Skip to main content

After examining the Grand Jury testimony, reading many DK (and other) blog posts, watching the TV news coverage, listening to the audio of the shots, looking at pictures of the scene with relevant facts indicated, I have come to conclude there was one major issue with Wilson's account that I have yet to hear anyone else mention (and so the reason for this post).  Before I get to that, I'll mention a DK post I read last night, which made the argument that Brown could not have been charging Wilson when the final round of shots occurred.  Briefly, the argument is that due to the distances known, Brown only could have been advancing toward Wilson before the "kill shot" at about two miles per hour, which is clearly not something that can be interpreted as "charging forward."  This is the link to that post:

An examination of the evidence below:

Continue Reading

There are a number of issues one can write about in the Eric Garner non-case, but one that I hope gets a bit more attention than in the Michael Brown non-case is that Grand Juries are now being used in a way that deprives family members (and others who care) of not only a sense of justice, but a sense that justice has been attempted.  If what we saw in Ferguson and Staten Island is to be viewed as "justice," then everyone who killed another person under suspicious circumstances should be given the exact same treatment.  Instead, we are seeing something we might as well make up a classification for, my tentative idea being "Special Police Non-Justice."

Much more below...

Continue Reading

I've now heard this one too many times to think there is not something behind this, perhaps a right wing radio show with which I'm not familiar.  A new one, "he was no angel," seems to be just out of the deranged womb that spawned "black on black."  Even on the "Dr. Drew" show, which I just turned on for a moment out of curiosity during a commercial break, what did I see?  An apparently "white" woman making this claim.  But the problem is, what is the claim?  I have yet to hear anyone explain what their point is.  Don't statistics tell us that whatever your "race"/ethnicity, you are likely to be murdered by one of your own?  And aren't you more likely to be killed by someone you know rather than a stranger?  If I think a relative of mine is a psychopath, should I strike preemptively?

Much more below.

Continue Reading

Yes, I'm a man and I'm going to talk about "womens' libidos."  I am not someone who likes to claim that there is a Republican "war on women" because I feel that it will simply "take care of itself" at the polls.  However, his latest statement demonstrates a great deal of what is wrong with such people, and so I'd like to address the more general issues involved.  However, my impression so far can be summed up with this analogy: one gang (the Republicans) keep goading another gang (the Democrats) into a fight.  The first gang brings guns, while the second brings knives.  However, the first gang complains when the second decides to fight back at some point!  Of course, much of this may be due to how Mike and/or the people who run his show think they can generate enough ratings to justify their existence on FoxNews, but I don't think anyone would doubt that there are many people who really believe these things.

Much more - read on...

Continue Reading

While watching the last Rachel Maddow show, and in particular her discussion about being contacted by the Koch brothers (or a representative of theirs), who apparently demanded that she read a script that they had prepared (as if she was a "bad" child who needed to be punished), I was reminded of a man who called himself a libertarian (on Bill Maher's "Real Time" HBO show).  The reason is that Rachel mentioned that one of the Koch brothers had run as Vice Presidential candidate on a libertarian ticket at some point.  The man on Bill Maher's show was adamantly against labeling food so that people would know if there were GM ingredients.  What do the two have in common?  Read on...

Continue Reading

I haven't been following the "debate" carefully because I've been busy with other things and already have insurance that I'm keeping.  However, one thing that stood out to me in my limited research is that right wingers are claiming that people with so-called catastrophic plans are being notified that they are losing their policies.  However, I have seen such plans and read (here at DK) about new plans with payments as low as $53 a month, so I'm guessing that these plans are difficult to find only in some areas of the country (probably "red" states with uncooperative Repub governors), right?

Continue Reading

Some have pointed out that one can believe that something is "God's will" but it's quite another thing to impose that view on others. In the recent case of Richard Mourdock's statement about pregnancies due to rape, there seems to be little doubt that this person could envision sending a SWAT team into a doctor's office to arrest a woman who is trying to have a rapist's fetus aborted.  I wish Democratic candidates running against such individuals would point this out, preferably during debates with them, but there is another sinister aspect to this way of thinking.

Continue Reading

This is what I wanted to hear Obama or Biden point out.  For me, it encapsulates the other issues, and the statistics are clear.  However, probably the most important thing (in terms of winning an election if nothing else) is how much emotional resonance it would have with a strong majority of voting Americans.

There is no need to mention Operation Wall Street or anything else that Democrats think might scare off the independent/swing voters.  It's a slogan that reflects but simplifies today's reality, with Romney being one of the major beneficiaries of the trickle up effect.  It might have Frank Luntz wearing diapers because what he might feel like he needs to do every time he hears it, which is reason enough for me (joking, obviously).

Continue Reading

Why isn't Romney saying this?  I just don't understand how he expects to get elected, especially after his choice of Ryan as running mate.  Instead, we've heard Obama say (on multiple occasions) that well-to-do people like himself don't need a massive tax cut.  I'll "cut to the chase:"  if you want to "reform" medicare and social security without losing the election badly, why not say that rich people do not need these programs, so the way to reform them is to have wealthy people continue to pay into them yet not receive any benefits unless they become destitute in a documentable way (in other words, not a scam)?  I can understand a rich person saying that social security should be just that, and that those who can clearly afford to obtain private medical coverage and pay their bills don't need it, or social security.  The way things stand, he seems to hope that he can treat the entire nation the way he did many of the employees of some of companies Bain took over (remember what he said about letting foreclosures continue so that rich people can buy the houses and rent them out; nobody in the media, to my knowledge, ever asked him who was going to be able to afford the kind of rent people like Romney would want to charge them!).

Continue Reading

After hearing some of the usual right wing nonsense, I'd love to see Obama call a press conference and say something like:

"I want to make it clear that I have no ill feelings towards the Mormon faith, and in fact I hold it in very high regard.  Mormons have been loyal and upstanding citizens of our great nation for generations.  One of the few things about Mr. Romney I have respect for is his Mormon faith.  And he holds a high position in that church's hierarachy, which is something I would proudly proclaim if I were him.  Anyone who thinks that Mr. Romney's Mormonism is a reason to vote against him might want to read the U.S. Constitution and ask themselves if they can do better than our Founding Fathers, some of whom were Deists.  I have a great deal of respect for all of them, even though they didn't all share my Christian faith.  We all should show the same respect for Mr. Romney's Mormonism."

In this way, Obama will make it clear that he will keep saying this kind of thing whenever right wingers bring up a religious issue, and I have no doubt this is the last thing they want Obama to say in this context.


I'd like someone to correct me if I am wrong here, and explain to me exactly what the correct interpretation is.  In order to compare "ObamaCare" to compelling people to eat broccoli, logically, one would have to use such an example as compelling a gay man (let's say who is married to another man) to buy insurance that is solely for the purpose of paying for expenses incurred due to a pregnancy.  Otherwise, all those of sound mind know that they need to eat some kind of food, but not necessarily broccoli.

Continue Reading

I was watching Book TV over the weekend and came across the sight of a man (in a nice suit) saying something pejorative about OWS.  I would have kept listening, at least for a short while (to see if he was going to put forth something resembling a reasonable argument) when he said something about the "hygiene" of the protesters.  At that point, I just turned him off, literally (and in every other way).

Continue Reading
You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site