Is the"Felon With a Gun" Photo Real or Photoshopped?
In the comments of my most recent Pajamas Media article, a skeptic calling himself "L.Booth" questioned the validity of the photo accompanying the article, stating:
Notice the "photo" funny shadow on the big pistol, what is the big white blotch on the left sleeve………fun never ends.
The photo in question shows a man holding a pair of firearms... or does it? The comment provided by "L.Booth" seems to suggest that the photo used in the article was manipulated, or "PhotoShopped."
So let's put that claim to the test, by providing the photo and subjecting it to the scrutiny of Internet experts and laymen alike.
Below is the uncropped photo that the image in the Pajamas Media article was created from (click the photo for the full-size 2048 x 1536 image or follow this link).
Is the man in the photo really holding firearms...
...or is it faked?
Posted by: Pixy Misa at November 11, 2010 01:10 PM (2yngH)
3
I'm with Paul. That's some wicked high detail. It's certainly better than AP has ever been able to accomplish.
There are no artifacts of light or focus. My only concern is why both weapons are cocked? I guess if it's real, this guy is a goob?
Posted by: Gus Bailey at November 11, 2010 01:24 PM (B5Wgp)
4
My only concern would be the angle of the light source. It looks to be coming from the subject's left side and relatively low (but not really low). The angle of shadow on the two men's noses for example is a bit different but it could simply be because the gentleman on the left side of the photo has his face at a slightly different angle than the other man. What really has me a bit puzzled is why, if the light source is as indicated, there is a shadow on the antennae from the left man's phone or radio mounted on his belt that is reflected on his waist. Wouldn't that shadow be directed in the other direction? Or is there another source of light? And, if the light source is as described, is the shadow of the gun at the right angle, etc. - I think the shadows cast here will be the deciding factor (as it is in most Photoshopped pictures.) My $0.02 worth.
Posted by: MtnGote at November 11, 2010 07:00 PM (JO3Pe)
5
Hmm. All the shadows are consistent with subjects facing an early afternoon sun. In particular, the subject "set right" has exactly the right squint, and the shadow of the 1911 is easily replicable with any point light source and someone to pose with the pistol. The radio has a "rubber ducky" that may appear to be a shadow, but is not.
If that is a photoshop job I need to insist my graphic artist take lessons from the 'shopper.
Stranger
Posted by: Stranger at November 11, 2010 10:28 PM (IJ7W/)
6
The individual "holding" those pistols was indeed holding those pistols, unless the Government was involved with the picture. THEY (and only THEY) have enough money to do a "Photoshop" this good.
This, though, is why if I am ever on a jury I will NEVER consider digital photographic evidence as being credible unless the defense specifically agrees that it is accurate. Uncle has WAY TOO MUCH capability to fake digital photographs. They are NOT QUITE THERE YET on digital video. But they ARE on the way there as well.
Posted by: Mark Matis at November 11, 2010 10:57 PM (RY+6B)
7
Also I think that the the shadow of the left hand is too deep for being on the sunny side of the body.
Shadows are not just a function of direct light but also ambient or enviromentaly reflected light.
Posted by: ron at November 13, 2010 02:18 AM (02n2A)
How do you think the shadows cast by the guns compare with the shadows cast by his collar, pocket flaps, and shirt tails? Or, all of those faked too?
Posted by: Bill Smith at November 14, 2010 01:10 AM (x/3yb)
9
The individual "holding" those pistols was indeed holding those pistols, unless the Government was involved with the picture. THEY (and only THEY) have enough money to do a "Photoshop" this good.
Nah, the government is pretty terrible at that sort of thing, actually. A hollywood effects company maybe, but not the hamfisted goons in Washington.
In any event, there's no way someone spent the money and time necessary to fake something this insignificant this well.
Posted by: Phelps at November 15, 2010 07:36 PM (sj2xb)
The monuments in Washington all seemed false in the cool morning mist. They were big and white and extravagant, yet the tourists cheapened them somehow as they gawked, took photos, and scurried to the next place on their list of things to see. Their attention seemed to focus on what things were rather than why they were. The scene was a poor example of Americana. Even Honest Abe seemed to frown from his throne. Of all the walls of stone only one seemed real.
This wall's long black marble slices into the ground. On it are engraved fifty-eight thousand American names from an undeclared war that no one wants to remember in the jungles of a country half a globe away. There are no ornate scrolls or stenciled directions, no fancy faded pieces of parchment, no self-serving sentiments, just names.
There's also a statue some distance away. Three bronze soldiers stare into the wall, waiting for word of their fellow soldiers, or perhaps morning their loss. The soldiers don't talk; they simply stare. They are all just boys, most of them only six years older than I was then: nineteen.
Under the statue-soldier's gaze, an elderly man lagged behind a tour at the wall. He caressed it and knelt to leave a single rose at its based. He sobbed. He had difficulty standing up. A nearby park attendant helped him and asked, "One of yours, sir?" The old man shook his head and replied, "Not just one of them. All of them."
I penned those words in the fall of 1989... 21 years ago.
They are an excerpt of a story I authored as an 18-year-old college freshman. It was based upon a trip to Washington D.C., and to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, simply known to all as The Wall. It is fictionalized, but only just. To this day it remains one of the most emotional places I've ever visited.
At the time, Vietnam was our most recent "major" conflict, though I know all wars are major are those who fight them. We were still several years away from the first Gulf War, and more than a decade from 9/11 and the wars that followed in Afghanistan and Iraq that we still fight today.
I'm met dozens of veterans since that time, from World War Two, Korea, Vietnam and our current wars. I've tried to thank them for their service, but mere words always feel inadequate to capture the gratitude I feel for all they have sacrificed so that I can live in a land of freedom and liberty.
I've tried to explain the sacrifices they've made as best I can to my older daughter. I've told her some of what I know about my Uncle Bobby's war in Korea, where he had the harrowing duty of splicing damaged communications lines for forward observers while in combat. I tried to tell her of how her grandfather—who we buried just before last Veteran's Day—stood guard against saboteurs in the wet salt spray as victory ships burned from to the torpedoes of German U-boats off the Carolina Coast.
I've told her what I know of some of our local heroes that I know she's heard of and seen, and of those who quietly walk among us with little recognition at all.
Today is the day we thank all veterans who have served this nation and who put their lives on the line to preserve our way of life.
Words are not enough, but all the same, thank you.
Update: I'm blessed to live in a community where veterans and their families aren't just remembered, but celebrated.
The Erik Scott Case: Update 8--Eyewitnesses, Video and Coincidence
Information relating to the reward offered by the Scott family for video evidence can be found here. Information relating to the lawsuit filed by the Scott family may be found here.
THE SCENE: A classroom much like any classroom supported by public dollars. The occasional fading poster breaks up the routine of bland, institutional paint. The ubiquitous round clock hangs on the wall above the lectern, making odd and disjointed ticking and whirring noises, its hands occasionally speeding up or slowing down. It’s either too hot or too cold and there is an odd smell that no one can quite identify. But this classroom is different. In the chairs with the worn, torn covers, their arms resting on the chipped particle board tabletops covered in cheap, peeling wood grained vinyl, sit 25 police recruits, young men and women eager to learn all that they can about their jobs before being allowed on the streets.
1
This case is getting worse. The LV police are intimidating people, while the world watches. It's dumb.
The Long Grey Line (West Point alumni) are watching this, even if other eyes are diverted. They lost one of their own, and this intimidation is only going to attract further attention.
It smells of cover-up. If LVPD had nothing to hide, they wouldn't be pulling stunts like this.
Posted by: Slowjoe at November 10, 2010 09:14 PM (UaBMH)
Posted by: Mark Matis at November 10, 2010 11:25 PM (LWzil)
3
And your so-called professional majority are the ENABLERS for the swill in that department. At BEST they are playing Sergeant Schultz "I see nothing!" May they rot where they belong for what they have done to this country. For the MLVPD is NOT even REMOTELY unique:
http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/
Posted by: Mark Matis at November 10, 2010 11:33 PM (LWzil)
First, thanks for the heads-up on the new post. It does contain some interesting information and I have some expertise in some of the areas in question which I will try to use to analyze or explain some of the questions that have been raised.
First your explanation of the vagaries and pitfalls of eye-witness information is spot-on and re-emphasizes a point that I made in commenting on one of the previous posts. While having an eye-witness to any crime is often considered a crucial piece of evedence, that is not always the case. Many eyewitnesses only catch a portion of the action taking place in a given incident. Often, people who claim to have "seen the whole thing" in fact saw nothing, but only turned their attention to the incident after the fact. I have worked homicides and shootings with dozens of witnesses and it always takes a tremendous amount of work on the investigative side to sort through the myriad of statements to get as close as possible to the actual chain of events and to obtain good descriptions of the actors.
The video equipment. Camera and video recordings have replaced the eye witness as the "holy grail" of evidence in a lot of police work. As a detective, anytime I could get video on an incident, particularly "good video" of evedentiary quality, much of my work was done, as far as identifying suspects, placing them at a particular place, at a particular time, depicting the criminal actions of the suspect, etc. The advent of patrol car video has done much for policing, with regard to complaints against officers, traffic arrests, etc. I love me some police car videos. In our department only the supervisors can download the cameras, and they are activated anytime the emergency equipment is on or can be turned on manually by the officer. The officers wear a body mic and there is a mic inside the cab of the unit. Unfortunately, only 50% of our cars have cameras, but that is being remedied more and more as time and budget allows.
Of course, I don't know if LVMPD has cameras, and if so, how many and how they are set-up. Like you, I'd sure like to know that information.
As to the Costco video, as I've said before, it doesn't suprise me that their system might be down at any given time. As videotape recording has given way to digital systems, they have become somewhat more complicated for the average store security person to deal with and diagnose if a problem occurs. While conducting investigations, I have found large national chain stores with their systems down and awaiting repair at some appointed time. Often it is just a matter of a reboot that was seemingly beyond the competence level of the security personnel to accomplish.
Most of the current systems offer DVR capacity in excess of a terrabyte of memory. This usually supports 16 to 32 cameras, and depending on the frame rate and the amount of movement and activity a given camera sees can give a roll-over point of from a few days to several weeks (roll-over point being the point at which the DVR begins to overwrite the hard drive). The DVR is essentially a computer dedicated to storing bits of digital video information. The DVR usually feeds to another computer, called a "client" that sends live realtime images to a video screen, often with up to 32 cameras being monitored per screen.
I don't know how capable LVMPD's computer forensics people are. I sometimes have doubts about TPD's computer forensics investigators, but not having dealt directly with them for a couple of years perhaps they have improved their skill levels.
I will say that the U.S. Secret Service has a highly capable and professional computer forensics lab here in Tulsa. I used to work on the Secret Service task force here and am still close to them, talking with some of the guys at least once a week. While it may come as a suprise to some that the Secret Service has developed this capability, it shouldn't. Much of the counterfeiting of money, checks and credit cards is done on computer these days as well as identity theft of which they do a little work on.
If I were investigating a serious crime or an officer involved shooting and had a DVR to be looked at, my first choice would be the Secret Service's computer lab here, and I'm sure they have additional labs in place in various regions of the country (like Los Angeles).
As far as the 600 gigabytes / 583 folders of information recovered by Seagate and the USSS, it could be important or it could be totally irrelevant. For the sake of argument, let's say Costco is telling the truth and their DVR went down on the 7th or 8th. The recovered data would be the video taken from the last rollover point up to the time the DVR went down. In that case it would be totally useless to this case. But, if it was not down and there is something more nefarious afoot, then it might in fact be relevant. Even if the shooting itself was not caught on video, the video from cameras inside the store might support or rebuke the description of Erik's actions inside the store which led to the call to 911 by Shai Lierley.
I have a lot more to say with regard to this post. particularly with regard to the appparent harrassment being conducted by LVMPD (I don't recall, did we learn if Henderson is covered by Metro or a separate department, when I was out there a few years ago and asking about getting on there I was told that many Metro officers were assigned to small communities in the county as permanent assignments). Also, I 'd like to speak to LVMPD's evidence handling / total investigative incompetence among othr things. Unfortunately, I don't have time to finish commenting right now, but I will at a later point.
Posted by: Montie at November 11, 2010 12:37 AM (q9bK6)
5
Mike and Montie,
What true justice will come of this lawsuit. I know Bill Scott will not quietly slip into the chasm of financial settlement,and no disclosure. Metro will just say they were wrongly convicted in their endless appeals. Because they will lose. I also guarantee that the trial will not be held here in Vegas. To many people, literaly everone here has knowledge of the incedent, and has formed an opinion one way or the other. But my question I guess is what happens now, is Metro really in jeapordy of serious consequences. Montie, how long did it take to bring the bad cops in your department to justice? Was all their dirty laundry cleaned in the wash? Is it really possible for JUSTICE to be served. Frankly, I have been a little leary myself posting here and elsewhere, with the recent re-election of DA Rogers and Sheriff Gillespie. I am honestly dumbfounded, how this happened. It defy's logic. But I fully support the Scott's in this seamingly insurmountable task at hand. I can't imagine Metro will make things easy, as far as evidence in their possesion goes. I hope against hope, that I am wrong, and that somebody in the Metro or other orginizations grows a pair and the TRUTH is revealed. Like you said about daylight. It's the ultimate seer of the truth.
Posted by: Jvh at November 11, 2010 11:25 AM (DKv/6)
In the small department I went to several years ago, with the express purpose of cleaning it up, it never happened all the way. Too entrenched nd fought tooth and nail by the union. Many of us (including the chief) who came in to do it left and took jobs elswhere, and friends I made there tell me it's still an ongoing problem that is gradually being whittled way at.
TPD's problems are still being sorted out. The federal prosecutor is still digging and has flipped a few of the involved officers. TPD has both union and civil service protection so it's taking federal investigators and federal crimnal charges to root out all the bad apples. Oddly enough, one of the first corrupt officers taken down was a fed working with locals (ATFE).
The sad thing is that some of the peole being let out of jail thanks to a few corrupt cops are really bad guys who could have been gotten with honest police work. Now, they'll probably get rich on taxpayer dollars paid out in compensation.
If metro is as bad as is being claimed (and as I'm coming to believe that they are), it could take years to weed out all the bad folks and change the culture of the department. As I've learned, even is a small department, once the culture is entrenched, only drastic measures can turn it around.
Fortunately for TPD, corruption isn't accepted or entrenched as a way of business, but laziness is tolerated, and I think that it's that lazyness that led to shortcuts to get badguys off the street. When you begin to accept any means to an end regardless of good intentions, out and out criminal behavior is a short step away.
Oh, and I am frankly stunned that Rogers and Gillespie were re-elected. But then, the Las Vegas area put Harry Reed over the top.
Posted by: Montie at November 11, 2010 03:44 PM (q9bK6)
7
Thanks for your reply Montie. Looking forward to your completion of your earlier post. I am not happy about Reed either, although it was very close in all races exept Sheriff. Go figure.
Posted by: Jvh at November 11, 2010 06:25 PM (DKv/6)
8
Montie,
Did you recieve your Inquest DVD's yet? If so have you watched any of it?
Posted by: Jvh at November 11, 2010 06:30 PM (DKv/6)
9
Absolutely brilliant series. So informative, so well thought out and so meticulously presented. Pulitzer worthy. With each new addition comes new revelations that indicate criminal behavior within the Metro and Sheriff's department. If ever justice should prevail, this is the case. I look forward to the next installment and to the civil trial.
Posted by: Stephen at November 12, 2010 12:07 PM (KiExx)
10
Tellingly your diatribe on the unreliability of witnesses must be resolved in favor of the accused. But the accused is William Mosher. Therefore he is innocent under your standard.
Posted by: Federale at November 14, 2010 02:00 PM (7xqyd)
11
Oh, and by the way, the long grey line has made their decision and are doing nothing. Why, because they know that a drug addict is not someone they will make a stand for.
Posted by: Federale at November 14, 2010 02:02 PM (7xqyd)
12
The simple answer to your question as to why LVMPD did not seize the video is that they were told it was not working. You yourself established that Costco reported the system down before the shooting, so there was no need to go further.
And by the way, they cannot take such evidence into "custody." They can request that a copy of relevant video be provided by the holder of the recording system, but without a search warrant they cannot seize such evidence. In most cases the holders of video evidence provide it voluntarily.
And who cares about video shot by a police chopper or news crews? They were not there at the time of the shooting so any recordings would be irrelevant.
Since you proffered a second wide ranging conspiracy theory, just how did everyone from the Secret Service to the technicians at the security company and everyone in between come to an agreement? Did the sheriff call up the Director of the Secret Service? Did the Sheriff get a willing agreement from LVVLS to participate? Did he threaten them? Is the owner or owners of LVVLS contributors to the Sheriff? Did the Director of the Secret Service conspire with the owner of LVVLS?
Do you realize how crazy you sound? Do you know that even a broken video surveillance system would have files on its hard drive?
Do you realize that Scott's girlfriend testified that he had the gun in his hand when he was shot? Is she part of your conspiracy? She said he was surrendering the gun.
And just who is claiming that it was a cell phone in his hand when he was shot?
How could Scott have been surprised when his girlfriend testified that she told him before he was shot that he was the reason the store was being evacuated?
Posted by: Federale at November 14, 2010 04:12 PM (7xqyd)
So, is Sterner part of the conspiracy? She stated that he had a gun in his hand when he was shot.
So there is no need for your magic gun theory, no need for your sabotaged video system.
It is just down to the judgement of the officers when confronted with a man with a gun.
That is it. Anything more borders on an obsession bordering on mental illness.
Posted by: Federale at November 14, 2010 04:23 PM (7xqyd)
14
Strange techie questions.
Damage consistent with being dropped from 4 feet? How? Unpowered, a drop of 4 feet wouldn't hurt a modern HD much, if at all. Certainly nothing you'd notice or couldn't fix with freeware recovery utils.
Powered up and doing some read/writes, sure a drop of 4 feet could fatally damage the heads. That means someone picked up the box while it was plugged into the wall and actively running(performing disk operations) and dropped it.
Data could be recovered from the platters which leads to the 2nd strange bit.
Recovered data but didn't know if it was video? Not his job to determine? How is that?
If the damage to the drive is limited to just say it's FAT or other system-only type areas, recovery may be easy and it's possible this guy isn't talking total BS. In that situation you'd get back files and folders(maybe) all neat and easy and could 'not know' what they are.
Otherwise, you have to have some idea of the structure of the data you're trying to recover so you can patch, fill in, or otherwise finagle the data so it at least somewhat resembles the file it once was and whichever program was built to read it can. Hence 'recovered'. You can't consider a file 'recovered' unless you run some kind of test on it that'll come back with 'Yes, MS Word agrees this is a readable Word file'. Now, you can do that without ever reading the file or playing the video. But you do know what 'kind' of data it is or else you couldn't of recovered it or confirmed it was 'recovered' at all.
I'm just a lower-level techie, but I can't think of no way to recover a badly damaged file to a readable video file and not know it was video.
Security System DVRs are an interesting set of species. They store video in all sorts of different ways. Compression and encryption and whatnot. Some use standard formats, others are 'special'.
Which makes the statement about 'proprietary hardware' interesting. Did the system use 'proprietary software' to record video? Doesn't necessarily make it harder to recover. Sure as all heck makes it harder to claim you didn't know what the files are but they've been recovered. If the proprietary video format was in the police database, at the very least you'd have to look it up. Else you'd have to contact the company.
'Proprietary hardware' may mean nothing relevant, or it could mean the video cameras sent compressed raw binary data directly to the DVR or something equally strange. Again, making it impossible to 'not know' what the data recovered is.
Again, there are some types of (kinda) relatively minor types of drive damage where you'd have to send it to a professional to get it taken apart. And have that techie get very lucky because the damage is limited to certain areas. Then the drive could be recovered complete with folders and files all nice and neat. A simple util could then automatically run through the data to confirm it's mostly ok. The techie would then only glimpse a few of the file formats.
Then the techie could truthfully say, under oath, that the files were recovered and there 'may have' been video.
Myself? I couldn't, under oath, say that I recovered data from a badly damaged DVR drive, even with 99% of the recoverable data recovered by an automatic util, and answer the question of 'Was there video on it?' with anything other than 'Yes'.
I'm assuming, regardless of the damage, the recovery process was not something of the equivalent of running chkdsk, but proper Forensic Data Recovery. Way beyond my ken, but I know HD companies charge a hefty fee when Joe Businessman sends his physically damaged drive in to fix. And Joe Businessman gets his money's worth recovering his valuable propriety data as complete as possible. Tech wouldn't have to(possibly be legally barred from)looking inside, but would have to know the shape of the building.
Posted by: Keapon Laffin at November 15, 2010 08:15 AM (C0XAt)
15
Montie: Are you STILL playing Sergeant Schultz?
Posted by: Mark Matis at November 15, 2010 09:02 AM (sfmvI)
16
Ditto on the Secret Service. Since they are tasked with wire fraud and counterfeiting duties, they have a very competent computer forensics system. I would even wager that sending the drive to Seagate (no small expense or feat -- just getting them to take it, much less turn it this quickly is impressive.)
I work with computer forensic people a lot, and there's an absolutely vital part of the examination that none of them have testified to (because you would have certainly noted it) -- "Is there any evidence of files having been deleted from this media?" Any competent forensic expert looks for those fingerprints, and if they didn't, that is significant.
I also don't find it credible that they didn't look at the files. Not having an opinion on it as an expert, absolutely. Not looking, as a fact? Don't believe it. If that's actually what they testified to, you can add the Secret Service to the testilying squad.
Posted by: Phelps at November 15, 2010 07:33 PM (sj2xb)
17
correction -- would wager that sending the drive to Seagate was their idea, and that they were one of a very small body of groups that would have that much pull with Seagate.
Posted by: Phelps at November 15, 2010 07:34 PM (sj2xb)
18
I remember seeing something that the company who handled the security footage for Costco just received a contract to handle video security footage for some of Metro's station/ substations... Anyone else have information on that?
Posted by: Willis at November 17, 2010 04:13 AM (fT8ar)
19
Federale I feel like we have this same conversation every single time, but you just dont get it. Please listen to the entire recorded statement that Samantha Sterner gave instead of taking bits of her testimony out of context. You can listen to it on several las vegas news websites in its entirety. She clearly states that he was never even able to clear the holstered weapon. Your argument has no balls.
Posted by: Willis at November 17, 2010 11:47 PM (fT8ar)
20
Willis,
Here is the info you were asking for, about video service of Metro's stations. Hope this helps
http://www.asmag.com/showpost/9801.aspx
Posted by: Jvh at November 18, 2010 04:29 AM (DKv/6)
21
Thank you Jvh that was exactly what I was looking for.
So Metro picked Vegas Valley for their reliability and ability to pull up archived video in a matter of seconds. Too ironic.
Posted by: Willis at November 18, 2010 05:51 AM (fT8ar)
22
Remember how the video was working just fine on the outside cameras? How at the inquest they showed video of the people scrambling in the parking lot in the area just beyond where the shooting took place, just beyond the pillars, but in a place that almost everyone would need to walk past to get to the entrance?
I have a few questions that I hope can be answered from someone with video/computer knowledge. Is the video footage from the inside of Costco stored on something different or somewhere different than the video footage from the outside of the store? Please put it in average joes terms if possible.
I am also very curious if the outside video would have caught Mr. Scott walking from the parking lot due to the angle that camera was. It seemed to catch the area that funnelled people towards the entrance. I find it odd that they have not shown Mr. Scott walking towards the entrance area. Surely that could show him staggering and acting erratic right? Or was it not significant because he was walking normal? Either way they brushed right over it and didn't even address the issue.
Posted by: Willis at November 18, 2010 06:13 AM (fT8ar)
23
Thank you Mike and Bob for continuing to follow this issue. Thank you Montie for also continuing to follow it as well as the others who do not let this tragedy be forgotten. Please do not forget that the Las Vegas police department is the exception, not the rule. Most areas do not have a track record of shooting unarmed people with no consequences. Yes, there are some law enforcement officers who use the badge as a shield for crime, but there are dishonest people in many professions who give the 99% who are honest a bad name. We are blessed in that where I live the law enforcement agencies have a very high standard of conduct and do a great job policing their own ranks. Please pray that someone in the Las Vegas government and/or police will straighten this out. Since Las Vegas is a tourist city, this is a chilling advertisement. If nothing else, rude and dangerous police do not mix with getting in the tourists. In the end, it will take law enforcement officers to conduct the investigation and gather the evidence to bring this to trial. Our prayers will be with them.
Posted by: Disabled Veteran at November 18, 2010 04:31 PM (g81B2)
24
For Disabled Veteran:
You might want to get a little more knowledgeable about what you speak:
http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/
-and-
http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?page_id=3336
Police corruption and malfeasance is FAR MORE widespread than you would lead us to believe. Do note that the links above only consolidate corruption and crimes reported in the media. They DO NOT include the "internal reports" which are not released by the departments. After all, those are only "personnel matters" and have no business in the public view. Even if they involve wrongful death.
And let's not forget that, while the corruption and crimes are indeed not done by ALL "Law Enforcement" officers, those who you would label as good see NOTHING WRONG with playing Sergeant Schultz - "I see nothing!" Prime example? The latest TSA grope fest:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/travel/news/airport-staff-exposed-womans-breasts-laughed/story-e6frg8ro-1225955345734
But then NOBODY in "Law Enforcement" could POSSIBLY have been aware of that now, could they?
Filthy. Maggot. Pigs.
Posted by: Mark Matis at November 18, 2010 07:04 PM (0kVj8)
25
The connection between Vegas Valley Locking Systems, and Metro is dubious to say the least.
Posted by: Jvh at November 18, 2010 07:11 PM (DKv/6)
26
And Disabled Veteran:
You won't want to miss this:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/18/americas-most-successful-stop/
or this:
http://whentennesseepigsfly.blogspot.com/
or this:
http://www.policeabuse.com
or this:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181312.pdf
or any of the MANY other sources identifying despicable actions by "Law Enforcement". Most of which go unpunished. Such as the OUTSTANDING FBI DNA Lab at Quantico. Which has been caught not ONCE, but instead at least TWICE falsifying DNA reports to enable conviction. The stench is overwhelming.
Posted by: Mark Matis at November 18, 2010 07:22 PM (0kVj8)
27
They didn't show the video of Eric entering the store, because it would show someone functioning normally. That wouldn't fly with the character assassination to make Eric out as a crazed unfunctional, maniac. Anyone who looks at the picture Costco took of him 45 min. before the shooting can see he isn't impaired, red eyed or in an aggressive mood. In fact he spent quite a bit of time at the application counter, trying to get tax ID info from his company for a business account, instead of a regular one. The woman who took his application mentioned he wss a little slow, but never aggresive or out of control. Kind of morbid irony that his signature on that application was tant amount to signing his own death warrant. Considering Costco reaction to his legally carried firearm.
Posted by: Jvh at November 18, 2010 07:24 PM (DKv/6)
28
Exactly JVH and the D.A.'s office didn't want to add facts to the fact finding process unless the facts were aimed at a justified inquest verdict.
Something about the relationship between Vegas Valley Locking Systems and Metro definitely doesn't sit right either.
Posted by: Willis at November 18, 2010 08:09 PM (fT8ar)
29
Willis,
To call our inquest process fact finding, is done so with tongue in cheek. It is more like a trial of the descedent than finding any relevant facts about what happened in the incident, and only what the DA wants to provide, nothing else.
One of the possitive things to come out of this tragedy is thousands of e-mails were sent to Metro's bosses, the Clark County Commissioners. All of them said basicly the same thing. What the F#*! was the deal with the inquest. Mind you this was the first ever televised inquest. The Commissioners convened a panel to make changes. At first with the DA, Sheriff Gillespie, Chris Collins(the PPA director)being on the panel, I thought it would be the inquest for the inquest. But reasonable changes have been proposed. Including only the facts from the day of the death can be presented, no more digging up all available dirt, true or not can be admissable. Although Chris Collins objected to everthing, he is a giant A-hole, personally speaking. All changes passed by 8-2 vote. There may acutually be hope in sin city yet.
But just when you feel a little light on your brow.
Metro kills another highly dangerous perp wielding a cane. They did tase him first,and bean bagged him, when that didn't work they shot him in the chest, because the cane had a hook on it. Last time I checked all canes had a hook on the end. I guess the possibility of bruises is now concidered a threat to life and limb.
Posted by: Jvh at November 19, 2010 01:26 AM (DKv/6)
30
I retired in February after 24 years as a police officer in California. FTO, Patrol, Motors, Firearms Instructor, SWAT are all position I've held. I'm an FBI and NRA trained firearms/police firearms instructor. I was also almost 9 years in the military and did my share of training there as well.
I've been following this case as well as the Mehserle case (which I have written about). The cover up I'll leave to you as you've covered it so well but I'd like to speak to the initial shooting.
In both of these cases I think we're seeing the results of the 'Worst Case' officer safety training that has become the norm. Even before they take their first ride in a patrol car rookie officers are scared to death by Academy (and even Agency) instructors who approach all encounters from that angle. Officer safety scenarios tend to emphasize all the horror stories out there (FBI Miami, Norco and some more recent examples) and gloss over or even omit that not all armed encounters result in violent death. I've had trainees freeze up when confronted by even mild aggression from contacts that I considered nothing more than a nuisance call. Officers are reacting out of fear instead of confidence in their training and abilities. The word that leaps out at me is Panic.
Panic, like anger, is contagious and is virtually impossible to train out. Such officers must be identified early on in the process and removed from the program. HR and Training must do a better job of recognizing such behavior patterns and Agencies must be made to understand the dangers such officers pose. I'd much rather go into a bad call alone than with a hysteric. If it means working shorthanded then so be it. We, as a profession, cannot tolerate the presence of such.
Posted by: Six at November 21, 2010 12:45 PM (8kQ8M)
You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative.
So says Jim DeMint in his latest poorly thought-out public pronouncement. It takes a special kind of arrogance, ignorance, and outright stupidity for a Senator to find a way to offend so many potential allies at once.
Americans on both sides of the political center are coming to the inevitable conclusion that our nation's current spending habits are unsustainable. There is recognition, even in the most socialist of enclaves, that government spending and growth must be curtained, else the entire nation fall.
In such an environment, a conscientious Senator that imagines himself a leader of men should have the common sense to build a coalition of as many allies as possible in order to affect the fiscal agenda so important to this Republic's viability.
But Jim DeMint isn't conscientious, or a leader of men, or, apparently, blessed with common sense.
He has now potentially damaged relations with fiscally conservative libertarians, gays, agnostics, non-Christians, and Christians like myself that are opposed to forcing our religious beliefs onto others. The Tea Party attracts people from all walks of life that simply want to be left alone. Jim DeMint reveals that he represents nothing more or less than another would-be elite, just one cut out of a slightly different cloth.
The fiscal conservatives of the Tea Party and their allies can have a major impact on this Republic, but only if they keep narrowly focused on the all-important work of fiscal reform. If any of the more traditional and fragmented groups and agendas manage to hijack the movement, then the Tea Party will lose the essential wide base of support that is needed to force both parties to reform.
We don't need you, Jim DeMint, and we don't want you telling us what we are, or what should become. Lord knows, we have enough of that coming out of Washington already.
1
Well, think about it. What are the two main "social conservative" issues: redefining marriage and abortion.
Redefining marriage -- or lessening the important of marriage -- has a major effect on the entitlement and welfare mentality of the culture. This has a major fiscal consequence in increasing the welfare state.
Now, abortion... when a culture does not believe in the sanctity of life, then it can then justify and define when life does not need to go on. Where does this rear its head? Healthcare. "Death Panels". Determining which life deserves government care and which doesn't based on a cost-benefit analysis.
So social issues are very much intertwined with fiscal issues. If we had a healthy social structure, our fiscal problems would not be as bad. But with the deterioration of the social structure in this nation, fiscal problems have become even worse.
You seem to think that the breakdown in the family structure (out of wedlock births, no father figure, etc), the pro-promiscuous sex culture and lack of belief in the sanctity of human life come without fiscal consequences to the society at large, and the only issues are high spending and high taxes. Well, WHY do we have high spending and taxes? A HUGE part of it is to pay for the welfare state. Well, what is the origin of the welfare state? Social/cultural breakdown.
Posted by: Michael in MI at November 10, 2010 02:55 PM (NITzp)
2
Michael,
Most of the marriage issue you lay out is not a marriage issue but an entitlement issue. If no entitlements were available, not only would the incentive to be a single parent dramatically decrease, but the choice of whether to be a single parent, cohabiting parents, same-sex parents, married hetero parents; -- indigent or otherwise -- would be of far less fiscal consequence to the state.
There's a similar argument to be made regarding the illegal immigration/migrant labor problem. Most of what are described as immigration/migrant problems are actually entitlement problems. Eliminate entitlements for all, and most elements of the immigration/migrant complaint disappear.
As for abortion, we can have reasonable arguments all day long about the moral concept of when life begins, but as far as the law is concerned, life begins when the IRS says it does, at the point of live birth.
Given the myriad circumstances that surround the period between conception and birth, I'd much rather a mother rely on her faith, her doctor and her family to guide the decisions regarding a pregnancy, than to have government attempt to make that decision through a one-size-fits-all law.
To paraphrase a well-known caution, a government with the power to prevent an abortion is a government powerful enough to mandate an abortion. With that in mind, is control over abortion a prerogative that you really want to delegate to the government?
As for making the leap to death panels, we're back to talking about an entitlement problem. If there's no healthcare entitlement, there's no opportunity for the government to deny care.
Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at November 10, 2010 04:10 PM (Fnr44)
With all that said, DeMint is a moron. Between him and Goober Graham, there must be something in the water in SC.
Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at November 10, 2010 04:13 PM (Fnr44)
4
Most of the marriage issue you lay out is not a marriage issue but an entitlement issue. If no entitlements were available, not only would the incentive to be a single parent dramatically decrease, but the choice of whether to be a single parent, cohabiting parents, same-sex parents, married hetero parents; -- indigent or otherwise -- would be of far less fiscal consequence to the state.
==========
Are you saying that if we took away incentives for married couples, that the fiscal consequence to the State would decrease? I don't see that happening. The fiscal incentive to get married is a benefit for our society. It gives incentive to raising intact families where children have both a father and mother. Take that incentive away, and we're still left with our current problem (promiscuous sex, out-of-wedlock births, children without fathers, etc), only worse.
Unless you are suggesting, in addition to taking away the marriage incentive, to take away the welfare state (where mothers are given handouts from the government simply for having children).
Take away the parachute and less people are willing to jump out of the plane. And, in this case, the government wouldn't be denying anyone having sex, they simply would not be subsidizing their irresponsible sex lives.
I still say, though, that this fiscal issue of the welfare state is based on a breakdown of social issues. The lack of focus on the importance of marriage and stable families has led to the growth of the welfare state. Sure we can just get rid of the handouts and that takes care of the fiscal issue of taxpayer money subsidizing bad behavior, but why not just focus on the issue of the bad behavior? That's the "social conservative" issue here.
You can take away the welfare state handouts, but that won't fix the bad behavior. But you fix the bad behavior and the welfare state will then take care of itself, as we'll have less people dependent on it.
Posted by: Michael in MI at November 10, 2010 04:43 PM (NITzp)
5
The tea parties are self-organized anarchist bands, in the best sense of the term.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg at November 10, 2010 07:38 PM (Y+78Z)
6
Actually, I wasn't bringing up the fiscal incentives to marry at all, just the welfare side entitlements.
The marriage incentives in the tax code could arguably be considered an entitlement, but their net cost is minuscule compared to the welfare entitlements.
I do agree that the incentives for married couples are a benefit to society, even though I don't think it's an appropriate role for government to offer those incentives. I'm not advocating the elimination of the existing marriage incentives, I just think it creates a slippery slope.
Where you've lost me is that you acknowledge that incentives encourage the perceived good behavior of marriage, but you insist that taking away the welfare incentive won't reduce ("fix") the bad behavior.
Setting aside the debate of whether government should be offering incentives on either side, it's a pretty simple concept, incentivize the behaviors you do want, don't incentivize the behaviors you don't want. It's basic human nature.
I forget whether it was Franklin or Jefferson who observed during the course of traveling through Europe, that the communities that made it "easy" for poor people, had more poor people and a lower standard of living than the communities that made it "difficult" for poor people.
That was 250 years ago. That was still the case 60 years ago when government welfare was more difficult to obtain. The "Great Society" made it easy to get welfare, especially for single mothers. Indigent households that would have otherwise had two married parents were suddenly incentivized to be fatherless homes. Is it any surprise why this bad behavior grew?
Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at November 10, 2010 08:18 PM (Fnr44)
7
I never have liked him. The Religious Right is desperately trying to coopt the Tea Party movement but cannot.
They shot their wad in 2004 which was the high water mark for that movement. It's never going to have that kind of power again.
We don't want it. We don't need it. It won't happen.
Thanks for posting this.
Posted by: Gary Foster at November 11, 2010 11:26 AM (GqnnX)
8
So are social liberals known for economic conservatism? Everything about social liberalism screams "make other people pay for invented rights and imagined wrongs!" Tell me a socially liberal cause that you support that doesn't slap the values that were common in this country for 200 years in the face.
Are homosexuals the constituency that someone thinks will flee the tea party movement if it becomes too social-con? Sure would hate to lose that 1/2 of 1% that aren't libs. Let's just sell our souls to them, and maybe also to the 3% that are Jewish while we are at it.
Posted by: Smarty at November 13, 2010 07:47 PM (fnJth)
9
Pardon me, but my impression when I pay taxes is that as far as Federal income taxes go, I pay a marriage PENALTY rather than receive an incentive. The partner who has a lower income ends up paying taxes at the rate of the higher paid partner, which makes it a penalty, not an incentive.
I agree that it's an entitlement issue. Government should be involved in as few issues as possible. They tend to screw everything up.
Posted by: Dave Navarre at November 13, 2010 10:10 PM (89k//)
The Fed's new action, labeled "quantitative easing" or QE2, follows a first attempt at "QE," known as QE1. QE means that the Federal Reserve is printing more money and buying more government debt. In total, according to Investor's Business Daily, "the Fed will have created $2.5 trillion out of the blue."
Diamond said the result of the Fed's policy will be to "increase the debt, devalue our currency and create a bigger problem that won't solve the crisis."
Eventually, America could "collapse under its own weight of massive debt," he warned.
The QE2 "will devalue the dollar and lead to higher commodity prices, asset and price inflation. It may even lead to the end of the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency," Diamond predicted. He noted that Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner floated the idea of the dollar losing its status as the world’s reserve currency, "only to backpedal from it when it raised some eyebrows."
"What is most troubling to me about this," Diamond added, "is that the Fed's QE2 is in alignment with George Soros's agenda to destroy global capitalism."
The decline of the dollar "is what George Soros wants and what he has proposed in the past," he noted.
Soros, the billionaire hedge fund operator who finances various leftist and Marxist groups, including Media Matters, has made his fortune by betting on the collapse of national economies and currencies. He was convicted of insider trading in France.
Soros also has no regrets about collaborating with the Nazis, so that tells you something about his moral character.
Economists try to make the "science" painfully difficult, but it really isn't complicated. Every thing has worth, and that worth will fluctuate based upon supply and demand. If the object in question (currency) is scarce and/or in high demand, the relative worth of that object increases. If that object is common/in low demand, the relative worth of that object decreases.
The Fed, acting as Soros would like, is literally printing money that is not backed by demand. That makes the value of all the other U.S currency in circulation worth less on a dollar for dollar basis. For example, a dollar today may be worth a dollar, but after the government printing presses kick and spit our $2.5 trillion dollars without much worth behind it, your dollar may be worth only $.80, or even less. By printing too much money, the government is literally robbing your salary of its worth, decreasing your purchasing power.
We talk about higher taxes and the damage that will do to American business, but I suspect that if more Americans knew what the impact was of the Obama Administration's intentional devaluation of the dollar how it hurts the majority of Americans, and who it makes rich, then riots would ensue... and with just cause.
1
One day someone will be waiting for him. It cannot be too soon.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at November 10, 2010 11:11 AM (brIiu)
2
QE does not, by itself cause the dollar to devalue. Inflation does that and QE can contribute to inflation but is not necessarily the result. Our current situation is deflationary and only the rising real cost of energy is keeping us from a staggering round of deep and runaway deflation.
Inflation punishes savers, deflation punishes active producers. The Fed's current calculus is that punishing holders of US debt (China) is preferable to punishing producers that are currently sitting on the sidelines waiting for clarity from the Federal Government on near-term risks.
Posted by: Sinner at November 10, 2010 04:15 PM (U/yZ+)
3
Yep. Oil is still sold in dollars and the price reflects more closly the real value of the buck.
Never really thought of it that way but your right oil is soaking up the excess dollars. That is not stopping the real value of oil from dropping....
Posted by: ron at November 10, 2010 04:29 PM (z6cL9)
Criminals are the Reason to Buy Handguns To Protect Your Family. Totalitarian Liberals are the Reason You Buy Battle Rifles
Thank you, Ted Rall, for proving precisely why the Founding Fathers felt so strongly about the right of the people to bear arms that they felt it second in importance only to the freedom of speech and religion.
Ted Rall and spoiled rich kid radicals like him still fashion themselves as the would-be elites, and still shrilly regard themselves as absolutely right and good, and their ideological opponents not only wrong, but evil. It is this warped belief system and imagined supremacy that has convinced Rall that you must be killed... or at least bullied into thinking you will be killed if you don't adopt or bow down to the "right" values.
It should be no surprise that his profoundly homicidal views are shared via an increasingly radicalized MSNBC. Nor should it be surprising that his rhetoric mirrors that of some of the most dehumanizing rhetoric of the most blood-soaked totalitarian regimes of the past century.
Update: With tedious predictability, totalitarian leftists are coming over, attempting to claim that posts I've written in the past also advocate violence. As usual, they can only make such claims by taking my comments out of context or purposefully misinterpreting them. Their shared intellectual rot is so pronounced that I wrote this post months ago to address their willful ignorance.
1
Wow, just wow. I knew Ted Rall was an idiot, but I didn't know anyone took him seriously. Anyone who reads his strip for a week should know he's a vicious hack and should be treated with the same disdain one reserves for fascists and religious fundamentalists.
Posted by: Rauðbjorn at November 09, 2010 11:29 PM (xTNKs)
Posted by: EC at November 10, 2010 09:48 AM (mAhn3)
7
TimWB, apparently you have a reading comprehension problem.
I wrote in that post noting what has occurred, what has come to pass, and how I/we should prepare to react in the future. I advocate for preparations that are defensive in nature if the government invalidates itself or collapses.
Rall wants a proactive militant strike on behalf of liberal totalitarianism, concluding of conservatives that "They will never get weaker.We have as good a chance at taking them on as ever."
You lack the basic ability to tell the difference between defense and offense.
8
Bring it.
Any girl child can pull a trigger.
Meet me on the field with a blade. I got something for you.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at November 10, 2010 11:10 AM (brIiu)
9
Ah, the self righteous whine of the Interwebs Fascist-Hunter (TM).
No wonder CCFK's running interference for Affirmative Action POTUS & friends - CCFK thinks just like them. When someone calls you on your Leftist stupidity, just play the fascist/race/class/xenophobe card, lather, rinse repeat (see the Messiah's unfortunate "guns and religion comment, for another example of how these "people" "think"). It's also good to see he/she/it can't defend Ted Rall's argument OR show where CY advocated violence against dissenting private citizens. A tacit admission of failure, IMO.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at November 10, 2010 11:45 AM (3NUvZ)
The don't have many kids and then they abort 50 million of thier potential progeny and they wonder why they lost the last election?
They're stuuupid.
These socialists are doomed. Dead Culture walking.
I would like to see them walk unsaying through a Muslim neighborhood, at night, in London. After they kick the crap out of him or kill him lets hear what he would have to say then.
Posted by: ron at November 10, 2010 04:13 PM (z6cL9)
11
Pardon my confusion. It's just that when I read:
"I'll lay it out bluntly for you; either the American people—not extremists, but good and decent patriots like your neighbors and yourselves—will revolt and destroy the ruling class and reform our government based upon first principles, or the United States we know as our forefather conceived it is dead."
Did you mean "destroy" as "to end" , as opposed to "tear down and demolish"?
If so, then why "reform"? If already ended, there would be nothing to reform, which implies a form which continues.
So I assumed "tear down and demolish", in order to "reform" the rubble. Tearing down and demolishing are violent actions.
Later, you write that the choice is to "reform or replace." Never mind that "reform increasingly is a fleeting option." This leaves "replace" which doubled my conclusion regarding "destroy".
Then: "Revolution is a brutish, nasty business. Innocents will fall along with patriots and the corrupt, and success is not assured."
Fall in what way? If there is nothing but peaceful reform, in what way are innocents and patriots going to fall?
Then the whole tone of the remainder. From a one-paragraph link in which the writers want to "prune" the government, you write words with war hyperbole: entrenched, revolt, destroy, coup, standing on the brink. Even your Adams quote includes subdued, surrender, and invader.
"I pray for peace." I'm sure you do.
"But I prepare for war." Your language makes me believe you put in a lot more of the latter than the former.
I didn't even look at the Rall quote, because I know he's a jerk.
But dude, based on this post, I have to conclude that you want a war, a nice dramatic one where you can stand on the ramparts and go down in history and shake hands with patriots.
People who want wars never say "oops I killed the wrong guy" or "maybe I could have listened a little more" or "I wonder if they're getting enough soup in the prison camps?" They talk about innocents falling.
And *that's* why this moderate has a gun.
Posted by: TimWB at November 10, 2010 04:36 PM (H0kXg)
12
Oh come on man. "Totalitarian Leftists" are misquoting you, by posting a URL and then posting what you said from it?
Sorry man. Either you can show HOW these quotes are "out of context", by showing other things you said in the same article - or the quotes are in context and you are a hypocrite.
I didn't make the laws of logic. I'm just reminding you of them.
Posted by: jim x at November 10, 2010 07:19 PM (43cUo)
Self-righteous whine? Spare me. I'm not the one with the ouija board pretending to divine the "first principles". I'm not the one who claims perfect knowledge of when one needs to take up arms to replace the current government. I am the one calling CY on his ahistorical reimagining of what history actually tells us.
Posted by: CCFK at November 10, 2010 07:41 PM (5VYId)
"I'll lay it out bluntly for you; either the American people—not extremists, but good and decent patriots like your neighbors and yourselves—will revolt and destroy the ruling class and reform our government based upon first principles, or the United States we know as our forefather conceived it is dead."
which is also what Rall said.
Posted by: Jeffery at November 10, 2010 07:46 PM (Vb+Z0)
15
Oh, dear. Looks like keyboard fascist hunter's post vanished right after I responded.
"I'm not the one who claims perfect knowledge"
Cite, please? Yeah, I thought so. And newsflash: Strawmen are a well-known fascist debating tactic, comrade. Stop employing them, or we'll have no choice but to question your allegiance to Dear Leader.
Anyway ... Good thing that our Affirmative Action superstar hasn't been speaking about "punish[ing] enemies", "tear[ing] [people] up", "hand to hand combat", and other metaphors. Again, you see, that's clear convincing proof of fashisum. And homicidal, bible thumping, gun-clingy christofashist tendencies - Ted Rall told me so in his latest cartoon. I think.
Now quit standing - there's interwebz fashistz to stop, and stuff!111! A Conservative blogger using "destroy" must be stopped. A very important man, unlike the TOTUS. Onward, fashist fighters! Make Teleprompter-boy proud!
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at November 10, 2010 11:45 PM (3NUvZ)
16
seems to me what I read from CY was, a call that ordinary patriotic americans who love the country as a nation of free men, may need to take action to keep themselves from ending up serfs.
imposed from a ruling class.
what im reading from rall is a call to start killing anyone who isnt a leftist socialist.
that has nothing to do with the desire to remain free of shackles imposed by others,
it has everything to do with wanting to start murdering political oponents. at every walk of life right down to my nieghborhood.
I beleive that would end very badly for anyone who "listened" to rall.
rall is a punk, rall is an evil toad. he hates america, he hates patriotic americans he hates anyone who wants to keep america the country it has allways been.
in other words he's a goblin. so who cares what that weasil says.
Posted by: rumcrook at November 11, 2010 03:32 AM (60WiD)
Posted by: Lou Vuoto at November 11, 2010 03:04 PM (XVDX8)
18
What's really funny is drawing faulty conclusions about CY's violent tendencies based on willful misinterpretation of his metaphors, while ignoring even more charged language by 0bama and quite a few others in his cabal. But of course, the Conservative blogger is the threat here - not the Commander in Chief.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at November 11, 2010 06:06 PM (3NUvZ)
19
Homegrown communist revolutionaries like Rall love to talk the talk of Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara. But the walk? Well, I'd lay a 1911 with a loaded mag and empty chamber in front of him and have a good laugh watching the Che wannabe try to execute me for my beliefs. Rall is just another fat pampered pig. He's a limousine liberal living in fantasy land without the courage of his convictions. I am pretty sure that Rall is actually Maureen Dowd dressed to look like a very ugly and effeminate man.
Posted by: Diondrum at November 12, 2010 12:02 AM (Eqa5p)
Posted by: Rich at November 12, 2010 12:18 AM (u/XqU)
21
Over the years, I have seen Ted Rall's sh*tty hateful little comic from time to time. I despised the mentality behind it. But in all that time, I never imagined him to be the lisping, delusional, chinless metrosexual douchebag he turns out to be upon actual field observation. I assumed he was, how shall I say, a more representative sample of the North American male population. Don't ask me why.
The outcome of the 2010 election ("a restraining order" per P.J. O'Rourke) is squeezing some rather unattractive juices out of the Progressive bar rag.
Say - can any of the trolls explain this (at Youtube): 62L3nxWOlX4
It's in several parts. Tell me what you think. Take your time. Put some thought into it.
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at November 12, 2010 01:33 AM (5YgO+)
The dichotomy may be true, or true-ish; Mr. Rall is an unusual specimen and reasonable people ignore him, as they should. But the post and its comments are lying by arguing that one dose of nutjob violent talk on the left balances the habit and tradition and essential embrace of violence on the right. Your language is permeated with violence; that you don't see and acknowledge it is a violence of another kind.
You squeal and wet yourselves at every gesture from the Terrorists, then wave your guns around, magazines full of bravado, then take terrible offense when somebody calls you violent. You claim that the president is an elitist, magically stupid and deviously intelligent at the same time; then you cavil and quibble over the interpretation of 'metaphors'. Love of Jesus, delivered with a club.
You are consistent. I'll give you that.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 at November 12, 2010 10:20 AM (d3qgP)
Mr. Obama has diagnosed the problem, the malady that caused his electoral faux-Greek columns to collapse: It was all a failure of messaging. Well, at least he has taken some meaningless faux-responsibility. Yet, even in this, he is in the process or transformation. He is, as he is so fond of saying, moving America forward, making progress. Until his recent admission on 60 Minutes, it was George W. Bush’s fault. Everything. All of it. You name it, he did it. Then (actually, more or less simultaneously) it was the fault of the American people, the bastards. Too fearful and stupid, one and all, to understand the brilliance of the scientific, factual communists who rule them. Ingrates, every man, woman and child, unable to be properly grateful for the bounty bestowed upon them by The One.
1
Speaking as an actual Socialist, a Democratic Socialist,I have to tell you Obama (who I am not a big fan of) is pretty far from where we stand. The banks and auto industry remains un-nationalised, there is no tax on wealth, and a single payer health care system is nowhere in sight. Words have meanings and you should be more careful how you use them. As for Obama being a Communist, you should go to an actual Communist (Trotskyist)web site and see how fond they are of the president. wsws.org is a good place to start. No disrespect intended, but people are way too careless about throwing out political labels. "Loser" might be a more appropriate term for our current president.
Posted by: James Connolly at November 09, 2010 09:38 PM (J72gA)
2
Finally, some common ground, something on which virtually all of us can agree. Thanks James.
Without stretching to any sort of "angels on the head of a pin" debate about exactly where Obama and his various policies lie on the scale of statism, state capitalism, socialism, communism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc -- or how far and how fast he is reaching his ultimate goal, we can all certainly agree that yes, Obama is a loser in all of our eyes, regardless of our individual ideological leanings.
To be fair from a purely semantic point of view, using a term like socialism or communism to describe one particular regime, is somewhat akin to asking somebody to go to the store and get a 12-pack of "cola." Sure, cola drinks all have some similarity in their taste, but if you ask any true Pepsi or Coke aficionado what makes their drink different, you're likely to hear partisanship that outstrips anything in the political realm.
While the loser handle certainly applies to Obama, it is likely too imprecise to apply broad terms such as socialism or communism to him.
True socialism and true communism, as opposed to their actual practice, don't require the Chicago mob style of intimidation/extortion tactics Obama has used infamously. Those tactics are closer to facism, but even that term isn't entirely accurate.
Just as most other statist/collectivist politicians who rose to power are each defined under their own ideological handle (Maoist, Trotskyist, Marxist, etc), the most semantically accurate path would be to use the term Obamist, and fill in the details within that definition to explain which statist/collectivist ideologies he has copied his various beliefs and goals from.
Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at November 09, 2010 10:23 PM (Fnr44)
I apologize to my regular readers for the long dry spell, but I've been busy *gasp* having a life, spending time with my family, focusing on a major project at work (no, I don't blog for a living), and spending what little time I have left in the day trying to complete a personal project I started a coupe of weeks. ago.
Unless there are unexpected surprises, I should be back in action Wednesday.
Posted by: maxx at November 05, 2010 07:02 PM (bFNvP)
2
So the next question is, what justification is there for granting an exemption in this case, if an exemption has indeed been granted? This story is going to be unfolding for a long time, I expect.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at November 05, 2010 07:48 PM (QQ9sc)
3
"what justification is there for granting an exemption in this case"
You really think there's no justification in granting a guy a pardon for a non-violent crime (if it were a violent crime the penalty wouldn't have been as lenient) he's already done the assigned time for 30 years ago if he's not committed any crimes since?
Or in fact that the entire law that bans people from owning and using weapons who at some point whenever distant in their past have been in contact with the law is constitutional, let alone moral?
The entire rule that people can't own a gun who've once had a felony conviction should be scrapped, or given a strict and short (say 5 years or the duration of the sentence, whichever is shorter) time limit.
And in case the license is required for business purposes it should be automatically granted, and an excemption to the restriction with it.
Posted by: JTW at November 08, 2010 03:57 AM (jMRqb)
4
AS SOMEONE WHO IS DEALING WITH THIS NOW I agree with JTW.I was told to plead gelty to not paying child suport even though I had custdy at the time and my ex was violating a cort order not to live the state.I was told that after probation that it would be taking off my recored and all my rights woeld be restored.Now I am having to go to the peroal board to ask for a parden from the govener to get my rights back and he just happens to be the fomer atterny genarel for the state.
Posted by: Rich at November 08, 2010 11:48 AM (siQqy)
5
I hope William Mosher gets as good an attorney as Lee Franklin Booth has.
Posted by: Federale at November 08, 2010 12:54 PM (PWWdd)
6
I was going to point out back when the person was photographed holding the guns, I remember Mark Furman talking about hunting in Idaho. He said he can't own a gun as a felon (remember he got a Perjury conviction out of the OJ trial), but he can hunt is someone else owns the gun.
Posted by: MunDane68 at November 08, 2010 11:50 PM (dlS06)
7
Point taken regarding your email message. However I continue to believe that things will change if Mosher addresses his issue with both CY and PM.
Posted by: Federale at November 10, 2010 01:57 PM (PWWdd)
8
You can believe whatever you like. I happen to be quite familiar with the relevant law, and know that there is nothing published on CY that is actionable in regards to Mosher or any of the other officers that gunned down Erik Scott.
We've got a big push going on a my day job and I'm dedicating my evenings to another project, so blogging will probably be lightish again the next few days.
I do have some thoughts brewing about the election and where we go from here, and I'll get that up as soon as I have the time.
Left my house to vote at 8:04 and was back home by 8:16. Granted, my polling place is literally around the corner, but it seems that so many people took the early voting option that there was no line and no wait.
Folks, voting is not going to be a hassle. No excuses. Get out there, and make the change you need.
1
This will be the place to watch the results! I can't wait!
Help Us Decide Which House Races to Cover at http://mittromneycentral.com/2010/11/01/election-day-preview-help-us-decide-which-house-races-to-cover/
This will be epic and monumental!
Posted by: Dan at November 02, 2010 09:01 AM (9L1z6)
2
If it's like here a lot of people will vote on their way home from work on shopping, there's always a glut of voting in the mid-late afternoon and early evening because of that.
Helps that they usually put up polling stations on railway and bus depots (and have experimented with putting them on highway truckstops as well).
Posted by: JTW at November 02, 2010 09:05 AM (jMRqb)
3
There have been a few, very few, reports of people going down to vote and being told that they had already voted in TN. I always vote early, usually on the first day. Let ACORN explain why "I" am voting twice.
Posted by: Tregonsee at November 02, 2010 09:42 AM (vq2sy)
4
Went to the poll at 6 am, pooring rain and really bad, yet the place was full. And the people there were not on the way to wark.
Get ERrr done.
Posted by: David at November 02, 2010 10:49 AM (dccG2)
5
It took me 30 minutes in Durham this morning. I was there about 7:45. The line was out to the parking lot and longer when I came out. I've never seen it this busy for a mid-term election. Some friends were in line with me. They said they went to vote early last Saturday. The line was around the block with only 30 minutes left. They obviously didn't stay.
Posted by: Rob at November 02, 2010 12:07 PM (zw8QA)
6
It took me 3-4 minutes to vote in Staunton, VA at 4:00pm. Then again, it wasn't hassle-free for everyone. The woman behind me was unpleasantly surprised to learn that there was no Democrat on the ballot. Bob Goodlatte, who represents the 6th district (Lynchburg + most of the Shenandoah Valley) is so popular he only had a Libertarian and an Independent to run against.
Posted by: Dr. Weevil at November 02, 2010 05:11 PM (n9zaP)
7
My polling place is a quarter-mile away. Voted late (5:30 Eastern) to avoid the rush. Good idea, as the poll workers told me it was truly crowded earlier. Apparently voting early was quite popular this year.
Posted by: Casey at November 02, 2010 08:34 PM (fwjyy)
8
I am ashamed to say we had a really low turnout here in Buncombe County, only 45%, which is apparently a record low. Maybe that's how ultraliberals like Patsy Keever squeaked through.
Posted by: Fred Ray at November 03, 2010 01:31 PM (d4181)
Conservatives have been joking for quite a while now that we "can see November from our house!"
Well, I'm looking a the calendar, and November is here.
A lot of my fellow pundits are going to make predictions on what they think the outcome of tomorrow's elections will be, hoping that they will hit the mark and gain some credibility for their precision, when what happens tomorrow at this point is nothing but a SWAG.
I'll leave the prognosticating to the man I think is best at it, my fellow North Carolinian (and a very nice guy) Scott Elliott. He'll have his final numbers up soon (and they may be up by the time you read this).
I'll shock precisely no one when I tell you that if I was betting on the election I would bet heavily on the Republicans, but I might surprise a few if I told you the specific final results of the elections don't mean that much to me.
I'm certain we can count on our would-be betters in the MFM to throw some digital chicken bones on the floor screen in a lame attempt to declare that they understand the divine meaning of the ballots cast, but you know better.
This election is about one thing, and one thing only... trust. When it comes down to it, that is what all elections are about. Which candidate or party do I trust to make the big decisions that will affect the country for the next few years? Which party can we trust with our nation's economy? Our security? Our history? Our future?
In the 2006 and 2008 elections—and with quite a bit of help from the MFM—voters went to the poll and decided the nation's future would be be run by the elitist far-left wing of the Democratic party.
Well, we've had our liberal Congress. We've had our liberal Senate. And we have a liberal President that would rather bow to foreign dignitaries or talk to half-empty college auditoriums or play golf or watch ESPN than actually lead a nation desperate for real leadership.
But when the leaders fail, the people will lead. It's what Americans have always done, since before we thought of ourselves as "Americans."
It is a beautiful accident of our collective DNA that we are populated by people always looking for a fresh start and more opportunity, who never quit, and who refuse to be told they can't do more, have more, dream more, and be more.
And so tomorrow will end, I suspect, with Republicans firmly in control of Congress, possibly in control of the Senate, and facing one of the most bitterly partisan Presidents in living memory and his rabid followers in the press.
If history is any guide, the professional Republicans will declare themselves as riding a mandate from the people, which they will them immediately scuttle as they return to being the other craven party of Beltway elitists that helped get us into this present predicament.
And so I would remind my fellow fiscal conservatives—which at this point should be all Americans—that when the smoke clears tomorrow, the campaign against the Republican Party and what remains of the Democratic Party begins in earnest.
The Tea Party drove this election, and attracts the sympathies of a growing number of Americans because it found the common ground we must share and exploit if we are to weather the tough times ahead and come out of this worldwide financial crisis still holding our heads high as a nation.
We cannot allow the GOP Elite or the RNC or the pundit class or social conservatives to hijack and divide a movement built upon a promise of returning to the first principles of small government.
That means ending entitlements. That means removing withered social safety nets already collapsing from their own rot. That means reconsidering how we live as individuals and families, and if we are really better off being a nation of reckless, overextended consumers.
I hate to sound dour. Perhaps you, like many people we know, have already rediscovered people as a far more rewarding way to spend your time. You don't miss much when you miss today's Hollywood's movies, just special effects unable to cover the absence of a plot.
In some ways austerity helps up refocus on those things that are really important, even if the adjustment was uncomfortable or even sometimes traumatic.
Our bloated government, far too large and unhealthy for its own good (or ours) similarly needs to go through a period of adjustment, belt-tightening, and refocusing, so that it, too, focuses on "We, the People" yet again.
But that will not happen.
Or at least it won't happen if won't continue to grow the movement for small government fiscal conservatism, if we don't continue to pressure the old guard and support the newly victorious US we're sending to Washington.
We can't let ourselves get distracted, or greedy, or preachy, or too proud.
The hard work of rediscovering and rebuilding America begins with sweeping up the ticker-tape.
Let's roll.
Posted by: Jeff at November 01, 2010 10:45 PM (IOZZZ)
2
I agree with your analysis and view of the state of our nation. The only thing that I think will be the stumbling block will be for the people in DC to have the balls to put everything on the table and say lets start over with our priorities. All of the special interests will come out of the woodwork to lobby for their group. There are two things that may save our nation. One, de-certify ALL federal, state and municipal unions. Two, term limits on every member of Congress. Without term limits there will be no meaningful reform and without killing the unions their will be no politician brave enough to run against them.
Posted by: inspectorudy at November 01, 2010 11:52 PM (KOOZL)
3
I think you're expecting too much. The absolute best we can hope for is for the Republicans to stop all new laws and new expenditures. They certainly will not have the 2/3rds of the house and senate required to revoke anything.
Posted by: Kevin at November 02, 2010 03:56 AM (1sB4u)
My message is simpler: the people will continue to play whack-a-mole using the ballot box with Congress until enough are elected who understand that limited government, lower taxes, and ending incompetent nanny-state intrusions is what is required. The GOP was thrown out in 2006 and will be quickly thrown out again if they forget these facts.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 02, 2010 02:56 PM (MZd0C)
5
Excellent post. I agree with Inspectorudy on term limits. I would add public financing of elections. Our venal politicians listen to the ones who finance their elections, and it better be us rather than Goldman Sachs or the SEIU.
Posted by: Will Butler at November 02, 2010 08:16 PM (J72gA)
6
2010 Stopped the bleeding.
2012 Starts the healing and repealing.
Posted by: Noah Bawdy at November 03, 2010 04:51 AM (1WKuC)
Allegations of Voter Fraud Continue In North Carolina
In the North Carolina early voting, a growing number of Republican and Democrat voters reported that when they voted a straight Republican ticket, their votes were flipped to Democrat in North Carolina in numerous precincts by a default setting that came up and flipped the ballot to straight Democrat as their hand was moved half way down the touch screen.
Shocking, the Board of Elections is dismissing these complaints, even though the voting machine problem is consistently turning Republican votes into Democrat votes.
Thanks to near constant polling by a number of organizations we can ascertain what the outcome of the elections should be once the votes are counted, and if the Democrats take seats all data suggests they should lose, then these elections must be contested.
In the meantime, I'd suggest that voters in both parties select their candidates individually instead of relying up the straight party ticket option.
1
Also, video record the machine change on a cell phone or whatever; we need evidence.
Posted by: mockmook at November 01, 2010 12:49 PM (WZMt3)
2
sounds to me like some people are just too stupid to be able to use a touch screen, AND YOU CAN"T FIX STUPID
Posted by: john at November 01, 2010 07:39 PM (0YS61)
3
Actually it sounds like a typical democrat voter fraud in action. The screen change/new count/found ballots/whatever ALWAYS mysteriously favors dems.
Sorrry there, john, IF the problem was just a bunch of people too stupid to use a touch screen, they would all be democraps and the votes would be changing to repub. Not to mention that the BoE dismisses all of the complaints because the machine just automatically defaults to a straight demo ticket if the voter makes a mistake.
Posted by: emdfl at November 01, 2010 09:46 PM (VLJln)
4
Remeber, machines don't make mistakes and they don't make assumptions - they do EXACTLY as they a programmed to do. So who programmed these machines? The person/people responsible are guilty of subverting the democratic process of an ENTIRE NATION. And not just any two-bit nation either, arguably the most poweful and influential nation in the world. Something to wrap your head around.
Posted by: Walt at November 02, 2010 01:29 AM (puT5W)
5
Other countries are going forward and discarding old fashioned, easily corrupted voting machines and computers in favour of paper ballots, red pencils, and manually counting votes which has been shown to be much more reliable.
Maybe something for the US to consider.
Posted by: JTW at November 02, 2010 04:58 AM (jMRqb)
I disagreed with some of the things George Bush done in office, but one thing I've never questioned is his utter and complete love of this nation.
I wish I could say the same about the current President.
1
Looking at those two benign faces, I've got to agree with your post, Yankee. And the crowd seems to be really, really happy. No one is perfect, and after 82 years of observing my fellow citizens, I really know it, but these two men did their very best to lead us honorably and honestly. God bless them.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at November 01, 2010 03:07 PM (Aaj8s)
2
Glad that George W was able to see the Rangers make the World Series. I thought I'd never see that in my lifetime. Claw and Antlers in 2011.
Posted by: Lasertex at November 02, 2010 12:18 AM (WvqFW)
KTVA Reporters Deserve Firing For Attempts to Rig Election
There is not more accurate way to describe this story. Reporters and news managers at CBS News affiliate KTVA have been captured plotting a string of so-called "October surprises." They expressly discuss ways to fabricate news stories they hope will damage the campaign of Senate candidate Joe Miller.
This is a morally reprehensible and indefensible act of conspiracy to defraud the viewers of KTVA and any other citizen that may pick up these vulgar fictions.
The entire news staff of KTVA should be investigated by the appropriate authorities to determine if state and federal laws have been as badly broken as has been the public's trust.
As a news outlet, KTVA is now hopelessly compromised. They've utterly destroyed their credibility. Thee is little choice for the station owner but to fire the entire news staff. None of them can be trusted.
And they have no one to blame but themselves.
1
Do you REALLY think the station owner is going to fire ANYBODY? This will be buried by ABCNNBCBS and their dead-tree fellow travelers. It will make sites like this on the Internet, which is why Congress is looking to give the President the capability to SHUT DOWN the Internet for several months if he declares an emergency.
I DO see it has made Drudge, which will force the matter a little bit. But with Tuesday so close, expect it to die soon.
Finally, do you REALLY expect the state or federal "Law Enforcement" and "Legal System" to do ANYTHING about this? I would hope you're not THAT foolish.
Posted by: Mark Matis at October 31, 2010 05:07 PM (h+LrT)
2
You must just be feeling pissed to think that ANYTHING will happen to any of the staff that did this. Look at the New Black Panthers on the steps of a voting precint and what the DOJ did to them. NOTHING!!!!!
Posted by: inspectorudy at October 31, 2010 06:05 PM (KOOZL)
3
Imagine the tables were turned and this newspaper had a recording of executives of some big business discussing doing something unethical. If the company came out and said "It's unfortunate because what you heard does not reflect our business ethics. You're misinterpreting it." Would the newspaper say "Oh, I see" and back off?
I'm just asking.
Posted by: John at October 31, 2010 11:03 PM (RFBUE)
From the ridiculously charming, smart and indispensable Michelle Malkin and the good folks at Hot Air comes a reminder that Progressives really are a separate--and dangerous--species. I speak, of course, of America’s sweetheart, Katie Couric, who has done so much to drive one of the formerly great network news organizations into the dumpster.
Hot Air reports: “Rick Kaplan, her executive producer, says that ‘when she’s on the road--in Iraq with David Petraeus--she has a great way with people. People like her and she likes them. There are anchors who consider being on the road a pain in the butt. She really looks for opportunities to feel the earth and touch people.’”
Let us, just to be kind, consider that Mr. Kaplan, and Ms. Couric, mean this in the best possible way. That said, who even thinks this way, let alone says it?! She has a great way with people? They like her and she likes them? It sounds like she’s talking about cute puppies. Of course, we all appreciate Ms. Couric’s sacrifice in actually, you know, traveling to do her job, the job for which she is compensated with untold millions. But how, pray tell, does one go about feeling the earth and touching people, particularly since Ms. Couric is among those instrumental in making earth touching a moral and criminal offense, to say nothing about touching a member of a protected, favored class. But of course, we earthy types in flyover country are certainly touched by Ms. Couric's concern and good intentions.
And now let us venture into dodged bullet territory. I speak, of course, of the man who nearly became president of the United States by running on the “I’m better and smarter than any thousand of you” ticket: Senator John Kerry. Thanks to Doug Powers at Hot Air who reported Mr. Kerry’s concerns for America in these dark hours:
“It’s absurd. We’ve lost our minds. We’re in a period of know-nothingism in the country, where truth and science and facts don’t weigh in. It’s all short-order, lowest common denominator, cheap seat politics.”
The Senator is referring to the great unwashed, the fearful God and gun clingers who hate those who aren’t like them who are on the verge of expelling large numbers of their betters from that most sacred, intellectual and moral institution: The United States Congress. Let’s see: The Europeans are trying to run away from socialism as fast as possible, global warming has been exposed as the most egregious scientific hoax of all time, Cap and Trade and Obama Care will bankrupt the nation, and the American public has recovered, with a vengeance, from an overdose of hopenchange, but Mr. Kerry can't imagine why we don't drool all over him and the polices of his progressive pals? What's not to love?
We dodged a huge bullet with Mr. Kerry. That was a close one.
The winners of the October, 2010 Louis Renault Award have been announced: Anyone who is shocked, shocked! to learn that NPR is a wholly owned propaganda arm of the Progressive (formerly Democrat Party.) And the runners up are: Anyone, particularly Juan Williams, who is shocked, shocked(!) to learn that conservatives are orders of magnitude more tolerant, caring and forgiving than progressives.
Comedy Central Planning has tried to ban Pajamas Media from covering today's hoping-to-be-cooly-ironic spectacle on the National Mall today, showing the Obama-worshipping faux news hosts speaking at the event aren't much for coverage that doesn't involve a laugh track.
You can watch it live here if you so desire.
I'm "watching" the event on two computers with the sound off for as long as it lasts. After all, Comedy Central is paying for the bandwidth, right? I'll actually be watching college football on television.
For those of you on twitter, the #fearofsanity hashtag is providing some pretty funny material so far.
Big Government is live blogging.
1
I checked out the link and it was just as bad as I thought. This is nothing but a huge Obama lovefest. Also, as I could only see white faces, it is racist.
Posted by: David at October 30, 2010 03:14 PM (6PXjA)
NC Democrat Tim Spear's Mailer: You Always Want the Wehrmacht Covering Your Back
On the bright side, these were only WWII reenactors, not real German soldiers that the North Carolina Democratic Party wants to back. It's certainly a step up from the white supremacist unit they supported in the only successful military coup d'état in American history (via Big Government).
1
The wikipedia article was obviously written by a "person of color", up on Zinn's "people's history" judging by the 5th grade level it was written.
Conservatives should not endorse such revisionist comic-book garbage.
I don't understand this bizarre neocon strategy to co opt "OMG NAZIS" from the liberal nerds. The republican / conservative spheres will always be 90 percent white as the political and cultural beliefs that form them are largely genetically determined (and no that is not a bad, "nazi" thing, like we should have to apologize for our genetics), we shouldn't dumb down the message to make it palatable for all the worlds people.
Posted by: Paleocon at October 28, 2010 06:56 PM (wRhUB)
2
Paleocon, conservatives have enough trouble defending themselves from false racism accusations without having to contend with the real thing. Your opening comment is offensive and ignorant.
If you're trolling, please leave. If you actually think this way, you need to do some serious soul-searching.
Posted by: Walt at October 28, 2010 10:13 PM (puT5W)
3
Priceless goof of a mailer! Good eye on catching that one, sir!
Posted by: Ric James at October 29, 2010 09:05 AM (zqzYV)
4
This reminds me of the group that Obama has surrounded himself with ih the WH. They are all acedemics and none of them have any real world experience. Just like the 20 something that put this idiotic ad together using German soldiers instead of Americans. This enexperienced kid just needed soldiers and is so militarily uninformed that he didn't know one from another.
Posted by: inspectorudy at October 29, 2010 05:32 PM (KOOZL)
Based on the camouflage smocks these are Waffen SS troops.
Freudian slip?
Posted by: Uncle Fester at October 29, 2010 09:38 PM (1/XXg)
6
LOL you beat me to it Uncle Fester, definitely late Waffen SS. I think those are post 1944 camouflage patterns. You have to be really out of it to not recognize that these are German soldiers, hilarious. On a related note that SS reenactor guy Iotte has gotten a raw deal. Dressing up as an SS soldier for a reenactment no more makes you a Nazi than a dracula costume makes you a vampire. I am an American Loyalist revwar reenactor, but don't love General Washington any less for it!
Posted by: Will Butler at October 30, 2010 11:34 AM (J72gA)
7
I'm not so sure the Democrats made a stupid mistake, be-clowning themselves. They literally believe it. They just don't experience reality the same as normal people.
Posted by: brando at October 31, 2010 07:31 PM (9eRs4)
8
Yep, Waffen SS. But also eastern front. So at least they were pointed in the right direction...
Posted by: ThomasD at November 01, 2010 11:47 AM (21H5U)
Is the man in the photo really holding firearms...
...or is it faked?
