A.M. Links: Obama Meeting With Police Chiefs from Mass Shooting Towns, Milwaukee County Sheriff Urges Gun Ownership, Berlusconi Praises Mussolini

|

  • trains ran on time
    public domain

    President Obama will meet with police chiefs in Aurora, Oak Creek and Newtown, towns where mass shootings occurred last year. The Milwaukee county sheriff, meanwhile, explained in his latest PSA that when calling 911 isn't enough you should get a gun.

  • Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin won't be seeking re-election to the senate in 2014.
  • Two barges hit a railroad bridge in Vicksburg, Mississippi, causing oil to spill into the Mississippi River, according to the Coast Guard.
  • Silvio Berlusconi explained on Holocaust Memorial Day that while Mussolini shouldn't have passed anti-Jewish laws, he was otherwise a good leader.
  • Mohammed Morsi declared a state of emergency in three Egyptian towns enflamed by riot after death sentences were handed down for a deadly soccer riot in Port Said last year, and wants talks with opposition leaders about the unrest.
  • An aide to Iran's supreme leader warned this weekend that an attack on Syria would be considered an attack on Iran. Iran is also claiming it sent a monkey into space.

Follow Reason 24/7 on Twitter!

Follow Reason on Twitter too, and like us on Facebook. You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here.

Have a news tip? Send it to us!

The updated Reason app for Apple and Android now includes Reason 24/7!

NEXT: Senate Scheduled to Vote on Sandy Relief Today

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. Silvio Berlusconi explained on Holocaust Memorial Day that while Mussolini shouldn’t have passed anti-Jewish laws, he was otherwise a good leader.

    Probably should have just narrowed that praise to trains.

    1. You know who else praised Mussolini?

      1. Clara Petacci?

      2. It’s likely he figured out early on that he would have been better off without any allies, since the three he had in 1939 wound up fighting against him, drawing a gigantic powerful country into the war on the other side, and screwing up and forcing him to delay his USSR invasion, respectively.

    2. Well, getting Italians to do anything on time is a hell of an achievement.

    3. You know who else is obsessed with trains that are high speed and run on time?

  2. Guy attacks an ostrich as part of elaborate suicide attempt, ultimately fails

    1. Bit that fucker to death? Hardcore.

    2. Li … simulated firing a gun at the policemen. He was already covered in blood when police arrived.

      Obviously the film Taxi Driver is to blame.

    3. That is one hell of a pussy ostrich.

  3. 14 yr old becomes chef because his mom can’t cook.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..urant.html

    1. Its a young man’s game.

    2. Every kid should learn to cook. I can only imagine what the safety freaks would think of children using knives and hot cooking surfaces, though.

      1. It is really amazing how many people there are who just can’t cook at all.

        1. Don’t talk about my girlfriend like that!

      2. My daughters have had chef’s knives engraved with their names since they were 7-8. They are younger than that kid and they chop, cook, and bake on their own.

        After some close supervision at first and numerous reminders of “tiger claw” to keep their off-hand fingertips curled under while they hold the food they are cutting, they cut more safely than the vast majority of adults.

        Also, the safety freaks can go fuck themselves.

  4. Release the Kraken!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-time.html

    1. That thing doesn’t look so “giant”.

    2. Already did that this morning. 20 min after the first cup of coffee, like clockwork

  5. Vice Cey-Baby of the Week: The Hello Kitty Bubble Gun Terrorist vs The Rapist Dog

    1. What’s a Cey-Baby?

      1. I think ifh meant “Cis-Baby”.

      2. Some damn Austrian thing probably.

      3. What’s a Cey-Baby?

        The offspring of a slow third baseman?

        1. He did win a World Series however. After getting hit in the head, if memory serves.

  6. I canceled my Groupon membership over their dropping all gun related groupons. Their response:

    Thank you for taking the time to reach out to us.

    We understand that this is a sensitive topic, and that some of our customers may not agree with our choice to pause the promotion of firearm-related deals. Groupon has always aimed to offer a diverse range of products and services to meet the various tastes and interests of our subscribers. However, at this time, enough customers and merchants have voiced their opinions that we believe a hiatus is warranted.

    Please note that we have never sold guns, and this hiatus only applies to firearm-related deals including shooting ranges, clay pigeon shooting, and concealed weapons training classes. We have not made a final determination regarding this category — we are simply taking a break and may reevaluate in the future.

    1. My response:

      Consider me an ex-customer who voiced _his_ opinion and cancelled his membership over this. Please close and void everything and completely remove me from Groupon’s database.

      Companies need to understand BOTH sides of the issue can threaten to refuse to do business with you over this.

      I love how they included clay pigeon shooting as something that they dropped “for the children” (despite Obama claiming to shoot skeet himself). I also love how they try to sell this as “temporary” to keep my business while satisfying the left.

      1. The less tolerance they show for intolerant people like you, the more the tolerant left will embrace them.

      2. perfect response, LT. It is amazing how companies making decisions when controversial topics crop up never seem to grasp that even those topics have two sides. Good for you.

      3. You should start a conservative version of Groupon, like Fox News, Conservapedia, Conservative Fact Check, and Bob Jones University.

        1. You should start a one-person circle jerk, and auger yourself into the ground.

      4. Well, clay pigeon shooting is necessary for mass murderers to practice so they can get all of those flying children.

      5. Damn. I was waiting for the half off skeet shooting at Camp David.

  7. Where were teachers like that when I was in school?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..sroom.html

    1. Apparently, within 20 miles of where I went to middle school. Spring Branch was just up the road, Houston-wise.

    2. She looks like somebody hit her in the face with a shovel. Or what I like to call the “Reese Witherspoon Look”.

      1. Renee Zellweger is probably more accurate.

        1. No, that’s what somebody looks like immediately after eating an entire lemon.

      2. You’d’ve needed a tractor to get me off that at age 15.

    3. An arrest report revealed that the boy’s brother looked into his room and saw a tan bra and used condom on the floor.

      I predict some sibling tension in this family’s future.


    4. ‘We are not good, we are very hurt. My son is really confused, hurt. We working with him very closely but he’s not good, not good at all.’

      Gee ya think, You got a 15 year old who is in love with this woman and getting laid by her to boot, then the parents find out and totally turn his world upside down and she’s facing major jail time.

      Yes the relationship was inappropriate but I’d be willing to bet that the parents and police’s overreaction and treating him like a fragile victim will cause him far more harm than what he did with the teacher ever would have.

      1. They’re probably upset that he isn’t speaking to them and tried to beat the fuck out of his brother for turning him in. I know I wouldn’t have said one extra word to my parents for the rest of my time under their roof after that.

        “But don’t you understand that we did this for you?”

        “Nope.”

        1. The age of consent should be moved down to the earliest age someone in that state has been tried as an adult. And unless the kid himself filed a complaint, this case should be a non-starter.

  8. Reformed vegan cries bullshit on veganism, demands steak

    more

    1. I’m a former vegan – 12 years (I think) as a vegan. I gave it up in favor of Atkins b/c I couldn’t lose weight on the vegan diet.

    2. If meat is so evil to vegans, why do they make so many artificial meat products? Meatless burgers, vegan jerky, etc.

      Just eat some meat damn it. You obviously like it enough to try to replicate it.

      1. I’ve always thought that was pretty funny too. Especially for vegans, who usually have some sort of moral objection to meat. If you think that meat is murder, why are you so keen to eat things that remind you of meat?

        1. Most fake meat is so terrible that if they convince themselves that’s what meat actually tastes like, it helps them maintain their eat disorder.

          1. Agreed, but one exception is Quorn “chicken” patties / nuggets. Those are tasty.

            1. Textured mycoprotein! Yum!

              Just eat mushrooms, okay?

            2. Some veggie burger things are pretty good too. Though most of them don’t really try to imitate meat. What would make them really good would be the addition of a bit of meat.

              1. Back when I had regular access to Veggieburgers, one of my favorite lunches was to cook a double-burger with one veggie patty and one beef patty with bacon and mushrooms and cover it with swiss cheese. The veggie patty really added to the sammich but it tasted like shit if I did it with two veggie patties.

                Try it sometime if you’ve got someone in the house that has come veggieburger patties…particularly the Morningstar* ones.

                *I find it hilarious that the largest maker of fake meats is named after Satan.

                1. Sounds good. A veggie burger fried crispy in butter with some bacon and cheese is pretty good too.

                2. I find it hilarious that the largest maker of fake meats is named after Satan.

                  They were probably thinking of the powerful bludgeoning weapon, for obvious reasons.

                3. I do the same thing with eggs and tofu.

                  Get 3 eggs worth of really soft tofu, mix with one egg and scramble – get four eggs worth of mass for 1.5 eggs worth of calories.

              2. I did exactly that the other day – Morningstar chickpea patties topped with cheese and bacon.

        2. “It’s for my FRIENDS!”

      2. Some of the fake meat had a similar taste. The fake cheese was mostly awful though. But that first bite of a steak- 12 years after not eating any -was AMAZING.

        1. Know what you mean. Had to lay off rare steak for a few months (so that meant no steak in practice). When it was over, a friend took me to a chophouse for a celebratory 50 buck steak. Oh the bliss …

    3. If vegans love animals so much why are they eating all their fucking food?

      1. +1 carrot

      2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM

        “I’ve heard the screams of the vegetables!”

  9. A view from the top of the world’s tallest building.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci…..lding.html

  10. President Obama will meet with police chiefs in Aurora, Oak Creek and Newtown, towns where mass shootings occurred last year.

    For insight on how he can milk their incidents for all their worth.

    1. Exactly. What would they have to tell him?

      Why doesn’t he meet with Mexican police chiefs who had fast and furious murders in their cities?

      1. I actually heard Juan Williams on the radio last week still repeating the lie that ‘Fast and Furious’ was a program that was started by the Bush administration. Is he that ignorant, or that dishonest?

        1. He can be both ignorant and dishonest.

  11. Silvio Berlusconi explained on Holocaust Memorial Day that while Mussolini shouldn’t have passed anti-Jewish laws, he was otherwise a good leader.

    The Jews are notoriously late for trains.

  12. Olivia Munn. Yum.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..t-out.html

    1. She is very clearly an attractive woman, but something about her doesnt do it for me.

      Maybe it was working as a microsoft shill.

      1. More Olivia Munn.
        http://ctboom.com/hottest-woma…..ivia-munn/

      2. rob, would you find her hot if she’d shilled for Red Hat?

        Why am I asking, of course you would have.

        1. I think that would be a neutral factor.

    2. I love the pictures of the two women for most of the article. But why did they include the picture of the Bohemian hobo at the bottom?

    3. That Steve Tyler shot at the end creeped me out.

  13. STEVE SMITH cries of ecstasy are annoying the neighbours

    more

    1. Hikers have very little fiber if you skin them first.

  14. Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin won’t be seeking re-election to the senate in 2014.

    Another tragic victim of the breakdown of bipartisanship.

    1. He’s just sick of representing assholes like us. We weren’t good enough.

    2. The cynic in me says that this is a planned response to the current political situation. His announcement gives the Dems a consequence free vote on all the contentious issues for the next two years. And given his position on a number of committees he can help drive the agenda in a ‘good’ direction.

      And if it wasn’t planned they’ll still use it for all its worth.

  15. Iran is also claiming it sent a monkey into space.

    That’s hilarious. No really, I’d watch a movie about that.

    1. They sent Ahmedinejad into space?

      1. It was probably a Sunni monkey.

  16. Mohammed Morsi declared a state of emergency in three Egyptian towns

    As Condi said when Iraqis were killing 4000 Americans – just “birth pangs” of democracy.

    1. just once, try living in the present and accept some responsibility for the actions of the folks you voted. Bush is long gone and, besides, this site does not host his fan club. Your disingenuousness just has no bounds, does it?

      1. Disingenuousness Unbound: The Erotic Adventures Through Time of Shrike’s Turdcutter

      2. I support what we did in Egypt – basically nothing (no intervention). It is not our role to prop up a thug like Mubarek.

        The implication is that strife in Egypt is the fault of the US. I reject that silly notion. Let them sort it out.

        1. and the thug named Mubarak was replaced by a gang of thugs known as the Brotherhood. No wonder folks like you are blowing Hillary.

          Of course, the strife traces back to the US. We led the drum corps calling for Mubarak’s ouster knowing full well that what would follow was worse.

      3. Again!

        Why are you guys talking to the urine-soaked crazy homeless guy who is screaming into a wall as if he is people?

        1. What are you going on about, tarran? No one is talking to Epi.

        2. He’s like our very own No-Bark Noonan.

      4. It’s a rubout soaked sockpuppet, people.

    2. PB what’s the longest period of time that you’ve gone without blaming something on Boooosh?

        1. It would have been 6 seconds if not for BOOOOOOOOSH!

  17. Weird foam video from flooded Queensland

    more

    1. I would have been more concerned about the bus…

  18. SPACE MONKEY!

  19. Milwaukee’s police chief, meanwhile, explained in his latest PSA that when calling 911 isn’t enough you should get a gun.

    And to prove he could speak the kids’ language, he added “in conclusion, should 9-1-1 be a joke in your town too, say to yourself, janie’s got a gun”

  20. Sic semper tyrranosaurus!

    1. Sounds more like he was replicating the ANZAC experience at Changi.

    2. I call bullshit.

      Everyone knows that everything is poisonous in austria – they have to import their own food.

      Its britain’s “Dosadi Experiment”

      1. No, man, they make Sachertorte there.

        Unless you menat Australia, in which case I have to refer you to BuSab for appropriate clearance.

      2. I thought the Aussies were supposed to have a sense of humor, but I have turned up zero towns in Australia called Vienna.

        1. That would be pretty awesome – even better if we could, at the same time ,get Austria to name one of its towns after the most famous city in Australia – King’s Cross!

        2. We have a sense of humour but it’s not very sophisticated. That’s why our places have names like Mount Buggery, Tittybong, Fannie Bay and Wee Waa

          1. Mount Buggery is classic.

            1. Was it named after a specific event or is it just a common teenage hangout?

              1. it’s supposedly because it’s a bugger to climb. But perhaps the name’s origins should remain decently shrouded in obscurity

                1. It sounds like something that very lonely cowboys do with their horses.

  21. George F. Will:
    Recipe for conservative revival
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    hahahahaha

    1. the best way to shut up left wingers over global warming is to call them creationist kooks. 100 years of detailed records over a 4B yr old planet.

  22. I wonder if their union will file a grievance for these cops getting in trouble for having part time jobs?

    (Bonus points for the cop in the screencap looking exactly like Martin Lawrence)

    1. Did procedures tell them they couldn’t do this?

    2. Is there a rule in the employee handbooks explicity forbidden them from providing security to drug-dealers? If not, how can these officers be punished for something that wasn’t a crime?

  23. Just Because Hitler FDR Mussolini Did It Doesn’t Necessarily Mean It Was a Bad Idea.

    1. And yet, funnily enough, everything Musollini did was a bad idea.

  24. Combat puts women at unique risk
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    This is a terrible idea for reasons too numerous to list in this space, which forces me to recommend my 2008 book, “Save the Males,” in which I devote a chapter to the issue. The most salient point happens to be a feminist argument: Women, because of their inferior physical capacities and greater vulnerabilities upon capture, have a diminished opportunity for survival.

    More on this, but first let’s be clear. Arguments against women in direct combat have nothing to do with courage, skill, patriotism or dedication. Most women are equal to most men in all these categories and are superior to men in many other areas, as our educational graduation rates at every level indicate. Women also tend to excel as sharpshooters and pilots.

    1. Some day we will have a real war and a draft again. Are we going to draft women? Send both parents off to war?

      1. Only if we are at war with Eurasia.

        1. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

      2. Hopefully. “real wars” are over. I know, I know.

        1. The one that’s coming is going to be a doozy.

      3. Let’s face it, if we end up with a draft again then that’s just something master will have to decide.

        The slave doesn’t get any say on whether his family is broken up or not.

      4. Or conversely we could just send off the women this time – its about time they “paid their fair share”.

        1. Seriously, they have a lot of catching up to do.

          1. When men lose a war, the women end up paying just as much, if not more.

            1. Well, we lost vietnam and I don’t think the women here paid too high of a price.

            2. Even more when men win the war.

    2. Aren’t they all just going to be piloting drones anyway?

    3. are superior to men in many other areas

      (1) Whatever happened to equality?

      (2) Bullshit. Your educational graduation rates are the product of a system that has become systematically biased in favor of females.

      1. I’ve given up arguing. They can believe whatever the fuck they want, and I will continue to be competent in car and small engine maintenance, electrical repair downstream of the main breaker, plumbing, cooking, coffee roasting, beer making, rough carpentry, firearms, computer assembly and maintenance, computer programming. All skills I learned without a single formal class. I intend to add light metalwork, cabinetry, and electonics to that list.

        They can feel superior, I’ll get by with mere competence.

        1. Don’t forget ‘hunting game with a sharpened stick’!

          1. A pointed stick!? Aren’t we all high and mighty!?

          2. I wouldn’t count myself competent at that. I know some theory, but I might starve before I become competent.

          3. Don’t forget ‘hunting game with a sharpened stick’!

            Did he have to learn how to defend against fresh fruit first?

    4. “. . .forces me to recommend my 2008 book. . .”

      yes, I’m sure it took a lot of arm twisting to get you to do that.

    5. Just for some background –

      At my high school’s 20th reunion the wrestling team was gathering and one of the first subjects which came up was how everybody hated wrestling me because I never knew when to quit. It wasn’t just physical stamina but a total blindness to the line past where it was no longer worth trying.

      I went directly from high school into the Marine infantry and I found that learning how to force march was the most demanding thing I would ever have to do. I believe that forced marching as done in the Marines could be an olympic event – it is that grueling.

      To fill its role a unit has to be able to move with all its gear at a speed which the enemy would find difficult to match. Trying to force fit females into that program will do nothing but drag the standards down. The penalty quite literally is death.

  25. “Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time,” [President Obama] said. “And I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake”.

    “We”? Indeed. Some reporter (David Gregory?) should ask him for a shotgun handling demo.

    “Hunting”. Hmm. Some reporter (Ted Nugent?) should ask him what other traditions *he* dismisses out of hand.

    1. Its the use of the royal “we”. Obama doesn’t go up there, but some of “the people” do and he’s the face of “the people”.

      1. I don’t think it’s a royal we in this case. Someone goes skeet shooting at Camp David but it isn’t him. He’s just trying to use it for cover.

    2. Why doesn’t some enterprising Chair of a Congressional Committee subpoena all of Dear Leader’s Secret Service detail and ask them under oath if all of Obama’s claims are true? He’d instantly become the most reviled and most popular politician in America.

      1. If *that* doesn’t scream “Executive Privilege”, I don’t know what does.

        1. I don’t know. I doubt EP extends to low-level secret service personnel. It falls under neither “presidential communications” or “deliberative process”.

          1. Come on, sloopy. This is Obama, remember? It falls under *both*.

            1. Actually it falls under the “RAAAAAAAACISM!!!! clause” that says any black President can do what he wants and if you question it, you’re a racist.

          2. The administration wouldn’t claim executive privilege themselves. The head of the Secret Service would say

            …agents need the confidence of their protectees in order to do their job…forcing them to reveal anything would hinder their ability to protect the president… why do you want the president assassinated? …why are you soft on criminals and hard on the police? …besides those agents can tell all when your guy is in office.

  26. How Economic Nationalism Bites Back
    http://www.american.com/archiv…..bites-back

    Does protectionism work? In the late 19th century, British writers were as concerned about loss of markets and jobs to Germany as many Americans are today about competition from China. The campaign against rising Germany shows that economic nationalism can have unintended consequences.

    One of that campaign’s most striking failures, now largely forgotten, was recently recalled by the German weekly Die Zeit on the 125th anniversary of the notorious “Made in Germany” campaign.

    Ever since Bismarck’s German coalition defeated France and established a newly unified nation, Germany had a reputation for cheap mass manufacturing and aggressive pricing. At the time, Britain was not only Germany’s biggest trading partner but, in German eyes, the superpower with which the new Reich had to achieve parity.

    1. WWI didn’t work out too well for them.

      1. Or anybody else.

        1. To be fair, WWI worked out pretty good for the US, since we didn’t get involved until France, Britain and Germany were basically bled white and some tactical and operational competence had been developed.

          We did get to move to the front of the line on an international basis, by having everyone else move back.

    2. Mississippi passed a law that catfish have to be labelled so that people can tell whether it comes from Vietnam or local fisheries.

  27. Obama EPA kills power plant, 3,900 jobs in Texas
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..QQzuyfG6k8

    “Chase Power ? has opted to suspend efforts to further permit the facility and is seeking alternative investors as part of a plan of dissolution for the parent company,” Chase CEO Dave Freysinger told the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.

    Freysinger made it very clear who was responsible for the projects death. “The (Las Brisas Energy Center) is a victim of EPA’s concerted effort to stifle solid-fuel energy facilities in the U.S., including EPA’s carbon-permitting requirements and EPA’s New Source Performance Standards for new power plants,” he said.

    1. Power comes from the light socket. Shreek told me so.

      1. “Shreek”, or whatever it is, is incapable of telling you anything since it is just a rubout soaked sockpuppet.

    2. http://www.lasbrisasenergy.com/news.html

      The company web site does not mention this. Considering they had exactly ONE project in the works and there is no legit news org covering this I suspect misinformation.

    3. IT’s a red state. Obama doesn’t give a shit.

      1. Yep, I was right. Reatfuckers at work. Cheap natural gas doomed the plant.

        http://switchboard.nrdc.org/bl….._gone.html

        1. Your own article says that the plant was not issued EPA permits. It basically wasn’t allowed to open. It wasn’t open competition that shut it down.

  28. The Sacramento Kings’ Departure From Hypertaxed California Signals Return Of The Seattle SuperSonics
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/re…..personics/

    There are many reasons for teams to relocate, and the built-in Seattle fan base is certainly a plus for this NBA team. However, it is crucial to remember that sports franchises are multi-million dollar businesses. Those who occupy the front office spend a lot of time scrutinizing the finances. From this perspective, a move from California to Washington State is a no-brainer. The marginal personal-income tax rate for wealthy Californians ? a category under which professional ballplayers almost certainly fall ? is a whopping 13.3 percent. Washington, on the other hand, levies no personal income tax on any of its residents. Whether a member of the SuperSonics organization is shooting free-throws or taking tickets, he gets to keep more of his earned income.

    1. wonder how happy this will make Epi considering how his fellow citizens in Seattle agreed to pay for a new arena.

      Forbes, as usual, is full of shit on the big picture. Most companies that relocate do more than leech off the new tax base; they tend to contribute to it. Give them land/office building, they tend to hire people. They will use local vendors. Etc etc. An NBA team moves the existing payroll and hires some concession workers for 10/hr.

      1. Are you saying that high state taxes don’t encourage businesses to move to other states?

        1. I’m saying that treating a sports franchise’s relocation like that of any other business is a false analogy. Getting a team has next to nothing to do with helping the local economy. One team left Seattle already. I get wanting to leave CA because of its taxes and general stupidity, but this isn’t like some Silicon Valley firm moving north.

          1. Don’t most of them get sweetheart deals from the municipalities they are moving to as well? I know I heard a lot of grumbling about tax breaks and free land when Capital One threatened to leave Richmond, VA some years ago.

  29. Iran is also claiming it sent a monkey into space.

    The monkey claims he left on his own initiative.

  30. Judge rules EPA can’t mandate use of nonexistent biofuels
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/01…..-biofuels/

    A federal court delivered a serious blow to the Environmental Protection Agency’s renewable fuel agenda, ruling that the agency exceeded its authority by mandating refiners use cellulosic biofuels, which isn’t commercially available.

    The court sided with the country’s chief oil and gas lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, in striking down the 2012 EPA mandate that would have forced refineries to purchase more than $8 million in credits for 8.65 million of gallons of the cellulosic biofuel. However, none of the biofuel is commercially available.

    1. Quick, regulate the Transporter!

    2. Why not mandate purchase on Unicornistic Methane bubbles?

    3. If I could eliminate one federal agency (other than the IRS) it would be the EPA. They overstep their authority so often I’m starting to think they do things just to see if they can get away with them.

      1. I’d likely do the same.

        But seriously, it’s Congress that abrogated their responsibilities to the executive branches and allowed for regulation to have the force of law. Those fuckheads are 100% responsible for the EPA, IRS, FEMA, DoE, CPSB and all the other alphabet soup agencies having as much power as they do. And that should be brought up every time a Congresscritter bitches about executive overreach.

  31. Unlocking Smartphones Rendered Illegal by Librarian’s Baffling Decision

    The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 has been the source of both controversy and consternation since it became law 15 years ago. Because of the DMCA, it became illegal to defeat the encryption on a DVD you purchased so you could watch a movie on your Linux computer.

    It became illegal to make a binary copy of a movie so you could watch it on your iPad. Now, because the Librarian of Congress has decided it to be this way, it’s now illegal to unlock phones purchased on or after January 26.

    WTF is the LoC doing interpreting laws?

    Also, this post is an illusion because we never complain about crony capitalism. An illusion, Michael…

    1. If this is what the Librarian of Congress can do, what is within the scope of a Librarian of Kentucky?

      1. We wield the terrible power of… the late fee!

        1. I understand that the most terrible late fee ever was the one wielded by Conan the Librarian.

      2. A Kentucky Librarian is like a Kentucky Colonel.

        Also, fried chicken.

    2. Nobody’s going to obey it. Not a single person. Fuck the DMCA.

      1. Yeah, but it’s another law that can be used to send non-criminals to prison for years.

    3. WTF is the LoC doing interpreting laws?

      Because fuck you, that’s why!

    4. The difference here is that you’re defeating the encryption on the phone to use the phone’s *hardwarre* not its software – that should be outside the DCMA’s scope.

    5. To be fair, it was always illegal. LOC just stopped giving people a pass. The problem is DMCA.

  32. Divided by Abortion, United by Feminism
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01…..inism.html

    Those stereotypes link the anti-abortion cause to traditionalist ideas about gender roles ? to the belief that a woman’s place is in the home, or at least that her primary identity should be maternal rather than professional. Writing in the Reagan era, the sociologist Kristin Luker argued that this dimension of the debate trumped the question of whether unborn human life has rights: “While on the surface it is the embryo’s fate that seems to be at stake, the abortion debate is actually about the meaning of women’s lives.”

    This remains a dominant pro-choice understanding of the abortion conflict ? and not without reason, since it finds vindication to this day in the idiot “mansplaining” of amateur gynecologists like Todd Akin.

    1. “mansplaining”? I guess the Times has fired all of its editors to cut costs.

      1. Haven’t you heard that word before? It’s a thing now in feminist circles.

        1. I have. But it doesn’t quite rise to the level of respectability needed for use in a real newspaper.

          1. at least they put it in quotes.

          2. A real newspaper? It’s the NYT. But anyway, whatever.

        2. Leave it alone, $park?. John just doesn’t get it.

          1. I look forward to the day on which the “just doesn’t get it” trope is scoffed at by rhetoricians as possibly the dumbest out-of-hand dismissal ever conceived.

            1. Says *you*! 😉

              1. Oops! I forgot the /whitemaleprivilege tag. Sorry, everyone! So sorry.

            2. Your jealousy because you just don’t get it is sooo transparent.

      2. Seriously. That is OK in the Times style guide now? Is “bitchsplaining” in there too?

        1. Not that I’m defending the Times here, but if they plan to appeal to younger readers don’t you think it would make sense for them to adapt to the new language?

          1. If they’re going to appeal to younger readers, they’ll need to ditch the kneejerk pro-abortion stuff. That goes over better with an older crowd.

            1. I don’t follow. Only older people are pro-abortion? Only older people are kneejerk pro-abortion? What exactly is kneejerk pro-abortion, pro-abortion just because other people like it? How does that fit the older people?

              You really have a giant, fetus-shaped hang-up on abortion, don’t you?

              1. Abortion is less popular among the younger crowd. Even as SSM is gaining in popularity among the youts, abortion is losing ground.

                Sure I have a “hang-up” about killing human beings, but if you don’t like my comments on the subject, you can just ignore them.

      3. “mansplaining”? I guess the Times has fired all of its editors to cut costs.

        I’m pretty sure they misspelled “womyn” too.

  33. Cthulhu in Love Perfume
    http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/d2cd/

    Working with the brilliant scent-ologists at the Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab (you know ’em; you love ’em), we are ever so proud to present this unique and totally ThinkGeek Exclusive perfume. The scent is intoxicating, described by its creators as “an amorphous mix of oppressive, piceous ritual incense, macerated kelp, sea salt, sticky dark ocean plants, and . . . mixed chocolates.” That means this is what Cthulhu smells like when he wants to get it on. Seriously, you’re going to adore the magic, ancient, sensual, and (dare we say) arousing scent of Cthulhu in Love Perfume.

    1. Smells like the Houston Ship Channel at low tide.

      1. so it smells better than you. That’s not hard

        1. I didn’t say I wouldn’t wear it. I don’t have a gas-mask fetish, but its the only way the gf can get close enough. OTOH, I can obey the Jayne Cobb rule and “never kiss ’em on the mouth”.

  34. Christ!

    North Korean parents ‘eating their own children’ after being driven mad by hunger in famine-hit pariah state

    The informant said the father killed his eldest daughter while his wife was away on business and then killed his son because he had witnessed the murder.
    When his wife returned the man told her they had ‘meat’ but she became suspicious and contacted officials who discovered part of the children’s bodies.
    Jiro Ishimaru, from Asia Press, which compiled a 12 page report, said: ‘Particularly shocking were the numerous testimonies that hit us about cannibalism.’
    Undercover reporters said food was confiscated from the two provinces and given to the residents of the capital Pyongyang.
    A drought then left food supplies desperately short.

    1. When his wife returned the man told her they had ‘meat’ but she became suspicious

      The absence of two children didn’t tip her off then

      1. “They’re out getting more meat, duh!”

      2. Apparently, having meat is more of an aberration in NORK than having your children disappear.

        Think about that.

    2. A small price to pay to be a loyal subject of the Sun God.

    3. Funny you said Christ…transubstantiation and all that

    4. Hell on Earth. Welcome to the socialist utopia.

      1. In Hell Hitler tells the others “Well, at least I’m not Kim Il-Sung”

  35. PoliceOne shows it’s true colors when NYPD cops run illegal surveillance on Muslim groups in New Jersey and the Muslim community files suit.

    Comment 1: Posted by mgunns on Saturday, January 26, 2013 03:13 PM Pacific Report Abuse
    I say bacon for all of them. NYPD has a job to do, if ya can’t stand the heat get out, back to camels and sand.

    Comment 2: Posted by tubbyjean on Saturday, January 26, 2013 05:18 PM Pacific Report Abuse
    I don’t understand. Before 9/11 NY invited everyone with open arms. It didn’t matter weather you were from Greece, Germany, Africa, or Iran. Everyone was welcomed without prejudice. Then the Twin Towers, The Pentagon, and the White House are targeted. What the he** do they expect. Yes we do believe in second chances,and we believe in forgiveness. but that dose not mean that were going to close our eyes and let it happen again. NO!! The suit should have never even have even been considered.

    I was personally unaware that people from New Jersey carried out the 9/11 attack. I, for one, am glad these cops are here to enlighten us.

    1. The suit should have never even have even been considered.

      I’ll bet tubbyjean’s incident reports are a fucking hoot

    2. I love it when PoliceOne shows it is true colors.

    3. No but people from Jersey did give us Snooki and that is a far greater assault on American than anything a score of camel jockeys with box cutters could ever have envisioned.

      1. Snooki is not from New Jersey.

  36. http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/…..18529.html

    ‘Argo’ rises; ‘Lincoln’ fades like a sepia photograph at the SAG Awards

    “Argo” continued to rise tonight at the Screen Actors Guild where, by awarding the film best ensemble, some 4,700 performers backed Ben Affleck as a director, actor and producer (with a little help from George Clooney). Meanwhile, the “Lincoln” fade continues ? and it looks like Steven Spielberg’s passion project will not rise again.

    Between tonight’s accolades for “Argo,” with its cast of 150 speaking English and Farsi, and last night’s Producer’s Guild of America honors, Affleck’s sharp period political thriller is now the Oscar frontrunner for best picture. Not only are Affleck and “Argo” both popular and respected, the money-maker may have received a backlash boost after the Academy shamelessly snubbed Affleck for best director. With the trifecta of standing ovations at the Golden Globes, the PGA’s and now the SAG’s, it’s clear that the tide has swung in “Argo’s” favor.

    1. I always thought the SAG awards should have been called the Film Actor’s Guild Awards… it’s a lot more accurate.

      1. Stole my joke.

        1. Stole Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s joke.

      2. Made me say “MATT DAMON” while waving my arms over my head.

  37. http://thehill.com/blogs/defco…..ysts-claim

    New Special Ops command in Mexico politically motivated analysts claim. I am telling you guys, they are dying to go to war in Mexico. Good thing we elected a Democrat and not an evil Republican beholden to the military industrial complex.

    1. Slowly, bit by bit, the world of Ghost in the Shell is built:

      After the third and fourth World Wars, the American Empire was left militarily and economically devastated and in an effort to regain prestige as a major power engaged in open imperialism in Mexico and other parts of Latin America under the pretext of overthrowing the corrupt governments of those nations. In the late 2020s, the American Empire invaded and occupied much of Mexico; the invading forces used psychological warfare and intimidation techniques such as killing women in smaller villages and torturing prisoners in an attempt to break the spirit of the Mexican resistance. This was compounded by a relentless carpet bombing campaign against major cities and a nuclear weapons strike on Monterrey. Large groups of American, British and Japanese mechanized infantry and armored divisions were then sent in to mop up all remaining Mexican forces, which led to extended bouts of tank-to-tank fighting and constant guerrilla warfare which lasted for months.

      Saito’s Tale

    2. They are changing it from a Colonel in charge to a General in charge even though it is only going from 30 personnel to a max of 150. Sounds like they are creating a General’s billet to justify why they have so many Generals.

      One of the most important jobs the Flag Officers at the Pentagon have is to come up with reasons why they need more Flag Officers

      1. Well, this is peacetime – The British navy has 41 admirals and 40 ships (at least in 2009).

  38. WTF is the LoC doing interpreting laws?

    He who controls the dictionaries rules the world.

    1. That guy that wrote the Alphabet Song, he wrote everything.

    2. Winston Smith finds this comment doubleplusgood.

    3. He who controls the dictionaries rules the world.

      It is very important to understand how thoroughly evil Librarians really are which is why everyone should read Alcatraz vs the Evil Librarians.

      1. It is very important to understand how thoroughly evil Librarians really are

        I have daily exposure to SugarFree. What can some mere book add that I don’t already know?

        1. I keep you strong.

  39. I went up to middle GA this weekend with a friend to some property his family owns. We were there on somewhat sad business, as we were securing the property after the man who’d lived there, my friend’s uncle, died in an accident three weeks ago. But we celebrated his legacy by shooting guns, then drinking beer and liquor. Got to shoot a .38 Special manufactured in 1910. Thing shoots as straight as I can hold my arm. .22s, .410s, skeet with 20 and 12 ga. An SKS. But the most fun was an old Mosin-Nagant. Holy shit. We were shooting that fucking cannon through tree trunks. I’m adding that one to my wants list. Just in case I ever have to shoot zombies (or other home invaders) through wooden or sheet steel fortifications. I’ve got new-gun fever, but I think I’ll wait until prices come back down from the stratosphere.

    1. You know who else respects the tradition of firearms for hunting and sport?

      1. The deputy sheriff who stopped by to ask us if anyone was going to be living there or whether he should drive by regularly? Who said only, “Well, I’ll let you get back to your target practice.” As he drove off.

    2. shooting guns, then drinking beer and liquor

      I applaud your scheduling of these activities.

      1. I don’t Can’t he multitask?

        1. Yes. But I either need two hands for the long arms or two hands for drinks. I only have two hands.

          More seriously, if we were going to drink a beer as we were winding down, I wouldn’t mind, but as a rule, shoot first, drink second. For the same reason I don’t drink and run the table saw.

          1. For the same reason I don’t drink and run the table saw.

            Where is your sense of adventure?

            1. I don’t want the nickname “Lefty” or “Stumpy” so I don’t drink and run the table saw. I don’t want the nickname “Patch” or “Colostemy” so I don’t drink and shoot. I know people who’ve lost bodyparts to both tools sober, and respect their ability to do me harm.

            2. Where is your sense of adventure?

              In his wife’s purse next to his sense of humor.

      2. Personally, I find black-letter, no-fooling, bright-lines to be the way to go on issues like drinking and shooting.

        If you’ve had a drink that day, you don’t shoot.

        If you’ve been shooting, you don’t drink until all the guns are cased.

        Overkill? Maybe. Works for me, though.

      1. No shit on #6.
        Also: “What’s a safety?”

        Our answer this weekend: “Don’t point it at anything you don’t want to make exit holes in.”

  40. http://news.yahoo.com/experts-…..55343.html

    Experts: New clues to sinking of Confederate sub

    NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) ? Scientists say a pole on the front of the Confederate submarine H.L. Hunley designed to plant explosives on enemy ships may hold a key clue to its sinking during the Civil War.

    The experts are to release their findings Monday at a North Charleston lab where the hand-cranked sub is being preserved and studied. The Hunley was the first submarine in history to sink an enemy warship.

    The pole, called a spar, was once placed at the front of the sub and used to plant a powder charge into the Union blockade ship Housatonic in 1864.The Housatonic sank, while the Hunley and its eight-man crew never returned.

    The sub was found in waters off South Carolina in 1995 and raised five years later. It’s been in the laboratory ever since.

    1. Last April, I saw the reproduction in front of the Charleston museum – which I highly recommend.

      1. I’m pretty tempted. I’ll go in my gas-guzzling Mustang, with the trunk packed full of assault rifle death cannons. Ah, Dixie!

        1. I could live in the old town of Charleston – well, minus the tourists, it’s lovely.

      2. I wish I had the time and money and lack of family obligations to get to Stockholm to see the Vasa.

  41. The story is a bit screwy, but the real gold is in the insanity of the comments. PoliceOne not only thinks the double standard should apply to them. They think when a police dog dies, someone should get the same penalty as when a human cop is killed.

    No mention on what penalty a cop should face when he mistakenly walks onto someone else’s property and kills their “friend and family member.”

    1. Some dogs are more equal than others.

  42. http://www.nj.com/news/index.s….._guns.html

    Amid the contentious debate on America’s relationship with guns, and a full-court press by President Obama and Democrats in Congress to pass an assault weapons ban, the mayor of Newark, who hopes to be a U.S. senator come 2015, has staked out a decidedly centrist position on guns. Booker called the issue “tiring” during a recent roundtable discussion on “Meet The Press,” saying he would support an assault weapons ban but doubted it would do much to control violence in America.

    —————–

    Retard Level X-Treme

    1. So the centrist position is “I support new laws, but I acknowledge they’re pointless”?

      1. More like “I support new laws, but I acknowledge their *ostensible* purpose may be not be valid.”

      2. When compared to the views of the senile gun-grabber Lautenberg, it is a centrist view.

  43. These guys are no pikers: When Bound Brook, New Jersey police officers violate your Constitutional Rights, they really violate your Constitutional Rights.

    1. clicked on the link, got a message saying it hoped i’d enjoyed my complimentary access and then told me to subscribe. So can you give me the edited highlights?

      1. during the course of one night in 2011 ? when he says he was assaulted, threatened with death, refused access to an attorney and even denied the use of a bathroom by a pair of Bound Brook police officers.

        Plaintiff Matthew T. Miller lived in North Plainfield at the time of the night in question and filed the lawsuit against the officers, the borough, a municipal court administrator and the woman who placed the 911 call that led to what his attorney described as a nightmare.

        1. cheers Brett.

          Don’t know what the guy is complaining about. They didn’t quarter troops in his home, so at least one of his rights was respected

          1. You know, more and more I find myself clinging to the quartering troops thing. We gotta have something for ourselves. Something.

      2. delete everything in the URL after the question mark and you should be able to read it.

  44. http://www.politico.com/story/…..86772.html

    IL: NRA ally Debbie Halvorson could win Jesse Jackson Jr.’s Chicago seat

    A white ex-congresswoman with an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association is the front-runner to replace former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. in a majority-black Chicagoland district with inner-city neighborhoods wracked by gun violence.
    At first glance, Debbie Halvorson should have no business winning the Feb. 26 special election. The former Democratic congresswoman was crushed by Jackson in a primary last year. She’s a white Democrat seeking to represent a district in which 54 percent of voters are African-American.
    And she’s an unapologetic Second Amendment backer ? with endorsements from the NRA in two of her previous congressional campaigns ? despite an outpouring of concern among voters and her campaign rivals about gun violence.

    ——————

    She’ll be facing lynch mobs if she wins.

    1. I suggest that she disappear for months before the election and offer no explanation whatsoever. That’s how you win that seat.

    2. I forget, is she the one who just got off on felony fraud or Blago’s lawyer?

  45. http://www.theblaze.com/storie…..l-defense/

    If ‘Assault Weapons’ Are Bad?Why Does DHS Want to Buy 7,000 of Them for ‘Personal Defense’?

    The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) ? also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.
    Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.

    1. Well, obviously

      1. They’re not evil assualt weapons (even though the use the same round) because they’re smaller PDW’s. Short barrel and smaller stock obviate the need for folding/collapsing stocks and the shorter barrel obviously means that the round is less powerfull.

      2. Because they’ll be used by government personnel. As we all know, all government personnel are chosen from the cream of the crop and receive extensive fire-arms training. As such they are the only ones professional enough to carry these weapons.

      Remember: A logical arguement must be dismissed with absolute conviction.

    2. And they want us to believe that the NRA is just a lobby for the gun manufacturers?

      I wonder if part of the purpose of this purchase is to buy off some gun manufacturers who might want to complain about some of the proposed restrictions.

    3. Hopefully every gun manufacturer refuses to sell to them.

      1. I think it was Bennett who refused to sell non-civilian legal modifications to his .50 rifle to police in California.

          1. Yeah. Shit. Barrett.

    4. Why does a bunch of glorified mall cops need weapons at all? I thought they weren’t allowed to carry weapons?

      Anyone who picks up this contract should be boycotted.

      1. How many armed federal agencies are there now? I’d bet that more than one falls under the DHS.

        1. Department of Education has a SWAT team.

  46. http://dailycaller.com/2013/01…..a-matters/

    Brock’s Glock: In anti-gun DC, Media Matters for America gave bodyguard illegal weapons to guard founder David Brock

  47. Professionals at work.

    Authorities did not notice Rocky Marquez, 34, was missing from a Detroit jail until five days after he walked out the front door undetected.

    According to police, on Jan. 20, Marquez switched ID wristbands with another inmate, who was about to be freed on bond. Marquez then simply walked out of the Wayne County jail.

  48. http://www.breitbart.com/Breit…..nstitution

    The mask finally just slips off

    This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today. If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.

    1. with the second inaugural, look for this to increasingly become the rule rather than the exception.

    2. Bring it bitches. Let’s call a convention and see what you really get. Remember, the State Legislatures have to elect delegates and ratify changes, and they are far less pro-Federal Gummint than the national electorate.

      1. What part of “people who died over two centuries ago” did you not get?

        1. Even better. Let’s hold a Revolution!

      2. “they are far less pro-Federal Gummint than the national electorate.”

        Given how much states get from the Federal government these days, I’m not so sure how true that would be.

        1. They wouldnt need to rely on that if they could get rid of the 17th amendment.

          1. Great minds. Or at least similar minds.

        2. Given that Federal obligations eat something like 65% of a State budget, the first thing they’d do is revoke the 17th Amendment. After which they’d go home. See, you’re just not cynical enough.

    3. Apparently they are unaware of the amendment process.

      1. But that is hard and would allow the Rethuglicans to gum up the works. Clowns like this just want someone on their side to declare a unilateral dictatorship.

    4. To be clear, I don’t think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago.

      It’s funny that these asshats think there’s some large majority clamoring for gun control that is only thwarted by the evil NRA.

      1. Yeah. I don’t think they really know what the “average” American really feels about the 2A. On the surface, the EDG household looks like a liberal’s wet dream (interracial, upwardly mobile, hipster neighborhood, etc.). They see this household, in this building, in this neighborhood, and assume that the occupants will fall in lock-step with their demented agenda. They are wrong.

        But come and try to take my guns. Also, my neighbors’ gun. Do it.

    5. Excellent fodder for kicking off the ol’ “national conversation”.

    6. I actually saw that on TV yesterday while my wife was watching the news crawl on the bottom of the screen (we had a major ice storm, and my wife was looking at all the local cancellations).

      The dude had a seriously punchable face.

    7. If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.

      I agree, but probably for a different reason.

    8. A law professor who wants to get rid of the constitution… isn’t that sort of like a literature professor who wants to get rid of the writing system?

  49. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

    That’s a ban on CIVILIAN possession and use, silly.

  50. George Washington’s Father: Who chopped down my cherry tree?

    George Washington: What difference, at this point, does it make?

  51. http://www.washingtontimes.com…..-the-rich/

    Sandy relief bill eats up all of the revenue from Obama tax hike.

    1. Those algae farms aren’t going to fund themselves.

  52. BTW, what does the trains run on time picture have to do with the A.M. Links?

    1. That is Benito Mussolini, in his deserved state.

  53. Alright, any green thumbs here?

    I have three cherry trees in my back “yard” (most of it is at a 45-degree angle so it’s pretty inaccessible). They’re covered in ivy because everything was neglected for at least 6 years before I got here.

    Two weeks ago I went around the bases of each of the trees and cut the ivy stems with a hatchet, some as big as my forearm.

    It has been pretty cold since then and a few days ago it looked like the ivy had frozen – it was black and wilted.

    But now, it’s green and healthy-looking again. How is that possible? What else can I do?

    1. Get a goat or a nuke. Seriously, if you want to spend less than several hours a week fighting it by hand for a couple years, that’s what I got for ya.

      1. The goat will be slightly more effective than the nuke.

    2. IME, Ivy is just minor offshoots of tentacles of Cthulhu.

      1. Shrub-Niggurath

    3. As a stone killer of plants, may I suggest a pincer movement? Perhaps cut + herbicide + bin liner (so it can’t photosynthesise easily and create green shoots). Or get a goat

    4. Make a fresh cut on the stem of the ivy. Take your pruning shears and cut the stem axially a few times in order to produce a lot of surface area. Using a paintbrush, apply undiluted Roundup (brought to you Monsanto).

      1. Roundup was going to be my suggestion too.

        1. I’ve had to clear a lot of young saplings from my lot over the last couple of years. I wait until they put up a bunch of shoots and then soak the leaves with Roundup. Kills the trees completely.

          I’m a big fan of Roundup

          1. I use it for edging so I dont have to mow right up against the rocks.

            1. Use it around trees to keep them from the harm of mowers and string trimmers.

              Roundup is one of man’s greatest inventions.

            2. Around trees, along the fence, along the edging. The round-up extended is great. Once in the spring, once in late summer.

              1. With all the talk about the best ways to kill plants, I feel like I’ve wandered into a vegan hunting camp.

              2. Round-up and Spectra-cide both make a ‘Vine and Ivy killer’ that if cut into the base and spray into the cut will work wonders.

                Don’t get it on the cherry trees.

    5. If youfirst chop down the trees, the good for nothing vines will eventually die. You’re welcome.

    6. But now, it’s green and healthy-looking again. How is that possible? What else can I do?

      You’ve killed them, but they still have a lot of stored energy. They will eventually dry up, but they won’t fall off for years. Loosen the base of the vine and pull them off, but if they are hatchet-sized, it’s going to take a lot of work.

      1. You’ve killed them, but they still have a lot of stored energy

        This is what I hoped. I am a patient man, I will just occasionally work on bringing down some of the boughs to hurt the plants more.

        1. Follow the Roundup advice to kill the roots. Or you can use paint on the severed ends if Roundup ain’t your bag.

    7. If you live out in California, I’ve got a goat or two I’d be willing to part with. Two of our nannies just kidded and we’ve got two more yet to do so. I’m ready to get rid of a couple of the older ones, especially a wether that’s a total asshole of a goat.

      1. I live in Pennsylvania about half an hour outside central Philadelphia, so as much as my wife would love a goat (seriously), I don’t think I can pull that off.

        I appreciate the offer, though.

        The deer sometimes nibble ivy, but it’s clearly not their favorite.

  54. In Naperville, IL, two mothers were arrested last week for refusing to allow utility workers to install controversial smart meters on their homes.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G…..art-Meters

    1. According to the Chicago Tribune, Malia “Kim” Bendis was also arrested on two misdemeanors for resisting a police officer and attempted eavesdropping, when she filmed police on scene, despite a recent federal court ruling that the state of Illinois’s ban on recording police officers in the line of duty was “unconstitutional.” The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that ruling in November.

      Pretty much anyone involved with the Illinois government is a lawless piece of shit who needs to be locked up.

      1. The eavesdropping charge is pure crap, but I’d be surprised if the law, restrictions on the property, or reason dictate that there is a right to exclude utility workers performing their jobs.

        1. She should have opted out and paid the fee.

          1. But she didn’t. And the monthly fee was pretty fricking punitive.

      2. “Bendis! We are not going to die because we are too gorram pretty.”

    2. Good.

  55. FA Cup 5th round draw

    Everton gets the win and a decent draw over the weekend. Although yet another road game.

    Also, Luton Town!!!!

    First non-league team to beat a premier team in the FA Cup. Only the 7th to beat a top division team since WW2, but the last was in 1989, a few years before the Premier League started. Ironically (if you are Alanis), Luton Town was in D1 in 1989.

    1. Liverpool is having some issues the last couple of years. But at least they didn’t get beat by Conference opposition.

      What’s with Spurs? Dempsey was the only one playing worth a shit yesterday, and even then he missed some near-sitters before his goal. Caulker was a disaster.

      1. I wonder if it’s just too many games played. Tottenham have been playing well, maybe they just couldn’t muster a fuck for a cup game.

        1. Could be, but can you play any worse than Caulker did? Jesus, his defending could have made it a blowout if not for Leeds playing to their standing at times.

    2. Everton has to play Oldham Athletic, which knocked Liverpool out. Hope they feel slightly torn if / when they beat ’em.

      We’re OK (home to Reading) but not sure I care about the Cup. After last season I just want the league. And City to suffer.

      1. You are a ManU fan…on purpose?

        1. Man Utd, please. Since the 1970s. So I have suffered.

          1. I avoided typing it as ManUre, so just be happy I went that far.

          2. One year in D2, followed by two consecutive FA Cup finals.

            Yeah, suffered.

            1. The taunting by Liverpool fans, the shit signings, the whole sense of faded glory…

              1. The taunting by Liverpool fans

                As an Everton fan, that one isnt going to win me over.

                the shit signings

                or that one.

                the whole sense of faded glory…

                Yeah, 0 for 3.

                1. why would i want to win you over when we win over you?

                    1. Fair enough. And you are doing very well this season – only 18 points off the lead

                    2. Im more worried about 4th.

                      With a few less blown points, would be there. Too many damn ties this year. When you only have 3 losses, you shouldnt be in 5th.

                    3. Everton’s transfer window signing:

                      Fer hit the headlines last year when he splashed out ?22,000 on a horse for his girlfriend, forgetting that she lived in a block of flats and would not be able to care for it.

                    4. Not as good as Balotelli and the fireworks, but it’s a promising level of stupidity

          3. Oh, how downtrodden!

      2. Personally, I think it would be hilarious if City scored 2 stoppage time goals to win the league again.

        1. That was the most delicious thing ever. I actually listened to it on the radio (Sirius/XM FTW) and it was the most amazing thing I’ve ever listened to sports-wise.

          I’m a relatively new City fan, but I’ve been an anti-ManUre fan for as long as I’ve given a shit about English soccer (pretty much since the PL has existed).

          1. Ive never really disliked City, its hard to when they have to share a city with ManU, but they have been trying to make it easier the last few years.

            1. You can’t dislike Yaya Toure, though.

              Easily my favorite player on that squad.

          2. I’m a relatively new City fan

            I’m not taking shit off a glory-hunter

            1. Listen, I’m an American with zero familial or cultural link to England. I’ve always favored them over ManUre going back, say 15 years, which is nearly half my life. When they were out of the top division, sure, I didn’t pay much attention to them. I wished they would get back up to the PL so they could challenge ManUre, but otherwise…meh. Oh well. I point back to my lack of any sort of historical link to England.

              My primary interest is in seeing ManUre fail, sort of like how I view the Yankees and Notre Dame.

              1. My primary interest is in seeing ManUre fail

                There’s no magnificence in your soul

                1. Well, THAT’S probably true.

                2. Plus, you have Chicharito, the scariest player from a US perspective for quite some time (aside from Giovanni Dos Santos). Having incredibly effective Mexican goal-poachers on your squad does not endear you to American fans much.

                  1. he does have a great chant though:

                    When I find myself in times of trouble
                    Chicharito scores for me
                    Javier Hernandez
                    Little pea

      3. ManUre? Seriously? You antipodeans are really rather evil.

      4. The Oldham / Liverpool game was great. Some damn League One team beating a giant, probably paying half of next year’s salary bill by getting this far. Too bad they’re almost certainly going down now.

        And the Luton Town story is even better, I just wish they had an easier draw.

        1. Home match vs a Championship team?

          For round 5, you cant get much easier. Millwall is decent, of course, but still, they avoided another Premier team.

          1. Decent point. If Luton manages to pull off another upset, the riots should be epic. As they probably will be if Millwall wins. I’M NOT BOVVERED.

        2. Breakdown of final 16:

          Premier League: 6/7 (depending on replay)
          Championship: 6
          League 1: 2/3
          League 2: 0
          Conference: 1

          Crazy year to have that few Premier League teams left. 1/4 of the teams could be from L1 or below.

    3. Arsenal. Go Gooners! Since my cousin and her British husband lived down the road from them for a bit and they’re the only team I’ve seen play at home live.

  56. As wicked as Benito Mussolini was (and if one was in favor of extra-judicial summary executions of tyrants, his end was well deserved [on balance I wish he would have ended up at Nuremberg]) I fail see how viewing a picture of a battered bloody corpse is going to favorably set my morning.

    It seems a unnecessarily drastic editorial choice to make a simple point how ghastly Berlusconi continues to be.

    1. On the other hand it’s not a bad idea to occasionally remind ourselves that we used to have slightly different views of men who committed summary extrajudicial assassinations.

    2. EEK! Where’s the fainting couch?

      Unless you skipped through all the comments in order to post here at the end of the thread, I’d say your constitution is strong enough to handle it.

      1. I dunno, I am pretty sensitive.

        And images are often incredibly more shocking that “mere” words.

        And even the death images of Mussolini and Clara Petacci in and of themselves in a proper context are certainly appropriate.

        The images that Reason uses for its stories are usually playful and often ironic.

        The meat-hook image of Mussolini was just unexpected.

        1. What did they do to Tor Johnson?!?!

    3. Personally, I think his end was right where it should have been – at the hands of the people he oppressed.

      This sort of thing, perpetrated by heads of government, needs to be taken care of by the people personally – to remind the buggers who’s really in charge.

      Organizations like ICJ simply allow people to pretend that government is not their responsibility. The reliance on state or quasi-state actors to save them just results in apathy among the people.

  57. That photo of Mussolini should be on hundreds of billboards within a fifty mile radius of the Capitol.

  58. Good news. The Sgt. whose daughter was given up for adoption without his consent has been granted custody.

    On Friday the original trial judge, Darold McDade who ruled in Achane’s favor, held a transfer hearing that resulted in the little girl and her father being united this weekend for the first time since she was born 22 months ago.

    “This is the first known case where the Utah State Supreme Court has removed a child from an [adoptive parent’s] home and returned the child to the … legal father,” said Achane’s lawyer Mark Wiser.

    Wiser called the Supreme Court’s ruling a “huge victory” for “equal parental rights,” meaning one parent can’t put a child up for adoption without the other’s permission, and decried the adoption practice in Utah.

    1. “meaning one parent can’t put a child up for adoption without the other’s permission”

      The guy was married to the child’s mother. This is not a typical adoption case. Generic references to “parents” aren’t helpful.

    2. Happens all the time, you know, when the mother doesn’t know who the father is or the father doesn’t confirm his parental status.

      But to adopt a kid without getting the husband’s permission? That’s over the line. The adopting parents/their lawyer/the agency were all idiots.

  59. Is there a generally held libertarian view on the death penalty?

    One would assume that if the State should not be given the power to run an automotive company, for instance, that it should not have to take the life of a citizen through a judicial process.

    1. Dude… that’s the ultimate non-sequitur.

      Libertarianism is opposed to aggresive violence, not defensive violence.

      One can argue very convincingly that executing Ted Bundy is a case of the latter.

      I think most of us are opposed to the death penalty, because we view the state as incompetent and therefore likely to murder innocent people. Some people may argue that the execution of Ted Bundy absent him being killed in the comission of a crime is murder, others don’t.

      1. I’m opposed to it because you don’t need to kill someone in self-defense if you can incarcerate them securely. And the other justifications (punishment, deterrence etc) generally don’t hold up and / or the penalty is so capriciously applied as to render it unjust

        1. Dead people can’t be pardoned.

          1. They can be, it just doesn’t do them much good at that point.

          2. And you can give a falsely imprisoned guy his 25 years of life back either.

            And if he dies in jail, the pardon does just as much good.

        2. It isn’t about “need.”

          I think “punishment” holds up really well as a justification.

          My concerns have to do with unscrupulous and/or criminal DAs and police but, as a concept, I have no issue whatsoever with removing certain bad actors from the planet.

        3. Multi decade incarcertation with no hope of ever getting out is far more inhumane than death. It is also seriously psychologically damaging to those tasked with being the prison guards and wardens.

          Also there is no such thing as a truely secure prison from which there is no hope of escape, some of those dangerous individuals will get out and kill/victimize again, either by gaming the parole system (whatever it looks like) or simple escape.

          That said I agree that death as a means of punishment or deterrence are ineffective and that in our current criminal justice system is so horribly broken that death sentences should probably not be applied.

      2. Get rid of prosecutorial immunity and I bet they’d find themselves some competence real quick.

      3. Not necessarily – we don’t all think that jail sentences are de facto unjust deprivations of liberty and so the death penalty isn’t off the table.

        On the other hand we do have a very jaundiced view of the capabilities and intent of those in government and people like me oppose the death penalty not because I think its wrong (I do think there are people the world is better off without) but because I don’t think any government (in reality) has or ever will show the necessary care to be allowed that power.

    2. Some people are inhuman and don’t deserve to be allowed to perpetuate their evil on other people, which they will continue to do as long as they breathe. However, trusting the government to be the arbiter of who those people are is the second worst option (besides the blood feud). Don’t think there’s a good answer beyond that.

    3. I see no distinction between the power to jail and the power to execute.

      Its a difference of degree, not kind.

      So, in theory, I dont have a problem with the death penalty. But, as tarran said, I have a lot of problem in practice.

    4. I think most libertarians, not all by any stretch, but a plurality would be in opposition to the death penalty for a variety of reasons. However I think the number who would support some manner of death sentence would be closer to 50%.

      What is the difference between a death penalty and a death sentence? Well it is the approach to the justice system. With a death penalty you have a justice system based on punishment, something which many libertarians would oppose in and of itself regardless of what they thought about the death aspect of it. With a death sentence the result is the same (the guilty is dead) but it is not about punishment but rather something else (retribution, for example, or possibly a determination that you cannot be safely allowed back into society ever).

      There are also those who have less of a problem with a death sentence than they do with incarceration for extended periods of time (as in multiple decades) viewing the death sentence as the less severe and more humane sentence.

      Personally I oppose Death Penalties as I oppose pretty much everything about our criminal justice system today. However if we had a justice system that was based on Restitution and rehabilitation I could live with the occasional death sentences for those judged to have been irredeemable and unsafe to allow back into society. In general this would go along with there being no such thing as a prison sentence longer than 10 or so years

  60. Apparently they are unaware of the amendment process.

    Wait, what?

    The President, after a bout of sincere soul-searching, takes his special red pen (handed down through the ages and used by such Heroes of the Republic as A Lincoln, W Wilson, and F D Roooooosevelt) and strikes through those portions which impede the implementation of his special Mandate.

  61. Is there a generally held libertarian view on the death penalty?

    My personal view is that the death penalty should only apply to government employees guilty of abuse of power or gross malfeasance.

  62. I view the death penalty, as administered by the government, to be nothing more than revenge murder.

    1. I would agree, but don’t find that to be a convincing argument against it.

      I agree more with tarran’s ‘incompetence’ argument.

  63. “Iran says it sent monkey into space and back”

    http://www.twincities.com/ci_2…..into-space

    Why would they send a Jew into space?

    1. I don’t understand what the big deal is – sending something to space and back is pretty much a mature technology now.

      All Iran has shown is that they can read old spaceflight manuals.

  64. I am OK with the death penalty…if the defendant pleads guilty and requests it. Otherwise, they should be incarcerated.

    There’s no reason the give harsher sentences like the death penalty to “unremorseful” people because they continued to claim their innocence after trial. (I think there was a weekend story on here that went into this.) But prosecutors routinely ask for the death penalty in cases where the defendant doesn’t want to play ball and plead guilty as long as he/she will be given life.

    1. But prosecutors routinely ask for the death penalty in cases where the defendant doesn’t want to play ball and plead guilty as long as he/she will be given life.

      Around here, prosecutors routinely ask for the death penalty in capital murder cases, period.

      1. Around here, prosecutors routinely ask for the death penalty in capital murder cases, period.

        I would assume they request the death penalty for 100% of the capital murder cases. It’s part of the definition of a “capital” crime.

    2. Here is an example of someone who has been labeled as a monster for his lack of remorse, and because of his monster status his request to have DNA evidence tested in a bid for a retrial has been denied over and over and over… until now.

      http://bangordailynews.com/201…..new-trial/

        1. Yup. If you’re willing to kill 142 innocent people to institute your own sick brand of “justice”, then you’ve got all the morality of the killers you condemn.

          1. If I’m willing for people to die in prison who later turn out to have questions about their conviction, or even evidence of actual innocence, do I have a sick brand of “justice”?

            1. That’s Tulpaesque equivocation at its best. If you can’t see the difference between actively killing someone and locking them up, then there’s really no need to discuss this any further.

              1. I don’t see a meaningful difference in someone’s dying in prison and dying in a death chamber, from the perspective of the wrongly confused or, really, from the perspective of the society that put him there. All the more so if the death is a result of violence, illness, or poor care unlikely to have happened to a free person.

                I think there’s probably no need to discuss it further because you can’t find a principle that allows you to be against innocent people dying in prison because of state action and still be in favor of prisons (at least in concept).

                Even people of good faith make mistakes. They make them in capital cases and they make them in non-capital cases but the defendant winds up dead in prison just the same. If you’re willing to accept the latter kind of mistake, why not the former? Simply because the state actively, rather than passively, is instrumental in the death?

                1. Incarcerating someone =/= killing them.

                  Again, there is an appeals process whereby an incarcerated person can re-secure their freedom. Those put to death in the name of the state cannot.

                  And yes, falsely convicting someone sucks and it happens all the time (hence my position on prosecutorial immunity). But the overwhelming % of those people don’t end up dead in jail and some of them eventually secure their freedom.

              2. Tulpaesque equivocation

                Followed by H&Resque; evasion of an uncomfortable truth by claiming it’s fallacious and you can’t discuss why.

            2. IMO, letting a person sit in a prison cell is infinitely better than putting them to death. And while wrongful convictions happen, there is an appeals process whereby justice may eventually prevail for that man sitting in an 8×8 that knows he’s innocent. The man strapped to the gurney saying he didn’t do it will no longer have that potentiality in a couple of hours.

              Jailing the wrongfully convicted sucks, and I bet it happens every day. And as someone noted upthread, eliminating prosecutorial immunity would go a long way to decreasing the number of wrongfully convicted. But still, at least those people have a chance of eventually securing their freedom.

              1. People on death row have a much more robust appeals process than people sentenced to life in prison. The latter will exhaust their appeals long before the former are actually executed.

                If Cory Maye had been sentenced to life in prison he probably would have died in prison. But he was sentenced to death, and is now a free man (though obviously it’s not good that he spent years in prison).

                1. ^^This^^ might be the most convoluted idiotic argument for the death penalty I’ve ever heard.

                  How about this: give the same right of appeal to all convicted persons, regardless of their crime and/or sentence.

                  1. It’s not intended as an argument for the death penalty, it just shows that the idea that a person with long-term imprisonment has more opportunities to appeal than someone on death row is not true in our current system. We’ve responded to concerns about executing innocent people by providing this lavish appeals process.

                    Giving the lavish system of appeals we have for death sentences to every prisoner is simply impractical. Every prisoner would be constantly filing appeals. Our court system can’t handle it.

                    Since your side is using the issues with the current system to push your agenda, it’s only fair that my side is allowed to do the same.

                    1. Giving the lavish system of appeals we have for death sentences to every prisoner is simply impractical. Every prisoner would be constantly filing appeals. Our court system can’t handle it.

                      I never said they should enjoy that set of appeals, only that it be uniform.

                      Since your side is using the issues with the current system to push your agenda, it’s only fair that my side is allowed to do the same.

                      What “side issue” have I used again, Tulpa?

                    2. So you do support cutting off appeals at some point? That doesn’t jibe with your argument above that we can’t have the death penalty because it cuts off appeals.

                    3. You’re trying your best to trip me up but it isn’t gonna happen. Under the current setup, there is a finite appeals process but it is different for death row inmates than other convicted of the same crime but receiving a different sentence. All I’ve proposed is making the process the same for all convicted parties. Some might call that having “equal protection under the law”.

              2. “IMO, letting a person sit in a prison cell is infinitely better than putting them to death.”

                There are MANY who would disagree with this statement because long term incarceration is so dehumanizing that death is preferable.

                There is also the inevitable psychological harm caused to those tasked with guarding those incarcerated and enforcing the dehumanization of the prisoners.

                Yes death is final, and it should only be used in extreme cases but lets not pretend that even 5 years in a prison cell does not cause serious harm.

                1. There are MANY who would disagree with this statement because long term incarceration is so dehumanizing that death is preferable.

                  Like I said above, I’m OK with the death penalty if someone pleads guilty and requests it. I’ll amend that to say they can request it at any time (through legal representation) during their incarceration and be granted that request in short order.

      1. Not sure how this DNA evidence would necessarily exonerate him, unless there is something in the evidence that shows there could have been only one kidnapper/murderer.

        1. Apparently the victim had skin under her fingernails which the defense has been asking to have DNA tested for many years.

          I’m thinking it will look really bad for the prosecutors and judges who refused to allow the test if it turn out that the remorseless monster’s DNA was not present under the victim’s nails.

          1. Not necessarily – apparently there’s a whole bunch of evidence that ties him to the crime: he was observed near the location where her body was found, supposedly she was tied up with rope from his garage, and some papers belonging to him turned up at the kidnapping scene.

            1. I’m not saying the guy is an angel or anything. But from what I’ve read this is a clear case of prosecutorial tunnel-vision. He was the guy, and any evidence that might have suggested that someone else may have been involved was not even considered. He was considered guilty and failed to prove his innocence.

            2. 1)he was observed near the location where her body was found, 2)supposedly she was tied up with rope from his garage, and 3)some papers belonging to him turned up at the kidnapping scene.

              I’m always suspicious when I see any of these as evidence that a crime has been committed.
              1)In what context? How heavily populated an area was it? Did he have a purpose for being there? Define “near”.

              2)Supposedly. How much rope of the type was produced? How much in that batch? Was any more of the batch shipped to the same store he bought his from? How much of it was sold in the last couple of years?

              3)How did those papers come to end up there? Any chance they were planted? And chance that he was set up? (goes for #2 as well) How long after the kidnapping were they found and secured?

              And defense attorney worth a damn could tear this evidence up in about 2 minutes.

              1. There’s also the part where he drank alcohol and used drugs. That’s right. He was a drug user. A drug user! The guy used drugs! How couldn’t he be guilty? He was a drug user! Drug user!

              2. 1) He came out of the woods where the body was and gave implausible and inconsistent explanations as to what he was doing there.

                2) The rope thing gives me pause – I guess they are saying it was cut from a length of rope found in his garage. I’ve heard of junk science forensics doing matches.

                3) Have no idea.

                Again, I’m not saying the guy is guilty. I’m saying he might be guilty. He could well be innocent – like that fellow in Texas who was in a drugged out stupor while his girlfriend’s uncle murdered his girl-friend.

                1. And I’m not saying he’s innocent. He might be, but I’d have to base it on a lot more than that evidence, especially if there’s any contradictory DNA evidence.

                  As to 1): It’s not too tough for a cop to get someone to give contradictory statements. Having an armed stranger ask you what you were doing somewhere is probably stress-inducing and disorienting. That’s why any statement made before one has been given the right to counsel should never see the inside of a courtroom.

              3. And defense attorney worth a damn could tear this evidence up in about 2 minutes.

                He could try.

                The timeframe indicates a set up couldn’t reasonably have been done. Once you start arguing planted evidence that just happens to coincide with evidence found later, you start hurting rather than helping your case.

                1. The timeframe indicates a set up couldn’t reasonably have been done.

                  How so?

                  Once you start arguing planted evidence that just happens to coincide with evidence found later, you start hurting rather than helping your case.

                  I fail to see how “personal papers” showing up days later at the kidnapping scene could hurt his “set up” defense. What reason could the cops have for overlooking them? Was his house searched prior to the trip back to the kidnapping scene?

                  I harken back to the OJ case, where the police sought to frame a guilty man by planting evidence.

                  1. Where did you see that the papers were found “days later”?

          2. Again, though, how does that DNA evidence exonerate the guy? Let’s say the DNA under the girl’s fingernails is a metaphysical lock to belong to someone else. Does that mean this guy is innocent? In the absence of evidence that only one person could possibly have been involved in the murder, I don’t think it raises reasonable doubt that this guy wasn’t there, too, he just wasn’t scratched.

            In my very brief reading about the case, there’s plenty of physical and circumstantial evidence that points to this guy. Someone else’s DNA would seem to point more to a partner than innocence, unless there’s some other evidence that points only toward one person.

            1. Again, though, how does that DNA evidence exonerate the guy?

              I didn’t say it would. They’re looking for a retrial and a chance to raise reasonable doubt with DNA evidence. Nobody said anything about instantly exonerating the guy.

              1. I’m not even sure it would raise reasonable doubt, unless the prosecutor can’t argue that there was simply another person involved.

  65. I agree more with tarran’s ‘incompetence’ argument.

    The incompetence (not to mention outright malice) argument is more than sufficient reason to abolish capital punishment.

    Of course, when the governor of Illinois (Ryan?) commuted all death sentences due to widespread problems, there was a horrendous outcry. I happened to stumble across somebody on FOXNEWS at the time who was claiming he was just setting them all free.

    1. The incompetence (not to mention outright malice) argument is more than sufficient reason to abolish capital punishment.

      Maybe. And I lean more that way than I used to, but Kenneth Allen McDuff says hi.

      1. Nobody said they shouldn’t be put behind bars for the rest of their life. As a matter of fact, every person involved in his release should be held personally liable for the deaths of his later victims.

        Incompetence doesn’t always result in wrongful convictions. In this case, it resulted in a wrongful release.

        1. That’s the argument I made to the guy responsible for the parole of the guy who tried to kill me and my then-girlfriend. He didn’t seem thrilled with being liable for the crimes this guy will commit after his release.

          1. And what was his reaction?

            Seriously, I understand your desire to be safe from this guy, but that’s no reason to support the death penalty carte blanche, knowing how many times the state wrongfully convicts people. In fact it’s even more of a reason to eliminate all forms of immunity for government officials.

            1. It isn’t really about this guy or being safe from this guy. I supported the death penalty long before this even happened.

              What do you think the wrongful conviction rate in capital cases is?

              I agree about getting rid of immunity and probably wouldn’t be opposed to subjecting government officials to the same penalties faced by the defendants in cases involving their misconduct.

              The parole guy just made some bullshit argument about how he can’t be held legally responsible. I’m sure it’s a speech he makes often.

              1. What do you think the wrongful conviction rate in capital cases is?

                Not sure. If the rate is above zero it’s too high. You can’t bring someone back from the dead, but you can reinstate their freedom by releasing them from prison.

                1. I don’t agree that anything 0% is too high, so we’ve reached an impasse.

                  1. OK, so how many innocent people put to death in the name of the state is acceptable to you? 10, 100, 1000?

                    1. As many as are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.

                      The biggest problem here is quality of defense counsel. I’m not sure of the best ways to address that.

                    2. You’re OK with a jury of 12 possibly making a mistake based on what could be a number of factors (poor defense work, suppression of evidence, fabricated evidence, unethical prosecution, lack of technology) leading to a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt that may be overturned at a later date due to the factors I listed no longer being the case?

                      Wow, that’s not much value being put on human life, in my opinion.

                    3. Wow, that’s not much value being put on human life, in my opinion

                      Do you believe that any mistake rate above zero is too high when it comes to self-defense with guns?

                    4. Example, please.

                      But, I believe we should all be responsible for our actions. If I “accidentally” kill someone with my gun, there’s a crime that covers it: involuntary manslaughter.

                    5. Example, please.

                      Any example. You notice a person sneaking around in your yard. Someone breaks in your front door and you get your gun. Unbeknownst to you, you neighbor scares the intruder away but you shoot your neighbor when he comes into the door to check on you.

                      Regardless of the example, though, do you believe that greater than zero mistaken killings in self-defense, regardless of the ramifications you personally would face, is sufficient to say that self-defense is too risky or dismissive of the value of human life?

                    6. If you shot your neighbor without identifying him, I’d say that’s grounds for a criminal prosecution.

                      Can you come up with an example that doesn’t involve the negligent killing of someone else?

                    7. I’m pretty sure you know that isn’t the point.

                      Regardless of the example, though, do you believe that greater than zero mistaken killings in self-defense, regardless of the ramifications you personally would face, is sufficient to say that self-defense is too risky or dismissive of the value of human life?

                    8. I’ve still not been given a decent example where a crime wasn’t committed.

                      It’s every shooter’s responsibility to know what/who they are shooting at as well as what is behind their target and to assume their weapon is loaded and the safety is off.

                      regardless of the ramifications you personally would face, is sufficient to say that self-defense is too risky or dismissive of the value of human life?

                      The ramifications are the issue here, aren’t they?

                    9. The ramifications are the issue here, aren’t they?

                      Case 1: Capital punishment sometimes results in the death of innocents. Since the death of even one innocent due to mistaken capital punishment is too many, capital punishment should not be allowed.

                      Case 2: Lethal self-defense with guns sometimes results in the death of innocents. Since the death of even one innocent due to mistaken self-defense is too many, lethal self-defense should not be allowed.

                      Why do you agree with Case 1, but not Case 2?

                    10. In Case 1, there is an alternative to capital punishment, therefore it is not necessary.

                      In Case 2, there may not be an alternative to lethal self-defense, and there are criminal penalties for those that harm in innocent victim “mistakenly”.

                      In other words, they’re not even in the same sport, let alone the same ballpark.

                    11. There are always alternatives to lethal self-defense. You’re simply willing to accept the risk of dead innocents rather than force people to use them.

                      I’m willing to accept that people make mistakes in self-defense and that people make mistakes as jurors and prosecutors in capital cases. You aren’t. That’s fine.

                    12. There are always alternatives to lethal self-defense.

                      Always? Really?

                      You’re simply willing to accept the risk of dead innocents rather than force people to use them.

                      Find one place where I said that.

                      I’m willing to accept that people make mistakes in self-defense and that people make mistakes as jurors and prosecutors in capital cases. You aren’t. That’s fine.

                      Bullshit. I am willing to accept that they make mistakes in both instances. That’s why I do not support the state-enforced death penalty unless a person requests it. The mistakes are not worth the risk when there is a clear alternative that prevents the person from further harming anyone else.

                    13. Not to mention that a decision to defend one’s self usually happens in a split-second. Deliberations to put a condemned (and imprisoned) man to death take far longer. Knowing that there are alternatives to the latter (death penalty) that can as easily and safely be performed means that comparing it to the former (lethal self-defense) is not really an apples to apples comparison, IMO.

                2. If the rate is above zero it’s too high.

                  This kind of sloppy thinking is what got us gun control….emotionalizing about one side of the tradeoff while completely neglecting the other.

                  1. Yeah Tulpa. They’re exactly the same. My argument that it’s dangerous and immoral for the state to take any life if there’s a risk of wrongful conviction is the same as people that want to emotionalize and use murdered kids as a reason to further undermine peoples’ right to self-defense.

                    Show me where I’ve emotionalized anything here, dumbass.

                    1. You’re emotionalizing in that you’re presenting only one side of the tradeoff, in both cases.

                      Gun policy is a tradeoff between gun crimes and legitimate use of guns.
                      Death penalty policy is a tradeoff between executing innocents and allowing murderers to live off our dime for the rest of their lives.

                    2. That’s bullshit and you know it. In the gun example, you’re talking about taking away rights of the innocent because of the actions of a few guilty.

                      In the death penalty example, I’ve never proposed punishing the innocent or freeing the guilty.

                      Bullshit move, but it’s about what I’ve come to expect from you over the years.

                    3. well put. i think if one is a supporter of the death penalty, one has to at lesat accept the possibility that occasionally an innocent will be executed.

                      that’s a pragmatic way to look at it

                    4. Gun policy is a tradeoff between gun crimes and legitimate use of guns.

                      Whenever you start trading off fundamental human rights (such as the right to self-defense), you should probably check your premises.

  66. Am I supposed to google this McDuff guy?

    Unless he went on a crime spree after escaping from a maximum security prison while serving a sentence of life imprisonment instead of being executed, I’m not sure what it would prove.

    1. His death sentence was commuted. He was paroled. He killed more people.

      If he can be paroled, he can otherwise stupidly be released.

      1. I should point out, he was paroled inappropriately – they were throwing bodies out the door due to overcrowding.

  67. Point of clarification: David Clarke is actually not the Milwaukee Police Chief (that would be Ed Flynn, who is very much a gun control type). Rather, Clarke is the elected county sheriff. His officers are tasked with the county’s interstate highways, patrolling parks, courthouse security, and running a jail or two.

  68. Why do FOX News figures look like Kids In The Hall Characters?

  69. He was paroled. He killed more people.

    Mistakes were made.

    The problem here is not that they FAILED TO REVENGE-MURDER HIM; the problem is that they turned him loose.

    And, as has already been suggested, if the people who released him could somehow be subjected to real consequences for their fuckups, the system overall would probably benefit.

    1. No, I think the problem is that he was still alive.

      And, as has already been suggested, if the people who released him could somehow be subjected to real consequences for their fuckups, the system overall would probably benefit.

      It sounds good, but isn’t it pretty clear that the result will be that fewer people get out and more die in prison? If the parole board keeps the inmate in prison, they are at no risk. For every one they let out, even if 9,999 of 10,000 commit no further crimes, they are at risk. You don’t need to be Kreskin to predict what happens.

      1. It sounds good, but isn’t it pretty clear that the result will be that fewer people get out and more die in prison?

        Just to be clear, what the result would be is that convicted people would serve their full sentence, right? We’re not proposing the parole board keep people incarcerated after they have completed their sentence.

        1. Just to be clear, that means more people will spend more time and die in prison and effectively make parole almost impossible.

          If that’s the goal, that’s fine. Why not, then, just get rid of the concept of parole and everyone serves every day of every sentence instead of dealing with the process of going after parole board members?

          1. Why not, then, just get rid of the concept of parole and everyone serves every day of every sentence instead of dealing with the process of going after parole board members?

            I’m fine with that. It might get some real sentencing reform for victimless crimes and get some of the idiotic laws off the books altogether.

            1. It might also attempt to explain the idea that is sex offender registry lists. If they are a danger to society, the problem is that they were released, not that they aren’t on a list somewhere. Also, the things a person can be put on the list for are far too many, and the practical impossibility of removing your name from that list decades later means being free is little better than being in prison still.

  70. they were throwing bodies out the door due to overcrowding.

    Prison guards’ union prefers docile dopers to violent murderers.

    OFFICER SAFETY

  71. It sounds good, but isn’t it pretty clear that the result will be that fewer people get out and more die in prison?

    That is without question a legitimate argument, which is why a serious effort needs to be put into preventing/reversing prosecutorial win-at-all-cost overreach.

    It sounds like pie in the sky, but better convictions would be the best place to start. Also, fewer laws.

    Will any of that stuff happen?

    I’m not holding my breath.

    1. I don’t see a real downside of going after this at the prosecutorial level. Most likely this results in some guilty people not being prosecuted and probably even more not-guilty people not being prosecuted. Or, in a more ideal world, more time is spent uncovering actual evidence against violent criminals and fewer non-violent crimes are pursued.

      1. non-violent crimes are important. burglary, auto-theft, etc. these impact people significantly.

        1. I’m not saying they aren’t, but there are plenty of non-violent crimes that are.

          I’d lump burglary of a habitation in with violent crimes because of the higher potential for violence but, honestly, I’d rather have the cops and prosecutors going after murderers and rapists than my stolen car. Now, back when I rode, I’d put my motorcycle up there with murder victims but, as a general proposition, I’d skew the resources a little more toward violent offenders.

          1. The insurance companies, and the auto manufacturers are probably more effective at curbing auto theft, than police investigations after the fact. The police investigating a large ring a la Gone in Sixty Seconds is legitimate. But really, how many large rings are responsible for auto thefts? I would imagine most are joyriders, and one-offs.

            By all means, I would prefer the police focus on murders, rapes, assaults.

  72. Parole is not the same as overturning an improper conviction.

  73. obama can meet with police chiefs all he wants, but as explained frequently, they are almost alway cop-o-crats and will take whatever policy position their handlers (mayors or city councils) want them to take. they are appointees. the iconoclasts and the freedom lovers are almost always county sheriffs, since they are elected, not appointed, and speak for the people, not their handlers.

    i wonder how often a police chief comes out with, for example, a pro-rkba position, in opposition to his appointer (usually a mayor or a city council). it’s going to be rare, because they serve only at their behest.

  74. in a more ideal world, more time is spent uncovering actual evidence against violent criminals and fewer non-violent crimes are pursued.

    That’s how I look at it.

  75. Baboon likes omelettes.

    Weather after the break.

  76. A few crooks mistakenly going to the electric chair as a result of overzealous and/or sloppy prosecution is just an ordinary cost of doing business.

    A law enforcement pro losing his job, however, is a tragedy of epic proportion!

    1. that’s your fallacy right there. even given excellent and well behaved prosecutors and exceedingly competent defense, it is still possible for an innocent to be convicted. the fallacy is the myth that when an innocent is convicted there must be mal or misfeasance.

      a pragmatist accepts that circumstances dictate that everybofy can do the RIGHT thing and still an innocent can be convicted. knowledge and the CJ system are imperfect. people can be , by mere chance, in a position where the evidence points against them EVEN though they are innocent.

      it’s a sad, irrefutable fact of life.

  77. “Convictions were obtained.”

    “Shots were fired.”

    “Lives were lost.”

  78. Enquiring minds want to know, did the monkey come back to earth or was this a one-way trip?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.