Neo

I walk at 3.0 mph. Your post is heartwarming and poignant.

It's one of those opinionated days ... Hillary Clinton was not indicted by DOJ. This is important for her and means she, a single citizen among 330 million single citizens, can continue pursuing the family, career, and personal objectives important to her. I'm happy for the citizen and her family. Hillary Clinton was, of course, indicted by FBI Director Comey. His overview of FBI findings provide the American people a stunning Bill of Particulars as they consider her candidacy for President of the US. The DOJ is now out of the loop. Voters are now the Grand Jury. I've watched and listened to Comey's assessment more than once. For reasons I cannot understand, "extreme carelessness" does not rise to the level of "gross negligence". I believe he introduced "intent" to clarify the difference. Of course, intent isn't relevant. Even if it were, I don't see how "intent" differentiates between the concepts. I don't think he believes the word does, either. Comey's not ignorant. Now, I'm not a conspiracy guy, even when things don't go "my way". I've settled on the belief that Comey decided to punt on third down in order to allow voters to be the Grand Jury in matters of representation. I don't find honor or courage in that decision. My mind's eye sees him going home after his press conference, looking into his wife's eyes, and running to the bathroom to puke. At least we'll not have to listen to irrelevant and silly claims that nothing was marked classified, all work related email was produced, the server was secure, she cooperated, other Sec States did the same thing, and convenience was the motive. She no longer has to, and she no longer can, say these things. Gratefully, her supporters no longer have to nod "yes" to flapdoodle. As a fellow poster once said to me, and I paraphrase, "I know what she is. I'm voting for her anyway". I prefer this. It's simple and honest. Regardless of who I vote for in November, I can hear those very words coming from my mouth. With respect and affection, I've seen some rationalization (no pejorative, see above; I, too, rationalize), of HRC's attractiveness vis-à-vis Trump arising from assigning a low value to government secrets or digital crime. I disagree with with the value of state secrets and consider digital crime to encompass typos or inadvertent blind copies on email. That's me, and beside the point. Instead, I evaluate her transgressions in the context of trust, truthfulness, personal agenda at the expense of the people's and competence. The object of the little "c" crime (state secrets) is less relevant to me than the crime, itself. I said this sentence out loud. "I give Manson a pass because I don't consider Hollywood starlets very important". I couldn't say it twice. President Obama referred to asking HRC to be Secretary of State as one of the best decisions of his presidency. He referred to her, in a speech, as the candidate most qualified for the office in history. I hear he is a great orator. Just when I thought AG Lynch did the dumbest thing in my memory while serving justice in the Nation's capital, Justice Ginsberg weighed in with her own faux pas. America's best and brightest fight for admission to Harvard Law. What happens to them there? If only Scalia hadn't passed away. Even a retirement would allow us to ask him "what's up with your friend?". You can imagine how a transparently biased court pains me. I think she'll retire ten minutes after a Democrat is elected. An esteemed and honorable poster, referring to state responses to acts of terror and resulting legislative intrusions into the freedoms and privacy of individuals, quoted Patrick Henry. "Give me liberty or give me death!" The poster warned against surrendering freedom in the face of fear. I support that post! I'll add, though, that not all state responses are born in fear and/or bigotry. I resist the label and evaluate the proposals. I'll also add that desiring liberty over death comes with obligations. My sacred liberties encumber me with the obligation of respecting yours. I would be less enthusiastic about "Give me the liberties I've identified as having merit while ignoring the liberties others have identified as having merit or give me death!" A world respecting the liberties of all is very messy. I like it. Nice, France. Innocents are slaughtered, again. As always, my heart goes out to both the victims and to the broken perpetrators. I read some back in forth about gun control and truck control here and elsewhere. I think we mix two arguments. The constitutional status and express purpose of guns and trucks can be debated with or without Nice. It's not a very thrilling debate in and of itself. We miss the point. I believe the "missing the point" aspect of debating in the context of Nice, or Orlando, or San Bernardino goes to the root cause of the event and not to the constitutional status of the implement. I'd be just as disappointed with someone blaming the deaths on cucumbers. When I mention "truck control", I'm being snarky with regard to the assessment of the tragedy's cause and not to the status of the tool. The critical thinking fails because it does. It fails before you get to the step of determining constitutional remedies. The preceding analysis of critical thinking is solely mine. My own skills do not rise to the level of authoritative. I am, of course, partisan, and the following sounds lame even to me. I am looking to write a fair and balanced criticism of Trump. It's simply not easy for me to do. It's hard not because there's nothing to criticize, but because there's so much. I just can't get my arms around any one thing. When he talks, and even more so when he tweets, I simply see an intemperate ego maniac who's not the sharpest tool unafraid to flail about regarding things he doesn't understand very well. I do, however, believe I understand the motivation of his supporters better than I do hers. They're my motives. I fall off the supporter train when I enter his car. Lastly. Sometimes you pound your head against the wall and find the wall's harder. Sometimes you find your head is. While I still believe #BLM misses the larger point and addresses a legitimate but smaller point, I'll publicly say what I've always believed but thought was so obvious that it need not be said. That is, the black community's relationship with the police is a tense relationship with real historical roots. This tension makes the interaction different than the interaction I experience and potentially dangerous to both sides. I argue BLM would be more effective (and more attractive to me as a cause) if it addressed larger threats to black lives. I'll acknowledge a personal attraction to taking responsibility and an aversion to finding others to blame. I'll no longer refer to the self indulgent cacophony of the grievance culture. My feet have moved. You all inform me.

As long as it's not jailhouse orange. That would confuse viewers.

Welcome!

Goalie Guess: 1 and 30

To Messrs n and W: I've documented my queasiness. I'm not learned enough in International or Constitutional law to make a proclamation. The President, naturally enough, did his homework. Mr. n's referencing of "actively", "war" and "foreign country" all find their way into this DOJ memo advising President Obama of his Constitutional authority. The author concludes differently than n, but he shares n's framework. Tough one. I remain queasy. One of several iterations: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf Less legalese: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/us/justice-department-found-it-lawful-to-target-anwar-al-awlaki.html

TP: "You enjoy my fragrance?" GMTM: "I'm not saying it twice."

The Ministry Of Truth.

I said I like 'em all! I don't get every thought and every belief I have into every post. I agree with your point in its entirety. I paid my "due process" respects on June 23 in response to "no-fly" lists. I even linked the ACLU (I'm beeming with my new found liberal bona fides). I'll go further. The drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki saddened me greatly for just the reason you point out. Edit to add: My first response to the Dallas situation, following the grieving over the death of innocents, of course, related to due process. Our board conversation has been weaponry oriented, to a large extent, but due process .... Baby that's a good one.

I like them all. Those Amendment thingies. Oh, and the document, itself. I like it, too. It's especially interesting to me to read recent posts addressing concerns that are EXACTLY the concerns envisioned by the Framers when they wrote the second amendment. You may not like their remedy, but the "there's nothing to worry about" argument is missing in action, of late. Sometimes I hope too much, but perhaps this reflection will shed light on the meaning of a well regulated militia, assembled from an armed citizenry, and put the concept of state sponsored Police and The National Guard to rest. Cats, sleeping with dogs! I am opening a tin foil hat kiosk, and hoping to profit extravagantly.

Radar, thank you both for your service and sacrifice. I love your word, myopic. If there's a profession in the world where myopic vision is more understandable than "cop" or "soldier", I can't think of one. We probably all agree. I see us discussing institutional myopias while understanding individual myopia.

Having seen your imagination, writing skill, and willingness/ability to pluck feathers, I'd LOVE to see a transcript of what you were able to "overhear"!

Has it been mentioned? MODO's considering March .. and the Great SabreSpace Meet Up is considering March ... Serendipity ... Kismet ....

I think I can, I think I can ....

Agreed .... i agree with your "question the use" points of view. I understood you only to be calling for safeguards, analysis, checks, etc. Seems to me we're all looking at the police, in general, and being wary. At the same time, we look at specific cops in specific situations, and find understanding in what decisions were made. Your larger point, investigation, certainly holds. The only world as bad as the "all cops make bad decisions" world is the "all cops make good decisions" world. Substitute any career for cop.

For the record, and with respect and deference to Mr. Radar's view ... my objection to militarized cops is their availability as an instrument of state power. They are our finest. If I were privileged enough to be one, I'd use any tool available to me and most courageously rely on my own judgment. After all, what else would I have except available tools and my own judgment while innocents are dying?

I'm nearly always aligned with constitutionally constrained liberal viewpoints. But, your observation made me laugh! Remember, I think "liberal" is both a beautiful word and a beautiful attribute. "Progressive" drives me batty. Nothing like a gun in the hand of the state to make big government scary. Substitute any other "concentration of power, control or authority" for "gun, bomb, robot or drone" and you find ... well, me. True story ... my libertarian / conservative human-being philosophy occasionally aligns me with the left or far left. See data collection, armed instruments of state within our borders, and other things. I love your "catch" and this board. Regarding your last observation ... I see snowballs in hell, first! I suspect, so does Mr. DeLuca.

I'm wiggling like a happy Labrador Retreiver.

I detect a pulse! James Madison is smiling somewhere.

I don't know if you'll find me a strange bedfellow, a phrase I admittedly enjoy, but I am alarmed by the militarization of the police. I say that with all due respect to cops. Were I a policeman in charge, though, I'd use everything at my disposal. I get that. I'm not able to offer a solution.

MODO, you are a joy.

Awesome idea AND list, WC .. Replace the DJ/turntable with an organ. Make every other home game "Owner Appreciation Night" and hand out bobble head "me" dolls. Hire Manon Rhéaume and give her whatever responsibilities she wanted. Record Dominik Hasek and have him be the automated voice answering all calls to the organization. Have Rob Ray follow me around, silently and dressed in black, with instructions to hold his hands clasped in front of himself while giving everyone menacing looks. Put a hot tub and disco ball in the owners box. Institute Fried Bologna Night. Call Kim and tell her I own a hockey club. List myself as "The Big Kahuna" on all media sites and in all publications. Commission a New Era "Original 14" Cap.

I remember this as your idea. I endorse the strategy. He's seen our best. Give him all he needs to make a decision. He's going to get it, anyway. Who knows, he may respect us even more. PS ... i have no problem with his approach to the Sabres or the league. I hope he's a Sabre in the fall.

Great, simple, site .. Just for fun ... select Shea Weber ... I've read the articles with their numbers, but there's something visceral about seeing the schedule ....