Morning Links

Thursday, November 10th, 2011
Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

59 Responses to “Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  Powersox | 

    Hey Radley, anti-nut-kick here. http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/Appeals_Court_Upholds__133580813.html?ref=813 – an Iowa State Trooper was fired.
    Lost the appeal.
    AND (this is the surprising part!) it wasn’t for ratting out on other cops! It was for actual mistreatment of people!

  2. #2 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    • Hey, our poor are fat. Before we get all bent out of shape at this, could we celebrate a little?

    • No surprise from the Public Service Union Rep in Washington State. Such people are parasites, and parasites often find the will of the people inconvenient.

    • Regarding the snowicane; may I assume that Al Gore is visiting Alaska?

  3. #3 |  Burgers Allday | 

    OWS isn’t protesting “capitalism” (as that term is properly understood — they are protesting oligopoly and something called “concentration.” These latter things are not capitalism, and, in fact, are inconsistent with capitalism. “Too big to fail” is fundamentally inconsistent with capitalism. “Too big to fail” is what OWS is protesting. Not capitalism.

    I know from reading your stuff for many years now that this is a “blind spot” for you, Mr. Balko. I just don’t know how to talk you into getting some treatment for it. At least step away from articles like the one you linked above. These types of articles just make your misunderstandings about capitalism worse than they already are.

  4. #4 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Today’s role of “Let Me Tell You How You Are Misrepresenting OWS” will be played by Burgers Allday.

  5. #5 |  Juice | 

    Burgers,

    So the giant signs that say “Death to Capitalism” don’t represent the sentiments of the OWS movement?

    Switching topics, could there be a causative link between a person’s being poor with their obesity, i.e. are they both rooted in a certain aspect of their psychology? I’m thinking maybe diminished ability to plan ahead and a poor ability to delay gratification?

  6. #6 |  nigmalg | 

    Burgers,

    It must be tricky reconciling that interpretation with all of the “down with capitalism” signs.

  7. #7 |  Burgers Allday | 

    This is not about OWS. I don’t like them personally. they want a higher degree of socialism. I don’t.

    This is about clearing up some misunderstandings in which Mr. Balko has persisted for years. Frankly, I wish I had a better vehicle than OWS, but, atm they will do.

    Don’t for get to check out my blog. I blogged the Jones GPS tracker case this morning.

  8. #8 |  StrangeOne | 

    Why is it always former police chiefs and officers that have the “courage” to talk about how crooked the drug war is? It would be nice if active officials experessed the same concern and pledged to end the arbitrary, and somewhat racist, way the WoD is fought. They have such generous discretion in other areas of applying the law why do they have to pretend to be such literalists in regards to the WoD?

    I think the truth is that the handful of officials who speak out (from the safety of retirement) aren’t doing so for our benefit. They do it for their own conscience, or what they have left of it. And they are a tiny minority, the vast majority of ex-cops seem perfectly happy with the current state of affairs. Forgive me if I’m not exactly excited about people who spent a lifetime of trampling on the rights and freedoms of their fellow citizens begin to right articles admiting how bad it all was in their golden years.

  9. #9 |  StrangeOne | 

    … begin to “write” articles …

    ugh, I don’t have enough coffee in me to pen indignant rants.

  10. #10 |  skunky | 

    Just the sheer number of privileged folks getting their panties in a twist about OWS shows it strikes a nerve. Now some dork who “contributes” to Forbes writes an article using all sorts of straw man arguments to discredit them (e.g. sex assault = they’re all rapists) gets linked up by one of the few respectable bloggers I read. Sad.

    Let’s make it simple. Just because there is an element of ultra-left-wingers there doesn’t make the whole thing an anti-capitalist movement. Just like people holding a sign at a Tea Party event calling for a 0% tax rate and ending the scourge of Sharia law in the US doesn’t de-legitimize them. In fact, that element makes it the driving force behind the Republican Party these days.

  11. #11 |  Burgers Allday | 

    I don’t doubt that OWS protesters misuse the word “capitalism.” I don’t mind so much when they do it. When Mr. Balko does it, it is more of a problem. he is indeed held to a higher standard, at least by me.

    As a side note: I haven’t seen the “Death To Capitalism” signs. I am willing to believe that they are out there, but I haven’t seen them. In fact, the only OWS sign I recall seeing is this one that had a long message about allegedly fraudulent sales of large packages of mortgage loans. It was a good sign. Can’t find to link, but I am pretty sure it did not mention “capitalism.” Most of these don’t seem to either:

    http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-occupy-wall-street-signs.htm?PS=797%3A2

  12. #12 |  omar | 

    Why is it always former police chiefs and officers that have the “courage” to talk about how crooked the drug war is?

    Stamper has been in the public against the War on Drugs for many years, but as far as I know, it’s always been as the “former police chief.” I first saw him on a Penn and Teller’s Bullshit episode a long time ago – probably from 2003. I believe he used to head Law Enforcement against Prohibition (LEAP), which is also admirable.

    Forgive me if I’m not exactly excited about people who spent a lifetime of trampling on the rights and freedoms of their fellow citizens begin to right articles admiting how bad it all was in their golden years.

    Sigh. Forgive me as well.

  13. #13 |  Matt I. | 

    I have a real problem with that ‘study’ that shows that low income obesity and fast food aren’t related.

    The justification mentioned is that it’s 80k-90k earners who are driving the growth of the fast food business.

    a) This doesn’t take into account how regularly each group buys fast food ( a 90k earner might spend $100 on fast food for a monthly office party, while a poor person might eat fast food twice a week every week and spend $10 during each visit for a monthly total of $80.

    b) It also doesn’t take into account the difference in prices between where the two groups shop.

    c) While it says that the poor can’t afford a 24/7 fast food diet, it doesn’t account for what percentage of a person’s diet IS fast food and what percentage is also other ‘unhealthy food’. i.e. if a a rich person and poor person both get 50% of their nourishment from fast food but the rich guy then gets the rest from Whole Foods while the poor guy gets the rest from pop tarts then clearly something is going on.

    A more accurate way to describe the problem is that it is cheap, subsidized corn syrup and fatty foods in general are responsible at least in part for obesity in America.

  14. #14 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    This is about clearing up some misunderstandings in which Mr. Balko has persisted for years.

    You haven’t done that!

    This isn’t my blog, but this seems like a good place and time for you to clear all this up. Please, state your premise and let it begin.

  15. #15 |  Keith | 

    I find it interesting how a blog that used to cover police abuses so well has now gone out of its way to fall silent to recorded abuses around the nation. I can understand that you, Radley, are against the occupy movement, but why ignore something that you seemed so passionate about? I understand that you don’t have time to write about every infraction but your silence is deafening.

  16. #16 |  Burgers Allday | 

    but this seems like a good place and time for you to clear all this up. Please, state your premise and let it begin.

    I tried that once but it didn’t work out:

    http://reason.com/blog/2007/03/08/sez-oxley-never-mind#comment_654935:

  17. #17 |  Bob | 

    Being poor does not cause obesity. Having a ready supply of cheap food does not cause obesity.

    Now that the genie of “Cheap, easily obtained food” is out of the bottle, the only way to put it back is to nuke the planet and send the human race back 100,000 years to our hunter-gatherer roots.

    Trying to regulate “Cheap, easily obtained food” out of existence is about as stupid and doomed to utterly fail as trying to win the “Drug War”

    What causes obesity? Obesity is caused by an individual’s inability to manage their own feelings of hunger. People need to be taught how to do that, and that they CAN do that, at an early age.

  18. #18 |  claude | 

    I hope OWS keeps up the good work. They are definitely hitting a nerve. :-)

  19. #19 |  Charlie O | 

    Good on Washington. Now if PA would just do the right thing. The new guv wants to sell the liquor stores. That’s not enough. They need to allow new stores to open. Sell liquor, beer and wine in one place. Jeez, what a concept. I was amazed you couldn’t buy beer in a convenience store when I first moved here. You either pay hugely inflated prices at a bar for six pack or you have to buy a case from a “distributor.” When I mentioned this to a beer distributor clerk once, his reply was “we don’t sell milk and eggs and they don’t sell beer.” Moron, I thought, you should be selling milk and eggs along with the beer. PA is as byzantine as you can get when it comes to liquor laws. Before I moved here, I thought that was limited to holy roller states like Oklahoma and Utah.

  20. #20 |  zendingo | 

    @#4
    LOL

  21. #21 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @16 – What rot. Eating poorly nutritionally balanced food because that’s what’s affordable…the subsidies for things like HFCS distort the market!

    (The EU dosn’t subsidise HFCS, and it’s barely used. There’s also a production quota, but it’s not been hit in a decade because there’s no real demand for it)

    @18 – What, allowing lobbying to benefit single large companies, costing hundreds of jobs? The new rules unduly benefit Costco.

  22. #22 |  Mario | 

    Burgers Allday @ #3

    OWS may be protesting oligopoly or cronyism, or whatever, but I guarantee you that 99% of the “99%” aren’t looking to replace what we’ve got with laissez-faire.

  23. #23 |  Michael Chaney | 

    1. OWS people are consistently against “capitalism”, which they define as the government giving money to large businesses. To put it simply, most of them are stupid and don’t know what capitalism actually is. So, to say they’re “not against capitalism” is probably correct for most of them, but if you ask them they would say they are. There’s no doubt that there are lots of socialists on board there, too. I’ve debated with some of the OWS crowd at Facebook and, frankly, few of them seem to have an IQ over 80. Most think the solution to any problem is for the government to pay for it.

    Prime example. I have a friend (who’s actually very intelligent) who has been working with the local occupy movement. He recently posted about the occupy crowd in another city who are camping on a guy’s lawn who is about to be foreclosed. I found out that they’re losing the house because the wife lost her job (the guy is a cop). Okay. Has anybody tried to help the wife find a job?

    The best I got from that question was a dimwit explaining that a job wouldn’t help, using an example from the 30′s. The “solution” instead seems to be a bunch of neo-hippies camping on their lawn.

    2. Obesity and poverty are the outcomes of the same poor habits (essentially lack of discipline) being exhibited in two different areas – health and finance.

    I’ve known people who lived at the poverty line and had a fairly high standard of living (particularly in a global sense) because they had great discipline. It’s probably not surprising that they were also in excellent shape physically. They didn’t waste a penny, but they were never hungry, had a car to drive, and lived in a decent apartment. They were probably saving money, too, knowing them. They’re doing better, now. At the time he had a crappy job and she was finishing grad school – and with two kids.

    I come from southern Indiana, so I’m well acquainted with the culture of poverty. It’s all predicated on lack of discipline. The 300 lbs. women will be that size with or without McDonalds. They’ll also smoke $1000 of cigarettes each year even though they have little money.

  24. #24 |  DPirate | 

    Wow. That Forbes article is so pathetic – I thought that magazine had some self-respect.

  25. #25 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @22 – Great. Now look at people with half the income of the poverty line. Someone like me.

    Why? Because I’ve repeatedly had companies go bust when I’m supposed to get paid. (And before the inevitable comment, £3/month for a fifth share of a broadband connection. The PC’s a Celeron laptop…)

    You’re spitting in the faces of the poor.

  26. #26 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    #15 Keith: “I can understand that you, Radley, are against the occupy movement, but why ignore something that you seemed so passionate about? I understand that you don’t have time to write about every infraction but your silence is deafening.”

    But Radley HAS covered some instances of police misconduct during the OWS protests, Keith. Just recently, he had a post up about Oakland P.D. officers putting tape over their name plates and/or badges. I am reasonably certain that he has had other posts up about police abuses during OWS protests, but I don’t have the links right off hand (maybe Radley can provide them at a later time). Also, I just saw a video on Reason.com showing riot police beating OWS protestors in Berkley. So if you are trying to accuse Radley and other libertarians of ignoring police excesses during these protests you are simply wrong.

    Radley and I may disagree on certain aspects of the OWS question, but I would never accuse him of ignoring police assaults on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

  27. #27 |  mcmillan | 

    This was my main problem with the WA liquor store inititive:

    Small wineries, craft distilleries and neighborhood grocery-store owners also worry about how they will compete in a market that favors large players. I-1183 allows stores measuring at least 10,000 square feet to sell liquor …

    Yeah, it’s good to have the government out of the directly selling liquor, but replacing one market distortion with another isn’t much of an improvement. There’s a market for small speciality shops to sell liquor, just like we already have in beer, but this law is keeping them from getting into that business, because Costco spent it’s money making sure the law would be most favorable to them.

    And that comment about democracy is a little less ridiculous when you see the actual quote it refers to

    “If a private company decides to spend tens of millions of dollars to pass a new law, to buy an election, can they do it?” Geiger asked. The results in this case, he said, suggest they can.”

    He was over the top, but it’s not totally absurd to point out that this was more an example of a large company using it’s resources to benefit itself by placing restrictions on competitors than a complete victory for the free market

  28. #28 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Study suggests low income obesity and fast food are unrelated.

    As a man who’s studied this subject for decades, I wonder what Sir Mix-A-Lot has to say.

  29. #29 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    mcmillan nailed it. If you think government actually did something good for a change, look closer…closer…look even closer…look again…there! Something is usually rotten.

  30. #30 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper on ending the drug war.

    At what point–after how many Professors, cops, bloggers and
    journalists call an end to the Drug War–do we finally concede
    no human powers can end this self-propagating money-driven behemoth?

  31. #31 |  Charlie O | 

    #20 ????? What the hell does Costco have to do with my being able to buy a reasonably priced six pack at the Rutter’s or Sheetz up the street from my house?

  32. #32 |  Radley Balko | 

    Yeah, it’s good to have the government out of the directly selling liquor, but replacing one market distortion with another isn’t much of an improvement…..it’s not totally absurd to point out that this was more an example of a large company using it’s resources to benefit itself by placing restrictions on competitors than a complete victory for the free market

    How does the new law distort the market or place restrictions on competitors? All it does is get the state out of the liquor business and remove the needless, Prohibition-era requirement that all liquor must be filtered through a wholesaler, which drives up prices and limits consumer choice. Yes, Costco will now have an advantage over existing smaller wine and beer retailers because it can give volume discounts, but that’s true of any product Costco sells. And that isn’t a restriction on smaller retailers, it’s removing restrictions on larger retailers, for the benefit of consumers.

    Also this:

    The state budgeting office figures the number of outlets selling liquor will jump from 328 to 1,428.

    I doubt all those 1,110 new stores will be Costcos and Sam’s Clubs. You’re going to get specialty liquor stores, high-end liquor stores, craft liquor stores, and so on. Again, consumers will have more choices, not less.

  33. #33 |  Radley Balko | 

    I understand that you don’t have time to write about every infraction but your silence is deafening.

    I did spend three days writing an 1,800 word article about police abuse at the Occupy protests. It was the top story at Huffington Post and got 1.5 million page views.

    But other than that, you’re right, my silence has been deafening!

  34. #34 |  mcmillan | 

    The restriction is any new liquor store has to be a have at least 10,000 sq feet. From what I’ve been hearing most of that jump in numbers is because grocery stores are that size, so they’ll be in the business now. We’ll probably start seeing large liquor stores, but not so much of the small craft stores that would focus on high end stuff.

    I did end up voting for the initiative, since it will be an improvement of the previous situation. But still hoping the people who were saying this will be the first step, and later we can get rid of the size restriction end up being right.

  35. #35 |  Reilly | 

    Radley, the new law opens up licensing only to stores with 10,000 square feet or more of retail space, that’s what the other commenter was referring to. More details here: http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/2011/11/09/when-can-i-buy-booze-at-the-grocery-store/

    I agree that this is better than the old system, but not opening up the liquor market to smaller stores is 1) incredibly anti-urban and 2) clearly a favour to big-box retailers like Costco.

    Can’t win them all, I guess.

  36. #36 |  Irving Washington | 

    Nadelmann is abhorrent! How can he possibly couch his editorial in terms of Obama not asserting himself on the issue? It’s just underlings run amuck and not a fundamental, ethical lapse on the part of the Great Leader? Tendentious clap trap.

    That’s an about face from a spineless President paying off public sector unions.

  37. #37 |  AMB | 

    I hope all of my fellow WA state residents will join me in celebrating Liquor Freedom Day next June 1st. I plan to celebrate by hitting up the Wallingford QFC and buying as much liquor as my arms can carry.

    The bill isn’t perfect, but it crushes an odious government monopoly, and that’s a good enough first step in my book.

  38. #38 |  Keith | 

    I found that article to be more about using technology to report police abuses than about the actual police abuses.

  39. #39 |  Radley Balko | 

    mcmillan:

    You’re right. I see now that the law does restrict new liquor licenses to the larger stores. The linked article says the law would allow 10,000+-foot stores to sell liquor, but I didn’t realize that meant only those stores could get new licenses.

    So yeah, it looks like the law is better than the current system, but far from ideal, and mainly benefits big stores like Costco.

    Apologies for my ill-informed response to your first comment.

  40. #40 |  Gary | 

    To be fair to Costco, though:

    “I-1183 was a scaled-back version of a voter measure Costco backed in the 2010 election, which voters resoundingly rejected. That measure would have allowed minimarts and gas stations to sell liquor, deregulated beer distribution and meant lost revenues for the state and local governments — all issues Costco revised in I-1183.”

    It sounds to me like the 10,000 square foot portion of the law was a response to the rejection of the earlier law, not an outright attempt to restrict smaller competition. I mean, yes, I’m sure Costco is not shedding any tears for their smaller competition, but it doesn’t appear as if that was their direct goal here.

  41. #41 |  derfel cadarn | 

    The war on drugs is a farce, the keystone swat cops might actually be amusing if innocent people and their pets were not dying. Let least the last three Presidents having admitted to illegal drug use(although without inhaling)(yea right) in their lifetimes some with picture evidence. Yet the war on drugs rages on. It appears that what is OK for them is to good for us. Prohibition did not stop liquor use and drug prohibition will not stop drug use. The war on drugs has only accomplished totally corruptting our police forces and it must end. If Americans could finally come to their senses and realize that minding your own business is the solution to the whole problem. What others choose to do is their own business as long as it does not have a direct physical impact upon you it is NOT your business. Lets all try being adults and mind are own business.

  42. #42 |  Charlie Potts | 

    I know a Democrat running for the House in what will be a blue district in a famous medical marijuana state, and he refuses to endorse medical marijuana. Politicians are terrified of the issue. If Obama would show just a little bit of courage on this issue he could release a tidal wave a change.

  43. #43 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    I tried that once but it didn’t work out:

    Lame.

  44. #44 |  Burgers Allday | 

    @43

    Okay. Here is the starting point:

    People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices.

  45. #45 |  freedomfan | 

    skunky,

    Now some dork who “contributes” to Forbes writes an article using all sorts of straw man arguments to discredit them (e.g. sex assault = they’re all rapists) gets linked up by one of the few respectable bloggers I read.

    Except for the part where the Forbes contributor never said or implied that the incidents of sexual assault at some OWS camps means that all OWS folks are rapists. He was very clearly talking about maintaining some aspects of law in order to prevent such assaults. Of course, you can disagree with that point, but it’s a little too rich to misrepresent his statement with such a transparent straw man in the very same sentence in which you decry straw man arguments.

    BTW, I agree with the thrust of the second paragraph: In any group courting media attention, the group’s most controversial outliers often get the most attention and it’s up to us to recognize that those outliers aren’t necessarily representative of the group as a whole.

  46. #46 |  EH | 

    Burgers:
    This is not about OWS. I don’t like them personally. they want a higher degree of socialism. I don’t.

    One of the problems OWS is concerned about is that socialism is currently in effect, but only for the 1%, TBTF companies, etc. The free market does not exist in the US for sufficiently large players.

  47. #47 |  JOR | 

    “These latter things are not capitalism, and, in fact, are inconsistent with capitalism.”

    They’re inconsistent with what (some) libertarians mean by the word capitalism. They’re perfectly consistent with what most people mean by the word, whether they’re for it or against it. They’re using the word correctly*. Even Milton Friedman was thoughtful enough to distinguish between capitalism (structural economic and political dominance by professional capitalists) and liberty. Most (almost all) of the Occupiers of them are deeply confused in the substance of their beliefs, of course. But their terminology, at least, is correct.

    *One can pull out the tired dictionary definition of capitalism as a system with private property or whatever. Then you’re faced with the fact that North Korea or a similar dictatorship – essentially a whole country that is the private property of one guy – is a perfect example of total capitalism. Honestly libertarians would do well to simply drop the word ‘capitalism’ as a term for free markets, since it’s bound up in too much unlibertarian baggage. It was a stupid idea to try to appropriate the word for that meaning in the first place, though to be (un)fair the people primarily responsible for doing so (von Mises and Rand) were not particularly libertarian.

  48. #48 |  Davis | 

    I’ll have to ditto mcmillan, and note that I think the Reason piece’s failure to include Geiger’s quote was a bit misleading and unfair toward Geiger’s actual position (you should probably note in your list that the Reason piece does not actually contain a “beautiful quote” from Geiger, by the way, since it contains no quote from him). That piece is also imprecise when it says that “grocery stores and other large retail establishments will soon be allowed to sell booze” (emphasis added). Grocery stores and other establishments (both large and small) were already allowed to sell beer and wine; the state’s limitation was on liquor alone.

    Now as a former Washington State resident, I always found the state-run liquor stores incredibly frustrating: in Seattle, it was incredibly difficult to get liquor on Sundays, as there were maybe two inconveniently-located stores in the entire city that were even open. I’m all in favor of opening up the state’s licensing system to any size establishment, but the semi-deregulation of this initiative may end up being worse than doing nothing (as far as freeing up the market is concerned). Now that large retail establishments have achieved this benefit, expect to see those businesses fight tooth-and-nail to prevent opening up the licensing process to smaller establishments. Basically, this looks like it’s creating an anti-small seller, pro-large retailer giveaway.

  49. #49 |  KBCraig | 

    Why is it always “former” police officials who vocally oppose the drug war?

    Well, one only has to look at former LEAP speaker, and now former cop, Bradley Jardis. Brad was a full time active duty cop in New Hampshire, when he had an epiphany about drug prohibition. He publicly announced that he would no longer arrest anyone for drug possession, in a letter to the state’s largest newspaper. LEAP’s response? They immediately revoked all ties to Brad, saying they would not tolerate police not enforcing the law.

    Also in New Hampshire, Cheshire County jail superintendent Richard Van Winkler is a LEAP member and speaker. He dutifully enforces the drug laws.

  50. #50 |  Jay | 

    Very few of the OWS signs I’ve seen (and Occupy movement stuff in general) has been about “capitalism”. It’s about government corruption, first and foremost.

    If I had to sum up my view of the Occupiers in one sentence, based on what I’ve seen, it would be “politicians in bed with huge corporations = suck”. That’s not anti-capitalist.

  51. #51 |  Juice | 

    From a quick GIS:

    http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/11/02/18696728.php

    http://news.yahoo.com/photos/signs-read-occupy-seattle-capitalism-crisis-shown-current-photo-173824121.html

    http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Anti-Capitalism.jpg

    http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/uploads/2011-10-05-NBC-TDAY-CapitalismCrisis.jpg

    http://singularitycometh.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/occupy-montreal-fuck-capitalism.jpg

  52. #52 |  Pomeroy on the Palouse | 

    @27 “but this law is keeping them from getting into that business, because Costco spent it’s [sic] money making sure the law would be most favorable to them. ”

    No, last year Costco tried an initiative that would have allowed smaller stores to sell liquor and the people voted it down, because it allowed small stores (c stores and the like) to sell liquor. This year’s initiative also backed by Costco says stores have to be 10,000 sq. ft (or thereabouts) and it passed.

    The legislature can change it in two years anyway.

  53. #53 |  Burgers Allday | 

    @47: You forgot to mention the word “competition.” That is the nub of it. You seem to be confusing capitalism with laissez faire capitalism.

  54. #54 |  BamBam | 

    This liquor store size restriction is bogus. Many states allow alcohol to be sold in gas stations marts etc. There is no causation between this and Supah Mega Drunkz and killing children and kittens. Costco and others lobbied to have that size restriction put into place to keep others out. This is quite common: take a hit for yourself, but place a bigger hit on the competitors, YOU WIN. The State (the gun in the room) is still being used. Get rid of the damn gun.

  55. #55 |  Andrew S. | 

    The “controversy” over a Florida Highway Patrol officer pulling over a Miami police officer has gotten even worse.

    The other day, “somebody” smeared feces on a FHP car. And now the Miami police chief disciplined an officer for pulling over a FHP trooper.

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/mh-officer-disciplined-fhp-trooper-111011,0,1322361.story

  56. #56 |  croaker | 

    @54 Don’t you just love it when rival street gangs have a rumble? Makes me hope for mutual elimination.

  57. #57 |  JSL | 

    “What, allowing lobbying to benefit single large companies, costing hundreds of jobs? The new rules unduly benefit Costco.”

    Leon, my guess that was a gimme to both the big stores and to those who hate this law but at least it won’t let liquor be sold in every corner store/7-11/circleK etc.. That was one of the ads against the law on tv the last few weeks before the vote. Some mother whinging that her son was killed by a drunk who had gotten his beer from a convenience store and the new law would make it worse.

    Hopefully it will get Oregon to change its laws. Though there are already companies that complain that a true free market would mean they lose shelf space to bigger brands of booze. I look forward to occasionally shopping at Costco across the border in WA when visiting friends and paying far less than 10 miles south across a river. Ironically, WA folks usually cross into OR to avoid sales tax.

  58. #58 |  Stick | 

    @#8 ‘Why is it always former police chiefs and officers that have the “courage” to talk about how crooked the drug war is? It would be nice if active officials experessed the same concern…’ –
    Because ACTIVE officials would magically transform into FORMER officials very quickly.

  59. #59 |  sigh | 

    “Study suggests low income obesity and fast food are unrelated.”

    In related news, common sense and personal experience suggest low income and/or low net worth are, conversely, related to eating lots of fast food and being obese.

    In other words, poor people aren’t fat because they’re poor, they’re poor because they’re fat.

Leave a Reply