A.M. Links: Red Cross Chief in Syria, Joe Biden Loses a U-Haul, Clinton Wades into South China Sea Dispute, Booker Campaign Literature Misspells the President's Name, Tutu Wants Bush and Blair in the Hague

|

  • Red Cross chief Peter Maurer is in Syria where he will meet government officials and encourage them to perhaps consider their obligations under international law. 
  • Hillary Clinton has encouraged China and neighboring nations to avoid coercion and embrace diplomacy with regard to territorial disputes in the South China Sea. 
  • Archbishop Desmond Tutu wants George W. Bush and Tony Blair on trial for war crimes. 
  • Joe Biden's Secret Service U-Haul was stolen yesterday in Detroit but was later recovered. Some of the security equipment from the truck is missing. 
  • Newark Mayor and Democratic Party rising star Cory Booker probably feels more than slightly embarrassed after a piece of his campaign literature was published with the President's name misspelled.

NEXT: Teachers Unions Souring on Democrats in Charlotte

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. Oh, Hillary. It’s after Labor Day and you’re wearing white.

    1. It’s always summer in Jakarta.

    2. She’s wearing pink, you human-mole hybrid!

      1. No, I meant another picture of her I saw. It’s somewhere on the internet, I’m sure you can find it.

    3. Yeah, DC chicks are totally know for their fashion sense.

      1. And hair styles. Christ on a bike, what’s with the lank hair and Alice-band thing she’s had going?

        1. I know – I wonder who does her hair? A while back I heard it was Andre Chrecky, but he’s more known for his schoolmarm short ‘dos (a la Laura Boooosh!), not this lank mop crap.

  2. FOIST to complain about the “system” not maintaining a login to HyR!

    If someone knows a fix to this frustration, *kindly* enlighten me.

    1. Use Firefox?

      1. Using it (at this time).

    2. check the ‘remember me’ box when you sign in.

      1. OK — but (why) is this trip necessary?

        1. ALSO — it does *not* work!

          ARGHH!!

          1. You have to allow it to save cookies.

            1. I do. What’s another hypothesis?

              1. You must sacrifice 30 lbs of acorns to the HampersandR squirrels.

              2. Security/Firewall software?

                1. This problem surfaced last week to me (and others). Maybe it’s a FF/MS “update” manifestation?

                  1. I’m running Firefox (with NoScript and only some sites allowed) with no issues – so far. I do miss my incif though.

  3. Just when you thought the TSA couldn’t get any more asinine…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..rport.html

    1. There is no end to how asinine they can get. They think they own all transportation in America.

      1. You have to admit though that any terrorist who can so proficiently disguise themselves as Mr. and Mrs. Peoria are certainly clever enough to smuggle some deadly explosive liquid in their bottled waters.

        1. Or in their just purchased Starbucks?

    2. I then asked if she wanted a urine sample.

      Dammit, don’t give them ideas!

      Also, isn’t recording TSA operations at least a felony?

      1. I then asked if she wanted a urine sample.

        Standard TSA reply: “Do you want to miss your flight.”

  4. http://bostonherald.com/news/p…..position=0

    Indian delegates seek sitdown with Elizabeth Warren to talk about her alleged heritage.

    1. I’d love to hear what Russell Means thinks of all this.

      1. OR Ben Nighthorse Campbell. What happened to that guy?

        1. He was with Holland and Knight for awhile. He started his own lobby shop in July. Based in CO and focused on Indian Affairs issues.

          1. I always liked him. I would love to see him tear Warren a new asshole.

            1. That would be something. ride up to a campaign appearance on his old-glory painted motorcycle.

    2. A “sitdown”?? Sheesh, Elizabeth’s people call that a “pow-wow”, doofus.

  5. Paul Ryan = Joseph Goebbels!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..bbels.html

    1. Are you finished?

    2. What was Goebbels’s secret? P90X wasn’t even invented yet.

      1. Volks verkout.

  6. Michael Jackson’s “daughter” says she’s moving to Africa if Obama loses the election. If Obama can’t turn this country into a Third World shithole, by golly she’ll just move to one!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..itics.html

    1. Nice to see her exploring her roots.

    2. I wonder if there is any way to convince her to move even if he wins. Perhaps she could take him along.

    3. If America really has one million Paris Jackson followers, I’m moving to Africa.

      1. If we could get enough of us to move to Africa, we could carve out a state in our privately-owned mosquito-ridden jungle hell-hole!

        1. Because Liberia worked out so well, we’ll try it again, but with different people in charge!

          1. The right people, this time.

        2. DDT would fix that problem.

      2. My new conspiracy theory: Michael Jackson asked his doctor euthanize him so he wouldn’t be alive when his daughter’s sex tape inevitably appears.

        1. That’s better than mine: Michael Jackson asked his doctor euthanize him so he wouldn’t be alive when his own sex tape inevitably appears.

    4. Are we overlooking the fact that the youngest sibling’s name is BLANKET?!

      1. Old news. What are you gonna do with that but feel sorry for the kid? It’s not his fault dad was a loon.

        1. The family resemblance is striking!

          1. The kid looks like a white woman?

    5. Blanket Jackson?

      What the fuck??

  7. That’s not an earthworm! This is an earthworm!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..mself.html

    1. Right sized fishhook, and I could catch a great white with that one.

      1. You could catch Jormungand.

    2. Shai Hulud…

    3. Kill it with fire.

      1. They’re immune. Water is the secret.

        1. I’ll call Bert Gummer and ask him for advice.

    4. Does he live next to a nuclear power plant?

  8. http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/o…..versation/

    Media fears it is impossible to change the conversation. So much butt hurt, so many yummy tears.

    1. Reporters feel like both campaigns have decided to run out the clock with limited press avails, distractions, and negative attacks, rather than run confident campaigns with bold policy platforms or lofty notions of hope and change ? leaving the media with little to do but grind along covering the latest shallow, sensational item of the day.

      Wow, just wow. Words fail.

      So they’re simultaneously upset that they can’t write the narrative of public discourse and upset that the campaigns aren’t giving them stories on a platter?

      1. nothing prevents either from doing independent reporting that is NOT reliant on what the campaigns feed them. Good grief. Has journalism slipped so far backwards that no one can work without being issued the day’s talking points?

        leaving the media with little to do but grind along covering the latest shallow, sensational item of the day.
        this is known as professional fail. Nothing requires media to cover the faux story of the day and actual journalism would mandate that said story be called out as faux. Maybe if they did that often enough, the campaigns would change, but that’s too much like asking reporters to work.

      2. They’re too busy not investigating the Big Zero’s war crimes.

      3. So they’re simultaneously upset that they can’t write the narrative of public discourse and upset that the campaigns aren’t giving them stories on a platter?

        It’s worse than that. They already are writing the narrative, and then throwing the blame on politicians to absolve themselves of feeding the daily fail atmosphere they have created.

        It’s like they walked in a house full of guests, took a shit on the living floor, then complained about the joint stinkin’.

        The entire media establishment needs to DIAF so we can start over with journalists with some semblance of professional integrity.

  9. Milla Jovovich is still hot!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..ution.html

    1. She could be hot, if it weren’t for that gaping hole of a mouth she has. Shit’s huge.

  10. %$%@! Sometimes the wrong people die:

    Michael Clarke Duncan is dead.

    I never saw him in a role I didn’t like.

    1. Yeah. I had a sad when I read about him dying…

      1. I’ve already seen it.

  11. Archbishop Desmond Tutu wants George W. Bush and Tony Blair on trial for war crimes.

    No word on the criminality of the actions of his fellow Nobel prize winner?

    1. Hey Desmond, go shoot a miner, would ya?!

    2. Damn your fist fingers!

      1. I’m the one logging all my rivals off the system. First will always belong to me now. Yes, it will always by mine.

  12. Frenchman puts baby up for sale online, but in the furniture section

    http://www.thelocal.fr/page/vi…..-by-police

  13. How’d that get in there?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..bings.html

  14. Former California Assembly speaker Willie Brown admits gee maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to let unions set their own pensions.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/a…..-culpa.php

    1. The pathetic thing about it is that democrat politicians didn’t need to sell out to the unions to dominate CA.

  15. Tutu, a Nobel peace prize winner

    Prepare Obama for “Battle of the Jay-Walking Peace Price Winners”!

  16. U.N food agencies are calling for a swift international response to the global food crisis.

    Do they want swift action on the food crisis or slow and pointless action on the Climate Change crisis? While they’re making up their mind, we’ll keep on keepin’ on with the ethanol.

    1. U.N food agencies are calling for a swift international response to the global food crisis.

      Sorry, we put all the extra food in our gas tanks.

      1. U.N food agencies are calling for a swift international response to the global food crisis.

        Sorry, we put all the extra food in our gas tanks.

        This.

        We’re too busy fulfilling pointless climate mandates and burning food to feed people. Didn’t you know that we have a greenhouse gas global warming climate change crisis to solve?

        1. You forgot to put the new ice age and ozone layer hole at the start of that strikeout list.

  17. More or less
    Why, as people get richer, do they have fewer children?
    http://www.economist.com/node/21561112

    This explanation is that, according to circumstances, people switch between two reproductive strategies. One, known to ecologists as “r-selection”, is to produce lots of offspring but invest little in each of them. This works in environments with high infant mortality. The other, known as “K-selection”, is to have only a few offspring but to nurture them so that they are superb specimens and will thus do well in the competition for resources and mates, and produce more grandchildren for their parents than their less well-nurtured contemporaries. The demographic transition, according to this analysis, is a shift from r-type to K-type behaviour.

    1. nurture them so that they are superb specimens and will thus do well in the competition for resources and mates, and produce more grandchildren for their parents

      But if they are successful, then they won’t produce many grandchildren, according to this theory.

      1. I think the theory is essentially that 2 or 3 healthy children will produce more viable offspring than 4 or 5 sickly little fuckers.

  18. Adelaide is such a fucked-up city with a proud tradition of sexually sadistic serial killers, but this frankly was something of a surprise:

    Heat-seeking Sidewinder missile found in house at Modbury North

    1. Yeah, even over here in gun-happy America we don’t run across heavy ordnance all that often.

    2. “Possessing dangerous articles” is a crime in Oz? You have rampant mutant “the”s running around?

      1. The wild ones are posionous over there, Brett, just like everything else.

  19. The FBI knows that you installed Reason’s app on your iPad

    The incident raises many questions, not only about the security of federal devices, but of why an agent might have (allegedly) been carrying a database of Apple UDIDs, which the hackers said also contained “user names, name of device, type of device, Apple Push Notification Service tokens, zipcodes, cellphone numbers, addresses, etc.” of iPhone and iPad users. They claim to have stripped this information for publication.

    Stangl did not wish to comment when contacted by email, and an FBI spokeswoman declined to comment.

  20. The Obama(-only) campaign
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..34084.html

    At rallies, Mr. Obama seldom urges supporters to volunteer ? or even vote ? for other Democrats running for office. Sometimes, he mentions other politicians in the room without noting that they are seeking re-election. He rarely shares the stage with other candidates.

    “He’s ultimately there to communicate where he wants to bring the country and the differences he has with Mitt Romney. He’s not out there campaigning all around the country for other candidates,” a senior Obama campaign official said. “It’s not that he doesn’t want them to get elected, but it’s a campaign event to elect him.”

    1. That seems like a big deal. I have never heard of a nominee telling the down ticket candidates to go fuck themselves like this. The Dems really are abused spouses with this clown.

      1. Is it really that clear who is telling whom to go fuck themselves in this situation?

        1. Good point. Of course he is not giving them any cash either. So maybe it is mutual.

      2. The guy has no coat-tails anyways. This is tough love.

      3. Dear Leader cannot share the people’s love with lesser pols.

        Actually, no cult leader can.

    2. Shorter Obama: It’s all about me!

      1. Obama has long reminded me of Jane in Coupling, of all people.

        1. Obama’s loneliness is so big.

  21. Joe Biden’s Secret Service U-Haul was stolen yesterday in Detroit but was later recovered. Some of the security equipment from the truck is missing.

    I probably shouldn’t find this funny, given its implications for our national security, but damn.

    1. Secret Service U-Haul

      Funny band name.

    2. given its implications for our national security

      Surely even Obama knows better than to let Biden near anything important

      1. I have it on good authority that “security equipment” is the Secret Service’s code name for Biden’s mobile cushy-toy playroom.

        1. Great. Now I’m going to see Biden banging on a pot and shouting “Oklahoma! Oklahoma! Oklahoma!” all day.

          1. Do you think they make him keep a cork on his fork too?

          2. Great. Now I’m going to see Biden banging on a pot and shouting “Oklahoma! Oklahoma! Oklahoma!” all day.

            Wait, he doesn’t?

            1. I had the Onion’s Trans-Am Joe in my head before. Now all I can see is Ruprecht.

    3. If this U-haul’s a rocking don’t come a knocking.

  22. Robert J. Samuelson: Grading Obama’s economics – C+
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..print.html

    President Obama’s economic report card is at best mediocre. I’d give him a C+, while acknowledging that presidents usually don’t much influence the economy. It’s too big and subject to too many complex forces, from new technologies to global conditions. Moreover, policy levers are shared with Congress (taxes, spending), the Federal Reserve (financial markets) and regulatory agencies. Presidents often get blamed or credited for the economy when they don’t deserve either. But during crises, presidents acquire power. That’s why Obama will be ? and should be ? judged on the economy’s performance.

    More interesting than my overall grade are its components. For the first six months, I’d award him an A-; for the rest, a C- or D. I’d weigh the two grades equally, because he deserves a lot of credit for stopping the economic free-fall when he took office.

    1. I’d give him a C+, while acknowledging that presidents usually don’t much influence the economy.

      If presidents don’t do much for the economy, why have both touted what they would do for the economy elected?

      Fucking cognitive dissonance, how does it work?

  23. Re-Elect President Barak Obama

    Next headline: Corey Booker Gives Obama a C

    1. He’ll raise it to a B+ wjen the campaign complains.

  24. Time to shelve the political conventions
    http://articles.boston.com/201…..-ipad-apps

    The conventions, by contrast, deprived of their essential purpose, have been reduced to an exercise in mutual self-aggrandizement. The two major parties garner obsessive press attention ? media organizations sent 15,000 employees to Tampa for the Republican convention ? without generating any real news. The media, in turn, make a great show of being eyewitnesses to history, when all they’re really witnessing is an immense infomercial.

    Why perpetuate the charade? The parties spend tens of millions of dollars to mount these events; news organizations invest a fortune to cover them; and taxpayers kick in a thumping $136 million in federal funds. And for what? Most voters watch little or none of the televised convention proceedings, and these coronations have little discernible impact on how the election turns out.

  25. Obama’s Enthusiasm Deficit Could Soon Haunt Him
    http://www.nationaljournal.com…..m-20120902

    Just as Mitt Romney’s challenge last week at the Republican National Convention was to connect on a personal level with voters and make them comfortable with the idea of him sitting in the Oval Office, President Obama’s challenge this week at the Democratic National Convention is to reignite the flame?the passion among young and Latino voters that burned four years ago but is now just a smoldering ember.

    Three demographic groups turbocharged Obama’s 7-percentage-point victory over John McCain in 2008: young voters ages 18-29, Latinos, and African-Americans. Their influx changed the composition of the electorate that year, making it look quite different from the makeup of voters in 2000 and 2004. Whether the 2012 electorate looks more like 2008?or 2004, or 2000?is a very big deal for both Obama and Romney.

    1. What they fear most, however, is not that the demographics look like the ancient history of 2004, but that they look like 2010 when Team BLUE was routed.

  26. http://althouse.blogspot.com/2…..-more.html

    Richest woman in the world tells poor people to work harder if they don’t want to be poor. LA Times gets a case of the vapors.

    1. It is a little rich (har har) coming from an inheritess.
      If Orpah has said it, it might carry more weight.

      1. Have you seen that woman? Not much can carry more weight than that Hutt.

      2. I’m not a big fan of Gina Rinehart, but to be fair, she hasn’t just sat on an inheritance – she got $75 million 20 years ago, and turned that into $30 billion.

        1. If she is just an heiress, so was Howard Hughes.

        2. which is actually notable because, for too many such folks, the path to small fortunes is starting with large fortunes.

        3. A ~30% annual return is nothing to sense at.

          1. I can sense bad wording here, however.

            1. I sneeze some snark in your post.

    2. The LA TIMES Headline:

      World’s richest woman says poor should have less fun, work harder

      Fuck the LAT.

    3. “”The millionaires and billionaires who choose to invest in Australia are actually those who most help the poor and our young,” she said. “This secret needs to be spread widely.””

      She actually made some good points. Too bad the media only focuses on the poorly understood Marie Antoinette comparison, and the stupid cow threw this chum in the water to make it easier for them to ignore her: “Do something to make more money yourself — spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working.”

  27. 11 Really Terrible 19th-Century Beauty Tips
    http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/140115

    3. Wash your eyes?

    Nothing is as attractive as a sparkling eye. The best way to achieve this is by “dashing soapsuds into them.” If that’s not your style, perfume dropped into the eyes is a reasonable alternative. For the same bright-eyed look without the burn, “half a dozen drops of whisky and the same quantity of Eau de Cologne, eaten on a lump of sugar, is quite as effective.”
    4. ? but don’t wash your hair.

    Water is “injurious” to the hair. Instead, wipe “the dust of the previous day” away on a towel. You can also brush your hair during any long, idle breaks in the day. 30 minutes is a good hair-brushing session.
    5. And never, ever wash your face.

    Simply rub the skin with “an ointment of glycerine” and “dry with a chamois-skin or cotton flannel.” One “beautiful lady” is admired who had “not washed her face for three years, yet it is always clean, rosy, sweet and kissable.”

    1. Proof that horniness is greater than any sight or smell is humanity’s survival through bath-dodging periods of history.

  28. Organic food no healthier than non-organic: study
    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/organ…..36314.html

    Organic produce and meat typically isn’t any better for you than conventional varieties when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content, according to a new review of the evidence.

    But organic options may live up to their billing of lowering exposure to pesticide residue and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, researchers from Stanford University and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System found.

    “People choose to buy organic foods for many different reasons. One of them is perceived health benefits,” said Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler, who led the new study.

    1. Next up, garlic really doesn’t repel vampires.

      1. I grew up on a dairy farm that switched to organic milk halfway through my childhood, so I saw both firsthand. I’ve never bought an organic item when a conventional one was available.

        1. The people reporting this on NPR this AM were totally shocked that this could be so. Apparently they had never heard anyone questioning “organic” before and had accepted it a a self-evident fact that organic food was better in every way.

          More evidence that many media people live inside a bubble.

          1. They honestly think that farmers invented fertilizer and pesticides because they hate the earth. There are few people more ignorant and sheltered than NPR

            1. For additional lulz, the NPR talking head did the whole “organic foods contain no chemicals” thingummy.

              Aside: I saw a Volt for the first time a couple of nights ago. One guess as to which grocery chains parking lot it was in. 🙂

        2. You mean you would pay more for an item that was grown using less-efficient means?

          1. *wouldn’t

            1. Among other things, I prefer my milk to come from cows that aren’t sick.

          2. The urge to strangle rises, every time the wife-unit brings home one of Trader Joe’s $6 gallons of organic milk.

            1. Tell her an anonymous organic farmboy on the internet said not to do it.

        3. I have the same policy. Sometimes I can only get whole wheat starches when they’re organic, which annoys me.

          Organic foods: Inefficiently produced, so you can feel smug while encouraging less food production.

          1. I grow “organic” fruit in my orchard because I’m too damn lazy to spray. I don’t mind a few spots on my produce, and if my children complain, I just beat them until they stop.

            1. Until they stop complaining, or just plain stop?

            2. You can spray it down with Bacillus thuringiensis, which is the “organic” pesticide.

          2. The only time I can remember knowingly buying organic was when I was starting a pumpkin ale in summer and the first 6 grocery stores I tried didn’t have any.

      2. Organic boogey men.

    2. researchers from Stanford University and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System

      Um, WTF is the “Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System” doing this kind of study? They don’t have any, er, veterans health to take care of?

      1. Shut up and get back in line. You know the VA hates questions from uppity retirees.

        1. And I know better than to ever use the VA…heh heh heh.

          1. why do you hate soldiers, LTC?

            1. Because he’s an officer and it’s a well known fact that we all hate Soldiers.

              1. In all fairness, us lowly enlisted types hate officers back, so it’s okay.

                1. It’s a mutually beneficial arrangement.

                  1. My dad said that he knew he knew he was a failure as a naval officer when he realized that his men liked him.

                    He was only half joking.

    3. Reason Headline, “Organic Food less healthy for you” as long as you think that eating ”
      pesticide residue and antibiotic-resistant bacteria” is good for you.

      1. AFAIK, washing produce removes all but the most minute traces of pesticides or bacteria.

        If you’re eating produce without first washing it, it doesn’t matter how it’s grown. You’re pretty much asking for some kind of bad reaction.

        1. Dude don’t other him with your pathriarcial “facts”; he’s emoting.

      2. Much better than parboiled shit that may or may not have been treated long enough to remove pathogens. I’d eat a teaspoonful of dinofuran before a teaspoonful of pig shit.

      3. Wait, what is wrong with eating antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

    4. Of course only luddites argue that organic is healthier than conventionally grown food.

      Even the dumbest of hippies will tell you that they eat organic for the exact reasons listed as valid in the report: that they don’t want to consume pesticide/herbicide residues.

      That those pesticides and herbicides are what make growing food on a grand scale possible doesn’t even fall on their radar.

  29. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ead_module

    Woman shoots and DECAPITATES rapist who made her pregnant before dumping his severed head in village square

    You go sister.

      1. Can we just drone strike that town? Interesting this hasn’t made the national news. I suspect if it were a white on black crime rather than a black on black crime, it would be on the news 24 seven.

        1. Wasn’t it black on Hispanic?

          1. I couldn’t tell. But all of the suspects were black. That crime went down the memory hole. But a neighborhood watch shoots a teenager and it is national news. Odd that.

            1. Caroline King, who lives down the street, insisted Friday that people still ‘don’t know the facts of the case’ and said authorities were just ‘harassing people’ by knocking on doors in the town of about 7,700 people as they searched for McGowen.

              ‘It’s not as bad as what they are saying. Nobody tied (the girl) up,’ said King, 59.

              I’ve been trying to think up something clever, but some things just defy parody.

      2. Texas Taliban?

      3. Fuck Cleveland. Especially the TX version. Did you see the pictures of those shithole trailers?

    1. She only decapitated him?

      1. According to the article she sot him multiple times, with several of the shots going to the genitals.

        There is a side of me that hopes that the first shot didn’t kill the son of a bitch.

        1. “pair of pliers and a blowtorch”

    2. Man bites dog. In an Islamic country, the rapist gets decapitated for once.

  30. Sounds like a crazy week to me dude.

    http://www.Anon-IP.tk

    1. C-. Must try harder anonbot

      1. WrangoVoo is new to the line-up – give it a chance. They can’t all be LimpoSimpo.

          1. TIGGY!!! TIGGY!!!

  31. RACIST:

    Forbes: How Paul Ryan Could Help End “The Little Dark Age.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ra…..-dark-age/

    A Saturday Evening Post reporter asked, in 1932, John Maynard Keynes if there had ever been anything like the Great Depression. Keynes replied, “Yes. It was called the Dark Ages and it lasted 400 years.” While the Great Recession is not so severe as was the Great Depression, it begins to appear that the world is enduring something that could be called “The Little Dark Age.”

    1. This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. Americans from all walks of life can get a $40/month smart phone contract and be connected to the internet. Dark Ages, my ass.

      1. Romans were still getting free bread after the Vandals sacked the place. They were probably saying the same thing.

      2. But we do have to pay for birth control (as of now), so I think we can call it a draw.

    2. That is “wage slavery” level abuse of the English language.

    3. Supply siders = Neo-Keynesians that use short term tax breaks as a tool to get elected.

  32. The Economist delivers devastating summary of the Obama years

    IN DENVER four years ago, an inspiring presidential candidate announced that he would change America. Barack Obama promised to put aside partisan differences, restore hope to those without jobs, begin the process of saving the planet from global warming, and make America proud again.


    Next week Mr Obama will address his fellow Democrats at their convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, with little of this hopeful agenda completed. Three million more Americans are out of work than four years ago, and the national debt is $5 trillion bigger. Partisan gridlock is worse than ever: health-care reform, a genuinely impressive achievement, has become a prime source of rancour. Businessfolk are split over whether he dislikes capitalism or is merely indifferent to it. His global-warming efforts have evaporated. America’s standing in the Muslim world is no higher than it was under George W. Bush, Iran remains dangerous, Russia and China are still prickly despite the promised resets, and the prison in Guant?namo remains open.

    http://www.economist.com/node/21561890

    1. health-care reform, a genuinely impressive achievement implemented in a manner he actively campaigned agaisnt, has become a prime source of rancour.

      FTFT.

    2. Even in that article they drop in the line

      Confronted by obstructionist Republicans in Congress, he did well to get anything through at all.

      And don’t wander over to the end-of-term report unless you want a nice, long article on how Obama really saved us from the economic brink.

      1. That damn super minority, always getting in the way.

      2. Look, if you remove the obstructionists, everything goes swell from that point on. Just ask the Soviets.

  33. “”‘Beijing’s assertion of sovereignty over a vast stretch of the South China Sea has set it directly against Vietnam and the Philippines, while Brunei, Taiwan and Malaysia also lay claim to other parts of the region, making it Asia’s biggest potential military flashpoint.””‘

    Sounds like a good place for the US to remain neutral. If a war breaks out we can make billions or even trillions selling armaments to all sides.

  34. Funny how that cow Clinton preaches diplomacy over coercion, while all her government has done and is doing is coercion.

    1. Well she is dealing with other governments which only practise coercion – it’s professional courtesy amongst bullies

    2. but but but, the Arab Spring!!!!111!!!!

    3. Drone Strike for you, Mr. Critic!!1!11!

  35. http://www.washingtontimes.com…..nc-hotels/

    Bedbugs increasing concern at DNC. Karma baby. I hope they are especially bad in the hotels where the greens stay.

    1. Clearly an evul rethuglican plot.

    2. The DDT ban: it’s good for more than just causing the death of millions of poor folks due to malaria.

      “Bedbugs have been a problem for humans for thousands of years. Up until the 1950s, they were almost completely wiped out due to the use of DDT. After the use of DDT for this purpose was banned,[11] pyrethroids became more commonly used against bed bugs. As of 2010 nearly all populations of bedbugs have evolved nerve cells impervious to pyrethroids, and pyrethroids are no longer effective in combatting bedbug infestations.”

      Thanks, Church of Gaia. Always explicitly not keeping mankind’s best interests at heart.

      1. I had bedbugs in grad school (the landlady “forgot” to mention that another tenant had them until the problem was “fixed”, at which point I realized I wasn’t having an acne outbreak). Fuck this environmental crap.

        1. I’m thinking of setting up a Breaking Bad style illicit DDT lab and seeking investors.

        2. Somenone needs to invent a raptor that eats bedbugs.

  36. Man shot dead by police at Woodbury motel was hostage

    A 25-year-old North St. Paul man remained jailed Saturday after a standoff early Friday in which one of eight hostages he was holding was shot dead by police at a Woodbury motel.

    The victim, Mark Eric Henderson, 19, of St. Paul, was a hostage in the motel room commandeered by Demetrius S. Ballinger, authorities said. In an interview underway late Saturday afternoon, his family told the Star Tribune that Henderson was trying to escape when he was shot.

    http://www.startribune.com/loc…..prepage=1

    1. He was trying to escape his captor so the police shot him? Fucking baboons all of them.

      1. If he was a legitimate hostage, the body has ways of keeping you from being shot.

        1. Nice you jerk; my boss is asking me if I’m OK after I spewed tea on the monitor.

          1. If he was a legitimate boss, the monitor has ways to keep it from being spewed on.

          2. I work for the second largest chain of monitor and keyboard restorers in the U.S. One day we will be the largest. We’re coming for you, Coffee-Soppers, Inc.!

            1. And I keep telling you, you need to change the name if you ever want to be #1. Keyboard Unjizzers just doesn’t play in Peoria, dude.

              1. Dejizzers? Cum-Scrapers?

                1. At least make it cute: Keyboard Kum-scrapers.

                2. Cum-Kleen Keyboard Restoration

      2. We can’t have people rescuing themselves without the help of the police hostage rescue teams! It will lead to anarchy, dogs and cats living together or even worse.

      3. I’m starting to think “We thought he had a weapon” is one of those standard lies that go into reports after the police kill someone.
        It can’t be proved or disproved.
        Since we all know that police are honorable people who never lie or cheat, why would there be any reason to disbelieve them?

        1. Exactly. Who cares if he had a weapon. Did he use it? If not, you had no right to shoot him.

          1. If I had to set up the rules for police, I would seriously consider making it illegal for them to fire first, completely disregarding “officer safety”. The only reason I’m not positive I would do that is situations with hostages. However, if you don’t want to take that risk with your own life, don’t become a cop.

              1. Current cops want the respect of “risking their lives everyday” but without actually risking anything.

          2. If the dead guy had had a weapon, then they would have (lied) said that they saw the weapon. They didn’t see a weapon because he didn’t have one. So they (lied) said they thought he had a weapon.

            I don’t even know why they bother with the lies anymore. Seriously.

            They might as well have said “He did not obey us so we killed him. Remember that the next time we give you an order. Obey us or die.”

            What would happen? Who is going to do something about it?

            1. You mean be like these guys?

              Troops.

            2. these same lies/specious arguments continue

              i have already provided examples where civilians have GREATER use of force latitude than cops IN an arrest type situation

              e.g.

              http://tdn.com/news/article_55…..03286.html

              he was never charged and he was held to a lesser standard than cops

              and there are NUMEROUS cases where both civilians and cops justifiably shoot unarmed people they REASONABLY thought were armed and a danger

              a ways back, sloopy et al were wanking about the guy portland PD shot and i provided cites from the arbitrator investigation

              there was CLEARLY reasonable cause to believe he was armed and dangerous, although he happened to be NOT armed

              the issue is never in a force review(for cops or noncops) was he armed/dangerous

              the issue is always – did the shooter have REASONABLE cause to believe that at the time he pulled the trigger

              it works both ways. if he did not have reason to believe it, even if LATER investigation reveals that stuff was true, it’s still unjustified.

              it’s always based on the reasonable standard of perception – cop OR noncop in the shooting

              and before you bring up bogus analogies, compare ARREST UOF with ARREST UOF’s

              citizens make scores of thousands of ARREST or use force in an arrest situation each year, to include homeowners, average joes, store security, bounty hunters, et

              1. If guys in ninja outfits bust in to my house at 3 am without showing me a warrant, do I have reasonable cause to shoot them?

              2. i have already provided examples where civilians have GREATER use of force latitude than cops IN an arrest type situation

                Cops are civilians, jackass.

        2. I’m starting to think “We thought he had a weapon” is one of those standard lies that go into reports after the police kill someone.

          I’d be surprised if it’s not preprinted on the form.

          1. no, it’s one of the standard reasons both cops AND non-cops shoot people.

            and of course, the issue isn’t whether the shooter thought he had a weapon, the issue is do the totality of hte circumstances mean that it was a reasonable conclusion. granted, that merely having a weapon doesn’t mean you are dangerous. of course the shooter must also have reason to believe the person was a danger etc. and/or other reasons that would justify a shoot

            and of course, the false reason meme is that cops get some special standard in this regards, which if reasonoids actually studied citizen shootings MADE DURING CITIZEN arrest etc. proceedings, they would see that on average, citizens have GREATER latitude to shoot than cops. and i have provided several examples of same

            note, the article came out before the prosecutor decided NOT to charge the man – for using deadly force against a fleeing man who he had NO reason to believe was armed OR had committed a crime of violence

            the prosecutor also said he had held the man to a LOWER standard than police in the same circ, as we (cops) would NOT have been justified in such a shoot

            this is the kind of (very common) case that reasonoids ignore. because it’s an ACTUAL analogous (use of deadly force during arrest) use of force by a citizen

            http://tdn.com/news/article_55…..03286.html

            1. Nope, sorry. It’s still too soon. Some people here still remember the last time you trotted out the only example you’ve ever found to bolster this bullshit talking point. They remember that the judge said that if the neighbor had been wrong, it would have gone very differently. A standard we are all well aware does not apply to cops.

  37. Happy $16 trillion national debt day everybody!

    And could it possibly be more appropriate that the democratic convention kicks off on such an inglorious day for the country? The symmetry is too perfect.

    1. Don’t forget the $4 trillion of state debt. $20 trillion! And this doesn’t include unfunded liabilities which is another $100 trillion or so.

    2. But BOOOOOOOOOSH!

  38. Man fights off armed intruder with a candlestick.

    Break into my house to rob me, you have two choices… leave in handcuffs or leave in a bodybag.

    1. That’s what you get for breaking into Colonel Mustard’s library.

      1. Hey, SF, Jesse Walker was asking about DNC slashfic this weekend on Twitter. Hook a brother up, why don’t you?

        1. Oh God. I’m leaving now.

        2. I’ll try. It’s a long hard road out of hell to write about those vile fucks.

          1. Ahh, just take some of your Twilight slash and do a global replace on the names. It worked for E. L. James, right?

            1. Also, the thought just occurred to me that somewhere out there on the internet there most likely exists Warhammer 40K slash. I’m gonna go bleach my brain now.

          2. Try typing with both hands

            1. *giggles*

  39. this morning musical treat: the Tangerine Dream soundtrack for “The Keep” – that mess of a butchered Michael Mann movie. Due to issues with Paramount, the official soundtrack release didn’t come for years after the movie – and then was quickly pulled.

    The uber-rare TDI official release is available on youtube:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SP1t4QJNSM

    but I prefer The Keep: An Alternative View bootleg since it hews closer to the music used in the movie.

  40. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s…..3-17-30-19

    Chicago teachers about to strike. Fire every fucking one of them and hire scabs. In this economy, you would have people lining up for the jobs in this economy.

    1. Its not like Chicago will get worse results from that strategy.

      1. It would make the schools better, no doubt.

  41. Joe Biden’s Secret Service U-Haul was stolen yesterday in Detroit but was later recovered.

    It was found in the bathroom on Romney’s plane.

  42. Hillary Clinton has encouraged China and neighboring nations to avoid coercion

    OH! THE IRONY!

  43. Wanted to report something most excellent. There’s a new sign up at the main employee entrance to my office building. It’s a gun surrounded by a green circle, and it says, “Notice: concealed carry permit holders on premises.”

    1. My job is still festooned with the no guns allowed signs. Of course, they were forced to backtrack since the signs are at the entrances to the parking lots. HR and HSE were forced to admit that yes, under Texas law, you can keep your gun in your car and there’s nothing we can do about it.

      At least my company was smart enough to use enforceable 30.06 signs, unlike a lot of places I’ve seen.

      1. Oh boy, let’s revisit that thread again. It’s been at least 2 weeks since robc got all giddy about infringing on property rights.

        1. If you need a warrant to search my car, then its MY private property, wherever it happens to be parked. Simple, no?

          1. And you can’t park it on my land unless you agree to the terms I set for that land’s use.

            1. If I say “You can’t use my land unless you do X”, and then you use my land without doing X, you are trespassing.

              1. No, Im trespassing if you tell me to leave and I dont.

            2. And you can tell me to leave.

              1. That’s basically the same thing that AD said, because it’s implied that you are pre-emptively being told to leave (i.e. don’t show up in the first place) if you don’t do X.

                1. Nope, they are different.

                  No implications. Actively do it.

                  If you invite me in, you have invited me in. If you then find out Im violating a rule, you THEN ask me to leave. If I dont, its trespassing.

                  1. You can’t have it both ways. Either you respect someone’s property rights or you don’t. They don’t kick in only after they’ve noticed you’re violating them.

                  2. I never said it was implied. You’re the one just repeating “Ask me to leave” and ignoring the “I already told you not to come” argument.

                    Here are the exact two quotes

                    me:

                    If I say “You can’t use my land unless you do X”, and then you use my land without doing X, you are trespassing.

                    robc:

                    No, Im trespassing if you tell me to leave and I dont.

                    There was nothing in there about it being implied. I said that I told you not to come (i.e. explicit), and you said “too bad, you have to ask me to leave after I’m already on your land.”

            3. And, actually, Im of the mind that your property begins where my property ends, so the air inside my car and inside my personal space is my property, not yours.

              So, once again, if Im parked or standing on your property and you tell me to leave, I must leave, but what goes on in my property is none of your damn business.

              You can contract for a search if you want, but, otherwise, shut the fuck up.

              1. I already told you to not come, and you came anyway. How is that different from me telling you to leave and then you not leaving?

                1. You invited me in.

                  I showed up at the gate of the parking lot, you waved me in. Then you see the gun in the passenger seat. At that point (or any point, really, reason or no), you can ask me to leave. But you initially invited me in.

                  1. Let’s say there is a road, a line, and a sign.

                    The sign says “Do Not Cross This Line With Your Vehicle if There is a Gun Inside of It”

                    If you cross the line with a gun, that’s trespassing right away. The same way that it’s trespassing if you solicit in a “No Soliciting” building.

                    1. I dont think either is.

                      Signs arent legally valid contracts.

                      Not everyone can read for example.

                      Have a guard to get explicit agreement or have the people with parking passes sign a contract.

                    2. Signs arent legally valid contracts.

                      Not everyone can read for example.

                      Have a guard to get explicit agreement or have the people with parking passes sign a contract.

                      No. That is not legally required by current law nor do I think it should be in Libertopia. In Libertopia, for example, you would probably still have speed limits on the private roads. Do I have to stop everyone at every private road in order to regulate (that is, make regular) the rules for the entire private road interchange?

                      That’s awfully cumbersome.

                  2. You invited me in.

                    No I didn’t. I invited you in, provided that you don’t bring the gun. If then come on with a gun you were not invited.

                    I’m not saying the owner can change the conditions once you’re on the lot. I’m saying these are the conditions you’ve already agreed to.

              2. You’re being pre-preemptively told not to enter if you don’t want to comply with the conditions. That makes it instantaneous trespassing.

                Really, it is not that difficult.

              3. You can contract for a search if you want, but, otherwise, shut the fuck up.

                Then stay the fuck off my land, which I already told you you weren’t allowed to use.

                1. Dont invite me in then.

                  1. Dont invite me in then.

                    I didn’t. I explicitly told you not to come in with your gun.

                    If you say “You can use my pool if my wife or I are home and you use it alone”, then I show up and throw a pool party for 50 people while you both are out at a movie, did you “invite me in”?

                  2. The invitation comes with pre-conditions which you have to meet commensurate with entry.

          2. If you need a warrant to search my car, then its MY private property, wherever it happens to be parked. Simple, no?

            The government needs a warrant; a private citizen only needs a contract right or consent by you, which you implicitly give by entering my property.

            1. which you implicitly give by entering my property.

              Entering your property does not implicitly give you a right to search my property.

              If it did, I would have invited that hot Jehovah’s Witness inside and then “frisked” her.

              Hey, she consented when she entered, right?

              1. If I give her notice that is what is going to happen, then yes.

                In the cases we have been talking about, there are posted notices.

                1. A posted notice is not legally valid.

                  An oral agreement or a signed contract is valid. A sign is fucking nothing.

                  1. A posted notice is not legally valid.

                    Is that an argument to the law as it is or the law as it should be?

                    Because a PC 30.06 sign is legally binding, Regardless of whether you think it should be.

                    1. Is that an argument to the law as it is or the law as it should be?

                      Should be.

                    2. The law is often an ass. I think every libertarian realizes that.

                    3. Why should the law be that signs are not legally binding?

                    4. Why should the law be that signs are not legally binding?

                      I would really like to see him address this. robc has some sort of hatred of signs for no apparent/articulated reason. He almost had a heart attack in the last thread when he found out that the current set of laws including the fact that signs were binding (so he concluded he was right in saying they should all be changed).

                    5. Signs arent binding in many states, including mine.

                    6. He almost had a heart attack in the last thread when he found out that the current set of laws

                      That is a lie. I was well aware of this fact. That is why in that thread I pointed out that my state (and some others) did it right. They understand how contracts work.

                    7. That is a lie.

                      Dude. You went into a glee overload when you found out the state laws in question. You for some reason thought the fact that signs are currently considered legally binding there as proof that you were right in supporting the NRA’s position.

                    8. The first question I asked in that thread was which way Tenn’s laws worked, because that determined whether I was right or not. And the reason I asked was I knew states were split.

                      I assumed, in fact, that Tenn had the laws the way you said I didnt know about, because my position wrt the NRA only made sense if Tenn’s laws were that way and not like KY’s.

                      Now you are saying that I didnt know that could exist?

                    9. Everything in that post confirmed the post you claimed was a lie. When you found out the law regarding signs (legally binding there), you felt that it proved you were right (even though no one else was talking about signs until you brought it up). You got super giddy and smug about it, hence the “almost had a heart attack”.

                    10. “Almost had a heart attack” means “Was surprised to the point of death”, not “giddy”.

                      I wasnt surprised because it was what I assumed, therefore, I didnt almost have a heart attack, therefore, you were lying.

                    11. No, it means got so worked up he nearly died. Or so angry. Or a lot of emotions besides surprise.

                    12. Why should the law be that signs are not legally binding?

                      1. Not everyone can read.
                      2. Even if I can read, I may not have read it or just didnt notice it.
                      3. IMO, no different that shrinkwrap EULAs.
                      4. Contracts require EXPLICIT agreement. Period. Oral is fine.

                      While it has always held up in court, so far, every lawyer I have ever heard discuss it says that warning on the back of baseball tickets isnt a valid contract. And it hasnt held up based on contract status, but on “its fucking obvious that baseballs are dangerous” status.

                      I dont see a difference here. A sign on a door is no different than the warning on a back of ticket or a shrinkwrap EULA.

                      If you want to use the legal hammer immediately, instead of asking someone to leave first, get fucking explicit agreement.

                    13. If you want to use the legal hammer immediately, instead of asking someone to leave first, get fucking explicit agreement.

                      Stop avoiding the point and going on about your anti-sign boner.

                      Address this and this.

                      The law in question in that original thread was even involving employers and their employees, so the sign thing is a stupid tangent since they’ll be told of the company policies explicitly anyway.

                    14. Stop avoiding the point and going on about your anti-sign boner.

                      That is the point?

                      You asked me to explicitly address it and now you are saying it isnt the point?

                      I would really like to see him address this.

                      I did. You arent responding to it, instead you are moving the goalposts to some discussion from the past.

                      The law in question in that original thread

                      Who the fuck is discussing that today?

                    15. I’m getting annoyed at you continuing to avoid the point, so that post may have ended as a reply in the wrong location. Thank you for addressing your sign-hatred. I think you’re wrong, but not that you finally addressed it instead of just stating that signs can’t be valid, I didn’t see any reason to discuss that further. The argument from the “past” was posted 6 minutes before the one you’re pissed off about.

                      Now can we get back to the original subject which you’ve been ignoring since at least 11:30, (which I even linked you to in the post you just responded to, twice). I never raised implicit agreement, and yet you still said I have to ask you to leave once you’re on my land.

                    16. I havent followed the link, so I have no idea what it is, I thought it was to the past thread.

                      The only point Im arguing here is that signs arent legally valid. That is it. That is my argument for today.

                      If that isnt what you want to discuss, too fucking bad.

                    17. I never raised implicit agreement

                      Randian did, and that was who I replied to.

                      You may have an argument with him.

                    18. AD,

                      I already responded to your post in the link, in fact, I did it 17 minutes before you posted:

                      You invited me in.

                      I showed up at the gate of the parking lot, you waved me in. Then you see the gun in the passenger seat. At that point (or any point, really, reason or no), you can ask me to leave. But you initially invited me in.

                    19. Randian did, and that was who I replied to.

                      You replied to my initial post, which had nothing about being implicit.

                      You invited me in.

                      No I didn’t. I never even said it was a parking lot, let alone one with a gate and a guard that waved you through. That’s why I posted the second link, to point you to the analogous situation to your “you invited in me” argument, so that you could address it. I’ll post the exchange again to address both points:

                      AD:

                      If I say “You can’t use my land unless you do X”, and then you use my land without doing X, you are trespassing.

                      robc:

                      No, Im trespassing if you tell me to leave and I dont.

                      Just address the point I’ve posted a bunch of times here If I say “You can’t use my land unless you do X”, and then you use my land without doing X, you are trespassing. with an arguement that doesn’t involve an implicit agreement or making up additional details to suit you, or admit that you think it’s okay for me to throw a house party at your house when you are on vacation because you once told me I could come in if you were there.

                    20. If said plenty of times to get an explicit contract, either orally or written. I dont think we have any disagreement in that case. No need to respond to that situation at all.

                      Of course, violation of a contract is a civil issue, not criminal. 🙂

                      If I pay you to house sit while Im on vacation and say “no parties” and you throw a house party, I can sue for damages, but you havent trespassed. If I find out on Wed that you had the party on Tues (a neighbor calls) and call you and tell you to leave, and you hang around until Saturday, then you are trespassing.

                    21. It’s not a contract dispute, unless you’re going to claim that we have use to everyone’s property until they ask us to leave as the default (i.e. the default is that you have permission, though again that wouldn’t even apply in this case since there was an explicit denial of permission). It’s entering my land without permission, which I’m pretty sure you agree should be a criminal matter (i.e. trespassing).

                      I didn’t say you had me house sitting. I said you were on vacation and I threw the party. I didn’t get let in by you and stay too long or something like that, I just went in while you were gone, because you had at one point (say 5 years ago) given me permission to enter under a set of conditions that don’t currently apply. Therefore I didn’t have permission to enter your house now/under the current circumstances.

                      Given that I entered your house without permission to do so, how can you argue it’s not trespassing?

                    22. It would be breaking and entering.

                    23. Way to avoid some more. You left the screen door on the back porch open.

                    24. You left the screen door on the back porch open.?/i

                      No I didnt. Its sliding and their is no screen.

                    25. I didn’t say you had me house sitting.

                      That was my scenario.

                      How fucking hard is that to understand? I was ignoring your idiotic analogy and creating a more clear one.

                    26. I didn’t say you had me house sitting.

                      That was my scenario.

                      How fucking hard is that to understand? I was ignoring your idiotic analogy and creating a more clear one.

                      Mine was perfectly clear and designed to address your “you invited me in” point. You gave me permission to do something with a condition applied. I ignored the condition. Does that mean you “invited me in”? Yours was contrived to make you in the right. You are ignoring mine, probably because you don’t want to admit that the following exchange involved you being wrong unless you add all sorts of specific details:

                      AD:

                      If I say “You can’t use my land unless you do X”, and then you use my land without doing X, you are trespassing.

                      robc:

                      No, Im trespassing if you tell me to leave and I dont.

                    27. [I] said plenty of times to get an explicit contract, either orally or written. I dont think we have any disagreement in that case. No need to respond to that situation at all.

                      We clearly disagree because of the exchange I’ll have to post for yet another time:

                      AD:

                      If I say “You can’t use my land unless you do X”, and then you use my land without doing X, you are trespassing.

                      robc:

                      No, Im trespassing if you tell me to leave and I dont.

                      There was an explicit oral agreement here, which you violated, yet you still claim that I have to ask you to leave.

                    28. Im saying its not trespassing until you ask me to leave.

                      Its a contract violation until then.

                    29. I did “ask you to leave”, before you stepped on.

                    30. Is that an argument to the law as it is or the law as it should be?

                      Why?

                    31. Arguing with yourself now?

                2. If I give her notice that is what is going to happen, then yes.

                  Also, you said implicit above. That is explicit.

                  I agree with you on explicit consent. But you said implicit.

                  1. Anyway, you’re conflating government action with private property rights. No one wants to search your shit. They just don’t want you on their property if you don’t follow the rules.

                    1. Then ask me to leave if I dont follow the rules. Problem solved.

                    2. Why do I have to ask you to leave when I already told you not to come in the first place?

                    3. You’re allowed into my house provided you don’t trash the place. But I guess that means you’re allowed to trash the place until I tell you to stop.

                    4. If I invite you into my house and you start dropping garbage on the floor, you havent committed trespassing until I ask you to leave and you refuse.

                      If you break something, I probably have a civil action against you, but nothing criminal.

                    5. If I invite you into my house and you start dropping garbage on the floor, you havent committed trespassing until I ask you to leave and you refuse.

                      You have automatically committed trespassing if there is a “No Littering” sign.

                      In Libertopia where there are private parks, is your position that individuals can bring whole bags of garbage onto the property and dump them, and if there is no roving guard, well, then “no harm”? Because that does not follow to me.

                    6. n Libertopia where there are private parks, is your position that individuals can bring whole bags of garbage onto the property and dump them, and if there is no roving guard, well, then “no harm”? Because that does not follow to me.

                      That would be a civil offense, not criminal. Also, possibly BE, depending on how your boundary is set up.

                    7. “You have automatically committed trespassing if there is a “No Littering” sign.”

                      not according to the penal codes of the three states i have worked in you haven’t

                    8. not according to the penal codes of the three states i have worked in you haven’t

                      At least 3 states have the laws the way I think they should be.

                    9. You’re allowed into my house provided you don’t trash the place. But I guess that means you’re allowed to trash the place until I tell you to stop.

                      I was about to post the same general point.

                      If robc’s problem is about notice, then we can craft something that would eventually satisfy the problem. If it’s about consent, then I have to say I am befuddled because now we can’t have any preconditions on any property ever.

                    10. I am befuddled because now we can’t have any preconditions on any property ever.

                      You are confusing civil damages with criminal offenses.

                      Im saying its not a crime, not that there arent damages to be sued for.

                    11. So you’re saying entering other people’s property without permission (and in fact in this case, explicit refusal) should be a civil offense, not criminal?

                    12. So you’re saying entering other people’s property without permission (and in fact in this case, explicit refusal) should be a civil offense, not criminal?

                      Can you fucking read? I said nothing of the sort.

                      There was no explicit refusal in this case: which is walking into a private park in libertopia and dumping garbage.

                    13. So you’re saying entering other people’s property without permission (and in fact in this case, explicit refusal) should be a civil offense, not criminal?

                      Can you fucking read? I said nothing of the sort.

                      Sorry, I was referring to the case that I started this whole discussion with, which apparently you can’t read, since this is how it went:

                      Auric Demonocles

                      If I say “You can’t use my land unless you do X”, and then you use my land without doing X, you are trespassing.

                      There was nothing about it being implicit, and in fact the wording makes it an explicit statement.

                      robc

                      No, Im trespassing if you tell me to leave and I dont.

                      Coupling this case (which has an explicit denial of permission yet you still say it’s not trespassing until you refuse to leave), with this:

                      I am befuddled because now we can’t have any preconditions on any property ever.

                      You are confusing civil damages with criminal offenses.

                      Im saying its not a crime, not that there arent damages to be sued for.

                      leads to me trying to get clarification if this is your argument:

                      So you’re saying entering other people’s property without permission (and in fact in this case, explicit refusal) should be a civil offense, not criminal?

                    14. I was referring to the case that I started this whole discussion

                      You didnt start it, Joe M did.

                      And the subthread was started by Randian.

                      We really never deeper indenting here, so AD isnt so confused.

                    15. I was referring to the case that I started this whole discussion

                      You didnt start it, Joe M did.

                      And the subthread was started by Randian.

                      We really never deeper indenting here, so AD isnt so confused.

                      And this is why I said you’re avoiding the point. You once again only want to address the argument Randian made and jump on the implicit/explicit distinction, despite the fact that I’ve quoted you a bunch of times saying that it’s not trespassing in the general case. You even bothered to respond to a post containing it, but not address it.

                    16. Im not avoiding the point, see above. Its a point I dont fucking care about.

                    17. It isnt the point, is my point. My point is about signs and implicit agreements (which is what signs are).

                    18. It isnt the point, is my point. My point is about signs and implicit agreements (which is what signs are).

                      Then why you possibly say this:

                      No, Im trespassing if you tell me to leave and I dont.

                      In response to this (which had nothing to do with signs or implicit agreements):

                      If I say “You can’t use my land unless you do X”, and then you use my land without doing X, you are trespassing.

                    19. if people would like to know what the law ACTUALLY is, lemme know (granted, i will refer to my jurisdiction.)

                      there may be SOME jurisdictions where violating a signage regulation makes you liable for trespass. but not in any i have worked for.

                      it gives the property owner a reason to demand you leave. btw, where i work, the prosecutor will NOT prosecute a person fro trespassing for refusing an order to leave IF they wait for the cops and then agree to leave when ordered by the cops, acting as agent of a property owner.

                    20. it gives the property owner a reason to demand you leave

                      This is where I disagree with the current law, as I dont think the owner needs a reason. They can demand you leave for any reason or no reason whatsoever.

                      You may then have a civil case against them if they, say, collected admission and then kicked you out for no good reason, but that is beside the point.

                    21. i didn’t say the owner needs a reason under the law.

                      i said violating a signage provision GIVES them a reason

                      those are not inconsistent statements

                      generally speaking, the law does NOT require a private property owner to have a reason… they can refuse service to ANYBODY and tell them to leave

                      the only exception is many businesses cannot do so on account of race, etc. but almost ANY business or private property CNA do so “just because”

                    22. those are not inconsistent statements

                      True, but I didnt see any reason to bring it up unless you thought it mattered.

                      the only exception is many businesses cannot do so on account of race, etc. but almost ANY business or private property CNA do so “just because”

                      I oppose those exception to, but am well aware of them.

                    23. there may be SOME jurisdictions where violating a signage regulation makes you liable for trespass.

                      There are. And this is what Im arguing against. Where I live and where you have worked have the same law, which is the way it should be, IMO.

                    24. What if the trespasser is a cop?

                    25. In Indiana, you can shoot the fucker.

                    26. cops can be told to leave just like any other person

                      if you want an example, there is some organic anarchist coffee shop (google it) that ordered a cop to leave after he came in to get some coffee. iirc, he was served by some employee but then some manager etc. saw he was there, told him that as a cop he was not welcome and told him to leave

                      the cop left

                      so, snark aside, GENERALLY speaking, the private property owner has the same right to eject a cop as anybody else

                      if the cop was there pursuant to an investigation and;or a warrant different rules would apply

                      also, certain licensed establishments cannot tell a cop to leave and must present various items for inspection and on demand of law enforcement

                      for example, i have concurrent jurisdiction with liquor control agents. any licensed liquor establishment i have the right to enter, i can demand to see server’s licenses of those serving, “inspect the taps”, take a sample (lol) of tap contets for analysis (to see if they are adulterating or watering down etc.)

                      stuff like that

                      generally speaking, in WA , if you are serving liquor OR have licensed gambling, then cops/agents have a right to inspect same w/o PC

                      apart from that, like say you own a restaurant and a cop walks in. you can tell him – you must leave i don’t want to serve cops

                      and the cop must leave, or yes… he could be charged with trespassing

                      there are MANY cases of this happening besides the case i mentioned

                    27. oh, the coffee shop was in portland. surprise surprise

                      i googled it

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_and_Black_Cafe

                    28. I’m quite certain that absent witnesses and cameras the property owner just might wake up in a cell and find themselves charged with breaking a police officer’s hand with their face.

                    29. and i am quite certain that your bitterness over your lawful and just prosecution and the chip on your shoulder leads you to such ridiculous beliefs and they infect your mind, like any prejudice and it’s why you can’t be rational when it comes to cops, any more than a KKK member can in regards to blacks.

                      you REALLY believe this shit. i have zero doubt about that.

                    30. I’m bitter about having to fix the car that wrecked my bicycle and shoulder after running a red light, not for the DUI. This restitution was because there was no mention of the running of the light in the official record. No ticket was issued to the person who ran the red light, causing someone on a bicycle to fly over the hood of their car to land unconscious in the middle of the road. No mention at all.

                      I call that lying by omission.

                      You know this, but you continue to lie about it.

                      What else do you lie about, officer?

                      Do you lie on reports?

                      What about in court. Do you tell blatant falsehoods when you know no one can prove otherwise?

                      I’m thinking so. Why? Because you’re a cop. That’s what cops do.

                    31. you can call it whatever you want, but it’s all crap. for example, your wanking about no ticket issued. so what?

                      i am not REQUIRED to issue a ticket for a civil infraction and frequently don’t. that’s not INJUSTICE or CORRUPTION. it’s simply legal officer discretion, no matter how butthurt you are about it

                      are you claiming that the cop was asked on direct a question and LIED (iow told a knowign falsehood?)

                      i don’t even see that in your claims.

                      you are butthurt because justice was served, you were held accountable and thus all cops are evil and liars.

                      are you even CLAIMING the cop told a blatant falsehood?

                      spare me your lie by omission crap. what did the cop LIE about?

                      i have never lied during sworn testimony and never would

                      plenty of bad guys who were obviously guilty as fuck have gone free because i refuse to lie. that’s ok. that’s the way the system works.

                      and considering how many bad guys are routinely not prosecuted andor released etc. because cops DO NOT LIE when they easily could, it makes your claim look bogus

                      yes, some cops lie. just like some people in every profession, including defense attorneys, witnesses, etc.

                      otoh, the public /juries places MORE trust in us than the average witness because like it or not THEY trust us, and rightly so

                    32. I once trusted the police.

                      Until they taught me not to.

                    33. and again,i have yet to even see any part of your case that would lead you to such a bogus conclusion, but whatever

                    34. That is not the sole reason for my distrust of law enforcement.

                      You know this, yet you continue to lie about it.

                      All you’re doing is reinforcing my low opinion of the people who seek out your profession.

                    35. And if the property owner pushes the issue they might wake up dead like Seth Adams.

                    36. yawn. and the seth adams case is completely disanalogous and of course hinges on which side you believe

                      since you reflexively always believe the cops are lying in any UOF and give the benefit of the doubt to any side/story that shows them to be i nthe wrong, you continue to hold the prejudices you do, engage your cognitive dissonance on police UOF matters and continue to be irrational vis a vis same

                      the subsequent investigation was thorough, the claims made by the investigated officer were corroborated by physical evidence, and they even released his oral interview

                      it was most likely that seth adams was the typical fuckstick shot by cops and the shootign was entirely justified based on what seth adams DID.

                      this officer had worked a long career without shooting anybody despite thousands of contacts/arrests etc. and then this fucknut comes up and did everything he could to ensure he got shot.

                    37. I reflexively believe cops are lying because I have witnessed more instances of cops lying than of them telling the truth.

                      I’ve witnessed cops using violence against people who were not resisting in the slightest way.

                      I’ve witnessed cops destroy thousands of dollars worth of property just to make a point.

                      My prejudices against cops did not occur in a vacuum. They were earned.

                    38. Adams was on his own property and the cop was there against Adams’ will (if this is the case Im thinking of).

                      Im not sure there is anything Adams could have done that justified him being shot.

                      As you said above, cops should leave when asked to leave private property. Instead the cop escalated the situation and then committed murder.

                    39. The fact that they destroyed the confiscated surveillance video is very telling.

                    40. hinges on which side you believe

                      I believe Seth Adams. Unfortunately, we cant get his testimony.

                    41. Unfortunately, we cant get his testimony.

                      I’m sure that the officer’s preventing Seth from receiving medical attention was a complete accident.

                      “Oh fuck! I just shot this guy! Delay the ambulance so he can bleed out. Are there any cameras around here? Shit! Get the video!”

                    42. yes, you will reflexively assume/believe whatever it takes to make the cops look in the wrong

                      i get that. you were justifiably prosecuted, i see ZERO evidence of foul play and you are still butthurt about it and now all cops are liars etc.

                      whatEever

                      the after-report, the officer interview matched the physical evidence, etc. and this was a cop who has a long, decorated career without even one shooting… it’s almost certain he was justified.

                      seth adams did everything he could to get shot, and the cop did a heck of a lot to try to prevent that, but seth adams pushed it far enough to get justifiably shot

                      fuck him

                      i’ll have sympathy for actual victims of police misconduct not seth adams

                    43. but seth adams pushed it far enough to get justifiably shot

                      What evidence do you have for this?

                      I dont trust the cops testimony, not because he is a cop, but because he is involved. Where is the video or independent eyewitness testimony validating this?

                      I will trust what Seth had to say, because wherever he is now, he has no reason to lie.

                    44. Sgt. Custer was part of a six-member undercover surveillance team in the area of Loxahatchee Groves concerned about a series of ATM thefts, unrelated to the Adams’ property. “It was just very bad from the outset with Seth Adams’ demeanor towards the deputy,” Bradshaw said.

                      Bradshaw says toxicology reports show Adams was intoxicated when he and Custer came face to face. “Seth Adams’ DNA is on the deputy’s throat, right in the area where the deputy said he was choked,” he said. “It is also on the deputy’s forearm, which is consistent with the deputy breaking the choke hold. That is physical evidence that backs up exactly what the deputy says happened.”

                      The sheriff says Adams lunged at Custer who ended up firing four shots. “The blood experts with the blood spatters and the emergency room doctors clearly confirm that this individual ran from the deputy,” he said.

                      Because Adams later died, only Custer was able to provide investigators an account of what happened.

                      The sheriff said strong physical and forensic evidence supports Adams was threatening Custer and that Custer felt his life was threatened.

                    45. “Seth Adams DNA is on the deputy’s throat, right in the area where the deputy said he was choked. It is also on the deputy’s forearm which is consistent with him breaking the choke hold. That is physical evidence that backs up exactly what the deputy said happened,” Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw said.

                      The sheriff said Adams’ blood alcohol count was two times the legal limit. He said Emergency rescue crews were not blocked from the scene and that first aid was rendered in the appropriate time frame.

                      The sheriff said that one of the other responding deputies even took off his shirt to put pressure on Adams’ chest gunshot wound. “The deputy took action while in the line of duty, that PBSO took all the necessary steps to do a proper investigation and a thorough investigation, and that Sgt. Custer followed standard procedures when responding to a threat that he reasonably perceived as a threat to his life,” said Bradshaw.

                      Read more: http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/r…..z25WP6oLYH

                    46. seth adams got justifiably shot.

                      the report supplies an IMMENSE amount of evidence and imagine that… it corroborates the officer’s story. they even found adam’s DNA on the officer’s neck, consistent with claims that seth grabbed his neck

                      adams also had a BAC of .131. wow. i am SO unshocked.

                      drunk, assaultive, belligerent fuckstick brings about his own death.

                      unshocking

                      again, read the investigator’s report

                      it’s crystal fucking clear that seth adams was justifiably shot

                      i’ll save my sympathy for.. VICTIMS

                      not drunk assaultive fucksticks who practically beg to get shot.

                      it’s a tragedy, but one entirely brought on by seth adams

                      http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/r…..-on-may-17

                    47. Drunk and belligerent on your own property isnt a crime. Or at least shouldnt be.

                    48. So, why didnt he leave when Adams asked him to?

                      Ive read that aricle, its the first in google search for Adams, congratulations, you can google.

                      But what was the confrontation about. Adams was at his home. He confronted an officer on his property. Probably told him to get the fuck away. At that point, even I think the cop was trespassing. I dont know exact FL law, but in some states, using physical force against a trespasser is justified. Thus, the cop committed murder.

                      Do you have any other evidence?

                      Even if Adams went over the line, it seems the cop could and should have defused the situation by leaving.

                    49. read the after report.

                      he was on surveillance for a series of ATM thefts, he is approached at night by a person who CLAIMS to be a property owner, who is impaired by liquor (.131 BAC) who ignored his orders, who assaulted him (as the DNA evidence shows etc. etc.)

                      the facts CLEARLY support the sgt. in this case

                      adams got justifiably shot.

                      adams was free to call 911 (he called several people during the incident… read the report) and request supervisor response etc. the officer was not duty bound to just immediately drive up because some drunk asshole approaches him, acts aggressively tells him he’s the owner, etc. this was a frigging parking lot, at night, etc.

                      READ THE REPORT

                      if you can read that report and think anything but it was justified… whatEver

                      http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/r…..-on-may-17

                    50. CLAIMS to be a property owner

                      Not claims WAS.

                      He WAS the property owner.

                    51. again, it DOES NOT MATTER

                      what matters is the facts and circumstances reasonably believed by the shooter at the time. as i have explaiend about a dozen times

                      READ the report

                      the shooting was justified. i am not denying he was the property owner. i am saying the sgt. was there on an assigned surveillance detail, he was approached by adams who made those CLAIMS to him

                      that’s not in dispute

                      again, read the report.

                      it’s so fucking self evident in the case facts, it’s ridiculous

                      fuck seth adams.

                      http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/r…..-on-may-17

                    52. Why didnt the cop fucking leave to defuse the situation?

                      He could have surveilled from the road. He had no right to use Adams’ property against his will.

                      I dont know the exact conversation, but I bet one of the early sentences out of Adams’ mouth was something like “Get the fuck off my property.” At that point, the cop should have said “yes, sir” and left.

                      Note the sir — its just polite.

                    53. he is approached at night by a person who CLAIMS to be a property owner

                      Not just claims, but is the owner.

                      who is impaired by liquor

                      So fucking what? He was at home. I have been impaired by liquor a time or three in my life, that doesnt justify shooting me.

                      who ignored his orders

                      On his own property. The cops didnt have a warrant or probable cause to be there, he gets to order them around.

                      who assaulted him (as the DNA evidence shows etc. etc.)

                      Possibly. Or maybe he was trying to evict a trespasser.

                    54. he knew he was assaulting a cop. he had a phone on him. he used it. he could have called a supervisor, etc.

                      look, these case facts are so ridiculously clear, i am done

                      read the REPORT

                      seth adams was a fuckstick who brought about his own shooting . it was ENTIRELY justified.

                      the officer wsan’t in his house. he was in a parking lot at night. seth absolteuly had the right to request the officer leave. he did not have the right to ignore the officer’s orders, grab the officer by the neck when he clearly KNEW the guy was an officer and the REASONABLE options ot him were many.

                      he fucked up and he’s dead

                      fuck him

                      and i’m done. the fact that you can even imagine this shooting is unjustified if you have read the report

                      http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/r…..-on-may-17

                      is ridiculous. it’s about as open and shut as you can be

                      i have zero doubt that adams (who drove up DUI i might add) THOUGHT he was in the right initially. i also have zero doubt he lost his temper, refused to obey lawful orders and brought about his own demise

                      again, i’ll have sympathy for victims of police misconduct, not belligerent fucksticks who bring about their own lawful shooting

                    55. he clearly KNEW the guy was an officer

                      That doesnt matter. The uniform stopped mattering if the cop ignored an order to leave.

                      He was just another trespasser at that point and had no additional powers.

                      THOUGHT he was in the right initially

                      He was in the right. Not just thought.

                    56. refused to obey lawful orders

                      In short, if you are a property owner and your trespasser is a police officer… fuck you.

                    57. the officer wsan’t in his house. he was in a parking lot at night.

                      Which is why until he was asked to leave, I dont have a problem with the cop being there.

                      But at that point, so fucking what?

                    58. who drove up DUI i might add

                      Irrelevant.

                      If the cop had arrested him for DUI, you might have a point. But he didnt.

                    59. Also, on Adams’ own private property, doesnt he have the right to push it when someone wont leave?

                    60. read the report…

                      http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/r…..-on-may-17

                      the officer was there on a surveillance detail, gets approached by a guy with a .131 bac who assaults him, refuses to obey orders, etc. and who the evidence CLEARLY shows knew that the sgt. was a cop (read the report)

                      he got justifiably capped

                      fuck him

                      i’ll save my sympathy for people that deserve it

                    61. It was his property, he has no need to obey orders, its the cop who should be obeying the orders* of the property owner.

                      *if the order is to leave

                    62. who assaults him

                      Adams hasnt been convicted of assault. That is unknown.

                    63. jesus christ. adams is dead. we don’t prosecute dead people

                      read the report

                      fuckstick got justifiably capped

                      complete NON issue

                      any cop (or civilian) who shoots somebody could only HOPE to have this level of forensic corroboration and case facts in their favor

                      this is not just justified. it’s OBVIOUS as fuck

                      http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/r…..-on-may-17

                    64. refuses to obey orders, etc

                      Why should a property owner obey the orders of a trespasser?

                      Oh yeah. Because the trespasser was a cop.

                      But there’s no double standard. That’s just a part of a bigoted imagination.

                    65. jesus christ, you are hopeless. it’s in evidence, he knew the guy was a cop. the cop was in a pARKING lot on a ATM burglary surveillance detail, he was approached by a guy who was makign claims he could NOT VERIFY immediately and then seth attacked him and disobeyed orders.

                      if seth had acted reasonably, most likely the officer would hav left, ONCE the sgt. could verify he was who he said he was etc. seth called other people . .. the officer called for backup and if seth had simply waited for backup, they could have come to a rational resolution like happens 99.9% of the time cops deal with RATIONAL people

                      but not irrational, drunk, assaultive fucksticks

                      fuck seth adams

                      justified shooting. case closed

                      http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/r…..-on-may-17

                    66. The owner asked him to leave. He didnt. Period, end of story.

                      When the owner of a restaurant asks me to leave, I dont get to “verify” ownership first, I leave. Yeah, I may ask a question of two if it seems fishy, but in general, you head out.

                      And that is what the cop didnt do.

                      The owner doesnt have to prove anything to the cop, the cop needs to leave when the owner asks him to.

                    67. When the owner of a restaurant asks me to leave, I dont get to “verify” ownership first, I leave.

                      You’re also not a cop. That time a while back when I overheard a drunk cop lamenting that he’d never had the opportunity to kill someone, was at a restaurant.
                      A half dozen or so cops were getting loaded and were being extremely loud and obnoxious. Customers were leaving because of the disruption.
                      But the staff dare not tell them to quiet down or leave. Why? Because they didn’t want to get beaten up or worse.
                      Besides, who are they going to call? The cops?

                    68. and disobeyed orders

                      You think you own your property until you disobey a trespasser who’s salary comes from your property taxes rent.

                    69. My low opinion of law enforcement is based upon more than that one encounter.

                      I’ve even been the beneficiary of special treatment. I was mistaken for someone else (the son of someone with political connections) and should have gone to jail but was given a break.

                      That was even more infuriating because it brought home how corrupt the system is. One level of justice for those on the inside (cops, people with connections), and another for everyone else.

                    70. My low opinion of law enforcement is based upon more than that one encounter.

                      Perhaps it is partially based on cops like dunphy saying things like “fuckstick got justifiably capped” to describe a guy who got shot for telling a cop to leave his property.

                    71. Dunphy is very good at unintentionally reinforcing my low opinion of law enforcement.

    2. I’d love to see those popping up all over the place!

  44. Gonna plug sloopy’s Pick ’em league since tomorrow is the last day you can join. It’s straight up (not against the spread, no confidence points) and goes all the way through with a running total. All you had to do is pick who you think will win each week, and guess at some point totals for the tiebreakers.

    Where to join the “The Reason H(ampersand)Run Bigorati Pro Football Pick-Em”

    League ID: 38814
    Password: reason

  45. Matt Welch profiles Ezra Klein, claims “handsome enough to make the ladies turn their heads”

    No he’s not

    1. Barf. What an asexual douche bag. I feel bad for his wife. She probably hasn’t gotten laid in years.

      1. Jesus Christ, look at her nose.

      2. I notice she didn’t take his last name.

        1. I am surprised he didn’t take hers.

          1. What’s her name? I google image “Ezra Klein’s Wife” and all I get are pictures of Ezra.

    2. What the fuck.

      Insert cocktail party invitation joke here.

    3. I’m gonna have to second that. Though he is good-looking by DC standards. By Ozzie standards, I imagine he’s a weaselly-looking pipsqueak.

    4. *shrug*

      Paeans to Klein’s ascendancy and attractiveness (urk) aside, Klein and the ur-Netroots crowd completely lost credibility on January 20th, 2009.

      1. Honestly, were you surprised by that? It wasn’t hard to figure out they didn’t give a shit about the war or civil liberties or anything other than their team winning.

        1. This is kind of making me sad. I thought Matt Welch and I were libertarian BFFs united by our common hatred of John McCain. But that piece, woof.

          Is this his way of saying “be on the lookout for my career shift to Slate/WaPo/etc. soon”?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.