In which I blow your mind with a statistic about the differences between the rich and the poor and the different races

Are you ready? It involves marijuana too. OK, prepare to have your world shaken.

No city in the world arrests more of its citizens for using pot than New York, according to statistics compiled by Harry G. Levine, a Queens College sociologist.

Nearly nine out of ten people charged with violating the law are black or Latino, although national surveys have shown that whites are the heaviest users of pot. Mr. Bloomberg himself acknowledged in 2001 that he had used it, and enjoyed it.

On the Upper East Side of Manhattan where the mayor lives, an average of 20 people for every 100,000 residents were arrested on the lowest-level misdemeanor pot charge in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

During those same years, the marijuana arrest rate in Brownsville, Brooklyn, was 3,109 for every 100,000 residents.

That means the chances of getting arrested on pot charges in Brownsville — and nothing else — were 150 times greater than on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

GOLLY! More rich white people get away with shit than poor brown people? Oh me oh my, I never expected this. I bet there are more poor black people in our prisons than rich white people too and a massive sentencing disparity too! And there's a hypocrisy and staggering difference in enforcement with our drug laws? Next you'll be telling me the kind of cocaine a black person does is subject to a much harsher prison sentence that the type of cocaine a white person does.

Where's the fainting couch? I'm... I'm going to need to sit down. This is too much to handle.

Stay classy, Wal-Mart

When you're a multi-kazillion dollar business like Wal-Mart you have to have your priorities straight. Making fat stacks of cash? Check. Increasing your market share? Check. Crushing unionization of your workers? Check. Engaging in pointless, time wasting, money wasting legal battles so as you can look heartless and shirk any and all responsibility for anything you do? Double check.

Wal-Mart Stores has spent a year and more than a million dollars in legal fees battling a $7,000 fine that federal safety officials assessed after shoppers trampled a Wal-Mart employee to death at a store on Long Island on the day after Thanksgiving in 2008.

Of course! If they don't spend millions fighting this, why they'll be responsible for all sorts of piddling fines resulting from easily preventable deaths of their employees. I mean this is just another example of small business fighting against the draconian socialist overreach of the man.

$7,000? Wal-Mart isn't made of money! Well, not literally. Not yet, anyway. But I'm sure there's some sort of important legal reason that they're spending millions to fight a minuscule fine for.

But in fighting the federal fine, Wal-Mart is arguing that the government is improperly trying to define “crowd trampling” as an occupational hazard that retailers must take action to prevent.

Yeah, this is an important precedent to have on the books. I mean the government is always trying to butt its nose into a business to collect money for "crowd trampling" regulation violations. How do you think they plan to pay for health care? Human stampeding fines.

So stay classy, Wal-Mart. You would rather spend millions than pay a measly seven grand in OSHA fines and admit that maybe you should have some better safety protocols for when you try to herd human cattle through your stores for Chinese made lawn furniture that's 3 cents cheaper than at Target. Priorities.

Your time spent resting on your stellar reputation is over, Thurgood!

The hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan are underway. You know the drill: in order to be allowed onto the highest court in the land, the nominee vows to remain as silent as possible, dodge any question that may in fact reveal a personal thought or long held position, and attempt to set a Guinness world record for saying the phrase "I don't answer hypotheticals, Senator." You know, it's the way a serious country full of adults and intelligent elected officials selects a slot on its most august judicial body.

Then there's the dance our elected betters put on. Kagan's supporters on the Democratic side spend their time telling us how she's the most qualified nominee in the history of judges and law, that merely asking her a negatively toned question is likely to make God weep, and that any opposition to putting her immediately on the Supreme Court is rooted in the blackest evil, the foulest magic, and darkest blood rituals.

On the other hand, the GOP concocts scenarios in which her activist judicial fiats will split the earth in two in a literal orgy of flag burning illegal Mexican immigrants performing mandatory abortions on the Children of God, and how it is entirely conceivable that the President has nominated a dangerous mental defective and terrorist sleeper agent who, the second she gets on the bench, will strap C4 to herself and make for the Constitution.

You know how it is. It pretty much went by that book yesterday. But there was an unexpected addendum to yesterday's proceeding. Apparently going after Kagan was not enough, so the GOP decided to set their sights on another ACTIVIST JUDGE: Thurgood Marshall, who is apparently a massive shitbag.

Looks like Senate Judiciary Republicans have at least one unified talking point today: Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American to ever serve on the Supreme Court, was an "activist judge." As Elena Kagan kept on her listening face, multiple senators slammed both Marshall's judicial philosophy and her service as his clerk in the late 1980s.
...
In an example of how much the GOP focused on Marshall, his name came up 35 times. President Obama's name was mentioned just 14 times today.

Ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said Kagan's reverence for Marshall "tells us much about the nominee," and he meant that more as an indictment than a compliment.

The Washington Post says the Republicans even went so far as to pass out opposition research on Justice Marshall. Thurgood Marshall! You know, the guy who argued Brown v. The Board of Education, worked tirelessly on civil rights, and worked to fix institutional barriers of racial discrimination. That Thurgood Marshall. He was apparently a massively activist asshole. So, of course, the GOP spent an entire day trying to tear him down, discredit him, and attack him in order to knock Kagan's time spent as a law clerk for Marshall. One of the most accomplished, important justice and lawyer in US legal history. I'm not sure they even asked Kagan a question.

But there is one question we do need the answer to: would current GOP Senators vote to confirm Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court?

Sen. Orrin Hatch, like many Republicans these days, is arguing that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s hero, Thurgood Marshall, was an activist judge and that raises questions about Kagan’s judicial philosophy.
...
I caught up with Hatch after today’s confirmation hearing to ask an obvious question: Would Hatch have voted for Marshall?

“Well, its hard to say,” Hatch said.

Jesus Christ.

/throws up hands, walks away

Razing Arizona

If you've been wondering how Arizona could get even classier and find a way to top its "HEY! YOU LOOK MEXICAN!" law, they're here to tell you they've finally thought of it. You know how we all hate the Constitution? You're in luck, Arizona does too.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona — and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution — to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state senator Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene.
...
But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the anchor and leave.
...
But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says.

Ah yes, the quintessentially American state of mind that causes us to see our laws and way of life as under an imaginary threat ("The Mexicans is takin' over illegally!") and then go about dismantling those freedoms, undermining that way of life, and violating our laws in order to "protect" ourselves. This time that onerous 14th Amendment has to go. Just who does that legal document outlining the supreme law of the United States think it is?

So head back to Mexico illegals and take your US citizen children with you. The Governor says so. Stop plaguing us with the "wrong" and "immoral" ways in which you situation confiens to our Constitution. What did your children do to deserve to be citizens anyway? It's not like they did what Governor Brewer and Rep. Pearce did to become citizens: be born white and then act with a smug sense of entitlement that they "earned" their natural born citizenship.

So eat it, Mexicans and the Constitution. Mexicans, sure, your US born kids might be US citizens, but consider this your first lesson in the way American works: our laws usually have tons of wiggle room when it comes to "the tans" and "the darks". Teach your kids that... from Guadalajara. And to the Constitution, sure we may bleat on and on about how you're the supreme law of the land, but that's only when you don't piss off right wing white people and their attempts to demonize minorities for naked political purposes. Then you're an onerous burden. Shape up or we'll start ignoring you on even more stuff besides the 14th amendment and all the war on terror/spying stuff. Get it straight.

Cheap Blogging Crutch 06.09

From Buzzfeed's Annotated Guide To Images From The Anti-BP Movement

In We All Know This Intuitively news the AP has kindly revealed that 58% of all the judges in areas affected by the BP spill have financial ties to the oil industry. Seems low. Just wanted you to know that in case you were getting any ideas in your head about "They'll get theirs through the legal system." Nah, kid, nah.

Breaking from years of established US government and official New World immigration policy, Native Americans have been allowed a legal victory that will seemingly come without betrayal from the white man, smallpox blankets, mass slaughter, some horribly inhumane forced resettlement, or a cloying portrayal as cat people in a James Cameron movie. It seems some in the justice system have forgotten the principles this country was founded on: fucking over Indians at all costs. Hopefully this is stopped before they gain the sense and legal standing to get justice on all that other stuff we, by which I mean all the white people who were here before my ancestors immigrated here, did to them.

With all the reports of environmental calamity coming from the Gulf, it's hard not to consider the worst case scenarios for the entire region, economy, and wildlife. But what about considering the worst case scenario for BP? Thankfully Andrew Ross Sorkin goes through what might happen and the possible future is quite a theoretical delight. Bankruptcy, cleanup costs going over $20 billion, $15 billion in claims, billions in Clean Water Act fines, Tony Hayward being pushed into a wheat thresher and then having pig excrement rubbed in his wounds, endless litigation, an unrepairable reputation, and BP being forced to break itself up are all possible options. All of them might happen. I'm crossing my fingers for the wheat thresher one. Just keep thinking positive and they all might happen.

In Punishing the Whistle-blowers, Not the Criminals They Expose news, the US Intelligence analyst who exposed the video of helicopter gunmen essentially murdering innocent civilians was arrested. It's nice to know what our priorities as a country are: arrest people who expose wrongdoing; let the perpetrators who flagrantly breaks laws off scot free while continuing their illegal policies. We have an awesome country.

Rolling Stone has put up an article on the BP oil spill and the Obama response. It should essentially be titled The Shit You Should Actually Be Mad At Obama Over. It goes over the hiring of cronies, the failure to reform MMS, and all the other problems we pointed out before. It'd be a good place for our media to start taking a look. But instead we'll continue to get stories about whether Obama needs to get angrier, the crisis over Obama not showing enough anger, and now: did Obama show too much anger when he said "know whose ass to kick" on the TV? Like I said, our priorities as a country are just super.

In closing we leave you with a review of Willow Ufgood/Wicket's biography Size Matters Not.

Honesty

We've heard a lot of bullshit flung about during this Deepwater Horizon crisis. From Tony Hayward's proclamations that it wasn't going to be that bad and in the grand scheme of things it's only a small bit of oil, to the various pronouncements of shills that people were blowing this out of proportion, to denial of oil plumes, to the proclamation from Sen. David Vitter yesterday that old man Obama's offshore drill ban was going to do more damage than the spill itself, the flow off bullshit has almost been as pronounced as the flow of oil into the gulf.

So it's nice when someone has the stones to throw out the unvarnished truth about the situation.

"If you were affected in Louisiana," said Brian O'Neill, an attorney with the firm Faegre & Benson, "to use a legal term, you are just fucked."

And who is Brian O'Neill? Only the man who represented tens of thousand of fishermen and other claimants in the Exxon-Valdez disaster. He continues.

"These big oil companies, they have a different view of time and politics than we do," he added. "The fact that BP hard-asses it a little bit for 5 to 10 to 15 years, despite all the bad publicity there may be between segments of society and BP as a result [of this spill]. Exxon sure weathered it really well. The market went up the next day for Exxon stock [after the settlement]. They just thrived despite treating an entire state poorly. And there is a lesson there for BP, and that is: it really doesn't matter whether you treat these people nicely or not. The only difference is if you extract oil."

He is of course referring to the fact that Exxon dragged the court cases out for two decades and ended up having their monetary liability reduced from $5 billion to $500 million by the Supreme Court.

So we'd like to thank Mr. O'Neill for being one of the guys willing to tell the truth about the future of lawsuits against BP. The horrible, horrible, legally tortuous, won't have to pay what they owe, dragged out for decades, people get screwed, awful truth. Thanks, Sunshine. You maybe want to wait until there isn't so much oil gushing into the sea before you tell everyone they're fucked?

Cheap Blogging Crutch 06.04

Portland artist Alexander Rokoff painted a portrait of Modest Mouse frontman Issac Brock... standing in front of a boar whist wearing lederhosen. This is not that important, except for the part where it now hangs in the office of the mayor of the city of Portland, Oregon. Eat it, Eric Judy and Jeremiah Green!

Sean's off on a street corner, preaching from the bible he wrote and looking for "converts", so it falls to me to recount the things that happened today that weren't related to oil being everywhere. That doesn't leave much, so there's some oil stuff in here too. Fuck you if you don't like it.

Local Pittsburgh politician and future victim of having trash dumped on his lawn, Councilman Matt Drozd, has a bright idea for the Stanley Cup finals going on right now between Philadelphia and Chicago: he wants people in Pittsburgh to root for Philly based on some arcane tax revenue/yay Pennsylvania reasons. After my urge to stab him subsided, I decided to honor the Flyers in much the way I'm sure they did when the Pens were in the Finals the past two years... but then I decided against urinating on myself while decrying a league wide conspiracy against my team. Fuck you Drozd and don't ever suggest -even in jest- that we root for anything to happen to Philadelphia besides some epically Biblical smiting.

Let's check the score on BP and celebrities. Listened to Kevin Costner? Check. Listened to James Cameron? That's a negatory good buddy, with BP turning down the director/undersea documentarian's help in providing access to underwater equipment/technicians. Cameron responded by saying "those morons don't know what they're doing" and referred to BP's handling of access to video and the site as "asking the perpetrator to give you the video of the crime scene". Uh-oh, looks like I know who the thinly veiled, subtle as a sledgehammer, mustache twirling villains of Avatar 2 are going to be. Hurts, doesn't it, neocons?

In "Democracy" news, Diebold, the crooked, politically active, former makers of easily hacked and zero paper trail voting machines, had to pay $25 million to the SEC to settle a fraud case. The SEC will continue to pursue criminal charges against three of Diebold's executives. Gee, if this is the way they handle their books and their accounting, it really warms your heart to think about the way they handled all those voting machines.

In "This is how the world works" news, a recent lawsuit that attempted to sue pretty much every energy company for creating emissions and global warming conditions that helped exacerbate Hurricane Katrina -effectively a trial on global warming- will not be allowed to continue. Why? because so many of the judges on the 16 judge appeals court panel had to recuse themselves because of "conflicts of interest" with the energy companies, that no true majority opinion can be reached and thus the case cannot proceed. So that makes it pretty much all three branches of government that are completely entwined with private interests. I was worried it was only two.

A study recently published by two UCLA economics professors showed a surprisingly political effects between "nudging" people about energy conservation -i.e. providing energy saving tips as well as information on electricity usage to households- and energy consumption. Those who were registered Democrats who received the "nudges" tended to cut consumption by 3-6%. But those who were registered Republicans actually increased consumption as a result of the "nudges". They essentially scientifically showed that conservatives would actively act out against their own interests if they received what they perceived as a "liberal"/"pussy environmentalist" message on it. For further evidence of this phenomenon, I submit the past two decades in US politics.

Finally we close with the best orangutan/hound-dog buddy video of the week. Caution: you might overdose on cute and go into catatonic "Awwwwwww" shock.

Bang on, Supreme Court!

A week ago, the Obama Administration and Republican Senator Lindsay Graham were in negotiations to "modify" (read: weaken) the Miranda Law. Why? Of course it was because of teh turrists and turrism and our new found principles that to protect our rights, we must weaken, remove, and ignore our rights.

It was one of the residual pants shitting maneuvers left from the Times Square bomber. And none to soon. Once it was revealed that the authorities read him his rights, everyone went nuts. "How dare they read a terrorist his rights!" That he talked, was cooperative, and gave us useful intelligence and answers afterward is ignored. By refusing to immediately waterboard him, declare him an enemy combatant, and start in with the Jack Bauer shit, it didn't make us feel manly as a country. This cannot stand! So we must step in and take manly Miranda weakening measures.

About that. Seems the Supreme Court decided to get there and weaken it first.

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the court said that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.
...
"Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent - which counterintuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

Will everyone act surprised when I tell them that this was a 5-4 decision? It was a 5-4 decision! And cue shocked faces.... nicely done, dear readers.

That's right, the Supreme Court ruled that in order to have an inherent right, you must invoke it. I think that's the way most inherent rights works. I mean if something is inherent that means you have to explicitly state it aloud or it doesn't apply. That's what inherent means, right?

I mean that's how we work free speech and freedom of the press. Unless we start each statement or news story with "I am invoking my rights to free speech from now until the end of this statement/story" we are liable to be thrown in jail for whatever we say/write. This decision just codifies that for legal proceedings and the Miranda Law.

So, bang up job, Supremes. With you and our elected betters at work, we're well on our way to making it so that the only rights we have are the ones we're told we're allowed to have in the designated areas and times we're allowed to have those rights in. I'm sure this'll be the death blow to Al Qaeda and all who would do us harm.

Your new liberal Satan

"Chicks on the bench! I am literally thrilled about these developments. Wait till I tell Flo about this!"
"Mr. President, he's not going to speak about me or give me another awkward massage, is he?"
"No, on the former, probably on the latter. I'll call Rahm and see it we can't find Joe a skee-ball machine to occupy his time with."

President Obama has nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be his choice to replace the retiring John Paul Stevens on the highest court in the land. We look forward to the kabuki confirmation process where her not answering any questions that reveal any kind of judicial thought is heralded as a necessary part of being selected to sit on the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, her confirmation is about to get all kinds of politically stupid, what with her alternately being the most accomplished nominee in the history of mankind/a liberal fascist set to yoke us under the brutal command of socialist abortion doctors who are also illegal Muslim -Mexican immigrants. So, we decided to perform a public service and give you the pros and cons of her nomination so you can be informed.

Pro: Either looks like American Comedian Kevin James or British Comedian David Mitchell, so is probably very funny.
Con: In perusing her writings I have found nothing as funny as this.

Pro: As an Obama court pick, it would be assumed that she holds all kinds of liberal positions.
Con: No, not really.

Pro: Would probably support a lot of things liberals support, right?
Con: Nope. Supports the ideological framework of the Bush/Cheney war on terror, the "rightness" behind their efforts, has spent her time as Solicitor General defending the Bush/Cheney and, to a slightly lesser extent, Obama approach to executive power, and isn't that great on civil liberties either.

Pro: Has a limited record and paper trail outlining her ideas.
Con: Wait, that's a good thing? Seriously? Doesn't sound like it.

Pro: As Papa Joe says, "Chicks on the bench!"
Con: Recent science suggest that the female uterus unmoors the basic fundamentals of our legal system and warps the legalistic underpinning of reality. Probably has something to do with estrogen.

Pro: Isn't a "goat fucking, child molester".
Con: That'll probably lose her both of Florida Senator's Bill Nelson and George LeMieux's votes.

Pro: Lots of people say we should take a leap of faith with Obama on this one and trust him.
Con: How'd that work out on health care, financial reform, environmental legislation, rolling back Bush era power grabs, ending the war on terror...

Pro: Nice, safe, middle of the road pick.
Con: Nice, safe, middle of the road pick.

Pro: Still, she'd ostensibly move the court to the left..... right?
Con: Nope. Weren't you paying attention? Considerably more conservative than Stevens.

Pro: Non-judge, so probably less judgmental.
Con: Maybe a judge is what you want sitting on the highest court in the land.

Pro: If she has such a conservative bent on civil liberties and executive power, then she won't be attacked by the right for being a leftist peacenik, right?
Con: What, were you born last fucking week or something?

Stay classy, BP

With oil quickly replacing water as the main liquid in the Gulf of Mexico, of course you expect failed rig proprietors BP to take extensive steps... to mitigate the damage to their asses from a legal and financial standpoint. Actually stopping that leak? That's in God's hands now. After all, this whole mess was an Act of God. If He wanted the dinosaur blood to stop seeping from the earth, He would have stopped it. Not to mention the fact that if He didn't want it to happen, He wouldn't have exploded the rig or lobbied against stiffer safety regulations. God... what a scamp He is.

No, the time is right for BP to make sure that all the people about to see any body of water or shoreline consumed by murky blackness have already ceded their legal rights to hold BP responsible for the actions for which they are completely responsible.

BP has been offering $5000 payments to residents of coastal Alabama areas, in exchange for essentially giving up their right to sue the oil giant over its deadly Gulf Coast spill, according to the state's attorney general.

AG Troy King last night urged BP to stop the effort, and told Alabamians to be wary. "People need to proceed with caution and understand the ramifications before signing something like that," King said, according to the Alabama press.

A spokesman for BP told a reporter that the waiver clause had now been removed from the contracts, and that the company won't enforce it in contracts that were previously signed.

Sure. You know whenever a large multinational corporation from a powerful industrial concern gets people to sign carefully constructed legal documents in an attempt to protect their corporate asses from any molecule of justice, they always freely say they won't ever try to get people to abide by them in a court and volunteer to make the legally binding agreements weaker. That's standard practice. Especially when your CEO is out there trying to claim that

"It wasn't our accident," he told the Today Show on Monday. Pressed by anchor Meredith Vieira, Hayward claimed: "the drilling rig was a Transocean drilling rig. It was their rig and their equipment that failed, run by their people, their processes."

Yeah, I'm sure BP will live up to their legal and financial obligations. Especially when they openly balk at paying for everything they've done... in front of sitting US Senators.

So thanks to BP for keeping their priorities in line here. Cover your asses first, attempt to weasel out of responsibility and culpability second, worry about stopping that massive oil slick your shoddy practices caused... who knows when, the future is such a far off place.

Guns for terrorists

With the recent Times Square bombing plot foiled and capture of the alleged perpetrator, we are again bombarded with suggestions from our political betters on what to do with such haters of freedom.

They want the terrorists interrogated to the exacting dramatical standards of our top terrorism related TV shows. Gitmo! Under no circumstances are they to be Mirandized or afforded any sort of minor legal protections... even if it helps out intelligence gathering and legal efforts. If they are in fact American citizens, just strip them of that citizenship so we can torture and imprison them easier. Double Gitmo! Smoke them for hours over mesquite chips, thinly slice them, pile them up on rye bread with brown mustard, and eat them... for liberty's sake. It doesn't matter, just make sure these people aren't afforded any discernible legal protection or allow them to be within shouting distance of anything that could be called a Constitutional right.

Well, unless....

New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's appeal to what he called "common sense" at a congressional hearing Wednesday morning failed to sway two Republican senators who said that giving the government the ability to block the purchase of guns by suspected terrorists would undermine the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.
...
Admitting that "at first blush" the bill "seems to be an obvious step that we should take," Collins said that many people on the FBI's watchlist don't belong there. "None of us wants a terrorist to be able to purchase a gun, but neither should we want to infringe upon a Constitutional right of law-abiding Americans," she said.

Graham described the bill as an instrument of those who would ban guns altogether. "We're talking about a constitutional right here," he said, explaining that he could not support a bill that would force "innocent Americans" to "pay the cost of going to court to get their gun rights back."

Graham wasn't nearly as concerned about rights when he launched into a disquisition on the treatment of American citizens accused of terrorism. "I am all into national security," he said. "I want them to stop reading these guys Miranda rights."

That's right, these terrorists are dangerous, America hating monsters and they should be treated as if they have no legal rights... but it'll be a cold, cold day in hell before you're allowed to infringe on a terrorist's right to by a gun in America. I mean you can sit back all day and listen to GOP lawmakers tell you all the ways in which terrorist suspects aren't really people and aren't covered by any facet of US law, international law, or the Constitution... except when it comes to the Second Amendment. No, the Second clearly has a specific clause about infringing the rights of terrorists.

So remember, no matter how much Mirandizing suspects and treating them as if they had legal rights helps us gain information, it is a practice we should stop. But if say there were a way to stop terrorist suspects from buying guns or at least identify that they were purchasing guns, like say... in March... in Connecticut... a month before they were to attempt to bomb Times Square... we should under no circumstances try to stop it. Because of the Constitutional protections that don't seem to apply when dealing with any other aspect of terrorists rights.

In case you wanted to know how completely owned our elected betters were by the gun lobby... that's how completely owned. They won't even oppose taking guns away from terrorists inside our country. Stay safe!

Contract law

Via Reavis Eitel comes a look at how the inimitable Hunter S. Thompson viewed TV production companies, interviews, documentaries, and contracts. Especially contracts.

Click to embiggen, you awful jackass.

Things you don't want to hear analysts say

When we all heard that Goldman-Sachs was being sued by the SEC for purposely selling bad products to its customers and betting against them, the reaction was mixed: we couldn't decide whether to laugh, pump our fists, high five the nearest bystander, yell "'bout fuckin' time", or just prepare for the inevitable disappointment when nothing of any importance happens to them as a consequence. We chose instead to wait outside Matt Taibbi's house for what we assumed would be one of the most exultant and joyous celebration keggers in recent memory.

Of course the SEC lawsuit caused them a hit in their stock price. Alleging massive fraud tends to do that. But not to worry, our financial betters see rosy clouds on the horizon and decided to state it in the most naked way possible:

Analysts Bullish On Goldman's Stock, Citing Political Relationships

Doesn't that headline just warm the cockles of your heart? Why does Fitch Ratings give Goldman an "A+" rating, FBR Capital Markets give a "Outperform" rating, Bernstein Research note that the bank's long-term potential remains "attractive", and Rochdale Securities said the stock is still worth buying? Why, because of how well Goldman has entwined itself within the levers of power and among our elected betters. Something about a vampire squid wrapping itself around something, jamming its blood funnel into something.

So don't shed a tear for Goldman Sachs. No, they'll make out all right. Little things like SEC lawsuits that say you engaged in a conspiracy to defraud your own customers don't matter, you're still a good buy. Why? Because you used all that money you sucked out of the corpse of this country to buy some powerful BFF's. Well done. In fact, buy their stock. It's probably the only surefire way to get your money back after you listened to their investment advice.

Cheap Blogging Crutch 04.16

U.S. Accuses Goldman Sachs of Fraud
Today the US Government filed a civil suit against Goldman-Sachs alleging that they created and sold mortgage investments that were secretly designed to fail. By "alleged" we of course mean to say "they totally fucking did it". Shocking that a corporation that made money off of betting against the investments it sold to its customers might also be accused of nefarious deeds surrounding those investments. That sound you heard off in the distance? Matt Taibbi's boner ripping through his pants so fast that it broke the sound barrier.

The Price of Assassination
Now that our country openly advocates for assassinating our own citizens without a trial as part of our terrorist leadership decapitation strategies, one wonders: does any of this actually work? Robert Wright brings to a light a recent study that shows that decapitation strikes and assassinations are more likely to prolong the life of a organization. What a shocker, providing martyrs and rallying events for terrorist groups doesn't help shut them down. Next you're going to tell we that bombing a civilian's home doesn't make him more likely to love us.

A GOP Financial Reform Bellwether
If you had to guess what the upcoming GOP strategy for opposing financial reform was, what would it be? Outright lying, right? And well guessed by you, But this time there's an interesting twist: boldly stating the opposite of what is going on. No mere word twisting and blowing minor events out of proportion, now, we've moved straight into complaining about the opposite of what is going on. Time outlines this strategy and how closely GOP leaders are hewing to the poll tested evil of Frank Luntz.

Gates criticizes leaks group for war video
What happens when a group leaks footage of your soldiers essentially murdering a bunch of innocent people for no real reason? Well, if you're Defense Secretary Robert Gates the answer certainly isn't "apologize, investigate what went wrong, and punish those who did this and covered it up." No, the natural reaction for him is to complain that it was leaked, whine on about context and perspective, and cry about how the leakers aren't going to be punished. You know, like an adult would. He is right though, the video doesn't show the invisible terrorist ghosts that the helicopter pilots were firing at. Wikileaks just doesn't have the proper ectoplasmic video filters. Stay classy, Bob.

Pugnacious D
With Treme debuting on HBO and being so good that it got renewed for a second season after one episode, it's always interesting to delve into the mind of it's creator, and the creator of the Wire, David Simon. New York Magazine provides an extensive interview with the man.

Shadow Caster
The LA Times Magazine delves into the noir-ish history of LA police chief William H. Parker and gangster Mickey Cohen. Crooked cops, shakedown squads, Rollo Tomasi, classic gangster behavior, and how an uneasy truce between the cops and crooks went to hell when a crooked vice squad tried to shake down Cohen. An outtake adapted from the book L.A. Noir: The Struggle for the Soul of America’s Most Seductive City. Reading about this kind of thing will never get old.

Nubs

In our day to day travels and interactions I think we find one thing we all have in common: we'd all like to violently assault a quadruple amputee for tenuous reasons. I just don't know why that is, but we'd all like to do it. Maybe it's human nature.

Now it goes without saying that in the larger community you'll be lionized and vindicated by public opinion. But then again, public opinion isn't legal opinion. So when John Law comes knocking on your door, remember to tell him that you assaulted that quadruple amputee in self-defense. Like this guy, Minnesota resident Jacoby Smith.

Bell was in no position to defend herself, being that both hands and both legs were amputated due to a childhood illness. But Smith says don't let that fool you--Bell is like a handless, legless Ultimate Fighter.

"She'll swing, push me down and choke me with her nubs," Smith told the Pioneer Press.

We've said it time and time again: amputees are predators and we must defend ourselves from them at all costs. Did no one see the Fugitive?

But rest easy, this story has a happy ending. Despite the fact that he beats her, she apparently beats him with the fury of Ken Shamrock and Fedor Emelianenko, and the fact that she cheats on him, these two lovebirds/sparring partners are going to get married. True love, dear readers.

Fare thee well, Justice Stevens

After nearly 35 years on the Supreme Court and 90 years on the earth, Supreme Court Justice and former Led Zeppelin bassist John Paul Stevens is retiring.

Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, the leader of the liberals on the Supreme Court, announced on Friday that he will retire at the end of this term, setting up a confirmation battle over his replacement that could dominate the political scene this summer.

In a brief letter to President Obama, whom he addressed as “my dear Mr. President,” Justice Stevens said he was announcing his retirement now because he had “concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Court to have my successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the commencement of the Court’s next term” in October.

Is he going to molest children with David Souter, tour with Them Crooked Vultures, or is he just retiring so he can vie for a prestigious nomination to Judge Judy's seat on the TV Court? Who knows. All we do know is that this will invariably set off some apocalyptic struggle over his replacement. I think we all remember how classy the Sotomayor confirmation was... well that was when the Democrats had some limited measure of control over confirming her. Now?

Maybe I'm overreacting. It's not like GOP leaders talking about filibustering the next Obama Supreme Court nominee a few days before Stevens retired, is it?

The second-ranking Republican in the Senate suggested on Sunday that the party would filibuster the next appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, if that nominee were deemed to be outside of the judicial mainstream.

"It will all depend on what kind of a person it is," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) declared during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday." "I think the president should nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person."

And what is an overly ideological person? Anyone the President nominates. Even though anyone he nominates will probably be considerably less liberal than Stevens is/was.

Still, Kyl is at least a damn sight better than the Bachmann types who will be livid that this Obama fellow thinks he has some Constitutional power to appoint people of his choosing to vacant Supreme Court positions. The nerve! He's shoving judicial nominees down people's throats! This all sounds Maoist... or Stalinist! Tyranny!

So, just in case you thought there was a possibility that American politics would get... we won't say smarter... but.... less.... monstrously stupid, well, I hate to break it to you, but those hopes got shanked in a prison shower. In any event, this will be great fodder for Sean and myself. We eagerly await meeting the new liberal Satan who will invariably wish to bring about the destruction of this country and replace democracy with some sort of communist fiefdom where abortion is the only currency. Good times!

Cheap Blogging Crutch 03.31

Up In Smoke: How Marijuana Ruined States’ Chances Of Invalidating Health Care Law In Court
The passage of health care set off a rash of frivolous lawsuits from state AG's with hopes for higher office and a penchant for wasting the money of cash strapped governments in times of economic crisis. Will they succeed? No. But that inevitability isn't so much interesting as why they will fail to succeed, besides the basic "not understanding the Constitution" thing. Essentially the Supreme Court, and Antonin Scalia in particular, recently ruled in a marijuana case that the government had a right to regulate interstate non-economic activity as a part of regulating interstate commerce. So unless Scalia totally reverses his opinion for political means, any challenge that makes it to the Supremes isn't likely to even pass muster with the conservative wing. Actually, that sounds incredibly likely. Still, marijuana: is there anything it can't do?

Beijing to sweeten stench of rubbish crisis with giant deodorant guns
For some countries a sensible response to a garbage crisis would be better collection and disposal methods, moves to make sure less waste is produced, or even recycling programs. Not China though. Instead of actually responding to their crippling garbage crisis they've just decided to buy a really big can of Axe body spray and just drench their trash in it so people don't have to smell it. Efforts are already underway to paint the trash to look like land and convincing people to ignore it. I think we may have to admit that China may be taking the lead away from us in the Ignoring Potentially Disastrous Environmental Problems category. Ouch. We really seem to cherish that one too.

Art of the Steal: On the Trail of World’s Most Ingenious Thief
What if you were a savant. And not one of those crappy ones who is only good at something like math, the viola, or counting toothpicks that Charlie Babbitt dropped on the floor. No, a savant at stealing shit. Such is the skill of one Gerald Blanchard, a man with the preternatural ability to seemingly exploit any flaw in security. Wired tells his story and how he was caught by two Winnipeg cops.

The most dangerous drug isn't meow meow. It isn't even alcohol...
Charlie Brooker, the man who did this, explains how newspapers, especially newspapers covering drugs, are the most dangerous mind destroying drug on the planet. And he's talking about British ones too. I imagine if he ever had to read an American one or watch American 24 hour news, he'd take his own life.

New Study Estimates Mass Deportation Of Undocumented Immigrants Would Cost $285 Billion
In a tremendous blow to Mexican hating everywhere, it turns out that if we decided everyone in the restaurant, service, farming, and labor industries it'd cost close to $300 billion, or $922 in tax dollars for everyone in the US. Everyone American that is. Not to mention it would completely depopulate California and force white people to get their hands dirty while laboring... and maybe completely cripple US economic growth. Plus who would militias and border state Republicans and Southern Republicans and most Republicans hate then? The Polish? On the other hand, if you put undocumented workers on a path to legalization, it could add nearly $1.5 trillion to GDP over the next decade. I think we know the clear and obvious path here. You start rounding up Mexicans and I'll go door to door collecting $922 a person.

Broken News: Entire NFL Charged in Nightclub Altercation

MIAMI—The Miami-Dade sheriff’s department announced today that they were charging the entire National Football League with aggravated assault and public drunkenness following a nightclub altercation with a woman late last week.

“After a thorough investigation, we feel we have enough evidence to proceed with formal charges against every player in the NFL,” announced Sgt. Adam Harlan, lead investigator on the case.

“On the evening of March 26th, every player was seen at Opium, a trendy hotspot on the strip,” the Sgt. explained, laying out the facts of the case. “It was at this point that every player was seen partaking of drinks in the VIP section of the club. At a later point every player approached a young woman, who will remain nameless, and attempted to hit on her. After she rebuffed the advances of every player, every player in turn verbally berated her and threw their drink at her, causing some bruising. At this point, authorities were called and police arrived at the scene to find every player intoxicated and staggering around the streets of downtown Miami. After a thorough investigation, it was decided that formal charges are in order.”

As yet, there has been no official response from the NFL, but sources close to Commissioner Roger Goodell noted that he seemed to be dismayed by the actions of every player, would be calling every player in to talk about the incident, and would be following the case closely from this point forward.

While these sources noted that talk was preliminary and subject to the results of the trial, they noted that Goodell was considering a suspension of every player in the league for anywhere from one to four games pending a conviction.

What appears to be troubling the Commissioner most is the fact that out of the nearly 1,696 beverages that simultaneously hit the alleged victim, from simple gin and tonics to Jägerbombs to seltzer to straight Jack Daniels, initial forensic testing shows that several of the nearly 30 jewel encrusted pimp cups that struck the women we laced with a medicinal codeine syrup commonly referred to as “syzurrup” or “purple drank”.

The NFL Player's Association was not so judicious in its commentary on the case.

“While we note that every player will co-operate thoroughly with this investigation, we feel that every player will, in the end, be exonerated of any wrongdoing,” announced NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith. “Besides, what kind of women hangs around almost 1,700 men and their entourages of nearly an additional 6,000 men? Perhaps she was asking for the contents of nearly three liquor stores and one-third of an ice truck to be thrown on her.”

For others, this just seems to be part of an ongoing problem the league needs to rectify and shows a lack of common sense on the part of every player.

“I think every player needs to take a serious look at the kind of positions they put themselves into. Maybe every player shouldn’t be out at the club on a Friday night,” observed Sport Illustrated columnist Peter King in his Monday Morning Quarterback football column, in between three paragraphs on lattes and a section on baseball spring training. “I just don’t think every player should be out doing this kind of thing, as I happen to know that several hundred of them are married.”

While some are unsure of what the commonly held “they shouldn’t put themselves in this position” principle exactly means when every pundit says it, most think it ranges from “don’t go out to a bar or club or anywhere where fun might be occurring” to “don’t let sunlight hit your skin or breathe outside air unless it’s for a football related reason.”

In any event, every player has retained the services of several hundred law firms and has vowed to fight this battle in court. Every player asks that you please respect their privacy and the legal proceedings until such a time as a verdict is rendered.

The trial is expected to begin in late July.

Your daily reminder that justice doesn't exist

You all remember the Westboro Baptist Church, don't you? Fred Phelps and his bunch of crazies? They picket anything gay related with charming signs like "God hates fags" and "God hates you" and have taken to picketing gay funerals with even more charming signs about the deceased burning in hell. They're like a deranged cult, but without that great part at the end where they castrate themselves and drink strychnine according to some astrological chart.

In recent years they've taken to protesting military funerals with their atypical tact and class, choosing to blame the military deaths on America's tolerance of homosexuals. Well one father who had to go through their hateful idiocy at his son's funeral decided to sue them on the basis that they invaded his privacy and intentionally caused him emotional distress. He originally won millions in judgment. The appeals courts decided to see it another way.

The father of a U.S. Marine killed in Iraq has been ordered to pay $16,510.80 to a family that protested his son's funeral in Maryland.
...
The judgment is a setback for Mr. Snyder, who has been fundraising to cover the costs of the Supreme Court action with hopes of finally bringing Phelps' followers to their knees.

"Armed the with knowledge that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to review the case, the Court of Appeals made the decision concerning assessing costs," Mr. Snyder's lawyers said in a statement. "This decision is tantamount to adding insult to injury."

Not only did he have these assholes picket his son's funeral, he got to pay them for the privilege of them doing so. Because, as the court ruled, "as utterly distasteful as these signs are, they involve matters of public concern." Because where would this country be if inbred fundamentalists weren't able to invade someone's funeral to chastise, insult, hurt, and abuse mourners? I'd thank the courts for ordering the continued funding of Westboro, but Snyder will likely have to go into bankruptcy because he can't afford to pay Fred Phelps.

Rest easy, the courts today affirmed your right as a God given American to act like a completely subhuman piece of shit and get rewarded for it. So, happy day. American justice strikes again.

Bigotry follies

Back in October President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard Act which added "perceived or actual sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability" to the 1969 federal hate crimes law. While some saw this as a long overdue addition to our legal code, others saw this as a trampling of free speech. I mean sure, this only is for violent acts of murder, assault, intimidation, and terrorism, but what about those who fear that this might affect them or their churches ability to bash an demonize gays? The law says that isn't going to happen, but can't people just whine about it anyway as some sort of flimsy pretext for stripping protection for gays from state law? Sure they can.

Such was the case in Oklahoma, where they didn't buy into this notion that gays are people too, so they set off to seriously de-gay their hate crimes laws. HOW DARE YOU REFER TO THEM AS OKLAHOMO! So they decided to write a bill that tried to severely hamstring those rights under state law and not allow state or local authorities to report or share hate crimes information with the feds pertaining to Title 18 U.S. Code Section 245. That's where the problem began.

Protections for sexual orientation and gender identity are actually under Section 249.
...
Section 245 of the Code refers to race and religious protections. Therefore, Oklahoma actually passed a statute allowing state law enforcement officials to keep information about crimes motivated by race or religion out of the hands of federal authorities.

“The bill in its current form doesn’t take away rights from gays and lesbians,” Oklahoma State Senate Minority Leader Andrew Rice explained. “It takes away rights for religion and race.”

I'm sure the race protections being stripped out was just a happy accident, but they'll be hopping mad about religious persecution being stripped out. That's what this whole thing was pretending to be about in the first place. First they try to knock out protections for violence against gays based on "uhhhh.... religion and stuff" (caution: legal terminology), but end up stripping hate crime protection from religion. It's almost as if God was trying to tell them something about hate and using religious cover as a pretext for bigotry. Or He was at least trying to make a point about the general stupidity of state lawmakers and reading comprehension levels in Oklahoma.

Well done Oklahoma, we do love a good petard self-hoisting. Quit while you're ahead, otherwise you'll have legalized murder by the end of the week.