Tuesday Open Thread

I'm running around for work and not online today, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Senate Passes Tax Bill | Donald Trump's Slurred Speech >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 03:05:51 PM EST
    I'm sure you will first in line to buy a copy of "Sexual Harassment: The Bright Side"

    More like (2.00 / 1) (#10)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 03:57:31 PM EST
    "How I slept my way to an A list career in Hollywood"

    As long as it was an honest account, I'd read it. Rarely do we get to hear honest discussions of the economics of sex.  


    Why don't you do what I did? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 04:48:52 PM EST
    Write your own book.

    Tracee Ellis Ross explains it all to us. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 06:00:12 AM EST
    Guest hosting tonight for Jimmy Kimmel while he's on leave to attend to his infant son's recently recurring health complications, the star of the hit ABC-TV sitcom "Black-ish" noted that:

    "Over the past few months, countless brave women have come forward to share their experiences, and while I'm not totally surprised by these stories, it seems like quite a few men are. Treating another human with respect isn't complicated, but it seems a bit confusing for a lot of men out there. So, I wrote a book. It's kind of like a children's book -- for men -- that's going to make this really simple, and just bring it back to the basics."

    Behold, "The Handsy Man." Ms. Ellis Ross is really funny, but still hammers the point home nonetheless:

    "You may not compliment my butt.
    You may not call me 'ho' or 'slut.'
    And even if you're stoned or drunk,
    Do not expose me to your junk.

    "And if I am your employee,
    Don't rest your hand upon my knee.
    No, I won't sit on your lap.
    I shouldn't have to say this crap!"

    Worth a watch.


    Has there been an assertion that there (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 05:00:40 PM EST
    aren't people - women and men - who have willingly and proactively used sex to get ahead in the world?

    Because I don't think anyone's saying people haven't done that - willingly.

    But should someone seeking a job, in any industry, have to expect that their willingness to make sex part of the interview process should be determinative of getting or not getting that job?

    I've known women who wouldn't be troubled or offended or insulted by being propositioned in this way, but does the fact that some women are okay with it mean that all women should just deal with the reality of "boys being boys?"

    See, what seems to come through in your comments is that you'd like it to be okay, that you'd like to assert that this is just part of a man's nature and rather than fight it or try to make it unacceptable, it is women who should just get with the program.

    Because, Make America Great Again, right?  These women, if they want to work in a man's world, they really should know their place...it's almost like, "behind every successful woman...is a man with his pants around his ankles."


    I don't think McBain is saying that (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 08:18:34 PM EST
    And many people have lost their jobs, careers and reputation in the past two months of this, several of whom have not denied contact but denied it happened as the alleged victim claimed.

    There are plenty of false accusers in sexual assault cases. It's one of the reasons I have argued here since Kobe Bryant that accusers should be called that -- instead of victims -- until it's been established in court that a crime took place and there is in fact a victim. And the policy of shielding accusers' names while publishing the name of the defendant of person accused is grossly unfair. Either keep both names secret or publish both.

    I also don't like the "#me too" stuff -- there are  unstable people who will use it to feel like they are part of a group, for economic opportunity, for publicity and the like.

    Your comment about the partner who moved closer to propositioning you was very moving and I think enlightening for others. This comment about McBain not so much.

    No one here is disrespecting women as a group by wondering whether everyone coming forward is telling the truth.

    Also all this attention on celebrities losing their jobs over accusations is being loved by Trump: it deflects people from concentrating on his misdeeds, Russia, immigration, etc.

    Harvey Weinstein abused would be celebrities and has left the scene -- the point has been made, men can't treat women like that any more without severe consequences. The fall of the others after Weinstein has cemented that in everyone's head. It's time to retake the agenda back and focus on matters that affect us all as Americans.


    What I took McBain to be saying - (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 09:30:00 PM EST
    because he's said it in two comments here, and has said it in other threads - is that he's not as interested in the instances of women being taken advantage of by Weinstein, as he is in the women who benefited from their interactions with him.

    Which is why I asked whether anyone had been suggesting that there weren't truly consensual interactions, with women who were willing to trade sexual interaction for career advancement.

    McBain seems to be the only one who is interested in that aspect of all of this, and I still don't know why that's important to him, because the fact that some people are willing to do pretty much anything to get ahead doesn't negate or minimize or delegitimize those instances where people are subjected to sexual assault/abuse without their consent, or intimidated into submitting to the abuse out of various fears for safety/career, etc.

    I think what the larger world is coming to understand is what so many women have known since time immemorial: that men in power will harass and assault and intimidate women because of that power.  

    Which is not to say, as you point out, that women can't turn the tables and falsely accuse men of acts for their own reasons: revenge, spite, leverage.  

    I'm not so sure, though, that the consequences suffered in the last couple months have convinced everyone that men can't treat women like that - Roy Moore and Donald Trump are about as unrepentant as it is possible to be - and there are plenty of men who don't find their behavior to disqualify them from holding public office.

    If Moore wins next week, the message won't be that it's wrong to do what I think we can reasonably believe he did, it will be that you can do it and be rewarded for it.  Donald Trump was, right?

    And the larger message of a Roy Moore win is the validation of the racist, misogynistic, xenophobic views he's not shy about expressing.  Roy Moore wants that kind of America, and it both saddens and frightens me that millions of other people do, too.


    I beg to differ, Jeralyn. (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by vml68 on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 09:40:32 PM EST
    As Anne said, no one here is disputing that some women have made false allegations (I know of two instances in my personal circle) or that some women have used their bodies to move up the ladder.

    No one here is disrespecting women as a group by wondering whether everyone coming forward is telling the truth.

    In McBain's case, anytime sexual harassment/molestation/rape comes up, he always deflects to cases where women have lied or in this case have used sex to get ahead. The constant downplaying (or I should say ignoring) of sexual harassment is disrespectful.


    I've written here about 'The Massie Affair.' (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 07:26:17 AM EST
    That dark and sordid story, which took place in Honolulu back in 1931-32 when Hawaii was a U.S. Territory, stands as arguably the most egregious example of a false rape accusation in the history of modern American jurisprudence.

    In the case of Thalia Massie, the pampered 20-year-old daughter of the heiress to the Bell Telephone Co. fortune and the dissatisfied wife of a young U.S. Navy lieutenant, she first offered that accusation to her husband late one evening on the spur of the moment, likely to cover up an extra-marital affair gone terribly awry, one in which she had been rather badly beat up by an annoyed lover, who may well have been a fellow officer and colleague of her husband's.

    Rather than admit to her philandering, Thalia instead quickly concocted a tale of being kidnapped, gang-raped and beaten by five Hawaiian boys earlier that evening. Horrified, Lt. Thomas Massie quickly called Honolulu police over his wife's vociferous objections to report the assault.

    Thus compromised by her own phony story, Thalia then felt compelled to recount it to the police officers responding to her husband's call. Her lie quickly set in motion a spectacular cascade of events over the course of several months which ultimately resulted in the tragic lynching of one of the falsely accused young men, and the subsequent murder trial of both her husband and her mother for his senseless death.

    The point here, though, is that while such instances of false rape accusations are often dramatic and widely publicized, as was the Massie Affair due in large part to the high profile and celebrity of Thalia's socialite mother Grace Bell Fortescue, they are also quite rare given the overall numbers of actual assaults, and are clearly the exception and not the general rule.

    Someone here please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that less than 40% of sexual assaults ever get reported to the authorities, and very few official complaints ever result in a conviction. In the majority of instances, the victim of sexual assault or abuse knows her (or his) assailant personally as either a family member, friend, boss or acquaintance.

    Contrary to what some would have us believe, not every rape accusation is a potential Massie Affair or Duke Lacrosse case waiting to happen. And from my perspective, treating these accusations as such does a huge disservice to very real victims, by contributing mightily to a false public stigma about sexual assault in which women are somehow "asking for it" and invariably deemed responsible for their own misfortune. Not surprisingly, this serves only to discourage those victims from ever coming forward in the first place.



    Get over it (2.00 / 2) (#62)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 10:04:40 AM EST
    I'm going to talk about the cases I find interesting, specifically the aspects of those cases that aren't being addressed in the media.

    There's a big picture to the Hollywood related accusations that's mostly being ignored. I don't know who's telling the truth. Neither do you.  It's a crazy time in La La Land.

    Here's a bizarre encounter between John Oliver and Dusting Hoffman during panel discussion of the
    20 year old film, Wag The Dog...

    On Monday, Hoffman duked it out with Oliver on the stage, where the actor was joined by his fellow "Wag the Dog" co-star Robert De Niro, producer Jane Rosenthal and director Barry Levinson.
    According to the Post, Hoffman said during the panel discussion that he has "never met" Graham.
    "I still don't know who this woman is," Hoffman said. "I never met her; if I met her it was in concert with other people."
    In the video, Oliver called out Hoffman's apology, saying he was angered by the actor's word choice.
    "'It's 'not reflective of who I am.' It's that kind of response to this stuff that pisses me off," Oliver said. "It is reflective of who you were.

    Oliver acts as if he was present during the actual encounter and doesn't come across well at all.


    And if you (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 10:13:14 AM EST
    can say get over it, I can say yoy like a stereotypical conservative railing against Hollywood while apparently ignoring the fact that Alabama may elect someone accused of child molestation.  Why is that?

    Anne makes sense here.


    distortion (none / 0) (#78)
    by thomas rogan on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 12:39:01 PM EST
    Pedophiles are interested in children before puberty.
    And until June 2017 the legal age of marriage in New York was 14

    You were so quick (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 01:03:11 PM EST
    to deliver the pro-Roy Moore talking points, you forgot to read my comment.

    It may be that for a lot of conservatives (none / 0) (#164)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 08, 2017 at 01:11:18 PM EST
    the next best thing to a "help meet" who knows her place in the divine pecking order, is a dependent, easily-controlled fourteen-year-old.

    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 02:04:01 PM EST
    Using sex slavery to defend pedophilia? Why am I not suprised.

    NY's age of consent has long been 18 but however there was a loophole for girls 14 ti 17 to marry with parental consent. Lots of states have these loopholes but they have been used by sex slavers. So now the states are getting rid of the loopholes.


    Defending Roy Moore, eh? (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    Did I say pedophil*a?

    If you re-read my comment, you will see that I wrote child molestation.  

    Are you really okay with 30 year old men molesting 14 year old girls?  Those are your values?  


    He didn't say "pedophile" (none / 0) (#121)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 05:46:36 PM EST
    But you keep going back to the difference between the clinical definition of pedophile versus a hebephile as if that makes a difference.

    A perv is a perv, no matter how much you try to justify it.


    Yeah, I didn't use (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 06:03:11 PM EST
    the word "pedophile" on purpose to avoid this gimmicky argument.

    Overall, a perv is a perv.....that about covers it...


    First, you have to WANT help... (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 11:43:12 AM EST
    There's a big picture to the Hollywood related accusations that's mostly being ignored. I don't know who's telling the truth.

    We keep trying to help you, but you seem resistant to truth.

    Truth #1: some people will do anything to advance their careers, including having sex with people they don't particularly care for. Predators exploit this truth to justify their unwanted assaults, "She WANTED it!"

    Misogynistic people and sexual predators use this truth, but in an evil way, to suggest that women often lie after the fact about whether the encounter was consensual.

    Truth #2: There are men who prey on women. I have first-hand experience with one. I had a business partner who was a sexual predator. I had to unload him before I got a subpoena and legal exposure for failing to oppose his behavior.

    I had descriptions of his predatory actions from every woman I was associated with at the time.  When he put his hands on my girlfriend's chest without permission, she punched him as hard as she could.  Unfortunately, he was a lot bigger and it didn't do much damage.

    I have no reason to believe that multiple women describing the same actions on the part of the same person were liars. When a number of people tell the same story without collaborating on it, it is undoubtedly true.

    Interesting that this sexual predator didn't particularly care whether the victim was male or female.  It was about power.

    The people described in Truth #1 are within their rights, but they are not the subject we are discussing. The second category is what we are talking about, and which you use everything in your limited vocabulary to avoid.


    You are my superstar today (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 03:03:13 PM EST
    "Get over it"? (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 01:45:38 PM EST
    McBain: "Get over it. I'm going to talk about the cases I find interesting, specifically the aspects of those cases that aren't being addressed in the media. There's a big picture to the Hollywood related accusations that's mostly being ignored. I don't know who's telling the truth. Neither do you.  It's a crazy time in La La Land."

    You likely need to get over yourself first. You are, of course, free to comment on whomever and whatever in Hollywood you like. But you are most certainly NOT the final arbiter around here of right and wrong, particularly when your posts appear to be gratuitously redundant and do little more than parrot recent Fox News segments on the same subjects.

    Sexual harassment and abuse is a very serious matter, a longstanding nonpartisan problem which infects and afflicts all demographics across the socio-economic and political spectrums and will require a very determined bipartisan effort at mitigation and solution.

    But honestly, we're never going to get there so long as people choose to politically weaponize the issue for nakedly partisan purposes, and then proceed to gleefully bash alleged offenders whom they perceive to be aligned with the opposition, while simultaneously and pointedly ignoring the same on their own side.



    Donald if you disagree with (4.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 03:12:25 PM EST
    McBain then address him on the arguments he makes, do not insult his character. or impute improper motives to him. As a criminal defense lawyer, I find it very troubling that are moving towards into Alice & Wonderland on this issue:

    `Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

    `No, no!' said the Queen. `Sentence first--verdict afterwards.'

    `Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. `The idea of having the sentence first!'

    `Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

    `I won't!' said Alice.

    `Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.  

    Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for sex offenses like sexual assault, sex assault in a position of trust, sex assault of a minor. Groping, grabbing a kiss and using  sexual innuendos with an underling at work are not usually addressed in the criminal justice system. These are the instances of sexual harassment and abuse of power in the work arena that are appropriately discussed on a social level or in civil court.

    Treatment of women in the workplace is a social issue that needs addressing. (It just isn't one of my issues.) But there is a huge difference between lewd behavior or improper contact (like a feel or momentary grope) with an underling who feels powerless to object, and raping someone or assaulting them, particularly a child.

    My concern is that some people will want to jump on the bandwagon to get attention and enhance the details of a long ago lewd encounter never reported so that it fits a serious crime. Careers are at stake here. It should not be presumed that anyone who denies the accusation is lying.

    I have no idea why McBain is interested in the economics of the Hollywood accusations -- my concern is that we not turn into a society where every accusation is assumed to be true. "It is better that 1,000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted" has been a principle of our legal system since at least 1895 and before that, can be found in English, Greek and Roman law and Deuteronomy. (See Coffin v. U.S. Supreme Court, 1895 -- I wrote about it here.)

    Please do not attempt to silence or intimidate any commenter here with ridicule and allegations of improper motives. I want everyone who comments here to know they can express their view without personal attack. You all know how to argue civilly -- I've seen you do it.

    As an aside, why doesn't anyone take Donald Trump to task for saying on David Letterman that he thought Mike Tyson wasn't guilty and what did the girl expect when she showed up at his hotel room and wanted to dance at 1:00 am?

    Here's Woody Allen on the accusations made against him :

    No one wants to discourage abuse victims from speaking out, but one must bear in mind that sometimes there are people who are falsely accused and that is also a terribly destructive thing.  

    it difficult (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 03:45:48 PM EST
    to take Trump to task for any one particular thing because before you can he has done something worse.

    as for accusations, take Franken.  no one likes or admires Franken more than me.  IMO his guilt or innocence is a separate question of his not resigning his seat.  you want Trump, Moore and others taken to task?  everyone does.  trying to do that is made more difficult if we are at the same time trying to shield others from similar accusations.

    i have come to think Franken should resign.  i think he will.  if he does it will be because he doesnt to become a distraction.  which is exactly what i would expect from him.

    this me too stuff may not be your issue, or really mine for that matter, but is IS an issue.  a huge issue that is not going away.  if democrats are going to have any credibility we have to tend to our own back yard.  Franken now has enough credible accusers that he needs to go.  

    as far as innocent until proven guilty its likely little to none of this stuff will ever get that far.


    I don't want Franken to resign until the (none / 0) (#130)
    by vml68 on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 12:04:49 AM EST
    Ethics Investigation he has called for is done and he is found guilty.
    I absolutely do not believe the latest accuser. Her statement made no sense to me.
    At least half of his accusers are anonymous. If he is going to lose his job because of them, they need to make themselves known.

    Jeralyn makes several good points (none / 0) (#108)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 03:53:21 PM EST
    particularly when she talks bout the difference between rape and lewd conduct.  There's huge range of alleged offenses in the news these days.  This is my opinion of how some of them rank...

    1.  Rape/Sexual assault:  Horrible, horrible crime.  

    2.  Real sexual harassment:  Not sure if it's a crime but certainty not acceptable in the work place. Violators should be fired. Victims should be compensated.

    3. Groping, unwanted kissing or advances:  This is a gray area for me. If it's done by someone with the knowledge the recipient might not like it but is powerless to do anything, it's basically sexual harassment.  But if it's a misunderstanding between people who are more or less equal in standing in their situation, I don't think it's a big deal. My fear is careers and lives will be ruined because of honest misunderstandings.  

    As for what Jeralyn said about "It is better that 1,000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted"...
    I really hope people in here think about that for a bit.  Let's not convict someone, even if it's just the court of public opinion, without strong supporting facts.  When there's doubt, error on the side of not guilty.

    So guys get (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 04:16:43 PM EST
    one free grope? Only if she objects is second grope inappropriate?

    i dont think (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 04:27:53 PM EST
    thats what it says.

    honestly i expected it to be a crime.  its just so easy to NOt say "i dont know if..."  this or that.

    google is or friend.  some more than others.


    No criminal charges are pending (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 04:53:41 PM EST
    against any of the alleged perpetrators.  Well, maybe Weinstein?

    But not against Trump, Moore, Franken, or anyone else that I know of.

    I do not think it necessary or appropriate to import the complete panoply of a criminal defendants' constitutional rights--where there is no criminal charge-into a situation that requires a public judgment of sorts.  In a civil context, the burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence," or "more likely than not," as is found in the newer pattern instructions.  51% sure.   A 9-3 vote will be enough in a civil case to reach a verdict.

    And what we have now is really a public shaming.  Not a civil case (with a couple of exceptions), and certainly not a criminal case.

    As a society we can make valid judgments about people and conduct without the need for a jury verdict in a criminal trial.


    But the photo in the Franken case... (4.00 / 1) (#132)
    by unitron on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 01:37:28 AM EST
    ...is evidence which is questionable, and everybody seems to be ducking those questions.

    No one will say who the photographer was.

    No one has offered an explanation of why the EXIF data says it was taken 3 days earlier than Tweeden says it was.

    There's also the curious coincidence of the photo file being opened a few years later in Photoshop right after Franken was declared the victor over Coleman in that Senate race.

    I've yet to hear anyone explain the reversed flag patches on the flak jackets.


    there was (none / 0) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 05:14:09 PM EST
    "verdicts" of a sort against both Conyers and Farenthold.  they settled.  with tax payer money.
    i think this secret fund is going to be a bombshell when its opened up.  and it WILL be opened up.  i would bet there are a lot more surprises when we find out ALL the congressmen who have bought off accusers with our money.

    that could even be why dem leadership is taking such a hard line.  they know whats in that box.


    What is "real" sexual harassment? (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 05:02:57 PM EST
    Also, unwanted groping/kissing/touching is not usually a gray area for the person who is being groped/kissed/touched on a non-consensual basis.

    Oh, and if a groper is ever asked, "what gave you the idea that I would be okay with your grabbing my crotch/sticking your tongue down my throat/honking my breasts/putting your hand down my pants? you can be pretty sure that if "oh, I misunderstood, I thought your laughing at my jokes meant you were into it" is the response, that's not an "honest" misunderstanding, it's a dishonest one that the groper/toucher thinks will get him off the hook.

    Honestly, is testosterone some kind of intelligence-blocker?  Because it's hard to believe men can really be this stupid, or believe women are that stupid that just telling them "my bad - but we're good, right?" would work.


    Emotional thinking is the intelligence blocker (none / 0) (#146)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 10:12:36 AM EST
    Testosterone (natural, not hormone therapy) is the fountain of youth for both men and women.  As for your main point...
    Also, unwanted groping/kissing/touching is not usually a gray area for the person who is being groped/kissed/touched on a non-consensual basis.

    But if it was a misunderstanding I don't believe it's anywhere near as bad as if it was done with the knowledge it wasn't going to be consensual.

    you can be pretty sure that if "oh, I misunderstood, I thought your laughing at my jokes meant you were into it" is the response, that's not an "honest" misunderstanding, it's a dishonest one that the groper/toucher thinks will get him off the hook.

    I don't agree that's always the case. Sometimes it is an honest mistake.

    I have really tried (none / 0) (#149)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 10:42:12 AM EST
    to see your point here.  But it make no sense to me.

    You are talking about groping someone by mistake....There are 300 million plus people in this country, so I assume anything, and even what you describe, can happen.  But how often, how prevalent?

    The far greater concern is the apparent rash of groping of people in a non relationship context.

    I am trying to imagine how you could just accidentally grope someone.   Especially at work, or someone you just met--which are the scenarios being described of late.  How is that a misunderstanding?

    Heh, she gave me the eye at work, so I groped her in the break room???  Who knew that she would object?  I mean, come one.

    When I was an awkward teenager, (the teenager part was cured with time, the other part maybe not so much), I had a couple of misunderstandings by trying to kiss a girl only to have her pull away. I was embarrassed, it was the most awful thing in the universe that could have happened to me, or so I thought.  But I did not respond by shoving my hand somewhere else. Just beat a hasty retreat.  I was 16 and she was 15, and I heard from her friends she did not mean to reject me, she was just surprised (heh, what kind of timing is a 16 year old supposed to have?), and she was going to write me a letter.  Oh my, all that drama, and I did not even grope her.  

    Good lord, I don't think this is all that hard.

    What kind of accidental groping are you talking about?  Especially if you are at work....



    You keep missing the point, and don't (none / 0) (#155)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 11:28:23 AM EST
    seem to be able to answer the question: for whom is it not as bad if it was "just" a misunderstanding?

    See, I'm not sure you get that, once groped, violently "kissed," had a hand shoved down her pants, or been pinned under someone considerably stronger/bigger, that doesn't just go away for the person who was the subject of the action just because the person who did it claims to have misread or misunderstood something.

    If someone doesn't want that kind of attention, there's a feeling of being violated that doesn't go away.  You can't say, "oh, sorry - your mouth was open and I thought you wanted me to stick my tongue in it" and expect it to be as if it never happened.  

    What's done is done - you only seem to want to discuss the gradations of terrible with respect to the perpetrator, not the victim.  It is just as bad for the victim - there's no thought of, well, if this is just a misunderstanding, I guess it isn't so terrible - because all the victim knows while it is happening is that it is happening, and she doesn't want it to be happening.

    This really shouldn't be as hard to understand as you seem to keep making it, which tells me you don't want to understand it.  


    find law (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 04:00:16 PM EST
    When an individual is sexually harassed in the workplace, often victims are left feeling violated as if they were victims of a crime. Although an individual can sue after being sexually harassed, sexual harassment is not a crime. But, if it involves unwanted touching, physical intimidation, or even some extreme forms of coercion, it can quickly turn into sexual assault, which is a serious crime.

    Because Trump's comments about Tyson ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 12:22:25 AM EST
    Jeralyn: "As an aside, why doesn't anyone take Donald Trump to task for saying on David Letterman that he thought Mike Tyson wasn't guilty and what did the girl expect when she showed up at his hotel room and wanted to dance at 1:00 am?"

    ... were from 25+ years ago, and many of us are really trying to grapple with the harsh realities of the present. He reiterated the same noxious opinion on Howard Stern's show back then, too. I mean, what more do you want us to say about the naked sexism exhibited by this malevolent blow-dried Schmuck from Hell, that hasn't already been said both here and elsewhere ad nauseum?

    Regarding your fear and concern about our society becoming one in which every rape allegation and abuse accusation is presumed to be true, I'd offer that it's really a red herring of an argument at this point, since you know as well as I do that we're not even close to being there. Were it otherwise, Doug Jones would likely be running away with the U.S. Senate race in Alabama right now, rather than engaged in a political dogfight with a dogmatic ephebophile.

    Further, unless the #MeToo movement starts to soon pivot away from its accusatory phase to instead put real pressure on (still mostly male) congressional and state lawmakers to concretely address the issue of sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace and elsewhere, the odds are better than even that in a few short months the general public will likely grow bored with the self-righteous repetitiveness of it all, and we will then move on to the next outrage du jour.

    Besides, if we were actually at the point where allegations of this nature were simply accepted as fact, and given both the Access Hollywood tape and the dozen or so women who've gone on record to level sex abuse charges against Trump (including his first wife in a deposition under oath), the TV talking heads would likely be chattering right now about President Hillary Clinton's latest initiative to bring peace into the Middle East. Instead, we're watching with growing alarm both Trump's Russian connections and his deliberate attempts to provoke a general war in the region.

    So, I hereby promise to take your fear and concern about false sex abuse allegations much more seriously, at such time when I actually see some significant evidence of it becoming the true norm rather than the occasional exception that it really is. As I noted above, unless the #MeToo movement can prove itself to be more than an angry Hallelujah chorus of rote accusation, their moment in the sun shall soon pass per Andy Warhol's allotted fifteen minutes of fame, and we'll return in relatively short order to male-dominated business as usual.

    In the meantime, I would respectfully suggest that we actually have far more pressing concerns to currently worry about, other than the distant and remote prospect of men being unfairly buried en masse under an avalanche of allegation, smear and innuendo in our corporate and political spheres. Like it or not, it's still very much a man's world out there, until such time as women come together to assert themselves in numbers sufficient to first seize their rightful place at the table, and then demand real changes accordingly.



    What you don't seem to realize is (none / 0) (#68)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 11:47:39 AM EST
    that in your relentless focus on needing to know the benefits of the casting couch you seem to be deliberately avoiding the obvious elephant in the room: that (1) it's not just about Hollywood, (2) every person - because it's not just women who are taken advantage of -  who comes forward, whether over something that happened last week, or something that happened 40 years ago, is doing so at some personal or professional peril, (3) it really doesn't matter how many people willingly used sex to get ahead, and (4) that this isn't about deciding that what is and isn't acceptable can or should be measured on the basis of some sort of whacky benefit/consequence calculation.

    If it could be determined that, based on some set of criteria, there were more benefits associated with Weinstein imposing himself on women, would we - should we - decide that his actions were acceptable?  Not in my opinion, but your comments appear to suggest that you might.  What else does your insistence on "the big picture" mean?

    You really ought to read Time's fairly long article that accompanies its designation of The Silence Breakers as the 2017 Person of the Year.  As the magazine says:

    The women and men who have broken their silence span all races, all income classes, all occupations and virtually all corners of the globe. They might labor in California fields, or behind the front desk at New York City's regal Plaza Hotel, or in the European Parliament. They're part of a movement that has no formal name. But now they have a voice.

    I guess it's just that you want to talk about something else.


    Rape Shield Laws (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 08:56:47 PM EST
    Susan Estrich was the driving force behind those after she was raped young in her life.

    This was viewed as a big step forward in holding men accountable for rape.

    I understand how a criminal defense attorney would see thing differently.  But rape is a very under prosecuted crime.


    A persuasive argument (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 03:09:34 PM EST
    for all those Trump supporters, no doubt:

    Senator Charles Grassley (R. IA), a member of the Senate Finance Committee that crafted the tax cut bill for the rich and greased the way to take away social security, Medicare and other parts of the safety net for working families, defended the bill's inheritance tax provision,  that either increases the exemption or eliminates it altogether, in an interview with the Des Moines Regiser.

     "I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing." .."As opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether its on booze, or women, or movies."

    No one said there would be math in this comment, but here goes: Take your "average" American who has an annual after-tax take home pay of $100,000, and that entire amount is banked; no hootch, no fast women (or, if Grassley permits, gambling men), and no picture shows.

     And, no food, water or shelter..all to the bank.  After 100 years, that average American will have put away enough so as to just approach the present exemption of $11 million for a married couple.  Some latitude remaining even for the 84-year old Grassley.

    The Republican Party is not only the party of Trump and Roy Moore, but also, the Grassleys--in combination corruption, greed and an ideology that the rich are more productive and deserving; the poor and sick have only themselves to blame, and a helping hand only makes it all worse. This rotten morality fuels the increasing economic inequality.

    If the democrats (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 05:01:17 PM EST
    Can't turn this stuff into a winning season ....

    If I finish that the comment will be deleted.


    Aside from the insult to mathematics... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 08:23:24 PM EST
    it's women, weed, and concert tickets that I squander every disposable darn dime on. Duh!

    Grassley should thank his maker for such opiates of the masses...it's all that keeps pitchforks off his porch.


    Nice (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 04:30:43 PM EST
    gesture Jeff
    Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, who's been adamantly opposed to Republican Alabama Senate hopeful Roy Moore, posted a photo Tuesday of a check with his signature on it that was addressed to Moore's Democratic rival, Doug Jones.

    Flake's Twitter account posted the image of the $100 check along with the caption, "Country over Party."

    but just like your nice speech, it's totally empty until you back it up with your vote, just say no to tRump and his enablers. Talk is cheap, your vote is powerful, you sit on the Judiciary Comittee you can request testimony, you can generally make the lives of tRump and his enablers that much harder.

    You are not a helpless bystander here, country above party, pretty words from a typical Republican coward, brave enough to admit what a disaster the GOP is, but unwilling to make a profound stand against it.

    The Silence Breakers: Time's choice (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 07:14:50 AM EST
    for Person of the Year.

    This reckoning appears to have sprung up overnight. But it has actually been simmering for years, decades, centuries. Women have had it with bosses and co-workers who not only cross boundaries but don't even seem to know that boundaries exist. They've had it with the fear of retaliation, of being blackballed, of being fired from a job they can't afford to lose. They've had it with the code of going along to get along. They've had it with men who use their power to take what they want from women. These silence breakers have started a revolution of refusal, gathering strength by the day, and in the past two months alone, their collective anger has spurred immediate and shocking results: nearly every day, CEOs have been fired, moguls toppled, icons disgraced. In some cases, criminal charges have been brought.

    Guess we'll be hearing any minute now about the "failing" Time Magazine and the illegal voting that threw the title to a bunch of whiny women...

    I was hopeful at first that ... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 11:03:12 AM EST
    ... we could be witnessing a historic sea change in societal attitudes toward the issue of sexual harassment and abuse. But now, I'm really not so sure. In fact, I'm beginning to think that we're perhaps repeating the cycle that occurred 25 years ago in the wake of the then-explosive Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas confrontation on Capitol Hill.

    At that time, there was a lot of justifiable outrage over the way Ms. Hill's testimony had been so blithely dismissed by senators on Capitol Hill. incremental changes were initially gained in 1992 as six women won seats in the Senate to raise their numbers at the time to seven. Two years later, we saw our hopes swamped as the "Year of the Woman" quickly gave way to the right-wing blowback of the 1994 midterm elections.

    Sad to say, but cultural attitudes in society only rarely if ever endure sudden, dramatic and mercurial shifts in opinions and behaviors. That's because by its nature, culture involves ingrained and pervasive social patterns, behaviors and norms. From the sheer number and range of recent revelations, it is readily apparent that male sexual misconduct is not really a cultural anomaly. Rather, it is exactly the sort of behavior that changes very slowly over time -- that is, if it even changes at all.

    Recent surveys indicate that at least half of all women in the United States have been sexually harassed in the workplace. This is an indication that the problem is at once widespread, entrenched and habitual. I therefore believe that it's naïve on our part to either think or assume that the recent cavalcade of male behavioral exposure is going to lead to more change in the immediate short-term. Rather, all these recent examples of deplorable conduct by well-connected, rich and powerful men are evidence of just how pervasive and deep-rooted sexual harassment actually is in our culture.

    Stephen Marche argues that the reason such behavior is common is because it involves "the masculine libido and accompanying forces and pathologies" -- that is, machismo --which underscores so much of our social culture, yet receives so little actual examination. So, before we start talking about "changing the culture," we really ought to first recognize just how impervious and resistant this culture of machismo can be to actual change. The change we seek can be accomplished only if we acknowledge that it's going to be a herculean lift.

    If we can do that, then we can perhaps mitigate the risks of irrational exuberance in the prevailing moment, so as not to delude ourselves regarding the likely difficulty of the task at hand. On that note, I'd offer that recent grandiose proclamations from some quarters of the media and elsewhere that "the Day of the Neanderthal is over" are at best premature. We've only just begun, and we've a long way to go. Right-wing blowback will happen. In fact, it's already begun.



    I am becoming so depressed with the state of this (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 12:02:45 PM EST
    country. It is hard to keep reading this crud day after day. I know all of us wonder, "can it get any worse" and then another day goes by and it does.

    There are not words available in the English language that describe my utter loathing, contempt and disgust for the charlatan that occupies the White House, those work for him and those that support him.

    I envy my sister every day. She bailed on this country over 10 years ago and moved to China. China is now the leading superpower in the world. China is the place to be. They have more influence and respect around the globe than the US will have again for a generation.

    The absolute (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 12:21:27 PM EST
    most amazing thing to me is that Republicans have absolutely no sense of self preservation. I mean it's a no brainer to go against Trump but they simply will not do it.

    china? (none / 0) (#166)
    by linea on Fri Dec 08, 2017 at 08:20:28 PM EST
    really? and a high-5 from CaptHowdy too?

    China is the place to be. They have more influence and respect around the globe...

    this evening PBS Newshour featured a report of a twenty-something woman meeting her birth-mother for the first time. the woman was forced to give up her daughter for international adoption because of china's one-child rule.

    china is a one-party totalitarian state with no independant judiciary and extensive and ongoing human rights violations. that anyone would champion china over the united states is astounding in its lack of sense and judgement.

    my opinion.


    and Chuck and i (3.00 / 2) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 08, 2017 at 09:00:31 PM EST
    I feel I can speak for Chuck in this case, are both very deeply interested in and concerned about

    "your opinion"


    i could have (none / 0) (#168)
    by linea on Fri Dec 08, 2017 at 09:09:03 PM EST
    written that more clearly.
    this is better:
    this evening, PBS Newshour featured a report of a twenty-something American woman meeting her Chinese birth-mother for the first time. the Chinese mother was forced to give up her daughter for international adoption because of China's one-child rule.

    Steve Bannon looks like he should (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by fishcamp on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 01:32:16 PM EST
    be on the TV show Moonshiners.

    No...more like the guy who (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 01:49:44 PM EST
    woke up in a dumpster after a week-long bender.

    He sure has a hard-0n for... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 01:51:52 PM EST
    Mitt Romney...is it because Romney is only an economic charlatan and not the trifecta of economic, political, and moral charlatan like Bannon's tool Trump?

    It's two reasons (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 02:08:01 PM EST
    Romney is pretty much the only high profile republican who has been consistent in his condemnation of Trump.  Plus he has said he will run for the Senate.  He would win but he says he will only run if old fool "Trump is the greatest president ever!" Orrin Hatch does not.

    Trump seems to have possibly convinced the 89 year old to run for another six year term.

    There is now a serious movement to get Romney to run against Hatch if he does run.  He would win easily.  Hatches numbers are in the toilet, Trump is not popular in Utah, and Romney's are through the roof.

    And if Romney won he would, assuming Trump is still in office, instantly become the primary anti Trump republican.

    There is even talk of Romney running against Trump.


    Not really ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Erehwon on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 05:23:15 PM EST
    Romney isn't that clean ... he still interviewed for the Sec of State position before getting dissed!

    first (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 05:32:27 PM EST
    i never said he was clean.  only that Trump and Bannon hate him.

    second, lots of water under the bridge and over the dam since then


    Heros live (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 07:06:40 AM EST
    If this video doesn't make you smile ....

    panicked man saves panicked rabbit from wildfire

    Awwwww (none / 0) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 08:46:14 AM EST
    Faith in men restored

    watching (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 08:54:40 AM EST
    jump up and down im betting hes is gay


    i would have done exactly the same thing.

    also great that he refused to be interviewed by the ABC camera crew who shot that.

    smart boy.


    longmire (netflix) (2.00 / 1) (#37)
    by linea on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 08:55:48 PM EST
    someone here recommend it. i tried watching the first episode yesterday. the writers for this show have Henry Standing Bear (Lou Diamond Phillips) speaking without contractions as a trope to establish his foreignness. i tried watching the rest of the first episode tonight but gave up. it's annoying.

    Filmed in New Mexico (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 11:55:14 AM EST
    not Wyoming.  Not enough entertainment professionals to film there.  New Mexico around Santa Fe has had a lot of films there.....

    I recommended it, and (4.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Towanda on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 10:40:10 PM EST
    that speech pattern is authentically and well-captured by the author of the book and the show's writers, as I hear it in some of my Native American friends.  But I am blessed to be in a state and city where their culture has endured.

    So, I find the speech pattern and excellent acting not only authentic but also as charming on the screen as it is in life here.

    But then, I am not "annoyed" by immigrants who do not understand our norms in this country, either -- as long as they recognize that and don't claim to know what they do not.


    Longmire is excellent. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 07:27:22 AM EST
    I have seen all six seasons.

    Why the "2" here? (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 12:16:25 PM EST
    I suppose if one identifies with people who are "annoyed" by immigrants, then one could take offense....

    But who would want to so identify....or out themselves as anti-immigrant.


    Hmm, reading in context (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 12:18:49 PM EST
    I suppose a defense of linea....Wow that is really reaching...

    I lost interest after a few episodes (2.00 / 1) (#41)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 09:28:15 PM EST
    These days I'm into Broadchurch, Shot in the Dark, and The Sopranos (again).  

    i agree!! (2.00 / 1) (#47)
    by linea on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 09:49:27 PM EST
    Broadchurch is excellent.

    I, too, took (none / 0) (#98)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 02:42:47 PM EST
    up the recommendation of Longmire, but found it to be very good...specific crimes/issues per episode with the over-arching theme.  Of course, as they say, no accounting for taste.  However, I have found, in some cases, that interest builds over time.  

    link (2.00 / 1) (#40)
    by linea on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 09:26:58 PM EST
    transcript of the Supreme Court arguments from Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

    it seems from what i am reading that Justices Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kennedy all appear to be favoring the freedom of religious expression argument over public accomodation laws.

    i believe (2.00 / 1) (#46)
    by linea on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 09:48:30 PM EST
    page 18, line 24 should read: `from the year two'
    not: `from the year to'

    transcript (2.00 / 1) (#52)
    by linea on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 10:23:46 PM EST
    justice kennedy seems infuriated by comments by Commissioner Hess in the Petitioner appendix.
    - - - -

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: Did the Commission ever disavow or disapprove of that statement?

    MR. YARGER: There were no further proceedings in which the Commission disavowed or disapproved of that statement.

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: Do you disavow or disapprove of that statement?

    MR. YARGER: I would not have counseled my client to make that statement.

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: Do you now disavow or disapprove of that statement?


    And while the stupid statements of one (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 09:52:51 AM EST
    important decisionmaker explaining an official action are normally irrelevant, we know from the Travel Ban litigation that in the context of a religious discrimination claim, such statements can be treated as legally relevant.

    i'm not (none / 0) (#124)
    by linea on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 07:39:40 PM EST
    particulately religious. i don't personally see any distinction between a strongly held personal conviction and a religious belief. i don't feel either should supersede public accomodation laws.

    however, some areas of america are very religious as the passage of RFRA type bills in many states attests to.

    with regard to this case, i wonder if scotus will issue a ruling similar to the `objecting pharmacist' decision and decide that the baker can refuse gay weddings if he refers the couple to another baker who will make the requested cake.


    NYT quoted two questions by Justice Kennedy (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 10:16:33 PM EST
    which implied he is on the fence.

    Yes, that was my (none / 0) (#104)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 03:17:50 PM EST
    read as well.  Justice Kennedy's questions along the lines of Free Speech seemed sympathetic, but he came down like a ton of bricks on Free Exercise.

    While always hazardous to forecast on the basis of questions, it is hard for me to count five votes for the gay couple--Kennedy, as apparent swing voter, is unlikely to give Colorado an unqualified victory.  He did not like, what he saw (wrongly, in my view), as bullying by the state of this baker's religious  beliefs not to have to bake a wedding cake for the couple.

     (side bar: Baker Phillips would also not be willing to bake a pedophile cake. Wonder how his religious beliefs would register, if faced with voting for a pedophile or a Democrat, or staying home and, in effect, vote for the Democrat.) But, I digress.

    A treacherous case for civil rights law. Once the Court begins to chip away at civil rights law, we get a very slippery slope.

     Newman v Piggle Park (1968) held that a BBQ joint had no First Amendment right to discriminate against Black customers. Baker Phillips (through representation) holds that race discrimination is just worse than other forms of discrimination, undercutting protections on the basis of religion, national origin, sex, and sexual or gender orientation.  

    Hopefully, the Court will, at least, reject the idea that Free Speech over-rides basic non-discrimination laws in public accommodations, such as a bakery. And, then constructs a narrow ruling on "artistic expression", or send the case back to the lower courts to develop the religious discrimination claim that Phillips allegedly experienced or might experience by baking a wedding cake for a gay couple.



    this case has always (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 03:29:05 PM EST
    made me cringe.

    IMO it just about the worst possible test case for these issues.
    first, if someone doesnt want to bake you a cake
    why on earth would you want to force them to?  
    yeah yeah, i understand the legalistic reasons but i think from a practical common sense view its just silly.

    i can only say personally if a some person or group i wanted nothing to do with forced me to bake them a cake it woild include some special ingredients.

    like i said, the whole thing makes me cringe.  always has.

    as you said, hopefully they can come up with some narrow ruling that does not include lunch counters or lodgings but this case was IMO asking for it.


    And, then there (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 08:30:30 PM EST
    is the possible "Gorsuch effect."  Neil Gorsuch was a law clerk for Justice Kennedy, and Kennedy administered the oath when Gorsuch took office at the Byron White Center in Denver.   I worry that Kennedy's seeming discernment between identity and behavior, and his unusual questioning tone, was not related to a Gorsuch effect...an effect not evident in the olden days of Scalia.  Hopefully, not the case, and he was being devil's advocate. But, I still wonder.

    I've always (4.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 04:59:14 PM EST
    kind of considered it a small town versus big town kind of thing. Somebody won't bake you a cake in Atlanta? Well, so what. There's another one next door that will. However in a small town one baker turns you down and you pretty much are out of having a cake.

    Larger thing that these evangelicals have not realized is that there are things called yelp. If you won't bake someone a cake because they are gay it is going to be all over the business rating and information services on the internet.


    sorry, no (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 05:07:29 PM EST
    i live in a small town.  there is always the next town.  its not like we live on an island.

    Yes, and not good (3.67 / 3) (#114)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 04:56:50 PM EST
    timing.  At the time that Baker Phillips refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple, Craig and Mullins, same sex marriage was not legal in Colorado; the couple was to be married in Massachusetts, and the cake was for when they returned home for a reception in Denver. Baker Phillips was not asked or required to attend or participate in the wedding.

    The couple, entered the bakery with one of the couple's mother, to order a cake, working not only in accordance with the Colorado anti-discrimination laws, but also, with the understanding that if you sell a service to one, you need to sell to all...in keeping with public accommodations.  

    A cake for a gay wedding and a cake for a straight wedding are the same, not different products. The only difference is that they are eaten at a wedding where a gay couple is celebrating their legal marriage. Presumably, straight guests, if not parents, will be eating the cake as well as the gay couple and gay guests.

    As for the Free Speech and expression of art in the cake, it seems a weak reed.  Cakes, even the most beautiful chocolate cakes, are not exhibited in galleries.  They may be admired a bit before eating, but the intention is for the cake to be eaten.  And, the baker did not claim the artistic expression, in response to Justice Kagan, for make-up artists, or florists, in response to Justice Ginsburg.

    But, the case did not sit well with in the religious belief department with Justice Kennedy. In Obergefell v Hodges, Kennedy prefaced his opinion with the statement that opposition to same sex marriage "long has been held..and continues to be held in good faith by reasonable and sincere people and throughout the world."  

    The Colorado anti-discrimination officer apparently offended Kennedy's good faith and reasonable criteria.  A single state official had bad timing, the official should have waited awhile, cited  reasons to find against the baker, but recognized his good faith and reasonableness, no matter how thinly veiled.

      Now, I fear, civil rights laws will be punished.


    I tend to agree with you. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 09:01:28 AM EST
    I read an interview with the baker somewhere. He stated he was happy to SELL them a cake, he just didn't want to custom make one for their wedding.

    Time to attack North Korea (2.00 / 1) (#80)
    by thomas rogan on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 12:48:31 PM EST
    Time to do so is in the next month before they test their ICBM's ability to deliver a warhead.  Kim thinks that he is a boy-god, like Pharaoh.  If you want to have him make nuclear threats, be my guest.

    For real? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 12:53:44 PM EST
    Setting aside the nukes, you do realize that the North Koreans have many, many batteries of conventional artillery that could obliterate Seoul and some 200,000 U.S. citizens within a very short time frame?

    Is it really worth it to you?  Millions of Koreans and over 200,000 U.S. dead--assuming we get all their nukes successfully.


    Ventura Ca is essentially a war zone with over 150 homes burned. Another fire north of LA. Both fires are 0% contained as the winds are relentless.

    No surf this morning (none / 0) (#5)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 01:56:52 PM EST
    Tell tale sign of Santa Ana winds.

    Seeing some really scary (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 04:53:02 PM EST
    Photos on FB from my old neighborhood

    here is a great link to a up to a real-time map.

    Click on the icon in the top right corner to turn on/off smoke, topography, etc.

    There are fires down San Diego way as well as Mexico.


    Conyers retiring today; recommending (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 01:14:53 PM EST
    his son to replace him.

    Facing multiple allegations of sexual harassment, Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) resigned as Congress's longest-serving member on Tuesday, becoming the first lawmaker to step down as Capitol Hill grapples with allegations of inappropriate behavior by lawmakers.


    From a hospital in Detroit, the 88-year-old congressman said he was "putting his retirement plans together" and endorsed his son John Conyers III to replace him. Another Conyers family member has already declared his intention to run for the seat, raising the specter of an intrafamily contest.

    The uneven application (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 04:50:38 PM EST
    Of these new rules is starting to buy me.  For example the obnoxious gap toothed Blake Farenthold is still getting a paycheck.

    Um, (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 04:51:58 PM EST
    BUG me.  Frankens accusers are piling up.

    Me too. Farenthold (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 04:55:49 PM EST
    is really gross and ruined the career of somebody over all this.

    Others too (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 05:59:43 PM EST
    Conyers' grandnephew intends to run for (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 01:40:21 PM EST
    that seat.

    Speedy Recovery to Johnny Checkers... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 01:33:49 PM EST
    Carrier of the 6 String Torch John Mayer had an emergency appendectomy today, postponing tonight's Dead & Company show in New Orleans.  May he ripping and riffing again real soon.

    Pamela Anderson criticized for saying (none / 0) (#6)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 02:53:10 PM EST
    Weinstein victims should have known better.
    "When I came to Hollywood, I, of course, had a lot of offers to do private auditions and things that made absolutely no sense. Common sense ― don't go into a hotel room alone, if someone answers the door in a bathrobe, you know, leave."

    After being criticized Anderson responded...
    The causes of the problem and solutions are complex and women who do not live in the utopian bubble must be aware of what is going on. And that is what I have highlighted.

    I do NOT wish apologise for what I said.

    And will not get coerced into apology.

    I think it's refreshing to hear someone apply some common sense to this topic.  I'm still waiting to hear from the people who benefited from Weinstein's (and others like him) casting couch. Maybe a tell all book will be released soon.

    Looks like (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 04:43:07 PM EST
    You're a wanna-be Weinstein.  I can't think of any other reason for your salivating at the thought that the victim wasn't really a victim.

    I'm still waiting to hear from the people who benefited from Weinstein's (and others like him) casting couch.

    What if you wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and none come forward? How long can you keep your disrespect for victimized women alive without reinforcement?


    Back in the day (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 05:06:19 PM EST
    when my (now) wife was a sales rep for a company that sold law books to lawyers, she was date-raped by one of her lawyer-clients.

    A few days later she went to the head of the firm and told him what had happened, and the lawyer was fired.

    When my best friend in Catholic HS was 17 he was strongly hit on several times by one of the school's priests. He did not report the incidents to anyone in authority, and that priest continued to molest minors for years.

    My buddy feels very badly to this day about not reporting the priest, as perhaps if he had come forward there would not been the subsequent additional victims.

    My wife gets upset about all these women who waited years, or decades, to come forward.


    Every woman who has made the decision (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 05:26:44 PM EST
    not to remain silent has done so knowing it could forever alter her career path, her chances for promotion, whether she would continue to have a job.

    I had a situation maybe about 20 years ago, where a congenial working relationship with a man who was a partner in the firm - he was 10 years my senior in age - began to take a turn.  It was all verbal, there was never any physical contact, but it was making me feel icky.  He and I went to a client's home one day and he made some suggestive comments about what I was wearing (it wasn't anything but professional but I guess he liked the way I looked).  So, I first changed the way I interacted with him.  Made sure I wasn't wearing anything "wrong."  Feigned being busy or on the phone when he came by my office.  It didn't really stop, so then I had to decide if I was going to handle this directly with him, or bring someone else into it.  

    Back and forth I went - it just ate at me.  I ended up going to someone who had the power to do something about it, but who was also female, and the soul of discretion.  She approached him, they discussed what he was doing, and he ended up coming to me and apologizing profusely.

    It all ended well, but it was something I've never forgotten, how it all made me feel, the choices I was facing, what was going to happen next.

    In some ways, you feel damned if you do and damned if you don't, and that's why more women don't come forward.


    No argument. My wife ultimately parted (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    ways with that job shortly after the incident, or maybe it parted ways with her. A job her friend was also doing and is still doing today 30 years later. Very successfully. Regardless, my wife gets very frustrated with these women. A somewhat different response to what's been happening lately than what we normally see posted here.

    Selling law books (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 11:14:29 AM EST
    Large firms would have a rep come in and update the treatises.

    But that is brick and mortar....everything is online now.  I suppose some large firms may still want to have actual volumes....but it is unnecessary...  


    Ya, probably so (none / 0) (#75)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 12:16:31 PM EST
    There are very practical reasons (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 06:11:50 PM EST

    North Carolina native Lauren Greene aspired to a career in politics when she arrived on Capitol Hill as an intern in 2009. She spent the next five years climbing the Capitol Hill ladder, ultimately becoming a communications director for a congressman in 2014.

    But Greene's budding career imploded, she said, the minute she accused Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) of sexually harassing her.

    Since the summer of 2014, when she says Farenthold fired her for raising concerns about a hostile work environment, Greene has been unable to land a full-time job. She's making $15 an hour working temporary gigs for a homebuilder. She baby-sits on the side to earn extra cash.

    Her family has had to support her financially. And Greene, now 30, has left D.C., with no illusions that she will ever work in politics again.

    Scary (none / 0) (#9)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 03:16:49 PM EST


    President Trump told Israeli and Arab leaders on Tuesday that he plans to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a symbolically fraught move that would upend decades of American policy and upset efforts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

    Did he ask (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 04:44:14 PM EST
    ...the Israelis?

    Because that seems like a big, expensive thing to do.


    tRump (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 05:02:20 PM EST
    will insist that the Palestinians are going to pay for it.

    the israelis obviously (2.00 / 1) (#32)
    by linea on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 07:34:15 PM EST
    would like jerusalem officially recognized by the united states.

    i realize that president trump can move the u.s. embassy to jerusalem as a symbolic recognician of jerusalem - but does president trump have the authority to officially recognize jerusalem on behalf of the united states?

    everybody has their embassy in tel aviv. it's the big modern city. moving the embassy to jerusalem would be inconvienient for most people; official recognician of jerusalem aside.

    i believe Czechia recognizes jerusalem as israel's capitol while Russia recognizes West jerusalem as israel's capitol but East jerusalem as the capital of the `future Palestinian state.'


    Be careful before you believe you (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 09:59:38 AM EST
    Can speak for Israelis. The composition of their citizenry is politically as varied as other countries. Many Israelis are against the settlements too.

    It's like he wakes up every morning, (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 05:12:04 PM EST
    determined to find some way to stir up trouble:

    Donald Trump is telling leaders from across the Middle East that he intends to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel, an explosive move that will break from 50 years of US foreign policy, potentially derail his administration's hopes of restarting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and threaten to spark violence across the region.


    Both the Palestinians and the Israelis claim Jerusalem as their capital. Though Israel's Parliament and the prime minister's home are in Jerusalem, they sit in West Jerusalem, on the side of the city Israel has controlled since 1949. Israel captured East Jerusalem in 1967 and annexed that half of the city.


    There have been no recent negotiations over the city for a simple and grim reason: Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have been largely on hold for years, with no indications that they'll be resuming anytime soon.

    In the meantime, Jerusalem has retained the uniquely strange status of a city without a country. Americans born in the city must put "Jerusalem" rather than "Israel" on their passports. That's because the nationality of the entire city remains contested, a source of deep fury for many Israelis and American Jews.

    Nothing we need more than throwing some gasoline and a match on an already simmering region.


    Even Palestinian leaders are telling Trump (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Towanda on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 05:46:08 PM EST
    to not do this, I read, as it will cause massive protests and problems.

    And his announcement was swiftly followed by a State Department travel alert to federal employees, their families, and others to stay out of the Old City and the West Bank, and for all to personally be on alert for trouble.

    The State Department alert gave no reason.  I guess it would be weird to include that the cause of concern for federal employees -- and others -- is their own federal government, from the top.


    "Even Palestinian leaders....". (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 07:57:30 PM EST
    No doubt, given the significant presence of the Dome of the Rock.  

    This must be Secretary of Everything, Jared (none / 0) (#44)
    by vml68 on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 09:46:34 PM EST
    "Wonderboy" Kushner's way of bringing peace to the middle-east!

    Schumer too (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 12:10:22 PM EST
    What a blindspot for him.

    Not a blindspot... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 03:07:07 PM EST
    as far as Schumer's campaign fundraising goes...his announcement of support will surely be good for another 250 large or so from AIPAC, to match his league leading cash total from AIPAC in the 2015-16 Election Cycle.

    Russia (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 04:46:52 PM EST
    Barred from the Olympics

    Turncoats (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 04:59:05 PM EST
    And Deutsche Bank.  We are headed for a showdown.  Otherwise known as a constitutional crisis.

    Interesting testimony in the Michael Slager (none / 0) (#30)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 06:22:12 PM EST
    sentencing hearing.  

    Officer Michael Slager shot and killed Walter Scott in 2015. Slager's defense claims there was a fight on the ground prior to the shots being fired. Testimony was heard from audio expert David Hallimore...  

    Hallimore says he perceived Slager was in real trouble.

    The expert testified he was able to hear Scott say "** the police" before the two got into a fight.  According to Hallimore, after filtering out noise, he could hear Slager telling Scott to let go of his taser.

    The defense also called video expert Grant Fredericks...

    Fredericks also said his analysis showed taser wire was wrapped around Slager's leg and was connected to Scott right before the shooting.

    The expert said he also heard Scott say "f" the police on video when Slager told him to get on the ground, and that Slager is heard saying 'let go of my taser or I will shoot you.'

    Slager pleaded guilty to violating Scott's civil rights. Prosecutors are seeking life in prison for second degree murder.  

    I'm sure we agree (none / 0) (#99)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 03:00:30 PM EST
    ...that the cowardly back-shooting jack-booted government thug Slager needs to do some SERIOUS prison time, and never be permitted to touch a firearm again, after fifteen or twenty years when he gets out of prison.

    I don't agree with your first point (none / 0) (#106)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 03:30:24 PM EST
    Slager needs to do some SERIOUS prison time

    Based on the evidence I've seen I'm not convinced he committed a crime.  I've addressed several times why I believe he wasn't convicted of murder. I'm not sure about lesser offenses. Once his criminal trial was over, that should have been it. I don't agree with this Federal trial at all.  

    As for your second point...

    never be permitted to touch a firearm again

    I don't think he should be allowed to be a police officer ever again.

    Slager took a big gamble when he pleaded guilty to violating Scott's civil rights.  He's putting his life in the hands of a judge who will be heavily criticized if he gives Slager a light sentence.


    i can explain (none / 0) (#123)
    by linea on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 06:54:23 PM EST
    re: `I don't agree with this Federal trial at all.'

    with police use of force, it's a two-part process of checks and balances:

    [1] on the local level, there is an independant investigation which may lead to criminal charges and may result in a conviction on state charges.

    [2] on the federal level, the Justice Department may conduct an investigation if they believe there may have been a civil rights violation. the federal investigation may result in charges and a trial.

    slager pleaded guilty to civil rights violations under colour of authority. he already admitted guilt. the hearing is to allow the judge to listen to any mediating circumstances before sentencing.


    Slager to face between 19-24 years (none / 0) (#147)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 10:35:01 AM EST
    according to sentencing guidelines announced by the judge.
    U.S. District Judge David Norton will announce later today the amount of time Slager will serve, which is expected to be within that range. The former officer could have faced life in prison. Norton ruled that Slager committed second-degree murder and obstruction of justice.

    Based on what I saw, read I think 20 years is way too long.  


    Saw this also (none / 0) (#152)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 11:09:07 AM EST
    Looks like the judge went easy on him, only 20 years, because he's white and the victim was black.

    Brock Turner appeals sexual assualt conviction (none / 0) (#31)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 06:45:44 PM EST
    and asks for a new trial.

    Key to Turner's request for a new trial is a statement the prosecutor repeatedly made during trial, saying the assault occurred "behind the dumpster."
    The assault, Turner's lawyers argue, did not occur "behind the dumpster." Indeed, the victim was found in a "completely open setting," the appeal states, adding that the implication that the crime occurred "behind the dumpster" prejudiced the jury against Turner.

    Turner was sentenced to 6 months in a county jail (not prison) and only served 3.  It seems like a big risk to ask for a new trial where I assume he could be sentenced to actual prison time if convicted?  The weight of having to register a sex offender must be the motivation.

    If Defendant prevails on (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 08:34:40 PM EST
    appeal, the trial court is barred from increasing the original sentence. The trial court does have discretion to reduce the original sentence.

    That makes more sense (none / 0) (#39)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 09:26:34 PM EST
    So you're saying if a defendant wins an appeal and gets a new trial, there's no risk of more prison time or probation being added to the original sentence if he loses the new trial?

    And even if he loses, the judge could decrease the original sentence? I don't see that happening in the Turner case but it would add to the reasons why someone would want a second shot.  



    The rule is somewhat more nuanced (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 10:01:44 PM EST
    If the defendant appeals and wins a new trial or a resentencing, then any increased punishment imposed by the same judge on remand is subject to a presumption of vindictiveness which would invalidate the increase. But appellate courts are very lenient in finding reasons in the record to rebut that presumption and allow the increased sentence, including subsequent misbehavior by the defendant, prior misbehavior that was previously unknown, and new or additional evidence about the crime that may be presented at the retrial or the resentencing on remand.

    That does not seem to be the state (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 10:14:24 PM EST
    of the law in CA state courts. But my research is limited to FindLaw.

    Good point. I am not familiar with (none / 0) (#54)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 10:57:22 PM EST
    California state legal precedents. My summary is based on my knowledge and experience with U.S. Supreme Court (constitutional law) precedent on the subject, as applied in federal criminal cases.

    Brock Turner (none / 0) (#102)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 03:07:18 PM EST
    ...risks replacing Judge Persky as the most hated man in California.

    This guy is beyond lucky that he got a corrupt judge and got off with a slap on the wrist. He doesn't need to metaphorically spike the ball in the end zone by complaining about it.

    When the judge lets you pay off your debt to society at pennies on the dollar, it seems unwise to bring your pampered status to the attention of the people who pay full price for the same goods.


    Christine Keeler... (none / 0) (#45)
    by desertswine on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 09:48:08 PM EST
    Christine Keeler, the former model at the centre of the Profumo affair that shook British politics in the 1960s, has died aged 75.

    In many respects, Christine Keeler was ... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 02:34:40 PM EST
    ... the ultimate victim of a noxious double standard that most especially existed in spades back in her '60s heyday, by which the sexual exploits of philandering men are celebrated, while the same of women are deplored and condemned.

    With certain exceptions, such men are eventually welcomed back into the fold and generally allowed to recoup their lives rebuild their careers, while women who behaved similarly are branded as wh*res and sluts and compelled to wear the proverbial scarlet letter.

    Ms. Keeler had a tough time throughout her life, almost entirely as a result of her questionable judgment in 1961 when she was only 19 years old, and had engaged in simultaneous sexual affairs with both a Soviet diplomatic attaché and British War Minister John Profumo.

    The resultant Cold War-era scandal rocked British politics to its core and eventually brought down the Tory government of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. But that downfall was precipitated entirely by Profumo's initial denial of his affair with Keeler, who was 27 years his junior.

    While Profumo was forced to resign his post as Minister of War once the truth came to light, Keeler was unfairly targeted and scapegoated by British media for having potentially compromised national security with her behavior. She was really nothing more than a young woman who made no pretense about loving a good time, but who was also naïve of the ways of the lofty world she chose to inhabit. That naiveté cost her dearly.

    May she finally rest in peace.


    really scary (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 10:16:07 PM EST
    secret Trump spy network to counter "deep state"

    HE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION is considering a set of proposals developed by Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a retired CIA officer -- with assistance from Oliver North, a key figure in the Iran-Contra scandal -- to provide CIA Director Mike Pompeo and the White House with a global, private spy network that would circumvent official U.S. intelligence agencies, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials and others familiar with the proposals. The sources say the plans have been pitched to the White House as a means of countering "deep state" enemies in the intelligence community seeking to undermine Donald Trump's presidency

    Everything that Clinton dismantled (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 10:00:59 AM EST
    They want the insanity back.

    Heh, remember Dubya's privatized Dewey spies (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 10:05:15 AM EST
    That had General Petraeus running around with a fake Mullah Omar? They introduced him to NATO leadership too. Yeah! I want more of that!

    OK, is this not enough (none / 0) (#70)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 11:53:51 AM EST
    to advocate for armed rebellion? Methinks it is.

    Sorry, but an empowered (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 12:58:45 PM EST
    secret police.....

    There are precedents in history for that.  Including Heinrich Himmler.


    He will probably (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 02:10:56 PM EST
    Give them nice brown shirts.

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 11:51:49 AM EST
    Who takes this news cycle? Trump trying to stir up WWIII or principled Dem Senators?

    Trump is just trying to get some attention and Gillibrand and friends wake up this morning and it was time to inadvertently drink the narcissist's milkshake. He's going to be so pissed tonight as the countdown clock ticks off the minutes until the AL Franken announcement.

    He's not trying to stir up WWIII... (none / 0) (#79)
    by unitron on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 12:44:59 PM EST
    ...just Armageddon.

    He can't get any positraction in the news (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    California is dangerously on fire and one party is holding pervs accountable.

    I turned the channel deliberately when he showed up though for his bigly announcement.

    Switched back when it was safe. He's 3rd story at best right now.


    It sounds like he will (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 01:59:03 PM EST
    Cut through the noise and grab some headlines by shutting down the government.  

    If the dems think he wont do it for any rational reason they are even dumber than I think they are.

    Not saying they should not stand up for the dreamers but this guy just threw a match into the middle east tinder box.  He does not give a sh!t.  About the dreamers, the country, people who depend on gov checks or anything else.


    He's gonna shut the government down (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 02:38:34 PM EST
    He's gonna start a war in the Koreas during the Olympics....hell, they threw Putie out so he's probably going to try to deliberately upend the Olympics all together. It's probably his new goal.

    We ain't seen nothin yet. But in the land of illegality and sexual assault a little integrity becomes gold, something longed for, something everyone wishes they could have a bit of.

    This sucker is going to make integrity the new black by the time he's finished with all of us.


    Jerusalem (none / 0) (#85)
    by thomas rogan on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Jerusalem was the capital of Israel for a thousand years until it fell to the Romans  Since it fell, palestine has been ruled by infinite colonial powers.  There never was a country of palestine.
    Arabs respect strength.  Israel is our best friend.  If the US is too wimpy to back Israel on a no brainer like this then it's no wonder they don't trust us to act about red lines, etc.

    That is one of the stupidest statements (5.00 / 9) (#87)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 01:19:05 PM EST
    ever posted here.

    "Jerusalem was the capital of Israel for a thousand years until it fell to the Romans"

    You are such a troll. The modern state of Israel did not exist until 1948. Jerusalem has been part of many, many different kingdoms, countries, whatever you want to call them over that "thousand years."


    You ignore the years 70 to 1948 (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Towanda on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 11:00:11 PM EST
    but if it feels better to be ahistorical, keep listening to your uneducated leaders, llike that really religious guy in the White House.

    You say Israel is our friend... (none / 0) (#133)
    by unitron on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 01:56:28 AM EST
    ...but what have they ever done for us except stuff that wouldn't have needed doing in the first place if they didn't exist (or at least didn't exist in that location)?

    American/Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard (none / 0) (#157)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 11:58:25 AM EST
    stole American state secrets, sold them to the highest bidder, and then was given a hero's welcome back in Israel by Netanyahu when he was released from prison.

    Those are some "best friends."

    Though, with all the Holy Scripture-addled conservative flakes wandering around the U.S, one wonders why God's chosen people would ever have to resort to formal espionage to further their cause.


    HAPPY (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 04:14:54 PM EST

    HAPPY might just be exactly what we all need
    it starts tonight on SyFy

    This is to say that Happy! frequently toes the line between pitch-black gallows humor and cutesy nonsense in every part of its production, beginning with the conceit. Several years removed from his role as Elliot Stabler in Law & Order: SVU, Christopher Meloni stars as Nick Sax, a former NYPD detective-hero turned degenerate hitman who can barely spend a minute without some upper or downer going down his gullet. It's a trite character enlivened only by Meloni, a brilliant comedic actor, and the groaning familiarity of the character only grows worse when he becomes the target of a citywide manhunt for killing the four Scaramucci brothers, one of whom has kept a secret mafia password that could be the key to untold riches and power. Learning about all of this alone made me search frantically for the remote and I haven't even gotten to the flying blue unicorn that gives this maddeningly inept show its title.

    Indeed, the animated flying unicorn named Happy, voiced by Patton Oswalt, doesn't fully appear until Sax is being rushed to the hospital after the Scaramucci hit. While our not-so-noble protagonist is forcing his EMTs to dope him up with morphine, Happy is trying to convince him to hunt down an evil Santa (Joseph D. Reitman) who has been abducting children and holding them captive in wooden crates in his house for unclear reasons. As the narrative lays it out, Oswalt's Happy is the imaginary friend of one particular captive child who has a pretty obvious connection to Sax that the show's writers nevertheless try to build into an early twist.

    This was great (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 08, 2017 at 07:55:02 AM EST
    Scoop on Flynn (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 07:40:35 PM EST
    Why did Obama can him?

    Armando has some juicy gossip.  The oldest story of men making mistakes....

    Where does (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 07:42:12 PM EST
    Armando have it? On twitter?

    Yep (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 08:02:08 PM EST
    Watching the reaction (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 07:26:01 AM EST
    To the announcement yesterday it seems pretty clear Trump did it to provoke Muslims.  He wants some "radical Islamic" attacks so he can pound his chest and hoot.

    Seems likely he will get his wish.

    90 was awful. This is a big ratchet up.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 07:32:54 AM EST
    everything he does is to make his base happy and Muslims killing people apparently makes his base happy.

    Basically he's pandering to the same group of Americans that want a pedophile in the senate.


    There was a moment (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 07:41:30 AM EST
    At the end of that speech I was sure he had/was having a stroke.  Unfortunately the consensus seems to be false teeth.

    I thought cotton mouth - he looked like (none / 0) (#138)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 08:26:01 AM EST
    he was having some trouble even before he got to the badly-slurred "United States" at the end.

    But I am kind of enjoying the mental picture of a toothless Donald Trump.


    #DentureDonald (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 08:34:14 AM EST
    Was trending on Twitter I hear.

    MJ did a segment on this today.  They have talked quite a bit about his mental decline.

    But to make the point they played some video of him talking back when he was a liberal democrat in contrast with that slurred speech.

    The contrast was striking.  And frightening.


    It's like the (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 09:03:27 AM EST
    entire country is composed of Jeff Flakes who are going to talk about what is going on but never actually do anything about it.

    Ezra Klein (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 09:16:35 AM EST
    has been writing a lot about this.  about how after something horrible happens historians will say why did we not do somwthing when it was so obvious he was nuts.   its a great point.

    "good germans" were not given a pass.  we will not be either.


    I am generally wary of those ... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 11:47:49 AM EST
    ... like Ezra Klein who ask rhetorically why somebody doesn't do something, because it's an indication that they themselves don't really know what to do at this point, any more than do many of us.

    Klein's recent shtick about impeachment was a waste of time and bandwidth, mostly because it's a rhetorical sermon being delivered to a like-minded choir. Sorry, but we're not the ones here who need convincing.

    I would suggest that rather than wringing our hands in frustration at the challenge before us, we need to organize collectively, which means getting involved personally.

    We're facing an "all hands on deck" moment. It's time to make common cause and actually walk the walk, and not just talk the talk while expecting others to do the heavy lifting.

    Even committing ourselves to engaging in an hour or two per week of actual genuine activism in our respective communities can make a big difference, if we all work together for the common good. That is what will ultimately win the day for us.



    Franken resigns (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 10:41:23 AM EST
    This does not make me happy.

    I hope he hits pause, and runs again in 2018

    Tom Brokaw (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 11:01:35 AM EST
    Now on t.v. saying WTF?  He was being defended on FOX news last night.  Btw that was Newt Gingrich.

    Seriously, are you a fu@king idiot?

    Is it not CLEAR they are doing this because they know what's coming?

    Stfu Tom.  Seriously.  Go into the light.  Just shut up.


    But he also apparently stated that (none / 0) (#153)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 11:10:23 AM EST
    he would be stepping down in the "coming weeks," which makes me wonder if he's leaving room for a change in our understanding of the facts, which might make it unnecessary for him to go.

    Or maybe he's waiting to see the outcome of the Moore/Jones election.

    I don't know.  

    What I do know is that for the most part, Dems keep trying to play by the rules, and have nothing other than that to show for it.

    Dahlia Lithwick in Slate

    This isn't a call to become tolerant of awful behavior. It is a call for understanding that Democrats honored the blue slip, and Republicans didn't. Democrats had hearings over the Affordable Care Act; Republicans had none over the tax bill. Democrats decry predators in the media; Republicans give them their own networks. And what do Democrats have to show for it? There is something almost eerily self-regarding in the notion that the only thing that matters is what Democrats do, without considering what the systemic consequences are for everyone.

    I'm not sure the Franken thing is over.


    I am angry. (none / 0) (#154)
    by vml68 on Thu Dec 07, 2017 at 11:19:00 AM EST
    Angry that anonymous accusers are allowed to destroy someone's career.

    Angry that his fellow democrats did not give the Ethics Investigation a chance.

    Angry that the #MeToo movement is headed in this direction.

    She loves Franken, so I asked to get a picture with him. We posed for the shot. He immediately put his hand on my waist, grabbing a handful of flesh. I froze. Then he squeezed. At least twice.

    Who knew there was such a thing as 'waist groping'! The woman has her arm around Franken's shoulders in the picture and that is apparently okay.

    Why don't Democrats put up a fight? It should be Al resigns only if Moore is not seated and Tr*mp steps down.

    Even assuming that all the allegations against Franken are true (and I highly doubt it), IMO, they aren't firing/resigning level offenses.


    Well (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 08, 2017 at 07:53:43 AM EST
    It's Friday.

    When I leave today I plan to have the DVR running.

    Judging from the hysteria yesterday on FOX and in the house hearing I think we can be sure hellzapoppin pretty soon.

    And! (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 08, 2017 at 11:55:54 AM EST

    Irony (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 08, 2017 at 10:07:29 AM EST
    Has been dead for a while.  But they just keep stabbing it and stabbing it like they think it's Jon Snow.

    We think it's unfortunate that these members of Congress wouldn't join the president in honoring the incredible sacrifice rights leaders made to right the injustices in our history," White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement

    Another murder with a badge walks free. (none / 0) (#163)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Dec 08, 2017 at 12:38:52 PM EST
    This time in Maricopa Couunty, AZ. Home of the people who kept electing Joe Arpaio. This video is sickening to watch.

    You mean, the same Joe Arpaio (none / 0) (#165)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 08, 2017 at 01:22:30 PM EST
    who is pondering a run for the Senate?  

    [Send me the bill for the keyboard you just threw up on...]

    Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has no interest in running for Rep. Trent Franks' (R-AZ) soon-to-be vacated seat, he said on Thursday. Instead, the controversial lawman, who was recently pardoned by President Donald Trump, has his sights on a higher office.

    "I am seriously, seriously, seriously considering running for the U.S. Senate," Arpaio told The Daily Beast, "not the congressman's seat."

    reports of high turnout (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 12, 2017 at 04:08:02 PM EST
    across Alabama