Taxation without respiration.
And meanwhile, if you don’t like this reminder of Eric Garner’s last words, there’s this — LRAD “sound cannon” used on protesters in midtown Manhattan:
YouTube caption from author “James C”: “Early AM hours of 12/5/14. March was heading east on E 57th St at Madison Avenue. I do not condone the small amount of garbage that was thrown, or using pepper spray or LRADs, which were used to suppress first amendment activity.”
This week’s Vern video: Chopin’s haunting, restless, and rarely played Prelude Opus 45 – in C# minor although it rarely stays in one key for long.
This is your Weekend Open Thread. Talk about that, or whatever else you’d like, within reasonable bounds of decency and discretion.
About Greg Diamond
Somewhat verbose attorney, semi-disabled and semi-retired, residing in northwest Brea. Occasionally ran for office against jerks who otherwise would have gonr unopposed. Got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012; Josh Newman then won the seat in 2016. In 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002; Todd Spitzer then won that seat in 2018. Every time he's run against some rotten incumbent, the *next* person to challenge them wins! He's OK with that.
Corrupt party hacks hate him. He's OK with that too.
He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)
His daughter is a professional campaign treasurer. He doesn't usually know whom she and her firm represent. Whether they do so never influences his endorsements or coverage. (He does have his own strong opinions.) But when he does check campaign finance forms, he is often happily surprised to learn that good candidates he respects often DO hire her firm. (Maybe bad ones are scared off by his relationship with her, but they needn't be.)
This graphic, by Lalo Alcaraz, captures the feelings of my old African American friend:
White cops have saved thousands of black lives.
The Soviets also did the brunt of the work in defeating the Nazis, which by this logic makes you a commie.
Tomorrow is the Major League Soccer (MLS) championship game between LA Galaxy and the New England Revolution. One of this team’s star is a Vietnamese American player, which I mentioned months ago in a post about Nixon (see last link below).
He has been called to the US national team :” How America’s forgotten No10 made it to MLS…Lee Nguyen could do almost anything he wanted on the field in Vietnam. But getting to the bus after the game was another story…The Vietnamese David Beckham, trying to find his place in the world and, more importantly, his way through the crowd…”
http://www.mlssoccer.com/mlscup/2014/news/article/2014/11/21/new-england-
revolution-playmaker-lee-nguyen-rugged-road-mls-stardom
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/?s=the+ghosts+of+the+nixon+library
This week’s John & Ken’s “Hack in a Dumpster” is Santa Ana Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez.
http://www.kfiam640.com/media/podcast-john-and-ken-on-demand-JohnandKen/john-ken-show-5pm-1205-25652903/
wateva
why don’t you run against her some day?
To get party support in a primary, he’ll have to become a Latina.
I am married to a lovely Latina.
I dunno – Santa Ana Republicans hate latinas so much that they chose unknown carpetbagger phony Sherry Walker over loyal Party lady Ceci Iglesias.
I didn’t say voter support; I said party support. Iglesias was the party’s choice, as part of their “women of color” strategy.
“I missed my award!”
Yeah …. I could hyphenate my name like Ken Maddox.
Head down .. charging at an officer …. even with hands up, is not surrender – it is aggression.
After being shot in the arm from behind, he apparently moved 15 feet or so back towards his killer, who had chased him over 100 feet from the SUV. You may not know this, but there is audio of those last six rounds being fired. He was not moving quickly, but relatively slowly, apparently to beg for his life with his hands up.
The last four shots came in a burst without there being time for him to have charged in the meantime. The different angles of trajectory for these bullets show that he was essentially falling for words as the shots ripped through his upper right arm through to his face and finally to the top of his head. His head wasn’t down charging, but from falling forward in a hell of bullets shot from close range.
I don’t care how scared Wilson was at that moment before he “finished” Michael Brown videogame style; if he was that scared after having already shot a surrendering suspect, he should never have been a cop in the first place — and certainly never allowed into neighborhoods where many or most residents are Black.
If the details of the incident occurred as you describe – it would not have gotten by the GJ.
You’re adorable.
The prosecutor didn’t want an indictment. Read some real news stories.
I agree that the prosecutor did not want an indictment – because an indictment was not warranted. So rather than present a “no bill” of his own volition he presented substantial evidence and let the GJ decide.
Someone else take over here. Otherwise, I’m going to start cursing.
You could try just ignoring the irritation until the rash clears up.
Yeah, but it tends to fester….
You can’t have an honest debate with someone who’s willing to lie about a link/quote that’s been posted.
My problem is more akin to trying to have a rational debate with a tape recorder.
Always remember, it’s up to YOU to decide when you’ve had enough and it’s “useless anymore.” (Zappa) And the audience is not the tape recorder, but the other readers of this blog.
I will leave you all to your self-confirming circle jerk.
This is like a chimp saying “I will leave you humans to your communication through well-enunciated language,” except that it comes out “ook ook ook!”
For futile attempts at human communication, my favorite is always the dolphin narration intro to “The Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy”- FWIW.
a chimp
Baboon. Which is also the biggest monkey and can’t be trained to wipe itself.
Vern, don’t get me started on the abuse of the concept and deployment of the word “anymore.”
I was thinking of this verse from “Camarillo Brillo”
“Then she stripped off her rancid poncho
And lay down nekkid on the floor.
We did it till we were unconcho
And it was useless anymore.”
I always thought that last line was very poetic.
As unseen on this past weekend’s Saturday Night Live!
http://splitsider.com/2014/12/snl-cut-a-ferguson-sketch-about-a-st-louis-morning-show/
anon
Posted December 8, 2014 at 10:13 AM
“You can’t have an honest debate with someone who’s willing to lie about a link/quote that’s been posted.”
What the FUCK are you talking about asshole? I don’t lie you fucking idiot. However, I do swear on occasion when called for.
You lied to us when you told us that Scalia’s quote about the use of the Grand Jury was inaccurate. And then you wouldn’t cop to your lie. That makes TWO lies.
THAT is what the fuck I’m talking about, asshole.
It was in accurate.
You said;
“I read Scalia’s majority opinion – the LIE is the word “function.” Scalia never said that”
But Scalia DID use the word “function,” and I draw your attention to the paragraph beginning “It is axiomatic…”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/504/36
You claimed that thinkprogress are “liars.” But YOU were the liar.
But then, you already know all this…you just think readers of this blog will just forget about your BS and give you the benefit of the doubt.
Scalia: “According to the description of an early American court, three years before the Fifth Amendment was ratified, it is the grand jury’s function not “to enquire . . . upon what foundation the charge may be denied,” or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine “upon what foundation the charge is made” by the prosecutor.”
Scalia is saying what an early American court believed the “function” of a GJ to be – not what he believes in that regard. He is using that example not as “this should be done” – but rather to set up his concluding sentence that a defendant does not have a “right” to have exculpatory evidence presented to a GJ.
This is Scalia’s conclusion within that paragraph: ” As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify, or to have exculpatory evidence presented.”
It’s called reading comprehension anon.
“but rather to set up his concluding sentence that a defendant does not have a “right” to have exculpatory evidence presented to a GJ.”
Yet, that is EXACTLY what the McCullough did in the Brown case, IN ABUNDANCE. He presented MOUNDS of exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury, and Scalia notes in this opinion how “non-traditional,” if you will, this is.
Furthermore, in the same paragraph, Scalia goes on to say “As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.”
Yet that is exactly the “right” McCullough gave to Officer Wilson…he put Wilson on the stand to testify.
In short, McCullough did EVERYTHING in his power, using strategies thought by Scalia to be NOT traditional, and I would say even advisable, to sway the Grand Jury to NOT indict Wilson.
To testify without cross-examination, yet. That’s the jaw-dropping part!
What Skally doesn’t want to know is that the WAY McCullough used this Grand Jury was QUITE out of the ordinary. That the strategy was quite intentional. That the strategy was designed to optimize the chances for a “no indictment” result.
That the deck was stacked in Wilson’s favor.
Scalia: “The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised. “Unlike a court, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ ” United States v. R. Enterprises.”
Let me simplify that for you – Scalia is saying that a grand jury can investigate because it wants assurance that the law is NOT being violated.
I’m not disputing that the Grand Jury can investigate, idiot. I’m pointing out Scalia’s thoughts on the WAY it normally investigates.
anon: ” I’m pointing out Scalia’s thoughts on the WAY it normally investigates.”
Where did Scalia say this is the way a GJ normally operates and thus should function solely in that manner? That is what you are indicating is the jist of his remarks. He didn’t say that or indicate that.
You called me a “liar” anon – you are wrong about that and you owe me an apology.
I’ve shown you where Scalia said that. You just don’t want to see it.
I’m through with you.
And since you have NEVER admitted that the quote from thinkprogress WAS accurate, and Scalia DID use the word “function,” I don’t owe you anything, ESPECIALLY an apology.
The quote from thinkprogress was not accurate – and Scalia’s use of the word function was taken out of context by thinkprogress and you refuse to acknowledge that. I don’t lie.
anon – Even the thinkprogress headline was a lie.
“Justice Scalia Explains What Was Wrong With The Ferguson Grand Jury”
Scalia’s comments were made years ago concerning a case that had nothing to do with the Ferguson grand jury.
Hey idiot, that doesn’t mean his comments aren’t relevant to the Ferguson case!
So, that’s not a lie.
Get a clue, dude!
thinkprogress said:
“Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.
It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor.”
What Justice Scalia actually said:
“According to the description of an early American court, three years before the Fifth Amendment was ratified, it is the grand jury’s function not “to enquire . . . upon what foundation the charge may be denied,” or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine “upon what foundation the charge is made.”
He is repeating what an ancient court said in order to bolster his argument that a subject of a GJ proceeding does not have the right to have exculpatory evidence be presented to the GJ.
“He is repeating what an ancient court said in order to bolster his argument that a subject of a GJ proceeding does not have the right to have exculpatory evidence be presented to the GJ.”
THAT IS THE WHOLE FREAKING POINT!!!
You understand that WILSON was the subject of those proceedings, right?
McCullough chose…CHOSE…CHOSE…to present MOUNDS of exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury. Can you get that through your thick, fucking skull? McCullough did, to an extraordinarily uncommon degree, that which Scalia says Wilson should not have had the right to experience.
Good grief, you are daft!
anon
“He is repeating what an ancient court said in order to bolster his argument that a subject of a GJ proceeding does not have the right to have exculpatory evidence be presented to the GJ.”
“THAT IS THE WHOLE FREAKING POINT!!!”
No it’s not the point. Scalia is talking about no RIGHT to exculpatory evidence – you are talking about too much (or any actually) exculpatory evidence. And actually what was presented was evidence both ways – exculpatory and inculpatory.
You keep changing the argument – stay on track. I’m a liar about what Scalia said – remember? The argument is not about the prosecutor – but about Scalia’s words – got it?
You are beyond hope. And help.
And so I leave you with the words of George Orwell;
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”
Try struggling a little someday.
anon: “You understand that WILSON was the subject of those proceedings, right?”
Of course I understand that.
anon: “McCullough chose…CHOSE…CHOSE…to present MOUNDS of exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury. Can you get that through your thick, fucking skull? McCullough did, to an extraordinarily uncommon degree, that which Scalia says Wilson should not have had the right to experience.”
Right!! – The prosecutor CHOSE to present mounds of both exculpatory and inculpatory evidence – that the GJ may decide whether to bring charges or not.
Again – stay on track – the argument is whether I am a liar or not.