Russian City Bans Protests Held by Toys

[Update: I incorrectly claimed that protests have contested President Vladimir Putin's reelection when in fact they contest the parliamentary election results. Change made below.]

Political activism has reached new heights (well, technically new lows) in Russia: Colorful little plastic geegaws have entered the arena of conflict.

Russian authorities banned public demonstrations by groups of dolls, action figures, and toys, with special disdain for those not made in Russia. The ban was prompted by the appearance in Barnaul of dozens of toys holding banners that questioned the Russian status quo last month in response to controversies over accusations of fraud in the recent parliamentary elections. According to Andrei Lyapunov, a spokesman for the Siberian city of Barnaul, quoted in the Guardian:

"Toys, especially imported toys, are not only not citizens of Russia but they are not even people."

Go figure.

A recent petition to hold another protest was rejected, but this isn't nearly the end of it, the Guardian reports:

The response to the original ban is typical of the new wave of demonstrations in Russia characterised by witty banners and a degree of absurdist humour. After a mass Moscow rally in December, the protest was re-enacted with Lego models and posted on YouTube within days. Toy rallies have caught on and taken place in four other Russian towns in the wake of the Barnaul protest.

 

And if you see a tiny puff of smoke, be careful, there may have been a toy suicide bombing. 

Previously: In Iran, the government won't let you buy Simpsons figurines but a pro-regime company will sell you a a replica of the downed American spy plane.

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.

  • BigT||

    Foist!

  • autonomous and sovereign||

    Historically, people in non-state societies are relatively autonomous and sovereign. They generate their own subsistence with little or no assistance from outside sources. They bow to no external political leaders. Nor are they routinely exploited by outsiders.

    Elman R. Service (1975), Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton.

    NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES
    http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper.....ieties.pdf

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    That was then. This is now.

  • Good and Hard||

    "This is now." ~Nancy Pelosi

  • The "Now" is Settled||

  • sd||

    happy weekend!looking for the bilover?====datebi.c/o'/m=== is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

  • sd||

    happy weekend!looking for the bilover?====datebi.c/o'/m=== is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

  • sd||

    happy weekend!looking for the bilover?====datebi.c/o'/m=== is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

  • sg||

    An invitation of Datebi*co'm is offered!Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free!

  • ||

    Squirrely: We finally did it Santa! We brought forth the Anti-Christ with help from our good friend Stanley!

    Mousey: Death and pain await all living things!

  • NEWT PAUL: I DISAVOW||

    I DISAVOW the following:

    • marriage vows
    • newsletters under my name
    • Ayn Rand when she's inconvenient

    "Things happen."

  • Light||

    Yawn... boring lies

  • ||

    Thanks to the Citizens United ruling, toys in the U.S. now enjoy freedom of speech that was taken away from them by McCain Feingold.

  • Metazoan||

    BUT TOYZ IZUNT PEEPULS!!

  • ||

    I wonder what would happen if someone announced that there would be a demonstration by Imaginary Friends.

  • ||

    Imaginary outrage would be felt...imaginary legislations would be passed.

  • db||

    Local News Anchor: "Imaginary vehicular homicides tripled in the city to day as..."

  • Periodic Warrior AuH₂0||

    Mr. Fluffy is not amused.

  • anarch||

    In Soviet Union, toys play with you!

  • Gojira||

    I do like how he emphasizes "imported" toys, leaving open the possibility that domestic toys may enjoy some sort of quasi-legal protections.

  • Gojira||

    And just to be clear, since we're talking about Russia, when I say, "domestic toys", I mean matryoshka dolls with a bottle of vodka in the middle.

  • Bingo||

    A traditional favorite of Russian infants!

  • Robert||

    I must tell Wolfie about his potential in politics. When the president Wulff of Germany stepped down, he asked whether it was time for a stuffed wolf. Now I see his real potential lay in Russia, which is good because he's quite the drinker -- at least that's what my friend Nadine concluded after witnessing Wolfie's propensity to tip over onto his snout.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Some stuffed animals are more equal than others.

  • ||

    As seen in the NY Times:

    Why China’s Political Model Is Superior

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02.....ef=general

    Good lord.

  • ||

    "The fundamental difference between Washington’s view and Beijing’s is whether political rights are considered God-given and therefore absolute or whether they should be seen as privileges to be negotiated based on the needs and conditions of the nation."

    Although the above is its repellent zenith, the entire text is a terrific abomination. The taint of this disgusting stupidity won't be sufficiently cleansed until the end of days.

  • Gojira||

    I can't believe somebody wrote that with a straight face. That's so disgusting I hope it's some kind of meta-joke.

  • ||

    Millions of Americans believe Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were great saviors and national heroes. hey espouse this horseshit with straight faces. Outright fascism of the sort that author is frothing isn't surprising.

  • Libertarians = Totalitarian||

    Millions of Americans believe Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand were great saviors and national heroes. They espouse racist horseshit with straight faces. Outright fascism of the sort that libertard is frothing isn't surprising.

  • MNG||

    Do lots of people even have an opinion on Wilson? I'd guess most people don't even know who that guy is.

    I know a lot of people from my grandparents era loved FDR. They always reasoned that before FDR the nation was in economic crisis and after him it wasn't, and he led the nation through the biggest war it had ever fought. I know there is a great deal of revisionism going on with him, especially among the right, but that kind of thing gets you beloved by millions...

  • db||

    My one grandmother was like this; the other knew better. One difference was that the FDR skeptic was in her 20s during the Depression and had to work through it; and the FDR-o-phile was in her early teens, and came from a wealthy family that managed to keep some wealth through the Depression. Later, the younger one worked as a welder in the war effort, and seemed generally to have a positive view of all the government make-work projects through the '30s and '40s.

    My paternal grandmother (the older one), on the other hand, worked and saved as a teacher. in 1935 she and some friends took a car trip across North America from PA to CA and back (imagine doing that in a Model A!), traveling through some of the hard hit areas of the depression. She had some very interesting stories of the era.

  • MNG||

    " and the FDR-o-phile was in her early teens, and came from a wealthy family that managed to keep some wealth through the Depression"

    Er, you do realize that this anecedote runs contrary to the trend? I don't think FDR owed his following to the wealthy in this country...Even libertarian revisionism has some limits I should think...

  • Brett L||

    MNG:

    FDR was as wealthy upper-class as any president we've ever had. The idea that he was particularly beloved by the working poor outside of Appalachia (TVA!) is a bit of a stretch. Else, he would have returned 80% instead of the high 50s in reelection campaigns.

  • MNG||

    My point is that those consistent high 50's did not come even in large part from the wealthy...There were'nt enough of them for it, for one reason.

  • MNG||

    BTW-a silly quibble on my part, in 1936 at least FDR got about 61% of the vote. Here's how Wikipedia puts this win:

    "The United States presidential election of 1936 was the most lopsided presidential election in the history of the United States in terms of electoral votes. In terms of the popular vote, it was the third biggest victory since the election of 1820, which was not seriously contested."

    That he could win this big without majority support among the working poor-which during the Depression was a pretty big chunk of the pop, is pushing the limits of even libertarian revisionism...

  • Brett L||

    Sure. We're kinda making the same point. If 80% of the voters in the US in the time range of '32-'44 were work class or poor, at least 35% of them voted against him. However, my real point was that FDR was a total product of the turn-of-the-century East Coast wealthy class. I doubt he and his wife were the only people in this class who thought like he did.

  • ||

    It's all settled, Brett -- tyranny is the invention of libertard revisionism. MNG told me so.

  • MNG||

    See, I don't think most people see minimum wage laws and the NLRA as the "tyranny" you do, those from FDR's era especially. They do, however, remember him seeing the nation through its greatest military and economic challenge.

    But I'm sure you think you know better than them.

  • ||

    See, I don't think most Germans saw the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, the Schutzstaffel, Treblinka, or the Reichsarbeitsdienst as the "tyranny" you do. They did, however, think of him, remember him, and lionize him for seeing the nation through its greatest military and economic challenge.

    But I'm sure you think you know better than them.

  • ||

    This is what multitasking does to you. "Hitler" should be in there, but I'm sure that wasn't lost on you.

  • yonemoto||

    "I know there is a great deal of revisionism going on with him"

    Yup. That whole Internment deal is all revisionism.

    Fuck FDR.

  • JB||

    All you have to do is kill, help kill, or wait for 60 million people to be killed.

    Then your economy recovers because the rest of the world is in shambles.

    You are a twisted fuck and so are your grandparents for not aborting you.

  • Gojira||

    As they say in America, “California is the future.”

    Um, who, exactly, says that? Outside of California?

  • ||

    Um, who, exactly, says that? Outside of California?

    -------------------

    Pinkos and DNC officials.

    That reprehensible fuckwad is a downright totalitarian, and he's not doing too good a job of masking it. Fuck him all the way to the lowest pit of hell.

  • Libertarians = Totalitarian||

    Officer, am I free to gambol?

    No? Totalitarian Gambol Lockdown, eh?

  • ||

    GAMBOL LOCKDOWN IS IN FULL EFFECT, MOTHER-FUCKERS.

  • cynical||

    The mask is slipping more and more every day.

  • White Indian ripped it off||

    Libertarianism is revealed as just another city-Statist ploy.

  • Ted S.||

    I presume that a Thomas Friedman piece?

  • Amakudari||

    If one defines democracy as one-person-one-vote, American democracy is only 92 years old. In practice it is only 47 years old, if one begins counting at the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- far more ephemeral than even China's shortest-lived dynasties.

    Or we could define the US as a constitutional republic -- which I define as a system of elected representatives bound by a constitution -- that has undergone changes over more than two centuries. Slavery and women's suffrage were, of course, large changes, but the nation and its government have been continuous. We've recognized rights that were not a part of the founding document, but never rethought the underlying economic or political systems.

    Why do China apologists always fall back on this "look how ancient China is" derp, anyway? Yes, it's really old and, having learned little in that time, really poor. Congrats.

  • ||

    David Brooks is retarded pt 347594938.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02.....ef=general

    Jeremy Lin is anomalous in all sorts of ways. He’s a Harvard grad in the N.B.A., an Asian-American man in professional sports. But we shouldn’t neglect the biggest anomaly. He’s a religious person in professional sports.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    But we shouldn’t neglect the biggest anomaly. He’s a religious person in professional sports.

    That is a truly bizarre take.

  • AlmightyJB||

    That has to be one of the gayest fucking things I've ever read. I would call him a woman, but that would be an insult to every woman I know, even the stupid ones.

  • ||

    Even the corrosive hags over at Jezebel?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Hmmmmmm. Retarded and Gay David Brooks or Insane Ugly Jezebel Hags? I don't know, but I do know I would love to see them fight it out to the death.

  • MNG||

    So the Knicks lost last night and even though Lin got the same number of turnovers he usually gets when they win, the headline mentioned his turnovers. When they won no headline mentioned it that I can recall.

    And people wonder why the press is hated...

  • ||

    First they came for the stuffed animals, and I said nothing, because I was not a stuffed animal.

    Then they came for the sea monkeys, and I said nothing, because I was not a sea monkey.

    Then they came for the clowns, and I helped them, because clowns are friggin creepy.

  • MNG||

    Sea monkeys they can take, they were a massive fraud aimed at kids. I ordered them from the back of comic books when I was a kid and they certainly did not wear crowns and wield tridents like they did in the picture...

  • ||

    me too

  • ||

    Kudos to Tim Wakefield.

    He called it a career today.

    He retires as the only current pitcher with 200 wins. Roy Halladay is now the new active leader in wins.

  • ||

    No!!!!!

    That means I'm officially old. I went to college with him.

  • ||

    So, are Reason staffers going to be talking about this the next time they are on Russia Today?

  • molby||

    'least their not using dildocopters
    http://youtu.be/BavZPYXWLhc

  • cynical||

    So, I might be getting a little paranoid but it's occurred to me: if you can't avoid Medicare without losing at least Social Security (and possibly your 401k if SS hits a financial crisis, which the payroll tax cut will only hasten, and the commies get their way); and your insurance, if you have it, will treat Medicare as your primary source of payment; and "cost saving" cuts to Medicare (also hastened by the payroll tax cut) drive healthcare providers away from accepting it -- you're kind of boned (well, I guess you can pay for care out of pocket for a while).

    I just can't figure out whether it's the perfect extortion scheme, or a plan to eliminate the elderly.

  • rather||

    As long as they don't use these dolls

  • Fluffy||

    The Warsaw Pact countries have a history of coming up with amusing protest ideas.

    It's probably because within living memory if you just held a run of the mill "let's march around with banners" protest you could end up in a gulag or insane asylum for your trouble.

    My favorite will always be the Polish group that protested by pretending to really LOVE Communism. They'd dress up in Young Communist uniforms and march around saying how great the Polish government was, how incorruptible the leadership, how evil Solidarity was, with fake over-the-top enthusiasm and faux sincerity. Like they were all Kenneth on 30 Rock.

    You couldn't arrest them without looking stupid, but they got their point across.

    American hipster irony had nothing on those guys.

  • MNG||

    Reason did a piece not long ago about some singing protest from that area, didn't they?

  • BakedPenguin||

    That was Estonia.

  • MNG||

    Russian city bans spreading of 'homosexual propaganda'

    Under a new bill passed by the Russian city of St. Petersburg, individuals and organizations can be fined for spreading "homosexual propaganda" in the presence of children, RT Russia reports.

    The bill bans the dissemination of information "which could cause damage to the health or moral and spiritual development of minors, including by inducing them to form warped perceptions that traditional and non-traditional married relations are equally socially acceptable," according to the the British newspaper The Independent.

    http://content.usatoday.com/co.....tersburg/1

  • ||

    It's under a general category of laws known in Russia colloquially as 'child perversion statutes' (izvrashenye maloletnych). Until a few years ago, describing how you screwed Miss Whateverthefuckhernameis with your son, for example, could land you in jail.

  • MNG||

    Yay to Maryland!

    "A bill to legalize same-sex marriage won narrow approval Friday night in the Maryland House of Delegates, setting the stage for the state to join seven others and the District in allowing gay nuptials."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ml?hpid=z1

    Boo to Chris Christie...

    Gov. Chris Christie has followed through on his promise to reject a bill allowing same-sex marriage in New Jersey by quickly vetoing the measure Friday and renewing his call for a ballot question to decide the issue.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ml?hpid=z1

  • ||

    "... Maryland..."

    Lol.

  • Notional Boh||

    Even funnier, it's pronounced "Merlin".

  • rather||

    A Russian protest that even a libertarian would join , or watch

  • rather||

    Are you guys live blogging Whitney's funeral?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    So they finally cancelled that show? Good for NBC.

  • ||

    LOL, oK those guys totally crack me up all te time man.

    www.totally-anon.tk

  • db||

    I like this approach. Tyrants hate nothing more than being laughed at.

  • db||

    Animal Rights Group's Video Drone Copter Shot Down at Live Pigeon Shoot

    Evidently the shooting club closed up its live pigeon shoot when the rights group showed up with a video drone aircraft, but the group decided to fly the drone over the club anyway.

    I personally find live captive animal shoots to be very distasteful (and I shoot lots of rounds a year at steel and paper).

    I'm curious about the law on this sort of thing though. What rights does a property owner have to the airspace over his property? If a neighbor decided they wanted to fly a drone in a pattern around my house, could I do anything to stop it?

  • db||

    And, oh, yes, I wants me a Mikrokopter.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, I think shooting captive live animals is bullshit too. I definately would have shot down that drone in that situation though. Not to make any statement, but hell that would be fun.

  • db||

    Next step is to arm the drone with a belt fed .22 machinegun.

  • db||

    Which I would NOT do.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Of course not. And after you didn't, you also would not install a cctv remote aiming device and gps tracker.

  • MNG||

    It is an interesting question. Apart from property rights, might there be a privacy interest protected here?

    Somewhat related, have you heard about these "ag-gag" laws that states are passing and proposing? Animal rights groups often feign employment interest to get on the premises of animal operations and then tape abuses, which they report. Ag-gag laws would, iirc, criminalize and/or provide torts for this sort of thing.

  • db||

    Wouldn't that come under the heading of general fraud?

  • MNG||

    Do you think it should be an actionable or criminal fraud? I mean, the person does go and work for the guy. It's just that he's also looking for abuse which he can cite as he works.

    I should think the employer could insert a clause in an employment contract asking the person to attest to not seeking the position for these reasons. But here's the rub: how we would tell the difference between a person who took the job all along trying to find abuse and the person who just stumbles across abuse and makes it known? For public policy reasons we likely would not enforce a clause that had the effect of criminalizing or making actionable such whistleblowing.

    Seems to me the best "libertarian" solution would be: if the employer made it known they were against this then someone could lose their job for doing it, the government would not intervene to protect the employee; but otherwise the government should stay out of it.

  • MNG||

    Another point: remember the od John Stossel (old "business fraud" Stossel, not current "government fraud" Stossel) segments where the reporter sends into an establishment a team that pretends to be a customer but is really looking for moldy bread and such, tapes this stuff if it finds it, and then brings it to the public. How is that different? Should that be criminal or actionable? I mean, the reporter misrepresents themselves as being a customer seeking goods just as the activist misrepresents himself as a erstwhile employee...

  • db||

    To be pedantic, I don't think you meant "erstwhile" there.

  • MNG||

    You got me there, but boy did it sound fancy in my head!

  • ||

    That's an interesting contrast there, MiNGe. I think the difference with Stossel's team is they have not agreed to terms of employment (or terms between seller/buyer) that an employee agrees to.

    That said, unless the employer makes these terms explicit and they are agreed to, the person is free to video what he sees at work. This could be easily remedied by the farmer setting up a simple employment contract and/or posting "No Trespassing" and "No filming" signs at the entrance his employees use.

    As far as criminally/civilly actionable, I'd have to lean to civilly. However, if they are filming without his consent, then IMO they are trespassing and should be subject to those laws.

  • MNG||

    Isn't there some kind of implicit agreement a customer makes when they come on premises?

    "unless the employer makes these terms explicit and they are agreed to"

    Do you think as a matter of public policy any court would, or should, uphold a contract term that says "party X agrees to not report any illegal activity they see occuring by party Y?"

  • Xenocles||

    That would be a patently unenforceable contract, as it would be a contract for an illegal action.

  • ||

    Again, I'll point you to my comment earlier that says reporting something to the police (who have standing to investigate crime) is a lot different than reporting them to the humane society or another group (that has no standing to investigate crime) to advocate for something.

    Apples/Oranges depending on who they report to, in my opinion.

    This is an interesting subject you brought up by the way. It would make an interesting story for reason to post. Kudos.

  • MNG||

    I'd only point out that in many states the Humane Society is empowered to investigate and bring charges on animal cruelty offenses.

    Thanks though for the kind words.

    Likewise many thanks for db on posting about the drone issue. Have to go, but enjoyed thinking about it.

  • db||

    Most places (manufacturing plants, power plants, etc.) where I've worked or visited in the last 15 years have prohibited cameras on property with the exception of allowing photography if the photos are vetted by company employees and do not include images of people.

  • Xenocles||

    I actually think your solution sounds reasonable for what it's worth.

  • db||

    I suppose it might be contingent upon whether the observed activity is actually illegal, or merely morally questionable. If I were to observe morally questionable (but not illegal) action at my employer and expose that activity to public ridicule, I can see my employer having a case for termination of my employment.

    If it were actually illegal, there might even be a case for dismissal if I did not follow "official policy" for such things. My current employer has an established, published policy for making management aware of suspect activities. Same with my previous employer. The policies generally include a third party with whom the employer contracts to receive anonymous tips, and then the employer can make an investigation into the alleged abuse.

    It's written into the employment policies that employees are first to use this reporting mechanism, and failures to do so can result in disciplinary action.

  • MNG||

    I think I'm more on the libertarian side here than you might be. I can see allowing an employer to terminate an employee even for reporting illegal activity, though I can see arguments to the contrary...

    I just don't think the state should intervene to criminalize or make actionable any reporting of that via deception.

    I could even see a service arising that would allow employers to flag at the hiring stage anyone who had done this before.

  • db||

    Sharing that sort of information is really tricky. Having hired and fired employees, and interviewed a number of candidates, as well as having been involved in job searches of my own over the years, I can tell you it is a very sensitive area. Many (if not most) large employers now prohibit their management staff from making professional recommendations or divulging employment related information. There is too much liability for a company to be subject to a lawsuit alleging an erstwhile employee was not hired by a third party based on subjective information provided by a former employer. An employer can't stop you from making a personal recommendation, but you (as a management employee) need to stay far away from statements that relate to work performance.

  • db||

    I should point out, for completeness, that it is unclear from the article whether the drone was shot at over club property or over non-club property. The drone crashed in a roadway after being shot at (no evidence is shown in the article that the drone was struck).

    Any person firing a weapon into the air without taking care to see that the projectile lands on property under their control is being careless, IMO.

  • MNG||

    I think if it was not over his property then the only defense might be some kind of "self help" in defense of privacy rights.

    Over his property? A stronger case but I'm not sure it would justify destroying the drone as they did, or whether any court would want to encourage such behavior by allowing such self help.

  • db||

    As a thought exercise, imagine the drone was taken down with an EMP, or some sort of net launcher that posed no threat to surrounding property or persons.

  • MNG||

    I'm a bit ignorant of EMPs, would it damage the drone? Irreparably?

    If so I think that is a factor on the side of making the person with the property and/or privacy grievance forego self-help and seek damages or an injunction. Other factors might be: is the dronee party notified the other party takes issue with this, and if so what was their response?

    Again, it might be critical to know if it was over the club's property. Otherwise all you might have is a privacy right complaint. Should self-help be more restricted for such intrusions than for property ones?

    Honestly, I dunno...

  • db||

    Most likely the drone would be irreparably damaged. Maybe a water cannon or some sort of foam cannon would be better. What if the property owner set up an RF jammer on the control frequency for the drone? I guess that would be a violation of some sort of FCC reg. That brings up the possibility of bringing a complaint to the FCC against the drone operator, possibly.

  • RoboCain||

    I would presume that it would be safe to fire shotguns in the air at a place that hosts bird hunting.

  • db||

    I would not. The vector is significant. Many clays ranges have the shooting stations positioned near the boundary but require the shooters to shoot *away* from it, i.e., in a manner that keeps the projectile impact zone within the range boundaries.

  • db||

    Also, it's unclear (as I mentioned above) whether the drone was within the club boundaries when fired upon. Regardless, even if it were within the boundaries, shooting in such a manner as to cause a projectile to land outside the range boundaries is irresponsible.

  • ||

    Can't find a link, but years ago there was a guy here in Montana who accessed public land with an ultralight aircraft and shot an elk on it. The landowner who's land completely surrounded the public land squawked, claiming he owned the airspace. State court sided with the hunter.

    Probably a state by state interpretation.

  • cynical||

    What good reason could there be for this?

    In November, the president signed the Justice Department appropriations bill, which included language from Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, prohibiting federal agencies from facilitating the transfer of an operable firearm to an individual known or suspected to be in a drug cartel, unless they monitor the weapon at all times.

    Now Mr. Obama is proposing to remove that provision from the 2013 spending bill, thus making it legal to revive gun-walking operations in the future. The White House justification is merely that the prohibition is “not necessary.”

    He'd managed to mostly keep himself out of it and make Holder the primary focus of attention. Jackass.

  • ||

    If I had to wager a guess, I'd figure the Obama admin is trying to legalize their activities. If they strike the provision, it lends an air of legitimacy to their otherwise illegal activities.

    And the sad thing is, the next administration, unless it ends up being Ron Paul's, will just allow us to go further down the path of this soft tyranny.*

    *Just as Obama has taken us the next few steps that Bush went down, etc., etc., etc.

  • MNG||

    I think his argument will be "this kind of thing is already against Justice Dept. policy and therefore a law is not necessary." That's been Holder's line.

    But of course it seems being against policy wasn't enough to prevent what happened from happening, so it's logical a law might succeed where that failed.

  • ||

    Sounds reasonable.

    It's all spin either way you look at it. They spin it to legalize their actions. ("It's legal now. Why go after someone in the past for something you condone at present.") Or because it's not necessary due to an existing policy. ("You can't go after someone for breaking DoJ policy unless it's part of the criminal code.")

    It's CYA, pure and simple.

  • Binky||

    He's on record about wanting to be a one-term President. He's just trying to make it happen: Piss off the MJ-legalizers, piss off the anti-war folks, piss off the Catholics, ....

  • MNG||

    Here's a write up on ag-gag laws, though obviously an unfriendly one so take with a grain of salt.

    I had another question about the article you posted about. If my chattel goes onto (here intentionally, which might matter) your property can you destroy it? Does the law allow that kind of "self-help?"

  • ||

    No linky, MiNGe.

  • MNG||

  • ||

    FTA: Much as I’d like to believe Espenson, this sounds like too many other horror stories of animal cruelty, and frankly — without belittling either situation — the excuses echo Abu Ghraib. And this is far from an isolated incident. Remember the four Iowa factory farmers who pleaded guilty in 2009 to sexually abusing and beating pigs, and the abuses of downed cattle exposed by the Humane Society of the United States in 2008 at the Hallmark slaughterhouse in California, which led to the country’s biggest ever recall of meat.

    Does the writer expect the rest of his article to be taken seriously after this?

  • MNG||

    Dude, he says explicitly "without belittling either situation."

    He's not saying Abu Grahib and this are the exact same thing, that's not how analogies work. He's saying what both cases have in common is the response "well, this is an isolated incident."

  • ||

    Well then, next time I Godwin a thread over something you consider trivial, please understand that I am only making an analogy. I'll be sure to preface it by saying "without belittling either situation" to make it easier on you.

  • Fluffy||

    The entire concept of Godwining a thread was invented by morons who don't understand either analogies or the reductio ad absurdum.

    So you just go right ahead and Godwin shit and preface it or not preface it as you like.

  • ||

    If those people break the terms of their employment and there is a law against wiretapping in the state, then these people should be jailed for filming what they are filming.

    Whistleblower laws aside, these people are not doing this to correct an illegal act. They are filming these people, often not engaged in a common practice, because they want to make a political statement. That's not whistleblowing. That's infringing on their right to privacy and the terms of employment to make an advocacy statement.

  • MNG||

    "these people are not doing this to correct an illegal act"

    How in the world can you assume that?

    More importantly, do you realize the principle you've put forward would apply to a daycare worker who tapes and reports criminal abuse of children at the daycare?

  • ||

    How in the world can you assume that?

    More importantly, do you realize the principle you've put forward would apply to a daycare worker who tapes and reports criminal abuse of children at the daycare?

    Huge difference here, and that person would be a whistleblower. Just as these people on the ranches would be whistleblowers in my book if they took their videos to the police. Their failure to do so leads me to believe the lawbreaking is not as important to them as it is to be advocates.

    Taking a video of an employer breaking the law to police is totally different than taking it to the SPCA.

  • MNG||

    Wait, if you report illegal activity to the press and not immediately the police you'd have a different rule?

    Again, given that undercover vidoes have often led to immediate changes in the law to prevent such actitity as was filmed, I'd think there is a huge public interest in this kind of thing that outweighs any value of the employer to control the activity.

    I can see allowing the employer to fire someone immediately for taping on the job when told not to. I can't see inviting the government in to criminalize or make actionable the taping.

  • MNG||

    How about this: if the employee has a reasonable belief that the activity taped is illegal then they have a defense.

    But you know what, I'm still disassatisfied because there have been many changes in laws from these kind of sting tapings. That shows there is a great public interest in that sort of thing.

  • ||

    Wait, if you report illegal activity to the press and not immediately the police you'd have a different rule?

    You see, this is why I like arguing with you

  • MNG||

    What would be the principle behind basing a rule on such a distinction is what I'm thinking sloop.

  • ||

    What would be the principle behind basing a rule on such a distinction is what I'm thinking sloop.

    I know. I fatfingered the keyboard partway through my post. No offense meant.

  • ||

    This is why I like arguing with you, because this is a good point.

    I still think the only reason they would have to go to the press first where they would be considered whistleblowing is when the illegal activity involves people they consider to be in cahoots with the law, making going to the authorities impossible or ineffective.

    But I'm really strict when it comes to respecting the rights and wishes of property owners, and if you observe them doing something illegal, the only place you have a right to take an image or video of them (taken on their property) is to the authorities that have standing to enforce criminal law.

  • Xenocles||

    Some of the events these people have filmed are possibly illegal (whether for good or ill); there have been some egregious instances of animal cruelty caught on tape. We're talking about farmhands just beating animals for no reason, for instance. I believe it's also against federal law to slaughter a cow without stunning it; I've seen video of cows thrashing and trying to scream as their throats are cut.

  • ||

    So what is your conclusion? (I'm genuinely curious) Should this taping be ok? (Depends) Does it depend on who they take the tape to? (Yes, in my opinion)

  • db||

    My thought would be that the issues of taping vs observing illegal activity have to be separated.

    1. You videotaped, without permission, activities or conditions in violation of your employment agreement. Your employer has standing to dismiss you.

    2. If the activity or conditions are illegal, providing them to the relevant authorities is OK, but not compulsory (the law may disagree with me here--it's possible that some law may compel one to report observed illegal actiivty).

    3. Providing the evidence to those other than law enforcement officers who have standing to enforce relevant laws is questionable unless you have reason to believe the LEOs are in league with the alleged violator, or you have already done so, and no LEO activity has resulted (if the LEOs tell you what you observed isn't illegal, then you might seek another opinion).

  • Xenocles||

    I mostly agree with you. Just taping to make your employer look bad is definitely grounds for dismissal. I wouldn't award damages to the employer unless the tape were cut in a deceitful manner - I think truth should be a solid defense against defamation/slander/libel suits. Taping to gather evidence of an illegal action should be protected, though I probably would quit shortly after because seriously, who would want to remain there after blowing the whistle? I think an equitable solution could be to award a whistleblower a portion of fines or damages assessed against an employer, though I haven't thought the unintended consequences through.

    To db @ 12:15, it is in some cases a crime to not report a crime (the term is misprison, though I don't know how widely it applies).

  • ||

    To db @ 12:15, it is in some cases a crime to not report a crime (the term is misprison, though I don't know how widely it applies).

    It obviously doesn't apply when a cop witnesses another cop assaulting someone. But that's another story...

  • Xenocles||

    Prosecutorial discretion, &c.

  • yonemoto||

    yeah but you give up your privacy when you employ someone (wrt to what you reveal) and terms of employment are not really legally enforceable by any means except tort. Even NDAs are kind of morally questionable.

  • Brett L||

    "You can shoot your neighbor's dog if you catch him with his jaws on your cow's neck on your property. However, you should do so quietly, bury the dog, and never mention it to your neighbor. No matter how much the dog deserved it, your neighbor will always hold a grudge when you shoot his dog."

    From a conversation with a guy who grew up on a ranch.

  • Xenocles||

    IANAL, so I'll offer my own thought process. If I have reason to believe the chattel is actively endangering my person, property, or even privacy, I would not have any problem destroying it and perhaps even seeking damages against its owner for my trouble. If it wasn't actively doing any harm but caused a finite amount of damage - say my neighbor parked his car in my garden - I'd seek damages against the owner or attempt to salvage the property to make up the difference. If none of the above are true - neighbor's kid throws his frisbee on my lawn - I'd return the property, maybe with an admonition to please be more careful.

  • MNG||

    I don't know it what you said is a statement of the law, but if it were it would be a reasonable one.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Trooper Arrested For OVI & Driving 102 mph. Even if she wasn't a cop, a 39 year old driving 102mph on a major freeway when drunk is just asking for it.
    http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/201.....ar-936571/

  • Brett L||

    Hooray, its not FL!

  • ||

    a 39 year old driving 102mph on a major freeway when drunk is just asking for it.

    Paging STEVE SMITH.

  • anon||

    ­That thing is a woman?

    Also: Fucking Ohio.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    If she wasn't hurting anyone, there should be no crime here.

    Dead Serious.

  • anon||

    I flip flop on this a lot. On the one hand, she didn't hurt anyone, so nobody should care. On the other hand, the State builds and maintains the roads, so they should get a say in how the property is treated.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I believe in a fundamental right to travel. The state maintains sidewalks too, but I do not want them interfering with harmless activities there, either. See: drunk in public.

  • anon||

    I believe in a fundamental right to travel.

    You may believe this, but that doesn't make it exist.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Here's the thing. I agree that driving fast or even after drinks in and of itself is not the problem. Driving dangerously and recklessly which she was doing according to drivers that were calling in about her is a problem.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    So if someone complains about prostitution, that should make it a "crime"? If someone calls and complains about drug use/sagging pants/free speech, that call is what morally makes it criminal?

  • anon||

    Here's the thing:

    I pay for the road you drive on. Which means I get a say in how you use it.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Like I said, I pay for the sidewalks, so no street protests.

  • anon||

    Against 1st amendment.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    That's a recourse to a legal argument when I am making a moral one. It seemed to me that you were making a moral argument that those who pay the piper call the tune. I was pressing you to see how far that goes, and frankly I don't see how you can find refuge in the First Amendment on this issue.

  • anon||

    I was pressing you to see how far that goes, and frankly I don't see how you can find refuge in the First Amendment on this issue.

    Your voice doesn't weigh 4000 lbs. Your voice cannot hurt me. Your vehicle can. This is comparing apples to oranges really, but I'll go along for a bit:

    WHEN THE COMMUNITY PURCHASES ANY COMMODITY AS A COMMUNITY, THE COMMUNITY HAS DISCRETION OVER SAID PROPERTY.

    It's no different than me buying property and using it as I see fit.

  • shut the fuck up||

    "WHEN THE COMMUNITY PURCHASES ANY COMMODITY AS A COMMUNITY, THE COMMUNITY HAS DISCRETION OVER SAID PROPERTY."

    You've been told why this is stupid. Do you think repeating it makes it less stupid?

    "It's no different than me buying property and using it as I see fit."

    It's profoundly different, again, AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD.

    Are you stupid or just illiterate?

  • anon||

    You seem to have a problem with the community deciding how to use a road it's built.

    You must have gotten a lot of DUI's.

  • anon||

    It's profoundly different, again, AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD.

    You keep asserting this, yet offer no evidence.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Your voice cannot hurt me. Your vehicle can.

    Just because something can harm you is not a reason to ban all instances where that thing may happen. Otherwise, we wouldn't permit driving at all.

    You must have gotten a lot of DUI's.

    I don't smoke crack. I think crack should be illegal. I don't like the wars, even though I am not getting killed in them.

    This is a rank ad hominem and, again, disappointing because I thought you were smarter than that.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    *s/b crack should be legal

  • anon||

    Just because something can harm you is not a reason to ban all instances where that thing may happen. Otherwise, we wouldn't permit driving at all.

    Wow. Really?

    So just because we're not fully banning driving means that there shouldn't be driving laws?

    Come on, this is a stupid argument.

  • ||

    I pay for the road electrical grid you drive on get your power from. Which means I get a say in how you use it.

    See how this can go wrong now?*

    *If not, replace roads with: water pipes, schools, social security, medicare, football stadia, post offices, ports, etc., and see how you feel.

  • anon||

    See how this can go wrong now?*

    *If not, replace roads with: water pipes, schools, social security, medicare, football stadia, post offices, ports, etc., and see how you feel.

    Thank you for making my argument for me. The states (our and our communities) do in fact have discretion over our roads, schools, social security, medicare, etc.

    A public commodity is used at the discretion of the group of people it pertains to; as such that group of people can tell you what you can and can not do with that property.

    If you don't like it, build your own road to drive 100+ MPH on. Or rent some time from someone who has built one.

    If you want it changed, convince your town that speed limits are dumb.

    You're not ever going to get anywhere suggesting that *you* have a right to drive *your* car on *our* road at whatever speed you want because you feel like it and you think you aren't going to hurt anyone.

  • anon||

    fucking italics, how do they work?

  • db||

    Hey, just a friendly tip: you're already anonymous, so there's no real point to calling yourself "anon". Why not pick a clever screen name? Or do you mean "anon" in the literal dictionary sense of "soon," which still isn't very clever?

  • anon||

    Why try to be clever?

  • i agree||

    if your vapid arguments are any indication, you'd fail miserably.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Prostitution and saggy pants don't stand a very good chance of killing someone. Driving with a blood alcohol level of .16 @ 102 mph does. .16 isn't tipsy, it's seriously fucked up.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Prostitution and saggy pants don't stand a very good chance of killing someone. Driving with a blood alcohol level of .16 @ 102 mph does. .16 isn't tipsy, it's seriously fucked up.

    Appeals to the Precautionary Principle are not going to make you a very happy libertarian.

    Just for reference, yes, we do not permit people to discharge weapons into crowds, and we call it a crime when they do so, even if they do not hit anyone. however, that is because of the fear, apprehension, and disruption caused by such an event, none of which are present in drunk driving.

    If Person A gets from Point C to D without hurting anyone, and Person B does the same thing, why has Person B committed a crime? because of the amount of a substance in his/her bloodstream.

  • ryan||

    Rev. Blue Moon, would you say it's acceptable to blindfold oneself, carry a gun into a street, and shoot randomly, as long as no one gets shot? If not, what's the distinction between that and reckless driving?

    Or is your point that driving with a .16 BAL on a major freeway isn't reckless and endangering to others?

  • ryan||

    How about driving with near blindness? Should that itself be illegal or should it only be punished if someone's hurt by it?

    I'd be curious to hear your argument as to why it should not be illegal if that's your stance. There may be a significant difference between that and drunkenness, but where would you set the distinction?

  • rather||

    A Chick Hearn call for drunk and wreckless driving?  The underwear bomber wanted one too

    Apples and apples?

  • ryan||

    Your point seems to be that driving with a BAL at which a person is considered drunk or whatever is itself not reckless enough to warrant prosecution.

    Then my question is just: At which point does recklessness warrant prosecution? I would say, for the sake of argument, that driving drunk, let's say with a .16 BAL as from the case above, is giving up control in a potentially dangerous situation. Can you name some circumstances under which you would consider that to be deserving of punishment?

    FYI, if you can't name such circumstances, you shouldn't complain if your claim is refuted by extreme examples of people giving up their control in potentially dangerous circumstances.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Prostitution and drug use are crimes. I agree that they shouldn't be, but they are. The phone call doesn't make them crimes. The legislation does. Sucks to be us.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Oh, well then, you can be a witness for the defense. I'm sure once the judge hear's your intelligent well thought out argument, he'll let her walk.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Actually, it is incumbent upon the individual who asserts an essentially harmless activity should be a crime to provide evidence thereof.

    In other words, my argument is that intoxicated driving and driving fast are not inherently harmful activities, and therefore do not deserve their own category of "crime". Now that I have spelled out in too many words what should have been abundantly clear in few, you can actually respond instead of being an ass.

  • anon||

    When you use something the "community" has paid for, the same community gets to tell you how to use it.

    It's the same as if I had loaned you my car: I'd have a right to tell you not to abuse my property.

  • BakedPenguin||

    By that logic, firing a gun into the air in the middle of the city should be legal. After all, you're not aiming at anyone, and the bullets probably won't kill anyone.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Just for reference, yes, we do not permit people to discharge weapons into crowds, and we call it a crime when they do so, even if they do not hit anyone. however, that is because of the fear, apprehension, and disruption caused by such an event, none of which are present in drunk driving.
  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I want to further refine my answer:

    When you fire a gun at or near a crowd, you are, in essence, forcing those people to move, because no one reasonably expects you to stand still waiting for a bullet to hit you.

    A drunk driver who is following the traffic laws has created no such reasonable apprehension in anybody. She could not have possibly somehow communicated she was a danger to others, because she wasn't acting as a danger to others (I am now taking out the speeding part, for reference, even though late-night on an abandoned highway, I could be convinced that her actions were still somewhat safe; see: the autobahn).

  • BakedPenguin||

    I didn't say 'fire into a crowd' - I said 'fire into the air'. The bullets wouldn't hit anything on their way up. They probably wouldn't hit anything on the way down. It's not an inherently harmful activity.

  • shut the fuck up||

    "It's not an inherently harmful activity."

    What it's not is equivalent to transporting yourself home.

  • Tim||

    So penguin, what conclusion should I draw from the fact that you're trying to argue for the illegality of one activity by citing another, unrelated activity?

    Can you not articulate why driving drunk should be illegal without attempting to draw a specious conclusion?

    I ask because firing a gun into a crowd is nothing like driving a car, and you've been banging on that stupid fucking analogy all day.

    Can you or can you not argue, without attempting to draw false equivalence between an uncontrolled activity and a controlled one, why drunk driving should be illegal.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I'm actually agnostic on the idea of whether DUI laws should exist. I don't think RBM's point is totally invalid, but I wanted to flesh out the arguments.

    Also, see my later clarification. I never meant "fire into a crowd".

  • BakedPenguin||

    Further, imagine the person shooting up in the air does so from an industrial area after most of the people have left, and with a silencer. Having gotten rid of the any chance of panicking people in the immediate area, would you argue this is okay?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Even so, one could state that the firer is acting recklessly because he or she cannot know whether the bullet will land and harm another individual. A drunken driver can know whether they can get home safely: ask the drunken driver. Now, whether you believe the driver is a different story, but given the raw numbers of people who operate cars while legally intoxicated versus the number of car accidents directly caused by drunken drivers (and no, please don't cite NHTSA numbers - they are completely unreliable), we can show a high level of control, in my estimation.

    The bullet leaves control of the firer, and because of the total lack of control, rather than a diminished lack of control, the firer is inherently reckless, or at least negligent.

  • Tim||

    "Further, imagine the person shooting up in the air"

    Can I imagine you addressing the issue of DUI without an analogy instead?

    I don't care about firing guns, into a crowd or the air, neither is driving a car.

    So, do you want to discuss DUI or not?

  • ryan||

    OK, didn't read this part

  • AlmightyJB||

    Well I was not trying to be an ass. I was simply pointing out what you already know which is that she's not going to walk away from this using those arguments. Right or wrong, the laws are on the books and you're not going to get jury nullification on either of them. To your other point, if her swerving around dangerously is causing me to swerve around dangerouly than that's a problem. Now if you want to go full anarchy with with me and just say I have the right to take her shitty driving ass out with an rpg than ok then. But that's not the world we live in. If I can't take the law into my own hands without going to jail, than she needs to respect boundries.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Fair enough - if she is causing a disruption and fear in other drivers, that should be a crime. However, the mere fact that she has an amount of verboten substance in her blood has no bearing on the situation.

  • anon||

    Fair enough - if she is causing a disruption and fear in other drivers, that should be a crime.

    This is terrible criteria to judge a crime on.

    While I disagree with your premise (above), I think if she were either driving recklessly or actually drunk she should be charged. By actually drunk, I don't mean .08; I mean impaired driving to the point she's obviously drunk outside of an arbitrary metric.

  • Rev. Blue Mooon||

    How Is "actually drunk" not arbitrary? How does actually drunk harm anyone?

  • anon||

    How Is "actually drunk" not arbitrary? How does actually drunk harm anyone?

    Are you dumb or just stupid?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    No. With that answered, do you want to answer the question or proceed as if you have "won" the argument?

  • anon||

    If you can't tell the difference between an arbitrary blood alcohol content and actual impairment, this conversation is over, and I have won.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    If you can't tell the difference between an arbitrary blood alcohol content and actual impairment, this conversation is over, and I have won.

    First of all, if "actual drunk" is criteria that is to be determined by the LEO on scene, I would rather have scientific criteria (e.g. BAC) instead of a nebulous "actual drunk" standard.

    Second, even if the person is "actually drunk" (and again, you don't define what that means and just say that it's 'obvious'), so what? She still has not harmed anyone, so why should that be a crime?

  • Tim||

    "If you can't tell the difference between an arbitrary blood alcohol content and actual impairment, this conversation is over"

    So you can't answer his question, got it.

  • anon||

    Waste of time, if he's too dumb to understand the difference between being inebriated enough to have impaired judgement and motor skills and an arbitrary blood alcohol content then I'm not even bothering with him.

  • cynical||

    Statistically speaking, she probably killed a few people.

  • AlmightyJB||

    and dogs

  • ||

    Second NC mother reportedly has child's lunch taken away by food police.

    Without belittling either situation, this is the same as the Nazis taking away the homes of the Jews in Warsaw and sending them to concentration camps.

  • Binky||

    Excellent.

  • ||

    What she should have done is publicly request that Samuels and whoever actively participated in the confiscation and the child's redirection to the cafeteria to eat shit. After all, it's nutritious.

  • ||

    no "to", proofreading must become habit

  • AlmightyJB||

    Community respose: The schools obviously have too much money if they have the resources for this. No more increases for you. Schools reponse: Well we're not getting rid of our food nazis but if you cut us off we'll suspend busing and sports. Community capitulates, ass hurts.

  • AlmightyJB||

    respose and reponse. wow. I'm not gonna mandate proofreading to myself though:)

  • ||

    I'm not gonna mandate proofreading to myself though:)

    Mandating proofreading might be a god idea.

  • ||

    What you did there -- I se it!!!1

  • AlmightyJB||

    prolly woult be a god id. But I don't like rules, especially seplling rules.

  • ||

    But I thouht libertads hated rulles

  • Typical Liberal||

    Rules for thee but not for me!

  • anon||

    Well we're not getting rid of our food nazis but if you cut us off we'll suspend busing and sports.

    I fail to see the problem.

  • AlmightyJB||

    It wouldn't be if the schools had already cut costs in the places the community expects them to.

  • Xenocles||

    Community response: to vote for the next school levy "because they said they needed it."

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Without belittling either situation, this is the same as the Nazis taking away the homes of the Jews in Warsaw and sending them to concentration camps.

    That is satisfactory snark right there. +1 would read again.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Now that is a proper article. Let my rage begin!

  • Haps||

    Will anyone be liveblogging the Whitney funeral?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Hopefully Seth McFarlane:

    Obligatory.

  • PantsFan||

    Bobby Brown will be at the funeral. Lol

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    You know he was her first and only? This is one of those sad situations where a talented, attractive, naive suburbanite "moves to the big city" and winds up with an abusive boyfriend in a heroin den.

    or should that be "an heroin den"? :P

  • ||

    And don't forget that U in "colour", yankee scum!

    /Shitwad on BBC

  • db||

    "You will never find more wretched an hive of scum and villainy."

  • anon||

    8/10 troll effort.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I thought it was funny.

  • anon||

    Yeah, definitely worth a high score.

  • anon||

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl.....ary-action

    We're right on schedule for going to war with Iran, which means we won't have to delay the invasions of Syria and Guatemala.

  • ||

    Agreed. The invasion starts right about 3 days before the GOP convention starts is my guess.

  • ||

    Awesome. As ever sane person knows, launching invasions of barbarous shitholes and spending decades nation-building subsequently is a totally justifiable course of action.

    Fuck yeah1!!1!11!!!!!!

  • BakedPenguin||

    And between Iran and Syria is Iraq, which we can re-invade b/c they're getting all uppity and shit. Also, we're going to have to go through Mexico to get to Guatemala, which is good - it's been 160 years since we gave them a smackdown.

  • ||

    of course it seems being against policy wasn't enough to prevent what happened from happening, so it's logical a law might succeed where that failed.

    Magic spell is magic!

  • ||

    This is what most people actually belive.

  • PantsFan||

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Redefining "jailbait:"

    "Last year in three high schools in Florida, several undercover police officers posed as students. The undercover cops went to classes, became Facebook friends and flirted with the other students. One 18-year-old honor student named Justin fell in love with an attractive 25-year-old undercover cop after spending weeks sharing stories about their lives, texting and flirting with each other.

    "One day she asked Justin if he smoked pot. Even though he didn't smoke marijuana, the love-struck teen promised to help find some for her. Every couple of days she would text him asking if he had the marijuana. Finally, Justin was able to get it to her. She tried to give him $25 for the marijuana and he said he didn't want the money -- he got it for her as a present.

    "A short while later, the police did a big sweep and arrest 31 students -- including Justin. Almost all were charged with selling a small amount of marijuana to the undercover cops. Now Justin has a felony hanging over his head."

    http://boingboing.net/2012/02/.....-an-1.html

  • ||

    This is just another confirmatory event in my theory that the only thing cops are good for is as targets for gun ranges.

  • ||

    The cops are not the problem here. And any concerns you have should be taken to your legislators. I'm sorry, but those cops were given directions to operate a sting activity. Those directions, otherwise known as orders, were not for them to interpret. The law is the law, and they are there to enforce it. Period. Again, I don't understand all the butthurt here. The majority has overwhelmingly been in support of strict drug laws for children, for better or for worse. And if tyou want to change them, then go through the legal process to change them. Write your representatives. Go to the media and look to change opinion. DO NOT, however, blame these cops for doing their jobs. (Jobs that are held in high regard by a vast majority of the population, btw) And your hate-rhetoric like calling for cops to be used as targets makes your insane ideology look even worse.

    And I've been on sting operations. They're no fun, especially when you know you're enforcing laws you find to be immoral and unjust. But it's what we have to do until society tells us not to anymore.

    hth

    /dunphy

  • Reason||

    the only thing cops are good for is as targets for gun ranges

    He says this, and you still attempt to argue in good faith? Shame.

  • ryan||

    The caps gave you away. Otherwise an A effort.

  • anon||

    Wow.

    Tax dollars inaction.

  • rather||

    Lust makes a man a fool and a boy a criminal

  • rathernot||

    fuck off

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Sorry, rathernot, it's true no matter who says it.

  • AlmightyJB||

    It's also my favorite of the seven deadly sins. Really the only one I can endorse as well, that is, as a general predilection.

  • Lowdog||

    It's like the guy that the FBI just "stopped" from blowing himself up. The cops (local, federal, etc) are basically pressuring people into taking actions that get them arrested.

    As far as I can tell, between welfare, warfare, and the insane number of laws in this country, the government is ensuring that everyone is either beholden to the government, incarcerated, or under some sort of supervision, such as probation.

    Neat.

  • ||

    I don't think you're gonna like dunphy's idiotic response on the other thread, which was basically: Cops giving people a way to break the law, like leaving cars running and giving them bombs, is a good means to catch criminals because a law-abiding citizen would just walk past the running car or turn in the officer running the sting with the phony bomb.

    Of course, he's an idiot, so take that into account.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I think it depends on the amount of urging the cops have to do. Repeatedly saying, "where's my weed, honey? Don't you want me to make my quota - I mean, don't you love me?" Is not the same as simply leaving a car in a crime-prone area, it's not like an undercover cop is begging the would-be thief to steal it.

  • ||

    you should do so quietly, bury the dog, and never mention it to your neighbor.

    Sometimes dogs just don't come home.

  • anon||

    Loud dogs seem to "run away" far more often than quiet ones.

  • PantsFan||

  • rather||

    Ton père s'appelait Hitler [Your Father was Named Hitler]
    His book was published in 1981, DNA would have concluded this a long time ago; his Open library book:

    http://openlibrary.org/works/OL5489360W/Ton_père_s'appelait--_Adolf_Hitler

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Miss Lobjoie only spoke to her son about his true heritage many years after she had given him up for adoption in the 1930s to a family called Loret.

    "Jean-Marie grew up to fight the Germans in 1939 and later, during the Nazi occupation, joined the French Resistance."

    Suck it, Luke Skywalker!

  • ||

    DO NOT, however, blame these cops for doing their jobs.

    Traps were baited.

    Arrests were made.

    Lives were ruined.

    Orders were followed.

  • ||

    I vomited in my mouth just a little while writing that. It's amazing to me that there are those that do it with a straight face.

  • ||

    It's the same as if I had loaned you my car

    No; it's not.

    If you think you get to have a say in how Society's "communal property" gets used, go to your mayor's office and sit in his chair with your feet on his desk.

  • PantsFan||

    Unintended?

    ESPN runs "Chink in the Armor" headline with Jeremy Lin story | http://jimromenesko.com/2012/02/18/really-espn/

  • ||

    Ralston said Wilson was released to a sober driver.

    What are the odds that sober driver was equipped with a badge and a gun?

    And- if you were a 39 year old woman who looks like a 20 year old man boy, you might have some difficulty adjusting to life in central Ohio, too.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm pretty sure that was the look she was going for. Columbus has a pretty large gay community.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Hey! The Short North's iron arches are always open (npi).

  • AlmightyJB||

    German Village as well.

  • ||

    I've never spent much time in Columbus, but that, based on the presence of tOSU alone, makes perfect sense.

    *Family origins are north central Ohio.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, if you haven't been there for a while you probably wouldn't recognize Delaware County. It's grown by leaps and bounds.

  • ||

    Warning:

    Minor Rant Ahead

    The other evening, I foolishly allowed myself to be drawn into a discussion about the Keystone XL pipeline. One guy said, "That 20.000 jobs number is bullshit." I completely agree with that; no biggie. Then, he says, "That stuff is crappy low-grade tar and you probably can't even refine it into gasoline, so 'we' should just leave it in the ground!"

    Is this shit really THAT hard to comprehend? All that oil stock is fungible. If you bring low-grade tar sand oil onto the market, you don't refine it into gasoline, you refine it into lower quality stuff, (diesel, heating oil, tire-making chemicals? I am not a petroleum engineer), which then allows you to stop "wasting" Texas Light Sweet Crude on those products, since it can easily be made into gasoline and similar products.

    Hence, overall, supply constraints are removed and the world is a better place, goddammit.

    (YMMV)

  • db||

    I am not a petroleum engineer either, although I am a chemical engineer (petro is usually considered a subset of ChE). The argument that it can't be made economically into gasoline is foolish and pointless. Even if that were the case, the very fact that someone's willing to spend money on it should clue you into the idea that they can make economically viable products with it.

    There are ways to crack heavier fractions into lighter fractions of crude, e.g., gasoline, etc. While refining this stuff is more difficult, clearly it's possible to make money doing so. I'll have to ask my one colleague who used to work at a refinery on really heavy fractions about this next week.

  • Brett L||

    They do it all the time. Exxon-Mobil's business model is to drill the lightest, sweetest crude and refine the heaviest shit they can buy for cheap. If you have an efficient plant, you buy cheap oil and make expensive products, while selling expensive upstream crude to people with inferior plants. That way you profit both up and downstream. Waxy/tarry stuff is heavy, but not outside of what you see in the feed of any of the plants in Mississippi/Lousiana/Texas. If they're able to pump it in a pipeline, its not that bad.

  • db||

    Regarding the capture of the would-be "suicide bomber" in D.C., what is the deal with agents provocateurs? I think I would feel a bit more comfortable with a law enforcement agency that had a group of officers who were tasked with seeking out potential terrorists and attempting to convince them not to try bombing people. Instead what we get is agencies facilitating such behavior and then catching the perps in the act, or stopping it just in time.

  • ||

    seeking out potential terrorists and attempting to convince them not to try bombing people.

    LOLWUT?

  • db||

    Well, most of these people seem to be only marginally associated with extremist movements and lack basic competence in terror tactics until the LEOs get involved. Why not just try to steer the less violent ones away in the first place?

  • DEG||

    Future vacation destinations:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....-them.html

  • AlmightyJB||

    Doubt these girls will be at any of those places but can't hurt to look.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w1MOfL8HiA

  • Brett L||

    Only five? I am disappoint. I thought Daytona ran off all the college kids a couple of years ago.

  • Vote Prohibition||

  • Haps||

    Hey CNN, did something happen?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I used to have to walk miles to elementary school in frigid PA winters, but po-po never arrested my mother for me.

  • anon||

    Was it uphill in the snow, both ways?

  • rather||

    203,900 children were the victims of family abductions.

    58,200 children were the victims of non-family abductions.

    115 children were the victims of “stereotypical” kidnapping. (These crimes involve someone the child does not know or someone of slight acquaintance, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently.)


    Statistically, your are a child abuser if you keep your kids home, and they are actually safer the further they walk away from it

  • Mr Whipple||

    Free Range Kids

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement