My clients in NY expressed quite a bit of outrage about what Bloomberg did with term limits and had predicted that it would be much closer.
Imagine if the WH actually supported Bill Thompson...
As one of my clients pointed out-the 40K folks that sleep in homeless shelters could have been put up in permanent housing by Bloomberg if he had used his money to not buy votes.
The blatant disregard that Bloomberg showed towards democracy and the will of the voters doesn't work too well in a city made up primarily of minorities and immigrants. It just doesn't.
Also, I just checked out the numbers and Bloomberg won 23% of the black vote. Doesn't David Patterson even have more support than that?
To think Bloomberg spent so much dough trying to buy off black pastors.
Good call on this one. When I woke up and saw the results, I remembered that someone here was saying this would be a lot closer than many were predicting.
That's what I was thinking about the money. he should have just said to New Yorkers - look, I'm going to buy the mayor position with this $50 million. The other $50 million I'll donate to the city services. Obscene.
4 Winners and 5 Losers from Tuesday's Elections
by: SteveinNYC
Here are the winners from where I sit:
1. Bill Owens (NY-23) - the Dem's biggest win Tuesday night, nationwide.
2. Bill de Blasio - he's positioned himself as the frontrunner for the next mayoral race. How can he make the most of it?
3. Andrew Cuomo - helping persuade Dede Scozzafava to endorse Owens positions him as the head of New York's Democrats.
4. Mike Bloomberg - he won, but ...
And the losers:
1. Mike Bloomberg - ... he spent a lot of money to get 51% of the vote and a slew of stories about how weak he is now.
2. Bill Thompson - does the close result rehabilitate his image after a lackluster campaign?
3. Anthony Weiner - he missed his chance to run in what was a winnable race.
4. Incumbents - State Senators should interpret incumbents losing in the NYC primary and the Dutchess, Nassau and Ulster County generals as a warning to shape up. You're not entitled to your seat.
5. Working Families Party - by not campaigning hard for Thompson, they missed the chance to elect a mayor. The difference between the WFP and the other organizations and individuals who sat this one out? The WFP was the most likely to make a difference, so they get named.
From what I have heard Liu has a leg up. His coalition has been compared to Dinkins coalition. I assume that Bloomberg will be so hated when he tries to run for a fourth term(yes, he will try it again) that this will be an easy race.
I was surprised too by how well Thompson did after all, since he was painted as a lackluster candidate who would be crushed by Bloomberg. I was expecting Bloomberg to win with 70% of the vote like Mayor Daley has in Chicago during our last 3 mayoral elections.
Sorry about being scarce here recently. A quick update/bit of self-promotion, and then a comment on last night's election:
- Some of you may remember I mentioned I was working on a new site/online business. It's live now, if you want to check it out. I linked to it and explained what it's about in a recent blog post: New Site. Feel free to let me know what you think of it, here or there.
- The elections: To say Corzine's billboards featured Obama prominently is an understatement; he basically ran as Obama's sidekick. Still, I think the main reason Dem candidates such as Corzine lost last night was that a weak economy reflects poorly on the incumbent party. Same tailwind for Dems last year was a headwind this year. Also, I think Obama's popularity/charisma has either dropped somewhat or just doesn't transfer to boring old white guys like Corzine.
The impression that I got of Corzine (as someone who doesn't live in New Jersey) is that he had worn out his welcome with voters in New Jersey. Under that circumstance, even if Obama was currently enjoying a 100% aprroval rating throughout the whole country, Obama's endorsement wouldn't have been enough to save Corzine.
Bear in mind, too, that we would have already had a GOP governor had Corzine's predecessor immediately resigned after the news broke that he tried to give is boyfriend, a foreign national, NJ's top homeland security job as a sinecure. Instead, McGreevey hung on until after the proximate election, and Corzine won after the initial outrage had long died down.
Heck, for that matter we would have had a GOP Senator here already if our state supreme court didn't let Dems switch out Lautenberg for the Torricelli (in violation of our election laws), after the Torch got snagged in his corruption case.
Corzine definitely tried to latch onto Obama, but I don't think it's accurate to call the NJ race a referendum on Obama (as many, not DaveinH, have done) because Christie had lots of commercials running on a change theme, with voters stating they supported both Obama and Christie.
Property taxes, property taxes, property taxes. (In NJ.)
It's worth noting that neither Christie nor MacDonald tried to run against Obama, which would have been logical if they thought a) their voters primarily view the governorship as an Obama referendum, and b) they don't like Obama. (I think both a and b are untrue.) I suspect that running against Obama would have backfired in the same way that NY23 did, trying to make politics national rather than local would not resonate with voters who are concerned about property taxes.
Christie backed away from the property taxes pitch toward the end. Realistically, the state is in too big a hole to promise much in the way of tax cuts right now, at least not until we ratchet back the overly generous public sector pensions and benefits. Christie is in a better position to do that than a Democrat like Corzine, for whom the public sector unions are a major constituency.
I'm thinking about installing one of those time waster police programs on my Firefox. You can set it to a certain time limit for certain sites and it reminds you when you reach it. I need all the help I can get, working at home in front of my computer all day.
I haven't played video games in quite some time, but does anyone know if the diversity of playable and NPCs has changed since the late 90's? Most of the games I played featured white or anime-type characters. Let's exclude mythical beings and sci-fi creatures.
A minor example: I remember playing Star Craft and being a little amazed that most of the human characters in it had Southern accents as opposed to the standard American accent. The add-on also featured varied accents in several characters. I think most of the main characters were white, however.
It's definitely more diverse, but most non-white characters tend to be stereotypes. It's probably attributable to the fact that such a large percentage of game designers are white (not calling it racism at all, it's more of a perspective issue).
most narrative heavy games of recent vintage (whether shooter, FPS, RPG, or horror) are still light on POC diversity. That being said, there are some great games out there with good stories to tell - Mass Effect, Uncharted 2, Bioshock, Far Cry 2, and Fallout.
That being said, Mass Effect allows you to craft a protagonist of color but that customization has no narrative affect. ME does feature a storyline that addresses racism and sexism tho, so you might want to give it a try.
Far Cry 2 features several playable POC's, but they are silent protagonists once chosen. The greatest feature of FC2 (and the least touted) was the range of African NPC presentation. All were articulate, had separate personalities, and even diverse characterizations. FC2 is notable because Africa itself is your enemy and your ally, and features a storyline that emphasises the futility of choice in morally corrupt situations.
i would NOT recommend Resident Evil 5 if you're looking for credible POC characters - but if you just like shooting things, it's a pretty good game. Finally, i don't know how you feel about music games, but DJ Hero features a couple of prominent POC DJs as avatars (although their construction of an hip-hop aesthetic SUCKS).
Seems to me like a no-brainer for a ski town. The main thing there is not to drive, because the DUI/DWI rate up there is massive. They do have free busses, though.
Re. the elections in Va., NY and NJ: Lots of people are pointing out that Virginia and New Jersey have, for many years, always elected a governor who is not the same party as the president. That would seem to throw a little cold water on the Republicans' gloating today. Seems like all they're really doing is putting some spin on a well-established trend.
Re. NY 23 (and I'm only repeating what everyone probably already has read) it seems that the GOP should have more worries about losing this, and that the Dems' win here renders Republican wins in Virginia and New Jersey meaningless. This was the race in which the GOP far right really pushed all of its chips onto the table and threw down all of its face cards -- Palin, Beck, etc. Yet they still managed to lose a seat that they've held since the 19th century. Seems to me that that's a pretty significant loss that would be very troubling to the grownups in the GOP.
By the way, does anyone know exactly how long NY 23 was in GOP hands? I keep seeing all kinds of different numbers, i.e. "since the Civil War," "for more than a century," "since 1870," etc. Does anyone know for sure?
Wikipedia had it as about 158 years. Pretty much since there was a Republican party to elect. (Upstate New York in the late 1800s was the "burnt over district" throwing up all sorts of liberal and radical stuff--Mormons, the Oneida Society, Women's Rights, opposition to slavery.)
Dreher had a post on 23 and the first commenter argued it was a sign that Palin and Beck and Rush were right and the way forward was to follow these great leaders. The second commenter observed that eventually the GOP would need to follow the Dem model of putting forth people who could actually get elected. I'd bet that there's another round or two following the first commenter's theory before they come back to the second's philosophy.
It was not good. At all. Some people are going to be offended by numerous was that it trades the Nazi/Soviet allegory of the original for an updated Obama one, but to get tied down by the politics is a waste of time. The thing is just not very good. The writing lacks any sense of ambition or creativity. It feels like a remake of a television miniseries from 1983. And while that is what it is, I don't think that's how it should feel.
Just watched the first 8 minutes online, the full episode isn't available for a few days. Hmmm...for Morris Chestnut, I'll make the hour sacrifice. And the alien leader is also very striking.
Honestly, if you've seen the original, there's nothing much that can be spoiled. This is not the same beast as the BSG reboot miniseries. This one doesn't try to be it's own thing. It updates the visuals without updating the storytelling. It tries to hard to remain true to the original without questioning whether the original story would translate well to a 2009 and 2010 audience.
The original was of the 80s in many more ways than its campiness. It was also a Cold War invasion story, ala Red Dawn. It was about nationalism, capitalism, and conservative Reagan-era propaganda. This one is conservative Obama-era propaganda. Nothing about it rings plausible. It's goofy in ways that it's not supposed to be.
And it lacks any sense of pacing or suspense. It was not good.
And as for my sci-fi bonafides, the first movie I remember seeing in the theater was Wrath of Khan. I don't know if I qualify as a geek anymore, but I put my knowledge up against most.
Not so much into scifi film, but read a lot years ago. The show sucks; the premise is ridiculous, the acting wooden, dialogue utterly unbelievable. After the kind of cool first 15 minutes it devolves into a plot that even someone who likes scifi would have a hard time suspending belief for. Boring and pretentious. Whattaya think Breaker--sums it up, eh?
Personally, I didn't find it pretentious. I found it unnecessary and stupid. I don't think there's anything about this that aspires to something larger, something on the level of art, so I can't get behind calling it pretentious. I think the BSG remake is kind of pretentious, but I think that's one of the things that show had going for it. It was trying to be something more than it ever had a hope of being. V, so far at least, is television equivallent of Gus Van Sant's ridiculously unnecessary shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. Except that one was definitely pretentious. Now I've confused myself. This show sucked. And while I am not convinced that it could have ever been good, it sucks worse than I had anticipated.
I made it through. I think they should have had a two hour premier. Everything happened way too fast. It wasn't great. But I'm willing to give it a few episodes to hit its stride. Largely because the alien leader and FBI lady are easy on the eyes and the show looks like its going feature a solid amount of action.
It was good to see Wash an Inara back on screen together. Seeing two Firefly alums in other shows, Whedon or not, makes me unreasonably happy.
I'm a big Lost fan. I'm in for Elizabeth Mitchell, though I had some issues with how quickly they revealed things in the show. Ditto Flash Forward with Dominic Monaghan and its own story problems. I think it shows promise (I never saw the original miniseries) but I don't know how they squeeze season after season out of something in which they already let the big surprise loose after forty minutes.
Not only does it have Elizabeth Mitchell, it also has Matthew Fox's old castmate from Party of Five! So, I can imagine ABC execs insisting, it's JUST LIKE LOST!!!
On the big surprise, yeah, it's too soon to make a big reveal like that one. Of course, the problem with this particular reveal is that a lot of us saw it coming for about 26 years.
BB you're harsh today. You're definitely not of peace always. Not at all.
Kidding aside. The show was problematic. I'm hoping it'll get better. And I didn't catch the swapping the Nazis for Obamania til you mentioned it. Do we (and by we I mean you) know the politics of the creators or are you just analyzing that whole riff on devotion?
Mild SPOILER: I can’t speak to the politics of the actual creators of the show. I can’t decide whether I think the anti-Obama stuff (i.e., the graffiti and the hope, the Universal Healthcare, the adoring and devoted young people, the bamboozlement of the librul media, the broken Jesus at the church, etc.) were likely in the original draft or not. Seeing as the premise of the original V seems so utterly dated today, and seeing as the creators clearly had no intention of doing an ambitious reboot that was going to substantially divert from that dated premise, part of me thinks these elements were added after the fact to make the thing seem remotely relevant in 2009. Honestly, I didn’t care all that much about that element of the story, the 1983 miniseries always had a sort of John Milius flare. What bothered me most about this reboot was that they really didn’t seem to be trying that hard to make it something new. I mean, there are lots and lots of problems with BSG, but none of them are that it was too beholden to the original. Save for the cell phones, haircuts, and veiled anti-Obama stuff, I feel like I could be watching the original miniseries, and I’ve seen that since becoming an adult. I don’t want to do it again.
Also, [SPOILER ALERT], what was up with the whole "how can aliens and God exist in the same universe"? The whole religion angle came way out of the blue and was what I think was the most poorly done aspect of the show. It made no logical sense.
Someone mentioned this in the past thread but I think it may have been overlooked. These ammendments ahve failed in 31 states, at this point shouldnt the question really be how the strategy can be changed? Yes we have a lot of bigots in this country, fine rail against that all you want. Still doesnt change the fact it has failed 31 times. What are some different strategies that can be used? Does the gay movement need a spokesman? Yes I know we all hate the idea of a spokesman for all gays, but that strategy has worked. Think of all the revolutions in history, the majority of them has had one or two spokespeople. I think people sometimes underestimate the effect having a face to go with a movement provides. If a spokeman isnt it, then lets come up with some ideas. At the end of the day you cant get mad and curse the bigots and it'll probably make you feel better bet it doesnt change the status quo.
I think this article makes a good point. I've often seen the argument that the Civil Rights Movement made a mistake by going through the courts, but the experiences in these referendums might show that going through the courts was the right idea.
The internal gay struggle going on now between Gay, Inc. and various grassroots group makes the spokesperson thing very difficult. It's kind of a lighter version of the Republican wilderness, since in this case everyone has common goals and slightly different views on how to get there.
It's likely that NOM is going to continue the legislative/popular vote method of denying marriage equality, because it's effective now and will be less effective later. In that case, local and state groups need to start picking the battles, where and when votes take place. Also, they have to get the leg up on ballot language and framing the concept of "marriage" as a civil and contractual arrangement in this case.
Most importantly, gays have to be open to their communities. Show how they are just like their straight neighbors. Take part in community food drives as a group, be a positive force in the community as a group. This is one of those ultimate grassroots issues, because people are deciding on a personal level, not logically.
Otherwise, gays keep losing until the courts step in.
The first step is the repeal of any restriction in the military with respect to sexual orientation. Just as with racial prejudice, the official desegregation of the military predisposed the society at large to a different perspective on race, it will do likewise with gay bigotry. As we see daily, that racist perspective is not gone. But official, legal impediments no longer exist and people who provably act upon their racist beliefs are often subject to legal sanction. Which is about all you can get without "generational turnover"
I personally feel that the messaging isn't quite right. instead of fuzzy, mushy shots of happy gay couples being normal couples, the message should focus on 2 things.
1. Put A LOT of energy into debunking the myths and lies out there. Especially those involving child 'indoctrination', and studies which show how people 'turn out gay' (i.e. it just happens, like 2% of the time, the same way the rest of us turn out straight), and also dispel the rumors about how churches will be forced to marry gays etc.
2. Hit it from the perspective of the proper role of government. Begin by emphasizing that the meaning of the word "marriage" is determined by society, regardless of whether or not the government hands out pieces of paper with that word printed on it. Therefore letting gays get married before the law does not affect the meaning of a single straight marriage now or in the future. It's about whether tax-paying citizens who happen to be gay should be allowed to have all the rights (tax benefits, insurance sharing, hospital visitation rights, sharing of parental rights & duties, etc.) and responsibilities (monogamy which results in more social stability and less STD transmission, financial responsibilities to one another, etc) that a straight couple can have by entering into the same type of private govt-sanctioned contract. it doesn't affect anyone else, so it should be portrayed accurately as a question of whether you want to steal something out of someone else's hands that they have a right to as Americans and as human beings.
A spokesperson (The Official Gay?) might help here. Dispelling the myths vigorously is key. Most people wouldn't actively oppose gay marriage if they didn't think it would 're-define marriage' (since its definition is a societal thing and not Government turf) or somehow turn their kids gay (you're pretty much born gay or straight, or in-between or other).
My first thought for spokesperson was Neil Patrick Harris, but I'm not sure Dr. Horrible is the right approach...how about Sulu? How many people can sincerely claim that Sulu being married, rather than living with his partner of decades, is destroying their marriage? (How many people making the claim would be divorced?)
Otherwise I agree with Ulysses--the military is a good start point. And from what I keep reading from regular military guys, they're ready. They've been serving with gays as long as there has been a military.
Gays should stop looking to the Democrats, Obama in particular, as their savior. If they are truly passionate about advancing gay rights they should stop donating their money to the DNC and instead focus on local and state wide gay rights organizations.
I'm not sure about the idea of having one single spokesman. I'll go out on a limb and say that the gay community is the most diverse minority community out there. It would be incredibly difficult for a single individual to speak for all of us. Instead, I think each and every individual gay person needs to be a spokesman for the cause. Only by coming out of the closet and showing the world the truth of our lives can we overcome the lies of the other side.
I didn't see this mentioned here yet, but AP reported that the judge who refused to marry the interracial couple in Louisiana resigned yesterday. His parting shot was that he would refuse again, citing the suffering of children of such unions. Sen. Landrieu and Gov. Jindal praised the decision. From Sen. Vitter, a deafening silence.
2 recent cases that have cememted this in my mind. I don't see any moral difference between these two cases and a witchdoctor breaking a chickens neck and based on how the body lies determining who lives or gets sacrificed to the Gods.
First one, Canadian Citizen has no standing to sue the U.S Government (unless Congress approves).
The 7-4 ruling, by the Second Circuit Appeals Court in New York, came in response to a suit filed against the Bush administration by Maher Arar, a Syrian-Canadian telecommunication engineer whom U.S. officials suspected of having ties to al-Qaeda. In 2002, he was detained and interrogated harshly in New York for nearly two weeks, then sent to Syria, where he was held for a year and, he said, tortured. A Canadian judicial inquiry later cleared him of being involved in terrorism.
The prosecutors counter that there is "no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed."
This guy got railroaded and spent 25 years of his life doing hard time for a crime he didn't commit. And the prosecution knew it, and framed him.
I'm not a legal scholar, but IMHO, this is pretty F'ed up and goes against any sense of fairness.
The county prosecutor, David Richter, had been appointed to his post and was facing his first election, observes Clement. "He has an unsolved murder, something that is hardly standard fare in Council Bluffs, Iowa," he says. "He had the perfect suspects, if he could tag the murder to a couple of young African-American teenagers from across the state line."
and
They had identified a white man named Charles Gates, who had been seen with a shotgun near the scene of the crime. Gates, the brother-in-law of a Council Bluffs Fire Department captain, was interviewed and failed a polygraph. But prosecutors and police abandoned their interest in him in favor of Harrington, who was not even offered a polygraph.
"So the bottom line," says Clement, "is essentially that police and prosecutors together at some point in this case stopped looking for the real killer, the real suspect and decided it would be far easier to get an eyewitness account that said to a moral certainty that the two African-American youths from across the state line have committed this crime. "
I'm getting to the point where I think the term American Justice is an oxymoron.
Wouldn't that count as an unreasonable siezure of his person? Never mind the heinous crime committed by the prosecutor, basically that's kidnapping by the government for 25 yrs.
in the article you linked to below, a good point is made that the framed victims' right not to be discriminated against based on their race in the justice system was violated.
deriliction of prosecutorial duty, but that's not a full-on crime the way it is for cops to frame people. it seems like the law needs to be changed, i mean if there's proof.
how can this prosecutor live with himself? i really do not understand. you study law for years, take all these sacred solemn oaths to uphold the law and to serve the cause of Justice, and then you (a) decline to pursue the best suspect, very likely letting a real murderer off the hook, and (b) actively put two young men in jail for life for something you know they did not do? did he simply think all young black men were criminals inherently and deserved to be jailed, and thus 2 young lives were rightfully wrecked? that still wouldn't absolve him of the injustice of (a).
i'm out of outrage. (seems that's all i do when i add comments on the internet.)
Has anyone heard about the case in front of SCOTUS today? Fascinating. From the piece I heard on NPR this morning, the argument is about whether or not prosecutors can be sued for withholding evidence that would prove a defendant is not guilty. It's based on a case where an African-American man did 25 years of a life sentence for the murder of a white ex-cop before being released when he requested his file to find that the prosecution had hidden evidence that proved him innocent. Essentially, the government is arguing that people do not have a Constitutional right not to be framed. Here's the best story I could find about it:
This is the equivalent of Republicans pointing to Michael Steel and saying "We appointed a Black man head of our national organization, what does that say about the commentary that Republicans hate black people?" Or pointing to Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Alan Keyes, ect.
Until you are willing to look at that example and say "Yeah, I guess Republicans DO like black people!" you need to rethink smug posts pointing out one event as disproof of an entire trend.
On a random note, how do my fellow Oakland residents feel about our mayor owing $250,000 in taxes and having liens slapped against him from coast to coast? Anyone else as embarassed and tired of Dellums as I am?
I've been in Oakland for a little under 2 years so it's hard for me to gauge. Is this par for the course in terms of Oakland mayors or is he a 'special case'?
Dellums has been a disaster because his heart was never really set on being mayor. For all of Oakland's problems I do not recall any recent mayors having tax liens against him. Embarrassing.
I'm originally from Michigan where the mayor in Detroit was ousted for leaving the country (to Canada)...something that is forbidden when you're charged with a felony in an on going investigation.
Jamilah, I'm in no way excusing the behavior, but at least Dellums copped to it yesterday in his public statement, and he should be able to pay it back. But what a failure of leadership. Who "forgets" to pay $250,000?
I was tired of him the day he was elected. He's a tired old civil rights warrior (who actually didn't ever accomplish an awful lot, even back in the day) who got elected largely on the basis of his rep and, I guess, the color of his skin.
His performance (where there's been any performance at all) has been tired, elderly and mostly absent. Too bad, too, because Oakland desperately needs some effective government.
Frankly, I'm surprised he had the energy to run up a tax bill this size.
"Frankly, I'm surprised he had the energy to run up a tax bill this size."
Ha ha! Yeah, Oakland has too many problems to have someone in the job who did his best/hardest work a few decades ago. Like the man, just the wrong job for him.
Dellums was once a very good congressman, so it is sad to see him come to this, and sadder to hear that as mayor of Oakland, he hasn't turned out so well. What are your objections to his administration, and how was Brown when he was mayor? Since he will probably be the Dem candidate for governor, I'd like to know how the people of Oakland look back on his tenure there.
I read an article by Kos where he casts blame for the loss in Virginia on Deeds running on bipartisanship, among other reasons. I think he is wrong on quite a few counts. One, the guy got routed, going too far right or too far left doesn't mean so much in an 18 pt ass kicking. Another, the State tends to vote in DLCers for governor, Warner and Kaine aren't Howard Dean. Even in the Senate, Webb is a self-described redneck. Kos also seems to forget that Obama ran on bipartisanship and won the State (or Commonwealth).
Oh god, McAuliffe would have been an epic disaster. They just didn't have a good candidate. And yeah, Tim Kaine is pretty bi-partisan, Warner too--remember that snoozer at the DNC?
The commentary I've seen from Virginians (and those in the VA media market) was that Deeds campaign was awful in ways they couldn't understand. Obama, Kaine, and Warner are all popular and people expected him to run on those, especially on the Kaine-Warner legacy. Sometimes "more of the same" is a good argument. And he focussed on MacDonald's sexist thesis--which was a legitimate issue--to the exclusion of all else. Something I saw a few times was a complaint that Deeds' argument was "MacDonald wrote sexist stuff a while back. And I'm not him."
MacDonald, it should be said, seems to have run a really good campaign.
Alright everyone I need some common cold cures. I'm sick of this thing already; it's not bad enough to keep me out of work, but bad enough to make it hell (well, moreso).
Related note: I keep psyching myself out of sneezing. Anyone else have this problem? Any answers? It's getting to the point where I want to do lines of black pepper...
It might be a bit too gross for some, but I have been using a netipot when I start feeling out of it. It shoots a saline mixture through your sinuses and drains out the sludge.
If you like instant results, the neti pot is definitely the way to go. I LOVE mine. I felt a cold coming on 2 weeks ago and used the neti and ate a lot of spicy food and drank gallons of green tea. No probs since.
PS if you want to see something that will make you love your neti, use it when you have a sinus infection. I was flushing straight neon out of my nose.
By the end of the election in 2008, I was getting pretty pissy when I got home from work and had 5 calls on voice mail asking me to vote for this or that. I think it is becoming obnoxious and possibly counter productive. I may be transforming into an old timer, but I hate getting phone calls from someone asking for something, especially if it is automated.
Some people in the Dean campaign reflected on their Iowa strategy and thought that sending a bunch of kids in orange hats door to door constantly, finally got annoying enough to turn off some voters. Sometimes less is more.
I doubt I will change my vote because calls get annoying, but there are more than a few people who vote on a fairly superficial basis. Someone who is undecided might get ticked off if a phone call from a campaign woke him or her up from a nap.
Honestly, if I'm on the line between two candidates who seem to get about the same grade, or about a ballot issue I don't feel strongly on, robocalls would get me to vote the other way. The only acceptable robocalls are from the water people (no water Tuesday 10-4) or reverse 911 (look in your yard for a small child).
Someone who is undecided might get ticked off if a phone call from a campaign woke him or her up from a nap.
I hate to admit it, but I did that for a fairly minor local election. I happened to be in Europe so the phone call came in at 1am and I couldn't get back to sleep because of jet lag.
If you're an oldtimer, I'm right there with you. I hate the damned things. I get annoyed enough at a campaign phone call from a real person, much less a recorded person. Oddly enough, though, I don't mind someone coming to my door. Even though I don't work professionally in campaigns any more, I'll still volunteer, and I'll knock on doors before I'll phonebank any day.
One of the problems is that robocalls are relatively cheap to produce, and it makes the consultants look to the candidates like they're getting a lot of bang for the buck. There's also a cachet (again, amongst consultants) in getting someone famous to do your robocalls for you. I was on the staff of the Tony Sanchez campaign for Texas governor in 2002, when robocalls were still a relatively new phenomenon, and people were unbelievably excited that Bill Clinton was going to do a robocall for us. Again, maybe just my personal animus against phone calls, but I thought the whole deal was just silly and predicted robocalls would never last. Boy, was I ever wrong. I do think they're on their last legs, though. I certainly hope so.
If you're an oldtimer, I'm right there with you. I hate the damned things. I get annoyed enough at a campaign phone call from a real person, much less a recorded person. Oddly enough, though, I don't mind someone coming to my door. Even though I don't work professionally in campaigns any more, I'll still volunteer, and I'll knock on doors before I'll phonebank any day.
One of the problems is that robocalls are relatively cheap to produce, and it makes the consultants look to the candidates like they're getting a lot of bang for the buck. There's also a cachet (again, amongst consultants) in getting someone famous to do your robocalls for you. I was on the staff of the Tony Sanchez campaign for Texas governor in 2002, when robocalls were still a relatively new phenomenon, and people were unbelievably excited that Bill Clinton was going to do a robocall for us. Again, maybe just my personal animus against phone calls, but I thought the whole deal was just silly and predicted robocalls would never last. Boy, was I ever wrong. I do think they're on their last legs, though. I certainly hope so.
any lawyers on here can tell me the case that set precedent with regard to new york states long arm jusridiction. I remember never paying attention to this stuff till I realized that they could sue almost anyone with impunity. Its actually kind of cool that one state can go after any corporation just as long as they do business in that state. On top of that its new york, and allmost all major corporations do business in the state. In a way it kind of sets ny ag to be almost as powerful as the atornet general, certainly above all other states AG's. Anyways anybody know?
In light of recent discussions about the NFL and player's health, I wanted to see if anybody was following the situation involving Steelers free safety Ryan Clark. Clark has sickle cell and another medical condition that makes him susceptible to illness at high altitudes, like in Denver. The last time he played in Denver, in 2007, he almost died and had to have at least one organ removed. He missed the rest of the season. He also got sick in his previous game in Denver, in 2005 with the Redskins.
Obviously I know less than the team doctors, but I would be scared of doing something that got me sick the last two times I did it. There's no press or any indication that he was even checked out in 2007, although it happened to him before. But he was cleared by the doctors to play on Monday night, and now Clark himself is forced to make the decision. Hopefully, he listens to his teammates like Hines Ward who are saying that no football game is worth risking your life.
To me, this seems to reinforce the opinions on here that team doctors work for the team and not for the player's benefit. Has anybody heard about this situation or have any comments?
I'm a Steelers fan, and I think Ryan Clark is an extremely important member of the defense. Polamalu gets all the press, but even he says that Clark's play enables him to freelance the way he does. But I'm really hoping that Clark doesn't play in Denver, and if he's determined to play, I hope Tomlin does the right thing and refuses to let him play.
In light of the earlier discussions on football related head injures I thought I'd post the the espn.com front page teaser to an article about an Alabama linebacker:
"If you engage him, pray for a stalemate. If he hits you, pray that the blackout is short."
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Man, I was really wrong about the Bloomberg-Thompson race. I never imagined it would be so close.
Ahem.
My clients in NY expressed quite a bit of outrage about what Bloomberg did with term limits and had predicted that it would be much closer.
Imagine if the WH actually supported Bill Thompson...
As one of my clients pointed out-the 40K folks that sleep in homeless shelters could have been put up in permanent housing by Bloomberg if he had used his money to not buy votes.
Yeah, I give you credit, Jamilah, you were the only person I saw predicting it would be this close.
The blatant disregard that Bloomberg showed towards democracy and the will of the voters doesn't work too well in a city made up primarily of minorities and immigrants. It just doesn't.
Also, I just checked out the numbers and Bloomberg won 23% of the black vote. Doesn't David Patterson even have more support than that?
To think Bloomberg spent so much dough trying to buy off black pastors.
Good call on this one. When I woke up and saw the results, I remembered that someone here was saying this would be a lot closer than many were predicting.
That's what I was thinking about the money. he should have just said to New Yorkers - look, I'm going to buy the mayor position with this $50 million. The other $50 million I'll donate to the city services. Obscene.
From the Albany Project:
4 Winners and 5 Losers from Tuesday's Elections
by: SteveinNYC
Here are the winners from where I sit:
1. Bill Owens (NY-23) - the Dem's biggest win Tuesday night, nationwide.
2. Bill de Blasio - he's positioned himself as the frontrunner for the next mayoral race. How can he make the most of it?
3. Andrew Cuomo - helping persuade Dede Scozzafava to endorse Owens positions him as the head of New York's Democrats.
4. Mike Bloomberg - he won, but ...
And the losers:
1. Mike Bloomberg - ... he spent a lot of money to get 51% of the vote and a slew of stories about how weak he is now.
2. Bill Thompson - does the close result rehabilitate his image after a lackluster campaign?
3. Anthony Weiner - he missed his chance to run in what was a winnable race.
4. Incumbents - State Senators should interpret incumbents losing in the NYC primary and the Dutchess, Nassau and Ulster County generals as a warning to shape up. You're not entitled to your seat.
5. Working Families Party - by not campaigning hard for Thompson, they missed the chance to elect a mayor. The difference between the WFP and the other organizations and individuals who sat this one out? The WFP was the most likely to make a difference, so they get named.
They think deBlasio is the frontrunner? I was thinking John Liu.
From what I have heard Liu has a leg up. His coalition has been compared to Dinkins coalition. I assume that Bloomberg will be so hated when he tries to run for a fourth term(yes, he will try it again) that this will be an easy race.
I was surprised too by how well Thompson did after all, since he was painted as a lackluster candidate who would be crushed by Bloomberg. I was expecting Bloomberg to win with 70% of the vote like Mayor Daley has in Chicago during our last 3 mayoral elections.
Sorry about being scarce here recently. A quick update/bit of self-promotion, and then a comment on last night's election:
- Some of you may remember I mentioned I was working on a new site/online business. It's live now, if you want to check it out. I linked to it and explained what it's about in a recent blog post: New Site. Feel free to let me know what you think of it, here or there.
- The elections: To say Corzine's billboards featured Obama prominently is an understatement; he basically ran as Obama's sidekick. Still, I think the main reason Dem candidates such as Corzine lost last night was that a weak economy reflects poorly on the incumbent party. Same tailwind for Dems last year was a headwind this year. Also, I think Obama's popularity/charisma has either dropped somewhat or just doesn't transfer to boring old white guys like Corzine.
Not only does the state of the economy reflect poorly on the incumbent party. It reflects especially poorly on former heads of Goldman Sachs.
That's a good point.
Corzine is also just really charmless, and has never connected with the voters. That's not the primary reason he lost, but it didn't help.
The impression that I got of Corzine (as someone who doesn't live in New Jersey) is that he had worn out his welcome with voters in New Jersey. Under that circumstance, even if Obama was currently enjoying a 100% aprroval rating throughout the whole country, Obama's endorsement wouldn't have been enough to save Corzine.
Bear in mind, too, that we would have already had a GOP governor had Corzine's predecessor immediately resigned after the news broke that he tried to give is boyfriend, a foreign national, NJ's top homeland security job as a sinecure. Instead, McGreevey hung on until after the proximate election, and Corzine won after the initial outrage had long died down.
Heck, for that matter we would have had a GOP Senator here already if our state supreme court didn't let Dems switch out Lautenberg for the Torricelli (in violation of our election laws), after the Torch got snagged in his corruption case.
Corzine definitely tried to latch onto Obama, but I don't think it's accurate to call the NJ race a referendum on Obama (as many, not DaveinH, have done) because Christie had lots of commercials running on a change theme, with voters stating they supported both Obama and Christie.
Property taxes, property taxes, property taxes. (In NJ.)
It's worth noting that neither Christie nor MacDonald tried to run against Obama, which would have been logical if they thought a) their voters primarily view the governorship as an Obama referendum, and b) they don't like Obama. (I think both a and b are untrue.) I suspect that running against Obama would have backfired in the same way that NY23 did, trying to make politics national rather than local would not resonate with voters who are concerned about property taxes.
Christie backed away from the property taxes pitch toward the end. Realistically, the state is in too big a hole to promise much in the way of tax cuts right now, at least not until we ratchet back the overly generous public sector pensions and benefits. Christie is in a better position to do that than a Democrat like Corzine, for whom the public sector unions are a major constituency.
Did you know that it is possible to spend 3 hours reading and commenting in a single thread and not get a damn thing done at work?
Coates, I love you. But my job hates you and this space you provide for thoughtful and humorous commenting.
must
close
tab
click
small
"x"
on
tab
"Did you know that it is possible to spend 3 hours reading and commenting in a single thread and not get a damn thing done at work?"
I think everyone here knows that. You just have to go cold turkey sometimes to get things done.
And I do. But then I come back and fall completely and abysmally off the wagon.
I'm thinking about installing one of those time waster police programs on my Firefox. You can set it to a certain time limit for certain sites and it reminds you when you reach it. I need all the help I can get, working at home in front of my computer all day.
Me too.
I haven't played video games in quite some time, but does anyone know if the diversity of playable and NPCs has changed since the late 90's? Most of the games I played featured white or anime-type characters. Let's exclude mythical beings and sci-fi creatures.
A minor example: I remember playing Star Craft and being a little amazed that most of the human characters in it had Southern accents as opposed to the standard American accent. The add-on also featured varied accents in several characters. I think most of the main characters were white, however.
It's definitely more diverse, but most non-white characters tend to be stereotypes. It's probably attributable to the fact that such a large percentage of game designers are white (not calling it racism at all, it's more of a perspective issue).
most narrative heavy games of recent vintage (whether shooter, FPS, RPG, or horror) are still light on POC diversity. That being said, there are some great games out there with good stories to tell - Mass Effect, Uncharted 2, Bioshock, Far Cry 2, and Fallout.
That being said, Mass Effect allows you to craft a protagonist of color but that customization has no narrative affect. ME does feature a storyline that addresses racism and sexism tho, so you might want to give it a try.
Far Cry 2 features several playable POC's, but they are silent protagonists once chosen. The greatest feature of FC2 (and the least touted) was the range of African NPC presentation. All were articulate, had separate personalities, and even diverse characterizations. FC2 is notable because Africa itself is your enemy and your ally, and features a storyline that emphasises the futility of choice in morally corrupt situations.
i would NOT recommend Resident Evil 5 if you're looking for credible POC characters - but if you just like shooting things, it's a pretty good game. Finally, i don't know how you feel about music games, but DJ Hero features a couple of prominent POC DJs as avatars (although their construction of an hip-hop aesthetic SUCKS).
Hope that helps...
Posted in the other thread but,
Breckenridge voters OK possession of small amounts of marijuana
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13707672
Seems to me like a no-brainer for a ski town. The main thing there is not to drive, because the DUI/DWI rate up there is massive. They do have free busses, though.
Re. the elections in Va., NY and NJ: Lots of people are pointing out that Virginia and New Jersey have, for many years, always elected a governor who is not the same party as the president. That would seem to throw a little cold water on the Republicans' gloating today. Seems like all they're really doing is putting some spin on a well-established trend.
Re. NY 23 (and I'm only repeating what everyone probably already has read) it seems that the GOP should have more worries about losing this, and that the Dems' win here renders Republican wins in Virginia and New Jersey meaningless. This was the race in which the GOP far right really pushed all of its chips onto the table and threw down all of its face cards -- Palin, Beck, etc. Yet they still managed to lose a seat that they've held since the 19th century. Seems to me that that's a pretty significant loss that would be very troubling to the grownups in the GOP.
By the way, does anyone know exactly how long NY 23 was in GOP hands? I keep seeing all kinds of different numbers, i.e. "since the Civil War," "for more than a century," "since 1870," etc. Does anyone know for sure?
Wikipedia had it as about 158 years. Pretty much since there was a Republican party to elect. (Upstate New York in the late 1800s was the "burnt over district" throwing up all sorts of liberal and radical stuff--Mormons, the Oneida Society, Women's Rights, opposition to slavery.)
Dreher had a post on 23 and the first commenter argued it was a sign that Palin and Beck and Rush were right and the way forward was to follow these great leaders. The second commenter observed that eventually the GOP would need to follow the Dem model of putting forth people who could actually get elected. I'd bet that there's another round or two following the first commenter's theory before they come back to the second's philosophy.
Anybody try to make it through V last night? Goodness gracious.
It wasn't good? The previews looked good and I planned to watch it online tonight.
It was not good. At all. Some people are going to be offended by numerous was that it trades the Nazi/Soviet allegory of the original for an updated Obama one, but to get tied down by the politics is a waste of time. The thing is just not very good. The writing lacks any sense of ambition or creativity. It feels like a remake of a television miniseries from 1983. And while that is what it is, I don't think that's how it should feel.
That should be 'numerous ways that it trades....'
Just watched the first 8 minutes online, the full episode isn't available for a few days. Hmmm...for Morris Chestnut, I'll make the hour sacrifice. And the alien leader is also very striking.
If you think the main alien from V is attractive you should watch Firefly. She is way hotter in that.
Plus Firefly is very, VERY good.
can you give a quick spoiler free review? prefaced with are you a scifi geek or not?
Honestly, if you've seen the original, there's nothing much that can be spoiled. This is not the same beast as the BSG reboot miniseries. This one doesn't try to be it's own thing. It updates the visuals without updating the storytelling. It tries to hard to remain true to the original without questioning whether the original story would translate well to a 2009 and 2010 audience.
The original was of the 80s in many more ways than its campiness. It was also a Cold War invasion story, ala Red Dawn. It was about nationalism, capitalism, and conservative Reagan-era propaganda. This one is conservative Obama-era propaganda. Nothing about it rings plausible. It's goofy in ways that it's not supposed to be.
And it lacks any sense of pacing or suspense. It was not good.
And as for my sci-fi bonafides, the first movie I remember seeing in the theater was Wrath of Khan. I don't know if I qualify as a geek anymore, but I put my knowledge up against most.
Not so much into scifi film, but read a lot years ago. The show sucks; the premise is ridiculous, the acting wooden, dialogue utterly unbelievable. After the kind of cool first 15 minutes it devolves into a plot that even someone who likes scifi would have a hard time suspending belief for. Boring and pretentious. Whattaya think Breaker--sums it up, eh?
Personally, I didn't find it pretentious. I found it unnecessary and stupid. I don't think there's anything about this that aspires to something larger, something on the level of art, so I can't get behind calling it pretentious. I think the BSG remake is kind of pretentious, but I think that's one of the things that show had going for it. It was trying to be something more than it ever had a hope of being. V, so far at least, is television equivallent of Gus Van Sant's ridiculously unnecessary shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. Except that one was definitely pretentious. Now I've confused myself. This show sucked. And while I am not convinced that it could have ever been good, it sucks worse than I had anticipated.
I made it through. I think they should have had a two hour premier. Everything happened way too fast. It wasn't great. But I'm willing to give it a few episodes to hit its stride. Largely because the alien leader and FBI lady are easy on the eyes and the show looks like its going feature a solid amount of action.
It was good to see Wash an Inara back on screen together. Seeing two Firefly alums in other shows, Whedon or not, makes me unreasonably happy.
I'm a big Lost fan. I'm in for Elizabeth Mitchell, though I had some issues with how quickly they revealed things in the show. Ditto Flash Forward with Dominic Monaghan and its own story problems. I think it shows promise (I never saw the original miniseries) but I don't know how they squeeze season after season out of something in which they already let the big surprise loose after forty minutes.
Not only does it have Elizabeth Mitchell, it also has Matthew Fox's old castmate from Party of Five! So, I can imagine ABC execs insisting, it's JUST LIKE LOST!!!
On the big surprise, yeah, it's too soon to make a big reveal like that one. Of course, the problem with this particular reveal is that a lot of us saw it coming for about 26 years.
BB you're harsh today. You're definitely not of peace always. Not at all.
Kidding aside. The show was problematic. I'm hoping it'll get better. And I didn't catch the swapping the Nazis for Obamania til you mentioned it. Do we (and by we I mean you) know the politics of the creators or are you just analyzing that whole riff on devotion?
Mild SPOILER: I can’t speak to the politics of the actual creators of the show. I can’t decide whether I think the anti-Obama stuff (i.e., the graffiti and the hope, the Universal Healthcare, the adoring and devoted young people, the bamboozlement of the librul media, the broken Jesus at the church, etc.) were likely in the original draft or not. Seeing as the premise of the original V seems so utterly dated today, and seeing as the creators clearly had no intention of doing an ambitious reboot that was going to substantially divert from that dated premise, part of me thinks these elements were added after the fact to make the thing seem remotely relevant in 2009. Honestly, I didn’t care all that much about that element of the story, the 1983 miniseries always had a sort of John Milius flare. What bothered me most about this reboot was that they really didn’t seem to be trying that hard to make it something new. I mean, there are lots and lots of problems with BSG, but none of them are that it was too beholden to the original. Save for the cell phones, haircuts, and veiled anti-Obama stuff, I feel like I could be watching the original miniseries, and I’ve seen that since becoming an adult. I don’t want to do it again.
Also, [SPOILER ALERT], what was up with the whole "how can aliens and God exist in the same universe"? The whole religion angle came way out of the blue and was what I think was the most poorly done aspect of the show. It made no logical sense.
Re: gay marriage in maine
Someone mentioned this in the past thread but I think it may have been overlooked. These ammendments ahve failed in 31 states, at this point shouldnt the question really be how the strategy can be changed? Yes we have a lot of bigots in this country, fine rail against that all you want. Still doesnt change the fact it has failed 31 times. What are some different strategies that can be used? Does the gay movement need a spokesman? Yes I know we all hate the idea of a spokesman for all gays, but that strategy has worked. Think of all the revolutions in history, the majority of them has had one or two spokespeople. I think people sometimes underestimate the effect having a face to go with a movement provides. If a spokeman isnt it, then lets come up with some ideas. At the end of the day you cant get mad and curse the bigots and it'll probably make you feel better bet it doesnt change the status quo.
I think this article makes a good point. I've often seen the argument that the Civil Rights Movement made a mistake by going through the courts, but the experiences in these referendums might show that going through the courts was the right idea.
The internal gay struggle going on now between Gay, Inc. and various grassroots group makes the spokesperson thing very difficult. It's kind of a lighter version of the Republican wilderness, since in this case everyone has common goals and slightly different views on how to get there.
It's likely that NOM is going to continue the legislative/popular vote method of denying marriage equality, because it's effective now and will be less effective later. In that case, local and state groups need to start picking the battles, where and when votes take place. Also, they have to get the leg up on ballot language and framing the concept of "marriage" as a civil and contractual arrangement in this case.
Most importantly, gays have to be open to their communities. Show how they are just like their straight neighbors. Take part in community food drives as a group, be a positive force in the community as a group. This is one of those ultimate grassroots issues, because people are deciding on a personal level, not logically.
Otherwise, gays keep losing until the courts step in.
The first step is the repeal of any restriction in the military with respect to sexual orientation. Just as with racial prejudice, the official desegregation of the military predisposed the society at large to a different perspective on race, it will do likewise with gay bigotry. As we see daily, that racist perspective is not gone. But official, legal impediments no longer exist and people who provably act upon their racist beliefs are often subject to legal sanction. Which is about all you can get without "generational turnover"
I personally feel that the messaging isn't quite right. instead of fuzzy, mushy shots of happy gay couples being normal couples, the message should focus on 2 things.
1. Put A LOT of energy into debunking the myths and lies out there. Especially those involving child 'indoctrination', and studies which show how people 'turn out gay' (i.e. it just happens, like 2% of the time, the same way the rest of us turn out straight), and also dispel the rumors about how churches will be forced to marry gays etc.
2. Hit it from the perspective of the proper role of government. Begin by emphasizing that the meaning of the word "marriage" is determined by society, regardless of whether or not the government hands out pieces of paper with that word printed on it. Therefore letting gays get married before the law does not affect the meaning of a single straight marriage now or in the future. It's about whether tax-paying citizens who happen to be gay should be allowed to have all the rights (tax benefits, insurance sharing, hospital visitation rights, sharing of parental rights & duties, etc.) and responsibilities (monogamy which results in more social stability and less STD transmission, financial responsibilities to one another, etc) that a straight couple can have by entering into the same type of private govt-sanctioned contract. it doesn't affect anyone else, so it should be portrayed accurately as a question of whether you want to steal something out of someone else's hands that they have a right to as Americans and as human beings.
A spokesperson (The Official Gay?) might help here. Dispelling the myths vigorously is key. Most people wouldn't actively oppose gay marriage if they didn't think it would 're-define marriage' (since its definition is a societal thing and not Government turf) or somehow turn their kids gay (you're pretty much born gay or straight, or in-between or other).
My first thought for spokesperson was Neil Patrick Harris, but I'm not sure Dr. Horrible is the right approach...how about Sulu? How many people can sincerely claim that Sulu being married, rather than living with his partner of decades, is destroying their marriage? (How many people making the claim would be divorced?)
Otherwise I agree with Ulysses--the military is a good start point. And from what I keep reading from regular military guys, they're ready. They've been serving with gays as long as there has been a military.
Well, Sulu and Brad did win on the Newlywed game back in October.
Gays should stop looking to the Democrats, Obama in particular, as their savior. If they are truly passionate about advancing gay rights they should stop donating their money to the DNC and instead focus on local and state wide gay rights organizations.
I'm not sure about the idea of having one single spokesman. I'll go out on a limb and say that the gay community is the most diverse minority community out there. It would be incredibly difficult for a single individual to speak for all of us. Instead, I think each and every individual gay person needs to be a spokesman for the cause. Only by coming out of the closet and showing the world the truth of our lives can we overcome the lies of the other side.
I didn't see this mentioned here yet, but AP reported that the judge who refused to marry the interracial couple in Louisiana resigned yesterday. His parting shot was that he would refuse again, citing the suffering of children of such unions. Sen. Landrieu and Gov. Jindal praised the decision. From Sen. Vitter, a deafening silence.
he was a just of the peace and he refused to grant a marriage license. His name was Keith Bardwell, I think.
I'm actually very disappointed that he had a chance to resign. He should have been fired.
The law is indeed an ass.
2 recent cases that have cememted this in my mind. I don't see any moral difference between these two cases and a witchdoctor breaking a chickens neck and based on how the body lies determining who lives or gets sacrificed to the Gods.
First one, Canadian Citizen has no standing to sue the U.S Government (unless Congress approves).
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/11/court-victims-of-extraordinary-rendition-cant-sue-us-unless-congress-approves/1
The 7-4 ruling, by the Second Circuit Appeals Court in New York, came in response to a suit filed against the Bush administration by Maher Arar, a Syrian-Canadian telecommunication engineer whom U.S. officials suspected of having ties to al-Qaeda. In 2002, he was detained and interrogated harshly in New York for nearly two weeks, then sent to Syria, where he was held for a year and, he said, tortured. A Canadian judicial inquiry later cleared him of being involved in terrorism.
This other one is just mind boggling. The quote that gets me (and I was driving today and almost went off the road when I heard this)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120069519
The prosecutors counter that there is "no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed."
This guy got railroaded and spent 25 years of his life doing hard time for a crime he didn't commit. And the prosecution knew it, and framed him.
I'm not a legal scholar, but IMHO, this is pretty F'ed up and goes against any sense of fairness.
The county prosecutor, David Richter, had been appointed to his post and was facing his first election, observes Clement. "He has an unsolved murder, something that is hardly standard fare in Council Bluffs, Iowa," he says. "He had the perfect suspects, if he could tag the murder to a couple of young African-American teenagers from across the state line."
and
They had identified a white man named Charles Gates, who had been seen with a shotgun near the scene of the crime. Gates, the brother-in-law of a Council Bluffs Fire Department captain, was interviewed and failed a polygraph. But prosecutors and police abandoned their interest in him in favor of Harrington, who was not even offered a polygraph.
"So the bottom line," says Clement, "is essentially that police and prosecutors together at some point in this case stopped looking for the real killer, the real suspect and decided it would be far easier to get an eyewitness account that said to a moral certainty that the two African-American youths from across the state line have committed this crime. "
I'm getting to the point where I think the term American Justice is an oxymoron.
I just posted below about the same thing. That NPR story blew my mind.
Wouldn't that count as an unreasonable siezure of his person? Never mind the heinous crime committed by the prosecutor, basically that's kidnapping by the government for 25 yrs.
in the article you linked to below, a good point is made that the framed victims' right not to be discriminated against based on their race in the justice system was violated.
deriliction of prosecutorial duty, but that's not a full-on crime the way it is for cops to frame people. it seems like the law needs to be changed, i mean if there's proof.
how can this prosecutor live with himself? i really do not understand. you study law for years, take all these sacred solemn oaths to uphold the law and to serve the cause of Justice, and then you (a) decline to pursue the best suspect, very likely letting a real murderer off the hook, and (b) actively put two young men in jail for life for something you know they did not do? did he simply think all young black men were criminals inherently and deserved to be jailed, and thus 2 young lives were rightfully wrecked? that still wouldn't absolve him of the injustice of (a).
i'm out of outrage. (seems that's all i do when i add comments on the internet.)
Well, Scalia did write that being found innocent of murder shouldn't stand in the way of your execution, so this is pretty consistant with that.
It is pretty sickening when judges treat the law as a chess match rather than the vehicle society uses to try to achieve justice.
In today's Chicago Suntimes re: cumulative brain injuries in sport
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/telander/1863263,CST-SPT-rick04.article
The players have simply long since evolved past the physics of the game, and the protective equipment available.
Has anyone heard about the case in front of SCOTUS today? Fascinating. From the piece I heard on NPR this morning, the argument is about whether or not prosecutors can be sued for withholding evidence that would prove a defendant is not guilty. It's based on a case where an African-American man did 25 years of a life sentence for the murder of a white ex-cop before being released when he requested his file to find that the prosecution had hidden evidence that proved him innocent. Essentially, the government is arguing that people do not have a Constitutional right not to be framed. Here's the best story I could find about it:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1103/p02s18-usju.html
That made me so angry.
(You know, I think the victim's family should be suing those assholes too-- whoever murdered that guy is still out there.)
An openly gay candidate won the Detroit City Council race and will become the City Council President of the blackest big city in the country. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1933838,00.html
What does this say about the commentary that black communities are rife with homophobia?
This is the equivalent of Republicans pointing to Michael Steel and saying "We appointed a Black man head of our national organization, what does that say about the commentary that Republicans hate black people?" Or pointing to Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Alan Keyes, ect.
Until you are willing to look at that example and say "Yeah, I guess Republicans DO like black people!" you need to rethink smug posts pointing out one event as disproof of an entire trend.
Detroit has so many issues to work on, keeping teh gays of of City Council has to be damn close to the bottom of the list.
On a random note, how do my fellow Oakland residents feel about our mayor owing $250,000 in taxes and having liens slapped against him from coast to coast? Anyone else as embarassed and tired of Dellums as I am?
I've been in Oakland for a little under 2 years so it's hard for me to gauge. Is this par for the course in terms of Oakland mayors or is he a 'special case'?
No.
Dellums has been a disaster because his heart was never really set on being mayor. For all of Oakland's problems I do not recall any recent mayors having tax liens against him. Embarrassing.
I'm originally from Michigan where the mayor in Detroit was ousted for leaving the country (to Canada)...something that is forbidden when you're charged with a felony in an on going investigation.
His wiki is an interesting read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwame_Kilpatrick
Jamilah, I'm in no way excusing the behavior, but at least Dellums copped to it yesterday in his public statement, and he should be able to pay it back. But what a failure of leadership. Who "forgets" to pay $250,000?
I was tired of him the day he was elected. He's a tired old civil rights warrior (who actually didn't ever accomplish an awful lot, even back in the day) who got elected largely on the basis of his rep and, I guess, the color of his skin.
His performance (where there's been any performance at all) has been tired, elderly and mostly absent. Too bad, too, because Oakland desperately needs some effective government.
Frankly, I'm surprised he had the energy to run up a tax bill this size.
"Frankly, I'm surprised he had the energy to run up a tax bill this size."
Ha ha! Yeah, Oakland has too many problems to have someone in the job who did his best/hardest work a few decades ago. Like the man, just the wrong job for him.
Dellums was once a very good congressman, so it is sad to see him come to this, and sadder to hear that as mayor of Oakland, he hasn't turned out so well. What are your objections to his administration, and how was Brown when he was mayor? Since he will probably be the Dem candidate for governor, I'd like to know how the people of Oakland look back on his tenure there.
I read an article by Kos where he casts blame for the loss in Virginia on Deeds running on bipartisanship, among other reasons. I think he is wrong on quite a few counts. One, the guy got routed, going too far right or too far left doesn't mean so much in an 18 pt ass kicking. Another, the State tends to vote in DLCers for governor, Warner and Kaine aren't Howard Dean. Even in the Senate, Webb is a self-described redneck. Kos also seems to forget that Obama ran on bipartisanship and won the State (or Commonwealth).
Wasn't the progressive blogosphere happy that Deeds got the nomination over Terry MacAuliffe? Do they now think McAuliffe would have been better?
Well, the progs in my neck of the woods thought Moran would have been better.
Okay, maybe I was confusing Deeds with Moran.
Oh god, McAuliffe would have been an epic disaster. They just didn't have a good candidate. And yeah, Tim Kaine is pretty bi-partisan, Warner too--remember that snoozer at the DNC?
The commentary I've seen from Virginians (and those in the VA media market) was that Deeds campaign was awful in ways they couldn't understand. Obama, Kaine, and Warner are all popular and people expected him to run on those, especially on the Kaine-Warner legacy. Sometimes "more of the same" is a good argument. And he focussed on MacDonald's sexist thesis--which was a legitimate issue--to the exclusion of all else. Something I saw a few times was a complaint that Deeds' argument was "MacDonald wrote sexist stuff a while back. And I'm not him."
MacDonald, it should be said, seems to have run a really good campaign.
MacDonald, it should be said, seems to have run a really good campaign.
I really wish more pundits would use this line of thinking rather than pushing their pet frame on results.
Alright everyone I need some common cold cures. I'm sick of this thing already; it's not bad enough to keep me out of work, but bad enough to make it hell (well, moreso).
Related note: I keep psyching myself out of sneezing. Anyone else have this problem? Any answers? It's getting to the point where I want to do lines of black pepper...
It might be a bit too gross for some, but I have been using a netipot when I start feeling out of it. It shoots a saline mixture through your sinuses and drains out the sludge.
My wife got me one of these. It's not something I would do every day, but it sure does work.
If you like instant results, the neti pot is definitely the way to go. I LOVE mine. I felt a cold coming on 2 weeks ago and used the neti and ate a lot of spicy food and drank gallons of green tea. No probs since.
PS if you want to see something that will make you love your neti, use it when you have a sinus infection. I was flushing straight neon out of my nose.
Lots and lots of black tea. Cleans out the sinuses and apparently boosts the immune system.
Do robocalls and phone banking work?
By the end of the election in 2008, I was getting pretty pissy when I got home from work and had 5 calls on voice mail asking me to vote for this or that. I think it is becoming obnoxious and possibly counter productive. I may be transforming into an old timer, but I hate getting phone calls from someone asking for something, especially if it is automated.
Some people in the Dean campaign reflected on their Iowa strategy and thought that sending a bunch of kids in orange hats door to door constantly, finally got annoying enough to turn off some voters. Sometimes less is more.
I doubt I will change my vote because calls get annoying, but there are more than a few people who vote on a fairly superficial basis. Someone who is undecided might get ticked off if a phone call from a campaign woke him or her up from a nap.
I wouldn't be surprised. That being said, it seems like most campaigns are using them now.
Apparently automated polling however, seemed to work out ok.
Honestly, if I'm on the line between two candidates who seem to get about the same grade, or about a ballot issue I don't feel strongly on, robocalls would get me to vote the other way. The only acceptable robocalls are from the water people (no water Tuesday 10-4) or reverse 911 (look in your yard for a small child).
Someone who is undecided might get ticked off if a phone call from a campaign woke him or her up from a nap.
I hate to admit it, but I did that for a fairly minor local election. I happened to be in Europe so the phone call came in at 1am and I couldn't get back to sleep because of jet lag.
If you're an oldtimer, I'm right there with you. I hate the damned things. I get annoyed enough at a campaign phone call from a real person, much less a recorded person. Oddly enough, though, I don't mind someone coming to my door. Even though I don't work professionally in campaigns any more, I'll still volunteer, and I'll knock on doors before I'll phonebank any day.
One of the problems is that robocalls are relatively cheap to produce, and it makes the consultants look to the candidates like they're getting a lot of bang for the buck. There's also a cachet (again, amongst consultants) in getting someone famous to do your robocalls for you. I was on the staff of the Tony Sanchez campaign for Texas governor in 2002, when robocalls were still a relatively new phenomenon, and people were unbelievably excited that Bill Clinton was going to do a robocall for us. Again, maybe just my personal animus against phone calls, but I thought the whole deal was just silly and predicted robocalls would never last. Boy, was I ever wrong. I do think they're on their last legs, though. I certainly hope so.
If you're an oldtimer, I'm right there with you. I hate the damned things. I get annoyed enough at a campaign phone call from a real person, much less a recorded person. Oddly enough, though, I don't mind someone coming to my door. Even though I don't work professionally in campaigns any more, I'll still volunteer, and I'll knock on doors before I'll phonebank any day.
One of the problems is that robocalls are relatively cheap to produce, and it makes the consultants look to the candidates like they're getting a lot of bang for the buck. There's also a cachet (again, amongst consultants) in getting someone famous to do your robocalls for you. I was on the staff of the Tony Sanchez campaign for Texas governor in 2002, when robocalls were still a relatively new phenomenon, and people were unbelievably excited that Bill Clinton was going to do a robocall for us. Again, maybe just my personal animus against phone calls, but I thought the whole deal was just silly and predicted robocalls would never last. Boy, was I ever wrong. I do think they're on their last legs, though. I certainly hope so.
Sorry about the double post. I got some kind of weird error message I'd never seen before, and just backed up and hit submit again.
any lawyers on here can tell me the case that set precedent with regard to new york states long arm jusridiction. I remember never paying attention to this stuff till I realized that they could sue almost anyone with impunity. Its actually kind of cool that one state can go after any corporation just as long as they do business in that state. On top of that its new york, and allmost all major corporations do business in the state. In a way it kind of sets ny ag to be almost as powerful as the atornet general, certainly above all other states AG's. Anyways anybody know?
My dim recollection is that the grandfather of the log-arm jurisdiction cases is International Shoe Co. v. Washington 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
Yeah, Shoe established the minimum contacts test which led to long arm statutes. Been refined considerably since then, check out Asahi.
In light of recent discussions about the NFL and player's health, I wanted to see if anybody was following the situation involving Steelers free safety Ryan Clark. Clark has sickle cell and another medical condition that makes him susceptible to illness at high altitudes, like in Denver. The last time he played in Denver, in 2007, he almost died and had to have at least one organ removed. He missed the rest of the season. He also got sick in his previous game in Denver, in 2005 with the Redskins.
Obviously I know less than the team doctors, but I would be scared of doing something that got me sick the last two times I did it. There's no press or any indication that he was even checked out in 2007, although it happened to him before. But he was cleared by the doctors to play on Monday night, and now Clark himself is forced to make the decision. Hopefully, he listens to his teammates like Hines Ward who are saying that no football game is worth risking your life.
To me, this seems to reinforce the opinions on here that team doctors work for the team and not for the player's benefit. Has anybody heard about this situation or have any comments?
I'm a Steelers fan, and I think Ryan Clark is an extremely important member of the defense. Polamalu gets all the press, but even he says that Clark's play enables him to freelance the way he does. But I'm really hoping that Clark doesn't play in Denver, and if he's determined to play, I hope Tomlin does the right thing and refuses to let him play.
In light of the earlier discussions on football related head injures I thought I'd post the the espn.com front page teaser to an article about an Alabama linebacker:
"If you engage him, pray for a stalemate. If he hits you, pray that the blackout is short."