Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
The Kitchen Sink / Re: The wedding
« Last post by Surly1 on Today at 05:22:22 PM »

Glad to hear it, but is there some message in with the woman clutching her pearls? Is she supposed to represent inter generational like the Waltons or perhaps the completely ignorant and unqualified, undesirable and undeserving Trumpista Zionistica Spawn KushnerIvanska?

It was intended as a comment on those who might be shocked at the term "Satanist," but it can serve multiple purposes, as you note.
The Diner Pantry / 🥥 Doomstead Diner Sunday Supper Special: 5/20/2018
« Last post by RE on Today at 04:32:04 PM »
To go with the Alliteration theme, I have decided to rename the Sunday second meal of the Day the "Sunday Supper", so now in addition to the Sunday Smorgasbord Special we have the "Sunday Supper Special".  I have never been precisely sure of the difference between "Supper" and "Dinner"? ??? At any rate, here at the Diner on Sundays we only do Specials for 2 meals a day,  The Buffet/Smorgasbord for Breakfast/Lunch "Brunch" and the Supper which is a sort of a  combination Lunch/Dinner or Dinner/Midnight Munchy depending what time you eat it.  Mon-Sat we serve 3 Specials a Day, Breakfast, Lunch & Dinner except when the Chief Cook & Bottlewasher is Napping or otherwise unavailable.  For today's Sunday Supper, we are going to head for a Tropical Paradise on the Diner Sailboat and make good use of the marvelous fruit of the Coconut🥥 Tree.


Spicy Coconut🥥 Chicken Soup

Coconut🥥 Shrimp with Spicy Orange Sauce

That is all very adult and responsible, but this week's slaughter wasn't.  It is NOT rare, it was the 22nd mass school shooting this year, and it was at a school with 2 armed guards on duty and teachers approved to carry.  One police spokesman was saying that "There are too many entrances to our schools to guard them all", which is covering his own backside, but he didn't say what would work.

The only thing this tool is good for is killing big animals, like horses, pigs and some dogs, which is not something most people would ever have to do.  And yet you thought it would be appropriate to tell us about your gun collection and your planned purchases.  The reasons didn't seem to be Collapse related, although have said in the past you would shoot to protect your family from hungry zombies (and hungry neighbours?).  It seemed to be about a fascination with guns in general. 

Do you keep them all in a locked gun safe or are you setting yourself up for some crazy to steal them and use them on you?  Do the police know you have a gun safe, and can they call in unannounced and check them out.  The family of the latest shooter said they were shocked their 17 year old went crazy and shot 10 at his school.

The solution is going to have to be more serious, like changing the Constitution to remove the right to 'revolt by gunfire', which is no longer tenable.
Your inability to understand that guns are sometimes useful to ethical, law abiding people is not uncommon. Neither is your disdain or your outrage. Too bad people get so emotionally involved in everything. The water is muddy enough.

But suffice it to say...... in the coming years, I can foresee a time when guns might be extremely valuable for all the many good reasons for which they were invented in the first place.  Guns are powerful tools. They need to be in the hands of competent grown-ups. Since I am a competent grown-up, no one is in danger from me or my guns. That's a simple fact.

I really have exactly nothing to prove. Only a desire to get at the real of truth of things, and call out the constant lies and spin doctoring I see on all sides these days.

And I don't even expect to be successful at showing people the lies. People mostly WANT to believe lies. I am a low-expectations kind of guy.
I know here its less left right then it is rural urban. In my time here I have had rutting moose and deer, (by far the most dangerous) a coyote, what can only have been a wolf or maybe a coy wolf, 3 separate bears 2 with cubs, 2 fishers  and too many curious big dogs to count... Never had to shoot anything but I was very glad the option was available... I cannot imagine you coming up with rules to have kept the latest shooting from happening. A 38 and a shotgun is pretty ubiquitous even here. I think you could do a lot in mandatory storage requirement, criminal liability in case something happens and mandatory training. I feel for you.
Your inability to understand that guns are sometimes useful to ethical, law abiding people is not uncommon. Neither is your disdain or your outrage. Too bad people get so emotionally involved in everything. The water is muddy enough.

But suffice it to say...... in the coming years, I can foresee a time when guns might be extremely valuable for all the many good reasons for which they were invented in the first place.  Guns are powerful tools. They need to be in the hands of competent grown-ups. Since I am a competent grown-up, no one is in danger from me or my guns. That's a simple fact.

I really have exactly nothing to prove. Only a desire to get at the real of truth of things, and call out the constant lies and spin doctoring I see on all sides these days.

And I don't even expect to be successful at showing people the lies. People mostly WANT to believe lies. I am a low-expectations kind of guy.
I am not interested in owning a gun or in living in a place like Texas where every red neck owns one like an extension of his dick. Nor any similar state or country. Guns exist to hurt and maim and kill whether for trophies like those ugly Trump sons who kill endangered species or other maniacs who are deluding themselves that they need guns for self defense. I am safe. I live in a safe place where people behave in a civilized way. I live in a strong safe apartment house with strong locks and I know many neighbors who know how to deport themselves. So far I have not learned of much crime. I go out at night where there are many people young and old, I feel perfectly safe and happy. Friends do Not talk constantly about rape, murder, physical aggression. My women friends do not hate the opposite sex and consider themselves victims. Neither do I. Why do I need a gun? Why do you? What are you trying to prove? The United States is the sickest country on this planet and its clinging to violence and gun ownership is part of its lack of maturity along with its sickest of foreign policy. Just grow the fuck up!
Marathon Man Newz / Mass Shootings Don't Tell The Story Of Gun Violence
« Last post by Eddie on Today at 12:50:22 PM »
To me, mass shootings are horrible, tragic events. They should be preventable. We, as a people, should be doing what it takes to protect kids and teachers in schools and innocent people out in public places. But when it comes to gun violence, they are still a statistical outlier. If we magically eliminated every one of them, the gun violence problem would be just about the same size as it is now.

Getting rid of all guns IS a solution to mass shootings.  (Whether it could be accomplished is another story.) But it is A solution, and to many people it seems like the ONLY solution, or at least the go-to solution.

But it would also be A solution if we just outlawed congregating in public.

(Oh wait, that would violate our protections under the Constitution! Can't do that!)

Really, I don't think anyone (other than the cops) wants the latter solution. It just isn't acceptable as a policy. Well, the first solution isn't very palatable either, to a lot of people, including me. And that actually is also a violation of the Constitution.)

There are, I think, reasonable solutions that don't involve making gun ownership illegal for responsible law abiding people. Protection for the public without simply outlawing all guns. We need to meet in the middle and quit being guided by those who are on the extremes on both sides of this issue, in my opinion.

Mass Shootings Are A Bad Way To Understand Gun Violence

By Maggie Koerth-Baker

It’s impossible to say when the first mass shooting in America took place. Plant your shovel in the internet and you’ll find one event described that way, and then another. Deeper and deeper. Back and back. The 13 residents of Camden, New Jersey, killed by a neighbor in 1949. The eight Winfield, Kansas, concertgoers murdered when a man fired into a crowded intersection in 1903. The 60 to 150 African-Americans shot and hanged by a mob of white men in Colfax, Louisiana, in 1873.

There is something distinctly American about this way of death. Mass shootings1 happen in other countries, but they are far more common here. Between 1966 and 2012, there were 90 such incidents in the U.S. The next four countries with the most mass shootings had 54 combined. There is also something distinctly American about how we respond to these events, the way they become tangled up in the national debate about guns — this question of how to reduce deaths attributable to a weapon protected in the founding documents of our land. No other country has that particular challenge. So mass shootings become a symbol of gun violence in general. The deaths of dozens become a window into the death of one, and a separate one, and a different one over there.

This, of course, has already happened with the mass shooting on Sunday in Las Vegas that left at least 58 people dead and hundreds more injured.


And this is a problem. What we know about mass shootings suggests that they are different from the everyday deaths that happen at the end of a gun. The weapon is the same. So much else is different. And the distorted image we get by using one as a lens through which to view the other has consequences for our understanding of the problem and the policies that might address it.

Last year, we produced a series of stories on American gun deaths and the people behind the statistics. From that reporting, and other sources, we know mass shootings are different from other kinds of gun deaths in several ways.

First, they’re rare, and the people doing the shooting are different. The majority of gun deaths in America aren’t even homicides, let alone caused by mass shootings. Two-thirds of the more than 33,000 gun deaths that take place in the U.S. every year are suicides (click through the graphic below to see how gun deaths break down):

And while people who commit suicide and people who commit mass shootings both tend to be white and male, suicide victims tend to be older. The median age of a mass shooter, according to one report, is 34, with very few over 50. Suicide, however, plagues the elderly as much as it does the middle-aged.

Second, the people killed in mass shootings are different from the majority of homicides. Most gun murder victims are men between the ages of 15 and 34. Sixty-six percent are black. Women — of any race and any age — are far less likely to be murdered by a gun. Unless that gun is part of a mass shooting. There, 50 percent of the people who die are women. And at least 54 percent of mass shootings involve domestic or family violence — with the perpetrator shooting a current or former partner or a relative.

The historical trends for different kinds of gun deaths don’t all follow the same course. While data suggests that the number of mass shootings similar to the Las Vegas event has gone up, particularly since 2000,2 homicide rates have fallen significantly from their 1980 peak and continued on a generally downward trajectory for most of the 21st century. Meanwhile, suicides are way up, with the biggest increases among women. The trends are different because the situations are different and the people are different. Maybe different solutions are warranted, as well.

You could, theoretically, cut down on all these deaths with a blanket removal of guns from the U.S. entirely — something that is as politically unlikely as it is legally untenable. Barring that, though, policies aimed at reducing gun deaths will likely need to be targeted at the specific people who commit or are victimized by those incidents. And mass shootings just aren’t a good proxy for the diversity of gun violence. Policies that reduce the number of homicides among young black men — such as programs that build trust between community members, police and at-risk youth and offer people a way out of crime — probably won’t have the same effect on suicides among elderly white men. Background checks and laws aimed at preventing a young white man with a history of domestic violence from obtaining a gun and using it in a mass shooting might not prevent a similar shooting by an older white male with no criminal record.

If we focus on mass shootings as a means of understanding how to reduce the number of people killed by guns in this country, we’re likely to implement laws that don’t do what we want them to do — and miss opportunities to make changes that really work. Gun violence isn’t one problem, it’s many. And it probably won’t have a single solution, either.

Interactive by Ben Casselman, Matthew Conlen and Reuben Fischer-Baum.

Articles like the one above are invariably labeled as pro-gun propaganda and NRA/Gun Lobby writing by most gun control proponents. I don't think that's true. You need to look at this issue with plenty of perspective. If you don't, you miss too much. It isn't a simple problem and simplistic solutions are not the answer..
Marathon Man Newz / Re: There's Going to be a Quid Pro Quo
« Last post by Karpatok on Today at 12:04:34 PM »
In my view it makes no difference. After all, the corrupt whore Hillary Clinton whose crimes were too numerous to go over again was just as much a criminal in every respect as Trump, and she will continue to go Scott free because the justice department under Obama, namely Loretta Lynch and FBI Comey were corrupt as they could be. Nobody really cares. Everyone has their favorite thug suckers, and they all suck equally well as is known and tolerated. With Justice Department politicized and corrupt, with top echelon elite being beyond the reach of law because they all buy the law off in one way or another, it doesn't matter who comes after Trump either. Like I have been saying, Trump is only a symptom of the whole rot of the institutions of the former republic. We haven't kept care of it. We have fostered every man and woman for himself/herself. This is the end of this nation sinking lower and lower into the mire. Next step as you have implied is hands out for bread and after that starvation upon the earth.
Marathon Man Newz / Re: There's Going to be a Quid Pro Quo
« Last post by Eddie on Today at 11:07:50 AM »
Maybe Sessions more correctly belongs with the True Believers. I'm still thinking about that one.
Marathon Man Newz / There's Going to be a Quid Pro Quo
« Last post by Eddie on Today at 10:55:04 AM »
Here's another article discussing whether Mueller comes after Trump with hammer and tongs, or whether he doesn't.

I think that's already pretty obvious. He's already set the stage to let Trump slide by publicly acknowledging he doesn't have the authority to indict a sitting President. Impeachment would be necessary to nail Trump, and that, my fellow citizens, is highly unlikely.

What is not as clear is whether SOMEBODY (like for instance an NY AG), could indict an Ex-President over matters that were mostly incidental criminal activities that were stumbled across in the Russia probe. Think about that. It makes for a carrot and a stick.

The Kochs will be tickled pink to have Pence or any one of his several clones take Trump's place. They're already in a great mood, having largely dismantled all the stuff that kept them from mining the last bit of juice out of the planet's mantle, and eliminating all taxes for the really, really rich. Trump has served his purpose already.

The Washington establishment, both sides of the aisle, will breathe a collective sigh of relief to see The Donald back on Reaity TV, maybe on the Golf Channel.  There are two kinds of Trump supporters, the True Believers like Bannnon (and they already know Trump let them down on almost every promise he made), and those like Pompeo and Nunes and Sessions and Haley..the opportunists grabbing for their own brass ring. Neither really loves Trump enough to go down with the ship.

The only people who really want to see Trump get a second term are his base, who would love him if he got videotaped participating in an orgy in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Trump will be allowed to slip quietly into history, unless he tries to run again. In which case he will be prosecuted (eventually) for a whole raft of high low crimes and misdemeanors.

I think he'll take the carrot.

The Memo: Will Mueller play hardball with Trump?

BY NIALL STANAGE - 05/20/18 06:00 AM EDT 

Special counsel Robert Mueller wants to interview President Trump — but how far is he willing to go to get the president's testimony?

Some legal experts believe Mueller might have gathered sufficient evidence for indictments even without a Trump interview. They say Mueller could be reluctant to get bogged down in the months-long legal battle that would ensue were the president to resist a subpoena.

“Originally my thought was, ‘Without question, Mueller will subpoena him given how he has handled this case.’  I’m not so completely sure of that anymore. I think Mueller could say, ‘We’ve tried to accommodate them, we’re moving ahead,’ ” said Solomon Wisenberg, a Washington attorney who served as independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s deputy during investigations into former President Clinton.

Wisenberg still said a subpoena was more likely than not, however. And he noted that negotiations between the Mueller team and Trump’s lawyers could yet reach an agreement on the conditions for an interview.

Katy Harriger, a Wake Forest professor and the author of several books about special prosecutors and constitutional law, also raised the possibility that Mueller might already have gathered enough ammunition for prosecutions.

“What we don’t know is what they have. For the people they’ve indicted so far, they clearly didn’t need the president’s testimony,” she said.

By contrast, Harriger noted, “If this subpoena is issued, and if the president refuses to comply, you likely have a court battle which would raise the stakes and put everything on hold while it plays out.”

The question of whether Trump will consent to an interview is still wide open. The president and his allies have struck different stances on the question, often within minutes.

Speaking to CNN’s “New Day” on Friday, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani said that Mueller’s team had agreed to narrow the number of topics of a potential interview from five to two. But Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, also contended that one of Mueller’s chief aims was “trapping people into perjury.”

Trump said earlier this month, “I would love to speak. … Nobody wants to speak more than me,” before insisting that he would only do so if he were treated “fairly” — and condemning the Mueller probe as “a pure witch hunt.”

In a Thursday interview with The Hill, Giuliani contended that it was not the president but “the investigation and the investigators" who need to be put under scrutiny. Yet, he insisted, he and his colleagues “still have an open mind” about a Trump interview.

In the wider Trump orbit, there are many people who are skeptical that Trump will ever consent to an interview. Outside supporters often lash Mueller and other figures associated with the investigation.

“Under no circumstance should the president agree to an interview with Mueller,” said Joseph diGenova, who served as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia during former President Reagan’s administration.

DiGenova, who at one point was slated to join the president’s legal team and remains vigorously supportive of him, added, “He is under no obligation to do so and, given the indications of bad faith by the Mueller group … it would be a mistake to believe a thing they would offer by way of assurances.”

To Trump skeptics, of course, the assaults on Mueller are unjustified. They see such attacks as a method of muddying the waters around the probe so as to make it easier to refuse an interview — and to push back on any adverse findings for Trump that might eventually emerge.

Some Department of Justice veterans note that the offer of an interview with a defendant is something an innocent party can be eager to accept — especially if they think they can show they had no intent to obstruct justice, for example.

“In some ways, it is a courtesy you extend to a defendant: the opportunity to talk to prosecutors, especially on a crime so heavily dependent upon intent,” said Joyce White Vance, who served as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama during former President Obama’s administration.

“Although this has been portrayed as a perjury trap or aggressive prosecution tactics, for an innocent person this is an opportunity to short-circuit this. But that is not the way the Trump camp has viewed this,” Vance added.

Other legal figures, including some critical of Trump, argue that it is still likely Mueller would seek testimony from the president, even if he has to issue a subpoena to get it.

“You would always want, if you’re able to, to get an interview, because it is difficult to prove crimes beyond a reasonable doubt — much more difficult than most laypeople realize” said Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor.

Mariotti asserted that Mueller would only be causing himself trouble if he did not interview Trump given the inherent seriousness of “looking at potential crimes committed by the president.”

Vance argued, however, that on this issue as in so much else, Trump is a case apart.

She said that Trump’s tweets and public statements in media interviews have already given Mueller “an abundant body of information.”

The same was true, she added, of the public discussion of an interview among Trump and his lawyers.

“In many ways, Mueller benefits from this very public conversation that the president and his lawyers are having,” she said. “It’s stunning. Very few defense lawyers would have this running conversation that prosecutors can observe every nuance of.”

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage, primarily focused on Donald Trump’s presidency.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10