• edge commented on the blog post As We Go to War, Congress Goes Home

    2014-09-19 14:17:30View | Delete

    They left without actually voting on a declaration of war as is required by the Constitution.

    I don’t think they are shirking their job in this regard. I would think that no vote regarding war should be equivalent to a vote for no war.

  • That’s an extremely kind thing to do. It’s unfortunate that this strategy can only help those who aren’t making payments. I understand that many people who, through no fault of their own, are not able to make the payments – and I’m very glad those people are getting help. But there are a lot of others who are eating Ramen and working 2 jobs to stay on top of their payments. Their debt won’t be sold for pennies on the dollar.

  • Anyone got a link to the roll-call?

  • edge commented on the blog post Because Libya Worked Out So Well….

    2014-09-16 09:55:23View | Delete

    I never understood our actions in Libya. Why did we reward Qaddafi’s decision of nuclear disarmament by destroying him?

  • They are definitely underpaid. Standing on your feet all shift long in an hot kitchen, while someone is constantly prodding you to go faster doesn’t sound like fun to me.

    I wish them the best of luck. $15 seems a bit ambitious, though. Fast food managers don’t even make $15. Looks like the median fast food manager makes $9 ( http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Fast_Food_Manager/Hourly_Rate ).

  • edge commented on the blog post Under Chris Christie Fees To Wall Street Have Tripled

    2014-08-28 12:20:19View | Delete

    I’m not saying that Christie didn’t do a poor job of management, but this Ibtimes article is cherry picking their base year. Take a look at where the dow was at in 2009:
    http://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jones-industrial-average-last-10-years

    The Market is 2.5 times higher now than it was at the bottom of 2009. If you figure that fees are generally a percentage of holdings, (and assuming that more money went in the system through employee investment, then went out), it’s not too surprising to see fees triple now.

  • edge commented on the blog post Congress Must Vote on Military Action in Syria

    2014-08-28 08:29:45View | Delete

    hear, hear.

  • I would imagine that the court martial may try to dodge the ethical question by focusing on the fact that the nurse expressed his objection in the presence of the prisoner, instead of privately to his superior. (The charge may be some sort of aiding the enemy accusation).
    I figure that what’s spoken in the presence of the prisoners is tightly controlled in that mind-game called Guantanamo.

  • I imagine there’s a great deal of support from people of St. Louis and elsewhere. Do you have a sense of the ratio of native Ferguson citizens (sp?) to outsiders (including reporters such as yourself) that are in the streets?

  • edge commented on the blog post Four Ways to Make Law Enforcement Less Adversarial

    2014-08-20 11:35:37View | Delete

    Techdirt highlighted UK’s 9 instructions that they’ve given every police officer since 1829:

    ( https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140819/08393128253/revolutionary-document-that-is-uks-184-year-old-idea-policing-consent.shtml )

    We should give the same instructions to US officers (pay particular attention to #7,8 & 9):


    1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

    2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

    3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

    4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

    5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

    6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

    7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

    8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

    9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

  • edge commented on the blog post Four Ways to Make Law Enforcement Less Adversarial

    2014-08-20 11:30:41View | Delete

    Techdirt highlighted UK’s 9 instructions that they’ve given every police officer since 1829:

    ( https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140819/08393128253/revolutionary-document-that-is-uks-184-year-old-idea-policing-consent.shtml )

    We should give the same instructions to US officers (pay particular attention to #4, 7,8 & 9):


    1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

    2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

    3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

    4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

    5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

    6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

    7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

    8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

    9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

  • Actually, I take that back. I suspect there may be a good number of democrats who would like to deliver on that. Unfortunately, America’s fine tradition of following your party’s President (even when he follows the example of the opposing party’s past President) overrides their good intentions.

  • Republicans at least have the message that taking the Senate will let them further put the brakes on President Obama. It is not the best message but it is something easy to understand and something they could be expected to deliver on.

    I propose the democrats use the same message.

    However, I personally don’t expect that either party really wants to deliver on that goal.

  • If he really felt it was wrong, he would pardon John Kiriakou instead of calling torturers “real patriots”.

  • Wow. I’m speechless.

    It’s scary to think that that conscienceless DOJ lawyers that put forth these arguments could live among us in our neighborhoods. Do they not put any thought in to the type of nation they’re helping to shape?

  • edge commented on the blog post Voters Feel Some 2012 Buyer’s Remorse

    2014-07-28 08:49:40View | Delete

    (disclaimer – sarcasm below)
    It makes sense. The people are learning that Presidents will perform the exact opposite of what they promise as candidates. Therefore, in reality, Romney would have stopped the wars, taxed the rich and softened the US deportation policies.

  • edge commented on the blog post Israel Kills 15 At UN School As Protests Rock West Bank

    2014-07-25 12:08:52View | Delete

    Your question regarding the effect of MSM may be visible if you click through on the poll link. It points out that the more closely people claim to be following the conflict, the more justified they feel Israel is.

    I found a couple other parts of the survey curious. The more education a person receives, the more likely they are to support the actions of Israel. The same survey also asked people if they thought Hamas’s actions were mostly justified (Results: 70% unjustified, 11% justified). I wish they broke that answer down by demographic. Regardless, I speculate that the numbers would be more tilted against Israel if Hamas didn’t have such a huge PR problem.

  • I wish there was someone who actively enforced agency adherence to the constitution and laws. Someone who actively sought out whistleblowers and have them immunity in exchange for their help prosecuting agency misconduct. Then whistleblowers would feel safer sharing what they know.
    We could call this officer an ‘Inspector General’. Oh wait… I guess we’re already supposed to have those. Our IGs need to be fired for their complicity. They should be leading this charge.

  • The administration isn’t worried about Tye. He’s got no docs and his accusations aren’t specific enough to be worth denying.
    It reminds me of Wyden’s past vague warnings. Us choir members get worked up, but unless they are allowed to give specifics or evidence, the government can just dismiss it as if it’s nothing.

  • I am in complete agreement with you. I think the only point I made was the need to get the officers some 1st aid training.
    My questions regarding the cause of death was part morbid curiosity and partly speculating if they were too rough, even without the choke hold. I hope this case helps police need to understand that just because a citizen is big, it doesn’t mean he’s not physically fragile.

    I had no intentions of being argumentative. Although I reserve the right to be argumentative at a later date :).

  • Load More