Saturday Links

Saturday, June 12th, 2010
Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

56 Responses to “Saturday Links”

  1. #1 |  Brian Moore | 

    I thought this line was ironic:

    “what is important is his [Sting’s] own act of scolding his lessers for failing to conform to his personal vision.
    That’s Sting’s high – lording over others as if he was something more than a glorified cruise ship bassist”

    The guy who says “we should let people use drugs” is the one lording it over others, and demanding they should conform to his personal vision, but the guys saying “don’t let them use drugs” aren’t? Hm.

    While I enjoy an article denouncing silly celebrities for their political opinions, they’re so often wrong that I think it’s rather dumb to complain on the rare times that they’re right — as in this case.

  2. #2 |  pc | 

    It took seven days to issue an arrest warrant for the shooting of an unarmed man? Why wasn’t the perp arrested on the spot? Oh, right. He’s a cop.

  3. #3 |  Marty | 

    Kurt Schlichter snarky writing cracks me up. ‘The reason they call it a victimless crime is they’re not looking for victims.’ The only things I’ve read that are dumber than his attacks on Sting (and others opposed to our drug policies) are the ‘libutard’ comments left by his highly informed followers. When he looks at his followers, he must feel like a real king, kinda like Jerry Springer…

  4. #4 |  HSS | 

    Schlicter’s inconsistency is as pathetic as it is prevalent. He (probably correctly) predicts Sting’s failure to stand with him in rejecting the government’s interference when it comes to his own healthcare decisions. At least he doesn’t even try to reconcile sovereignty over his own body when it comes to healthcare decisions (e.g. what “good” drugs to take) vs. sovereignty over his own body when it comes to deciding whether or not to take “bad” drugs. That would mean (gasp) respecting the rights of others to partake in things he personally finds distasteful.

  5. #5 |  Stephen Smith | 

    “One woman, who is bald for no apparent reason…”

    Whoa, this guy’s bitter!

  6. #6 |  Les | 

    It’s somewhat encouraging reading the comments to Schlichter’s inane essay.

  7. #7 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Yes, there are still people who think like this…

    Whaddya mean, “think”? Not sure what that is, but it sure as hell ain’t thinkin’.

  8. #8 |  Mike Leatherwood | 

    Tshamba’s shooting has prompted police to review their policy on requiring officers to carry their service weapons in bars. The department’s rules require officers to carry their weapons while on and off duty in the city, except “when engaged in such activities that a prudent person would reasonably conclude the wearing of a firearm to be inappropriate.”

    I reasonably believe getting shit-faced in a bar to be an inappropriate activity to be engaged in while packing heat. Guess I’m not “prudent”.

  9. #9 |  EH | 

    Re: Tshamba: That’s what happens when you let police officers get away with shooting doorbell ditchers.

  10. #10 |  Elroy | 

    Its an odd rivalry when most people in the US probably aren’t aware the world cup in soccer is being played now, let alone that the US and the UK are facing off today.

  11. #11 |  Thom | 

    It took seven days to charge Tshamba and now they have no idea where he is….since he is a 15 year police veteran I’m sure he would much prefer life as a fugitive to life in prison.

  12. #12 |  Paul Vail | 

    Show of hands, who thinks it’s a good idea to legalize cocaine and meth?

  13. #13 |  Peter Ramins | 

    :raises hand:

  14. #14 |  HSS | 

    @Paul Vail:

    I’m in. At the risk of being mealy-mouthed; I would say it’s the “least bad” idea.

  15. #15 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    The Baltimore cop story reminds me of that other time a guy emptied 13 rounds into an unarmed man (hitting him 9 times) and then walked away with the murder weapon without ever being cuffed, interviewed, or even given a breathylizer test…and was later rather quickly charged with first-degree murder once someone sane actually looked at the case.

    No, wait. It never happend any other time. Instead, it only happened in Baltimore because fuckhead cops saw one of their own and went into cover-up mode. When is the FBI gonna get off their ass and launch a full investigation that nets the at-least dozen fuckhead cops who should serve serious time for their role here? It might send a message for the rest of the fuckhead cops out there. Which is all of ‘em until proven different.

  16. #16 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    I am pro-coke and meth…for many reasons. Some of which are libertarian.

    But mostly I want YOUR kids high so they won’t take my job. Hey, I’m just trying to meet your stereotype. And, I want to sell those drugs to them while they are still in middle school.

  17. #17 |  Brian V. | 

    Wordy, yes, but everything he said about Sting was true.

  18. #18 |  croaker | 

    #2

    “All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.”

  19. #19 |  johnl | 

    Paul Vail I wonder why you didn’t ask about opium. Anyway yes on all of them.

  20. #20 |  JS | 

    I think cocaine and meth should be legalized.

  21. #21 |  johnl | 

    But thanks to the conservative crank for reminding us that Sting likes chis. One more thing to like about Sting.

  22. #22 |  johnl | 

    About coke, if it were legal, I might even use it. Not inhaling to get high but orally small doses. What if that provided the same headache relief, alertness enhancement, or appetite suppression benefits as caffeine without the stomach ache? How can prohibitionists possibly think that my options for staying alert (or unstuffing my nose) should be limited so they can send a symbolic message to people who want to get high?

  23. #23 |  Paul Vail | 

    I don’t know, coke and meth seem to get a grab on a very large number of people that use, especially minorities. If it were legal and easy to buy, I could see waves of people unable to work and take care of their children.

  24. #24 |  Paul Vail | 

    I am a little taken aback by the smug, almost disbeleiving response you get from the legalization people when you suggest that drugs are bad for you and should stay illeagal. You may disagree, but why is it so shocking? Drugs are against the law in almost every country on earth, and have been so going on 100 years. While you can nible around the edge and maybe decriminalize pot in a few places, and you can shine light on stupid SWAT raids, I think you’re crazy as all hell if you think cocaine, meth, and heroin will be available at the Quickee Mart soon.

  25. #25 |  David | 

    So the game was a 1-1 tie. Since the bet was for the ambassadors to meet in London if the Brits won, and in DC if the Americans won, may I humbly suggest that, as a halfway measure, they meet at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean?

  26. #26 |  Catinthewall | 

    @#23 Oh? Please tell me then, how are locked up addicts able to work (At more than the pennies the prisons pay), or take care of kids? And it’s ALREADY easy to buy.

    Sorry I can’t cite my sources, but I remember a survey of addicts a while ago, and a lot wanted to quit, but were afraid to get help from a government that saw them as criminals, rather than victims.

    Add to that the fact that if all drugs were made legal, nearly no one would start any of the hard stuff.

    Honestly, I’d be interested in trying LSD in controlled circumstances, as I’ve always been fascinated with the brain, and while I obviously don’t want to destroy my own, I’d enjoy poking it chemically a few times so I know what it feels like, but I wouldn’t use it recreationally.

  27. #27 |  JS | 

    Paul I don’t think anybody meant to be smug about it. Some sarcasm maybe. I don’t know, I respect your opinion but for me the only alternative to legalizing it is putting humans in a cage to be brutalized and often raped for years on end. That’s pretty much the only two choices you have as it stands.

  28. #28 |  Lucy | 

    JS, it’s nice of you to respect Paul’s opinion. I sure as hell don’t.

    Paul, do you know why we’re smug? Because this insane, evil war against people has been going on for decades. Because even every partisan moron should (and could) be able to pick and choose their reason for being against the drug war.

    Violation of bodily autonomy? Yep, why not get the abortion rights people? Intruding in other countries’ business? Yep, why not get the isolationists? Prison industrial complex? Check. Police militarization? Check. Liberals, hippies and anarchists should be on board. Racism? Check, get those activists. Crime? All those law and order conservatives and Republicans should be for ending the drug war and cutting that crime.

    And yet for decades, almost nothing. Politically active people are clueless about the drug war. They bought all the propaganda. I bought it, without knowing it, and then my mother and father pointed out the bullshit and the rest was history.

    But I am 23 year old and I see that people might finally be starting to talk about this. At least on marijuana, if only at an embarrassing pace. But I’m finally getting surprised that people as stupid as the person Balko linked to still exist.

    So yeah. It’s shocking. Because some of us are optimists and humans are damn disappointing.

    (Worse still, my mother may have to lessen her irrational loathing of Sting now!)

  29. #29 |  Paul Vail | 

    Well Lucy – I’ve seen polls that asks say Colorado residents or Minnesotans if they favor legalization of marijuana, and most favor it. Say 58% for 38% against. I see these polls all the time, but what if the question was cocaine, or meth? You would see 80% against. We will always have banned substances, and we will always have smugglers.

  30. #30 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    To Kurt Schlichter,
    I always love it when someone writing in a dark, lonely corner of the Internet mocks the career of a rock star who spent his life banging hot chicks, playing guitar, making close to a billion $$, working 1-2 days a week, doing yoga, and banging hot chicks (yes, I listed it twice).

    Sting, once upon a time, also wrote some fucking awesome songs.

    And, your DEA friend most likely executed two mini-poodles, an infant, and a granny and then shook down a business owner and got paid by a pusher right after he left that house with the kids.*

    *Law of averages

  31. #31 |  Lucy | 

    What’s your point, Paul? Yes, the tide is turning in favor of marijuana legalization. About time. It only took a few million in jail and a couple hundred billion dollars wasted.

    Marijuana legalization will be a great victory. And then comes the fight to convince people that they don’t have a say in what other people do to their bodies period. And that one will take a few hundred years. Because people are very ready to believe that government knows best. And it’s a shame you seem to be with them, or at least totally indifferent.

  32. #32 |  billy-jay | 

    Paul,

    Drugs are against the law in the U.S. now, but it doesn’t seem to stop anyone from using them. Then they get locked up if they’re lucky. If not, their kids or pets get wasted by the SWAT team when they’re raided. How does that make any sense?

  33. #33 |  David | 

    Why does Duck Philips hate Sting?

  34. #34 |  TomG | 

    I’ll raise my hand and say all drugs should be fully legalized. I think that most people who support the war on (some) drugs assume that legalizing a drug means (a) your government approves of taking drugs, and we shouldn’t send that message to kids and (b) that there’s no distinction between taking drugs – and operating machinery or cars or using firearms under the influence.

    They are mistaken on both counts – (a) just because something is legal, does NOT mean the government thinks it is wonderful, it means that A FREE PEOPLE should have the right to do what harms only themselves.
    (b) Last I checked it’s still illegal to drive drunk, or operate a crane drunk. But alcohol is legal. So what, we can’t make that same distinction about other drugs ? I think we can.

  35. #35 |  Elroy | 

    Regarding legalizing drugs, I’m in favor of it. A few nights ago I went to the local supermarket here to get cold medicine for my wife after the pharmacy closed. All I could find was this crap that didn’t work. All the real cold medicine with pseudoephedrine was locked in the pharmacy. This is new to us. The next day when I came back, they only had one form of Tylenol with psuedoephedrine available and very few boxes of that. It seems to me that the store is trying to get out of the business of selling pseudoephedrine based cold medicine. Oh, and I forgot to mention I had to show my drivers license and sign a log. Since then we have planned to make regular purchases to have a stockpile of our own for when we get sick. This is outrageous.

    I don’t care if meth producers buy cold medicine to make it. If people want to use meth than let them. I do not want to give up my right to buy cold medicine that I have been buying legally for 25 years or so just to keep some moron from getting high.

  36. #36 |  ClubMedSux | 

    I’m surprised that Lucy would bring up as stupid of an issue as racism. Lucy, didn’t you read the blog post to which Radley linked? As the Breitbart blogger noted, the woman in the DPA video who brought up racism was “bald for no reason.” From the days of Aristotle to the Lincoln-Douglas debates to today, all great thinkers have understood that only people with a full head of hair (or, occasionally, people who are follically-challenged but for a damn good reason, like if they’re auditioning for the lead role in a Telly Savalas biopic) are capable of articulating worthwhile opinions. Perhaps Lucy is bald for no reason as well???

  37. #37 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Wanna have a bad day? Watch this six part video about The Largest Street Gang in America.

  38. #38 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Well, crap. I guess I screwed up the link.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VimiGUJYP8&feature=digest

  39. #39 |  JS | 

    I tried it but the link didn’t work for me Dave.

  40. #40 |  JS | 

    got it that time!

  41. #41 |  MacGregory | 

    Wow Dave that’s some powerful stuff. Everyone needs to see it.

  42. #42 |  random guy | 

    I don’t believe in criminalizing any drugs. I don’t even believe that you should be required to get prescriptions. About the only restrictions on drug purchases I can see being reasonable are age restrictions on the buyer, to keep kids from making obviously uninformed decisions. Every adult should be given the benefit of the doubt of responsible use. Obviously a few won’t be reasonable, but when the alternative is having the state violently confront ALL users and throw them in prison its a pretty simple decision to let people just make their own bad choices. Its not an issue of creating a perfect world, its an issue of minimizing the total damage to society and at this point in time the vast majority of the damage comes from the prohibition.

    Personally I hate the current trend in marijuana legalization. The fact that you have to be terminally ill before society begins to consider letting you smoke pot is laughable. Legalization should not be a medical issue, it should be an issue of simple human rights. Framing it as a medical issue still leaves the premise that the government can ban or control any substances it chooses to intact. Sure getting a government voucher to okay your pot smoking is a step forward from outright prohibition, but it is about the smallest possible step to take. After decades of this drug war nonsense, which every objective take on the issue has shown to be a complete failure, it needs to end.

    There are billions of dollars a year are wasted, families ruined through punitive criminal trials, rampant police militarization for nonviolent crimes, and drugs are still plentiful and available. But the only way politicians can grudgingly buy into ending this horrible practice is if some BS is thrown out about medical needs? It’s insulting.

  43. #43 |  johnl | 

    Paul Vail if WMart sold coke everybody could afford it. Nobody would leave their kids alone to try to “score” it since they would just pick it up on the way home from work.

  44. #44 |  Dave Krueger | 

    #43 johnl

    Paul Vail if WMart sold coke everybody could afford it.

    True. In fact, Walmart is known for its programs that help low income people afford their drugs. Of course, if Walmart started selling low cost coke, people would probably complain that big box drug retailers were putting the little ma and pa blow boutiques out of business.

  45. #45 |  Matt | 

    “Tshamba’s shooting has prompted police to review their policy on requiring officers to carry their service weapons in bars.”

    Cops should leave their service weapons at the station when they’re not on the clock. If they want to carry off duty, they should go through the same bullshit that every non-cop has to endure in order to carry a gun.

  46. #46 |  Paul Vail | 

    #45 Matt, That is a stupid idea. What you have is a stupid cop that made a stupid mistake and is paying for it. Thanks to sites like this, big city police cheifs are starting to sense that regular folks are getting pissed off that cops are getting away with far too much, and they’re getting paid more than most people in the private sector. Cops, and citizens that know and respect firearms should carry all they want. If your point would have been “make it easier for all of us to carry a gun”. I would be with you.

  47. #47 |  Matt | 

    Paul,

    Does your employer allow you to use his property for your personal desires when you’re not at work?

    Off duty cops are protected by their co-workers who are on-duty, just like non-cops, aren’t they?

    Anyone should be able to carry a gun without anyone else’s permission at any time.

    *The* point is that using someone else’s property, namely, a taxpayer-financed weapon, while off the clock is just one more way that cops are swaddled in double standards.

  48. #48 |  SJE | 

    More on the Baltimore cop:

    ….shot a man in the foot after getting into an altercation while driving drunk, records show. Tshamba said he followed a group of men who were harassing him and yelling racial epithets, and fired five shots, striking a juvenile, after they crashed their car into his and advanced on him. His blood-alcohol level registered 0.12 on a test, above the legal limit of 0.08. A source said Tshamba received an eight-day suspension.”

    So, if I have at least 6 shots of vodka inside an hour, drive around, and someone calls me names, I get to follow them, pick a fight, and then shoot them, and I only get an 8 day suspension? Wow, life for cops is pretty sweet.

  49. #49 |  johnl | 

    Requiring that police carry service weapons when off duty is like asking them to wear uniforms when off duty. Makes no sense. Off duty means off duty.

  50. #50 |  hattio | 

    Paul Vail says;

    “I don’t know, coke and meth seem to get a grab on a very large number of people that use, especially minorities. If it were legal and easy to buy, I could see waves of people unable to work and take care of their children.”

    Paul, you know why you don’t hear about the number of people who use coke or meth and then quit before they went to jail, lost their kids, lost their jobs, sold their houses for another hit, etc. Because, people care as much about that as they do that I had 4 beers yesterday. I know lots of people who have used meth and coke and didn’t do all that bad shit. Nobody writes articles in papers about them, and, since it’s illegal as well as being frowned on, they don’t advertise that they used coke and meth.

  51. #51 |  matt | 

    The funny thing is clean good coke isn’t really that bad for you. It’s out of your system within 24 hours so not even a test can find it. Meth on the other hand is a terrible substance that should probably never be legalized but with the legalization of other drugs meth usage would drop (based on surveys of my local meth users).

    Paul actually a lot of the drugs that are illegal were legal less then 100 years ago. After the end of prohibition the politicians had to find something to send their cops to bust for headlines. I suggest you recheck the world as “drugs” are not illegal in almost every country on the earth. De-criminalization and such are becoming in vogue as people stop toeing the USA drug war line and start implementing realistic policies that work.

    Catinthewall : I did LSD more then once as a youth and I found it to be a very eye opening experience. You must make sure you’re of a sound and stable mindset with a good stable environment with a sober keeper to avoid a bad trip (I’ve never had a bad trip but I’ve got a strong mind that can overcome the hallucinations).

  52. #52 |  Mattocracy | 

    Police brutality is such a huge problem. I don’t understand why there aren’t more journalists covering this issue. There is so much material out there for several careers to made on this shit.

  53. #53 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    “make it easier for all of us to carry a gun”

    They’ll let you carry. But, if you use that gun in self-defense you are going to prison after they take everything you have as you fight through court. Unless you’re a cop (then you skate with no questions asked).

  54. #54 |  la Rana | 

    I don’t think you understand what judicial activism means, Radley. Thought, to be fair, Richard Epstein doesn’t appear to either.

    Though I am glad to see someone else finally realize that Scalia is simply a very good fraud.

  55. #55 |  Radley Balko | 

    I don’t think you understand what judicial activism means, Radley.

    Please, la Rana, educate me then.

  56. #56 |  la Rana | 

    Holdings in derogation of precedent, constitutional guarantees, or governing law in pursuit of prefered public policy or political outcomes. See, e.g., Roe v. Wade; Bush v. Gore. Scalia is the true master, able to very nearly conceal his policy preferences amid a persuasive legal argument. See, e.g., Bush v. Gore, Babbit v. Sweet Home (dissent); Lawrence v. Texas (dissent); Raich v. Gonzales (concurrence).

    Holdings that are consistent with the text of the constitution can never be judicial activism. Epstein is misusing the term to mean disregarding precedent that does not accurately reflect constitutional guarantees. By their nature, libertarian legal positions almost never constitute judicial activism. When Thomas says over and over that the constitution dictates the reversal of almost every commerce clause case since Wickard, he is not preaching judicial activism, but reversal of the same.

Leave a Reply