Morning Reads for Tuesday, April 23rd, 2013

Marietta Street Downtown Atlanta 1920

That’s Marietta Street in Downtown Atlanta in 1920. Yes. It. Is.

Morning reads after the jump!


  • Peeping Toms: A history of real estate voyeurism (New Republic)
  • The Remarkable Decline in the Wall Street Journal’s Long-Form Journalism (Atlantic)
  • Population growth, China and climate change doubt (The Guardian)
  • Or the brutal logic of climate change on shipping, if you want to go that route (grist)
  • Did BuzzFeed find the Internet’s key? (NY Magazine)
  • Science, magic, and madness and what others see (BBC)
  • The Enemy-Industrial Complex (Tom Dispatch)
  • The Internet’s cause, divorced from its effects(WSJ)
  • The Business of Phish, lather, rise, repeat (priceonomics)
  • Your team’s method for beating the Heat (WSJ)


Georgia (as defined by the Treaty of Beaufort):


  1. Noway says:

    Take a look at the video on Drudge of the cops searching a home in the Boston area looking for the younger terrorist. Can some of you legal eagles on here cite the law that gives them the right to do this?

  2. Noway says:

    Go to Drudge and see the video on the center portion of the page of the cops searching a house. Ordering people out with arms raised.

    • TheEiger says:

      That is Alex Jones’ website. Not even close to being a credible source. This is the guy that thinks the Bilderburg group runs the word and that 911 was an inside job.

      • Noway says:

        Eiger, don’t shoot the messenger. Can you simply tell me the legal reason for the cop’s actions in ordering people out of their homes at gunpoint with arms raised?

        • TheEiger says:

          Not an attorney. So no. I’m just saying that you can’t trust what you are reading on that site. How do you know that the folks didn’t voluntary allow the police to search their house? If they thought the suspect was in the house of course they would have their weapons drawn.

    • Stefan says:

      I don’t click on InfoWars links since that entire site is a virus. That said, I assume it is some scene that seems violative of the 4th amendment. Is that about right? If so, I’d suggest you think not about what law allows the behavior that concerns you, but what law prevents it.

    • Ellynn says:

      In some case police can enter a home without a search warrent. Example, high risk social service cases that have court ordered unanounce inspections, or some parole conditions.

      • Napoleon says:

        The better explanation would be the so-called “hot pursuit” exception. Police are allowed to enter a home if they are in hot pursuit of a suspect and there is reason to believe the suspect might be hiding in that home. Also, there is an exception for Exigent Circumstances. This exception occurs when there is an immediate danger to public safety. One or both would likely apply in this situation.

        The fun thing is if they come into your home without a warrant looking for someone else and they see a big stash of meth on your table, they can arrest you too and courts have upheld that evidence being allowed.

  3. Dave Bearse says:

    Stock tip: Be the first to learn exactly which guns were used by the Tsarnaev brothers, and invest accordingly.

    As demonstrated in AZ and at Sandy Hook, some gun collectors have been waiting to hear which weapons were used by the brothers so they can purchase those same weapons. Having one of the guns used in the shooting of an actual congressperson is an excellent advertisement. It’s one thing to say that your rifle can quickly kill a whole room full. Any company can say that. But to have it demonstrated and proven true, that’s a completely different thing. That’s when gun owners know they’ve got a gun they can count on. You might never need to kill before the cops come, sure, but that guy proved you could do it if you wanted to.

  4. bowersville says:

    Governor Deval Patrick spoke many times on the “shelter in place” request. Governor Patrick wouldn’t have made this decision in a vacuum. His decision on “shelter in place” would have come with legal advice from the State’s Attorney General. “Shelter in place” is voluntary, not martial law.

    “The lockdown is really voluntary, to be honest with you,” says Scott Silliman, emeritus director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School. “The governor said he wants to use sheltering in place. Sheltering in place is a practice normally used if you’re dealing with a pandemic, where you’re telling people, ‘You may have been exposed and we want you to stay exactly where you are so we can isolate everything and we’ll come to you.’”

    Read more:

    As for the police tactics, those decisions wouldn’t have been made in a vacuum either. From the news everywhere the FBI was in charge of the scene in Boston. A command post being set up was widely reported. Access to US Attorneys, the State’s Attorney General, local District Attorneys and the proper Courts of jurisdiction would have been available in real time. Rest assured, as liberal as Boston is, her citizens will be quick enough to point out violations of civil liberties.

    And the militarization. This article sums up to what level of federal assets are available to local, state and federal civilian authorities in the type of situation in Boston. The article should whet the appetite of the most neoconservative among us.

  5. Ed says:

    All I can say about the WSJ is that its weekend edition is the best weekend/Sunday edition of them all (if we got the Financial Times Magazine it would be a different story) and if I don’t read it, I have not had a good weekend.

    (Yes I am talking about the physical paper.)

    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

      “The Boston Bombing Suspects Did Not Have Gun Permits”

      …No way!…Who would have ever thunk it? Because everyone knows that the first thing that international terrorists do is talk to the local police about permitting and registering the weapons that they plan to murder lots of innocent people with.

        • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

          Let’s see…Massachusetts, a state with super-strict gun laws and yet, these two international terrorists were still able to easily obtain firearms and bombmaking materials and disrupt a major metro area of 6 million people…More proof that really strict gun laws do work?

            • Michael Silver says:

              Not sure what you are getting at ….. Are you thinking about the Keystone Cops in Boston strutting around in their military customs point automatic weapons at Americans while failing to search the boat with the blood trail only then to have some old white guy find the terrorist as he’s walking his dog? Or are you thinking about how trigger happy the Keystone Cops were when they shot up the poor man’s boat?

              • Stefan says:

                The fact that they didn’t have permits can either be a sign that a) a restrictive permitting system failed to prevent people intent on doing harm from possessing firearms and thus the idea of restrictive permits is flawed or b) that there are too many holes in the permitting system and the database that runs checks (gun show loopholes, lack of NSA data in BATFE checks) and the background check and permitting system needs to be made stronger.

                • Harry says:

                  One of the great liberal misconceptions is that government is capable of doing anything well. Government does more harm than good.

              • Stefan says:

                But in case I entirely missed your point, I agree that boat shooting, at least while the boat is on land, should be illegal. I am pretty sure it violates the Laws of the Sea treaty.

    • Stefan says:

      why do you want to exempt long haul truckers? Truckers do much of the damage on those roads, arguably they should pay much, much more.

      • Baker says:

        @Ed: I’d be in favor of that, but crank up those tolls for a while and see what happens.

        @Stefan: You’re right, it would be hypocritical for me to argue about a no-exemption tax code but then start putting those in here for this type of thing. I guess I was thinking about all these trucks coming from Savannah and then to the perimeter and then continuing on and you wouldn’t want to hurt that pattern, but it wouldn’t.

    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

      Baker, April 23, 2013 at 11:29 am-

      I agree that user fees (though not necessarily congestion pricing) should be on all major roads where upgrades need to be funded.

      Though, in exchange for the user fees being put on those roads, the portion of the state fuel tax that currently funds the maintenance of those roads should be eliminated.

      • MattMD says:

        That’s definitely a better idea than just slapping tolls on every congested road in the metro area. Hell, why stop at interstates? Might as well get SR 20 and 316 tolled why we’re at it.

        I think a better idea would be to fund construction of new lanes, I would not be happy with just simply tolling existing lanes so as to give the illusion of easing congestion when we all know damn well the problem is just going to resurface years later. One issue is that the road has already been paid for and we know these user fees will be directed to some other GA-DOT project (probably in South Hicksville).

          • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

            +1….With the upgrade of that deadly road to Interstate standards (14-foot-wide inside and outside shoulders, elimination of at-grade intersections, 3 through lanes in each direction, 70+ m.p.h. design speed, etc).

            • MattMD says:

              I’m pretty sure 316 is very close to interstate standards if you took away the grade intersections. You don’t need 6 lanes for an interstate and I’m pretty sure you can do 70mph (I’ve done 80 in a Honda).

              • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

                It’s not how fast one can go, but what maximum speed the road was designed to handle.

                With shoulders that are only 3 feet wide and at-grade intersections, GA 316 was designed only for a maximum speed of 55 m.p.h., despite the 65 mph speed limit and common speeds of 80 mph+.

          • MattMD says:

            Yeah, I can understand the sentiment of ending speed traps. However these “user fees” really sort of scare me unless the GDOT makes a serious effort to upgrade that road in a relatively short amount of time.

            The tolls will have to be reasonable as well, not like the first idea of this project.

            Full disclosure, I consider GDOT to be organized crime, I wouldn’t trust them to pave my driveway.

            • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

              “Yeah, I can understand the sentiment of ending speed traps. However these “user fees” really sort of scare me unless the GDOT makes a serious effort to upgrade that road in a relatively short amount of time. ”

              …That’s the whole idea of switching from a cents-per-gallon fuel tax method of funding to a distance-based user fee method of funding, to get roads their much-needed upgrades much sooner rather than later (or never).

              “Full disclosure, I consider GDOT to be organized crime, I wouldn’t trust them to pave my driveway.”

              …You’re not the only one.

        • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

          MattMD April 23, 2013 at 7:30 pm-

          “One issue is that the road has already been paid for and we know these user fees will be directed to some other GA-DOT project (probably in South Hicksville).”

          …Not if you make it illegal for the tolls be used anywhere but the road that they are collected on, which is the only way that this funding setup should ever be accepted.

          Also, putting tolls on GA 316 would be a good idea, but only if the entire road were widened and upgraded to Interstate standards.

        • Baker says:

          Not sure where to interject here so I’m going with this one:

          We haven’t raised our road-funding gas tax in a very long time. The funds from these tolls should go to some other GDOT project. If it’s in South Hicksville, well then so be it. If it’s a frivolous piece of junk, elect somebody else. I live in Atlanta. Atlanta needs road/ transportation/ transit improvements, let’s get to it.

          I’d actually be fine with Kasim putting in a Bloomberg-esque come into the city fee. That will never happen, but I’d be okay with it. I harbor no ill will towards OTP, I grew up OTP and my parents live OTP, but maybe after a come into the city fee, OTPers would be helping the city a little more than sucking services and space, while constantly trying to thwart anything that would help the city (a la MARTA changes or *gasp* the TSPLOST)

  6. George Chidi says:

    Amen to the diploma mills piece. AIU and its ilk should be shut down as a hazard to the public, or at the very least be denied the right to receive tuition from federally-subsidized loans. In my view, there’s very little difference between what they tell students about their employability after graduating — in the relatively rare event that they do graduate — and actual fraud.

  7. LauraGraceB says:

    I am awarding the following points:
    10 pts for rhyming “journalism” and “voyerism”
    -3 pts for snark in making the linkup
    3 pts for snark

    7 pts for linking shipping with “route”

    25 pts for “algal grangers”
    -5 pts because I had to look up “algal”
    5 pts for making me look it up.

    50 points for 5 in a row.

    you do the math.

  8. saltycracker says:

    When we can’t manage something we start looking at all sorts of ways to get more money without addressing inefficiencies, high personnel costs, corruption, bad allocation of monies……

Comments are closed.