home

Wednesday Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 05:11:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

More thread.

< Monday Open Thread | Thursday Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Open Thread | 202 comments (202 topical)
    On banning Pete Rose (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by scribe on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 06:28:36 PM EST
    There was a thread in the prior open thread leading off with wondering why baseball banned Pete Rose.  
    As explained over there, baseball went through a major scandal - which almost killed it as a professional sport - when the 1919 White Sox threw the World Series in favor of the Reds.  The only things which saved it were:  appointment of a Commissioner whose job it is to manage things "in the best interests of the game" and the rise of Babe Ruth from starting pitcher for the Red Sox to homer-slugging right fielder for the Yankees.
    The commissioner was Kennesaw Mountain Landis, who ran the game in a manner that made absolute monarchs envious.  And one of the rules he imposed remains in force today.
    Posted prominently in every professional baseball clubhouse is a list of rules headed by one which prohibits players and team personnel from gambling on baseball on pain of lifetime suspension.  Moreover, it frowns on any association with gambling at all.  Every player sees that sign every day from the first day he signs with a professional baseball team - minor leagues on up.
    So, for instance, when Leo Durocher was found to be hanging out with gamblers, or people suspected to be gamblers, he was suspended for a while.
    When Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle, by then retired, got jobs in casinos working as "greeters", i.e., celebrities hanging out around the place to make the gamblers feel important or something or to attract a crowd, they were suspended until they got out of those jobs.  
    This rule is a bright-line one:  gamble on baseball and you are out.
    Rose did several things in violation:  (1) he gambled on baseball while manager of the Reds;  (2) after gambling on some games while managing the Reds, he refrained from gambling when one particular pitcher (Mario Soto) was pitching for the Reds;  (3) he gambled on games in which he played while still a player;  (4)  he was placing bets with his bookie using the telephone in the clubhouse.
    There's more, but those are a fair synopsis of his crimes against the game.
    (1) was per se enough to get him banned.
    (2) made it worse, because his bookie (and anyone in on it) knew Rose (who said he only bet on the Reds to win) didn't bet on Soto, implying he had no confidence Soto would win, information worth more than gold to a gambler.
    (3) is as bad as it can be.
    (4) is a bald transgression of every code in the game - the clubhouse is sacrosanct.  He was placing bets right under the sign that forbade it.

    And each of them left him vulnerable to blackmail by someone seeking to have him throw games.

    Baseball was right to throw him out and there should never have been any controversy about it.

    Excellent! (none / 0) (#44)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 10:47:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Thank you for fleshing out the detail. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 02:13:23 AM EST
    I watched an interview with Pete Rose a couple days ago, and I must admit that for the very first time, I sensed in him some sincere contrition for what he did. Maybe at age 74, he's sensing his own mortality and wished to make amends for his transgressions. That said, and speaking as a former college baseball player who loves the game and its history, while I honor Rose's contributions to baseball as a player, I support MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred's decision to leave the ban in place.

    Parent
    My guess is (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:37:17 AM EST
    He will be allowed in the Hall of Fame after he dies.  It will be the final punishment - to not allow him to see that honor.

    But his records can't be ignored forever, especially when there are guys in there who have stats artificially pumped because of PED's.

    Parent

    I think it is jsut as likely that the number (none / 0) (#89)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 09:57:52 AM EST
    of people that actually care who is in the hall of fame decreases to insignificant numbers at about the same time.

    And I say that as a baseball fan.  

    Parent

    Why not? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:00:21 PM EST
    jbindc: "But [Pete Rose's] records can't be ignored forever, especially when there are guys in there who have stats artificially pumped because of PED's."

    We have the remember that the use of PEDs by players wasn't explicitly barred by Major League Baseball until relatively recently, so guys like Mark McGwire didn't break the rules at the time they were juicing.

    Whereas as has been explained, Pete Rose blatantly violated what's arguably THE cardinal rule in baseball, and only within the last few years has he (finally) been honest and candid about it.

    "Shoeless Joe" Jackson holds the third highest career batting percentage in baseball history (.356) after Ty Cobb (.366) and Rogers Hornsby (.358), yet he's been similarly barred from Cooperstown for roughly the same thing as Rose.

    Honestly, why should the Baseball Hall of Fame ever feel compelled to enshrine either man in its galleries when they both so clearly disrespected and dishonored the game which they claimed to have loved so much, by consciously and intentionally placing the very integrity of that game at serious risk?

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I respectfully disagree... (none / 0) (#139)
    by MikeB on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:42:10 PM EST
    ...because I don't believe the punishment fits the crime. The 1919 White Sox took cash. They booted baseballs and did everything they could to throw a World Series. Why should Pete Rose get that same punishment? I'm not saying he did nothing wrong - of course he did. Nobody has proven he bet on games as a player. And nobody has proven he bet against the Reds.

    If you think the games he managed could have been affected by his bets, you're not paying much attention. Pete was a horrible manager. He couldn't affect the outcome of a game if the other team didn't show up. He was handed an excellent team. They could have played without a manager.

    As been said, there are people in baseball who cheated in some way or another. Taking steroids definitely changes the outcomes of games. But that doesn't get you banned until like the third time you got busted. And lastly, when baseball needs him, they figure out a way to give him exemptions. Their principles waver when there's money in it.

    When Rose made his deal, he agreed to the lifetime ban as long as MLB found no proof he bet on baseball. Also, he was eligible for reinstatement. The day Bart Giamatti told the world about this deal, when asked, he said he believed Rose bet on baseball. WTF?

    My point is, nobody has clean hands in this. And comparing Rose's actions to the Black Sox scandal is absurd. He's done his time. Let him in.

    Parent

    Rose was a good player.. (none / 0) (#140)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:42:16 PM EST
    but he wasn't fit rinse Willie May's jock in the sink.

    Not to put too fine a point on it..

    What did he hit? 11 career homeruns? :-) Never batted in a hundred runs in a season..

    Parent

    I think your stats show (none / 0) (#145)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:56:04 PM EST
    You know little about baseball.

    Parent
    Did you see him play? (none / 0) (#187)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:10:55 PM EST
    I did. He wasn't even the best player on the Reds.

    Of course, Pete always had to be careful about knocking in too many runs on games the Reds were supposed to lose..

    Theres always that.

    Parent

    Charlie Hustle (none / 0) (#150)
    by ragebot on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:22:33 PM EST
    was a lead off hitter so he would exceed in runs scored not runs batted in.  He is ahead of Willie in runs scored by about 100.  He also had 160 home runs.

    Just a word of advice, never get into an argument about stats if you are trying to dis Charlie Hustle.

    Parent

    The name of the organisation is: (none / 0) (#185)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:05:52 PM EST
     "The Hall of Fame," not the Hall of Statistics.

    The arguments taking place here, and, everywhere, will never be settled. Much of the reasoning is based on opinion ("he's served enough time," "his crime wasn't as bad as XYZ) instead of cold, hard facts.

    The only way to settle this dispute, IMO, is to compromise; Let everyone in whose stats qualify him for admission, and, add an asterisk (*) after his name explaining the circumstances. This way future fans will be the final arbiters as to the athlete's eligibility/qualifications. I don't see any other way.

    If statistics are your main qualifier, using/abusing PED'S is more detrimental than gambling. We have to assume the use of PED's gave the athlete abilities he would not have had otherwise.

    If morality, or, the integrity of the game, is more important, then gambling is, unquestionably, the more important disqualifier.

    It's not perfect, but, it's better than what we have now. Everyone's performance would be recognized, and, if he was a "bad boy," that, too, would be noted on his record.

    Parent

    160 career homeruns.. (none / 0) (#189)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:27:43 PM EST
    average arm, slightly-above-average in the field, and for all the "hustle" and all people he barreled into, an average baserunner who couldn't stretch a double into a triple to save his life..

    Parent
    On Kenesaw Landis... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 08:53:38 AM EST
    I'm with The Babe, who upon being barred from making some extra scratch barnstorming in the offseason by Landis, said..."Tell the old guy to jump in a lake".

    Parent
    A lot of people don't know (none / 0) (#123)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 11:49:48 AM EST
    that Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were both implicated for having inside info on the 1919 fix, and were both forced into retirement because of it..

    Parent
    Did not know that... (none / 0) (#136)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:39:23 PM EST
    both those all-time greats are in the Hall...why not Pete?  Ban him for life from working in baseball, fair enough, but let the bastard in the Hall.  

    Sh*t they let that tyrant Landis in, and even that greedy cheapskate Charles Comiskey for crying out loud.

    Parent

    That's not quite accurate. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:41:25 PM EST
    Those allegations were leveled by former pitcher Dutch Leonard in 1926. And while both Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker admitted to having bet on select games during the 1919 World Series, they also strenuously denied any prior "inside" knowledge that the Series had been fixed, and Cobb further claimed to have lost $150 in wagers on those games.

    Nevertheless, American League President Ban Johnson coerced Cobb and Speaker to resign from their respective roles as player-managers for the Philadelphia Athletics and Cleveland Indians near the end of the 1926 season.

    However, Commissioner Landis then forced Johnson out of baseball that same year for having paid Leonard $20,000 in hush money, and allowed both Cobb and Speaker to remain in the game because (a) neither player was ever directly implicated in the Black Sox scandal themselves, save for Leonard's charges; and (b) Leonard himself had refused to participate in hearings called by Landis to investigate the matter.

    That so noted, in 1927 Commissioner Landis then set the rule in place that henceforth, any player who was found to have wagered on baseball games would be immediately suspended for an entire year, and that any player who bet on his own team would be barred for life.

    Ty Cobb retired from baseball as a player two years later at age 41, following the 1928 season.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Gotta watch your step around here, Kdog (none / 0) (#131)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:24:42 PM EST
    Too many people prancing around on their high horses.  

    - And you know what horses leave behind.

    I don't give a rip what Pete Rose bet on.  

    Parent

    Most people also don't give a rip that ... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:54:34 PM EST
    ... you don't give a rip, because it's really not all about you. MLB's rules prohibiting its personnel from wagering on games or otherwise consorting with gambling interests are in place for a very good reason. Those who place principle above personal desires and general expediency respect that.

    And if my respect for such principle places me astride a high horse, then I proudly plead guilty and would further warn you to please watch where you're stepping, lest you track something that truly reeks back inside your own home.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Yup, this is one of those issues (none / 0) (#192)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:36:56 PM EST
    where, for rational, logical people, the answer is simply so self-evident, the only question is why there was a question in the first place?

    And, this nonsense, "they didn't prove this, or they didn't prove that." If, after 9-11, Homeland Security had irrefutable video evidence that I met with Osama Bin Laden every Sunday night for a year I wonder how far I'd get by claiming, "but, you can't prove we talked about illegal activity." You know, sometimes those old bromides hit the nail squarely on its head: "The appearance of impropriety is often as damaging as the impropriety itself."

    They had all kinds of evidence Rose met, spoke with gamblers/bookmakers. Even if they didn't have proof (but, they did) that Rose, actually, bet on games, any games, just that association would be enough to ban him from baseball. How blind can some fans be? Can't you imagine what kind of extortion/blackmail, or just, simple inside information Rose exposed himself, and the game of baseball itself to?

    Like many of the books written about this affair say: "As a huge fan of Pete Rose I started writing this book to try and find things that would exonerate him. But, instead, the further I dug, the more conclusive the evidence against him became. And, way before the end of the book, the evidence against Rose was so voluminous, there was no defense left. `

    Parent

    Landis was a hardass (none / 0) (#135)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:38:07 PM EST
    he looked the way the you'd imagine one of the Salem witch trial judges might have looked..

    On the other hand, at the time, gangsters like Arnold Rothstein had been getting bolder and bolder about the way they were putting feelers out to players, and there was a real danger of the sport losing all credibility as an honest, above-board competition and business and descending to the level of most other American business..  

    Parent

    Though Rothstein has no in... (none / 0) (#143)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:52:42 PM EST
    if the owners weren't running ballclubs like sweatshops, like most other American businesses.

    Parent
    That's very true, kdog. (none / 0) (#182)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:02:18 PM EST
    Arnold Rothstein would never have been able to exploit the grievances that those "Black Sox" players held against team owner Charles Comiskey, had the latter not been such a tightwad given the profits he was making.

    It's also true that none of the White Sox players in 1919 were chained to their lockers by Comiskey between games, and that their participation in baseball was entirely voluntary. Even given Comiskey's penchant for skinflintery, his players' salaries were not at all out of line by baseball's standards. Comiskey was also known for paying his players bonuses for their accomplishments on the field, which the other owners did not then do.

    (I'd also note that these same players in Comiskey's employ were given opportunities to avoid otherwise compulsory military service during the First World War, which were not made available to the average American male of draft age.)

    That said, Comiskey does deserve a significant amount of blame for having created the very conditions which then prompted the 1919 World Series scandal to occur. He had promised his team a bonus if they won the 1917 pennant, but all they received for their victory was a case of cheap champagne.

    Fan attendance at major league ballparks across the country had fallen off sharply in 1918 because of the First World War, which prompted team owners across the board to cut player salaries the next year. But when attendance in Chicago actually increased dramatically the following season, Comiskey refused to bring salaries back to their previous level.

    Comiskey arguably had by 1919 one of the greatest teams to ever take the field, but he paid his players below what players of comparable talent were earning elsewhere. Charles Risberg and Claude Williams made less than $3,000 a year. Joe Jackson and George Weaver made only $6,000 each. And while most teams gave their players a $4 per diem for meals, Comiskey paid only $3.

    Other stories about Charles Comiskey's cheapskatedness noted that Eddie Cicotte had been promised a $10,000 bonus if he could win 30 games in a season. Yet when Cicotte closed in on that 30-game goal with 28 wins by late August of 1919, Comiskey reportedly had White Sox manager William "Kid" Gleason bench the star pitcher to keep him from reaching that mark. Legend has it that the White Sox wore the filthiest uniforms in baseball, because Comiskey had supposedly sought to cut the team's laundry bills.

    Or, so said the attorneys for the eight indicted White Sox players during their 1921 criminal trial for conspiracy and fraud. Comiskey's well-earned miserly reputation was easily exploited, burnished and exaggerated for obvious reasons and public effect, and it was likely a huge factor in the jury's subsequent decision to acquit the players on all charges. Afterward, jurors posed with the defendants for photos.

    But nevertheless, most of the eight players implicated in the "Black Sox" scandal also publicly admitted to being motivated by personal greed. The $20,000 apiece being offered to them by Rothstein, et al., for throwing the World Series was one helluva lot of money in those days, and proved a tremendous inducement for them to perpetrate that public fraud. And that's what prompted their lifetime banishment by Commissioner Kennesaw Mountain Landis from the game which they loved.

    Now, there were certainly some very real labor issues which major league ballplayers faced with management back then while in the pursuit of their careers, such as baseball's notorious reserve clause, which was then standard in all player contracts.

    During this era, there was very little if anything that these players could do about their grievances, because they were not then unionized and enjoyed no right to bargain collectively. The concept of free agency did not exist in sports until Curt Flood finally hauled the St. Louis Cardinals and Major League Baseball into federal court in 1969-70, and forever broke the stranglehold that owners had on their players' careers.

    But on that note, let's also please not cheapen the very real horrors posed by actual sweatshops, by equating the experiences of baseball players with the risks faced daily by those American laborers who were (and still are) toiling under truly egregious and appalling conditions. By any comparative standard of their day, those players did quite well and were certainly not living in poverty.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Real world consequences (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 07:46:54 PM EST
    explained to Missouri State Rep. Rick Brattin??

    A Missouri Republican lawmaker withdrew a bill early Wednesday that proposed revoking student athlete scholarships if they participated in strikes, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

    Co-sponsor Kurt Bahr acknowledged the proposal had drawn national attention.

    Wingnut Rep. Brattin should be proud that he once again gained the State of Missouri national attention, not for any positive achievement, but for its handling or mishandling of racial issues. IMO he probably also managed to harm Mizzou's ability to recruit top athletes for years to comes.

    They just do not think (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 07:59:25 PM EST
    Before they unleash their inner bigot. It's a Southern tightrope, so many bigots who hate having a loser sports team :)

    Sometimes at the football games a smile tries to sneak onto my face when someone is talking to me and their inner bigot tries to escape, because I will reveal your dilemma here, I won't just pretend I didn't hear that :) They all know that. And I'm not mean, I just kindly point out they are at odds with their own selves.

    Parent

    Well it is getting rather embarrassing (none / 0) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 09:05:10 PM EST
    to be a resident of Missouri.  Soon we will be voted number one in bigots beating out even the Deep South.

    We use to be a purple state but now we are govern by Republican idiots who seem totally incapable of looking at the whole picture before opening their fat mouths.

    Parent

    Your college has really stood up though (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 11:36:21 PM EST
    I read a critic of how weakly Princeton and Harvard are responding to some of their races issues, institutions that we like to think produces some of our greatest leadership potentially. But right now Missouri is the college where students are really changing their college campus. They made correct analysis of where the real power was, and then they fully applied it. Impressive, it's like 60's impressive.

    Parent
    Can't open your Link, MO. (none / 0) (#26)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 08:15:41 PM EST
    Never had any problems before.

    Any one else with a problem?

    Parent

    Sorry about that (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 08:23:20 PM EST
    I seem to have trouble about half the time when I'm using my iPad. I know the process to link but there seems to be an iPad  gremlin that delights in messing them up.

    Here is a good link

    Parent

    Ah, got it, it works (none / 0) (#45)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 10:51:14 PM EST
    thanks, I'll be getting back to you

    Parent
    by the state's theory (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 08:06:14 AM EST
    The theory of the state is that Gray had his injury by standing up and then falling over and into something. . . and that Gray had this injury before the Gray Porter interactions, and then that Porter told Goodson to get medical assistance for Gray.

    none of them makes Porter guilty . . . and it actually exculpates Porter on the problem of not putting him into a seat-belt when Porter had his main/critical interaction with him at the fourth stop and when he checked on him at the fifth stop.

    The state has some experts who testify that the injury must have occurred in one particular way and probably in one particular time period . . . even if they are right, where is the guilt of Porter?

    I think Porter is lying somewhat . . .  The problem is that even with the state's theory of the injury . .  . and even if we make up a new version of Porter's awareness to account for his lie . . . and we say that Porter had some knowledge that Gray needed medical help after the 4th stop, none of that creates the high burden of what is required for convicting Porter.

    I think Porter lied; I think he will have difficulty working as a police officer in the future because of a likely lie, if not for other reasons also . . . but he certainly did not act with malice . . . and he alleged inaction of not putting on the seatbelt is not alleged by the state to be the cause of the fatal injury!

    by the state's own theory, the presence or absence of the seatbelt at the time of the 4th stop appears to be unrelated to the fatal injury!

    However, if the fatal injury occurred in the way described by the state BUT if it also occurred after the 4th stop, then, Gray himself would have had to be standing up on his own, in which case, he had not suffered the fatal injury prior to the 4th stop . . . and in which case, Gray's own actions contributed significantly to his own death.

    In THAT case, Porter might well have been telling the truth about some things and maybe even everything . . . In THAT case, Porter is guilty of being dumb by not belting Gray in, but Gray caused his own death by standing up unnecessarily while in a police van compartment.

    How in the world can a reasonable jury sort through such possibilities and find any certainty on which to convict?

    To prove the manslaughter charge, prosecutors will have to show that Officer Porter knew he was endangering Mr. Gray's life -- a "steep burden," said David Jaros, an associate professor of law at the University of Baltimore who has been following the trial. "I think it will be difficult to persuade the jury beyond a reasonable doubt," he said, "that Officer Porter knowingly failed in his duty, with an awareness that he was taking a substantial risk to Freddie Gray's life."

    Pharma Bro (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 09:15:50 AM EST
    Martin Shkreli arrested by the FBI

    First rule... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 09:21:09 AM EST
    of organized crime is keep a low profile!

    What a dummy...

    Parent

    Couldn't happen (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:37:39 AM EST
    to a "nicer" guy.  Schadenfreude, how sweet it is.
    Although, also seen, on Twitter:

    The bad news about Martin Shkreli's arrest is that he bought Schadenfreude last week and it's now 1000x the price.

    Parent

    Check Out... (none / 0) (#181)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:00:35 PM EST
    ...THIS picture of him in court, interesting considering the last time he was on the TV he has a smirk I think everyone wanted to slap off his face.

    What has he been up to, well he was getting ready to extort rapper Bobby Schmurda into making music for him by bailing him out:

    "Look, the guy's going to have to record for me if he comes out. I'll just come out and say it. If I'm gonna post his bail, pay for his trial, get him a "Not Guilty" verdict... With the right lawyer it's just a matter of money. I see opportunity. The guy's going to be more popular when he's out."

    He also paid 2 million dolalrs for Wu-Tang's only copy of their latest album, "Once Upon A Time In Shaolin".

    LINK

    Parent

    Doubtful. (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 09:45:05 AM EST
    In a tax/spending plan to be adopted this week, Republicans have forced President Obama to swallow several changes that they believe will undermine Obamacare. A major change to ACA will be a two-year delay of an excise tax on high-cos insurance plans provided to workers by employers (with the likelihood of it becoming permanent).  The so-called Cadillac tax was intended to raise revenue, address the exclusion of such plans from taxes, both payroll and income, and slow the growth of heath care costs.  

    While a loss of revenue (about $2 Billion per year), the plans have provided benefits in lieu of wages. And, employers have been trying to avoid the tax by reducing benefits or increasing the costs for workers. The impact that reduced benefits has on health care costs (rather than merely a shift in costs) is unclear.  And, in any event, reducing costs by decreasing care does not seem to be working in the right direction.

    Doubtful to undermine, because by removing such contentious issues, the acceptability of Obamacare is broadened and solidified. Mrs. Clinton has supported the delay as have union leaders.  

    Vlad Putin on Donald (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:15:26 AM EST
    "Trump is an absolute leader.  It's not our business to judge the methods Trumps is using to boost his popularity."

    I guess we can all pray Donald doesn't take his shirt off.

    Birds of a feather (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    Peacock feathers :)

    Parent
    Very interesting, isn't it? (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 04:05:52 PM EST
    Fascinating even. Putin behaving like the adult in the room, the one exhorting everybody to put aside past difference, and to cooperate on reaching the one overriding issue, wipe out ISIS.

    And, from what I'm observing, he's being extremely successful to that end. Can you imagine Putin being quoted yesterday, "Russia is seeking ways to cooperate with the United States to reach  a common goal, "the elimination of ISIS." But, he went even further. He said things along the lines of, "we don't have to cooperate to just eliminate ISIS, there are so many things in this troubled region that we can improve significantly by simply putting aside past differences and concentrating on common, attainable goals. Of course, I'm paraphrasing here, but, Putin is saying things that many top people, including our senior military commanders are looking at skeptically, yet, invitingly.

    To quote the slain singer/writer/philosopher :......"Imagine."                      

    Parent

    Would have been better (none / 0) (#200)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 04:13:46 PM EST
    If he left out the parts about the Donald though.

    Parent
    Federal judge, Susan Wigenton, (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:39:59 PM EST
    harshly criticized the internal investigation that cleared Gov. Christie of wrongdoing in the GW bridge scandal, saying it was a "calculated strategy" of "opacity and gamesmanship." The law firm that Christie hired to do the investigation, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, billed NJ taxpayers $8 million for defense of the governor, so far.

    However, the independence of the law firm's investigation/investigators has come under fire. The investigation was led by Randy Mastro who worked for Rudy Giuliani, one of Christie's big supporters.  And, another lawyer investigator, Debra Wong Yang, co-hosted a $2,700 per person fund raiser for Christie.

    Lawyers for the defendants/former staff members of Christie, sought notes and any other records that Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher used to prepare the report, only to find that no notes or records existed, including those of interviews.

    According to the judge, the law firm admitted that it intentionally changed its approach in this investigation. In the past, the firm took contemporaneous notes, as is standard legal practice. The judge said the state deserved better and bristled at the unorthodox investigation methods.

    Agreed, and the country deserves better than Christie. He is a runner-up to Trump in buffoonery (the tough guy will meet with King Hussein of Jordan tell him he has a new friend unlike that feckless weakling, Obama. A macabre meeting since King Hussein died 16 years ago, although he can have his crack law firm "dig into the matter."

     And, he exceeds Cheney in reckless war mongering.  It is surprising that Christie claims his years as a prosecutor qualify him to deal with terrorists, since the Republicans do not think much of putting terrorists through the criminal justice system.  

    i'd agree with (none / 0) (#193)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:42:23 PM EST
    I'd agree with you that Christie is a crooked, abusive liar, one who has engaged in corrupt practices to advance his political career and who is trying to talk tough about pounding on Putin and shooting down Russian planes in Syrian airspace to which the Russians were invited .  . . . and that Paul said something interesting about a candidate to vote for if you want WWIII . . .

    I would almost agree with you, except that Christie's numbers are so low and . . . and I not sure it is worth it  . . .  and  . . . I only get 4 posts a day now that I have been identified as having posted a "bigoted rant" . . .

    Yeah, I'd agree with you while I wonder how the post button has inexplicably pressed itself and gobbled up one of my 4 posts today . . .

    Parent

    Thank you, Peter (2.00 / 1) (#202)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 07:32:41 AM EST
    For proving to those that the process of moving marijuana off of Schedule 1 is more than just "Obama could just do it". (which is what I said in my posts.) However, people like Capt and Scott apparently think I don't know what I'm talking about. And I just want to keep them from klling their brain cells, and it's people like me in charge, and I'm so mean,and oh, the humanity!

    I guess maybe some people DO believe Obama has a magic wand and fairy dust after all.  

    Freddie Gray Mistrial Declared (none / 0) (#1)
    by ragebot on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 05:17:44 PM EST
    link

    As I posted yesterday this was a real possibility.

    The only thing that would have surprised me (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 06:46:35 PM EST
    was a guilty verdict on all charges.  This never looked anything like a manslaughter case. Not this officer.  Typical over charging.  I thought there was a chance for a conviction on misconduct in office and/or reckless endangerment.  

    I wish these trials were televised.  

    Parent

    different wish (none / 0) (#24)
    by thomas rogan on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 07:57:27 PM EST
    I wish the trial were held in New York or Philadelphia or Cleveland so that jurors wouldn't be afraid that a vote for acquittal would mean another massive riot in "their" city.

    Parent
    It would be nice if these trials (none / 0) (#27)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 08:16:21 PM EST
    and all trials were decided solely on the evidence.  

    If there's a retrial, I'm sure the defense will argue, once again, for a change of venue.  Moving to another county might not be the perfect solution but it would be much better than keeping it in Baltimore.

    On CNN, Sunny Hostin, who's usually a prosecution cheerleader in these politically driven, race related trials, was very critical of  S.A. Marilyn Mosby.... calling her efforts immature and misguided.

    It will be interesting to see how this non verdict effects the other trials.

    Parent

    What is more interesting is the contrast (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 11:16:30 AM EST
    between the national and the local coverage.

    I work in downtown Baltimore, just a couple blocks south of City Hall; the courthouse is, in turn, about a block west.  Penn North - where Freddie Gray was arrested - is some distance from center city.

    Driving into and out of the city yesterday and again today, there is no sense that things are getting ready to explode, but if you watched the national coverage, that's the impression they seemed to be trying to give; the street-level views of protesters made their numbers appear much larger and more chaotic than they were - the aerial views provided locally told the real story: it wasn't that many people, it was peaceful and orderly.

    What protests there were were largely peaceful - I think one person was arrested for allegedly using a bullhorn, but that was it.  

    Religious and community leaders have been working hard throughout the trial to maintain and promote calm - to listen to or watch national coverage, though, was to get the impression that we were going to have a repeat of what happened in April.

    Here's some commentary from David Zurawik:

    It was a tale of two Baltimores on Wednesday afternoon and evening, depending on whether you were watching local or national coverage of the city in the wake of a hung jury in the first trial in the Freddie Gray case.

    Some network and cable journalists described a city on the edge, about to break out in violence -- while local TV reporters and anchors repeatedly used the word "peaceful" to accompany overhead helicopter shots of protesters downtown and in the Penn North neighborhood.

    The tone of much network and cable coverage could be seen at the top of the "NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt." The broadcast, which aired at 6:30 p.m. in Baltimore, opened on images of Gray and Baltimore police Officer William Porter with Holt saying, "... Calls for calm in a city ravaged by violence as the first officer charged in the death of Freddie Gray walks free in a mistrial."

    Catchy tease. But there was no violence in Baltimore at that time.

    And Porter didn't "walk free." There could be another trial. Walking "free" would have been an acquittal.

    Instead of getting the perspective of lawyers who don't live or work here, we got  - among others - the perspective of local law professors, a former mayor of Baltimore who was also at one time the State's Attorney, and a local lawyer prominent in the defense bar.

    I would caution you to take the national perspective with a few grains of salt, and when you can, seek out local coverage. Their analysis was much more balanced and objective than what Hostin and Toobin provided, and I have to think that has something to do with the fact that these people know the city.

    Parent

    They may have been on more than once (none / 0) (#121)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 11:42:31 AM EST
    But the segment I saw with Hostin and Toobin was whete they discussed the legal arguments - weak case, the fact that "homicide by not applying a seatbelt" is not a crime (nor is it even civil negligence in Maryland), it was brought too quickly, etc. and didn't really touch on possible riots or protests.

    But they may have been on other segments that I didn't see.

    Parent

    Actually the King trial was moved (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:38:14 AM EST
    north to Simi Valley and the officers were acquitted.

    Riots happened.

    Then the Feds tried them and they were convicted.

    Parent

    First question I always ask, (none / 0) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 08:23:41 PM EST
    and, should be the easiest to answer, but, apparently, not for today's "journalists".

    What was the vote count for, and, against?

    Anybody?

    Parent

    Gag order from the judge (none / 0) (#36)
    by ragebot on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 09:03:59 PM EST
    for lawyers and jury.  I agree it would be interesting to know the answer to your question, and others as well.

    But I also understand why the judge issued a gag order.

    Parent

    Debate fallout (none / 0) (#2)
    by ragebot on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 05:22:31 PM EST
    Trump seems to be the big winner if only because he did not lose anything.

    Trump also says "I really don't want Jeb's endorsement".  Talk about a dis.

    Wondering if anyone else saw the Jeb commercial blanketing the TVs with the claim that 27 generals and admirals are supporting Jeb and had the same thought I did; there are only 27 peeps supporting Jeb.

    I can't blame Trump (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 06:32:39 PM EST
    I wouldn't want Jeb's endorsement either. It's like the Bush family curse has finally boomeranged back on the family instead of the country.

    Parent
    God they're so incompetent (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 06:40:53 PM EST
    Even Poppy. The best dressing down of Cheney and Rumsfeld he could come up with was iron assed and arrogant?  Woefully incompetent given the lush history to foment in Poppy! Even Spongebob could have done better. Hell Patrick could have.

    Parent
    This could not be better (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 05:51:46 PM EST
    For the non interventionist position Trump took in the debate last night.   Whatever else you say about that debate they argued about real stuff as far as foreign policy.   I'm sure Trump can't be happier with this.  
    All the generals support Jeb!

    Parent
    Generals and Admirals are unnamed? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 06:10:08 PM EST
    I wanted to see who was endorsing him so I could take a look at their careers and pet projects, but can't find them listed anywhere. So this list include baby 1 star generals. Not very impressive.

    Parent
    The other day I spoke out (none / 0) (#35)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 08:55:12 PM EST
    about how incredible it was that a major candidate from one of the two major parties would call the front-runner from the other party, "stupid.".......and, in public no less!

    Well last night, it was topped.

    Granted, it came from Christie, but, he's a Republican candidate for President, and, so, it matters.

    I'm talking about how he boasted he would talk to Russian President, Vladimir Putin...... Why, he would just pick up the phone, and (snark alert) say,

    "Vlad, old buddy, you've had your way for way too long on the international stage, know what I mean? In case you haven't noticed there's a new sheriff in town replacing that 'Feckless Weakling,' Obama. You might have gotten your jollies kicking his butt around in the past, but, let's see what you do when a real man gets in your face. Yeah, that's right, so listen close, if you know what's good for you. When I say there's going to be a 'no-fly-zone' over parts of Syria, I ain't talking about some phony 'red line' that my chicken shitt predecessor caved on. Oh no, if we catch one of your Ruskie fly boys going where he ain't supposed to be going he won't have time to ask what he should do, he'll be in Commie Heaven before he pushes the connect button."

    O.K. while I was just playing around with that imaginary conversation, I think it expresses the "message" Christie wanted to send, "No one's tougher than the New Jersey Governor Obese.  

    Parent

    Josh turned it on twice (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 11:20:54 PM EST
    Both times after a few minutes I switched it off. Our relationship with Russia is so complex. We aren't happy about what is going on in Ukraine, but that's hardly a cakewalk for Putin. It could easily be his next failure that chops him off at the knees financially as well as perception of power or ability to project force as the Army calls it.

    We also have a pretty solid agreement with Russia allowing us to provision Afghanistan through their territory, and it has saved a lot of soldier and contractor lives.

    And military Generals working Syria right now seemed very non-plussed about Russia having a presence. They were very confident about the world working together on the ISIS situation. It almost seemed like they were chapped that Russia was getting over in not dealing with it and now they are.

    I'm not getting the vibe from anyone that we are on the brink of possible war with Russia in any way. This administration wants to negotiate based on shared safety and interests. Outside of our unhappiness over the Ukraine situation, we have no big beef with Russia and I think by working on the relationship we stand a much greater chance of decreasing war and violence in the Ukraine at this point. It's not Ronnie Reagan's Russia anymore.

    The Polish family we visited were grieved by what is happening in Ukraine. Ukraine has strong ties with Poland. I really wasn't aware of that until we visited. There is a very strong sense of helping/supporting Ukraine in any way. On our return to Berlin on an ICE train we shared a compartment with a Polish student returning home from visiting his girlfriend in Ukraine. They met in the US as exchange students. Her Uncle is in the fight for Ukraine. He said the families provision the soldiers, food and winter clothing coming in from all over. It didn't sound easy for Putin to me, more like fantasizing.

    Parent

    I was also pretty surprised when my (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 11:30:21 PM EST
    BIL was AGAINST a no fly zone in Syria. He has been the force in the sky maintaining a couple of no fly zones. As much as I think a place where Syrians could flee from ISIS to, he says no fly zones often turn into a wild west situation when conditions are like those in Syria. Bullies still murder, rape, and pillage those weaker than them and all he does is fly around preventing any other military force from throwing down a bomb. He watches the chaos and murder from overhead, and it isn't very uplifting. So it isn't the solution in Syria I would like for it to be. He's most likely right about that.

    Parent
    The most interesting development from last night (none / 0) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 08:34:29 PM EST
    is that the final piece of the final three puzzle may have switched from Rubio or Bush to Rubio or Christie. There is a solid chance now that Bush can't outlast Christie. That's a scenario that was unheard of a month ago when Christie was bumped to the kiddie table for the November debate.

    The winners in the overseas betting markets after the debate were Cruz and Christie. The losers were Bush, Carson, Kasich, Fiorina, Paul and everyone at the kiddie table

    Parent

    Rubio (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 08:46:51 PM EST
    didn't seem to get many good reviews after last night.

    Actually I can understand Christie being embraced more than Rubio in the sense that he at least has some experience and if things are so scary!!! scary!!! as the GOP wants everyone to believe that is the end of Rubio. When foreign policy comes to the fore Rubio slides down. Foreign policy is also a killer for Jeb since he has his brother's entire foreign policy team.

    People down here in the south detest Christie. I would love for heads to explode if he was one of the last ones. However, I think he would be wiped out in the south though I could see him at least being competitive in some states that I can't see Rubio being competitive at all in.

    Parent

    Honestly, they were all terrible. Not a (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 09:36:07 PM EST
    single one of them who could be remotely considered presidential material.

    I can't even believe I watched all but the last couple of minutes - and I wasn't even drinking!

    Chris Christie seems to have forgotten how utterly revolted people became by Rudy Giuliani's unrelenting efforts to make political hay out of one of the most terrible days in our nation's life; Christie seems to think that being a bellicose bully is what America wants - I hate to break it to him, but we've already seen what happens when a war is waged on lies, and people just don't want to be dragged into more of that by a bunch of politicians who think this is the only way to grab headlines away from Donald Trump.

    And speaking of Trump, good God is there anyone more obnoxious?  He makes me want to punch things.  

    Jeb Bush.  Lordy.  Am I the only one who is weirded out by his shoe-button eyes?

    I don't have the energy to talk about Cruz and Rubio.  Or Fiorina.  She's a robot.  Doesn't appear human.

    Truly, a sorry collection of ego and ugly ideology if ever there was one.


    Parent

    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 02:48:50 PM EST
    The lot of them were appalling. We have become accustomed to the buffoonery and the ignorance. And, this debate removed any doubt that may have existed that there might have been some substance lurking beneath their surfaces. It was not clear that they understood much, if anything, about the middle east. Details such as that Kurds are, in large measure, Muslim, and, certainly not, that they are Sunni. Or that ISIS does not have an Airforce. Or, explain their favorite pejorative, political correctness, and how it causes radical Islamic terrorism.

    Trump, certainly, did not veer from his norm, although his being stumped by the nuclear triad and his response was worse than the "dog ate my homework." His plan to kill terrorist families is grotesque. A moderator should have asked if he planned on killing baby Farook.

    Jeb did offer a few rational comments, but reeled and withered when Trump gave him an eagle's eye. Rand, too, had paroxysms of coherence but he came across as embittered and cranky.

    Christie sees war with Russia as the way forward; Cruz wants to "utterly destroy" (good biblical term, probably not gone unnoticed by Evangelicals) and carpet bomb ISIS, but only the soldiers, apparently he believes they all sit around camp fires in the desert. Or, something different and new: surgical carpet bombing.
    Rubio's over-rehearsed boy scout presentations come across robotically. And, shallow.

    It is mildly encouraging to see that Carson is dropping like a rock in the polls--although like Freddy Krueger, he could come back.  In fairness he did say nice things about his mother, an advance over his previous actions of hitting her on the head with a hammer.  But, he also was not to be any less macho--as a surgeon he told those little children that he was going to open up their heads, they were not happy at first, but later they loved him.

      So, too, for bombing (surgical) those Syrian children, they may not like it at first, but their surviving loved ones will love it later.  iFiorina lied as usual claiming that Obama fired generals who said things he did not want to hear.

     Like General Jack Keane, who retired during the Bush Administration, and General McChrystal who had the bad judgment to include the late Michael Hasting, a Rolling Stone reporter, on all meetings and insubordinate rantings, for purposes of a favorable article.

     But, she may be right about General Petraeus. Obama no doubt did not want to hear about his giving secret, highly classified documents (that were stored in a bag in his closet) to his biographer and mistress. And, lying about it to investigators.

    Parent

    Oh, I know (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 07:08:38 AM EST
    You're looking at it from the perspective of a reasonable person. I'm attempting to look at it from the lens of a GOP voter. While the majority of Americans probably would agree with you about the bluster the GOP base eats that junk up.

    Parent
    I know plenty of Republicans, and what (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 08:15:38 AM EST
    I have noticed is a remarkable silence, and when not silent, a remarkable lack of enthusiasm for any candidate.  I've heard everything from, "if only Jeb was smarter" to "well, Rubio might be okay," to "Trump's ruining it for everyone."  I had one person actually get kind of angry with me when I jokingly asked when he was getting the Trump sign for his front yard - it's like they're embarrassed to admit they're Republican.

    This may be largely because the Republicans I know are all establishment-types, no raging tea-partiers among them.

    It will be interesting to see how this dynamic plays out in the voting, whether GOP voter participation will be high among the establishment, in an effort to prevent a Trump nomination, or whether it will be low, because trying to keep Trump out means choosing someone else, and there's no one behind him who lights their fire.

    Sucks to be them, I guess, but they get no sympathy from me!

    Parent

    Don't forget (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 08:23:12 AM EST
    There might be Democrats will cross over just to make mischief, especially if the race on the Dem side is over early in the process.

    Parent
    That's (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:33:18 AM EST
    been an accusation for the ages but as far as I know it's never been shown to make enough of difference when the votes were tallied.

    Parent
    It's Didn't Make a Lick... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:59:14 AM EST
    ...of difference when Limbaugh tried it with HRC/Obama in 2008.  'Some might' vote for Santa Clause too.

    The idea R's need help in making bad decisions at the voting both is really, very funny.

    Parent

    With this many candudates (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 11:12:11 AM EST
    Who may go late in the primary season, it won't take many crossoverv votes - especially in places like the Northeast (where there aren't going to be tons of Republican voters anyway). If you have three or four candidates, a small number of votes will make a huge difference.

    Heck, I did it in the 2000 primaries to vote for McCain (who went on to beat George Bush).  Al Gore won the state in the general (by more than 5%), so it wasn't just Republicans voting in the Republican primary.

    Parent

    Not Following Your Example... (none / 0) (#118)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 11:31:58 AM EST
    Gore won the state but McCain won the primary in the state, even though Bush won overall primary.

    How does that equate to knowing it just wasn't republicans voting in the republican primary, which I would add can only happen in a handful of states.

    Not even sure why I replying, I don't care about republican primaries any more than wondering who will be the winner.

    I only ask because in Texas we can vote in either primary.

    Parent

    If Nusj was so popular among Republicans (none / 0) (#120)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 11:37:56 AM EST
    He should have won the primary - but he didn't.  It was crossover voting.

    When you have more than two main candidates, as therecurrentky are in the Republican race, it won't take hundreds of thousands of crossovers to swing the results.

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:24:01 AM EST
    a few establishment types but the majority around here are tea party types. One of them said who is that 35% that is supporting Trump? I said they are your friends and neighbors. I mean these people are putting it all over Facebook that they support Trump. Several of them are people that we have in common as friends. I truly don't think they believe the polling that shows Trump leading.

    Parent
    Some of them (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:28:27 AM EST
    Are people who voted for Kerry and Obama.

    Parent
    One reason (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ragebot on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 09:43:10 AM EST
    I frequent this site is to get an insight into the minds of folks who have very different political views.

    I have several very liberal friends who I interact with face to face.  Never once have I seen them use terms like clown car or low information voters just to mention two terms that seem to be almost mandatory in posts here.  My face to face liberal friends also never claim conservatives are unreasonable.

    I also am frequently shocked by how different some posters here describe how conservatives think or reason compared to how they seem to act in face to face interaction.

    I am aware of studies about how folks seem to act more harshly on line than in face to face discussions.  But that does not explain why folks online would have such a different view of reality.

    Maybe the proverb from China applies, may you be cursed by living in interesting times.

    Parent

    As someone who lives in a deep red area (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 09:56:40 AM EST
    I am a liberal with many conservative acquaintances and several conservative friends.  Speaking only for me I don't use the same language with them that I sometimes use here.   The only effect of that would be to 1.) piss them off and 2.) shut down the conversation.  Neither of which I am particularly interested in doing.   I, apparently like you, like hearing what people think who disagree with me.   I guessing that that is not the most common attitude some commenters here.  Which IMO leads to a very skewed view of, fir example, who and what makes up Trumps support among many other things.

    I have said this before.  That said, still think it's a clown car.

    Parent

    I am more diplomatic (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:03:49 AM EST
    when talking to someone face to face, especially if I know they don't share my views. Seems a pretty basic human instinct.

    Parent
    I like (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:47:59 AM EST
    listening to the insanity. It's kind of like a case study. It's always shocking though still to hear what comes out of their mouths.

    Parent
    Yes, we need to be civil (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:32:01 PM EST
    and polite. Take a cue from the Republican candidates for president of the USA who say on national television such things as: Hillary Clinton killed "hundreds and thousands;" or Obama is a "feckless weakling."  Or, take a cue from their supporters who want to make a human torch out of a dissenter.

    Parent
    Most of us are functioning within a (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:30 AM EST
    relatively polite society, moving in social or work circles with people of all political stripes, and unless you want to lose your job, or have no friends or even superficial relationships, you are probably going to temper your comments, stick with facts, and leave the name-calling and emotional outbursts out.

    On the other hand, I work with someone who regularly goes off about Obama, Democrats and liberals, and seems to delight in casting them in the worst possible light, using the worst possible terms.  He knows not to push those buttons with me, though, because given the GOP field, and the GOP record, I have more ammo than he does and he knows it.  

    On the blog/media spectrum of polite discourse at one end, and foaming-at-the-mouth, expletive-laced attacks and pie fights at the other, I find TL to be much closer to the polite end of things, so it surprises me that what gets said here would even raise an eyebrow, much less generate any shock.  

    Parent

    Clown Car ? (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 02:30:10 PM EST
    They use that on the news occasionally, if you haven't heard that term outside of TL, you haven't been paying attention.

    I believe HRC has even used the phrase, but Google it, to say it's TL, is simply not being in touch.

    I am shocked none of your friends have called your party nutz to your face, because my republican friends call me a commie every time I see them.  That is a joke.

    Parent

    The phrase (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:40:55 AM EST
    "low information voters" is mostly used by conservatives around here. It is something they hurl at people who voted for Obama and those Republicans that voted for Romney but now support Trump. Irony of irony is that they weren't "low information voters" when they voted for Romney.

    The mistake people make is thinking these people are stupid. They are not. I know someone who is educated but believes Obama is not a US citizen. What I believe has happened is they have more or less self brainwashed themselves by entirely feasting on talk radio and conservative news sites like Breitbart that are not interested in informing people with facts.

    Most of my information I get from listening and I rarely talk politics with most of these people. Social media is also useful in that you can see who is supporting who and what they are saying. I usually just scroll on by what they are saying but you learn a lot about a person that way. They may not say it to your face but social media is pretty close.

    Parent

    I was really surprised (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 08:48:12 PM EST
    How much face time they gave Bush.  They kept going to him over and over and over.  He must have gotten almost as much time as Donald and I just thought why?  He's is 4%.  Why is he getting every other question.  

    But I don't think it helped him.

    Parent

    Honestly (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 08:52:21 PM EST
    he should be at the kiddie table. Once they announce he's going to the kiddie table I'm guessing he'd probably quit though.

    He's just flat out an awful candidate. No other way around it.

    Parent

    Amount of speaking time (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 08:53:13 PM EST
    for each candidate according to NPR:

    Cruz: 15:58
    Rubio: 13:33
    Trump: 13:25
    Christie: 10:45
    Carson: 10:27
    Bush: 10:13
    Paul: 9:46
    Fiorina: 9:32
    Kasich: 9:00

    Parent

    Yeah, I noticed that too, Howdy. (none / 0) (#38)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 09:19:17 PM EST
    But, I think, it makes sense. Obviously, if Bush was performing anywhere close to what the very first polls were projecting it would be a more interesting contest. Up to now he's been a disappointment, but, sooner or later, his Pac's and his rich contributors are going to demand action. I'm pretty sure he's been practicing real hard behind the scene.

    As far as the CNN directors from last night are concerned, they must be just as anxious as his money guys are for Bush to show some life, and fight. So, it just makes sense that every time Trump bitch-slapped Bush, they wanted to be sure that if Bush, finally, came roaring back, they got all the shots "in the bag."

    Cause, you're right, I kept waiting and waiting, there were so many openings, and with each one, I kept yelling to myself, Now, you idiot, kick him in the 'nads, now!

    Of course, that moment never came.

    Parent

    I'm really surprised (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 09:28:56 PM EST
    By the numbers above.   I hardly remember Carson saying anything.  I guess that coukd have to do with the speaker.

    And I agree about Christie.  It was shocking and weird.  It might raise his poll numbers tho.  God help us.

    Parent

    So the GOP (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 06:23:42 PM EST
    is investigating Ted Cruz for spilling national security secrets in the debate last night. If that doesn't tell you that the Republicans running the intelligence committee are a bunch of useless hacks I don't know what would.

    Bahahaha! (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 06:33:22 PM EST
    No chit

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 06:37:22 PM EST
    and they are the same ones shopping the junk about Hillary's email. LOL.

    Parent
    Ruminating on Bergdahl court martial (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 06:32:05 PM EST
    If there is any truth to an Afghan child being killed yet not properly reported along with other leadership failures at his outpost, everyone will know now.

    John McCain used to be protective of service members and even the reputation of the military. Not anymore though. You can't be foul enough for the Republican base these days. A weak military is one that has strict standards and operates under the Geneva Conventions. So let your freak flag fly.

    I dont recognize John McCain anymore, and doubt he ever was as principled as I once thought. I think he was simply jealous of Jack Murtha's heart and soul, so faked having one to avoid Murtha completely overshadowing him as a served voice on the hill.

    well (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 06:35:51 PM EST
    you are right. Now everything that happened on that base and the breakdown in discipline is all going to come out. It might be a large regret on the part of many that it has come to this. If they had just let Bergdahl move on with his life nothing might have come out but now everything is going to come out. It has to. It's a court proceeding now.

    Parent
    Yup, they made everyone at that (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 06:48:28 PM EST
    Outpost sign non disclosure agreements.

    Parent
    Some, but not all (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ragebot on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 09:19:29 PM EST
    signed the agreements.  At the time there was speculation the reason was to limit bashing Bergdahl as a traitor by his fellow soldiers.  Some folks also thought Bergdahl was a deep cover CIA plant.

    The NDA is called SF312 and is known as a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement and it prevents those who sign it from speaking about a specific event because it is in the interest of national security for them not to do so.  That was the basis of some of the CIA plant speculation.

    The army investigated the incident at the time and interviewed those directly involved.  Similar to a deposition in civilian courts.  It is unlikely any testimony at a court martial would differ much from what they said at the interviews.  If the testimony did differ introducing the notes from the interview would bring credibility into question.

    All those directly involved seemed to claim Berdahl left his post and crossed the fence line after removing some of his uniform and mailing some personal effects home.  His defense seems to be poor leadership at the outpost, something he left to bring to the attention higher ups.

    I don't really see the court martial being anything but a rehashing of what we already know.

    Parent

    Are you JAG? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 11:40:15 PM EST


    Parent
    I mean it's not really a speculation thing (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 11:52:46 PM EST
    I understand why that rag the Daily Mail wants to "speculate", but it really isn't speculation. Everyone close to him signed it. And it's standard procedure when you have a POW in this information age.

    The standard procedure had a secondary impact in not allowing the public to immediately know the whole story, but that wasn't the intention.

    And according to his lawyers there's a lot we don't know. Heck, even my husband says there's a lot we don't know. We don't know why his particular commanders were relieved of their commands. I only know they were, but I have not been able to know exactly for what they were removed from their command positions.

    Parent

    Have you read Jon Krakuer's book (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:01:22 AM EST
    about Pat Tillman?  I just started listening to it. "Where Men Win Glory:  The Odyssey of Pat Tillman."  

    Parent
    Yes - it is excellent (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:10:59 AM EST
    and a good reminder not to always buy the official story.

    Parent
    I have not (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 06:13:56 AM EST
    I'll check up on it.

    Parent
    If you are implying one cover up (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 06:34:42 AM EST
    Begets another, nothing could be further from the true. The Obama administration is not the Bush administration, not even remotely close.  Everyone is different emotionally also. We aren't willing to be played.

    After 9/11, and a heroic NFL football player enlisting, nobody wanted to hear he was killed by friendly fire. It hurt our hearts too much.

    Bowe Bergdahl doesn't have anyone who glorifies him. We either have empathy, or we hate Obama do Bergdahl must be a big piece of $hit that the usurper traded 5 Talib an leaders

    Parent

    No implication. Or segue really. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 06:46:05 AM EST


    Parent
    Sorry, I suppose too many (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 07:16:10 AM EST
    Non soldiers around me are pretty vocal about hanging this kid, just because they hate Obama. I'm sensitized right now. How awful to find yourself being attacked and threatened because of who the President is. Odd, nobody I know who is serving wants to just hang him, they want the whole story. That doesn't mean that in the end they won't say that according to regulation he has done something wrong. But they all know there is more to this story.

    Parent
    Exactly, that reflex reaction is what is (none / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:12:33 AM EST
    dangerous and really stupid and grating.

    Parent
    Damn crap pad :) Grrrr (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 06:35:30 AM EST


    Parent
    Watching 'The Spymasters (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 06:37:41 AM EST
    CIA in the Crosshairs' this morning.

    Parent
    Many past CIA directors are saying (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 06:45:17 AM EST
    Obama is killing too many targets, he needs to capture more for interrogation. I notice in the reasons why we aren't capturing more, loss of special forces life doesn't even make their list of concerns that they are willing to apply. I wonder if that is a concern of the President though.

    Parent
    Do the (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 07:06:23 PM EST
    nondisclosure agreements keep them from testifying in court about what happened?

    Parent
    I think the reason for the non disclosure (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 07:33:49 PM EST
    Agreements initially was to protect Bergdahl while he was a prisoner. Military families are told to take down their social profiles, facebook, etc when a family soldier is captured, I think DOD will scrub the internet too, because details can be used during interrogation or torture of the captured soldier. But after Bergdahl was recovered the non disclosure agreements are still binding, at least DOD is demanding they continue to be honored. A few people broke those agreements. Their tone caused me to think they were among those who were demoted and/or reprimanded for failures of discipline. Nobody would have looked that closely at them until Bergdahl's disappearance sparked an investigation.

    I would not think those agreements prevent anyone from testifying, but I don't know for certain.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 07:35:49 PM EST
    there seems to be no consequences for breaking them with the ones that have gone public.

    Parent
    I'm sure they have been spoken to (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 07:38:56 PM EST
    I haven't heard or seen anything of them recently. But I in a news blackout right now. Too many times I have the news on all day. Trying to things differently during the Christmas Holiday.

    Parent
    And my old Android pad sux to type on :( (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 07:39:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Check it out (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 07:45:14 PM EST
    A podcast, supposedly Bowe's story.

    Parent
    Was wondering if you had started listening to that (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:29 AM EST
    yet. So far no details about the actions at the post that he says he was trying to expose. Today's episode about the search was interesting though. She got good interviews with participants on both sides.

    Parent
    NY Times link (none / 0) (#42)
    by ragebot on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 09:31:59 PM EST
    And they vehemently disputed reports that implied he had seen a vehicle from his unit run over an Afghan child, which Sergeant Bergdahl had apparently told his parents in an email before his disappearance. That never happened, his fellow soldiers said.

    I have not seen any evidence one way or the other to prove or disprove a child was killed.

    Parent

    Too good to check (none / 0) (#48)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 11:33:00 PM EST
     If you want to believe, why bother to check the veracity of the assertions?

    Parent
    Believing is different (none / 0) (#55)
    by ragebot on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:22:58 AM EST
    than being able to prove in court.  I never said what I did or did not believe.  Maybe I should have been more clear in making this point before.

    No one seems to disagree Bergdahl went UA, which is the least serious charge.

    While there is disagreement on his motivation there is no disagreement that before he left he mailed personal items to his parents and took off part of his uniform before going outside the fence line.

    If I was to guess I would say Bergdahl has mental health issues.  His podcasts about thinking he was acting like Jason Bourne sounds like delusions of grandeur.  I am not sure mental defect is a legit defense for what he did.

    I am also not sure courts, civilian or military, take bad luck for the accused into account.  If someone robbed a bank, ran out the door into the street and was hit by a car and was paralyzed he would still be charged with bank robbery.  There might some mitigation in jail term but maybe not.

    As for believing something I would be more concerned with folks who believe, with no obvious evidence, a child was killed and it was covered up.

    The real issue however what can be proved in a military court.

    Parent

    Do you have any idea how many other (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 08:28:45 AM EST
    Soldiers went UA in Afghanistan? The list is enormous, some of the stories far more holy crap than the Bergdahl story. Everybody was reprimanded, nobody received this sort of court-martial.

    The difference here, he ended up in the hands of the Haqanni network, and the hated Obama traded some imprisoned Taliban leaders for him. That's the only diffrrence....Obama had to do something about this UA and it made the headlines.

    I haven't seen any of you come out demanding the heads of the two Green Beret who went for a UA "joyride" outside the wire in Afghanistan, ended up in a shootout, and got people killed in that shootout. They didn't end up looking at life in prison. In fact I doubt you knew anything about this incident until now.

    Parent

    Tracy I Agree... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 09:32:47 AM EST
    ...but the problem is this made national news for whatever reason, and right now, even if Obama wasn't in the picture, people are not feeling much love for terrorists, and the trade does not sit well with most considering this was a voluntary act.

    I think you are doing a lot of people a great deal of disservice by insisting this all boils down to Obama haters.  Otherwise I agree with everything you have written.

    I did not know about the Green Berets, but it does not surprise me either.  I think people can get past soldiers dying because of a dumb act, I don't think people can get past a prisoner swap of Taliban leaders that would not have happened without Bergdahl's dumb act.  I would imagine if the GB, mentioned above, acts had resulted in beheadings or something that would surely gone viral, they would be sitting in the position as Bergdahl.

    IMO he is going to have to produce some pretty damning evidence to justify the swap.  I know it wasn't his call, but I think that is the crux of everything, and rumors about this or that are not going to cut it, rock solid evidence that Bergdahl had little choice.  I don't imagine that evidence exists.

    That being said, whatever they come up with needs to be weighted with what he went through.  5 years as a POW is substantial punishment, and I hope that it's enough, but he most certainly should get a dishonorable, again assuming he can't produce something significant.

    Parent

    Considering Obama's success droning (none / 0) (#186)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:10:48 PM EST
    The Taliban and the Haqanni network, I'm fine that he swapped some old Taliban at Gitmo for a US POW. He's giving them a chance to live differently. And seriously, what would you do after you released them? Wouldn't you tag them? Use them as intel bait? I would. It's many things, but it's also an opportunity. It's not like Obama's track record indicates he can't back it up :)

    Parent
    Only in America... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 08:59:31 AM EST
    would we make a prisoner exchange only to make a prisoner out of the poor slob we just made the exchange for.

    The whole thing baffles me....whatever happened, let it go.

    Parent

    Going UA is more common (none / 0) (#85)
    by ragebot on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 09:53:48 AM EST
    than a lot of folks think.  What some folks claim makes the Bergdahl case different is he mailed his personal effects home before he left and he removed some of his uniform before he went out side the fence line.

    There are legal ramifications to being out of uniform in a combat zone.  This is one of the reasons the brass got so upset by pix on the internet of Bergdahl's unit in T-shirts and head bands.  Not saying that did not happen when I was on active duty, just that if you are caught out of uniform by the enemy (especially like Bergdahl was being dressed some what like a local) you can be shot as a spy on the spot.

    Not trying to minimize your point of others going UA.  But what Bergdahl did before he walked out showed at least some pre meditation that went beyond going UA.  If the Green Berets had mailed stuff home and taken off parts of their uniforms before leaving they might have gotten more than a reprimand.

    Parent

    It sounds like you listened to the (none / 0) (#183)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    Podcast too. What do they teach you in basic though, and WOC school too. Lock your locker damn it, lock everything that locks!!! You are supposed to be able to trust the soldier next to you, but you're delusional if you trust them with your belongings, you're supposed to trust them with your life but that's it :) He said he knew he was probably going to get in trouble, and he didn't want fellow soldiers helping themselves to his belongings.

    I disagree with you that he has mental issues. Naive though, home schooled by Libertarians naive :) I find him very intelligent. He knew once he got out there that he had bitten off more than he could chew. He also knew he couldn't try to get back into the camp also, they would probably shoot at him if he wasn't missed yet, and rightfully so.

    Then he went off on a tangent of "trying to find someone responsible for IEDs", hoping he could do that and perhaps save his butt in the military. Sounds a little bit like some of the crap I conjured up and attempted at 15 or so.

    And I still wonder about his malaria medication. It did some strange temp mental things to people. My spouse lied, said he took it. When I found out he wasn't taking it and got on him about it he said he'd rather risk malaria then risk taking a medication that was making some people a little nuts.

    Bergdahl just sounded like a kid though, not dumb, just not emotionally fully there yet. Hyper idealistic, which so many are when they volunteer. Lots of shades and depths of hyper idealistic.

    Parent

    The Karellen makeup for Childhoods End (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 07:10:11 PM EST
    Is literally the most amazing I've ever seen.   If it doesn't win the EMMY for makeup in a miniseries I'm sure there will be open revolt.  
    They ended up using CG for his body but tried to use a full body suit.  I hope we get to see the suit at some point.  But the makeup is truly astonishing.  They do lots of extreme close ups. And it helps that Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister) is such a great actor.
    This miniseries is excellent all around but it's worth seeing just for this.

    Childhood's End interview, part 2: Charles Dance on becoming Karellen

    WARNING: The following interview contains visual and spoken spoilers for Episode 1 of Syfy's Childhood's End.

    The first night of Childhood's End has come and gone, and with it, one of the big moments from the book: the revelation of the Overlord Karellen and his rather distinctive appearance, which hews pretty closely to the traditional depiction of Satan (or, at least, a particularly horny demon). That the folks behind the miniseries decided to go practical with Karellen's look is a pretty bold move, but when you've got an actor of Charles Dance's caliber behind the makeup, it makes things a whole lot easier.

    During my interview with Dance and Mike Vogel, I had the opportunity to ask about the process behind bringing Karellen to life, and what it was like for the actors on set dealing with Dance as the devil. Check it out below.



    For the record (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 09:30:16 PM EST
    Don't imagine this means is really has anything to do, strictly speaking, with religion.

    Parent
    Just watched last night's Trevor Noah (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 07:12:28 PM EST
    Jordan Klepper's study of a Donald Trump focus group shouldn't be a shocker but it still is.

    Vlad Putin is immortal! (none / 0) (#51)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Dec 16, 2015 at 11:50:27 PM EST
    And in news other than the Repub debate, the other important news on the Internet is that several photos suggest that Vladimir Putin is in fact immortal .  . . and the real questions are 1) did he pose for what has become the Mona Lisa? and 2) Is Vlad actually Vlad the Impaler?

    Yes, these two important questions remain unresolved!

    Of course, some of this would be news to a certain Chris Christie . . . who wants to threaten Vlad with shooting down his planes . . .

    crazy allegations of "false" facts . . . (none / 0) (#54)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:02:07 AM EST
    Fox news is claiming that Rubio and Trump made false claims last night in the debate.

    WE must be in bizarro world   . . . who could possibly believe that Rubio and/or Trump would say something false?

    the trial against Porter is lost (none / 0) (#66)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 07:28:46 AM EST
    Porter was not one who arrested Gray and when Gray was first arrested, he supposedly was placed in the van on his belly and not in a seat-belt.  Since we don't really know, it appears, for sure, when the fatal injury occurred, there is no way to convict Porter of anything.

    the fatal injury  might have occurred before Porter had any contact with Gray as best we know at this point.

    Therefore, any jury with at least some people with conscience will refuse to convict, because the theory of the state is not certain.  Porter could be guilty and we should still refuse to convict.

    The state has an impossible row to hoe . . .  It just will not be happening for them, even without a change in venue . . . and with a change in venue, there is likely to be an outright acquittal.

    Like I said, my forsythia is blooming (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 09:19:28 AM EST
    Usually that makes me happy, always the first blooms.  In this instance not so much.

    December heat wave hits North America

    I'm lovin' the heat wave... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 11:30:32 AM EST
    the weather, the weed market, the oil prices, the GOP implosion, the Mets resigning Bartolo "Big Sexy" Colon...best f*ckin' Christmas ever!  

    Santa, you outdone yourself this year.

    Parent

    Every party needs two poopers... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 09:26:31 AM EST
    that's why we let Oklahoma and Nebraska in the Union.

    But the president is trying to put the kibosh on their kibosh...Thanks Obama!

    What do you think is the over under (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 09:32:22 AM EST
    That he will change pot from a schedule 1 before he leaves office?   I still think it's possible.  Maybe after the election before leaving office.

    Parent
    Given the Obama (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CST on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 09:47:04 AM EST
    We've gotten since the last election, I can't wait to see what happens "after the election before leaving office."

    I'm making no bets about Schedule 1, but nothing would surprise me.  I would make a bet that he finds a way to finagle Guantanamo Bay's closing.

    Parent

    We can dream... (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 09:53:58 AM EST
    what a 2016 Christmas president that would be...along with hundreds of thousands of pardons for the non-violent prisoners of this civil war.

    It's certainly more possible than ever before...we've already seen more positive change than I could have ever possibly imagined on this front. No stoppin' us now!

     

    Parent

    Only a matter of time (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CST on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 09:56:11 AM EST
    I know people have been saying that for a while, but this time it's definitely different.

    Parent
    Indeed... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:02:05 AM EST
    your revolution is over Mr. Nixon! Mr. Anslinger! Mr. Clinton! Mr. Hearst! The bums lost!  

    Parent
    tattoo it on your forehead.. (none / 0) (#124)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 11:52:59 AM EST
    Lebowski, the bums will always lose..

    Parent
    The idea that Obama... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:31:44 AM EST
    ...would make that change IMO is a fools belief, the guy has simply shown he does not in any way think legalized marijuana is off limits to the Fed.

    Congress passed a law to get the DOJ to stop busting medical marijuana facilities and of course the Fed ignored the law.

    When Congress passed legislation in December barring the federal government from spending money on busting medical marijuana operations sanctioned by a state, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) conveniently interpreted it to mean they could continue to do just that.

    But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer disagreed and called the DOJ's view absurd.

    The new law said the department could not expend money interfering with state-approved medical marijuana operations, and closing pot shops was clearly that, the judge said. DOJ lawyers argued that shutting down individual shops doesn't stop the state from executing its law and running a regulated medical pot market.

    Breyer was incredulous. "The Government's contrary reading so tortures the plain meaning of the statute that it must be quoted to ensure credible articulation," he wrote. He then quoted a chunk of DOJ reasoning and remarked, "Where to start?"

    Breyer noted a reliable source to support his interpretation of the law--the authors. He quoted a statement they made to the court about the DOJ position:

    "As the authors of the provision in question, we write to inform you that this interpretation is emphatically wrong. Rest assured, the purpose of our amendment was to prevent the Department from wasting its limited law enforcement resources on prosecutions and asset forfeiture actions against medical marijuana patients and providers, including businesses that operate legally under the law."
    LINK

    Not sure why anyone thinks Obama is anything but a republican when it comes to drug policy.  If anything he is as bad, if not worse that GWB.  Moving it to schedule one would basically take the Fed out of the equation, not something Obama or any of the candidates want.

    Parent

    Moving it FROM schedule 1 (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 11:12:52 AM EST
    We will see.

    Parent
    As I remember from the last time (none / 0) (#128)
    by Peter G on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:17:58 PM EST
    I looked into the question, the way the law is written the President (nor anyone who is directly under his control, such as the administrator of DEA) cannot do it unilaterally. But I could be remembering wrong. Haven't gone back to look it up.

    Parent
    USNews (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:40:15 PM EST

    President Barack Obama said Thursday it's not his administration's job to reschedule marijuana, but supporters of rescinding the drug's federal classification as one of the most dangerous narcotics say the president is confused and should act immediately.

    "What is and isn't a Schedule I narcotic is a job for Congress," Obama told Jake Tapper of CNN. "It's not something by ourselves that we start changing. No, there are laws under - undergirding those determinations."

    Marijuana advocates point to the U.S. Code and say that's not entirely accurate.

    The 1970 Controlled Substances Act, which created five tiers of restricted drugs, says the attorney general may "remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule."

    If a substance is banned by international treaties - as marijuana is - the law grants the attorney general the power to place it "under the schedule he deems most appropriate



    Parent
    The most obvious problem (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:44:32 PM EST
    With pot as schedule one is that the definition of a schedule one drug is one that has no valid use for medicinal purposes.  This is clearly not the case.

    Parent
    Schedule 1 (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:46:08 PM EST

    Schedule I drugs are those that have the following characteristic according to the United States Drug Enforcement Agency: The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical treatment use in the U.S.May 4, 2014


    Parent
    It seems to be a bit more comicated than thst (none / 0) (#146)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:58:34 PM EST
    But, it's Wiki. fWIW.

    Parent
    Comicated is exactly the word for it! (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Peter G on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:26:31 PM EST
    Both comical and complicated. That's what I was remembering, I think. Two agencies have to concur, and a lot of bureaucratic rigamarole. Not as simple as the fact, as you and I might call it, that cannabis is now known to have medical uses. And it was in fact Congress that placed "marihuana" on Schedule I in 1970, not after a scientific analysis, but by legislative fiat.

    Parent
    Does not the AG and the president (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:29:47 PM EST
    Controll both agencies?  There are many very smart league minds that say he can do it.  I coukd find links.

    Parent
    Would heads explode (none / 0) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:31:08 PM EST
    Including hopefully some locally? Absolutely.  He's done other things that caused heads to explode.

    Parent
    Brookings (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:37:04 PM EST
    there are two ways the scheduling of marijuana can be changed by legislative action and by administrative action.

    Parent
    Administrative (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:39:45 PM EST
    In a nutshell, administrative rescheduling begins when an actor--the Secretary of Health and Human Services or an outside interested party--files a petition with the Attorney General or he initiates the process himself. The Attorney General forwards the request to the HHS Secretary asking for a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation, as specified by 23 USC 811(b-c). HHS, via the Food and Drug Administration conducts an assessment and returns a recommendation to the Attorney General "in a timely manner." The Attorney General, often through the Drug Enforcement Administration, conducts its own concurrent and independent review of the evidence in order to determine whether a drug should be scheduled, rescheduled, or removed from control entirely--depending on the initial request in the petition.

    If the Attorney General finds sufficient evidence that a change in scheduling is warranted he then initiates the first stages of a standard rulemaking process, consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act. During rulemaking and consistent with Executive Order 12866, if the White House--through the Office of Management and Budget's Office of information and Regulatory Affairs--determines the rule to be "significant," it will conduct a regulatory review of the proposed rule--a very likely outcome given the criteria in the EO.

    Sounds possible to me.  Easy? No.  Possible, yes.

    Parent

    This is what I was referring to. (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Peter G on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:23:02 PM EST
    A process that it far more complex, legally, that simply issuing an Executive Order.  The President can directly order the DEA to stop investigating mj cases, and he can order the DoJ to stop prosecuting those cases. He can pardon, or commute the sentence of, anyone with a federal mj conviction. (Not state-level convictions, however, which are most of them; that power rests with state governors.) But he cannot just move "marihuana" from Schedule I to Schedule IV, for example; not under the present statutes as written. That is what I thought Howdy's original post was suggesting.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:34:52 PM EST
    I knew the process was convoluted.  But that's not the same as "he can't do it".  

    Parent
    And considering (none / 0) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    We know congress will never do it and every year the total mess of having more conflicting state and federal laws....

    Parent
    Well Maybe... (none / 0) (#195)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:53:21 PM EST
    ...your prediction of a D controlled Congress will speed that up...

    Parent
    Now (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    Why would he do this.  
    Because he is a good man.  And a smart man.   And a compassionate man.   And I know for a fact the administration is being and has been lobbied heavily by the families of children who's lives have been saved and by others who children could be be saved to do it.

    Btw
    That Brookings piece was titled why it's not likely to happen any time soon.  It's from 2013.  Even more states are almost certain to legalize it next year.

    Parent

    It's more comicated because if people like you (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:02:58 PM EST
    It really not complicated at all.   That the drug has medical uses is so obvious I'm not wasting time arguing it with you.

    Read the statute.

    Parent

    Um, wrong as usual (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:18:25 PM EST
    I don't know what "people like me'/means, but I'm sure it's an insult.

    The United States Code, under Section 811 of Title 21,[22] sets out a process by which cannabis could be administratively transferred to a less-restrictive category or removed from Controlled Substances Act regulation altogether. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) evaluates petitions to reschedule cannabis. However, the Controlled Substances Act gives the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as successor agency of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, great power over rescheduling decisions.

    After the DEA accepts the filing of a petition, the agency must request from the HHS Secretary "a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance." The Secretary's findings on scientific and medical issues are binding on the DEA.[23] The HHS Secretary can even unilaterally legalize cannabis: "[I]f the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance." 21 U.S.C. § 811(b).

    Of course, there's still this (bolding is mine)

    In 1992, DEA Administrator Robert Bonner promulgated five criteria, based somewhat on the Controlled Substances Act's legislative history, for determining whether a drug has an accepted medical use.[17] The DEA claims that cannabis has no accepted medical use because it does not meet all of these criteria:[18]

    • the drug's chemistry is known and reproducible;
    • there are adequate safety studies;
    • there are adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy;
    • the drug is accepted by qualified experts; and
    • the scientific evidence is widely available.

    These criteria are not binding; they were created by DEA and may be altered at any time. Judicial deference to agency decisions is what has kept them in effect, despite the difference between these and the statutory criteria.

    The president can't just issue a fiat changing all of this.  There a process involved.

    Parent

    Everyone here knows you have an agenda (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:24:59 PM EST
    USNews disagrees with you.   As do many others.  I'm curious to hear what Peter says.   But I'm certainly not wasting my time with you.

    Parent
    The Problem Capt... (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:57:02 PM EST
    ...is people like JB control the scheduling, they insist there isn't enough evidence, damn the 10,000 years of use, they need studies.

    But since it's schedule I, no dollars can be used to study something that has no medical benefits.  It's the shell game they play, acting like they would move if it would just meet the criteria.

    It's the tax stamp wrapped up in as a medical threshold.

    Never mind that pharmaceuticals are being cranked out by the boatload with every imaginable side effect including death, but marijuana is the one that no one in charge seems to know anything about.  

    They don't know about the medical benefits because they don't want to know about them, they don't care what millions have said, they won't be moved without a study, a study that they know cannot be done.

    IMO it will not come off schedule 1 until congress does it, because anyone who can actually do it, acts like it's a complete mystery, that in the 10,000 years humans have been using it there just isn't enough data to move it to another schedul.

    Modern day tax stamps, it doesn't make sense, JB surely know this, but that doesn't stop her from arguing the point.  

    Parent

    This is right of course (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 02:00:12 PM EST
    But it's now legal in 2 states and that changes everything.  In 2016 its almost certainly going to be legal in more.

    Parent
    Agreed.... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 02:16:36 PM EST
    ...that is why I think it will have to be Congress.  HRC isn't going to do it, and in all likelihood, that will put us out a decade which who knows how many it will be legal in, but I would imagine many.

    HRC is said pretty much what JB has said, they need more studies, which to me is the dog whistle for GFY.

    Parent

    I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of those (none / 0) (#169)
    by CST on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 02:23:28 PM EST
    It will take a republican president - things.

    Or it could end up like Gay marriage where people toe the line until they feel like they don't have to anymore and then say f*ck it, and go all in.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 02:26:53 PM EST
    it's going to go the gay marriage route where more states are going to have it on the ballot and it's going to be legalized. The problem with states like GA is the fact that it's probably never going to make it to the ballot. Good Lord even some referendum on alcohol sales caused a meltdown here.

    Parent
    Disagree about pot like SSM (none / 0) (#194)
    by ragebot on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:45:16 PM EST
    While SSM has been on the ballot many times the courts are what has been the real reason for its success.  SSM has failed in many popular votes.

    I don't see the courts ignoring current federal and international law.  I also am not so sure it will be legal due to a popular vote.  I know many folks who thought legal pot would pass in Florida last time around and it did not (maybe for reasons more related to other things).

    I am more inclined to think marriage should be a matter for churches to adjudicate (you should be free to contract with anyone about almost any issue like wills and the like) and folks should be free to stuff beans up their nose if they want to with no government involvement in either issue.

    Parent

    I agree about the difference with SSM (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:53:53 PM EST
    It won't happen in the courts.

    But I'm not sure what you mean about it not being legal by popular vote.  It's now legal in 4 states.  I think 3 of those were by popular vote.  And I will bet you there will be more next year.

    Parent

    Or are you suggesting (none / 0) (#197)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:55:28 PM EST
    Republicans will totally dump their "states rights" BS.  Possible I suppose.  

    Parent
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 02:29:06 PM EST
    Anyhoo

    I misspoke.  It's now legal in 4 states.  With more coming in 2016.

    I think he might do it.

    Parent

    HRC can be swayed... (none / 0) (#171)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    if Wall Street can be swayed...and if the money is right, Wall Street can be swayed....Big Pharma be damned.

    Parent
    If Donald makes t to the general (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 02:30:18 PM EST
    We need to ask him.  We know he will say yes if it will get hm votes.  Sort of like the Bernie effect.

    Parent
    Trump will do it... (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 02:35:21 PM EST
    if he gets exclusive branding rights..."Trump Trees".

    Parent
    Or if the the Public... (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 02:44:55 PM EST
    ...agrees to rename blunts to Trumps.

    Parent
    Think of the cross-brand marketing... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:03:43 PM EST
    Nothing gets rid of the cottonmouth after smoking a Trump Trees Trump on the back nine of one of our Trump Golf Courses like an ice cold Trump Water.

    Parent
    Works for me (none / 0) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:00:05 PM EST
    He's going to need a new line of work

    Parent
    Funny... (none / 0) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 09:51:36 AM EST
    ...the state's who want state's rights to trump Obamacare & marriage are suddenly asking the Fed to shut down another state's rights.

    I can attest that Colorado wares are coming into relatively close states by the truck load.  Colorado's law has without a doubt, significantly altered the weed landscape in Houston.  Everything available in Colorado is available in Houston and prices have plummeted.

    I would argue that our children's heath and welfare hasn't changed in any conceivable way, which is the base of their suit.  I would also argue, that gap is true of many other things, like guns.  Where someone from one state who may not be able to purchase, simply goes to another to make the same purchase, legally.

    I went through something similar when Wisconsin was 19 to drink, the surrounding states argued that the age made the highways less safe, which was probably true.  The Fed did step in and pulled Fed highway dollars until WI got in line, which took almost no time.  So even though the suit probably isn't going anywhere, those Fed dollars can be used as leverage.

    For the record, when WI changed to 21, they grandfathered 19 year olds, so in high school, for a year, there were a handful of people who could buy booze.  It's funny, because for two years, those signs that say you must be born after this date, kept the same date.  Imagine missing the cut-off by a day or two.

    Parent

    It's changed the landscape... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:07:23 AM EST
    from coast to coast...quality skyrocketing, prices plummeting.

    I just picked up an obscene strain called Green Candy (dubbed Christmas Candy for the season) for 250 an oz...similar highest quality woulda been double that just a few years ago.  God Bless Colorado.

    Parent

    I'm not sure if it's Colorado (none / 0) (#176)
    by CST on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 02:38:46 PM EST
    Or the fact that it's decriminalized/legal for medical in MA now, or the fact that it's about to be legal in MA, or all of the above - but let me tell you, you certainly smell it a lot more walking around town.

    No one cares anymore.

    Parent

    I think For Many Municipalities... (none / 0) (#178)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 02:47:26 PM EST
    ...the fact that personal use is usually a citation rather than jail.  It's like speeding, whereas it used to be like theft.

    Parent
    Oh the poor children! (none / 0) (#130)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:22:16 PM EST
    Everything law, every action, everything we do in America MUST be done to protect the children!!!

    /s

    Parent

    You'd think OK and NE... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:34:13 PM EST
    would wanna protect their children from long drives to Colorado and back...driving can be deadly, best to limit the miles on the odometer and let the USPS, UPS, & FedEx move the weed.

    Parent
    Enrique Marquez (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 09:39:46 AM EST
    Neighbor of SB shooters facing charges.  FBI.

    regarding clean energy (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 09:45:03 AM EST
    I've been seeing solar panels going up everywhere.  They've been putting up fields of them at almost every highway exit.  That loop you make when you are getting off the highway?  The grass in the middle is now filled with solar panels.  And they are popping up on houses/businesses everywhere too.

    I'm a little surprised it's solar.  I would think in MA you would see more wind than solar, but that's not what's happening.

    "According to the 2013 Massachusetts Clean Energy Industry Report, solar constitutes about 60 percent of the renewable energy sector in the state, compared with about 10 percent for wind and 13 percent for hydropower."

    You might enjoy this (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:02:42 AM EST
    why satire is dead

    Parent
    I read that story on HuffPo. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:17:07 PM EST
    The degree of stupidity is astounding. Just had to slap my forehead and shake my head.

    Parent
    If Anyone is Interested... (none / 0) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:04:19 AM EST
    ...here a website with all the in/outs of solar power per state including rebates, tax credits, and policy.

    Solar Power Rocks

    For example Massachusetts, they estimate it will take 4 years to pay for solar(break even), that is ridiculously fast, and they estimate in 25 years you would save $18k by installing solar.

    Whereas super sunny Texas is 12 years to pay for the system, and in 25 years you would save $15k.

    Parent

    Honestly though (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:19:54 AM EST
    I wonder how much of that is related to other energy costs being higher here too.

    That being said, energy bills are still lower here than the national average, because we don't use A/C nearly as much.  The winter heating bill on the other hand is what really gets you.

    Parent

    I think it Has Way More to... (none / 0) (#108)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:47:22 AM EST
    ...do with incentives, like getting free loans through your property tax district or the state subsidizing some of the costs.

    We have at least twice the sunlight here, if everything else was equal, the southern states should be able to recoup in far less time, but that is not the case at all.

    Georgia and Florida have both tried to make solar illegal and/or add taxes to installing a system.  Florida failed, and Georgia is still trying.

    But looking at the kilowatt cost for 2014, you might be on to something.  The top 5, sans Hawaii & Alaska, are in the northeast.  You pay almost double what I pay.

    Parent

    probably a combination of both (none / 0) (#110)
    by CST on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 10:54:10 AM EST
    It's a lot easier to be competitive with other forms of energy, when other forms of energy are more expensive.

    That being said, while the kilowatt cost is higher, we don't feel it as much, because as a whole our energy bill is still lower.

    Right now one a major problem we have is an over-reliance on natural gas.  There was a big push to switch to natural gas from oil for heating, and as a result, natural gas for electricity got a lot more expensive and there is a bit of a supply crunch right now.

    Parent

    Well I Happen to Think.... (none / 0) (#114)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 11:13:08 AM EST
    ...3 months of $400 electricity bills in the summer in insanely high, but if I had your electric company, they would be nearly double.

    I would really like to do it, but I am one of those people who won't buy something if I know other people are getting a better deal.  I can't stand the idea of it taking 12 years to pay for itself, when others only take 4.  12 years and I am just at -0-, jesus, I used to move almost yearly and the idea of living in the same place for a decade, yikes.

    I basically have an entire slope of my roof that faces the south with no neighbors or trees.  It's like it was built for solar.

    Parent

    Yea I've never had (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by CST on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:30:08 PM EST
    An electric bill that was over $100.  Not once.  Usually it's closer to $40-50.  So knowing it's twice as expensive doesn't bother me that much.  Because it's not as big of an expense in general.  $25 will get you cleaner energy for a month, or three beers at the bar.

    But heat, that hits $400 a month in the winter, and paying twice as much for that would be a real hardship.

    Parent

    My house is exactly the same (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 11:15:52 AM EST
    Made fir it.  And I fully intend to have it covered with solar panels by the summer of 2017.

    Parent
    Thought You Were West Coast Bound... (none / 0) (#119)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 11:36:26 AM EST
    ...but you are in one of those states that doesn't help much.  It would be so awesome to have an electric bill that is half and also contributing to CO2 reduction.

    I also know the state built on fossil fuel isn't going to ever offer what other do, and that sucks.

    If you look at the map Oregon is #5 for solar costs.

    Parent

    I go back and forth (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 11:46:34 AM EST
    I just found a reliable pot connection so....

    I talked to some people.  I could generate enough to almost be completely independent.   I have a small house with relatively low bills.  And it is perfectly positioned.    My most costly AC bill was a bit over 200.  That's with sh!tty window and doors which will be replaced at the same time.

    Parent

    Solar illegal? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 12:20:18 PM EST
    What would be impetus of that? Or the reasoning behind it? That's out there stupid

    Parent
    The theory big electric uses (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by ragebot on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:53:41 PM EST
    is not so much related to electricity but to the grid that delivers it to your house.  Generating electricity is only a part of the cost of delivering it to your house.  All those ugly telephone poles with electric wires on them are not cheap, and it costs ever more to bury them in the ground.  It also costs more to maintain buried lines than those above the ground.

    What the big electric guys claim is the small solar/whatever electric guys want to use the existing electric grid to deliver electricity and not pay for the gird.

    Both state and local governments have a legit interest in regulating those ugly phone and electric lines, not to mention the zoning of the land the lines are on.

    I am in favor of more solar, in fact in another post I outlined how I spend probably 10 months a year on my boat which is solar powered.  

    Problem is how do you charge folks to use a grid they did not pay for.

    Parent

    That is the Risk... (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 02:09:25 PM EST
    ...they ran trying to monopolize an industry and fail.

    They eat it of course, that is what happens when you take a risk, sometimes it doesn't work out.  The idea that they get the market because they paid for it is silly, what's next Toyota buying roads and insisting only Toyotas can use them.

    No one forced them to install the lines, they did it thinking they would own the market, they were wrong.

    That being said, until the municipalities take over maintenance, the power companies are going to have to maintain or sell to someone who will.

    Parent

    Utilities have been viewed (none / 0) (#198)
    by ragebot on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 03:59:23 PM EST
    as government regulated monopolies for good reason.  Not just economy of scale but because there is really not enough room for multiple utilities like electric, gas, water, and such to build individual infrastructures.

    In return for big electric companies building the power grid the govt granted them the right to function like a monopoly.

    There are private toll roads (and some govt toll roads as well) that limit things like size and number of passengers a vehicle is carrying (HOV lanes).

    There are also proposals to have unit based charges for roads; e.g. things like putting sensors in vehicles and charging more when they are used during rush hour and less at off peak times.

    Another reason roads and the power grids are not treated the same is that in many areas roads do not have the capacity to handle the volume at peak load periods.  While power grids do have blackouts and rolling brownouts as a rule the power grids do have the capacity to handle the volume at peak load periods.

    Aside from roads many other non auto links in the transportation network do work on a toll basis and limit access to certain types of transport.  The Erie Canal is one of the oldest examples.  It is quite an interesting experience to transit the Panama Canal which is the truest monopoly I know of.

    Parent

    If I had to guess, (none / 0) (#153)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:27:03 PM EST
    I would say that it's because the electric companies fear that they won't make as much money if more and more people switch to solar energy, at least in part.
    And also, the coal industry and natural gas industry might also lose money if less and less coal and natural gas were used in the production of electricity.
    And these industries have lots of lobbyists pressuring legislators.  Not to mention giving money to PAC's and re-election campaigns.
    It's all about the benjamins.

    Parent
    the exact same reason (none / 0) (#154)
    by CST on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:28:51 PM EST
    Comcast/AT&T was able to get laws passed that banned municipal broadband.  Although I believe the FCC has now struck those down.

    Parent
    Going (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:47:13 PM EST
    by what I get from my power company I would say you are right. They sent out missives against solar power in their "newsletter" that comes in my power bill.

    Parent
    Easy... (none / 0) (#160)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:41:26 PM EST
    ...both states, and others, have laws in which power can only be supplied by state approved companies, your home and smaller solar powered companies do not qualify, so they want to apply another fine(tax) on that energy.

    It's beyond dumb, and Florida ruled against applying that law to solar, and the same people that beat Florida are fighting in Georgia.

    What is even stranger, a Tea Party founder is the one leading the fight.

    Parent

    My experience with solar (none / 0) (#161)
    by ragebot on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 01:42:28 PM EST
    is based on living on my 42 foot catamaran and cruising rather than being on a dock with an 50 amp plug.

    Since 2012 almost all the electricity on the boat has been generated by my 500 watt solar array and stored in my 440 amp house battery bank.  I do have a Honda 2000 generator that I run once every month or so to maintain the generator, but have only felt the need to run it one time when there were clouds for 11 days.  I ran it for maybe an hour.

    This set up allows me to run two refrigerators, lights, fans, radar, GSP and other navigation instruments, and the auto pilot.

    One thing often ignored in using solar arrays is that successful installs include good insulation for refrigeration and switching to LEDs for lighting.  A second consideration is to monitor electric usage. I also monitor the status of my flooded batteries and have to add water about every couple of months or so. My Dad always use to say turn off the lights when you leave a room, and my Mom often told me I left the door open too long entering and exiting the house and I was airconditioning the whole out doors.

    I have no doubt it is possible to set up a workable solar array and house battery set up but it takes a little different attitude than simply using the power grid.

    Parent

    Happy Thursday, peeps, now rock out... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 17, 2015 at 11:58:15 AM EST
    ...with the first lady of rock, PJ Harvey, in a live clip from Belgium circa 2003. (link)

    Peace out, my friends.

    Pete Rose is in the Hall (none / 0) (#201)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Dec 18, 2015 at 05:11:38 AM EST
    OOPERSTOWN, N.Y. -- So, you want Pete Rose to be in the Hall of Fame? Guess what, he's already here.

    OK, Rose does not have a plaque, and if he stays on baseball's ineligible list, he never will, but the game's shrine is more than just a room full of plaques. It is the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, and Rose is well represented on the floors above the plaque gallery.

    Among artifacts commemorating the all-time hits leaders career are a jersey and helmet from his days with the Big Red Machine, and his jersey from his days with the Phillies, specifically the day that Rose broke Stan Musial's record for hits in the National League.

    The all-time home run king, also denied a plaque? Barry Bonds still does harbor hopes for induction, but in the meantime, he's got a larger-than-life presence in the museum -- though there are not as many artifacts for Bonds on display as there are for Rose.

    Wednesday Open Thread | 202 comments (202 topical)