Wasn't there a case in the past few months where some rich shit was convicted of tons of pedophilia, and they chose not to send him to prison because of his poor sensibilities and how traumatic he'd find it? I think he was the shithead son of some rich guy, IIRC.
There was the Affluenza defense for the teenager accused of killing four people in a DUI accident.
Ar we seeing an incipient FPP stompage war here?
The Posts of August.
Related to 2, I am enjoying the conflict between the CIA and its former lapdog who is now angry, Dianne Feinstein. I am afraid that I don't believe anyone with power is too concerned over how bad the torture was. But snooping on senate staffers' efforts to work out who ordered it, that snooping really pisses people off.
Where things stand now: there's a report written by the Senate using classified data. The CIA has redacted the report such that no blame sticks to them in the redacted version. The Senate (that is, Feinstein), is pissed, and is asking the administration to review/revise the redactions.
1: Most famously happened to Ernest Saunders here. He was found guilty of a huge fraud, was sent to jail, but had his sentence reduced after a diagnosis of Alzheimer's, which he miraculously and uniquely recovered from.
The intelligence apparatus is very impressively discrediting itself. Bad faith, all the way down.
I have found myself wondering, though, if Brennan has the original Kenyan birth certificate in his possession.
Related to 2, I am enjoying the conflict between the CIA and its former lapdog who is now angry, Dianne Feinstein. I am afraid that I don't believe anyone with power is too concerned over how bad the torture was. But snooping on senate staffers' efforts to work out who ordered it, that snooping really pisses people off.
I'm enjoying it in a Feinstein schadenfreude sense, but it's overwhelmed by disgust at the fact that Brennan isn't being put up on charges.
The intelligence apparatus is very impressively discrediting itself because I guess it figured it had been like forty years since it really went for it and it was clearly time to cut loose.
1, that was the Du Pont heir Robert Richards.
For more on crazy Du Pont heirs, see the upcoming movie "Foxcatcher" starring Steve Carell. Although it seems like it's been upcoming for years and years, so maybe it came out already.
overwhelmed by disgust at the fact that Brennan isn't being put up on charges.
Or at the very least, being, you know, fired.
Well, yeah, that goes without saying. But firing isn't nearly enough. The entire torture squad need to be behind bars.
9.1: Thanks. I was blanking on the name as well.
11. They're being rewarded. John Yoo holds an endowed chair at Berkeley, appointed after everything he wrote had come out.
re: 11
Blair, too. That might have to wait until someone produces the smoking financial gun, though.
But firing isn't nearly enough.
Of course its not, but firing the guy is relativly easy for Obama to do, and he's not doing it. Which makes him complicit.
Meanwhile, Van Jones signed a lefty petition, and he got fired in a heartbeat.
Brennan needed to go long before the discovery that the CIA was spying on congress. I'm pissed at Obama for not just pulling the trigger on him.
The charges of spying on congress are serious enough that they warrant a special prosecutor. Heads need to roll, people need to go to jail.
Brennan definitely needed to go a long time ago and now more than ever.
17.2 Agreed, but the GOP is full of useless idiots who can't even see a golden opportunity when it presents itself. I guess there's no Benghazi angle that can be exploited, not that having to just make shit up has ever stopped them before.
And it's a damn shame that wanting the same treatment for ordering and carrying out torture places me with the rainbow farting pony unicorn wishers.
Am I right that this isn't even being treated as a big scandal by the MSM?
18.2 -- They're getting the same treatment.
19 -- I's not a scandal unless John McCain says it's a scandal.
The trouble is that the Republicans are actually proud of the CIA torture, so they aren't going to go after the guy who was lying to Congress to protect the people who did it.
21 gets it right. The scandal with torture isn't just that it was done, but that it was done with widespread popular (and press) support.
22: That's one way of looking at it.
The other way is that if it has widespread support, then it's not a scandal.
||
I'm delighted to hear that Walgreen's has decided not to go for corporate inversion by moving its tax status out of the country.
I have no idea whether signing petitions about such matters really sways corporations in such matters, but that's one that I did sign, so I'll congratulate the public in general for putting up a fuss.
|>
Such matter, such matters. Eh, you get the idea. Woo!
The scandal with torture isn't just that it was done, but that it was done with widespread popular (and press) support.
So why so much lying ?
People prefer a government that tortures but don't want to admit it.
|| The details of this local shooting seemed unfoggedworthy. |>
26: I think 27 mostly gets it right. People want to think they are the good guys and admitting to outright torture makes the mushy middle uncomfortable.
But ajay, pockets ruin the lines on women's clothes! That said, I've never seen the appeal of keeping anything in my bra other than what has to be there, though I know plenty who use it for cell phones and smokeables and who knows what else but I hope not guns.
DAMNIT! I don't even carry closing tags in my bra, apparently.
Meanwhile, the good news on obamacare just keeps coming:
If you get insurance through one of the Affordable Care Act's new marketplaces, you'll have the opportunity to "auto-renew" when it comes time to pick a policy for 2015. If your income hasn't changed, if you want to keep the same insurance policy you have now, and if that policy is still available, you'll be able to do so without going back through the full enrollment process.... But there's a catch, as Sam Baker explained in a great article for National Journal on Tuesday. To simplify a bit, some people who opt for auto-renewal will discover, months later, that their effective insurance premiums (once they factor in the government's tax credits) are different than they had expected. Some will actually be getting refunds, while others will owe extra money. It's not clear exactly how many people will end up in each category. Probably the numbers will be small. But nobody seems to know for sure and at least some people could really struggle with unexpectedly high bills.
"The pair, who are from Carnegie, were arguing when the man reached for the woman's cell phone, which was in her bra ... the woman's gun was also hidden in her bra and the man accidentally hit it, setting off a round that struck the woman in the arm... police intend to charge the man, Christopher Wood, 35, with aggravated assault..."
The fuck? Are there some important details left out of the story... or why the hell is this aggravated assault?
People from Carnegie show up on the North Side arguing with concealed weapons... I assume there was a Kenny Chesney concert going on.
34: and here I thought you were going to link to the stuff about how it's provided millions of people with health insurance.
35. last He wasn't really reaching for her cell phone?
One important detail they've left out is her bra size. .25 ACP or .454 Casull?
||
So, getting an agent has not panned out, so we showed our contract to a lawyer, who basically said "Wow that's a shitty contract!" (Not too surprising.)
Next the lawyer said "Email the editor with the following informal queries, just to suss them out." I was hoping the lawyer would directly contact the editor, so that I didn't have to worry about using precise language incorrectly.
My mom's take is that he's a lawyer, not an agent, and so we'll have to be the go-between. My take is that's weird - the difference between a lawyer and an agent in this context is that we're paying him for his time - and lawyers contact third parties on behalf of their clients all the time.
Why is this lawyer asking me to do all the going-back-and-forth? I'm mostly just curious. I wrote down a bunch of exact phrasing, so I think I can make it work.
|>
32: well, quite. I mean, they're fairly close-fitting, right? It seems about as comfortable as, say, keeping your phone in your sock.
why the hell is this aggravated assault?
At a guess, it's assault because he tried to grab her phone out of her bra without her permission.
40: A lot of time it means using the elasticized strap to keep things close to the body, so a phone would be either mostly in the top of the cup or else actually hooked to the elastic somehow. I know someone who keeps her credit card there, which seems massively unsafe, but I'm guessing a concealed weapon would have to be in the cleavage area to actually be concealed. And certainly a person could keep a lot of stuff in that space given sufficient breast size (and things like eating popcorn in a low-cut shirt make a certain amount of that inevitable) but I still don't see the appeal.
I know someone who keeps her credit card there, which seems massively unsafe,
Jogging without pockets, I'll tuck the magnetic card key to our building in a sports bra, and it's stable -- lies flat and doesn't move around much. If I were in a situation where I was pocketless and bagless, and needed to hold onto a credit card, that seems like the most practical thing to do with it. (Admittedly, when not jogging, it's more practical to have either pockets or a bag.)
"Not guilty your honor, I had no idea she was strapped." *
*I apologize to you all, but someone had to do it.
Why is it impractical to have pockets while jogging? I don't jog often, but when I do, I always jog with pockets.
Most (all?) of my jogging shorts don't have pockets. While I should defy the patriarchy and find shorts with pockets, in practice I shop off clearance racks and take what I find, which for most women's exercise clothes is pocketless.
Because stuff bounces up and down in them.
My jogging shorts have an inner support to stop that.
I don't think I've ever seen a pair of shorts with no pocket. I have special jogging-type shorts that only have a single, small pocket, but they all have at least one.
I bet you could pretty easily sew pockets onto your shorts, if they really don't have any.
Almost none of my exercise shorts have pockets. I think one pair of men's mesh shorts do.
The pockets may be hidden. Most of mine have a pocket for a key, but it's always tucked inside the band in a way that's easy to miss. Not that the pockets can hold anything bigger than a single old-school metal key, but they're there.