had never been arrested, was not cited for a seatbelt violation, but he was asked for ID, warrant checked, removed from the vehicle and frisked.  Just because he was there.

    Not cited.  No warrants.  No police record of any kind.  Removed from the vehicle and frisked.

    Interestingly, when the deputy told him to step out of the car to be frisked, he announced that he was removing his pocket knife from his pocket and placing it on the dash very...slowly.  Never been arrested, but he already knew what it was like to be Black in the face of police.

    When the deputy told me to get out of the vehicle to be frisked, things went in a different direction.  I was already plenty mad about seeing my friends frisked, but when he told me it was my turn, I went from pretty hot to "surface of the sun" hot.

    I had a box cutter in my pocket when I stepped out of the vehicle, and instead of placing it slowly on the dash, I threw it on the ground at the deputy's feet before I started disrobing.

    Parent

    You were were correct. But probably (none / 0) (#157)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 10:50:06 AM EST
    foolhardy, given how this
    could
    have turned out.

    Parent
    Get up, Stand up! Don't Give Up the Fight! (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 11:45:11 AM EST
    You were were correct. But probably foolhardy, given how this

        could

    have turned out.

    As I have pointed out repeatedly, once your rights are gone there is no remedy.  If preventing a violation gets me arrested I'll take my chances in court.

    So we're clear, what rights violation would it take on the part of a police officer for you to stand up for YOUR rights and risk arrest for doing so?

    I don't even show identification if the cop isn't entitled to it, and I know when he/she is or isn't.

    (Tangential comment): In the seatbelt event under discussion, after the officer asked whether the old hippie and two young Black men might have weapons or drugs, he asked me whether I had been wearing my seatbelt, which was then in place, when I passed his vehicle.  I cited the Fifth Amendment and did not respond to the question.

    Later in his court testimony, he told the judge that he had asked me directly whether I was in violation, "...and Mr. Kelly 'took the Fifth.'"

    The judge looked at me and gave me a big smile.  I might have won the case then and there, because the officer attempted to use my rights in testimony against me.  But the officer was also lying about other aspects of the traffic stop, which was the reason given by the judge for the acquittal.


    Parent

    I wasn't worrying you (none / 0) (#189)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 01:19:23 PM EST
    might be arrested. But the consequences of making physical movements other than those requested by a law enforcement officer when law enforcement has stopped your vehicle are sometimes fatal. Risky to pull that box cutter out of your pocket and drop your pants.

    Parent
    And that is so very, very wrong (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by sj on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 12:06:03 PM EST
    You were were correct. But probably (none / 0) (#157)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 09:50:06 AM MDT

    foolhardy, given how this

    could

     have turned out.
    On so many, many levels. Nothing personal to you oc because lots of people here are exhibiting, but the acceptance of mistreatment implied in that attitude both make me furious and drive me to despair.

    Parent
    I got pulled over (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 06:05:46 PM EST
    for no good reason.  I was sitting at a red light,  where I had just come off the freeway and I was trying to turn left onto a divided highway. To my left - across the median and two lanes that entered onto the freeway - was a traffic accident with a fire truck on the scene. The firemen were out of the vehicle and on the grass.  

    When the light turned green, the two cars ahead of me turned left and I followed.  A cop was standing near the parked firetruck to our left and was screaming at us.  I happened to make eye contact with him and he signaled me to pull over.

    When I pulled over, I was nervous because I was driving my sister's car and the glove box (where her registration and proof of insurance were kept) was locked and I didn't have the key. The cop approached my window and I did everything you are supposed to do - put my hands on the the wheel, looked at him as he approached and was very respectful.  He came up to me and started screaming and dropping f-bombs and telling me I almost ran over a firefighter as I passed in front of an emergency vehicle (which would have been a good trick, since said vehicle and firefighter were two lanes away from me and there was also a median between us).  He was screaming that he was writing me up and it was going to be serious.

    I didn't say anything to him, although I was shaking inside.  At some point, he realized he was being a complete out-of-control a$$ and apologized for swearing, although he was still screaming at me.  Finally, the bull$hit meter in my head went off as he kept telling me that what I did should give me 6 points on my license, and it was then I realized he wasn't writing the ticket. If what I supposedly did was so egregious, I should have had a ticket.  

    He finally let me go with a warning, although I still have no idea what I did.  When I told my dad what had happened, he asked if I got the cop's badge number.  I didn't, but whatever.  He was a guy having a bad day, he was an a$$hole, or he was an a$$hole having a bad day.

    But had I smarted off to him or been just as big an a$$hole, I firmly believe I would have had a ticket written and probably a whole lot more.  

    Parent

    A Couple Things... (none / 0) (#165)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 11:28:41 AM EST
    ...to answer the last question, this white guy purposely bought a new X5 at the height of my partying days with the assumption that I would not get pulled over since at the time, I was riding dirty nearly all the time.  It worked, I never got pulled over in 8 or 9 years I owned that vehicle.  At the front end I was out at all hours in all kinds of bad shape.  And for 3 of the years, I dated a girl whose ex was a cop who worked the late shift in my area.  Even though I never met the man, he was instrumental in my shift from driving to calling cabs later in the relationship.

    My feeling has always been look like the guy who can afford to make a big deal out of the routine and they will go after the person who won't fight back.  I have an incident right before that with my Range Rover in which I was seriously rolling and ended up with a ticket at 3am for driving on the sidewalk.  Not as bad as it sounds, I couldn't figure how to get out of a parking lot and drove over the sidewalk to get on the street.  I have no doubt had I been in my current truck, I would have went to jail.

    FYI, I haven't driven messed up in probably 5 years.

    I think anyone who grew in a small town has had their rights messed with, and often.  But I think anyone who has been to traffic court understand cops lie like it's procedure.  It probably is in traffic court as now one can remember the kind of details they seem to recollect with precision 3/6/9 months later, depending how long your lawyer delays it hoping they won't show.

    I was once detained in Texas, on the way to Mexico, and an impromptu court was set-up in a board room like office.  Me, my friend, the Sheriff, and the judge where I proceeded to get my a$$ chewed for at least an hour about the dangers of speeding, how I was too old to go to spring break(which I wasn't, but I couldn't tell them I was going to Mexico for prescription meds), and how I should spend the weekend in jail for being smart.  Luckily a fugitive was brought in and they let my friend go get $400 from the ATM and I was able to walk.  My crime, I passed a marked cop going 65mph in a 65mph zone, the cop claimed he was going 70mph and I was doing 75mph.  Apparently pointing out that the cop admitted to speeding was all it took to put the non-sense in action.  All in all, I would say it was a 2 hours rights violation and straight up threats.  I did write a letter to the the ACLU and copied the judge and sheriff in my correspondence.

    Later, Dick Cheney would shoot a man in the same one land owner county.

    Parent

    Here's a picture of a hippo... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by desertswine on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 10:24:09 PM EST
    in downtown Tbilisi, Georgia.  Flooding has been responsible for killing a number of people and releasing some zoo animals.  This hippo was lost and scared, then tranquilized via dart and re-captured.
    Good thing he wasn't in Cleveland.

    Happy Anniversary Magna Carta (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 01:24:43 PM EST
    Exactly 800 years ago, in June 1215, feudal barons gathered outside London to define and limit the powers of King John, forcing him to affix his royal seal to the charter. As Harrison explained: "It is the foundation of the rule of law. Magna Carta established for the first time that everybody was subject to the law, and that nobody, not even the king, was above that law." It was also the foundation of human rights. "Nobody should be able to compromise the demand of justice because that is what we build peace on in our world," said the Very Reverend June Osborne of Salisbury Cathedral.

    1 -- Magna Carta -- meaning "Great Charter" in Latin -- paved the road to modern democracy, granting every citizen individual freedoms and laying the foundation for constitutional rights and parliament.

    2 -- The charter was the first document declaring that the king or queen had to abide by the laws of the land.

    3 -- Trial by jury was defined in Magna Carta.

    4 -- Due process was defined in Magna Carta to prevent King John from prosecuting people unless they had broken laws.

    5 -- Magna Carta stated that the king could only punish people "in accordance with the gravity of the offense."

    LINK

    I can't even imagine how revolutionary these ideas must have been in 1215.  

    It's the Jimakappj thread (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 06:57:15 PM EST
    31 posts.

    Oy.

    With Mody right behind him at 24 (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 07:31:49 PM EST
    Oy is right.

    Well since it's an open thread and (2.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 08:32:07 PM EST
    people seem to want to debate police actions.

    FLjoe wrote:

    You assert (that'd be me)that it was a lawful order, I am not so sure it was.  My understanding is Police only have limited authority to order citizens to leave public areas.

    My belief is that the police have the legal right to break up/disperse crowds when it is obvious things are out of control or are getting that way.

    And that was obviously happening.

    By all accounts this cop was an out of control bully from the get go, this brave girl stood up to that bully, she stood up for her rights, she stood up for our rights. She is a true patriot unlike all the police state apologists that inhabit the airwaves and audience of FNN.

    Now, as I have written, I believe the girl acted incorrectly and the police acted incorrectly.

    She isn't a hero and neither is the cop.

    Unfortunately all this defense of her is sending the wrong message and someone is going to get seriously injured because of that. And you are one of the ones contributing.

    The following has been said a thousand different ways.

    When confronted by a policeman follow orders. If you are being treated wrongly you will have ample time to sue/charge through your lawyer.

    People have a hard time seeing more than (none / 0) (#4)
    by McBain on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 08:56:45 PM EST
    one thing at a time.  If they see an out of control cop, they will ignore the bad behavior of everyone else.

    People will complain that the officer "escalated" the situation.... that's the new buzz word, I guess.  But no one likes to admit the kids, and a few adults, were the ones who really escalated things. The more I see/read about this event, the less critical I am of officer Casebolt.  It appears he was sacraficed (forced resignation) to appease the mob.

     

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 09:37:16 PM EST
    say
    The more I see/read about this event, the less critical I am of officer Casebolt. The more I see/read about this event, the less critical I am of officer Casebolt.
    leaving aside your made up "facts" are you asserting that Casebolt was not as out of control as most people think or are you suggesting that his actions were somehow justified by the "bad behavior" of the bikini brigade?  

    Parent
    Both (2.00 / 1) (#16)
    by McBain on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 10:31:03 PM EST
    Can you state which facts I "made up"?  Didn't think so.  

    Parent
    You (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 06:02:57 AM EST
    Pulled this one  
    the kids, and a few adults, were the ones who really escalated things.
    out of nowhere.

    You state you opinion as fact in virtually every post you make.

    Parent

    Joe, there were plenty of kids (none / 0) (#50)
    by McBain on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 12:20:15 PM EST
    misbehaving, disobeying the cop. There was also an incident involving adults slap fighting. If  you want to tell me the cop did more to escalate the situation, I'll listen to that argument.  But, don't tell me I made it up.

    There's a lot more to the pool party fiasco than a cop struggling to control a crowd of kids. Even if the cop acted inappropriately, there can be other people involved who share the blame.  Right now, I think the cop has been treated unfairly in most media reports while the kids are getting a free pass.

    Parent

    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 01:19:05 PM EST
    Right now, I think the cop has been treated unfairly in most media reports while the kids are getting a free pass.
    because any thinking human being would hold an armed agent of the law to a higher standard then a group pf partying teenagers.

    You keep saying

    There's a lot more to the pool party fiasco than a cop struggling to control a crowd of kids.
    Arrests? Injuries? Property damage? Fist fights? If there is a lot more that went on I am sure you could actually point to some evidence of it.

    Parent
    Here you go, Joe (none / 0) (#122)
    by McBain on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 02:21:03 AM EST
    Here's some kind of fight/struggle involving an adult and the girl who organized the party...
    http://tinyurl.com/nlv9tpk

    Here's an extended video of officer Casebolt struggling to control the mob.
    http://tinyurl.com/npmn2m9

    This is what McKinney restident and witness, Bryan Gestner said....
    "This was a Twitter party that turned into a mob event. Jumping pool fence. Assaulting 2 security guards, attacking a mother with three little girls. The video doesn't show everything. This isn't about race. This is about outside kids
    invading our neighborhood and had no respect for authority or the residents here......... I commend the officer for handling this situation."
    http://tinyurl.com/o3r5box

    Here's an opinion piece by a former cop who's opinion I respect.
    http://tinyurl.com/nphnycp
    "As I watched the video-multiple times to be sure I wasn't missing anything-I saw Casebolt do nothing-nothing-wrong, and absolutely nothing criminal."

    Disagree if you want, just don't tell me I make stuff up.

    Parent

    Maybe not, but you are clearly nitpicking ... (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 04:08:24 AM EST
    ... for reasons to excuse instances of police brutality and find fault with others for such incidents, regardless of the evidence and circumstances, and even if the offending officer's superiors themselves find such behavior to be inexcusable and indefensible -- as was the case here with now-former Officer Casebolt.

    When your contrariness reaches a point where you're taking issue with a department's own chief on such matters, one is left to wonder about the underlying reason for this apparent obsession of yours. Maybe you ought to give that matter some thought as well, because speaking for myself only, it very much looks to me like you're indulging a not-too-latent strain of racism.

    And at that point, it ceases being a matter of what you think you're doing, and more about what everyone else around you thinks you're doing. And from my perspective, what you're doing here is rapidly becoming quite reprehensible.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Ok (4.50 / 2) (#127)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 06:23:21 AM EST
    you don't make stuff up, just cite right wing blogs and distort the rest.

    That fight was started by an adult harrassing  and was over and done before the cops arrived.

    The extended video shows a largely calm crowd with most of them beginning to leave. There are plenty of bystanders and other cops are calmly talking with some of the teens. The only rowdy actions by the teens were some of the boys trying to get out of Dodge. The  tape undeniably shows that Casebolt was the main instigator of the tension for the whole length.

    Some "witness" quoted by Breitbart says they

    Assaulting 2 security guards, attacking a mother with three little girls.
    No interviews with the guards or the mom? No police reports, no media follow ups equals no evidence.

    Sorry McBain you can't link to other people making stuff up as any kind of evidence.


    Parent

    Hey (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 11:09:33 PM EST
    While the girl is already sitting on the ground, the guy yells at her to get her a$$ on the ground, where it already is and then he picks up off the ground and throws or slams her back into the ground . . .

    Hey, she was already sitting down and stationary while he is yelling at her to get her a$$ on the ground and before he picks her up and throws her around . . . and that kind of violence can easily do temporary or permanent injuries to people . . .

    Have you folks even seen the video and what she is doing just before he picks her up and then throws her back down on the ground?  How much more a$$ on the ground did she need to be?  4 feet under?  6 feet under?

    Parent

    "6 feet under" (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 11:08:13 AM EST
    - The Ferguson Standard.

    Parent
    You forgot to add (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 01:13:35 AM EST
    if you live through the experience.

    Parent
    But was it... (none / 0) (#30)
    by unitron on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 01:31:02 AM EST
    ...a public area?

    Did the incident with the young lady occur in the pool area itself, or nearby?

    Distinctions like that seem to often get overlooked by the various media "reporting" events.

    As best I can tell, the pool area itself is not "public" public, it's a jointly owned amenity for that neighborhood (with provisions for residents to have a limited number of guests), and there's an area next to it which may be actually public, and it was in that area where the DJ and the cookout designed to attract buyers of tickets for a different event to be held (I have no idea where) several days later were set up, although I think I remember seeing that day's event publicized as a pool party (I could be mistaken on that point).

    But as I understand it, it was trespassing in the pool area that resulted in the cops being called.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#35)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 07:19:24 AM EST
    thus spoke every tyrant ever:

    When confronted by authority follow orders. If you are being treated wrongly you will have ample time to redress your grievances to the authorities. If you can afford a lawyer or risk your life. (prices vary wildly by country).

    There is a serious problem with the LEO-Citizen interaction in this country, there are too many dead bodies to think otherwise. My lying eyes once again show me that police bullying is a major part of the problem.

    Perhaps the greatest American hero archetype is the person that finally stands up to the bully, sometimes unwisely, sometimes unlawfully. Our country was founded by men who thumbed their noses at the law of the land. Obviously you and the rest of the police state apologists would have been Tories.

    Parent

    You are over reacting yourself. (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 08:25:36 AM EST
    Before you encourage our children to die for your right to emote on a blog....perhaps it would be helpful to ensure that they understand what they are dying for.

    Since you feel so strongly you should take up the Cross yourself rather than ask someone else to do it for you.

    The girl was in no danger until she failed to follow directions. At that point the policeman reacted wrongly. Why he did it, who allowed him to be there, what he had for lunch...all of that is of interest but IF he had killed her she would still be dead.

    If Brown had surrendered peacefully....if Garner had followed directions....if Scott had not run...if Gay had not run ..if King had just pulled over and not tried to out run the LAPD....

    None of these had anything to do with protecting anyone's civil rights.

    Which do you want? A live girl or a dead martyr?

    Parent

    lots of (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 09:41:46 AM EST
    ifs there;
    If only teenagers were not rowdy
    If only the mentally ill would not act out.
    If only the physically disabled performed miracles.
    If only petty criminals did not run.
    If only people under extreme stress acted rationally.
    If only nobody ever stood up for their rights.

    You seem to be saying that if only humans quit being humans then and only then should we expect the police to behave. Total BS.

     Talk about over reacting

    Before you encourage our children to die for your right to emote on a blog....perhaps it would be helpful to ensure that they understand what they are dying fo
    Big talk for a war hawk willing to send our troops into the grinder again.

    And for your spectacular straw finish

    Which do you want? A live girl or a dead martyr?
     a question that should not even exist in a just and sane society.

    Parent
    Yes IF is a big word (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    Society uses police to constrain various acts.

    IF teenagers don't follow commands to leave, the police as I have noted, should not pull guns, throw on the ground, etc. and should be punished themselves.

    The mentally ill, physically challenged and people under stress have not even been part of this discussion and you are just trying to change the subject. Although it can be noted that police arriving at a scene of people out of control, holding guns, etc., are under extreme stress.

    Petty criminals do run. Ferguson showed us that. What should we do? Let them do as they please?

    You can stand up for your rights without being hostile to the police or disobeying them. Look, they have the guns and tasers and clubs and the ability to gravely harm. And yes, they may suffer for it later. But you may be dead.

    Which do you want? A live girl or a dead martyr?

    It seems you want a martyr.

    Be calm. Wait. You have a much better chance to respond, and win later.

    Now, as for your pompous remark:

    Big talk for a war hawk willing to send our troops into the grinder again.

    Nope. Time and again I have said we should use all our resources to fight and win as quickly as possible.

    It is the anti-war Left that prolonged Vietnam and caused thousands of Americans to die in the prolonged war.

    Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

    Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,
    "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

    Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
    A:  It was essential to our strategy.  Support of the war from our rear was completely secure  while the American rear was vulnerable.  Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m.  to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.  Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence  that we should hold on  in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

    Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
    A: Keenly.

    Link

    And Obama is now doing the same thing.

    Parent

    There you go again relying (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 12:32:57 PM EST
    on the undocumented, unsubstantiated word of a turncoat who never in a million years would willfully distort history to make himself look good.

    Just explaining to facts to everyone else.


    Parent

    So someone who discovers that (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 03:14:58 PM EST
    communism is bad and leaves is a bad person you?

    OK, fine.

    And the acts of the Left, documented in untold miles of films, statements and acts prove that Tin spoke the truth.

    You seem to forget that Walter Cronkite, wrongly considered the most trusted man in America said that Tet was a victory. Yet we know that it was not.

    Q: What about the results?
    A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.


    Parent
    Bui Tin, again? (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 10:05:46 PM EST
    I guess he's all you've got?

    But I'd be reluctant to rely on the opinion of a liar who's trying to sell his books - the same guy who said there was no torturing of American POWs.  the same guy who falsely claimed to have been the one to accept surrender from the last South Vietnamese leader.

    But I guess if his opinion is all you've got.

    Parent

    What you and I calll unsupported (none / 0) (#123)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 04:06:16 AM EST
    facts that were pulled out of a certain part of the body........

    Parent
    So (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 12:54:41 PM EST
    you admit humans will behave badly when confronted by police
    Petty criminals do run. Ferguson showed us that. What should we do? Let them do as they please?
    Let me ask you a question.  Which do want, a shoplifter escaping or an extra-judicial killing by the police? Sounds like you want the killing.

    Not to be outdone in the pompous category, you bravely declare

    we should use all our resources to fight and win as quickly as possible.
    and ignore all consequences. Of course you fail to even define "win" and your revisionist view of history appears right on cue.

    Parent
    When you decide to fight a war (2.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 01:31:39 PM EST
    the only acceptable result is to win.

    The consequences of loosing are terrible. Stay tuned to see what's gonna be the result of Obama's failed foreign policy.

    Bui Tin was a North Vietnamese general.

    War is the extension of national will.

    Now that we've cleared that up.

    Your question:

    Let me ask you a question.  Which do want, a shoplifter escaping or an extra-judicial killing by the police? Sounds like you want the killing.

    Is of the "Do you still beat your wife" variety.

    If the shoplifter becomes plural... SHOPFLIFTERS... then you have a totally different situation. Do you understand that food deserts exist because of high rates of shoplifting, strong arm robberies, etc.

    Businesses do not remain open, or at best, charge much higher prices to cover the losses and high insurance premiums in high crime areas.

    How you deal with such has been debated for years.

    But making heroes out of thieves isn't a good solution.

    To me the answer is more police in the area to prevent and deter.

    And teaching our children "Tho shall not steal."


    Parent

    Cops who shoot fleeing thieves (none / 0) (#67)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 01:54:14 PM EST
    make neither of them heroes.

    Parent
    Winning? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 02:35:55 PM EST
    When you decide to fight a war the only acceptable result is to win.

    BEFORE you "decide to fight a war" you should identify what condition would exist to signify that you have "won."

    What exactly was the metric of "winning" in Vietnam that would indicate the war was over and that the soldiers could go home?  In Iraq?

    You can't "win" if you can't even identify what winning is.  You can only go on until the more patriotic liberals make you quit.

    Parent

    There was no metric (2.00 / 1) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 09:27:07 PM EST
    just as Obama is getting us into the same thing in the ME.

    But, in Vietnam, after Tet we could have rapidly won by forcing regime change in Hanoi. That would have been the metric.

    Parent

    The metric system is confusing (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 11:57:23 AM EST
    But, in Vietnam, after Tet we could have rapidly won by forcing regime change in Hanoi. That would have been the metric.

    If that's the "metric," then we "won" in Iraq in 2003.  Why are we still there?

    But seriously Jim, when was the "metric" of regime change in Hanoi announced as the military goal that would end the conflict?  Can you point me to such a contemporaneous statement?

    If not, then didn't you just MAKE UP this "metric?"

    Parent

    An excellent question (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 12:15:25 PM EST
    1. Bush made many mistakes in Iraq. He did, however, correct them by the surge. But, just because you have won doesn't mean that you leave. We stayed in Japan and Germany until the countries were stabilized.

    2. No one made the statement because they falsely embraced the theory that we could train, turn over the whole show to the South and then cut and run.

    How'd that work out?? See any similarities between then and now?

    BTW - Westmorelamd's request for more troops was turned down.

    Parent

    Don't opine about Vietnam, Jim. (5.00 / 8) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 01:36:57 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ: "It is the anti-war Left that prolonged Vietnam and caused thousands of Americans to die in the prolonged war."

    You don't know what you're talking about. Seriously. That particular sentence alone has to be the single most stupid and ignorant thing you ever said on the subject.

    It wasn't the anti-war Left that effectively prevented national elections from being held in Vietnam in 1955, in the wake of the 1954 French military and political withdrawal following their decisive defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu.

    It wasn't the anti-war Left who thought it was a good idea to install a religiously bigoted Roman Catholic as president of an artificially created country with an overwhelmingly Buddhist population.

    It wasn't the anti-war Left who then thought it an even better idea to overthrow and kill that Roman Catholic president in a military coup and replace him with an army general, in the wake of civil unrest prompted by that Catholic president's violent crackdown on Buddhists protesting his blatantly discriminatory policies.

    It wasn't the anti-war Left that used a phony and manufactured pretext in the Gulf of Tonkin to commit hundreds of thousands of American troops to fight on one side of an internecine conflict half a world away, the very nature of which our country's military and civilian leadership had fundamentally misread from its very outset.

    It wasn't an anti-war Leftist who served as overall commander of U.S. forces in Southeast Asia, and who saw fit to lie to his own president about the progress being made in those forces' efforts, and who further stated willfully and falsely to the American people that there was a light at the end of Vietnam's tunnel.

    It wasn't an anti-war Leftist who ran for U.S. president in the 1968 on a promise that he had a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War, yet who willfully and wantonly interfered with the ongoing Paris peace talks initiated by the then-current U.S. president that same year, to the extent that this candidate ensured the war's continuance through the November elections -- and beyond.

    It wasn't the anti-war Left who willfully and inexplicably expanded the war into neighboring and neutral Cambodia after prompting the military overthrow of that country's president, setting in motion there a chain of tragic events paralleling our own hapless efforts in Vietnam, which eventually culminated in one of the most breathtaking genocides of the late 20th century.

    You don't have a friggin' clue about what happened in the Vietnam War, Jim. You're so entirely misinformed about so many things on so many levels that it's probably best for your own sake that you cease channeling your inner Archie Bunker, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have.

    Because hard truth be told, old man, it was the mindless d!ck-swinging of rapacious warmongering idiots like you who ended up prolonging the Vietnam War on a series of false pretexts and tragic misconjectures, which for no good reason ultimately cost over 50,000 Americans their lives, my own father among them.

    :-|

    Parent

    l should like to rate... (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by desertswine on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 04:08:32 PM EST
    Donald's comment an 11 on the Nigel Tufnel scale.

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Zorba on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 04:29:57 PM EST
    This is Spinal Tap.

    Excellent reference, desertswine.   ;-)

    Parent

    Concur. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by scribe on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 05:34:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Donald, I understand your personal (2.00 / 2) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 03:24:15 PM EST
    problems in regards to Vietnam and I choose to ignore your slurs and insults.

    But that doesn't mean that you can ignore the actions of the Left and what Bui Tin said.

    The war was essentially over after Tet.

    If he had pursued victory.

    We didn't and thousands died because of that.

    The geopolitics of war is complex but the intent must always be the same.

    Keep faith with those who are fighting by always using all resources and fight to win. As Lincoln said about Grant, "....he fights."

    Parent

    Spoken like a (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 04:44:45 PM EST
    the gallant and brave armchair general you are.

    Parent
    Armchair generalship is another term ... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 07:30:34 PM EST
    ... for chickenhawkery, which has been a curse upon this country's existence since its founding. I understand the need for a strong and efficient military, and I honor those who serve.

    But with that need comes the enormous corresponding responsibility to not expend and sacrifice our military personnel in frivolous pursuits and misbegotten adventures. Warfare is an enormously complex and multifaceted  undertaking that should not be approached lightly and vicariously, for there's no rebottling of its genies once they're unleashed.

    Sun Tzu understood that concept in a way which very few Americans apparently do. Jim was right in the superficial sense that yes, we could very well have won militarily in Vietnam -- to which Sun Tzu would have merely responded, "Yes, but to what effect?"

    Basically, I'd offer that our hypothetical military victory in Vietnam would have likely very much resembled that won by the British in the Second Boer War (1899-1902). The Empire's triumph in South Africa was ultimately accomplished through vastly disproportionate expenditures in both materiel and personnel, given the prize actually sought and gained.

    The Second Boer War left the Empire saddled with both an enormous war debt and a costly large-scale military occupation of a hostile country with an embittered and disgruntled populace. It proved to be such a Pyrrhic victory that eight years later, the British were compelled to renegotiate the terms of the peace which they had imposed upon the Boers, which led to their ultimate military withdrawal and a summary reassertion of Boer sovereignty and independence.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Sorry Donald (2.00 / 1) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 08:53:37 PM EST
    I understand the need for a strong and efficient military, and I honor those who serve.

    But you never served and I highly doubt that you understand the need for a strong military. Your actions speak. But I think you may, in your own way, believe you honor those who serve.

    And I must admit I have never seen a member of the Left confess like you just did.

    Jim was right in the superficial sense that yes, we could very well have won militarily in Vietnam -- to which Sun Tzu would have merely responded, "Yes, but to what effect?"

    To what effect?? Really?? How about saving those American lives that was lost between '69 going forward?? And all those South Vietnamese that were killed not only in the military but who died in the re-education camps?? Not mention the ones who died in the sea trying to escape.

    Do they count?  

    So thanks, Donald. I always thought many on the Left didn't want us to win and your confession is a true landmark that I will keep and treasure and reuse for years to come.

    Parent

    People who make a forty year (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 12:27:16 PM EST
    ideological-emotional investment aren't likely to give it up now..

    And Jim's arms are ready to fall off after shadowboxing with Bobby Kennedy and George McGovern all these years..

    Parent

    Okay, jondee (none / 0) (#185)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 12:53:32 PM EST
    That was funny!  
    "......shadowboxing with Bobby Kennedy and George McGovern all these years.."
    Priceless!


    Parent
    I'm waiting for Jim to blame that peacenik, (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 01:30:15 PM EST
    - and Republican, Richard M. Nixon for the failure to conquer Hanoi and install Democratically elected despots.

    It's another day of Cognitive Dissonance overload here at the History Rewrite corner of Talkleft.

    Parent

    Stop acting so emotional and juvenile, Jim. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 11:40:35 PM EST
    You are so terribly misinformed about the subject of Vietnam that it's not even amusing. Rather, your rank and willful ignorance is just sad, and your pathetic attempts at a retort are just so much hollow right-wing rhetoric -- and everyone here sees that for exactly what it is.

    If you're at all seriously interested in learning about what happened to us in Vietnam and why we failed so dreadfully there, you should read the following four books, which will go a long way toward correcting your many misconceptions and misimpressions:

    • "The Best and the Brightest" ( David Halberstam, 1972) is a critical recounting by a former war correspondent about how some of the brightest intellectual stars in the Kennedy and Johnson administration managed to so spectacularly misread the situation in Vietnam, and thus escalate U.S. military involvement to our ultimate detriment.

    • "Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and Americans in Vietnam" (Frances Fitzgerald, 1972) is a Pulitzer Prize-winning book that explains at length and in great detail how the U.S. came to find itself in the weeds in Vietnam, and why it proved impossible for us to win the war.

    • "America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975" (George Herring, 1979) is perhaps the work most often referenced by other Vietnam scholars and historians, and it's probably the most readily accessible and reliable of all the nonfiction works on the subject. It's been recently updated as a fourth edition to reflect newly declassified information.

    • "A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam" (Neil Sheehan. 1989) is the heartbreaking story of a retired Army lieutenant colonel turned senior civilian advisor to USMACV in Saigon, who repeatedly attempted to call to his superiors' attention their mismanagement of the war. Vann was ultimately killed in 1972 at the Battle of Kontum, and is the only civilian to ever be awarded the Distinguished Service Cross (posthumously) for heroism under fire. Like "Fire in the Lake," Sheehan's book won the Pulitzer Prize, as well as a National Book Award for best nonfiction.

    Of course, if you continue to think that you know more about America's Vietnam experience than those scholars and writers who've spent their lives living and studying the subject, then I pity you because you clearly deserve all the ridicule and catcalls which you'll continue to receive.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Having read the first book (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 04:23:32 AM EST
    on your list, I must concur that it in no way, shape, or form supports Jim's Dolchstoss nonsense.  

    OTOH, having been disabused of his absurd myths about the Vietnam War, what reason would he have left to fulminate against liberals?

    Parent

    Personally, I couldn't possibly care any less ... (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 06:44:38 AM EST
    ... about what Jim and his fellow wingbats think about liberals in general or me in particular. What I don't like is the misinformation he attempts to disseminate about what happened in Vietnam, as though he's both sort of expert on military affairs and the final arbiter of what constitutes patriotism in this country of ours.

    As I noted earlier, I lost my father to that benighted fiasco. And so it's very important to both me and my family that someone steps up and sets the record straight about the Vietnam War, whenever folks like Jim offer up patently false narratives that seek to exonerate the very people who were primarily responsible for first initiating and then compounding that disaster -- often at the expense of those patriotic Americans who rightly opposed that war on both moral and practical grounds, as the wrong fight at the wrong place at the wrong time.

    My family paid a very steep and dear price personally for the folly that was Vietnam, as did countless other Americans who lost loved ones in that misbegotten conflict. It forever ruptured our family dynamic, broke my paternal grandparents emotionally, drove one of my uncles into an early grave from grief compounded by alcoholism, and launched my own life on a far different trajectory than what otherwise would have likely occurred, had my father lived to see me grow to adulthood.

    Now, we can't change the past, and I think it's rather foolish and unproductive to wallow in it in perpetuity, because it is what it is. But I hold bachelor and master's degrees in history, because I'm a firm believer in the idea that the subject provides us with valuable insight as to why we are thus as we are, and holds important life's lessons for us to consider as we move forward, both as individuals and collectively as a society.

    In that regard, any attempts by others to misrepresent history to conform with their own respective personal agendas are not only deeply offensive to me, but also dangerously shortsighted and profoundly foolish with regards to potential consequences for the country as a whole.

    There is a very good argument to be made that the abject and willful failure of the American right to honestly grasp and ponder the true lessons of our Vietnam experience is ultimately what led us into the twin quagmires of Afghanistan and Iraq. Rather than heed that history, they attempted to rewrite it for their own narrow-minded purposes, and thus drew the wrong conclusions based upon their own delusions.

    Jeez, it's nearly 1:45 a.m. out here. No wonder I'm tired. I'm going to bed, so I'll have to catch up with you on the morrow.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald, as a historian of sorts (none / 0) (#131)
    by ragebot on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 08:09:32 AM EST
    I would be interested in your take on both A. J. P. Taylor and Hugh Trevor-Roper.  I consider both to be among the best qualified historians of the time period when I was formally studying history.  How do you explain how they came to such a different explanation of the origin of WWII?

    The reason I bring this up is to illustrate men of good will can come to different positions on the same historical events.  This is something my history profs hammered in many times.

    I will also say one of the biggest gripes many folks serving in Vietnam had with the pols was troops were put in the position of fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.  There were imaginary lines in the jungle providing safe haven for the enemy.  There were legit military targets that were off limits, like bombing the dikes in the North or seriously mining Hiaphong Harbor and other waterways in the North.

    As for the definition of winning in Vietnam if the theory of regional balance of power followed by SOS from the 1950s onward is used then as you pointed out Vietnam clearly beat China's attempt to subdue them.  Until the 1979 fights you mentioned Vietnam was called the subdued South in China.

    Again I am not saying the price the US paid to drag Vietnam kicking and screaming into the 20 century was worth it (especially to guys like you who lost loved ones), just that from the point of view of the US SOS the policy they followed made sense to them.

    Parent

    From a military perspective, the fact that ... (none / 0) (#201)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 02:24:30 PM EST
    ... we placed such strict limitations upon our own our ability to pursue the enemy to his source, while our adversaries recognized no such similar limitations on their own part, had to have been both frustrating and demoralizing to the morale of our own troops in the field, as well as to the folks back home.

    And I'm not sure I'd agree with your contention that we "dragged Vietnam kicking and screaming into the 20th century." To be perfectly frank, given that the Vietnamese were actively engaged in a nearly three decades-long war for national liberation against the last vestiges of western colonialism and imperialism in southeast Asia, I'd have to argue that the reverse was actually true.

    But getting back to the subject of morale, a key component in any nation's ability to wage war successfully, and one that is often overlooked time and again by leaders worldwide, is its capacity to keep its citizenry fully engaged in the effort. And a dirty little open secret in U.S. history is that the home front has long been our own country's "Achilles' heel" during times of prolonged military engagement, from the War of 1812 to our present predicaments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Even our efforts during the Second World War, the so-called "Good War" to borrow the late Studs Turkel's euphemism, were not immune from that phenomenon. As evidenced by the wealth of data from opinion polls conducted during that era, we know that American civilian morale twice flagged alarmingly during the active period of U.S. engagement during that conflict (Dec. 7, 1941 - Aug. 15, 1945).

    The first drop understandably occurred during the six months following Pearl Harbor, when news of repeated Allied defeats and continued Axis advances -- which included the surrender of an entire U.S. command in the Philippines, the only such occurrence in our country's entire history -- caused the folks back home to not only consider our own leaders' ability to wage war effectively, but to further question whether Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan could even be beaten at that point.

    That only began to turn around with the decisive defeat of German and Italian forces by the British at the Battle of El Alamein in Egypt in October 1942, and the subsequent Allied invasion of North Africa the following month.

    The second and even more precipitous drop in American morale occurred ironically in late 1944 and early 1945, when we were actually on the verge of delivering the final knockout blows to our enemies, although at the time that was not readily apparent to people.

    The high hopes of the summer of 1944 that Germany would quickly crumble following the Wehrmacht's routs in Normandy and southern France had quickly turned to despair by that autumn, as Nazi resistance stiffened markedly at the German border and Allied forces suffered serious military reverses in successive major battles at Arnhem and the Hurtgen Forest. FDR had run for his fourth and final term that November, and had received the lowest percentage of votes in his entire presidency.

    When the surprise German offensive in the Ardennes fell upon U.S. forces in that lightly defended region in mid-December 1944, and the alarming casualty reports from the "Battle of the Bulge" -- which stands as the largest single battlefield engagement by the U.S. Army in its entire history, ultimately involving over 700,000 American combat troops -- began to reach the home folks, civilian investments in U.S. war bonds all but dried up and our government suddenly faced a severe cash shortage, which came close to crippling our war effort at the very moment when the final supreme push needed to be made.

    In obvious retrospect, we now realize that the Germans were essentially finished after their repulse in the Ardennes, but that was not known to the American people at the time. Coupled with the news of the bloody Battle of Manila between U.S. and Japanese forces, followed by reports of stalemate in the Pacific and a major Japanese offensive in China, public opinion finally began to turn against the war and in favor of seeking negotiated settlements with Germany and Japan. It only began to recover once it became clear by March 1945 that Germany was indeed collapsing and Japan was likely teetering at the precipice of total defeat.

    Failure to consider civilian morale in any war effort has proved the undoing of many a nation's dreams of expansion and conquest, and sometimes even their hopes for a continued existence as a sovereign power. National leaders overlook the home front at their own political and sometimes even mortal peril.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Just be quiet on the subject, Jim. (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 06:21:15 PM EST
    You seriously don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Vietnam, whereas I do, and in rather substantial detail.

    Our country's military and civilian leadership violated one of Sun Tzu's fundamental tenets about the art of war, in that we vastly underestimated both the will of the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong and their corresponding capacity to absorb very serious punishment and enormous losses, while we corresponding overestimated to a very serious degree our own military capabilities and the American people's capacity to sustain a large-scale military effort over the long haul.

    The North Vietnamese did not have to defeat us in battle in order to win the war. All they had to do was hang on and endure, and wait for the day when we punched ourselves out, lost both our will and our composure, threw up our hands in frustration, and went back home.

    And that's what you don't understand, Jim. Our military presence in Vietnam was unsustainable over the long term, given our corresponding obligations elsewhere in the world during the Cold War. That war was unwinnable, because as long as the Vietnamese people refused to give up and kow tow to western supremacy, it was our destiny to eventually leave as the French did -- humbled, and muttering to ourselves, with our tails tucked squarely between our legs.

    And what you further don't understand is that while we may have lost the Vietnam War, we've since won the peace, big time. The Vietnam that exists today is our friend, and one of our largest trading partners in the region.

    All that death and chaos and carnage was all so avoidable, had we merely military leaders a half-century-plus ago with the knowledge, foresight and courage to recognize that the conflict in Vietnam was not a Cold War proxy fight with the Soviet Union but rather, a true struggle for national liberation from western colonialism -- and had reacted accordingly and rationally.

    :-|

    Parent

    Donald, what I find interesting is how (1.50 / 2) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 08:46:26 AM EST
    someone so supposedly well educated can communicate so poorly. You can't make a point without telling people to be quiet, etc.

    The carnage and deaths in Vietnam were the result of our attempt to stop the spread of communism. By the end of Tet, as you agreed, the war was mostly over and could have been brought to a rapid conclusion had our politicians ignored the demonstrations and struck hard and repeatedly at the North.

    Instead we worried about "opinion" and fought a war in which we, as the Soviets did in Afghanistan, fought a long war that allowed the enemy to bleed us until our politicians surrendered.

    The people who died from '69 onward did so because  the demonstrations, etc., drove our politicians into allowing the war to continue and people died who would not have had we moved for a quick win and end of the war with an independent democracy in Hanoi.

    Those are facts, Donald. And all the chest beating and listing books that describe the chaos, foul ups and problems do not change this one central fact.

    By the end of Tet, as you agreed, the war was mostly over and could have been brought to a rapid conclusion.

    But saddest of all is this. Obama has been the new LBJ. After withdrawing, and seeing the results, he wants to hit back with a gentle tap. The results of which will just be Americans killed.

    A few days back I quoted a line from an old Eastwood spaghetti western. My opponents here ridiculed it because they knew how accurate it was.

    "If you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk."

    Parent

    So, jim...what do you make of this: (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 09:24:07 AM EST
    As President Obama was weighing how to halt Islamic State advances in Iraq, some of the strongest resistance to boosting U.S. involvement came from a surprising place: a war-weary military that has grown increasingly skeptical that force can prevail in a conflict fueled by political and religious grievances.

    Top military officials, who have typically argued for more combat power to overcome battlefield setbacks over the past decade, emerged in recent White House debates as consistent voices of caution in Iraq. Their shift reflects the paucity of good options and a reluctance to suffer more combat deaths in a war in which America's political leaders are far from committed and Iraqis have shown limited will to fight.

    "After the past 12 years in the Middle East, there is a real focus by senior military leaders on understanding what the endgame is," said a military official, "and asking the question, `To what end are we doing this?' "

    The military's reluctance belies a prevalent narrative in Washington of a cautious president holding back his aggressive generals. The Pentagon's position was most evident in the White House debates after the surprising retreat of Iraqi army and police in Ramadi last month.

    Link (bold is mine)

    When the military's not on board with a more robust plan, not sure how you can blame Obama for listening to them.

    But I am confident you will find a way to do that, AND clog up the rest of the thread.

    Carry on.

    Parent

    So I guess you are now (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 09:52:08 AM EST
    prepared to let the military decide which war we fight??

    And the article you link to has no names. A time honored method of people who want to win an argument by acting as if there was consensus.

    But in a strange way you make my point.

    "When you have to shoot,shoot. Don't talk."

    The military understands that Obama won't support them.

    Parent

    You're the one who said (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    Obama ignored the advice of his military advisers, with the troop withdrawal  from Iraq, and then you ask a rhetorical question like that?


    Parent
    Well, Anne supported Obama in his decision (none / 0) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 10:34:51 AM EST
    to go against his military advisers and leave Iraq.

    Now she wants to say he is doing right.

    And yes, he did ignore the advice to stay.

    Parent

    jim, this has nothing to do with what (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 10:52:15 AM EST
    I do or don't think about what Obama did or didn't do; this has to do with you insisting that Obama is now making the wrong choice about how to handle the situation there, and I'm simply pointing out that the military does not support a more robust involvement.  If you have a bone to pick, perhaps it is with the military, which does not apparently think your shoot-to-win strategy is viable.

    And while you are correct that there are no names attached to that article, I feel pretty confident that if the military believed we needed to commit more troops on the ground in a combat capacity, there'd be plenty of "anonymous sources" saying so, and you'd be just fine with that.

    But, just to make it clear, Obama left Iraq not because he "ignored" the advice of the military, but because we were obligated to leave under the terms of expiring Status of Forces Agreement that Bush agreed to.  He could not ignore or override the agreement, and the terms under which the other side would agree to continued US presence were not acceptable.

    Parent

    Okay, so you don't see the double standard (2.00 / 1) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 11:03:46 AM EST
    that I do. No problem.

    And we have no idea as to what the military leaders really think.

    But no, Obama didn't have to leave. He had all the influence and resources to change/delay the SOFA IF he had wanted to.

    He didn't want to.

    "With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement," Romney told Obama as the two convened on the Lynn University campus in Boca Raton, Fla., that October evening. "That's not true," Obama interjected. "Oh, you didn't want a status of forces agreement?" Romney asked as an argument ensued. "No," Obama said. "What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East."

    WaPost

    Parent

    Romney was blowing hot air (none / 0) (#162)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 11:05:02 AM EST


    Parent
    Your version of history doesn't (none / 0) (#139)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 08:56:13 AM EST
    Comport with reality.

    Parent
    Of COURSE he can (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 10:09:54 PM EST
    But that doesn't mean that you can ignore the actions of the Left and what Bui Tin said.

    Bui Tin's opinion of the Left is merely the silly opinion of a wingnut who's a proven liar.

    Why would ANYONE do anything BUT ignore him?

    Parent

    So you are tell us that (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 08:18:23 AM EST
    Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence  that we should hold on  in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

    this never happened??

    Parent

    The events took place, certainly enough. (none / 0) (#136)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 08:23:07 AM EST
    But the word of one man is hardly enough to be relied upon, especially with no collaboration or documentation of any sort, as to the results of those visits to the Vietnamese.

    Parent
    Hmm, let me see (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 09:33:41 AM EST
    The country is at war and movie stars and ex-government officials show up supporting me and my enemy has demonstrations against the war....

    and that doesn't encourage me to fight??

    Really?

    Parent

    You are correct Jim (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 10:01:30 AM EST
    The frigging Hippies with their make love not war nonsense won the day. They defeated the likes of LBJ, Nixon and Kissinger and got them to override the brilliant generals in the pentagon who were always absolutely sure that the war was just about to be won. The poor mislead majority of American citizens actually bought into their pacifist BS propaganda. Our brave young men were turned in to commie sympathizing wimps by visions of doing bong hits with Jane Fonda.

    Yes Jim we are paying dearly for our left-wing surrender of the Vietnam war to this day, as we bow to our world-wide communist overlords.......or something.

    Parent

    The decisions on what targets (none / 0) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 10:45:38 AM EST
    to attack and what our max response would be was made in the WH, just as it is being done now.

    As now, the WH was bowing to political pressure from both sides and fought a no win war.

    And yes, the demonstrations played a major role.

    Parent

    As always you skip (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 11:27:12 AM EST
    over huge chunks of the story.
    As now, the WH was bowing to political pressure from both sides and fought a no win war.
    You seem to skip over the parts where we were lied into these "no win wars".

    The arc of history has proven that our loss in Vietnam has proved to be no big deal but you insist it was a tragedy  foisted upon us by fools who did not understand the importance of insuring that the future sweatshops of Vietnam would be capitalist instead of communist.

    Parent

    I guess you are referring to the (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 12:32:34 PM EST
    Gulf of Tonkin.

    Whether we were lied into it or not, a super power must win once it commits to battle.

    And then you write this:

    The arc of history has proven that our loss in Vietnam has proved to be no big deal

    Wrong. Our loss in Vietnam and the tactics used by the North showed the world that we would not fight.

    It paved the way for Iran's seizure of our Embassy in '79 and birthed the modern radical islamist movement.

    It has been a most costly defeat.

    And the sweatshops there, as in China, are communist.

    Parent

    The (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 12:54:22 PM EST
    facts surrounding Vietnam in the 60's  are so different from facts in Tehran 1n 1979 and the current situation in Iraq as to find it hard to believe they happened on the same planet. The fact that you can connect those radically different historical episodes makes we wonder what planet you come from.

    Parent
    Well, I come from the planet Earth (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 01:52:49 PM EST
    and I am old enough to have seen all these events happen and then watch the ripple effects without having to have them explained in some class.

    Obama is recreating Vietnam.

    Parent

    The VIietnamese (none / 0) (#142)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 09:39:28 AM EST
    fought the French to be  independent, but if they hadn't had Jane Fonda and others visit them, they would've given up the fight.

    The first rule when you find yourself in a rhetorical hole, Jim, is to stop digging.

    Parent

    Uh, Mordiggian in case you missed it (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 09:55:33 AM EST
    South Vietnam was a fully functioning democracy who was not attacking the North.

    No, it was the North who, despite being free and not under attack, who wanted to swallow South Vietnam and establish a communist regime.

    Parent

    A fully functioning democracy? (none / 0) (#150)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 10:08:20 AM EST
    It was a shell constructed to serve American purposes.  

    Parent
    Really? And what was our "purposes?" (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 10:42:06 AM EST
    The country was divided into North and South with two separate governments.

    If you want to say that we opposed communism then be my guest.

    Sorry if that offended you.

    Parent

    We had a Potemkin state (none / 0) (#163)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    and, yes, we fought communism there because of the Domino Theory that if Vietnam fell, the whole of Southeast Asia was under threat of going Communist.  

    The South Vietnam we created was no more legitimate than the state of Manchukuo that the Japanese formed out of their conquered area of Manchuria in the early 30s.

    Glad to clear that up for everyone here.

    Parent

    No. We didn't create South Vietnam (none / 0) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 12:25:10 PM EST
    North and South Vietnam were created by the Geneva Accords in July 1954.

    Whatever South Vietnam became, one thing is an undeniable fact.

    It did not attack North Vietnam nor did it support guerrilla activities inside the North.

    I am always happy to provide facts.

    Parent

    Thanks for telling me what to (none / 0) (#182)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 12:49:32 PM EST
    expect in the future:

    The State of Vietnam was created through co-operation between anti-communist Vietnamese and the French government on 14 June 1949. Former emperor Bảo Đại accepted the position of chief of state (quoc truong). This was known as the "Bảo Đại Solution." The colonial struggle in Vietnam became part of the global Cold War in October 1949 when a victorious Chinese communist army arrived on Vietnam's northern border. In 1950, China, the Soviet Union and other communist nations recognized the DRV while the United States and other non-communist states recognized the Bảo Đại government.

    In July 1954, France and the Viet Minh (later the Viet Cong) agreed at the Geneva Conference that the State of Vietnam would rule the territory south of the 17th parallel, pending unification on the basis of supervised elections in 1956. At the time of the conference, it was expected that the South would continue to be a French dependency. However, South Vietnamese Premier Ngô Đình Diệm, who preferred American sponsorship to French, rejected the agreement. When Vietnam was divided, 800,000 to 1 million North Vietnamese, mainly (but not exclusively) Roman Catholics, sailed south as part of Operation Passage to Freedom due to a fear of religious persecution in the North.

    Who are we to believe, you or the lying Wiki article?

    Parent

    I'd rather you try and avoid the truth (none / 0) (#194)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 01:49:45 PM EST
    that anyone can Google and see for themselves.

    As I wrote:

    North and South Vietnam were created by the Geneva Accords in July 1954.

    This was to end the  fight between the French and it's Vietnamese non-communist allies and the communist Viet Minh.

    Supposedly the country was to have a internationally sponsored referendum in 1956 to determine its fate. The South did have a referendum although many on the Left claimed voter fraud. The North avoided these claims by never having one. How convenient.

    The North started supporting guerrillas and the fight was on.  While the South was no show place of democracy it avoided the killing and property siezures that happened first in the North. They happened again when we abandoned the South and the killing started.

    Of course as a spin off Pol Pot blossomed in Cambodia and millions died. "The Killing Fields" is one of the most horrific movies I have ever seen.

    We should be so proud. (saercasm alert)
     

    Parent

    Eisenhower in his memoirs (none / 0) (#199)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 02:18:00 PM EST
    Admitted that if the election had been held nationwide as originally envisioned in the accords, the vote would've gone communist.

    The partition was intended to be temporary, not permanent as you tried to make it out its your excerpt.

    July 1955, Diệm announced in a broadcast that South Vietnam would not participate in the elections specified in the Geneva accords.[5] As Saigon's delegation did not sign the Geneva accords, it was not bound by it.[5] He also said the communist government in the North created conditions that made a fair election impossible in that region. This view was confirmed by independent observers from Canada, India, and Poland,[6] in the circumstances prevailing in 1955 and 1956 - anarchy of the Sects and of the retiring Viet Minh in the South, the 1956 campaign of terror from Hanoi's land reform and resultant peasant uprising around Vinh in the North.[7]
    Diệm held a referendum on 23 October 1955 to determine the future of the country. He asked voters to approve a republic, thus removing Bảo Đại as head of state. The poll was supervised by his younger brother, Ngô Đình Nhu. Diệm was credited with 98 percent of the votes. In many districts, there were more votes to remove Bảo Đại than there were registered voters. In Saigon, 133 percent of the registered population reportedly voted to remove Bảo Đại. His American advisors had recommended a more modest winning margin of "60 to 70 percent." Diệm, however, viewed the election as a test of authority.[8] On 26 October 1955, Diệm declared himself the president of the newly proclaimed Republic of Vietnam.[9] The French, who needed troops to fight in Algeria, completely withdrew from Vietnam by April 1956.[10]

    Read the article and decide for yourself, folks.

    Parent

    You've done enough today. (none / 0) (#110)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 07:37:23 PM EST
    Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

    Parent
    In case you don't know (2.00 / 2) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 09:18:35 PM EST
    McCarthy was right. But his delivery was terrible.

    There were communists in our government. The forerunner of the NSA had cracked the Soviets diplomatic and had the goods on them. But it didn't come to light until after the Cold War was over because we didn't want them to know.

    It's all documented in the Yale University Press book, "Venona Decoding Soviet Espionage in America," by John Haynes and Harvey Klehr.

    It is based on FOIA info from the NSA and from the KGB's files. The book is dedicated to Senator Moynihan for his assistance in getting the information released.

    Your local library may have it and it is available from Amazon. Let me caution you that it is not a spy thriller but a very dry non-political recap of what we knew and when we knew it that includes pages of references. Among other things it leaves no doubt that the Rosenbergs were guilty as sin and got what they deserved.

    Happy reading!

    Parent

    Oh. My. God. Are you for real? (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 11:50:51 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ: "[Sen. Joe] McCarthy was right, but his delivery was terrible."

    Oh, who am I kidding, of course you are! And that's exactly why nobody in his or her right mind should ever take you seriously on anything. I'm not going to waste Jeralyn's bandwidth explaining why you're so terribly wrong -- again. Suffice to say that you just are, period and end of discussion.

    Oy, caramba.

    Parent

    In case you didn't know before (none / 0) (#124)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 04:07:34 AM EST
    He's out of his freakin mind.

    Parent
    Read the book Donald (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 08:10:20 AM EST
    It has the facts.

    McCarthy, as I noted, had a terrible delivery and while he created victims he was also a victim.

    Looking back at what the NSA knew and didn't reveal makes you wonder what it knows today. Just think of all the claims and counter claims.
     

    Parent

    Read the book Donald (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 08:10:20 AM EST
    It has the facts.

    McCarthy, as I noted, had a terrible delivery and while he created victims he was also a victim.

    Looking back at what the NSA knew and didn't reveal makes you wonder what it knows today. Just think of all the claims and counter claims.
     

    Parent

    Donald some historians attribute (none / 0) (#88)
    by ragebot on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 04:44:52 PM EST
    SOS John Foster Dulles for starting the policy of what was called regional balance of power by which the US sought to build up weaker countries so a single country could not dominate a region.  In this case the US wound up dragging Vietnam kicking and screaming into the 20th century when Dean Rusk was SOS.

    The US left massive amounts of military material in country and trained many locals how to effectively use it.  I clearly recall well after the US left Vietnam had an artillery duel with China and Vietnam was the clear victor.  Both countries also had a battalion strength force facing each other with a border river in between.  The two armies then turned their back to the other, dropped their pants and mooned each other.  I am no expert on Asian culture but this seems like a double secret probation insult to me.

    Not saying I agree with creating regional balances of power, just that history may well accept this explanation easier than yours.

    YMMV

    Parent

    That was not a mere artillery duel ... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 05:48:44 PM EST
    ... between China and Vietnam in 1979. Rather, it was a full scale Chinese invasion that occurred in direct response to Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia and ouster of the Khmer Rouge, which was an ally of Beijing. The Chinese were pretty much stopped by local militia within a few weeks after crossing the border, and Beijing withdrew its forces when Hanoi began redeploying its regular units from the south. The inglorious repulse of their troops revealed to China's rulers just how antiquated its military really was.

    Parent
    Maybe if cops could act professional (none / 0) (#39)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 08:39:44 AM EST
    we wouldn't be talking about how a dead girl or teen could result from a failure to follow orders in the first place.

    Or maybe, perhaps steps can be taken to not allow people with issues to become cops in the first place.


    Parent

    You know all the way back (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 08:50:58 AM EST
    in a thread about Eric Garner I agreed with the mayor of NYC that the police need more training.

    Yes, we need better screening/hiring. We also need to pay them more so that we can attract better educated., etc. candidates.

    And while we're at it let's reform our drug laws and get/keep our young people out of jail.

    And it wouldn't hurt if we taught our young people not only their rights but also their responsibilities and how to properly deal with authority.

    We can start by singing.

    I fought the police and the police won.

    Parent

    Yeah, but your emphasis (none / 0) (#41)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 09:04:43 AM EST
    And posts since then have been  how we have to obey the police or we might end up like Eric Gardner, Jim.  

    If anyone takes the time to peruse your posts on the subject and see for themselves what you have put down here in electronic black-and-white in the past.

    Don't p*ss on my leg and tell me it's raining, Jim.

    Or, as David Mahmet wrote in his play American Buffalo

    Don't bullsh*t a bullsh*tter



    Parent
    Yes, I emphasize important facts that are (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 11:42:18 AM EST
    controllable by the individual. Especially when society is trending towards approving acts that will harm the individual.

    For example, alcoholic beverages are sold as a way to "have fun." You never see an ad pointing out the problems alcohol can, and in many cases, brings. At best we get a 10 second warning not to let friends drive drunk, etc.

    As in MJ, I would sell all MJ, alcohol and nicotine products at state stores, allow no advertising and support heavy educational programs.

    In this latest wave of "police bad" we see almost nothing on TV or the media about how to respond to the police. Instead inconvenience store robbers are held up as heroes. Girls who invade private parties and then don't follow police commands to leave are touted as the second coming of Joan of Arc.

    To me, and many like me, it seems to be tied to race. The Reverends Jesse and Al, who have many problems of their own, rush in as "spokesmen" to insure they get employed by the media or have money contributed to their organizations. False sayings like "Hands up! Don't shoot!" are touted as facts when they are not.

    Bring some balance. The country needs it and our children deserve to be taught how to deal with difficult situations.

    And if you think that is BS then you have my sympathy.

    Parent

    You know, there is a hell of a differenc (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 12:30:05 PM EST
    Between regulating alcoholic beverages and asking policemen to behave in a civilized fashion, not like they're John Rambo going after the Commies and anyone in the way should be shot.

    For the record, defying policemen shouldn't be undertaken lightly, but yu're arguing for a role reversal where every member of the public is subject to whatever the whims of a man or woman who has a gun and the legal right to use it under certain circumstances.

    In other words, you're arguing that if a flaky cop makes unreasonable demands, then the public has to submit to it, because he has a gun and if you die from your defiance, too bad, and to argue otherwise is to wish for children to die.

    Thanks for allowing me to clear hat up for everybody else.

    Parent

    You continue to willfully misunderstand (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 01:13:13 PM EST
    My point was simple. I emphasize things that society is wrongfully promoting as OK.

    And no, I have not said anyone should be subjected to the whims of any policeman.

    What I have said is: Obey and follow commands and if the policeman is out of line, address that when you are safe and have an attorney.

    Why??

    Because he has a gun and he may kill you.

    And no, I didn't say:

    and if you die from your defiance, too bad,

    In fact, I said that is your position.

    Which do you want? A live girl or a dead martyr?


    Parent
    A policeman has no right (none / 0) (#61)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    to be an armed bully that we must submit to and then later on sue(if we can afford an attorney) if we survive the encounter.  This runs contrary to criminal law and every standard of decency I'm familiar with.

    As for willfully misunderstanding, no, you're an authoritarian who believes might makes right, as when you approvingly quote Mark Anthony's remark about having 10 legions of Roman soldiers to enforce Roman law in Egypt.

    We pay the cops salary. They should be serving us, not pointing their guns at a moments' notice when a citizen isn't deferential or submissive enough in their subjective judgement.

    You argue that we should be prepared for bad cops, instead of the obvious commonsense solution that trained police officers should be expected to use deadly force only when needed, and not just because they're having a bad day because of previous calls or whatever.

    You know, one of the canards about liberalism is that liberals are people want to make acceptable deviant and unwanted behavior like homosexuality, living together unmarried, etc.

    Talk about proving a point.

    Parent

    No where have I said that a policeman has (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 02:14:08 PM EST
    the right to be an armed bully.

    What I have said, and I don't see how you missed it, is that we should follow their commands and, if they are wrong, file charges later.... Which we need to be alive to do.

    The Antony quote was regarding foreign policy. And yes, I believe that we should call the tune when we are paying the price.

    Yes, we pay the cops salary. And your point is that they shouldn't be pointing guns at a moments notice?? Really? How original. (Sarcasm alert)

    BTW - Somewhere I noted to Kdog that I would fire the policeman so your complaints are superfluous.

    You argue that we should be prepared for bad cops,

    Yes we, and especially our children, should be prepared for bad cops and bad situations.

    instead of the obvious commonsense solution that trained police officers

    Again, I agreed with the NYC mayor re training.

    should be expected to use deadly force only when needed, and not just because they're having a bad day because of previous calls or whatever.

    The operative words are "should be." The facts are that bad stuff happens. Be prepared.

    So the issue is, how do we get around the problem with the least amount of damage.

    I have no idea why you wrote the following.

    You know, one of the canards about liberalism is that liberals are people want to make acceptable deviant and unwanted behavior like homosexuality, living together unmarried, etc.

    It has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.


    Parent

    We hear (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 02:37:40 PM EST
    you loud and clear  
    What I have said, and I don't see how you missed it, is that we should follow their commands and, if they are wrong, file charges later.... Which we need to be alive to do.
    You believe that we must instantly submit to any and all commands given to us by the police, no matter what the circumstances, or else  face summary execution as a possible result. I don't know which America you grew up in but the that doesn't sound like the one I knew.  


    Parent
    No, not like that (2.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 03:06:18 PM EST
    But what you do risk is getting killed.

    Why not live to fight another day when you have the advantage?

    It appears that the Left is wanting to force confrontations. This is expanded by what the authorities first did in Ferguson, delay bringing in the NG and then the mayor in Baltimore held the police back.

    That is going to get people hurt. Possibly killed.

    Yes. The police must be trained and they must be kept under controlled. But when the media and the authorities give the mob the keys to the city civilization is at risk.

    Parent

    Some violations have no future remedy (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 02:42:09 PM EST
    we should follow their commands and, if they are wrong, file charges later.... Which we need to be alive to do.

    If the purpose of a frisk is not for the officer's safety, but to perform a personal assault on an unwilling party, how do you get that undone?  If a rapist apologizes afterward, you don't automatically become un-raped, and once an officer unlawfully gropes your privates, you can't get un-groped.

    It is more important to prevent the act that can't be undone than to complain about it later when no remedy exists.

    Parent

    It is prevented by training the police (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 03:08:39 PM EST
    and by training ourselves.

    If it breaks down you don't want children fighting the police.

    Or do you?

    Parent

    WTF (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 04:47:00 PM EST
    what do we have but children fighting the police.

    Or more correctly police fighting the children.

    Parent

    Police are your friend (none / 0) (#109)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 07:32:32 PM EST
    even when they are screaming at you and pointing a gun at the same time.

    I think Jim has to work on selling his message to the younger set a little harder.

    Parent

    Because we pay them (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 03:09:38 PM EST
    and require them to go through training, they should be able to use their judgement as to when and where to pull their guns.

    A bank robbery, yes.  An unarmed girl in a bikini who poses no physical threat to the cop, not so much.

    You do understand the concept of judgement, do you not?</s>

    And if you're going to get snotty let's not respond to each other on this thread anymore because I'll just say something that causes your comments and mine to get deleted, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    Details of the Tamir Rice shooting released (none / 0) (#1)
    by McBain on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 07:13:09 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/oj3wqrr

    Interesting stuff about the officers not rendering aid...
    "They wanted to do something, but they didn't know what to do," the agent told investigators."

    Sounds like these cops weren't trained in first aid and didn't have a first aid kit.

    Also interesting...
    "Cleveland police said Loehmann told him three times to drop the weapon before the boy reached toward his waistband and the officer fired. Sheriff's detectives wrote that from witness interviews it was unclear if Loehmann shouted anything to Tamir from inside the cruiser before opening fire."

    Question for defenders of police (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 07:49:20 PM EST
    Ohio is an open carry state, just like, for example Georgia, where an armed man walked around the Atlanta airport for an hour or so packing an AR-15, and did not get arrested.

    If responding police in an open-carry state believed Tamir Rice was an adult and that the weapon was real, then he would have been within his rights to be armed and they would not have any reason to confront him.  (Not that this would be any comfort to the family of John Crawford.)

    If police believed that Tamir was NOT an adult with a real gun, which would have made his activities legal in Ohio, then there are only three other possibilities.

    1. Tamir was not an adult and the gun was real.

    2. Tamir was an adult and the gun was NOT real.

    3. Tamir was a kid and the gun was a toy.

    Note that only one of the three "non-legitimate" possibilities presents a danger, to police, i.e. that Tamir was a child but the gun was real.

    An adult with a real gun is legal, but if police suspect that it is a kid with a gun, the police wouldn't want to take any chances by letting him live.

    Parent

    not sure . . . (none / 0) (#8)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 09:30:13 PM EST
    . . . you have all your ducks in a row, logically speaking

    for example:

    If police believed that Tamir was NOT an adult with a real gun, . . . then [possibility 2] Tamir was an adult and the gun was NOT real.

    that doesn't quite add up

    nor have you necessarily exhausted all the possibilities

    also, you mentioned that you had a question, but what is it?

    in addition, a judge has found probable cause to charge the officers involved in the shooting, but that doesn't guarantee that the prosecutor will bring charges against them

    but if that happens, then there will probably be a trial, & at the trial evidence will be presented, & on the basis of that evidence the defendants will either be convicted or acquitted

    & since none of us were there to witness what happened, we all have to wait for the trial (if it occurs) and the jury's verdict

    does taking that stance make someone a "defender" of the police? especially since there is not, at the moment, a crime that has been committed?

    your comment is one of several on recent threads that have left me shaking my head - do you really not understand how our legal system works?

    Peter G had a long & admirably patient discussion of these issues with Mordiggian88 in the Freddie Gray thread before last - i wish you would review it

    Parent

    yes, well . . . (none / 0) (#20)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 11:03:21 PM EST
    the 911 caller says or implies that the kid with the gun that turned out to be a fake gun was scaring him and/or others with the "gun."

    Scaring people with a weapon of some sort is usually called brandishing especially if you point the weapon at a person.

    So, the kid probably did some stupid things, and the cop probably overreacted or acted in haste.  The cop perhaps should have taken a position and said, "Hey you!  Drop the weapon!"  .. . or maybe the cop did say that . . .  I have not really followed the details of this case enough to know . . .  Waving a real or fake gun around and/or pointing it at things or points is guaranteed to cause problems, statistically speaking . . .

    Parent

    And then there was the 911 call... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 10:08:36 PM EST
    On the day that officers drove up to Rice, shot him dead, and refused to administer medical assistance, an unidentified caller alerted a dispatcher about a kid wielding a gun. However, the caller also noted that the weapon could have been a toy. "It's probably a fake. But you know what? It's scaring the sh!t out of me," the person said.

    When dispatcher Beth Mandl reported the call to officers, she omitted the comment about the gun possibly being fake. "[The caller] says he's pulling a gun out of his pants," she said after describing what Rice was wearing that day, according to a report by the Courier-Post. The report also notes that it is not yet clear whether this error was Mandl's or whether "the person who took the original 911 call" failed to convey this detail to the dispatcher.

    Link

    So, as much as I hate this whole sorry situation, if all the cops are told is what the dispatcher reports, if the cops don't know that the rest of the story is that the 911 caller also said the gun was probably fake, how much blame do the cops get for responding to what the dispatcher told them?

    Is there, even taking into account that all they knew was what the dispatcher said, fault to be found in the policing techniques and strategy these cops employed?  Did they need to go in full-bore?  Would taking more time to assess the situation have put more lives as risk?

    I don't know.  I think it gets murkier.  I think it looks more like incompetence or negligence on the part of dispatch which affects everything that follows.

    Parent

    I don't think so,Anne. (none / 0) (#17)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 10:36:19 PM EST
    Yes, it seems the dispatcher left out some information, but that does not excuse the insane way those two police officers acted. The dispatcher did not, for instance, say there was an active shooter or that anyone was injured or anything that could remotely justify what we have all seen on that tape. Tamir Rice was not pointing the gun at anyone when that patrol car screamed up at him. The gun was in his waistband.

    For goodness sake, a man walked around the Atlanta airport with an AR-15, and, even though lots of people in the airport called 911 because they were worried and afraid, the police talked to the guy. They did not shoot him. They did not even draw their weapons and brandish them in his direction. They talked to him. He is white, which may not matter, but it maybe does.

    I don't see anything murky about this. To say these two officers acted unprofessionally is an understatement. And, as we now know from released personnel informtion, the officer who shot Tamir Rice washed out at a different police department and should never have been hired by the Cleveland department or any other police deparrtment.

    Parent

    I agree with all of that, casey - I guess I (none / 0) (#19)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 10:50:31 PM EST
    was just thinking that the failure of the dispatcher to report all of what the 911 caller said may give these officers some kind of out.

    But I think when you put it all together - especially the fact that one of the officers should never have been allowed to use a weapon, much less be a police officer - there's plenty there to take issue with in terms of how these officers handled the call.  That's why I said that even if you could make the argument that the cops were only responding to what the dispatcher told them, the quality of the policing they did was execrable.

    I think what really bothers me is that in all of these incidents there seems to be a cold indifference on the part of police, an "oh, who cares about these people, anyway" attitude that's devoid of humanity.  

    It really does just give me chills.

    Parent

    What scares me (none / 0) (#63)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 01:34:59 PM EST
    is the attempt to normalize gunning down civilians who don't pose a threat to the general public with the idea that you should cooperate with a deviant cop, instead of the obvious solution is to get rid of the deviant cops before they have a chance to gun someone down for not obeying their demands.

    That we should give up our rights at the whim of those who are suppose to protect them is mind-boggling to me.

    Parent

    It's (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 02:35:15 PM EST
    pretty Stalinesque isn't it? I even pointed it out to one conservative that they would be very happy back in Stalinist Russia because hey, he kept order.

    Parent
    Open carry.... (none / 0) (#31)
    by unitron on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 01:38:58 AM EST
    ...is not "feel free to point it at other people", and apparently the police were led to believe that that was what was occurring.

    And if the gun was in the young man's waistband and he pulled it out when they arrived, I can see where that could lead to a further misunderstanding of the situation on the part of the police.

    Parent

    Baseless Speculation (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 10:49:39 AM EST
    And if the gun was in the young man's waistband and he pulled it out when they arrived, I can see where that could lead to a further misunderstanding of the situation on the part of the police.

    Since it was not in his waistband, and since he did not reach for it, why would you speculate what might happen if it HAD been?  How much time would 1.8 seconds give you to clear up any "misunderstanding?"

    Remember, that was what the officers claimed before the video that they didn't know about showed them to be liars.

    Who you gonna believe, a written report or your lying eyes?

    Parent

    Rhetorical question? (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 04:48:24 PM EST


    Parent
    If you don't feed it (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 09:18:02 PM EST
    it will die.

    What a surprise (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 09:48:25 PM EST


    Parent
    I hope someone (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 09:24:45 PM EST
    is watching Orphan Black besides me.  

    From PreviouslyTVs (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 09:32:38 PM EST
    clone rankings

    1 Helena
    The former assassin now "walks a different path," as she puts it. Thus she begins the episode happily making stuff for Bubbles, and ends it soaked in blood. In between, she learns that in the course of firing Donnie and Alison from his local operation at the request of Jason Kellerman, local drug lord Pouchy has taken possession of the liquid-nitrogen storage tank that Helena calls "my bebbizzz." So she rides along with Donnie while he tries to resolve the situation in his standard ineffectual way. It looks like everyone's going to at least get out of there alive, until one of Pouchy's crew threatens Donnie and Alison's bebbizzz. Whereupon Pouchy's beloved paper-cutter is turned on its owner, and everyone else in the room. She also remembers to cash out, so now the Hendrices are only in possession of a lot of drug money and not actual drugs. That's pretty awesome, but Alison isn't going to be happy about Helena getting her favorite white ski jacket all gore-soaked.


    Parent
    Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 10:22:20 PM EST
    The BBC miniseries that started tonight after Orphan Black is great-


    BBC America can pull a rabbit out of a hat.

    But Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, premiering tonight on the cable network, goes well beyond old hat tricks.

    Based on the best-selling novel by Susanna Clarke, the series follows Mr. Norrell (Eddie Marsan), a reclusive magician living in northern England during the Napoleonic Wars. He doesn't openly practice his craft, as magic has all but disappeared from England -- which he finds regrettable.

    ---

    The series was created and adapted with extraordinary care by Peter Harness and directed by Toby Haynes, who exhibits a wonderful eye for the script's mix of drama, post-Dickensian characterization and sly humor.

    Every performance is a winner -- including Marsan's mousey Norrell, Carvel's brash Jonathan and Englert's increasingly mad and self-destructive Lady Pole.

    The special effects are exquisitely executed, from the talking statues to Jonathan's jaw-dropping success at righting a foundering ship while standing on the shore.

    And those are just the headline-worthy tricks.



    Parent
    I watched it last year (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 01:47:00 PM EST
    Sort of fell off towards the end though. I watched it On Demand late at night.  Has it picked up?

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 03:42:55 PM EST
    its one of the two or three best things on the tube

    Parent
    In the interest of transparency (none / 0) (#25)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 12:00:40 AM EST
    the news reports that the people in Ohio released a report on what they found out about the shooting of Tamir Rice . . . and the persons who released the report say that they did it in the interest of transparency.

    The person who shoot Tamir has not been charged with a crime but could be at some point . . .  Other people have been arguing that Mosby and her office should not be releasing the autopsy results, basically on the basis that whatever the prosecution says about keeping thing secret, we need to believe and allow them to keep secret.

    Was it good or bad that the Ohio investigators and their leaders have released the report about the shooting of Tamir?  Should they leave us to wonder until such time as a trial or release the report now, and simply find jurors who can and will be impartial?

    i have to say (none / 0) (#27)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 12:38:30 AM EST
    that i don't see who or what is served by satisfaction of the supposed need for "transparency" in this case

    to my understanding, the central aspect of our legal system is the presumption of innocence, & to me that means doing everything possible to ensure that the (eventual) defendant(s) will receive a fair trial, & that includes not taking any action whose effect might be to contaminate the jury pool

    if the "transparency" supposedly gained in this case had anything to do with maintaining civil order (for example, through the proffering of a credible excuse for the shooting), then i would say that maintaining civil order is not the prosecutor's job, not in Cleveland & not in Baltimore, where the State's Attorney is now, after a bad start, correctly & consistently keeping what evidence she has out of the public eye, since only a very few members of the public will ever have any need to see that evidence

    if you & i are not on the jury, then you & i, like the rest of the public, have no need to weigh the evidence against any prospective defendant(s), & thus no need for "transparency" around whatever the facts of the particular case may turn out to be

    Parent

    transparency . . . (none / 0) (#37)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 08:11:36 AM EST
    It appears that you wish to elevate getting a fair trial far above the slightest inconvenience that pre-trial information might create.

    In Ferguson Missouri a leo shoot an AA who was charging at him . . .  In McKinney Texas, a leo picked up and threw to the ground an unarmed girl sitting on the ground.  In both cases, at least at the beginning of the process, there was the possibility of prosecution.  Perhaps there still is the possibility of prosecution in the McKinney case. . . not that I recommend it . . .

    Do you think "we" are better off not knowing about these things, because, no one should know and no one needs to know the details other than the judge, jury, pros and defense attorney?

    The Zimmerman case was one that filled the media of the US and the world from start to trial and afterwards.  Do you believe that the jury was misled by some something that the jurors members or one or them had heard or read prior to trial?  If coverage on CNN, ABC, faulty and misleading coverage on MSNBC designed to make him look guilty, and CBS and foxnews did not compromise the jury in the Zimmerman case, what would it take?  Having every pastor in the US announce from the pulpit his views on the Sunday before trial begins?

    Information helps persons and institutions change and grow and become better.  The Ferguson shooting was justified . . . In Seattle, a few years ago, police shot a man with a knife who had been using it to carve wood and who was hard of hearing . . .

    The OJ simpson trial was filled with pre-trial publicity, including OJ's driving in a goofball escape, maybe.  Which of the pre-trial information do you think improperly influenced either the criminal or civil juries?

    Parent

    sheesh (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 12:45:32 PM EST
    It appears that you wish to elevate getting a fair trial far above the slightest inconvenience that pre-trial information might create.

    our legal system is not a reality show & does not exist for the public's entertainment

    Parent

    Michele Bachman killed the Iowa straw poll (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 07:37:36 AM EST
    She must be so proud

    In other news

    I got a porch swing yesterday

    I feel like an official resident now

    Hey, Howdy (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by sj on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 06:00:48 PM EST
    Went out for dinner last night and, on one of the many TVs tuned to sports, I happened to notice a commercial for farmersonly.com.

    Naturally, I thought of you.


    Parent

    Do you live (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 12:40:59 PM EST
    near the Ozarks? It kind of looks like a mountain view in your picture.

    Parent
    I live smack dab (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 04:49:16 PM EST
    in the middle of the Ozarks

    Parent
    Howdy, you live in a jungle. (none / 0) (#42)
    by fishcamp on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 09:05:26 AM EST
    What kind of animals are lurking behind those trees?  Just read on Google news and saw on TV, there's a flesh eating bacteria in the water around Miami beaches.  Seven have died so far.  Of course, that means it's down here too, since the water is warmer.  Maybe Jeb and Marco can fix this for us.  ha

    It is very green right now (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 09:19:49 AM EST
    im pretty rural.  In spite of officially being in the " city limits".

    We got the usual varmints from squirrels to skunks to groundhogs and armadillos.  The last week or so has been a box turtle invasion.  My yard is on a deer run that goes over the top of my hill.  See lots of those.  Hear coyotes every night.  Seen a few. We even heard a big cat last summer.  Sounded really close.  Freaky as hell to hear that scream in the dark.   We went inside.
    They are even seeing bears and timber wolves here now.  Bears have been seen within a mile of my house but I have never seen one.  Wolves have got a couple of my brotherinlaw calves.  Keep hoping to see either.

    No flesh heating bacteria.  That i know of.

    Parent

    Just moved the boat to (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by ragebot on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 04:57:19 PM EST
    Ft. Myers.  The marina is 17 miles up the Caloosahatchee River in downtown Ft. Myers.  Fresh water with no hard growth.  I had not been in Ft. Myers recently and it is spotless.  It was recently revitalized and is kinda like a theme park.  I love the air conditioned showers and good wifi.  Probably go back to the Keys for the season.

    If you get a chance check out the domed houses at the Cape Romano Shoals

    But have to go soon as DEP wants them torn down.

    Parent

    Very cool homes (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 05:06:07 PM EST
    to bad they can't stay.

    This just turned up on my FB page

    Fibonacci Tree House

    Parent

    Not so cool now (none / 0) (#134)
    by ragebot on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 08:16:14 AM EST
    My first link was a little dated.  The domes were originally over 100 meters from the shore line.  Erosion took its toll and Andrew did a lot of the heavy lifting.  They were sold shortly before Wilma did real damage to the domes.  The Florida DEP refused to issue a permit for a sea wall and they fell into neglect.  Currently they are in a couple feet of water at low tide and sea birds and vandals have reduced them to an eye sore that DEP wants removed and is issuing fines till they are gone.  Here is some what recent pix.

    Parent
    Three hours (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 04:56:26 PM EST
    and counting to GoTs S5 E10

    I know (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 05:15:07 PM EST
    I'm matching socks and waiting :). Don't want to get all distracted and into something, even though it's being recorded.

    Parent
    Even tho I know (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 05:30:25 PM EST
    some spoilers I expect surprises.

    Parent
    Expecting surprises too (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 05:54:15 PM EST
    Shireen was a surprise.  He must be writing that into the final books or the series has really left the path of the books.

    Parent
    The series has left the path of the books (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 06:03:09 PM EST
    in several important ways.  I was reading about that.  I guess Martin and the writers put their heads together and decided how to basically get to the same ultimate ending but by taking different paths.

    I love that idea.  It will make reading the books more fun for me and I assume the series more fun for those who have read the books.

    Parent

    the first book (none / 0) (#147)
    by CST on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 10:04:08 AM EST
    can be a bit hard to get through if you've seen the series, just because it is extremely close to the show.  After that they start to stray.  Around books 4/5 they stray significantly.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 09:13:33 PM EST
    a massive rainstorm caused me to lose signal literally as the first credits rolled

    Whew.

    Parent

    I'll be damned (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 10:54:37 PM EST
    Ruffian's oathkeeper wish came true

    Parent
    And that evil witch returned (none / 0) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 10:56:06 PM EST
    To the wall for Jon Snow's bleedout

    Parent
    Well not to be spoilery (Jon Snow) (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 07:31:08 AM EST
    but the actor has been signed for next season I believe so he either is not dead, iffy considering the time he was stabbed or the red witch or someone else brings him back of he becomes a snow zombie or they plan a lot of flashbacks.

    That was one of the thing i knew would happen.  It's how the last book ended I believe.

    I love hated all the cliffhangers.  What happened to the Tyrells?  What happens to Danny.  What happens to Reek (no longer) and Sansa?

    Loved the reunion of smooth and short.

    Parent

    Jon Snow is also a skinchanger (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 08:37:33 AM EST
    Though he isn't very aware of it yet.  I thought maybe that was what they were keying in when they focused on his eyes as he was bleeding out. Was what was left of his consciousness seeking his wolf? Can't believe oculus isn't a Thronie. It's a Shakespearean tragedy every weekend.

    Parent
    They talk about that a bit (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by CST on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 10:02:54 AM EST
    after the show - and it did sound like George RR Martin told them Shireen's fate, so it appears in that regard they didn't stray too far from what will appear in the books, and that seems to me like the first true book spoiler in the show, just because the show writers did say afterwards that it specifically came from George.

    I am more convinced daily that Jon will be back in some form in the books, although I wouldn't be too surprised if the actor isn't back on the show since he could return in a different form (I wouldn't be surprised if the actor was back either).

    Parent

    If he doesn't show up black cloaked (none / 0) (#152)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    I'll be crushed.  My daughter asked once if he was pulling off black ostrich feathers on that cloak.  I told her I didn't think so, but he could if it was needed :)

    And the Sand Snakes, a force to be reckoned with in the book, sort of fizzely, and sneaky instead of strong on the tube. I am disapoint.

    Parent

    I'd almost rather he doesn't (none / 0) (#159)
    by CST on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 10:52:42 AM EST
    show up black cloaked, since that would probably mean he had to dance with the devil - so to speak.

    I'm not a fan of the red priestess.  Or Lady Stoneheart.  I'd rather have the wolf.

    Parent

    I expect him to come back cloaked (none / 0) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 12:36:00 PM EST
    with blood magic involved.  But who knows.

    Parent
    Ahhhh...but is blood magic inherently evil? (none / 0) (#197)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 01:59:49 PM EST
    Or only used for evil purposes by evil practioners?

    Parent
    Why does reading this post (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 02:01:38 PM EST
    Out of context sound like I am 10?

    Parent
    I'm hoping we get to see (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 05:45:03 PM EST
    Lady Olena kick some butt.   Strategically speaking.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 06:57:46 PM EST
    Russia and China have allegedly decrypted the top-secret cache of files stolen by whistleblower Edward Snowden, according to a report from The Sunday Times, to be published tomorrow. The info has compelled British intelligence agency MI6 to withdraw some of its agents from active operations and other Western intelligence agencies are now actively involved in rescue operations. In a July 2013 email to a former U.S. Senator, Snowden stated that, "No intel­li­gence ser­vice--not even our own--has the capac­ity to com­pro­mise the secrets I con­tinue to pro­tect. While it has not been reported in the media, one of my spe­cial­iza­tions was to teach our peo­ple at DIA how to keep such infor­ma­tion from being com­pro­mised even in the high­est threat counter-intelligence envi­ron­ments (i.e. China)." Many in the intelligence agencies at the time greeted this claim with scepticism. Now, one senior British official said Snowden had "blood on his hands," but another said there's yet no evidence anyone was harmed. Snowden eventually fled to Russia via Hong Kong after downloading some 1.7 million documents from U.S. government computers and leaking them to journalists out of a desire to protect "privacy and basic liberties." The revelations of mass spying outraged populations and governments around the world, at least temporarily damaged relations, and eventually led to changes in the mass surveillance policies of the NSA and British GCHQ. A report in The Guardian on Sunday has called into question both the timing and accuracy of The Sunday Times report, as it relied completely on anonymous sourcing and comes just days after a report on terrorism legislation.
    Greenwald (none / 0) (#106)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 07:14:02 PM EST
    points out the hackery of the story.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 07:32:21 PM EST
    i saw that earlier but I didn't feel like finding to post with the original.  I was sure someone would.  

    Seems a rather risky bunch of lies to me.  It will be, as I said, interesting, to see where if anywhere it goes.

    I do not share the lofty opinion of either Greenwald or Snowden that seem popular here.  I don't believe the motivations of either are as pure as they wish us to think and in Snowdens case I find hiding behind Putins skirts particularly loathsom.

    Now feel free to have the last word.  I'm not ppj.

    Parent

    I am in Edward Snowden's (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 01:44:13 PM EST
    corner.  Not ready to make him a hero, since heros, too, have feet of clay.  However,  I feel he has provided a great service to the country providing information about unethical and unlawful governmental actions, including that denied by officials under oath and found unlawful by the Court. . Snowden's actions are ones of dissent,  piercing governmental shields to show abuse of power and trust.

    Misunderstandings of Snowden stem, in my view,  from understandings of the two forms of dissent: whistleblowing and civil disobedience.

    Civil disobedience has three basic components: the act must be illegal, undertaken for moral reasons, and undertaken to change the law.    Strategies that follow are to be respectful of  the rule of law that is being broken, hence, the  attention being drawn to it--arrest and punishment. To evade the punishment calls into question the moral basis of the dissent resulting in disqualification of the dissent.

    Edward Snowden's actions were not civil disobedience.  Snowden's dissent is that of whistleblowing.  Snowden, as a whistleblower, disclosed illegal or questionable practices of his employer, a contractor for the government.   His is a morally justified  breach that  transgresses the wrongdoing. His breach is of the confidence and loyalty to his employer in the name of justice and social good.  Arrest and punishment is not a required part of the whistleblower form of dissent.  The result of the whistleblower's actions affirm or deny the whistleblowers moral basis of dissent.

     What it means to protest is changing.  Indeed, the government has whistleblower programs with rewards.   And, the government has recognized the difference--arrest and punishment is not effective other than for purposes of attempting to make an example, so as to avoid un-approved whistleblowing.  The Espionage Act of 1917, is put into service as a lethal relic to suborn transparency.

    Parent

    I know you are (none / 0) (#193)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 01:46:45 PM EST
    and that matters to me.

    I agree what he did has done some good.

    Parent

    I find Snowden hiding behind Putin (none / 0) (#149)
    by CST on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 10:07:10 AM EST
    Incredibly human.  The actions of someone who's scared and ultimately looking out for his own self-interest.

    Which doesn't 100% go along well with the role of whistleblower.  But most of the time people are not 100% one thing or the other.

    It's not particularly noble of him, but I can't really judge him for it either.

    Parent

    A Person Can Believe... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 11:58:59 AM EST
    ... in reporting injustice while simultaneously wanting to remain free.

    Your comment about whistle-blowers seems to imply that they are by definition, selfless.  They are not.

    Parent

    I'm actually trying to say the opposite (none / 0) (#171)
    by CST on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 12:04:10 PM EST
    And I guess didn't entirely succeed.

    My point was while there may be some sense that the truly noble/pure thing to do is whistleblow and take whatever punishment you get - that seems very hollywood and not particularly realistic and true to life.

    And Snowden is human, not a hero in a movie.  So it makes sense to me that he would hide in Russia.

    I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with that.

    Parent

    What would be so noble about Snowden (none / 0) (#167)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 11:37:04 AM EST
    returning to the United States where he would be arrested and thrown in solitary for god knows how long, or just simply killed?

    Whistleblowers are actual people who come with all the emotions and fears and uncertainties that the rest of us harbor. Given the nature of whistleblowing, they are rightly afraid of what will happen to them by those on whom they are blowing that whistle.

    Snowden would be a fool to leave Russia. Just about every other country in the world would serve him up to the U.S. a big old military aid platter.

    Parent

    Check out Capt Kirks new ride (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 08:03:49 AM EST
    its not the enterprise but it's pretty cool-

    The Shatner-inspired Rivet One is a mean steampunk trike from the future

    I thought I read there was a two wheeled version but I can't find a pic.     I love this but I don't do three wheeled "motorcycles"

    To me it ain't steamy enough (none / 0) (#184)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 12:51:44 PM EST
    Looks more like a TRON motorcycle.  Gotta wonder if it can do those cool, high speed, 90 degrees on a dime turns.

    Parent
    GREAT NEWS! (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 12:34:20 PM EST
    I have shingles!  woohoo.

    I thought I had some kind of bug or spider bite so I didn't go to the doctor for several days.

    Very bad.  FYI .

    For the drugs to work she said treatment needs to begin within 48 hours of on set.  Let that be a lesson.
    If you have weird painful (FREAKIN painful) bumps, go to the doctor immediately.

    Mine is on the side of my head. I guess I have a very mild case relatively speaking.  

    Ohhhh...I'm so sorry to hear this... (none / 0) (#180)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 12:43:04 PM EST
    I had them about 10 years ago, or so - a little patch near the front of my shoulder and a little on the back of that same shoulder.  Itched like crazy initially - thought I'd somehow managed to get poison ivy, but couldn't imagine how.  My mom was in the hospital at the time, and we had the same internist.  When he came in to see her, I said, "oh, by the way..." and described what I was experiencing.  He took a look, and as soon as I told him I didn't have it anywhere on the other side of my body, he said, "shingles."  Immediately prescribed the anti-viral - which I think helped, but it was still so, so painful and I felt like I had the flu.  Told someone it was like someone poking your skin with burning hot needles.  Never, ever want to go through that again...

    My husband got them on his head - and the worry there is for the eyes.  VA got him to the eye doctor pronto to make sure nothing was going on there, and also got him on the drug.

    I wish you as speedy a recovery as possible, and as little pain as possible.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#187)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 01:10:19 PM EST
    yeah, she said the eye was the big worry but at this point didn't seem threatened.  But I have to take the meds and go back immediately if it gets worse or I have eye problems.


    Parent
    I had them in a little arc on my ribcage (none / 0) (#181)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 12:47:12 PM EST
    - following a nerve trunk, according to the doctor.

    I wonder if anyone ever gets those meds in the 48 hour window.  I thought the little bumps were poison ivy, from a doggy hug.  

    I didn't have the freakishly painful variation, though.  

    Parent

    So sorry, Capt. (none / 0) (#183)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 12:51:08 PM EST
    Shingles can be very, very painful.
    After Mr. Zorba got a really bad case of shingles on his leg a few years ago, I went straight to the doctor and got my shingles shot, which the CDC recommends for people 60+ years old.
    I also have a friend who lost most of the vision in his one eye because he got shingles in his eye.  Really, really unpleasant.

    Parent
    Oh, wow. (none / 0) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 01:16:28 PM EST
    So sorry. I've never had them knock on wood and hope I never do.

    I hope the doc gave you some decent pain killers. From what others are saying about shingles it sounds like you need them.

    Parent

    McCarthy was right! (none / 0) (#179)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 12:38:08 PM EST
    f@ck me.

    Do we still have questions about climate change denial?

    No.

    I thought not.

    Colorado Supreme Court (none / 0) (#196)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 01:55:35 PM EST
    Yes, you can be fired for partaking of medical marijuana in your off hours.

    The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday that a business can fire an employee for using medical marijuana even if the employee is off-duty at the time, a decision that could have far-reaching ramifications in a state that has decriminalized most marijuana use.

    The justices said that the employees in question can be fired because marijuana is still illegal under federal law, marking the latest example of the sharp divide between state laws and the federal law. This chasm affects nearly two dozen states that allow legal medical marijuana, as well as a growing effort across the country to legalize recreational marijuana, following in the footsteps of Colorado and other states.
    Tropical Storm Bill (none / 0) (#202)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 04:28:34 PM EST
    I don't think it's technically even a tropical storm but the media is hell bent on acting like this is the end and people are more than happy to get on board.  Work has already put out the word, stay at home if its bad.

    The Weather Channel is call it a 'Gulf of Mexico Disturbance'.

    What is means for me, probably a rain day coming up, yeah.  Otherwise just a lot of rain, but Houston is dried out since the last rain so minor flooding I would imagine.  We could use some rain, not a bunch, just enough to green everything up.

    Yuck, shingles are horrible...sorry Howdy (none / 0) (#205)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 07:32:58 PM EST
    My mom had them and it was really hard to see that pain.

    About GoT - yes, I called it! Not in exactly the way I expected, but I'll take it.

    WTF happened to Sansa and Theon though? That is what I am most anxious to find out next season.

    Ruff (none / 0) (#206)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 07:41:55 PM EST
    thanks.  I guess I don't have the really horribly painful kind.  At least so far..  When I told her it had been 6 or 7 days and it actually maybe felt a little better she said that was a good sign.
    I did not get pain medication although she offered.  Not there yet.  Pain meds are no fun anymore.  They mostly just relieve pain.  At least at this level.

    GoTs
    Yeah!  Lot o cliffhangers. I was bugged that the Tyrells were not even mentioned.  Other than that a pretty epic finale.

    Are you watching Penny Dreadful?  IMO it's been amazing all season.  And the prospects for the last three episodes are great.

    I'm behind on Penny Dreadful (none / 0) (#207)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 15, 2015 at 08:42:34 PM EST
    Catching up on Veep... Fricking hysterical. JLD rules.

    Saturday Open Thread | 207 comments (207 topical)