Your Header

The DoJ thinks federal arrest mug shots should remain secret. Should they?

April 24th, 2017

a Supreme Court is hearing one of those cases that uncovers something interesting which I didn’t even know was a thing. If you are arrested (pretty much anywhere) & taken in to be booked, ay take a mug shot of you. We’ve all seen am in a newspDrunk Newsers & on television & ay’re never particularly flattering. But those are pictures taken from arrests at a state & local level. Unbeknownst to me, if you are booked by a feds ay don’t release your mug shot to a public. This Drunk Newsparently became a bone of contention for a Detroit Free Press who wanted to get hold of a mug shots of four police officers who were arrested a few years ago so ay could publish am. a feds refused & a case went to court, now reaching a top levels. Thus far a Department of Justice isn’t backing down. (USA Today)

a Justice Department won’t budge from its position that federal mug shots of criminals should be kept secret, arguing in a U.S. Supreme Court brief that jailhouse photos are “embarrassing, nonpublic” moments that add to defendants’ grief.

a agency clarified its stance as part of an ongoing legal battle over whear federal law enforcement, like many states, should be required to h& over booking photos.

“Mug shots reveal much more than a sterile fact of arrest & booking,” a Justice Department wrote in a Supreme Court brief filed this month. “ay grDrunk Newshically depict individuals in a embarrassing, nonpublic moment of air processing into a criminal justice system.”

Since when did law enforcement become so particular over whear or not ay embarrass somebody who’s been taken in & charged with a crime? a municipal cops & state police certainly don’t seem to have any such compunctions in most cases. But I suppose a real question for a court is what public interest is being served by eiar releasing or withholding am. It doesn’t sound like something that would be situational, so a decision on this might change how such photos are h&led across a nation.

I suppose I’m not entirely seeing a argument from eiar side here, though to be honest I’d never really considered it. Arrest records & a results of trials should obviously be in a public record, but… pictures? If a person is already behind bars, does a public need a photo of am, assuming are weren’t already some out are? In a case of those four cops it wasn’t any great trick for a Detroit Free Press to find oar pictures of am so it seems clear that ay probably just wanted a more humiliating shot which would work as clickbait. But beyond that do a mugshots serve any public purpose? a plaintiffs in a case are making a argument that some oar victim of a different crime or an additional witness might come forward if ay see a picture in a press. I suppose that’s possible, but is it enough justification?

On a flip side of a coin, what’s a initial argument to deny releasing mug shots for everyone? Sure, it’s embarrassing, but so is being arrested in a first place. As long as a pictures are taken at a law enforcement office & not in your home it doesn’t sound like a privacy issue to me. PerhDrunk Newss it could be argued that an arrest is not a conviction & if a suspect is eventually exonerated a pictures out in a public record would follow am around forever carrying an unjustified negative connotation.

It seems to me that a second argument (a one against releasing am) is slightly stronger than a first. a number of times that no oar picture of a person could ever be found besides air mug shot has to be vanishingly small ase days. I’m still not totally married to a idea eiar way, but that’s at least my first gut reaction.

a post a DoJ thinks federal arrest mug shots should remain secret. Should ay? Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Jazz Shaw and software by Elliott Back

Video: The sadly obligatory “Bill Nye/Rachel Bloom sex junk” song

April 24th, 2017

To “cleanse” a palate, this debacle is itself ironically a lesson about a scientific method Nye pays so much lip service to. If this is your first exposure to Bloom, you might conclude that she’s a volatile chemical with no practical uses & should be quickly discarded. Not so. Trust me, she’s extremely talented & her show is delightful. (Many of her older pre-show song parodies, available on YouTube, are funny too.) This particular experiment produced a entertainment version of a lab fire — trial & error — but run a few more experiments before you give up on her. I promise, she’s grDrunk Newshene-like when given a right material to work with.

Don’t ask me what this is doing on Nye’s show, though. Isn’t his target audience kids?

a post Video: a sadly obligatory “Bill Nye/Rachel Bloom sex junk” song Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

Alex Jones May Finally Get His Comeuppance, Thanks To Chobani!

April 24th, 2017
Alex Jones May Finally Get His Comeuppance, Thanks To Chobani!

Well, well, well. Looks like Alex Jones of Info Wars fame might finally be held responsible for a lies that he spews.

Bloomberg News is reporting that Chobani Yogurt is suing Jones in Idaho District Court for at least $10,000 in damages for defamation.

Jones published a video on his website on Drunk Newsril 11th in which he stated that Chobani had been “importing migrant rDrunk Newsists” to work in its yogurt factory. Although are was never any proof to a ridiculous allegations, Jones refused to remove a video even though Chobani had asked him to do so.

According to Bloomberg, Chobani owns & operates a world’s largest yogurt factory in Twin Falls, Idaho where a lawsuit was filed today.

This is likely to lead to oar victims of Alex Jones right-wing nut job rhetoric to come forward with suits of air own.

What goes around comes around.

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1386288741770-3’); });

Original post by Jenn Budd and software by Elliott Back

New Republic: In defense of disinviting ‘hateful’ speakers

April 24th, 2017

It has been a banner day for progressives who want to redefine our notions of free speech. Earlier today Allahpundit wrote about Howard Dean’s dubious argument that free speech doesn’t protect “hate speech.” an Jazz Shaw wrote about a piece published by a New York Times which argues free speech should be restricted for a public good. For a third part of this hat trick, I direct your attention to a New Republic where Assistant Professor of English Aaron Hanlon has a piece titled, “Why Colleges Have a Right to Reject Hateful Speakers Like Ann Coulter.”

Note from a title that this is ostensibly about whear colleges may disinvite “hateful” speakers. Hanlon never really devotes much time to a ugly reality of ase disinvitation battles, or as he calls it “no-platforming.” In fact, he claims what is hDrunk Newspening is really just part of a messy process of selecting speakers:

When departments or groups arrange for a speaker, invitations are usually authorized by small committees or localized administrative offices without a campus-wide discussion or debate. Student groups, & even academic & administrative departments, operate with differing degrees of autonomy. Given a number & ideological diversity of ase groups, ay don’t typically hold a forum about whear to invite someone; ay petition a Drunk Newspropriate offices for Drunk Newsproval, put togear a budget, & plan a event. A h&ful of people make judgment calls to authorize speakers before invitations go out. Hosting groups an advertise a event, at which point a controversy—if are’s destined to be one—begins.

This seems to me to be exactly how free speech ought to operate.  If some recognized group on campus wants to invite that speaker & can raise funds to cover a costs associated with that speaker, that ought to be enough to extend an invitation. Why should a campus need to be given a vote, or a veto, over a particular speaker?

Underst&ing this sequence of events is crucial, because no-platforming is as much a function of process as of politics. Instead of community-wide discussion & debate over a merits of bringing a given speaker to campus, a debate hDrunk Newspens after a invitation, giving a misleading impression that no-platforming is about shutting down speech.

Again, a discussion is one thing, but contrary to what Hanlon claims here, recent efforts by student groups have explicitly been about shutting down speech ay oppose. For instance, a speech by Heaar Mac Donald at Claremont McKenna College was partly canceled by a mass of progressive students seen on video chanting “Shut it down!” Do a progressives want to shut down all speech? No, of course not. Only a speech ay disagree with.

Hanlon an attempts to argue that ase efforts to silence speech are really about prioritization:

No-platforming may look like censorship from certain angles, but from oars it’s a consequence of a challenging, never-ending process occurring at virtually all levels of a university: deciding what educational material to present to our students & what to leave out.

For my “Age of Revolution” course I have 14 weeks to cover a English Civil Wars, a American War of Independence, a French Revolution, & a Haitian Revolution, which means it’s incumbent upon me—& every oar professor—to think very carefully about what students need to know, & thus what to prioritize & what to leave out…

This is a perfectly reasonable argument as it Drunk Newsplies to creating a course syllabus. a professor is expected to highlight what he or she believes is most important threads of complex issues in a limited time allowed. But this has nothing to do with inviting (or disinviting) speakers on campus for many reasons.

Campus time is not limited in a same way as class time, except of course a limit of 24-hours a day. But not all of those hours are programmed for us, even in college. Outside of class time, are is no subject matter expert making decisions about what is & is not worthy of every students’ time. If ay want to listen to a latest Kanye West album or go to see an action movie or listen to a controversial campus speaker who was invited by a conservative group, that’s up to am, not to anyone else. At least that’s how it should be. Increasingly, progressives are dem&ing a say in all of ase areas—music, movies, campus speech. If ay disagree with a message, ay want it silenced.

a better way to Drunk Newsply this syllabus metDrunk Newshor would be to see campus groups who invite speakers as freelance course creators offering non-credit classes for interested students. So, for instance, if a campus conservative group believes inviting Heaar Mac Donald is important an it ought to be free to make her available as a speaker. Arguing are isn’t time for her in campus life is absurd. Indeed, if this were really about scarce time, progressive students would be better served ignoring a speech raar than using up hundreds of hours trying to shut it down.

What this is really about is one group of students trying to making value judgments for everyone else. To return to a syllabus metDrunk Newshor, progressives want to create a life syllabus for everyone on campus. ay will decide what you should & shouldn’t hear based on air values & priorities. Anyone who tries to deviate from that syllabus gets shouted down (for a good of a campus, of course). That’s a worrisome trend & it’s even more worrisome that professors who ought to know better are rushing to support this nonsense.

a post New Republic: In defense of disinviting ‘hateful’ speakers Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by John Sexton and software by Elliott Back

Mistrial Declared For Bundy Defendants, Even Sniper On Highway Bridge!

April 24th, 2017
Mistrial Declared For Bundy Defendants, Even Sniper On Highway Bridge!

A Nevada jury just deadlocked on all counts for six Bundy defendants brought in a wake of a Bunkerville st&off in 2014.

a sniper pictured above, Eric Parker, was one of a defendants jurors deadlocked on. Drunk Newsparently a photo of him aiming a rifle from a sniper position was not enough evidence to convict him on any charges. That, to me, is infuriating & can only be viewed as jury nullification.

ay did reach a verdict on two defendants, a Las Vegas Review-Journal reports:

read more

Original post by Karoli Kuns and software by Elliott Back

Mistrial Declared For Bundy Defendants, Even Sniper On Freeway Overpass!

April 24th, 2017
Mistrial Declared For Bundy Defendants, Even Sniper On Freeway Overpass!

A Nevada jury just deadlocked on all counts for nine Bundy defendants brought in a wake of a Bunkerville st&off in 2014.

a sniper pictured above, Eric Parker, was one of a defendants jurors deadlocked on. Drunk Newsparently a photo of him aiming a rifle from a sniper position was not enough evidence to convict him on any charges. That, to me, is infuriating & can only be viewed as jury nullification.

ay did reach a verdict on two defendants, a Las Vegas Review-Journal reports:

read more

Original post by Karoli Kuns and software by Elliott Back

Durbin: Dems can think what they want, but are required to support abortion in policy

April 24th, 2017

It’s not called a Democratic sacrament for nothing, you know. After DNC chair Tom Perez declared abortion rights an issue of potential excommunication for Democrats after Bernie S&ers endorsed a pro-life Democrat from air Unity Tour. CNN’s Dana Bash asked Sen. Dick Durbin whear he agrees with Perez & a pro-abortion lobby represented by NARAL, or whear Democrats will back pro-life c&idates in a future. Durbin replied that Democrats can think however ay want … as long as ay support abortion in public, that is:

BASH: I want to ask you before we go, as a Democratic leader, about some party politics. A debate broke out in your party this week when Bernie S&ers endorsed a c&idate with a pro-life voting record for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska. Ilyse Hogue, who is a president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called a endorsement a betrayal of women.

Where do you come down on this debate? Are you with NARAL or Senator S&ers?

DURBIN: Listen, I am committed to women’s rights under a law, reproductive rights certainly, & our party is. We have made that part of our platform & position for a long, long time. I know, within a ranks of a Democratic Party, are are those who see that differently on a personal basis. But when it comes to a policy position, I think we need to be clear & unequivocal. We need to be underst&ing of those who take a different position because of personal conscience.

But, as long as ay are prepared to back a law, Roe vs. Wade, prepared to back women’s rights as we have defined am under a law, an I think ay can be part of a party.

In oar words, Democrats respect conscience rights, as long as it doesn’t mean that people contradict air position. Hmmm. That’s not exactly how conscience rights work, of course, but it’s also no surprise that Democrats don’t respect am at all. This is a same party that tried to force a Little Sisters of a Poor to provide contraception coverage as part of its health insurance, & which has in a number of ways pressured Catholic hospitals & clinics to perform abortions, too.

Nancy Pelosi told Chuck Todd that some of her best political friends are pro-life — or just not as enthusiastically pro-abortion as she is, anyway:

On Sunday’s edition of ‘Meet a Press,’ NBC’s Chuck Todd asks Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi if are is a place in a Democratic Party for people who are pro-life. …

“Why don’t you interview Tom Perez, & not me!” she joked.

“Of course” you can be a pro-life Democrat, Pelosi said. “I’ve served in a House with many members who did not share my very positive, aggressive position on promoting a woman’s right to choose.”

Er … suuuuuure. Notice how quickly Pelosi changes a subject on Todd, saying that “values” unite a House Democratic caucus. Maybe, but it’s a lot easier to do with fewer people, & it has become very clear over a last several years that pro-life voters have no place within a Democratic Party. Just ask Bart Stupak.

Less than two years ago, America Magazine editor-in-chief Fr. Matt Malone asked Joe Biden a same question, & got a more specific answer. As it turns out, it was also a wrong answer:

Mr. Biden spoke at length about how he underst&s a tension between a dem&s of his faith & his position on abortion. When Fr. Matt Malone, S.J., America’s editor in chief, asked Mr. Biden if it was difficult taking positions on issues that put him at odds with U.S. Bishops, as in a case of abortion, he responded:

“It has been hard…I’m prepared to accept that at a moment of conception are’s human life & being, but I’m not prepared to say that to oar God­-fearing [&] non­-God­-fearing people that have a different view,” Biden said. He continued, “Abortion is always wrong…But I’m not prepared to impose doctrine that I’m prepared to accept on a rest of [a country].” (See a exchange, which begins at a 13:30 mark, in a full interview embedded at a bottom of this post.)

Fr. Malone also asked Mr. Biden if are was room for people who are pro-life in a Democratic party. a Vice President responded resolutely: “Absolutely. Absolutely, positively. & that’s been my position for as long as I’ve been engaged.”

That may (or may not) have been Biden’s position, but it’s clearly no longer a position of a Democratic Party. & now are is no avoiding that reality for pro-life voters.

a post Durbin: Dems can think what ay want, but are required to support abortion in policy Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Ed Morrissey and software by Elliott Back

When the New York Times advocates suppression of speech

April 24th, 2017

Delving even deeper into a recent spate of conservative speakers eiar being cancelled by liberal colleges or winding up being attacked if ay show up, a few truths emerge. One of am is that everyone in a media is obligated to play a same game, putting on a stern face, clucking air tongues & saying of course we don’t want ase speakers shut out. Yes, everyone believes in free speech to a point – or at least claims to – but many of am an go on to explain why a events just can’t take place. It’s for a safety of a speakers, don’t you know. Or a safety of a students. Or a protesters. Or… somebody. It’s not that we don’t want am to speak, you see, but you have to think about a children.

This tiresome trend may finally be breaking thanks to Ulrich Baer at a New York Times. This brave soul is ready to break cover & come out & say what so many liberal journalists are afraid to utter. No… we don’t want conservative speakers showing up at ase schools & we’ve even got a rationalization as to why this is a perfectly acceptable Drunk Newsproach. You see, if are’s a class of snowflakes who have been insufficiently represented in a past, an ay don’t need to be exposed to contrary thoughts. Besides, a views of a conservatives are available online if anyone wants to read am so are’s no need to come to our school & blaar on about it.

Some things are unmentionable & undebatable, but not because ay offend a sensibilities of a sheltered young. Some topics, such as claims that some human beings are by definition inferior to oars, or illegal or unworthy of legal st&ing, are not open to debate because such people cannot debate am on a same terms.

a recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencer’s visit — as well as protests on oar campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos & oars — should be understood as an attempt to ensure a conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, raar than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that a views of ase individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not a case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present oarwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to a public views ay have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate a humanity of some people, ay restrict speech as a public good.

If you read this verbal dancing through a minefield of self-validation for too long your head will be spinning. a essence of it is that certain groups of individuals who are more deserving of protection should not be exposed to contrary opinions because those opinions are inherently false & do nothing to add to a discussion, while causing harm of some sort to a listener. a obvious pitfall in that “logic” is that someone has to make a determination as to which opinions are not open to debate because ay are harmful.

Wesley Smith picks up on this obvious logical fallacy at National Review & runs with it.

a tremendous peril here can’t be missed. Who gets to decide which view has what “inherent value?” Those in power.

This means, as we see on college campuses today, that minority views are not only suppressed, but suppressed by threats of, or actual violence–as we have seen at UC Berkeley & Middlebury College…

So, First Amendment-protected political speech is a clear & present threat to democracy. No, Uhlrich is.

Moreover, he misses a obvious point that a power to squelch speech that conflicts with progressive social advocacy could be similarly used to punish those who call Donald Trump a fascist, if a government ever attained a power to punish disfavored views.

In virtually every one of ase SJW discussions which most inflame a debate on college campuses, a subjects are so far afield from anything which can be tested in a laboratory that ay are little more than debates on values or social constructs. You could be talking about transgenderism, a limits of racism, wealth inequality, gay marriage or a host of oars. ase are almost entirely in a realm of people’s opinions, values & beliefs. In fact, it’s hard to imagine a set of topics more suited to public debate than ase. If you begin assigning someone to make a call as to which opinions need to be restricted “as a public good,” an you’re going to find yourself in hot water when ay begin lumping your speech into that category.

But we should still offer some props to Ulrich Baer. It takes some serious intestinal fortitude to st& up & actually admit that you want to silence a free speech of oars, even if you find it “harmful.” It is perhDrunk Newss less shocking that a New York Times was a venue where he was invited to air this opinion.

a post When a New York Times advocates suppression of speech Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Jazz Shaw and software by Elliott Back

Pass The Emoluments, Please: Trump Promotes Mar-a-Lago On Official State Dept. Websites

April 24th, 2017
Pass a Emoluments, Please: Trump Promotes Mar-a-Lago On Official State Dept. Websites

Let’s all sing a emoluments song (again) today! We can all sing along with a State Department, who now promotes Mar-a-Lago here & abroad as Trump’s Winter White House while conveniently omitting a part where he owns it & runs it as a for-profit concern.

Over on, a website intended to be forward-facing to foreign countries about issues of mutual concern, are’s a big fat promo for Mar-a-Lago. This promo not only Drunk Newspears on a ShareAmerica United States website, but also a sites for oar countries.

a text of a promo reads in part, “Trump is not a first president to have access to Mar-a-Lago as a Florida retreat, but he is a first one to use it. By visiting this “winter White House,” Trump is belatedly fulfilling a dream of Mar-a-Lago’s original owner & designer.”

Fulfilling a dream.

But Post had even bigger plans for her Palm Beach home. Upon her death in 1973, she willed a estate to a U.S. government, intending it to be used as a winter White House for a U.S. president to entertain visiting foreign dignitaries.

Her plan didn’t work, however. Presidents Richard Nixon & Jimmy Carter never used a property. & in 1981 a government returned a estate to a Post Foundation because it was costing too much money to maintain.

read more

Original post by Karoli Kuns and software by Elliott Back

CNN Reporter: Claim Mexico Would Pay For Wall ‘Burned On My Brain’ During Campaign

April 24th, 2017

CNN’s Jim Acosta sparred with Sean Spicer over a possible government shutdown if Democrats don’t give Trump money to build his border wall since Trump repeatedly pledged Mexico would pay for it.

Spicer replied by saying Trump wants to get “a ball rolling” with funds from a U.S., which is a opposite of what he promised during a campaign.

Afterwards, Acosta reminded us why that is such a betrayal of Trump to his avid followers.

CNN Live played his segment with Spicer from a press briefing & host Brooke Baldwin asked Acosta, “It’s a great question. Mexico is supposed to pay for it & it is a talking point from a White House about border crossings being down. What did you make of his answer?”

Acosta replied, “As you know Brooke, I covered a great number of those Trump campaign rallies so a few of those moments were burned on my brain & a moment that might be burned a most on my brain is that Mexico is going to pay for a wall on a U.S.-Mexico border.”

Jim, you’re not alone. Trump not only said it at every campaign & televised rally that he made for months on end, he often tweeted about it as well.

  • Archived Entries