Drug War

Loathsome Federal Drug Warrior Melinda Haag Is Retiring. California's Cannabis Community Rejoices.

The departing Northern California U.S. attorney was responsible for shutting down more than 600 legal dispensaries.

|

When Northern California U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag announced her retirement this week, the Bay Area's medical cannabis community rejoiced. 

Haag was a renegade drug warrior, shutting down over 600 state-compliant medical marijuana centers (she claimed they were too close to schools, parks, and playgrounds) and threatening their landlords with property seizures. She continued going after the cannabis industry long after the Obama administration had backed off.

But Haag's anti-weed campaign faltered in 2012 when she targeted Harborside Health Center, the largest medical cannabis retailer in the country. Harborside fought back and ultimately prevailed in court. 

For more on Haag's hideous record, and how the city of Oakland ended up joining the fight to stop her, watch Justin Monticello recent story on the topic: 

NEXT: Speech Police Back Down at University of New Hampshire, But War on Words Is Not Over

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. OT:Did you now that discrimination against the Irish in early American history is a myth?

    In 2002, University of Illinois-Chicago history professor Richard J. Jensen printed “No Irish Need Apply: A Myth of Victimization.” His abstract begins:

    “Irish Catholics in America have a vibrant memory of humiliating job discrimination, which featured omnipresent signs proclaiming ‘Help Wanted?No Irish Need Apply!’ No one has ever seen one of these NINA signs because they were extremely rare or nonexistent.”

    This theory picked up traction and began to be widely accepted by mainstream academics. There was one problem, though. It was false.

    Here, of course, is the problem: After only couple of hours Googling it, Rebecca, a 14-year-old, had found out these signs had, in fact, existed all along. Not only in newspaper listings?in which they appeared in droves?but, after further research, in shop windows, too.

    But, why would academics try to rewrite history insisting that the Irish weren’t victims of discrimination?

    “Even more suspicious is that it seemed to fit into a political or ideological framework, in addition to his own writing, which was obviously polemically bent,” he says.

    1. Read the entire article to see how a 15 year old was easily able to prove a politically motivated academic was a lazy liar.

      1. Wow. Good link, brah.

      2. They seem to be debating in the comments whether the original academic was wrong because he was TEAM RED or TEAM BLUE

        Because that’s basically the problem, apparently – *political affiliation*, not super-lazy and incompetent academics posturing as experts.

        The same attitude was prevalent in the NYT retorts to the criticism about its Nail Salon piece, which they seem to have weathered.

        (*never admit mistake!! deny deny deny and then people get bored and fuck off)

        But the prof was just sooooo snide –

        “Jensen congratulated Rebecca for her scholarship in the comments section, but took issue with her conclusion.

        “I’m the PhD who wrote the original article. I’m delighted a high school student worked so hard and wrote so well,” he writes. “No, she did not claim to find a single window sign anywhere in the USA.”

        But Rebecca’s article does include that information. She made it clear in a reply.

        “”You began this conversation by stating that the article ‘did not claim to find a single window sign anywhere in the USA.’ I think we now agree at least that this is not correct.”””

        I’ve seen this handwaving dismissal by people before… when confronted with proof of their own lies… they’ll just laugh and look over your shoulder for someone else to listen to. Because they have far too large a willing-audience who *wants* to believe their narrative.

        1. “You didn’t prove that.”

        2. I’m the PhD who wrote the original article

          See, here’s part of the problem. This person needs to immediately throw around a piece of paper to somehow prove he must be right.

          I’ll tell you one thing, if you think there are no PhDs who are total idiots outside of their narrow field of study, you haven’t met many of them.

          1. Anyone who’s been in academia for a while knows how unimpressive getting a PhD really is. It’s telling when a PhD announces having a doctorate to Normals like that.

            1. PhD stands for Piled high & Deep.

              It’s often earned after a BS and MS (More Shit) is finished.

            2. One of the many things I will always admire about my dad ; he had a PhD but I never knew about it until I was 11 years old. I was home with a cold and he was being interviewed on TV (first and last time AFAIK). I asked my mom why they were calling him “doctor”.

          2. it’s Dr Jill Biden, thank you very much!

          3. In life sciences I really do not see the point of a PhD outside of academia. It’s just more time and work. FTS I’ll keep my MSc.

            1. If you are a researcher/practitioner (MD+PhD), it could be useful. That is,my ours developing new medical treatments while also being a doctor.

              1. That is, “if you’re”…

                Jesus.

        3. Leftists tend to lack the mental capacity to judge a narrative on its own merit. They get so emotional that the rational part of their brain shuts down. So they instead judge based upon the political affiliation of the source. If they don’t like the source’s politics, they attack the person. Then they smugly sit back with their arms crossed and declare victory, because leftists consider ad hominems and other fallacies to be emotionally satisfying arguments.

          1. The herd mentality is just as much a part of it. They’re terrified of being outside of the consensus. Questioning that consensus is something they are terrified of. And we know what happens to them when they do dare to question it.

        4. Richard J. Jensen’s new ground breaking research: Myth of the Chinese-American Contribution to the Transcontinental Railroad: They didn’t Build That.

          1. Kwai Chang Caine disagrees.

          2. Re: The Irish, I’m reminded of:
            “11-year-old’s study debunks touch therapy
            Journal prints her data from science-fair project”
            […]
            ” Two years ago, Emily Rosa of Loveland, Colo., designed and carried out an experiment that challenges a leading treatment in alternative medicine. Her study, reported today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, has thrown the field into tumult.
            Emily is 11. She did the experiment for her fourth-grade science fair.”
            http://skeptictank.org/hs/tt2.htm

            1. “There were no winners in the science fair. Emily got a blue ribbon like everyone else.”

              HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Perfect. Fucking perfect.

        5. I would not immediately dismiss the team red or team blue aspect of this.

          Team blue’s bread and butter is appealing to the worst and basest parts of human nature, namely the politics of envy and grievance mongering, and thus attracts the worst kinds of people both as team leaders and team supporters. Yes, team red lies and bullies too, but it is not the foundation of their agenda. Pushing the team blue agenda necessitates lying. Every single one of their issues is horse shit, so that is what they shovel.

          1. In my experience, religious and social conservatives can get really nasty when someone steps outside of their traditional/religious boundaries. They will even forsake their own conscience to get revenge against a perceived heretic. This action is actually anti-Christian but hypocrisy has no limit. Both teams are religious hypocrites.

          2. “I would not immediately dismiss the team red or team blue aspect of this.”

            well, here’s the thing

            despite the narrative being one that the Left *likes*…

            its not at all clear that Jensen himself is either very left or right.

            In fact, the Voxspew suggests that he’s more of a Team Red type for not being all “OMG oppressions is teh worst” =

            “…was America in the mid-19th century like some say America is today, with some people saying unpleasant things about other ethnic groups but very little widespread oppression? Or was it like another view of 21st-century America, with systemic racism that has material effects on people’s lives?

            Jensen’s in the first camp. As a result, his attitude toward the Irish of the 19th century sounds a bit like conservatives blaming a “culture of victimhood” for the problems facing nonwhites today

            I think evidence shows that Jensen was just a lazy academic.

            Now, its true that lazy lefty journalists might have wanted to make hay out of his work… as they generally do whenever there’s a chance to hang a narrative off something… but that doesn’t mean you can really pin him as TEAM BLUE just because his (shoddy) material turned out to be bunk.

            1. Let’s be honest: any attempt at promoting a victimization narrative or trying to refute one will usually have a political motive of some sort. Well beyond “Everything You Know is Wrong!” that is.

              For Ireland itself we have West Brits, Little Irelanders and Plastic Paddies. All three of these groups would have reason to promote/demote English behavior in Ireland for political purposes.

              1. ” any attempt at promoting a victimization narrative or trying to refute one will usually have a political motive of some sort”

                I don’t dispute that at all. I dispute that you could “guess what Jensen’s is” just because he did a very-shoddy bit of historical work that lefties happened to latch onto

                If it were something more explicit…. like say, the book claiming Lincoln was gay, I’d concede that the bias is apparent

                …but I’m not sure its clear whether this particular guy has a shitty right-wing or left-wing bias.

                1. That’s true. If he was just a poor researcher or had an agenda of some sort (be it left or right) I don’t know.

            2. Lefties like victim narratives when the apply to non-white males. If the Irish were discriminated against and now are treated as just another white group that undermines the victim narratives for all their other classes. This is why its not such a big surprise that they are starting to push back against gay white males.

        6. Holy fuck, she blew that guy up:

          “””Thanks again for the response. This discussion is really fun for me, and I appreciate the opportunity to have it,” she wrote. “Let me make one last point and then I promise I will shut up and give you the last word if you want it. You began this conversation by stating that the article ‘did not claim to find a single window sign anywhere in the USA.’ I think we now agree at least that this is not correct.”

          She then makes a salient point: Even if it were 15 recorded instances per year or 1,500?the signs existed, the persecution was real, and discrimination of the Irish was not an imagined feeling, but a reality difficult to both express and quantify.

          “NINA sign would be just as offensive and memorable to Irish-American and other viewers whether it was for a job, an apartment, a social club, a ‘freedom pole,’ or anything else,” she wrote.

          Of course, then she ended with this:

          “I’ll conclude by sincerely thanking you again for interacting with me on this. It is a real honor and I appreciate it.”””

          This is what it looks like to get rekt by a 15 year old.

          1. What’s even more amazing is that EVERYONE KNOWS there was massive anti-Catholic discrimination in the US, starting with people like the Know Nothings and continuing up until very recently. Kennedy was criticized for potentially being insufficiently American due to his Catholicism.

            So even if Irish people had not been attacked for their Irishness, there would still be the fact that tons of them would be discriminated against for their religion. So I don’t know what the point of Jensen’s original article was when we have tons of relatively modern examples of Irish people being discriminated against because they were Catholics.

            1. I suppose at best he was suggesting that cases of NINA were exaggerated (maybe they were, but saying non-existent was a mistake) and “EVERYONE KNOWS” is not good history (better to actually prove that NINA actually happened in significant numbers) and people were ignoring the less pleasant aspects of Irish immigrants.

              1. But pointing to the existence of the Know Nothings and to anti-Kennedy propaganda related to his Catholicism is good history, which is why I mentioned both of those things. I think you may have missed my point regarding the fact that anti-Catholic discrimination would have overwhelmingly impacted Irish immigrants so they were getting discriminated against even if it wasn’t explicitly because they were Irish.

                1. I think the problem is that the existence of the Know Northings and anti-Catholic propaganda directed at JFK and other Irish-American Catholics is not in of itself proof of widespread use of NINA signs.

                  I think what happened was that people talked so much about No Irish Need Apply signs that people assumed they existed without actually seeing them so that when Jensen said it was bull people believed him since it wouldn’t the first time that common knowledge about history was debunked by a Prof. We were told of their existence without actually seeing it for ourselves afterall. Except there is actual proof that wasn’t well publicized before now.

              2. “at best he was suggesting that cases of NINA were exaggerated”

                The title of his book is “No Irish Need Apply: A Myth of Victimization“…and his abstract reads…

                ” No one has ever seen one of these NINA signs because they were extremely rare or nonexistent.”

                Then an 8th grader pointed out that such signs were fairly easy to find and were well documented in multiple sources.

                If the professor’s only intent was to suggest that it was “less of a big deal than a song might have you believe”, I believe his book would probably have been ignored…. because, “well, duh”. Instead, he argued that the song ‘invented’ a fake history

                1. He could have a political agenda (of what I don’t know) or just a bad researcher. Who knows what sort of ideology would want to refute Irish-American victimization. Or he could just be an incompetent researcher. I mean I HEARD so much about these signs but until now I never saw any real evidence that they existed.

                  1. Refuting Irish-American victimhood also undermines the argument for America as a melting pot. The basic melting pot argument is that while the Irish, Italians, and other groups were discriminated against, they were eventually assimilated and became considered Americans in good standing. So if the Irish weren’t discriminated against, then the melting pot argent starts to falls apart.

            2. I assumed the “anti-Irish” sentiment was more anti-Papist than anti-potatoist. Catholics in general are poor, stupid, drunken, filthy degenerates and they breed like crazy, which throws off the electoral process. You know, like the hordes of filthy, stupid, drunken, degenerate Mexicans we’ve got swarming across our naked southern flank right now. Not like those clean and sober intellectuals from Chicago or New Jersey or Arkansas.

              1. Grandpa, is that you?

                Damn, you did a great impersonation of my Scottish grandfather. “Fooking Papists!”

              2. “I assumed the “anti-Irish” sentiment was more anti-Papist than anti-potatoist. “

                Little bit of both i think

        7. If he was so lazy that his bullshit agenda was trivially exposed by a little girl, he was probably just as lazy when he wrote his PhD thesis. The institution that anointed him a “doctor” of bullshit political pseudo-history should do a full investigation with an eye toward stripping him of his title to limit the damage to their own reputation.

          -jcr

      3. This is just more proof that progs will believe anything they’re told by their masters. No matter how crazy or wrong it might sound, they will never question it, they’ll just take the talking point and run with it.

    2. “And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for that meddling kid!”

      1. +1 Scooby snack

    3. Of course it was a myth. The Irish are whitey. I mean, you can’t get much more whitey than Irish.

      Whitey cannot be discriminated against.

      1. Here’s a book which helped establish the conventional wisdom on the matter:

        http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Be…..came+white

        1. Short version – when Irish immigrants first came to this country, the White Establishment was suspicious of them. To become accepted as full citizens, Irish immigrants had to prove their whiteness to the satisfaction of The Man. They proved their whiteness by being willing to cooperate in the oppression of black people. This was the Irish ticket of admission into the white race and all the privileges associated therewith.

          Which doesn’t account for the fact that, in the North, a key criticism of the Irish immigrants around the time of the Civil War was that they were too proslavery and too anti-black. The Massachusetts Know-Nothings both harassed the Irish *and* passed anti-slavery laws.

          Reality can be an uncomfortable place to live.

    4. Phillip W. Magness has something to say on the matter too.

  2. Aw. they should sing her a Goodbye Song

  3. GRPOS. I hope she drunk drives into a school bus.

    1. Why would you wish that on some school bus driver?

  4. Hoist on her own retard.

  5. One of Berkeley’s finest.

  6. Hag is only 54 years old – still plenty of time for a second career. Probably not as a pinata or a crash test dummy or a medical school cadaver, more likely pursuing some sort of elective office from her academic office.

    1. Wood chipper lubricant?

    2. Can we assume that she is not retiring voluntarily? That would be awesome.

  7. I hope she trips and falls into a weed grinder.

  8. By the way, I have federal jury duty next week. Any advice?

    1. casually mention that all your relatives are lawyers.

      1. Or sparkly vampires, either should work.

    2. Nullification, nullification, nullification.

      1. Or go full Nellification where you act like Jodie Foster’s character from that one movie she was in.

    3. Serve on the jury and remember that, as a juror, you’re there not only to pass judgement on the guilt of the accused but also to exercise your conscience on whether the law in question is just.

      As a juror, in a case that requires a unanimous verdict? The Framers, in their remarkable wisdom, gave you, as a juror, the authority to veto the U.S. Congress, the President, and ignore the Supreme Court’s interpretation in that one case you hear…

      You must be chompin’ at the bit to get on that jury and exercise all that righteous power as a juror!

      1. You must be chompin’ at the bit to get on that jury and exercise all that righteous power as a juror!

        Actually, I am. Especially if it’s a crooked cop or drug possession case.

        1. Which is why, unless you lie your ass off, you will never end up on a jury.

          1. I was on one last year.

          2. The Muslims practice Taqqiya. Lying for the faith. We can lie for freedom.

      2. +1 Constitutional right

    4. Flex your rights.

      http://www.flexyourrights.org/…..jury-duty/

    5. Are you saying you’ve already been selected for a jury, or you just received a summons?

      1. Just the summons.

    6. Lie at voir dire

      The nullify

      1. Lying is not a good idea. You can get locked in a cage for that.

        From the link I provided above.

        Take the questions literally. Answer as briefly and generally as you truthfully can.

        Do you have any political, religious, or philosophical beliefs that might prevent you from delivering a verdict based on the facts? (Not at all. I want to decide a fair and just outcome.)

        How do you feel about people accused of breaking the law in question? (They deserve fair trials, like anyone accused of a crime.)

        If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, can you set your opinions aside and vote guilty? (Yes, I can.) As trial lawyer and jury nullification expert Clay Conrad notes in response to this question, of course you can. You can also shove your arm down a garbage disposal! That does not mean you are committed to doing so.

        1. The risk may just be worth it.

        2. Lying is not a good idea. You can get locked in a cage for that.

          To clarify: I mean that in the typical internet hyperbole sense. Of course you should always tell the truth as you understand it at the moment to fit the situation at hand.

    7. Do it. NULLIFY

    1. Magnificent! I was prepared to go full mockey but Goddamn that guy got it done!

  9. She sure has a fitting last name, no?

  10. There’s one thing that’s always bugged me about Oakland being a pioneer in the cannabis revolution…

    My understanding is that their dispensary workers are typically represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers.

    Their growers are increasingly represented by the Teamsters.

    Their overseers and regulators in the City are presumably represented by a government employee union.

    It’s always seemed like Oakland’s support for the cannabis trade has been about support for the unions.

    Yeah, I’d rather the rent seeking didn’t involve helping the police union by imprisoning growers, sellers, and buyers, but…why’s it seem like we can never get a win without the help of a lesser evil?

    I’d love to see how many of those dispensaries she shut down were union shops.

  11. Are there woodchippers in hell? I mean, I’m just asking, not insinuating any special personal desires or anything like that.

    1. Ye must seek out the Dark Places!

  12. She should be lowered into…an impeachment proceeding. Because she seems to have clearly violated the Rohrbacher (sp?) amendment, reaching into the treasury to pay to interfere with state medical MJ laws.

    The House should impeach her before her resignation takes effect. Then they can, if they choose, drop the charges once she’s out of office. But the message will be there for any other prosecutor: If you do like she did, you better resign, too, or Congress will come and get you.

    (Come and get you, in this context, means removal from office and possibly limits on future federal officeholding)

    1. The House should pass a resolution saying that violating the spending restriction is impeachable, and instructing the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings to find any violators and impeach them.

      That in itself should put the fear of God into these prosecutors.

      1. They can pass all the laws and instructions in the world and it won’t matter because no one will enforce them. That’s the first rule of law enforcement: don’t enforce the law on the enforcers.

    1. She looks like one of the aliens on Defiance.

      1. She seems sexually adventurous, I guess that is what I am trying to imply.

        1. She’ll have the last laugh as your shlong dissolves from her corrosive vaginal secretions.

        2. If by ‘sexually adventurous’ you mean ‘will happily bite off your pecker’ then I would most definitely agree.

    2. She looks like some skanky ho that propositioned me about a month ago. Haag does have a better dentist and nicer clothes though:)

  13. OT: For those of you who are fans of early hip-hop, break-dancing, and 1980s New York City, Wild Style is on Netflix.

    1. Style Wars* is also available in full on the Youtube

      (*i vastly prefer, though the concert in the thompkins park bandshell at the end of wildstyle brings back memories. I also got a picture of myself w/ Lady Pink a few years back, when she did a mural right in front of my building)

  14. No MJ center should ever be near a school. They really should close those govt propaganda centers.

  15. OT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpV5xd-WZ7Y

    Dude filling in for Sam Seder chats with CJ Werleman about how atheists like myself who criticize Islam are big white supremacist meanies who just hate the brown people and probably support genocide or something.

    It is pretty brilliant. Did you know that 9/11 had nothing to do with religion and was caused because Americans are dirty oppressors? I did not know that, but now I do.

    1. Too many atheists have the “Once we stop believing in God then we will start believing in TOP MEN” attitude. And how to reconcile that with multiculturalism…

      1. There are two kinds of atheists – there are atheists who have thought the position through and concluded religion is not grounded in evidence and there are atheists who are atheists because they’re TOTES EDGY and also FUCK YOU DAD.

        Unfortunately, I’m beginning to think ‘fuck you Dad’ atheists are actually more common given how many atheists fly into a hissy fit if you’re too critical of Islam.

        1. I’m starting to think that most atheists are simply rebelling against their Christian parents. They’re not non-believers in the sense that they have no faith. Their higher power is government instead of an invisible man unimaginatively named God, and they faithfully believe that there is nothing that their higher power cannot accomplish.

          Of course John will say that libertarian atheists are full of faith in higher powers like natural rights and markets, but that just shows that he can’t differentiate between abstract concepts and lightning from the sky.

        2. A white vegan, a white atheist, and a white person who adopted a black kid all walk into a bar.

          Q: How do you know which is which?
          A: Wait 30 seconds and they’ll tell you.

          1. Don’t forget the person who doesn’t own a television set!

            1. Hey! I do not bring that up every thirty seconds.

        3. there are atheists who have thought the position through and concluded religion is not grounded in evidence and there are atheists who are atheists because they’re TOTES EDGY and also FUCK YOU DAD.

          ^^THIS^^. I was into Atheism before it was cool.

      2. And then there are those of us who recognize that worship of the Almighty State or the Dear Leader is no more valid than that of Sky Dear Leader.

        When you come to terms with the idea that there is no Top Man to save you here or hereafter, the idea that “holy shit, we have to save ourselves!” becomes inevitable.

        Truthfully though, I’ve watched too many fall into the error of “there is no Top Man, therefore we must make them”. Those are the ones Winston’s talking about.

    2. His premise is Islamic extremism is caused by a lack of economic opportunity and, I guess, Western Imperialism. He suggests the solution is for “us” to “create” (pull it out of our collective asses, apparently) opportunity and the extremism will disappear.

      Yeah, because prior to U.S. and Western involvement in the ME the place was known for its wealth and opportunity. Those Muslim youth living in Europe who have access to the wonders of the European welfare state and almost limitless free education? Why are they volunteering for ISIS?

      Much of the ideology that is Islamism didn’t originate in the ME. It originated in the West and was then imported and co-opted by the Islamists.

      Culturally, they’re failures. Rather than self-examine and build a modern society they’d rather burn what currently exists (the good and the bad) down to the ground and attempt to build a fantasy. They are the very definition of barbarians.

      1. Look The Artist Formerly Known as Lady Bertrum, can’t you understand that when someone cuts a person’s head off and explicitly says ‘I am committing this decapitation in service to Allah,’ that he doesn’t really mean it? What he means is ‘I wish I had access to a modern welfare state.’

      2. Culturally, they’re failures.

        I’m inclined to agree. Look at Iraq and Libya. It took a strongman with an iron fist to keep order. Culturally they are inclined to disorder, not order. Their first inclination is not to cooperate, but to use force. They want to take, not trade. And that’s the way we’re headed, judging by the popularity of progressivism (I won’t cooperate unless I have to! Trade is unfair! What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine! Social justice! Inequality! Liberty is tyranny!) in our culture.

        1. Whether dedication to the religion led to that failure or the cultural habits led to the creation/interpretation of the religion is a chicken or egg issue. It’s too intertwined to separate; it’s a symbiotic-like relationship.

          As a women, though, I can only see it as monstrous. Just the thought of how women in the ME must live is unbelievable.

          I pretty sure it’s not going to end well.

          1. And think how many “feminists” in the west don’t give a shit about women in the ME.

          2. The cultural habits came first. Pre-Islamic Arab civilization was hardly ‘civilized’.

        2. To be fair about Iraq, it should never have been one country. Kurdistan should always have been a separate, independent state.

        3. I’m inclined to agree. Look at Iraq and Libya. It took a strongman with an iron fist to keep order.

          Those strongmen created far more disorder than order in the long run. Once they were gone so was their ‘peace’. Syria didn’t even wait for that to fall apart.

        4. Remember what happened when the Israelis turned over greenhouses that could’ve fed thousands? They got wrecked. Of COURSE they got wrecked. It’s the culture, stupid.

          http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9331…..eenhouses/

      3. “[insert pathology here] is caused by a lack of economic opportunity”

        I am really, really sick of this argument. It is the ultimate pretense that personal responsibility doesn’t exist.

        1. Also note that the argument is used selectively. No leftist ever excuses white Southerners for their racism/sexism/homophobia by invoking “lack of economic opportunity.”

      4. Much of the ideology that is Islamism didn’t originate in the ME. It originated in the West and was then imported and co-opted by the Islamists.

        I don’t think so. SA and Iran’s governments are the active promoters of Salafism and Shi’ite jihadism. Before 1979 there wasn’t much Islamic terror.

        1. What now? This page lists 38 from 1968-1978. Maybe 3.8 per year for a decade doesn’t count as “much” compared to what came later, but it’s not negligible.

          1. “This page”? Is “This page” including terror attacks by secular terrorists such as the PFLP as ‘Islamic’?

            1. Granted, but that’s pretty much a distinction without a difference. I doubt if all those “secular terrorists” were avowed atheists. E.g. Arafat seemed pretty tight with Islam, and Islam didn’t exactly disavow or oppose him. So it’s the difference between:

              1) A bunch of Muslims attacking Jews, Americans, and Europeans for political reasons, and

              2) A bunch of Muslims attacking Jews, Americans, and Europeans for political and religious reasons.

              I’m seeing enough continuity before and after 1979 that the phrase “Islamic terror” seems justified. And the Muslim Brotherhood was around long before 1979.

              1. The real issue is that Islamic violence was happening in the Middle East back then but no one talked about it because in a less globalized world Islam couldn’t fuck with us in the West. They were stoning women to death in Pakistan and Afghanistan back then, but no one talked about it as much.

                I do think Islam has gotten worse over the decades and has actually regressed, but they had issues way back then too.

                1. The Barbary pirates fucked with the west, but I doubt they were ‘Islamist’.

                  I’m not convinced the Islamic-Arab world regressed. Colonialism improved it a lot. As far as terror attacks are concerned, the only thing that really matters above all is the existence of state sponsors of terrorism, chiefly Iran and Saudi Arabia. Until those governments go, there will not be peace. Those who oppose changing those governments one way or another oppose peace.

                    1. Another brilliant post by our resident reality-denier.

              2. Granted, but that’s pretty much a distinction without a difference. I doubt if all those “secular terrorists” were avowed atheists.

                You just cannot go more than a few posts without saying something fucking stupid. Secularism doesn’t require atheism. The PLO and PFLP and Nasser were not motivated by Islam but pan-Arab socialism. They were secular Jew haters-like the Nazis, not only not motivated primarily by Islam but not even always Muslims:

                George Habash (Arabic: ???? ????) also known by his laqab “al-Hakim” (Arabic: ??????? ? the wise one or the doctor) (2 August 1926 ? 26 January 2008) was a Marxist and Palestinian Christian who founded the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Habash served as Secretary-General of the Palestine Front until 2000, when ill health forced him to resign.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Habash

                1. And you have a distressing inability to argue without juvenile name-calling. True, secularism doesn’t require atheism. So if they weren’t atheist, what were they? Agnostics? Yeah, one was a Christian… and how many others were, too? How many were anything other than Muslim? It’s not even within spitting distance of 1%. Thus, all your quibbles about the term “Islamic terrorism” are just Jesuitical hairsplitting.

      5. Wasn’t that Bush’s premise going into Iraq? That we would be greeted as liberators because the Iraqi people were just pining for some Western Civilization? Hell, judging by the way so many people in so many places are trying to stamp it out, most of the West doesn’t even think much of Western Civilization.

    3. CJ Werleman about how atheists like myself who criticize Islam are big white supremacist meanies who just hate the brown people and probably support genocide or something.

      It is pretty brilliant. Did you know that 9/11 had nothing to do with religion and was caused because Americans are dirty oppressors? I did not know that, but now I do.

      Replace ‘atheist’ with ‘christian” or “neo-con” and you have the same argument Reason (and many commenters) make. Or Ron Paul.

      Also same logic applies to immigration. If you are against open borders, you hate brown people.

  16. *mumble mumble* woodchipper *mumble mumble*

    1. I like the cut of your handle.

  17. Completely OT but what the hell: National Review goes to the Koch brothers candidates meet-n-greet: “So it was surprising to hear Charles Koch on Saturday evening, surrounded by some of the wealthiest men and women in the nation, take the stage to assail big bank bailouts and government handouts for the rich.”
    .
    Just when you think you’ve got the libertarians all figured out, they throw you a curveball by bringing up some sort of anti-crony-capitalism ideas out of nowhere. I mean, normally all libertarians talk about is which wine goes best with grilled orphan and which brand of boot holds up best in a marathon puppy stomping session; who would have guessed they also had ideas about economics? Not this reporter!

    1. Got to save this for Tony; how about a link?
      He was whinging on last week about how libertarians are all for crony-cap; he’s only wasted our time here for 8 or ten years, and he still spouts that nonsense.

      1. The point *is* to waste your time.

  18. One of the favorite talking points of nativists is that mass immigration will change America politically and vote themselves more welfare. Unfortunately for the nativists, the book-lernin’ faggots at Cato did something called ‘research’. The results are not good for nativist doom fantasies.

    In a recent academic paper, my coauthors and I compared economic freedom scores with immigrant populations across 100 countries over 21 years. Some countries were majority immigrant while some had virtually none. We found that the larger a country’s immigrant population was in 1990, the more economic freedom increased in the same country by 2011. The immigrant’s country of origin, and whether they came from a poor nation or a rich one, didn’t affect the outcome.

    A state’s population of immigrants, illegal immigrants, Hispanics, Asians, ethnic or racial diversity caused by immigration, or any combination of the above did not affect the size of welfare benefits. Larger populations of immigrants or more diversity didn’t decrease welfare on the state level, but they didn’t increase it either.

    http://www.cato.org/publicatio…..mmigration

    1. That’s certainly working out great in CA.

      1. There’s no solid evidence that immigrants shifted Cali to team blue. Sorry, you lose again.

        1. Well, sort of. Just they were *white* immigrants, moving out of the states that expect you to *work* for a living and trying to live on the beach.

    2. Is it possible that this is linked to trends that were already occurring. If you where heavily trending towards economic freedom, your economy was also heavily trending towards economic prosperity, which attracted more immigrants? The time gap helps to counter that, but is there a way to know for certain?

  19. So far, my Windows 10 install ‘experience’ is the worst I’ve ever seen for *any* piece of software.

    1. Let’s start off with the background. I have a computer I bought from HP in 2012 – well, most of it. I’ve been upgrading parts throughout this year and got a new MB that the original W7 install didn’t have drivers for. A kludged up install that required me to reinstall a fresh, *non-HP OEM* version of Win7 because it was either use an copy lying around or do a complete factory reset – because HP is a group of fucktards and that’s how their ‘recovery media’ work. So, *technically* I’ve been pirating Win7 for several months.

    2. So I just want to buy a new copy of Win10 and install fresh. Ha! 1st – going online to ‘fix’ my piracy issue takes me to a purchase win7 page – all good, figured, worst case, buy and do the free upgrade. Nope. ‘Win7 is not for sale anymore, you have to buy a copy of Win 8’. THEN WHY THE FUCK SHOW ME PURCHASE OPTIONS FOR WIN7!?

    1. Screw that. I’m not going to download and install W8, *then* download and install W10. Except buying W10 *directly* is HIDDEN. You select the ‘buy’ option from the storefront and it shows you all this hardware with W10 preinstalled.

      Well, *finally* found W10 for sale in the store (download or USB mailed to you), bought it, downloaded it, am in the process of installing. Every 30 seconds the ‘you may be pirating Windows’ message box comes up. Yeah MS, I *know* that. That’s why I’m installing this new fucking OS I just bought.

      1. yeah. sounds like every single MS upgrade, ever. basically trying to get you to commit suicide.

        I got a new box about 6 months ago (an stripped ASUS box which i plugged some legacy cards/power/drive controllers in) …..

        ….and one of the first things it tried to do when i got it running was “Reserve your Free Upgrade to Windows 10”. it was a little system-tray nag button.

        What it didn’t clarify was if you said “yes” was that it was going to completely over-write your OS and install 10 as soon as it came out. Via Windows Update.

        Then i found out that they made the process almost impossible to undo. I had to basically restore to an earlier date and hack the registry to kill the monster from ruining my life with all sorts of “upgrades” that would likely make half my smoothly-running hardware worthless.

        1. My Windows 8.1 to Windows 10 upgrade went OK on Wednesday, but today the laptop fan came on louder than a damn hair dryer even though CPU usage was under 10%. If that keeps happening, I might revert to 8.1 (which I have a month to do, I think) and just learn to deal with that ridiculous fullscreen Start abomination.

          1. Or you could not use a horrible OS and just get W7.

            1. I have Windows 7 on a different computer, and I see no reason to upgrade that one.

      2. So, apparently you get an XBOX app installed – whether you want it or not. Oh, and it doesn’t show up in the list of installed programs *or* Windows components so you can’t easily remove it.

        Because I give a shit about XBOX.

        1. For those interested in how to remove stuff from the W10 app packages that Windows won’t offer an uninstall option for.

          https://thomas.vanhoutte.be/ miniblog/delete-windows-10-apps/

          1. And Windows just reinstalled all of them.

            WTF is wrong with these people?

    2. “2. So I just want to buy a new copy of Win10 and install fresh. Ha! 1st – going online to ‘fix’ my piracy issue takes me to a purchase win7 page – all good, figured, worst case, buy and do the free upgrade. Nope. ‘Win7 is not for sale anymore, you have to buy a copy of Win 8’. THEN WHY THE FUCK SHOW ME PURCHASE OPTIONS FOR WIN7!?”

      Dunno what to say.
      I bought a lenovo ‘all-in-one’ 3-4 weeks ago, had my fave tech place strip off W8, buy and install W7, which is what I’m using right now with the receipt and the magic code showing I bought 7.
      BTW, the lenovo unit solved all of the problems I was dealing with in the Gateway desktop, the most annoying was the HD warp-drive leading to shutdown after 5 minutes of a vid.

    3. [Mac users smile and slowly shake their heads….]

      1. And quietly ask each other, “What’s an ‘OS’? I don’t understand what they’re talking about.”

        1. I periodically use Terminal to get a command line, so it’s there when I need it. But I rarely need it.

        2. I upgraded to the next Mac OS beta the other day – smooth as silk. If you think Mac users are “stupid”, well that’s your opinion but at least they make their shit work, usually.

          1. Ha ha ha. I’ve used Mac: it’s computers for people who are too dumb to know that they’re getting a shitty computer. Pages to PDF conversion has given me cover letter – ruining bugs multiple times. I used a Mac for months it was shite.

    4. I have an HP that came with 8 – I wanted to downgrade to 7, that didn’t work. So I upgraded to 10, didn’t like it, and wanted to use the Recovery disk. That didn’t work either.

  20. Things are pretty intense on True Detective, huh? I said before I wanted Rachel McAdams to grab a knife and go all Raid: Redemption on somebody, but I never expected her to kill Vince Vaughn!

    1. ^ This is wonderful trolling. Just wonderful.

  21. Surveys wreckage from the weekend….

    “The horror. The….horror…”

  22. Good riddance you cunt.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.