Reason Roundup

Are Food-Stamp Receipts Beyond the Reach of FOIA? Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today

Plus: Violence in Sri Lanka leads to social media suppression, and the White House wants to make it harder for pretrial diversion participants to get government jobs.

|

A newspaper's investigation into food stamp fraud lands at SCOTUS. Food stamps and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) collide in a case coming Monday to the U.S. Supreme Court (Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media).

"At stake," writes Argus Leader investigative reporter Jonathan Ellis, "is more than 40 years of established case law on a key provision of the Freedom of Information Act."

Back in 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture denied an Argus Leader FOIA request for information on reimbursements to South Dakota stores under the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Authorities cited one of the nine exemptions to FOIA-eligible information: a prohibition on "trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged."

The Sioux Falls paper objected. And in 2016, a judge sided with the paper, holding that simply sharing SNAP sales data would not cause "competitive harm" to these companies.

"It didn't help USDA's case that before trial, the agency surveyed all 321,988 SNAP retailers, and only a few hundred were opposed to releasing the food stamp sales numbers," writes the editorial board at USA Today (which shares a parent company with the Leader). More:

USDA conceded defeat. But a trade and lobbying group, the Food Marketing Institute […] intervened and appealed. The institute hopes a majority of justices will diminish or even reject the "substantial competitive harm" standard that has been used in FOIA cases for decades.

Weakening FOIA with a wide exemption for "confidential" data would be a loss for the public. A decade after the act became law, the Supreme Court defined the objective of FOIA as ensuring "an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed."

The government doesn't need more ways to withhold information from taxpayers who deserve accountability and transparency.

But the Food Marketing Institute says that data on private business sales is outside the scope of FOIA, even when the customers are being financed by the federal government. FOIA "was created to shine a light on the government, not on private parties," writes the Institute's CEO Leslie Sarasin. "Congress expressly exempted confidential commercial information from mandatory disclosure because that disclosure can harm private interests without adding much insight about the government's own work."

To take this standard to its logical conclusion, however, would mean that no information on government activity could be turned over if that activity also involved a private business. This wouldn't just let the government off the hook and keep citizens in the dark about totally benign business behavior, but it would also exclude crony corporations and shady business-political dealings from scrutiny, too.

The standard settled upon for FOIA—that information must cause "competitive harm" to a private business, not merely involve one—helps balanced the interests of privacy, accountability, and transparency.

"We've been at this a long time," Argus Leader News Director Cory Myers said. "At every turn the courts have sided with our argument that this is public information. It's unfortunate that FMI felt the need to intervene after government had agreed to release the public data, but I'm confident the U.S. Supreme Court will find in the public's favor."


FREE MINDS

Easter bombings in Sri Lanka killed hundreds. Now the country's government is blaming the Islamic militant group National Thowheed Jamath for the attacks. So far, no group has admitted to the church and hotel suicide bombings Sunday that caused the deaths of 290 people and injured around 500 more.

As with other recent acts of violence, we're seeing government respond to the chaos and violence by taking broader than necessary aim at speech and suspending civil liberties.

"Police arrested 24 people in a series of raids and the president's office declared a state of national emergency," reports the BBC. The  declaration "will give police and military extensive powers to detain and interrogate suspects without court orders."

The government also "blocked access to Facebook and other social-networking sites," in "a move meant to stop misinformation from inciting further violence in a country where online mistruths have fomented deadly ethnic unrest," notes The Washington Post. "But the blackout also had the effect of eliminating a key means of communication during a major terrorist event—a problem Sunday for both Sri Lankans and foreigners desperate to get information about security and check in with loved ones."


QUICK HITS

NEXT: The Feds Make a Killing by Overcharging for Electronic Court Records

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. Mexican soldiers invade US territory to disarm US soldiers

    “On April 13, at approximately 2 p.m., five to six Mexican military personnel questioned two US Army soldiers who were conducting border support operations in an unmarked (Customs and Border Protection) vehicle near the southwest border in the vicinity of Clint, Texas,” the US Northern Command said in a statement on Friday.”The soldiers were appropriately in US territory” during the encounter.

    Nothing like invasion by armed Mexican military taking US troops hostage on US soil to piss Americans off. Last time we sent General John Pershing to whoop Mexican ass.

    1. This is a job for professionals.

      1. Speaking of old flicks, I just watched Red Dawn (1984 version) again.

        Corny and all, but nothing like being a psyched about killing some Socialists that try to put you in camps or gun you down by machine gun.

        Wolverines!

        1. Those were the days.

          1. It was almost easier to worry about nuclear annihilation by the Soviets than all the Socialists trying to destroy the USA these days.

        2. I don’t know. The scene where they shoot the dude who had been captured and forced to swallow the tracking device and released is one of the more intense scenes I have ever seen.

          1. Traitors gotta go too.

            Dude could have not betrayed his friends or betrayed his friends. He chose the later.

            IIRC, they still put his name on the rock memorial.

    2. Hello.

      Happy Easter and Passover!

      1. Ishtar is so much hotter…

    3. That is appalling. Those soldiers need to be armed and have the inherent right to defend themselves. If you are not willing to arm them, don’t send them out there.

      1. They were armed – they surrendered their sidearms to the Mexican army personnel.

        This may be a complete non-issue.

        Another article I read mentioned that the US soldiers were in an unmarked vehicle patrolling on the Mexican side of the border fence but in US territory. The Mexican border guards stopped them, checked out their story and sent them on their way.

        When you put it that way, it sounds perfectly reasonable. (if a little dangerous. Maybe we should do a little better job of coordinating… the US guys could easily have suspected that these Mexican troops worked for some drug cartel and opened fire. )

        1. Guarding military bases back in the day, whenever we had trespassers near the federal property line, we contacted local police. We knew exactly where the jurisdiction line was at all times. There were never any mix ups between military and local law enforcement about jurisdiction. Mainly because if you shot someone on federal land, you never had to deal with local police.

          If some local cop tried to take my military sidearm, there would have been a shooting incident. Better to be tried by 12 than carry by 6.

    4. Nice. Made to be cucks on your own soil.

    5. The Mexican troops were armed with what appeared to be assault rifles.

      So, they were armed with rifles? I can’t remember exactly how far that term has drifted these days.

      1. When I was in Monterrey recently, the cops at the mall had military rifles.

        1. I wonder why rifle armed police guard malls in Mexico?

          It cannot possibly be because super violent assholes run much of Mexico and think violence in a mall of shoppers is okay.

  2. While talking up criminal justice reform efforts, the Trump White House is considering instituting a federal government-wide hiring policy change that would make getting a job harder for people with previous run-ins with the law…

    Like run-ins with special prosecutors?

  3. Frustration grows among migrants in Mexico as support fades

    No free ticket into the USA?

    MAGA! Thank you Trump.

    1. “Madison Mendoza, her feet aching and her face burned by the sun, wept as she said she had nothing to feed her 2-year-old son who she’d brought with her on the long trek toward the United States.”

      Madison Mendoza?!

      1. Trying to curry favor with the American patriots here in the USA?

      2. It’s Madison-Mendoza. Her mother’s family were direct descendants from James Madison. She’s more of an American patriot than you, buddy.

    2. Looks like the NAFTA rewrite is working! We’re already exporting our own brand of nationalism to Mexico.

      1. Viva la Mexico?

        1. That’s not going to look as good on a hat. The acronym needs to have a catchier sound.

      2. Yes, Mexico is finally doing something about the migrant crisis so that it doesn’t reach the US. It is such a shame the citizens of Mexico and the United States are not willing to suffer for “your principles”. Don’t they understand that is their job? How can you feel smug if they are not willing to suffer for your pinciples?

        1. Keep attacking those strawmen John. I don’t want anybody to suffer for my principles. That’s… kind of my principle.

          1. We’re suffering for your open border position.

            The fact you ignore this is on YOU.

            I admit that some people will be inconvenienced by a more secure US border. Americans are just more important than non-Americans to me.

            1. You not liking the outcome of freedom (and other people’s choices) is not the same as you suffering.

              Just leave everyone alone and let them do as they please if they aren’t threatening your life, liberty, or property. Why is this concept so hard to understand?

              1. Sorry. No Anarchy here in the USA.

                This is a Constitutional Democratic Republic. The Constitution gives the power to regulate immigration to Congress and they have passed laws regulating it.

                We get it. You want open borders. That is not the current legal situation we have.

              2. You not liking the outcome of freedom (and other people’s choices) is not the same as you suffering.

                So the people who are murdered and harmed by illegal aliens are not suffering?

                Are you retarded? The sad fact is that is what you believe. That is your rationalization for expecting everyone else to suffer so you can feel smug.

                1. Equating immigration to murder is like equating gun ownership to murder. C’mon John, you’re better than this.

                  1. John did not equate murder to illegal immigration.

                    He’s undermining your position by reminding you that some illegals commit violent crimes that are 100% preventable. No illegals, no violent crimes by illegals.

                    Americans suffer under illegal immigration. Its why your open borders position is garbage.

                    1. that some illegals commit violent crimes that are 100% preventable. No illegals, no violent crimes by illegals.

                      Oh you found a way to eliminate illegal immigration? Because the current set of laws don’t seem to be working too well.

                      It’s the same fallacious argument the gun grabbers use for guns. If you can eliminate all the guns then no children die in mass shootings. True… I guess… but there’s no way to eliminate all the guns, no matter how many laws you pass.

                      What other rights would you abandon for the promise of more security?

                    2. But murder is illegal and heavily enforced so why doesn’t that stop murders?

                    3. Less illegals=less crime in the USA by illegals.

                      Zero illegals=zero crime in the USA by illegals.

                    4. Poor Notion. Do you know why we have not had a single murder in the USA by Unicorns? We have no Unicorns in the USA.

                      Unicorns are required for open borders logical consistency.

                    5. LC, what other rights would you abandon for the promise of more security?

                    6. We have plenty of security and need to scale most back.

                      Common Defense needs some tweaking to kick all illegals out.

                      Too bad the USA will be around a bit longer, ammirite?

                    7. You didn’t answer which rights you would give up for more security. Is it only the rights that other people enjoy, like associating with whomever they choose, that you’re willing to give up?

                    8. I’m not for open borders, but LKII is right – saying that “Less illegals=less crime in the USA by illegals. Zero illegals=zero crime in the USA by illegals.”

                      Is exactly the same logic as saying “less guns=less gun murders in the USA. Zero guns=zero gun murders in the USA”

                      Its a shitty argument with shitty logic and LKII is absolutely destroying you guys on this. There are reasons to oppose open borders – the unfair competition this puts on low-income Americans for instance – but the whole “0 illegals = 0 crime by illegals” is just as asinine as saying “0 guns = 0 gun murders.”

                    9. Sorry guys. Zero illegals means zero crimes by illegals and it is not the same as guns argument.

                      Guns are not here illegally.

                    10. Haha. This is so much fun.

          2. It is not a strawman. it is the truth. You think that borders are illegitimate. That is fine but live with the logical consiquences of that. It doesn’t matter how much harm illmigration causes, your principles are always going to say we have no right to stop it. Therefore, it is everyone’s job to suffer for your principles.

            That is your position. Stop lying and own it. If you don’t want to own it, then reconsider.

            1. Its further proof that Anarchists are NOT Libertarians.

              Anarchists cannot be okay with secure borders.

              Libertarians are okay with tiny and limited government that might or might not want to regulate national borders. The people of the impacted host nation get to decide though.

              1. Anarchists are just exceptionally stupid and unserious people, whatever you want to call them.

                1. They could voluntarily pool their money and buy some island or whatever and start Anarchy-Land.

                  They would rather undermine and burn down the Constitutional Democratic Republic that took blood sweat and tears to start and keep going this long.

            2. It is not a strawman. it is the truth. You think that borders assault weapon bans are illegitimate. That is fine but live with the logical consiquences of that. It doesn’t matter how much harm illmigration assault weapons causes, your principles are always going to say we have no right to stop it. Therefore, it is everyone’s job to suffer for your principles.

              1. All illegal alien criminals are welcome to stay with Comrade chemjeff radical individualist.
                Everything is free and he will give you the use of his car and bank account.

            3. I’m glad that you can speak for me so well. I’m not sure why I would even engage you in conversation, because you obviously already know my position fully.

              Have a good day John.

              1. Leo and Jeffie boy are not big on conversations.

                They lose the momentum of the Narrative and its off to greener pastures.

                1. This was a conversation? It seems like John was arguing both sides for me. Why should I continue?

                2. See.

  4. Immigrants accounted for almost half of all population growth in the United States between 2017 and 2018…

    The booming Trump Economy bringing them in!

  5. Another Democrat enters the 2020 presidential race.

    And another one in, and another one in. Another one enters the race.

    1. 20 in 2020 for 20/20 vision for the future!

    2. “We’re gonna need a bigger clown car.”

    3. Is it a clown car yet?

      1. Depends on how many get out of it.

    4. Now I’ve got Another One Bites the Dust stuck in my head.

    5. Are you channeling Weird Al

      1. Another one rides the bus!!

        1. Lol. No. Private jets are a necessity when saving the planet from global warming.

  6. The National Towheads are responsible?

    I never trusted those little Village-of-the-Damned ice kids.

  7. FBI arrests leader of armed group stopping migrants in New Mexico

    People not on probation, parole, or in state custody have a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear Arms.

    Like the Bundy cases, this will not work out how the Lefties in the FBI and DOJ want it to.

    1. Make Americans Vigilantes Again

      1. MAGA works better with Make Americans Guard Again.

        MAVA just does not have the same ring to it.

      2. I am a private property owner. Illigal immigrants are tresspassing. Why can’t I allow these people to come on my land and detain them where I don’t have the ability to do so?

        Oh that is right, open borders trump property rights. It is as it always is those land owners’ duty to suffer for your principle. You are only putting your boot on their faces because you care.

        1. I missed the part of this where the private property owners are asking for the UCP to come onto their property to protect it. Can you point me to it? If they are, I’ll take back everything I’ve said on this topic.

          Now reverse the situation. If I were a property owner on the border would you allow me to allow immigrants onto my property, as well as keep Border Patrol off of my property? Or is your nationalism > my property rights?

          1. We’ll never get the full story because Open Borders ‘good’. The media does not investigate the full story on stuff like this. The Narrative is all that matters.

            If someone is violating the law on YOUR property, some states allow citizens arrests of those suspects even though its your property.

            Illegals are violating federal law.

          2. The feds are not a land owner? Last I looked they were. So what difference does it make?

            As far as you and your property rights, would you allow murderers and fleeing felons on your property too? If so, do you think the government has no right to come and get them? I think they do.

            How is harboring illegals any different? It is not, except that you don’t accept national borders and don’t give a flying fuck about anything except ensuring that. Sorry, but I do believe in borders. That fact that you don’t doesn’t oblige me to buy into what amounts to your religion.

            1. You haven’t answered my concern. If the UCP isn’t being asked by the private property owners or the government to enforce property rights, then what right do they have to hold someone at gunpoint?

              1. If the UCP isn’t being asked by the private property owners or the government to enforce property rights, then what right do they have to hold someone at gunpoint?

                If the private property owners are okay with it, your question is moot.

                1. Show me where the private property owners are calling for this “private security firm” to protect their property and I’ll concede the point w.r.t property rights.

                  1. Show me where the private property owners are calling for this “private security firm” to protect their property and I’ll concede the point w.r.t property rights

                    Suddenly the open borders advocate wants to see papers.

        2. This cuts both ways John. I also own property. Why can I not allow people to come on my land and work for me? The rules in place put a huge onerous on many people for who they can and can’t interact with and hire in this nation. And while I fully support your right to keep people off your property, I also believe in my right to choose who is allowed on mine. I see no inherent contradiction i this belief.

          1. If you hire criminals actively breaking the law, your land is not a legally-protected sanctuary for law breakers.

            Illegals are violating US law by entering the USA without permission of our duly elected government.

          2. hy can I not allow people to come on my land and work for me?

            Because we have laws that govern immigration that those people are in violation of. Why can’t you harbor other criminals? You can’t. The difference here is that you don’t recognize borders or any right to restrict entry into the coutry. That is your choice but at least be honest with yourself and everyone else about what a fanatical position that is.

            1. Because we have laws that govern immigration that those people are in violation of. Why can’t you harbor other criminals? You can’t.

              So you are abandoning your claim that this is Open Borders people trumping your Property Rights, then?

              1. No. I am not. They only care about property rights in those circumstnaces that it furthers open borders. It is more of a cult at this point than a coherent set of views.

                1. They only care about property rights in those circumstnaces that it furthers open borders.

                  There you go making stuff up again. It’s hard to make an argument against someone when they already know your entire position. Refute them, and they can easily just claim that you’re lying.

                  I care about property rights more than you do. Individual property rights though, not the collectivist property rights that you seem to think all citizens have through the magic of democracy; where a simple majority is all that it takes to decide who I can and can’t allow on my property.

                  1. Poor Leo. Bad position with open borders but is worried that people don’t know all the details of how bad the position is.

                    1. No, I’m worried that John only knows the Democrats position, which is obvious when he flings strawmen about. There is an argument to be made for government not restricting immigration solely on the grounds of individual liberty and limited government power you know.

                    2. Thats not the system that we have.

                      Violent assholes want to hurt Americans and take what we have. Americans want a say in limiting those people and anyone else we want.

                      You want Anarchy. We don’t.

                    3. You want Anarchy. We don’t.

                      For your reading consideration: Straw man fallacy

                    4. We still don’t want Anarchy.

                2. They only care about property rights in those circumstnaces that it furthers open borders.

                  What a transparent dodge. You said specifically that the Open Borders crowd feels their cause “trumps property rights”. Now you are saying that they only care about property rights when it furthers open borders.

                  So in what way are open borders people looking to infringe on anyone’s property rights? They disagree with you about public laws and the use of public land. But that isn’t private property. Those aren’t property rights at issue. The article referenced above discusses a group of people who are patrolling public- not private- lands. Those public lands have a police force, but they are acting like the border patrol and detaining people in violation of the laws governing that land. Even if you feel that private individuals should be allowed to form a militia and police public lands, that isn’t a private property issue.

        3. I read the article, and cannot see any property rights at issue, other than this man’s right to own guns even though he may be a felon. (I think that is a problem, and believe we should ease restrictions on felons.)

          However, the specifics of this UCP group don’t involve property rights. They are “patrolling” public property, not their own private property. They are forcing people crossing the border to sit, and wait for border patrol to arrive.

          So where is it that open borders people are messing with property rights? These are public lands, not private property. I certainly wish the state owned less land, and would be happy if it were sold back to private interests to do with what they want. Of course, I get the sense that you would object to people allowing migrants through their land if they wanted to. I certainly wouldn’t object if they detained people going onto their private property. But again, that isn’t what is happening here.

          1. 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

            No ex-felon exemption.

            With that being said, the 13A still allows slavery as punishment for crimes. Once the defendant is done with the punishment, he/she cannot be a slave to the state anymore.

          2. So where is it that open borders people are messing with property rights? These are public lands, not private property.

            They do it every day when they claim the government has no authority to control the border whatsoever. That means they are fine with or at least don’t care about all of tresspass that does occur. The plight of the ranches in Arizona along the border that have become damn unlivable thanks to the migrant influx is not something reason has ever said one word about. Why? Because those people and their property rights don’t matter. What matters is open borders and people like Lev feeling smug.

            1. We disagree on the use of public lands. We have different policy preferences and so we are part of a national debate on how public lands will be used. That is not a private property question.

              If we have open borders, you still get the same rights over your private property. That is, you can still say who is allowed to cross that land, and who you will do business with. The same is not true for restrictionists. You are saying that I do NOT have the right to let certain people onto my private property, or who I can do business with.

              Look, I get that you don’t like immigration, and I am not an open borders absolutist and would be open to compromise. But this argument that Open Borders trumps Property Rights is silly.

              1. America does not want open borders.

                Be honest and push that open border position. You might just convince Americans.

        4. If they’re truly guarding their private property then it’s their right to use a reasonable and proportionate amount of force to remove trespassers. If they’re just accosting people in the middle of open land or on land they don’t own and are not authorized by the owner to guard, then they’re egregiously violating people’s rights.

          1. According to the article they are detaining people on public lands. And the criticism against them is that they basically are dressing up like military and detaining people- pretty close to impersonating a police officer. I am not familiar with the local laws of NM, but the idea that being your own police force on public lands has anything to do with private property rights is absurd.

            1. The fact that the FBI didnt charge them with impersonating a federal officer is because they are not.

              They are detaining criminal violators until the federal authorities got there.

              These Americans also have a right to defend themselves if the criminal illegals try to hurt them.

        5. Property lines are just imaginary distinctions, like borders. See, logical consistency!

          1. +1000

          2. True. All rights, even all property rights, are imaginary. All laws are imaginary. So ultimately, any system of rights and laws is going to be at least somewhat arbitrary. But, if you want to claim that creating and policing a national border is a matter of private property rights and that the ability to do so supersedes other individual property rights, you need to at least make a consistent, logical argument to support that claim.

  8. Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton Joins Democratic Race For President

    Who?

    Well, he makes another white man running as a Socialist in the Democratic field. Poor intertsectionally prime men and women. The Party of slavery just needs a white men to win.

    1. Don’t worry, he won’t get as far as Mike Dukakis, John Kerry, or Mitt Romney. More like Paul Tsongas.

      1. Aw… I was kind of hoping he would be sticking out of an M-1 tank turret as it drove on a proving ground.

  9. But the Food Marketing Institute says that data on private business sales is outside the scope of FOIA, even when the customers are being financed by the federal government.

    “We no longer accept SNAP cards” is a possibility?

  10. “Another Democrat enters the 2020 presidential race.”

    Although Kamala Harris is still my first choice, I like Moulton’s focus on national security issues. Russia’s attack on our 2016 election is not unlike Pearl Harbor or 9 / 11, and we must respond accordingly once we have a Commander in Chief who isn’t a Kremlin asset.

    #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia

    1. Relax. It was just some people doing something.

    2. “…Russia’s attack on our 2016 election is not unlike Pearl Harbor or 9 / 11, and we must respond accordingly once we have a Commander in Chief who isn’t a Kremlin asset…”

      I have top believe it’s a tiresome writing drivel like this as it is reading it.
      Fortunately, it’s easy to spot OBL’s handle and pass most of the crap posted.

  11. A TV personality as president? Unpossible.

    1. I wonder if Mueller is headed to the Ukraine because you can bet your ass that the Russians tried to influence the Ukrainian election.

    2. Max Headroom for President!

      1. Ow, ow, ow, ow, owesome.

  12. “Immigrants accounted for almost half of all population growth in the United States between 2017 and 2018,”

    Good for them. Assuming those are legal.

    Now fix the fricken disaster at the border.

  13. More bad economic news.

    Who’s to Blame for India’s Slowdown?

    When Drumpf stole the election, Paul Krugman predicted a global recession with no end in sight. If India’s economy is struggling it must be Drumpf’s fault.

    #DrumpfRecession

    1. OBL, how have your fared, economically, during the time of Trump?

      How are your tax-deferred retirement accounts doing?

      How about your non tax-deferred accounts?

      Has the FMV of your real estate appreciated?

      Do tell.

      1. The #DrumpfRecession has hit me so hard I cannot even afford to donate $20 to the Kamala Harris campaign.

        1. I find myself jealous of the #DrumpfRecession…

    1. We’re told to exercise dogs and drug little boys to keep them focused.

      1. TOP WOMEN and their Soy boyz really fucked up a generation of boys on this topic.

        They should have let boys be boys and play rough and act violent to work through their energy and interpersonal relationships with other kids.

        1. It is horrible what we have done to our boys.

          1. Who is this “we” you speak of, white man?

            Both of my kids had pocketknives at age 5.

            1. It is the collective “we”. It is a real thing in the English language and it doesn’t mean that the statement includes everyone. It just means the statement is a generality.

              1. I meant it half in jest. However, now that you take issue with it, I would suggest that there are a lot more manly-raised men than might be apparent in the mainstream media accounts. There might be a majority of pansy-style boys in the large suburban metropolises, but the silent majority of the country is made of sterner stuff.

                1. Question: Do people still get a coin when they give a pocket knife?

    2. Holy crap! Brain implants for ADHD? What in the ever loving…

      (reads article)

      Oh… wait. Some idiot put a TENS device on a kid’s forehead.

      “However, the FDA’s sign-off was based on just the one “single, small, short-term trial — which did not compare eTNS to established treatments.” The trial, he said, was bound to get hopes up, but “far more research is needed to demonstrate ultimate efficacy.””

      So, based on the standard skeptical reading of such announcements, I’m gonna go ahead and call snake oil on the whole thing. If you didn’t compare it with existing treatments, something as subjective as ADHD improvement is ripe for bias and nonsense results. Small, poorly controlled studies are not to be trusted, particularly ones with soft endpoints.

      1. If they have only done one limited trial, that treatment is years away from FDA approval. This is just a click bait article.

        1. Maybe not for a 510(k) notification. If it’s not a class 3 device, it doesn’t need to be shown safe or effective.

  14. Most people had Calgary and Tampa Bay in the Cup, With both of them eliminated, and the Penguins out, I think the Caps may be the team to beat–if they can win a home game against Carolina. I might think the Golden Knights were dangerous, but they couldn’t win a one-goal game at home against San Jose. I’m not sure Columbus beat the Lightning as much as the Lightning just choked.

    Oh, and watching Caps’ fans chant “T.J *clap* Oshie”–and the team respond on the ice–with six and a half minutes to go was another great reason to love hockey. The connection between the fans and the players is so real in hockey. For whatever reason, hockey is the professional sport where the players care as much or more about winning as the fans–and it shows.

    1. Columbus might just give you fits. Those deadline acquisitions are finding their way now. It’s hard to tell whether they were that good, or Tampa Bay was just that bad in their series.

      1. Because Tampa couldn’t even win a single home game, that makes me highly suspicious that they choked more than Columbus suddenly became that good.

        1. What constitutes choking?

          In my view, you water-down the meaning of the word to the extent you include within its ambit a heavily favored team losing in a 7 game series – even if it is a sweep.

          Did the Lakers choke in the finals against the 76ers in 1983? They were the defending champions and they were swept. They were at least as dominant during the season as the Lightning were this year.

          Did the Lakers choke in the finals against the Pistons in 1989? They were the defending champions and they were swept. They were at least as dominant that season as the Lightning were this year.

          1. They were up three goals to none in the first game and couldn’t finish it off. They lost that game and the rest of the series.

            choke verb
            \ ˈchōk
            \
            choked; choking

            : to lose one’s composure and fail to perform effectively in a critical situation

            The Capitals repeatedly choked, over and over again until last year. They almost choked out in the first round last year.

            Tampa actually choked this year. They lost their composure and failed to perform effectively in a critical situation.

    2. The lesson, as always, is that in the NHL the regular season means next to nothing.

      1. It seems that in the NHL, like in MLB often, the team that has to fight their way into the playoffs is at an advantage. Just look at the Avs, Blues, Stars, Blue Jackets. All spent the 2nd half of the season working to get in. Tampa Bay hasn’t had to have a sense of urgency like that until they lost 2 games in the playoffs. By then they didn’t know how to turn on the urgency.

    3. I didn’t have Calgary in the final. The West is wide open.Tampa yes but also thought Boston or Washington could get in.

      I have a friend who picked CBJ in five over Tampa. His logic was simple: Tampa is soft.

      1. CBJ was in my opinion the best team that the Caps played in the playoffs last year. Torterella is a just a great coach. I think it will be the Caps of the Columbus in the final from the East.

        1. Both #1 seeds are gone. With ease.

        2. Speaking of Torts, did you see Grapes paying homage to him? He apparently is quite the animal lover.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OikZqSrdl3s

          1. I like Torts a lot.

      2. I bet he thought Tampa was plenty good when they were up 3-0 on Columbus during the first game.

        I just think they’re young. They’re like the Caps were six years ago. We have the same core players we did back then, but our players are different now–with playoff experience.

        I think losing that first game after going up 3/zip just destroyed their confidence. The same sort of thing happened to the Caps last year. We’d been through it enough that we bounced back. Tampa hasn’t had a season or two to stew on those kinds of losses. These are the Swedish Sedin brothers who turn to mush when you hit them. They’re just not battle hardened yet.

        1. “These [aren’t] the Swedish Sedin brothers who turn to mush when you hit them. They’re just not battle hardened yet.”

          Fixed!

        2. Nope. He said, ‘watch. Columbus is dangerous.’

          1. Bobrovsky is a wall when he wants to play

    4. Have seat on the glass tonite in Dallas. Go Stars!

      1. I’ll be looking for the sign that says “Taxation is Theft”

        1. i’ll see what i can do.

          1. Since the games are on the NBC family of networks, they’ll probably have to quickly shift it over to MSNBC so Rachel can re-educate us if you showed a sign like that.

    1. They are like Richard Gere in an Officer and a Gentleman, “they go nowhere else to go!!” The left still hates them. Trump has made complete fools of them. By winning the election and not being some sort of national disaster as President, Trump depants all of them. Their egos, however, prevent them from pulling up their pants and slinking off. So, instead, they just stand up there in their tighty whiteys ranting and raving about “RUSSIA”, “meh principles”, and character. They are so pathetic it is almost not funny anymore. But, every time I think it might not be funny anymore I think, “then why am I still laughing?”

      1. You sure know how to expose the tighty-whities.

      2. Whenever that film is mentioned, I can’t help but think of the fine performance of David Keith playing the role of Sid Worley.

        1. +1 “I don’t wanna be married to no okie from muskogie. I want to be the wife of a naval aviator!”

  15. Did you guys hear about the armed “militia” that detained as many as 300 illegal immigrants last week?

    I keep seeing a story referenced around the internet, in which people keep applauding that the leader of the militia was arrested.

    “Militia Member Who Stopped Migrants in New Mexico Is Arrested”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/militia-member-who-stopped-migrants-in-new-mexico-is-arrested-11555876030?

    A couple of points:

    1) He doesn’t appear to be the leader.
    2) Doesn’t look like he was arrested for detaining immigrants.

    He was a just member who was violating parole for carrying a gun–rather than detaining illegal immigrants.

    I know Reason has long been in favor of restoring voting rights to convicted felons–how about restoring gun rights? We’ve all been big fans of jury nullification in the past, but what about citizens’ arrest?

    1. I smell circuits burning.

    2. The initial arrest seems to be for ex-felon possession of weapon.

      The 2nd Amendment protects him once he was off parole or probation for the felony.

      Evidently one of his prior felonies was felon in possession of a firearms. Guy likes guns and the USA.

  16. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/matt-gaetz-evidence-of-fbi-media-corruption-coming-out-before-doj-inspector-general-report

    Evidence of FBI and media corruption will come out before the IG report. It will appearently name names of those in the media who acted as mouthpieces for the FBI. Not that it will matter since these people have no shame, but it will be further proof of how the national media is a hive of scum and villainy.

    1. “Where members of the mainstream media were giving concert passes and athletic tickets and other incentives to people in the FBI to leak to them so we’ll be seeing that even before we see the inspector general’s report on how this fraudulent investigation began.”

      —-Rep. Matt Gaetz

      Bribing a public official is a federal crime, but then who’s going to investigate it, the FBI?

      Drain the swamp.

      1. I doubt I am living well enough to see the day of Chris Chizilla, and the entire staff of Buzzfeed including the editor going down on federal bribery charges, but boy is it a nice dream.

  17. “Aid dwindles in Mexico for migrants on trek to US”
    […]
    “Mendoza, 22, said an aunt in Honduras had convinced her to join the migrant caravan, which she did two weeks ago in the capital of Tegucigalpa. The aunt said she’d have no problems, that people along the route in Mexico would help as they did for a large caravan that moved through the area in October.
    But this time, the help did not come. The outpouring of aid that once greeted Central American migrants as they trekked in caravans through southern Mexico has been drying up. Hungrier, advancing slowly or not at all, and hounded by unhelpful local officials, frustration is growing among the 5,000 to 8,000 migrants in the southern state of Chiapas.”
    https://www.sfgate.com/world/article/Aid-dwindles-in-Mexico-for-migrants-on-trek-to-US-13783957.php

    Soros must have finally figured that the mass immigration gambit wasn’t going to cause Trump any harm. Shame he didn’t tell the folks who saw the carrot he was dangling earlier.

    1. He created a humanitarian crisis where none existed before. But hey, they are just eggs for the omelet.

      1. Viva la Socialisma!

  18. To take this standard to its logical conclusion, however, would mean that no information on government activity could be turned over if that activity also involved a private business. This wouldn’t just let the government off the hook and keep citizens in the dark about totally benign business behavior, but it would also exclude crony corporations and shady business-political dealings from scrutiny, too.

    The standard settled upon for FOIA—that information must cause “competitive harm” to a private business, not merely involve one—helps balanced the interests of privacy, accountability, and transparency.

    Competitive harm is a very vague term. It can be hard to prove, and at this point we’ve gone the opposite direction. If a company now has interaction with the government, it seems like they are covered by FOIA unless they can positively prove there is danger in others knowing the information.

    I don’t believe this is a good precedent. “Your information is public unless you can prove you have something to hide” is not a secure position to hold. Could a grocery disclose all it’s inventory sold that has sales tax paid on it? What about a banks information, they interact heavily with the government? People are already pushing for all tax information to be made public. This is a bad direction for privacy issues to be going.

    This is particularly frustrating with the comment that, “before trial, the agency surveyed all 321,988 SNAP retailers, and only a few hundred were opposed to releasing the food stamp sales numbers.” This implies that the companies were WILLING to share if they were asked, but instead a judge was involved and a new law was created out of the air, with unknown, but possibly far reaching consequences, for business privacy.

    I am open to hear more about this, but based on the information here this sounds like a very ugly ruling.

    1. Whether you are on food stamps or not is your business and no one esle’s. What public interest is served by releasing the names of the people who are? None. Privacy matters.

      1. I’m pretty sure they are not asking the names of food stamp recipients. They are asking which stores are receiving how much food stamps. Business disclosures.

        Considering 2 years ago, there was a big scandal about two stores receiving several times more food stamps than they had inventory to sell here in Pensacola, I would say it is a legitimate question.

      2. Wait, what? You’re taking money from taxpayers and they have no invested interest? Seriously?

    2. Except that isn’t what is happening here. There is a government program specifically designed to pay business entities. That program needs to be transparent. I have no problem requiring transparency as a pre-requisite for getting government payments. I don’t even think the competitiveness angle holds much water. The government swings around fat wads of cash. That certainly has ramifications to your competitiveness. People should weigh the damage of competitive information being released against the benefit of getting those cash stacks.

      Taxes are another thing. You are compelled to pay taxes to the government, and I think it is worth while to maintain privacy as you don’t have a choice in the matter. Precedent for the former case (voluntarily going into business with the government) vs being forced to give details to comply with the law are (imho) separate enough to draw a pretty clear distinction.

  19. http://www.thecollegefix.com/black-students-explode-in-anger-at-preppy-college-to-be-here-is-like-sucking-white-d-every-fing-day/

    Black students at $57,000 a year private school express outrage at their oppression. The left just makes these kids into trained animals.

    1. We want some money to f***ing cook some fried f***king chicken and be n*****s for once, it don’t work. I just don’t get it.

      Too easy.

      1. billion times funnier it’s a pull-quote and not your words. dear lord.

    2. At issue was a funding request from members of the Black Student Union to host a “Black Previews” barbecue for prospective students that was not immediately approved by the student government.

      “GIBSUSDAT!”

  20. […] April 22, 2019 Kimberly Rogers-Brown Supreme Court, WHITE HOUSE Leave a comment Link to original article […]

  21. “Now the country’s government is blaming the Islamic militant group National Thowheed Jamath for the attacks”

    you wright that as if you don’t believe it and I also find it interesting that the TV media is only calling the attacks as actions by extremest and not mentioning who the extremest are yet since it was Christians who were attacked we know who did it.

    1. MY favorite is the media calling the victims “Easter Worshipers”. Is this some sort of Easter Island cult I have never heard of.

      Basically, the media really doesn’t care if Muslims murder Christians. They just don’t like it that Christians keep making a big deal of it and making them talk about something they don’t care about.

    2. Those were Christian hotels? I did not know that.

      1. A coordinated series of bombings ripped through churches and hotels on Easter Sunday, killing at least 290 people and injuring hundreds more.

        Sri Lanka’s minority Christian community — which accounts for less than 10% of the country’s total population of 21.4 million — appeared to be the main target of the attacks.

        http://www.cnn.com/asia/live-news/sri-lanka-easter-sunday-explosions-dle-intl/index.html

        Try reading the news before saying something stupid about it.

        1. Stupid is as stupid responds.

  22. Why are they still posting their own links?
    A.M. Links is dead.
    They should be posting their own Roundups.

    1. Doesn’t Roundup cause cancer? You want children to die?!?!?

    2. Roundups kill weeds.

      1. And Weed.

        1. Roundup kills both weed and grass. This is not the libertarian moment we all had in mind.

  23. I firmly believe the govt shouldn’t have ANY secrets whatsoever but they damn well should not be able to keep secret how much money they are funneling into private businesses with their spending programs. wtf

  24. To take this standard to its logical conclusion, however, would mean that no information on government activity could be turned over if that activity also involved a private business.

    Don’t want the exposure? Don’t take government money.

  25. […] Are Food-Stamp Receipts Beyond the Reach of FOIA? Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today: Reason Roundu… […]

  26. “Congress expressly exempted confidential commercial information from mandatory disclosure because that disclosure can harm private interests without adding much insight about the government’s own work.”

    Wow. That’s quite a load of bull. The government dumping millions into convenience stores is fairly relevant to the taxpayers regarding the government’s own work.

  27. […] Are Food-Stamp Receipts Beyond the Reach of FOIA? Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today: Reason Roundu… […]

  28. […] Are Food-Stamp Receipts Beyond the Reach of FOIA? Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today: Reason Roundu… […]

  29. […] Are Food-Stamp Receipts Beyond the Reach of FOIA? Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today: Reason Roundu… […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.