Patterico's Pontifications

6/19/2010

Radley Balko: If a Suspect Resists a Cop With Respect to a Minor Offense, the Cop Should Let the Suspect Go

Filed under: General,Morons — Patterico @ 1:54 am

How could anyone disagree with this surefire recipe for anarchy:

This started as a jaywalking citation. Was it it really so important that the woman get a jaywalking fine that she needed to be chased down and thrown against the patrol car? Even if she was trying to avoid the fine, seems like at some point you realize what’s at stake here (a single incident of someone undermining your authority to get away with a petty crime), and just let it go.

It’s amazing to me how far these radical libertarians take their anti-police prejudices. He actually wants cops to let people go because they are disobeying lawful orders.

Incredibly, a sizable number of his commenters are having none of it.

Uncut video here. If you are going to opine, you really should watch the whole thing.

6/15/2010

Every Cop’s Dream Arrest

Filed under: Crime,Morons — Jack Dunphy @ 9:25 pm

[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]

The L.A. Times reports on a defense attorney arrested for drug possession . . . at the downtown criminal courthouse. Priceless.

–Jack Dunphy

Eric Boehlert: No, Seriously! Kick Me!

Filed under: General,Morons — Patterico @ 7:20 am

Recently, Matt Welch and I utterly destroyed Eric Boehlert’s ridiculous claim that nobody at the L.A. Times was ever allowed to casually denigrate President Bush:

And I don’t even have to do a Google search to know for a fact that when President Bush was in office, there was nobody on staff at the Times, and certainly nobody writing off the opinion pages, who was allowed to so casually insult the office of the presidency on a regular basis.

Hahahahahahaha! Read Welch’s post and mine for the destruction of that singularly clueless claim.

I also observed that Boehlert’s whine about The Times’s terrible lack of respect for the office of the presidency was considerably undermined by the fact that he cross-posted his whinge at a site called The Smirking Chimp.

Boehlert has now responded — not with any undermining of Welch’s evidence, or mine, concerning his central complaint, but with this:

Fact: I did not “cross-publish” my column at The Smirking Chimp. Patterico might not now [sic] this, but in the wonderful world of the Internets, sometimes sites independently reproduce other writers’ work, which is exactly what The Smirking Chimp did with my column about the LA Times. As it does with many of my columns.

But Patterico makes a patently false claim about me in an attempt to portray me as a hypocrite; that I specifically cross-published my LA Times column at The Smirking Chimp. I did not.

Interesting, that word “specifically.” Almost like it’s a weasel word.

Let’s take a look at this claim that The Smirking Chimp “independently” republished Boehlert’s work, with no input from Boehlert. My conclusion: Boehlert is dissembling at a minimum, and more likely just flat-out lying.

Boehlert’s post appeared at something called “Eric Boehlert’s blog” at The Smirking Chimp:


Eric Boehlert’s blog

What does it take for a blog like that to appear? I decided to check it out last night.

I signed up at The Smirking Chimp last night, to get myself a blog just like Boehlert’s. I had to fill out a form, with my user name, e-mail address, and location. I then was e-mailed instructions, with a link I could click to log in and change my password. (I changed it to “boehlertsux.”) Once I went into my e-mail, followed that link, changed the password, and logged in, this is what what a portion of my user profile looked like:


The default user profile at The Smirking Chimp

See, the chimp is the default picture they give you at The Smirking Chimp when you first set up a blog. Boehlert had to specifically delete this and replace it with a different picture of himself.


Eric Boehlert: long-time member of The Smirking Chimp

Note the length of his membership: 3 years, 39 weeks. That’s a lengthy devotion to a site designed to mock the President of the United States.

Once I completed that signup process, I had a blog! Just like Eric Boehlert had conferred on him by magic, through no effort of his own!


My Smirking Chimp blog!

Here is what my profile looked like to outsiders:


My default profile

Looks mighty similar to Mr. Boehlert’s profile (except, of course, that he uploaded a non-chimp picture of himself):


Non-chimp pictures must be specifically uploaded

Only his happened by magic, while I had to work for mine!

So I started typing up a post. Here is what my editing screen looked like:


My editing screen

Finally, I published! Here was my finished product:


My post

Here it is with the (now defunct) URL:


The URL (no longer works!)

OK, I admit it. I voted for my own post, and gave it a 10.

It wasn’t enough.

All of a sudden, my world came crashing down around me. Within minutes, my profile was taken away:


Patterico: Banned at The Smirking Chimp

I tried to log in again with the “Patterico” user name and got this rough rebuke:


Account nuked!

Now, is it impossible that someone else set up “Eric Boehlert’s blog” with no input or authorization from Boehlert? Is it impossible that someone else uploaded his picture and set up the account almost four years ago?

No. Nothing is impossible. Why, my blog could be written by the reincarnation of Elvis.

But if someone else set up Eric Boehlert’s blog, let Eric Boehlert make that claim. Specifically.

I tried commenting at Media Matters to tell Boehlert some of the above facts: that his post was published at “Eric Boehlert’s blog,” for which he apparently had to sign up, in a lengthy process involving passwords and uploading pictures and such. But I am moderated at Media Matters. Here is the response I always get when I try to leave a comment:


Don’t bring your timely retorts here, buddy!

It usually takes a couple of days for my comments to appear. (It has not appeared yet as of the publication of this post, even though I left the comment around 5-6 p.m. Pacific last night.) After a couple of days, of course, nobody is reading the post any more.

That’s why they moderate me: to delay my rebuttals until the post is no longer being read.

Note the excuse: I haven’t left enough comments there. Except: I have commented at Media Matters! Again and again and again and again and again and again and again!

How many times do you have to post there not to be moderated for days?

I’m sure I haven’t found all the comments I have left there. I’m sure it’s been more than a dozen over the years.

Somehow, it’s not enough to allow me to make a timely response to Boehlert’s posts.

Boehlert makes a subsidiary point: that the L.A. Times and The Smirking Chimp are not comparable. That wasn’t my comparison, and Boehlert knows it. The comparison is between Andrew Malcolm and Boehlert. (There is no comparison, by the way.) Here’s the argument Boehlert is evading: if Boehlert claims Malcolm is no serious journalist because he denigrates the president, what does that say about Boehlert, who set up an account on a site specifically designed to denigrate President Bush?

See? When you state the argument honestly, it has some power, Boehlert. That’s why you construct strawmen instead. It’s the lazy man’s way out.

It’s your way out.

Oh . . . did I mention that Boehlert never addressed my main argument? Which was that he was dead wrong when he claimed that “when President Bush was in office, there was nobody on staff at the Times, and certainly nobody writing off the opinion pages, who was allowed to so casually insult the office of the presidency on a regular basis.”

Wrong-o, Boehlert old buddy old pal. That claim is dead on arrival. That’s why Boehlert is trying so desperately to change the subject.

UPDATE: More here.

6/14/2010

Eric Boehlert: Still Wearing the “Kick Me” Sign

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General,Morons — Patterico @ 7:08 am

Matt Welch vivisects Eric Boehlert in this excellent post at Reason. The subject: Boehlert’s whiny post about how Andrew Malcolm at the L.A. Times doesn’t show proper respect to the office of the president. I already took Boehlert’s post apart here — and noted here that it was cross-posted at a site called The Smirking Chimp. (Boehlert denies this, but I don’t believe him.) Welch adds considerable value to the pile-on by trolling through columns written by Bush-era L.A. Times columnists. Like my post, Welch’s entry focuses on Boehlert’s claim:

And I don’t even have to do a Google search to know for a fact that when President Bush was in office, there was nobody on staff at the Times, and certainly nobody writing off the opinion pages, who was allowed to so casually insult the office of the presidency on a regular basis.

This statement, which Welch compares to a “please kick me” sign that Boehlert has duct-taped to his own rumpus, is the subject of some merriment by Welch, who proceeds to list off some epithets used by former L.A. Times columnist Rosa Brooks about President Bush, including:

* “Bubble Boy”
* “homegrown authoritarian”
* “Torturer-in-Chief”

Plenty more at the link.

Welch’s piece inspired me to go trolling through the archives of another partisan columnist who was employed by the L.A. Times for a good while during Bush’s presidency: Robert Scheer. Scheer employed these lines to describe Bush and his policies:

Again, these are just a small handful. There are many, many more.

Why, Scheer even wanted Bush impeached. Has Andrew Malcolm called for Obama to be impeached?

Anyone else want to take up Boehlert’s invitation to put a boot in his ass?

6/6/2010

Kathleen Parker: Will Folks Is A Good Guy Whose Word I Accept, Even As He Engages in a “Political Rape” of Nikki Haley

Filed under: General,Morons — Patterico @ 6:59 pm

Unbelievable:

It bears mentioning that the players in this little drama are not equals. I’ve known Folks, a take-no-prisoners political blogger, for years and take him at his word when he says that a story was about to break about his alleged relationship. Recently married and a new father, he says he was attempting damage control when he broke the story himself.

I don’t condone or agree with his decision, but he’s no Marchant, whose earnest confession reeks of the self-service to which he has now consigned himself.

I also know Haley and take her at her word when she denies the allegations. . . . This isn’t only politics at its worst. It’s a persecution, a witch hunt, a political rape.

This is beyond incoherent. Parker is saying: Folks is a good guy who is nothing like that nasty Marchant. Also, he’s a liar engaging in a political rape, as he is claiming to have had an affair that I don’t believe he had.

Parker says she “resisted commenting on the Gores’ decision to split after 40 years of marriage because what possibly could I know?” However, she says, “I reluctantly decided to weigh in on the Haley story because therein lie issues of more general consequence.”

You should have resisted, Ms. Parker, if this drivel is the most insightful commentary you could churn out.

Thanks to Allahpundit.

3/23/2010

Joe Biden: Always a Class Act

Filed under: Buffoons,General,Morons — Jack Dunphy @ 12:09 pm

[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]

1/28/2010

Governator: Hey, I Have a Great Idea! Let’s Ship Our Illegal State Prisoners to Mexico!

Filed under: Crime,Morons — Patterico @ 8:01 pm

Idiot:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger floated a different approach to trimming down California’s bloated prison budget on Monday: pay Mexico to build new prisons and ship off California’s incarcerated illegal immigrants south of the border.

The Republican governor has pushed to house California inmates out-of-state before — but never in a different country.

“We can do so much better in the prison system alone if we can go and take inmates, for instance the 20,000 inmates that are illegal immigrants that are here, and get them to Mexico,” Schwarzenegger said during a question-and answer session at the Sacramento Press Club. “Think about it.”

OK, I will . . .

There, I’m done thinking.

Stupid idea.

P.S. I meant to publish this Monday but somehow never got around to pressing the “Publish” button. But several of you have e-mailed me about it in the meantime, so I sense that interest is high.

11/10/2009

Greenwald: Yelling “Allahu Akbar” During a Shooting Rampage Is Not Suggestive of Terrorism, and It’s Repellent of You to Claim Otherwise

Filed under: General,Morons — Patterico @ 10:11 pm

I couldn’t make up something this stupid if I tried. Glenn Greenwald:

Isn’t it fairly clear that the term “terrorism” is being applied to what Hasan did due to his religion rather than the acts themselves?

It’s about as clear as your prose, Greenwald.

Put another way, as ThinkProgress’ Matt Duss put it: “the definition of terrorism is not ‘any violence by any Muslim anywhere at any time for any reason’.” But that — along with the repellent claim that saying “Allahu Akbar” is “suggestive of terrorism,” rather than suggestive of someone who is Muslim (obviously the same thing in the minds of the people claiming that) — is exactly what seems to be driving discussions of this attack.

Hold up. Hold it just one second there.

It’s a “repellent claim” to note that yelling “Allahu Akbar” during a shooting rampage is “suggestive of terrorism”? Yelling “Allahu Akbar” during a shooting rampage is merely suggestive of someone being Muslim — and not terrorism?

I’m at a loss for words to express how stupid Greenwald’s claim is — and indeed, I needn’t mock it, because it mocks itself. May I remind you: on September 11, 2001, Muslim hijackers aboard Flight 93 yelled that phrase as they piloted the plane into the ground. Coincidence, I’m sure.

If common sense isn’t enough for you — if you really need to rely a lawyerly-sounding definition of “terrorism” — how about the one used by the U.S. Department of Defense: “The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or try to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”

At the risk of explaining the painfully obvious: when you yell “Allahu Akbar” during a shooting rampage, that’s evidence that the shooter had Allah’s greatness on the brain during the time of the murder. That suggests a religious motivation, which suggests terrorism.

When Greenwald characterizes as “repellent” the claim that shouting “Allahu Akbar” suggests terrorism, he is engaging in the same sort of political correctness that caused military brass to turn a blind eye to Hasan’s extremist support of Muslim terrorism.

Which is to say, it’s attitudes like Greenwald’s that helped Nidal Hasan kill 13 people at Fort Hood.

But at least it gives him a little frisson of self-righteousness to accuse others of religious bigotry. And in the end, isn’t that all that really matters?

UPDATE: As Andy Levy notes in comments, Hasan killed 14 people, not 13. Explanation here.

Teary Scozzafava: Maybe I’ll Run on a Republican Ticket Again in the Future

Filed under: Morons — Patterico @ 7:02 am

The Washington Post has a story titled ‘Scozzafava’ turns into epithet with the offensive deck headline: “It’s a Grand Old Purging as moderate’s ouster spotlights Republican dysfunction.”

Actually, the Republican dysfunction was supporting this turncoat — someone who, the article makes it sound, endorsed the Democrat because she was emotionally very fragile and the Democrats were nicer to her.

At her desk, with a fuzzy elephant face down on a bookshelf behind her, she recalled the exhausting end days of her campaign. Violet semicircles hung below her teary eyes as she recounted how Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and other conservative leaders excoriated her for less-than-orthodox positions on gay rights, abortion and organized labor.

. . . .

The conservative movement’s third-party candidate, Doug Hoffman, expected her support but, she said, the newcomer accountant “had no integrity.” Plus, the Democrats were so nice! They called. They sympathized. They made her feel good about tossing her support to Bill Owens, who — with her help — became the area’s first Democratic representative in more than a century.

. . . .

Around 6 p.m., she and her husband pulled over at a Stewart’s convenience store on the rainy drive home from her Watertown campaign office. An aide called with dismal poll numbers. For hours, they sat, with Scozzafava staring at the windshield wipers going back and forth. Her husband counted the people using the convenience store’s ATM to pass the time. Mostly, she just cried.

I “love” the “scare quotes” used here:

She heard through friends that Palin insinuated she had been “anointed” by a “political machine” because county chairs handpicked her as the nominee.

In other words, Palin insinuated she had been “anointed” by a “political machine” because she had been anointed by a political machine.

Guess what? She’s thinking of running as a Republican again:

Scozzafava, who was stripped of her Republican leadership position in the New York State Assembly on Monday, says she has no regrets and even leaves open the possibility of running for the seat again as a Republican. She sees herself as a champion of local expertise over ideological purity.

“How can Sarah Palin come out and endorse someone who can’t answer some basic questions,” Scozzafava asked. “Do these people even know who they are endorsing?”

Those conservative forces now descend on Florida [note the loaded language: “forces” and “descend” — P], where former House speaker Marco Rubio, who on Monday received the endorsement of the Club for Growth, might shove aside [again note the terminology used — P] centrist Gov. Charlie Crist, who was once on John McCain’s short list for running mate. And Scozzafava has a warning.

There is a lot of us who consider ourselves Republicans, of the Party of Lincoln,” she said, her face now flush. “If they don’t want us with them, we’re going to work against them.”

Hey, whiny teary person! Republicans gave you a lot of money. Then you endorsed the Democrat. In effect, Republicans gave money to the Democrat. You will never run and win as a Republican again. E-ver. No matter how many tears you shed or how flush your face becomes, your betrayal will not be forgotten — and the fact that you think it would be merely highlights how clueless you are.

9/7/2009

Dumbass Federal Judges Push Release of Criminals Who Are Bunked ALMOST As Tight As Sailors in a Submarine

Filed under: Court Decisions,Crime,General,Morons — Patterico @ 1:45 am

[Editor’s note: if you’re mortally offended by profanity, you might want to skip this post. However, those who are shocked to see the f-word on a blog should be even more shocked to see 40,000 state prisoners unleashed on our state. Consider being shocked by that which is truly shocking. — P]

My wife, God bless her, just had us watch the saddest movie I have ever seen. Tears were streaming down my face and I wasn’t ashamed.

The movie is called “Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father.” I don’t want to give away anything about the movie, but it is utterly heartbreaking, and a reminder that government has an obligation to protect its citizens from violence, and to remove violent people from the streets. Enough said about that; I don’t want to spoil it for you.

And hey! what do you know? It just so happens that I see this movie when this comes across my computer screen:

A panel of federal judges, accusing California officials of obstruction, on Thursday denied the state’s request to delay an order to produce a plan for reducing its prison population by 40,000 inmates.

I have a message for this panel of federal judges — which the L.A. Times doesn’t say and will never, ever say are all Democrat appointees:

Honorable Lawrence Karlton: fuck you.

Honorable Thelton Henderson: fuck you.

And you, the right Honorable Stephen Reinhardt: fuck you.

People are going to die because of this decision you have made. Don’t pretend they won’t, because they will. Lily Burk died at the hand of a petty thief, you know. I’m told he did something bad a long, long time ago — but he’s just a petty thief now. He’s non-violent. Just like the 40,000 non-violent people you assholes are about to release.

And why are you doing this? Because convicted felons in California aren’t entitled to luxury five-star accommodations. Why, they’re crammed into their cells in conditions almost as cramped as this:

Submarine Bunks 01

and this:

Submarine Bunks 1

and this:

Submarine Bunks

It’s a wonder submarine sailors didn’t kill each other during WWII. You can tell from the grim looks on their faces that they’re about to engage in a bloody race riot.

I’m sorry I’m just a little profane here. But somehow, typing a couple of four-letter words in a blog post doesn’t seem as extreme as writing an order that is going to kill people. So fuck you, dumbass judges. When the first person dies at the hand of one of these criminals you released, I’m going to be here to shove it right up your ass.

And if you’re wondering why I’m angry, go watch the movie I just finished watching, why don’t you, and learn about the real-life consequences of stupid fucking decisions made by stupid liberal judges.

P.S. Once you’ve seen the movie, the phrase “Keystone Cops” will take on a whole new meaning.

UPDATE 9-7-09 11:50 a.m.: A reply to some reactions in the comments.

One commenter says I am threatening the judges. Yes: I am “threatening” to remind the public, after someone dies, that it is these judges’ fault. It should be obvious from the context that I’m not physically threatening them — although it should be obvious that their decision is physically threatening the citizenry of California.

To the commenters who say that the judges are really just doing their job, and that it’s really the legislature’s fault: again, look at the photos of the sailors. Those are the sorts of conditions these judges have declared unconstitutional. The decision by these three liberal hacks was not compelled by the law. It was activism, pure and simple, and it’s going to result in people dying. It’s about time someone got passionate about that — and so, while it’s a little out of character for me to curse, maybe doing so will get people’s attention because it’s out of character.

Finally, one commenter says: “Patrick: As a member of the bar, you should not be cursing judges.” Hey, if they want to bring me up on disciplinary charges for cursing them and their lousy decision, I say: bring it on. That would be a great way to focus a spotlight on what is about to happen to this state. And I would win eventually, because guess what? we still have a First Amendment in this country.

So fuck them.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2181 secs.