I have read all about Agent Orange's latest insulting, race-obsessed, 34 minute performance at the NABJ conference, made up and pompadoured like a seedy 70s Vegas act. After that, and all that has gone before, we are still expected to understand and empathise with the people who vote for this horrible little man?
I saw one guy interviewed who thought Trumps antics at NABJ were planned. All to knock Kamala off the lead in newscasts. It appears to have worked wonderfully.
It is possible, but I think Agent Orange has always been obsessed with "race" in that 1950s way and it was the genuine outpouring of his reptilian mind. Anyway, I doubt his crude racism attracts anyone who isn't already the kind of red-capped cult member who buys Trump bibles and vulgar shoddy sneakers.
Power Broker series is incredible! Its not too late to buy a copy and catch up! The book is so much more than just a story. It is amazingly written and tells a gripping store. The podcast is funny and a good look behind thr book.
Wilson actually had a majority of the electoral vote and won the popular vote in 1912, if winning means having more votes than any other candidate. (Referring to the FDR stat).
I recall the Change of Subject discussion of Term Limits and Age limits. Good times. I think the amendment would also have to have a section that prevents a Mitch Maneuver:
The president nominates the appointee. The Senate can have a hearing or not. But if they choose not to have a hearing, the nominee is automatically appointed. No Chichanery!
As for the Supreme Court, some constitutional lawyers have put forth the proposition that the justices are appointed for life, but not to the Supreme Court for life & Congress could pass a law requiring them to step down from SCOTUS & take a district or appellate court seat.
Our utterly incompetent Chicago Police Department is showing both its incompetence, outright stupidity & it's century long insistence of foolish & ridiculous secrecy, by not coming out & saying they had a confidential informant tell them that Dexter Reed had obtained a gun & was looking to kill his own uncle, because that uncle had shot him some months earlier.
So they were looking for him, spotted his car & needed an excuse to pull him over & Reed, being a useless fucking moron decided to shoot it out with the cops, who then had no choice but to fire back at the moron & ended up killing him!
If “term limits” is in any proposal, I’m a yes. While 67% of Americans are in favor for the SCOTUS, 82% of Americans are in favor of term limits for congress. I wonder why that’s never proposed… by congress. 😉
While there clearly have been police who have abused their powers, essentially bullies who found a way to be bullies legally, the vast majority of police are just doing their best to do a difficult and dangerous job. Also, they’re human and they can make mistakes. I would be happy to pay higher taxes for two things: 1. Greater oversight of police. 2. Increase police salaries.
I'm not that tech savvy, but I wonder if you can get it off the internet some how. It's a fascinating show and the hosts are very clever and knowledgeable.
In Britain, the first person to say, on the first of the month "Pinch, punch, first of the month. Rabbits and no returns" "wins." This saying is accompanied by a playful pinch and punch (unless the recipient is a sibling) and "no returns" means they can't do it back to you. As for "rabbits"--heaven knows.
When I was looking it up I ran across a scientific paper, describing the phenomenon of of using sometimes conflicting stereotypes as political tools. I don't have access to the full paper, just the summary, but it's really interesting: "the immigrant is being attributed contradictory properties, but the contradiction can easily be explained if the political effect of the stereotypes matters more than their consistency. By switching between the two contradictory representations, immigrants can be presented as a threat both to job availability for host community members and to the financial viability of the system that provides benefits to the unemployed" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103117302238
I am not as versed as you. But it seems you are saying that, at the same time, immigrants are flocking over the border to collect welfare and taking the jobs of Americans. I have heard both claims from conservatives ad nauseum. They are both absolute nonsense. In the area where I live, immigrants pick crops, work on tree farms, or in the local vegetable canning factory. I know not a single white person applying for these jobs or complaining about immigrants doing them. At the risk of sounding racist, there are also no blacks vying for these jobs. Good luck finding anyone not Latino working for lawn service companies or applying to do so. Immigrants are taking the dirtiest nasty low paying jobs available and happy to do. The next time one your conservative friends carps about it ask him when he was turned down for one of the menial jobs or even applied for one. By the way, when I was in college, I spent 3 summers working on an assembly line on the north side. I was the minority- I didn't speak Spanish.
No no no, it's not at all what I'm saying, I'm an immigrant myself and I'm pro immigrant causes and I strongly believe that immigrants are what makes America uniquely great.
The "Schroedinger's immigrant" joke is mocking the right wingers for using hateful ignorant stereotypes to mobilize xenophobic voters. The stereotypes are often contradictory, which is the root of the joke. The scientific paper above examines this use of contradictory stereotypes for political gain. Sorry for any confusion.
You misunderstood me. I wasn't challenging you. I was attempting to simplify what you said as I am more a prosaic type person. I see the vast majority of others in this forum as able to separate fact from fiction and political rhetoric.
I realize that most people with guns in their cars are doing so legally, but it’s not just police that are in danger. There are road rage incidents. There are people with legal guns who’ve had too much to drink.
Why do the women have dance moves and not the men? You can answer that question by going to any wedding!
I also would like to see the events be the same. While women on the still rings might not be great, the entertainment of men on the uneven parallel bars would more than make up for it!!
The rings require almost supernatural upper body strength, as do the paralell bars and the pommel horse. Women CAN do rings -- https://youtu.be/QXPyCFPzi_k is an example -- but most of their gymnastic skills are based on outstanding lower body strength, amazing balance, etc.
One of the Inspector Gamache books by Louise Penny includes a subplot about saying "Rabbit Rabbit" at the beginning of the month and how one of the characters forgot. (The books are set in Canada; maybe that makes a difference in whether it's a thing!) Until that point I'd never heard of it.
RE: Rabbit, rabbit. My late wife said this on the first day of every month, jumping out of bed early in the morning while raising her arms as though she was just about to start a gymnastics routine.
I read the City’s brief in the Dexter Reed case. The City wasn’t arguing that the officers stopped the car because of the tinted windows. The City was arguing that the officers could have stopped the car because it had tinted windows, and that, in and of itself, was a sufficient basis to dismiss the unconstitutional stop claims included in the complaint filed on behalf of Dexter Reed’s mother. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures, and the courts have ruled over the years that the police officer’s subjective reason for a search or seizure is not controlling on the issue of reasonableness, but rather reasonableness is to be determined objectively. In other words if there was a sufficient objective basis for the search or seizure to make it reasonable, the search or seizure will be upheld as constitutional even if the police officer’s actual subjective reason for the search or seizure was nonsense. So the City is not changing its position as to why the police officers stopped Dexter Reed’s car. As my little sister and I say, “Just sayin’!” Constitutional law is a little like shuffleboard. The disc has to end up in the correct marked scoring area.
Well, you know the law far better than I, but the story from COPA that was not gainsaid at all by the CPD or the mayor's office or anyone, was that they pulled him over for a seatbelt violation. If that was not the case, we should have found out about it four DAYS at most later, not four MONTHS later. I'm asking, though -- is it OK for a police officer to pull over a Black male for no articulable reason, then to "find" a reason after the fact? For instance, discovering a crack in the windshield that the officer could not have seen when beginning the pursuit?
The answer is “no.” The facts justifying the search or seizure must have been observable or known by the police before the search or seizure. But in this case the videos showed that the tinted windows were observable before the stop. But the judge hasn’t ruled on the motion to dismiss yet.
I remain a little to a lot, skeptical that a police car at that distance could spot highly tinted windows and felt it necessary to have five officers pull over the car, but I suppose this will all be worked out in court
I haven’t been following this case closely. Why do you think they organized 5 cops to approach him? Did they know something? Was it a set-up based on something else that happened earlier?
I'm puzzled by the confusion over the LGBTQIA+ acronym. It refers to people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (or questioning their gender), intersex, asexual and the plus for their allies.
These categories seem broad and in some cases not particularly relate, but each endures prejudices and misunderstanding that's rooted in the traditional heterosexual gender binary.
I'm glad Biden has at least kicked off a discussion about re-imagining how the Supreme Court is structured. I hope it gets traction. I've only heard it reported, so perhaps it has details I don't know, but it should specify that the appointments are made in odd-numbered years, to avoid the election-year clap-trap. Absent from Biden's proposal, I also wish that it would expand the court (11? 12? 13?) but maintain the current practice in which only 9 hear each case. So, create some system that randomly designates 9 but empanels each justice to equal numbers of cases each year. This would help address what seems to be an expanded case load, diminish the influence of any single justice, and lessen the predictability of outcomes.
In the best podcast section, the podcast title (and studio) are included. I know you likely cut nad past this from Vulture, but why do journalists include the studio, record label or publisher when they write up these arts products?
We don't say Chevrolet (General Motors) or Chicago Cubs (Ricketts family).
I have read all about Agent Orange's latest insulting, race-obsessed, 34 minute performance at the NABJ conference, made up and pompadoured like a seedy 70s Vegas act. After that, and all that has gone before, we are still expected to understand and empathise with the people who vote for this horrible little man?
Michael, no I do not think you can understand or empathize with them.
Think of them like hemorrhoids, they suddenly appear, not sure how they happened but very annoying. Hopefully after this election, they will go away.
I saw one guy interviewed who thought Trumps antics at NABJ were planned. All to knock Kamala off the lead in newscasts. It appears to have worked wonderfully.
It is possible, but I think Agent Orange has always been obsessed with "race" in that 1950s way and it was the genuine outpouring of his reptilian mind. Anyway, I doubt his crude racism attracts anyone who isn't already the kind of red-capped cult member who buys Trump bibles and vulgar shoddy sneakers.
Power Broker series is incredible! Its not too late to buy a copy and catch up! The book is so much more than just a story. It is amazingly written and tells a gripping store. The podcast is funny and a good look behind thr book.
Wilson actually had a majority of the electoral vote and won the popular vote in 1912, if winning means having more votes than any other candidate. (Referring to the FDR stat).
I recall the Change of Subject discussion of Term Limits and Age limits. Good times. I think the amendment would also have to have a section that prevents a Mitch Maneuver:
The president nominates the appointee. The Senate can have a hearing or not. But if they choose not to have a hearing, the nominee is automatically appointed. No Chichanery!
As for the Supreme Court, some constitutional lawyers have put forth the proposition that the justices are appointed for life, but not to the Supreme Court for life & Congress could pass a law requiring them to step down from SCOTUS & take a district or appellate court seat.
Our utterly incompetent Chicago Police Department is showing both its incompetence, outright stupidity & it's century long insistence of foolish & ridiculous secrecy, by not coming out & saying they had a confidential informant tell them that Dexter Reed had obtained a gun & was looking to kill his own uncle, because that uncle had shot him some months earlier.
So they were looking for him, spotted his car & needed an excuse to pull him over & Reed, being a useless fucking moron decided to shoot it out with the cops, who then had no choice but to fire back at the moron & ended up killing him!
If “term limits” is in any proposal, I’m a yes. While 67% of Americans are in favor for the SCOTUS, 82% of Americans are in favor of term limits for congress. I wonder why that’s never proposed… by congress. 😉
While there clearly have been police who have abused their powers, essentially bullies who found a way to be bullies legally, the vast majority of police are just doing their best to do a difficult and dangerous job. Also, they’re human and they can make mistakes. I would be happy to pay higher taxes for two things: 1. Greater oversight of police. 2. Increase police salaries.
Chicago cops are already very well paid. Sergeants make close to $100,000 a year & ordinary patrolmen make around $80,000.
Thanks for the info. By the way, I've become addicted to a TV show called On Patrol
Live on the Reelz channel.
I don't have cable. Just an antenna.
I'm not that tech savvy, but I wonder if you can get it off the internet some how. It's a fascinating show and the hosts are very clever and knowledgeable.
In Britain, the first person to say, on the first of the month "Pinch, punch, first of the month. Rabbits and no returns" "wins." This saying is accompanied by a playful pinch and punch (unless the recipient is a sibling) and "no returns" means they can't do it back to you. As for "rabbits"--heaven knows.
Regarding the quotable about "Schrodinger's Immigrant", I've heard the joke before and looked it up, looks like it was originated in 2014 by a UK parody news site "News Thump": https://newsthump.com/2014/11/28/ukip-warns-of-schrodingers-immigrant-who-lazes-around-on-benefits-whilst-simultaneously-stealing-your-job/
When I was looking it up I ran across a scientific paper, describing the phenomenon of of using sometimes conflicting stereotypes as political tools. I don't have access to the full paper, just the summary, but it's really interesting: "the immigrant is being attributed contradictory properties, but the contradiction can easily be explained if the political effect of the stereotypes matters more than their consistency. By switching between the two contradictory representations, immigrants can be presented as a threat both to job availability for host community members and to the financial viability of the system that provides benefits to the unemployed" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103117302238
I am not as versed as you. But it seems you are saying that, at the same time, immigrants are flocking over the border to collect welfare and taking the jobs of Americans. I have heard both claims from conservatives ad nauseum. They are both absolute nonsense. In the area where I live, immigrants pick crops, work on tree farms, or in the local vegetable canning factory. I know not a single white person applying for these jobs or complaining about immigrants doing them. At the risk of sounding racist, there are also no blacks vying for these jobs. Good luck finding anyone not Latino working for lawn service companies or applying to do so. Immigrants are taking the dirtiest nasty low paying jobs available and happy to do. The next time one your conservative friends carps about it ask him when he was turned down for one of the menial jobs or even applied for one. By the way, when I was in college, I spent 3 summers working on an assembly line on the north side. I was the minority- I didn't speak Spanish.
No no no, it's not at all what I'm saying, I'm an immigrant myself and I'm pro immigrant causes and I strongly believe that immigrants are what makes America uniquely great.
The "Schroedinger's immigrant" joke is mocking the right wingers for using hateful ignorant stereotypes to mobilize xenophobic voters. The stereotypes are often contradictory, which is the root of the joke. The scientific paper above examines this use of contradictory stereotypes for political gain. Sorry for any confusion.
You misunderstood me. I wasn't challenging you. I was attempting to simplify what you said as I am more a prosaic type person. I see the vast majority of others in this forum as able to separate fact from fiction and political rhetoric.
In regard to Dexter Reed: I cannot find sympathy for anyone driving around with a gun in their car.
I can muster sympathy for someone who drives around with a gun in their car, but not someone who uses that gun to open fire on the police.
I realize that most people with guns in their cars are doing so legally, but it’s not just police that are in danger. There are road rage incidents. There are people with legal guns who’ve had too much to drink.
Thanks for asking that question about the women gymnasts. I'd been wondering as well.
Why do the women have dance moves and not the men? You can answer that question by going to any wedding!
I also would like to see the events be the same. While women on the still rings might not be great, the entertainment of men on the uneven parallel bars would more than make up for it!!
The rings require almost supernatural upper body strength, as do the paralell bars and the pommel horse. Women CAN do rings -- https://youtu.be/QXPyCFPzi_k is an example -- but most of their gymnastic skills are based on outstanding lower body strength, amazing balance, etc.
I’ll stick with my “not great” and “entertainment”.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kxBT2yZuhEw&pp=ygUSbWVuIG9uIHVuZXZlbiBiYXJz
One of the Inspector Gamache books by Louise Penny includes a subplot about saying "Rabbit Rabbit" at the beginning of the month and how one of the characters forgot. (The books are set in Canada; maybe that makes a difference in whether it's a thing!) Until that point I'd never heard of it.
RE: Rabbit, rabbit. My late wife said this on the first day of every month, jumping out of bed early in the morning while raising her arms as though she was just about to start a gymnastics routine.
I read the City’s brief in the Dexter Reed case. The City wasn’t arguing that the officers stopped the car because of the tinted windows. The City was arguing that the officers could have stopped the car because it had tinted windows, and that, in and of itself, was a sufficient basis to dismiss the unconstitutional stop claims included in the complaint filed on behalf of Dexter Reed’s mother. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures, and the courts have ruled over the years that the police officer’s subjective reason for a search or seizure is not controlling on the issue of reasonableness, but rather reasonableness is to be determined objectively. In other words if there was a sufficient objective basis for the search or seizure to make it reasonable, the search or seizure will be upheld as constitutional even if the police officer’s actual subjective reason for the search or seizure was nonsense. So the City is not changing its position as to why the police officers stopped Dexter Reed’s car. As my little sister and I say, “Just sayin’!” Constitutional law is a little like shuffleboard. The disc has to end up in the correct marked scoring area.
Well, you know the law far better than I, but the story from COPA that was not gainsaid at all by the CPD or the mayor's office or anyone, was that they pulled him over for a seatbelt violation. If that was not the case, we should have found out about it four DAYS at most later, not four MONTHS later. I'm asking, though -- is it OK for a police officer to pull over a Black male for no articulable reason, then to "find" a reason after the fact? For instance, discovering a crack in the windshield that the officer could not have seen when beginning the pursuit?
The answer is “no.” The facts justifying the search or seizure must have been observable or known by the police before the search or seizure. But in this case the videos showed that the tinted windows were observable before the stop. But the judge hasn’t ruled on the motion to dismiss yet.
I remain a little to a lot, skeptical that a police car at that distance could spot highly tinted windows and felt it necessary to have five officers pull over the car, but I suppose this will all be worked out in court
I haven’t been following this case closely. Why do you think they organized 5 cops to approach him? Did they know something? Was it a set-up based on something else that happened earlier?
I'm puzzled by the confusion over the LGBTQIA+ acronym. It refers to people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (or questioning their gender), intersex, asexual and the plus for their allies.
These categories seem broad and in some cases not particularly relate, but each endures prejudices and misunderstanding that's rooted in the traditional heterosexual gender binary.
I'm glad Biden has at least kicked off a discussion about re-imagining how the Supreme Court is structured. I hope it gets traction. I've only heard it reported, so perhaps it has details I don't know, but it should specify that the appointments are made in odd-numbered years, to avoid the election-year clap-trap. Absent from Biden's proposal, I also wish that it would expand the court (11? 12? 13?) but maintain the current practice in which only 9 hear each case. So, create some system that randomly designates 9 but empanels each justice to equal numbers of cases each year. This would help address what seems to be an expanded case load, diminish the influence of any single justice, and lessen the predictability of outcomes.
Song of the Week nom: Come Undone, Isobel Campbell and the late, great Mark Lanegan, from their album Hawk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP4TNxistAQ (live) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etzz-mfS7a0 (album track) Something about his deep voice combined with her wispy one is just magical.
In the best podcast section, the podcast title (and studio) are included. I know you likely cut nad past this from Vulture, but why do journalists include the studio, record label or publisher when they write up these arts products?
We don't say Chevrolet (General Motors) or Chicago Cubs (Ricketts family).