Crime

When Punishment Is a Crime

The Supreme Court takes on California's overcrowded prison system.

|

In his magisterial book The Gulag Archipelago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn recited in gruesome detail the mistreatment of inmates in prison camps in the Soviet Union. "As many as 54 prisoners may share a single toilet," he wrote. "Up to 50 sick inmates may be held together in a 12- by 20-foot cage for up to five hours awaiting treatment."

Mentally ill convicts go untreated until they "suffer from severe hallucinations" and fall "into catatonic states." Suicidal inmates are "held for prolonged periods in telephone-booth sized cages without toilets." Some prisoners die for lack of medical care, and others kill themselves.

Actually, those quotes are not from Solzhenitsyn. They're from the U.S. Supreme Court decision last week on California's grossly overcrowded penal system. A majority of the justices decided that when a state approaches Stalinist standards of barbarity, something has to be done.

The state admitted years ago that its treatment of inmates violated the Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishments." After years in which the problem went unrepaired, the court ran out of patience. It ordered California to reduce its prison population, which now stands at around 145,000, by anywhere from 33,000 to 46,000 inmates.

You may assume mobs of cutthroats will soon be let out to rape and pillage. Dissenting Justice Samuel Alito predicted "a grim roster of victims." Kent Scheidegger of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento urged Californians: "Buy a gun. Get a dog."

But before locals go mad with panic, they might consider some reassuring facts. One is that California doesn't have to liberate any inmates. It can keep them all confined, as long as it's willing to provide the space and services to meet minimum requirements of humane treatment.

As the Supreme Court helpfully noted, the state can open more prisons, place convicts in county jails, or ship them to states with vacant cells. Those options cost money, but there's nothing to stop nervous voters from demanding higher taxes to pay for them.

As it happens, many of those serving time in California never had "victims." Nearly 25,000 of them are in prison for nonviolent drug offenses—mostly simple possession or possession for sale.

If these people were out, they wouldn't be particularly scary. Though you may not like the occasional whiff of burning cannabis, guns and dogs won't do much to improve the aroma.

Many of the other prisoners may imperil your property but not your person. They are in for things like shoplifting, forgery, and receiving stolen property. Those are crimes that ought to be punished and prevented, but not crimes that cause most of us night terrors.

It has escaped the notice of Alito that the state can protect the public from such felons without holding them in prison—using electronic monitoring, drug testing, and strict supervision to keep them on the straight and narrow.

"I don't think there's any doubt that we can let out more than 30,000 prisoners and have crime go down, if we spend some of the money we save by not housing them on watching them better in the community," UCLA criminologist Mark Kleiman said in a radio interview.

GPS surveillance of a felon costs about $4 a day, he points out—a massive bargain next to the $100 a day needed to house and feed him in prison. If the function of penitentiaries is to keep bad people from preying on good people, it often can be achieved just as well with newfangled technology as with steel bars and razor wire.

Many legislators have already stumbled on a way to spend less and be more secure: lock up fewer people. States from New York to Texas have decided that mass imprisonment is a luxury they have to curtail. Marc Mauer, head of The Sentencing Project, reports that in the states that have cut back on incarceration, "no adverse impacts on public safety were observed."

In the long run, locking up so many criminals is a false comfort. It may be no coincidence that California has an unusually high rate of recidivism. The former warden of San Quentin State Prison testified that existing prison conditions "make people worse." Most of those people wind up back among us, more dangerous than before.

Cramming ever-growing numbers of offenders into horribly overburdened facilities is an inexcusable way to treat the guilty. And guess what: It's no favor to the innocent.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Advertisement

NEXT: That Takes Balls

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.

  1. As it happens, many of those serving time in California never had “victims.” Nearly 25,000 of them are in prison for nonviolent drug offenses?mostly simple possession or possession for sale.

    There are victims to these crimes: The state’s delicate sensibilities, legislators tough-on-crime r?sum?s and Bill O’Reilly’s kids.

    1. Then legislators, O’Reilley and his kids can follow Kent Scheidegger’s excellent advice and “Buy a gun. Get a dog.” The state already has lots of both.

    2. I will never understand why libertarians feel free to assume that people in jail for non violent drug offenses are automatically pacifists.

      1. They have exactly as much history of violent crime as a random person walking down the street who’s never been convicted of a crime. Should every non-pacifist in California be put in prison now, just in case?

        1. They have exactly as much history of violent crime as a random person walking down the street who’s never been convicted of a crime.

          [Citation needed.] (And I say that as someone who believes in legalization.)

          1. although to be honest, they’re probably are dangerous after being IN prison.

            1. when people talk about people “imprisoned for pot” or other such, they fail to leave out an important point.

              quite often, if not most of the time, people IMPRISONED for minor drug offenses particularly, and often drug offenses in general are career type criminals, and often violent criminals who were then hammered for the drug offense and sent to prison – often when on parole, etc.

              i can at least say that in my state, one has to work quite hard to get sent to jail, let alone prison for drug offenses. heck, first offense of even “hard drugs” is an AUTOMATIC diversion to misdemeanor court and almost always no jail time whatsoever – but just a fine and probation

              there are a lot of repeat burglars iow on jail for drug offenses.

              that’s tangential to the issue that the WOD is wrong in and of itself. but advocates of any issue tend to skew stats to support their POV.

              robert downey jr was a public and famous, but not atypical example of how hard one had to work in california to get actual real time for drug shit

              1. Wow. In my state a first DUi is automatic prison. I’d love to live in a place with no prison for hard drugs.

                1. i strongly doubt it is automatic PRISON. i think you mean jail. common error.

                  heck, in many states, there is mandatory jail for 1st time dui’s -like one or two days.

                  my state doesn’t have NO prison for hard drugs. where i work (it varies county by county) first time hard drug POSSESSION offense is automatic misdemeanor diversion

                  iow…
                  gram o’ coke
                  some oxycontin tabs w/o a script
                  some heroin
                  etc.

                  even many non-possessory offenses (like possession w/intent to sell of mj) etc. are also thus diverted.

                  otoh, a shitbag with 3 burglary convictions and caught with a gram of coke probably will get SOME jail time (although unlikely prison) – like a few months, if he is on parole…

                2. Wow. In my state a first DUi is automatic prison

                  No it’s not. If it were, you’d have named the state.

                  1. Manitoba, Canada:
                    When stopped by the police, your driver’s licence can be suspended immediately for 24-hours if:

                    You fail or refuse a standardized field sobriety test (SFST). Trained officers have the authority to administer a series of field sobriety tests to assess whether a driver is impaired by alcohol or drugs.

                    You fail or refuse an approved roadside breath screening device.

                    You have a blood alcohol concentration of .05 or more.

              2. “quite often, if not most of the time, people IMPRISONED for minor drug offenses particularly, and often drug offenses in general are career type criminals, and often violent criminals who were then hammered for the drug offense and sent to prison – often when on parole, etc.”

                But that means that the state is using drug offenses as a proxy for the crimes these people should be put away for, likely because the drug offenses are easier to prove. That to me is a type of lazy approach to law enforcement and somewhat corrupt in itself.

                1. you can look at it that way. or you can look at it this way. if you are on parole, my state calls it “community custody”, it is the equivalent in many ways of actually being incarcerated. for example, in my state COPS can’t search you at any time, but parole officers (CCO’s) can, just like a correction officer could if you were in prison, that’s what parole is.

                  a parolee or probationee is on “special watch” in that respect. iow, there is an extra burden on them to not commit ANY law violation, and an understanding that IF they do, it will be dealt with more harshly than an “average” person, and many parole violation and probation violations aren’t even CRIMES in the first place. for example, a person on probation for DUI can be restricted to driving WITHOUT *any* alcohol in their system. where a non-probationer can drive at a .03 (a beer or two depending on bodyweight), we can set a standard for probationers that is MORE strict.

                  like i said, i;m against the WOD period, but given the WOD and the fact that drugs are criminalized, we can certainly require a higher standard of behavior for a parolee/probationer and also have the understanding that subsequent offenses for the same crime (see: convicted felons, etc.) will be dealt with more harshly.

                  it’s similar ot the concept of “progressive discipline” that i am subject to as a cop. cops in my agency that get a DUI, usually get a suspension. but if they get a subsequent one – it’s going to be an automatic firing.

                  the law says the first dui is going to be a diversion (no permanent record etc. if one stays out of trouble on probation, etc.)but the second conviction won’t be. and a certain # of convictions in a given time period is “felony dui” automatically.

                  i don’t find this unfair at all. in fact, to me , it’s the very essence of a rational, reasonable approach to punitive actions. of course, that’s given that i don’t think drug offenses should HAVE a punitive action

      2. A guy, high on pot, wants:

        a) to beat his wife
        b) to find another bag of Cheetos

        1. c) build a model eiffel tower out of the cheetos and beat his wife when she bumps the table.

          1. as somebody who has been to literally scores of domestic violence scenes, i have NEVER arrested somebody (male or female) who was alleged (let alone who committed) to have assaulted a domestic partner after smoking pot

            NE-VER

            cocaine? yes
            alcohol? yes
            meth? yes
            no drugs whatsoever? yes

            considering the ubiquity of mj, that’s a pretty telling stat.

            if anything, the state could probably save money by just giving free pot to people caught committing DV abuse.

            it would be more effective than “anger management” training, setting aside the self-selection angle – iow is causation established? do people who choose pot belong to a less violent subset of people, or does smoking pot make them so, or a combination?

            1. Thanks. I had to actually look up score to see what the means.

              Next time I’ll do that. “I’ve eaten literaly scores of donuts.”

              Or, “It’s okay to score, if she’s over score years old.”

              1. i like “score” because it’s way more poetic than saying “20’s of” and i can’t use up my favorite term “metric assloads” or it loses all it’s meaning

            2. You obviously have not seen Reefer Madness. People on pot are crazed maniacs ready to kill!

      3. In fact they are dangerous if they’re driving while high. Some are violent — gangsters love to get high — but please bust them for a violent crime. Incarceration for simple pot-smoking is ridiculous.

        1. depends what you mean by “high”. any stimulant, and that includes cocaine actually IMPROVES driving up to a point.

          there’s a U shaped dose/response curve.

          some cocaine or caffeine etc. makes most people a BETTER driver, statistically speaking

          otoh, any amount of alcohol is detrimental to driving, and it’s a relatively straight line – not a curve – iow, the more alcohol, the worse the driving, ceteris paribus

          1. Tation please

            1. that’s what NHTSA taught me . i don’t have an online cite , so take it for what it’s worth. i’m reasonably confident a little googling would show that stimulants improve driving (by improving reaction time/awareness up to a point

              it’s not exactly a controversial topic that stimulants improve reaction time, concentration, etc.

              that’s why people looking to improve same – TAKE STIMULANTS

              duh

              1. They don’t give Air Force pilots speed for no reason.

                1. well, they DO have a “need for speed” (ok, i know that was naval aviators,but bear with me…)

      4. I will never understand why libertarians feel free to assume that people in jail for non violent drug offenses are automatically pacifists.

        If everyone who was a non-pacifist was locked up, there would be no one to guard them.

        Stoners locked up may be more, less, or roughly the same in terms of potential to commit crimes as the general populace. But, unless you are into the Minority Report pre-crime mentality, you shouldn’t lock them up.

        I mean, there is a strong genetic predictor of potential criminality and violence — it’s called the Y chromosome. Should we lock up all those carriers of this gene predisposing them to violence, just to be safe?

      5. I will never understand why authoritarians feel free to assume that everyone who’s not a pacifist should be locked in a cage.

      6. If they are accused only of non-violent offenses, why do you assume they are violent?

        Some people need evidence of violent tendencies before they will credit allegations of violent tendencies. That is reasonable and proper.

      7. If they haven’t been been convicted of any violent crimes I feel entitled to assume they haven’t committed any. Unless of course you want to assume that people who haven’t been convicted of violence are all bloodthirsty killers.

    3. I am just looking out for the folks.

  2. While it’s possible for the state of CA to release the least dangerous offenders, this would tend to validate the arguments of those who say we should incarcerate fewer people. That’s not in the interest of the prison-industrial complex. OTOH, if the inmates chosen for release are the most frightening and dangerous inmates in the sytem, (while CA authorities say, “the supreme court made us do it.”), the public can be frightened into approving more taxes for more prisons, guards, etc. I wonder which option California authorities will choose?

    1. There was a recent article in the Courier Post of Cherry Hill, NJ about the Camden County Jail. The jail has been overcrowded for decades. It was obsolete before they finished building it. It was four deep to a cell designed for one. A large part of the problem was that they were housing state inmates. The county was making money from the state to house their inmates indefinitely, usually up to 1 month before their parole eligibility. There was a class action lawsuit because of unsanitary conditions which led to an outbreak of some kind of infectious skin disease. Eventually, the Feds came in and forced them reduce the population. The state and county did comply, and reduced the population by 33%, mostly from shipping out the state inmates. The decrease in population resulted in a 7% reduction of staffing, mostly COs. Now, the union representing the COs has come out publicly to state that the reduction of COs has created “unsafe working conditions” for the remaining COs, and are demanding that the county refill those positions.

      Apparently, it takes the same number of COs to guard 1,200 inmates as it does to guard 1,800.

      1. Nah, he just stole the idea from Dr. Cocteau.

    2. you should be thanking me for saving cali for the prison guards benefit.

    3. Under the “least dangerous/most dangerous” scale, how would you classify a quadriplegic that costs $800,000 per year to keep in prison?

      http://www.latimes.com/news/lo…..8103.story

      Wrong!!!! He is dangerous!! He could still make phone calls!!!

    4. It’s like the Washington Monument Effect in reverse.

      1. What is “The Washington Monument Effect?

    5. This is basically what happened in Texas during the 1980’s. See: Kenneth Allen McDuff.

    6. It’s a variation on the tried-and-true “if we can’t raise taxes again this year, we’ll have to lay off (or execute, or whatever) teachers and firefighters” ploy. There are never any threats to lay off the Associate Vice President of Sustainable Diversity at the local junior college.

  3. The more laws one creates the more criminals one ends up with. Taken to its ultimate extreme, with enough laws every single person becomes a criminal.

    1. We are a lot closer than we want to admit.

      “Three Felonies a Day”

      http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb…..ay&x=0&y=0

      1. GREAT fucking book! Everybody should read that book, imo. It shows how truly statist and disgusting it can get out there

    2. Find me the man, I’ll find the crime….

      1. Quit stealing my line, Boss!

  4. Maybe those who don’t win the release lottery can request a transfer to Guant?namo

  5. I always wondered what Uncle Joey looked like

  6. The problem we have as libertarians is that many, many of those 25,000 look scary to soccer mom bitches.

    Therefore, even those soccer moms who are never victims of any crime feel less safe, because they are forced to see people who scare them by their very being.

    If we end the drug war or free drug prisoners, soccer moms will feel less safe. Therefore, it can’t be allowed to happen. Liberty is less important than the emotions of racist suburbanite bitches.

    1. It’s those same suburbanite soccer mom bitches that don’t want the failing inner city schools to be closed. That would mean that those scary looking children would be bused in to their nice suburban schools and corrupt their college bound preppie brats. But they’re not racist, they vote Democrat.

      1. Where do you get the idea that these policies are 1. driven by ‘soccer moms’ and 2. these soccer mom’s are some overwhelmingly Democratic constituency?

        1. In the last federal election a majority of white women, including white married mothers, went to the GOP.

          1. Since when do federal politicians decide local and state educational policies?

            1. If you have some evidence that white married mothers broke Democrat in the last state elections, then by all means produce it.

              1. Statistics? You want statistics? Statistics are like whores, you can do anything with them. And one election does not a trend make.

                1. Ah yes, statistics are like whores. And of course hasty generalizations based on anecedotes are like time honored faithful wives.

                  1. And praxeology is like on old spinster women.

              2. If you have some evidence that white married mothers broke Democrat in the last state elections, then by all means produce it.

                Women: Obama 52, McCain 33

                White women: Obama 46, McCain 39

                White suburban women: McCain 44, Obama 38

                Not that I have a dog in this fight.

                http://blog.chron.com/txpotoma…..est-polls/

                1. 2008 was not the last major election, 2010 was. That said,
                  White suburban women: McCain 44, Obama 38

                  bolsters my argument.

          2. Besides, that’s only one election. The NE has been predominately Democrat since, at least, Reagan.

          3. Nice job of cherry-picking statistics, MNG. Soccer moms are not necessarily white or married. They are, of necessity, fairly young.

            Non-whites are statistically more likely to vote for Democrats than whites.

            Women are statistically more likely to vote for Democrats than men.

            Unmarried people are statistically more likely to vote for Democrats than married people.

            But the real kicker is that young adults are statistically much more likely to vote Democratic than older adults — and that’s the soccer mom demographic.

            Link:

            http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fa…..er_gap.php

            1. From the link:

              “In surveys conducted between October 2007 and March 2008, 58% of voters under age 30 identified or leaned toward the Democratic Party, compared with 33% who identified or leaned toward the GOP. The Democratic Party’s current lead in party identification among young voters has more than doubled since the 2004 campaign, from 11 points to 25 points.

              In fact, the Democrats’ advantage among the young is now so broad-based that younger men as well as younger women favor the Democrats over the GOP — making their age category the only one in the electorate in which men are significantly more inclined to self-identify as Democrats rather than as Republicans”

              Yep, those young soccer moms are SOOO statistically in the GOP column.

              1. Oh, and given that about half the babies in this country are mixed-race or non-white, your assumption of mothers being all white is not particularly valid.

                1. I don’t think there’s a hard and fast definition of “soccer mom”. I certainly don’t think of them as being as young as you’re discussing. I imagine them more as the mid-late 30s, with a van, 2.3 children ranging in age from 7-14 (which would make them in their mid 30s, assuming they had their kid in their mid 20s, which is common for surburbanite women).

                  As to whether they vote dem, it’s probably more geographic than anything. I only know maybe a few women past their early 20s in Plano, TX who would vote blue; the vast majority here vote red, but I believe that’s more because it’s a religious, affluent suburb, than anything else.

                  And though this will probably change in the near future, whites still make up the majority in this nation, even more so in the burbs, so I don’t think it’s crazy to picture the sterotypical soccer mom as white.

                  1. or just substitute “soccer mom” for “security mom”

                2. I do assume soccer mom’s are married, and looks like I’m not alone, from wikipedia: “The phrase soccer mom generally refers to a married middle-class woman who lives in the suburbs and has school age children.” The same article notes that one of the most cited characteristics about “soccer moms” was they were white. But have some fun, do a google images of “soccer mom(s)” and see what ethnicity dominates.

                  And as for the young thing, as the commenter below noted I have no idea where you are getting the idea soccer moms are under 30.

                  1. this is pretty much where i am coming from. it’s a loosely defined demographic, but that’s what is meant by “soccer mom”.

          4. Most white married mothers aren’t soccer moms. Also, a majority of nearly every group that doesn’t reliably vote 80% Democrat went to the GOP in 2010.

            1. “Most white married mothers aren’t soccer moms.’

              Oh Lord, No True Soccer Mom…

              1. what about tiger soccer moms?

              2. From your own source:

                The phrase soccer mom generally refers to a married middle-class woman who lives in the suburbs and has school age children.

                The emboldened parts exclude most white married mothers.

                1. What in the hell are you talking about? Do most white married women live in urban cores and don’t have school age children?

                  Google “soccer mom” and see what ethnicity shows up most on the photos. I hate to agree with Minge & Dunphy, but I think it’s a pretty thin argument to say that “white” isn’t what most people think of when they use the term “soccer mom”.

                  1. it’s also two different things to say

                    1) most white married mothers are not soccer moms
                    and
                    2) most soccer moms are white married mothers

                    1 being true *(assume arguendo) does not necessarily imply 2 being false.

                    analytical reasoning. it’s what’s for breakfast!

              3. Didn’t hockey moms swing McCain?

        2. I can’t speak for the entire country, just the suburbs where I grew up and live in the NE. I don’t “think”, I know. I lived it.

        3. Where do you get the idea that these policies are 1. driven by ‘soccer moms’ and 2. these soccer mom’s are some overwhelmingly Democratic constituency?

          Actually women are less likely than men to support legalization of marijuana, according to one of those Reason-Rupe poll things. Don’t really want to get in the middle of the soccer mom argument but it’s an interesting factoid.

          Ye Olde Lincke

          1. women w/children,and especially married women w/children are the very demographic that “we are doing this for the children” type laws are passed.

            i can tell you that in nearly every community meeting i have gone to where people are screaming at us to “shut down that drug house” “do something about the drug use in our community” etc. etc. – it’s mothers. Not necessarily white moms. Moms. Single women are less likely to view drugs, etc. as an existential threat … moms naturally worry about their children getting sucked into stuff or negatively affected by stuff that they know (or think) they can just ignore

            Imo, for better or worse, a community w/o children would be FAR less statist in regards to stuff like drugs, etc.

            Maybe the ‘soccer dads’ are equally concerned, but maybe they are too busy working or whatever, but ime at the community meetings, it is overwhelmingly women, not men, attending and making complaints, although definitely a lot of dads there too

            A very substantial %age of drug house tips, narcotics activity reports calls, etc. we get are from moms. Overwhelming percentage

            1. As long as drugs are illegal it’s going to be perfectly reasonable for parents to want a drug house shut down.

              Since legalizing drugs is a long, twisty windey road with libertarians shooting themselves in the foot at every rest stop, all the negative effects of a drug house with all of its requisite crime will remain with us.

              1. libertarians are also their own worse enemy, since many tend to play the best is the enemy of the good card ad nauseum, and fail to take reality into account when dealing with the american populace.

                they love to blame cops for the WOD, but the reality is that it’s a product of legislation and would never have happened if there wasn’t WIDE community demand for the state to “DO SOMETHING ABOUT THOSE FUCKING DRUGGIES DOWN THE STREET” as variations i hear in community meetings and have heard for decades.

                we’ve gotten great praise from citizens for raiding and shutting down drug houses. suburbanite parents tend to be huge supporters of WOD shenanigans, although to a lesser extent in MJ vs. “hard drugs”

            2. Everyone plays the “for the children” card. Everyone.

              We wouldn’t be less statist if we didn’t have children. We would simply find some other excuse. We would, however, be less statist if we didn’t have a society which thinks (or knows a convenient source when it sees one) that there shouldn’t be any activities which are approved for children.

              Not everything is for fucking children. I know, because I tell mine everyday that there are some things which are only for adults and that when they become of age they can make the choice for themselves whether they’d like to partake.

              1. daddy’s cheap; he won’t share his weed

              2. I’ll admit to playing it as a last resort. I argue that you can’t care about the children if you don’t care about the rule of law: if you bequeath the next generation a society in which law enforcement is much more arbitrary, what have you really done for them?

                Also, I note that people much more up front about exploiting the children in service of their political views are more likely to bully their political adversaries, and in real life interrupt them. I point out that you can’t care about the children if you’re teaching them that bullying and shouting other people down is the way to get what you want.

              3. i disagree. it’s a natural thing (biology) etc. that people tend to be protective of their children. that’s why the whole term NANNY’ism, NANNYstate etc. has meaning (granted, nannies oversee other’s children, but…)

                we can disagree, but i see it as a natural result of the way we evolved. the whole, being protective of one’s offspring thing.

                it’s imo a big part of the whole “do it for the children thing”

                for those who think (moreso than not) that it’s the JOB of the state to assist them in this, nannyism naturally follows

      2. I don’t think that’s the motivation behind soccer mom tendencies to vote for public school life support. It’s more that they see the public schools succeeding in the suburbs and think that means that the inner city public schools have no inherent problems, just that they need more $$.

        1. ” It’s more that they see the public schools succeeding in the suburbs”

          In which case, they are ignorant of the NAAL and other studies that show skyrocketing illiteracy rates (31% proficiency) among graduates of those schools.

    2. Many of those soccer cows secretly take drugs, if they end the drug wars, not only will those soccer moms have cheaper cocaine, their children will also be safer, everyone wins.

      1. Are we celebrating Jeanne d’Arc today? Is that why the drug war belongs at the feet of women?

        I’ll bet epi’s ass that most of the judges, and prosecutors are men but somehow, some bitch is responsible for the WOD. Do you need matches for your Memorial day BBQ?

        1. If the soccer moms wanted to legalise drugs, then drugs would be legalised very quickly.

          Of any demographic group, who would be the biggest drug ban supporter ?

          1. Of any demographic group, who would be the biggest drug ban supporter ?

            Former addicts

            1. Bullshit, all the former addicts I know laugh at prohibition.

              1. It was a joke but it is true of ex-smokers

                1. I don’t know a single ex-smoker who thinks smoking should be banned.

                  Not one. Perhaps they have some regrets that they made choices and got hooked, but I’d guarantee that the vast majority of those who want cigarettes (and drugs) banned are those who have never tried them and get all of their info about drugs from DARE, and think smelling smoke is icky.

                  Factoid: my decision to send my son to his particular private school was based partly because their answer was a staunch “yes!” when I asked if I could opt him out of DARE.

                  1. boy you are tough. You made him opt out of DARE, and you don’t share your weed 😉

              2. Bullshit, all the former addicts I know laugh at prohibition.

                HAHAHAHAHAHA

                1. “Give me a scotch, I’m starvin'”

        2. I’ll bet epi’s ass that most of the judges, and prosecutors are men but somehow, some bitch is responsible for the WOD.

          It’s easier to cave in than hear a woman nag.

          1. epi’s a woman? That’s turning me on

        3. Prohibition followed immediately after female suffrage. Coincidence?

          Prosecutors (and judges in some jurisdictions) have to cater to women to get elected, no?

          1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc

            1. Post hoc ergo non propter hoc is just as much a fallacy.

              1. Selective exposure theory

              2. Selective exposure theory 😉

            2. Given that the suffragettes and the temperance movements had a large overlap in membership, associating Prohibition with the early women’s movement is not illogical. However, the 18th amendment does precede the 19th.

              1. when it doubt, blame it on a vagina

        4. you are overstating the case, but the reality is nannyish laws, etc. are called that for a reason. when people pass laws ‘for the children’ etc. it tends ot be – people w/children particularly, etc.

          heck, even brangelina etc. remarked on how their views vis a vis pot smoking etc. changed when they got kids.

          the whole “mama bear protecting her cubs” thing is hardly a new meme. it goes waayyy back

          see my above post. here, i’ll quote it:women w/children,and especially married women w/children are the very demographic that “we are doing this for the children” type laws are passed.

          i can tell you that in nearly every community meeting i have gone to where people are screaming at us to “shut down that drug house” “do something about the drug use in our community” etc. etc. – it’s mothers. Not necessarily white moms. Moms. Single women are less likely to view drugs, etc. as an existential threat … moms naturally worry about their children getting sucked into stuff or negatively affected by stuff that they know (or think) they can just ignore

          Imo, for better or worse, a community w/o children would be FAR less statist in regards to stuff like drugs, etc.

          Maybe the ‘soccer dads’ are equally concerned, but maybe they are too busy working or whatever, but ime at the community meetings, it is overwhelmingly women, not men, attending and making complaints, although definitely a lot of dads there too

          A very substantial %age of drug house tips, narcotics activity reports calls, etc. we get are from moms. Overwhelming percentage

    3. “soccer mom bitches…racist suburbanite bitches”

      Yeah, I’m going to take you seriously.

      1. And yet, as I started speaking to people about kid safety in the last few days, I heard things that strike me as completely bizarre. One dad in an upscale suburb of New York, for instance, “lets” his 11-year-old walk one block to her best friend’s house ?but she has to call the minute she arrives safely.

        Another mom castigated me for my irresponsibility and proudly said that she doesn’t even let her daughter go to the mailbox in her upscale Atlanta neighborhood. There’s just too much “opportunity” for the girl to be snatched and killed. To her, I’m the crazy mom.

        People who want me arrested for child abuse were sure that my son had dodged drug dealers, bullies, child molesters and psychopaths on that afternoon subway ride home by himself.

        They have lost confidence in everything: Their neighborhood. Their kids. And their own ability to teach their children how to get by in the world. As a result, they batten down the hatches.

        – Lenore Skenazy

        http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/about-2/

        1. “They have lost confidence in everything: Their neighborhood. Their kids. And their own ability to teach their children how to get by in the world.”

          Well, they have really fucked things up very badly. That’s why they need a nice daddy/government to tell them exactly how to live their lives.

      2. Tough luck, soccer mom bitch.

        I guarantee you this:

        If we take 100 soccer mom bitches and put them in a room on the other side of security glass from 100 nonviolent drug offenders from CA’s prison system, and ask the soccer mom bitches, “Should these guys be let out of prison?” I will get a solid supermajority to queef and squeal, “NO!”

        Since it won’t be on the basis of any violent crime any of those people have committed, what basis will it be on, exactly?

        Fear of their appearance. That’s it.

        Soccer mom bitch fear of people who “look scary”. That’s the entire key to the drug war right there. Every lie Michael Gerson tells about wanting to save people from drugs? A rationalization designed to empower fear, and nothing more.

        1. Nice argument: If you call them “bitches” enough times, your premises eventually become valid.

          1. Would you prefer we call them cunts or ladies? Wenches or women? Whores or females? Either way it doesn’t change the validity of the premise of the argument.

          2. Actually, you’re the one with a problem with the word.

            You apparently feel that it’s some kind of argumentative victory to whimper that I’m mean for using the word “bitch”.

            To which I say: Fuck you, cunt.

            Would we or would we not get the poll results I claim from our “100 meets 100” exercise I describe above? Yes or no. That’s all that’s really important here. Not your fucking hurt feelings about the word “bitch”. Fuck you and your fucking worthless feelings.

            1. I know this is a drinking game trigger, but the way you present your ideas does matter. If your presentation obscures what’s really important about your argument — which it clearly does in this case — that’s your fault, not your audience’s.

              1. bitchin’

              2. True.

                But it still doesn’t change the validity of a given message, only the likelihood of it being accepted.

        2. You guys sound like a bunch of whiny pussies from HuffPo. Women are scared of scary looking people? No shit, Sherlock. Guess why? Human fucking nature dipshit? Everyone is scared of scary looking people you dumbass. If you were locked up with the kind of people you see in San Quentin on tv, you’d crap your underoos right before he told you to get down on your knees like a good prison wife.

          And beyond that, have you figured out why MS13 gangbangers dress like gangbangers and get tattoos all over their faces yet genius? It’s because you want to “be” and project who you are in your own self-image. That’s why so many scary, dangerous people look scary and dangerous, dumbass. Not all of them, there are outliers of course, but people who identify as computer geeks don’t walk around looking like cholos or cowboys or preppie frat boys. Duh.

          This thread took a turn for the stupid when someone decided to scapegoat soccer moms. What an effin joke. Chekc out Prop 19 douchebags. the biggest opponents were the elderly and minorities – specifically asian. FACT!

    4. A few of them probably are dangerous. It is certainly possible that someoen who is dangerous is unlucky enough or lucky enough depending on how you look at it to only go down on a drug offsense.

      An actual functioning state could properly priortize its inmates and only release those who are unlikely to be a threat. But California is not a functioning state but a failed state. So, I am sure they will fuck it up not out of maliciousness but out off incompetance.

      1. Plus, there is the likelihood that exposing marginal people to a prison environment for years will turn them into hardened criminals. Especially given that employment opportunities for ex cons in this state with this economy are nil.

        1. Plus, there is the likelihood that exposing marginal people to a prison environment for years will turn them into hardened criminals. Especially given that employment opportunities for ex cons in this state with this economy are nil.

          “We have a bunch of people who were never convicted for any initiation of force. So we will release any of these prisoners who are not going to pose a danger to the community. We will include in our definition of “danger to the community” anyone who has been exposed to a prison environment, since that will likely turn them into hardened criminals.”

          Joseph Heller (“Catch-22”) would be proud of you.

          1. It’s the absurdity of the CA government, not me.

            1. Creating violent criminals where they previously did not exist. Liberals used to be against that kind of thing, then they got complete control of the state government and decided all of a sudden that it sounded like a cool idea.

              1. as a side effect of the war on drugs, people who become hardcore users/addicted tend to need to commit crimes to get money.

                i *know* the hardcore property crimes offenders we deal with. they are nearly all addicts. and no, i’m not talking MJ (realizing that one can’t really evne be a “mj addict”)

                you criminalize drugs, make them expensive, people who do get addicted or just hardcore users, commit crimes to get more drugs.

                most of the fucking shithead burglars/car thieves etc. we deal with are either oxy or meth abusers. almost exclusively.

                and at $1 per mg for oxy right now, it takes a lot of swag to support a habit.

              2. That’s not a liberal thing, but a statist thing, or do you really think that Red states don’t have equally high numbers of drug offenders in their prison systems (comparatively speaking)?

                1. i think that, ime (living in both red and blue states) that red staters tend to be as bad or worse on such matters AND far more hypocritical on them.

                  i think red states tend to be more statist IN GENERAL, btw, not just war on drugs stuff

                  they are way more emboldened to state agencies like liquor boards (and their LEO’s), gambling boards, having far more power, they tend to pass far more laws restricting personal behavior (smoking bans, fortified liquor bans, happy meal bans, etc.) to include drug stuff.

                  hawaii, fwiw is a VERY blue state, but they have some of the most amazingly harsh sentences for drug offenses i have seen in ANY state i have lived in.

                  in my very blue state, they have made poker a C felony, strip clubs are insanely restricted (no lap dances etc.) where i live (very blue county in a blue state), they proposed fortified liquor bans, there is a smoking ban even OUTSIDE buildings (on sidewalks etc. within 25 ft of the entrance to any building), insane laws on happy hours/liquor specials, they started cracking down on bikini baristas (for the children of course), and playing poker online is a C felony.

                  i could go on

                  what it comes down to ime is that in blue states, i tend to be able to do more “stuff” without the state being involved

                  1. ick. i totally reversed red and blue in the above…

                  2. ha! I’ll go out on the proverbial limb here and state that dunphy, like me, lives in Washington and, further, probably (like me) lives in Seattle.

                    I just _love_ our liberal *cough*, freedom loving *cough cough* nanny state.

                    not.

      2. A few of them probably are dangerous. It is certainly possible that someoen who is dangerous is unlucky enough or lucky enough depending on how you look at it to only go down on a drug offsense.

        So you’re saying that if someone has not been convicted of any crime whatsoever that harms another person, a state with politicians sold out to the prison guard lobby should use its discretion about who to release among all these people who have never been convicted of any offense involving an initiation of force?

        That would be called the “status quo”.

        1. No I am not saying that at all. read my post below in response to Tulpa. I didnt’ think my post was that hard to understand. But I guess I thought wrong.

          1. Thanks for clarifying an ambiguous statement — I understand your POV now — but, not yet having perfected time travel, it wasn’t possible for my 3:23PM self to read your 3:40 post.

      3. They have not been proven to be dangerous, and IIRC proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the criterion for putting people in jail.

        1. I am not saying they should stay in jail.. I am just saying you are retarded if you think no dangerous people are ever put in jail for drugs. By shere numbers alone, some of them are going to be dangerous and commit violent crimes once released. That doesn’t mean they deserved to go to jail for their drug offenses. It just means if you lock enough people up you are bound to by chance get a few people who would otherwise be there.

          1. If they haven’t committed victimful crimes yet, they shouldn’t be in jail. Period.

    5. Actually Fluffy this really goes back to the Poly Klass case. In that case, a guy who had been arrested jailed and released over a thrirty year period for numerous really sick crimes kidnapped and killed a 12 year old girl. That is what gave the political impetus for the three strikes law.

      The three strikes law is a great example of how our government has failed in so many ways. A rational functioning government would have locked Richard Allen Davis in a cell for life long before he ever killed Klass. But sometime in the 1970s we stopped having a rational government and the people in it stopped being rational. So we ended up in a situation where people convicted of horrible crimes were getting out of prison and committing more horrible crimes multiple times.

      Since the government and the people in it are irrational and the government is broken, when they tried to fix that problem, the enacted a crazy irrational policy that locks petty theives up for as long as the Richard Davises of the world.

      It comes down to this, when your governing class is sick and you can no longer trust judges and cops and the people in government to make the right decision and you thus are stuck writing one size fits all no discretion laws like three strikes, you are screwed.

      1. And it doesn’t help that some elected sheriffs, judges and attorneys fuck up the justice system, suppressing evidence and jailing innocent people all in the name of appearing “tough on crime” to the voters. When one county in Texas is exonerating people wrongly convicted of one crime or another (thanks to a benevolent prosecuting attorney), and the number of those people reaches well into the double-digits, you know that shit goes on in many other places in America as well. I live in constant fear of being arrested and imprisoned/executed for a crime I didn’t commit… and after reading the stories about the umpteenth person finally being set free after wrongfully imprisoned for 20-30 years, I have every damn right to be.

    6. How do soccer moms differ from baseball moms, hockey moms, or judo moms?

      1. exposed cleavage

        1. Which? I gotta know where to hang out.

  7. soccer mom bitches

    lol. I so am stealing that

    1. So you think it’s ok referring to women as female dogs. Chauvinist POS.

      1. Even worse she’s referring to football as soccer, that bloody wench.

      2. No, he thinks its funny. Bitch.

        1. SarahMC, I criticize the little bastards for their sexism all the time; I found this new one ‘charming’.

          Simon, you’re an idiot

          purt.plus, you’re an idiot bitch

      3. Which is worse, referring to people as dogs, or referring to people as shit?

      4. Apparently you think it’s okay to leave the kitchen. Now get the fuck back in it.

  8. The majority of California’s violent criminals are likely the products of the consequences of that state’s shitty liberal sociopolitics.

    Charles Manson 2012.

    1. Hey as far as I know the family never went broke. Charlie could probably run the state better than it is now. Not like he could do any worse.

      1. Inasmuch as the sate and Charlie both use theft as their revenue stream, what would it prove if one thief were chosen over another?

  9. OT: Guys I found the United States military’s next main sidearm –

    http://www.para-usa.com/new/pr……php?id=69

    A 14-round, .45, modern 1911. Orgasm. God, I hope they can make it cheaper and affordable for bulk purchase by the military.

      1. I know – heaps better than all that Italian and German shit (good shit, but still shit)

        Or, even better (for lower recoil and higher capacity) —

        http://www.para-usa.com/new/pr……php?id=12

        It’s a tricked out one, but they could make it standard like any other and sell it cheaply. If they decide to go for a 9mm gun again, Para USA also does an 18-round 9mm 1911. It’s a freaking win-win.

        1. We will never get rid of the 9mm, women generally don’t like to shoot anything bigger.

          1. “The MHS requirement calls for a non-caliber specific weapon with modular features to allow for the adaption of different fire control devices, pistol grips, and alternate magazine options. The weapon will fit various hand sizes and will mount targeting enablers using Picatinny rails. The new weapon will incorporate detection avoidance by having a non-reflective neutral color and will be operable with sound and flash suppressor kit in place.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…..gun_System

            The 9mm does the job, but why not go for more oomph? It’s been proven over the years it would suit general requirements better anyway.

            1. The 9mm has been on the ass end of every war since WWI. I would love to go back to the .45 I just don’t think the will because women don’t like to shoot big bore handguns.

              1. If they were smart, they’d allow soldiers to choose between .45s, .40 S&Ws;, and 9mm, since 1911s are available in high-capacity with all of those calibers. Or if they happen to decide that a uniform caliber is necessary, the .40 would be great, too; most soldiers aren’t women. It’s the military, not a WE’RE-ALL-THE-SAME rainbows-and-unicorns kumbaya feminist/radical civil rights orgy.

                1. And God, please, don’t allow it to be the Glock. If American companies all somehow screw up and the military HAS to go for something European, I’d prefer the SIG. I’d love for Ruger, S&W, Para USA, or some other American company to win, though.

                  1. The M&P is the way to go.

                  2. I think that going with an issue sidearm in .40S&W would be a great compromise.

                    The P226 was one of the two pistols that passed the trials back in the 80’s. The military went with the Beretta 92 because it was cheaper.

                    There’s no way the military goes with a Glock or M&P; they’re too risk-averse and like the safety margin of a DA/SA action.

                    1. What would your pick(s) be?

                      Mine’s either a high-capacity 1911, a Ruger SR40, an M&P 40, or a SIG P226

                2. It’s the military, not a WE’RE-ALL-THE-SAME rainbows-and-unicorns kumbaya feminist/radical civil rights orgy.

                  there are many who would like to make it that way. And a .40 would be a great improvement over the 9mm. And the will never take a Glock because they are so crazy about keeping Joe from shooting himself. Any weapon will have to have five or more safeties.

                  1. Lol. Yeah. Any bets on which gun (that exists now) is going to win, seeing as it’s going to be chosen within the next year or so?

                    1. The M92.

                      There is no way they change from Berretta,

                      They’ll find an excuse to keep using it.

                3. I’m sure these aren’t the only two brands that have this option, but Glock and S&W have conversion barrels for their .40 frame pistols. Conversion barrels come in 9 mm and .357.

                  1. What about Ruger? There’s a crowd that’s saying that they’re into the GREATS league now, and some still saying they’re not quite there yet

                    Their SR40, for example –

                    http://www.ruger.com/products/sr40/models.html

                    What do you think?

                    And I agree, the M&P series is pretty awesome.

                    http://www.smith-wesson.com/we…..6763408778

                    1. The Ruger looks nice. Does it come with a double stack magazine? Based on the ammo capacity, I am inclined to say yes, I just didn’t see this included in the spec sheet.

                    2. Yeah, it does. Its standard capacity double-stack magazines carry 15 rounds (the SR9, the 9mm version of the gun, carries 17), which is the same as the M&P. And according to reviews (apart from TTAG’s, for some reason), it’s an awesome gun.

                      I think the 10-round versions on that page are for states like California and Hawaii.

            2. What I’ve read is that we switched to 9mm as part of a NATO agreement. All NATO nations use standardized ammo, so that in the event of another large war, member nations would be able to use each other’s ammo (IOW: the US will provide the ammo for everyone).

              1. Yeah – one of the main reasons was to provide uniformity in ammo for the NATO member-states, and because it was considerably cheaper to ship and supply 9mm ammo than .45 ammo in pretty much every shipment configuration (crates, containers, etc.) If we cut the adventuristic shit, we’d be able to afford the greatest and most effective weaponry and ammunition without sacrificing it for cost-effectiveness. What’s your pick for the military’s next pistol?

                1. I don’t know much about pistols. I was a machine gunner for about half my Army career, and had various versions of M-16/M-4 for the rest of it. I never fired a pistol at all while I was in the Army.

                  1. Which begs the question…what the fuck is the whole worry about hand guns?

                    Is the next big war going to need a whole bunch of tunnel rats? or are we really worried that when enemy troops kill and loot our officers that they get a nice prize?

                    1. Who was begging the question? I don’t see any question begging in this thread, so what are you talking about?

                    2. 1) It’s my country’s military, preparing to replace one of the serviceman’s most important implements of duty.

                      2) The most powerful army in the history of the world is preparing to replace a major component of its armaments.

                      3) It’s fun to discuss and speculate.

          2. Agreed, the Beretta 92 is the worst of both worlds. Too fat in the grip, too long trigger reach, and safety to hard to work for most women. OTOH most guys could handle a .45s recoil if trained properly. How about a choice of 2 pistols–a full size .45 or a smaller single stack 9mm for those with smaller hands? Look at how many rifle calibers are in use–5.56, .308, .338 Lapua, .50 bmg. And .45 acp is already in stock for the special forces who carry them.

            1. Or you could go for a .40. As much as women may prefer a 9mm, all the shooting women I’ve met in my life have also been just fine with .40s. More power than then 9mm in general, but almost identical accuracy, and doesn’t kick as much as a .45.

              Ideally (probably not likely), I’m hoping for a DA/SA, .40 S&W 1911 with a rail and a double-stack magazine (16 rounds, like the Para USA one I linked to earlier).

              1. A proper 1911 (made of steel) has FAR less kick than your average 40 made with combat tupperware.

                My wife prefers the 1911 because it’s a gun with more heft.

    1. That’s right purty.

      1. Even cooler (and actually applicable to the military trials as the Para linked doesn’t have a rail which is mandatory for consideration).

        1. Yeah, but that’s easy to engineer into the frame anyway

    2. Ah, yes, the P14-45. I have been the proud owner of this fine piece of machinery for, what, 12 years now? Completely recommended. I find that the wider grip reduces felt recoil as well as holding extra bullets.

    3. I carry a P12-45 daily. Compact version of the P14, similar in dimension to the Colt Officer’s Model, but with aluminum frame and twice the magazine capacity. I also shoot a P16-40 in USPSA competition. Both of these guns are top notch.

      1. Yeah, and it turns out that it wouldn’t be hard at all to make a very high-quality standardized model of a high-capacity .40/9mm with a rail and fit it into the Beretta’s bulk price range, making it a great pick for the military. I just hope someone has the brains and guts in the firearms industry to do it.

    4. I like the 1911. It is classic, and pretty, and makes satisfying clicks when you release the safety, and the .45 cal is a nice round.

      But I prefer the Glock in .40 caliber. There is no external safety, just pull the trigger and it goes bang. It is reliable and accurate/potent enough to do the job. I have been to FrontSight three times, and I am convinced that the Glock is a superior hand gun.

  10. That actually does make a lot of sene dude.

    http://www.privacy-web.no.tc

    1. See? S/he’s actually keyboarding it. No typos otherwise. Personally personalized.

  11. Society was the victim. Society has no voice, so who can better speak for society than politically ambitious agents of the state?

    1. My neighbor’s a goddess — quite literally, she’s classical beauty galore mixed with a supermodel-grade ++ body.

      But the lady that lives five houses down is a 400-pound gorilla, and her ass would speak better for society than the political class does.

  12. What’s the big deal. So California has a cash-flow/inmate population problem. Why not kill two birds with one stone?

  13. Debbie Wasserman Shultz yesterday on one of the news shows. Understand she says this unironically like it is a bad thing. These people hate freedom.

    “Like I said, the Republicans have a plan to end Medicare as we know it. What they would do is they would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them You know what? You’re on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the healthcare insurance market, we’re going to throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for pre-existing conditions. We’re going to give you X amount of dollars and you figure it out.”

    Yeah Debbie, let me keep my money and I will figure it out and you keep big butt out of it, okay?

    1. Keep on talkin’ Debbie and hit the campaign trail with Barack. Scare, frighten, fear, loathing…..this talk will go over real big — more verbosity — scare tactics have worked well with national security, right?

    2. That scenario reminds me of something. What could it be…

      Oh yeah, life.

    3. It’s telling that the free market is seen as a pack of wolves by these people.

    4. And she has not one fucking propposal to save it herself.

      It falls apart in roughly 14 years. And she demands that nothing be done to stop it. She is gunning for it intentionally.

    5. We’re going to give you X amount of dollars and you figure it out.

      She’s finally figured it out! Yes, you stupid cunt, that’s almost exactly the solution I would prefer. Except it’d be even better if the gov’t didn’t give anybody any money at all, and didn’t tax us for it.

    6. We’re going to give you X amount of dollars and you figure it out.

      Letting people figure stuff out the biggest horror of all.

      I once went to the store to buy some milk….they had like 4 different kinds in all sorts of different quantities.

      I huddled into a ball and remained in a catatonic state for days.

  14. And their own ability to teach their children how to get by in the world.

    “The Greatest Generation!” subcontracted that job to the unionized government school system fifty years ago. And now, we’re paying the price.

    Fucking concerned soccer moms (and the useless dickless morons who feed and coddle them) have been taught to fear their own shadows. And anybody who doesn’t is some sort of deranged psychopath.

    1. There does seem to be a certain breed of dickless hen pecked men out there. I would say at least 50% of the men I work with could be described that way. They are married to fucking nagging, bullying, spoiled, liberal white women. They are almost always upper middle class professional. God, I would take a shotgun in the mouth if I had to live those guys’ lives for a day.

      1. That’s the triumph of feminism.

        Adam Corolla is wrong. It won’t take fifty years.

        1. What is funny is that it doesn’t even make the women happy. All women can do these days is whine about how men are not manly enough. Well, that is what you wanted isn’t it? The whole point of feminism, in addition creating a priviledge caste of middle and upper class white women, is to perpetuate whinning.

          First they whine. Then they get what they want. Then they whine over what they have lost.

          1. What is funny is that it doesn’t even make the women happy. All women can do these days is whine about how men are not manly enough. Well, that is what you wanted isn’t it?

            If you go by “revealed preference”, what they want is to dominate their man but then complain about the consequences of that.

            From what I’ve read, though, women actually prefer an alpha male who asserts his dominance, takes what is his right as a man in the bedroom, but who treats her with respect but not cringing subservience elsewhere.

      2. I’d wager that a good 50% of the male population has been reduced to a sort of neutered pet at this point.

        As Adam Carolla says: “In fifty years we’ll all be chicks.”

      3. There does seem to be a certain breed of dickless hen pecked men out there. I would say at least 50% of the men I work with could be described that way. They are married to fucking nagging, bullying, spoiled, liberal white women. They are almost always upper middle class professional. God, I would take a shotgun in the mouth if I had to live those guys’ lives for a day.

        I suspect that if they put your brain in those men’s bodies, they would have a considerably less henpecked day.

        Hell, if they put my brain in their body for a single day, I’d fuck the hell out of their wife, enjoy the guilt-free adultery, and afterwards tell her to get her bitch ass in the kitchen and make me a sammidge, just to enjoy the fireworks.

        I would pity the poor sap when he resumed his body and was confronted by a furious wife, though.

        1. Alkazar: “Oh jeez what a night. Make me some coffee, would you?”

          Leela: “Uh, sure OK. What do you take with that?”

          Alkazar: “Pancakes and sausage. Kitchen’s in the basement, pans are in the attic.”

    2. Where the fuck are you people getting this meme that our current draconian law and order incarceration policy comes from soccer moms?

      Women are about the same or less likely as men to say, for example that our courts are “not harsh enough” and that the response to crime should focus more on law enforcement, and while they are less likely to support legalization of marijuana for example, it is not nearly by the same percentage that separates, say, conservatives/Republicans from liberals/Democrats.

      http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t247.pdf

      http://www.albany.edu/sourcebo…..132010.pdf

        1. We had a national debate on crime policy in the 1980’s where the Democrats were castigated for being soft on crime (remember Dukkakis the ACLU card carrying liberal stuff). Conservatives demanded an end to parole, liberal judge’s discretion, and more prisons and they attacked any liberal who opposed that idea. And they won election after election while the Dems lost election after election. They took a beating on this for a while until, with Clinton, they decided they would not be whipped on this issue anymore and they essentially joined what they could not beat. Our current incarceration policy is a conservative baby, DNA tested and mother accepted.

          1. Here is our incaceration policy historically. Around 1980, when conservatives started to dominate the national debate with the Reagan Revolution, incaceration rates exploded through the roof.

            Blaming our skyrocketing incaceration rates on liberals is the most hilarious form of revisionism I’ve seen on H&R yet. Contrary to history, contrary to polling data, contrary to political history and all correctional data, but hey, let’s give the meme a try anyway!

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..-clean.svg

            1. Blaming our skyrocketing incaceration rates on liberals is the most hilarious form of revisionism I’ve seen on H&R yet.

              I think it has moved beyond simple incarceration rates. Who or what is the driving force behind “Nanny State” politics? Who wants their children to be protected? Concerned mothers, that’s who. I don’t hear too many men saying, “IT’S FOR THE KIDS! THINK ABOUT THE KIDS!.” It’s part of the “maternal instinct”, and it leads to authoritarian bullshit. Conservatives have their authoritarian poster children, pardon the pun, as well, “PROTECT US FROM THE TERRORISTS!” But that’s a different topic.

              The fact of the matter is, liberal soccer moms don’t want drugs legalized any more than conservative men. Are you forgetting who helped push through Prohibition, and why women were reluctantly given the ability to vote?

              1. Can’t you both be right? The neocon fundie right has been pushing the WOD for as long as I can remember (I’m 40). The leftist nanny-staters have jumped on the bandwagon with their “for the children” bullshit since at least the Clinton admin and their “it takes a village” bullshit progressive groupthink.

                The two streams of shit form to make a nearly unstoppable wall of shit-water. It’s like Pittsburgh, if you will.

            2. I didn’t blame it on liberals.

            3. Well put MNG!

            4. If it becomes fashionable among dog owners not to bother housebreaking their dogs, and then after ten years of dogs pooping in houses people are so fed up with it that they start putting dogs who poop in the house to sleep, who do you blame for the increased dog death rate?

          2. So, you’re saying that conservatives and liberals both suck? I agree.

            1. Second that.

            2. Have discovered “law and order” and found that more crime provides a perfect excuse to tax and spend. All while seeming “Tough On Crime” to the soccer mom.

              1. …and create lots of good paying union jobs to help build the Middle Class.

          3. Fantastic story as always, MNG. Care to explain why Tip O’Neill’s House passed the Anti-Drug Act in 1986 which established the sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine?

            1. Because we were in a anti-drug hysteria. Like I said, Democrats were getting tired of being beaten with the soft on crime bat and they often joined with the law and order GOPers to make things worse.

              Besides, if you follow the logic of those who tried to equate the Dems and the GOP on support of the Patriot Act because a Dem Prez was going to sign it then the fact that Reagan signed Tip’s bill makes Ronnie own it.

              1. No MNG, the Boston Celtics lost Len Bias to crack-aggravated congenital cardiac disease and Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil represented Boston. Charlie Rangel thought Black neighborhoods were being devastated by the “new” crack and wanted to send a message. Mandatory minimums and the rock/powder sentencing disparity were passed when liberal Democrats controlled the House.

                1. Liberal democrats have never controlled the House, and certainly not at that time. One only needs to look at how in the same Congress the Boll Weevil Democrats gave Ronnie much of what he wanted.

              2. But the Dems by and large weren’t getting beat with a “soft on crime” bat. Dukakis did and not for drugs. Dukakis got beat with the “soft on crime” bat for the furlough program. Dukakis wanted to tie foreign aid with destruction of narco-crops which was actually tougher than George H.W.’s plan of locking up more “scary” black men (see:Willie Horton).

                And the Patriot Act….only one Congressman voted against it, so yes, Teams Red and Blue get to catch flak for it.

                1. Kitty did have a penchant for washing down her Meth w/ nail polish remover.

                  Thomas Szasz wrote an excellent piece explaining that women in such a social position don’t drink Sterno strained through a slice of bread. They just learn to lie about the quality of their booze in rehab.

        2. Soccer moms make convenient scapegoats. And painting all of them with the same broad brushstrokes is easier than thinking.

          1. You can’t be the regular –

          2. I wonder if somebody is spoofing Fluffy today. Am I offbase? Generally, would he employ such a phrase as “soccer bitches” so repetitively?

            1. He’s mad because I wouldn’t kick his balls

            2. Sure I would.

              It’s:

              A) True

              B) Misogynistic

              C) Fun.

              It’s a three-fer.

              1. D) Single.

              2. You’re welcome to my stalker bitches.

      1. Men like to deal with crime more decisively and probably prefer righteous vengeance to cuddling serial killers until they decide to change their ways, but I would imagine they also tend to have a much narrower idea of what constitutes “crime”, generally.

  15. You’re on your own.

    Oh, horrors! Whatever you do, don’t throw me in dat briar patch!

    1. Lol. 10 Internets for you.

    2. IF only it were true. It is not sadly. The Ryan plan is hardly what she describes. But it says something that when she lies and demogogues about it any sane person hearing her lies would go “that sounds like a pretty good idea”.

  16. I will never understand why libertarians feel free to assume that people in jail for non violent drug offenses are automatically pacifists.

    I will never understand why you think this has anything to do with anything.

    If somebody breaks the window out of your car and steals your tape deck to fund his dopesmoking hobby, that is completely different than spending his grocery-bagging income on pot.

  17. Surely our valiant defenders of states rights here are going to decry this recent decision to by a federal court to force a federal standard on a state’s correctional policy?

    Or is this another one of those cases where state’s rights is great, except where it isn’t?

    1. I agree entirely. What SHOULD happen, of course, is an armed insurrection, violent deposition of the government in Sacramento, trial and execution for treason, and a nullification subsequently of all laws that do not pertain to harming other people, their propertly, or violating contracts.

      1. *criminal laws.

      2. You are nuts buddy, I hope you have some meds.

        1. Well, you asked for it. What else is there to do, smart-ass? Wait for the ball-gobbling liberals to radically alter their philosophies en-masse, or for the faux-Republicans to the wake the fuck up? The state’s going to be dead by that time, and overcrowded prisons are going to be the very least of its worries.

          1. MNG, much of the support undergirding the empire building & maintenance, national security, military industrial complex is the sheople wanting to feel safe.

            A young woman who is a clerk for the Massachusetts Appeals Court told me yesterday at a cookout that people have a right to feel safe and secure and that democracies have the right to adopt laws to protect such a right.

            Scary!

            1. Except that the United States is a constitutional republican confederacy (American federalism); I’m using the term “confederacy” because it seems to fit the balance of powers between the central and state governments better in the United States.

              That means, of course, that the democratic elements of governance can only legislate within the highly strict and miniscule confines of supreme law. It would have probably given her a huge mind-fuck if you told her, though.

              1. Ooooh. Ooohhhh.

                You said “confederacy”!

                RACIST!!!

            2. There are pretty unskilled clerks in that court.

              A few seriously unqualified judges too.

        2. You are nuts buddy,

          So, back in 1776, MNG would have been a Tory?

          1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_(American_Revolution)

            Fuck yeah

          2. Without a doubt. All of the people who say “without a massive government, we’d have no roads, grannies dying in the streets, etc” would have been saying “without absolute monarchs…”

    2. I think the 8th Amendment has that covered? Christ, you area a dumb shit.

      The state admitted years ago that its treatment of inmates violated the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishments.”

      1. Yeah, I’m a dumb shit for recognizing that this was a federal court applying the federal 8th amendment to a state decision.

        It’s hilarious to see a defender of state’s rights invoking the 14th Amendment though, does one need any better instance of “States Rights: Great Except When it Isn’t?”

        The 14th Amendment was slapped on the states to make them follow federal standards, decided by courts and legislation via Congress.

        1. You are just trying to pick a fight where there isn’t one. The state admitted they violated the 8th. You can’t defend a state’s right when they admit they are wrong. That would be like trying to defend a murderer who admits his guilt. Move on.

          1. They admitted they violated a federal standard. If state’s righters had their consistent way who would care that a state violates a federal standard?

    3. The 14th is a nice way to define the boundaries of “states’ rights” and balance that classical ideal against individual liberty (that is, the feds have enumerated powers, the states have more or less unlimited powers except as restricted by their constitutions, but both the feds and states must respect the bill of rights).

      Since this is imposing the protections of the 8th via the 14th, it would fall into that category.

    4. The 14th is a nice way to define the boundaries of “states’ rights” and balance that classical ideal against individual liberty (that is, the feds have enumerated powers, the states have more or less unlimited powers except as restricted by their constitutions, but both the feds and states must respect the bill of rights).

      Since this is imposing the protections of the 8th via the 14th, it would fall into that category.

  18. Look, Rover! There’s that thing sneaking up behind you again! Get it, Boy! Keep running in circles, you’ll catch it. Faster!

    1. States Rights: A Great Idea, Except When it Isn’t!

      1. I agree — it isn’t SCotUS’s business. I agree wholeheartedly primarily because I don’t give a shit about California anymore. It used to be one of the world’s grandest, most beautiful, most prosperous places, one of America’s great prides. What it’s turned into is a disgrace and an utter, Satanic abomination, and it’s too far-gone for meaningful repair. Therefore, I don’t GIVE A FLYING FUCK, and I suspect many others here don’t either.

        1. Satanic?

          1. Not literally — I’m an atheist

            I was expressing the severity of the depravation

            1. Ahh, fair enough. I was wondering if I had missed out on some large news story lol

              1. You missed several.

      2. Right! States should be free to ban free speech, freedom of assembly, and all of the provisions of the first 8 Amendments of the Constitution.

      3. So, anyone who thinks something is a good idea unless it violates the BoR is a hypocrite/inconsistent, correct? Is that your position?

        (Warning: I have a follow-up question about the commerce clause.)

        1. Look, if you support using federal courts to make the states comply with federal standards in the BoR you are not for “state’s rights” except in the way I am mocking: State’s Rights, Great Except When it Isn’t!

          “I’m for decisions being made by the states and not the feds, oh except for on religion, and free speech, and guns, and search and seizure, and self-incrimination, and the right to counsel, and juries, and cruel and unusual punishments and..”

          Sheesh.

          1. How is this different from your “Regulate interstate commerce and anything that affects it, except for religion and all that BoR crap.”

            1. MNG does not understand American federalism, period. His liberal bullshit, as pointed and as decent a debater he is, is just that — bullshit.

            2. Er, because I think a federal standard is often better than state ones? WTF?

              Interstate commerce is regulated by the feds, the BoR by the feds. Where is my inconsistency?

  19. Poor little doggy, he can only see the world in black and white. But he loves it when somebody throws his stick for him.

    Sometimes he gets so excited, all he can do is run in circles peeing all over everything.

    1. P Brooks, the man who will sit and curse at pundits on the teevee and then go online and post about his encounter, is criticizing someone else for being excited.

  20. It’s just hilarious that every week people wax eloquently about the glory of state’s rights, and yet on a nearly weekly basis the same people join in celebrating some federal slap down on some horrendous state policy.

    Why not just jettison this silly meme? Sometimes states do better than the feds, sometimes worse.

    State’s Rights, it’s Great Except When it Isn’t!

    1. Leviathan’s Rights, State’s Rights: Their Never Great, Except Never!

    2. Ultimately a libertarian supports individual rights, not the rights of states, cities, provinces, nations, world governments, corporations, religious organisations, pastafarians etc. etc. etc.

      The real silly meme is the one you are producing: states rights versus federal rights. Neither is acceptable.

      1. In all fairness, there are “Constitutional libertarians”. Certainly, there are libertarians who do not recognize the authority of the Constitution, but would certainly place a ban on “Cruel and Unusual” punishment.

        1. If one is a libertarian not from America, then then US constitution does not matter anyway.

          1. I’m a constitutionalist/constitutional libertarian. MNG’s probably a left-of-center liberal.

    3. Well, the whole point of the federal government is to protect the rights of the citizens, and if the state government is infringing upon those rights, then yes, the Supreme Court has the responsibility to step in there.

      1. HUH?? WTF?? Listen let’s get states rights clear. It is not the right of a state against the people residing within it’s borders, it is it’s rights against other governments.

        And the point of the federal government if the US constitution was in effect (it’s idiotic to say that it wasn’t thrown out years ago) is the general welfare of what?…Let’s hear it..the UNITED STATES, not the people, and the common defense of what??? THE UNITED STATES. Anyone looking at the enumerated powers can see they are designed for the benefit of the states, while it was left to the states to safeguard the rights of the people within their borders.

    4. The difference is, if you don’t like a state’s policy, you can move to another (i.e. competition). Not so with a country (provided you want to keep your Constitutional rights).

      1. If you don’t like what the federal government is doing you can move to Somalia?

        1. If you don’t like what the federal government is doing you can move to Somalia Texas.

        2. Reading comprehension is hard.

        3. you’re supposed to move to ROADS!

          1. Unfortunately, writing for a well-read audience is harder 😉

        4. DRINK

    5. I very, very rarely argue from states’ rights.

      The only time I do so, really, is when the federal government tries to claim that a clearly in-state activity is part of “interstate commerce”.

      To me it’s always been clear that you have to cross a state line to engage in interstate commerce, the same way you have to cross a state line to engage in interstate kidnapping.

      But I don’t think anybody bitches about state and local government more than me.

    6. It’s just hilarious that every week people wax eloquently about the glory of state’s rights…

      States do not have rights. Individuals have rights. States have powers.

    7. You’re conflating the argument for restricting federal power and a strawman argument against restricting state power.

      Libertarians are usually fine with restricting both sorts of power. The SCOTUS opinion in this case restricts state power, so we’re generally OK with it.

      The Old South analogy you’re trying desperately to make is inapposite because the South wanted states to have the power to return escaped slaves to their owners (and enforce all the other laws necessary to keep slavery going), and didn’t want the federal government to interfere with that power. Very different.

      1. If you are for restrictions on state and federal powers, then good for you, I agree. My problem is with self-avowed “states righters” who argue that states making decisions=good, and, to be consistent, would have to decry federal courts smacking down state policies.

        Ron Paul has criticized, for example, Lawrence v. Texas, Texas v. Johnson and school prayer cases on this ground.
        That’s what I’m getting at.

        1. Yes, and RP has been criticized, by libertarians, for his position. It is a valid criticism. But considering all of the other possible statist candidates and current politicians in DC, this is small potatoes. Perhaps you would like to bring up the racist newsletters, again.

          http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods171.html

    8. It’s just hilarious that every week people wax eloquently about the glory of state’s rights, and yet on a nearly weekly basis the same people join in celebrating some federal slap down on some horrendous state policy.

      The feds have enumerated powers limiting what they can do. The states have broader powers, but are still limited by the Bill of Rights. When the states violate those rights, who else has the authority to stop those violations other than the federal government?

      Now, in this case, it’s not at all clear to me that California’s penal system is violating the Bill of Rights, and thus it’s not clear that SCOTUS ruled correctly here. It seems to me that telling a state how many prisoners they can cram into an existing facility is any business of the federal government.

      But, it’s at best clueless and at worst disingenuous to equate “federal government enforcing the bill of rights” with “federal government meddling in state affairs when its not an enumerated power of the feds”. Not all interventions are the same.

      1. Above should read:

        “It seems to me that telling a state how many prisoners they can cram into an existing facility is NOT any business of the federal government.”

    9. You do not understand federalism.

    10. i;ve noticed this numerous times as well. the reality is that a libertarian is no more likely (ime) to be pure when it comes to this kind of hypocrisy than any other ideologue embracing any other philosophy.

      i’ve noticed most are perfectly willing to throw out the concepts of seperation of powers, equality under the law, etc. when it comes to pet issues.

      iow, they are human too

    11. Conceptual thinking is truly beyond you.

  21. Happy memorial day to all.

    I’m not one for militarism, but I can value the mindset and service of most who serve our nation well militarily. So thanks to our H&Rers; who have served, such as Art POG, Kyle Jordan (?), John, and this year most of all J sub D, a man who served his nation and seemed to always carry himself with nobility, a man of civility and yet unbending principle.

    1. http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/books/battles/

      Battles and Leaders of the civil war on line. A four volumn histor of the war consisting of nothing but first hand accounts written in the 1880s. Great reading.

      1. I appreciate it, MNG.

    2. And thank you MNG.

    3. Memorial Day is supposed to be for people who died in national service, not everyone in the military, no?

      I know we’re expected to kiss military ass but it would be nice to keep it to a minimum.

      1. Yeah, who likes freedom anyway? SIEG HEIL!

    4. I should clarify: I harbor no animus against people in the military, but it irks me that I’m expected to bow down and thank people for being in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’re not serving our country, they’re in effect serving the douches in the civilian command who are afraid of something embarrassing happening if they pull out. And they’re getting compensated quite well for what they do. Not that it’s their fault that their service is meaningless, that’s the fault of said civilian douches.

      1. So it was meaningless to go after the Taliban and the people who were responsible for 9-11? Interesting theory of meaning you have there.

        And yes memorial day is for those who died. Good catch. And don’t worry, no one wants your thanks anyway.

        1. I’ll give you the original invasion of Afghanistan; personally I’m not sure that was a good idea either since we clearly had no idea what to do next after temporarily driving Osama and the Taliban into hiding. But, at least it was justifiable re: our national interest.

          That gets us up to, say, late 2002. Since then it’s been an exercise in kicking the can down the road. And Iraq never made any sense, nor does Libya.

      2. “They’re not serving our country, they’re in effect serving the douches in the civilian command”

        That’s how our national system is structured: voters pick douches and the military, thank God, does what the douches say (take a gander at some Latin American, Middle Eastern and African nations where the military doesn’t do what the civilian douches in charge say and see how that worked out). They sacrifice for our system, you can tell this by how they perform under different leaders and parties in power. Since I like our system I can be thankful for those who serve that system in that way.

      3. “And they’re getting compensated quite well for what they do.”

        HAAAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAA
        ahhh haha hee hoo..
        Oh wait, you were being serious, weren’t you?

      4. “Not that it’s their fault that their service is meaningless”

        How do you manage that line of thinking?

  22. A majority of the justices decided that when a state approaches Stalinist standards of barbarity, something has to be done.

    Of course we can only get a 5-4 majority on that whole being-better-than-Stalin thing.

  23. http://www.boingboing.net/2011…..etrib.html

    PBS site hacked by wikileaks douchebags over PBS Frontline episodes. I will say it, fuck wikileaks.

    1. LOL HI I EAT CHILDRENS

      I almost pissed myself. I guess that makes me racist?

    2. Fuck PBS. Thanks to the hackers for improving the educational and entertainment value of the PBS site.

  24. Tressell resigned at OSU. They must be going to get slammed by the NCAA. Now if the NCAA can just find time to catch Auburn, Alabama and the rest of the SEC.

    1. I support this!

      1. If anybody here hadn’t figured out what my name means, it’s a nod to my Buckeye roots and my current place of residence.

        While I believe Tressel had to go, I’m severely pissed at the joy being expressed by SEC fans at this news. What Tressel did was wrong (because he agreed to the rules the NCAA required of it’s members to participate), yet it is a widely known fact that at least one SEC football program has been under sanctions by the NCAA since it’s inception. (See: linky here.)

        FTA: When Mike Slive succeeded Roy Kramer as SEC commissioner in 2002, he laid out a goal to have every school off probation within five years.

        They never reached that goal. So, for a bunch of fucks from the SEC to gloat over the resignation of an exceptionally successful coach and mentor who cared deeply about the kids in his program, I say fuck you. We’ll have Urban Meyer coaching there after his sabbatical ends in one more year and you can suck it.

        1. Auburn and Alabama do worse things like over sign scholarships to screw other schools and keep them from getting players. Then they tell four or five kids every May “sorry we know you signed here but we are not giving you a scholarhip.” Then of course it is too late for the kid to go to his second or even fourth choice because those schools are already full up. The SEC is truly scum.

          1. Unfortunately that practice goes a lot further than just Auburn and Alabama, You’ll find at least one or two teams in each one of the major conferences that does the same. It’s a sad reality of the sport.

            But usually the schools find ways to open up space by having kids go to prep school for a year, pushing kids to medical scholarships, suggesting kids transfer, or just pulling scholarships from under performers.

            1. They really do exploit the hell out of those players. First, the big time schools give their players very little time to actually go to school. They give them just enough time to stay eligible and that is it. To me that is fraud. The “pay” that they are supposed to be getting is a free education. Yet, the schools won’t let them take full advantage of the opportunity. Those players also risk serious life dibilitating injury. Meanwhile the schools make millions and the NFL gets a free minor league.

              1. a: Nobody is forcing them to play
                b: An education can be gotten in 4-5 years. Kids in big-time programs do it all the time.
                c: They can buy insurance against injuries
                d: They can form their own league, play at an NAIA school, go to the CFL or get the NFL union to drop their fucked-up rules keeping 18-20 year olds out.

                1. Yes, no one is forcing them to play. But that doesn’t give the schools the right to not pay up on their promise of giving a free education. Yes, some do get an education, but most don’t and that is not all their doing. The schools make no effort to do anything but keep them eligible.

                  And you can’t buy insurance for injury unless you are a star and can expect a high future income. What about the average player who will never see the NFL who gets seriously injured? He is fucked.

                  And it is not the NFL Union that has the rule, it is the NFL. And yes the rule should be dropped. And there shouldn’t be college football. There should be a minor league like baseball where players can go straight out of high school and make a living rather than get ripped off by the NCAA.

              2. Isn’t that the free market?

                1. Well it isn’t really a free market… The students are tied into the contract and face stiff penalties if they want to transfer (losing a year of eligibility) where as the universities face almost no penalty for pulling a scholarship and are only committed on a year to year basis.

                  1. It kind of is the free market though, because that’s the system the universities and athletes have agreed to operate under. I’m not sure how much the gov’t is involved with the NCAA (aside from bullshit bowl investigations every once in awhile), but if there was no gov’t involvement in the NCAA at all, and they still had this system, I’d have to support it. You indicate that it isn’t really fair that students lose a year of eligibility, since universities face almost no penalties for a similiar infraction, but that’s the natural result of a market force: the university has something that the athlete wants and needs, much more so than the university needs any one athlete. So of course the contract is going to heavily favor the university, much as what happens to average salaries and benefits when there’s a surplus of labor chasing limited jobs.

                    1. “the university has something that the athlete wants and needs, much more so than the university needs any one athlete”

                      What they have is the only gateway into the only major professional league in the nation, and they have that because of a massive conspiracy to restrain commerce that only exists under our anti-trust laws because of the CBA exemption.

                    2. I can give you the anti-trust bullshit, but absent that, I still think one league would dominate. If that happened, in the absence of gov’t intervention, we’d have to accept the results of that. Of course, I suppose that’s a hypothetic at this point, but I honestly think things wouldn’t change very much if the anti-trust nonsense was revoked. Strictly my opinion, of course.

                    3. ^^should read, “…that’s a hypothetical…”

        2. sloopy, are you in the Columbus area? How do the locals view Tressel?

          This morning, on both of Boston’s sports / talk outlets, 2 hosts on one program and another on the other station limned Tressel as arrogant and that Tressel had come across as being above it all and beyond criticism. Any truth to that?

          1. I’m in California (hence the …inca after sloopy). Of course, all the media out here are begging for serious sanctions after the Reggie Bush fiasco. I don’t think tOSU are gonna get hit that hard though. It looks like Tressel kept everything from the school. If he did and if he testifies to that effect to the NCAA in August, the school should get a bit of a pass. If it turns out that he told Gene Smith or Gordon Gee, then they ought to get the book thrown at them.

            AFAIK, The Vest was loved by virtually everyone associated with the university. He taught classes, donated loads of time and money back to the school and pushed integrity and fair-play on his kids. That’s why there’s so much heartbreak here. When the shit hit the fan, everything he had said became hypocrisy of the highest order.

            1. Yeah, you’re second paragraph sums of the general feelings about him, the only hate you would generally hear about him is about his coaching style and under utilizing players.

            2. damn, I thought you were an incan

          2. I think a lot of Buckeye fans blame Pryor.
            I always liked Tressel as a coach, but I never worshipped the guy. I’m one of the people (like Doc refers to) that thought Tress was a little too risk averse – still has too much Woody in him. His holier than thou attitude left me cold.

            I still think it’s BS that players can’t do what they wish with their own property. And it still rankles that the paragon Tom Osborne hid a player’s gun related to a crime in his office for months and he wasn’t penalized.

        3. I hate the SEC too, besides the top 4 teams the rest of the conference is pretty weak. But the big ten bothers me for the same reason, even tho I was born an illini and big ten fan they’ve been overrated the past decade for the most part.
          I despise ND for the same reason (and their ridiculous fan base that 90% have absolutely no affiliation with the school)

          Granted some of the hatred might stem from the fact that I played in the big east and am mad at myself for not playing in the SEC or Big 10. Playing infront of 100,000+ is a lot cooler than 40,000…

          1. I also wouldn’t have minded being surrounded by all those southern belles and old money…

            1. http://www.athleteswives.com/2…..yles-wife/

              That is what being a decent quarterback at Alabama gets you. And people play football in the NE why?

              1. that’s fucking disgusting

              2. http://www.athleteswives.com/?…..rch=Search

                Thats the one that really made me regret going big east.

              3. That is what being a decent quarterback at Alabama gets you. And people play football in the NE why?

                Have you been drinking today? I FIFY.

                1. Brodie wasn’t a bad college quarterback. Better than John Parker Wilson, who was nothing but a good high school quarterback. If Croyle had played for Sabin rather than that idiot Shula, he would have won a lot of games.

                  Croyle has been lousy in the pros mostly because he is too frail and thin to stay healthy. But that doens’t mean he wasn’t a decent college quarterback.

                2. You know, there have been Alabama quarterbacks who have played in NE, be it New England or New York, both G-Men and Jets. Some have even gone on to fame as home run hitting thrid basemen with injury prone elbows to later manage and get busted for cocaine.

                  To whom do I refer?

                  Joe Willie Namath, Richard Todd, Jeff Rutledge and Clell Laverne “Butch” Hobson.

                  John probably did not need me to name the names.

                  1. I meant more in college. If you are good enough to make the NFL, you go where the check is. And with that kind of money, women will follow. God, I can’t imagine being Namath back in the day.

        4. Christ. Go Blue!

    2. Eh, fuck the NCAA.

    3. It was funny seeing NCAA slam the hammer down on Boise State a couple of months ago for buying pizzas and giving kids rides to the airport and stuff like that. The “inappropriate contributions” came out to something like $5 per recruit. Good to see they have their priorities in order.

      1. The NCAA is a semi-private sector example of an effete, obsolete, pyramidal institution whose days are numbered.

        1. The NCAA is so corrupt and incompetent, they should be a government agency.

          1. Actually, they’re really not any different than the other public-private “partnerships” that exist. Sorry for the useless comment above

  25. very gooooooooooood

  26. Attention-Whore-in-Chief goes to Missouri, displays concern.

    1. I hate that shit too. But in Obama’s defense, the population loves that shit. When Bush didn’t go to New Orleans and personally fish people off their roofs, they killed him for not caring. It is total waste of time for a President to go to a disaster area. But the majority of people love it and expect it.

      1. My memory is fuzzy. Didn’t the media nearly tar and feather Bush because he waited nearly a week to go to the gulf coast (because he said he didn’t want to be a distraction or be in the way)? He was in Washington DC trying to do his job (albeit poorly). Someone please refresh my memory. How long ago was the Joplin tornado again? And where was Obama? Swilling wine with the QoE and her inbred offspring…you know, his peers. Oh and with a fawning media awaiting his exit from the palace to get his take on the menu.

        Bush hates black people=OK
        Obama should have come home=racist

        1. They destroyed him for not being on the scene. The fact that him being on the scene would have just been a distraction never got mentioned. In contrast imagine if Bubba Clinton had been President during Katrina. He would have showed up and been fishing people out of the Bayou and crying on shoulders. Doing so would have gotten multiple people killed because of the huge distraction of the President being there. But the media wouldn’t have metnioned that. They would have ate it up.

          1. The problem is that he never boldly said, shortly after taking office, “FEMA and all it does is not an enumerated power granted the federal government. I am firing all these people on this basis. If bad shit happens, the responsibility is squarely on the shoulders of the state and local officials to take care of the problem, because it would be a violation of my oath of office to involve the federal government.”

            I mean, they’d still try to criticize him, but he’d had pre-emptively cut the legs out from under their argument, so long as he didn’t cave.

          2. I don’t remember Bush being criticized so much for not being at the scene as for the incompetent way FEMA responded, and then when they found out he had named his horse trading budy with little experience as FEMA head it fit the “administration lacking in competence but full of cronyism” meme that he was always fighting off.

            1. I don’t remember Bush being criticized so much for not being at the scene as for the incompetent way FEMA responded

              I do. You must have been on a month long bender, or something, or have selective memory.

              https://reason.com/search?cx=00…..Search#977

              1. Ugh — I hate having to get near these redneck low-lifes — back to the links ASAP.

    2. All week he was criticized for not going down immediately, not that he goes wingnuts criticie him for going.

      Who saw that coming?

      1. yikes, that should read “now that he goes wingnuts criticize him for going”

  27. “Buy a gun. Get a dog.” That may keep me safe from criminals, but is going to get me and my dog killed when allergy season rolls around and I get green-lighted for buying too much decongestant.

    1. Bust down that door!

  28. The Riskless Society, FTW!

    The German government agreed on Monday to phase out all nuclear power by 2022, a sharp reversal by Chancellor Angela Merkel aimed at appeasing the country’s intensified antinuclear movement.

    und

    “The exit is necessary, and is recommended, in order to rule out the risks of nuclear power,” the commission said. “It is possible, because there are less risky alternatives.”

    The commission added that “the exit should be designed so as not to endanger the competitiveness of industry and the economy.”

    An earthquake in Japan damages a nuclear power plant; therefor, we must shut down all our plants!

    And we can do it with wind power (and by burning our trash).

    1. (and by burning our trash)

      How much energy content does an East German contain?

    2. Yes this really is stupid. The funniest part is that Germany will buy electricity from France next door – which is nuclear power generated.

      1. But German Greens will feel better. And that is what the whole cult is all about, feeling good.

        1. I find it comical that in one generation, we (WWII allies) managed to turn the western world’s most belligerent people into a bunch of hand-wringing, sniveling pussies. I’m sure France do as well.

          1. My plan has worked perfectly.

          2. Well, it happened to the French first, so I wouldn’t laugh if I was them.

    3. This is absolutely terrible news. The eco-terrorists win again.

  29. Sweet Mike Ness photo

    1. It’s definitely an older one. I don’t think he has any unillustrated skin left on his arms these days.

  30. If the function of penitentiaries is to keep bad people from preying on good people,

    Except the real function of penitentiaries, and schools, is to provide an employment vehicle for unionized “workers”.

  31. Krugabe is concerned.

    Unemployment is a terrible scourge across much of the Western world. Almost 14 million Americans are jobless, and millions more are stuck with part-time work or jobs that fail to use their skills. Some European countries have it even worse: 21 percent of Spanish workers are unemployed.

    Nor is the situation showing rapid improvement. This is a continuing tragedy, and in a rational world bringing an end to this tragedy would be our top economic priority.

    For some reason, I think Krugabe equates “work” with “get a paycheck”.

    Bear in mind that the unemployed aren’t jobless because they don’t want to work, or because they lack the necessary skills. There’s nothing wrong with our workers ? remember, just four years ago the unemployment rate was below 5 percent.

    Gliding serenely past the ugly truth that much of what those people were doing was wasting misallocated capital, he goes on to suggest that putting those people to work digging holes and filling them back in in a new! improved! WPA fixing the nation’s roads (Take that, AFSCME!) will give them more debased dollars with which to pay off their crushing debts.

    And everyone lived happily ever after.

    The End.

    1. And they are not unemployed because Krugabe and the people he supports have made war on the productive for going on eight decades now. They are unemployed because our multtrillion dollar government just isn’t spending enough. Got that Brooks.

    2. Godwin’s Law, Monetary Edition

      Any mention of the advantages of a higher inflation target will evoke, almost immediately, claims that you’re trying to turn America into the Weimar Republic and/or Zimbabwe.

      That is all.

      http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c…..y-edition/

    3. Um, maybe their skills suck and they should get new skills?

  32. Krugabe’s big finish:

    As I see it, policy makers are sinking into a condition of learned helplessness on the jobs issue: the more they fail to do anything about the problem, the more they convince themselves that there’s nothing they could do. And those of us who know better should be doing all we can to break that vicious circle.

    “Learned helplessness” you say?
    Perhaps, after bashing their heads against the wall long enough, they stopped expecting it to turn into a flock of butterflies.

  33. We won’t be Zimbabwe until the government opens Ted Turner’s land to homesteaders and buffalo hunters.

  34. Free Tiffany Startz!!!

    Guy accepts 5 to let a chick punch him in the face at a party. She does and he drops dead a while later. Why is she being charged? (It is in Illinois, btw.)

    Bonus: fat girl angle photo and the guy was an aspiring white rapper named “Fatboy” Powell. As far as I can see, shouldn’t she get a prize or something?

    1. Ira Goldstein said: ‘People get paid to get hit.’

      Yes, they do. After being licensed to do so by the state’s athletic commission.

    2. The punch thing is a sad accident that was consensual.

      Neglecting to call for medical assistance while letting the underage drinkers leave and getting their story straight is criminal.

  35. shouldn’t she get a prize or something?

    There should be a bounty on “white rappers”.

    1. Is there some kind of a fund I could donate to? Do you have a newsletter?

  36. Russia bans German, Spanish Vegetables. The comatose silently accept the discrimination.

  37. Let the jokes begin:

    In Russia, E. coli _________________.
    In Russia, vegetables _______________.
    In Russia, bureaucrats _______________.
    Etc.

  38. The incarceration rates for California in particular and the US in general are absurd, especially in a country wherein the various governments draw their legitimacy and just powers come from “we, the people.”

    The problem is at least twofold: we have too many laws in the first place, and too many BAD laws in addition. Yet “we the people” can’t seem to muster the political will to rescind the bad laws, much less the surplus of “good” ones — perhaps that is our biggest problem. We have “evolved” from a populace that is jealous of its liberty and suspicious — even contemptuous — of government, and into a population that paradoxically trusts in the wisdom and benevolence of Uncle Sugar.

    How to help people see that the thick blanket of laws is actually a strait-jacket that binds us all? How to help people have the courage of their convictions, so as to enable them to take action in the name of common sense?

    The Court has given us a great opportunity to get back on the right path, if we will only take it. But, as so many of our prisoners are incarcerated because of the Drug War, one of our biggest tasks is to get our considerable congressional delegation to lead the charge in the fight to end that War.

    1. I believe that we, as a society, have gone beyond the point of no return. Too many people profit from the number of drug laws on the books. From the LEO and CO unions to the state social workers, they provide employment opportunities that would otherwise go away. The LEO union, they can play fear politics and manipulate voters. At the same time, the voters buy into the “tough on crime” campaigning by socially conservative judges on the right and their social-engineering lovers that have become the core of criminal justices on the left since the mid-90’s. There is no viable libertarian alternative.

      In addition to the LEO and CO unions, the right wing socons use scare tactics and the blame game to force a “clean” lifestyle on everyone for the sake of the children and our “Judeo-Christian history.” They fear temptation and do everything they can to remove it. They blame the booze instead of the drunk driver who kills a carload of kids. They blame cigarette companies instead of the kid who buys them from the 7-11. They blame four loko instead of the kid who drinks 6 of them and falls off a balcony. They blame crack instead of the thief who shoots somebody while robbing their house.

      There are, unfortunately, only two ways we will get to the point where our society values liberty over security. The first is open insurrection resulting in the partitioning of America into multiple, smaller nations. The second is to reset our current government by way of a constitutional convention.

      1. Pay increases coupled with hiring freezes for the drug war “industries” could solve this problem in the long term. Of course my fellow libertarians will squeal like stuck pigs because it goes against the dogma.

        1. I say, go the other direction. (SLD applies for the following)

          Cut cops and CO’s pay and bennies by 10% and see how many quit. Cut another 10% and see how many more quit. Repeat process until there are 60% of the original #. Then make them all salaried employees and eliminate overtime and paid pension plans that are not 100% self-funded without public money.

          Do the same for all teachers, social worker programs, EPA workers, park rangers, civilian DOD employees, et al until we balance the budget.

          After that, we could take a serious look at eliminating the programs still in play.

          1. Cut cops and CO’s pay and bennies by 10% and see how many quit.

            You’re going to get booted out of office before any of them quit.

            Plus I don’t think we want unemployed ex-cops roaming the streets anyway.

            1. it would be like the warriors . roaming gangs!

        2. It’s not really a bad idea. Shut the existing drug warriors up with a payoff. Reduce the total number of them with hiring freezes and loss by attrition. Funnel more and more drug war money into paying the pensions of the existing drug warriors, and you’ve just GM/UAW’d the drug war.

      2. It’s ridiculous to pretend lefties do not demand prohitionism too: They profit from it every bit as much as conservatives do.

        Apart from that, you’re right.

        1. realizing that “leftie” =/= democrat, the dems are at least as bad, and imo arguably worse than repubs on this shit.

          they tend to also get worse on even “legal” drugs like ridiculous restrictions on alcohol, etc. (bans on “fortified wines” which is basically cheap alcohol – iow, stuff that disproportionately affects the poor, such as in many cities) etc.

          clinton was at least as “fierce” a drug warrior as most repubs.

          1. It depends on location, I think, as I stated earlier regarding “soccer mom” voting patterns. In the deep (red) south, they’re much easier on cigs than dems are, but they’re still ball-busters on alcohol. Lots of restrictions on buying on Sundays, after hours, etc. Shit, OK only recently started selling full-strength beer that you can take home. And Lubbock, TX, a college town, was dry, because the local Baptist Council had a lock-down on the city gov’t. That also has changed, but just within the last couple of years (it was still dry when I graduated college there in 05, but I’m told it changed a couple of years ago).

            1. i don’t know if it still does shit this way, but when i was in Mass. a few years ago (hardly a conservative/fundie bastion), they still had blue laws- you couldn’t buy alcohol on a sunday from a store (*but could from a bar) and you had to go to state stores to buy your booze.

              i lived in a “dry town” to the extent you couldn’t SELL alcohol. otoh, you could drink it in public and even (although rarely advertised by law enforcement) drink as a passenger in a motor vehicle.

              you could bring your own bottle of wine to a restaurant, and the restaurant would charge you a ‘corking fee’ to serve it back to you, but they couldn’t sell alcohol.

              1. I suppose left/right, religious/secular, doesn’t matter…by and large, people are just assholes.

              2. Mass. doesn’t have state liquor stores in the sense that Washington state does. Liquor stores are private but state-licensed, and they are the only places you can buy any alcohol other than that godawful cooking wine. An initiative for wine at the grocery store failed a few years back.

                The situation may be more liberal near the borders – for quite a while towns near the NH border were permitted to sell on Sundays. Presumably this was to keep the customers in state. The Sunday rule was repealed statewide a few years ago, I think – it certainly doesn’t seem to be in effect when I visit my folks.

                1. that’s cool they replaced the sunday law. most of the guys i know who liked drinking (i don’t drink much) would organize a new hampshire trip for liquor purchases. and of course the state of MA had all sorts of laws about “transporting liquor” even in unopened containers, when it was purchased out of state, etc. … which is SO typical of blue state nannyism.

          2. Oh, and I should add; Lubbock at one point in time held a national record for having the most churches per capita of any city in the US above a certain size. I had never heard the phrase “the demon rum” in my life until I moved there. The hyper-religious indigenous population was constantly outraged by the drunken antics of college students, and so spends most of it’s time castigating the evils of alcohol and trying to prevent any loosening of the laws on it.

    2. especially in a country wherein the various governments draw their legitimacy and just powers come from “we, the people.”

      Unfortunately, We the People are made up of mostly idiots with irrational fears and no capacity for long term thinking.

    3. “The incarceration rates for California in particular and the US in general are absurd, especially in a country wherein the various governments draw their legitimacy and just powers come from “we, the people.”

      In a lot of other parts of the world, so long as you don’t criticize or make problems for the people in power? They’ll generally leave you alone.

      Here in the U.S., even though we’re free to criticize and make problems for the people in power, the people who pull the levers of power–will not leave us alone. They feel it necessary to legalize or outlaw almost every aspect of our lives.

      The basis of the social contract in a lot of other countries is–don’t interfere with what we in the government are doing, and we’ll leave you alone. You don’t want to be in our way, but if you stay out of our way, we will pretty much leave you alone.

      We tend to look down on third world countries with thoroughly corrupt thugs in power, but I’m not entirely convinced that what they’ve got is worse than what we’ve got in each and every way.

      I sometimes wish I could just plan my life around staying out of some thuggish government’s way–if the trade off were that the government wouldn’t try to micromanage every aspect of my life. …even if I’m just minding my own business!

      You look at like the Zapatistas in Chiapas, and they’re still there! Autonomous as all get out. Mexico doesn’t care all that much if the Zapatistas want to declare their independence and autonomy–so long as they stay out of the government’s way.

      But we can’t tolerate stuff like that in the U.S.

      I’m not saying one’s all good and the other’s all bad, but there are some trade offs between the two.

      I guess one of the big tradeoffs is between them being able to throw us in jail for almost anything like in the U.S.; and it being really hard to have people thrown in jail for anything less than murder.

      1. We tend to look down on third world countries with thoroughly corrupt thugs in power, but I’m not entirely convinced that what they’ve got is worse than what we’ve got in each and every way.

        Yes, I hear we have it so bad that there will be an Arab ‘American Spring’ soon

        1. Yeah, wait ’til they find out that voting isn’t the solution to their problems either.

          Or, God forbid, that the new boss uses the fact that the people voted–to justify micromanaging their lives for them?

          Anyway, some of the places I’m talking about, like southern Mexico, where I lived, are reasonably democratic. I don’t think a criminal record counts for much in Mexico–I don’t think the government keeps a database of people for future employers to check.

          Unless you get in a physical altercation or you steal something big, neither the police nor the government are getting involved in your life for the most part.

          It’s just a different set of problems. If you call the police down there to tell them to go across the street and tell the people throwing the party to keep it down because you’re trying to sleep, they’ll probably tell you to go over there and tell them yourself.

          There’s a self-limiting kind of mechanism to it. It’s easier to pick up the phone and call code enforcement than it is to go knock on somebody’s door look ’em in the eye and tell ‘me what’s bothering you. It’s like a moral hazard kind of thing–when you make it so cheap to pick up a phone and use the government to screw with other people, people do it more often…

          There’s an old saying about stupid and efficient being the worst possible combination–and that’s what I’m tryin’ to get at here.

          Libertopia happens when everybody starts solving their own damn problems.

          1. did you hurt your ass trying to slide backwards?

  39. Since it’s Memorial Day, here’s Ayn Rand on war (what is it good for?)

    “Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships. By the nature of its basic principles and interests, it is the only system fundamentally opposed to war.

    Men who are free to produce, have no incentive to loot; they have nothing to gain from war and a great deal to lose. Ideologically, the principle of individual rights does not permit a man to seek his own livelihood at the point of a gun, inside or outside his country. Economically, wars cost money; in a free economy, where wealth is privately owned, the costs of war come out of the income of private citizens?there is no overblown public treasury to hide that fact?and a citizen cannot hope to recoup his own financial losses (such as taxes or business dislocations or property destruction) by winning the war. Thus his own economic interests are on the side of peace.

    In a statist economy, where wealth is “publicly owned,” a citizen has no economic interests to protect by preserving peace?he is only a drop in the common bucket?while war gives him the (fallacious) hope of larger handouts from his master. Ideologically, he is trained to regard men as sacrificial animals; he is one himself; he can have no concept of why foreigners should not be sacrificed on the same public altar for the benefit of the same state.

    The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonists throughout history. Trade does not flourish on battlefields, factories do not produce under bombardments, profits do not grow on rubble. Capitalism is a society of traders?for which it has been denounced by every would-be gunman who regards trade as “selfish” and conquest as “noble.”

    Let those who are actually concerned with peace observe that capitalism gave mankind the longest period of peace in history?a period during which there were no wars involving the entire civilized world?from the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914.”

    Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, “The Roots of War,” 38

    1. No one can take a solid premise and make it sound absurd through hyperbole quite like Rand.

      1. What, in this quote, do you take to be “hyperbole”?

        1. The first 3 paragraphs, and the second half of the 4th. I’ll give her a pass on the 5th though it is pretty oddly worded and doesn’t count the Civil War.

          1. Agreed on the Civil War, however, one could argue that that was an example of the state going to war with itself over ending its own policy of sanctioning the extreme opposite of “laissez-faire” capitalism–treating humans as chattel.

            I don’t see how statements such as “Men who are free to produce, have no incentive to loot,” “the principle of individual rights does not permit a man to seek his own livelihood at the point of a gun,” “Economically, wars cost money; in a free economy…a citizen cannot hope to recoup his own financial losses [from the war],” and “Ideologically, he is trained to regard men as sacrificial animals; he is one himself; he can have no concept of why foreigners should not be sacrificed on the same public altar for the benefit of the same state” are far off the mark.

            1. Whenever criticizing Ayn Rand you have to be simultaneously as snarky and vague as humanly possible. Pretty sure it’s the law.

              1. ” you have to be simultaneously as snarky and vague as humanly possible”

                I have to think Rand would have appreciated that as very sincere flattery.

            2. “Men who are free to produce, have no incentive to loot,”

              Clearly this is in contradiction to thousands of years of recorded history. It would be nice if this were true, but if it was then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

              “the principle of individual rights does not permit a man to seek his own livelihood at the point of a gun,”

              In reality, people don’t need her principle’s permission to do so.

              “Economically, wars cost money; in a free economy…a citizen cannot hope to recoup his own financial losses [from the war],”

              Even in an imaginary anarchocapitalist world, waging a private war could certainly be profitable given enough soft targets. Look to the history of piracy (and even today) for examples.

              “Ideologically, he is trained to regard men as sacrificial animals; he is one himself; he can have no concept of why foreigners should not be sacrificed on the same public altar for the benefit of the same state”

              That’s quite a strawman there.

    2. Men who are free to produce, have no incentive to loot…

      Except those who find producing to be too time-consuming or difficult, and subsequently find looting to be much easier.

      1. In the statist society, it is these moochers and leeches who prosper through influence with the government. In a true laissez-faire capitalism, they end up out of business and, hopefully, destitute. Only in a society based on reqarding failure and political connections more than productive behavior can a looter find refuge.

      2. Except those who find producing to be too time-consuming or difficult, and subsequently find looting to be much easier.

        Keep in mind that when talking to an Objectivist, standard and accepted definitions of words do not apply. You have to get a grasp of their NEWSPEAK to even understand what they’re talking about.

        1. It’s called “English,” and words have exact meanings.

          1. It’s called “English,” grammar, and it has rules too 😉

        2. OK, so pull up some of those words that you think have been redefined, and compare and contrast the dictionary meaning and what you think Rand redefined them to mean. Be specific.

          I’m not really an Objectivist, but you are being so vague here that I can’t really take your criticism seriously.

          1. “Linguistic Analysis came on the scene for the avowed purpose of “clarifying” language?and proceeded to declare that the meaning of concepts is determined in the minds of average men, and that the job of philosophers consists of observing and reporting on how people use words.

            The reductio ad absurdum of a long line of mini-Kantians, such as pragmatists and positivists, Linguistic Analysis holds that words are an arbitrary social product immune from any principles or standards, an irreducible primary not subject to inquiry about its origin or purpose?and that we can “dissolve” all philosophical problems by “clarifying” the use of these arbitrary, causeless, meaningless sounds which hold ultimate power over reality. . . .

            Proceeding from the premise that words (concepts) are created by whim, Linguistic Analysis offers us a choice of whims: individual or collective. It declares that there are two kinds of definitions: “stipulative,” which may be anything anyone chooses, and “reportive,” which are ascertained by polls of popular use.”

            Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 77?78

          2. http://aynrandlexicon.com/ Go there and pick any word. See how close it comes to what you would say is a generally accepted definition.

            Look at the one for “Man” and see if you get the impression that she has ever interacted with another human being.

  40. I’d be curious what the initial charges are. With the courts so bogged down, solid cases are being plead out all over the place.

    However, I do agree that something needs to be done. And looking at the low-risk, low-impact offenders makes the most sense.

  41. This (TNG themed) video is quite hypnotic:

    http://vimeo.com/4555570

    1. If it’s videos you want, it’s videos you get:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8BWBn26bX0

      1. With all due respect to the metal heads around here, that’s one of the better songs that’s ever been posted to HnR. (That I had never heard before, at least.)

        1. I’ve had the mp3 around forever and just looked up the video the other day. I was delighted.

          1. Good work on that.

            This is one the best videos I’ve seen in ages:

            http://vimeo.com/20913131

            (via VHS Dreamz)

            1. I thought the TNG video was, as you said, hypnotic. Made me want to watch some TNG eps, which I haven’t really done since Season 4.

              1. Oh dude, check them out, esp seasons 3, 4, 5, and 6.

                The AV Club has been reviewing them:

                http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/t…..ation,102/

                1. My GF used to have every single one on VHS but I think she got rid of them a few years ago. I’ll ask her, but I’ll probably be stuck with netflix or buying the DVDs. I stopped watching for some reason after Season 4, and never watched DS9. She says DS9 was quite good and I should watch it but I’ve never got around to it.

            2. That actually made me miss the ’80s. I may need to go watch Better off Dead now.

        2. It’s not a song. It’s a crappy lounge band with people reading from a play in front of it.

          1. H&R, always a reliable provider of grumpy old man reactions to art.

            1. Not to mention postmodern elitism…

          2. Yeah, too bad I couldn’t find that sweet vid of John Eliot Gardiner conducting the Laudamus Te from the Bach Mass in B Minor. Would that have been stuffily musical enough for you?

            1. I apologize for being insufficiently postmodern, but I always thought a song involved the alignment of one’s voice with some musical pitch pattern, possibly accompanied by musical instruments following the same pattern.

              I realize this is pretty Western-centric as other cultures have different conceptions of music, but the linked video is clearly set in the Western cultural milieu.

            2. John Eliot Gardiner! Conducted a great recording of The Planets.

  42. Holy fucking shit

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3htU3NTqMQs

    4:07 to 4:20 sometime, Bieber – lmao

    1. Dude, the first one’s staged, that’s Bobby Moynihan from SNL.

      1. Yeah, but it’s still hilarious.

  43. I don’t think that they’re going to post Morning Links today.

    1. Dammit, one of us is going to have to change our handle.

  44. If Lewis Hamilton doesn’t grow up, he’ll be racing Trucks with Kimi Raikonnen by August
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/h…..588664.stm

  45. It should be obvious where this is heading: Reduce everyone’s time pro rata until the magic number is hit. Why would it be otherwise? They’ll say the relative dangerousness of each convict was decided at sentencing, that’s what sentencing is for, why 2nd guess that process? The legislature decided certain parameters for penalties, that’s what the legislature is for, why 2nd guess that? So keep everything the same in relative terms and just reduce across the board.

    Anything else would lead to complaints of favoritism and 2nd guessing the decisions of judges and legislators. They’ll say if you want certain actions to be penalized less, legislate that way and see ya next time, don’t alter priorities ex post facto.

  46. …and 2nd guessing the decisions of judges and legislators

    I guess you never read a Balko story 😉

  47. “As it happens, many of those serving time in California never had “victims.” Nearly 25,000 of them are in prison for nonviolent drug offenses?mostly simple possession or possession for sale.”

    Can we say with certainty that these, and only these people are getting released? C’mon.

    1. “Many,” “nearly” and “mostly” are the keywords.

  48. If California state prisons are such cruel and unusual punishment then why is it that one of the first things my good friend Burton said upon being released from one was that he no longer had any concerns about being sent to prison? Sure enough he was back in within two months.

  49. Thanks for the article. For info on people using voluntary Libertarian tools on this issue, please see http://www.Libertarian-International.org the Libertarian International Organization.

  50. the good shopping place
    http://www.bestjerseysmall.us
    professional wholesale
    —NFL jerseys
    —NHL jerseys
    —MLB jerseys
    —NBA jerseys
    free shipping, accept PAYPAL receipts

  51. Keep in mind that when talking to an Objectivist, standard and accepted definitions of words do not apply. You have to get a grasp of their NEWSPEAK to even understand what they’re talking about.

  52. You have to get a grasp of their NEWSPEAK to even understand what they’re talking about.

  53. ty rights, etc. seem like a more accurate measure of freedom than democracy.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.