Thursday Open Thread

I have band-aids on two of my typing fingers making it cumbersome to type. I've been reading instead, mostly about the life sentence given to Alfredo-Beltran Leyva on his guilty plea yesterday and Ivan Reyes-Arzate, the Mexican high level police officer in the Sensitive Investigations Unit who allegedly shared information he received from the DEA and gave it to cartel members to help them avoid getting arrested.

Until I can type more about them, and other stuff, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< ISIS Says U.S. is Being Run By an "Idiot" | Hillary Says Strike Syria, Trump Does It >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Susan (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 12:21:07 PM EST
    Rice and Obama's shadow government claim another "victim". House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes recuses himself from Russia probe These guys are good, tricking him into making a fool of himself, so he had no choice but to surrender to the leftist juggernaut.

    BTW, here's a link to the story about Congressman Devin Nunes' recusal. Yours doubled back upon itself. Seems that some do-gooder-type citizens took exception to his recent conduct and statements, and have filed formal complaints about him with the Office of Congressional Ethics.

    The juggernaut rolls on.


    And the FBI (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 03:31:53 PM EST
    Citizens filed complaints against him with the FBI.

    Nation of spies, double agents, (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 03:58:06 PM EST
    grifters, and stool pigeons.

    All The Dude ever wanted was his rug back.


    ... very real consequences for our country, and not a Coen Brothers movie.

    Coulda fooled me... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 09:37:59 AM EST
    maybe more "Burn After Reading" than "The Big Lebowski", but current geopolitical affairs could be a surreal Coen Brothers production. Only more outlandish and preposterous, with characters less realistic than anything the Coens ever wrote.

    ... than the Coen Brothers. Specifically, check out "Satyricon," aka "Fellini Satyricon," and you'll see what I mean. It's based upon a literary work by Roman courtier and author Gaius Petronius Arbiter (27-66 A.D.) and set during the turbulent reign of the emperor Nero, whom Petronius served as a cultural advisor, until he was accused by an ambitious and jealous rival of treason and sentenced by Nero to death, perhaps for writing "Satyricon." He subsequently took his own life, rather than face a torturous and painful end.

    (By that time, the Roman Empire was in the full-throttled throes of rebellion against Nero's erratic and corrupt rule, and he was driven from the throne the year following Petronius' death. He also committed suicide, rather than be subjected to the vengeful wrath of his many enemies.)

    I further think that if you explore Fellini's body of work, you'll realize his own considerable influence upon the Coen Brothers' films, particularly their use of surrealism in work like "Miller's Crossing" and "Fargo." Fellini came into adulthood in Benito Mussolini's Fascist Italy at the time of its entry into the Second World War on the side of Nazi Germany. His country's subsequent fate and his own often desperate efforts to survive the war itself had profound emotional and creative repercussions upon his work.



    Luv it (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 05:11:29 PM EST
    We're all so desperately out of sorts (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 05:19:21 PM EST
    Imma about to start making Caucasians with truck stop powdered coffee creamer.

    I was wondering (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 02:22:01 PM EST
    ... after a discussion in a previous Open Thread, whether I am the only correspondent here who has actually stood up for his or her Constitutionally guaranteed rights in the face of uniformed authority.

    I do it whenever the opportunity arises.  I am an equal opportunity civil rights advocate.  Because of my appearance (hirsute) and my associations (Black men), and despite the fact that I have never been arrested for even a minor infraction, I have been subject for almost 50 years to unexplained police contacts and intrusive, unwarranted questions. I finally had enough. I did some homework and prepared myself.

    By "standing up to authority" I mean refusing to obey an unlawful order, e.g. a demand for identification under circumstances where the officer is not entitled to that information.  When an officer knows he or she is not entitled to such information, it is often posed as a request, which means it is extremely important to parse what the officer says.  Also, beyond the production of documents related to driving a vehicle, one is not required under any circumstances to respond to anything a police officer says or asks.

    Example: I was a passenger in a vehicle pulled over for a violation so insignificant that it was an obvious "Terry stop."  This was during the period when I was being stalked by deputies as payback for my formal complaint.  I saw the deputies in the convenience store, and I'm sure they recognized me, because there is no other explanation for what ensued.

    They followed my friend's vehicle after we left.  My friend was pulled over for an "unsafe lane change" when the only vehicle in sight was the sheriff's car that we were aware of, a hundred yards behind us.

    The driver produced his license, registration and insurance, and the deputy then asked me, "Do you have any identification you can show me?" That is a question, not an order.  It is important to know that.


    "You don't have identification?"

    "I have it.  I'm not going to show it to you unless you need it to enforce the Vehicle Code."

    He responded that he was enforcing the vehicle code, and I pointed out that he was not enforcing it for anything I had done.

    Meanwhile my friend is answering questions about his ten-year previous DUI, and thinking I am about to talk him into a ticket.  What he does not know that EVERY traffic stop by deputies where we live is a Terry stop.  They never write the ticket.  (If a deputy pulls you over, it is a Terry stop and you are not getting a ticket.  If the California Highway Patrol pulls you over, it is a Vehicle Code violation, and you are.)

    So I asked loudly, "Why do you want my ID?"  The deputy who asked, now ignores me, even as I shout the question while he returns to the car to run the warrant check on my friend.

    While Deputy #1 went back to the car, #2 stood by my window, presenting the opportunity to do what my Black friends call, "Giving him the blues."  That means talking incessantly to a guy who does not want to hear from you but can't leave. I peppered him with questions, e.g. "Why does your partner need my ID?"

    "I don't know."

    "Well, he wouldn't tell me why he wanted it, but I'll bet he would tell you.  Would you ask him for me?"  At this point the fool goes stone-faced, and no longer acknowledged my presence two feet away.  Not that I let up with the questions, more and more pointed about what seems to be going on.  "I guess you and your partner don't get along, huh?  Wow, that other guy sure acts like a jerk, doesn't he?  Hey, what's your badge number?"  

    Deputy #1 returns, hands my friend his license back, says he can go.  No explanation ensued.  I was obviously the target of the stop, but I wasn't vulnerable to it.

    Rights that you do not assert, do not exist.

    Byron "Whizzer" White in his concurring opinion in Terry v. Ohio:

    "There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked, but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest..."

    I think you're our offical rebel Repack (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by McBain on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 06:49:47 PM EST
    Maybe you could write a book on how to irritate cops without getting arrested.

    You wouldn't read it (none / 0) (#16)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 08:20:12 PM EST
    Maybe you could write a book on how to irritate cops without getting arrested.

    As the primary defender of police on this blog, I wonder whether you have ever been subjected to the sort of unnecessary police attention that I have dealt with my entire adult life, and if so, how you dealt with it.

    If you haven't, I can only assume you are neatly groomed, extremely submissive, drive a shiny new car, and that you never travel with any Black friends.

    I have a million miles (45 years) of commercial driving experience with no accidents, but I have had a few citations.  (It's been 25 years since my last moving violation in a vehicle, I got a ticket 20 years ago for running stop sign on my bicycle.  I have had fix-it tickets, and cell phone and seat belt violations.)

    I have never received a traffic citation that did not include a request to look inside the vehicle, always denied of course, and on one occasion searched in spite of my refusal to allow it.  What do you tell the officer who asks to search your vehicle after a minor citation?  

    My 48-y.o. nephew's only arrest took place 30 years ago when he was stopped for a traffic violation as a teenager while driving his dad's car.  An officer made a consensual search and found a "whittlin' stick" his dad had left under the seat.  This was described as a concealed weapon, even though you would have had a hard time hurting anyone with it, and the kid didn't even know it was there.  His mother, my sister, is an attorney, and she laid down the Fourth Amendment law.  DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH FOR ANY REASON, EVEN IF YOU KNOW YOU ARE INNOCENT.

    What do you tell the officer who informs you that "for his own safety" he plans to "frisk" somebody who has been cited for a non-moving violation, has no police record and collects Social Security?

    When a police officer asks for ID, you can bet the only purpose is to run a warrant check.  IOW, the officer is asking YOU to provide a reason for him to arrest you.  You can't pour enough sugar on the question of, "Can you provide me with a reason to take you to jail?" to make it anything but an example of hostility.  Why should I be polite to someone who wants to find a reason to harm me?


    In answer to Repack's question, (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by caseyOR on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 08:12:59 PM EST
    I have been arrested, but it was for protesting the Viet Nam War. It was a bogus arrest. All charges were eventually dropped. Very different than what Repack is talking about in that it was a massive action targeting everyone. I was not singled out.

    In the rest of my life I have benefitted greatly from being a white woman. The odds are low that I will ever be subjected to a Terry stop. My skin color, and now my age, put the odds in my favor. It could happen to me (I am knocking on wood right now), but it probably won't.

    Black men don't stand a chance compared to me. But a black woman my age is also more likely than I to get harassed by the police simply because of her skin color.

    Should it ever happen to me I am prepared to defend my rights against police overreach. Even in that situation, the odds are that I will get better treatment than any person of color.


    Non-responsive to your wondering, but (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 08:29:14 PM EST
    Rather than "talking incessantly to a guy who does not want to hear from you but can't leave", I want the officer who can choose to drop any line of questioning and let me carry on.  Though, turning any discomfort back on them is a bonus, if they've been d___ish about it.

    In college, I would often go on evening walks with a woman I lived with, mainly in quiet residential areas near campus.  A police vehicle would show up and stop to question us, because "...we had a report of [e.g.] someone looking under a tarp in someone's driveway, and you fit the description".  I learned that those three words have a particular meaning for non-whites (and I learned that we'd get stopped any time we were out for more than 30 minutes).  I was born sarcastic, and a typical reply would be, "Somebody told you that a white man in a tie-dyed t-shirt and a black woman in a turtleneck were casing their driveway to plan some future firewood heist?"   We learned that framing the officer's attempt-at-justification in ridiculous terms usually led to them wanting to get this over with and leave.  (Plus, we would both try to use vocabulary that signalled education and means.)  

    When I think about it now, it's likely someone called because strangers - one of them black! - were walking on their sidewalks, in what they considered a suspicious manner.  Maybe they created a story about firewood rustlers in the process.  The officers were then required to make some sort of contact and assess whether we were a threat - or, at least, let us know we're being watched.  

    When I lived on a street that is the city boundary of a retirement community - so I entered their jurisdiction as I left my driveway - I got pulled over often (seven times one calendar year), but never papered.  Giving me paper might have given me evidence of harassment.  They liked any excuse for roadblocks, too.  The first time I came upon a roadblock, there were two officers, one already writing a cite.   The inexperienced newbie ran my license then came back to talk to me.

    Officer: "We're looking for X."  (Sorry - 30 years on, I don't remember their excuse for this roadblock.)
    Me:"Why the emphasis on enforcing X?"
    Officer:"This year the legislature raised the fine from $50 to $175."
    Me:"Oh, so this is about money?"  
    He stopped talking to me and walked away at that point.  

    At another roadblock, I told them I was going home, expecting they wouldn't need more - what could be wrong with going home? - but one officer pushed to get info about where I had been and why, but could not tell me that there was any reason he needed to know.  When I asked "May I proceed to my destination?", the answer was yes.  "Then you'll have to move your vehicles out of my driveway, so I can get into it."   (Our driveway was in a low spot that could not be seen from the cross streets in either direction, so that area was their favorite spot for a stealthy setup.  At a safety supply store, I bought a plastic sign - "DRIVER MUST CHOCK WHEELS" and put it on a stick next to our steep driveway.  I thought that might stress them a bit.  Do they have to obey that sign?  It disappeared in short order.)

    A great reply that was not mine, but a black co-worker, "M", who had been answering each question with a question:

    Officer Imperator: I ask the questions!
    M: Let me know if you come up with one that I am legally obligated to answer.

    However, I have never had an officer say that to me.  That reply line is ready-to-use, though.

    In another part of my life, I owned a 1966 Mustang convertible and lived in a suburban town of 30,000+ where there was a guy known to police who also had one - in the same shade of blue with a white top.  I got stopped a lot, never papered.  I learned to say "This is NOT Duane's car" to make the encounter brief.  It would usually make 'em laugh, feel sorry for me, startle them or whatever that kept them from ever citing me for things I had actually done.  (Duane was not his real name.  But that's actually the name of the ex-ex-convict my wife hired last year to do some mechanic work.  By "ex-ex", I mean that his probation was revoked, and he returns to prison in a couple of weeks.  What I've seen of the way the federal probation system has treated him, I am convinced that said system is designed to make probies fail.  Wow. It's a good thing this is an open thread.)

    How much of it is about color?  The blue car did fit the description.  But the only times I've been stopped while walking, I was with a black person - does that always fit the description?


    Excellent! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 09:11:13 PM EST
    A kindred spirit.

    Here's one of mine.  I owned a small business a few years ago.  My office was in a small commercial building with a parking lot.  The parking lot was a perfect place for a police car to sit, because a driver holding a cell phone to his or her right ear was an easy bust, and the driver wouldn't see the police car until exactly even with it and twenty feet away.

    One morning I jump in my large commercial vehicle, I execute the same reverse maneuver I had done thousands of times...  Wait, did I just hit something?  I park and get out, and indeed, I have tapped the rear of a police car, so gently I wasn't even sure.  If I had stopped a half inch shorter, I wouldn't have touched it.

    But I did, because the officer was parked in an area that was always empty, and that I had backed into so many times I didn't even look any more.

    When there is an "accident" that barely scratches the paint, do you call the police?  What if it IS the police?  This is what if...  Three cruisers and two motorcycles responded.  Seven officers on the scene to take this one page report.  The guys down in the poor part of town would fix that dent in twenty minutes for $50.

    My insurance company asks whether I want to contest the liability.  At no cost to me.  Hell, yes.  So the police agency settled as being 50% at fault for being parked in a public right-of-way.

    A couple of weeks later, I'm walking up to my office, and I see another cop car parked in the exact same spot.  I walk up and I say, "There's nothing to see here, you'll have to move along."

    Cop is incredulous.  "What?  Who are you?"

    "I rent an office here, this is a public right of way, and you can't park here."

    He wanted to argue, but so did I.  "I'm not parked, I'm stopped."  That seemed like a particularly fine distinction, I presume because the motor was still running.  I was careful to position myself so he couldn't see what he was looking for traffic-wise, and couldn't pay attention to it as long as he was talking to me.

    "We've had some trouble with you people blocking this right of way.  There was an accident and your department accepted half the liability for being here.  Now you'll have to move along."

    When it became clear that no cell-phone enforcement was going to take place as long as I chose to stand there, I won the confrontation.  He moved across the road to another location, so I strolled over and obtained his badge number, wrote a letter to the Chief of Police (CC: the Mayor, a close personal friend and an attorney) complaining that somebody didn't get the memo about parking there.

    Got the written apology and assurances


    Repack, is this a video of one of your (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by McBain on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 12:26:23 AM EST
    King Coal v Sun King (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    The Kentucky Coal Mining Museum has switched to solar power.

    Controversy over Amy Schumer swimsuit cover (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by McBain on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 03:40:13 PM EST
    A Massachusetts swimsuit designer is facing backlash after she criticized comedian Amy Schumer's magazine cover with a post on social media that "not everyone should be in a swimsuit."

    I'm not a big fan of her comedy but I don't have a problem with Schumer posing in a one piece.  She's edgy, opinionated and mostly photogenic. Some of the criticism is she's a bad body role model.  Does that mean the typical anorexic cover girl is a good role model? I hope not.

    If she sells magazines, it was a good decision.

    You don't mind if she poses in a one piece? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 09:21:23 AM EST

    Well I love her comedy, and she'll probably be on instagram in a "2 piece" as soon as we all tweet her your comment.


    I tried to watcher her recent Netflix stand up (none / 0) (#157)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 10:31:55 AM EST
    special.  I only lasted 10 minutes.  Not for me.  I did like the one skit of her comedy show "Inside Amy Schumer" I saw.  

    She's posed in two pieces and topless before. She's very brave and edgy.  


    reply to vicndabx and Donald from Hawaii (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Lora on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 05:51:25 PM EST
    from last Saturday's open thread.

    My posts were in response to vicndabx (comment 53) post on Susan Bordo's book excerpt on the destruction of Hillary.

    My point was that to accuse Sanders of being a significant part of the "destruction" of Hillary was over the top, considering the DNC leadership seemed invested in seeing him defeated.

    vicndabx gave this quote from the book excerpt by Susan Bordo from the original post:

    "I think, frankly," he said in January, campaigning in New Hampshire, "it's hard to be a real progressive and to take on the establishment in a way that I think [it] has to be taken on, when you come as dependent as she has through her super PAC and in other ways on Wall Street and drug-company money."

    Sanders was campaigning against Hillary in January of 2016 at the time he made this comment.  It is really very mild.  It is not false. If this is the worst example of so-called sh!t talk about Hillary by Sanders, then I can only conclude, as the author of a rebuttal to Gordo did (see below), Gordo feels that Sanders should not have run against Hillary at all.

    Here's a good rebuttal to Susan Gordo.

    And yes, Donald, I do believe that the DNC leadership had their thumb on the scale, so to speak, for Clinton and against Sanders, which is why I feel that to accuse Sanders of significantly harming Hillary's chances in the election is so inappropriate.

    Resent it all you want.  The evidence is there. I certainly didn't accuse you.

    Whatever. I stand by what I said. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 07:40:42 PM EST
    Bernie Sanders was given a fair shot at the Democratic nomination and with his otherwise respectable 43% share of the total vote, he fell short. Further, it really wasn't really all that close. Period.

    What you believe about the DNC is ultimately irrelevant. Nobody stole the Democratic nomination from Sanders. You don't hear us still whining about the Sanders campaign's Dec. 2015 theft of confidential and proprietary data from the Clinton campaign, do you?

    What's over is over, and holding grudges about it is stupid. If you want to be at all effective as a progressive, I would suggest that you start living in the here and now, and not continue dwelling in the there and then.

    But if you want to re-litigate the Democratic primaries ad nauseum from the perspective of political fantasy, then contact Susan Sarandon and knock yourself out. Speaking for myself only, I have no intention of further wasting my time on the subject, so please don't bother me any more with your nonsense.

    Have a nice evening.


    Go ahead and misread what I wrote (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Lora on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 09:21:50 PM EST
    Be bothered if it makes you happy.  Choose to waste your time or not. I might think I touched a nerve there, if you hadn't told me otherwise.

    I ain't whining.  I made a point.  You disagree.  Fine and well.

    Sanders "theft?"  An honest mistake it would seem.  

    Or not.  Depends on who you listen to. Maybe sorta like the DNC running a "fair" primary. Although the breach of data was only a one-shot deal.

    So, we can have a "last word" fight if you like. But I haven't insulted you, and I don't take kindly to being insulted.


    Excuse me, but ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 03:40:21 AM EST
    ... what part of "I have no intention of further wasting my time on the subject, so please don't bother me any more with your nonsense" did you not understand?

    Get over yourself, Lora. Seriously.


    I understand (none / 0) (#130)
    by Lora on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 02:24:34 PM EST
    you seem to go out of your way to insult me.  I suggest you cut it out.

    If you don't want to be summarily dismissed as a self-absorbed alt-left Berniebot who's far more interested in playing the victim of some imaginary past conspiracy, than in dealing with the present reality as it actually exists, then I'd suggest that you stop doubling down on stupid and let the matter drop.

    Have a nice evening.


    I was simply replying to your last post to me (none / 0) (#140)
    by Lora on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 10:32:16 PM EST
    from Saturday, comment 190, in part:

    So, please spare us your own personal "poor Bernie / bad Hillary" fable / saga, Lora. I've heard them all and the primaries are over. And to be perfectly blunt, you're talking out of your a$$ here, and making a baseless charge about nationwide intra-party chicanery that you can't otherwise back up with any actual evidence or data.

    which was insulting, a total misread of the point I was making, and an accusation of having no back-up for what I said, which I supplied in this thread.

    So don't accuse me of starting stuff back up again when you provoked a response.


    Take a hint, Lora. (none / 0) (#148)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 03:54:41 AM EST
    Good night.

    Good night. (n/t) (none / 0) (#149)
    by Lora on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 07:38:26 AM EST
    Peter G (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by linea on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 01:15:40 PM EST
    How about you tell us what conduct

    Sweden has criminalized, when done with what state of mind or intent by the accused, that you think is a good reform of sexual assault law for women, and why you think it is good, rather than just state a conclusion and announce your feelings (again), such as being "angry"? I'd be interested in a reasoned explanation, if you can offer one. I doubt anyone else here knows much about Swedish criminal law. But I'd venture a guess that several of us (myself included) would be interested in learning something about it, since it lurks beneath the surface of the Assange situation.

    as requested, i authored a post with a reasoned explanation, and yes i can offer such. perhaps you can respond in this open thread?

    this is (none / 0) (#125)
    by linea on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 01:39:41 PM EST
    my post responding to your request

    im not declaring assange guilty, but i would like to point out that in an interview with aftonbladet news the first complainant stated:

    "the charges against assange are, of course, not orchestrated by either the pentagon or anyone else. the responsibility for what happened to me and the other woman lies with a man who has a warped view of women and a problem with taking 'no' for an answer."

    rats - bad link (none / 0) (#126)
    by linea on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 01:43:07 PM EST
    I responded on the original thread (none / 0) (#144)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 11:16:01 PM EST
    You can read it here.

    thank you (none / 0) (#146)
    by linea on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 12:16:18 AM EST
    In the Assange case, I don't know if the alleged "molestation" in that case is alleged to be rape or not.

    it is still an open investigation. the interpol warrant is for questioning. until assange goes to sweden, participates with the prosecution authority, and formal charges are filed - or not - we wont know.

    these seem to be the general levels of sexual assault:

    • gross rape
    • rape - includes sex with a sleaping or unconscious person
    • less aggravated rape - considers totality of circumstances
    • gross sexual coercion
    • sexual coercion - to induce... one to endure a sexual act

    As an American civil libertarian, I don't get (none / 0) (#166)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 07:06:39 PM EST
    the idea of a warrant to "come in for questioning." Seems to me like a violation of the suspect's right to remain silent and to insist that the State bear the entire burden of proof. Here, you cannot be arrested (no warrant can issue) without probable cause to believe that you committed a particular offense. And even then, you cannot be required to answer any questions about the matter. I realize that's not the continental system, however.

    Whatever you did to your fingers, ... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 12:03:47 PM EST
    ... I hope you get better soon. Injuries to the digits are generally painful and always inconvenient. I had an accident last Saturday night at home and broke four toes on my right foot as a result. (But not the big toe, thankfully.) I'm fitted in a walking boot to prevent further injury and have to hobble around on crutches until I can eventually walk on my own, probably by Monday at the latest, I hope.

    You don't realize how important toes are to your overall sense of balance until their use is denied to you. And I was surprised by the amount of pain involved; this was the most extensively painful injury I've suffered since a shoulder separation in 1997. Over the course of the last four days, the entire front of my foot from the ankle forward has turned black and blue.

    I took Monday off and worked from home on Tuesday and yesterday. Going to the office this morning will be something of a chore. And because I can't drive with that boot, I'm wholly dependent upon my younger daughter to chauffeur me to and fro on her way to class at UH-Hilo. One of the good things about life in Hilo is that the commutes are shorter. Both the university and the office are only 10-15 minutes away.


    Ivanka Trump's Role (none / 0) (#5)
    by RickyJim on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 03:13:43 PM EST
    She has taken heat for being silent on women's issues during the debate on the repeal of the ACA and the defunding of Planned Parenthood.  She defends herself by,
    "I would say not to conflate lack of public denouncement with silence," she said. "I think there are multiple ways to have your voice heard. In some cases, it's through protest and it's through going on the nightly news and talking about or denouncing every issue on which you disagree with. Other times, it is quietly and directly and candidly. So where I disagree with my father, he knows it."

    This woman is a complete waste of time. (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 04:01:22 PM EST
    Like her father and husband, she's completely over her head here and punching way too far above her weight class. She no more belongs in a prominent public policy role, than Disneyland should be relocated to Yosemite Valley.

    RIP, Don Rickles (1926-2017). (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 07:07:42 PM EST
    "Hey, lady, lighten up! You look like you're waitin' for Billy Graham to come in and make a kid walk again. Did your husband buy tickets to the wrong lounge act?"
    - Don Rickles, to a dour-looking audience member who then broke into laughter, Stardust Hotel in Las Vegas, NV (2006)

    The legendary stand-up comedian, whom Johnny Carson once dubbed as "Mr. Warmth," died today at his home in Los Angeles at age 90.

    Rickles was the master of the caustic insult, delivered in rapid-fire succession and always accompanied by a well-timed and knowing grin to let his audience know that his jabs were offered in good-natured and affectionate jest. Everyone and everything was fair game.

    Rickes also dabbled in the occasional movie, with memorable roles as Sgt. Crapgame, an opportunistic Army black marketer in the offbeat World War II comedy "Kelly's Heroes" (1972), and Billy Sherbert, the hardcore but loyal casino manager in Martin Scosese's "Casino" (1995). To younger audiences, he was the voice of Mr. Potato Head in Disney's "Toy Story" animated feature films.

    A consummate workaholic, Rickles was active until the very end, having just completed ten episodes of the cable TV talk show called "Dinner With Don," which featured him in conversation with celebrities and personal friends at some of his favorite L.A. area restaurants, at the time of his passing.

    Aloha to an edgy and often outrageous equal opportunity offender, whose longstanding comic routine showed us the folly of fearing our differences.


    I just watched Jimmy Kimmel's tribute. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 06:28:20 PM EST
    Made me laugh and cry simultaneously.

    The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (none / 0) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 07:17:02 PM EST
    found in Hivley v Ivy Tech ,College that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual orientation discrimination because it is a form of sex discrimination (the law explicitly bars employment discrimination on the basis of race, color religion, sex or national origin). Judge Wood opined, writing for the majority, that "it would require considerable calisthenics to remove sex from sexual orientation."

    Hivley, openly lesbian, after being employed part-time at Ivy Tech College, applied for a F.T. position six times between 2009 -2014, unsuccessfully, and was finally dismissed from her P.T. position.  Hivley filed a EEOC complaint believing that she was being blocked without just cause and believed that she was being discriminated against based on sexual discrimination.  Moreover, her rights under the CRA were being violated.  After receiving a right to sue letter, she filed suit in federal district court.  The motion to dismiss by Ivy Tech was granted by the district judge on the basis of previous 7th Circuit cases.

    Hivley appealed to the 7th Circuit, however, a three-judge panel affirmed the District Court ruling, noting its previous Circuit ruling.  However, the panel did note that discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on sex is barely distinct.  Especially, in view of the Court cases since 1964 yielding a "paradoxical legal landscape," in which a person can be married on Saturday and fired on Monday for just that act. Moreover, discrimination on the basis of the sex a person associates with is a form of sex discrimination, as held in Loving v. Virginia.  Despite these problems, the panel saw the handwriting on the wall, but was not empowered to translate the language into a holding. Also, in 2015, the EEOC took the position that Title VII prohibition against sex discrimination in employment encompasses discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    The full court took a fresh look in light of SC developments over the past 20 years and reversed the District Court's judgment dismissing the Hivley suit against Ivy Tech and remanded the case for further proceedings. (note: the decision was not on the merits of Hivley's case, but that it was wrong to dismiss Hively's complaint for failure to state a claim.)

    Judge Diane Wood, writing for the majority (8/3) presented a three part analysis:
    Sex discrimination includes sex stereotyping i.e., mistreating an employee because she fails to conform to gender stereotypes.

    Comparative interpretation: a textualist readaing derived from plain reading of Title VII; paradigmatic sex discrimination.

    Association theory, based on Loving: Hivley discriminated against for intimately associating with person of the same sex is discrimination because of sex.  

    Judge Posner, while agreeing with the majority, argued, separately,  in simpler terms, that Title VII prohibits discrimination in the statutory interpretation that actions taken on the basis of sexual orientation are a subset of actions taken on the basis of sex. As for gender interpretations, Hivley is a woman, her sexual orientation is a subset.

    CNN (none / 0) (#17)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 08:21:40 PM EST
    reporting 50 Tomahawk missiles fired at Syrian government targets.

    So the US (none / 0) (#18)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 08:22:42 PM EST
    is an ally of ISIS.

    Per MSNBC, the missiles (none / 0) (#20)
    by caseyOR on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 08:47:41 PM EST
    Have targeted airfields, aircraft and runways.

    Al-Shayrat Airfield (none / 0) (#21)
    by caseyOR on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 08:48:43 PM EST
    was hit with 59 missiles.

    Apparently, a (none / 0) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 08:59:15 PM EST
    proportional, if not symbolic, strike on the airfield from which the planes that dropped the poison gas utilized.   Not necessarily a policy change that would be in conflict with the Russians/Iranians support of Assad. But, then, Trump is "flexible."

    Today in American history: (none / 0) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 09:38:48 PM EST
    100 years ago today, while citing a personal desire that the world be made safe for democracy, President Woodrow Wilson called upon Congress to declare war on Imperial Germany, a country which since January 1917 had been engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare against American shipping in the Atlantic Ocean, primarily because most of it was ferrying supplies to the Germans' mortal enemies, France and Great Britain.

    Representatives and senators then meeting in joint session complied with his request, and the United States formally entered First World War on the side of the Allies.

    By the time an exhausted Germany finally laid down its arms 19 months later, 53,402 American military personnel had died in combat, another 64,063 had succumbed to disease and other causes (particularly the Spanish flu in the fall of 1918), and a further 204,002 had been wounded in the service of a cause that President Wilson had earlier proclaimed to be "the war to end all wars."

    And to be perfectly frank, in comparison to most of the other major combatants in that horrid conflict, the United States got off fairly lightly. Our casualty figures were but 12% of those suffered by the British Empire, and only 4% of the losses incurred by Germany.

    Tonight, as we wonder what the future holds for us while U.S. Tomahawk and cruise missiles rain down on Syrian military airfields, it might be worthwhile for us to also ponder the words of America's first congresswoman, U.S. Rep. Jeannette Rankin (R-MT), a noted pacifist who 100 years ago today admonished her colleagues during the debate on Wilson's war resolution that "You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."


    Also... (none / 0) (#60)
    by desertswine on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 06:25:58 PM EST
    the birthday of Billie Holiday (1915).  Great art from a tough life.

    We watched "Lady Sings the Blues" ... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 08:59:51 PM EST
    ... on TCM. Diana Ross' heartbreaking performance as Lady Day is a tour de force. From its riveting opening credits, which play as though it's film noir, the movie commands your attention. Ms. Holiday's body of work is timeless, and comes from a place where few if any of us would ever volunteer to go. But the toll it took on her was enormous and ultimately fatal. So little was understood about drug addiction back in her day, and the authorities often acted in complete ignorance.

    She was only 44... (none / 0) (#70)
    by desertswine on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 11:32:43 PM EST
    On May 31, 1959, Holiday was taken to Metropolitan Hospital in New York suffering from liver and heart disease. She was arrested for drug possession as she lay dying, and her hospital room was raided by authorities.[83] Police officers were stationed at the door to her room. Holiday remained under police guard at the hospital until she died from pulmonary edema and heart failure caused by cirrhosis of the liver on July 17, 1959.

    I see that President Trump has (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 11:14:37 PM EST
    slipped Putin's tether and attacked Putin's buddy, Assad with 59 missiles.

    I assume they flew over Obama's "red line."

    Kinda makes all you folks claiming Trump is Putin's buddy look about as foolish as it can get.


    Unlike you, most folks here are quite capable of (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Erehwon on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 12:33:12 AM EST
    Walking and chewing gum at the same time. And capable of actually thinking and analyzing using the scientific or legal methods.

    Truth hurts, eh? ;-) (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 08:19:51 AM EST
    What truth (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 08:24:49 AM EST
    I am rubber you are glue school yard Jim?

    Do (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 06:32:15 AM EST
    you really think- Putin gives a fig about Assad? He's a pawn in his bigger game, giving tRump a ready made wag the dog opportunity at the cost of some of Assad's assets is actually a brilliant move IMO.

    I think eventually Putin will sell Assad down the river in some grand bargain where he trades "peace" in Syria for reduced sanctions.

    Plan B would be to start long lasting proxy wars across the region.


    Must all things be personal to you? (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 09:02:15 AM EST
    Of course Putin doesn't personally care about Assad.

    But claiming that Putin has given Trump a wag the dog opportunity displays a paranoia, if you actually believe it, beyond anything I have previously seen in this forum and rivals the claim that Bush ordered 9/11.

    In the grand scheme, whatever that means, the real objective of Trump's ME policy is to neutralize Iran. And the first step is showing the Iranians that being a Russian client state is no defense.

    We just did that.


    Heh, heh, heh ... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 09:17:52 AM EST
    In the grand scheme, whatever that means, the real objective of Trump's ME policy is to neutralize Iran. And the first step is showing the Iranians that being a Russian client state is no defense.

    We just did that.

    No, we didn't.   Launching a missile attack on an airbase which didn't even put that single base out of operation for even a single day didn't "show" the Iranians a single thing.

    But I love when armchair warriors watch some missile strikes from their LazyBoy and it makes them talk like tough guys.  It's funny to watch.


    You (none / 0) (#39)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 09:44:04 AM EST
    are the one who called Assad his buddy, that sure sounds personal to me, I assumed you were talking metaphorically, but like the troll you are you do not give me the same latitude.

    I would put much more money of Putin having a grand scheme than tRump, who just days ago was willing to let Assad slide. Putin is more then willing to let tRump have a few days of sound bite glory at the cost of some minor(so far)pain to his buddy.

    PS: It is very simplistic to think that Iran is a client state of Russia, they may have some shared interests, especially in Syria, but they take orders from no one. In any case if you think that Iran is cowed by a pinprick strike against a weakened Assad, you are sadly mistaken.


    Exactly. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 03:38:07 PM EST
    Iran absorbed a succession of terrible body blows in the 1980s from Saddam Hussein's Iraq -- then fully supported by you know who -- during what was one of the bloodiest wars of the late 20th century. The Iranians suffered between 600,000 and 800,000 dead and another 500,000 wounded, and yet they withstood that punishment and endured.

    So, only a true ignoramus would believe that a pinprick missile strike against a surrogate 1,000 miles to the west could somehow cow Teheran into submission to Trump's will.

    To dabble in that sort of wingbat logic as a means of foreign policy development is to engage in some seriously warped lunacy, and to subsequently risk some disastrously consequential blowback and our own tragic outcome.



    I love the way you make things up (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 05:14:54 PM EST
    I never said one missile strike would "cow Teheran."

    But I always enjoy your hundreds of words history lessons on what any middle school graduate knows.

    And yes, the US supported Iraq as our proxy in the war with Iran. The country was tired of war and since Jimmy Carter had just midwifed the birth of the modern radical islamic terrorist movement we needed help. Unfortunately it didn't succeed. Mostly because we were too timid to seal the deal.

    And, as we expanded it into Afghanistan, helping them bleed the Soviets white in their own Vietnam war, the radicals morphed into the Taliban and its brother in terrorism, al Qaeda.

    Which we mostly ignored and Reagan tucked tail when he should have stood up after the Beirut Marine barracks. This proved that we could be chased out of the region and put the terrorists's strategy in place. Like Vietnam they are just going to wait us out while our Left shuts down effective opposition to them.

    Now, what did I write?

    In the grand scheme, whatever that means, the real objective of Trump's ME policy is to neutralize Iran. And the first step is showing the Iranians that being a Russian client state is no defense.

    We just did that.

    Are you so vain to think ... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 08:14:03 PM EST
    ... that I was necessarily talking about YOU specifically? My comment wasn't even addressed to you. Why do you always have to be such a d!ck and provoke people?

    You have a clear knack for condescending expressions of ignorance and stupidity. Iran is not a Russian client state. To state otherwise only shows that you don't know your own a$$ from a hole in the ground.

    Go bother somebody else.


    I laid out all sorts of (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 09:29:39 PM EST
    possibilities. After all, you demanded detail.

    Why don't you offer some suggestions rather than call names?

    And Iran is not a client Russian state? Only to the extent that Obama kept on trying to buy their friendship....after all you should get something for $1.7 billion in cash.

    Come on Donald. What would you do to make the ME safer?


    Not interested, Jim. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 02:04:46 PM EST
    You obviously have me confused with someone who actually gives a rat's a$$ about the right-wing boiler plate opinions and race-baiting anti-Obama diatribes you serve up here on a near-daily basis.

    I'll happily point out the various inconsistencies in your positions, but I won't debate or argue with outright stupid contentions, e.g., Iran is a Russian client state. That would otherwise constitute a tacit acknowledgment on my part that you somehow have a valid point, when you quite obviously don't.

    Toodle-loo. Have a nice day.


    Textbook example of trolling (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 09:15:02 AM EST
    The only ones that "look foolish" are those defending Trump's hypocrisy on Syria and trying to distract from the Trump/Russia investigation with baseless smears of Rice.

    What do you trolls like to eat?  I have lots of recipes.


    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 11:21:28 AM EST
    the benefits of talk radio shamelessness and shoddy memory rear their ugly head..

    Weren't you berating Obama a couple of days ago for not making an alliance with Assad, Jim Bob?


    I do believe he was. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 03:52:26 PM EST
    This is some seriously far right prima donna crackpot stuff.

    You folks seem to think (1.00 / 2) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 05:36:09 PM EST
    that we are to keep the peace in all the world but you don't want to pay the price.

    Yes, if Obama had partnered with Assad early on the civil war would have been over very quickly with the saving of a lot of lives.

    And Europe would not have been over run with "refugees" and we wouldn't be receiving said "refugees" that can't be properly vetted.

    Would we have been backing a bad guy? Yes. But so what? What is our national interest?

    Instead he dithered and Russia moved in along with Iran. And if you think these three are fighting ISIS I have a bridge in the NYC area for sale. They are fighting the rebels. Whoever wins the preliminaries will get to take on ISIS. (Yes Iraq may run ISIS out of the country but it will remain a force.)

    Trump is now faced with the delicate task of bluffing the Russians back and convincing Iran that we won't be giving them anything but trouble if they keep up their ways.

    I just wonder why all of you super intelligent and highly educated dudes can't figure that out.


    What? You don't like the word "refugee" (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 07:01:44 PM EST

    You prefer terrorist towel-heads and their little terrorist towel-head children?

    The way the "un-pc" knuckle-walkers at not-so-Breitbart would have it?

    Obama would've been crucified if he had made an alliance with the likes of Assad during the time when he was slaughtering his own people.

    Your ilk in particular, before you guys got all dreamy-eyed about Putin, would've screamed bloody murder about secret-mooslim Prezdints who make alliances with "our enemies."

    We won't even get into how our "best friends" in the ME, Netanyahu & co, would've viewed such a turn of events..

    You're simply indulging in comic book-level Monday morning quarterbacking now, that's all.


    My "ilk?" (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 01:39:41 PM EST
    Really?? Have you gone completely over the edge?

    And "dreamy-eyed" about Putin?

    jondee, nations do not have friends. They have national interests. Have you forgotten that we helped the Soviet Union during WWII and then turned when it became clear their intent was world domination?

    And you are correct. Obama, the man who pledged to work with everyone, would have taken flack for doing what was the right thing at that time. Of course the right time was way before Assad's early WMD's attacks.

    But that's what leaders do. They take the heat for  doing the right thing. Reagan called out the Soviets for being what they were. An evil empire. He was attacked by both the Democrats and the so-called moderate Repubs.

    And Israel is very realistic. They would have recognized the move for what it was. Blocking Russia from influence and keeping Iran more at bay. And one of great importance, stopping ISIS. They would have had no problem with that.

    Finally, you again insult and claim but offer no scenarios. It appears that all you are capable of is "Right" bad "Left" good. That's hardly a demonstration of being an interested and concerned citizen trying to engage in a debate of national importance.


    So it was the right time to ally with (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 08:15:16 PM EST
    Assad back then? Really?

    If it was so obvious at the time, then it shouldn't be hard for you to point to one instance when you or anyone else on the hard-right ever recommended that course of action -- either at this site, or on your own blog.

    I don't think you can.

    Your 20/20 hindsight-Monday morning quarterback award should be arriving in the mail any day now.


    I didn't claim (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 08:02:40 AM EST
    to be the smartest man in the world like his water carriers claimed for Obama.

    Well, a mind slowly deteriorating (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 11:08:23 AM EST
    under the influence of Fox, Whirled Nut Daily, Breitbart, and the jackdaws of talk radio is not a pleasant thing to witness, I can tell you that.

    If there are support groups available for folks like you, you should look into it.


    "Smartest man on Earth"? (none / 0) (#106)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 09:02:49 AM EST
    No.  But Obama's orders-of-magnitude smarter than any Tea Partier on Earth of their Orange Julius.  To be fair, though ...

    ..that's setting the bar pretty low.


    Glad to see you are up (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 09:16:43 AM EST
    and about trying to insult.


    But Obama's orders-of-magnitude smarter than any Tea Partier on Earth of their Orange Julius.

    doesn't make sense.


    Exhibit A (none / 0) (#109)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 09:29:23 AM EST
    Which part are you having trouble comprehending?  "Obama's" - an English language contraction comprised of the words "Obama" and "is", if that helps.

    Nope, it turns out that Putin's puppet (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Towanda on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 11:32:15 AM EST
    called from the White House to alert the puppetmaster, ahead of the airstrike -- and before even telling the NSC, the Cabinet, or Congress.

    So, Assad moved his personnel and equipment out of the way . . . and all we hit were his driveways.

    Well, we did hit a lot of civilians and killed more Syrian children whom we would not take as refugees here, but you're fine with that, too.


    Actually (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 05:41:23 PM EST
    notifying non-citizens of the country you are not attacking is required.

    Otherwise the third party would see it as a sneak attack on it.


    And (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 06:22:05 PM EST
    you don't think that the Russians told the Syrians? Probably helping their losses at least a bit.

    If nothing else it shows the extreme danger and complexity of the situation.Maybe telling the Russians is ok when using unmanned Cruise missle, but how would your Naval aviation buddies feel about flying into the danger zone knowing that the enemy knows they are coming?

    Don't fool yourself, if you warmongers get your wish, it will take much more to do the job than cruise missiles. If we send in manned aircraft or put boots on the ground will we be required to notify the Russians then? Scary thought for this armchair general.


    The lap dogs and true believers (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 06:27:32 PM EST
    don't care about the loss of a few enlisted disposable tools, what they care about is PR disasters and the great liberal media conspiracy ganging up on them.

    I guess with a great deal of (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 10:10:52 PM EST
    confidence that the Russians told who they could and did what they could in the 20 minutes that had.

    ROE's and Free Fire Zones are tricky things. Again I  guess with a great deal of confidence that if manned aircraft are used in an attack the situation would be such that notification would not be required but targets would be strictly defined. GPS is amazing.

    Trump has spoken many times of safe spaces developed with the aid of other ME countries for civilians or deserting military.

    Will this work? I don't know. But I do know that something had to be done.


    I (none / 0) (#77)
    by FlJoe on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 12:42:43 PM EST
    don't know where you got that 20 minutes from, my understanding was it was considerably more than that. The reporting indicates that we wanted the Russians to clear out before we hit, 20 minutes is cutting it way to close, any reasonable time we gave them would give time for the Syrians to avoid the worst.

    For the record Tomahawks use GPS and are very accurate, probably only a little less than the most precise laser designated smart bombs launched by manned craft. In any case attacking any of Assad's military assets is liable to kill Russians no matter how precise the weapons. Especially if we go after their C&C and air defenses.

    The sad fact is that if we are serious about attacking Assad's military in the most efficient and least risky way, we will be killing Russians. IMO doing it any other way would be selling out our pilots.


    I either read or heard the 20 (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 01:15:17 PM EST
    if you have a linkable source I'd like to see it. I agree that 20 minutes is cutting it close.

    The objective wasn't to kill Syrians or Russians but to shut down the airport, destroy fuel, etc. Just a way of saying, "Don't do it again or things will get much worse for you."

    Will it work? I remember that Saddam was given the opportunity to flee the country but stayed. Assad might but he knows that the UN will arrest him.

    Interesting that you are concerned about our pilots. Were you concerned about the ROE's and target selection in Vietnam exposing them to great harm?

    The ME is in a mess and the pot has boiled over into Europe. Stockholm is just the latest and won't be the last. And Europe has long been a forecaster of problems for us. It is sad to say but things will get much worse here and around the world.

    Blue jeans and rock and roll beat communism. It isn't beating radical islam. Hard times and hard decisions are coming.


    Somewhere (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by FlJoe on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 01:50:47 PM EST
    I thought I saw an hour, but all of the links I can find are vague about the timing. I found this
    The Russian military, which has ground troops in Syria as well as a fleet of around eight Mi-28N Night Hunter and Ka-52 Alligator gunships stationed at the base, received a 'deconfliction' notice, according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

    Showing the Russian assets that needed to be evacuated
    It also emerged that Syria's armed forces were warned about the threat of US military action hours before the strikes took place, according to a source who spoke to AFP.
    Thinly sourced but a time frame of several hours of warning seems more reasonable than 20 minutes.

    I am not sure why you are bringing up Vietnam, which was a totally different beast in time, space, technology, tactics and geopolitical reality, and certainly there were no issues with giving out warnings to anyone.

    BTW: if the objective was to shut down the base, than it failed because it is still operational. Not to say that we didn't do quite a bit of damage but IMO this was a symbolic messaging strike with no real military value.


    I agree the 20 minutes seems short (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 03:00:16 PM EST
    but the several hours seems too long. Here's what CNN says:

    It targeted aircraft, aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems, and "the things that make the airfield operate"....... Russia was given a one-hour notice, according to a senior US official.


    Did the Syrians get an advance notice? Well, the Daily Mail says the Syrians were warned of a "a threat" of military action. Given all the US news carrying what Trump et al were saying I'd say they were.

    It looks the base was "shut down," according to the target list. The question is for how long. MT raises a good point.

    To me Vietnam is important because it has poisoned our military action and foreign policy. Proportional responses, unreasonable ROE's, nation building before clearing the field of the past, etc are all things that have brought us to where we are at now.


    Apparently, some righty troll (none / 0) (#88)
    by desertswine on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 03:39:07 PM EST
    knew about the attack at least an hour before it happened because he tweeted about it.

    Sources telling me U.S. attack in Syria planned for tonight, we must stop!

    What he said (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 04:25:29 PM EST
    Just days after Donald Trump Jr. suggested he be given a Pulitzer Prize, Cernovich tweeted, "Sources telling me U.S. attack in Syria planned for tonight, we must stop! #NoMoreWar," at 7:40 pm Eastern time, an hour and a half before NBC News broke the news of the airstrike.

    I hope the FBI will arrest Cernovich and his "sources."

    If that isn't giving aid and comfort to the enemy I don't know what is.


    At (none / 0) (#91)
    by FlJoe on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 05:28:24 PM EST
    least you can't blame Susan Rice for this one tRumps WH is leaking like a sieve, lock them up!

    So you opine that (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 06:45:23 PM EST
    a Trumper called him up and gave him the info?

    I dunno. And I can't see what makes him a "Righty" given that "Righty's" are supposedly strong backers of the military. Maybe a Libertarian??

    Either way they would make excellent cellmates with Rice and Hillary.


    From (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by FlJoe on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 07:15:56 PM EST
    Cernovich's website Danger & Play started in 2012 and was originally known mainly for self-improvement content. However, during the 2016 US presidential election campaign, it largely focused on pro-Donald Trump and anti-Hillary Clinton commentary.[13][14][15][16][17][18] Cernovich periodically promotes falsehoods and conspiracy theories, such as those that Clinton had health problems[13] and that she was part of a pedophile ring located in the basement of a Washington DC pizza restaurant.[12][19][20]

    Cernovich received widespread media attention in April, 2017, following his appearance on the 60 Minutes news progam and a tweet by Donald Trump Jr. suggesting that Cernovich deserves a Pulitzer Prize.[21]

    He is a Bannon fanboy, tweeting

    Steve Bannon is one of 5 living men I admire. Foolish media disregards him at their peril.
    You tell me where you think the leaks came from? Also please describe what crime of Rice or Clinton rises to the level of your self described act of treason committed by a bonafide tRump/Bannon supporter.

    I'm guessing Bannon himself... (none / 0) (#101)
    by desertswine on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 10:20:03 PM EST
    is the leak;  or one of his staff.  Lock them up.

    I don't know where they came from (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 08:57:01 AM EST
    Neither do you.

    And I don't think I ever heard about Cernovich before this.

    He looks like a Libertarian to me. He may be of the "Right" side, they do exist, as do Libertarians of the "Left" side. And 100% self promoter, as are many of these Internet "journalnet" practitioners.

    And I don't care that he has said some funny things that helped Trump and hurt Hillary. He should be charged and serve some time. Sh$t like this kills people. "Loose lips sinks ships" is true.

    Lock'em up. Lock'em all up.


    Keep fantasizing (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 08:31:11 PM EST
    The problem you have is that the only people being investigated are Trump and his associates.  But you're a betting man, right, Jim?  I'll be happy to place a bet - ANY amount - on whether Rice or Hillary need a cell.  If they do, I'll pay up (I'll put it in escrow right now). If they don't, you pay.  

    So will you back up your silly fairy tales with $$ or not?


    I want in (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 08:40:12 PM EST
    Let us set up the escrow.

    Somehow, I don't think either ... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 09:58:25 PM EST
    ... of us is going to need to put any money in escrow.  Can't blame him, really.  Who wants to put their money behind a tinfoil, winger, conspiracy theory?

    I'm a player, not a gambler. (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 08:08:17 AM EST
    And I bet when the odds and money (pot) is right.

    And I never never play in a rigged game.


    That's funny (none / 0) (#107)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 09:06:06 AM EST
    And I bet when the odds and money (pot) is right.

    And I never never play in a rigged game


    You're being given the opportunity to name the amount of the pot, and your Cheetoh is in charge of the FBI/DOJ, yet you still won't place money on your tinfoil conspiracy theory.

    Empty words.  All hat, no cattle.


    What conspiracy theory? (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 09:46:30 AM EST
    It is just so typical of you to make things up, declare victory and then strut around with your ego puffed out.

    There's no conspiracy here. I never said there was. What we have here is a group with loosely defined goals doing things that they think aid completing what ever task they think needs done.

    Do you actually think that MSNBC calls up CNN and discuss what the "talking points" of the day are to be? How juvenile of you.

    But they all exist in the same world talking to the same people at the same gatherings reading the same "news." It is inbred to the point that some of the participants remind us of the guitar player in "Deliverance."

    So yes, the game is rigged. The DNC helped Hillary, and the information from Wikileaks  is just one of the most blatant.

    And yes, people like Rice won't go to jail even though they need to. OTOH Trump might decide to make her life miserable for a while.

    A guy can dream, can't he? :-)

    And your braggadocio just prove you know nothing about poker. But then that's just one of many things.


    You (none / 0) (#113)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 09:58:27 AM EST
    have a propensity to convict people(ie Susan Rice), without a shred of evidence while refusing to even name the crime.

    You also seem to get a hard on for the thought of tRump somehow making life miserable for people you don't like...petty, vindictive and plainly juvenile.


    Yes, Susan Rice (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 11:29:07 AM EST
    has convicted herself. Several times over. Benghazi...and now this. She has changed her story several times and has never explained why a supervisor needed to be an investigator.

    If money was involved she would be called one of Obama's bag men. There is no doubt in my mind that she "spyed" using the NSA and then helped spread.
    All of this on political opponents.

    The sad thing about this is not just what she, and to be fair others, have done. It is that the Repubs will adopt, expand and refine the tactics.

    Political parties, like people, sooner or later get what they deserve.

    How do you like your new SC Justice?


    Oh well, at least he's a social liberal (none / 0) (#118)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 11:33:01 AM EST
    right, Mr Social Liberal?

    I see (none / 0) (#129)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 02:14:50 PM EST
    all you have to do is say the magic word Benghazi and you have Habeas corpus, dispositive evidence and conviction all wrapped up. Good try but you still have not named a single crime she has committed.  

    I have no clue what your investigator statement is even supposed to mean and mumble, mumble bag man is total lunacy.


    Your tinfoil, winger (none / 0) (#124)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 01:23:32 PM EST
    ... conspiracy theory that you've been pushing without a shred of evidence for a long time.  To be fair, that doesn't really narrow it down much, but since you had just claimed that Rice and Clinton belonged in jail cells, I didn't think I needed to be more specific.  The ridiculous, laughable claim you keep making without the slightest bit of evidence.  The one you're too scared to back with your money.

    All hat, no cattle ... as always.

    Happy to 'splain it for you.


    You are a "player," really? (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 09:41:56 AM EST
    I never heard someone call themselves a "player."  Usually a label applied by others ....by women especially.  And you think you fit the bill?

    Yes (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 09:50:41 AM EST
    I am a poker player. I left out the poker part because Jeralyn asked me to long ago because it causes problems with some company security systems.

    And, as always, I am happy to instruct you and decrease your ignorance.


    Jim, speaking of the P game (none / 0) (#114)
    by Green26 on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 11:06:06 AM EST
    Look at the wiki for Chip Reese. He was my good friend. I sat next to him at tables many times as he played, altho I never learned to play P. Chip was a great guy and lots of fun to be around. At his funeral, D. Brunson said Chip had won more money playing cash poker than anyone, or something like that.

    I am green with envy (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 12:51:21 PM EST
    he was a great player and by all reports a very nice man.

    TV and money has changed poker, as it does all things. It's hard to think of purses in the millions.

    I have never played with any of the legends but in my LA playing days I played with some movie/TV stars and a bunch of movie writers who always seemed to have a project in "development." They were all nice people who left their "star" at the cage.

    I've never made it to the WSOP, the $10K fee is a bit much for a retired dude. The closes I've came is second place in a Satellite that would got me there.

    There's a reason that the high stakes winners are young. In no limit you must be concentrated on the game at all times. The older you get the harder that is....and one mistake can wipe out.


    Chip played in LA at times (none / 0) (#136)
    by Green26 on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 05:12:07 PM EST
    but pretty much lived in Las Vegas. I sat with him when guys like Carl Icahn and Gabe Kaplan were playing. Also many of the big name players. The big name players were his best friends, along with Jack Binion. Chip used to try to get Bill Gates to play higher stakes, but Gates was too cautious. Chip wrote a chapter of his friend Doyle Brunson's apparently great book on poker.

    Chip always played in the WSOP, but didn't win a major event in it until he won the HORSE category in the year he died, as mentioned in Wiki. He finally started playing in some tv events, because his kids wanted him to be on tv. He thought cash poker was a more true test of poker skills, because eventually skill would win out. Said cash poker had considerable luck involved. Said there were lots of great tournament poker players, who played alot, played online, and got to be very good at the game. Like you, most of those guys didn't have the money to play in the big cash games, and some not in the WSOP either (unless an online tourney win had the WSOP buy-in as the prize). The HORSE event, with the $50,000 buy-in was created in part to limit the number of smaller but talented tournament players from entering.

    Chip used to play in some holdem games with $10,000/$20,000 or more. I once asked him how big that was. He said it was so big that you could win or lose a million dollars before you knew what hit you.

    He was huge fun to hang out with in Las Vegas--or anywhere else for that matter.


    The skill in tournament play is getting deep into (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 09:22:37 PM EST
    it..to the money. When you get down to 10 or so players the blinds are so huge that a bad run of cards can wipe you out so at that point you have to catch some cards.

    At 79 I don't have the stamina I use to have. I limit my play to two, maybe three days a week and 3 weeks a month.

    Holdem poker does have a much higher "luck" content than stud as a good stud player will have seen a lot of the deck in folded hands so bluffing is not as effective on the pros. OTOH Holdem with its 5 common cards does make it easier than in stud for a player to know he has the best hand. And I don't know of a card room outside of LA and Vegas that spreads stud anymore.

    And yes, a $10K/$20K would be huge. I can only dream of playing in one.


    Did you (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 12:38:32 AM EST
    play horse with Michael Jordan?  Good friends with Walter Payton?

    You must know a lot of important people.


    Nope and nope (none / 0) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 08:15:29 AM EST
    and just because you play with someone in a non-home game doesn't mean you know them.

    So don't be jealous, MKS. You're still the King of LA!


    Wasn't talking to you (none / 0) (#156)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 10:13:06 AM EST
    Well since Green wrote (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 12:48:29 PM EST
    altho I never learned to play P.

    And I replied to him:

    I have never played with any of the legends but in my LA playing days I played with some movie/TV stars and a bunch of movie writers who always seemed to have a project in "development."

    And you wrote:

    Did you play horse with Michael Jordan?  Good friends with Walter Payton?

    It sure looks like you were not questioning Green.

    But then I was assuming you actually read a comment before launching a personal attack.

    My bad.


    It was obvious he was questioning Green (none / 0) (#161)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 02:48:15 PM EST
    and you did the same thing yourself you're accusing MKS of.

    Self awareness ain't your strong suit apparently.

    I'm guessing that in poker, you have so many tells you might as well play with the cards upside down.


    Jim just had to get in (none / 0) (#163)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 03:40:52 PM EST
    the discussion.  I was not trolling him, but he wanted in on it.

    Oy, too funny.


    No, MKS (none / 0) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 12:30:59 PM EST
    You are trying to tell us you were asking Green about who he had played with when he had stated he had never learned to play.

    You were trolling me and when called for it you try to slide.



    I knew it (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 01:38:23 PM EST
    Just like a Trumper.  Double down.  Never admit a mistake.

    Just like giving bogus driving instructions from John Wayne airport to Laguna Niguel.

    Look man, just hit the "parent" button.

    You are wrong, wrong, wrong....and it just kills you to admit it.


    You wrote what you wrote. (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 08:52:35 PM EST
    And you continue making things up.


    Very bad.



    The point of my post to Green (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 01:47:20 PM EST
    was to reference his unstoppable name-dropping and one-upmanship.

    The reference to playing with Walter Payton and Michael Jordan was to lampoon Green's non sequitur bragging that he played D-1 College football.  "Playing" had nothing to do with cards.

    You did need a primer here, but it does take the fun out of it to spell it out in such excruciating detail.  


    Wow, can you believe I once said I played (none / 0) (#172)
    by Green26 on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 03:49:01 PM EST
    D-I football? That is some kind of name-dropping, isn't it? One mention in 11 years of posting. What do you think my number was? What do you think the school color was? I have some other names to "drop". Maybe I'll sprinkle some out every once in a while.

    Oh, I have no doubt (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 04:58:14 PM EST
    you will continue your name-dropping.  It is one of your primary arguments....

    Okay, after 11 years of posting, (none / 0) (#175)
    by Green26 on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 06:23:05 PM EST
    I mentioned that I went to Stanford. I also mentioned that I played college football. I discussed my poker friend Chip Reese. College football really isn't a name. Who else did I mention other than Chip Reese? I mentioned who I had for criminal procedure, because I knew Peter G would know him. Was that name-dropping? Two names in 11 years. That isn't big-time name-dropping. Ha.

    Yes, yes and yes (none / 0) (#164)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 03:52:36 PM EST
    Next question. Ha.

    The objective wasn't to shutdown the airport (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 01:38:55 PM EST
    That would require bombers. The objective was to destroy aircraft, which is somewhat more ominous.

    Clinton destroyed AL Asad airfield. We later came to regret that :) Only the Australians would jockey around the craters in the runways to take off after they resupplied their special forces who were the first of the coalition of the willing to secure AL Asad. US pilots would not do it though. Not sure what that says about us. But it's best to not destroy runways in upending countries. Destroying aircraft accomplishes the battle goal.

    At first I thought he was looking to dismantled the airfield too though.


    If the objective wasn't to shut down (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 01:47:34 PM EST
    the airport's runways then I posit that someone is thinking that we will need them.

    That spells big aircraft carrying a lot of men and supplies.

    And some serious fighting.


    It's a veiled threat among the other threats (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 02:55:02 PM EST
    Okay, so they shot some missiles. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 05:03:42 AM EST
    A one-off strike may satisfy some primitive desire on the administration's part to strike Assad and look tough, but it also risks deeper escalation without any real sense of direction, objective and / or purpose.

    So, what's Trump going to do now -- pursue a policy of regime change, as clumsily hinted by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson?

    The situation requires sober thought, not d!ck swinging.


    But you guys were the ones (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 08:50:33 AM EST
    claiming that Trump was under Putin's control.

    The situation requires sober thought, not d!ck swinging.

    Yet when it is revealed that Trump was trying a back channel to Putin to see what could be worked out you were very negative.


    The truth of the matter is that none of you think Trump is/was under the control of Putin. You don't oppose back channel diplomacy. You studied history and know how important it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    What you folks have been doing is playing partisan politics with national security.



    Trump is (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 09:01:51 AM EST
    Under Putin's thumb. You really don't think trump did this before checking with Putin do you? Just last week trump said the opposite on Syria

    Lordy, GA (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 09:10:10 AM EST
    Let me understand.

    Putin is Trump's boss.

    Putin is supporting Syria and Iran.

    Putin says it okay for Trump to undermine Putin's months long efforts to save Assad by showing that the US will attack if it sees it justified.

    Sure. That's it.

    (sarcasm alert)


    If you truly (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 09:26:26 AM EST
    Believe that trump went against Putin you should also be preparing yourself for the kompromat that Putin is going to release.

    Team Trump's present day dirty dealings (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 11:29:29 AM EST
    with the Russians have less than zero to do with the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    People condemned to repeat history aren't just the one's who forget it; they're also the one's who bastardize it.


    It's not about the Democrats, Jim. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 03:15:00 PM EST
    The Republicans are in charge now, and attacking Syria is entirely their call. So, rather than gloat and crotch-grab while yelling "Who's got the big one?", you might instead want to put on your big boy pants and give the question I posed some serious consideration, as would any rational adult. That is, "Okay, now what?"



    No Donald (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 04:42:06 PM EST
    You demand diplomacy after criticizing a supposed effort at a back channel effort to see if there is any common ground.

    That's hypocrisy.

    But I gotta admit your fascination with male sexual organs is amusing.

    As to "Now what?"

    If you really believe that Donald is in charge, you will be quiet and let him play his hand.


    jimakaPPJ: "If you really believe that Donald is in charge, you will be quiet and let him play his hand."

    You're bringing nothing to this discussion except a distinct partisan animus, and your obvious intent here is to provoke people.

    If you can't be civil, then get lost.


    Senate votes to trigger nuclear option (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ladyjustice on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 06:15:03 AM EST
         Since McConnell has broken rules on so many fronts without regard to tradition or US Constitution, would you think that Judge Gorsuch would have also broken with the majority (created some drama) to preserve our 200 year filibuster tradition for the minority (which incidentally, Republicans used against President Obama consistently and extensively) and REFUSED the nomination in order to preserve this tradition?  What could the majority have done?  Gorsuch confirmation hearings were a joke.  Oh gosh.
         I suppose it is in line with keeping with DJT MO of breaking rules, telling lies and generally running amock against civility and our long-held, long-faught rules and proud institutions.  Feels like a crime to see Judge Gorsuch ascend to this position with such a stain, when as an honorable judge, could have made a statement, and perhaps put the majority and McConnell in their place to preserve one last vestige of our means of deliberation for good. Alas, we will see many more slip away under this regime.  

    Gorsuch confirmed. (none / 0) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 11:21:13 AM EST
    The vote (after change of rules to enable the vote),was 54/45.  Democratic Senators Manchin, Heitkamp, and Donnelly voted for Gorsuch. Republican Senator Isakson missed the vote.

    Not a good day for the institution of the Senate; and, perhaps, a 40-year run for Gorsuch.

    Good article on the Terence Crutcher shooting (none / 0) (#44)
    by McBain on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 12:01:46 PM EST
    Absent even a hint of evidence to counter that narrative of self-defense, it hardly seems possible that the prosecution could hope to disprove Shelby's self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Frankly, the whole matter strikes me as legally very straightforward, with an acquittal all but a certainty if a reasonable jury is empaneled.

    That's a big if but I tend to agree.  These cases usually end the same.... no criminal conviction but a big civil settlement... a compromise that satisfies few people.

    No evidence is required? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 01:23:28 PM EST
    Absent even a hint of evidence to counter that narrative of self-defense,

    Since this novel legal theory seems to require proof of a negative on the part of the prosecution, i.e. that it was not self defense, it throws the burden of proof on its ear.  It's as if the attorney hasn't seen the video.  And why would he?  If he did, it would be hard to argue what you just posted in anything resembling good faith.

    If you are going to CLAIM self defense, you need to support the claim. Otherwise such an unsupported claim would be a get out of jail free card for anyone involved in a shooting of any kind.

    Unless the defense can show that the officer was attacked by the victim, and was the ONLY one attacked, since no other officer shot him, the video shows a murder.


    That's not how the law works (none / 0) (#47)
    by McBain on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 02:02:51 PM EST
    Not even close...  
    "Unless the defense can show that the officer was attacked by the victim, and was the ONLY one attacked, since no other officer shot him, the video shows a murder."
    Fortunately, lawmakers don't agree with you.

    From the link I posted above, self defense expert Andrew Branca wrote...

    Officer Shelby will naturally raise a legal defense of self-defense in her upcoming trial on the manslaughter charge. Under Oklahoma law it will be the prosecution will bear the burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, or the jury will be instructed to acquit Shelby of the manslaughter charge.

    I wonder if the defense will ask for a bench trial like most of the Freddie Gray cops did?


    Let me ask you this (none / 0) (#68)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 10:08:46 PM EST
    Do you WANT this woman to get away scot-free for killing an unarmed motorist who was doing his best to comply with police?

    If compliance with police is not enough to keep an unarmed Black man safe from them, would he be advised to run rather than present a stationary target?

    Remember, the window she said he reached into was not open.


    I would need more evidence before (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by McBain on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 10:46:57 AM EST
    reaching such an important decision.  I'd like to know more about how cops are trained to use tasers for one thing. So far, nothing I've seen suggests race had anything to do with the shooting.  

    If compliance with police is not enough to keep an unarmed Black man safe from them, would he be advised to run rather than present a stationary target?
    Crutcher clearly wasn't complying with police. His hands were up but he was walking back towards his vehicle.... bad move.  Running would have been dumb too.  He should have done exactly as he was told.  Perhaps drugs impaired his judgement.  

    This is my issue (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 11:45:39 AM EST
    His hands were up but he was walking back towards his vehicle.... bad move.

    Non-compliance with police is not a death penalty offense.

    Write that a hundred times and then we will talk.

    In this case the non-compliance was harmless, except that it happened in the presence of an incompetent police officer who needs to contemplate her actions in a very small room with bars on the door.

    Please explain in detail why an armed police officer standing at some distance from the subject would be in fear of her life from a man who was retreating and unarmed.

    You statement at the top confirms what we all know.  You enjoy seeing unarmed Black men shot by police, and you can't imagine any reason why that should reflect badly on the officer.

    I have a personal friend who is Black and was unarmed when shot by police over a non-moving vehicle code violation.  (Which cost the county $600,000 and bought my friend a house.  Deputy fired 16 rounds in a  residential neighborhood because he was in "fear of his life" from a vehicle that was fleeing the gunfire.)  Do you have any Black friends?  If you don't, I understand.


    Repack, you sometimes contribute good things (3.00 / 3) (#87)
    by McBain on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 03:16:16 PM EST
    to this blog (music, mountain biking) but often you act like a child.
    Your statement at the top confirms what we all know.  You enjoy seeing unarmed Black men shot by police

    Comments like that have no place in TalkLeft.  I stopped responding to you for a while and will do it again if you keep that up. Stick to the legitimate parts of your argument and we can  have good discussions.

    We all know you're a rebel, have black friends and are an honorary member of the black community. That's great but none of that trumps facts or common sense. Shelby's story is she was afraid Crutcher was going for a weapon in his car.  It's going to be difficult to prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

    As is the case in just about all recent police shootings, the victims family will have a much better chance in civil court.  They can sue the police department, not just one officer. They can bring up the helicopter cop saying Crutcher looked like a "bad dude".  They can bring up that another officer had a taser ready but didn't use it.  Those things will probably scare the city into a 7 figure settlement.


    Jared Kushner, (none / 0) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 02:35:37 PM EST
    did not disclose dozens of encounters with foreign leaders on his application for top secret security clearance.  Kushner omitted dozens of meetings including with the Russian Ambassador and the head of a Russian state-owned bank.  The omissions seem odd given the FBI and Congressional investigations into Russian interference in the presidential election and possible coordination with the Trump campaign, including whether any crimes were committed.

     The security forms state "withholding, misrepresenting, or falsifying information" could result in loss of access to classified information, denial of eligibility for a sensitive job, or even prosecution (fine or up to 5 years in jail)>

    Kushner's attorney said he forgot to list these contacts, but will amend his forms and discuss details with the FBI.  

    Maybe. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 03:11:05 PM EST
    Jared has flipped

    Or, (none / 0) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 03:14:29 PM EST

    Please God (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 01:41:44 PM EST
    Let Bannon flip and flip out :)

    Just wondering (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 11:10:28 AM EST
    Does Putin go to some kind of resort every single weekend?

    And now we are working to remove Assad (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 08, 2017 at 11:15:52 AM EST
    Then another power vacuum?

    "and now"? (none / 0) (#116)
    by linea on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 11:11:41 AM EST
    the destroyed cities, the 400,000 dead, the war-refugees - all of it - are all a direct result of america's five year proxy war to replace assad.

    the cia has trained 10,000 fighters, supplied high-tech weapons, embeded advisors, and provides 1 billion usd a year; and you just now figured out that the u.s. is "working to remove assad"?

    dont worry about the power vacuum, the radical islamists that the u.s. is equipping and funding and advising will take care of that.


    That's odd (none / 0) (#123)
    by vicndabx on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 01:17:45 PM EST
    I thought it was the bombs and bullets people on the ground were throwing at each other was the cause.

    and this (none / 0) (#119)
    by linea on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 12:36:25 PM EST
    Escort Who Gave Google Exec Fatal Heroin Shot To Be Deported To Canada

    my first reaction was, "an escort? why cant a wealthy executive with a yacht get a proper girlfriend?" so i googled and found, "Forrest Timothy Hayes was 51 years old with a wife and five kids, including toddler twins."

    seems like, if there werent married men there woudnt be protitutes. which, by the way, brings me to my topic: the u.s. needs to switch to the nordic model and the legal age for the adult film industry be raised to 21 with additional regulations for the industry mandated (see box 1. "potential policy changes" of article).

    I watched the 48 hours episode on this case (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by McBain on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 01:15:34 PM EST
    The escort was also in a relationship with someone else but needed money for a drug addiction so she saw other men on the side.  

    There's an interesting book called "Dollars and Sex: How Economics Influences Sex and Love" by economics professor Mariana Adshade.  She talks about prostitution, arranged marriages and so called normal relationships. She makes a strong case that pretty much everything has to do with supply and demand.  


    A ridiculous conclusion. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 08:16:20 PM EST
    Prostitution has been around longer than marriage. You know, the whole "world's oldest profession" meme. There will be prostitutes with or without marriage.

    the studies back me up (4.00 / 1) (#141)
    by linea on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 10:44:08 PM EST
    of repeat avid users of prostitutes the substantial portion are married, white, earn over $120,000 per year, and have bachelor or graduate degrees.

    Sadly, they don't (none / 0) (#142)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 10:53:36 PM EST
    Your claim wasn't that a "substantial portion" of "repeat, avid users" of prostitutes were married.  What you actually claimed was:

    seems like, if there werent married men there woudnt be protitutes. which, by the way, brings me to my topic:

    Yman (none / 0) (#152)
    by linea on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 08:28:14 AM EST
    trolls me
    trying to start an argument

    No he isn't (3.67 / 3) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 09:15:41 AM EST
    He is pointing out how you attempt to misconstrue.

    I really don't appreciate the passive aggressive stream of misogyny you leave around here, and a lot of passive aggressive man hate too linea.

    But stop whining about being trolled  snowflake


    TL would be a better place wtih less trolling (1.00 / 1) (#158)
    by McBain on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 10:37:12 AM EST
    don't encourage it

    Hahaha! (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 12:53:37 PM EST
    Quit trolling me McBain

    Hahaha... (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by desertswine on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 06:04:17 PM EST
    The Duke of Trolls wants everyone to stop trolling;  everyone but him, that is.

    my opinion (none / 0) (#167)
    by linea on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 09:04:04 PM EST
    misogyny... and a lot of passive aggressive man hate too

    my opinion, you dont have the most modern attitude on women and "our place in society" and while i realize it's not intentional on your part it's still not helpful.

    for example, i believe the job of policing (the tools, the tactics, the expectations) must conform to the abilities of the average 21 year old woman - your response to the topic (see below) would restrict policing to the 1% of strongest women. in my opinion, that's entirely the wrong attitude. my position is, if we need to re-write the rules for women - the average woman - and beligerantly drunk dude-bros or noncompliant persons high on pcp get tazed immediately (rather than wrestled to the ground) than that's fine. i'm all for it.

    I know women who are extremely physically strong too. I know a TAC officer who runs 15 miles a day and her spouse is an MP. Her physical presence holds a room she commands. It's terrible when a woman attempts to paint all women as incapable.

    My opinion (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 10:35:33 PM EST
    YOU don't have the most modern opinion of women OR MEN and their place in society. For example, you still cling to archaic gender social constrictions vs each human being judged by the content of their character and their natural abilities nurtured by their passions and their engendered freedoms to exercise all of thee above.

    I find your definitions and analogies of the sexes to be withered and equivalent to where many cutting edge liberals and progressives had grown to in social awareness in the 80s. I find your opinions stale and sorely dated. Occasionally when reading them I blush, alone in my embarrassment, remembering my own learning curve when I so easily attempted to disabused others championing "a cause".


    also (none / 0) (#143)
    by linea on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 11:02:34 PM EST
    There will be prostitutes with or without marriage.

    "seems like" wasnt my central thesis. it was an offhand remark. i was asserting support for the nordic model and regulation of the adult industry including raising the minimum age to 21 - you cant drink untill that age and you cant buy a handgun even though it's your "god-given constitutional right" so it only seems reasonable to prohibit those under 21 from being abused by that industry.


    You think prostitution (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Towanda on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 11:48:55 PM EST
    Isn't prohibited (in almost all states)?  You think abuse isn't prohibited -- abuse of adults as well as minors?  Whaaat?

    Tichelman wasn't tried for prostitution (none / 0) (#127)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 01:58:16 PM EST
    She was tried and convicted of manslaughter because she gave him a shot of heroin and then walked away as he lay dying on the floor.  Not sure what that has to do with raising the age for adult film actors, but it is not remotely surprising that your first reaction was to judge the male victim (and married men in general).

    Googling (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 08:16:24 AM EST
    her brought up some interesting information. She's the daughter of a CEO here in Atlanta, graduated from Georgia State University and is also implicated in the death of Dean Riopelle the owner of the Masquerade here in Atlanta.

    please re-read the article (none / 0) (#128)
    by linea on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 02:09:43 PM EST
    Tichelman pleaded guilty to felony involuntary manslaughter, destroying evidence and several drug and prostitution charges.

    because it is justice to prosecute desperate heroin addicts for prostitution?


    She wasn't sentenced to 6 years (none / 0) (#131)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 02:28:28 PM EST
    ... for the misdemeanor charges (including the prostitution).  She was sentenced to 6 years for the felony manslaughter charges:

    Hayes was found dead after Alix Tichelman, a 27-year-old call girl he hired, injected him with a lethal dose of heroin, authorities said. Tuesday, prosecutors refined a charge of manslaughter to involuntary manslaughter. A felony charge of drug possession also was reduced to a misdemeanor because of a Jan. 1 change in state law that reduced penalties for drug crimes.

    Hearing those refined charges, Tichelman pleaded guilty to all of her charges without a plea deal from prosecutors. The final charges also included felony administration of drugs, misdemeanor destroying or concealing evidence and misdemeanor engaging in prostitution, according to court documents.

    because it is justice to prosecute desperate heroin addicts for prostitution?

    No - frankly, I think prostitution should be legal, but that's besides the point.  It IS justice for her to be prosecuted for injecting him with heroin and then walking away and letting him die, regardless of whether someone is trying to blame the male victim or blame married me for prostitution.


    straw man argument (none / 0) (#132)
    by linea on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 02:41:24 PM EST
    i never opined on the appropriateness of the involuntary manslaughter conviction.

    That's the point (none / 0) (#133)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 04:00:58 PM EST
    You skipped right past her felony manslaughter conviction in order to try to blame the victim (and blame married men for prostitution), because he's a male and the perpetrator was a woman.

    well !! (none / 0) (#134)
    by linea on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 04:47:20 PM EST
    im sorry, with so many potential topics of discussion arising from this news story, that i failed to focus on the one you were most interested in. i have a strong opinion on the critera for deportation of visa holders and LPRs but i didnt comment on that either.

    perhaps you could rephrase your post?
    something like:

    "hi linea! im interested in your perspective of the involuntary manslaughter charge. do you feel the charges and sentance were appropriate given that the young woman was in a vulnerable situation; not only as a heroin addict prostituting herself for money to get drugs, but also because she was on the yacht of an older wealthy man who both paid her and ordered her to inject him (he used the light of his cell phone to show her where to inject)?"


    No, I'm good (2.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 09, 2017 at 05:03:23 PM EST
    I'm an adult who can choose my own words. I phrased it precisely the way I intended.  

    He made the decision to hire a prostitute.  She made the decision to take drugs and to be a prostitute.  Then she made the decision to inject him and leave him dying on the floor.  Trying to blame him (and married men in general for prostitution) because he's a man and exonerate her simply because she's a female won't change that.


    Yman (1.00 / 1) (#153)
    by linea on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 08:28:38 AM EST
    trolls me
    trying to start an argument

    Yman was stating facts, linea. (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 02:51:51 PM EST
    I don't know of any states with draconian sentences for misdemeanor prostitution offenses. The woman in question was sentenced to six years for her felony manslaughter conviction. Regardless, hers is likely the wrong example to use in any argument about the perceived shortcomings nd pitfalls of our prostitution laws.

    Personally, I believe that prostitution should be legalized. That it flourishes -- whether allowed by authoritieswho look the other way, or otherwise -- as part of an unregulated underground economy places its practitioners at potentially grave risk of personal harm. That harm could be from arrest and conviction, sexual exploitation, disease and serious bodily injury, or perhaps most importantly, from human trafficking / involuntary servitude.

    On that note, it's been estimated that up to 75-80% of all human trafficking in the world is sex trade-related. The average age of entry for teenagers engaged in the sex trade in the United States is between 12 and 14 years old. Many victims are abandoned and runaway girls who were sexually abused as children. Abandoned and runaway boys are vulnerable to sexual exploitation / sex trafficking as well, although much less so than girls.

    Per a 2012 study commissioned by the International Labour Organization, there are an estimated 21 million people held in illegal bondage (slavery) in the world today, and that number may be as high as 30 million. Women and girls represent the largest share of forced labor victims, with 11.4 million trafficked victims (55%) as compared to 9.5 million (45%) men.

    According to the U.S. State Department, some 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year, of which 80% are female and half are children under 18 years of age. Between 14,500 and 17,500 people are trafficked annually into the United States.

    Human trafficking is the third largest international criminal activity / industry in the world today, trailing only the illegal drug and arms trades. Per a 2015 CNN report, it reportedly generates a profit of $32 billion every year, of which $15.5 billion is derived in industrialized countries.

    Speaking for myself only, I believe that we would do well to start addressing our present and longstanding issues with prostitution as part of an underground economy, in terms of combatting the overall larger problem of human trafficking in general.



    Another (none / 0) (#174)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 06:22:55 PM EST
    shoe drops  
    FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page