....I just read that, other than Boston's Fenway Park and Chicago's Wrigley Field, Dodger Stadium - where the Dodgers finally settled after fleeing Brooklyn and nesting for four years at the Los Angeles Coliseum, is the oldest ballpark in the Major Leagues.
Is that depressing? Let's just say I'm fighting the urge to walk into the middle of my street, try to be inconspicuous, and wait for fast-moving traffic.
Most of us grew up knowing that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
But what about when a just-elected State Attorney is ignorant of the law. What happens then?
With a major - and I do mean major - nod to Andrew Branca of legalinsurrection.com, he has put together an articlewhich makes it crystal-clear that, when it comes to the law, as it relates to the Baltimore 6 (the police charged in the apprehension, arrest and death of Freddie Gray), marilyn mosby is an ignoramus - and a loudmouthed partisan one at that .
Remember the knife? The spring-action knife that mosby first told us - due to its small size - was perfectly legal for Gray to have, then refused to show to anyone (she still is refusing to do so) and then, belatedly, told us that the knife should not have caused Gray's arrest because the police knew about it only after the arrest took place?
She is 100% wrong - and 100% ignorant - on all counts.
First, let's talk about the knife's legality.
Maybe Gray's spring-action knife is legal under state law. I don't know one way or the other. But I know for certain it is illegal under Baltimore law. And that is where he was arrested.
Want proof? Thanks to Mr. Branca, that is no problem at all.
(a) Possession or sale, etc., prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, carry, or possess any knife with an automatic spring or other device for opening and/or closing the blade, commonly known as a switch-blade knife.
(b) Penalties. Any person violating the provisions of this section, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $500 or be imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both, in the discretion of the court.
You can read that statute until your eyeballs pop out of their sockets. And you will not find anything about size. If it is a switchblade knife in the city of Baltimore, it is illegal. Period, end of story.
Now let's talk about the arrest - which, I reiterate, marilyn mosby is just as ignorant and just as wrong about as the knife's legality.
In point of fact, Freddie Gray was not arrested until the knife was found in his possession.
Let me say that again, a little louder: FREDDIE GRAY WAS NOT ARRESTED UNTIL THE KNIFE WAS FOUND IN HIS POSSESSION.
Mr. Branca has the entire sequence of events leading up to Freddie Gray's arrest in his article. It is too long to copy here, so I will repost the link to his article here, for you to click, read it all, and see for yourself. But, in the meanwhile, here is his summary of the sequence:
(1) Gray, a known street-level drug dealer in a high-crime neighborhood flees precipitously upon observation of, and by, patrolling officers, creating reasonable suspicion.
(2) Based upon this reasonable suspicion the officers initiate a lawful "Terry stop."
(3) During the "Terry stop" the officers handcuff Gray and conduct a visual and (I expect) physical "pat-down" search for weapons, both for the permitted reasons of public and officer safety.
(4) Visual observation reveals Gray's possession of the knife clipped to his pocket.
(6) This unlawful possession establishes the probable cause necessary for Gray's actual arrest.
This sequence of events is supported explicitly by the arresting officer's handwritten Application for Statement of Charges, completed immediately following Gray's arrest and well before any of the public hubbub:
At the beginning of this blog, I asked what happens when a just-elected State Attorney is ignorant of the law.
If marilyn mosby had any shame and/or any integrity at all, she would at the very least be apologizing profusely for her ignorance and dishonesty. If she had more than the minimum amount, she would immediately recuse herself from prosecuting this case. If she had a decent amount, she would be tendering her resignation.
But she is not doing any of those things, is she?
That tells you all you need to know about marilyn mosby.
UPDATE: To the surprise of no one (I would think) the grand jury has agreed to indictments against the Baltimore 6.
We will never know for sure how much of it was because the grand jury sincerely felt they were in order, or because if this didn't at the very least go to trial, there might have been even worse riots than the ones immediately following Freddie Gray's death.
Convicting them, however, is likely to be a very different story.
With Hillary Clinton incommunicado for over a month (other than a few questions at one event which were answered with what amounted to rehearsed talking points), the only presidential hopefuls to ask anything of are Republicans...
....which is pretty clearly a source of great glee to many media people, as they play "gotcha" with one after another of them, while (with few exceptions) have no problem at all with Ms. Clinton ignoring them like so many whining children.
One of the ways media have gone after Republicans is to ask this question: "Knowing what you know now, would you have gone into Iraq in 2003?"
That, readers, is a very fair question and should be asked of everyone. And, amazingly, it has taken a major toll on Jeb Bush, who seems to have a different answer, or coloration of an answer, every day. This has significantly tarnished Mr. Bush's credibility (i.e. if he isn't prepared for a question like that, which - given that his brother ordered the invasion - was absolutely, uneqivocally going to be asked, how can he deal with issues that are not right in front of his eyes?)
But asking about the Iraq invasion is not the only "hindsight" question that should be asked.
Jeff Jacoby, in his latest (typically excellent) column, has suggested three others, which - if they ever get the opportunity - media should be asking of Hillary Clinton as well as Republicans. Here they are:
Would the men and women campaigning for president today have signed the Iraq Liberation Act, as President Clinton did in 1998, thereby making Saddam's removal from power a matter of explicit US policy?
With 20/20 hindsight, would they have ended the Gulf War after just 100 hours, as President George H. W. Bush did in 1991? Would they, like the first President Bush, have explicitly encouraged the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam - but then, when Kurds and Shi'ites heeded his call, done nothing to stop the dictator from savagely crushing the uprising?
Or take the more recent decision, by President Obama in 2011, to pull all American troops from Iraq, rather than negotiate a new Status of Forces agreement to maintain a substantial US military presence. That wholesale withdrawal - which was also widely supported at the time - created a vacuum that ISIS and Iran have filled with blood and terror. Knowing what we know now, would the candidates have brought those troops home?
Those are three excellent questions. I would love to hear every candidate answer them - and not real, heartfelt answers, rather than premeditated, concocted, boilerplate garbage from a team of political consultants, that means less than nothing.
If we're going to play the hindsight game, let's play on more than one side of the board. And the sooner mainstream media demands that Queen Hillary get into the game, the better it will be.
Yesterday, the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra fell to ISIS.
Several days ago the key strategic Iraqi city of Ramadi - maybe 75 miles from Baghdad - fell to ISIS.
ISIS is strengthening exponentially, and - if unchecked - seems likely to take over all of Syria and all of Iraq.
This is the "jayvee squad" President Barack Obama referred to 16 months ago, when his "policy", if it can even charitably be called one" was to do nothing except mouth platitudes and dismissive insults.
And what is his "policy" today? What is he - or the UN or the European Union - doing to prevent ISIS from continuing to become bigger and stronger and more of a threat to the entire world?
Other than a hitting individual ISIS "senior people" here and there, which self-evidently is not stopping the organization, not one damn thing.
And what is his explanation for the burgeoning of ISIS...oh, excuse my intellectual failing; ISIL (that's what the really smart people like Mr. Obama call it)?
It is to blame it on George Bush.
See, if Bush had not invaded Iraq in 2003, ISIS - which Mr. Obama characterized as nothing more than a "jayvee squad" 11 years later - would be doing what it does today.
This has nothing to do with radical Islam (I guess that must have come into existence after 2003), and it has nothing to do with the void created by Mr. Obama when he bugged out of Iraq without leaving a residual force there.
It certainly is not his fault. Heck, Barack Obama has only been President for going on 6 1/2 years now. So how can he be blamed for anything? I mean, no one blamed President Bush for anything that happened during the first 6 1/2 years of his administration, right?
There are still 20 months left for this nightmare administration to malfunction. How I wish there were a Miracl-Gro product for time, that would make it go faster.
The other morning I came out of the shower, and noticed that my wife, using her foot, was aggressively rubbing what I assumed to be a rag over part of the tile floor that had become wet.
Upon further inspection, however, I realized that it was not a rag, it was the underpants I took off before showering.
The following conversation then took place:
"Are those my underpants you're using to wipe the floor?"
"You know you're rubbing them into the grout as well as the tile"
"What does that do to the underpants?"
After 46 years of marriage, I knew that one shoulder shrug might only mean indifference. But two shoulder shrugs was the equivalent of "That's right, what do you want to make of it?" - which meant impending doom if I said even one more word.
My reaction, therefore, was not to say even one more word. But now I'm much more careful about where I, er, drop my drawers.
If anyone thinks I could have handled this better, I would love to know their thoughts.
Ok, back to politics, where I wish I could use my foot to aggressively rub most politicians - not their underwear but the politicians themselves - against tile and (especially grout). Facing down.
Iran's supreme leader on Wednesday ruled out allowing international inspectors to interview Iranian nuclear scientists as part of any potential deal on its nuclear program, and reiterated that the country would not allow the inspection of military sites.
In a graduation speech at the Imam Hussein Military University in Tehran, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, widely believed to have the final say on whether Iran accepts a deal if one is reached next month, denounced what he said were escalating demands by the United States and five other world powers as they accelerate the pace of the negotiations with Iran.
"They say new things in the negotiations," Ayatollah Khamenei told the military graduates. "Regarding inspections, we have said that we will not let foreigners inspect any military center."
In other words, the person in charge of Iran - the one who supersedes all others - is telling us in so many words (and this is not the first time he has done so), that there will be no interviews with nuclear scientists and no inspections of any activities at military installations...
...which means, since the nuclear facilities would be placed at military installations, that there would no inspections at all.
Put another way, we have agreed to lift sanctions on Iran, freeing up billions of dollars for the country to pursue its nuclear ambitions, and allowed it to maintain its nuclear program on the premise that there would be meaningful inspections of the nuclear facilities...
...except there won't be any inspections...
...which means the only result of this brilliant negotiation is that Iran has had its sanctions lifted, and - as the single most prolific exporter/funder of international terrorism on the planet - is free to continue on its merry way building the nuclear capacity it can provide to the terrorists it supports/funds, and can attempt to make good on its repeatedly stated promise to wipe Israel off the map.
But, then again, why would any reasonable person expect more? What has either Barack Obama or John Kerry ever accomplished that would suggest they could negotiate a meaningful, beneficial deal with Iran...or, for that matter, any other country?
During Mr. Obama's presidency we have become an international joke. A country with no serious plan to address any international situation (in that context, I will be writing about ISIS later on today) and no intention of carrying through on any threats (red line in Syria, anyone?). So why, then, would Iran - a country that would only accede to our demands under extreme duress - come across with anything that we want, now that we have lifted its sanctions, thus eliminated the duress?
This nightmare ends at noon on January 20, 2017. Noon on January 2017 cannot come fast enough.
With a tip of my hat to commenter "free", we have this video, in which Hillary Clinton supporters are asked their solidarity with her "positions" - except the positions actually are opposite of Ms. Clinton's.
Do they notice? Do they care? Watch and find out:
Enjoy the show?
Now remember that every one of these people has the same number of votes you do.
Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site,
third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser,
or using web beacons to collect information.
At "Hopelessly Partisan" we discuss all issues, big and small. Such as:
-Could President Obama's Iran "deal" be worse?
-What really happened to Harry Reid? Did his brother Larry beat the crap out of him?
-Will the email scandal and the massive contributions from foreign countries hurt Hillary Clinton's chances in 2016?
-Can the eric holder DOJ scare Senator Menendez into silence?
-When will media talk about how many new jobs created in the Obama years are part-time rather than full-time?
Right down to:
-Did American Sniper's box office success teach Hollywood anything?
-Does anyone other than a few gossip columnists care about anything Lena Dunham says?
-Will I win or lose my $10 bet with Toy Insurance Bob that the Yankees will win more games than the Mets this year?BR>
In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.
So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of "The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics", and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.
And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!