Here's one to start your day with...
Is this your America, folks?
"Texas Teen Makes Violent Joke During Video Game, Is Jailed For Months"
That's the headline.
Here's the story:
A Texas teenager who has been in jail since March faces
an eight-year prison sentence because of a threatening joke he made while
playing an online video game.
In February, Justin Carter was playing “League of
Legends” - an online, multi-player fantasy game - when another player wrote a
comment calling him insane. Carter’s response, which he now deeply regrets, was
intended as joke.
“He replied ‘Oh yeah, I’m real messed up in the head, I’m
going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating
hearts,’ and the next two lines were lol and jk,” said Jack Carter, Justin’s
father, in a statement to a local news channel.
* As you'll see, folks, nowhere in the article is it claimed
that the father's statement isn't true. Therefore... I accept it as fact for
purposes of this posting.
The statements “lol” and “jk” - meaning “laughing out
loud” and “just kidding” - indicate that Justin’s statement was entirely
sarcastic, said his father.
* Because... er... that's what they do mean!
* Geezus... even without the "lol" and
"jk" I believe it's pretty clear - especially within the context of
online banter and trash talk in the midst of perfectly legal online
video-gaming - that this 19-year-old wasn't actually making a "terroristic
threat."
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
But a Canadian woman who saw the post looked up Carter’s
Austin address, determined that it was near an elementary school, and called
the police. Carter was arrested one month later, and has been in jail ever
since. He recently celebrated his 19th birthday behind bars.
* Now here's where I hesitate; why isn't there any hint of
what the authorities found out over their month-long investigation? Either they
found something - concrete plans for an upcoming massacre along with a weapons
cache - or else... these "authorities" are themselves
"insane." I find that latter hard to believe... but without
information speaking to the former...
(*SHRUG*)
Authorities charged him with making a terrorist threat.
If convicted, he will face eight years in prison.
* Via what evidence? What exactly did their month-long
investigation find? This young man has been in jail since March! Had he been
arrested for DWI I'm guessing he would have been released on his own recognizance
or after paying a few hundred dollars bail!
“These people are serious. They really want my son to go
away to jail for a sarcastic comment that he made,” said the elder Carter.
* Absent competing evidence it sure does seem so, no?
Authorities noted that recent school shootings like the
one in Newtown, Connecticut have caused them to evaluate all potential threats
seriously. Newtown was still fresh in their minds at the time of Carter’s
arrest.
* No one's saying not to "evaluate all potential
threats seriously." What I'm saying is that - at least from what I'm
reading here - no serious threat was made and we've been presented with no
evidence that could possibly justify this young man sitting in jail for near-on
four months!
“In light of recent situations, statements such as the
one Justin made are taken seriously,” said an Austin police detective in a
statement.
* Again... there's a huge difference between "taking
threats seriously" and arresting and imprisoning an American citizen who -
at least from what I'm reading here on The Daily Caller - is at most
"guilty" of free speech some view as obnoxious and offensive.
* What's next? Will men in black one day
"disappear" me after I throw yet another of my trademarked "Dear
Terrorists: Latitude:38.895193° Longitude:-77.036628°" wiseass quips up
here on Usually Right?
A hearing to review Carter’s case is scheduled for July
1.
* And if, as I fear, there's no real evidence that would
justify what has occurred here... will anyone be fired? Will any of the
authorities responsible be held responsible?
8 comments:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/democrats-who-voted-for-doma-reaction-93480.html
* AS I SADLY SO OFTEN POINT OUT... (*SIGH*)... AS BAD AS THE REPUBLICANS ARE... THE DEMOCRATS ARE WORSE.
* JUST READ...
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Report-Park-Police-have-lost-track-of-weapons-213434461.html
The U.S. Park Police, the law enforcement agency responsible for safeguarding the National Mall and critical American landmarks, has lost track of a large supply of handguns, rifles and shotguns, according to a harshly critical report issued Thursday.
* SO THE CHIEF WILL BE IMMEDIATELY FIRED... RIGHT?
(*SNICKER*)
In the report, the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Interior faults staff at the agency for having no idea how many weapons they control and says the department has no clear policies or procedures for investigating missing weapons.
* GEEZUS FUCKING CHRIST...
The office says top managers, including the police chief, have shown a "lackadaisical attitude toward firearms management."
While surveying Park Police field office armories, investigators found more than 1,400 extra and unassigned weapons that were intended to be destroyed.
(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)
They also found 198 handguns that were transferred from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and stored in an operations facility firearms room without being recorded in an inventory system.
* OUTFUCKINGSTANDING!
There are also instances of officers storing service weapons at their homes, according to the report.
(*THUMBS UP*)
"We found credible evidence of conditions that would allow for theft and misuse of firearms, and the ability to conceal the fact if weapons were missing," deputy inspector general Mary Kendall wrote to Jonathan Jarvis, the director of the National Park Service, in a letter that accompanies the report. The watchdog agency says its report was triggered by an anonymous tip suggesting that the Park Police could not account for government-issued military-style weapons.
The report also includes 10 recommendations to improve firearms management. The Washington Post was first to report the inspector general's findings.
The Fraternal Order of Police released a response to the report, pointing out several inaccuracies:
The report fails to mention that firearms requiring disposal cannot be destroyed due to the lack of any contractor currently available to dispose of (melt down) these firearms and render them useless. Nor are any recommendations given on how to remedy this.
* WHAT'S THIS HAVE TO DO WITH INVENTORY...??? WITH PROPER RECORD-KEEPING...???
This report makes assertions that go back well over 10 years, yet the current Chief has only been back in her position since 2011, after her lengthy court battle to return to her position.
* I DON'T EVEN WANNA KNOW...
* REMEMBER, FOLKS... THIS IS THE CITY THAT RE-ELECTED A CORRUPT CRACK-HEAD AS MAYOR!
There is no mention of any other former officials being held accountable for past failures, some of whom are still employed by the Department of Interior or other Federal agencies.
* THEN LET'S GET THE NAMES!
The report fails to mention that the Firearms Custodian has had little to no access to the computer system used to track these government owned firearms other than viewing capability. The ability to add, delete or modify the inventory has not been given to the U.S. Park Police, directly.
* OK... NOW THIS ONE... THAT - IF TRUE - IS A GAME-CHANGER IF TRUE...
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57591520-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-neighbor-testifies-trayvon-martin-was-straddling-zimmerman-moments-before-fatal-gunshot/
A former neighbor of George Zimmerman testified he saw two men in a "tussle" outside his home the night of Feb. 26, 2012, and said he now believes the person on top in the altercation - which would moments later turn fatal - was Trayvon Martin.
* HAS HE ALWAYS BELIEVED THIS? WAS THIS WHAT HE ORIGINALLY TOLD POLICE? (REMEMBER, FOLKS, AT FIRST POLICE ON THE SCENE REFUSED TO CHARGE ZIMMERMAN - BASICALLY BUYING HIS SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM. IT WAS ONLY AFTER A MONTH OF MOUNTING POLITICAL PRESSURE THAT CHARGES WERE LODGED AGAINST ZIMMERMAN. WAS THIS NEIGHBOR'S WITNESS STATEMENT PART OF THE REASON WHY ZIMMERMAN WASN'T INITIALLY CHARGED?)
In key testimony, he also said he believes George Zimmerman was the person yelling for help.
John Good took the stand Friday in the fifth day of testimony in the Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial. Zimmerman is charged with shooting the unarmed teen as he was walking back to his father's fiancee's home through a Sanford, Fla. gated community.
* NOTICE, FOLKS... SOME MEDIA REPORTS HAVE MARTIN VISITING "HIS FATHER, WHO LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD," WHILE OTHERS RE-OPEN THE ISSUE OF WHY MARTIN WAS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD... A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAD EXPERIENCED A SLEW OF ROBBERIES...
* MY POINT? SHOULDN'T "FACTUAL REPORTING" BE CONSISTANT ACROSS THE BOARD...? MY POINT? IT'S NOT! (WHY NOT...??? I THINK THAT'S OBVIOUS.)
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
John Good testified he saw a man in dark clothing on top of a man who was wearing red or light-colored clothing with lighter skin.
Zimmerman, 29, was wearing a red jacket the night of the altercation, and Martin was wearing a dark hoodie.
However, Good testified that he didn't see the person on top smashing the other person's head into the sidewalk, as Zimmerman claims Martin did before he fatally shot the teen.
* ZIMMERMAN'S HEAD WOUNDS WERE CONSISTENT WITH ZIMMERMAN'S STORY. (*SHRUG*)
Taking the stand Friday, John Good said he was at home watching television with his wife when he heard a "faint noise" that seemed to be getting closer. Outside, he said he saw the person on top of another man. The man on the bottom, who he said he now believes is George Zimmerman, yelled for help.
* FOLKS... THIS ISN'T ENOUGH TO RENDER ZIMMERMAN "INNOCENT," BUT IT SURE AS HELL IS ENOUGH TO LEAD TO "NO GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT."
"At first it was "What's going on," and no one answered,'" Good said, describing calling out to the men. "And then at that point the person on the bottom, I could finally see, I heard a 'help.' Then at some point I said 'Cut it out.' And then, 'I'm calling 911.' That's when I thought it was getting really serious."
* FOLKS... ABSENT VIDEO OR OTHER EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY TO THE CONTRARY...
(*SHRUG*)
The altercation seemed to escalate, according to Good. The struggle moved to the cement pathway, and he said the person in dark clothing straddled the other man in "mixed martial arts position" he later described to police as a "ground and pound." He said he saw "arm movements going downward," though he couldn't be certain the person on top was striking the person on the bottom.
"The person you now know to be Trayvon Martin was on top, correct?" asked defense attorney Mark O'Mara. "He was the one raining blows down on George Zimmerman, correct?"
"That's what it looked like," Good answered.
Good said he then went back inside to call 911. As he was dialing the phone, he heard a gunshot. His 911 call was played in court as the jury listened.
"I just heard a shot right behind my house. They're wrestling right in back of my porch," Good said on the recording. "...I'm pretty sure the guy's dead out here. Holy sh--."
Later, prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda asked whether it was possible a police officer could have used the term "ground and pound" before he did.
"It's possible," Good said.
De la Rionda honed in on Good's earlier statement that he couldn't confirm the person on top was hitting the other person.
"Correct," Good said.
* AGAIN... "REASONABLE DOUBT..." IT'S CERTAINLY BEEN ESTABLISHED. ZIMMERMAN NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH MURDER. PERIOD. THIS IS A POLITICAL PROSECUTION. THIS IS UNAMERICAN.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324328204578571994084780764.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
"Documents Show Liberals in I.R.S. Dragnet," read the New York Times headline.
* LIES...
"Dem: 'Progressive' Groups Were Also Targeted by IRS," said U.S. News.
* LIES...
The scandal has "evaporated into thin air," bayed the excitable Andrew Sullivan.
* LARGELY TRUE; BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE MEDIA IS LARGELY AN ARM OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE OBAMA POLITICAL MACHINE.
A breathlessly exonerative narrative swept the news media this week: that liberal groups had been singled out and, by implication, abused by the IRS, just as conservative groups had been. Therefore, the scandal wasn't a scandal but a mere bungle — a non-political series of unhelpful but innocent mistakes.
The problem with this story is that liberals were not caught in the IRS dragnet. Progressive groups were not targeted.
* ONE... MORE... TIME...
The problem with this story is that liberals were not caught in the IRS dragnet. Progressive groups were not targeted.
The claim that they had been rested mostly on an unclear, undated, highly redacted and not at all dispositive few pages from a "historical" BOLO ("be on the lookout") list that apparently wasn't even in use between May 2010 and May 2012, when most of the IRS harassment of conservative groups occurred.
The case isn't closed, no matter how many people try to slam it shut.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
On Wednesday Russell George, the Treasury inspector general whose original audit broke open the scandal, answered Rep. Sander Levin's charge that the audit had ignored the targeting of progressives. In a letter released Thursday, Mr. George couldn't have been clearer: The evidence showed conservative groups were singled out for abuse by the IRS, not liberal groups.
* ONE... MORE... TIME...
On Wednesday Russell George, the Treasury inspector general whose original audit broke open the scandal, answered Rep. Sander Levin's charge that the audit had ignored the targeting of progressives. In a letter released Thursday, Mr. George couldn't have been clearer: The evidence showed conservative groups were singled out for abuse by the IRS, not liberal groups.
(*SHRUG*)
While some liberal groups might have wound up on a BOLO list, the IRS did not target them.
"We did not find evidence that the criteria you identified, labeled 'Progressives,' were used by the IRS to select potential political cases during the 2010 to 2012 timeframe we audited."
One hundred percent of the groups with "Tea Party," "Patriot" or "9/12" in their names were given extra scrutiny.
"While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of Tea Party and other related criteria . . . including employee interviews, e-mails, and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that 'progressives' was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention."
* FUCKING NEW YORK TIMES... (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
According to a House Ways and Means Committee source, only seven of the 298 cases flagged by the IRS for extra scrutiny appeared to represent progressive causes. Not one of the seven was subject to harassment or abuse. Of the seven, only two were even sent follow-up questionnaires after their applications for tax-exempt status were received. Neither of those two was asked inappropriate or invasive questions. And all seven saw their applications approved.
Conservative groups were treated differently, sent to a secondary review group after being flagged for scrutiny. They were subject to undue burdens and harassment — lengthy and invasive questions about donors and even prayer habits. There, in the secondary offices, some of them languished for years. "Some of them are still languishing," said the source.
* COM'ON... THE NYT DELIBERATELY WENT OUT ON A LIMB TO TRY AND PROVIDE COVER FOR OBAMA AND THE DEMS AND THAT LIMB HAS NOW BEEN SEVERED.
Danny Werfel, the acting head of the IRS, who manages at the same time to seem utterly well-meaning and highly evasive, further muddied the waters this week with a report on how the IRS is dealing with the aftermath of the inspector general's audit. The report seemed to exonerate — "we have not found evidence of intentional wrongdoing at this time" — while admitting, further in: "We are digging deeper . . . to determine if there are instances of wrongdoing."
Which is it?
No one has gotten near the bottom of this scandal. Journalists shouldn't be trying to make the story disappear. The revenue-gathering arm of the federal government appears to be politically biased, corrupt in its actions, and unable to reform itself.
The only way to make that story go away is to get to the bottom of it and fully reveal it.
It's not a bungle, it's a scandal.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323566804578551672709633396.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
President Obama unveiled his vast new anti-carbon-energy agenda this week, which he plans to impose by executive fiat.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
Crucial to pulling off this exercise is a decision the federal bureaucracy made last month to change the way it accounts for carbon emissions — a decision that received almost no media attention.
(*PURSED LIPS*) (*NOD*)
In late May the Administration slipped this mickey into a new rule about efficiency standards for microwaves, significantly raising what it calls the "social cost of carbon."
Team Obama made no public notice and invited no comment on this change that will further tilt rule-making against products and industries that use carbon energy.
Federal law requires the government to calculate the costs and benefits of its rules and projects. The regulatory agencies are expert at rigging these calculations, but even they haven't been able to hide the enormous costs of President Obama's regulations under traditional economic measurement. The Administration's solution? Simply redefine the economic and social "benefits" of reducing carbon.
* AND TO ACCOMPLISH THIS BAIT AND SWITCH... (READ ON!)
[I]n 2010 an interagency working group conjured a new way to goose the benefits of regulation. Every metric ton of carbon that was reduced by regulation would suddenly count for $21 in "social benefits." This figure was derived by guesses about how more carbon in the atmosphere may harm everything from agricultural productivity to human health to flood risks. The government's previous official estimate? $0.
(*SNORT*)
All of this was neatly illustrated in a 2011 paper by Michael Greenstone, a former White House economist, who helped to dream up the initial 2010 figure. Mr. Greenstone analyzed the Administration's new fuel-efficiency standards and admitted that under traditional economic analysis they were a net loser. They'd cost industry and consumers $350 billion, while providing benefits (less pollution, more energy security and less congestion) of only $277 billion. Yet conjure up another $177 billion in supposed new social benefits from less carbon, and — voila! —t he costs of the new rule would be more than offset.
* SON... OF... A... BITCH...!
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
All of this is prelude to the coming regulatory onslaught on carbon energy and electricity production. The social-cost gambit will allow the Administration to claim an enormous economic benefit for any greenhouse gas regulation that reduces carbon — such as new standards on existing coal plants (new plants are already being regulated out of existence), oil refineries or lawn mowers.
* TRANSLATION: WE'RE GONNA PAY MORE FOR POWER AND EVERYTHING THAT USES POWER.
This will also help to disguise the net cost of these rules in lost jobs, higher energy prices and less consumer choice. The new social-cost calculation could also be used against projects like the Keystone XL pipeline, claiming they impose too high a "social cost" by assisting the production of carbon energy to justify approval.
* YOU FOLKS UNDERSTAND THAT OBAMA IS STILL OPPOSING KEYSTONE, RIGHT?
Republicans are slowly figuring out what's going on here, and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana has sent a letter to the EPA, Energy Department and White House budget office demanding the details of its social-cost modeling.
(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*) OH, YEAH... THAT'S GONNA SHOW 'EM! (*SNORT*)
Laurie Johnson, chief economist for climate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says the social cost of carbon ought to be as high as $266 a metric ton.
* FOLKS... UNDERSTAND... THESE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE THE REST OF US LIVING IN A PRE-INDUSTRIAL AGE AS LONG AS THEY COULD MAINTAIN THEIR OWN STANDARDS OF LIVING. THINK OF AL GORE!
If the cost can be whatever some regulator claims, based on pressure from some green outfit or competing energy lobby, the government has the power to put any fossil-fuel industry out of business whenever it feels like it.
* YEP...
All of this is profoundly undemocratic.
* AS IS MUCH OF WHAT GOES ON IN THE AGE OF OBAMA...
Congress has never legislated that there are social costs to carbon emissions, much less how to measure them.
Mr. Obama couldn't pass his anti-carbon agenda through Congress in his first two years even with a Democratic supermajority. He's now trying to impose it by regulation, and to do so he's rigging the rule-making with inventions like the "social cost of carbon."
Someone needs to impose a political cost on Mr. Obama's arbitrary rule by regulation.
* TO LATE. HE WAS RE-ELECTED LAST YEAR AS WAS ANOTHER TWO-YEARS OF A DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED SENATE.
Post a Comment