Thursday Open Thread

Our last open thread is full. Here's a new one, all topics welcome.

< Defense Gives Closing in "El Chapo" Trial | Sunday Superbowl and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is as serious as it gets (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 03:51:00 PM EST
    I can't but LOL when I imagine he could be telling the truth.  I can totally imagine them telling him this.

    Just concluded a great meeting with my Intel team in the Oval Office who told me that what they said on Tuesday at the Senate Hearing was mischaracterized by the media - and we are very much in agreement on Iran, ISIS, North Korea, etc. Their testimony was distorted press....

    ...I would suggest you read the COMPLETE testimony from Tuesday. A false narrative is so bad for our Country. I value our intelligence community. Happily, we had a very good meeting, and we are all on the same page!

    look at the picture and tell me you can't imagine them saying that

    This is nutz. They were tellevised live (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 06:42:18 PM EST
    and so, lordy, we have not just transcript but tapes.

    The laege orange lout is crazy -- or counting on his lemmings to be crazy.


    The man who likes beer, continued. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 01:30:59 PM EST
    Appeals have been filed challenging the dismissal of 83 misconduct complaints (e.g., judicial misconduct during SC confirmation process--false statements/judicial temperament) against then judge, and now, Justice, Brett Kavanaugh.  

    In a December 18, 2018 order by Chief Judge of the 10th Circuit, Timothy Tymkovich, it was concluded that the judicial council lacked power to consider the complaints, despite calling them "serious", because an intervening event (Kavanaugh's elevation to the SC) made him no longer a "judge" covered by the Judicial Conduct and Disabilities Act.

    In one appeal, it is contended that the order violates the "time-of-filing" rule, which holds that a Court's jurisdiction depends on "the state of things at the time of action brought"..and that Kavanaugh was a judge when the complaints were filed.

    In a second case, it is argued that the judicial council should be disqualified from acting on the appeal because it had earlier ruled on the complaints. And, that the term "intervening event" relies erroneously on a "novel and excessively generous" interpretation of "covered judge" to reach a decision.

    These appeals bring to bear the issue of who can hear the appeals, if they are to be heard--- reconsideration by the 10th Circuit or a Judicial Conference Committee.

    It is not likely, I would guess, that the appeals will survive, but it does come across poorly if accountability of a judge can be escaped by promotion to the Supreme Court.  Another albatross suitable for Kavanaugh's neck.  

    My LTE Ran in the Local Paper (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Feb 03, 2019 at 09:02:46 AM EST
    I have a high success rate for getting my letters published.

    It's easy to build a metaphorical wall. After all, nothing is cheaper than empty talk.

    A real wall, like any form of actual construction, is more complicated. Mr. Trump has put a price tag on his signature wall of $5.7 billion dollars. (A cynic might use this opportunity to point out that in real life, everything always takes longer and costs more, but I would never stoop to that.)

    The obvious question about this number is, what is the basis for it? As we know, a real wall would require materials, design, labor, land acquisition through eminent domain, legal fees, permits, and a few dozen other expenses. How does this figure of $5.7 billion break down these areas? How do we look at the spread sheet to make sure nothing has been left off and that the expenses were properly identified? Who compiled these figures for the president, and what are that person's qualifications to do so?

    If only the United States had some form of "media" that would ask these questions, I wouldn't have to.

    I don't care who wins (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 03, 2019 at 10:47:01 AM EST
    As long as it's not the Patriots

    This is good news (4.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 05:42:04 PM EST
    Former Massachusetts Gov. Weld says he'll discuss presidential plans in NH on Feb. 15

    Amid rampant speculation that he is strongly considering running for president, and most likely as a Republican, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld told WMUR on Thursday that he will have nothing to say about the matter for about two weeks but will make his plans known in New Hampshire.

    2020 (1.50 / 2) (#44)
    by NoSides on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:18:46 AM EST
    President Trump announced Friday that he is pulling the U.S. out of its Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia.

    The Dims, under the decrepit leadership of Pelosi and Schumer were quick to respond to this new threat to life on Earth by forcefully saying --- nothing.

    You are so worried about this (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:31:26 AM EST
    Poor thing.

    Here's the thing tho, everyone - every one - knows Russia has been violating this treaty for decades.

    Since the U.S. continuing to abide by it would actually only benefit Russia I'm afraid you are not doing anything to convince anyone you are not either an actual Russian troll or a useful idiot fed enough nonsense that you actually believe this stuff.

    Either way, you are wasting your time here.  But I don't mind.

    Please continue.  


    FYI (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:45:31 AM EST
    "NoSides" is literally waving a red flag you have a side.

    Just, you know, for future reference.


    You have Google, right? (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 06:58:23 PM EST
    Maybe before working yourself up into a lather and doing these kind of lies, you could ... ya know ...

    ... learn how to use it.


    NoSides (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 08:23:22 PM EST
    While I suspect you are a previously banned commenter using a different IP address, please note our comment rules: you get 3 comments a day, the rest will be erased.

    Your views are clearly contrary to those espoused by me and TalkLeft. You are baiting other commenters. And you will not be allowed to turn the thread into making you the center of attention.


    How so? (none / 0) (#152)
    by NoSides on Thu May 23, 2019 at 10:27:14 PM EST
    When Trump does something outrageous, there is usually, almost invariably, silence from the Democratic Party.

    I think you and others resented, or were offended by my use of the word "dims" as a description of the current leadership of the Party.

    For that, I apologize.

    But my opinions clearly express a perspective that is leftist.

    I think we need coherent issue-oriented responses from members of and leadership of the Democratic Party - and the concentration on Trump's finances is getting us nowhere.

    I am not interested in being the center of attention.

    I am only interested in expressing an opinion - an opinions which people are free to ignore. No problem.


    Misdirection (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by NoSides on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 05:11:17 PM EST
    Trump is threatening regime change in Venezuela. An armed invasion for "democracy"is being floated about.

    The nuclear weapons treaty with Russia is going to expire - with the blessings of the Trump administration.

    So what are the Dims talking about?
    Trump's tax returns.
    Their "border security" is better than Trump's.
    Fighting Trump on finally getting our troops out of Syria and Afghanistan.

    If this is the best the Dims can do, say hello to Trump 2020.

    I'm (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 05:18:12 PM EST
    guessing this  makes sense in the  Russian. Misdirection indeed.

    The Democrats are talking ... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 07:50:13 PM EST
    ... about a lot of things.  One thing they're rightfully not worried about?  The political prognostications of someone who can't come up with a better troll than "the Dims".

    Talking (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by NoSides on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 08:21:25 PM EST
    OK. They're talking about "a lot of things".

    Are they talking about the end of the nuclear agreement with the Russians?
    Do they care if it ends, and a new arms race begins - and the threat of nuclear catastrophe looms?
    Do you know what Pelosi or Schumer thinks about this?

    Are they talking about the potential invasion plans or forced regime change in Venezuela?
    Do you know what Pelosi or Schumer think about that? Are they for "regime change"?  

    I know you think it is trollish to call these "leaders" "Dims" - but they are dim. There is no light coming from them.  

    The way things are going, it will be Trump 2020.
    And everyone will be "shocked". "Shocked" I say.


    You seem distraught (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 08:40:05 PM EST
    If there is a "new arms race" with Russia they will lose.  They are a pretty insignificant military power. They have no money.  Which is why they are turning to things like cyber and gloming onto the Chinese.

    There are many thing to be distraught about but I really wouldn't worry about Trump in 2020.
    I really wouldn't.

    Deep breaths help.


    Seriously (4.75 / 4) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 08:57:31 PM EST
    this one sounds like one of those Russian trolls sent in an attempt to "divide the left".

    For those cringing in fear (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 09:05:16 PM EST
    Of mighty Russia


    USA 602 billion which is 3.1% of GDP

    Russia 66 billion which is 4.3% of GDP

    their army is smaller than Saudi Arabia and their economy is smaller than Canada.

    Jus sayin


    Whew! (2.00 / 1) (#45)
    by NoSides on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:21:21 AM EST
    One nuclear bomb, of which they have plenty, will effectively lead to the poisoning of the human race.

    But what the heck.
    As you say, their economy isn't very good.


    Good thing Putin (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:35:03 AM EST
    Is just an evil little kleptocrat.

    Not a stupid one.


    Yep. You don't? (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 08:49:05 PM EST
    Are they talking about the end of the nuclear agreement with the Russians?
    Do they care if it ends, and a new arms race begins - and the threat of nuclear catastrophe looms?
    Do you know what Pelosi or Schumer thinks about this?

    They've been talking about it.

    For a while now.

    Months, in fact.

    And yeah, it IS beyond trollish to call Pelosi and Schumer "Dims" - not even halfway decent trolling.  Pathetic, in fact - although not nearly as ridiculous as claiming that the 2020 election will be won by Trump based on their failure to focus on the INF or Venezuela.

    That's just laughable.


    Are these (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 08:58:21 PM EST
    the new talking points Putin is sending out his bots to spread? Because you really, really sound just like a Russian bot.

    I think there is agita about the taxes (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 08:02:45 PM EST
    If you are not a Russki troll (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 10:26:53 PM EST
    You are indistinguishable from one and will be treated as one.

    If it walks like a duck...


    Don't feed the trolls (none / 0) (#132)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 08:11:55 PM EST
    I don't think he/she is a russian troll, just a baiting commenter, probably one who has registered here before using a different IP address so I can't tell. Please don't respond with an insult or accusation, just ignore or respond with a recipe. Comments with personal attacks or accusations will be deleted even if he/she is a troll.

    Are we there yet? (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 03:35:56 PM EST
    Not so much

    Mueller's team seized 'voluminous and complex' evidence from Roger Stone

    The court papers said investigators grabbed hard drives containing several terabytes of information, including "FBI case reports, search warrant applications and results (e.g., Apple iCloud accounts and email accounts), bank and financial records, and the contents of numerous physical devices (e.g., cellular phones, computers, and hard drives)."

    And this

    The special counsel requests that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson label the case "complex" in light of the scope of potential evidence.

    Why would (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 03:52:09 PM EST
    Stone have FBI case reports and search warrant applications? Was someone feeding them to him who works in the FBI? Is that something that anybody can get?

    This sounds like months and months of work to a layperson like me. Maybe one of our legal eagles can give us how long this kind of thing normally takes.


    Good question (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 04:06:38 PM EST
    It's said (by tv lawyers) the designation of "complex" is also important.  Not just because of the suggestion it could take a long time but that what has been publicly filed does not (this is before the linked story) seem to be complicated enough to rate that designation.

    Suggesting more is coming we don't yet know about.

    Curious what real lawyers think about that


    Reading (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 05:51:40 PM EST
    at Empty Wheel that the FBI is including their own files in the description of the terabytes of data.

    The complex designation blows the whole "it's almost over" meme and certainly strongly hints a crimes way beyond obstruction(even non-pardonable state crimes).


    Here (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 04:14:41 PM EST
    Around these parts, the "complex" (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 05:25:47 PM EST
    designation is thrown around like candy. It refers to a provision of the federal Speedy Trial Act which says that if a judge designates the case as "complex" then the strict time limits of the Act can't be enforced. So in reality, it winds up meaning "Both sides would rather have more time to prepare and not have to worry about complying with the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act."

    I just saw Roger Stone (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 05:30:17 PM EST
    Saying so.

    I'm guessing (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 05:31:26 PM EST
    We are not "close"

    What (none / 0) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 06:13:40 PM EST
    I don't understand is how these "process crimes" can even be considered complex?

    Seemingly Mueller already has slam dunk evidence on Stone, reams of bank and financial records seem hardly germane to the current charges.


    Yes (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 06:22:18 PM EST
    That's the source of my comment above.  Lots of tv lawyers have been saying just that.  The crimes of lying to congress and witness tampering are as you say slam dunk.  Not "complex".

    Suggesting there is more coming.  Often suggesting conspiracy.  

    The house republicans just, yesterday I think, finally named the members of the Intel committee.  After dragging their feet as long as the possibly could because the committee can do no business until they were named and the chairman has said the very first order of business will be to send Mueller all those transcripts.

    It's assumed Mueller has seen them but he can not use them to charge anyone with lying to congress until he officially "has" them.

    Much speculation more charges of lying to come very soon after that.  With DJTJ right at the top of the expected list.


    Speaking (none / 0) (#20)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 06:49:50 PM EST
    of the HSIC, Swalwell seems to be ready to jump into the presidential race.

    I'm not quite sure how much DJT actually lied, he claimed a lot of bogus privilege during the hearings. I'm thinking that Junior is more of a target for the overarching conspiracy charge maybe the final stop in all the indictments(at least the Stone/Wikileaks branch of the probe), if Mueller  
    declines going after senior.


    Check out (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 06:54:59 PM EST
    this Bing search

    to many link to mess with


    Ok (none / 0) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 07:18:44 PM EST
    missed that, but is charging junior with that now part of Mueller's plan right now. I think that when
    the hammer drops it will be more than a mere "process crime". I do think it will be sooner rather than later.

    So do I (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 07:21:37 PM EST
    Clapper says the big one is coming.  And it will probably have several people indicted.

    I hate (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 08:06:21 PM EST
    when they say things like this. I wish they would just tell what they know.

    Clapper (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 08:12:35 PM EST
    Was guessing based on publicly available info and what he learned while still in office.  He actually said that.

    So it's possible he was.  But I suspect he probably still has a connection or two.


    I bet (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 08:18:58 PM EST
    he has a lot of connections and I know they can't say what they know but I just wish they would.

    Schiff (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 06:59:50 PM EST
    Was who I was referring to.

    It does (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 04:54:49 PM EST
    sound like the FBI hit the mother lode at Stone's homes. Too bad it wasn't SDNY 'cause they would already be telling the media everything they had.

    Well (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 06:00:43 PM EST
    I just ran my tax numbers through the generic turbo tax calculator and boy are we screwed. We're going to have to write a big check to the IRS apparently due to Trump and the GOP's tax scam.

    Oh no (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve13209 on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 06:38:39 PM EST
    I haven't tried mine yet. I am concerned also since I have lots of deductions I used to take.

    Yeah, (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 06:58:27 PM EST
    the deductions are what I lost. And I think the tax brackets have changed too. A lot of people are really going to be screwed by the tax scam.

    Screwed (none / 0) (#113)
    by Steve13209 on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 11:50:24 AM EST
    Not only have my taxes gone UP, the payroll company reduced by withholding last year (is this something the IRS can adjust), so I am WAY in the hole.

    I thought I was middle class.


    I'm sick (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 01:52:46 PM EST
    I did my taxes and it is worse than the estimate to the tune of $1700.00. I emailed both of my senators who voted for this scam and my representative who also voted for it. They need to fix it. This is nothing short of a disaster.

    Yes, you can require your employer to adjust (none / 0) (#122)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 02:11:32 PM EST
    your withholding by filing a new W-9 form.

    I think you mean (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Feb 03, 2019 at 04:58:13 PM EST
    W-4. That's the form that tells your employer what to withhold.

    You are absolutely right, ChuckO (none / 0) (#148)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 03, 2019 at 08:27:43 PM EST
    my booboo. Perhaps jumbled in my mind with Form I-9, the other form that new employees fill out (to certify they are either a citizen or a non-citizen entitled to work).

    Mine came out pretty much the same as last year (none / 0) (#21)
    by McBain on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 06:54:44 PM EST
    I earned a little more so I paid a little more.  I also had to pay my first ever late payment penalty for my estimated taxes.  It was only a few bucks so not a big deal.  I'm curious if anyone here who is supposed to pay estimated taxes never does and just takes the penalty every year?  In theory you'll earn more money by investing it for 12 months and then paying the IRS all at once.

    2018 was my first year on ACA.  Overall, it saved me some money.  I had fewer choices but I was happy with my new doctor. She doesn't appear to be a pill pusher.



    I used (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 07:06:56 PM EST
    to pay estimated taxes and then it got to the point where I didn't owe any taxes so no paying estimates. Now I guess I am going to have to go pay to paying estimates or close down my business. I'm really thinking about closing down my business because one of the incentives was the deductions. Since I no longer get the deductions it's not gonna be worth it.  

    How have business deductions changed? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 07:40:49 PM EST
    On a Schedule C for your own business? Business deductions of a C-Corp? Other corporation? I am not aware of that. I thought it was only the trade-off between fewer itemized personal deductions vs a larger standard deduction.

    I'm not a (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 31, 2019 at 08:10:18 PM EST
    C Corp. They get big special treatment. All I am is a sole proprietor where we get some pass through tax but since they changed the deductions on W-2's to try to scam people into voting for the GOP last November it's a combination problem.

    Overall you are right about the standard deduction and itemized deductions but apparently a lot of things were changed.


    Peter I think you are correct (none / 0) (#136)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 08:26:16 PM EST
    mcbain, please don't ask people (none / 0) (#133)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 08:14:45 PM EST
    to confess they are willfully breaking the law by not paying estimated taxes. This is a public forum

    I didn't word my question correctly (none / 0) (#140)
    by McBain on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 10:16:54 PM EST
    I didn't mean not paying taxes at all.  I meant paying all the tax due, plus penalties (if any) at the end of the year instead of in four equal installments.  I always pay in four installments.

    The tax laws are a little confusing about how much to pay when you're self employed.



    We're going to end up paying ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 06:53:16 PM EST
    ... about $1,900 more than last year on approximately the same level of joint income. Yeah, that so-called GOP tax reform was a scam. I bet Republicans will be getting an earful come mid-April, when their own voters do their returns and start to realize they've been played for chumps.

    This has (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:32:13 PM EST
    been going on for around 20 years or so. Back in the 90's I could deduct a home office even taking part of the utilities off my tax bill for the percentage of the square footage that was the office. I could use my computer 1/2 the time for business and 1/2 for personal write off the 1/2 that was used for business. Then George W. Bush decided to screw around with taxes and I lost the home office deduction because as you see I do other things on my computer besides business and if you even touch it to do anything other than strictly business you lost the entire deduction. So here we are now were doing nothing gets you the same deduction as actually doing something. So I guess I might as well go for free time. I am massively ticked off.

    self employed people (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 08:20:42 PM EST
    According to US News, the self employed still get business deductions

    If you're self-employed or an independent contractor, you may be able to claim expenses directly related to your business such as your home office, health insurance, education expenses or expenses related to business use of your car. There is also a new 20 percent qualified business income deduction in addition to the business expenses you are able to deduct.

    May (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 09:02:46 PM EST
    is the operative word there. Yes, you MAY but I cannot since I do not have an office that is 100% used for business. The way it is set up now with the standard deductions unless you have more than 24K you really don't get any benefit from itemizing like you did before. For people who have a bigger operation than I do maybe it won't make a difference.

    Cory (none / 0) (#42)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 06:01:03 AM EST
    Booker is in, my early got feeling, yawn.

    I'm a fan of Cory. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 06:38:07 AM EST
    I might be the only fan he has around here though. LOL. I have seen him work a crowd here in GA.

    I like Cory. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 01:06:06 PM EST
    And hav.e so stated in previous posts

    I would expect Booker (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 07:42:59 PM EST
    Will have as much of a problem with past policies as Harris.  

    Frankly I can't (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:27:12 PM EST
    name one that is not going to have problems in that area.

    This is why governors are good. They have experience and no DC voting record.


    Booker was a (none / 0) (#138)
    by ragebot on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 10:07:35 PM EST
    5* out of high school; not so much at Stanford.

    PROJECT BLUE BOOK (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 09:47:26 AM EST
    Is getting good. Great cast.  Great look. If you are into that sort of thing you should be watching.

    I'm enjoying it. It's a fictionalized (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by desertswine on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 11:58:42 AM EST
    account of some of the early UFO cases.  At the same time, I'm re-reading The Report On Unidentified Flying Objects by Edward J. Ruppelt.  From 1951 thru 1953 Ruppelt was the Chief of the USAF's Project Blue Book.  He mentions his work with Dr. J. Allen Hynek who was the head of Ohio State's Astronomy Dept.  I think the early UFO cases were the most interesting ones.

    BTW, Ruppelt's book was written in 1956 and he created the term UFO to replace the words "flying saucer."

    Oh - TMI.  I like the show.


    Mercury astronaut Gordon's Cooper's (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 05:39:00 PM EST
    close encounters testimony is pretty damn compelling.

    The man certainly had no discernible need and a lot to lose if he was trying to launch a 2nd career has a UFO fabulist.


    I agree (none / 0) (#71)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 07:56:21 PM EST
    the sightings by astronauts and pilots are much more credible.  I'm still highly skeptical of the "flying saucer" sightings.  Those came from a misunderstanding of  an earlier sighting....
    It was when the pilot, Kenneth Arnold, tried to describe the motion of the objects to a reporter for the United Press that the mix-up occurred. He said they flew "like a saucer if you skip it across the water." The reporter took this to mean that the objects themselves were saucer-like, and news reports across the country repeated that Arnold had seen "flying saucers."

    Suddenly everyone was seeing what Arnold had seen, except that he hadn't.

    Cooper is a strange one (none / 0) (#90)
    by ragebot on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 09:51:53 PM EST
    Met some guys down island who were involved with his treasure maps from space stuff.

    May have to check out the Discovery Channel stuff.  Any of you Hollywood guys up to speed on it.


    "The Kids In the Hall" ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 07:02:58 PM EST
    One result (4.50 / 6) (#52)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 12:18:13 PM EST
    Of the video recorders in every shirt pocket and purse is the absolute disappearance from our skies of UFOs.

    Similarly, until people started carrying video recorders, police never beat up and shot unarmed black men.

    I blame the video cameras for both effects.


    You make (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 01:49:14 PM EST
    a really good point about UFOs. I had not thought of that before.

    Right. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 01:26:08 AM EST
    The UFO's scouting the earth for invasion gave up when they themselves became subject to near universal surveillance.

    Steve Jobs saved the world from extraterrestrial invasion.


    Or led one (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 07:55:09 AM EST
    Talk (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 07:57:40 AM EST
    about completely missing the point. I guess though if I hung out with crackpots who don't believe in science that would be my response too.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#98)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 09:28:22 AM EST
    It was meant to be funny.

    I didn't think (none / 0) (#59)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 02:23:05 PM EST
    ...anything about my post was controversial, but I got a low rating from McBain, with no explanation.

    What did I say?


    Maybe, (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 02:51:16 PM EST
    because police.

    First part was decent (2.00 / 3) (#61)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    maybe a "3" or "4"

    Second part awful... "1"


    Explain (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 04:09:13 PM EST
    The only time a police officer gets busted for attacking an unarmed black man is when there is video of the event and it goes viral on YouTube.

    It was actually SARCASM to suggest that the video camera in a pocket made the police do that.  The "joke" here is that police have done this forever, and only the video revolution has made them accountable.

    Tell me that you understood the irony that I presented, and that you are not being deliberately obtuse.

    If you didn't understand it the first time, does this explanation help?


    The joke is how you act like (1.67 / 3) (#72)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 07:58:59 PM EST
    we've never had this conversation before. Your opinion about police interaction with African Americans has been made many times.  Usually, you include a a personal story about a friend and then remind us you have "honorary status" in the black community.

    The UFO sarcasm was much more interesting and related directly to Howdy's original post.  


    The reason (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 12:47:43 PM EST
    ...We have had this conversation before is that you refuse to accept the reality that black citizens are treated differently by police than you and I are.

    I have had personal experience which verifies this conclusion, and you have not. Until you start hanging out in black neighborhoods, you will never understand what happens to the people who live there.


    The reason we stop having (none / 0) (#117)
    by McBain on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 12:59:24 PM EST
    conversations is because I often ignore you when you misstate my argument, like you're doing here.

    There's a conversation to be had about the interaction of police and the African American community but it needs to be a real conversation looking at multiple factors including economics.



    A real conversation would start with a (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 01:49:47 PM EST
    real respect for data. Every study by criminologists using multiple regression analysis or other scientific methods to isolate the impact of various factors on a questioned result shows striking racial disparities across the board in the criminal justice system - whether it be stops, searches, arrests, use of force, nature of plea bargains, verdicts, or sentences - that cannot be explained by any other circumstances or factors.

    Not shootings Peter (none / 0) (#130)
    by McBain on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 04:15:19 PM EST
    According to this study...
    A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

    But when it comes to the most lethal form of force -- police shootings -- the study finds no racial bias.

    "It is the most surprising result of my career," said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard.

    Since most of the anti police, media driven criticism has been about shootings, I think it's fair to say people have been, at least somewhat, mislead.

    Also, I don't completely agree with your statement...

    that cannot be explained by any other circumstances or factors.

    I believe poor people are more likely to live in high crime neighborhoods and are more likely to drive old cars with faulty taillights and other issues that would lead them to be pulled over and detained.  This is why I believe economics is a factor here.

    A single study?!? (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 03, 2019 at 03:42:48 PM EST
    For a guy who claims to want to hear all the evidence before reaching a decision, you're awfully eager to embrace the results of a single study - and in particular - as single form (police shootings) of racial disparity in the criminal justice system.  You're also quick to ignore the obvious limits of the study pointed out by the very author you're citing.

    Mr. Fryer emphasizes that the work is not the definitive analysis of police shootings, and that more data would be needed to understand the country as a whole. This work focused only on what happens once the police have stopped civilians, not on the risk of being stopped at all. Other research has shown that blacks are more likely to be stopped by the police...

    Such results may not be true in every city. The cities Mr. Fryer used to examine officer-involved shootings make up only about 4 percent of the nation's population, and serve more black citizens than average.

    Moreover, the results do not mean that the general public's perception of racism in policing is misguided. Lethal uses of force are exceedingly rare. There were 1.6 million arrests in Houston in the years Mr. Fryer studied. Officers fired their weapons 507 times.

    In other words, the study's sample is small in number and terms of geography (10 cities)and not necessarily representative of the entire country.


    I didn't think about age, but here's (none / 0) (#131)
    by McBain on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 04:31:33 PM EST
    an article about about Ferguson Missouri...
    Rosenfeld said he was puzzled about why the stop rate for whites was so low in Ferguson. He said one possible factor is that the black population in the area, as a whole, is younger than the white population. Older people are less likely to be stopped, he said, and are less likely to be on the roads in general.

    Does this and my previous post mean I believe police do no wrong? Of course not, but I'm sure that will be the understanding of many in here.  I'll continue to see stupid "cop who shoots unarmed man in the back five times" comments.


    Keep up the good work examining the data (none / 0) (#143)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 03, 2019 at 11:32:05 AM EST
    You will find that what I said is true. What you say you "believe" about "economics" is by and large unfounded.

    McBain doesn't like it (none / 0) (#118)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 01:32:31 PM EST
    when people rush to judgement. About certain things.

    Like, don't judge a cop who shoots an unarmed man five times in the back until you've shot an unarmed man five times in the back.


    I'm gonna say (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 04:36:59 PM EST

    Pointing out that black people (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 05:50:08 PM EST
    have been singled out increases their sense of entitlement.

    That's a major narrative in reich-wing quarters these days.

    And what about that most beleagured of minorities, the 'thin blue line' of white police officers? yada yada..


    I'm watching Trumps presser (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    The man is so delusional it would be funny it it wasn't

    Facing serious opposition from republicans on the emergency krap I think we are seeing the "new plan".

    Just lie and say the wall is being built.  I swear.  That's what he is doing.  I think he is just going to pivot and start saying the wall "much of which has already been built, about 120 miles I think".  The wall is being built.  It's under construction.

    And the 33% will buy it.

    A clear and present danger. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 01:55:13 PM EST
    I am not sure that the country can withstand another two years of Trump.  While the prospect of Pence becoming president is horrifying (cf. Ellen Page, .."he spent his career trying to cause suffering"), it has long been clear that Trump should be impeached and convicted.

     If not for a case like Trump (incompetence, corruption, incoherence, investigation by FBI as a Russian agent, on and on), what did the founding fathers have in mind for the removal of a president before the elected term is completed?).  The 25th Amendment is a non-starter, when given even a casual glance at the Cabinet.


    I was watching - then I had to (none / 0) (#53)
    by desertswine on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 12:20:55 PM EST
    turn the channel.  T---p just grosses me out.

    My usual reaction (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 12:28:12 PM EST
    I was transfixed

    Ralph Northam (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:03:20 PM EST
    Such a weird story.  It does not seem to be getting less weird.  In his statement he doesn't say which he is, the blackface or the Klan hood.

    I suppose hes done for.  Probably should be. I have to say the republicans screeching offense rings a bit hollow.  Some of the democrats seem a bit opportunistic.

    The whole blackface thing is a bit complicated for southerners.  Admittedly 1984 is not "long enough ago".  I get that.

    Personal story
    When I was in about the 4th grade.  I cant remember specifically.  There was some kind of pageant and my class did a black face minstrel show.
    It makes me cringe to think about that now.  But I was, like, 10.  It was the teacher who chose the minstrel show.  No one thought much about it.
    This was, what, about 1960-61?

    The civil right movement was underway.

    There is no point to this story.  I just, personally, would like for people to be judged for who they are now not so much who they were decades ago.

    There are some democratic candidates who might wish the same.

    This is positively Dickensian. (4.50 / 2) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 10:43:14 AM EST
    Far too many Democrats like Sens. Harris and Gillibrand are channeling Madame Defarge by calling for Gov. Northam's head at the slightest perceived provocation, while conveniently forgetting the ultimate fate of Charles Dickens' misguided revolutionary, who was eventually consumed by her own dust cloud.

    Gov. Ralph Northam has apologized. He hasn't displayed any racism since that photo 35 years ago. There's nothing in his public record which indicates that he's presently racist or bigoted.

    Abraham Lincoln once liked to traffic in racist stories and jokes when he was a young attorney. But over the course of a lifetime of experience, Lincoln eventually channeled his better angels and fundamentally changed. So too did this governor, who became a well-respected pediatric neurologist.

    We are all human beings and as such, we are inherently flawed and imperfect creatures. I daresay all of us likely have prior dubious matters in our respective personal histories that are probably best left forgotten. We've all have certainly said and done things which hurt or offended others. Are we willing to have any of that forever define us in the present tense? Hardly.

    So, let's all please take a deep breath, and ponder the wisdom Jesus offers us in John 8:7. "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone." Speaking for myself only, I'm putting down my rock and departing this glass house. And that's the last I'll say on this subject.



    Oh, please, Donald. (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 04:14:02 PM EST
    "the slightest perceived provocation"? Appearing in blackface is hardly a slight provocation. It is racist behavior. And, in this case, racist behavior by a grown man in 1984. Not 1944 or 1954 or even 1964.

    Last night Northam's claim was that he did not know if he was the person in blackface or the one in KKK robes. Both inexcusable. Today his claim is he is not in that photo, does not know how it ended up on his personal yearbook page even though each person submitted the photos for their individual pages.

    Oh, and he did appear in blackface, just not in that photo. As if a dance contest is somehow a better place to use blackface.

    And lay off Harris and Gillibrand. They are hardly alone in calling for Northam to resign. Many many people are urging him to resign. Interesting that you chose to aim your criticism at these women instead of the many men calling for Northam to go.

    Northam is in the mess because of his own actions. And he is only digging himself a deeper hole.

    It is true that a Republican probably would not resign. Today's GOP is quite clearly the party of racism, as well as homophobia and misogyny. The Democratic Party is not. The Democratic Party is one of inclusion and respect for all. And yes that means Democratic politians are held to a higher, more decent standard.


    The sum total of ... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 05, 2019 at 05:42:47 AM EST
    ... a 60-year-old person's life, career and accomplishments should not be summarily re-assessed and dismissed retroactively on the sole basis on one admittedly offensive photo taken nearly four decades prior at age 23 or 24, especially when such immaturity and insensitivity are hardly reflective of who that person is today.

    Many of us who are older likely have something in our distant past for which we are ashamed or embarrassed and would desire to leave dormant for the duration of our lifetimes. And I don't think any of us would appreciate that past incident being deliberately sought out and maliciously resurrected by someone whose sole purpose for doing so is to cause us or our loved ones injury or harm -- which, in Gov. Northam's case, was done by white nationalists.

    While we can't change what happened in the past, neither do we necessarily have to bash someone repeatedly over the head with it after they've apologized. An expression of understanding, offer of forgiveness and effort at reconciliation in the wake of such an offense and disappointment are all considered virtues. An ostentatious display of outrage for its own sake is not,  particularly when we're not the injured party.



    Yesterday (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 10:50:44 AM EST
    I would have agreed with you.

    He is denying its him.

    Announcement at 2.  Eastern I assume.


    ... to the subsequent baffling statements offered by Gov. Northam at last Saturday's press conference. Suffice to say he should've just let his original apology stand, and the storm would have probably dissipated in a week or two -- provided, of course, that there were no other grenades waiting to detonate.

    Northam's ill-advised attempt to seize control of the public narrative only succeeded in completely confusing everyone as to his meaning and intentions, and likely undermined whatever residual confidence his Virginia constituents might have had in his continued leadership.

    As a result, I find it hard to imagine how he can govern effectively any more. He should stand down, resign for the sake of the commonwealth, and let Lt. Gov. Fairfax take up the reins.



    I'm with you in principle Donald (none / 0) (#111)
    by McBain on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 11:25:10 AM EST
    I'm tired of people being pressured into resigning from office/job because they might have done something stupid decades ago. No one is perfect.  We all made jokes at someone (or a group's) expense in a misguided attempt to feel better about ourselves.

    Let's wait and see what the real story is here.  


    The real story....right (none / 0) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 03:25:36 PM EST
    At this hour it appears to be this ...

    "The reason I so vividly don't remember is because it didn't happen"

    He did however, according to him, do blackface in a dance contest as Michael Jackson.   Explaining that "person in the picture" used way too much shoe polish.  Showing a great knowledge of how much shoe polish one needs for blackface.

    I think you are correct.  We need more information.


    Circumstances have obviously changed ... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 05, 2019 at 06:08:51 AM EST
    ... since I posted my original comment. I was willing to forgive Gov. Northam his youthful transgression, had he been content to stand on his apology. I have no idea what he's currently doing, nor do I suspect does he. Needless to say, he's impugned his own veracity and credibility, likely fatally, and should probably resign for Virginia's sake. But that said, this is now between his constituents and him. The rest of us ought to shut up and let events play out.

    I don't know all the details of this story (2.00 / 1) (#75)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:24:42 PM EST
    I do know people like to pretend we're still this terribly racist country.  Lots of people playing dumb.  We're not perfect but we've made significant improvements from when I was a kid.    

    "Pretend" - heh (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:44:50 PM EST
    I do know people like to pretend we're still this terribly racist country.  Lots of people playing dumb.  We're not perfect but we've made significant improvements from when I was a kid.

    Did you ever notice how it's always a segment of white males who think that racism and sexism are  "pretend" problems?

    Weird, isn't it?  It's almost like they're the ones "playing dumb".

    BTW - "Significant improvements" during your lifetime doesn't mean that racism isn't a very real, serious and pervasive problem, no matter how easy it is for you guys to ignore.


    Of course, it is a pretend problem ... (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by Erehwon on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 09:23:14 PM EST
    for the same segment of the population ... because the problem curiously never happens to them!

    Ok, update (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:08:57 PM EST
    Another yearbook picture just emerged with the nickname "Coonman".

    It would say that probably tears it.

    Hello Gov. Fairfax


    1984 was 20 years after 1964, (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:38:17 PM EST
    and 30 years after 1954. There was no excuse for a medical student in 1984 to think that was funny, or even fun. Sadly, none. But can someone admit today he was an as*hole then, realizes how wrong he was, and has changed sufficiently since, demonstrating by his actions of the last 15 years, say, that he deserves to be judged now by his more recent conduct? I would like to say yes to that. I am also sure that this revelation has been made in direct response to Northam's support for late-term abortion reform, and being promoted by those who are not in fact the least bit outraged by evidence of past (or current) racist behavior.

    I just read (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:51:57 PM EST
    Trump plans to come down hard on abortion in the SOU.

    I'm sure he has been advised to do that.

    Hopefully by the same geniuses who advised him to shut down the government.


    I wonder how many abortions (5.00 / 8) (#89)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 09:43:51 PM EST
    Tr*mp has paid for over the years. And I don't mean out of sympathy and support for a woman he happened to know who needed help.

    The first and perhaps only time, (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 03:50:58 PM EST
    to my recollection, that I committed a felony was in late 1970 or early 1971 -- a couple of years before Roe v Wade, in other words -- when, as a college senior, a gave a ride (in my 1963 Dodge Polara, the kind with push-button automatic transmission) to a friend -- not my girlfriend, btw -- to the back parking lot of a church some distance from campus, where she would meet at dusk with someone else who would give her a ride to some other place where she could obtain an illegal abortion. I have shared this story with our three grown daughters a few times. We are not far from those times, looking backwards. I hope we are not approaching those times again, looking forward.

    I've always been struck (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 03, 2019 at 01:12:08 PM EST
    by the experience that many of those who are the most feverishly anti-abortion in this country are usually the very ones most cavalier about the ongoing ordeal experienced by children here forced to grow up in situations of deprivation and neglect.

    Theres an internal disconnect of Grand Rift proportions in a lot of people here that all the pain pills and Jesus's in world can't seem to heal.


    I also had a push button (none / 0) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 04:02:21 PM EST
    Transmission in college.   Furrrrreakie

    In other news

    it's GROUNDHOG DAY!!!

    Good news bad news.  Apparently Phil did not see his shadow.  However I have my own personal groundhog.  His name is Groucho.  He lives under a rock outside my backdoor and he definitely saw his shadow today.


    What a mensch. (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 10:10:33 PM EST
    Maybe we will (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 03:27:20 PM EST
    Find out.

    I guess he's (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:56:48 PM EST
    going to go all Handmaid's Tale. Not that I would ever watch his SOTU in the first place but that makes me doubly glad.

    It would seem the whole abortion thing is just another con in the toolbox for Trump. Evangelicals seemed to be souring on him until the issue came up in NY and VA and they ran back to him.


    Politico (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 09:06:01 PM EST

    President Donald Trump is telling conservative allies he wants to incorporate firm anti-abortion language into his State of the Union address Tuesday, and potentially include an anti-abortion figure among his list of invitees, according to four sources familiar with his plans

    Trump sees an opening to energize his evangelical supporters and capture moderate voters who administration officials believe may be turned off by widespread coverage of New York's newest abortion law, which allows for termination of some pregnancies after the 24-week mark for health reasons.

    I'm quite (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 07:58:28 AM EST
    sure that will energize evangelicals but I seriously doubt moderates are going to sign on.

    It is not to say (none / 0) (#79)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:34:07 PM EST
    That a person cannot grow across time and become a different, even uunrecognizably new, human being.  However, the past, in the case contaminates the present and hobbles future policy,  The best way to make sincere amends and to permit Virginia to more forward is for the governor to resign,

    Agree (none / 0) (#96)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 08:25:49 AM EST
    but meanwhile Steve King still serves, the asymmetry is galling.

    A forty year old racist act(at least through today's optics) draws the political death penalty while King has gotten away with his unadulterated  racism for years without much blow-back from his leadership until very recently .

    Don't even get me started on tRumps past racist words and actions and really don't get me started on the lopsided political fates of Franken vs tRump  about the sexual assault charges.


    Everything you said is spot on, FlJoe (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 09:27:47 AM EST
    except for "(at least through today's optics)." I reiterate my point (#81) that whatever position any of us wants to take on Northam's present fate, we should not suggest that there was or could have been any doubt or ambiguity in 1984 about the racism of a minstrel blackface costume, or a Klan costume. Any educated white person with a question about that after, say, 1965 (to be generous), was being willfully ignorant.

    Officially moved (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 10:09:41 AM EST
    From weird to pathetic

    Now he says it's NOT him.

    Poor Ralph.  It's downhill from here.  Why prolong it?


    Yesterday: (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 10:18:41 AM EST
    "I am deeply sorry for the decision I made to appear as I did in this photo and for the hurt that decision caused then and now," Ralph Northam said in a statement.

    As (none / 0) (#103)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 10:20:18 AM EST
    in the least he could be "charged" with.

    One year during that time frame that my brothers and a good friend dressed up the klan. I know for sure they were not racists, nor were they trying to make any kind of political statement, they were just being silly and it was an easy costume to make. IMO they were not so much willfully ignorant as willfully insensitive about the issues.

    The whole idea of Halloween is to dress up as something you are not and it's not that hard to cross a line to being offensive to some or even many people.

    I would argue that that line is much clearer and thankfully much more verboten to cross today than it was in the eighties. Remember the Dukes of Hazzard with their proud display of the rebel flag? How would that fly today.


    I understand (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 10:17:23 AM EST
    It is completely not fair. It's ridiculous that somehow high standards are held for Democrats but low standards for Republicans but the crux of the matter is that Democratic voters are not okay with this kind of stuff while Republican voters are.

    Yes, the asymmetry (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 11:16:35 AM EST
    is evident and underscores the fallacy of "bothsiderism."   The Democratic party is inclusive,  striving to be sensitive to all Americans and works through its policies to be better in human relations and interactions.

       The Republican party has a platform that disdains,  from sub rosa to, increasingly, the open, through racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and homophobia.  And, through its presidential leadership, is void in embracing attributes of humanity.

    The Republicans can rejoice in their Steve Kings; the Democrats can celebrate its standards and its respect for all Americans.


    I explained (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:25:23 PM EST
    something like that to someone today. In 1984 sorry to say this kind of thing was not that uncommon in the south. Doesn't make it right but there it is. I'm glad that I never did anything this stupid or insensitive when I was in college though I'm sure I saw some of this at the frat parties I went too. I mean there was one fraternity on my college that was in trouble with the national fraternity for having members who were African American and Filipino. I mean if that doesn't kind of tell you the state of the country in 1984 i don't know what would.

    I did so many stupid things (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:37:38 PM EST
    When I was 25.  But I agree with Dan

    It's the way (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:53:29 PM EST
    the political world is these days. Northam knew that and that's the reason he probably hid the picture. If whomever sent it to the press thought it was going to change the abortion argument they were severely mistaken. The new governor can take up the issue and the evangelicals can continue to scream.

    Thats true (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 08:59:10 PM EST
    If it was some kind of plan it was a stupid one for the reasons you say.

    But as Dan says

    However, the past, in the case contaminates the present and hobbles future policy,

    Every democrat will be asked about this non stop as long as he is there.


    Any evidence Northampton hid the (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 10:21:54 AM EST
    yearbook?  Pretty hard to do that.

    Spell check (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 10:37:30 AM EST
    Is a b!tch goddess



    We all may (none / 0) (#112)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 11:44:01 AM EST
    have had "youthful indiscretions," as the late Congressman Henry Hyde termed his extra-marital affair at age 43, but we are not the Democratic governor of Virginia.  

    People are, in large measure, forgiving.  If the governor acknowledged his "youthful indiscretion" at any earlier point in his political career, providing an accounting of his life's journey and his awakening, he might not be in the position he now finds himself.

     That journey's revelations have the added burden of discussing how a student in the health professions (a student beyond an undergraduate program) found that minstrel/KKK frolic to be funny or fun.  And, how that insensitivity played into his taking of the Hippocratic Oath.


    TERF (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 01, 2019 at 11:17:33 PM EST
    I just learned about a new persecuted minority.
    Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists.

    I will probably need to read this piece by Andrew Sullivan ,who occasionally seems like a rational person, again because the first time I couldn't stop giggling.  Then it just made my head hurt.

    The TERF argument is that viewing "gender identity" as interchangeable with sex, and abolishing clear biological distinctions between men and women, is actually a threat to lesbian identity and even existence -- because it calls into question who is actually a woman, and includes in that category human beings who have been or are biologically male, and remain attracted to women. How can lesbianism be redefined as having sex with someone who has a penis, they argue, without undermining the concept of lesbianism as a whole?

    Hopefully without starting an argument (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 10:48:28 AM EST
    Reading this made me think of a dear friend who died sometime in the 80s.

    He once told me gay men and lesbians are like the French and the Germans.

    The Germans love to tell the French how to live and the French love to make fun of the Germans.

    This is all I could think of reading this.


    For all their rhetoric about (none / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 12:30:07 PM EST
    about freedom and liberty and self-expression and being "un-pc" etc the Right seems to be uniquely hung-up and appalled lately by the idea that identity isn't simply biologically determined.

    The TERF people (none / 0) (#115)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 12:42:12 PM EST
    were invited by Heritage Foundation. Huge red flag right there.

    If nothing else, Heritage is dedicated to avoiding offending those who believe the Stalin in the Sky laid down strict parameters for humans in Genesis.


    This is a huge deal in the UK (none / 0) (#123)
    by scribe on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 02:27:19 PM EST
    TERF and all that.
    Me, I'm just popping corn and sitting in the recliner.  
    I recall something along those lines going on back in the 90s, where guys were trying to use the line that they were lesbians trapped in male bodies as a way to get laid.  I dunno whether it worked then - given a large enough sample size I suspect it had some efficacy - but, really....

    I'm guessing this (none / 0) (#145)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 03, 2019 at 01:33:37 PM EST
    is yet another little sociological molehill the Heritage Foundation would like to blow-up into Everest-sized wedge-issue proportions.

    They've already got their trolls out there on every other discussion thread talking about how the Left wants to give our little girls and boys gender disphoria.


    Surprise (none / 0) (#110)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 11:22:47 AM EST
    surprise 2020: Russia is already propping up a presidential candidate in the Democratic party I easily guessed who it was before I clicked the link.

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 01:54:32 PM EST
    that was an easy guess. Maybe Donald can give us a heads up on why Hawaii tolerates her. I wonder if they are going to start praising Bernie again if he runs?

    In Philly, the Super Bowl hangover is almost gone (none / 0) (#124)
    by scribe on Sat Feb 02, 2019 at 02:35:15 PM EST
    and, from what I hear, they're getting all wistful for the Wonder of Being Champions.
    And, earlier this week, the local US Attorney's office indicted a local union boss/pol, head of the Electricians, on 115 or so counts of union corruption, along with his pet city councilman and some others.  To put in perspective, this union guy was so powerful he got his brother elected to the PA Supreme Court.
    One more argument against elected judges.
    Anyway, this case seems to rhyme with the one from several years ago brought against now-former Congressman Vincent Fumo, at one time probably the most powerful pol in PA.  He's finished his prison sentence and sat down for breakfast with a reporter to talk about this latest case:  http://www.philly.com/news/columnists/vince-fumo-local-stu-bykofsky-corruption-philadelphia--2019020 1.html

    Three takeaways: (1) he'd read the indictment and said it looks like they got most of the info from wiretaps/intercepts, thus flipping seems not an option, (2) when they bring this kind of case, "you're going down", explaining why 96% of federal defendants plead out (3) when it's all said and done, between his pensions lost, lawyers fees, etc., etc. going to trial and being convicted wound up costing him an estimate $10 million.

    A good read.