home

Monday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 12:40:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

President Obama is holding a public forum on Ferguson protests.

Black Friday sales fizzled, will Cyber Monday be better?

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< New Chart of ISIS Leaders | Tuesday Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Monday Open Thread | 205 comments (205 topical)
    Postp-Thanksgiving Thought of the Day (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 01:18:55 PM EST
    RE: The term "PIMPED OUT" and other slurs

    How on earth did it come to be that we think it cool to use the term "Pimped" in any context except the most negative? I mean, I understand the co-opting by whites of ethnic everything (from music to clothes to anything else), but how did the sexual abuse and exploitation of human beings, mostly women obviously, become some sort of acceptable snappy phrase in our society? "Dude, I totally pimped out my car!"
    Hell, why not just say, "Dude, I totally raped out my car," or, "Dude, I totally pedophiled out my car," or "Dude, I totally Holocausted my car out," or "Dude, I totally gay-bashed my car out?"

    Same issue I have with the seemingly more benign "bitch" or "pussy." Why people, women especially, think it's good to use that term to demean anyone is mystifying to me. You're a bitch, you're a female, and a dog, you are weak. You're are a woman's genitals, you are pitiful. For heaven's sake, call a man a toothprick or something MALE. Instead we knock others by slurring women, gay folks, minorities. And it's so internalized it's done with almost no thought.

    And, no, the term "dick" doesn't come close to any of those.

    I. Don't. Get. It.

    Can we please revert to some default love and respect? Please?

    Tamir Rice was gunned down by the cops. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by caseyOR on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 01:34:02 PM EST
    The video of this atrocity has been released. There was no warning from the police before they opened fire. No demand that this child raise his hands.

    The video, however, shows officers in a cruiser pull up within several feet of Rice, who was not with a group, but by himself underneath a gazebo. Immediately, even before the car stops rolling, the cruiser's passenger side door opens, an officer emerges and fires at Tamir, who drops to the ground.

    Deputy Police Chief Ed Tomba said the officers ordered Tamir to "show your hands" three times from the ajar passenger door, but it's hard to believe that's possible based on the video.

    Watch the video here. This was the cold-blooded killing of a child by a police officer.

    You know (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:19:10 PM EST
    i thought this might be the one that opened some eyes.   That hope is fading.

    But really,  except for the horrific fact that it was a child is it really that much worse that John Crawford?  Gunned down in a WalMart for caring merchandise to the checkout counter.

    This country is sick.  As in diseased.  I am gloomy today.

    Parent

    Rays of hope (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:41:36 PM EST
    "LOOK: Workers And Students Leave Jobs And Classes To Participate In Nationwide Walkout For Ferguson More than 80 cities, 30 states and 40 college campuses around the country were expected to participate. Students, parents, teachers and workers gathered at various locations at the specified time, which signified the time Brown was shot by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson on Aug. 9." Article contains 25 photos of protestors of all races coming together in solidarity to the protestors in Ferguson.

    Parent
    I think you meant to (none / 0) (#105)
    by sj on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:54:57 PM EST
    post the link, not the title :)

    Parent
    Thanks for fixing it for me (none / 0) (#107)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 06:12:30 PM EST
    I continue to have trouble doing links on my iPad. I think I will just have to use tinyurls from now on since at least half of my links get messed up when I am posting on my iPad.

     

    Parent

    When I recently got my (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 06:20:36 PM EST
    mini updated to the current max, I have had trouble copying stuff to link to here. Annoying.

    Parent
    I must just be getting better at it (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 06:23:42 PM EST
    far less problems lately.

    Parent
    In "Fargo," (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:30:33 PM EST
    Police Chief Marge Gunderson (Francis McDormand) is not impressed by Officer Lou's (Bruce Lohene) incompetent search for a suspect's license tag with only the letters DLR since the other letters were missing.  Chief Marge corrects Officer Lou (DLR being dealer's plates) saying that she did not agree "100 percent with his police work."  

    "Fargo" was just a movie.  Tamir Rice was just a boy.  But, there is surely bad police work aplenty in this too non-fictional homicide. It is as if the two police officers momentarily forgot that the their actions were caught on surveillance cameras when reporting their version of happenings.

    Of course,  investigation may shed better light on circumstances but from what is known, Chief Tomba and all investigators, need to evaluate the officers' seemingly irregular and decidedly tragic conduct.  Their behavior comes across as made for movies--Keystone Kops, starring Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff.  

    Parent

    Dan (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:36:35 PM EST
    the scariest part to me is the way this story has been reported and received.   As if there is "of course" 2 sides to the story.
    We are probably near the same age.  I think I remember a time when this story would have been greeted with horror and outrage.  Am I wrong.  Am I seeing the last through my beloved rose colored glasses?

    Parent
    Racial injustice (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:42:38 PM EST
    is our national legacy.  Jim Crow laws are no longer with us, but racist views are still alive and well. These views have  taken different forms and formats across time impacting our society in differing manners.

    Racial bias distorts how justice is manifest. Police work is but an extension of that manifestation.  Charles Blow (NYT, December 1) offers perceptions of fear of crime as well as impressions of discrimination in police encounters (45 percent AA versus 7 percent white);  

    The progress made in race relations is encouraging; however, it is clear that we have a long way to go.  My disappointment in the "two sides" argument is the tendency for some assumptions (and justifications) to be tainted by conscious or unconscious thoughts of race (e.g., he was a thug, scary black man, big for his 12 years).  

    It is important that justice be served, fundamentally by officers of the law.  As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

    Parent

    Jim Crow laws still exist (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Palli on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 12:44:01 AM EST
    Jim Crow laws are alive and well in St Louis County.  Minorities and the poor are the victimized citizens.  Read the Washington Post series by Radley Balko or the white paper by Arch City Defenders.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/03/how-st-louis-county-missouri-profits-from -poverty/

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/16/why-we-need-to-fix-st-louis/

    http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1279541/archcity-defenders-report-on-st-louis-county.pdf

    Parent

    Heartbreaking. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:41:38 PM EST
    But as tragic as this was, I find it less cold-blooded than I do brainless. The term "cold-blooded" implies to me that this was a calculated act, that the officer first considered his target and then shot anyway. Rather, I think it's a case of appalling judgment on the part of the police officers and dispatchers in question, which led those officers to approach this situation verging on panic:

    • First, the police dispatcher fails to give the officers a complete read of the scene, as it had apparently been relayed by the complainant who called 911.

    • Second, ludging by what we see on that video you linked, the officer who was driving just races into the park like a bat out of hell, likely without any pause to first ascertain the immediate situation as it actually existed on the ground.

    • Finally, the officer who was riding shotgun -- an admittedly poor taste in terminology, but somehow oddly appropriate, given what we see -- then pulls his gun and starts firing away at the child, before even realizing who or what he was shooting at.

    Regardless of whether this killing was the result of a calculated act or bad judgment, I would agree with you that what went down in that park is entirely the responsibility of Cleveland police. (And wingbats, please do not insult the collective intelligence of the rest of us, by trying to deflect any portion of responsibility onto the deceased 12-year-old child for his own death.)

    That said, I don't think that the officers can or should necessarily be charged with a capital crime here -- a personal opinion which is entirely contingent upon what I know thus far and is admittedly subject to change, should further information warrant my reconsideration.

    But nevertheless, I also believe that anyone in authority whose actions contributed to this tragedy should be terminated from the city's employ. One really can't afford to retain such people in crucial positions of responsibility, once they've displayed this sort of remarkable lapse in personal judgment.

    Further, city officials from outside the Cleveland Police Dept. should immediately conduct a thorough and public review of this deplorable incident. They should also further pledge to make whatever requisite changes are necessary to mitigate the possibility of such a tragedy ever happening again, be it in police training or the manner in which 911 calls are prioritized and handled.

    All individuals involved in this incident will have to live with the knowledge that their actions led directly to a wholly avoidable death of a young boy, and they should consider themselves lucky if the department brass and county prosecutors resist the current public pressure to make a legal example out of them.

    Because that would be a very easy thing to do in the present climate, and it would be entirely understandable if they did.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I.thought you mistakenly (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:45:04 PM EST
    included the term of art "capital crime."  Mea culpa. Check out subdivision (9) of Ohio Revised Code, section 2929.04. (purposefully causing the death of another who was under thirteen years of age ....)

    Parent
    Here: (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:47:00 PM EST
    (9) The offender, in the commission of the offense, purposefully caused the death of another who was under thirteen years of age at the time of the commission of the offense, and either the offender was the principal offender in the commission of the offense or, if not the principal offender, committed the offense with prior calculation and design.

    Parent
    Thank you for that info, oculus. (none / 0) (#130)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 07:25:11 PM EST
    I used the term "capital crime" because there have been some people who are calling for the book to be thrown at the two officers. But quite honestly, I can't see this sorrowful event as having been committed "with prior calculation and design," or in other words, malevolent intent. Rather, I credit the police officers here with gross incompetence of the highest order. In my opinion, they should lose their jobs. But to indict them for felony murder seems to me to be a bit of a stretch, absent further information and evidence.

    Parent
    Might not be the shooter's fault (2.00 / 2) (#5)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 01:57:29 PM EST
    I watched an interesting interview yesterday on CNN with former cop, David Klinger. He seemed to think the mistake was made by the driving officer for pulling up too close to Rice.  By doing so, he put his rookie partner in a bad situation.  Once, the kid pointed his gun at him, the cop pretty much had to shoot... or at least that's what they are trained to do.  If they had pulled up farther away, they might have been able to avoid the shooting.

    I wonder how it will play out? Sounds like the shooting might be justified but the events leading up to it might not. Perhaps, this will be a civil case not criminal?  

    Parent

    Curious (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 02:10:11 PM EST
    McBain: Can you put forth here reasons why the shooting could have been avoided?

    That question is asked because, at this early date, I see your almost-conclusion "Sounds like the shooting might be justified."  To me, that suggests a predisposition going forward.  So...a further question: Could you look at the tragic incident from other angles ... perhaps, from a totally different angle, from a different point of view? We all tip our hand (so to speak) if--at the outset--we already hint at our conclusion; a predisposition has a way of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Parent

    Too late, christine (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by sj on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 02:48:43 PM EST
    You're right. Although I would take out the "almost" part of your comment.
    That question is asked because, at this early date, I see your almost-conclusion "Sounds like the shooting might be justified."  To me, that suggests a predisposition going forward.
    There is no way he will take a view against what you so generously call his predisposition.

    A review of all of her remaining comments added weight to my impression that justifying the shootings of brown people is why he signed up here in the first place -- even as she declares that he hasn't made up her mind yet.

    (I have no idea re gender so I'll just randomly choose a pronoun)

    Parent

    That's really not cool (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:32:02 PM EST
    "justifying the shootings of brown people is why he signed up here in the first place"

    I've heard some dumb things said on this board over the past few days but that takes the cake.  You have no idea who I am, yet you accuse me of being a racist. Are you proud of that comment? What you just did is further my belief that way too many people jump to conclusions based on limited information.

    I was really hoping this would be a blog where people wouldn't resort to personal attacks. Am I wrong? Is this the norm?

    Parent

    You seem like a generally reasonably person (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:40:37 PM EST
    but to be honest I have also gotten the impression your first impulse is to accept the police version.  Not condemning for that.  It's far from rare.  But you will find many here with exactly the opposite inclination.

    Including me.

    Parent

    Let me ask you a sincere (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:45:31 PM EST
    non-confrontational question.   I have no idea who you are or where you live but if a cop car flew up on a playground in your neighborhood and gunned down a 12 white child with a plastic gun, possibly a child you even knew, would you need as much information to have an opinion?  And how would the news be received in the community do you think?

    Parent
    My response (none / 0) (#90)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:24:13 PM EST
    "I have also gotten the impression your first impulse is to accept the police version"  

    I'm not a cop but I do appreciate the work they do.  That being said, I don't assume they always tell the truth.  There have been many legal cases where I thought the cops and/or prosecutors were lying. So, no I don't have an impulse to accept the cop version. I do have an impulse to assume innocent until  proven guilty.  

    "if a cop car flew up on a playground in your neighborhood and gunned down a 12 white child with a plastic gun, possibly a child you even knew, would you need as much information to have an opinion?"

    If I didn't know the kid, yes, I would need as much information.

    If he was a friend or family member my emotions might cloud my judgement.

    Parent

    Or could even affirm your judgement... (5.00 / 7) (#203)
    by gbrbsb on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:41:48 AM EST
    ... if you knew the kid well!

    Not saying it's the case, but from the speed at which the police car drives right up close to the kid with the officer jumping out shooting even before the car comes to a complete halt, it sure does give the impression that the idea was that whoever it was was eminently expendable, i.e., 'one less on the streets' so to speak, and the cops failure to administer CPR doesn't do much to assuage that impression either.

    I mean what happened to keeping a safe distance to first observe and suss out the situation for a couple of minutes before gunning a person down? In this case a kid but no different if it had been someone with mental health issues or a learning disabled adult. What was the rush? The video shows two people were near Tamir at different times as he points his gun around and neither ran off in fear. The 911 caller who reported "probably" a juvenile brandishing "probably" a fake gun sits calmly under the gazebo for some 5-10 mins watching Tamir as he walks up and down waving and pointing his gun. And a passer by walks right next to him as he passes without appearing to even quicken steps let alone cross to the other side or take a detour to avoid him as most would do if they feel a threat.

    Seems to me that for a few minutes of observation and a megaphone a young life was lost in the most needless and senseless of ways possible! (If the cop did shout from inside the moving car to raise his hands or drop the gun the words could have been drowned out by car noise without one)

    Surely this must be at very least gross negligence in the way both the 911 call and the response were handled!

    PS: Nice piece by Jonathan Capeheart linked here with a link to its inspirational piece, "in America, black children don't get to be children," by Stacey Patton.

    Parent

    I will tell you (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:30:58 PM EST
    that I am not really excited about the Brown case becoming the rallying point it seems to be.  It's far to muddled and ripe for interpretation.  
    I wish, personally, Tamir could be instead.  Or even John Crawford.  The man killed in Walmart with a BeeBee gun.

    But we take history as it comes.  Hands up is not going away.
    This hasn't really been about Michael Brown for a while.  

    I would just say Tamir surely had no chance to prove his innocence.

    Parent

    You ain't see nothing yet (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 07:24:31 PM EST
    I've heard some dumb things said on this board over the past few days but that takes the cake.

    Stick around and you will continue to be astonished.

    Parent

    Believe him (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 07:36:04 PM EST
    the blogs longest running joke knows whereof he speaks

    Parent
    OF COURSE, Tamir could still be alive (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by Palli on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 12:36:39 AM EST
    If the patrol car had parked and a mildly brave police officer had opened the door and called out to the kid in a calm voice:

    "Hi, what's you name?  My name is __.
    Someone was passing by and thought you might have a gun.
    Do you have a gun?"
    Of course, the cop would have to listen...

    Or the cop could just aim for a non-lethal injury that would disable him from using the gun.

    Shoot to kill is a bad police policy.

    Parent

    That's not what cops are trained to do (1.00 / 2) (#174)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 01:04:32 AM EST
    Cops are trained to shoot for center mass to stop not to kill.  They have firearm training but aren't usually champion marksmen who can shoot someone's arm or leg when needed.  Don't believe everything you see in the movies.  

    Parent
    "what cops are trained to do" (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 02:42:03 AM EST
    Well, let's see....duh

    How about we train them to do something else?

    Unless the very noble slogan, "To Preserve and Protect," was just a cruel, alcohol induced, sadistic joke emanated from an "Onion" Xmas Party, I have a low-brow question:

    Now, I realize this is a, possibly, simplistic, false equivalency query, but, here goes, "If they can land a rocket on a comet 300 million miles away, and, traveling at 41,000 M.P.H. somehow, designing an instrument that can incapacitate (not kill) a human a few feet in front of you is an impossible, technological feat?

    C'mon, you scientists and engineers out there.

    Parent

    I need more information about the shooting (none / 0) (#8)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 02:21:28 PM EST
    before I reach a conclusion. I'm an innocent until proven guilty type of person.  I don't like it when people jump to emotional conclusions based on limited information. Right now, neither officer is guilty of anything.  Perhaps, pulling up in a different location might have helped? Perhaps, the dispatcher should have told the cops the gun might be a toy?  I don't know the correct police procedures for that. Do you?

    Parent
    Perhaps the cop should not (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by caseyOR on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 02:28:55 PM EST
    have jumped from a still moving police car with his gun blazing. That hardly seems proper police procedure.

    Parent
    Yes that did seem weird (none / 0) (#56)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:21:15 PM EST
    I wish the video footage had better resolution.  I have a hard time figuring out exactly what happened.

    Parent
    I don't think this is about (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by ZtoA on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 06:34:58 PM EST
    cops being "bad" people. But this is what they are trained and armed to do. The training of law enforcement is the real problem IMO.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by sj on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 06:40:04 PM EST
    The training of law enforcement is the real problem IMO
    But it's kind of hard not to view each other as adversaries when one side shows up to the party looking like this.

    Parent
    You both have a point (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 06:51:50 PM EST
    but personally, as a person who is related to three cops and two EMTs, I really believe there is a problem of culture.
    Are these 5 people "bad" people.   Not for me to say.  I can say they are, to a person, racists.  A fact the would gleefully own in personal conversation.  True, I am in a small very white town.  But the culture they live in is not confined to small towns.
    They view hispanics and all people of color as less than them.  The know what they are legally required to do and say in public but the truth is they have nothing but contempt for them

    That's a fact.  Not one I am pleased to share but Thanksgiving is still like an open sore.  It always takes me a couple of weeks to normalize after the holidays.  It's always a depressing reeducation for me.   This REALLY IS where I live.

    Parent

    Capt. I'm curious (none / 0) (#144)
    by ZtoA on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 08:33:25 PM EST
    Why did your relatives want to become cops? Have they ever said?

    Also, do you think with proper training that they could not bring their personal racism into the workplace? (sorry about your needing to recover from holidays).

    Also, I used to say "I love Thanksgiving since it is the only holiday that is just about food and eating with others and is not commercialized". Well that is no longer true. Even I shopped online for a few minutes on T-giving day thinking, "what T F am I doing??"

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 08:47:49 PM EST
    i have never heard them say.   But it's a father and two boys.  All three of them, you asked me, were overweight mammas boys who were picked on in school and, IMO, became cops to get even.

    I have heard them high fiveing about busting one or another person who gave them trouble in school.

    Understand, I am not saying this is why all people become cops.  When I lived in NY I dated a cop who was a as serious and civic minded person as I have ever met.  He was in the job to do good.   My relatives are not.
    Side story, one of them had plans to be a state cop and was turned down.  Twice.  Because he didn't pass the psych test.  So larger organizations, state police, even in AR have far higher standards than small towns.  And possibly even large towns.

    Parent

    Interesting, since I have been wondering (none / 0) (#159)
    by ZtoA on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 10:52:59 PM EST
    if many people who want to go into law enforcement feel rather powerless (=mama's boys, or having been bullied) and want to feel powerful (=get even).

    Do you know what their training was like? And do you think a more progressive kind of training would have curbed their attitudes?  Do you think their training was by similar minded people?

    Parent

    It's very minimal (none / 0) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:21:51 AM EST
    and afaik pretty much all about how to effectively use a handgun.

    Parent
    and the other side is dead (none / 0) (#172)
    by Palli on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 12:49:58 AM EST


    Parent
    My background is primarily civil law (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 02:33:09 PM EST
    Most of my 30-year federal government career was spent on the enforcement side (aka plaintiff or prosecutor.)

    Many years ago, I was asked--when I passionately argued for one side of a developing issue--if I could see the other side too?  IOW, it usually is enlightening for each of us to take off the blinders we naturally bring to a situation at the outset.  Here: What I would suggest to you is that there are extant procedures for enforcing the law in that community, of course ... and, at the heart of most potentially contentious matters, there is the powerful question of What Is Reasonable?  Under the circumstances, what was reasonable?  Ultimately, that becomes a community decision IF the use of force is seen to be used too rampantly or without regard for life or beyond what should be necessary?

    So, how would you argue against your predisposition?

    Parent

    Interesting question (none / 0) (#65)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:38:56 PM EST
    but do I have a predisposition if I say the officers are innocent until proven guilty? I'm still getting up to speed on this shooting.  I don't think we have nearly as much information as we do on the Brown shooting.  

    "Under the circumstances, what was reasonable?"

    I don't know yet.

    Parent

    We have a video, though (none / 0) (#67)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:41:19 PM EST
      which may be of far more evidentiary value than all witness statements and physical evidence developed over months in the Ferguson case.

    Parent
    Please provide a link to substantiate (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:35:50 PM EST
    your claim that Tamir Rice pointed the gun at the police officer.  

    Police say an officer fired two shots at Tamir Rice after he failed to obey an order to raise his hands.

    He did not make any verbal threats nor point the gun towards the officers.

    Police said the boy did not threaten officers or point the gun at them.

    The weapon reportedly was an airsoft gun that resembles a semi-automatic handgun.



    Parent
    The interview was on CNN TV (1.00 / 2) (#160)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 10:54:48 PM EST
    I don't have a link.  I thought Klinger said "pointed the gun" but he may have said "went for the gun".  

    My point is that people might be blaming the wrong cop.    


    Parent

    My point is that you have a habit (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 11:26:14 PM EST
    of making inaccurate statements on this blog about what occurred in the Tamir Rice shooting.

    How about providing a link to the interview and quote what Klinger actually said. Now you think he may have said "went for the gun." when he could have said something else entirely.

    Parent

    It was on TV not the internet (1.00 / 3) (#168)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 12:13:08 AM EST
    no link that I'm aware of. He definitely implied it was the driver who may have made the mistake.... not the shooter. I don't think we know what all the correct information is yet. I haven't made up my mind. I'm guessing you have?

    I think this is going to be an interesting case. I'm surprised there wasn't much coverage about it today.  The media is still talking about Ferguson.    

    Parent

    You don't seem to bother getting the correct (5.00 / 5) (#190)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:12:17 AM EST
    Information. You claim that you haven't yet made up your mind yet each of your inaccurate statements go to support your previous claim that shooting Tamir Rice was justified. People who interact with you will never get correct information when you keep spreading false information as fact.

    Parent
    On second though (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 12:21:57 AM EST
    David Klinger wasn't anywhere close to being the best source for information on what occurred when the cops shot Tamir Rice. He wasn't there and he isn't the one investigating what happened. Whether he misspoke or not is not relevant since he is not a good source of what actually happened.

    Parent
    Klinger seems like a pretty good source (1.00 / 2) (#176)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 01:21:59 AM EST
    for anything to do with the use of deadly force. He teaches the subject to other cops. Does he know everything that happened on that day? Of course not but I believe his opinion carries more weight than yours or mine.  

    You didn't answer my question... have you made up your mind on this case? What should the outcome be?

    Parent

    Klinger is not a good source on whether (5.00 / 5) (#195)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:33:46 AM EST
    or not Tamir pointed the toy gun at the police. His opinion, if in fact he gave that opinion, stating that Tamir pointed his gun at the police carries absolutely no weight at all since he was not a witness to the event and those who have actual knowledge of the event have stated otherwise.
    Police said the boy did not threaten officers or point the gun at them.
    Much like your false claim that the 911 caller did not state that the person was a juvenile, your current inaccurate statement is meant to support your premise that the police were justified in shooting Tamir. All of the false information you post as fact belies your statement that you have not made up your mind as you continue to build the case why it is perfectly reasonable for the cops to have shot Tamir.

    Parent
    Shooters fault (none / 0) (#153)
    by Jack203 on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 09:58:35 PM EST
    The dispatcher and driver share some blame.  I don't know, if anything, will happen to them.

    But the shooter deserves the most blame.  Obviously a mistake, but an unforgivable one.

    There will be an indictment, and jail time.

    Parent

    Keep in mind it's really hard to convict a cop (none / 0) (#161)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 10:59:37 PM EST
    in a shooting. If he can convince a jury he thought the kid was going to shoot him or someone else, he won't be doing any time. Right now, this looks more like a civil case.

    Parent
    I haven't seen anything here about the gigantic (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Angel on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 02:26:03 PM EST
    diss the republican staffer made about Malia and Sasha on FB.  

    Just saw that said staffer, Elizabeth Lauten, was arrested at the age of 17 for shoplifting.  

    So much for her advice to the Obama girls.

    Lauten has resigned. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by caseyOR on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 02:30:25 PM EST
    Not to worry, though. I am sure wing nut welfare will find a place for her to profitably lick her wounds.

    Parent
    But how was she dressed at the time? (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 02:31:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Ha! Not sure but we could probably find a mug (none / 0) (#16)
    by Angel on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 02:36:49 PM EST
    shot somewhere that could tell us!

    Parent
    Considering the climate we now live in (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:04:06 PM EST
    i am surprised, and pleased, that this caused the backlash it did.

    Parent
    Having worked in politics for ... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 07:51:13 PM EST
    ... most of my adult life, I'd offer that most of my contemporaries on both sides of the aisle -- but not all -- would agree with my contention that minor children / grandchildren of public officials (those who are 18 years of age and younger) are generally considered off-limits for public criticism by elected officials and their staff.

    (There are exceptions to that rule, of course, but personally speaking, it would have to be some pretty egregious circumstances for me to breach those bounds of propriety and criticize the behavior of someone else's kids in public.)

    Had I been Elizabeth Lauten's boss, I'd have fired her for her hurtful remarks. And to be fair, I'd further offer odds of better than even that Congressman Steve Fincher (R-TN) probably pressured her privately to resign, under threat of otherwise being fired publicly.

    I do find it rather astonishing that Lauten was serving as Fincher's communications director and spokesperson. She obviously didn't have a clue regarding public expectations of her conduct in that fairly prominent position, which makes me wonder how she ever got hired for that much-coveted job in the first place.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    It's (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:51:18 AM EST
    TN and her boss probably is in agreement with the things she says privately at least. What she said did not surprise me at all living in the south. That type of statement is said often and without any kind of repercussions.  

    Parent
    Called Mr. Rogers today (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:22:09 PM EST
    That would be Mike Rogers, Chair of the House Intel committee.  Mr. Rogers is a lame duck, and has no further need of a staffer answering the phone, so you can't reach his office.  Mre. Rogers has left the building.

    I called the Intel committee itself with my simple question, got hung up on three times for asking it.

    Also asked it of Mac Thornberry's staffer, since he is second on the depth chart.  Staffer took the question, said she would pass it along.

    Here is the most obvious question of the century, which no one in Congress has thought to ask.

    The damages to the United States from Benghazi amounted to four people and a building.  It was a tragedy, but no worse for America than a major auto accident.

    The people who were wrong about the "WMD" in Iraq killed 4000 Americans, maimed thousands more, cost the taxpayers $2T, advanced the military goals of IRAN at American expense and created millions of new potential terrorists.

    Why does a minor event get three years of investigation, and a major event none?

    If the WMD "mistake" was accidental, it was incompetence on a galactic scale.  If it was deliberate, it was treason.  We don't know which, because no one has bothered to ask, and no one has even lost a job over it.

    If you have a congresscritter in the Intel Committee, give him or her a call and ask that question on my behalf.

    The list of the 10 most dangerous toys (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:27:23 PM EST
    this holiday season includes:

    The TOY2U SWAT Team Black SWAT Electronic Machine Gun ($7.99), "Take the bad guys by surprise when you storm into their hideout firing the SWAT Electronic Machine Gun.  When the trigger is pulled, the gun flashes a light, makes a shooting sound, and vibrates just like a real gun. Your child will love pretending to be an elite member of a SWAT Team while carrying this realistic machine gun.  

    Batteries included.

    Recommended ages: 5 years and up.

    I can see it now: homeowner shoots and kills (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Angel on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:33:41 PM EST
    a 7-year-old for wielding what said homeowner thought was a real machine gun. Child's family sues homeowner; they both sue gun manufacturer.  We're left with a dead 7-year-old and a homeowner and two families who'll never be the same.

    Where does this insanity with manufacturing toys that are replicas of real weapons end?

    Parent

    But it has an orange tip. (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:35:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh, silly me. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Angel on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:37:33 PM EST


    Parent
    I've been thinking alot about the 12-yr. old (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:43:33 PM EST
    in Cleveland and all the school and mall shooters and wondering if the training law enforcement agencies provide regarding being a first responder to such an emergency affects how officers react in other settings. So many similarities b

    Parent
    I expect that's part of it (none / 0) (#108)
    by sj on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 06:16:04 PM EST
    wondering if the training law enforcement agencies provide regarding being a first responder to such an emergency affects how officers react in other settings
    ALERRT training is all about that.

    But does the culture follow the training? Or is it vice versa? I don't know. I have guesses, but I don't know.

    I just know we're broken.

    Parent

    I fear that as SCOTUS and the NRA (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 06:26:57 PM EST
    prevail re gun control, there will be increasing numbers of these tragedies.  Yes, fists, knives, machetes etc. are used to kill people. But if law enforcement (or a civilian with a firearm who is courageous and a good marksman) stops one person wielding a semi-automatic, many lives can be saved.

    Parent
    See (none / 0) (#114)
    by sj on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 06:30:23 PM EST
    I was right there with you 'til you veered off sideways :)

    Parent
    How so? (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 06:34:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Holy crap (none / 0) (#106)
    by sj on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:59:07 PM EST
    seriously?
    Recommended ages: 5 years and up.
    that makes my head hurt.

    Parent
    Happy Birthday, fishcamp! (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Angel on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 10:13:20 AM EST
    May you continue to reel them in for many years to come.

    Chasing a site violator and found this (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 11:01:31 AM EST
    Was this done as an attempt (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 07:54:26 PM EST
    to demonstrate that regardless of the law they will do whatever they want to do as long as they can, and to demonstrate that the only real law is "might is right" as long as no has power to do anything about it?

    Reply to This |  1  2  3  4  5
    I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 09:35:06 AM EST
    Benjamin: "Yes, Sir?"
    Mr. McGuire: "Power."

    Parent | Reply to This |  1  2  3  4  5

    Sometimes spelled (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 10:24:19 AM EST
    "Bastille"?

    Parent | Reply to This |  1  2  3  4  5



    Funny Commercial (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 12:57:09 PM EST
    sort of.   Better to laugh than cry I guess

    Oh, that is awful! (none / 0) (#20)
    by RickTaylor on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:01:44 PM EST
    . . . and pretty funny!

    Parent
    All the world's water could be put in a cube (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 01:30:29 PM EST
    with sides of only 693 miles.

    All the worlds fresh water would be a cube about the size of Iowa.

    All the world's drinkable water would be a cube with sides 29 miles long.

    Crazy how little water there is.

    Because sometimes numbers can be misleading (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:09:40 PM EST
    If true that would mean there is:
    59,966,445,890,283,264,000 cubic feet of water. I think that's 59 quintillion 966 quadrillion 445 trillion 890 billion 283 million and 284 thousand cubic feet of water (give or take. I may have missed carrying a number here or there)

    If my math is correct of course. You are welcome to proof it for me. My math gets iffy when we're up in the quintillions.

     

    Parent

    Ya know, now that I've been on the google (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:52:59 PM EST
    a little more, the info in my original link may be off in that it should have said kilometers instead of miles.

    But, hey, what's a Quintillion cf or two between friends?

    No linkage, 'cuz it's all amateur anyway:

    Mass of earth's water = 1.5Q tons
    Mass of solid earth = 6,685Q tons.

    Water's mass is 2 100ths of one percent of the earth's mass. Of course, if you have enough, it doesn't matter how much there actually is.

    Weird, to me anyway, to realize the oceans are really just very thin skins relative to the earth.

    Parent

    Plus of Course... (none / 0) (#88)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:20:56 PM EST
    ...when the Earth was molten, the heavier elements, namely iron, drifted to the center.  It's why plate tectonics are possible, we are essentially floating on heavier elements, which is hard thing to wrap ones head around.  The core is mostly iron and if the crust was heavier than mantle, it/we would sink.  there is nothing connecting us to the core, only the laws of bouncy ensuring we don't sink.

    Also, it is believed that all the water on Earth is extraterrestrial, meaning that it came from space, comets and asteroids, after the Earth was cool enough to so that the water wasn't vaporized back into space.  And those came from a supernova that made elements heavier than hydrogen possible.  

    So essentially, Earth's water came from a gigantic sun long ago, as did pretty much every element on Earth including the ones that compose you and me.  Only hydrogen existed before supernovas.

    Parent

    "the laws of bouncy" (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 06:26:27 PM EST
    Ha! I assume that's a typo but I love it!

    Parent
    I think he's alluding to (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:05:10 AM EST
     Newton's third law (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction).

      I've never heard it called the "law of bouncy," but if you remember high school physics, your teacher probably used a bouncing ball demonstration to illustrate the principle.

       

    Parent

    I suspect it was spell corrects version of (none / 0) (#198)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:11:28 AM EST
    laws of buoyancy

    Parent
    Yeah, that makes sense (none / 0) (#201)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:20:02 AM EST
      because the law of buoyancy is basically a specific application of Newton's general law. (even though Archimedes' Eureka moment long predated Newton

    Parent
    I Would like to Blame... (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:20:03 AM EST
    ...spell check, but between my horrendous typing and junior high spelling skills, that is all me.

    It's shameful, especially at work.  Not bad when it's like the above and obvious, but often my fingers do their own thing and I find myself typing phonetically which often leads to related words that don't make any sense.

    But yes, I did mean buoyancy.

    Parent

    And now I have a mental image... (none / 0) (#188)
    by unitron on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:51:36 AM EST
    ...of said law being enforced by the Bouncy Police.

    Parent
    263 M (none / 0) (#6)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 02:05:25 PM EST
    Obama requests $263M for Ferguson

    Surprise Surprise!!!

    So instead of charging the officer who did the deed they decide to charge the taxpayer.

    Just a word (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 02:21:45 PM EST
    The President is not the Attorney General.  He is exercising his role as President to address the societal imbalance, the community mistrust associated with/underlying/stemming from the Ferguson situation.  IMO, it is more than sensible and more than pipe-dreaming to expend the necessary funds it would take to evaluate methodically approaches to redress these divisive community & police issues.

    The specific event of Michael Brown's killing and the community conflicts & tensions of Ferguson definitely are interrelated, as we have all seen; yet, the specific situation and the broader societal underpinnings can & should be addressed independently as well.

    Parent

    Hnmmm, let me see (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 02:35:14 PM EST
    I have carefully reviewed all the evidence and can state without doubt that the damage was done by rioters wanting to:

    a. steal

    b. destroy

    And Wilson was no where in sight.

    Now, answer me this. Given that your continuing wild claims have contributed to the atmosphere that the "Excusers" use to explain the totally indefensible and uncivilized actions of the rioters.......

    What part if the blame for this do you accept???

    Parent

    Sorry, Jim, but your thesis is based (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by caseyOR on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 02:44:26 PM EST
    on your belief that the damage was done by protestors. There is some evidence (videotape) emerging now that seems to show cops setting cars and stores on fire in Ferguson.

    My goodness, why would police set these fires? Surely this would not be an attempt to discredit the protestors or provide an excuse for police violence toward protestors? Would it?

    Parent

    No, I didn't say protesters (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:06:17 PM EST
    I said rioters.

    And blaming cops???

    Really??

    Wow

    Parent

    casey (none / 0) (#32)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:35:24 PM EST
    That might explain why the police abandoned the storeowners and allowed the small bands of looters to clean them out as the police watched from a short distance away and did nothing to stop or apprehend them claiming that they had orders to stand down.

    Parent
    Ferguson Police vs Oathkeepers (none / 0) (#49)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:00:42 PM EST
    Ferguson Police shut down Oathkeepers

    So not only will the police not protect their property but they won't allow them to do so either.

    And the Ferguson police wonder why no one trusts them --

    Parent

    It also (none / 0) (#175)
    by Palli on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 01:06:10 AM EST
    explains why the Nat. Guard was told to stand down in Ferguson. It wasn't until after 2Am that the Guard was brought in.  Another curious thing: the properties owned by Ferguson Mayor Knowles were not burned or damaged although adjacent buildings on W Florissant were?

    Don't forget there was also a murder on the night of Nov. 25. A young man was shot and found in the early morning of 11/26 in a burned out car near the Michael Brown Memorial. The man was a friend of Dorian Johnson, Michael Brown's companion on the Aug 9. He was also a witness in the grand Jury.

    Parent

    Where might one see this evidence... (none / 0) (#40)
    by unitron on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:44:33 PM EST
    ...implicating police in the destruction?

    Parent
    As this could be quite interesting if true, (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:01:59 PM EST
    I just spent some time on the information super highway to view the video and your sleuther's commentary regarding it.

    Very unconvincing to a neutral observer.

    Parent

    I think whoever posted the original video ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:02:09 PM EST
    ... was taken up with irrational exuberance. Here's a subsequent YouTube video which makes a pretty good case for disbelieving the original reports about the police starting fires in Ferguson -- and kudos to Crooks & Liars for posting it as an update to Susie Mandrake's original report.

    Parent
    Blame (none / 0) (#21)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:01:47 PM EST
    Hahhh

    Blame for what??????  

    Presenting the evidence for why Wilson should be indicted for an eggregious shoot and get a fair trial???

    Trying to save the taxpayer $263M???

    The next time you want to complain about the abuse of government power or the rise of government spending, my answer to you will be "just suck it up".

    You asked for it -- you got it.

    Parent

    The facts are that you have displayed (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:07:56 PM EST
    a total disregard for the facts.

    Your actions speak.

    Parent

    Have you found a chart (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:15:17 PM EST
    that shows a cooling world yet?

    Parent
    The other day (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:43:03 PM EST
    he told me he could enumerate for me Obama's "many" extremist policy initiatives, but at the time he was feeling too emotionally fragile

    Then he disappeared and resurfaced in another part of the swamp hours later, as is his forte.

    Parent

    Really?? (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 07:29:16 PM EST
    I probably was totally overcome by the fore knowledge that Black Monday sales would be off by about 11%.. and that Iraq has been lost by Obama...

    Will those two be a start?

    lol

    Parent

    He doesn't know what he's (none / 0) (#37)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:42:35 PM EST
    talking about:

    Posted on November 30, 2014by stevengoddard
    Experts like Nobel Prize winner Al Gore predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free in 2014. Instead, we have seen a large increase in the amount of Arctic sea ice - which has been at a 10 year high every day this month.

    What the facts are:

    Through the month of October, the Arctic gained 3.39 million square kilometers (1.31 million square miles) of ice. This is faster than the average rate of ice gain for the month of October, but slower than the rate of ice gain seen in October 2012, after the record minimum of September 2012, and other recent Octobers.

    Due to the relatively rapid ice growth during October, Arctic sea ice extent for October 2014 was the 6th lowest in the satellite record. Through 2014, the linear rate of decline for October Arctic ice extent over the satellite record is -6.9% per decade.

    So, the ice is going down, perhaps not as fast as some said, but the rate is downward, not upward.

    Thanks for letting me correct another of Jims's "facts" from another lunatic blog.

    Parent

    Howdy, Howdy (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 02:50:22 PM EST
    Just a note to say that I have provided all kinds of proof and if you don't want to accept it that is fine with me.

    And if you don't know who Dr Phil Jones is and where the email comes from then maybe you should restrain from getting into the MMGW debate.

    And you definitely shouldn't be using a graph that ends in 2004 to prove anything about 2016...

    The current slowdown period began in about 1998 - an El Niño year of record warm temperatures. Since then, even though the overall climate system has continued to accumulate energy due to Earth's positive energy budget,[5][6] the available temperature readings at earth's surface appear to show a slower rate of increase in surface warming than in the prior decade. Since measurements at the top of the atmosphere show that Earth is receiving more energy than it is re-radiating back into space, scientists say the retained energy should be producing warming in one of the five parts of Earth's climate system.[5

    Link

    You have provided nothing (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:13:45 PM EST
    but the ridiculous twaddle that has been spoon fed to you and the same tired links to the same laughable fossil fuel water carriers again and again.  

    Laughable.  Good word.  That's what your pathetic "arguments" are.  Or they would be if they were not helping steer the world on a disastrous course that will lead to wars and famine that you don't have to concern yourself with because you will be dead.  So it's not funny really but it's still laughable.  

    I made my point.  You are completely impotent in the face of facts.   All you can do is provide more useless links to Dr Phil.
    I pity you.  And I'm done with you.  

    Parent

    You wanted a chart (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:38:45 PM EST
    I gave you a chart... sigh.... You just can't satisfy you.

    And no, Dr Phil Jones aint the Dr Phil you are familiar with.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Here's a guide to the similarities (none / 0) (#45)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:50:03 PM EST
    between climate denialists, Creationists, and tobacco industry spokesmen.

    When you watch science denial in action, you will see the same sort of arguments being used over and over, often in much the same order. Here is a handy cut out and keep guide, with examples from creationists, climate change deniers and the tobacco industry.



    Parent
    A chart (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:59:11 PM EST
    why yes, you did.
    Here is the exchange that started this-
    Maybe... (none / 0) (#154)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:03:46 AM EST
    but do you seriously deny the exponential acceleration of this warming over the last century?

    Do you have any proof that (none / 0) (#184)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 10:31:28 AM EST
    this has happened or is continuing??

    Now, if possible, I would like you to retract your head out if your a$$ long enough to actually LOOK at the chart YOU provided.  And I encourage others reticent to click his links to do the same.  What do you see?  
    You see a more or less steady rise since the turn of the century with a leveling the last (very) few years.  Could that leveling possibly be due to the efforts to curb greenhouse gases?  I don't know.  And neither do you.  The leveling started around 2005 and the last tic is up.

    Parent

    Btw (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:13:10 PM EST
    It's even more alarming when viewed on the geological time scale provided in the Chart I first linked to

    Parent
    From Your Link (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:47:40 PM EST
    A joint report from the UK Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences in February 2014 said that there is no "pause" in climate change and that the temporary and short-term slowdown in the rate of increase in average global surface temperatures in the non-polar regions is likely to start accelerating again in the near future. "Globally averaged surface temperature has slowed down. I wouldn't say it's paused. It depends on the datasets you look at. If you look at datasets that include the Arctic, it is clear that global temperatures are still increasing," said Tim Palmer, a co-author of the report and a professor at University of Oxford.

    When announcing the annual World Meteorological Organisation climate report in March 2014, the WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud said that there had been no pause, with 2013 continuing a long-term warming trend showing "no standstill in global warming". 2013 had been the sixth warmest year on record, and 13 of the 14 warmest years on record had occurred since the start of 2000. He said that "The warming of our oceans has accelerated, and at lower depths. More than 90 percent of the excess energy trapped by greenhouse gases is stored in the oceans."

    I remember the good old days Jim when you just claimed the Earth was naturally warming, that it wasn't because of humans.  Reminds me of the reason for invading Iraq, when each 'reason' was disproved, they just formulated another, like the Earth isn't actually heating, it's our lyinh eyes that are the problem.

    This is why it took decades for leaded gasoline to get, more or less, banned, the lead and oil industry hired 'scientists' to state that the levels of lead in the environment were naturally occurring when in fact they were coming from tailpipes.  Everyone knew it but the stooges who believed the 'scientists' hired by the industries involved.

    I don't believe there is any instance in which real scientists were proven wrong by industry 'scientists'.  But I am sure Jim, this is the time the 'scientists' getting paid by people with immense financial motives will be right and the real scientists will be wrong.

    I will stick with the folks who aren't getting paid by industry.

    Parent

    Speaking of getting paid (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 07:42:07 PM EST
    did you see the link where the federal government is spending $21 billion this year??

    Okay, now it is your turn. Let's see where some that money you claim is coming from???

    And you remember what??? Of course I did and do say the earth has naturally warmed...and naturally paused and naturally cooled....

    It is called climate change.

    And what you believe is of no importance. Neither is what I believe. The facts are that climate does change. The lie is in the "man made" claim.

    Now, let's go back to the link and it's claims.

    . Since measurements at the top of the atmosphere show that Earth is receiving more energy than it is re-radiating back into space, scientists say the retained energy should be producing warming in one of the five parts of Earth's climate system.[5]

    Problem is, the warming has paused. And along with that claim, there is the issue that with all the CO2 that is being dumped there would be no pause.

    And close with this:

    Instrumental temperature records have shown a robust multi-decadal long term trend of global warming since the end of the 19th century, reversing longer term cooling in previous centuries as seen in paleoclimate records.

    The question is... will the pause go away and temps increase or will they continue to decrease as they have in the past??

    No one knows.

    Parent

    Jim, when you comment you (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by ZtoA on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 08:19:21 PM EST
    immediately blog hog.

    Parent
    Jim, something I believe to be true about (none / 0) (#28)
    by caseyOR on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:20:01 PM EST
    you is that you love your grandson. If your comments are any indication, you really love that kid. And that is a good thing.

    So, I have to wonder what you would say to the lad in 20 or 30 or 50 years when the earth as we know it is a thing of the past. When drought and famine and their attendant civil unrest are the new normal. If time travel existed, or if you are in fact vampire, what explanation will you have for this boy you love about your insistent denial of climate science? Your refusal to support any action that might have made his future a little less horrible?

    Parent

    He loves his worldview (none / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:48:11 PM EST
    more than he loves any living, breathing organism. Kith and kin, or no.

    Isis doesn't have the market cornered on dangerously recalcitrant belief systems.

    Parent

    Casey, I have no belief what so ever (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:49:57 PM EST
    that that will happen.

    And, one more time. I am a defender of science. It is the hoaxers who are fakes.

    Ask Schneider. He said it is okay to lie

    Ask Jones. He said it hasn't happened.

    Ask Mann why he would submit his source code for review.

    Ask Popper. He explains the difference between science and "consensus."

    And the MMGW theory does not meet the requirements to be a Scientific Theory. As I wrote to Shooter, it, like religion, is a theory that depends on faith.

    BTW - Vampires aren't real. (Just wanted you to know.)

    BTW - Here's a fun put down on all the crisis selling.


    Parent

    gesh proof read!!! (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:52:57 PM EST
    Ask Mann why he would not submit his source code for review.


    Parent
    Yet another lie (none / 0) (#121)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 07:00:02 PM EST
    An Investigatory Committee of faculty members with impeccable credentials has unanimously "determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities." ...

    The Investigatory Committee established that Dr. Mann, in all of his published studies, precisely identified the source(s) of his raw data and, whenever possible, made the data and or links to the data available to other researchers. These actions were entirely in line with accepted practices for sharing data in his field of research....

    Thus, the Investigatory Committee concluded that the manner in which Dr. Mann used and shared source codes has been well within the range of accepted practices in his field.

    Conclusions supported by three separate investigations.

    It's almost like you're trying to get caught ...

    Parent

    Yeah, they circled the wagons (1.50 / 2) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 07:18:29 PM EST
    but Mann refused to provide the source code.

    Read all about ut.

    And my heartfelt thanks to Yman for, once again, being my straight mann. (pun intended)

    Parent

    "Read all about it" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 07:21:31 PM EST
    Yeah - two investigative panels of academic experts and the National Science Foundation versus your wingnut blog.

    Don't look now, Jim, but this "straight man" just made you a laughing stock.

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Parent

    Link (none / 0) (#123)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 07:08:54 PM EST
    ... to the investigation report.

    Parent
    A defender of science (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:21:48 PM EST
    who went out of his way the other day to assert that engineers were more reliable sources of information than scientists; those shiftless dreamers who "believe things".

    That all coming from a guy who believes the world was created in seven days by the great engineer in the sky. Not six, not eight, but exactly seven. Which has been confirmed by Dr Phil Jones.

    Parent

    Why yes. Yes I did (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:57:07 PM EST
    You see, it is possible to understand why some practitioners of a profession do some things and others do not.

    And I see that you continue to fabricate. I have never claimed that the world was created in seven days.... I believe that the world was created in 6 days...But the problem is this..... we don't know the length of God's days or how he did it.

    You see, a thinking person can believe in God and in science.

    And your ignorance of who Jones is

    is laughable

    "Philip Douglas Jones (born April 22, 1952) is the Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia.[1][2]

    BTW - Just in case you ever get asked.

    On the seventh day He rested. Genesis 2 V2

    Parent

    Yes, a creationist, what a shock (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:06:32 PM EST
    is your problem that man-made greenhouse gases are never mentioned in the Bible?

    Man, those darn scientists who believe things..

    Parent

    Why yes. Yes I did (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:57:07 PM EST
    You see, it is possible to understand why some practitioners of a profession do some things and others do not.

    And I see that you continue to fabricate. I have never claimed that the world was created in seven days.... I believe that the world was created in 6 days...But the problem is this..... we don't know the length of God's days or how he did it.

    You see, a thinking person can believe in God and in science.

    And your ignorance of who Jones is

    is laughable

    "Philip Douglas Jones (born April 22, 1952) is the Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia.[1][2]

    BTW - Just in case you ever get asked.

    On the seventh day He rested. Genesis 2 V2

    Parent

    Why yes. Yes I did (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:57:07 PM EST
    You see, it is possible to understand why some practitioners of a profession do some things and others do not.

    And I see that you continue to fabricate. I have never claimed that the world was created in seven days.... I believe that the world was created in 6 days...But the problem is this..... we don't know the length of God's days or how he did it.

    You see, a thinking person can believe in God and in science.

    And your ignorance of who Jones is

    is laughable

    "Philip Douglas Jones (born April 22, 1952) is the Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia.[1][2]

    BTW - Just in case you ever get asked.

    On the seventh day He rested. Genesis 2 V2

    Parent

    Terrific (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:05:23 PM EST
    he's gone from posting his blather three times instead of just twice.

    Parent
    Bwahaha! (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Zorba on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:20:10 PM EST
    Okay, Howdy, that made me laugh.

    Parent
    This is a LIE (none / 0) (#119)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 06:45:21 PM EST
    I am a defender of science. It is the hoaxers who are fakes.

    Ask Schneider. He said it is okay to lie

    ... that you've posted repeatedly, even when your clipped "quotes" are shown to be entirely false.  Schneider never said it was "okay to lie" - just the opposite, in fact.

    In 1989, Schneider addressed the challenge scientists face trying to communicate complex, important issues without adequate time during media interviews. This citation sometimes was used by his critics to accuse him of supporting misuse of science for political goals:

        On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but -- which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.... This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

    Oops.

    But I guess when you're faced with more than 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies that support MMGW, you work with what you've got, huh, Jim?

    Parent

    Yman, you can make false claims (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 07:10:41 PM EST
    and run and duck and hide and deny and parse.

    BUT this is the quote.

    "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements  and little mention of any doubts one might have.

    Each of us has to decide the right balance
    between being effective, and being honest."

    Link

    So each of us, to get the public's attention, must give out some scary scenarios and make some simple dramatic statements...while not mentioning any doubts... And we have to decide the balance from doing that and being honest.

    That is saying it is okay to lie. As plain as the noise on your face.

    Facts are stubborn things.

    Parent

    No, Jim ... that's a LIE (none / 0) (#132)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 07:34:55 PM EST
    Which is precisely why you once again link to a wingnut blog for your source of a (partial) quote, rather than the transcript of the actual interview:

    What the wingnuts claim Schneider said and Jim mindlessly repeats:


    "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements  and little mention of any doubts one might have.

    Each of us has to decide the right balance
    between being effective, and being honest."



    What Schneider actually said    :

    On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but -- which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

    See the problem there, Jim?  You're "quote" isn't really a "quote.".  It's a partial paraphrasing/rewording or what Schneider said.  AKA - Not a quote.

    Oops.

    A wingnut blog lying - and Jim repeating it despite being corrected numerous times.  What do you call it when someone repeats a lie despite being shown repeatedly that it's a lie?

    Oh, yeah ...

    ... a LIE.

    Parent

    Thanks for proving my point (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 10:26:28 PM EST
    So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.


    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 10:31:34 PM EST
    His actual quote - as opposed to your fake quote from a wingnut blog - completely disproves your claim.  Which is precisely why your wingnut source - and you - have to misquote him and don't link to the actual interview.

    Parent
    Jim doesn't understand the part about (none / 0) (#189)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:56:07 AM EST
    Ethical considerations.  Wonder why that is.  Could it be a lack of ethics on his part?

    Nonsense!  He calls them as he sees them, just like those climate change denialists who seem only to appear on Fox News and no other mainstream media news like MSNBC, CNN, or the 4 broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, PBS, and NBC.

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:27:03 PM EST
    you might want to read, at least the first paragraph, of the lnjs you provide-

    A global warming hiatus,[1] also sometimes referred to as a global warming pause[3] or a global warming slowdown,[4] is a period of relatively little change in globally averaged surface temperatures.[5] Compared to the long term trend, such periods are common in the surface temperature record and do not negate the robust evidence of continued global warming.[1]



    Parent
    Of the LINKS you provide (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:28:32 PM EST
    want to make it very clear that came from ppjs link.

    Parent
    Well, the pause has lasted some 16-20 years (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:07:13 PM EST
    Now some people might call this a

    trend

    Others might speak of the Little Ice Age. Others the Medieval Warming way back around 1100...

    And others might say that charts and graphs need to be taken with a grain of salt... given that the locations were so-unscientifically placed...

    Parent

    Oh for fvcks sake (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:11:18 PM EST
    can you not add?  Either?

    Parent
    I keep forgetting you don't have (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 07:13:15 PM EST
    any background in this.

    So yes, depending on when the decline/pause started, and using various methods, it is 16-20.

    That's why they use proxies, etc., etc.


    Parent

    There is a saying about (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 07:20:57 PM EST
    what to do when you find yourself in a hole but the truth is I like watching you dig.

    And you believe in God but not the devil?  Really.
    That seems as selective as your science facts.  
    Response is not required.  I cold not possibly care less what you "think" about God, satan or climate.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Religion and the man made global (1.00 / 2) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 07:58:30 PM EST
    warming hoax are both based on faith.

    You might even say it is the big consensus in the sky.

    ;-)

    And it doesn't matter what you, or I, believe. We'll both get to find out. Or not.

    (Keep your fingers crossed!)

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 08:05:37 PM EST
    we won't.  That's what we've been trying to tell you.  Your grandchildren will find out.

    And for the record, all those data charts I linked to have nothing whatever to do with faith.   This is one of the most offensive, at least to me, and ridiculous lies from you and your denier ilk.  Climate science is not faith based.  That's just another misinformation suppository shoved by FOX news where the sun don't shine.
    Mmmmm, greasy.


    Parent

    Both "based on faith" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 08:16:14 PM EST
    Well, except for the thousands of scientific peer-reviewed studies that support one of them.

    See if you can guess which one ...

    Parent

    Of course there were thousands of (none / 0) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 10:28:23 PM EST
    doctors who said that bleeding was the correct treatment for pneumonia.

    Science does not demand on consensus.

    Read Popper.

    Parent

    It's not just "consensus" (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 10:35:40 PM EST
    Unlike your silly religion and "bleeding" analogies, MMGW is based on millions of data points and thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies.  And Popper - or your interpretation of Popper - does not define science.

    But I understand why you'd try to ignore that basic fact.  Like an ostrich with his head in the sand.

    Parent

    He doesn't even quote Popper (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:30:48 AM EST
    Correctly or honestly on his website.  And no, I'm not going to link to it, I'll post the whole quote here, with the omitted part in italics:

    The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
    Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. -- In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
    Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4



    Parent
    and others might say (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:18:41 PM EST
    it's all a trick of Satan to encourage secularism and forestall the second coming.

    Parent
    Do you actually believe in Satan?? (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 07:01:51 PM EST
    Figures.

    Parent
    Because I've been bored today (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:30:44 PM EST
    here are all the Republicans I have found that have been mentioned as possible Presidential candidates for 2016:

    Michele Bachmann
    Haley Barbour
    John Bolton
    Jeb Bush
    Herman Cain
    Ben Carson
    Chris Christie
    Ted Cruz
    Mitch Daniels
    Bob Ehrlich
    Jack Fellure
    Carly Fiorina
    Lindsey Graham
    Mike Huckabee
    Bobby Jindal
    John Kasich
    Peter King
    Dennis Lynch
    George Pataki
    Rand Paul
    Mike Pence
    Rick Perry
    Rob Portman
    Mitt Romney
    Marco Rubio
    Paul Ryan
    Rick Santorum
    Rick Snyder
    Donald Trump
    Scott Walker
    Allen West

    No reason to even think about the Dems until Hillary makes a decision.

    Carly Fiorina? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:43:34 PM EST
    lol!~ is she still around?!

    Parent
    Those demon sheep (none / 0) (#41)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:45:56 PM EST
    need to be deployed again in 2016.

    Parent
    When you eliminate (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 03:46:43 PM EST
      self or planted mentions, how many are left?

    Parent
    Since I believe Jack Fellure (none / 0) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:09:03 PM EST
    is the only official entrant at this time, the answer would be 1.

    Parent
    I had to look him up (none / 0) (#58)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:21:53 PM EST
     Seems like a strong candidate if he can raise some money.

      Fellure has formally campaigned for President of the United States in every presidential election since 1988 as a member of the Republican Party.[1] He asserts on his campaign website that his platform based on the 1611 Authorized King James Bible has never changed.[2] As a candidate, he calls for the elimination of the liquor industry, abortion and pornography, and advocates the teaching of the Bible in public schools and criminalization of homosexuality.[1] He has blamed the ills of society on those he has characterized as "atheists, Marxists, liberals, queers, liars, draft dodgers, flag burners, dope addicts, sex perverts and anti-Christians....
    During the 1996 presidential election while running for the Republican Party presidential nomination, he criticized former President George H.W. Bush as a man "responsible for inestimable damage toward the destruction of this sovereign democratic constitutional republic [who] continued to water the seeds of international, Satanic Marxism to the exclusion of our national sovereignty".[3] He added that President Bill Clinton "merely shifted into overdrive the socialistic, Marxist New World Order agenda."[3] In the general election, Fellure received one write-in vote in Idaho.[6]


    Parent

    Fellure seems like a strong candidate? (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by CoralGables on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:04:59 AM EST
    I can hear John McEnroe responding

    Parent
    That's a pretty butch platform (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:32:38 PM EST
    for someone with a prissy name like Fellure

    Parent
    OMG! (none / 0) (#89)
    by Zorba on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:22:19 PM EST
    He sure sounds like a candidate for the men in white coats carrying a straight jacket.

    Parent
    One Down and about 30 or so to go (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 01:01:02 AM EST
    Rob Portman will not run for president in 2016

    Sen. Rob Portman will not run for president in 2016, he said Tuesday, putting an end to speculation that the Republican from the key presidential battleground state of Ohio would make a bid for the White House.



    Parent
    With (none / 0) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:58:58 AM EST
    a gay son he knew he would be toast in the GOP primary. Now we'll have to see if some of the others are smart enough like Jeb to realize that maybe they should not run in the first place.

    Parent
    CG, I love that list, (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by fishcamp on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:16:18 AM EST
    and use it to confront my Republican, weight lifting friends at the gym.  I have to tread lightly though, since they're mostly young and strong.  Mostly, they don't even know who those people are.  They just want to hate Obama, and Obama care, since they have to now have insurance.

    Parent
    Fish I didn't know they lifted weights in the Keys (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by CoralGables on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:42:14 AM EST
    I thought those big guys just pulled traps for exercise.

    Now knowing they are in the gym, insurance may be good for them. It can provide the needed care when parts start to shrivel.

    Parent

    What about all the competition (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:16:00 PM EST
    Obamacare promised to deliver to the market with the entrance of many more companies wanting the business of all those previously uninsured folks?  Still not here with the hopes that maybe it will happen in the future...

    Health insurance giants are eating up a bigger slice of the marketplace in most states, despite intense efforts under ObamaCare to increase competition.

    The three largest insurance companies held an average of 86 percent of customers in the individual market last year, up from 83 percent in 2010, when the healthcare reform act was passed, according to a Monday report from the Government Accountability Office.

    The biggest companies held at least 95 percent of all customers in nearly a dozen states, including Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky and New Jersey.

    The report found that the marketplace remained highly concentrated from 2010-2013, the latest year data was available, which shows the nation's slow progress to dislodge long-standing insurance monopolies under the Affordable Care Act.

    The findings are a blow to the Obama administration, which has touted lower costs and more options for millions across the country under the healthcare law.

    Taming insurance monopolies was a major goal for Democrats shaping ObamaCare, though many health policy experts warned that it would be a marathon effort, particularly in less-populated regions where competition has historically been close to nonexistent.

    While several companies saw their shares of the marketplace stay the same or decrease slightly throughout the rollout the Affordable Care Act's rollout, others gained many more customers.
    Pretty simple really (none / 0) (#59)
    by CoralGables on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:23:41 PM EST
    Those that offered the lowest prices gained the most new customers. This isn't rocket science.


    Parent
    Actually, it's far from that simple (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:34:11 PM EST
      I believe the fervent hope was that the ACA would create an environment where insurers would offer policies in states previously dominated by one or two companies and CREATE COMPETITION, which the theory goes would result in lower prices.

      That this is not occurring (at least in most states and not yet) means that one of the underpinnings for making insurance coverage more affordable for those individuals  who do not qualify for subsidies and those employers who offer it to employees is weak.

      What you fail to acknowledge is that it's not a matter of "those that offered the lowest prices gained the most new customers" but rather of many people and companies having no choice but to buy at  the price set by the only insurers available to them.

       The failure of the hoped for competition to develop is a very big deal-- not only do many have to pay more out-of-pocket, but because the subsidies are based on the face value of premiums charged those eligible for subsidies, it's costing the government more as well.

     

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:41:31 PM EST
    Someone who actually does understand the "rocket science".

    Parent
    Perhaps you didn't read your own link (none / 0) (#70)
    by CoralGables on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:42:05 PM EST
    some provisions of the Affordable Care Act meant to improve competition, such as rating rules, went into effect after the data were recorded

    And it really is that simple. More companies are involved in 2015 than were involved in 2014. And once again many people will continue to choose the lowest price available whether that's a huge company or a smaller company.

    Parent

    Actually, I did (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 04:43:59 PM EST
    But apparently you didn't actually read my comment where I said

    Still not here with the hopes that maybe it will happen in the future...

    But for those people whose rates are rising and service is poor because there is no competition - don't worry!  It might get better in future years!

    Parent

    In the last open thread, fishcamp pointed out to (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:00:00 PM EST
    cpt howdy that marihuana plants may get stronger if planted near trumpet flower plants. So, here's my gardening query, would planting mj nearby make my angel trumpet plant stronger?

    I Believe I have read that (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:09:52 PM EST
    yes.  You know they are poisonous right?  I did not know that until I had lived with them for a long time.  Also hallucinogenic.  Which has led to some problems for adventurous hippies.

    Parent
    I just read the wiki on this (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:39:52 PM EST
    plant. I did not know it is poisonous, but it apparently attracts teenage boys in FL w/disastrous results.  Many beautiful mature plants in Balboa Park.

    Parent
    They are really spectacular (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:43:53 PM EST
    They were my favorite things in that garden.  These were about 10-12 feet tall and covered with those amazing flowers.
    And the smell!

    Parent
    I love angel trumpet plants. Especially the (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:45:29 PM EST
    Mature ones in the park and in the yards of beautiful old homes.

    Parent
    I have one in my backyard (none / 0) (#140)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 08:21:00 PM EST
    You can smell it when you open the backdoor :)

    Parent
    Have you seen the series on CNN (none / 0) (#149)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 09:14:40 PM EST
    called, "Weed?"

    It's truly fantastic, I just watched the second episode yesterday. It was called, aptly, "Weed 2." The series is narrated by Dr. Sanjay Gupta, and, done in an extremely informative, educational, and, empathetic manner.

    You may recall Dr. Gupta was once strongly against medicinal MJ, but, after, obviously, intense study, he has done a complete 180.

    I don't usually watch these types of programs as they're normally taken over by the sensationalist producers in order to get the most bombastic, and, emotional audience response. But, this production was done so scientifically, and, so poignantly that it was hard to keep from crying.

    They followed some case studies, in yesterday's program they featured a couple of young (about 4 years old) very sick girls. The advances in some of the MJ studies have been so spectacular that they now have the exuberant support of some of America's brightest, and, most respected medical practitioners. They featured a 4 year old girl from New Jersey who was born with a life ending cardio-vascular malady which has left her with terrible breathing problems, and, debilitating convulsions.

    The part that was a tear jerker was the reporting of a Harvard University Cardiologist who has developed some sort of MJ vaccine, and has shown great positive results in early studies. But, of course, politics, and, Gov. Chris Christie stepped in, and, not only refused to fund treatment, but, refused to permit further studies, and, denied any further implementation. I may be an atheist, but, I swear to God, if there one person who doesn't deserve to breath our shared oxygen, it's that monster currently infesting, and, infecting those suicidal voters in the "Garden State"

    The family's tragedy continues as they have been forced to uproot their homes, and, move to Colorado where they have a better chance for treatment.

    Anyway, I'm sure you can find the series on CNN's website. You're pretty good at traversing TV Land, or, so, I'm told.(lol) It's really worth the effort, plus, I'd be interested to hear your opinion of the series.

    Parent

    I saw the first one one the web (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 09:23:29 PM EST
    it was good.  There is an interesting one from MSNBC running now called Pot Barons of Colorado.  I've only seen bits of it but it looks great.  It's waiting on the DVR.

    Parent
    Have you seen the series on CNN (none / 0) (#150)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 09:16:05 PM EST
    called, "Weed?"

    It's truly fantastic, I just watched the second episode yesterday. It was called, aptly, "Weed 2." The series is narrated by Dr. Sanjay Gupta, and, done in an extremely informative, educational, and, empathetic manner.

    You may recall Dr. Gupta was once strongly against medicinal MJ, but, after, obviously, intense study, he has done a complete 180.

    I don't usually watch these types of programs as they're normally taken over by the sensationalist producers in order to get the most bombastic, and, emotional audience response. But, this production was done so scientifically, and, so poignantly that it was hard to keep from crying.

    They followed some case studies, in yesterday's program they featured a couple of young (about 4 years old) very sick girls. The advances in some of the MJ studies have been so spectacular that they now have the exuberant support of some of America's brightest, and, most respected medical practitioners. They featured a 4 year old girl from New Jersey who was born with a life ending cardio-vascular malady which has left her with terrible breathing problems, and, debilitating convulsions.

    The part that was a tear jerker was the reporting of a Harvard University Cardiologist who has developed some sort of MJ vaccine, and has shown great positive results in early studies. But, of course, politics, and, Gov. Chris Christie stepped in, and, not only refused to fund treatment, but, refused to permit further studies, and, denied any further implementation. I may be an atheist, but, I swear to God, if there one person who doesn't deserve to breath our shared oxygen, it's that monster currently infesting, and, infecting those suicidal voters in the "Garden State"

    The family's tragedy continues as they have been forced to uproot their homes, and, move to Colorado where they have a better chance for treatment.

    Anyway, I'm sure you can find the series on CNN's website. You're pretty good at traversing TV Land, or, so, I'm told. It's really worth the effort, plus, I'd be interested to hear your opinion of the series.

    Parent

    Dammit!! (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 09:20:48 PM EST
    I knew it! Sorry

    But, the instructions said, go ahead, and hit, "Post." "It will only show once."

    Right.

    The Post was long enough once, certainly don't need a double.

    Parent

    Only if you smoked it... (none / 0) (#91)
    by fishcamp on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:24:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Which? (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:28:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Does anyone else watch HBO's The Newsroom? (none / 0) (#95)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:31:44 PM EST
    It's so bad I love it.

    I did but I shed my (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:40:56 PM EST
    premiums for a while.  There is always Netflix and on demand.

    Parent
    It's a train wreck of a show (none / 0) (#104)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 05:51:25 PM EST
    a big mess that I can't take my eyes off.... the kind of mess only a brilliant writer (Sorkin) can create.

    None of the characters are appealing (with the possible exception of Sam Waterston) and the love interests have zero chemistry. Everyone is smart with quick and witty things to say. Completely unrealistic, but for some unknown reason, it's fun to watch.

    Parent

    Do you know the site (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 06:26:43 PM EST
    Previously TV?

    I love it.  There are shows, like Homeland, that I have only been following on this site.  And it's actually better than sitting through the show-

    The thing about watching The Newsroom is that you know it's going to be bad -- probably really bad -- but you never know what kind of bad it's going to be. Even when one sh!tty thing gets addressed, as the chronic haplessness of Maggie's character has been this season, smoothing out that bulge just makes another one pop up somewhere else. Sorry, Hallie: it must have been a real drag to get these scripts and realize that new bulge is you.


    Parent
    I hadn't seen that site before (none / 0) (#118)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 06:44:51 PM EST
    but it's a pretty good review. I just finished season 3 of Homeland.  I thought it went downhill but I'll watch season 4.  

    Parent
    My 22 year old niece told me last night (none / 0) (#141)
    by ZtoA on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 08:23:42 PM EST
    that there was some sort of boycott of 'black friday'. Unofficial and unannounced. I asked her how she knew about it and she said "facebook". Well, MY facebook friends did not talk about it, but evidently hers did. I wonder if that impacted sales to any degree. There have been some peaceful, quiet, small demonstrations in large stores. I wonder.....

    Can't say if it's related (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 08:32:25 PM EST
    Spending & Retail Traffic Down From Last Year's Black Friday Weekend

    And I wouldn't really say it was unannounced.  I knew about it and I haven't been on FB for a while.

    Parent

    I found out today that my driver's license (none / 0) (#142)
    by ZtoA on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 08:28:45 PM EST
    was cancelled. So I got to spend 2 hours at the DMV. Actually it was a very very pleasant experience! Everyone was so nice and helpful. They reinstated my license and then said my driver's record was and is perfect and they did not have any idea how it got cancelled. Only cost me $75. Strange.

    This is Portland(ia) DMV. (if you watch Portlandia, you know what I mean).

    You are impossibly sunny (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 08:34:56 PM EST
    i have never heard anyone be so happy about spending 75 bucks and 2 hours at the DMV.

    Can you teach me this?

    Parent

    when I found out my daughter's (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by ZtoA on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 11:13:23 PM EST
    insurance had been cancelled (Sunday) (actually that she could not renew or show proof of it)  and she could not call or go online to find out I figured it was on me. I pay for her insurance, and have since she was a teen (she is 26 now has a good job and makes a salary). She has a nice job and is living in a different state but this is my gift for her, and it costs way less if I pay for her, coupled with mine, twice a year than her paying monthly. Costs $60 less a year if paid twice a year and not monthly and she is still paycheck to paycheck and I hate debt in any form.

    So when my insurance co said my insurance was cancelled too due to my driver's license being cancelled I knew I had a long, unpleasant day at the DMV ahead of me. So I took my cane and headed over. The place was packed (with all sorts of different looking but very nice people - it's amazing what a smile can do) and the DMV people were very nice and helpful too. I expected that this would cost me since I also expected it was because of a disputed remote photo taken of my vehicle last summer that I thought had been dealt with (it had and I was not liable). But I still expected to pay. And it was under $100. So I had my checkbook (for another reason - DMV does not 'take plastic') in my old van and I went an got it and happily wrote out the check. I checked that my driving record was clean and she said it is "perfect".  We smiled at each other and joked for a minute and both wished each other a nice day and I hobbled out. It was surreal.

    Parent

    ZtoA, I would like to know which DMV (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by fishcamp on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:09:19 AM EST
    office you went to, in Portland.  Since I own land in Oregon, I'v always had an Oregon license, as well as a Florida one.  I went to the Gresham, Oregon office, since it's the closest to the airport, and had tremendous difficulty.  They believed I owned land, lived at my sisters house , went to school in Oregon, but did not believe that I was me.  I had every document possible but they still thought I was someone else.  I did finally get my Oregon license but it was a very bad experience.  I want to go where you did, the next time, where the nice ladies work.  Guess I should have waited until today, since it's my birthday, and maybe they would have believed me.

    Parent
    Happy Birthday!&#127881; (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 07:29:39 AM EST
    Segue:  identity. My friend, whose parents were born in Greece, took her elderly mother with to the Greek comsulate in L A. when the former applied for a Greek passport. But her mother, when asked, was unable to verify my friend's birthdate. Fail.

    Parent
    Happy birthday (5.00 / 4) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:20:11 AM EST
    may the coconuts continue to miss you!

    Parent
    Happy Birthday (5.00 / 5) (#196)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:00:57 AM EST
    Hope you have a great day and an even better year.

    May you have,
    Walls for the wind
    And a roof for the rain,
    And drinks bedside the fire
    Laughter to cheer you
    And those you love near you,
    And all that your heart may desire
    Celtic Blessing

    Parent

    Happy birthday, fishcamp! (5.00 / 4) (#200)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:19:49 AM EST
    And may you have many more of them.

    Parent
    Why did it cost you (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 08:44:27 PM EST
    $75 if the cancellation was the DMV's error?

    Parent
    That's what I want to know (none / 0) (#148)
    by Zorba on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 09:11:25 PM EST
    I renewed my car registration online several weeks ago, but hadn't received the new registration and license plate sticker as of today (registration expired yesterday). It's supposed to come in 8-12 business days, and it has been longer than that, even accounting for Thanksgiving.
    Went online, printed out my temporary registration, placed it in the rear window of my car, as instructed.  Took me all of five minutes and they didn't charge me anything extra.
    I would have been p!ssed if they had charged me for the temp.
    If the state makes a boo-boo, the state shouldn't make us pay for their mistake.
    Although I realize that, far too often, they do.


    Parent
    Zorba you are right but recently (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by ZtoA on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 11:22:36 PM EST
    I have been learning how to bake a crust and I did not have the energy or mind to argue with the DMV. I have been thinking of how to make a good crust and a really good buttermilk biscuit. I've ordered Lilly flour from online and am eagerly waiting for that to arrive to continue my trials with biscuits. I have you and Anne and others to thank for that! So you, Zorba, were my inspiration for a happy day at the DMV for me today.  Heh. :)

    (also as Anne has pointed out to me, I need to get my 'forms' life in perfect order and since I usually do not pay much attention to my written 'forms' I want to now start paying attention to them and get them in perfect order). (I'm thinking this will be fun). (I will never, probably have proper spelling (dyslexic) or perf grammar or ever learn if the period goes inside or outside the end parenthesis.).  <-- just to make sure......

    Parent

    Was the $75 for registration? (none / 0) (#154)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 10:00:20 PM EST
    Driving license?  Isn't the State of Oregon current won line DMV practices in forward-looking states?

    Parent
    Don't know about Oregon (none / 0) (#165)
    by Zorba on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 11:38:48 PM EST
    I live in Maryland.

    Parent
    Ha. All these DNV tales of woe are melding. (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 11:46:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Grand Jury Documents (none / 0) (#167)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 12:09:28 AM EST
    Here are the:

    Grand Jury Documents

    Has anybody been able to identify the witnesses there -- the ones that spoke publicly that is -- Michael Brady, James McKnight, Piaget, Tiffany, ...???

    Did anyone see the CNN segment on (none / 0) (#177)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 01:35:47 AM EST
    Shawn Parcells.... the guy who "assisted" Michael Baden with the second Michael Brown autopsy?
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/health/ferguson-michael-brown-pathologist-credentials/

    Apparently, he's a con man who isn't qualified to perform such procedures. Had that case gone to trial, I wonder what effect that would have had?  Would the prosecution been able to put Baden on the stand?  


    Much Ado About Nothin (none / 0) (#180)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 06:27:26 AM EST
    Actually the Baden autopsy didn't conclude any more that the St Louis County autopsy and was actually a little milder -- finding only 6 entrance wounds when the StL autopsy was finding "6 to 8" ultimately settling on "7".

    That's the only place they  differed.

    And where they both also agreed was that there was no GSR on the body and no stipple around any wounds until an addendum was added to the autopsy months later about a microscopic quarck particle found deep in the inner space of his hand wound that lay in contact for 4 hours in direct with the ground that had a whole lot of GSR powder on it from the 10 spent rounds of Wilson's overkill.

    It was a nice try though --

    Parent

    Baghdadi's wife and son arrested (none / 0) (#193)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:31:04 AM EST
    or one of them

    Aljazerra (none / 0) (#194)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:33:15 AM EST
    Lebanon detains wife and son of Al-Baghdadi
    Family members of ISIL leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi detained by army at Syria-Lebanon border crossing, officials say.

    Parent
    Imagine this (none / 0) (#199)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 09:19:41 AM EST
    Conservatives Call On Rick Perry To Halt Execution Of Scott Panetti

    LINK

    Monday Open Thread | 205 comments (205 topical)