Reason Morning Links: ATF Tells Gun Dealers Not to Sell to Medical Marijuana Users, Court Releases Florida Man After Deciding That His Kiddie Porn Was Not Actually Porn, Everything Is Officially Illegal

|

  • The Washington Post has obtained a letter from the ATF to gun dealers which says that it is illegal to sell guns or ammunition to registered medical marijuana users. 
  • A Florida appeals court has ruled that taking pictures of one's Sunday school students, cutting out their faces, and gluing them on pictures of "nude adult women" does not constitute pornography. 
  • Cannabis Culture profiles John McKay, a former U.S. Attorney and rabid drug warrior turned pot advocate. 
  • The WSJ on over-criminalization: "Back in 1790, the first federal criminal law passed by Congress listed fewer than 20 federal crimes. Today there are an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes, plus thousands more embedded in federal regulations, many of which have been added to the penal code since the 1970s."
  • Legal scholar Jonathan Turley holds Obama "responsible for the disappearance of civil liberties from the national debate"; Diana Furchtgott-Roth asserts he's done the same thing to immigration issues. 
  • More footage of NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna using his pepper spray on Occupy Wall Street protesters. 

New at Reason.tv: "The Tragedy of Urban Renewal: The destruction and survival of a New York City neighborhood"

Advertisement

NEXT: War Counsel

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. A creepy Sunday school guy: go figure.

    1. That is some weird shit.

      1. Weird indeed. What is this, 1990? Put down the scissors and invest in Photoshop, you freaks.

        1. Man, that’s worse than cutting the eyes out of the pictures.

          1. Oh, please. Like you haven’t searched for ways to remove the laugh lines from your nude models’ faces.

            1. Isn’t that what MS Paint is for?

    2. A creepy Sunday School guy from Florida. There is something about Florida that breeds creepy church people…

      1. There is something about Florida church that breeds creepy church people…

      2. Eh. Plenty just move here.

      3. There is something about Florida that breeds creepy church people…

      4. Almost any combination of those words makes sense:

        FL + church = creep

        FL + creep = church

        Etc.

  2. Unregistered medical marijuana users are OK

    1. NO MARIJUANA/GUN USE IS OK. No one’s aim is good while they’re giggling.

    2. Or licensed users who can figure out how to use some other form of ID besides their weed card.

      1. Exactly, who the fuck is going to slap down a weed card on the counter of the gun shop?

        Government databases suck, so as long as you got your firearms card before the weed card, you will never have a problem buying a weapon.

        In most states, you don’t even need an FID to buy ammo.

        1. Ive used my concealed carry permit as my ID at bars before.

          We couldnt a weed card be used at a gun shop?

          1. Because that makes you too stupid to own a gun. (And the above mentioned ATF rule)

    3. Now you get it.

      We LIKE creating criminals, and this is a win-win for us. Either you are breaking state law by not possessing a medpot card in order for you to smoke your weed in “peace” (assuming we don’t send the federal stormtroopers after you), or you’re breaking federal law by buying a gun if you have a medpot card.

      We LOVE making criminals out of sick people.

  3. “Back in 1790, the first federal criminal law passed by Congress listed fewer than 20 federal crimes.”

    Some highlights:

    -Interstate transporte of a boar for gaming purposes.

    -Selling of spiritous liquers to ye savages (Red Sox fans).

    -Corne shucking on ye Sabbath.

    -Mule forgery.

    1. WTF is mule forgery?

      1. He’s being facetious.

        1. The other ones sound like real crimes.

          1. “The other ones sound like real crimes.”

            Maybe in your little authoritarian world.

            1. I’m guessing you hate Illinois Nazis, amiright??

      2. Something the writer made up because it sounded ridiculous?

        1. Or, he didn’t want Reason to get sued again.

      3. Remember when they busted Jefferson for cultivating marijuana at Monticello? It ended his presidency and 200 years later the Feds still own the place.

      4. Selling a hackney?

        1. I meant Hinny.

      5. I think he meant mule buggery.

      6. Pretending to be Warren Haynes, of course.

        Unless it’s Gov’t Mule doing a half set of cover songs. That might be Mule forgery.

      7. A mule is cross between a horse and donkey right? A fake or “forged” mule is a cross between a donkey and a horse.

    2. “Interstate transporte of a bore for gaming purposes” Is this Tom Friedman going on a gambling junket to Las Vegas?

    3. I think mule forgery is a variety of counterfeiting.

      1. Passing off a government mule as one capable of doing a full day’s work?

        1. The following were also prohibited

          Selling unsanitary snuffboxes

          Wearing your wig backwards, “gangsta” style

          Telling bawdy jokes in the presence of a lady (eg, “Yankee Doodle keep it up”)

  4. Legal scholar Jonathan Turley holds Obama “responsible for the disappearance of civil liberties from the national debate”

    Ladies and gentlemen, we have identified the left’s first racist.

    1. You must be joking…

      The left is FULL of racists.

      1. Yes, he was joking. Should I explain the joke?

  5. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3768

    Reconsidering sexual repression. A very thought provoking post that, if they ever read it, would cause feminists heads to explode. The main point is that with the sexual revolution women cannot buy marriage with sex anymore. So what do they have? Submission.

    1. Really? They can’t think of anything women bring to the table in a relationship other than pussy and the indulgence of male power fantasies?

      1. It paints in broad generalities. And sure they do. But there is no denying that marriage and birth rates are a lot higher in societies that don’t recognize equality among the sexists. Now that generally makes them backward fucked up societies. But it also makes them societies that in the long run will overwhelm others through shear numbers.

        I don’t agree with the post entirely. But I think it is an interesting point.

        1. Now that generally makes them backward fucked up societies. But it also makes them societies that in the long run will overwhelm others through shear numbers.

          Only if non-backwards societies give them free food and medicine and don’t steal their resources using their superior weapons.

        2. equality among the sexists

          Yeah, dog!

        3. And only if those countries never develop and experience the same dramatically decreased birth rate that every other country has experienced after industrialization.

      2. That wasn’t really their point. Their point is that it is much easier to get laid without making much of a commitment than it used to be, which is obviously true.

        It is MUCH harder for a women to refuse to have sex until they get married than it used to be.

      3. They can’t think of anything women bring to the table in a relationship other than pussy and the indulgence of male power fantasies?

        Little help here?

      4. They can’t think of anything women bring to the table in a relationship other than pussy and the indulgence of male power fantasies?

        I think there’s probably a bigger picture to consider here. When you examine the male stereotypes that are being pushed in popular culture, they’re typically emasculated goofs or moronic yard apes with no self-control. It’s basically the feminist version of the Madonna/whore syndrome; there’s variations, but the ultimate message being pushed is that men are incapable of being the head of a household and wouldn’t even be able to tie their shoes if women weren’t there to do it for them.

        Given these stereotypes, why would any man with an ounce of self-worth want to marry or even begin a relationship with a “strong, independant” woman, knowing that in the long run his nuts would take up permanent residence in her purse?

        Steve Sailer once opined that the main reason feminism took hold was because it provided a means for unattractive women to make themselves seem desirable, since biology basically dictates that a woman with looks is going to have more advantages than one who doesn’t. So the result has been for feminists to try and turn men into feminized eunuchs as a means to assert their place in society.

        1. And don’t forget the horribly biased family law system. Why would a man, who is able to get sex without being married, get married and give his wife the right to leave him at anytime and take half of his assets and any children.

          1. Why would a man, who is able to get sex without being married, get married and give his wife the right to leave him at anytime and take half of his assets and any children.

            Social pressure.

          2. I don’t know, why did you do it? Or the many, many other posters here who are married and presumably sticking with for more reasons than alimony?

        2. WHY STEVE LIKES RAPE.

  6. http://online.wsj.com/article/…..on_LEADTop

    Daniel Henniger on why Herman Cain is a serious candidate. Cain does have a hell of a resume.

    1. I just pictured Obama vs Cain, with Paul deciding to run 3P and.. yikes. You can be sure the establishment media would throw a shit fit at those ‘optics’.

      1. Paul won’t run as a third party. He is smart enough to know the liberals are just being nice to him because they think he could help re-elect Obama. But a Cain Paul ticket would send the msm into a real case of the vapors.

        1. I’d love to see that just to watch the talking heads explode.

  7. Kate Moss is still hot.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..shoot.html

    1. Never really got the the whole Kate Moss thing. I find her to be mehhh.

      1. Me too. I never was a fan of the heroin addict look.

        1. I never was a fan of the heroin addict look.

          I never was a fan of the primitive notion that a woman’s sexiness is measured by the amount of skin she reveals.

      2. I think she looks better now that she’s put on a few pounds than she did in the 90s.

        1. To me she looks like a barfly.

        2. Re: sarcasmic,

          I think she looks better now that she’s put on a few pounds than she did in the 90s.

          Admit it – you like your women to actually look like women and not like Olive Oyl.

          1. I yam what I yam and I yam what I yam that I yam

          2. She’s still way too skinny to be really sexy. You can’t have T & A without body fat.

            1. At least there’s a chance that she ovulates now, though.

            2. Yup. So far as models go, Laetitia Casta (no nudity, but possibly NSFW) is a better choice IMO.

              1. The only VS model who was ever genuinely hot, not just pretty and starved.

                1. What Adriana Lima isn’t hot now? You are nuts: http://stand-up.comlu.com/adri…..cture.html

              2. Interesting. A Google Image search on her ends in a couple of these lines:

                In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

                I haven’t encountered that before.

    2. When skinny girls have the beginnings of cellulite, you know there’s a problem.

      1. She’s pushing 40. I think that entitles her to a bit of cellulite.

      2. That cellulite is nastay. I looked at that limey link and said “omg, how old is this worn out horsebanging skank, like 50?”

        Just further confirmation that my fellow commenters have horrid standards. That and the slew of comments that boiled down to “I likes me some hambeasts! too skinny!”. Ugh.

    3. Yes she is. Skinny girls need love too.

    4. Sure, if you find Justin Bieber hot.

      My theory is that the fashion world is run by pedophiles, so they seek women who look as prepubescent as possible. Exhibit A: Kate Moss. Blech.

      1. Fashion designers are almost exclusively: 1) women and 2) gay men. By and large, those two group share an aesthetic about female bodies – that they should be as thin as possible. Men typically prefer women who look like women. See this.

      2. Argh. In the photo linked above, the female ideal of their body type was in red, the male ideal of women’s body type in blue. SFW.

        1. FYI your chart is bullshit. Nobody appreciates longtorsos or stubby bird legs. On top of that the alleged preference of males for chubby waddlers is olddd fatty-pride propoganda. Youmight notice they’ve gone to the trouble of breaking “morbidly obese” into like 6 categories, as if there are meaningful differences somehow…

  8. The pig’s name is really Tony Baloney?

    Bedazzled Fingernails

  9. Okay, before any Red Sox and/or Braves fans invade this thread, two words: Mets fan.

    Or, to point a finer point on it: Tom Fucking Glavine.

    Seriously, I will kill the first three men to bitch about collapses. 2000 world series. Generation K. 2006 Carlos Beltran called 3rd strike. 2007 collapse. Braves fans and Red Sox fans have seen their teams win a world series since 1986. Fuck the fuck off.

    1. Yeah but you are a mut fan, which really means you are a direct descendant of the old Dodger and Giants fans. Don’t you really kind of like the pain and disapointment?

      1. I mean, it’s cheaper than a professional dominatrix.

    2. Since I am not a Red Sox fan, and as an (ostensible) Astros fan, I’m morally obligated to despise the Braves, I have no complaints.

      1. My disappointment in the collapse of the Braves was more than offset by the Rays’ come-from-behind win last night. Incredible.

      2. Your guys did what they do best – laid down.

      3. As the farm team for the Phillies, you should probably root for them.

        1. Haha, yes, I am rooting for them.

    3. Some of us hate both New York fans and Boston fans.

      1. I’m in.

      2. ^^THIS^^

      3. I live in Mass and I had Sox fans too. Plus, anyone who watches baseball on television has too much time on their hands.

      4. Fuck you.

        Seriously though, after the Sox’ pathetic performance in September, I’m glad they didn’t make it. Tampa deserved it so much more.

        Now I’ll happily root for Milwaukee.

    4. STEVE THINK BASEBALL SUCKS. TOO SLOW, FOR PEOPLE WHO DONT THINK FAST LIKE STEVE.

      1. Cat with two faces sets world record for longevity.

        http://news.yahoo.com/mass-cat…..09351.html

        1. For less disturbing cat photos, Cats that look like Ron Swanson. Some of them are pretty good.

          1. For more disturbing cat photos, cats that look like Hitler. Otherwise known as Kitlers.

    5. I visited Turner Field four times in September, including last night. They lost each time, twice in extra innings, so, frankly, I think I am entitled to feel some disappointment. As for Mets fans, I sat behind a family of them at a game this year who had come out expressly to cheer against the Braves – precisely the level of classiness (and intelligence, paying good money to see a game their team wasn’t even playing in) I would expect of New Yawkers.

    6. Braves fans and Red Sox fans have seen their teams win a world series since 1986. Fuck the fuck off.

      1986? Piker.

      Halley’s Comet has passed twice since my team won the World Series back during the Roosevelt administration. Teddy, not Franklin.

    7. Agreed otherwise, but how on Earth was the 2000 Series a collapse? That Yanks team was pretty terrible, but the Mets were never really ahead. They blew game 1, were smoked for 8/9 of game 2, had a comeback in game 3, never had a lead in game 4, and lost a squeaker in game 5. That’s not a collapse.

      Let’s be honest though, when your third best hitter is Benny Agbayani and your third starter is Glendon Rusch you don’t have any business playing in the Series anyway. Hell of a job by Valentine that year.

      1. The 2000 Yankees “were pretty terrible”?

        You can’t be serious.

        1. They were pretty terrible, at least until they picked up Justice. 3 great hitters (Bernie, Jeter, Jorge), down years from Tino, O’Neill, and Knoblauch, a very Brandon Inge year from Brosius, regular lineup spots to Ricky Ledee and Shane Spencer, nothing from the 4th or 5th starters, and the defense you’d expect from a team with Jeter, Bernie, Knoblauch, and Posada up the middle. It was a top heavy team with a good bullpen, nothing special but good enough in a weak AL East. Let’s not forget, the team only won 87 games in the regular season.

          We’re talking about a team that SI’s Joe Posnanski labeled as the third-worst world series winner of all time and that ESPN’s Dave Schoenfield has as the worst of the Yanks’ 27 title teams. It was a poor team that got hot at the right time. I have great memories of that team and rubbing its success in the eyes of all my Met fan friends, but let’s call a spade a spade here.

      2. That’s because your team sucks.

  10. A Florida appeals court has ruled that taking pictures of one’s Sunday school students, cutting out their faces, and gluing them on pictures of “nude adult women” does not constitute pornography.

    Oh, I think we all agree it’s porn. It’s just not kiddie porn.

    1. Whatever it is, it is really creepy weird. Maybe not illegal, but weird nonetheless.

    2. Nudity isn’t porn.

      1. Well, if they were just standing around, yeah.

    3. there used to be “common law crimes” in England for situations for whcih there was no statute, but should have been illegal. You know, like when someone forges a mule and no one thought to enact a law against it beforehand.

      These types of laws are unconstituional in the US due to lack of due process. However, for a situation like this, a common law “kick to the balls” might be appropriate.

  11. Superman! What are you doing with that giant teaspoon. What are you doing with that giant eating tool?

    I’m taking it to a giant that has no teaspoons.

    Trigger Warning: The link above contains an image of The Punisher wearing nothing but a skull motif man-thong.

    1. The rich cultural tapestry that is the internet…

    2. The Tick wants one too.

      1. Arthur, we need a battle cry! Something to strike fear into the hearts of our foes!

    3. The superhero versions of Dick and Jane are my favorite.

      See Batman beat the shit out of some guy.
      See Robin beat the shit out of some guy.
      See Batman and Robin beat the shit out of some guy.
      It’s fun to beat the shit out of some guy.

      1. ass. He’s reading the Constitution with Benjamin Franklin bifocal glasses

    4. Robin is so non-threatening of a man he could fit right in at girls night out.

      1. A ‘robin’ is such a non-threatening bird. Still, it’s better than being called Swallow.

        1. The Tufted Titmouse FTW

            1. “The Great Tit is large for a tit…”

      2. I’d say he’s tied with Aquaman.

        1. The difference being that Aquaman is a “superhero” while Robin is a sidekick.

          1. Also, if Aquaman operated in the real world, he would be super.

            1. Like Big Gay Al super?

        2. No, Aqua-Man.. Weakest. Super. Hero. Evar.

          Swims fast and talks to fish. Weak sauce.

    5. The four of us were dressed in the height of fashion, which in those days was a pair of black very tight tights with the old jelly mould, as we called it, fitting on the crotch underneath the tights, this being to protect and also a sort of a design you could viddy clear enough in a certain light, so that I had one in the shape of a spider, Pete had a rooker (a hand, that is), Georgie had a very fancy one of a flower, and poor old Dim had a very hound-and-horny one of a clown’s litso (face, that is), Dim not ever having much of an idea of things and being, beyond all shadow of a doubting thomas, the dimmest of we four.

    1. I know. I remember 1991. Women couldn’t vote. Black men were routinely lynched. The red man was slaughtered and on the run throughout the plains. It was horrible.

      1. No, that was 1983.

      2. I don’t remember 1991, but I was apparently old enough to find TV war coverage upsetting. It’s too bad Thomas Freidman hasn’t reached that level of maturity.

      3. 1991 was the last gasp of Soviet communism with the hardliners couping Gorbachev. I would think Gawkers would like that year.

    2. Ah 1991. On Jan 1, GT beat Nebraska to win the MNC in football. I graduated college (June) and moved to Switzerland (July).

      It was a very good year.

      1. Also, Clarence Thomas appointed to Supreme Court.

      2. How could you stand to live in that shithole Switzerland?

        Switzerland – all the proof anti-immigration groups need that multilingual societies don’t work.

        1. Immigration to Switzerland is/was [all info is 20 years out of date, so YMMV] weird. Work visa? Not required. However, you needed a visa to LIVE in switzerland. I didnt need a visa for the job I had, I could have commuted from outside the country.

          So, for example, if you were a German living on the border, you could get a job in Switerzerland and not need a visa.

          It would be like Mexicans commuting to Laredo and San Diego every day, then heading home after work.

          1. It would be like Mexicans commuting to Laredo and San Diego every day, then heading home after work.

            So what you’re saying is that it would be awesome?

          2. It’s my understanding that immigration to Switzerland is not that big a problem. The problem is becoming a citizen.

            To become a citizen, as I understand it, everyone has to vote for you to become a citizen.

            There are also something like three levels of citizenship. National, Canton and Local. I have no idea how that works.

            Life is pretty good for a non-citizen resident, though. And it keeps you from all that military stuff.

            1. From what I have heard, all second-hand and possibly out of date, the process is difficult and intrusive. For example, agents of the state actually come visit your house to see if you are living in a properly Swiss manner. Have a wok in your kitchen? That counts against you, because woks are not Swiss! Stuff like that.

          3. So, for example, if you were a German living on the border, you could get a job in Switerzerland and not need a visa.

            About 1/3 of our Geneva office commutes daily in from France. They take the train.

            The only reason for the visa is their enormous entitlement programs. They could give a rats ass who wants to visit. I got off the airplane the first time I visited, and thought that I had accidently bypassed customs. Turns out the bored guy in a booth who stamps the passport (no questions, no forms) was the extent of the security.

          4. I knew Canadians who commuted to Buffalo. That was in the 90s – things may have changed…

    3. I want to travel back in time. That would be cool. Buy some Apple stock, go to a Metallica concert for like ten bucks, buy a gun without being hassled…

      1. Bet on the Braves and Twins to make the World Series in an spring training parley.

        1. I went to Braves opening day in 1991. A prof asked me the next day how they looked and I responded with “Same old braves”.

          1. You erred.

      2. Go to a GOOD Metallica concernt. Who the fuck wants to see them perform tracks from St Anger?

        I want Ride the Lightning!

    4. Well, they also believe the unions of today are all that keeps us from 1930s factory conditions.

    5. It’s Gawker, they all hate their jobs and most know they will never go anywhere.

    6. I would be happy if they just put some sort of revisit clause (bi-annual, five years, whatever) on every piece of law EVER.

      That way these jackwagons would be forced to bring the regulatory behemoth out in to the light of day periodically.

  12. Jezebel commenters can not accept that nice guys occasionally finish last.

    Honestly, I’m mostly just posting it because it is hilarious that when you point out to Jezeebel commentators that guys wouldn’t act like jerks to get laid if it didn’t get them laid, they get super defensive.

    1. This explains the irony singularity forming over Manhattan as we speak.

    2. The comments in there are extra LOL–especially when one takes into account that the so-called Nice Guys are typically passive-aggressive nerds with severe Mommy issues.

      It’s as if millions of years of evolution sailed completely over their heads.

      1. that the so-called Nice Guys are typically passive-aggressive nerds with severe Mommy issues.

        I would disagree. Most of them just bought into the bullshit being spewed at them from all directions when they were young and impressionable.

    3. I see that strategies have changed. It’s no longer “that doesn’t work”, now it’s “you should stop doing that because it works.” I’ve also seen, recently “guys like girls because they’re assholes too”, a theory which you’ll agree with whole-heartedly… if you’re braindead.

  13. Food Tracing Takes Off, eh?
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com…..le2182307/

  14. http://www.realclearpolitics.c….._cain.html

    The always good for a laugh Jenine Gerafalo. Republicans supporting Herman Cain are racist.

    If Cain were to win, it will be really funny to hear liberals explain why electing the second black President in a row proves America is irredeemably racist.

    1. Everything the GOP does just proves it is even more racist. Everything.

    2. Second in a row, third in the history of the Republic!

    3. She is funnier than ever.

        1. Good comeback.

    4. Janene Garafalo is starting to irk me now. Once up on a time, she was kinda funny – you know, when all she tried to do was be a comic.

      Now all of a sudden, for some reason, with no indication of qualification for it, she’s some kind of political pundit/analyst. But she’s so fucking lefty/prog, it’s depressing. She has talked herself into this bizarro universe where she evidently actually believes the nonsense spewing out of her own cakehole.

      What is it with the far left that they need to believe the meme that all Republicans and conservatives are racist, homophobic, yadda yadda, hateful, hating hatemongers? Whenever anything clearly indicating otherwise (e.g., Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Thomass Sowell, Walter Williams, Dick Cheney and his lesbian daughter…), they hold it up as if it somehow proves their proposition that all those evul fucking Repukelicans are in fact racist, hatemongering homophobes.

      The most hateful and violent rhetoric I ever have heard consistently has come from the mouths of those in the progressive left. Remember the comments about putting Justice Thomas to work out in the fields? And cutting off his toes and feeding them to him?

      These people don’t even hear their own nonsense. They’re living in some kind of deluded, paranoid, parallel reality – and the really scary thing is how much traction they manage to get among the lamestream media and the left in general.

      1. Being a lefty prog nut on talk shows is really the only career she has left. Yes she was once a competant comedian. But the life of a successful comedian is short. Only a handful of the greatest ever (Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Jonathan Winters, Bob Newhart, Bill Cosby) have ever managed to be really famous as comedians for more than a couple of years. And she was never good looking enough to be a leading actor in Hollywood. And even if she had been, she is too old for it now anyway.

        1. And endeavoring to not look good most of her adult life certainly didn’t help.

        2. You forgot Lily Tomlin.

          1. And Joan Rivers.

      2. “Then you got these lady comics talking about stuff that would embarrass Redd Foxx–God rest his smutty soul. Who they slept with. What time they sit on the can… This is supposed to get you a husband?”

        1. Chelsey Handler is that you? Speaking of, what happened to her? When she first got famous she was fairly attractive. I flipped by her show the other day and she is just downright rough looking.

            1. Reputedly, A LOT.

            2. Is that all? I was starting to think she might show up on a “Faces of Meth” poster.

            3. chelsey’s wigger look

          1. Some women just don’t age well–especially when their personal habits revolve around consuming massive amounts of booze and being used as a cum dumpster.

    5. Her philosophy reminds me of witch dunking. If you drown you’re innocent, if you don’t then you’re a witch and will be executed.

      “Republicans are racist because they don’t elect African-Americans. Republicans are racist because they elect African-Americans.”

    1. There has long been a large Joseph Conrad influence in “Beetle Bailey”, and I suppose this is the logical culmination.

      1. Some should draw Apocalypse Now in the style of Beetle Bailey, with various strip characters taking on roles from the film. Beetle is clearly Willard, and I agree with General Halftrack as Kurtz.

        1. Someone should, that is.

          1. Art school vampire could do it.

            1. I totally could. I’d have to get F.F. Coppola’s and Mort Walker’s blessing, though.

              1. Beetle Bailey stalking Halftrack, interspersed with an ox being slaughtered by Cookie Jowls is worth stepping on a few toes.

                “Father?”

                “Yes, son?”

                “I want to kill you.”

                1. Yes, I think incorporating the lyrics of “The End” is appropriate.

                  However, it has to open with Beetle saying, “Saigon. Shit. I’m still in Saigon.”

                  1. “Saigon. Shit. I’m still in Saigon.”

                    In a hammock, under a tree, as fire boils across the page…

                    Sarge is Chief Phillips
                    Private Zero is Lance
                    Killer is Chef
                    Lieutenant Jackson Flap is Clean
                    Blips and Buxley are Playboy bunnies
                    Chaplain Staneglass can be Kurtz’s crazy journalist convert
                    Major Greenbrass as Kilgore

                    “As for the charges against me, I am unconcerned. I am beyond their timid lying morality, and so I am beyond caring. “

              2. It’s a sad commentary that The Art isn’t free to parody whatever and whoever he wants.

                1. I was thinking of Art-Student Vampire, from that Urkobold link, but I’d rather have our Art as is…

                  1. I thought that was The Art.

                    1. …wait… Art is in the military and he’s a vampire…

                      Oh, shit! Art is in The Creature Commandos!

                    2. I used to read Weird War when I was a wee lad.

                    3. I wish. Man, Sergeant First Class Frankenstein’s Monster would make a terrific platoon sergeant, I’m sure.

                    4. Frankenstein’s Monster would make a terrific platoon sergeant

                      As long as you don’t have a flamethrower unit near you…

    1. Was the toilet at fault or merely trying to defend itself?

    2. That really burns my ass!

    3. “Apparently there was so much chicken skin in the system it just ruptured the insides.”

      “Oh, that’s tragic!”

    4. In Washington D.C., shit does not necessarily roll downhill.

      1. But it does have a multiplier effect.

    5. In Soviet Russia, toilet shits into you!

    6. …DHS adds 20,000 new agents to prevent future Toilet Terrorism.

      1. I bet the TSA uses this incident as an excuse to add to its search procedures.

    7. Obviously the result of too many people being told to blow it out their ass.

    8. In DC Toilet shits on you!

  15. Regarding the kiddie porn case above it would seem that the police and prosecutors are willing to stretch the definition of “porn” to suit their interests.

    There was a case in my hometown recently where a 50 year old man was arrested at a festival for taking close up photographs of the crotches of clothed children and charged with “child endangerment” or some such.

    That’s incredibly creepy, but shouldn’t be illegal-however, most juries would probably vote to convict. As far as I know the guy is currently in jail and I suspect that his time there is pretty uncomfortable. The case from Florida above seems similar-pretty creepy (and I wouldn’t want him teaching Sunday school to my kids), but not illegal.

    1. http://www2.morganton.com/news…..TopStories

      Link provided-the charge was “taking indecent liberties”.

    2. Re: Mr. Saveloy,

      Regarding the kiddie porn case above it would seem that the police and prosecutors are willing to stretch the definition of “porn” to suit their interests.

      Reminds me of a question posited by one of the local lefty trolls regarding how would a libertarian society stop child abuse. I guess I can posit the same question: How can tax-fed leeches stop child abuse, especially when they use definitions that are so pliable.

      The case from Florida above seems similar-pretty creepy (and I wouldn’t want him teaching Sunday school to my kids), but not illegal.

      That would be the libertarian answer: Don’t send your kids to be taught by creepy people.

      Hmmm, that would also be the solution to public school choice: Don’t send your kids to be taught by creepy UNIONIZED people.

      1. OM-when I first started reading Hit and Run the seemingly “pro kiddie porn” stories were kind of off putting. But now that I see some of what gets labelled as “kiddie porn” I understand the position that Reason and libertarians are taking a lot better and stories like the one above help illustrate that.

      2. That would violate the leftie version of “freedom of association”, i.e., anybody who wants to associate with normal people must be allowed to.

      3. I know, let’s start a Sunday School teacher version of Underwriters Laboratories!

    3. Yet another non-violent offender sent to prison to learn how to be a real criminal. Who wants to bet when this guy gets out he starts abducting and killing kids?

  16. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar…..lthy-foods

    NYC Mayor Bloomberg: ‘Government’s Highest Duty’ Is to Push ‘Healthy’ Foods

    Words fail

    1. Re: John,

      NYC Mayor Bloomberg: ‘Government’s Highest Duty’ Is to Push ‘Healthy’ Foods

      One way… or the other!

      (Ouuuughh!)

    2. Words fail me

    3. “Our licensing of street green card producer/vendors has greatly increased the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables in neighborhoods with high rates of diet related diseases.”

      i.e., “We sponsored a bunch of fruit & vegetable carts in neighborhoods where people didn’t seem particularly interested in them in the first place.”

      “And we’ve led a national salt reduction initiative and engaged 28 food manufacturers, supermarkets and restaurant chains to voluntarily commit to reducing excessive amounts of sodium in their products.”

      i.e., “We said, ‘Nice little business you got here…would be a shame if it got “regulated”, you know?’ and they voluntarily cooperated, just like that!”

    4. And if government started micro-managing his company, he would have a reason on why over regulation is bad.

    5. Fuck, would his reign end already.

  17. Legal scholar Jonathan Turley holds Obama “responsible for the disappearance of civil liberties from the national debate”; Diana Furchtgott-Roth asserts he’s done the same thing to immigration issues.

    Oh, please, stop! You’re making The Great One blush!

    1. You’re making The Great One blush!

      How can you tell?

    1. Someone should come up with a new music genre, involving German metal, women in leather, and string instruments (violins, etc.–not just guitar). We’d call this music Saxon Violins.

      1. Y’know what they say? Two/thirds of a pun is P.U…

  18. http://dailycaller.com/2011/09…..ino-media/

    If the English media won’t ask about Fast and Furious, apparently the Latin media will.

    1. I wish those silly movies would just go away.

    2. Erat expectans aliud, cum sequerer urna.

      1. Uma thurman gloria steinem, alanis morisette!

    3. Obama blamed budget problems, in part, for what some see as ATF’s incompetence. “Part of the problem is budgetary [and] ? we are going to have to figure out ways to operate smarter and more efficiently in investigations without a huge expansion of resources because those resources are aren’t there.”

      More money. That’ll fix it.

      1. More money, more power, more government, fewer pesky elections.

  19. letter from the ATF to gun dealers which says that it is illegal to sell guns or ammunition to registered medical marijuana users

    On second thought, let ’em run!

    1. Now, Mexican drug cartels, they can have all the guns they want!

  20. Creepy Public School propaganda: My School, Your Money Bitches
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..ture=feedf

    1. “Gotta get dough for our school”

      Don’t even fucking think about a bake sale!

      (The parody is much better than the original.)

  21. I disapprove of the Wall Street occupiers, but I’ll grant the a significant portion of NYC police use unnecessary force.

    1. 2170 AD:
      In the tourist attraction of Old New York visitors mingle on authentic paved streets with colorful characters/re-enactors right out of vintage movies, ride in gasoline powered yellow cabs, urinate in alleys and watch authentic, hourly staged police beatings.

      1. lol

        No joke. Starting a few years ago, Wall Street and the surrounding blocks became off limits to cars, some of those streets are still cobble stone, and the building that first housed Congress is there.

    2. Ihis is the first time I looked at any of the video, and it’s appalling. They were doing absolutely nothing but standing on the sidewalk, and this cop just walks up and sprays them for the lulz, and then walks away.

      I thought it was impossible to make me have any sympathy for the protestors, but the NYPD has somehow managed.

    3. Here’s a protest that will not suffer from police harrassment.

  22. Class Warfare: Corporate Edition

    Companies have claimed for years that old-style pensions were unsustainable. Author Ellen Schultz tells Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep that there’s another explanation.

    “The main narrative is that [companies] are struggling to pay both their pensions and these unexpectedly high health care costs for the retirees,” Schultz says. “What isn’t known is that companies were well-prepared for this phenomenon. The plans were in fact significantly overfunded. They had more than enough to pay every dime for every person currently employed and already retired.”

    Schultz says there was a massive transfer of wealth over the past two decades, from a multitude of retirees to a small number of executives.

    http://www.npr.org/2011/09/29/…..d-pensions

    1. I find that hard to believe. While executive pay is huge compared to any normal salary. It is small change when compared to pension obligations. If that were true, executives would be making billions rather than millions.

        1. First off, even if it were relatively small, if companies were looting the pension funds in order to shower execs with higher pay then that’s terrible in itself. If this were some government money malfeascance I bet you guys would not dismiss it as a trifle.

          Secondly, according to the story they used it for all kinds of other things in addition to executive pay, such as paying shareholders bigger dividends and shoring up losses after various ill-fated management schemes.

          Secondly

          1. If the company loses money, then yeah, they have to use the pension fund. Your pension is only as good as the company that pays it. If the company goes broke, you don’t get a pension.

            1. Well, if the right can cry “class warfare” and spew anti-union hate in blaming corporate woes on greedy unions and workers demanding too much then surely one can decry workers having their promises welshed on by their corporate masters to pay for the folly of the latter. Isn’t that “class warfare” too?

              1. Of course you can. No one ever said management was perfect. But so what? Any government solution to that would be worse than the problem. Bad things sometimes happen.

                1. You could empower shareholders to better police executive pay and decisions and make pension looting harder.

                  1. Shareholders are empowered. But they don’t use it. And Boards of Directors are asleep at the switch in many cases. but the only solution is for the poorly managed companies to die and serve as a warning to others.

                    1. There is some bad caselaw in Delaware limiting shareholder rights a little too much, I think. They are, after all, the owners of the company. While they should be limited in their day-to-day control of the business–got to have that if they’re getting limited liability–they shouldn’t be so powerless against management and directors.

                      For instance, shareholders can vote board members off a board, and the board can decide to ignore the vote. And how often do shareholder derivative suits work for shareholders?

      1. John-

        I work for a company that used to be part of GE that got spun off. Pensions still exist at GE because I still have access to mine, and GE has NOT cut benefits.

        I find it very hard to believe that my pension is going to outperform by 401k. I would really like to see the data behind that assertion.

    2. So company executives raided pension funds to pay themselves off? I thought only unions could do that.

      1. Conservatives are beautiful to argue with, one will always come along and make the point I was just making. Thanks Sparky!

        1. Hey, don’t get me involved in this.

        2. Sparky? Really? Anyway,

          1) You don’t know me, so I will forgive your assertion that I am a conservative. It does make me wonder how you can make such assumptions about people you have never met.
          2) I was not arguing with you. I almost never read your posts, so I don’t know enough about your positions to argue with them.
          3) It was intended to be a joke. See: Hoffa, Jimmy. And pretty much every other union official.

          Any coincidence to whatever point you thought you were making is purely accidental.

      2. Social Security, is that you?

    3. We’re closing our olde pension plan. To do so, you have to run an actuarial analysis of the value of the annuity contract each pensioner would have to pay out their vested benefit. And then you have to pony up that much cash, either from pension assets or corporate assets.

      (1) If there are surplus pension assets, well, these are assets that aren’t funding anyone’s pension. Taking them out of the plan isn’t transferring wealth from any pensioner.

      (2) If there aren’t surplus assets, then you have a transfer of wealth from the corporation to the pensioners.

      Now, if you aren’t closing your plan, but just skimming assets when there’s a surplus, that raises the question of how a deficit later gets funded.

      1. (1) If there are surplus pension assets, well, these are assets that aren’t funding anyone’s pension. Taking them out of the plan isn’t transferring wealth from any pensioner.

        I think that is the key point that Schultz’ analysis glosses over.

        If there are surplus funds, those are funds that don’t belong to the pension plan. That means you can’t really consider them “looted” if they are taken out of the pension plan.

        That’s part of the reason that defined benefit plans dependent on the ongoing cash flow of a non-financial corporation are inherently a bad idea, from the perspective of disintermediation risk. The upside is capped at the defined benefit, and the downside is the plan collapses utterly. But since you’re measuring the plan’s obligations in real time, any time the plan gets ahead it can be “looted” – and when it gets behind, the company has to make up the difference, and if the company fails naturally the cash flow to make up the difference won’t be there.

      2. Hey!!! It’s looting plain and simple. None of this finance moving resources shit. It’s just looting and we all know looting is wrong! Damn evil money puppets!!

    4. The real problem is that the entire concept of “overfunded / underfunded” is extremely contingent.

      Good stock market performance can make your plan appear overfunded – and all of that can change in a single afternoon.

      The problem here is garden variety disintermediation risk: pension plans have long-term fixed obligations that have to be supported by what are ultimately ephemeral organizations.

      General Motors was never supposed to live forever. If your social plan for taking care of people in their retirement is “General Motors will take care of them” you are eventually going to be fucked.

      1. “Good stock market performance can make your plan appear overfunded – and all of that can change in a single afternoon.”

        Exactly why it is a bad idea to have someone else “manage” your retirement funds.

    5. How else are these executives supposed to maintain their treasure rooms, with its piles of gold coins that they can dive into and swim though?

  23. http://www.smh.com.au/world/fb…..1kz8v.html

    During the alleged plot, undercover FBI agents posed as accomplices who supplied Ferdaus with one remote-controlled plane, C4 explosive, and small arms that he allegedly envisioned using in a simultaneous ground assault in Washington. However, ”the public was never in danger from the explosive devices, which were controlled by undercover FBI employees”, the FBI said.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/fb…..z1ZLl9K4jg

    1. I’ve been telling people caught up in Gunwalker conspiracy fever for weeks now that it is common practice for law enforcement agencies to allow and even supply people with illegal goods in order to make cases and track networks. Viola, duh.

      If this guy had used any of this stuff to harm anyone you can bet there would be blog links galore from “unclespajamasirregulars.rightwingblowhard” claiming that Obama the secret Muslim had provided this guy with the goods to crack down on 2nd Amendment rights of God’fearin’ Reel ‘Mericans…

      1. But unlike gunwalker, he was not from a foreign country and he was under constant surveillance. And further, you can see how the police plan if it worked would actually result in prosecution.

        Gunwalker allowed guns to leave the country where they could no longer be under surveillance and no case could be made against the people who had them. And we know now that in some cases they didn’t even get straw buyers. They just bought guns and sold them directly to the Mexican drug gangs.

        1. “And further, you can see how the police plan if it worked would actually result in prosecution.”

          Dude, I posted one of the indictments resulting from Gunwalker here before and it details how it led to the indictments.

          “They just bought guns and sold them directly to the Mexican drug gangs.”

          Er, like here the FBI just brought the guns and explosives to the terrorists?

          1. Your post was thoroughly debunked on timeline issues and for jurisdictional issues.

            The guys indicted were indicted for activities in Arizona. There was no need to ever let the guns leave the US if the goal was to make those indictments. And the indictments were only brought after the shit hit the fan and a US agent was killed.

            1. “The guys indicted were indicted for activities in Arizona.”

              Yeah, namely buying guns in Arizona as part of a conspiracy to smuggle them into Mexico to be used by drug networks. Conspiracy to smuggle guns was one of the specific counts in the indictment fluffy.

              Nice try though. Were’nt you castigating John the other day for his inability to walk back from being flat wrong?

              Physician heal thyself.

              1. You are either profoundly dishonest or stupid. Explain why they arrested those guys at the border but then let hundreds of other guns go across the border where they could no longer be tracked and indicting the people involved was impossible?

                1. You are either profoundly dishonest or stupid.

                  This is MNG, John. Why must the two be mutually exclusive?

          2. And those indictments were not handed down until January 2011 after the guns had shown up at dozens of murder scenes and it was a full fledged scandal.

            Two hundred people have died because of this program. And you get on here and whine and claim that no one is at fault and there is nothing to see. They sent hundreds of weapons to Mexico and got a couple of indictments that still haven’t resulted in convictions after the program blew up. And you still defend it and pretend it was just negligence.

            And you wonder why we think you are a partisan hack.

            1. “And those indictments were not handed down until January 2011 after the guns had shown up at dozens of murder scenes and it was a full fledged scandal.”

              Yeah John, it never takes a while for an indictment to be brought from an extensive law enforcement case. Why, the fact that it took so long must be proof of conspiracy-coverup etc…

              Sheesh.

              “And you still defend it and pretend it was just negligence.”

              Is anything funnier than a stupefied conservative? John says I’m defending the program as he admits I find it negligent…

              1. I mean, this shows a lot about John, and most ideologue’s, mindset. Calling something dangerously and immorally negligent is DEFENDING it if you don’t take the FURTHER step the ideologue is taking to condemn it as a murderous conspiracy to subvert the republic…

                Yes John, anyone who doesn’t go to your extremes is just being partisan…

                1. What do you want to do about MNG? Do you think Holder should resign? Do you think the negligence that resulted in 200 deaths might be criminal? What about the cover up? Do you think there should be a special prosecutor? Sorry but “oh it was negligent” doesn’t feed the bulldog.

              2. As fluffy stated above. Those indictments are not relevent. They could have gotten those without sending guns to Mexico. Why did they send guns to Mexico and sell guns directly to the drug gangs? The only explanation is they wanted those guns to be used so that they could use the US guns to Mexico as a political weapon for gun control.

                You can’t come up with a single alternative explanation other than “they would never have done that”. And you admit it was negligent but so what? You have never called for Holder or anyone associated with it to be fired, not Holder or anyone else. “Oh it was negligent I guess, so lets stop talking about and give the ATF some more money and power.” But you are not a hack or anything.

                1. My alternative explanation is they did it for the reasons stated, to investigate gun smuggling by Mexican drug networks. My evidence for that is that this is a common thing for law enforcement to do and it indeed resulted in actual indictments.

                  Your theory is that it was motivated solely or mainly by political concerns. Your ‘evidence’ for that is you can’t imagine a legit application. See the above paragraph to gut that theory dude.

                  1. “My alternative explanation is they did it for the reasons stated, to investigate gun smuggling by Mexican drug networks. ”

                    For the five thousandth time, they couldn’t track the guns after they crossed the border. So there was no way letting the guns cross the border would allow them to investigate the Mexican drug networks. And they didn’t tell the ATF attache or the Mexican police they were doing this. If that was the plan, why didn’t they tell the Mexicans?

                    The plan could not work.

                    1. “couldn’t track the guns after they crossed the border”

                      1. How do you know that?
                      2. Drug squads often cannot track the drugs they allow to be sold when building a case against drug dealers. That doesn’t mean they are not allowing the sales to build a case.

                    2. I know that because the ATF admits that the GPS trackers on the guns only had battery life for a few days. How do you think they would track them?

              3. The simple fact of the matter is that the ride-along invitation issued to the Washington Post reporters proves that this was, in fact, a conspiracy to make the gun smuggling problem look worse than it was to help the political case for gun control and for increases in the ATF’s budget.

                They didn’t invite the Post guys to report on how brilliant their undercover operation was working. They invited the Post guys to document the terrible, terrible problem of US guns going to Mexico. The same guns they had deliberately SENT to Mexico.

                And besides, the ATF firings and suspensions demonstrate that the Obama Administration concedes that this was not a standard law enforcement operation. If they concede it, why won’t you?

                1. “The simple fact of the matter is that the ride-along invitation issued to the Washington Post reporters proves that this was, in fact, a conspiracy to make the gun smuggling problem look worse than it was to help the political case for gun control and for increases in the ATF’s budget.”

                  And, as you accused John of the other day you shift the goalposts…Niiiiice.

                  It’s amazingly common for law enforcment to invite the press along as they execute programs. Sure it is meant to build support for the agencies and programs. That hardly supports the charge that the sole or main reason for this program was to enact political support for gun control. This is amazingly weak from you fluffy, amazingly. You’re usually one of ‘A’ guys around here, but everyone is off their game sometimes I guess.

                  1. But they didn’t show them the undercover operation. They just showed them how many guns were getting into Mexico. The WAPO reporters didn’t know about fast and furious.

                    1. How is this different than a sheriff’s office taking a reporter on a ride along to witness meth addicts in order to show the problem of meth to drum up support for anti-meth programs the cops have? The latter wouldn’t prove that the anti-meth programs were intended to create the appearance of a meth problem. There’s a great deal of conjecture there man.

                  2. I’ve talked about the Post reporters from the beginning.

                    I am not moving any goalposts at all.

                    My claim from the beginning has been that the ATF deliberately facilitated the smuggling of guns into Mexico so they could turn around and run to the press and the Congress and say that the “horrific violence” resulting from gun traffic to Mexico made it imperative that we have tighter gun control and a bigger budget for the ATF.

                    The way they managed the press here is just one more piece of the mosaic of evidence supporting that hypothesis.

                    For your counterclaim to be true, it would be necessary for us to believe that the ATF is completely unaware of the relationship between gun control hysteria and their own budget and importance. The rest of us see a situation where an organization manipulated events to make itself appear more vital and necessary and worthy of funding – and you just can’t possibly believe that would ever be the case, because nobody ever does that, ever, or something. You are engaging in willful blindness, and I’m not entirely sure why.

                    1. He is blind because it is a Democratic administration. If the ATF had done this under Bush, he would be talking a lot more common sense.

                    2. “He is blind because it is a Democratic administration. If the ATF had done this under Bush, he would be talking a lot more common sense.”

                      When you have nothing but conjecture, work the refs. Movement conservatives, gotta love them.

                    3. Of course it is conjecture. But we have years of your behavior to back it up. And of course we are supposed to believe you conjecture about the ATF’s motives. Why?

                    4. “And of course we are supposed to believe you conjecture about the ATF’s motives. Why?”

                      Because its consistent with common law enforcment practices and resulted in actual indictments?

                      That’s the difference between our narratives. My doesn’t rest on some gap in imagination (“but why would they have done X if they did not Y? It doesn’t make any sense” is your argument).

                    5. What proof do you have this was the motivation fluffy? It amounts to the argument “well, why else would they have done this?” And well, there are legit law enforcement reasons to allow the purchases, as the commonality of the practice and the indictments argue. So what is your argument resting on other than suspicion and conjecture?

                    6. The circumstantial evidence of this is overwhelming. And there is no law enforcement reason to allow guns to go across the border where they can’t be tracked and without any cooperation from Mexican law enforcement.

                      You keep ignoring the question, so I will ask you for the 8th time. If it was a legitimate operation, why didn’t they involve the Mexicans?

                    7. “And there is no law enforcement reason to allow guns to go across the border where they can’t be tracked”

                      John|9.29.11 @ 10:54AM|#
                      The guns had GPS trackers on them

                    8. Stop being a liar MNG. The batteries only lasted a couple of days. So those guns disappeared right before or right after going to Mexico. And further, they never told the Mexicans. If they knew the trackers would die in a few days, why didn’t they tell the Mexican police so they could get an arrest before the tracker died?

                    9. “So those guns disappeared right before or right after going to Mexico.”

                      And you simply can’t imagine how being able to, even in the short term, establish the fact and the time and manner of the guns being smuggled might not be useful in building a case against gun smugglers. And it is on THIS inability to imagine that upon which your entire charge rests?

                      Holy shit.

                    10. “And you simply can’t imagine how being able to, even in the short term, establish the fact and the time and manner of the guns being smuggled might not be useful in building a case against gun smugglers.”

                      So how many smugglers have been arrested, asscunt?

                    11. “You keep ignoring the question, so I will ask you for the 8th time. If it was a legitimate operation, why didn’t they involve the Mexicans?”

                      So your “evidence” for your charge comes down now to “well, why didn’t they tell the Mexicans?” Notice it is the basest of conjecture to begin with upon which your charge rests (it’s like arguing Casey was guilty because “what kind of mother goes dancing when her daughter is missing?”).

                      But again, its so easy only someone burning with irrational hate for the ATF could miss it. Its not hard to imagine the Mexican authorities would not have been pleased about US authorities allowing gun purchases to be made knowing they were going to be smuggled into Mexico, even if the US authorities were building a case against said smugglers. And so the US authorities didn’t tell ’em.

                    12. “Its not hard to imagine the Mexican authorities would not have been pleased about US authorities allowing gun purchases to be made knowing they were going to be smuggled into Mexico, even if the US authorities were building a case against said smugglers.”

                      But you can’t build a case against anyone in Mexico without the help of the Mexican authorities. You are telling me than ran a cross border sting operation that didn’t involve the other jurisdiction. And that is nonsense. You can’t arrest or indict anyone in the other jurisdiction without that jurisdiction being involved.

                    13. “”You can’t arrest or indict anyone in the other jurisdiction without that jurisdiction being involved.””

                      Noreiga?

                    14. How is this different than a sheriff’s office taking a reporter on a ride along to witness meth addicts in order to show the problem of meth to drum up support for anti-meth programs the cops have?

                      If a Sheriff brought reporters to the house of a bunch of meth addicts he had personally delivered a shitload of meth to, that would be corrupt in the same way that Gunwalker was corrupt.

                      That’s how it’s different.

                      They had deliberately worsened the “problem” they wanted the press to document.

                      That’s how it’s different.

                      Let me turn the question around:

                      If you read a report that a Sheriff was having undercover deputies work with local meth dealers to import a shitload of meth into his town, and at the same time he had invited the media to come do a report on his town’s meth problem, during which the Sheriff cried big treacly tears about how horrible the situation was and how urgently he needed a big federal grant, would you think to yourself, “Gee, I bet this is just a typical law enforcement undercover operation”? Really? You would be that deliberately obtuse?

                    15. That’s actually an excellent scenario.

                      Would you admit that is is a common and not fantastic practice for a vice squat to allow and even engage in drug transactions? And then the squad may invite the press to witness the ‘scourge of drugs’ they are daily combating. But what a leap to conclude that the above sales they allowed/participated in were in order for the press to witness the later effects of!

                    16. But that is all in the same jurisdiction MNG. No it is not common for cops to sell drugs to people knowing it will go out of the country and then not tell the authorities in the other country the drugs are coming.

                      If you want to make analogies, make analogies that fit the facts.

                    17. LEAVE THE ATF ALONE!!!!11!!!!!1

                      Why don’t you focus on those evil, rich CEO’s?

                    18. “You are engaging in willful blindness, and I’m not entirely sure why.”

                      The willful blindness part does make sense given that he spends all day masturbating on H&R.

            2. Two hundred people have died because of this program.

              And those deaths are chicken feed, infinitesimal, compared to the number of people killed with guns in the same time period, all because you right wingnutz need to compensate for small penises with gun obsessions.

      2. The problem becomes when people end up being killed by the goods the Feds supplied the criminals–but then, Gunwalker is a pretty clear case of a collective decision and planning process that didn’t consider or didn’t care about the future consequences of its actions.

        1. I’ve agreed form the beginning that this common practice is a moral time bomb. My point is that one doesn’t have to build a fevered conspiracy theory based on unnamed sources and conjectures about the goal of the gunwalker program being to simply push gun control politically, one can easily imagine legit law enforcement purposes for the program, albeit morally risky ones.

          If I had my druthers such programs would not be used.

          1. And I would agree with the conspiracy theorists if a Republican were in charge.

      3. (1) I’m not aware that fake C4 is illegal.

        (2) The difference is that it was impossible for Gunwalker to result in any arrests for gun trafficking “downstream”. The guns weren’t bugged, there was no way whatsoever to trace them after the first illegal sale, law enforcement (ours and theirs) on the Mexican side of the border was kept in the dark, etc. It was not run as a sting. Ergo, it was not a sting.

        Since there is no way that Gunwalker could have been a sting, that raises the question of what it actually was. Saying over and over again that it was a sting is pure avoidance/obfuscation.

        1. “Since there is no way that Gunwalker could have been a sting, that raises the question of what it actually was.”

          Another guy who didn’t read that indictment. Sheesh.

          You guys get half the story at best from your “uncleirregular’s pajamas.com” sources, and then rest your conjectures on that.

          1. So plan was to send hundreds of guns to Mexico that there was no way of tracking or having any idea the harm they would do and then get a couple of indictments years later.

            Yeah that makes sense. This proves there is nothing you will not excuse if it has a D associated with it.

          2. I’ve read the indictment and it’s not relevant to your case.

            1. In the indictment it is detailed how they observed and allowed these guys to buy the guns and htey caught this particular batch of guys in route to the border. Note that they allowed the purchases to go on for a while and some of them inevitably went across before they caught this batch in the act.

              fluffy, you usually do a better job not getting sucked into the Drudgish misinformation. In this case you didn’t, it’s no bigee.

              1. And they couldn’t just arrest the guys who bought the guns in the parking lot like every other ATF sting why? The fact that they didn’t arrest people immediately and let the guns go across the border is why the local ATF agents went apeshit over this operation. But they were told to shut up.

                That is the whole fucking point of the operation you nitwit. They didn’t make the arrests immediately like they always did. They let the guns go across the border in hopes of making a big score and getting the higher up guys. But there is no way they could have ever done that since the guns were in Mexico and no longer being tracked. The whole thing only makes sense as a operation to flood Mexico with American guns to bolster gun control efforts.

                1. “And they couldn’t just arrest the guys who bought the guns in the parking lot like every other ATF sting why?”

                  That’s what I would have done. Letting the guns go is fraught with moral peril. But everytime the cops let a drug or gun purchase go in order to track later purchases this happens. It’s amazingly common John.

                  “They let the guns go across the border in hopes of making a big score and getting the higher up guys”

                  So what, now you are admiting they aimed at a legit law enforcment goal and were just negligent in doing it? Watch out John, you might be accused of being a partisan Democrat for “defending” this program!

                  1. “That’s what I would have done.”

                    And the ATF couldn’t figure this out and you can? Give me a fucking break. You really are arguing that the ATF is dumber than you and that is why the worst isn’t true.

                    And no, they were not trying to make a big score. But that is your explanation and it makes no sense.

              2. For the indictments to be relevant to your case, they’d have to have indicted and arrested everyone in the entire smuggling stream on both sides of the border. Then MAYBE it could be called a legitimate law enforcement sting to trace the movement of the weapons.

                I’d still believe that the timeline of events would show that the indictment was an ex post facto rationalization even then. But we don’t even have to argue about that, because if the goal of the program was to arrest these guys, they could have done that early.

                1. Again, more straw clutching. The indictment specifically states that guns had been “exported” by the defendants and they caught them in this case in route doing that, albeit on the border. Certainly one wouldn’t argue that you can’t convict someone of conspiracy to smuggle goods just because you caught them at the airport before they crossed the border! Likewise this scenario.

                  1. And they indicted two guys after it was a scandal. And they caught them at the border. They tracked the guns and arrested them at the border.

                    Explain why they didn’t do the same thing in every other case and allowed those guns to go across the border?

                    1. “Explain why they didn’t do the same thing in every other case and allowed those guns to go across the border?”

                      You see the situation you are in, don’t you? You’re entire “evidence” for your theory is that you can’t think of an explanation for the behavior otherwise. It’s like arguing that Casey Anthony must have killed her kid because “why else would she go out dancing shortly afterwards?” That’s a terrible, terrible logic to rest such a sensational charge on John.

                      But explain why they didn’t catch every purchaser at the border? That’s so easily it is just sad that your inability to think of a plausible explanation is undergirding your charge. Perhaps, like in many of these types of programs, they let many of them go in the hopes of getting the pattern down to finally bust them with more guns or more people involved. It’s amazingly common and not far-fetched at all. Arresting every batch would have alerted others in the network who may have tried the same thing later.

                    2. The guns had GPS trackers on them that only had battery power for a couple of days. So once they crossed the border they would quickly not be able track the guns anymore.

                      And you have no evidence that any of your assertions are true. You are just pulling it out of your ass as a “well they might have done this”. Meanwhile there is a huge amount of circumstnatial evidence, the Obama administration using the American guns to Mexico as a political point for gun control, the invitation of the WAPO reporters, the direct objection of the ATF agents on the ground to this program, the resulting cover up and stone walling, the complete lack of any down stream indictments, that all point to this thing being a political stunt.

                      And all you have is “well they might have been doing this”. That is pathetic.

                    3. “For the five thousandth time, they couldn’t track the guns after they crossed the border.”

                      “The guns had GPS trackers on them that only had battery power for a couple of days.”

                      Holy shit, I’ve seen John refute himself a day later, but in the same post?

                    4. So you admit they could track the guns, albeit short term. And you simply can’t imagine how being able to, even in the short term, establish the fact and the time and manner of the guns being smuggled might not be useful in building a case against gun smugglers. And it is on THIS inability to imagine that upon which your entire charge rests?

                      Holy shit.

                    5. They knew the gun trackers would die in a few days. But they never told the Mexican authorities and had them make an arrest. Instead they let the guns disappear and be used for crimes. And you think that is a legitimate LE operation?

                      You won’t answer the question becuase you are a lying sack of shit. But the fact that they didnt’ tell the Mexicans puts lie to all of your explanations. They had no intention of tracking those guns or making an arrest in Mexico. If they did, they would have told the Mexican authorities.

                    6. How is that refuting myself you half wit? If the GPS trackers only lasted a couple of days, the guns would disappear either shortly before or shortly after going across the border. It is not like they bought them and teleported them to Mexico.

                    7. Do you think it takes a couple of days to cross the Mexican border from Arizona?

                      You need geography lessons dude.

                    8. It does if you are smuggling them. And further, they never called the mexican authorities to do anything about the guns before the GPS ran out. So what difference does it make if the GPS worked for one of ten days in Mexico.

                      Stop being so fucking dishonest. Why do you want to die on this hill? Does it hurt that badly to have to admit that Holder and the ATF are pretty awful?

                    9. And don’t forget they never told the Mexican police what they were doing. If any of what you claim were true, they would have let the Mexicans know about it. They didn’t. They ended any hope they had of arresting anyone in Mexico up stream.

                      They didn’t tell the Mexicans because they were flooding their country with guns to prove a point.

                  2. The indictment specifically states that guns had been “exported” by the defendants and they caught them in this case in route doing that, albeit on the border.

                    Doesn’t explain why they didn’t arrest them the first time, but let them export hundreds of guns.

                    And don’t say they allowed the export because they were after the downstream network in Mexico. Because they weren’t.

                    1. And you can’t imagine a vice sting allowing many purchases of drugs to go on, hell even providing some of the drugs and/or money for the purchases, in order to make a later arrest?

                      WTF? I mean, you don’t have to be some expert to imagine that, that shit was on Miami Vice for Pete’s sake. How could this not cross your mind? I submit it is because, as most of you would readily admit, you hate the ATF with a burning passion. Hell, there are few better targets for that hate I’ll concede, but it’s clouded your mings here allowing you to build the most fantastical theories based on lack of imagination and conjecture.

                    2. “And you can’t imagine a vice sting allowing many purchases of drugs to go on, hell even providing some of the drugs and/or money for the purchases, in order to make a later arrest?”

                      But they never told the Mexicans what they were doing. And they had no way of tracking the guns in Mexico. So they were letting purchases go on and on that they knew would be smuggled to Mexico where it was impossible to get an indictment.

                      Again, if that was the plan, why weren’t the Mexicans involved. If you are going to do a cross border sting, you have to have both sides of the border involved.

                    3. ” If you are going to do a cross border sting, you have to have both sides of the border involved.”

                      Not if you are going to arrest them on this side of the border in the act of smuggling, which they did in the indictment noted.

                      It’s just wilder and wilder conjecture and speculation.

                    4. “Not if you are going to arrest them on this side of the border in the act of smuggling, which they did in the indictment noted.”

                      But that is not what they did. Yea they arrested two guys. But in dozens of other cases they intentionally let the guns go to Mexico. That is the whole point. Without involving the Mexican authorities, they had no hope of ever recovering those guns or arresting anyone for having them. Yet, they still let them go across the border. The only explanation for that is that they wanted the guns to be used in crimes to support gun control.

                    5. “Yea they arrested two guys”

                      Even the most basic facts you get wrong. The indictment is for over a dozen people.

                    6. I mean, some of the specific allegations in the indictment are that these defendants bought guns illegaly in the US and then exported them across the border, which in itself is a crime. What better way to establish that than via surveillance coupled with short term gps data verifying the crossing of the border? And then to avoid territorial issues you catch them on your side of the border. It makes sense and is supported by the commonality of the procedure and the existence of actual indictments. Your theory might make sense but is supported by nothing else but “but if they were not doing it then why did they X Y and Z but no A” conjecture.

                      And with that I really have to get some work done.

                      Let your conspiracy conjectures run wild dudes until I have time tomorrow to debunk them.

                    7. They made no effort to stop the guns from going to Mexico. They let them go there. You can catch someone at the border and still indict them. There was no logical reason to let the guns go into Mexico without telling the Mexican authorities. You can’t get around that.

                      And you still haven’t explained what you think should happen for this. That is why you look like such a hack. You bend over backwards to make excuses and believe the best and then even when you admit it was stupid and negligent you don’t mention anything that should be done about it. Just oh well, sorry.

                      And lastly, the ATF agents on the ground objected to this program and the higher ups told them to shut up. That is huge evidence that it was a conspiracy. The higher ups at the ATF forced a program that their agents said would end in disaster. Why is that? What possible reason could they have done that for? They wanted to flood Mexico with guns to justify their own existence.

                    8. What better way to establish that than via surveillance coupled with short term gps data verifying the crossing of the border?

                      Aside from the fact that there is no need to actually let the guns cross the border where they escape into the wild, you mean?

                      And what about the fact that, at most, you would only need to do this once, and they did it over and over again? Even after learning that these guns were being used to murder people?

                      MNG, you are describing a hypothetical Gunwalker operation, not the one that actually happened.

          3. one can easily imagine legit law enforcement purposes for the program,

            Unfortunately, one is forced to imagine these purposes, because the way it was run is not consistent with such purposes.

            A few post facto indictments do not a sting make.

            A sting does not involve turning the contraband loose into the wild with no way to track it and make downstream arrests of subsequent dealers.

            Its not just that the sting was incompetently run. All of the people indicted could have been indicted and arrested long before they were; instead, they were left in place as a pipeline for guns to Mexico, and no efforts whatsoever were made to go after the Mexican side of the pipeline. Indeed, ATF liaison in Mexico and the Mexican police were left in the dark, even after they made inquiries.

            And I’m sure its just a coincidence that the administration was touting the recovery of Gunwalker guns at crime scenes in Mexico for political purposes, while continuing to ship guns to Mexico under Gunwalker and making no effort to roll up the Mexican side of the operation.

            I’d love to see an example of a sting operation run this way, where the pipeline is left open even though after there is enough evidence to get indictments of front men, but no way to get downstream indictments, and (worse) even after the contraband is recovered at crime scenes.

            Give it up, MNG. Mere incompetence, even ATF-level incompetence, doesn’t explain the facts on the ground.

            1. And I’m sure its just a coincidence that the administration was touting the recovery of Gunwalker guns at crime scenes in Mexico for political purposes, while continuing to ship guns to Mexico under Gunwalker and making no effort to roll up the Mexican side of the operation.

              Of course. Sorry you piece of shit Mexican brown people have to die. You see, we know that you cartels are some of the most psychopathic killers on the face of the planet. But imagine the blood that would run in the streets if we allowed pot heads to get weapons?

            2. “A sting does not involve turning the contraband loose into the wild with no way to track it and make downstream arrests of subsequent dealers.”

              What an incredible statement! Do you think drug squads around the nation that do this all the time track and recover all the drugs they allow to be purchased under their surveillance?

              “And I’m sure its just a coincidence”

              See, here you are. This is the kind of thing this reasoning rests upon…

              1. “What an incredible statement! Do you think drug squads around the nation that do this all the time track and recover all the drugs they allow to be purchased under their surveillance?”

                yes they do. And they don’t sell drugs, they buy drugs mostly you fucking nitwit. There is two ways you run a drug sting. You go in and do a controlled buy, or you set up selling to get users. But they arrest the users right then. They don’t let them go.

                Do you honestly think the DEA just sells drugs to people and lets it go out into the world?

                Why do you allow yourself to be so dishonest you come across as being retarded?

              2. No, MNG, you’ve got it backwards. Your the one who has to say that the administrations touting of guns found at Mexican crime scenes, that it had gone to a lot of trouble to get to those crime scenes, is purely a coincidence.

                Do you think drug squads around the nation that do this all the time track and recover all the drugs they allow to be purchased under their surveillance?

                I’m pretty sure the DEA doesn’t make dozens of sales of huge quantities of cocaine into cartel networks over the course of years, with no ability to track that cocaine after the initial sale, yes.

                Perhaps you could provide us with an example of a drug sting that worked this way?

              3. Fuck!! Isn’t it no-troll Thursday?

          4. Look, when multiple agents report that they noted that guns were being moved and requested permission to interdict them and their superiors told them to stand down, it goes from incompetence to malice. I have no idea how high up it goes, but I do know that Voth and Newell and their buddies wanted guns in the hands of people that would use them in crimes.

            Maybe it was a conspiracy against the second amendment. Maybe it an attempt to destablize Mexico, or alternately, to stabilize it by empowering the enemies of the most dangerous cartel. Maybe they actually did aim to learn about the structure of the cartels by seeing which crime scene the guns would end up at, and didn’t care that they were using Mexicans and border residents as guinea pigs in their science experiment. But there is no explanation for their actions that doesn’t paint them as villains.

      4. I think you missed the part about “controlled by undercover FBI employees”.

        This would be analogous to Gunwalker if the FBI had given this guy remote-controlled planes filled with explosives, and then said, “Seeya!” and let him take them out of the country, where they were used to blow up our embassy in Peru. At which point the FBI invited the Washington Post down to Peru to view the horrific damage caused by the bombs, without disclosing that they had given the guy the bombs. If they had done that, this might be analogous to Gunwalker.

        Don’t get me wrong – this operation is also absurd, in my view. This is yet another case where the FBI found some angry schmo who had no capacity to undertake an act of terrorism on his own, and threw weapons at him to transform his empty rages into headlines for the FBI.

        1. Don’t get me wrong – this operation is also absurd, in my view. This is yet another case where the FBI found some angry schmo who had no capacity to undertake an act of terrorism on his own, and threw weapons at him to transform his empty rages into headlines for the FBI.

          This is the part that really bothers me the most–that the FBI would act as enablers to provoke someone into planning to kill Americans on a mass scale. We already saw this with the guy they arrested in Portland, and it brings to mind the question of what happens if, God forbid, such an operation ends up spinning beyond their control.

          1. If there is a Democrat in office, MNG will tell us that it was all just a small mistake.

            1. And you’ll spend hours arguing with him like a jilted lover.

              1. Someone has to.

          2. The FBI would never let an undercover operation spin out of control and cause the deaths of dozens of people. That’s absurd.

            1. They might never let it spin out of control–but plans don’t always account for every contingency. “Friction” has a way of breaking very complex plans and nets to pieces.

              Assuming that they’d never let it happen doesn’t necessarily mean that it never would–and it still doesn’t solve the issue of the FBI deliberately provoking these people.

              1. Sarcasm doesn’t always translate well over the Internetz…

                (Putting on tinfoil hat) I always have wondered just how much outside help, and from whom, Tim McVeigh had. Not that anyone other than his crazy co-conspirators intended for him to actually carry out the act, but I wonder whether how much of the OKC bombing could be attributed to his eluding control and surveillance? Or letting him run free to see if any more links developed between him, any other militia movements, or MidEast terror cells, while incompetently figuring that he didn’t have a working WMD? It certainly would have made a great, budget-enhancing, sting, at a time when militia hysteria was prevalent in the media. BATFE could also have used the good press from a big sting, a year after roasting 85 people. (Tinfoil hat off)

                But, assuming you were being sarcastic RC, which operational screw-up resulting in lots of deaths were you thinking of?

                1. But, assuming you were being sarcastic RC, which operational screw-up resulting in lots of deaths were you thinking of?

                  Gunwalker. Which I thought was a multi-agency project involving ATF and FBI. I’m pretty sure the FBI was at least in the loop on it.

                  I guess sarcasm doesn’t translate over the internet.

                  1. Maybe we need a :sarcasm: meme or something for these occasions.

      5. Cello, derp.

        (couldn’t resist)

  24. illegal to sell guns or ammunition to registered medical marijuana users.

    I had a link ready, just in case you missed it.

    This is just one more of those things which will *probably* never be used against anybody, but the fed will have it in their pocket, just in case. As a friend speculated last night, could/would somebody cross-reference hunting licenses against MMJ cards? Who the fuck knows?

    Should Eric Holder be in a prison cell, or an insane asylum? Discuss.

  25. The Federal Bureau of Investigation: number one terror threat to this country.

  26. Deadly Overdose at Ferndale Police Chaplain’s Drug-Fueled Sex Party

    Police say Rev. Mark Bidwell of the Metropolitan Community Church hosted the party on Sept. 21 when a man he met on the Internet overdosed on crystal meth.

    I can’t make this shit up.

    1. That is just a great sentence.

      1. +1 best headline I’ve read in a long time. Thx for the link kilroy.

    2. Perhaps he’s really a priest of Bacchus.

  27. alas, I was stuck in a department meeting.

    but here are some gun links:

    ‘Chicks with Guns’: Some 15 million US women pack heat
    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/…..pack-heat#

    Based on polling research and gun-sale statistics, an estimated 15 million to 20 million women in the United States own their own firearms. Dozens of those heat-packing women are documented in “Chicks with Guns,” a new book by photographer Lindsay McCrum that is sure to challenge almost anyone’s assumptions about gun ownership.

    and
    September 29, 2011
    Gun crime continues to decrease, despite increase in gun sales
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/09…..ownership/

    The FBI recently released its Crime in The United States statistics for 2010. Overall, murders in the U.S. have decreased steadily since 2006, dropping from 15,087 to 12,996. Firearms murders ? which made up 67 percent of all murders in the U.S. in 2010 ? have followed this trend, decreasing by 14 percent.

    1. I love that “despite”. Way to give away your bias.

      1. That’s not bias at all. That’s like saying “computer programmers decline, despite increase in computer science degrees”.

        1. or number of speeding tickets drop, despite sales of Mustang GTs.

          1. Or: Eye infections drop, despite the rise of cum shots.

          2. older folks who can afford the mustang GT dont drive fast

      2. The daily caller has an obvious left-wing bias.

    2. In fact, quickly crunching the numbers, firearms murders went down by the same % as the raw # of homicides did.

      It’s almost like the problem with “gun violence” is the violence, not the guns!

      1. Only a pea brained, little dick bagger would think so.

        For the millionth time
        correlation =/= causation

  28. and just another strange coincidence (but I imagine most solar power companies are run my Democrats, so take it as you will).

    More solar companies led by Democratic donors received federal loan guarantees
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/09…..uarantees/

    related:
    $737 million in green-tech loan to company connected to Pelosi family?
    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..si-family/

    1. Re: Lord Humungus,

      $737 million in green-tech loan to company connected to Pelosi family?

      Yes, her brother-in-law, Bob Pelosi (what a suggestive name… “Let’s all bob Pelosi!”) has investment in that company, but it may be just a coincidence since he is part of a large pool of investors who truly believe in the power of the Sun to solve all of our energy availability problems despite the God awful market for “green” energy. Nothing to do with the “loan” from government or anything like that.

      I mean, it’s possible – right?

  29. some more Eurozone gloom
    http://www.washingtontimes.com…..t-debacle/

    Rome needs to get its house in order before it ends up like Athens. Given that the EU can barely find the resources to bail out a tiny nation, the failure of a major economy like Italy could bring down the eurozone. These are lessons to be heeded. If the United States doesn’t stop its own reckless government spending, we won’t be far behind.

    1. related:

      Daniel Hannan: Is the survival of the euro in Britain’s interest?
      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n…..-interest/

    2. Re: Lord Humungus,

      Rome needs to get its house in order before it ends up like Athens.

      I just love these naive suggestions from financial analysts. They don’t seem to get that there is NO way these governments can “put their house in order” without resulting in political suicide. It’s already too late for them – the PIIGS will default. Then the banks will ask the ECB and IMF for a bailout, which will result in political fallout for the German government.

      There’s a great article by Gary North about the whole sad tale of how the Eurozone wants PIIGS to fly:

      FLYING PIIGS

      The Greek government is going to default on its interest payments to the bonehead European bankers and investors who thought that getting high interest rates on Greek debt was a great way to avoid suffering the low-interest rates on German government bonds. After all, Greece would pay interest in euros. No problem!

      Then the incoming socialist government discovered that the outgoing government had cooked the books. As soon as the naive Greek socialists announced this, the crisis in the Eurozone began. That was in April 2010.

      It keeps getting worse.

      1. perhaps it is the nature of democracies to all end in a gigantic financial black hole.

      2. I have problems with Gary North and his predictions of doom ever since he was so spectacularly wrong about Y2K. But the nice thing about doom-mongering, if you broaden your bases and predict enough catastrophes, eventually one will happen.

        1. Re: T,

          I have problems with Gary North and his predictions of doom ever since he was so spectacularly wrong about Y2K.

          A great many people was spectacularly wrong about Y2K, and Gary did apologize for having been duped by the hysteria.

          I am also careful about his analysis after he said back in 2007 that the Fed was deflating the currency while other Austrians were saying the Fed was inflating. Actually, they were both right, but not because the Fed could do 2 things at once: The Fed was inflating but the deflating process [people hoarding cash] was happening too fast to keep the banks capitalized. That does not mean he has been spot on regarding other issues.

    3. i wonder how the Troika will judge Greece’s austerity actions to-date. b/c Merkel is pushing hard to increase the bailout and then if the Troika say Greece hasn’t done squat, then the 75% of krauts who already disagree with Merkel will show her arse the door. and then creditors will take 50-60% losses and Greek ATMs will stop working supposedly.

  30. Gun crime continues to decrease, despite increase in gun sales

    Yup- “despite” is the word to use.
    Because guns are sentient actors, bent on evil, destruction, and death.

  31. wow very nice article i enjoyed reading it a lot

  32. UC Berkeley’s diversity machine loses its mind over cupcakes
    http://www.city-journal.org/2011/cjc0928hm.html

    Berkeley’s College Republicans wanted their “Increase Diversity Bake Sale” to serve as a counterweight to a phone bank erected on the campus’s main thoroughfare, where students could call Brown and urge him to sign the preference-reinstating legislation, Senate Bill 185. Like other anti-affirmative-action bake sales on college campuses over the last decade, the College Republicans’ sale priced items according to the race and gender of the customer: whites paid $2 for a pastry, with Latinos paying $1 and blacks 75 cents, while women got a 25-cent discount on all items.

    1. I wonder what the Asians had to pay.

      1. my guess would be $2 b/c they have positive stereotypes same as whites.

        1. But it’s only $1 if using the drive-thru.

          1. They should have had a $16 special for government employees.

      2. Asians are supposedly “over-represented” at Berkeley so it’s probably > $2.

        1. You’re right. If done correctly, it should be like $3. Too many smart, college bound Asians. Most of the bake sales around the country reflect that, yet people still accuse the white students who are involved (which is most of the college republicans) of racism, despite the fact they know good and well that the spots that would be freed up would be taken by asians in a meriocratic admissions policy.

        1. Idiots. Five fucking seconds of research would have fixed that.

    2. white guy: why am i paying $2?

      baker: b/c you’re white.

      man, i want to be there to see that!!

    3. It is hard not to attribute bad faith to Basri for his stupendously misguided interpretation of the bake sale as “placing a higher value on white students.”

      I really really want them to do this again, but reverse the pricing, i.e. make it cheapest for white males. Then what would the response? Somehow I doubt it would be interpreted at “placing a higher value on minority and female students”.

    4. Gibor Basri, Berkeley’s vice chancellor for equity and diversity, could have served a valuable role here by pointing out that the bake sale was obviously a parody of racial and gender preferences, not a criticism of students themselves. Whatever one thinks about the issue of preferences, he might have said, such political theater belongs to Berkeley’s once-revered tradition of free speech. Instead, Basri chose to stoke the melodramatic self-pity of today’s college students. “A lot of students, especially students of color, read [the bake sale] as placing a higher value on white students,” Basri told the New York Times.

      Revel on this, guys – you are privileged to have a glimpse into the mind of the leftist boob: One, he purports to know what other people are thinking or feeling, making him closer to a God if it were true [I don’t doubt he feels the same way about himself.] The other is the total lack of intellectual integrity or honesty: Charging more to a white person compared to a black person is NOW construed as “valuing the white person more,” which makes one wonder exactly what should a black person think about Affirmative Action now?

      1. I wonder how Basri might feel about a bank charging a higher interest rate to black customers seeking a loan. I’m sure he’d agree that it’s because the bank really values its visible minority clientele, right?

    5. If they really wanted to troll the Diversity Brigades, they should have said that the cupcake price indicates what each race will be making in income on a relative basis after graduation.

    6. Stossel had something to say about this not too long ago.

      http://nation.foxnews.com/berk…..-bake-sale

      1. Better link

        http://www.foxnews.com/opinion…..-bucknell/

        Asians – $1.50

  33. Given the number of states with open primaries, I wonder if it’s possible to actually get someone on the ballot by getting independents to show up.

    1. After McCain won the nomination in 2008 you don’t have to wonder anymore.

      1. McCain was big with “non-core Republicans”?

        1. He certainly wasn’t big with core Republicans.

    2. Maybe get Democrats to vote for Ron Paul? Tell the left-liberal hippie Naderites about his anti-war, anti-drug-war, anti-bailout/crapitalism stances. Tell the progressives that he’ll be sure to lose against Obama (maybe put together a fake netroots group that pretends it’s some group of anarchistic jokers trying to pwn the evilpublicans, or whatevs. Everyone knows progs are pretty willing dupes as long as they can be convinced they’re fighting capitalism and shit). Anyone in an open primary state want to get on this, stealthily?

  34. Federal retirement plans almost as costly as Social Security
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/w…..50592474/1

    Retirement programs for former federal workers ? civilian and military ? are growing so fast they now face a multitrillion-dollar shortfall nearly as big as Social Security’s, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

  35. The Washington Post has obtained a letter from the ATF to gun dealers which says that it is illegal to sell guns or ammunition to registered medical marijuana users.

    Wait, wait, wait!!! Let me get this straight. So these federal pigs are going to actively make sure that some murderous Mexican Cartels get weapons so the administration can score political points in the gun control debate…. (and if they kill a few people with those weapons…meh… collateral damage for the greater good)
    B, bu, but heaven forbid if someone sick enough to get a medical marijuana card try to get a weapon?

    I don’t know what to say. How do you not godwin sick fucks like these? Really, these have to be the most disgusting pieces of shit posing as human this century.

    If we actually had a MSM that merely attempted to hold those in power accountable, they’d be asking them, “Are you fucking nuts, seriously ar you fucking nuts?”

    1. If we actually had a MSM that merely attempted to hold those in power accountable

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Don’t be absurd, Troy. The MSM’s entire purpose is to be remora to the sharks that are the politicians.

      That’s it.

      1. Re: Episiarch,

        The MSM’s entire purpose is to be remora to the sharks that are the politicians.

        I believe you may have Latino blood running through your veins, Epi! We in Latin America use the remora metaphor when talking about politicians and their cronies too much not to notice your usage.

        Venga, compadre!

  36. More footage of NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna using his pepper spray on Occupy Wall Street protesters.

  37. [insert anti-squirrel rant]

    Has Deputy Inspector Bologna arrived with his union representatives and legal counsel at the police station to turn himself in?

    I guess somebody would have to charge him with something, first. Never mind.

    1. I’m sure the good cops are fighting amongst themselves for the privilege. They’ll get it sorted out in a few days and arrest him, just you wait.

    1. http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/ed…..scale.html

      According to this scale, trout begin to die at a ph of 6.

      1. So trout in a pool of rainwater would die, apparently.

      2. Clean rain, even.

        1. They are a very basic species.

      3. ….sigh….. I was hoping someone would take the bait and make a joke why pussy smells like fish…. sigh…. Thought I set that one up pretty well.

  38. Radley Balko: Why Americans Still Support The Death Penalty
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..84931.html

    But a little less than two years after David Grann made a convincing argument in The New Yorker that the state of Texas had done just that, public support for capital punishment hasn’t wavered. In October 2009, Grann wrote about Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in 2004 for setting the fire that killed his three young children. Willingham was convicted because of forensic testimony from fire officials that arson experts call junk science.

    Grann’s story was widely discussed and distributed, but the predicted sea change in public perceptions of the death penalty didn’t happen. According to Gallup polling, support for the death penalty dropped just a point between 2009 and 2010, from 65 percent to 64 percent, well within the margin for error. And about half the country still believes the death penalty isn’t used often enough.

    bonus Glenn Reynolds comment:
    I think it’s because tedious liberals self-righteously oppose it, while showing an appalling insensitivity to the lives (and deaths) of ordinary non-criminal Americans. Though I should note that European citizens also support the death penalty in large numbers ? they’re just ignored by their leaders. The best argument against the death penalty, of course, is what Charles Black called “the inevitability of caprice and mistake.” But that argument, taken seriously, is an indictment of the entire criminal-justice system, not just the death penalty. It may be a valid indictment, but few are willing to go that far.

    The worst argument against the death penalty, of course, is that it’s somehow awful for the state to kill people. Nation-states are all about killing people. They exist solely because they’re better at that, on a large scale, than any other form of human organization. Everything else is superstructure, and if they lose that edge it will fade away.

    and now having thrown that grenade over the wall, I now proceed to run for it.

  39. I wonder what else Europeans support that their “leaders” just ignore. We all know that the hoi polloi are idiots that need mommy and daddy to take care of them.

    I’m in the 64 or 65%. Vengeance is mine, sayeth rac.

  40. The best argument against the death penalty, of course, is what Charles Black called “the inevitability of caprice and mistake.”

    And the inability to unwind a mistake in administering the death penalty. But that same inability also applies (albeit to a lesser degree) to all criminal penalties except, perhaps, purely financial ones.

    Take life without parole. You’re sentenced to die in prison (just like the death penalty). But, before you die in prison, you are acquitted and released (again, just like the death penalty). How, then, is life without parole superior to the death penalty?

    From a practical perspective, an innocent person is better off getting a death sentence than life without parole, because the post-sentencing review and process of death penalties is vastly more comprehensive and likely to be successful.

    So, what about plain old prison sentences? As far as I know, giving somebody back years of their life is just as impossible a bringing them back from the dead.

    This isn’t to deny that the death penalty is unique. Just that the arguments about getting rid of it don’t fit well with its uniqueness.

    1. Agreed 100%.

      Also note that organizations like the Innocence Project don’t help convicts who aren’t sentenced to death. So one could be forgiven for thinking that they’re more in it for the anti-death-penalty propaganda that comes from people getting released from death row than they are about unjust punishment in general.

      1. How can one “be forgiven for thinking that they’re more in it for the anti-death penalty propaganda that comes from people getting released from death row than they are about unjust punishment in general”?

        Are we opining without the benefit of facts in evidence? Is there some kind of factual basis to support an argument that the Innocence Project is just in it for the propoganda value?

        But, I do agree with you and R C that we should be concerned about all unjust prosecutions-which is just about every prosecution.

      2. So you’re just going to make shit up now?

        If you had even, you know, visited the Innocence Project’s home page, you’d see that the case right there in the middle of the page is a non death penalty case.

        1. I must have mistaken them for someone else.

          There is an organization that does what I said, though. Can’t remember the name right now.

          1. If it’s an anti-death penalty organization, of course they do that.

            The primary concern of a death penalty opponent is not the guilt or innocence of the defendant or prisoner, it’s trying to keep that person alive.

            Most death penalty opponents are totally upfront in accepting the guilt of the targets of their concern.

    2. I think you are kidding yourself. Yeah, we can’t get the guy’s life back. But we also can’t give back the decades we take from people in prison. Yeah, the death penalty may be worse, but I don’t sleep well at night thinking that innocent people are rotting in prison for decades.

      Isn’t the mistake argument just as good an argument against long prison sentences as it is the death penalty? If we are so worried about mistakes, why not just limit sentences to ten years so that way the damage to innocent people is mitigated?

      1. Let’s.

        1. Of course no one is willing to do that. And if we did, we would let a lot of really dangerous people out.

          1. Well, better to be armed than be impoverished by the cost of supporting the prison building / prison administration / security complex.

      2. my brother (who is a naturalized Canadian) mentioned Canada’s low prison times for murder (10-15 years? I’m to lazy to look it up). He then looked at his wife, who was busy talking to someone else, and said “just think, I would be out about now.”

      3. Well, there’s the obvious — it’s not a timeout, dangerous people are still dangerous after ten years.

    1. Given that making politically incorrect remarks can destroy a political career, this sort of thing should result in a resignation, recall, or something else. I don’t care if she were kidding or not (and I don’t think she actually was).

    2. You Goldwatered the link.

      1. Oh dear, so i did. Sorry

        Try this:

        http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..onomy.html

  41. This requires its special post.

    Re: MNG,

    Class Warfare: Corporate Edition

    Companies have claimed for years that old-style pensions were unsustainable. Author Ellen Schultz tells Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep that there’s another explanation.

    “The main narrative is that [companies] are struggling to pay both their pensions and these unexpectedly high health care costs for the retirees,” Schultz says. “What isn’t known is that companies were well-prepared for this phenomenon. The plans were in fact significantly overfunded. They had more than enough to pay every dime for every person currently employed and already retired.”

    Schultz says there was a massive transfer of wealth over the past two decades, from a multitude of retirees to a small number of executives.

    http://www.npr.org/2011/09/29/…..d-pensions

    From the link: “Schultz cites this example of one well-known company whose pension fund has dropped significantly since the early 1990s. General Electric announced it was closing its pension plan to be more competitive. She says the company’s financial filings show that GE has not put a cent into its pension plans since the mid-1980s. Over the years, GE, like most large companies, used assets in the plans to pay for other things.”

    The key thing is something else placed in the article almost like an afterthought: That companies were offering pension plans to the older (and more expensive) workers so they would accept retirement instead of having to fire them with a huge severage package.

    Obviously, the above undermines the whole premise of the article, which is that companies can afford the pension plans. If the plans were meant to get rid of the more expensive workers, then the economic purpose has NOTHING TO DO with maintaining the plans for others. It is not like pension plans are a natural aspect of business.

    The second part that is more revealing – mainly, of the author’s lack of economic sophistication, or any other for that matter – is the claim that there has been a “transfer of wealth” from “pensioners to executives.” This is sheer stupidity: How can she know this? Even if executive pay has risen, that does not mean it has been offset by lower pension costs or outlays, that’s ECONOMIC IGNORANCE. You pay someone an X salary because the expectation is that the person will deliver more value for the cost. That means the executive pay HAS TO COME from INCOME, not from shifting costs only; otherwise, the executive would be LET GO. Companies may be anything but not mothers of charity. Besides this, paying pensions to retired workers is an unproductive outlay, whereas paying a decision-maker is productive. Just comparing the two as if dealing with a Cain and Abel situation is, again, evidence of the authors stupidity.

  42. Given that making politically incorrect remarks can destroy a political career, this sort of thing should result in a resignation, recall, or something else. I don’t care if she were kidding or not (and I don’t think she actually was).

    “I was JOKING! Don’t you people know a joke when you hear one? Now let me out of here!”

    1. If she had made a “joke”, say, about a minority, what would the media be doing right now? Yet assaulting the very fabric of our republican system is okay?

  43. Can we have a morning post just for John and MNG to discuss things in and vent their latent sexual feelings for each other?

  44. Can you make up a new joke. and I wasn’t the only one who was sucked in by MNG’s stupidity this morning.

    1. No.

      1- take right hand and place behind you.

      2- make hook with index finger

      3- place hooked index finger between buttocks and underwear

      4- pull in a lateral motion

      5- repeat step 4 until panties are out of your ass crack

      6- remove hand from pants, be sure to unhook panties

      7- wash hand

    2. I wasn’t the only one who was sucked in by MNG’s stupidity this morning.

      [looks around, clears throat. kicks ground. slinks off.]

      But, to be fair, it was deliciously crunchy stupid. Not like the puerile slop the trolls dish out.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.