1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Is the President Incompetent or Lawless?

David4 Wrote: Jul 31, 2014 2:03 PM
One side of the problem is that BH Obama intends to "fundamentally transform" America into a Chicago-style/Peronist-style/Bolivarian-style Republic. A Republic that serves the (his) people, and screws everyone else. He probably knows that it would be corrupt. The other side of the problem is that a sizeable faction of Democrats and Democrat-office-holders want the same thing. The Constitution provides us with three remedies for BH Obama. One is appropriations. The way he acts, yes we would have to shut down the government for the duration. The second is to impeach and remove him. The third is for the states to call a Constitutional Convention to change the rules. The Declaration of Independence provides us with one more remedy. That is to non-violently and violently oppose the authority of the government. This was used most recent-famously during the 1960s, two separate movements for Civil Rights and Opposing the Vietnam War. A more recent example was the wide-spread disregard of the National 55 mph speed limit. Congress eventually repealed it.
I have seen arguments that the murders of Nicole and Ron were done by OJ's son Jason, and that OJ was guilty only of covering up what his son had done. A fair trial would consider that possibility. OJ was acquitted not because he was proven innocent, but because the prosecution was unable to present enough untainted evidence to prove to the jury that HE. DID. IT.
Seriously, yes. Give, yes. We would be better informed if CBS, NBC, et. al. did the same, and interrupted interviewees less. A few minutes uninterrupted, followed by a reminder of what the questions were, should be sufficient to demonstrate whether the interviewee is lunatic or not. The purpose of a jury is to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial, and to persuade the public that the accused received a fair trial. That includes the friends of the accused. In a place like Philadelphia, sadly, it takes a jury that explicitly includes members of the accused's ethnic community to make that persuasion. Fernandez's Huffington Post article and Amnesty International present arguments that Mumia Abu Jamal did not receive a fair trial, and those charges are widely believed. The only way to settle those complaints is to give MAJ a new trial.
Add. To me it looked like Fox News attempted to manipulate what Joanna Fernandez could say about the case. Fox could look up in advance what she thinks about the case. Fair would have been to have mentioned in introducing her a few things that Fox would like to know about the case, and then given her 4 to 5 uninterrupted minutes to say whatever she wanted, then repeat-mention the items mentioned in the introduction.
Following the advice in this article I listened to the interview from about 4:00 to the end. I also looked up on Huffington Fernandez' article on what she would have said if she hadn't been interrupted, and read the first page or two of Amnesty International's Report on the case. Well before Mumia Abu Jamal's death sentence was overturned I believed that one important purpose of a trial is to convince the friends and supporters of the accused that he IS guilty of the charge and deserves his punishment. That fell short in this case. So I have to agree with one of Amnesty International's demands, that Mumia be granted a new trial on the charges, and that the jury have about 40% (i.e. about 5) jurors who are black. Not ALMOST all white, as in the original trial, nor all black as projectively charged in some comments below. About 40%, about 5. -- Offhand, I suspect that blacks in Philadelphia are so suspicious of the credibility of Philadelphia police that they will refuse to convict Mumia Abu Jamal, and he will go free. Not because he is innocent, simply because black jurors refuse to convict him. -- That could define a serious precedent for Philadelphia, that few blacks accused in confrontations with the police will get convicted. ....
In response to:

America: The Land of Debt

David4 Wrote: Jul 30, 2014 1:01 PM
This report raises some questions. *) Does our economy rely too much on credit? Would we be better off if we more often saved up before buying something, instead of buying something on credit and then paying it off? *) For savers, the level of indebtedness, bad debt and debt-in-collection raises issues of a wave of defaults. Is your money wisely and safely invested or lent?
In response to:

Lambs to the GMO Slaughter

David4 Wrote: Jul 30, 2014 10:45 AM
As noted elsewhere, people have been genetically modifying food for centuries, if not for millennia. The methods to modify food genetics have changed. The methods that get put under the label 'GMO' are more precise, and the results are more carefully tested by the FDA, than what was available in the past. GMO food CONSIDERED BY ITSELF is as safe as anything can be. Chuck Norris tosses into his article many paragraphs about food production techniques, particularly about use and overuse of chemical pesticides. That is a topic worth considering. Sometime back I recall reading a statement that GMO plants allow the farmer to use LESS herbicide. I would like to see more articles about that. In the meantime, try Googling "GMO less herbicide". At least one other statement by Norris doesn't make any sense. If Monsanto does things that "pick the consumers' pocket/wallet", i.e. increases our costs, then consumers will take their business to competitors.
The bottom end of the article matches the headline-title.
In response to:

Sticks, Stones, And Thought Crimes

David4 Wrote: Jul 28, 2014 6:33 PM
There are occasional times when I would care about someone's sexuality. Examples include ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner and his fondness for sexting photos of his naughty bits. Examples include Miley Cyrus and her recent "twerking" performances. I don't need to see that, and wouldn't recommend anyone else going to see it. ...
In response to:

Menstrual Activism

David4 Wrote: Jul 28, 2014 5:30 PM
Worth a few words of discussion: Regarding that young woman who walked around with the fake blood stain on her crotch, the "fake" was an act. The whole point was to gauge reactions to a woman who had real blood staining her crotch.
1 - 10 Next