FBI Knows ISIS Executioner's Name, Parliament Not Okay With Syrian Strikes, Drama in LA Unified Schools: P.M. Links

|

  • Jeb Bush
    Gage Skidmore / Flickr

    The FBI has learned the identity of the ISIS terrorist who savagely murdered American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. U.S. officials are not yet releasing the executioner's name.

  • British Parliament agreed to airstrikes against ISIS forces in Iraq, but did not authorize any action in Syria.
  • Attorney General Eric Holder's health troubles were a factor in his decision to leave his job, according to reports.
  • It's about time for another obligatory article about Jeb Bush possibly running for president.
  • An arsonist in Chicago really messed up the nation's air travel today.
  • Did a Los Angeles high school fire teachers because of their union activities?
  • About those jobs numbers…

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here.

NEXT: Free Speech at Risk in Australia, Thanks to Terrible New Counter-Terrorism Bill

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. The FBI has learned the identity of the ISIS terrorist who savagely murdered American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. U.S. officials are not yet releasing the executioner’s name.

    If we know he’s British, why are we not bombing London right now?

    1. Hello.

      “Did a Los Angeles high school fire teachers because of their union activities?”

      Was that wrong?

      1. If they were doing it when they were supposed to be on the school’s time, it would seem open and shut.

    2. If we know he’s British, why are we not bombing London right now?

      Hah. Good one, Fist.

    3. If we know he’s British, why are we not bombing London right now?

      Um…’cuz he’s prolly not in London any longer?

    4. They’ll announce his name after they make a proper arrest and charge him with the crime.

  2. About those jobs numbers…

    UNEXPECTED.

    1. With all due respect, who determined “25 to 54” is “prime working age”? Certainly not a monocle-wearer!

        1. + 1 Peter Cetera

        2. +1 Sitting Cross-Legged on the Floor

        3. I thought they said it was “25 or 6…2….4…”

          They seemed very confused.

          1. Now, or in the Old Days?

            1. Only the beginning.

    2. Hey, Obama has made everyone so well off that they don’t need to work anymore.

      /progtard

      1. You mean he gave everyone a government job?

  3. It’s about time for another obligatory article about Jeb Bush possibly running for president.

    Reject him for his policies, not his name.

      1. Why not neither?

  4. An arsonist in Chicago really messed up the nation’s air travel today.

    I blame Mrs. O’Leary’s cow.

    1. I’ll believe it when pigs fly.

  5. British Parliament agreed to airstrikes against ISIS forces in Iraq, but did not authorize any action in Syria.

    That’s why you don’t ask.

  6. U.S. officials are not yet releasing the executioner’s name.

    “We just want to see if *you* know.”

    1. They’re just smoking him out.. seeing which hilux hauls ass across the desert so they can unleash hell, albeit remotely-controlled

      1. That . . . presupposes a level of discretion in our targeting matrix that has, heretofor, not been evident.

    2. Scotland Yard is still investigating, so releasing a name would be quite stupid.

      1. They’ve summoned Holmes and Watson, so they’re taking this one seriously.

    3. There’s privacy issues?

      1. That either means HIPPA or he’s actually a cop.

    4. Its because he is Obama’s son.

  7. Did a Los Angeles high school fire teachers because of their union activities?

    Huh. I would have thought that not doing the job the school paid them for would be sufficient cause.

  8. OK, I saw Atlas Shrugged (Part 3): Who is John Galt? last night.

    It is very bad. Dagny is very hot.

    But my question is why do the cars and trucks in Galt’s Gulch have license plates?

      1. Don’t you already know the book?

    1. This is John Ga(u)lt:

      One farsighted man rose on the Convention’s second day to ask that the gauge-size decision be reconsidered. He was John C. Gault, general manager of the Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific, and he made some persuasive arguments: , .

      “I deem it of greatest consequence that the standard gauge of the country could be adopted by the Southern Roads. …This is the first opportunity that the Southern roads have had to correct the unfortunate mistake made when the five foot gauge was adopted, and in correcting it we should take such action as will result in solving the question for all time. I insist upon saying “to this Convention that the adoption of a 4 ft. 9 in. gauge is only a partial correction of the mistake. …” Nonetheless, the Convention chose to go ahead with a standard gauge of 4 feet 9 inches.

      Full article here, seen at HN earler.

      1. Not nearly verbose enough to be John Gault.

      2. Brett, did you ever get my email?

        A lot of my email gets sent to spam, so you may want to check there.

        1. Yes. Okay. I couldn’t tell if that was a real reasonoid or what. Thanks for following up.

    2. My desire to see it is overcome by my desire to NOT have to figure out which new actor played which character in the last installment.

      1. Heh, they solve this problem by having Dagny say the name of every character in Galt’s Gulch. “Hi, Midas Morgan, what are you doing here?” or “Oh, Ellis Wyatt, how could you abandon your oil fields?!”

        1. So the dialogue is just as bad as the Gary Cooper/Patricia Neal version of The Fountainhead 65 years ago?

          1. Didn’t Rand help write the screenplay for that? I have a hard time believe Atlas Shrugged could be worse than that.

            1. Yes, she did. It’s the big reason the movie is a mess.

              1. So what’s the big reason for the second? … And the third (apparently)?

        2. they solve address this problem

          FIFY

    3. But my question is why do the cars and trucks in Galt’s Gulch have license plates?

      Practical answer: Because it was too much trouble to remove them physically or digitally for the movie.

      In-context answer: Because nobody took the trouble to remove them even though they were no longer necessary.

      1. In-context answer: Because nobody took the trouble to remove them even though they were no longer necessary.

        In context, they would not only have removed the old license plates, they’d have replaced them with a new sold gold plate with nothing but giant dollar sign on it, deliberately slammed on the brakes as soon as they saw Dagny, gotten out, and specfically drawn attention to the new plates along with an oddly rehearsed 20 page speech on how their incredibly gaudy sense of decorating was the ultimate expression of human principles.

    4. Is it on Netflix yet? I’m saving a bottle of whiskey for this shit-show.

  9. Holder’s abrupt announcement that he intends to leave the Obama administration as soon as the president is able to find someone to take over for him was initiated by his doctor wife’s concerns about his health

    Right. Wouldn’t want him to fall in the bathroom and miss important meetings.

    1. If he had health concerns, that would *help* him in getting a doctor’s note for why he shouldn’t go to prison.

    2. Why would anyone have any concerns about their health now that we have ACA?!?!

    1. “If you save CO2 emissions in Munich or in Spain, it doesn’t matter, it is important that you? save them,” Florian Bieberbach, CEO of Stadtwerke M?nchen, told Innovation Cities.

      “This is why this political aim does not mean technically to deliver the electricity in Munich, it just means Munich takes its share in combatting climate change,” he added.

      1. Perhaps all those nuke plants out to stop sending electiricity to Germany. Watch the country not be able to meet its electric needs. 🙂

    2. You know who else caused “Munich” to be associated with “Czech”?

      1. No – who?

  10. From the sidebar on the last piece:

    Peek At The Best Sideboobs In Honor Of National Sideboob Day [SLIDESHOW]

    Celebrate Oktoberfest With Hot Women And Beer [SLIDESHOW]

    Enjoy National Cheeseburger Day With These Great Buns [SLIDESHOW]

    Stop Underestimating How Hot Taylor Swift Is [SLIDESHOW]

    and last but certainly not least…

    Unwrap National Fortune Cookie Day With These Hotties [SLIDESHOW]

    What’s that you’re wondering? Is the slideshow with that title really going to be of Asian women? Yes. Yes it is.

    sigh

    1. Not seeing it.

    2. Unwrap National Fortune Cookie Day With These Hotties

      In Bed.

      1. +thumbs down

        1. “oh you turn it around and it’s a thumbs up!”

    3. National Fortune Cookie Day

      That. was. awesome!

      …and lacist, vely lacist.

    4. You know those adds are specifically tailored to you, right?

      1. I think you’re kidding, but in case you’re not, they’re not ads, and they’re not targeted.

    5. Taylor Swift is not hot.

      1. But her mother Chimney Swift was hot all the time.

        1. I googled it, what a let down.

        2. Go to your room. Now.

      2. You are one picky human being.

    6. I keep getting ‘Meet Iranian Women Online’ ads. I’m probably on another list now.

    7. Stop Underestimating How Hot Taylor Swift Is [SLIDESHOW]

      I will not, sir!

      1. I dont know why this made me laugh uncontrollably, but it did

  11. U.S. officials are not yet releasing the executioner’s name.

    But rest assured that his coordinates are being released to the drone pilots as we speak.

    1. That would only be true if he were an American citizen. Citizens of other nations have rights, you know.

  12. A fire that was intentionally set at the FAA radar center in Aurora, Illinois, grounded hundreds of flights in Chicago and across the country on Friday. “There is no terrorist act,” said Aurora Police Chief Greg Thomas.

    Thank God!

    1. You know who else was from Aurora, IL?

      1. Wayne and Garth?

        1. +1 Heather Locklear

      2. Wayne and Darth Sidious?

      3. Hitler?

    2. Everybody will feel safe visiting the Gas Works tonight.

    3. I used to live a few hundred yards from that place. Probably a disgruntled employee. They are still mad from the Reagan days.

  13. Techcrunch had an accurate gamergate article.

    For those of you yesterday who wanted a quick summary.

      1. Ive been arguing against that suffix since the Iran-Contra Affair (proper name, not contragate or irangate as some were trying to push at the time).

        30 years now.

        That windmill is getting tired, Im gonna win soon!

        1. I’m just glad to know I’m not alone.

            1. Watch Ted misuse that lance and then BAM:

              Lancegate….

    1. quick summary – TLDR

    2. Shorter version: Why the fuck would anyone want to read ‘mainstream’ gaming media anymore? They treat their audience like crap and are blatantly corrupt. You’re better off just watching streamers or reading volunteer sites like Gather Your Party.

      1. I could not possibly care less about the corruption of ethics angle?industrial fraternizing is inevitable in such a niche community, let alone the nicheness of the indie gaming scene, and no editorialist can shill for crap titles for long before the community pans his articles.

        What goads me is the pop-psych approach to indicting gaming as a misogynist platform. It’s endemic to all things feminism, of course, but characterizing as patriarchal the well-worn approach developers take to a still heavily male-dominated medium, rather than simply crass and marketable, and then using that excuse to brow-beat gamers and developers both?it’s combative and divisive. It’s a strategy to infest the medium rather than better it. It provides cover to an outsized group of tantrum-throwing grievance peddlers.

        I don’t even inhabit this sphere anymore. I left it behind in my early twenties, and now and again I’ll play Steam titles with my girlfriend. But I find the social-justice whining utterly fascinating and creepy to watch spread. Otherwise functional, intelligent adults are cashing out whatever personal esteem they might have had and bought into competing narratives of universal victimhood. Not since the racial divide in feminism started sintering their divisions has an overblown intellectual movement become so frothy about so little.

    3. Imagine, instead, that prominent game journalists embraced [Jack] Thompson’s core argument ? the one about games normalizing violence. Imagine, furthermore, that they began to rally mobs of activists on social media to pressure other websites into censoring dissenting opinions. Then imagine that the moderators of gaming communities and comment sections declined to allow any critical discussion of Thompson and his work.

      If that had happened, #GamerGate would have arrived several years early.

    4. I read some of that Fine Young Capitalists interview that was posted yesterday.

      So, even if they were embellishing their account, Zoe Quinn both sucks and blows, right?

      What really got me is all of the panic over TFYC’s trans policy. It is “exclusionary” because they demand that a trans applicant have proof that they were already identifying as a woman before applying to a woman-only contest? How many trans people do activists think are out there? Because they seem to think that if you narrow the population down to trans women who have yet to ‘come out’ and are actively pursuing game design, you’ll have a significant amount of applicants being rejected by TFYC.

      1. This one’s even better:

        When it comes to marketing, as has been clearly shown, the entire video game industry seems to only care about a woman when the Internet harasses her. And thankfully, they apparently have the “queen” of them on their side to create drama when the game is released.
        As to why we created the project, which is easily costing us over $20,000 dollars (which we will never recoup): it’s because of people like you ? “Social Justice Viv.” People that we watch every day tearing women apart because they don’t meet some standard that you have set up, all the while acting as allies.
        Your idiotic internet rambles don’t change anything. You could run your own design contest and give the women all the money. You could design your own game. You could do anything, but of course you won’t. We understand you have to feel better about yourself by hurting others, and we are happy to be those others.
        In the end, if we weren’t here, all that would be left for you to bitterly tear at would be Zoe, and her sins are far worse than ours.
        Anyone asking for a refund can contact support@thefineyoungcapitalists.com. Thus far, no one has.

      2. This bit annoys me, even though from what I know, I am on TFYC’s side on this feud:

        she DDoS’d our site

        She didn’t DDoS your site; she has a lot of followers, and a lot of them visited.

    5. Here’s how politics works. There are always two sides. Let’s call them the “reds” and the “blues.”

      *presses fingertips together, looks over the top of hands*

      Interesting. Do continue…

    6. By the way, why are people so worked up about worker ants, anyway?

    7. The question isn’t whether Reddit mods are corrupt. The question is if ANY unregulated fiefdom system has ever NOT been corrupt.

      David Auerbach demonstrating Slate-brand mental midgetry.

      Emphasis added by yours truly

      1. Oh, David Auerbach. I misread that at first and was worried The Black Keys were weighing in on the side of the SJWs.

  14. Someone should line up all the things Romney said about Russia, Syria, the economy etc. and juxtapose them against Frick and Frack (Obama and Biden) who made sport of him even though he seems to have been more right than wrong.

    1. The problem is that Romney’s solution to all these problems was that they would magically go away if he was president because the entire planet fears the wrath of the Mittster.

      1. Not really. The left say that. In any event, isn’t that EXACTLY Obama’s strategy of non-strategy?

        Please.

        1. Whereas the One thought that if he would just be nice and apologize for all the nasty things his predecessors did, Muslims of all varieties would show the world that Islam is the Religion of Peace, and that if Hillary would bring a Reset Button to her talks with her Russian counterpart, we’d just all get along. Because Hope’n’Change, and oceans begin to stop rising, and green energy, and Forward!

        2. Which is why I didn’t vote for either of them.

      2. I may not have agreed with Romney’s solutions (who knows), but accurately identifying the problem is a big first step and puts him far ahead of the current administration.

    2. Don’t sully the word frack Rufus. ‘Tis a noble word.

  15. It is never time for an article on Jeb Bush running for president.

  16. Informer drops a dime on 10 cent bingo at senior center

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..le/2554031

    1. Is it me, or did the article not actually name the informer?

        1. Informer, *something garbled in a faux jamaican accent*, Informer!

  17. Police are classifying beheading in OK as “workplace violence.”

    1. From what I read, that is what it really seems to be.

    2. Not enough melanin to qualify for hate crime status

    3. And? If no one told you the guy was Muslim, would you bat an eyelid at it being called workplace violence? Someone gets fired, goes on a killing spree. Happens all the time.

      About the only way I can see his religion might matter is that he went on a head-lopping spree rather than just shooting people. Honestly, it probably lowered the body count, on account of taking more time per victim.

      1. Maybe being a Muslim is why he thought beheading the infidel who fired him was ok?

      2. How about if he yelled about Islam while doing the head-lopping? Which he supposedly did. It might be a stretch to call it terrorism, but it’s not a stretch to connect it with religion.

        1. Reports were that he had recently been trying to convert his co-workers. Which might be part of the reason he was fired.

          1. Allegedly he was fired for supporting the stoning of women. So, maybe that’s why he focused his attacks on women.

      3. If he had, say, hung a black man from a tree without you telling me he’s in the KKK, I’d sure bat an eye.

        Some types of killing have a symbolic connection with an ideology. Thanks to jihadis, beheading is one of them.

        1. That perception is solely driven by a couple of recent, well-publicized incidents. Before ISIS, you would be more likely to associated Islamic murderers with car or suicide bombings, and would have associated beheading with deranged nutjobs like this guy.

          1. That said, additional reporting suggests he was fired for supporting the stoning of women, so while I still think jumping to conclusions about religion being the driving factor was premature in light of the available evidence, he was apparently a Muslim nutjob, rather than a nutjob who happened to be Muslim.

    1. We’re talking people that have been here for a while, right? Not potential Ebola vectors.

      1. Just wait. Obama will bring those in, too.

        1. What, you don’t want him to bring our troops back?

          1. I’m not sure I want the troops to go there at all.

  18. Intel investing $1.5 billion for a 20% stake in Chinese state-owned Tsinghua Unigroup, a $7.5 billion valuation.

    Tsinghua Unigroup owns Spreadtrum and RDA Microelectronics, purchased in late 2013 for $1.7 and $0.9 billion, respectively.

    Either the folks at Tsinghua are really savvy investors, or this is yet another blatant shakedown by PRC regulators. I wonder which…

    (To be fair, Intel is pretty desperate for a greater foothold in the cellphone space. But this is pretty extreme, especially considering how low-end Spreadtrum is.)

  19. British Parliament agreed to airstrikes against ISIS forces in Iraq, but did not authorize any action in Syria.

    “We’ll bomb the Sunnis and the Kurds, but we won’t bomb the Syrians!”

  20. WAIT! The union president is a shitty teacher? Who coulda guessed that?

  21. About those job numbers…

    “Since the recession began in 2007, the number of Americans ages 25 to 54 who are not working has grown by more than 3.5 million to 28.9 million, according to an analysis Bureau of Labor Statistics data conducted by Senate Budget Committee Republicans.”

    So…what do people do, if they don’t work? How do they procure resources to nourish their precious bodily fluids?

  22. http://www.abc2news.com/news/c…..ate-school

    A man yelled Jews! and fired into a bunch of kids at a private school. His religion and ethnicity are of course of no importance and wont’ be reported, unless he once attended a Tea Party rally.

    1. The way the article quotes the “Jews, Jews, Jews” phrase makes it look like some bad Motley Crue song parody.

      /Paging Weird Al

      1. I thought they did a song about non-Jewish chicks….

        “Goys, Goys, Goys”

        1. Well, someone was thinking along those lines.

          With timeless tracks such as “Goys, Goys, Goys”, “Dr. Spielgood”, and “Nosh at the Deli”, be sure to look for this record in the bargain bin at your local Goodwill!

    2. His religion and ethnicity are of course of no importance and wont’ be reported

      The suspect is described as a white male, brown hair, dark complexion, possibly of Middle Eastern descent.

      1. Nothing to see here! Move along, Carl…

    3. Allegedly, he fired an airsoft or BB gun.

      I say allegedly, because I can certainly imagine a situation where a group of teenage boys might need to quickly concoct a sympathetic explanation for why there is a hole from a BB gun in their school window.

      1. *looks angelically innocent*

        Whatever do you mean????

  23. The FAA is going to allow the richest of movie makers limited access to drones. You’ll need a closed set, 400 ft ceiling, daytime use only AND a private pilots license(!). Also, you gotta have the FAA inspect your drone. No mention of how much an “exemption” costs in the form of fees, but it ain’t gonna be free. My aspiring producer friends can’t afford it (although they can afford drones and cameras.)

    http://www.latimes.com/enterta…..story.html

    They act like they’re doing us a big favor.

    1. Interesting philosophical question on which I have no position: is going from a scenario in which a certain activity is forbidden to all under all circumstances to a scenario under which that same activity is nominally legal but in practice only available to the extremely wealthy and/or politically connected a net win or loss for freedom?

      1. Drones are not extremely expensive. It’s legal to fly them for fun.It’s legal to film. It’s only when you combine them and use it COMMERCIALLY that the FAA steps in.

        Your question is purely hypothetical, but I would say that it smacks of cronyism and is a blow to liberty. Limited freedom is not freedom. Driving is not a right, it’s a revocable privilege. Not free to drive our own cars, is how I see it. Besides, they require that you get revocable permission.

        1. “require that you get revocable permission” To film commercially with drones.

        2. If you pay someone to have sex, it’s prostitution.

          If pay someone to have sex, film it, and post it on the Interwebs, it’s porn.

          1. To be fair, Ashcroft felt they were the same thing.

        3. I’ve made that point about driving several times with the usual reason ignorant commentariat disagreeing

          There is some justification to an argument that driving as a form of transportation is at least in the penumbra of a right since the freedom to travel is so essential to our civil liberty in this country

          driving is such an incredibly inherently dangerous activity and for most people is by far the most physically risky thing they do on a daily basis, it’s clear there is well beyond a compelling government interest to very heavily regulate it, as govt does

          I am totally for the freedom to do whatever drug you want to do but when it comes to driving I am totally simpatico with the trend in many agencies to now simply get search warrants for blood in every DUI refusal to provide breath sample.

          I also support much stricter criteria for officers to qualify as court competent to testify to FST’s

          I propose double-blind lab classes where officers need to be at least 95% accurate in their use of the complete battery of FST’s

          If you are going to encroach into somebody’s blood stream with a needle to gather evidence your qualification at developing probable cause needs to be very well documented and very accurate

          You can have questions about whether it will be better to have an officer who is 95% accurate when they conclude impaired but misses one out of 8 impairments under a .10 or who is 98% accurate but misses 1 out of 4

          It’s that old sensitivity versus specificity thang

          1. No specific level of alcohol or drugs in a specific bloodstream equals impairment. Some people drive better at .08 or higher, some drive worse at .000. Yes statistically you are more likely to be involved in an accident with a higher level, but this is far from universal. No one should be subject to sometimes life-ruining consequences merely because they are statistically more apt to possibly crash.

            I say, punish actual damage done in accidents, harshly and regardless of what form of impairment contributed.

            The lady that broke my back did it because she was to lazy or stupid to choose a route before getting behind the wheel. Is my damage less egregious than if she had been drunk? Or doing her makeup? NOPE.

          2. I am totally for the freedom to do whatever drug you want to do but when it comes to driving I am totally simpatico with the trend in many agencies to now simply get search warrants for blood in every DUI refusal to provide breath sample.

            Because it’s easier and cheaper to hold someone down and steal their body fluids than show that they can’t walk a line on a dash cam?

            Or because “authoritii”?

          3. driving is such an incredibly inherently dangerous activity

            Yesssssss, that’s why, deaths and serious injuries from car accidents are not all that common.

            Driving is certainly the most dangerous *transportation option*, I’d even agree with you about it being the most dangerous thing people do routinely.

            That doesn’t mean its so dangerous that it requires licensing.

            I mean – have you checked out the current state-run licensing regime? Its not exactly rigorous – even the people whose livelyhoods depend on the existence of this are pretty lax in standards.

            If you can, mostly, pass a short written test and demonstrate a very minimal proficiency at operating a vehicle (a level of proficiency that can be achieved in only a handful of hours behind the wheel) you can get a license.

            1. People have no idea how much safer driving is now per hour or mile driven versus the peak of danger. Which if I recall correctly it was somewhere around the mid 60s

              These days one has literally about 20% chance of being seriously injured or killed in the vehicle collision per mile driven than one had during the peak danger.

              Just as we are at a multi-decade ago in violent crime we are also at a multi-decade well and in fact an all-time low in terms of driving risk

              There are a myriad of reasons for this everything from improvements in emergency medicine to built-in vehicle safety airbags seatbelts heck even Ralph Nader has done really good things in this area

              And reason bigots won’t like to admit it but also stronger do you want it was a complete change in culture regarding DUI improved do you why detection procedures all of that stuff has made a difference

              There are few areas that government should be more authorized to regulate and tightly so then things that affect vehicle safety

              There is no civil right to drive drunk and as it’s been said before driving really should be considered a privilege not a right

              For the average middle-class Joe not involved in a dangerous profession as most aren’t not involved in selling drugs etc. etc. by far the most dangerous thing they will do day in and day out is driving

              Also unlike many other things people are victimized for a huge number of people victimized in traffic collisions are purely 100% innocent

        4. Limited freedom is not freedom.

          Absurd. By that definition, freedom has rarely if ever existed, because it’s nearly always limited. Demanding pure freedom simplistically lumps life under Obama with life under Stalin: both are “unfree.” Freedom can be partial and incremental, just like statism. It’s the Fabian socialists who won, not the all-or-nothing socialist revolutionaries.

          1. You’re right, That was worded all wrong. The idea in my mind was relative to it being unregulated.

      2. is going from a scenario in which a certain activity is forbidden to all under all circumstances to a scenario under which that same activity is nominally legal but in practice only available to the extremely wealthy and/or politically connected a net win or loss for freedom?

        Yes. Some freedom for some is still a net increase for freedom, unless that increased freedom for some is used to reduce freedom for others, e.g. the increased freedom of being in the KGB.

    2. Ok, so with my private pilot license I can now engage in commercial aviation activity? What the Fuck are they doing? The FAA seldom wantS to muddy the waters on this.

      My guess is they want you to have some minimum level of certification so that if they decide they don’t like what you did, they can take civil certificate action against you in their own tribunals that they run, rather than have to go with criminal prosecution which they would have a hard time winning.

      1. They recently got smacked down by the court on regulating all flying devices, so that makes sense.

      2. What’s doubly weird – you can operate a *manned* microlight (up to 500lbs) without a pilot’s license, but you’re going to need a pilot’s license to fly a 50lb drone?

  24. http://nypost.com/2014/09/26/t…..ll-street/

    Wall Street is about to be rocked by secretly recorded audio tapes that purport to show a too-cozy relationship between the New York Federal Reserve Bank and the financial institutions it is supposed to regulate.
    The 45 hours of tapes, made by Carmen Segarra, a former NY Fed worker, capture former co-workers, whose job was to keep banks like Goldman Sachs in line, instead deferring to the banks, being unwilling to take action and being extremely passive, according to public radio’s “This American Life,” and ProPublica which obtained the tapes and is scheduled to air a program about the matter Friday night.

    1. Crazy libertarians and their “regulatory capture” theories. Regulation is to protect the little guy, really.

      1. Regulation strangles the little guy – and the children.

        1. You mean it only strangles a few little guys and children but saves the rest so the sacrifice is worth it.

    2. deferring to the banks

      So what? The courts proudly “defer to the IRS” in their interpretation of law.

    3. I just listened to this 1:09 hour This American Life story, thinking it was going to be a bombshell story. I don’t like the Fed and I don’t like Goldman, but I thought this story was lame.

      Of course GS has conflicts of interest. Of course the Fed exists to serve firms like GS. I don’t see why this is in any way controversial.

      The story makes a big deal about some GS guy who said that some consumer protection laws don’t apply to customers if their incomes are high enough. I don’t know about the law since Dodd-Frank, but in the past securities regulations recognized that there are “sophisticated investors” who are exempt from various “protections” (usually this meant that others could not participate in particular risky investments), and that net worth and income were criteria for determining whether a customer was sophisticated.

      Then it makes a big deal on the distinction between GS having no conflict of interest policy and GS having a really crappy conflict of interest policy. I don’t see why the regulator could not conclude, if the former is true, that the GS CoI policy is so ill-defined and shoddy that it is probably a category mistake to call it a CoI policy. It sounds like words to that effect would more accurately describe GS’s CoI policy, which can be found with a Google search after all.

      1. Matt Levine on countersuits against ‘sophisticated’ clients:

        No, look. If you sell people a stupid investment — and obviously that is a disputed factual point etc. etc. — and they sign a document saying “I am sophisticated,” you can’t say you were tricked. You were selling them a stupid investment! Obviously they were unsophisticated! Obviously you knew that! Their representation that they were sophisticated doesn’t make it so.

      2. Of course the Fed exists to serve firms like GS.

        Seeing as the Fed is basically owned by firms like GS, this should be no surprise.

  25. The thread is dead, it seems, but I’ll post this anyway: Libertarianism’s Terrible No Good Very Bad Idea

    Our terrible idea is spontaneous order. Put on your overalls and flannel, there’s strawmen all over the place.

    1. Creationist article, huh?

    2. Obviously the guy does not understand the idea of spontaneous order

    3. He’s saying that because we’re not free and we’re rich, we must be rich because we’re not free. Also, freer people have shitty systems, so freedom leads to shitty systems.

      I get the impression he didn’t put a lot of thought into his stance.

    4. At the very begining he starts his argument with

      Many Americans thought toppling Saddam Hussein would spontaneously give way to a new order. It did not.

      and cites this as an example of what libertarians call spontaneous order. As if the failure of murderous plundery government policy is proof that libertarianism is ‘entirely stupid’. What a fucking retard. He goes to argue

      Now it just so happens that within the past decade or so the United States has, in effect, run two experiments ? one in Iraq, the other in Libya ? to test whether the theory of spontaneous order works out as the libertarian tradition would predict.

      Which part of the libertarian tradition predicted that blockading, sanctioning, bombing and invading a country would spur natural order and free market institutions? People like this guy deserve to live under the irrational governing philosophy he advocates.

      1. “and cites this as an example of what libertarians call spontaneous order.”

        He conflates Locke’s view of spontaneous order (which is about government and society overall) with Hayek (which is about markets, which takes a given a certain loose pre-existing social order which equitably prevents assault, murder, rape, slavery, property crimes, and the like). You could argue that Iraq is an argument for Hobbes, or more plausibly against both Locke and Hobbes, but it has nothing to do with Hayek.

        1. And Hobbes we should note was not a proponent of liberty or of, the as of yet undiscovered, principle of spontaneous order.

  26. Did a Los Angeles high school fire teachers because of their union activities?

    If only…

  27. Excellent example about my point about why cops need more cameras

    this case is Australia in my experience in the US it’s difficult to get prosecutors to prosecute people for false complaints against police even when it’s very provable beyond a reasonable doubt

    as I’ve seen in so so so so many examples we have here woman who makes a complaint against a cop and a quite incendiary one.

    It’s not just exaggerated or given from a different perspective it’s just 100% completely absolutely fabricated out of Thin air

    And it’s my suspicion based on the nature of the complaint that if there was not video of the incident the cop would’ve been under scrutiny me possibly would’ve been lambasted in the press and by cop haters and possibly would’ve even been severely disciplined or fired.

    Complaints like this often end up really bad for police which is why lying cop haters know exactly the type of bogus complaints to make to get the best effect and they usually involve playing cards like this woman did

    Anyway based on this video not only the cop not have to deal with the lawsuits and the investigations and the discipline

    But to make it even more awesome she got a nice sentence for her atrocious crime

    http://americannews.com/video-…..destroyed/

    Remember do a favor for your local police and rip out that cell phone camera if you see one involved in incident so there will be a record of what really happened

    Spanx and enjoy the link!

    1. I filed a complaint against two Burbank cops. One because he illegally searched me, the other was his desk sergeant who attempted to dissuade me from filing.

      The cop who searched me claimed he smelled pot, despite the fact that I quit smoking pot 30 years earlier. The desk sergeant claimed he never said any of what I heard him directly say to me. The dept ruled that the officer FOUND traces of marijuana and that the sergeant never said anything dissuading.

      Which of these cops should be prosecuted for obstructing justice? How about for framing me for an actual crime?

      Eventually I gave a deposition to the FBI, who were investigating said cops for brutality. Nothing else happened and the sergeant is still the official press liason, to this day. He’s a lying scumbag. I know it and he knows it. Yet he’s the one who informs us of any developments. NICE!

      1. Btw, Burbank cops run from me now. The few times I’ve encountered them, they leave as quickly as possible.
        I confronted the illegal searcher out on the street one day, and he damn near started crying. He was literally shaking and he hastily got back into his car. His partner was giggling. It was priceless.

        Never be afraid to stand up to them. Them count on your fear of retribution. They will move on and find an easier target, if you legally and tactfully resist via filing complaints and using their system to fight back. It works, it really does. PLEASE file complaints ever single time a cop steps out of line, even if it’s just being rude.

        i have since been asked to testify twice as to this cop’s character. The complaint goes into his file and future defendants can contact you for your input. Very worthwhile.

      2. You are making my point for me

        Assuming you are telling the truth then you had a problem proving you were telling the truth to the investigators and if you had taped the incident it’s likely you would be able to prove your account of the events

        You said you had no marijuana in the car and they said they found marijuana and if you could prove they planted it granted that might be a bit harder with audiotape but if you could prove they planted it that’s the kind of offense that should lead to jail time

        Body Camera ? cam etc. all help to protect us the good cops when we do the right thing and false complaints or mistaken complaints or whatever or lodged against us

        I’ve even seen some evidence from FBI studies etc. that cameras help officer safety and there have been countless situations where people who are engaged in violence or apparently about to start it against the police officer change their course when they found out they were on video tape

        Over the last couple of years as body cameras have become more prevailant I have seen and read about a incredibly large number of incidents where body Camera evidence was able to exonerate accused officers and in many cases those false accusers were even gone after criminally or civilly

        And heck if you are an officer prone to doing bad stuff but you have to wear a body Camera and/or you know you’re being recorded at any time you are going to either change your behavior or you’re going to get in serious trouble/etc.

        1. My question was should the cops be charged? Of course taped evidence would have helped me. Two cops lied, accusing me of an actual (albeit not charged) crime, just to cover the illegal activities they engaged in. Further the searching cop’s partner KNEW that he lied. He (the searcher) told me that my refusal to give consent was probable cause. His partner heard that and said nothing. The pot lie came later, after it was clear I was complaining.

          My question is what penalty would you advocate for these three cops? Just assume I’m telling the truth (I am) and then tell us how you would celebrate these cops being punished and in what way.

          1. BTW, the investigator was a bufoon. He used a totally unrelated case to argue that the search could have been permissible under some circumstances, so therefore it was justified. He said it didn’t matter that the cop lied, and even if he never smelled pot, he could have searched under a different theory, based on this other case.

            The other case involved a guy who, after a high speed chase refused to identify himself, so the court ruled it was OK to search his car for identifying papers! I laughed out loud and told him he was just as much of a liar as the other cops if he was going to stick with this theory. Really, this happened!

        2. You’re gonna run instead of answer, aren’t you?

          1. Get a life bra I’ve been doing some other stuff

            If you’re asking me should the cops be charged I’m trying to explain to you that in a court of law and in terms to charging anybody for anything and that includes police or anybody else the issue is always what can you prove and never what happened

            Sure the court process is in some sense it’s search for the truth even though it’s so obfuscated by defense lawyer trick send coleslaw etc. etc. but you can’t charge somebody just to conduct a fishing expedition in a court

            The ethical standard the prosecutors must meet if they charge somebody is do they rationally and truly believe that they have the evidence to prove the crime being charged beyond a reasonable doubt

            People here of course don’t understand that nor do they understand most other legal concepts

            Police criminals are just like any other type of criminal they get away with stuff and our legal system is based on the concept that it’s better that 10 guilty man go free then that one innocent man is convicted

    2. Remember do a favor for your local police and rip out that cell phone camera if you see one involved in incident so there will be a record of what really happened

      Oddly, the Houston cops don’t seem to feel the same way.

      1. There are few things in modern police work I am more critical of then many police departments and officers response to people filming them

        Of course reason etc. emphasizes the bad incidents and the reality is in the overwhelming majority of cases when people film police they have no problem doing so whatsoever

        But realistically speaking there have been way way way way too many incidents of police abusing people for filming them and even worse in some jurisdictions prior to recent case law they even had the legal backing to do so and filming the police is just such an obvious First Amendment exercise and in my opinion and I’ve never wavered on this any officer who arrested somebody for filming them is a thug and should get another job

        I get filmed all the time and that’s just the incidents I know about and I tell people straight up hey more power to you I got no problems with it whatsoever

        To me about the only negative consequence I would worry about is somebody syrup to catch me surreptitiously picking my nose or something

        It’s such a wonderful tool to keep police honest it’s such a wonderful tool to help us as in the case I mention here and countless others to help us protect ourselves against false complaints and delicious bogus complaints and it’s just a win-win for everybody concerned

  28. Did a Los Angeles high school fire teachers because of their union activities?

    Feature, or bug, you decide.

  29. I want to repeat this statement because it really is something that I’ve seen over and over again that people do not understand when they whinge that person X and most commonly cop X wasn’t charged for a crime in a given incident

    As procedure and ethical standards prosecutors can only charge somebody ethically if they reasonably believe they can prove the crime being charged given the rules of evidence given the tendencies of Juries and given everything else they know about the case, they can and should only charge if they are being ethical if they can prove that crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

    many people here in a rare moment of rationality complain about the fact that it seems that Juries give cops more benefit of the doubt than the average person and it seems that it’s harder to get a jury to convict cop given a certain fact pattern then Joe average

    It’s true of certain other groups too such as certain kinds of celebrities people in certain other professions etc. etc.

    So again when prosecutors make a charting decision if they are being economically prudent rational and ethical they have to consider the likability of the defendant and whether the defendant is going to be harder to convict because they’re in one of those special groups such as police and they also of course consider how good the defense attorney is

    Any factor that affects the perceived probability that they will able to get a conviction are facts theyethically must consider before charging

  30. This is yet another reason why it’s so important that we film police

    In the exceedingly rare cases where they have committed a crime during the use of force or have done something else wrong or whatever videotape makes it way more likely that bad cops are held accountable and that’s very good thing

    It also makes it way way more likely that the cops won’t have to face the all too frequent occurrence of being wrongfully disciplined by administrators for stuff they didn’t do it gives them a way to defend themselves against malicious administration and internal investigation detectives and while I know reason idiots don’t believe this kind of thing is common it’s Sadly all too often is

    Part of the reason why I have such a hard on for the binding arbitration process is over and over and over again when I read arbitrator reports they do an excellent job in uncovering just bogus as hell decisions to discipline or fire officers and they are so instrumental in getting justice for wrongly disciplined and terminated officers

    I support the arbitration process for the exact same reason I support groups like the innocence Project because I believe that when people are wrongly punished for stuff they didn’t do whether it’s through the court system or through department discipline procedures That injustice makes my teeth hurt

  31. It was one of the best article i ever read, thanks for sharing

    email extractor lite 1.4 and lite 1.6

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.