President Obama Touts Higher Taxes, Feds Find 'Lying' Charge an All-Purpose Tool, Santorum Bows Out of Presidential Race: P.M. Links

|

Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates.

NEXT: It's Not the Crime; It's the Cover-Up—Even If There Is No Crime

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. North Korea’s plans for a long-range rocket launch draw U.S. threats to withhold food aid.

    I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, North Korea takes our food and still paints us as the bad guy. On the other hand, it’s horrible what is happened to the citizens on that country. Back on the first hand, though, how much of that food do they even get?

    1. On the forth hand, that food is diverted directly to feeding their military.

    2. One hand, other hand, gripping hand.

      Do it right.

      1. Right hand, left hand, main hand, off hand.

        1. Don’t forget over hand, under hand, fore hand, back hand

    3. One hand, other hand, gripping hand.

      Do it right.

      1. and on the gripping hand, joez law strikes.

        1. I loom large in proxy.

  2. “Raunch Locket!”

    1. I raughed

      1. Lacist!

      2. Yoo no be raughing much ronger lound-eye.

    2. There’s a sexual entendre in there somewhere.

    3. Raunch Locket = a necklace where I can store porno on my person.

      1. See I figured it’s something STEVE SMITH gives his victims after he’s done. Memory of a prolapse.

        1. Memories
          Stretch the sphincter of my mind
          Bloody tearing prolapsed memories
          of STEVE SMITH’S love
          Blurry pictures
          Hand-shot video of STEVE SMITH
          Footprints in the mud

      2. Quick, send that idea to Google.

        1. doesn’t address the Locket part properly, imo.

          1. If you do it right, it does.

  3. President Obama proposes to boost the national economy by hiking taxes on upper-income earners.

    Everyone duck! He’s pivoting to the economy.

    1. Why? Fuck you, that’s why.

    2. This class warfare crap won’t work. It ain’t rich people that are wrecking the economy. At least, not the ones outside of government.

      1. Yes they are, per my ‘friends’ on Facebook. They’re hoarding the money, and won’t hire people with it or spend it. Almost like they know something’s coming…

        1. I didn’t mean it wouldn’t work with anyone, just that it wouldn’t work with enough people to win the election.

        2. It’s almost like engineering the tax structure every year isn’t the height of enlightened governance since people need to PLAN.

        3. So Obama’s going to keep beating them until morale improves?

        4. So, your ‘friends’ are morons?

          1. Sigh, yes, they are. Some of them anyway – their knowledge of economics would fit on the head of a pin.

      2. No one claims rich people are wrecking the economy.

        1. But GREED! Exploitation!

          1. SPECULATORS!!

          2. I thought it was due to the speculators.

            1. I speculate they are just as greedy if not greedier.

              1. reading this post caused all my wealth to vanish.

        2. What was all that about the 99%, then?

        3. Technically true. They typically only claim that the rich wrecked the economy (past tense, and understood to mean under Bush2), not that they’ve continued to wreck it under Obama (since that would reflect badly on his governance).

    3. Remember, anyone making over $97,000 is upper class and deserves to be taxed good and hard (November 15th, 2007).

      P.S. I knew this video existed, I just didn’t remember where I first saw it.

  4. “We made a decision over the weekend that while this presidential race for us is over for me, and we will suspend our campaign effective today, we are not done fighting,” Santorum said at a press conference in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania Tuesday afternoon.

    So then, Santorum was in danger of having to start spending his own money?

    1. He was in danger of getting ass kicked in PA, a state that hates him.

  5. The GSA has been under an ethics cloud ever since an inspector general report found taxpayer money was spent on a mindreader, a clown, a $75,000 team building exercise, and many other lavish perks that GSA employees were caught bragging about on camera…

    “As we ensure that these actions never occur again, I ask that you also look to the future,” “There’s a lot to be proud of in the work that GSA does every day to help our government perform every more effectively and efficiently,” Tangherlini said.

    “And to assist us in looking to the future, I have hired The Amazing Sidini for private readings, to wonder us with predictions of things to come! The charter jet leaves for Atlantic City in one hour, people.”

    1. Team building, obey the ball

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzSCvzVmh40

    2. I heard some administration member yesterday on the GSA scandal. He was blaming Bush for it.

      Seriously.

      1. He meant women, not the politicians named Bush.

        1. Tempting them with an Apple.

    3. You can’t make an omelette without dropping a few dozen eggs on the floor and giving away a case of Chivas.

    4. “As we ensure that these actions never occur again, I ask that you also look to the future”

      *Performs Jedi hand wave*

  6. Santorum drops out! Get a mop!

    1. I see what you did there.

      1. Can you unsee it?

  7. Who are all these new AM and PM links editors? Is everyone else on vacation this week? Or is this a perk they give to big donors?

    1. That’s quasi-libertarian royalty you’re besmirching, sir.

    2. An enthusiastic explorer of the American Southwest’s deserts, mountains, and forests, Tuccille lives in rural northern Arizona with his wife, a pediatrician, their son, and their two dogs.

      He’s big enough to have his own live-in pediatrician, don’t mess with him.

      1. Is the kid the son of Tuccille and his wife or the pediatrician and his wife?

        1. it’s like a perfect storm of commas and pronouns.

          1. Man, tough crowd.

            1. Did you expect anything less?

        2. Possibly even Tuccille and the pediatrician.

          1. But what combination of the the four people owns the dogs?

            1. Whatever you guys do, don’t tell my wife about the pediatrician. I mean, she already suspects …

      2. Tuccille lives in rural northern Arizona

        As a resident of Baja Arizona, a Kingman address does not impress me. 😉

    3. Not complaining, just noticed.

    4. Or is this a perk they give to big donors?

      The prize for next year’s fundraiser is getting to proofread the posts before they go live.

      1. oooh oooh! me next 🙂

  8. When have tax rates on the wealthy correlated to economic growth? Any decade will do, just name one.

    1. Tony would never have left the crucial word “cuts” out of that question.

    2. So why the constant hard-on to raise them? Other than envy.

      1. To reduce the deficit… your guys’ number one concern.

        1. $

        2. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Note to self, never get on this website when tripping, T o n y may induce a fatal laughing fit.

          How about cutting spending to Consitutional levels?

          1. never get on this website when tripping

            I just figured everything would make sense then.

    3. The 1980s for one. And the 00s, which had growth rates Obama would kill for today.

      Beyond that even if they don’t so what? They don’t correlate with higher revenue either. So why steal people’s money? Oh yeah, because you are a nasty little demonic piece of shit who perfectly okay with other people being robbed.

      1. T o n y ‘ s motto – might makes right.

      2. But they do correlate with revenue. They are, in fact, revenues.

        1. They don’t correlate with increased revenue you nitwit.

        2. Tax rates are not the same as tax revenues, and raising tax rates does not necessarily raise tax revenues. Now, if tax rates did not affect the economic activity that creates taxable income (and thus, tax revenues) it would be true that an increase in tax rates would be all that is needed to increase tax revenues. However, as tax rates work as a disincentive on productivity, a lower tax rate can foster increased economic activity, leading to higher taxable incomes (or a larger base of taxable income) and thus increase tax revenues.

          See the difference?

          1. You’re nuts. Why not institute a 10% tax on luxury cars, yachts, and jewelry? That would teach the rich a thing or two, and raise a ton of revenue. Oh, wait…

        3. Rule #1 of life: Changes in the environment always cause changes in behavior.

        4. Re: Tiny,

          But they do correlate with revenue. They are, in fact, revenues.

          No, they don’t. The government has not been able to increase revenues above 20% of total yearly production ever.

    4. Re: Tiny,

      When have tax [rate cut] on the wealthy correlated to economic growth? Any decade will do, just name one.

      The 20’s, Harding and Coolidge. The 60s, during the Kennedy years.

      When has raised rates correlated to economic slump? The 30s, the 40s, the 70s and the “Read My Lips” Bush pere years.

  9. http://www.slate.com/articles/…..tism_.html

    Emily Bazelon tells us how lack of gun control kills black people.

    1. If she means that poor weapons-handling and terrible marksmanship by gangbangers kills people, she’s got a point.

  10. This is what Oberlin does

    I know that sex is in itself a political act, and that can’t be denied.

    I’ve eaten half a loaf of bread hanging out in the shower.

    1. I didn’t even make it through the first question. At least she’s gainfully employed. All honest work is honorable. Even writing for TV.

    2. I’ve eaten half a loaf of bread hanging out in the shower.

      because the other half gets too soggy. pick a better shower-food moran.

      1. Fucking desperate fat chicks and their carbs. It’s a sad cycle.

        1. seriously ladies, if your gonna eat in the shower, try some salami. I’ve been rationing mine all week.

    3. My daughter just graduated from Oberlin. It’s worse than you think, much worse.

      1. I dated a girl after i graduated high school that went to Oberlin. She was a dirty girl. But don’t worry BigT, this was back in 1988. I used to drive over to the campus and we’d … 😉

      2. My daughter just graduated from Oberlin. It’s worse than you think, much worse.

        I sure as fuck hope you didn’t pay a dime of her tuition.

    4. I really did try to read the article, but I nearly lapsed into a boredom coma so I had to make myself quit. I was nearly diagnosed with a sleep disorder once while being examined by my doctor. I overheard two of the staff talking and all I could make out were the words “sex and the city”. I fell to the floor instantly and began snoring.

    5. I know that sex is in itself a political act, and that can’t be denied.

      You’re doing it wrong.

      1. Stop othering her!

  11. Suprise! Live rounds incoming!

    “The Old West re-enactor who fired four bullets into a crowd of tourists in downtown Hill City in June 2011 was sentenced Monday to 7-1/2 years in federal prison.”

    Needs more plausible deniability. Like convincing tourists that alligator wrestling is easy.

    1. No. He just needed to be a cop.

  12. twice the debt of Greece, Ireland and Portugal combined

    (2x Greece) + Ireland + Portugal

    OR

    2x (Gr + Ir + Po)

    ?

    1. you’re probably lots of fun at dinner parties

      1. I wouldn’t want to be a member of any dinner party that doesn’t have proper respect for OoO.

        1. Is it cool if people do air parenthesis like air quotes?

          1. sure, because the gesture would look just like tracing a woman’s curves.

          2. (well, not JUST like, but close enough for amusement purposes.)

            {parenthilized for votre plaisir)

          3. When I was in junior high the kids referred to the parenthesis used in math equations as “Alfred Hitchcocks”.

    2. Ireland is a huge disappointment for the supply-side worshipers.

      They cut corporate tax rates to 12.5% and deregulated everything and now their economy is about the worst in the developed world.

      1. One thing they didn’t do, stop spending and running huge deficits. No amount of supply side stimulus can support a government that won’t quit spending.

        1. Funny how they always forget that part.

        2. One thing they didn’t do, stop spending and running huge deficits.

          No shit. Its like Dumbya was their president too.

          1. Good thing we elected Obama and solved the deficit right Shreek?

            Oh that is right in Shreek land Bush is responsible for Obama’s deficits even though he wasn’t President anymore.

            My God you are a retarded troll.

            1. Must you, John?

            2. John,

              Shrike admitted over the weekend he loves Bush’s policies. He even called them ‘libertarian’.

              His ‘hatred’ is really a pose. It reminds me of a girl my brother dated for years that he met while she was a paralegal at his law-firm. For the first six months she worked there, wvery time I’d see him he’d start bitching about her attitude and how difficult she was. According to her friends she was constantly complaining about my brother. Then came an office Christmas party when all that smoldering passion burst into flame and they ended up kissing.

      2. That wouldn’t have anything to do with their government spending like a drunken GSA employee on a team building exercise would it?

      3. Guaranteeing all the failed real estate in the country was probably not on the supply-siders’ wish list.

        1. They guaranteed their bank’s private debt AFTER the bubble popped. Sort of like TARP but maybe worse.

          1. Re: shrike,

            They guaranteed their bank’s private debt AFTER the bubble popped. Sort of like TARP but maybe worse.

            And since bailouts are the cornerstone of a free market(*), well them…

            (*)In shrike’s world.

      4. Re: shrike,

        They [Ireland][…] deregulated everything

        *cough* Bullshit! *cough*

        […]and now their economy is about the worst in the developed world.

        Surely it was because of the ridiculously low tax rates, sure.

    3. I’d like to see “debts” there. And an Oxford comma.

    1. Boise has some pretty decent hookers, I see.

      1. The others in the linked story…not so much.

  13. http://www.cnbc.com/id/47003841

    Stocks log worst day of the year.

    But Shreek said everyone’s 401Ks were going up 400%.

    1. Yeah, but in skriek’s defense, he is mentally retarded.

      1. And clinically insane. So there is that.

    2. Q1 was the best in decades. Time for the usual “sell in May and go away” spring swoon.

      Crude oil will fall hard though. That is the only good part of seasonality.

  14. I know the double-standard only exists in my head because dunphy told me so. But I still have a hard time believing that if I got caught with a cache of illegal firearms, explosives, illegal drugs and dozens of stolen driver’s licenses while I was being investigated for child porn, I doubt I would have been able to turn myself in and post a small bail 70 minutes later.

    1. He is facing the loss of his career here. He is going to spend months on paid leave while this whole thing is worked out.

      Can you have some sympathy?

      1. It truly is an American tragedy. This guy’s only a few more crimes away from being treated like a civilian.

        1. another sarc tag offender.

          1. derp derp

            1. herp de dumb de teedly too.

            2. That seems to be your entire argument lately.

              And I distinctly remember you saying recently you could post story after story of cops being treated more harshly. Not anecdotes, but actual reported stories.

              So put up or shut the fuck up. I want to see them, because I’m pretty sure I can post 10 to 1.

              Oh, and did you see the poll in the right margin here. Hardly a leading set of answers to choose from, but the responses tend to overwhelmingly lean in one direction. I wonder why?

      2. you left off the /UltimateSarcasm tag John.

    2. Procedures were followed.

    1. Is that SFW? Sorry, but I need to know before opening anything with “goatse,” “tubgirl” or lemon party” in the link.

    2. I managed to go my entire internet existence without being goatse’d. I will be damned if my charmed life ends today.

      1. You’re a rare person indeed.

      2. Same here. No goatse on me.

        No tub girl either.

        I did get rickrolled once, though.

        1. Those aren’t even in the same universe.

    3. It’s totally SFW as long as you don’t go clicking through links.

    4. Gawker manages to write something interesting. Finding Goatse: The Mystery Man Behind the Most Disturbing Internet Meme in History

      No, uh-uh, no fucking way, absolutely not, there is no way in hell I’m going anywhere near that link.

    5. Thanks for that.

  15. Matt Groening reveals the real location of Springfield: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/…..field.html

    1. “named after” isn’t exactly the “real location”, which based on the multiple conflicting references in the show to date, cannot physically exist without spacefolding a number of widely-spaced locations to one spot.

      1. So what you’re saying is that The Simpsons and A Wrinkle In Time occur in the same part oft he multiverse?

        1. I haven’t completed the proof yet, but the results so far point to “maybe”.

      2. You get the point.

      3. Exactly. AFAIK, there’s one state in the nation where there’s a Springfield and a Shelbyville (they should be in the top & bottom middle of the link. Also, check out the name of the town just west of Shelbyville.

        1. They’re 45 miles apart. No way it’s Kentucky.

          1. Groening may have gotten the original inspiration from Oregon, but someone on the show must have known about the towns in KY.

            1. Shelbyville, IL to Springfield, IL is only a few more miles apart. And there’s a Lake Springfield in IL, something Kentucky is lacking.

              But, that would fuck up the Capital City thing.

    1. not awesome enough to do another season of Metalocalpyse.

  16. Matt Groening reveals the location of The Simpsons Springfield: Springfield, Oregon.

  17. Zimmerman’s Lawyers Quit

    I bet they weren’t willing to suborn perjury, so he bailed on them and stopped taking their calls.

    1. That is possible. But there is no evidence of that beyond your desperate hope that Zimmerman is guilty of murder.

      come on Fluffy, how many times are you going to jump the shark on this one? We get it, you hate neighborhood watches and think the mere act of being one justifies anyone beating you down. We get it.

      1. Come on, of course the day the guy’s lawyers quit I’m going to be a dick and say this is the reason.

        It’s like if Eric Holder announced he was retiring to spend more time with his family. Even if he legitimately had a family issue, it would be JUST WRONG for us to deny you a few gloating posts saying that he was really retiring because he was afraid of Rep. Issa.

      2. Has anyone heard from Zimmerman lately, other than that written statement he released?

        Maybe he jumped off a bridge or something.

        1. He supposedly started his own website.

        2. He has a website for his supporters. My guess is that the pressure has gotten to him and he has cracked. I would also imagine he is running out of money and hasn’t paid his lawyers. So they used the fact that he was hard to get ahold of as a reason to walk away. He hasn’t been charged with anything, so they can ethically leave at any time.

          And since he hasn’t been charged and is not before any court, there is no way the lawyers were worried about suborning perjury. Moreover, even if they were, they would have to know he was lying, which is very unlikely given the dearth of witnesses in the case.

          1. I would also imagine he is running out of money and hasn’t paid his lawyers. So they used the fact that he was hard to get ahold of as a reason to walk away.

            Are you crazy?

            There isn’t a criminal defense lawyer in New England who wouldn’t gladly take a case like this for free, to get their name in the papers and on TV. This is a dream case for any defense lawyer, and the rewards of gaining additional notoriety vastly outweigh any pay they could get.

            1. No it wouldn’t. If you are a criminal defense attorney, a good portion of your clients are black. And no one wants to be the defense attorney who defended the guy who killed Obama’s son.

              This is not the OJ case fluffy. And I would not be surprised if they got a few death threats and decided it wasn’t worth the risk.

              1. If you are a criminal defense attorney, a good portion of your clients are black.

                1. I’m speechless too, wylie.

                  1. I’m speechless too, wylie.

                    Hearty welcome to the cosmotarian PC brigade.

                    1. Haha, evil otto. I was just giving him a hard time for quoting someone and not making a comment about it. Lighten up, Francis.

                2. What do you guys think of calling someone who says something racist but true a “Derbyshire racist”?

                  1. Total US incarceration for males as of 2009:

                    White 693,800
                    Black 841,000
                    Hispanic 442,000

                    I realize jail population is an imperfect proxy for people needing criminal defense lawyers, but it sure seems like 2/3 of your clientele as a criminal defense lawyer wouldn’t be pasty white people. I’m sure it varies by locality, though.

                    1. and that incarceration roughly matches NCVS reports of race of offender (victim reports, not cop reports and note most crime is intraracial), which would suggest NOT racism

                    2. But Zimmerman isn’t a pasty white guy.

                  2. It’s not racist if it’s true.

        3. He’s soliciting support by creating a website. He should just keep his head down.

          1. He’s very likely going on trial, so I imagine he needs money, and lots of it.

            1. i doubt he will go to trial. i’d estimate 20% chance at best. fully prepared to be wrong, but i’ve just seen too many facts thus far that support zimmerman.

              1. Politics requires it, regardless of facts.

                1. i disagree. florida is not ny (bernie goetz)

                  i have more faith in the prosecutor’s office at this point, although again… i may be proven wrong

      3. BTW, John, did you see that Seattle case the other day where a woman who was approached by an agitated bum who issued no threat and who did not strike her in any way shot the bum dead, and walked?

        In WA, it appears that if you walk up to someone in what they think is a threatening manner, they can kill you dead. And walk.

        So I guess Zimmerman should be happy that Martin wasn’t an armed white woman in Seattle.

        1. Would have to see the facts. And I would think you would be happy about that case? In your view the mere act of looking at someone or asking them where they are going gives you the right to attack them. Since the woman couldn’t physically assault the bum, she had to shoot him right?

          1. Actually, I set the standard at ordering them to stop in a manner a reasonable person might perceive as being backed up by the threat of force.

            But everyone told me that standard was crazy, and that there had to be actual force, or an explicit verbal threat.

            When the Seattle case came up, I found it noteworthy because it was below the standard I had set, and the chick still walked.

            http://www.seattlepi.com/local…..891425.php

            1. Was she in any way related to a cop, judge, fireman or local official?

              1. not likely.

                the prosecutors did the same thing they do with cops… look at the law, the totality of the circs, case facts, and make a decision based on evidence

                i realize your bigotry and bias and your selective use of only cop related incidents vs. ones like this, allow you to engage cognitive dissonance and arrive at faulty conclusion, but outside your narrow, selection bias subset of cases, this is how the real world works

                the difference is you continually gloss over these cases, if you even see them (god knows they won’t be highlighted in reason), thus you think only cops “get away” with stuff like this

                darn those damn constitutional protections!

                1. Oh, dunphy, could you explain to us how this guy got treated like everyone else? I mean, is it SOP to let someone with that cache of illegal weapons, explosives, illegal drugs and dozens of stolen ID’s turn himself in at his leisure and post bail 70 minutes later? And that bail amount…quite a bit lower than what I would expect for a “civilian.”

                  1. how were the weapons illegal? failed to register in california? fuck if i know?

                    100,000 bail is hardly a low bail. were they altered to fully auto? if so, i’d say bail was low

                    were they merely unregistered and/or technical violation of california’s extensive firearm code ?

                    again, you don’t know, nor do i

                    you can kneejerk. tht’s what you do

                    1. From the story: Investigators said they found 11 illegal assault rifles, home-made explosives, methadone pills and dozens of stolen drivers’ licenses.

                      Not sure how the guns were illegal. Or were you talking about the homemade bombs, drugs or stolen ID’s?

                      I don’t think any assault rifle should be illegal, but I live in CA, and I know how strict they are in enforcement. There’s no way in the fucking world that a regular “civilian” would be afforded the courtesy of turning himself in if they found any of those things at their house, let alone all of them.

                      C’mon, man. If you aren’t willing to say this sure looks like he got treated different because he’s a cop, then you’re a lost fucking cause.

                    2. and i think you are a lost cause too based on the metric assload of evidence i have presented. iow, two different people with differnt pov’s present evidence and parse it differently. wow. shock

                      for example, i can give an example of the alvarez/keller case in king county. in 20 yrs of police work in WA state, i have yet to see a case where a prosecutor charged ANYBODY with a felony crime without a victim statemtn signed by the victim, that was not a domestic violence case. not only charged, but custodially booked and charged

                      the ONLY EXCEPTION?

                      ALVAREZ/KELLER

                      two cops.

                      and of course in your eyes, that’s not evidence of a stricter double standard applied to cops, the fact that it’s the only case i can find, let alone have seen of people getting custodially arrested when a’victim’ declines to give a written statement

                      and i was present in a meeting with the prosecutor (with street crime cops from throughout king and sno county) and the fucking prosecutor said to us that because they were cops, they couldn’t have been seen as not reacting strongly and swiftly enough, so they decided to custodially arrest

                      amazing

                    3. i have given other examples. the case in WA (again, i don’t even have to look nationwide. numerous examples in my backyard) where the judge SAID the cop deserved a stricter punishment, and then gave him a sentence of 22 yrs for ASSAULT CHARGES something i have challenged anybody to find another example of – a person without felony priors in wa state getting 22 yrs. let alone the fact that the judge outright stated cops deserved a stricter standard

                      or the josh johnson case. where he was prosecuted after the ‘victim’ changed her story completely after a dv advocate called the victim and encouraged her to do so, with next to no due process , where the case was thrown out and the judge himself said the case never should have been charged by the prosecutor and johnson got his job back and back pay a year later

                      you have your examples, and i have mine

                      the difference is i AGREE that in some cases cops are given special treatment. i just know it’s balanced that they are often given harsher treatment, less due process, etc.

                      btw, alvarez keller were acquitted and/or hung juried on all their counts

                      it was all over the news here when they got custodially

                    4. You keep talking about all of this evidence you have posted, yet I, and if I’m wrong will some of the posters on here please let me know, fail to remember any of it except for that one case where a cop threw his ex-girlfriend out of a 2nd story window and permanently maimed her getting 23 years. And at first, you lied and said a non-cop would have gotten like 3-4 years until I researched it and found the minimum sentence his lawyer expected was 16 years. So you lied there, but I’ll still grant you that one example. But I just don’t remember you posting any more. So please, refresh my memory and regale us with your myriad stories of police being treated more harshly by the legal system. I’ve got all night.

                    5. 2 hours later, and all I hear are crickets.

                      See people, he’s just a lying scumbag, caught in his web of deceit. Remember this day. I know I will.

                    6. . i just know it’s balanced that they are often given harsher treatment, less due process, etc.

                      No sane person would believe it balances out. But you’re a cop, an sanity isn’t a job requirement.

            2. If by “everyone” you mean Tulpa Evil Otto, then you are correct. Otherwise, everyone else pretty much said that she had the right to shoot the guy, without an explicit verbal threat from him.

              1. The problem is that if you have very lax standards for self-defense, it’s quite likely that people will start committing murder and claiming self-defense.

                Killing someone is serious business. We’re always very suspicious of the state killing people (as we should be). We’re not always as suspicious of the state letting private parties kill people by having weak laws.

                1. and the other problem is that you slectively look at cases of the state (actually individual officers just trying to protect themself) killing people w/o being charged, and generally ignore cases like this, of noncops doing the same, and thus invent a double standard

                  state of WA, as i have explained requires the state to DISPROVE self defense and also penalizes the state for prosecuting in self defense cases by making them pay lawyer fees and lost wages to defendants if the jury decides they were wrong to do so

                  i see this type of thing ROUTINELY

                  however, they are not highlighted in reason, thus sloopy et al never see them and/or ignore them because they don’t fit their metanarrative, that only the state ‘gets away’ with such stuff

                  the burden is on the state to PROVE a crime. it is not on the shooter to disprove it

                    1. as i have said, there is sometimes a double standard. sometimes it benefits, sometimes it harms cops

                      recall that the cop was recently found not guilty in seattle for the foot stomp incident, and several other cops have been found not guilty recently also

                      jurors are the finders of fact, and i know it makes you all butthurt that they tend to give cops benefit of the doubt

                      and prosecutors know this too. if they don’t have a strong case, they are wasting money and time and they know that

                      but do some cops receive special beneficial treatment?

                      sure

                      do some receive special punitive treatment? sure

                      heck, you can’t even deal with the case in this thread of the woman who shot a guy at the bus stop and wasn’t charged

                      if she was a cop, you would be butthurt about it too

                      just shows yer ignorance

                  1. I mean, this is the way everyone would be treated who pleaded guilty to myriad crimes. Right? It’s really fair that taxpayers have to fund this guy’s retirement when his “service” was filled with crimes under color of law.

                    But the double-standard is all in my mind.

                    1. it doesn’t say what they mean by accumulating leave

                      they can;t fire him w/o due process and yes, he accumulates leave during that time

                      contracts? how DO those work

                    2. I thought the “due process” requirement had been satisfied once he pleaded nolo contendere and was found guilty of a plethora of crimes committed while on duty.
                      FTA: This week, Eiskant was found guilty of harassing and stalking women, stealing marijuana and using criminal databases to look up people’s information in a case brought by the Attorney Generals office.

                      Yet he’s continuing to accumulate leave so he can retire in November. Reading comprehension fail or intentional disregard of facts?

                    3. Right? The guy in the second part of this story lives in the same city as the off-duty cop in the one posted above. Yet he’s been arrested for shooting a man who broke into his house…in the leg. Yet the officer shoots and kills an innocent woman because he “thought” he saw a gun…that never materialized.

                      It’s almost as if their perception trumps reality. I sure wish I could shoot people willy-nilly and claim I thought they had a gun. But I’m pretty sure I’d have to substantiate that fact to get off. But a cop? It’s not necessary, apparently.

              2. No, JW.

                The “everyone else” I am referring to was in the Zimmerman discussions.

                I said that if Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin, even just by ordering him to stop, that he was violating the Florida False Imprisonment statute (which includes restraint by threat) if a reasonable person would feel that his order was backed up by force. And that would mean that Zimmerman was the aggressor, even if Martin threw the first punch.

                “Everyone else” told me I was crazy, that unless Zimmerman physically assaulted Martin or explicitly threatened him with violence verbally, Martin was the aggressor if he threw the first punch.

                I found the Seattle case interesting because the bum here is being regarded as the aggressor, even in the absence of an actual attack or even an explicit verbal threat.

                1. if a reasonable person would feel that his order was backed up by force

                  That’s a pretty significant “if”. Which is highly unlikely to be the case with two people walking down the street unless the one saying “stop” has already threatened force or shown a weapon.

                  1. Which is highly unlikely to be the case with two people walking down the street unless the one saying “stop” has already threatened force or shown a weapon.

                    You see? This is exactly what I’m talking about.

                    In the Seattle bum case, we have people on this very thread saying the woman’s action was reasonable because once the bum gets close enough to her to strike her, she has lost the chance to defend herself.

                    The bum did not show a weapon.

                    There is no indication that there was an explicit threat of force.

                    All we have is the (admittedly pretty reasonable) implicit threat, where “everybody knows” that an agitated vagrant who is screaming curses and running toward you is probably bent on violence once he gets there.

                    But as I said before, “Bums are dirty and scary!” is not a legal principle. If it’s reasonable to shoot a bum yelling “Fuck you!” because he might grab you, it cannot possibly be unreasonable to punch some guy who’s been stalking you and chasing you down a dark street, ordering you to stop – because he might grab you, too.

                    1. again, it depends on the totality of circs, which the media article can’t give you

                      that’s why i am almost always agnostic on these incidents whether they involve a cop or a civilian, unless it’s obvious, which it is not in this case

                      speculating without the requisite facts is a waste of time, and the noooz will not give you the requisite facts

                    2. Cops are civilians, dunphy.

                2. No, JW. The “everyone else” I am referring to was in the Zimmerman discussions.

                  Ah, that explains my confusion. I generally scroll right past the ZImmerman stuff.

        2. Isn’t Puget Sound one of the most anti-gun areas in the country?

          1. this is a shall issue state and open carry requires no permit

            seattle libs don’t LIKE the right to carry, but i can guarantee you a metric assload of people in seattle carry.

            i deal with “civilians” in self defense/arrest situations with their guns all the time

            i had a guy hold a burglar at gunpoint in his garage last week

            she was terrified he was going to shoot her and SHE also called 911 and asked us to hurry up … lol

            she didn’t fear US, but man did she fear the homeowner

            good. fuck her and her burglarious ways.

            she’s lucky he DID NOT shoot her when he found her rooting around his garage

            anyway, the vast majority of civilian arrests that involve guns, and i deal with at least a couple of dozen a year, don’t involve shots fired, just like most cop arrests with guns

            and when civilians do shoot people they enjoy self defense protections, as they should

          2. The wonders of firearms preemption laws at the state level.

            I thank God for it here in deep blue Pittsburgh.

            1. yup . libs in seattle, to include the mayor by executive order, keep trying to create their own anti-gun fiefdom in seattle

              i rarely carry off duty, but i make a point to , in seattle

        3. As I recall, there was an argument on a bus. She flipped him off. When they got off the bus, they kept a-jawing, and he approached her.

          She drew on him, he kept coming, so she greased him before he could get within arm’s reach.

          1. Gun control means hitting your target. Good for her, if those are the facts.

          2. There is the question of whether she was justified to brandish her firearm in the first place.

            I have a very hard time accepting “he failed to cower in fear at the sight of a firearm” as justification for killing someone. The justification for using the firearm has to be already present when it’s drawn, no?

            1. In a self defense situation, if you have let someone close to within arm’s reach of you, they can fuck you up before you can do much about it. A knife will still eviscerate you before you can react. It’s why we run Tueller drills.

              1. Yes, of course. I’m familiar with the 21 foot rule.

                But that’s not justification for pulling a gun on anyone who approaches close to you. There has to be a serious, independent reason for thinking they intend to inflict severe injury or death on you.

                1. correct. and again, people are drawing conclusions based on a mere media article. which necessarily means the conclusions will be based on insufficient facts, whether or not they happen to be correct

                  EXACTLY like people do here with cop shootings and cop uof’s

                  the cops likely interviewed people on the bus, etc. and established a grand totality of the circ’s, which as i say in cop shootings is important

                  and looking at the case in totality, as well as WA law, etc. the prosceutor determined he couldn’t prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

                  par for the course.

                  i have zero idea if the shooting was justified or not, although i tend to find local prosecutors pretty reasonable, so i’ll at least lean towards justified

        4. I saw mammals swimming around underwater at the zoo. Therefore, mammals live underwater.

          Is that correct reasoning, Fluffy? Because yours is equivalent.

          1. No, it’s not equivalent. Even a little.

            My reasoning is: “If you tell me, ‘It is illegal for mammals to swim’, if I see mammals swimming around underwater at the zoo, your argument is clearly false at that zoo.”

            1. Who said it was always illegal to kill someone who hasn’t explicitly verbally threatened you?

              1. it’s not

                JUST LIKE WITH POLICE SHOOTINGS, IT IS BASED ON TOTALITY OF THE CIRC’S

                SLOOPY AND THE OTHER BIGOTS don’t like cases like this, which they generally ignore, if they even see them, but they are par for the course, at least here in WA.

                if she REASONABLY feared imminent death or serious bodily injury, she could shoot

                fwiw, if you draw a gun and a person advances on you that is strong evidence they have no respect for their safety and are unreasonable, thus every reason to believe they are equally likely to disregard your life and safety

                i’ve pulled guns on literally SCORES of people. i’ve had a few advance on me, maybe 1/100 at most

                fortunately, setting aside discussion of actual police shootings i’ve been involved with, none advanced far enough in such a situation such that i had to shoot

                fortunately.

                if you keep approaching a guy with a gun pointed at you, you are evidencing irrationality, and wish to confront etc.

                much like the guy in the lifealert case who refused to allow entry after requesting emergency police response, you are creating a problem for yourself.

                if somebody pulls a gun on me, and yes it has happened, i don’t keep walking towards him

                1. fwiw, if you draw a gun and a person advances on you that is strong evidence they have no respect for their safety and are unreasonable, thus every reason to believe they are equally likely to disregard your life and safety

                  So if someone brandishes a firearm at you and you don’t immediately retreat, then they have a right to go ahead and pull the trigger because you’re not reacting reasonably? WTF?

                  I’m sorry, but this lady had no right to initiate force against someone because he “indirectly” scared her. Fuck that idiocy.

                  Ever heard of the principle: “the right for you to swing your fist ends at my nose”? It doesn’t end several yards away.

                  1. i didn’t say that. i said IF THEY ADVANCE ON YOU

                    NOT ‘if they don’t immediately retreat’

                    i stopped reading your post at that point, since it yet again demonstrates your continuous ability to see not reality, but what you want to see.

                    what does a rational person do when a gun is pointed at them

                    ‘walk towards the person pointing the gun at them’ is not the correct answer

                    1. what does a rational person do when a gun is pointed at them

                      ‘walk towards the person pointing the gun at them’ is not the correct answer

                      No, to you, they’re probably supposed to get on their knees and do what they’re told.

                      That guy had every right in the world to do or say what he wanted in proximity to that woman, short of initiating force on her. It’s called the First Amendment, you stupid asshole. You might try reading it sometime.

                    2. what does a rational person do when a gun is pointed at them

                      A rational person with perfect eyesight?

                      Killing people is serious business. You better have an absolutely airtight reason for doing it.

                      Walking toward a person with a drawn firearm should not give that person license to kill. (Of course in this particular case it’s possible that he didn’t merely walk toward her, but in general it doesn’t sound like justification)

              2. John, as an example.

    2. Why would lawyers quit over perjury? They would only do that if he insisted on testifying in the trial which might never take place.

      More likely, he couldn’t pay their bills.

  18. Yet another isolated incident…

    A Lake County coroner’s report states several factors exacerbated Hanna’s sickle cell anemia, leading to his death. “He might have been punched and hit with a baton, but tasering, all cause different types or levels of trauma,” said Artis Yancey, Lake County coroner.

    1. They’re all isolated until you connect the dots.

      1. And yet our resident cop-apologiser can’t seem to manage such a feat.

        1. i see NOTHINH wrong with the police force in this incident.

          not to mention i am not going to shed a tear for a guy who was high on cocaine, had hypertension, allegedly beat his pregnant gf, allegedly fought with police, and then died a week later

          file it under YAWN

          what possible reason do you have to believe police use of force was unjustified

          btw, here’s a hint/ when you are in poor health, have high blood pressure (likely untreated), do cocaine, and assault your pregnant gf – because you are a fucking pussy, don’t compound your problems by fighting with police

          1. Upthread, you said something about juries being finders of fact and try to give me a lesson in due process for a cop that’s already been convicted allowing to accumulate leave.

            And thwn you come out with: not to mention i am not going to shed a tear for a guy who was high on cocaine, had hypertension, allegedly beat his pregnant gf, allegedly fought with police, and then died a week later

            file it under YAWN

            Funny you didn’t seem to feel that way about the cop in WA that got a supposedly longer sentence for throwing a woman out of a window.

            Hell, now the double-standard exists on this thread.

            1. Dunphy’s a sick fuck for sure.

              Standards for thee but not for me.

              1. standards for everybody. if you have reason to believe the cops violated standards/laws in the instant case then present it

                ‘he died a week later’ is in no way evidence of that.

                1. How about you show me where beating a man to the point where it results in death is not a violation of standards, Dumb Fuck?

          2. How about cops are supposed to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us?

            I don’t care if the man was on drugs or had poor health or even that he hit his girlfriend that’s still no excuse to night stick or taser someone.

            Is it too much to ask our law enforcement to be the better men and women in any given situation?

            Or do you think battery to the point of death is OK when you think “he deserved it”?

            1. the cops are expected to use force consistent with case law, and constitutional law.

              in some respects, that is more strict than force allowed by civilians ( i gave an example of the oregon case where the neighbor shot a fleeing burlgar and was not charged, but it would have been unlawful if a cop did it)

              yes, he died. that says zero about whether the force was justified or not

              he died a week later

              he also suffered from hypertension, poor health, and cocaine use

              if you have evidence that the cops used unlawful force, then bring it. i have no reason to believe they did

              the fact that he died a week later is not proof of that.

              1. in some respects, that is more strict than force allowed by civilians ( i gave an example of the oregon case where the neighbor shot a fleeing burlgar and was not charged, but it would have been unlawful if a cop did it)

                Yeah, and I remember the judge’s reaction. Also, how the cops reacted in the story. The guy was damn lucky he avoided some trumped-up charge and they gave a warning to everyone else to not do what that man did.

                if you have evidence that the cops used unlawful force, then bring it. i have no reason to believe they did

                the fact that he died a week later is not proof of that.

                You’re right, of course. Him screaming and pleading “they’re killing me” as cops beat him couldn’t have had anything to do with it, could it? Especially when the coroner specifically identified what had been done to him by the officers in his report.

                Animals.

              2. Dunphy, I don’t usually get into your and sloops debates, but fuck case law and constitutional law. You have a duty as a human being to use as much restraint as possible to keep from having to initiate UOF.

                It doesn’t matter if case law says you could beat that guy fucking senseless, you still shouldn’t do it. It is immoral, unprofessional, and just plain wrong. We entrust cops with the responsibilities and powers we do because we EXPECT them to try every other avenue before beating/tazing/shooting.

                Now having said that, if the guy died a week later, that doesn’t necessarily mean it was the beating that did it.

    2. isolateed. an apparently justified use of force?

      hardly isolated.

      all the mom’s whining aside

    1. I like the part where she says the kid won’t fill out his daily planner, so the teacher should do it.

      And then the next paragraph starts out, “Make him be responsible!”

      1. Yeah, “Make him be responsible” is the best part.

        1. do you think the uof is unjustified in this case?

          i see no reason to believe this

          itfpapic , it’s a good uof

          sad he died. maybe the cops should have screened him for sickle cell anemia before they used force.

          yawn

          also, i’m not going to shed a tear for some fuckstick who assaulted his pregnant gf and then attacked police

          fuck him

          cocaine use, hypertension, poor health, stun gun, and uof…

          his mom can wank all she wants about “wanting an answer immediately”

          from what i have heard, the brief excerpt of the tape, there is no evidence the cops did anything wrong

          iow, yawn

          1. I think the squirrels misplaced your post. I hadn’t clicked the link yet and was all like “the cops killed a grade schooler?”

            1. I’m hoping that’s what happened. Cause “fuck that kid, he got what he deserved. If he’d filled out that daily planner like he was supposed to he’d still be alive” is really not an appropriate response.

              1. yea. i am pretty sure that is not on the use of force continuum.

            2. “the cops killed a grade schooler”.

              Somewhere, probably.

              1. we’ve had local PD’s get loaded guns off middle school and elementary schools twice (that i know about) btw, in the last couple of weeks

                yesterday, i got a call because some kids pulled into an elementary school parking lot and pointed a ‘rifle’ out the window.

                i ended up apprehending them. turned out to be a bb gun, but it was still colossally stupid, to put it mildly.

                didn’t shoot anybody though

                1. Miracle of miracles. >>

                  1. not really. cops use deadly force extremely rarely. heck, they use force extremely rarely.

                    but “cop disarms assaultive person with knife without shooting him’ does not make the press

                    this is why many cop bigots have their bigotries reinforced

                    i could disarm 50 people with knives who try to stab me.

                    none will likely make the paper, let alone reason

                    but as soon as i shoot one, it will

                    the reality is we deal with armed, often assaultive, violent people quite frequently. our restrain is admirable and proven by stats.

                    and again, you won’t read about those incidents.

                    the average patrol officer, iirc, uses deadly force about once every 10 yrs iirc. that is an astoundingly low incidence of deadly force when you consider the fucksticks we deal with on a daily basis

                    of course when said fucksticks are compliant, it makes it much much less likely we will have to use deadly force

                    but the thing i was most amazed with when i becamse a cop was how my preconceptions were wrong

                    i had no idea how incredibly restrained cops are with force at all levels.

                    1. the reality is we deal with armed, often assaultive, violent people quite frequently. our restrain is admirable and proven by stats.

                      Bull. Fucking. Shit. Unless you’re talking about your time at the departmental picnic.

                      the average patrol officer, iirc, uses deadly force about once every 10 yrs iirc. that is an astoundingly low incidence of deadly force when you consider the fucksticks we deal with on a daily basis

                      You mean the people who pay your salary and are by and large law-abiding? Those people you come in contact with every day, or are you referring to your narcs, snitches and informers?

                      but the thing i was most amazed with when i becamse a cop was how my preconceptions were wrong

                      So your conceptions about cops when you went to become one was that they were all a bunch of jackboot thugs? And you wanted to be a cop anyway? Kinda says a lot about you, doesn’t it?

                    2. Unless you all mostly deal with repeat violent offenders, I’m gonna call bullshit. There’s no statistical way that the majority of cop interactions are with those people and not regular, law abiding citizens that did something stupid/not approved by the state.

                2. I’ve noticed you’ve almost completely resorted to countering news articles with only anecdotal evidence anymore.

                  But in your defense, you’re not as critical as you used to be of posters on here who use anecdotes. I guess when it’s your entire arsenal, you kinda need to let other peoples’ use slide, huh?

                  1. because the news chooses sleectivel what it wants to report, sloopy

                    the facts are inarguable

                    i’ve presented stats as to what %age of arrests and contacts result in deadly force

                    it’s infinitesimal. that’s proof enough of our incredible restraint

                    the reality is day in and day out cops do an awesome job and are very restraINED

                    even most of the cases you claim are excessive force, there is no reason to believe so, e.g. this case of this hanna guy who died a week later.

                    i realize you have your bigotry and your metanarrative. it is just not supported by facts

                    1. You offer stats compiled by the users of force. I offer stories that, while you claim to be infinitesimal, still run counter to your claims.

                      the reality is day in and day out cops do an awesome job and are very restraINED

                      That’s your opinion, and it’s not supported by facts or by the fact that the overwhelming majority of people answer the following question the same way:

                      When you are in contact with a policeman, do you feel:
                      A: Comfortable or Assured
                      B: Nervous or Afraid

                    2. I realise you have a standard for us poor slobs and another for cops.

                      Regular guy beats girlfriend: Dunphy shows no sympathy.

                      Regular guy gets pounded by cops and gets pilloried here at Reason: Dunphy jumps to the cop’s defense. Besides, it was probably justified anyways.

                      No double standards here folks!

                    3. Cop gets pilloried I should’ve said.

        2. Also: “And don’t just pawn him off on someone else.”

          Hi, I’m self-awareness. Have we met?

    2. I wonder what she’ll think of my sage-like advice.

      1. I was going to go with something like, “Maybe you should take responsibility for his education rather than leaving him with incompetents” but your more mild-mannered response will probably generate a lot of heat.

  19. Delving ever-deeper into his bag of economic wisdom, President Obama proposes to boost the national economy by hiking taxes on upper-income earners.

    Nothing says “Let’s get things done!” more than a tacit threat of stealing your labor.

    Ahh, incentives… they’re a bitch sometimes.

  20. Barack Obama, who is either completely oblivious to current events or thinks we’re all idiots, ludicrously claims that the republican party has moved far to the right and that “Ronald Reagan could not get through a Republican primary today.”

    Hey you stupid fucking dickhead, I mean “Mr. President”, Mitt Romney is the party nominee and he’s nowhere near as conservative as Reagan was. He’s the most moderate republican nominee since at least Gerald Ford and possibly Dwight Eisenhower, you disingenuous jackass.

  21. Check out the comments here. A whole lotta of “how dare we be expected to figure out technology before we use it to attention whore”

    Shit. For once, the article itself is fairly reasonable about it.

    1. Thanks, Coeus. I never would have found this without you.

      1. Anyone who has a problem with that ad is probably just lactose intolerant.

  22. I’m as anti-Santorum as anyone with common sense but I give him credit for putting his kid’s well-being over his political ego.

  23. Is it OK to arrest a mother for making her child walk 4+ miles to school?

    FTA: “You ask yourself the question, is that safe for the child?” Says Jonesboro Police spokesman Sgt. Lyle Waterworth. “And if you wouldn’t want your child doing it, you probably don’t need some (other) child doing it.

    Right, officer friendly. You are perfectly justified in inflicting your morals and means of raising your children onto other citizens. It’s perfectly fine.

  24. Are there going to be any more presidential debates? I haven’t been able to sleep well, lately.

  25. Right to resist ruling in Indiana already yielding positive results:

    http://www.policeone.com/Offic…..-uniforms/

    1. What a bunch of fucking assholes.

      From the comments: ***The bulletin advised that the Indiana FOP will be monitoring all reported incidents of injury following the passage of the bill.***

      Great, that’s what I was hoping they would do. I do hope they have a hotline or e-mail address for any officer to report an incident regardless if they are in the FOP or not.

      As for the warrants, officers should surround the place they are serving a warrant at and not go in, instead ordering them out on the PA. Play a waiting game if need be and rack up the overtime. So what if OT cost skyrocket or evidence gets destroyed thus putting cases in jeopardy, that’s what the public wants with this law so let it be rather than having an officer get injured or killed bacause of it.

      One thing I’ve learned in my career is that nothing gets better until the situation is at its worst.

      -and in reply to that-

      Joe, I agree , surround the house and talk till the cows come home, screw making entries and to hell with evidence.

      These are the people patrolling our streets in their own words.

      1. I don’t know. I like that for drug crimes. It’d result in fewer people killed and busted for simple possession. The only thing it’d be an issue for is a hostage situation, which is the only reason you need a fucking swat team in the first place. The real asshole is the one who said this:

        Posted by Spike126 on Monday, April 02, 2012 11:41 AM Pacific Report Abuse
        Maybe we should all dress up like clowns….then we would resemble the friggin politicians who created this ignorant excuse of a bill.

        He seems angry that he can no longer run around in street clothes, beating those who don’t comply.

        1. That’s the feeling I got from the ones I posted. They’re basically saying: the people who pay us (the taxpayers) are assholes, so we should fuck them over until we get our way and they are all cowering at our presence like they’re supposed to.

          Maybe my bigoted outlook (ha!) has just completely overwhelmed my soul, but that’s what I gain from reading their comments.

          1. No, that’s an accurate reading. It’s just humorous that the worst thing he can think of to do is exactly what people who are critical of their tactics want them to. I would love it if their petulance in this case actually led to a better judicial system.

            COP: “Fine. We’ll just let that guy flush his dime bag. See how you like it!!!”

            CIVIL LIBERTARIAN: “Actually, we’d like that very much. Thanks.”

            COP: “Goddammit!”

  26. And cops wonder why people don’t respect them like they used to? Well, with comments like the ones here, it’s pretty apparent they fucking hate us as well.

    And on a related note, I wonder why dunphy tucked tail and ran off when I asked him to substantiate his claim that he has tons of reported cases where cops were treated more harshly. Fucker disappeared faster than Kaiser Soze on coke.

  27. This is everywhere. 9-year-old’s DIY cardboard arcade gets flashmobbed

    What I love about it is that the kid is a budding entrepreneur. I just wonder how long it is until the local government shuts him down or demands he get some permits.

    1. Thanks for posting that. I hope the LA Board of Planning and the IRS leave him alone long enough for him to enjoy it.

  28. Rick Santorum doesn’t support contraception, so he had to pull out.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.