Guy Declines to Answer Questions at Law Enforcement Check Point, Drives Away Mid-Argument

Barbradyfed“Am I being detained?”

“No, uh…”

“OK. Goodbye.”

(Wonder if he would’ve gotten an autograph had he known he was being hassled by Officer Barbrady from South Park?)

, , , ,

  • echar

    Hopefully they don’t hunt him down and repeatedly anal probe him.

    On a serious note:

    This is an effective means to protest. No guns, no trash, no insults, and minimal risk. He did use the word tyranny, which I feel was incorrectly used. He also threw around the word liberty a lot, which I own as my reaction to the example set by some of the local (at disinfo) and national (Glenn Beck, etc) libertarians.

  • Professor Frink

    Honestly, it seems like the “driver” is just harassing a guy trying to do his job. I get it, but maybe you don’t live in California and understand how much of a deal agriculture is. So, as far as I’m concerned, this guy is just being a prick.

  • DeepCough

    What’s this guy’s problem? The officer was just trying to protect him from fresh fruit.

    • Tuna Ghost

      Zesty limes killed my mother and raped my father, I’ll be damned if they are allowed to go to the same schools as my niece and nephews

  • Ralph Giunta

    I hope everything you said and wish more politicians would understand the need to do the same.

  • shakingcliches

    What an assclown. He is totally incorrect and completely disregards other’s right to freedom and liberty, so his freedom to introduce invasive or destructive species into California, etc trumps Californians freedom to pursue an effective means of making a living?

  • Gilgamesh

    If he was black he would have been shot.

    • Juan

      Yep.

  • LUNGS

    I Don’t suggest any black people try this

  • mindofsound

    Pick your battles. You have no idea of the true value of liberty if you would rather waste time arguing with an ag inspector on some hollow point about your rights rather than simply assure them that you have no quarantined vegetation. It’s the old libertarian fallacy of “I’m sutbborn and unhelpful because it’s my right!” Yeah, but what a worthless right to exercise. That’s what makes your point hollow. A person of good will and peaceful intent chooses to be helpful and cooperative when possible. Needless belligerence and intolerance are far worse for the world than agricultural checkpoints. There is a legitimate environmental purpose for the checkpoint, and if you hold great value in undermining that purpose — if defeating agricultural protection is a liberty you cherish — you sorely lack perspective on what’s important. If detention is the issue, you wasted far more time arguing with them. If you’d told them you don’t have hazardous fruit, they’d have immediately sent you on your way. If you’d had quarantined items they would just ask for it, not arrest you. Key point being, this is not a police action! It’s a matter of environmental protection, a crucial distinction that Sondra dismisses with laughter at 3:04. Fact is, they’re making sure people aren’t bringing foreign parasites across quarantine boundaries because it could jeopardize entire crop ecosystems. This is a society you live in- if you want to be accountable to no one, get into a coffin and stay there. If you want to move around in the world and affect people and the environment, you will be accountable to common human interests like agricultural quarantines. That’s not “tyranny,” that’s civilization.

    • echar

      Your argument is very convincing. Thank you.

    • DeepCough

      I have to agree that a simple “No” would have made all the difference.

    • MultiChewyCookie

      Here’s the idiocy of it though: I recently went through a similar checkpoint coming back to California. I left California with a huge backseat of fruit (I eat mostly raw vegan), and way overestimated how much I’d eat, and so came back with half the fruit. Boxes in my backseat. I covered them with some jackets. We went through, they asked if I had fruit or vegetables. I said no. They waved me on. How ineffective is that? You say they’re making sure people aren’t bringing foreign parasites across boundaries. That’s laughable. I could have brought anything over and they would have never known.

      • Tuna Ghost

        True, but if an ecological problem had been somehow traced back to your fraudulent claim–unlikely as that is–you would be held responsible in some manner. That’s the what they’re trying to do. Hold people accountable.

        • ah s

          Lame

        • Whats the frequency Kenneth

          The claim would be false, but it would not be fraudulent. Nor would it be immoral. People asking questions they deserve no answer to are subject to being deceived.

          • Tuna Ghost

            a.) “False” and “Fraudulent” have the same meaning in this sense. So, yes, it would be both. The definition of “deceit” doesn’t change in different moral conditions.

            b.) As they are enforcing lawful guidelines designed to protect the environment, officers have a duty to ask and citizens indeed have a obligation to be truthful as members of a law-abiding society enjoying the environment being protected. If they choose to exempt themselves from that obligation, then they are subject to the penalties. That’s basically how lawful society functions.

            It’s easy to say “well I’m not a part of that society!” but it’s significantly more difficult to excuse yourself from the benefits that being a member of that society gives you. I see self-important, self-deluded assholes making that claim all the time, yet they still enjoy the benefits of the thing they claim to reject.

          • Whats the frequency Kenneth

            No. Get out a dictionary and READ what fraudulent means, illiterate. Qui Buono?

            I don’t give a rat’s assets what the law says, people asking questions they deserve no answer to are subject to being deceived. There is a difference between illegal and immoral.

            Citizens don’t exist. Look up the dictionary definition of citizen, illiterate. Now, look up “no obligation to protect” and find that courts have ruled that the government does not have an obligation to protect. Thus, there cannot BE any citizens.

            As for “that’s basically how a lawful society functions,” it’s laughable to suggest this IS one. The government ignores the constitution, thus it cannot BE a lawful society. The Constitution is THEIR law. They fail by the Clean Hands Principle.

            YOUR society STEALS from me. It doesn’t benefit me. PLEASE DON’T provide me any “services!

            It’s funny for you to claim *I* am self-deluded when it is in fact you who are the useful idiot. That, or you’re a government employee yourself, or both.

          • Andrew

            > YOUR society STEALS from me. It doesn’t benefit me. PLEASE DON’T provide me any “services!

            Types someone on the Internet.

          • Whats the frequency Kenneth

            I’d be happy to say exactly the same thing in person. The comment had a context, in which I was being chastised for not gracefully accepting the bounty which society bestows on me. It’s all huge BS, and I’d rather have the other half of my earnings than all these fake “gifts,” most of which are more troublesome than helpful.

          • Andrew

            I wasn’t impugning your courage, I was pointing out that the Internet you’re using and the electricity it requires are part of the bounty of society.

          • Whats the frequency Kenneth

            No, it requires me to pay my ISP and my electric bill.

          • Andrew

            That doesn’t contradict my point. The infrastructure required for both are paid for by your taxes, and the government was involved in creating much of the technology.

          • Whats the frequency Kenneth

            The infrastructure is paid for by me paying my bills. The government was involved in stealing CONSIDERABLY more than what it took to kickstart a technology that would otherwise exist when the market deemed necessary. Perhaps you should spend a little time considering the UNseen.

          • Andrew

            You agreed to work for the Fed’s debtmoney, knowing some of it would be taxed from you, so quit whining about “stealing.”

          • Whats the frequency Kenneth

            Agreeing to receive debt notes is not consent to be taxed. No were does the note say I was obligated to pay tax on it, and there certainly isn’t any signature or oral contract from me. You failed to address my points. Good Night.

          • Andrew

            The government is not my deity, but yes, agreeing to receive the government’s debt notes is tacit agreement to be taxed by the government. To pretend otherwise is hypocrisy.

          • Whats the frequency Kenneth

            You’re insane, and your god is a false god. You don’t agree to any third party when you accept payment, unless there is a record of such an agreement. Any “hypocrisy” is the machination from religious extremism.

            You ignored the the points, again. You’re obviously going to focus all your effort on irrationally defending your false god, so the discussion is over.

          • Andrew

            You, sir, are a liar.

          • Whats the frequency Kenneth

            I’d suggest you eat shit and die.

          • Andrew

            Hah! Thanks for proving my point!

          • Whats the frequency Kenneth

            It means I’m tired of your shit. It confirms only what an asshole you are.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Wait, so is it laughable to suggest that there is a society, or is there in fact a society because it’s stealing from you?

            I don’t give a rat’s assets what the law says, people asking questions they deserve no answer to are subject to being deceived. There is a difference between illegal and immoral.

            This has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. At all.

            YOUR society STEALS from me. It doesn’t benefit me. PLEASE DON’T provide me any “services!

            Says the guy writing on the internet, a product and service provided to him by society. You can see why others think of you as deluded, can’t you?

          • Whats the frequency Kenneth

            Reading is fundamental. I didn’t call it laughable that this is a society. I called it laughable that this is a LAWFUL society. That should have been obvious by context.

            The internet is a product and service FOR WHICH I PAY. See how long your “society” functions without services being paid for. Your socialism is just a way to add coercion and remove value, for which you want me to praise you. Take your “blessings of society” and stuff them. I’ll keep the blessings of technology and the market.

          • Tuna Ghost

            That’s funny, because it was invented by government subsidized researchers being kept far, far away from the dangers of the market. Like almost all the most important technological advances in the twentieth century. And you don’t have to pay for the internet, guy, it’s available for free in many places. Entire towns have free wifi available everywhere.

            Nothing you personally do has any affect on the internet. You could disappear right now and it wouldn’t be affected at all. So enough of this “it works because I PAY my BILLS” bullshit. It works because society upkeeps it in a variety of ways, many of them requiring work that isn’t paid for.

            But forget all that, and how it makes you look like an idiot. You are only ABLE to pay for the internet because of society, genius.

          • Whats the frequency Kenneth

            What do you suppose would have been done with the money and effort if the government didn’t use coercion to channel it? We’ll never know. We’ll also never know what portion of it was wasted, because government always has additional waste over market solutions. Even then, most of what the state does it does by stealing money and paying market forces, so all they’re really doing at best is what the market wants, and at worst, wasting it. Your suggestion that “almost all of the most important technological advances in the twentieth century” were “invented by government” is laughable.

            The market works in aggregate. What we all personally do has an aggregate effect on it. This includes people paying their bills for data services, phone services, etc. If you deny this, you have no frigging idea how economics works. Even in your socialist utopia, tax money is being stolen from the people who benefit, and if they don’t, they’re gonna put pressure on your all-stars in government to stop doing what they don’t want if they don’t use it. There is no such thing as “society.” There are individuals, and their effects on the market. Society doesn’t have rights, feelings, expenditures and costs. PEOPLE do.

            You are only able to EAT because of the market. Thank GOD the government hasn’t taken THAT over yet (despite their endless interference.)

            I may “look like an idiot” to you, but you truly are a useful idiot of the state. Which government agency do you work for, anyway?

          • Tuna Ghost

            I like that every time I show you that you’re wrong you just shift the argument to somewhere else. You’re gonna go places, kid!

          • Whats the frequency Kenneth

            Eventually, people get tired of being told “how it is” by sheeple like you. Live your life and be happy you’re allowed to. Good luck with that.

          • Whats the frequency Kenneth

            One more thing…the basis of the internet was paid by inflated phone bills, collected by a monopoly established by the government, using technology invented by free people.

            It should be painfully obvious to anyone who’s not a blockhead that the customers were overcharged for generations, and that the technology that went into the internet was only a small payback, given the tremendous change when the monopoly was finally broken. This should be enough to expose the folly of your socialism versus a more free market. It is quite possible if the monopoly wasn’t created that the market would have chosen a more sophisticated phone system earlier, and we may have had digital technologies a decade or more earlier.

          • Whats the frequency Kenneth

            Oh, and by the way, what makes tyranny-supporting assholes like you any better than anyone else? You useful idiots are necessary for the problem to continue.

      • TheLie

        So what you’re saying is that the system is ineffective because you decided to lie in because you believe that you exist separate from society?

        • ah s

          Strip searches and anal probes OK too? in a majority willing civil society, of course.

          • TheLie

            A red herring in it’s natural environment! The problem with your slippery slop argument is that it’s entirely speculative. I mean shit, why stop there? Why not just ask me if I support gas chambers and roaming death squads killing children with impunity because, hey, that’s a worst case scenario, right?

          • Tuna Ghost

            That has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand. It’s an appeal to emotion.

        • MultiChewyCookie

          It’s not ineffective because I decided to lie (and why I lied is irrelevant). It’s ineffective because someone is able to lie and pass through.

      • LadyGunfighter

        You also had Cal plates, they figure you know the rules. We were stopped coming back from Washington state and had to give up a box of apples. We were in a motorhome so they were more thorough checking.

        • MultiChewyCookie

          You’re probably right about that Lady.

    • ÿ

      These aren’t the fruits and vegetables you’re looking for…

    • Tuna Ghost

      WAIT what is a rational comment like this doing in the comments section, I don’t understand what’s happening

    • Ted Heistman

      39 lemmings wow

      • Tuna Ghost

        Free us from the Matrix, Neo!

        Or just provide some sort of argument, that’d work too

        • Ted Heistman

          You don’t argue with me. You simply say snarky one liners and move on. So run along now

          • Tuna Ghost

            You’re rarely worth the effort. But I’ve been drinking, so what thehell. Also, you’re the one making a claim here, guy. Burden of proof is on you. Regardless, I provided an argument down below, if you’re willing to try me

          • Ted Heistman

            Drink some more. At least you’ll think you make sense.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Not an argument, fella. It’s just a weird way of saying “I have no response to your points because you’re right and I’m wrong”. You must be Canadian or something

          • Ted Heistman

            I try to explain it below. But my sense is you don’t have the ability to reason things out for yourself, you just regurgitate things you’ve heard from people you consider “authorities” But anyway their are Botanists and ecologists rethinking the standard narrative on invasive species. I am way ahead of you. Eventually it will catch on and you will see some celebrity intellectual say it and you will act like you knew it all along

          • Tuna Ghost

            yes yes I see it, and it’s basically the same thing you’ve been saying. If you’ve got a wild new narrative, go ahead and see if that works.

          • Ted Heistman

            The “wild new narrative” is called reality. None of these weedy species ever get eradicated with these programs. They just spend money, that’s the Purpose of most government programs. Its like the War on drugs. It doesn’t get rid of drugs.

          • Tuna Ghost

            1.) Once again, that isn’t an argument, that’s you refusing to provide evidence for your claims. 2.) Because it doesn’t fix everything doesn’t mean it isn’t effective. 3.) No one thinks the war on drugs is effective, and no one thinks that is at all relevant here.

          • Ted Heistman

            You are making the claim that Humans can eradicate invasive species at all. I am challenging it. Where is your evidence? What so called “invasive species” has been eradicated?

            So you think if an unsubstantiated claim is popularly believed that makes it true? I thought you were one of these hard nosed internet skeptic types. Looks like you have it all ass backwards

          • Tuna Ghost

            I am claiming that humans may be able to control the problem, so we have a responsibility to try. As I’ve stated. Numerous times.

          • Tuna Ghost

            You see that guy “lesthantolerant”, Ted? You really want to be on his team? He comes to Disinfo and thinks that if the government wanted to get rid of “bugs” they would just use more fumigation. That’s his answer to this complicated situation.

          • Andrew

            The only purpose of money is to be spent.

        • Ted Heistman

          Whatever PZ Meyers says right? That’s your argument.

          • Tuna Ghost

            I don’t know who that is, and I refuse to google it.

      • Fusionism

        Actually I upvoted mindofsound’s comment because i agree that being a good person trumps whether this checkpoint is useful or not. (I’m not at all convinced it is.) Personally I’m much more concerned about the TPP than this half assed ‘sticking it to the man’. Show me real action, real civil disobedience, real strength in the face of tyranny…anything that really makes a fuckin difference, and I’m there. But this guy? Meh. Dan Aykroyd’s brother gotta make a living too.

    • Ted Heistman

      So California is “The environment” and over the imaginary line into Nevada is what?

      • Punctuated Colon

        The Ether

    • Ted Heistman
    • rockclimberscott

      They should be more concerned with ILLEGALS not fruits that some white guy is taking across state lines.

      • rockclimberscott

        In fact it would have been even better if the caught an illegal with illegal fruits. Double whammy!

    • Jasen T. Davis

      Sounds goog to me, mindofsound. I’m going to become a TSA agent and shove my fingers up the holes of every mother, wife and daugther you have. Than I’m going to raid your house with a DHS-inspired SWAT team and shoot your dog, taze you and beat your family for resisting arrest. I’m sure you’ll understand it’s for “common human interests.” We have to stop Al Qaeda, you know.

      That’s the society you live in, right now. It’s stupid to finally “pick a battle” after you’ve lost the war.

      • VaudeVillain

        So that those things happen makes it not just acceptable but commendable to be a dick to a guy politely asking questions about produce and just trusting them to be truthful?

        Maybe if the official had been cavity searching and tazing people, or had a SWAT team backing them up you would have a point… but none of that was happening, he was just intent on making some academic point and being “provocative” toward somebody who just wanted to hear the word “no”, say “have a nice day” and send you along.

        Your comment seems to imply that you believe perspective is necessary, but it certainly looks like you need to gain some yourself.

        • Jasen T. Davis

          Regardless of what you or I believe, the Founding Fathers knew what they were thinking when they wrote the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Fortunately the United States Constitution has all the perspective we’ll ever need. If you give in a little the tyrants will take it all.

    • Sarah Goettge-Lunn

      I was going to comment, but you said exactly what I wanted to say. Thank you.

    • Lookinfor Buford

      You’re right, and it’s really a matter of maturity to understand that. But don’t ignore the fact that these type of acts are a reaction to the overreach and oppression being imposed on people nowadays. Did the ag inspector deserve to be the scape goat? No, of course not. He’s just doing his job, and it happens to be worthwhile as you said. But people are wearing thin because of all the other, worthless impositions coming down the pipe.

  • Bobananda Das

    no mamn – no fruit in here…ok have a nice weekend

    dude’s a wiener – he should pull this shit on customs officers rather than helpless fruit inspectors

  • TestSalad

    Hahah fuck that cop.

    • Tuna Ghost

      Pretty sure that guy wasn’t a cop, and that Father Of The Year up there wouldn’t be half so bold with an actual member of law enforcement.

  • Eddie

    It has to start somewhere. Let the mall ninjas take the heat from liberty-minded citizens. Personally, I don’t give a frack if their feelings get hurt. Maybe they’ll back off next time they start barking orders like officious little Chekist shits.

    It’s their bosses who need a good tar and feathering above all. Why waste time on the pawns?

    • Punctuated Colon

      Don’t count on it. As soon as you’re gone they’ll be rationalising you as some sort of heathen pinko devil worshiping US hater. How dare you not respect their authoritahhhhhh

  • swabby429

    Point taken, but being an a&& about it. Then to justify his actions with a monologue and high blood pressure talk all over somebody screening for invasive insect species.

  • ryan johnson

    You should try this at the border or a border patrol checkpoint…

  • ÿ

    STEP ONE: DA CONSTITUTION!
    STEP TWO: ???
    STEP 3: Profit

  • Ted Heistman

    First of all fruit is wind pollinated not not car pollinated. You can’t stop nature with a checkpoint.

    • Tuna Ghost

      Seeds of fruit can be spread accidentally by human means. If a type of fruit hasn’t made it to a certain area in several thousand years by wind pollination (or bees or whatever), it’s probably not going to happen any time soon. But it could very easily happen accidentally by human means. Hence the checkpoint.

      • Ted Heistman

        Do they stop all the birds at the Checkpoint too?

        • Tuna Ghost

          Once again: the uncontrollable natural means of spreading fruit would have happened already. Checkpoints keep people from deliberately or accidentally spreading seeds.

          • Ted Heistman

            Brilliant. If there were no humans on planet Earth there would be fewer weeds. So since there are humans, Checkpoints on highways will prevent human impact. Brilliant. In the fucking ANTHROPOCENE. If you just have more warrantless checkpoint the ANTHROPOCENE will end. OK

          • Tuna Ghost

            So the fact that it can’t fix everything, it isn’t useful? C’mon buddy you know that’s a shit argument.

          • Ted Heistman

            Zebra mussels cleaned up lake superior. You haven’t looked into any of this stuff. Whatever the orthodox view is you simply imbibe it. You obviously don’t think for yourself Australia has more biodiversity now, than when just the Aborigines lived there. Sure dingoes had a huge impact 50,000 years ago. That is because mammals killed all these marsupials off everywhere else already. Life evolves.

          • Tuna Ghost

            And cane toads? And feral cats? And human beings? This is just “life evolving”? To quote Morisson, “that’s zen for I can’t be arsed”.

            And dingos came to Australia at most 18,000 years ago. Cursory research would tell you that.

          • Ted Heistman

            Yep. Life evolves even if you don’t like it. Even if it doesn’t fit your Romantic idea of a lost golden age of the Past. Ok so that’s a big touche? That you are living 18,000 years on the past instead of 50,000?

            How about the present? Its not 1491 either, buddy. And guess what? plants and animals don’t follow boundaries composed of abstract human thoughts.

          • Tuna Ghost

            It does. Obviously it does, given the extinction rate caused by humans. Shit, the vast majority of invasive species were brought there by humans. Usually to control vermin or something like that.

          • Ted Heistman

            Ok. Obvious fact. Go on? are you proposing mass euthanasia now?

          • Tuna Ghost

            No, I’m proposing humans do the god damn bare minimum to help control the effect we’re having on the environment, which, coincidentally, is checkpoints for invasive species. Like I said, because it inconveniences assholes like me and you doesn’t mean it isn’t worth the effort.

          • Ted Heistman

            The checkpoints do nothing. You haven’t provided any evidence, you just regurgitate accepted conventional wisdom

          • Tuna Ghost

            Moving goalposts, sir! You just made me drop my brandy. At any rate, I suppose I could search for instances where the bare fucking minimum has stopped Asshole-Dickfuck McGee from bringing an invasive species into a vulnerable area, which would be an example of it doing something. I have no idea where to start looking for such information, probably in some law enforcement database in the middle of the Internet nowhere that could be found with enough searching, but I doubt that you’re willing to claim it has never stopped someone from bringing in an invasive species. I mean, if you do say so I’ll probably do it just to prove you’re wrong, but I’m pretty sure you know better.

          • Ted Heistman

            Most exotic species don’t survive. They only know which ones are particularly virulent once they have a foothold. So basically they declare war on them after they are established and they never get rid of them.

          • Ted Heistman

            Also explain to me how The “Environment” is composed of an imaginary line that divides an imaginary entity called “California” from an imaginary entity known as “Nevada?”
            What is Nevada? that’s not the environment also?

          • Tuna Ghost

            obviously state lines aren’t the best boundaries for this sort of thing, but there are different biomes represented in California than there are in Nevada. “The environment” is a complicated thing, and, yes, is different in different places.

          • Ted Heistman

            wow. the environment is “different in different places” I never that! Thanks, Man!

          • Tuna Ghost

            So then why pretend that there’s no difference between Nevada and California in ecological terms? There is a very real difference, both in regard to indigenous organisms and environmental factors.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Look, dude, I appreciate witty one-liners and zingers as much as the next guy–which I guess is you–but we’ve managed to have a real discussion so far, or at least something that looks like one, which a rare thing on this site, so why pull out this kind of bullshit now?

      • Ted Heistman

        How do you think all the Orchards and Groves got to California sparky? Its all there because of humans.

        • Tuna Ghost

          I don’t know what that is, but if it is harmful and was created because of humans, then you’re only proving my point.

          • Ted Heistman

            You really don’t understand how all the this works. Its just busy work “protecting the environment from invasive species” They never eradicate anything. Most of these “invasives” have been here for hundreds of years already. First of all birds carry seeds in their shit. Birds get blown all over the place in storms. So seed end up all over the place. Humans aren’t the only ones moving things around. Humans create disturbed habitat and that opens up niches for opportunistic or so called “invasive species”. We disturb the succession process. In a Mature old growth forest for example you could air bomb it with weed seeds and they wouldn’t take hold. But clear some ground and a bunch of weeds show up. Have another one cheers

          • Tuna Ghost

            Humans create disturbed habitat and that opens up niches for opportunistic or so called “invasive species”.

            So we are primarily responsible for moving things around, then. Hence the need for checkpoints. Examples of an invasive species that are only recently becoming a problem because of humans: outdoors or feral cats. I could name a bunch more, but you already see my point.

            If wind could throw a bird harmful seeds to where it would have an irreversible effect, it would have happened already. Both wind, birds, and species ill suited to another environment have all been around for quite a while. For the third time.

          • Ted Heistman

            You still don’t get it. Your point doesn’t make any sense. This Invasive species stuff is mostly bullshit. Its just a government program. They used to have government programs to eradicate all the predators. Just because its a government program doesn’t make it smart. Weeds take hold in disturbed habitat, if its not disturbed they don’t take hold. Seeds are all over the place. Pollen blows all over the place.

          • Tuna Ghost

            For a fourth time: your argument about wind and seeds isn’t relevant, because if it was possible to happen it would have happened. You haven’t addressed that point yet. Nor will you, I imagine.

            You say invasive species are “mostly” bullshit, which is a weird qualifier and kind of moving the goalposts, but I’ll ignore that for now. Let’s look at Australia, and the pretty awesome biodiversity it used to have before invasive species like Dingos got there. Or the effects of introducing the cane toad. Or look at zebra mussels, or fucking human beings, which are the biggest example of invasive species ever. Are you going to deny the documented effects of these non-indigenous species?

          • Ted Heistman

            So with enough Highway checkponts the calendar will go back to 1491. what are you drinking? Everclear?

          • Tuna Ghost

            Once again: because it can’t fix everything and return parts of the earth to a pristine state, that doesn’t mean it isn’t effective. Or even worth trying. Just because it inconveniences assholes like you and I isn’t a reason not to do it.

      • Ted Heistman

        Most of the extinction goes on in the Rainforest due to deforestation and that is because there is way more biodiversity in the tropics. Exotic species have increased biodiversity it temperate zones. almost 30% of species in North America are exotic so the biodoversity has been increased by 30% That claim you have no evidence for that invasive species wipe out native species is completely baseless. Not a single plant species in North America has been wiped out by an exotic species.

        • Tuna Ghost

          one kind of organism hasn’t been wiped out, and you think that counts as an argument against invasive species? Compare the rate of extinction with the rate of increase in biodiversity. No, seriously, do it because I truly don’t know what the results would be, but I’m willing to bet a small portion of my drunken pride that what I think the result will be is the result you’ll discover.

          • Ted Heistman

            Its been done by Ecologists in Europe and guess what? It was shown that humans have actually caused a NET GAIN in biodiversity. I will look it up. Europeans are ahead of the US in terms of ecology. There are people studying the anthropocene, figuring out what it all means. I found most of this stuff on links posted on Next Nature.

          • Andrew

            Net gain? Are you saying there isn’t mass extinctions going on?

          • Ted Heistman

            No. I am saying overall biodiversity is increasing.

          • Andrew

            I think you’re mistaking the parts for the whole. Mass extinctions decrease worldwide biodiversity, not increase it.

          • Ted Heistman

            Um…Ok….Did I say Mass extinction increases biodiversity? I think the point is the introduction of exotic species and the creation of novel ecosystems increases biodiversity. Some how you seem to be connecting weeds growing in North America with logging being down in the Amazon and the Congo. So what exactly are you arguing? We need to kill all the buckthorn in Wisconsin to save Amazon? I don’t follow you.

          • Andrew

            I’m saying that human impact on the biosphere has been mostly destructive, and endangers our own survival.

          • Ted Heistman

            Here you go Sparky edjumacate yourself:

            http://ecotope.org/anthromes/biodiversity/plants/

          • Tuna Ghost

            “What we don’t know about the global patterns of plant
            biodiversity exceeds what we do know: model predictions were
            needed to map both native and anthropogenic plant species richness
            at regional landscape scales.”

            That’s the second Major Result listed.

            1.) We’re discussing one kind of organism on the planet, and this study openly admits what it doesn’t know exceeds what it does.

            2.) It measures from early in man’s history up to now, when this study

            http://redpath-museum.mcgill.ca/Qbp/3.Conservation/impacts.htm

            makes a point of noting that the increase in population is a huge factor in biodiversity loss. As such, the last few centuries are the most important, with the 20th having shown the most dramatic effects.

          • Tuna Ghost

            eh? Suddenly my comments need to be approved by mods before they can be posted.

            at any rate, the study you linked to openly admits that what it doesn’t know about the subject it speaks to is greater than what it does know. It’s the second Major Result, as a matter of fact.

            Also, it measures from early in man’s history up until now, when a more accurate measurement would be found in a study like this one http://redpath-museum.mcgill.ca/Qbp/3.Conservation/impacts.htm which notes that the important centuries are the most recent, with the 20th century having the most dramatic impact due to the huge increase in population and industrialization.

            If one of these comments is superfluous, someone delete one of them if you please.

          • oneironauticus

            “Suddenly my comments need to be approved by mods before they can be posted.”

            It took me a while to figure it out, but they screen comments with links in them–anti-spam measure, I’m sure.

        • Tuna Ghost

          Also, it should be noted that despite what many think, the US has pretty strict and widespread environmental protection laws.

          • Tuna Ghost

            compared to the rest of the world, that is.

          • kowalityjesus

            I think that is one of the more civilizing aspects of a society; to come full circle and realize that humans CAN have an impact on an ecosystem, particularly given the efficacious tools they have developed. Environmental apathy is uncivilized.

          • Ted Heistman

            If you think that is what I am arguing for you misunderstand me.

          • kowalityjesus

            I am not necessarily taking sides. I am just noting that it is good to have environmental regulations. Not too many libertarian environmentalists around, but I guess I am one of them.

            I understand that you are actually ‘pro-environment,’ (are you a conservationist or preservationist? that is are you for conserving our resources and using them wisely, or are you for leaving natural environments “undisturbed”?) Its just that you think that a lot of environmentalists have the wrong idea about invasive species. I myself am not totally decided on invasive species.

            It seems you argue that whatever plant, insect, or animal that CAN/HAS made its home in a habitat should be allowed to. My Dad is a hardcore neurotic environmentalist. He thinks that armageddon will come when the environment will become too hostile for trees with copious global warming. He also laments and despairs when he sees invasive plants taking over from what was previously an indigenous stasis. I used to despair about invasive species, but I realized that most invasive species will just peter out over a period of time, for example ‘garlic mustard’ was EVERYWHERE in southern MI from 4-10 years ago, and it is now quite uncommon. Maybe it used up some limiting nutrient in the soil or caught a fungus, but it sho aint a problem no mo’.

            Also a big thing that reconciled my despair over zebra mussels in the Great Lakes is learning the fact that sturgeon (a 10-foot living fossil and a vanguard of Great Lakes ecology) actually consumes zebra mussels, and is remarkably pollution tolerant. Zebra mussels have now also sort of petered out…nowhere near as common. That is not to say that invasive species are never a problem. Invasive species can really fuck things up, and not all of them go away (think feral pigs on Pacific islands, rats in New Zealand, etc) http://io9.com/5833022/10-of-the-worlds-worst-invasive-species

        • joaquindemancha

          Invasive species have profound and deleterious effects on whole ecosystems: http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/invasive-species-affect-biodiversity. http://eol.org/info/460. When you claim invasive species increase biodiversity, you are being disingenuous. To claim that introduced species overall have increased biodiversity ignores their proportional effects on smaller scales. E.g. The Zebra Mussel is a species that has crowded out native plankton in the Great Lakes, and that crowding out effect is dangerous to the health of the Lakes. Furthermore, when you say “wiped out” you are also using words to mask simple realities. The Zebra Mussel may not have made native algae extinct, but has drastically reduced their numbers and their ability to maintain a healthy ecosystem. Your assertions are provably false by anybody with a high school level understanding of biology.

          • Ted Heistman

            I actually am not concerned that your thinking is behind the times. If telling me I lack a high school understanding of biology, made you feel just a little bet better, than more power to you. Everyone needs something to help get them through the day. Peace.

          • joaquindemancha

            This isn’t really a refutation or a rebuttal. It’s a deflection using cheap pop psychological tricks meant to troll. My thinking is in line with scientifically accepted understandings of ecology based on empirical evidence. Your argument is a combination of a poor and misleading understanding of the effects of invasive species (For example: you argue below zebra mussels have made the Lakes “cleaner,” The water is clear because the mussels have sucked away naturally occuring phytoplankton necessary for the ecology of the Lake) combined with a philosophical argument that “man is part of nature therefore; man’s actions are natural.” For the latter point, it is fine to argue that, and to consider that things on planet earth are always changing because of human action, and may end up in equilibrium again. That is a fascinating line of thought. However, you simply cannot ignore the detrimental effects NOW, and how that is hurting people and wildlife IN THE PRESENT.

  • Ted Heistman

    This invasive species stuff is all brain washing. People are lemmings

    • Punctuated Colon

      I hope you are using that term ironically. Lemmings is a bad analogy. It’s based on a faked Disney report.

      Lemmings are not mass suicide enthusiasts

      http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=56

      • Fusionism

        wow, I had no idea! freakin disney *shakes fist

        • Punctuated Colon

          I find substituting with the synonym “Sheep” (if we must be so homocentrically racist) or “Replicant” helps

  • Tony Chu

    Checkpoints are almost totally ineffective no matter what the subject matter. They only serve to multiply government and condition the sheeple into subservience.

    Bravo to the video author.

    Most commentators hold their freedom in contempt. Pathetic.

    • Tuna Ghost

      yeah, I remember a guy being arrested for a DUI at a checkpoint making a similar claim months before slamming into an oncoming car while driving drunk. It showed a rather impressive failure to grasp the purpose of such checkpoints.

  • Gary

    This wouldn’t have happened at a Police Checkpoint. It was an Ag stop and I’d hate to be the car behind him.

  • midas617

    not for nothin but that inspector was funny as hell….

  • Niall Rbert

    Wow ,what a Dick!!!

  • Planto Nerdo

    If you want a fruit industry in California then, sadly, you need to comply with these inspections. Some people seem to think any restriction on their personal liberty is an infringement. These people are often referred to as ‘selfish shellfish’.

  • LadyGunfighter

    Oh this guy is so full of crap. The AG inspection stations are benign. They were set up to stop the influx of non-indigenous plants and bugs. If you have Cal plates they ask you where you are coming from, if you have any fruits or veggies, you say no, you go on your way. Takes 1/2 a minute literally. This guy did this on purpose to incite an issue so he could get his name out as a “freedom fighter”. He’s an ass. Yes they will be more stringent with out of state plates. We had the Medfly that came in, beetles and all sorts of crawlies that we were never able to get rid of.

  • Bill

    can we please stop invasive species though? lets agree to cooperate against stuff that can shit can the entire states agricultural system.

  • Alexandra Oliva

    Regardless of whether or not your point is valid… What happened to treating people with respect. Do you think being rude and obnoxious to that poor man is going to change anything? In reality, you just made that man’s job harder and posted the whole pathetic scene on the internet. Why don’t you try doing something that will actually make a difference instead of just being a bully….

  • steward

    Looking away from the road into the camera WHILE DRIVING is not only illegal, but STUPID. If they really want to get you, you just convicted yourself. Nice going.
    I love the idea at the checkpoint, and I love that you FINALLY pulled over to look into the camera, but there’s still that careless/reckless driving part.

  • bill

    Gavin. You are an ass. I understand what you are trying to say, but the way you did this was defeating your purpose and you are making yourself look stupid.

  • scottyj001

    There is no better place to take a stand against tyranny than a fruit checkpoint. The bravery required to stand up to a fruit inspector is awe-inspiring. I especially like the part where you made him feel stupid. That was a nice touch. Keep fighting the good fight.

    .

  • joaquindemancha

    I’m sick of hearing from libertarians about the absolute wisdom and immutability of a document written over 200 years ago. There are some important stipulations in the constitution, but even Jefferson thought that the thing should be rewritten over time, because things change. The forefathers never could have imagined that bringing an orange from Florida to California could have such profound effects (hell, because the forefathers barely knew anything about California OR Florida!)

  • echar
  • echar

    Wow, you are really reaching here. I suppose the holocoaust never happened either?

  • echar

    Said the one dimensional typing ideology.

21
More in Constitution, cops, Fourth Amendment, Patriot
Big Brother’s Loyal Sister: How Dianne Feinstein Is Betraying Civil Liberties

Ever since the first big revelations about the National Security Agency five months ago, Dianne Feinstein has been in overdrive to defend the surveillance state. As chair of the Senate...

Close