MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
Loretta Lynch confirmed as Atty Gen. after 5 month wait
By MrSmith1 on Thu, 04/23/2015 - 2:43pm |The vote was 56-43
URL:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/senate-confirms-loretta-lynch/391056/
- Add new comment
- 6333 reads
Comments
It's about time. The GOP hates Eric Holder and want him out of office as AG but that conflicts with their hatred of President Barack Obama. Loretta Lynch was a pawn in this process. The GOP managed to get the Delta Sigma Theta sorority involved the in push to have Lynch confirmed. The members will have long memories and likely stay active in the GOTV process in 2016.
I will now be referring to McConnell as "Turtle". No offense meant to the character played on "Entourage".
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/23/2015 - 4:00pm
Jeez they finally did it.
Politics or silliness.
What the hell is the difference?
I skip over to cable news all the time and I missed this.
Thank you!
by Richard Day on Thu, 04/23/2015 - 6:29pm
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/safeguards-at-every-step-of-proce...
Referring to the federal government’s forfeiture regime as “an important tool” in fighting crime, attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch staunchly defended the concept of civil asset forfeiture during the first day of her confirmation hearings.
Lynch is currently the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and her office, despite its safeguards, is responsible for one of the more publicized and questionable uses of the asset forfeiture program. In May of 2012 the Hirsch brothers, joint owners of Bi-County Distributors in Long Island, had their entire bank account drained by the Internal Revenue Service working in conjunction with Lynch’s office. Many of Bi-County’s customers paid in cash, and when the brothers made several deposits under $10,000, federal agents accused them of “structuring” their deposits in order to avoid the reporting requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act. Without so much as a criminal charge, the federal government emptied the account, totaling $446,651.11.
For more than two years, and in defiance of the 60-day deadline for the initiation of proceedings included in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, Lynch’s office simply sat on the money while the Hirsch brothers survived off the goodwill their business had engendered with its vendors over the decades.
That case, which was handled by the Institute for Justice, finally ended just days ago when Lynch’s office quietly returned the money, having found no evidence of any wrongdoing. The Hirsch brothers and their business survived, but just how many law-abiding small businesses can afford to give the government a 33-month, interest-free loan of nearly half a million dollars?
by ocean-kat on Thu, 04/23/2015 - 9:45pm
Instead of focusing on discussions of property seizure or marijuana legalization, the GOP focused on holding up the nomination.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/23/2015 - 11:38pm
Instead of making even the slightest criticism of a democrat and especially Obama or even remaining silent you only want to talk about the "evil" republicans. It's "progressives" like you that make it hard to push the democratic party to change. This is an example of what I mean by spinning for the democratic party.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 04/23/2015 - 11:54pm
Bruce Dixon discusses the horrible government/corporatist tool called "Loretta Lynch", making Cornel West's point that having more black faces in government is counterproductive if they're going to carry out anti-black/anti-human policies. But somehow by waiting for this damaged piece of goods we're supposed to be happy it finally arrived.(Hat-tip Rootie Harharhar).
http://blackagendareport.com/loretta-lynch-is-condi-rice-with-a-law-degree
"Those who imagine that there's some virtue in having black faces in high legal places need to check their priorities. They ought to be asking why black lawyers who file suits against corporate polluters, black lawyers who defend the victims of police torture and abuse, black lawyers who represent the evicted and afflicted, who expose the abuses and war crimes of the CIA, NSA and the Pentagon are never considered for leading roles at the Department of Justice or anywhere else in government. "
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/25/2015 - 2:25am
And you act as a tool for the GOP by giving them cover. The GOP set the tone of the hearings. The hearings were a forum for the GOP to bash the White House and Eric Holder. The GOP went after immigration reform, Gay marriage, and voting. Those were the issues that Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions. Go back and look at how the Republicans directed the hearings. Democrats felt the need to defend Loretta Lynch from attacks better directed at Eric Holder. The hearings were an embarrassment.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/misdirected-fire-characterizes-day-two-lorett...
If you were a Democrat on the committee would you really have Ben the guy who was going to challenge the first African-American woman nominee for Attorney General? Sitting in the audience was a sea of red, the Delta Sigma Theta sorority. You would really be ready to tick them off?
Another thing in operation here is that "progressives" told us that Supreme Court nominees Kagan and Sotomayor were not Progressives. These critics were wrong in the case of the SCOTUS nominees and they are wrong in the case of Loretta Lynch.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 04/25/2015 - 11:11am
Following your criteria, Eric Holder would not have passed muster. The person who fought the GOP tooth and nail on voting and changed the emphasis on drug laws would not be fit for office because nobody on Wall Street went to jail.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 04/25/2015 - 11:40am
His record on opposing Wall Street on outright theft or letting HSBC skirt despite being caught laundering hundreds of millions for terrorists is rather scandalous (when individual citizens went to jail for tiny donations in the hundreds of dollars), and his record on drug laws is decidedly mixed. though good to see he no longer claims no medical use for pot and stopped prosecuting medical dispensaries in his 2nd term. And pleased there was some good effort on voting rights in all this mess - did it actually work? [I think you've continuously contended that good efforts don't count, only success]
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/26/2015 - 2:50am
So you would not have confirmed Holder or Lynch?
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 04/26/2015 - 11:19am
If I believed in solidarity to the Democratic Party to the extent that I would never buck anything the party pushed I would have supported both and would continue to do so even as history plays out or new information of past history emerges. Not having those constraints I say yes, I would not have confirmed either. An honest search for the 'best' would have certainly found better, better at least for the 99%. Just not having an "R' in front of their names is not enough.
Republicans never really intended to block Lynch, she has a history of supporting the real concerns of the real forces which dominate our politicians of both stripes. Mitt Romney would love her, if she would just put an "R" in front of her name she would be in his folder of qualified women. .
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/will-hsbc-deal-come-back-to-haunt-loretta-lynch-20150209
Turns out the answer was 'no'.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 04/26/2015 - 12:08pm
It's quite possible to think about and discuss more than one thing. I can think about the unprecedented use of filibusters by the republicans and still find time to think about the qualifications of a nominee. Most people can. Simply because the republicans are holding up nominations doesn't mean we must not criticize and we must support all of Obama's nominations. John Lewis certainly didn't think so when he fought against Obama's nominations to the Georgia federal court.
Neither being an African American nor being a women grants a person a free pass from criticism. But frankly I'm not surprised to see you claim it does. I certainly would have asked some tough questions and voted against Lynch if I was in the senate. It really is possible to criticize the first black anything as we see now with Warren leading the fight against TPP. Her critique of the president as he blatantly lies to the American people is pretty strong. Or do you think it's as inappropriate for Warren to challenge the first African American president as you think it is to challenge the first African American women Attorney General?
There was some small push among a small group of progressives to get the most liberal Supreme Court nominee. But you're grossly exaggerating liberal discontent. A few articles rippled through the internet, got little support, and both nominations flowed through the system relatively smoothly.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 04/25/2015 - 3:42pm
I thought her critique of the President was quite biting.
by Q (not verified) on Sat, 04/25/2015 - 8:08pm
You are the one who says who and who is not a Democrat. It's great when John Lewis disagrees with an Obama nominee. It is not OK when I present a different point of view. Argue away on Loretta Lynch. I will point out that her baggage is not different than a lot of other nominees. You don't like an opposing viewpoint.
Elizabeth Warren is free to criticize. When Republicans fought the treaty with Iran, I pointed out that there are things that Congress can do if they disagree with the treaty. The GOP went crazy labeling Obama a dictator. Elizabeth Warren is saying that things are being hidden. In both cases, negotiations were going on so there was no final document that could be produced.
http://thedailybanter.com/2015/04/elizabeth-warren-is-not-telling-the-tr...
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 04/25/2015 - 8:19pm
Repeatedly saying that I support Obama does not address the truth that Loretta Lynch's nomination was guaranteed by the GOP. They solidified the stereotype of being a racist party by holding up the nomination. Curly Paul proved that he is no friend to the black community by stating that he would vote against Loretta Lynch. After using Lynch to attack Eric Holder, the GOP got the Deltas activated by holding up a vote on Loretta Lynch. Yes I support Obama and yes the GOP screwed up.
Congress has not seen the final product of the trade deal. Congress has options if they don't like the deal.Yes I support Obama and yes those are the facts.
You don't want discussion and try to stifle discussion by reflexively calling me an Obamabot. I am fine with that. The GOP still screwed up and Warren and Congress have options on the trade deal.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 04/25/2015 - 11:01pm
by reflexively calling me an Obamabot.
That also is a lie. I have never called you an Obamabot. I have never called anyone an Obamabot. Even during the primary when I supported Hillary over at TPM I never called anyone an Obamabot. These last two posts by you are lies about me from the beginning to the end.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 04/25/2015 - 11:26pm
You are the one who says who and who is not a Democrat.
That's a lie. I have never claimed that you or any person who is part of the democratic party is not a democrat. Not even the conservative blue dog coalition. They called themselves democrats, ran on the democrat ticket and joined the democrats in congress. Even though I disagree with most of their positions they are democrats and I've never said anything different. I have never played the dino game. I have never played the who is a "real" democrat game.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 04/25/2015 - 11:22pm
You say that People like me keep the Democratic Party from changing. You say that I do not criticize Democrats. I have criticized Democrats who urged others to stay home. I am criticizing Elizabeth Warren. Your statement about not criticizing Democrats is a lie.
The question is whether the GOP told the truth when they said Obama acted like a dictator on the Iran treaty or Warren and Congress have options once the trade deal is finalized. Instead of addressing those points, you label " people like me" as a problem within the Democratic Party. You have thin skin, but feel free to talk about others.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 04/26/2015 - 11:14am
It's true that some of the time I said you don't criticize democrats. That's slightly inaccurate. A more accurate statement would be that 99% of the time when anyone here criticizes a democrat and especially Obama you are there jumping up and down shouting: Nothing to see there folks, Look at the republicans, Look at the republicans, Look at the republicans. An occasional 1% inaccuracy is different that an objectively false statement. Hold yourself to that same standard then. When ever you make any statement include some % guess as to frequency.
The question is whether the GOP told the truth when they said Obama acted like a dictator
I don't see that as a question, or at most a rhetorical question. I'm quite capable of addressing the many ways in which the republican party has gone insane. In fact I've done it many times. At the same time I'm capable of addressing the problems I see with democrats like Lynch. You could have responded to my link by defending asset forfeiture or by saying you disapprove of Lynch's views on asset forfeiture but she is good in ways x, y, and z. Instead you're here again shouting, Look at the republicans. I want to discuss more than just how bad the republicans are.
You have thin skin, but feel free to talk about others.
Ridiculous. It's not like I wished I had the power to block you or stated that If we were on Facebook I would have blocked your trolling ass 2 years ago. In fact when resistance complained about you interjecting yourself into her conversations and wanted you to stop commenting on her posts I defended you just as I defended PP.
On another discussion site someone once told me I had a paladin complex. I do have a tendency to jump to the defense of people when I think they are unfairly attacked, even you. I'm a strong believer in the maxim, All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to remain silent. Perhaps I over react. But the evidence is clear that I have no desire to see you silenced or " to stifle discussion."
by ocean-kat on Sun, 04/26/2015 - 3:54pm
I see the Republicans as the major threat. I'd want Paladin to aim there first. Billionaire GOP backers are going to spend billions this cycle. I have no problem making the GOP my focus and I do not apologize for that. I present a view that differs from yours. I provide links, as I did when I criticized Warren. Address the data supplied in the link. That is more important then how many times I support Obama. I am not obligated to respond to criticism of Lynch in a style you find acceptable.
If someone wants to block a person on their Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook accounts, have at it. I have folks on my Facebook page who have views that differ from mine. I have thought about blocking them but I use Facebook mainly to keep abreast of upcoming events and not as an important source of communication. Perhaps if I felt Facebook was important and viewed some people as distractions, I might block them.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 04/26/2015 - 8:35pm