Also, “possible hate crime”? It clearly was. Getting really tired of these bullshit headlines that don’t actually say what happened. The “alleged” for the crime since they haven’t been convicted is already in the headline, that’s fine, I get he legal distinction there, but then say what’s actually alleged and don’t try to hide the reality of what’s alleged. This is clearly a hate crime, there’s no question of that. It’s not an alleged possible hate crime, it’s just an alleged hate crime.
According to a press release from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the mother appeared to be visibly Muslim, as she was wearing a hijab and modest swimwear to the pool at the time of the incident.
Police said Wolf also asked the mother if two of the children in the pool were hers before allegedly attempting to grab one of them, a 6-year-old boy, who was able to get away.
Wolf also allegedly snatched the mother’s headscarf off while she tried to save her daughter and beat her with it, according to CAIR.
She was charged with attempted capital murder and injury to a child. … The Euless Police Department has recommended that the incident be considered a hate crime and the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office is currently investigating it
“Alleged” is what the DA has charged.
“Possible” is what the DA might add to the charges.
The opinions of the reporter, who is not a lawyer much less a prosecutor, are not helpful.
“Possible” is what the DA might add to the charges.
If the DA hasn’t added that already based on even this limited public information, I question their ability to do their damned job. There’s nothing “possible” about this being racially motivated, which clearly makes it a hate crime. The initial charges should have been for a hate crime and adjusted to remove that if necessary.
But it’s Texas, they don’t want to prosecute white people for being racist against anyone brown, that sets a precedent with the public they don’t want.
Can’t imagine what sort of exculpatory evidence there could be for someone asking where someone is from, then trying to drown their child, and beating them with their hijab. There is a pretty damned cut and dry racial motive there. Unless the white woman was secretly Muslim somehow it seems pretty straightforward.
Or… the simplest explanation is that it’s a smaller suburb of Dallas-Ft Worth where the largest ethnic group by far is white, in a district that went 62.2% Republican in the 2022 election, and the government officials don’t want to publicly denounce racism like that because that’s what the citizens in that area expect of their government.
Suburbs don’t prosecute, the county DA does. And this county voted for Biden in 2020.
You’re right, and Presidential elections don’t do a good job of showing anything about local matters. Gotta look at the local elections. Since you brought it up…
In the 2022 general election the County Clerk, Criminal District Attorney, Constable, District Clerk, and County Judge elected were all Republican. In fact, the only race not won by a Republican was one of 2 open County Commissioner seats, which a Dem barely won with 51.5% of the vote.
Notice that Criminal District Attorney, Phil Sorrells ®, was just elected in 2022. Prior to that, he was a Judge for Tarrant County Criminal Court Number 10 for 25 years. I’d be willing to bet if someone went back through his criminal sentencing over those 25 years it would show certain, shall we say, biases in those sentences, they almost always do. Sometimes that quack does come from a duck after all.
I never said they weren’t capable. I’m just saying that this prosecutor seems to be choosing to not prosecute something seemingly obvious, which just makes them look incompetent. If they want to appear that way to the public, that’s their choice.
Nothing prevents them from saying that they aren’t going to prosecute it as a hate crime due to exculpatory evidence, instead they seem to be intentionally leaving it in a grey area. Especially since this apparently happened a month ago according to the article. Plenty of time to figure out something so core to the issue. It just makes them look complicit in allowing hate crimes when the public evidence is so glaringly obvious for it.
Nothing prevents them from saying that they aren’t going to prosecute it as a hate crime
The thing that prevents them from saying that they aren’t going to prosecute it is that they are still considering prosecuting it.
Deciding on a charging strategy takes a lot more thought than posting a hot take.
EDIT: And let’s not forget that she is most definitely being charged with attempted murder, so no matter what the DA decides she’s gonna have a bad time.
Publishers have to use the walking on eggshells language even when it’s obvious what happened because of libel laws. You’re not guilty until convicted in a court of law. Until that point, everything is allegedly, possibly, appears to be.
I know. I already addressed that. That’s not where my issue is. My issue is they’re not only saying allegedly but also a possible hate crime when it is clearly a hate crime.
Instead after looking more, it looks like that’s because the DA has unofficially chosen not to prosecute it as a hate crime for whatever baffling reason. A month after the event and they’ve not filed charges for a hate crime. It doesn’t take a month to figure out whether a white person fighting with a Muslim in a headscarf about being American, then attacking their children and beating them with the scarf, constitutes a hate crime.
So instead it makes it look like a prosecutor that doesn’t want to prosecute a seemingly slam dunk hate crime as a hate crime, for whatever reason.
I think the bare definition of an entrepreneur is to own a business. It used to be owning a business that you started, but Elon Musk gets called one all the time so that’s no longer true, either.
100% it’s really for anti-union bullshit because who the fuck is stealing in full view of an employee where the employees having body cams would make a lick of difference?
Or is it meant to deter the employees from stealing? 🤔
GMOs aren’t inherently bad but many crops are genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate and other herbicides so they can douse the fields with the stuff.
There are very valid arguments against GMOs even if they’re safe from a strictly scientific point of view. Those mainly pertain to control over seeds by corporations that will allow them to exploit poor farmers. This is happening to a huge extent in India where many farmers have committed suicide because of these practices.
Seed patents are dumb. Once something has been planted it belongs to the ground now, if it spreads that’s too bad for giant corpo.
EDIT: the link above is the the wrong case. I found this link which breaks things down better.. I’m still of the opinion that seed patents are dumb, and that if farmers harvest seeds from crops on their fields they should be allowed to replant them.
You’re link isn’t even about the “cross pollination” situation (which was also done intentionally by the farmer) but about someone buying the seeds from a third party and then claiming that they are allowed to replant the seeds because they aren’t bound by the licensing agreement.
We can argue whether or not this farmer should be allowed to replant the seeds in this case, but trying to paint it as if the seeds flew into his property and then he was sued for it is a disgusting misrepresentation of what actually. It was done very intentionally by the farmer. They aren’t some innocent victim, but one who thought he could get the ip without paying for it. We’re talking about capitalists fighting each other.
Thank you! Sorry I had gone done a rabbit hole and copied the wrong link. There’s a lot of Monsanto lawsuits it turns out.
This was the one I was thinking of, but its not as readable. Also, it’s not 100% whether it was solely because of the wind, although that’s the claim. https://www.ielrc.org/content/n0407.htm
If you don’t want to read the link, it wasn’t accidental. Some glyphosate resistant crop flew into his property. The farmer killed off all of the other crops with glyphosate and then harvested the seeds from the surviving plants, knowing they were Monsantos ip, and replanted them.
The farmer did not argue in court that it was accidental, but that because it was his private property and he had no agreement with Monsanto that he had the right to do this.
Again we can argue whether or not he had the right to do this. But this whole “poor farmer did nothing and got sued!” Is just straight up blatantly misleading anti GMO propaganda. I don’t believe you are intentionally spreading it, but you are none-the-less.
Thank you. I wasn’t aware that he was aware it was Monsanto’s. I also know that farmers aren’t automatically in the right (look at the dairy industry practices and political lobbying for instance). It’s relieving to know that it wasn’t the original seeds that resulted in the lawsuit, though I think I do lean towards the idea of once seeds are planted the plants and anything they produce belong to the one who planted them.
Do you have any more info about seed patents? I mean I understand it takes a lot of research to develop the pesticide-resistant crops (and also know that an organic label means nothing) but am having a really hard time reconciling the idea of needing a license to plant seeds that you harvested yourself.
Farmers by and large don’t reuse seeds now, patenting seeds so they can’t be reused is not limited to GMO, farmers are free to reuse seeds that are no longer patented, and farmers committing suicide in India has nothing to do with GMO specifically, but issue with farming in general.
These are all just made up anti GMO talking points only loosely related to GMO, if even at all.
All “valid arguments against GMOs” are ultimately arguments against capitalistic profit-at-all-costs practises.
When you take the profit margin out of the process, there end up being no valid arguments against GMOs, as all such profit-free GMOs that end up moving to production are there purely to benefit humanity as a whole, and not to restrict said benefit to a rarefied group of obscenely wealthy people. It’s the GMOs with capitalistic roots which are problematic for capitalistic, Parasite-Class-greed related reasons.
Your ‘argument against GMOs’ is an argument against seed patents, not GMOs. That’s the same as saying there’s an ‘argument against insulin’ because big companies own the patents and charge lots of money. The product is absolutely irrelevant to the conversation.
Sanders is doing right now, exactly the right thing. Its the thing Biden should be doing but is seemingly incapable of. Its being on the right side of history as history is happening and not accepting some fatalistic inevitability about the future.
I voted for Biden once I will do again to keep Trump out. But after that I am done. Either progressive take control of the party by 2028 our this country can burn for all I care. Done with this bullshit.
Honestly? I agree. Biden will give us a few years to get our shit together. Though I hope there will be people who are able to pull others together for that exact reason.
He’d be rounding out his second term right now. He was clearly up to the task. I hope he remains in the Senate until he passes. He’s an exceptional person, who should be treated as such, like RBG.
He’s an exceptional person, who should be treated as such, like RBG.
The close friend of Scalia’s who opposed worker’s rights, indigenous rights, and held up the constitutionality of solitary confinement? The one who prioritized her ego over not giving Trump an extra SCOTUS pick?
I have my criticisms of Bernie, but I would never put him in that category.
I wasn’t aware of those votes. I’ll look into them. Thank you for pointing them out to me.
Her strong stance against gender and sexual orientation discrimination, and support for undocumented people as well as people with disabilities is why I mentioned her as an advocate for the people.
I’d prefer if he leaned more heavily into supporting upcoming socialist politicians throughout his state to help lead the next generation of leftist politicians into power.
Senate vacancies are voted in by citizens, but yes, RBG opened the doors for women and Amy Coney Barrett immediately began to close them all behind her.
I usually go to the salad bar of my grocery store and pickup a salad with no protein or dressing, then go to the dressing isle and buy a bottle of the dressing of my choice, finally go to the deli and pickup a cooked chicken. At home I shred the chicken and store it in a container and every day after I just stop buy the salad bar and pickup a hefty salad for $5, add a bit of my shredded chicken and dressing with gusto.
You can’t pay your employees poverty wages and expect them to care about quality.
It has to hurt for the people who spend their hard earned money on a night off from cooking by ordering out at McDonald’s, but it’s a lesson we all learn the hard way.
it’s very hard to give a shit when you’re making a meal that costs $15 in 30 seconds when you make maybe $9/hr. the math is so plainly unfair and it’s right in front of you all day
If you’re selling a product that you can’t produce by paying employees a lousy wage, you have to pay what’s needed to produce a salable product. This is the way business works everywhere and is true for both skilled and unskilled labor.
These companies have radically increased their prices while allowing the products produced to go to shit, and their customers are doing what customers always do when faced with crappy products and high prices. We’re going elsewhere.
After trying a few grocery store deli sandwiches, I will avoid fast food sandwich shops unless there’s simply nothing else available. The deli is there to get you in the store to spend money. They don’t have as much of a financial incentive to skimp on the ingredients. It wasn’t uncommon for me to get a sandwich so stuffed I couldn’t close it
Buy a bird dog.
WTF, this dog is OBSESSED with birds.
Let dog run loose.
Dog catches birds.
Bird dog is happy for catching birds.
UNACCEPTABLE!
Shoot dog.
Nobody understands, this dog was a maniac around birds!
No way, everyone knows that Biden can easily change all of the federal government whenever he wants to but just chooses not to because he’s a big meanie and only ever does anything so that he’s just 1% less bad than Trump.
While true, there was a major, global crisis still going on in 2021. It’s not as though an FCC commissioner pick was the top priority after the Orange Turd screwed everything about Covid up as best as he could. Biden announced in October of '21 and then Congress was slow to confirm his pick.
Yeah Biden definitely should have nominated someone earlier, then that person could have been waiting for an even longer time before finally getting confirmation and that would definitely result in something being different.
I’ve seen lots of speculation that Trumbo is trying to get himself thrown in jail for the publicity of it all. It would result in a huge fundraising boost and conservative outrage, even if just for a short while, and no one wants to give him the satisfaction.
I’d be curious if anyone is doing an accounting of the total take though. I get that his campaign isn’t raising as much money, but how many sneakers did they sell? I’m assuming they sold a few bibles and I’d assume he has his fingers in the 2 billion Kushner took for “investments.”
In jail, no phone, no internet, no interviews. The only way he’d get to talk to the public is though his lawyer, who is accountable to tell the truth when discussing details of the case.
Unsure that would happen… Lots of undecided out there who care about the rule of law and have said in polls if he was convicted they would not vote for him. I think it’s delusion and wishful thinking on his part
I keep saying it, those ‘undecided’ and ‘middle of the road’ people are actually just embarrassed conservatives. They don’t wanna be seen as Trumpers while still voting for him.
Then how do they suddenly have an opinion that’s based on the results of his trial? How do they even know its happening? How will they find out the verdict?
Because the trial and the result is all over the news and will be historic if he is found guilty. That is different than politics, that is headline news.
The Stormy Daniels case is also about election interference. He interfered in the election by paying to conceal critical information that may have changed voters’ minds.
It’s not in the charges, it’s the nature of the case. This isn’t my opinion but that of legal expert from the podcast Legal Scrutiny. And they know their shit.
I could see conviction in this case being used as evidence in the election fraud trial, but he’s not being tried by a federal prosecutor. It’s a criminal trail brought up by the State of NY.
Just like Clinton wasn’t in trouble for the blowjob. He was in trouble for lying about it under oath. But everyone who talks about it now says he got impeached for a blowjob.
Exactly. He got impeached for lying about questioning unrelated to the investigation on him after the actual subject of the investigation bore no fruit.
It’s exactly why Republicans cried “purgery trap” when people wanted to have Trump testify as president. They knew what they did during the Clinton investigation and just assume Democrats would somehow “force” Trump to lie about something completely unrelated…
The Clinton investigation was over real estate and somehow made it’s way over to blow jobs.
I mean, this is right out of the liberal playbook. They’ve been screaming for 30 years that Clinton was impeached for a blowjob. He wasn’t. He was impeached for purjury, trying to cover up the blowjob. Same shit different party.
That’s a good point, but it doesn’t really hold water here, because if the issue were specific to Boeing we’d be seeing far more incidents from a variety of airlines. United is the primary one hitting the news lately.
Either United has some serious maintenance issues, or someone is trying really hard to short United stock.
Exactly. I flew the 777 for a living. It’s a tank. Extremely reliable, flies like a dream, plenty of power. I haven’t flown the new generation 777 though and you can bet it’s not as safe. Nothing Boeing makes now is.
I used to be a “if it’s not Boeing I’m not going” pilot. I feel stupid now.
Airlines suffer the exact same problem. Greed. Boeing doesn’t make the engines. GE does (or Pratt and Whitney). They are very reliable engines too. If they start failing in a specific airline, it’s a maintenance problem.
Edit: also as comments started, this could be nothing but normal issues, haven’t read the article. I stopped reading at “engine issues, including tyre falling off…” What??
By “new generation”, do you mean the 777X? Boeing’s production seems to have throttled down on it for a while now. I’m guessing they’re pushing the 787 over it from what I can tell.
The fact that no bond companies would accept real property as a collateral for the bond and only liquid or easily liquified assets points to the properties being leveraged to the hilt. If he ends up having to pay even a portion of this and has to start selling properties we should see a true picture of his financial status.
Imagine if he wins the election and is flat broke. He’ll auction off everything the US owns in exchange for a cut or finder’s fee. And let’s not pretend that the emoluments clause actually applies to any of elected leaders.
I think the reason it was such an issue with Trump is I can’t think of another president that had the infrastructure (i.e. his hotels) to make revenue via emoluments.
Carter was a peanut farmer and those peanuts were sold internationally. He sold the farm before being elected so as not to be in violation of the emoluments clause.
Didn’t W divest a bunch of stuff and setup a blind trust for the same reason. And if I’m remembering correctly didn’t the peanut farm had been Carter’s family for a while so he gave up something that meant something more than money.
Additionally, this judgment is for his civil fraud trial. Where he was found liable for inflating the value of his properties in order to obtain loans against them.
Given that, I can understand a general reluctance to loan against the value of his properties.
Why would sa make a deal with him? It would have to be secret and there’s zero chance he would abide by it later. If he wins and they kill him its a war. If he loses they’ve bought nothing anyway…
So if he falls to make bond and the state starts seizing assets, how does that work, exactly? They auction it to pay the lawsuit? What if Trump gets a bite on selling a property intending to make bond but it’s a big real estate transaction and that takes time? Will he be allowed to finish the sale before the state seizes assets?
The government people who are in charge of collecting the dough from this judgment will be wise to the possibility that he may not have a bonafide buyer and that he’s just fluffing if he says a deal is about to go through.
Any buyer will know that he’s a motivated seller so the offers aren’t going to be all that great.
When the government seizes banks that are about to fail, usually they seem to find qualified buyers privately and the deal is over within days.
I have a feeling that because Trump has allowed things to get to this point, the government is less interested in selling at the highest price possible and instead will take any offer that settles the debt.
They’d be best to sieze and sell the assets independent of Trump. Chances are he will sell stuff to certain people with Slavic accents, and then we’ll have a potential president even further beholden to enemies of the state, which is generally considered sub-optimal.
His ex-wife Ivana said in their divorce hearings that he kept Mein Kampf on his bedside table. Very believable, but perhaps he had it just as a token since I’m not convinced he can really read.
I think they meant anything longer than a tweet or a newspaper article about himself. We know how his officials had to dumb down every briefing for him because he never read anything ahead of time and had a hard time in general comprehending basic topics.
Not a chance. You can’t have it both ways, and there’s no way he had the patience to read an old book. He didn’t read intelligence briefings specifically made for him.
I promise you’d be surprised what being interested in a topic can do. He doesn’t give a flying fuck about intelligence briefings. But a book by a genocidal dictator? Now that will really pique his interest.
Being able to and wanting to, being practised in reading and actually understanding what you read are probably very different things. Some people decided that colorful flash cards work best with him. The news articles about him not reading his briefing materials but looking at the pictures are also out there. I think he reads everything that comes in the size of a flash card or a tweet, much longer than that and I have my doubts.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.