Sunday Night TV and Open Thread

The best TV show I saw this weekend: Viceland's States of Undress goes to Palestine (it's available On Demand on Comcast, or you can watch it online here.)

The Good Wife has just a few episodes left. There are so many characters on this show that I can't stand watching, I'm surprised I watch the show at all. Is it really going to go out at the same place it began, with Alicia's husband Peter indicted? Only this time, Alicia refuses to stand by his side? I hope the ending isn't as trite as that. But it's really gone downhill this season fast, so I won't be surprised if it is.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Bernie's California Timetable | DOJ Tells States to Ease ID Requirements for Ex-Inmates >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Sanders now says he is losing (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ExPatObserver on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 08:47:24 AM EST
     Because poor people don't vote. This, along with his comparison of Baltimore to Nigeria shows a candidate who is out of touch; not to mention out of his league. In this sense he is comparable to Trump. The voters want big changes.

    He's definitely off roading it now (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 10:05:10 AM EST
    In the mud, with big tires, gunning the engine and throwing it all over the place :)

    And now Monica Lewinsky...sigh


    And Tim Robbns claims voter fraud b/c (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 01:55:08 PM EST
    exit polls show a higher % of people polled voted for Sanders than the actual subsequent tallied vote.

    Ha ha! (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    I tweeted at him about this (being confused about exit polling vs. actual votes) and he actually tweeted back at me, telling me my check was in the mail for spreading Correct the Records talking points.  I got called out (or so he thinks) by a big celebrity!

    Well, a tall celebrity, anyway. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ExPatObserver on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    Apparently (none / 0) (#31)
    by Nemi on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:03:19 AM EST
    he's been buzy calling a lot of people out on Twitter - 88 in the course of just one hour.

    I've come to think lately that he wasn't so much acting as just being himself in Bull Durham; kind of sweet and innocent ... but dumb. :)


    Pay no attention to the crazy guy ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 02:28:47 PM EST
    Pre-Sovient history (none / 0) (#3)
    by ExPatObserver on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 10:07:33 AM EST
    While of course life in the US is quite good for most people, in my 54 years I can't remember a time when voters were so anxious about the future. I suspect that worries about global warming and other potential permanent, irreversible changes are beginning to spook people, to say nothing about the astonishing march of science, technology, computers, AI which looks like it could obliterate life as we know it. This is on top of the "normal" everyday worries about terrorism, the economy, pollution, etc.

    It is the anxiety about the future and unhappiness with the present that may create a parallel with Russian pre-Soviet history. This is NOT my field at all, but because of my location, I have been exposed to many experts in Russian, Central Asian and Soviet history. For two years we had the pre-eminent scholar of the Soviet famines, Steven Wheatcroft.
    From Wheatcroft and others, I learned a remarkable view of Soviet history, rather at odds with my previous understanding. While without question the Soviets were brutal, authoritarian thugs who sent millions to their death, it is also the case that by almost all metrics, welfare of the people in the Soviet Union went up rapidly over several decades. These measures take into account  the induced famines, the gulags, etc.

    When change is necessary, it happens, and the result can be quite ugly. Are we at a cusp like that? Today, I doubt it. In 5 years, 10 years? I  don't know. By the way, I wouldn't bet against Trump becoming President, especially if you give me odds. This may be a real bellwether year.

    By any measure, life in the USSR ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    ... could do nothing but improve after their searing and horrific collective experience of the Second World War at the hands of Nazi Germany, which reduced the country's population by nearly 15% in only a four-year period. The Soviet census of October 1940 revealed a country of 198 million residents. The Germans invaded nine months later. One year after the end of the war in May 1945, Josef Stalin ordered another nationwide count, which showed that number at about 171 million.

    To give that number some comparative perspective, our own country's dead in the Second World War amounted to about 405,000, or 0.33% of our populace. The only countries and territories which suffered losses comparable to the Soviet Union in the Second World War as a percentage of their population were Poland (17%), Lithuania (14%), Greece (12%), Yugoslavia (12%) and East Timor (then Portuguese Timor, 11%).

    The conflict between the Russians and Germans was a true race war. Whereas U.S. and British prisoners of war were treated relatively decently and were co-mingled together in camps, Soviet POWs were segregated and used for slave labor by the Nazi war machine. Of the five million Soviet soldiers taken prisoner by the Germans, only one in four would survive their captivity, and some 100,000 would perish as a result of Allied raids on German industrial targets.

    The Russians had no place to go but up after 1945.


    But I mean starting from 1918. (none / 0) (#14)
    by ExPatObserver on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 02:24:54 PM EST
    Okay, let's start in 1918, ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 05:55:27 PM EST
    ... when the Communist government signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Imperial Germany, pledging Russia's withdrawal from the First World War while ceding to German occupation the area comprising the Baltic States, and present-day Belarus and Ukraine. The First World War cost the former Russian Empire some 3.3 million dead.

    The multi-faceted Russian Civil War lasted from 1917 until 1922. In addition to former Czar Nicholas II and his entire family, who were executed by the Communists in the Ural city of Yekaterinburg as royalist forces were advancing (it fell three days after the royal family was killed), it's been estimated that about 1.5 million combatants were killed as a direct result of the hostilities, and another 9 million civilian non-combatants perished from famine and disease during that period. That renders the Russian Civil War the costliest internecine conflict in history, in terms of the number of death directly attributable to combat and war-related events.

    Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin died in January 1924, and Josef Stalin seized power later that same year. A research paper published in February 1989 by Georgian historian Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev conservatively estimated the death toll directly attributable to Stalin's rule at some 20 million lives. If one further includes the estimated 27 million Soviet troops and civilians who perished in the Second World War, that's 47 million dead during his rule.

    Medvedev's research further provides these rather grim statistics for our contemplation:

    • 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929;
    •  9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands, with another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program;
    • 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine induced by Soviet policies from 1932-1934;
    • 1 million forcibly exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935;
    • 1 million executed during the "Great Terror" of 1937-1938, aka the Stalinist purges;
    • 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps;
    • 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated to the east during the Second World War; and
    • 2 million arrested for various "political crimes" between the end of the Second World War and Stalin's death in 1953.

    Other Russian sources place the death toll from the Stalin Era -- NOT including the losses from the Second World War -- at a far higher level. In his book, "Unnatural Deaths in the U.S.S.R.: 1928-1954," Soviet historian I.G. Dyadkin estimated that the USSR suffered 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" during that period, with 34 to 49 million directly attributable to Stalin's actions. The late author Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the literary giant who wrote the critically acclaimed "The Gulag Archipelago," claimed that the number of Stalin's victims might have actually been as high as 60 million.

    If we accept the higher number, that would mean the number of people killed during Stalin's era averaged over 2 million per year! To put that into a perspective we can grasp, that's in excess of 40,000 per week for his entire 29-year reign of terror. Such frightful statistics, when considered in conjunction with some rather remarkable quotes attributed to Stalin -- e.g., "Death is the solution to all problems; no man, no problem" -- are a clear reflection of the man's absolutely callous disregard for human life.

    Personally, given the sort of numbers bandied about by those who are experts in their field, I believe that for all its many shortcomings and substantial faults, Imperial Russia under the Romanovs prior to the First World War was likely a far larger and more prosperous country than the one which was bequeathed by Stalin to his successors upon his own death in 1953.



    Well, not correct in terms of human (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ExPatObserver on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 07:36:49 PM EST
    welfare. People were healthier, and living longer
    under the Soviets. Life under the Tsars was awful.
    You read about famines under Stalin, but in fact, famines were a regular occurrence in many parts of Russia before.
    It's very easy to say that the Soviet Union was all bad. It was bad, absolutely.
    Just not as bad as what came before, for the average person, in terms of health and longevity. I do not know if these these statistics do not include the wars----I expect not, because war is exceptional, but they do include the famines---i.e., even including the famines of the 30's, people were on average better off under Stalin.

    Another discovery of more recent history: the famines in the Ukraine in the 1930's where not caused by orders emanating from Moscow. They were caused because greedy party bosses in the Ukraine itself insisted on selling as much grain as possible to Europe, for cash.

    You're not a historian of Russia anymore than I am, Donald. I'm just passing along interesting and thought-provoking information which I received in conversations here: information coming from detailed examination of vital statistics over decades, region by region, not obtained by clicking a few google searches.
    For me the lesson is that communism was a real, effective response  to a horrible human problem.
    Why don't we have that kind of communism outside of Russia (and China)? Because nobody finds their lives so miserable that they would give up their freedom on the gamble it might improve their existence.


    Oh me oh my (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 12:53:43 PM EST
    People were healthier, and living longer
    under the Soviets.

    Of course you mean the ones that didn't starve or were executed.


    ...the famines in the Ukraine in the 1930's where not caused by orders emanating from Moscow. They were caused because greedy party bosses in the Ukraine...

    Hmmm, I wonder who appointed the bosses?

    As to communism being effective at improving the "lives" of its subjects....That is the same argument I have heard racists use in defense of slavery.


    Actually, I have a master's in history. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 02:11:17 PM EST
    I may not have specialized in Russian history per se, but I'm most certainly not ignorant about it. And while this may induce a heart attack in Jim, I have to agree with his response to you.

    The fact of the matter is that even though the birth rate in the Soviet Union was above average, its population was materially and substantively reduced between 1918 and 1945. Those numbers likely didn't regain a level roughly comparable to that which existed in pre-First World War Imperial Russia until about 1950-51.

    So, I really don't see how you can say with a straight face that people were longer lived in the Stalin-era Soviet Union than in Czarist Russia, or that "communism was a real, effective response to a horrible human problem," when you're clearly excluding the tens of millions of Soviet citizens who died from state-induced violence and other non-natural causes during the aforementioned period. How can you NOT hold the communist regime responsible for the horrific state of affairs in the USSR during that time?

    I mean, that's not unlike assessing the present state of public health in the African American community, while simultaneously and pointedly ignoring the fact that gun violence is the leading cause of death for African American males between the ages of 15 and 30, greater than the next eight causes combined. You can't just blow something like that off, without then offering a skewed overall picture of that community.

    When violence and other non-natural means are the leading causes of death in a society, those causes can't help but have an adverse impact upon not only that society's overall state of health, but also the collective quality of life of its citizenry.



    Tamir Rice's family to get 6 million (none / 0) (#4)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 10:47:14 AM EST
    "there is no admission of wrongdoing, and all plaintiffs will execute full releases against the City of Cleveland and all individual defendants."

    I'd love to know the thought process in settlements like this one.  Did The City of Cleveland think a civil jury plus the cost of a defense would be much worse than 6 million?  How did they come up with that figure?  Did it have to do what happened after Rice was shot.... lack of CPR, how the police interacted with the Rice family?

    I think they got $6 million (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 11:17:37 AM EST
    because two of their city's officers murdered a 12 year old boy.

    If the two officers (none / 0) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 12:59:25 PM EST
    murdered the boy they would be standing trial for a homicide.

    Anyway, I hear what you're saying, Chuck0, but, McBain was asking (I guess) how they determined the amount?

    They probably arrived at the figure the way most settlements are determined, through negotiation. They start with the many, somewhat similar, cases to come up with a base number (a precedent.) Then, they play the age-old game of poker (or, chicken) trying to get the best price for their side. Its not an exact science, and, there isn't a precise formula. Each side is taking a risk regarding the amount agreed to, and, the figure is often far lower, or higher, than that which a jury would have awarded.


    It clearly wasn't murder (none / 0) (#21)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 07:28:52 PM EST
    but there may have been enough mistakes by all involved to get some kind of significant jury award.  I'm curious if the 6 million had anything to do with the threat of protests/riots if it went to trial.  

    It's likely based on (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 07:53:51 PM EST
    A combination of things -Tamir's future earnings over a lifetime, loss of live and companionship, potential punitive danagrs, etc.

    My guess us, a jury would have awarded a WHOLE lot more.


    Just my opinion, of course, but (none / 0) (#41)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 04:21:02 PM EST
    No, I doubt very much that a perceived, "threat of protests/riots if it went to trial, was a consideration.

    that's harsh (none / 0) (#25)
    by linea on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 07:58:44 PM EST
    i checked.  seems this has already been reviewed by a grand jury.  an article on NPR states, "A grand jury has declined to bring criminal charges against two Cleveland police officers involved in the fatal shooting of 12-year old Tamir Rice."

    cuyahoga county prosecutor timothy mcginty stated, "Simply put, given this perfect storm of human error, mistakes and miscommunications by all involved that day, the evidence did not indicate criminal conduct by police."

    the police responded to a report of a male pointing a handgun a people.  according to the wiki article on tamir rice, "The officers reported that upon their arrival, Rice reached towards a gun in his waistband."  also, i feel it's rather significant that this male is 5'7" and 195 pounds. i'm 5'5" and 130 pounds (should be 120) so this guy dwarfs me and i'm most certainly an adult.

    i just can't believe everybody else is wrong and you know better than the sheriffs department investigators, the citizens on the grand jury who reviewed this case, and the county prosecutor.


    It's an emotional thing for many people (none / 0) (#27)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 09:15:12 PM EST
    For some it has to do with perceived racism, for others it's about perceived police brutality. Once emotion gets involved, facts and common sense go out the window.

    I would have liked to have seen a trial. It would have been interesting to hear the testimony of the officers and credible expert witnesses on both sides.


    I'm sorry , if you are a rather small (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:29:41 AM EST
    police officer (5'5", 130) and you consider it a significant factor in your decision to use lethal force that the person is larger than you - which most men are....maybe time to reconsider your career choice.

    I see now you were referring to your own height (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 06:35:39 AM EST
    and not that of the police officer. Still, I hope that his creative size was not a prime factor in his threat assessment.

    *relative, not creative (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 06:36:18 AM EST
    maybe I better just go back to bed and call it a day

    lol (none / 0) (#50)
    by linea on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:55:23 PM EST
    {{. }}

    Likely a combination of all that. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 02:19:19 PM EST
    Cleveland officials determined that the city would've gotten its clocks cleaned had the lawsuit proceeded to trial. While the officers won't be tried for murder, it's highly probable that the city would have been held culpable by a civil jury for their officers' negligence and reckless disregard in having unnecessarily caused Tamir Rice's death.

    Further, I'm not sure whether the city's settlement covers those two officers personally. If it doesn't, then the city has officially hung them out to dry legally, and they will likely be compelled to settle with the Rice family as well.



    Tom Brady (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 02:07:06 PM EST
    Suspension re-instated.  

    There are way too many NYers on the supreme court.

    Or, more likely (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 02:21:38 PM EST
    The district court made a serious error.

    I mean, the fact that the argument put forth by Brady and the NFLPA is that the Commissioner doesn't have the right to punish players, even though the players and the union signed a contract agreeing that the Commissioner has exactly that right, was always a ludicrous argument, IMO. I can't believe the district judge actually bought it in the first place...

    And of course, the destruction of a 6 week old cell phone because "he wanted a new one", was the lamest excuse in the history of lame excuses.


    was referring to (none / 0) (#16)
    by CST on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 02:32:38 PM EST
    the potential future appeal.

    Also joking.  I pretty much agree with your first paragraph.  

    IMO, considering all of his personal emails got leaked to the press, he had plenty of other reasons to want to destroy that phone as well.


    my understanding is... (none / 0) (#26)
    by linea on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 08:11:01 PM EST
    re: even though the players and the union signed a contract agreeing that the Commissioner has exactly that right

    that doesnt necesariy mean anything.  there are plenty of instances where contracts and agreements are not enforcible or legally binding even though signed by both parties.


    Your position would be taken (none / 0) (#42)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 04:53:51 PM EST
    more seriously if you didn't start with ridiculous falsehoods:
    "I mean, the fact that the argument put forth by Brady and the NFLPA is that the Commissioner doesn't have the right to punish players,....."

    Most people, with even average intelligence, understand that a Commissioner's, "right to punish players," (as stipulated in the Union Contract) carries with it an implied limitation of those "rights." For instance, did Commissioner Goodell have the "right" to order Tom Brady's execution?

    You know, jbindc, I'd love to respond to more of your comments if many/most of them weren't riddled with similar ju-jitsu type misuse of the language. You're a smart lady, jbindc, you don't need to treat others here like they're not.


    It will never reach the Supreme Court (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 02:17:30 PM EST
    (I don't think)

    Agreed (none / 0) (#12)
    by CST on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 02:21:11 PM EST
    Just poking fun.

    I hope the MA senators grill Merrick Garland on the issue :)


    And Johnny Manziel has been .... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 07:22:34 PM EST
    ... indicted by a Dallas, TX grand jury for misdemeanor assault with bodily injury, stemming from a violent physical altercation with a now-former girlfriend.

    New DNA technology frees man wrongfully (none / 0) (#22)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 07:36:04 PM EST
    convicted of rape.
    The case marks the first exoneration using a new DNA analysis program called TrueAllele, according to an Innocence Project news release. The process can provide reanalysis of old DNA results to pinpoint which people contributed to DNA mixtures.

    Darryl Pinkins had served nearly 25 years for a crime he didn't commit.

    What's also infuriating is (none / 0) (#45)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:23:06 PM EST
    how difficult many States make it to overturn wrongfully convicted defendants.

    I have to admit I'm somewhat addicted to stories & shows featuring crimes/police/trials/forensics, etc. The downright hostile, adversarial roadblocks many States place in the path of those inmates who, post-conviction, discover new, exculpatory evidence, is simply a travesty. The police/prosecutor from the original trial act like its a personal affront to seek a reversal, even when new, crucial & irrefutable evidence is discovered.


    i agree!! (none / 0) (#51)
    by linea on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:06:47 PM EST
    as i understand it, appeals are only for errors in the process.

    i maybe remember it wrong but i thought Scalia made a statement to the effect of, "Factual innocence is not a legitimate reason to reverse a guilty verdict properly reached." or something like that.

    but all you lawyers can correct me {smile}.


    Not just how difficult but how slow (none / 0) (#52)
    by McBain on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:22:25 PM EST
    The police/prosecutor from the original trial act like its a personal affront to seek a reversal, even when new, crucial & irrefutable evidence is discovered.

    Human nature is to hate to admit you were wrong.  I bet many prosecutors feel the wrongfully convicted were probably guilty of something else.  Kind of like how people feel about O.J.  His sentence for theft was BS but most people are just fine with it because they believe he murdered two people.

    I would guess (none / 0) (#55)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 05:57:14 AM EST
    That as prosecutors, representing the state, having convictions overturned weakens every conviction they have ever recorded.
    On general principle, rightly or wrongly, I would guess they defend every conviction they have.

    Just call me a naive dreamer, but, (none / 0) (#56)
    by NYShooter on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 06:53:18 AM EST
    I don't believe that prosecutors and defense attorneys have the same goals, but simply, for different constituents. In other words, they are not just, "two sides of the same coin."

    While I believe a defense attorney has only one obligation, to win the case for his/her client (by showing that the prosecution failed to prove its case,) the same is not true for a prosecutor. A prosecutor's goal, as stated in many prosecutor's guide books, should be, "attempting to administer justice." Obviously, it should NOT be to "win a conviction at all costs."

    If judges and other governing bodies really enforced these principals vigorously, maybe we'd truly have a "criminal justice system" people would be proud of, and, have respect for. And (I believe statistics bare this out) the more people have respect for the system, the more criminal activity goes down.


    Grapefruit and softball sized hail (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:27:53 AM EST

    That's what's predicted for the center of the country.  Don't remember ever hearing grapefruit sized hail predicted.  Hope I am never unlucky enough to see it except on video.

    It's centered west of here we are on the trailing edge not expected to see the worst until after midnight.  And hopefully it will be winding down by then.  But I expect anything approaching grapefruit sized hail will wake me up.  Metal roof.

    Duck and cover.

    I really worry about dangerous weather this spring.  Such a weird year.  Most of the spring flowers here never happened because they had been so confused by the many false springs we had all winter.   It's no longer weather as usual.

    Gees, stay under cover! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 12:28:01 PM EST
    But take pictures..I want to see (pictures of) grapefruit sized hail.

    Grapefruit (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:57:45 AM EST
    sized hail sounds outright scary. I know the damage golf ball sized can do.

    Hard to believe (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:14:15 AM EST
    but that's what they are saying

    And not just this guy.


    I hope it misses you, Howdy. (none / 0) (#35)
    by caseyOR on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:49:34 AM EST
    And I feel for the people it does hit. As of this morning's news that front will pass south of my part of central Illinois. Thank gawd.

    The weather is too weird. An insanely warm winter. Not a single snow day for the school kids. Did not get even 10 inches of snow cumulative all winter. Yesterday the temp hit 85. In April.

    We are due for some fierce thunderstorms over the next couple of days. Hopefully, no tornadoes.


    I actually flew into PDX when there had been a (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:12:15 PM EST
    tornado in the close proximity of the airport. I think that was in the 90 - 91 time frame.

    Very weird.


    Ive seen one tornado (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:16:26 PM EST
    I was 2.  My father threw me in a ditch and layed on top of me.

    THATS weird.


    Actually (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:32:55 PM EST
    I was in another but I did not see it.  I was in a theater.  There was a crash the power went off and we came out to see the front windows smashed in and chucks of glass sticking in the back wall.

    Amazingly no one in the teacher was injured.


    No one (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:40:24 PM EST
    in the teacher was injured. LOL. Auto correct I know.

    Actually, Howdy (none / 0) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:50:44 PM EST
    there was no tornado.

    Your dad just didn't want to get dirty.



    Did you know my father? (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 06:10:25 PM EST
    You did didn't you?

    Sorry about the ditch incident, Cap'n (none / 0) (#53)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 10:44:28 PM EST
    ... now get your butt out into that storm and don't come back until you've got video of those mini-alien-beachball sized hailstones that you can post on Youtube.

    I marvel when I think of the weather (none / 0) (#36)
    by sallywally on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:56:23 AM EST
    When I was young -- balanced perfectly, the same each year, the lovely seasons, especially spring (smelling the lilacs walking to school).

    That is, I was walking to school, not the lilacs.

    It seems almost miraculous, how the weather worked!

    And no one would've believed we would someday say, "Remember when there were polar bears/lions/tigers?" We're almost there.


    Some predictors say (none / 0) (#37)
    by fishcamp on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 11:44:38 AM EST
    this year there will be 16 named hurricanes in the Atlantic, with five biggies.  Just received a new air filter for my new, never used, 10 year old generator.  The original had melted.  The police and fire depts. come around with ice, water, and MRE's that are good for a couple of days.  They're not like the old WWll MRE's that that you see the troops eating in old war movies.  These come with six or more pressed out slots with little packages of space age food.  They even have little packages of chili that heats when you bend the package.  The left over plastic is very trashy and should be changed.  The fishcamp will be ready if anyone wants to come down and ride one out.

    Any sign of Bogie, Bacall, (none / 0) (#54)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 10:45:49 PM EST
    or Lionel Barrymore?

    So (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 11:39:38 AM EST
    This is interesting, limited though it may be

    This study found race matters in police shootings, but the results may surprise you

    The conventional thinking about police-involved shootings, and some scientific research, has been that black suspects are more likely to be shot than white suspects because of an implicit racial bias among police officers. But now a new study has found exactly the opposite: even with white officers who do have racial biases, officers are three times less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white suspects.

    The results come from a laboratory project at Washington State University using highly realistic police simulators, in which actors in various scenarios approach and respond to officers on large, high-definition video screens in an attempt to recreate critical situations on the street. The officers are equipped with real guns, modified to fire infrared beams rather than bullets, and the scenarios can branch into conflict or cooperation, depending on the officers' words and actions.

    It's the third time researchers at Washington State -- Lois James, Stephen M. James and Bryan J. Vila -- have set up simulations to monitor the differing reactions of police when confronted by white or black suspects. And all three times, they found that officers took significantly more time to fire their weapons if the subject was black, according to their latest report, "The Reverse Racism Effect," to be published in the journal Criminology & Public Policy.