Comments on: Morning Links

By: Elliot

Elliot — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 05:53:04 +0000

Here is a more permanent link, hopefully, to the NSFW art. Interesting.

By: Elliot

Elliot — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 05:44:28 +0000

Guy makes portrait collages out of porn (NSFW)

Did the content of this page change? It doesn’t seem to fit the given description.

I resist clicking on a NSFW link because of my location at the time and I guess I missed all the good stuff. Oh well.

By: croaker

croaker — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:45:38 +0000

@5 @29 Take this in stride. Remember, the most dangerous place in the world is standing between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera. That’s why he proposes stupid shit like this.

By: paranoiastrksdp

paranoiastrksdp — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:33:54 +0000

re: loss of second amendment for those charged w/ a drug crime but not convicted..

Wow : It’s like civil asset forfeiture, but for the bill of rights.

By: J.S.

J.S. — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:19:11 +0000

#5, Highway don’t forget about Schumer’s grandstanding with “blackout in a can” and the FourLoko ban. Though I guess technically that was last year.

By: demize!

demize! — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:16:15 +0000

#5 Schumer has a boner for checkpoints especially the ones in the occupied territories. His constituancy seems to be settler ex patriots from Brooklyn, cause he sure don’t Rep me. I detest him for aesthetic reasons as well as his politics. The man is a camera whore, and he’s got that pince-nez Im a serious advocate schtick down to a science. Have I mentioned I dislike him?

By: EH

EH — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:51:10 +0000

I SAW GOODY BALKO WITH THE DOPE FIEND

By: Z

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:57:57 +0000

First commenter on the DA story can see the future and baby its so bright you gotta wear shades:

“The next step for the county – people accused of crimes can come in and offer financial incentives to the ADAs to have charges dismissed.”

By: Aresen

Aresen — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:33:34 +0000

“If he were representing Texas – or some other heavily pro-gun state – it would be a completely different story.”

For one thing, he couldn’t get elected in Texas. (They prefer a different brand on their bullshitters.)

By: DarkEFang

DarkEFang — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:14:13 +0000

#17 C. S. P. Schofield –

“One wonders why he thinks he can get away with this without paying a price at the polls.”

People in New York, especially New York City, back legislation like this. That’s why he proposes it. If he were representing Texas – or some other heavily pro-gun state – it would be a completely different story.

By: Aresen

Aresen — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:07:10 +0000

RE: Chuck Schumer’s bill:

I am not at all sanguine that it would be struck down. When you consider that the SCOTUS has upheld asset forefeiture in cases where there has been no conviction, I have no confidence that they would not rule that a “no guns for people who have been arrested but not convicted” law does not constitute a “prudent measure.”

By: CyniCAl

CyniCAl — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:06:05 +0000

“Chuck Schumer bill would bar people convicted of drug crimes from owning a gun.It would bar people who haven’t been convicted of a drug crime from owning a gun.”

Prediction: If passed, this law will increase the number of drug arrests.

By: CyniCAl

CyniCAl — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:03:55 +0000

“DA Chambers offers bonuses for prosecutors who hit conviction targets.”

Or, what to expect when one advocates that government should be run like a business.

Government and justice are mutually exclusive.

By: CyniCAl

CyniCAl — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:52:40 +0000

“Don Haase sex scandal in 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . .”

Hey, that’s my joke. But it’s predicated on an Agitator political endorsement, so the jury’s still out on this one.

By: SJE

SJE — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:36:01 +0000

Bonuses for prosecutors would be a good idea if
1. This meant that they did not take weak cases to trial
2. There is strong oversight and
3. They gave up prosecutorial immunity.

Re (3): currently, the system rewards rogue prosecutors through career advancement to high government. Its an implicit bonus. By making the bonus explicit, there is such a clear financial incentive that the courts should find NO prosecutorial immunity.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:32:35 +0000

Chuck Schumer would make posessing a gun under any circumstances a crime if he could.

By: C. S. P. Schofield

C. S. P. Schofield — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:29:00 +0000

I have an idea! Lets get somebody to introduce a bill to deny both gun permits and drivers license to anyone who has ever held or run for elective office.

Mr. Schumer really doesn’t trust us peasants, does he? One wonders why he thinks he can get away with this without paying a price at the polls.

By: Wavemanns

Wavemanns — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:21:21 +0000

Off topic but since Radley often covers this type of stuff:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_worst_homeland_security_menace_4SysOzYn7m9JqxNBEjQ2hP

By: Pablo

Pablo — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:17:52 +0000

Schumer is completely appalling. On virtually every issue he consistently stands againt individual freedom and autonomy. Right up there with Dianne Feinstein.

Re: the bonus for prosecutors. Not only is this a terrible concept, it doesnt really make sense on a dollar-per-hour-worked basis. Taking more cases to trial means you will work many more hours, as opposed to pleading out most of them. Less than 1000$ per year after taxes doesnt really get you much for all those extra hours.

By: John Jenkins

John Jenkins — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:16:21 +0000

The bonuses for convictions probably has the opposite effect from what is intended. District Attorneys can already choose to dismiss the worst cases, so they will bring 5 cases to trial in a year, win 4, and plea out the rest (my rough approximation of the win % for prosecutors who go to trial is over 90%, because, again, they choose the cases to bring and don’t take the bad ones to trial). It certainly incentivizes bad behavior on the part of prosecutors to win those four trials though.

There has to be some other motive here, because the design of the system is so flawed, no one who spent any time thinking about it could enact it for the stated purpose.