Tuesday Night Open Thread

It's time for a new open thread. Here it is, all topics welcome.

< Dennis Hastert Pleads Not Guilty | Mexico AG: Only Two Cartels and Three Drug Lords Left in Mexico >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Headless Body in Topless Bar (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by desertswine on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 09:48:12 PM EST
    The Quiet Woman restaurant (none / 0) (#21)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 08:43:53 AM EST
    ....the logo is a headless woman....



    Looks nice... (none / 0) (#113)
    by desertswine on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 10:32:19 PM EST
    I forgot to leave a picture of the Headless Headline.

    Activists will use obscure Ohio Law (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 10:45:42 PM EST
    to bypass prosecutors and charge cops who killed Tamir Rice.

    Ohio is one of several states that allow residents to request an arrest without approval from police or prosecutors.

    This isn't an offical ruling (none / 0) (#164)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 06:16:59 PM EST
    It's a move to put pressure on the prosecutor and/or grand jury to indict.  This has the stench of Benjamin Crump all over it.... Shady but smart.

    The "stench" - heh (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 09:48:44 AM EST
    A word used when someone wants to make an accusation but has no actual evidence.

    Why (none / 0) (#165)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 06:22:56 PM EST
    such animus towards Crump ?

    Update (none / 0) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 06:41:46 PM EST

    aparrently it's "largely advisory" and not really binding but will carry weight.

    Acting under a rarely used provision of Ohio state law, a judge found probable cause Thursday to charge Cleveland police Officer Timothy Loehmann with murder in the fatal shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice last year.

    Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Ronald Adrine also found cause to support negligent homicide charges against Officer Frank Garmback, Loehmann's partner, who is accused of standing by after Loehmann shot Tamir in November at a recreation center, where Tamir was playing with a pellet gun.

    Adrine agreed with local activists known as the "Cleveland 8" who took the unusual step of independently seeking charges because, they said, they'd lost confidence in the grand jury investigation.

    The ruling is only advisory and doesn't affect the separate grand jury investigation.

    Adrine -- saying he wasn't performing an "end around" of the city or the county -- stressed that the choice to lodge charges remains with Cuyahoga County and Cleveland prosecutors. In a statement, county prosecutor Timothy McGinty said the grand jury would make any final decision.

    Full ruling PDF (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 06:47:15 PM EST
    Catching the end of the McKinny (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 01:49:32 PM EST
    news conference by Casebolts lawyer and a union rep.

    Call the WAMBULAMCE!

    Poor poor officer Casebolt OH for years of selfless service (before those damn lying phone videos became popular).

    Its a pretty amazing thing to watch.  What I think is happening is that rogue cops across the country are starting to understand that every citizen including most children have a video camera in their pocket and are just waiting to make them famous.

    And they don't like it.  No sir.

    In All Honesty... (none / 0) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 02:27:11 PM EST
    ...he should not have lost his job for that incident.  I am thinking this wasn't his first rodeo and this was just an opportune time for the department to drop some dead weight.

    Beyond the girl, he looked like an untrained fool.  He looked like he was auditioning for the lead role in Keystone Cops.

    No one was even hurt, which for a cop 'scandal' is almost unheard of.

    I doubt many rogue cops even know they are rogue.  One has to be different to be rogue, no ?  And from my experience, the last thing on a cops mind is the concept of accountability of their actions.  If they cared they would snatch up these phones.  And I am guessing we are going to see plenty of bad behavior on the body cams once they become the norm.


    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 02:34:19 PM EST
    i couldn't disagree more.  He pulled his gun.  On a bunch of children.  How do you know what would have happened if they had not run.
    No one was hurt?  It's been pointed out the if you did to your own child in a public place what he did to that young girl you would have child protective services at your door instantly.   And you should.  It was completely uncalled for.
    I suspect no one was hurt because on some level he was aware of the many cameras on him.  That would explain the barrel roll I guess.

    Not lose his job?  He should be prosecuted for assault.   And may be.  He will certainly see a civil suit.  As he should.


    Right... (none / 0) (#70)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 03:11:43 PM EST
    ...he screwed up and should be shuffling papers.

    I am not going to comment on what could have happened because it didn't.

    Yeah and if I put the neighbor in cuffs and throw them in a cell the FBI would probably show up.  But police can detain people, and as far as I can tell all he was doing was tying to control her.  He didn't even cuff her, he held her down, which is within his duties.

    I am not cop sympathizer, but this is a over reaction to all the actual overstepping of other cops IMO.

    No one got hurt because he didn't hurt anyone.  Your are making arguments about things that simply did not occur.  What he did was hold a girl down and brandish his weapon.  I can't even imagine either of those go against any department policy and they sure as hell aren't illegal for a cop on duty.

    This isn't you or me, this is a person whose job description includes detaining people, even ones that don't want to be detained, and ones that aren't 18.

    I bet he gets his job back or they settle with him.


    He did cuff her, fwiw. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 03:15:59 PM EST
    I am sort of amazed by this (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 03:26:12 PM EST
    this was from the press conference-

    "As the chief of police, I want to say to our community that the actions of Casebolt, as seen on the video, of the disturbance at the community pool, are indefensible," said Chief Greg Conley, during a news conference Tuesday afternoon. "Our policies, our training, our practice, do not support these actions. He came into the call out of control, and as the video shows, was out of control during the incident."

    The tape (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 03:49:20 PM EST
    shows an out of control cop.

    His reaction was out (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 05:01:27 PM EST
    of proportion to the situation, and showed extremely poor judgment, lack of emotional control and inability to relate to people as anything other than a bully; this was no rookie, but someone who'd been in law enforcement for over 10 years.

    The physical reaction was bad enough; his decision to brandish his weapon could have had tragic consequences.

    I can't speak for you, but I can tell you that I would not want that kind of cop anywhere near my children, or me for that matter.

    There was an interesting take on cops that I came upon at digby's place (she got it from TPM) - here's part of it:

    As a former police officer and current policing scholar, I know that an officer's mindset has tremendous impact on police/civilian encounters. I've described the Guardian and Warrior mindsets at some length here and here; for now, suffice to say that the right mindset can de-escalate tense situations, induce compliance, and increase community trust over the long-term. The kids interacting with the first officer were excited, but not upset; they remained cooperative. Had they gone home at that moment, they'd have a story for their friends and family, but it would be a story that happened to have the police in it rather than being a story about the police.

    The wrong mindset, on the other hand, can exacerbate a tense encounter, produce resistance, and lead to entirely avoidable violence. It can, and has, caused longterm damage to police/community relations. We shouldn't be surprised that the kids Corporal Casebolt was yelling at weren't eager to do what he was ordering them to do--no one likes being cursed at and disrespected in front of their peers, and people of all ages, especially teenagers, resent being treated unjustly. That resentment can lead to resistance, and Police Warriors--taught to exercise unquestioned command over a scene--overcome resistance by using force.

    If cops are being trained in the mold of Casebolt, we're going to keep hearing about people injured and killed by cops who don't seem to know how to do anything but escalate situations.

    He needed to go; no police department needs cops like this, and no community needs cops that can become more of a threat to the community than the community faces from its own.


    He resigned his commission. (none / 0) (#75)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 03:31:22 PM EST
    The Department didn't fire him.

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 05:21:12 PM EST
    ...dang, a lot of people I respect are pushing back.

    I am going to watch the video when I get home, again, no I am not, I don't actually care that much, he's gone and everyone is cool with it.


    With respect (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 05:39:56 PM EST
    i really think you should watch it again.  Otoh if you turn on your TV you probably won't be able to avoid it.

    Stewart did a segment on this and one thing he said was while he was screaming at the sobbing teenager to get on the ground she was, in fact, sitting on the ground.
    He wanted her on her face.
    He treated her the way a cop might justly treat someone who presented a threat.   This tiny sobbing bikini clad girl was not a threat to anything or anyone.  Except possibly his AUTHORITAAAY.  
    It's true no one was injured.  Thank god.  But Anne is right this is exactly the kind policing that leads to injuries and death.
    Unnecessary injuries and death.


    Yes, I noticed that first thing (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by sj on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:26:13 PM EST
    Stewart did a segment on this and one thing he said was while he was screaming at the sobbing teenager to get on the ground she was, in fact, sitting on the ground.
    She was sitting on the ground and he was screaming at her to get on the ground. That poor girl never stood a chance once he set eyes on her.

    As for the comment below (not yours):  

    I am wondering if the law enforcement officers who responded to the scene were overwhelmed by the sheer number of young people who did not obey orders to disperse
    I have a number of comments:

    1. Oy
    2. Other officers did not seem nearly so overwhelmed as Casebolt
    3. If you listen you can hear that the some of the kids were prevented from returning to the pool area to retrieve their belongings. Adolescent kids may not have a good solution to (essentially) "leave your stuff and go"
    4. Using "sheer numbers" to describe guests at a party is a nice deflection right there.
    5. It appears that a lot of these kids were not old enough to drive. I cannot speak factually to this, but what I am wondering is why you think the parents of the kids would stick around after dropping them off at a party. How, pray tell, would you expect these party guests to get home? Oh, that's right. You like the word "disperse". Where exactly do you think these kids should have gone?
    6. Oy.

    Oculus (none / 0) (#115)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 07:21:23 AM EST
    can't help but take the side of the cops no matter what, it's a reflex that bypasses the pre-frontal cortext part of her brain.

    The video previously posted here (none / 0) (#174)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 08:54:58 PM EST
    does not, of course, encompass the duration or scope of events from the moment law enforcement arrived, summoned by people who live in the community where the pool is located. How many persons were in the immediate area when law enforcement arrived? What information did the latter have when they arrived. Witnesses described kids "fighting."  How many kids?  What were they doing when they were fighting?  What were the other kids doing when some were fighting?   Did the corporal have a reasonable fear for the safety of himself or others who were present, including the other law enforcement officers at the scene?  

    Best to reserve judgment until all the facts are available.  That being said, if the young girl was sitting on the ground and merely asked the officer if she could retrieve her phone, a simple "no, not now, later" response should have been the officer's first response.


    Have the other law enforcement officers (none / 0) (#175)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:00:11 PM EST
    present made public statements?

    Apparently one of the reasons police were requested to come to the scene is that there was fighting and there were kids not on the guest list who showed up and were intent on joining the party.

    How many kids were in the pool or trying to get into the party?

    Did the officers tell the kids to go home?


    There are reports of this story (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:09:13 PM EST
    literally everywhere.  Why are you asking people to tell you.

    I repeat.  Learn to google.


    sj, is that you? (2.00 / 1) (#180)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:11:58 PM EST
    It really not funny (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:27:26 PM EST
    you sit there sniffing that "we need to know more" but seem either unwilling or unable to actually find out.  

    Which is really not that hard.

    It took me about 30 seconds to find the link I provided below.

    We need to know more is starting to be annoying.


    That's ok. It's a blog. I'm not that thrilled to (none / 0) (#189)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:29:51 PM EST
    see endless comments re Game of Thrones. Tap dancing0, on the other hand,...

    I'm the best (none / 0) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:34:49 PM EST
    in my class

    Which is like saying you are the tallest person (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:36:45 PM EST
    in Munchkin Land

    Why don't you do the research (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:54:03 PM EST
    Instead of asking questions, oculus?  You're apparently no dummy, but your unwillingness to actually use teh Google does strike me as inexplicable verging into the annoying.

    Having watched the video (3.50 / 2) (#89)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:01:39 PM EST
    and read statements by a local AA TV newscaster who lives in the neighborhood and statements by the neighbors who requested assistance of law enforcement, I am wondering if the law enforcement officers who responded to the scene were overwhelmed by the sheer number of young people who did not obey orders to disperse. Need to know more about the circumstances.

    As the chief said (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:15:27 PM EST
    and some teenagers who interacted with the cops also, there was 11 cops there.  And one problem named Casebolt.

    Perhaps the teens didn't disperse because ... (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:36:44 PM EST
    ... most of them were there legitimately, and it was Officer Casebolt who instigated the confrontation and not the kids. As I told someone the other day in a different thread, young people under the age of 21 generally lack a mature adult's cognitive capacity for rationalization, and thus they'll often respond emotionally in such situations. I'd think that threatening a crowd of them with physical violence would tend to be counterproductive.

    re supposed orders to disperse (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:37:50 AM EST
    It appears that Casebolt acted as if  his mission was to chase away from the area the kids of minority race rather than to find out who, if anyone, had been fighting and either get them to stop fighting or, failing that, to arrest the person or persons instigating the fights.

    Before Casebolt began to manhandle the bikini-clad girl, she was sitting peacefully on the ground.  She could have been on the ground because of following his instructions to get on the ground . . . or she could have been on the ground in defiance of an order to disperse.  I have not seen the video enough to know.

    However, even in the case most favorable to Casebolt . . . that the girl was sitting down on the ground in defiance on an instruction to disperse . . .  manhandling her and placing her face in the ground/grass and putting his knee in her back does not seem to have been an appropriate continuation to the situation.


    As far as I know, no one was hurt.... (2.00 / 2) (#130)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 11:26:40 AM EST
    but, as the trend continues to show.... bad things happen when people don't obey orders from police.  

    Bad things (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 11:34:52 AM EST
    also happen when police treat a teenage pool party like a combat zone. Luckily no one got hurt and the policeman is deservedly the only one who had to pay the price this time.

    Well, given that the girl he was (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 12:04:47 PM EST
    screaming at to "GET ON THE GROUND!" was already on the ground, what would you have had her do?  Start digging?

    And, for what it's worth, being "hurt" does not have to mean "suffered a physical injury;" being screamed at, with a gun being waved around, seems like it would be emotionally terrorizing.  

    For what it's worth II: bad things happen when people DO obey orders from the police.

    Finally, your entire attitude screams "authoritarian police state" and brings the word "jawhol" to mind.

    It pretty much sickens me.


    Boo Hoo (1.00 / 1) (#139)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 02:27:07 PM EST
    A bratty kid was screamed at.  He didn't "wave" a gun around and he never pointed it at her.

    Your attitude screams "opinions based on emotion".  


    He drew his weapon. (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:10:19 PM EST
    And pointed it at one of the teens - it appears because that person was getting too close to his confrontation with a young woman in a bikini.  

    I was always told that you don't draw your weapon, or point it at someone, unless you intend to use it.  

    He continues to hold the gun in his hand as he goes back to dealing with a young woman who is already sitting on the ground. He holsters the gun, then takes her roughly by the arm - keep in mind she wasn't resisting or attempting to get away - then swings her around, grabs her by the back of her head/neck and pushes her to the ground.  He then gets her on her stomach, puts his knees in her back as she lies with her face in the grass.

    It was out of proportion to the situation in every way.

    In any situation where emotions are running high, it falls to the police to de-escalate those situations, and manhandling people who aren't doing anything, pointing your weapon at people who aren't doing anything more than standing there, screaming in people's faces, are not ways to bring calm to any situation.

    And if a cop can't be counted on to react appropriately, he or she is a liability to the community, to the department and to him- or herself.

    You talk tough, but I suspect you'd dissolve in a quivering puddle of flop sweat if put into that same situation.


    If I was put in the same situation as who? (none / 0) (#144)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:22:46 PM EST
    The kids?  If so, I would have done as the cops instructed. As Casebolt? I have no idea.  I haven't had police training and I'm not sure I would have the patience required to deal with that type of event.

    "It was out of proportion to the situation in every way"

    I mostly agree with that.  However, I don't think Casebolt is quite as bad as many are suggesting.

    "I was always told that you don't draw your weapon, or point it at someone, unless you intend to use it."

    I don't believe that is how cops are trained.  I believe they will draw their firearm when they believe there is a significant threat.  In this case it doesn't appear there was a significant threat and Casebolt overreacted.


    SIGNIFICANT THREAT FROM WHAT (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:26:14 PM EST

    A 75 pound bikini clad 14 year old girl.  

    Jezzy Christ on a bicycle.  Is there no bottom to this barrel?


    No, there's not. (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 07:56:55 AM EST
    So why, oh why do people feel compelled to keep trying to find one?

    Noted (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 07:59:36 AM EST
    i have sworn off responding to that person.  But sometimes I'm weak and backslidin

    What are you freaking out about? (2.00 / 1) (#149)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:31:20 PM EST
    I said it doesn't appear there was a significant threat.  Do you just assume my opinion is going to be completely different from yours? Try reading carefully and not being such a drama queen.

    Mea culpa (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:36:48 PM EST
    how could I possibly think you would say something stupid

    Did (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:50:46 PM EST
    it ever occur to you that this girl was standing up her for her rights? It is apparent to me you would abdicate your rights to any bully with a tin badge. I know who the true American is in this case and it sure ain't you or the cop.

    A frame by frame... (none / 0) (#198)
    by unitron on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 01:10:51 AM EST
    ...of the video shows two of the young men headed towards him rather quickly with at least one already making a fist, so he had no obligation to let them begin an assault on him before presenting them with the visual of his drawn weapon as a form of discouragement.

    Note that I am speaking only about his drawing his weapon in response to the threat they posed, not any of his other actions or the actions of anyone else.


    Oh. My. God. Are you for real? (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 05:57:20 PM EST
    McBain: "A bratty kid was screamed at.  He didn't "wave" a gun around and he never pointed it at her. Your attitude screams 'opinions based on emotion.'"

    Whereas YOUR attitude screams, "My head's shoved so far up my own a$$, I can lick my own tonsils from the inside!"

    Since when does a asking if one can retrieve one's own belongings constitute brattiness? And you're right, Officer Numbnutz didn't point the gun at that 15-year-old girl; he pointed it at other kids instead, after he had already thrown her to the ground. Then he came back around to her and shoved her face into the turf, while dropping a knee into the small of her back.

    So, my little clueless Foxbat, you just keep dangling your conscientious stupidity in front of us like a big fat right-wing piñata, and watch what happens to you here.

    Jesus. >:-O


    How do you get rights back after they're taken? (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 06:40:52 PM EST
    bad things happen when people don't obey orders from police.

    I stand up for my rights, I talk back to police when they violate them.  I dare them to arrest me for standing up for my rights.  Since there is no remedy for a rights violation, in the sense that you can't be un-raped, it is incumbent upon the subject to prevent a violation rather than complain about one later.

    I have never been arrested for anything.  Never.  Anything.  I have a reputation among my friends for getting in officers' faces when they step over the line. No one who has seen me do that can believe I have never been arrested, because I actually challenge them to do it.  But I'm white, adult, over 60.

    My much younger Black friends know their rights as well as I do, but they also know better than to stand up for them the way they have seen me do.  It's a different world if you're Black, and I have seen first hand what happens when a Black kid does what I always get away with because I'm white.  


    More victim blaming (none / 0) (#200)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 09:50:42 AM EST
    "Bad things happen" is just another, silly attempt to blame the victim.

    I wish there was an interim step before calling (none / 0) (#116)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 07:26:55 AM EST
    911. If the adults present were worried property rights were being violated, couldn't they call the property manager to sort it out? Why is the first step always to bring in the armed response?

    A community pool is often going to have rowdy kids (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 07:30:40 AM EST
    present. Those pools usually have no life guard, and no one 'in charge'. If you can't handle that situation, find another pool or stay home.

    From the little I've read, a private (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 07:38:00 AM EST
    security guard was present and trying to make sure only kids on the ilist were admitted. But lots of party crashers showed up and were scaling the fence.

    That is true (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 08:17:18 AM EST
    but it still doesn't justify pulling a gun on a bunch of obviously defenseless, weaponless teens, let along throwing the one girl to the ground, does it?

    No. (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:17:32 AM EST
    Thank you. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:27:40 AM EST
    The private security guard (none / 0) (#160)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 05:20:40 PM EST
    According to the girl who was overly cop handled was only checking the passes of the black pool occupants until she pointed out that that seemed a little racist.  She said the security guard then did check everyone's passes.

    Then the security guard became concerned about " horseplay" and was lecturing her group about " horseplay" even though paler kids were also participating in "horseplay" unlectured.

    She said that the boys that jumped the fence were not with her or her party also.


    Amen sister... (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 08:39:03 AM EST
    bigotry is certainly no reason to call 911, which appears to be the reason here for the dime-drop.  

    I'd be so bold as to say 911 is one of the most misused and abused resources in this nation, with far too often tragic results.  And ya can't blame that on the police, it's all on the citizenry.


    Only one police officer was losing (none / 0) (#159)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 05:14:58 PM EST
    His mind though.

    I tend to agree with you Scott (none / 0) (#129)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 11:17:25 AM EST
    unless, Casebolt has made made several other mistakes on duty, he shouldn't lose his job over this incident. What's crazy is some people want him criminally prosecuted.  

    That's the thing... (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 11:34:31 AM EST
    if he was a civilian, he would be prosecuted. Sh*t...were he a black male civilian manhandling a little white girl, he'd be shot on sight!

    Where's the equality under the law up in here? (Rhetorical question, we all know equality under the law is one of our many civic myths that has never truly existed).


    There's no evidence race had anything (2.00 / 1) (#134)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 11:56:33 AM EST
    to do with this incident.  Why are you making it about race?

    That is a flat out lie, McBain (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by sj on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 12:21:55 PM EST
    There's no evidence race had anything (none / 0) (#134)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 10:56:33 AM MDT

    to do with this incident.  Why are you making it about race?

    The white kid who took that video made it clear that only Casebolt did not harass anyone who was white.

    You're accusing me of lying? (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 02:22:38 PM EST
    There were other residents who said it had nothing to do with race. Don't be so quick to assume racism.  Perhaps the white kids weren't the ones causing trouble?  

    Who should we believe (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 02:35:08 PM EST
    you or our lying eyes?

    Yes McBain. j'accuse (none / 0) (#140)
    by sj on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 02:35:00 PM EST
    What you stated
    There's no evidence race had anything (none / 0) (#134)
     by McBain on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 10:56:33 AM MDT

    to do with this incident.

    is a flat out lie. There is indeed such evidence.

    Such as? (none / 0) (#146)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:26:46 PM EST
    You haven't shown any yet.   What you have shown me is strong evidence you are easily manipulated.

    This is my last response to you (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by sj on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:43:07 PM EST
    I am not playing your games. I already know how you work. You will duck and weave and dissemble and engage in all sorts of dishonest "discourse" and then accuse others of being unresponsive. What you consider "evidence" for yourself you do not consider "evidence" for others.

    So I am not playing your game. And I still accuse you of dishonesty.


    Stay classy (2.00 / 1) (#155)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:56:48 PM EST
    You go first. (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 06:00:20 PM EST
    Nothing racist here (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 07:11:42 PM EST
    says of of your most favoritest interview bimbos -

    On Monday night, (Sean)Toon was also interviewed, using only his first name, by Fox News' Megyn Kelly and explained why he called the cops. A section of the interview was replayed on Tuesday morning's Fox & Friends, with Toon's version of events promoted by the Fox anchors as providing a fuller picture than the seven-minute YouTube video.
    What Toon has failed to mention, though, is that he was part of a group of adults that initially made racist comments to the mostly black youths, sparking a violent fight.

    Mr Toon knows a bit about teenaged rowdiness (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 07:16:04 PM EST
    Toon complained that the neighbourhood had a problem with "out of control kids".

    In November 1999, aged 18, Toon and three high school friends were arrested and expelled from school after vandalising the agricultural centre of a rival high school district and attacking animals housed there, many of which were owned and cared for by school children.

    "Cows and pigs were cut and bruised, apparently beaten with wooden boards. And baby turkeys were slain, their limbs torn apart," the Dallas Morning News reported at the time. Dale Gardner, a teacher in the school district's agriscience and technology program, told the newspaper: "It was brutal. There's no way to describe it. I've never seen anything like it." ...

    according to court records, Toon pleaded guilty to felony criminal mischief and was sentenced in August 2000 to 285 days in jail and fined $300. His three friends were also punished for the incident.

    That he drew his gun on a group (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 11:53:04 AM EST
    of teenagers at a pool party is grounds for dismissal, if nothing else. Those kids were in bathing suits, not masks. They were not committing a violent crime. They were kids at a birthday party.

    Casebolt is just d@mn lucky that gun did not go off.

    As to the kids running, well, they were told to disperse and not allowed back to get their belongings.

    In today's paper I read that, according to Casebolt's lawyer, his two calls before the pool party were emotionally draining. One was a man who committed suicide in front of his family. The other was a kid who was threatening suicide. I agree, both emotion laden calls. Apparently, Casebolt thought about not answering the pool party call because of his state of mind, but went to the pool anyway.

    So, it seems that this debacle started with one police officer, Casebolt, ignoring his own frazzled and emotional state of mind, making a bad decision,  and thus escalating the pool party well beyond what was called for.


    When You Agree With Me... (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:05:20 PM EST
    ...I know I need to rethink.

    Unlike McBain, what he did was bad, my argument was that, to me, it wasn't the level that justifies his career.  Give him a desk job and some therapy.

    I came to that conclusion before I knew about his past, especially considering it was race related and involved a sexual assault.

    He resigned, but what does that mean.  Usually it means they are going to fire you, but if you want to go out with a little dignity, they will let you resign.

    I was looking at through the lens that cops do far worse and get paid leave, come back to work, and that is that.  For a cop to lose his job over that is unheard of; the two involved in the Rice shooting are on admin leave, might not even get charged, and people are talking about assault for this guy.

    I would not have fired him over the one incident, I would not have given him a gun either, nor would I let him out in the community.  But after reading about the other lawsuit, yes, I would have fired him, or let him hand in his resignation.


    Also (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 02:38:22 PM EST
    snatch up the phones?

    How would they do that?


    One more (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 02:47:51 PM EST
    that untrained fool was in fact a trainer fir that police department.  A 10 year veteran.   But you are right about one thing.  It was not his first rodeo-

    The white McKinney, Texas, cop who was recorded on a now-viral video tackling a black teen girl and pointing his gun at two unarmed black teens was previously accused of racial bias and sexual assault by a man he arrested in 2007.

    Federal court documents show that David Eric Casebolt and other officers were sued in 2008 in federal court for racial profiling, harassment, failure to render aid and sexual assault.

    And how was this lawsuit resolved? (none / 0) (#176)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:03:58 PM EST
    Learn to google (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:06:47 PM EST
    This is oculus' way of chiding you for (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:24:35 PM EST
    not including the information that the lawsuit was eventually dismissed.

    Brown withdrew his suit in 2009, saying that he needed more time to prove his case.

    The officers involved denied any wrongdoing, and the case was dismissed with the court insisting that Brown could not proceed on the civil-rights action unless his conviction or sentencing had been reversed or otherwise called into question. They have not.

    I have no idea why oculus can't just have a normal discussion, but she seems to be fond of the rhetorical trap.


    You aren't a skilled mindreader. (none / 0) (#187)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:28:06 PM EST
    I know several commentators (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:55:36 PM EST
    about who that can be said.

    Trap this (none / 0) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:29:26 PM EST
    i don't feel put off by prosecutorial bs.  If you read that story it's pretty damn icky.

    Dismissed or not.

    And I don't believe she knew.


    You don't know, do you? (none / 0) (#181)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:12:35 PM EST
    I do not (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:14:51 PM EST
    but if I cared I would find out.  I would not ask.

    Allegations in a civil complaint (none / 0) (#183)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:18:59 PM EST
    should not be a basis for anyone being terminated from employment.

    Btw (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:46:52 PM EST
    Casebolt was not terminated because of allegations.  He resigned, most likely before he was terminated, for throwing a young girl on the ground and putting his knees in her back to hold her face in the dirt and pointing his, I assume, loaded gun at a bunch of kids at a birthday party.

    Btw 2
    I read today that he has hired a criminal defense attorney.  
    Probably a good idea I think.


    I am aware he resigned. (none / 0) (#195)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 10:04:59 PM EST
    This Slate piece indicates there are conflicting accounts:



    here ha go (none / 0) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:21:54 PM EST

    Anything else ya need?  Fluff your pillow?  Rub your feet?


    A 14 yr old girl in a bikini was assaulted (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 07:20:08 AM EST
    by a grown man with a gun. That hurts on many levels.

    Scott (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 05:30:32 PM EST
    you should read this:


    This guys explains calmly what is wrong with what went down.

    I happen to think he makes a lot of good points fwiw.


    I wondered if he was on (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:45:07 PM EST
    Some sort of upper.  All of his actions were out of context with those around him to include the other officers.

    Funny (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:51:29 PM EST
    i thought the same thing.  I wonder if he was or will be tested?  Meth stays in the blood for a while I've heard.

    Cops drug tested? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:52:51 PM EST
    I wonder how common it is?

    Come to light are (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 05:07:02 PM EST
    34 letters sent to the federal judge who heard the case of General David Petraeus (ret).  Petraeus, who provided "black books" listing classified information such as covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and notes on discussions with the president, to his mistress and biographer  so as to assist in her book writing, lied to the FBi and on a CIA exit form, took a plea for a misdemeanor for "mishandling" information.   The General received two years probation and $100,000 fine.

    The letter-writers asked the judge to go easy on Petraeus, many of whom are hawks on leaks and whistleblowers.  Included are Admiral McMullen, former Chair JCS, who wrote "Dave is humanely flawed, as many are...."  Joe Lieberman who pushed for strict anti-leak laws and claimed Wikileaks had blood on its hands, said Dave just made some mistakes.  

    Lindsey, who blasts Obama for leaks, said his "friend" Dave should not see jail, Diane Feinstein, who called Ed Snowden's actions treason, wrote Dave recognizes the error of his actions as well as the importance of protecting classified informations.   Tom Donilon, former National Security advisor applauded Dave's actions, pointing out that his expertise is still needed--apparently giving him more classified information.  

    Just goes to show you that ... (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 07:58:47 PM EST
    ... when you're a low-level staff analyst who compromises national security for the sake of publicly disclosing illicit and unconstitutional government surveillance activities, it's called treason.

    But if you compromise national security by disclosing classified material to impress a lover, it's characterized as a regrettable mistake in personal judgment.

    Or more to the point, it's not what you know, but who you know.


    Yeah, I saw that... (none / 0) (#85)
    by sj on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 05:31:35 PM EST

    lol... "Jimi Hendrix" brand highs: (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 05:44:49 PM EST
    Nutritional High, an edible cannabis company recently announced that it has reached a licensing agreement to manufacture and distribute an assortment of marijuana and hemp-based edible products such as gummy bears, hard candies and health and energy drinkable products, and non-certain apparel and accessories using the song titles and likeness of the rock legend Jimi Hendrix.

    The Airplane has gotta be next.

    Plastic Fantastic Granola...

    3/5 of a Bowl in 10 Seconds Vaporizers!

    SITE VIOLATOR (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:31:11 PM EST
    in this thread from 2009

    Why woul a spammer put a link in a thread from 2009.

    Some kind of game to sneak in a spam even if no one ever reads it?

    I couldn't respond to the actual comment.  The thread has been closed for 6 years.

    my favorite gay marriage freakout so far (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 05:28:00 PM EST
    `Marriage is simply too important:' Christian couple vows to divorce if gays allowed to wed

    I hope this catches on.  More at the link

    "MY wife and I just celebrated our 10-year anniversary. But later this year, we may be getting a divorce. The reason has nothing to do with the state of our marriage. We were married at 21 after being high-school sweethearts for several years before that. In fact, my wife is the only woman I have ever loved, the mother of our children, my perfect match...
    My wife and I, as a matter of conscience, refuse to recognise the government's regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnisation of same sex couples...
    The truth is, `marriage' is simply too important. It is a sacred institution, ordained by God. It has always been understood to be that exclusive relationship where one man and one woman become "one flesh". Any attempt to change the definition of marriage by law is not something in which we are able to partake."

    Apparently, they haven't read the (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by Zorba on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 07:14:05 PM EST
    Old Testament.
    It has not "always been understood" to be an exclusive relationship between "one man and one woman."
    Moses had two wives.  King David has eight wives.  Solomon had (wait for it) 700 wives and 300 concubines.  And the list goes on.
    In fact, the prophet Nathan, when he was excoriating King David for his fooling around with Bathsheba, said:

    This is what the Lord God of Israel says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I have given you your master's house and your master's wives into your bosom ... and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah, and as if this wasn't enough, I would have given you even more."

    (My bold)
    2 Samuel 12

    And these types are generally people who fervently believe in the Bible.  Every word of it.
    I guess, except when it doesn't suit their particular purposes.
    Good, let them all divorce.  It is to laugh.


    HA! (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 07:56:10 PM EST
    Same Sex Couple Threaten Not To Give A Sh!t If Other Couple Divorces

    In response to threats from a Canberra couple to divorce were equal marriage laws to pass, a local couple in a committed same-sex relationship have in turn threatened to absolutely not give the slightest sh!t were that to happen.

    Local couple Brett and Harry have said that while they are not heterophobic and do their best to be open to all different kinds of views if this divorce does go ahead they will have no choice but to go on with their lives completely unaffected by such a dumb stunt.

    Ohh them pesky emails -- (2.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 08:36:56 AM EST
    Baltimore prosecutor asked police to target area where Freddie Gray was arrested

    About three weeks before Freddie Gray was chased from a West Baltimore corner by three Baltimore police officers -- the start of a fatal encounter -- the office of prosecutor Marilyn Mosby asked police to target the intersection with "enhanced" drug enforcement efforts, court documents show.

    "State's Attorney Mosby asked me to look into community concerns regarding drug dealing in the area of North Ave and Mount St," Joshua Rosenblatt, division chief of Mosby's Crime Strategies Unit, wrote in a March 17 email to a Western District police commander.

    The email was disclosed for the first time Tuesday in a motion filed in Baltimore Circuit Court by defense attorneys ....

    In their motion Tuesday, defense attorneys said the email exchange shows that Mosby knew the area where Gray was chased was a high-crime location.

    They said that bolsters their argument that officers were within their rights to detain and handcuff Gray -- even before finding a knife and officially arresting him.

    "It must be understood that Mrs. Mosby was directing these officers to one of the highest crime intersections in Baltimore City and asking them to make arrests, conduct surveillance, and stop crime," the defense attorneys wrote.

     "Now, the State is apparently making the unimaginable argument that the police officers are not allowed to use handcuffs to protect their safety and prevent flight in an investigatory detention where the suspect fled in a high crime area and actually had a weapon on him."

    So, are you making the argument, then, (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 10:09:50 AM EST
    that having the right to detain someone gets a cop off the hook if, while in his custody and as a result of his actions, that detainee suffers life-ending injuries?

    But, wait - there's more (bold is mine):

    In the March 17 email to Maj. Osborne Robinson, Rosenblatt wrote that Mosby's office wanted to build on the success in reducing crime in the West Baltimore neighborhood through the Operation Ceasefire program by "targeting that intersection for enhanced prosecutorial (and hopefully police) attention." In that program, prosecutors, police and community groups work together to persuade criminals to reform.

    On March 20, Robinson forwarded Rosenblatt's email to several Western District officers, including Lt. Brian W. Rice. He was one of the three officers who arrested Gray and one of the six later charged in Gray's arrest and death.

    Robinson told Rice and the other officers to begin a "daily narcotics initiative" focused on North Avenue and Mount Street, according to the email, and said he would be collecting "daily measurables" from them on their progress.

    "This is effective immediately," Robinson wrote, noting that the officers should use cameras, informants and other covert policing tactics to get the job done.

    Of course Mosby would be familiar with the high crime areas, and of course she would want the police to be working with the community and the prosecutor's office to reduce crime.  You'd be all over her if she wasn't.  

    But she didn't tell police how they should conduct themselves, what they should do - that came from Maj. Robinson.

    Here's some information on Operation Ceasefire.


    Robinson (none / 0) (#33)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 10:37:29 AM EST
    But she didn't tell police how they should conduct themselves, what they should do - that came from Maj. Robinson.

    Take that up with the Baltimore Sun writer who addresses that issue. It meant more aggressive measurable action by the police.

    She should be grateful that there is no Gag Order in place -- otherwise she wouldn't have "remembered" this order coming from her office.

    Maybe she'll get to charge Maj Robinson now.

    We have 6 -- do I hear 7 -- going once, going twice ....

    Get the popcorn ready for June 26th --


    I quoted from the Sun, or (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 11:28:27 AM EST
    did you not notice that?  I even put it in bold so you couldn't miss it.

    Jesus, do you have to work at being this much of a d-bag, or does it just come naturally?

    I don't think "aggressive measurable action" means the people the cops detain are supposed to come out of the transport vehicles with a partially severed spine.


    partially severed spine (none / 0) (#40)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 11:54:15 AM EST
    come out of the transport vehicles with a partially severed spine.

    The problem with that statement of yours is that it is without source foundation.

    Who says that he came out of the van with a  "partially severed spine"?

    If that's in the autopsy -- then let's see it.


    Seriously??? YOU??? (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 10:08:25 AM EST
    YOU suddenly want actual evidence?  Since when?  All you ever do is make tinfoil claims based on your overactive imagination, then YOU demand evidence?


    BTW - There are numerous media reports - including those of the autopsy results - that evidence the severe spinal injuries he suffered.  The fact that YOU want access to the autopsy report now is just an issue you're going to have to get over.


    Oh, and by the way - these (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 10:21:28 AM EST
    Freddie Gray comments are supposed to be confined to the Freddie Gray threads, leaving the Open Threads for those who don't wish to participate.

    My bad for responding here.


    all topics welcome (2.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 10:46:23 AM EST
    Freddie Gray comments are supposed to be confined to the Freddie Gray threads

    Are you imposing  a Gag Order on this thread?

    What part of "all topics welcome" do you not understand?

    That being said, I did mean to post this on the other thread but accidents happen.


    Jeralyn, the owner and proprietor (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 12:23:06 PM EST
    of this blog, has made it quite clear in more than one instance that Freddie Gray comments are to be confined to designated Freddie Gray posts. She did this so that Open Threads did not become clogged with back and forth about the Gray case.

    Your snottiness seems unnecessary.


    So ? (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 11:42:07 AM EST
    I would imagine that throughout time, every single area with crime has had someone official asking the cops to reduce it.

    Are you suggesting that as a defense, "We were asked to reduce crime, therefore it's not our fault he died while in our custody."



    So where in the email (none / 0) (#35)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 11:07:10 AM EST
    does it instruct BPD to execute anyone taken into custody?

    The other day (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 07:28:08 PM EST
    Howdy and I were discussing Caitlyn Jenner and the GOP freaking out. I have finally figured out what is underneath that whole nonsense. Caitlyn has been very vocal about being a Republican and now they can't say oh, all those evil trans people are in the D party over there. It completely destroyed one of their us vs. them narratives they so love to use.

    Rational republicans (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 07:55:16 PM EST
    are starting to sweat bullets that they may win in the Supreme Court on the ACA.  And it's a wonderful thing.  And sweat they should.  Think back to a few months ago when a few people lost their insurance plans and what a frenzy that was.  And in that case nearly every one of them could go to the exchange and get a better plan for the same or even less money.
    Now imagine 6-7 million people losing the coverage they have enjoyed for a year with not recourse.
    It would be Armageddon.  Imagine the town halls next election year.  The republicans are scrambling to find a way to blame Obama.

    GOP lawmakers on the Senate Finance Committee repeatedly pressed Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell on the issue. But Burwell on Wednesday did not budge during a tense back-and-forth, with a half-dozen Republicans claiming that the administration must have a "plan B."
    "I'm asking, is there a contingency plan? Not what is the plan, but is there a plan?" Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) asked.

    Obama is wisely saying you buttered your bread now lay in it.
    He is right to do it.  The republicans getting healthcare through the ACA may be stupid but they are not that stupid.  If they lose their coverage they will know exactly who to blame.  And blame they will.  If the court rules in their favor and they do nothing to help next years election will be a republican bloodbath.   We will certainly take the senate and gerrymandering be dammed we might even take the house.  
    I just saw numbers that said 61% of the people who would lose coverage were white southerners.
    Like me.  Well, not like me.

    Lord (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 08:13:04 PM EST
    have mercy. They're the ones that have wanted to get rid of it forever.

    Be careful (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 08:15:37 PM EST
    what you wish for

    The Dems are not winning the House (none / 0) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 08:34:56 AM EST
    Sad but true, Coral Gables (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 08:28:22 PM EST
    in light of the gerrymandered redistricting in 2010. The composition of the House is virtually 100% rigged, regardless of who votes and regardless of any shift in popular opinion.

    It is perhaps unlikely (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:34:45 AM EST
    but I truly believe no one knows what hell will rain down on, particularly the house, republicans if this is decided in favor of the republicans and they do nothing to fix it.  

    There are major debates going on right now if they should tempotprarily extend the subsidies until at least after the election.  And risk enraging the base or do nothing and enrage everyone's else.  Including some of the base.


    They know what a cluster f@ck this would be.


    Btw (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:39:10 AM EST
    its not just the insured who are freaking at this prospect it is also the insurers who have restructured their entire business for this law.  And the have lots of money to spend on the '16 election.

    Question, what happens to the mandate if this is decided for republicans?

    Answer, it has to go away.  They can't possibly expect people to pay full price for the coverage.  Although I almost hope they do.

    Really fun town meetings.


    re Mckinney . . . (none / 0) (#5)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 09:05:28 PM EST
    Are we all pretty much agreed that the cop acted badly towards the girl?


    There was very little humor (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 07:43:15 AM EST
    in those awful videos.  Perhaps I am just a bad person but THIS cracks me up every time I see it.

    It instantly reminded me of THIS

    worth remembering that Starsky and/or Hutch there was a 10 year veteran WHO TRAINED OTHER OFFICERS IN HOW TO RESPOND TO SITUATIONS LIKE THE ONE AT THE POOL.

    Hard to know if one should laugh or cry.


    You're not alone (none / 0) (#23)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:19:50 AM EST
    Wife and I we're rolling on that part of he video.

    Oh kayyyyy (none / 0) (#32)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29:47 AM EST
    Perhaps the next time I write a comedy about the police, we shall include a "police called to pool-party scene to check on disturbance" . . .

    not sure if allowed . . . (none / 0) (#36)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 11:08:59 AM EST
    No one seems to have yet created anything for any massage or medical bills for Dajerria . . .  I've been in accidents of various types and know that it helps.  In case it is allowable, here is a link to a gofundme campaign

    Massage (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 02:50:58 PM EST
    Was that a typeo?

    re massage (none / 0) (#101)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:47:18 PM EST
    There are lots of ways to put muscles under trauma or injure them and a guy kneeling on you is one of them.

    Massage or Rolfing or deep-tissue massage are names of modalities which will often bring some healing to injured muscles.

    Do you need to read the research on that topic?



    No. I'm good. (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:52:29 PM EST
    just wouldn't have occurred to me.

    Rolfing came to Aspen in the mid 70's. (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 08:35:28 AM EST
    I went through 8 of the 10 sessions and they were very painful.  I skipped session 9 since it was inside the mouth and around the jaw area.  Not sure what #10 was.  The basic principal of Rolfing was to break down the fascia surrounding muscles, and then move those muscles back into their proper location.  I remember the Rolfer told me that one of my shoulder muscles had moved into my armpit, so after much pain, he moved it back to it's proper location.  It helped tremendously, since that was my camera shoulder.  After doing my legs and hips, I could walk and run much better.  Many Aspen people felt it benefited them spiritually too, but that aspect was a bit too far out for me.  Since it's raining here  I could use a session of Rolfing to loosen up my old ski racing injuries.  No fishing today.

    thanks (none / 0) (#179)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:09:46 PM EST
    thanks for the anecdote . . .

    re universal restrooms . . . (none / 0) (#6)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 09:06:37 PM EST
    the local news tells us that some of the students at the UW are asking for more universal restrooms . . .

    Should they accomodate them or not or just make all the mens restrooms universal restrooms?

    Jeb Bush (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 09:08:49 PM EST
    Just Rich Buillies... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 11:54:12 AM EST
    ...who want to humiliate society's weakest at their most vulnerable.

    I guess Jeb skipped the chapter explaining that shaming doesn't actually work, well except for making him feel good.


    I am amused (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 12:03:49 PM EST
    ...by Jeb's complete failure to leverage millions of dollars into traction.  It almost like he is, dare I say it, incompetent!

    While I certainly have issues with Ms. Clinton, she has been planning this for eight years, already played the game and lost once.  She is smart, which gives her an edge over any of the GOP klowns.  Now she has identified a wedge issue that the GOP will have trouble with: more people voting.

    Gee Repubs, if you don't want more people to vote, which voting bloc do you wish to alienate en masse by saying "We don't want those people to vote?"  Debates with more liberal Democrats will only stake out more popular positions for Hillary.


    I think shunning (or the pillory) would be (none / 0) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 09:24:45 PM EST
    Appropriate for Jebbie baby for abuse of a public office during the Schiavo case and for his anti-women policies.

    He's just awful. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 09:38:29 PM EST
    The more you see of him the worse he looks.

    The Schiavo case (none / 0) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 03:34:22 PM EST
    was an abuse all the way around.  Of course, Jeb.  Then off to Congress with approvals by Frist's senate (the physician who diagnosed long-distance) and Hastert's House (the coach who....) and President W. Bush, who flew back from his Texas "ranch" to Washington to sign the bill at 1 am, way past his bedtime.

    If you had said this (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 07:08:37 AM EST
    Public shaming would be an effective way to regulate the "irresponsible behavior" of unwed mothers, misbehaving teenagers and welfare recipients, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) argued in his 1995 book Profiles in Character.

    Was from the onion I would have believed it.

    Sadly no.


    If public shaming is effective in preventing (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:53:18 AM EST
    behaviors, how does he explain another Bush running for president?

    ... especially with regards to the concept of noblesse oblige. That family's insufferable presence in public life has been a blight on this nation for five generations now. Time and again, they've proved themselves all too willing to conflate their own private business interests with the greater interests of the country as a whole, often to our ultimate national disgrace and detriment.

    re pepper spray and capitol hill assaults (none / 0) (#8)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 09:10:43 PM EST
    It has been repeatedly in the news that the Mayor and  police chief of Seattle are trying to reduce what is considered to be an unreasonable amount of either reported or unreported assaults on the gay and affiliated community and/or persons in Capitol hill a neighborhood of Seattle.

    I wrote an open letter to them, suggesting that ask the people to be armed with pepper spray and finds way to train them in the use and in the laws re force and citizens arrest.

    Comments on my idea ?

    the link (none / 0) (#9)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 09:11:30 PM EST
    we shall try again with this link . . .

    RIP, Vincent Bugliosi (1934-2015). (none / 0) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 05:36:45 AM EST
    Say what you will about the renowned prosecutor, criminal defense attorney and bestselling author, but he certainly wasn't afraid to speak his mind or court controversy on any number of issues. He died of cancer last Saturday in Los Angeles.

    While Bugliosi is best remembered for his successful prosecution of Charles Manson, et al., for the notorious 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders in Los Angeles, he's probably better known in Hawaii as the hard-hitting defense counsel of Jennifer Jenkins, who was accused with boyfriend Buck Duane Walker of the notorious double murder of Malcolm and Eleanor Graham, on remote Palmyra Atoll (which is part of the State of Hawaii) back in 1974.

    Walker and Jenkins were initially arrested in Honolulu and charged with stealing the Grahams' yacht Sea Wind, for which they were both convicted and served time in federal prison. It was only after Eleanor Graham's remains were discovered seven years later on Palmyra that they were rearrested and this time charged with two counts of murder.

    Bugliosi first successfully argued that the trial's venue should be moved from Honolulu to San Francisco, on the grounds that the often sensational coverage of the case in local media had unduly prejudiced islanders against his client. He then got the trial judge to agree that Jenkins and Walker should be tried separately. And in a lucky break for his client, Bugliosi convinced the same judge to prohibit prosecutors from using her earlier conviction for theft of the Sea Wind as evidence against her in the murder trial.

    The strategy worked; while Buck Walker was subsequently convicted of killing the Grahams in his trial, Jennifer Jenkins was found not guilty in hers. But even today, controversy remains; if you ask most longtime Honolulu residents about the case, they'll tell you that they think she got away with murder. Bugliosi later recounted the story in his 1991 bestseller "And the Sea Will Tell."

    Aloha to a real mensch. He'll be missed.

    Yes, I remember the saga of (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 08:36:33 AM EST
    the sailboat Sea Wind.  I was staying on Peter Fonda's 83' ketch, the Tatoosh, which was anchored in the Ala Wai Harbor.  Peter was hardly ever on his boat, but the captain was a long time friend.  I happened to be sitting on the fantail as that boat came into the channel and it looked  strange as it passed by, as it had a very sloppy, brush painted white hull.  It didn't take long for questions to start, since the paint job was so bogus.

    Actually, I was sitting on the lazarette. (none / 0) (#22)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 08:59:16 AM EST
    And I'm guessing that the sloppy paint job (none / 0) (#24)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:27:34 AM EST
    stopped at the waterline?

    The paint job was so sloppy, (none / 0) (#28)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:57:32 AM EST
    that parts of it didn't even reach the waterline.  It looked like they had run out of paint.

    The state senator for whom I once worked ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 12:05:25 PM EST
    ... and her husband had a boat in Ala Wai Harbor and knew the Grahams, who were actually from San Diego but had apparently spent enough time in Honolulu over the years that they were well known to the tight-knit Ala Wai community.

    I was working for her when "And the Sea Will Tell" was first published in 1991. The book caused a big sensation in Honolulu and prompted the return of many an old memory about the case, which had never really lost its notoriety among local residents.

    Both my boss and her husband were firmly convinced that Jennifer Jenkins was no detached and passive observer to the events on Palmyra, but was rather an active and willing participant in both the Grahams' murders and the Sea Wind's theft, which they considered to be nothing short of piracy.

    It should be noted that when Mrs. Graham's remains were found on that atoll in 1981, seven years after the couple's disappearance, the forensic evidence showed that her body had been burned. Further, when the authorities had first sought to question Jenkins and Buck Walker in 1974 about how they came to arrive at the Ala Wai on Sea Wind without either of the boat's owners, they both fled into Honolulu and had to be hunted down by HPD.

    To be honest, I could never really disagree with my boss on this matter. I read Bugliosi's book and while he obviously did a masterful job defending Jenkins, I've long felt personally that his central premise, which was that his client was entirely innocent and didn't know what had happened to the Grahams, to be far-fetched at best.

    In mt honest opinion, Ms. Jenkins is either one of the most credulous and naïve individuals one would ever meet in one's own lifetime, or she's one of life's most accomplished of liars.

    Bugliosi's successful ploys to first separate Jenkins' legal fate from that of her boyfriend Buck Walker, and then convincing the trial judge to declare her earlier conviction for the Sea Wind's theft immaterial to the disappearance and murder of its owners, is likely what saved her.

    I'm convinced that jurors in San Francisco saw Jennifer Jenkins entirely through a lens of her attorney's own manufacture, and were never given the opportunity to consider the events on Palmyra and in Honolulu as a whole.



    Jenkins actual name was (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 02:19:05 PM EST
    Stephanie Stearns. Despite my best Google efforts I have found no indication of what became of her after her trial for murder.

    Thanks for that info. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 07:24:25 PM EST
    I wonder why Bugliosi used a pseudonym for her in his book. To protect her privacy, perhaps? I was unaware of her actual name until you noted it above, because her murder trial took place before I moved to Hawaii. I only knew of her through "And the Sea Will Tell," which is a fascinating read. I also know that she and Walker used several aliases.

    Macabre sidenote: As of April 2014, some 28 years after the acquittal of Stephanie Stearns / Jennifer Jenkins by that San Francisco jury, Eleanor Graham's remains were still in the custody of the FBI in Honolulu, unclaimed by family. Apparently, FBI agents have been using her bones as a regular part of a lecture / display to University of Hawaii law school students. WTF were they thinking?

    The Grahams had no children, and her husband's closest relative was a sister who died in Seattle in 2013. There is a nephew who's trying to collect funds to facilitate the transfer of his aunt's remains.

    Buck Walker, who was convicted in 1985 of the Grahams' 1974 murders in the first of the San Francisco trials, was later diagnosed with cancer and paroled from federal prison in 2007. He died in 2010.

    Stephanie Stearns was 28 at the time of her arrest and conviction for theft of the Sea Wind, which would put her in her late 60s by now. No small wonder why she has maintained a very low profile since her acquittal, given the notoriety of the case. We likely won't hear of her again until the day we see her obituary.



    Somebody's peddling Walker's novels (none / 0) (#121)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 08:36:02 AM EST
    and his counter-explanation online.

    The domain was registered in 2007, the year Walker was released from prison, and is still registered in Wesley Walker's name (and "B & E" Publishing), although he died in 2010.


    Did Walker have any relatives? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 06:23:32 PM EST
    They could be maintaining the domain and website. Anyway, the guy seemed like a real piece of work.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 08:11:26 AM EST
    loved the book And the sea will tell. The book definitely made Jennifer look like she had nothing to do with it and it was all Buck but also left the impression that the residents did think she got away with murder too.

    I was reading that book when we were (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 10:06:25 AM EST
    In the Midwest for a family meetup. Everytime I couldn't find the book, one of the kids was reading it.

    Okay. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 12:21:52 PM EST
    The Jeb Bush story just gets worse.


    Rape victims who wanted to give the child up for adoption had to publish that in the newspaper.

    After that was all thrown out then Bush required men to register their sexual histories in order to claim parental rights.

    I do not want the mind that (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 12:41:17 PM EST
    felt this law was a good idea to be anywhere near anything that gives him the power to affect people's lives.

    [I note that it was a woman who drafted the original bill, and it passed easily - whatever's wrong with Jeb, he's not the only one, apparently]

    And he's supposed to be the smarter brother?  Hoo-boy.


    well (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 01:32:49 PM EST
    remember that this kind of law would be something that Michele Bachmann and Michelle Duggar would probably support. So there are women obviously that support this kind of stuff but as I'm sure you know it shouldn't apply to them because they are holy and just made a mistake whereas "those" people are "sluts".

    But yeah, this is just another variation on Teri Schiavo where he butts into people's private lives. At least this one time he obeyed the courts and undid the law unlike with the Schiavo case where he defied the courts.


    I Had Never Heard of the Law... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    ...and it seems to unreal to believe.

    The base should love this:

    The bill passed overwhelmingly in the state house and by a 30-8 vote in the state senate. Bush said he decided not to veto it because Campbell told him the newspaper-reporting language would get fixed. That didn't happen. What did happen? More abortions. The Orlando Sentinel reported there were almost 2,000 more abortions in the first six months of 2002--after the legislation went into effect--than in the first six months of 2001.

    One might even think that the whole abortion argument isn't about anything more then the right's absolute disgust at young un-married women being sexually active.

    There is no other way to explain why they would force mothers to divulge their sexual history in order to put their babies up for adoption.  I though adoption was the cure to abortion, not the other way around.

    The more I read about Jeb, the more I realize George was a far better human being and the smarter brother.  And that ain't saying much.


    "...and it seems to unreal to believe." (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 02:07:17 PM EST

    Florida 'Scarlet Letter' Law Is Repealed by Gov. Bush

    MIAMI, May 30, 2003-- Gov. Jeb Bush signed a bill today repealing the state's ''Scarlet Letter'' law that required single women planning to put their infants up for adoption to first publish their sexual histories in a newspaper if they did not know the identity of the father.

    A 2001 bill including a series of adoption-law revisions passed by large margins in the Florida House and Senate and became law when Mr. Bush declined to veto it, with the understanding that lawmakers would revise the publication section.


    Photo: Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida had urged repeal of a ''Scarlet Letter'' law, and he got his wish yesterday. (Associated Press)

    He declined (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 02:14:41 PM EST
    to veto it in order to make the legislature change it.

    The courts made him repeal it.

    And then he replaced it with a law that was just as bad.

    It is going to haunt him.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    and he could have undone it pretty soon after he saw the effects of the legislation but had to be forced to undo the legislation by the courts.

    The base would probably like the legislation making people publish their histories but not like the effects of it.

    Jeb Bush's motto should be every day I give another reason for people to not vote for me.


    Well, given the contenders (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 01:33:59 PM EST
    in the Republican line-up, Lindsey may be too easily dismissed or overlooked.  Aside from his bombing proclivity, which he candidly warns voters not to vote for him if they do not want war, he does offer a colorful, if not dizzying Administration.

    When the confirmed bachelor was asked about having no first lady, if elected, he said he would have "...a rotating first lady."   I take it he plans on having, in the first lady position, a whirling dervish--or dervishette.  Not ready to support Lindsey for the Republican nomination, too early, since Donald Trump has not yet entered.

    A candidate that the Republicans would do well to overlook and dismiss is Marco Rubio.  The austerity for thee, but not for me candidate, who is a champion of financial austerity, spending and debt, is "bedeviled by financial struggles" himself, according to the NYTimes. A rather gentle, yet devastating,  profile of  Rubio and family's personal and political finances are detailed.

     Most of his financial woes are not his fault: his mother and father, poor,immigrant parents had little money so he did not know how to manage money.  So, unschooled in the world of economics,  he did buy expensive houses with big, no money down mortgages,  and then, equity loans on top of that; lease a $50,000 2015 Audi Q7, and splurge on an $80,000 speed boat that he "could not resist."  

    The use of his Republican credit card for personal expenses, such as for pavers for his front driveway was a slip up--he just took out the wrong credit card to pay; and use of the Republican credit card to pay for a family reunion in Georgia was the error of his travel agent. When brought to attention in his campaign, he repaid the amounts.

    His wife has bookkeeping lapses, as well. She failed to pay annual business licensing fees to the City of West Miami, despite nine written notices and repeated phone calls to her home.  After the Times's inquiry a check arrived to the City, with apologies.  

    The NYTimes article deals gingerly with Rubio's sugar dadddy, the billionaire Norman Bramam, who has, and is, bailing him out (his books, underwriting a teaching job at FIU)  However,  when Mitt Romney, he of Swiss and Cayman accounts,  flags Rubio when vetting prospective  running mates for financial issues,  it is not re-assuring.



    Well (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 01:53:57 PM EST
    it certainly makes a great case that he shouldn't be anywhere near the taxpayer's money for sure.

    I recognize (none / 0) (#53)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 02:04:23 PM EST
    the appropriateness of anger directed towards the Republican pretenders to the throne. They are a bunch of a-holes, and as completely horrifyingly sh)tty as Jeb is, I cannot definitively name him as the worst among them.

    However, I notice sometimes, what seems like a joyous glee in pointing out the obvious stupidity of the republicans.

    But if I were to mention that our Democratic president is on the cusp of allowing drilling in Alaska, and sending more troops to Iraq, two events I identify more with the reality of Palin that the illusion of Mr. Obama, I might be considered a hater by some.

    I don't get it.

    Is we or is we not issue-oriented?

    As a liberal, I have issues with Mr. Obama (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 02:15:42 PM EST
    But perhaps you remember that he wasn't running against Jesus.  In 2008 he was running against a moron accompanied by a lunatic, and in 2012 he was running against a couple of arrogant criminals.

    Are you suggesting that we should have elected John McCain or Mitt Romney, because that would have been a better choice?


    There is an argument (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by sj on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 02:47:33 PM EST
    to be made for the "lesser of two evils" vote (personally, I don't get into that discussion any more).

    But having said that, what does the "why/how" justifications  for O's election have to do with analysis and honest discussion of his performance and priorities once in office?

    Are you saying that because his opponents were worse that we should just be grateful that we got what we got?

    Should we just accept what we get without any sort of critical analysis?

    No one but you mentioned McCain OR Romney so why ever would you think that is what lentinel is saying?

    lentinel and I aren't always on the same page, but I have to say that her comments seem to hold the traveling trophy of "Most Distorted".


    First (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 02:54:20 PM EST
    it's absurd to opine that criticism of Obama will get you labeled a "hater" here.   Quite the opposite.  Praise will get you labeled a, God knows what but it won't be pretty.

    Not so absurd, Howdy (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by sj on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 03:02:48 PM EST
    It really has happened. It has happened to me and it has happened to lentinel. That term (i.e. "haters") has usually thrown around by the very same people who go about calling the critics "unhinged".

    Not absurd at all (none / 0) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 07:43:26 PM EST
    Issue based criticism of Obama has definitely resulted in being called a hater. I have been called a hater numerous times on this blog when I have criticized Obama's performance on various issues.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 07:58:53 PM EST
    i have somehow missed all this fervent Obama love.  I only remember being harangued for defending him.  
    Except for one commenter I haven't seen in months I'm trying to imagine who.

    Well, ok.  One.  Maybe.


    Now that we have moved on to (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 08:07:36 PM EST
    HRC, that particular meme hasn't been batted around too much anymore. One of the people who resorted to that label still comments on a regular basis, one comments sporadically and another hasn't been around for a while.

    I addressed that (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 03:03:46 PM EST
    what does the "why/how" justifications  for O's election have to do with analysis and honest discussion of his performance and priorities once in office?

    While I am critical of some of Mr. Obama's policies, it is imperative that we elect Democrats, if only because he or she will select Supreme Court justices.

    I have never been labeled a "H8r" here when I criticized Mr. Obama, and I don't dislike those who admire his many positive achievements.  The alternative to Mr. Obama was obviously unthinkable.


    Nevertheless (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by sj on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 03:06:46 PM EST
    The alternative to Mr. Obama was obviously unthinkable.
    Throwing that particular stone was uncalled for, IMO. It was inflammatory without materially addressing the issue posed.

    OK. but... (none / 0) (#78)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 04:18:08 PM EST
    I have never been labeled a "H8r" here when I criticized Mr. Obama

    but I have.


    I think (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 03:06:00 PM EST
    what he is saying is that he has a lot of issues with Obama but he voted for him. What I understand he is not saying is it is a bad thing to criticize Obama.

    That being said the pursuit of perfection is futile because there is no one that is perfect on every issue.


    I don't disagree with any of that (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by sj on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 03:20:01 PM EST
    What I objected to is the complete disregard given to lentinel's actual comment in order to make that argument. If he wanted to make that statement it would have been less combative to make it a standalone comment, or find somewhere relevant to place it.

    Also, frankly speaking, my own bias is that I don't care who someone votes for. I only care about who I vote for. Once the vote has been placed then all one can do is deal with the results of all those cumulative voices.

    Taking the discussion sideways, to me, how one votes is a matter of conscience, and each person's conscience is personal. Which is why I am impervious to "lesser of two evils" argument. Each person must give his vote as he sees fit. Our vote is our only real voice into our society. All  those others? All the protesting, calling our representatives, writing letters, having house parties, commenting on blogs, etc. those are us attempting to have influence on those who have a greater voice than our own.

    Anyway, that's how I see right now in this place and time.


    Okay. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 03:23:08 PM EST
    That is (none / 0) (#79)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 04:30:07 PM EST
    the kind of thing, in a milder setting, that I am talking about.

    Are you suggesting that we should have elected John McCain or Mitt Romney, because that would have been a better choice?


    But I am reluctantly saying that on many issues of importance to me, I can't say with any certainty that the two you mentioned would have been measurably worse - and they may have - may have - faced a democratic opposition...

    But the issue of whether some other politician may be worse is, imo, a red herring.

    If I want to discuss the drilling in the Arctic, or the debacle in Iraq, I don't want to have to be dragged into a debate about whether someone might have been worse. I have to deal with the reality of the people in power - as tempting as it is not to do so by pointing out how horrible Jeb is, or Cruz is, or Rubio is etc.

    When I have done so, I have received the "advice" that I should stop whining. That I should be more active in party politics. That I should acknowledge reality. That I am engaging in pathological hatred.

    I don't buy it.

    I think we are in deep trouble - and none of the politicians in power or on the horizon give me any comfort. They all seem dangerous.

    I will take some small comfort in feeling, however naively, that our current chief-exec is less dangerous than the alternative, but I honestly can't say so for certain.


    A red herring? (none / 0) (#83)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 05:25:59 PM EST
    Sometimes the "lesser of two evils" and related arguments seem that way, lentinel.  And, sometimes, the what-difference-is-there-really rejoinder can be persuasive to those who are disenchanted.

    I almost didn't want to say anything here ... because it would probably lead to the usual sides here (our own brand of polarization.)  But, apart from every other argument that I would normally make about "look, here's progress" or "what about that movement forward" and all that, the biggest issue in this election may really be the Supreme Court ramifications.  While that can always be a possibility, the extant 5 to 4 Repub split (and the politics are clear) has been there for awhile.  Two things: (1) That present construct is due to shift sooner rather than later ... considering the mix of time, longevity, and age. (2) Certain cases decided by that split--such as Citizens United--have more than systemic effect in terms of "corporations" & dollars. They go to the heart of government and its prognosis.  Additionally, other cases can and will have a more immediate effect on the lives of many human beings in this country ... see, e.g., King v. Burwell (the subsidies issue, that the SCt had to preempt normal judicial operation to consider this term.)  My point: The Supreme Court, at this juncture, is fast exhibiting the politicization level that existed in 1935 when the essential NRA New Deal programs were ruled unconstitutional.

    The question of who would appoint the next Supreme Court justice when a vacancy occurs is no longer esoteric.  Consider any number of ISSUES that you and many others care about so deeply ... when you vote on the issues, think about the potential and very real final arbiter in a litigious society.  The Supreme Court is at the table.  It is not a joke; nor a boogeyman -- the big issues are big because they sooner or later have a real effect on us.  Who will decide those cases ... a key ISSUE on its own.


    It is absolutely a red herring (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by sj on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 05:37:13 PM EST
    Baloney. (none / 0) (#90)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:13:06 PM EST
    That was my emotional outburst (none / 0) (#92)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:24:34 PM EST
    Now, let me expand.  The ISSUE was raised that matters of who is the better or who is the worst or does it matter.  The answer: The Supreme Court is neither a red herring nor a new issue.  You know that; anyone who has paid attention to politics and government in recent years cannot escape knowing that the Court's decisions are hitting home on a number of issues. In this term alone, we will see the Court's decision on gay marriage and the Court's decision on ACA subsidies (which is estimated to effect the lives of between 6-7 million people.)  In upcoming terms, voting rights ISSUES are on the agenda; abortion restriction ISSUES are also to be heard.

    While I certainly recognized your disaffection and disdain, that is not the issue here.  What is at stake--whether you want to acknowledge it or not--is the composition of a Supreme Court that statistics, longevity, and every other evaluative look suggest will change under the next President.  All the ideology; all the organizing; all the denial; all of the debate won't change the reality that the Supreme Court will rise, legitimately, to a top ISSUE in the upcoming general election.


    Now let me expand (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by sj on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:32:53 PM EST
    No, never mind. I don't need to expand. Anyone who can parse a logical fallacy would already get it.

    Do you want the last word? (none / 0) (#97)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:33:40 PM EST
    Nope (none / 0) (#99)
    by sj on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:36:57 PM EST
    You can have it.
    Do you want the last word? (none / 0) (#97)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 05:33:40 PM MDT

    irony prize (5.00 / 7) (#111)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 08:39:17 PM EST
    awarded, and retired.

    You have likely already (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:33:35 PM EST
    seen this:

    People ask me [Justice Ginsburg] sometimes, when -- when do you think it will it be enough? When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when there are nine.

    If I had any talent in the world, any talent that God could give me, I would be a great diva.

    Diva... (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:30:33 AM EST
    I loved that film.

    Thank you, thank you (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by sj on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 12:06:38 PM EST
    ::small bow::

    That comment was fun. Of course, the setup was perfect, so it was a team effort.


    Agree, Peter. (none / 0) (#128)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 11:03:41 AM EST
    And, I did laugh when deciding to let it go.  

    baloney (none / 0) (#94)
    by sj on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:26:47 PM EST
    You are so funny, sj (none / 0) (#95)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:28:05 PM EST
    Drop by Racines sometime, and we can chat ... without all the rote disagreement.

    Huh ? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 02:34:04 PM EST
    Isn't one of the complaints from the 'mainstream' democrats here that we never give Obama the credit he deserves ?

    In 2012, we spent post upon post complaining that Obama was basically better than the other option.  That he basically gave the farm away trying to be the great negotiator and failed miserably.

    Maybe someone would call you a hater, but I highly doubt it.  I think there is more Obama bashing here than Obama lovin' from the folks on the left.


    Teenage ISIS Recruiter Pleads Guilty (none / 0) (#127)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 10:53:49 AM EST

    The 17-year-old was accused of helping, Reza Niknejad, 18, who officials believe went on to join ISIS, travel to Syria, a law enforcement source said in March. The teen was also accused of passing messages between ISIS contacts.

    Amin appearing before the judge in a blue jail jumpsuit only responded "guilty sir" to the judge when asked to give his plea and "no sir" when asked if he is innocent in any way to the charges he is facing.

    Amin admitted in a statement of fact as part of the plea agreement to using the twitter handle @Amreekiwitness to "provide advice and encouragement to ISIL and its supporters," according to a Department of Justice press release.

    Additionally, Amin taught followers how to use bitcoin to covertly send funds to the terror group.

    The story appeared first on CNN and contains an autoplay video.  Don't click [[it]] if you don't have the bandwidth.

    So Rick Snyder (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:28:46 PM EST
    of Michigan is now targeting LBGT people by banning them being able to adopt. Does the GOP want to lose in 2016?

    And this is yet another confirmation that the GOP will only listen to the far right and push that type of policy instead of something most Americans might support.

    That nothing (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:43:40 PM EST
    check these out-

    Yesterday, Family Research Council official Ken Blackwell explained during an anti-marriage-equality panel how anti-gay activists, just like Civil Rights Movement leaders, will resist a Supreme Court decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage, a ruling he warned will give rise to totalitarianism.

    Blackwell said that how Americans respond to "a wrong decision in this marriage case" will be just as important as the nation's response to the Civil War, World War II and the September 11, 2001 attacks. Such a ruling would be "another one of those challenging moments, defining moments as to attest of how we response as a nation, but how we also respond as believers, as Christians," he said.

    Arizona pastor Steven Anderson says, "I hate him with a perfect hatred."

    Anderson, who predicted an "AIDS-free Christmas" if all LGBT people were put to death, explained to his congregation at Faithful Word Baptist Church that it was not wrong to pray for the deaths of your enemies - like he had done for President Barack Obama.

    "I'd never even heard of him until this week," Anderson said. "Bruce Jenner has basically mutilated his body, apparently, and he's being praised by our president. Our President Obama is praising him, or praising her - we don't even know what it is. I think that (Obama) used the female pronoun about somebody named Bruce...

    This person is just the evangelist of s@domy and filth to the world, and people are like, 'Oh, we need to pray for him so that he finds Jesus,'" Anderson said. "I'm going to pray that he dies and goes to Hell."

    I edited some out of the last one because parts of the "sermon" could not be posted here.
    It's up at C&L


    Blackwell (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:51:00 PM EST
    makes no sense.

    The other pastor is probably spending time defending the Duggars. I still see people defending the Duggars on Facebook. I just wanna say keep digging people.


    Digging the Duggars, oy (none / 0) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 04:03:04 PM EST
    Blackwell makes no sense but he is not just some loony talk radio freak.  He is the Secretary of State of Ohio.

    This crap is not republican fringe.  It's republican mainstream.

    Well the last one may be fringey.  Most would only say that in private.  

    But what Blackwell said is a widely held opinion on the right.  Huckabee has said pretty much the same thing.

    It's is going to be very interesting to see what they actually do when the word comes down.


    Blackwell (none / 0) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 04:28:59 PM EST
    was the SOS for Ohio until 2007. He ran for governor and lost. So I guess the Family Research Council must be where unemployed loonies find employment.

    Wingnuts (none / 0) (#158)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 04:44:06 PM EST
    always get a gig, wingnut welfare if you will.