Light a Candle for Melanie and Open Thread

Sad news. Singer and 60's icon Melanie (Safka) has passed away at age 76. She was one of a kind. Her voice was so rich, so unique and powerful. I loved listening to her albums, especially the ones with "Brand New Key" and Beautiful People.

Her children posted the news on Facebook. They ask:

... that tonight (Jan. 24), at 10 p.m. CT, “each of you lights a candle in honor of Melanie. Raise, raise them high, high up again. Illuminate the darkness, and let us all be connected in remembrance of the extraordinary woman who was wife, mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and friend to so very many people.”

R.I.P. Melanie.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Friday Open Thread | Donald Trump Gets Whooped by Jean Carroll Jury >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Total agreement on Melanie (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 24, 2024 at 08:09:17 PM EST
    as an icon of '60s music. I saw her live at Carnegie Hall (with a surprise appearance by Jacques Brel also, I am pretty sure I remember). Probably 1970. What sad news.

    On the other hand, it could have (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 25, 2024 at 09:11:13 AM EST
    been the Academy of Music, in Philadelphia.

    One of a kind... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by desertswine on Thu Jan 25, 2024 at 12:26:56 AM EST
    Ha (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 25, 2024 at 11:46:29 AM EST
    Peter Navarro gets 4 months in the slammer.

    Trump is (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 25, 2024 at 01:32:09 PM EST

    For one question: Do you (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 25, 2024 at 02:15:27 PM EST
    stand by your deposition? One question on cross: Did you choose not to attend the trial on liability?  The end. Now for closing arguments and jury instructions, limited to measure of damages for post-trial-one statements. As I understand it.

    That makes it sound (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 25, 2024 at 03:12:55 PM EST
    more boring than it actually was. Reportedly.

    Lay Down (Candles in The Rain) (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by john horse on Thu Jan 25, 2024 at 04:41:15 PM EST
    Sad to hear about Melanie's passing.  Loved her voice and songs.  For those non baby boomers, the request from her children references the song Lay Down (Candles In The Rain).

    We were so close, there was no room
    We bled inside each other's wounds
    We all had caught the same disease
    And we all sang the songs of peace
    Some came to sing, some came to pray
    Some came to keep the dark away

    So, raise the candles high (Up high)
    'Cause if you don't, we could stay black against the sky
    Oh, oh, raise (Raise) them higher again (Up high)
    And if you do we could stay dry against the rain

    Cruelty is the point (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 26, 2024 at 09:31:00 AM EST

    (AP) -- Alabama executed a convicted murderer with nitrogen gas Thursday, putting him to death with a first-of-its-kind method that once again placed the U.S. at the forefront of the debate over capital punishment. The state said the method would be humane, but critics called it cruel and experimental.8 hours ago


    The fact that innocent people (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 29, 2024 at 10:41:33 AM EST
    have been executed should put an end to the debate but somehow it continues.  

    If at first you (none / 0) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 26, 2024 at 12:10:58 PM EST
    don't succeed, try, try again... Alabama.  The execution was attempted in 2022 but it was botched.    This time Alabama succeeded.

    So barbarous.


    My first 45rpm (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Jan 30, 2024 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    I was at the Singer store at the mall, of all places, and had enough money for one 45. It was either Brand New Key or American Pie. I bought Brand New Key.

    She was my connection to the 60's generation.

    no (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 31, 2024 at 12:48:36 PM EST
    45s for me, first Album; Bringing It All Back Home

    Ok, I'll play. My first 45, I think (none / 0) (#25)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 30, 2024 at 10:20:03 PM EST
    was "Mule Skinner Blues" (a/k/a "Hey, Little Water Boy") by the Fendermen (1960,although I could have sworn in was 1959). I had no idea, as a kid, that it was a class country song written in 1930 by Jimmy Rodgers. And you?

    I didn't have money for things like recirds (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 31, 2024 at 07:46:36 AM EST
    until I started making it myself between the 10-11 grades

    White Rabbit 1967


    I think I still have it (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 31, 2024 at 10:09:17 AM EST
    I had a massive record collection, as result of collecting and working in a record store for a couple of years, that I lost in a divorce.  Long story.
    That 45 survived stuck in a book I found years later.

    I didn't buy 45s, (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by leap2 on Wed Jan 31, 2024 at 09:33:42 AM EST
    but the first LP I bought was Beethoven's Sixth Symphony ("The Pastoral"), and then Dvorak's Quartet No. 12, Op 96 "American Quartet." I was a nerd.

    And then he kissed me (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by BGinCA on Wed Jan 31, 2024 at 03:20:28 PM EST
    1963, The Crystals. Written and produced by the since deceased murderer Phil Spector. Arranged by convicted abuser Jack Nitzsche.

    Da doo ron ron ron (none / 0) (#33)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 31, 2024 at 08:32:18 PM EST
    Da doo ron ron

    Round and Round (none / 0) (#32)
    by jmacWA on Wed Jan 31, 2024 at 03:41:35 PM EST
    Perry Como
    Around 1956 or 57.  I was 5/6 and was heavily influenced by what my parents listened to.

    My first 45rpm was ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 03, 2024 at 01:05:14 AM EST
    ... The Beatles' "Ley It Be." The B-side was "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)", which has to be one of the Fab Four's more forgettable tunes.

    "Let It Be." (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 03, 2024 at 01:06:24 AM EST
    Damn typos.

    Horse with No Name (none / 0) (#28)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jan 31, 2024 at 10:08:41 AM EST

    2nd 45rpm. Ben. by Michael Jackson.


    I can't remember... (none / 0) (#34)
    by desertswine on Wed Jan 31, 2024 at 09:09:01 PM EST
    but my Dad had a bunch of 78's I played, mostly stuff from the forties.  He liked Guy Lombardo god help us.  Lucky I had a radio.

    RIP (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 30, 2024 at 02:24:14 PM EST
    Chita Rivera.

    Also brilliant Native American author... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by desertswine on Tue Jan 30, 2024 at 05:02:57 PM EST
    N. Scott Momaday, whose portrayal of a disaffected World War II veteran's journey to spiritual renewal in his novel "House Made of Dawn" won a Pulitzer Prize, the first for a Native American author, heralding a more prominent place in contemporary literature for Native writers, died on Wednesday at his home in Santa Fe, N.M. He was 89.

    He was the speaker at my daughter's graduation from UNM.  He was fascinating, but very...   long winded.


    "For some time when we have reached the end
    With the velvet hill in the small of her back,
    And our hands are clutchin' the sand,
    Will our blood become a part of the river?
    All of the rivers are givers to the ocean
    According to plan, according to man.
    There's a chance peace will come
    In your life, please buy one."

    - Melanie Safka, "Peace Will Come (According to Plan)", 1970

    ... if we truly want to seek peace in our time, then we must first become its agent within the context of our own lives. She first recorded "Peace Will Come (According to Plan)" in 1970 and released it as a single. It was a staple in her playlist when she toured.

    Some critics dismissed Melanie and other artists in the folk-rock genre as dreamers, but I'd contend that she was aspirational and an eternal optimist. Peace is always one of our choices, she reminds us, and she's challenging us to therefore choose wisely.

    She will be missed.

    Tom Cotton is a moron. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 01, 2024 at 05:23:50 PM EST
    Howdy you must be as proud of your Senator as I am of my congressman (Perry).

    The guy asked a citizen of Singapore a dozen times if he was a Chinese citizen, was he a member of the Chinese Communist party. This, after they guy told him quite succinctly that he was a citizen of Singapore.

    I can only surmise that Cotton thinks every Asian is Chinese, thus MUST be a Communist.

    I actually saw that live (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 01, 2024 at 05:43:35 PM EST
    I used to think he was a serious national threat.  Ambitious Ivy league military and all.  
    I do not really think so any more.  
    Just just sounds like another cult member.

    My other senator is no prize but not as bad as Cotton.


    About seeing that live (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 01, 2024 at 05:47:31 PM EST
    I was channel surfing,  Johnson was at the same moment giving his ridiculous speech about the border deal.  Where he just lied from start to finish.  It seemed to me Cotton and Josh Hawley who was being just as obnoxious were drawing fire from news coverage of that.
    They all cut from Johnson to the Josh and Tom show.

    From (none / 0) (#55)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 02, 2024 at 12:26:50 PM EST
    top to bottom,from bottom to top Republicans are performance art, that and obstructionism is all the have. The latter was always there, Trump came along and proved the former to be a winning strategy and they never looked back.

    The sad fact is a big chunk of the electorate would rather be entertained then governed.


    He doesn't "think" anything (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 01, 2024 at 07:39:28 PM EST
    It was straight McCarthyism/HUAC: "Are you now or have you ever been ...."

    Great post by Lyle Denniston (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jmacWA on Fri Feb 02, 2024 at 07:53:54 AM EST
    Regarding the upcoming hearing on the Colorado disqualification. Worth a look IMO.

    There Must Be A Ceasefire in Gaza (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by john horse on Sun Feb 04, 2024 at 12:12:59 PM EST
    Generally I'm antiwar but I'm not against all wars.  For example, the Israel government had the right to retaliate against the attacks from Hamas. However what the Israel government has done in Gaza has gone way past any reasonable response.

    Palestinian hospitals, schools, houses of worship, as well as entire neighborhoods have been destroyed.  Gaza is now on the brink of starvation.  Over 22,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed. This has morphed from a war against Hamas into a war against the Palestinian people.

    The irony is that rather than defeating terrorism, the actions of the Israelis government will only encourage more Palestinians to become terrorists.  

    Israeli journalist Gideon Levy (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 04, 2024 at 04:12:21 PM EST
    has said that the majority of Israelis believe they're "the chosen people," whatever the hell that means.

    People who sincerely believe the Creator is smiling down on them to that extent should be able to do without 13-mil-a-day in aid from the U.S.

    Especially when the U.S is going to be blamed in a lot of quarters for the current bloodbath.


    How Good People Do Evil (none / 0) (#63)
    by john horse on Mon Feb 05, 2024 at 06:32:06 AM EST
    The prerequisite for evil comes when we see the world in terms of us and them.  Nazis did not see Jews as "one of us" but as one of them.  Racist whites see blacks as "one of them".  Hamas sees Jews as "one of them." The Israeli government sees Palestinians as "one of them."  

    It is part of human nature to group and stereotype people.  We all do it.  Many people at this site, including myself, see Trump and the GOP as "one of them."  The danger is when you cross the line and deprive the people in a group of their humanity. Things that are not ok when done to "one of us" become acceptable when done to "one of them." This is the source of racism, sexism, homophobia, and religious bigotry.  The Israeli government has crossed that line in Gaza.


    The "War against Hamas" (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by desertswine on Sun Feb 04, 2024 at 08:03:20 PM EST
    has become a massacre.  11,000 children.

    The Lincoln Project is my friend (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 05, 2024 at 06:54:44 PM EST
    These monkeys (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 06, 2024 at 06:00:48 PM EST
     could not organize a two car funeral.

    In stunner, House GOP bid to impeach Mayorkas fails

    I hope Nancy is having drinks someplace and laughing

    Worth repeating (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 06, 2024 at 06:35:17 PM EST

    For Those Keeping Score at Home
    February 6, 2024 at 7:12 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 33 Comments

    It's not been a very good day for Republicans on Capitol Hill.

    Let's briefly recap what has happened in just a few hours:

    Republicans killed a bipartisan border security deal that they demanded as the price for aid to Ukraine and Israel.
    House Republicans tried to preempt that deal by introducing a standalone aid bill for Israel aid but were unable to pass it.
    House Republicans failed to impeach the homeland security secretary after promising to do so for months.
    Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was famous for never holding a vote without knowing the outcome in advance.

    If you haven't noticed, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is no Nancy Pelosi.

    But it's worse than that. The House Republican leadership is an unmitigated disaster

    This makes (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 06, 2024 at 06:41:33 PM EST
    my head hurt.

    And (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 06, 2024 at 06:39:25 PM EST
    the aid to Israel bill failed also. Today has to be a record bad day for the GOP. And some are talking about a motion to vacate for Johnson. Could they be any worse without a leader? However no leader no aid to Ukraine or Israel.

    I can't wait to vote in Nov. so I can smack these clowns. My clown will probably get reelected because apparently my district likes clown antics.


    Secure the border first (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 07, 2024 at 05:19:22 PM EST
    You can't make this stuff up

    After Republicans tanked the border security bill, Tim Scott says he voted against a stand-alone bill for Israel/Ukraine aid because: We should first secure our southern border.


    I called (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 07, 2024 at 07:38:47 PM EST
    my rep's office and told him I was tired of the clown show and tired of him enabling the clown show. I am sure it will make no difference.

    Tim Scott is one of the biggest clowns in the senate. He's running neck and neck with Cruz and Hawley.


    Ian Sams did a respectable job (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 09, 2024 at 04:47:03 PM EST
    The story (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 09, 2024 at 06:00:32 PM EST
    seems to be dying down. But I'm sure it will come and go over the election season because we all remember emails.

    The briefing went well (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 09, 2024 at 06:06:11 PM EST
    because the attendees were not allowed to act like howler monkeys

    Whoever allowed the howler monkey press conference to happen should be fired.


    Remembering What's Important (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by john horse on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 08:51:31 AM EST
    Great column by Paul Krugman about Hur's political attack on Biden's memory.

    When the news broke about the special counsel's hit job -- his snide, unwarranted, obviously politically motivated slurs about President Biden's memory -- I found myself thinking about my mother. What year did she die? It turned out that I didn't know offhand; I knew that it was after I moved from Princeton to CUNY, because I was regularly commuting out to New Jersey to see her, but before the pandemic. I actually had to look into my records to confirm that she died in 2017.

    I'll bet that many readers are similarly vague about the dates of major life events. You remember the circumstances but not necessarily the precise year.

    It made me think of my own mother's passing.  Like Krugman, I couldn't tell you offhand the day or even the year she passed.  Like Krugman, I can vividly remember visiting my mother regularly.  We remember the things that are important and disregard the rest.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 08:59:03 AM EST
    what I have been saying.  

    Here's an exercise: think of someone you love who died,  now tell me the date they died.

    I did my own exercise and like you I could possibly get the year.


    I hope we get a cool new name. (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 09:58:11 AM EST
    Like Westeros, or Pentos,or maybe Dothraki.

    Orange moron said in Harrisburg last night that if Biden is re-elected, he change the name of Pennsylvania.

    Yet Joe is the old feeble guy.  

    I'd be happy with (none / 0) (#143)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 10:13:57 AM EST
    Upper Maryland.

    Those of us (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Zorba on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 02:47:56 PM EST
    Who live in Maryland do not want central Pennsylvania at all. We call that area Pennsyltucky.

    Pfffftt! (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 03:46:13 PM EST
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Zorba on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 04:58:27 PM EST

    To clarify (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Feb 12, 2024 at 04:40:39 PM EST
    I'm not suggesting PA become part of Maryland. I am just open to our new name, after Joe is re-elected, become Upper Maryland.

    How about West New Jersey? (none / 0) (#144)
    by desertswine on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 10:44:30 AM EST
    Oh no! (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 10:50:05 AM EST
    Maybe West Jungleland.

    I prefer East Ohio. (none / 0) (#149)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 01:53:24 PM EST

    He is losing it (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 04:29:39 PM EST
    this is nuts.

    `Where's Her Husband?' Trump Lashes Out At Nikki Haley's Spouse During South Carolina Rally

    Maj. Michael Haley, is currently serving on a yearlong deployment in Africa as a National Guardsman, according to The New York Times.

    As with all conservatives (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 06:04:12 PM EST
    it's pure projection because Melania is nowhere to be seen. He's been campaigning for what? Since November 2022 is how many months? Melania has not been to 1 rally that I know of. Maybe she will finally reappear at the convention to plagerize Michelle Obama again.

    On Tuesday morning, Chief Justice Roberts (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 14, 2024 at 07:37:43 PM EST
    ordered the Special Counsel's office to respond not later than next Tuesday at 4 pm to Tr*mp's application for a further stay of the trial of his J6 conspiracy indictment, following the unanimous denial of his immunity claim by the D.C. Circuit. Today at 6 pm, about 32 hours later (and six days early) Special Counsel filed a polished and persuasive 40-page response, arguing that a stay should be denied. Or, in the alternative they suggest that the Court treat the application for stay as a cert petition, grant it, and put the case on a super-expedited schedule, with argument in March. I was hoping they'd suggest a summary affirmance, since Tr*mp's argument for absolute and perpetual immunity is so weak, imho, that it does not deserve full briefing and argument at the Supreme Court.

    I have (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 15, 2024 at 09:19:42 AM EST
    seen lawyers literally laugh at Trump's filing where he is quoting right wing hacks as "experts" some of them not even attorneys. I think that's the one if I am remembering right. He files so many ridiculous responses and appeals I could get them mixed up.

    You are correct. On pages 37-38 (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 15, 2024 at 05:08:10 PM EST
    we find this:
      "The Special Counsel's prior request to circumvent ordinary appellate review caused "commentators from across the political spectrum [to] observe[] that its evident motivation is to schedule the trial before the 2024 presidential election--a nakedly political motive." [quoting their own memorandum in opposition to Special Counsel's application for cert before judgment] (citing Elie Honig, Why Jack Smith Will Never Say the `E' Word, CNN (Dec. 16, 2023), https:/www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/12/16/smr-honig-on-smith-vs-electioncalendar.cnn; Editorial Board, Jack Smith and the Supreme Court, Wall St. J. (Dec. 16, 2023); Jason Willick, Politics Are Now Clearly Shaping Jack Smith's Trump Prosecution, Wash. Post (Dec. 12, 2023), https:www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/12/special-counsel-jacksmith-politicized-prosecution /; and Byron York (@ByronYork), X (Dec. 11, 2023), https:twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1734305076582244850?s=20).
       "The Special Counsel thus confuses the public interest with a partisan interest of his superior, President Biden." Id. at 22. "The Special Counsel's politicization of the trial schedule" also "departs from the best traditions of the U.S. Department of Justice," which "call for prosecutors to avoid the appearance of election interference in the prosecution of political candidates." Id. at 23 (citing U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual §§ 9-27.260, 9-85.500 (2018); https:
    /www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution#9-27.260). "The Special Counsel's extraordinary petition creates a strong appearance of a significant departure from those rules and aspirations." Id. at 24. "Even worse, the Special Counsel's request threatens to tarnish" the Court of Appeals' "procedures with the same appearance of partisanship." Id. at 24 (citing Editorial Board, Jack Smith and the Supreme Court, Wall St. J. (Dec. 16, 2023)). "The Special Counsel urge[d]" the lower court "to jettison venerable principles of prudence, leapfrog the ordinary process of appellate review, and rush headlong to decide one of the most novel, complex, and momentous legal issues in American history." Id. at 25. "In doing so, the Special Counsel seeks to embroil" both the Court of Appeals and "this Court in a partisan rush to judgment on some of the most historic and sensitive questions that the Court may ever decide." Id." So, they not only rely on right-wing journalists for authority, but they cite themselves citing those commentators in their own prior filing in the case. Neither professional nor persuasive.

    I agree with this 100% (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 03:00:16 PM EST

    Ezra Klein and Nate Silver Are Wrong
    February 19, 2024 at 2:48 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 212 Comments

    Several high profile pundits -- including Ezra Klein and Nate Silver -- are convinced Democrats will lose the presidential election if Joe Biden is the nominee.

    They point to polls which show Donald Trump with a small edge over Biden nationally and in several key swing states.

    It's true Biden's approval rate is historically low and that it's increasingly correlated to his re-election chances the closer we get to the election. It's also true that a majority of voters tell pollsters Biden is too old.

    But those same polls also show Biden doing better than any other possible Democrat who might replace him on the ticket.

    More practically, since the primaries are well underway, any Biden replacement would have to be chosen by delegates at the Democratic convention in August.

    Modern political conventions are supposed to be highly-choreographed campaign kick offs with the party unified behind their nominee. Throwing the convention open to choose a new nominee would be pure, unscripted chaos.

    It also means Democrats would be effectively ceding the general election campaign to Trump for the next six months until they have a formal Biden replacement.

    That makes no sense at all.

    Biden has weaknesses as a candidate that rightfully cause Democrats some jitters. But given Trump's unparalleled list of weaknesses, Biden is a dream candidate.

    What a (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 04:02:23 PM EST
    harebrained idea.  After primary voters decide, the boys in the backrooms at the Convention disregard the Democratic primary voters and pick Mr. Unbeatable.  Maybe they have not kept up, but Mayor Rickard J. Daley is deceased.

    Let's be honest. (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 05:49:34 PM EST
    Yes, Biden's age is an issue but the real issue with those 2 is Kamala. I remember their misogyny from 2008.

    What I wonder is if the polls saying that people won't vote for a convicted felon will end up being correct or if said voters will move the goalposts again since they said indictments would change their minds and didn't.


    In a new poll of historians.. (none / 0) (#176)
    by desertswine on Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 03:37:54 PM EST
    the great Orange Excrement is placed last, the worst of all presidents, ever.

    Finishing 45th overall, Trump trails even the mid-19th-century failures who blundered the country into a civil war or botched its aftermath like James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce and Andrew Johnson.

    And yet, Trump "has a small edge over Biden."  I don't get it.


    I don't know who they are polling (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 03:50:23 PM EST
    but I call BS.  
    Just look at the recent special elections.  Like NY 3rd.  All polls had that as an even race with the lead swapping from poll to poll.  
    The democrat won by 8 points.

    When (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 04:07:38 PM EST
    you think about it, who is more likely to answer an unknown number, an incel living in Mom's basement or someone who actually has a life?

    Some old Fox watching crank or Q kook or someone with functioning brain cells?

    I suspect it's the incels, cranks and kooks are being oversampled by a certain amount by self selection.


    Rasmussen (none / 0) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 06:59:37 PM EST
    used to call me for a poll until they were doing a poll on immigration. I guess I gave them the wrong answers since they hung up on me. they have never called back. LOL.

    If the polling is correct, (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 11:22:21 AM EST
    why is the RNC broke, yet Joe raised $42 million last month?

    But (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 03:51:41 PM EST
    I don't mind because I want democrat to be wetting their beds right up to election day.

    Part of the reason: per NYTimes Pitchbot: (none / 0) (#179)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 03:54:39 PM EST
    Editors Note:  With Congress embarking on a two-week recess, we'll be temporarily re-assigning our Capitol Hill beat reporters to write stories about Bidne's age.

    Saltburn (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 07:58:54 AM EST
    I finally saw this.  Wow.  Amazing.  

    The graveside scene?


    They had (none / 0) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 05:55:39 PM EST
    a meltdown on Fox over that saying the list was "bogus" and "made by elites" with such lack of awareness that it has to do with all the other 45 did a peaceful transfer of power.

    James (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 05:54:37 PM EST
    Carville had a really good idea on a podcast I was watching. He said hang Johnson around Trump like an anvil. Johnson is weird grooming his daughter with a "purity ball" and having his son as a porn partner. While evangelicals think that crap is great even mainline Christians like myself recoil from the creepiness. Also his failure on immigration reform should be hung around his neck and his failure to do anything to help Ukraine and the entire world thinking he's a Kremlin agent.

    Just anecdotally but Trump going on trial for criminal charges in the Stormy Daniels case has them shook. While there might not be much jail time attached and I'm sure he'll appeal (to no avail but it will delay) he will be a convicted felon if only 1 of the 30+ charges he is found guilty on.


    Even if you do not (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 19, 2024 at 04:16:23 PM EST
    watch the Daily Show, brace yourself for the coverage of Jon Stewart's "bothsiderism" and we have to criticize Biden, particularly his age, because, you know, he is old.And even older than this time last week.

    Stewart's return last Monday night was greeted by much criticism, so I expect him to double-down tonight and let everyone know how wrong they are.

    John Oliver, a former Jon Stewart "senior correspondent" on the Daily Show and now host of his own award-winning HBO show on Sunday night, has offered to pay Clarence Thomas $1 million/year (as long as either lives) if he will resign from the Supreme Court.  Oliver has kept up.

    Random observations:: (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 03:12:08 PM EST
    Friday, February 23 2024

    Have a good weekend, everybody. Aloha.

    Mom For Liberty (aren't). (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Mar 05, 2024 at 01:37:24 PM EST
    60 Minutes did a story on Moms for Liberty the other night. Scott Pelley interviewed two of the nutball founders.

    In the interview they claimed that "Parents send their kids to school to be educated, not indoctrinated into ideology." Pelley asked, "What ideology are they being indoctrinated into?" They didn't answer the question. Instead they replied that "children in America cannot read."

    Sooo, which is it? If America's kids can't read, WHY THE H3LL ARE YOU WORRIED AB0UT BOOKS IN THE LIBRARY????

    I grew up in a house full of books. My father and I were not friends, but I give my parents credit for never saying there was a book that I couldn't read. When I was elementary school age, I read biographies all time. I wasn't particularly interested in the books on your shelves. They were over my head. But as I got older, I started reading some of my father's books. The was much variety. He was a Naval officer so there was a lot of military history. But he also had Hunter's Thompson's Hell's Angels, Portnoy's Complaint, Slaughterhouse Five, The Sand Pebbles, Taipan, etc. etc. As I said a variety.

    And no one ever pointed to a book and said any given book was off limits. I read many of them. Some of those same books are now on my own bookshelf. When my father died, my mother told me to take whatever books I wanted. And I did.

    What is wrong with these people? What exactly is it that they are afraid of?

    The incredible lunacy of these women is that I'm sure every one of their kids have a cell phone. Access to the internet. So taking books out of libraries is ridiculous. And, c'mon, really, how many kids are getting books from the school library these days? This is all theater for these people. A solution looking for a problem.

    And suppressing ideas has never, ever really worked.

    The Right has been variations (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 05, 2024 at 02:49:37 PM EST
    Oif this like clockwork since forever: attempting to whip the hoi polloi into a culture war hysteria as if the future of America's soul hangs in the balance on election day.

    One day it's 'groomer' teachers inculcating kids with gender dysphoria, the next it's Critical Race Theory taught in gradeschools, transwomen barging into every little girl's room..

    Even Meathead Rogan is getting in on the act lately - pushing this shite on his young gym bro audience.


    Just reading this (none / 0) (#196)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 05, 2024 at 04:37:45 PM EST
    and wondering the same thing.  What is it the are so afraid of?

    Christian employers do not have to cover gender transition, judge rules
    The federal Affordable Care Act prohibits health insurance plans from engaging in discrimination, including sex bias.

    A Christian business group and its members do not have to offer health insurance coverage to employees for gender transition treatments, a North Dakota federal judge ruled Monday.

    U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor in Bismarck ruled that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot make the Christian Employers Alliance (CEA) comply with rules requiring that coverage.

    The ruling, which grants summary judgment to the CEA on key issues in the case, comes nearly two years after Traynor temporarily shielded the group against the rules while he heard the case.

    They (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 05, 2024 at 05:45:02 PM EST
    are afraid that their precious god is not as powerful as they make him out to be, they are terrified that God's view of "good and evil" might  different from theirs.

    They have no faith in their faith in, so they anoint themselves enforcers of "morality".


    Or maybe (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 05, 2024 at 06:15:49 PM EST
    they are just hateful azzhole bullies.

    Comes (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 05, 2024 at 06:36:06 PM EST
    with  the territory.

    AIPAC protection racket.. (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 10, 2024 at 01:59:57 PM EST
    they recently gleefully-proudly tweeted that "all 32 AIPAC-endorsed candidates won their primary election last night."

    The plain-as-day subtext being something like "if you don't wanna have a little uh accident, stick to the script we provide for you."

    I had two Melanie albums (none / 0) (#4)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jan 25, 2024 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    When I was a kid. I've always had eclectic tastes in music. Melanie got the number of spins as Black Sabbath and Uriah Heep in the 70s.

    My sister's name is Melanie. She was named for Melanie in GWTW.

    rest well Melanie Safka.

    KeysDan you will Petie Bakers latest (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 25, 2024 at 03:13:37 PM EST

    A Race Between Two Presidents and Two Americas
    January 25, 2024 at 4:00 pm EST By Taegan Goddard Leave a Comment

    "Each of them has sat behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, signed bills into law, appointed judges, bartered with foreign leaders and ordered the armed forces into combat. They both know what it is like to be the most powerful person on the planet," the New York Times reports.

    "Yet the general election matchup that seems likely after this week's New Hampshire primary represents more than the first-in-a-century contest between two men who have both lived in the White House. It represents the clash of two presidents of profoundly different countries, the president of Blue America versus the president of Red America."

    " And here's.why (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 25, 2024 at 03:43:37 PM EST
    that's bad news for Biden."  By Peter Baker.    Doug J Balloon, aka NY Times Pitchbot, has it easy---Peter Baker writes  his satire for him.

    Such good bothsiderism, equate an insurrectionist and incompetent  to a patriot and competence; give equal footing to fascists and democrats.  And, of course, the clincher,  a lot of people in New Hampshire diners are unhappy with both candidates since both are the same.


    Several (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 25, 2024 at 04:05:31 PM EST
    Thousand words to say  
    "The Union and the Confederacy were very different, who am I to judge which side is correct?"

    Unbelievable (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 25, 2024 at 03:47:18 PM EST
    anyone who thinks the only the on the line is the color of the jersey should not be working for a major newspaper

    This type (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 25, 2024 at 05:53:01 PM EST
    of journalism is one of the reasons the country is at such a big risk right now.

    Very serious guy (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 25, 2024 at 07:29:19 PM EST
    second in seriousness only to his wife, Susan Glasser.

    I generally avoid the NY Times nowadays ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 30, 2024 at 02:11:05 PM EST
    ... regarding its political coverage, particularly anything from Maggie Haberman, Peter Baker and Maureen Dowd. Whenever there's a conflict between the truth and the narrative, they tend more often than not to stick with the narrative. That sort of coverage cost this country dearly in the run-up to the Iraq War inn 2002-03, and again with the "But her emails!" pseudo-scandal in 2016.

    Our country is presently enjoying its most robust economic growth since Eisenhower and JFK were president 60+ years ago, but you'd never know it, listening to those three. And their obvious reluctance to credit President Biden with any noteworthy accomplishment is palpable, and it's likely done solely for the sake of drama and the preferred narrative. Elections are reduced to the spectacle of horse race and they're going to give it to us, gawdammit, regardless of whether or not it's in the nation's best interest.



    James Lankford (R-OK) (none / 0) (#23)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 30, 2024 at 04:29:34 PM EST
    censured by the OK GQP for having the audacity to want to actually govern.

    2 big things (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 01, 2024 at 09:39:16 AM EST
    I think this is some good stuff (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 01, 2024 at 09:49:25 AM EST
    it's not often a politician gets to do what is both morally correct and politically beneficial.

    Asked for a reaction (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 01, 2024 at 11:34:11 AM EST
    Sad (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 01, 2024 at 04:50:22 PM EST
    We still have the DC circuit.  I think it will be tomorrow.

    Trump New York business fraud case verdict delayed to later in February

    Check my work (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 01, 2024 at 04:56:16 PM EST
    I heard the DC circuit releases opinions on Tuesdays and Fridays so I checked their website and sure enough, Tuesdays and Fridays.

    Would Judge Engoron choose to not hit him on the same day?

    Time is running out.  If the circuit court wants the trial to happen before the election they have to move.

    Hence, tomorrow looks very promising?

    Yes, no?


    Armando (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 02, 2024 at 09:27:44 AM EST
    thinks the J6 trial is not happening before the election due the appeals court dragging their feet. Someone on that court should go to the press and state the reason for the delay. However even if they decide today there's the chance that the supreme court will take it up causing further delay.

    I don't know jack about the law but this seems ridiculous to me.

    The beleaguered indictments by Alvin Bragg may be the only case we have before the election.

    Also there is apparently another civil fraud trial with Trump before Bragg's case. I'm not sure what that one is about.


    The Stormy Daniels (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 02, 2024 at 09:44:20 AM EST
    hush money case may be next.  Bragg seems ready to go with it if the federal election interference case gets held up.  The appellate delay for this seeming slam dunk case is suspicious--and I am looking at you Judge Henderson, Reagan and then Daddy Bush appointee.

    Based on what I read (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 02, 2024 at 10:28:57 AM EST
    it's entirely possible the "foot dragging" is all about coming with an unified opinion.   That would be the best outcome for us.  And not always an easy thing to do.

    I will be cynical tomorrow.  It's still Friday.


    It's been just over 50 days (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 02, 2024 at 10:31:15 AM EST
    I'm pretty sure that not a long time in court days.

    Finally! I had pretty much given up hope. (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by vml68 on Tue Feb 06, 2024 at 09:23:06 AM EST
    Unanimous decision, which is good (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 06, 2024 at 10:15:13 AM EST
    and suggests that the stay of trial need not continue, just because long-shot final aspects of the appeal may remain theoretically available. I will have more to say on the latter, important subject later.

    Well this is disappointing news. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Feb 06, 2024 at 12:13:14 PM EST
    I was looking forward to Joe snatching him up and sending him to Gitmo.



    I read there is a stay til Monday and (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 06, 2024 at 12:20:27 PM EST
    after that only if the Supremes issue a stay while they hear it.

    I doubt the SC takes this at all.

    How much can he delay with an en banc appeal?


    Per NYT (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by BGinCA on Tue Feb 06, 2024 at 01:07:19 PM EST
    But the panel imposed a rule designed to discourage Mr. Trump from making an intermediate challenge to the full court of appeals. It said that if Mr. Trump instead took that route, trial preparations could begin again after Feb. 12.

    Agreed, (none / 0) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 06, 2024 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    the Supreme Court would be very hard-pressed to take this case and is likely to let the lower court decision stand (and the unanimous ruling of the appellate panel suggests the preclusion of  an en banc review).

    The panel's ruling is thorough in history, case law, Supreme Court foundations, including Marburg and its progeny, and the Constitution.  Trump's motion was done in, in largemessur, by the Impeachment clause, "... shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, never-the-less be liable and subject to Indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law".  

    Even Trump concedes that criminal prosecution of a former president is expressly authorized by the Impeachment clause, the panel noted--albeit, in his view, after impeachment and conviction.

    Trump, therein argues implausibly that impeachment without conviction or no impeachment in the first place evades, categorically, criminal prosecution of a former president.

    The panel analyses and rejects Trump's arguments on double jeopardy, separation of powers/categorical immunity from criminal prosecution and in the interest of public policy.


    Regrets to (none / 0) (#72)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 06, 2024 at 01:14:58 PM EST
    former Chief Justice Marshall,  make that Marbury, as in Marbury v  Madison.

    No stay at all if he opts to seek en banc (none / 0) (#73)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 06, 2024 at 04:18:38 PM EST
    according to the panel opinion. IOW, the panel has already polled the rest of their colleagues and determined that they want nothing to do with reconsidering the panel opinion. Maybe Tr*mp's lawyers won't be able to convince 5 justices next week to grant a stay. Probably not, actually, since the arguments for post-presidential immunity border on the frivolous.

    I think they might (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 06, 2024 at 05:17:02 PM EST
    let him slide on this one so they can say CO can't keep him off the ballot.

    Fair n bakanced


    As someone pointed out (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 06, 2024 at 05:20:47 PM EST
    it's not really about what they would say about the decision, they would certainly agree, but if they give Trump what he wants most.  A delay.

    Just taking the case would be a win for Trump at this pont and I'm very curious if there is 4 justices who will delay it for him.


    You know (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 06, 2024 at 07:40:32 PM EST
    there's definitely two Thomas and Alito. Whether they can find 2 more is the question. There is some theory that if the supreme court takes this case the liberal 3 will go public because honestly there is no reason to take it other than to delay for Trump. I am hearing if they do take it and don't issue a decision until June the case won't go to trial until September which would raise yet more legal issues.

    You can never be too sure what these Fed Soc clowns on the supreme court will do.


    Maybe there will be a clue (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 06, 2024 at 07:47:59 PM EST
    in their arguments on Thursday how sick they are of Trump.

    Is that (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 07, 2024 at 04:13:09 AM EST
    the Colorado case you are talking about?

    Yes (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 07, 2024 at 07:20:08 AM EST
    Listening to the oral argument live, (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 10:45:52 AM EST
    it seems to me that the Supreme Court is not going to uphold the Colorado decision, for any one or more of several reasons. It seems pretty clear that there is not a majority, perhaps not even close, to go there. Tr*mp's lawyer actually did extremely well (in particular, not taking far-fetched positions, and pretending to be moderate and reasonable). The Colorado voters' lawyer is also doing pretty well, but not exceptionally so.

    Agreed, (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 11:59:17 AM EST
    there is, in my view, the distinct likelihood that the decision will be unanimous for Trump.  Especially, if the justices work to conciliate and integrate the several technical issues raised by the several justices.

    Mr. Mitchell, the attorney for Trump, did a very good job; Mr. Murray, counsel for. Colorado, less so.  The last counsel  for Colorado was excellent.


    9-0 (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by leap2 on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 12:04:54 PM EST
    Ketanji Brown Jackson believes the President is NOT an officer...

    And Thomas did not recuse. Of course he didn't.

    This specious and corrupt court will rule 9-0 against Colorado.

    Elie is beside himself.


    I think I read COs lawyer (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 11:03:52 AM EST
    has no SC experience.  He's holding his own it seems to me.

    FOX is carrying it live.  That's a good sign you are right.

    It's pretty much what most people seemed to expect.


    The third and final atty (for the Colo secy ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 11:11:21 AM EST
    of state) is also very good. Not sure whether she is the CO atty general or solicitor general or what.

    she is (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 11:14:19 AM EST
    The SG

    Right. I just looked it up. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    A "solicitor general" (these days) means the chief appellate lawyer for a governmental entity. She seemed very well qualified for that position.

    I Heard a Bit of the Arguments (none / 0) (#107)
    by RickyJim on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    while driving.  I got the impression that the issues for the SC dealt mostly with a state's ability to disqualify a candidate for federal office based on 14.3. I agree that this is questionable since it seems we could have 50 different decisions on that matter.

    What would be needed for the SCOTUS to take up the question if they, themselves, could do the disqualification?  Hasn't anybody, for example members of Congress, petitioned the court to do that yet?


    No one mentioned that a lack of national (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 12:27:18 PM EST
    uniformity vis a vis the presidential ballot is not unusual. Ralph Nader was on some states' ballots but not others. Likewise Jill Stein. I even read (have not verified) that in 1860 Lincoln won the presidency without having qualified for the ballot in at least a few states.

    Peter G: "I even read (have not verified) that in 1860 Lincoln won the presidency without having qualified for the ballot in at least a few states."

    ... in ten of the eleven southern states that would subsequently secede from the Union after the November 1860 election and form the rebel Confederacy. They were North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas.

    Only Virginia listed Lincoln as a candidate in 1860. Ironically, in the four states that seceded and joined the Confederacy after the shelling and surrender of Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861 (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas), 53% of their voters cast their ballots for pro-Union presidential candidates.



    What Would Have Happened (none / 0) (#119)
    by RickyJim on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 08:22:25 PM EST
    if the plaintiffs filed the case in Federal Court with the idea of having the Supreme Court eventually decide it?  Would it have been thrown out because presidential eligibility is a state matter?  Sounds like Trump has a great Heads I Win, Tails you lose thing going.

    I don't know that there would have been (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 10:39:26 PM EST
    a federal case. The plaintiffs sued in state court under a specific Colorado law that authorizes the state's Secretary of State to determine the eligibility of candidates who wish to run for office, as part of the process that ends with the creation of a slate of electors for the Electoral College. This is a responsibility assigned to the states in Article II, section 1, clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution, unless Congress acts to reject or supersede the state's rules, which they have not. Although the Justices this morning seemed to be hung up on how this could lead to disparate results in different states, I don't understand how that is not exactly what the Constitution potentially allows for.

    Eligibility of Candidates vs Choosing Electors (none / 0) (#130)
    by RickyJim on Fri Feb 09, 2024 at 12:32:53 PM EST
    Apples and oranges.  Why can't a group of citizens petition a federal court to declare Trump to be ineligible to be President on 14.3 grounds?  If certified electoral votes are sent in from some states for Trump, there would be good grounds for excluding them from the totals.

    All voting "for President," whether in (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 09, 2024 at 10:40:34 PM EST
    the primaries or the general, is part of the process of choosing electors to the Electoral College. As established by each state's law. That's our constitutional system. Not apples and oranges at all. Let a thousand (or 50, anyway) apple varieties bloom, says Art. II, sec. 1, cl. 2, as I understand it. A "group of citizens" cannot successfully "petition a federal court to declare Tr*mp ineligible" for the same reasons that all the citizen suits in 2008 failed that tried to declare Obama ineligible (because he was supposedly not a "natural born citizen"). No standing. No injury.

    Does Congress Have Standing (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by RickyJim on Fri Feb 09, 2024 at 10:58:52 PM EST
    next January 6th or before to object to VP Harris counting electoral votes cast for Trump on the grounds of ineligibility?  What's sauce for the goose ...:-)

    Yes, absolutely. That would be (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 07:34:52 PM EST
    100% appropriate and lawful. In fact, virtually mandatory, if you ask me (which I realize you did ;) ).

    Normally, a properly-taken appeal requires (none / 0) (#82)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 06, 2024 at 09:32:43 PM EST
    a stay of trial court proceedings until the appellate "mandate" issues, which is the order of the appeals court, directed to the lower court, to proceed in accordance with the appeal decision. In a federal appeal, that normally occurs  7 days after the ruling on a petition for rehearing, or 7 days after the deadline for seeking rehearing expires with none filed. But not so if the court initially deciding the appeal declares otherwise, which is what the D.C. Circuit panel did here. They said their mandate will issue Monday unless the Loser seeks a further stay from the Supreme Court by then, in which event their stay will continue until the S.Ct. rules on the stay. Loser does not have to file a petition for certiorari by Monday, only a motion for stay pending cert, or pending rehearing and cert. It takes five votes at the Supreme Court to grant a stay, and the factors supposedly to be considered in ruling on an application for stay pending cert include whether the cert petition, when filed, has a decent chance of being granted and then of prevailing. The Supremes could rule on that application (which I assume will be filed) at any time, from that same day to whenever, with or without awaiting a response. I wouldn't be surprised, though, for Mike Dreeben, the Supreme Court expert/specialist on Jack Smith's team, to respond in a day or less. So a lot will be on the line next week.

    Did you (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 07, 2024 at 04:12:48 AM EST
    read the decision Peter? I have heard many attorneys on social media say the decision was very strong.

    Yes, I read it. And (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 07, 2024 at 11:26:14 AM EST
    I agree it is quite strong, without being over the top. Its unanimity, underscored by being issued "per curiam" (indicating that all three judges contributed to the writing), underscores its strength. I should add that issuing the opinion "per curiam" (literally, in Latin, "by the court") also de-personalizes it, thereby undermining the typical MAGA response of attacking the judge personally who wrote and signed the opinion.

    And, the ruling (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 07, 2024 at 03:08:30 PM EST
    was polite and respectful of even the most off-the-wall arguments presented by criminal defendant Trump.  

    Polite yes (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 11:05:49 AM EST
    But what I read sounded like speaking to a small child in explaining away the crazy ideas.

    On MSNBC (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 07, 2024 at 08:02:29 AM EST
    They were just explaining that it only takes 4 votes for cert but 5 for a stay. So it's possible cert will be granted, possibly for "clarification", but the trial in DC can continue.

    Well (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 07, 2024 at 08:24:52 AM EST
    that is good news.

    Some are predicting a unanimous vote (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 07, 2024 at 09:34:44 AM EST
    to deny cert.  I would be shocked and stunned if that happened.

    8-1 maybe.


    Orders denying certiorari are (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 07, 2024 at 11:29:48 AM EST
    typically issued without any indication of the vote count. Publicly noting a dissent from (or concurrence in) the denial of cert is exceptional, done less than 5% of the time. Issuing a written explanation of a dissent or concurrence is even less frequent.

    Another distinct possibility is (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 07, 2024 at 11:35:35 AM EST
    a "summary affirmance" by the Supreme Court. Instead of granting or denying cert, they issue a two- to five-page decision (typically) upholding the lower court as clearly correct, but thereby making it a Supreme Court binding precedent, which a cert denial is not. By tradition, but not by rule, they won't issue a summary affirmance unless there are at least six votes behind it. (Sometimes, for lower court decisions that are indisputably wrong, they may also issue a "summary reversal.") They do this two or three times a year, out of 6500 to 7000 petitions filed at the Supreme Court annually.

    A very unlikely but also lawful possibility (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 07, 2024 at 02:20:31 PM EST
    is for the Supreme Court to treat next Monday's anticipated stay motion as a petition for certiorari, and then grant the "petition" and summarily affirm.

    A summary affirmation (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 07, 2024 at 03:05:56 PM EST
    would seem to be most appropriate so as to make the appellate court ruling a Supreme Courr precedent.. The appellate court panel did state that their ruling applied to this case which. In the context of the ruling is clear and understandable.  

    However, some wrong-headed  right wing critics of the ruling are comparing that statement to the "one-off" Supreme Court condition of Bush V Gore,  affirmation would seem to be the wisest course for the Supreme Court to take so as to "nail down" presidential immunity for the future.

    Trump is an historic figure, and not in a good way.  It is important that his anti-American, anti-constitutional schemes be dealt with through our judicial institutions, and, of course, at the ballot box.


    Bush v. Gore (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 07, 2024 at 07:37:36 PM EST
    the case that has haunted us for over 20 years and caused suffering for millions of Americans. And yet 3 of the clowns that argued that case are sitting on the supreme court. This is why I always say Trump is the symptom not the disease.

    IT seems (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 07, 2024 at 10:07:02 AM EST
    the appeals court set it up so that if someone is going to have to go to bat for Trump it will be the supreme court. The majority of Americans think the supreme court is full of clowns with only 25% supporting it. Federalist Society has destroyed the court. I remember the days of a court that was increasing freedoms not restricting them.

    But I agree that it won't be unanimous maybe even 7/2.


    Allen Weiselberg (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 02, 2024 at 09:23:07 AM EST
    is pleading guilty to perjury hence changing the status of the decision is what I understand. Apparently Weiselberg lied in this civil fraud trial. However reporters who say they have "sources" say the delay is only until Monday. I guess we shall see on Monday if that's the case.

    353 thousand jobs in the jobs report (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 02, 2024 at 10:33:45 AM EST
    Last month was revised up to 330sonething.

    This will start being noticed by the great unwashed.

    That was (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 02, 2024 at 10:39:26 AM EST
    more than twice the predicted number

    Why this (none / 0) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 02, 2024 at 10:47:21 AM EST
    bad for Biden, by Peter.Baker.

    HA (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 02, 2024 at 03:11:42 PM EST
    When I (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 02, 2024 at 03:45:12 PM EST
    interviewed several unvaccinated independent voters in Thelma's Diner, in Mule Shoe, TX, I found that they just didn't feel the economy is good.  

    Maybe, just maybe,  for them, but they heard on FoX news that a lot of people in Ohio weren't doing so hot. And, too, the price of eggs in 2022 was pretty high.  Also, too, while gas prices have come down, it still costs a lot to fill up their SUV's and new Ford F 150 pick-ups.  Biden has a problem, you see.


    Yeah, my thoughts too. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 02, 2024 at 10:48:07 AM EST
    We have a red hot economy. Just like the great unwashed is realizing how deadly and problematic abortion bans are.

    There (none / 0) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 02, 2024 at 12:13:44 PM EST
    is some polling that shows this is happening.

    Remodeling my bathroom (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 05, 2024 at 06:48:44 PM EST
    Vodka is very helpful

    Holy (none / 0) (#109)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 02:34:25 PM EST
    crap, Robert Hur comes out with a serious hit job, all but calls Biden a doddering fool but declines to prosecute for alleged willful retention and sharing of classified docs.

    Anazing (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 03:00:25 PM EST
    And the best part is the ASSUMPTION that Biden WOULD ACT like a forgetful old person IF charges were brought.

    Unbelievable. In a montH this will be forgotten except on MAGA MEDIA


    Sample (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 03:12:35 PM EST

    He noted Biden "did not remember when he was Vice President" and did not remember "when his son Beau died."

    The response to this should not be that difficult


    Biden just had a horrifying press conference (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 08:11:30 PM EST
    He was fine.  Very good actually talking about the death of his son but the press.,.
    omg.  All I can say is watch it.

    If this is what press conferences look like now I understand avoiding them.  
    Send these jackals to school or get better jackals.


    Here is (none / 0) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 08:13:52 PM EST
    So disrespectful (none / 0) (#120)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 09:54:06 PM EST
    of the president of the United States--in decorum and insulting, judgmental.  The press disaster may help in turning the focus from the special counsel's egregious and gratuitous editorializing to the press behavior.

    Even one of my GOP uncles ... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 01:16:25 PM EST
    ... bristled at the special counsel's patronizing mischaracterization of Joe Biden as a doddering old fool, probably because he and Biden share the exact same birthday. He said if somebody said that in public about him, he'd smack him. Personally, I think Robert Hur's ageism likely hit a raw nerve in more than a few older adults.

    It's 2016 again (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 07:04:02 PM EST
    and the horror never seems to end. As soon as I think I am over that trauma the supreme court overturns Roe v. Wade. And it all comes back. Now this.

    You're right that it will all be forgotten shortly but right now it's all about "replacing Biden" with even some Democrats jumping on that boat. The good news is Trump has made a lot, a whole lot, of messed up statements. Perhaps the silver lining is this sets the bar so low for Biden that if he doesn't "drool and fall over" he wins.


    Reminds (none / 0) (#112)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 03:39:34 PM EST
    of Comey's July 5, 2016 announcement that Hillary would not be charged in the "butter email" case.  He indicated that there would be no charges but then went on a gratuitous tirade about her carelessness and possible compromise by foreign hackers, that was unfounded.  (Not to be confused with the egregious CYA re-opening followed by a never mind).

    In the  Pence case, it was completed with dispatch and without pejorative comment.  This special counsel should have stopped with no charges, and, perhaps, the reason of no willfulness. Forgetfulness is not necessarily age-related, and recalling exact placements of documents as in this case may be a challenge even for a circus memory performer.

    Unless the special prosecutor is equipped with medical testing expertise and conducted such testing, his reasons for not charging should have been grounded in known legal facts.  


    How much you want to bet (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 03:50:10 PM EST
    House republicans will be demanding he REOPEN THE INVESTIGATION some time in October.

    Garland is to blame for some of this. Neal Katyal just explained that the guidelines for this prosecutor, which he wrote, specifically prohibit making a statement of your feelings with lots of adverbs and adjectives.
    And said there should NOT be a public report unless charges.  He blamed Garland for not enforcing those rules and so do I.

    Fire that F'ing guy.


    Yes. Garland (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 04:18:16 PM EST
    fell down on the job, again.   The independent counsel was ended in 1999 and replaced with special counsel for, in large part, to avoid the kind of investigation and reporting of Robert Hur.

    It would not have compromised Hur's reporting to have editing by.the attorney general and to assure appropriate procedures and protocols were conducted.  There have been reported that witnesses complained that they were not given opportunity to review their statements.  Biden has been forthcoming and cooperative, even waiving executive privilege.  

    Maybe, the old advice of never talking to the police voluntarily--they are not your friends at this point, holds here. Or, hate to say it, take a lesson from Trump on this particular point.  Oh my god, did I really say that? I am going to lay down and hope it soon passes.


    Garland should indeed fire him. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 09, 2024 at 01:49:55 AM EST
    Further, he should bluntly specific in stating his reasons why the special counsel is terminated, that is, his failure to follow specified guidelines and his public personal disparagement of someone who is not being charged.

    For sure, Republicans will squawk and whine, but so what? That just gives DOJ further opportunity to once again publicly recount just how thoroughly unprofessional and disreputable Robert Hur's behavior was, and basically give him a taste of his own medicine.

    Be aggressive.


    Garland (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 09, 2024 at 07:28:00 AM EST
    is the one who should be fired.  He allowed this to happen.

    It's (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 09, 2024 at 08:37:45 AM EST
    a long standing practice
    Bill Clinton (D) was investigated by Ken Starr (R)

    George W Bush (R) was investigated by Patrick Fitzegerald (R)

    Hillary Clinton (D) was investigated by James Comey (R)

    Donald Trump (R) was investigated by Robert Mueller (R)

    Joe Biden (D) was investigated by Robert Hur (R)

    I would add Durham.

    The asymmetric warfare the Repugs carry out on all fronts, over decades has probably doom us.


    Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the Football (none / 0) (#131)
    by john horse on Fri Feb 09, 2024 at 01:32:59 PM EST
    Lets forget about the actions of Starr, Comey, and Hur.  I'm sure that the next Republican to investigate a Democrat will be scrupulously apolitical.  (sarcasm alert)

    Starr (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 09, 2024 at 02:36:36 PM EST
    totally went on to destroy himself and any semblance of a reputation he once had. Let's hope the same thing happens to the rest. Comey is about halfway there.

    Agreed - but that ain't gonna happen. (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 01:37:56 PM EST
    But honorable man that he is, Merrick Garland should probably offer his resignation - and Joe Biden should probably accept it. The problem with that scenario, though, would be the Senate's confirmation of Garland's replacement, who would likely be filibustered.

    So, we're just going to have to ride this out with the horses we have. But the risk-adverse D.C. Dems need to take their cues from their California counterparts Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom and Adam Schiff, all of whom are pulling no punches in going after the GOP.



    Okay (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 09, 2024 at 10:40:29 AM EST
    not defending Garland BUT if he had redacted it, it would have been a problem too with the report leaking and the GOP claiming Garland was covering up Biden's "dementia".

    Overall I think this is a wash. We are going to see Biden's misstatements against Trump's claiming he is running against Obama, Nikki Haley did Jan. 6th etc. etc.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 09, 2024 at 11:08:16 AM EST
    if the election hinges on mental competence eventually there will be an apples to apples comparison and if the media plays it straight I would still put my money on Biden.

    NYTimes Pitchbot --Both sides (none / 0) (#129)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 09, 2024 at 11:44:44 AM EST
    Whether it's Biden misremembering a period of extreme sadness or Trump misremembering a period of extreme raping, both candidates memories seem to have been clouded by strong personal emotions.

    Jim Messina (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 08, 2024 at 07:11:42 PM EST
    Let's be clear--the special counsel isn't a dummy and we should be very careful not to take the bait after Comey pulled this in 2016. Hur, a lifelong Republican  and creature of DC, didn't have a case against Biden, but he knew exactly how his swipes could hurt Biden politically.

    Democrats (none / 0) (#127)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 09, 2024 at 10:57:49 AM EST
    should focus on the legal conclusion of Hur's report and proclaim exoneration.  The gratuitous and ageist component of the report needs to be labeled as the Republican hit job that it is. Hur should be charged with practicing medicine without a license, although he may not care much about criticism and just enjoy his new RV.

    While age will continue to be a campaign issue, the nasty tone and.irrelevant and unprofessional commentary of the report is likely to be quickly lost over Super Bowl weekend, the immunity decision and the financial judgment of Judge Edgoran.

    Merrick Garland should be fired, but that would only exacerbate a situation that should be treated with scorn and then rely on busy lives and short memories to take it from there.


    As I said (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 09, 2024 at 02:34:15 PM EST
    above in the big picture it will end up being a wash. Ironically conservatives have set the standard so low for Biden that if he doesn't drool and fall on his face he'll win the debate.

    I have tended to poo poo the Garland critics but it ends up they were right. Adam Kinsinger said there wouldn't even be an investigation of Trump if not for the J6 committee.


    Garland was a bad choice (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 12:03:38 AM EST
    from the very start.

    Merrick Garland was the safe choice. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 01:50:47 PM EST
    And had the political volatility dissipated post-January 6 as so many of us were fruitlessly hoping it would, then it would have been a good choice. But in this instance, playing it safe saddled us with the legal equivalent of Neville Chamberlain at DOJ. Appeasement doesn't work in the face of aggression.

    Agree to disagree (none / 0) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 04:28:00 PM EST
    IMO, he was never a safe choice for the Supreme Court or for AG. Better than a Republican...sure. A low bar to meet.

    Senate Democrats under Chuck Schumer ... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 11, 2024 at 03:26:14 PM EST
    ... have long tended to be a risk-adverse caucus. At the very outset of President Joe Biden's post-Jan. 6 administration, and on the heels of the second Trump impeachment trial where Senate Democrats would inevitably fail to gain the two-thirds majority vote necessary for conviction, both Schumer and Biden were looking to avoid a bitter confirmation fight over control of the Justice Dept. with an obviously agitated and overtly hostile GOP.

    Merrick Garland was considered the "safe choice" because when his name was first floated as a possible DOJ candidate, Senate GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell promised Schumer and Biden that he'd deliver at least ten Republican votes to overcome any hold placed by MAGA-oriented senators on that particular nomination.

    Let's please not conflate that term with "good choice" or "better choice" and further remember that in February and March of 2021, the country had just been politically traumatized by the MAGA insurrection. Neither the Biden administration, the Senate Democratic caucus nor Sen. McConnell had any real appetite to engage in a prolonged battle over control of DOJ.

    And so, Merrick Garland became the mutually agreed-upon compromise candidate for U.S. attorney general. That he's since proved to be a risk-adverse and mediocre leader himself is really beside the point.



    Criminal Defendant Trump (none / 0) (#157)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 10, 2024 at 09:19:17 PM EST
    may have Merrick Garland on his short list for vice presidential running mate.

    Jon Stewart Returns to Comedy Central. Why? (none / 0) (#163)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 16, 2024 at 12:39:38 PM EST
    Sometimes it is smart, once retired, to stay so. Jon Stewart's Rachael Maddox-ish Mondays only return is a classic example of such.  If I restless, find something different or new --gardening, beekeeping, mahjong.  Become a Swiftie.  

    Eight years ago, Jon Stewart left the show with the self-awareness that his brand of comedy had run its course or would need some re-tooling to continue.  His return this week recalled the 2010 Colbert/Stewart palooza of bothsiderism and can't- we-all get-along-ism.  Colbert moved on, Stewart is stuck in time.

    To be funny, political satire and parody needs to be grounded in truth and be based on real-time happenings. News flash. Biden and Trump are not young.  But they are not the same because of that fact.  Grandpa jokes are not knee-slappers. Ageism is not hilarious.  

    it is disappointing that this once-upon-a-time comedic talent has not keep up and recognized today's political landscape. Sadly, he now borders on has-been territory. Maybe, Jon can use his Tuesday through Sunday time to study the differences between fascism and democracy.  And, to take comedy lessons.

    Second verse, same as the first. (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 05, 2024 at 05:41:19 PM EST
    Two weeks later, Jon Stewart has delivered yet another round of cheap shots at Joe Biden's age disguised as edgy humor and, in the process, he's committing the cardinal sin of stand-up comedians by failing to read the room. It's not 2004 anymore.

    It's not at all surprising that his obsolescent both-sides shtick is falling flat with his Democratic-leaning audience, who see President Biden and Democrats - except for Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who just got hit with a superseding indictment - as trying to govern responsibly, while Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans are clearly interested only in breaking things and creating chaos.

    Still, it was kind of sad to watch the 61-year-old Stewart - who, truth be told, isn't exactly a spring chicken himself - double down on the ageism last night. I've seen enough, and I won't be watching again.



    Many people (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 16, 2024 at 01:54:54 PM EST
    were also reminded of his 2016 misogyny which I either forgot or never knew about.

    The future is here (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 17, 2024 at 05:34:36 PM EST
    This has been making the rounds. It's truly amazing.
    When I look at this all I see is the thousands and thousands of people, many I know, who spent their lives developing a skill or craft who will be unemployed because of this technology.

    This is a video entirely generated by OpenAI's new text to video model, Sora. They released this video as a demo today.

    Prompt: A stylish woman walks down a Tokyo street filled with warm glowing neon and animated city signage. She wears a black leather jacket, a long red dress, and black boots, and carries a black purse. She wears sunglasses and red lipstick. She walks confidently and casually. The street is damp and reflective, creating a mirror effect of the colorful lights. Many pedestrians walk about.


    not quite there (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by leap2 on Sat Feb 17, 2024 at 06:52:56 PM EST
    Watch "her" lower legs and feet as she walks. The legs get mixed up. And "her" feet skip a beat.

    We are not to the infancy stage (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 17, 2024 at 07:46:27 PM EST
    for this technology.  It's still a foetus.  Or a tumor.

    Give it a year.


    I agree. I do not find it "amazing." (none / 0) (#170)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 17, 2024 at 09:52:48 PM EST
    The video looks to me like a second-rate animation. It would not make me think it was a genuine video of a live model or actress, which is what I expected to see.

    That is so (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 17, 2024 at 06:11:34 PM EST
    sad. I have to say what is the benefit of AI? So far I am not sure I see any but I guess the AI people would tell you different.

    The benefit to the corporation creating it (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 17, 2024 at 06:35:08 PM EST
    which is all of them, is massive.  It would have taken several craftsmen to make that video.  But there was no stylist no lighting director no caterers no talent.  All the people involved in that production just went on unemployment.

    All it took was a nerd with a well constructed sentence.  
    That would be much more cost effective to the corporations.

    There is no benefit I can see from generative AI.*

    It's my pet pet peeve.  It is a solution in search of a problem.  There was no "demand" for AI except from corporation who wanted to screw creatives. No sane creative person wants this.

    I have heard of some good the language part has done for translation.  


    That is amazing.. (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by desertswine on Sun Feb 18, 2024 at 01:51:01 AM EST
    and, as you say, in a very early stage.

    Ya want AI (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 18, 2024 at 12:54:23 PM EST
    Perfect! (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by desertswine on Sun Feb 18, 2024 at 03:00:33 PM EST
    "I told you not to get fat" (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 18, 2024 at 03:53:21 PM EST
    He probably did.😆

    Hamas are mass murderers (none / 0) (#190)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 29, 2024 at 05:52:38 PM EST
    The IDF are mass murderers.

    Explain to me how one is different than the other.

    We're not going to blamed (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 01, 2024 at 01:05:15 PM EST
    for the actions of Hamas. That's one difference.

    Also, there's no American Palestinan Public Affairs Committee here to put the fear of God into politicians, college presidents, and media figures


    Wha? (none / 0) (#193)
    by desertswine on Sat Mar 02, 2024 at 10:56:38 PM EST
    "Three U.S. Air Force cargo planes airdropped 38,000 ready-to-eat meals, in a joint operation with the Jordanian Air Force."

    The absurdity of this is obvious.


    Karma, or something like it (none / 0) (#192)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 02, 2024 at 05:11:49 PM EST
    Billionaire Bill Ackman, who doesn't care whether or not his actions reinforce antisemitic tropes, was at the forefront of attempts to discredit and intimidate college presidents. Now evidence has emerged that his own wife plagiarized part of her doctoral dissertation.

    Predictably, Ackman's now threatening to put people out of business and sue anyone with a pulse.

    If there's one good thing about ... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 05, 2024 at 05:15:15 PM EST
    ... the digitalization of primary sources online by university libraries, etc., it's that it's getting correspondingly harder and harder for people to get away with plagiarizing others' work. Thanks to the evolving capacity of AI, all you really have to do nowadays is copy and paste some text into a search engine and then see what comes up.

    As I've told my own students in the U.S. history class I teach at UH-Hilo, it's perfectly okay to use and quote other people's work in your research papers, theses, dissertations, etc. But you must properly cite those sources you use through footnotes / endnotes and then further, use their work as a catalyst to develop your own original ideas and thoughts, rather than simply regurgitate what's already been said and debated.

    (I also warned them that as their teacher, I do have an annoying tendency to randomly check my students' footnotes for veracity and accuracy.)



    RIP Dickey Betts (none / 0) (#203)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 21, 2024 at 01:18:59 PM EST
    He sure could make that Les Paul sing.