America - The Official Thread

[Zenith]

Man caught on film committing sexual assault has died.

He was never charged.

View attachment 127993

Man, you must be lots of fun at parties.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't know how many times I've been "sexually assaulted" by drunk girls at parties.

 

[Zenith]

# Guess who's back, back again? SOPA's back, tell a friend.

It's really not. Despite what hysterical internet commenters have been saying, the new bill is not like SOPA/PIPA at all.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Similar thing happened to Adam Carolla. He was on The Tonight Show and told a story about needing a lineman dyke to open the packaging on his kids toys and all the GLBT folks got in a hissy because they thought it was jab at Queen Latifa, who was sitting next to him.

Sounds like the guy was probably acting like a bit of a smartarse, it's a very old joke (just ask a Dutchman the dyke story, you'll giggle for hours) and a bit "end of the pier". Nothing wrong with him saying it if he chooses to though.

If people don't like what he's saying, turn the channel off. Sitting next to someone and you don't like what they say in their interview? Get up and go, aint' nobody making you sit there.

 

[FoolKiller]

Sounds like the guy was probably acting like a bit of a smartarse,

A lineman dyke is a type of pliers used for cutting thick wire. He was telling a story about having to use a tool from his workshop to get into children's toys, using the proper name of the tool. Jay Leno understood what he was talking about because Jay Leno also has a big workshop where he works on cars.

Adam Carolla has lineman dykes because he rebuilds historic race cars and races them.

This is a lineman dyke.

Which part of telling a funny anecdote (on a comedy show, of all places) and using the proper term for the tool in the story is being a smartass?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Which part of telling a funny anecdote (on a comedy show, of all places) and using the proper term for the tool in the story is being a smartass?

Maybe "dyke" is a much less offensive word in North America, it wouldn't surprise me.

To answer your question search for phrases like "Stan Boardman", "End of TV Career", and "Joke about Fokkers". You may have never heard a decent Scouse accent so it's worth it just for that Here you go, this WAS the 80s... although some bits of Liverpool still look exactly like this

I should say that I haven't seen the clip so will go and have a skander, I'll be prepared to stand corrected as I have no idea of the context. How's that?

 

[FoolKiller]

Maybe "dyke" is a much less offensive word in North America, it wouldn't surprise me.

Oh no, if I call a woman a dyke I'd be in trouble, especially if she was a lesbian.

But it doesn't change the fact that a dyke is a type of plier and a dike is a type of flood wall, and Ace was talking about pliers. This is the same guy who corrects people when they say they have a flat head screw. He will stop them and say it is a flat head screwdriver and a slotted screw. He used to be a carpenter before he was famous (even just launched a show about busting crooked contractors that rip people off) and he always uses the proper terminology.

Think about it this way, if you came to the US and were on a talk show and a gay man was next to you, and you said you smoked a fag, you would get attacked for being a bigot, but you were just talking about a cigarette.

To answer your question search for phrases like "Stan Boardman", "End of TV Career", and "Joke about Fokkers". You may have never heard a decent Scouse accent so it's worth it just for that Here you go, this WAS the 80s... although some bits of Liverpool still look exactly like this

Weird. That's how Howard Stern built his career, telling stories and using words in a context that is legitimate, but in another context would get you fined on the air. Here is the re-enactment of the scene from his autobiographical film, Private Parts. Strong Language warning, of course.

I should say that I haven't seen the clip so will go and have a skander, I'll be prepared to stand corrected as I have no idea of the context. How's that?

Good luck. I've been trying to find the clip, but sites that claim to have it don't now. I'm guessing NBC had it taken down. But Adam talked about it on his podcast a few times. You might be able to find it there.

 

[BobK]

I'd been using the word "dykes" to refer to diagonal cutters long before I was aware it was a term sometimes used to refer to lesbians. I will continue to do so. Those who object are just showing their own ignorance and I really don't care if they get offended.

 

[FoolKiller]

Can we stop this insanity of punishing kids for...being kids? This issue has been pissing me off for years. The cowboys & Indians or cops & robbers of generations before are now seen as threatening violence and/or gun violations. If this happened at my daughter's school to any of the kids I would call the school daily to complain.



And look, more crooked cops harassing teens!





And the EPA is going overboard in trying to regulate a private pond.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-fine-for-building-pond-on-his-own-property/

All Andy Johnson wanted to do was build a stock pond on his sprawling eight-acre Wyoming farm. He and his wife Katie spent hours constructing it, filling it with crystal-clear water, and bringing in brook and brown trout, ducks and geese. It was a place where his horses could drink and graze, and a private playground for his three children.

But instead of enjoying the fruits of his labor, the Wyoming welder says he was harangued by the federal government, stuck in what he calls a petty power play by the Environmental Protection Agency. He claims the agency is now threatening him with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $75,000-a-day fine.

“I have not paid them a dime nor will I,” a defiant Johnson told FoxNews.com. “I will go bankrupt if I have to fighting it. My wife and I built [the pond] together. We put our blood, sweat and tears into it. It was our dream.”

But Johnson may be in for a rude awakening.

The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways. Johnson says he built a stock pond -- a man-made pond meant to attract wildlife -- which is exempt from Clean Water Act regulations.

The property owner says he followed the state rules for a stock pond when he built it in 2012 and has an April 4-dated letter from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office to prove it.

“Said permit is in good standing and is entitled to be exercised exactly as permitted,” the state agency letter to Johnson said.

But the EPA isn’t backing down and argues they have final say over the issue. They also say Johnson needs to restore the land or face the fines.

Johnson plans to fight. “This goes a lot further than a pond,” he said. “It’s about a person’s rights. I have three little kids. I am not going to roll over and let [the government] tell me what I can do on my land. I followed the rules.”

Johnson says he was “bombarded by hopelessness” when he first received the administrative order from the EPA. He then turned to state lawmakers who fast-tracked his pleas to Wyoming’s two U.S. senators, John Barrasso and Mike Enzi, and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter.

The Republican lawmakers sent a March 12 letter to Nancy Stoner, the EPA’s acting assistant administration for water, saying they were “troubled” by Johnson’s case and demanding the EPA withdraw the compliance order.

“Rather than a sober administration of the Clean Water Act, the Compliance Order reads like a draconian edict of a heavy-handed bureaucracy,” the letter states.

The EPA order on Jan. 30 gave Johnson 30 days to hire a consultant and have him or her assess the impact of the supposed unauthorized discharges. The report was also supposed to include a restoration proposal to be approved by the EPA as well as contain a schedule requiring all work be completed within 60 days of the plan's approval.

If Johnson doesn’t comply -- and he hasn't so far -- he’s subject to $37,500 per day in civil penalties as well as another $37,500 per day in fines for statutory violations.

The senators' letter questioned the argument that Johnson built a dam and not a stock pond.

“Fairness and due process require the EPA base its compliance order on more than an assumption,” they wrote. “Instead of treating Mr. Johnson as guilty until he proves his innocence by demonstrating his entitlement to the Clean Water Act section 404 (f)(1)(C) stock pond exemption, EPA should make its case that a dam was built and that the Section 404 exemption does not apply.”

The EPA told FoxNews.com that it is reviewing the senators' letter. "We will carefully evaluate any additional information received, and all of the facts regarding this case," a spokeswoman for the agency said.

The authority of the EPA has recently been called into question over proposed rule changes that would redefine what bodies of water the government agency will oversee under the Clean Water Act.

The proposed changes would give the agency a say in ponds, lakes, wetlands and any stream -- natural or manmade -- that would have an effect on downstream navigable waters on both public land and private property. “If the compliance order stands as an example of how EPA intends to operate after completing its current ‘waters of the United States’ rulemaking, it should give pause to each and every landowner throughout the country,” the letter states.

For now, the matter remains unresolved. Johnson says he’s not budging and there’s been no indication from the EPA they will withdraw the compliance order.

Regardless of the outcome, Johnson says his legal fight with the government agency is a teachable moment for his kids

“This is showing them that they shouldn’t back down,” Johnson said. “If you need to stand up and fight, you do it.”

I know he supposedly followed local regulations, but it's his property. The fact that the EPA thinks they supersede the state just goes to show how the federal government has forgotten that we are a group of United States designed to work more locally than federally, a notion backed by the 10th Amendment. Based on that one amendment alone, the EOA 's sole existence is a violation of the Constitution.

Refusing to spy and fighting it as far as he can? Hero.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Since this doesn't really warrant a thread if its own, this seems like the best place for it: Fred Phelps, leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, and quite possibly the most hateful person on earth, has died.

Wherever he is, I'd like to believe that he is extremely disappointed that the afterlife is nothing like what he was expecting.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Since this doesn't really warrant a thread if its own...

It got one though!

A couple of things about the 'stock pond' theory; it seems the water is actually coming from a creek, not just standing? Surely it must be illegal to dam free moving land water?

There's one sentence that I'm curious about; "The property owner says he followed the state rules for a stock pond when he built it in 2012 and has an April 4-dated letter from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office to prove it.". The proof seems to be a permit from before he built it, not one that reflects the as-built nature of the 'pond'. Just pedantry...

 

[FoolKiller]

It got one though!

A couple of things about the 'stock pond' theory; it seems the water is actually coming from a creek, not just standing? Surely it must be illegal to dam free moving land water?

There's one sentence that I'm curious about; "The property owner says he followed the state rules for a stock pond when he built it in 2012 and has an April 4-dated letter from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office to prove it.". The proof seems to be a permit from before he built it, not one that reflects the as-built nature of the 'pond'. Just pedantry...

You can't just buy a permit anymore. You have to get inspected, present plans, and pay a ton of money.

That said, my land is my land. That includes the water running through it. Considering the number of rural Americans who still rely on well water and cisterns, making it illegal to access natural flowing water on land you own is beyond idiotic.

If I'm not polluting the water as it leaves my property, who gives a crap? And before you get more pedantic, a pond has to have an outflow. Water comes in from one side and goes out the other. If it doesn't then you get a flood. It is no different than a naturally formed "fishin' hole" in a stream or creek.

I find the story disturbing because I grew up in a rural area where if you wanted or needed (watering hole for livestock) a pond on your land you just dug it out and filled it with water. No state rules in the way. Now the EPA claims they have jurisdiction. I stand by the notion that the EPA isn't even a constitutionally legal entity.




Moving on, here are some more stories:

A sheriff in Nevada sees no problem stopping motorists, not charging them for any crime, and confiscating their money. It's especially lucrative in a state where gambling is legal.

http://rt.com/usa/nevada-lawsuits-forfeiture-kilgore-610/

The top sheriff in a rural part of northern Nevada told residents this week that one of his deputies acted appropriately by confiscating tens-of-thousands of dollars and a handgun from two men who were never charged with crimes.

Humboldt County Sheriff Ed Kilgore defended his department during an open meeting on Tuesday this week in Winnemucca, NV, where around 40 residents of the region turned up to talk to law enforcement about two headline-making lawsuits that have propelled the area into the national spotlight as of late.

The federal suits — both filed last month in United States District Court — allege that Deputy Lee Dove of the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office acted unlawfully when he pulled over two drivers in September and December of last year for routine traffic violations, only to confiscate large sums of money and, in one instance, a handgun, without ever charging either individual with a crime.

In each case, the plaintiffs were stopped by Dove for minor infractions and eventually released without being booked. Both times, however, he came upon large amounts of cash in their vehicles and confiscated it by evoking a controversial “civil forfeiture” provision that lets law enforcement take money if an officer thinks it was either obtained illegally or will be used for illicit means.

Both cases attracted the attention of Associated Press reporter Scott Sonner, who profiled the lawsuits earlier this month in a story that set the stage for Tuesday’s meeting in the county center.

“Two men who were traveling alone through the high desert last year offer strikingly similar accounts of their stops by the same Humboldt County deputy near the town of Winnemucca, about 165 miles east of Reno,” Sonner wrote last week. “Neither search produced drugs or an arrest, but in one case Deputy Lee Dove took a briefcase filled with $50,000 and in the other he seized $13,800 and a handgun, according to the lawsuits filed in US District Court in Reno.”

Attorneys for Tan Nguyen, 37, filed their suit on February 12, and in it they alleged that Dove pulled over their client the previous September for driving 78 miles-per-hour in a 75 mph zone.

“Dove stopped Plaintiff in a ‘profile stop,’ suspecting that Plaintiff was transporting illegal drugs, which he was not,” they wrote. Upon inspecting the vehicle, however, the deputy came across a briefcase containing $50,000 in US currency and two cashier’s checks, which were promptly confiscated.

“Plaintiff was neither arrested nor cited for any violation of the law in relation to this encounter with Dove,” attorneys wrote. “Rather, Dove gave the plaintiff only a warning.”

According to the suit, Dove told Nguyen that he would be arrested unless he “got in his car and drove off and forgot this ever happened.” The fifty-grand — winnings from a Nevada casino, according to Nguyen’s attorneys — was never returned.

Twelve days after Nguyen’s attorneys filed suit, lawyers for Colorado resident Ken Smith filed a similar claim in District Court. Again, Dove is accused of having pulled over a vehicle for an alleged speeding violation, but this time he momentarily detained the driver after his name matched that of a man wanted by the authorities.

“The warrant was for a Ken Smith who was identified on information available to the Deputy as African-American with a different birth date,” the suit claims. “Plaintiff is Caucasian and has a different birth date than the Ken Smith on the warrant.”

Smith’s attorneys say their client should never have been stopped unless there was probable cause for speeding, and certainly shouldn’t have had to surrender the $13,800 in cash he had in the vehicle or a .40 caliber handgun.

Attorneys for both plaintiffs say their clients’ Fourth Amendment-protected right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures was violated by Dove. In the case of Nguyen, his lawyers say Dove conducted the search without either the plaintiff’s consent or probable cause, but instead “in bad faith, transcending the scope of authority granted to them, and each of them.”

“It’s like Jesse James or Black Bart,” his lawyer, John Ohlson, told the AP’s Sommer last week.

In the Smith claim, lawyers say Dove acted without reasonable suspicion or probable cause by conducting the stop and confiscating property, and accuse him of causing their client “emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, harm to reputation, fear of law enforcement, loss of $13,800.00 in cash and the use thereof, loss of the firearm [and] its value and enjoyment of the use thereof.”

“It’s pretty scary to be out in the middle of nowhere on the side of the road and be told all your stuff is going to be taken away,” his attorney, Jeff Dickerson, told Sommer.

Reporting from Winnemucca this week, the journalist heard similar complaints from the few dozen Humboldt County residents who raised their voices.

"The majority of the community is extra concerned," long-time area school teacher Bob Pace testified at the town hall meeting. "You have a huge job and do it well," he told Sheriff Kilgore — who is named as a defendant in the Nguyen lawsuit. "But the perception is an individual on the road is stopped, and they are not cited. They are not arrested, but their cash or their weapons are confiscated."

"There's no citation," another said, according to Sommer. "But now you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent."

As far as Sheriff Kilgore is concerned, though, his officers are acting fully in compliance with the law.

"What I'm hearing on the street is that we stop you and ask you for your license, registration and your insurance, and how much money do you have? That simply is not how it is ever done," he insisted on Tuesday, Sommer said.

Civil forfeiture was for sure a “hot topic,” Kilgore admitted, but according to the AP he justified it by saying that Humboldt County abides by a lot of the same rules as law enforcement agencies elsewhere in the US.

Indeed, RT has reported in the past that similar incidents have unfolded everywhere from Tennessee— where one man had to hand-over $22,000 in cash he planned on paying for an automobile he purchased online — to Virginia, where a Pentecostal church secretary was forced to surrender $28,500 worth of donations after being stopped for speeding.

When the New Yorker’s Sarah Stillman reported on the Virginia incident last year, she said the basic principle behind law enforcement’s conduct was “appalling.”

“It enables authorities to confiscate cash or property obtained through illicit means and, in many states, funnel the proceeds directly into the fight against crime.”

Back out west, Sheriff Kilgore of Humboldt County is following suit: a statement out of the Sheriff’s Office last March acknowledged that around $180,000 in cash had been seized from suspected criminals in the previous two years.

According to Kilgore’s “State of the Sheriff’s Office” for 2013, his department put together a conference attended by over 150 law enforcement professionals from across the US, “funded by asset and money seizures done throughout the last couple of years during drug interdiction stops in our county.”

“Asset forfeiture today, the way it exists federally, as well as in many states, is an institutional corruption,” Judge Jim Gray, a justice with more than 30 years of experience on the bench in California, told Forbes. “None of the [forfeiture] money should go to law enforcement. That provides them an inappropriate incentive,” he said.

For now, though, such a system is perfectly legal by the standards in place in Humboldt County.

"It's a slippery slope of evidentiary standards ... but it's out there. It's lawful," ex-Humboldt County public defender Robert Dolan told the AP. "The deck is stacked against the citizens. And I'm not happy about it. But this system was not invented by Sheriff Kilgore."

Next: What would you do if the interstate came to a complete halt and law enforcement began searching every car, with guns drawn?

ROCKVILLE, MD — Thousands of motorists were brought to a standstill when police conducted a massive roadblock to find three crime suspects. Twelve lanes of traffic were shut down and swarms of armed government agents combed through a giant traffic jam performing warrantless vehicle-to-vehicle searches.

The busy Tuesday morning commute was abruptly halted just after 10:00 a.m. on March 11th. One driver told ABC News that traffic stopped and he witnessed 30 police cars pass on the shoulders of I-270 near Rockville. “Then, when I saw a wall of police officers with automatic weapons approaching our cars, it was apparent that something serious was taking place.”


Police roadblocked 12 lanes of I-270 in Rockville, MD. (Source: Sky9)

Police had received intelligence that a local bank had been robbed that morning and the vehicle carrying the 3 suspects had turned onto the interstate highway. A throng of officers from the Rockville, Montgomery County, and Maryland State Police Departments blockaded all lanes of traffic in both directions and began conducting an intense manhunt.

There was “a lot of yelling, a lot of orders being given, helicopters, dogs barking, sirens, police cars driving by,” said eyewitness Carlton Higdon to WJLA.

Miles of cars were stranded and motorists were confined to their vehicles, with no explanation, for over an hour. Confused people exiting their vehicles were met with hostility from the police. WTOP reportedthat one woman leaned out her door to vomit, she was shouted at by cops to close her door.

“It’s just awful,” motorist Carmel Desroche to WJLA, describing the traffic jam. “I’ve never seen both directions of 270 like this before. It was painful.”

While stuck in traffic, motorists were approached by armed agents and ordered at gunpoint to submit to warrantless searches of the interior of their vehicles. The Washington Post interviewed an innocent driver named Don Troop who experienced the ordeal.

A group of officers made its way to his car and other cars around him. “They were just walking along saying: ‘Pop the trunk! Pop the trunk!’”

He overheard a man in a truck next to him call out to another motorist: The police are looking for bank robbers. A short time later, about nine officers approached his car — including state police in tan uniforms, county police in dark uniforms and at least one plainclothes officer wearing a yellow tie.

Among their commands to motorists that Troop heard:

“Stay in your car.”

“Pop the trunk.”

“Get your hands on the steering wheel. Get you hands up where we can see them.”


(Source: Scott Ferrebee)

As described, these searches were in no way consensual and were performed with the motorists under duress. Nothing ordered at gunpoint can ever be considered voluntary. Not surprisingly, we have not seen a report of anyone brave enough to refuse the hostile violation of the 4th amendment.

The police ultimately located and arrested the suspects and took them into custody. They did not resist, and they were not located in anyone’s trunk.


Traffic was jammed for miles in both directions as police performed car-to-car searches. (Source: Sky9)

The search was described later by Montgomery County Police Captain Paul Starks as an operation of “systematically checking the trunks and rear hatches” of the detained vehicles.

The bank’s $7,000 was ultimately safe and sound, although the same could not be said of the rights of many innocent commuters. The authorities simply explained that their oath to uphold the Constitution does not apply during “exigent circumstances.” Rockville Police Chief Tom Manger remained unapologetic even after getting angry emails about the tactics.

“For those folks that wondered how is that the police can just walk through traffic like that and get folks to show their hands, get folks to pop their trunks, between the exigency of the circumstances and the information that we had, it gave us the legal foundation to do what we did,” the chief said, according to WTOP.

Apologists argue that the ends justify the means in law enforcement; that as long as the bad guys were caught one way or another, the operation was a success. This position easily suits the purposes of the police state. The erosion of liberty is simple when the people applaud as their rights are violated.

The reality is that crisis situations are exactly the times when individual liberties are most vulnerable and needing to be defended. These are also the most challenging and unpopular times to defend civil rights, as swathes of fearful people clamor for the government to keep them safe. The folly of letting the government pick and choose when it must may follow the constitution should be obvious, however. To keep our rights intact we must refuse to accept these mass suspensions of the constitution for an increasingly wide variety of excuses.

And an opinion peace I agree with.

Why do police departments need military vehicles and weapons?

Something potentially sinister is happening across America, and we should stop and take notice before it changes the character of our country forever. County, city and small-town police departments across the country are now acquiring free military-grade weapons that could possibly be used against the very citizens and taxpayers that not only fund their departments but who the police are charged with protecting.

Recently in a small, sleepy North Carolina town of roughly 16,000 people, the Roanoke Rapids Police Department acquired some Humvees and Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected vehicles (or MRAPs), which it proudly displayed at a recent car show. Roanoke Rapids got them free from the Pentagon, returned from our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The town's police chief, Tommy Hathaway, noted, perhaps unintentionally, the misuse of this equipment on America's main streets, saying that "its intended purpose is to prevent mass casualties and to extricate people," but that hopefully Roanoke Rapids will never need it.

Next door, in South Carolina, the Columbia Police Department also received a free MRAP from the Pentagon, which otherwise would have cost Columbia nearly $700,000 (though the city is responsible for all repairs and upkeep going forward). Their interim police chief, Ruben Santiago, justified the acquisition saying that the MRAP "will be a barrier between the public and a hostile person or situation such as a barricaded suspect with weapons who may be threatening someone's life." We are quickly redefining what a rational response to a security threat looks like.

How many other Columbia's are out there?

In fact, in the last several months, the following towns around the country, many of them small, have acquired free MRAPs from U.S. war zones: Texas's McLennan andDallas Counties; Idaho's Boise and Nampa; Indiana's West Lafayette, Merrillville, andMadison; Minnesota's St. Cloud and Dakota County; New York's Warren and JeffersonCounties; South Carolina's North Augusta and Columbia; Tennessee's Murfreesboro; Arizona's Yuma; Illinois's Kankakee County; and Alabama's Calhoun County.

Seem like a lot? It is. And that's only in the last few months. This trend is not only sweeping America's small cities, it's hitting American college campuses as well. Ohio State University recently acquired an MRAP. Apparently, college kids are getting too rowdy.

These are just some of the most egregious examples. There are countless stories of police departments getting (and often later selling) assault weapons, drones, and other military-grade equipment that is absolutely ill-suited for America's main streets. ThePentagon's 1033 program, which "provides or transfers surplus Department of Defense military equipment to state and local civilian law enforcement agencies without charge," is a big part of this disturbing trend.

Why is there surplus, especially when the Defense Department is threatening to cut jobs anytime Congress talks about defense cuts as part of sequestration or the Budget Control Act? The primary reasons is that we're drawing down from two major equipment-laden wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and while some of this equipment is being destroyed in the war zone, at a loss of billions in American taxpayer dollars, much of it is now being returned to the U.S. Additionally, by passing off still-good equipment to America's municipal police forces, it allows the defense industry to ask for more funding for more equipment. It's like donating a relatively new sweater to Goodwill, allowing the purchase of a new, yet unnecessary, sweater from Macy's.

Americans should therefore be concerned, unless they want their main streets patrolled in ways that mirror a war zone. We recognized that we're not in Kansas anymore, but are MRAPs really needed in small-town America? Are improvised explosive devices, grenade attacks, mines, shelling and other war-typical attacks really happening in Roanoke Rapids, a town of 16,000 people? No.

This is why Rep. Johnson plans to introduce legislation to reform the 1033 program before America's main streets and civilian police militarize further. The program currently lacks serious oversight and accountability, and it needs some parameters put in place to define what is appropriate. The legislation will ban MRAPs, other armored personnel carriers, drones, assault weapons and aircraft. Finally, the legislation will ensure that the Department of Defense undertakes an annual accounting of what's been transferred, by whom and to whom to prevent military items from being auctioned on eBay or sold to friends.

Militarizing America's main streets won't make us any safer, just more fearful and more reticent. Before another small town's police force gets a $700,000 gift from the Defense Department that it can't maintain or manage, it behooves us to press pause on Pentagon's 1033 program and revisit the merits of a militarized America. And do it now before Kankakee looks like Kabul or Boise looks like Baghdad.

Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Georgia, is a member of the House Armed Services and Judiciary Committees. Michael Shank is the associate director for legislative affairs at the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

 

[LeMansAid]

That said, my land is my land. That includes the water running through it. Considering the number of rural Americans who still rely on well water and cisterns, making it illegal to access natural flowing water on land you own is beyond idiotic.

I find the story disturbing because I grew up in a rural area where if you wanted or needed (watering hole for livestock) a pond on your land you just dug it out and filled it with water. No state rules in the way. Now the EPA claims they have jurisdiction. I stand by the notion that the EPA isn't even a constitutionally legal entity.

How much of this running water can you use then? 1, 10, 25, 50, 99 percent? 99% works well until someone upstream has the same idea.

 

[FoolKiller]

How much of this running water can you use then? 1, 10, 25, 50, 99 percent? 99% works well until someone upstream has the same idea.

Wow. 99%? That's impressive. Not even industrial uses like water powered mills, hydroelectric, or even nuclear power plants use 99%.

Even natural farming irrigation won't.

All systems using natural running water must have an exit, because if you don't you have thousands of gallons a day coming in with nowhere to go.

I use water barrels to take rain water from my roof for my garden and plants. Otherwise that water would drain into the yard and to the stream on the edge of my property. Am I a threat to society, or just laying claim to my property rights?

 

[LeMansAid]

You said "running through it" which reads as rivers, creeks or streams. The Murray/Darling river system in Australia has the issue where properties and habitats downstream are at times utterly deprived of water due to upstream usage. How can that inequity be addressed without regulations?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Wow. 99%? That's impressive. Not even industrial uses like water powered mills, hydroelectric, or even nuclear power plants use 99%.

For mills and generators (effectively the same concept) the water passes through. Nuclear power plants take water and 'use' it, they don't return water to the system whence it came.

All systems using natural running water must have an exit, because if you don't you have thousands of gallons a day coming in with nowhere to go.

That's presuming that you have thousands of gallons a day coming in, which would clearly be a pretty reasonably sized project.

You can dam brooks or streams and form a natural pool that will drain without overflowing. From the wording of the article it sounds as though he has dammed a watercourse, to me that implies that he's blocked it and there is no exit eg 100% retention.

Naming other systems that don't have 100% retention and saying that 100% is impossible are respectively irrelevant and wrong.

Let's say you have a 0% retention water mill, it flows straight on through. Upstream it runs through my land, I'm removing about 80% for my new brewery. You no longer have enough power to run your mill. Tough, right?

I use water barrels to take rain water from my roof for my garden and plants. Otherwise that water would drain into the yard and to the stream on the edge of my property. Am I a threat to society, or just laying claim to my property rights?

Water from the sky is irrelevant if you collect it before it becomes ground water (running or otherwise).

 

[FoolKiller]

You said "running through it" which reads as rivers, creeks or streams. The Murray/Darling river system in Australia has the issue where properties and habitats downstream are at times utterly deprived of water due to upstream usage. How can that inequity be addressed without regulations?

All the things I mentioned above use water running through the property, and are often built near it for that reason.

I don't know enough about the Murray/Darling river basin to make an informed statement on it. A quick Googling tells me the issue is largely rice and cotton farms. If that is true, wut? Maybe growing wetland crops in a traditionally dry area isn't the best move. I can't even fathom how you got in that situation. Here we grow what grows best in our natural climate conditions. No one is trying to grow rice in drought-like conditions here.

But here is an idea: Your businesses that need that water downstream can stop doing business with farms upstream, or negotiate a water trade. See how well the agriculture community gets on without supplies and tools. They'll change.

The other problem you have is if you regulate those farms, they might be unable to grow as many crops. Those are tradable goods. You risk harming your own export business.

However your constitution allows government water regulation. I disagree, but there it is. Ours allows for it at a state level, if the state wishes to do so. This case is a federal agency stepping in, and claiming superior authority over local regulations. The US Constitution says anything not in the Constitution is reserved to the states, or the people.

EDIT:

For mills and generators (effectively the same concept) the water passes through. Nuclear power plants take water and 'use' it, they don't return water to the system whence it came.

Wrong. Look at the diagram again. Water comes in and out. Many have their own reservoirs on the property. They pump it in, use it, condense it, and pump it back out. It was actually an environmental issue when using natural bodies of water as the heated water would kill fish in the lake/river/whatever.

That's presuming that you have thousands of gallons a day coming in, which would clearly be a pretty reasonably sized project.

Thousands of gallons is 1 inch of rain on my roof, or a light rain shower for about 30 minutes. I have a 500 hundred gallon rain barrel. When I first hooked it up it was full after the very first rainfall.

I'm guessing you underestimate the power of water.

You can dam brooks or streams and form a natural pool that will drain without overflowing. From the wording of the article it sounds as though he has dammed a watercourse, to me that implies that he's blocked it and there is no exit eg 100% retention.

Please, explain the physics. Water comes in, nothing goes out, but never floods.

I've helped build ponds. They must have a drain or you have a flood.

Naming other systems that don't have 100% retention and saying that 100% is impossible are respectively irrelevant and wrong.

Let's say you have a 0% retention water mill, it flows straight on through. Upstream it runs through my land, I'm removing about 80% for my new brewery. You no longer have enough power to run your mill. Tough, right?

Must be a small creek. Water mills don't need a ton of water. Must be a huge brewery. Not even Budweiser drains their entire water system, and they sell an average of 832,000 gallons a day, based on 270,000,000 cases (12 12-ounce bottles/cans) sold last year.

But as to your point, it does become an issue when your business practices damage my business practices. Hopefully we can come to an agreement. If not, I have no true grounds (not legal grounds) for grievance, aside from personal.

How is that any different than a business outbidding a competitor for supplies and leaving the competition short on supply? Or just taking business away by being a better business?

Water from the sky is irrelevant if you collect it before it becomes ground water (running or otherwise).

How is interrupting the water flow at one point any different than another? I'm still reducing the supply.

 

[TenEightyOne]

All the things I mentioned above use water running through the property, and are often built near it for that reason.

I don't know enough about the Murray/Darling river basin to make an informed statement on it. A quick Googling tells me the issue is largely rice and cotton farms. If that is true, wut? Maybe growing wetland crops in a traditionally dry area isn't the best move. I can't even fathom how you got in that situation. Here we grow what grows best in our natural climate conditions. No one is trying to grow rice in drought-like conditions here.

But here is an idea: Your businesses that need that water downstream can stop doing business with farms upstream, or negotiate a water trade. See how well the agriculture community gets on without supplies and tools. They'll change.

The other problem you have is if you regulate those farms, they might be unable to grow as many crops. Those are tradable goods. You risk harming your own export business.

However your constitution allows government water regulation. I disagree, but there it is. Ours allows for it at a state level, if the state wishes to do so. This case is a federal agency stepping in, and claiming superior authority over local regulations. The US Constitution says anything not in the Constitution is reserved to the states, or the people.

EDIT:


Wrong. Look at the diagram again. Water comes in and out. Many have their own reservoirs on the property. They pump it in, use it, condense it, and pump it back out. It was actually an environmental issue when using natural bodies of water as the heated water would kill fish in the lake/river/whatever.


Thousands of gallons is 1 inch of rain on my roof, or a light rain shower for about 30 minutes. I have a 500 hundred gallon rain barrel. When I first hooked it up it was full after the very first rainfall.

I'm guessing you underestimate the power of water.


Please, explain the physics. Water comes in, nothing goes out, but never floods.

I've helped build ponds. They must have a drain or you have a flood.


Must be a small creek. Water mills don't need a ton of water. Must be a huge brewery. Not even Budweiser drains their entire water system, and they sell an average of 832,000 gallons a day, based on 270,000,000 cases (12 12-ounce bottles/cans) sold last year.

But as to your point, it does become an issue when your business practices damage my business practices. Hopefully we can come to an agreement. If not, I have no true grounds (not legal grounds) for grievance, aside from personal.

How is that any different than a business outbidding a competitor for supplies and leaving the competition short on supply? Or just taking business away by being a better business?



How is interrupting the water flow at one point any different than another? I'm still reducing the supply.

The effect of all you say is that first-is-first-serve?

When you say "build" a pond... wasn't the hole already there? Otherwise it sounds like some kind of open-topped tank.
When I'm referring to 100% retention I suspect you know full well that we're talking about downstreaming,

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Here in Houston now, you have to pay a 3.5¢ per square foot tax per year on all non-grass/dirt property.

build or pave and you pay. Even graveled drive ways pay.

It is called a Drainage Fee, and it is collected in the water bills.

This was voted into law by the people. The Mayor said it would cost the average home owner about $5.00 a month, and solve our street flooding issues, but in true Democratic form, she lied.

They use satellite imagery to collect the data for how much to charge.

Even Houston is going left. God help us all!

 

[TenEightyOne]

Just read this on Reuters, I'd be interested to know the thoughts of people on this story. It seems it isn't illegal to give children away in the US?

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/adoption-follows/]Reuters Investigates

 

[FoolKiller]

The effect of all you say is that first-is-first-serve?

If my land has coal, it's my coal. My in-laws own the land on a mountain that geological surveys show has a large vein of coal. Selling it or allowing it to be mined would create hundreds of jobs and boost the local economy. Instead, they have a hunting cabin there.

How is it different?

A company buys a lot of a supply of a building material and it prevents me from being able to access enough to run my business. Is that fair?

Fact is, it is supply and demand. Too many people using your supply, raising demand, and making it harder to run your business. Find a new strategy or supply chain or fail. It's the Lorax. If we can't adapt and adjust to rising demands we will have nothing.

Sitting around whining and making legal threats solves nothing.

When you say "build" a pond... wasn't the hole already there? Otherwise it sounds like some kind of open-topped tank.
When I'm referring to 100% retention I suspect you know full well that we're talking about downstreaming,

The article said he and his wife constructed it. If the hole was already there, it would already be a pond. But I took some initiative to find more info.

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/man-vs-epa-uinta-county-man-faces-k-in-daily/article_f7312717-3d3c-555b-8c15-fc48fbfe0073.html

It describes the Army Corps of Engineers complaint, dealing with the discharge from the pond, and how he built the pond.

In October 2012, the Army Corps of Engineers inspected the pond and concluded he made a dam that resulted in the discharge of “dredged and fill material.” He received news of the potential fines in January.

Johnson describes the pond-making process like this: He dug a hole, lined the pond with large rocks and put a drain at the bottom. While he constructed the pond, the water flowed through the drain.
“It never stopped flowing,” he said.
When he was done building the pond, he closed the valve of the drain. Now the water flows out of the pond like a spillway, he said.

And that is how you build a pond. Note, the water flows through. He is not keeping the water. Once the pond was full the water continued flowing, as is a physical necessity when building a pond on a source of flowing water, no matter how much you want to say 100% retention is possible.

Now, if the claim that he is polluting the water is legitimate then perhaps there is a complaint. But that is fixed far more easily than forcing him to fill in the pond. And he will need to, as that would be a sign of erosion, which will damage his pond.

Just read this on Reuters, I'd be interested to know the thoughts of people on this story. It seems it isn't illegal to give children away in the US?

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/adoption-follows/]Reuters Investigates

Abuse of a system designed to help families pass children to relatives in a bad situation. But any adoption/foster care system has these problems. Far too often we find foster homes that do it to receive funds from the government and neglect the children. And that's the problem. Even government standards can't prevent this from happening.

 

[Sanji Himura]

You are not looking at the end game, @FoolKiller. Even if the EPA wins its case, and the pond was drained, they [EPA] could then claim that there is natural wetlands on the property and seize it from the owners.

 

[FoolKiller]

You are not looking at the end game, @FoolKiller. Even if the EPA wins its case, and the pond was drained, they [EPA] could then claim that there is natural wetlands on the property and seize it from the owners.

Honestly, I'm overly suspicious, as environmental groups and scientists agree that wetland habitats help the environment. Why would the Environmental Protection Agency be trying to stop such a thing?

Hey, you, stop, uh giving homes to amphibians, birds, and other natural wildlife. It's harming nature, uh, I mean the environment. Yeah...that's it. Now pay me $75,000, per day.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But any adoption/foster care system has these problems. Far too often we find foster homes that do it to receive funds from the government and neglect the children. And that's the problem. Even government standards can't prevent this from happening.

Citation definitely required, I've never ever come across a child protection case of this nature in the UK (the only similar ones were children who were 'imprisoned' by the adults of several families, and done criminally under the radar). I'm struggling to think of one anywhere in Europe if I'm honest.

Honestly, I'm overly suspicious, as environmental groups and scientists agree that wetland habitats help the environment. Why would the Environmental Protection Agency be trying to stop such a thing?

Hey, you, stop, uh giving homes to amphibians, birds, and other natural wildlife. It's harming nature, uh, I mean the environment. Yeah...that's it. Now pay me $75,000, per day.

Well, that's the thing, you're correct about all of that. I think it's actually part of controlling who 'owns' the ground water, America and Spain are two modern countries both battling for water security right now and they're both legislating as hard as they can to keep goverment control of the resource. The cynical point of view holds a lot of water too, as it were.

If my land has coal, it's my coal. My in-laws own the land on a mountain that geological surveys show has a large vein of coal. Selling it or allowing it to be mined would create hundreds of jobs and boost the local economy. Instead, they have a hunting cabin there.

How is it different?

A company buys a lot of a supply of a building material and it prevents me from being able to access enough to run my business. Is that fair?

Because unless you've discovered a river of coal then the coal was 'always' there (possibly without quotes, depending on your beliefs ). Water that flows onto your property was not, imo, yours to start with and can't be stopped or unduly diverted by you.

You can't just create a terminus for the water without allowing it to continue onward in the same nature.

The article said he and his wife constructed it. If the hole was already there, it would already be a pond. But I took some initiative to find more info.

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/man-vs-epa-uinta-county-man-faces-k-in-daily/article_f7312717-3d3c-555b-8c15-fc48fbfe0073.html

It describes the Army Corps of Engineers complaint, dealing with the discharge from the pond, and how he built the pond.

And that is how you build a pond. Note, the water flows through. He is not keeping the water. Once the pond was full the water continued flowing, as is a physical necessity when building a pond on a source of flowing water, no matter how much you want to say 100% retention is possible.

Now, if the claim that he is polluting the water is legitimate then perhaps there is a complaint. But that is fixed far more easily than forcing him to fill in the pond. And he will need to, as that would be a sign of erosion, which will damage his pond.

Yeah yeah, proving stuff with facts. Interesting that the complaint apparently centers on the pond's discharge, that sounds a much more likely scenario.

For your open irrigation example I asked a farmer, he thinks that the plants should take about 70% over three passes if the roots are fit, they use fixed-treated water for their cloching so he knows the figures

I'll be clear about the ponds I mean, they're not a "terminus" for the river but a storable area that can be opened/closed to the water course. That pond is then sealed and doesn't (normally) need a big feed to stay topped up. I wasn't clear about that and so ended up, erm, mis-speaking.

 

[FoolKiller]

Citation definitely required, I've never ever come across a child protection case of this nature in the UK (the only similar ones were children who were 'imprisoned' by the adults of several families, and done criminally under the radar). I'm struggling to think of one anywhere in Europe if I'm honest.
Statistics of maltreatment from the government's own site.

An investigation of institutionalized child abuse and neglect in New Jersey (PDF).

An LA Times report on California's problems.

Every state is different, so it is worse in some areas than others.

Well, that's the thing, you're correct about all of that. I think it's actually part of controlling who 'owns' the ground water, America and Spain are two modern countries both battling for water security right now and they're both legislating as hard as they can to keep goverment control of the resource. The cynical point of view holds a lot of water too, as it were.

The US isn't trying to maintain control. They are trying to forcefully remove it from property owners. The EPA just recently gained this authority.

Because unless you've discovered a river of coal then the coal was 'always' there (possibly without quotes, depending on your beliefs ). Water that flows onto your property was not, imo, yours to start with and can't be stopped or unduly diverted by you.

Alright, fine. Ignore the coal. How is a man made supply chain different? Conglomo Corp buys so much refined steel that I can not afford it, sometimes even access it, to make my widget.

Vs

Conglomo Corp owns land upstream from my factory. I can't make my hippy water drinks because they use so much water to make their Super Yummy Soda.

How is it different?

You can't just create a terminus for the water without allowing it to continue onward in the same nature.

Why not? If people prefer their water carbonated, flavored, and in easily carried containers, how is it wrong to do that with it?

Yeah yeah, proving stuff with facts. Interesting that the complaint apparently centers on the pond's discharge, that sounds a much more likely scenario.

And the punishment is far too harsh when it is an easy fix.

For your open irrigation example I asked a farmer, he thinks that the plants should take about 70% over three passes if the roots are fit, they use fixed-treated water for their cloching so he knows the figures

No clue what cloching is. Typo?

And that number differs crop to crop and climate to climate.

I'll be clear about the ponds I mean, they're not a "terminus" for the river but a storable area that can be opened/closed to the water course. That pond is then sealed and doesn't (normally) need a big feed to stay topped up. I wasn't clear about that and so ended up, erm, mis-speaking.

The pond isn't opened/closed except for the drain in the bottom built during construction. Once the pond is ready they close it to fill the pond and after the pond is full the water continues to flow as normal over a spillway type opening in the bank.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Because water is the staple of life, free moving water shouldn't be stopped. I'm not sure of legal precedents but it's something I strongly feel

Water comes to you, for most other tradeable assets you don't simply 'collect' them. Naturally occurring fish are an exception, I guess.

 

[FoolKiller]

Because water is the staple of life, free moving water shouldn't be stopped. I'm not sure of legal precedents but it's something I strongly feel

Water comes to you, for most other tradeable assets you don't simply 'collect' them. Naturally occurring fish are an exception, I guess.

Yet, even when the government owns the water company you have to pay for it, thus why I have rain barrels. If you fail to pay, it gets turned off.

 

[KSaiyu]

I wonder, with this going through the SCOTUS

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ears_oral_arguments_in_the_contraception.html

Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts-and-crafts stores, and Conestoga Wood, a cabinet-making company—can be exempt from the requirement under the Affordable Care Act that companies cover a range of 20 contraceptive methods and devices as part of the preventive health package they offer their workers. Hobby Lobby is owned and operated by David and Barbara Green and their three children. They employ 13,000 workers. Hobby Lobby covers the range of most FDA-approved devices, but because they believe Ella, Plan B, and two types of IUDs cause abortions, they don’t want to cover those four. Conestoga is owned by a Mennonite family that objects to covering Ella and Plan B but not the other methods.

and that recent Arizona discrimination law,

is clarification needed on the boundaries of religious objection in the US?

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't see a problem with saying you don't want to be forced to pay for something you have a moral or religious objection to. Even more so when the employees can get that coverage through the insurance company plan they have, or an exchange plan.

I also don't have a problem with reserving the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason, other than it makes you an ass and bad at business. His property, his rights.

EDIT: This is insane though. The thought police are in full force, even objecting to supporting your friend, who is dying of cancer.

What started out as a kind gesture is turning into a battle over whether hair, or the lack of it, should matter in school.

KUSA - It was meant as a gesture of solidarity: a girl in Grand Junction shaved her head to support her friend, who is battling cancer. However, family members say the girl's school didn't see it that way and said it violated the dress code policy. Now, what started as a simple gesture is turning into a battle over whether hair should matter in school.

For the two girls on the playground, though, Monday afternoon was all about sharing fun in the sun and sporting matching bald heads.

"It felt like the right thing to do," Kamryn Renfro said.

With her parents' permission, Kamryn shaved her head in support of her cancer-stricken friend, 11-year-old Delaney Clements. She lost her hair because she is undergoing chemotherapy in her fight against neuroblastoma, a childhood cancer.

Delaney loved what her friend did.

"It made me feel very special and that I'm not alone," she said.

However, when Kamryn tried to go back to school at Caprock Academy in Grand Junction this week, she wasn't allowed in. Turns out, having a shaved head is a violation of the school's dress code policy. Delaney's mom, Wendy Campbell, couldn't believe it.

"I didn't realize that hair was such an important aspect of a child at school," Campbell said.

In a statement, Caprock Academy said its dress code policy is clear.

"Caprock Academy does have a detailed dress code policy, which was created to promote safety, uniformity, and a non-distracting environment for the school's students. Under this policy, shaved heads are not permitted," said Catherine Norton Breman, President and Chair of Caprock Academy Board of Directors.
Delaney and her mom are hoping the school will change its mind and make an exception.

"It makes me sad because she was really happy to go back to school and show people what she did, but now that she didn't get to, she's kind of sad," Delaney said.

"For a little girl to be really brave and want to shave her head in support of her friend, I thought that was a huge statement and it builds character in a child," Campbell said.

Caprock Academy also said in their statement that sometimes exceptions can be made to the dress code policy under extraordinary circumstances.

Kamryn's mother tells 9NEWS that the school headmaster told her Kamryn will be allowed to return to school Tuesday.The school's board of directors plans to meet Tuesday evening to discuss this situation and the policy.

I have a challenge to my Heart Walk team that I will shave my head if I raise a certain amount of money. It is harmless, and not worth making a girl miss school. If anything it is an opportunity for the school to address issues such as cancer and dying, by letting the girl explain her reasoning. It creates awareness.

But no, she wasn't being a good automaton and must be punished. Her reasoning does not matter. Nor does her ability to actually attend school.

 

[KSaiyu]

It seems like undue weight is put on religion over there. I can't imagine those cases getting anywhere near the SCOTUS if they were extremely moral atheists. Could other for-profit businesses hijack religion and use it as a loophole out of certain practices - who would be the judge in drawing the line between strong religions convictions and smart business acumen?

EDIT: This is insane though. The thought police are in full force, even objecting to supporting your friend, who is dying of cancer.

Yeah that's insane.