US Talk Radio

A few weeks ago I had the UK TV licence authorities asked me whether I was watching live BBC TV at all. They come back every couple of years to ask this. And every time I tell them I don’t watch it. Because I don’t. I think the BBC is just a state propaganda outfit, like they used to have in East Germany. I wouldn’t want to watch that either. Anyway, here in England if you don’t watch BBC TV, you have to tell these people every couple of years that you’re still not watching it. Weird.

This time however, they added that even if I watched their catch-up iplayer service, I’d have to pay the £155/year licence fee. And I have been watching it on and off – usually old documentaries from way back when the BBC was pretty good. Anyway, I didn’t want to pay £155 just to watch a few documentaries. So now I don’t even watch anything on iplayer.

I think that next year they’ll probably be back and tell me that even if I watch Fox News on YouTube, I’ll have to pay the licence fee. Or maybe if I watch anything at all on YouTube. Or even if I read any news report from the BBC. Or if the letters “BBC” appear anywhere at any time. But I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it.

So what do I do instead? Well, I watch quite a lot of stuff on YouTube. But I’m also listening to US Talk Radio during the presidential campaign. I don’t listen to it live, because I think you have to pay to listen to it. But most of them have some sort of archive that allows you to either listen to or read transcripts of previous episodes.

The first one I found was Rush Limbaugh. He’s a conservative talk radio host who’s been broadcasting for something like 30 years. I seldom hear him speaking, but I’m a regular reader of the transcripts that appear on his website shortly after he’s been speaking (which is handy if I want to quote him in my blog). He comes across to me as quite thoughtful and analytical. He interprets the news he gets, and provides a narrative. He explains. And sometimes his explanations make a lot of sense. He says he never endorses any candidates, but it’s pretty clear that he’s rooting for Trump. He’s pretty unflappable, and he plays a lot of golf.

The second US talk radio host I came across was Mark Levin, who I occasionally listen to on his audio rewind. He’s not quite as analytical as Rush. And more heartfelt. In fact, he’s a bit of a ranter. More or less every one of his broadcasts produces a rant about something or other. He’s angry at what he sees going on around him. He’s an angry conservative. And he talks about principles a lot. He doesn’t think much of Donald Trump, because he doesn’t think Trump has got any Principles. Nevertheless, he recently said he was going to vote for Trump, because there was no way he was going to vote for Hillary. I’m still waiting to hear what his Principles are, however. I hate it when people talk about Principles, but don’t tell you what they are.

Just today, for the first time, I also listened to Michael Savage  on Savage Nation, talking about the Pence-Kaine debate. This was a new experience. Michael Savage is very imaginative, almost poetic. And he lives up to his name quite well. He’s also pro-Trump.

And then there’s Alex Jones on Infowars. This is really (in my opinion) a doom TV website, fronted by the barrel-shaped, gruff-voiced Alex Jones. The perspective on Infowars is a constant: the end of the world is nigh, most likely tomorrow morning. It’s just that the cause of impending doom varies from week to week and month to month. And currently it’s Hillary Clinton who is the main threat to the continuation of life on earth. On Tuesday Infowars got burned when they stayed up all night to watch Wikileaks’ Julian Assange drop a bomb on Hillary Clinton from his hide-out in the Ecuadorian embassy in London – only to see Julian Assange drop absolutely nothing on Hillary, and leave them with egg all over their faces. So today they’ve switched to the impending WW3 between the USA and Russia. Alex Jones is also 100% behind Donald Trump, and Trump even appeared on the show a while back.

Before I started listening to them, I thought that these US conservatives would all be born-again Christians, and quoting from the Bible all the time. But in fact they’re not like that at all. At least none of the ones I’ve mentioned. And they all talk quite good sense, except when Infowars is peddling Male Vitality potions, or Mark Levin is pushing some product or other.

They’re all different – and yet they’re also fundamentally all the same. They’re all motormouths, and they all see Obama and the Clintons as subverting everything that America stands for, and they all think that the only hope for America is Donald Trump, if the election isn’t stolen, and he isn’t assassinated, and WW3 doesn’t start.

In addition I read DailyCaller, Redstatewatcher, Prisonplanet, Drudge Report, ZeroHedge, and the rather more sedate WorldNetDaily, Townhall, and Free Republic. I also occasionally dip into a few of the left wing websites that I used to regularly visit 10 years ago, back when I was a bit left wing, like Hullabaloo, DailyKos, and TalkingPointsMemo, antiwar, and Counterpunch, just so I can get some idea what the other side thinks. And for further abject terror there’s always Paul Craig Roberts, and for amusement Scott Adams.

And the impression I get is that America inhabits two separate, mutually-exclusive realities. One side sees Hillary Clinton as a benign figure who’ll continue Barack Obama’s benign policies, once she wins the presidency, as she inevitably will. The other side sees her as the incarnation of evil, and Donald Trump as the last best hope for America. Both sides regularly produce opinion polls showing their guy streets ahead. And when there’s a debate, both sides always see their guy as having comprehensively thrashed his/her opposite number.

At this stage in the race, it’s all just wall-to-wall noise. I have no idea what’s going on. But I continue to think – as I’ve thought all along – that Donald Trump is going to win in November.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to US Talk Radio

  1. You missed mentioning one of the more interesting/amusing ones (amusing although sometimes his material seems pretty solid): Glenn Beck.

  2. wobbler2012 says:

    I used to listen to Alex Jones A LOT, for years actually, but what got me in the end is that to Alex absolutely EVERYTHING is a conspiracy/false flag. He does talk a lot of sense sometimes but it all got a bit too much for me. Plus he’s stupid enough to think that Trump is going to make everything better, he’s not.

    Jeff Rense is good, Michael Rivero also is quite good but he concentrates way too much on Israel to the point of obsession in fact. Jack Blood is also worth a listen, as was a guy called Dave Von Kleist but I think he’s disappeared off the face of the earth.

    But yeah US talk radio is way better than ours over here in the UK.

  3. cherie79 says:

    I like Hillbuzz, doesn’t post all that often but usually well worth reading. I read most of the ones you do, don’t always agree but they are much more interesting than anything the left sites can do.

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    Radio Free America coming to you from the last vestiges of freedom, THE SOUTH!

  5. harleyrider1978 says:
  6. Lepercolonist says:

    If Hillary was a male candidate she would not even be in the conversation. Running on the coat-tails of her husband. She is an awful candidate.

    • nisakiman says:

      I’ve been of the opinion that she is the most appalling woman since husband Bill was in the White House. Venal and dangerous. If she gets to be president, it will be a disaster for the whole world. Bill Clinton, for all his faults, was a consummate politician with buckets of charm and charisma, something his wife is singularly lacking in.

      I’m really not sure about Trump, but if I was an American, I’d vote for anyone rather than Hilary, whatever their politics or manifesto.

    • prog says:

      She’s clearly also a puppet of those who’ve invested a lot to make sure their candidate becomes president. Trump, on the other hand, appears to be his own man. OK, much of what he says is bluster, but he does come across as more sincere. A somewhat exaggerated equivalent to Nigel Farage, someone who the public are more inclined to trust. Besides, despite all of HC’s rhetoric, as far as I can gather the Democrats haven’t really achieved anything of real benefit in the previous 8 years. Things can only worsen under Clinton and people know it. It’s happening in Europe, hence the success of Brexit – the more astute had simply had enough of all the bullshitting, self serving, law making bullies and tossers.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Prog the thing is nobody wants government to achieve anything,they want them out of their lives out of their pockets and especially out of their workplaces.

      • Barnaby Capel-Dunn says:

        Can you give some examples of Donald Trump’s “sincerity”?

  7. waltc says:

    Levin has written a lot of books in which you’ll find his “principles.” Check Amazon. Both he and Limbaugh have websites with some free material. If you can get it over there, there’s a free app– i❤️Radio– where you can listen live if you can figure out the time difference. In NY Rush is on WOR from noon-3 and Levin on WABC at I think 6:30 PM–a time at which I’m otherwise occupied.
    A must-read for an overall take on US political and other coverage from both sides of the spectrum is http://www.realclearpolitics.com

  8. mikef317 says:

    In the U. S. TV / radio is free if it’s broadcast over the airwaves. If you have a cable coming into your house or if use a satellite dish, you pay for the programs.

    There are lots of U. S. talk radio stations. I don’t listen to any, but I thought I’d find some with free downloading. Not so! Every link I tried wanted me to “subscribe” to their service. I was really irked. Looking for Rush Limbaugh got me to a station in Texas. The hell with this, I said.

    I had better luck with TV.

    Below are U. S. TV news links you might try. Some I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. Think twice before clicking on “sponsored” links or “paid advertisements.” Click away if you’re asked to pay for anything.

    Just add dot com and a backslash: If you’re asked for a ZIP (postal) code, try 10022.

    ABC NEWS, CBS NEWS, NBC NEWS, FOX NEWS. As implied, all news. FOX is the most conservative, NBC the most liberal.

    ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX. These are “entertainment” stations. You can watch selected episodes of crime dramas, soap operas, comedies, etc. The first three do half-hour nightly news broadcasts at 6:30 PM New York time. FOX does an hour at 10 PM. All of them do early morning news / entertainment programs. CBS and NBC (and to a lesser extent ABC) compete for “late night” (11:30 PM) comedy shows.

    There’s also PBS (Public Broadcasting System) something like the BBC. This is dot ORG, not dot COM. It’s very left wing. “Famous” for the Nightly News Hour.

    MSNBC (dot COM) is also left wing. They have many hours of political programs.

    Then there’s CNN (dot COM). To the right of MSNBC, but not as far right as FOX. I dislike their website, but try it. Their political shows are halfway decent (and they’re very good at “breaking news stories” worldwide).

    Dare I mention BLOOMBERG (dot COM)? (Yes, that Bloomberg.) If you want to check the London Stock Market opening (and other world markets) and other business news it’s pretty good.

    Totally off topic, for classical music lovers, try WQXR (dot ORG) radio. They have three music streams and broadcast Metropolitan Opera and New York Philharmonic concerts. And it’s all free (except for people like me – it’s a local station and I support them with $20,00 a month).

    P. S.: Walt is spot on with his recommendation of Real Clear Politics. It gives you both left and right opinions on most topics.

    • waltc says:

      Mike, ifyouget the free i❤️radio app, you can get Rush free live on NY’s WOR or DC’s WMAL and, if n fact, stations all across the country.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The problem with real clear politics is the sources of polling used are also the Nazis favorite ones to use for doing anti-smoking polling………….we know how they always shade those results and opinions besides leading questions.

  9. Darryl says:

    This is my pick of U.S. websites.

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Likely run by Obamas Veteran appointees with their usual leftwing health lifestyle bullcrap.

      Yepper just another leftwing online news farce site

  10. Dr Evil says:

    I like Jeff Rense (except for the anti Jew rubbish). BTW Trump will win. There are lots of silent Trumpers ( I love that joke, but it’s true).

  11. Rose says:

    OT

    Cheerful news

    Pensioner celebrates 102nd birthday despite smoking 20 cigarettes a day for 75 years
    6 Oct 2016

    “Maysie Strang’s lifestyle is a little illustration of how correlation doesn’t always equal cause.
    The centenarian from Glasgow has just celebrated her milestone 102nd birthday.
    And she’s not saying the secret of her amazing lifespan is smoking 20 cigarettes a day for 75 years but, well, it doesn’t seem to have done her any harm.

    She also looks forward to a glass of wine every evening before she goes to bed – just the one.
    Added to these vices, she has one more daily indulgence.
    ‘She is a fanatical banana eater,’ her son Sandy, aged 65, said.”

    “Despite decades of smoking, Maysie doesn’t have any medical problems.

    Sandy said: ‘She’s on no medication at all. There’s not many people at 102 that can say that.”
    http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/06/pensioner-celebrates-102nd-birthday-despite-smoking-20-cigarettes-a-day-for-75-years-6176630/

  12. Ric says:

    Rush is great, but my favourite is Jim Quinn. https://members.warroom.com/ A small monthly fee for the archives, but well worth it. Been listening to him since 1991 when BillyJeff was first running.

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    G20: Populist political foes of globalization pose serious risk

    Washington (AFP) – The G20 warned Friday of the risks to the global economy of populist politicians playing up anti-globalization sentiments to win votes.

    The grouping of 20 international economic powers suggested that the forces that have put Republican Donald Trump a step from the US presidency and led to Britain’s vote to leave the European Union could drag down an already frail global economy.

    While not mentioning Trump or other politicians by name, China’s Finance Minister Lou Jiwei, speaking on behalf of the G20, echoed worries expressed repeatedly by economic and finance leaders at the IMF-World Bank annual meetings in Washington this week.

    “This trend of deep anti-globalization populism has driven politicians to come up with their campaign slogans and try to win the votes and support. That has brought us uncertainty,” Lou said after a G20 finance ministers meeting.

    He identified such populism as one of the largest threats to global growth, along with geopolitical conflicts and frail banking systems.

    “The uncertainty and the risks facing (the) global economy have increased, as some major economies have entered into general elections, the fallout of Brexit is uncertain, the vulnerabilities of the financial system are rising (and) the expectation of geopolitical tensions are growing,” Lou said.

    “We need to recognize some political risks such as the presidential election in some countries and in major economies,” he added.

    – Trump, Brexit in focus –

    Lou’s comments came as the US presidential race entered its final weeks with upstart Trump wielding potent anti-immigration, anti-free trade rhetoric in his battle with Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

    But also in the background are the populist currents in Europe behind the Brexit vote and affecting the coming French and German elections.

    IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde and World Bank President Jim Yong Kim expressed similar concerns during the week, arguing that globalization, especially free trade, has played a crucial role in helping pull developing countries out of poverty.

    Lagarde said that with the world economy growing at a “sub-par” 3.1 percent this year, and advanced economies far slower than that, now is not the time to be erecting trade barriers.

    “Trade has become a political football,” she said Friday.

    Kim urged world governments to banish “the storm clouds of isolationism and protectionism,” saying that open borders had lifted a billion people out of poverty in over a quarter century.

    Similar views came from finance ministers at the meetings. Pierre Moscovici, the EU economic affairs commissioner, noted that Trump’s actual policy prescriptions are not clear.

    Nevertheless, he said, Trump “is not the most reassuring choice from an economic point of view.”

    And speaking at a conference on the fringes of the IMF-World Bank meetings, Tim Adamas, president of the Institute of International Finance, which has members in 70 countries, said that one month ahead of the US election, markets are being influenced by the candidates’ rhetoric.

    “Policy-makers may be tempted by the siren songs of protectionism and nativism, but a retreat inward would be a break with the principles that have delivered unprecedented progress to literally billions of people throughout the world,” he said.

    At the same time, all the officials acknowledged that, as politicians like Trump have been arguing, globalization has hurt certain populations and in some cases exacerbated inequality.

    “Our research shows that inequality is still far too high, both globally and within countries, constraining growth and breeding instability,” Kim said Thursday.

    “We need to focus on growth and continue to reduce inequality –- and we have to make growth more equitable, and more sustainable.”
    ………………………..

    Annie56 minutes ago

    They are acting like the politicians are breeding negative sentiment rather than reflecting the will of the people. That is their mistake. As a citizen of an independent nation, I don’t feel it’s my responsibility, nor my country’s, to lift people around the world out of poverty at my own expense. The G20 interference is the real problem. Those third world nations full of people living in poverty are also full of corruption, heavy handed control over every aspect of life to the point of stifling progress and economic development. That’s not a world problem. Let those countries figure out how to fix their own problems. Let them give their citizens the freedom and opportunity to progress. But they won’t. They retain all of the money and power to the elite and they don’t care about lifting up their own peasant class. The people in those countries should revolt. Take over and support freedoms that will enable progress to arrive organically. You can’t duplicate Western standards of living if you’re still promoting the same culture and ideas of 2000 years ago. All of these globalist groups are tying everything together and redistributing our wealth around the world, and the result will be shared misery, not prosperity. If it really isn’t a zero-sum game, as they keep telling us, then those countries should be able to build wealth and prosperity WITHOUT seizing it from the wealthy nations. The only threat of the current political climate is to the gathering of power these unelected world organizations made up of elitist pigs have been amassing for themselves. A wounded stock market can’t hurt people who aren’t wealthy enough to buy stocks. And nations exercising their sovereign power are a threat only to the planned world dominance of the privileged few.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/g20-warns-rising-risks-global-economy-003902305–finance.html

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      echoed worries expressed repeatedly by economic and finance leaders at the IMF-World Bank annual meetings in Washington this week.

      Our old friends IMF and World bank tied at the hip with the WHO and the FCTC………

      They blackmailed countries to sign on or no loans for you!

  14. Barnaby Capel-Dunn says:

    “One side sees Hillary Clinton as a benign figure who’ll continue Barack Obama’s benign policies, once she wins the presidency, as she inevitably will…
    . But I continue to think – as I’ve thought all along – that Donald Trump is going to win in November.”

    So Hillary will inevitably win, but you think Trump will win?

    • Frank Davis says:

      Hillary Clinton fans think she’ll inevitably win. They always have. They think it’s going to be a coronation.

      But I think Trump will win.

      • Barnaby Capel-Dunn says:

        Well, good luck to you, Frank! I suppose if he doesn’t win you could always say the election was rigged?

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          With 2 million dead voting thru the past years especially in the northeast and upper Midwest I don’t discount anything from the left.

          A Hillary win means a continuation of the bans and ever more criminality of all the things we call our rights and liberties. She is without any doubt a total Marxist and a criminal just from whats already known in the public media.

          How she escapes prison time is mere political protection and nothing more.

        • Barnaby Capel-Dunn says:

          In reply to Harleyrider 1978: That seems a very fair and balanced comment.

    • Roobeedoo2 says:

      Hi Barnaby, that’s not what Frank’s written.

      One side sees Hillary Clinton as a benign figure who’ll continue Barack Obama’s benign policies, once she wins the presidency, as she inevitably will. The other side sees her as the incarnation of evil, and Donald Trump as the last best hope for America.’

      In the paragraph above, Frank is describing the two political sides of the US election and what they are anticipating. Hillary’s side believes it’s inevitable that she will win.

      That’s Frank’s observation, i.e. what he’s observed. I’m sure he’d welcome your opinion on his observation. Do you think it’s inevitable that she’ll win? Do you see either candidate as the incarnation of evil?

      Okay, next paragraph:

      ‘At this stage in the race, it’s all just wall-to-wall noise. I have no idea what’s going on. But I continue to think – as I’ve thought all along – that Donald Trump is going to win in November.

      That describes Frank’s opinion of what the outcome would be. You’ll understand this to be a long-standing one, if you’re a regular reader of this blog.

      Do you see the difference between the two paragraphs. Trying to force them together in the way that you have is a bit shit, if you don’t mind me saying, and doesn’t reflect well on you. Unless, of course, English is not your primary language. In which case, your English comprehension could do with a bit of work.

      *Aw, that’s thoughtful, Clicky. Barnaby’s sure to appreciate that*

      • Barnaby Capel-Dunn says:

        Point taken!

        • Barnaby Capel-Dunn says:

          As it happens, I do not like Hillary Clinton. It’s just that I’m at a loss to understand the deep HATRED she obviously inspires in so many contributors to the blog. Isn’t there anyone prepared to attack Donald Trump for at least some of the absurd, not to say vicious, statements he has come out with? Apparently not.

        • Roobeedoo2 says:

          She’s the status quo candidate who is also thoroughly anti-smoking. The vast majority of commentators on this blog are not happy with the status quo and are pro-smokers…

          *What the hell are you showing me there, Clicky?! …/light dawns… Oh, I see, you think she’s a psycho fucking cunt… yeah, well, she’s probably that as well…*

        • Frank Davis says:

          I’m at a loss to understand the deep HATRED she obviously inspires in so many contributors to the blog.

          We’re nearly all of us smokers here on this blog, and Hillary has a very long antismoking record, like Harley says, so why the heck shouldn’t we hate her?

        • Barnaby Capel-Dunn says:

          I do not think that Hillary’s side thinks that it’s inevitable she will win. I also do not think that, despite all her faults, she is the “incarnation of evil”. I’m sorry, but this is just over-the-top language which reflects ill on the person who uses it.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Trump hasn’t come out to outlaw us or push lifestyle management on us.

          Hillary is a proven Nazi in the war on smokers and pushed a nationwide ban as a senator from NYS. She finally gave up on it in 2008 although if she got in you can be guaranteed even the fat people wouldn’t be safe from her assaults on freedom or liberty in the guise of public healthism.

          Hillary 1992-3 pushes no smoking in whitehouse or any federal building……….Bubba signs the order

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          It isn’t that the left loves hitlery,its that if trump gets in the entire global takeover ENDS.

        • Barnaby Capel-Dunn says:

          There just seems to be a singular lack of balance in this blog. I repeat: isn’t there ANYONE prepared to attack Trump for some of the truly outrageous and horrible things he’s said and done over the years?

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          What horrible thing has he done,trading in trophy wifes every 5 years…………

      • Barnaby Capel-Dunn says:

        You are right to take me to task for the above. I just wish you would bring your well-developed critical faculties to bear on some of the extraordinary comments featured in this blog.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Really hows this grab your ass…………Make note not one bit of proof smoking causes anything in anyone!

          JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
          7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
          November 2004.

          “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

          In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

          The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          So with NO PROOF at all a company gets sued for 500 billion dollars,smokers get raped in taxes and criminalized over NOTHING! Besides the graveyard where we have collected smokers killed by the smoking bans!

        • Barnaby Capel-Dunn says:

          To Frank: “We’re nearly all of us smokers here on this blog, and Hillary has a very long antismoking record, like Harley says, so why the heck shouldn’t we hate her”
          Why not indeed. But a little obsessive, don’t you think?

        • Frank Davis says:

          a little obsessive, don’t you think?

          Go tell that to Deborah Arnott or Linda Bauld or Simon Chapman or Stanton Glantz. It’s antismoking zealots like them who are the only swivel-eyed obsessives round here. Smokers just want to be left alone.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Hate do we have reason to hate!
          Hillarys just the top of the Mountain to hate when it comes singularly to smoking.

          The Smokers’ Graveyard

          In Memory of all the smokers driven to their deaths by smoking bans

          https://thesmokersgraveyard.wordpress.com/

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          offense can be as severe as prison time or even execution.

          Islamic State beheads cigarette smokers after deeming ”slow suicide …

          http://www.mirror.co.uk › News › World news › ISIS

          Daily Mirror

          Feb 13, 2015 – ISIS take a hard line on alcohol and smoking as Syrians who can’t … of a repeated offense can be as severe as prison time or even execution.

          Islamic State: Smoking will kill you, one way or another – LA Times

          http://www.latimes.com/…/la-fg-islamic-state-smoking-ban-20150212-st...

          Los Angeles Times

          Feb 12, 2015 – Beheadings have become commonplace in the territories held by the militant Islamic State, but the severed head reportedly found last month in …

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Pub landlord Nick Hogan given first smoking ban jail sentence | Daily …

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Pub-landlord-Nick-Hogan-given-smoking-ban-jail...

          Daily Mail

          Feb 27, 2010 – Pub landlord is first person in Britain to be jailed over smoking ban. By Liz Hull … He will spend six months in prison after refusing to pay a fine.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Bootleg cigarettes, Prohibition and the death of Eric Garner

          by Walter Olson on December 6, 2014

          Eric Garner, asphyxiated during his arrest on Staten Island, had been repeatedly picked up by the NYPD for the crime of selling loose cigarettes. Washington Examiner:

          The crime of selling “loosies” was not considered a serious one in the past. Many corner stores in New York City once sold them quietly upon request. But former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s cartoonish anti-tobacco crusade changed that and everything else. Smoking in public places was banned. Punitive taxes and a legal minimum price of $10.50 were imposed in an effort to push prices ever-upward, so that a brand-name pack of 20 cigarettes now costs as much as $14 in New York City.

          As a result, the illicit sale of loose and untaxed cigarettes became more commonplace.

          I noted at yesterday’s Repeal Day panel at Cato that according to figures last year, New York’s unusually high cigarette taxes had brought it an unusual distinction: an estimated 60 percent of consumption there is of smuggled or illegal cigarettes, much higher than any other state. Another way to think of it is that New York has moved closer to prohibition than to a legal market in tobacco. [earlier 2003 Cato study]

          In his history of Prohibition, Last Call, Daniel Okrent cites (among many other law enforcement misadventures) the fatal shooting of Jacob Hanson, secretary of an Elks lodge in Niagara Falls, New York, in a confrontation with alcohol agents — though Hanson had a clean record and was not carrying alcohol. At the time, many saw Hanson’s death as reflecting poorly on the Prohibition regime generally. For some reason, though, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has drawn fire from some quarters for making a parallel observation about Garner’s death. [BBC; note however that while Garner’s frictions with the local NYPD seem to owe much to his repeated cigarette arrests, the proximate event leading to his arrest seems to have been his attempt to break up a fight]

          Yale’s Stephen Carter: “On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce.” [Bloomberg View via Ilya Somin]

          http://overlawyered.com/2014/12/eric-garner-criminalization-everyday-life/

  15. harleyrider1978 says:

    • waltc says:

      You just made Barnaby’s point, Harley.

      @Barnaby. You must be new here since you’ve missed many past criticisms of Trump from quite a few of us, That said, and without coming to either bury him or praise him, I admit to detesting Hillary as a corrupt, greedy, hyper-ambitious, hypocritical, pathologically lying demagogue–even more of a demagogue than Trump. I further detest her collectivism, elitism, and globalism and her f’ked-up and feckless foreign policy.

      It’ll be interesting to see how and if the press deals with today’s damning dump from wikileaks about her speeches to Wall Street or if they continue to play the shocked-shocked card because Trump used the word tits ten years ago. The point may be that Trump screwed more-than-willing ladies and Hillary will royally screw the country. Pick your poison.

      • waltc says:

        Correction: apparently the word wasn’t tits but pussy. Since I’m certain no shocked Democrat has ever used the word, I expect the (hypothetical) few who have to immediately resign office and report to a monastery for re-education

      • Barnaby Capel-Dunn says:

        Interesting.

  16. Pingback: ‘Owls With Laughter… – Library of Libraries

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s