Lots of documentation is now available in the A-Rod steroid suspension case. Here is Team A-Rod's request for a federal injunction; their filing includes (Exhibit A, p. 44 and following) the arbitrator's decision which heretofore had been confidential.
If you are confident that baseball's new drug testing program has this situation under control, the following excerpt from the arbitrator's decision rationalizing A-Rod's passing of eleven drug trests while cheating may give you pause:
The claim by Rodriguez that science exonerates him in this case is not supported by any evidence in this record. It is recognized Rodriguez passed eleven drug tests administered by MLB from 2010 through 2012. The assertion that Rodriguez would have failed those tests had he consumed those PES as alleged is not persuasive.
As advanced as MLB's program has become, no drug testing program will catch every Player. In this case, the blood testing required to detect or had not yet been implemented in the JDA and therefore was not administered during the 2010, 2011, and 2012 seasons. With respect to testosterone, the record establishes that during the period in question it was possible for an individual to pass a drug test despite having recently used the substance, depending on variables such as the route of administration transdermal, sublingual, or intramuscular), dosage, concentration, the baseline value of the individual's natural testosterone to epitestosterone ratio and how soon after use the individual's urine sample is collected."
Bosch testified that he consid- ered several of these variables when developing Rodriguez's protocols, and the BBM commu- nications between Bosch and Rodriguez show multiple exchanges where Bosch instructed Rodriguez to use testosterone at such times, and in such forms and doses, as would prevent Rodriguez from testing positive. For these reasons, the absence of a positive test during the three years in question, in and of itself, does not and cannot overcome the unrebutted direct evidence in this record of possession and use.
So people who don't quite trust, oh, David Ortiz, probably won't be reassured by the news that he has not failed a drug test.
You are up early, CC, good morning!
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 14, 2014 at 09:21 AM
Narciso- the Egypt/KSA jihad against the MB is a giant underreported story IMO. The KSA and Egyptian Sunnis are clearly trying to reverse the Shia crescent, and are going after Hamas plus Hezbollah in Lebanon-- in addition to the apostate eye doctor in Syria.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 14, 2014 at 09:30 AM
Flood insurance fees skyrocket, and middle class mortgage holders are the ones hardest hit.
http://watchdog.org/123093/a-24k-flood-insurance-policy-welcome-to-floridas-new-normal/
So, you have to have flood insurance if you have a mortgage, by law. If you are a cash customer, you can go without flood insurance, assuming the risk yourself.
These coastal properties will be sold to people with plenty of cash. This would include Chinese, Wall Street, drug dealers, etc.
This is a bad thing.
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 14, 2014 at 09:32 AM
As I said, they wear you down, don't they:
"A federal judge who endorsed "suspicion-less" searches of laptops, cameras and cell phones at the border has set up a possible Supreme Court showdown challenging what critics call “Constitution-free zones” and the Obama administration's dragnet approach to national security.
A decision by Judge Edward Korman upholding the federal government's right to search travelers' electronic devices at or near the border conflicts with a similar ruling in California. That ruling requires a "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity before agents can confiscate and examine personal photos, laptops and files. Korman's ruling does not.
"I think Americans are justifiably becoming increasingly surprised and even outraged by the extent to which the national security state seems to be monitoring and collecting information about us all," said ACLU Attorney Catherine Crump. "We think that having a purely suspicion-less policy is wrong, because it leaves border agents with no standards at all to follow. That opens the door that people will be [targeted] for inappropriate reasons."
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 14, 2014 at 09:34 AM
I'm completely on board with OL.
I've avoided this Tapper/Luttrell dust up before now but I was just listening to Levin playing a clip of it and, as somebody who has blasted Tapper multiple times, I don't think what he said was wrong on his part. In fact it sounds like they were talking past each other.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 14, 2014 at 09:37 AM
OL-- suspicionless searches at the border have been in effect for decades, certainly during Reagan's term, probably in Coolidge's. The constitutional standard was 'randomness', every 20th case, whatever. How are these cases different?
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 14, 2014 at 09:38 AM
MM, I had to dig into the flood insurance scam big time when we finished the Nantucket House. The house is 1068' feet from the mean high tide and my basement floor elevation is but 10' above sea level. But that "basement level" is finished to the same standards at the upper floors.
The federal flood insurance basically assumes unfinished basements and would only pay a trivial amount for damage done down there when the tsumnami washes in so that does nothing for me.
Private insurance geared to the real value is so expensive to cover that risk that it was an easy decision to self insure and bank the money saved.
As you said, this only works when no lender is involved, so good luck to owners who have mortgages. The "new" flood zone maps taking effect now which are shocking homeowners per your link are simply a disguised way to collect a new tax from more homeowners.
Did I mention I hate these people?
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 14, 2014 at 09:47 AM
NK, I can't speak to legal considerations, but as a common sense matter, I think there's a big difference between a physical search to determine if someone is carrying drugs over the border; and going through all of a person's photos, documents, contact lists, bank statements, and any other personal, private files you might keep on a laptop (or even on a cloud-based server that you can access from the laptop or your iPhone, etc).
If the law doesn't recognize a difference there, then the law is f**ked up and wrong. And the people who both write, interpert and execute such laws ought to know that.
There's also a distinction, at least to common sense, between searches at a border crossing station, and having a hundred (or two hundred, etc) mile "border zone" that's treated as though it's a border station for purposes of searching people.
Posted by: James D. | January 14, 2014 at 09:49 AM
I know NK, but the difference is that we now walk around with a room full of documents on our laptops, ipads and smart phones so they can glean a lot more private information than simply find sex toys in a suitcase. They think nothing about taking these devices and cloning the entire hard drives, and I find that simply frightening.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 14, 2014 at 09:51 AM
Who wants their lawyer to go through security with a laptop filled with confidential lawyer-client documents that the government has no right to see?
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 14, 2014 at 09:53 AM
JamesD-- a 1920s Coolidge era random search through valises at a Great Lakes steamship port searching for some Joe Kennedy Canada Club whiskey would require physical handling of ladies foundation garements or the gentleman's Esquire magazine with the latest French postcards or their most recent love notes from paramours outside of marriage. That would have been 'sensitive' for that era. Again how is this qualitatively different?
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 14, 2014 at 09:56 AM
NK, ease of copying for perusal at the government's leisure. That did not exist in the 1920s.
Posted by: henry | January 14, 2014 at 09:59 AM
OL/JamesD-- I'm not advocating either way what the proper balance between liberty and security. It's a hughely important question, I normally favor security of the innocent over the embarassment of the few, but I have no firm opinion. I'm just curious what is novel about these recent border cases.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 14, 2014 at 10:00 AM
Democrats on Hillary Hit List: Please Don’t Hurt Us, We Love You
Posted by: Extraneus | January 14, 2014 at 10:06 AM
Van Hollen is worried he'll be the 21st century's version of Vince Foster, a "suicide" victim with a bullet hole in the back of his head.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 14, 2014 at 10:09 AM
I agree with Old Lurker - I am disgusted with all of these folks, and I truly hate many of them on both sides.
The fact that we even have to monitor all these aspects of the federal government shows how out-of-control it has gotten. It is so mired in nonsense that is none of it's business that it doesn't even perform it's legitimate core functions anymore.
Posted by: Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself | January 14, 2014 at 10:09 AM
NK, I think they are qualitatively very different.
Someone putting their hands on your undergarments, or even reading a note from your paramour, embarrassing as it is, is not in the same league as copying potentially all the data on your hard drive and your phone, with your complete contact list of phone#s and emails and histories thereof, bank statements and other private financial information (and, as OL pointed out, potentially confidential information about other people that you might have on your computer if you're their lawyer/accountant/consultant/etc), so that it can be examined at the government's leisure and recopied and distributed anywhere to anyone.
And, again, it's not just that, it's the extension of border zones so that such searches can be carried out hundreds of miles from the border.
Posted by: James D. | January 14, 2014 at 10:12 AM
narciso @9:12...no comment about Stephen King,he is a Maine icon. *snort*
Posted by: Marlene | January 14, 2014 at 10:15 AM
A decision by Judge Edward Korman
Let's go through his computer first. The WaPo could print it's content & then get it's readers to dig through the content to see if anything is sketchy.
Posted by: Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself | January 14, 2014 at 10:15 AM
It's not as if they do uch with the mounds of information they do glean--see Boston bombing or 9/11 and flight schools for example.
Posted by: clarice | January 14, 2014 at 10:16 AM
Extraneus, I believe the Christie ting is a Hillary operation.
1. Removes a potential GOP rival.
2. Tars the GOP with the thing Obama is accused of (petty revenge)
3. Most important, takes out a GOP rival while demonstrating to dem enemies that she can take them down whenever she wants.
I don't think it is any coincidence that the Hillary Hit List story came out at the same time that DOJ announced they were investigating the use of the Sandy money for ads. Remember, Holder was an assistant AG when the Clintons were in office, and he is the one who steared the Marc Rich pardon through.
Holder was first a Clintonista.
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 14, 2014 at 10:17 AM
Al Gore has been on Apple's board for many years, selected by Steve Jobs when Jobs was was well and still running the place. The two were chummy and Jobs much admired Gore. I've been voting against him on every proxy ballot since he was tapped for the position, but the puny number of shares I own makes me somewhat less than a power broker, durn it. Have never seen how the final tally turns out each time, but betcha he is more controversial than any of the other nominees.
Posted by: (A) nuther Bub | January 14, 2014 at 10:18 AM
NK, you surprise me on your reaction to this. While they might have a security interest in searching me for bomb residue or drugs or even cash or diamonds or bearer bonds and other things that are against the law to take over a border that are not disclosed, on what planet should they have the right to read all of any random persons electronic information either while standing there or worse, at their leisure after copying the hard drive?
Seriously?
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 14, 2014 at 10:26 AM
Al Gore has been on Apple's board for many years, selected by Steve Jobs when Jobs was was well and still running the place. The two were chummy and Jobs much admired Gore.
Ugh, thanks for that bit of insight. File under "Really Smart People who do Really Dumb Things".
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 14, 2014 at 10:27 AM
I don't think it is any coincidence that the Hillary Hit List story came out at the same time that DOJ announced they were investigating the use of the Sandy money for ads. Remember, Holder was an assistant AG when the Clintons were in office, and he is the one who steared the Marc Rich pardon through.
Holder was also the one who said Elian Gonzalez wasn't terrorized because the armed men breaking into his uncle's home had their fingers on the side of the trigger guards. With a straight chinless face and in that irritatingly whiny voice.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 14, 2014 at 10:31 AM
Qualitative difference?-- I don't think so, it's quantitaive. In my 1920s border search example, the Feds could have a scrivener copy every phone number from the gentleman's little black book, or every balance sheet transaction (they did it with Capone.) Yes today's personal electronic data is many orders of magnitude larger and ease of copy many times faster, but the constitutional principle is the same, what happens if the Feds seize it unlawfully? I'm stipulating here that a constitutional border search does not authorize seizing personal info during said search. The question in both cases is what is the citizen's remedy if the Feds unlawfully seize personal info during a lawful random search at the Border? The means of the unlawful seizure or the scope of the Feds' unlawful seizure doesn't seem to make a qualitative difference IMO.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 14, 2014 at 10:31 AM
Heh. Went to look up the duration of Gore's tenure on Apple's board (since 2003) and found this brief piece (LUN) on how it has profited him. Geez.
Posted by: (A) nuther Bub | January 14, 2014 at 10:33 AM
(A) B..nice to see you. I was worried because I hadn't seen you for a while.
I don't know why people are surprised the FBI won't prosecute the IRS miscreants--the head of the agency is James Comey, who appointed his buddy Patrick Fitzgerald to get someone in the Bush Administration in the Plame hoax.
Posted by: clarice | January 14, 2014 at 10:33 AM
...US policy allows offers of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to search and confiscate computers, phones, personal digital assistants, cameras, digital music players and other data-storing devices. Operating under the U.S. Policy Regarding Border Search of Information, agents have also downloaded the contents of entire computer hard drives and other storage media for later review.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 14, 2014 at 10:35 AM
OL-- see my 1920s valise example; where does a constitutional Border health, safety and customs search become an unlawful seizure?, and what are standards of Fed conduct and the remedies against the government for unlawful seizures. Copying the hard drive and keeping it after you leave the border? That seems like it went beyond a search and became a seizure, that would have required probable cause or a warrant. Current technology needs the right Border search rules, but the prnciples don't seem new to me.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 14, 2014 at 10:39 AM
This may be the novel question in these recent cases (from OL's quote):
"Operating under the U.S. Policy Regarding Border Search of Information, agents have also downloaded the contents of entire computer hard drives and other storage media for later review."
Without probable cause? IMO-- That is an unconstitutional extension of the 'search' that found nothing. If the Border search raises 'reasonable suspicion' then get warrant. If not, give the person back their electronics and let them go on their way.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 14, 2014 at 10:43 AM
So NK, you seem to agree that the government cannot (yet) storm into my house without cause and make copies of all my documents (electronic or otherwise), but should I decide to spend the weekend in Montreal they can take copies of everything in my possession?
My lawyer goes to London several times per month; do I need to get ready to sue him if he gives the government a copy of my confidential information that he might have in his electronic inbox? What about my big six accounting firm that has all of my tax planning documents on his laptop?
What kind of liberty and freedom is that?
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 14, 2014 at 10:44 AM
Mile marker 420 becomes 419.99 to thwart thieves
This is getting ridiculous.Posted by: Extraneus | January 14, 2014 at 10:46 AM
--saw flagged up on that it has a pedigree dating to 2000 or so...forget where I saw it.--
Barry turned a flawed and ineffective plan of letting a few guns dribble across the border and tracking their final destination to an intentional and reckless propaganda ploy of coercing FFLs into allowing thousands of weapons to illegally cross the border with virtually no effort made to track them.
Said weapons were then used to kill hundreds of Mexican nationals and two US law enforcement officers, all in an effort to talk up how we needed strict new gun control to prevent the flood of weapons crossing the border, a good number of which they were responsible for.
It is the worst of his scandals if one is so narrowed minded to consider hundreds of people's lives sacrificed for a publicity stunt scandalous.
If Bush or even Clinton had done anything remotely like what Barry did you can be sure we wouldn't be reading it in some obscure, disreputable joint like BI.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 14, 2014 at 10:46 AM
I'm really surprised the Mexican pols haven't pitched a bitch about this at least for their domestic benefit. Unless they were in on it, which seems nonsensical, it's nothing but win for them unless I'm *really* missing something obvious.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 14, 2014 at 10:51 AM
Well, now that Christie is toast, so to speak, there is always this possibility:
Would Be Great to Have 'Two Women Duke It Out' for President in 2016
FTA:
Posted by: Sandy Tuzedaze | January 14, 2014 at 10:52 AM
"Courts have granted customs agents extensive rights to search, without probable cause, literally anything you have with you when you cross the U.S. / Canadian border. U.S. courts have upheld the U.S. CBP’s right to perform searches that might otherwise violate a U.S. citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights. Both the U.S. and Canadian border services assert the right to search – and seize – any electronic or digital storage devices such as laptops, tablets, discs, digital cameras, cell phones, and hard drives.
What can they search on your electronic devices?
Border agents have successfully asserted the right to examine all files on all electrical devices including personal or business financial information, music files, and lists of Web sites you have visited. You can be forced to open encrypted files or the government can take the time to do it themselves. Random searches are allowed. They may also also freely share the data from those computers — personal and business records, web-site visits, email – with other governmental entities.
No compensation is provided for any losses suffered by the owners of laptops or other media as a result of the seizure even if the contents are destroyed by government. A laptop can be held for over a year and the owner may not be allowed to get a copy of the contents of their hard drive.
This policy covers all individuals without exception. It has been reported that 6,671 travellers had laptops, cameras and cellphones searched between Oct. 1, 2008 and June 2, 2010 and that around 3,000 were seized. This right also extends to searches of documents, books, pamphlets and other printed material.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 14, 2014 at 10:55 AM
all in an effort to talk up how we needed strict new gun control to prevent the flood of weapons crossing the border,
That is exactly what it was...a publicity stunt. The WaPo had geared up & was running stories on our lax gun control laws helping the drug cartels. It was a coordinated effort.
But then Brian Terry died & they backed off.
Brian Terry, Ambassador Stevens....those guys couldn't have died at a worst time for "The Agenda". How dare they....
Posted by: Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself | January 14, 2014 at 11:02 AM
Clarice:
(A) B..nice to see you. I was worried because I hadn't seen you for a while.
I Blame Michelle!
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | January 14, 2014 at 11:04 AM
The scope of electronic files people 'carry' with them accross the border has indeed changed quantitatively. What is the lawful 'reasonable' search at the border, and what is an unlawful seizure without probable cause. The inertia that's built up during the last 12 years has made leviathan's intrusiveness grow. maybe a rare time I wind up on the same side as the ACLU.
BTW OL-- you may want to have a chat with your legal and financial professionals about which electronic files of yours they are permitted to 'carry' across borders. For instance: Does a Citrix link give access to the Feds of the entire firm's server? (That's hitting close to home for me.)
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 14, 2014 at 11:06 AM
This was it. The Hidden Life of Guns - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/12/AR2010121202663.html
By James V. Grimaldi and Sari Horwitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 15, 2010; 1:14 PM
Research editor Alice Crites and staff writer William Booth contributed to this report.
Terry was shot on Dec. 14th & died Dec 15th. 2010
Posted by: Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself | January 14, 2014 at 11:12 AM
T r u e C r y p t
Free open-source disk encryption software for Windows 7/Vista/XP, Mac OS X, and Linux
Provides plausible deniability, in case an adversary forces you to reveal the password.
Anyone traveling with sensitive data should be using this.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 14, 2014 at 11:13 AM
NK, by the description above a CITRIX link would indeed give such access especially if the lawyer saved passwords locally (a option that shouldn't be used, but is used by many). Further there is no way to tell what NSA goodies get installed via Border Security access. You have no ability to find out or audit the path of your data once stolen* by the Feds (how does this square with due process?).
*the feds are not licensed to the IP on that device, any use is theft from the IP owners.
Posted by: henry | January 14, 2014 at 11:22 AM
MM,
South Florida is the hurricane impact zone as is the southern part of the west coast and the panhandle. That is where the greatest risk of flooding from storm surges exist. While up north where I am we have never taken a direct hit but get windy/rainy remnants and not much surge. Our dunes can take over 20 feet.
Like they say in real estate - location, location, location.
Posted by: JIB (in Typhus hell) | January 14, 2014 at 11:23 AM
I highly recommend Miss Marple's Buzzfeed link, relinked here, Why I Bought a House in Detroit For $500.
There's a deja vu quality to it as hardy pioneers attempt to carve safe homes out of a savage wilderness.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 14, 2014 at 11:23 AM
Wouldn't you love to question some reporters on why they covered the stories they did. Did outside sources suggest it? Did govt. or advocacy groups pave the way for the story? Who contacted Grimaldi, Horwitz, Crites &/or Booth?
Posted by: Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself | January 14, 2014 at 11:25 AM
Greatest Fight Refereeing Ever.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 14, 2014 at 11:26 AM
(A) B..nice to see you. I was worried because I hadn't seen you for a while.
Thanks, Clarice. We just returned from a month on the mainland, enjoying the festive season with children and grandchildren (and to remove ourselves from the Obamas' neighborhood, hit.) I carried no electronic devices with me and tried to keep my paws off those belonging to others -- saw maybe one of two hours of television news the entire trip. It's amazing how serene life becomes when one is cut off from most political events. Because of the docs in our family we did discuss Obamacare often but that was happy talk, taking pleasure in all of its emerging problems.
A belated Happy New Year to all.
Posted by: (A) nuther Bub | January 14, 2014 at 11:26 AM
I think that arguing the legal minutae of these electronic searches obscures the point and works in favor of continued gov't intrusiveness.
From where I sit - and I think a candidate who made this point forcefully would prosper - the argument is that government agents having the power, with no practical oversight whatsoever, to take any and all of your electronic devices, examine them in detail, copy any and all data on them, share that data with basically anyone they please, for any reason, with telling you and with no recourse whatsoever, is wrong, and needs to be stopped.
Or, the short version, for the LIV hordes:
Barack Obama says that if you're anywhere within 200 miles of a border, he can steal your bank statement, your credit card statements, your email history, every photo you've ever taken, the address and phone number and birthdate and other details of everybody you know, AND all your passwords, for everything you do online. And there's nothing you can do about it.
Posted by: James D. | January 14, 2014 at 11:30 AM
Yes, NK,al Asisi, might be reenacting Mohammed Ali
(the real one) fighting Wahhabs Ilwan's it's a tricky deal, because of what happened to Nukraishi Pasha, but it's the only game in town,
So Bret Stephens, points out that Gates's outrage is disproportionate at times, angry over the disclosure of discussions of a conflict over Iran, but not the circumstances
that led us here, not willing to publically
kvetch about what he knew was a betrayal.
Posted by: narciso | January 14, 2014 at 11:30 AM
Dotson was spitting mad, when he read that piece, janet,according to his memoir.
Posted by: narciso | January 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM
Yeah I wasn't sure what to make of Stephens review of it; he definitely takes Gates to task.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM
I think a candidate who made this point forcefully would prosper
Me, too. Especially with the yute vote.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM
nothing to see here, these aren't the droids you're lucking for;
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/13/report-no-federal-criminal-charges-expected-in-irs-targeting-of-tea-party-groups/
likely Donilon, leaked the story to Sanger, it doesn't make sense, how can he go along with the curtailed surge, and expect anything else
then what we faced.
Jack Keane's a little more understanding, in his review, my fishwrap having ignored the book entirely, does a mocking editorial cartoon,
Posted by: narciso | January 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM
free advice for Stay Puft, if you're going to pick a scapegoat, don't choose someone who looks like Meg Ryan, of Chloe from '24.
Posted by: narciso | January 14, 2014 at 11:41 AM
JiB I have never thought the government has any business insuring property built on beaches. Back in the good old days, that was an issue between owners, lenders and insurance companies, and, since that was the good old, the insurance companies actuarial calculation of what it would insure for how much premium was up to it, then the owner could decide to pay the premium or not.
When the government stepped in and offered flood insurance, then most private insurance companies happily withdrew from that risk. But as with everything, once the government was involved, the link between actuarial risk and premium was broken and replaced with political pricing (think health insurance)and before you knew it the market was completely screwed up.
There is a common thread here, huh?
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 14, 2014 at 11:43 AM
Spesking of drones-- Repub House Homeland Sec committee chairman wants drone surveilance at the border... sans Hellfire missles of course.....hmm... well I guess I'm glad they're not there already, and they won't have max lethality when we do have 'em.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 14, 2014 at 11:45 AM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | January 14, 2014 at 11:48 AM
Ignatz,
Thanks for relinking that Detroit story. I found it oddly hopeful, both in practical survival and also in how the neighbors seemed to band together.
We will survive, and God willing, prosper once again.
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 14, 2014 at 11:49 AM
"I wish MLB had done this to Bonds."
The Bosch equivalent in Bonds's case went to prison rather than testify.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | January 14, 2014 at 11:49 AM
the question, arise 'how could you tell'
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/13/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-is-he-violating-a-network-rule/
Posted by: narciso | January 14, 2014 at 11:51 AM
NJ politicos on Christie aide fired over Bridgegate: She’s always followed the chain of command
Posted by: Extraneus | January 14, 2014 at 11:55 AM
Vizzini could have told you the wisdom of this;
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/13/christie-office-obama-administration-approved-jersey-shore-tv-ads/
Posted by: narciso | January 14, 2014 at 11:55 AM
Ignatz!
Been meaning to tell you!
WHen I was in college I taught a beginning geology lab, and one of the lessons was on the Grand Canyon type section. I was trying to help them remember the names, since many were based on local Indian tribes and had unfamiliar spellings.
So, we got to the Coconino sandstone. And me, at age 28, trying to be cheery and helpful, said "You know, sort of like Kokonino County in Krazy Kat only with C's instead of K's."
Slacked jawed reactions abounded.
So THEN I said, "You know, the cartoon Krazy Kat! Where she throws the brick at Ignatz the mouse and calls him "My Pwecious!" (That last bit I even said in a Krazy Kat voice.)
NONE of the kids in that room, only 8-10 years younger than me, even knew what I was talking about. They thought I had lost my mind, I'm sure.
Most embarrassing classroom faux pas ever.
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM
OL,
Agree about FEMA and flood insurance. Our total insurance, on a much bigger home than the guy in Port Richey, on the coast itself, is half his flood insurance premium. He just happens to be in one of 3 major ground zero areas of Florida 'Canes. And he is on a canal with no storm surge protection at all.
Not an excuse but a factoid for whoever the actuary is and the company he works for.
Posted by: JIB (in Typhus hell) | January 14, 2014 at 12:01 PM
Paul J Sally, 1933-2013 Everyone who had him for a professor was truly lucky!
(He dies 12-30-2013 -- I'm sure he appreciates the anagram!)
http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2014/01/02/paul-j-sally-jr-influential-mathematician-and-educator-1933-2013?msource=MAG10
Posted by: cathyf | January 14, 2014 at 12:02 PM
--I found it oddly hopeful, both in practical survival and also in how the neighbors seemed to band together.--
Me too, MM, but as usual good things are usually followed by bad in an endless cycle and so external, imposed hip gentrification will probably consume the grass roots local seedlings. I suppose that's better than the current blight but not exactly optimal, IMO.
I especially enjoyed his world weary put downs of the proto-OWSers.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 14, 2014 at 12:06 PM
That's what I figured, JiB. And why should a homeowner who elected NOT to live at 'cane ground zero be required to subsidize the guy who does? Why should people living in FL be required to reimburse Boston if a major snow fall occurs? That was a risk the snow bird intended to leave behind by moving south. And so on and so on.
It is all so simple when people are left to making their own decisions based on real, not political, facts.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 14, 2014 at 12:08 PM
So bosch's fate in the hands of the Miami Dade prosecutor's Reno's successors, which I guess is why he's willing to admit to most anything,
Posted by: narciso | January 14, 2014 at 12:09 PM
NK: --drone surveilance at the border..... well I guess I'm glad they're not there already--
Isn't surveillance via drone merely a quantitative, not a qualitative, difference?
Posted by: AliceH | January 14, 2014 at 12:10 PM
Funny story, MM.
Unfortunately, my handle is a shortened version of Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki, an alias Eddie Bracken used in the Preston Sturges flick The Miracle of Morgan's Creek.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 14, 2014 at 12:11 PM
Been busy and unable to keep up with the threads (as usual), but glad to see (A)B has returned home and is commenting again. Has FLOTUS ended her vacation yet and returned home? Haven't seen a bit of news about that as I periodically skim the web headlines.
P.S. - yes, OL, I am a very early riser (of course that means I am an early to bedder, too).
Posted by: centralcal | January 14, 2014 at 12:18 PM
The Cicuit Court disposes of Macy's Christmas Tree in the anal cavity of the FCC: http://minx.cc/?post=346454
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 14, 2014 at 12:20 PM
Border drones-- It is indeed; but if the Drones carry only optical visible light sensors (i.e. no wall penetrating IR radar, or sound detection sensors), they raise no new qualitative constitutional issue whatever, as there is no zone of privacy being out in public view. Of course, something can be completely constitutional and at the same time unwise. Personally, I would like drone surveilance of every rail and truck crossing the border and IR check of rail car/vehicle contents for human trafficing into the USA. That is the source of the poorest mass illegal entry. That poorest mass illegal entry results in anchor babies, and it is also the source of the entire increase in USA poverty levels since 1990. So yes, drones at the border are a must for security and maintenance of national sovereignty IMO.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 14, 2014 at 12:22 PM
Ignatz, No matter.
When I see your name though, I think of that cartoon and my embarrassment.
Keeps me humble. LOL!
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 14, 2014 at 12:22 PM
I'd say a balanced piece on the situation:
http://nervana1.org/2014/01/13/on-egypts-general-sisi/
Posted by: narciso | January 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM
Did I know about this?
'24' returns in May with 12-episode run on Fox
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | January 14, 2014 at 12:26 PM
We should be so proud of what we have done to the gift of our Founders.
This will sure help all those long term fiscal challenges we have dumped on the kids.
WSJ:
America's Dwindling Economic Freedom
Regulation, taxes and debt knock the U.S. out of the world's top 10.
World economic freedom has reached record levels, according to the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom, released Tuesday by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. But after seven straight years of decline, the U.S. has dropped out of the top 10 most economically free countries.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 14, 2014 at 12:28 PM
--It is indeed; but if --
I believe what OL et al have expressed concerns about re: electronic docs is all in the realm of "but if".
Posted by: AliceH | January 14, 2014 at 12:28 PM
Obama: Has 'pen And a Phone' To Help Economy
Posted by: Extraneus | January 14, 2014 at 12:29 PM
I would think that 419.9 would be an even more attractive mileage sign for the 420 tokers. Needing to round up while looking at the sign and 420ing lends a certain cachet to the process.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 14, 2014 at 12:29 PM
I think they shoud test the players with drug dogs. Have Aldo do a little sniffing around, signal drugs are present, and give the player the New Mexico forced colonoscopy treatment.
"A-Rod" will take on a whole new meaning.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 14, 2014 at 12:31 PM
Will the sign be placed 52.8 feet in front of where the old sign stood?
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 14, 2014 at 12:33 PM
for JOM hunters and gun owner (and beer drinkers) do NOT try this at home: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539278/If-Carlsberg-hunters-Incredible-DIY-video-shows-Swedish-man-opening-bottle-beer-using-SHOTGUN.html
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 14, 2014 at 12:35 PM
So will "drug probe".
for JOM hunters and gun owner (and beer drinkers) do NOT try this at home
Indeed. By all means find an open field somewhere.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | January 14, 2014 at 12:36 PM
I am going to amend some of what jib wrote. Although the Panhandle has properties like St Georges or Navarre at 0 sea level, it is also home to the highest altitudes in the state along the corridor known as 30-A. The sea levels are about 31 to 34 feet. Dennis in 2005 did breach the crest as Red and hubby were on the walk over at the time. It takes a strong storm surge to breach those dunes. Probably why a certain former AR governor and broadcaster now lives in the area about 34 above sea level.
So again location matters but parts of the panhandle are desired for precisely that reason.
Posted by: rse | January 14, 2014 at 12:42 PM
In all seriouness, Border Drone surveillance is very different than the scope of search and seizure of personal electronic data discussed above. Drones are a shield against foreigners violating US sovereignty, data seizure without probable cause is very easily perverted into a sword against citizen liberty. Perverting drone surveillance at the border into unreasonable searches and seizures is inherently more difficult.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 14, 2014 at 12:45 PM
So one could argue that Maliki is in a trap of his own making, however he was opposed to the war, somewhat like Obama;
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/14/the_gates_files_ii_some_revelations_and_tidbits_about_the_bush_43_administration
Posted by: narciso | January 14, 2014 at 12:45 PM
Feinstein gunning for the Pantsuit?
Insty
Posted by: Extraneus | January 14, 2014 at 12:51 PM
I am definitely going to read Gates' book.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 14, 2014 at 12:51 PM
On crossing borders with laptops and smart phones:
As I understand it, those who travel to China are now advised to not take regular laptops or smart phones. If you do take either, you are advised to discard it when you get back to the United States. (Or, I suppose you could give it to a security expert who was interested in what those lovable Chinese hackers are up to now.)
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 14, 2014 at 12:59 PM
jimmyk - Thanks for your kind words about my site.
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 14, 2014 at 01:00 PM
"Barack Obama says that if you're anywhere within 200 miles of a border..."
Where did the 200 miles come from?
Posted by: Danube on iPad | January 14, 2014 at 01:02 PM
>>>Most embarrassing classroom faux pas ever.
Posted by: Miss Marple<<<
hahaha...it does make for some interesting days, although I'm a student...
the Detroit article was great, that kid knows how to write.
good to see you back AB.
Posted by: rich@gmu | January 14, 2014 at 01:02 PM
I thought Sutton Dillinger was supposed to prevent this;
http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/January2014_2.html#jrm13520
Posted by: narciso | January 14, 2014 at 01:04 PM
Clarice (@ 10:33 am)
It was George W. Bush that nominated James Comey to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald!
He did so October 3 2003.
Posted by: Truthbetold | January 14, 2014 at 01:05 PM
Inslee is quite a fool or merely a knave;
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/016052.html
Posted by: narciso | January 14, 2014 at 01:08 PM
JiB-- UK Daily Mail's prediction for the rest of the EPL season:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2539135/With-Premier-Leagues-seven-winning-weekend-predict-season-play-reveal-new-champions.html
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 14, 2014 at 01:08 PM
>>>The president said he could use the "pen" to take steps to push forward on efforts to create new hubs for manufacturing, making college more affordable and helping the long-term unemployed. He said he would use the phone to talk to nonprofits, businesses, the private sector and universities to improve economic conditions.<<<
hope that works out better than the green energy program and shovel ready projects the administration promised last time.
Posted by: rich@gmu | January 14, 2014 at 01:09 PM
From last night's Kelly file;
http://therightscoop.com/obama-admin-about-to-release-osama-bin-ladens-bodyguard-from-gitmo/
Posted by: narciso | January 14, 2014 at 01:09 PM