Morning Ed: World {2016.05.23.M}


Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

27 Responses

  1. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    E-Cigaretts and the Democratic Party: Has it ever occurred to you that the Democratic Party might actually believe in things in the same way that the Republican Party does? People seem to expect the Democratic Party should give up some of it’s core values in order to take advantage of Republican disarray. That would be the cynical move but the Democratic Party still has a set of values that it wants to preserve. Taking public health issues seriously is one of them.

    Daesh: Again, people actually believe things even if those things happen to be mad. A good chunk of he Left wants the problems wrecking the Muslim world in general and certain parts of it in particular to be easy to solve. They want to assume that theocratic politics in one form are another aren’t popular. This is having your head in the sand. There are many people in the United States that think that theocratic politics are a good idea. Its not much of a stretch to thing that many Muslims think Islamic theocracy is similar a good idea. True believers in mad things exist.Report

  2. Avatar notme says:

    Change to California law blamed for shoplifting jump

    This shouldn’t be a big surprise to anyone.Report

  3. Avatar Richard Hershberger says:

    New to me: the USS Zumwalt, the lead ship in a new class of stealth destroyers, is commanded by Capt. James Kirk. Seriously. William Shatner wrote a nice letter in support.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird says:

      If Lee told me something, then changed his mind, would I be able to call you a liar?

      If not, why not?Report

      • Avatar Richard Hershberger says:

        There are different types of lies. I think this was a lie the nevertrumpers told themselves.Report

        • Avatar Will Truman says:

          I do not recall Graham actually flying the #NeverTrump banner. I’m not sure any candidate except Rubio did, and Team Rubio made clear pretty quickly that they meant “Primary Only.” In any event, it is true that almost every politician that used the hashtag didn’t mean it except for a handful.

          That is in line with my expectations for a little while now. I’ve been surprised by a couple of anti-Trump people turning, including Graham. But I’ve also been surprised by Cruz and Ryan, the former holding out thus far and the latter keepng his distance.

          In any event, upwards of 90% of the people I know who actually did fly the #NeverTrump banner are still #NeverTrump. Really, Tom Van Dyke is the only person I know that used the hashtag and has definitely switched. Others were highly critical of Trump in the primary, but did not state that they would never support Trump. Comfortably Smug looks like he will jump, and Tim Kowal has indicated that he will vote for Trump, but I don’t recall either of them actually using the hashtag. (For that matter, I never did either, but I have sufficiently indicated it to be held accountable if I become a pod.)

          It comes across to me not that #NeverTrump people were not sincere, but that they were never actually very numerous. (I actually have a further theory that more on Twitter probably would have jumped – partisanship makes idiots of us all – but didn’t simply because they have been told for months that they would, which in turn lead them to dig in deeper than they otherwise might have.)Report

    • Avatar notme says:

      Why is it good news that a murdering rapist isn’t being put to death?Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

        Not that I expect these answers to make any difference to you because you but:

        1. Because the prosecution clearly used race as a motivation in selecting jury members and that goes against anything race-blind. Isn’t race-blindness a conservative principal? I’ve heard many conservatives argue that the best way to defeat racism is to ignore race. You can’t have it both ways.

        2. Maybe this defendant is guilty but we have seen dozens if not hundreds of people exonerated after spending decades on death row or in prison for crimes that they did not commit. How many people were innocent but found guilty because of racist taint and assumptions on the part of the jurors?

        3. Even if he is guilty, that is no reason to allow the death penalty. The better angel of our nature is proven by showing compassion to all including the worst members of society. How are we any better than the defendant if we stoop to the same thirst for violence?Report

        • Avatar notme says:

          Here is my problem with the S.Ct.’s ruling in this case. The fact that the prosecutor identified the race of some of the potential jurors on a piece of paper doesn’t by itself prove that those jurors were excluded on the basis of their race.

          How many people were innocent but found guilty because of racist taint and assumptions on the part of the jurors?

          It’s an interesting question but not relevant to whether or not this guy should be punished.

          Even if he is guilty, that is no reason to allow the death penalty.

          Says who? If he is guilty that is a perfect reason to put him to death.Report

          • Avatar Burt Likko says:

            The fact that the prosecutor identified the race of some of the potential jurors on a piece of paper doesn’t by itself prove that those jurors were excluded on the basis of their race.

            Yes it does. The venieremen whose races were noted happened to all be black. That alone is a big problem for me, although there is even more evidence than that in the record of the prosecutor systematically excluding blacks from the jury; Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion discusses it at some length.Report

            • Avatar Don Zeko says:

              How lazy was this prosecutor to get in Batson trouble, anyway? Caselaw has developed so that you can essentially exclude veniermen on the basis of race all day long so long as you aren’t a total idiot and admit that you did so.Report

              • Avatar notme says:

                Probably b/c it happened in 1987 the year after Batson was decided.Report

              • Avatar Kolohe says:

                The crime occurred only a couple months after the Batson was decided, and Foster’s trial was about a year later.

                edit: that said, it does seem like one of those cases where your cutting corners on something you’re going to win anyway, so the cutting corners is pretty inexcusable.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko says:

                Oops. That’s why you read the link before snarking, kids.Report

            • Avatar notme says:

              If there is more evidence in the record, that is a different thing. The NYT article made a big deal out of the fact that the prosecutor recorded the race of a person on a piece of paper.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko says:

                The NYT piece said there were multiple documents in which the prosecutor recorded or emphasized the race of potential jurors, as well as comments by the prosecutor implying that the non-racial justifications for striking the jurors were pretextual. How much more evidence do you think we need?Report

      • Avatar Burt Likko says:

        Because when you racially slant a jury, as the prosecution did here in a classic Baston scenario, we can’t trust the verdict that results. I’m unmoved by the confession; people confess for all sorts of reasons that have little to do with their knowledge of their own guilt or innocence. One study has found three in ten people who confessed to various crimes were in fact completely innocent. So yes, the defendant confessed, so it’s more likely than not that he actually did it — but “more likely than not” isn’t good enough, particularly in a capital case.

        If the state is going to use its power to kill in the name of its citizens at all, we citizens need to be really damn sure the defendant is guilty. The only real assurance we can have that this is the case is if proper legal procedure is followed — exactingly. (As far as I can tell, the defendant is potentially subject to retrial for this 1986 killing because this reversal of the conviction was based upon a “procedural error” rather than a finding of factual error.)

        So that’s why we call this good news: it’s as close to “justice” as we’re going to get in a case like this. You can read the entire opinion here, including the solo dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas.Report

    • Avatar Stillwater says:

      Not a lawyer, but this strikes me as some micro-thinly sliced legal reasoning:

      Instead, the Government’s proof shows only post-contractual intentional breach of the representations. Accordingly, the jury had no legally sufficient basis on which to conclude that the misrepresentations alleged were made with contemporaneous fraudulent intent.

      That’s not to say I don’t get the distinction, of course. But if not for the “post-contractual intentional breach of representations” CW wouldn’t have engaged the hustle to begin with. Otherwise it makes no sense.Report

  4. Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

    We aren’t the top waster? Don’t tell my wife*, she’ll try to make us number 1 again.

    *I’m the person who is careful about separating trash. My wife will recycle the obvious stuff (boxes, cans, bottles), but if she isn’t sure, she tosses it without making an effort to find out if it can be recycled. And don’t even get me started about her & compostables…Report