Nearly $21,000 is missing after the cash fell from the roof of an armored truck that had picked it up from a soon-to-be-closed Atlantic City casino. —
Yeah, it definitely fell.
In unrelated news, I’m heading to Ibiza for a little vacay soon.
Gun Safety Rules:
1. Always Point a Gun in a Safe Direction
This one should be self-explanatory. It is the bedrock of all gun safety, and is the most important rule. Another way to say it, which Dad taught me many years ago, is, "Never point a gun at anything you’re not willing to shoot."
Although the aggressive [police] tactics [in Ferguson] have taken much of the country by surprise, the groundwork for this moment was a long time coming. Congress has been a willing participant in the arming of the police for years now, and the man most responsible for this trend graduated from Congress to the executive branch: Vice President Joe Biden. Biden was the author of the 1994 crime bill, which vastly increased the numbers of police on the streets, eliminated Pell grant access for prisoners, expanded the death penalty, and strongly increased Border Patrol presence. This criminalization and militarization of Americans’ public-safety concerns has continued under President Obama. — Vanity Fair
[P]olice were caught on camera Sunday night threatening to mace one reporter and shoot another. At least two other journalists also claim they were arrested while following police orders. —
Every time I check my Twitter feed, I half-expect to see that a protester or reporter has been shot. This is so outrageously unacceptable.
Glorious North Jersey
"We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”
- Barack Obama, on whether members of the Bush administration should be prosecuted for torturing terrorism suspects
"That was yesterday…I’m not looking backwards, I’m looking forwards."
- Gov. Jay Nixon, on police misconduct in Ferguson
A handful of people on Twitter (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and one at The Washington Post were outraged last night that libertarians weren’t criticizing the militarized police forces in Ferguson. Paul Waldman at The Post wrote:
Senator Rand Paul, right now America’s most prominent libertarian (yes, I know, some don’t consider him a real libertarian), hasn’t said anything about the case — no public comments, no news releases, nothing on Twitter, nothing on Facebook. I contacted his office just to make sure that I hadn’t missed anything, and a press staffer told me they have no statement at this time. I also called the office of Rep. Justin Amash, known as the purest libertarian in the House, and got the same answer: he hasn’t said anything about it, and they have no statement to make. How about mustachioed libertarian TV personality John Stossel? Just a couple of weeks ago he was writing about the militarization of the police. He hasn’t said a peep about Ferguson.
OK, except Justin Amash tweeted about Ferguson last night, the libertarian magazine Reason has been writing about Ferguson nonstop (as Waldman briefly acknowledged), The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf has written about the crisis, and The Post’s own Radley Balko, who literally wrote the book on police abuse and militarization, has been tweeting about Ferguson incessantly. Mediaite put together a helpful article about the many libertarians who expressed their outrage last night.
Waldman’s argument, then, rests on the silence of Rand Paul and John Stossel. I agree that Paul should have issued a statement but considering he represents Kentucky and not Missouri, he’s not necessarily obligated to do so. [edit: Time published an editorial by Rand Paul on police militarization this afternoon] As for Stossel: give me a break, nobody cares what he thinks.
When you’re the governor of a state in the midst of a genuine emergency, such as the one occurring right now in Ferguson, Missouri, your job responsibilities require that you take immediate action to resolve the crisis. If it’s beyond your abilities to handle the situation, then say so. At least make some sort of effort. Even a tweet would be helpful.
Jay Nixon, Democratic Gov. of Missouri, is the most useless and cowardly elected official in America right now.
"My grandmother remembers the Arab world much differently than people view it today. She remembers a place known for its music, innovation, and intellectual abilities. I may be naive, but I want to help work toward unity in the Arab world— both between our countries and within our countries— so that we can get back to that place again." (Amman, Jordan)
The U.S. has spent the last twenty-three years bombing, occupying, sanctioning, and otherwise interfering with Iraq, but virtually none of it had anything to do with countering radical Islam, and this was something that the U.S. chose to do. The U.S. wasn’t ‘drawn’ into Iraq, but rather opted to be there in some fashion for two decades, and it was the U.S. presence itself that unleashed and drew in these forces as a result of the ‘aggressive, preventive action’ that Brooks now thinks is so necessary. — Daniel Larison counters David Brooks on Iraq (via theamericanconservative)
U.S. Could Use Ground Troops to Aid Rescue of Iraq Refugees -
Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, told reporters on Martha’s Vineyard that President Obama would probably receive recommendations in the next several days about how to mount a rescue operation to help the refugees, who are stranded on a mountaintop surrounded by Sunni militants. He said those recommendations could include the use of American ground troops.
But he drew a distinction between the use of American forces to help a humanitarian mission and the use of troops in the battle against militants from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, something he said the president had rejected before and continued to oppose.
“What he’s ruled out is reintroducing U.S. forces into combat on the ground in Iraq,” Mr. Rhodes said. He added, using an alternative name for the militant group, that the deployment of ground troops to assist a rescue was “different than reintroducing U.S. forces in a combat role to take the fight to ISIL.”
Yup so the US government has started talking to the media trying to ease everyone back into the idea of US troops in Iraq. The article above is from the New York Times, and reads like a press release. There’s also Time writing in a breathless Discovery Channel tone about how “the U.S. military is the best-outfitted and trained force in the world”.
Meanwhile the Wall Street Journal has a more in-depth article, which read. They give estimates of the number of trapped refugees (up to 35,000) and point out that many refugees have managed to escape on foot. Also, they actually track down an expert for a quote (he compares a US intervention to a potential “Black Hawk down situation”).
The US government is insisting that there would be no actual interaction with ISIS and definitely no combat type situations. This makes no sense - without risk from ISIS there wouldn’t be a refugee crisis at all. Clearly they’re trying to soft-pedal this whole thing so US public response isn’t incredibly negative, but there’s no way sending in the military for a rescue mission doesn’t mean engaging directly in armed conflict (which, incidentally, possibly the greatest PR ever for ISIS within Iraq).
Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between. —
Some of the truest words ever spoken.