Want to banish a sex offender enclave? Build a day care center near them.
Martin Short as Jerry Lewis singing Bob Dylan in an old SCTV bit. Found this SCTV skit on the same page, and it’s even better. (Via Max Sawicky.)
Interesting story about the A.P. reporter whose beat is to cover executions.
SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts wants to broaden the drunk driving exception to the Fourth Amendment.
Hi Britain. Welcome to the drug war, American style.
Food activists finding that idealized school lunch proposals will . . . actually cost money. I don’t have a problem with the idea that if we’re going to have public schools, they should try to serve the kids healthy food. In fact, I support that idea. But these nutrition activists often seem rather detached from reality.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, October 21st, 2009 at 1:01 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under Alcohol, General Criminal Justice, Motorist Freedom, Nanny State, Police Militarization.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
And Roberts will of course posit that “terrorism is different” once police start getting all those nifty leads from the iWatch narc squad participants too.
Sex Offenders – Things that make ya go, hmmm. I’ve been on Orange Blossom Trail and I’m tellin’ ya, I wouldn’t take my child to a daycare situated on that road.
I doubt there’s any real intent to operate a daycare at all, just get the license to drive out the lepers.
All food should be free. Do it for the children! Oh wait, it costs something? Well then charge others and try to demonize them for their resistance to paying for someone else’s shit. Welcome to socialism.
At least the British cops are acknowledging their error and paying for the busted door to be repaired. In the US, more often than not, the cops will maintain they “followed procedures” and refuse to pay for damages or even apologize. Of course, the Brits will soon either hire American “consultants” on running drug busts and the like, or send the bobbies here for training, with the final exam consisting of crowd control at the next G20 summit.
Don’t tase me in the chest, bro
At least the British police apologized.
That woman doesn’t even need to build a daycare there, only get the license to.
But it really creates an ongoing problem, having all these permanently branded members of society moving from one place to another, only to have to move again once somebody in the new neighborhood decides they don’t like them.
Somebody really ought to stop this nonsense and think of a final solution.
Wow, how meaningless must you find your own existence that you spend days on end steaking out sex offenders, and then think it important to report that you’ve observed them do things that harm no one, let alone children.
And then, how hypocritical and amoral must you be to suggest other locations for where those people would live regardless of whether children (or – gasp- bust stops!) are also within those other communities.
This lady could just work with police to monitor this park, or set up a neighborhood watch, or do something significatnyl less offensive to keep track of these dirty dirty sub-humans, but to uproot them and send them off to become someone else’s problem is disgusting. 10 to 1 says she’s a christian, too.
Not exactly American style.
… ought to stop this nonsense and think of a final solution.
… you spend days on end steaking out sex offenders
I like where this is going…
#10 – Don’t worry, practice makes perfect.
If it was American-like, the Brits would have forced her to the ground, hand cuffed her, left her nude and shivering, and played on her daughter’s computer. Oh, yeah, they would have shot the daughter.
“Their excuse was there was no number on the door but there are door numbers a couple of doors down – can they not count?”
No m’am. Being able to count is automatic disqualification from SWAT teams.
+1 for Busts. I’d love to live next to a bust stop.
[...] via Radley Balko [...]
Here’s what I don’t understand: Roberts is miffed because he didn’t get a chance to reverse a ruling he didn’t like. But isn’t the whole point of the Supreme Court to grant reviews by nine supposedly impartial justices?
How can he be allowed to judge a case when he’s already made up his mind? Shouldn’t he be recused in that case?
It’s just one of these things that point out how there is no real justice in this country.
One of the best questions regarding weight loss is “How much are you willing to spend to change your habits?” Most people attempting to loose weight or get healthy never realize that it is going to cost them a significant investment to change their lifestyle. People are overweight and undernourished because of the cheapness and convenience of ‘bad’ foods. How could it not be given how much the government spends to subsidize beef, pork, and corn to such a ridiculous degree?
The government wants to spend so much money to help with America’s health crisis when government spending is the reason we are eating eight times the amount of red meat that we should be. Maybe if we got rid of the subsides (and just maybe gave a portion of the money to schools) then the foods people buy would fall into a natural distribution in terms of nutritional requirements.
Of course, the state is unwilling to consider that previous intervention by the state is a main contributing factor to a problem that the state now feels necessary to fix.
Amateurs, definitely. The correct response is to cite her for having a broken door
# 18 — you are right that the foods we eat are influenced by government subsidies, and that the government is (hold the front page!) now attempting to “fix” a problem that they partly created in the first place.
But, beef and pork are not subsidised. Sure, corn is, and to the extent that makes feed cheaper it indirectly subsidises feedlotting, but ranchers themselves receive no subsidies for their livestock products. Just to clarify.
/wonkery
This part is.
Hang on, is Max Sawicky blogging again?
If it was American style, they would have shot her dog.
I’ve certainly read that some ranchers receive water at subsidized rates. I’m guessing that that’s true. (If farmers get it, why not ranchers?) The government is said to lose on the average of 2 dollars an acre for each acre leased out for grazing rights. Arguably that’s a subsidy for those ranchers lucky enough to own property near good publicly owned grazing land. Some people claim it amounts to hundreds of millions per year. Perhaps.
My grandfather was a cowboy his whole working life. Eventually, he saved enough to buy a small ranch in South Dakota. Never made a lot of money, but he certainly loved what he did. I’d be surprised if he ever received a subsidy of any sort.
Radley, did you know that one of the popups on your site is for NeighborhoodScan.com, a company that claims it can show you where sex offenders live near your home? Just saying…
“But these nutrition activists often seem rather detached from reality.”
I didn’t think any activists were attached to reality. If they were, they’d have jobs.
Oh, you’re not an activist, you’re an advocate.
Andrew, that’s so cool you’re still in to popups.
#26
OK–so WTF are they called now? Anyway, I found it ironic.
I’d call them a pain in the ass and use one of a dozen different technologies to block them.
What don’t you like. That NeighborhoodScan can locate sex offenders or that they charge money for something that is free?
I found it ironic.
“SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts wants to broaden the drunk driving exception to the Fourth Amendment”
I was under the impression that has already happened.