Brickbat: Jumping Jack Flash

|

"Porky's"

Staff at a Wisconsin prison gave a female inmate a strip search, then forced her to perform nude jumping jacks. After that, they forced the still-nude woman to urinate into a cup while holding one hand on her head. Officials say they'd heard she kept a small bottle of someone else's urine in her vagina in case of a surprise drug test.

NEXT: Scalia questions the value of "modern" Restatements

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. Garcia was later disciplined for not following procedures and neglecting his duties, Department of Corrections spokeswoman Joy Staab said. She did not provide specifics about the discipline that was imposed, but said it was “commensurate with the actions of the employee.”

    Woe to the human resources staffer who had to watch Garcia do naked squats and jumping jacks.

  2. Captain Alfredo Garcia said, “One person said [it] may be able to work, but [was] not sure how strong the vagina is.”

    Where’s Sam Peckinpah when you need him?

    1. To Wisconsin prison guards: “You guys are definitely on my shit list.”

      1. I think their response to that is “It’s time for a cavity search.”

  3. I can at least see the reasoning behind this. that is an improvement.

  4. Why didn’t they just call AlmightyJB’s vagina inspection services? First inspection is free.

    1. I don’t think the article image is an accurate interpretation of what the average female inmates look like, you may want to rethink your rates.

    2. They’ve seen your client testimonials

      1. Stupid Angie’s list

  5. Videos or it didn’t happen.

    CB

    1. Are you telling me you’re unfamiliar with the “prison” channel on Youporn?

  6. OT.

    Is it me, or are they just grasping at straws now?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc…..t-31604953

    Sea levels north of New York City rose by 128mm in two years, according to a report in the journal, Nature Communications.

    Coastal areas will need to prepare for short term and extreme sea level events, say US scientists.

    Climate models suggest extreme sea level rises will become more common this century.

    “The extreme sea level rise event during 2009-10 along the northeast coast of North America is unprecedented during the past century,” Prof Jianjun Yin of the University of Arizona told BBC News.

    “Statistical analysis indicates that it is a 1-in-850 year event.”

    1. A handspan differential in one location along the coast implies an instrumentation failure rather than a bulge in the seas around New York.

      1. Alternatively, if you’re being generous, a change in the chape of the channel might impact the amount of water retained. The cesspool on the Hudson isn’t exactly smooth coastlines here.

        1. They’re attempting to link a 1-in-850 year event with a rise in ocean levels. What is the point they’re making? Reading the article was like reading a page of non sequiturs.

          1. What is the point they’re making?

            That weather is climate, except when it’s not.

    2. “”This example illustrates how individual extreme events are influenced by multiple factors – in this case the global rise of sea levels, regional changes in ocean circulation, and wind patterns.”

      I remember lengthy discussions in Limnology about current and wind affecting levels. Tossing in Global Warming is nonsensical. The exact same phenomena would occur without it most likely. Has anyone shown there to be a global rise in sea level, or is it still just a prediction of their models?

      What they are doing is measuring whatever phenomena they see, giving the reasons for it and then tossing in global warming as an additional cause without showing any evidence to connect it. It is a complete non sequitur and a standard explanation for everything they see.

      Grasping at straws? No, they have just lost contact with reality. Fooled by their own bullshit.

      1. Oh, and have any geologists weighed in on this? That part of the NA plate is doing what? Rising? Falling?
        ( I bet I can guess )

        1. Good question. I remember Dan Rather when he was an anchorman(!) doing a story on an island in the Chesapeake that was being inundated. Global warming! I’ve seen stories about a specific Maryland shoreline or a specific isle in the South Pacific sinking.

          I’m no rocket scientist, but doesn’t water seek its own level? How can some places get hit with a rising sea level but not others?

          1. Wind and currents can cause water to ‘pile up’ in one specific area. Add in tidal forces and you can have pretty drastic changes in water level in a locality.

            What they aren’t showing is the effect of the ever changing land levels ( there is a tide in dirt too. the plates are affected by tidal forces. Some place in oklahoma(?) it is as much as 6 feet) and plate tectonics. They aren’t showing a global rise in sea level which would be apparent if what they are claiming here is true. Measuring sea level means taking averages as the level moves all over the place over the course of even one day, and finding a level change of 12.5 centimeters over a year sounds kinda sketchy to me.

            Were there any weather events in that area that could have thrown the average off? How are the plates moving? Was there flooding in the rivers?

            There are just so many factors involved with this it is mind-blowing and insanely stupid for them to toss in the global warming nonsense.

            Remember:

            1) Present your mark with a crisis
            2) Create a sense of urgency so that your mark has to act quickly without thinking things through
            3) Show the mark the path away from the crisis
            4) The path always leads to your mark writing you a check.

            This is the anatomy of a con.

            What do you want to bet Prof Jianjun Yin of the University of Arizona also advocates for a carbon tax or the end of capitalism? I wonder if he is writing up a grant proposal right now so he can study this more?

            1. Climatologists only have a spotlight on their job as long as they can sell a crisis, i mean think about it if you relied on fear for money wouldn’t you manufacture more fear? it kinda makes sense that theres a 97% consensus among government funded studies, who the hell is going to say “well theres no need for you to send us any money the climate aint goin nowhere, as a matter of fact why dont you just cut about 90% of the employment in my field”
              im sure the only ones who told the truth would be a very small percentage.

  7. Why do you think he lives in AZ, he knows where the shoreline will be in 850 years…

    1. Not very far from where it is now.

  8. Silly prison guards, strip searches are for kids! – Clarence Thomas

  9. Speaking of the Badger State, it’s current Governor and Ray Guy finalist Scott Walker has another punt covered. This time it’s on SSM:

    “Scott Walker had a hard time answering an easy question. Daniel Bice reported for Milwaukee’s Journal Sentinel that when the Wisconsin governor was asked about his stance on same-sex marriage, his responses left attendees confused.

    “It really doesn’t matter what I think now,” Walker said, apparently referring to the fact that a district court judge had recently thrown out the state’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. “It’s in the Constitution.”

    Pressed to elaborate, he said, “I don’t comment on everything out there.”

    Asked if he was reconsidering his stance on the issue, he said, “No. I’m just not stating one at all.”

    http://www.slate.com/articles/…..clear.html

    1. And?

      Given that by far the big issues one the electorate’s minds have repeatedly been shown to be economic ones, what does the culture war have to do with 2016?

      1. Yeah, it’s not like SSM is a any policy issue anyone cares about. Why would a Governor of a state whose policies are affected by it and whose considering running for President have a position on that?

        1. But Walker is right. It ISO in the Constitution. The court is there to interpret laws. And the district judge has interpreted Wisconsin’s as unconstitutional. Walker would be derilect in his duties as an executive (the branch that enforces laws) if he tried to influence the judiciary by saying his thoughts on pending appeals in front of the other branch.

          He’s dead right on this, Bo. Too bad other pols like your hero Obama don’t leave the judiciary alone when they are hearing a case (what’s known in layman’s terms as tampering).

          1. Another way to put it: Walker has the sense to concern himself only with matters that are within his control and to leave those out of his control in the hands of those who do control it.

            I reckon you’d get the same answer from him if asked about Roe v Wade or Brown v Board of Education. His personal opinion is basically “it’s out of my control so my personal opinion is irrelevant to the national or even state discussion.” And that coming from a politician of either stripe is like a breath of fresh air.

          2. “your hero Obama ”

            Hahahaha

            1. And sloopy, this is a guy who wants to be the person who appoints SCOTUS justices. All of the branches are supposed to take a role in interpreting and following the constitution. To not be able to state an opinion on such matters is not just bizarre, it’s irresponsible.

              1. It most certainly isn’t bizarre or irresponsible. It’s more like deference to a separate but equal branch of government that has a current case before it.

                Also, he hasn’t declared that he’s running for president. Perhaps it would call for an opinion if he does, but until then, he should defer to the court as he’s doing when a state law is under judicial review.

                1. You’re just going to ignore this point?

                  1. it doesnt fit the narrative, he has to go back to salon for more talking points

      2. Jeebus, guys. Walker dodged a question. He’s running for office. It’s what candidates do. I don’t think his actions need to be rationalized just because Bo is the one who is bringing it up.

        1. Bo has a hard-on for Walker, but he won’t say why.

          Me? I hate Bush and I hate Obumbles with the heat of a thousand suns. Ask me why and I will give you a thousand detailed reasons, all of which are policy based.

          I keep waiting for Bo to tell us why he is so dead set against walker other than….no degree? That is pretty weak.

          1. I’m not dead set against him, he’s just so mediocre in my opinion. If you talk to people in his home state, even Republicans that like him, they’ll tell you he has a tendency to be uninspiring as a speaker, as a campaigner.

            I’m just not impressed by him. He’s done little to excite me as a libertarian or just as an observer that makes me think he’s a great pick. He’s won some recent off-year elections when outspending his opponent. That’s better than losing of course, but not incredible.

            I think he’s a particularly poor choice right now. Nominees who win from the party that has been out of power for a couple of terms tend to run as unobjectionable moderates from their party (Clinton was a ‘New Democrat’, Bush was a ‘Compassionate Conservative’). It’s the party out of power’s race to win as long as they don’t unnecessarily polarize it. And Walker’s raison d’etre is polarizing bare knuckle clashes.

            1. Isn’t not answering loaded questions like the one posed to him the exact opposite of “polarizing bare knuckle clashes”? He’s not wading into an issue he no longer has control over, or ever had control over since the state amendment was passed by way of ballot initiative. Rather, he’s concerning himself with the business of the state and things that are important to his constituents…and only on things he can control. Sounds to me like he’s going out of his way to not be a polarizing figure on matters that simply aren’t going to be relevant in 2016. And that should count as a plus for any candidate.

              1. Also, his “off year” elections include a recall where he was outspent in a presidential election year…it was the largest voter turnout for a recall in state history and he won with a sizable margin after being vilified by every media outlet imaginable this side,of Fox and with every single union in the country sending money to his opponents campaign. If that’s not resilience, I don’t know what is.

            2. “He’s done little to excite me as a Libertarian”

              Not a true scottsman

  10. Garcia asked women on staff about how strong a vagina is and whether a woman could hold a bottle inside her body.

    He then excused himself to take the big dump he’d been delaying for three hours.

    1. Vaginas are strong enough to take down Arnie, Tiger and Berlusconi.

  11. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha? I do……

    http://www.wixjob.com

  12. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,,,,,,,,,
    http://www.work-mill.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.