John Tierney of the Times looks at data from New York City suggesting that locking people up is not the best way to bring down the crime rate. Hmm, Butterfield is unbaffled. And no mention at all of the association of lead and crime.
« Another ObamaCare Surprise - Smokers Can Suck It | Main | That Pesky Right To Engage In Issue Advocacy »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e2017ee7ebc1ec970d
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Policing v. Incarceration:
The comments to this entry are closed.
jimmyk: On the NLRB ruling, the MSM is depicting it as Barry doing the same thing as all presidents have done for 100 years, to suggest the court overreached. In other words, "Bush did it too!" Is that so, or did he do something different, and the MSM is covering for him?
Last night on the All Stars, Bret schooled Kirsten on that point to the extent that he nearly had to roll up a newspaper and whack her about the head and shoulders. She just could not get into her head the distinction no matter how many times he thumped her.
Posted by: Manuel Transmission | January 26, 2013 at 03:06 PM
Jane, this story gives some detail. He had not yet distributed the material, but he had stolen it. I'm not sure how this would be different from a jewel thief caught before he had fenced the goods.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/19/aaron-swartz-reddit-cofou_n_903573.html
In particular:
"In an indictment released Tuesday, prosecutors say Swartz stole 4.8 million articles between September 2010 and January after breaking into a computer wiring closet on MIT's campus. Swartz, a student at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, downloaded so many documents during one October day that some of JSTOR's computer servers crashed, according to the indictment."
Posted by: jimmyk | January 26, 2013 at 03:11 PM
Jane - the crimes involve a theft of intellectual property AND threatened destruction of proprietary product - the JSTOR subscription service. The former is what everyone gets hung up on - isn't he allowed to access that stuff? And OWS-types add -- Shouldn't that be free? It's the threat to the proprietary service that is worse, in my mind. Here's why: At some point in time, somebody thought there was a market that made it worth time, money, and effort to gather up a slew of scattered bits of documentation - some online, much of it just on paper and on some library shelf somewhere -- and put it all in one, searchable place. They then offered subscriptions to this repository, in part to pay for the development costs, but also for maintenance and continued improvement.
Having done the grunt work to digitize and store tons of items, some guy comes along and takes thousands or millions of items with the purpose of storing it where anyone can get to them -- if successful, then the consequences are no more market, no more subscribers, and, of course, no one else will invest in this sort of product development in future. It's as though you invest in a run-down city block, spend a fortune rehabbing for residences, market to bring in new homeowners, and then have it all seized by eminent domain. Who in their right mind will ever invest in that city's property again?
And yes, the prosecutors are ALSO guilty of overreach and aggression and general nastiness. No one comes out looking good in this story.
Posted by: AliceH | January 26, 2013 at 03:14 PM
MT, can you elaborate? Is it just that with Bush the Senate was in fact in recess, whereas with Barry they technically weren't, because someone would come in every day and bang on a gavel and then leave?
Posted by: jimmyk | January 26, 2013 at 03:16 PM
Thanks Jimmy, and Alice. You are making it clearer. Sounds like he was a domestic wikileaker of sorts.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | January 26, 2013 at 03:20 PM
Is it just that with Bush the Senate was in fact in recess
Exactly. In the Bush days, Harry Reid passed a senate rule that allowed the senators to come in and bang a gavel precisely so Bush could not issue a recess appointment. And the senate gets to make its own rules. The executive can't simply change or ignore them because they feel like it. Bush never violated that rule - appointed someone when they were coming in and banging the gavel. Obama did thus taking away their ability to advise and consent.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | January 26, 2013 at 03:28 PM
jimmyk, yes. In my non-lawyerly view, it was In-session/not In-session and no amount of arm waving dispelled that distinction. Bret seemed to be flummoxed that it was so hard to understand.
What was funny about it was Kirsten being caught inside her bubble (more than usual) and having that shock of dislocation as the outside reality hitting her.
Posted by: Manuel Transmission | January 26, 2013 at 03:30 PM
Thanks, Jane and MT. Iggy had a link from 2005 suggesting that Bush had violated this, but I think that writer was distinguishing between recess and adjournment.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 26, 2013 at 03:41 PM
In the Bush days, Harry Reid passed a senate rule that allowed the senators to come in and bang a gavel precisely so Bush could not issue a recess appointment.
Jim Webb banged the gavel for the Dems & ended any more recess appointments for Bush, if I remember correctly.
Posted by: Janet | January 26, 2013 at 03:46 PM
The issue is it was not a recess appointment. The senate was still in session according to the senate rules and the senate gets to make its own rules. The president does not get to ignore them. That violates the constitution.
BTW - WIKILeaks is the wrong analogy above I realize, because nothing was secret.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | January 26, 2013 at 03:49 PM
It seems like the Senate is the source of much of our political sclerosis, of both good and bad varieties. Wasn't the direct election of them supposed to end that?
G. Washington actually went to the Senate in person for their advice and consent and was so disgusted, no Pres since has done so.
Posted by: Ralph L | January 26, 2013 at 03:56 PM
"Jim Webb banged the gavel for the Dems & ended any more recess appointments for Bush, if I remember correctly."
I love it when the Dems find themsves hoist on their own petard.
Posted by: Jimmyk | January 26, 2013 at 03:58 PM
Nobody has more scorn for Noonan than I, but she gets it partly right on the Benghazi hearings when she describes the disgracefully disorganized performance of the Repubs, except for Ron Johnson who significantly earned a sharp retort from Rodham illustrating that his projectile had reached the target. This quote gets it exactly right: Minority parties can't act like this, in such a slobby, un-unified way. And this: McCain made a scattered speech - really it was just like him - that couldn't find the energy to end in serious questions.
I was really disappointed in McConnell because I've doggedly defended him previously; but not here. I expect no leadership from Boehner based on 2 years experience and if I get any, I'll just consider it good luck.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 26, 2013 at 03:59 PM
I love it when the Dems find themsves hoist on their own petard.
I expect Reid to run in and repeal it retroactively.
This is so typical of Obama (and Reid). He just pushes the envelope a little further into unconstitutional territory and knows the media will back him to the hilt.
Now I wonder if they will appeal. A SC decision on the matter will get very ugly quickly. I also think it may impact the Cordray appointment since he is currently acting illegally.
The left better find something to yell racism about soon.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | January 26, 2013 at 04:09 PM
If the Senate R's filibuster Cordray's new "permanent" appointment , his shop is made useless==his old orders are voidable because his appointment was illegal and he'll be unable to issue new ones.
Posted by: Clarice | January 26, 2013 at 04:17 PM
This is so typical of Obama (and Reid). He just pushes the envelope a little further into unconstitutional territory and knows the media will back him to the hilt.
And by "back him to the hilt" they lie for him. There's no sense in sugar coating what they're doing by saying they erred in their reporting. They're liars and should be referred to as that.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 26, 2013 at 04:19 PM
The Benghazi hearings were quite pathetic, even Johnson didn't close the loop,
'Madame Secretary, the next time, AQ attacks an American target, are you going to say it was because of some other reason, some of these same operatives, killed Americans in Algeria,this week.
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2013 at 04:20 PM
I think McConnell did ok with the filibuster. By telling everyone that Bammy's plan is to dismantle the Republican Party, that makes most republicans mad. Even the ones who didn't vote in the 2012 election. Bummer's run on guns is also pissing everyone off in the repub party. Immigration will be a resolved issue so now all we have abject failure in the foreign policy and letting sequeter rip. Bammy has been smacked down by the courts and that in Slo-Joe's terms regardless of what Carney says Is A BFD.
I like Redford as an actor. Hooker in Butch Cassidy and Hubble in "The Way WE Were " are classic examples. Mia Farrow was miscast in Gatsby. I am very excited to see Leo DiCaprio as the new Jay Gatsby in the remake.
"Ordinary People" is a great movie and yes, he is better as a director. Paul Newman was actually handsomer than Redford in BCand SK.
Posted by: maryrose | January 26, 2013 at 04:21 PM
OOPs, I meant Hooker in "The Sting" Of course he was Sundance. I've been making a lot of weird mistakes today.
Posted by: maryrose | January 26, 2013 at 04:24 PM
Maryrose, I hope the new GG movie is better than the preview, which made me want to stay as far away as possible. It does seem as if Hollywood is incapable of making a good movie from that book.
Posted by: Jimmyk | January 26, 2013 at 04:28 PM
I think McQueen even though he was older, could have been a better Gatsby, Nicolson certainly couldn't have pulled it off, I don't think.
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2013 at 04:37 PM
Kirsten 'bless her heart' can be awfully dense some times:
He tries to go on the lam, and then they cheesed him
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/26/mann-overboard-pot-kettle-conspiracy-edition/
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2013 at 04:44 PM
Can't tell the players without a scorecard;
http://ansamed.ansa.it/ansamed/en/news/sections/analysis/2013/01/25/Mali-analyst-Qatar-funding-Islamists_8136605.html
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2013 at 04:45 PM
So, do we all think it is a good idea to join forces with the hackers/anonyomous' guild to build a kevlar party of liberterian ideal? Defense is great but what do you project as offense - internet freedom? That is a sure winner at the polls.
Posted by: Jack is Back | January 26, 2013 at 04:50 PM
Jimmy I thing everyone above got it right explaining the difference between Obama's appointments and all the presidents before.
As DoT said first yesterday and Fox (ChK) repeated, the Senate is only in recess when it says it is recess and only the Senate can make that rule. It was Harry Reid that got the definition to cover Jim Webb driving in during Bush's time to turn the lights on and gavel them into session. According to Fox, while Bush did make 100+ recess appointments, he stopped making them when the Reid-Webb definition applied.
Along comes Obama who on his own declared the Senate rule wrong then made his appointments because by HIS definition they were not in session. And the Dems sat on their hands and the Reps were toothless as usual.
The slippery slope, had the court ruled differently, would be that a President could the define any time they are out of the room as "not in session"...lunch time eg, or middle of the night, or...you get the point.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 26, 2013 at 04:52 PM
"What does it matter?"
Posted by: Jack is Back | January 26, 2013 at 04:58 PM
THere's a touch of irony, that Schwartz did this at the Edmond Safra (Republic Bank founder charged with moneylaundering,) Center for Ethics,
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2013 at 04:58 PM
For those who were concerned about the other event, yesterday, I wasn't;
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/26/Palin-We-Havent-Yet-Begun-to-Fight-Exclusive-Interview-with-Breitbart-News
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2013 at 05:02 PM
Thanks, OL. So is the guy iggy linked earlier, which I'll relink here for convenience,
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/08/john-bolton-is-unconstitutional.html
just wrong? Because he asserts that Bolton's appointment was unconstitutional, because the Senate was only in "adjournment," not in recess. That's the source of my confusion. I guess as a matter of law he's wrong simply because a court never ruled on it, but I mean "wrong" more fundamentally.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 26, 2013 at 05:05 PM
Schwartz was wrong. OTOH Jstor made those files public on its own --I think about the time he committed suicide. The complaint is that the prosecution was seeking a far too lengthy sentence for the offense.
I'm reaching the point--esp after Libby, Zimmerman, this case and my time on the grand jury--that I think prosecutors need strict supervision.
Posted by: Clarice | January 26, 2013 at 05:07 PM
Oh, yes, and the case against Senator Stevens--let's not forget that.
Posted by: Clarice | January 26, 2013 at 05:07 PM
Above my pay grade Jimmy. I just recall vividly the use of Jim Webb as being new and clever by those wanting to block more Bush appointments.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 26, 2013 at 05:10 PM
Shock collars, with an increasing voltage level, Clarice, you see the goal, was to prevent from having Bush make any appointee that reflected his own position,
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2013 at 05:12 PM
Jstor made those files public on its own --I think about the time he committed suicide.
I think JSTOR has made some files (not those in particular) available for free on a limited basis, as it has been moving in that direction for a while (unrelated AFAIK to the Swartz case). You still have to sign up for an account, and access is limited to a certain number of articles per week.
Here's a story:
http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/01/academic-libraries/many-jstor-journal-archives-now-free-to-public/
Posted by: jimmyk | January 26, 2013 at 05:15 PM
I just recall vividly the use of Jim Webb as being new and clever by those wanting to block more Bush appointments.
Well maybe they'll think twice about changing the filibuster rules, which I heard they were discussing again recently.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 26, 2013 at 05:16 PM
Swartz worked with Issa to stop SOPA in Congress. JSTOR did not press charges. After DOJ got involved the kid was facing 35 years.
My previous post on the subject got eaten. I am becoming really paranoid now.....
Posted by: Kat | January 26, 2013 at 05:19 PM
The moonbatosphere is atwitter about the more important issues of the day. Apparently Olympia Brown tweeted something. (zomg eleventy).
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | January 26, 2013 at 05:19 PM
I think prosecutors need strict supervision.
I've been at that point for a long time; in fact I can't remember when I felt otherwise.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 26, 2013 at 05:19 PM
Got kleptomaniac symtpotoms?
Then stay the hell our of Iran.
Posted by: Jack is Back | January 26, 2013 at 05:20 PM
Schwartz bad permission to download from JSTOR but not from MIT where the download took place. Original indictment carried 6 month sentence. Feds on the other hand slapped him with 13 federal counts, with possible 35 years.
Posted by: Kat | January 26, 2013 at 05:26 PM
Apparently Olympia Brown tweeted something. (zomg eleventy).
Has anybody gone from being a fresh new face to a useless POS no better than Charlie Crist as rapidly?
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 26, 2013 at 05:26 PM
I think the marching orders these days are to overcharge and force a plea, even if you are not guilty. I hope juries start to rebel against that stuff because I find it utterly offensive.
Holder practices that way, and apparently every DA in the country.
Another reason it is time to revolt.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | January 26, 2013 at 05:28 PM
Heh!
I always thought that that the first black POTUS would be a republican but I was wrong.
It now appears that the first PM of the UK could be black. And he is a converative.
Posted by: Jack is Back | January 26, 2013 at 05:30 PM
I always thought that that the first black POTUS would be a republican but I was wrong.
Me too, JiB. And the same for the first woman. We'll see.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 26, 2013 at 05:34 PM
CH, he's about my only hope of not having a Senator Ed Markey (D-his mother's house) or Gov. Marsha Coakley.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | January 26, 2013 at 05:34 PM
According to this Bolton was a recess appointment:
A recess appointment is a procedure that allows a president to fill a vacant job when Congress is not in session. Lawmakers left for vacation last week. The move will allow Bolton to stay in the job without Senate confirmation until the end of the current Congress in January 2007.
Perhaps the Reid rule was a reaction to it. Once again he shot himself in the foot.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164357,00.html#ixzz2J7jHDdOS
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | January 26, 2013 at 05:36 PM
For Henry, Gus, Clarice et al.:
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 26, 2013 at 05:39 PM
DoT@5:39 - waitaminute! That looks like one of those mealy WHITE bratwursts. Needs to be Johnsonville or Usingers (brown).
Judges?
Posted by: AliceH | January 26, 2013 at 05:46 PM
Having read the NLRB opinion in full now, I think there is a constitutional limit to what the Senate can do with its rules. The court parsed the meaning of "the recess" in the constitution and concluded that the definite article makes the term applicable only to intersession vacancies and appointments. Any future intrasession appointment would be invalid whether there is gavel-banging or not.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 26, 2013 at 05:48 PM
The difference between Alabama and Notre Dame:
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 26, 2013 at 05:50 PM
DoT, it's a great pyramid but the brats should be brown like Usingers or Neuskes. (I'll probably be excommunicated or something for saying so but my preference is the less salty kinds you sometimes find at local WI sausage makers or even the German white ones with cardamon in them.)
Posted by: Clarice | January 26, 2013 at 05:58 PM
CH, he's about my only hope of not having a Senator Ed Markey (D-his mother's house) or Gov. Marsha Coakley.
What a miserable position to be in. Look at it this way: with those clowns they'll stick a shiv right into your heart and put you out of your misery. With Scottie, he'll give you enough festering minor wounds (Dodd-Frank and every instance of donk procedural chicanery) that you'll wish you were dead.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 26, 2013 at 06:01 PM
Actually, judges should get off their asses and do something about the multiple count abuse. It seems to me it's a due process question--I recall in the Conrad Black case it was particularly egregious. (Another prosecution abuse I forgot to list.)
Posted by: Clarice | January 26, 2013 at 06:03 PM
Well, for those unable to see the right side of the 5:50, it's Manti Te'o and an inflatable girl.
Posted by: Danube of Thought iPad | January 26, 2013 at 06:08 PM
"The US federal government has strayed so far from the Constitution and the rule of law that it can now be considered rogue and illegitimate.
Written by Lawrence Sellin @ the New York Daily Sun -
The thoroughly irresponsible rate of government spending projected over the next twenty-five years will drive federal debt to unsustainable levels. The country is heading for a financial meltdown and economic ruin.
The Republican Party is inept and impotent and cannot provide the necessary political opposition to the crimes and unconstitutional policies of the Obama regime or stand against the rampant voter fraud which is now polluting the electoral process. There is a report claiming that the Republican Party signed a legal agreement with the Democrat Party in 1982 not to pursue suspected vote fraud. If there is no guarantee of election integrity, then elections become only window dressing for tyranny.
Barack Obama is an illegal President and unindicted felon. Congress, the American media and the courts are engaged in a criminal conspiracy to conceal their complicity in perpetrating the Obama fraud on the American people. Law enforcement and our elected officials have chosen to risk the survival of the country rather than risk the truth..."
http://www.newyorkdailysun.com/only-rebellion-can-save-america/1490
The author: Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Afghanistan and the Culture of Military Leadership“
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/01/col-lawrence-sellin-status-quo-no.html?m=1
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 26, 2013 at 06:15 PM
Belle Isle (St Jane's)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268696/Belle-Isle-Developer-wants-buy-island-Detroit-start-remarkable-new-nation.html
Posted by: Clarice | January 26, 2013 at 06:19 PM
Belle Isle -- Too cold. Unfriendly neighbors to the north (U.S.).
Posted by: sbw | January 26, 2013 at 06:24 PM
Colonel Sellin is a loon.
Posted by: Danube of Thought iPad | January 26, 2013 at 06:32 PM
DoT, three thoughts on the pyramid. 1) More beer. 2) Darker brats are more popular... Usingers, Klements, Johnsonville and many local butchers. 3) Fish fry (all you can eat) should be in it somewhere.
Posted by: henry | January 26, 2013 at 06:38 PM
I've learned more about brats in the past half hour than in my entire previous lifetime.
Posted by: Danube of Thought iPad | January 26, 2013 at 06:49 PM
If you behave, DoT, maybe we'll tell you about Kringle.
Posted by: Clarice | January 26, 2013 at 06:55 PM
Another reason it is time to revolt.
I'm there, but are there other things we could try before taking to the streets with AR-15s? Refusing to pay income taxes won't work due to the genius of withholding, but other countries have "general strikes," for example.
Of course they'd resurrect the platinum coin idea if things got really bad, but I'd be interested in a list of direct action possibilities that deprive the government of money. Anyone know of such a thing?
Posted by: Extraneus | January 26, 2013 at 07:00 PM
Clarice,
What can we look forward to at 4:00AM?
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | January 26, 2013 at 07:01 PM
Great Question Ex. What I worry about most is getting people off the couch.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | January 26, 2013 at 07:05 PM
I've been reading and listening to some very old stuff in my now organized music collection, I am pleasantly surprised at the simple beauty in the folk stuff we listened to back in the early '60s. Richard and Mimi, Pete Seeger, etc. If you block all the commie connections that seemed to grow on them like barnacles, it is really lovely, singable stuff.
Unfortunately, now it reminds us of yet another fundraiser on PBS. But think about it, in it's most innocent ways, it was as pure an environment as you could have to collect kids, grandkids and all have a great time.
What's interesting to me is that through the subsequent decades we've had a somewhat natural evolution of the genre. Kate and Anna in the '70s, Emmylou and Prine in the '80s. There was also a lot of pop/rock stuff that fit this same sweet, fun mold even if it became ever more saccharin. John Denver.
So is there some source frame of reference that determines who writes/sings in these particular realms? Woody Guthrie and Seeger certainly came down through the poor starving farmer path that naturally looked like the perfect commie overlay before communism took on its full totalitarian mantle. Meanwhile Western (Cowboy?) music was celebrating the rugged individual even in his crying over a beer about his lost dog/girl/pickup.
Now, perhaps because of the focus of the music industry being around Nashville, C&W has mostly a conservative bias even though there are plenty of lib players in the field. Maybe this is the opposite of Hollyweird.
OK, porch and CH and all you other music experts, how about some whittlin' talk.
Posted by: Manuel Transmission | January 26, 2013 at 07:11 PM
DoT, you have thrown me into a giggle fit that does not seem to have an end.
:-)
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 26, 2013 at 07:12 PM
Ex,
stopping all commerce other than bare necessities would be a start. Buy second hand. Use black market whenever possible. If you renovate, try doing it without permit (if you have decent neighbors). Pay cash (usually you will get "discount").
Posted by: Kat | January 26, 2013 at 07:16 PM
"Refusing to pay income taxes won't work due to the genius of withholding"
You can reduce the amount withheld by increasing the number of dependents you claim on the form you fill out with your employer. This is legal, provided that you declare the actual number on your tax return, and submit a large check to cover the under-withheld amount. So you could simply decline to send in the check--although I wouldn't recommend it.
I'm not subject to withholding, but am required to submit quarterly estimates along with the appropriate amount of money, or face fines and penalties. Either way, the IRS knows what I have received on the basis of the 1099's and K-1's the financial institutions provide them. If I didn't pay they would immediately place liens on the various assets.
In short, not a good idea unless you can be sure that scores of millions of others were going to do the same thing.
Posted by: Danube of Thought iPad | January 26, 2013 at 07:16 PM
If people didn't get off the couch, they wouldn't use gasoline.
A fuel tax that doesn't require buying fuel? I didn't know that.Posted by: Extraneus | January 26, 2013 at 07:17 PM
Smart kinetic diplomacy bearing fruit:
"Libya's upheaval the past two years helped lead to the ongoing conflict in Mali, and now Mali's war threatens to wash back and further hike Libya's instability. Fears are growing that post-Moammar Gadhafi Libya is becoming an incubator of turmoil, with an overflow of weapons and Islamic jihadi militants operating freely, ready for battlefields at home or abroad."
(AP)
Posted by: Danube of Thought iPad | January 26, 2013 at 07:44 PM
MT-
you might enjoy coming south and trying this next year.
http://www.30asongwritersfestival.com/
Plus I think the Gourds should participate.
I was getting texts on how awesome it was.
Posted by: rse | January 26, 2013 at 08:24 PM
Smart kinetic diplomacy bearing fruit:
One of the basic tenets of national policy is to make one's tactics and operations serve the larger strategy. It's difficult to discern the strategy with this crew, but unless it's to foster a resurgence of radical Islam, our operations don't seem to be supporting it.
Posted by: Cecil Turner (on mini-pad) | January 26, 2013 at 08:29 PM
Larry Elder's latest:
My Father , My son
LUN
I heart Larry big time.
Posted by: Frau Edith Steingehirn | January 26, 2013 at 08:33 PM
"German white ones (Brats) with cardamon in them."
It may be that, with the cardamom, the WI Scandahoovians got to add something.
Posted by: Frau Bratwurst | January 26, 2013 at 08:42 PM
MT, I am now reading Keith Richards's "Life," and I recommend it most highly.
At exactly the same time he and Mick were combing the barren English landscape for American blues (actually a couple of years before that) a half-dozen or so of my buddies and I were listening to a 50,000-watt station out of Tijuana (XEAC, still on the air) that featured a couple of black DJ's out of L.A. who played Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, Jimmy Reed, James Brown and the Famous Flames, Little Walter, Son House and all those great bluesmen every night. All our friends were listening to Pat Boone.
In college I discovered (and got copies of) the Library of Congress recordings of Leadbelly made by Alan Lomax, and got into the Weavers (with Seeger and later Erik Darling), and then came Joan Baez. You may be surprised at how eclectic Keith's tastes were.
Posted by: Danube of Thought iPad | January 26, 2013 at 08:45 PM
I had a link earlier at 4;45, about what we now have discovered about Doha's part in the current
crisis, all along the Tuareg belt,
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2013 at 08:48 PM
I think the big concern, is it spilling further south toward Nigeria, which hasn't been stable for a long while anyways, but if Boko Haram, and the BEND start wreaking some serious havok
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2013 at 08:50 PM
True story.
I'd come to St. Louis from Wisconsin for college. After college, got a job there. One Memorial/Independence/Labor day, I was put in charge of getting bratwurst for a cookout, and I said "I've never seen brats in the stores here." Surprise was expressed, however someone else said they'd get those - put me on potato salad duty or something.
Come the day of the cookout, the coals are ready, and they put these white sausages on the grill. "What are those?" I ask innocently. "Those are bratwurst". "No. Way." I said.
I checked the package, and sure enough, that's what they were called on the label.
I had no idea.
Stay tuned and maybe I'll tell the story about how I thought "Busch" was some local politician who plastered campaign stickers all over the beer kegs.
Posted by: AliceH | January 26, 2013 at 08:51 PM
Jane, it's about the Administration's war on women--its inconsistent demands for special sensitivity towards women at the very same time opening up combat slots for them and putting forth a deceitful Hillary to cover for it.
The shameful role of women in all this, redeemed only by Sheryl Attkisson's brave efforts to find and report the truth on the Benghazi disaster..
Posted by: Clarice | January 26, 2013 at 08:51 PM
Their goal seems to be Serfdom under another name of course;
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/26/of-course-feinsteins-assault-weapons-ban-exempts-government-officials/
Sheryl has the only figure in the mainstream media
that has followed both F&F and Benghazi
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2013 at 09:05 PM
SBW, My husband was singing the praises of that Garden View tea you kindly sent us some time ago. It really is delicious.
Cecil's 8:29 post encapsulated my own thinking. Libya-Mrsi-Syria, now Mail and Nigeria. What do you say, naciso? Anyone?
Posted by: Clarice | January 26, 2013 at 09:15 PM
Clarice, nice to hear. Garden View is our every day afternoon unwind.
Posted by: sbw | January 26, 2013 at 09:19 PM
I can't disagree, Jordan seems to have bucked the trend in the last election, but it's arguable that will continue,
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2013 at 09:20 PM
Mrsi--should be Morsi--or Egypt to be more precise. Any other countried I missed?
Posted by: Clarice | January 26, 2013 at 09:23 PM
Algeria has been the holdout in North Africa, for reasons Porter pointed in Lake's piece and other places,
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2013 at 09:24 PM
I'd like to know if Feinstein's iteration of prog Black Gun phobia has some foundation regarding a growing militia movement or is just run of the mill progfodder.
I don't believe we've hit a Zenger Moment as yet because I haven't seen sufficient contempt for magistrates but I have no idea regarding the state of play in the militia movements - aside from the fact the ones I've read of recently appear to have better screening and organizational controls.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 26, 2013 at 09:26 PM
Clarice,
When are they going to learn? It's the same with everyone. You simply cannot make people "equal" by making them "special". It is such a disservice. And buying into it is the difference between success and failure.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | January 26, 2013 at 09:32 PM
Well nothing like playing the old standards, on a bad lounge act, Zimring has this bad habit, as illustrated earlier, of coming to conclusions before allowing facts to get in the way.
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2013 at 09:32 PM
MT and AliceH - as for the Feinwerkbau air pistol, anything called Piccolino has to be appealing.
LUN
Posted by: Frau Bratwurst | January 26, 2013 at 09:33 PM
Jane, I wish I knew. Someone just sent me an article he'd written respecting Coulter's argument that now that there are more women in the military the Dems will be less successful in scary stories about guns. I don't know if that' true or not. I spend a lot of time cruising the net, and in that hobby I see little evidence that emotional appeals to both sexes are less effective . reason seems to be on a long vacation.
Posted by: Clarice | January 26, 2013 at 09:38 PM
CH suggested a CO2 BB pistol Those are also illegal in DC. I checked.
Posted by: Clarice | January 26, 2013 at 09:40 PM
A BB pistol, seriously, yet the gangs never lack for AK's and other 'tools of the trade'
Posted by: narciso | January 26, 2013 at 09:51 PM
True, narciso.
I forgot Tunisia in the list of places upturned by the Arab spring. Tunisia,,for heaven's sake,
Posted by: Clarice | January 26, 2013 at 10:01 PM
reason seems to be on a long vacation.
The left doesn't even know what reason is, and couldn't care less. It is incredibly demoralizing. At this point, with thanks to Obama, we don't even speak the same language.
I am so ready for our island.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | January 26, 2013 at 10:21 PM
Jane, I don't know if it ever was different. Maybe it's just that now we are better able to see it or perhaps because the stakes are now so much higher and the idiocy so much more perilous.
Posted by: Clarice | January 26, 2013 at 10:24 PM
I never thought of that.
But now I will.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | January 26, 2013 at 10:29 PM
It's remarkable how little the gun-banning zealots actually know about firearms. How many people who have a working familiarity with, say, the M-16 and the AR-15, rail against the legality of the latter? I can't think of any, offhand. And they betray themselves every time they evidence an ignorance of the differnce between a clip and a magazine.
What is a "military-style" weapon? Is it one that looks menacing? What does "style" have to do with it?
Does Piers Morgan actually believe that a shooter can fire 100 rounds from an AR-15 in a minute? Does he believe that a madman intent on the mass murder of children would be unable to carry out the slaughter if we passed a law against this, that or the other weapon?
At this point it is the NRA arrayed against the determinedly ignorant. That's no guarantee of victory (as we have seen), but it sure helps.
Posted by: Danube of Thought iPad | January 26, 2013 at 10:43 PM
DoT, as I mentioned on some earlier thread moons ago, the Red, White and Blues DVD that was part of Scorsese's series chronicled how all the Brit kids scrounged records of the blues pioneers and how that was really the foundation of the Brit Rock. It remains one of my all time favs for both the storytelling and the great jamming.
Posted by: Manuel Transmission | January 26, 2013 at 10:45 PM
I missed that earlier post, MT, and have been unaware of the Scorcese DVD. That whole period in musical history has always fascinated me: these undernourished, skinny post-WWII English boys falling in love with Mississippi delta and Chicago blues, and trying to get their arms around it any way they could.
Thoroughly enjoyable gloat from the WSJ:
"In Noel Canning v. NLRB, a Washington state Pepsi bottler challenged a board decision on grounds that the recess appointments were invalid and that the NLRB thus lacked the three-member quorum required to conduct business. The D.C. Circuit agreed, while whistling a 98 mile-per-hour, chin-high fastball past the White House about the separation of powers."
Nothing like the high hard one to flip an asshole who's been pushing his luck.
Posted by: Danube of Thought iPad | January 26, 2013 at 11:17 PM
Danube, the LIBTARDS are equally ignorant of Economics, and the founding Fathers idea's concerning FREEDOM. It's no by accident. They don't give a fiddlers fart HOW and WHAT this nation was founded on. It's really that simple. Like an athlete claiming the OTHER GUY touched the ball last, LIBTARDS want to WIN. The rules are for suckers.
Posted by: Gus | January 26, 2013 at 11:27 PM