Overnight Open Thread: Overly Endowed Floriduh Man Edition

From the EEEEWWWW! Wing of the Floriduh Man Hall of Fame comes the tale of the strangest legal argument I have ever heard:

A Florida man accused of killing his ex-girlfriend wants to enter his penis into evidence to show a jury that his former lover died accidentally during oral sex.

According to the Sun Sentinel, 65-year-old Richard Henry Patterson admitted he choked his girlfriend 60-year-old Francisca Marquinez on Oct. 28, 2015, however, he never said how and now Patterson is asking a judge permission to show his member to the jury to prove Marquinez’s death was a mistake.

While the request is odd, Patterson’s attorney Ken Padowitz said it’s important to his “rough sex” defense, which has been used in several cases across the country. The premise is the victim died accidentally during consensual sex. Medical Examiner Dr. Ronald Wright will hopefully bolster Patterson’s case.

“Dr. [Ronald] Wright, an expert witness and former Broward County medical examiner, will testify that … her death is consistent with being accidentally sexually asphyxiated during oral sex,” Padowitz wrote in the motion. “It is material and relevant. The view by the jury is essential for them to fully understand Dr. Wright’s testimony and the defense in this case.”

A Brooklyn Defense Attorney Joyce David who also used a “rough sex” argument doesn’t think Patterson has to disrobe to get his point across. “Really, couldn’t they just make a mold or something?” David questioned.

Dare I say a whole lot more at the link

Open thread!

GOP Minority Outreach Update

They’ve just about given up trying at this point. Even #dickwhisperer has taken notice.

The press release went out last week:

“Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, will participate in a panel discussion luncheon in celebration of Black Music Month on Monday, June 1st, in Washington, D.C.”

The event was called “A Republican Salute to Black Music Month” and, according to organizer Raynard Jackson, a black Republican consultant, was to include R&B legend Sam Moore (“Soul Man”), Marlon Jackson of the Jackson 5 and others.

The event went more or less exactly how you’d expect, given how Republicans feel about black voters.

The Republican chairman, a Greek-German Wisconsinite, sharing a stage with legends of soul and funk? Pure gold! But somebody missed his cue.

Moore, Marlon Jackson and the others showed up. But among the “confirmed participants,” Priebus was the sole man missing. And there was nobody from the RNC to take his place.

“Reince Priebus was scheduled to be here,” Raynard Jackson explained to guests at the posh University Club. The host said Priebus sent regrets because he’d had surgery on Friday and was having difficulty talking. “He’s sore as heck,” Jackson explained. Jackson told me Priebus had confirmed his attendance Friday but wasn’t feeling as well as he’d hoped on Monday — and by then it was too late for the RNC to find a stand-in.

But an RNC official told me that Priebus’s surgery Friday had been scheduled, elective and outpatient and that the chairman was doing fine. The official said Priebus had never formally committed to attend the black-music event.

Best line in the story:

Priebus redoubled the party’s efforts to reach minorities after the 2012 election, in which President Obama took 93 percent of the black vote.

Zero times two is still zero.

All Hail the #DickWhisperer

Is our Milbank learning? Dan Balz, in the WaPo:

No one expected Campaign 2012 to be positive or uplifting. The country’s problems are too severe and the battle lines between Republicans and Democrats have been hardened by almost four years of conflict between the White House and Congress.

But what is most striking about the campaign at this point is not just the negativity or the sheer volume of attack ads raining down on voters in the swing states. It is the sense that all restraints are gone, the guardrails have disappeared and there is no incentive for anyone to hold back. The other guy does it, so we’re going to do it too.

Fucking cry me a river. Dana Milbank, of all people, deals with this crap:

Forgive me, but I’m not prepared to join this walk down Great Umbrage Street just yet. Yes, it’s ugly out there. But is this worse than four years ago, when Obama was accused by the GOP vice presidential nominee of “palling around with terrorists”? Or eight years ago, when Democratic nominee John Kerry was accused of falsifying his Vietnam War record?

What’s different this time is that the Democrats are employing the same harsh tactics that have been used against them for so long, with so much success. They have ceased their traditional response of assuming the fetal position when attacked, and Obama’s campaign is giving as good as it gets — and then some.

Balz is correct when he observes that the “most striking” element of the campaign is “the sense that all restraints are gone, the guardrails have disappeared and there is no incentive for anyone to hold back.” In large part, this is because the Democrats are no longer simply whining about the other side being reckless and unfair: They are being reckless and unfair themselves.

Bending over and being beaten up by bullies has done nothing. At long last, Democrats are growing a spine and fighting back.

Yes, it’s giving the “reasonable Republicans” who provide rhetorical cover for the lunatic Christianist and Randian fanatics fits, but hey- maybe it’s time to own what your party has become?

Rush Limbaugh Goes So Godwin that ‘Going Godwin’ Now to Be Called ‘Going Limbaugh’

Because really.


LIMBAUGH: Propaganda versus truth — which wins? Well, what did — what was Hitler more concerned with? Propaganda. Did Hitler succeed for a time? Yeah, he did. What was Clinton more concerned with — truth or propaganda? What’s Obama more concerned with — truth or propaganda? Who would you say is winning? Is propaganda winning or truth winning? We, the virtuous ones in our society — we think truth wins. We have this investment in the truth. We think it’s holy. We think that it is profound, and we think it’s persuasive.

I play you three minutes of Wolf Blitzer cleaning Debbie’s clock and I get an email, “No, no, Rush, she — Ryan shreds Medicare was said I don’t know how many times.”

That’s what people are going to hear, because the fear will always trump the good. Because people react to fear.

Setting aside the gall of a person who is fear-mongering in the very clip that he talks about Democrats fear-mongering, and setting aside that Rush is a doucherocket to whom no attention should ever be paid, the simple truth is that Ryan’s plan shreds Medicare. It does! P. Krugz. explains:

Read more

Open Thread: “Mormon Nice”

(Tony Auth via GoComics.com)

Via commentor Hoodie, check out the byline on this HuffPo piece…

WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney has been determined to resist releasing his tax returns at least since his bid for Massachusetts governor in 2002 and has been confident that he will never be forced to do so, several current and former Bain executives tell The Huffington Post. Had he thought otherwise, say the sources based on their longtime understanding of Romney, he never would have gone forward with his run for president.

Bain executives say they’ve been instructed to keep company and Romney-specific information completely confidential, tightening the lockdown on an already closed company…

Asked about the Bain executives’ observations, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said, “Rumors on what unknown people who Mitt Romney may not have ever met muse about what someone else, also unknown, told them should not justify a story.”

While Romney may personally prefer to drop out before releasing more returns, people who know him note that he doesn’t always do what he wants. Torn between his longtime desire to be president and his equally strong belief that he should not be forced to release more returns, Romney may turn, as he has with so many big decisions, to strict numbers-based analysis. If he plummets in the polls and the risk of defeat presses itself on him, the sources say, his calculation could change…

Guess Abby Huntsman is not pleased that the Romney campaign dismissed her daddy as a mere pretender to the throne…

Since he is a trained professional (don’t try this at home) OG Professor Krugman prefers the stiletto:

There’s a tone of incredulity to the writings of Romney apologists. It seems as if they can’t believe that the magic words — capitalism! free markets! job creators! — aren’t managing to silence the critics. After all, they say, wasn’t Romney just doing what has been standard for the past 30 years?

Actually, we don’t know just how standard his behavior was — and won’t until we see his tax returns, which will probably never happen (there has to be something really explosive in there). In any case, however, the fact that we’ve had a Gordon Gekko economy for 30 years doesn’t make it OK.

Here We Go Yo! Here We Go Yo! So What’s the Scenario!

The Dick whisperer is very, very upset with Obama, because he did not lay out a specific plan in his stump speech yesterday:

I had high hopes for President Obama’s speech on the economy. But instead of going to Ohio on Thursday with a compelling plan for the future, the president gave Americans a falsehood wrapped in a fallacy.

The falsehood is that he has been serious about cutting government spending. The fallacy is that this election will be some sort of referendum that will break the logjam in Washington.

What has him very upset is that Obama has not cut social security and medicare to deal with the debt crisis. He won’t mention the two trillion in cuts that Obama did make (and that the Republicans are trying to wriggle out of because their defense contractor donors are going to lose some money). He won’t mention the fact that the easiest way to deal with our debt crisis would be to let the Bush tax cuts expire (other than to note Obama “complaining” about Republicans refusals to raise taxes).

I’m really not sure I can take six months of this. I wish Milbank would stick to topics he knows something about, like whether Obama looks good in a bathing suit or the optics of Bush’s Mission Accomplished banner.


James Poulos cranked a particularly stinky nugget into Tucker Carlson’s cat box Thursday, a column entitled “What Are Women For?” that was at once so offensive, pretentious, incoherent, clueless and just plain dumb that it attracted hoots of derision from every corner of the internet. Balloon Juice commenter Clark Stooksbury summed it up pithily as follows:

I think that English is his second language, and perhaps Earth is his second planet.

Yup. Stung by the “wave of anger and condemnation” occasioned by his column, Poulos apparently decided to spend Friday afternoon masticating and swallowing an unabridged thesaurus along with a freshman introduction to philosophy textbook and wash it down with a liter of Everclear. The resulting geyser of vomit was pixelated into a dripping rebuttal to his critics that contains half-digested chunks such as this:

It’s not very controversial to point out that sex and gender are foundational to the culture wars. But it is apparently extremely controversial to claim that we can’t make sense of how and why they’re foundational without acknowledging that the root of the battle is over reaching — and enforcing — a consensus about the relationship between what women do and who women are.


The same [Meh, never mind; it doesn’t really matter what is allegedly “the same”—ed.] is true for the meaning of the relationship between women as sovereign individuals and as beings with female bodies.

But its conclusion may contain a kernel of truth that the incredulous and exasperated reader espies with wonder similar to that of a janitor engaged in mopping up a binge drinker’s pool of sick upon finding a single kernel of undigested corn, whole and recognizable, in the barf on the frat lounge floor:

Difference doesn’t presume or ordain inequality. I’m not alone in thinking that women are uniquely able to help humanity avoid becoming enthralled to the more sterile cultural creations of men. But this sort of insight is far more circumspect and modest than the central principles of virtually all social conservatives. If my claim is doomed to be met with an avalanche of contempt, it seems likely that in our lifetimes social conservatism as we know it will be mocked, despised, and shamed right out of existence. You might be deeply uncomfortable with that even if you do hope to see an America without a social conservative movement.

I think he means “Après moi, le déluge” or something. But I’m not sure why I’m supposed to be “deeply uncomfortable” with the extinction of social conservativism that Poulos’ blogular rogering is supposed to portend. Say bye-bye to all-male panels of sanctimonious, god-bothering pricks deciding women’s healthcare issues? Bring it on, I say.

[X-POSTED at Rumproast]