home

Saturday Morning Peacock: Open Thread

Good morning from Owl Farm. This is Jesse the baby peacock. (Bigger version here.)He loves to strut and pose for pictures. He lives indoors. He thought he was going to sleep in this bed last night, he was disappointed. Here's Anita holding him.

Anita wasn't kidding about all the new animals. Here are the roosters and hens. And some llamas from across the road.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< George Zimmerman's Bond Revoked | Will Zimmerman Get Bond Again? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Zimmerman (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:38:58 AM EST
    There seems to be something of a paradox here.  Zimmerman could not have collected a dime for his legal and living expenses, had the donors known that the court was going to scarf the donations up as bond money.  Now it transpires that the existence of a $200,000+ fund was revealed by O'Mara on CNN on 4/26, six days after the bond hearing; further, that he was in possession of the replacement passport.  Why didn't the judge haul Zimmerman back in immediately?  Instead, he contrives to give the impression that he just now discovered all this.  This won't scan.

    Once you correlate the testimony of Witness John, the only witness to the struggle, with the desperate cries on the recordings and Zimmerman's physical injuries, it's "game over" for the prosecution.  Zimmerman is being offered as a sacrifice to placate malevolent deities.  We are witnessing an obscene parody of judicial process.

    I think the donors know that legal expenses (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:55:27 AM EST
    can possibly include bond money. It makes sense to me.

    And the judge was waiting for the prosecutor to bring him evidence of the Zimmermans' misleading statements, which he did when he had a chance to analyze the transcripts from the phone calls. There is nothing mysterious about any of it. Nothing that "won't scan".

    Parent

    True, but (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:02:13 PM EST
    facts are so much less interesting than fantasies.

    Parent
    No, we're not (none / 0) (#4)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 07:05:32 AM EST
    Judge Lester wasn't "contriving to give the impression that he just now discovered all this".  He stated at the time that he was waiting to rule until there was more information about the Paypal accounts.

    Zimmerman is being offered as a sacrifice to placate malevolent deities.

    Seriously?

    Parent

    Me? (none / 0) (#5)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 07:37:11 AM EST
    You talkin'ta Me?  I believe Zimmerman is serving as a scapegoat for those seething with animosity for people who believe hooded black youths bear watching, and for people who have elected to carry weapons (for starters.)

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 07:56:01 AM EST
    Heh - who knew there were "deities" ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:13:18 PM EST
    ... who don't like Geraldo, ...

    ... or the KKK.

    Parent

    I Wouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:22:43 PM EST
    If I were a Deity.

    Parent
    ....or Mayor Bloomberg (none / 0) (#61)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 02:05:29 PM EST
    ...or the DLC


    Parent
    Bloomberg (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ks on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 02:51:40 PM EST
    Ugh.....agreed.  Talk about somebody that's stayed in office way too long.

    Parent
    The DLC ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 02:59:37 PM EST
    ... wants to profile black youths in hoodies?

    Heh.

    Parent

    Too bad the DNC didn't ... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:22:15 PM EST
    ... target white youths wearing Polo by Ralph Lauren 25 years ago.

    Parent
    Bond money would be part of his defense, no? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 08:49:26 AM EST
    The only person responsible for Zimmerman's actions are Zimmerman himself.   And the bail revocation motion is about what he and his wife told the court.  This has nothing to do with the events the night Trayvon Martin was killed.  So your attempt to tie the two together is ridiculous.  I see nothing nefarious by the judge acting now.  But then I'm not a tin foil hat wearer.

    Parent
    The nexus that I see between the (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:06:21 AM EST
    bond hearing issues and the events of the night Trayvon was shot is George Zimmerman's credibility: a jury - or the judge in a SYG hearing - is going to be asked to take Zimmerman's word for where he was, what he was doing, how he and Martin came to blows, etc., for the minutes where his is the only side of the story they're ever going to get; that just got harder as a result of what has come out in this revocation.  There may be an explanation for what Zimmerman and his wife were recorded saying, but it may not be enough to overcome the doubt that has been raised about Zimmerman.

    George Zimmerman is managing to establish a pattern of behavior that is not likely to work in his favor - that of thinking and acting as if he knows more, and knows better, than those trained and educated and experienced at matters that are, in reality, not in his area of expertise, and which borders on a defiance of authority.

    Parent

    Absolutely agreeability hs credibility being in (none / 0) (#13)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:15:28 AM EST
    question now, said that yesterday.  What I was attempting to refute was this:

     "Zimmerman is being offered as a sacrifice to placate malevolent deities.  We are witnessing an obscene parody of judicial process."

    Parent

    Dang autocorrect! Typing on iPad. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:30:17 AM EST
    Should read:  Absolutely agree about his credibility....

    Parent
    Firing offense? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:14:55 AM EST
    From Ron Suskind's Confidence Men, a passage about the early months of the Obama administration, when President Obama

    had a woefully understaffed Treasury Department during four of the most important months of his presidency, a time when the opportunities were greatest to use a crisis to alter banking and finance in America.

    Finally a meeting was convened at the White House to discuss financial reform. Obama was not present:

    The chief of staff, who was not particularly versed in these regulatory matters and, in any event, was not an elected official, took charge, acting presidential. After listening to an hour of debate on the matter of what the outlines of reform should look like . . . [,] Emanuel took control of matters. "Okay, Tim, what the f*ck do you need here?"

    Geithner, a bit stunned, paused for a moment. "Well, a systemic risk regulator [someone to watch the landscape for systemic risk inside institutions], resolution authority [the statutory power to take down a problematic institution], and leverage [higher capital requirements to ensure that banks don't over-leverage themselves]. Those three things."

    Emanuel nodded. "Okay, let's throw in the consumer financial agency, and everything else can be flushed."

    So it was decided. Everyone kind of shrugged. One participant in the deliberations thought about whether Emanuel had, in fact, simply made this decision, or whether he was just carrying out the wishes of the president, then concluded that "the president couldn't have decided these things and told Rahm what to do. At the start of the meeting, there were too many variables to choose from. You would have needed some sort of decision-making algorithm."

    And what about the "consumer financial agency"?

    [T]he Treasury Department . . . , unbeknownst to [Elizabeth] Warren, embrace[d] demands from the banking industry to create a bureau under the condition that Warren would not be allowed to lead it.

    But we got health insurance "reform" (sort of).

    None (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:29:36 AM EST
    of this should surprise anyone. Obama even said back in the primaries that he wasn't into policy and handed all that "stuff" off to other people.

    Parent
    Leary of volunteering too much info (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:39:22 PM EST
    I can imagine that George and his wife learned a lesson from trying to be too cooperative and honest with the authorities when Zimmerman agreed to so much questioning without an attorney present. They both probably heard countless times from many people, especially lawyers, to never volunteer more information to the prosecution than necessary. Only give specific answers to questions and if you are not absolutely certain, just say you don't know.

    Shelly Zimmerman stated she did not know how much money was donated at that time but told the court who did know the exact balance and how to contact them. The court and prosecution failed to follow up on that at the time.

    The prosecution conveniently left Shelly saying the brother in law was in charge of the account out of their transcript.

    Shelly Zimmerman made a mistake by being misleading but that should not be held against George and his credibility regarding the night of the shooting.

    Try again (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:44:10 PM EST
    This was much more than a matter of failing to "volunteer" information.  She was asked for an estimate of how much money was in the accounts, and claimed she didn't know.  Moreover, she was asked about assets they could use to pay bond or legal expenses, and she denied having any such assets.

    O'MARA: Do you own the home that you live or lived in?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

    O'MARA: Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: None that I know of.

    O'MARA: I discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband, George, declared indigent for cost, have I not?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, you have.

    O'MARA: Are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: Not that I'm aware of.

    Her answers were clearly false and an attempt to mislead the court.  No amount of twisting is going to change that fact.

    Parent

    Did she know (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    for certain that the donated money could be used "to assist in coming up with money for a bond" or that donations could be used "to assist in coming up with money for a bond"?

    It is called "plausible deniability". Politicians and lawyers do it all the time.

    Parent

    It has to be plausible ... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    ... for it to be "plausible deniability".  Read the transcript of their conversations.  Zimmerman and his wife were specifically discussing how much of the money to use for the bond.  Moreover, they spent @ $50,000 before telling O'Mara about the money, using some for the bond as well as personal expenses (prison commissary, pay off debts, living expenses, etc.)

    As noted by the judge, this was deception - plain and simple.

    Parent

    the second quote should be (none / 0) (#53)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:57:17 PM EST
    "assist with THOSE costs"

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 01:10:18 PM EST
    The small snippets of the jail conversations do not make sense. No underlying conspiracy was identified in the transcripts.

    The prosecutor blew the passport issue way out of proportion. I wouldn't give him the benefit of doubt based on a one sided release.

    Parent

    Of course they make sense (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 02:57:58 PM EST
    There's no need for some kind of underlying conspiracy theory.  Zimmerman and his wife were clearly discussing using the Paypal account money for his bond, in amounts of $10,000, $15,000 or $100,000.  She then testified she had no other major assets or financial means for paying the bond or legal expenses.

    BTW - You wouldn't give a prosecutor the "benefit of the doubt" under any circumstances, ... but in this case, it's completely unnecessary.

    Parent

    I'm mean seriously.... (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by ks on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:13:30 PM EST
    "Benefit of the doubt" shouldn't even come into play here.  They were discussing what amount to use for bond, talking about amounts in the PayPal account and transferring funds from the PayPal account to her Credit Union account and then they come into court and not only play dumb but claim indigence?  How ever you feel about the prosecutors, it's pretty cut and dried and the judge is not amused.

    Parent
    This statement? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:25:23 PM EST
    Defendant:If the bond is more than 15 pay the 15. If more than 15 pay 10% to the bondsman.

    makes no sense

    Parent
    Besides the point? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ks on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:35:05 PM EST
    Whether that statement makes sense to you doesn't change that it clearly shows they had money in the account, knew about it and were discussing what to do with it but claiming otherwise during the bail hearing.

    Parent
    Take it up with Zimmerman (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:45:15 PM EST
    What makes no sense is claiming to have no assets for bond and legal expenses when you're sitting on at least $100,000+ at the time of the hearing (likely closer to $200,000).

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#74)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:48:09 PM EST
    Zimmerman was trying to set a limit on how much they should use for a cash bond before they went to a bondsman.  Presumably, he meant if it's less than 15 (thousand), pay the cash, if it's more than $15 (thousand) use a bondsman.  He misspoke, saying "less than" twice.

    Parent
    So in addition to lawyering (none / 0) (#75)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:51:45 PM EST
    You're a mind reader....Presumably.


    Parent
    Look at the whole conversation ... (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:56:57 PM EST
    ... in the motion.  If you can't figure out something this simple, it's because you don't want to.

    Parent
    There's not a whole conversation.... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 04:14:22 PM EST
    Just the snippets that the prosecutor chose.
    That's precisely the point.
    It's why I said maybe. I don't know the context of this discussion nor does anyone else who has read the motion.

    But you've got it figured out as do a few others 'round here.

    Parent

    As did the judge (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 05:07:52 PM EST
    After noting the dates of the jail conversations preceded the date of the bond hearing, Lester said:

    They were well aware of the money that was available, well aware of the amounts that were in controversy as far as large amounts.  Mr Zimmerman can't sit back a potted palm and let his wife testify falsely before the court when he knew well in advance of the hearing the amounts of money in controversy...

    'He can't sit back and obtain the benefit of a lower bond based upon those material falsehoods."

    He even noted his surprise that, based on this evidence, the state hadn't brought any actions against Mrs. Zimmerman, due to her false testimony - although noting they may well do so in the future.

    But good luck putting putting those fingers in your ears while feigning amazement at how everyone else can manage to "figure it out".

    Parent

    Hell (none / 0) (#86)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 05:55:54 PM EST
    I'm a mind reader too!
    I knew you would come back with this appeal to authority.
    I even had it typed in to my last response to save you the trouble.
    Nothing if not predictable....


    Parent
    Wow - took a while ... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:40:39 PM EST
    ... for you to click "post", huh?

    BTW - It's not an "appeal to authority" - merely noting that it's not just some posters around here that are able to "figure this out".  The one person who really matters most was able to figure this out quite easily, because he can tell the following obvious facts from the recordings and other evidence:

    1.  The Zimmerman's had well over $100,000 in their Paypal account several days before the bond hearing.

    2.  Sheri Zimmerman lied to the court when she testified about their assets.  George Zimmerman sat silently, allowing his wife and attorney to make false statements to the court.

    Pretty simple.

    Parent
    where we were at (none / 0) (#118)
    by Rojas on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 02:17:58 AM EST

    Zimmerman and his wife were clearly discussing using the Paypal account money for his bond, in amounts of $10,000, $15,000 or $100,000.


    Parent
    No - where were at (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:20:30 AM EST
    The Zimmerman's knew about the money.  They were discussing how much of it to use for his bond.  SZ lied about it at the bond hearing.  GZ sat there and let her lie.

    Simple.

    Parent

    BTW - You don't even have to ... (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 04:00:47 PM EST
    ... understand his meaning in your tiny snippet to understand that:

    1.  The Zimmermans knew they had a lot of money in the Paypal account.

    2.  They were discussing moving that money and how much to use.

    3.  They lied to the court when she testified to the contrary.

    You don't need a law degree to understand this.

    Parent
    The lawyers (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:47:25 PM EST
    on here seem to disagree. This goes directly at the heart of Zimmerman's credibility and definitely hurts his case. Apparently the prosecution can use this to undercut his credibility in general leading him to not be credible on his story the night of the murder.

    Parent
    Which lawyers? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 01:12:38 PM EST
    have you polled them?

    Parent
    Read the (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 01:16:39 PM EST
    thread about this that is full. One of the lawyers says that in order to claim self defense a defendant has to testify. So when Zimmerman gets on the stand, all this can be brought up by the prosecutor to undercut his credibility. Kind of like if he lied about the money then he must be lying about the night the murder took place etc.

    Parent
    Here is what (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 01:20:01 PM EST
    Peter G. a lawyer says on the other thread:

    If he chooses to testify and it is pretty hard to win a self-defense case without testifying -- then his credibility is on the table, and instances of lying in relation to the same case will definitely be usable against him on cross-examination. Of course, he can deny and/or explain any claims that he knowingly lied (or tried to obstruct justice by concealing a passport, etc.).

    It seems to me that it would be pretty hard to convince a jury that he's credible when he has all this going against him.

    Parent

    A plurality of one (none / 0) (#59)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 01:47:46 PM EST
    does not Lawyers make.

    And while I have lots of respect for Peter I think it's pretty clear he was not familiar with the facts at the time of this post or he wouldn't have stated

    (or tried to obstruct justice by concealing a passport, etc.).


    Parent
    More than one (none / 0) (#68)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:00:53 PM EST
    But count me in, too ...

    Parent
    In the spirit of magnanimity (none / 0) (#83)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 05:41:57 PM EST
    I suppose we can poll that as one and one third.

    Parent
    Heh - arimetic (none / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 05:49:03 PM EST
    ... from the Zimmerman school of math.

    Parent
    "arithmetic" n/t (none / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 05:49:32 PM EST
    magnanimity (1.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:10:19 PM EST
    because you are not a pimple on the a$$ of Peter G.

    Parent
    Then, by inference (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 11:23:45 PM EST
    you are?

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:27:02 PM EST
    You've seen my CV?  Like to compare yours to mine? ... cause I would love to.

    BTW - For the math challenged, if you have one attorney who shares the opinion of another attorney, that makes two attorneys.

    Parent

    Always good to... (3.00 / 2) (#100)
    by bmaz on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 08:41:44 PM EST
    ...see the comments of "Yman" in order to grok where the aggressive, totally in the bag for the prosecution, caustic mind is.  Yeah, big whoop, I  got a pretty fair amount of criminal trial experience too bubba; and you are, from my perspective and experience, rarely as perfect as you think, or claim, you are. Get over yourself.

    Parent
    Uh, as a friendly, fellow poster (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:19:11 AM EST
    I just want to make sure (boy, this is really embarrassing) that you understand how the internet really works. I mean ( again I have to apologize) when you type something, and then you hit "send," your words actually go out there and anyone, and everyone, can read what you wrote. No, really, the words go out there and stay there.......forever. Yeah, it's not like a wisp of smoke that just kind of, you know, poof, evaporates.  Nope, no way, those little buggers stay out there like they're smeared with crazy glue, or something.

    Yup, I'm telling you, you wouldn't believe it. I don't know, some of the shiiiit people say on the "net," you'd think that no one but depraved, cognitively deprived, intellectually stunted, and/or morally deformed clowns inhabit the place.

    And, you've even got ( sheesh, this is hard to get out) intellectually challenged, uh, what's the word? Oh, yeah, Blowhards masking their ignorance by cleverly (they wish) turning the tables and accusing their embarrassingly superior counterparts of (oh, jeesh, I think I'm gonna pee) feeling......now get this......superior. lol

    Anyway, I hope you don't think, in any way, I'm referring to you in the things I wrote. It's obvious from reading your spittle you haven't quite reached the level of maturity whereby you could be held legally responsible for what you wrote.

    But, keep trying BooBoo, you'll get there. And, that guy, Yman, keep an eye on him. He obviously needs your help.


    Parent

    Awwwwweeee, bmaz (none / 0) (#109)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:31:36 PM EST
    That hurts.

    (snicker)

    Parent

    Vietnamese... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by desertswine on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:45:05 PM EST
    She's got to be older than that. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 11:41:18 PM EST
    That picture itself is four decades old.

    Parent
    You are correct... (none / 0) (#122)
    by desertswine on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:56:59 PM EST
    She's 49.  The picture was taken 40yrs ago. My error.

    Parent
    Zimmerman shooting (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 04:40:13 PM EST
    Something I've wondered about is just why GZ shot TM right in the heart area. Aren't people trained to use guns taught to shoot less lethal targets on the body? Was it an 'accident'? Was he untrained and unskilled? Seems an extremely accurate/effective shot in any case and I question his intent, preparedness, skill or emotions, or all of the above. And his injuries were not debilitating so he was capable of using skill and judgement. Sure, he might have been scared. Both might have been scared.

    What training did Mr. Zimmerman (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 05:59:51 PM EST
    have?  

    Parent
    Link to Florida licensing for handguns... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:34:16 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/sqws

    Not sure what the laws were when he got his permit.  And not sure if he took any other available courses.  I'm sure that will be asked at the trial should one take place.


    Parent

    Doesn't seem the training required (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:39:43 PM EST
    necessarily covers the subject of ways to shoot a human.  

    Parent
    he and his wife took classes (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:38:46 PM EST
    It's on an earlier thread and in a Reuters article. Please google it.

    Parent
    lYes, they did. Reuters does not (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:46:02 PM EST
    detail the content of the gun training classes.  

    Parent
    Non-lethal intent never justified (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cylinder on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 08:24:34 PM EST
    Something I've wondered about is just why GZ shot TM right in the heart area. Aren't people trained to use guns taught to shoot less lethal targets on the body?

    Exactly the opposite. Any competent firearm self-defense course will strongly warn against using a firearm with non-lethal intent. If you are in a situation where the use of non-deadly force presents itself, you are not justified in using a firearm because many states, including Florida, define a firearm as deadly force. Also, there is no way to reliably predict which firearm wounds will cause death and which will not.

    A prosecutor will be very happy to turn statements like I just wanted to wound him into an admission that the shooter did not have reasable fear of death or great bodily injury.

    The same goes for warning shots. If the option presents itself to your mind, you should leave your weapon holstered and focus on escape.

    Parent

    NYPD spokesman Paul Browne explains (none / 0) (#99)
    by pngai on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 08:33:39 PM EST
    "Police officers are instructed to aim for center mass. You are looking to stop the individual, and that is the largest target." Center mass means the "head and torso," and a former commander of the NYPD's firearms training section says, "You can't just shoot to aim for a leg or an arm; it just doesn't work.

    http://gothamist.com/2010/10/22/why_cant_cops_shoot_to_wound.php

    Parent

    Normally i would never say anything (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:32:24 PM EST
    good about the Mets. Still, props where props are due, and so a hearty "Well done," to Johan Santana who, yesterday, pitched the first no-hitter in Mets' history.

    Oh, and thanks for shutting the Cardinals down. That is always a good thing. Nice job, guys.

    Careful about (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Zorba on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 07:51:11 PM EST
    Dissing my Cards, Casey.   Remember, you may want the Republic of Zorba available to your pirate crew.    ;-)

    Parent
    Well, whatta ya know. (none / 0) (#112)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 11:10:11 PM EST
    The Mets were victorious over the Cardinals again today. :-)

    Yeah, I know, the Cubs lost today, too. What else is new. There is next to nothing to cheer about when it comes to this year's Cubs. So, my baseball joy this season comes from the Cardinals losing.

    Yes, my baseball soul is currently in a dark place.

    Parent

    Amazin! (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:21:36 AM EST
    I was driving home from my softball game when I tuned in around the 7th inning.  I had to pull over and start calling people..."put the Met game on." "Why?" they'd ask. "Just put the damn Met game on!".

    I never thought we'd get a no-no, it only took 50 years.  But oh how sweet it is!

    Parent

    Congrats. (none / 0) (#130)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:29:14 AM EST
    Starting to wonder... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:35:04 AM EST
    if maybe there is some old Met magic working with this scrappy bunch.

    No-han was the talk of Mountain Jam...nice to see so much Met gear being worn with pride instead of shame;)

    Parent

    It is a wonder... (none / 0) (#132)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:46:21 AM EST
    that Tom Terrific never had a no-no when he was a Met.  

    I have to take solice that the Rockies aren't the worst team in the league--thank goodness for the Cubs and Padres!  And that the O's are having a decent year so far.

    Parent

    Tom Brady (none / 0) (#133)
    by CST on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:53:23 AM EST
    played for the mets????

    Parent
    Easy. (none / 0) (#136)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:06:25 PM EST
    He may be a troll genius, but no, he didn't play for the Mets.

    Parent
    For a team with such a pitching rich history... (none / 0) (#134)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:55:36 AM EST
    it was a wonder it took so long.  So many Mets got one after leaving the team...Tom Terrific with the Reds, Doc & Cone with the Yanks, Nolan and all of his no-no's with others.  

    Rockies are only 6 under, lotta season left my friend.  And if they should continue to flounder, you can watch Peyton fling it around training camp!

    Parent

    Local media... (none / 0) (#137)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:10:11 PM EST
    was in awe yesterday that PeyPey could still throw the long ball.  Going to be a looong time until pre-season.

    I'd be more optimistic about the Rox except for the total lack of pitching.  

    Parent

    Ouch. (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:56:55 AM EST
    In Austin... (none / 0) (#1)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 04:53:41 AM EST
    chickens are the "new" black.  8-)  I guess early rising roosters are driving some of the locals cah-raaa-zee!  

    Owl Farm looks very peaceful.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#2)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 05:39:41 AM EST
    for sharing these photos with us.

    I am in an urban environment, and seeing the great outdoors and those animals gave me a sense of peace.

    Yes, me too. It is nice to look at a (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:51:15 AM EST
    farm and animals in that beautiful setting.

    Have a good weekend Jeralyn - it is going to be 97 here tomorrow - I will be trying to get some vicarious mountain cool from you.

    Parent

    I love peacock and peahen feathers (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:08:34 PM EST
    Several years ago I feathered a cow. It was for a fundraiser like lots of cities did with having artists do whatever they do with a life sized cast of an animal. Chicago had cows too, Seattle had pigs. I completely feathered my cow and I got most of the feathers from the "head of the world-wide feather project" who was also the procurement director for the Illinois state museum. People from all over the globe would send him molted feathers. He could not send me any raptor feathers but he did send box after box of in all over 75 different kinds of feathers, all neatly packed in plastic bags labeled with the bird and country of origin. It was an amazing donation from the feather project. I did buy some peabird feathers, so the cow's tail looked just like the peacock's neck in J's photo.

    The auction was held at a private airport and private jets would arrive with people mostly from LA and Vegas so they could bid on cows at the gala. Really short hot pants, fringe on the men, miles of make-up, pretty much everyone in heals...it was quite a show. My friend (who's cow is now pool side on Mulholland drive) muttered to me under her breath "Well, its pretty obvious who's from Oregon".

    Parent

    I wish (none / 0) (#43)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:20:27 PM EST
    I could have seen that.  It sounds absolutely beautiful.  I have no idea how to post a picture here but do you have a link where I could see it?

    I loved the Cow Project Pictures.  Was it Chicago that auctioned some of them off to fund arts projects?  Sorry, it has been so long that I don't remember.

    Parent

    Yes, Chicago was pretty much (none / 0) (#60)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 01:50:08 PM EST
    the start. Link,  but lots of cities followed. It was a craze in the early 2000s. Rather fun.

    Parent
    Thank you. (none / 0) (#126)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:37:26 AM EST
    I really enjoyed looking at the cows again!  They were so delightful.  Everytime I thought I had found a favorite one, a different one caught my attention! Same as way back when!

    After all of these years, it is still topical and that speaks volumes for the work of the artists involved.  I stared hardily for a feathered one but without seeing it... I include you as one of those visionaries!

    Parent

    How cool (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 02:34:08 PM EST
    for my daughters wedding she wanted those ostrich feather arrangements coming out of Eiffel tower vases.  So I ordered the stuff and made them, wasn't too difficult.  Interesting decoration, don't know what to do with them now though :)

    Parent
    Nothing exemplifies "rural America" ... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:44:24 PM EST
    ... better than the shiny blue feathers of a fowl that's native to Asia, eh?

    I'm sorry for the snark, but I'm not a peacock fan. Yes, I'll agree that they're exquisitely beautiful birds (really, who wouldn't?).

    But if you ever have the experience to live around feral peafowl, you'll quickly be dispelled of their avian aura the moment one (and sometimes more) lands on your roof at 2:00 a.m. with all the grace of a boulder dropped from a helicopter, and then lets loose with his distinct and VERY LOUD cry.

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#119)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:13:27 AM EST
    think this is exactly the occasion to mention how much contempt you have for peacocks... but what do I know...

    Parent
    Rural America? (none / 0) (#121)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 12:53:18 PM EST
    Ha!  The only time I've been subjected to the calls of both a peacock and his mate was when I lived in Round Rock, Texas + a busy suburb of Austin.

    Parent
    Greenwald on Obama Kill List (none / 0) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 08:44:00 AM EST
    From Democracy Now.

    I need no better reason than this not to support Obama.  And, as Greenwald says, this should provoke widespread outrage. And it isn't.

    Nice subject line (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Cylinder on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 08:54:37 AM EST
    Greenwald on Obama Kill List

    That subject line is quite the shocker. :)

    Parent

    Huffington Post-worthy (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:22:59 AM EST
    Important story though (none / 0) (#17)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:27:39 AM EST
    and devastating comparison with Zimmerman-Martin.

    But pretty soon Glenn is going to see far worse with Romney and his Bush admin group of war-hungry neocons.

    Parent

    And if that comes to pass, we can (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:45:59 AM EST
    all thank Obama for honing the tools - and adding some new and powerful ones - to the arsenal the GOP will use in that regard.

    Essentially, we're screwed.  There is no other Democrat who's going to ride to the rescue and set the country back on the right track.  

    But, hey - at least I'm not a male of military age who can be classified as a militant when the drones start flying their kill missions here, right?  

    Parent

    I don't get it ... (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:14:22 PM EST
    we have a President obsessed with the extra-legal killing of American citizens and teenage girls.

    And all his supporters can say is:  Yeah, well, that guy over there is gonna be much worse!

    This is the "much worse" and that line you should have drawn is five miles behind you.

    Parent

    Obsessed? Really? (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:03:33 PM EST
    And the basis for that assessment that he's "obsessed" is what exactly?

    Parent
    Personal projection? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:51:23 PM EST
    Yeah, my psychological state ... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:33:33 PM EST
    is the problem.

    The NYT article made it sound like an obsession.  But it really doesn't matter how this or any other President approaches it, the extra-legal killing of American citizens is wrong.

    Constitutionally, morally, any way you slice it.

    The level of his attention is truly irrelevant.  He made the decision. That's the issue.

    There's no conspiracy to prove here.  No arcane aspect of Constitutional law to consider.  The President does not have the right to order the killing of an American citizen.  It's not even a close run thing.  He doesn't have that right or that power.

    Parent

    Off-base (4.00 / 3) (#63)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 02:29:09 PM EST
    I recommend double-checking whatever Glenn Greenwald says. Here's a transcript for those who don't have time to watch the YouTube video. Here's the excerpt related to GZ:

    ... a militant, in the eyes of the Obama administration, formally means any male of fighting age, presumably 18 to 40, who is in a strike zone of a missile ... what the New York Times article said was that the rationale for this is that they believe that anybody who is even near a terrorist or any terrorist activity is, quote, "probably up to no good." Ironically, that is ... the exact phrase that George Zimmerman used when describing Trayvon Martin to the 911 call, that he must be up to no good, the sort of suspicion that even though we don't know anything about somebody, the mere happenstance of where they are or what they're doing entitles us not just to harbor suspicions about them, but to kill them.

    1. Administration officials didn't use the phrase "probably up to no good" -- the writer for the NYT did. The officials gave a longer explanation, which you can accept or not.

    2. Where someone is and what they're doing is a common reason for one person to be suspicious of another. But no one, including GZ, has said he was entitled to kill TM simply because he thought TM was suspicious.  


    Parent
    This is the issue ... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 08:45:15 PM EST
    you call into question?!?

    I'm literally shaking my head in disbelief.

    This country has become a very, very cold place.

    Or maybe not "become".  Maybe I'm just finally seeing the breadth and depth of the coldness.

    Parent

    I chose to comment on the GZ angle (none / 0) (#113)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 11:19:43 PM EST
    I understand that wasn't the main point of Greenwald's discussion.  But I think he distorts the truth to make his points. If I can catch him so easily, why should I trust the rest of what he says?

    People working for our government have assassinated plenty of enemies in the past, and we dropped the atomic bomb on 2 cities. It would be hard to prove that Americans have gotten much more indifferent to human suffering.  

    Parent

    America has done it's share ... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:19:29 PM EST
    of this sort of thing.  But always behind the guise of secrecy with plans that attempt to give the actors plausible deniability.

    I don't recall we've ever had a president who ordered the extra-legal killing of an American citizen and publicly bragged about doing it.

    If we allow our government to get away with this, they will take the next step and the next step and next step.

    Long ago the congress ceded almost sole authority to wage war to the executive branch. Now the judicial branch is giving them the power to be judge, jury and executioner.  Without any process which is subject to oversight.  What's next?

    Parent

    No more so than other nations. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 11:39:27 PM EST
    The difference is, of course, is that we Americans like to believe we're superior to everyone else.

    And so, we either expect better of ourselves, or don't really want to hear about it when we're not.

    Parent

    You think you (none / 0) (#127)
    by sj on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:41:26 AM EST
    were able to "catch him"?
    If I can catch him so easily, why should I trust the rest of what he says?
    As if.

    But you go on thinking that you did.  You'll be happier snug in your bed.  While visions of sugarplums...

    Parent

    I thought the same thing when I read it. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 08:59:28 AM EST
    It is what it is ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:07:54 AM EST
    and it seems people need the shock to realize what's really happening here.

    Parent
    "Shock" or an attempt at dissembling? (none / 0) (#69)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:06:42 PM EST
    Another reason for some (none / 0) (#14)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:19:46 AM EST
    of us to gnash our teeth about the Obama admin:  its curiously secrecy friendly policy on releasing some 50,000 still classified documents on the events of 11-22-63.  

    Not a surprise I suppose after O named fervent anti- conspiracist Cass Sunstein to head the govt's doc release program (be sure to see the video).  But go take a look at who the admin has put at the National Archives to be the hands-on person there in charge of deciding what to release.  

    Disturbing to say the least.  Another victory for the CIA in their mostly successful half-century effort to cover up Dallas.

    And Obama was the guy who came to office not only promising far greater sunlight on govt secrecy, but got elected with the not insignificant help of the Kennedys.  

    Weasel words (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cylinder on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:36:53 AM EST
    The inclusion of weasel words really doesn't make the accusation any less childish.

    What on earth (none / 0) (#104)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:05:17 PM EST
    are you talking about?

    Parent
    Orphaned comment (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cylinder on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:10:15 PM EST
    My reply was referencing a post tht was apparently deleted. Disregard.

    Parent
    National History Bee-Bowl (none / 0) (#20)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:43:51 AM EST
    last night on History (cough cough) Channel.  Yet another youth contest dominated by the guys.  All 16 finalists were boys (7th and 8th grades).  A few weeks ago at the Natl Geography Bee all but one of the 12-16 finalists were boys.

    Are females only good in the spelling competitions?  What is going on here I wonder.

    Very strange competition last night.  Add in the male moderator, two male co hosts and one male roving reporter, plus two of the three judges being male , and but for the one lone (token?) female judge, this one was wall to wall guys.

    Like stepping back to the overwhelmingly patriarchal 1950s.  Just weird -- though in keeping with all the high-testosterone male dominated shows the History Channel (formerly the Hitler Channel) has been offering 24/7 of late.

    When History Channel first came around (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:03:15 AM EST
    I thought it was a natural for me, since I love history. But, as you say, it was all Nazis all the time, and then essentially the Military History channel. I think they got into a vicious circle where they attracted male viewers of a certain age, and then kept feeding that demographic. I no longer even scan it to see what is on.

    I think maybe since spelling bees are usually compulsory participation in schools up to a point, girls get used to that competition. Although I think just as many girls as boys study and are interested in history, the competition of 'history bees' is not as widespread. Could be wrong, just a theory.

    Parent

    When the history channel (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:04:58 AM EST
    got into aliens big time they lost me.  I watch selectively now :)

    Parent
    Heheh. Actually I found (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:27:49 AM EST
    their Ancient Aliens one of their better entertainments, even as I think the advocates tend to think that every major anomaly or scientific advance has to be alien-originated ( the Giza pyramids, okay).  And at least they are touching on some actual history in the process, something one would think the History channel would be a little more invested in.  

    Instead we get heavy doses of swamp people, picker guys in the junkyard, resoration dudes, and still more guys, and only guys, buying and pawning the old stuff.  Ice Road Trucker guys too.

    I think that conservative-seeming historian guy (Steve Gillen) at History, who appears to have major clout, needs to try a little harder to involve the other half of the viewing public.  They are risking becoming a major joke with all the macho programming, but for the moment they are probably happy they've hit paydirt with their narrow niche shows.  And I guess ratings trump everything.

    Parent

    Yes! forgot about thatI (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:10:17 AM EST
    I remember thinking that there are infinite possibilities in creating shows about history, and that was what they picked? It became clear they had no real interest in history.

    Parent
    One perspective (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:17:28 AM EST
    Interesting but in re (none / 0) (#35)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 11:39:52 AM EST
    spelling there's no way those kids have seen half the words even very well educated and read adults have never heard of, especially in a language with a vocabulary of (probably) some one million words.  

    I think as much as they study new words and input them, they learn a number of spelling rules which hold for most cases which they then apply to the 50% of words they've never heard of which they must spell.  A combination of equal parts memorization and analysis in other words.

    Meanwhile succeeding in a geography bee seems to be much more memorization (and constantly looking over the maps) and far less analysis, and yet only one girl was in the Geography final 16.  Curious gender situation there.  

    Parent

    Good points (none / 0) (#42)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:15:32 PM EST
    What I was trying to say, without coming right out and saying it, is that in my experience girls are often much more imaginative than boys, hence boys' (anecdotally) stronger performance on tasks that depend on rote memorization and on application of what has been memorized by rote, and girls' (anecdotally) often stronger performance (aided by eidetic capacity) on tasks that depend on creative extrapolation from inconsistent "rules."

    Parent
    I can assure you (none / 0) (#31)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:47:26 AM EST
    We didn't put 100,000 cops on the street and turn this country into incarceration nation out of fear of
    "Chip," "Trip," or "Harrison Wentworth II,"
    .

    Josh and I are more than halfway (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:53:40 AM EST
    through the second book in the Hunger Games series.  But then Josh got the video game Tropico 4 and is enthralled.  He is a banana republic dictator right now who in the next stage will be framed for killing the US President by someone who is supposed to resembled Che and conspiring with the United Fruit Company.  Who makes this stuff up?

    Made up? You sure about that? lol (none / 0) (#33)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:54:34 AM EST
    No (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:58:55 AM EST
    Good, because it's not fiction (none / 0) (#37)
    by Towanda on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:01:42 PM EST
    and Josh may find it interesting to read non-fiction aka history on the CIA in Guatemala.

    Would that he could watch a treatment of the topic on the History Channel, but . . . see other comments here.  We can't interrupt Pawn Stars! American Pickers!  tricksters, truckers, etc.

    (To be clear, I am entertained by some of these shows.  I just want the channel to rename itself, so that someone else will start an actual History Channel.)

    Parent

    In the video game Josh gets to redeem (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:15:30 PM EST
    himself though.  If he is a "good" dictator his rebels don't get very strong.  If and when he is exiled he ends up on Isle Obscura :)  He just won another "election", but he only has elections if he wants them.  When he doesn't hold elections his rebels get powerful though he says.  All of his tourists are from the United States he also says :)  Imagine that

    Parent
    One of the things I've found (none / 0) (#128)
    by sj on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:46:51 AM EST
    when reading a series is that (for me) it's best to take some time between and let things percolate in my subconscious.  I can get burned out on a "world" if I read back-to-back.  

    Can't let too much time pass, though, or I forget things I should know. LOL.  It's a balancing act :)

    Parent

    Juan Moore Thyme with Dadlerchops (none / 0) (#46)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:41:54 PM EST
    There's fiddy shades of flannel and then there's all the shades of BeFree, otherwise known as A TYPO OF A PECULIAR TYPE.  She ain't no soccermom, she's a survivor, and original a soul as has ever been paid to engage in online pony-play.

    Part 1

    Part 2

    Part 3

    Have a fun and freaky weekend, y'all.  

    Geez Dadler (none / 0) (#52)
    by fishcamp on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:56:01 PM EST
    I woke up last night from a dream about BeFree.  Not sure if that's good or not because I never remember my dreams.  How about a surfari story down in Baja with bad boy stops in Tijuana...

    Parent
    Peacocks are hellbeasts with air raid siren calls. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Addison on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:47:18 PM EST


    I love peacock noise (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 02:15:49 PM EST
    It reminds me of my mom taking me to the Cheyenne Mtn Zoo all the time when I was a kid.  That whole mountain side is sort of covered with them though from them hanging out on the zoo grounds unfettered.  They live in the surrounding neighborhood now too.

    Parent
    Peacocks. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Addison on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 04:37:39 PM EST
    I once had dengue fever (a 2-3 week long process of feeling like you're about to pass out and die) while staying in a shack with a corrugated iron roof. They would scrabble around the roof with their claws at 4am every morning, mere feet from my head, and "KEE-YAW! KEE-YAW!" for a few hours while I was in a fatigue-induced psychotic state. All I could do was stumble out and throw rags at them, but they'd come back immediately. "KEE-YAW!" I do not like peacocks.

    Parent
    Oh, sigh, the memories.... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 04:45:17 PM EST
    I too had an experience of peabirds and illness. I also was in a similar shack, camped out on the porch for three weeks and got a terrible flu. Every morning at 4am they started yelling "HELP, HELP". I still like them tho. One peacock liked my 10 year old daughter at the zoo several years ago and displayed for her. Then he started madly shaking his display and chasing her around the grounds.

    Parent
    NC leg. proposes to ignore ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 07:41:17 PM EST
    ... any evidence of rising sea levels due to global warming, choosing to bury their heads in the sand.

    Wow.

    The upside... (none / 0) (#125)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:19:32 AM EST
    is that with rising levels of sea water, it won't take as long for them to disappear!

    Parent
    Does it matter? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 10:30:04 PM EST
    I mean, Trayvon Martin's dead. Does it really matter at this point whether George Zimmerman received training in the proper use of a firearm? How does that help his case?

    Riding with the Kings! (none / 0) (#115)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 11:35:52 PM EST
    The Los Angeles Kings won their 10th straight playoff game on the road this NHL post-season, once again defeating the New Jersey Devils in overtime tonight, 2-1, in Game 2 of the Stanley Cup Finals.

    The series now heads west to L.A. and the Staples Center, where Kings opponents have at least fared a little better -- the only two losses the Kings had this post-season have been at home, one game each to the Vancouver Canucks and Phoenix Coyotes. But still, Lord Stanley is once again looking to bask in the SoCal sunshine, this time in L.A. rather than Anaheim.