home

Saturday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Sep 05, 2015 at 08:41:24 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Moving is so hard. And time is going so fast. This is my fourth downsize in 11 years, and each time I have more stuff than will fit in the next place.

Here's a new open thread, all topics welcome.

< Saturday College Football Open Thread | Closure for Amanda Knox: Written Court Ruling Slams Prosecution >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saturday Night Open Thread | 209 comments (209 topical)
    Charter Schools Unconstitutional (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Sep 05, 2015 at 10:49:20 PM EST
    Great decision in Washington State regarding Charter Schools.  This taxpayer ripoff has been championed by the same forces that want to privatize everything at taxpayer expense.

    The voters approved it, but the court rejected the idea for an obvious reason, which is that tax supported charter schools use taxpayer funds with no voter accountability.

    I have opposed charter schools from the moment they were explained to me.  It's not even a difficult legal concept, but thanks to the court for explaining it so succinctly.

    Have to disagree. The charter school (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 02:58:20 AM EST
    on the UCSD campus--Preuss--admits kids whose families qualify for federal lunch programs and in which no parent or legal guardian has graduated from a four-yr. college. 100% of these students are accepted at four-yr. colleges. Remarkable.

    Parent
    Good point (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 08:20:28 AM EST


    Parent
    In other words, (none / 0) (#21)
    by Palli on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 12:35:03 PM EST
    Preuss School on the campus is really a Laboratory School, a very old idea. Think John Dewey.
    Wisconsin High on the UW-Madison campus was an important Lab school for both the university and the city. Sadly it was closed in 1964 for dubious reasons called budget cutting.

    Parent
    The WA Supreme Court's opinion ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 02:18:46 AM EST
    ... in League of Women Voters v. State of Washington is HERE.

    Parent
    Charter Schools Have Strayed From Original Purpose (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by john horse on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 07:45:01 AM EST
    Oculus's point proves nothing.  There are some charter schools that do a better job than public schools but these are the exceptions to the rule.  Statistically, private charter schools perform slightly worse than public schools.  This, despite having some obvious advantages, like being able to cherry pick the students they admit and being able to kick out (to public schools) the students who turn out to be difficult.  Charter schools divert needed funding that should go to public schools.  I think people should have the right to send their kids to private secular or religious schools, but not on the public dime.

    What is sad about charter schools is that they have strayed from their original mission, which was to provide a place where experimental teaching techniques could be tried out.  Instead they have become a club to bash public schools and teacher unions and a way for corporations to make profits.

    I would (none / 0) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 08:38:21 AM EST
    agree that that Occulus' example happens to to the best case scenarios for charter schools, educators, educating for educations sake. All to often it devolves into businessmen, educating, for profits sake, or worse.


    Parent
    2nd Amendment Question (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 11:11:44 AM EST
    I know there must be a difference between a criminal who shoots a police officer and a patriotic citizen who avails himself of his God-given Second Amendment right to defend himself from government tyranny by shooting a police officer, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is.

    Skin color? (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 11:14:11 AM EST


    Parent
    uh common sense (none / 0) (#41)
    by nyjets on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 08:09:24 AM EST
    Seriously though, that is a silly question.


    Parent
    Albert Einstein (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 04:16:40 PM EST
    "Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before you reach eighteen."


    Parent
    "deposit" (none / 0) (#130)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 08:30:27 PM EST
    is the nice way of phrasing it.

    Parent
    It's MD State Fair day! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Anne on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 02:08:58 PM EST
    Well, it's actually been running for over a week, but we're going later today, meeting up with the rest of the family to go see the animals (the birthing center is always a fun thing to check out - calves and piglets are routinely born there, attended to by students from the vet school) and 4-H exhibits, the farm and garden exhibits, and as little of the midway as I can get away with...then we're headed to the horse arena, to watch the heavyweight horse-pulling contest, kind of a tradition for us.  Teams of draft horses - these are HUGE animals - are hitched to "sleds" into which weights are placed, and at the whistle, they have to pull it a fixed distance to move on to the next weight level.  

    At intermission, they usually have the sheep-riding contest for the little ones, and I think there's a cow-milking contest, as well.

    It's a nice escape from the serious, for sure, and the best part is, it's only 8 miles down the road!

    And it's a gorgeous day, not terribly hot, and humidity way down, so once the sun starts to go down, it will be nice and cool.

    I wonder (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 05:12:08 PM EST
    if Zorba is competing in some of the canned good competition. :)

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Zorba on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 03:27:36 PM EST
    Used to show some things at the local county fair, but haven't done even that in years.

    Parent
    So, Anne, how was the fair? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 01:01:39 AM EST
    We went to the California State Fair in Sacramento in 2002. That was my first time going to something like that, and we had a lot of fun. I'd love to go again sometime. Our state fair out here is little more than a glorified carnival.

    Parent
    It was great! (none / 0) (#47)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 09:56:59 AM EST
    We walked through the cow barn first, on our way to the birthing center, where we arrived just after the birth of a calf.  Momma was cleaning her baby, stimulating her, and within a couple minutes she was up on her (unsteady) feet.  So sweet.

    We then went to the FFA exhibit, with lots of hands-on things for the 3-yr old to do - they had four "sand" boxes what were filled with corn, instead of sand, and lots of toy construction equipment - wasn't sure we were going to get him to leave!

    On to the Kiddie rides!  Grandson wanted to ride the Ferris wheel, so his dad took him, and at the end of the ride, grandson came off with eyes like saucers, telling us all he had seen from up there!  Carousel next - the little one (10 1/2 months) went with his mom and dad, and 3 yr old went with dad (his mom and I feel motion sick just watching the thing go around!).

    Then it was on to the horse ring to get some good seats and have something to eat.  Not as many teams this year, so it was a much shorter contest, but still so much fun to cheer on these huge draft horses.

    Then it was freshly-made ice cream, the sheep and swine barns, and the farm and garden exhibits...love seeing the prize-winning produce, wine and baked goods!

    Great night, perfect weather - funnel cake and corn dogs (no deep-fried oreos for us, but there was plenty of deep-fried things to eat!) - once a year, what the heck, right?

    So much walking - we were pooped!  But it just wouldn't be right to mark the end of summer without going to the fair - and so much fun sharing it with the littlest generation, for whom it's all so new and exciting.

    Parent

    From our "Alaskan to Spanglish" file: (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 04:43:43 AM EST
    Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin urges immigrants to "speak American." Maybe Donald Trump can tap her for his Ejucayshen Seckerterry.

    Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh says that Pope Francis's plans to deliver his upcoming D.C. Papal Mass in Spanish is "provocative." Maybe His Holiness could hold a special mass for white wingbats in Piglatin.

    ¡Estas personas me dan un dolor de cabeza!

    Well, tell me this (1.00 / 2) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 11:28:41 AM EST
    If the pope doesn't want to provoke why does he come to America, who is in the midst of a debate regarding people who are here without the knowledge or permission of the authorities, and deliver a papal mass in

    spanish?

    He is clearly inserting himself into our affairs while ignoring Mexico.

    Parent

    Because Spanish is the Pope's native language, (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 11:41:26 AM EST
    perhaps? (English is not among his seven best languages, it seems.) And because many, many U.S. Catholics speak Spanish? When the Pope speaks, are his comments not translated into any and all other languages appropriate to that audience? I don't think the legitimate debate in this country about immigration policy includes (at least among sensible people) opposition to Spanish-speaking people speaking in Spanish while within our borders.

    Parent
    Peter G, (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 12:57:04 PM EST
    sorry, but you lost your way when you added the qualifier of "sensible people."  Such people do not inhabit the bulk of the Republican party these days.

     If the Pope spoke in Latin, he would be, similarly, accused of stoking fires with the Latinos. And, of course, the mentality of Rush and his followers would similarly preclude all UN diplomates to speak only in English (or American).  And, the worst would be if the Mexican Ambassador spoke in "Mexican."   But, the Rush idea does have the merit of reducing costs, by eliminating all those translator positions.

    Parent

    Well, in case anyone hadn't noticed (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 11:57:08 AM EST
    the American right-wing tends to take a conspiratorial view of any event in physical or political reality that might in any way impede their agenda..

    Parent
    I can just picture these guys.. (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 12:12:22 PM EST
    "Huh. The Pope is from where?! I thought the Popes was all eye-talians.."

    Parent
    I agree in general, Peter (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 12:50:57 PM EST
    but the pope isn't "people." Everything he does is
    analyzed, scanned, discussed and diced for hidden meanings.

    And some disagree with his English speaking abilities.

    He should have skipped the Papal Mass, especially
    in DC.

    It is politics and it is an attempt to influence.  

    Parent

    The Pope necessarily speaks (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 01:50:07 PM EST
    a broader language ... as pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, he speaks a universal tongue at Mass.  When a Catholic participates at Mass in any country, that person understands fully the meaning of the Mass whatever temporal locational language is used.

    It seems to me, Jim, that you are unnecessarily going out of your way to politicize the Mass. Yes, in matters of policy, Pope Francis may be regarded as more liberal than his predecessor in some respects ... just as Pope John XXIII was viewed in the 1960s.  Please remember, tho, that secular translations of religious statements may not satisfy the partisan's need to translate directly into the give & take of American political life. That view is much too narrow.

    As a practicing Catholic, I've had occasion to attend Mass in many areas where another language was used.  I always understood the Mass ... and, after all, when the Pope says Mass, it will be for the faithful who attend (and all of us who will tune into the expected broadcast.)  It is a spiritual act; not a political performance.

    BTW, for me, attending Mass in particular churches in US locations such as the Spanish Mass at St. Francis basilica in Santa Fe or Spanish in small mountain churches or the old Polish Churches in Pennsylvania (St. Stephen and St. Stanislaus, most notably) have been profoundly moving for myself and others in our lifetime.

    It seems to me that this Pope has demonstrated so often in his pontificate already the reality of reaching out to and communicating with those with the least among us. I have come to see that Pope Francis moves with love in action as well as language.

    Not everything is politics.

    Parent

    The mass in D.C. (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 02:39:22 PM EST
    is a canonization celebration of sainthood for  the Spanish friar who worked in California, Father Junipero Sera.  The mass is the central and most sacred act of worship in the Catholic religion. The vernacular chosen for this occasion was Spanish.  The archdiocese indicates that there will be a Jumbatron translation.  While the mass will be in Spanish, it is likely that the homily and greetings will be, at least in part, English.  

    All of these claims of "influence" and "politics" are consistent with the hypocrisy of firmly held beliefs for bakers, baptisms of teenage football players on the field of public high schools, and, of course, celebrity martyrs in government offices.

    Parent

    You Forgot... (none / 0) (#164)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:40:50 AM EST
    ...right wing hacks who comment on liberal blogs.

    Parent
    The Pope will be in Philadelphia for two days (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 01:56:50 PM EST
    after his appearances in Washington. On Sunday, he will celebrate Mass on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, in front of our Cathedral, before a crowd expected to comprise hundreds of thousands if not over a million people. Regardless of what language he uses to say the Mass, and even if his homily states, or example, that same-sex marriage is not a sacrament and that women who exercise their right to undergo an abortion have done something that needs to be "forgiven," this is not a political act. On Saturday, he will deliver a speech on the topics of freedom of religion and immigration policy, on Independence Mall, before a crowd expected to comprise tens of thousands. The latter is political, even though it will come, no doubt, from a place of religious conscience in the speaker. And there's nothing wrong with his doing so. These events are privately sponsored (by the Catholic Church's World Meeting of Families). In America, even foreigners enjoy freedom of speech, including religious speech designed to influence government policy. It's not like one political party invited him, as the head of a religiously-identified foreign state, to speak before Congress for the purpose of attacking the U.S. President's diplomatic efforts and foreign policy aims, or anything.

    Parent
    I rest my case (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 02:32:00 PM EST
    On Saturday, he will deliver a speech on the topics of freedom of religion and immigration policy, on Independence Mall, before a crowd expected to comprise tens of thousands. The latter is political, even though it will come, no doubt, from a place of religious conscience in the speaker.


    Parent
    You rest your case that celebrating Mass (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 02:46:16 PM EST
    in Spanish in Washington DC is a secret, dog-whistle political act, on the basis that the Pope will explicitly deliver a policy address on the subject of immigration on a different occasion during the same trip to the U.S.? I wish I had you for a courtroom opponent, Jim; my clients would never lose.

    Parent
    No Peter I didn't say that it is secret (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 11:09:26 AM EST
    I wrote:

    but the pope isn't "people." Everything he does is
    analyzed, scanned, discussed and diced for hidden meanings.

    I also wrote:

    He wants to encourage and influence his base and is trying to do so by doing a mass in the nation's capital in spanish.

    That he is provoking some people is a mere useful side effect.



    Parent
    And That is... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 09:13:45 AM EST
    ...if the Pope was championing right wing hackery no one in the right would give a damn if he was speaking Martianize.

    Not need to pat yourself on the back Jim, there is no one here who doesn't get what you are saying.

    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 01:27:04 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ: "[B]ut the pope isn't 'people.' Everything he does is analyzed, scanned, discussed and diced for hidden meanings."

    By you, Limbaugh and the rest of the right-wing chattering class, that's for damned sure. No doubt, you guys could find an ulterior motive in a children's Easter egg hunt.

    But for those of us who are of the Catholic faith, and for non-Catholics who choose to not live in a perpetual state of raging paranoia, the Pope's universal appeal on behalf of our common humanity isn't at all threatening.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    "Disagrees with his speaking abilities" (none / 0) (#118)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 06:30:31 PM EST
    doesn't exhibit a lot of speaking ability or meaning itself..

    And you were born in this country.

    Parent

    Try too quote accurately (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:01:07 AM EST
    And some disagree with his English speaking abilities.

    before you attack.

    Parent

    That still doesn't make sense.. (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 12:32:44 PM EST
    how do you disagree with an ability?

    Where are you from Uruguay? Maybe that's the problem.

    Parent

    jondee, quit being obtuse (1.00 / 1) (#202)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    and note the word "some."

    Parent
    Not All Spanish Speakers Understand the Pope (none / 0) (#106)
    by RickyJim on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 05:22:50 PM EST
    Pope Francis has a strong Argentinian accent and also tends to mumble.  I think he needs multiple Spanish translators to have people of Mexican, Colombian, Dominican, etc descent understand him.

    Parent
    you know I actually agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by CST on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:19:26 AM EST
    About the pope's intent and role (although I disagree about "ignoring Mexico")

    Like it or not - and in my life I have often not liked it - the pope is absolutely a political figure.  He's an international political figure.  Not just leader of a church but leader of a country as well.

    I'm pretty sure the pope's job description is "meddle in the affairs of the world".

    I'm not sure why that's all of a sudden something to complain about.

    My issues with the pope are usually about the message itself, not that he's out there spreading it.

    Parent

    How incredibly vain of you and Limbaugh ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 01:05:17 PM EST
    ... to think that His Holiness is coming to the United States specifically to enrage White Wingbat Nation by taking Mexico's side, since any such conflict between our two countries exists only in your own frenzied imaginations and fevered brains.

    Parent
    How incredibly unknowing of you (1.00 / 2) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 01:31:45 PM EST
    to think that the pope wants to enrage.

    He wants to encourage and influence his base and is trying to do so by doing a mass in the nation's capital in spanish.

    That he is provoking some people is a mere useful side effect.

    Parent

    The pope's "base".. (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 06:06:46 PM EST
    Odd choice of words.

    We're talking about a religious leader now, not some electioneering cracker demagogue barnstorming through the old confederacy..

    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 06:12:53 PM EST
    Is just pissed at the Pope because he is in on great climate change hoax.

    Parent
    Which is the bigger "sin" (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 06:17:49 PM EST
    that or that he don't talk amurican.

    Parent
    you'd go along with it too (none / 0) (#122)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 06:57:16 PM EST
    if your strings were being pulled by the Sierra Club, George Soros, and the Illuminati..

    Parent
    Yes, he is trying to encourage (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 06:09:48 PM EST
    his congregation and other Christians to live by the actual teaching of Jesus Christ rather than the gospel of people like Limbaugh who preach hate and division.

    Encouraging people to actually live by the teaching of Christ is one of the main duties of his position even if these teachings do not align with your world view.

    Parent

    It has occurred to me that what (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 06:58:07 PM EST
    riles people up is that the Pope exposes the fraudulence and hypocrisy of the brand of Christianity that is being pushed in this country.  

    As someone who isn't Catholic, and doesn't regard the Pope as "the boss of me," I can still see how threatening his message is to the likes of pundits and talking heads and radio hosts and presidential candidates who seem to want their - distorted, in my opinion - version of Christianity to be the law of the land.

    I see how threatening it is to the control these evangelical and apostolic Christians want to have over the nation's Christians.

    Because, really - isn't it all about control?

    Parent

    This quote popped up on FB today (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 07:05:42 PM EST
    "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

    ― Barry M. Goldwater



    Parent
    Seems jimmyppj is not the only one unhappy (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 06:52:34 PM EST
    Not clear how this will work.  

    A conservative revolt is brewing inside the Vatican

    Parent

    This is What Floors Me (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 09:42:01 AM EST
    Religion, no matter what they say, boils down to this, individual beliefs, not some teachings of a guy 2000 years ago or some invisible being who apparently can't put what it actually wants into words without running it through a human being 2000 years ago.

    If you are a hate filled nut job, guess what, it's right there in the Bible, god is obviously a hate filled nut job who hates queers, liberals, socialism, and at one time, black folks.

    The Pope veers off conservative talking points, doing the works of Jesus, time to call him out on his liberal agenda, demonize him, and split off into conservative dissent at the Vatican.  

    It's just shameful to watch at how all these so-called religious people try to shape & alter a book and teachings that are so obviously liberal in order to push their own personal beliefs onto the unsuspecting rubes.

    Here is an entire sect of Christianity calling another sect politically motivated, injecting themselves into politics and government, when in fact, that is all the evangelics/baptists do, every day.  It's on my TV non-stop, Kentucky being this week's Christianity ground zero, basically calling our secular government illegitimate and wanting religion to trump government over what is essentially right wing hatred wrapped up into god's hatred.

    Parent

    (Sigh!) Looks like it's boiler plate time. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 03:31:25 PM EST
    "Once again, you (a) are trafficking in misinformation; (b) don't know what you're talking about; and (c) are merely parroting the empty rhetoric of the professionally outraged GOP provocateur class."

    I have neither time nor patience for your xenophobic bigotry. Go burn your cross in someone else's front yard.

    Adiós, payaso.

    Parent

    Tonto, is a word (none / 0) (#138)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 11:31:52 PM EST
    that can be used too...

    Parent
    I love how they say (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 10:24:26 AM EST
    "He's just an entertainer" whenever Limbaugh says something particularly moronic..

    Parent
    Jeb! Labored for (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 02:01:09 PM EST
    many Days for Tony Capos, a con man who managed to receive grants from the State of Florida during Jeb's governorship.  Tony's  advance  work for Daddy Bush did not go unnoticed by the son, Jeb. who recommended  him to his father as someone who"has the skills to serve."  

    After becoming Governor of Florida, Tony proposed an historic project to honor Jeb's late grandmother, Dorothy Walker Bush, by setting up a museum in her name in a Hollywood, Fl train station and restore railway cars of the "Orange Blossom Express," Mrs. Bush used to winter in the area.  

    But, the museum was never built and the railway cars are rusting out in a Miami yard.  Tony Campos was charged with multiple felonies and accused of misusing hundreds of thousand of state  funds.  In 2013 he plead guilty to grand theft, resolving the charges with a plea agreement for probation  and payment to the state of $375,000. So far, Tony has repaid, on the convenient lay-a-way plan, $400,00--in just 900 years, at that rate, Tony will have paid off the costs to the state of his hoax.

    Jeb had to explain to detectives who interviewed him that he had no role in the state-awarded grants, and insisted that he only "superficially knew" Tony Capos. After all, he was just the governor of Florida.

    But, then there was Jeb's emails.  Yes, emails. They showed that to be a lie. But, Jeb did not  use emails only.  On one occasion Jeb responded to Tony with  a hand-written note  "what a beautiful letter you wrote me. I am passing it on to my dad."

    At one point Jeb did express concern about the project, but not enough to change much.  Writing back to Tony, Jeb said "Thanks Tony for your friendship and continued interest in solid public policy."

     Yes, solid policy. The state keep awarding  Tony grants, even amid concerns about how he was spending the money and a lock of progress on his projects.

    Personally (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 02:27:51 PM EST
    I think Hillary put all this email stuff out there herself and this is one of the reasons why. Hers is going to be cleared up, she handed the server off, the FBI is going to say there were no security problems etc. and then there's Jeb and Walker neither of which have handed any servers in and in the case of Walker hasn't even released any emails I believe.

    However at this point it seems Jeb and Walker are doing a fool's errand running for President.

    Parent

    Think again (none / 0) (#171)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:58:11 AM EST

    Storing Top Secret stuff on your private unsecured server is criminal.

    Parent
    And again, Abdul, ... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 11:14:16 AM EST
    ... this stuff is being classified retroactively by the intelligence community two-plus years ex post facto, and the State Dept. IG is taking issue with what he contends is the IC's tendency to overclassify. There is nothing criminal here, but what is thoroughly contemptible is your personal willingness to smear people without cause in the service of your own far-right crackpot politics.

    Parent
    "It takes money to steal money" (none / 0) (#131)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 08:32:38 PM EST
    - as they say in Bush-World.

    Parent
    Local color (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 09:07:48 PM EST
    talked to a friend today who wanted me to join them at "Beatles At The Ridge" next week.

    The who at the wha...?  I said.

    A quiet night in 1964 was interrupted by the unusual sound of an airliner approaching Walnut Ridge Airport. Its arrival sparked enough interest that three local teens went to investigate, only to discover John, Paul, Ringo, and George walking from the plane. The Beatles, the biggest rock band in the world, had arrived at Walnut Ridge, Arkansas.

    51 years ago next week.

    Beatles At The Ridge Music Festival

    Live n larn

    Baltimore to Pay Freddie Gray Family $6.4 Million (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:53:30 AM EST
    Baltimore has reached a tentative $6.4 million settlement with the family of a black man who died from an injury sustained while he was in police custody, city officials said on Tuesday.

    The settlement with the family of Freddie Gray will be submitted to the Baltimore Board of Estimates for a vote on Wednesday, the office of Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said in a statement.
    Beat me to this (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 11:44:31 AM EST
    I'm going to guess that this agreement comes with the standard disclaimer that the city does not admit that anyone did anything wrong.  They ALWAYS pay millions of dollars for nothing.

    They just want the victim's family to take the money and shut up.  Nothing to see here.

    Parent

    Well, in fact, a civil judgment (none / 0) (#184)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 11:54:53 AM EST
    does not speak to the criminal liability of those charged:

    David A. Harris, a University of Pittsburgh School of Law professor and an expert on police misconduct issues, said the settlement would not impact the six officers' criminal trials. It's easier for plaintiffs to prove civil liability than it is for a prosecutor to prove criminal guilt, he noted.

    But he cautioned the settlement could hinder the officers' ability to get a fair trial in Baltimore.

    "If potential jurors don't understand the distinction, and they just think the city is admitting the police officers are at fault, a judge would tell them otherwise in jury instructions," Harris said. "But a lot of folks might still carry the thought of the civil settlement with them as potential jurors. So I would expect the civil settlement to come up in defense motions for change of venue."

    As to admissions of guilt:

    The city is accepting all civil liability in Gray's arrest and death, but does not acknowledge any wrongdoing by the police, according to a statement from Rawlings-Blake's administration.

    "The proposed settlement agreement going before the Board of Estimates should not be interpreted as a judgment on the guilt or innocence of the officers facing trial," the mayor said in a statement. "This settlement is being proposed solely because it is in the best interest of the city, and avoids costly and protracted litigation that would only make it more difficult for our city to heal and potentially cost taxpayers many millions more in damages."

    Link

    I think they're cutting their losses - a federal trial with no cap could have potentially cost the taxpayers a whole lot more, on top of the cost of defending a civil suit.

    Parent

    41 Senate votes (5.00 / 3) (#208)
    by christinep on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 01:25:31 PM EST
    'Just saw that there are now 41 Senate votes (all Dems) announced in support of the proposed agreement with Iran.  The 41 should be able to prevent even a vote on the matter under Senate rules. Considering the full opposition of the Republicans and the extraordinary measures in opposition undertaken by B. Netanyahu, the success of the President's push could never be taken for granted.  (Special kudos to SOS Kerry!)

    The result: A consequential international agreement with Iran that would forestall any nuclear weapon development for at least a decade and would impose strict, verifiable monitoring ... a hard-fought achievement & worthwhile legacy for the Obama administration.

    Spygate-deflategate.. (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 03:30:30 PM EST
    The way the NFL apparently worries more about the media and fan's perceptions of the "integrity of the game" puts me in mind of the league's concussion-brain injury cover-up..and also, oddly enough, of the SECs standing down on any in-depth investigations of Wall Street investment bank practices for fear it would have an adverse effect on the market..

    Two High School Kids (none / 0) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 08:13:36 AM EST
    That through stupidity will likely never see a football field again.

    Just wow (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 08:21:46 AM EST


    Parent
    Would seem to be assault (none / 0) (#9)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 08:53:17 AM EST
    especially the player who piled on.

    Maybe a little supervised time in a county facility awaits them.

    Parent

    I am no authoritarian (none / 0) (#14)
    by smott on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 10:41:30 AM EST
    But chilling to see zero respect for officials in a HS game.
    I hope they throw the book at the kids, and the coaching staff too if they were involved.


    Parent
    Charles Pierce (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 09:06:38 AM EST
    Dear Judge Bunning: Thanks for nothing.

    Let me explain to you what happens now. The entire political communications apparatus of the wingnut welfare system goes to DefCon 1. (Judge Bunning's e-mail is going to get very entertainingly unchristian, I suspect.) Kim Davis now becomes the latest ornament on the Hang Yourself Cross of Bible-banging victimhood. There will be marches and vigils. There will be a six-figure book deal; my money's on John Fund as Davis's ghost. There may even be one of those movies produced by gullibility trawlers like the one helmed by Rick Santorum. Anybody want to bet me that she doesn't speak at next year's Republican National Convention? You have made a star, Judge Bunning, and the rest of us have to live with her.
    Just so we're clear (none / 0) (#13)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 10:30:24 AM EST
    What were Judge Bunning's options?  Jail or a fine are the only measures available to him, but the fine would have been paid by somebody else.  No one else can do Ms. Davis' jail time for her.

    Parent
    Agreed, contempt of (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 11:51:24 AM EST
    court is not something federal judges take lightly, Nor should they.  The plaintiffs asked for fines, and even presented a deal that would allow Clerk Davis to avoid the incarceration ultimately ordered by Judge Bunning--to allow those deputies who indicated to the judge that they would be willing to issue licenses to do so, without interference.  

    Clerk Davis not only rejected that deal, but claims from her jail cell that her deputies work is "not worth the paper it is printed on."  Laws of the land mean nothing to Clerk Davis, at least not when God speaks to her through her religious asceticism. Her recent zealotry of the converted to being on the straight and narrow path (both, literally), as a result of being twice born, only seems to have doubled her hatred.

    Gay men and women as well as others of concern for equality and justice managed to succeed in law, but the battle continues.  Oppressors have a way about them that gives up only with difficulty.  Or, at all.

    Clerk Davis' defiance of the law is a cancer on the law that may metastasize.   She may fancy herself as the poster girl in a jumper clinging to but a death rattle, but she needs to be campaigned against so as to pierce the potemkin piety and call out the bigotry and hypocrisy underlying her abuse of secular power on the citizens she was elected to serve.  

    Parent

    "Not worth the paper it is printed on." (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 04:01:35 PM EST
    Well, perhaps that explains why the woman hired her own son as a deputy clerk.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 06:10:51 PM EST
    she took her mothers job

    Parent
    Dynasty! (none / 0) (#141)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 08:03:22 AM EST
    Duck Hate Dynasty...

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 11:13:15 AM EST
    Pierce being Pierce.

    We wouldn't want him any other way.

    Parent

    On moving (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 09:20:15 AM EST
    i have moved so many times in my life.  Back when people kept address books it was a running joke with my friends about how many pages I had used up or how the always put me in pencil.  When I moved into this house I said I was never going to move again.  So help me god. Then CO and WA had to go and legalize pot.

    Also legal in Oregon, my friend. (none / 0) (#19)
    by caseyOR on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 11:54:12 AM EST
    And the cost of living is a bit less in Portland than either Seattle and Denver.

    Parent
    Per fishcamp (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 12:37:20 PM EST
    i may be communicating with you about that

    Parent
    Have you ruled out WA? (none / 0) (#20)
    by jmacWA on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 12:05:11 PM EST
    I didn't pick up on the fact that your move was to get to a "pot legal" state.  Unless you really like the cold weather you will see in CO, you should not rule out WA, although further north the weather can be much milder, particularly around the Puget sound.  I would look at places on the Kitsap peninsula you can get quite rural and yet still be fairly convenient to Seattle/Tacoma.

    Parent
    Very much considering WA (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 12:38:13 PM EST
    i love rainy day and I have friends there.  Thanks

    Parent
    Rainfall (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jmacWA on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 12:55:59 PM EST
    Annual rainfall in Seattle < NYC :)

    Parent
    WA is on my list for retirement spots (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 06:54:47 AM EST
    Spent lots of time in the San Juans for work and fell in love.  I think I could handle the dark winters.

    Parent
    Dark Winters (none / 0) (#39)
    by jmacWA on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 07:46:32 AM EST
    I lived on Bainbridge Island for 6 years, and although the rep of the Seattle area is rain, I found the dark winters more of an issue.  The payoff for the dark (and somewhat moist) winters is the beautiful summers.  Nice warm temps and low humidity.  Best summer weather of anywhere I have ever lived.

    Parent
    I lived in the suburb Redmond (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 12:40:18 PM EST
    for 4 and a half years.... Loved every minute of it but one year I was out of town for a week and missed summer.......

    Parent
    New (none / 0) (#12)
    by FlJoe on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 09:33:39 AM EST
    Iowa/NH poll. Only real news is Kasich having a mini surge to second in NH. Bush and Walker continue to crater, Hillary's struggles/ Bernie's steady rise continues.

    Anomalisa (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 07:39:20 PM EST
    one of my friends worked on this

    Charlie Kaufman teams with stop-motion whiz Duke Johnson to bring his conceptual stageplay to life, resulting in another uniquely cerebral yet satisfying bout of self-analysis.
    I know you aren't a Jack Black fan (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 08:38:00 PM EST
    But if you haven't seen D Train, you gotta see it. Josh and I couldn't stop laughing. Oliver Lawless is in all of us.

    Parent
    More bad news for Hillary (none / 0) (#30)
    by ragebot on Sun Sep 06, 2015 at 08:35:48 PM EST
    Another poll shows Hillary dropping in the polls.  NBC/Marist poll shows Hillary behind in NH and losing to both Trump and Bush in the general.  Biden also loses but by less than Hillary.

    As I have posted earlier this seems to be a trend.  My two cents is Hillary needs to take Christie's advice and hold a press conference taking questions till the press gets tired of asking questions.  Silly answers like 'did I wipe the server with a cloth' won't help.  She needs to address things like why her employee is taking the 5th and why she paid to have the server's hard drive wiped if she expects to stop the bleeding.

    NBC/Marist Poll link

    This is (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 04:27:38 AM EST
    the talking point from the wingnut welfare brigade. I guess NH is the only state that matters anymore.

    And yes, she absolutely should listen to someone who is polling 10th in the GOP primary as to what to do/snark.

    Parent

    It is getting old (none / 0) (#66)
    by ragebot on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 01:09:48 PM EST
    reading response to my posts that claim they are "wingnut welfare brigade" "talking points".  Especially when they are linked to very mainstream media sources like USA Today, NYT, WaPo, and the like.

    It is becoming more obvious that Hillary has a big problem with PR that seems to be self inflicted.  The MSM is doing nothing more than reporting Hillary's tanking poll numbers and providing well reasoned explanations.

    As others have pointed out Christie's advice about having a press conference till the reporters got tired of asking questions would go a long way to put an end to the email mess. Not to mention Christie was not the only one who gave Hillary this advice, some big time dems also said Hillary needs to clear the air by answering all the questions reporters throw at her instead of brushing them off. Instead Hillary just seems to be throwing gas on the flames with silly answers.

    If Hillary does not do something soon to stop the bleeding it may be too late.

    Parent

    Do you (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 02:04:42 PM EST
    know that she is leading in every state except New Hampshire? Apparently not. And the wingnut welfare brigade extends into op eds in newspapers which I guess you do not realize.

    The press and you apparently are still stuck in the 2008 narrative that she possibly can't win the nomination in 2016 because she didn't win it in 2008. The press has even admitted they are "tired" of reporting on her and want "someone" new which is pretty sad for most of the voters out there.

    I'll just be glad when the voting happens so that you can quit all your wishful thinking.

    Parent

    What's getting old, ragebot, ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 01:33:41 PM EST
    ... is your obvious concern trolling.

    Parent
    Guess Donald thinks (none / 0) (#84)
    by ragebot on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 02:34:51 PM EST
    the MSM is trolling by taking polls that show Hillary tanking in the polls and now losing to Donald nationwide and Bernie in NH.  Not to mention she is losing ground to Bernie in many states.  Also she is losing to Donald worse than Biden is losing to Donald nationwide.

    All the latest polls are showing Hillary's poll numbers are going from bad to worse.

    What I am doing is not trolling, it is simply stating facts that Hillary's fanboys don't like.  Time for them to wake up and smell the coffee.

    Parent

    No, regebot, it means that ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 02:46:38 PM EST
    ... I think you are concern trolling. Period.

    Parent
    Whether YOU believe that ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 02:55:24 PM EST
    ... you aren't concern trolling is entirely irrelevant. What matters is what others think. Further, what you've been doing here for several days now with regards to Mrs. Clinton is in fact the textbook definition of a concern troll.

    Parent
    What matters (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by ragebot on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 05:39:17 PM EST
    is what Jerlyn thinks.

    I doubt anyone would think I am offering advice on what Hillary needs to do.

    What I have been posting is that she is tanking in the polls and it is getting worse.

    The only "advice" I have offered is to repeat Christie's advice that Hillary should hold a press conference and answer questions till reporters get tired of asking them, something Christie did, with the result that reporters no longer ask Christie questions on the topic of bridges being closed.

    I am not sure that would do any good in Hillary's case because I am not sure there are any good answers to why Hillary set up her own email server the way she did, why she had so many folks working for the SD while also working for the Clinton Foundation, why she kept Sid on the payroll contrary to what Obama seemed to want and why she had the server wiped (not to mention her snide answer about wiping the server with a cloth).  Does anyone really believe someone would hire pros to wipe emails about yoga and family pix?

    I originally came to this site because it was one of the better sources about the 'he who shall not be named trial'.  Jerlyn did impose some restrictions on where comments on that trial could and could not be posted but there was a very robust exchange with both sides being aired.

    I have noted multiple attempts to shut down sever long time posters who do not seem to be in the Hillary camp.  Sanders supporters have been bashed for suggesting he is a legit alternative.  Mostly the same for Biden's possible run which is quickly described as a figment of imagination.

    Far too often I view many of your posts as trying to force TL into being an echo chamber for certain view points.

    One time in particular I posted dem voting districts are concentrated in cities where it is common for 70,80, or 90+ of the district voting for dems resulting in dilution of their vote while repub districts often are much more competitive with 50+ of the votes for repubs.

    You bashed me for this and several long time posters here bashed you back pointing out that in general dem  are in favor of more competitive districts.

    I have no dog in the fight for the dem nomination.  But do think it is interesting that the latest polls show Hillary being less competitive than Biden.  You stick your head in the sand and ignore this at your own peril.

    Parent

    Have you considered, or asked why (5.00 / 6) (#125)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 07:08:32 PM EST
    it is that these polls that are Iowa-specific, or NH-specific, are being treated as if they represent the net national picture?

    You might want to think about that.

    As for Hillary just making herself available to the media to ask questions until they run out of questions to ask, I don't think they would - run out of questions, that is.  I don't think they would ever be satisfied with any of her answers, ever.  

    The thing you have to keep in mind is that for the most part, the media's not really all that interested in answers to questions, it's interested in keeping things stirred up, keeping the drama going.  

    While not all that excited about a Clinton candidacy, I can still see that the rules are different for her - they always have been.  The general unfairness of that irks the crap out of me, as does the general dishonesty of a media that isn't really interested in the facts as much as it is interested in manipulating the public.

    She's damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't - and the media's just fine with that.

    Parent

    The myth of the elusive one great press conference (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by mm on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 07:39:12 PM EST
    One of the most durable myths concerning the Clintons and the many people who have made it their life's work to pursue them is the myth of the One Great Press Conference. I heard it rehearsed last night somewhere on the electric teevee machine. If, for example, Hillary Rodham Clinton were to have one press conference where she sat and answered every question from every reporter, then this whole e-mail problem would go away. This is, of course, all my bollocks. If HRC did this, the press conference would "raise more questions than it answered." Nobody who is in pursuit of her for the purposes of demolishing her candidacy would stop for a second. The pursuit of a Clinton makes for terrific television and a compelling "narrative," and that is all that matters. Besides, if reporters are willing to fatten their stories with enough fudge, there's no reason to believe that it is in anyone's interest to stop
    By Charles P. Pierce

    Parent
    The (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 08:04:45 AM EST
    Marist poll is "bad" for Clinton, but not unexpected. On the other hand the news for Walker and Bush is positively tragic.
    The head to head matchups are a bit suspect as they may have oversampled Republicans.
    he NBC/Marist poll of Iowa was conducted Aug. 26-Sept. 2 of 998 registered voters (margin of error +- 3.1 percentage points), 390 potential GOP caucus-goers (+- 5.0) and 345 potential Democratic caucus-goers (+- 5.3).
     New Hampshire was conducted Aug. 26-Sept. 2 of 966 registered voters (+    - 3.2%), 413 potential GOP primary voters (+- 4.8) and 356 potential Democratic primary (+- 5.2).  
    In any case IA and NH are both tiny demographic outliers.

    I think Hillary is wisely avoiding answering in any detail at this time. She is 6 weeks out from facing Trey Gowdy, in the Mitchell interview she seemed to hint that only then will she reveal all.

    You can bet your bottom dollar that Hillary's campaign has Oct. 22 circled in red. The clueless media will figure it out soon enough and start promoting it as a "main event".

    I'll put my money on Hillary.


    Parent

    it's (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 08:44:02 AM EST
    going to be must watch TV for a lot of people. You're going to see on of the top lawyers in the country square off against the bojo second rate prosecutor from Souse Caroliner who happened to graduate from one of the worst law schools in the country. The press has not even gotten into how bad he is so a lot of people are going to be taken by surprise.

    Parent
    I don't see (none / 0) (#45)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 09:16:37 AM EST
    Where you determine that Gowdy is/was second rate.

    He clerked for a US District Court judge, and spent 6 years as a federal prosecutor. Those are not jobs given to second rate prosecutors.

    Well, we will see in 6 weeks.

    Parent

    Gowdy (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 11:05:48 AM EST
    went to the probably the worst if not one of the worst law schools in the nation. It's no secret. And yes, George W. Bush gave a lot of jobs to incompetent people especially in the prosecutor department. You do realize that is an appointed job don't you? Or maybe not. I'm not sure wingnut welfare would tell you that kind of thing.

    Parent
    GA (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 08:51:10 AM EST
    I'm not sure what you think a "federal prosecutor" is.  Trevor is right - thecUS Attorney for each district is appointed, but all the Assistant US Attorneys (AUSA) - also known as "federal prosecutors" are hired. You can find job postings for them on USAJobs.com and other job sites. They remain in their positions through presidential administration changes, much like civil servants, and in ke US Attorneys.

    Are there "political" hires?  Sure - just like every other job - if you know the boss or have someone thing in common, you're much more likely to get a job than if you are an outsider. But generally, to be an AUSA, you have to be a licensed attorney in good standing with at least 3 years litigation or criminal prosecution/defense work, and have good courtroom skills and legal research and writing skills.

    (For many administrative purposes, AUSA' don't even report to the USA - they report to the Executive Office of US Attorneys in DC).

    And for the record - most lawyers did not go to top tier law schools.  That doesn't mean they are all stupid or bad at their jobs.

    Parent

    US News (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 09:50:08 AM EST
    and world reports had dropped them into the bottom third of law schools I believe it was.

    Gowdy though is what we used to call a bojo back when I lived in upstate SC. He's a fundamentalist radical who has no allegiance to the truth and is all about "lying for Jesus". He's desperately trying to make a name for himself but mostly failing however failure will not keep him off the wingnut welfare circuit. He never seems to have really distinguished himself in legal profession.

    Parent

    For example (none / 0) (#145)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 09:12:03 AM EST
    Without knowing the rankings when they went to law school, South Carolina is #95.  For comparison, Joe Biden went to Syracuse, and it's #87.  

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#58)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 12:26:06 PM EST
    The US Attorney for each District is appointed, the federal prosecutors hired in the individual units undergo serious competition for their jobs, they are not appointed, they are hired by the US Attorney for that District.

    I do not consider the "pedigree" schools a guarantee of a good lawyer. A pedigree law school just helps elevate one into the 1%.
    I am open minded and realize that not all can afford the best schools, and you can get quality people from almost any school.

    That being said, it appears South Carolina Law is middle of the class, I do not see "worst law school" in its numbers.

    http://tinyurl.com/oqn5emv

    Parent

    Federal (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 01:15:46 PM EST
    prosecutors are appointed and that is what he was. Strom Thurmond probably recommended him. Everything he had done in life with the exception of the successful prosecution of one case has been rife with cronyism. You are completely wrong. Here's the link

    University of SC Law is a bottom third tier law school in the country link

    It's reputation has been poor for most of its existence.

    If you can't figure out that Trey Gowdy is not too bright by just seeing him in action then you really must not have watched very closely. Nevertheless I'm willing to bet Hillary is a much better lawyer than Gowdy ever thought to be. But then again, wingnut welfare usually doesn't produce too much in the brains department.

    Parent

    I will try once again (none / 0) (#72)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 01:38:48 PM EST
    The Southern District of NY, the US Attorney is appointed, correct. All of the Assistant US attorneys, the ones that actually prosecute the cases are hired by the Southern District, they are NOT appointed.
    Trey Gowdy was a Assistant US attorney for the District of South Carolina, he was HIRED, not appointed.
    This is not a difficult concept.

    From your link
    Working as an assistant U.S. attorney might help a lawyer become a federal prosecutor, since the assistant positions are not appointed positions.

    http://tinyurl.com/nzopqch

    http://tinyurl.com/pdvukqx

    Parent

    You may want to look into the reality (none / 0) (#76)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    and practice of hiring AUSAs in certain areas.  Under the Bush administration and his Attorney General, there was more than a sniff of real scandal about hiring practice.  Let me suggest that you might want to look into how "qualified" stands up against "qualified."  Take a gander at how individuals who pass the general "qualified" test can be (and often are) brought on board when it is discerned that it is a matter of "like minds" and "like experience."

    As one whose legal career was in the federal employ--as attorney & manager--kindly regard this only as a tip. Further, I sayeth naught :)

    Parent

    Your (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 02:15:32 PM EST
    link is for Assistant US Attorney which is not what Gowdy was. He was a federal prosecutor which according to the link above is an appointed position.

    Trey Gowdy says nothing about him being a US Assistant Attorney and all the links I found said he was a federal prosecutor which is an appointed position. You must be getting confused about him being solicitor general which is an elected office.

    Anyway it seems you're not able to debate that he went to a bad law school and that he did not distinguish himself in any way. He's been living on wingnut welfare and cronyism it seems almost his entire career.

    Parent

    Lol, I give up (none / 0) (#83)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 02:33:42 PM EST
    You can lead the horse to water,

    An Assistant US Attorney is a federal prosecutor

    South Carolina is not a bad law school, and as you feel a federal prosecutor and Assistant US Attorney are not the same, I will feel safe not taking your word for it.

    SOUTH CAROLINA LEADERSHIP
    Trey Gowdy
    CONGRESSMAN | @TGowdySC

    GOWDY, Trey, a Representative from South Carolina; born in Greenville, Greenville County, S.C., August 22, 1964; graduated from Spartanburg High School, Spartanburg, S.C., 1982; B.A., Baylor University, Waco, Texas, 1986; J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law, Columbia, S.C., 1989; lawyer, private practice; clerk, South Carolina Court of Appeals; clerk, United States District Court; assistant U. S. attorney, 1994-2000; solicitor, Seventh Judicial Circuit, 2001-2010; elected as a Republican to the One Hundred Twelfth and to the two succeeding Congresses (January 3, 2011-present); chair, Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi (One Hundred Thirteenth Congress).

    Parent

    It is still (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 02:43:46 PM EST
    an appointment position link

    And btw a prosecutor and an assistant attorney are considered one and the same.

    Just another example of wingnut welfare for one of the laziest men in the US congress these days.

    Parent

    I think I will go with the (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 03:14:39 PM EST
    American Bar Association over the Houston Chronicle, and I'd suggest you do, too.

    I also think you're getting trapped in the terminology, and it's making you look silly.  And stubborn.  You're starting to sound like jim.

    And as an aside, it's possible that in general, your arguments would get more traction if they didn't read like talking points and bumper stickers.

    Parent

    Ga6th: To add to your response here (none / 0) (#98)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 03:42:41 PM EST
    <Even tho I told myself to say no more about real-life and hiring attorneys in the government> it is important to realize that the classification of an Attorney position in the federal employ--including AUSAs--falls under what is termed an "Excepted position."  As a Schedule A position, the hiring process is not subject to the stricter Civil Service requirements for hiring and firing regularly scheduled personnel ... and, while not completely at the pleasure of the President and delegated authorities as in the political appointment Plum Book category, Schedule A allows for entry in an easier manner.  

    My personal message on the matter: While the most important aspect of nominations/appointments and some related hires concerns the Supreme Court, the levels of political appointments under the auspices of the Executive can be instrumental in ensuring that the planned policies are implemented.  In all this, hiring at the "assistant" level oft times has a subjective base when sorting through the large pool of those found "qualified" ... and, a number of those positions at the sub-appointment level have been/can be classified as Schedule C (aka "political" deputy.)  

    You are on the right track about the Gowdy background path.

    Parent

    Yes, he was (none / 0) (#189)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 12:28:26 PM EST
    Gowdy was an AUSA.  End of story.

    Parent
    While AUSAs are not patronage per se, ... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 03:18:24 PM EST
    ... their hiring is at the sole discretion of those who do occupy positions of patronage. That's just the way it is.

    Now, the concept of political patronage itself is neither good nor bad. Rather, it's what an elected official chooses to do with that privilege at a particular moment, which can often render it a real crapshoot from a public perspective.

    Over the course my own years in politics, I've seen elected officials exercise their powers of patronage with remarkable discretion and even wisdom to make inspiring appointments. But I've also seen them abuse the privilege through their appointment of cronies and even relatives, who otherwise have no qualifications to be holding those posts. And sometimes, I've seen them do both simultaneously.

    In that regard, it's pretty clear that as far as the Bush administration's hiring practices were concerned, partisan politics and political ideology were at the forefront of their considerations, and that Trey Gowdy was a beneficiary of that particular philosophy.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Much worse for Walker (none / 0) (#43)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 08:22:53 AM EST
    Than Bush.

    Financially Bush can withstand some early losses,
    I am guessing he figures if it comes down to either him or Trump, he will come out on top.
    Perhaps, lol.

    I believe Kasich actually has a similar governing platform as Bush, but without the anchor of the Bush name.
    He would do much better head to head against Trump

    Parent

    My problem (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 01:59:51 PM EST
    with candidate Clinton has nothing whatsoever to do with the email maelstrom.

    Andrea Mitchell asked Bernie Sanders whether he thought that Clinton had compromised national security. Thankfully, he told her to stuff it... well not exactly... he said he would not participate in a Clinton-bashing scenario - Mitchell's forte.

    That made me realize that I couldn't care less about this email thing. Even if she compromised national security - whatever the hell that is. That term has been so bandied about - to protect every elected official who has been caught lining their pockets...and to take away our rights... In any case, I'm not the least bit interested.

    Having said that, my problem with Clinton is, first and foremost, her vote giving Bush the go-ahead to trip the light fantastic in Iraq.
    Sure, she said she was, "wrong"... but that tells me nothing. She could have been one of the few that was right. There were hundreds of thousands of Americans who knew better - and took to the streets - and wrote letters and made phone calls. I was one of them. To no avail. I even called Clinton's office - she was my Senator at the time - and told the person answering that if she were to vote for the resolution I would never vote for her for anything. I have not found a reason to go back on that pledge.

    But - even deeper than that is her inability to speak in plain language. I prefer someone like Jesse Ventura. Even Trump holds my attention more than Clinton. I can hardly sit through any of her interviews. Sometimes - as with that abomination of an interview with Andrea Mitchell, I think she desperately needs a Key and Peele anger translator.

    I know she is highly intelligent - and a good person - but I just can't listen to her for long.

    I think that others may have that same problem with her - and it is important when there are a few in the race who can talk. Sanders sometimes talks in his campaign sloganese, but there is more spontaneity there than I experience with Clinton.

    Right now - the race I would like to see is between Trump and Sanders. Both of them have, it seems to me, shaken up the political parties. And those parties have desperately needed some shaking up.

    Parent

    That's (none / 0) (#96)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 03:29:22 PM EST
    a whole lot of words to say you dislike Hillary because of a mistake she made 12 years ago and you don't like the way she talks.

    Don't feel alone though, most criticism of Hillary usually falls along such superficial lines.

    You seem to put a premium on "spontaneity" in the candidates, sounds like another superficial weasel word like "authenticity" to me. We all know where that leads.

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 03:54:54 PM EST
    may consider the "mistake" she made in voting for the Iraq resolution, and what I experience as her inability to just talk as, "superficial". I do not.

    We all make mistakes, but in order not to repeat those mistakes I believe that we have to come to terms with, to analyze honestly, what motivated us to make that mistake. I do not believe that she has done so.

    And as for abilities to speak directly and honestly - letting people know how she feels about an issue - without our having to watch the wheels turning in her head - calling that superficial is... rather superficial imo.


    Parent

    To expand (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 05:23:57 PM EST
    a bit further...

    These candidates - all of them - are in the process of selling us something. Their candidacy for a job.

    If you were in the process of buying a car, I believe you would seek out a salesperson who had not previously touted what turned out to be a lemon - especially a lemon that had a lethal defect that wound up killing thousands.

    I also believe that if you were in the process of buying a car, and you asked the salesperson something about the way it drives, or its mileage, or how long it goes without the necessity of a repair, and the salesperson gave you an answer that felt like a recitation from a sales manual, you might say thank you and go elsewhere.

    Or you were looking to purchase a house - and you inquired of the agent, or the owner, something about the structural integrity of the foundation, or the existence of radon, or termites --- and received an answer that seemed to cloak some reality - rather than an answer that gave you the sense that you were being answered honestly and completely ... you might think twice before buying.

    So, for me, the quality of openness is not something superficial. It is how I judge things. By how they feel.

    Parent

    The eye of the beholder (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 06:40:35 PM EST
    Some people sell themselves better than others.  The quality of sounding sincere--yes, "sounding"--can be a prized talent for politicians & actors.  Many, many people thought that Reagan sounded and looked sincere, honest.

    It is one thing to make a decision not to forgive, but it is quite another, isn't it, to be taken in by someone(s) sound and by our reception of that sound.  More than subjective. Scary.  Demagogues, past & present, sound sincere ... they play on emotions. I'm guessing that you know that. Relying on "spontaneity" is like relying on W's "bring 'em on" talk.

    Inability to forgive--especially as a mantra--ultimately is a paralytic of our mind and heart.
    Good luck to you, lentinel, in finding your way forward.  (All I can say now is that Trump's appeal to frustration ... the so-called spontaneity or whatever ... is nothing new.  It is as old as Machiavelli's demagogic hills.

    Parent

    An inability to forgive? (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 07:11:23 AM EST
    Are you kidding?

    I forgive her.

    I forgive Kerry.

    I forgive the guy who tried to sell me a house with some undisclosed defects.

    I forgive all of them.

    As for the ability to distinguish between someone who sounds sincere, and someone who actually is sincere - that is something that people are born with.  Young children, in my experience, have no difficulty in responding to authenticity.

    It is only later in life - when we learn, when we are taught, to use our brains to overlook things, to ignore warning signs, in order to accommodate what we perceive as our best interests, that we wind up with charlatans leading us.

    I must admit, Christine, that it is tiresome that you, like others, resort to ad hominem invective - attacking my mind and heart - (!) - instead of simply stating a contracting opinion of the subject at hand.

    You trust and like Clinton? Vote for her. Work for her. No prob.

    Parent

    Seems to me there were a whole lot (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 08:22:38 AM EST
    of people who responded to the sounds Barack Obama was making back in 2008.  His message of hope and change, of yes-we-can, outweighed the little experience he actually had.  It was fresh, it was new, it was energizing.  People read "sincere" into it.

    It was his sound.  

    Did all that sound translate into policy?  Uh...not exactly.  Which is not to say he hasn't, finally, begun to make some progress in areas we needed progress to be made, but you can't honestly say that his sound in 2008 didn't lead people to expect more, sooner.

    And what of the sincerity of "transparency?"  Of "accountability?"  I can't speak for anyone else, but I think the people got okey-doked on that one.  And it's not the only area where people got something less than what his sincere sound suggested.

    So, I think perhaps, christine, you need to take the blinders off for just a bit.  I promise, you can still be a devoted Clinton supporter - you just have to acknowledge that the things you find easy to justify or explain or forgive are the things that others can't not take into consideration when weighing the level of their support.

    Call us cynical or jaded.  Or even overly pessimistic.  It's okay - we've heard it before.  We understand that you don't think we put these things into the proper perspective, that we don't have our priorities in line with the ones you believe will best serve us.  It doesn't make us bad people, it doesn't mean we care less about our country, or the direction it's going, or that we're not paying attention to what the dangers are from the other side of the aisle.

    I like to think that supporting a candidate is a cooperative endeavor, one that requires the candidate to respond to the people and the direction they want to go, as opposed to the people having to just line up and accept whatever it is the candidate says or does.  That's why many of us are happy to see Sanders in the race, because he has the ability to pull Clinton to the left.  My fear is that she goes to the left just for the votes, and then pivots back to the center and becomes something akin to a Rockefeller Republican in the general election campaign.

    Is a Rockefeller Republican with a (D) after her name better than anything the GOP has to offer?  Hell, yes - but that doesn't mean we can't still work to shape the candidate we want, rather than submit to accepting the candidate we get.

    We'll see where all this is headed soon enough, I guess.  In the meantime, I think it's a good idea not to scold people for their doubts, but to see them as signs that maybe more work needs to be done.

    Parent

    In 2008 (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by christinep on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 09:59:35 AM EST
    I strongly supported Hillary Clinton during her campaign. The reason then & now: Experience and years of dedication as a public servant on her part.

    As a supporter of the Democratic Party during my lifetime, I supported Barack Obama ... and, in the following years, I have genuinely come to regard highly his ability to provide what he promised.  The changes may not be complete nor to the total level that you might want to see; nonetheless, in the context of what Presidents can and do deliver, the extent of positive (albeit, in some cases, incremental) change is almost without parallel. BTW, it wasn't his "sound" that I heard--because it was primarily stylistic--it was the positions that align with democratic policy that garnered my deeper support.

    As I've suggested over the years, President Obama and his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have different styles. We all know that.  Most of us also understand that the positions they proffer are fairly close.  

    As for my comment above: It was not meant to address mere style and the differences in style that all people and politicians have. Rather, the comment stemmed from <what appeared to me> lentinel's stated internal conflict about wishing to forgive HRC for a significant vote a dozen years ago ... as well as from the coupling of that resolve with his focus on what he terms "spontaneity" (or genuineness) from, say, the likes of Donald Trump.  After privately sputtering on this side of the computer over such a take on genuineness, I commented about how emotional delivery can be a classic staple of a demagogue.

    I believe that Donald Trump is strategically, deliberately employing a demagogic approach.  That is different than a passionate style in the delivery of positions in that Trump is employing the tested fear-based energy--without content other than "rounding up" immigrants--to shut down any discussion.  

    My physical eyes may be weak, but I am not blind. How is your perception, Anne!  

    Parent

    I watched that vote go down (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:30:32 AM EST
    With intensity. I listened to what both she and Kerry said about making those votes too. People can go ahead and claim they voted for the Iraq War, but they did not vote for what Bush did. Anyone who listened to their statements knows that. Everyone can be upset that they trusted the Bush administration, and that's fine. They gave Bush the AUMF to use as leverage to ensure that the Saddam regime was WMD free, and they got taken to the cleaners.

    My family really got taken to the cleaners though, and I would think that if I understood the nuances of the votes they made maybe someone with less family skin in that mess would too. Sigh....but I guess not.

    If this comes down to who is more anti-war, Bernie or Hillary, Bernie voted utterly and completely for war when he voted that we bomb Yugoslavia and Kosovo. That wasn't a leverage to send inspectors in vote, that was a no mistake here bombing Yugoslavia and Kosovo vote.

    Parent

    I get it. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 07:37:41 PM EST
    Unlike the many fanboys here, I am not at all enamored with Mrs. Clinton. I would prefer almost any other Democrat than her. Though I share Jeralyn's misgivings and opinions of Joe Biden. I can't support Joe anymore than HRC.

    Everything you've written about HRC I agree with. I just don't like her. Her Iraq vote, her non-answers and flippant attitudes. She was a carpetbagger when she ran in New York and I didn't like that either.

    Parent

    We (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 08:21:29 PM EST
    all get it, but "I just don't like her" makes for poor political discourse. If I wanted personality politics I would just turn on some random cable news network.

    Parent
    You obviously failed to read past that statement. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 08:30:43 AM EST
    I then enumerated some of the reasons I don't like her.

    Let's see her be brave. Make a statement on furthering Obama's opening of diplomatic relations with Cuba. How about a statement promising to stop the insane war on drugs (the American people). Promise to get marijuana off Schedule I. These are real issues in the U.S. Not emails, not immigration (more people have been deported by Obama than anyone and the border patrol has swelled its ranks). But she won't. She doesn't have the stones. She is a tired old "law and order" Democrat. Afraid of "looking soft" to right wingers.

    Parent

    I can read (none / 0) (#158)
    by FlJoe on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:29:48 AM EST
    the reasons you enumerated were:

    1. I don't like her- purely a personal emotional feeling

    2. Her Iraq vote- a legitimate gripe in my opinion, but one that long ago reached dead equine status.

    3. Her flippant attitude- again a rather subjective and personal opinion.

    4. She's a carpetbagger- that's just pure name calling.

    I do applaud your latest post as you do start to bring up the issues, which is really what we should be talking about. To tell you the truth I do not see eye to eye with her on all issues, I can say that about all the candidates.

    I really never expect to see the "perfect" candidate and anybody who expects one is a dreamer.

    Parent

    Whatever. (none / 0) (#168)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:55:11 AM EST
    I'm not looking for perfect. Just better than Hillary Clinton.


    Parent
    Good (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by FlJoe on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 11:14:16 AM EST
    luck with your search. All I was trying to say is "spontaneity" does not equal "better".

    Parent
    I (4.00 / 3) (#110)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 06:01:41 PM EST
    never said the vote was superficial, just your seeming unwillingness to accept an apology and forgive a mistake that she and many others made(including many past and present Democratic leaders).

    Your demand for spontaneity from a sinks to the level of the "tabloid" political punditry that is perverting the process.

    It's the same old meme, Hillary as the cold calculating beast. If you can't attack her on the issues could you at least come up with some new  material.

    Parent

    Below, (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 06:24:47 PM EST
    I attempted to answer you as if you were in the process of exchanging opinions.

    But the diatribe you just wrote is just a personal attack, and doesn't even relate to what I wrote.

    I am not demanding anything of Hillary Clinton, or anyone else.

    I am simply stating why I do not respond to her, even though I might wish to.

    The foul rhetoric, "cold calculating beast", is your own... and you are welcome to it.

    Parent

    Yeah, sure, she needs to listen to Chris Christie. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 12:56:57 AM EST
    That's pretty funny. Even so, don't quit your day job just yet.

    Parent
    Bridgegate (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 07:40:29 AM EST
    Not to mention Bridgegate.  Someone should ask Christie how that worked out for him.

    Parent
    That was Bridgegate (none / 0) (#42)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 08:11:11 AM EST
    And Christie's handling of it, and the press was letter perfect.

    Christie had a press conference which did not end until the reporters ran out of things to ask.

    He answered every question they could think of

    Parent

    Which one? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 09:50:59 AM EST
    The Dec. 2, 2013 conference where he claimed his staff wasn't involved and it was all politics, making jokes about "working the cones"?  That would be the same conference where he announced the immediate resignations of Baroni and Wildstein, while insisting they had nothing to do with it.  Or the one a month later when the emails came out showing his claims were completely false, and he spent two hours essentially saying "It was them, not me".  This was immediately after the emails became public and the press had little information upon which to base questions, other than the little information contained in the emails.  Since that time, he's had no press conferences on the issue and has only answered questions with (paraphrasing) "I had no knowledge.  It wasn't me".

    You realize the press (or the criminal investigation by the US Attorney) hasn't let up simply because he had that press conference, don't you?

    Parent

    Either one (none / 0) (#49)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 10:43:38 AM EST
    Even the press corp shook their heads in amazement,

    He stayed up on the podium until they ran out of questions

    He didn't run away saying

    "Only you guys care about this"

    Or

    "Wiped? With a cloth?"

    Parent

    Christie investigated himself (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by mm on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 11:02:40 AM EST
    and found himself innocent.

    Hired a crony law office, sent an $8 million dollar bill to the citizens of New Jersey, and now the law firm says they have no notes from their interviews.

    Yeah, that Christie is a real champ.

    "Gibson Dunn's apparent representation to the USAO (United States Attorneys Office) that it did not have or retain notes of interviews that were conducted during Gibson Dunn's 'investigation,' despite the existence of an ongoing federal Grand Jury investigation and a specific subpoena to the Governor's Office for information related to the reduction of lanes at the George Washington Bridge, is troublesome to say the least," Critchley writes.

    On the day Kelly pleaded not guilty to her role in the lane closures, Critchley said he wanted taped interviews, which would accurately represent the viewpoint of witnesses who may testify against his client at trial.

    "If you wanted to get it right, hopefully you did it right," Critchley said outside the federal courthouse on May 4. "You didn't charge the citizens of the state of New Jersey $8 million to get it wrong, to have us rely on your memory. Just press the button that says on."



    Parent
    Puh-leeeze (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 03:14:06 PM EST
    He stayed up on the podium until they ran out of questions

    "Shut up and sit down!" is not usually considered an "answer."

    Do you actually ADMIRE this corrupt buffoon?  

    Parent

    Sigh (none / 0) (#94)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 03:26:43 PM EST
    Why can't anyone here deal with simple facts, and not veer off .

    I didn't say anything of the sort.

    Did you even see the press conference in question?

    He never said sit down and shut up.

    The whole point was originally brought up regarding Hillary and her incremental admissions, and avoidance of the press. It was stated that she would have done herself good if she handled the e mail's back in March as Christie handled his Bridgegate press conference.
    He was calm, professional, and stood there until the press could not think of another thing to ask him, other than what he had for breakfast.
    It has been stated that that was a blueprint on how to address the press when confronted with an issue.
    And that was the ONLY point made, no one said anything regarding Christies prior dealings with the press,
    All that was said is that Hillary should have emulated Christies approach back in March, she might have saved herself a lot of grief.
    Good grief!

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#105)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 04:48:07 PM EST
    are the one who keeps insisting that Christie's bluster, bravado and prevarications were somehow successful, when all indications his name is of Mud to a great deal of the country, Republicans included, and large majorities NJ residents.

    If Hillary were to have a presser using CC's "blueprint" she would be toast.

    She did explain herself in the spring when she told the truth by saying it was legal and not unprecedented, I really can't see what more she could actually say.

    Eghazi was actually starting to fade away until the FOIA ignited a bureaucratic spat and the unfortunate, unprofessional reporting that followed.

    I am doubtful the press is even capable of asking the correct questions much less understanding the detailed and nuanced answers.

     With four months to go before the first vote she can still afford to choose her time and place to finally confront this issue with all her strength.

    Hello Capitol Hill.

    Parent

    Hillary can't do a Christie (1.00 / 1) (#149)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 09:47:16 AM EST
    because we all know she has been lying.

    BTW - Just out. Classified emails were sent to and were stored on her private server which was stored in an insecure location.

    That is a violation or a hundred or so.

    Parent

    Just in (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 09:52:08 AM EST
    The State Department still disagrees that these "new" findings were classified.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 09:54:29 AM EST
    it's all about them fighting over an email here and email there.

    Parent
    If I heard correctly these are new and were marked (none / 0) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:56:31 AM EST
    Classified before they were sent.

    So who sent them? That's a violation.

    Why did Hillary allow them to be stored while saying nothing? That is a violation.

    Parent

    You didn't - (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by mm on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 11:17:51 AM EST
    hear correctly.  

    All this is about is that another agency - National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is agreeing with the IC IG that the information in several emails sent to Secretary Clinton should have been classified.  

    They are playing word games here.  Saying, "It was classified at the time it was sent" sounds like they are saying they were marked classified, but that is not what they are saying.

    Let me assure you, if there were emails on her server that were really and truly marked "Classifed, Top Secret", this would be a front page story in the NY Times, not some minor article in the Politics section of the paper.

    Parent

    Or a rumor (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 11:22:40 AM EST
    spread by a blog troll

    Parent
    Jim (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 09:53:03 AM EST
    that's the same story that has been debunked time and again though I'm sure you'll still believe it. It's just yet another email that the IG doesn't want you to see. I love how conservatives were screaming for transparency until they're not. This email is the same story for the rest of them. They want to retroactively classify them and there is no evidence that her server was "unsecure". LOL.

    We are quite aware how desperate the clown car is these days.

    Parent

    et al (none / 0) (#199)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 12:56:59 PM EST
    So you are telling me Hillary isn't smart enough to recognize information that should be classified...and react appropriately.

    Okie Dokie, although I don't think claiming stupidity is a good defense..

    ;-)

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#133)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 09:07:08 PM EST
    Christie's bluster, bravado and prevarication

    If you saw the press conference, which you obviously didn't, there was no bluster , bravado and prevarication.

    Christie answered any and all questions until the reporters ran out of questions.

    That is all I have ever said.

    Parent

    You mean (none / 0) (#53)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 11:28:57 AM EST
    the masterful performances that rocketed him to the top of presidential polls and sent his homestate popularity soaring. How could we forget?

    Parent
    How he does (none / 0) (#59)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 12:36:36 PM EST
    In Presidential polls is no reflection on how he handled his press conference under duress.

    He was always an outside shot in the Republican Party,

    But actually, unlike her husband, I don't think Hillary has the political skills to handle a press conference of that duration and intensity.

    If she had a "Christie" press conference back in March, and turned over the server then, Hillary would be faring much better in the polls.

    Parent

    OMG, the press conference was supposed to (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 12:59:06 PM EST
    be in service of a larger goal. Of course it matter that the larger goal was not served at all. You may sing great in the shower but it is not going to get you a music career.

    He was not an outside shot before bridgegate - he was one of the favorites.

    Parent

    In 2012 (none / 0) (#64)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 01:04:43 PM EST
    He would have had a much better chance to win the nomination. In 2016, he has always been a second tier candidate.

    Regardless, it was an admirable performance that ALL politicians should emulate,

    He took ALL questions until the reporters got tired of asking.

    I think anyone can agree that is how all politicians should be, but rarely are.


    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 01:18:15 PM EST
    he wouldn't have. When Romney considered him for his VP a lot of stuff apparently came up that took Christie out of the running. Christie is political roadkill. He's hated in his own state and he's hated by the GOP base.

    Parent
    There was nothing at all masterful ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 02:37:19 PM EST
    ... about either of Gov. Christie's two press conferences as the G.W. bridge scandal blew up in his face. Given what we now know, the first one in Dec. 2013 was nothing but an exercise in wholesale bullschitt peddling, while the second one about a month later was an agonizing two-hour ordeal of political prevarication and reflective self-pity. None of which was surprising, really, given that Christie had quite obviously been caught in one whopper of a public lie.

    If the attempted political shakedowns of local mayors are subsequently shown to have been conducted at his own behest, which is yet to be determined, then Christie will probably be lucky to avoid federal indictment on corruption charges. If they were a collective effort undertaken by his entire political inner circle in Trenton with neither his knowledge nor approval, as he insists that it was, then he's been exposed as an entirely detached and incompetent chief executive.

    But regardless of however this story ultimately plays out, it's readily apparent that Chris Christie's political fortunes very quickly went south with these public revelations about his administration's appalling behavior, and it's unlikely that he'll ever recover.

    So, Trevor, maybe you're still impressed by Christie's ability to bully and bluster, though Heaven only knows why. But for most people, in particular his New Jersey constituents, the man's shtick has worn painfully thin.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The key phrase (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by ragebot on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 05:50:42 PM EST
    in Donald's post is "the second one about a month later was an agonizing two-hour ordeal".  You can bash Christie's answers but he did stand up in front of the press for two hours and answer questions till the press got tired of asking them.  Many folks on both sides of the aisle said this is a model for how to deal with bad PR, by facing the press and answering questions till the press quits asking questions.  Back when I was debating as an undergrad or prepping for moot court it was called taking the bull by the horns.

    This is something Hillary has never done, and by some accounts does not have the ability to do.

    The result has been Hillary tanking in the polls.  Pointing this out is not trolling, it is simply keeping up with new facts.  Predicting this tanking will only get worse is not trolling, it is rather like saying my football team will win its next game.

    Just because you don't like reality does not change the fact that Hillary is in trouble.

    Parent

    I "don't like reality"? (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 11:10:18 PM EST
    And what "reality" is that, dude -- the parallel universe where you've apparently docked your shuttle?

    So what if Christie stood in front of reporters for two hours! What good did it do him, really? Politically, the guy has a 30% approval rating in his own state, and 5% support for his presidential campaign nationwide.

    Back here on Planet Earth, ragebot, that means Christie's tanked. He got caught in an obvious lie about his administration's involvement in the bridge lane closures, not to mention the alleged shakedown of area mayors, yet none of that matters to you at all, because hey, he stood there afterward and looked good. What a man's man!

    Clearly, you are not a serious person. Good night.

    Parent

    Yeah, Christie is the Guy to Take Press... (none / 0) (#162)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:33:37 AM EST
    ...advise from.

    Why doesn't Christie have an all questions answered press conference on the 3 or 4 'admin problems' people are still curious about ?  Nope for him it's bullying an insults until he's sick of dealing with the them.

    I'll take any advise Christie gives just as soon as he follows it.

    The only problem HRC has is how to get the press and pundits to actually define her problem, not the 1001 potential problems that have yet to surface.  It's certainly not a legal one, what she did was common practice even among her detractors.  She cannot 'fix' the mess she is in by answering questions because the mess is wholly created right wing hysteria that is leaking over into the main stream.  It boils down to "she can't be trusted", because we say so, not because she actually did anything to not trust her.  Explain how answering questions is going to change any of that.

    I have yet to see anyone explain what crime she committed, what she did wrong and why others who did the exact same thing aren't being investigated.  And it's not for HRC to publicly explain why someone who did work for her, took the 5th, that is absurd.

    As a liberal, I am tired of this BS, but I also hold HRC responsible.  No one made her put the server in her home, and while there is nothing wrong with it, she is Clinton and surely knows the idiot brigade is just lusting for something out of the ordinary.  I mean come on HRC, like this was never going to cross the paths of Congressional Republicans, hdr22@clintonemail.com

    It begs to investigated and I am not so sure that someone who makes this kind of mind boggling decision should not be held to the flame.  But the flame of 'Why ?', not the flame of 'We do not know, but there has got to be something there'.

    It defies logic on so many levels, including her last name in the address.  And while I mentioned up top no one has been able to explain what she actually did wrong, no on has been able to explain why she did not use her given .gov work email address for work related emails.  She certainly hasn't other than she didn't have to, which for me isn't cutting it.

    I read some mention of Kerry and security, but really, the way to avoid possible Chinese hackers is create an email address of clintonemail.com, hardly.  It's probably search number 2 or 3 for anyone trying to hack US foreign policy.  And while no email is safe, surely .gov is safer than clintonemail.com

    Parent

    I was curious about DOJ Report on Michael Brown (none / 0) (#34)
    by CityLife on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 03:47:56 AM EST
    So I did a search on this site for "DOJ REPORT" and it Found 8 results but only one post even mentions Brown: 1. DOJ Report Confirms Ferguson's Racially Biased Policing  (Civil Liberties, All Topics) posted by Jeralyn on 03/04/2015 08:40:00 AM EST: "A second report is expected to be released tomorrow absolving Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown."

     I didn't see any post devoted to the DOJ Report on the Michael Brown shooting. Is there a reason such a newsworthy report didn't get its own post here?

    Perhaps people were burned out of the (none / 0) (#56)
    by McBain on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 12:08:57 PM EST
    Wilson/Brown case by then.  Perhaps it wasn't really what people wanted to hear, so it didn't get much news.

    Blogging is a hobby for Jeralyn, not her full time gig, so she was probably busy with other things.  Even if it got more attention, I don't the report would change anyone's opinion.  Most people made up their mind right away.  

    Parent

    MT, you made a comment (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 01:42:48 PM EST
    about duplicate numbers in high school football down where you live. Rules in football do vary but  basically a team can have duplicate numbers but the team cannot have two players with the same number on the field at the same time.

    The better question is why. Well, since the maximum number is 99 and since numbers are assigned by position, if a team had, say 20 Q's, P's and K's you could have two number 1's without getting all racist about it.  Now, if you wanted to send in the second No 1 as, say, a RB, when the team was on offense you would use a pullover (sleeveless) jersey with an unused number, say 28. I've seen that done in HS and I remember Alabama had two  number 4's. Probably because they had over 100 players dressed out.

    But I'm still struggling with your implication that it is only the South that has abusive band directors. Do you attribute that to the water? High fat diet? Watching too much TV?


    Living in CO and WY..you can't hit (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 04:09:12 PM EST
    Kids in school out West.  We moved here, and the school here didn't even have to notify parents that they were hitting your child. That has gradually changed in the past 10yrs. The South is punitive though, and never asks itself why so many of their children are meth addicts. Abuse is a solid foundation for such addictions.

    I couldn't believe last year the things the band director said and did to people. Like I said, out West he wouldn't have ever had a job. But it all caught up to him. Lawyers wielding some karma are a bitch. Allowing and encouraging teachers to wail on kids physically and verbally creates abusers in teachers.

    When will the punitive South wake up to its teen pregnancy problem now, and its skyrocketing new HIV exposures? These social failures come directly from being, preaching, and teaching the young to be shame based and beating on them physically and emotionally.

    Lots of parents lawyering up finally. I assume that's how we magically have enough football jerseys now. I know that's how we got a better band director.

    Parent

    Mt, you're wandering (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:32:53 AM EST
    The South is punitive though, and never asks itself why so many of their children are meth addicts. Abuse is a solid foundation for such addictions.

    Based on the above, every male student in my class should have been an addict.

    Of course you don't define abuse and many people use the same criteria for abuse as they do for pornography. They know it when they see it.

    But, MT, here's what I really object to. Statements like this

    I  couldn't believe last year the things the band director said and did to people. Like I said, out West he wouldn't have ever had a job.

    Now you gotta know that statement can't be supported. You are assuming that he had a prior record and that every school "out West" would have investigated and filtered him out.

    And the same with your moaning about teen pregnancy and HIV rates. Or perhaps you can provide some links proving your points. When you do be sure to include Chicago, East St Louis. And you might look at the rate before LBJ and where it is today.

    As for the jersey's, you are again assuming. Why don't you go to the school and ask???

    I'm not saying there aren't problems. Just that the problems aren't just the South. And I am sorry you are unhappy with where you live. Perhaps you'll retire or get a transfer to a location more to your liking.


    Parent

    No. She's not. (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 12:01:10 PM EST
    As the offspring of Mississippians and then later spent time in jr and sr. high in California, MT is pretty much spot on.

    Parent
    It's a culture of abuse in the South (none / 0) (#163)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:38:01 AM EST


    Parent
    So, it's not (none / 0) (#99)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 03:43:46 PM EST
    just in the US...

    In Guatemala,

    Jimmy Morales, a television comedian with name recognition but no political experience, emerged seemingly out of nowhere ...The latest count gives him almost 24 percent of the vote.

    The overwhelming message of the voting...was that voters were fed up with the political old guard. "This is a rejection of traditional politicians," said Quique Godoy, a commentator and political analyst here.
    Crazy Canadian Conservative Caught (none / 0) (#102)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 04:10:23 PM EST
    ...peeing into a coffee cup (not his own) and dumping the contents into a kitchen sink (once again not his own) while working as an appliance repairman.  A hidden camera sting by a news crew caught him in 2012.  This is the kind of footage an oppo research team can retire on, as Mr. Bance has given up his candidacy.

    The non-apology apology: "I deeply regret my actions on that day. I take great pride in my work and the footage from that day does not reflect who I am as a professional or as a person."

    Beg to differ.  The video shows EXACTLY who you are.

    Second, jokes about trickle-down economics and mug shots have already been made.  By the former "opponent" who is now running unopposed.

    Bizarre (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 04:16:38 PM EST
    Why would an adult man do that? I don't understand.

    Parent
    Do you know any men over 50 (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 09:06:44 PM EST
    with prostate issues they haven't dealt with? That's my theory.

    Parent
    That might explain it :) (none / 0) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 10:25:32 PM EST
    That's a new area for me.

    Parent
    This has been all over (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 06:15:01 PM EST
    my FB page.  I know several Canadians

    Parent
    Maybe he was just a big fan of (none / 0) (#166)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:46:24 AM EST
    "I Am Curious Yellow."

    Parent
    Or (none / 0) (#170)
    by FlJoe on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:57:19 AM EST
    maybe a fan of "trickle down" economic policy.

    Parent
    The end of summer for Kim Davis (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 06:10:21 PM EST
    I was very surprised by this FOX news segment about Davis.

    Fox News panel concludes that Kim Davis' lawyer is `ridiculously stupid'

    Seriously.  Without the banner you might think it was MSNBC

    I suspect it may have to do with this freak show happening today and continuing tomorrow with Mike Huckabee.  Among other things.

    Photos: The People Who Turned Out to Support Anti-Gay Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis

    The thinking right is running from this as fast as their little legs will carry them.  This is from TheAmericanConservative Kim Davis: Political Prisoner? Culture-War Martyr?

    Here's what I think is going to happen after the dust settles:

    1. Gay marriage will still be the law of the land.

    2. A huge number of secular and/or liberal people in this country will be far less disposed to listen to anybody talk about religious liberty, and will be more willing to regard all religious liberty claims as Kim Davis-like special pleading.

    3. A non-trivial number of conservatives will lose patience with and sympathy for religious conservatives, because whatever they think about same-sex marriage, they will see this as fundamentally a law-and-order issue.

    4. A huge number of conservative Christians will become ever more alienated from America and angry at the government. This will hasten their exodus from the public square, and the fraying of the social fabric.

    Kim Davis is the Michael Brown of the Religious Right. Don't underestimate the political potency of that. You watch, this is not going to end well for religious liberty in America.
    Kim Davis is a fraud. (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 07:29:34 PM EST
    If she had any integrity, she would resign. That's what people who have integrity do when they disagree with company policy. Her god is mammon. She won't resign because she wants that paycheck. The paycheck is more important to her than her integrity, and thus her "sincerely held beliefs."

    Parent
    I'm sure this will make the judge see the light (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 07:11:03 AM EST
    Kim Davis supporters gather outside judge's home to hold him `in contempt of God's court'

    Dozens of anti-LGBT activists protested Monday outside the home of the federal judge who jailed Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who was held in contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    The rally outside U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning's home in Fort Thomas, Kentucky, was organized by the anti-abortion group Operation Save America, and protesters carried signs distributed by the conservative American View group founded by the neo-Confederate creationist Michael Peroutka.



    Parent
    Although I am not convinced that this law (none / 0) (#147)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 09:25:53 AM EST
    is constitutional under the First Amendment, it is a federal crime (misdemeanor) to "picket or parade ... near a residence occupied or used by such judge" "with the intent of influencing any [federal] judge ... in the discharge of his duty" or "with such intent [to use] any sound truck or similar device" or, indeed, to "resort to any other demonstration in or near such building or residence."

    Parent
    That particular law is likely a vestige ... (none / 0) (#203)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    ... of an earlier era, when open contempt for and / or intimidation of local judicial authority was perhaps a fairly common occurrence in some U.S. locales.

    I have no problem with any such measures enacted to protect the physical presence of the judiciary, because otherwise individual judges / court clerks could be left to gauge a mob's collective mentality on their own, and at their own potential peril.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Fair n Balanced (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 06:42:02 PM EST
    flight attendants serve drinks.  IMO it is their most important duty.  If this person doesn't want to do it she should find another job.

    Muslim Flight Attendant Says She's Suspended For Not Serving Alcohol
    "No one should have to choose between their career and religion."

    Parent

    I've been seeing that case a lot (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by CST on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:13:09 AM EST
    as a comparison to Kim Davis.

    I have a couple problems with that.

    1 - No one has a constitutional right to alcohol.

    2 - There is a constitutional right to gay marriage.

    3 - Reasonable Accomodation.

    4 - Other flight attendants were serving alcohol.

    She's not violating anyone's rights.  They seemed to be managing it just fine - people flying could still order alcohol - until a co-worker complained.

    Whether it's the best job for a person who has those beliefs is another story.  I think there is a case to be made on an airline that it's a necessary part of the job.  But I do not in any way consider this similar to the Kim Davis situation where she was violating other people's constitutional rights and preventing others in her office from fulfilling those duties.

    Parent

    It's similar in that she is saying (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:29:57 AM EST
    its against my religion to do my job.

    Parent
    To be more clear (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    if I was her coworker I would have complained.  It's her job to serve drinks.  It's not my job to do her job.  Do your job or fInd another job.

    Parent
    I get that (none / 0) (#176)
    by CST on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 11:22:15 AM EST
    I'm just saying it's also fundamentally different in that she might lose her job but there is zero chance she would go to jail for it.  Nor should she.

    IMO, I get it, I get why the coworker complained - although personally I probably wouldn't have.  I think this case depends a lot more on what the terms of the hiring was.  If she brought it up when she was hired and the airline didn't have a problem with it then, it seems somewhat harsh and petty for them to all of a sudden have a problem with it now.

    In one case it's about company policy in the other it's a legal requirement.  They aren't remotely on the same level.

    Parent

    There are people trying hard to carve (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 11:26:24 AM EST
    out religious "exemptions" in this country.  This is very much a part of that.  It is a dangerous and very misguided precedent if they allow her to get away with this because she is Muslim and therefore being championed by HuffPo and other lefties websites.

    Parent
    Yes... (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 11:51:52 AM EST
    I say if your religion is that strict, then f*ck yeah you gotta choose between your religious beliefs (or secular beliefs) and your job when your beliefs are in direct conflict with your job duties.  Your fairy godmother says you can't serve booze, then jobs that serve booze are out.  Your fairy godmother says you can't dispense Plan B, pharmacist is out.  Your fairy godmother says you can't be party to gay marriage, don't work in the marriage license office. Can't be in a car with a dog, don't drive a cab.    

    My beliefs prevent me from being a soldier, lawyer, judge, police officer, prison guard, tax collector, and many more.  I'm more than ok with foregoing potential employment in sectors my conscience can't handle...and for the rest, I compromise with my conscience for money.  It's called being a whore.  Now I can't say I care for being a whore, but it's better than going hungry.

    Parent

    I think there are good reasons (none / 0) (#180)
    by CST on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 11:45:24 AM EST
    for "reasonable accommodation" well beyond religion and I worry about about degrading labor laws as well.  The same arguments about "do your job at all costs" without any exemptions - are made against pregnant women, parental leave, sick leave, vacation time, and people with disabilities.

    It is a fine line.  But I think that personal accommodations for whatever reason in an employment situation are not dangerous or misguided until they cross the line into affecting other people's lives.

    I don't have a problem with separate job descriptions for people, as long as the job ultimately gets done.  That seems like an internal issue.

    If there is a dispute between coworkers than the company can handle it as they choose - which is what I see happening here and that's fine.  Personally I'd try to adjust the paychecks to represent the responsibility/ function of each employee.

    Parent

    Chuck, There is No Fine Line... (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 11:54:04 AM EST
    ...between physical limitations backed by a doctor and religious beliefs.

    The problem is that who is the final arbitrator of what religious beliefs are acceptable to apply at work.  See my comment below.

    Allowing any accommodation requires someone be the final decider, and I am way more uncomfortable with that, than simply saying 'none allowed'.

    Parent

    where did I ever comment on (none / 0) (#185)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 11:58:10 AM EST
    physical limitations? or the even the flight attendant case. My comment was strictly about Kim Davis.

    Parent
    Sorry, Meant CTS. (none / 0) (#187)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 12:21:17 PM EST


    Parent
    To Me... (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 11:49:24 AM EST
    ...when I see attendants handing out drinks it's pretty obvious that anyone refusing service of any beverage would decrease the efficiency, considerably.  Which is always a problem, with people in aisles and the tray carts, the bathroom, etc.

    Here is the problem, she is the putting the actual ramifications of her religious decision on everyone else.  The ramifications should fall on her alone, and if she had any sense, she would not be selecting a career in which serving alcohol is part of it.  Someone has to serve the drinks, no big deal, but now you have to watch schedules to make sure you don't have too many non-servers on a flight and what about small flights, with one attendant.

    What happens when she decides she has to pray at an exact time with a rug, or does this discussion only include the things she doesn't want to do ?

    What if she was a bartender, would be OK she not serve alcoholic drinks.

    To me no company can budge an inch on this or we are going to have every cockamamie religious belief being used to not perform the duties of the job.  Then who will decide what is legitimate beliefs and which ones are hokum ?  The idea that private enterprise has to accommodate religion is absurd.

    Discrimination and accommodation and in no way interchangeable in this discussion, but there she is claiming they are discriminating, no, they are not accommodating her beliefs.

    Parent

    Per federal law, Cap'n, ... (none / 0) (#190)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 12:28:48 PM EST
    ... flight attendants are required to be on board airliners for safety considerations, which further comprises the bulk of their training. While serving alcohol, other beverages and in-flight snacks / meals is an ancillary function of their duties, it is otherwise most certainly not the primary rationale for their inflight presence.

    Besides, and speaking as a longtime frequent flyer, inflight service sure isn't what it used to be on most U.S. airliners, particularly the "Big Three" legacy carriers of American, United and Delta. As far as I know, the only airline that still serves free inflight meals on U.S. domestic routes is Hawaiian.

    This Muslim woman's employer, ExpressJet, is a commuter / regional carrier that is better known to passengers as American Eagle, Delta Connection and United Express, depending upon where you live in the central and eastern United States.

    As the major trunk carriers have continued to redeploy their larger aircraft from short-haul service to longer and more profitable routes as befitting their capacity, smaller regional carriers such as ExpressJet, SkyWest and Comair have filled the void left by the large airlines' departure. They provide essential air service to smaller cities, towns and communities where there might otherwise be none.

    These commuter airlines' smaller aircraft are usually of Embraer (Brazil) and Bombardier (Canada) manufacture, and have a 30-to-90 seat capacity designed for quick turnarounds. Further, they tend to partner with large carriers such as United for scheduling purposes, and will often (but not always) paint their aircraft in the livery of their larger partner.

    Thus, when I travel to central Oregon next week on a business trip, while my flight is ostensibly on United, for the San Francisco-Redmond, OR legs I'll actually be flying on SkyWest Airlines, dba United Express.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    So far, seven charged in helping El Chapo (none / 0) (#135)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 07, 2015 at 09:57:25 PM EST
    tunnel his way to freedom.

    Given the amount of complicity ... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 12:37:21 PM EST
    ... with local authorities that was apparently required to build this tunnel, they might as well have allowed El Chapo to simply leave by the facility's front gate. What a sad state of affairs Mexico has become.

    Parent
    Kim Davis Out (none / 0) (#188)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 12:27:12 PM EST
    A federal judge has ordered the release of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who was jailed last week after she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    In an order issued Tuesday, US federal judge David Bunning, who remanded Davis to US marshals during a high-profile hearing last week, ordered the Rowan County clerk released from jail on the condition she doesn't interfere with efforts by her deputies to issue marriage licenses.

    LINK

    Bunning wrote, "The Court is therefore satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk's Office is fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples, consistent with the US supreme court's holding" that same-sex marriage was legal.

    The order came just hours ahead of a planned rally outside the Clark County detention center, where Davis has been held since 3 Sept. Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee were expected to meet with Davis Tuesday afternoon.

    Bunning ordered the court-appointed attorneys for the five deputy clerks who said they would issue marriage licenses to file a status report every 14 days "on their clients' respective compliance" with the judge's order "requiring them to issue marriage licenses to all eligible couples".
    Fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 12:29:12 PM EST


    Parent
    This will be (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 12:43:38 PM EST
    ... a big problem for Huck and Cruz, who had ordered crosses and nails delivered to the courthouse so they could be victims too.  As we know, victim status is the highest expression of conservatism, and now they are DENIED.

    It's not fair, I tell ya!

    Really hard to unload that stuff at post-martyrdom sales.

    Parent

    They'll turn it into a victory rally, (none / 0) (#197)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 12:51:30 PM EST
    but I don't know what they'll do with the cross and the nails.

    I could make a suggestion, but I'd probably burn in hell for saying it.

    Parent

    This is A Smooth Move... (none / 0) (#200)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 12:57:13 PM EST
    ...especially if it was the judge's intention to begin with.  Toss her in jail, get each person in the office to decide, let them issue marriage licenses for a couple days, then let her out.

    No need to unload the goods, there will be another perceived crucifixion of religious liberty soon enough.

    What I keep wondering, will she change party affiliation of make a lot of republicans vote democrat in the next election.

    Parent

    case and point (none / 0) (#193)
    by CST on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 12:33:12 PM EST
    regarding the flight attendant situation, IMO

    Although that's obviously different in that her employer has the final say not a judge.  But that goes back to my whole "it's not illegal" in the first place comment.

    As long as the job is getting done it doesn't really matter who does it.

    Parent

    It kind of does matter, CST. (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by caseyOR on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 12:57:29 PM EST
    I see this case as different from religious accommodation cases where the issues are, say, giving an observant Jew the Sabbath off every week. I also find it different from cases where one makes accommodation for a disability. If a worker needs a wheelchair ramp or a different desk set-up or whatever in order to perform the duties of the job, well, that is not the same as refusing to do the job.

    What are we to do with the waiter who refuses to serve a couple he thinks are lesbian because, religion? Or the pharmacist who refuses to dispense contraceptives because, religion? Or the grocery store clerk who refuses to check out people buying pork because, religion?

    This whole "I can't do part of my job because, religion" thing is a giant ugly snowball just waiting for a push down the hill.

    IMO, if your personal beliefs prevent you from performing the duties of the job for which you are applying, do not apply for that job.

    Parent

    Agreed. The "firmly (none / 0) (#207)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 01:12:32 PM EST
    held beliefs" should apply to the individual.  Such individuals should not be required to say, consume alcoholic beverages because not doing so might make clients somehow feel uneasy at a business reception--and, in anyway have their jobs jeopardized.

     However, accommodations that affect others are different.  If a Christina Scientist of firmly held belief who is  head of hospital labs, as a part of a re-organization, is given new responsibilities for the blood bank, the refusal to issue blood for transfusions is not a proper accommodation.  Of course, the head, her/himself,  is entitled to refuse a blood transfusion.  

    Parent

    A good review of (none / 0) (#198)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 12:52:29 PM EST
    the mythical arguments on behalf of Clerk Davis, by Zack Ford.

    Parent
    What Happens... (none / 0) (#206)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 01:09:25 PM EST
    ...when she does interfere with licensing, which her lawyers indicate will happen ?

    Parent
    Spygate (none / 0) (#196)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 12:50:45 PM EST
    The New England Patriots' videotaping scandal known as Spygate was far more expansive than previously revealed and Roger Goodell's unsparing handling of Deflategate was seen by some NFL owners as a form of compensation for the league's previous leniency according to a lengthy investigation by ESPN and Outside the Lines published Tuesday.

    The bombshell report by Don Van Natta Jr and Seth Wickersham, citing interviews with more than 90 league officials, alleges that Bill Belichick and the Patriots recorded opposing teams' signals from 40 different games from 2000 through 2007, adding previously unknown details that underscore the sophistication of the enterprise and how the NFL's aided in the subsequent cover-up.

     LINK

    This is pretty scathing stuff, almost unreal.

    That Spygate article (none / 0) (#204)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    Shows Goodell to beuch worse than I thought, and the Patriots WAY bigger cheaters than I thought.

    What an abomination both Goodell and the Patriots team and organization are.  Bleh.

    CaseyOR (none / 0) (#205)
    by CST on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 01:08:13 PM EST
    I think for me I draw the line at "can you get your prescription filled at that pharmacy".  For example.

    And also given that the airline had previously made accommodation it seems like it wasn't actually part of her particular job description.  If it's something that one is capable of writing out of the job description without impacting service I don't have a problem with it.

    It's also vastly different than choosing not to serve a particular person based on their "x".  You can't discriminate against customers.  But as long as the business is capable of dispensing a product without you I don't see the issue.  It's more like assigning a person to fish if they won't work with pork.  As long as it doesn't impact your business and everyone is still able to buy pork - I don't see it as an issue.

    Saturday Night Open Thread | 209 comments (209 topical)