Morning Links

Monday, April 30th, 2012
Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

33 Responses to “Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  Mike Leatherwood | 

    So, when the police demand art be taken down, you could say that the gallery has…. duck fuck luck.

    Sorry. It is a Monday.

  2. #2 |  Michael Chaney | 

    The Democrats and the left were never against war, waterboarding, or any of that. They were against George W. Bush. I’ve been pointing that out for, what, 11 years now? It was obvious then and more obvious now.

    If they were actually against war they wouldn’t support despotic regimes elsewhere.

  3. #3 |  Jack Dempsey | 

    Cops = art critics

  4. #4 |  shecky | 

    Re: patranoid lede:

    “The night before Breitbart died, WND senior staff reporter Jerome Corsi arranged for Breitbart to interview Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who the very next day held a news conference to announce there was probable cause to believe President Obama’s birth certificate released on April 27, 2011, was a forgery, as well as Obama’s Selective Service Card.”

    WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!

  5. #5 |  perlhaqr | 

    Michael Chaney: The fact that Democrats are somehow seen as “the peaceful, antiwar party” is some masterful spin. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam… pretty much every war the US was in in the last 100 years that isn’t the last 20 years was started under a Democrat president.

    Obama’s continuation of this is no particular shock.

  6. #6 |  Doubleu | 

    Radley… every time you post a link to World Net Daily a doggie gets a flea.

  7. #7 |  albatross | 

    Michael:

    It would be more accurate to say that many people on the left use opposition to war as a club to attack the other side with, rather than as an actual principle. Similarly, many people on the right use small government and balanced budgets as a club to attack the other side with, while not really caring about that stuff.

    However, there are also people who care a lot about opposing war, limiting the size of the government, protecting civil liberties, balanced budgets, etc. It’s important to remember that. Just because there are partisans and paid mouthpieces who use those ideas as weapons doesn’t mean that nobody is sincere in holding them.

  8. #8 |  omar | 

    pretty much every war the US was in in the last 100 years that isn’t the last 20 years was started under a Democrat president.

    That’s bordering on numerology.

  9. #9 |  croaker | 

    So, there is an IQ ceiling on law enforcement in the UK as well. Typical.

  10. #10 |  picachu | 

    perlhaqr “The fact that Democrats are somehow seen as “the peaceful, antiwar party” is some masterful spin. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam… pretty much every war the US was in in the last 100 years that isn’t the last 20 years was started under a Democrat president.”

    True but it goes even further than this. My dad is one of those old foxnews conservative guys who despite being shown that Obama is basically Bush on steriods when it comes to foreign policy still insists that Obama is weak on defense. He thinks that Obama is letting other countries push us around and wanted Trump to run because he actually used that kind of rhetoric. In fact my dad actually claims that Obama is a Muslim and that’s why he’s going so easy on them. I’m kind of blown away by such tunnel vision but I’ve come to put it down to his being so heavily invested in a stereotype that all the truth in the world isn’t going to change it. And I know he’s not the oly person like that.

  11. #11 |  Al | 

    “Abouhassan, who is legally blind, suffered a broken nose, bruised ribs, a torn eyelid and detached retina in the beating.

    Adding insult to injury, he was subsequently charged with assaulting a peace officer following the initial investigation by Windsor police, including Det.-Sgts. Paul Bridgeman and Patrick Keane.

    Bridgeman watched the video between eight and 10 times before endorsing assault charges against Abouhassan, according to the office of the independent review director.

    Both Bridgeman and Keane were charged with discreditable conduct for trying to prevent Abouhassan from filing criminal charges against Van Buskirk. Both were later exonerated.”

    So, two detectives watched the video of Van Buskirk beating down a blind man eight to ten times, signed off on charging the blind man with assault and they get to walk? Nice.

  12. #12 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    “The Democrats and the left were never against war, waterboarding, or any of that. They were against George W. Bush.”

    We’ll never know. The hysteria of the time caused pols to drape themselves in the flag and… bombs away, else they were
    911-sympathizers. I bet a lot of them realized war in Iraq without WMD’s found was going to go down in history as the stupidest US war ever.
    BTW It was.

  13. #13 |  Dave Krueger | 

    The latest in leading edge forensic science: Ear prints.

  14. #14 |  albatross | 

    Yizmo:

    Yeah, it looks to me like a whole lot of prominent Democrats knew or should have known that Iraq posed zero threat to us, the claimed WMDs were either nonexistent or relatively non-scary stuff like leftover gas shells and anthrax spores from a defunct program, etc. The administration could never have kept Democrats from having their own sources within the intelligence community who would tell them that the evidence was being sexed up. But somehow, they overwhelmingly went along with it.

    That takes nothing away from W and his supporters, who chose that pointless war. But it does make clear that the Democrats were not applying any kind of brake on W’s bad decisions, even when they knew better.

  15. #15 |  tarran | 

    I bet a lot of them realized war in Iraq without WMD’s found was going to go down in history as the stupidest US war ever.

    It’s not even close. The stupidest War in History vis a vis the U.S. is World War I. Absent U.S. involvement, no crippling Versailles treaty, no post-armistice starvation blockade, and no rise of the Nazi party.

    Also, absent the war, no Great Depression in the U.S. which was caused by the remnants of wartime economic planning that weren’t repealed after the war but were the heart of Hoover’s attempts to micromanage the U.S. economy and the dislocations in production and capital investment they hamfistedly created

  16. #16 |  Mike Leatherwood | 

    Kicker:

    Sheriff Joe PAC ad at the top of this page today. Mondays………..

  17. #17 |  Pi Guy | 

    Radley… every time you post a link to World Nut Daily a doggie gets a flea.

    *snickergiggle*

    The “it’s Monday” thing is still cool – right?

  18. #18 |  Irving Washington | 

    I guess Greenwald’s right to criticize the militaristic Left (whether it’s delusional or bloodthirsty, I don’t know). But in their defense, do they have a credible alternative to continued support for Obama?

  19. #19 |  Fred Mangels | 

    …do they have a credible alternative to continued support for Obama?

    Sure. Past two- term Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com

  20. #20 |  Chris | 

    @Al (#11): All three officers still face pending charges under the Police Act, and a $14M lawsuit.

    Van Buskirk also faced charges of “unlawful arrest and deceit for making a false record,” but it’s not clear to me if those charges are still pending.

    I find this sort of case interesting because almost everyone seems to focus on the physical assault. Which is the more serious crime: punching someone, or framing them for felonious assault on a cop?

  21. #21 |  albatross | 

    Irving:

    I don’t know that they have any particularly good options. But I do know that if it costs nothing to betray your alleged principles once you get into office, but there is a cost to sticking to those principles, then most professional politicians will betray those principles without anything resembling scruples. If Obama can run as an advocate of the rule of law, civil liberties, and a less sociopathic foreign policy, but then govern like the third term of W on those issues, and face no consequences for it, then that is exactly what he and his successors will do. On the other hand, if Obama finds his campaign funds drying up and his campaign lacking volunteers because he betrayed too many principles of his voters, that will make a point that the next Democratic president will remember very clearly.

  22. #22 |  marco73 | 

    Those Windsor cops are amateurs. All they had to do was lose/damage the videotape, and the chief would be pinning a medal on the Detective for being able to defend himself against a blind man.

  23. #23 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    albatross,

    I have to disagree with you about the Iraq war being pointless. Saddam had never met the terms of surrender that were put in place at the end of our first little foray in that area. One of our biggest problems with terrorism and the countries that support (or at least turn a blind eye to) it is that we are perceived as being too weak-livered to finish what we start. Now, that can be argued forever, but the perception is there. Saddam was unfinished business. Overturning his regime (in less than a month, no less) served notice that we weren’t Mr. Big Fat Happy Guy who never really goes after his enemies.

    Now, maybe the costs of that gesture were too high. There is certainly an argument to be made. But to say that the Iraq war was pointless is inaccurate.

    Keep in mind, too, that in addition to those “leftover” chemical weapons, Saddam had delivery systems he wasn’t supposed to, and a substantial amount of equipment and supplies for a possible renewed WMD program. Maybe he wouldn’t have re-started such a program (though I find that unlikely, given his known behavior), but insisting that a defeated enemy make good on his promises at surrender is simply basic common sense. Unless you want to throw out the usefulness of such terms of surrender, that is.

    Yes, the charge “Saddam has WMD’s. We had to go in.” is an oversimplification. But so is “Saddam didn’t have WMD’s”. And the former is closer to the truth than the latter.

  24. #24 |  Pi Guy | 

    The latest in leading edge forensic science: Ear prints.

    Damn. Now I need to start filing down my ear lobes too? It’s getting tough to be criminal now that the government’s using real science to establish guilt in criminal investigations.

    Heck – why not just let a dowser astrologist with a rabbit’s foot in his pocket just absorb the crime scene, call a seance, and ask the recently-deceased to identify his killer? From the standpoint of science (read: REALITY), these two techniques are of equal value.

  25. #25 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    I love Greenwald, but just once I want to read about “XYZ takes on scum political party” and have it be that he lines them up and whups their asses Billy Jack style.

  26. #26 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    “They said the photograph suggested we condoned bestiality, which was an arrestable offence,”

    And yet Anne Coulter is allowed to date.

    Hey, I’m not a professional and my parents were circus folk.

  27. #27 |  RobZ | 

    “that we are perceived as being too weak-livered to finish what we start. Now, that can be argued forever, but the perception is there.”

    Yep, that perception is always in the brains of those who want to rush us off to war.

  28. #28 |  supercat | 

    #27 | RobZ | “Yep, that perception is always in the brains of those who want to rush us off to war.”

    Some people may be prone to overstate such effects, but such effects are real. It’s hardly coincidental that Qaddafi invited the U.S. to examine its nuclear program very shortly after GWB invaded Iraq. Diplomacy is great if the entities with which one is negotiating believe that one means the things one says. If one conducts one’s diplomatic efforts in such a way that other entities believe the only consequence for disobeying resolutions will be the passage of more resolutions (which they can in turn disobey, ad infinitum), then the very notion of diplomacy will become meaningless.

  29. #29 |  RobZ | 

    “Some people may be prone to overstate such effects…”

    When it comes to war, the effect is much more often overstated than it is understated.

  30. #30 |  albatross | 

    CSP:

    Counterfactuals are kind of hard to know anything about, but as best I can tell:

    a. Had we not invaded Iraq, we would almost certainly be better off and face less terrorist threat than we do now.

    b. Saddam and his nasty dictatorship posed zero threat to us.

    c. Iraq probably had the ability to make some chemical or low-end biological weapons, because that stuff is WW1 technology and almost everyone can do it, occasionally including hobbyist-level terrorists. They had no way of making nukes, no chance, and hadn’t been anywhere close to that ability for years and years before we invaded.

    d. The invasion was 100% optional on our part. It was pursued, as best I can tell, for domestic political reasons, rather than to achieve any really important strategic goals. There were some reasons to want to get rid of Saddam (the blockade had been in place for a decade, and it was hurting the Iraqi civilians and costing us money and was somewhat leaky), but I find it hard to remotely justify the expense in money, men, and PR that we paid doing it.

    e. Both parties’ powerful people knew or should have known all this stuff before the war. They didn’t care, because seeking political advantage was worth a lot more to them than seeking the nation’s advantage or caring what happened to Iraq. National level politics is a job that selects for sociopaths.

    f. The US mainstream media functioned, in the runup to that war, like Pravda in the old Soviet Union. That was my impression at the time, and I heard it from friends who had grown up on the other side of the Iron Curtain–they said US media made them think of what they used to see growing up.

  31. #31 |  Nick T. | 

    @#18:

    The problem is that the critical and unsatisfied response from democrats and liberals should have begun at least by the end of 2009, with the question of re-election far off in the distance. It’s impossible for me – and I’d submit for nay reasonable person – to imagine a clearly pissed off and dis-satisfied left/Dem base (as #21 points out, money drying up, volunteers scarce, and just an overall narrative of anger) and Obama not responding to that with at least a few more left turns in the relevant areas of policy.

    But, instead excuses were being handed out left and right, blame was being given excessively to Republicans (not that they weren’t playing their own role), “political realities” were being fabricated, and “he just needs more time” turned into, “the elction is right around the corner!”

    Whom you’re going to vote for, and what alternatives you have on election day, are great considerations and argument *ON ELECTION DAY* Otherwise, criticize activity you don’t like, praise activity you do like. Democracy!

  32. #32 |  RobZ | 

    It definitely harder to end a war not won than it is to start a war. No one wants to tell the families of the dead soldiers that they died for nothing.

  33. #33 |  albatross | 

    RobZ:

    The irony there is that as a result of not telling the last batch of soldiers they sacrificed for nothing, you get to sacrifice still more soldiers for nothing. “We can’t stop throwing virgins into the volcano just because it turns out there aren’t any volcano gods to appease! To do so would be to devalue the sacrifice of all the virgins we’ve thrown into the volcano in the past!”

Leave a Reply