Police Abuse

Reason Morning Links: New Witness Claims Kelly Thomas Didn't Fight Back, KBR Makes Bank, Wikileaks Releases Unredacted Cables

|

  • Friends for Fullerton's Future has found a new eyewitness to Fullerton police brutally beating Kelly Thomas: "According to this account an 'Hispanic' officer had Kelly seated on a curb and had his baton in his hands during some kind of discussion that lasted several minutes, at least; at which point Kelly got up and ran. He was quickly caught from behind, punched repeatedly and spent the rest of his 'altercation' with FPD face down."
  • The U.S. Government has paid contractor KBR (formerly known as  Kellogg Brown & Root) $37 billion since 2001. 
  • Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris goes apeshit over Park51 (again). 
  • Army captain kills four, then self in hurricane rampage.
  • Wikileaks publishes more diplomatic cables, this time without redactions.  
  • House Republicans are seeking changes to the United Nations that would "end funding for Palestinian refugees, limit use of U.S. funds to only purposes outlined by Congress and stop contributions to peacekeeping operations until management changes are made."
  • Nats vendor saves a choking child. 

New at Reason.tv: "Freedom, Science Fiction and the Singularity: A conversation with author Vernor Vinge"

NEXT: Presidential Candidate Gov. Gary Johnson: Cut Federal Spending by 43% - and Cut Social Issues From GOP Agenda

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. Yesterday afternoon, Fox News had a “report” by a correspondent from their sister network Fox Business Chanel. This person was reporting on the economic impact of the hurricane and claimed that it could actually help the economy by causing increased spending during the rebuilding process. Classic “Broken-Window” fallacy. I wonder, if we had several cities wiped out with nuclear missiles if he would claim this was good for the economy because it would increase spending in the Geiger-counter industry.

    1. CNBC says irene recovery is probably a zero-sum gain considering lost tourism

        1. Beat me too it.

        2. pris – why absurd?

          1. Because in order for it to be a wash, there has to be some “positive” to outweigh the lost tourism. That positive is the same broken window fallacy they are making on Fox. The only difference is that the CNBC people are saying that the lost tourism cancels out all of the good we get from the broken windows.

          2. John above me is correct. If these people who lost their homes did not have to spend money on rebuilding they could have spend the money on something else. Had the hurricane not occurred they would have had both their home and that new thing.

            1. “The loss of a window pane may not have the same downstream opportunity costs as the broken glass pane, at equal replacement value to the glazier or shop keeper.
              >There is likely more future utility in a window pane because it prevents damage to a house i.e. pipes freezing, rain entering the house etc.. If a shopkeeper’s store window remains broken the future opportunity cost is even greater. Who would want to shop at a boarded up store?
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..ken_window
              _

              The anger of the shopkeeper indicates that he perceives this breakage to be a loss that cannot be just written off. It is a loss that must be repaired to sustain a future business venture even if it means extra effort and sacrifice.

              1. We maybe arguing cross purposes here. To clarify, I agree with Fr?d?ric Bastiat and disagree with the reports on both Fox News and CNBC.

              2. Re: Double Asshole,

                The anger of the shopkeeper indicates that he perceives this breakage to be a loss that cannot be just written off. It is a loss that must be repaired to sustain a future business venture even if it means extra effort and sacrifice.

                Only you, Double Asshole, could have arrived at the most pointless conclusion to ever be thought by any living human being. You practically said: Yes, it’s a loss but it is still a loss.

                1. not recognising contingent fallacies is the least of ur obvious probs

                  1. Which contingent fallacies would those be?

                    1. assuming that fixing the broken window doesnt itself provide future econ benefits to wit: attracting customers, keep pipes fm freezing, keep rain out, etc

                    2. You know what else would have provided those benefits? The original window.

                    3. irene didnt provide that option

                    4. “irene didnt provide that option”

                      Which was the original point! Those reporters from Fox News and CNBC were claiming that Irene was a good (or at least zero-sum gain) thing economically.

                    5. no, natural disasters prove the contingent fallacy of the broken windows argument since one cannot assume the window would remain unbroken.

                    6. “no, natural disasters prove the contingent fallacy of the broken windows argument since one cannot assume the window would remain unbroken.”

                      I assume you would not mind anyone robbing you because we could not assume you would remain unrobbed.

                    7. natural disasters dont commit felony armed robbery. jeesch

                    8. Yes, but you still misunderstand the “broken-window” fallacy. The shopkeeper needed the window fixed, and that provided income for the glazier, but the shopkeeper now has less income to spend on something else he would have valued more had the boy not broken window.

                      The shopkeeper would have preferred an intact window and to keep his income instead of having to spend his income on a new window. The fact that that preference was lost is what accounts for the decrease in overall economic wellbeing.

                      Even though some individuals benefited from all the broken windows Irene caused, overall economic wellbeing decreased, as resources were consumed to simply return the economy to the status quo. That’s what Bastiat was getting at: new wealth was sacrificed in order to recover old wealth, and at the cost of labor to boot.

                    9. “That’s what Bastiat was getting at: new wealth was sacrificed in order to recover old wealth, and at the cost of labor to boot.”

                      Well said CW, well said.

                      +200

                    10. Thanks, PIRS. I’m still fairly new to the Austrian school’s way of thinking, but not only does it seem more logical than the Keynesian school, it seems more just. That’s what I admire about libertarianism: it does seek the greatest good for the greatest number, but in a manner that respects individual justice.

                    11. i agree w the last para. but that doesnt change the contingent fallacy that the ONLY choice in a natural disaster is replacing (or not) all the broken windows. regardless, the windows were broken

                    12. No one argues that the need to replace the broken windows should be overlooked: it needs to be done. What I and I believe others here denounce is the way some pundits point to those broken windows as good for the economy. In their Keynesian approach, they believe that all that destroyed wealth will unleash pent-up consumer demand, in that the construction workers, etc. who receive wages for repairing those “windows” will then use that new income to demand goods and services, thus creating new wealth and “jump-starting” the economy. The problem I see is that more new wealth was sacrificed in order to return to the status quo. That’s the unseen part to which Bastiat refers.

                      Again, no one here argues that the windows should not be fixed. I’m just unpersuaded that recreating old wealth will somehow lead to economic growth and enhanced wellbeing from when before the storm broke the windows.

                    13. Re: Double Asshole,

                      but that doesnt change the contingent fallacy that the ONLY choice in a natural disaster is replacing (or not) all the broken windows.

                      You keep bringing this “contingency fallacy” crap as if it was germane to the argument. Just because a storm inevitably destroys does not mean that rebuilding ipso facto nets an “economic benefit.” You’re still committing the same fallacy.

                      If your house is leveled by a tornado, woould you still argue about the “great economic benefit” of rebuilding it because you will have a roof over your head to keep the rain out? You’re still out A WHOLE FUCKING HOUSE, you moron! That totally alters your choices and not for the better – you have NO CLUE on the concept of “opportunity costs.”

                      Please, leave the adult conversation with us adults and go back to your mommy’s basement – sorry, your office, to look at dirty pics on the Internet.

                    14. no im not. the “new normal” following a natural disaster is broken windows. one replaces because of implied future gains like attracting customers, preventing rain damage, freezing, etc THEREFORE there is a (future) gain

                    15. Re: Double Asshole,

                      not recognising contingent fallacies is the least of ur obvious probs

                      assuming that fixing the broken window doesnt itself provide future econ benefits to wit: attracting customers, keep pipes fm freezing, keep rain out, etc

                      There’s no economic benefit, you imbecile – it is still a zero-sum result. YOU’RE STILL COMMITING THE SAME FALLACY: You see the “benefit” from random destruction.

                      natural disasters prove the contingent fallacy of the broken windows argument since one cannot assume the window would remain unbroken.

                      It is IRRELEVANT for the shopkeeper if the window was smashed by a rock thrown by a boy or broken by hail – the shopkeeer IS STILL OUT A WINDOW!

                      Idiot.

                      Please stop talking about matters you understand not at all and let us adults carry on the adult conversation.

                    16. “There’s no economic benefit, you imbecile – it is still a zero-sum result.”
                      _
                      so now old mex argues the CNBC position

                    17. Before I had a window. Now I have a window. I’m much better off! (in double zero land)

    2. Don Boudreax was on this yesterday: http://cafehayek.com/2011/08/o…..orici.html

      1. “I hereby offer my services to you, at a modest wage, to destroy your house and your car. Act now, and I’ll throw in at no extra charge destruction of all of your clothing, furniture, computer hardware and software, and large and small household appliances.”

        I love it! Brilliant!

        1. the broken window story has limitations & its own fallacies.

          1. “the broken window story has limitations & its own fallacies.”

            Such as …..

            1. see above link please

              1. “see above link please”

                I did. It is a link to Wikipedia which describes the very thing I was telling you. What are the supposed limitations & fallacies?

                1. my stoopid brainz is the limitazion hurr durrrrr

                2. read the critiques

                  1. “read the critiques”

                    I did that. They were pointless and circular – just like your arguments here.

            2. i did ppepees in my pants

              1. take ur malox old mex

    3. I saw that. I liked the fact that the smoking hot Fox chick (Who was that chick? She was way, way, way over Fox’s usual level. She didn’t even have the requisite cheap blonde dye job.) called him on it at the end, by saying, “Yeah, well, we also have to think of the people whose property was destroyed.”

      1. If she was way beyond the normal Fox standard, that is a bold statement. Fox doesn’t do ugly women. What did she look like?

        1. It may have been Shannon Bream: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/…..index.html

        2. Wait, I think I found it:

          It might have been this girl.

          She looked way hotter yesterday though.

          http://www.nydailynews.com/img…..na-lee.jpg

          1. Jenna Lee is way hot.

      2. True, that was good on her. But I was surprised by the blatant Keynsianism – especially coming from the Fox Business Network side. Perhaps I should not be. This is the same network that had a host trying to persuade Ron Paul to vote FOR an increase in the debt ceiling. This host described it as “taking one for the team.” as though the stakes were no more important than a baseball game. His response was great “Why should I vote for it if I don’t think it is what is best for the country?”

        1. I just went through every Fox Business Channel reporter trying to find a picture for John and couldn’t find her.

          Who WAS that chick?

          1. I was not watching Fox Business Network at the time – I was watching FNC but there was a guest reporter from Fox Business. I agree with James Ard above. I think it could have been Shannon Bream

            1. Try to focus, boys.

  2. Wikileaks publishes more diplomatic cables, this time without redactions.

    As it should be…

    http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-coward.htm

  3. …at which point Kelly got up and ran.

    Never make a cop run. It really pisses them off.

    1. “Everyone knows, if the police have to come and get you… they’re bringing an ass-kicking with them!”

      –Chris Rock

    2. More to the point, only guilty people run, so obviously, Kelley deserved to be beaten to death.

      1. Fuckin’ racist honkie pigs – wait…

  4. Nats vendor saves a choking child.

    , can do nothing for team’s season.

  5. “The ground zero mosque, called Park 51, has applied for a $5 million grant of federal funds from the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation.”

    Actually, if this institution is getting government funding I too oppose that, not because it is run by Muslims but because of the source of funding.

    But that is not Dick Morris’s problem. He would probably not have a problem with the funds going to a Christian or Jewish center.

    1. cant foam-up & fund-raise the wingnutz over joos or christians. HELP DEFEAT SHRIA LAW NOW ! SEND UR PATRIOTIC DONATIONS !

      1. Your arguments have so much force when you use random capitalization. It is amazing great rhetoricians in history like Cicero and Burke never figured that out.

        1. Eventually, someone will nail his texting thumbs to the Senate door.

        2. calculated fear-mongering refined to solicit $$$ is far fm random

          1. Double-aught’s reading comprehension skills are truly jaw-dropping.

      2. Sure you can. The left wingnutz always go crazy and foam up when a Christian says a prayer in public. THE CRAZY FUNDIES WANT TO OUTLAWZ the SEXXORS!

        1. no, the leftwing reacts when *public monies* are used to establish any religion whether christian or muslim shria.

          1. otoh, the leftwing has no problem when public monies are used to fund some “artist” dipping a cross in urine

            1. that’s not establishing a religion

              1. It’s also not allowed by the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, idiot.

              2. neither is a high school valedictorian choosing to say a prayer as part of his speech.

                but some who have chosen to have had the plug pulled on them … literally

    2. Ironically “Note: Comments all in CAPS will not be approved.” is tacked on his comment box.

    3. Why in the name of Satan does ANYWHERE IN MANHATTAN require federal community development funds?

      1. Seriously, if you’re in the religion business, and can’t find enough gullible donors, your religion should not get a bail-out. That’s what happened to the Zorastrians, and we’re better off for it.

        1. Does being the state religion of Sassanid Persia count as getting a bail-out?

          1. “Pharoh, all the morning papyrus pundits are asying that even though he has not done anything about the plague of frogs or the Nile turning red, Osiris is simply too big to fail, and requires more sacrifices…, no, not from you sire, from the peasants”

        2. To be fair, we helped a bit.

        3. Who cares about the religion angle?

          We’re talking about MANHATTAN.

          Community development funds, even under the cockamamie lefty theory behind them, are supposed to be for communities facing development challenges.

          Manhattan faces no development challenges.

    4. My concern would be the whole seperation of church and state thing, but since it’s a mosque it must not apply.

      1. According to the article,

        Officially, the federal funds would not go to religious activities, but to “fund social service programs for all the residents of Lower Manhattan such as domestic violence prevention, Arabic and other foreign language classes, programs and services for homeless veterans, two multi-cultural art exhibits and immigration services,” according to its grant application.

        [my emphasis]

        IIANM, many openly religious Christian and Jewish organizations take advantage of this to get government money. As long as the is no religious restriction on access to the building or to the services offered it’s supposedly passes 1A muster.

        1. “many openly religious Christian and Jewish organizations take advantage of this to get government money. As long as the is no religious restriction on access to the building or to the services offered it’s supposedly passes 1A muster”

          This does not mean that it should not raise concerns. Perhaps this would be less of an issue if governments did not hand out so much money period.

          1. do u regard religious exemption fm taxes as part of the prob?

            1. I oppose all taxes imposed on anyone. The solution is not to decrease the number of people exempt from taxes but to exempt everyone.

            2. See this post? Yeah? Well so did I. and you know what. I didn’t read it. I have no idea what is says and I plan to keep it that way.

              1. thx. not reading is an undoubted strength of gibby’s

            3. companies only get taxed on their profit anyway. A nonprofit company could easily rearrange itself to avoid most taxes if it had to operate as a corporation. The whole taxing-religious-organizations is a lame argument. They are not firms that sell products and compete, they just dole out donations. Call the donations investments with a perpetual loss.

              1. I hope you’re not practising tax law.

          2. From my comment, complete with mistakes and emphasis added.

            it’s[sic] supposedly passes 1A muster.

            Perhaps I need to make my disclaimers more emphatic.

        2. I never bought into all that because of the fungibility of money. If you fund my administrative affairs, then I will funnel more money into evangelical affairs.

          Of course, My Church of Beer is much less offensive to normal sensibilities, so get our your checkbooks…

        3. Thanks for the clarification Isaac. I remember GWB was big pusher of faith based charities recieving federal funding. Who could have imagined compassionate conservatism not working out the way it was planned. It’s almost like it wasn’t well thought out before acted on.

    5. He would probably not have a problem with the funds going to a Christian or Jewish center.

      Very astute grasp of his point.

      1. His “point” requires as a prerequisite a belief in collective guilt. That is the concept I find absurd. If a gang of left handed people robbed a bank should we deny any rights to left handed people who were not involved in the robbery?

        1. No we just deny rights to the left handed freaks on principle.

          1. like our many left-handed presidents ?

            1. Didn’t read this one either.

    6. How the hell can a place of worship get any government funding at all?

      If there was one thing the establishment clause was intended to stop, one thing at its very core, it has to be government actually building churches/mosques/temples.

  6. The U.S. Government has paid contractor KBR (formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root) $37 billion since 2001.

    Or, did contractor KBR (formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root) earn $37 billion from the U.S. Government since 2001? Also, why can’t I stop reading KBR as KGB?

    1. Uh, no reason.

    2. Well, if they earned it, then they probably also got paid.

      1. if only the world worked that way…

    3. Having dealt with KBR on battlefields and oilfields, I can say with some confidence that they did not earn $37gigabucks

      1. Ramsey, get real. You can say with “some confidence” that their services from 2001 – present was not worth 370 million a year? Hell, I would have put the figure far north of that. Was there a better-run dining facility than one run by KBR?

        1. Isn’t this one of those things that the talking point leftists do not seem to understand? That Halliburton and KBR were part of a select few who could provide the services the US military needed?

          1. Correct. Talk to Service Members who just returned from Afghanistan and they will tell you that the transition from “KBR monopoly” to “A batch of relatively incompetent companies” has not been smooth. KBR did a good job, and I had no idea that they were only making 370 million a year on their contracts.

            1. I’m not saying they did or did not earn it. But didn’t KBR get 3700 million per year from the taxpayers?

              1. oops. This is why I am not a math person. I thought that number was low.

              2. ummm…37 billion (giga) is 37,000 million…not 3700.

                1. 3700 million per year over 10 years per the article.

                  1. Mean number, of course.

                    1. I see…said the blind carpenter as he picked up his hammer and saw.

        2. I am not saying that they didn’t earn some large portion of that money, but I know for a fact that there was a good deal of mismanagement, graft, and financial tit for tat associated with them doing that business. There are inefficiencies in ALL operations, they just seem to be much larger with KBR.

          You would think with all of our pentagon spending we could get decent meals to soldiers without feeding the military industrial complex.

          1. Why did we get away from soldier/cooks? Is it, in fact, cheaper? Is it lobbyist/corporate rent seeking?

            I am sure the food is much better today than a generation or two ago. But still, we were able to defeat fascism on two fronts with the old grub.

            I’m asking here, would it be cheaper to go back to the old system?

            1. It would not be cheaper because of all the benefits afforded Soldiers that are not afforded contractors. What you have to consider is a) the training time it takes to get a Soldier proficient at his tasks (which requires time and money) and b) more importantly, the odds that the Soldier will retire at 20 years (thereby entitling him to a paycheck and free medical care for the rest of his life) and will take advantage of things like VA loans, GI bills, and all kinds of other benefits. And if a Soldier gets injured or killed, there are insurance payouts (and, in the case of injury, medical payouts).

              Going back to Soldiers filling support roles may be cheaper on a position comparison for pay purposes (salary-wise), but long-term, it incurs more liabilities.

  7. Tax Haven’s Tax Haven Pays a Price for Success. What a terrible problem: too many businesses and rich people have been attracted to Zug. Woe unto them.

    Ron Paul Can Win

    1. There’s a reason people don’t believe in evolution. We don’t allow it to do its job anymore.

      1. Maybe I’ll post this again where it belongs…

  8. And in case you missed the link in a link yesterday, I give you the thudguard.

    1. There’s a reason people don’t believe in evolution. We don’t allow it to do its job anymore.

      1. That woulda been funnier if some guy up-thread hadn’t already said it. Actually, it’s still a damned good line.

      2. Yep, utter nonsense. Mothers, grandmothers – and ER folks – have long known that the very malleable heads of infants tend to conform harmlessly with those things with which they collide – especially when propelled from infant arm-length height.

        1. my daughter was a little earlky. When we went to the NICU from L&D the nurse said she was going to perform some tests and that I shouldnt freak out. Now I am not really a freak out kind of guy usually but when she bent her little arm IN HALF (NOT at the elbow) I almost raplhed right on the floor. Then I said “that was interesting” and in my head ” I will fucking kill you” but hey, I was under stress.

    2. Holy freaking shit! LMAO!

  9. http://bikewalktn.blogspot.com…..chool.html

    Let your kid ride their bike to school and the cops show up at your door. At some point people are going to get tired of this and just burn some busy body mayor’s house down with him in it. And every liberal in America will be thumb sucking about how ungovernable America has become. No, dipshit, the country is and always has been plenty governable. It is just that you and others like you have so pissed away your legitimacy to govern trying to run people’s lives you have made it ungovernable.

    I had a professor in Law School who maintained that we should do away with all child protective laws and CPS. At the time I thought he was a bit nuts. Now I realize he is exactly right. Whatever problems CPS solves it is greatly outweighed by the harm created by harassing innocent people and by their affirmation of the principle that the government has a right to tell parents how they can and cannot raise their children. The problem is that their is no stopping a bureaucracy once in gets going. In the seventy years or so since we created CPS, the country has gone from the sensible proposition that people who starve and beat their children shouldn’t have them to the state of affairs where police can tell parents whether they can let their kids ride their bikes to school or not.

    1. Can we bring back tar-and-feathering? Like the original Teap Partiers?

    2. My wife is a stay-at-home mom with a 5 year old, 3 yo, and infant. The 3 & 5 yo’s like to watch the trash trucks dump the trash. So, she let them out into our front yard to do so while she took the infant upstairs for fresh diapers. the older kids continued to play in the front yard for 10 minutes afterwards.

      She came downstairs to find a cop talking to the 5 yo on our porch. The cop then admonished her for letting the kids “run in the street.” My wife said “they weren’t in the street, they were in the front yard.” The cop agreed, but then said he could still charge with childhood neglect, and she should be more careful. My wife took the kids inside. 10 minutes later, the family went out together to shop, and the cop was still parked on the street observing the house for more “neglect.”

      1. Yeah, I don’t think your story is an outlier. I think it is common. The worst thing they did was make it a crime not to report child neglect. So that means that even if the cop isn’t some asshole busy body, the tells him he has to be or risk criminal liability. This shit needs to be stopped.

        1. My wife used to do sciencey stuff before we had kids, and we’re not the type of math-challenged rubes scared by “What commone household product will molest your children…answer after this commercial break” stories.

          But we live in a world governed by such rubes. We might as well order our thudguards now.

          1. Failure to equip your child with a thudguard will be considered child neglect and an arrestable offense.

            1. Sounds like a pretty bored cop. Yeesh.

              1. I wonder if you can call the station and complain about cop harassment.

                And more to the point, complain that you are paying the cops salary and he is wasting it not doing real policework

                1. I thought about it, but the local cops have been pretty nice to us. Eg, my wife home-schools, and they set up a field trip for my 5 yo that he really loved.

                  Another time, my wife flagged a passing patrol car to help her put in the child safety seat. The cop could not have been more helpful (even though I kind of thought my wife used him as a valet).

                  Um, and nothing else happened?

                  But seriously, with cops like all people, you take the good with the bad.

      2. That’s some bullshit. Srsly, fuck that cop.

      3. I let my then three year old sit on the unfenced front yard and watch the trash truck all the time. I knew that he knew it was dangerous to get too close. Hell, at three the kid was one of the world’s leading experts on trash trucks, fire trucks, and dump trucks.

        1. Until i had a three year old, I had no idea there was a difference between a front loader and bulldozer. Also, I had no idea that a shovel-wheel excavator existed. Luckily, most environmentalists still don’t.

        2. “Hell, at three the kid was one of the world’s leading experts on trash trucks, fire trucks, and dump trucks.”

          God damned promoters of gender conformity!

          1. Hey, I remember to say “firefighter” rather than “fireman” over 50% of the time.

      4. The more children that grow up not trusting the police, the better.

        1. ^^THIS^^

          It’s tough, though, because everywhere else they are being told that police are useful, friendly folk who just want to help.

          How exactly do you tell a 4 year old to NOT trust the police when everyone else around him is telling him the exact opposite?

    3. From John’s link

      Even though it only takes her daughter 7 – 9 minutes to bicycle to school, she is expected to ride the bus.

      Kind of interesting. In Florida the school districts don’t even provide school bus service to any kids living less than two miles from their elementary school.

      The only exception is if there is no safe route with adequate sidewalks.

      I remember thinking when I saw kids riding their bikes to school (they let little kids ride on the sidewalk), that things hadn’t gotten as bad after all. I have mixed feelings about the helmets, a head can get busted up pretty bad in a fall, but they really do look dorky (sometimes because the parents have bought one to big, which is a reall bad idea – almost negates the safety aspect right there).

  10. The ground zero mosque will offer courses in Shariah Law and will doubtless spawn hundreds of new terrorists eager to pick up where the 9-11 hijackers left off.

    Thank you for this Dick Morris. I’ll add “doubtless” to the list of words I know not to trust when you use them.

    1. I know it is a pretty poor bet that a radical Muslim might blow something up. I mean where do people get these ideas?

      1. So you literally have no doubt that the Ground Zero Mosque/Community Center is going to spawn hundreds of new terrorists that are on the scale of 9-11 hijackers?

        1. No. Morris was being histrionic.

          1. Do you think that it’s even “likely” that hundreds of new terrorists will be spawned from this community center?

            1. I don’t know. I don’t know what they are teaching. But if they are teaching some kind of radical version of Islam, forgive me for being pissed off about them doing it after they played upon the country’s sympathy to get the thing built and are apparently taking tax payer money to do so. Frankly, if they are pulling a bait and switch on this, I really have no sympathy for them at all. If they are teaching radical Islam there and encouraging people to believe insane things, that is bad enough whether or not they actually convince people of anything.

            2. “Do you think that it’s even “likely” that hundreds of new terrorists will be spawned from this community center?”

              I am going to say at least ten, given that approximately that amount of young men became terrorists out of the Islamic center in Minneapolis.

              http://search.startribune.com/…..31&x=8&y=9

              1. So, he’s off by an order of magnitude, then? And besides, you would need twice that many to pull off another 9/11.

              2. So how about the thousands of other mosques which produce exactly ZERO terrorists?

          2. OK, but if Morris was being histrionic, that means Bee Tagger is right to say that he will not trust him in the future when he uses the word “doubtless”.

            Because “doubtless” Morris will be being “histrionic” again.

            1. Sure. No worries. But can we also mistrust those who assured the world that this was being built by moderate Muslims?

              Remember, when this debate happened, the center’s defenders didn’t say “of course they are radical but that doesn’t matter since they have a first amendment right to be so.” No, they claimed the place was being built by unicorn loving moderates and anyone who claimed otherwise was a racist.

              If it turns out that these guys are the radical fucks that their critics claimed, I think the people who claimed they are moderates ought never to be trusted on the subject again.

              1. the neighborhood doesnt agree & park51 islamic community center has been in operation for many years

                1. the continued ruckus is about [FUND RAISING] not park51.

              2. Though I didn’t try too hard, the only citation that I could find that the gZm! muslims are radical is Moriss’ “doubtless” assertion.

                Of course, I disagree with any religious group getting tax dollars, but radical or not the group should be able to use their building as they see fit.

      2. I mean where do people get these ideas?

        From the JOOS!

        1. NOT JOOS. in this case, fm TEH [FUNDIES]

          1. NOT JOOS. in this case, fm TEH [FUNDIES]

            Yeah, also known as the “Amen Corner”

        2. So MiNGe,
          your whole problem with MNG is that he criticizes some policies of the Israeli government.
          And you take that to mean that he doesn’t like Jews?

          Isn’t that a little bit like claiming that any criticism of Obama is racism?

          Doesn’t that actually discredit actual claims of anti semitism?

    2. That was “going apeshit”??

  11. This is how you know your idea isn’t going to work and it’s time to throw in the towel.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/entert…..DJR4MmiUgN

  12. Cop filmer wins in appeals court

    This ruling came down 4 days ago, so I might have missed it being covered. Sorry for dupe if so. I know the case has been covered, but dont remember seeing this ruling.

    He first filed a complaint with Boston Police Internal Affairs who promptly set about totally ignoring it.

    But, but, dunphy says that is the proper procedure and that IA will take care of it.

    Not only have two courts now declared this an obvious 1st and 4th amendment violation, they think it is so egregious that they denied immunity to the cops. But IA didnt see anything wrong at all?

    1. So what. It just means the tax payers will be stuck with the bill. Come on, do you actually think cops care about that?

      1. Acutally, with immunity denied, the cops would have to pay (up to a point).

        1. they’ve been covering this at volokh.com

          with actual process analysis and intelligent commentary. a pleasant change from ‘derp derp derp the cops suck y0!’ a la reason.com

          1. Hey, you didn’t just tar the entire commentariat based on the behavior of a few bad apples, did you? Because that would be wrong.

          2. That would be the thread without any comments from “dunphy”.

            1. right, because i post as “whit” at volokh.com and have done so for years. as i have explained hth

    2. It won’t change cop behavior in MA one iota.

      As the Henry Louis Gates case showed, as long as the law stays on the books the cops get to employ it and then play dumb later about the fact that case law had struck down their chosen application of the law.

      “Huh? Wha? It’s not disorderly conduct to curse at the cops under current case law? Well, shucks, I guess I need to be sent on a paid junket to get more training!”

      They’ll just keep arresting people for taping the cops and then hold periodic “training” seminars at golf courses and hotels.

      1. Exactly. Sure you can sue. But how many people are willing to go to get arrested to do it? Not many. This is no different than the cops in the old Jim Crow era. Until they made them criminal liable under 42 USC 1983, none of them changed how they treated black people one bit.

      2. no, the henry louis gates case showed that he acted like a horse’s ass and had only himself to blame

    3. It was mentioned earlier, but there weren’t any good stories about it. Thanks.

    4. christ, does the ignorant misrepresentation ever stop?

      i said that one should make a complaint to IA and that some IA’s were better than others.

      i *also* said one should get an attorney, contact the media, contact federal agencies, etc.

      iow, a multi-pronged approach

      i NEVER said IA will always do the right thing

      that’s your fantasy

  13. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08…..ef=science

    Not since the grim period after World War II has Germany had significant blackouts, but it is now bracing for that possibility after shutting down half its nuclear reactors practically overnight.

    Environmentalists are not your friends. They are a part of a large millennialist death cult dedicated to first destroying your way of life and then later destroying you.

    1. Have you ever heard the phrase “Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence?”

      I assure you, there is no cabal of dreadlocked vegans secretly plotting to keep you from microwaving your morning coffee.

      1. Willful stupidity is pretty indistinguishable from malice though.

        1. I think it’s more willlful ignorance aided by a healthy dash of stupidity.

          We’re back to the idea that in a modern western society, it costs most people nothing (or very little) to be completely ignorant about nearly everything.

      2. Is that fair trade coffee? You know how many food miles coffee has on it? Ceramic or Styrofoam cup? Not making it with bottled water are you? Are you composting those used grounds?

        1. Make coffee with bottled water?!

          Like any good libertarian, I use only the sweat of child laborers for my coffee. You don’t need cream or sugar because you can actually taste the oppression.

      3. No. A bunch of cultist who object to building anything anywhere near anything and to any reasonable solution are trying to cut my power off. Either they are completely stupid or they are malicious. I think the latter. But either way, no one who calls themselves an environmentalist by the current definition ought to be trusted about anything.

        1. Exactly.

          I used to consider myself an environmentalist, and I can almost remember the exact moment which I began to consider “environmentalism” as a derogatory term.

    2. Remember what happened the last time the Germans needed more coal?

    3. “the governing coalition, made up of her (merkel’s) conservatives in combination with the business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP).”
      http://www.spiegel.de/internat…..35,00.html
      _

      not enviornmentalists.

      1. He’s actually right, for a change. There were broad-based demonstrations against nuclear power in Germany after the Fukushima meltdown. Nuclear power has never been very popular anyway, and the meltdown set people off. The center-right German government complied and began shutting down the nuclear power stations. The center-left applauded the move.

        To me, it looks like a country voluntarily freezing to death in the dark. That is, nuts. But it’s not driven primarily by environmentalists.

  14. House Republicans are seeking changes to the United Nations that would “end funding for Palestinian refugees…”

    JOOS!

  15. Though costs were supposed to be limited to $20 a person per day, a State Department Inspector General investigation found personnel were being encouraged to scan their attendance at meals and snacks as many times as possible. A notice in an embassy newsletter read, “more scans = more goodies”…

    If only they has some card they could have overscanned to get their Humvees up-armored.

    1. English, please.

      1. “I can haz korrekshun?”

        has = had

    2. English, please.

  16. Friends for Fullerton’s Future has found a new eyewitness to Fullerton police brutally beating

    Because apparently the cops are so interested in investigating this. Is it too much to ask that maybe the police or the DA go find some witnesses to find out what happened? Apparently it is.

    1. Hey, we’ve got six witnesses who say that the criminal died from self inflicted wounds. That’s good enough for us.

      1. Mistakes were made. Let’s leave it at that, shall we?

        1. troll-o-meter: .0001

    1. California considering a statewide ban on jobs.

      1. Clearly the statewide ban on intelligence has worked nearly perfectly.

    2. How awesome would be to have your job be “styrfoam smuggler” ?

  17. http://www.salon.com/news/libe…..rtariansim

    Why libertarians apologize for autocracy

    enjoy 😉

    1. Pinochet killed the communists who planned to kill him and a whole lot of other people. But he is a murderer. And the communists in places like Cuba who have murdered millions and enslaved millions more are just misguided fellow travelers who got a little out of control. Got it.

      The nerve of a leftist magazine to bitch about connections to a dictator 50 years ago. Do these assholes whose intellectual predecessors spent years apologizing for Stalin and Mao really want to go there? Of course they do because they don’t think the rules apply to them and they think they own history.

      1. GOOD INTENTIONS, JOHN, GOOOOOOOOOOD INTENTIONS!!!11oneoneone *pulls hair out in distress*

      2. Well, Pinochet was a murderer. But really just a piker compared to the communists.

    2. I am curious, if I had wanted to travel by aircraft from one end of Chile to the other during the Pinochet regime would I have been sexually molested before boarding?

      Let us examine the liberties we have lost in our own country before complaining about historic dictators.

      As for “democracy” it is simply mob rule.

    3. Libertarians apologize for Pinochet, which is why you see so many hip Pinochet t-shirts at Rush concerts and Penn & teller shows.

      1. Re: Abdul,

        Libertarians apologize for Pinochet,

        You pulled that one out of your ass, A.

          1. No knee-jerking, please.

            1. No fapping on your mother’s basement, please.

    4. Salon has been running a lot of really negative articles on Ron Paul and libertarianism lately.

      This would seem to imply that liberals are becomming seriously frigthened of a growing libertarian movement in the US. Otherwise, why would they bother; they didn’t in 2008.

      1. Re: kinnath,

        This would seem to imply that liberals are becomming seriously frigthened of a growing libertarian movement in the US. Otherwise, why would they bother; they didn’t in 2008.

        They bother now not because people are suddenly embracing libertarianism, but because their horse is really a mule.

        1. Or because they were comfortable with libertarianism when it was anti-war, and they were circumstantially anti-war to help get Democrats elected. The spending issues were irrelevant as libertarians were still mostly criticizing Bush at the time.

          Now that they’ve taken over, continued spending like a teenage girl with her dad’s credit card, and embraced war, they’re hurt that libertarians actually turned out to be those ideas in general rather than which team carried them out.

          1. Re: Amakudari,

            Or because they were comfortable with libertarianism when it was anti-war, and they were circumstantially anti-war to help get Democrats elected.

            And now they find their horse is really a mule and thus try to paint libertarianism’s stallion as a camel.

            1. Yes, pretty much.

              I think I actually meant to reply to kinnath, where this comment would make more sense, but hey.

      2. Good point. Part of the fear comes from the fact that some people vote against Republicans because of their stances on social issues. With social issues largely off the table that increases the number of potentially persuadable people.

        1. This is my theory of a good portion of Team Blue voters. It isn’t that they LOVE big government or many of the crappy government programs that Team BLUE invents out of thin air to “help” people, but that they are so fucking tired of the moral majority bullshit that Team RED pulls they feel that in order to not succumb to religious douchebaggery.

      3. Though Greenwald wrote an article damning both progressives for sticking to Obama in terms of their vote (as opposed to simply yacking away on the internet about how he has “let them down”) and outright dismissing Paul despite his long standing record against wars, and conservatives for blocking out the only sane person in terms of the war on drugs and our international adventurism.

        A tidbit:

        However much progressives find Paul’s anti-choice views to be disqualifying (even if the same standard is not applied to Good Democrats Harry Reid or Bob Casey), and even as much as Paul’s domestic policies are anathema to liberals (the way numerous positions of Barack Obama ostensibly are: war escalation, due-process-free assassinations, entitlement cuts, and whistleblower wars anyone?), shouldn’t progressives be eager to have included in the discourse many of the views Paul uniquely advocates? After all, these are critical, not ancillary, positions, such as: genuine opposition to imperialism and wars; warnings about the excesses of the Surveillance State, executive power encroachments, and civil liberties assaults; and attacks on the one policy that is most responsible for the unjustifiable imprisonment of huge numbers of minorities and poor and the destruction of their families and communities: Drug Prohibition and the accompanying War to enforce it. GOP primary voters are supporting a committed anti-war, anti-surveillance candidate who wants to stop imprisoning people (dispropriationately minorities) for drug usage; Democrats, by contrast, are cheering for a war-escalating, drone-attacking, surveillance-and-secrecy-obsessed drug warrior.

        http://www.salon.com/news/opin…..index.html

    5. I’m happy to apologize for Pinochet’s rule, but not for his coup.

      I totally favor full civil rights for Communists – but only when they don’t control the government. The moment a Communist government took power (or a Nazi one or a theocrat one or what have you) all those people whose speech and association rights I had to respect the day before cease to be citizens and become tyrants, and I would have the moral right to slaughter them all, if I could find a way to manage it.

      Pinochet was entitled to kill Allende, as any free citizen of Chile was entitled to kill Allende if he could accomplish the task.

      What happened after that is, unfortunately, problematic.

      1. I think you flipped your first sentence.

  18. Affirmative action for the beauty-challenged?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08…..l?_r=2&hp;
    Despite my libertarian leanings, I feel that finally, someone has found some government program which has something to offer to me!

    1. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They weren’t really very good-no better than anybody else would have been, anyway. They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in.

      1. One of the all-time great stories.

    2. Why should control of the means of (re)production be allowed to remain concentrated in the hands of the beautiful few? As an ugly hetero male person, I call upon this government to implement the equitable redistribution of pussy. We’ll show the IRS what it really means to bend someone over.

      (just imagine the line at that welfare office)

      1. According to the Department of Pussy Allocation, all disbursements will be made with due regard to seniority.

        Mr. 0x90, here is Jessica Tandy. Have at it.

        1. That’s the whole problem with affirmative action for ugliness.

          There’s gonna be some chick out there uglier than you. Way, way uglier. And her affirmative action is going to be your ass.

          1. this is not fantasy. one of the scandinavian countries at least (iirc it was sweden) actually pays for sex services for disabled citizens etc. as they believe it improves physical and mental health, etc.

            1. A M??se once bit my sister …

              No realli! She was Karving her initials on the m??se
              with the sharpened end of an interspace t??thbrush given
              her by Svenge – her brother-in-law – an Oslo dentist and
              star of many Norwegian m?vies: “The H?t Hands of an Oslo
              Dentist”, “Fillings of Passion”, “The Huge M?lars of Horst
              Nordfink”.

    3. Fortunately, engineers are expected to look like dorks, so we are mostly immune from the discrimination felt by the ugly people who flip hamburgers for a living.

    4. “We demand you employ a salesman you know will fail, or pay money damages.”

      “We demand you hire an actress you know will make your movie fail, or pay money damages.”

      It’s like someone flipped over the rock in Tony’s soul and let the grubs scurrying there write a column for the New York Times.

      1. “We demand you hire an actress you know will make your movie fail, or pay money damages.”

        so that’s why Angie Mcdowell is still working!

    5. I bet there have been studies that show that smarter people tend to make more over their lifetimes. We better implement government protection to fix that too.

    1. That’s it: We need as hip a candidate as Putin. Wait, didn’t Palin ride a bike as well?

      Putin… Palin… Hmmm….

      http://articles.nydailynews.co…..arah-palin

  19. A confused Rick Steves tries to return his “Bush tax cuts,” accidentally sends the money to a private arts charity in his home town instead.

    1. I beg you, don’t tell me we now have to be subjected to that little dork’s political viewpoints.

  20. I hate to be a conspiracy theorist. But I am honestly starting to think that the Gibson raid was a no kidding jack booted pay up to the Obama campaign if you know what is good for you raid. How else do you explain this?

    Around 8:45 a.m. Wednesday, Aug. 24, agents executed four search warrants on Gibson facilities in the two cities [Nashville and Memphis]. They seized several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars.

    But Gibson’s CEO says his company has not been told what it did wrong and that he assumes the allegation is that some of the wood being used to manufacture the company’s guitars is illegal.

    “Everything is sealed. They won’t tell us anything,” Juszkiewicz said, never raising his voice but pulling no punches in his defense of the storied guitar maker.

    He valued the equipment and raw materials seized from Gibson at almost $1 million. At one point, the chief executive said he’s letting the U.S. Justice Department know he’s telling his employees to keep making the instruments. ?

    “We feel totally abused,” he continued. “We believe the arrogance of federal power is impacting me personally, our company personally and the employees here in Tennessee, and it’s just plain wrong.”

    The company stated it assumes the raid stems from an alleged violation of the U.S. Lacey Act, legislation that requires anyone coming into the U.S. to declare with unambiguous specificity the nature of materials being brought into the country.

    According to Gibson: “The U.S. Lacey Act does not directly address conservation issues but is about obeying all laws of the countries from which wood products are procured. This law reads that you are guilty if you did not observe a law even though you had no knowledge of that law in a foreign country. The U.S. Lacey Act is only applicable when a foreign law has been violated.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/a…..iouser.php

      1. Remember: the purpose of politics is to reward your friends and punish your enemies.

        1. they’ll take my rosewood (and maple) fretboards away when they pry it from my cold, dead tasty-licks playin’ fingers

    1. Just a random thought experiment – at what point does a local government (state, city) take offense to a Federal agency damaging a tax-paying business. I imagine some type of stand-off or weird situation where the Federal agents get arrested by a local sheriff.

      1. at what point does a local government (state, city) take offense to a Federal agency damaging a tax-paying business. I imagine some type of stand-off or weird situation where the Federal agents get arrested by a local sheriff.

        Feds: “that’s an awful nice local gov’t you got there, be a shame if sometings was to happen to it….”

      2. Has happened…I believe it was Pueblo CO in the 80s. Sheriff was doing a murder investigation, feds showed up said we are taking over, he no but i will keep you posted, they said yes, he put your hands behind your backs.

        They were released and charges dropped but it is a start.
        I have been looking for the story and can’t find it. It may have been elsewhere in souther CO but I am pretty sure it was Pueblo.

    2. Illegal wood? I thought Democrats were OK with that.

      1. HIYOOO!

    3. I don’t see how the Lacey Act meets even the most rudimentary standard of promulgation.

    4. This is how Obama creates job.

      1. I’m pivoted like a laser, baby! It’s all about the [JOBZ]!

    5. I have a guitar with an ebony fretboard. Blood wood. Sounds awesome.

      1. I’ve got a Martin D35 that I bought in ’77. Sounds great, but not as great as the 1928 Martin a friend of mine’s mother owns.

        1. I have a sweet vintage air guitar. Awesome for classic rock. According to MNG the feds can regulate it, though, so I may not be in the clear.

          1. According to MNG the feds can regulate it, though, so I may not be in the clear.

            The unicorn-horn fret inlays were probably a bad choice.

            1. They were only offering the pixie teeth in diamond inlay, and I wanted ovals you fucking slaver.

  21. For American higher education, the Tea Party feels like a wake. As political groups, often with ties to the movement, have increasingly intruded on the affairs of public colleges and universities, financial cutbacks have forced campuses into a triage mode. Administrators squeeze savings out of already malnourished budgets; programs disappear; tuitions rise; and the inequalities of a seriously stratified system worsen.

    http://chronicle.com/article/A…..us/128820/

    THE PEASANTS ARE REVOLTING!!!

    1. The teabaggers are uneducated and they want everyone else to be uneducated as well.

      1. The arrogance is just astounding. The whole article can be boiled down to “how dare the tax payers question what we are doing with the billions of dollars they give us.”

    2. Administrators squeeze savings out of already malnourished budgets; programs disappear; tuitions rise; and the inequalities of a seriously stratified system worsen.

      Reads like a disaster movie teaser…

      At least some of the comments are skeptical. But that’s not surprising considering te obviously slanted language in the essay.

      1. They just need to start that sentence with “In a world where adminsitrators . . . .”

    3. I LOVE IT!!!!

      Universities have taken full advantage of all of the free cash provided to them through loans and grants and such. Their spending now depends on it. Now that those mountains of cash are not a free flowing anymore due to the impending higher education bubble burst, they want to know how they can operate.

      I thought they were supposed to be the smart ones.

  22. I know NewsWeek got a ton of flak for the Bachmann “crazy eyes” cover, but I don’t think I have seen a single picture of that woman looking like she wasn’t trying to devour souls.

    1. Mission accomplished!

      1. because the MSM is soo well-regarded by the wingnutz who vote in the primaries. EXCUSE FAIL!

        1. *fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*

    2. I see your Newsweek crazy eyes, and I raise.

      1. Maybe Newsweek just provides affirmative action for blind photographers?

      2. Can brown eyes even achieve crazy-eye status? I’m trying very hard to think of someone with brown crazy eyes and all I can picture is Denise Richards. And her eyes are not brown.

        1. Maybe run your question by him?

          1. *shivers* Good call. But I was trying to think of the more benign type of crazy eyes!

    3. “I’ll swallow your soul!”

      (army of darkness doom mod- teh aweseom!)

  23. Re: The video in which Gary Johnson warns the Republicans to stay away from social issues or lose votes:

    The reasons Republicans take on social issues are, for many of them, conviction, and, for others, the fact that these issues tend to be popular. These social issues don’t occur in a vacuum. Activists force a debate on these issues by such things as legalizing abortion, subsidizing single mothers and saying anyone who doesn’t like it is racist, establishing same-sex marriage, etc. Then when anyone objects, the activists get all huffy and say, “why are these right-wingers distracting the country with social issues?”

    Outside some enclaves like New York (where Franklin Roosevelt is considered reactionary), the activists aren’t confident in popular support, so they need to bypass representative government in favor of the courts and administrators. Yet we’re supposed to believe that anyone who opposes them will lose the support of the voters?!?!?

    1. I agree that the social issues in question are a source of popularity (and loyalty) for the GOP, but over the last 40 years a Darwinian process has gradually upped the level of crazy required to impress social issues voters. If that process continues, it could eventually be a problem for the GOP.

      In 1980 Ronald Reagan was the social values candidate.

      Then the social values candidate was Pat Robertson. (Crazy, but good at hiding it until he got older.)

      Then the social values candidate was Ralph Reed. (A little crazier, not as good at hiding it.)

      Then the social values candidate was Mike Huckabee. (Very crazy, but a likeable sort of fellow so he was cut a lot of slack.)

      Now the social values candidates is Michelle Bachmann, who is a surrendered wife (one fucking step away from head covering; in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if she whips that out soon) who thinks that God is punishing the US with natural disasters (Robertson thought that, too, but didn’t say so until long after he was a candidate for any office), thinks that if you just pray hard enough God will make gay marriage go away, thinks that if you pray hard enough God will make your own gayness (or that of your husband wink wink) go away, etc. And you have Sarah Palin, who joins hands with a guy who burns children as witches in Africa and prays for the strength to fight witches.

      Maybe those two aren’t quite yet crazy enough to make the GOP a minority party – but what if we get 40 more years of increasing craziness? What’s the next step in that Reagan-to-Bachmann devolution? Or the step after that?

      1. But you dodge the question fluffy. Eduard makes a really valid point. Social conservatives were not a part of politics until the 1970s. It was the liberals who started the fight when they legalized abortion and created the welfare state and started using schools as a way to indoctrinate kids. The social conservative political movement started in the 1970s and it started in local school board elections.

        I you don’t like social issues in politics, get the government out of social issues. If we had full school choice, federalism on abortion, and a greatly reduced welfare state, social issues would play a much smaller role in our politics.

        It is the same principle that you no doubt believe when talking about governments and corporate interests. Make the government less powerful and the corporate interests will have no reason to buy it. Same here, get the government out of people’s lives and the so cons and liberal cons won’t make it into a proxie for the culture war.

        1. I thought Johnson’s question was, “Are social issues a liability to the GOP?”

          And my answer was, “In the short term, no. In the long term, maybe.”

          The answer to that question doesn’t have a lot to do with who started it.

      2. who thinks that God is punishing the US with natural disasters

        Substitute “Gaia” for “God”, and Al Gore would be in total agreement.

  24. House Republicans are seeking changes to the United Nations that would “end funding for Palestinian refugees, limit use of U.S. funds to only purposes outlined by Congress and stop contributions to peacekeeping operations until management changes are made.”

    How about just getting rid of the UN and sublet the building?

    1. If I recall correctly, the UN owns the property outright as it was a gift from some one world schmuck.

      1. Eminent Domain?

        1. Special property tax district?

  25. Just for the record, Park 51 and Area 51 are different things.

    1. are they?

    1. Pardon me, is that work safe?

    2. Oh lord, I made the mistake of stumbling on that blog when the show first came out.

    3. Jesus, that’s one tiresome author.

      1. The blogger, not that lovable old pervert Georgie R.R.

        1. Someone sleeps with their thesaurus. I could barely get past the first para.

  26. Listening to The Desert Sessions this morning. Wish it was 3:00 a.m., I was driving with the top down in the middle of nowhere, had a 1/2 pack of Lucky’s and a 1/2 pint of gin.

    1. And a truck-stop waitress with fresh sutures on her forehead named Darlene ridin’ “bitch”.

    2. The following students at Indio High school are winners….

    1. http://video.adultswim.com/rob…..-pony.html

      This is what needs the Bay treatment

  27. Walter Block on Ron Paul’s dream VEEPEE (and his take on Gary Johnson)

    Ron Pauls Vice Presidential Choices

    Excerpt:

    Gary Johnson. It is too bad that the former governor of New Mexico as of the time of this writing has not been able to enter into the debates. If he did so, then there would be not one but two libertarians on stage at these important events. On the other hand, we know Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson is no Ron Paul. He is more of a “beltway” or Reason Magazine libertarian than a real one. He is better than the neocons on foreign policy, but does not call for a purely defensive stance for our military. He wants to legalize drugs, but only some of them; he did not pardon any victimless criminals when he could have. He favors the legalization of prostitution, but not based on a matter of rights; merely utilitarianism. He urges reform of the Fed, not abolition. Go down the entire list: he is pretty good on most issues from a libertarian point of view, but doesn’t hit the bull’s eye on any of them.

    There’s the Beltway or Reason brand of libertarian, and then there’s the real thing. Just like Sam’s Choice cola and Coke. They may say they’re the same, but you can taste the difference.

    1. *yawn*

      OM – Proud Member of the Circular Firing Squad since 1983.

      1. Re> Blue Moon,

        *Ho-Hum*

        BM – proud member of The Pointless Rejoinder Club, local chapter 23

        1. So he’s “pretty good” about most issues, but Rockwell (and by implication, you) just cannot resist getting in your petty little digs against “Reason” and “The Beltway”. As far as I am concerned, invoking “the Beltway” and “cocktail parties” makes you ineligible to call yourself intellectually rigorous.

          So, what is this? TEAM ROCKWELL and TEAM REASON now? You can be as tribalistic as you like, OM, and keep in mind that if there are libertarian critiques of Johnson to be made (and there are), Rockwell shows his ass in that he refuses to turn that laser-focus onto Ron Paul, who, at least violated his federalist principles when he signed that pledge.

          1. Yes, it’s the truth. There are some significant differences between the Rockwell/Rothbard wing and the Reason/Cato wing of modern libertarianism. And yes, no matter how much some people can’t stand for it to be brought up, most in the latter group seem to be located in and around the Beltway.

            The last minute smear job done on Paul by some at Reason, with that piece of shit Dave Weigel leading the way, was the absolute last straw for a lot of folks.

            1. Because he would totally have won the election without Dave Weigel and the website of a magazine that has about 50,000 subscribers ruining his chances.

          2. Re: Blue Moon,

            So he’s “pretty good” about most issues[…]

            But still miss the target, yes.

            Rockwell (and by implication, you) just cannot resist getting in your petty little digs against “Reason” and “The Beltway”.

            Not just Rockwell and, by implication, me, you arrogant piece of shit.

            So, what is this? TEAM ROCKWELL and TEAM REASON now?

            Did you reach this conclusion all by yourself? Ahhh, how quaint.

            NO, it is not about one team versus the other. I have my philosophical differences with some of the Reason writers, but there is a real difference between a libertarian candidate who calls for a total end of the drug war and another who only wants to “legalize” one type of drug in order to “tax it.” And so on.

            The reason for the “beltwayrian” monicker is to differentiate between deontological libertarians and utilitarians. That’s all.

            Rockwell shows his ass in that he refuses to turn that laser-focus onto Ron Paul, who, at least violated his federalist principles when he signed that pledge.

            You must’ve hit your head while showering. Are you serious? YOU CAN PLEDGE TO END ALL ABORTIONS. Why would this be contrary to federalism? He could’ve pledged to end all rapes. Would this be contrary to federalism? Please.

            1. Why would this be contrary to federalism? He could’ve pledged to end all rapes. Would this be contrary to federalism? Please.

              Yes, it would, and the fact that you have to ask that means you do not understand federalism.

              FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion

              The last bill (the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban) like this was justified under modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence. So that’s Part A as to why it violates federalism.

              Part B is that pledging to “end all rape” and, presumably, using the full force of the federal government to do so, violates federalism because the bulk of the administration of criminal justice should be the bailiwick of the states.

              You want to keep up the pettiness along with Rockwell? That’s fine, but be advised that you are arguing trivialities.

              1. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

                The last bill (the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban) like this was justified under modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

                And thus you conflate the two – how delightful!

                Interestingly enough, ABORTION itself was imposed on the States on a 14th Amendment jurisprudence. I do not see why SUDDENLY you would think I would accept that a law to ban abortions would be jsutified under Commerce Clause.

                So that’s Part A as to why it violates federalism.

                No, it doesn’t, you dolt. It would be perfectly justified under the 14th Amendment as it would make the unborn a protected class, just like blacks were back when the 14th was ratified.

                1. Wow, that’s some good backpedaling. If Ron Paul wants to “protect” the “unborn”, then he should advocate for a Constitutional Amendment, not a federal law that would be predicated on the Commerce Clause for enforcement.

                  I take full note that you did not address “Part B.” If you believe that abortion is murder, then prosecuting murders is the job of the states, not of the federal government. If you pass a law that says that fetuses are people, you are endorsing an unfunded federal mandate on the states.

                  1. And what lunacy is this that I am defending “states rights” and OM is endorsing the 14th Amendment that was championed by “the tyrant” and the North in the Civil War? It is like bizzaro world in here.

                    1. Rockwell can have their ‘Ideological Purity Test’. Eventually it just seems like a pissing contest.

                    2. Re: Rev Blue Moon,

                      And what lunacy is this that I am defending “states rights” and OM is endorsing the 14th Amendment that was championed by “the tyrant” and the North in the Civil War?

                      Yes, you’re such the defender, BM.

                      You’re also quite the dishonest. YOU brought up a “similar” law to conflate with the pledge, despite the fact that the pledge itself is not a law, it’s a promise. Unless you can see the future, you have NO IDEA how legislation on the case would look like; you’re simply assuming it would have to look like the current “late-term abortion” law to conclude that any law derived from the pledge would have to be justified under Commerce Clause – a CLASSIC case of “Begging The Question.”

                  2. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

                    Wow, that’s some good backpedaling.

                    WTF are you talking about?

                    If Ron Paul wants to “protect” the “unborn”, then he should advocate for a Constitutional Amendment, not a federal law that would be predicated on the Commerce Clause for enforcement.

                    Who says he will not? Can you read minds? Signing a pledge is not the same as legislating a law!

                    If you believe that abortion is murder, then prosecuting murders is the job of the states, not of the federal government.

                    Shit, I didn’t know this, BM! Thank you for clearing that one out!

                    Except, you stupid fuck, you can as president ask Congress to stop all federal funding for abortions. That would be a way to keep your pledge – you are the one who seems to think the keeping of the pledge requires a whole federal crusade against the states. YOU look the absolutist here, not I.

                    1. Look at the pledge and read the FOURTH promise I quoted above. What do you think that this bill would look like? Absent a Constitutional Amendment, such a bill must rely on the Commerce Clause. Sorry for you that your “boy” sold out his federalism. Cry somewhere else.

                    2. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

                      Look at the pledge and read the FOURTH promise I quoted above. What do you think that this bill would look like? Absent a Constitutional Amendment, such a bill must rely on the Commerce Clause.

                      Why the Commerce Clause? You just keep vomiting this as if it were fact! If the only support you have for this is some other law, you’re just begging the question.

                      You can make a federal law against abortion and defend it based on the 14th Amendment’s privleges and immunities clause, as a fetus can be declared a human being. You don’t need to bring up the Commerce Clause or a whole Constitutional Amendment – there’s nothing in the Constitution that states unequivocally that a fetus is NOT a human being, so why would there be a need to have it AMMENDED? MAKES NO SENSE.

                      Sorry for you that your “boy” sold out his federalism. Cry somewhere else.

                      Fuck you, dishonest piece of shit.

            2. “I have my philosophical differences with some of the Reason writers, but there is a real difference between a libertarian candidate who calls for a total end of the drug war and another who only wants to “legalize” one type of drug in order to “tax it.””

              Yes, one realizes he lives in a world filled with statists who also get to weigh on things, and would like to try to see imperfect but morally and practically superior policies actually implemented; and the other would rather see the world remain just as it is so long as he can wallow in his own purity and self-righteousness.

  28. It appears to be a few days old, but…fuck. I don’t even know what to say here. Enjoy this Bloomberg opinion piece, and please give Marx a chance!

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..agnus.html

    1. Utter. Nonsense.

  29. Minneapolis will be holding its first ever BEER FEST on September 24. YEE HAAAAAAAAA!

  30. Chalk one for the good guys!

    Detroit mom cleared of charges that stemmed from standoff at home

    In a case that sparked debate about parental rights versus state involvement in the medical care of children, a Detroit woman won a major victory Monday when all the charges against her were dropped.

    Maryanne Godboldo, 57, was accused of firing a gun at Detroit police officers who were assisting a state Child Protective Services worker when they came to her Blaine Street home on March 24 to get her daughter.

    The charges against Godboldo were dismissed at her preliminary examination in 36th District Court in Detroit. Judge Ronald Giles agreed with her lawyers that the court order to remove Godboldo’s 13-year-old daughter was not valid.

    1. Awesome. Next time they will just use SWAT.

      1. Re: WTF,

        Funny you would say that, because they did.

        And nothing else happened.

        1. i had to assist CPS in removing 2 kids from a mother last week.

          it was one of the most unpleasant things i have ever had to do.

          she was flipping out (understandably so). the kids were actually pretty darn calm

          1. Prolly because they were the snitches…

  31. We finally have our official fall guy for the execrable “Fast and Furious” program, and it’s ATF chief Ken Melson.

    1. Oh, was he running the program where the State Dept. sold guns to cartels too? That bastard!

      The good news is, by going to the Congressional investigators and cooperating, Melson probably managed to get on their good side — I don’t really think this is going to actually stop the investigation from continuing and moving ever upward until it snags some political appointees and creates a scandal for the administration itself. It helps that it’s the opposition running it, of course.

  32. My condolences to the Thomas family. I am truly sorry for your lost, for I was almost murdered in the same fashion, in the same Orange County California; just four months prior.

    On March 9, 2011 several Police brutally ordered a K-9 to attack an unarmed, California Registered (RN). The California Highway Patrol (CHP) in Orange County then attempted to cover up the incident.

    Malik King, a reportedly Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) since nineteen and RN since twenty three, is said to have initially attempted to steal a car. Later, it was found he was the owner of that Mercedes. What ensued next on the part of several officers goes well beyond the bounds of simply trying to subdue their suspect.

    The several police officers ordered a police K-9 to attack him while he was still fastened in his seat-belt; tasered multiple times while the K-9 attacked for over one minute and thirty seconds, then hand cuffed, slammed to the concrete, hog tied, beat and kicked in the head until unconscious. He was then taken to jail, accused of multiple felonies, and had to pay $50,000 for bail.

    Despite witnesses and the clear brutality of the beating, kicking, tasering, and ordered K-9 attack, California Highway Patrol allowed several officers to remain active and attempted a cover-up.
    Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully “unreasonable” or “excessive”. By signing this petition you agree that “unreasonable” or “excessive force” was used on Malik A. King on March 9, 2011 in Orange County, California.

    The beating of Mr. King is sickening and disturbing. The police involved in the beating and cover up must be brought to justice. Tell Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas to thoroughly investigate and prosecute the officers involved in the brutality of Malik A. King,LVN,RN.

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com…..6/722/705/

    Respectfully,
    Malik King,LVN,RN

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.