home

Friday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 09:48:07 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Whatever is going on in the world today, here's a place for you to discuss it. It's a court day for me, I'll be back here tonight.

< Out Of Iraq Caucus Embraces Not Funding Option | Inviting Inherent Contempt >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Open Thread | 69 comments (69 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    More subversive reality seeping in (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 04:14:44 PM EST
    to the Cheney/Bush alternate universe.

    Sunday NYT Magazine: Policing Terrorism

    When terrorists tried to blow up civilians in London and Glasgow, Gordon Brown, the new British prime minister, responded in his own distinctive way. What had just been narrowly averted, he said, was not a new jihadist act of war but instead a criminal act. As if to underscore the point, Brown instructed his ministers that the phrase "war on terror" was no longer to be used and, indeed, that officials were no longer even to employ the word "Muslim" in connection with the terrorism crisis. In remarks to reporters, Brown's new home secretary, Jacqui Smith, articulated the basic message. "Let us be clear," she said, "terrorists are criminals, whose victims come from all walks of life, communities and religions."
    ...
    Brown, it seems, has concluded that the war rhetoric employed by Blair was divisive, threatening social peace between communities in Britain, and counterproductive, making it harder to turn the British Muslim community into the security services' eyes and ears. In other words, the Brown approach would be the approach of serious crime fighters around the world these days -- community policing in which mutual trust is the cornerstone of crime prevention. In general, advocates of this approach avoid the rhetoric of war on the presumption that it only alienates the communities out of which criminals spring."
    H/T to Larisa, at-Largely

    Michae Vick? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 09:58:29 AM EST
    ?

    I can't think of much worse. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Peaches on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 10:08:46 AM EST
    How depraved of a human being are you to get enjoyment out of dogs fighting and tearing each other a part?

    They are allegations at this point, but I am just talking about dog-fighting in general. A pretty sick hobby, if you ask me.

    Parent

    Just slightly (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:27:32 AM EST
    more depraved than the proconsuls and senators who pay 2,000 a seat to experience the pleasure of watching two inner city guys give each other brain damage.

    Parent
    Another boxing fan..... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 10:25:42 AM EST
    I see.

    I guess I'm a barbarian for seeing beauty in the sport, and sparring with my friends for excercise.  

    Parent

    Pretty sick stuff...... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 10:16:24 AM EST
    to be sure....but 6 years seems excessive for animal cruelty.

    Then again...it's pretty rare when I see a proposed sentence that I don't find excessive.

    Parent

    I'm not sure about sentences (none / 0) (#4)
    by Peaches on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 10:34:25 AM EST
    But, I am glad there are laws against animal cruelty and I think people who take part in dog-fighting have some serious issues including a lack of a sense of decency that should be a requirement in a civilized society.

    Six years in the penitentiary might be unjust, but six years in a psyche ward could be appropriate. Maybe even longer.  

    Parent

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 11:16:52 AM EST
    I've got no beef with animal cruelty laws as long as the punishments are within reason...or I should say my warped sense of reason:)

    Parent
    I have see the 6 year max (none / 0) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 10:35:14 AM EST
      in the media but my understanding is that the indictment alleges only one count of conspiracy with a max of 5 years and that the other statutes referenced in the indictment merely delineate the offenses he is alleged to have conspired to commit.

      In any event his guideline would be well below 5 -- although this might be a case where a court would find either guidelines grounds for an upward departure or § 3553 (a) grounds for a variance above the guideline range.

    Parent

    I'll take your understanding.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 11:11:14 AM EST
    over the media's...thanks decon.

    All I know is the Falcons shouldn't have traded their backup.

    Parent

    i think I've found the source of the confusion (none / 0) (#11)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 11:26:31 AM EST
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CHUCK ROSENBERG

    Four Individuals Indicted in Virginia Dog Fighting Venture

    (Richmond, Virginia) - Purnell Peace, age 35, of Virginia Beach, Virginia; Quanis Phillips, age 28, of Atlanta, Georgia; Tony Taylor, age 34, of Hampton, Virginia; and Michael Vick, age 27, of Atlanta, Georgia, were indicted today by a federal grand jury for conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities ("Travel Act"), and to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture, in violation of federal law.  Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Brian L.  Haaser, Special Agent-in-Charge, U.S.  Department of Agriculture (website - news) , Office of Inspector General, Northeast Region, made the announcement.  If convicted on the Travel Act portion of the conspiracy charge, each defendant faces a statutory maximum of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and full restitution.  If convicted on the animal fighting venture portion of the conspiracy charge, each defendant faces one year in prison, a $100,000 fine, or both.  The indictment also includes a forfeiture allegation seeking recovery of any property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of these offenses.

      The press release is accurate but media folks, including some "lawyers," are misinterpreting it.

      The government can prove the charged conspiracy either by proving the defendants conspired to violate the interstate travel in aid of racketeering statute OR the sponsoring dogfighting staute. In the event they prove the FELONY travel act statute was the object of the conspiracy the max is 5. If they fail in that and prove only the misdemeanor dogfigting statute (an amendment now making it a felny had not become effective at the time of the alleged offense here)  was violated  § 371 caps the penalty at 1 year. But, if the governmenet proves both prongs the maximum is still capped at 5 years by § 371.

    Parent

    DC, thanx u for (none / 0) (#15)
    by Electa on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:29:03 PM EST
    explaining this before it gets out of hand.  Again, too much media influence in judicial matters.  At this point the charges, although sick-o, sick-o, are alleged not proven.  If Vick is proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt then he should imo get the max.  

    I live in the hood and see first hand the effects of Gangsta/Hip Hop/Rap culture has on not only the children but adults as well.  Pits are a part of that culture.  It's an underground society that most never experience.  My neighbor breeds pits and loves her dogs.  Here's the kicker, she loves her pits so much that she and her grandchildren are living in the dark because the electricity was disconnected...last month.  

    Now, in light of her love for these animals, if someone came and offered her the opportunity to win x amount of dollars to fight her dogs would she surrender under her current circumstances?  Knowing her...probably not but these are the conditions that perpetrate such behavior behaviour as dog fighting.  Look at the participants, the majority that is, poor folks from the ghetto trying to get mo.  Unfortunately instead of Vick using his wealth and notariety to uplift the lives of our people esp. the  youth he acts as a predator and for that there is no forgiveness.

    The message of John Edwards concerning poverty in America is right on spot and warrants attention.  There no need for a "shock and awe" response to such barbaric behavior when the unlying causes are being ignored by society at large.  Americans are in need of an eye opening revelation relative to the diminishing effects that poverty is having on this country as a supposed civilized society.

    Parent

    Electa (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 03:46:23 PM EST
    Thank you for sharing your experiences.

    Considering the lack of opportunity and other negative aspects of living in our inner cities, why don't more inner-city folks find other places to live?

    Parent

    Why not find other places to live? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Electa on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 05:31:41 PM EST
    There are many reasons why innercity dwellers, such as myself, remain in the communities...some by choice others by circumstance.  I prefer living in the city because of its advantages and I'm not a suburbanite by nature.  I enjoy living around my people for the culture, assemblance and above all adding value of our neighborhoods where I can and serving as a positive role model and sometimes surrogate parent for the children.  

    During the 60s-70s diaspora as the result of integration, Brown vs Board of Ed and urban renewal our communities were stripped of their vital human resources.  Unfortunately those left behind were less fortunate and weren't homeowners.  Finding rentals at that time was very difficult as most people that I knew were home owners and those who were renters did so from other Black folks.  The Drs., lawyers, educators, blue and white collar workers moved out and vacant lots and crime replaced our homes and once vibrant and value based communities.

    Poverty began to abound as family structures changed from 2 parent households to single and often under aged parental headed households.  Family values began to diminish as those left behind became more isolated and marginalized.  Welfare contributed to the demise.  Subsequently proliferation set in and today we see the results in the socio-economic stats.  

    I'm not for sure if this is the proper venue to discuss the socio-economics of Black folks but it eventually ends up being political as we can see in these campaigns.  Who will win the Black vote...it will be fragmented of course, those loyal to the Clintons (the old civil rights establishment...Jesse, Sharpton and that bunch) the diehard nationalists and young folks(who will vote for Obama simply because he's a brotha and he symbolizes this generations MLK)and those who will sway towards the conservative Christian agenda (because their GLBT phobias have fogged their sense of logic.)  It will be interesting to see how Black ministers lean now the GWB is out and his faith based initiative will probably die when he vacates the post.  Hope you have a clearer understanding of why those of us who choose the hood remain hoodies.  

    Parent

    Vick might not be best example (none / 0) (#35)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:52:54 PM EST
     for the poverty is too blame argument as he is extremely wealthy and hardly doing whatever he does because he has no hope for a better life.

      Nor do I see him preying on anything but dogs (assuming the allegations are true). His friends are willing participants. At most he seems to have provided means for them to engage at a higher level. He might be evidence for the argument  that "poverty" is more a state of mind than a financial  state in many cases.

       I also question given the travel involved, the expenses of feeding and training the dogs and ability to wager relatively large sums on these fights whether these other  folks are truly  poor in anything but spirit and humanity.

     

    Parent

    When I worked in South Lousiana (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:39:01 AM EST
    I got the impression at times from listening to some of my quite well paid co-workers that dog fighting was the unofficial state sport. Not infrequently whole families went to watch these matches. And in case anyone's getting the false impression that this is "a black thing", none of my co-workers were black.

    Parent
    Pitbulls and poverty (none / 0) (#37)
    by Peaches on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 03:34:50 PM EST
    I'm not an expert on this, but I was listening to an interview with a Police Officer who works for the Humane Society in Mpls (He's a real gun carrying officer who can arrest you) who investigates dogfighting in the Mpls area and he was explaining the levels.

    He said that most of the fights in the poorer neighborhoods are not very formal and for small money. They often happen spontaneously and most of the owners are not going to let their dogs fight for long because they have an attachment to their dogs and an investment. These fights are usually on the level of "my dog can kick you dogs ass" "Oh Yeah, lets's go!" Its just macho, stuff.

    Then there is another level where the trainers/owners actually train a dog or two and organize larger dogfights that also don't allow the dogs to fight to the death, because many of these trainers/owners don't want to lose all they've invested in their dogs. These fights are not for that big of money, but they are pretty organized.

    Finally, at the top is group that really has a following. These groups have dog with bloodlines that are very well known and dogtrainers follow them like thoroughbred horses. Wagers are much larger and the fights are to the death. This is where the really sick stuff happens.

    I think Electa's point on poverty is that the Gangsta/hiphop/rap culture that follows dogfighting in the innercities also knows about the toplevel fighting through videos DVD's or whatever. Most of the wagering and training and bloodlines are beyond their means, but the whole culture stemming from these top level fighters has permeated down to the hood as many of those on the street corner aspire someday to get a champion dog.

    Perhaps, kind of like the idea of blaming Michael Jordan for kids in the cities killing each other over AirJordans in the nineties. But, there is an element of truth to it. Michael Vick could have given back more (So, could we all, but...) and dogfighting is not exactly the type of thing someone of his stature should be endorsing or participating in. But it all goes back to opportunities for inner city kids. You got sports, drugs, the Music industry, and now, get yourself a dog that can fight. All of these usually end up being pipe dreams and chances are much more likely that you will end up dead or in prison than that you become successful through any of these avenues.

    Parent

    Vick is not the basis of my argument (none / 0) (#42)
    by Electa on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 05:50:08 PM EST
    and there's more top heavy betting than you might imagine.  Don't think for one moment that there's not plenty of "money" in the hood. It's not uncommon to see 13 yr. olds pockets bulging w/several thousands of dollars gained from illicit activities..again the result of poverty.  

    This dog fighting incident is not an isolated  to the Vick case.  It's happening across this country in both urban and rural areas.  Remember Chicken George in Roots?  Cockfighting was the sport of the plantations.  Today's plantations are the ghettoes of America and we have pit and rock fighting.  

    Parent

    Actually, one of the things that struck me, (none / 0) (#52)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 08:13:34 AM EST
     is how relatively small were the amounts Vick was wagering. The man has been making millions of dollars a year for quite a few years now. Winning or losing a few thousand dollars a month would have almost no financial impact on his life.

       Even if we assume he spent $250,000 a year on expenses and lost a similar amount on bets we are talking about maybe 5% of the amount he was earning from football and endorsements. A lot of people spend 5% of their income on hobbies that have no conceivable income potential.

       To me this suggests his interest has little to do with money and the bets are to him just part of the "game" and it's the "game" itself which motivates him.

      One would assume that because he is extraordinarily wealthy by any standards he knows he  simply could not find competing bettors in the dogfighting world  who could make bets that would represent "real money" to him. The attractions have to be the competition, the violence, and the culture of the "game" (I won't call it a sport).

      If he had blown out his knee in college and ended up back on the corner in Newport News would he be fighting his no pedigree dog in back alley fights? It's obviously likely but that would still be about the "game" and not the belief it was a way to make money and motivated by the lack of it. Selling drugs is a good way to make money. Fighting dogs is not. It's far more likely that people are willing to spend  money they make by other means --legal and illegal-- on dogfighting because it excites them to watch animals maim and kill each other and they like to brag about how mean their dog is as if that proves how tough they are.

       Poverty-- in the financial sense--  is simply a pat answer that doesn't work here whether we are talkng about Michael Vick or people who actually are poor.  


    Parent

    I don't think Micheal Vicks (none / 0) (#54)
    by Electa on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 09:00:17 AM EST
    was interested one bit in dogfighting but rather used his celebrity to entice an audience.  His co-defendents were probably more interested in the financial aspects.  Either way the idea of fighting animals to the death is a form of insanity or is in any different than grehound or horse racing?  To me it's all animal brutality.

    Poverty-- in the financial sense--  is simply a pat answer that doesn't work here whether we are talkng about Michael Vick or people who actually are poor.

    That's your opinion and may very well hold true for outside observers but for those who live daily with this anomaly and seek to eradicate the underpinnings of the problem it's quite appropriate to examine the behavior from all perspectives whether it be of celebrity or common status.

    Parent

    Horse racing.... (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 09:54:39 AM EST
    has its problems with drugs and unscrupulous horsemen, but there is still no comparison to dog fighting.

    The vast majority of race horses are treated very very well...better than some people are treated.  Horses love to run.  I don't think pit bulls love to kill each other, they are just trained to.  

    Parent

    come off it (1.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 09:20:39 AM EST
      You attempt to exploit the fact you live in the inner city as giving you insight. Yet you betray with every word that while geographically you may be close you are farther apart than most. You discuss people as though they are from some alien race whom you study as a sociologist to learn otherwise unfathomable secrets unknowable to the "outsiders."

      How utterly demeaning an attitude is that? Perhaps if you start viewing them as people just like you and me rather than exotics to be studied you'd be more successful in eradicating the underpinnings of the problem.

    Parent

    Exploitation?!?!? (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Electa on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 07:38:56 PM EST
    where do you get off with that.  There's no need for exploitation which requires to much energy.  Again, that's your opinion everyone has one and I respect that.  Would you rather that I speak Ebonics?  Are you offended that I live here and you there...wherever that is?  What's your trip?  Because I present a different perspective to your views you snap and sling insults.  And, who are you referring to as them?  Pls. explain.  

    You're correct, I don't view the people in my community "just" as you or me, because they're not, 54% are renters living is substandard housing, 48% have no transportation, 58% of the children under the age of 5 live below the US poverty level, 62% of the households are headed by a single parent working 2 part time minimum wage jobs to pay the rent on the substandard house with the roof leaking and toilets broken, the median household income is $17,800 and, the digital divide is as wide as the MS River.  Now, are any of these indicators applicable to you?   It would be illusional and incongruent with logic to view this demograph through the same lens as you or I....I'm a realist.  What I do do, however, is work to empower the residents in my community so that they can envision themselves and their children becoming like you or me or anyone else...whatever that means.  Do you have any objections to that, Esq?

    Parent

    I'm not questioning (none / 0) (#66)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:40:34 AM EST
      your good intentions. I'm questioning the attitude with which you approach your objective. I don't think poor people are any different than anyone else in one very important respect-- they resent and often reject people who act as if they are "missionaries" seeking to "save" them by "improving"  them-- which usually means telling them to be more like the "missionary."

       

    Parent

    Likely exposure (none / 0) (#12)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 11:51:39 AM EST
    5 years is the statutory maximum, not what he will necessarily receive if convicted.

       The penalty for conspiracy is calculated with reference to the  guideline for offense underlying the conspiracy. For these purposes I will take the more serious underlying offense.

      A quick look at the federal sentencing guidelines suggests that his base offense level will be 12.  this is becasuase after cross referencing conspiracy to travel you are then directed to cross reference travel to the offense the person traveled to further (I know it seems bizarrely over-complicates with double cross-references and the like but such is government).

    I say BOL 12 because  I think the court would likely find that the cross-reference in the interstate travel in aid of racketeering guideline should go to either "gambling" or "crime of violence" both of which establish a BOL of 12(COV might be debatable since while the acts are "violent" the dogs are not people-- but since gambling offenses also have a BOL of 12 it might not matter).

      It's more than possible that Vick would get a 4 level enhancement as leader or organizer of a criminal enterprise involving more than 5 people or is otherwise extensive. (there are also lesser enhancements possible based on the role of the particular defendant and the scope of the criminal organization)

       That would put him at 16. I don't know Vick's criminal history but will assume he will end up in either category I(21-27 months) or II (24-30) . He'd also be in "Zone D" which provides no option to imprisonment.

       Now, that is assuming a trial and conviction (on the travel prong).

       With a plea he might fare considerably better. Initially,  3 levels down for acceptance of responsibility would reduce the sentencing range to either 12-18 months (CHI) or 15-21 months (CH2). Still,  he'd still be in a straight imprisonment situation, so he would try to get the government to agree to a deal not providing the leadership role enhancement which could take him down to offense level 9--- 4-10 months for CHI and 6-12 for CH2. More importantly, 9 would put him in Zone B and make alternative sentences (home confinement or community confinement) an option for the court.

    He could also agree to become a snitch and give it up on all the other big players and get a substantial assistance motion which would give him a very good shot of doing no time. He also has to cnsider that if he does not plea and cooperate the government might supersede the indictment and up the ante.


    Parent

    To further complicate (none / 0) (#13)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 11:55:11 AM EST
     Booker making the guidelines advisory applies equally to permitting variance sentences above the applicable guideline range based on § 3553 factors as it does to permitting variance sentences below the guideline range.

    Parent
    Better living.... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 10:39:30 AM EST
    through legislation?...a few local jokes.

    Text message ban

    Do we really need common sense laws?

    Social Host Law

    This one is uber-tyrannical.

    Tracking Harry (none / 0) (#7)
    by TomStewart on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 11:03:09 AM EST
    According to Amazon, my book is at the Post Office 'awaiting delivery'. Dang it. I want my book now! I can't wait until tomorrow. Just about every website is putting out reviews, and it's like tiptoeing though a minefield trying to avoid finding out plotpoints!

    This is no fair. I bet Cheney's known for months what happens. Of course, he was there with the rest of his Death-Eaters and Dementors.

    "Do we really need common sense laws?" (none / 0) (#8)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 11:05:01 AM EST
      I'm not sure what you are suggesting there.

    It could be read to suggest as suppoert laws contrary to "common sense" but I'll assume you mean to suggest that we don't need laws that outlaw behaviors people using  "common sense" would not undertake.

      In a world where a) everyone had common sense and b) always acted in accordance with it, your suggestion might not be completely without "common sense."

      Your implication could be used to state that drunk driving  or the reckless use of any dangerous instrumentality should not be illegal. It could also be used to argue against almost any law prohibiting almost anything if taken to the extreme.

       For example, is there any "common sense" involved in the illegal discharge of toxic chemical by producers? One might argue the "sense" of it is that the individual discharger is saving himself time and expense and that it is sensible for him to put his time and money above the interests of others damaged by his behavior. I can make that same argument for drunk driving (waiting on and paying for a cab is not as convenient and cheap as driving home drunk. Sending a text message while driving might be a bit more inconveneient than pulling over and parking to do it so is it "sensible" to do what is easier and faster for the individual?

     

    All I'm suggesting is.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:26:55 PM EST
    in a poorly worded way, is we do not need a new law banning text messaging while driving...it is common sense that you need to watch the road while driving.

    Besides, we already have laws that deal with just thing type of thing...reckless driving laws.  Not to mention the difficulty, if not impossibility, of enforcing such a ban on texting.

    I guess I'm just tired of legislators clogging up the lawbooks with nonsense, thinking they are accomplishing something or making good out of a tragedy.  They aren't.

     

    Parent

    We all know how this starts.. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:06:38 PM EST
    some absolutely horrendous tragedy occurs, such as the five H.S girls who were killed recently here in Western N.Y and, in responce, an emotion fueled reaction occurs more often than not involving a legislative crusade of sorts intended to avert similar tragedies in the future.

    Personally, after having come close to being run of the road twice in the last few months by a couple people who couldnt detach from their cell phone umbilicals, and being a cell phone luddite to begin with, I couldnt care less about people losing the freedom and liberty to threaten other people with two tons of steel.

    Parent

    My theory is that people driving SUVs (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:08:56 PM EST
    are so shielded from what is going on around them, they are pretty much oblivious to traffic and pedestrians. Add in the cell phone and we are all potential road kill.

    Parent
    I see your point Kdog (none / 0) (#16)
    by Peaches on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:29:56 PM EST
    but, as you know, I'd ban cell phones and automobiles if I could and then we wouldn't need a law banning the combination of the two. ;)

    Parent
    Easy..... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:40:04 PM EST
    with the banning...you're not going tyrant on me are ya?...lol

    The texting law is equivalent to a legislature making it illegal to walk with your shoes untied, imo.  I just hope nobody kills themselves by walking home with their shoes untied tonight because, sure as hell, some legislator would propose such a law the next day.  Tragedy seems to be an invitation to legislate....when sometimes a tragedy is just a tragedy, nothing needs to be done about it.  

    Like Vonnegut said about psychopaths...they just have to do something every god damn day.

    Parent

    I never heard (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:09:21 PM EST
    of a person with their shoes untied causing the death of five people.

    Parent
    Fair enough..... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 10:20:02 AM EST
    jondee, but do you think a text message ban will really save any lives?  

    All its gonna do is give the cops another reason to peek in your car windows, set up random checkpoints, and rack up fines for the govt.

    I've come to grips with the fact that the law can't protect you on the roads...man wasn't meant to travel at 70 mph in 2000 lb. machines.  It is inherently dangerous.  We better get used to it.

    Parent

    Maybe, Kdog (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:18:40 PM EST
    and maybe it'll give them another reason to peep 'n sniff. It's a mighty messy, inconvenient world at times.

    Mix a group of distraught parents with politicos just waiting for a reason to grandstand and you get Temperance Movements, Seat Belt Laws, MADD, maybe even the WOT almost as surely as night follows day.

     

    Parent

    I hear ya.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:29:09 PM EST
    I guess I have a high tolerance for messyness, a low tolerance for over-legislation.

    Parent
    Is this true? (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:36:25 PM EST
    "The legal age for alcohol consumption is 21 no matter where minors drink," said Deena Cohen, MADD Long Island President.
    I thought 21 was the legal age for buying alc, is there really a legal age for the consumption of it?

    Parent
    I'm guessing.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:43:45 PM EST
    it varies from locality to locality.

    I know in Dallas a parent can legally serve their kids booze...that isn't the case in Nassau County, at least anymore.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:09:52 PM EST
    Recently a parent threw a party with booze for underage kids thinking it was better to have them under supervision rather than have them out on the streets illegally buying booze.

    So she provided the booze and went to the slammer for it.

    WaPo

    Parent

    thanks, but you guys are talking about something (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:28:39 PM EST
    different than me.

    I'm not asking about whether adults giving under-age kids alc is illegal, I'm asking whether the MADD lady's comment is correct, ie., that it's illegal for underage kids to drink.

    Parent

    Google Is YOur Friend (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:32:50 PM EST
    Here

    Parent
    It appears so.... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:40:45 PM EST
    with religous exemptions.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:45:49 PM EST
    Do you mean that it is not kosher to google on the Sabbath. Or underage drinking is OK on the sabbath etc.

    Guess both are true.

    Parent

    Not only that (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 08:36:40 AM EST
    Republicans go straight to hell if they google the facts of their fantasies on the Sabbath. Or any other day.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:45:31 PM EST
    why do you suppose the kids weren't charged in your WaPo story?

    Parent
    Must Be (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:46:44 PM EST
    That they were forced to drink by the evil mom.

    Parent
    So? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:37:33 PM EST
    "it is common sense that you need to watch the road while driving."

      It's common sense that you shouldn't drive while intoxicated; drive at 60 mph above speed limit; run redlights; follow too closely; drive the wrong way down a one way street or commit just about every moving violation.

      People still do all these things and few people argue that because common sense says not to do them we should wipe the laws off the books.

    Ok then.... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:54:25 PM EST
    you better hurry and pass the laws banning reading while driving, applying make up while driving, clipping your fingernails while driving, excessive blinking while driving, masturbating while driving...need I go on?

    If the law books have to cover every eventuality, that is.  I just don't think it's necessary.

    If you're sending a text message while driving and harm somebody, you're guilty of reckless driving, case closed.  And the law books are that much skinnier.

    Parent

    That last suggestion (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:13:10 PM EST
    goes way too far IMO.

    Parent
    Though (none / 0) (#47)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:16:21 PM EST
    it would save me the trouble of having to explain to the wife again exactly how birds got into the car.

    Parent
    There needs to be a law against (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    doing this while driving a country.

    No Wonder (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:21:27 PM EST
    The Chimp needs plumbing work. Dead Eye is now the pres. Hope he doesn't do anything rash.


    thinkprogress

    Parent

    No problem. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:26:45 PM EST
    "Unka Dick" Cheney can't do much damage in two and a half hours....

    Can he?

    Parent

    Maybe it isn't Unka Dick (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 04:56:41 PM EST
    we should be worried about...

    Parent
    It's the (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 06:20:05 AM EST
    Quantum Cheneyverse we need to be worried about.

    Parent
    Heh! Too funny... :-) (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:25:37 PM EST


    Parent
    that's NOT the law (none / 0) (#24)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:18:44 PM EST
      "Reckless" has a legal meaning. Often   "reckless driving requires a finding to be made that a person operated a motor vehicle with willful or wanton disregard of the risk to others  and with an appreciation of the high risk of harm created. Such vague "catch-all" laws are obviously much more fertile ground for the defense than a statute that say " SPECIFIC ACT A is prohibited."  Conversely, such vague catch-all laws are more susceptible to abuse of discretion by cops, prosecutors and judges than laws which state "SPECIFIC ACT A is prohibited..

      Synthesizing your arguments you seem to reach the position that any one who drives with what the fact-finder considers to lack common sense should be subject to prosection based on an indefinable and subjective  concept.  That's bad all the way around. It's better if people are put on specific notice of what is and isn't lawful and the judicial system must enforce laws regulating clear and well delineated acts.

      If you don't like the law because you don't think it should be illegal that is one thing (with which I disagree but reasonable minds can differ) but your arguments here are not reasonable or sensible.

    I see your point..... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:06:39 PM EST
    for the need to specify the reckless acts.

    My mind automatically assumes no one would be charged with reckless driving absent harm to another...which is not the case, thats only in my dreams.  I feel if you can drink, text, whatever while driving without causing harm you should be free to do so.

    In your expert opinion....if someone is reckless due to putting on makeup, and putting on makeup is not specified by the law as an illegal act while driving....does that mean they have a greater likelyhood of beating the reckless driving rap?

    Parent

    Absolutely, (none / 0) (#36)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 03:02:32 PM EST
     they have a much better chance avoiding conviction for an offense that requirews proof of a state of mind and not merely intentionally  doing a specified act.

      It's a lot more likely someone might have doubt about a person's state of mind than whether he committed a certain specific act.

    Parent

    Gotcha..... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 03:57:38 PM EST
    Thanks again.

    Parent
    Watch this (none / 0) (#34)
    by HK on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:24:06 PM EST
    My husband found this the other day on youtube.  Some parts will make you laugh out loud; other parts will make you raise one eyebrow and shake your head.  One thing is for sure - GWB is very entertaining provided you forget the fact that he is in charge...

    Im curious (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:07:50 PM EST
    if "Algore" is, in the world of wingnutia, a member of "the far Left", what does that meke his last running mate?

    Or, is Algores pinko status achieved simply becuase of his belief in human influence on climate change; and, if so, does this mean that we have to redefine lweft wing to mean mean anyone who believes human beings can have a detrimental effect upon their ecosystem?

    Dear Diary: (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 06:50:43 AM EST
    Even though every day is a battle -- my enemies are always attacking me -- I think we'll make it to the January 2009 finishing line. Once the Dems announced that impeachment was "off the table," I knew everything would be OK.
    ...
    Our big guns -- Condi, Rummy, Alberto and so on -- are skilled at how to bob and weave their way through a congressional grilling. End result: the Dems get next to nothing, move on to their next issue, and it's tantrum time again. Fu*k 'em!

    When the Dems cite one of our people for contempt of Congress, the clash of Executive and Legislative powers will become a "Constitutional Crisis" and wend its way into the courts. That means more delays, which is fine with us; but Dick and Karl think we'll do OK in the courts anyway.

    We didn't spend six years packing the appeals courts for nothing and, as a final back-up, we've always got our 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court. Can't believe they let Alito and Roberts glide right in. Now we're locked and loaded.
    ...
    Iraq is the only real danger issue now. We don't mind a little chaos over there -- which makes America the one force of possible stability -- but Christ, it's a fu*king civil war, and even our Green Zone in Baghdad is being mortared and rocketed daily! Even so, Dick and Karl are positive we can slip-slide our way through to September when Gen. Petraeus will deliver his major findings.

    Petraeus knows who brung him to the dance. We can count on him to deliver another "we're-making-progress" report card and ask for another six-months to reach the "positive tipping point" in Iraq. Despite a few Republican defectors in the Senate, the rest of our GOP allies are holding tight enough to keep the Dems from ramming through their surrender bills and defeatist amendments.

    Then next year we just repeat the "six-months-more" spin-cycle and we'll have made our way through the November 2008 elections.

    I'm The Cogitator...

    The point is that our Administration is so far down, we have little to lose these days. When we're aiding in the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities, I won't have to worry about the public reaction. We'll still have our fundamentalist base, and we'll already have lost most of the others anyway. Nowhere to go but up, which will happen when folks rally around The Leader in a "time of war," giving us a booster shot of support. I can't wait; I hate being made the butt of jokes and nobody listening to me any more. I am the President, damn it! I am the President!
    ...
    In short, even if the Dems foolishly go after us in terms of impeachment, they're not going to get anywhere. And if by some fluke enough Republicans start deserting us in order to get re-elected, we have to let them know that we'll take 'em all down with us if and when we go. Damn it, I'm so frustrated and angry, I'll take the whole bloody country down with us, if I have to. That'll show 'em. I am not a loser.

    Inside Bush's "Surge" Diary: Slip-Slidin' Away

    this is changing the focus (none / 0) (#59)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 11:37:14 AM EST
    but it's an open thread do what the heck.

      The whole thing about the media mistakenly reporting the 6 yeasr maximum instead of the correct 5 year in the Vick case is perhaps not a big deal, except that i think it is symptomatic of a huge problem with the media -- mainstream and internet.

       Yesterday, morning when I first noticed the mistake there were just a couple of stories with the mistake (although the same story appeared several places). Less than 24 hours, the mistake is in countless articles in media reports from outlets ranging from the largest and most influential to backwater publicatins.

      Why? I'm guessing that about 99% of the articles being written are copying from a couple of the same original reports without attribution or independent fact-checking. This particular example of the lazy and careless "appropriation" of someone else's work  might not be particularly harmful because regardless ofmany peope beig given the wrong information, vick's exposure does not change. but, what about the same thing is done by he hers on a more important matter and one where perceptions actually can affect outcomes?

    Reminds (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 05:57:26 PM EST
    me of the first post-9/11 report about the attacks I read in which all the Saudis were falsely or mistakenly reported as being from the U.A.E. Was someone counting on the impact of first impressions or was it just a screw up that was passed along unchecked?

    Parent
    The forecast is for sunshine (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 12:11:43 PM EST
    Court Tells US to Reveal Data on Detainees at Guantánamo
    NYT, Saturday 21 July 2007
    A federal appeals court ordered the government yesterday to turn over virtually all its information on Guantánamo detainees who are challenging their detention, rejecting an effort by the Justice Department to limit disclosures and setting the stage for new legal battles over the government's reasons for holding the men indefinitely.

    The ruling, which came in one of the main court cases dealing with the fate of the detainees, effectively set the ground rules for scores of cases by detainees challenging the actions of Pentagon tribunals that decide whether terror suspects should be held as enemy combatants.
    Direct Congressional Oversight? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:04:36 AM EST

    If you happen to be in Washington, DC on September 4th and you're looking for something to do and someones necks to breathe down, here's a great idea.

    America Stands Watch - September 4th, 2007:

    Almost a year ago, America went to the polls and sent a clear message to our government: it's time to bring our troops home from Iraq. But our responsibility does not end when we exit the voting booth. This war is being fought with our money and by our sons and daughters, and we cannot wait for the next election and hope that America's government will eventually catch up with its people.

    It's time we went directly to Congress - not with letters or marches, lobbying or phone calls - we'll meet them inside the House and Senate chambers. Congress reconvenes after their summer vacation on September 4th. Let's be there to let them know that we are watching.

    We are calling on Americans to join us in the Capitol on September 4th, where we will gather in the House and Senate chambers and, at a given signal, rise to our feet together to stand watch over our government.

    This is not a protest - it is citizens directly overseeing their government at a time when it has refused to respond to a crisis. The machinery of our democracy is supposed to be transparent, and despite the metal detectors and the tour guides, it still is: the galleries of the House and Senate are open to the public.

    This campaign was created by The Action Mill. We are artists and activists who create nonviolent actions, websites and other tools - we consult with other groups on some campaigns, and some we run on our own. We did mostly local actions until the evening of the 2004 election, when we started Turn Your Back on Bush, which organized people from 47 states to travel to Washington DC for President Bush's inaugural parade, where they took part in a simple, clear action. Turn Your Back on Bush grew from two people and a website to organizers all over the country and a full-time volunteer staff of fifteen in two months time, and simultaneous actions were organized in Brussels, London, and Mexico City. You can learn more about that campaign at TurnYourBackonBush dot org, and more about the Action Mill at ActionMill dot com.

    America Stands Watch grew out of our work with Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW dot org).



    Friday Open Thread | 69 comments (69 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment