August 14, 2017

At Picnic Point...

P1150036

... with Meade and Zeus today.

Talk about anything you want.

P1150043

And give some thought to using The Althouse Amazon Portal.

92 comments:

n.n said...

What would Homer say? Mmm, picnic.

Tim Wright said...

Nice to see Zeus. He's got a bit of white about his muzzle, doesn't he? Tim

Anonymous said...

Good to see Zeus back.

Ann Althouse said...

"He's got a bit of white about his muzzle, doesn't he?"

He's an old man dog.

mockturtle said...

Do you pronounce your dog's name Zoos or Ze-us?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Needed.

Bay Area Guy said...

Which one is Meade and which one is Zeus?

Just kiddin', just kiddin' -- nice pics!

R.J. Chatt said...

I've been thinking about the "memo" by Higgins and the NSC. If the guy is so smart why did he circulate a memo about such a sensitive subject, especially since he was on the staff of the NSC? Not smart imo. I have no idea how much our political leaders discuss larger cultural issues or how to manipulate our society, but if they do, at least they do it in private. I would like to think that our NSC is focused on protecting us from outside threats, not focused on winning internal culture wars. I'd like to think that our government officials and particularly our military are not ideologically motivated past defending our Constitution.

mccullough said...

I think Meade would look good in shorts. But he looks good in the white t-shirt in jeans like James Dean

Feste said...

~
That right there - I’ve no clue who I’d rather mess with less, Meade or Zeus, but I don’t trust that dog’s smile, if I even start messing with Meade, and so, together, the two of them ... no thank you ... I prefer my assisted suicide to come less animalistically ...

CWJ said...

Althouse,

Thank you for your posts on the Charlottesville events. We may have to wait for some honest historian to piece together all the threads sometime in the future before we know what actually happened, and who all the groups, and what they believe, really were, but in the meantime your posts will have to do. In some ways I'm glad there will be a trial coming up so that we will have a record of that day, and I for one will wait until I see what each side presents.

rehajm said...

Zeuuuuuusssieeee!!!!!

Feste said...

He's an old man dog.

Worst kind. Old with field experience.

Old means they know that they may not have a lot of time or a second chance to finish the job and take you out. Experience means they’ll do it really fast. Or, it could mean that they know a tractable target and invite you in for a beer. Or dog bone. Whole damn thing is chancy no matter what with old godlike dogs.

dreams said...

Here is some good info for those of us with diabetes or pre-diabetes and those interested in good health.

"Scientists think the best candidate for an anti-ageing drug is metformin, the world’s most widely used diabetes drug which costs just 10p a day. Metformin increases the number of oxygen molecules released into a cell, which appears to boost robustness and longevity."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/worlds-first-anti-ageing-drug-could-see-humans-live-to-120/

"What they discovered was striking: The metformin-takers tended to be healthier in all sorts of ways. They lived longer and had fewer cardiovascular events, and in at least some studies they were less likely to suffer from dementia and Alzheimer’s. Most surprising of all, they seemed to get cancer far less frequently—as much as 25 to 40 percent less than diabetics taking two other popular medications. When they did get cancer, they tended to outlive diabetics with cancer who were taking other medications."

And also this. "The metformin patients in the study not only outlived the diabetics taking the other drug—a not especially surprising result if metformin is a superior treatment—but also outlived the nondiabetics studied as a comparison."

https://www.wired.com/story/this-pill-promises-to-extend-life-for-a-nickel-a-pop/

Robin Eatmon said...

Happy to see Zeus.

JML said...

mccullough said...

I think Meade would look good in shorts. I agree. Zeus, not so much.

SayAahh said...

He is an old man's dog.
FIFY

Meade said...

"who I’d rather mess with less, Meade or Zeus, but I don’t trust that dog’s smile"

Wise. My own rule is to not trust any dog, large or small, lady or tramp, unless I'm absolutely sure the dog was not mistreated or mis-trained as a puppy. Puppies should begin training as early as 6 weeks — sit, down, off, wait, stay — to always submit to the human leader, and to never bite or nip human flesh. Puppy Zeus was very well trained. Still, I would never trust any dog around a baby or child under 13. Even more, I would never trust a baby or child under 13 around my dog.

As for messing with me — fear not. I'm a peaceful man. Up to a point.

Robert said...

(I see the name Higgins in the comments.)

Zeus! Meade! Patrol!

Meade said...

"Do you pronounce your dog's name Zoos or Ze-us?"

Zeus [zoos], rhymes with moose. Also: Zoosie, Zooozie, Zoosle, Zoobie, Zoobah, Zoobie-Doo. (The first 1 is mostly heard from his owners, the last 3 are mostly heard from Mrs. Meade.)

Sarah from VA said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feste said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feste said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feste said...

... apologies all ... posted in wrong thread ... deleted ...

Henry said...

What would Homer say?

He would say, "Don't kill the cattle of the sun!"

Argos says Hi.

Paddy O said...

I echo CWJ, and also thanks for your approach to Trump. There's a sizable number of people who are weary of the zealots on both sides who want to tell us what to think and to jump whenever the media says jump. It's a swirling whirlwind of attempted manipulation, with a lot of underlying motives. I appreciate that you resist being manipulated and try to figure out the threads that are behind all that.

sunsong said...

“We do not exist for ourselves.”
~ Thomas Merton

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

Listening to my apolitical canaries-in-the-zeitgeist-coal mine today I'm struck by how vehemently they equate the two sides in Charlottesville and also the contempt they expressed for social media hysterics who were trying to somehow blame Trump. All the Democrats may have accomplished this weekend is further alienating the white LIV.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

How grotesque to see sunsong quoting Merton. It's a safe bet that she has no idea what he meant by that line.

D said...

If you say you're a peaceful man, Meade, shouldnt that dog's name be Jack? Left with you by some Crazy Chester fella to feed??
And - wait - the one takin the pics - is that whats-her-name ... takes the load off.....

Hagar said...

How about the going-ons at the Durham County Court House?

Henry said...

Hey Cracker -- go find a dog to pet. The politics isn't personal.

Henry said...

Meade -- How is it that you are always borrowing dogs? That seems like very good mojo.

David Baker said...

"I would never trust any dog around a baby or child under 13."

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Hagar said...
How about the going-ons at the Durham County Court House?

You mean this: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/durham-county/article167203777.html

Looks like ISIS to me.

Henry said...

@Sunsong -- I like your blog. I've turned most of my social media to photos.

Henry said...

Looks like The Falling of the Lenins.

Tommy Duncan said...

I struggle to understand the taunting, flippant, arrogant and disrespectful comments on Althouse today. The blogs feels like an electronic microcosm of the weekend at Charlottesville.

Bad Lieutenant said...

You're right about that Tommy. I'm sorry to say that it would help to shape responses to you if you were to cut to the chase and tell us which side you're on.

sunsong said...

Thanks Henry.

I like Iris too:

Let the Mystery Be

MountainMan said...

@Hagar: Same thing almost happened in Atlanta last night. I got a news alert that a "Confederate monument" was under attack from protesters in downtown Atlanta. I thought that odd, since there are no Confederate monuments in downtown Atlanta, other than the one HoodlumDoodlum mentioned the other day in relation to the Lion of Lucerne. That one marks the grave of about 3000 dead from the Battle of Atlanta, in Oakland Cemetery.

Turns out BLM/Antifa and related groups descended on the "Peace Monument" in Piedmont Park (Atlanta's Central Park), something I had forgotten about as I have not been there in years. It is not exactly a Confederate monument but a beautiful sculpture that was created in the 1890's symbolizing turning away from violence and toward eternal peace. It shows a soldier attempting to fire his rifle from a kneeling position but his gun being pushed away by the hand of an angel as he looks up to her and she reaches toward heaven with an olive branch. The protesters managed to break off the olive branch, smear the angel with red paint, and were putting a chain around it to pull it off with a vehicle when the APD arrived. They were lots of photos made and APD is currently asking for help in identifying the culprits and charging them for the destruction.

These people are complete idiots. Why would you attack a "peace" monument? I think all Confederate and related monuments across the South are at risk. It appears BLM/Antifa are taking matters into their own hands. This is, I am afraid, going to result in a lot more violence.

YoungHegelian said...

An interesting aside from an Huffpost article:

Fields has been charged with second-degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding and one count of hit and run. Judge Robert H. Downer Jr. appointed attorney Charles Weber to represent him. The public defender’s office declined to represent Fields because someone in the office was involved in Saturday’s crash, although details were not immediately available.

Uhhhmmmm, what's that bolded sentence about? It may be that someone from the PD office was in one of the stopped cars. they may have just been walking by. It may be that a close relative was in the crowd that was hit. But, it also raises the question: was someone from the PD's office involved in the Antifa rioting? You know, it doesn't take a lot of self-consciousness when you're surrounded in a crowd by lefty-nut jobs to know it's time to go another way. I'm seen these people up close at DC demos. They are not subtle. So, what was this about?

Henry said...

@YH -- You do realize that people actually live in that town of 48,000 people. It's not just a clearing in the wilderness where people stage blood sport.

According to CNN, "[Judge] Downer said someone in that office was related to an individual injured over the weekend, and he would have to go outside the office to make a selection."

The Public Defenders office disclosed the potential conflict of interest and the judge acted appropriately. The defendant has an attorney.

Feste said...

In Merton’s garden, though he did not know the particulars of this particular one, he did well know in other most-catholic ways ...


"Though for myself alone
I would not be ambitious in my wish
To wish myself much better, yet for you ..."

Betrothal vows, Merchant of Venice

Ralph L said...

As the statue of the soldier...came to the ground, members of the Durham County Sheriff’s Office videotaped the rally.
I'm surprised they didn't join in. This is the county that elected Nifong, the Duke Lacrosse persecutor, as DA.

I'm glad to hear we have a law to prevent the removal of our state monuments without legislative approval (further in article).

Howard said...

Next, they are going to pull down Stone Mountain

Howard said...

Bad Lieutenant: There are no sides, just animated disagreements. Thinking there are sides is an illusion, its constructed by The Man to keep us little people occupied fighting among ourselves while they steal everything in the world.

YoungHegelian said...

@Henry,

You do realize that people actually live in that town of 48,000 people. It's not just a clearing in the wilderness where people stage blood sport.

You ever been in a riot, Henry?

They are incredibly terrifying things to be in the middle of. "People who just live there" do not just hang around in them if they have any choice at all. By the time of the car crashing into the crowd, the rioting had been going on for some time. I can guarantee that the locals who weren't involved were long gone.

"Was related"? Oh, so just a kid or a spouse was involved in the rioting? I'm sorry, but if some Republican officials relative was among the Rightie rioters, we know about it by now. You may be inclined to give these people the benefit of the doubt. But, far too many times, what doesn't get said doesn't get said because it makes the lefties look bad.

Etienne said...

...We may have to wait for some honest historian to piece together all the threads sometime in the future...

That's the funniest line I've read on this blog in three days!

sunsong said...

First hand account of Charlottesville:

"When we woke up the morning of August 12, there were already pickup trucks and minivans filled with protesters wielding Nazi flags and other white-supremacist symbols and signs. They also were wearing riot gear — helmets, shields, sticks, and body armor. At least two dozen, by my count, were carrying semi-automatic weapons openly in the street. It is important to point out that these protesters were not locals. The cars’ license plates were largely out-of-state, or they were being ferried by rental vans. We were invaded by an army on Saturday. The word “alt-right” doesn’t capture the hate that these invaders brought to our town...

"...Two blocks north, in Emancipation Park, about 500 white nationalists were assembling. We could hear the chants from across the Mall, and could faintly smell tear gas. As we made our way home, we could see street fights breaking out between white-supremacist protesters and the counter-protesters. When we finally arrived home, we walked past a lone protester in an American-flag shirt, carrying a high-powered precision rifle.

"...And then the barbarity happened. As we stared out the window, we suddenly heard shouts and saw people running up the Mall, toward Fourth Street. As we all now know, a Dodge Charger rammed a group of peaceful protesters. From inside, we could hear people screaming for ambulances. Both before and after the incident, I saw the very group of protesters who were run down by the car; I think that they were genuinely peaceful protesters. They were not ministers, but they also were not anarchists..."




national review

Yancey Ward said...

The Kraken has been released.

Feste said...

~
Not even for a kiss from Elizabeth Swan (well, maybe I’m lying) would I face the Kraken, nor were I heartless Davey Jones would I want to face the fury of released Calypso ... so between the partisan conservative KKKraken and the partisan liberally liberated antifa Calypso ... I'm just wanting out of this war ... which will never end ... "nobody's right, when everybody's wrong"

sunsong said...

"nobody's right, when everybody's wrong"

Nice line. Nice song.

Etienne said...

Pierre Delanoƫ was a famous song writer. He was prolific in the 60's. A young girl wanted to be a singer. Although she learned French, she was born in Bulgaria, and her family escaped the Soviets to Paris. The Maritza river flows across Bulgaria. Her father only knew how to sing la la la.

She told this story to Pierre, and he went home and wrote a song: La Maritza which everyone knows only the la la la part, just like her father.

La Maritza is my river
As the Seine is yours
But there's only my father
Now Who Remembers

Sometimes...

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sunsong said...

Kewl song, etienne

Rusty said...

Reynolds mentioned our hostess in his blog. Also my favorite commenter Jeff Goldstein.
Go read it. it's good.

HT said...

Prior picnic point pondered if press would pounce on psych problems if perp peeled progressive. Perp ponied up prior professional pronouncement of phrenia, schizo variety.

Henry said...

Yankees catcher Gary Sanchez's nickname is Kraken.

@YH - I give everyone the benefit of a doubt. But your point seems entirely banal to me. Someone in the local PD office was related to someone injured in Charlottesville. We don't know much beyond that. We don't if that person injured was a antifa rioter or a minister in prayer or a police officer or a reporter or a white nationalist, for that matter. We don't know if it's somebody's aged mother who doddered into a crowd spilling away from the parade route or a town official. It's immaterial to anything other than your anger.

KittyM said...

@MountainMan "I think all Confederate and related monuments across the South are at risk." Can you not see that Confederate monuments represent a glorification of racism, slavery and cruelty to our fellow man?

As Mitch Landrieu, mayor of New Orleans, said: “The Confederacy was on the wrong side of history and humanity. It sought to tear apart our nation and subjugate our fellow Americans to slavery. This is the history we should never forget and one that we should never again put on a pedestal to be revered.”

Surely no right-thinking and humane person would defend a statue that glorifies some of the worst men in it, men who stood in direct contradiction to the values we all hold dear? Surely we can agree that "we are all born equal" and that men who fought a war to own other human beings are not men we want to celebrate?

Big Mike said...

These people are complete idiots. Why would you attack a "peace" monument? I think all Confederate and related monuments across the South are at risk. It appears BLM/Antifa are taking matters into their own hands. This is, I am afraid, going to result in a lot more violence.

Because Democrats don't want peace. Hence the agitation and the never ending culture wars. Why do you think the police were ordered by the arch-Democrat Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, to stand down? Read the comments of KittyM, just above. Does that read like someone who wants peace, or someone caught up in the never ending culture wars?

Lucien said...

Kitty M, I appreciate your convictions. But for some reason people destroying statues because "no right-thinking and humane person" could support those statues and the statues stand "in direct contradiction to the values we all hold dear" reminds me of the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

Bad Lieutenant said...

We don't know if it's somebody's aged mother who doddered into a crowd spilling away from the parade route or a town official. It's immaterial to anything other than your anger.
8/15/17, 6:24 AM

Stop imputing motives and emotions for rhetorical tactical advantage, eh? Else I guess you don't want to play the odds when they're not in your favor. Fine, let's have some journalism. Let some bright eyed reporter dig out that little fact.

Any reporters out there? Or are they all stenographers?

TA said...

How old is that Zeus dog now? Still looking strong.

David Baker said...

Well, I see that Little Bo Peep got her dollar.

Because "He grabbed my ass," she peeped.

KittyM said...

@BigMike "Because Democrats don't want peace. Hence the agitation and the never ending culture wars."

Please tell me you don't really believe this sweeping statement? Democrats are perfectly ordinary people. The Democratic party is one of the two big mainstream parties in the United States.

You presumably hate it when those on the left make sweeping statements about conservatives, or lump them all in together. You understand that "conservative" or "Republican" are terms that can describe all sorts of views and all sorts of people. Why is it OK to write/think about those on the left in this way? Can't we agree that the conversation should be somewhat more nuanced than that on this blog, run by a law professor, who cares a lot about language and speaking clearly and precisely?

KittyM said...

@Lucien. Thanks for your response. However I believe you are conflating "people destroying these statues" (which sounds violent) with the state removing these statues, which is a political decision with which I assume we can all agree.

I don't know what the "Buddhas of Bamiyan" are!

Henry said...

@Bad Lieutentant -- The reason the judge appointed an attorney other than one from Public Defenders office is because someone in the office reported that they were related to someone injured over the weekend. The Public Defenders office acted appropriately by making this known to the judge and the judge acted appropriately by naming an attorney who would have no likelihood of a conflict of interest. Everyone acted appropriately. The defendant has an attorney. The system works.

But if we are to take a trip down probabilistic lane, you might consider the following:

1) The main argument from the right these last few days is that antifa initiated the violence. To the extent that this is true, someone injured over the weekend is as likely to have been a victim of antifa violence as white nationalist violence. Either way it's a conflict of interest for the public defenders office.

2) Public Defenders Office employees live and work in the area. A relative is far more likely to be a local than someone who came from out-of-town to either march or counter-protest. The odds of a local being an antifa hooligan or a neo-nazi are much smaller than someone who came to Charlottesville intentionally to march or confront the march.

3) People in Charlottesville went to work that day. That's an interesting point to take from the National Review article upstream. The march route went through Charlottesville's commercial district. Clearly many locals stayed away, but others made it a point to not be intimidated and go to work.

4) A person in the Public Defenders office has a civil service job. If we consider probable relatives of this person, the possibility arises that the relative was at the march in some official capacity. The odds of this are lower than the odds that the relative was at the march to counter-protest (see the next point) but it is worth considering.

5) The vast majority of counter-protesters were non-violent. They were there to witness the march, to hold signs, to stand up against violence they expected from the white nationalists. Many counter-protesters belonged to mainstream civic, religious, and civil rights groups. This New York Times article gives you a nice shot of some antifa activists. It also shows a group of counterprotesters organized by local churches. Given that a) most counterprotestors were peaceful and b) many of the peaceful counterprotestors came from the local community, the odds that the injured relative was a antifa activist go down significantly.

6) There's no information about how the relative was injured. The relative could have been injured by an antifa activist with a baseball bat. The relative could have been injured in the car crash. The relative could have been injured running from the scene in a mob of frightened people. The odds that the injury was directly related to one of the dramatic events captured on video is actually quite small.


Michael K said...

No surprise that the commenter does get the reference to those Buddhas.

Michael K said...

Does not get

Big Mike said...

Please tell me you don't really believe this sweeping statement?

I certainly do. Read on.

Democrats are perfectly ordinary people.

That used to be true, but in the last election most of the "perfectly ordinary" people bolted their party to vote for Donald Trump. Are you intelligent enough to ask yourself why that happened? In 2015 I retired and in 2016 I moved from the Washington suburbs to "flyover country," and it was quite eye-opening to talk to the local people. They hate folks like you, KittyM. They used to vote reliably Democrat, but now they hate you with a passion you can't imagine. As far as they're concerned, you picked the fight with them, not them with you. You can stop it anytime, but they can't stop the fight because they know that you'll just pick on something else. There's a reason why I and other people call them the "never ending culture wars."

The Democratic party is one of the two big mainstream parties in the United States.

Sadly true.

You presumably hate it when those on the left make sweeping statements about conservatives, or lump them all in together. You understand that "conservative" or "Republican" are terms that can describe all sorts of views and all sorts of people.

No shit, Shirley. One of your fellow lefties spent all day yesterday explaining to us miserable dolts that the Republican Party is the union of the set of all white supremacists and with the set of all neo-Nazi (as a mathematician I will use the proper terminology).

Why is it OK to write/think about those on the left in this way?

Because you deserve it?

Can't we agree that the conversation should be somewhat more nuanced than that on this blog, run by a law professor, who cares a lot about language and speaking clearly and precisely?

There's that word, "nuance." That's a favorite word of you lefty folks. It's kind of a put down, isn't it? Conservative people, such as myself, we are just too stupid to grasp nuance, right? Sad about us, amirite?

In the name of appeasing the never appeased, you are deliberately and either calculatedly or stupidly sticking your finger in people's eyes. Do you get that? I take it that it doesn't bother you to do so, or do you just not try to put yourself in other people's shoes?

And don't try to hide behind Althouse's skirts. Participate in the give and take or get out.

Bad Lieutenant said...

2) Public Defenders Office employees live and work in the area. A relative is far more likely to be a local than someone who came from out-of-town to either march or counter-protest. The odds of a local being an antifa hooligan or a neo-nazi are much smaller than someone who came to Charlottesville intentionally to march or confront the march.


How much smaller, then, the odds of the actual victim being a local AND a hooligan!

She was a Wobbly. Therefore an actual, formal member of an actual, formal anarchist organization. So the victim was a local AND a terrorist. Pretty terrorist, like Bernardine Dohrn, I guess.

It's an 80% Democrat college town. Locals are quite likely to be lefty humps, as are the PDs.

But let's not guess. Name the PD, name the relative, identify all their associations. Apparently that's all right these days.

Bad Lieutenant said...

There's that word, "nuance." That's a favorite word of you lefty folks. It's kind of a put down, isn't it? Conservative people, such as myself, we are just too stupid to grasp nuance, right? Sad about us, amirite?



Nuance for them, the broad brush for us. Conveeeenient as a Church Lady calling out SAAATANNN!

Bad Lieutenant said...

I really shouldn't bother but as a New York commuter the stupidity of the following cries out for release:


"3) People in Charlottesville went to work that day. That's an interesting point to take from the National Review article upstream. The march route went through Charlottesville's commercial district. Clearly many locals stayed away, but others made it a point to not be intimidated and go to work."


What world do you live in when traffic is an intimidation that up with which you will not put?!? Oh yes, downtown is closed up because of the Puerto Rican Day Parade/the marathon/the demonstrations. Well, I won't be intimidated by that! Let me walk/drive right through! 20,000 runners won't stop me from going where I want!


The stupid, it burns.

Henry said...

@Bad Lieutenant -- Instead of hypothesizing, you should read.

Henry said...

And consider the math. It's not hard. You take a population, look at outcomes, figure out the likelihoods.

Bad Lieutenant said...

"you should read"


What, this sales brochure?


"This New York Times article gives you a nice shot of some antifa activists. It also shows a group of counterprotesters organized by local churches. "

Henry said...

The article from the National Review I referenced. It specifically talks about people at work in the pedestrian shopping mall in the city's commercial district that day:

Just before noon, we walked our daughter Annika to work at the Splendora’s gelato shop on Main Street — a bricked-in pedestrian shopping mall that is the shining jewel of Charlottesville. Annika insisted on working as a way of saying to the white supremacists that they would not shut down her life. I insisted on having lunch next door, and then sitting with her until her shift was over....

Both before and after the incident, I saw the very group of protesters who were run down by the car; I think that they were genuinely peaceful protesters. They were not ministers, but they also were not anarchists. Within about 20 minutes after the car attack, fights started breaking out on the Mall, right in front of Splendora’s.


This whole question of "who was the injured relative" is mind-bogglingly trivial. Even if the relative was one of the people arrested on Saturday, it would still be completely unimportant to the question of a fair trial.

Here are the populations we're talking about -- residents of Charlottesville who lived near the areas of the march or who were working in the commercial district that day; people -- local or from elsewhere -- who attended the march to witness the event; people who attended the march to peacefully counterprotest; the white supremacists who were part of the march; any friends and fellow travelers who came to see them (I assume they aren't all isolated loners); groups who attended the march for their own reasons -- such as the Yingling militia and the Redneck Revolt groups that each assigned themselves a role as unofficial security; local police, state police, and national guard units; local and national news media; antifa anarchists who intentionally confronted the marchers and triggered some amount of the violence, James Fields.

Someone who was hurt that day is most likely to come from one of the larger populations and most likely someone of no importance except to their own family and friends.

Ralph L said...

Henry, do you really think that mob of people blocking the intersection and surrounding the minivan and Cadillac were uninvolved locals? With flags, BLM and raised fist signs, and baseball bats?

You've got a better case in the other street mayhem, but I imagine sensible people stayed away from the "many sides." I'm not including journalists and photographs in the sensible.

Henry said...

Ralph L. -- This whole discussion started with the fact that someone in the Public Defenders office (could be anyone) had a relative who was injured in the events over the weekend. Based on that fact the Judge appointed an attorney from outside of the public defenders office.

The HuffPo reported that "someone in the office was involved in Saturday’s crash".

Other reports simply said that a member of the office had a conflict of interest without specifying what the conflict was. CNN reported that "[Judge] Downer said someone in that office was related to an individual injured over the weekend, and he would have to go outside the office to make a selection."

Everything I've written is based on that statement -- "an individual was injured over the weekend."

But even if the person injured was struck by James Fields car or injured running away, or hit himself with his own black baseball bat, the person's identity is not newsworthy. Fields will not be represented by an attorney with a conflict of interest. That's all.

Bad Lieutenant said...

"Just before noon, we walked our daughter Annika to work at the Splendora’s gelato shop on Main Street — a bricked-in pedestrian shopping mall that is the shining jewel of Charlottesville. Annika insisted on working as a way of saying to the white supremacists that they would not shut down her life. I insisted on having lunch next door, and then sitting with her until her shift was over...."


-- Sounds like a pair of insistent self-indulgent morons. Grow up! What happened to Skokie? What happened to ignore them and they'll go away? Yeah, scoop that fat and sugar! Stick it to the Man!

As for "I think that they were genuinely peaceful protesters. They were not ministers, but they also were not anarchists." -- The dead woman was literally an anarchist.

As for "This whole question of "who was the injured relative" is mind-bogglingly trivial. Even if the relative was one of the people arrested on Saturday, it would still be completely unimportant to the question of a fair trial." -- So the PDs were wrong to recuse themselves?

"mind-bogglingly trivial" -- so, easy to answer. so answer it. Nobody minds when the shoe is on the other foot.

"Someone who was hurt that day" -- so who are they?

Bad Lieutenant said...

"someone of no importance" -- certainly not to the burghers of C'ville, or VA if it goes to the top, who shunned their roles as protectors of the peace, because they like rightists getting clobbered by leftists.

Henry said...

It would be completely unimportant to the question of a fair trial because the PD recused themselves.

As of two days ago, City officials say Fields killed 1 person and injured 19. According to UV Medical Center, there were "five patients from the crash in critical condition, four in serious condition, six in fair condition and four in good condition" City officials said there were at least 15 other injuries, bringing the total to 34.

I'm the sure police are taking statements from the people injured as well as other witnesses.

Bad Lieutenant said...

the person's identity is not newsworthy.

We'll know when we know it.

Bad Lieutenant said...

It would be completely unimportant to the question of a fair trial because the PD recused themselves.

To avoid scrutiny? That's why I want the scrutiny. Let's find out what kind of a hive the local gov't is.

Henry said...

Let's go monkey fishing. Maybe we'll find something.

Lucien said...

Kitty M, thanks for your thoughts. For me, I'm not sure the government removing the statues is any better than the people tearing them down. The people who dynamited the Buddhas of Bamiyan were the government at the time.

I'd observe that the people who dynamited the Buddhas were also just as certain that they were 100% in the right with their actions as the people tearing down/voting away memorials in the south today.

With that said, it is within a population's right to vote to tear down old statues, demolish buildings of historical significance and otherwise erase their own history. I wouldn't deny the right but I don't have to like it or agree with it.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Let's go monkey fishing. Maybe we'll find something.

Sauce...goose...

KittyM said...

Lucien Thank *you* for discussing this with me. Sorry that I didn't know the Buddha reference.

I think we probably agree with each other that there is always an interesting question about what statues / historical monuments should be retained and which should be removed and what the retaining or removing says about the society involved.

My own view is that in the particular case of monuments that were specifically designed to glorify the Confederacy and people who fought for the Confederacy, it is quite right to remove them because what they are glorifying is at heart something that we all here - whatever our political leanings - can agree is basically inhuman and wrong, namely slavery.

I suppose if we were talking about slavery that took place 1,000 years ago - in the very long ago historical past - then I might have a different view.

But this history is relatively recent and the damage to American society (the inequality, the embedded racism) is still quite apparent, as we can see from a lot of discussion in this thread and the way many commenters feel about BLM for example.

"I'd observe that the people who dynamited the Buddhas were also just as certain that they were 100% in the right with their actions as the people tearing down/voting away memorials in the south today."

Yes. An interesting point. What do we about the fact that we know that people in the past made what we think of as terrible decisions but thought (knew) they were right? How do we each of us make good moral decisions when we face the truth that many people felt as strongly as we do - and we look back and condemn them?

I suppose I try and find the touchstone: all people created equal, do no harm, do unto others as you would have them do to you. And take it from there. And be humble and understand that it might be wrong - therefore - keep my mind open to other points of view. And try to argue calmly and cogently and see if the opposing arguments are better. What about you?

KittyM said...

@BigMike

I'm sorry, what exactly is your point? You agree with me that it is very annoying when "lefties" make sweeping statements about the right. From your tone ("...One of your fellow lefties spent all day yesterday explaining to us miserable dolts that...") I can tell that upsets you a lot and you presumably consider yourself to have every right to be offended by that.

Fair enough. But then you write that those on the left "deserve" the generalisations about them. I don't get it. Why is it fair play for you to bundle those on the left together but not for me to bundle those on the right? What possible reason could there be for the discrepancies between what you think is fair for me to write and what you think is fair for you to write?

"There's that word, "nuance." That's a favorite word of you lefty folks. It's kind of a put down, isn't it? Conservative people, such as myself, we are just too stupid to grasp nuance, right? Sad about us, emirate?"

I'm sorry you didn't like my use of the word 'nuance'. I used in in the context of explaining why I don't like such sweeping statements about whole groups of people. I didn't know it was any kind of politically sensitive term.

"In the name of appeasing the never appeased, you are deliberately and either calculatedly or stupidly sticking your finger in people's eyes. Do you get that? I take it that it doesn't bother you to do so, or do you just not try to put yourself in other people's shoes?"

I don't know what this means. By participating in the comments, I am most definitely trying to put myself in other people's shoes.

"And don't try to hide behind Althouse's skirts. Participate in the give and take or get out."

I really am trying my best to participate in the give and take (although I keep having to get offline to work!). I mentioned Althouse just because I was trying to make a point about how she likes to use precise language.

What can I do to persuade you that I *am* trying to participate in the give and take in the most constructive and respectful manner possible? How can I persuade you that I am trying very hard to listen to you and the other commenters and understand your points of view? I clearly haven't done a very good job so far if you are still so hostile.

HT said...

“specifically designed to glorify the Confederacy and people who fought for the Confederacy, it is quite right to remove them because what they are glorifying is at heart something that we all here “

It’s quite possible I am wrong or deluded or illuded, but I do not at ALL see the statues as glorifying the confederacy. As a Southerner, and I may or may not be typical, a statue of R.E Lee is something else then again. He just commands respect in the south for his life and service. There is NO WAY I would ever want to secede or not have gone through the period of African Americans gaining the franchise and the demolishment of Jim Crow. Again, I leave the possibility that I am wrong, but that’s the way I feel. We honor our forefathers. Period, end of story. Replacing the personal and military sacrafices and accomplishments (yes, I know, we lost) with vague notions and names of parks is, to me, akin to turning a bookstore into a stuffed animal emporium. It’s a little bit painful for many if not most southerners, I’m sorry, there’s no way around it. These statues are a part of cities and towns.

Big Mike said...

I don't know what this means. By participating in the comments, I am most definitely trying to put myself in other people's shoes.

Then figure it out. You seem to be from the generation of students who have to be spoon fed everything. A good start would be to ask yourself, why, when you think you're trying to put yourself in someone else's shoes and be all sorts of conciliatory, a person who knows you only through your single comment despises you and is certain that the man who is coming out to work on his house, the plumber who installed his water softener, the "perfectly ordinary people" I live among, in fact nearly everyone I know, would despise you too. Why would that be? Is it because you are female and we are male (the patriarchy! the phallocracy!) or is it because you want us to fall in line behind you and you are so absolutely certain of yourself that you think your earnest pleading to be allowed to tear down statues commemorating Confederate leaders and common soldiers should wear us down. That would appease you. For now. But experience has taught us that you'll be back. Can we agree? I dunno. Can you grasp the concept of "way past fed up"? No? If you win here, it is because you accept blood in the street. Is that worth it to you?

If you read Ulysses Grant's memoirs you find admiration for the honesty, integrity, and sense of honor that Lee possessed, with the right and proper caveat that the cause for which he fought was "one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."

A century from now, when you perhaps understand what words like "honor," "integrity," and "honesty" are all about, perhaps you'll get it.