Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

This isn’t Democrats spending madly. This is government catching up.

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

I’m pretty sure there’s only one Jack Smith.

Stamping your little feets and demanding that they see how important you are? Not working anymore.

Everyone is in a bubble, but some bubbles model reality far better than others!

They were going to turn on one another at some point. It was inevitable.

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

They think we are photo bombing their nice little lives.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

Chutkan laughs. Lauro sits back down.

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

“Can i answer the question? No you can not!”

The willow is too close to the house.

“woke” is the new caravan.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

Stop using mental illness to avoid talking about armed white supremacy.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

You are here: Home / 2015 / Archives for January 2015

Archives for January 2015

Ferguson Grand Juror To Lift The Veil Of Silence?

by | 14 Comments

This post is in: 

The veil of silence as to what really happened during the grand jury hearing for Officer Darren Wilson may soon be lifted, as one of the grand jury members is suing St. Louis Prosecutor Bob McCullough with the help of the ACLU. Under law, the prosecutor can speak out, but grand jurors are sworn to secrecy. According to “Grand Juror Doe”:

“In [the grand juror]’s view, the current information available about the grand jurors’ views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges,” the lawsuit says. “Moreover … the investigation of Wilson had a stronger focus on the victim than in other cases presented to the grand jury,” the lawsuit states. Doe also believes the legal standards were conveyed in a “muddled” and “untimely” manner to the grand jury. … In this specific case, “any interests furthered by maintaining grand jury secrecy are outweighed by the interests secured by the First Amendment,” the lawsuit says, adding that allowing the juror to speak would contribute to a discussion on race in America.

Wouldn’t it be nice to hear a little more about those false witness testimonies and erroneous instructions on the law?

Team Blackness also discussed #BlackLivesMatter interrupt brunch, a 30-year-old Princeton grad who killed his father over allegedly cutting his allowance, and upcoming plans for the new year.

Subscribe on iTunes | Subscribe On Stitcher | Direct Download | RSS

Ferguson Grand Juror To Lift The Veil Of Silence?Post + Comments (14)

Beaten Soundly On Torture

by | 137 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

I can’t disagree with Marc Thiessen on this:  we lost the torture debate completely.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate intelligence committee, launched a six-year, 6,000-page, $40 million investigation into the CIA interrogation program, with the goal of convincing Americans that a) the program did not work and that b) enhanced interrogations were wrong and should never again be permitted.

She failed on all counts.

Just before Christmas, a Post poll revealed the American people’s final verdict. The vast majority agree with the CIA that these techniques were necessary and justified. A majority think that Feinstein should never have released her report. And — most importantly — 76 percent said they would do it again to protect the country.

Americans were asked, “Looking ahead, do you feel that torture of suspected terrorists can often be justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified or never justified?” Note that the pollsters used the loaded word “torture” (even though the CIA contends that the techniques did not constitute torture), which should have biased the question in favor of the critics. Instead, 17 percent replied they would support using the techniques “often,” 40 percent “sometimes” and 19 percent “rarely.” Only 20 percent said the techniques should “never” be justified.

The fact is, in actual practice the techniques were only used “rarely.” Of the tens of thousands of individuals captured since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, only about 30 were subjected to enhanced interrogation of any kind, and just three underwent waterboarding. So “rarely” is the answer that most closely approximates what actually took place. That means 57 percent of Americans would actually be willing to support the use of enhanced interrogation techniques more frequently than they were actually employed.

Not much else to say.  They’ve had more than thirteen years to sell the “would you do it to stop the next ticking time bomb” scenario to America, and we bought it wholesale.  At some point we’ll use these techniques again, and we’ll cheer when we hear about it.

If we hear about it.  The lesson here seems to be to make sure hearing about it never happens when we do torture the next time, because we will.

Beaten Soundly On TorturePost + Comments (137)

Tuesday Morning Open Thread: Another Victory for Equal Rights

by | 63 Comments

This post is in: , ,

Good for you, Florida! From the Miami Herald:

For same-sex couples waiting, some of them for years, to wed in Florida, the big day came Monday.

The ban that had kept them from marrying met its end, perhaps permanently, in Miami-Dade County on Monday afternoon — and overnight elsewhere in the state — after a years-long battle over what advocates have called a fundamental civil right.

Crying tears of joy and relief, men and women who had challenged the ban leaped to their feet and shrieked with joy inside downtown Miami’s historic courthouse Monday morning when a judge ruled with little fanfare that the couples could marry right away. They would have otherwise had to wait until after midnight Tuesday, when another judge’s ruling took effect statewide…

[Judge] Zabel declared Florida’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional in July. But she stayed her decision, pending appeal.

In August, U.S. District Judge Robert N. Hinkle of Tallahassee also overturned the ban. But Hinkle, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, stayed his decision till the end of the day Monday to provide time for legal appeals. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Republican who vigorously defended the ban, sought extensions of the stay from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Both turned her down.

Bondi’s office appeared to concede defeat Monday afternoon…

Much more at the link.

In more partisan reactions, this electoral cycle’s Bush Clan candidate attempted, as he has for the past twenty years, to have it both ways. Per NYMag:

… Jeb Bush marked the occasion by tweaking his non-committal stance on the issue. When asked about the issue while exiting a golf course on Sunday, Bush appeared to be opposed to the state judge’s ruling. “It ought be a local decision. I mean, a state decision,” he said, “The state decided. The people of the state decided. But it’s been overturned by the courts, I guess.” However, when asked today if supports challenging the ruling, Bush told the New York Times, “regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law.”…

Like many politicians, Bush’s tone on gay rights used to be much more harsh. On Monday BuzzFeed unearthed a editorial Bush wrote in 1994, during an unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign, in which he responded to a Miami Herald piece that called him a bigot for his views on homosexuality. While Bush argues against discriminating against homosexuals, he concludes, “should sodomy be elevated to the same constitutional status as race and religion? My answer is No. We have enough special categories, enough victims, without creating even more.”…

**********
Apart from evolving as it becomes politically expedient congratulating the happy couples, what’s on the agenda for the day?

Tuesday Morning Open Thread: Another Victory for Equal RightsPost + Comments (63)

Open Thread: A Woolworth’s-Counter Protest for the Social Media Generation

by | 84 Comments

This post is in: , ,

Until I saw that The Root had also covered the protests (as did NYC Eater) I wondered if the Washington Post hadn’t been duped by a band of satirists:

#BlackBrunchNYC protests disrupt ‘white’ N.Y. breakfast spots
Since an unarmed black teenager was killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Mo., on Aug. 9, demonstrators have flooded America’s streets to bring the nation’s attention to what they say is an epidemic of police brutality…

More than 30 demonstrators staged events at restaurants such as Lallisse, Maialino and Pershing Square, Yahoo reported. The protesters, most dressed in black, read the names of African Americans killed by police punctuated with chants of “ashe,” a word from the Yoruba language of West Africa comparable to “amen.” Timed by participants, the ritual takes four-and-a-half minutes — since Michael Brown’s body was left on the street for four-and-a-half hours in Ferguson….

“People who have money and privilege have the leisure to brunch,” Carrie Leilam Love, media liaison for the group Black Brunch NYC, told The Washington Post in a phone interview. “Other people don’t.”

Love said the first black brunch was held in Oakland in December. Some met with an unexpected political action while dining are supportive — others object to what they call an inconvenience. But Love said they need to pay attention.

“It is an inconvenience to us to be shot in the street,” she said. “… We respectfully demand that people demand that people take five minutes of their time to look at what life is like for us every day.”…

People who are willing to pay $14 for a “Cream of Wheat & Grape Compote” presumably understand the metrics of performance art, so it’s probably a better choice than the local IHOP. (And there don’t seem to be any Cracker Barrels within public-transport range…)

Open Thread: A Woolworth’s-Counter Protest for the Social Media GenerationPost + Comments (84)

What’s Good for the Goosesteppers…

by | 63 Comments

This post is in: ,

This could be a very interesting development in the unprosecuted homicide of Michael Brown:

A grand juror is suing St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch in an effort to speak out on what happened in the Darren Wilson case. Under typical circumstances, grand jurors are prohibited by law from discussing cases they were involved in.

The grand juror, referred to only as “Grand Juror Doe” in the lawsuit, takes issue with how McCulloch characterized the case. McCulloch released evidence presented to the grand jury and publicly discussed the case after the grand jury decided not to indict Wilson, then a Ferguson police officer, in the shooting death of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African-American.

“In [the grand juror]’s view, the current information available about the grand jurors’ views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges,” the lawsuit says. “Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors’ view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with [Doe]’s own.”

“From [the grand juror]’s perspective, the investigation of Wilson had a stronger focus on the victim than in other cases presented to the grand jury,” the lawsuit states. Doe also believes the legal standards were conveyed in a “muddled” and “untimely” manner to the grand jury.

In the lawsuit filed Monday in federal court, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri argues that this case is unique and that the usual reasons for requiring the jurors to maintain secrecy should not apply.

In this specific case, “any interests furthered by maintaining grand jury secrecy are outweighed by the interests secured by the First Amendment,” the lawsuit says, adding that allowing the juror to speak would contribute to a discussion on race in America.

As always, the usual caveat that IANAL, and the law seems rather clear, but if McCulloch has been able to run his fat yap on his AM radio white pride victory tour after he got exactly what he wanted, it seems to me that the rules could and should be waived to allow this juror to have her/his say about what went on behind closed doors. In fact, it makes little sense that one person is allowed to run around and talk about what secretly happened while others are not. And let’s not conflate what is said in the juror deliberations and what is presented to the grand jury, because I understand why there would be separate protections there.

What’s Good for the Goosesteppers…Post + Comments (63)

Monday Evening Open Thread: Game of Thrones, Reality Edition

by | 50 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

The unfortunate side effects of modern medical care — and no dragons. Joshua Keating, at Slate, on “Saudi Arabia’s Succession Time Bomb“:

On Monday, Saudi Crown Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz al-Saud reassured the country’s Cabinet about the health of King Abdullah, who has been hospitalized for almost a week and diagnosed with pneumonia, but rumors that the 90-year-old king is on his deathbed are still swirling online…

Since the first king of modern Saudi Arabia, Abdulaziz, died in 1953, the country has been ruled by five of his sons in roughly descending age order. There were quite a few options available: Abdulaziz, who cemented alliances with tribal leaders by marrying their daughters, fathered 45 sons by at least 22 wives as well as an unknown number of daughters.

But the first generation of sons is getting up there in years. Salman, who is next in line for the throne and is thought to be Abdulaziz’s 25th son, is 79. In May, Abdullah took the unprecedented step of naming his youngest brother, Prince Muqrin, as deputy heir, making him second in line for the throne. The choice, which leapfrogged some older brothers, reportedly prompted some grumbling among palace insiders over the fact that Muqrin’s mother was a Yemeni concubine who was never formally married to Abdulaziz. But he’s a close adviser to Abdullah, has diplomatic experience, and at 69, is a spring chicken by House of Saud standards.

Sooner or later, of course, the crown will have to move to the next generation. At that point, things may get a little dicey. Under Saudi succession law, the king has to be a male descendant of Abdulaziz, but beyond that, the incumbent king has wide latitude to determine his successor. Given that many of the brothers took after Dad or even exceeded him—King Saud, the second king, had 53 sons—there are now thousands of these descendants, many of whom have senior government positions, and the potential for palace intrigue is high…

It’d be moderately entertaining, if not for the whole “petrodollars supporting fundamentalist terrorism” and “formally charging women who drive as terrorists” and such. Certainly throws some shade at the Hillary-versus-Jeb “dynastic succession” accusations…
**********
Speaking of dynastic intrigue, per NYMag, there’s a Game of Thrones “special featurette” scheduled for Sunday, February 8.

Apart from marking one’s calendars, what’s on the agenda for the evening?

Monday Evening Open Thread: Game of Thrones, Reality EditionPost + Comments (50)