Patterico's Pontifications

Right?

Patterico (9c670f) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:11 am

New York City: Weiner, out. Communist, in.

CrustyB (5a646c) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:16 am

I’d rather have Weiner than de Blasio. At least Weiner would provide some comic relief.

More disappointing to me, because for a while it seemed less inevitable, is Ken Thompson’s election as Brooklyn DA. I think that portion of Brooklyn’s criminal element which is black — and given the borough’s demographics that’s about 80% of it — will see this, rightly or wrongly, as a green light to do whatever they like. Even if they prove to be wrong about him, there will still be a spike in crime until they learn. And that’s on top of the dramatic increase in crime that can be expected with de Blasio reining the police force in, dropping the city’s appeal against the “stop and frisk” decision and generally muzzling the cops, for fear that his son or one of his friends should get into trouble.

Milhouse (d22d64) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:28 am

Bill de Blasio is more like a Henry A. Wallace character.

He is a complete tool of the Working Families Party.

It’s purported to be a tool of the municipal employees unions that’s who the “working families” are) but is probably a bit more.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/05/bill-de-blasio-mayoral-win-signals-working-families-party-ascendancy.html

The Working Families Party played the long game.

And then heer are the lawyers suing the city to lock-in “liberal” policies. The Stop and frisk lawsuit was probably carefully timed to come to a head very late in the Bloomberg adminnistration. (too early and it might be appealed and thrown out)

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:28 am

Weiner would have been an easy joke. Nothing funny about De Blasio. He’s going to throw the legal defense of the city’s stop/question/frisk practice, which has sharply reduced crime.

He’s probably also going to throw the defense of the lawsuit against the city by the five thugs who attacked the Central Park Jogger (and whose convictions, based on their confessions were vacated, but when a psychotic co-attacker claimed, incredibly, that he did it alone), and pay them hundreds of millions without a jury ever ruling on whether the police and prosecutors did anything wrong — thus further undermining public confidence in law enforcement and sanctioning criminality.

Alex (cd1b7b) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:29 am

^^ I see some sloppy editing above; sorry.

Alex (cd1b7b) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:30 am

What Milhouse said. If we go back to the 70s, when crime was all society’s fault, the criminal was the real victim, and other such rot, then there are New Yorkers who voted yesterday who will be victimized before the end of de Blasio’s term.

The Sanity Inspector (ca8d89) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:33 am

On stop and frisk — there will be two NYPDs. One for the safe enclaves and one for the other places. Crime will go up in the other places. In the safe enclaves, the cops will operate by Mulholland Falls rules. That’s how it works in Chicago. As long as “they” only kill, rob, and rape each other, the cops leave “them” to their “civil rights”. When they venture into the safe neighborhoods, they will, at a minimum, be put into a saturation car* and escorted to the edge of it and told “You want to start walking that way”. I’ve seen it.

*Unmarked cars with four cops riding around.

nk (dbc370) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:38 am

Comment by Alex (cd1b7b) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:29 am

He’s going to throw the legal defense of the city’s stop/question/frisk practice, which has sharply reduced crime.

The timing wasn’t perfect. This was such a sweetheart or rigged lawsuit that not only did an appeals court stay Judge Shira A. Scheindlin’s decision, it threw her off the case.

And required a new judge be picked at random.

Which might have ended the case, hasd the first judge picked, Judge John G. Koeltl taken the case. Nut he declined, for unknown reasons. Even if the appeal is dropped, almost any judge would probably refuse to approve a “settlement” that there were third pasrties that had strong objections to. Koettl’s the judge who sentenced Omar Abdul Rahman’s lawyer, Lynne Stewart, to prison, for helping terrorism. (She passed messages from the leader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers to his followers in al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya – and the messages weren’t NOT to commit acts of terror.)

Maybe he didn’t want to get protests. The next judge picked, Analisa Torres, is also anti-law enforcement and stop and frisk, so she would be likely to approve any “settlement” she’s a new judge, appointed this year. Both Scheindlin’s and Koettl were apointed by Clinton in 1994 – Scheindlin has been on senior status since 2011, which is after she contrived to get this case.

Giulinia claimed that he (and a police union) could continue the appeal even if the city didn’t. Not sure this is correct. de Blasio is pretty sure to “settle” this with a consent agreement.

Theer is also the lawsuit by the teacher’s union against closing schools, but there even a settlement could be overturned by a state law. de Blasio wants to stop closing bad schools anyway, and yesterday I read in tghe New York Post he wants to make randi Weingarten schools chancellor. Also de Blasio would like to get dimishied authority from Albany to run the schools when a law comes up for renewal in 2015.

Not to keep something in his own hands, to diffuse responsibility and make it difficult to change anything.

Who knows what other kind of sweetheart deals, locking in even future mayors, he wants to make.

I suspect some of them might even turn out to be against the law. He might give a contract and maybe it could be tied to something he got.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:31 am

He’s probably also going to throw the defense of the lawsuit against the city by the five thugs who attacked the Central Park Jogger (and whose convictions, based on their confessions were vacated, but when a psychotic co-attacker claimed, incredibly, that he did it alone),

No, they have a legitimate lawsuit. They probably in fact, didn’t do it. Buit they attacked other people in the park. At the time they made the confessions it was thought the jogger would probably die, and they kept on changing their stories, at the encouragement of police, in an attempt to clear themselves (of the murder at least) in the eyes of the police. They were very young, and inexperienced at crime. What they confessed to wass still a crime.

And they not total innocents. They did go wilding. The only DNA was from the eventually agreed attacker, and there is no reason to believe they knew him. He attacked other women without any help. They were just doing other bad stuff in the park at the same time.

A bad thing here would be agreeing to any “reforms” – eve if it ould be agood thing to tape all interrogations. Sometimesd it won’t happen.

and pay them hundreds of millions without a jury ever ruling on whether the police and prosecutors did anything wrong

That’s a nice question. They may not have done anything wrong, just stupid. There wass no coercion, these teenagers were really guilty of attcacking other people, and if someone put them at the scene of what they thought would be a murder – and they worked them and each kept implicating the other – they at least wanted to minimize their role.

Now how much they should get is a big question, you know.

thus further undermining public confidence in law enforcement and sanctioning criminality.

Really the city shouldn’t defend this case –

Now one thing, though, the city is doing about this case is right. It is trying to get outtakes from a documentary. I suspect it would show they did other things wrong that night.

If they hadn’t done anything else wrong no way would they have confessed. I suspect each of them didn’t know everything one of the otehrs might have done, because they were probably out of sight of each for a while.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:33 am

8. Comment by nk (dbc370) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:38 am

8.On stop and frisk — there will be two NYPDs. One for the safe enclaves and one for the other places.

That’s alittle bit what is now – had been for along time – but Ray Kelly was working on getting crime down in tghe high crime areas. Not enough, but some high crime areas changed for te better – which of course terrifies black politicians and some other special interest groups.

They have a word for it: gentrification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification

Gentrification happens, of course, because crime went down.

Crime will go up in the other places.

Not just that. The boundaries of the unsafe enclaves may change. They may get bigger. I think no safe areas have become unsafe in the longest time. That went out with the 1980s. Territory has actually been recovered – as I said, this is termed gentrifcation. (or what gentrification really is)

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:40 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification

Long article. The elephant in the room here is a drop in crime, which is never mentioned except as one of the numerous effects [!!?] of gentrification.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/6/2013 @ 9:04 am

Maybe VA can teach DC something:

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2013/11/05/virginia-house-delegates-goes-67-33-republican-super-majority/

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/6/2013 @ 9:06 am

Via Larwyn:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/363226/tea-party-wins-big-one-colorado-john-fund

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/6/2013 @ 9:08 am

I am going to disagree with some of the thoughtful and intelligent commenters here: I think NYC in particular and society in general is far better off having a loony ideologue as mayor than having a sleazy opportunist. De Blasio’s term as mayor will take one of three tacks. The least likely scenario is that he implements his socialist vision and it is a roaring success, validating what every urban lefty has been preaching for the past 150 years. The more likely version is that he implements his socialist vision and it is largely a failure, and NYC residents will learn the hard way that you can’t vote yourself a share of good fortune and expect that it will be a sustainable economic model, while wealthy Manhattan liberals will learn that if you pander to the far left you end up being the target of their Marxist designs. The third and most likely version of a de Blasio administration will be the bitter discovery that there isn’t a whole lot he can do to implement his socialist agenda, apart from some really cosmetic changes like naming a park for Che Guevera and demanding that janitors get paid $20/hour. He’ll be an annoyance and a pest to be sure, but I think after four years his staunchest supporters will complain that he hasn’t really accomplished much.

Contrast that with electing a sleazy opportunist like weiner. Yeah, weiner would avoid the more obnoxious hommages to 60s radicalism, but he would spend his mayoral term pursuing a selfish agenda designed to look like a progressive leader while quietly cutting backroom deals with the financial elite of the city to ensure that his future campaigns are well-funded. This would clearly have been a stepping-stone for weiner as he pursued the governor’s office or a Senate seat. Under a Mayor Anthony weiner, the business/labor/government axis would continue to flourish, while anyone outside that circle would be stuck with the results. And once again we as a society would be codifying the notion that a political can be as personally sleazy and awful as he would like, provided he doesn’t upset the status quo that we are all accustomed to.

Nope, to me Mayor de Blasio is a way better outcome than Mayor weiner.

JVW (709bc7) — 11/6/2013 @ 9:21 am

Bill de Blasio is more like a Henry A. Wallace character.

And Wallace was, if not an actual communist, certainly a communist sympathizer. But given de Blasio’s family history and his own history, it seems reasonable to suppose that he is an actual literal communist. Why do you think he isn’t?

He is a complete tool of the Working Families Party.

Which is the name that ACORN operates under in NY.

Milhouse (b95258) — 11/6/2013 @ 9:23 am

Living in NYC, I’d prefer a sleaze like Weiner to an absolute Marxist like Deblasio.
Weiner’s previous “issues” leave him vulnerable to any whiff of future scandal.
Deblasio, having been “forgiven” by the usual suspects for loving the Sandinistas and Castroites, is free to impose his destructive communist program on the city.

Sam (9bf4c3) — 11/6/2013 @ 9:29 am

On stop and frisk — there will be two NYPDs. One for the safe enclaves and one for the other places. Crime will go up in the other places. In the safe enclaves, the cops will operate by Mulholland Falls rules. That’s how it works in Chicago.

New York is not Chicago. It’s not nearly as sharply segregated by geography. I live less than 500 feet from de Blasio’s house, as the crow flies; he’s on the next block. And he is not going to allow stop-and-frisk around here, where his son and his friends might get stopped.

Milhouse (b95258) — 11/6/2013 @ 9:33 am

Although I am temperamentally opposed to the glass-half-full view, in the interest of equanimity:

http://www.tpnn.com/virginia-governor-race-a-huge-victory-for-the-tea-party/

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/6/2013 @ 10:01 am

JVW,

I worry that a Marxist with power can be more destructive than an opportunist.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 10:06 am

gary,

Interesting link. Democrats will now own ObamaCare in Virginia during the roll-out of the employer mandate. That might hit Virginians hard.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 10:10 am

No, they have a legitimate lawsuit. They probably in fact, didn’t do it.

[…] The only DNA was from the eventually agreed attacker, and there is no reason to believe they knew him. He attacked other women without any help.

I think the evidence is stronger that they did participate in the attack on the jogger. The only DNA that could conclusively be matched to anyone was that of Reyes — but each of the “Five” claimed that he didn’t rape her, only knocked her down / held her legs / felt her breasts / etc. At least one of the “Five” confessed his participation to a friend (while telling her that he didn’t rape her, only held her legs) — that friend testified at trial, and has never recanted her story. Reyes may have been the only one who penetrated & ejaculated, but all participants in the attack are guilty of the rape.

The police, prosecutors, and jury all knew that the DNA recovered from the jogger didn’t match any of the “Five,” and that there were other attackers who got away. Reyes’s confession to being the sole attacker is shaky at best: he is a delusional, psychotic nutcase, who had nothing to lose by confessing and favor to gain with influential prisoners by taking the rap. The police were blocked from interviewing Reyes in jail when the prosecutor’s office decided they were going to seek vacation of the convictions. And his story that he followed the woman (who ran a fast pace) in a zigzag pattern and then attacked her with a tree branch lacks credibility: police tried to re-enact that attack with a female officer running the same pace, and the officers could not catch her.

Reyes’s confession may raise some doubt as to the culpability of the “Five,” but it has never been tested adversarially. That’s why this case should go to the jury before the city pays the “Five” anything: Reyes needs to be cross-examined, because there is a strong possibility his story may fall apart under oath.

Alex (4ff18d) — 11/6/2013 @ 10:20 am

I worry that a Marxist with power can be more destructive than an opportunist.

I can understand that, but I think de Blasio was a trendy vote for wealthy Manhattan liberals who loved his biracial family more than his Marxist economics. If I recall correctly, I read that he can’t actually raise the income tax rate in NYC without assent from the legislature in Albany, and a lot of New York political observers don’t think he is going to get it. And if he does pretend to be serious about his more radical views, I have a feeling the Democrat party brokers (think Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer) will slap him down. In the aftermath of Occupy Wall Street, de Blasio was just a bone that the Democrat establishment threw to their radical base, once it became apparently that the candidates selected by the party were not gaining traction.

JVW (709bc7) — 11/6/2013 @ 10:22 am

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 10:10 am

The employer mandate is going to hit a lot of those living on the south side of the Potomac River hard.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 11/6/2013 @ 10:27 am

Weiner may have lost the NYC Mayoral election, but a real weenie won in the end !
…and in the Virginia Governor’s race, too !

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/6/2013 @ 10:31 am

The third and most likely version of a de Blasio administration will be the bitter discovery that there isn’t a whole lot he can do to implement his socialist agenda, apart from some really cosmetic changes like naming a park for Che Guevera and demanding that janitors get paid $20/hour. He’ll be an annoyance and a pest to be sure, but I think after four years his staunchest supporters will complain that he hasn’t really accomplished much.

That much is probably true, but where he can have a real and negative impact is on crime, and the school system. Watch for consent decrees and union contracts that will bind future administrations for decades to come.

Milhouse (b95258) — 11/6/2013 @ 10:53 am

Some interesting take aways from the CNN exit polling from virginia:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/11/05/va.gov.exit.polls.1120p.110513.v2.final%5B1%5D.copy.pdf

In virginia, a recently turned purple state in an off year the electorate was dem +5. This is another data point suggesting that the last 10 years has seen a realignment.

Connected to that, Cuccinelli won independents by 9 points and still went on to lose narrowly.

Despite the spin that obamacare caused the race to narrow it looks like the favorable/unfavorble numbers for obamacare haven’t budged among voters (46/52). Only 27% of voters said healthcare was their top issue. Cuccinelli won them by just 4% (49/45).

Sarvis wasn’t a spoiler for Cuccinelli. His voters preferred McAulliff as their second choice.

Dem voter tended to be better educated and occupied the extremes of the income scale (top and bottom) while rep voters were less educated and firmly ensconced in the middle income bracket.

1 in 3 said the shutdown had affected someone in their home. McAullif won that group by 19 points.

Voters really dislike Cucinelli. half of those who voted because they didn’t like the other candidate voted for McAullif. Flipside Sligtly fewer voted dem because they liked their guy than people who voted rep.

McDonnell issues not a big impact, voters approved of him 52-14.

Tlaloc (69d28b) — 11/6/2013 @ 11:02 am

Tlaloc wrote, “Sarvis wasn’t a spoiler for Cuccinelli. His voters preferred McAulliff as their second choice.”
————

Oh, Good Allah, man.
A libertarian voter theoretically favors limited government.
Therefore, real libertarian voters do not choose left-wing goofy bag men such as Terry ‘The Drunk’ McCauliffe as their second choice, particularly when a limited government advocate (Ken C.) is on the ballot.

Libertarian icon Ron Paul was begging libertarians throughout the state to vote for Ken C, rather than that fraud Robert Sarvis.

IF Sarvis’ voters claim McCauliffe as their preferred second choice, that would suggest they aren’t actually proponents of limited government.

Your scenario would be akin to someone who identifies as a vegetarian choosing a cheeseburger over a salad when they are informed that the restaurant is out of soy burgers.
If their second choice is a cheeseburger rather than a salad, then they aren’t really a vegetarian.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/6/2013 @ 11:16 am

I for a time worked for DA Hynes, and dealt with Mr. Thompson “professionally”. The changing demographics of Brooklyn didn’t help Hynes. Oddly Brooklyn is more white today than it was when he took office in 1989. But it’s a very different place. The people who formed Hynes’ base then-white, middle and working class, Catholic, Irish, Italian, secular Jewish-have mostly moved away to upstate, New Jersey and beyond (including almost all of Hynes’ adult children!)to be replaced by yuppies and orthodox and Hasidic Jews.

Very telling Thompson apparently refused to take Hynes’ concession phone call. Imagine many former colleagues are freaking out and anxiously getting their resumes together in a bad job market.

Bugg (ddac6e) — 11/6/2013 @ 11:53 am

Elephant Stone, don’t be too hard on Tlaloc, it’s difficult for him to see beyond the end of his nose while he’s got his head up his ass.

ropelight (a19b6f) — 11/6/2013 @ 11:53 am

I’m a California immigrant who in a lot of ways doesn’t understand NY politics, but from where I sit, Lhota ran a *terrible* campaign.

The consensus view among people I know in the city seems to be: the Bloomberg years were good for NY, but the gains of those years have been unequally distributed, and in particular the way stop + frisk has been used has been a disaster for minority communities. That view aligned *perfectly* with de Blasio’s campaign.

Lhota, on the other hand, ran a campaign which seemed to be rooted in trying to scare me. A vote for de Blasio was portrayed as a vote to bring back the bad old days of the 70s and 90s, the days we left behind with Giuliani and Bloomberg.

But … it didn’t work. I don’t think there’s any good reason to assume that reforming stop + frisk will bring back the burning of the south Bronx or the need for subway vigilantes; neither does anyone else in my milieu. So … Lhota failed to connect, and got drubbed.

aphrael (fb202d) — 11/6/2013 @ 1:28 pm

aphrael:

I don’t think there’s any good reason to assume that reforming stop + frisk will bring back the burning of the south Bronx or the need for subway vigilantes; neither does anyone else in my milieu.

I hope you’re right. Time will tell.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 1:42 pm

===I don’t think there’s any good reason to assume that reforming stop + frisk will bring back the burning of the south Bronx or the need for subway vigilantes==

aphrael–I sincerely hope you are right because I love New York and its borough neighborhoods and I like visiting there. But I wonder what will happen if New Yorkers start having to cope with and living in and dealing with a pre-Giuliani administration type crime environment. And frankly I do worry that that’s possible. People who did not live in NYC in the 70’s and 80’s may be in for quite a shock.

elissa (0c331f) — 11/6/2013 @ 1:43 pm

This article does make the case that Sarvis was not a spoiler.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 1:45 pm

I like days that aphrael shows up. Even if he never did respond to my water rights email 😉

JD (06d92f) — 11/6/2013 @ 1:46 pm

Elissa: it would be insane to say there isn’t a *risk*, right? But the question is, how big do you think the risk is, and how big do you think the harm imposed by the way the city uses stop+frisk is?

I think the big difference between conservatives and non-conservatives on this is that conservatives think the risk is bigger, and that the current harm is lower, than non-conservatives do.

DRJ is right; time will tell. The die is cast, and it will be a few years before we know how it turned out.

aphrael (fb202d) — 11/6/2013 @ 1:52 pm

JD – I’m sorry, I thought I had responded.

aphrael (fb202d) — 11/6/2013 @ 1:55 pm

aphrael–nk’s post up at 8 was very detailed and specific on how things “work” in Chicago and he is spot on. There is a reason that Chicago can have a high crime rate and murder rate, while most Chicagoans go about their day safely, happy and healthy and loving our beautiful city and all it offers. I don’t pretend to be an expert, but my observation is that this type of “two police departments” is going to be a lot harder to manage on the island of Manhattan and environs. Again, I wish you the best of luck and I sincerely mean that.

elissa (0c331f) — 11/6/2013 @ 2:06 pm

I think it would be extremely difficult to work such a system in the parts of NYC where the subway runs.

aphrael (fb202d) — 11/6/2013 @ 2:07 pm

Five apparently contiguous counties in Colorado voted to secede.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/6/2013 @ 3:25 pm

Herein a primer;

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/11/why-we-need-a-capitol-city-project-today/

narciso (3fec35) — 11/6/2013 @ 3:34 pm

40. So much for stealth.

They seem to forget its filthy lucre what holds the Dim machine together.

What do they imagine will substitute?

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/6/2013 @ 4:00 pm

I think it would be extremely difficult to work such a system in the parts of NYC where the subway runs.

Chicago’s got the El, which one would think would present the same problems. But Chicago is a very segregated city; the white areas are very white and the black ones are very black. New York isn’t like that.

Milhouse (b95258) — 11/6/2013 @ 4:20 pm

How about that;

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/11/06/rand-paul-can-you-believe-that-certain-people-who-shall-remain-nameless-used-sandy-relief-funds-for-campaign-commercials/

narciso (3fec35) — 11/6/2013 @ 5:45 pm

There’s got to be an allegory in this.

A skunk took up residence in “our” backyard. We don’t care. I told my daughter and her mother to leave it alone if they didn’t want to get sprayed; what signs of sickness to look for; and to call the village animal control/police if they saw any or if it did not run and hide when it saw them. Our next door neighbor is afraid that it will spray his dog, rape his cat, and eat the grubs in his lawn. So he hired an exterminator who set up traps in his yard. So far, two raccoons and three opossums have been caught and either “adopted” or relocated. Hopefully relocated, but it would be miles away in the forest preserve, far from their homes. The skunk is still there footloose and fancyfree.

nk (dbc370) — 11/6/2013 @ 5:46 pm

nk, what happens when you catch the skunk? I called Los Angeles County animal control years ago about a skunk in my yard and was told that I could come by and pick up a trap from them (for a fee, as I recall). I asked them what happens when I catch the skunk; do they come by and remove it from my yard once it is safely in the trap? I was told no, that I just needed to throw a blanket over the trap and the skunk wouldn’t spray, then I could drive it back to the animal control location and they would take charge in setting it free (probably for a second fee). Not being a biologist, I was a bit unsure that the blanket trick would work, so I declined to get the trap and the skunk ended up spraying my roommate’s dog.

JVW (709bc7) — 11/6/2013 @ 5:52 pm

I’m not doing it, JVW, the neighbor has an exterminator doing it. The trap is already covered with a boxy tarp, with flaps, I guess, to contain any spray, and I imagine the exterminator would just pick the whole assembly up to take it wherever he takes it.

nk (dbc370) — 11/6/2013 @ 5:58 pm

Why can’t we all just get along? Including with backyard animals.

elissa (d0035d) — 11/6/2013 @ 6:05 pm

Skunks usually just come out at night.
What are you doing walking around in the backyard at 2 in the morning ?

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/6/2013 @ 6:12 pm

elissa, I agree. It’s our city slicker neighbor who does not understand “village in a forest”. Elephant Stone, you’re right, too. We know it’s there because it took up residence, not because we get in each others’ way.

nk (dbc370) — 11/6/2013 @ 6:20 pm

nk,

I was just teasing you.
You sound like the type that would be considerate of the skunk.
On the other hand, we have some friends here at the website who would probably bring out an Uzi and shoot it dead under the premise of “the skunk was trespassing.”
Or something.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/6/2013 @ 6:27 pm

When it comes to backyard critters, and the media, this is one of my favorite cartoons ever.

http://www.gocomics.com/theargylesweater/2013/10/07

elissa (d0035d) — 11/6/2013 @ 6:37 pm

44. Skunks, as your cautions about behavior indicate you are aware, are often carriers of rabies.

This time of year less so.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/6/2013 @ 6:40 pm

Elephant Stone, an Uzi? No. A .22lr with an improvised suppressor….

SPQR (768505) — 11/6/2013 @ 6:58 pm

I caught a sick/rabid raccoon this summer, with a 30 gallon tote and a 9-iron. Glad there was no video.

JD (5c1832) — 11/6/2013 @ 6:58 pm

why did the raccoon use a nine iron?

EPWJ (f44e22) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:13 pm

Suburban animals can be weird, as if they are part domesticated and part wild. For instance, we had a squirrel-in-the-attic problem for several months this past Spring and Summer. I tried traps, bait, and outwitting him but he bested me on all three, especially the outwitting part. In fact, he became so comfortable with humans that he would sit by the pool with us when we went outside. (He was far more comfortable with us than we were with him.) I also caught him swimming in the pool one morning, and that ended our using the pool for the season.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:20 pm

Raccoons are short. It probably should have used a pitching wedge.

Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:23 pm

Or a putter. They don’t need a lot of wrist action.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:29 pm

Good thing you animal haters don’t live in DC; you’d have some ‘splainin’ to do.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/va-ag-fears-dc-law-may-relocate-rat-families-virginia

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:35 pm

My neighbor’s kids started a squirrel shooting business. They were very good at it but I couldn’t bring myself to hire them. I watched Bambi too much as a child.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:40 pm

That was an unwise decision on my part.

JD (06d92f) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:41 pm

Was it tested for rabies? Did you get vaccinated?

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:47 pm

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:40 pm

Do they contract out of state??

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:47 pm

I have a liberal friend who just spent a lot of money on a new yard in the suburbs. Unfortunately for him, he lives next to a green-belt and the armadillos are tearing up his new yard.

I advised him of the normal Texas solution, but suburban police and neighbors frown on that.

So, I told him that he could drive across his yard when they were out and they would jump up and kill themselves on the underside of the car. However, suburban police and neighbors frown on that, too.

Finally, I just said, call the Department of the Interior and ask it to declare the yard a armadillo-safe zone. The number of park rangers and federal biologists assigned to the territory will probably be enough to just scare them away.

He told me he just might buy a gun instead, but I did not like the way he looked at me when he said it.

Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:48 pm

No, it’s a neighborhood perk, and the kids were so good at it and they had so much fun that they probably did it for free. Unfortunately, I had bonded with the squirrel by the time they started their business. That’s part of why I said the squirrel outwitted me. I was like Wile E. Coyote to his Roadrunner.

I hope JD sees your question. Rabid animals make me nervous. I guess things worked out okay but I’d still like to hear the story.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 7:53 pm

That’s hilarious, Ag80, and it reminded me of this exterminator’s website I read while searching for help in removing our squirrel. Scroll down and read the “To Whom It May Concern” letter from Katie, who was concerned about the 3 armadillos her neighbor kept as pets. Katie didn’t like their digging but she also worried the neighbor was neglecting the armadillos by making them stay outside all day.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:00 pm

Painted Jaguar: Ag80, you wouldn’t like the way I’m looking at you now, either.

Talking about armadillos before my bedtime…I need my mummy.

Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (f9371b) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:02 pm

MD – it did not make it to the testing stage. I would say with 99% certainty it was rabid. It was not foaming at the mouth (does that really happen?) but it was drooling something incredible, and staggering around in looping circles. I got it in the tote, and put it in the back of my SUV. I was gonna take it out in the country and dispose of it. En route, it knocked over tote and got out. It was very hard to drive while turned around to watch and see if it would attack. When I got there, I opened rear hatch by remote, and it leapt out of car, lucky I was far enough away. I was gonna whack it with the 9 iron, but I was afraid that wasn’t the best idea, too much chance of injuring and not killing, missing, etc.

JD (5c1832) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:04 pm

Painted Jaguar: DRJ, MD told me you kept jumping his posts,
now you’re doing it to me, too.
what gives??

Good night

Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (f9371b) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:05 pm

I hit an armadillo on a Harley once. Scared the shlt out of me

JD (5c1832) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:07 pm

One of the early symptoms of rabies, I believe, has to do with paralysis of neck/swallowing muscles, hence drooling or “foaming at the mouth”.
Staggering around in looping circles sounds like rabid behavior as well.

A number of cases of human rabies have no identified contact. I don’t think there is any thinking as to how that is.
Being a bit hyper-vigilant about some things, I might be inclined to try to find an expert who had an opinion on “near exposures”.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:13 pm

I bet the armadillo regretted the incident as well.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:14 pm

Drool on grass and shrubbery, MD. I warned my family about that, too. To be careful when cleaning the yard.

nk (dbc370) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:16 pm

Armadillos have no regrets. They just die on the side of the road with a smile on their face like they didn’t even know they were dead armadillos.

Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:24 pm

MD and Painted Jaguar:

What can I say? Great minds.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:26 pm

Ag80,

I thought you were kidding when you said armadillos would jump up and hit themselves on cars, but it’s true. They also typically give birth to quadruplets. Amazing the things I learn because of this website.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:35 pm

Our genius of a dog has been skunked twice in the last six months.

Patterico (9c670f) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:36 pm

Tomato juice is your friend.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:38 pm

In Texas, armadillos tear up your yard, eat grubs, birth identical quadruplets, carry leprosy and cause people to drive into a ditch.

In other words, people in Virginia decided Terry McAuliffe would be a good governor.

Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:40 pm

Actually, 3% hydrogen peroxide + baking soda + a little dishwashing liquid is probably a better skunk cure.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:47 pm

DRJ:

We cross-posted, but why in the world would you doubt my Texas credentials?

I also know how to hunt and dress deer, find my way out of the woods, fish crappie and crawdads, crawl through bobwire and kill rattlesnakes with a spade (that is not a racial slur) while debating my daughter about whether Klee was an artist or a poseur. (He was an artist).

Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:48 pm

you can dress deer but can you accessorize them?

yeah that’s what I thought

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:49 pm

My most recent dog never got skunked but he located and brought me the same stupid opossum (unharmed) in his soft mouth about 60 times over a four year period.

elissa (d0035d) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:53 pm

Ag80,

How could I doubt you’re a Texan? I’m the one deficient in armadillo knowledge.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:57 pm

That’s interesting, elissa. Why do you think he does that, and with that particular animal?

My spaniel likes to bring me birds, but he gives up after a few tries. He might be lazier than your dog.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 8:59 pm

Pearls always work with a black dress and a blue blazer helps if you don’t know who you’re meeting. Bangles seem to be popular these days, but the people who matter keep it simple with silver.

I do like white socks, though.

Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 11/6/2013 @ 9:00 pm

Some deer look better in grey or brown jackets.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 9:06 pm

Well, DRJ, I think the dog was a natural retriever who did what he could with the available material at hand– and that the opossum lived close by, had a primeval pea brain and was slow both in body and mind. The funny part was when I’d say to the dog, “drop!” he’d immediately open his mouth and do so. There’d be a plonk as the possum hit the deck. The possum would lay there like it was dead. I’d turn the porchlight off and the dog would come inside to get a doggie treat and watch TV. And when I turned the porchlight on again in 15 or 20 minutes to check, the possum would always be gone. Until next time.

elissa (d0035d) — 11/6/2013 @ 9:16 pm

Ah, the old “I’ll bring you a possum so you’ll give me a treat and let me watch TV” trick. Your dog is smarter than my dog.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/6/2013 @ 9:21 pm

you can dress deer but can you accessorize them?

yeah that’s what I thought

I am given to understand that bacon goes well with them. Not that I would know, of course.

Milhouse (b95258) — 11/6/2013 @ 9:23 pm

But until there are laws requiring equal access for deer, it will be a case of “all dressed up and nowhere to go”.

Painted Jaguar: So, if you cross an armadillo (which jumps up in front of cars) with an Asian carp (which jump up in front of boats), you get an animal that can be a perimeter defense in any situation, ideal for the US Mexico border. (“carpadillos”?).

Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (f9371b) — 11/7/2013 @ 7:03 am

28. Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/6/2013 @ 11:16 am

Tlaloc wrote, “Sarvis wasn’t a spoiler for Cuccinelli. His voters preferred McAulliff as their second choice.”
————

Oh, Good Allah, man.

A libertarian voter theoretically favors limited government.

Therefore, real libertarian voters do not choose left-wing goofy bag men such as Terry ‘The Drunk’ McCauliffe as their second choice, particularly when a limited government advocate (Ken C.) is on the ballot.

Nothing wrong with that. This is very simple.

Sarvis’s voters weren’t predominantly Libetarians! And they didn’t vote for him because of his platform. Libertarians in fact voted for Cuccinelli.

Libertarian icon Ron Paul was begging libertarians throughout the state to vote for Ken C, rather than that fraud Robert Sarvis.

And they in fact listened to him.

The ones who didn’t were those who preferred Terry McAuliffe to Cuccinelli.

People were probably more familiar with the faults of Cuccinelli than of McAuliffe, or they may not have understood what it meant.

Sarvis’ voters claim McCauliffe as their preferred second choice, that would suggest they aren’t actually proponents of limited government.

That’s right. Who says they were? Is there a poll taht says so?

Or maybe they were, but something else was more important to them.

Sarvis’s voters would be people who disliked both of the major candidates, who thought McAliffee was less bad, because they thought Cuccinelli’s faults were more deeply ingrained in his basic character, or he was more of a machine politician and insider than McAuliffe, even if that’s not true. But they thought so.

They knew half a dozen things seriously bad things about Cuccinelli, but what did they know about McAuliffe? Just that he skirted on the edge pf he law or over in an attempt to make money, and that’s a purely personal thing taht would goo away once he was elected, because he wouldn’t need these schemes to make money later. And while maybe he was an alcoholic, he was obviously a highly functioning one, if so.

Cuccinelli had helped prevent anybody but Romney (and Ron Paul) from running in the Republican primary for president in 2012 and had avoided a primary himself, and he just sounded mean and a blowhard. This could easily be a more important negative factor to some people.

Most of them would have voted for another Republican, and their normal first choice would be a Republican.

They might also have thought that Cuccinelli might turn out to be incompetent, because saying stupid things without knowing they are stupid is a sign of incompetence. And if he did know they were stupid, then deliberately saying stupid things is a sign of viciousness, which in turn does not comport well with a dedication to the public trust.

McAuliffe just seemed interested in making a little money for himself. Of course the real problem with McAuliffe is that he was interested in more things than money. He was tied to Bill Clinton, and might distort proper policy in any number of ways.

Your scenario would be akin to someone who identifies as a vegetarian choosing a cheeseburger over a salad when they are informed that the restaurant is out of soy burgers.

They weren’t vegetarians. A vegetarian would indeed choose a salad.

If their second choice is a cheeseburger rather than a salad, then they aren’t really a vegetarian.

Correct.

Also, remember, the soy burger is available.

Better would be an analogy to a group of people where they vote for a meal, but they all have to get the same meal, and it turns out the second choice of a majority of the people who chose soy burgers was the cheeseburger. Why? Because the soy burger clearly had no chance, and vegetarians would have wanted to make sure the meal was vegetarian.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/7/2013 @ 7:41 am

Oh, Sammy. How about this? Even rich Democrat, vote-stealing, vote-fraud procuring, crapweasels cannot predict what their money and craweaselry will accomplish. We had a guy in Chicago running for the Illinois Supreme Court, who put a third candidate with the same name as his real opponent on the ballot, and paid for the ringer’s campaign. He lost badly, his opponent won, and after the election it was calculated that he had paid $150.00 for each vote the ringer had gotten.

nk (dbc370) — 11/7/2013 @ 7:57 am

http://thefederalist.com/2013/11/05/10-lessons-republicans-virginia/

narciso (3fec35) — 11/7/2013 @ 8:10 am

22. Comment by Alex (4ff18d) — 11/6/2013 @ 10:20 am

SF: “No, they have a legitimate lawsuit. They probably in fact, didn’t do it.

[…] The only DNA was from the eventually agreed attacker, and there is no reason to believe they knew him. He attacked other women without any help.”

I think the evidence is stronger that they did participate in the attack on the jogger. The only DNA that could conclusively be matched to anyone was that of Reyes — but each of the “Five” claimed that he didn’t rape her, only knocked her down / held her legs / felt her breasts / etc.

They were being played one against the other. To implicate someone else they had to say they were present. And once having said they were present, they had to give a reason for staying there.

It’s the standard prisoner’s dilemma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Now the prisoner’s dilemma can still work even if neither prisoner actually had anything to do with the crime. Truth is basically irrelevant to the prisoner’s dilemma, so long as law enforcement believes it.

This was a classic illustration of the prisoner’s dilemma except that none of the 5 actually had any part in the crime. The detectives started the ball rolling by lying.

At the time they confessed to this, the crime in question wasn’t rape, it was murder – it was thought she would die – and they all wanted to clear themselves as much as possible from the murder.

And even people with just a nodding acquaintance with the criminal justice system of that time, knew that if there was a murder, the person least guilty is often allowed to get off with a very lenient sentence in exchange for his testimony. Everyone thought at the beginning they were dealing with a murder.

The confessions, by the way, were not consistent with each other. Why shoud they be believed?

Now a nice question would be what was wrong with their lawyesr at their trials. One problem was, they were guilty of other very serious crimes.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/7/2013 @ 9:36 am

22. Comment by Alex (4ff18d) — 11/6/2013 @ 10:20 am

At least one of the “Five” confessed his participation to a friend (while telling her that he didn’t rape her, only held her legs) — that friend testified at trial, and has never recanted her story.

We have to look at the details.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1914&dat=19901107&id=XIkgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vWUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2458,1597499

This is the oldest one – the only one past his 16th birthday at the time. It wasn’t really a confession. About two months later, Melody Jackson, a much older girl whom he knew since age 8, possibly his babysitter at one time, got called by Kharey Wise. And she says to him she doesn’t believe it. She says: I don’t believe you had sex wth that woman. And he says, no he didn’t, he only touched and fondled her legs.

Which is probably what he had confessed to.

First question:

Did he mention Reyes? This would be very peculiar – to tell the truth about helping but protect this Reyes person. And why doesn’t he say, some of these other guys had nothing to do with it? The conversation was too short?

And also, he never offered to reveal any more details all the time he was in jail. It’s not like Reyes was a big time drug dealer or something scaring people. Scaring all of them.
Not one of them mentioned a 6th unknown person in any of their confessions.

If their confessions were by and large true, wouldn’t they have implicated the stranger?
Did they even broach the idea?

You know why they never mentioned him? They weren’t present at the scene of the crime at the time of the rape.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/7/2013 @ 9:37 am

Interesting footnote: Kharey Wise got into a fight with Matias Reyes in Rikers Island.

And he is still going to keep it secret? Even after they are no longer in the same prison? Not even tell his lawyer? Who would hint about this to the prosecutors.

13 years later, in 2002, after again encountering Wise in Auburn Correctional Facility, Reyes confesses, but only after Wise gets paroled. I think he may not have confessed until Wise was already out of jail.

After he confesses, a DNA match is found on a sock, and the semen taken from her, although of less quality, was also consistent with that, so he isn’t making it all up.

So anyway, Kharey Wise wasn’t opening up and telling the truth to his old babysitter or whatever she was. And he says the easiest thing.

Why is it the easiest thing? The logical assumption is people in general believed it, and he wanted his friend to trust him.

So he told her something in line with his confession – what he thought she would believe: what he had confessed to, but not the truth.

No reason she has to think even worse of him than what he had claimed.

The truth was that he wasn’t even there, at least later, and that he’d confessed because of a prisoner’s dilemma type of situation, which he probably wouldn’t have had the words to say.

Reyes may have been the only one who penetrated & ejaculated, but all participants in the attack are guilty of the rape.

I think most of them didn’t understand that in implicating themselves as being a little bit more than present at the scene, they were implicating themselves legally in the highest crime that took place there.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/7/2013 @ 9:40 am

The police, prosecutors, and jury all knew that the DNA recovered from the jogger didn’t match any of the “Five,” and that there were other attackers who got away. Reyes’s confession to being the sole attacker is shaky at best: he is a delusional, psychotic nutcase, who had nothing to lose by confessing and favor to gain with influential prisoners by taking the rap.

He raped other women. Did he have help then?

http://www.nydailynews.com/services/central-park-five/profile-matias-reyes-article-1.1308560

No. He was a pretty violent person, even attacking his lawyers, but always acted alone. He pleaded guilty to 3 rapes and one rape murder, but there’s no reason to believe that is all. In 1989, he admitted to one murder, five rapes, two attempted rapes and a string of muggings, but never volunteered anything about the Central Park case – but why should he have?

Two days before, he’d raped and beaten another woman in the same quadrant of the park without any help from any boys that we know of. The police never linked thos two crimes togetehr in 1989, because obviously the boys weren’t there two days before because it all stemmed from some kind of celebration that had been held.

Now I’ll say what maybe could have happened. One or more of them could have attacked her and gone away, leaving her easy prey. It could be that she had already been attacked, but obviously not raped. She didn’t remember anything, having suffered a concussion. Was anything stolen or missing?

But I think they were in a different place in the park. They mugged other people in other places in the park that night, and there were numerous witnesses to that. (for instance, two men, John Loughlin and Antonio Diaz, were horribly beaten and left bleeding and unconscious that night, according to the Village Voice.)

That’s how they were found.

Actually, that’s how about a dozen teenagers were found.

Not all of them confessed to taking part in the attack on the jogger. Only 4 or 5 did.

Thirteen people besides her boyfriend had their DNA tested, and not one of them matched the crime scene DNA. This did not become public until the triasl, and because it had to.

The police were blocked from interviewing Reyes in jail when the prosecutor’s office decided they were going to seek vacation of the convictions. And his story that he followed the woman (who ran a fast pace) in a zigzag pattern and then attacked her with a tree branch lacks credibility: police tried to re-enact that attack with a female officer running the same pace, and the officers could not catch her.

So he’s not telling the truth about the circumstances of the attack. He might not even remember by that point, and just fabricated details. It’s not like it would stand out in his mind.

And he was a big liar, telling such stories like his mother sold him to his father for $400, that he was sexually abused by strangers and then thrown into a river, that he was sexually abused by family members and that he sexually assaulted his own mother.

http://www.nydailynews.com/services/central-park-five/profile-matias-reyes-article-1.1308560

Reyes’s confession may raise some doubt as to the culpability of the “Five,” but it has never been tested adversarially. That’s why this case should go to the jury before the city pays the “Five” anything: Reyes needs to be cross-examined, because there is a strong possibility his story may fall apart under oath.

There’s something wrong with the story of him being able to catch her and knock her down with a tree branch. He also claimed to have used a rock, which makes more sense. The rock would have had to hit her skull.

It would be possible to lie in wait for her, especially since she ran the same course every day. Was Reyes familiar with the location? It’s not unreasonable. In fact, he should have been.

So he could have seen that there was this woman who came along every day at the same time.

The reason we accept that Reyes did it, is because his DNA matches, and he has a record of other 1-man rapes, and maybe the fact he volunteered it, not really anything he says.

What he says is totally unreliable. That’s a given, really. But he supplied the key lead. And all the crime scene DNA came from one person. And now we know it’s him.

The mystery might be how he able to overpower her. A rock would do it. I think e claimed once that she started to run away and he got her.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/7/2013 @ 9:45 am

94. Comment by nk (dbc370) — 11/7/2013 @ 7:57 am

How about this? Even rich Democrat, vote-stealing, vote-fraud procuring, crapweasels cannot predict what their money and craweaselry will accomplish.

Right. The intention for running and financing Sarvis may have bene for him to act as spoiler, for Cuccinelli but it may not have worked out that way because too many people became aware of that fact, and he was in fact a little bit of a spoiler for McAuliffe, giving people exposed to all the negative campaigning about Cuccinelli another place to go besides McAuliffe.

Also, sometimes a third choice makes it easier to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

We had a guy in Chicago running for the Illinois Supreme Court, who put a third candidate with the same name as his real opponent on the ballot, and paid for the ringer’s campaign. He lost badly, his opponent won, and after the election it was calculated that he had paid $150.00 for each vote the ringer had gotten.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/7/2013 @ 9:49 am

Sultan Knish: It’s De Blasio Time

Highly exaggerated, I’m sure. Or at least I sure hope. If I really believed this was going to happen I’d sell my apartment now and move. But he’s not wrong; something like this, on a smaller scale, is almost bound to happen.

Milhouse (35946d) — 11/8/2013 @ 7:26 am

579.I saw a reference in ABC’s the Note for November 6 to a tweet by Jonathan Karl:

33% of Sarvis voters said they would’ve gone to McAuliffe, 15% to Cuccinelli. The rest wouldn’t have voted or didn’t answer.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 11/19/2013 @ 10:03 am

11/6/2013

Election Results: Chris Christie, Terry McAuliffe Win

102 Responses to “Election Results: Chris Christie, Terry McAuliffe Win”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out