Tuesday Open Thread

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

< 1991 and the Racial Justice Act | DEA Launches Tipline for Info on El Chapo >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Our lame duck president (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by CST on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 11:12:32 AM EST
    Continues to forge ahead, critics be d@mned.  Link

    "President Obama's Clean Power Plan, announced on Monday, is unquestionably the most important step the administration has taken in the fight against climate change.

    It imposes the first nationwide limits on carbon dioxide pollution from power plants, the source of 31 percent of America's total greenhouse gas emissions."

    I realize that bringing this up may bring out the trolls.  Personally I don't care to argue about established science, so I won't.  Others can act as they choose.  I do just want to say - elections matter.  I know there was a lot of disagreement about the current state of the Dem party, and that's a good thing, we need to push on the issues.  But 7 years late is still a hell of a lot better than never, and this continues to be by far the best end of a presidency I've seen in my lifetime.

    From the NYT editorial August 4, (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 12:40:04 PM EST
    on the President's Clean Power Plan:  "And then there is the little matter of the upcoming election.  Even if the courts rule that the new regulations are fully-consistent with the EPA's authority under the Clean Act Act, a future president could rescind or delay them.   Hillary Rodham Clinton has said she support the plan and will carry it out.  Republicans are unanimously opposed."

    so many reasons (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CST on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 12:51:20 PM EST
    we desperately need Dems to win.

    Honestly I think one of the things these last minute actions could do is give disgruntled Democrats a case to support Hillary Clinton.


    He is Killing It So Much... (none / 0) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 11:25:25 AM EST
    ...that I have read two articles about the legal ramifications of him running a third time.

    The short and sweet, there is no enforcement provision in the 22nd Amendment and by the time the courts looked at it, he would already be President and they would never reverse an election.

    Stupid stuff, but I doubt many Presidents can claim their party's popular replacement has lower polling numbers.  Obama has a good chance of leaving office with the highest rating of any modern president.

    Check it out, it's a popular topic getting all kinds of press.  It doesn't hurt that he stated he could win a third term.


    His (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 11:32:34 AM EST
    approval ratings are going to have to come up a lot to leave office as the most popular like about 20 points according to Gallup.

    We had this same discussion back in 1999 I believe with the Big Dawg. Funny how nobody ever seems to want GOP presidents to run for a third term anymore.


    I don't even want them running for a first. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 01:32:38 PM EST
    And that's because (1.50 / 2) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 02:25:55 PM EST
    their supporters know it is illegal.

    Baa waa waa (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 03:17:12 PM EST
    Nope. I don't think anybody wanted W to run again even if he could. It's because GOP presidents are really bad, Jim but not that I expect you to admit that.

    yea (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 11:53:14 AM EST
    I still have a wishlist.  And I know he has publicly stated a desire to take on some kind of criminal justice reform.  So that would be a big one.

    I'd also really like to see a substantial raise in the minimum wage.  It's so critical right now, while the labor market is tightening, boomers are starting to retire, and wages are still way too depressed.  I can't think of a better time to do it, as the it is less likely to significantly affect unemployment right now and more likely to significantly affect wages.  People are way too broke and that makes me really nervous about the ability of the country to keep the recovery going.

    If the Iran bill passes, that would leave the next (hopefully Dem) president in pretty solid shape to try tackling immigration and healthcare again.


    Ignoring the 22nd Amendment ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 12:53:35 PM EST
    ... would have very profound serious consequences for our country, given that it was ratified by three-quarters of the states and is thus an integral part of our country's base legal document.

    While it's a lousy amendment in my opinion, given that it was a knee-jerk reaction hastily adopted and in the wake of FDR's four consecutive electoral victories, it's also settled law and would require another constitutional amendment to repeal it.



    I don't get the impression (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CST on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    Obama wants to be president again anyway.

    It was an intentional dig at the leaders in Africa who won't give up the power.  

    But it's worth a debate that he could.  That for all the people who hate Obama, good policy = good politics.


    Frankly (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    I think he's looking forward not being president anymore. He has never seemed to really enjoy the job that much unlike other people who seemed to relish having the job.

    Only person I know that relished the job (none / 0) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 02:36:12 PM EST
    in the last 50 years was Bill Clinton.

    As the prophet... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 08:07:02 AM EST
    Kurt Vonnegut taught us, fear anyone who actually wants that job.  The posterchildren "PP"'s....psychopathic personalities.

    Allow me to quote scripture...

    PPs are presentable, they know full well the suffering their actions may cause others, but they do not care. They cannot care because they are nuts. They have a screw loose! . . .
    So many of these heartless PPs now hold big jobs in our federal government, as though they were leaders instead of sick. They have taken charge of communications and the schools, so we might as well be Poland under occupation.
    They might have felt that taking our country into an endless war was simply something decisive to do. What has allowed so many PPs to rise so high in corporations, and now in government, is that they are so decisive. They are going to do something every f@ckin' day and they are not afraid. Unlike normal people, they are never filled with doubts, for the simple reasons that they don't give a f%ck what happens next. Simply can't. Do this! Do that! Mobilize the reserves! Privatize the public schools! Attack Iraq! Cut health care! Tap everybody's telephone! Cut taxes on the rich! Build a trillion-dollar missile shield! F+ck habeas corpus and the Sierra Club and In These Times, and kiss my a**!
    There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president."

    I doubt it (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 04:54:27 PM EST
    This is one of those posturing statements that he can put out there to be cocky and drive Republicans nuts, because, obviously, it will never happen or be true.  I can unequivocally state that I will be the next Queen of England, but that doesn't mean it's true.

    His approval ratings are around 50% (his average, as of this week, according to RCP, is 45.3%, and none of the major polls taken recently have him above 48%).  Good, but he's gonna have to perform miracles if you think he's going to have the highest of all time.  Eisenhower ended his second term with an average approval rating of 60.5%, Reagan had 55.3%, and Clinton had 60.6%.


    Your Reply... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 11:13:41 AM EST
    ...kinda shots your notion right in the foot.


    How much earlier, jim? Should he (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 11:36:42 AM EST
    have just fired into the car - BOOM! - as soon as he shined his light into it?

    Look, you seem to be under the impression that the life of this police officer is not being appropriately valued, and that's not what's going on here.  I don't think there's a person here who is cheering for the loss of life, or who doesn't care that a family has lost a loved one.

    Anyone who signs on to be a member of law enforcement has to know that our streets are flooded with guns.  Law-abiding people have them, criminals have them - they're all over the place.  Not a day goes by that some little kid doesn't find one under a bed or in a drawer and either shoots/kills someone or kills him- or herself.  Not a day goes by that someone doesn't make a bad decision that involves a gun - and as much as you don't want to hear this, cops make bad decisions, too.

    We all know that there are many times when police use their weapons appropriately, when they are defending their and others' lives.  We all know there are many times when police use Tasers and nightsticks appropriately, as well.

    But it cannot be denied that there have been too many times, not all of them publicized in screaming headlines, when the decisions that cops make cost people their lives who didn't have to die.  Did Mike Brown have to be shot?  Tamir Rice?  Did Eric Garner need to be choked to death?  Did Sandra Bland need to be threatened with a Taser and put in jail for failure to signal a lane change she made to get out of a police car's way?  

    No, no, no and no.

    Do police departments need to look like substations of the National Guard armory?  Do American streets really need to have APC's rolling through them?  

    No and no.

    Police departments and the police have become overly-militarized, with an all-too-prevalent mindset not of serving the public, but of making the public acquiesce to their orders, regardless of whether those orders are justified, constitutional or appropriate.  

    There are a lot of good cops out there, we know this.  The bad ones are hurting the brand, assuming the brand isn't what the bad ones have made it.  These bad cops need to be shown the door, or, they need to be put into some kind of intense training to overcome their bad habits and bullying, tyrannical attitudes.

    No one knows anymore if they're going to be stopped by a rational, intelligent, civic-minded public servant, or end up dead on the side of the road because they have a broken tail light.  Cops want to feel they will be safe while doing their jobs?  Then stop the bullying, stop escalating minor situations into life-or-death struggles, THINK! - treat people with some respect.

    As for you and your never-ending, non-stop BS... oh, never mind.  

    anne, I answered you very specifically (1.50 / 2) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 10:08:11 PM EST
    by quoting Repack, Scott, Donald and Mondriggian. Jeralyn deleted it because, and I don't know why, she doesn't believe we should quote things written in previous threads by commentators.

    So go back on this link, start at comment 113and read downward.

    As to your questions re Brown, Rice, Garmer and Bland. I have never commented re Rice and haven't followed it closely. It looks bad but I have no opinion.

    As for the other three...they made their own problem.


    For starters, Jim, you clearly quoted me ... (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 03:58:36 AM EST
    ... completely out of context, using only the very last sentence of what I actually said to paint a completely false picture of me as uncaring about what happened in Memphis, when in fact I never said a word about Memphis. And I'm not the only one you did that to in your now-deleted post.

    This repeated impugning of others' motives and integrity, along with your wholesale denials and blatant misrepresentations of basic facts, has been a consistent and constant feature of your commentary. You tend to not engage people in conversation, preferring instead to browbeat and insult them, and you seem to not care at all that it makes you appear childish and demeaning in the eyes of others.

    Quite frankly, you've so coarsened and degraded the level of discourse here at TL with your vitriolic haranguing and intellectual dishonesty, it's reached the point where the overall tone at this blog quickly turns very sour and unpleasant whenever you're lurking around, mindlessly looking for opportunities to provoke people like some playground bully.

    I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt by what I've said, but that's just the way I feel about your off-putting online behavior. And I don't think I'm alone in that at all.



    Donald, you wrote what you wrote (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 06:38:48 PM EST
    and I included a link so everyone could easily see it in total. To do otherwise would requite 2,000-3,000 words....

    Oh wait. That's your comment size.



    I rest my case. (none / 0) (#189)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 07:39:54 PM EST
    You're disingenuous and completely uncivil. And you refuse to take a hint.

    Good day.


    What those other people said had (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 07:34:24 AM EST
    nothing to do with my comment, and they didn't need to be dragged into it out of some typically wrongheaded effort on your part to defend the words typed by your own hands.

    You believe what you want to believe, jim, no one's stopping you.  But for some reason, you hang out on a liberal blog that has a decidedly pro-citizen point of view and expect that your knee-jerk defense of out-of-control cops - among other equally regressive and antediluvian points of view - will be met with approval and agreement.

    And it's not just that you don't share the prevailing views here.  It's that you don't read for content, you distort what others write, you show no respect for anyone else's point of view, and by the time people can clear out the kudzu of your comments to get back to the points they were making, the thread is full or they've thrown their hands up in disgust.

    You keep trying to defend your presence here by continually stating your progressive positions on some of the issues, but those points of view are meaningless given that you do nothing - nothing - to advance those beliefs in the one place where you might be able to help make them a reality: the voting booth.  Not to mention that your own blog belies your efforts to establish any credibility here; there is no one with a quorum of brain cells who believes that the same person who depicted Obama the way you did is an honest broker of enlightened thinking.

    So, just can it with your Eddie Haskell-like "who, me?  I was just answering someone's questions" excuses: no one's buying what you're selling, jim.


    anne, I am what I am (1.50 / 2) (#177)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 06:41:41 PM EST
    and don't need your approval.

    And yes, at one time we had much better discussions...then you and Donald showed up.



    You made him get mean, Anne (none / 0) (#184)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 07:12:58 PM EST

    It's a poor salesman (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 08:09:41 AM EST
    who blames their customers and calls them names when the wares they are peddling don't sell, Anne.

    You give far too much credit (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 09:22:53 AM EST
    to someone saying they are peddling wares, when it's quite apparent that it's nothing more than peddling sh!t.

    It Was Deleted... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 09:01:55 AM EST
    ...because you broke the rules, rules that were are established so people don't purposely edit quotes to misrepresent what they actually wrote.

    But it surprises no one that you can't figure why distorting other people's posts is frowned upon.


    Scott, as I noted to Donald (none / 0) (#178)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 06:43:47 PM EST
    you wrote what you wrote. If you don't want to stand behind it just say so.....and then we have the fact that I provided a link to what to what you wrote so you can't hide.

    You can do your own research (none / 0) (#183)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 07:12:16 PM EST
    if you don't let your bile and prejudices stand in the way.

    Who appointed you the table captain of this thread.


    Say what??? (2.00 / 1) (#199)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:35:41 PM EST
    Do my own research?? My comment was that I had done my research, quoted the authors and provided a link to their words.

    Now, I'm done wasting bandwidth with you. You have a real Jones for me and I don't need another


    And I solemnly swear that I am done answering your inane comments.

    Have a nice life.


    Heh. (none / 0) (#200)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:44:34 PM EST
    National Geographic Photo Contest (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 11:50:33 AM EST
    winners have been announced.

    Here's a gallery of photos that might be a nice change of pace.

    Wonderful. (none / 0) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 01:22:13 PM EST
    Beautiful (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 02:07:49 PM EST
    thanx for the link

    It felt like climbing out of the (none / 0) (#49)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 02:56:36 PM EST
    swamp of election politics and law enforcement violence and finding a pool of pure, cool water.

    The Talented Mr. Lindsey. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 11:52:03 AM EST
    The conservative hawk. presidential wannabe, and US senator who sits on the Senate Appropriations, Armed Services, Budget, and Judiciary Committees, is, also, a "battle-tested" leader"   An

     At least, he feels that he is.  In a self-evaluation, Lindsey says "I think Colonel Graham did a pretty good job, quite frankly, given the constraints of my day job and my abilities in terms of time."

    However, an article by Craig Whitlock of WaPo shows that though Senator Graham did very little in the reserve (leaving the Air Force active duty in 1989),  he rose in rank to colonel and retired just last June entitled to a monthly pension of $2,773. His private retirement party included Biden, Petraeus, and, of course, McCain.

    Lindsey, has peddled an embellished and at times "inaccurate" narrative of his service in the reserve.  His war zone tours consisted of specially arranged tours that lasted two days, and coincided with trips to Iraq and Afghanistan, recalling his stroll through a Baghdad market with McCain, proclaiming peace and safety thanks to Bush's war, and his find of five rugs for five bucks.

      Graham's official biography said he served as senior instructor at the Judge Advocate General's School at Maxwell AF Base in Alabama, Bult, Mr Graham told the WaPo that he never set foot at the base or taught there.  He just never took time to change it, but he acknowledged that he probably should have.

    Not a one time lapse.  In 1998 he claimed he was a veteran of the Persian Gulf war , even though he never deployed as part of that campaign.  During a ten-year period (1995-2005) he put in 105 hours of training, or about a or so each year on average.

    Lindsey has never seen a bomb he did not like.  And, of course, the deal with Iran is bad.  It could be better.  True, a better deal would be better. And, Colonel Lindsey, the president, would make it happen.  Let's all celebrate with a mint julep on the veranda

    Lindsey need not worry (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 12:12:39 PM EST
    about making those decisions. In the most recent South Carolina poll for the republican nomination which was released yesterday:

    Trump 34
    Carson 10
    Bush 10
    Walker 10
    Rubio 6
    Huckabee 5
    Graham 5

    This was done by Gravis Marketing, a Republican operative polling firm.


    As if ludicrously continuing to call (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 12:43:19 PM EST
    human-influenced climate change a "hoax" here weren't baiting, trolling, abusing a guest's privileges, and flippantly wasting bandwidth..

    Shorter jim: [............................] (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 03:00:34 PM EST
    Yeah, there's nothing there.

    Former President Jimmy Carter, (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 03:19:59 PM EST
    had a "small mass" removed from his liver at Emory University Hospital at Atlanta.  Mr. Carter completed his book tour this past Saturday for his newest book, "A full-life, reflections at  90."

    Few details have been released other than that a full recovery is expected.   This means, in the most cautious prognosis, full recovery from the surgical procedure.   No information was available as to the nature of the mass.  Hopefully, the mass was benign and Mr. Carter can continue will his good works for a long time yet to come.

    In the previous OT, Mr. Natural (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 04:02:57 PM EST
    pointed to the Hendrix cover of "Watchtower" as the definitive version of that song, which I agree is so iconic that even Dylan couldn't hear it any other way after he heard Hendrix.

    But Watchtower is NOT the baddest, most rockin' Dylan cover ever recorded.  That honor goes to a longtime friend of mine Mike Finnigan, who coincidentally played on a track of Electric Ladyland.

    The Crazed Hipsters were a band called Finnigan and Woods.  This version of Dylan's "Down in the Flood" is the most rockin' Dylan cover of all time, and it ranks among the most rockin' recordings of all time.

    Trust me.

    I loves me some Jimi Hendrix. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 04:43:34 PM EST
    But ironically, my favorite Hendrix track is arguably his mellowest, "May This Be Love," from his album "Are You Experienced?" That song reminds me of long-ago rainy days in Seattle, when I'd be curled up contentedly inside with a good book.

    Does owning a gun make you safer? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 04:28:44 PM EST
    I've long contended here that it does not, and further that gun violence statistics and studies lean toward the opposite conclusion. David Hemenway, Ph.D, of the Harvard School of Public Health feels similarly:

    "Almost two-thirds of the people in the U.S. population live in homes without guns, and there is no evidence that the inhabitants of these homes are at greater risk of being robbed, injured or killed by criminals compared with citizens in homes with guns. Instead, the evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the home increases the likelihood not only that a household member will be shot accidentally, but also that someone in the home will die in a suicide or homicide."


    A different view (none / 0) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 06:55:39 PM EST
    News flash: alligator-related death rates tend to be higher in states that have more alligators. Automotive fatalities are higher among people who own cars. Drowning tends to happen more to those people who swim. And 100% of Americans who've eaten mashed potatoes will die. Gun-related deaths are more likely when there are more guns? And there's a direct correlation between gun ownership and gun-related fatalities? That sounds perfectly reasonable and logical to me.


    And I love this...

    Another study, in 2003, found that counties with higher levels of household gun ownership have higher rates of household burglary, not lower. Burglars like to steal not only cash and jewelry but also guns. A homeowner with a collection of firearms may not want to advertise that fact.

    Assuming that the study is accurate, and that's a sttretch, the real question is this.

    Did the guns come first or did the burglaries come first?

    Common sense says that burglaries started first and that the claimed areas are, in fact, high crime areas not middle class America.


    I'll take a noted scholar's word over yours. (none / 0) (#190)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 07:42:52 PM EST
    Because once again, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

    Nope. Not. A. Friggin'. Clue.


    Hey, I understand that you don't understand (2.00 / 1) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:19:25 PM EST
    And there's a direct correlation between gun ownership and gun-related fatalities? That sounds perfectly reasonable and logical to me.

    It is called stating the obvious as if it was a new and exciting fact that proves your point. The good doctor used it very well in his argument.

    To bad you didn't catch it.


    Oh, shut up already. (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 06, 2015 at 12:30:00 AM EST
    Ted Rall vs LATimes (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 04:46:32 PM EST
    Why Won't The L.A. Times Admit They Were Wrong About Ted Rall

    Ted Rall, the controversial cartoonist who's been a featured author here at C&L, was fired by the L.A. Times last week, in the most publicly humiliating way possible: An open letter to the readers in the pages of the paper, saying Rall lied about an encounter with cops he'd described in several of his cartoons through the years.

    Here's the thing: They were wrong. Just plain wrong, as an enhanced audiotape shows.

    Jeb! (or Jeb?), (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 09:36:20 AM EST
    was at it again, or once again.   At the Southern Baptist Convention, Mr. Bush suggested that the federal government is overfunding women's health.   After the apparently obligatory statement that the federal government should stop funding planned parenthood, he veered into a discussion of what could be done instead with the $500 million  in federal funds that the organization receives annually.    "You can take dollar for dollar---though I'm not sure we need half a billion dollars for women's health issues----."

    Amid a subsequent storm, Jeb said he had misspoken.

    Jeb has not really picked up since his week-long struggle to answer the Fox softball on whether he would have invaded Iraq even with hindsight knowledge about intelligence failures.  Testing out answers (a) yes, he would have; (b) he misheard the question; (c) he did not want to answer out of concern for veterans; and then, settled on (d) no, he would not have invaded Iraq.   Jeb misspeaks and mishears.  Although, in fairness, jeb only took a week to get to his answer.  Marco Rubio, faced with the same question after Jeb was in the midst of his public  struggle, said he did not understand the question.  

    Have reached the conclusion that (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 09:57:33 AM EST
    Jeb!'s lack of a corn-pone accent, and an ability to speak more or less coherently, are not indications that his intelligence is in any way superior to his brother's.

    Mediocre intellect and regressive, heartless and small-minded views on a number of issues are a toxic and dangerous combination.

    Sadly, though, this means he fits nicely with most of the GOP field, and he does not stand out for his deficits and defects.


    Mothers know best. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 02:00:51 PM EST
    When asked about Jeb for president, Mother Bush said "..there are other people out there that are very qualified and we've had enough Bushes."    At the very least, it would be well to skip a generation.  Dilute out the gene pool somewhat.  

    Josh said he can't help it (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:18:19 AM EST
    Jeb is like-able.  I asked him if he wanted to have a beer with Jeb?  Yeah...shrugged

    IMO... (none / 0) (#112)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:43:39 AM EST
    ...he doesn't care enough about it to get prepared for the obvious questions.  I get the feeling that mentality not specific to him, his whole campaign seem seriously unprepared for even the most obvious questions.  Planned Parenthood has been in the papers for a couple weeks and he can't make a statement without throwing himself under the bus ?

    The questions are obvious, the problem is he has to weight three opinions, his own, his parties, and his brothers.  He can't step on any of them, which would be easy enough if he cared to give it some thought, or at the very least, assign someone else to come up with a good answer.  But the Iraq question clearly showed his entire campaign hadn't even considered the question.  It took two or three days to come up with the most politically stock answer ever given.


    Crazy old white lady (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 09:59:30 AM EST
    orders a mother and son to stop speaking Spanish, to each other, in LA in a International House of Pancakes

    You can't make this sh!t up.

    Thank you Donald and you unhinged right wing buddies for helping your idiot fans think the have a right to do this.

    I am embarrassed to be old and white.

    I saw that the (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:20:12 AM EST
    other day on Facebook. That lady is particularly ugly and hateful. She thinks she can tell everybody else what to do but when someone pushes back she screams fascism. Typical GOP tactic.

    Ella no es una dama.... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:24:54 AM EST
    ella es una Americana fea.

    Don't be embarrassed (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:27:04 AM EST
    Be loud and proud about how different your "whiteness" is from hers. Show that part of the world that wrinkled honkies are NOT entirely represented by her. After all, it's not her color that makes her an idiot, it's her atrophied mind, which, yes, has been aided in its decimation by her skin color's privilege, but she is entirely a self-made halfwit. A very sad, frightened, and irrational woman. Who, apparently, has not properly utilized the full scope of her American freedom to effectively educate herself. Which is inexcusable for any of us.

    BTW, kudos to the guy who shot this and how calm and humane he remained in the face of his own parents being degraded. Love his mother, too. You go, abuelita.


    It just that (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:38:00 AM EST
    i see her every day.   Every time I leave my house.   I pick things up she drops in the supermarket.  

    Her numbers are vast.  She was in freakin LA.   She is part of an army the could become very dangerous with the right leader.

    Not to wax dramatic.  But something about that really gets under my skin.   The sneering privileged condescending attitude.   So clear she thought she was speaking to a person not her equal.  She is profoundly offended this person can do anything but what she tells her to do.  Something is wrong in her country when this is true.   All things she has been spoon fed by right wing media for years.  

    True about the kid.  OTOH he had to know he had a viral goldmine.   That was the promising part of it.   Not that long ago you would have had to describe what she said.  


    For the love of blog (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:22:37 AM EST
    Let's ignore Jim for 24 hrs. Like playing the quiet game when we we're kids and dad was about to choke us out on the road trip :). If he says something just slap your hand over your mouth and make silent gestures about how much he is losing :)

    You can only ignore him for (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:26:15 AM EST
    24 hours?  

    No, I've gotten pretty good at it (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:54:22 AM EST
    I'm just tired of threads and threads of arguements with Jimbob.  Make it stop :)

    Preachin to the choir babe (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:57:40 AM EST
    Hey, MT,if you just want a an echo chamber (1.00 / 1) (#187)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 07:22:40 PM EST
    why read a blog that promotes discussions???

    Your idea of discussion (none / 0) (#191)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 07:58:38 PM EST
    is to tell people to quit making things up.

    I promised myself that I would (none / 0) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:15:20 PM EST
    Your performance on this thread (none / 0) (#198)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:31:42 PM EST
    Breaking News (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 01:47:55 PM EST
    Debris found near Reunion Island is from the missing Flight 370.

    Thoughts and prayers to the families involved.

    Texas court strikes down voter ID law (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 04:19:22 PM EST
    Fifth US circuit court of appeals ruled that the 2011 Texas law violates the federal Voting Rights Act and would prevent 600,000 voters from casting a ballot.

    That's a federal court, not a state (none / 0) (#188)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 07:25:12 PM EST
    Just thought you would want to be accurate.

    The regional federal appeals court (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 09:11:48 PM EST
    that covers cases arising out of Texas sits in New Orleans, but most of its judges are from Texas (and some from Mississippi and of course Louisiana as well). It is, in a way, a Texas court, but not part of the Texas state court system. Anyway, the Fifth is typically one of the more conservative Circuits, so this ruling is very gratifying and a bit surprising. There is no doubt in my mind that these "voter ID" and similar laws are cynically designed to suppress the votes of poorer people, and thus (presumably) of Democrats. In doing so, by their nature, they adversely and disproportionately affect the ability of African-Americans to vote, and thus violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  But the majority of courts reviewing challenges to these laws have upheld them, so good on the Fifth Circuit today.

    600,000 is a lot of people (none / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:23:08 PM EST
    Elsie Hillman (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by smott on Thu Aug 06, 2015 at 06:17:43 AM EST
    McBain should be ignored (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 06, 2015 at 08:59:08 AM EST

    Don't Forget... (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 06, 2015 at 04:09:00 PM EST
    ...tonight is the debate and John Stewart's last show at 11pm ET.  It's open ended, meaning nothing is scheduled after and he is going to have a bunch of guests.

    I am more interested to know if his last show will cover the comedy special labeled a 'Republican Debate'.

    Say good night dick (2.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 10:14:04 PM EST
    I noticed today that my local Walmart has moved Harper Lee's "Go Set a Watchman" to the discount table.

    What a shame that she has damaged her reputation.

    It's (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 10:35:54 PM EST
     #1 on the NY Times Best Seller List.

    To Kill A Mockingbird never reached #1. Whose reputation has been damaged?


    really not (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 09:13:19 AM EST
    A picture is worth a thousand words... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 09:16:43 AM EST

    An editorial cartoon is worth a thousand editorials.


    Depending on whether or not (none / 0) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 09:28:07 AM EST
    Fox uses decimals, your top ten for Thursday will be:


    If they drop decimals, add Perry and make it 11.

    There could be one more poll added as the day progresses, but if so all that could be decided is adding Perry or dropping Perry. The other ten look to be in.

    Every poll has Trump solidly in front. There are no outliers here.

    5 is supposed to be the deadline (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 10:09:55 AM EST
    i guess they announce after that.

    What these polls really show is (none / 0) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 11:28:00 AM EST
    not necessarily who the top ten really are but rather that Trump is not a fridge candidate anymore. Trump is a strong republican candidate going forward who is now favored to win 2 of the first 3 states on the GOP calendar.

    If Trump's not a fridge candidate, (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 11:39:08 AM EST
    can we at least say that he's a refrigerator magnate?

    [Sorry - that was terrible.]


    I thought that a "fridge candidate" (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 12:07:59 PM EST
    was one who would rapidly rot if left exposed to sunlight for long.

    I thought it was the candidate... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 02:27:35 PM EST
    in General Electric's pocket.  The Fridge Candidate, the Credit Default Swap Candidate, the Oil Rig Candidate, etc. etc. etc.

    Or William Perry was running for office;)


    No (none / 0) (#206)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 06, 2015 at 08:50:46 AM EST
    the fridge candidate is Christie.



    That was (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by sj on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 02:22:24 PM EST
    the best terrible pun I've heard in a while :)

    Ha (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 11:47:45 AM EST
    which just goes to show spell check isn't as good as the old fashioned eye check.

    Just goes (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 11:34:14 AM EST
    to show what a reality star can do to the GOP in short order and vacuous and devoid of leadership the GOP is.

    Fox's own rules (none / 0) (#135)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 01:26:00 PM EST
    calls for the last 5 polls to determine the "First Team" debate participants. Fox broke its own rules by reaching down to a 6th. poll, giving the spot to  Kasich instead of Perry who would've been in if they had used the rules they wrote.

    Why Fox manipulated the results, throwing Perry out, and, giving it to Kasich, was the subject of Rachel's entire show last night.


    What Was the Conclusion ? (none / 0) (#138)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 01:38:04 PM EST
    Because Perry is using most of his campaign funds to pay legal bills ?

    Don't know, (none / 0) (#147)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 02:19:50 PM EST
    neither did Rachel. Possibly because the first debate is in Ohio?

    Anyway, Maddow thought this was a very big deal because it, effectively, knocks Perry out of contention. By any metric, Perry deserved the spot much more than "Johnnie-come-lately," Kasich. Perry's a four-time Governor, former Presidential candidate, and, during the last debates four years ago he was ahead with 38% in the polls, far out distancing even the lead Trump has today. She was so upset, not because she likes Perry, of course, but because the rules were very clearly spelled out (as she showed us) and Fox chose to disregard the very rules they came up with, and, considered inviolate.

    She said this would, definitely, be solid ground for a lawsuit, but, she said she wasn't that familiar with the laws governing things like debates, but, would check into it.

    Finally, it puts to rest the idea that FOX is a News Organization. It appears that they prostituted the written rules for show-business purposes, at the expense of the legitimate right of the public to be informed in a "fair & balanced" format.

    But, of course, we knew that. (at least, most of us did)


    Well (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 02:23:26 PM EST
    it's Fox which is a joke so why should anyone really care what they do? That's my opinion anyway. Fox has a great gig fleecing the rubes and convincing them that they are victims. It's made them money and the GOP voters are willing to lie down and take it so they're going to continue on with it.

    He is Under Two Felony Indictments... (none / 0) (#157)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 02:58:28 PM EST
    ...related to his governorship.

    To me that should have guaranteed he had no spot.  There is a chance that he could get elected, found guilty, and sent to prison.

    I don't think anyone is sweating a lawsuit.


    That's not really true (none / 0) (#160)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 03:08:26 PM EST
    Fox never stated exact rules other than to say polls that matched their criteria. And their specific criteria was never stated. Those that say Fox broke their own rules never knew the Fox rules.

    Memphis police officer's killer (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 09:53:03 AM EST
    is arrested.

    This wasn't Wilborn's first experience with the law.

    Wilbourn was free on supervised release stemming from a bank robbery conviction, FOX13 reported. His lawyer argued during sentencing that Wilbourn was persuaded by his uncle to join the robbery to help him with his finances and "he was awaiting news regarding a possible college scholarship based on his athletic ability."

    Wilbourn was sentenced to more than 10 years in federal prison and released on probation in July 2014. He used marijuana in December and was ordered to undergo mental health treatment July 7, according to federal court documents released Monday. It's not clear whether he was ever evaluated.

    Officer Bolton was the third officer killed in Memphis in the past three years.

    Williams believes the most recent shooting can be traced, at least to some degree, to the fury over police treatment of African-Americans in incidents across the country. Williams estimates that the Memphis police force is around 60 percent African-American, roughly reflective of the city's overall population.

    "I think officers are becoming hesitant to react," Williams said. "They don't want to end up in court, or plastered all over the national news.

    In a previous comment about this killing I noted:

    When we think of cops and why they shoot, sometimes too quickly, perhaps there are reasons  besides them just hating. Maybe they are scared.

    Several of you have noted that the cops should quit if they are scared. Scott claimed

    ...are you suggesting it's OK for cops to shoot unarmed black people because they are scared to do their jobs ?... If he was genuinely scared for his life, he should seek serious counseling right after he resigns.....

    As usual, Scott takes many liberties with what is written so he can make false claims.

    No Scott, I didn't suggest it was okay for cops to shoot unarmed PEOPLE because they are scared. I suggested that since they are scared they may act too quickly.

    The flip side is:

    "I think officers are becoming hesitant to react," Williams said. "They don't want to end up in court, or plastered all over the national news.

    Scott further writes:

    FYI, this was over a 'drug deal' of $25 of weed.

    Actually we don't know the value of the transaction or if indeed there was one happening. Paraphernalia may have been there from other sales.

    As someone who has repeatedly argued for our drug laws to be changed and make MJ legal, I can see the useless violence and death associated with them.

    But until they are changed shall we tell the police to just ignore them? Shall we tell the police to ignore traffic violations?

    The officer had seen a car that was illegally parked and pulled in front of it, illuminating the vehicle with his spotlight. Bolton then approached the car and was confronted by a passenger.

    What other laws shall individual segments of society not have enforced?

    Bank robbery?? Fraud? You name it, folks.

    Because that is exactly the way in which we are heading.

    "I think officers are becoming hesitant to react," Williams said. "They don't want to end up in court, or plastered all over the national news.

    So if We Use Your... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 11:08:30 AM EST
    ...litmus test:
    When we think of cops and why they shoot, sometimes too quickly, perhaps there are reasons  besides them just hating. Maybe they are scared.

    It would mean the city with the highest lethal force by cops would have citizens maybe, 'shoot(ing), sometimes too quickly, perhaps there are reasons  besides them just hating. Maybe they are scared.'

    The group, the Memphis Black Autonomy Federation, has asked the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate "a pattern or practice" of misconduct by the Memphis Police Department. Memphis police killed 23 people in 2012 and 2013 - the largest number of people killed by police in this time period in America, the federation maintains.

    I suspect your statement, like every other one you post, doesn't apply to the other side of the argument.  

    I am in no way making that argument for either side, just pointing out how ridiculous your argument about being scared is.

    Cops killers should go to jail for life, and well as citizens killers, and they do with the exception of the police, who rarely get held accountable for murdering unarmed people.


    Memphis is one of the (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 09:51:25 PM EST
    most dangerous cities in America. But so far it has not had anyone killed by a person who has 7 felony arrests and been deported 5 times and released by the police to kill...

    Perhaps your SF "newspaper" could munch on that for awhile.

    Having said that Memphis did have a recent situation:

    MEMPHIS, Tenn. -- A man is dead after being shot by a Memphis Police officer.

    The shooting happened late Friday night after the officer stopped a car in the 5700 block of Winchester.

    The driver was given a citation for a headlight that was out and was released.

    The passenger,19-year-old Darrius Stewart, however, had several outstanding warrants and was put in the back of the officer's car, uncuffed, while the officer verified the suspect's warrants.

    After checking with communications, the officer confirmed that Stewart was wanted for a sex offense in Iowa and had another warrant for a failure to appear in court out of Illinois.

    Police say when the officer opened the car door to handcuff Stewart, he kicked the door and attacked the officer.

    Investigators say during the struggle, the Stewart got the officer's handcuffs and started hitting him.

    The officer shot Stewart.

    As far as I know it is still under investigation.

    But this has been reported.

    The local I-team has uncovered this Iowa City juvenile court complaint from 2009 that charges Darius Stewart with two counts of sexual abuse for committing sex acts on two children under the age of 12.

    The identifying information like his birthdate and mother's name, match up. It also lists Greenwood, Mississippi as his address.  Stewart lists Greenwood as his hometown on his Facebook page.

    We have also confirmed there was a warrant for Stewart out of Decatur, Illinois. That was for failure to appear in court in August of 2009 for an incident at a movie theater.


    As to why you find it ridiculous that an officer would be scared during a traffic stop I do not know. Time and again bad things happen during them.


    FYI... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 11:41:03 AM EST
    ...my actual quote:
    Good God are you suggesting it's OK for cops to shoot unarmed black people because they are scared to do their jobs ?

    This business where the right is making excuses for cops that have none.  In the last shooting, the cop lied in his report about what happened.  He filed a false police report.  He claimed was scared for his life even though the video evidence clearly shows the only danger he was in was the manufactured danger he put in the report.  If he was genuinely scared for his life, he should seek serious counseling right after he resigns.

    Chopping up quotes to distort what I actually wrote is unethical, its why you are not suppose to do it.


    It's simply par for the course for any ... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 12:57:48 PM EST
    ... self-respecting builder of strawmen.

    Gee, Jim.. (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    you think the fact that there are so many ARMED-and-dangerous people out there in the American streets plays a role in so many cops being prone to shoot-first overreaction?



    Jim, you know that (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 03:32:33 PM EST
    bringing up other commenters' past comments is not appropriate here. This is a new open thread, stay in the present.

    A question about this policy (none / 0) (#65)
    by BTAL on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 06:00:38 PM EST
    Would be grateful if you could explain the policy logic regarding quoting commenters' past comments.

    If a commenter stakes out a position in the lively debates that occurs here, should they not be held to those positions in later discussions?  In the political realm, candidates and elected officials are held to the standard of previous declarations (most current example is the Biden threads).  Why would not commenters' here be held to the same standard?  I understand the difference between public and private individuals but establishing a policy that previous (in many cases heatedly argued positions) are allowed to then be disregarded because they occurred in a different thread seems to defy some basic logic.

    Am not specifically challenging the policy as it is your website, but would like to understand the concept.



    See Above... (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 09:18:00 AM EST
    ...compare what Jim said I, and others, wrote to what we actually wrote.

    It's unethical to chop up old quotes and use in without the actual context of the old thread.  You can bring discussions over and summarize what was said, but you can't bring in old quotes unless they are your own.

    What you can do is link to old quotes, which provides the context.


    Sorry, I was trying to be very specific in (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 09:37:32 PM EST
    answering Anne's questions. In the future I will be less specific but just as accurate,

    Accurate delusions? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 09:51:37 PM EST
    Then they shouldn't (none / 0) (#5)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 10:04:43 AM EST
    hired cowards who mistake a lethal weapon as a means of enforcing compliance when dealing with civilians,

    The bigger question is (none / 0) (#6)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 10:05:07 AM EST
    ...why was a person like this entitled to own a firearm?

    I was about to congratulate him (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 10:09:09 AM EST
    never saw anyone so excited about the death of a policeman

    Wilborn, the alleged shooter, had no such (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 10:28:38 AM EST
    entitlement to a firearm.  Said another way, there was no way he could have legally possessed or acquired a firearm.  Being convicted of or pleading guilty to a crime in which the maximum sentencing exposure - not the sentence you got, but rather what you could have gotten - is more than one year disqualifies that person from possessing or acquiring a firearm.  That's federal law.

    If the person has had their civil rights restored after their conviction, then maybe - depending on the scope of the restoration - they can possess or acquire a firearm legally.  But, while there is a provision in federal law which allows for restoring civil rights to persons convicted of federal crimes, for over 20 years Congress has refused to fund and forbidden the use of federal funds to carry that provision into effect.  


    Funny how all opposition (none / 0) (#46)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 02:28:47 PM EST
    is interpreted by you as an excuse to hate on the police.

    Charges for Tamir Rice shooting? (none / 0) (#48)
    by McBain on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 02:38:42 PM EST
    I haven't followed the case lately but I thought it was still being investigated?  

    ... toward a NNW direction, which will take it well to the north of the Hawaiian Islands if it maintains this present trajectory. While we're still on storm watch, that's good news for us. Guillermo's already bringing big surf in the 6-10 ft. range along the eastern shores of the Big Island, but we'll likely be spared the monsoon rains that were predicted.

    speaking of weather (none / 0) (#55)
    by CST on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 03:48:40 PM EST
    HOLY HAILSTORM just rolled through.  I'm pretty sure it set of every car alarm in the city.  And 20 min later it's sunny again.  Felt like the end of days.

    A Boston buddy of mine just posted up some (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 03:58:52 PM EST
    pics on FB. Pretty crazy.

    yea it was something (none / 0) (#58)
    by CST on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 04:19:15 PM EST

    It was hot and sunny all day, and is now hot and sunny again.  But for 20 min or so mother nature let us all know who's boss.


    This has been the whole summer here (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 05:11:20 PM EST
    we are supposed to get it again tonight and tomorrow.  

    Glad to hear some gooder news (none / 0) (#80)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 11:01:12 PM EST
    I hope it continues to steer away from you and your happy islands. Aloha.

    Not all sex offenses are the same (none / 0) (#62)
    by McBain on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 04:53:00 PM EST

    I don't even think this should be an offense at all.  The girl admitted she lied about her age. Just another case with a bad prosecutor and bad judge being "tough on crime".

    It matters not at all ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 07:54:37 PM EST
    ... whether or not you and I consider Michigan's statutes on statutory rape and / or age of consent to be either a good or bad law. It IS the law.

    And as such, Michigan law assumes that a 14-year-old is legally incapable of consenting to sex, regardless of her intent and whether or not she lied about her age. Therefore, because the defendant was over 18 and a legal adult, the burden was on him to say no, regardless of his paramour's intent, because she's legally precluded by state law from giving her consent. And given the way the law is written, the fact that she lied about her age is legally irrelevant.

    Your opinions about the "bad prosecutor" and "bad judge" are both misdirected and completely irrelevant, since these individuals were bound to follow and apply the law to its letter and intent. They don't have the discretion to just set it aside at their whim if a criminal complaint has been filed. You can direct your ire instead at the Michigan state legislators who crafted this particular law.

    I won't disagree with you that this case is ridiculous, and its consequences are both profound and quite over the top given the actual offense. This is why we wrote a five-year differential in Hawaii's age of consent law, to preclude the criminalization of teenaged sexual activity.

    Thus, the defendant in this case is only five years older than the 14-year-old, their liaison wouldn't have been subject to criminal prosecution. However, had he been 20 or 21, or had the girl been younger than 14, it would be considered statutory rape and thus illegal.



    Not true Donald (none / 0) (#70)
    by McBain on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 08:32:01 PM EST
    According to this....

    He decided not to give Anderson an exemption for first-time, youthful offenders that would have let Anderson serve time while still walking away with a clean record. He also would not have been required to register as a sex offender for the next 25 years. .

    It seems the judge has a bias against internet dating/hook ups....
    From my previous CNN link...

    In fact, Judge Dennis Wiley, who sentenced Zach, said he was angry that Zach had used the Internet to meet a girl.

    "That seems to be part of our culture now," he said, according to a transcript. "Meet, have sex, hook up, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this whatsoever,"

    Sounds like a bad judge to me.  Also sounds like the prosecutor wasn't honest with the defense.  From this post's link...

    Grabel says the prosecutor promised Anderson that the prosecution wouldn't argue for the judge to rule one way or another about the youthful exemption. But Grabel says during the trial, Vigansky did point out several other cases in which judges had denied the youthful exemption.

    Overall, I still think we tend to be a sexually uptight, puritan society that pretends good kids don't have sex.


    It's a foolish defense attorney who ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 09:12:11 PM EST
    ... thinks a prosecutor's prior assurance is worth something. Anyway, it's really of no use to get all incensed on a case-by-case basis, and you're never going to change things by admonishing individual prosecutors and judges, who -- truth be told -- could likely not care any less what you or I think about them.

    If people want to make a change for the better and preclude this from happening again in their own neighborhoods, then they should lobby their state legislatures to change the state law, so that teenaged sexual activity isn't criminalized, and participants aren't branded with a scarlet letter until it's practically time to apply for Social Security.

    We amended our age of consent law out here 14 years ago to include the five-year differential, so it's not like what I was suggesting above is something new. And it works.

    As far as the prudes go, it is what it is and I simply refuse to argue with them about it, which only makes their own hang-ups my problem. People have the right to hold uptight opinions about sex, and while I think that's sad and pathetic, the bottom line here is that they're no more going to stop people from engaging in sexual activity, than they will lasso the sun in place to maintain longer daylight hours during the winter.

    And in that regard, such busybodies need to be told in no uncertain terms to mind their own business, and leave others to tend to theirs.



    I disagree with that on many levels (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 08:45:52 AM EST
      It's a foolish defense attorney who  thinks a prosecutor's prior assurance is worth something. Anyway, it's really of no use to get all incensed on a case-by-case basis, and you're never going to change things by admonishing individual prosecutors and judges, who -- truth be told -- could likely not care any less what you or I think about them.
    If people want to make a change for the better and preclude this from happening again in their own neighborhoods, then they should lobby their state legislatures to change the state law..."

       . Insofar as a defense attorney should get "assurances" reduced to written promises so they can be proven and enforced, you have a point. I do not agree though that a defense attorney's failure to do that in anyway excuses a prosecutor who does what that defense attorney claims (I have no idea, of course, if the defense assertion is accurate). Acting in good faith and with honesty and integrity is necessary and should be demanded in all instances.

      It's so important that advocates (especially prosecutors) be held to the highest standards precisely because laws, rules-- the ENTIRE system -- depend  on the individuals involved to be administered properly and fairly. We could have the "ideal" system on paper in terms of the law, procedures and rules, but will get "bad" results still if the individual human beings who operate the system fail to act properly.

       Saying that individuals who act improperly should not be "admonished" (or more severely sanctioned)because doing so won't change anything is wrong on two levels. Yes, they should be sanctioned even if it does not change anything, but more importantly, holding individuals accountable and demanding propriety in the conduct of the system will change things.



    But it wasn't in writing, was it? (none / 0) (#132)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    Rather, it was a verbal assurance on the part of that prosecutor that ultimately proved to not even be worth the oxygen used to offer it. I won't disagree with your point about good faith, but that's a quality which is often in short supply in adversarial systems.

    the pros has discretion (none / 0) (#182)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 07:00:30 PM EST
    the pros is supposed to have dis to not bring charges when doing so is contrary to justice, if I recall correctly.  Not every crime needs to be pursued by police or charged by prosecutors . . .

    Yes, McBain Never a Cop... (none / 0) (#97)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 09:34:07 AM EST
    ...or sexual crime against a woman, he can't defend, and blame the victim.  It's pretty much the only thing he comments on anymore.

    The idea that a child lying is more culpable in a sexual relationship that an adult, is as absurd.  That is all we need, girls having to prove they didn't lie to adults about sexual contact.

    Just another case of people trying to protect children and a grown adult acting like he isn't responsible for having sex with a minor.

    'Her fault', the republican go to on anything in which a man does something wrong to a woman, or in this case to a child.


    Ummmm.... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:06:08 AM EST
    you saw that the "adult" here is a 19 year old kid right Scott?  Deemed by the law too immature to buy a beer, but an "adult" when he hooks up with a girl he thinks is 17 via a hook-up app, but turns out to be 14.  If it was a 30 year old, or even a 25 year old you'd have a point...but 19?  C'mon man.

    I'm with McBain on this one, the judge sounds like a total d*ck who is abusing his position of power because he has a hard on for casual sex via the internet.  And the prosecutor should be ashamed for even taking the case to court...the boy could have been taught the error of his ways without the stigma of the scarlet letter for 25 years.


    What if she was only 13? 12? (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:42:02 AM EST
    See, I don't think this has as much to do with the age of the male, as it does with the age of the female, who - even at 14 - was legally unable to consent to sex.  

    "Good kids" do have sex, but let's not lose sight of the fact that a 14 yr old is still a kid.  My niece started having sex when she was 14, and she got pregnant at 15.  I can assure you that when faced with that little development, she acted every bit like a 15 yr old, and not like someone who had the maturity to be engaging in sex.

    Too scared to tell her mother, she told my daughter.  My daughter, who is 7 years older, had the sense to come to me with it before my niece did anything even more stupid.  My sister-in-law figured it out, or got my niece to spill the beans, and they dealt with it.  

    It was a mess.  She's fine now - at 22, she is a college graduate with a good job and making good, adult-level decisions.

    But anyone who thinks "kids" of 14 or 15 have an emotional and developmental maturity consistent with the maturity of their reproductive organs, that they are mature enough to deal like adults with the consequences of their decisions, is kidding him- or herself.

    Maybe some are, but the test of their maturity often comes only after the fact, when it may not be too late to fix, but the fixing is a lot more complicated, painful and harder to get over.


    I don't remember saying... (none / 0) (#124)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 11:26:57 AM EST
    14 or 15 year olds have the emotional or mental maturity to engage in sex...though it would be foolish to claim they don't have the physical maturity or the physical urges almost all humans have.  And of course they're just kids...part of my point in this age of extended adolescence, so is a 19 year old.  Just a kid.  

    There's a better way to teach that kid that what he did was not cool than 25 years on the sex offender registry.  I'd hope we all can agree on that.  


    Is it possible that the reason he (none / 0) (#126)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 11:42:13 AM EST
    ended up on the registry was because this was an online hookup?  That it wasn't a case of two kids from the same school/neighborhood, but online, where anyone can represent themselves as whoever and whatever they want?  For whatever they want, which isn't always "just" about meeting someone.

    Frankly, the whole thing gives me the creeps. I mean, how many times do kids have to hear from all kinds of sources that it's colossally stupid and potentially dangerous to troll for dates online before they get the message?

    Should a 19 yr old guy know better than to go looking for girls online?  If he wants to be treated like an adult, I think he should.

    Each case has its own facts, and I'm not saying this guy deserved the severity of the punishment he got, but I can figure out why he got it.


    In Florida (none / 0) (#128)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 11:46:08 AM EST
    you land on the registry if you're found guilty. There is no option to the best of my knowledge. And the "victim" lying about age, even if physically looks the age, is not a valid defense.

    Yes... (none / 0) (#130)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 11:53:35 AM EST
    it appears the judge has some kind of issue with online dating in general, and held it against the kid...which I don't really understand. Old and bitter?

    I mean I don't get online dating either, not my thing, but it seems to be all the rage with the kids, especially when it comes to casual hook ups.  


    You Think If You Serve... (none / 0) (#116)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 11:01:27 AM EST
    ...a minor a beer, even with a fake ID you are OK ?

    You are not, it is your responsibility to make sure you are abiding by the law, not anyone else's.  Now if you want to argue the law is messed up fine, but putting the proof of age from adult to minor is about the dumbest S I have read this week.

    While I hate the phrase, this is slippery slope BS.  Then we are going to have grown middle aged men proclaiming the 12 year said she was 20, or worse, forcing then to say they are adults.  We will end up with judges decided age of consent based on looks, months/years after it happened.

    Actual age is definable, that is why they use it rather than perceived age.  The guy was lied to by a minor, and now you want to hold someone who can't give consent, sign a contact, even make their own decisions, responsible for the act, and give the adult the pass.  Pleaze.


    I thought that's what I was arguing... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 11:22:10 AM EST
    the law is totally messed up, and a totally messed up prosecutor and messed up judge took the messed up ball and ran with it.  I don't know what it is, but it ain't justice.  

    I'm not trying to hold the girl accountable for anything, lying about your age isn't a crime (or maybe it is, we have so many I lose track)...I'm trying to say they've held a 19 year old kid far too accountable. Not every regrettable event need be a crime, nor does everything that is technically a "crime" need to be prosecuted. I expect better from the real "adults" in the situation, the prosecutor and especially the arsehat judge.  But they may be the most childish of all in this instance.  


    The law as written is draconian, ... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 01:32:34 PM EST
    ... but it's still the law, kdog. You can flout it is you feel so disposed, but you best be prepared to accept the consequences for your conscious act to do so, if someone in authority decides to take exception to your behavior.

    A 14-year-old is legally precluded by Michigan law from given his or her consent to sexual activity, and there are no exceptions. I'm very sorry for what subsequently happened to a 19-year-old young man in this particular case, but trolling online for sex was a foolish act on his part.

    As a legal adult, he is ultimately the responsible party in any encounter with a minor child, regardless of whether or not that encounter results in sexual activity. Had they both been two years older, would it have been okay had she asked him to buy her alcohol, rather than schtupp her? Of course not. The law assumes that as the adult, he is the one in control and should know better.

    Children and teens have long been a relatively easy mark for sexploitation by adults. That's why such laws are in place. To turn that law on its head by faulting a minor victim for his or her own actions in any sexual encounter with an adult -- regardless of whether or not the act is "consensual" -- is not a place I wish to see us return.



    God Damn... (none / 0) (#141)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 01:48:29 PM EST
    no one is "faulting" the girl, where is that coming from?  My question is why are we punishing the boy?  Is there any reason besides the law allows it?  Cuz that's not a good reason.  

    To me this is a classic case of law & order being the crime, and the "crime" being nothing more than a regrettable incident. Where's the human discretion and human common sense in applying an otherwise well-intentioned and necessary law so unjustly?

    Did I log in to Talk-Authoritarian today by mistake or something?


    The sex offender registries (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 02:49:43 PM EST
    are, in my view, a threat to civil liberties.  While, perhaps, well-intended and put in place owing to some heinous crimes, the bluntness of the punishment is a problem.  Most of these state laws seem to be offense-based, rather than risk-based.  And, keeping public track of individuals long after the criminal sentence has been served seems to lie outside a fair criminal justice system.

    And, unless and until such registries are risk-based and provide evidence of value upon evaluation, it is incumbent upon the prosecutor to use discretion in the charges and for the judge to use his head and heart in its application.  

    I think of the crimes of Jeffrey Dahmer, when a victim escaped his clutches and ran into the arms of police officers, bleeding and screaming.  Only to be returned by the police to Dahmer.  Of course, Dahmer was not yet convicted so we can't say if a sex registry would have saved what became yet another victim.  


    The Registries Lose their Value... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 03:09:43 PM EST
    ...when they include people who pose no danger to the community.  Then it just becomes some sort of vengeance list of people who commit sexual crimes that other find unsavory.

    I wasn't arguing that he should be on the list, only that he did indeed commit a crime.  The idea that he did nothing wrong does not sit well with me.


    Perhaps we spoke passed each other... (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 03:19:42 PM EST
    I'm fine with acknowledging the boy broke the law...but the mitigating factors make it a very minor crime that did not require a prosecution, never mind such a loony sentence.

    I mean the girl testified she lied about her age and consented in spirit, though legally she was unable to consent of course.  Sh*t I wouldn't be surprised if the trial traumatized her more than the incident.


    In CA they rank the offender on risk. (none / 0) (#169)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 03:53:00 PM EST
    Here's the first listing from my zip code:

    Date of Birth:     02-10-1945
    Sex:     MALE
    Height:     5'11"
    Weight:     220   
    Eye Color:     BROWN
    Hair Color:     BLACK
    Ethnicity:     HISPANIC
    Offense Code     288(a)
    Year of Last Conviction     2011
    Year of Last Release     2012

    Registrant has no California subsequent felony convictions.

    Risk Assessment
    Tool Name     STATIC 99R
    Score Date     4/2/2015   
    Score     -2

    I think it's because I'm the one who started this (none / 0) (#146)
    by McBain on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 02:15:26 PM EST
    thread, certain people have to argue against me, even if my position happens to be leftwingish.  Isn't this situation similar to ridiculous sentences for minor drug crimes?  The sex offender punishment standards/guidelines need to be changed.

    You may be right... (none / 0) (#150)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 02:36:00 PM EST
    and that would be sad.

    We Are Punishing Him... (none / 0) (#151)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 02:45:15 PM EST
    ...because he committed a crime.

    Do you think an adult having sex with a minor should be legal ?

    I am pretty sure every guy here has passed on an interested party because they were underage, even though the age difference was negligible.  If for no other reason that they don't play around with this.

    If it's not the adult's responsibility to make sure they are having sex with other adults, whose is it ?  That is why everyone is arriving at the girl, because you yahoos keep acting like he is not the one responsible.  That it is a simple error in judgement that he found his D inside a minor.

    The idea that this is some made up law is absurd and the notion that people who don't want adults sleeping with minors, are authoritarian, is a cheap shot.

    Exactly what age difference do you want to call it a crime.  I think the sentence was too much, but there is no doubt in my mind that this man broke a just law.

    These laws are written to protect children from adults, not protect adults from their own stupidity.


    I don't have a big problem with (none / 0) (#158)
    by McBain on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 03:03:18 PM EST
    a 19 year old having sex with a 17 year old. The legal definition of child/adult and consent might be simple but the real world application is far more complex.  I doubt there was a huge difference in the maturity level of these two people.

    I don't pretend to have a perfect solution for how to prevent unreasonable sentences like this. Sometimes you get a good judge, sometimes you don't.


    Well said... (none / 0) (#163)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 03:14:58 PM EST
    it's up to prosecutorial and judicial discretion to weed through the complexity to achieve a semblance of justice...and in this case the arbiters of justice failed miserably in the discretion department, imo.  

    And who protects... (none / 0) (#162)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 03:12:48 PM EST
    recently graduated children from the law Scott?

    The cheap shot is implying a person thinks sex with minors should be legalized when all they are doing is questioning the application of the law and the harsh sentence applied.

    You passed on relations with 17 year olds at 19 on the grounds of age alone?  If so, you were an uncommon 19 year old my friend.  I dated a 17 year old at 19 and had/have no moral qualms about it.


    Alight... (none / 0) (#165)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 03:36:35 PM EST
    ...this is going nowhere, and I totally get why you are all up in arms, that is you, with the exception that you aren't claiming stupidity, which is not a bonus, and assuming you committed that you are a repeat offender.

    a crime or not a crime (none / 0) (#186)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 07:18:30 PM EST
    the same acts are crimes in some areas and not crimes in others.  The question is the wisdom and justice of the law as written in Michigan, especially in light of possible other superior versions of the same laws in other states.

    They're "punishing the boy" ... (none / 0) (#166)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 03:40:16 PM EST
    ... because in the eyes of the law, that "boy" is an adult because he's over 18 years of age, and the law itself provides for such punishment.

    From a quick perusal of the Michigan sexual assault law's legislative history, it appears to me that the intent of the legislature was such that in instances where the age of the victim is an element of a sexual offense, a defendant's state of mind is not relevant to that particular element, but rather to the actual sexual act itself.

    In other words, if the victim is under 16 years of age, whether she actually lied about her age in such an event is immaterial. Therefore, because Michigan and Indiana law precludes a 14-year-old from consenting to sex, the 19-year-old defendant is on the hook and thus guilty of statutory / 3rd degree rape of a minor child.

    Again, there appears to be no exceptions here, as far as I can tell in my former capacity as a legislative analyst. But I'll have to defer to the opinions of actual criminal defense attorneys who might be familiar with such laws in the Midwest. (Peter G, are you out there?)

    Now, it may well be that, to paraphrase Mr. Bumble of Charles Dickens' "Oliver Twist," the law is an a$$ for first allowing the State to make such a legal presumption about a 19-year-old male's level of emotional maturity, and then giving its agents the authority to act upon it.

    But the ultimate resolution for that issue must be found by Michigan residents themselves, who need to press for amendment of the present relevant laws at their state legislature, to provide for a five-year differential when both of the teenaged parties are over 14 years of age.

    The solution won't be gained by shaming individual judges and prosecutors, who are likely impervious to such personal criticism as it is. Because even if you do somehow succeed in changing the judge's mind in this particular instance, that law is still in place and on the books as written. And so, how long will it be before the next poor young schmuck is hauled before the bar of justice on a similar matter?

    (FYI, your own home state of New York has a variation of the Hawaii law, in that a person who is under age 16 but older than 13 years old can consent to sex with a person who is no more than 4 years older. The crime of the 3rd degree rape only happens when someone over the age of 21 has sex with someone who is 17 or younger, which is punishable by a prison term of up to four years.)



    I don't think he should have been prosecuted (none / 0) (#123)
    by McBain on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 11:25:37 AM EST
    but even if so, he certainty shouldn't be on the sex offender list for 25 years.  

    There's some hope for the boy... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    getting off the registry and being allowed to use the internet again...he's back in court today requesting a re-sentencing.

    Unfortunately, it's the same stupid judge.


    Someone needs to tell this judge (none / 0) (#142)
    by McBain on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 01:50:59 PM EST
    that internet dating is extremely common.  He seems to be living in the past.

    Forget the past... (none / 0) (#143)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 01:59:40 PM EST
    I think he's living in another dimension.

    If there is a criminal in this case, it's the motherf8cker in the robe.  But I can't say it's uncommon for our societies Lex Luthor's to be in full legal compliance...our code is so twisted and strange, and how we put in practice even more so.


    Whether or not internet dating is common ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 03:46:11 PM EST
    ... is completely beside the point. Michigan law precludes a 14-year-old from consenting to sex. That's the true legal determinant here regarding the actual commission of a crime, and not the ever-evolving social standards of teenagers and young adults over the generations.

    Donald, because the judge (none / 0) (#171)
    by McBain on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 04:09:47 PM EST
    spoke disparagingly about internet dating, it's not besides the point.  His bias against a very common and legal practice may have influenced his harsh sentence. This is why kdog and I think the judge blew it.

    (Sigh!) The defendant was convicted of ... (none / 0) (#192)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 08:35:27 PM EST
    ... statutory rape (or the Michigan equivalent thereof) for having sex with a minor child under 16 years of age. He was not convicted and sentenced for internet dating.

    The judge was obviously over the top in using the online hookup as a rationale for throwing the book at the defendant during sentencing, but that online hookup is not the reason that defendant stands convicted.

    He's 19 years old, a legal adult, and she was only 14 at the time of their liaison. Michigan law presumes that children under the age of 16 cannot consent to sex. That she allegedly lied about her age to him is legally immaterial, because the law does not provide for a defendant's gullibility as an exculpatory factor for his subsequent actions.

    You keep looking for various reasons to excuse the defendant's behavior, and shifting the primary blame for his fate to others, when Michigan law clearly doesn't provide for any of that. It's the defendant's own stupidity that put him in his predicament and got him convicted, and not the ad hoc machinations of a h0rny adolescent girl, conniving prosecutor or anal-retentive judge.

    Look, it's a shame that Michigan law as written serves to criminalize teenaged sexual activity, and it's too bad that the defendant and his online hookup didn't get in on in Hawaii or New York, where such activity would have otherwise been legal. But that's just the way it goes.

    The law is the law. We can legitimately debate whether it's a good law or bad law, and I've clearly made my own opinion known on that matter. But until such time as it's either amended or repealed by the Michigan legislature, or declared unconstitutional by a judge, it's still the law.

    The defendant is the one who "blew it" through his own obvious lack of judgment -- not the judge, to whom the law grants personal discretion in determining and pronouncing sentence, regardless of however dubious that discretion in this instance appears to be.

    You need to live in the real world and address the fundamental legal issue as it is, and not engage in endless demagogy because you wish it to be otherwise.



    re the washington state exception (none / 0) (#180)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 06:58:00 PM EST
    in wash state, if the other person has lied about his or her age and the defendant or potential defendant has a reasonable belief that he or she was in fact the older age, then, that is a defense to the charge.

    The way to solve the problem is to put the similar exception the laws of the rest of the USA . ..

    I am sorry you do not live in Washington and that Michigan law lacks this good and  helpful protection for defendants.


    Well (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 06:56:17 PM EST
    Fox announced who is going to be in the debate not at the kiddie table on Thursday and it is Kasich and above. I'm kind of surprised they didn't find a way to put Fiorina in there. Rand Paul is now in the number 8 position. My how the mighty have fallen when he used to be in the top 3.

    Fox also did one of those GOP focus groups and they all were slinging mud at each other and calling each other names. One guy said Trump was the boss that you had to go around continually cleaning up after. LOL.

    Fox News has decided to mess with Texas (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 08:12:33 PM EST
    Kicking Rick Perry to the curb.  I predict that Fox News viewers from Texas are going to be mad as hell :)

    Remember the Alamo!

    They've moved on to Ted Cruz (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 08:17:34 PM EST
    They'll get over old Rick.

    They've moved on to Donald Trump (none / 0) (#71)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 08:59:49 PM EST
    They'll get over old Ted.

    And I've moved on to Hillary. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 09:19:58 PM EST
    I've long since gotten over Texans.

    Hillary is a winner (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 11:37:52 PM EST
    I notice that the demeanor of Jeb is so like he is saying "Do I really have to do this? Do I really have to be here? Can't I just go home and play with my lunchbox collection"? He is very lackluster and that is okay for me. It helps with his misspeaking. I always look at a candidate to see how they would react in a crises or mix well with other heads of state. No GOP candidate passes the sniff test from any state. Heh
    BTW, did you see that typhoon Soudelor heading to Japan, China, and Taiwan? 220MPH, strongest one of the year. Jeez, makes all those hurricanes I went through growing up in Florida seem like nothing. I hope it swerves also.  

    Yes - I know the term (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 05:20:00 AM EST
    'presidential' is vague and overused, but I really understand it when I look at that GOP selection.

    Dog days of August approaching... (none / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 08:23:23 AM EST
    and the Mets are still there, surging past the Nats after the huge weekend sweep and currently feasting on the Marlins.  

    GM Sandy Alderson worked some deadline magic boy, we haven't had a fearsome bat like Cespedes since Delgado. And we got a bench now too and a strengthened bullpen for Terry to work with.  

    Flushing is buzzing...exciting times.

    As an A's fan I was sad to see Cespedes traded (none / 0) (#159)
    by McBain on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 03:07:54 PM EST
    away last summer but I also knew he was a little bit overrated.  I know he's had a good year so far, but he'll chase a lot of sliders in the dirt and won't hit as many bombs as someone that physically talented should.  That being said, I hope he does well.  

    I'll take them doubles... (none / 0) (#175)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 06:04:08 PM EST
    all day long! Beyond his own hitting ability, he has  solidified what was a Triple A lineup two weeks ago.  That's huge...much bigger impact than the aborted Carlos Gomez deal would have been. Even if just a rental.

    I really like Clippard we scored from your team too...very very solid arm for the pen.

    Harvey shoots for the sweep tonight...Lets Go Mets!


    Sam Dubose (none / 0) (#88)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 08:40:44 AM EST
    Search Warrant: Bags of marijuana found in Sam DuBose's car

    Police sources said the street value for the amount of marijuana found in DuBose's car is anywhere between $2,000 and $5,000 depending on the quality and the demand.

    Police said marijuana amounts of more than two pounds is considered a felony.

    Even felony MJ possession (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 08:41:57 AM EST
    isn't a capital offense, last time I checked.

    MJ (2.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 09:05:06 AM EST
    Even felony MJ possession

    It goes to state of mind -- Dubose's not Tensing's.

    And it goes a long way to explain why he was playing the name game, refusing to to present his DL, refusing to get out of the car, and then starting the vehicle in order to drive away in the middle of the traffic stop.

    2 pounds makes Dubose a dealer not just a smoker or possessor. Wonder how much cash was there as well?

    Why he would so foolishly drive around with that much marijuana in a car that lacked a front license plate is baffling.


    Still doesn't justify his death (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 09:14:37 AM EST
    What's your point? (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 08:59:30 AM EST
    That finding drugs in the care after DuBose was shot and killed makes it okay?

    You do realize that you're backing into a justification, don't you?  

    Maybe that's how you want the police to function, but I don't think that works for most people.


    Facts matter (none / 0) (#131)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 01:03:57 PM EST
    That finding drugs in the care after DuBose was shot and killed makes it okay?

    It is what it is -- deal with it.

    He was making his drug deliveries -- deal with it.

    And by "He", I mean this guy:

    DuBose had been charged with driving without a license more than 13 times between 1995 and 2009, according to court records obtained by Cincinnati's Fox 19.

    He had also been charged with driving while suspended eight times from 2005 and 2011 and with failure to display a proper a proper license plate on his vehicle four times between 1995 and 2009. Dubose had more than 75 offenses charged to him over his lifetime.

    He was certainly no Boy Scout or AAA Driver of the Year candidate.


    So only Boy Scouts (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by sj on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 01:42:31 PM EST
    and Drivers of the Year should be safe from the death penalty for traffic offenses?

    Officers said the search warrant was obtained two days after the deadly shooting. [emphasis mine]
    This is a shameful attempt to make people like you believe that he deserved it.

    Apparently it worked. On people like you -- deal with it.


    two days after (2.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 04:36:14 PM EST
    So what?

    They didn't find out that Sandra Bland had 3 times the legal limit of marijuana in her system until her autopsy two days after she committed suicide???

    Are you saying that they should have checked for the marijuana before they died?


    So what? So what if he wasn't a (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 02:00:59 PM EST
    Boy Scout or AAA Driver of the Year candidate?

    Is that what people have to be now in order to stay alive when stopped by the police?

    I'm not excusing his driving record, but being stopped for a missing license plate shouldn't result in being shot to death.

    Having a criminal record on its own isn't justification for that either.

    Where is your source for stating that he was making drug deliveries?  Or are you just writing fiction again?  Creating a story that lets you justify a cold-blooded killing.

    Got your Donald Trump campaign sticker yet?


    Again (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 07:15:58 PM EST
    having MJ in one's system or felony possession of MJ will intend to sell don't carry the death penalty in this country.

    Let Me Get This Straight... (none / 0) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 01:35:45 PM EST
    ...evidence found after a cop shot and killed someone, is being used as a defense of the cops state of mind, even though he didn't know about it at the time of the shooting ?

    The pretzels are astounding that you guys wrap yourselves in to defend the indefensible.  Doesn't matter if they found 1000 human souls in his glove box, the cop did not know about any of it when he shot and killed an unarmed black man.

    All you are doing if vilifying the victim, none of that has anything to do with the state of mind of that cop, that day.  Sad that you got nothing else but the dreaded 'evil drug dealer' 80's moniker.  Scary, he was selling stuff that is legal in 23 states, the horror.

    The good news he will be prosecuted and your vilification evidence will have to wait outside with all the other non-sense you conjure up to vilify the victim.

    Defending university cops, that's rich, the guys on the front lines keeping everyone safe from underage drinkers and illegal parkers.


    He was obviously doing something illegal (none / 0) (#181)
    by McBain on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 06:58:20 PM EST
    I hope this one goes to trial.  I want to see enhanced video with expert witness testimony.  I'm sure most people in here have already made up their minds.  I'd like to know more.  

    Out of curiosity (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 09:37:57 PM EST
    I'm sure most people in here have already made up their minds.

    Since the video is going to be the key evidence, and since nothing in the video justifies the shooting, what would you suggest might turn up after further investigation that could possibly Justify shooting a man who is not a threat?

    If you know.


    For one thing, I'd like to hear from experts (none / 0) (#201)
    by McBain on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:59:47 PM EST
    on the law and police procedure talk about when a cop is legally allowed to shoot someone.  

    Like I said before,  I'd also like to see experts break down the video and determine what  happened a second or two before the shooting. On some of the youtube video commentaries I've seen, people seem to think Tensing was being "dragged" before he shot Dubose.  On others, they think he wasn't.  But I'm not even sure it matters. Maybe he thought he was. This is why I need to know more.  


    You're Just Getting Ridiclulous (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 06, 2015 at 08:51:34 AM EST
    A cop states in a police report he was dragged by a car.  His own body camera and his partners body camera clearly show he was not.

    So instead of realizing the cop lied through his teeth, you come up with 'Maybe he thought he was(being dragged)'.

    You add no value to any conversation when you can't accept what you own eyes are telling you.  The cop wasn't dragged, and your notion that maybe he though he was is infinitely worse that him filing a false police report, it would mean he is delusional, as in experiencing events that did not happen.


    I would need to know more (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 06, 2015 at 08:59:20 AM EST
    it would not change anything but I definitely need to know more.

    the stop (none / 0) (#203)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Aug 06, 2015 at 12:36:20 AM EST
    The nearest I can tell from the video is that Dubose was driving a vehicle that was not his [and thus possibly stolen in the officer's mind], that he had no drivers license [thus probably suspended which is an arrestable offence], and was playing the what's my name game [which will also get you arrested].

    It should have been no surprise to Dubose at this point that he is asked to unbuckle his seatbelt to step out of the vehicle. His refusal to do so ratcheted things up against him.

    As the officer opens the door Dubose then pulls the door shut with his left hand simultaneously starting the car with the other and putting it in gear to drive away.

    It's at this point that the officer pulls his gun and it is hard to tell if the gun goes off before, during or after the officer yells "stop, stop" and begins to fall backward.

    What got him shot was not the missing license plate, nor the arrestable not having a DL, nor the 2 pounds of marijuana, nor even the pulling the door shut marking his refusal to exit the car.

    What got him shot, and it was probably accidental, was his starting the car and trying to drive away as his response to the request to exit the car.

    I dare anyone to try that the next time they're stopped by the police and see what it gets them --  


    Oh, so now you think it was an (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 06, 2015 at 06:35:27 AM EST
    accidental shooting.  Meaning it was a mistake?  So, the cop was wrong: he shouldn't have shot the guy.

    For a missing license plate, maybe he should have just radioed in to the actual police department and let them handle it.  


    CNN claimed this morning that if (none / 0) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:26:05 AM EST
    Biden decides to run he will receive a windfall of funding.  I can't seem to find any other info on that other than the Draft Biden SuperPac. Is that the windfall?

    Considering (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:59:08 AM EST
    how many banks are headquartered in Delaware that would donate to his campaign I'm sure there's some truth in that. However I read where his sister who has run all his campaigns has said she has not talked to Joe about running.

    The polling out there indicates it would be another futile run for him and I'm not sure he's really wanting to go there once again.


    The last person I want running (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 11:12:43 AM EST
    I'm very comfortable with the existing Clinton Bernie situation pulling all conversations left.  Did you hear that one of the Koch brothers gave some sort of "The 1% is destroying America" speech?  Biden can only shift everyone right and start oxygenating Republican conversations and policies.

    There are lots of people (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 11:25:03 AM EST
    in DC, Tweety being a major mouthpiece and cheerleader, who think "shifting everyone to the right" is not only good but urgently needed.   They constantly drone about the good ole days when her husband "ran to the middle".  And how ironic is it that her husband brought the Democratic Party to the center and she only wants to drag it to the left because Bernie Samders blah blah........... BURaaaaphh... blah blah.

    This is Bidens base.  The DC beltway.   At least until he gets into the race.   Then they will turn him into a punchline.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 11:46:59 AM EST
    there's already one doing it and that's Jim Webb. However he's polling in the single digits and is pretty unknown unlike Biden.

    Like Howdy says they're all going to say Biden is great until he gets in and opens his mouth a few times and then they're going to revert back to their old stances.

    Politics has gotten so absurd lately that I might just quit paying attention.


    Jim Webb Har Har Har (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 02:28:04 PM EST
    I see he's shifted some Hillary haters right today at DK, but on a national level?  I have my doubts he's capable. Clinton and Sanders drown him out, everyone wants to hear what those two have to say. I think Biden would have press interest that Webb just doesn't have.

    Oh, yeah (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 02:47:05 PM EST
    the would listen to Biden at least for a little while before they started poking fun at him.

    DK has gotten ridiculous mostly. Personality politics seem to have taken the place of issues. Whatever.


    "Why I'm Not Ridin' with Biden" (none / 0) (#153)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 02:47:33 PM EST
    This is a pretty good read.

    From the piece:

    It's no mystery why some Democrats are nervous about Hillary Clinton. But if they're thinking that Biden is some kind of white knight who can ride in and sort everything out, I would suggest they're mistaken. Biden has sought the presidency twice before. In 1988, he didn't even make it out of the starting blocks. Indeed he didn't even make it to 1988, because the revelation that he was cribbing autobiographical speech lines from British Labour leader Neil Kinnock chased him from the race in 1987.

    Then, in 2008, he rarely if ever got out of single digits. With a first tier comprised of Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Clinton, Biden never got out of the second tier. He finished fifth in Iowa with 0.9 percent of the vote and said sayonara that night.

    That's not a track record that screams white knight to me. And every Democratic insider surely knows this. So what's going on here?


    The other point made in Biden's favor is the old "personal affect-slash-authenticity" argument--that he displays a certain exuberance on the trail, while she is, to use a word I saw in the Times yesterday sourced to a "prominent Democratic party official" who may or may not be named Harpootlian, "joyless."


    Well, compared to Biden, yes, she is kind of joyless. Methodical and serious is how I would more charitably put it, but okay, fine, call it true. But again, in 2008, Democratic voters were given an opportunity to back either her grim earnestness or his joie de politique. Earnestness got 17 million votes, and joie captured 23. Not 23,000 or even 2,300; I mean 23 votes from Iowa caucus-goers. [UPDATE: This isn't quite right. I took these numbers from a New York Times vote summary, but it was weighted to reflect the number of state convention delegates each candidate would win based on the actual votes cast. It seems that Biden actually got a few hundred votes, but the 0.9 percentage is correct.]

    Forgot the link - Sorry! (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 02:48:36 PM EST
    Other things I recall about Joe Biden (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 03:41:00 PM EST
    Anita Hill.  And how he fought to only have drone strikes in Afghanistan, no boots.  And everyone who survived Iraq knew you had to be on the ground and you had to have real Intel or you were only promoting more chaos and destruction. Biden didn't care.  Refused to listen to anyone. Thankfully lost that fight.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 02:51:45 PM EST
    that's a good run down.

    Sigh. It looks like Hillary is going to have to fight the party again.


    That's because (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 11:03:24 AM EST
    the one man Draft Biden SuperPac is the only one contacting all the media outlets. In reality there is nothing there, but people permit themselves to get sucked into the morass.

    Makes sense (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 11:06:40 AM EST
    It's (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 11:11:10 AM EST
    because it's August and there's nothing to report.

    Not the windfall (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 10:28:00 AM EST
    will be whatever amount he raises.  No matter how significant.

    Gawker tries to thump Trump (none / 0) (#125)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 11:39:23 AM EST
    Trump hits a fat pitch up the middle.

    And that's why Trump gets attention and Lindsey Graham is a sideshow.

    Trump give out Graham's cell phone number and Graham makes a youtube video of him destroying the phone. Gawker gives out Trump's cell phone number and Trump turns his message into a campaign ad.

    And the current standings are:
    Trump 2-0
    Graham 0-1
    Gawker 0-1

    Well When the Competition... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 01:09:31 PM EST
    ...is Graham, so dumb he apparently thinks a new number requires destroying the old phone and a gossip blog, it's not exactly winning, more like 'winning'.

    And who knows about the fat pitch up the middle, who in F would actually call that number and be swayed by his voicemail message ?  No one.

    Even nobody scottw would not be amused if I had to switch a number I have had for at least a decade. It would be very stressful.  Who knows about DT, maybe it's no big deal, but maybe it's a huge deal, the point is no one can actually know, so calling it a HR, without knowing where it landed if over-stating his  athleticism.


    Don't (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 11:45:10 AM EST
    these people realize they're all part of a three ring circus and Trump is the ring master? And that you can never defeat the ring master with stunts because he's the one cracking the whip?

    re the constitutionality of a voyeurism law (none / 0) (#170)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 04:01:23 PM EST
    The city of Seattle has a separate anti-voyeurism
    in addition to and more expansive than the Washington state anti-voyeurism law.

    The Seattle law says you can't view or photograph an intimate body part or underwear if that intimate body part or underwear is covered by some item of clothing--but without any specification about a reasonable expectation of privacy being violated to be an element of the crime.

    Women at times wear clothing which is not skin tight or next to the skin in all places.  As a result, in a  variety of venues, circumstances and sporting events,
    there are body parts or underwear which are visible from some angles and not others, or visible because of wind, jumping or athletic activity.

    Given the absence that a reasonable expectation of privacy be being violated, the law would criminalize such photos as that of the iconic Marilyn Monroe photo and the photos of Kate Middleton when gusts from the helicopter lifted her skirt.  The law could easily criminalize viewing or photographing a woman in a dress I saw a few days ago which exposed a significant part of her breast from the side, given that the breast is "covered" from the front.

    Does anyone who thinks about constitutional law issues wish to review the Seattle municipal law and comment?

    Another "new rule" (none / 0) (#173)
    by CST on Wed Aug 05, 2015 at 04:34:21 PM EST
    From the Feds to help workers.


    "The Obama administration has drafted an executive order forcing any company that contracts with the federal government to issue paid leave to employees who are sick, are seeking medical attention or need to care for a sick relative."