Let’s see who has been a good sassy cat this year. All you witches and warlocks gather for some comments…and remember please, warlocks, to keep it civil or the great pumpkin will squash on your porch. 
168 Thoughts to “Open Thread Friday, October 29”
Comments are closed.
“There are three things I have learned never to discuss
with people: religion, politics and the Great Pumpkin.”
Linus
How about a nice head to put on our melting pot?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101029/D9J59RUG0.html
The Great Pumpkin can definitely make you pay.
Does anyone know where to get the pumpkin carving templates on the internet?
Breaking News..More shots fired at the Marine Corps Museum.
Unbelievable this stuff with the same person firing shots at the Marine Corps Museum (and now for a 2nd time), the Pentagon, and some military recruiting station in Chantilly. Some nut’s on the loose who obviously has it in for the military – maybe someone dishonorably discharged? Whatever, they need to find this person ASAP and lock him up and throw away the key!
Someone really doesn’t like marines.
Agreed, GR.
Put your bright Orange on and thank your Neighborhood Watch this weekend.
http://www.pwcgov.org/default.aspx?topic=040074003410000711
(703) 792-7270
Watched Charlie Brown’s “Great Pumpkin” last night. Nostalgia! Vince Guaraldi’s piano always gives me a lift.
Otherwise, Halloween has deteriorated. Read today’s WashPost about kids shunning homemade outfits.
Happy Halloween! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiSIQzwIPzQ
Here’s a Halloweeny story. Apparently, Wiccans are major upset over a beer label for “Witches Wit” beer that depicts a witch being burned at the stake.
Hello, I don’t know who let through with that comment. I removed it. And I will continue to remove your comments. Here is why. Read carefully:
You come to this blog to make inflammatory remarks. They are generally directed at Elena and me. You are absolutely correct. I am censoring you on this blog. It is my blog and my right to do so.
Your objectives are not productive to my blog. I told you I would release comments manually if I felt they contributed to the ongoing conversations. Most do not.
I also told you I don’t want Brietbart’s sites quoted here. Again. My right.
Now, is there something you still don’t understand?
Slowpoke, do you have a link for that witches wit beer or the wiccan protest? Too funny.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304316404575580721257150144.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5
A blunt assessment from BHO’s legal mentor and professor on Sotomayor embarasses all the players involved.
In the end it doesn’t matter as she’s got a lifetime appointment and what’s done is done but it’s still interesting to say the least.
marin, you might want to read up on Lawrence Tribe, notable liberal legal gadfly for years. I would not necessarily say he was the Prez’s mentor. He has taught many many people and tends to stay in touch. (thus, gadfly) He also has back-pedaled on this one. Did I mention he also has a reputation as being a blowhard? He was ignorned. What gives him the right to come out as the all knowing? As soon as I read who it was assessing Sotomayor’s intelligence, my eyes rolled. And if I recognize your name in the legal field, there’s something wrong.
We shouldn’t care what his opinion is, should be what the correct response is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Tribe
And did the WSJ has some sort of post mortum on Clarence Thomas? Didn’t think so, despite the fact that other women have come forward verifying what Anita Hill said.
“Citing cases dating back to 1928, a judge has ruled that a four year
old girl, accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a
a bicycle with training wheels on a Manhatten sidewalk can be sued
for negligence … A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable
child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior.”
New York Times (10-28-2010)
WOW, maybe Sesame Street needs a show on how to properly lawyer up
for pre-schoolers. Oscar the Grouch can play the Judge.
@Big Dog
And meanwhile, how is the elderly woman doing? If that is what it takes to keep keeps from terrorizing senior citizens, then maybe that is what needs to happen. It sounds like a very irresponsible parent to me.
BD, do you have a link? Interesting story and I bet it’d be a fun case to read.
MH, Tribe works at Justice (I think wiki may be out of date) and a solicited opinion from the boss – which you are correct was discarded – does lend to the idea that his opinion meant something.
You could actually argue that it was sour grapes only because HE wanted the job and for it not to go to Sotomayor. After all, 3 of his STUDENTS are current SCOTUS Justices AND the current POTUS. But, I can see why you would discard his blunt assessment. 😉
I don’t think his now public opinion really differs much from what SCOTUS watchers were thinking but not saying outloud when her name was floated.
Maybe Obama was just being polite. I tell you, Lawrence Tribe is thought of as a joke amongst your kind of political folks. @Marin
You assume I am a big Sotomayor fan. Nah. I am fairly indifferent. I just know about Larry Tribe. I have known about him for 25 years. Maybe conservatives have forgotten how they laughed their butts off at him. Just an observation on my part. Funny how the wind shifts to suit people’s purpose.
You might be on to something though about him wanting the job. He is too old. The presidents want to leave their mark. They aren’t going to appoint someone 70.
No doubt he’s a tool but it’s delicious from my POV to see that he thought she was a mental midget. Outside of that I don’t have an opinion on Mr. Tribe.
The story so far (4 year old girl) is amusing. I really want to see the Opinion. 🙂 On the upside, it means there is at least one judge that doesn’t automatically assume children are just property of the parents.
M-H, According to the article, the elderly woman died from complications in
the treatment of a hip broken in the incident.
My view is the child’s Mother, who was stated to be nearby, should have been
charged with negligence – not the four year old child.
Sweet, found it.
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2010OCT/3001078562009002SCIV.pdf
Also found some analysis posted:
http://volokh.com/2010/10/29/the-negligent-4-year-old/
A few thoughts:
1. My quick glance at the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 283A suggests that the court’s analysis is consistent with the general trend of the caselaw. Some states have adopted a bright-line rule that a child under age seven can’t be held negligent, but most have apparently rejected it.
2. As the excerpt from the Menagh opinion suggests, the issue often arises when the child is the injured party, and the allegedly negligent adult injurer argues that the child was also negligent. That matters because under contributory negligence regimes (which used to be the norm, but are now present in only a few states), the plaintiff’s negligence would generally deny the plaintiff all recovery, and under the modern comparative negligence regimes the negligence would diminish the plaintiff’s recovery (or deny it outright, in many states, if the plaintiff was more negligent than the defendant). But the cases deciding whether a child plaintiff could be contributorily/comparatively negligent are generally seen as also covering the question whether a child defendant could be found negligent.
3. The issue is separate from the question whether a parent is liable for negligently supervising a child. It’s possible that a parent could be held liable on that theory, but you could imagine a situation where the parent is taking reasonable care to supervise the child, but the child still acts negligently.
4. You might well ask: Just what must young Miss Breitman’s allowance be, so that plaintiff could find it worthwhile to sue her? Parents are generally not liable for their children’s torts (with some exceptions sometimes provided for by statute, but I know of none that would apply here). But I suspect that the parents’ homeowner’s liability insurance, or similar insurance, covers lawsuits against family members and not just the policyholders themselves.
5. Recall that the court is just saying that whether the child was negligent is a matter for the jury — and the question is whether the 4-year-old is acting reasonably by the standard of a “reasonably prudent child of that age, experience, intelligence and degree of development and capacity.” I suspect that a jury would not find the girl liable under this standard; but I also suspect that the insurance company will settle, to avoid the cost and risk of litigation, though probably not for very much, given the likelihood that plaintiffs wouldn’t win at trial.
6. I also suspect that the whole inquiry into how reasonably prudent four-year-olds behave is unlikely to yield any meaningful result. Most four-year-olds are prudent sometimes and imprudent at other times, and I quite doubt that one can identify even in one’s head what sort of care a reasonably prudent four-year-old would likely take. Naturally, this is a matter of degree, and at some age the question becomes more meaningful, even given that fourteen-year-olds and for that matter twenty-four-year-olds will often act rashly.
But I’m inclined to say that the wiser move for a state legal system would be to set the absolute bar to liability for the child (setting aside the possibility of the parent’s being liable for negligent supervision) at a considerably higher age — maybe seven, or maybe even older. Otherwise, the result is more litigation with no real likelihood that we’ll have any sensible jury decisions in such litigation.
— Interesting. 🙂
Legal papers note, ” Courts have held that a child under the age of four
is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence, but Justice Paul
Wooten of the State Supreme Court in Manhatten declined that rule
for children over four.”
The article is on the current New York Times website.
@Big Dog
totally agreed. That is horrible about the poor old lady. I get more sympathetic towards old people as the years march on. 😉
The mother should be spanked. After that, I don’t know. Too many details missing.
Anyone dressing up for Halloween?
I’m thinking of dressing up as a witch or a homer simpson donut. 😉
Marinm, thanks for the additional information. You must a lawyer
or a para-legal. An interesting case.
For the first time in…forever…our lights will be out on Halloween. We have so few kids in our neighborhood now, and my kids are too old. Kind of sad.
@Emma, we went through that for a couple of years and then the kids came back and we are just as busy as we ever were. There is hope.
My husband and I love Halloween so much that we had a Halloween wedding. We came dressed as the bride and groom, and our wedding party and guests wore costumes of their choice. We did buy the flower girls matching costumes. It was great! And I didn’t have to worry about choosing bridesmaid dresses, dress fittings etc. I just said “Pick a costume.” Makes for some funny wedding photos, especially later in the reception when guests mixed and matched pieces of their costumes with one another. My favorite though was my aunt, uncle and cousin who came dressed as the three blind mice complete with dark glasses, or my godfather who came dressed as a mafia don.
@DB
Too funny. Wolverine has requested that you post pictures.
Moon, you just have to get some photos of DB’s wedding for posting on this blog!
Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) — Arizona’s election law requiring residents to show proof of citizenship conflicts with the National Voter Registration Act, a federal appeals court ruled in overturning portions of the measure.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco yesterday invalidated parts of Arizona’s Proposition 200, a 2004 voter- approved initiative on registration for state and federal elections. The court didn’t disturb a requirement that voters show identification at the polls.
A three-judge panel of the court, in a 2-1 decision, said the proof-of-citizenship requirement conflicted with the intent of the federal law aiming to increase voter registration by streamlining the process with a single form and removing state- imposed obstacles to registration.
The federal law requires applicants to “attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury” without requiring documentary proof, the panel said.
“Proposition 200 creates an additional state hurdle to registration,” the judges said.
The law was challenged by voting rights and Hispanic advocacy groups.
The decision is “a warning to anyone who seeks to deter or prevent voter participation” that the Constitution “will protect our democratic process,” Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, a San Antonio-based group that argued the case, said in a statement.
Nov. 2 Vote
Mika Marquart, a spokeswoman for the Arizona attorney general’s office, said the state will seek reconsideration of the ruling by a larger panel of judges. Because the voter registration period for next week’s election has passed, the ruling will have little or no practical effect on the Nov. 2 vote, Marquart said in an e-mailed statement.
The appeals court panel included former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sitting as a retired justice. She was a state senator and judge in Arizona before being nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the high court, where she served from 1981 to 2006. O’Connor voted with the majority in yesterday’s decision.
The case is Gonzalez v. Arizona, 08-17094, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco).
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-27/arizona-citizenship-proof-law-for-voters-overturned-by-court.html
Here’s another version that says, “Perales said state officials have used the law to disqualify 30,000 people who filled out federal registration forms attesting to their citizenship. She said a disproportionate number were Latinos, including naturalized citizens who were wrongly disqualified because their driver’s license numbers did not reflect their citizenship.” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/26/MN0U1G2D14.DTL
@marinm
My daughter is going as a ninja….again. A zombie ninja. Again.
I dress up as a zombie. Its easy. This year my entire costume will consist of a putty make up bullet hole in my forehead. I like to see if anyone notices…..
Hey Moon,
Down on the Muslim Backlash (Or as I like to put it: Hey You! No Sharia for You! Assimilate!) post, you had an “interactive” map that….wasn’t.
Was I missing something?
yes and no. The print ended up in the wrong place. There was an interactive map I linked to. It was a kids thing. Neat.
Must have been one heck of a wedding. Wish I’d been there. Bet everybody had a great time.
@Emma, we had only about 20 kids the year before last. Last year we had well over 100 kids. If I knew where you lived, I’d trick or treat at the House of Emma. 😉
@Lafayette I’m really big on quality chocolate, so it’s always worth the trip.
Paging Juturna……
Did you know that RI has a ballot initiative on Tuesday to change its official name from “The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations” to simply “Rhode Island”? This has been instigated by folks who believe that the “Plantations” harkens back to the slave trade. Apparently they did not do well in fifth-grade RI history, and think Roger Williams is just a nice state park. PC gone completely mad!
Emma, quality chocolate, yum. I love dark chocolate.
I know you’re paging Juturna. I saw this earlier this week and thought of you two. I had now idea about the “and Providence Plantations” portion of the state name.
Prince William County should be just proud as hell. I rewatched the Rally to Restore Sanity.
In one of the last skits with the montage (John Oliver as Peter Pan) of the people on the right and left who spew hate ….there he was….the pride of Prince William: Corey Stewart spewing Criminal Illegal Alien. He has arrived. Now what will he do.
I was so embarrassed. Corey makes it big time.
A little story for all the Moonhowlings goblins on a cold and dark Halloween night:
“The wife of one of the most respected citizens — a lawyer of eminence and a member of congress — was seized by a sudden and unaccountable illness which completely baffled the skill of her physicians. After much suffering she died, or was supposed to have died. For three days the body was preserved unburied, during which it acquired a stony rigidity. The funeral, in short, was hastened on account of the rapid advance of what was supposed to be decomposition.
The lady was deposited in her family vault, which for three years was undisturbed. At the expiration of this term, it was opened for the reception of a sarcophagus, but, alas; how fearful a shock awaited the husband who personally threw open the door. As its portals swung outwardly back, some white appareled object fell rattling into his arms. It was the skeleton of his wife in her yet unmouldered shroud.
A careful investigation rendered it evident that she had revived within two days of her entombment, that her struggles within the coffin had caused it to fall from a ledge or shelf to the floor, where it was so broken as to permit her to escape. On the uppermost steps which led down to the dread chamber was a large fragment of coffin, with which it seemed that she had endeavored to arrest attention by striking the iron door. While thus occupied, she probably swooned or possibly died through sheer terror; and in falling her shroud became entangled in some iron work which projected interiorly. Thus she remained and thus she rotted erect.”
Courtesy of Edgar Allen Poe. This account appeared in a Chicago newspaper in 1910 and was captioned: “Death in Terrible Shape.” Bet you wouldn’t find this in the PWC “News and Messenger”!
I think you Loudoun County people are given to hauntings. Do you know that ghost buster in Leesburg?
Don’t know him. But, if he came around here, Neighborhood Watch would probably arrange tto get HIM busted.
It’s a fairly sophisticated operation. Not even sure they are still in town.
@Moon-howler
Do you mean in real life, on the video or being portrayed by the Comedy Central folks? (Any of those are bad, but I’m curious.)
Pinko, Corey was shown in the montage of video clips (as Moe said, of idiot quips) during the sparring between Colbert and Stewart. John Oliver apppeared as Peter Pan. and dragged off the model of Colbert.
I missed it the first time and saw it last night while rewatching with gdaughter. It was a video clip of him saying Criminal Illegal Alien. Who knows why. He made it to the rogues gallery of liberal and conservative extremists who appear in the media stirring up feelings of ill-will 24 hours a day.
Moe, I am glad you saw it. No one else believes me.
The only crowd estimates for both the Beck and Stewart rallies based on something other than a WAG were done by AirPhotosLive, a company that uses aerial photography to estimate crowd size. They do the same type of work for the Department of Homeland Security, the Border Patrol, and cell phone companies. Their estimate for the Beck rally was 87,000. Their estimate for the Stewart event was 215,000.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021284-503544.html
So, Jon Stewart draws an audience that’s 2.5 times the size of Glenn Beck’s and his book is still #1 on the non-fiction best-seller list. Not sure what he’s doing today, but it appears that so far he’s got a pretty good week going.
Moon – I chuckled when I saw the little clip of our PWC BOCS Chairman in Colbert’s video montage of idiot quips.
Hahahahahahahahha!
So, who are you going to believe? The CBS estimate of 87000 or actual photos of the Beck and Stewart rallies?
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/beck-stewart.jpg
But…ok. Let’s say 87000. Beck’s rally was still bigger. But size doesn’t matter. Content matters. And Beck’s rally wasn’t political, per se. It was more about morals, character, and history. THIS rally….not so much.
THIS is how you show sanity? http://fallingpanda.blogspot.com/2010/10/pictures-from-rally-to-restore-sanity.html
Putting Hitler mustaches on politicians, including Eric Cantor? I thought the Left said that it was the Tea Party that did such things.
For all the talk of the lack of diversity at the Beck or Tea Party rallies…there sure are a lot of white people in that audience…….
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63658164@N00/5129381409/sizes/l/in/photostream/
Why does size matter so much? Both the Beck event and Rally to Restore Sanity were huge huge events with thousands in attendance. I believe traffic might have been more impactd in the suburbs more by yesterday’s rally but that is just an observation without scientific merit. Some of those moustaches were also on the Colbert character likeness. (Fear, rather than Canter)
As for moustaches….Stewart asked people to make interesting signs. His directives were on’t litter and don’t be a douche.
Beck asked his audience to leave signs at home. I can’t recall how he demanded good behavior. I seriously doubt that he told his followers not to be douches. He can be vulgar and use coarse language aslo but he did not do so in his directive to those planning on his rally. How can we compare when there were different objectives.
Well, let’s check in with the WashPo editors pick-of-the-week, shall we? Dana Milbank’s new book on Glenn Beck has hit #3734 in Amazon books! Bigger numbers are better, right? 🙂 LOL.
When Cargosquid has to use “per se” to qualify his or her claim that the Beck rally was not political his or her argument loses some of its impact. It’s like when someone starts a sentence with “I’m not prejudiced, but …” you can generally rest assured that what follows “but” disproves the disclaimer. The same with “per se.”
As for the numbers and whether they matter, two points. First, CBS paid a company to estimate the size of both crowds and its the only data I’ve seen that’s based on some methodology other than the partisans picking numbers by WAG that supports their agendas. If the company that did the estimate is biased then they should be reported to DHS and Border Patrol so they are more cautious about awarding them contracts. Second, earlier this week someone cited the numbers for the sales of Milbank’s book about Beck rather than the merits of its content, so I guess big or small numbers are only relevant when they apply to your own point of view, and I’m guessing for Cargosquid the rally numbers do not bolster his or her argument.
I guess Slow and I were typing at the same time. I didn’t recall if he or she was the one that commented on Milbanks.
As for white people, Cargo, I sure saw a lot of asians, blacks, and muslims in that audience. The people I talked to said the crowd seemed to follow the general population demographically.
Now if you want to see disparity, go to the State of the Union Address. If you are at the podiom, the left side, as you look out, is all white male in nice suits with the exception of a few. The right side…not so much. Mixed gender, mixed race. They just don’t look as well heeled.
I am not sure Beck can even be compared to Stewart. Both have different missions. Beck is part political commentator, part tele-evangelist. He is doing a lot of preaching now. He has a “tele-university” of sorts so he wants to educate along his lines of thinking. Politically Beck’s audience is very conservative and generally 40-something on up.
Stewart is part comedian, part political pundit. He appeals to people from teenager to senior citizen, with a heavy concentration in the 20-something 30 something age demographic. Politically, most of his audience is moderate to left. Not many in the far left category.
Stewart was not telling people to vote. Not even close. Faux Friends had to all wrong, as usual.
Moe, Slowpoke is a HE. (Daddy of 2 young men, actually.)
Actually, I see them as quite similar. Both are expert at designing content that will appeal to their respective core audiences in order to separate them from their cash in an expeditious manner through book sales or subscription fees or any other scam that can be dreamed up. Beck relies on scaring the sh*t out of people and campy tugs at heartstrings to move his product, while Stewart appeals to the superiority complex. Same con, different methods.