1) Smoke filled room with Bobby Casey posters in the background. Casey defeated Santorum in 2006. (@ 0:12).
2) "gas prices through the roof" at $2.40 a gallon. The pump shows $90.89 for 37.8 gallons. That's lower than Gingrich's promise of $2.50/gallon. (@ 0:27)
3) The TERMINATION NOTICE which reads (2nd para)
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ...
What is particularly problematic about the 2005 Florida Stand Your Ground law (and its counterparts nationwide) is that it upends decades of legal developments specifically designed to strike a balance between the right to self-defense and the prevention of vigilante justice. As former prosecutor Gregory O’Meara notes, the statutes and common law governing the self-defense doctrine in most states require the person claiming the defense to prove that he reasonably thought that he (or a third party) was unlawfully under imminent deadly attack, that the deadly force taken in response to this attack was necessary to stop the attack, that the defender acted solely with the intent to thwart the unlawful attack, and, in many jurisdictions, that it was unsafe for the defender to have withdrawn from the confrontation before using deadly force. This defense applies “even if the defender is completely wrong about the situation but his mistake is reasonable about either the imminence of the deadly attack or the necessity of his forceful response.” Finally, the question of reasonableness is usually one for a jury, ensuring that the community is (at least nominally) given the opportunity to determine whether an individual was justified in his use of deadly force. Taken as a whole, the defense is aimed at preventing the use of gunfire as conflict resolution and to ensure some legal accountability for people whose objectively unreasonable beliefs prompt them to kill first and ask questions later.
But this is no longer the case for many of our states, including Florida, which expanded their gun laws in such a way that allows people to shoot without having to prove that they were actually in danger. As Professor Winkler notes, [the law's sponsor's] explanation that the law does not apply to people who seek out or escalate a confrontation rings hollow because according to the law’s plain language, “[s]o long as someone reasonably thinks he or someone else is in danger, he can shoot to kill, regardless of whether the shooter is the one who initiated the hostile confrontation.” The law also does away with the duty to retreat and, unlike laws in other jurisdictions, does not require that the person have actually witnessed someone committing a felony before shooting at them. Perhaps most egregious, a separate provision of the Florida law removes the question of reasonableness from the jury altogether: such an individual is (almost always) completely immune from civil or criminal liability, and cannot even be arrested unless the police find probable cause that the person used unlawful force. Rather than protecting the rights of homeowners, according to Florida law enforcement officials, the law has resulted in chaos: a nearly threefold increase in justifiable homicides and acquittals in cases of road rage and gang violence.
The death of Trayvon Martin reemphasizes that sweeping stand-your-ground laws, like the one in Florida, provide an unwarranted opportunity for individualhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifs to claim self-defense under manifestly unreasonable circumstances. Pimped by pro-gun lobbyists, these laws are by and large a part of the gun rights movement’s push to allow people to carry firearms essentially anywhere. The laws blur the line between victim and aggressor, encourage a culture of vigilantism, and are ambiguous to the point of absurdity. In Florida, even if you initiate or escalate a confrontation, you can kill anytime, anywhere, and without a thought of retreat so long as you “reasonably” believe your life is being threatened (say, by an unarmed teenager carrying Skittles and iced tea); virtually everyone is now at the mercy of the “reasonable beliefs” of anyone with a weapon and an attitude.
Never knew of constructionlitmag.com until today. It looks promising (and is well written).
It's those crime scene surveillance tapes. Every time you see someone sticking up a 7-11, the kid is wearing a hoodie. Every time you see a mugging on a surveillance camera or they get the old lady in the alcove, it's a kid wearing a hoodie. You have to recognize that this whole stylizing yourself as a gangsta, you're gonna be a gangsta wannabe? Well, people are going to perceive you as a menace. ...
When you see a black or Latino youngster, particularly on the street, you walk to the other side of the street. You try to avoid that confrontation. Trayvon Martin's you know, god bless him, he's an innocent kid, a wonderful kid, a box of Skittles in his hand. He didn't deserve to die. But I'll bet you money, if he didn't have that hoodie on, that -- that nutty neighborhood watch guy wouldn't have responded in that violent and aggressive way.
Second, the inevitable tweets: (various feeds)
#Geraldovshoodies A guy in a hoodie stole the crucial artifacts from Capone's vault before Geraldo opened it.
#Geraldovshoodies That white supremacist who whacked Geraldo with a chair? Yep, wore a hoodie.
Yes, I shot Geraldo, but that mustache... I thought he was going to tie me to the railroad tracks.
If you see a hoodie, why even call the cops? It's your ground. Stand it.
I'm proposing a five day waiting period on hoodie purchases, as well.
And a ban on "assault hoodies."
Are we tracking online hoodie purchases?
Can't. Record of purchase has to be destroyed within 24 hours.
End the Hoodie Show Loophole
I think wearing tri-cornered hats in the 21st century is kind of suspicious.
In the case of Martin we have--as long as there are no immediate witnesses--presumably the right to bait a fight, kill the "assailant," and then escape on self-defense. ...
What we have in Florida--and doubtlessly in other parts of the country--is the state relinquishing a crucial aspect of meting out justice. The logic here militates toward getting a gun--even for people who don't like guns. The logic incentivizes an armed citizenry where the beneficiary of justice is simply the last man standing. Your side of the story is irrelevant if you are dead.
Santorum could have gotten the Republican nomination ...
If he'd been disciplined and had a functioning campaign staff. Santorum might have succeeded if he'd stayed on message with Family and Jobs. Instead, he can't help himself and has to say how bad JFK was and how battling pornography would be a priority as president. He couldn't keep a lid on the social issues. But everyone know he's a social conservative! What he should have done was reach out to the social-issues-indifferent but jobs-and-economy-sensitive demographic. He's hardly done that.
Santorum didn't qualify on the Virginia ballot and has failed to fill out the delegate slates in state districts which shows how inept the staff work has been. The campaign has also been terrible at failing to show how Romney has deviated significantly, and not too long ago, from long-held conservative positions. It's as if there is no opposition research being done at Santorum headquarters.
Former Republican campaign official Matthew Dowd said a month ago that he'd love to manage the campaign for a competent Republican populist. Probably for the unique opportunity to beat the establishment in a time of populist fervor - which are historically rare. But the key word is "competent". All the non-Romney's have been incompetent in varying ways. Santorum is perhaps the least incompetent, but that's a far cry from being competent.
As much as a tight Romney/Santorum contest would have been entertaining and beneficial to Democrats, it looks as if Santorum just can't rise to the level of competence to do what it takes to defeat Romney.
"I don’t think Rush Limbaugh should be stifled. I don’t agree with him, but he has every right to his opinion no matter how (expletive) that opinion is. And I think it’s a terrible trend that when anybody in this country says anything that you don’t like, you try to get rid of him. You know what, you don’t like Rush Limbaugh, then don’t listen to him.
"He’s been on 25 years, you know what this guy’s all about. He gave an apology. That’s it. It should be over. It bothers me the way that liberals cannot let this go."
Limbaugh did not give an apology. He was defiant and did not apologize for the many disparaging and false remarks about Sandra Fluke. If Maher doesn't grasp that, he's an idiot. If he does know the so-called apology was bogus, then he's a liar.
Maher is a coward with no integrity. Setting the Limbaugh issue aside, on his last two shows he ran videos made by Alexandra Pelosi, and both were crap. The first one presented a wildly unrepresentative portrait of Mississippians - rednecks, no teeth, living in squalor - as a way of making that southern state and Republicans look foolish. The second video was of New York "Welfare Queens" (Pelosi's terminology - inherited from Ronald Reagan), and it was also unrepresentative. It was mostly black guys outside a welfare office saying that they want their food stamps or government check. Those people were off-putting, to be sure, but that's not how you argue for or against a policy. You can damn any policy by finding offensive people within the system. And while those in New York appeared to be abusing the program from what they said on camera, the reality might be strikingly different. They might have been talking macho for appearances sake. I don’t see how it was any different from the James O’Keefe videos.
After the Pelosi New York Video was aired, Maher was strutting about how great and objective he is by showing offensive portraits of rednecks and blacks on relief. Was it journalism? Pelosi herself said she was showing "stereotypes", making it come off as nothing more than an opportunity for comfortable people (Maher and his HBO audience) to look way down their noses at those less fortunate. That's ugly. Then he made sure to tell his audience that he and Alexandra were "not racists". Thanks, Bill. I guess self-proclaimed non-racism means it's got to be true.
As to Pelosi's technique. Maybe next time she should go to the county mental health center and interview crazypeople to see if they can make a compelling case for them getting treatment and support. They can't do it? Oh, too bad. But they are losers, don't you know.
As to the cowardice. Those two videos that Maher had on his show - videos where people of limited ability fail to make their case and therefore invalidate whatever program or positions they are associated with - that's what Maher did in his movie Religulous.
I'm an atheist, but when I see Maher "debating" the existence of god with a passel of simple-minded people, that's not demonstrating integrity. It's an opportunity to ridicule those he doesn't agree with. Maher gets cheap wins but avoids the hard work of challenging top-flight theologians.
Then there's his whole vaccination-skepticism which makes you wonder how his mind works.
Maher is smug, snide, and not very smart. He's the kind of "progressive" we don't want on our side.
Ugh. The cringe-worthy backslapping Maher indulges in at the end there is sickening. It's so brave of a multi-millionaire heir to mock poor people who vote for her mother's party. This is why Democrats have been losing the votes of working people since 1966, because they pander to wealthy idiots who want to deny "welfare queens" their tax money and heap disdain on anyone accepting public assistance. How is someone who genuinely needs food stamps, that's millions and millions of people today, supposed to feel when Alexandra Pelosi uses these limited stereotypes to characterize $70 billion worth of public aid recipients?
Over at thegraph.com, Brooks Bayne has uncovered Fluke's connection to Jews, Marxism, Obama's bank bailout, Jews, Jewish immigrants, anti-Americanism, Jewish foundations, the AFL-CIO, Manhattan (where lots of Jews live), and the dreaded "social justice".
All from simply dating a guy!
Here is a diagram showing the nefarious connections as outlined in the expose:
Probably the most interesting "connection" is Sandra's boyfriend's grandfather (or great-uncle) ran manufacturing in New Bedford, which was where Samuel Gompers was once active and who founded the AFL-CIO, a Marxist outfit.
Oh, and her boyfriend's father sports a red hat - and we all know what that means!
This is a classic example of conservatives poking into the personal lives of opponents. Very much like when Michelle Malkin snooped on the Frost family.
UPDATE2: All of the so called outrages (Marxist, anti-American, Obama bank bailout, socialist, Zionist) apply to people other than any of the Mutterperls. It's like, why bother with the family? Just write a post complaining about the villainous Brandeis, Gompers, and Volker.
With yet another setback, Romney increases his delegate lead over opponents:
That's been the story for weeks.
He will be in trouble if Santorum gets to be the non-Romney. Also, don't be surprised to see Republican poo-bahs warming up to Santorum. He has improved significantly as a campaigner and as a result, the elite/establishment opinion might think he wouldn't be a complete disaster as the nominee - a position they currently hold. Or contrarywise, they might see Romney has demonstrated how weak he is by barely beating, or losing to, Santorum despite spending ten times as much.
Ninety-eight major advertisers—including Ford and Geico—will no longer air spots on Premiere Networks’ ‘offensive’ programs. Insiders say the loss will rock right-wing talk radio.
Premiere Networks, which distributes Limbaugh as well as a host of other right-wing talkers, sent an email out to its affiliates early Friday listing 98 large corporations that have requested their ads appear only on “programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).”
"I descended to [the left's] level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke," Limbaugh said. "I've always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words."
So, the rest of the stuff holds. In addition, Limbaugh had more negative things to say about Fluke, which appear to be completely unsubstantiated (e.g. Fluke is a "30-year old activist after years of a career championing birth control issues")
I have never seen a sustained attack on a private citizen by a powerful figure like this. I've read about Joe McCarthy and how he used the hearings to harass a lot of small fry, That's the closest I can find to what we are witnessing today.
Bravely bold Sir Romney rode forth from his mansion. He was not afraid to speak, O brave Sir Romney! He was not at all afraid to challenge Sir Limbaugh, Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Romney!
When Limbaugh called a girl a slut, He bravely kept his brave mouth shut, Yes, brave Sir Romney said nothing, For three brave days he said nothing. Bravest of the brave, Sir Romney!
Red Cross will put you up in a hotel for a couple days but it's going to take several months to get your house rebuilt and Red Cross is only there in the immediate aftermath emergency situation. So, that is where Fema comes in, if you have insurance, Fema will pay some of what the insurance would have paid up front and then when your insurance settlement comes in you can pay it back if insurance actually covers it. That way you can get workers going immediately instead of waiting for a claim to process. A lot of insurance companies won't even give you the go ahead to start work until a full investigation is done. Unless you have it written into your policy, they wont cover long term displacement either.
You know those FEMA trailers in the news? That is for you to live in while they are fixing your house, at no cost. If Federal Aid is requested, they can get those trailers set up within a week. In Iowa they had them set up before the water receded from the flood (3 days).
They also set up centers where if you need food or emergency SBA loans they set up a big tent where everyone is in one spot. FEMA may get a bad rap, but if you have ever been in a situation where you needed them, they are a major blessing.
This is what will be denied the citizens of Ohio.
This is the Tea Party philosophy at work.
It's also terrible optics. For the last week the news has lead with stories about tornadoes destroying towns. About 80% of Moscow, Ohio, was destroyed or damaged. It's hard to see what Kasich is trying to accomplish here. Stiff-arm Obama in some way (since saying no the the feds is kind of a way of saying no to the president).
From his show one year ago, about the protests in Wisconsin:
It's just a bunch of rabble-rousers and so forth, plus union thugs join together in creating a pigsty -- and we know that they create pigsties, especially compared to Tea Party rallies. You look at any public grounds where these people have been: The trash is littered everywhere, trash cans are overturned, beer cans, bong pipes. Hell, it's all over there. The Tea Party people, you don't find anything. Not even a discarded tissue. Hell, these leftist protesters, leave Kotex! Used Kotex, everything is littering the sidewalks and the streets. It doesn't matter. It's the height of pigsty-ism.
All women are unclean*, filthy, disgusting, etc.
*Those first 4 words were once used by Jay Leno in a very short segment about a serial killer who keeps writing that line in a notebook kept by the side of the bed.
What do right wingers do when a disruptive and deceitful political operator on their side passes away? Focus on the personal. Which is what they did in this instance.
This approach has been done for centuries. An Italian Renaissance tyrant who has killed and tortured will be celebrated for his good manners, taste in clothing (and food), warm personal style, loyal family and followers. Stuff like that. Or concentrate on the man's energy, enthusiasm, and zeal. Perhaps the imprecise term "warrior" will be used. Bretbart is getting the same treatment.
For a measured assessment of Breitbart, here's David Frum:
... to speak only “good” of Andrew Breitbart would be to miss the story and indeed to misunderstand the man.
The good was there. Breitbart was by all accounts generous with time and advice, a loving husband and father, and a loyal friend. ...
It’s difficult for me to assess Breitbart’s impact upon American media and American politics as anything other than poisonous. When one of the leading media figures of the day achieves his success by his giddy disdain for truth and fairness—when one of our leading political figures offers to his admirers a politics inflamed by rage and devoid of ideas—how to withhold a profoundly negative judgment on his life and career?
Especially when that career was so representative of his times?
We live in a time of political and media demagoguery unparalleled since the 19th century. Many of our most important public figures have gained their influence and power by inciting and exploiting the ugliest of passions—by manipulating fears and prejudices—by serving up falsehoods as reported truth. In time these figures will one by one die. What are we to say of this cohort, this group, this generation? That their mothers loved them? That their families are bereaved? That their fans admired them and their employees treated generously by them? Public figures are inescapably judged by their public actions. When those public actions are poisonous, the obituary cannot be pleasant reading.
Frum softens it a bit at the end by grouping Breitbart with others (Drudge? Limbaugh?), but the basic point is made.
Breitbart destroyed many lives with his deception. He kicked people when they were down (or dead as in Ted Kennedy's case). Those are the hard facts that cannot be ignored.
