Local Government

15-Foot Parking Rules Signs Spotted in Culver City, Los Angeles County

|

Via the Facebook feed of KRON 4's Stanley Roberts, a parking sign spotted in Culver City, California:

 

15 foot Culver City parking sign
Facebook

Curbed Los Angeles provides more details, reporting the height at 15 feet, with photos that include background objects for comparison. At least ten of these signs were apparently put up near a local elementary school.

(h/t Phil R.)

NEXT: Ferguson Protesters React to Michael Brown Robbery Footage

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. Ignorance of the law is no excuse!

  2. …estimating the height at 15 feet…

    Estimating?

    This is an elementary school. Ask a fourth grader on a sunny day with a yardstick and be exact!

    1. NO! Kids can not go outside unsupervised (by either parents or properly credentialed/background checked person) until they are at least 12 years old.

      1. NO! Kids can not go outside unsupervised (by either parents or properly credentialed/background checked person) until they are at least 12 42 years old.

        Fixed it for you.

      2. I say, right of the womb wrap them in bubble wrap and secure them in the basement. Don’t let them out until they are old enough to pay taxes.

  3. In two million years, when the highly evolved Crow People dig up the ruins of California, they’ll see this totem as a great statute passed down from the king, a la Hammurabi’s Code.

    1. At least since it will be mandated in 4 languages, it will act as a sort of Rosetta Stone for bullshit.

    2. Thread winner.

  4. Leela: Do you know what it means

    Fry: Yeah, I asked a cop once. It means “Up yours, Kid”.

    1. Isn’t “rape culture” an oxymoron? Sort of like “compassionate torture”?

      How can an act which is a violation of cultural norms be a culture?

      1. How can an act which is a violation of cultural norms be a culture?

        Ask Malaysia.

        1. If you are going to be all rapey, who signs up for number 2, let alone number 38? I mean, even going airtight, you’re at least number 7.

          1. Even consentual who wants sloppy seconds. Ewww.

      2. You cis-normative white male oppressor, don’t you understand that rape is a cultural norm?!? It sustains the patriarchy!!

    2. Everything we need to know about rape culture is drawn on a marshmallow?

      1. Fuck, I hit send too fast. Trying to cook and read.

        I don’t get it. what do marshmallows have to do with rape culture?

  5. About ten years ago, when I was in Japan, I met a guy who wanted to move to California, because “everybody’s free.”

    I think about that every once and a while, and can’t help but laughing until I cry.

    1. Compared to Japan – CA *is* free.

      1. Perhaps (though I’m not so sure), but would you say CA is becoming more or less so in the last ten years?

        1. Is it becoming “more free” anywhere at all?

          1. Texas. Yes we are redneck assholes. But still, the trend is in the right direction.

            1. I’ve read enough tales of silliness in these here pages to cast doubt on that.

        2. I’d say that Japan has always been an ‘ask permission’ and ‘top men’ state and that CA has definitely moved closer and closer to that over the last decade.

      2. Having lived in Japan on and off over the last 50 years(most recently in 2008-2010) I would say that the scales have finally tipped and Japan is now a little more free than California in day-to-day living. Its when you are arrested that the constitutional protections here in the US are far superior. In Japan it is not a felony to eat horse meat. Parents can leave their children unattended in a park for hours and not be arrested. Kids are not arrested or suspended from school if they pretend their fingers are a gun and point and shoot their classmate on the school playground. Mama-san can walk down the street and ride the train with a big bad-ass kitchen knife in open view on her way to get it sharpened at a knife store or department store and the public and especially the police do not go into a panic.

  6. So, I’m pretty sure Smacks McDougal in today’s millennial thread is Mary. The tell is her use of terms like “crypto-Republican” and references to making us dance like puppets. As for Michael Hihn, I suspect he is Tulpa.

    In other news, I went to the local secular meet-up today. I was the only non-prog there. The conversation drifted to a discussion about socialism, which they assured me is completely different from communism, even though communist countries use the terms interchangeably. Their definition of socialism was “people working together” which I said was so broad that it could define ANY political system. One of them tried to argue that roads are a form of socialism.

    The Christian says “only God can make a tree” and the prog says “only the state can pave a road”.

    They were also convinced that Cuba has a better healthcare system than the US, although they admitted that their government sucks. I asked them how can a shitty government run a good healthcare system, but all I got was hand-waving.

    Other highlights included me defending the right of Hobby Lobby to refuse to cover certain kinds of birth control as well as the idea that corporations have the same rights as individuals.

    1. Mike Hihn is very real.

      1. Do tell..

        1. If there were no Michael Hinh, Michael Hinh would need to create him.

      2. Mike Hihn is very real.

        So is Jason Goedeski but that doesn’t mean the posts written after his style were by him.

        I think the good doctor has it backwards. Smack is Tulpa and Hihn is Mary.

    2. Why was a Christian at a secular meeting? Doesn’t secularism generally attempt to exclude the openly religious?

      More importantly: why was a socialist at a secular meeting? Doesn’t secularism generally attempt to exclude the openly religious?

      1. There were no Christians there.

        1. Sorry, I misread this sentence:

          The Christian says “only God can make a tree” and the prog says “only the state can pave a road”.

          I blame capitalism and the lack of peasant literacy campaigns in my neighborhood.

          1. Oh, there he’s talking about Christian *Slater*.

    3. You should have told them that the way Cuba keeps their infant mortality rate low is through forcing women to submit to tests and then requiring them to undergo forced abortions if there’s any sign of birth defects. The man who blew the whistle on the forced abortion policy is named Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet and was promptly thrown in prison.

      Cuba has the world’s highest abortion rate because women are often required to undergo them. Cuban doctors often report women who have undergone five or six abortions at state command by the time they’re in their 30’s.

      You should have asked why they support a healthcare regime that gooses its infant mortality numbers by strapping women to gurneys, forcefully anesthetizing them, and then requiring that they undergo a highly invasive surgical procedure on their genitals that they do not want.

      Then ask them how they can justify their opposition to rape while being okay with all of the above.

      I realize that The Spectator is a right-wing rag that has reasons to lie about a forced abortion policy so here’s an article from ABC claiming the same thing which also mentions that all Cuba’s supposedly good health outcomes are self-reported rather than gathered by the UN. In other words, the United Nation trusts the self-reported claims of an authoritarian dictatorship without verification.

      1. In other words, the United Nation trusts the self-reported claims of an authoritarian dictatorship without verification.

        In 2016, the members of the Human Rights Council will include China, Saudi Arabia, the Russian Federation, and Cuba.

        1. So Forced Abortion, Morality Police, Politically Driven Assassination, and Murderous Dictatorship.

          Sounds legit.

        2. And they’ll no doubt, after much leisure, compose a resolution condemning Israel.

      2. My retort was basically “why the hell would you believe statistics from a communist country? They’re famous for propaganda and censorship.”

        I also asked them if Cuba’s healthcare is so great, why do the build home-made boats to get away from it?

        1. We’ve seen this play before. The progs are basically doing the exact same thing Walter Duranty did regarding the Soviet Union. They’re accepting the claims of a totalitarian regime known for its propaganda at face value.

          True story: Raul Castro went on TV to claim that they’d finally have enough milk for every citizen. Then this happened:

          Cuba is short of everything but air and sunshine. In her book, S?nchez describes an astonishing appearance by Ra?l Castro on television, during which he boasted that the economy was doing so well now that everyone could drink milk. “To me,” S?nchez wrote, “someone who grew up on a gulp of orange-peel tea, the news seemed incredible.” She never thought she’d see the day. “I believed we would put a man on the moon, take first place among all nations in the upcoming Olympics, or discover a vaccine for AIDS before we would put the forgotten morning caf? con leche, coffee with milk, within reach of every person on this island.” And yet Ra?l’s promise of milk for all was deleted from the transcription of the speech in Granma, the Communist Party newspaper. He went too far: there was not enough milk to ensure that everyone got some.

          So Raul Castro deletes parts of his own speeches in order to deny that he ever said something untrue. Clearly his claims about Cuban healthcare must be legit.

          1. The sad part is any nation, in the 21st century, *boasting* about widespread access to a staple foodstuff that basically every other Latin-American country takes for granted.

            It moves on to comedy when you find out that the boasts aren’t even true.

            1. Yeah, I also question how a country without readily available milk can possibly provide high quality chemo therapy.

            2. In Russia, communism was so successful at modernizing the country, that almost all citizens have access to an outhouse.

              1. In Russia, communism was so successful at modernizing the country, that almost all citizens have access to an outhouse.

                The good news is that there’s just enough toilet paper for the people who don’t have outhouse access.

      3. You should have told them that the way Cuba keeps their infant mortality rate low is through forcing women to submit to tests and then requiring them to undergo forced abortions if there’s any sign of birth defects.

        No need to oversell it, they already like the Cuban health care system.

      4. Wow! I googled your assertion, it’s horrifying, but you have to dig a little to find corroboration. It exists though, including statements from immigrants.

        What is more horrifying is how many websites speak positively of Cuba, making statements like, “abortion is legal and available”- wiki. It would almost appear some have a reason to cover up the horror of forced abortion.

    4. Awesome, I had an argument with a Jamaican woman this weekend wherein she insisted that Cuba legitimately has 100% literacy and said she has great respect for Castro.

  7. “LA, uptight, city of the smog, don’t you wish that you could be here too.”

  8. Jesus. Ok. And I thought Seattle was bad.

  9. No offense, but that sign(s) is(are) not that hard to parse.

    Half of it is exempting school buses and CCUSD permit holders during school hours.

    Other than that, if you’re not a bus driver or a CCUSD permit holder then

    ———–
    1 hour parking on school days M-F between 4 and 6 PM
    1 hour parking on non-school days between 12midnight SUN through 6PM FRI
    No parking at all between 6PM FRI and 12 Midnight SUN

    It’d be clearer if they didn’t have the school bus/district exemption signs dividing the signs for the general population though.

    1. It means whatever they want it to mean.

      “TOW AWAY SCHOOL DAYS”.

      No fucking way I’m parking there.

      1. I was just going to add that. TOW AWAY SCHOOL DAYS, NO STOPPING MON – FRI 7AM – 4PM.

        Which seems to override everything else.

        Now, if a debate ensues, the point is made.

    2. You forgot no parking for ANYONE on Tuesdays between 11am and 1pm. That little ‘oh yeah, whoops, I forgot that’ gets you towed.

      1. That’s a paddling.

      2. WTF is with cities with no parking for street cleaning? The nearby town just runs their sweepers at night and if a car is parked where they’re cleaning, they just go around it.

        1. You can’t expect the street cleaners to work *around* the people who pay them.

          *Nothing* is more important (to the city council) than the stuff the city does – everyone always thinks their job is the most important and should have whatever resources are necessary to do it. trade-offs are for other people.

          1. Well, that and the all-important tow-truck lobby. How much do you think those companies make off of towing and impound charges?

            1. They don’t tow for that in SF, just give tickets. City revenue.

          2. My local street cleaner comes through the neighborhood during the day, but he moves around the cars parked on the streets.

            Unfortunately, as he’s there mainly to pick up the sand blown into the gutters, he uses *water* and leaves a muddy trail along both sides of the road, making the area look *worse* after he comes through.

            Thankfully he only comes through once a month.

        2. It’s probably Fuck You, That’s Why.

        3. On literally every street in metro Boston if they didn’t make people move their cars for street cleaning it would be impossible to clean the street.

          “Going around the parked cars” would in practice mean “Only clean the middle of the street and not clean either side even a little.”

    3. It’d be clearer if they didn’t have the school bus/district exemption signs dividing the signs for the general population though.

      That’s a feature, not a bug.

  10. That’s a long way of saying “Just don’t park here.

  11. Better they tell you that than just tow you, I guess.

  12. I am impressed. It’s like a progressive heraldic device. Those in the ruling castes and their lackeys can read it and understand the meanings and the lowly serf knows that it means “get the fuck out of the way”.

  13. If we remove just one of those signs from the sign post, we’ll be one step closer to anarchy!

    1. The libertarian moment is somewhere in the space between sign four and five.

    2. Remove a sign? Well, why not just repeal laws against murder then?

      /prog

      1. Also, people in Europe…..

    3. Add one more and progderpia.

  14. God I wish global warming were real just so the ocean would swallow that entire state.

    1. And deny us the pleasure of watching it’s implosion. Where’s you sense of schadenfreude, man.

  15. Another thing I learned at the secular meet-up today: the local Unitarian-Universalist group meets at the local Democratic Party office

    1. Remember: A large portion of ‘secularists’ just replaced God with the wondrous glory of the state.

      The tell was when there were people crying at Barack Obama rallies. That’s a solid sign that you’re no longer dealing with rational political arguments and are dealing instead with a religion.

      1. A large portion of ‘secularists’ just replaced God with the wondrous glory of the state.

        Most people do. A large portion of idealism is the defense of unproven universals. This is as true of libertarianism as anything else: property rights, for example, are not terribly well-defined and it is certainly not encouraging to the secularist that their best or most common expressions are found in explicitly religious philosophy. (Rothbard and most other libertarians ground their property rights in Locke, whose philosophy on property is pretty explicitly dependent on Old Testament and doesn’t make much sense without it.)

        Not that I mind (I’m Christian, after all), but it would be nice if other people could get to examining what it means that they are so willing to hold unproven assumptions about mankind and their own morality, rather than just burying God and religion as baseless superstitions and pretending that’s that. Surely there is room in the graveyard for some other unfounded sympathies, yes? Let’s start with the property rights fairy and the just-so story about humanity’s equality.

        1. IT, I believe your characterization of natural rights is deficient. Unfortunately, with Hit ‘n Run’s character limits per post, a debate on such would be frustrating. I would like to suggest that you start with the quick explanation for the labor theory of property and natural right given in this short video and then spend some time reading the works suggested at the end of the video. You might not end up agreeing with them, but I believe your understanding of the natural rights argument would be better than the caricature you provided.

          1. I’ve seen that series of videos. They’re well-done and I like them as political arguments (since most Americans share latent idealist beliefs regardless of whether or not they admit it or think through the implications of these shared views), but they’re not convincing as a philosophical argument in favor of property rights as some ultimate truth of humanity or an always-everywhere fixture of morality in the treatment of others. Certainly the video makes an argument against the violent disassociation of people from property; it doesn’t establish a link between natural and property rights at all. Suppose for example that I pick an apple up off the ground. After taking this apple, a stranger starts shooting at me. Unjust? Yes, in all contexts except where the stranger “owns” the farm — this “ownership” being a property of his imagination and perhaps some documents signed by him and parties not including myself. The only person in my example using violence is the property-owner — I’m just taking an apple. Just as the state cannot be the rightful owner of my property, so too if no-one owns property I have no authority to use violence to tell other people how to use items which I a) find useful and b) have in my mind and that of others established a claim over. The linked video makes no attempt to establish a basis for homesteading except that “most people agree” with it, which is certainly not comforting in light of the many other things “most people” agree with.

            1. The linked video makes no attempt to establish a basis for homesteading except that “most people agree” with it

              Again, that’s because such an argument would take longer than the 10 minutes it limits itself to.

              Let’s change your example from an apple tree to a cow. Let’s say there is a cow in a field and you start to milk it. I come out with my pitchfork and chase you away. You’re only taking the milk, right? Why am I upset? Let me ask you, did you feed the cow? Did you keep the cow free of disease? Did you build the barn for the cow? One can use reason to deduce (or induce? I’ve had too many beers to care at this point) that it was my labor that made the conditions for milk production possible. The purpose of the labor being to exploit any fruits of it.

              Again, it’s hard to be convincing with the text limits. I’ll cite this starting with section six

              1. Another way to look at it is this. Say you had a rock that you really liked. We can use reason to figure that if I took your rock you’d be very angry. You might even employ violence against me. One of the bases of society is control of violence. We can reason that a law governing peaceful interaction between people is “don’t take their stuff”. Because that’s what natural rights are, claims, based on empirical observation, about how people interact in “the state of nature”.

            2. Yes, in all contexts except where the stranger “owns” the farm — this “ownership” being a property of his imagination and perhaps some documents signed by him and parties not including myself.

              If the apple exists due to my labor, I am quite comfortable with the morality of shooting you in the fucking head if you take it.

              Look, there are only two possibilities:

              1. I own what I create by my labor.

              2. I don’t own what I create by my labor.

              If #1 is true, then I can kill you if you pick up the apple.

              And if #2 is true, I can still kill you if you pick up the apple. Because if #1 isn’t true and #2 is, then the apple belongs to the strongest, and as soon as I shoot you that’s me.

              1. Either this is a strong argument or it’s false dilemmas on top of false dilemmas…

        2. “Locke, whose philosophy on property is pretty explicitly dependent on Old Testament and doesn’t make much sense without it.)”

          Just curious if you can expand on that. Thanks.

          1. Labor theory of property and “mixing of labor” originates in Locke’s interpretation of Genesis 3 (particularly 3:17), where he supposes that individual work accomplishes the work of claiming the Earth for the children of Adam in a fallen state, thus allowing God to complete his promise of giving the Earth to Adam while also fulfilling the Adamic curse. Property is more or less a result of theology; we are a form of God’s Property, and the Earth is likewise our property (which is another way that we are created in His image).

            Locke also makes some non-religious apologia for why this might be a moral way to arrive at property rights — but there is no specific reason to think labor individualizes some resource for one’s specific use unless one is pre-disposed to believing that exclusivity of use is something that is moral (or more likely, useful) in the case of how resources are exploited. If you don’t buy into property rights, non-violently acquiring what is “yours” is not immoral since it was baseless for you to claim exclusivity in the first place. You shooting at me for availing myself of a resource I need is what is immoral! The link between labor and exclusivity is not one that follows logically from the argument presented by Locke, nor was his argument intended to establish this link since it was rooted in Biblical ideas regarding work and property already accepted by his Reformed audience in England.

            1. Thanks, I only really remembered the ‘non-religious apologia’ you mention, but I do remember, vaguely, a discussion of Genesis so I imagine you’re right.

            2. The link between labor and exclusivity is not one that follows logically from the argument presented by Locke

              Yes, it does.

              You shooting at me for availing myself of a resource I need is what is immoral!

              If you “need” apples as a resource and none are currently around, would it be moral for you to force me to work to grow you one? Would it be moral for you to lie to me to promise me some benefit if I grow you an apple, and then take the apple and not come through on your side of the bargain?

              Because if those two things would not be moral, then neither would taking the apple after I’ve grown it be moral. Because to take it, you’d either have to overpower me (which is materially indistinguishable from the first option) or take it by stealth or deception (which is materially indistinguishable from the second option).

            3. It’s funny that the people who think that property rights are “imaginary” typically don’t follow this through to the logical conclusion, namely that slavery is moral.

              If you think it’s moral to take an apple someone else has grown, but NOT moral to enslave someone to make him grow you an apple, you’re a moral dunce.

              Your only possible basis for treating the two differently is “Hey man, the apple already exists! I’m not making anyone do anything!” which means that as long as you act like a mongoloid and pretend that the scenario only begins when you arrive on the scene, then everything’s all good.

          2. I ground my theory of property rights in my common sense understanding of how to not be an asshole. Fuck Locke. And fuck the old Testament. And fuck your lame ass characterization.

        3. (Rothbard and most other libertarians ground their property rights in Locke, whose philosophy on property is pretty explicitly dependent on Old Testament and doesn’t make much sense without it.)

          That’s not quite true because Rothbard from the beginning noted the deficiencies in Locke’s reasoning. When Hoppe came along with a value-free theory Rothbard also admitted in his own deficiencies and noted Hoppe’s as the superior.

          In fact a religious argument for natural rights makes no sense. Real natural rights is in fact, nontheist and could only logically be so.

          Imagine if some alien landed who was obviously superior to man in every way. Let’s say that alien was like the Q in Star Trek in that he could manipulate time and space. Let’s say that alien actually created man. Then that alien said, these are the rules you need to abide by, and here are “your rights”.

          Would you say, oh yes, we must bow down to such an alien? No? What if that alien was named Yahweh?

          Let’s just go ahead and assume it’s all real. What gives this Yahweh dude, or whatever you call your gods the right to create rights? There must exist universal principles that govern even their own existence and if they presume to be sovereign and the same must apply to all other sapient entities as well. Real Law can’t be prescribed or proscribed, they can only be described.

          1. Property rights arise from self-ownership. You need to first establish self-ownership in order to argue for literally anything else, whatever your ideology.

            If you presume Gods own you then I can legitimately claim “Welp, God just transferred ownership of you to me. Now your my property and you have no rights”. After all, if he owns you then there’s no obligation for you to be notified or asked about your transfer.

            Any way you slice it, there’s no way to assert anything without first asserting self-ownership. Hell, even God himself or any super-duper-mega entity out there, just by acting on his own free-will necessarily is claiming self-onwership. Going back to my post above, the same would apply to any other being including us.

            Now that that’s established, how would you interact with other people–humans, aliens, gods, devils, literally anyone–in the face of scarce resources while respecting their self-ownership? That’s where property comes from.

            Locke’s theory about “mixing of labor” is flawed, as if that act created magical tendrils that connected you to the thing.

            No, basically if you first use an unowned item from nature then someone else comes along and takes it, in order for them to prevent you from using it as you would have continued to do so, they must necessarily stop you, employing force against you, thus violating your self-ownership.

            1. I favor the ‘universally preferred ethics’ as Molyneaux describes them to get me through the average day of rationalizing what is and is not ethical. Although I don’t agree with all of his opinions. Nevertheless, I’m curious if you’re familiar enough with the concepts (or those reasoned ethics similar to it) to address the ethics of ‘first ownership’.

              I’m born into a world where a few people claim to have property rights which have been passed down to them over many generations. I see mountains, water, air, deserts, and land of all type is ‘owned’ before I arrived. Sometimes they mix labor with the land, sometimes they just possess.

              Living in a world of scarce resources what are the ethics behind honoring or not honoring this preexisting ownership? You touched on it, but I didn’t really see the logical follow through.

              I’m not making a case any direction, but my logic gets fuzzy beginning when a child is born into preexisting conditions of ownership of property. And I’d have to think the logic to be meaningful would help with understanding air, water, and other non-stationary resources.

      2. “The tell was when there were people crying at Barack Obama rallies.”

        I guess its not rational, but I don’t think that black people, especially ones who lived through the worst of segregation, crying tears of joy and mixed emotions at the election of a black man to the Presidency is silly.

        1. They were doing that at rallies long before he was elected. And the only thing more abjectly stupid than deifying a political candidate in the first place is doing so because you happen to share his skin color (or ethnicity, religion, etc). I’m not surprised that somehow makes sense to you though. Be honest, how many tears did you shed when Obama was elected after you canvassed for his campaign in ’08?

          1. Tears of despair?

            As to the substance of what you say, remember that I was talking about blacks that had actually experienced Jim Crow like efforts, so it’s not quite some abstract preference for shared skin color behind it, but a sense of something truly awful directed squarely at you being totally upended. If there ever were a time to express intense joy over a political or cultural event I submit that would be it, though I’m not surprised that you might not be able or willing to understand

      3. The tell was when there were people crying at Barack Obama rallies. That’s a solid sign that you’re no longer dealing with rational political arguments and are dealing instead with a religion.

        Being that the emotional response in that case was centered on a particular individual, I would say that it was more a symptom of some level of cult indoctrination than a religion. Pretty common stuff really, just disturbing when applied to politics, for fairly obvious reasons, I should think.

        1. Isn’t a cult just a pre-adolescent religion? At a certain point, both Islam and Christianity were cults.

          1. Cults are the acorns of derp from which the mighty oaks of religion grow.

          2. Not necessarily, although it is a common variant of cult behavior.

            Fast and dirty: Basically cults can come into being when a charismatic individual acts a vehicle for people to validate/advance the story about themselves and their world that they tell themselves and, stimulated by that individual, subordinate themselves to the cult leader in the belief that by doing so feeling will continue and/or grow. Mostly it happens subconsciously, at least in the beginning.

            1. I should add that a cult is as much (probably more) about group dynamics as it is about the cult leader. A cult forms as much as a result of the validation and stimulation provided by other cult members as that which is provided by the cult leader.

        2. I don’t think the crying was centered on a particular individual, Obama, but on a particular event, a black man being elected/inaugurated as President. I think support for this can be found in this: if it were not Obama, but some other black person (Democrat of course), wouldn’t you have found the same response?

          1. In other words, the expression was not ‘omg, Obama is so great’ it was ‘omg, a black man becoming President is so great.’

            If you think America is as inherently and deeply racist as many progressives and blacks do, not without some reason I’d add, then it must have seemed like some kind of unheard of miracle for that to happen.

            1. Bo, I have watched in stunned disbelief as a woman prayed to Obama. She invoked him as casually as a Sarah Palin does Jesus, and in exactly the same manner.

              I have no doubt that there are individuals of the type you are describing, but trust me that there are also those who are at various points of cult indoctrination in regard to Him as well.

              1. “Bo, I have watched in stunned disbelief as a woman prayed to Obama. ”

                Wow, well in that case I concede that’s bizarre and nuts

                1. It was an extreme example.

                  A far more common occurrence (and a less severe one) is people reflexively denouncing people opposed to Obama as racists with absolute conviction but without any evidence to support the claim. (Best displayed where the attack is leveled without even discussing the policy in question.)

            2. In other words, the expression was not ‘omg, Obama is so great’ it was ‘omg, a black man becoming President is so great.’

              Actually, I would argue that the expression was “OMG, I am so great, because I supported a black man becoming President!”

            3. It’s not like Obama was the first black man to seek the office, but he was certainly the first one to receive that sort of messianic reverence. Again, the cult of personality didn’t start on inauguration day. This was during the most nascent stages of the campaign when Clinton was the expected nominee.

              And again, tribalism doesn’t make it any better anyway. “Oh, I didn’t swoon and faint over Obama because I’m some religious nut or anything, I was just so excited that he has black skin!”

              Oh, well… by all means carry on then.

            4. In other words, the expression was not ‘omg, Obama is so great’ it was ‘omg, a black man becoming President is so great.’

              Horseshit. Here’s a black woman who ran for president.

              Where were the rapturous applause for Carol Moseley Braun? She was a black person and a woman. If it was about just getting a black person to be president, she would have had slightly more support than she did.

              Go back and look what people were writing about Obama in 2008, Bo. How old are you again? I’m not exactly a geezer, but I’m 25 and am therefore old enough to have actually voted in the election where Barack Obama first one…although I chose not to vote because of my options.

              I remember people cheering in my dorm hall. I remember people crying at his conventions. I remember people claiming he was the greatest orator in American politics and the smartest president ever. I remember Youtube songs about how great he was – hundreds of them. People fainted when they saw him.

              That is not because he’s black. It is because he was a cult leader who led drooling morons to vote for him based on Hopey-Changey wonder and joy.

              1. Case in point.

                The Obama halo iconography was a favorite of press photographers running up to the 2008 election and for quite a while afterwards. I don’t think it was accidental.

                  1. To his credit, he did cultivate the congregation. In addition to all of the iconography, he was the Rorschach candidate. He was very skilled at saying absolutely nothing while sounding like he was saying exactly what you wanted to hear.

                    He would say things like “Now listen, when your family hits tough times, you have to tighten your belt. And we need to make tough choices. We need to make sound investments in our future – like education for our children.”

                    His speeches were littered with platitudes that could mean anything that you wanted them to. I think that played a key role in building such a broad coalition. That way all of those “inspired youths” could believe he was fighting specifically for them, even though Obama never articulated any positions that were clearly in alignment with them. He was for personal responsibility, and for shared responsibility. He was for fiscal restraint, and for increased “investment”. He was against war, and he was for war.

                    You also have to remember he was operating in an environment that had pre-built hard-core constituency built by the Anti-Bush sentiment. You had the Al Gore true believers who were certain that Bush stole the election. And you had the anti-war people who were primed for someone, anyone on the national stage to pick up their cause. Each of those groups probably represents 12% of the electorate. So that makes up half his supporters right there.

              2. I think the level if support and emotion attached to that was of course attached to the idea that Obama could, would and did win, as I’ve said all along (omg, a black man BECOMING president is so great)

              3. Irish, you whippersnapper, a high school friend of mine had a Shirley Chisolm for President button in 1972.

          2. if it were not Obama, but some other black person (Democrat of course), wouldn’t you have found the same response?

            By black people of both parties? Sure.

            By dipshit white college students and the Chris Matthews of the prog world? Not so much.

            1. Yep, the appeal of Obama was his simultaneously being black and not black.

              Really, he’s culturally a postmodern intellectual progressive, not an african american. The only thing black about his is his skin color. Remember when Reverent Wright was campaigning for him and said that Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger I’d be willing to bet that Obama never was either (in anger I have no doubt other black people called him that when hew as younger).

              1. “Really, he’s culturally a postmodern intellectual progressive, not an african american. The only thing black about his is his skin color. ”

                I think that rests on too narrow of an idea about what it means to ‘be black.’

            2. “By dipshit white college students and the Chris Matthews of the prog world? Not so much.”

              Fair enough on that point.

      4. I would cry at an Obama rally, but for entirely different reasons…

  16. WELL I BET YOU ALL LIKE PARKING IN SOMALIA, DONT YOU?

    1. Hah! Come on GILMORE! No one can park in Somalia! Cause….

      1. There aren’t any ROADZ to get you to any parking lots, duh…

      2. There are… no… parking meters?

    2. In fairness, I think most libertarians would mount machine guns on their pick-up trucks if they could.

      1. Wait.. we can’t?

        /slinks towards garage

      2. Who the hell wouldn’t? Along with sheetmetal armor and SPIKES OF DOOM!

  17. How are the burgers at Tom & Eddies?

    1. Florida neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, who was acquitted in July of 2013 of all charges related to the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, was arrested Wednesday morning in Ferguson, Missouri after an altercation outside of a Dunkin’ Donuts, where Zimmerman allegedly aimed a handgun at two black teenagers who confronted him.

    2. “We just saw George Zimmerman, and he’s in Ferguson,” one of the teens says in the cell phone video. “He’s following us. We’re trying to walk away but he’s following us.” The camera shows Zimmerman, carrying a bag of food and a drink, who yells something illegible at the teens. “We don’t want anything to go down. We’re just minding our own business. We’re minding our business.” –

      1. Not exactly keeping a low profile, is he?

    3. Police found two handguns, a shotgun, and several knives inside Zimmerman’s car at the time of his arrest. It is unclear why Zimmerman was visiting Ferguson, when he arrived, or where in town he was staying. Police say the teens will be allowed to release the full video to the public after their investigation is complete.

        1. Whew. And it has 200K likes.

          It’s astonishing how easy it is to confuse progressives once they’re mindlessly in a lather.

          1. No, I’m sure they like it as satire, because he wasn’t good enough as a latino/jewish guy who ‘has black friends’ and stuff = he needs to be like a Racist Charles Bronson on a Death Wish XVIII trip.

            1. Read the comments. They all think it’s real.

              1. Wow. I hope it’s being moderated to keep people from spoiling the joke, because that’s awful. No one is pointing out that it,s a fake news site.

    4. This story does not seem real to me. I just don’t believe it.

      1. National Report is a satire news site, like the Onion, but not as funny.

          1. They need to do more research for their satire.

            Grand Juries don’t rule on guilt.

        1. Ferguson, MO ? Theater Club students from the Wyoming Institute of Technology take a much needed summer break by enacting their performance piece titled “Summer Swan Rage “.
          The performance took seven months of planning and coordination to become realized on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri. “We worked hard on this. I’m happy to see people appreciating it”, remarked actor Saleem Proctor who also co-wrote and directed the Ferguson riot piece. “I never believed in a thousand years we would get publicity on CNN and Fox News”
          That they did. And more.
          The mainstream media picked up the false story and ran with it. CNN first presented the riots as real news, and other legitimate sources were quick to follow.

        2. So, compare those two stories to an Onion story:

          Report: 79% Of Minority Suspects Receive Miranda Rights While Unconscious

          The headline alone made me chuckle.

        3. Ah, well never mind then. Points to me for quickly thinking it was fake. Points against me for not knowing Nat’l Report was a satire news site.

          So no points awarded, on to the next round.

        4. WASHINGTON?Explaining that he failed to hit his national growth goals for the April-June period, the White House’s Office of Personnel Management confirmed Tuesday that President Barack Obama fell just short of earning a quarterly performance bonus.
          “We lay out our expectations very clearly in a meeting with the president at the beginning of every fiscal quarter, and unfortunately he came up a bit shy of meeting the targets we set for him,” said White House administrator Sarah Hammond, citing a number of factors that reflected negatively on Obama’s performance evaluation, including his inability to raise GDP by the stipulated 2.75 percent or create 750,000 new jobs, benchmarks that Hammond said were “ambitious, but achievable.”

    5. “Mr. Zimmerman, I don’t know why you’re here in Ferguson, but It’s pretty damn insensitive, you showing up here. This town’s been through enough already, we don’t need you here intensifying things, okay? And my friend and I didn’t say anything to you.”

      This story sounds… fake.

  18. LensCrafters, Pearle Vision Agree To Prisoner Exchange

    According to company representatives who spoke on condition of anonymity, the prisoner swap will occur at a neutral site in the parking lot of the Payless ShoeSource at The Mall at Fairfield Commons in suburban Dayton. The exchange will reportedly be overseen by third-party mediator and soft pretzel vendor Auntie Anne’s, which has helped broker previous accords between the optical chains, including a famous 1998 treaty that required the warring companies to suspend any buy-one-get-one deals on select pairs of no-line bifocals, as well as last year’s non-proliferation agreement that compelled both parties to reduce their massive stockpiles of sunlight-activated Transitions lenses.

  19. So, seriously; how are the burgers at Tom and Eddies? How do they compare to Five Guys? Cheeburger Cheeburger?

    1. I’m warning you; I plan to go eat there, and if it is really yucky, well, let it be on your heads.

      1. If it’s anything but In-N-Out Burger, you might as well be eating McDonalds.

  20. So I showed this to a friend of mine who lived in LA briefly, without any context or even enough time to read the signs, and he immediately said, “that’s fucking Culver City, isn’t it.”

    So apparently they have a reputation.

  21. If you are bored and looking for something to watch, I recommend “The Power Inside”. Clever 30 minute or so “zombie-alien-apocalypse” story. Includes Alan Tudyk.

    If you like it, help me edit the TV Tropes page.

  22. What is not an act of kindness is?where customers were being told that they had had their drink paid for and then asked would they like to pay for the drink of the person next in line.
    That’s not generosity, that’s guilt.

    When a new ‘Pay It Forward’ chain started today, I had to put an end to it.
    So, yes, I drove to the Starbucks, purchased two Venti Mocha Frappuccinos and, even though someone in front of me had paid for one of my drinks, I declined the barista’s suggestion to pay for the drink of the person behind me.
    *P.S. I gave the baristas a $100 tip just to prove that I am not a 100% grinch.

    1. *P.S. I gave the baristas a $100 tip just to prove that I am not a 100% grinch

      So the guilt still worked.

    1. How would you know?

      1. She is responding to another article, where some dame is mad that she stayed a virgin until marriage.

      2. It would greatly depend on one’s available, willing partners, I’d imagine.

    2. Made me laugh more than the onion links.

    1. If it swallows less than a million dollars in corvettes, its just a pothole.

  23. The actual Libertarian Party should use that as a campaign poster. Really, just a picture of that sign, and then at the bottom, the words “Vote Libertarian”. No other verbage needed.

    1. Interesting to me though is the local community accept it and doesn’t change parties, they ask for more government to fix the failing government! Did this community rise up against the cost and ridiculousness of the sign?

      I agree with your sentiment, but my pessimism is reaching new levels: look at how adapted everyone has become to the big government environment that nobody even notices totems being raised to wastefulness.

  24. my best friend’s step-mother makes $82 /hr on the computer . She has been fired for nine months but last month her pay was $13237 just working on the computer for a few hours. go to the website …

    ============ http://WWW.JOBSPUG.COM

  25. “Regulatory Excess” in one neat picture.

  26. “Harry Reid just told Asian Americans they’re not ‘smarter than anybody else.’ He does stuff like this a lot.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..P_politics

  27. But they still have the Democrats!

    “A federal appeals court ruled against a group of Socialists in Michigan this week, rejecting claims that the state’s election laws discriminated against new parties.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..P_politics

    Seriously though as a third party supporter having different, and stricter, rules for third party ballot access than applies to the Democans is awful.

  28. But they still have the Democrats!

    “A federal appeals court ruled against a group of Socialists in Michigan this week, rejecting claims that the state’s election laws discriminated against new parties.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..P_politics

    Seriously though as a third party supporter having different, and stricter, rules for third party ballot access than applies to the Democans is awful.

  29. ” President Obama has ordered a thorough review of the decade-old program that supplies military equipment to local police forces.”

    Well, a comprehensive review! That takes care of that!

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the…..olice.html

  30. Sometimes tou jsut have to roll with it.

    http://www.WentAnon.Tk

  31. There is no way this tower of signs meets the requirements of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices or the state rules. Any ticket for non compliance should be fought in court.

    James C. Walker, Life Member – National Motorists Association

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.