Post #362,335
9/8/12 1:31:57 PM
|
Point of order.
The issue (for me) is a judge (appointed by a republican governor) reducing a sentence for an off-duty police officer who was convicted of sexual assault and telling a victim that she was responsible for what happened to her.
A comparable case (of course it's not identical) might be this one: http://www.unionlead.../NEWS03/707129920
BRENTWOOD Â A Londonderry man who worked for the Transportation Security Administration was sentenced to 20 to 40 years in state prison after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting a young girl.
Dwayne Valerio, 45, pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault on Friday, leaving it up to a judge to hand down a sentence.
Assistant County Attorney Patricia Conway asked for consecutive 10 to 20 year prison terms on the two charges. A judge agreed to her recommendation after a hearing on Friday in Rockingham County Superior Court.
[...]
Before his arrest, Valerio worked as a Transportation Security Administration officer at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport, but prosecutors say the assault had no connection to his job.
(I haven't been able to find a news story about a TSA agent charged and convicted as a result of groping and fondling on the job (we all know of such occurrences), so I don't know of a case where a TSA agent's in-uniform illegal actions were subsequently mitigated by a judge changing a sentence. Please enlighten me if you know of something similar.)
The TSA rules and so forth were created by the Bush administration. I don't disagree that the TSA needs to be reformed.
That story doesn't mention who the judge was, but an earlier story says that Tina Nadeau (the current chief justice) was behind the bench http://judgepedia.or...hp/Tina_L._Nadeau . She was appointed by John Lynch - a Democrat.
I think my point stands. YMMV. :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #362,336
9/8/12 1:54:43 PM
|
the issue for me
is that we're screwed no matter who's in charge. One of the Democrats main platforms in 2008 was clean up the Patriot Act and eliminate the unconstitutional parts, yet in 2010 they renewed it w/out change.
Sure the TSA was established under Bush, but "The TSA Rules" have been under constant revision since then. The OK for them to sexually assault the public came under Obama, not Bush.
|
Post #362,339
9/8/12 2:26:49 PM
|
Things can change for the better.
I understand the cynicism and share some of it, but things will only get better if we push the outcome the way we want it to go.
(I can't address your specific points because I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to without a linky or two.)
James Fallows has been a consistent TSA critic. But he occasionally has stories about TSA acting responsibly. E.g. http://www.theatlant...g-the-tsa/247014/ from October 2011:
Since I so often complain about the nuttiness, petty tyranny, and "security theater" mentality of the Transportation Security Administration, and since I would complain ten times more if I weren't afraid of sounding like a total (versus partial) crank, let me say something deservedly nice about a TSA experience I had today.
It was at San Diego's Lindbergh Field, which has had its rough moments on the TSA-versus-humanity front. But for me today's passage-through-security was different from any in recent memory, in that the TSA officials I dealt with seemed relaxed. There was no stentorian yelling about what to do with your computers and your shoes-and-gels. There was no one who looked like he or she was spoiling for an opportunity to show a passenger who was boss. The agents were smiling -- not because they were joking with each other and then turning to glower at the passenger/subjects, as I've seen at other airports, but in their interactions with people filing through.
[...]
The bad incident was in November 2010.
Why were things better? Maybe part of it was the Obama administration making appropriate changes. Maybe Pistole is cleaning things up as he can - http://www.tsa.gov/w..._pistole_bio.shtm Maybe part of it was TSA no-longer being prevented from negotiating with unionized workers - http://www.npr.org/b...bargaining-rights. An agreement with AFGE was reached in August - http://www.afge.org/...essReleaseID=1376
I don't know why things seem to be getting better. But they do seem to be with TSA. Is it enough? Of course not.
Change is a slow process. We all need to help it along. :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #362,340
9/8/12 2:40:20 PM
|
it would change faster
if the sheeple woke up to the fact that it's not an either-or decision. We keep getting slight variations of the same old crap from the same two groups.
|
Post #362,342
9/8/12 2:53:51 PM
|
Please see my reply below.
|
Post #362,338
9/8/12 2:26:36 PM
|
Re: Point of order.
Because one side is slightly more rotten than the other? like the other side of a Mobius Strip? does not make the other entity justified in being rotten. I thoroughly agree the Vulture and Voucher would be horrible for the country. No question. The problem is that Obama has already shown himself to be the hands down, worst president I have ever voted for. I really want to see him in front of an international court for war crimes along with the Bush cabal. I know. It will never happen. It's going to turn my stomach if I have to vote for that blob of corruption. Eh, I've done stomach turning things before. Still, I really resent that for the rest of my life, I will have to put up with "Well, YOU voted for him! TWICE!!!" That's a vomit festival that just won't go away.
|
Post #362,341
9/8/12 2:53:24 PM
|
Man - please lighten up a little. :-)
You as an individual are not responsible for who wins in November. We, as a country are.
Do what's best for your health and peace of mind.
But think about this, if you will: Who pushes the "they're all the same" (TATS) meme the hardest? IMO, it's often people who have an interest in things not changing in ways that you (and I) would like.
E.g. Ralph Nader - In his later political life, he had a utopian vision of the way the country should be governed and was against anyone who didn't see things his way. He was a purity troll. In 2000 he and the Greens had no plan for actually governing with Republicans or Democrats in control of Congress and the Senate. (I attended his "Super Rally" in DC in 2000 and may have voted for him - I don't recall.)
He had no interest in building a coalition or broadening his base - it was all about implementing his pure ideals. If things move incrementally his way, he loses his purity and thus the strength of his message.
On the other hand, some who scream TATS are like the professional Libertarians who are Republicans in leather jackets. They take advantage of the idealism of young people and construct arguments about logic and freedom and fairness that 90% of the time align with current Republican thinking on the major issues of the day. That's why their funding comes from hard-core Republicans like the Koch brothers. On those where there's a disagreement, it's on something like drug legalization that is utopian and will not be implemented for generations, if ever. So, by accepting that TATS, you're supporting Republican talking points and preventing progress.
You'll get a lot farther by writing to Obama and Holder and your representatives and telling them that you strongly disagree with their policies and explaining why, and will have more of an impact, than by getting angry and throwing up your hands - that won't get you anywhere. (Yeah, your letters may only move things 1 nanometer, but it's something productive.)
Hang in there and don't be so down! Think about the future and do your part to try to make it better for the unfortunate saps that follow us. :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #362,344
9/8/12 4:17:05 PM
|
yeah, they'll really listen
|
Post #362,346
9/8/12 4:51:53 PM
|
It was an important call.
http://www.colbertna...akes-a-phone-call
;-)
Seriously, anyone can look bad in a 1 minute video. Who knows why she took the call, or what it was about... This Chronicle story certainly makes it sound a bit more complicated than that clip indicates.
http://www.chron.com...dodge-1585330.php
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #362,350
9/8/12 6:52:00 PM
|
it was Sheila being Sheila
|
Post #362,351
9/8/12 7:06:52 PM
|
Meh. 14 years ago.... :-)
She may be abrasive, she may not know her geography and NASA history very well. I dunno. I don't find hit pieces to be terribly persuasive, myself, though.
But I bet if you live in her district and write her a respectful letter, you'll get a reply back. And her staff, at least, will make note of your opinion.
Yelling at clouds and stewing and doing nothing productive doesn't change things. Writing letters can. That was my main point. :-)
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #362,354
9/8/12 7:48:35 PM
|
turning your stomach
The problem is that Obama has already shown himself to be the hands down, worst president I have ever voted for. And how many would that be? If you're, say, fifty, then the possible presidents would be Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Cheney and Obama. I'm going to assume that only half of these are in the "voted for" pool, and observe that there is in that case no shame in placing third behind Messrs. Carter and Clinton. It seems to me, hnick, that you needn't vote for Obama twice. If you do not wish to see Romney/Ryan enthroned (and I assure you that they would move energetically to put to rest your amusing conceit about the near-indistinguishability of Obama and the GOP), your personal contribution needs only to extend to voting for the alternative choice you think likeliest to block the Mormchurian Candidate's accession. If you sincerely believe that this would be a write-in for, say, Ralph Nader or Ron Paul, you will find no one here who will second-guess your ethical stance, although a number of us might be found to question your mental competence. If you believe that the plausible alternative is Obama, you may exercise your franchise in his direction while averring, should the accusing gaze of posterity ever fall upon you, that you were voting against Vulture and Voucher in a gesture of realistic revulsion signifying in no wise approval of the guy you voted for in 2008 who thereafter turned a deaf ear to your repeated entreaties for a pony.
I, too, would like a Chief Executive considerably to the left in most particulars of the one we have, but as the powers are aligned in our faltering global empire and in the brutal senescence of late-stage capitalism, that doesn't appear to be in prospect. Experience persuades me that the lesser of two evils differs from the greater by being, well, less evil, and that this is, while well short of the best of all possible worlds, meaningfully preferable to more evil. Only if you imagine that the country will embrace our sensibilities once it's had a taste of the Tealiban regnant could you passively countenance their triumph, and I'm here to tell you that I sat through the original version of that movie in 1968, and that Nixon's election didn't bring the revolution a damned day closer.
A shout-out here to Another Scott, who has been making this case more patiently and coherently than I can contrive.
cordially,
|
Post #362,357
9/8/12 9:05:42 PM
|
<blush> You're far more eloquent than me. Thanks.
|
Post #362,362
9/8/12 11:16:27 PM
|
I'm eloquent. You're cogent. There's a difference.
|
Post #362,364
9/8/12 11:20:19 PM
|
Who's Curly then?
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #362,366
9/8/12 11:23:45 PM
|
Every man for himself!
|
Post #362,379
9/9/12 7:00:47 AM
|
Hey Moe! Poink.
|
Post #362,381
9/9/12 7:49:05 AM
|
Re: turning your stomach
I'm not 50. I was born in 50. Not that it changes your point appreciably. Color me suitably crushed. I'll shut up until after the election. Bye.
|
Post #362,382
9/9/12 8:40:02 AM
|
Don't. Lets reason together and get closer to the truth.
|
Post #362,396
9/9/12 9:41:11 PM
|
'course I don't want you to shut up.
I just want you to vote. And sorry if I seemed to be talking down to you. You obviously remember the 1968 election as well or better than I do, since, being already of draft age (I was still twenty-one months out) you had, as they now say, "skin in the game."
cordially,
|
Post #362,420
9/10/12 10:15:05 AM
9/10/12 10:15:23 AM
|
Um, "not second-guess your ethical stance"?
No one would question the ethics of voting for a person for the Office of President who has, "The blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis ... directly on the narcissistic bastard's hands."?
http://iwt.mikevital...6207?postid=65032
I'm glad to know that, at least, you consider my vote for that person in 2008 an ethical choice - notwithstanding all the blood.
Edited by mmoffitt
Sept. 10, 2012, 10:15:23 AM EDT
|
Post #362,430
9/10/12 1:26:23 PM
|
I was talking about *his* ethical stance
Of course I'm always gonna question your ethical stance, you atheistic commie.
cordially,
|
Post #362,433
9/10/12 2:38:36 PM
|
:0)
|
Post #362,493
9/12/12 12:36:52 AM
|
further to nader
|
Post #362,499
9/12/12 8:33:20 AM
|
He makes a very strong case. Thanks.
|
Post #362,503
9/12/12 10:29:42 AM
|
I thought it was a load of crap.
Especially the closing. But then I found this comment and felt much better.
Sorry Scott, Gore was way to the right in 2000. He repudiated the partyÂs commitment to national health care and ran as a war hawk, including on Iraq. He chose the right wing Joe Lieberman as his veep candidate.
Nobody is ever entitled to the vote of their base. You can certainly argue that it was worse for the country for the left to turn to Nader, but they didnÂt owe Gore anything. Gore had every chance to repudiate his conservativism, choose a leftist veep candidate, endorse single payer and oppose militarism, and get the left to vote for him. He didnÂt want to earn their votes.
BTW, I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. I voted for Ralph in 2008 and it didn't count. So, you can't blame me for anything - even if your logic is as tortured as that exhibited in the article/rant at your link.
|
Post #362,505
9/12/12 2:09:17 PM
|
Ralph in 2008 was harmless, so good for you
And frankly, mmoffitt, I take the strongest exception to your characterization of my logic as "tortured." Even were my thought processes faulty in this instance—which I do not for a moment concede—the proper term would be "enhanced logic." Do have a care.
cordially,
|
Post #362,510
9/12/12 4:32:03 PM
|
Noted. But, ...
in this instance I was referring to Scott Lemieux's brand of logic being tortured. No offense intended toward yours.
|
