Reason Morning Links: Obama on Pace to Deport More People in One Term Than Bush Did in Two, France Joins U.S. in Rejecting Palestine's Statehood, Troy Davis Is Going to Die Today

 Reason.tv: Penn Jillette on God, No!, Atheism, Libertarianism, & More:

 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SIV||

    Palin would be preferable to Perry.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    High praise, indeed.

  • Restoras||

    Romney as well.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Hopefully you're saying that Palin would be prefereable to Perry, not that Romney would be preferable to Perry.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Any other name in the phone book > Palin > Perry > Romney.

  • SIV||

    What if the name is "Santorum"?

    Hell, I'd take Gingrich over Huntsman.

  • Numeromancer||

    Jillette> Paul > Palin > Perry > Romney.

    FTW!

  • Restoras||

    I find Romeny to be perhaps the least desireable candidate from the Republicans.

  • PIRS||

    I did until Perry entered the race.

  • PantsFan||

    Is it so bad that kids swear?

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....le2173773/

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Casual swearing is one of the perqs of being an adult. Those little fucks have to earn it.

  • o2||

    there's a diff bet profanity & swearing. the arabs are masters at swearing.

  • Suki||

    The racism here is fucking appalling.

  • o2||

    may your grandmother wear shoes filled with camel dung

  • o2||

    much as my head is filled with the feces of a billion dung beetles

  • Zeb||

    What the fuck is a diff bet?

  • GILMORE||

    Its an arab counterpart to Shin Bet, a secret military intelligence wing devoted to new swears to express their hatred and frustration with the jews.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Casual swearing is one of the perqs of being an adult. Those little fucks fuqs have to earn it.

    FIFY

  • Ice Nine||

    Could you fix the one above it, too?

  • Ice Nine||

    Damn you, Suki.

  • Ice Nine||

    Damn you, threaded comments.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Perqs is short for perquisites. Dealing with you etymologically challenged spelling Nazis gives me a headache. I really need a perqocet.

  • Sparky||

    Is a perquisite anything like a prerequisite?

  • pmains||

    I guess so. A perquisite is something you get because you have something else, like a corner office to go with your new job. I suppose you could say that the new job is the prerequisite for the corner office perquisite.

  • ||

    My son is on an extended trip with his middle school. Last night, we got a call at 10:30 from his science teacher about him saying "fuck you" (I trained him well) to a kid who kicked him. The missus answered the phone and was told that if he does this again, we'll have to come up in the middle of the night to pick him up, even though they're coming back today.

    Are you kidding me? Because he cursed? Has this culture lost all perspective? I asked her if the kid who physically assaulted him was being asked to be picked up as well. She didn't know.

    In days long gone, the kid who kicked him would get his ass kicked later and my son would have been talked to by the teacher and the parents would be told on the return, not be a staging platform for histrionics.

  • Ice Nine||

    In days long gone, the kid who kicked him would have gotten his ass kicked then.

  • hmm ||

    That's how I was taught. Take the first hit, throw the last punch.

  • ||

    Yep. It may be trite; he knows not to ever start a fight, but make sure you finish it.

    I like the first hit, last punch take.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Has this culture lost all perspective?

    Hasn't even known what perspective is for rather more than a decade.

  • ||

    if he does this again, we'll have to come up in the middle of the night to pick him up

    And what if you replied, well, "Fuck you. I'm not coming to pick him up. I'll deal with him when you bring him home."

    Props for asking what they were doing about the little brat who actually committed an assault.

  • ||

    And what if you replied, well, "Fuck you. I'm not coming to pick him up. I'll deal with him when you bring him home."

    You read my mind; I basically said the same thing. "What are they going to do? Stick him on the road and tell him to get walking?"

    When it comes to school, the wife is spineless. I suspect they get a lot of that, considering their imperial attitude.

  • Au H20||

    Honestly, that's the mentality today: The kid who hits first must be from a bad home/not my little angel! while the kid who hits first should "know better" than to retaliate and instead "get an adult".

  • ||

    My son was suspended from kindergarten for saying shit when a teacher took a toy away from him. It was a private school. We took him out of that school.

    We also taught him that cursing is all about timing.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    ^^THIS^^

    There is nothing inherently wrong with cursing. It's just language that expresses the thoughts and feelings about a particular situation.

    But you're right, it's all about context, even for adults. It should be reserved for situations like one I encountered this morning when I received a letter from the county stating that if I don't turn in a net profit report from my barely still alive business, I'll be audited. You want my net profit report? It's about $800 LESS than the money I had to pay to the state just to get IN business and be legal about it.

  • ||

    Exactly. The larvae were given permission to use the full range of the language with the caveat that they do it at home--not in front of the grands and greatgrands and that type. They quickly learned context--and familiarity bred comtempt--it lost it's fascination very quickly.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    She's tanned, she's polling decently, she's considering it, but are Republicans ready for Sarah Palin?

    I want to keep an open mind and hear her out this time around, but please no.

  • Lord Humungus||

    I will only vote for her if she's a pleasant Boehner-orange.

  • T||

    Your Snooki fetish is best not discussed, even in impolite company such as this.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'll vote for her if she does a porno. Twice if I'm in it.

  • Lord Humungus||

    GOP leadership faces possible tea party revolt in 2012
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/09.....t-in-2012/

    Republican leaders face a growing perception among some tea party factions that they are not interested in holding the Obama administration’s feet to the fire on spending. Some say the Republicans talked a good game going into the 2010 midterms but have failed to deliver since winning control of the House of Representatives.

    well duh.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I'm not even a Tea Party supporter (not in the sense that I go to rallies and give them money) and I could tell them that.

    That they expected any differently from the Republican establishment which is just as guilty as Obama is in their spending habits shows that they're an amateur operation.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Troy Davis, poster boy for criminal justice reformers and anti-death penalty activists, is set to be executed by the state of Georgia.

    This ought to be good for about 1,000 comments.

    Disclaimer: I am opposed to the death penalty.

    However, I find multiple things darkly humorous about the Davis case.

    1) The irony is, is that if he were "wrongly" sentenced to Life Without Parole (a fate worse than death, IMHO), nobody would give a shit.
    2) After the Mumia-Abu Jamal ludicrousness I had to live through in college, I am instantly suspicious when the "usual suspects" seize on yet-another police-killer as a poster boy.
    3) If he had been executed in 1991 after his conviction, still nobody would care. These layers of review and theater we have added to DP cases have only served to make everybody that much more unsure about everything about the criminal justice system (whether you think that is a good thing is another story), but it is also apparent that the layers of review served to do absolutely nothing to assuage public concern. If anything, it made it worse.

  • ||

    (a fate worse than death, IMHO)

    I recognize you typed 'imho', but I have never understood how this statement makes sense in the context of discussing someone else's life...who gets to decide?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    ...the layers of review served to do absolutely nothing to assuage public concern.
    Fuck public concern. The government absolutely cannot be trusted with the death penalty.
    And if he were in for life, at least there's a chance that he could be freed at some point.

    After the Mumia-Abu Jamal ludicrousness I had to live through in college...
    Boo fucking hoo.

  • MNG||

    "These layers of review and theater we have added to DP cases have only served to make everybody that much more unsure about everything about the criminal justice system"

    You're opposed to the death penalty, but darn all those layers of review and the uncertainty they cause? Heck, even proponents of the death penalty should be for many "layers of review" before the state (the same people who can't seem to fix the street I drive to work on) puts someone to death...

  • ||

    Justice delayed is justice denied. I think there is something wrong with waiting decades to resolve these cases. Now maybe that means we shouldn't have the death penalty. Executing someone decades after the crime destroys the deterrent effect of the death penalty because punishment must be swift and sure to be a deterrent. And it also reduces the justice done in the case because so much time elapses between the crime and the punishment the two events almost seen unconnected at that point.

  • MNG||

    Executing the wrong guy or via an unfair process is justice denied John. Justice delayed is just delayed

  • ||

    No justice delayed is justice denied. After a certain point, punishment becomes less and less valuable. Punishing the innocent is an inherent risk in any justice system. I don't see how locking an innocent person up for decades is any better than executing them.

  • MNG||

    "Punishing the innocent is an inherent risk in any justice system."

    Jesus you are cavalier about the state killing people. But I guess this goes hand in hand with your warmongering...

  • ||

    MNG, if you want to have an argument, fine lets have one. But just because you are losing the argument and don't have a response does not justify invective and personal insults. I make a valid point and your only response is to be a prick and call me a name. Why do you do that? Why do you have ruin every discussion by insulting people?

  • Restoras||

    It's what they do.

  • MNG||

    Stop crying. Your argument is that the diminishment of "justice" when it is delayed outweighs the moral danger of the state executing an innocent man. To buy that argument you have to weight the latter pretty low imo, which means to be cavalier about it.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    . Your argument is that the diminishment of "justice" when it is delayed outweighs the moral danger of the state executing an innocent man.

    He said "Punishment" not "the Death Penalty". The existence of a criminal justice system, given the human knowledge problem, will lead to the punishment of innocents.

    That sucks. A lot. But it is a consequence of having this system. If you want to make arguments as to how to fix it (and therefore fix the human knowledge problem), have at it. But that is not the conversation I am seeing here.

  • MNG||

    "If you want to make arguments as to how to fix it (and therefore fix the human knowledge problem), have at it."

    OK, here's my first suggestion: lots of careful layers of review before we execute someone.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    OK, here's my first suggestion: lots of careful layers of review before we execute someone.

    To prevent injustice, I vote we have lots of layers of review for every criminal sentence ever.

    And if that is your suggested fix, then you should be TOTALLY FINE with how the Davis case turned out.

  • MNG||

    "To prevent injustice, I vote we have lots of layers of review for every criminal sentence ever."

    I agree. I'd have more review for every crime charged than we do now, much, much more. Of course I would have different amounts of review varying on the severity of the punishment, and that would mean the most for death.

    But the fact that we don't have enough review for non-death penalties does not lead to the conclusion that we should not have "many layers of review" for the death penalty cases.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    How about simply not executing people?

    I'm not anti-death penalty for moral reasons, per se, but I AM anti-death penalty because it is as fiscally wasteful as the state can get. It cost FAR MORE to keep a guy on death row for a year or two than it does to keep him in the general population for his entire life. People don't not kill others because of any kind of deterrence the death penalty provides, which means that the only benefit is so that a couple of family members MIGHT have a chance at some form of bullshit closure. We shouldn't have to pay ungodly sums of money via the state in order for a couple of people to feel better; bad as I feel for the family members of crime victims, particularly those who have had spouses/children killed by some fucktard, I shouldn't have to pay an ungodly sum of cash to make them feel better.

    Minsker said just keeping prisoners on death row costs $90,000 more per prisoner per year than regular confinement, because the inmates are housed in single rooms and the prisons are staffed with extra guards. That money alone would cut $63 million from the state budget. But other savings would ripple through every step of the criminal justice system as well, from court costs to subsidized spending for defense attorney and investigation expenses.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010.....z1YbV4azQO

    DP trials also cost considerably more than life-without-parole cases.

    And that doesn't even begin to address the state fucking up, which is absolutely a hazard that should be avoided, and the only way to do so is to get rid of it.

  • ||

    It cost FAR MORE to keep a guy on death row for a year or two than it does to keep him in the general population for his entire life.

    Do you realize how moronic that sounds?

    A year or two costs more than a few decades? It's not the prison--it's the process they go through to make sure they're not killing an innocent man.

    If that process could be speeded somehow....they use DNA to exonerate--why not to execute? If they test and it can be no one but the prisoner, then the execution is later the same day the last of the results(do multiples) comes in--say a month or so after the trial.

  • Maxx||

    OK, here's my first suggestion: lots of careful layers of review before we execute someone.

    Here's the thing though.

    Releasing guilty people in order to prevent the punishment of an innocent one also a denial of justice for future victims of those released.

    There is no ideal solution to the problem.

  • ||

    I am not crying at all. I am calling you out for being a prick and adding nothing to the conversation. If you don't like it, stop being a prick.

  • Gus||

    "Jesus you are cavalier about the state killing people. But I guess this goes hand in hand with your warmongering..."

    Jesus you're an asswipe.

  • Mo||

    You can release a guy that's been locked up for decades if you realize you've made a mistake. You can't undo an execution.

  • ||

    You also can't undo the decades that someone was locked up.

  • Mo||

    Right. But with the death penalty you have the years locked up and then the guy is killed. With imprisonment, you just have the years locked up. Just because two things are both bad, does not mean they are equally bad. There are magnitudes of injustice.

  • ||

    That is true. But you have basically ruined his life. Is is less of an injustice than executing him? Perhaps. But not by much. And as I point out below, if you don't have the death penalty you end up with more and more inhumane prisons because it is the only way to deter some people. It is not as simple as people make it out to be. So we don't have the death penalty and avoid the injustice of executing the odd innocent person. But in return we get the injustice of locking people up in what amounts to sensory deprivation chambers for their entire lives. I am not sure that is a good trade. Or if it is a good trade, it is hardly an obviously good one.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    You can release a guy that's been locked up for decades if you realize you've made a mistake. You can't undo an execution.

    Except those people who sentenced to life (or many decades) do not get repeated "bites" at the apple the way DP-convicts do. They don't get to go to the Supreme Court multiple times, get clemency reviews, U.S. Appellate Reviews, and the whole course of the State Court System like, six times.

    IOW, there is less of an opportunity to realize you made a mistake with those "locked up".

  • Radley Balko||

    I don't see how locking an innocent person up for decades is any better than executing them.

    I haven't conducted a poll, but I would imagine that the hundreds of people exonerated and now free after spending a decade or more in prison would disagree with you.

  • MNG||

    Or you could ask the many death row inmates who fight their sentence, often fighting just for stays and limited clemency.

    I'm sure life in prison is horrible. If I had my druthers there would be governmental organizations that aggressively reviewed all cases for error. But killing a person is qualitatively different and justifies more review.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    If I had my druthers there would be governmental organizations that aggressively reviewed all cases for error.

    Maybe we can just have you know, eight trials for every defendant. That will fix it.

  • ||

    I am sure they would Radley. But it is hardly a much better alternative or something we should pat ourselves on the back over. And again, so you want to get rid of the injustice of executing an innocent person. Got it. Great idea. Now, how do you plan to control people in prison now? And how do you plan to deter criminals who know they will face life for an act like robbery but not death from killing witnesses?

    What bothers me about death penalty opponents is that they make glib statements like yours and act like there are no second order effects or injustices to eliminating the death penalty. It is sloppy argument. And something you should be above.

  • Au H20||

    Balko- you came back! *runs slow motion towards Balko, runs into something*

    No, but seriously, I believe that it is a good point that for all the angst poured out over death penalty cases as opposed to life cases or just overharsh sentencing cases is kind of indicative of many of the people who get so worked up about the system. I mean, just look at the disparity between the treatment of the West Memphis 3 case and the Corey Maye case.

    And I do support the death penalty, but really only for cases like John Wayne Gacy or McVeigh where:

    A) There is utterly no dispute about whether they killed people.

    AND

    B) The body count is pretty high. I think after you serial kill 5 people... ehh, I kind of stop caring whether you get three hots and a cot or a needle in your arm.

    Now, I understand enforcing that standard is a bit difficult, if not impossible, but the fundamental idea of capital punishment I am not opposed to in all cases.

    P.S. How's the Huffington Post gig treating you Balko?

  • Zeb||

    What Balko said. It's easy for us to say that life in prison, or wrongful imprisonment is nearly as bad as execution, but I would bet a lot that the vast majority of people, if they found themselves in that position, would choose to live even the diminished shitty life available to them. If that weren't the case, there would be a lot more suicide. A shitty life is still vastly preferable to death for most people. And of course, if you are wrongly imprisoned, there is always some chance you might get out. Hope is a powerful thing.

  • Audrey the Liberal||

    You are my hero, Radley Balko.

  • Fluffy||

    Dude, you appear blissfully unaware that the phrase "Justice delayed is justice denied" was originally invented to apply to the DEFENDANT, not to the "victim" and certainly not to the state.

    Delaying justice for defendants was seen as denying justice, because they have to live with the uncertainty of a criminal prosecution hanging over their necks, and/or have to sit in gaol awaiting trial, and/or have to try to defend themselves with the handicaps of the deterioration of memory of defense witnesses, the loss of key exculpatory evidence, etc.

    You seem to be applying the statement as if you believe it refers to the notion that if we can't punish people fast enough that's not fair to the state or the victim, which wins today's Sarah Palin Award for just not getting the common and easily understandable reference.

  • MNG||

    In fairness to John, it could apply both ways depending on where your sentiments lie, either with people who are accused by the state and it's large machinery of prosecution or with individual citizens forced to face that apparatus. Interestingly, conservative leaning people who mouth anti-government rhetoric tend to have the former view in matters criminal...

  • ||

    No. You are wrong Fluffy. It works both ways. If the punishment isn't rendered fast enough, it doesn't deter and the victims have become so far removed in from the crime that they don't feel any justice. Suppose somone stole your car and then twenty years later after you had forgotten you ever had your car stolen they caught the guy and wanted to punish him. Would you feel any sense of justice in the result? Or the same sense that you would have had if they caught him the next week.

    No fluffy, you win the Sarah Palin award for knowing half of the subject and just enough to be dangerous.

  • Fluffy||

    The legal concept dates back at least as far as the Magna Carta.

    Why did John have to agree to the speedy trial principle?

    Because sovereigns, employing a strategy that dated back at least to the emperor Tiberius if not longer, would routinely delay trials or appeals of those who were not in royal favor. That way the disfavored could be detained indefinitely, but the sovereign didn't actually have to commit to issuing an unjust ruling.

    You should immediately not trust your position on any question of usage when MNG is on your side, John. "Lots of conservative assholes want to think that the expression means this" /= "The expression means this."

    It didn't mean "the state must be allowed to punish you as quickly as possible pour encourager les autres" when the concept was devised; it didn't mean that when Gladstone first quoted it in this exact form; it doesn't mean it now.

  • ||

    Yes, Fluffy I agree with you. That there is such a thing as speedy trial and there is an historical background to it. I don't disagree with you. But you have it half right. We don't just have speedy trials and swift punishment for the defendant. We also have them for the victim as well. Everyone losses when it takes decades to resolve a crime.

  • Mo||

    No it doesn't. The right to a speedy trial in the Constitution isn't intended as a protection for the state, it's for the accused.

  • MNG||

    One indicator of this is the defendant can waive the right to a speedy trial.

  • ||

    Sure it is Mo. But so what? There is more to the criminal justice system and criminal justice theory than the Constitution. When you allow these cases to drag on for decades you diminishing the justice done and the deterrent effect of executing someone. Why is that so hard to understand?

  • MNG||

    John, in most other areas you seem to find government largely lacking in basic competence. If this is so, then shouldn't we make the government jump through an enormous amount of hoops before they kill someone? I mean, I get what you are saying about the diminished effects of delayed justice for society and the victims, but since executing the wrong person would do little for either and would additionally be morally horrible in itself, shouldn't we, skeptical of government as we should be, err on the side of making it very difficult for the government to do this?

  • ||

    I have no illusions about the competence of the government. But unlike most things the government does, we can't stop having a justice system. It has to do that function. And the issue is more complex than just "lets review every case to the Nth degree to ensure no one who is ever innocent is punished". There are other values at stake that people tend to forget.

  • ||

    Review is what we have. That's fine. But we have review even if there is not just no reasonable doubt, but no doubt at all. That is because death penalty opponents are against the death penalty. They are not just against the death penalty because innocent people might be executed. Obstruction is their goal. I have known several people who knowing the person was guilty, actually cried when the SOB was executed. I'm OK with that. As long as they don't expect me to shed a tear.

  • Kristen||

    I'm opposed to the death penalty solely because of innocent people being murdered by the state. Don't paint me with the same fucking brush as those bed-wetting hippies.

  • ||

    I won't Kristen.

  • Mo||

    So what is it John? Is being imprisoned a fate as bad as execution or not a punishment at all? Because you seem blase about the difference between time in jail vs. execution when it prevents someone from being executed, but you think that being imprisoned is insufficient punishment to use as a deterrent if it means extra time where the defendant isn't being executed. Do you hold shares in the manufacturers of executioners hoods?

  • ||

    Read my post MO. Whatever injustice we create by executing the odd innocent person is less than the injustice we create by not having the death penalty.

  • Mo||

    Whatever injustice we create by executing the odd innocent person is less than the injustice we create by not having the death penalty.

    That's an interesting twist on Blackstone's formulation. "Better that the occasional innocent person be executed than that one guilty man go free."

    Also, what Zeb says below re: the victims' families. They're typically not fair or rational about the case and only care about their individual case rather than the legitimacy or fairness of the justice system as a whole.

  • Brandon||

    This doesn't even make sense. There is no "Injustice" created by not having the death penalty. That's just denying the state revenge. Justice would be making the victims whole, which is impossible in a murder case. Killing another person doesn't do it. The closest you could get would be life in prison and forced labor, with all the proceeds going to the victim's heirs, but killing the criminal just doesn't achieve "Justice." And the fact that you are ok with killing any innocents in your pursuit of revenge really damages your credibility on the subject.

  • Zeb||

    I think too much attention is paid to the victim. Not to say that they should not be compensated, if possible, nor that it is inappropriate for them to feel some relief or satisfaction when their victimizer is punished. But it is far more important that everything possible be done to keep innocent people from being punished than it is for the victim to feel like they have gotten justice.
    When I hear reports on the Davis case and they mention what the victim's family has to say, it strikes me as completely irrelevant. When he is asking for a reprieve because of new evidence or recanted testimony, the victim's feelings on the matter are not relevant at all. A blind desire for revenge is not an admirable trait and should not be considered when someone's life is at stake. The victim is still dead and that is going to suck for the family and friends whether or not a particular person is executed.

  • ||

    Dude, you appear blissfully unaware that the phrase "Justice delayed is justice denied" was originally invented to apply to the DEFENDANT, not to the "victim" and certainly not to the state.

    I always thought this was something plaintiff's lawyers said in civil cases, where a common defense tactic is, well, delay.

  • ||

    I really don't care if punishment is delayed because I don't believe any reasonable implementation of the death penalty acts as a deterrent. In order for that to work, any rational delay would have to be done away with. Not realistic. Having said that, I definitely believe in the revenge element. I give the government the right to operate a justice system that prevents me from implementing my own system. So, they better do it right. And by right, I mean if someone murders a member of my family or a close friend, kill the MFer. the faster the better. But get it done. Or I will.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    How is it that after 20 years of review and a racially-unbiased jury trial that you can blithely assert that he is innocent? Do we need even MORE review to satisfy you? Do you have any suggestion or vague hint that the "process" was unfair?

  • Fluffy||

    The Supreme Court thought there was enough doubt here that they required an extraordinary hearing.

    The judge who conducted that hearing thought there was lots of doubt, too, just not enough to justify overturning the verdict.

    I'll take that doubt over the completely political process by which clemency is applied by ALL state governments, any day of the week.

    That's the real problem with the death penalty now: there isn't a single state government in the land that I would trust to not conduct the post-conviction process with anything other than bad faith. Hell, fuck bad faith - the worst possible faith.

    The number one consideration of all post-conviction death penalty activity is: Protect the governor of state "X" from political harm. The number two consideration is: Protect the court system from inconvenience. Traditional considerations of clemency come a distant third. And as a result, I no longer trust the process.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    The judge who conducted that hearing thought there was lots of doubt, too, just not enough to justify overturning the verdict.

    My response is: so what? Are you saying he should have been granted a new trial?

  • Fluffy||

    Actually, I'm saying that under current conditions in the US capital punishment cannot be a just punishment precisely because it's so politically contentious that it really cannot be applied justly in any but the most extreme circumstances.

    Death penalty advocates are so enraged at the fact that death penalty opponents exist that even in cases where legitimate post-conviction doubts are raised they oppose all clemency because they feel the death penalty itself must be constantly defended against encroachment.

    The tragicomedy proceeding in Texas in the ongoing campaign to suppress any investigation into the Willingham execution demonstrates that to me pretty effectively and beyond the point of any real possible rebuttal.

    When faced with the possibility of executing someone where legitimate doubts have been raised about the evidence that convicted him, any governor considering clemency has to ask himself, "Is giving this guy clemency worth the political cost I'm going to incur from the rage of those voters who want the death penalty applied every time so those damn liberals don't ever win one?" There are almost no governors in the land I would trust to make that call.

    But the clemency process is a necessary part of the criminal justice system, particularly in the case of capital punishment. If I can't trust it, I can't trust the system overall. I can't say, "Well, if there really was a mistake the courts would have found it." Because that's not the end of the process. The governor counts. And given the loathsome sort of human beings that become governors in 2011, no process that includes them can be trusted.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    I agree that the governor counts. But is what you are saying is because governors are subject to political pressure, the existence of clemency is therefore fraught with political expedients, and therefore all criminal justice process is unfair?

    Because that's just an argument to get rid of clemency, innit?

    And this:

    Actually, I'm saying that under current conditions in the US capital punishment cannot be a just punishment precisely because it's so politically contentious that it really cannot be applied justly in any but the most extreme circumstances.

    Other than the "politically contentious" part, is true of all sentences. And the "political contentiousness" is a two-way street - this is akin to saying that the fact that politics exists makes all State action facially invalid, which I don't think is what you were going for.

  • Fluffy||

    No.

    I'm saying that the fact that the death penalty has assumed a political contentiousness as a penalty makes me doubt that it can be justly applied.

    There is currently no serious political debate (of which I am aware) over whether people should be sentenced to prison for committing crimes. No one has to stand up before the electorate and ritually assure them that they support sending people to prison if they commit crimes.

    This to me makes the clemency process for convictions resulting in imprisonment at least somewhat trustworthy, because there's no one standing by to accuse a governor of being weak if he grants clemency to someone mistakenly given 5 years for armed robbery.

    The death penalty is different, because the people opposing clemency in death penalty cases don't really care if the defendant was rightly convicted or not. They just want to support the death penalty qua the death penalty. Any case where clemency is given will provoke their outrage regardless of the underlying facts, unless the defendant is a white woman who says she found Jesus in jail. That makes the process untrustworthy in ways that simply don't arise for lesser punishments.

    I'm sure now John will whine that this isn't fair, blah blah blah blah blah. I don't mean you, John. But you and I both know that huge numbers of such voters exist.

  • ||

    Fluffy, I agree with you that more women should be executed. Was that your point?

  • Gus||

    "The governor counts"

    Not in GA.

  • pmains||

    Does he at least read?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    And the number three consideration (at least from the public perspective): Execute somebody -- anybody -- all ready!

  • ||

    The slogan is one thing, but John makes a good point about how the crime and the punishment become disconnected over time. Of the alternatives, I think this means "no death penalty" rather than "swift death penalty".

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Heck, even proponents of the death penalty should be for many "layers of review" before the state (the same people who can't seem to fix the street I drive to work on) puts someone to death...

    Then you should say the same thing about a sentence of life without parole, especially in solitary. Why is the death penalty so different? Do you think that death penalty cases require "extra" due process no other cases do?

    And if he were in for life, at least there's a chance that he could be freed at some point.

    That's a real comfort to those who spend life in prison and never get out, I am sure. Especially because the "layers" don't apply to them.

    After the Mumia-Abu Jamal ludicrousness I had to live through in college...
    Boo fucking hoo.

    *shrug* - when the usual suspects come crawling out of the woodwork for the same kind of case, I do not apologize for being skeptical.

    The fact is that most people who are latching onto Davis are latching on because they are opposed to the death penalty is general. Let's have that conversation instead of a particular one about Davis.

    Worth Reviewing

  • ||

    Exactly. I don't get much comfort from the thought that we are only locking innocent people up in some horrible max prison as opposed to executing them.

    There is another injustice that results in eliminating the death penalty. Without the death penalty we have no way of deterring people who are doing life without parole from victimizing other people in prison. So what we do instead is set up increasingly inhumane prisons to house people over whom we have no deterrence. The lack of an effective death penalty is why we have super max prisons. It is more just to have humane prisons run with the threat of the death penalty than inhumane prisons with no death penalty.

  • MNG||

    "Do you think that death penalty cases require "extra" due process no other cases do?"

    Yes.

    "Why is the death penalty so different?"

    Er, because people are killed? That's a hard mistake to correct...

    Look, I am for much more due process for everyone, but yes when the state kills someone that is an extra step which requires more scrutiny.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    The stone cold fact is that if you think Davis is really innocent, then he really should be freed, not have his sentence commuted to a life sentence.

    How many trials do we need to have to satisfy everybody? I readily admit that the justice system makes plenty of mistakes, and that is a serious tragedy. My issue with this case is twofold: (1) Davis had a ton of opportunities and reviews, and lest we forget, he was convicted by 12 of his peers and (2) no one has thought through the consequences of re-litigating things over and over again.

  • MNG||

    "lest we forget, he was convicted by 12 of his peers"

    Well, that settles it I guess. I mean, never has a jury been wrong, or been exposed to tainted evidence, arguments, procedures and such. So throw him a crocodile pit and be done with it.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    I assume you did not bother to read the link I provided with a summary of the case.

    Like I said, let's just have eight trials. That'll take care of it.

  • ||

    The stone cold fact is that if you think Davis is really innocent, then he really should be freed, not have his sentence commuted to a life sentence.

    Bingo. If you're pushing for commutation rather than release, then you don't think he's innocent. You're just using his case as a stick to beat up on the death penalty.

    Which is fine. But don't be disingenuos about it.

  • Fluffy||

    If you're pushing for commutation rather than release, then you don't think he's innocent. You're just using his case as a stick to beat up on the death penalty.

    That doesn't follow.

    When you show me nine eye witnesses who claim someone killed a cop, I'll probably say, "Wow, shit. Fry that fucker."

    But if seven of those nine eye witnesses turn around later and say, "We lied. Psyche! You guys TOTALLY believed us. We got you there!" I might look at the remaining two witnesses and say, "OK, I'm less sure than I was before. Not unsure enough to let the guy out, because there are two witnesses left. But unsure enough that maybe we shouldn't execute him. Let's keep him around and see if anything else comes up later, like somebody else confessing or something."

  • Zeb||

    I would probably make a lousy judge or juror because I see reasonable doubt everywhere. I don't think I could ever convict anyone of a crime like this without some hard physical evidence.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    I would probably make a lousy judge or juror because I see reasonable doubt everywhere. I don't think I could ever convict anyone of a crime like this without some hard physical evidence.

    That would, in my mind, make you an AWESOME judge or juror, because the standard you just elucidated is the real definition (denotatively and connotatively) of "beyond all reasonable doubt".

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Yet these affidavits were not offered in a motion for new trial until eight days before the first scheduled execution in 2008, 17 years after Davis’ conviction. If this affidavit evidence was so compelling, why didn’t they rush to seek a new trial in 2003 when they had most of the affidavits they now rely upon? Or collect those affidavits earlier? Each of the “recanting” witnesses was closely questioned at trial by lawyers representing Davis, specifically on the question whether they were in any way pressured or coerced by police in giving their statements or testimony. All denied it.

    As for this:

    But if seven of those nine eye witnesses turn around later and say, "We lied. Psyche! You guys TOTALLY believed us. We got you there!" I might look at the remaining two witnesses and say, "OK, I'm less sure than I was before.

    You might be less sure, but the Supreme Court, various appellate divisions (federal and state) and the clemency board all are not "less sure". Or at least not to the point where they considered overturning the verdict a reasonable response.

    Now, given that between you and the "many layers" we came up with a result you don't like, should I guess what the response is going to be?

  • ||

    That doesn't make any sense. There is no higher standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. If you have reasonable doubt, then you have to argue the guy should walk. What you are arguing for Fluffy is the worst possible outcome where we say "if we are pretty sure you did it, we can lock you up forever". No, it shouldn't work that way. Pretty sure doesn't cut it.

  • Fluffy||

    RC Dean insisted it wasn't possible to favor commutation and not favor exoneration.

    My post was merely designed to show that this IS possible.

    And the reasonable doubt standard is a standard for conviction, and not for sentencing. In my state conviction and sentencing are separate. There is no contradiction at all involved if I say I'm convinced enough to convict, but not to execute.

    And in cases where evidence is discredited after trial or witnesses retract their statements over time, the strong implication is that with even more time even more evidence will be discredited and the remaining witnesses may also retract their statements. So when I see the prosecution's case slowly falling apart, I might say, "Hey, let me watch this movie until it ends before I make up my mind!"

  • Brandon||

    Why is killing a cop any worse than killing anyone else?

  • Thoreau||

    This.

    Also, in regards to some comments above, it isn't just the usual hippies supporting Davis. Bob Fricking Barr and a former FBI director are in his corner. Those guys may have their own credibility issues, but still, it ain't just the usual hippies.

  • Thoreau||

    Oops, I was trying to reply to this:
    But if seven of those nine eye witnesses turn around later and say, "We lied. Psyche! You guys TOTALLY believed us. We got you there!" I might look at the remaining two witnesses and say, "OK, I'm less sure than I was before. Not unsure enough to let the guy out, because there are two witnesses left. But unsure enough that maybe we shouldn't execute him. Let's keep him around and see if anything else comes up later, like somebody else confessing or something."

    Damn threaded comments.

  • Gimlet||

    "Look, I am for much more due process for everyone, but yes when the state kills someone that is an extra step which requires more scrutiny."

    What about these guys?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....nfrey.html

  • AlmightyJB||

    "when the state kills someone that is an extra step which requires more scrutiny."

    Yeah, I think there should be some evidentiary requirements for a death penalty case. In this specific case I think those requirements were most likely fulfilled (over 30 witnesses I would think would more than do it). I do think that 22 years is too long. Not only do you lose any possible deterrent effect. The victims family suffer the lack of justice for too long, and quite frankly you're not executing the same person who committed the murder at that point.

  • Fluffy||

    I wish I had read this post before I wrote my 10:41 post, because it's an example of what I mean.

    Rev. Blue Moon doesn't like the people who opposed Davis' execution - and therefore he concludes that Davis must be executed ASAP, because failing to do so encourages that set of death penalty opponents he doesn't like.

    Forgive me if I point out that reasoning of this kind should really exclude you from ever being in a position to decide an issue of life and death, dude.

    There are people out there who oppose the death penalty because "no one should have that power" or because "the state shouldn't take life" or because they want to fill the world with silly love songs.

    I am not one of those people.

    I would be happy to kill a man I was sure was guilty of any number of crimes. Those home invasion guys in Connecticut? Hell, drink their blood. Roll around in their entrails. Knock yourself out.

    I just don't trust politicians who feel like they have to prove something about their manhood to guys like you, Rev.

    And that's exactly how they feel. Do you dispute that? Do you dispute that all elected officials (which includes judges in a lot of states) in 2011 definitely have to prove that they're tough guys who support the death penalty? Because if you don't, we don't live in the same country and I don't see how we can productively discuss the issue further.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    For every right there is a responsibility. The state has no rights, only individuals do. The state is granted authority. The death penalty should only be administered by individuals (like myself when you break into my house) because therefore I can be held responsible for my actions. If the state murders an innocent, no one is held responsible. The state has zero legitimate claim to the authority of administering death.
    Pretty basic libertarian shit there guys...just sayin.

  • Zeb||

    I'm with Bandit. The state should not be in the business of executing people for many reasons. But I would love to see lots more bad guys getting shot when they try to assault or rob people or break into houses. There probably is some deterrent effect of the death penalty. But if only people convicted of first degree murder face that possibility, it really doesn't do much. If you never know which private citizen is going to meet your threat with deadly force, that is a much stronger deterrent.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Rev. Blue Moon doesn't like the people who opposed Davis' execution - and therefore he concludes that Davis must be executed ASAP, because failing to do so encourages that set of death penalty opponents he doesn't like.

    Incorrect. I said that when the usual suspects come out of the woodwork, I get instantly suspicious - about either their motivations, their actual level of giving-a-shit about Davis, or both.

    Forgive me if I point out that reasoning of this kind should really exclude you from ever being in a position to decide an issue of life and death, dude.

    Then I guess you should disenfranchise me? Because, at root, we the people are responsible for the death penalty.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Also, my point about how The Usual Suspects don't give a shit is that if Davis's sentence had been commuted to life, Humans Right Watch, Amnesty, the NAACP, et. al. would pack up their moving carnival to the next cause celebre. They don't care about Troy Davis as a human being - they care about being on TeeVee and being opposed to the death penalty.

  • Dekedin||

    If you think life w/o parole is so bad, here's a plan. Life is the default for horrible crimes, but if the criminal in question doesn't want to be stuck in prison forever he or she can choose to be executed. (And has the choice of execution as long as it's relatively cheap.) This way, no one is mistakenly executed, and the guilty who know they have no chance at being released can opt out of life if they choose.

  • Lord Humungus||

    The Administration's Tangled Web
    http://www.investors.com/NewsA.....ed-Web.htm

    That giant sucking sound you hear is the Obama administration imploding under the weight of incompetent policies based on long-discredited progressive ideology and now a wave of scandals that involve gun-running, witness-tampering and political payoffs — and cover-ups of all of the above.

  • o2||

    rushrrhea

  • o2||

    o2arrhea

  • o2||

    ima doosh

  • o2||

    derp

  • teh rael o2||

    spoofarrhea

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Will Obama's million-deportation milestone hurt him with Hispanic voters?

    Only if they're paying attention, and if they are paying attention, then they should already be soured on Obama for a plethora of reasons that have nothing to do with identity politics.

  • ||

    They made their bed. The Republicans were once pretty open borders. And their reward was exactly zilch. As a result the nativists took over the Republican Party and the Democrats look at the Hispanic vote as a given.

  • Mo||

    In 2004, the Hispanic vote went 55-45 for Kerry instead of 65-35 that Gore got. You could make the case that the 10 point difference was the difference between a close win and a close loss (or Bush v. Gore II Electric Boogaloo) for Bush.

  • ||

    That is an interesting point. I didn't realize that.

  • Mo||

    Also, not all Latino votes are created equally. The Republican stranglehold on Florida Cubans is slowly eroding. If they lose that, they'll have a tougher time in an important swing state.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    So long as Republicans talk a big game against Castro and don't object to the wet foot-dry foot mode of Cuban immigration, Team RED will keep their vote. The big problem is that the trade embargo will HAVE to stay intact in order for wet foot-dry foot to remain a viable option. You can't claim political asylum if we're engaging in free trade with a Castro-less Cuba, and if you can't claim political asylum, you can't float on over and get a guaranteed green card with considerably less red tape than regular immigrants.

    In short, so long as Team RED does what it needs to do in order to guarantee immigration welfare for Cubans, Team RED will keep their vote.

  • Mo||

    Not really. The second and third generation Cubans are far less zealous in their hate of Castro*.

    * Probably because it's less about personal vengeance and more just old boring stories from dad/grandpa.

  • MJ||

    Only if Hispanic voters are against deporting illegal immigrants to such an extent that it is an issue they will change their votes over. I'm not that's true, and the assumption that they are is only because the majority of illegals are Mexican hispanics.

    It assumes that hispanic voters are mostly motivated by their ethnic identity ( which is further dubious because "hispanic" is a catchall word for many ethnic identities)

  • mad libertarian guy||

    In short, as long as most illegals are Mexican/Guatemalan/El Salvadoran, other Hispanics will not give a shit about Obama deporting illegals.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Our Sputtering Economy by the Numbers: Poverty Edition
    http://www.propublica.org/arti.....ty-edition

    Poverty rate for white Americans in 2010: 13 percent

    Poverty rate for African-Americans in 2010: 27.4 percent

    Real median household income in 2010: $49,445

    Decline in median household income since 2009: 2.3 percent

    Decline in median household income since before the recession: 6.4 percent

    The last time median household incomes have been this low: 1996

    Real median household income in 1999, in 2010 dollars: $53,252

    Median income for full-time male workers in 2010: $47,715

    Median income for full-time male workers in 1973, in 2010 dollars: $49,065

    etc etc

  • ||

    Don Surber gives a wonderful take down of the loathsome David Brooks. The best part

    The problem is his faulty premise that “stale ideological debates that have paralyzed this country.”

    In blasting ideology, what David Brooks is saying is that having values, principles and beliefs that you openly state and you defend is somehow wrong. What David Brooks is saying is that we should all have no values, principles or beliefs and just go along to get along because to believe in something is to “paralyze this country.”

    What a loathsome, cynical outlook on life. I do feel sorry for him but I also laugh at him because the more he tries to present himself as being above the fray, the more he illustrates that he is below the fray. Two sets of Americans have opposing world views that they are willing to fight for, while David Brooks believes in nothing but political expediency. There is a cowardice in not being willing to fight for something — anything.

    http://blogs.dailymail.com/don.....ives/42680

    There really is nothing more annoying than the smug, above it all, "moderate".

  • MNG||

    "What David Brooks is saying is that we should all have no values, principles or beliefs and just go along to get along because to believe in something is to “paralyze this country.”

    Yeah, of course that is what Brooks is saying.

    Sheesh.

  • ||

    I have more respect for someone like Pauli Krugnuts or Special Ed Schultz than I do for Brooks. Those guys may be wrong, but at least they believe in something and are honest about who they are. Brooks believes in nothing and is completely disingenuous about who he is.

  • MNG||

    Brooks seems to believe in things to me, like his National Greatness Conservatism. I think he just realizes a good chunk of America believes differently and they are not evil or crazy as a result...

  • ||

    Brooks is a liberal who won't admit it. So he has made a career concern trolling Conservatives in the New York Times.

  • MNG||

    Everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal John, fluffy, epi, the Reason staff, the Independent Institute*

    (all people you've made this charge on)

    Brooks is just not the zealot you are, that hardly means he believes in nothing.

  • ||

    Fluffy is not a liberal. And I am hardly a zelot. I think my distrust of police and objection to the drug war and my general support of reasonable welfare policies would disqualify me from the conservative zealot club. You just call me one because you have no other argument to make.

    Brooks is a liberal and a ridiculous character. Anyone who actually wrote that Obama would be a good president because he pants were tightly creased is an idiot. Brooks never supports any conservative ideas or like any actual conservative. And his "national greatness conservativism" is just nothing but warmed over New Dealism. He is a liberal but is too dishonest to admit it.

  • Au H20||

    Actually, I think that a commentator on the Economist pegged it right: Brooks is idiotically bipartisan ie he evaluates proposals by the metric, "Will this get 75 Senate votes?"

    If YES- policy good.

    If NO- policy bad!

  • MNG||

    Brooks helped found one of the pre-eminent conservative journals in the country. He's consistently supported GOP candidates for office and worked for conservative think tanks. His National Greatness Conservatism has a pedigree far longer than your Hannity-Beck movement conservatism. But of course you can declare him a liberal, as you have so many others (fyi-just recently you called fluffy a "statist"; epi called you out on it; need refreshing?).

    I'll give you credit on your drug war stance, it makes you much preferable to most conservatives. But just because Brooks does not charge the barricades with the same enthusiasm that you do does not make him "believe in nothing."

  • Gimlet||

    I watch Brooks every Friday on the PBS News Hour.

    His positions are that of a liberal.

  • ||

    From what I've read from Brooks, he suffers from Paritsan Malady. Everyone who thinks differently than him and suggests that do something other than what his Solomonic wisdom dictates is a big, fat, meany partisan.

    But, no-o-o-o-o, not Brooksy, he's no partisan. He's the solution. Everyone else is the problem.

  • o2||

    "does not charge the barricades"
    _
    brooks doesnt buy the [AGIPROPZ] intended to grift the [PATRIOTIC] $$$ fm the know-nothing wingnutz

  • Gimlet||

    You'd make more sense if you just shut up.

  • o2||

    i would shut-up if it made centz

  • MNG||

    I'll give you some of that. It's not that he believes in nothing that makes him smug, its his air that he's the one for solving problems while everyone else is not.

  • ||

    Exactly. And he never seems to have a solution other than no one should stand by their principles ever.

  • mofo||

    Troy Davis is going to die today. He is sentenced to death for making gratuitus, sexist jokes during a moving picture. He has been allowed to pick the method of his execution

  • Lord Humungus||

    The Buffett Alternative Tax:
    The rich don't pay lower average tax rates.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....on_LEADTop

    Mr. Obama, meet Joe Barr. As LBJ's last Treasury Secretary—he served only 30 days—Barr became famous for his January 1969 testimony before Congress that 21 millionaires had paid no income tax in 1967. No fewer than 115 tax returns reporting income above $200,000 had also paid no income tax, and Barr predicted a "taxpayer revolt" unless something was done about it.

    Washington proceeded to bend tax policy to chase those 21 millionaires, and so we got the Minimum Tax of 1969 that later became the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT now hits some four million taxpayers, and 27% of households that paid it in 2008 had adjusted gross income of $200,000 or less.

  • JD the elder||

    January 1969 testimony before Congress that 21 millionaires had paid no income tax in 1967. No fewer than 115 tax returns reporting income above $200,000 had also paid no income tax, and Barr predicted a "taxpayer revolt" unless something was done about it.

    But, but, but, the leftists assured me that prior to the rise of the dread lord Reagan, marginal rates were 90%, the rich paid their fare share, and everybody loved it and America was more prosperous than ever!

  • T||

    Avoidance behavior never having entered their minds, apparently. One of my liberal friends uses the 50s. Top marginal tax rates were higher than ever in the most prosperous era in American history!

  • Lord Humungus||

    Weren't their scads of tax-shelters and loopholes available in the 1950s?

  • Restoras||

    Not too mention no meaningful competition from the piles of rubble in Europe and Asia, plus more war production.

  • Au H20||

    Also, according to the Government Printing Office, the best we hit in the 50s was 19% revenue as a % of GDP. So, 90% rates weren't all that effective.

    Also, if you want the difference between 50s/60s Dem and Reps and todays: Ike had a 90% tax rate, and Kennedy slashed it 20 points promising that the lower tax would stimulate the economy.

  • creech||

    I can remember the older accountants where I worked waxing nostalgic about the 1950s when small businessmen ran vitually all of their personal expenses through the company books thus never getting near the 90% marginal rate.

  • Brandon||

    Restoras, don't try that argument at HuffPo. Apparently by the 50's Europe had been completely rebuilt and was again competitive in manufacturing, and the only reason America's economy was better then was because of our higher taxes.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Government spending was also a lot lower in the 1950s. There was no EPA, Depts of Education or Homeland Security, no Medicare, Medicaid, or Head Start, nor any of the other taxes on the state and local level that we have to pay.

    The conceit is that a 1950s tax rate will pay for a 2011 government structure, when it actually paid for a structure that was leaner in cost by orders of magnitude in both raw and inflation-adjusted terms.

  • ||

    Solyndra execs refuse to testify,

    Which was largely the point of the Administration ordering, what is it now, three investigations of Solyndra?

    I'm sure the execs are working on some kind of immunity deal.

    I'd be willing to go with some kind of limited immunity against doing actual jail time, if that's possible, as long as disgorgement of assets was still on the table.

  • MNG||

    Are you implying they started the investigations to give the execs the grounds upon which to invoke the 5th?

    If they hadn't done an investigation Hannity et al., would be yelling "OMG, secret Muslim anti-colonialist Obama refuses to look into his administration's corruption!!!!", if he does get an investigation going its all "OMG, secret Muslim anti-colonialist Obama did an investigation to allow execs to cover up the truth!"

  • ||

    I agree. The FBI had to investigate. And of course these guys are going to plead the 5th. It is up to Congress to figure out which is more important, getting these guys or finding out the full truth. I think the latter is and I would just grant them immunity and risk letting a few crooks off the hook in return for finding out just what happened.

  • T||

    I'll go with RC. You may not go to jail, but we'll take some of the money back if there's any left.

  • ||

    Are you implying they started the investigations to give the execs the grounds upon which to invoke the 5th?

    Well, the administration certainly isn't unhappy that they've clammed up, are they?

    And the administration must have known that their investigations would kill testimony to Congress, didn't they? Especially since the execs had already promised to testify before the criminal investigations began.

    And they couldn't possibly have waited a week, could they? After all, various red flags had been waved for years and been ignored.

  • ||

    Sure that is what they did. But I just don't see how you can slam the FBI for investigating crimes. Let Congress grant them immunity and go from there. Also, even if they were not being investigated, couldn't they have still plead the 5th before Congress?

  • ||

    even if they were not being investigated, couldn't they have still plead the 5th before Congress?

    Not sure. Probably. But its much harder for Congress to grant immunity to someone who is the target of an active criminal investigation.

    There's not much doubt in my mind that it went something like this:

    (1) Solyndra execs agree, in writing, to testify before Congress (essentially, promising not to plead the 5th).

    (2) The White House says "Holy fuck, we have to shut these guys up before that hearing. What can we do to put pressure on them? I know, let's fast-track not one, but three, criminal investigations."

    (3) Solyndra execs withdraw their previous promise to testify. High fives all around at the White House.

  • o2||

    thats just a right wing rush meme to foam the wingnutz

  • teh rael o2||

    ^spoofarrhea

  • Citizen Nothing||

    There really is nothing more annoying than the smug, above it all, "moderate".
    I agree, John, although sometimes you make me question that proposition. (Just joshin' ya, big guy!)

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • o2||

    U.S. building secret Mideast region drone bases, officials say
    Published: September 21, 2011

    The U.S. reliance on drones in the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa is growing, with a network of clandestine bases being used to strike al-Qaida cells in Somalia and Yemen, The Washington Post reports.

    One of the more interesting locations for these secret drone bases is the Seychelles, an Indian Ocean archipelago, the Post reported.The pilotless drones showed in an experimental mission earlier this month that it could reach Somalia from this island nation located about 800 miles to the southeast.

    http://www.stripes.com/news/mi.....y-1.155721

  • o2||

    mt brain is held in a secret base 800 miles southeast of my ass

  • teh rael o2||

    ^poor spoofarrhea

  • Au H20||

    Great reaction to the fact that 75% of fiction sales by value go to women

    This is skewed, of course, by romance novels, I assume.

  • T||

    Did they do a breakdown by genre? I'm assuming sci-fi is still a bastion of male geekery, unless they're including 'paranormal romance' or WTFever we're calling vampire slashfic these days.

  • Lord Humungus||

    If I was going to change direction with my (small) eBook output, I would definitely get into female-orientated lit. Romance novels, erotica, etc.

    Okay, I feel a little sick to my stomach.

  • Robo News||

    Will Obama's million-deportation milestone hurt him with Hispanic voters?

    Doesn't Fit Narrative. Must Not Report.

  • sarcasmic||

  • Bee Tagger||

    A cookbook dedicated purely to white trash, hillbilly and redneck dishes has proved such a hit it's now being released as an eBook.

    Good thing they verified the book's popularity with a far riskier method of distribution before trying the eBook.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm quite sure that among the white trash, hillbilly and redneck crowd electronic format is, well, newfangled and strange.

  • T||

    Some of us white trash rednecks are quite familiar with computers. We use them to download porn and better meth recipes.

  • sarcasmic||

    But do you use eBooks?

  • FlyoverCountry||

    I have a stand to hold my Galaxy Tab so I don't get Meth-juice on it while mixing up fresh batches.

    I use the Tab because most of the quality meth-making tutorial vidoes are in Flash

  • Lord Humungus||

    OT: Running incef on Firefox. Other than the loss (via greasemonkey) of being able to use Find for searching user names, it's been working flawlessly.

    Goodbye trolls!

  • robc||

    The problem is certain trolls regularly changing names.

    Also, long threads. The new incif struggles with the nested comment threads and cant deal well with 200+ comment threads.

  • Lord Humungus||

    yeah, the reloading of the script with new names is a small PITA. I haven't run into the multi-thread issue (yet).

  • ||

    You've gotta go Chrome. Reasonable is the cat's ass and hasn't showed any problems on big threads. Plus, you get some nice extras like inline pics and videos.

  • Lord Humungus||

    I know, I know... perhaps I'll load it just as a Reason Reader.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    That was my solution, LH. Chrome/Reasonable as a dedicated H&R reader.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    That was going to be my solution. Then I realized that I could do all of the same things I do with Safari in almost exactly the same ways, and I've been using as it as my ONLY browser since.

    I've long avoided Chrome because I generally hate Google, but he browser is so good, I just went ahead and made the switch.

  • Kristen||

    Being the Luddite and contrarian that I am, I resisted Chrome for a long time.

    But it fucking rocks.

  • Zeb||

    Reasonable is great, but I do occasionally have problems where all of the comment's won't load and I can't add a comment when I am running Reasonable. It may be something else, though, as it happens infrequently and only when I am at home (using a Mac on a crappier connection).

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I'm using it on a Mac, and no problems whatsoever.

  • Tim||

    Sweatshop.com?

    "During summer heat waves, Amazon arranged to have paramedics parked in ambulances outside, ready to treat any workers who dehydrated or suffered other forms of heat stress. Those who couldn't quickly cool off and return to work were sent home or taken out in stretchers and wheelchairs and transported to area hospitals. And new applicants were ready to begin work at any time."

  • Bee Tagger||

    Ultimately, and I think this is the case with unions at times as well, the workers are not frustrated with a management they see as abusive, but with other workers willing to tolerate conditions they will not. I don't say that to diminish their concerns, just to point out that frustration with management is misdirected.

  • T||

    I work around and in non-climate controlled facilities in Houston. The heat index is above 100 from late May through October. I have trouble getting worked up over a few days of high heat.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I work around and in non-climate controlled facilities in Houston. The heat index is above 100 from late May through October. I have trouble getting worked up over a few days of high heat.

    This. People in the South and Southwest ROUTINELY work in conditions where the heat index is above 100 degrees. Like EVERYONE who works outside.

    The next time you want to complain about heat, go talk to roofers in Mississippi or Georgia so you can get some fucking perspective.

  • some guy||

    Free market at its finest!

  • Au H20||

    Also, apparently, Glee was back last night, so let me just say this:

    Seriously, America, WHAT THE FUCK? You let Glee stay on the air because idiotic teeny boppers and middle age women who like to pretend to be teeny boppers love it, but because old people watch Men of A Certain Age, you let one of the most interesting, funny, and heartfelt shows get cancelled? AND you put Scott Bakula out of work AGAIN?

    Goddamnit, I miss Men of A Certain Age

  • o2||

    coming of age stories eh? no interest

  • MNG||

    Hollywood is unbearable these days. At least we have Mad Men and Boardwalk Empire.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Breaking Bad.

  • MNG||

    I've heard nothing but good things about this show, but I don't have expanded cable (I watch Mad Men via Netflix). I will try to check it out soon though.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I don't have cable at all -- it doesn't run all the way to teh compound.

    So I also get my Breaking Bad fix via DVD. Which means I'm always behind, and always dodging spoilers online.

  • MNG||

    There are hazards to watching shows via DVD, netflix and hulu, but also advantages, like being able to zoom through a season in a week or two, and skipping commercials.

  • ||

    Have you got to the part where Jesse dons the battlesuit for the first time? The fight with the Mega-Cockatrice is AWESOME!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Curse you, SF!!! (Waves fist/cane in air)

  • sarcasmic||

    Best show ever.

  • Au H20||

    I think a little television program called Deadwood may big to differ.

  • sarcasmic||

    Deadwood was great, but they never finished it. Just left us hanging with all those threads. Cocksuckers.

    Breaking Bad will run to completion, and that alone makes it better than Deadwood.

  • Au H20||

    Yeah. Imagine if we lived in a world where HBO hadn't fucked up those negotiations and we had gotten 2 more seasons of Deadwood, probably culminating with Al's brains being bashed in by a Hearst agent?

    GODDAMN YOU ALTERNATE UNIVERSE AUH20 AND YOUR GETTING MORE DEADWOOD.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Too many cunts and cocksuckers with no apparent reason in Deadwood.

  • Restoras||

    It is amazing how bad the stuff Hollywood churns out is.

  • Au H20||

    Like Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots: The movie?

  • Dave||

    If you're referring to Real Steel, it's the most sappy, paint-by-numbers cliched children's film I've had the misfortune of seeing for free. It has Danny Elfman's worst score, paper thin characters, and the robots, while visually interesting, are less robotic than Hugh Jackman. Spielberg and Don Murphy produced, clearly hoping this would be the robot antithesis to Michael Bay's Transformers (which they also produced) but I fear for Richard Matheson's health if not sanity when it actually gets released.

    Maybe it was the obnoxious 2 year old in the back row who talked like the theater was her playpen, but I've never been so annoyed by a theater experience, and I've seen all three Transformers films in a theater.

  • Ted S.||

    Do we really need more shows set in the 1960s?

    I must be the one person who doesn't care for Mad Men at all.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I think most of the guys who say how much they love Mad Men are really just using the show's title as a proxy for "Christina Hendrick's boobs."

  • T||

    I'm definitely a fan of those, and have no idea what this Mad Men thing is all about.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Scott Bakula deserves to be out of work after Enterprise.

  • Au H20||

    Them be fighting words, my friend. But instead of fighting, I will just say this: As of the Star Trek reboot due to the new movie, Enterprise is the only cannon show left (they have Scotty mention Admiral Archer and his prize beagle). So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The movie is not a full "reboot," just a alternate universe where Enterprise was good.

    The good Treks are still canon.

  • Au H20||

    The first clip is from DS9 aka the shitty version of Babylon 5. Your claims to vet good Trek's are invalidated.

    Enterprise kicked ass, though the 4rth season was a bit of a let down (and the finale sucked. It really sucked and was an insult to Trek fans).

    Honestly, I have a theory: Whichever was the show that got you into Trek you love unconditionally. So, Enterprise got me into Trek, and I love it. But I have friends who love Voyager because that got them into Trek, and Voyager is just awful.

  • sarcasmic||

    I dunno. I first got into Trek with Next Generation, which I now openly mock as 80s trash.

  • some guy||

    TNG was both 80's trash AND awesome. I mean, how many Treks starred Macbeth?

  • Restoras||

    I loved TNG especially after the third season. Plus, without it would we have Patrick Stewart voicing Avery Bullock?

  • ||

    Commander Riker: Sir, I would recommend killing sarcasmic with fire.

    Captain Picard: Make it so, Number One.

  • ||

    TNG

    Counselor Troi

    That's all.

  • OO========D||

    ^^THIS^^

  • ||

    I was weaned on Star Trek, Kirk's Enterprise, damn it, and I liked Enterprise, excepting that shitty, shitty them song. I thought they did OK, with the usual TV crap that makes you cringe.

    TNG was OK, but largely a tedious scold and I can't really watch it now. Voyager was a crushing bore, but DS9 definitely had it's moments in the 2nd half of the series.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The first clip is from DS9 aka the shitty version of Babylon 5.

    You have just gotten yourself put on a list.

    Anyway, I watched all incarnations of Trek and enjoyed them all to varying degrees, fully aware of the shortcomings of each.

  • Au H20||

    Dude, I will defend Babylon 5 Seasons 2-4 any time. Mass Effect stole a good chunk of its plot from B5 and Londo Mollari+G'Kar are maybe the two best sci fi characters ever.

    And, honestly, the Enterprise theme grew on me. Or maybe that's just because when your watching the show with you buddies and getting drunk, it's a really fun song to sing along to in a completely over the top "Don't Stop Believin'" sort of way.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Enterprise theme might have been palatable if they had continued that musical style when scoring the episodes.

  • Zuo||

    The first clip is from DS9 aka the shitty version of Babylon 5.

    I watched DS9 first, and thought it was by far the best Star Trek series, which it is. But yeah, its kind of a B5 for n00bs.

    I generally don't care much for Star Trek in general and their pussy-collectivist philosophy. Every fucking episode of TNG and Voyager was about shithead aliens attacking and the captain insisting that rather than fighting back, they should go out of their way as much as possible to help the aliens. Speaking of aliens, Star Trek has the laziest, shittiest approach to making up alien species and how they look, evar.

    I saw Voyager first. I don't care for any of the major characters and most of the plots. The production values are good though. TES, TNG, and Enterprise suckkkkk.

  • Zuo||

    *Clarification: That is, I watched DS9 first (of the space station series), before watching B5. I watched Voyager first of all Star Treks, though.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Enterprise got me into Trek

    Enterprise got you into Trek? >_> What, are you like 5 years old or something?

    When you finish puberty, try watching DS9 again, which was written for a more mature audience.

  • MNG||

    "Enterprise is the only cannon show left (they have Scotty mention Admiral Archer and his prize beagle)."

    That's a great point, thanks for making it.

  • Fluffy||

    Since this Trek universe only exists due to a time travel event, it doesn't displace canon.

    The first Trek history happened, then a time travel event altered history, and now this Trek history is happening.

    Voila. Double canon.

  • Apple||

    Old people need to buy more Axe body spray and Red Bull.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You let Glee stay on the air because idiotic teeny boppers and middle age women who like to pretend to be teeny boppers love it, but because old people watch Men of A Certain Age, you let one of the most interesting, funny, and heartfelt shows get cancelled?

    Glee has industry-cred due to its niche appeal to the gay/status-mongering SWPL demographic (essentially, the same audience that perpetuated Sex and the City beyond the first season).

    Men of A Certain Age featured middle-aged dudes dealing with getting older. I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did, not because the concept or acting wasn't engaging, but because it doesn't fall within what Hollywood most wants to push right now, which is primarily work that's derivitive of themes bludgeoned to death in that piece of shit film American Beauty.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It also helps that the singing on Glee is actually sung by those in the show. It's REAL talent. Whether the writing is good or storylines compelling is another issue, but Glee absolutely has talent not found elsewhere save Broadway.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You could say the same thing about High School Musical too, which had an audience and marketing machine just as huge but never got the critical cred that Glee does.

    Again, it boils down to the particular niche that Ryan Murphy markets the show to, not necessarily the talent of the performers.

  • Au H20||

  • some guy||

    I don't need to read the article. I got full understanding from reading the link...

  • ||

    SugarFree Book Report

    Read Directive 51 by John Barnes over the weekend. Firmly in the sort-of-science-fiction techno-thriller sub-genre, I think it would be of interest for the board.

    While not giving anything away, it's the Dipshit Apocalypse. In the near future, Greens, technophobes, primativist fundagelicals--and some people who are just plain bored--set out to destroy technological civilization with nanotech and engineered biotech. The novel focuses on the only federal agency to anticipate the attack and the struggle to maintain constitutional government.

    It's the first book in a trilogy, but I really liked where it is going so far.

    (Don't read the wiki page for the book, massive spoilers.)

  • T||

    I'm stocking my amazon cart for my end of week order. I'll probably pick it up then.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    It's now on the list. Thanks.

  • Shocked||

    Thanks for the tip. I'm currently hooked on B.V. Larsen's Star Force series. Sci Fi/Techno pulp, but very good pulp.

  • Sparky||

    Speaking of books, I finally finished Catch-22 as a number of people suggested I should. My final thoughts of it are: I wish I could have all that time back. What a horribly written, terrible story.

  • Draco||

    Why did you read the whole thing then? Did you sign a contract with someone (yourself?) stating that once you start reading a book, no matter how horrible, you are obliged to finish it?

  • Au H20||

    When you crunch the numbers, the proposed "Buffet Rule" won't actually bring in that much money.

    But it will feel like so much more money. AND and and and it won't be in the hands of those dirty, evil rich people who don't create jobs ever.

  • robc||

    90% one time wealth tax on people with more than $40B in wealth.

    That is Gates and Buffett.

    That is the only "Buffett Rule" I support, and solely to point and laugh.

  • MJ||

    Who says it is supposed to bring in any money? It is supposed to give the appearance of the Dems doing something about the deficit in a way that is politically acceptable to their Leftist base while enabling them to ignore the massive spending problem which is really driving the issue.

    It is theatre, nothing more.

  • ||

    Buffett himself excepted, of course. He's like really nice even though he's rich.

  • ||

    I turned on the MSNBC Business Channel this morning just in time to hear some concerned economist (whose qualification to set asset values for the nation include such lofty positions as "Yale Professor" and "Member of the Santa Fe Institute"). He touched al the Krugabenomic bases: inflation is good, society's needs, Tim Geithner is eminently qualified to decide what your home should be worth, et c, as the Senior Fed Apologist nodded sagely.

    Then they brought Santelli in for a largely incoherent rant, while the studio audience made faces and snickered.

    I hate to say this, but thank Cthulu for Bloomberg.

  • Au H20||

    How to bring you progeny into the world like a man, courtesy of the Art of Manliness

    I'm just saying you Reasonoids seem to breed like fucking rabbits.

  • Lord Humungus||

    making babies for the revolution!

  • ||

    Meh. I thought it would be an article mocking the modern drama and showing a return to better days, where the father's total birthin' work consisted of baby-making 9 months earlier and handing our cigars after the birth.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Personally? I hated the whole drama plus hospitals make me feel really queasy. I would prefer the "old-school" method of waiting while nervously smoking a pack of cigarettes.

    My wife had a c-section. Walking into the operating room and seeing her on the table did little to help my mood. "Hey, let's all gather around and take a big ol' look at my wife's crotch!"

  • ||

    Same here. Births aren't "magical" or any other ethereal crap the new agers have cooked up. They're tedious and boring for the father (especially for long labors) and not only NO, but FUCK NO do I want to deliver the spawn.

    It is for childbirth alone that I am eternally grateful to be a man.

  • ||

    You are not kidding.

  • some guy||

    It is for childbirth alone that I am eternally grateful to be a man.

    Being able to pee standing up is pretty badass too. It's a smaller benefit, but you get to enjoy it every day.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You never know how badass peeing standing up is until you lose the ability to do it.

    A couple a years ago, shortly before my heart attack (at age fucking 33 - yes, I'm bitter as fuck) I was having micturition sycope episodes (I get faint when I laugh real hard too, which is a bitch during really funny movies), and as a result was told, so that I don't fall and bust the fuck out of my head again, to NOT pee while standing. Ever. I cheat on the odd occasion just to remember one of the biggest perks of being a man.

  • teh rael o2||

    after seeing the bloody aftermath of birth, the mystery of teh [COOCHIE] is forever gone. >mothers who desire a healthy sex life after birth are better-off NOT wanting their baby-daddy to witness.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    mothers who desire a healthy sex life after birth are better-off NOT wanting their baby-daddy to witness.

    After witnessing a video in a parental training class, my best friend couldn't emphasize enough that he would NOT be filming the birth of his child.

  • TRTB||

    It is for childbirth alone that I am eternally grateful to be a man.

    Dude, porn.

  • Zuo||

    Why the fuck does seemingly every tv show ever made at some point have some nasty sweaty pregnant bitch going through a labor/birth scene? WHY. I hate that shit! And so does seemingly everyone else I've bitched about it to.

  • Sparky||

    When my son was born he decided he wanted to come out while nobody else was around. I was running around trying to get a doctor, a nurse, anybody but just me to come to the room. Because they were rushing and had no time to setup I got stuck holding one of her legs while the doctor delivered the baby. The smell, oh the horrid smell...

  • Kristen||

    I would not want my husband to see my vag in that state. Waiting room and cigars for him!

    (not that I would ever, ever risk my own life, safety and liberty just to have a damn kid)

  • ||

    And, apparently, Barney Frank wants to strip the regional Fed members of their votes. They keep interfering with our glorious Five Year Plan for economic recovery.

    Stalin would be proud.

  • ||

    And, apparently, Barney Frank wants to strip the regional Fed members of their votes.

    I could have sworn someone said the Fed was an independent organization, and not subject to Congress.

  • ||

    Barney Frank wants to strip the regional Fed members of their votes pants.

    Rephrased for accuracy.

  • DJF||

    How about instead, lets strip the regional Fed banks of their government support. If the bankers want to create a bankers cartel then they should have to do it without the force of law helping them out.

  • ||

    The Assassin-in-Chief is now addressing the United Nations; how does he not just burst into flames every time he opens his mouth?

  • ||

    it's the Dipshit Apocalypse.

    So it's like The Road, then?

  • ||

    No. It's a deliberate act, not environmental mumbo-jumbo. And the vast majority of Americans don't turn into cannibal hordes.

  • ||

    The Road has to be one of the worst pieces of fiction to come out in the last 40 or so years. What a pointless horrible book. No one learns anything. No one shows anything but a cliche of the worst sorts of human behavior. It is just pure exploitative disaster porn at its worst.

  • Fluffy||

    I remain convinced that The Road is a love letter to the beauty of our world as it is.

    The last paragraph makes that pretty clear.

    McCarthy just really, really, really beats you up first to make sure you appreciate that last paragraph. It's a novel-length exercise in contrast.

  • ||

    That is an interesting way to look at it. And maybe you are right. But I still don't like the book. And don't see how it was worth reading.

  • Restoras||

    I agree with you - I really enjoyed the book, not for the depictions of human depravity (just read some 20th Century history for that) but for the father/son aspect, how they retained their humanity in the face of brutal living conditions. Just my two cents.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Thankfully it's only a short novel (novelette?) at 59kish words.

    But I still liked it. Definitely not my favorite post-apocalyptic novel - Star Man's Son gets the nod - but The Road ain't all that bad.

  • T||

    Star Man's Son

    I second this, but then I've been a huge Andre Norton fan since I was a kid. Baen has some of her stuff in e-book for free.

  • ||

    I think The Road is a father's love letter to his son.

  • ||

    Along those lines, did anyone read 'This is the way the world ends?' I always thought of that as dipshit apopcalypse but, obviously, reflecting the cold war context. I've never met anyone else who has read it...but maybe this group is different?

  • ||

    Morrow threw everything but the kitchen sink into that book. It's amazingly dreary and preachy. And one of the hoariest of cliches: Humanity on trial by alien intelligences (or various values of "God") for crimes against itself.

    Towing Jehovah is probably his best work. God, a literal and living giant being, dies and falls into the ocean. A disgraced oil tanker captain is tasked with towing Him to arctic waters when He begins to rot.

    My favorite part is when they debate killing the sharks that are following the body, ripping off hunks. They finally decide that they have no right to keep the sharks from taking communion...

  • ||

    Agree about the tone of TITWTWE, though I found it worth the read (probably reflecting my age and circumstances at the time). Thanks for the reco on Towing Jehovah...and Directive 51.

  • T||

    What, you mean my neighbors aren't going to try to kill me and eat my brains when the apocalypse comes?

    And here I was so hoping. It's the excuse I need to rid myself of the POA board once and for all.

  • Ice Nine||

    Palestinian Authority steps up campaign for full UN membership; France joins the U.S. in saying non.

    So, what, the French are getting tired of the Eiffel Tower?

  • ||

    They just don't give a shit about the Palestinians. They only support them because they hate Jews not because they care about the Palestinians.

  • o2||

    so the french "support" the palestinians & "hate" the [JOOZ] by blocking the palestinian state?

  • MNG||

    "so the french "support" the palestinians & "hate" the [JOOZ] by blocking the palestinian state?"

    It's John. He heard it on Hannity or something this week and is parroting it, he didn't stop to think about it. It's what he does.

  • ||

    It is called history MNG. The French were the worst collaborators during the Holocaust. Worse than those in Eastern Europe. They have about a thousand year history of virulent antisemitism. It isn't going out on a limb to say the French hate the Jews. Go look at the number antisemitic instances of violence in France every year. Look at the country's history.

    Amazingly enough MNG, not every inconvenient comes from your right wing bogeymen. Maybe you should listen to Hanity a little less and read history a little more.

  • MNG||

    More of your simplistic tribalism: "The French were the worst collaborators during the Holocaust" (some French people collaborated, but many risked and gave their lives fighting the Nazis even after their government had fallen) and your confusion of logic: "They have about a thousand year history of virulent antisemitism. It isn't going out on a limb to say the French hate the Jews" (the French today must be anti-Semitic because the French of yesterday were, by this logic Americans today support slavery and segregation).

  • MNG||

    The French were the primary supporters of Israel before the US took that role. The French today actually criminally punish anti-Semitism. They have a Jewish elected leader right now.

    Jesus you are simplistic.

  • ||

    Yes, France did support Israel until the guilt over World War II wore off and Israel actually became a successful country. I am fully aware that it is French Mirage fighters not F4s that won the 1967 war. But that changed in the 1970s and France went right back to its antisemitic ways.

    I am not simplistic. I just talk over your head. I assume that you know more than you do. Of course France initially supported Israel. Everyone knows that. But everyone also knows that is not true anymore. I forget sometimes that I have to lower my tone and talk down to you.

  • ||

    Lots of French colaborated. The "French Resistence" was a myth dreamed up later to redeem French honor. The French actively rounded up their Jews and sent them off to the death camps. There were no Ann Franks in France the way there was in Holland. Stop listening to Hanity and go read the history books MNG.

    And I love how you are so easy to dismiss French antisemitism but still hold to the myth that it is always 1963 in American race relations.

  • o2||

    "The "French Resistence" was a myth"
    _
    the 82d airborne begs to differ.

  • ||

    Bullshit double asshole. There was SAS people who were there ahead of time. But that actual French Resistance was extremely small and miniscule compared to the number of French collaborators. The French government actively turned to the other side. The first combat Americans saw in the ETO was in North Africa against the French. The French also actively sabotaged allied supply lines during the run across France in 1944. The list goes on and on. The French behavior during the war was disgraceful.

  • Fluffy||

    The French who collaborated were the Petainists.

    Petain was the mouthpiece of French conservatism, John.

    Frenchmen like Petain are why people go around claiming that Nazism was a feature of the politics of the right and not the left. Because Petain was unquestionably of the right, and he thought Nazis were pretty cool when you got right down to it.

    I know it's an easy linguistic habit to fall into, but let's try to avoid saying things like "the French hate the Jews". Some French hate the Jews. But the French who wanted to hang Dreyfuss and the French who handed Jews over to the Nazis in WWII aren't the French we usually love to hate. They're the Sarkozy French, the supposedly "good" French. Throwing stones at those French is throwing stones at the French allies of the US conservative movement.

  • ||

    Then boo for the conservative movement. And "conservative" in Europe is much different than conservative in America. I really don't see your point fluffy. If you are telling me that the European right is loathsome, yeah that is kind of my point. I won't argue with you. Further, the French left is extremely antisemitic and more so now than it ever was. They only supported Israel when it was viewed as a socialist state. Once it stopped being socialist, the Left turned on it as well. I would also point out that the Left in France is often allied with the Islamist parties who are the most antisemitic of all.

  • T||

    The good French are making cheese, wine, and champagne. Sarkozy fails on all three counts.

    But Carla is hot, so he's got that going for him.

  • Zuo||

    "Many" didn't risk their lives fighting the Nazis. A small and insignificant handful. La resistance is the most overglorified "resistance" group of WW2. And France's government didn't fucking fall. Petain, who was leader of France before the Nazis came, surprise, was still leader of the Nazi puppet state. Fully fucking cooperative.

    That said, Naziism is about a whole lot more than "hating Jews". And it is pretty disgusting that Jews amount to a little less than half of civilian/concentration camp deaths, yet every American acts like Jews are the only group that suffered from Nazi ambitions. Dispicable.

  • ||

    As a percentage of the population, they suffered a lot worse than anyone else. And yeah, the Nazis like to kill pretty much anyone. But the main focus was killing Jews.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It's more complicated than the two of you make it out to be. Yes, the French do have a culture with a long history of anti-Semitism. After all the Dreyfus affair didn't happen in a vacuum. However, France also has had an equally long history of secularism and/or tolerance. For example, Napoleon's enfranchisement of Jews and France's role in the Haskala.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    However, France also has had an equally long history of secularism and/or tolerance.

    It's probably more accurate to say that France has a long history of volatile political and religous reactionarianism. For every example of "tolerance" you have one of repressive statism.

    France has a fairly open society, but it's also no accident that some of the worst monsters of the last 150 years were influenced by French intellectuals and lived in the country for extended periods.

  • MiNGe||

    JOOOOS!!111!!

  • o2||

    [JOBZ] !

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    so the french "support" the palestinians & "hate" the [JOOZ] by blocking the palestinian state?

    Actually, that's the strategy of Jordan, et al. See, by refusing to allow the Palestinians to assimilate into Jordanian culture and by keeping them in the awful conditions of refugee camps, the Arab world has an Albatross to hang on Israel's neck, which they wouldn't have if the Palestinians had their nation-state.

  • o2||

    except that the west bank isnt a refugee camp

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm talking about the 10 refugee camps in Jordan.

  • o2||

    and im talking about the west bank which is the future state of palestine

  • MNG||

    "They only support them because they hate Jews not because they care about the Palestinians."

    Yes John, the only reason to support "a land for a people and a people for a land" when it regards Palestinians is because one "hates Jews."

    Look how you throw this attack on France out as a comment to the news that France is going to go against world opinion to support the Israelis over the Palestinians here. And I guess you're ignorant of the critical role France played supporting Israel before their "special relationship" with Israel developed.

    Sheesh your simplistic Hannity-isms are boring and tiresome.

  • ||

    When the people who support "a land for a people and a people for a land" start supporting the Kurds and the Basques, I'll start believing they support the Palestinians out of principle.

  • MNG||

    I've said this dozens of times here, so maybe you will get it this time:

    I support autonomy for the Kurds and Basques (and Tibet, etc., etc.). Most people I know involved in support for a Palestinian state do. You are talking out of your ass or being intentionally deceptive in order to create your meme that Israel is somehow singled out.

  • ||

    The French don't. And they have never lifted a finger to support those causes or called for a single sanction against Turkey or themselves over it. They only do those things with regard to Israel is telling given their horrible history on the subject of Jews.

    Good for you for supporting those things. But that doesn't mean anything with regard to France and the motivation of Europe with regards to this conflict.

  • o2||

    where do u get this stuff?

  • ||

    I've said this dozens of times here, so maybe you will get it this time:

    Geez, not everything is about you, MNG.

    I was referring to the sanctimonious kleptocrats at the UN and in diplomatic offices everywhere.

  • OO========D||

    I've said this been an total flaming asshole dozens of times here

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I support autonomy for the Kurds and Basques (and Tibet, etc., etc.). Most people I know involved in support for a Palestinian state do.

    Kurds and Tibetans tend to be rabid Zionists/Israel-supporters; funny that.
    Funny that

  • Kristen||

    In my many trips to France, I noticed an overt hatred of the Ay-rabs. Perhaps the Jew-hating is reserved for private settings, but the Arab-hating is out on display for all to see.

  • Zuo||

    The French hate everybody. Arguing about who they hate more is pretty damn silly. It depends on their mood.

  • ||

    Well, at least we've shown we can get the French to surrender.

    USA! USA!

  • PantsFan||

    Winnipeg Jets lose and win their first game
    http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=376297

  • Citizen Nothing||

    What a coincidence -- my Blue Jackets also won and lost a game last night.

  • Au H20||

    What I learned at Dartmouth

    Jesus, that post is one of the best indictments of the American elite I have ever read. Also, you feel pretty bad for the guy.

    Also, for y'all tl;dr folks: Guy got accused of sexual assault at Dartmouth in '91 for trying to kiss a girl forcibly and allegedly sending dirty emails. Neither of these happened, girl kept changing time of the story until she hit one where the guy couldn't provide a rock solid alibi, and the school suspended him for a year. Then, there's an awesome indictment of the American elite.

  • o2||

    so a girl at dartmouth in 91 represents the "American elite"?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    No, Goofy, the PC-captured college administrators that ran the school and suspended the guy.

    If the only witness to a murder kept changing the time he said the murder happened, would you feel it justified if the defendant was pronounced guilty based on that testimony?

  • o2||

    per that logic, false rape accusations & convictions makes prosecutors, juries, & judges teh "american elite".

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Which still doesn't refute the basic point, which is that the guy got railroaded by PC-sensitive college administrators just because they could.

  • Au H20||

    What I learned at Dartmouth

    Jesus, that post is one of the best indictments of the American elite I have ever read. Also, you feel pretty bad for the guy.

    Also, for y'all tl;dr folks: Guy got accused of sexual assault at Dartmouth in '91 for trying to kiss a girl forcibly and allegedly sending dirty emails. Neither of these happened, girl kept changing time of the story until she hit one where the guy couldn't provide a rock solid alibi, and the school suspended him for a year. Then, there's an awesome indictment of the American elite.

  • ||

    FL: Florida firm welcomes clients with AK-47

    http://www.breitbart.com/artic....._article=1

    "A Florida company is giving new clients a voucher to buy an AK-47 assault rifle to defend themselves from violent crime."

    "Sarasota-based MerchantService.com is a business that provides small stores and businesses with cash machines and credit card processing services."

    "Its 'No Merchant Victim" program now offers a voucher that can be used to buy a gun such as an AK-47 from a local gun dealer, or upgraded security camera equipment, when clients have had its services for three months." ...

    Awesome

  • ||

    And, of course, the utter idiocy of the media regarding guns is on full display.

    There is no way on earth that they are giving vouchers for AK-47s. A semi-auto civilian clone, sure. But a semi-auto civilian clone isn't an AK-47.

  • ||

    They might have given vouchers for actual AK-47s if the NFA and GCA and all the rest were nullified, but I agree, right now, nobody would be giving out anything relating to automatic firearms

  • ||

    http://www.freep.com/article/2.....dyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p

    MI: Michigan State Police to investigate Warren man's death after Tasering

    "Details involving a Warren man's death remained sketchy Monday, but the use of a Taser on the 27-year-old has reignited controversy over the electronic stun guns."

    "Some Michigan residents have criticized the use of Tasers by law enforcement, while others welcome the devices."

    "Finettie Hawkins, 52, of Warren said she was told by Warren police that her son, Richard Kokenos, tried to break into a house late Friday, and a Taser was used on him. He died early Saturday, she said."

  • ||

    http://www.opposingviews.com/i.....d-11-times

    NY: Barbara Sheehan Trial: Shot Abusive Husband 11 Times

    "A New York City woman, who shot her police officer husband, testified on her own behalf, claiming decades of abuse led her to kill him."

    "Barbara Sheehan admits that in February 2008 she shot and killed her husband Raymond as he was shaving in the bathroom. However, Sheehan claims her husband also had a gun and was going to use it on her." ...

    "Sheehan said her husband had abused her for more than 20 years. She said she never went to the police because he was a cop himself and she feared no one would help her." ...

  • ||

    She never left him either. Sorry, but "he beat me" isn't justification for murdering someone. Sadly, the bitch will probably get off. But she ought to go down.

  • cynical||

    Sorry, but "he beat me" isn't justification for murdering someone.

    I'd say it's a mitigating circumstance.

  • Au H20||

  • ||

    That's the funniest shit I've ever seen. And I disagree with national reciprocity of carry on the basis of federalism and the nature of the law, but that shit is gold coming from the NYT -- fuck those hypocritical statists

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    D'oh - what's wrong with full faith and credit, RPA?

  • ||

    Well, the way the Left likes the 14th is incorporated, all the way. Except for the 2nd. If the 14th Amendment means what the Left has spent the last 50 years claiming it means, then the feds should be suing the states with restrictive gun laws for civil rights violations.

  • T||

    A fine example of "It's okay when we do it!"

  • some guy||

    I've been waiting for this. Called it back during the Obamacare debates...

  • Matrix||

    Don't even really need the commerce clause. What about "Full faith and credit"?

  • ||

    Get a plastic AK to hang on the wall, and keep a twelve gauge under the counter.

  • ||

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....cation=rss

    WA: No grand jury for cop in fatal shooting of John Williams

    King County Superior Court judges have declined to convene a citizens' grand jury to determine whether former Seattle police Officer Ian Birk should be charged with a crime for the fatal shooting of John T. Williams.

    In an order dated Thursday, Presiding Superior Court Judge Richard McDermott wrote that the court reviewed a petition filed by lawyers representing Williams' estate and "a majority of judges having declined to summon a grand jury."

    McDermott wrote that the judges reviewed details of the case, as well as an inquest hearing during which Birk testified about why he shot Williams. The eight-member inquest jury reached mixed findings on the shooting. Four of eight jurors found Birk wasn't facing an imminent threat when he

  • ||

    This trashing of state and local prerogatives is not only unwise but unnecessary.

    Your tears; I find them deliciously sweet.

  • ||

    http://www.time.com/time/natio.....25,00.html

    Kids and Guns: Why Doctors Have a Right to Know

    A federal court has blocked a new Florida law that limited the ability of doctors to ask patients if they had guns in the home. Judge Monica Cooke, a Republican appointee, rightly said that the law interfered with both doctors' right to free speech and patients' right to receive information.

    The ruling, which came down last week, struck an important blow for freedom of expression. But it did something more: it dealt a rare setback to a gun-rights lobby that is increasingly using its considerable political power to support policies that have little to do with the right to bear arms and needlessly put innocent people at risk.

    __________________

    The same repetitive liberal bullshit -- fuck off already, will you?

  • ||

    IT is a close call on whether they should be able to ask. Who is the government to tell a doctor what they can ask a patient? But at the same time, doctors are in an inherently coercive position. What if doctors started asking people about their political views? Would the people at Time think that was a good idea? If not, then why should they be asking about guns?

    All that being said, let them ask. And any person who values their freedom should tell them to fuck off. I have. And God did I enjoy doing it.

  • Brett L||

    When the AMA stops promoting it for pediatricians, I'll work for the law's repeal.

  • nicole||

    Who is the government to tell a doctor what they can ask a patient?

    Who is the government to tell you who can and cannot be your doctor? And yet they do. Doctors are practically agents of the state in so many ways at this point.

  • Fluffy||

    To be fair, the doctor should get to ask whatever he wants.

    If he's a dick and asks stupid shit, I can always get a new doctor.

  • T||

    My doctor has a vacation ranch where he goes to shoot his Barrett .50 cal. I don't think he's gonna say shit about my gun collection.

  • NoVAHockey||

    Is he taking new patients?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Damn doctors DO make a lot of money...I want one too. GUN SOCIALISM!

  • o2||

    obviously the republican judge disagrees

  • Lord Humungus||

    I've said this before, but my last doctor had a thing about CO2 detectors. Every time I went to visit, he would ask me if I had a one. It drove me nuts.

    Needless to say, he is no longer my doctor (for many other reasons too).

  • Zeb||

    CO2 detectors? Is there such a thing? Do they go off if you breathe too heavily in a small room?

  • MJ||

    The author of the Time article is also not terribly thrilled with people suspected of a crime having civil rights.

    "A bill introduced in the House of Representatives earlier this year would have blocked gun purchases by people on the FBI's terrorist watch list. It should have passed unanimously: Really, who wants to see suspected terrorists loading up on assault weapons? But the gun lobby argued vociferously that the bill could infringe on the Second Amendment rights of anyone put on the list by mistake. In May, the bill died in committee.

    It is time for a little more common sense."

    While perhaps the gag rule is improper, Time and the the doctor's supporter go a little far in justifying why a doctor is obligated to ask about guns in the home.

    "Asking whether guns are locked away hardly strikes me as an invasion of privacy. Rather, it seems almost negligent for pediatricians not to ask, considering that eight U.S. children die of gunshot wounds each day. If a gun owner gets huffy, so be it; those who safely stow their firearms would have no reason to bridle.

    Inquiring about guns is “a cornerstone of pediatric care,” according to a statement from O. Marion Burton, president of the AAP, one of the physician groups involved in the lawsuit."


    Read more: http://healthland.time.com/201.....z1YbdMQmUK

    Gee, I thought immunizations, advising parents on nutrition, treating colds and such were the cornerstones of pediatrics.

  • T||

    We're also back to the fact that 17 year olds engaged in gang turf wars aren't exactly 'children' anymore.

  • Zeb||

    I would say that the law is a pretty clear first amendment violation. A doctor should be able to ask anything he wants to (though they certainly do not have "a right to know"). If you don't think it is any of their business, you can tell them so or find a new doctor.
    I do think that it is completely stupid that any doctors think that it is any of their concern (I feel the same about them asking if you wear your seatbelt, but no one is trying to make a law forbidding that). Doctors should be treating medical conditions, not managing all risk factors in people's lives.

  • Brett L||

    What if the pediatrician asks your kid while you're in the waiting room? This is what inspired the bill. The AMA advocated that pediatricians should ask children about guns in their home. Creepy and invasive enough for you yet?

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, getting there. As a non-parent, I tend not to think of the children first (though if I were, I would think that I would stay where my kid is when he visits the doctor). I still think it is probably a bad law, though. Opens the door to laws about all kinds of questions people think a doctor shouldn't be asking. Suppose, for example, that a bunch of Catholics (or whatever) decide that doctors shouldn't ask teenage girls if they are having sex because it might lead to the use of birth control.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    "Workers said they were forced to endure brutal heat inside the sprawling warehouse and were pushed to work at a pace many could not sustain. Employees were frequently reprimanded regarding their productivity and threatened with termination, workers said. The consequences of not meeting work expectations were regularly on display, as employees lost their jobs and got escorted out of the warehouse. Such sights encouraged some workers to conceal pain and push through injury lest they get fired as well, workers said."

    Isn't that, you know, capitalism?

  • ||

    trololololololol

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Via Alan Vanneman:
    Sherlock Holmes and the Giant Sweatshop of Sumatra

  • OO========D||

    Sherlock Holmes and his mouth full of cum was Vanneman's best work by far. Write what you know, always they say. Write what you know.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Guess they won't be applying for jobs at the steel mills any time soon.

  • T||

    They're looking for that Pennsylvania we never found, aren't they?

  • Globalism||

    how u luv me now?

  • Chatroom Crank||

    The Troy Davis affair does teach us one thing. Don't pistol whip a bum hours after you are involved in another shooting and you won't be charged with killing the cop who comes to rescue the bum.

  • Fluffy||

    The funny thing about that Amazon warehouse story is that one chief reason for the abuses chronicled there is the use of a temporary staffing service that churns the personnel so nobody ever achieves permanent employee status.

    Naturally, the people whose policies have created such disincentives to have permanent employees will never for a moment consider the possibility that they bear any blame for this. "We should be able to devise laws that financially and legally punish you for hiring a permanent employee - without you interfering with our plan by hiring temporary or part-time employees!"

  • Scooby||

    So, these complaints about shitty working conditions are from former temps that could not get permanent jobs there? "The working conditions really sucked, and they wouldn't let me keep working there permanently."

  • o2||

    no, moar like "they only have temporary NAFTA [JOBZ] AND teh working conditionz sucked."

  • ||

    There were no Ann Franks in France the way there was in Holland.


    John, I'm not entirely surewhat youre trying to say here but it seems your saying something like "the French are more anti-semitic than the Dutch."

    Sorry, but the Anne Frank case does not even come close to supporting that thesis. The Frank case is notable because the Franks and the people who helped them were caught after they were betrayed by another Dutch citizen, not because they were hidden. The actions of the Dutch in general in regard to the Holocaust are any more creditable than those of the French.

    There were thousands of Jews protected by French citizens during the war. Even the Vichy government originally resisted the rounding up of Jews as did the local officials in occupied France.

    Hell, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of cases of Jews being protected by Germans in Germany, for crying out loud. This blanket generalizing about who are and who aren't anti-semites that you engage in is a gross oversimplication.

  • ||

    Correction:

    The actions of the Dutch in general in regard to the Holocaust are not any more creditable than those of the French.

    [One word makes a big difference in the meaning of a sentence.]

  • o2||

    john just regurgitates rusharrhea & hatez him some french cause lil w did

  • ||

    Since when does talk radio talk about world war II history, you fucking half wit. Shut up and let the adults talk for a while.

  • o2||

    like rush spoke soo highly of teh [FRENCH] when lil w was mission accomplishing huh?

  • ||

    Can you write in English as opposed Ebonics or whatever the fuck you write if you are going to post on here? I don't even know what this post means.

  • ||

    There were many more Jews hidden in Holland than there were in France. The French hid comparatively very few Jews when compared to Holland. Holland really is the only country in Europe with no blood on its hands over the holocaust.

  • o2||

    are you speaking of the holland province or the netherlands in total?

  • ||

    Sorry, John, but that assertion is utterly unsupported by the historical record.

    Holland really is the only country in Europe with no blood on its hands over the holocaust.

    Utterly and completely wrong. Ninety percent of Holland's population stood by and watched the deportation of Jews with complete indifference. A tiny minority, certainly no larger than the percentage of French citizens who did, actually risked their lives and actively aided Jews.

    A significant portion of the Dutch population was pro-German, with part of that being actively pro-Nazi.

    It should be noted here that not all pro-Nazis supported the extermination of Jews. And plenty of anti-semites sheltered or otherwise helped Jews because their anti-semitism did not extend to mass murder.

    If you're lookng for a country in Europe with no blood on its hands over the holocaust, it's Denmark. If i were to give you the benefit of the doubt, I might suggest that that's who you meant.

    I don't normally make dogmatic statements around here, but, on this, John, you are plainly and simply wrong. This is no mere difference of opinion, this is you fabricating a totally false narrative.

  • ||

    Read the history, John.

    The Anne Frank story, that is , the sheltering of a Jewish family by their gentile friends was repeated all over Europe by thousands of decent people, who frequently paid for their compassion with their lives.

    Only a few of those stories got the kind of promothion that The Diary of Anne Frank got. Many of them you'll never here about because they were successful and everyone survived and has simply never told their stories.

    And to repeat, Anne Frank's family was captured and deported because another Dutch citizen betrayed her and her benefactors, just as thousand of other Dutch citizens aided the nazis, even to the point of helping round up the Jews and other "undesirables".

    You are simply wrong. Holland has a huge record of Nazi collaboration to live down.

  • ||

    Here I sit, waiting for John's response.

    Like Orrin,Chad and Tony, once presented with an answer to nonsense I hear...crickets.

  • In Other News||

    Man convicted in Jasper dragging death set for execution today

    From Brewer's interview:

    "I have no regrets," Brewer said during his interview. "I'd do it all over again to tell you the truth."

  • cynical||

    Is he going to be executed by dragging?

    Or, if that's too gauche, maybe a heel stabbing?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement