California Deputy Charged With Allegedly Stealing Suspect’s Debit Card and Giving It To Her Son

There is story out of Orange County this week that is an astonishing allegations of police corruption.  Deputy Sheriff Angelina Cortez, 41, is accused of stealing the credit card of an arrested person and then giving the debit card to her son to use to buy things. There are a couple aspects of this case which are intriguing.

According to the charging documents, Cortez and a training officer responded to a report of a woman stealing wine and batteries from a 7-Eleven store in San Clemente on Nov. 19, 2018. Cortez allegedly pocketed the woman’s debit card and gave it to her son, who then used it to buy various items.  Notably, Cortez reportedly made $248,000 annually in pay and benefits.

What is also interesting is the length of time for the charges. She was allegedly committed the crime in November 2018 and was put on leave in June 2019. She will be arraigned on November 18th, two years after the offense.  In addition, she is only charged with filing a false police report. That could result in a maximum sentence of three years in prison, if convicted. However, what about the theft of a credit card and fraud?

Prosecutors often count stack against defendants to force pleas. However, in this case, the most obvious charges are not included against this officer, who allegedly abused a position of authority.

The length of time and the limited charges are hard to explain. It is also hard to explain how, if true, Cortez thought that she could get away with this. She is on record as an arresting officer when the credit card went missing. It would seem obvious that any investigation would lead back to when the card was taken from the arrestee.  To then involve your own child in such a criminal enterprise would be truly breathtaking.

 

154 thoughts on “California Deputy Charged With Allegedly Stealing Suspect’s Debit Card and Giving It To Her Son”

  1. Mr Kurtz, “all” is correct to the first approximation. According to the orbital forcing hypothesis attributed to Milankovitch, “more than all” is a better approximation.

    Do read the online resource by Spencer Weart. I opine that most of your questions will be answered.

  2. Today’s post is a real winner in Turleyworld: 1. ignore Trump’s intentional lying about the risk of coronavirus and the tens of thousands of Americans who are dead as a result, while: 2. getting in licks against California, and an Hispanic to boot.

  3. “DISCORDANT INTERMIXTURE”

    The foreign invasion and destruction of California, facilitated by communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs), began in earnest ~ 50 years ago.
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

    – Alexander Hamilton
    _________________

    “ORIGINAL INTENT”

    “…free white person(s)…”

    Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802

    United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof,…

  4. Turley always the master of diversion when bad news about Trump comes out, has to be looking at his keyboard, and is looking for way to bring up that Trump lying to us was really free speech.

        1. Trump certainly is making it less appetizing for despots to do that type of thing. Obama encouraged all types of intrigue against American interests.

          1. I know right??? Love how he got all over the Saudis for killing a journalist. Or Putin for poisoning rivals on foreign soil. Or even just for poisoning them. And the whole bounties for dead American soldiers??? Trumpy bear got all over that in a Nobel prize kinda way, ay?

            1. Bug, you can add Kim Jon Un’s murder of his uncle to the list too.

              From Newsweek’s reporting on Woodward’s book:
              “Kim “tells me everything,” including a graphic account of Kim having killed his uncle, the president told Woodward. Kim ordered his uncle, senior government official Jang Song Thaek, to be executed in 2013, The New York Times previously reported. Last year, Trump privately told supporters about the execution, describing how Kim displayed Jang’s head after his death for others to see, according to the Post. Jang was reportedly killed for suspected disloyalty to Kim’s regime.”

              Sounds peachy.

              1. Real Nobel level stuff there, CTHD!! Ha.

                And we haven’t even touched the whole jailing kids at the border policy yet.

                1. The pictures you saw of children in cages were from the Obama administration. You have a wire loose and can’t separate fact from fiction.

            2. If you wish the United States to be the policeman of the world then call for us sending troops into China for they are killing and enslaving millions. Alternatively you could send Joe Biden in to make a trade of American know how and secrets to arm the Chinese airforce while the Biden family can be enriched some more. Biden could then save a few of those destined to die and use them as house servants.

              You are so ignorant you don’t know what that journalist was involved in. You don’t even know or mention his name. You call yourself Bug but I think you come from the cockroach family.

              1. It’s because I didn’t want to misspell his name, Inspector Gadget. I know it doesn’t bother you when you do it yourself, but it bothers me….

                That’s because every thought Allan has ever had is dark, dark, dark and proves he’s been mentally unfit since even before the minute he was born.

                1. “It’s because I didn’t want to misspell his name”

                  We know. You have a spelling fetish.

                  “every thought Allan has ever had is dark, dark, dark ”

                  When I talk about you and some others along with Marxist democrats the only thing that can be said is dark.

            3. Bug, going over my mail I remembered your weird focus on the Saudis. You will like this.

              Saudi National Gave Thousands of Illegal Donations to Obama Inaugural Committee, Report Finds

              U.S. election law prohibits foreign nationals from making those sorts of political contributions. But the donations Sheikh Mohammed Al Rahbani tried to send to Obama’s inaugural committee were funneled through a seasoned straw donor, the records and the AP analysis show. …

              That intermediary, Imaad Zuberi, agreed this month to plead guilty to making illegal campaign contributions …

              It’s lucky for Barack Obama this came out nearly three years after he left office, isn’t it?

              https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2019/10/29/ap-saudi-national-gave-thousands-of-illegal-donations-to-obama-inaugural-n70017

    1. I accept that there is climate change and some of it is due to anthropogenic cause such as CO2 emissions.
      How much is some? I don’t have an answer for that and having reviewed the general declarations of the “scientific community” projecting such things, I notice they never say a number
      They say “significant.” This is a rather vague adjective. Among the assortment of other causes, such as solar radiation, cloud coverage and I wouldn’t know how many other factors, tens or hundreds for all I know, seems like there should be some precise factors assigned to the variables.

      Moreover, if there are different models of the causal relationships, and I believe there are, what is the track record for each model based on actual predictive accuracy since each model was developed?

      I should like to know how much the “anthropogenic CO2” emission factor varies across the models, and compare that to the accuracy of the models.

      However, I can’t seem to find a simple answer. Of course I am not a “scientist” however I can read and had undergraduate level science classes and also statistics and calculus and plenty of experience pulling peer reviewed literature from the internet. I have put some time into this, but, I can’t seem to find a definitive number.

      Now for this study, it seems to me that such an economic projection of the costs of carbon emissions must include a precise causal factor.

      What was the precise causal factor? adjectives like “Significant” must be based on a number or they have no valid meaning in these contexts.

      So what is the number?.

      Is that number based on a certain publication or series of publications and if so which ones?

      I won’t wait for the response but if there is one that has a real answer, I’ll be most delighted to know

      1. What would a defined number such that everyone agrees on it mean, Kurtz? First of all, the right will never agree on a number. Second, it avoids the bigger problem entirely. if a storm is coming and it has the ability to decimate things, is it really important whether it’s wearing a red coat or a blue one? The single biggest problem in addressing climate change (and no one who truly knows the science doubts its existence, rather, they’ve been planning for it in their strategic decisions for a good while now) is time. We don’t have much time to act in a way that can neutralize some of the worst effects of it. We’re past the point of reversal. The type of BS navel gazing you advocate, Kurtz, is the number one tool of climate science deniers who’ve been knocked out of the blocks enough by science in general to outwardly deny it now. You are the definition of someone missing the forest through the trees.

        1. Bug, as a person with the background that you have reported, you should be able to recognize this is simply a request for information. Rather than denounce me, you could get to work and find the answer. Or say hey, I don’t do this work for free, but sure those are valid questions. Maybe you could point to a good study that breaks them down?

          Or maybe there is not an answer?

          but surely there is. The models have causative factors. I want to know. What is the causative factor assigned to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. And if there are ten different models, I want to know, what are the ten different factors. and then I want to know, do the ten different models, have different track records for actual predictive accuracy?

          These are not political questions. Nor are they navel gazing. They are not even the heresy of “climate denial.” they are precise and answerable questions about the models used to predict climate change which are based on causal factors for complex weather systems that are projected by serious scientists.

          If you evade, them, I can understand that you don’t want to do my research work for free. I was just thinking that maybe Benson is on top of this since he posts about it regularly.

        2. “We don’t have much time to act in a way that can neutralize some of the worst effects of it. We’re past the point of reversal”

          if you say we dont have time, then it implies you have a time frame.

          the time frame must be based on some model of climate change or maybe several which have similar projections

          I am just asking what is the precise number attributed to anthropogenic co2 emissions?

          Or am I not allowed to ask the question. Is that a sin against the priestly authorities which have spoken, with this vague word, “signficant?”

          Benson posted the study. I actually read his link unlike 90-% of people who will see it. I am not claiming it is false.
          I am just asking, since it projects a specific cost per ton of emission generated, which is a very down-the-line conclusion about costs impact on human society, can we just go up the line a few steps and look into the methodology?

          I mean how about this. Did the author of the “study” use one predictive climate model, or did he use several? How did he pick?

          It’s a socalled study and subject to “peer review,” right? I am not a peer of the lofty academic, just another nobody, so surely, my much more simple and humble question may be answered.

          1. See, I think the idea of making such a study, is a worthy exercise. I just want to look into this ongoing question i have for an answer. Because., it relates to every single policy conclusion we might have.

            we have mentioned mitigation versus adaptation. this too is a policy matter.

            Like the covid restrictions., policy choices about mitigation, imply resource allocation decisions that will necessarily be an choice among lesser evils.

            Such as, will quarantines stifle other needed health care, economic activity neceessary for human needs like food, or education, etc, and where will the impact of a quarantine against the pandemic outweigh the costs of imposing it

            Likewise, if carbon emissions are to be curtailed, and that would mean say shutting down coal powered electric plants, how will the demand for electricity capacity be otherwise satisfied, and at what cost?

            Now let’s jump ahead a little. Some climate change experts are blunt in their belief that the the problem is excess worldwide population. I just saw an interview with a physics professor from MIT making this very point yesterday.

            How much excess population is there? Well, I know one well endowed outfit, that claims, max carrying capacity of the globe is actually less than 1 billion. I think this was the outfit, just from memory, give it a look https://morrisoninstitute.stanford.edu/publications/global-change-and-carrying-capacity-implications-life-earth

            So let me take that as a given. Though I doubt it. If that is a given, how are we going to kill off,er, excuse, me, “reduce,” 6/7 of the world’s population “in time” to avert this projected capacity?

            And maybe we better be careful on such “solutions” because obviously they would have almost unimaginable consequences of their own.

            Seems to me like if you can’t be bothered to answer the easy questions like the one I asked above about what precise causal factor or how these differ among models and their accuracy, the, you’re not ready for the harder questions either. And yet you claim, we have little time, and I can’t see the forest for the trees. No, I think I see the trees, the forest, and the implications– which are very grave in the most literal sense imaginable.

            So if you are serious about it– I think Benson is– I know that most Democrat policy makers are not, its’ just another issue for them that they banter about– but I know there is some problem, and it is serious, so I am asking serious questions. Let’s hear some serious replies. Otherwise, don’t tell me Im navel gazing. That’s not a reply it’s merely an insult and one that ill befits the gravity of the subject.

          2. Then do your research. I heard seeking is a good spiritual practice. And in this case, good scientific practice.

        3. Is NOAA navel gazing? Here is some basic information about climate models. https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-models

          see, I was not asking a rhetorical question. I realize that climate modelling is complicated and it involves not only different causal models, but also, varying scenarios which integrate different causative value factors. I think they call these “Representative Concentration Pathways” if i understand the term correctly. Im curious about how this all works. The more I learn the more I want to learn. You call that navel gazing?

          I realize it’s a deep dive I am asking for, but I thought, surely someone like Benson who always brings this up, and has a strong background in math, could be bothered to try and give me a meaningful answer.

          and yet, you want to toss a stone or two at me. ok. Maybe you are not as worried as you pretend to be. It happens to be, I take an interest in this subject, because I think there is climate change, but I want to cut through the fog of politics and get a sense of the foundation on which some of the dire warnings are made. Why? In spite of my communitarian and patriotic feelings, I am a little selfish. And i plan on living about another 20 or 30 years, and I may move, and I want to have a sense of the impact this emerging problem will have on various possible locations. For example. let’s say I retire and get a condo in Nha Trang, Vietnam, where there is a cheap and easy lifestyle, with no “BLM” to harass me if I go out to a cafe for some “pho”

          will the beach areas of Nha Trang be flooded in 20 years?

          Will Vietnam be able to meet the electricity demand or residents or will it be reduced to a sweltering hellhole like the third world state of California where it’s about 120 degrees in LA and some people lost electricity?

          How about a place like Las Vegas. Is that going to be overheated like Death Valley in 20 years?
          will they be able to guarantee fresh water and sufficient electricity to meet a/c demand of residents in 20 years?

          Inquiring minds like me want to know. If you are too busy to take the question seriously, I understand. I actually have a job in spite of how much I post here and I am busy too. But it seems like a serious subject and Benson suggests it’s more important than whatever Turley headlined. And I happen to agree with Benson on that.

          1. Good for you, Kurtz. If you’re indeed serious about finding the predictives about places you may choose to frequent in the future nothing can stop you. Even day dreams of vocational hegemony.

            1. Well, in any event, it may not matter, because we now know that Trump: 1. intentionally lied about the risk of coronavirus back in February when he knew that it was way more virulent than he was saying, and that it spreads via airborne droplets or mist, but still did not enact any national mask mandate or coordinated plan for preventing unnecessary illness and death. In fact, he shipped PPE to China. We also now know that victims can get the virus more than once, that it can attack the brain and other organs and the damage may not be reversible. 2. he disclosed, to Bob Woodward, that “he” has a new nuclear weapon unlike any other. So, now, the arms race may heat up, and the US may well have violated several treaties, which could further alienate our allies. Trump is also clearly in bed with Putin, who is trying to help him cheat again, and his “administration” ordered intelligence officials to downplay Russian interference, not to give in-person briefings to members of Congress and to play up Chinese and Iranian influence in our elections. Russians are the ones who are putting out the false claim that Joe Biden has competency issues. Trump and Fox keep amplifying and repeating this lie.

              It leads any reasonable person to wonder: what else is Trump lying about or downplaying to try to retain the power he cheated to get or in order to prevent the economy from going into total free-fall and hard depression? In other words, we might all end up dead soon anyway, because Trump may have just lobbed the opening salvo to WW III. Or, it is possible that due to Trump’s lack of leadership and failure to take containment measures, COVID-19 is beyond being controlled and we will see historic morbidity and mortality numbers. Trump likes to take credit for saving lives due to the China travel ban, but the virus was already here, and over 40K people traveled here from China because of exceptions after the ban. Just another lie.

              I just cancelled my dental appointment set for next week. I now know, without complete certainty, that my government lies about coronavirus morbidity and mortality risk, and because Trump controls everything, including the CDC and the FDA, he’s behind in the polls, he will literally tell any lie or do anything possible to prevent the rout that may becoming because his tender ego cannot handle rejection. I don’t want anyone that close to my mouth and nose until I can trust my government to tell the truth about the real risks we are facing from this pandemic.

              What worries me more than this is the fact that Trump’s disciples probably don’t care that he not only knew the virus was deadly, he downplayed it and prevented the CDC from giving us proper advice by dominating news conferences and hovering over the doctors. Where is the supposedly moral, Evangelical Mikey Pence–does he care that tens of thousands of Americans died because of Trump’s lies? Where are the Republicans? Why do they allow this charade to continue?

              TRUMP LIES–PEOPLE DIE.

      2. Mr Kurtz, all of the global warming for the past 150 years is due to anthropogenic CO2. I don’t have a single reference. Instead, I recommend going to the Start Here section of the Real Climate blog to see if your questions are answered.

        For a long and thorough account, “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart is available online via AIP, the American Institute of Physics.

        For an earlier popular account by David Archer, “The Long Thaw” is quite good.

          1. https://www.ou.nl/documents/40554/102890/LECHe_Module1_Textbook_2012.pdf/95da9c5e-3e0e-48b7-a0ef-489ec9c7c47c

            I can’t get that book by Weart in my search but i found this text book. from the first chapter, I admit as true the four propositions they state on pages 61 and 62,. which cite to Weart’s work.

            however, it seems to me, based on the two paragraphs that follow, that I am asking valid questions

            It also seems that they do not necessarily imply that all the climate change in this time frame was anthropogenic.

            I keep on asking how much. and how does this vary across the main models and what is their proven track record.

            feel free to say “i don’t know,” if you don’t. Or “I am too busy to look it up and give you a citation.” Or “gee thats a good question, maybe I will look later”

            or, maybe you have answers you can share. surely if it is this grave, the questions are worthy of attention. or we can just argue about Trump for the ten thousandth time?

            1. Basically, Kurtz, I think this text is a worthy venture into an understanding of climate change mechanics on an intellectual level. Worthy, necessary science. And just to qualify myself, I’ve been vegetarian for almost 30yrs and have lived entirely off the grid for long stretches, so while i think it’s a worthy pursuit to label the specifics of the climate change phenomenon, I don’t doubt it in the least and have seen the up close effects in my own life and places I’ve lived. So I say, have at it! The knowledge will only help you in your pursuit.

                1. I would never give up eating the flesh of dead animals but I could get into off grid living. Maybe my retirement digs will have solar and propane backup and big garden and goats and chickens and the whole shebang. I just gotta make a little more money first…. I know if i keep saying that i will prolly die in the saddle

          2. Bug. Bad reactions to legitimate questions about climate change turn people off. If I take my car to the garage and the mechanic tells me I have to replace my brakes and suspension but when I ask for information as to why he tells me “because your going to die if you don’t” I take my car to another more helpful garage and advise all my friends to avoid the bad garage.
            There has been endless talk about the “science being settled”. If that’s the case all the answers Mr Kurts asked for should be readily available.
            Making a successful case means convincing the doubters not preaching to the faithful.

            1. Get what you’re saying. But the answers Kurtz is looking for are readily available. And as to my “bad reaction”, I was pointing out the phenomena of paralysis by analysis more than anything else. Can’t help it if he, or anyone else, take it personally. Maybe it’s just me, living on an island in the Atlantic and all, but the proof of climate change, and the degree of damage it can cause are everywhere…, all it takes is looking out the window or relating current weather behavior in relation to the past, I could be totally guilty of that…

              But I take Kurtz’s question to be equal to someone looking for what their ‘stop loss’ would be to finally accept what’s been scientifically established for quite awhile. That’s at best. At worst, it’s playing devils advocate by using rhetoric dressed as scientific concern that’s tossed out by the fossil fuel lobby. Not that the statement is a monolith…, biggest funder of client science back in my dad’s day was Exxon. But once Reagan came in he squashed climate research to whatever degree he possibly could and Exxon and every other fossil fuel lobby took their cues from it.

              In other words, I think the best thing Kurtz could possibly do if he’s truly curious is to begin by typing things like ‘ different effects of CO2 in air versus water as it relates to climate change’ into google. And then move from one source to the next until he’s educated. And that’s not just related to Kurtz. It goes for all of us all the time. We’re watching nature evolve in quite an un natural way re human created climate change…, time to drop the cocktail party way of speaking about it.

              1. bug may or may not be one of the users that was here to participate in previous conversations about the subject. bug projects on me some sort of bad faith in the conversation. that’s fine. it doesn’t affect the validity of my questions whether I had bad faith or not. I don’t need to kiss your backside Bug and I dont care if you like me. i accept that there is climate change based on peer reviewed results and also based on my own anecdotal observations of the climbing level of lake michigan over my lifetime now higher than ever., i think we are in a warming trend. i don’t need convincing about that and there is no stop loss whatever. I dont know enough about the causative factors or how they are attributed or projected and I wanted to find out more and I got some good recommendations from benson

                Im skeptical about the feasability of mitigation, but not the need for adaptation. that is a different conversation I tried to have here before and I ran aground on that one too. I rather think we are headed for major problems and if the causal factors are sufficiently strong then they are probably irreversible. I think you used the word irreversible yourself. if they are irreversible then adaptation should be the policy prescription because all the wasted time and effort at mitigation will not matter if the possible change is not sufficient. we maybe are into the beginning of cascading effects that will totally blow away whatever could be achieved by some fiddling here and there. i dont know about that, but I am sharing it, to again illustrate that the modeling and confidence in modeling and factor weighting in the modelling, should help us determine, is mitigation realistically possible or not. this relates to that cost figure associated with the article benson shared.

                moreover some adaptation measures particularly infrastructure will be socially useful almost regardless of the degree of climate change. ie better bridges, levees, changes to coastal development land use codes, sustainability type changes to building codes, etc.

                also when you get down to it,. about mitigation, assuming it is not past the point of no return, well, there are human costs that would be entailed. bringing alternative energy sources online is no simple matter for example when all the components of wind or solar are manufactured using fossil fuel intensive inputs from steel to silver to energy.

                then you have this other problem I mentioned that you ignored, busy to mock me. there is a large human population and it demands energy now and that entails a certain amount of emissions for the near future. If we assume that anthropogenic co2 emissions are the major source of climate change, it really possible to sustain a world population of 7 billion without triggering massive climate change? again that takes us back to the mitgation versus adaptation problem

                and it also takes us back to a difficult question. if as some claim, the carrying capacity of earth under near term technology is only 1 billion, then, how would you propose to “reduce” 6/7 of the world population

                in this interview, MIT physics professor refers to this issue amidships somewhere about 44 minutes in. “existential risks”
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDSEjaDCtOU

                I will paraphrase: “a steady state co2 level requires a factor of 10x reduction in carbon emissions…. but average energy consumption is less than a tenth of what westerners use… a future sustainable energy level with far less inequity the co2 emissions in western economies must be reduced by a factor of 100. one HUNDRED times less energy would need to be in the west. is it feasible? he doubts it. therefore he doubts we will reach that level….. either we reduce dramatically energy use which may not be easy considering it is much used for producing food… but we would also need to reduce population. he says there is no technological solution. (wow– this is coming from a fusion researcher). the challenge is sociological. there is no magic bullet.”

                see, if you are serious about the problem, start by framing the difficulties frankly. that’s one suggestion I might make.

                I am betting, there is no way the west is going to reduce energy consumption anywhere near that level. it’s impossible without utterly destroying the west. well. now we can ask, is that the plan? somedays people like me wonder.

                and cutting down on population growth in the third world would be just peachy keen fine and dandy by me, but I suspect, there are large parts of it that will not be cooperating.

                And so, given these constraints, perhaps a more serious policy advocacy of adaptation is in order? that’s about the only specific thing I have to suggest to the “climate change advocates” other than not treating everyone with a question like a jerk

                1. Sorry you’re so butthurt, Kurtz. I tend to take on the tone of someone trying to grab someone out of an active crosswalk when I see the type of questions you’re asking. If humans are going to go forward with anything near the experience of the planet they’ve grown accustomed to, sustainable energy is the answer. It’s not even a question….

                  And yes, I’ve had many rounds of this discussion with you on at least 5 occasions on this blog.

                  Look, I’m always going to have thin patience for the type of doubting questions you bring up about the ability of sustainable energy to power the planet. And for frame of reference, the sun on any given day produces enough energy by itself to power the planet many times over. Also, you’re giving short shrift to the amount of research that goes into windmills, solar panels (commercial projects), and it makes your variability point kind of obsolete. A bigger sustainable project of whatever sort is well vetted for cyclicality. IOW, they’re not built with the possibility of wind cessation variation enough to neutralize the installment.

                  Just look into the standards for citing off shore wind projects, the amount of lead research they take, the steady wind currents needed to place the project, etc. and you’ll see it’s no joke or a new concept that hasn’t been vetted out for consistency. It would be crazy for developers to not do this and they’re well past the level of your concern as to what they’d consider a suitable building site.

                  Also, the model of centralized generation is a dinosaur. Will it always be around? Yes, but that’s an economic model, not one driven by energy potential. where things are headed is a grid powered by many input sources rather than just one. The big guys will always do their damdest to control distribution in the energy business as well as every other business, so it’ll require paying the piper for grid access, but be clear, that’s the corporate realm jousting over market share control, not the potential of sustainable sources to power the planet.

                  Also the type of super storms we’re experiencing now dictate a decentralized power source just so power outages aren’t so long. That’s damage already done to the planet, we can’t reverse it.

                  As far as adaption or mitigation, both are absolutely necessary. To look at those approaches as an either/or is a gigantic mistake and reeks of navel gazing to me. When you’re f^&ked you do whatever you can to deal with the damage in a sustainable way. Party’s over for the oil lobby even though there is still much potential profit still in the ground.

                  As far as population reduction? That’s a fox news concept along the lines of them trying to explain drought conditions by blaming immigrants for drinking water and depleting the supply. Are we overpopulated? Yes. Do we need right wing death squads to remedy the problem (even though I know you’d favor this as an answer)? No. You might have to buy a battery bank and create space for it in your basement, but that will become standard fare and as accepted as you having room for a furnace now. Do we need to conserve and be energy aware far past what the vast majority of people are now? Absolutely. Small price to pay for survival.

                  But Kurtz, if you’re indeed curious, rather than intent on making those of us with sustainable experience jump through hoops to answer the questions you could answer for yourself with a minimum of research, you can find what you need to know on the google machine yo. Not our job to sell you on what’s obvious.

                    1. Ha. Allan, being called a cockroach by you is an honor. My problems would really begin with you seeing eye to eye with me. I leave you to your clueless idiocy to frolic on the playground of ignorance and do a mighty fine job of it.

                    2. “Ha. Allan, being called a cockroach by you is an honor. My problems would really begin with you seeing eye to eye with me. I leave you to your clueless idiocy to frolic on the playground of ignorance and do a mighty fine job of it.”

                      It is an honor to you. It’s an advancement from amoeba towards mammalian status.

                    3. Allan the Stupid, you have experience being stupid, so I won’t argue with you. Edducate [sic] yourself.

                    4. Anonymous the Stupid happiness is said to be found in the aquisition of knowledge. Apparently you have been able to find happiness in being Stupid. Continue on.

                  1. Hey bug my backside feels fine

                    one person is not going to cut it. a back to the land movement would be great, its some extra momentum now due to covid. but it will never hit that 99% reduction in fossil fuel emissions that the MIT fusion & physics professor Ian Hutchinson I linked to interview said would be necessary for the Western world to “do its part” to get to a steady state solution for emissions

                    yeah, 99%

                    and the stanford researchers say less than one billion population. that is not fox news. I have cited both sources and neither have anything to do with fox news.

                    see this is why I say, I am not sure some “climate activists” are as serious as they pretend to be. The numbers are very fierce if you really want to plan on mitigation having a sufficient impact. The point of no return may already have been passed, all other things being equal

                    non of course a nuclear exchange between india and pakistan might fix the problem, kick up a lot of dust, major cold snap, crop failures would trigger massive population die off. I don’t want that to happen but these guys who say population is the problem would lick two problems at once

                    maybe a bio-engineered pandemic? like not a worse than the flu bug like covid, but something like smallpox.

                    say, using CRISPR it might be possible some terrorists one day actually cook up the smallpox again synthetically. yes, its possible

                    never know how bad things may get folks. 2020 one day may seem like a swell moment in history

                    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/how-canadian-researchers-reconstituted-extinct-poxvirus-100000-using-mail-order-dna

                    1. All good deflections, Kurtz. Have fun with them, and your doubts of me. I DGAF. Seriously. Waste of time conversing with you. Your sources are *okay*, but limited. Enjoy them.

                    2. when i try and find standford, i get a ton of hits and can’t find the “under 1 billion carrying capacity” link right now

                      this might relate to a private research entity that is coincidentally named stanford and is not associated with stanford university

                      but here’s a hit i found that is relevant. this climate activist says Earth’s carrying capacity is only 60% over the mark! So I guess we could save about 3 billion out of the 7-8 billion living now.

                      I just want to know from climate activists, what’s the plan to cull 60% of global population in the relevant time frame?

                      because otherwise it’s not clear to me how sufficient carbon reductions could seriously be attained to make the difference in time

                      https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/ted-nordhaus-wrong-exceeding-earths-carrying-capacity/

                      this is not fox news scaremongering. maybe it’s scaremongering and maybe fox mocks it. but the advocate might be right

                      and, i think if you fully accept the premises that climate change activists have advanced., and, I am not claiming these premises are false– i sincerely do buy them to a degree– but if you accept them then it inevitably leads to the question of “overpopulation.”

                      if you evade this question, then again we have to question the seriousness of the presumptions, or YOUR acceptance of them.

                      so deal with it. ugly problem, who’s got the guts to meet the question head on?

                      Bill gates can hand out tons of birth control pills all across africa and maybe a lot of sterilizations and abortions too, and it still won’t cut the mustard in time

                      better get going on adaptation is my point. because that may be the only feasible and realistic way to deal with climate change as it unfolds.

                  2. battery storage technology is fine for single homesize users but it is not up to scale for storing wind and solar excess
                    this is not speculation on my part, I am just reporting the current state of technology
                    https://qz.com/1133123/batteries-cant-solve-the-worlds-biggest-energy-storage-problem-one-startup-has-a-solution/

                    getting to that 99% cut in co2 emissions in the western world would be a real beeeyotch. not sure anyone is going to raise their hands for that.

                    yeah, I know that’s not what the Paris accords calls for, but it seems to me from some other reading i have done, if the climate change premises are to be taken in all seriousness as probably and accurate predictions, then, Paris accords don’t really get it done

                    I wonder with a problem as serious as this, the Democrats just trot it out once in a while and then drop it and move on to something more important. like, Trump is a fibber, Russia Russia Russia.

                    Here’s a question, since you couldn’t resist jabbing at me ten times today. I tried to keep politics out of it but you kept on dragging it back in Bug. Ok.
                    Question.. If the Democrat solution to climate change isn’t even sufficient in the first place, according to their own projections– who’s the bigger fibber?

                    The one who doesn’t accept the premises and blows it off, or the ones who do, and offer up half a plan to get to the necessary posture?

                    I guess I can understand why a lot of Democrats aren’t really motivated by the Biden-Kamala “team”

                    Now, I admit I think Republicans have mishandled a lot of energy and climate change policy matters. Really missed the boat on both.
                    But Im not sure the Democrats have been honest about this either. Here again we get into what Carl Schmitt called,

                    “the crisis of parliamentary democracy”

                    1. Where, exactly, did I bring politics in? Other than to even so much as answer your complete deflection here?

                    2. And I’ve answered you here before re the battery question. We’re not going to agree as I’ll always answer that battery storage is part of a centralized generation model. A dinosaur model.

                      You’ll always be able to use them in your house as any solar driven, hybrid house does now, and and has done for 40yrs. Battery storage, even in the last 5 years has jetted forward.

                      Go study. Live a sustainable lifestyle for some years. Then we can talk. Right now you’re too much of a rookie.

                  3. Bug, i missed it when you addressed one of my questions, because you worded this in an unclear way. I just find it– thanks for the response on the topic.

                    “Also, you’re giving short shrift to the amount of research that goes into windmills, solar panels (commercial projects), and it makes your variability point kind of obsolete. A bigger sustainable project of whatever sort is well vetted for cyclicality. IOW, they’re not built with the possibility of wind cessation variation enough to neutralize the installment.”

                    i would grant that the installation of wind farms or solar is feasible when it is feasible. the contention I make is that there is not sufficient battery storage to meet peak demand in urban areas. i take it this is what you mean by cyclicality.

                    If you can convince me this is wrong, I would be pleased to be so informed. I am aware of this https://www.tesla.com/gigafactory
                    but from what i have heard it is still not even close

                    there is also a secondary problem that the industrial processes manufacturing and maintaining alternative energy installations are fossil-fuel intensive.
                    Mining silver or smelting steel or trucking components to sites are just three examples. it seems like some of these might– I just say might because I do not know– might run into an “energy sink” problem, ie, kind of like ethanol, spending twenty calories to make ten worth of energy. Or maybe that problem is not precisely the same but just another related one.

                    I also wonder how right now the economics of this are feasible when oil is so very cheap compared to a few years ago when many alternative energy plans were launched. That is a financing problem but finance always matters in such things.

                    1. “battery storage is part of a centralized generation model. A dinosaur model.”

                      I challenge you to elaborate. I’m ignorant, inform me.

                      “youre too much a rookie”

                      maybe I am not a pro like you. but if you want to convince anybody besides your own little tiny circle then you should be interested in answering some of these basic questions. if the matter is as grave as you contend– and I actually believe that it is– then you had better do your part answering valid questions with such information as you have to share, and with enough respect so that people will give you the time of day

                      because most people don’t care as much as me. here we can see you have talked down to me like I am a chump when I actually agree to a large extent. if you talk down to people who agree with you, how do you suppose to convince those who do not?

                2. Kurtz, Bug, and Benson there is no doubt that population pressures exacerbate an already dire outlook by most experts on climate change, however, there are limited reasons for hope – if not taken as excuse for not acting, what else do we have? One is that predictions are for world population to begin actually shrinking in the not too distant future, and mostly for the same reasons which have caused the developed world’s birth rates to decline – the less developed world is also enjoying relative increases in wealth and longevity. The other is based on research by someone I have heard on a Sam Harris’s podcast who’s name and position I cannot remember. He is serious with a prestigious faculty position. His work shows that the necessary inputs for the growth of the less developed world’s economies are much less polluting than what we in the west needed for our industrial revolution – and which is still part of our CO2 levels – due to advances in efficiencies from the digital age.

                  If I remember the researcher’s name I’ll pass it on.

              2. “…But I take Kurtz’s question to be equal to someone looking for what their ‘stop loss’ would be to finally accept what’s been scientifically established for quite awhile…”

                You don’t have or won’t share answers to Kurtz’ smart and intelligent questions, questions that must be answered to have an intelligent conversation on the subject of what to do about global warming (if that’s an appropriate term). That bein the case, your “scientifically established” qualifier is BS. That’s what the problem is; instead of actual mathematical specifications we have words like “significant.” How significant needs to be quantified accurately or no dice, pure subjectivism.

                1. Sorry Princess, not my job to answer Kurtz’s jump though the hoop questions. If you’ve been here long enough, you’ll find Kurtz is doing what many on the right do here…., they try to redefine discussions by not answering your questions/observations and attempting to force you to answer concerns they’ve subjectively added to the discussion that are only tangentially related, and most likely taken from fox news talking points.

                  Then they’ll make negative assertions about your character, accusing you of doing the things they are in fact doing at the moment.

                  I revert to my ‘stop loss’ metaphor in observing Kurtz. Even more so after I made the observation.

                  1. The Bug’s responses are off the wall so one has to pin him down as to what he says. He doesn’t like that because being pinned down means he has to provide facts. He is factless.

        1. Thanks for the reply Benson but with respect, I don’t think all is the right answer. Otherwise we would not have complicated causative models.

          here are ten different causes from what seems like a reliable resource. If it is not feel free to say why.

          https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html

          observe for example that CO2 in the air and CO2 in the oceans are two different factors. This implies they may vary differently and have different causative weights.

          I also see solar radiation varies and we know that there is a “maunder minimum” or sunspot cycle.

          I don’t see any causative weights in that specific essay, however.

          I want to know are you guys serious about this subject or just want to use it to hammer some political point against people you don’t like.

          You are raising the issue, I am asking valid questions, do you want to have a conversation which may help motivate people or just blow me off.

          1. Tried to post a section of a NASA FAQ page here, Kurtz. Doesn’t seem to be taking. So I suggest browsing NASA’s site in looking for answers to your concerns. And then move on from there to individual studies for context.

          2. British Geological Survey is not going to provide you with a thorough study of geology, much less climatology.

  5. Another strong argument for re-assessing how police are dealt with when they commit crimes. She should be fired then jailed for the maximum. People in the positions of the greatest trust should receive the greater penalties when caught.

  6. Meanwhile, Turley continues to ignore issues that are much more important.

    Unlike some other law profs.
    For example, Ryan Goodman (Ehrenkranz Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, previously Special Counsel at the DOD and Hauser Professor of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at Harvard Law School) tweeted this yesterday:
    “Past 12 hours on threats to Americans
    “1. Woodward tape: Trump hid covid threat from public
    “2. Whistleblower: DHS pushed intel analysts to lie about White supremacist threat to American citizens
    “3. Whistleblower: DHS pushed intel analysts to lie about Russian threat
    “4. Whistleblower: DHS pushed intel analysts to exaggerate Antifa/anarchist threat
    “5. Trump revealed secret nuclear system to show off to Woodward
    “6. Mattis: Trump took actions that showed adversaries ‘how to destroy America’
    “7. Emails show HHS official trying to muzzle Fauci”

    Here’s the whistleblower’s complaint:
    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7204938/Murphy-Complaint.pdf

    Turley ostensibly cares about speech issues. Why isn’t he commenting on that reprisal complaint from Brian Murphy (former acting under secretary of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at DHS)? Isn’t reprisal in order to keep someone from speaking the truth a significant enough speech concern for Turley?

      1. General Mattis knew Trump was unfit for the office, doubt very much he would want war with a moron and a liar in charge.

        1. General Mattis doesn’t like his old boss and he’s got a big mouth. Just another disgruntled ex employee. Everyone knows the type. The fact he’s a general doesn’t make his commentary holy writ. This is the kind of thinking we get from Democrats today who worship the military industrial complex.

          The whistleblower complaint appears to be a trifle. And yet it will be taken seriously and handled according to law. It is just a complaint and we will see what supports the allegations or not.

          I suspect that it is just another government employee responding to former CIA director Brennan’s outrageous call on twitter for sabotage inside the government to undermine the POTUS
          they misused government assets to push their own political biases. that’s what really needs a more thorough review

          https://news.yahoo.com/miranda-devine-brennan-comey-clapper-154416097.html

          1. The bubble you live in is depraving you of oxygen, get some fresh air please. You managed to throw out the old “disgruntled ex employee” and “whataboutisms” protecting Trump when there is no defense for what he lied about. And just to be obtuse, you bring up “misused government assets to push their own political biases” when considering what Trump just did when he used government assets to push his agenda for diversity training and having government assets lie to the American people on a daily basis about a deadly pandemic.

            1. “The bubble you live in is depraving you of oxygen,”

              Kurtz, you are being deprived of Oxygen according to the one that swims in the toxic dump.

                  1. we use zoom but a lot of business can only be handled in person.
                    that’s why they categorized us as “essential workers” from the start

                    most of my clients are working middle class type people. I only have a handful that could even approach being called ‘rich”
                    i welcome people from all walks of life happily.

                    when normal working people have certain kinds of problems they need them handled fast and fast means using the setup we had before COVID.
                    we have made adjustments to comply with regulations and try and distance our work more than it already was
                    but we handle problems that are both grave and delicate all at once.
                    there is no really no substitute for the candor of face to face private meetings

                    I guess i am old fashioned but my commitment to meet clients in person has kept me busy as ever this whole stretch

                    thank God I have you wonderful fellows here to give me a relaxing diversion bantering about the subjects we do, so much easier to discuss than the bitter personal tragedies and problems that individuals have to bring to the table for help.

            2. Diversity training has worked so well in the military that now we have navy ships in multiple collisions at sea and burning up at the docks. Not the navy that fought in WW II.

        2. FishWings, I doubt Bob or Kurtz have read the whistleblower complaint. Kurtz would have been more honest if he’d said “[Trump and his appointees] misused government assets to push their own political biases.”

      2. Bob, has Trump kept his promise about ending endless wars? He brags that his policy is to “bomb the sh*t out of” the Islamic State. Who dropped more bombs during his first term: Trump, Obama, or Bush?

        What do you have to say about the whistleblower’s complaint, Bob? or about Trump revealing classified info to show off? or about Trump lying to the public about the dangers of COVID-19?

        1. The JV team that expanded under Obama the Feckless was cancelled by Trump. We haven’t ended up with another Lybia nor have the Russians swallowed up more of Ukraine. Obama let them take the Crimea. Of course Obama favored the Chinese and removed our ships from the China Sea while his VP Joe Biden’s family was enriched dealiing with an arm of China’s military selling American security down the drain.

          In the meantime Trump is slowly drawing down troops abroad. Hasn’t gotten us into new wars, effectuated normalization of relations between Serbia and Bosnia and has placed Israel and the UAE on the same side with a peace treaty to be followed by other peace treaties with other Arab nations. Plenty of more to talk about that is positive about Trump’s foreign policy and quite negative towards Obama the Feckless.

            1. “Our ruling

              McGurk said, “President Trump has sent 14,000 American troops to the (Middle East) region since May. So he can’t tell his political rallies that he’s getting troops out of endless wars when he’s sending 14 times the amount back into the region.”

              His number matches what the Pentagon has publicly reported in press releases and briefings.

              We rate this statement True.”

            2. Where troops are stationed changes constantly and even from country to country. Example, the 12,000 troops leaving Germany. This article glosses over specifics so based on the article we know very little and based on the fact that it is almost a year old it is not very pertinent.

              I’ll settle for the fact that we haven’t engaged in any new wars or had episodes like Libya. I’ll also settle for the fact that Israel and the UAE will be at peace and other Arab nations will join. I’ll add to that the agreement between Serbia and Bosnia along with the fact that Russia has ceased advancing and the US is now involved in containing the Chinese in the China Sea. I’ll also settle for the fact that Joe Biden is no longer VP enriching his family through his sons’s deals with the Chinese Government owned companies who pay him money while getting products and secrets for the Chinese Air Force.

    1. “Trump hid covid threat from public”

      As a devotee of the pandemic play book you must appreciate Trump for following it. One of its important points is to reassure the public and not to create a panic.

      Where were the democrats when Trump was closing the border to Chinese travellers. They were impeaching the President, encouraging people to gather in large groups and fighting against the travellers ban.

      Needs to be Committed is a hypocrite saying one thing in one post and another in a different post. Her lists don’t bother with the truth or enough facts to be meaningful. Trump has done a great job and contrary to what this doofus likes to say he even permitted an interview with Woodward.

      1. Allan “Where were the democrats when Trump was closing the border to Chinese travellers.”
        ***
        Good points to which I would add that in some states Democrats were ordering diseased Wuhan Virus patients into nursing homes where they clearly caused the deaths, homicides really, of our most vulnerable people.

        I suppose there is some logic to this cruel tactic. The dead always vote Democrat.

        1. Young, That can’t be so. Cuomo isn’t that stupid as to mix Covid with seniors to cause thousands of deaths is he? Tell me it isn’t true. I’ve heard Cuomo being toughly interviewed and how wonderful he is.

          The Covid patients probably got to the nursing homes because they got mixed up on the subway trains. Maybe they took the A instead of the E. Let’s ask Commit. She knows all about this stuff, trust me. She even told us she is the brightest person in the world.

          1. Commit, the OCD secretary, does a dance around the facts whenever the Cuomo killing of the elderly is mentioned. Commit demands details knowing that Cuomo is refusing to allow data into the public record.

            One tactic Commit uses, and we have seen demonstrated, is that if from memory I say, “You said A and B” Commit will respond with “LOL, ROFL, You lie! You are dishonest. You are a sh***y lawyer. I actually said ‘A + B'”.

            I was annoyed watching Commit do this to others who were trying to relate honestly and decided to pursue it a couple of times reducing her to the inherent absurdity of this style of conversation. QED.

            Note- I don’t often get responses on my email and I am not deliberately ignoring anyone.

      2. Allan is a hypocrite saying one thing in one post and another in a different post. What a doofus. Allan needs to be committed.

        1. Even up odds that Allan has actually already been committed and types his posts from the group activity room.

          1. It sounds like the Bug is competing with Anonymous the Stupid for the Stupid award. It’s hard to believe but the Bug is far from winning that award from Anonymous the Stupid. Maybe we should have a lightweight division for the Stupid award in order to give the Bug a chance.

    2. ““7. Emails show HHS official trying to muzzle Fauci””

      Since this doofus is on the topic of Fauci let’s hear what Fauci has to say. We all heard him commenting about Trump favorably and unfavorably. He even said that he didn’t believe the President “distorted things that I spoke to him about.” or “I didn’t get any sense that he was distorting anything,”

      Remember Fauci knows about the playbook as well and according to the playbook one should not only refrain from causing panic but should manage the epidemic taking into account costs and benefits. CTDHD only sees a part of the picture because her ‘job in life’ is to push a despotic ideology rather that pushing for American well being.

      1. Allan is a doofus and is committed to dishonest discussion. He only sees a part of the picture because his ‘job in life’ is to push a despotic ideology rather that pushing for American well being.

  7. What is this $248,000 apCray? That much couldn’t be put on a credit card. paid that much salary? The article needs to be trashed and not modified.

    1. Tomorrow is September 11th. And it’s 2020. With every other wonky thing going on, I hope tomorrow is quiet, too.

  8. It took me a minute to figure this out. I guess there really is no good way to word the headline. One could easily interpret this as the sheriff giving the card to the suspect’s son.

  9. anonymouse – mj was really reporting a belief or observation. you really think he would be a good GUITAR teacher?

      1. The song is Sympathy for the Devil, and it’s narrated by the devil’s character. This might help:

        Just as every cop is a criminal
        And all the sinners saints
        As heads is tails, just call me Lucifer
        Cause I’m in need of some restraint

  10. A few things come to mind.

    Most criminals get caught b/c they are stupid.

    According to all the police shows and detective novels, police routinely ‘hold back’ some of the evidence.

    I wonder how much of that total is benefit, and how it’s calculated. Whatever the case, that seems very high for a deputy.

  11. If Cortez is making 248k in salary and benefits, why does she need to steal? And who says cops don’t get paid enough?

    1. Have you ever BEEN to CA? Studio condos for $650k? Check the property and income tax rates. A quarter mill doesn’t go as far as it used to!

        1. Jagger barely plays guitar and almost never on stage. His voice is limited as are his dance moves – he ain’t James Brown white people – but the combination of those elements along with his excellent work ethic translates into a sum greater than the parts.

          1. Yeah, thanks for pointing out he’s not James Brown – I’m sure the world is more informed now.

            Whether you like his artistic ability or not is up to you, but there are hundreds of millions of people in the world who enjoy it.

            1. I actually like the Stones Lorenzo, but facts are facts and the comparison is more than applicable. If you watch the 2, you see who pulls it off flawlessly and who does a decent imitation which – how shall I say – pales in comparison..

              Which leads me to recount a relevant and memorable experience I had while living in NYC during my misspent youth. A friend and I – 1965 – went one night to the Apollo Theatre on 125th St to see James Brown, aptly named “the hardest working man in show business”. The place was packed, standing room only, with us packed in that standing group on the floor level to the back. As far as we could see, we were the only white people in the place, but all was cool, no hostility and everyone having a good – no great! – time. At a break in JB’s typically very long show – over the years I saw his revue a total of 4 times – he said “I want to recognize some good friends who are here tonight, The Rolling Stones”. They were indeed scattered in a few locations in the balcony and stood to receive a mostly polite applause. Aha, we weren’t the only other white people there! There were probably others packed into those many hundreds there.

              So, the point being – other than a chance to remember and brag about a memorable event in my life – as if it was not obvious and fully admitted by the Stones, they covered black artists in blues and R&B, including JB.

Leave a Reply