A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Adder
Well, can you really complain about toenails when you are also regularly being anally violated??

According to my sort-of-uncle, my uncle seems to manage this quite easily.

[bilmore]

If someone's bored, and doesn't mind reading 17 pages, here's an excellent paper (speech, actually) on the British press:

(The Reporting Of Iraq and Israel: An Abuse of Media Power)

http://www.melaniephillips.com/artic...ud%20media.pdf

(Surprisingly, I think it applies quite well to our media.)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"Hey, Clinton was right! These guys are OK."

[sgtclub]

WASHINGTON - A small group of Democrats agreed Thursday to force House and Senate debates on Election Day problems in Ohio before letting Congress certify President Bush (news - web sites)'s win over Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) in November.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...vote&printer=1

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...vote&printer=1

they do not get it, and they will continue to lose seats. I bet they lose 2 Senate and 6-12 house seats at mid-term; but it is well worth to air the voting irregularities, right?

[Replaced_Texan]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...s/andrea_yates

Andrea Yates' conviction was overturned because an expert gave testimony about a Law & Order episode that never existed. My question is why is this guy not being prosecuted for purjury? Shouldn't you see a Law & Order episode showing a mom drowning her kids before you testify about it?

I'm also wondering if the Rosenthal is going to end up going after her for the other two murders.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Andrea Yates' conviction was overturned because an expert gave testimony about a Law & Order episode that never existed. My question is why is this guy not being prosecuted for purjury? Shouldn't you see a Law & Order episode showing a mom drowning her kids before you testify about it?

Good. She was insane.

(The witness wrote to the prosecutor shortly after the trial, I think, explaining that he had confused some other shows, and apologizing for his mistake. So, no real basis for perjury.)

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Ground Hog's (or is it Hogs') Day

Unless you're referring to sausage, it's groundhog's.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...s/andrea_yates

Andrea Yates' conviction was overturned because an expert gave testimony about a Law & Order episode that never existed. My question is why is this guy not being prosecuted for purjury? Shouldn't you see a Law & Order episode showing a mom drowning her kids before you testify about it?

I'm also wondering if the Rosenthal is going to end up going after her for the other two murders.

I was wondering "how in the hell did L&O become admissible evidence? Will we now see cites to "L&O, Season 5, Ep. 15" along with "286 F.2d. 115"?" and "why is a shrink testifying about L&O? Is he a TV shrink? Is he a L&O expert? A TV addict in his spare time? What?"

But in context it made more sense.

Did no one on the defense side think to fact check this at the time? Then again, I think everything's been done on L&O at some time, so presuming "psycho mom drowns kids" had been done, too, isn't that far a stretch. Still, the DA almost always wins on that show, so you'd think they would check it out to confirm the claimed "NGBRO Insanity" verdict.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I was wondering "how in the hell did L&O become admissible evidence? Will we now see cites to "L&O, Season 5, Ep. 15" along with "286 F.2d. 115"?" and "why is a shrink testifying about L&O? Is he a TV shrink? Is he a L&O expert? A TV addict in his spare time? What?"

But in context it made more sense.

Did no one on the defense side think to fact check this at the time? Then again, I think everything's been done on L&O at some time, so presuming "psycho mom drowns kids" had been done, too, isn't that far a stretch. Still, the DA almost always wins on that show, so you'd think they would check it out to confirm the claimed "NGBRO Insanity" verdict.

Assuming that public entities are responsible for Yates' defense, which may be wrong, isn't it fucked up that the resources are there to check the Law & Order show after she's sentenced to death, but not before? Wouldn't we all be better off if a little more money was spent on public defenders?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Wouldn't we all be better off if a little more money was spent on public defenders?

Sure. And on cops, and prosecutors, and judges, and sanitation workers, and election equipment, and smokestack scrubbers, and motor vehicle clerks, and roads, and VA benefits, and NASA, and foreign aid, and alternative energy generation, and . . . .

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Sure. And on cops, and prosecutors, and judges, and sanitation workers, and election equipment, and smokestack scrubbers, and motor vehicle clerks, and roads, and VA benefits, and NASA, and foreign aid, and alternative energy generation, and . . . .

You're missing Ty's point. The gov't is providing these resources anyway -- but providing them to appellate counsel rather than to trial counsel. And we end up paying a whole lot more to fix mistakes that could have been avoided.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You're missing Ty's point. The gov't is providing these resources anyway -- but providing them to appellate counsel rather than to trial counsel. And we end up paying a whole lot more to fix mistakes that could have been avoided.

No, I understood that - but the structure of appellate v. trial is a very short, squat pyramid - you can't just spend more on the one case that's going to be appealed unless you have a crystal ball - you'd have to spend a lot more on trial counsel to make the difference of which Ty speaks. And, like I said, I agree that we'd be better off if we had bucks for all of the wishes that we can imagine.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
it is well worth to air the voting irregularities, right?

Of course it is. Reminds me of the old SNL sketch where Bill Murray talks about his Catholic school's loss to the Hebrew school in the Christmas basketball tournament by saying "and....really....the refereeing could have been better..."

As I understand it, if Boxer wasn't willing to agree with the House objectors, this would go nowhere, except maybe that the House objectors could talk a little about the election reforms that are supposedly being brought forward. But now that everything has to grind to a halt, everyone focuses on "the Dems really want to fight this issue out". Nice work, Babs.

Do the Repub supporters have similar thoughts about the re-vote movement in the Washington governor race? I don't know much about it. Seems like a similar subject line could be used, but perhaps there's something else going on...

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Of course it is. Reminds me of the old SNL sketch where Bill Murray talks about his Catholic school's loss to the Hebrew school in the Christmas basketball tournament by saying "and....really....the refereeing could have been better..."

As I understand it, if Boxer wasn't willing to agree with the House objectors, this would go nowhere, except maybe that the House objectors could talk a little about the election reforms that are supposedly being brought forward. But now that everything has to grind to a halt, everyone focuses on "the Dems really want to fight this issue out". Nice work, Babs.

Do the Repub supporters have similar thoughts about the re-vote movement in the Washington governor race? I don't know much about it. Seems like a similar subject line could be used, but perhaps there's something else going on...

Agree with the re: line. And no, this wouldn't be happening without a Senator's support.