home

Saturday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 12:47:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It's cloudy, snowing and really cold in Denver, and supposed to stay this way all weekend. I'm going to check out the Black Friday sale sites and then catch up on the news.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< From Stingrays to Dirt Boxes: Evolving Surveillance Techniques | ISIS Executioner Beheads Peter Kassig and Many More >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saturday Open Thread | 208 comments (208 topical)
    This week's movie pick: "Foxcatcher." (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 03:27:30 PM EST
    Based on a true story, this brutal and emotionally gripping thriller by Bennett Miller (who also directed "Capote" and "Moneyball") has generated lots of great advance buzz. I had a hard time believing it when I first heard it, but after seeing "Foxcatcher" last night, I think the critics absolutely nailed it.

    (Well, apparently all but one: Armond White of the National Review Online calls the film "a catastrophe," and lambasts his fellow reviewers as "politically slanted media hacks who celebrate their own America-bashing negativity." So if the far-right White dislikes "Foxcatcher" this intensely, having characterized it as a cinematic assault on one of America's wealthiest families, well, that's probably another good reason to see the movie.)

    Steve Carrell has to be considered one of the frontrunners in the 2014 Oscar race for best actor, having literally inhabited one of the creepier roles you'll see this year as billionaire John Du Pont, an heir to a family fortune (founded on gunpowder, chemicals and munitions, and erstwhile sponsor / abusive Svengali of the U.S. Olympic wrestling team.

    Also surprisingly impressive is Hollywood beauhunk du jour Channing Tatum as Olympic champion Mark Schultz, who falls under Du Pont's spell without realiaing the consequences. Rounding out the Oscar contenders are Mark Ruffalo as his brother Dave Schultz, a fellow (and rival) Olympian who soon has Du Pont's number and tries to go his own way; Sienna Miller as Dave's wife Nancy; and Vanessa Redgrave as the icy and imperious Du Pont matriarch Jean, whose son John is most definitely his mother's child.

    Highly recommended.

    Looking forward to seeing this (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 04:07:36 PM EST
    i barely recognized Steve Carrell in the trailer.

    This afternoon, very cold and gloomy, I've been watching The Longest Day.  And drinking port.  I'm sure you've seen it from 1962 with every male actor in Hollywood old enough to shave and young enough to walk.  The Nazi back story was the best part.  Know if it's true?  Was Hitler really sleeping and not to be disturbed when the invasion started.
    Figured asking you would be easier than googling.

    Parent

    That's what surviving members of ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 04:58:13 PM EST
    ... the German General Staff claimed after the war. Gen. Erwin Rommel, who commanded German forces in France at the time of the D-Day invasion on 06 June 1944, was probably the one person who could have answered that question definitively.

    However, Rommel was very badly wounded in Normandy on 17 July 1944 when his staff car was caught on the road in open country by a marauding Canadian Spitfire aircraft, and got strafed. He was thrown from the car when it rolled, and suffered severe head trauma as a result.

    While recovering from his injuries at home in Germany, Rommel was subsequently implicated in the failed assassination attempt against Adolf Hitler on 20 July 1944, and took his own life on October 20 of that same year. So, the surest answer to your question went to the grave with him, because he was the one man who had direct personal communication with Der Führer on D-Day.

    But for the record, Gen. Rommel had initially agreed with Hitler that any Allied assault at Normandy or elsewhere would likely be a diversion, and that their main effort would come at the Pas de Calais. It was therefore probably Rommel -- and not Hitler -- who had insisted that the German 15th Army remain at Calais to repel any thrust across the Straits of Dover, rather than redeploy southwest toward Normandy when it might have made a big difference in that battle's outcome.

    And as we now know, they were both wrong.

    Parent

    This is from the 2nd volume, Nemesis (none / 0) (#40)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 05:21:57 PM EST
    of Ian Kershaw's excellent biograpy of Hitler:

    "It was four hours since the first [unconfirmed] news started to trickle in that the invasion would begin that night... Hitler [who hadn't been informed of the rumors] went to bed [in the the Berghof on the Obersalzberg] not long after [Joseph] Goebbels had left, probably around 3 a.m [after watching a film with him and Eva Braun]. When [Albert] Speer arrived next morning, seven hours later [around 10 a.m.], Hitler had still not been wakened with the news of the invasion. In fact, it seems that the initial skepticism at the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht that this indeed was the invasion had been finally dispelled only a little while earlier, probably between 8.15 and 9.30 a.m. Influenced by German intelligence reports, Hitler had spoken a good deal in previous weeks that the invasion would begin with a decoy attack to drag the German troops away from the actual landing-place. In fact, Allied deception through the dropping of dummy parachutists and other diversionary tactics did contribute to initial German confusion about the location of the landing. His adjutants now hesitated to waken him with mistaken information." (Ian Kershaw. 2001. Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis. p. 639)



    Parent
    According to this (none / 0) (#43)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 05:32:43 PM EST
    book, not only was Hitler not awakened to the news, Jodl didn't tell him about it until the midday military conference.(Page 165)

    Parent
    It's easy to think (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 05:38:34 PM EST
    they made the Germans look more foolish than they were.  But apparently not.   They were very clear about many questioning Hitlers leadership.  
    It's really a pretty good movie for 1962.

    Parent
    Don't know how accurate this dialog (none / 0) (#48)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 06:18:39 PM EST
    from Patton is, but the attitude is the same:

    General Alfred Jodl: The landing in Normandy is merely a diversionary maneuver. The real invasion will come at Calais and Patton will lead it. The Fuehrer says that the Fifteenth Army is not to be moved to Normandy.

    Field Marshal Erwin Rommel: Those men are sitting on the beach at Calais throwing rocks at each other while our men are being slaughtered in Normandy.

    General Alfred Jodl: [firmly] The Fifteenth Army is waiting for Patton at Calais and he will land there.

    Field Marshal Erwin Rommel: You seem perfectly willing to accept this nonsense, Jodl. Why?

    General Alfred Jodl: [chuckles] Because I am not prepared to dispute the Fuehrer.



    Parent
    It was probably a lot of dramatic license. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 07:48:10 PM EST
    Gen. Rommel was the commander of Army Group B and as such, his immediate superior officer was Gen. Ernst von Rundstedt, who headed Oberbefehlshaber West, the Wehrmacht's command in France and the Low Countries.

    Therefore, it is unlikely that Rommel ever spoke on D-Day with Gen. Alfred Jodl, a career Army bureaucrat who served as Chief of Operations Staff in the OKW-Oberkommando Wehrmacht (Army High Command) under Gen. Wilhelm Keitel. Simply put, Jodl had no command authority over Rommel, and hence had no reason to communicate with him directly. His role would have been to forward communications from Keitel at OKW in Berlin to von Rundstedt in Paris. (Germans were rather meticulous about maintaining the integrity of their chain of command.)

    The only exception was Gen. Rommel, who enjoyed Hitler's confidence until the day he was implicated in the July 20 plot, and as Hitler's favorite soldier he had a direct line to him. Staff at OKW despised him for having been elevated personally through the ranks by Der Führer himself, to his then-present post. For his part, Rommel dismissed Jodl as nothing more than a functionary, "ein Stuhlübertragene Soldat" -- "a chairborne soldier."

    Gen. Jodl is best remembered by those Americans who lived during the Second World War as the man who on May 7, 1945 formally signed Nazi Germany's unconditional surrender to the Allies in Rheims, France on behalf of Adm. Karl Doenitz, whom Hitler had appointed as Germany's president prior to taking his own life on April 30.

    After the war, Jodl was arrested and charged with war crimes, specifically for having signed a directive which authorized German troops to immediately execute certain prisoners of war. He was tried on four charges before the International War Crimes Tribunal in Nuremberg and convicted on all counts. He and his commanding officer Gen. Keitel were both hanged in Nuremberg on October 16, 1946.

    In large part because of widely seen newsreel footage of Gen. Jodl signing the articles of surrender, Americans had an outsized impression of the man which was very much overstated, given his actual role at OKW. When "Patton" was written and filmed (1968-70), the name of Alfred Jodl was still widely synonymous in the United States as the face of Nazi Germany in its final days, which might explain at least in part the screenwriter's decision to include him as a character in that film.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Here's a paper detailing the problems (none / 0) (#61)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 09:05:32 PM EST
    Rommel faced in trying to respond to the D-Day invasion.

    Mahalo.

    Parent

    No doubt, the Germans faced a host of issues ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 12:33:55 AM EST
    ... in defending France from an Allied invasion, and their command leadership certainly failed to react to the D-Day landings in a timely manner. Nevertheless, they fought very well, keeping Allied forces in Normandy bottled up for the better part of six weeks and inflicting about 120,000 casualties in some of the most vicious fighting of the war. They were finally overwhelmed and routed in late July by the U.S. 3rd Army (commanded by Gen. Patton) at St. Lo, and again by the 3rd Army and the Canadian 1st Army at Falaise.

    Thanks for the links.

    Parent

    Guess who (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 01:07:57 PM EST
    raced to the Senate floor on Wednesday--shortly after it reopened following last week's election--to call for an immediate vote on a top GOP priority: approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
    Saying:
    "I want to say yes to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell."

    Mary Landrieu, that's who.

    Who needs republicans when we have democrats like Mary.

    The Death Penalty (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 07:53:14 AM EST
    We always hear about mistakes made at the state level - prosecutorial misconduct and the wrong people being executed comes to mind.  But there's also another side of the story.  Bad lawyering, lack of expertise, lack of funds, and sometimes just gross incompetence and negligence.....

    When lawyers stumble, only their clients fall

    Mary Catherine Bonner went before the U.S. Supreme Court to plead for a death-row prisoner whose last-chance appeal had been thrown out because his previous lawyer had missed the filing deadline.

    "You know, being lawyers, we always do file at the last minute," Bonner told the justices.

    Bonner spoke with some authority. An honors graduate of the University of Miami law school, she had defended some high-profile clients, dealt with complex international legal issues and been admitted to practice in a long list of federal courts.

    But barely a month before her Supreme Court argument, Bonner had been upbraided herself by a federal judge who was confronted with two other death-penalty cases where Bonner had missed the filing deadline. In one, she was late by 210 days; in the other, 278 days. In a third federal case earlier that year, her petition for relief under habeas corpus was 312 days late.

    "[I]t is hard for me to fathom how a lawyer who asked for and received the appointment of this Court, could abdicate the most basic function of filing the petition on time," wrote Timothy J. Corrigan, the district court judge in the first two cases.

    "I would be remiss if I did not share my deep concern that in these cases our federal system of justice fell short in the very situation where the stakes could not be higher."

    Corrigan's frustration has echoed in a series of cases that have come to the federal courts since 1996, when President Bill Clinton endorsed a Republican plan to limit death-penalty appeals by setting a one-year deadline for the filing of habeas corpus petitions.

    Those federal appeals, which typically come after claims in state courts have been exhausted, allow inmates to seek a final review of their convictions on grounds ranging from juror misconduct to the suppression of evidence by prosecutors.

    Yet an investigation by The Marshall Project has found that in at least 80 capital cases in which lawyers have missed the deadline -- sometimes through remarkable incompetence or neglect -- it is almost always the prisoner alone who suffers the consequences.

    Among the dozens of attorneys who have borne some responsibility for those mistakes, only one has been sanctioned for missing the deadline by a professional disciplinary body, the investigation found. And that attorney was given a simple censure, one of the profession's lowest forms of punishment.
    2nd US Ebola patient (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 09:32:01 AM EST
    has died.

    OMAHA, Neb.   *  A surgeon who contracted Ebola in his native Sierra Leone died Monday while being treated in a biocontainment unit at a Nebraska hospital, the facility said.

    Nebraska Medical Center said in a news release that Dr. Martin Salia died as a result of the disease. Hospital spokesman Taylor Wilson said Salia died shortly after 4 a.m. Monday.

    "Dr. Salia was extremely critical when he arrived here, and unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we weren't able to save him," said Dr. Phil Smith, medical director of the biocontainment unit.

    Salia arrived Saturday to be treated at the Omaha hospital, where two other Ebola patients have been successfully treated.

    Salia had advanced symptoms when he arrived at the hospital Saturday, which included kidney and respiratory failure, the hospital said. He was placed on dialysis, a ventilator and given several medications to support his organ systems.
    Oh, man (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 09:49:13 AM EST
    that is sad.

    Parent
    Sarcasm (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Nov 18, 2014 at 07:10:25 AM EST
    If you think "Wilson's 12:02 call" as stated by your source, the Post, unquestionably actually means exactly "12:02:00" you are living in some alternate universe.

    It's the police department that assigned that time or are you clueless to that.

    And I didn't say that it was exactly as it may be a few seconds one way or the other -- but not more than a few secodns.

    But the 12:02~ call would be after a 12:01:50 call, right???

    And a 12:02~ call would be before a 12:02:22 arrival by a 2nd police unit on the scene, right???

    Here is the police event report of the incident:

    Complaint 14-12391: 4230 Disturbance/in Progress at Canfield Drive

    8/09/2014  12:01:50  Open

    8/09/2014  12:02:22  Dispatch

    8/09/2014  12:02:22  Enroute

    8/09/2014  12:02:22  Arrival

    So was the 12:02:22 Arrival before or after Wilson's 12:02 call??? before or after Brown was shot and killed???

    Did that 2nd police unit arrive at the scene before or after Brown was shot???

    Where between 12:01:50 and 12:02:22 would you like to put Wilson's 12:02 call and his subsequent final bullet fired???

    All times are from FPD so if you have a problem then take it up with them or Father Time himself.

    Of "Leafy Green" (3.50 / 2) (#201)
    by whitecap333 on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 12:54:23 PM EST
    The media seems curiously disinclined to mention an item of information the official autopsy report of Michael Brown.  It is noted, in reference to the toxicology report, that a "leafy green substance," identified as marijuana, had been "submitted into evidence." (Source: Darren Wilson says Michael Brown kept charging at him, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 10-22-14.)  I hardly know what to make of this, if not that Brown had on his person the "leafy green" needed to make "blunts" of stolen "cigarillos."  Spare me the "reefer madness" snark.  Possession of marijuana is a serious offense in Missouri.  So what are we to suppose was going on in Brown's mind, when Officer Wilson backed up to him?  He knew that he had just thrown a protesting clerk into a chip display, caught red-handed stealing cigars, and swaggered out the door.  He could hardly have failed to appreciate that "frisking" would discover his stash of "leafy green."  He was faced with impending disaster.  The toxicology report also says his THC levels were high.  What prosecutor would want to go to a jury on such a set of facts?  The defense would argue, persuasively, that Brown panicked, and attacked the officer.

    The radio dispatches released to the Post-Dispatch leave no rational doubt that an alert on the theft at the market had gone out, followed by a description of the suspect, and that Wilson was "on the lookout" for him.  When he radioed "Put me on Canfield with two,and send me another car," he obviously intended to question Brown (still clutching cigars.)  So much for the malicious fiction, first mouthed by Johnson, that Wilson was "hassling" the pair for "jaywalking."

    Today the snow might miss us (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 01:07:12 PM EST
    but there is another tomorrow.  They keep changing the predictions for that. It's very cold and grey.  Some single digit nights coming up.

    Glad I have no place to go.  It's good "by the fire" weather.

    Embrace the suck, resistance is futile (none / 0) (#2)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 01:22:09 PM EST
    link says Andrew O'Hehir, in Salon.
    (cross posted from an earlier thread)

    Bill Maher's last 'new rule' spiel was along those (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 06:24:25 AM EST
    lines - it was about voting even though your ideal candidate is not on the ballot. Most people's ideal candidate is NEVER on the ballot.

    Parent
    O'Hehir doesn't use that phrase (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 08:18:30 AM EST
    That's your choice - repeatedly.  No need to try to hide behind someone else.

    Parent
    From your O'Hehir link: (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 09:37:32 AM EST
    Disillusionment with Clinton is inevitably contaminated by disillusionment with Barack Obama, who ran in 2008 as the reformist candidate to her left but has protected the power and privilege of the Washington establishment more than any previous Democratic president.


    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 01:51:38 PM EST
    If I were Hillary I would consider that a compliment coming from a former Obama supporter. The fact of the matter is the Obama crowd blew their wad with him so in a lot of ways he's right that the rest of them are just going to have to suck it up. You had a chance and you blew it. Obama is and always has been just about himself not the party or anybody else.

    Parent
    Greenwald srops the sarcasm bomb (none / 0) (#3)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 01:41:25 PM EST
    As many of you are aware, I have never been very impressed with Greenwald's "journalism". There are many good points he often makes that is never brought up in the idiot MSM; however, I also often find his willingness to exaggerate, mask or bend the truth to champion the causes he advocates, very troubling. I would have been more comfortable with his advocacy if he did not call himself a journalists.
    However, I do understand that he has a cult following and has many admirers in this blog.

     It seems that he is not very thrilled at the prospect of a HRC presidency and is writing columns about it. link

    Translation . . . (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 02:16:24 PM EST
    It's Saturday and Hillary is still evil . . .

    Parent
    Here is the way I read it (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 02:31:36 PM EST
    A couple of people want to re-open circular argument (yet again) about 2008 Obama & Clinton.
    It seems to me to be a waste of time ... imo and as I've state numerous times, they are both good ... based on accomplishments even to date, I expect that Obama will have an exceptional record of accomplishment, and that Hillary Clinton will be in a position to become the next President in her own right to exemplify exceptional leadership.
    But, if people want to pit the two against each other ... to what end, I don't know ... they will have at it.  (A gadfly "prediction" from me: It is about time for the notorious detractor Andrew Sullivan to weigh in next ... alongside his brother Greenwald.  BTW, maybe Greenwald would be better served paying attention to the apparently disintegrating start-up that he was engaged to manage awhile back <sn>)

    Parent
    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 03:59:19 PM EST
    want to reopen those arguments but darn it's teh same arguments against Hillary that were used in 2008 and the same people making the same arguments are the ones who were big Obama supporters. Let people vote in the primary and decide who they want. All this stop her movement is very 2008 and it's tiring. And the same people putting forth these arguments are the same ones that said Obama wouldn't lose the house and the senate and he did. And the same people that were making all these arguments FOR Obama back then have become disillusioned and now are blaming Hillary for their own mistakes. She had nothing to do with their disillusionment. That was all Obama that made them disillusioned but yet they hold him responsible for nothing. It's tiresome.

    Parent
    Ga6th: Don't take the bait (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 04:13:58 PM EST
    IMO, Hillary Clinton is only going to get stronger.  Despite Greenwald, and eventually Sullivan, and probably Maher, this cycle will not be a replay of anything.

     Yes, a lot of us were hurt by tactics, words, what-have-you back then ... but that is over, and it has been for a long time.  Obama & Clinton long ago put it together (and, for a number of reasons, I consider their collegiality and friendship to reflect genuineness) and we can do the same.  In many respects, if we want to deal with the crazies that you have to encounter in your neck of the woods, the best way to do so is with success. And, the path to success comes with unity of purpose.  (I don't want to be preachy, but there you have it :))

    Parent

    I think GG hates both BHO and HRC (none / 0) (#8)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 02:38:34 PM EST
    with a passion. Ga6th wants to re-open circular arguments regarding the 2008 primaries. I would like to push HRC towards the left as much as possible so that if she eventually gets the nomination, she will take someone as Warren or Sherrod Brown as her running mate instead of someone like Manchin or Webb.

    Parent
    I think she is more likely (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 02:58:55 PM EST
    to pick someone from the left.  Like Warren.  She has the center. It's the left flank she needs to worry about.

    Parent
    I hope you are correct (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 03:17:19 PM EST
    but I am not convinced at this stage. She may think that the left has no place to go and should be satisfied if she is to the left of the Republican candidate on social issues (which she obviously will be). If she is not pressed, Wall Street predatory practices will never be brought up during debates. The debates will soon turn into a contest regarding who can show "stronger leadership" to bomb Iran or who is closer to Bibi Netanyahu.

    Parent
    You mean like ... (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 05:10:10 PM EST
    I hope you are correct but I am not convinced at this stage. She may think that the left has no place to go and should be satisfied if she is to the left of the Republican candidate on social issues (which she obviously will be). If she is not pressed, Wall Street predatory practices will never be brought up during debates.

    ... Obama and his choice of Biden in 2008, along with his record Wall St. fundraising and refusal to pursue those predatory practices?

    Now those are pressing issues?

    Parent

    Hillary's taken so much money from (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 05:17:49 PM EST
    Wall Street and the big banks that I do not see her being pushed to do anything about what will no doubt be seen as water under the bridge.

    It's so discouraging.

    Parent

    Please name a viable candidate who has not (4.50 / 6) (#52)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 08:16:12 PM EST
    received substantial donations from those connected to Wall Srreet.

    Parent
    Oh, bite me, oculus; I was responding to (3.25 / 4) (#55)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 08:31:21 PM EST
    Politalkix, who made the following comment about Hillary:

    If she is not pressed, Wall Street predatory practices will never be brought up during debates.

    If you want the name of a viable candidate who hasn't taken Wall Street money, do your own research.

    Parent

    Tsk. Tsk. (none / 0) (#56)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 08:33:52 PM EST


    Parent
    I think oculus should be the blackboard monitor (none / 0) (#57)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 08:35:53 PM EST
    Next month.

    Parent
    Thank you. (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 11:23:24 PM EST


    Parent
    She won't pick Warren. My bet is on Wesley Clark (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 06:13:35 AM EST


    Parent
    I don't think HRC picks Clark, provided (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 11:36:19 AM EST
    she even runs. My money, if Hillary is the candidate, says Julian Castro gets the VP nod. There are a whole lot of potential Latino voters out there. It would be a bold and, IMO, strategically smart move on her part.

    And, unlike McCain's pathetic effort to harness the female vote in 2008 by foisting a nitwit like Palin on us, Castro is smart and talented and knowledgable.

    Parent

    Juan Castro would be a good (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 11:56:04 AM EST
    strategic  move for any Dem nominee IMO.

    Parent
    Who is Juan Castro? (none / 0) (#189)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    I googled, but the only Juan I found was a baseball player. Did you maybe mean Julian's brother, Congressman Joachin Castro?

    Parent
    I'm betting that (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 12:26:21 PM EST
    MOBlue is agreeing with you, and that her automatic spell-check changed "Julian" to "Juan."
    Spell-checks do that kind of stuff all the time.
    They are spawns of the devil.   ;-)

    Parent
    Oh dopey me (none / 0) (#192)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    meant to agree with you on Julian Castro.

    Parent
    If it's going to be Hillary, her VP (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 12:18:34 PM EST
    can't be someone recycled from the dustbin of failed presidential primaries, it has to be someone people can get excited about.  I think that's why there's a buzz about Warren - though I don't think it will be her - it's a reflection of how badly people want someone to address their needs, issues and concerns.

    Could they be excited about Julian Castro?  Maybe, but he needs more exposure.

    All that being said, I'm finding it really, really hard to be excited in any way about the 2016 election.

    I almost keeled over in my Greek yogurt reading about the GOP threats to shut down the government over anything Obama does on immigration.  Proves once again that "working together" means just the opposite in GOP-speak.

    Argh...I have the Monday blues, I guess.

    Parent

    I have noticed he's making the rounds again (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 07:55:12 AM EST


    Parent
    I like the idea of an arkansas (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 09:36:43 AM EST
    ticket.

    Parent
    That never occurred to me! (none / 0) (#177)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 10:33:51 AM EST
    Do people in Arkansas really consider her as being from Arkansas?

    Parent
    She spent many years here (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    they are political deities for about half the state.  Ok probably a little less than half..

    Parent
    I highly doubt you are trying to push HRC (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 04:16:18 PM EST
    towards the left. Your agenda seems slightly different (and to some of us) and more clear than that. And don't put this on Ga6th, you started this game and your history is well known.

    Parent
    I know your history (2.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 04:23:32 PM EST
    Your agenda seems slightly different (and to some of us) and more clear than that

    To "some of you", that have your own agenda, everybody who disagrees with you has an agenda.

    Why don't you attempt to answer issues highlighted in articles that were posted or scroll over my posts instead of attacking me for an imagined agenda. Go away!

    Parent

    Oh fun! (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 05:42:48 PM EST
    Please enlighten me as to what you think my history and agenda is. And what is everyone who doesn't agree with me/"us", disagreeing with?

    Did either of those articles bring up any new revelations or talking points? Or are we beating rotting corpses at this point?

    Not going away. Sees like you had a problem when you misinterpreted one of my comments to be saying that to you, so very interesting that you don't have a prob saying it (with an exclamation point!) to me. Kinda cute and pouty though . . .

    Parent

    Question for Politalkix (none / 0) (#58)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 08:41:23 PM EST
    Do you have a problem or other issue with supporting Hillary Clinton as the potential nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the U.S?  While I know that there is lots of time between now and the potential-then, let us cut to the chase otherwise known as ...Can you support her without qualification?  She has been in the public eye in major positions for more than 20 years ... so, do you foresee any specific thing that would preclude you from supporting her?  If so, what & why?  (Trans: What is the real game here?) From your previous answers, btw, I do trust that you will be honest.

    Parent
    He hates the way they both kowtow to (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 05:14:13 PM EST
    Israel, hates their authoritarian leanings, etc., doesn't share their views on the protection of privacy and the lack of transparency in this area.

    I think there are other stances with which he takes issue.

    Can't say as I blame him - I pretty much take issue with their positions in these areas, as well.

    Which is why I don't see myself supporting Clinton, and will likely go Green again.

    Parent

    Could it be, politalkix (none / 0) (#16)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 03:48:32 PM EST
    that jumping way ahead to who-is-going-to-be-VP based upon state/unstated assumptions about Hillary Clinton is a bit "circular" in itself?  

    We all make assumptions, I know ... but, what may be going on in these "we must push Hillary further to the left" is an assumption upon an assumption.  To that extent, it may be useful to await a little while for the first inkling as to direction of a future HRC candidacy that should be glimpsed during & shortly after any campaign announcement. My guess: Her message & other communications will be very suited to these times in terms of populism mixed with know-how; and, I think that it might make sense to hear that first before assuming what might be missing or what should be included.  Again, there has not been much practical daylight between Obama & Clinton for years ... so, it seems reasonable that we would want to take a close look at how she will actually run when she actually does so as to avoid painting a portrait that does not exist.  

    Parent

    I think it is generally accepted (none / 0) (#26)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 04:13:34 PM EST
    that both BHO and HRC are to the right of the general Democratic base on economic issues. Much as I agree with the President on many issues, I do not want the next President to be a clone of the current President (it seems that you are mistakenly assuming that I want that to be the case). I may agree with the President on climate change initiative, immigration and his opposition to the Keystone pipeline but may not agree with him on TPP. If BHO could run again, I would also be pressing him at this time about growth of economic inequalities, outsized role of the financial sector in our economy, non-prosecution of bankers, etc.

    I am however more comfortable with BHO on foreign policy than HRC. It will also be helpful not to gloss over their differences, where they exist. I am absolutely sure that HRC would never open up a dialog with Iran in the way BHO has done.

    Are you going to attempt to stifle all debate from now till 2016? I do not think that is a good idea because that is not good for a democracy.

    Parent

    I don't think christine is under ... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 08:15:40 PM EST
    ... any impression that you're seeking a clone of Barack Obama. Rather, based in part on what happened in 2008, she appears to be challenging your premature assumptions about a Hillary Clinton candidacy before the woman has even formally announced her intent to seek the White House.

    Personally, while I've no intention of trying "to stifle all debate from now till 2016," I share some of her concerns. I think it would be a whole lot healthier for our democracy if we all just set aside our obsessions over what might or might not transpire two years hence, and gave it a rest for a little while.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Baloney, politalkix (none / 0) (#60)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 08:48:00 PM EST
    Reading the words, your argument ... it is thin at best.  Not to be so presumptuous as to tell you whom to support, but--very honestly--there is so little difference as to make less than little sense. There is something a bit akilter ... only you can know that, I cannot.  Is it style, is it race, or -- to be very blunt -- is it gender?  I don't want to push; but, the flimsy differentials which you mention suggest something other than positions, principle, etc.

    Parent
    Just out of curiosity, christine, why (none / 0) (#62)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 09:14:50 PM EST
    do Politalkix's reasons have to meet with your approval?  Who are you to decree that the differences that apparently matter to him aren't supposed to?

    The truth is that you are being presumptuous, and you are pushing.  And you're pushing in a way that's really kind of offensive - it's not the first time you've attempted to insinuate that because someone's reasons don't work for you that they must be based in race or gender.

    For some reason, you keep trying to sell the argument that, hey, if you liked Obama, you really don't have any reasons not to like Hillary.  That they are virtually the same person in different form.  That's not a great selling point, actually, especially for those who, after 8 years of Obama, aren't looking for 4 more that include similarities we don't like.

    If you want to sell Hillary, sell her.  Sell her policies, her record, her vision.  Advocate for her, christine, not for Hillary as an Obama clone.

    Parent

    While I know that you do not plan to support (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 09:20:48 PM EST
    the Democratic candidate in 2016--as you have indicated in various fashion--I do not know that about politalkix.  Based upon a number of earlier positions, politalkix appeared to be one that supports Democratic presidential nominees.  I may have been wrong.  Therefore, I'm pushing for clarification; and, I'm reasonably sure that he can take and might welcome the give & take.  (BTW, I'm not pushing you on your position or arguing with your position in any way...there is nothing to discuss in that, because you have clearly stated your position.)

    Parent
    Excuse me, christine, but we do not, as (none / 0) (#65)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 10:35:12 PM EST
    of this date, have a Democratic candidate for president, so please do not make the blanket statement that I will not be supporting the Democratic candidate.

    You are presuming that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee; she may be, or she may not be: we don't know for sure at this point.

    If she is the nominee, I probably will not be voting for her; it's possible that if she is the nominee, her choice for VP could possibly persuade me to vote for her, but we aren't there yet.

    I will not be supporting the Republican ticket.  Period.  Of all the things you think you remember about what I've said, I'm a little surprised you left that part out.  

    One more thing: you might a better response from people if instead of "pushing" for this clarification you say you want, you'd just ask; it would feel less like a grilling, and more like the give and take you say you're interested in.  

    Parent

    I will say this (none / 0) (#64)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 10:05:24 PM EST
    I am quite stunned that you think that race or gender has any bearing on my preferences. I can only tell you this and let you make up your own mind on this issue.

    (1)BHO, Howard Dean and Jimmy Carter remain my favorites from all contenders that have sought the nomination from the Democratic Party for the Presidency, since the 1970s. All of them are not from the same race, so it cannot be about race.

    (2)Elizabeth Warren will be the candidate of my heart if she seeks the Democratic nomination in 2016 (which she most likely will not if HRC runs). There are many other women candidates that I will happily support if they run for the Presidency. So my preferences have nothing to do with gender.

    (3)At this time the most that HRC can do for me is try and become the candidate that I can support with my head. That will depend on the kind of campaign that she will run and the people she chooses to be part of her team. Ofcourse, she will always be better than the Republican candidate, I do not have any doubt about that (but that is a low bar). However, I do not think that she can become the candidate of my heart at this stage. She has too many deep relationships with people (built over many years) that make me quire uncomfortable about her potential presidency. They include many Wall Street people, autocrats in the Middle East, etc.  

    The first lady of Arkansas who once said that "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life"m wore large rimmed glasses and who had not tasted life in the nation's capital for such a prolonged period was someone I would have felt more comfortable with, not her present incarnation. So my support for HRC's run for the presidency will not be unqualified support. She has to make me comfortable with the way she runs her campaign and the people she chooses (if she is really interested in support from people like me).


    Parent

    politalkix: I truly appreciate your response (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 10:38:57 PM EST
    and, ultimately, I hope that--should HRC run and become our candidate--that a bit of your heart as well as intellect will be able to enter into it (only because I also understand the importance of the difference.)

    In younger days, my husband became quite involved with Jimmy Carter's campaign.  He, my sister & myself were quite taken up in it as very young people ... my husband was on paid staff, my sister was flew on the "Peanut Brigade," and I given legal constraints by the applicable Hatch Act) mostly served as host as operatives passed through Denver, etc. Our hearts were in the campaign.  We went to the Inauguration, the Ball, the WH breakfast, the whole bit ... we believed.  Then, the reality of governing hit ... my husband stayed the course; but, eventually, from my federal employment stance and from observing the difference between promise and governance, I wasn't quite so sanguine.  Nonetheless, we always respected him ... just as we always respected Senator George McGovern & his principles.  

    Governance can be (and often is) quite different, necessarily, from the aspirations leading up to it.  From my limited viewpoint, I think that President Obama discovered that, grew into it over a few years, and is truly taking the responsibility now for authority.  (BTW, I always felt that President Clinton was a natural, who got scattered with too many objectives early on and then ultimately grew into the President that people are drawn to by force of personality and power of persuasion.)

    I have great hopes for Hillary Clinton because of her lifelong record, her sheer ability to withstand political & personal onslaught, and a fairly strong & liberal direction while actually negotiating the big leagues.  (Don't get me wrong.  I think highly of Senator Warren ... but her most pronounced strength--the guts to confront Wall Street--also suggests her limitations at this time.  ToWit: There are broader, much broader issues ... and, being a cradle Democrat and liberal myself, I would need the blanks to be filled in about one who voted Republican until 45 years of age.  I don't doubt that it happened dramatically; but, my own plugger self aligns more readily with longer service. My attitude, of course, speaks more to my limitations than to anything else.)

    So, yes ... follow your heart.  While I realize that I jumped the gun, my only wish for someone of your dedication--politalkix--is that you would keep a space open in your heart, should the time come, for one as dedicated to lifelong public service and human progress as Hillary Clinton.


    Parent

    Could you tell us more about EW's (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 10:59:46 PM EST
    foreign policy stance/positions?

    Parent
    EW (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 10:37:37 AM EST
    is a cipher just like Obama was and people are projecting views onto her much like they did Obama. I don't think anybody knows her foreign policy stances at this point and people are liking what she says about economics.

    Parent
    EW (none / 0) (#92)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 11:02:48 AM EST
    HRC had been chafing at the bit to get America involved in a war in Syria. The President held her back. IMO, her position on Syria and Iran may be entirely due to the cozy relationships with Sunni monarchies in the ME that she and President Clinton cultivated over the years (same as the Bush family). She and McCain agree a lot on foreign policy, I find that very disturbing.

    EW, atleast, voted against legislation authorizing President Obama to arm and train Syrian rebels, taking a stand that could distinguish her from Hillary Clinton in 2016.

    link

    Parent

    A bit outlandish, isn't it (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 11:22:45 AM EST
    To take one difference reported between the President & his Secretary of State on foreign policy (Syria, as published)over a four-year period and equate that with an overall posture of warmongering McCain.  C'mon, politalkix, that is a stretch .... creating myths & generalized conclusions from them isn't really a persuasive tactic.

    The question that was raised above--as I read it--asked about Senator Warren's positions on foreign policy.  It may be helpful to talk a bit more about the array of foreign policy positions championed by Elizabeth Warren ... because by turning directly to restate your concerns about Hillary Clinton could be construed as an unresponsive deflection.  Far better to talk about the specific strengths on one you support, I think.

    Parent

    This is funny (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 12:24:18 PM EST
    HRC had been chafing at the bit to get America involved in a war in Syria. The President held her back.

    No evidence ... absolutely nothing to support the claim.  But Obama - the POTUS who was threatening direct US military action drawing a red line in the Syrian sand was 'holding back" HC, who supported indirect military aid for moderate Syrian rebels.

    Heh.

    IMO, her position on Syria and Iran may be entirely due to the cozy relationships with Sunni monarchies in the ME that she and President Clinton cultivated over the years (same as the Bush family).

    Very interesting theory.  It's funny what theories people can justify - despite a complete an utter lack of facts or evidence to support them - simply by putting enough qualifiers in there.

    EW, atleast, voted against legislation authorizing President Obama to arm and train Syrian rebels, taking a stand that could distinguish her from Hillary Clinton in 2016
    .

    You mean the legislation supported and signed by Obama, the guy who is "holding back" the hawkish HC?

    Heh.


    Parent

    That tells me exactly nothing about (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    EW would handle the vast area of foreign policy.

    You really need to learn how to answer questions, especially about EW, if you expect anyone to listen to you. So far in the few exchanges we've had recently, you been a failure in that area . . .

    We all know about EW's Wall Street work and some of her economic/domestic opinions/beliefs, but beyond that . . .  You need to step up your game. She seems to have some experience gaps that could be crucial if she ran for president. And there is still a lot that is not known about how she would approach many issues, like say, the Middle East. Perhaps you can find a speech she gave somewhere . . . ?

    Parent

    Methinks (2.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 01:29:54 PM EST
    Your extra aggressiveness is because you feel that people are listening to me, not because you think that they are not :-).

    When Bill Clinton ran in 1992, he had lots of gaps in his resume regarding foreign policy "experience". He ran on "Its the economy, stupid". If EW runs (which I don't think she will), she can do the same :-). I am sure that if she runs, she will inform people of her views on a whole variety of foreign policy issues that she has no reason to talk about at this moment.

    Parent

    No. (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 02:12:33 PM EST
    because you feel that people are listening to me, not because you think that they are not

    You missed that one by a canyon. YOU seem to want to deliver the message Hillary Sucks, EW is the cat's meow, except you cannot say how she is on FP, which is (more than obvious) one of your supposed bones to pick with HRC. Seems EW doesn't have enough history (experience in her past) or has been speaking on it enough for you to be able to present your/her case . . .

    And since you think she will not run . . . who else would you like to support in your argument of 'Hillary Sucks'?

    Parent

    link (none / 0) (#93)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 11:04:54 AM EST
    link

    Parent
    And that (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 12:14:46 PM EST
    may be one of Obama's biggest mistakes. As I understand it, it was just not HRC it was the military experts that were advocating for it too. Look at what we're dealing with now? I might have prevented Obama from getting pushed into dealing with ISIS the way he has been.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#100)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 12:30:30 PM EST
    The Iraq war was a mistake. HRC supported that. This started the whole mess. And arming Syrian rebels and getting militarily involved in Syria will be a mistake on a mistake. Hillary supports that also. She is also against having any dialog with Iran on Iran's nuclear ambitions.

    Why is HRC so eager to tell us her differences with the President on ME foreign policy but won't tell us anything regarding where she disagrees with Sen. McCain? Does she? I do not know because she keeps awfully quiet about it.

    Parent

    Perhaps because McCain (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    is not calling the FP shots?

    Parent
    Where do you come up ... (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 01:23:50 PM EST
    She is also against having any dialog with Iran on Iran's nuclear ambitions.

    ... with this stuff?  Did she tell you this during Sunday dinner or are you just making it up as you go along?

    And arming Syrian rebels and getting militarily involved in Syria will be a mistake on a mistake. Hillary supports that also.

    And you're upset with her, as opposed to the guy you like who also supports it - actually signed it into law - and proposed direct, US military action in Syria.?

    Heh.

    Parent

    Nothing? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 04:55:41 PM EST
    I guess you are just making it up.

    No surprise.

    Parent

    Do your own homework (none / 0) (#122)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 05:18:06 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    If you call that "homework", ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 06:11:33 PM EST
    ... you get an "F" ... and that's being kind.

    Absolutely no where does she (or the article) say that she "is also against having any dialog with Iran on Iran's nuclear ambitions."  To the contrary, she was asked about it in the context of negotiations with Iran, and stated her negotiating position was a preference for no enrichment with a potential fallback position of such little enrichment that they could not break out.

    As I said, you're just making it up.

    Parent

    She wants the talks to collapse (none / 0) (#130)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 06:21:09 PM EST
    -dialog that the President has started which involve considerable political risk. If she was the President, there would be no dialog.

    In the 2008 primaries, BHO said that he would initiate dialog with Iran in the same way that the US initiated talks with the former Soviet Union. She attacked BHO at that time for proposing such an idea. Look it up. Nothing she has done since that time makes me believe that she has changed her mind on this subject.  

    Parent

    Hahahahahahaha ... (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 07:03:21 PM EST
    So it's not just a reading comprehension issue, it's full-blown, delusional, tinfoil, CDS conspiracy theory!

    As for what you believe, you're clearly onto a comedic gold streak.  Keep talking!

    BTW - I'm well aware of the what Obama said in 2008, which is why I'm also aware that your latest, sad attempt at "homework" is also a failure.  It's the same reason you post a silly, fairy-tale version of what they said, as opposed to actual quotes.

    What Obama was actually asked:

    Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea

    Obama said he would meet with them without conditions at the Presidential level, which is precisely what HC and many others were criticizing.  She never said we shouldn't have a dialogue with them.  In fact what she actually said was:

    Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.
    I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration. And I will pursue very vigorous diplomacy.
    And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

    She also said:

    "You don't refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I'm sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the president to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it's a sign of strength, not weakness."

    Probably why Obama tried to back peddle from his statement - Obama's Evolving Position on Talking to Iran.  Obama also tried to lie about her response by claiming she was an adherent of the "Bush-Cheney doctrine [of] not talking to leaders we don't like," which is, of course, completely and utterly false.

    Like I said, just making it up ...

    Parent

    And because she was so dead set on not talking (5.00 / 6) (#136)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 07:17:54 PM EST
    in 2008, Obama made her SoS . . .

    Parent
    Listen, politalkix (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 03:47:51 PM EST
    Many voted in favor of that fraudulent Iraq War ... others, who were not so vulnerable, could have the luxury of courage.  Hillary has acknowledged her fault.  

    When there are many faults, misdeeds, severe errors in judgment ... well, it is reasonable to weigh heavily such decisions.  Using one wrong vote to determine the whole character of a person might make sense when weighing that individual's candidacy for sainthood.  Every one of us--and, certainly, every politician--carries at least one stone signifying error.  I'm not throwing any stones of character judgment when there were plenty of American errors to go around in the debacle that was the 2003 commencement of war in Iraq ... especially all these years later in 2014 .... unless I concluded that the error disqualified an individual from personal & political rehabilitation.  For me, the steps and deeds since accomplished would be a factor to be weighed in the balance ... unless I wanted to find a reason to jettison someone from consideration :)

    Parent

    To what was she vulnerable? (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by unitron on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 09:30:26 PM EST
    Not being re-elected to the Senate?

    Not being considered "patriotic" enough to get enough votes in a general election to win the Presidency?

    I'm trying to find the part that makes it worth spending the lives of US troops, and coming up short of a satisfactory answer.

    Parent

    I think I have indicated multiple times (none / 0) (#117)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 04:45:43 PM EST
    that I am willing to give HRC much more than a fair chance even after her extremely bad vote on the Iraq war. However, we also have to focus on issues that are important to people who are on the left side of the political spectrum to move the country in a better direction.

    IMO, BHO has moved our foreign policy leftwards in a good way. He is facing a lot of criticisms from the right for doing so. It should not be difficult for HRC to support the President on his foreign policy (after all, she was his SoS) and mount a robust pushback on the critics (including McCain, Lindsey Graham and the media)when she launches her campaign. If she wants to create some daylight with the President, she should do that on domestic policies. That is my opinion. Economic populism will be a good way to do so.

     

    Parent

    You have (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 06:43:17 PM EST
    to realize that George W. Bush withheld pertinent information even from the members of HIS OWN party  who were on the intelligence committee. Look after observing Obama for 6 years you know he would have voted for it. Lieberman was Obama's mentor in the senate fro pete's sake. No matter that's all water under the bridge at this point.

    Look at Military Tracy's post below. Not arming the Syrian Rebels could have caused the rise of Isis due to them killing off the moderate secular Muslims.

    And there is no evidence that she is against any dialog with Iran as shown below in the comments.

    HRC is eager to break from Obama because frankly EVERYBODY is eager to break from him. She's not alone in that regards. Reid cut off his legs. People are tired of his schtick. Can he turn it around? I hope so but that is where we are at this point.

    And why the heck does she have to debate McCain on foreign policy? He's not running for President. He already ran and he debated Obama. McCain is old news.

    Parent

    Had Mr. Obama been a junior senator from (5.00 / 5) (#159)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 09:24:26 AM EST
    Illinois, would he have also voted for the AUMF re W's Invasion of Iraq?  I think the answer is "yes."  

    Parent
    He wants one (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 10:26:34 AM EST
    now:

    Obama also announced he is sending lawmakers a resolution to authorize military force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, something he opted against doing in the weeks before Congress left for a seven-week campaign recess.

    Such a formal approval for the strikes is needed, Obama said, to show the country is "unified" in fighting the violent Sunni group.

    Obama said he will meet with congressional leaders on Friday, and the fight against the Islamic State would be a top agenda item. Central Command chief Gen. Lloyd Austin will brief the congressional leaders, Obama said.

    He told reporters the idea is to "right size and update" the post-9/11 measure "to suit the current fight rather than [past] fights."

    Obama called the Islamic State a "different kind of enemy," and America's changed partnerships with countries like Iraq make it appropriate to update the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF).

    The commander in chief said work on a new force resolution during the lame duck session will be about "getting it started," although finishing it might "spill over" into the new Congress.

    Lawmakers in both parties have talked in recent years about rescinding the AUMF passed after 9/11 or updating it, especially as al-Qaida has been weakened in Pakistan and Afghanistan but gained strength elsewhere.

    The White House is using the post-9/11 AUMF, among other laws and constitutional provisions, to legally justify conducting air strikes and other actions against the group.

    Experts and some lawmakers -- from both parties -- have said the measure is outdated and should at least be updated to reflect a changed fight against al-Qaida and similar forces in places beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. They note the Islamic State was founded long after the 2001 resolution was crafted.

    Both chambers are back on Nov. 12 but gone the week of Dec. 17, meaning lawmakers would have to move at warp speed to pass the items they delayed to the lame duck session plus the requests from Obama.

    And, and would he have voted for the original AUMF - the one he gave HRC grief for?  In his own words:

    In July 2004, Obama told New York Times that "he was not sure whether he would have voted against the resolution had he been in the Senate."

    or this:

    In October 2006, Obama told the New Yorker's David Remnick that "senators who saw intelligence reports on Iraq may have been justified in voting for the invasion. 'I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence,' he said. 'And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices.'"


    Parent
    Why does the (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 12:33:57 PM EST
    concept of "right sizing" and "updating" AUMF make me so nervous?
    Right sizing.  Right sizing.
    Although the term was never actually used back then, it reminds me way too much of the Vietnam War.

    Parent
    It is (none / 0) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    so obvious that's the answer it's not even funny.

    Parent
    I, also, think the answer is (none / 0) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 10:16:02 AM EST
    "Yes."

    Parent
    Sadly, many of the Sunni moderates (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 01:08:24 PM EST
    Who had even worked within the government and were secular and had well developed understanding of the existing infrastructure as well as social connections were specifically targeted and murdered by the religious extremist rebel groups.

    The religious extremist factions did exactly what they did when Iraq was destabilized, anyone who was capable of creating secularism was too dangerous to their agenda to allow to live and they were all specifically targeted and murdered, taken out of play for that reason.  That is also why Assad freed the extremists who were imprisoned for violence and crimes.  He needed them to murder the Sunni secular rebels who once worked for him, had credibility, but now rebelled and called for him to step down, and they did.

    If those individuals had been supported enough to prevent their own murders, Syria could be in a very different place than it is right now.  It's just a possibility, but existing reality is very sad!

    Parent

    Zero chance of success (none / 0) (#135)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 07:11:55 PM EST
    "If those individuals had been supported enough to prevent their own murders, Syria could be in a very different place than it is right now.  It's just a possibility, but existing reality is very sad!"

    What chance did those Sunni moderates (if they really existed and were not unicorns) have fighting Assad's military forces as well as Sunni extremists streaming into Syria from all parts of the world? Zilch! How long would we have to stay there to prop them up?

    America would be fighting a civil war inside Syria battling Assad's forces (backed by Russia + Iran) as well as Sunni extremists for years to come in that case.  


    Parent

    Sigh...... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 09:21:14 PM EST
    This happened long before the debate about whether or not there were moderate rebels, back in 2011

    Parent
    No, he can't nycstray (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 09:48:35 AM EST
    No one really knows what EW's foreign policy positions are.

    On July 18, Elizabeth Warren gave a rousing speech at Netroots Nation, the annual gathering of liberal activists. She called for raising the minimum wage, strengthening regulation of Wall Street, and combatting climate change--all familiar pillars of her platform. As Warren exited the convention center in Detroit, a reporter with the conservative Capitol City Project asked for her opinion on Israel's invasion of Gaza, which had begun that day. The Massachusetts senator looked for a moment like she might answer, then dashed to the elevator.

    The video made the rounds on conservative websites, where Warren was accused of dodging the question. That's a stretch: She had no obligation to answer such a complicated question while rushing to her next obligation. But it points to a broader question, on the right and left, about her foreign policy positions: What are they? She's been silent a wide array of international issues, from the conflict in Ukraine to President Barack Obama's use of drone strikes to the Libyan civil war. Even in her recently released book, A Fighting Chance, she rarely mentions foreign policy. And when I asked for an interview for this story, her office declined to comment.

    Liberals, particularly those eager to see her run for president--if only to pull Hillary left--have largely overlooked this hole in Warren's resume. But her foreign policy positions are becoming harder to ignore. Five weeks after dodging the Gaza question, a constituent in Cape Cod questioned her vote to send $225 million in aid to Israel. "America has a very special relationship with Israel," she responded. "Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren't many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world." The media, left and right, interpreted the comments as a blow to the left. "Elizabeth Warren Sides With Israel, Not With the Liberals Who Keep Daydreaming About Her," said Slate. The conservative website Hot Air published an article titled, "Heartache for lefties: Elizabeth Warren defends Israel at Massachusetts town hall."

    Thing is, these comments should not have surprised anybody, as Warren's support for Israel is by far her clearest foreign policy position. "The U.S.-Israel relationship is rooted in shared values and common interests, based on a commitment to liberty, pluralism, and the rule of law," her website reads. "These values transcend time, and they are the basis of our unbreakable bond." She supports a two-state solution and opposes Palestine's unilateral attempt for United Nations membership.

    The media's response to Warren's remarks is telling: They were glad to finally have something, anything, to chew on. To an extent, that's the media's problem, not Warren's. The press treats her (almost hopefully) as a presidential candidate. Unless she declares for 2016, she shouldn't be expected to have a detailed opinion on every single foreign-policy issue facing America. Warren is as aware of this as anyone, and that's why her silence on almost everything except Israel is the most convincing evidence yet that Warren has no immediate designs on the White House.

    SNIP

    But to no one's surprise, she didn't mention Obama's favored counterterrorism tool: drone strikes. Warren, who had three brothers who served in the military, has long avoided the topic. It's not the only issue that the freshman senator has been quiet on. She has said little about U.S. policy toward Russia, for instance--or Africa or Latin America for the matter. On Asia, she's been equally quiet. She's one of only a few senators not to have taken an overseas trip while in office. (She has a trip to Israel planned for after the midterms.) She has always supported President Obama's timetable for withdrawing American forces from Afghanistan, but has not said whether she supports leaving residual troops there. In 2012, MassLive posed 10 questions to her and then-Senator Scott Brown on different foreign policy issues. Her responses were full of generic platitudes, offering almost no insight into her positions. "The United States must continue to stand up for the universal values this country was founded on, including free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of movement," Warren answered when asked about China's human rights abuses. "I support the U.S. government's efforts to connect with the Chinese government on these issues, and I hope that both governments will continue to build those connections in the future." Her website is no less illuminative. On Iran, she takes the radical position that "United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon."

    Even her one clear foreign policy position, on Israel, doesn't shed much light on her broader worldview. Some liberals may be dismayed that her moderate stance, but as Paul Waldman points out at The American Prospect, her position is similar to that of almost every other politician on Capitol Hill. It's boilerplate language from a senator who doesn't spend much time thinking about foreign policy. "[Y]ou can call these comments conservative, in that they justify the Israeli government's actions without questioning the resulting civilian deaths," Waldman writes. "But the stance she articulates is essentially that of the entire American political elite, both Democratic and Republican." As for the $225 million in aid she supported, the measure passed unanimously in the Senate and 395-8 in the House. It's not like her position sets her apart from the Democratic Party.



    Parent
    From my perspective, all that ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 04:22:13 PM EST
    christinep: "[M[aybe Greenwald would be better served paying attention to the apparently disintegrating start-up that he was engaged to manage awhile back[.]"

    ... First Look Media has thus far proved is that it's been too flushed with cash and too infused with big and volatile egos. It's further problematic that FLM's loose management structure is scattered halfway around the world in Honolulu (Pierre Omidyar), New York (Jeremy Scahill), Rio de Janeiro (Glenn Greenwald) and Berlin (Laura Poitras).

    Personally, I think that Omidyar's foray into journalism would probably be much better served, were he to instead seek to fill the news void at the municipal and state levels across the country, with more efforts forthcoming like Honolulu's highly regarded online periodical Civil Beat.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Ferguson officer's radio calls (none / 0) (#6)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 02:22:15 PM EST
    were finally made public in today's SL Post: Darren Wilson's radio calls

    Most notable is the one at 12:02 pm: "21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car."

    That's it.

    And that's after he supposedly ID'd two as from the store robbery, after the altercation at the window, after the alleged assault, after the alleged struggle for the gun, after the two shots that he fired, after the blood from Brown splattered back on him, after Brown has run -- but a mere 14 seconds before Wilson then runs him down and shoots Brown dead.

    Talk about a smoking gun -- or rather smoking radio call for that matter????

    No wonder it took them 3 months to cough it up.

     

    OMG, not you guys again... (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by fishcamp on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 08:07:49 PM EST
    how many times do you have to try and prove who is more correct in your childish rants?  Let's go to everybody's interpretation of the radio timeline.  You've all said it too many times.  Wait it out.  Didn't you learn anything from the miles of stupid conjecture in the Z thread?  

    Parent
    Just out of curiousity (2.00 / 1) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 09:53:09 AM EST
    Why do you complain about these, in an open thread, and not complain about all the back and forth up thread re HRC between the usual suspects??

    I just flipped by them and I never even thought about complaining. They found them interesting and important. I didn't. So what???

    Parent

    I cannot speak for fishcamp, but my (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 11:40:29 AM EST
    problem with it is that you guys eat up an enormous amount of bandwidth repeating and reprinting the same same stuff.

    It is just a p!ssing contest with you guys.

    Parent

    iow, and this goes for all of us: (none / 0) (#187)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 11:56:25 AM EST
    "What you are interested in is not important, only what I am interested in is important."

    Parent
    Not what I said or meant. (5.00 / 4) (#188)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 12:05:59 PM EST
    I am fine with people discussing topics about which I am not interested. As a rule I simply skip over the topics in which I have no interest. No big deal. I am confident there are discussions here I find fascinating that someone else finds boring.

    If you read my comment carefully you will note that what I objected to was not their topic of discussion; it was their clogging of limited Open Thread bandwidth with repetitions. Not with new thoughts and information, but with the same stuff.

    Like I said- a p!ssing contest.

    Parent

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#198)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 12:32:13 PM EST
    I tend to think all that stuff is lumped in together.

    I think most of us, if we are interested in something, tolerate a lot more discussion of it. Even discussions that may repeat information.

    And if we are not interested in it, we are less tolerant.

    Parent

    OK, I'll play (2.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 02:50:51 PM EST
    Tell me the significance of this:

    Talk about a smoking gun -- or rather smoking radio call for that matter????



    Parent
    That call (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 03:16:07 PM EST
    is after the supposed great assault and struggle for the gun and identification of them as robbery suspects and after firing two shots hitting Brown with one and yet not one hint of that is in that call.

    It's not what's in that call that is important but what is not in it.

    Furthermore having made the call he knew backup was on the way -- so he had nothing to fear from Brown. Sit tight and wait for his buddies.

    So why chase him down and kill him????

    Parent

    Here from the SLPost article: (none / 0) (#34)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 04:42:14 PM EST
    Sources have told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson has told authorities that before the radio call he had stopped to tell Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, 22, to quit walking down the middle of the street.... He then realized that Brown matched the description of the suspect in the stealing call. Wilson then asked dispatch for backup and backed up his SUV next to Brown and Johnson.

    [This would have happened shortly after 12:01 but there is no record of this call to dispatch at that time -- only the call at 12:02. He's trying to make us think that he made the 12:02 call at 12:01]

    Wilson said Brown attacked him and that they struggled over the officer's gun before Wilson was able to fire twice, hitting Brown once. Brown ran away.

    [In a press conference early on Ferguson PC Jackson said that only one shot was fired in the vehicle and no one was hit. I guess he doesn't know what blood looks like.]

    Wilson has told authorities that he called, "Shots fired, send all cars," on his radio, but during the struggle his radio had been jarred and the channel changed.

    [This would have been around 12:02 and yet that radio was working just fine at 12:02 when dispatch received this from Wilson: "21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car."  He didn't say "shots fired" or "officer assaulted" or "calling all cars"]

    His call triggered at least two officers to head his way, including one who said he was close to Wilson.

    The Post-Dispatch reviewed radio calls made during that period on all St. Louis County police channels, the fire channel used by Ferguson and other channels publicly archived online and could not locate the "Shots fired, send all cars," call.

    Timelines will get you every time, Darren.

    Parent

    Updated Brown Shooting Timeline (none / 0) (#11)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 03:09:37 PM EST
    with new info from the Post:

    12:00 Wilson leaves earlier call a half mile away.

    12:01 Wilson makes contact with the jaywalkers at Canfield.

    He pulls forward then backs up.

    12:01:50 A 911 call is posted by FPD about a "disturbance" at Canfield -- probably the interaction at the vehicle.

    Two shots are fired by Wilson at his vehicle with one hitting Brown who then turns and runs.

    12:02 Wilson calls dispatch saying: "21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car".

    Nothing in Wilson's call indicates that there had been an assault or shots fired or blood spilled or a struggle for a gun or that there was an emergency or a pursuit in progress -- and the radio was working just fine contrary to his claim.

    Wilson then exits his vehicle and chases Brown firing one shot at him while in pursuit causing Brown to stop and turn.

    12:02:14 Glide recording shows 10 shots fired in sequences of 6 then 4 over 7 seconds.

    135 feet from the vehicle Brown now lays dead on the street.

    12:02:22 2nd Ferguson PD unit arrives per dispatch.

    12:02:41 PD unit 25 announces its arrival at Wilson's location, saying he was "going out on Canfield" accompanied by the sound of his racing engine.

    12:02:48 PD unit 22 announces its arrival saying  "22's out."

    At 12:03 p.m., an eyewitness to the shooting, Three Pharoah, tweets "I just saw someone die OMFG".

    developing ...

    Parent

    This timeline is your own creation? (3.50 / 2) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 12:12:15 AM EST
    It certainly seems different from the one in the St. Louis Post Dispatch:
    At noon, Wilson reports that he's back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves - units 25 and 22 - if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared.

    At 12:02 p.m., Wilson says, "21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car."

    His call triggered at least two officers to head his way, including one who said he was close to Wilson.

    Sources have told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson has told authorities that before the radio call he had stopped to tell Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, 22, to quit walking down the middle of the street. They kept walking, and he then realized that Brown matched the description of the suspect in the stealing call.

    Wilson then asked dispatch for backup and backed up his SUV next to Brown and Johnson.

    Wilson said Brown attacked him, sources said, and that they struggled over the officer's gun before Wilson was able to fire twice, hitting Brown once. Brown ran away.

    Wilson has told authorities that he called, "Shots fired, send all cars," on his radio, but during the struggle his radio had been jarred and the channel changed.



    Parent
    The point being that, according to Wilson, (3.00 / 2) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 12:20:50 AM EST
    the radio got hit during the scuffle and the channel got changed so, as it turned out later, Wilson made a call after the scuffle that not get sent to the dispatcher, or whoever it was supposed to get sent to.

    Parent
    Sarcastic (none / 0) (#78)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 07:44:53 AM EST
    the radio got hit during the scuffle and the channel got changed so

    That did not happen as the 12:02 radio call indicates. That call took place just after the scuffle as Brown ran -- and that call to dispatch went through just fine.

    There was no other call and the Post Dispatch admitted that they looked for it but couldn't find it.

    Wilson made a call after the scuffle that not get sent to the dispatcher, or whoever it was supposed to get sent to.

    That was the 12:02 call and it went through just fine but it did not say what Wilson claimed.

    Wilson or whoever is speaking for him has been caught in a big lie here by the publication of this 12:02 call.

    Parent

    The 12:02 call was when Wilson backed up (3.00 / 2) (#94)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 11:09:37 AM EST
    before the scuffle with Brown.

    Parent
    Uncle Chip (none / 0) (#82)
    by RickyJim on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 08:25:12 AM EST
    You have convicted Wilson, in your mind, a long time ago.  I have never understood any of your posts on this matter.  Try posting a single succinct, self contained summary of the proof BRD, like I have done in the Pistorius case.  Have you tried to convince the people on the ConservativeTreeHouse that your view is correct?

    Parent
    Ricky Jim (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 09:06:01 AM EST
    You have convicted Wilson, in your mind, a long time ago.

    And yet you can't show me where any of the facts that I post, especially those from police sources, are wrong.

    I have never understood any of your posts on this matter.

    That's your problem.

    Try posting a single succinct, self contained summary of the proof

    I have time and again.

    Have you tried to convince the people on the ConservativeTreeHouse that your view is correct?

    You mean Groupthink Treehouse where they are still reliving the Zimmerman case to their detriment and so stuck on stupid on this case that they can't see the facts through the trees.

    So what part of the Brown Shooting Timeline that I have posted do you take issue with or are you just driving by today?

    Parent

    Sorry, I Missed It (none / 0) (#87)
    by RickyJim on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 09:33:46 AM EST
    Try posting a single succinct, self contained summary of the proof

    I have time and again.


    I am looking for something like: There is no reasonable explanation for the following evidence (1,2,3,4 etc) except Wilson being guilty of murder.  By the way, I don't regard anything said by the "witnesses", like Dorian Johnson, who appeared on TV accompanied by lawyers, undoubtedly hired by somebody with an agenda, as believable evidence.

    Parent
    Ricky Jim or Sundance (none / 0) (#97)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 11:38:39 AM EST
    By the way, I don't regard anything said by the "witnesses", like Dorian Johnson

    Wow -- does that include Ferguson Chief Jackson???

    For months your website CTH mocked DJ for saying he saw Brown hit by a shot fired by Wilson from the car and now lo and behold forensic evidence proves that DJ was telling the truth about that with Brown's blood found on the car door.

    And yet all during that time PC Jackson lied about that part saying in a press conference that only one shot was fired from inside the car but no one was hit by it. 35 years on the force and he doesn't know what blood looks like???

    But you believe PC Jackson over Dorian J or any of the other witnesses, right???

    This is the same PC Jackson who said Brown was hit with two shots for sure but not much more. Sure -- 7 is not much more than 2 in his math book.

    But you believe PC Jackson over any of the other witnesses, right???

    This is the same PC Jackson who said that the crime scene was only 35 feet long while it is actually over 120 feet long and he was standing right there 5 minutes after the shooting. Get him a tape measure for Christmas.

    But you believe PC Jackson over any of the other witnesses, right???

    You don't believe Dorian or any of the other witnesses, none of whom had the access to the wealth of forensic evidence and the crime scene or the shooter that PC Jackson did to help with what they saw in those brief 14 short seconds.

    And yet you believe PC Jackson who had access to all of it and yet blatantly lied about it time and again in this case.

    What does that say about your discernment, your credibility, your objectivity, your website, and ...

    You get my drift --

    Hows about tapping those great sleuthing minds over there at CTH and telling us how big Darren Wilson is and what someone his size had to fear from a guy smaller than him who was running away in his socks while bleeding from a bullet in his arm.

    And all the while Darren Wilson knowing that he had just called dispatch for backup which was a  mere seconds away.

    Parent

    Are you claiming that Wilson was bigger... (none / 0) (#144)
    by unitron on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 10:35:39 PM EST
    ...than Brown?

    Does that include mass as well as height?

    Parent

    Ohh and BTW, Ricky Jim (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 10:17:33 AM EST
    or is it Sundance???

    You might want to correct that map of the Brown shooting scene on your website there at CTH to reflect this photo of the crime scene taken shortly afterwards:

    Photo of trees being cut down by the treeworkers at building 50 feet south of where Brown's body lay on the ground

    It was pointed out here 2 months ago

    Their truck may have been parked 200 feet away to the north but the trees that these two were working on when they witnessed the shooting  were those pictured in front of the building 50 feet south of Brown's body.

    It's a bit disingenuous of you to allege that they weren't 50 feet away when they saw what they saw after looking at that photo from your own website, don't you think, Sundance???

    Is that understandable enough  for you???

    Parent

    I am Not Sundance (none / 0) (#96)
    by RickyJim on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 11:25:42 AM EST
    However I think he had the situation in the Trayvon Martin case pegged right.  I don't know if he is right about the Brown shooting but I do find him easier to understand than you.

    Parent
    As far as I know (none / 0) (#114)
    by leftwig on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 03:48:31 PM EST
    The white "maintenance workers" have never stated they were at the location you assume.  ITs your guess.  It seems to me it would have been really stupid of them to park in the location they did if they were working where you think they were.

    Seems to me you've made some reasonable guesses, but those guesses are not fact.  I mean, could Wilson have made a call from his vehicle at 12:02 exactly (is that start or end time?) and had all the activity described by witnesses and heard on the audio recording of the shots in 14 seconds?

    Parent

    Leftwig (none / 0) (#119)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 05:03:28 PM EST
    That photo is worth a thousand claims to the contrary. Perhaps where they parked was the only spot available at the time -- visitor parking. It was a Saturday you know -- when everybody and their cars are home.

    The landscapers said that they were 50 feet away taking down trees and lo and behold we see trees in that photo that are cut down 50 feet away.

    The burden of proof is on those who contest that photo who think that everybody but the shooter is lying.

    Re the radio call, what's your point??? Go read the Post Dispatch article for the facts if you think I have them wrong.

    That call was a dozen words taking no more than 3 seconds. So if it starts at 12:01:57 and ends at 12:02:00 police dispatch lists it as a 12:02 call. It could be 3 seconds one way or the other. Are you going to take issue over how they listed the time of that call??

    The point is that there is nothing in the words of that call or his voice to indicate that there had just been a confrontation, a struggle, an assault, an attempted arrest, a shooting, a bleeding suspect running away, or fear of anything requiring emergency attention from other units.

    Note that Wilson also only asked for "another car" -- that's all -- not all cars -- just another one. Usually an officer assault or gunshots fired requires a call to all cars to respond.

    And yet 14 seconds after that call was over Wilson ended somebody's life with a  gruesome barrage of 10 bullets.

    That call is devastating to the Wilson mythology and those caught up in it. It tells you his state of mind just 14 seconds before he empties his gun into someone -- and it's not good.

     

    Parent

    One more time,and maybe you don't know (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 08:18:53 PM EST
    this but in this country the people making the claim are the ones responsible for proving it.

    And you can't get away from this.

    Let's go back and add:

    "At one minute, 13 seconds after Wilson's call.....Eleven seconds later....Twenty seconds late  unit 25 called in to ask if the dispatcher could send a supervisor to Canfield and Copper Creek Court...."

    So sometime between 12:02 and 12:03:44 seconds, using the PD dispatch time, this all happened:

    12:02. Wilson called dispatch said he had two suspects. Brown grabbed for the gun. There was a scuffle. Shots fired. Brown runs from the vehicle...turns and comes back and is shot...

    That's 104 seconds. Plenty of time.

    And then this.

    The point is that there is nothing in the words of that call or his voice to indicate that there had just been a confrontation, a struggle, an assault, an attempted arrest, a shooting, a bleeding suspect running away, or fear of anything requiring emergency attention from other units.

    That's because at that point the alteration had not started. It started after that when Brown decided he didn't want to be arrested and started grabbing at the gun.

    And

    And yet 14 seconds after that call was over Wilson ended somebody's life with a  gruesome barrage of 10 bullets.

    No. That is not correct. What we do know from the PD dispatch records is that everything happened in 104 seconds.

    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 11:34:48 PM EST
    Where is there anything to dispute the Timeline???

    The Timeline is from the Ferguson police.

    And we know that the altercation at the car took place before Wilson's 12:02 call because there were earlier 911 calls into FPD about a "disturbance on Canfield" prior to his call.

    One 911 call was posted by FPD at 12:01:50 -- that's 10 seconds before Wilson's 12:02 radio call and must have been about the altercation at the car.

    If you like you can add these to the timeline  from the Post article:

    At one minute, 13 seconds after Wilson's call, an unidentified officer has arrived and asks, "Where's the other one?" referring to Johnson.

    That's the 3rd or 4th car to arrive at 12:03:13 -- less than a minute after Brown was shot dead.

    Eleven seconds later, there's a brief burst of static and an unintelligible bit of speech. A dispatcher responds, "10-4 on Canfield."

    That's 12:03:24

    Twenty seconds later, unit 25 called in to ask if the dispatcher could send a supervisor to Canfield and Copper Creek Court.

    That's 12:03:44 -- the 2nd unit that arrived earlier announcing Ferguson we have a problem.

    And understand, Jim, that there are videos posted on the internet corroborating these times and the arrivals.

    So what's your real beef???

    Parent

    Where's the beef??? Here's the beef. (1.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 08:18:01 AM EST
    Chip, I'll answer and then move on because you aren't going change.

    Your problem is that you have too many things like this.

    "One 911 call was posted by FPD at 12:01:50 -- that's 10 seconds before Wilson's 12:02 radio call and must have been about the altercation at the car."

    That's an assumption.  But even then it proves nothing. Let me assume. There's been a small scuffle and Wilson thinks he has everything under control. He has no reason for his voice to be "excited." He has the perps and says send me a car.

    BTW - Have you ever listened to a pilot, knowing he's going down, calmly talking to the people on the ground?? People are trained to be calm. They act calmly. They speak calmly. In short, don't judge his actions by your own lack of control when under extreme duress.  

    "That's the 3rd or 4th car to arrive at 12:03:13 -- less than a minute after Brown was shot dead."

    That is more guessing. I gave you the complete run down using the PD's broadcast time:

    At one minute, 13 seconds after Wilson's call.....Eleven seconds later....Twenty seconds late  unit 25 called in to ask if the dispatcher could send a supervisor to Canfield and Copper Creek Court...."

    That is 104 seconds, one minute and 44 seconds.  And that's the beef. There is plenty of time for everything to have happened exactly as Wilson described.

    So I'm not saying the FPD's broadcast times are wrong. I'm saying you are making a bunch of assumptions and are trying to pass them off as fact. I repeat. 1 minute and 44 seconds is plenty of time for things to have happened exactly as Wilson described.


    Parent

    I don't think that photo represents (none / 0) (#143)
    by leftwig on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 09:46:42 PM EST
    the particular "fact" that you think it does.  ITs a post shooting photo of a tree that is down and has been trimmed up.   What I recall of their statement is that one of them was upset when they struck a root.  What makes you think they were working a couple of hundred feet from their truck as opposed to right here by these dug up tree roots right next to their vehicle?

    Again, you've assumed a lot on your timeline.  I don't make the same assumptions you do.  We'll start with one question, did Wilson call in from the radio in his SUV, or did he make a call from a radio he was wearing?

    Parent

    Assumptions (none / 0) (#145)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 11:01:35 PM EST
    They were tree workers. They said they were 50 feet away. That is a photo of trees being worked on that are 50 feet away.

    Do you have any evidence to prove that that is not where they were working at the time of the shooting???

    I'm assuming nothing about that timeline except that the information acquired by FOIA request from the Ferguson Police Department subsequently published by the Post Dispatch is accurate. Do you have any reason to believe that it is not correct???

    Show me where any part of that timeline is wrong and I will change it.

    But as it stands per FPD 12:02:00 is when he finished his brief radio call to dispatch and 12:02:14 is when he fired the final shot into Brown's head.

    Parent

    The Sanford, FL police released a timeline... (none / 0) (#147)
    by unitron on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 04:21:01 AM EST
    ...which turned out not to be accurate down to the second (or even the minute) due to flawed methodology.

    I'm not going to take this one as absolute gospel just quite yet, especially since so many of the times seem to be right at the top of the minute than random chance would account for.

    Granted I've not been able to find the actual material released by the police, just various media outlet reports about it.

    Parent

    Here is what the police released (none / 0) (#154)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 08:23:19 AM EST
    You won't get this information directly from the Ferguson PD.

    It's in the St Louis Post Dispatch only because they filed an FOIA request for it and the department had to cough it up.

    BTW the article is written by police reporters for the Post who are well known to bend over backwards to favor the police side of things.

    And yet they couldn't explain away the 12:02 radio call or find evidence for Wilson's claim and they admitted as such in the article to their great dismay of course.

    Parent

    From the link you posted, (none / 0) (#162)
    by leftwig on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 09:32:42 AM EST
    Here are the first two events they detail:

    At 11:29 a.m. on Aug. 9, a dispatcher asked Wilson to help other officers search for a man who had reportedly threatened to kill a woman. At 11:47 a.m., Wilson said he would respond to a call for a 2-month-old with breathing problems.

    Your assumption is that all times provided are exact, to the second.  IT would be incredibly coincidental if a dispatcher called Wilson at exactly 11:29:00 and that Wilson responded for another call at exactly 11:47:00 and then again that Wilson called in for support on Canfield at exactly 12:02:00.  Isn't it much more likely that these events as reported by STL Dispatch have only provided a rounding to the minute of when they occurred as opposed to the exact moment in time that they occurred?

    Parent

    leftwig (none / 0) (#171)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 09:55:03 AM EST
    Your assumption is that all times provided are exact, to the second.

    That's not true. I'm posting the times as deciphered from the Ferguson Police Department as reported by the Post Dispatch.

    But I do plead guilty of assuming that a 12:02 call comes after a 12:01:50 call but before a 12:02:41  call.

    IT would be incredibly coincidental if a dispatcher called Wilson at exactly 11:29:00 and that Wilson responded for another call at exactly 11:47:00 and then again that Wilson called in for support on Canfield at exactly 12:02:00.

    You will have to take that up with the Ferguson Police Department. They are the source of the times. But in their defense they do not round off all times as one from the 2nd officer responding is listed at 41 seconds after Wilson's 12:02 call which would be at 12:02:41.

    Isn't it much more likely that these events as reported by STL Dispatch have only provided a rounding to the minute

    You're serious. No -- give it up. Ferguson Police actually have clocks and computers that track real time events to the second. They are not policing back in the dark ages.

    Parent

    Um, who says they were "tree workers"? (none / 0) (#149)
    by leftwig on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 07:44:54 AM EST
    The photo you have linked shows a few downed trees that are on the south side of the street from where Brown was shot.  There is no equipment in that area and the workers truck is parked some 300+ feet away from those trees.  They could have parked in the lot right next to that area if thats where they were working.  The photo I provided which you are choosing to ignore, shows an area within about 50 feet of their truck where someone was working.

    Do I know with certainty this is where the workers were working?  No, just like you don't know with any certainty that they were working at the area of those downed trees.  Why do I think they were more likely to have been working in the area of the photo I posted?

    • ITs close to where their work truck is parked.  
    • One worker made mention of being upset by hitting a tree root.  The picture I provided shows exposed tree roots.  Why would someone cutting down trees be upset by hitting a tree root?  Wouldn't that be expected?
    • The workers didn't see anything of the original events, not Wilson addressing the two to get on the sidewalk, not Wilson "screeching" his tires, not a struggle in the SUV, not hearing 2 shots fired inside the SUV, no initial chase.  From your suggested vantage point, they would have easily been able to see all of that.  From the vantage point I suggest, those initial events would have been blocked by the buildings.

    Here is another overhead image of the area.  The trees you suggest they were working on were by the building marked "Tiffany Mitchell".  Its clearly much more likely that they were working somewhere near their vehicle.

    Parent
    leftwig (none / 0) (#160)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 09:24:58 AM EST
    The photo you have linked shows a few downed trees that are on the south side of the street from where Brown was shot.  There is no equipment in that area and the workers truck is parked some 300+ feet away from those trees.

    That's because the photo was not taken on Saturday but perhaps on Sunday or later after they had built the shrine in the middle of the street. That's atleast a day later.

     They could have parked in the lot right next to that area if thats where they were working.

    They may have done that if there was parking available there and then after the shooting as they saw the crowd growing and trouble coming they got in the truck and drove across the street to avoid the trouble.

    You do realize that the video that was taken with them over there 200 feet away yelling with their hands raised was taken about 4 minutes minutes after the shooting as yellow tape going up in the background.

      The photo I provided which you are choosing to ignore, shows an area within about 50 feet of their truck where someone was working.

    They may have been working in both places that day but at the time of the shooting they were working on the trees in front of the building 50 feet south of the crime scene.

    ITs close to where their work truck is parked.  
    One worker made mention of being upset by hitting a tree root.

    The trees 50 feet away have roots too. They may have been working at one location but left it when they hit roots to go over to the other location where the trees were.

    Remember they said that they had a conversation with Brown and Johnson who were on their way to the store. Look at where their truck was parked. How and why would Brown and Johnson be way over there off the beaten path to the store.

    The picture I provided shows exposed tree roots.  Why would someone cutting down trees be upset by hitting a tree root?  Wouldn't that be expected?

    All trees have roots even those 50 feet south of the crime scene.

    The workers didn't see anything of the original events ... From your suggested vantage point, they would have easily been able to see all of that.

    So I guess you didn't notice the tree in the front yard there that would have been blocking their view up the street.

    Here is another overhead image of the area.  The trees you suggest they were working on were by the building marked "Tiffany Mitchell".

    So how long do you think it will take for someone to make the necessary corrections to that image to reflect the testimony of the two working class witnesses who said that that's where they were when they saw the shooting.

    Parent

    12:02 is 12:02 (none / 0) (#77)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 07:32:05 AM EST
    Show me the evidence where that timeline is wrong and I will correct it.

    As it stands all the times in that timeline all come from the Ferguson Police Department except two and those two are corroborated by the FPD dispatches.

    But let's look at what you posted from the article which is a bit confusing because it's out of the proper order -- thus the need for the timeline:

    At noon, Wilson reports that he's back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves - units 25 and 22 - if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared.

    So far so good.

    At 12:02 p.m., Wilson says, "21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car." His call triggered at least two officers to head his way, including one who said he was close to Wilson.

    Per the FPD Dispatch and the article these two officers begin to arrive 41 seconds later at 12:02:41 -- after Brown was laying dead in the street. So the story here is out of sequence.

    Sources have told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson has told authorities that before the radio call he had stopped to tell Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, 22, to quit walking down the middle of the street. They kept walking, and he then realized that Brown matched the description of the suspect in the stealing call. Wilson then asked dispatch for backup and backed up his SUV next to Brown and Johnson.

    The Post Dispatch admitted in the article that they went looking for this alleged radio call at 12:01 but it didn't exist. It's a figment of his incriminated imagination. If this call had taken place it would have been a few seconds after 12:01 -- not 12:02 after Brown had run away.

    Wilson said Brown attacked him, sources said, and that they struggled over the officer's gun before Wilson was able to fire twice, hitting Brown once. Brown ran away.

    So then Wilson knew that he had hit Brown with one of his shots and that he was injured and bleeding and was less of a threat especially after running 135 feet away in socks without shoes bleeding all the way.

    Wilson has told authorities that he called, "Shots fired, send all cars," on his radio, but during the struggle his radio had been jarred and the channel changed.

    The police dispatch shows Wilson lying big time to investigators here for which he should be arrested and charged.

    The radio was working just fine as the 12:02 radio call from him after Brown ran shows.

    And that call was not an emergency code red "Shots fired. send all cars" or even an "Officer assaulted. Robbery suspects. Shots fired. Suspect hit. Send all cars" but a calm meager "21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car".

    That 12:02 call -- what was in it and not in it -- is devastating to Wilson's case and his clueless defenders across the internet.

    Parent

    It doesn't work like that (1.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 08:37:04 AM EST
    Show me the evidence where that timeline is wrong and I will correct it.

    Show me that it is right and actually means something.

    You can't.

    Parent

    developing ... Really?? (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 05:23:13 PM EST
    Take a calmer look.

    First, we have no way of knowing what the actual time line is. I mean, were all the devices synced together??

    I mean is Thee$SavageEP at 2:03.01 or 2:03.59?? We don't know. And how much time elapsed between him seeing something and tweeting?? 1 minute? 2? 3??

    If his smartphone's clock, or Twitter's, agreed with the clock on dispatch records, Brown was killed less than 61 seconds after the dispatcher acknowledged that Wilson had stopped two men.

    So the above could be off by quite a bit.

    And 61 seconds is more than enough time for the struggle and all that happened next to occur.

    It still comes back to this.

    But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran - the police got out and ran after him

    {crosstalk}

    #2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him -

    Link

    There's no doubt Brown robbed the store.

    There's no doubt Brown reached for the gun and was shot in the struggle.

    And the witness says he turned and came back.

    And he didn't have his hands up.

    Parent

    This is funny (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 05:44:01 PM EST
    There's no doubt Brown robbed the store.

    There's no doubt Brown reached for the gun and was shot in the struggle.

    And the witness says he turned and came back.

    And he didn't have his hands up.

    You mean in the mind of Officer Wilson or his mother?

    Parent

    The autopsy proved he was shot in the (2.00 / 2) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 08:18:45 PM EST
    police vehicle.

    The witness is completely neutral.

    I know you're all in on this. What I can't figure out is where your bias comes from.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 08:30:37 PM EST
    Did the autopsy prove "he was reaching for the gun"?

    Did the autopsy prove he "didn't have his hands up"?

    Did the autopsy prove he "came back" - whatever that means?

    Nope.

    I know you're all in on this. What I can't figure out is where your bias comes from.

    Really - with that kind of imagination, I would've expected you to imagine a motivation to go along with the story.

    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 11:07:38 PM EST
    The autopsy proved he was shot in the police vehicle.

    Show me the words of the autopsy that prove that.

    Parent

    Show me that he was not. (1.33 / 3) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 08:24:21 AM EST
    And from the witness.

    But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran - the police got out and ran after him

    And he was shot at close range.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#163)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 09:34:18 AM EST
    And from the witness. But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran - the police got out and ran after him

    So then I assume that you believe this witness to be accurate.

    Good -- because you do know that this same witness also says that Brown had his hands up when shot and  that Wilson murdered him and should be indicted.

    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 10:57:20 PM EST
    we have no way of knowing what the actual time line is. I mean, were all the devices synced together?? I mean is Thee$SavageEP at 2:03.01 or 2:03.59??

    Uhhh -- all the police dispatch computers at the FPD were and are synced together. They all came from the same Police Dispatch in the same building in the same city in the same time zone.

    If you wish you can throw out the 12:03 Tweet but that's not going to help you or Darren.

    Wilson made that incriminating call at 12:02:00 as Dispatch reported with his buddies beginning to announce their arrivals on the scene of his smoking gun 41 seconds later at 12:02:41.

    Ferguson Police Dispatch actually earlier placed the 2nd unit arrival there at 12:02:22 -- 8 seconds after the Glide audio recording of the final shot at 12:02:14.

    There's no escaping that timeline or that incriminating radio call no matter how many times you close your eyes and click your heels together.

    Parent

    They may have been synced (1.50 / 2) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 08:30:37 AM EST
    they may not have been synced. And the others may have... But we have no proof.

    If you wish you can throw out the 12:03 Tweet but that's not going to help you or Darren.

    If the glove don't fit you must acquit.

    An incriminating call?? What in the wide wide world is incriminating about that??

    As I noted, 61 seconds is more than enough time for the events to have occurred.

    Again, what is your motive in attack the police?? Have you ever had a bad experience with police?

    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 08:42:09 AM EST
    Again, what is your motive in attack the police??

    So then posting the facts regarding a police shooting is an attack on the police??? Talk about feelings of self-incrimination.

    In case you haven't noticed the facts that I am posting come directly from the Ferguson police -- from the police dispatch, from the police records, and from the officer's own words.

    What part of that escapes your understanding.

    Parent

    First of all (1.00 / 1) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 01:57:53 PM EST
    I see no link showing the time line. But here;'s what we do know.

    "At 11:53 a.m., a dispatcher reported a "stealing in progress" at the Ferguson Market. The 911 operator was still talking to the caller in the background."

    "At noon, (12:00) Wilson reports that he's back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves - units 25 and 22 - if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared."

    link

    "At 12:02 p.m., Wilson says, "21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car." His call triggered at least two officers to head his way, including one who said he was close to Wilson."

    Okay, let's stop right here.  He has stopped and has two suspects. Then:

    "I JUST SAW SOMEONE DIE OMFG
    12:03 PM - 9 Aug 2014"

    If his smartphone's clock, or Twitter's, agreed with the clock on dispatch records, Brown was killed less than 61 seconds after the dispatcher acknowledged that Wilson had stopped two men."

    Link

    This is the writer's guess. If the smartphone's clock and the PD dispatch were synched together then the time is between 61 seconds and 119 seconds.  I do not know if the PD dispatch radio/recording system is synched to the same synch source as the cell phone network which is an atomic clock over the SONET network.

    From Chip:

    12:01 Wilson makes contact with the jaywalkers at Canfield.

    Chip provides no proof of the time. In a previous comment he writes:

    "He then realized that Brown matched the description of the suspect in the stealing call. Wilson then asked dispatch for backup and backed up his SUV next to Brown and Johnson.
    [This would have happened shortly after 12:01 "

    Again, no proof. This is just pure speculation masquerading as fact.

    Let's go back and add:

    At one minute, 13 seconds after Wilson's call.....Eleven seconds later....Twenty seconds late  unit 25 called in to ask if the dispatcher could send a supervisor to Canfield and Copper Creek Court....

    So sometime between 12:02 and 12:03:44 seconds, using the PD dispatch time, this all happened:

    12:02. Wilson called dispatch said he had two suspects. Brown grabbed for the gun. There was a scuffle. Shots fired. Brown runs from the vehicle...turns and comes back and is shot...

    And whether or not Wilson was able to call in and report the shooting is of no importance. But stop and think. Why would he do more than grab the mic and yell a message.

    Parent

    Bill Maher interviewed (none / 0) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 03:11:01 PM EST
    Senator Rand Paul (R. Ky) on his show Friday night (Nov 14).  Maher was sympathetic with Paul's views on the failure of the drug war, but Paul was slippery as disappearing ice on climate change--not opposed to all regulations, just those, it seems, involving the environment.  Paul would like to cut regulations of alternative fuels and let the magic of the marketplace prevail; also no "dramatic changes"  could effect Kentucky coal (miners or owners, not specified), and can't lose jobs over something like this.

    Maher asked him about the idea that "corporations are people" but Paul skipped over and evaded a response.  Maher did not follow-up.   Paul warbled on the threat of ISIS because he has determined that they  are a threat to "our embassy and consulate."  A different song than his customary non-intervention/isolationist stance, although he would not countenance boots on the ground.

    Maher did not ask any questions about social issues, such as women's health or marriage equality.  Curious to have left those issues out, but, then Bill probably did not want to diminish the anti-drug war glow of the interview.   Overall, Senator Paul seems to exhibit all the membership criteria necessary to the 2016 Republican clown car parade.

    I think Paul could be more if a threat (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 03:53:29 PM EST
    than we would like to think.  He can sound very reasonable.  He is not Ted Cruz.  He knows how to manage the crazy.  Hillary's biggest problem IMO will be young voters.  Paul will be able to get a lot of those.  He is anti war and anti drug war.  
    Whatever else Hillary is she is stepping back a generation in leadership.  That, more than her gender, could be a problem with young voters.  IMO it would be the same for a man of her age.
    I have said for a while that this time the tea party will get their candidate.  I think it could be Randy.  If it is Hillary will as I said above need a liberal on the ticket.  IMO.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 04:06:35 PM EST
    first of all Rand Paul is going to have to get out of the primary but apparently he has a bigger shot than a lot of them. He's also going to have a voting record in the senate to defend of which I'm not sure what it is. As far as being anti-war he's not really. He's really been waffling on that account which in honesty I really hate because I would like to see what happens to someone who doesn't waffle on that kind of thing and how far someone with that kind of vision can go.

    He would have some of the same problems as Hillary in reverse. He would run off the older base the GOP has.

    Of course all this goes back to my theory of there is a political realignment going on and it has been going on for about 20 years now. Obama didn't really realign anything. Will the next presidential election? I think so.

    Parent

    Agreed. . (none / 0) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 05:26:29 PM EST
    Rand Paul can come across with appeal for younger voters as an un-Republican with certain forays into libertarianism. His anti-drug position and his posturing as anti-war may be enough to dilute his unappealing tea party roots while still capturing the tea party base  in the primaries.  Hoping the voters will take sugar with the tea.   And, of course, a Paul constituency has been built up by his father, now to the benefit of the son.

    The full range of Rand Paul, however, will need to stand scrutiny.  It was for that reason that I was disappointed that Bill Maher did not move into other issues that may attenuate the notion that Paul is just what the younger voter is looking for--and, that his libertarianism can be seen as faltering when government cannot get into private lives enough, such as decisions on abortion or bans on same sex marriage.  

    However, Paul does not seem to have gravitas and that may be a problem for him.   He comes across, to me, as a lightweight. But never-the-less, he may seem a horse of a different to the unsuspecting.

    Rand Paul may place Secretary Clinton in the position of being a defender of the status quo by challenging Paul's different, even if,  harebrained ideas.  And, of course, the worse tactic for anyone of great experience and expertise, is to dismiss knowingly unworkable ideas  (having been there done that), especially to younger people who do not have the benefit of that background.  Sort of like when Al Gore (justifiably) rolled his eyes at the inane comments of George W. Bush.

    Parent

    Our president has, (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 05:35:56 PM EST
    I think, given gravitas a bad name with some.  Not only is he a contrast with Hillary but also with Obama.  For good or ill.

    Wouldn't be surprised if Maher had conditions for that interview.  

    Parent

    That is a really apt comparison to (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 06:19:33 AM EST
    GWB. I can easily see Hillary being dismissive of the harebrained and having an eye-rolling moment. She will have to be at her most diplomatically charming during the debates if he and she are the nominees. lots if ifs there.

    Parent
    I predict (none / 0) (#191)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    that Hillary Clinton, if elected, will not only continue the insanity known as the "war on drugs," but would most likely beef it up. More ruined lives, more dead, more insanity.

    Parent
    ACA more food for thought (none / 0) (#18)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 03:55:47 PM EST
      It's estimated that Obamacare will add about $ 2 trillion in governmental costs over a decade. Link

      As I pointed out in the Thursday thread, it's estimated somewhere around 15 million previously uninsured people do or will  have coverage as a result. Many of them are and  young healthy people who will still be young and healthy in a decade.

      Over a decade, that means we are spending somewhere in the vicinity of $133,000 per person.

      Did anyone ever consider running the numbers and simply asking whether on an actuarial basis it would be cheaper to forget about insurance and  just  give every one of those 15 million people a card and letting healthcare providers simply bill the government directly for normal and customary charges?(also  foregoing meaningful cost-control measures as does the ACA)

     And,  don't forget many of  those 15 million people will also spending some of their own money (to both insurers as premiums and to providers as co-pays and pre-deductible bills) in addition to what the government will pay.

     

    An area that has and is projected to have (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 04:02:58 PM EST
    added significant jobs to our economy is the health sector ... and, as has been widely reported, a substantial contribution to the economic growth stems from the ACA.  In considering the overall "costs" (and benefits), there are many that are not covered by a simple ledger-board.

    Parent
    Why would (none / 0) (#23)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 04:07:00 PM EST
      my idea cause any less "stimulation" to the economy? It would seem likely the losses in insurance company and government bureaucracy employment would be offset elsewhere if we provided the same amount of actual health care for less money.

     

    Parent

    no response? (1.50 / 2) (#110)
    by Reconstructionist on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 03:15:09 PM EST
    Typical.

    Parent
    Evidently, she's offline. (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 03:30:44 PM EST
    And that's no reason to be such a jerk about it.

    Parent
    'Just saw your response, reconstructionist (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 04:07:33 PM EST
    Theoretically, other types of stimulation could work. Theoretically.  But, we are talking about the ACA ... the law that actually is.  For me, knowing the history of how long it took to get this far in advancing our country's response to healthcare needs, I consider using the present framework the way to continue.  It is classic, legitimate, and not unusual--in policy, business, governance--to consolidate what you have with improved systems and, then, gradually make the appropriate bettering refinements. It is the familiar "walk before you run" advice to which I adhere.

    In truth, every indicator now seems to attest to the growing and improving nature of the ACA.  What will be the big tell, of course, would be that pivot that would ultimately be made by the naysayers as it becomes even clearer that we are not going backwards.  It is not a "what-if-we-had-done" or "maybe-we-should-have-done-this-other-approach-instead;" rather, it is about incremental improvement as needed.

    Parent

    IOW (1.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Reconstructionist on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 04:26:26 PM EST
    You have no actual answer and resort to silly and empty politispeak to avoid an answer.
    The question was why provding actual healthcare with our money eould not be better for the economy tha n creating new bureacracy to rather inefficiently subsidize insurance companies.

    Anyone care to take a crack at it?

    Parent

    No, my answer was "diplomatic" or (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 05:38:22 PM EST
    "nice- speak" for "theory is fine, but here is where we are."  Seriously, your academic exercise may be interesting ... but, to what end and to which end-point does your academic exercise take us?

    No need to try to shift the burden, reconstructionist.  It seems to me that the burden of developing your argument--with facts, figures, and the method by which it could be grafted onto the extant & operating ACA w/o de-stabilizing the our healthcare system--falls upon you.  

    Oh, and for starters: Shifting the financing for such a system as now some would belatedly "suggest," actually must be administered with a new bureaucracy as well ... for the young group, the middle group, the almost-Medicare group, and then the what-about-Medicaid group. 'Tain't so simple.  For seconds: Try turning down your dismissive attitude.

    Parent

    Uh (1.50 / 2) (#125)
    by Reconstructionist on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 06:01:23 PM EST
    You do realize I did not originate the idea of single payer unversal health care after the ACA was   enacted?  It's not only not anew idea, it actually exists many placrs in the world. It's not an acafrmictheory it's a coomon and proven system.

    You andDonald are  a riot. I do believe you are both blisfully unaware of how pefectly you demonstrate why people have so little trust and rrsprct fot those in government.

    Parent

    Should I thank you for your defensive (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 06:17:00 PM EST
    insult.  Okay, my dear, you may have the last word ... it might make you feel better.

    Parent
    Ah, the good old Weekly Standard. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 04:05:21 PM EST
    Shilling for the GOP in their efforts to repeal the ACA.

    Parent
    True, the article has an agenda (none / 0) (#25)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 04:09:49 PM EST
     but the stats come from the CBO.

      Again, explain who outside the health insurance industry and a portion of the governmental sector benefits more  from the ACA than they would from simply having the government directly pay provider bills?

    Parent

    The agenda is to repeal the ACA. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 04:27:51 PM EST
    The argument isn't about having the government directly pay provider bills.

    Parent
    MY argument is... (2.40 / 5) (#32)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 04:38:11 PM EST
    ...so either address it or go away.

    Parent
    Get a grip, dude. No none has to answer to you. (4.20 / 5) (#33)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 04:41:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Yet you do (2.20 / 5) (#35)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 04:54:59 PM EST
    And in a foolish manner that ignores my point to prattle irrelevantly.

    Parent
    The problem with that scenario is the same (4.50 / 2) (#121)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 05:14:07 PM EST
    one that took single-payer off the table: it cuts the insurance industry out of the equation.  It may be the better idea in terms of allowing people to have more access to affordable care, but it doesn't seem that that was ever the real end game.  This was never a reform of health "care," but primarily a gift to the insurance industry that some people will benefit from.  Millions will still not have the right to pay premiums to an insurance company that has the power to open the doors to health care.

    People like christine just accepted Obama's unilateral decision to silence the single-payer advocates, such that the American people never had a chance to have that conversation.  It was all framed in terms of what was politically possible, and what would allow Obama to add to his list of "achievements."  People like christine ignored the reality that the ACA was crafted on the bones of an old Republican plan, and done so in the mistaken belief that it would garner Republican support.  As if that ever had a snowball's chance in hell of happening.

    Incrementalists like christine - and she is pretty much the Queen of Incrementalism - will argue that we must just make the best of what we have - because that's just how things get done. I can't help thinking that if we'd listened to that advice, we'd never have gotten Medicare, never sent men to the moon, never accomplished any of the historic achievements we used to not be afraid to take on.

    People like this just accept the framework that the insurance lobby helped build with Democrats' help, close their eyes to the fact that it's been built on the same rotting foundation that brought us to the original crisis, and pretend that somehow, in 5 years or 10, we won't be right back at crisis stage.  And they will look to see what the Dems are offering as a solution, will fluff up their pom-poms, and cheer for whatever it is.

    I don't know if you were reading here at the time, but we suffered daily the mewling imprecations to just accept whatever it was the Dems decided; it was enough to make someone cry to realize that this was how low the bar had descended.  And someone was telling us to be happy about it, to be patient, that this was just the beginning of better times.

    I'm glad more people have gotten the all-important insurance card that opens doors to health care.  Glad that pre-existing conditions can no longer keep those doors closed.  That children can stay on their parents' plans until they are 26, that more things are mandated to be covered at no additional cost.

    But let's not pretend that those things are safe and secure and immune to attack - they aren't - and that battle is going to keep being waged as long as there is breath in Republican lungs.  Dems are playing defense, when what real leadership demands is some offense.

    Parent

    No one is pretending anything, Anne (none / 0) (#131)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 06:27:00 PM EST
    Least of all "people like Christine" or "Incrementalists like Christine"... because while we are heartened to witness the true progress that the ACA has made in insuring people in this relatively short period of time, yet the attempts to undermine how far we have come (from the nothing prior) can be expected to continue for awhile.  So ... yes, it is wise to be aware, alert; and, after the Repubs pattern on the matter in recent years, the Dems are not going to be taken by surprise.

    Thank you for the sobriquet "Queen of Incrementalism" ... could I be a mere Countess, instead?  

    Parent

    Great point (none / 0) (#49)
    by Slado on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 06:32:47 PM EST
    For anti GOP bloggers or ACA defenders it doesn't matter how much it costs because as often happens with big government expenditures in ther minds government money isn't real money and how inefficient the government is is never a valid issue.

    Unfortunately for Obama a majority of Americans don't think this way and that's why he and his administration had to lie about the costs because they new it would cost way too much and never would have been passed if they told the truth.

    To answer your question of course it would have been cheaper.  

    That's why we should pass actual health reform which ACA did zero of.   It was just a huge insurance program and now we're lerning a very expensive one.

    Parent

    Slado, why don't you read ... (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 08:43:12 PM EST
    ... the CBO's updated estimates about the ACA's projected costs, rather than regurgitate baseless talking points from the RNC about it? Prior to the ACA's passage, health care costs were consuming nearly 20% of our gross domestic product.

    You need to educate yourself about where we were, where we are now and where we can be in the future. Single payer was never going to pass politically in 2009-10 and has no chance of passing today, and it's completely disingenuous to allude otherwise in this conversation. We moved the ball forward to the extent possible at the time.

    Further, the ACA is but the first step on the road to a wholesale overhaul and reform of the means by which health care is delivered in this country. It's hardly the end game. But we most certainly had to start somewhere, and for all its flaws and limitations, the ACA's still better than the whole lot of nothing the GOP presently has to offer on the subject.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I never... (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Reconstructionist on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 10:08:29 AM EST
     ...I don't believe Slado did, and I don't think even jimakappj has, suggested that the Republicans ever offered a better alternative.

      That does not mean the ACA is good legislation. I also don't think it is "disingenuous" to argue that much better legislation could have been passed in 2009-10.

      We had a 257-178 majority in the House and a substantial majority in the Senate throughout (including, albeit brief, periods with a 60-40-- filibuster proof-- majority). If our goals were not even possibly attainable  when we controlled the White House, the House and could have controlled the Senate with strong, shrewd and effective leadership, what pray tell, leads you to believe the "next step" (which, at least you concede is needed) can be take in this generation?

      LEADERSHIP does not involve conceding that a committed minority must be allowed to thwart primary goals. LEADERSHIP does not entail simply accepting we have to begin by only proposing a "third of a loaf" and then negotiating (largely against ourselves) down to a "quarter loaf" and then rationalizing that's all that could possibly have been obtained, so it's not really a failure.

      LEADERSHIP requires a good plan and fighting for it. Fighting in the court of public opinion and fighting in the halls of Congress, making full use of the advantages of the majority you control.

      We offered a weak plan and weakly promoted it and defended it. And, we did it at a point when we were in as relatively strong a position as we had been or will be for a long time. If it's "disingenuous" to argue we could have and should have done better,  then it is equally or more disingenuous for you to imply that my opinion that the ACA has likely forestalled real reform for a generation is unwarranted.

      Now, reasonable people could assert  that because "real reform" might also not have come about in this generation without the ACA, blaming this failure for the relatively long-term future is based on speculation and I acknowledge that. We can't run a model to show the differential in likelihood of real reform in the forseeable future with or without the ACA. I do think though that it highly reasonable and realistic speculation.

       The really galling thing to me  is that the "politically  impossible" mantra really means, "we shouldn't have expected our President and congressional leaders to fight hard because there would likely have been adverse electoral consequences" rather than  that they could not  have fought hard despite what they perceived as the likely consequences.

      Well, the approach we took resulted in very adverse electoral consequences without even the satisfaction of having fought the good fight and accomplished something of major importance.

      Also, you never know, but it's possible the adverse consequences would have been less severe if we presented as a party willing and able to stand for something.

    Parent

    Democrats offered a "weak plan" ... (4.00 / 4) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 05:08:15 PM EST
    ... because that was the only plan which stood a chance in hell of passage in 2010. Honestly, you sound like some newly minted poli-sci major who's got the academic jargon down pat, yet has no practical experience in lawmaking -- never mind in actual leadership.

    Quite obviously, you've never worked in a legislature, and you haven't any idea how difficult it actually is to hold a coalition of lawmakers together, given each individual's district and agenda. It's hard enough to round up votes in state legislatures, which is where my experience is. In Congress, we're talking about 535 different members, each of whom represents various and often unique constituencies scattered across fifty states and seven time zones.

    Simply put, you haven't a clue as to how the legislative process really works because quite frankly, you don't know what personal and collective dynamics are in play up there at the Capitol at any given point in time. Further, those dynamics can change relatively quickly, depending upon the circumstances.

    And if you think otherwise, then I suggest that you stop talking the talk and start walking the walk. Run for office, get yourself elected, and announce to everyone upon your arrival at the Capitol that you're there to show them how it's supposed to be done. In the meantime, I'll make the popcorn and margaritas, in anticipation of watching you get chewed up and spit out like a stale plug of tobacco.

    With an attitude like yours, if you're lucky and your colleagues are polite, you'll simply be ignored as yet another political blowhard, who (trust me) come and go all the time in legislative bodies.

    But if you proceed to piss 'em off with your arrogance, you'll be sent off to legislative Siberia and rendered completely ineffectual as a lawmaker. Your new office in the bowels of the basement will be the least of it.

    (Out here, the lead legislative dissident / malcontent usually gets assigned as vice chair of the House Committee for International Affairs, an impressive-sounding title but in practical terms, a wholly impotent position of minimal influence and importance. For his or her allies, their committee assignments are generally benign or sometimes even problematic.)

    And if you really tick them off, it won't be too long before your own constituents will notice how much government spending in your district has dropped off since you arrived at the Capitol, because you'll be unable to get money appropriated in the budget for so much as a new paint job for your neighborhood public elementary school.

    At that point, it's only a matter of time before a challenger for your job appears on the horizon, probably in the party primary, promising to be more collegial and change the tone in order to get much-needed things done for the district. And then, come election time, you'll get 40% of the popular vote and be sent packing for home.

    Because when you don't play nice with the other children in the game, you don't get to set the rules or even have a say in their amendment. And those rules were in place long before we arrived on this earth, and they'll likely be there long after we depart it.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald...damn good true truth... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by fishcamp on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 08:25:47 PM EST


    Parent
    If it's the true true... (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 09:17:27 AM EST
    it's a sad true true.  

    Going along to get along is not a recipe for good and effective representation, nor government, imo.

    Mr. Smith goes to Washington and gets neutered by the machine...story of our lives.

    Parent

    Really, Donald? (4.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 08:29:36 AM EST
    ... because that was the only plan which stood a chance in hell of passage in 2010.

    Says you.  Said all the people who didn't want single-payer to even be part of the conversation.  Said those who were still under the misapprehension that even one Republican was going to vote for Obama's signature legislation.

    Honestly, you sound like some newly minted poli-sci major who's got the academic jargon down pat, yet has no practical experience in lawmaking -- never mind in actual leadership.

    Let me ask you this, Donald - and pardon me if it seems like a question from a 3rd grader - if you already know that no Republican in either house of Congress is going to vote for the Democratic plan, why not make it the best, most comprehensive, let's-really-kick-ass, this-is-the-ideal plan?  Why not?  Why not work from a position of strength with a plan to get the American people on your side?  Was there something Dems had to lose by doing that?  Why aim low from the get-go?  

    Quite obviously, you've never worked in a legislature, and you haven't any idea how difficult it actually is to hold a coalition of lawmakers together, given each individual's district and agenda. It's hard enough to round up votes in state legislatures, which is where my experience is. In Congress, we're talking about 535 different members, each of whom represents various and often unique constituencies scattered across fifty states and seven time zones.

    How many people do you think have worked in a legislature of any kind?  Do you think no one but the members of those exclusive clubs has ever tried to lead people to agreement of any kind, in any venue, on matters of any importance?  What's the deal with the belittling, you-couldn't-possibly-understand (you moron) attitude?  Oh, right - that's the one you trot out whenever you have no other argument: "it's sooooo hard, and you little people just have no clue."  

    Simply put, you haven't a clue as to how the legislative process really works because quite frankly, you don't know what personal and collective dynamics are in play up there at the Capitol at any given point in time. Further, those dynamics can change relatively quickly, depending upon the circumstances.

    Yup, there it is..."you haven't a clue."  "Dynamics?"  Is that the new code for "forget the American people and what's best for the country, because what's really important is us keeping these nice jobs, so we need to do whatever the special interests tell us because they're the ones who fund our campaigns?"  Are those the dynamics at play, Donald?  And there you were pretending that those 535 members of Congress were answering to a higher and more moral calling.  Please, even those of us not privileged and intelligent enough to be part of a legislature know how that works - and how it worked when the ACA was under construction.  Sheesh.

    And if you think otherwise, then I suggest that you stop talking the talk and start walking the walk. Run for office, get yourself elected, and announce to everyone upon your arrival at the Capitol that you're there to show them how it's supposed to be done. In the meantime, I'll make the popcorn and margaritas, in anticipation of watching you get chewed up and spit out like a stale plug of tobacco.

    And there it is again, the utter contempt you have for anyone who didn't wade into the fetid swamp that is legislative politics.  Or is the contempt for those who dare to question what it is their legislators are doing?  Or is it a diversionary tactic, designed to keep the focus off how Congress is failing us?  It's no wonder so many members of Congress feel so entitled - and why the American people are regularly and routinely treated as if they don't matter.

    With an attitude like yours, if you're lucky and your colleagues are polite, you'll simply be ignored as yet another political blowhard, who (trust me) come and go all the time in legislative bodies.

    And sometimes, people who have something to say, who take seriously their representation of their constituents, get ignored because they make the grifters posing as the voice of the people look bad.  

    But if you proceed to piss 'em off with your arrogance, you'll be sent off to legislative Siberia and rendered completely ineffectual as a lawmaker. Your new office in the bowels of the basement will be the least of it.

    Oh, the horror!  An office in the basement!  Because what's really important, we know, are the perks and the prestige, the accoutrements of power, right?  And here we were, under the mistaken belief that we're the ones who are supposed to matter, we're the ones these a-holes are supposed to be representing.  What were we thinking?  All we wanted was to be able to get affordable health care like the rest of the civilized world.

    The rest of your comment isn't worth responding to.  It's just a long - dare I say it has "blowhard" overtones? - excuse for why the people keep getting hosed.  It's why people don't bother to vote, because people like you make it clear that their opinions aren't wanted, or respected - unless of course, their pockets are bulging with cash.

    Because, as you so nicely informed us, it's all about the money, right?  And that's the real reason we got a marginally worthwhile piece of legislation out of the Congress: we got just as much as the industry would accept after making sure their interests would be protected.

    How about- for a change - you try getting yourself all worked up about the rampant dysfunction in our legislatures and in the Congress, instead of circling the wagons and lecturing us about how we're all just supposed to keep bending over and taking it?  


    Parent

    wow! (1.33 / 3) (#124)
    by Reconstructionist on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 05:39:07 PM EST
    That rather amusing rant would seem to be a just an extremely long winded  and pompous declaration that it was all the Democrats' fault,  with ita being so hard to hold majorities together  and whatnot.

    It's all the more amusing coming from you who bares (admittedly dull) fangs and blames Repubs for every thing under thr sun

    I'd, with all due respect, suggest maybe the biggest problem with Dem legislstures is precisely the legislators and the staffs they hire. People like you are theproblem so spare me the sob stotyn

    Parent

    Ad hominem attacks aren't allowed here. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 06:12:25 PM EST
    And, there was nothing "respectful" about your suggestion.  For you to denigrate someone who works to help solve problems is pathetic.  

    Parent
    You are correct (2.00 / 1) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 03:24:10 PM EST
    I have never suggested that the Repubs have offered anything regarding a single plan.

    They have introduced various changes to Obamacare, plus expanded HC savings accouts, etc.

    I have, time and again, stated that my preference is for a single payer system modeled on Medicare and paid for by a national federal sales tax collected at the point of sale. (Not a VAT.)

    I have also noted time and time and time again that Obama didn't offer a single payer plan. Instead he gave us welfare for the insurance companies and welfare for his base and damn the rest.

    Parent

    its snowing (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 01:52:44 PM EST
    the huskies are happy.

    64, cloudy/foggy here (none / 0) (#129)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 06:20:32 PM EST
    the cats are following me around and meowing about the crappy weather, like I had something to do with it! Rox, otoh, is fine to hang with me and do nothing :)

    Parent
    Is is snowing (none / 0) (#133)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 06:54:13 PM EST
    MO Blue is not happy

    Parent
    MOBlue, sorry to hear about the snow, (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by fishcamp on Sun Nov 16, 2014 at 08:49:51 PM EST
    we have warm boat rides to tropical restaurants available down here for friendly people.  It is the holiday season, and we have great boat parades with lights on the boats.  Glad I remembered that so I can go to West Marine tomorrow and pick up some 12 volt Christmas lights.  Not much to light up on my little boat, but some big boats are quite amazing.  One string of lights and Bing Crosby on my stereo and we're good to go to the parade. :-)

    Parent
    You better be careful, fishcamp (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 06:03:27 AM EST
    If the winter is as bad as last year, you may find lots of "friendly people"  from the Midwest and the Northern regions wanting to seek refuge with you. ;o)

    Your little boat will look real festive with its Christmas lights and the parades sound like great fun.

    Sure beats digging your car out after a snow storm.


    Parent

    I'm with MO Blue, fishcamp. The pirate crew may (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 11:30:33 AM EST
    have to set sail for the Florida estate of fishcamp. And I say this reluctantly because, and I mean no offense to you, fishcamp, I have never had any desire to visit Florida. Alligators, sinkholes, those d@mn Burmese pythons and, of course, Stand Your Ground laws. Another winter like last year just might break me, though.

    While there is no snow where I am, with the windchill we are at a balmy 7 frickin' degrees.

    If we all decamp to your waterside estate would you be up for leading us on a slow boat tour of the Caribbean islands? The pirate crew will spring for all the rum the touring party requires.

    Parent

    How about some ye olde caroles sung by (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 09:35:39 AM EST
    Kings College Cambridge?

    Parent
    Sounds good, can you send them (none / 0) (#190)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 12:07:23 PM EST
    To the panhandle after you are done with them? Are you still in the big town?

    Parent
    Phil. airport. (none / 0) (#194)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 12:18:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Safe travels! (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 12:25:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Gimme some! (none / 0) (#180)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 11:04:22 AM EST
    It only slushes here.  Some declare it snow, but it is slush.

    Parent
    Sub zero wind chills here all day (none / 0) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 11:15:30 AM EST
    actual sub zero temperatures tomorrow.  Be careful what you wish for.

    Parent
    My dogs would love it (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 11:28:20 AM EST
    Woolly poodles love cold as much as German Shepherds.  I can't even get them to come in the house until they have played to exhaustion.

    We do get to freezing tonight and tomorrow.  Might as well throw some snow on it :)

    Parent

    My Standard Poodles (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 12:36:10 PM EST
    always loved the snow!  They would jump around in it, bite at it, and just have a wonderful time.
    Of course, if I had the kind of coats they were born with, I probably would love to bound around in the snow, too.   ;-)

    Parent
    "Stupidity of the American Voter" (none / 0) (#151)
    by Slado on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 08:01:18 AM EST
    Don't they understand how good ACA is?

    ACA popularity reaches new lows.

    Well Gee Slado... (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 09:41:20 AM EST
    ...why do you suppose that is ?

    This is 1000+ post about how bad it sucks, yet when i asked why, you just ranted how bad it sucks.  Nothing ever specific, just political rants from someone that is looking more and more like doesn't know what he dislikes about it other than it sucks.

    It's a complete mystery, huh, why people who haven't nothing to do with completely hate it.

    You want to know why it's disliked, don't bother asking people who actually use it, look to your party and their war on it and you just might find the answers.

    So congratulations, a law that is not going anywhere, is being defamed by your party, and people that may need it aren't going to use because, in your words 'it sucks'.  

    Real accomplishment, maybe Fox News will give you the 'Dimwit on a Mission' Award, their most coveted.  Maybe you can shoot for the getting a star or two, the requirements are another 10,000 'it sucks' posts.  Republican jesus has got his finders crossed for ya.

    FYI, the cost cutting measure work better with more people, but you know this, and I suspect one of the reasons the right is at war with it.

    Must be nice to have medical insurance and spend you life ranting why others should not.  Real jesus just wept at your hypocrisy and black heart.  But I will let him know you are cool with everyone having insurance so long as it doesn't cost you a nickel.  Hopefully he will over look the fact that you most certainly have outpaced your premiums, aka 'getting something for nothing' in your health dilemma.

    Parent

    Okay. (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 08:07:37 AM EST
    What is the GOP solution? Even they are saying that they can't repeal it because too many people are going to lose their insurance. So many people don't even understand what it is and then you have states like GA that are letting people die and hospitals close and blaming it on Obamacare when really people like Nathan Deal are responsible for the hospitals closing.

    The only solution to all these problems is a national single payer plan.

    Parent

    And this is my problem with polls: (none / 0) (#156)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 08:35:31 AM EST
    Gallup, last week.

    A completely different take, completely different conclusions.

    Hard to take any of it seriously.

    Parent

    Too bad (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 09:06:01 AM EST
    the ACA couldn't address things like this particularly cool idea - a whole village where everyone has dementia:

    Today, the isolated village of Hogewey lies on the outskirts of Amsterdam in the small town of Wheesp. Dubbed "Dementia Village" by CNN, Hogewey is a cutting-edge elderly-care facility--roughly the size of 10 football fields--where residents are given the chance to live seemingly normal lives. With only 152 inhabitants, it's run like a more benevolent version of The Truman Show, if The Truman Show were about dementia and Alzheimer's patients. Like most small villages, it has its own town square, theater, garden, and post office. Unlike typical villages, however, this one has cameras monitoring residents every hour of every day, caretakers posing in street clothes, and only one door in and out of town, all part of a security system designed to keep the community safe. Friends and family are encouraged to visit. Some come every day. Last year, CNN reported that residents at Hogewey require fewer medications, eat better, live longer, and appear more joyful than those in standard elderly-care facilities.

    There are no wards, long hallways, or corridors at the facility. Residents live in groups of six or seven to a house, with one or two caretakers. Perhaps the most unique element of the facility--apart from the stealthy "gardener" caretakers--is its approach toward housing. Hogeway features 23 uniquely stylized homes, furnished around the time period when residents' short-term memories stopped properly functioning. There are homes resembling the 1950s, 1970s, and 2000s, accurate down to the tablecloths, because it helps residents feel as if they're home. Residents are cared for by 250 full- and part-time geriatric nurses and specialists, who wander the town and hold a myriad of occupations in the village, like cashiers, grocery-store attendees, and post-office clerks. Finances are often one of the trickier life skills for dementia or Alzheimer's patients to retain, which is why Hogewey takes it out of the equation; everything is included with the family's payment plan, and there is no currency exchanged within the confines of the village.

    Residents are only admitted if they're categorized as having "severe cases of dementia or Alzheimer's disease." Vacancies are rare, given that a spot only opens when a current resident passes away, and the village has operated virtually at full capacity since it opened in 2009. Hogewey was primarily funded by the Dutch government and cost slightly more than $25 million to build. The cost of care is nearly $8,000 per month, but the Dutch government subsidizes the residents--all of whom receive private rooms--to varying degrees; the amount each family pays is based on income, but never exceeds $3,600.

    To put it into perspective, a private room at a U.S. nursing home cost an average of $248 per day in 2012, or more than $90,500 annually--a figure that's even more staggering when applied to the rapid increase in dementia patients globally. By 2030, the number of people suffering from dementia around the world is expected to hit 76 million, which some estimate will cause an 85 percent increase in dementia-related healthcare costs worldwide. By 2050, the U.S. alone will pay a projected $1.2 trillion.



    Parent
    I've seen this, and you're right - it is (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 09:50:43 AM EST
    an excellent idea.

    However, would it be inappropriate if I said that when I saw "a whole village where everyone has dementia," my first thought was, "yeah, I think I work in one of those villages?"

    Parent

    After I wrote it (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 10:19:00 AM EST
    and posted it (no edit function!), I thought, "Yeah, I could've written that better."

    And I totally understand your sentiment about your workplace!  Heck, I feel that way about the CITY I work in - hey, maybe DC is the US's version of this town!

    Parent

    Europe is so far ahead of us ... (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by sj on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    ... in this sort of issue. Even as European austerity struggles mightily to stamp it out. Who knows how long such compassion will be funded?

    Had you heard about this? A fake bus stop for those whose dementia lead them to try to go home (Radiolab podcast here). It has worked so well that it has been implemented elsewhere in Germany.

    It would only work here in those cities where public transportation was a way of life, though. Is there any place other than NYC that has that mindset?

    Parent

    How do we know it won't (2.00 / 1) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 10:03:49 AM EST
    start lowering the requirements to increase "membership?"

    Look at your drug laws, property seizures, the prison industry, etc., and you'll see an alliance between industry and police

    Frankly this whole idea scares the hell out of me.

    Parent

    Who cares if they do? (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by sj on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 12:21:53 PM EST
    How do we know it won't (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 09:03:49 AM MDT

    start lowering the requirements to increase "membership?"

    What is with you? Always trying to serve the fewest number of people possible.

    What a small petty concern.

    On second thought, I'm sure that in actuality you would be very happy there. A US version would probably supply you with your pacifying daily dose of Fox pseudo news.

    Parent

    "Oh no" he said " No rake am I .... (none / 0) (#179)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 11:03:59 AM EST

    Brought up in Venus train
    But I'm seeking for concealment
    All along the lonesome plain"

    it's Monday.   Relax.

    StL Public Radio Timeline of Brown shooting (none / 0) (#203)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 03:45:12 PM EST
    For the record:

    Timeline of Saturday, Aug. 9, 2014, according to police reports

    Note:

    12:01:50 Shooting Event Opened -- alternately listed as "Disturbance on Canfield" from 911 call.

    12:02:22 Dispatch, Enroute, Arrival -- First police unit arrives after the shooting.

    The shooting happened between those two times

    Event Report FPD 2014-029062 (none / 0) (#204)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 05:29:59 PM EST
    Verified the police report: Complaint #14-12391:

    4230 Disturbance/in Progress at Canfield Drive

    8/09/2014  12:01:50  Open

    8/09/2014  12:02:22  Dispatch

    8/09/2014  12:01:50  unreadable

    8/09/2014  12:01:50  Arrival

    The first unit to arrive at the Brown shooting did so at 12:02:22 and was actually responding to the 12:01:50 Disturbance in Progress call as police records show.

    Ferguson Event Report #2014-029062 (none / 0) (#205)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 06:24:04 PM EST
    Verified the police event report: Complaint 14-12391:

    4230 Disturbance/in Progress at Canfield Drive

    8/09/2014  12:01:50  Open

    8/09/2014  12:02:22  Dispatch

    8/09/2014  12:02:22  unreadable

    8/09/2014  12:02:22  Arrival

    Thus the first unit to arrive after Brown was shot did so at 12:02:22 in response not to Wilson's 12:02:00 call but in response to the 12:01:50 Disturbance in Progress call -- as this police report confirms.

    omg. (none / 0) (#206)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 18, 2014 at 12:24:15 AM EST
    If you think "Wilson's 12:02 call" as stated by your source, the Post, unquestionably actually means exactly "12:02:00" you are living in some alternate universe.

    Just like the "12:00" and "12:01" time marks in the same Post's article that you quoted mean exactly "12:00:00" and "12:01:00?"

    Ya, Wilson could have timed his actions and calls to coinky-dinky exactly with 12:00:00, 12:01:00, and 12:02:00, or the Post could write an article that uses approximate time marks like 12:00, 12:01, and 12:02, etc.

    Your timeline is completely your own construct, made up of not only approximations but also you co-mingle time marks from two different systems with no confirmation that the two systems were at all synchronized.

    According to, apparently, Wilson, he made his "21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car." call just previous to his scuffle with Brown, and just after that scuffle he made the "Shots fired, send all cars." call but the radio channel had been changed during the scuffle.

    I certainly don't blindly accept Wilson's apparent story as absolute fact absent more corroborating evidence, but for you to present your "sleuthing," as definitively "incriminating" and a "smoking gun" is simply ludicrous.

    That said, please show us the confirmation that the "12:00," "12:01," and "12:02" time marks in your timeline are accurate to the second, ie, actually mean "12:00:00," 12:01:00," and 12:00:02," as that would help sell your "smoking gun" a lot.

    What exactly is your point, Chip? (none / 0) (#208)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Nov 18, 2014 at 08:41:21 AM EST
      Has there ever been any claim by any person that any police back-up unit had arrived on the scene before the final shot was fired?

      I can't recall any suggestion from any source that any other police officer witnessed any stage of the actual confrontation.

      If everyone agrees there are no police witnesses to support or contradict the testimony of other witnesses, what is it that makes you think this timeline is important?

      We know it was a brief confrontation that quickly escalated into Wilson shooting Brown multiple times. I don't understand why you think knowing to the second when any of the events you list would make it any easier to determine whether Wilson was or was not justified.  

      It sure seems to me that what happened (which can only be assessed through witness testimony  with some limited corroboration or refutation by physical evidence)is the central issue and that a few seconds one way or the other in terms of communication to or from people who are not witnesses to the event are of very little probative value.

      If you have a theory for why you believe this detail is important, you should probably begin by stating that because I imagine most people have no idea what you are trying to demonstrate.

     

    Saturday Open Thread | 208 comments (208 topical)