Saturday Morning Links: Millennials, Drugs, and Defecation

Saturday, October 20th, 2012

Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

24 Responses to “Saturday Morning Links: Millennials, Drugs, and Defecation”

  1. #1 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    Drug dogs are becoming kind of like TSA–blatantly unconstitutional
    and a constant migraine for Public Relations, but when the State– the unified Power Elite and the armed henchmen they recruit to break bones and seize money– resorts to “what the f*ck you gonna do about it” mode, who cares about mere Public Relations trifles?

  2. #2 |  nigmalg | 

    It appears as if the second link is broken. “… a mere 19 percent of millennials”

  3. #3 |  Other Sean | 

    I’m pretty sure he must be referring to a piece that appeared in “The Nation” a few days back, where they were lamenting the lack of faith millennials put in politics.

  4. #4 |  Other Sean | 

    Yeah…that has to be it. Here’s the link:

    The first time I didn’t read it all the way through. Now that I have, I must say some of the man-on-the-street stuff will make you wonder if the piece was written by Scott Templeton.

  5. #5 |  Fred Mangels | 

    Looks like The Nation is a pay site now. I don’t go there near often enough to pay for it.

  6. #6 |  Hugh Akston | 

    The tone of that Kenya piece is incredible. Everyone jumps at the chance to say what terrible things Foster and Cooper did, even if they were helping literally save lives in Kenya. It’s odd that the Daily Mail couldn’t find one person, not even their defense attorney, to say “they were just selling pot, I don’t see the big deal.”

    Is that the state of the drug debate in the UK, or is the Daily Mail just wearing inexplicable blinders?

  7. #7 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    RE: Michael Phelps

    Ha Ha Ha! Bet the Office of National Drug Policy won’t touch that one with a ten foot pole. Kind of hard to turn that one into hysterical anti–war propaganda.

  8. #8 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    Since Chris Christie likes to speculate about people’s motives so much, let’s try this one:
    Chris Christie- Cold, calculating murderer

  9. #9 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    RE: Detroit …
    If this account is accurate, it lends more support to my theory that picking off dogs at raids is a deliberate strategy intended to terrorize the humans into submission. Otherwise, why would cops be shooting dogs that are running FROM them? I don’t think it’s just a matter of a few cops getting jumpy or not understanding canine behavior. I think it is planned in advance. Assuming narcs and SWAT are doing any intel gathering in advance–and they apparently aren’t in some cases–they should be taking extra precautions if dogs are present, since dogs will predictably get excited if you invade their territory. But it appears the plan going in IS to eliminate the dogs.

    Really Radley, you should compile these stories and put them into a study like “Overkill.” I think if people were to see documentation of how common this is, it could make a big difference.

  10. #10 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    Oops. #7 should say hysterical drug war propaganda, not hysterical anti-war propaganda.

  11. #11 |  AlgerHiss | 

    CATO’s National Police Misconduct Reporting Project would seem the perfect place to assemble all of these puppycide cases.

  12. #12 |  C.E. | 

    The drug dog handler will testify, under oath, that the dog did not give a false alert–obviously the guy had drugs stuff in his “anal cavity” at some previous time, so the dog was alerting to drugs that used to be there. His dog still has a 100% success rate!

  13. #13 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 


    I guess it’s too much to hope that the Judge will respond by telling the handler to blow it out his ass…….

  14. #14 |  C.E. | 


    Sadly, I have seen Border Patrol officers testifying about their dogs’ 100% success rate. “If the dog alerted, there were drugs there. And we know there were drugs there because the dog alerted. Therefore, there’s no such thing as a false alert.” The judge’s response: “seems legit.”

  15. #15 |  croaker | 

    Stranded in Hawaii by the US Gestapo.

  16. #16 |  PeeDub | 

    Obviously that guy had shake in his booty.

  17. #17 |  Linda | 

    I was in no way prepared for the “Headline of the Day”. I nearly choked on my morning coffee.
    Triple Puppycide/……I am not even sure what to say or how to even word it.

  18. #18 |  divadab | 

    @ #6 Hugh Aikston – The Daily Mail is a right-wing tabloid aimed at lower-middle class working people. It’s therefore pro-prohibition, anti-immigration, pro-police state, etc.

    No surprise that it is in favor of throwing these very nice people, harming no one and operating a nice independent business providing people with something they gladly pay for, in jail. No surprise also that the comments are overwhelmingly in favor of these people and against the government, at least until the Mail shut down comments. They are not in the business of free expression and freedom, but rather in the business of advancing an authoritarian agenda.

  19. #19 |  Graham Shevlin | 

    When lived in the UK, the Daily Mail was regarded by most of the people I socialized with as suitable only for lining the bottoms of bird cages and cat litter trays. It is a typical populist authoritarian rabble-rousing publication.

  20. #20 |  JLS | 

    #15 croaker, Wade Hicks Jr.???? That name doesn’t sound Arabic. What in the world could have gotten him on the no fly list?

  21. #21 |  John222 | 

    Wait a minute, a British cop brought down a huge marijuana grow operation by himself, by knocking on the front door? No swat team? No tanks or flash bang grenades? Must be a typo.

  22. #22 |  marco73 | 

    Have to agree with #9 Helmut.
    The cops in drug raids WANT to shoot off their guns, to cause maximum intimidation and confusion. Shooting off their guns into the air, or without a clear target, would invite unwanted scrutiny.
    But having “aggressive” dogs available, why that’s just too convenient. Shooting the dogs is a strategy to soften up their human targets to talk.
    I’m sure it’s in the SWAT playbook, right after that chapter on how to throw flash grenades into a child’s bedroom for maximum damage.

  23. #23 |  marie | 

    I think it is planned in advance. Assuming narcs and SWAT are doing any intel gathering in advance–and they apparently aren’t in some cases–they should be taking extra precautions if dogs are present, since dogs will predictably get excited if you invade their territory. But it appears the plan going in IS to eliminate the dogs.

    Do you think? Of COURSE it is planned in advance. The same way they plan to execute search warrants when children are at home. Creating chaos gives them ALL the advantages. Shooting the dog, aiming at the children…who can think clearly in that situation? Well, law enforcement, naturally, since they own the chaos.

  24. #24 |  croaker | 

    @20 According to the interview he gave, he suspects that the fake SEAL he kicked out of his survivalist group in MS was a Gestapo informant, and the appearance on the no-fly list was retaliatory.

    Caveat lector.