home

Monday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 10:38:26 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Open Thread.

< Saturday College Football Open Thread | Indonesia Plans Drug Prison Guarded by Crocodiles >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Morning Open Thread | 206 comments (206 topical)
    Ted Cruz isn't fit to be President (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 11:52:45 AM EST
    Ted Cruz: An Atheist 'Isn't Fit To Be' President. As an American atheist I find Ted Cruz to be both insulting and incredibly dangerous.

    And for you second helping of (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 11:58:40 AM EST
    religious nutbaggery, Michele Bachmann Claims There's Violence In Israel Because Jesus Is 'Coming Soon'

    Parent
    I think she is totally sincere (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 12:40:58 PM EST
    That is what made her so unhinged and dangerous.....

    Carson is worse...more megalomaniacal and less knowledgeable.....Truly scary candidate.

    Parent

    I have (none / 0) (#11)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    to agree with Sanders.

    There is a much much bigger stink in the media about Carson's embellishment about his past than any serious investigation or discussion about his draconian and contemptible positions on policy.

    Parent

    It will be a big moment when we (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 11:58:58 AM EST
    elect an openly atheist as president.  Hard to get those heartland votes if you don't at least pretend to be religious.

    Parent
    Well, there were a number in the closet (none / 0) (#38)
    by RickyJim on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 06:59:46 PM EST
    Washington and Obama come first into my mind and I am sure there were plenty in between those two.  On his deathbed, GW didn't ask for clergy; he took his pulse instead.  During his presidency, he filibustered a question from a bunch of ministers in his office as to whether or not he was a Christian.  I just can't fathom that somebody with Obama's education and family background can truthfully say, "I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior".

    Many historians regard Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Lincoln as desists which is somebody who says that God exists but doesn't interfere in the affairs of men; in other words, God didn't set up any rules for us to follow.  For all practical purposes, that is an atheist.

    Parent

    One reason that Ted Cruz is not fit (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 01:11:27 PM EST
    to be President is his utterly shameless indifference to the clear mandate of the Constitution of the United States -- despite allegedly having a Harvard law degree and having clerked on the Supreme Court of the United States (a super-high honor for a recent law grad) -- which states that no "religious test" shall ever be required to hold office under the United States. Rather than take the opportunity to educate his evangelical base (and the rest of the American people) on this point, he panders to bigotry and ignorance. That is what is so disturbing.

    Parent
    Agreed. Ted Cruz (none / 0) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 11:32:25 AM EST
    is not fit to be president.  But, add to that Huckabee and Jindal.  The three of them, a US Senator, a former Governor, and a sitting Governor, appeared at a Religious Freedom Rally in Des Moines over the past weekend sponsored by the right wing radio reverend, Ken Swanson.

     Swanson's off the rails preaching at the Religious Freedom Rally reiterated his position that all gays should be rounded up and executed, citing the Bible as his authority to do so.  His obsession with gay sex and kill the gays is accompanied by his special take on women, and welfare that knocks your socks off (eg. sex slavery is better than welfare).

     Yet, the reverend introduced these Republican candidates for the president of the USA. Swanson even asked Cruz about the role of religion in the presidency, and Cruz said that if the president does not start his day down on his knees, he doesn't deserve to be president.

     Cruz may have meant on his knees to pray, but that may not be a safe guess for Swanson.  I am surprised that the media has not picked up more on this event; Jake Tapper did ask Cruz about this Christian rally,  but Cruz denied knowing what Swanson does or does not say.  I call BS on that one.

    Parent

    I saw this guy last night on Rachel (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 04:31:28 PM EST
    Pretty amazing.   One one hand it just makes me laugh because the country has moved past this stuff and all he is doing is making the case for hiw batsh!t crazy these people are.

    On the other have there was almost 2000 people there.  Along with three presidential candidates.   One of whom is approx third on the polls.

    I can't say it's not a little dusturbing to know that kind of hate is as popular as I know it is.  

    This is the religious freedom they are talking about.   Promoting killing gay gay people.   And if you think that is hyperbole watch the video.  

    Parent

    On (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 04:33:04 PM EST
    And yes
    The oresident starting every day on his knees made me laugh out loud.

    Parent
    University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe ... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 12:04:55 PM EST
    ... resigned his office today, having been forced out by student protesters who accused him of personal nonchalance in addressing a recent and ongoing series of troubling racist incidents on campus.

    "We stopped listening to each other. This is not the way change should come about. I take full responsibility for this frustration and I take full responsibility for the inaction that has occurred. Use my resignation to heal and start talking again."
    - President Tim Wolfe to the UM Board of Curators (November 9, 2015)

    Wolfe's resignation was finally prompted by a very public vote by the school's entire football team in support of protesters, in which they vowed to neither practice not play in any games until he stepped down, and further enjoyed the full support of the coaching staff. It's worth noting that 58 of the team's 84 scholarship athletes are African Americans, who otherwise comprise only 7% of the UM student body.

    This was the right thing to do.

    I read (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 01:14:50 PM EST
    that football brings in millions to the University.

    That could have had something to do with his decision to resign. The specter of the loss of huge revenue, rather than a spurt of conscience.

    I am frankly unfamiliar with how these things work. I don't understand how Universities or Colleges can make huge profits off the efforts of their non-professional student athletes.

    Parent

    Football revenues had nothing to do with ... (3.50 / 2) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 07:49:18 PM EST
    ... Tom Wolfe's decision to step down as UM president. Rather, it was the fact that he failed to respond effectively and in a timely manner to serious instances of racism which were occurring on the Mizzou campus.

    The Tigers football team is very popular not only on the UM campus in Columbia, MO but also throughout the entire state, and when its players voted unanimously to strike in solidarity with protesters, they were quickly joined by their coaches, as well as UM graduate TAs and university faculty.

    Facing a serious crisis, the UM Board of Curators scheduled an emergency meeting for this morning. At that point, President Wolfe had to have realized that he no longer enjoyed the confidence of board members and was not going to survive the meeting, hence his decision to resign.

    And FYI, lentinel, there are 284 colleges and universities which compete at the Division I level in athletics, of which only seven of those programs make money or turn a profit. If you'd like to discuss the issue of money in college sports, well, speaking as both a former Div. I student-athlete myself and the parent of another, I'll be happy to do so in another sub-thread.

    But for this one, let's please stick to the immediate topic at hand, which is the pernicious and persistent racism which presently exists on the overwhelmingly white UM campus.

    Mahalo and Aloha.

    Parent

    I thought that (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 08:25:13 PM EST
    I was discussing the subject at hand.

    The man resigned because of, as I understand it, the threat of the athletes to neither attend practice nor participate in games.

    What I read, for example, said that the cancellation of even one game would cost the University a million dollars.

    Racism is the problem, for sure.

    I was suggesting that the resignation might well  have been forced upon Mr. Wolfe by the UM Board of Curators due to financial considerations rather than ethical ones.

    As you say, Mahalo and Aloha.

    Parent

    the university president (none / 0) (#60)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 01:49:40 AM EST
    had to go because the top official on campus decreed it:

    In 2014, the University of Missouri football team generated $14,229,128. Coach Gary Pinkel recently received a salary increase from $3.1 million to about $4 million; [Tim] Wolfe, by contrast, made $459,000 per year. His decision to step down prevented substantial financial losses to the university.


    Parent
    Thanks for the information... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 05:43:16 AM EST
    It appears to bolster my sense that the Prez was forced out because the UM stood to lose a lot of cash due to the boycott by the athletes.

    So - good for the athletes and their leadership.

    It seems that money talks.

    We'll see if it leads to reforms on that racist campus.

    Perhaps those of us interested in progressive reform could take a page from the athlete's book - and figure out selective boycotts that could change things for the better.

    Parent

    I disagree, Donald. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 08:27:56 PM EST
    Until the football players, joined by their coaches, announced that they would not play as long as Tim Wolfe remained, Wolfe enjoyed the backing of the Board of Curators. If the football team had issued a statement calling for Wolfe to resign or be fired that did not include the decision to refuse to play any games until Wolfe was gone, well, Wolfe would still be the president of the UM system.

    Mizzou has a game coming up with BYU. If the Tigers did not play that game, UM would be out a cool million dollars. And that is just one game. Money talks. The potential loss of so much money was, IMO, the impetus needed to push Wolfe out. Protests did not work. A hunger strike did not work. The threat to the bottom line worked.

    Parent

    As I noted, UM football has ... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 04:04:51 AM EST
    ... a widespread appeal throughout the state. When the players voted to strike in solidarity with protesters, it had nothing to do with the curators' fear of potentially losing football revenues, and had everything to do with their concern that Wolfe and the university administration had lost the public relations battle with the protesters.

    To put this in perspective, the University of Missouri's athletic department generated $83,718,587 in FY 2014. But its departmental debt increased by 255% that same year, from $22,839,576 to $81,268,862 according to the school's most recent report filed with the NCAA. It further reported annual operating deficits of $10 million-plus for six straight years until FY 2012.

    Football ticket sales at Missouri account for perhaps $17 million in revenue in a good year, tops. Given that most of that football revenue is generated by advanced season ticket sales, they're not going to lose $1 million for missing a single game, in the overall scheme of things.

    But what IS important to the Mizzou Board of Curators is the $200 million-plus in financial gifts and donations the university receives annually. (And what keeps the UM athletic department afloat is the $20 million-plus it gets from private donors.) THAT'S the money they don't want to lose, which is what bad PR can cost you.

    Wolfe had become the lightning rod for legitimate grievances by minority students, which gained serious traction in public opinion this weekend when the Tiger football team walked out because of it. He had become a liability, and he needed to go.

    His successor as UM president will need to find a way to forthrightly address students' justifiable concerns about the open racism being expressed on campus, or he / she will soon find him- / herself in the exact same predicament that confounded Wolfe. These protesters are not going away until the issue is resolved.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    lol, Donald, you're writing their press releases (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 09:01:38 PM EST
    Give it up.  Follow the money.  Worse, follow the depraved indifference.  Mizz U's donors didn't give a rip when it was only about racism.  They didn't care until it was about their precious football team.

    Kudos to the striking players, BTW. That was a well earned touchdown.

    Parent

    But I have indeed followed the money. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 04:41:39 AM EST
    See my answer to caseyOR above. The UM athletic department has been running significant operating deficits for 8 of the past 10 fiscal years.

    As you so noted, of probable primary concern to Mizzou's Board of Curators is the university's substantial private donor base, which accounts for a considerable amount of revenue.  The athletic department alone attracted $20,113,654 in private donations in FY 2014, per the school's filings with the NCAA.

    Quite understandably, bad PR generated by incidents such as this tends to curb donors' enthusiasm for gift-giving. Were the University of Missouri to incur a 10% drop in gifts, that's the equivalent of over $20 million in lost revenue, perhaps more.

    THAT'S where the money is going to disappear if UM takes a significant PR hit on this issue, and not from any potential cancellation of its football game with BYU, as was alluded above. Most all of that game's tickets were already sold as early as last winter and spring, and if you look at the fine print on the back of your tickets, they're often non-refundable in the event that circumstances force a game's cancellation.

    The Mizzou athletic dept. has long operated in the red, as do most NCAA Div. I athletic departments across the country. It's the school's donors who keep its sports programs afloat.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Missouri's contract with BYU: (none / 0) (#76)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:03:49 AM EST
    "The parties agree that if one party cancels, forfeits, unilaterally delays or postpones, or fails to appear at, any game (there and similar actions hereafter referred to as "cancel"), actual damages -- including those relating to public relations, radio and television broadcasts, lost profits, and other consequential damages -- would be difficult or impossible to calculate. The parties further agree that processes, including litigation, to determine damages would be both unnecessarily expensive and time-consuming. Therefore, the parties agree that if one party cancels (hereafter, the "defaulting party") any game or games, the defaulting party shall pay as liquidated damages to the other party One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for each cancelled game, to be paid no later than thirty (30) days following the scheduled game.""


    Parent
    I Read that Yesterday... (none / 0) (#78)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:08:59 AM EST
    ...it would cost the school a cool million if they didn't play.

    Parent
    Actually $750,000 (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:47:50 AM EST
    BYU is contractually getting $250,000 up front for playing the game barring war or an act of god, so it's an additional $750,000 for a total of $1 million if cancelled.

    The cynic in me wonders how the football team would have handled this if they were 7-2 after nine games like last year, rather than 4-5 and on a four game losing streak this year.

    Parent

    Or how long (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:57:19 AM EST
    The players would have held out had the university withdrew or threatened to withdraw their scholarship for non-performance of the contract they signed?

    Parent
    I Think All That... (none / 0) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 10:13:58 AM EST
    ...would have take a lot more resources and time than to just ask an unpopular president to step down.

    That being said, the players, unlike most others, put a lot on the line, and it's almost unfathomable that the coach would back the team, rather than his employer/boss.  That to me is courage, anyone can hold up a sign or put their name on a petition, but to put your job and possible future employment/education on the line is really saying something.

    Parent

    you misunderstand (none / 0) (#104)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 11:30:03 AM EST
    the reporting relationship in this case, & who was the boss of whom

    cheap courage, & a nice bottom line

    cost-benefit analysis in action

    Parent

    This from Charlie Pierce (none / 0) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 03:14:58 PM EST
    Third, there's this passage: Nick Saban would already have all thirty players scholarships revoked just on principle. There's a problem with that. If you were to revoke their scholarships, you'd have to explain why. Assuming that the players continued to remain in good academic standings, what you'd be left with is an argument that the players are somehow in breach of contract. Nobody in the NCAA sports-entertainment complex wants to make that argument because it would state outright that the players are employees, which ends every argument ever made for not paying them. This is all ably laid out by Steve Silver at Legal Blitz. Link

    The coaches are on record as standing with the players. After revoking the players scholarships, does the University fire the coaches as well? Hint: the alumni love the Tigers. Fund raising might be seriously impacted once the University effectively eliminated the team.

     Then how about the students, both black and white, who walked out of classes over this issue? Do you kick them out? How about the faculty members who threatened to walk out on Monday. Does the University fire them? Does the University eliminate the Executive Cabinet of the undergraduate student government?

    When you look at all issues, I think you are right it would take a lot more resources and time than to ask an unpopular president to step down.

    Parent

    Had the Board of Curators done that, jb, ... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 12:12:10 PM EST
    ... much the school's donor base would've likely rebelled themselves, and it would've been the curators' own jobs that were put on the line in the ensuing uproar.

    Further, given the obvious racism that's been on display at Mizzou of late, suspending the majority-black football team for expressing legitimate minority grievances would be a spectacular double-down on stupid, and would literally invite a DOJ probe and intervention.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Maybe or maybe not (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 12:32:34 PM EST
    They wouldn't have had to do it. And I'm not saying it wouldn't look bad, but would there have actually been a DOJ case?  These athletes get scholarships based on their willingness to play football and all that entails (practices, media days, etc.). If they choose to forgo upholding their end of the bargain over some period of time (and did not have the coaching staff's support), it's basic contract law - the university would be justified in terminating their end of the bargain for non-performance.

    The players might have a First Amendment argument, but then again, they waive away lots of their First Amendment and other Constitutional rights when they take on a scholarship - freedom to contract, freedom of associations, freedom to travel (curfews), etc.  I don't see a civil rights violation (you don't have a right to play college football).  Plus, the football team wouldn't be saying they couldn't protest - they would be saying, we expect you to be at practice, games and all the mandated activities that your scholarship is predicated on.

    Some lawyer could make a lot of noise, and the PR would be bad, but legally?  I don't see a problem.  Others may disagree.

    And I agree with CG - if the team was 10-2 or 11-1, the mood of the alumni base you say was vastly behind the players' boycott, would be greatly different, I would bet.


    Parent

    What in your opinion would the (none / 0) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:30:58 AM EST
    University do if the players held out after they withdrew or threatened to withdraw the scholarships? Would they in your opinion be willing to eliminate or suspend the football program at Mizzou? The coaches came out in support of the players. In order to show that they were not discriminating against African Americans, wouldn't the University have to fire all the coaches as well?

    They definitely would have had to pay out the money to BYU.

    Also, I can guarantee you that those actions would not be popular with the alumni who are win or lose extremely fond of the Mizzou Tigers.


    Parent

    Yup, and something else (none / 0) (#80)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:30:34 AM EST
    should be noted: The bigotry at the heart of Missouri's problem does not end with it's relations vis-à-vis A.A's. I heard on the news last night that some Jewish fraternities, and/or, dorms were adorned with feces smeared swastikas.

    Just a guess, but, I doubt Hispanics, and other non-lilly white folks are welcomed with hugs & flowers by those real "Murricans, either.

    Parent

    Uh, they give them scholarships to play the sport (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 01:45:44 PM EST
    that people pay the schools millions of dollars to watch.

    That is so grossly unfair that the players should have been striking about that years ago.

    Now?? This? No.

    Parent

    high time (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 07:15:03 PM EST
    for a true minor league in football - well past time

    it's not enough that the NFL sucks taxpayers dry with welfare for billionaires in the form of publicly funded stadiums & crony capitalism

    the NFL's failure to create an actual minor league supports a football plantation, corrupt & racist to the core, on the nation's campuses

    shame

    Parent

    No NFL crony capitalism in LA! (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:53:21 AM EST
    We have not had an NFL team for a long, long time.

    And we don't care.....LA is not a city that that needs an NFL team in order to have an identity....

    No one here is interested in having tax dollars used to pay for an NFL stadium.....such good free market Republicans we are!  Unlike others elsewhere who only pretend to believe in the free market......

    Parent

    the only reason (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 10:51:05 AM EST
    there is no NFL team in LA is so the NFL can continue to threaten that citizens who do not want to pony up for a new stadium will have their team moved . . . to LA

    this opportunity for permanent rotating blackmail of football fans and civic "leaders" in other cities is why there will never be an NFL team in LA

    Parent

    Interesting twist (none / 0) (#108)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 11:51:56 AM EST
    The latest episode in this saga was the NFL was going to do whatever it took to get an NFL team in the second (first?) largest media market....and would move a team and have a new owner self finance any new stadium....Still not happening....  

    Parent
    Yean, Lucky LA... (none / 0) (#113)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 12:11:59 PM EST
    ...only has NBA crony capitalism.

    FWIW, and I am not defending anything, and I find it abhorrent that during the NFL strike, NFL players were not allowed in the city owned stadium, not for the rodeo, not for concerts, not for anything.

    But, the taxes levied are usually aimed at visitors, not residents, so if you ever wonder why hotel taxes and rental car taxes are insane in some big cities, it's usually because they are stadium taxes, and not just the NFL.

    For the super bowl, the city built a Hilton hotel, we own it, but the Hilton management company manages it.  It actually turns a profit and ensured in 2017 we got another SB.  Which if you have never been to the hoopla before the game, well you are missing out IMO.

    I like having access to the stadiums.  I used to live where going to a professional game of any kind of professional sports game was a 2 or 3 hour drive, Green Bay or Milwaukee and that sucked.  It was a weekend get away rather than a last minute thing.

    If LA doesn't want it, then they should go to a city that does.

    Parent

    It is important to note that the football players (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 03:15:38 PM EST
    joined an existing protest and the coaches stood in solidarity with them. Tweet by head coach Gary Pinkel:

    Pinkel also tweeted a photo of the coaches and the team on Sunday, saying: "The Mizzou Family stands as one. We are united," along with #ConcernedStudent1950, referring to the year that the university started accepting black students.

    The protest had the support of the Executive Cabinet undergraduate student government and members of the faculty.

    On Monday, before Wolfe announced his resignation, the undergraduate student government called for Wolfe's ouster.

    "As the Executive Cabinet of the undergraduate student government, representing the 27,000 undergraduates at the University of Missouri's flagship institution, we formally demand the immediate removal of the UM System President Tim Wolfe," the student association wrote in a letter to the Board of Curators, which oversees the University of Missouri's four statewide campuses.

    The faculty at University of Missouri plan to walk out of classes on Monday and Tuesday to support the ongoing student protests demanding action against racial incidents on campus, Columbia Missourian, a local newspaper, reported Monday. The decision by the faculty members comes as over 150 students gathered late Sunday to protest alleged discrimination and slurs directed at black students, and demanding the resignation or removal of university President Tim Wolfe.


    Parent
    The University of Missouri System (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 04:21:41 PM EST
    Board of Curators (and all University Boards), in my view, need to re-think the appointment of presidents who are businessmen rather than academics.

     And, yes, finances and budgets are important to University administration, and an effective university business officer is requisite.  However, the leadership at the top needs to inspire and unite the university family toward achievement on the basis of an  innate understanding and emotional attachment to the mission and workings of an institution of higher learning.

     A university president needs to be sensitive to the range of constituencies that include undergraduate and graduate students, teaching and research faculty, staff, and alumni.

    Successful leadership at IBM is not necessarily interchangeable with successful leadership at the University of Missouri. The qualities and qualifications differ in critical ways.

    As a state entity, the University of Missouri is subject to not only a range of constitutional provisions, such as freedom of speech (that serves academic freedom), but also, a host of provisions that prohibit discrimination.

     And, with these factors is the ability to create and maintain an environment for learning that is conducive for all its students. For a president with an academic background, this obligation is second nature.  Former President Tim Wolfe was a successful businessman, and may have had a good relationship with legislators.  However, he apparently overlooked the foundational expectation to assure that learning environment for all University students.  

    Parent

    Missour-RAH! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by mogal on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 06:19:00 PM EST
    My husband and I have been saying this for years.  In fact when a friend on the Board of Curators first touted how the University would have a "business man" at the top, we shook our heads. We have had four now and all three of them have been complete failures. They have cost the tax payers millions in "incentives," housing and "byouts"  MU has been given the Business  for sure.

    Parent
    This could get interesting: (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 01:33:47 PM EST
    NY Times, NOV. 5, 2015

    "Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General"
    -------------------------------------------

    "Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.
    The investigation focuses on whether statements the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were consistent with the company's own long-running scientific research."
    -------------------------------------------------

    Apparently AG Schneiderman has reason to believe that Exxon-Mobil's scientists had informed the company's executives about the reality of MMGW, and, Exxon's contribution to it. If the Company brass knew this but was denying it to its investors, and the public, the result could be the beginning of the end of the Corporate Conspiracy denying this existential threat to mankind.

    I had no idea that a private (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 01:41:19 PM EST
    research organization had the ability to establish a  proven Scientific Theory.

    Parent
    Apparently (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 05:06:45 PM EST
    you also had no idea scientists sometimes work for private research organizations.

    along with having no idea what a scientist is..

    Parent

    One more time, jondee (1.00 / 2) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 07:43:48 PM EST
    Tell us how Man Made Global Warming meets the requirements of a Scientific Theory.

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3][4] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature[citation needed] and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.


    Parent
    ok (none / 0) (#63)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 05:06:43 AM EST
    from the wiki article you cited (my emp.)
    Acceptance of a theory does not require that all of its major predictions be tested, if it is already supported by sufficiently strong evidence. For example, certain tests may be unfeasible or technically difficult. As a result, theories may make predictions that have not yet been confirmed or proven incorrect; in this case, the predicted results may be described informally with the term "theoretical." These predictions can be tested at a later time, and if they are incorrect, this may lead to revision or rejection of the theory.
    As it is impossible to expirement on a global level, we must rely on the proven facts about the properties of CO2, infrared radiation and the laws of thermodynamics(ie scientific method) and of course those pesky observations that you refuse to believe.
    Also
    Like all knowledge in science, no theory can ever be completely certain, since it is possible that future experiments might conflict with the theory's predictions.[4] However, theories supported by the scientific consensus have the highest level of certainty of any scientific knowledge
     I know consensus is a dirty word to you, but pardon the expression, suck on it.

    Parent
    Actually (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 06:27:59 AM EST
    There are legitimate scientists putting forth other theories, there are just not publicized.
    I do not believe that the science is settled. The very nature of science rebuts that argument, especially in such a new and unproven field as global climate.
    You have cloud cover research, volcano effects, solar cycle effects (Maunder Minimum), as just a few that alter the earths climate. And no one knows how much.

    As UN's Paris summit approaches, one of France's top mathematics consultancies, a legendary physicist, and a former IPCC author have joined France's best-known TV weatherman, Philippe Verdier, in delivering black eyes and severe body blows to the increasingly discredited global-warming alarm lobby.

    a study by one of the IPCC's founders, Dr. Indur M. Goklany. Entitled, CARBON DIOXIDE -- The good news, the report is all the more hard-hitting for boasting a foreword by world-renowned theoretical physicist, professor, and author (and longtime liberal Democrat) Freeman Dyson.

    "Indur Goklany has done a careful job, collecting and documenting the evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does far more good than harm," Dyson wrote in the forward. "To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage."

    "I'm 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama," Professor Dyson said in a recent interview. "But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side."

    http://tinyurl.com/d4lkch   French News Online

    http://tinyurl.com/pqa4fva   New American

    Parent

    Why of (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:54:45 AM EST
    course we should give equal weight to the "theories" of a TV weatherman and an electrical engineer(discussing bio-diversity?)

    Yep that's the way real science is supposed to work. I guess I will have my auto mechanic check out this pain I am feeling in my gut.(although I suspect it just from laughing my ass off over the foolish arguments of the deniers).

    Parent

    Actually your auto mechanic (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 10:18:56 AM EST
    would probably not waste any time doing studies. He would just hustle you over to his cousin the herbalist who would sell you a thousand dollars worth of worthless herbs.

    And my apologies to auto mechanics. Most are far more honest than the MMGW hoaxers who make a living by suckling on the public teat.

    Parent

    Freeman Dyson (none / 0) (#163)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:52:56 PM EST
    Not a auto mechanic, neither is Judith Curry. Nor is the Society of Mathematicians in France. They study numbers, and are often referred to to research fraud. They detect fraud in the "global warming scam" The former head of the IPCC is not a auto mechanic, and her paper is on how CO2 is beneficial to the planet.
    These are all alternate theories, except in this environment, they , legitimate scientists, mathemticians, are called deniers. That makes me laugh, reminds me of how the Catholic CHurch classified scintists hundreds of years ago. Isn't that ironic, todays scientists using disgraced tactics that the Church used against scientists. That bothers me.

    Also the fact that NOAA has very quietly, over the last 10 years or so, lowered previously recorded historical temperatures, in effect, making it seem that todays temperatures have risen even higher. That is troublesome. It parallels the tactics used by the East Anglia climate fraud scientists.

    There are many, MANY, scientists that have objections to the "consensus", and they fall into 3 categories, some that doubt global warming is happening, some that doubt it can, or has been proven to be attributed to man, and others that say we are wasting are money, applying bandaids that have no real effect , and cost the economy billions. They feel that soon, technology will make the use of green energy affordable, there is no need to cripple economies force feeding it.

    Parent

    black eyes and body blows.. (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 10:30:36 AM EST
    to the "increasingly discreditited.." blah blah

    Talk about straight out of the pr department copy room with no alterations..

    You're quoting directly from uber-right wing libertarian sites and making as though the words and faux-insights are your own.  

    Parent

    Those (1.00 / 1) (#174)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:35:03 PM EST
    Are statements from the individuals, argue with the physicist, the Society of Mathematicians, the former head of the IPCC,

    But you can't, so you quibble with the paper that published their comments.

    I have yet to see any reasonable response to these credible scientists and mathematicians,
    Or , Are they Deniers also????


    Parent

    I'm just wondering why you (none / 0) (#198)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:44:08 AM EST
    a non-scientist,would choose to fixate on and magnify the statements and quibblings of a decided tiny minority of indivuals, most of whom are venturing outside of their specialized fields of knowledge..

    I can't help but notice that you tend to adhere to the conservative party line and talking points on just about every issue discussed here, and for party line conservatives, the issue of climate change is tainted by the 500 pound gorilla in the room which is that conservatives have taken a
    Norquist Pledge on environmental issues in general that dictates resistence, denial, stonewalling and obfuscation regardless of whether the issue has been clean air and water, endangered species, wilderness protection and now climate change..

    Conservatives are as hysterical about any percieved obstacles to powerful economic interests as ISIS is about the tainting of their fanatical dogma

    Parent

    The topic (none / 0) (#206)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 12:51:37 PM EST
    Has not been reported on fairly. The 97% figure first bandied about has been proven to be a farce, The Inconvenient Truth was full of inconvenient Truths, and legitimate scientists and their theories get no publicity, Freeman Dyson, Judith Curry and others are all respected scientists, with differing views.
    The use of the term denier, where there is legitimate scientific dissent, is off putting. Isn't that the term the Church used to label scientists hundreds of years ago? Ironic.
    The East Anglia scam, actively trying to hide legitimate data, and proposing a boycott or publishing blackout of any trying to publish anything not pro global warming. That is scary.
    It appears NOAA is at it again.
    I love the outdoors, am a active surfcaster, and am all for clean water and air, fight pollution, I have some difficulty accepting CO2 as a pollutant.
    In the 1980's , Hansen 1st came out with the Warming Theory, and basically proposed that CO2 is directly related to the warming global climate. After 1998, that warming stopped, yet CO2 output has consistently increased, basically really really clouding that point.
    I still feel it is a theory, global climate is just too immense a science, with so little years of investigation for there to be a validated theory to be propped up as settled.
    I sort of fall in line with the scientists like Dyson, that man made effects may be occurring , but have not been proven to be the major driver, and that the economic costs to divest fossil fuels are enormous, with the cost borne by the middle and lower classes, that technology and human inventiveness will soon (20 to 30 years ) find a affordable way to divest from fossil fuels.

    And any climate model developed to date have all proven to be so far off, no where near accurate enough to inspire any confidence in the warming theory.


    Parent

    Thanks for playing (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 10:12:38 AM EST
    In science a failure of any part of a theory invalidates the whole theory.  IOW, if you drop a hammer on your foot it will demonstrate the theory of gravitation. It will fall every time. (Let me know when it flies up and hits you on the nose.)

    I have mentioned Karl Popper before. I suggest you study him.

    And let's review the requirements.

    "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation andexperimentation.[1][2][3][4] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature[citation needed] and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability."

    Note the requirement for it to have "predictive power." I don't think I need to tell you that all of the predictions have failed.

    "The IPCC graph shows that the midpoints of the various models predicted that the world would warm by between about 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit and 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit between 1990 and 2012. Actual warming was much less than that: 0.28 F, according the data the IPCC cites."

    Link

    And while we have seen many studies many of them contradict each other. Using statistics and tree rings to set policies that will cost billions doesn't seem to be the smartest thing to me,

    And I love your use of "consensus" and your pejorative intent. Really quite clever. I really love this explanation.

    However, there is no consensus.

    Beyond that I return to the actual requirements...."predictive power" is a base requirement. Consensus can't apply when the base is not met. And speaking of "base requirement"  we have this:

    "..that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed..."

    And speaking of the scientific method:

    "We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."

    And the check's in the mail, the beamer's paid for and I will respect you in the morning.

    Which leads me to:

    "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."
    - Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
    ( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)

    Link

    So nice try but you don't get the prize.

    Parent

    Yes Jim, You are the Smart One... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 10:21:48 AM EST
    ...in that only a handful of republicans seem to know the truth as Big Oil sees it, the rest of the world is dumb enough to buy into a myth that is supported by science, data, and actually observable happenings throughout the world.

    We get it, you think smoking doesn't cause harm and you have 1001 links to prove it,  Big Oil is proud of your dedicated service, but for the rest of us, it's just plain painful to see an old man deny reality.

    Parent

    The hammer will not fall (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by CST on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 02:57:52 PM EST
    Under certain circumstances.  Like if you are in space, or if you are spinning really fast.

    That doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist.

    Parent

    SeaWorld to End Killer Whale Shows (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 04:29:55 PM EST
    Not for nothing, but the CEO, Joel Manby, is still as clueless as the day he proclaimed he was going to turn SeaWorld around:

    Manby told investors in a webcast on Monday that the company was going to refocus on conservation of animals rather than using them as entertainment. "People love companies that have a purpose, even for-profit companies," he said. "Just look at WholeFoods ... I don't see any reason why SeaWorld can't be one of those brands."

    Yeah, breeding animals for entertainment is just like supplying chemical free food, good thing he decided to do the right thing because he cares, not because:

    SeaWorld's decision comes just days after congressman Adam Schiff said he would introduce legislation forcing SeaWorld to end the captivity of orcas. "The evidence is very strong that the psychological and physical harm done to these magnificent animals far outweighs any benefits reaped from their display," Schiff said. "We cannot be responsible stewards of our natural environment and propagate messages about the importance of animal welfare when our behaviors do not reflect our principles"

    Either way, they are going to continue to breed and captivate these animals for profit and that sucks.

    LINK

    Swimming with the dolphins (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 07:54:11 PM EST
    Years ago when they first started these programs of having people pay to swim with dolphins in hotel swimming pools, I really almost went for it.

    I had been able to swim around some seals out in the ocean, and they were just like Labrador Retrievers.....Dolphins, however, are just too damn fast to ever get close to.

    But the dolphins are kept in swimming pools, which is just like locking someone up in a concrete box.  No other fish, reefs or plant life....Used to swimming vast distances, just allowed to pace in their cells.

    People so love dolphins that they pay to swim with and pet them.....Don't do it....It is just incentivizing more developers and hotel owners to do the same....It is cruel and needs to stop.

    Parent

    For animals that large and formerly free, (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 09:09:05 PM EST
    a SeaWorld tank is like life in one of those tiny concrete cells in the ADX.  Respiration may continue but there is precious little else that resembles living.

    Parent
    Also, they are only phasing out the shows... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by desertswine on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 10:49:58 PM EST
    in California and not at their San Antonio or Orlando parks.  
    The orca whale theatrical performances will continue at SeaWorld's other killer whale parks in San Antonio, Texas, and Orlando, Florida
    .

    Parent
    Som pay to swim with the dolphins (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 10:11:52 PM EST
    but molest the creatures.

    Parent
    I wonder if Schiff's legislation (none / 0) (#97)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 10:52:27 AM EST
    will encompass all captive animals in CA? Seems like he should want to close all zoos, too.

    Parent
    Zoos are becoming different (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 12:00:26 PM EST
    Most of them only take animals that could not survive in the wild:   Cubs without moms, etc. or that are borne in captivity....

    And, zoos are not exempt from concern......

    The circus has had its detractors....Cruelty to animals wherever it is found will not get a pass.

    What is done to dolphins and whales by Sea World and the hotels is cruel and wrong.....

    Parent

    If I Am Not Mistaken... (none / 0) (#116)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 12:16:09 PM EST
    ...his legislation was to stop the breeding of killer whales, they could still take injured or abandoned whales, they just could not breed them for captivity.

    Parent
    "Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) announced" (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 12:52:29 PM EST
    Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) announced on Friday that he will introduce the Orca Responsibility and Care Advancement (ORCA) Act, to "phase out the captivity of orcas so that their display ends with this generation." The legislation, which would ban breeding, wild capture, and import or export of orcas for the purpose of public exhibition, would eventually put an end to SeaWorld's controversial "Shamu Shows."
    Again, it seems to me that he should be against the captivity of any animal, like those in zoos, for example, and not just orcas.

    Parent
    It is Very Specific... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 01:02:15 PM EST
    ...and I wonder why, surely we don't need a expose video to know Lions and Tigers would rather be in the wild.

    I am with you, I can't even go to the zoo anymore, elephants and giraffes and a whole host of animals do not belong downtown Houston.

    They don't have it bad, but you know, they are caged animals regardless.  Some animals, as mentioned, need to be kept in order to survive and I think that we also have to some how accommodate species that are going extinct, even if that means a cage.

    With HD TV's you can a hell of a lot better idea about a leopard on the TV in the wild, then going to the zoo where it most likely is sleeping or pacing.

    Parent

    The turning (turnoff) point for me (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 02:59:57 PM EST
    was years ago.  Someone hauled me to the zoo (It'll be fun!) and I found myself in the primate house, in front of steel bars, staring into the eyes of the saddest gorilla.

    Parent
    The New York Times (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:20:56 AM EST
    has a marvelous article entitled:

    What to look for in tonight's debate.

    It really is so helpful to have help in knowing what to look for.

    Sometimes I look for things.  But it is a difficult task on ones own.

    Knowing in advance what to look for - having expert instruction in looking - is really an advantage.

    Otherwise i might have to just watch and listen and react and formulate a personal opinion - and that would never do.

    "Our betters tell us what to think... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 12:16:28 PM EST
    And we pretend to think."

    - from The Complete Idiot's Guide to Life in the Rabble

    Parent

    40 years ago on November 10, 1975, ... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:31:58 AM EST
    "They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters; These see the works of the Lord, and His wonders in the deep."
    -- Psalm 107, Verses 23-24

    ... the bulk ore freighter S.S. Edmund Fitzgerald, which was the largest ship then sailing the Great Lakes, ran afoul of an early winter gale on Lake Superior, broke up and sank with her entire crew of 29 men about 17 miles NNW of Whitefish Point, MI. One year later, Canadian folksinger Gordon Lightfoot immortalized her fate in song with "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald."

    Our thoughts are with the crew's families on this solemn anniversary.

    My Entire Life... (none / 0) (#200)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 10:14:47 AM EST
    ...I thought this lyric:
    The searchers all say they'd have made Whitefish Bay
    If they'd put fifteen more miles behind her

    Was in reference to Whitefish Bay, WI.  I always thought it was odd that an iron ore ship would be near what is essentially a very desirable residential suburb of Milwaukee, on its way to Cleveland.

    Parent
    SUO (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 02:23:38 PM EST
    Well we couldn't eat food caught in the gulf for about a year and the businesses who suffered the same fate were given millions of dollars by BP.  Billions upon billions has been and will continue to be spent cleaning up the environment so the life forms whom oil is toxic to, can sustain.  
    $14B to be exact.

    That seems a little more than a leaky oil reserve found in nature.  I would call anything that impacts an entire region's economy, a massive scourge, no matter the source, natural or man made.

    There are organisms, extremophiles, that gave live in extreme conditions, but those same conditions would be detrimental to nearly every other organism on Earth.  Great there is something out there oil doesn't kill, that doesn't mean oil is any way safe for the rest of the organisms that have not adapted to fossil fuels in their enviroment.  

    Radioactive material is also found in nature, but I doubt you want a train railroading with it in your neighborhood.  I would image something has adapted to living in leaded rocks, but for most species, like oil, it is toxic.

    A slow natural leak allows species to relocate or multiply, a million barrels let out over a week does not.  The idea that man made spills are the same as natural leaks is just plain wrong and I think you know that.

    As I said (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    While we all understand that oil spills are not something that we want to occur,
    Especially spills the magnitude of the gulf spill.
    they also are not the profound ecological scourge that some may make them out to be.
    Oil has been spilling into the ocean for millions of years, the gulf spill was only 5 years ago. A blink of an eye.

    The gulf spill was almost 5 million barrels over 86 days, or about 60,000 barrels/day. At the present time, oil seeps into the Gulf at a natural rate of about 3,000 barrels/day.

    The Refugio spill this past spring in Cali dumped about 500 barrels of oil into the ocean, compared to the 150 barrels per day that are naturally leaking into the ocean a short drive away in Santa Barbara.

    No question that larger spills create more environmental impact and take longer to recover from.

    As much as there still is a long journey ahead on many environmental fronts in the gulf, the overall gulf has made a pretty remarkable recovery so far.

    Hot off the Presses (2.00 / 1) (#212)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 02:23:30 PM EST
    So to speak,  little climate humor

    Climate theories are abound, and I think one involving Solar Cycles, with historical precedents do need to be taken seriously.

    http://tinyurl.com/nelm5fl

    The earth is 15 years from a "mini ice-age" that will cause bitterly cold winters during which rivers such as the Thames freeze over, scientists have predicted.

    Solar researchers at the University of Northumbria have created a new model of the sun's activity which they claim produces "unprecedented accurate predictions".

    They said fluid movements within the sun, which are thought to create 11-year cycles in the weather, will converge in such a way that temperatures will fall dramatically in the 2030s.

    Solar activity will fall by 60 per cent as two waves of fluid "effectively cancel each other out", according to Prof Valentina Zharkova.

    In a presentation to the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, she said the result would be similar to freezing conditions of the late 17th century.

    "[In the cycle between 2030 and around 2040] the two waves exactly mirror each other - peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the sun," she said.

    "Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other.

    "We predict that this will lead to the properties of a `Maunder minimum'".

    Maunder minimum, indicating low sunspot activity, was the name given to the period between 1645 and 1715, when Europe and North America experienced very cold winters.

    In England during this "Little Ice Age", River Thames frost fairs were held. In the winter of 1683-84 the Thames froze over for seven weeks, during which it was "passable by foot", according to historical records.

    I saw Quentin Tarantino on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#3)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 11:54:19 AM EST
    over the weekend.  I think he's a filmmaking genius but he was an idiot on the show.  Tanantino seems to think cops shouldn't shoot you when you punch them or try to take their gun because that's not what cops did on the TV shows he grew up watching.... "Adam 12" and "The Rookies".  

    around 4:15 here

    As crazy as that sounds, he's probably not alone.  TV and movie violence is incredibly unrealistic but some people might not know that.  My least favorite scene from just about any action drama is when two or more people point guns at each other but no one shoots.  That nonsense might be why people don't understand the Tamir Rice shooting.  If a cop thinks you're pulling a gun on him, he's going to shoot you.

    I would be more inclined (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 12:00:14 PM EST
    to think YOU are an idiot if you believe killing someone is an appropriate reaction to someone for throwing a punch.

    Parent
    I saw that and disagree with you (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 12:44:24 PM EST
    Tarantino did well.

    The main point is that Tarantino did not say all cops were murderers.....But the execrable police unions said he did....They were wrong and Tarantino was right on that point.

    And the even broader point is that when the police kill a number of unarmed suspects who pose no threat, and they are not held accountable, many will react adversely.  

    Parent

    Help me out then (none / 0) (#14)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 01:16:19 PM EST
    That nonsense might be why people don't understand the Tamir Rice shooting.

    Ohio is an "open carry" state.  If the police thought Tamir Rice was an adult with a real weapon, wouldn't he have been legally entitled to have it?

    Same with John Crawford, shot dead in an Ohio toy store while carrying a toy gun he had just picked up off a shelf.  Even if it had been a real gun, he would have been legally entitled to carry it.

    So no, I don't understand why Black men with toy weapons in an open carry state get shot within seconds of the police contact and before the victims even had time to react to the presense of police.

    Contrast this with the recent WHITE mass shooter in Colorado Springs.  Colorado is an open carry state, and even a call to the police from a worried citizen about the armed man was met with indifference.

    To recap, in response to 911 calls from worried citizens in an open carry state, two Black individuals holding toy guns are shot dead without warning, while a white man with a real gun is allowed to go about his business of shooting innocent people, undisturbed by pesky police.

    Do I have that right?

    Parent

    Gotta wonder how a law enforcement officer (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 01:46:09 PM EST
    in an open carry state is trained re hypothetical scenarios.  Assume the officer is  trained the use of force policy requires that the officer may only use force if officer has a reasonable belief the officer (or others, including civilians,) is in imminent danger of serious boldily injury.

    Parent
    You're wrong about the Rice shooting (none / 0) (#20)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 02:12:42 PM EST
    but I think you know that.  It doesn't matter if it's an open carry state.... if a cop thinks you're going to shoot him he will shoot you.  That's what the grand jury has to figure out.  Did he have reason to believe Rice was pulling a real gun on him.

    I don't know as much about the Crawford shooting.  Was he told to put his gun down?  

    Parent

    "if a cop thinks..." (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 02:33:19 PM EST
    Yeah, that would be refreshing: cops that think.

    Part of the problem is finding a way to train cops so their lizard brains aren't in control at all times; you can't tell me that the cops who sped up on Tamir Rice were going on anything other than adrenaline and stupidity - one of those officers had a documented history of failing to make the right decisions.  A quiet, calm approach, a few seconds of calm observation, perhaps some conversation from a safe distance, probably would have ended the whole thing with no one bleeding out on the ground.  Jesus, body language would have told them there was nothing to fear, but it's hard to process those kinds of thoughts when your brain is flooding you with adrenaline, and you are rejecting everything your training taught you.

    There was nothing in the 911 calls that suggested anyone was in imminent danger, and at least one person said he thought it was a toy gun.  

    I would posit that these cops - and too many like them - reacted the way they did because they had guns, and because the mindful, rational part of their brains was never engaged.

    Figure out a way to solve that problem, and more people live.


    Parent

    "their lizard brains" is a sweeping (2.00 / 1) (#53)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 10:08:57 PM EST
    generalization.

    Parent
    No, actually, it isn't. I used the term (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 06:41:21 AM EST
    not as a pejorative, or to speak to anyone's intelligence, but to refer to the part of the brain that is all about instinct and primal emotions - and that's something we all have.

    It would be the part of your brain that would cause you to instinctively react or act to protect your child if he or she were in danger; it's what makes people do things like rush into burning buildings or leap onto train tracks to rescue someone who's fallen onto them.

    It's action that occurs without a whole lot of higher-level thought, and while I recognize that law enforcement often finds itself in situations where delayed action can be deadly to themselves or others, I feel like more training is needed to reinforce the need to recognize when delay can be the better course of action.

    And there needs to be better assessment to identify, and disqualify from service, those who cannot demonstrate proficiency at higher-level thinking, either.  Or, at a minimum, assign them to positions that keep them off the streets and out of situations where they need to make life-or-death decisions.

    In the case of the Tamir Rice shooting, one wonders if the outcome would be different if this officer:

    The Cleveland police officer who shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice last month "could not follow simple directions, could not communicate clear thoughts nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal" during a short stint at a smaller police force in 2012, according to a letter from his previous supervisor released Wednesday.

    had not been one of the cops who responded to the scene.  This is not someone who should ever have been involved in making split-second decisions, or who could be trusted to accurately assess a critical situation.

    If these people are going to be trusted with the lives of others, it seems to me we need to do a better job making sure that those to whom we give that trust are actually qualified to do the job.  

    Parent

    She's referring to whats been called (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 11:55:28 AM EST
    by brain experts the "reptilian fight-or-flight" part of the brain; that all humans have.

    Parent
    That makes a lot more sense. (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 03:48:51 PM EST
    Thanks.

    Parent
    Clarification (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:58:11 AM EST
    It doesn't matter if it's an open carry state.... if a cop thinks you're going to shoot him he will shoot you.

    So all a police officer has to do to skate on shooting an unarmed, helpless victim, as we have seen over and over on video, is to chant the magic incantation, "I thought he/she was going to shoot me."  Even when the victim is handcuffed, unarmed, face down, already tased or running away, the cop can still make that claim and you will buy it.

    As you know, Tamir rice did not "pull a gun" on the police because, well, HE DIDN'T HAVE A GUN.  John Crawford was carrying a toy gun and talking on his cell phone, presumably in a threatening manner.

    Both had toy guns in a state where it is legal to carry a real gun.  Meanwhile, in Colorado, also an open carry state, a REAL shooter (white) is allowed to go about his business.  Explain to me the difference in police perception.

    Both of these people were shot without warning, within seconds of the police contact.  How much of a conversation did the police have with Tamir Rice in the TWO SECONDS between the police officer stepping out of the vehicle and shooting Tamir?  John Crawford was talking on his cell phone with his girlfriend when the shots rang out, so we know he had no conversation with the police about the toy gun in the toy store.

    Apparently you have never met a racist, incompetent cop.  Because I am a white guy who spent a lot of time in a place where white guys don't usually go, my experience is that they are everywhere that you find Black people in the majority.

    Parent

    It gets worse, unfortunately... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 10:55:01 AM EST
    From the LA Times:

    The Supreme Court made it harder Monday to sue police for using deadly force against fleeing suspects, ruling that officers are immune from lawsuits unless it is "beyond debate" that a shooting was unjustified and clearly unreasonable.

    By an 8-1 vote, the justices tossed out an excessive force suit against a Texas police officer who ignored his supervisor's warning and took a high-powered rifle to a highway overpass to shoot at an approaching car. The officer said he hoped to stop the car but instead shot and killed the driver.

    The ruling bolsters previous decisions that give police the benefit of the doubt when they encounter a potentially dangerous situation. The court noted in an unsigned 12-page opinion that it has "never found the use of deadly force in connection with a dangerous car chase to violate the 4th Amendment."

    In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor faulted the majority for "sanctioning a `shoot first, think later' approach to policing."

    When you read the details of the case at issue, your hair may go up in flames, that's how bad the outcome of this decision is.

    Sotomayor - the only dissent -  

    said the court "renders the protections of the 4th Amendment hollow" by sanctioning the officer's "rogue conduct." She noted he had not been trained in shooting at a fleeing car and was told not to shoot before the vehicle encountered the spikes across the highway.

    "When Mullenix confronted his superior officer after the shooting, his first words were, 'How's that for proactive?" she wrote. "The glib comment...seems to me revealing of the culture this court's decision supports when it calls it reasonable--or even reasonably reasonable--to use deadly force for no discernible gain and over a supervisor's express order to 'stand by.'"

    Disgusting that the vote was that lopsided.

    Parent

    'How's that for proactive?' (none / 0) (#107)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 11:49:51 AM EST
    reeks of something that appeared as a deficit on that cop's evaluation report.

    He'll probably get a promotion out of this.  He's won a new uncivil right for the Police State.

    Parent

    Motr (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 12:02:13 PM EST
    From Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog;


    The police shooting decision spared a Texas state trooper, Chadrin Lee Mullenix, from having to defend himself in court against a claim for money damages by the family of the man he killed with six rifle shots from the officer's vantage point on a bridge over a highway. The driver, Israel Leija, Jr., had led several officers on a chase at speeds up to one hundred miles per hour along a superhighway in the panhandle of Texas, twice telephoning police to say that he had a gun and would shoot any police officers who tried to stop him. After his car crashed, he was found dead, and officers said there was no gun in the car.

    The Court granted Mullenix what is called "qualified immunity" from the lawsuit, concluding that no binding court ruling had declared unconstitutional the specific situation that unfolded in this incident in March 2010. While the decision repeated the common rule that each use of police force should be judged on its specific facts, the Court said specifically that it had "never found the use of deadly force in connection with a dangerous car chase to violate the Fourth Amendment, let alone to be a basis for denying qualified immunity."

    Because the ruling was so closely focused on the fact of the car chase, it did not appear to have created any new law for judging fatal shootings by police in other encounters as they enforce laws. The main opinion spoke of "the hazy legal backdrop" that lay behind the judging of the actions of Trooper Mullenix.

    These were the factors that apparently influenced the Court's ruling: the suspect had twice telephoned a police dispatcher and threatened to kill the pursuing officers; the "extremely high speeds" of the car chase; the fact that the suspect was intoxicated; and the threat to other officers as they laid out spikes in the roadway as an alternate way to try to stop the speeding car.



    Parent
    This test has been the test re (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 03:34:56 PM EST
    qualified immunity for a few years.

    Parent
    Sotomayor (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 12:03:43 PM EST
    Is she not a great choice or what?  Obama's first selection....And she was a former Prosecutor and some thought she would be pro police.

    I remember a time when liberal critics of Obama said he would appoint moderates or conservatives to the Court.

    Parent

    Yeah, Every Time I See... (none / 0) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 02:11:36 PM EST
    ... Tarantino answering a question outside his field, he comes off as an idiot, big time.

    I disagree with everything else about your comment.

    Parent

    re bridge of spies (none / 0) (#21)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 02:31:52 PM EST
    I saw bridge of spies a few days ago.

    in the movie, it depicts the good and honorable lawyer as trying to protect the guy by protesting that the search was done without a proper warrant, but that the SCOTUS did not accept the argument and neither did the trial or possible intermediate court.

    does anyone wish to tell me where we can read the decision and if he or she thinks the court decided rightly or wrongly?

    It appears that the court decided wrongly.  Are they alleging that foreigners who are not US citizens can have searches of their things done without proper warrants and such items seized be used against them in court?

    It was a 5-4 decision in 1960 (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    Abel v. US. You are welcome to form you own opinion whether it was "right" or "wrong." It was close, that's all I can say.

    Parent
    have you seen the movie, btw? (none / 0) (#51)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 09:20:28 PM EST
    have you seen the movie, btw?

    I thought it was very good and not simply artistically good, but I appreciated the morals of the story--given my Christian background . . .  probably not very appealing to most of the people who post here and seemingly in contradiction to my walking in undies and suing the city of Seattle on the voyeurism law being egresiously overbroad . . .

    I liked that a man who stood up for what he felt was right, at some personal cost and risk and was even shunned, later has the US come to him and ask him for help . . . and supposedly, apparently, he saved many American lives . . .

    maybe he contributed to the absence of actual hot war between usa and ussr  . . .  Perhaps he saved some cities from some Russian a-bomb or n-bombs falling on them . . . maybe he deserves the gratitude of the USA.

    So, I kind of like this James Donovan and I wish there were dozens more like him, if the real one is anything like the one in the movie.

    Parent

    thanks . . . (none / 0) (#75)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:58:38 AM EST
    Thanks and I tend to like the Brennan opinions and occasional dissents . . .

    Morally the decision is not close.

    z

    Parent

    re Scott Shimek in Burien (none / 0) (#23)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 02:36:07 PM EST
    apparently recently there was a fellow named Scott Shimek who had a camera near some king county sheriff's and they assaulted and arrested him for not leaving their area quickly enough.  He was charged and put on trial and the jury found him not guilty.

    supposedly during the trial the sheriff deputy sgt john hall claimed that he had pointed his live taser at Shimek to use as a flashlight.

    anyone wish to comment in any wise ways?

    I would say that it's just more (none / 0) (#24)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 02:43:54 PM EST
    proof that cops, in general, are cowards and liars.

    Parent
    Nothing like (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 02:49:12 PM EST
    Hyperbole.

    Parent
    News from Jordon (none / 0) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 04:11:32 PM EST
    (CNN)A Jordanian police officer who had been fired killed two American contractors and a South African contractor at a training facility on Monday, Jordan's official Petra news agency reported.

    Two other Americans and four Jordanians were wounded in the incident at the King Abdullah Special Operations Training Center near the capital, Amman, according to reports.
    ...
    No members of the U.S. military, who cycle through the training center, were involved in the shooting, the U.S. official said.  Link

    Howdy (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 04:51:44 PM EST
    my husband is in east Arkansas today and says it is beautiful unlike Atlanta that has turned into Seattle
    Has been (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:51:25 PM EST
    Not tomorrow

    Parent
    Huuuge (none / 0) (#33)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 05:20:56 PM EST
    Hewitt causes Joe Scar to make sense
    "If your only argument is that the media is covering Ben Carson for a day and a half but they haven't covered Hillary Clinton's problems long enough, that is not a very strong argument,"
     Then it got catty
    After Hewitt made reference to "You Manhattan people" who take pleasure in criticizing Carson more than Clinton, Scarborough shot back, "I put my neck on the line every single day here. Hugh, please don't embarrass yourself... you owe me an apology on the air right now because you know better than to say that about me."

     I do believe that the even the semi-legitimate journalists on the right are getting pretty sick of the Republican's bellyaching. Especially Carson, after all it was the National Review who first broke the Mannatech story, 9 months ago, which was totally ignored by the evil liberal press until the dirty commies at CNBC stabbed him in the back with it. Even the WSJ has jumped into   the latest frenzy with their story about his "biology lab rescue". It's one thing to rail against the liberal media but those outlets are supposed to be the good guys.

    The Mannatech connection, it seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 07:55:51 PM EST
    is a much more powerful impediment to Carson's candidacy (assuming it is actually a serious candidacy and not a marketing campaign) than the various misstatements, gaffes and exaggerations in his "memoir."

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#81)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:34:22 AM EST
    the "embellishment" of some youthful anecdotes is rather small potatoes in the great scheme of things, although Carson's clinging to them contrary to facts and logic is troubling.

    Apparently hordes of "investigative journalists" have descended on the neighborhoods and schoolyards of Detroit and the ivied halls of Yale, all in search of the real Ben Carson(c.1970). While the actions of the 21st century Dr. Carson are kind of glossed over.

     His involvement and the possible lies related to Mannatech have been reported but with nowhere near the intensity applied to the tales of his youth, or so it seems to me.

    Parent

    Why (none / 0) (#164)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:58:54 PM EST
    are these so important?
    All they do is also bring up the compariso with the under fire by snipers at the airport, for starters.

    And Carson will not be the nominee, and unless the FBI says so, Hillary will be.

    Parent

    This was fully aired (none / 0) (#167)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:09:41 PM EST
    in 2008.

    Hillary was a civilian who did fly into dangerous areas....That she was mistaken about sniper fire could easily happen.

    Parent

    Lol (1.00 / 1) (#168)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:18:02 PM EST
    She lied , and got caught

    Ducking her head under sniper fire.

    She NEVER had to duck her head,

    Just saying, goose and gander

    And those e mails to Chelsea and the Egyptian government stating it was a terrorist attack

    And then telling parents of those killed that "we'll get that video guy"

    Carson will not be either the Presidential or VP nominee

    Parent

    Nice bullet point talking points (none / 0) (#169)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:24:02 PM EST
    All false GOP crap.

    Her comments to Chelsea and the Egyptian Prime Minister are consistent with all her public comments.   Get that?  They are all consistent.  Consistent.

    What the scandal mongering scum have to do is reach to private comments allegedly made to the families of which there is no record.

    Even so, the issue of the video was much in doubt and back and forth for about a week.  The intelligence agencies and the group taking credit for the attack said the video was a reason for the attack.  And even today, some still believe the video helped recruit soldiers for the attack.

    Get a grip and take your b.s. talking points elsewhere.

    Parent

    Has (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:26:34 PM EST
    anybody ever seen Trevor and Jim together? Hmmmm

    Parent
    Actually NO (none / 0) (#173)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:31:20 PM EST
    She never mentioned terrorist attacks , only to Chelsea and the Egyptians.

    And by the time the parents of the dead were on the tarmac, THEY KNEW it was a terrorist attack

    She was carrying water for Obama, protecting the re election effort

    Parent

    You got it wrong (none / 0) (#175)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:37:19 PM EST
    All of her public comments were consistent.....

    Read them....

    You rely on private comments that are unverifiable.

    And, no, we did not know the video had no involvement when she spoke privately to the victims' families....Even today, many say the video played a roll.

    And by relying on allegedly private comments, you undermine the fundamental GOP talking point--that Hillary was "carrying water" for Obama to influence the election.   Shameful that your side is trying to use the victims to prop up your entire argument, which has now turned on itself by asserting non=public comments that could have no role in influencing the election.

    Your side's cretins had 11 hours attacking Hillary and fell flat....This issue is over.

    Parent

    Maybe not (none / 0) (#177)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:42:56 PM EST
    Tyrone Woods' father, Charles, recalled meeting Clinton when his son's body arrived at Andrews Air Force Base two days after the attacks.

    "I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand and she said, 'We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son," Woods said, reading the account from his journal.

    "That was a complete bald-faced lie," he told FoxNews.com Friday. "The day after the attack, she was talking to the Prime Minister of Egypt and she said the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the video."

    Smith's mother, Patricia, gave a similar account, saying she was told by the administration "it was a video when they knew it was not a video."

    "They told me lies," she said Friday. "My son told me the night before that he has been asking for security and he hasn't heard anything."

    Parent

    How do these comments (none / 0) (#178)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:53:18 PM EST
    that you allege influence the election--your b.s. talking point???

    And, you seem to forget that the intelligence agencies had said it was the video....

    You're wrong on both points:  that Hillary's alleged private comments were part of a plan to influence the election because it would be logically impossible.

    Moreover, the video was part of the discussion. Why would Hillary deliberately lie in private to the families?....Their is no upside in anything she told the families....But your side stoops very low in trying to attack Hillary.  

    You have lost this issue....Go away.  

     

    Parent

    Hillary's alleged private comments (none / 0) (#183)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 06:02:04 AM EST
    That were in  emails was the truth,

    Her public comments were the exact opposite, to assist in the Obama campaign that he has won the war on terror. An inconvenient truth , a terrorist attack killed an American Ambassador was NOT to be told.

    And you will see SuperPacs play excerpts of the interviews of the parents of those killed in Benghazi over and over next year. That will not sway you, or the 40 to 45 % fully invested in  Hillary Presidency, but is aimed at the 15 to 25% of the populace that do not vote strictly by party line.
    And it will be effective

    Parent

    No, her public comments (none / 0) (#201)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 10:33:32 AM EST
    are consistent with her email to Chelsea and her discussion with the Egyptian official.

    You can try and try to assert some kind of inconsistency....but there is none.

    .....Television commercials designed to harm Hillary.....I suppose your side will try those.  But are you not admitting this was the whole purpose behind the Benghazi Committee?

    The bubble that conservatives live in makes you always think that you will prevail, and that your reasoning will be accepted by others.  Outside the bubble, not so.   Inside the bubble, Romney was actually ahead in the polls after you "unskewed" them.   The track record of not being in connection with reality is too long to ignore.

    Parent

    The complete timeline (none / 0) (#202)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 11:05:22 AM EST
    will show how you are mistaken--not the truncated, incomplete timeline that GOP relies on.

    After her conversation with the Egyptian official, the Intelligence Agencies said it was the video.....

    Like I said, it was a very fluid situation with the explanation changing daily.....

    Your side is now relying on unverifiable private conversations because it knows Hillary's public comments are all consistent with each other and with her email to Chelsea and with her conversation with the Egyptian official.  Her public comments--even today--are correct.  Nothing in her public comments is wrong....

    This is why your side is trying to use the relatives of the victims.....

    Parent

    Yes, the Mannatech endorsements (none / 0) (#102)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 11:11:24 AM EST
    and their easily refuted denials are critical, but it is the pattern of lies, misrepresentations, and embroidering that undermines his credibility.  The cumulative effect of these flaws as well as the several down-right bizarre statements bring into question Carson's mental and moral fitness for any public office, let alone the presidency.

    Parent
    And here's a Carson story that both (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 11:40:13 AM EST
    blows my mind, and highlights why Carson doesn't belong in the WH (bold is mine):

    In his 2012 book America the Beautiful, conservative activist and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson related the story of when he was caught plagiarizing as an undergraduate psychology major. "During my research for one of the papers in an advanced psychology course, I found some passages that seemed particularly appropriate, and I included them in my writing," Carson explained. "I did not, however, indicate that this was the work of someone else; frankly, I had never even heard of the term plagiarism." A professor identified the plagiarized passages, Carson wrote, and their meeting over the paper prompted an epiphany: "Even though I did not know the implications of plagiarism, I certainly should have known inherently that what I was doing was wrong. I had done it before without consequences and probably would have continued doing it if I had not been caught."

    Funny thing - he did continue doing it - even though he did get caught!  He did it in the very book in which he relates this little anecdote.

    Apparently, that experience wasn't searing enough. On Tuesday, BuzzFeed revealed that Carson plagiarized portions of the very same book in which he wrote of his college plagiarism. Although Carson often cited the works he copied in his endnotes, he did not indicate in the text of the book when he had borrowed the words of other authors.

    He'd never heard of the term "plagiarism?"

    Do people really believe this nonsense?  Yeah, I guess they do.

    Parent

    Not the point whether he knew the word (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Peter G on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 12:35:20 PM EST
    "plagiarism," but rather whether he knew the meaning of quotation marks and the significance of their absence. Citing a book in the end notes is not the same as attribution of a quote.

    Parent
    Carson is delusional (none / 0) (#115)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 12:15:54 PM EST
    He believes he is above suspicion and he is somehow just like Jesus.....

    Trump's bombast is a show...that Trump himself may not really believe....

    Carson is a true believer in his own sainthood....Scary guy.....

    Parent

    "Pathological" is the term that (none / 0) (#125)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 01:32:02 PM EST
    more and more comes to mind.

    Robert Bateman, over at Charlie Pierce's place at Esquire, has a pretty definitive and devastating piece on Carson's West Point "story," that, while long, is well worth reading.

    From the article:

    I am going lay out what we absolutely know about what and when Ben Carson said about his past brush with West Point. That part is easy. Then I will help all of you along a trail of military and political history. You will then be able to draw your own fact-based conclusions with the help of some straightforward logic.

    Not to keep you on pins and needles, here is the BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): First, the initial reporting was sloppy. At a minimum Politico's political reporters should have consulted with their peers who cover the military. Better, they should have consulted historians. (Best would be both of course.) Second, the counter-arguments and defenses from outraged conservatives in Carson's camp were even sloppier. Even worse: in some cases these arguments, especially those from Carson's own campaign, definitively (if accidentally) undo his own accounts. Third and finally, Ben Carson has a real and serious problem with the actual and undisputable history surrounding what he said. At best he told and continues to tell a story which demonstrates that he has a horrible memory, and cannot even remember basic facts (verifiable facts, as I will show) about his own history. More likely, the historical evidence appears to demonstrate that he is, indeed, an outright liar who has been fooling people with a self-created fabulist fictional story. Worst of all, it is a story about his own past designed to make himself look better at the utter expense of the truth.

    And he made a lot of money telling that false story.



    Parent
    Good article (none / 0) (#141)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 04:46:20 PM EST
    I totally missed the timeline....

    Carson says he was offered a full scholarship in May of 1969 for admission in June 1969--the cadets start early--Plebe  Summer.

    NOT. EVER. POSSIBLE.

    Parent

    Did you consider the prep school? (none / 0) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 05:46:28 PM EST
    We are having dinner and I read Anne's link to spouse and he brought up the prep school. I don't even want to discuss it because the Carson campaign is probably scrambling for anything and I'd rather throw them an anvil.

    But my husband says that in spite of his GPA blips he's pretty certain would have gotten into West Point on the weight of his ASVABs and how basic training went for him, and they would have sent him to prep school to bring his GPA up. Then the following year he would have started as long as he was still spouse and dependent free.

    He says a lot of the kids who have parents who were Congressional Medal of Honor recipients start out in the prep school. If someone in the military with influence (like General Westmoreland) decides that a soldier MUST be considered West Point material they are sent to the prep school too.

    Granted, that wasn't the offer Carson is claiming..but my husband says the possibility of prep school muddied the water. He hasn't been exposed to Talkleft deductive reasoning and he's immune to hearing mine. Please chime in Talkleft, because in my mind Carson made no mention of coming in as enlisted and going to the prep school.

    Parent

    Was (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 06:17:37 PM EST
    the prep school even operational in the late 60's? My dad went to West Point and he did go to a prep school in Boston but I don't think it was to help him get in West Point. He always told the story it was because he could take two school years at the same time because he had been so sick one year he missed a lot of school.

    Parent
    I dunno if it was or not (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 06:20:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Google says 1946 (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 06:53:55 PM EST
    I'm threatening my husband with Anne now. Anne will explain this to you.

    This causes my husband to exclaim he fears no Anne, he's been in the Army long enough to know that if some general wants it so, it'll probably be done.

    And a general will say anything to people he doesn't know. A general only says "No!" to his immediates. If some Sargeant, or a W2, or a W5 he doesn't know walks up to him and says. "Sir, I have a great idea, we should all run around here with our D*cks out." The general will reply, "That's an interesting idea, work on it and get back to me."

    And now Josh is inspired to imitate Donald Trump and cantankerously announce, "This race has become insane! It's crazy! Since when does hitting your mother in the face with a hammer make your poll numbers go up? Since when does stabbing someone make your poll numbers go up?"

    I'm coming to your house, I'll be there shortly

    Parent

    I have to think that someone with (none / 0) (#148)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:06:00 PM EST
    the ego Carson clearly has would never, ever admit to it being suggested to him that he detour into the prep school to help him get an appointment to WP - that would be admitting he wasn't good enough, and I just don't see him being able to do that.

    I'd go so far as to suggest that if someone from WP came forward with the "we pointed him to the prep school" option, Carson would deny that it happened.  It's just not consistent with his I-was-the-best-JROTC-in-the-history-of-the-world story.

    In some ways, Carson is a lot like Trump, with the difference being that Carson thinks he's really been chosen by God to take the path he's on.

    For me, it comes down to wondering why he feels the need to embellish a life that doesn't need it - and wondering how dangerous that trait could be in a WH setting.

    I mean, it's getting to the point where I keep expecting him to end his comments with a Jon Lovitz-as-The-Liar aside, of "yeah...that's the ticket."

    Parent

    I'm gonna get him Anne (none / 0) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:40:10 PM EST
    As soon as I can distract him from watching the clown car.

    Spouse says it's not probable, but it is possible. That's the problem nailing Carson down solidly. If he was too late for his senior year, they don't like you out of the education loop. They could have put him in prep school if he enlisted.

    Parent

    Carson (none / 0) (#145)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 06:34:54 PM EST
    applied in 1968 for admission to Yale in 1969.

    He was graduating from High School in 1969.  

    If he were such a superstar, no prep school was needed.  He was planning on going to college in 1969.

    You still need to get nominated by a Senator, Member of the House, or the Vice President.  And that process takes more than a month. Carson says Westmoreland "offered" him a scholarship to West Point on Memorial Day in 1969.  Plebes report in late June/early July.   No way that Carson could get in that quickly.

    Children of Medal of Honor recipients are automatically admitted, but if they need a little sprucing up, prep school may be a stop on the way.

    To wait a year in prep school makes no sense.  He was admitted to Yale, so no prep school needed.  

    And, Mr. Junior ROTC would know that timetable.  He would know that you don't get a "scholarship" to West Point--you get admitted.  

    Westmoreland at most would have suggested that Carson apply for 1970, and that he would help Carson through the process, which included a nomination by a Member of Congress....No way Westmoreland would have offered Carson a "scholarship" for a class that was starting one month later.


    Parent

    My husband agrees (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:01:40 PM EST
    Carson didn't need prep school

    But if Westmoreland wanted him in, he'd have put him into the prep school most likely.

    I don't like what he's saying either. And he says he doesn't think Carson is telling the truth. But sadly, if Westmoreland really wanted Carson in, the General could have gone to the President about it.

    None of us like it, but Carson's JROTC story is wildly stellar. And when a top general wants something done, it gets done.

    It's so unlikely, the lottery is more likely.....but

    Parent

    In all honesty (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:39:15 PM EST
    though I would think that while Westmoreland could have done something like that it would have been reserved for the more politically connected.

    Parent
    I would think (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:42:20 PM EST
    We all would think

    We'be got no solid proof though and Carson embroiled a dead man in his lies.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:04:26 PM EST
    we do have Westmoreland's calendar that says he was not in Detroit that day.

    And yes a ROTC cadet having dinner with a general seems very unlikely. When I dated a guy who went to the Citadel a long time ago the best we could get from Admiral Stockdale was a handshake in the receiving line. He didn't associate with the lower downs and I understand that is pretty typical.

    Parent

    It is (none / 0) (#160)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:08:07 PM EST
    It really is now. You don't want any implications of favoritism now. Sign of a toxic leader, someone who doesn't have firm boundaries with subordinates.

    Parent
    My spouse is most flabbergasted (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:46:02 PM EST
    By Carson's assertions he "had dinner" with William Westmoreland. If being at a banquet equals having dinner with Generals...well, you should hear who he has had dinner with :)

    Parent
    Hugh Hewiit is a devious (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 08:10:20 PM EST
    GOP operative.

    He plans his t.v. appearances so that he will repeat one or two talking points designed to harm Democratic candidates....

    He has gotten really chummy with Chuck Todd.  Todd appears on Hewitt's radio show every Friday, and then Hewitt appears on Meet the Press.  Itchy scratch as part of Todd's appeasement of and pandering to the Right.

    Parent

    the liberal (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 05:25:50 PM EST
    media thing is the ultimate conservative whine.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#35)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 06:16:35 PM EST
    would like to think they way overplayed their hand this time. Maybe it's just wishful thinking but I sense that the media is gaining a scrap of self awareness, it may even last long enough to hound Carson out of the race.

     He would certainly welcome the "martyrdom" and would surely profit handsomely.  Of course by next summer at the latest, his crucification at the hands of the liberal media will have become gospel on the right.

    Parent

    Fodder for the next round of book sales (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:56:11 AM EST
    Which is all half these candidacies are for anyway.

    Parent
    The fact (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 06:30:02 PM EST
    that they have not decided that CNBC is part of the "liberal media" conspiracy may be the most hysterical thing of all.

    You would think that the media has learned their lesson about taking bogus information from the GOP after Benghazi and now the recent news about the erroneous classification of Hillary's email but I'm not hopeful. At least they are asking hard questions of Carson but the most ridiculous thing he said was that the press has not "vetted" Hillary. The GOP even pilfered through her underwear drawers and I guess that just was not quite enough.

    I think a lot in the GOP are celebrating Carson's demise and most of all you know Trump has been pushing this one. Carson is toast in short order.

    Parent

    More questions in the shooting death of (none / 0) (#48)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 08:54:07 PM EST
    6-year-old Jeremy Mardis.  

    link

    A source close to the case tellls CNN that marshals began pursuing the father, Chris Few, after the marshals witnessed an argument between Few and his girlfriend in front of a local bar.

    The source says the marshals alleged they witnessed "domestic abuse" and moved in to detain Few, who instead took off in his SUV.

    CNN reported, one of the marshals might have known Few before the shooting.  CBS reported he may have had a "grudge" against Few.  Lots of rumors in this case but no explanation of why the marshals opened fire.  

    a relative "voting" randomly . . . (none / 0) (#52)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 09:30:15 PM EST
    Over the past 3 months, a certain female relative in the flesh of mine has said she supports and hopes to have win

    HRC
    Trump
    Carson
    and Fiorina

    HRC and Fiorina cause they are women and are articulate women . . .

    Trump for his can-do attitude . . . Carson right now for being nice . . .

    There are other relatives over and relative a and relative b are discussing the pres race . . .

    Oh boy

    "relative a" just said there are a lot of things I like about Hillary . . .  and now, she just also said,  I really like Carly Fiorina . . .

    My idea of politics is to complain about the crazy anti-voyeurism law in Seattle . . . to read Cohen v California . . . and now I get to read this Abel decision and to appreciate James Donovan.

    when the scotus errs (none / 0) (#56)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 10:17:35 PM EST
    If and when the scotus makes poor decisions or bad decisions or morally bad decisions, do you folks who are lawyers tend to abstain from saying so?  If so, why?

    I am now reading the case of Abel and the SCOTUS decision.  I don't really know yet if I regard it as good or bad or rightly or wrongly decided, but I do regard a handful or a dozen other decisions as badly decided and seriously harmful.  Of course since I liked James Donovan and the movie about him, I am currently mildly in favor of his position that the search was bad and the evidence should have been excluded, but I need to read the SCOTUS argument/statement first.

    When you folks think of certain laws or certain decisions, do you tend to take an agnostic approach . . .  It seems like few of you, whether lawyers or not, tend to say, "This s poorly decided," or "this is wrong and morally bad," or anything like it.

    How come?

    GOP Debate Tonight (none / 0) (#69)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:59:23 AM EST
    With the fourth debate coming up this evening, so far we've had the excitement of Trump along with the surprise of Fiorina at the JV game in #1. The will it still be about Trump and how will Fiorina do on the mainstage in #2. And finally, will Jeb be able to save his candidacy in #3.

    Now that they are down to eight on the mainstage, what's left? There doesn't seem to be much out there to draw a viewer. My only interests are: 1) will Fiorina get a third pump bump; 2) will Christie be able to boomerang back from the <2.5% table.

    Still contend that more than three debates leads to boredom with the masses.

    Maybe I should add a 3rd interest (none / 0) (#70)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:03:55 AM EST
    for tonight.

    3) will the floundering Jebfish be able to grab a positive headline, or continue to be a fish out of water.

    Parent

    Jeb's New Punchline... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 10:26:36 AM EST
    ...I mean campaign slogan, 'Jeb Can Fix It'.

    Bill Maher:

    Well, if you don't think Jeb can fix things, remember the election in Florida in 2000? He can fix things.

    To me the slogan only reminds me of how George fixed it.

    Parent

    George and Jeb! The Dynamic Duo: (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 12:22:40 PM EST
    Bat$hit and the Boy Blunder

    Parent
    And that (none / 0) (#151)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:30:08 PM EST
    goes for their creepy father GHW Bush - and Nazi sympathizer Grampa Prescott.

    Parent
    Some interesting match ups tonight (none / 0) (#71)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:41:22 AM EST
    Trump vs Carson
    Rubio vs Bush
    Fiorina vs the truth
    Cruz vs the world
    Paul vs relevance
    Kasich vs obscurity

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#152)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:31:02 PM EST
    all of them against sanity, reason, compassion and intellect.

    Parent
    The media (none / 0) (#150)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:24:47 PM EST
    seem to be leaning to wanting a tussle between two titans of tripe - Bush and Rubio.

    In this corner....

    Parent

    Ben Carson may not be the only one (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:47:52 AM EST
    who has embellished his (and his family's) biography.

    Ted Cruz's father may not have the story that's won the hearts andinds on the campaign trail.....

    That won't be a big issue (none / 0) (#74)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:57:14 AM EST
    unless Cruz eventually makes it into the top 3. He'll have plenty of time to work on his story by then.

    The Rubio financial issues and his friendship and loyalty (out of necessity?) to David Rivera, while troubling, will likely simmer on the backburner unless he makes the final two at the GOP table.

    Parent

    That One is Pretty Murky... (none / 0) (#77)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:06:27 AM EST
    ...and if there were lies, they weren't from the candidate.  

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 10:03:16 AM EST
    But the candidate has certainly used it to sell why he should be president:

    Since he was a boy, Senator Ted Cruz has said, all he wanted to do was "fight for liberty" -- a yearning that he says was first kindled when he heard his father's tales of fighting as a rebel leader in Cuba in the 1950s, throwing firebombs, running guns and surviving torture.

    Those stories, retold  Mr. Cruz and by his father, Rafael, have hooked Republican audiences and given emotional power to the message that the Texas senator is pushing as a contender for the party's presidential nomination. In their telling, the father's experience in Cuba -- when the country was swept up by the charismatic young Fidel Castro, only to see him become a repressive Communist dictator -- becomes a parable for the son's nightmarish vision of government overreach under President Obama.

    But the family narrative that has provided such inspirational fire to Mr. Cruz's speeches, debate performances and a recently published memoir is, his father's Cuban contemporaries say, an embroidered one.



    Parent
    People who seek to restrict what others (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 10:48:48 AM EST
    can do in matters of health and reproduction, or who seek to dictate the gender of the person one can marry, who look for ways to prevent people from voting, who seem to enjoy making it harder for people to make a living wage, are not fighting for liberty.

    What they are really fighting for is the right to take liberties with and circumvent the constitution, impose their own religious views and make it "okay" to persecute, discriminate against and marginalize anyone and everyone who doesn't fit their pre-determined idea of what "real" Americans look like or are.

    "Fight for liberty," my a$$.

     

    Parent

    What gets me (none / 0) (#149)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 07:22:41 PM EST
    is that these people sound so utterly stupid saying what they're saying.


    Parent
    Right, But it Boils Down... (none / 0) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 10:31:22 AM EST
    ...to he/she said, and since it about politics in Cuba, the idea that the truth is even available seems unlikely.  Plus of course, if it could be proven to be a lie, it would only make Ted a victim.

    Parent
    cape wind (none / 0) (#90)
    by CST on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 10:23:05 AM EST
    as it was known may have died, but the idea is still alive.  Link

    This time they have moved, and are now coming after my sacred cow - I may not have waterfront property, but that particular beach is my favorite place on earth to visit, and I've been a few places.  To all that I still say - it's about d@mn time.  And in all honesty it sounds like this is a better plan anyway.

    While in Texas (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 10:40:20 AM EST
    TXU Energy gives free electricity at night due to wind power.

    Parent
    We'll never have massive wind farms on land (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 11:01:07 AM EST
    In eastern MA.  There just isn't any space for it.  In the ocean on the other hand, there's nothing but space.

    This probably won't lower our electricity costs in any way, at least not in the short-term.  Building something like this offshore is a lot more expensive than building it on land, not to mention higher maintenance costs.  That's not why you build it.  You build it because it's less destructive.

    I'd love to have free electricity at night due to wind, but I don't think that's in our future, with or without offshore farms.

    Parent

    Link Requires Signing Up (none / 0) (#99)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 10:55:17 AM EST
    Got another ?

    Not sure if this is related, but in Galveston there is a $23M project going to to increase beach space by 20 blocks.  They basically dredge sand from the ship channel and pump it onto the beach where a bulldozer spreads it around.

    My friend thought they were putting in an oil pipeline when he was the pipe, he isn't the brightest.

    LINK
    Insane:

    The offshore barge will connect with vessels known as hopper dredges filled with dredged sand. The sand will be pumped to the beach, laying a 5-foot thick layer of sand 350 feet into the Gulf. The waves will create a slope that will eventually stabilize, leaving a 150-foot-wide beach, de Schaun said.


    Parent
    It's the globe (none / 0) (#101)
    by CST on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 11:10:38 AM EST
    It means you've read 5 of their articles this month, probably my fault :)

    You can get around the paywall by copying and pasting the link into a browser that has been opened in incognito mode.

    Here are some quotes that cover the gist of it:

    "Denmark-based DONG Energy A/S, the world's largest developer of offshore wind farms, Monday said it would build up to 100 giant wind turbines, generating as much as 1,000 megawatts of electricity -- more than double the output Cape Wind had proposed for its site off Cape Cod. The Danish company recently acquired one of the leases for a stretch of ocean that the US government has designated for wind farms. It has dubbed the local operation Bay State Wind."

    "The group that battled the Cape Wind project since its inception has adopted a much softer tone for the Danish project and others proposed in the waters south of Martha's Vineyard."

    ""It's absolutely a better plan" than Cape Wind, said Audra Parker, president of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. "We find these areas to be far more superior" for offshore wind farms, Parker said."

    One of the main differences making the NIMBY people happier is that it is significantly further offshore than cape wind was.

    Parent

    Here (none / 0) (#103)
    by CST on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 11:19:54 AM EST
    Is a free link to another site talking about the same project

    Parent
    I Was Way Off (none / 0) (#122)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 12:41:30 PM EST
    In the Galapagos Islands, they have a lot of wind towers, no farms, but they are everywhere people are, which is here and there at best.  I found them to be extremely fun to watch and they in no way block the view, I mean seriously.  

    It's interesting, that people want these gorgeous views, but would rather have pollution in those views than a wind-tower.

    Watching something that massive spin, it's just plain cool, but they do make noise, slow methodical whoom, whoom, whoom, every time the blade passes.
    ----------------

    Coral mention TXU free nights with wind-power, but what she didn't mention is its about 15% more.  I actually get it and they guarantee x percentage is from wind, I want to say around 50%, but I am not positive.  I do not get free nights as I don't have the meter.

    There is a power plant on the way to Austin, it sits on a hill and just look like so menacing.  It's natural gas.

    Parent

    I love windmills (none / 0) (#129)
    by CST on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 02:53:17 PM EST
    I think they are gorgeous.  But the rampant NIMBYism is one of my least favorite things about this state.  I have to go to public hearings a lot and you wouldn't believe the amount of things people can find to complain about.

    I swear that's one of the greatest misconceptions about the liberalism of the state too.  This state isn't liberal out of the goodness of our hearts, we're liberal because no one wants to live near poor people, to the point where we'd rather just make poverty go away by throwing money at it.  I mean, I will be the first person to defend the big dig as "worth it" (There's a strong case to be made that the added real-estate value it created is > the total cost), but at the end of the day it was $22 billion dollars to put an ugly highway underground and replace it with a park.

    So I just hope this one appeases those forces enough to actually get built.

    Parent

    Oh Man... (none / 0) (#138)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 04:07:45 PM EST
    ...I went to a couple condo meetings and now, home owners meetings and it's like sticking a fork directly into your eye socket.  Yeah, let me tell you, suburbanites ain't got jack on yuppies in regards to pettiness and jackassery.

    I mean the inanity that seems to really bother a lot of people.  I simply cannot sit and listen to two hours of 'get off my GD lawn' and 'But so & so does it, why can't I'.

    I bet public meetings are infinitely worse.

    We have quarterly meeting down in Galveston for our park group, those are actually pretty cool, they urge people to go so they can have a quorum and you vote for S right on the spot if enough show up.  They are funny because anyone can make a motion, and they do all the time, to say end the discussion, and so long as someone seconds it, it's done.

    Parent

    There is a downside (none / 0) (#165)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:02:58 PM EST
    HOW MUCH WILDLIFE CAN USA AFFORD TO KILL?
    APRIL 2014

    America's wind farms are actually slaughtering millions of birds and bats annually
    By Mark Duchamp

    Originally published by The ECO Report

    The Obama administration is issuing 30-year permits for "taking" (killing) bald and golden eagles. The great birds will be legally slaughtered "unintentionally" by lethal wind turbines installed in their breeding territories, and in "dispersion areas" where their young congregate (e.g. Altamont Pass).

    By chance (if you believe in coincidences), a timely government study claims wind farms will kill "only" 1.4 million birds yearly by 2030 (1). This new report is just one of many, financed with taxpayers' money, aimed at convincing the public that additional mortality caused by wind plants is sustainable. - It is not.

    Dr. Shawn Smallwood's 2004 study, spanning four years, estimated that California's Altamont Pass wind "farm" killed an average of 116 Golden Eagles annually (2). This adds up to 2,900 dead "goldies" since it was built 25 years ago. Altamont is the biggest sinkhole for the species, but not the only one, and industry-financed research claiming that California's GE population is stable is but a white-wash.

    Parent

    The anti-enviros (none / 0) (#166)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:07:20 PM EST
    like to bring this up.....

    But they do not really care or offer alternatives.....

    We can protect the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle even with Wind Power.

    The answer is not more oil slicks on beaches that kill more wild life.....and acid oceans that are killing the plankton......

     

    Parent

    My favorite fact for anti-enviros (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 10:54:27 PM EST
    Since 2010, house cats are responsible for the extinction of 33 bird species worldwide.

    Parent
    They (none / 0) (#184)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 06:02:37 AM EST
    Are the leading killers of birds annually

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#182)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 05:56:10 AM EST
    Should be up to the wind farms to come up with a alternative, they are the ones killing off wildlife.

    In latest U.S. oil spill off the coast of California, 161 birds died, as of the most recent count.
    Now, compare this toll to the damage wrought by wind and solar power.
    Estimates for bird deaths by wind turbine run from 100,000 a year (the National Research Council) to 300,000 (American Bird Conservancy). Bloomberg News puts the toll at 573,000 birds in 2012. At the high end of the estimates, that's well more than 1,000 birds chopped to death each day.
    Meanwhile, as many as 28,000 birds are killed each year -- that's one every two minutes -- by the Ivanpah solar plant in the Mojave Desert, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . Ivanpah focuses more than 300,000 mirrors on three 459-foot towers, generating heat of up to 800 degrees -- enough to fry birds that happen to fly by.
    To be fair, the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico did do substantial damage to fowl in the region. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that 2,303 "visibly oiled" dead birds were collected "within the Deepwater Horizon/BP incident impact area."
    But oil spills the size of the BP accident don't happen every year. Deaths caused by wind turbines and solar farms, however, don't stop. The Daily Caller reports that "in the time since the 2010 BP oil spill, some 2.9 million birds have been killed by wind turbines."
    The biggest cause of bird deaths, however, is not man -- at least not in the United States. It is cats. One study claimed that cats responsible for killing about 2.4 billion -- with a "B" -- birds a year.
    That's a lot of birds losing their lives. But let a few loons or terns get soaked in oil, and the cameras begin to roll, as do the tears.
    Meanwhile, who cries over the birds that've been carved or scorched? Apparently their deaths are acceptable because they gave their lives for the cause of renewable energy.
    It's the price a few birds have to pay so some humans can say they are green.

    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 06:33:48 AM EST
    Cat owners don't have to come up with an alternative for cats.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#186)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:21:29 AM EST
    Drilling for oil, a energy need, unfortunately sometimes results in oil spills, which kill a limited number of birds and wildlife. And are ostracized for it, and people scream for increased measures to prevent oil spills.
    Wind turbines annually kill more birds than oil spills, they kill birds daily. So shouldn't there be a similar outcry for regulation to prevent wind turbines to operate safely with regard to wildlife?

    Parent
    Oil (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:36:53 AM EST
    spills completely contaminate the food supply chain. They are more far reaching than just the immediate damage they do by killing marine life. Wind turbines that kill birds are pretty much the end of the line of the damage they do.

    Parent
    Oil is a natural part of our environment, (none / 0) (#205)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 12:48:26 PM EST
    it literally is ancient organic plant matter. It is a natural battery and stores our sun's energy. It has been spilling out of the ground and into the Pacific and other oceans for millions upon millions of years. There are thousands of microbes who have evolved over millions of years to consume oil as their food source. Oceanic microbes are the foundations of the ocean's marine life.

    In fact, due to oil drilling, underground oil pressures have been significantly reduced, resulting in far fewer natural oil spills into the oceans than had been occurring in the millions of years oil existed before oil drilling.

    While we all understand that oil spills are not something that we want to occur, they also are not the profound ecological scourge that some may make them out to be.

    Parent

    Oceans are not the only place that oil spills. (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 01:00:03 PM EST
    And while undersea creatures may do a bang-up job of "eating" the oil that is leaking thousands of feet under the ocean, the birds, seals, fish and plant life that live and grow along shorelines of oceans, lakes and rivers, and in the path of pipelines carrying oil to refineries and collection points - and the people who drink and bathe in water contaminated by spilled oil, and other contaminants associated with pulling oil out of the ground - do not fare so well.

    Parent
    Yes, oil has been naturally spilling on land, (none / 0) (#209)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 01:30:03 PM EST
    in rivers and lakes (and in our oceans) for millions upon millions of years, and "the birds, seals, fish and plant life that live and grow along shorelines of oceans, lakes and rivers" have been dealing with this part of nature for those millions of years.

    If you are not aware, microbes that eat oil have evolved everywhere oil is found, including on land, and in rivers and lakes.

    I must admit I do not know how "the people who drink and bathe in water contaminated by spilled oil, and other contaminants associated with pulling oil out of the ground" fare.

    How large a problem is this? How many people are we talking about? How do they fare?

    What does this have to do with the comment I was responding to?

    Oil (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 04:36:53 AM PST
    spills completely contaminate the food supply chain. They are more far reaching than just the immediate damage they do by killing marine life.


    Parent
    Are you familiar with the Gulf oil spill? (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 01:42:07 PM EST
    Or any of these?

    Here is some handy information about how oil spills affect the environment.

    More:

    Five years after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, sending oil into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days, wildlife are still struggling. The Gulf, with its deep waters, sandy beaches, lush wetlands and coral reefs, is a vast system that supports more than 15,000 species of wildlife - fish, birds, marine mammals and many, many others.

    A new report from the National Wildlife Federation looks at how 20 types of wildlife that depend on a healthy Gulf are faring in the wake of the BP oil spill. The full extent of the spill's impacts may take years or even decades to unfold, but Five Years & Counting: Gulf Wildlife in the Aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster examines what the science tells us so far.

    I think you will find some information regarding oil spills' effects on the food supply chain.

    Parent

    Really what we scream about (none / 0) (#189)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:38:45 AM EST
    Is our poisoned waterways and air Trevor. That's the biggest scream from all of us. If something change very soon it isn't going a few dead birds that are our problem, it's going to be a bunch of dead people.

    Parent
    And Conservatives love the Pentagon (none / 0) (#190)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:42:41 AM EST
    The Pentagon has several reports out now assessing climate change as a growing national security threat....The Pentagon...the most right wing functioning institution that actually does have to get things done that really matter at the end of the day.

    Parent
    From another thread (2.00 / 1) (#192)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 08:01:30 AM EST
    But I do not believe the science is settled

    And neither do many well regarded and established scientists, there is just a news embargo on their research and statements.

    There are legitimate scientists putting forth other theories, there are just not publicized.
    I do not believe that the science is settled. The very nature of science rebuts that argument, especially in such a new and unproven field as global climate.
    You have cloud cover research, volcano effects, solar cycle effects (Maunder Minimum), as just a few that alter the earths climate. And no one knows how much.
    As UN's Paris summit approaches, one of France's top mathematics consultancies, a legendary physicist, and a former IPCC author have joined France's best-known TV weatherman, Philippe Verdier, in delivering black eyes and severe body blows to the increasingly discredited global-warming alarm lobby.

    a study by one of the IPCC's founders, Dr. Indur M. Goklany. Entitled, CARBON DIOXIDE -- The good news, the report is all the more hard-hitting for boasting a foreword by world-renowned theoretical physicist, professor, and author (and longtime liberal Democrat) Freeman Dyson.

    "Indur Goklany has done a careful job, collecting and documenting the evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does far more good than harm," Dyson wrote in the forward. "To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage."

    "I'm 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama," Professor Dyson said in a recent interview. "But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side."

    http://tinyurl.com/d4lkch   French News Online

    http://tinyurl.com/pqa4fva   New American


    Parent

    It's not (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 08:04:13 AM EST
    settled just like whether smoking causes cancer is not settled. The wingnut welfare brigade is very good at confusing people like you. I saw Jesse Helms being able to convince people like you for decades that smoking cigarettes really didn't cause lung cancer.

    Parent
    The majority of us are certain the science (none / 0) (#194)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 08:09:48 AM EST
    Is settled. Until you have evidence that outweighs what exists the majority wants things to change, and majority rule. But feel free to whine :)

    Parent
    True science (none / 0) (#195)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 08:26:22 AM EST
    Is not settled,

    Not when you have distinguished and prestigious scientists proposing the exact opposite theory.

    What is needed is real evidence that CO2 is directly correlated to global warming, in what degree, and how much is man made.

    That has not been proven, the 20 year warming hiatus has proven that.

    And NOAA surreptitiously changing historical temperature data over the last 10 years, lowering historical temperatures to "create " a larger temperature rise, reeks of East Anglia manipulation.

    Parent

    Majority will rule on this (none / 0) (#208)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 01:08:22 PM EST
    But it's okay to fight the power. It won't be rewarding. It'll be exhausting, but go ahead. It's a done deal though

    Parent
    You falsely claim (none / 0) (#196)
    by FlJoe on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:12:49 AM EST
    Goklany as "one of his founders", from wiki:
    He was a rapporteur for the Resource Use and Management Subgroup of Working Group III of the IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990
    sounds like a minor functionary at best,and a spy for the Bush administration at the worst.

    His paper "CO2 the good news" appears to be a paper regarding the non-climatic effects of CO2, an electrical engineer writing about planetary eco-biology is suspect in the first place and has little or to do with the thermodynamics of global climate in any case.

    Dyson is a 90 year old theorectical Physicist writing a forward to a paper on the effect of CO2 on bio-diversity doesn't really give much credence to anything.

    I can't speak to the Mathematical society, they may be the French flat earth society for all I know, but if they have a proof of a hoax, bring it on and let it be peer reviewed.

    I guess we shouldn't forget the "best known TV weatherman", as if any talking head should be considered an expert on science.

    I guess in your world Ben Carson is an expert on Archeology.

    Parent

    Well, we do our part by ... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 09:50:36 AM EST
    ... keeping our cat indoors, where he's perfectly content. So is our other cat, who's remained on Oahu with Elder Daughter at the townhouse in east Honolulu.

    Parent
    Trump... (none / 0) (#126)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 02:11:29 PM EST
    ...outraged that someone can say stupid and crazy S this election and go up in the polls.

    VIDEO

    It's actually pretty funny.

    I would be mad too if someone used my shtick and it aided them in the polls, but for Trump to act like it's unbelievable, to me, is a real treat.  He should have gotten a patent on saying outrageous and stupid S when he had the chance, now every year we are going to privy to a lunatic the right finds impressive, "Presidential candidates say the damndest things"

    I stabbed him.
       The press say no you didn't.
    I did stab him and I tried to hit my mom with a hammer.
       Sorry, but no you didn't.
    Yes I most certainly did try to stab my friend and kill my mother.

    Back before 2015, that was called the bizarro world, today it's called number on in republican polls.

    Sniping deleted (none / 0) (#132)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 03:00:09 PM EST
    please take a time out. You are clogging all our threads with your repetitive theories and insults in response. This blog is not about you.

    To whom is this directed, Jeralyn - (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 03:02:37 PM EST
    your comment doesn't say.

    Parent
    RIP Allen Toussaint (none / 0) (#135)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 03:24:00 PM EST
    Died this morning in Spain after a concert. That's a second line I'd like to be part of or at least witness.

    I only know his name through Little Feat (none / 0) (#162)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:49:06 PM EST
    and only barely, but I'm going through all his stuff now.

    RIP Mr. Toussaint.

    Parent

    I'm most familiar with his work (none / 0) (#191)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 07:58:10 AM EST
    as producer. He has worked with the Neville Brothers, the Meters, Dr. John, The Radiators, and more. He was all things New Orleans music. He founded Sea Saint Studios in New Orleans.

    Parent
    Mmm, loves me some Dr. John... (none / 0) (#203)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 12:03:52 PM EST


    Parent
    If you didn't catch (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:03:17 PM EST
    Bruce Campbell as Reagan last night of Fargo you should.

    Check this pouty thing out from news busters (none / 0) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 08:32:48 PM EST
    FX's 'Fargo' Paints Reagan as a Bumbling Idiot and a Fake

    There was a great moment at the urinals where he asks a guy about his military service, he tells him, then he starts talking about his.   Which was a movie.  Then he gets confused about that.

    Wonderful.

    Campbell nails it.

    Parent

    Trump just told Bush (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:28:38 PM EST
    to stop interrupting him, and Bush complied just shaking his head.....Weak for Bush.....

    Trump sounding confident (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:31:20 PM EST
    and strong.....Not attacking anyone, just expounding on his themes....

    Trump is looking a winner...

    Kasich giving a tutorial (none / 0) (#176)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 09:40:50 PM EST
    on foreign policy....knows the details...He would be tough opponent.

    But the Republicans are too consumed by petty hatred to nominate Kasich....

    I like Kasich for the most part (none / 0) (#179)
    by McBain on Tue Nov 10, 2015 at 10:14:21 PM EST
    but his posture is horrible.  It makes him look like a weak old man.  

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 04:58:33 AM EST
    and he twitches. He seems to have untreated ADHD.

    Parent
    Linwood Lambert (none / 0) (#204)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 12:19:41 PM EST
    They are covering this on MSNBC and the full video is up there.  Latest example of cops tasing a man to death who is shackled hand and foot.

    Look forward to the apologists rationalization.

    Thanks Anne, I think this is pretty accurate: (none / 0) (#211)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 01:50:05 PM EST
    While we all understand that oil spills are not something that we want to occur, they also are not the profound ecological scourge that some may make them out to be.
    Flying Spaghetti Monster Found (none / 0) (#214)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 02:26:34 PM EST
    ...in 4000 ft of water, making it one hard species to worship.

    Monday Morning Open Thread | 206 comments (206 topical)