Friday Bits and Pieces and Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:16:24 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I'm still in court mode today, happily back in Denver, so I've only got highlights for you until tonight.

No plea yet from Michael Vick, but very bad allegations from his two co-defendants who got cooperation deals:

The court papers, filed as Quanis Phillips, 28, and Purnell Peace, 35, pleaded guilty to dogfighting charges Friday, said all three men "executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in testing sessions" in April of this year by methods such as hanging and drowning.
Peace, of Virginia Beach, and Phillips, of Atlanta, said the money behind the Bad Newz Kennels dogfighting operation, based on property Vick owns in Virginia, came "almost exclusively" from the Atlanta Falcons star. And they confirmed to prosecutors that all the accusations in the 18-page indictment are true.

Rudy's 29 hours at Ground Zero. More from Barb at Daily Kos and Atrios and other bloggers.

The Eagles are releasing their first new album in 28 years, Long Road Out of Eden. I heard the single, Long Road, on the radio this morning. It's so.... Eagles. Really, like 1973 Eagles. There's no mistaking them for anyone else and I love the Eagles, particularly Don Henley, but still, it's like going back in time. Then I read it's not a new song:

How Long' is sung by Don Henley and Glenn Frey and was written by J.D. Souther. How Long' is one of Souther's earliest songs. It first appeared on his 1972 debut 'John David Souther'.

More...

Huffington Post is going to promote highly regarded commenters to bloggers.

At the moment, the plan is to invite one commenter a month to become a blogger, but we are definitely open to adding many more. Our new comments platform is a win-win for HuffPost: it gives our community the opportunity to play an even more important role in our site, while also allowing us the chance to discover new bloggers who have already proven to be popular with our readers.

Thanks to Arianna for this response to one of the questions asked:

P2: Can other news organizations use a similar model to expand their staff of reporters or bloggers?
Arianna: Sure. One thing that we’ve seen throughout the growth of the blogosphere is that you can never tell where a great blogger will come from. People like Josh Marshall, Jane Hamsher, and Jeralyn Merritt were all pursuing other careers before they turned into star bloggers.
That’s one of the greatest things about the Internet, it has brought down many of the traditional barriers that have kept people from reaching a mass audience or gaining entry into the traditional bastions of the mainstream media.

This is an open thread. What are you reading and thinking today?

< Thoughts on Jose Padilla Verdict | Who Was James Lee Witt And Why Does Rudy Get Away With "Misstatements?" >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Friday Bits and Pieces and Open Thread | 43 comments (43 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

"A Radicalizing Cauldron" (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by aahpat on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 03:46:14 PM EST

For all of its blustering ignorance of human nature the NYPD report "Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat" contained an inadvertent and dangerous truth buried deep down inside of it.

Prison is "A Radicalizing Cauldron".

"Prisons can play a critical role in both triggering and reinforcing the radicalization process. The prison's isolated environment, ability to create a "captive audience" atmosphere, its absence of day-to-day distractions, and its large population of disaffected young men, makes it an excellent breeding ground for radicalization."

So I have to ask, what does this mean for America with its ever growing world record prison population? An ever growing population that the New York Times characterized just last January as breeding a permanent "felon caste" in America.

"Worse still, the country has created a growing felon caste, now more than 16 million strong, of felons and ex-felons, who are often driven back to prison by policies that make it impossible for them to find jobs, housing or education." NYT

So one wonders why America pursues a drug war policy that gives our nation this world record prison population.

SEE: U.S. drug war prisons: "A Radicalizing Cauldron"
http://independentsofamerica.blogspot.com/2007/08/us-drug-war-prisons-radicalizing.html

aahpat (1.00 / 1) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:23:39 PM EST

You know, it is long past obvious that our drug laws need reform.

But instead of focusing on that, most of the Left wants to focus on a convicted wannabe terrorists.

How about:

"Swap drug criminals for terrorists."


Serious issues (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by aahpat on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 06:34:11 PM EST

I am trying to address and confront serious issues while you are trivializing and distracting from those issues.


Run of a supporter, eh? (1.00 / 1) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:33:54 PM EST

Not at all. I am all for drug law reform, and have so commented numerous times. Remember I am a social liberal.

My point is that the Left, in spite of it's talk, does nothing.


half right (none / 0) (#23)
by aahpat on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:47:09 PM EST

Its not the left that is doing nothing. It is the right-wing of the Democrats who control the discussion for anything and everything. Representing themselves falsely as the voice of everyone not Republican.

There are millions of dollars being spent in organizations that are lobbying and educating the politicians and public. But without any help from the Democratic Party and their front pseudo-left organization MoveOn.org.

I have long been convinced that the white leadership of the Democratic Party of today are the direct descendents of the Dixie-crats who conspired with Richard Nixon in 1970 to re-impose Jim Crow using the drug war. I haven't voted for a Democrat for president since Clinton's first term because of this.

So yes, I agree that the peeople who represent themselves as the voice of the left do nothing to reform the drug prohibition policy. I just disagree that they are actually the left of American politics. They are simply demonized, by the extreme right, as being the left in order to coerce and intimidate them further and further to the right. And it has worked for nearly four decades now.


aahpat (1.00 / 1) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 08:47:11 AM EST

I would say that MoveOn is totally about electing Demos. KOS is probably less so, say in the 80% range, and much more to the Left.

And there is no Big Tent Democrat for drug law reform or National Health Care.

I find this sad. These are two issues that cut across all demographics, yet no one is really pushing them. Even worse, there is no "religious" argument that can be made that should scare politicans of any stripe.

The Demos have been hijacked by the Left.

The Left has been hijacked by the anti-war and anti-Israel crowd.


Actually.... (none / 0) (#45)
by kdog on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 08:22:12 AM EST

The way I see it....the left has been hijacked by the Democratic Party, the right has been hijacked by the Republican Party.

The Democrats are just a left leaning party for money interests, the Republicans a right leaning party for money interests. Both support prohibition because there is money in it.


: the right has been hijacked by the Republican Par (none / 0) (#48)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 11:20:43 AM EST

That's good.

Rather (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by aahpat on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 06:36:07 PM EST

we swap the drug warriors for some real constitution respecting leadership in America.


aahpat (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:40:43 PM EST

I don't think or drug laws are unconctitutional, just wrongheaded and impractical.

It is obvious you are not sincere. You're just wanting a snark at Bush.


Don't forget tyrannical.... (none / 0) (#46)
by kdog on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 08:23:00 AM EST

our drug laws, more than anything, are tyrannical.


No, the application (none / 0) (#47)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 11:19:37 AM EST

may be tryannical, in your opinion, but they have not been found to be unconstitutional.

My personal position is that I don't do illegal drugs and don't want then near me or my family. The penalties are just too high.


: How else can you describe it? (none / 0) (#53)
by kdog on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:32:08 AM EST

If the state tells you what you can't eat, drink, smoke, or imbibe....it's a form of tyranny, I know of no other term to describe it.

gonzales caught lying again (none / 0) (#1)
by Sailor on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 02:26:56 PM EST

Then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was "feeble," "barely articulate" and "stressed" moments after a hospital room confrontation in March 2004 with Alberto R. Gonzales, who wanted Ashcroft to approve a warrantless wiretapping program over Justice Department objections, according to notes from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III that were released yesterday.
[...]
Mueller's description of Ashcroft's physical condition that night contrasts with testimony last month from Gonzales, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Ashcroft was "lucid" and "did most of the talking" during the brief visit. It also confirms an account of the episode by former deputy attorney general James B. Comey, who said Ashcroft told the two men he was not well enough to make decisions in the hospital.

Sailor leaves some things out (1.00 / 0) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 03:22:49 PM EST

And they are rather importnat.

But here Eggen omits an important detail -- Mueller wasn't at the hospital during Gonzales' conversation with Ashcroft (the reader must turn to page 5 of the print edition to learn this). Thus, Mueller was not in a position to opine about Ashcroft's ability to articulate while Gonzales was present. And since Gonzales (naturally enough) has said nothing about Ashcroft's state after Gonzales left the hospital, Mueller's statements on this subject can't and don't contradict anything Gonzales has said
Mueller does not (and could not, because he wasn't present) deny that Ashcroft was lucid during the visit or that Ashcroft did most of the talking. Moreover, Comey himself has confirmed that Ashcroft did, in fact, speak coherently about the issue Gonzales came to discuss, becoming too exhausted to continue only after he had said his piece. And Gonzales hasn't claimed that Ashcroft expressed the ability or willingness to make a decision on whether to continue the surveillance program at issue.
Anyone who has made frequent visits to hospitals or who has been around very old people knows that someone can be in bad physical shape yet talk lucidly about complicated subjects for short (and sometimes extended) periods of time.

As does Jim and Powerlie (none / 0) (#8)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 04:53:39 PM EST

Saw AG," Mueller writes in his notes for 8:10 p.m. on March 10, 2004, only minutes after Gonzales and White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr. had visited Ashcroft. "Janet Ashcroft in the room. AG in chair; is feeble, barely articulate, clearly stressed."


MB is also assuming. (none / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:20:05 PM EST

They can have notes carved in stone, written on the wind, dictated to hand held recorders, written in Braille and in pebbles on a sandy beach.

Facts.

Neither were in the room when Gonzales, Card and Ashcroft were having there meeting.

They DO NOT know what was said or Ashcroft's condition.


Reading is fundamental! (none / 0) (#13)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:40:16 PM EST

No I am not. Re-read the quote.

When did Mueller see Ashcroft- a few minutes after Gonzo left.

What was Ashcroft's condition- "Feeble, barely articulate, clearly stressed".

Keep digging Jim

Good guy and my bad (none / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 07:29:04 PM EST

Comey was in the room. In fact, he contradicts Mueller's description:

AG in chair; is feeble, barely articulate, clearly stressed."

In fact, as you point out, Comey said.

He lifted his head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me," Comey said

Don't know how I forgot that, but Thank You, DA. I love it when a mistake turns good.

BTW - If he was the way Mueller describes, what was he doing in a chair??


Molly and DA (none / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 08:35:00 PM EST

So he is stressed when you two want him stressed.

Okay, now let's return to the claim that sailor made:

Mueller's description of Ashcroft's physical condition that night contrasts with testimony last month from Gonzales, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Ashcroft was "lucid" and "did most of the talking" during the brief visi

So, if I am to believe Comey during the visit of Comey, Card and Gonzales:

"He lifted his head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me," Comey said.

Now. They left. Mueller had not been there. He has no factual information as to Ashcroft's condition during the meeting. His comment is about what he found.

Per Molly: "Feeble, barely articulate, clearly stressed".

Per Mueller: "Janet Ashcroft in the room. AG in chair; is feeble, barely articulate, clearly stressed."

So it appears to me, based on these facts, that Comey agrees with Gonzales, and that Gonzales was speaking the truth, and sailor's attempt to imply pejury is just that, an attempt.

As to Mueller's description, why even Dr. Avenger noted:

and his body was recovering from the strain he had just put it through.
This phenomenon is well-known in cases of acute, chronic, or even mortal illnesses, of a extra level of energy that allows the individual to do something for a limited amount of time or have more time for themselves.

So put the ropes down, tell the carpenter that a scaffold is not yet needed.

The Mighty Left has struck out again.

DA that is two out of two that you have helped me.

I do thank you so very, very, much.


DA tries to make points (1.00 / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 08:33:33 AM EST

Like you DA, I am always happy when someone has helped me. Less so when they haven't.

All of this is pure BS politics and has been blathered to death. We know that Gonzales' description is agreed to by Comey, something sailor did not mention. We know that Dr. Avenger has used his never ending anecdotes to demonstarte that Mueller's description could possibly be correct.

Beyond that, who cares? If the President's people thought they needed to speak with Ashcroft, they should have done what they did. We are at war. Politics and government service is a tough game, and at the end of the day the program was signed off on and the sun continued to rise.

The Demo Senate has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to accomplish nothing. The American people, in recognition of their uselessness, has given them a 15% approval rate, while the Evileeeee Bush and his evileeee admistration has a terriblle but 100% better, 30%.

My point of view, as you call it, was simple. Show that sailor's claims were not correct, which I did. BTW - I have never commented on MB's or your competence in what every field you make your living. But from a personal view, I would guess that none of us would care to have a cup of coffee with the other.

Ta Ta and have a nice day!


DA snarks (1.00 / 0) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 02:51:26 PM EST

What part of Comey and Gonzales saying the same thing, and I would opine that Card would also, all saying the same. That gives them something called creditability.

Mueller wasn't in the room, so all he can do is say what he observed at a later time.

I repeat, any and all cliches... My Point Of View was to expose sailor's comment for what it is. Inaccurate and not provable.

Are you saying you are a Medical Doctor??

As Roger Rabbitts crazy cousin said.

"That's all folks!"


Dr Avenger (none / 0) (#40)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 07:05:32 PM EST

is disturbed???

Dear dear...

All of this has, as I noted to Molly, been blatherized to death. The link Sailor used was meant to try and say Gonzales lied about Ashcroft's condition. My points have shown that to be wrong.

We all know that Comey was upset because he was being gone around. Something he could have avoided with a telephone call. We all know that whatever the details of the program was he and Bush met the following day and worked things out.

Your problem is that, as a Demo, you don't think dissent and policy arguments are allowed.

Well, it is. It is.


: Dear Dr Avenger (none / 0) (#43)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 09:28:47 PM EST

Physician, heal thy self.

All of it, apparently (none / 0) (#35)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 05:03:43 PM EST

Mueller's comments are supported by Comey's. (none / 0) (#28)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:10:55 AM EST

Ashcroft used all his energy in dealing with Gonzo. I'd say Mueller's comments are supported by Comey's.

Ashcroft is stressed and weak right after his confrontation with Gonzo. Clearly he was not in good shape.

If he is in a chair, why is his head on a pillow?

So far the sceario you keep trying to paint is not working out. The totality of the picture being painted by Comey and Mueller is one of an AG who is physically weak and ill.

Keep digging!

MB (none / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 02:54:14 PM EST

You seem to be good at ignoring points.

Sailor, and the Demos, want to claim that Mueller's comments proves that Gonzales committed perjury.

Comey and Gonzales say otherwise.

Mueller wasn't in the room.

He may or may not be correct. The issue is, Gonzales was.


What Part of (none / 0) (#36)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 05:06:27 PM EST

Comey's testimony laid out that "contrary to Gonzales' assertion, there was significant dissent among top law enforcement officers over a program Comey would not specifically identify

Don't you understand?

Whether Mueller was or was not in the room doesn't change that.
Further Mueller's comments and Comey's bolster each other with regard to Ashcroft's condition.

Talk about ignoring issues!

MB (1.00 / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 06:58:49 PM EST

Mueller's description of Ashcroft's physical condition that night contrasts with testimony last month from Gonzales, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Ashcroft was "lucid" and "did most of the talking" during the brief visit. It also confirms an account of the episode by former deputy attorney general James B. Comey, who said Ashcroft told the two men he was not well enough to make decisions in the hospital.

No. Mueller's description does not contradict with Gonzales saying Ashcroft was lucid and did most of the talking. It couldn't because he was not there.

What we know is that Comey testified that:

That matches what Gonzales said.

What sailor's comment is, is wrong.

Now. If we are to accept the observation of DA, Ashcroft's condition after Mueller arrived is consistent with a person who is ill and has just expended energy. Since I think Mueller is a truthful person, I agree with DA's comments.

All we have here is an apparent attempt by the writer, WP writer Dan Eggen to rehash some old claims in an attempt to fill some space and/or generate another media driven attack on Gonzales. I think the term is "carry their water."

That you, I think, claim to not understand that I find quite instructive.

As to the dissent over the program, I find that to blatherized almost beyond recognition. I note:

It appears that Repubs have disagreements. Demos appear to be shocked over this, so I assume that it is not allowed in the Democratic Party.

After the disagreement, the President met with Comey, worked out the problems and the program was signed off on.


: you wasted a lot of words ignoring (none / 0) (#42)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 08:10:38 PM EST

Comey's testimony laid out that "contrary to Gonzales' assertion, there was significant dissent among top law enforcement officers over a program Comey would not specifically identify
Are you blind? Obtuse? Disingenous? Hoping we won't notice?
Inquiring minds want to know!

Man bites dog (none / 0) (#24)
by aahpat on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:48:50 PM EST

This is starting to get to be like a dog bites man story. It won't really be a story until someone reports having caught Gonzoles telling the truth.


28 Years? (none / 0) (#2)
by desertswine on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 02:48:54 PM EST

The Dude: Come on, man. I had a rough night and I hate the f***in' Eagles, man!

I don't think the Eagles will ever get past The Big Lebowski.

: I'm with the Dude!.... (none / 0) (#6)
by kdog on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 03:42:57 PM EST

They never did it for me either.

C'mon now, you have to love JD Souther.... (none / 0) (#3)
by kindness on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 03:20:47 PM EST

He has co-writing credits for several of their early songs/albums. He helped an appeared on several of Joe Walsh's early solo albums. Just think LA cowboy. I remember seeing the Souther, Hillman Furey band down at the Academy of Music. yea it was the 70's but it sure was fun.

And the Eagles still rock. I saw them last tour up at the Calaveras County Fairgrounds. And, bonus points for them getting Joe to kick his habit(s).

Can you say (none / 0) (#20)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 08:35:23 PM EST

Sellouts?

The Eagles latest release will begin distribution exclusively at...

Wait for it...

Wal Mart.

: Henly takes (none / 0) (#49)
by jondee on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 11:20:45 AM EST

a gig at the flack jacket mogul's two million dollar birthday bash for his daughter. During this time of "national sacrifice".
They're not worthy to drink the water in Lowell George's muddy foot prints. Never were.

history worth knowing (none / 0) (#29)
by Sumner on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:38:59 AM EST

This Day In History at www.refdesk.com

a victory for freedom (none / 0) (#30)
by Sailor on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 01:22:33 PM EST

Couple Arrested at Bush Rally Settles Lawsuit for $80,000
by Andrew Clevenger
The federal government has agreed to pay $80,000 to a Texas couple arrested for wearing anti-President Bush T-shirts at a 2004 event with the president in Charleston.
Jeff and Nicole Rank went to Bush's Fourth of July speech at the state Capitol wearing homemade T-shirts with a red circle with a bar through it over the word "Bush."
On the back, hers read "Love America, Hate Bush" and his read "Regime Change Starts At Home."
When the couple refused to cover up their shirts, they were arrested and charged with trespassing. Those charges were later dropped by the city of Charleston, and city officials later apologized.
The American Civil Liberties Union subsequently filed a lawsuit on the Ranks' behalf in federal court in Charleston, alleging that the Ranks' First Amendment right to free political speech had been violated.
"This settlement is a real victory not only for our clients but for the First Amendment," state ACLU Director Andrew Schneider said in a news release Thursday.

I don't understand (none / 0) (#34)
by missjudy on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 03:18:46 PM EST

Wasn't Gonzales, Pres Bush's private lawyer at the time he went to see Ashcroft? How did he get in that position, maybe I missed something along the way.

BTW, I really enjoy your site. Don't know to much about the laws and how they work, but am picking things up as I go.

Chavez TV Kerfuffle (none / 0) (#50)
by squeaky on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 11:47:56 AM EST

Most consumers of the international media will be surprised to find that the controversy over Venezuela's oldest TV station, RCTV, is still raging.....
.... But then there is the Venezuelan reality, which is what Chavez and his government really care about. While most Americans and Europeans can be swayed by their one-sided media, Venezuelans get to hear both sides of this story. Venezuelans can turn on their TV and see extremely harsh criticism of their government every day. They can turn on their radio and find the airwaves actually dominated by anti-government "news" broadcasting. They can walk to a newsstand and find that most of the biggest newspapers are also dominated by anti-government reporting.
So Venezuelans know that there is no "free speech" problem in their country. While there are problems with the rule of law, including street crime - as throughout most of the region - Venezuelans have not suffered a loss of civil liberties under the Chavez government, as we have for example in the United States since 2001. That is one reason why Hugo Chavez was re-elected in December by the largest margin of the 12 most recent Latin American presidential elections, despite facing an opposition-dominated media. Democracy is indeed "very much in force in Venezuela."

link via robot wisdom

Uh huh. Sure. Yeah. No Doubt. I mean... (none / 0) (#52)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 07:18:41 PM EST

While most Americans and Europeans can be swayed by their one-sided media, Venezuelans get to hear both sides of this story.

Please, not when I have just finished dinner and have a full stomach.


: Blind Deaf and Dumb (none / 0) (#54)
by squeaky on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:08:09 PM EST

One of my favorite stories about the Cold War... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Edger on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:18:43 AM EST
...concerns a group of Russian journalists who were touring the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by the host for their impressions. "I have to tell you," said the spokesman, "that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV day after day that all the opinions on all the vital issues are the same. To get that result in our country we send journalists to the gulag. We even tear out their fingernails. Here you don't have to do any of that. What is the secret?"

IOKIYAR (none / 0) (#51)
by squeaky on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 12:57:24 PM EST

The WSJ and other Right wing mouthpieces are now trumpeting the sentiments of Ward Churchill.

....People are money winners or luxury item enjoyers. They just want stuff. It is soulless.
The view we show of life to ourselves, and to whatever lost young men are watching, is not broad and inspiriting. It is limited and dispiriting. It is every man for himself.
We make it too easy for those who want to hate us to hate us. We make ourselves look bad in our media, which helps future jihadists think that they must, by hating us, be good. They hit their figurative garbage bin lids on the ground, and smirk, and promise to make a racket, and then more than a racket, a boom.

digby