Monday Open Thread

Here's a new open thread, all topics welcome.

< Rod Blagojevich: Appeals Court Tosses Some Counts | John Oliver Takes on Mandatory Minimum Sentences >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Somehow (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by smott on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:03:18 PM EST
    The story of these 2 teenage boys lost at sea off the coast of FL has me really down.
    What a shame.

    I know,me too (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 07:41:36 PM EST
    In these days when kids seem so restricted I applaud the freedom they were given to go off boating. I keep hoping they will be found safe somehow, but if not I hope it does not prevent parents from raising other kids with such independent spirits.

    I'm not quite ready to applaud the freedom (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 09:08:08 PM EST
    given 2 kids fresh out of the 8th grade to head out into the ocean to the Bahamas. Not sure what if any restrictions they were given, but with the boat found 67 miles offshore it's safe to say they didn't likely abide by them if they were given any.

    The family said they had made that trip (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 09:38:21 PM EST
    several times in the past. Bad things happen to adult boaters too, even experienced ones.

    I have friends that won't let their 22 yr old even drive cross country to college alone, and other examples. I'm sure this will reinforce all of those instincts in people.


    Yes, remember the pro football players? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 08:20:26 AM EST
    The Kennedy kids boated/sailed all over too (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 08:21:42 AM EST
    They were unfortunate in other situations and circumstances.

    The sea can be terribly unforgiving. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:44:24 AM EST
    Two 21-year-old soldiers from Schofield Barracks on Oahu drowned late Saturday afternoon when they ignored warnings from locals to not venture out from the lookout at Halona Point Blowhole -- which is about 2.5 miles from what's now our daughter's townhouse in Kuliouou Valley -- to the ledges below, with the surf pumping as it was at 10-12 ft. in height.

    According to eyewitnesses, one was apparently swept off by an incoming big wave, and his buddy scrambled down to the edge of the rocks to try and grab him, only to be swept off himself by a second wave. Then they both disappeared in the churning waters.

    City and County lifeguards from nearby Sandy Beach Park were there in less than ten minutes, but even though they risked their own lives trying to find them, it was already too late. Divers from the Honolulu Fire Dept. recovered their bodies about 18 hours later from the ocean bottom at Eternity Cove, named for the famous love scene between Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr in "From Here to Eternity," which was filmed at that locale.

    It's always very sad to hear of young lives lost like that.


    Don't know if anyone saw this (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:03:16 PM EST
    here in Wa (none / 0) (#53)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 07:48:07 PM EST
    I saw it in the local news in the middle of last week . . . whenever it came out . . .

    I have an LDS and religious background  . . . and I believe it is morally and spiritually bad to force people to do things contrary to their religious views and preferences, with the two exceptions of killing or abusing their kids or endangering public health . . .

    most people don't have my more extreme views . . .
    I also believe God takes vengeance on those who do wrongly . . .  sooner or later some pharmacists might disobey and be fined or jailed, and God sooner or later show society to knock it off . . .

    plan b and making bakers bake cakes for gay or lesbian couples . . . I believe somewhat that God will take vengeance on those who bother the pharmacists and the bakers . . .


    God and Pharmaceuticals (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 07:54:14 AM EST
    I don't think God takes sides in such day-to-day matters of life. In any case, if you want to be a licensed Pharmacist, you have to dispense drugs as needed.

    Amen sir... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    Sh*t if I was unable to check my morals and strongly secular-farian humanist beliefs at the door to the office every M-F, my arse would be unemployable.  Business is sin baby.

    That's why they call it a job...it's supposed to be unpleasant!  If your beliefs keep you from doing the job you applied for, take up preaching/panhandling and stfu already, people got real problems.


    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 04:52:15 PM EST
    In the public sphere, religious freedoms are confused with entitlements to discriminate.  A licentiate in pharmacy, for example, has been granted the right to practice the profession by the State,  upon satisfying educational and other requirements,  

    The license is granted by the state, not a private or religious group.  In the private sphere, the pharmacist continues to hold personal or religious belief to his/her heart's content, but that right does not extend to a place of public accommodation, or where public funds are at stake, or secular benefits are at stake. The state-licensed pharmacist's refusal to provide medication on the basis of private beliefs is, in effect, an abuse of authority and power.  A case of religious privilege supplanting professional obligation.

    And, bakers,and others not subject to state license (but who hold business licenses) are subject to expectations for public accommodation.  Bakers are free to hate gays, but that right is limited to the private sphere.  The distance between frosting a cake to be eaten by wedding guests and participating in a marriage of which they say God disapproves reduces Kevin Bacon six degrees of separation  absurdly, to one.  It is just religious privilege masquerading as sincerely held belief.  


    If God does indeed care this much (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 08:25:25 AM EST
    Why does God starve to death so many children all over the world yearly?

    it is possible (2.00 / 2) (#105)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:34:21 AM EST
    It is possible that God wishes to teach men or mankind responsibility  .  . . and there are a lot of things that seemingly go wrong that man or men can and should learn to prevent or stop . . .

    God in the Bible say he curses those who lie, cheat and steal, if I recall correctly . . . the question is whether or not the wrongs God curses include bothering .5 to 3% or whatever % it is of bakers, florists and pharmacists . . .  I don't know . . .


    So God kills innocent children (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 10:28:47 AM EST
    To teach everyone else lessons?  What a despicable A hole of the first order.  If that's how the game gets played then send down the thunderbolt now you jerk. I'll relish roasting in hell to living in eternity singing praises forever to a homicidal sociopath.

    MT, someone is definitely on the wrong blog (none / 0) (#136)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:51:18 PM EST
    Might be me :) (none / 0) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:57:07 PM EST
    It's not you, MT. (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:08:23 PM EST
    Talking politics is divisive enough.  Adding religion and talk of 'divine vengeance' to the mix is like handing out hand grenades on a elementary school playground.

    That's for sure. (none / 0) (#182)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:26:48 PM EST
    I would defer to the wisdom of the late Chief Joseph (1840-1904) of the Nez Perce, who articulated quite succinctly his reason for not wanting missionaries and churches on tribal lands:

    "Your churches teach people to argue about God. Now, we Nez Perce may disagree about a great many different things on this earth, but we will never argue about the Creator. I consider it very unwise for anyone to do that, Indian or white."



    re the forum (none / 0) (#178)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:10:34 PM EST
    If and when the forum gets into issues of constitutionality of certain things, that can't be separated, in the long run, from our conceptions of right and wrong.  Peter Zenger's attorney, when he was put on trial 200plus years ago, said, approximately, "It should not be wrong to tell the truth."

    But if there is no right and wrong, why suppose that there should be a 1st amendment?

    When I read that the USSC has said that arrest is ok for a traffic stop for an infraction with a maximum penalty of a $50 fine, I and others think that is very wrong . . .

    And if there is no right and wrong, how would you measure the rightness of arrest for traffic stops?

    Two thousand years ago, a variety of Roman governors and Roman Emperors persecuted the Christians . . .

    and you can read for yourselves how they, dozens of them, died.

    But of course, it is all surely a very strange fluke . . .  and that is ok . . .  No problem . . .


    Who in this country is killing any of you? (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 04:06:11 PM EST

    You don't get to pick my God for me or my values.  And pointing out rationality holes in your theories of God does not equal persecuting you.  It's just noticing things and then telling the truth about what is noticed.  Disagreeing with someone does not equal persecution.  Denying someone their medication when you have that authority over them is persecution though.

    If you can't imagine taking life in defense of your country, don't be a soldier.  If you believe you must play God with someone's medication don't choose to be a pharmacist.


    Two wrongs don't make a right (none / 0) (#186)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:33:11 PM EST
    ...but three lefts do.

    Peter Zenger's attorney, when he was put on trial 200plus years ago, said, approximately, "It should not be wrong to tell the truth."

    But if there is no right and wrong, why suppose that there should be a 1st amendment?

    There is no "right or wrong" in the legal world.  There is only legal or not legal, tort or no tort.  The closest we get to deciding what is "right and wrong" is the laws we make to restrict behavior harmful to others.


    God gave us free will (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 11:38:51 AM EST
    His judgement will come after we have died.

    How we use that free will affect that then. Not at the time of our actions.

    Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people and good things happen to good people...and all points in between.


    Try this balanced (and secular) analysis .... (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 10:44:21 AM EST
    In a democracy, religious freedom laws should allow individuals, acting in their private capacities, to opt out of participation in governmental compulsion that violates their deeply held beliefs, UNLESS the government's refusal to allow individualized exemptions is essential to the operation of the (valid and important) governmental program or policy, OR UNLESS allowing such exemptions substantially interferes with the ability of innocent, private third parties to exercise their own civil rights or to have the intended benefit of those governmental programs and policies.

    The question is (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 11:33:10 AM EST
    does the individual see the government program as valid and/or essential.

    If not then the actions of the government are seen as repressive and illegal.

    If so then the actions are seen as just and legal.

    Viewpoint is everything and in the end legality is determined by the force behind the ruling.


    Totally disagree, "in a democracy," as I (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:21:05 PM EST
    began my response. And I say this as someone who for nearly three decades has represented conscientious objectors to the draft, those seeking discharge from the military on religious grounds, and individuals who find they cannot comply with the federal income tax law on pacifist religious grounds. To make governmental policy decisions in these matters entirely from the perspective of the objecting individual (as you seem to suggest, Jim) makes "every man a law unto himself," which is no system of law at all, and certainly not democratic. As applied to objectors' actions that affect third parties, it also elevates one person's civil rights above another's, while neither the Constitution nor any civil rights law ranks any constitutional (or statutory) right as being inherently entitled to greater weight than any other, in situations where two rights come into conflict.

    I totally agree with your dsagree (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:02:39 PM EST
    My point was from the viewpoint of the individual who has seen what they consider their basic rights trashed by the government in favor of someone else's rights and the either hinted at or use of force.

    It is then up to society to keep the individual, or a like group, convinced that they should give up what they consider as their rights in favor others. When that fails....

    Revolutions are made of such.


    I have an old, somewhat worn metal sign hanging in my garage, which I had recovered from an old building site in Seattle many years ago while attending college there. It reads, "No Irish Allowed."

    While amusing to see today, that sign actually speaks volumes about our country's often dubious history with regards to public accommodations. Ergo, two thoughts on the subject on individual rights and public accommodations:

    • Given our country's past history on this particular issue, we have enacted and enforced public accommodation laws for a very good reason.
    • Religion, and not sexual / gender orientation, is the true personal choice here.

    Nothing good can or has ever come from carving out exemptions to those laws in order to cater to the bigotry and ignorance of a select few.

    The First Amendment's protections for people of faith preclude me as a government agent, businessman, employer, landlord, etc., from discriminating against you on the basis of your religious beliefs, by which I'd otherwise deny you service, employment, or even health care or a roof over your family's heads.

    The First Amendment does not inoculate you as a person of faith from your own responsibility as a citizen to comply thereof, with regard to the rights of others to expect that which you would otherwise demand for yourself.

    As Peter G. correctly noted earlier, the law of the individual is really no law at all. Rather, it is a recipe for social discord, civil strife and ultimately, anarchy and destruction.

    Therefore, because your religion is a personal choice, whatever your beliefs may be therein do not endow you with a divinely ordained right to discriminate against the LGBT community, any more than you can act affirmatively on your prejudices to the detriment of people who have a physical or mental disability, or who are of a different race, ethnicity or gender than you.

    If you believe otherwise, then I seriously suggest that you really need to get over yourself, because such self-absorbed behavior can only and likely lead you to some very serious grief in the near future, particularly in the face of rapidly changing societal attitudes regarding LGBT equality.

    One can hope that at the very least, that sort of perverse religious doctrine will eventually go the way of the Shakers. At best, those who would practice discrimination on the basis of their religious doctrines can probably count on eventually becoming social pariahs within the greater community, as others choose of their own free will to no longer consort or interact personally with known bigots.



    about the non-income tax payers (none / 0) (#191)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 04:08:06 PM EST
    How do you represent them, given that their beliefs, if applied universally, could be considered to render society unworkable?

    Or, would you perhaps be counselling them to plead guilty, which can be a form of representation, I suppose . . .


    I do not have the time or space (5.00 / 5) (#199)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 04:24:07 PM EST
    to fully, or even half-way, answer those questions in this forum, Zaitz, and I don't know you or whether you actually care to engage in an open-minding discussion (nor is this the place for that either), so I won't. Trust me, I could. (I have done so, in talks which ran an hour or more.) As for the assumption underlying your question, "what if everyone agreed" with my religious pacifist clients, you are wrong. If everyone agreed with religious pacifism, there would be no wars; that's a far-fetched, silly, what-if, because it will never happen. Nor is it plausible and sensible to speculate on the question of "what if everyone [or all Americans] believed in or followed the same [any] religion," including yours. That would not be America, and we would not have the laws and Constitution that we do, which are designed, in part, to protect the rights and safety of religious and other minorities and dissenters, written by brilliant political minds who knew that this was and would always be a diverse nation embracing people of many faiths and none, all of whom can live together without oppressing one another or striving for dominance.

    Well assuming (none / 0) (#137)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:54:30 PM EST
     "essential" and "substantially interferes" are reasonably (in my opinion, narrowly)defined, I think that is a good test.

      I also do not believe a person should be considered not to be acting in a "private capacity" merely because he is engaging in an activity involving commerce.

      I see a substantial difference between requiring a pharmacy which must be licensed  to dispense controlled substances which are both regulated and administered for the purpose of health and, say a bakery making cakes or a wedding hall which conducts or allows marital ceremonies.

      Even the pharmacy is a fairly close question to me. Is it essential that every pharmacy dispense a certain controlled substance? Is it a  substantial burden all  circumstances for a specific medication not to be available at the most convenient location?


    Well, then, we agree (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:04:35 PM EST
    except for your approach to the pharmacy (or Catholic hospital) question. I am ok with exempting an individual pharmacist, notwithstanding his being licensed and regulated, as long as the pharmacy has another employee on duty to serve the lawful customer.  I am not ok with making that customer go elsewhere for her lawful medication or treatment.

    That doesn't sound fair... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:11:23 PM EST
    to the other pharmacist on duty, who will be de-facto forced to work harder than the quasi-pharmacist seeing an exemption to their job duties while still collecting the paycheck.

    I think the answer is the quasi-pharmacist needs to open up their own pharmacy and not carry any drugs they do not approve of, or find a new job.

    Same goes for the muslim cab driver who won't drive a fare with a seeing eye dog, etc. etc.  People have the right to their beliefs, tis a beautiful thing, but they don't have a right to a job that contradicts with said beliefs.


    kdog, and what about the non smoker (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:06:39 PM EST
    who must do the work of the smoker who slips out to have a puff?

    Oh no! (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by sj on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:13:35 PM EST
    kdog, and what about the non smoker (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:06:39 PM MDT

    who must do the work of the smoker who slips out to have a puff?

    And what about the constipated guy who has to do the work of the guy using the bathroom?

    Jeebus. Do you really not see the difference between taking a break and not being on duty on the one hand, and on the other, being on duty and refusing to serve a customer?


    Are you opinion that (1.00 / 1) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:34:58 PM EST
    being constipated is the same as addicted to nicotine?

    Go back and read. Kdog is claiming that the druggist who won't serve is burdening the one who will. My point is that a smoker does the same thing with essentially the same motives. It is his belief that he must have a smoke. It was his choice to start smoking even though he knew he would become addicted and had at least a million warnings.


    Actually... (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:48:27 PM EST
    I find nicotine can help alleviate constipation.

    At least it's something to do (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:55:14 PM EST
    while you're waiting..

    Ah (none / 0) (#174)
    by sj on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:39:05 PM EST
    Now you want to change the subject to addiction as opposed to your original premise of the added workload of the poor non-smoker.

    I am not playing your quicksand game. You can stand on those shifting sands all by yourself.

    You're just boring me.


    It's the (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:57:35 PM EST
    game he always plays called "moving the goal posts" Kind of like I'm for single payer but I never vote for candidates who advocate for it and then blame someone else who I would never vote for for not doing it. Crazy pretzel logic.

    Nobody ever died from not getting (none / 0) (#194)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 04:14:42 PM EST
    their nicotine fix, although those around them might wish it were so.

    You needed to ask? (none / 0) (#171)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:30:39 PM EST
    Welcome to stretched analogies in the world according to Jim.

    My work... (none / 0) (#167)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:13:16 PM EST
    is waiting for me post-puff, fear not Jim!  

    Besides, most employers require smoking to be done on scheduled breaks given to smokers and non-smokers alike.

    And everybody knows what a non-smoker takes an hour to do, a non-smoker can do in 55 min. thanks to the performance enhancing drug called nicotine;)


    Well, to me (none / 0) (#146)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:10:58 PM EST
      this becomes an issue of access.

      Here, where you could almost  literally throw a rock between pharmacies in  in every commercial district, it's hard to say a consumer is being burdened.

      In more rural places there can be substantial distances between pharmacies.

      In terms of implementation, a blanket rule is certainly easier (if you have a pharmacy you have to stock and sell)but, we are then deviating from the test.  


    Not a close question for me (none / 0) (#145)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:10:53 PM EST
    Is it essential that every pharmacy dispense a certain controlled substance?

    Only if it is essential that they get a license from the government to operate.  Since they DO need that license, they are not permitted to discriminate against people with back pain or asthma or birth-control issues or whatever other medical minority they choose to hate, by refusing to stock products that address these specific medical concerns.

    Is it a  substantial burden all  circumstances for a specific medication not to be available at the most convenient location?

    Yes.  How hard was that?  Maybe it's available int the next state, which has different laws.  No burden at all to have to travel out of state because your local pharmacy is staffed by bigots who hide behind religion to justify their bigotry.


    But that's not the question (none / 0) (#149)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:18:40 PM EST
     the question is not whether you think every pharmacy should be required as a condition of licensure. The question is it essential to people wanting or needing a medication that every pharmacy carry it.  

      (And, obviously, pharmacies are not now required to carry each and every medication a person may be prescribed.)


    If they don't have it (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:12:27 PM EST
    the get it for you. At least, that has been my experience.

    the bakery thing (none / 0) (#148)
    by CST on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:12:34 PM EST
    what about selling pre-made cakes?

    How is that any different from segregation?  I understand that as a society we've mostly progressed beyond that, so it doesn't seem like as big of a deal, but there is a very good reason these laws came to be.  And I don't trust a lot of places not to abuse the power to refuse service.  These things have real world potent implications for quality of life for groups of people.


    And nobody is saying... (none / 0) (#150)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:21:25 PM EST
    people can't hold true to strongly held beliefs...they just can't have their cake and eat it too.  If your gig doesn't jive with your conscience, find another gig or compromise your conscience...seems simple to me.

    well (none / 0) (#151)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:31:18 PM EST
     I have a license and I'm in business, Should I be forced to represent anyone who desires my services no matter how abhorrent I might find his cause -- even if he might have trouble finding another lawyer?

      If a white supremacist walks in and wants me to challenge fair housing laws so he can evict a white woman because she now has a black boyfriend, should I be forced to represent him or cease being a lawyer?


    This question is answered (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:35:28 PM EST
    in the professional responsibility rules, which you are obligated to comply with as a condition of holding your license to practice law. It is not a matter of what "should" be, in the abstract.

    I was responding to (none / 0) (#153)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:37:19 PM EST
    Kdog's absolutist assertion.

      the point being to illustrate it is neither fair nor feasible.


    A doctor would be obligated... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:46:13 PM EST
    to treat a bigot, I don't see why it should be any different for lawyers who have a practice open to the public.  Defense attorneys are obligated to defend abhorrent people as well.

    I prefer "obligated" to "forced" because no one can be "forced", quitting is always an option if your beliefs prevent you from doing your job and/or running a business open to the public.  

    Though I'm sure a man of your persuasive powers could convince such a hypothetical client that you are not the man for his job, without going so far as to refuse service outright.

    I have customers who I find beyond abhorrent, but I am obligated to serve them, so I do...because that's why they pay me.  The day I can't do it anymore, I know where the door is, I would not expect my employer to accommodate my stubborn arse.


    No, (none / 0) (#158)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:53:50 PM EST
     I'm not required to defend, or represent in any way anyone.

      I usually do use certain routine practices to decline representation, such as quoting an astronomical fee, but I have on many  occasions simply said no, occasionally because of  some issue of my personal conscience, but more frequently  just because I could tell I would not enjoy working for the person and life is short.



    It's good to be your own boss! :) (none / 0) (#164)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:08:30 PM EST
    Interesting...as an employee I must tread carefully, but there are subtle ways I can send the business of the abhorrent elsewhere as well.

    I'll go the extra mile to find the product to fit the job spec for a new homeless shelter...for a police station or prison renovation, not so much.

    All reasons why the law can and should err on the side of providing service despite objection of conscience imo, while in practice people will make the work/conscience compromises work by hook or by crook.  



    Well, sure (none / 0) (#169)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:15:44 PM EST
      and to be clear, I think it is an entirely different matter for the government to establish incentives to do some things and not do others.

       I do not believe a person should be forced to bake cakes for gay couples or be forbidden to bake cakes for anyone. I think that is wrong, and even from a purely practical standpoint of promoting and furthering gay rights probably counter-productive.

      On the other hand, if the government says it  will not engage  anyone who discriminates to provide goods and services to the government, I think that is fine. Likewise if the government, establishes non-discrimination as an eligibility requirement for subsidized loans, or other forms of assistance, I think that is good.


    I guess I don't see it... (none / 0) (#172)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:34:24 PM EST
    as a government fiat as much as a social business contract...want to be a licensed business serving the public, part of the deal is serving the entire public regardless of race/gender/sexual orientation/religion/beliefs.  

    And if that is too much burden for the conscience of a baker/grocer/restauranteur/etc to bear, I can respect that, and I got no problem with them opening up an underground unlicensed shop or private above-ground shop for members only.  Seems a pretty fair compromise between rights of the business and rights of the public.

    fwiw I've changed my mind on this, I used to agree with you but have come to think it just can't be without risking returning to the dark days of segments of our population being denied essential goods and services.  Hopefully in time such protections will no longer be necessary and we can achieve anarchic utopia...but we've got some evolving to do.


    Is that a service you offer? (none / 0) (#154)
    by CST on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:37:23 PM EST
    You can be a baker and not make cakes, and only sell cookies, for example.

    Do you usually challenge fair housing laws on behalf of people looking to break the law?  It's more like doing it for the white guy, but not doing it for the white woman who wants to kick out a black couple.  Then you are discriminating against the person not the service.


    For the purposes (none / 0) (#156)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:49:42 PM EST
    of discussion assume I do represent other people looking to evict tenants from their properties and I am not too busy to take this case. I just don't want to.

      Peter's point is sound as to what does govern me, but the question is what if the government tried to impose new rules that don't allow me to exercise my personal discretion?


    well again that's not what I said (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by CST on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:53:34 PM EST
    it's not the eviction that's the problem, it's the fact that people are looking to break the law.  And you "don't want to" because you don't want to help people break the law, which isn't something you do in your typical eviction case (I presume).

    You're trying to make it about "the case", but it's not, it's about "the customer".  If there is a problem with the case don't take the case.


    well he is looking (none / 0) (#161)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:05:30 PM EST
     to challenge the law because he disagrees with it, and wants an attorney to assist him in having the law overturned so he can then take the action he desires legally.

      That is not breaking the law; that's trying to get the law changed to conform with what he thinks it should be.

     Lawyers do that for people all the time in countless contexts.



    I guess what I'm trying to say is (none / 0) (#165)
    by CST on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:11:19 PM EST
    There is a difference between not doing certain types of cases (and I don't mean "eviction") because you don't make those arguments as a rule (ie. challenging discrimination laws) - than there is in refusing to work with a certain person because they are (male/ female/ black/ gay/ straight/ christian/ whatever).

    In law, there is a lot more freedom and nuance than in say a bakery, where a cake is already in the window "for sale".  The cake is made, you clearly offer it as is.  With the law, every case is inherently different, so you could take some cases and not other based on the merits of the case itself, not on the person buying it.  Sometimes the "merits" of the case also involve the ability to work with the person.  That's not required to bake a cake.  Does that make sense?


    Not to make too fine a of it.... (none / 0) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:10:37 PM EST
    it is my understanding the baker/cake question was not about the baker refusing to sell a ready made cake/cookie to a gay couple.

    It was about the gay couple wanting the baker to make a specific cake that would be used in a gay marriage ceremony. Thus the baker believed he was being forced to participate in what the baker considers to be a sinful act that violated his deeply held religious convictions.

    If it was a ready made cake I see it as cut and dried. You do not have the right to deny because the customer is gay. But when you ask someone to do some thing specific that makes them part of something else... I get iffy because I see a huge slippery slope.


    I'll grant you that does complicate things (none / 0) (#183)
    by CST on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:28:19 PM EST
    But that specific case (in Oregon I presume?) also involved them refusing to do business specifically when hearing that it was two brides.  In other words, they would've made the exact same cake had it not been two women.  So in essence, they were willing to "sell" that cake, and the only stated reason for not doing it is same sex marriage.  I think part of the problem is that they stated outright that they were denying them service for that reason.  It's hard to distinguish between a customer and a "case" in that instance, but I think that the statements of the bakers in this case make it more clear.  They told us why they were refusing to make the cake.

    It would be different if they just didn't make wedding cakes.  Or hadn't explicitly stated it was due to the couple being gay.


    Well, you make my point (2.00 / 1) (#193)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 04:13:24 PM EST
    They didn't refuse to sell them a ready made cake.

    them refusing to do business specifically when hearing that it was two brides.  In other words, they would've made the exact same cake had it not been two women.

    Their religious beliefs say that same sex marriages is wrong and that if they participate by making a cake then they have sinned.


    Some of us remember when honest businessmen (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 04:18:04 PM EST
    said racial integration and interracial marriage were wrong. And backed it up with Scripture.

    And in not one of those cases was that objection (none / 0) (#200)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 04:29:41 PM EST
    to compliance with the 1964 Civil Rights Act upheld, when posed by the owner of a covered public business, that is, a business engaged, however trivially, in or affecting interstate commerce.

    jondee, perhaps you can enlighten us (none / 0) (#201)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 04:32:34 PM EST
    with that bit of scripture.

    re the Oregon baker and others (none / 0) (#180)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:18:25 PM EST
    Yes, and the question is

    if there is a God,

    how does God view the religious freedom of the baker in Oregon to make or not make a cake or other items in celebration of a same-sex wedding?

    It seems to me that you have begun to give some reasonable principles  . . . but I have doubts as to how you would apply them in the cases of the Oregon baker or the Washington pharmacists . . . or the Utah polygamists of 1889 . . .

    I don't know the mind of God . . . but I strongly suspect God favors religious freedom . . .  whether or not God might eventually make things more clear to the USA about the religious freedom of the Oregon baker, I do not know, but I have a guess.


    GOP debate Aug. 6 (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:07:14 PM EST
    It will include the top 10 candidates (potentially plus ties) based on the most recent five yet-to-be-named national polls using data released by Aug. 4 at 5 p.m. That means the 5 chosen polls will likely be in the field right now and through this weekend.

    Current list according to RCP:


    Those top 8 are pretty much guaranteed.

    Fighting for the last 2 spots in hopes of remaining relevant:


    Political Musical Chairs (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:49:23 PM EST
    Since these events are performances rather than actual debates or discussions, look for the guy with a lot of practice performing on TV to hand out zingers to the other nine stiffs.

    How great is it that Trump can bust these clowns for the same stuff liberals have tried for years to get past the media goalkeepers?  Now because The Donald points out that Perry is a moron, or that Wisconsin is a mess, FOX News has to cover it!

    I disagree with The Donald on everything EXCEPT his analysis of his rivals.


    Well (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:17:14 PM EST
    from that it looks like it will be Christie and Kasich because I can't imagine Perry moving up enough to be included nor Santorum. They might somehow mess with the polls to include Fiorina so they would have a woman up there but if they did that it's going to make the rest of them very angry.

    so it's gonna be 10 (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:22:15 PM EST
    White-looking guys.

    I think that is an image all on it's own about the state of the GOP.

    And yes, I know Rubio is hispanic, but I'm talking pure optics here.  It's a powerful visual statement.


    What about (none / 0) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:26:05 PM EST
    Candidate #8?  

    Make that, (none / 0) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:26:53 PM EST
    Candidate Number 6.

    my bad (none / 0) (#16)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:32:28 PM EST
    must have missed that.  To be honest, I had no idea who he was and just made an assumption.

    Yea, I guess I shouldn't do that.


    As for Candidate #8, (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:10:12 PM EST
    whatever happened to him?   Gone missing until seen  destroying the tax code with a chain saw, fire and a wood chipper.   Trying to out-trump Trump.

    Carson (none / 0) (#19)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:53:44 PM EST
    is a bit of a mystery to me, he has been virtually invisible yet he has maintained position.

    He's the guy (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:13:28 PM EST
    ...who every Republican can pick out by name from a picture of a crowd of Republican candidates.  It was the only explanation for Herman Cain, and it seems to be the only explanation here.  The dude DOESN'T EVEN CAMPAIGN.

    I actually saw a Carson (none / 0) (#31)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 05:00:10 PM EST
    bumper sticker on a car around Timonium, MD on I-83 on Sunday on my way into Baltimore.

    Awww (none / 0) (#33)
    by sj on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 05:08:30 PM EST
    you made me feel a little bit homesick.
    ...on a car around Timonium, MD on I-83 on Sunday on my way into Baltimore.

    I (none / 0) (#37)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 05:25:40 PM EST
    know an evangelical at work that likes him (elderly white male), he's a straight arrow for them, a real Doctor, not a snake oil salesman like preacher man Huckabee. He's a brain surgeon not a dumba$$ like Perry or Santorum.

    Then there's always the "I am not a racist because I once told a pollster I supported a black man" bias to his numbers, or maybe I am being way too cynical.


    Yes (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 05:45:37 PM EST
    he seems to quite popular with the religious right here in GA though probably not popular enough to win anything.

    I travel I-83 every day from Sparks to (none / 0) (#61)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 08:07:59 PM EST
    the Inner Harbor and home again and have never seen one.  Have seen a few Ready for Hillary stickers, but that's about it.

    Didn't you mean (none / 0) (#57)
    by scribe on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 07:59:29 PM EST
    Client #9?

    It (none / 0) (#17)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:40:04 PM EST
    seems like Christie has been steady at #9 for weeks, he is dropping $250k on a FNC ad buy so I consider him a lock. Kasich appears to be surging and I think he will edge out Perry for #10, Santorum's only chance is for Huckabee or Cruz to crater but that probably helps
     Perry also, the rest should be out looking for some wingnut welfare gigs.

    When all else fails (none / 0) (#26)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:15:41 PM EST
    ...drop a bundle on ad time.  Purchase the refs.

    Rachel (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:25:29 PM EST
    pointed out that it's convenient for FOX that the only way the candidates can raise their profile with national republicans is to purchase ad time on FOX news.
    That was the whole 250 k ad buy from Christie.  FOX News.

    I have to (none / 0) (#28)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:40:26 PM EST
    ...admire the genius behind the FNC strategy of playing GOP candidates against each other for ad buys.  The well of Koch/Trump/Bush money is so deep it will never run dry.

    Hosting the debates and cornering the market on the ads that will get a candidate on that stage, FNC is rubbing the GOP's metaphorical face in, "The game is crooked, but it's the only game in town."

    By going more and more with image over substance, the GOP has handed its reins to the image makers, who are only in it for the money they can take from GOP chumps.

    Popcorn futures are skyrocketing.


    Fox had to do something... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 10:42:56 AM EST
    The Rosland Capital and AAG cons had to run dry eventually, a sucker may be born every minute but it takes awhile for said sucker to turn 70...time for a new brand of fleece, clown car season arrived just in time for Murdoch's beancounters.  

    Kind of think this time around (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 07:46:57 PM EST
    candidates can stay alive longer than the first couple of debates. It is only August and the sorting process is just beginning, plus I doubt the big money donors or influential GOPers are thinking Trump is going to go the distance. If I were in the bottom 6 I'd sit back and let the other top 9 take the pain of dealing with Trump in the first couple of debates.

    New Hampshire poll by Monmouth (none / 0) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 11:46:33 PM EST
    to be released in the morning.

    Trump 24%
    Bush 12%
    Kasich 7%
    Walker 7%
    Rubio 6%
    Carson 5%
    Paul 5%
    Christie 4%
    Fiorina 3%
    Cruz 3%
    Huckabee 2%
    Jindal 2%
    Pataki 2%
    Everyone else <1%


    LEOs are liars. What else is new? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:55:13 PM EST
    Posted on Radley Balko's page in the Washington Post today. The warrant for the raid that blew a baby's  chest cavity apart with a flash bang in Habersham County, Georgia was based completely on lies. Only one officer, a Nikki Autry, has been indicted, by federal prosecutors, on four counts of making false statements to judge to obtain a no-knock warrant. This is a SWAT that was completely cleared by local law enforcement, the local DA, local grand jury and the GBI. Talk about covering up for your own. This whole case is disgraceful. Everyone in the justice system in that county belongs in prison.
    https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/07/27/lessons-from-the-drug-raid-that-burned-a -georgia-toddler

    link is broken (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:05:14 PM EST
    you have an extra space.

    Here is the fixed link.


    thanks . . . (none / 0) (#58)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 08:01:35 PM EST
    thanks to chuck0 and cst for the link to the article . . .

    This is (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:02:22 PM EST
    a backwater North GA county if there ever was one.

    I think that both you and I have spoken our piece on that particular subject. Some people are simply impervious to fact and reason, and there's really no sense letting them irritate us any further. Dogs bark, the caravan passes.

    I really wish some people would tone down their rhetoric on the campaign trail, because its toxicity is really permeating everyday political discourse and corroding our corresponding ability to govern ourselves.

    Mike Huckabee made a thoroughly disgusting comment this weekend about how President Obama was consigning Israelis "to the ovens" with our prospective nuclear arms agreement with Iran. And given his recent bigoted remarks about LGBT citizens in the wake of the Supreme Court decision on marriage equality, one can only wonder how The Huckster ever graduated from theology school. Oh, that's right, he didn't.


    Oops! (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 05:08:43 PM EST
    My comment was in response to GA6thDem (No. 11).

    Oh, (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 05:17:24 PM EST
    I know what you are saying about political discourse and it's sad. Everything that happens the GOP starts screaming it's the end of the world. All gloom and doom they are. And then any bump in the road Hillary has they are screaming it's her demise and yet she keeps going.

    USA! USA! USA! (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 10:13:23 AM EST
    Ladies and Gentlemen, we have arrived.  Our weed is so good it is now being smuggled into Mexico, reversing a 100 year trend.  

    American industry soaring like a majestic bald eagle once more, it's times like this I am so proud to be an American. Land of the best reefer, home of the best growers.  God Bless America.

    some surprising but good news (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by CST on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 11:39:35 AM EST
    Americans are eating fewer calories.  Link

    "in the early 2000s, something changed, many public health experts say: Many people started seeing obesity as a health crisis instead of a personal problem. This shift explains the surprising reduction in calorie consumption since about 2003, the first in decades. Obesity became a national issue -- and not just a health issue but a cultural and economic one, too.

    Around that time, Americans' daily calorie consumption, which had been climbing for more than two decades, peaked and started coming down. The sustained calorie declines, combined with a flattening of the obesity rate, have persuaded many public health researchers that something is changing about how Americans consume food and indeed how they think about it."

    I will say I noticed a shift in attitudes.  Around that time my parents (who were obese) started having health problems.  As their kids we witnessed that and have made more of a concerted effort to be healthy adults.  Also, they started getting healthier then too.  It still comes up sometimes at family gatherings, the constant pressure to "have some" of whatever people brought.  But there is a greater acknowledgement and awareness of the fact that people aren't trying to overeat, and the threat.  My father especially is aware of it in himself and his kids, simply because he's already had a heart attack and quadruple bypass surgery.

    Anyway, glad to see it's not just anecdotal.  Americans are finally starting to get healthier.

    Mrs. Clinton, rather than (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:09:45 PM EST
    burning, chain-sawing and wood-chippering the tax-code, as Republican Rand Paul did in a Trump-stunt, proposed a re-write to promote building companies and discouraging cut and run and immediate payouts.  

    In a thoughtful and radical proposal presented at the New York University School of Business, Mrs. Clinton called for a review of regulations on share holder activism so as to reflect realities of the economy.

    To the liking of Senator Elizabeth Warren, and the disliking of Wall Street,  Mrs. Clinton addressed hit and run activist and stock buy backs (or manipulations).  The proposal would end "quarterly capitalism", a destructive obsession with quarterly earnings, by extending the definition of long-term holding period for lower capital gains rates to two years from one.

     And, institute a six-year sliding scale for capital gains tax.  Individuals in the top bracket would pay ordinary income tax on the sale of investments (39.6 percent) for the first two-years, then in decrements each year over the next four years until it returns to 20 percent, the current rate.  

    The proposal would impact business in a major way with an incentive system that looks beyond the very short term. The proposal, is a serious and,  even wonky, organization of ideas and problem-solving  characteristic of Mrs. Clinton.

    wow (none / 0) (#130)
    by CST on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:18:54 PM EST
    I really like that idea.

    Jim, maybe you can enlighten US.. (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 04:36:24 PM EST
    I'd think you'd have had the relevant verses memorized.

    Because, Jim, (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 06:27:10 PM EST
    "Why not teach the knuckle heads that no means no and use the money on cancer research?"

    No means no does not seem to be working very well, neither does warning women to not leave themselves vulnerable. Maybe there are other strategies that would work better on some types of people, or at least warn them they are particularly susceptible to certain things.

    Why is cancer research the end all and be all?

    I could have helped them on this (2.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 09:42:43 PM EST
    Feds Study How Men Look At Women When They Drink

    Remember how at the height of the Ebola epidemic the NIH said they didn't have enough money to develop an Ebola vaccines? They even (falsely) blamed Republicans in Congress. Well, they are too busy squandering their money on things like this.


    The study began in May and has received $222,172 thus far. The budget for the project will not expire until April 2016... Teresa Treat, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Iowa... is leading the study... Treat also received $221,494 from the NIH last year to study how alcohol affects men's "learning about women's cues."

    And you wonder why a significant number of tax payers are permanently in a po'd position.

    Funny how these stories of government waste (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:23:43 PM EST
    that go viral through the conservative blogosphere are almost always about some govt-funded scientific study -- which, after awhile, leads one to suspect that the real adversary the Right wants to police isn't perceived (by conservatives) waste, but scientific knowledge..

    They're always grousing about some research project or some declared endangered species they think is irrelevant to the biosphere, but never about those thousand dollar wrenches or billions that were "lost" in Iraq..

    Go figure.



    Or money thrown away on (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:33:41 PM EST
    Abstinence-only programs that pass for Sex  Ed in some schools around the country, because Jesus cares more about that then, say feeding the poor or comforting the sick.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:46:23 PM EST
    they don't like money thrown away on scientific research when all the knowledge anyone ever needs is in the King James Bible. And on AM talk radio.  

    Jondee So in your opinion the roughly $440,000 (none / 0) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:25:32 PM EST
    being spent on the sexual mores of drinking men and women is a good thing??

    That dog hunts only if we live in a world that has money without end and we all know that we don't.

    But it is interesting how you try to spin things around to attack conservatives rather than the obviously wasteful and wanton use of funds which could have been used on such silly things as cancer cure research, heart attack prevention, etc. etc and etc.


    Jim, maybe they're trying (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:35:25 PM EST
    to figure out why women in the military keep getting sexually assaulted by drunken GIs, which I've noticed, is yet another REAL WORLD phenomenon not on the conservative radar -- much like the findings of evolutionary biologists and climate scientists..

    As I remember, the last time you were complaining about this kind of "waste" it was because scientists were studying horseshoe crabs whose blood has important medical applications.


    And maybe they're not (none / 0) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 04:18:55 PM EST
    drunken GIs and sailors has been a real world problem forever and wasting $440K isn't gonna fix it.

    And your memory is as wrong as your comment.


    terrorism has been a real world problem (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 04:23:26 PM EST
    forever as well, one you'd spend trillions on. But not even half a million from you for research to obtain a better and helpful understanding of human psychology..

    Considering the number of campus and other sexual (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:28:30 PM EST
    assaults in which drinking is a factor, I think 440k worth of knowledge that leads to some shot of prevention is money well spent and could save money in the long run on the criminal justice system. But I know conservatives would rather spend money on criminal justice than research.

    This policing "Big Government" (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 04:12:54 PM EST
    scientific research and "waste" seems to be a regular cottage industry on the Right --  like the Heritage Foundation trying to convince people that poor kids in the U.S don't deserve to get food stamps because someone somewhere ripped off the system.

    Meanwhile, as I say, they never notice the thousand dollar wrenches and billions that disappeared down some black ops hole..


    Oh please (none / 0) (#198)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 04:23:39 PM EST
    Who doesn't know that men, and women, lose their inhibitions when drinking????

    Why not teach the knuckle heads that no means no and use the money on cancer research.

    The project theorizes that men lose their "sensitivity to women's sexual interest" as they drink. The study also will explore whether males aged 21 to 25 years old have "rape supportive attitudes."

    Because men look at women who drink? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:12:19 AM EST
    Study concludes... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 08:46:24 AM EST
    they use their eyes, same as when sober, just cloudier.

    Yeah, kdog, but we didn't need to spend (1.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:52:07 AM EST
    $200K and change... We already had a C&W song that covered that.



    Exception being the Irish... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:56:48 AM EST
    who once they start drinking, can only see the next drink, and nothing but the next drink.



    Bland Marijuana Toxicology (2.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:42:12 PM EST
    Report shows Sandra Bland may have used pot in jail

    The amount of THC in Bland's system was 18 micrograms per liter .... more than three times the legal limit for drivers in Colorado....

    Robert Johnson, chief toxicologist told the AP that a THC level as high as Bland's suggests she "either had access to the drug in jail or she was a consistent user of the drug and her body had accumulated THC to the point that it was slowly releasing it over time."

    But, Johnson added, "I have never seen a report in the literature or from any other source of residual THC that high three days after someone stops using the drug."

    et al (1.00 / 1) (#206)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:45:08 PM EST
    jondee, as has been said before....you first. I mean you claim to be intimately familar. Could it be that you don't have the facts you claim at your...disposal??

    ruffian, true enough but spending $440K on it won't work either...

    I mean, no one has ever told the men that no means no? No one has told the young ladies to beware and that getting plastered and depending on the morals of someone you hardly know is, yes, very dumb???

    I think they have been told. And a study on what happens when people get drunk is just a waste of taxpayer dollars.

    the thinkprogress piece (none / 0) (#2)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:13:00 PM EST
    Anne in a different thread or area linked to a piece at thinkprogress, which seems to establish that the order to Sandra Bland to get out of the car can be found unconstitutional because it was unnecessary to accomplish the purpose of the traffic stop.  Police can order a person out of their car, but they can't do things that unnecessarily delay the ending of the traffic stop beyond what is reasonable to accomplish the purpose . . . and it very much appears that the officer did exactly that and it is forbidden . . .

    As I understand the constitutional law (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Peter G on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:54:49 PM EST
    governing traffic stops, Zaitz has it just right. Police can order a person out of the car during a routine traffic stop without individualized suspicion that the person is armed or otherwise dangerous, because of the inherent risks of traffic stops to the police. Moreover, it does not necessarily violate the Fourth Amendment to inflict a custodial arrest for a traffic offense, even when that offense does not carry a potential penalty of imprisonment. But police cannot prolong a traffic stop once its purpose is accomplished (issuance of a citation or warning) just to permit further investigation. Don't yell at me. I'm not endorsing all those decisions, just reiterating what the Supreme Court has held.

    how nice (none / 0) (#45)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 07:07:58 PM EST
    Thanks Peter for the compliment on my ability to properly understand and summarize the USSC decisions on traffic stops . . .

    esp given that many others who post here have, either once or repeatedly, stated that I am dense and lack understanding of either the law or their posts . . .

    about prolong a traffic stop beyond what is reasonable . . .  I think that there is even just slightly more than what you have written . . .

    a law enforcement officer may not take actions to unnecessarily prolong the stop or delay the situation, absent safety reasons or a suspicion of other crime, meaning, he can't arbitrarily prolong the time in his car, if in process of checking a driver's ID or registration or traffic or criminal record, if he has chosen to check these things; the leo cannot cause unnecessary delays in bringing a ticket or warning to the driver or other persons . . .

    but we are nearly perfectly agreed . . .


    If in doubt, go w/Peter. (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 07:13:42 PM EST
    by the way (none / 0) (#78)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:12:03 AM EST
    It seems to me to be a form of cruel and unusual punishment to create jail and arrest for a traffic offense which itself has a maximum penalty of $50 or $100 or any such similar sum, especially given that a single day of arrest can have a dramatic and negative effect on a person's employment or even such things as appointments with doctors, chiropractors, massage practitioners or even birthday-parties with children.

    I am not sure if anyone wishes to nominate me for the USSC--probably not, especially not Anne and the Senate would probably question me about a lot of things they do not like--but I can't imagine arrest being an appropriate response to a traffic infraction with a $50 maximum penalty, unless the person in question also has a series of FTA, a dozen unpaid tickets or other semi-serious problems . . .


    Atwater (which allowed custodial arrests) (none / 0) (#113)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 10:32:54 AM EST
    was a 5-4 decision with an unusual line-up. Justice Souter joined the most "conservative" justices on this one, while Justice O'Connor joined the "liberals." A complex and controversial Fourth Amendment problem, as a legal matter. (Not so as a logical or humanitarian matter, of course.) Not an Eighth Amendment issue, however ("cruel & unusual"), because neither an arrest nor the detention that may follow an arrest is "punishment" subject to Eighth Amendment analysis at all.

    mosby's motions denied again (none / 0) (#3)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:18:19 PM EST
    It appears that in the last week or two, motions made by mosby's office to get the judge to order suppression of a lot of information have been denied . . . again . . .

    Moreover, the judge in denying the motion states that there is nothing in the assertions made by the state that would justify the sweeping prohibitions being requested in their requested order . . .

    I tend to think that at least some of the police acted stupidly or negligently . . . but Mosby is also convincing me she is acting unethically or knows the law and the constitution very poorly and should be removed at the earlier opportunity by anyone with the power to do so  . . .

    Which cops were stupid or negligent? (none / 0) (#8)
    by McBain on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:05:17 PM EST
    I know it's tempting to think, "she must have something", otherwise Mosby wouldn't have made such strong charges.  However, that's what people said during the early days of the Zimmerman and Duke Lacrosse cases.  

    tend to think (none / 0) (#47)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 07:14:59 PM EST
    I wrote, "I tend to think"

    That means, in this case, I am making a guess . . .

    but I don't claim to know and my belief is weak . . .


    about the police (none / 0) (#48)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 07:19:18 PM EST
    I could be wrong, but it appears that someone of the police had the ability to place the man now dead into a seat-belt and he or they declined to do so, and moreover, he or they declined to do so after being urged to do so by the driver of the police vehicle.

    That was probably stupid and/or negligent.


    I'd like to know more about the seatbelt thing (none / 0) (#75)
    by McBain on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 11:20:30 PM EST
    I heard the policy to use seat belts was a new one and the cops involved might not have even known about it.  

    the driver says (none / 0) (#80)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:17:49 AM EST
    It is being reported in the media that the driver of the van has passionate urged his comrades to place the person they had arrested in seat belt or the similar thing they have.

    For years upon years upon years, at least in Wa state and ore and California, you have had to wear a seat-belt to drive and your passengers generally had to be in seat-belts if available.

    2012 marks the 10th anniversary of Washington's seat belt law changing from a secondary law to a primary law. That change allowed law enforcement to issue a seat belt ticket when there was no citable offense.

    In 2011, King County had a seatbelt usage rate of 98.1%, one of the highest in the nation. The Washington state seatbelt usage rate overall was 97.5%. While this use rate is encouraging, occupant protection is a priority area for improvement.

    From 2008 to 2012, 72 unrestrained motor vehicle occupants died in King County. Unrestrained occupants made up 29% of all vehicle occupant deaths.

    Research shows that if you wear a seatbelt, you are much more likely to survive a crash. Everyone in the car should also wear a seatbelt. Studies show that in a crash, unbelted passengers might fly into belted passengers, causing severe injuries or death to the belted passengers.

    Maybe the people in Maryland never got around to having a seat-belt law?


    A little research would have shown you (none / 0) (#88)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 06:49:18 AM EST
    that MD has had seat belt laws since 1986, and in 2013, those laws also covered all occupants, not just those in the front seat.

    If you took the time to research Washington State's laws, it can't have been that hard to answer your question about MD's laws, could it?


    Just because a defendant is acquitted ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 09:55:21 PM EST
    ... doesn't mean a prosecutor didn't have something.

    We know Mike Nifong had nothing (none / 0) (#74)
    by McBain on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 10:36:42 PM EST
    on the Duke Lacrosse players.  For months people in the media were saying he must something.  You and I aren't going to agree on Zimmerman but you should at least agree about Nifong.

    It was a general point (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 08:53:04 AM EST
    Your logic is flawed if your suggesting a mete acquittal (Zimmerman) means a prosecutor "has nothing".

    The Boston Olympic Plan (none / 0) (#4)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:42:15 PM EST
    Is officially dead.

    Basically - it didn't have public backing or support.  Personally, I'm somewhat disappointed, I may have been the only local looking forward to it, but one of the problems with Boston is the big dig hangover, where people no longer believe public officials that say it will cost "X" for a massive project.

    In other words, there are good reasons to be skeptical.  That being said - I may be one of the only people that also thinks the Big Dig was worth every penny.  I think it's hard to argue it hasn't fundamentally changed Boston for the better in ways that haven't been measured (future tax dollars) to justify it.

    The only upside I can think of is that it got people seriously thinking about how to improve certain areas of the city.  I hope they take that momentum and continue forward in those directions regardless.  But political will (money) for massive change is always hard to come by.

    Hosting the Olympic Games (none / 0) (#6)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:00:50 PM EST
    ..., like hosting the World Cup, is more a curse than an honor.  Taxpayers pick up the tab for enormous, one-time-use sporting facilities, so broadcast networks can make money.  All over the world you can find these fossilized remnants at former Olympic and FIFA host cities.

    Not to mention the inconvenience visited upon the citizens of Boston, one of the more difficult cities to navigate.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:08:44 PM EST
    I find Boston (along with New York) the easiest big cities to navigate.

    I found New York that way, too. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:08:53 AM EST
    When we spent a few days in the city while visiting Elder Daughter in college, we rented a car at JFK and I was pleasantly surprised at how easy it really was to find our way around the place. However, getting out of the city to drive north to Albany did become a bit of an adventure. The only other times I've been to New York as an adult has been to change planes on my way to Europe.

    I've driven in a lot of cities over the years, and the only three I've ever gotten completely lost in and had to ask for directions were the mid-sized cities of Richmond, VA; Nashville, TN and Portland, OR. I did get off on the wrong off-ramp in Miami, FL once, but I was only disoriented for a few minutes before figuring out where I was. Nowadays, with GPS, the odds of that happening again are between slim and none.



    the U.S. (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:10:27 PM EST
    did just fine hosting the world cup, IMO.  Sports facilities were already in place.

    It's true, we don't need the extra facilities here, although a soccer stadium near downtown probably wouldn't go unused.  And some of the other venues could've been taken over by local universities (I believe that was the plan).  Plus, there was a move toward 100% private financing for these venues.  The problem is no one believed they would pull that off.

    But the whole idea for supporting the olympics (to me) would be the upgraded transportation infrastructure that came with it.  Because as you mention, is is one of the more difficult cities to navigate.


    The balk came with the requirement (none / 0) (#56)
    by scribe on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 07:58:47 PM EST
    that the City execute a guarantee that they would cover any cost overruns out of taxpayer funds.

    To put it charitably, all of these projects are presented with numbers that are blowing smoke, and the overruns usually come in somewhere in the neighborhood of 100%.  One of the [many] things that helped push Greece over the edge was the guarantee for the venues and operation of the 2000 Athens Olympics, which came in grossly over budget and sit, disused and weed-filled, abandoned.

    That, and the committee refused to release honest financials.

    And it came out that the committee was paying Deval Patrick $7500 a day for ... being Deval Patrick and going to some meetings.  And he was just one of the many worthies getting $10k a month or more to be on the team.

    Taking this thing out back of the barn and giving it one in the neck may have been the smartest thing MA's governor has ever done.


    I thought it was Mayor Martin Walsh ... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:23:04 AM EST
    ... who delivered the coup de grace to the bid, by declining to sign a host city contract with the IOC. Either that, or MA politicos put him up there as their designated fall guy.

    Anyway, that's neither here nor there at this point. With Boston declining to move forward on its bid, Los Angeles is likely the clear frontrunner as the U.S. candidate for the 2024 Games. And like 1984, the city enjoys a running advantage, because it has most all the requisite Olympic facilities already in place. (Of course, L.A. was also the only city to bid for the '84 Games.)

    If its bid is accepted by the IOC, L.A. will become the first city to host the games on three separate occasions.



    It was the mayor (none / 0) (#103)
    by CST on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:32:19 AM EST
    not the governor.  And he was once one of the biggest pushers of the Olympics so it's kind of weird optics, but whatever.

    Deval Patrick had also declined the Olympics money after it became public, but continued to serve as "ambassador".

    The U.S. isn't Greece, we tend to pull off Olympics more reasonably.  I'll say this, the whole thing was a pr nightmare from the beginning and they went about selling people on it entirely the wrong way.


    BTD (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 03:59:07 PM EST
    you are being disrepected on the email thread.

    Not anymore (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:55:10 PM EST
    One thing that we can be sure of (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    Is that BTD can take care of himself.    

    He's (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 06:12:59 PM EST
    back screaming censorship.

    And BTD (none / 0) (#41)
    by sj on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 06:17:22 PM EST
    ...can still take care of himself.

    Although part of me kinda sorta doesn't blame you for telling on him, it is a rare thing for BTD to read an Open Thread.


    The concern (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 06:22:12 PM EST
    trolling and throwing around things so far hasn't changed anything except taking up blog space.

    wev (none / 0) (#44)
    by sj on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 06:36:50 PM EST
    I thought that BTD was actually ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 09:22:22 PM EST
    ... pretty patient with him for quite a while, but the guy wouldn't take the hint and let it go.

    Yeah, well (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 09:44:41 PM EST
    when you make the same point over and over based on facts and then a person keeps ignoring the facts and writing the same thing they wrote 50 times before it's just tiresome but you made him absolutely meltdown in an ugly way with your basically simple and to the point post.

    Yeah, I must say, ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:34:08 AM EST
    ... that was a really rancid retort on his part, as comments go. But from that every first post, he was clearly leading with his chin, and so he only got what he deserved. Oh, well, H8ers gotta H8, y'know? It certainly won't be the last time we'll see any of that nonsense, for sure.

    It's hardly a hint with BTD (none / 0) (#101)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:20:25 AM EST
      It's what he does. He writes hugely and intentionally flawed analysis to pander to theLCD here and hopes the obtuse will extend his arguments even further into magical thinking.

      Then he gets mad when confronted tries a few sill insults and when those fail he deletes the posts.

       I will repeat: when the evidence free assertion that no classified communications were conducted on Clinton's server becomes undeniable,, I trust he and those of you falling for his silliness man up and admit you were wrong.

      I'll also advise yo that having taken the bait and staked out such an obviously untenable position on nothing but blind faith and wishul thinking, you will not be among the people who can credibly assert, well, its really no big deal if she did.

      Your actions now in being so rabidly defensive pretty well illustrate that regardless of what you might say, you know that negligent handling of classified material by a SOS is a big deal.



    He didn't delete your comments (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by sj on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 11:29:53 AM EST
    because your rarefied logic ran counter to his position. He deleted them because you were being an a$$hole. Which is your default response whenever anyone challenges you on any of your assertions.

    In picturing your response (should you make one to this comment) I am seeing baboons.


    And I'll repeat what I said to you earlier: (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:55:58 PM EST
    Reconstructionist: "I will repeat: yadda, yadda, yadda, harrumph, harrumph, harrumph, blah, blah, blah ..."

    Take an effin hint and give it a rest, already.


    True Detective needs Caitlyn Jenner (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 04:52:45 PM EST
    per PreviouslyTV-

    True Detective needs a dimensional lady villain.

    This is one thing about Cait: she's still of formidable size, six foot two and nearly two bills. Watching Fran Semyon unfold herself from a negotiating table to a full height, in heels, of six six is a rad visual.

    Vaughn is going for "pleasant with a menacing undercurrent" thing that isn't a dime he can quite turn on yet, because our association with him is not in fact "pleasant," really. "Funny," sure. "Nice guy," not exactly.

    Caitlyn? Suuuuuuper-nice. Self-effacing. Wheaties-boxer. Seeing a source get nailgunned in the reflection of her excellent sunglasses is going to resonate on a bunch of levels.

    She can do her own stunts.

    Running, leaping over sh!t, driving (with apologies to the victims of that pap wreck; I'm referring to her auto-racing stint in the mid-eighties).

    She could get Kanye to guest.

    And various Kardashians. I don't hate the idea of an Armenian-Mafia subplot; I have zero doubt Kim could sell it as a cold-blooded capitalist in a custom skirt suit.

    She's used to execrable scripts.

    See above re: Can't Stop The Music, and she didn't turn up onscreen again until Jack & Jill, both nominated for Razzies (I think CSTM won). I didn't see the latter, but Caitlyn, then Bruce, is not terrible in the former, rockin' the boy-bowl 'do and the cut-off shirt AND micro-jorts. Behold:

    clip from Cant Stop the Music

    ...I know, it's a lot. Take a minute, collect yourself.

    I taken to watching the show just to see how interminable the pointless noodling dialog scenes can be.

    It really is just horrible (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 07:52:25 PM EST
    But I can't look away.

    Are you talking about ... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:36:36 AM EST
    ... "True Detective," or the endless media fawning over Caitlyn Jenner?

    Kelly Reilly does better playing flat affect (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:20:04 AM EST
    Gangster wife, Vince Vaughn having a hard time finding his inner Soprano.  He may have been too loved as a child :) He was a great serial killer though in Clay Pigeons.  Maybe if True Detective would allow his character to chuckle or something.

    Colin Farrell's character IMO made an interesting transition after releasing his son. Seems like he stopped dragging an incredible weight around.  His voice and spirit changed. I think  he's done a decent job with greasy, manipulative, violent, grief stricken, functional alcoholic.

    I'm still in it till the end.


    Oh (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 10:07:03 AM EST
    im definitely in till the end.  Which is just two more.  It's a fascinating peek into the mind of a writer who thought his dialog was why we loved Woody and Mat doing their respective thing.
    If there is a season three I expect lessons will have been learned.
    There are many things about the series I love.

    The endless pointless droning dialog scenes are not one.


    All these lengthy conversations (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 10:24:30 AM EST
    And then nada on the sisters. Their relationship has made dramatic shifts and it's Swiss cheese.  I can fill in on my own true, and sometimes that makes a story more interesting to the viewer. They had a bit of dialogue to spare though :)

    Me too, (none / 0) (#116)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 10:51:04 AM EST
    I really enjoy True Detective Season 2.  I found that I needed to watch episode #1 twice after seeing a few more episodes. Guess I did not pay close enough attention and there was a lot going on--the set-up and twisting and twisted development of Ray, Ani and Paul.

    And of course Frank, who I think I caught with a half-smile, a little different than his smirk, in episode #3.  Never met Ben Caspere but we do know a lot about him. Probably good advise from the cop who said he would ask that all his stuff be burned if he was found dead.

     I find, too, confusion at the beginning of each new episode, thinking that I must have missed the previous one.  But, no. I learned to just move on, no need to ponder over such things as Ray seemingly being killed in the last episode and now he is up and at em.   I am all in, to the end.


    I have watched the first episode twice too (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:55:51 PM EST
    Searching for little things that I missed. Like who the heck is this dead Stan :)?

    Yes, still some (none / 0) (#141)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    mysteries of my own--like how did Frank locate Ray and know about his issue.  Only later to find out that Ray had an oops moment based on Frank's info, greater than Rick Perry's.  

    Yes - me to! who the heck is Stan? (none / 0) (#185)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:31:08 PM EST
    I don't care enough to torture myself watching again, but wtf?

    Someone told me there will not be (none / 0) (#121)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 11:33:28 AM EST
    a Season Three - that ratings are down so much from Season One that this season will be the last - but I haven't found confirmation of this anywhere - just that a decision to renew or cancel has not yet been made.

    Ferrell is great in this (none / 0) (#134)
    by McBain on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:40:40 PM EST
    but everything else is terrible.  I really want to like TD but it's just not there.

    Even absent exposure to her reality show, (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 11:59:40 AM EST
    I am already surfeited w/Caitlyn Jenner.

    IMDB is confused (none / 0) (#59)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 08:02:40 PM EST
    over how to credit Jenner for acting gigs.  FWIW, I remember the Love Boat appearance.

    IMDB sez Jenner (notice how cleverly I dodge the personal pronoun?) was in a recent film titled Jack and Jill.  I remember a 70s sex comedy with the same name.  The star of that film, (and it was film), Jack Wrangler, made an equally difficult transition.  With luck or timing like that (he lived until 2009) Wrangler should have gone into the stock market.  An entire generation of his fellow actors were killed.  Seems like a million years ago.


    May have posted not his before, but it just makes (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 08:15:07 PM EST
    me happy. What joy to watch an old fashioned star power hero for a change. I love my Damaged Man shows too (Don Draper, Tyrion and Jaime Lannister,  I'm talking to you) but this is fun and refreshing.

    Did you see (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 08:22:29 PM EST
    Olive Kittridge?   I recorded it but just got around to it last weekend.  Do good.

    Yes, loved it. Really unique characters (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 09:40:47 PM EST
    I love pundits (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 06:13:29 PM EST
    watching Tweety for my afternoon dose of conventional DC wisdom.   They are discussing Donald, of course, and how other candidates can or should deal with him.   It's said they all need to take aim at the Donald.
    One says (paraphrase) "well, maybe.  But remember that line from The Wire about if you strike at the king you better not miss.

    Earlier today I apologized to Yeats.  Now it's Emerson's turn  for an apology.

    My favorite part of Tweetys performance is when he belches mid sentence.

    Blah blah blah - hesitate BUUUUUUUUPHH - blah blah blah.
    He does it at least once on every show.

    Fred Thompson (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:10:29 AM EST
    That is when I stopped doing even a drive by with the Tweetster. He was so agog agog over Fred. You know, a nice, real and honest guy. Hello, he is an actor and not even a good one. Every time I see him on Law and Order rerun, I think of Chris. I really should have stopped watching him earlier when over at DK BTD gave me a nice reply which basically said he was a quack. It just took me longer to get the message but he was correct. Heh.

    I'm glad (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 06:26:26 PM EST
    you watch the nonsense and report back so I don't have to watch it. I can't take the pearl clutching anymore. I guess I'm just too old.

    And yes, striking the king is absolutely true. Walker calling him a dumb dumb was the ultimate in stupidity.


    I tuned into MSNBC one night last week (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 07:51:20 PM EST
    just to check out the inanity - hey, I was on vacation! Was glad to see that 10 years later Tweety is still correcting people on the pronunciation of Dick Cheney's name. Tweety is THE ONLY ONE in media who pronounces it 'Cheeney', but so he has to explain it every time he does. "that's the way the family says it'.  Too funny.

    Ha (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 08:19:09 PM EST

    "Cheeny, that how ........ BUUUURRRAPH..it's pronounced"


    And in the same episode he was going on about (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 09:25:04 PM EST
    the Pope and Catholic politicians....I swear it could just have easily been an episode from the last time I regularly watched, oh so many years ago. Amazing the schtick still sells.

    Ugly term, "cuckservative," crystallizes (none / 0) (#49)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 07:36:04 PM EST
    a Republican Party crisis

    The bizarre popularity of cuckservative is intimately connected with the startling rise of Donald Trump, with many of his fans contrasting him with Jeb Bush and John McCain, who they brand as exemplar cuckservatives.

    Things are getting just plain weird (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 07:43:02 PM EST
    on the right.

    As if I need another excuse ... (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 09:17:28 PM EST
    ... to blend a pitcher of margaritas and make nachos.

    That story (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 08:07:11 PM EST
    about how many people identify with that type of thinking is unfortunately true.

    I had no clue what that was (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 08:46:51 AM EST
    I don't watch enough pron or hang out at 4chan enough I guess. So Obnoxious and vile, imagine that coming out of the Republican base :)

    It seems (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:05:54 AM EST
    like everything that comes out of the GOP base these days is so vile.

    No solutions, nothing civilized, just hate :) (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:21:14 AM EST
    I'm confused (none / 0) (#129)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:13:19 PM EST
      first, White supremacist Hood writes:

    "Grassroots Republicans who thought they had retaken the government are confused, angry, and powerless," Hood writes. "They worked for Republicans in good faith, but get only scorn and contempt. They've been deceived, cheated, and exploited. In short, they've been `cucked,' or cuckolded."

      Then it goes to use the term to describe Republicans who are not sufficiently crazy right for the grass roots.

       Who does that leave who is not a cuck?



    "Editor's Note: Clinton Email Coverage" (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:34:40 AM EST
    More from the NYT:


    Are editors' notes typically (none / 0) (#123)
    by sj on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 11:38:02 AM EST
    not comment enabled?

    I do not recall ever seeing an "editor's (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 12:04:46 PM EST
    note" before this one. There were definitely comments to Sullivan's public editor op-ed.

    okay, thanks (none / 0) (#163)
    by sj on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:07:06 PM EST
    No Press is Bad Press, Mr Trump? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 05:25:07 AM EST
    Donald Trump's lawyer threatens reporter over ex-wife's claim: 'You cannot rape your spouse'

    "I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we're in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don't have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know," Cohen said.

    "So I'm warning you, tread very [frickin'] lightly, because what I'm going to do to you is going to be [frickin'] disgusting. You understand me?"

    "You write a story that has Mr. Trump's name in it, with the word `rape,' and I'm going to mess your life up...for as long as you're on this frickin' planet...you're going to have judgments against you, so much money, you'll never know how to get out from underneath it," he added.

    Rick Wilson, a prominent Republican consultant, said the lawyer's comments - just the latest party line from a man described as "Trump's pit bull" - represented a campaign that was parroting his hyperbole.

    "The Trump circus is largely comprised of hangers-on with a key skill set: kissing Donald Trump's ass," Wilson told the Guardian. "Oddly, the same skill set doesn't extend into other domains like politics, common sense or judgment."

    The Guardian (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 08:14:36 AM EST
    doesn't understand Republican politics if they think that accusation is going to threaten his lead.

    Let is look at what his wife said then (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:34:31 AM EST
    The 1993 book, by author Harry Hurt III, includes a statement from Ivana Trump stating that she referred to the sexual encounter in question "as a `rape', but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense". Donald Trump has long insisted that the assertion of assault was "false".


    taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory

    And what she says now:

    In a statement first published by CNN on Tuesday, Ivana Trump distanced herself from the controversy.

    "I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald," the statement read. "The story is totally without merit. Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign."

    "Incidentally," she added, "I think he would make an incredible president."

    Now the reporter, bless his heart, ignored what was said and decided bring up some old BS that has been refuted then and now. That's his job if he is working for the National Enquirer. Not if he actually wanted to report on the issues. His wants are obvious.

    The lawyer did a dumb thing, made an incorrect statement, and should not have lost his temper. Reporters feed on being threatened. But, what the press doesn't understand is that this will only improve Trump's position as an outsider embattled by the media and the political establishment who only want to to feather their nest and care nothing about Joe and Jane Six Pack.

    We can debate whether or not Trump does but that is a different issue.

    As for the "Republican Consultant" the obvious retort to his comments is, "You have lost three elections in a row. Why should anyone pay any attention to you?"


    Dick Cheney got pretty far (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 10:52:26 AM EST
    By cultivating only those that kissed his arse too.

    You get what you pay for (none / 0) (#118)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 11:15:41 AM EST
    when you're the Donald

    A lawyer and spokesman for current Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump issued a series of vulgar threats to a reporter on Monday, while falsely claiming that it was legal for a husband to rape his wife in New York.

    Scalp reduction? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 11:35:58 AM EST
    "described the mogul as forcing himself on his then-wife as revenge for her encouraging him to undergo a painful and unsuccessful scalp reduction surgery in the late 1980s."

      Never heard of that before. It does sound painful:

    Scalp reduction is a surgical treatment to remove parts of the scalp that are affected by alopecia, the purpose being to reduce the overall area of bald skin. The healthier parts of the scalp are then stretched and re-positioned, making the balding area smaller and more manageable

    The American Hair Loss Association lists it as a procedure to avoid, because:

    4. Scalp reduction

     ... In some cases a hideous scar results commonly know as a "dog ear" scar....

     Accelerated hair loss.... Thinning of the scalp... An unnatural appearance because the direction of hair growth is altered... Infection... Hemorrhaging and hematoma... Almost 100% of scalp reduction cases end in stretch back, in which the stanched part of the hair-bearing scalp that has been stitched together loses its tightness and stretches out partially or totally, leaving a visible scar-tissue bald area created by the stretching, reveling the dog ear scar which is extremely difficult to repair...


    Yeah, that was my main takeaway from the story (none / 0) (#187)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:34:26 PM EST

    Girl power! (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 08:18:25 AM EST
    Arizona Cardinals hire (who is believed to be) the first female NFL coach.

    Baby steps.

    The Cardinals hired Jen Welter as an assistant coaching intern for training camp and the preseason to work with inside linebackers. She is believed to be the first female coach of any kind in the NFL.


    It's the second such barrier to be broken in the NFL this year. The league announced in April that Sarah Thomas would be the first woman to be a full-time NFL official.

    Awesome! (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 08:44:23 AM EST
    That along with the NBA coach are great news!

    Mosby's dilemma (none / 0) (#104)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:32:39 AM EST
    Has Marilyn Mosby been bluffing in the Freddie Gray case?

    Defense attorneys for six police officers accused in arrest and death of black man says prosecution has either failed to turn over key evidence or completely lied about conducting a thorough investigation

    How will she try to splain herself out of this one?

    Get the popcorn --

    Tom Brady's suspension upheld (none / 0) (#160)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:02:48 PM EST
    Will be interesting (none / 0) (#181)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:23:55 PM EST
    if Brady goes to court and gets a stay on the ruling until such a time as the matter is settled in court. That could take years and have Brady never miss a game and ultimately be settled after he retires.

    Heavy drinking and alcoholism (none / 0) (#207)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:49:28 PM EST
    Are big problems in this country.

    That you don't recognize this needs study isn't surprising.

    On the pharnacy issue (none / 0) (#208)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 08:50:19 AM EST
     can no loner reply to posts.

      It seems to me that the real world problem can be solved without mandating that every pharmacy or pharmacist being involved.

      I don't believe the government has a compelling interest in ensuring the BC is available at every single pharmacy in the country by every single pharmacist. The compelling governmental interest would be merely that persons needing the substance have reasonable and timely access.

      Narrowly tailoring the regulation to accomplish that goal would seem not to require a universal mandate. It would seem quite possible for the government to base regulations on the goal of having at least one dispensary within a given radius. Then where pharmacies within that radius voluntarily choose to dispense, there is no real need to force others to do so in order to ensure consumers have reasonable and timely access.

      Only where we have "zones" in which no pharmacy is willing to voluntarily dispense would it be reasonable to force people to dispense.