Reason Morning Links: Judges, Gypsies, and AGs

  • Barack Obama promises to end the "military effort" in Iraq this month -- while leaving 50,000 troops on the ground.
  • Rep. Maxine Waters faces a House trial on ethics charges.
  • U.S. Customs detains a WikiLeaks editor.
  • A federal judge won't dismiss Virginia's anti-ObamaCare lawsuit.
  • The California Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a law restricting affirmative action programs.
  • Connecticut's attorney general investigates the ebook market; so does the U.S. Department of Justice.
  • Virginia's attorney general opines that cops and conservation officers can check the immigration status of anyone they stop.
  • France cracks down on Traveler and Roma camps.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • VA AG Ken Cuccinelli ||

    Double whammy, biotches!

  • Suki||

    Cuccinelli for President!

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    Amazon.com: The Dawn of the Color Photograph: Albert Kahn’s Archives of the Planet

    In 1907 the Lumiere brothers, who wowed Paris with its first commercially shown
    movies in the 1890s, demonstrated the autochrome photographic process, with
    which color photos could be taken by a glass-plate camera. The banker Albert
    Kahn embraced it and the next year launched a project that would continue until
    the Great Depression bankrupted him. Kahn felt that if the world’s people could
    see one another, animosity based on stereotypes would be dispelled and world
    peace realized. He dispatched opérateurs, some female, with autochrome plates
    and movie film to capture how the Other looked and lived for a maximally public
    archive. It was the dream of, Musée Albert-Kahn’s director Gilles Baud-Berthier
    says, a man of the nineteenth century, perhaps even the eighteenth—but not the
    twentieth. So much for outdated idealism. But just look at the pictures, full
    of the fascination of all old photodocumentation, heightened by color more
    sensual than later color processes deliver. Accompanied by a nontechnical text
    and complementing a BBC-TV series, this is a world-history buff’s delight.

  • ||

    Thanks, Johnny. That's going into my brother's Christmas stocking.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Barack Obama promises to end the "military effort" in Iraq this month -- while leaving 50,000 troops on the ground.

    Mission Accomplished... for Realsies This Time

    ----
    Rep. Maxine Waters faces a House trial on ethics charges.

    The race card, having been worn and faded to nothing, is rendered useless as protection.

    ----
    Virginia's attorney general opines that cops and conservation officers can check the immigration status of anyone they stop.

    Even non-brown people?

  • That Guy From American Idiot||

    leaving 50,000 troops on the ground

    Troops on the ground!
    Troops on the ground!
    Lookin' like a FOOL whicha troops on the ground
    Whicha helmet on sideways
    Look like Dukakis
    Troops on the ground!
    Troops on the ground!
    Lookin' like a FOOL whicha troops on the ground

  • robc||

    Many ++++

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Bravo.

  • ||

    So, President Obama is only doing exactly what the agreement that Bush signed with the Iraqi government says. Heckuva job.

  • Rich||

    Persons familiar with the case said Waters is accused of violating [a] rule that members' conduct must reflect creditably on the House.

  • hmm||

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Creditability for the U.S. House of Representatives? Good luck with that.

  • ||

    Considering how poor the House's reputation is, I'd think any behavior more moral than eating babies for breakfast would serve to bolster it.

  • Meh||

    I don't know why Reason has such a hard on for Wikileaks. It's run by a bunch of cowardly cretins who post private details about people they don't like while hiding behind the scenes making sure nobody finds out who they are. Maybe they should be given a taste of their own medicine.

  • ||

    Wikileaks posted "private details" about military operations conducted in our name and with our money? I don't follow. Is this a post plucked from a list of "Wikileaks responses"?

  • ||

    They've also posted private bank account details in the past.

  • Obama to Progressives||

    They posted the names of locals who worked with us ensuring at least some of those people's deaths. What is the point of that other than to just be an asshole?

  • ||

    Point being is that the OP launched a non-sequitur in response to the morning link.

  • ||

    And he was right. They are cretins.

  • ||

    Which has fuck-all to do with their stuff in regard to the US military.

  • ||

    Nothing. But what it does mean is that the fact that Customs detained one of the cretins isn't much of a tragedy, which is what he was responding to.

  • Fluffy||

    Then if someone in some country detains you because they don't like your politics, I don't want to hear you fucking complain.

    Maybe Hamas could detain you sometime. That would be cool, right?

  • ||

    I can't spell everything out for you. If you have to be able to follow the argument on your own to some extent.

  • Meh||

    There's more to Wikileaks than that: they just arbitrarily publish private details of all kinds from people all over the world from source code to the home addresses of people who belong to political parties they don't like to freakin diagrams of freakin nukes (although the were admittedly crude). There's nothing admirable about their behavior.

    (PS: there's more to the world than America)

  • ||

    (PS: there's more to the world than America)


    The hell, you say!

  • Meh||

    Well you seem to the think that Wikileaks consists of one creatively edited video of big bad Americans killing people for fun as big bad Americans always do; I'm pointing out that Wikileaks is simply a band of vicious, cowardly pranksters who publish private details of all kinds from people all over the world for no good reason at all that could ruin and even cost lives. What useful purpose does that serve? What's wrong with serving up a little justice by throwing the same action back in their faces?

  • ||

    Maybe they do, and maybe they are vicious and target private citizens unreasonably, but the article was clearly in reference to their exploits viz. the wars.

  • Meh||

    And my comment was "I'd like to see everybody who's engaged in the evil Wikileaks prank have the prank thrown back in their faces". Even with onion routing and all their fancy security measures it can't be impossible to hack into the (famously secure) servers that host Wikileaks and trace traffic going in. I'd give anything to see a Wikileaksleaks site.

  • ||

    And the US government had no problem with Wikileaks' behavior until they fucked with the war documents. Says something about our government's priorities, does it not?

  • Suki||

    (PS: there's more to the world than America)

    Stop lumping-in that part outside the USA with us.

  • ||

    They also posted the names of people in Afghanistan working with Americans and NATO. That no doubt will result in at least some of those people's deaths. It is one thing to leak government documents to show the "truth" about the war, whatever that is. It is entirely another thing to not redact those documents so that they don't get people killed.

    Reason has a hard on wikileaks because their hearts are leftists. Their brains may be libertarian. But their emotional attachment is always with the Left.

  • ||

    Reason has a hard on wikileaks because their hearts are leftists. Their brains may be libertarian. But their emotional attachment is always with the Left.


    John, your douchebaggery knows no bounds.

  • Obama to Progressives||

    Case in point. You wouldn't be so defensive about it if it wasn't true. The truth always hurts more than lies.

  • ||

    Never, ever been a leftist in my life, even for a second, not that you'll believe me. John's very fond of launching into reason, accusing them of being leftist symps when reason's stance disagrees with his - which is quite often.

    He's MNG's mirror image, except with a lot more grammar problems.

  • ||

    I said the staff of Reason not you. You don't even bother to read or think about what I said. That is what makes me think you are a bit defensive about it.

    When I say their hearts belong to leftists, I mean they see things like wikileaks and they just can't help but think it is great even though it really isn't. But that is their first instinct. It is picking on the military, so it must be good right? Culturally they are leftist even if intellectually they are generally anything but.

  • ||

    Do I have to be reason staff to respond? Really? You do this whenever one of your pet issues comes up and reason differs from you. You dismiss their position as lefty almost as reflex.

    I'm pretty sure that reason's position is that Wikileaks performs a service that, while flawed in execution at times, works toward disclosure above all else, especially where it concerns things that taxpayers pay for.

    Picking on the military? Should the military act with absolute impunity and not be subject to any sort of review, ever (aside from whitewashed ancient history)?

    Culturally they are leftist even if intellectually they are generally anything but.


    What the fuck does this even mean?

  • ||

    "I'm pretty sure that reason's position is that Wikileaks performs a service that, while flawed in execution at times, works toward disclosure above all else, especially where it concerns things that taxpayers pay for."

    They have never once that I have seen ever posted about the rotten things they do. So I am not seeing how their view is particularly balanced.

    And how does knowing people's private bank information or knowing the names of people working with us in Afghanistan help the tax payers know what they are paying for?

    Nothing they released from Afghanistan tells the tax payers anything they didn't already know. Maybe you missed it, but we are fighting a war over there. I am sure it was in some of the papers.

  • robc||

    They have never once that I have seen ever posted about the rotten things they do.

    Ive also never seen a reason post about /b/ on 4chan.

    What does that have to do with anything?

  • Meh||

    Because Reason has never prised the /b/tards either. Whenever Wikileaks are mentioned they're always painted as saints.

  • ||

    Whenever Wikileaks are mentioned they're always painted as saints.


    If you're going to exaggerate for effect, try to be a little less ridiculous.

  • Meh||

    OK if that's hyberole than let me put it this way: I've read a bad word about from the artivles; they're always portrayed in a positive light despite just being a bunch of twats who seem to get off on ruining lives for no good reason (like /b/ in other words, although Wikileaks has done much more damage by comparison).

  • Meh||

    Hyperbole. Fast typing costs spelling.

  • waffles||

    there is some overlap between the posters here and genuine /b/tards. sometimes it's scary. I'm sure there is some overlap between wikileaks folks and reason, too.

  • ||

    They have never once that I have seen ever posted about the rotten things they do. So I am not seeing how their view is particularly balanced.


    What robc said.

    Nothing they released from Afghanistan tells the tax payers anything they didn't already know. Maybe you missed it, but we are fighting a war over there. I am sure it was in some of the papers.


    Then why has there been so much wailing and gnashing of teeth over this? And the standard argument that it "endangers the informant" is a transparently bullshit contention, especially coming from the hawks.

  • ||

    "Then why has there been so much wailing and gnashing of teeth over this?"

    Because it revealed the names of informants and when put together a lot about our tactics and how to fight us. Knowing those facts does nothing to help any tax payer make an informed decision. It is just leaking crap to get people killed and be assholes.

  • ||

    Knowing those facts does nothing to help any tax payer make an informed decision.


    So the release of the Pentagon Papers did nothing to influence public opinion on the Vietnam War? Pressure did NOT increase for a more transparent conduct of military operations henceforth? Scrutiny did NOT increase on administrations viz. military operation?

    How is this all that different?

  • Meh||

    Because they release more than Pentagon papers. Jesus am I talking to myself here? And leaking Pentagon documents on a whim left, right and centre is nothing to praise either. People could die because of this.

  • ||

    Shitbag: the context of the Morning Links is all about the military leaks. You keep wanting to bring the other aspects of Wikileaks up, which is fine. But do it in another thread, or start a different discussion. You're ever-so willing to throw all their work into one bucket of sameness, when the subject matter is totally different.

    The leaking of privately-owned information is a different matter than the leaking of publicly-owned information. You want to make both of them bad because one of them is.

  • The Gobbler||

    "You keep wanting to bring the other aspects of Wikileaks up, which is fine. But do it in another thread, or start a different discussion."

    Fuck off, Shit Facktory.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure you and I agree on MNG, pal.

  • ||

    Yeah you are talking to yourself. This is the cultural leftism I am talking about. Libertarians just can't think straight when it comes to foreign policy and military matters. Inside most of them is a hippie in a che shirt just dying to get out.

    No matter how reasonable and right they are about other things, when it comes to this, you get Fluffy saying he doesn't care if innocent people die for no reason because he hates the government.

    Everyone has a blind spot. And this is theirs.

  • ||

    "LEFTIST!! LEFTIST!! BURN HER!!!"

  • ||

    No matter how reasonable and right they are about other things, when it comes to this, you get Fluffy John saying he doesn't care if innocent people die for no reason because he hates the government supports bad foreign policy.

    Fixed. Remember, John, if people die, the foreign policy is the problem, not the disclosure of illegal actions that happened in the pursuit of that policy.

  • Meh||

    And do you support leaking source code that could cost companies millions of dollars just as a prank? Do you suppoort pasting home addresses and contact details on the Internet with the intention of having people harassed and even killed just because said people have opinions that Wikileaks arseholes disagree with? I'll say it again: there's more to Wikileaks than secret documents that could cost American serviceman's lives and the lives of people in Iraq that help them (although that fact alone is enough to make any well adjusted person hate them).

  • Take Care of THIS!||

    What the fuck does this even mean?

    They support open borders and they support Palin's populist movement. Which makes them bad in John's eyes.

  • Take Care of THIS!||

    Should read, don't support Palin's populist movement.

  • Pip||

    "Culturally they are leftist even if intellectually they are generally anything but."

    Agreed. Little Weigels all.

  • Joel||

    My wife says that I have a little weigel.

  • The Gobbler||

    Does it piss on itself?

  • Fluffy||

    No.

    It is destructive of secrecy, so it must be good.

  • ||

    "It is destructive of secrecy, so it must be good."

    Not when it gets people killed or when it picks on private citizens. If I posted your bank account number and several incriminating e-mails between you and your mistress talking about your love of wearing silk bras, that would certainly be destructive to secrecy. But it would not be good.

    Without secrecy, you can't have privacy. And these assholes are going after more than the government.

  • Meh||

    I think everyone here who loves Wikileaks for their treacherous behavior are going to ignore that fact. I've said it about ten times already and no Wikileaks-lover has even responded.

  • Pip||

    The head wikileaks guy will be dead by the end of the year. You can't piss of people all over the world and get away with it without the protection of a small army.

  • ||

    You appear to have come up with a model in which all posters here can be grouped in one of two buckets: Wikileaks Lovers and Wikileaks Haters.

    I posit that this is a creation only of your mind, due to the fact that there are people here who disagree with some of your views on the organization, and that you dearly wish that everyone would join your camp or the other. This is a common tactic in political commentary, and one that I will never, ever understand.

  • ||

    My previous was addressed to Meh.

  • Meh||

    OK then, if you're not a Wikileak lover condemn them for leaking private details that serve no useful purpose other than to cause undue harm to innocent people. And I'll say it again: they've leaked thousands of documents on a myriad of subjects targeting individuals, private organizations, businesses, political parties and government. Does all that help us good ol' taxpayers? If so how?

  • ||

    I confess that I do not know of these private leaks. I've only ever heard Wikileaks brought up in the military context, so that's what I comment on. I won't condemn them sight-unseen (and I've never visited their site). As far as what I've personally seen reported, it's concerned public information.

    If that makes me a WIkileaks Lover, then that's your own brainless opinion.

  • robc||

    if you're not a Wikileak lover condemn them for leaking private details that serve no useful purpose other than to cause undue harm to innocent people.

    I will if reason ever starts a thread about that.

    As far as source code, see my comments on the IP thread. :)

  • The Gobbler||

    I'm Wikileaks Questioning, thank you.

  • ||

    It's destructive of "public" secrecy, as in things kept in secret by the employees of the people, who actually own the information.

    Wikileaks may also be destructive of totally private secrecy, which is another matter.

  • Fluffy||

    Yes, I am also not familiar with any history of Wikileaks targeting private individuals, and would appreciate some examples.

  • Meh||

    I don't care much for Sarah Palin, but they stored her private e-mails after one of the Anonymous twats got into it thanks to her lax security questions. How would you like your private e-mails posted online? And posting the list of BNP party members (TWICE!) targeted thousands of private citizens. Whatever you think of the BNP this is still wrong and was only done to intimidate people with differing political opinions. That's the behavior one would expect from an emperor's goon in a police state not a freedom preserving organization.

  • ||

    So if someone doesn't take care to secure their accounts hosted on a third party's server (and readings of most TOSes on third party services that are not financial or legal in nature reveal, among other things, that one does not necessarily have an absolute expectation of privacy and that security tools are provided AS TOOLS to help oneself be protected while using the third party assets), one still has full expectation of privacy?

    Now is the public revelation of such information in bad taste in any case? Yes, in many cases.

    I don't know the technical details of the Palin e-mail revelation, nor the TOS she agreed to when signing up.

  • Fluffy||

    Sarah Palin is a public figure and at the time was a public official. I probably wouldn't have saved her emails personally, but if someone out there got a hold of W's personal emails or Obama's personal emails, I absolutely would support them if they held on to them for journalistic purposes.

    When you're dealing with a sitting governor, for all you know reviewing their private email account will show that they were illegally circumventing public records laws by using their private account for government business. There's an absolutely legitimate press interest there.

    And it is 100% in keeping with libertarian principles to apply social pressure to people with opposing political views, including shunning and boycotts. Maybe the people maintaining the BNP member list have an affirmative obligation to keep the list private, but that obligation doesn't extend to me as a 3rd party. If I get the list without coercion or bribery on my part, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

  • Meh||

    "Sarah Palin is a public figure and at the time was a public official." So what! Public figures have a right to a private life.

    And you do not have a right to do what you like with private details just because you somehow acquired them: it's unlawful and immoral (at least for a reason-based morality, if your morality is emotion driven then intimidation via breach of privacy is fair game). If you happened to find a credit card on a train you wouldn't have a right to use it online just because you have suddenly acquired private details, ditto for the personal and contact details of people you feel have no right to a different opinion.

  • ||

    Again, having no idea what the TOS she agreed to actually said at the time, it's perfectly reasonable to presume that if the data was available, that it could be used. If her TOS asserted that the account provider had a positive obligation to protect said accounts and for all cases, then you have a case. Otherwise, caveat emptor, basically.

  • ||

    And this is separate from the fact that Palin is and was a public figure, as Fluffy pointed out.

  • Meh||

    And what if you found somebody's wallet on a train and suddenly had access to a list of credit card numbers? When you found yourself before a judge answering for something called fraud and theft do you think the rationalization "he had an obligation to protect his information!" would work? Methinks not. In fact that's the most ridiculous rationalization I can think of. The individual who's information is stolen is guilty the hacker who stole it is innocent. What a delightful negation of justice. It's amazing what bollocks people come up with when they try to rationlize what the know to be wrong.

  • ||

    When you commit fraud and theft of assets that those documents are associated with, you are guilty of fraud and theft. The card itself is the property of the issuer, IIRC, so actively stealing it would be theft of the card-issuer's property. Using that card to purchase goods or obtain cash is theft of the account-holder's assets.

    If you simply find someone's wallet, you are not guilty of anything until you act to steal assets or defraud the person of their identity (that is, pass oneself off as the person who owns the accounts).

    When you release pure information hosted on a third party's server to the public (e-mail, internet postings, etc.), you have not committed fraud or theft of assets.

  • Meh||

    Nice evasion. OK what happens if you put the credit number, expiry date, etc online for another person to use fraudulently? Would you use the excuse "I was merely sharing information"? You know actions have consequences, even if you are (or claim to be) incapable of seeing beyond a single action.

  • ||

    I don't know what the actual law is on that. I do know that credit card companies have all manner of alerts and ways for a customer to detect and mitigate suspicious activity and that any credit card company will re-issue you a card with a new number if they suspect anything is amiss. In fact, with absolutely no history of problems with identity theft at all, my credit card company issued me a new card with a new number merely on the suspicion that something had gone wrong somewhere with some peoples' accounts. And they did so without prompting, likely as a result of a situation much like you posit: someone was publishing or threatening to publish account information.

  • Meh||

    "I don't know what the actual law is on that." *facepalm* If you put somebody's credit number on the Internet you've broken the law. Try it.

  • Fluffy||

    OK what happens if you put the credit number, expiry date, etc online for another person to use fraudulently?

    It would entirely depend on how I came to have that information.

    You do realize that computer hackers are arrested for the actions they take to GET the information, right? And not for the fact that they release it? Because getting the information usually involves fraudulent access to computer networks?

  • Meh||

    Well if stealing credit numbers and not using the valuable information is illegal but releasing credit numbers if you acquired the information some other way is legal then the law needs to be changed. And I think you're talking out your arsehole, if you were caught posting credit numbers online, whatever your intention, you'd be arrested and charged.

  • Fluffy||

    If I just had the numbers, I wouldn't be guilty of anything at all.

    You have no legal power to demand that I forget the numbers. Or that I destroy the numbers if I write them down on a piece of paper.

    I can't use the card information to make a purchase, and I can't break and enter or use coercion or bribery to obtain the numbers, but if you leave your credit card on my desk or on the floor of a train and I see your number you don't get to complain.

  • Fluffy||

    This is so completely irrational I don't know where to begin.

    And please, spare me the "rational morality" bit, OK? I'm sure I know a couple of orders of magnitude more about Objectivism than YOU do.

    If someone mails me John McCain's private diary and it's full of entries about how he rapes little girls and beats his wife and goes out at night to find Asians to strangle because he still hates them from his time in Hanoi, I get to copy the diary and publish it online. Sorry. That is really, really, really basic freedom of the press, sorry.

    You're getting really confused about the difference between owning property [even intellectual property] and owning the truth.

  • Meh||

    And you're getting pretty confused about the difference between child molesters and people with different political opinions.

    If I accidenlty acquired evidence that proved (or gave me cause to believe) anybody was raping children I would give it to the police, not post it on Wikileaks. If somebody gave me a list of addressees entitled "people you don't like" I would shred it before reading it.

    And as for the whole "if you come to my house I'll kill you" thing I'd prefer to live in a country where I don't have to have a gun to defend myself against people who would kill me for having a different opinion; I'd join those Iraqis if I wanted that.

    So seriously, stop with these ridiculous and unconvincing rationalizations. That list of BNP members did not prove that people were raping little girls, it wasn't released with the intention of stopping little girls from being raped, it was released in the hope that people would harass BNP members and it would discourage anybody else from joining it. (Like most acts of thuggery designed to squash freedom it had the opposite effect) What's ironic is, if I'm not mistaken, the person who originally released the list did so because he thought the BNP had become too moderate! So much for releasing the names of Nazis. (Not that I accept that rationalization anyway)

  • The 4th Amendment||

    "Sarah Palin is a public figure and at the time was a public official. I probably wouldn't have saved her emails personally, but if someone out there got a hold of W's personal emails or Obama's personal emails, I absolutely would support them if they held on to them for journalistic purposes."

    Does no one remember me?

  • ||

    Huh? The 4th Amendment concerns prohibiting the government from engaging in unreasonable search and seizure, not citizens searching other citizens.

  • -||

    Hooray name-calling!

  • chilly willie||

    Neither does yours, cheerleader for murderers.

  • ||

    If we're going to throw that term around, how is it that all hawks of these wars are not considered the exact same thing?

  • ||

    Reason has a hard on wikileaks because their hearts are leftists. Their brains may be libertarian. But their emotional attachment is always with the Left.
    John, your douchebaggery knows no bounds.

    On every issue where there is disagreement within the libertarian community, Reason and CATO come down on the same side as leftists do. Immigration, IP, abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, foreign policy, etc. It's a pretty hard pattern not to notice.

  • Cabeza de Vaca||

    I'm having a hard time understanding how Reason & Cato's foreign policy come down on the same side as the left. I believe the left is in power right now & aren't following Reason's foreign policy suggestions.

  • ||

    The Left still wants out of AFG and IRQ immediately, but are keeping quiet about it now because they swell to think of Obama inside them.

  • ||

    Being against these stupid wars apparently equals "the left."

  • Citizen Nothing||

    WikiLeaks deserves all praise for the current kerfluffle.
    The U.S. government deserves strong condemnation for detaining ANY editor for being an editor.
    If someone wants to provide a link to a less-admirable Wikileak kerfluffle, I'd be happy to check it out.

  • ||

    Exactly.

    Whether you like what they've done here or not, their behavior was clearly protected by the 1st Amendment (Pentagon Papers case). The US government detaining a wikileaks editor for this is beyond crazy to me. Not surprising though.

  • Meh||

    Is posting bank account details and secret source code from private enterprise protected by the first amendment? Is providing the names of informants who help coalition forces protected by the first amendment? Is pasting the home addresses of people who happen to belong to outsider political parties protected by the first amendment?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    No. Probably. Yes.
    Any more questions?
    And you got any of those linkies I requested?
    No? Meh.

  • Meh||

    Uploading a list of names of people who joined or received literature from a political party, leaked by a disgruntled party member, which the explicit goal of causing distress and harm to the people on that list is protected by the first amendment? NO IT FUCKING ISN'T! And leaking details with the goal of getting soldiers of your own country killed is called treason.

  • Fluffy||

    Sure it is.

    Unless I somehow coerce the leaker, or offer him a bribe or inducement to commit a crime or abuse a fiduciary trust, if someone just hands me a list of the members of the BNP one day I abso-fucking-lutely can publish it if I want to.

    That is 100% no questions asked freedom of the press, sir. Sorry if you don't like it. And if the BNP members "felt distress", fuck 'em.

  • Fluffy||

    And as for leaking source code:

    Industrial patents give you the right to exclusive commercial use of your IP, but that doesn't mean I can't know if its existence.

    In other words, if I find myself in the possession of "secret" GM plans to build their shitty Volt, I am obligated to...not build a Volt myself. But I can publish those plans all I want, as long as I don't actually build it. I don't have to respect your desire for secrecy for those plans.

  • ||

    Industrial patents give you the right to exclusive commercial use of your IP, but that doesn't mean I can't know if its existence.

    I thought that any product that was patented had to have the details of its mechanical or chemical operation made public. That's the whole point of giving out patents -- to allow this information to be used in other products once the patent expires.

    Interests who want their methods kept secret actually avoid getting patents for that reason.

  • Meh||

    OK, what's your home address? You know there's people out their who strongly disagree with your views and would tell you to fuck off if you complained about having your private details online. Come on then, where do you live? And if somebody up your street posted your home address online after some dispute you certainly wouldn't attempt to take it down would you? It's freedom of speech after all!

    Let's remember what freedom of speech means: the right to say things that other people might not like to hear NOT the right to breach privacy and cause intimidation. That's called thuggery not freedom and is a breach of everything that living in a free country stands for. Whether you would say fuck em' to the BNP, labour, Conservatives or whoever else is beside the point. I'd say fuck you to all of them, but I wouldn't post their details online if I got ahold of them.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    5107 Goodson Rd.
    West Jefferson OH 43162.

    If you get past the gates and over the fields (or approach amphibiously) remember, I and mine are well armed.

  • Sandi||

    I took a shit on Goodson Road once.

  • ||

    "if someone just hands me a list of the members of the BNP one day I abso-fucking-lutely can publish it if I want to."

    You would be a complete shitbag for doing so. Further, if that information was obtained through criminal means, I would say you are aiding and abetting that crime.

    Your publishing it is a gray area criminally. But it is not a gray area morally. And if one of the people whose names you published blew your head off and I were on the jury, I would vote to acquit.

  • ||

    So the CRU documents should never have seen the light of day?

    I find that to be an astonishing about-face for you, John.

  • ||

    Well, John? Should the CRU documents never have been released?

  • Fluffy||

    John, this is so stupid that you're not even trying now.

    Say I got a list of all the members of the American Nazi Party.

    And it turned out that one of the names on the list was, I don't know, Al Sharpton.

    It wouldn't even remotely be a grey area legally or morally for me to publish that information.

    The argument that says that it's different to publish it if the names on the list are all Joe Schmo relies on the notion that there is something materially different about Al Sharpton and Joe Schmo. And the entire public figure / private citizen distinction just doesn't really cut it with me. If it's freedom of the press to take Lindsey Lohan's picture and print it, it's freedom of the press for me to take YOUR picture and print it. If it's freedom of the press for me to report that Al Sharpton is a member of the American Nazi Party, it's freedom of the press for me to report that YOU are. [Not that you are, but you see what I mean.]

    It's nice to see that you support vigilante violence against people for MAKING TRUE STATEMENTS.

    "2 plus 2 is 4!"

    "You have violated the privacy of numbers, now you must die!" BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG

  • Meh||

    So putting lists of names on the Internet is simply an exercise in aesthetics: addresses look nice! Bollocks. The intention of posting private details online is to incite vigilantism and other forms of private intimidation.

    The UK is a fantastically tolerant country and people like you who got wet dreams over a crowd of thugs lead by the BNP Finder General are cowards and the people who are not cowards respect freedom of belief. That's why the mob to burn down the houses of every bastard who dared to listen to anything the BNP had to said never materialized. What matters is the intention: that list was intended to crush freedom of belief and anybody who supports an action to destroy freedom of belief by force, whether government goons or private goons own the guns and fists has no right to call themself a libertarian.

  • Fluffy||

    No it wasn't, you fucking hysterical douche.

    There are any number of private nonviolent actions one might choose to take against someone whose name was on the list that are 100 fucking percent in accordance with libertarianism.

    If I find out that your name is on the list of the members of the American Nazi Party, and I'm your employer, you're fucking fired. Doing that is 100% in accordance with the principles of libertarianism.

    If you're my neighbor and we cordially chat while putting out the trash on Tuesday mornings and your name is on the list, we're not chatting any more and I will give you the finger every time I see you. Again, 100% in accordance with the principles of libertarianism.

    If you own the corner deli and your name is on the list, I might leaflet outside your entrance to let people know you're a Nazi so your business will be destroyed. Again, 100% in accordance with the principles of libertarianism.

    How can you possibly assert that the intent was for private violence to occur? When by your own admission, no private violence occurred?

  • Meh||

    "How can you possibly assert that the intent was for private violence to occur?"

    Because I read the Guardian. And the BNP may have some wappy views on economics and immigration but they are not the Nazi party. And even if they were Nazi Party, Communist Party, Biggest Douche in the Universe (MCKA Democratic) Party members all have a right to their privacy and a right to keep their views, you know, PRIVATE rationalizations notwithstanding.

  • Fluffy||

    I would absolutely support the right of BNP members to refuse to answer police questions about their political affiliation, and to refuse to testify before Parliament as to the same.

    That is different from saying they have a right to have people not know their affiliations if that information becomes available to a third party who didn't commit a crime to get it.

  • Meh||

    So when I meet you, privacy be damned! I have a right to force all details of your private life and private beliefs from you? That's the kind of philosophy that would give Big Brother a 12 hour erection. Well I say no: you don't have a right to know my private beliefs and anyone who wishes to employ me doesn't a right to know them either. And anyone who disagrees has no right to say they believe in a free country. Why just build fucking mind readers and make Wikileaks redundant.

  • Pip||

    "That's the kind of philosophy that would give Big Brother a 12 hour erection"

    That's 8 hours beyond the safe zone. just sayin'.

  • Fluffy||

    I have a right to force all details of your private life and private beliefs from you?

    Who said anything about forcing?

    I'm talking about incidental discovery. Or discovery because of the disclosure of a third party.

    Look at it this way:

    A lot of people in the US talk about the evils of McCarthyism.

    McCarthyism consisted of two things, really:

    The Congress forced people to disclose their Communist affiliations and those of others by subpoena and threat of jail time.

    Then private citizens, like movie companies, blackballed the known Communists and refused to employ them.

    What you have to understand is that to a libertarian, only the first part is wrong or bad.

    What was wrong about McCarthyism was the compulsion.

    If a list of all Communist party members from the 30's had been found in the garbage somewhere and published, and then all those people got blackballed, it would have been too fucking bad as far as I am concerned.

    So of course I wouldn't force any information out of you. But if you drop your Communist Party membership card and I see it, you don't get to tell me I can't tell anyone about it. If your roommate Christopher Communist tells me how you're both members, you don't get to tell me I can't tell anyone about it.

  • Meh||

    Your good at this aren't you? OK, Wikileaks is just gossip+ right? God help those poor bastards who helped coalition forces. But hey, somebody accidentally got ahold of their names! They have a right to share that information! They will be killed? Yeah bummer.

  • T||

    And if one of the people whose names you published blew your head off and I were on the jury, I would vote to acquit.

    Wait, so it's cool to shoot someone for disclosing your membership in a political party, John? So if, say, Hillary Clinton is a card carrying member of CPUSA, it's morally okay if he shoots somebody who reveals that fact? Are you really gonna go on record with this as your position?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Where I come from, trying to undermine the First Amendment with spurious arguments is treason.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    (For those too dense to recognize it, that's a joke.)

  • ||

    In response to what you've said above: I absolutely condemn them for posting account details, secret source code. And even for posting the addresses of the members of the BNP.

    Now: I'm going to assume that you don't actually believe that the man was detained for "posting account details", "secret source code", or the home addresses of the BNP, do you?

  • ||

    No. But I can't say that I care either. He is scum.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Fucking A'! We don't defend the rights of scum around here!

  • Meh||

    Why he was detained is beside the point, I'm sure the US government doesn't care about, for example, source code that has cost millions of dollars and many months to develop being leaked (it's owned by greedy capitalists anyway) but the first comment I posted was to the effect of: Wikileaks is a bunch of arseholes; I never even mentioned the reason for the detention of this douchebag.

  • Meh||

    And in many countries in the world if you'd acted to help soldiers from said country to be killed in the battlefield you'd lose more than your laptop. This wanker should consider himself very lucky to get out of this alive.

  • ||

    Good to know that we're up to the lofty standards of "many countries in the world".

  • Meh||

    Good to know you want your own soldiers dead.

  • ||

    Hooray for strawmen!

  • Meh||

    Why is it a strawman? Do you support leaking details that may end up getting American soldiers and Iraqis who wish to help them killed or not? It seems quite clear that you think that action is admirable, whether you want to admit it to yourself or not. And treason is illegal in free countries too you know.

  • ||

    To quote MP below:

    I have sympathy for anyone who dies while operating on behalf of the United States. But those operations should be subject to the scrutiny of the public that is ultimately responsible for their actions. And not just selected elites with special privileges.

    If that makes their job harder, so be it. Welcome to a free state.
  • Fluffy||

    Look, I can be persuaded that it is important to keep certain operational details of intelligence and military operations secret to protect the people undertaking operations.

    The problem is that the privilege of secrecy has been so overwhelmingly, laughably abused by our government that they're no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

    "We need to keep this secret! It's really, really important this time! We're not just covering shit up!" Tough. Maybe you should have thought of that before you invoked secrecy to defend yourself against lawsuits, or invoked secrecy to justify offering secret evidence in kangaroo courts, or invoked secrecy to move vast areas of the government completely outside the purview of public review and debate.

    The state poisoned the well here. Wikileaks is just filling the water glass.

    I'll be on the side of secrecy once again after I am given all the details on the rendition program, and all the suppressed torture photos, and all the warrantless wiretap info, and anything else I can remember that has been hidden from the public using one specious justification or another. THEN we can talk about "operational secrecy" again. Until then, blow me. I'm on Wikileaks side.

  • Meh||

    And leaking the names of people who help coalition forces in a part of the world in which such a leak would mean certain death is a good breach of secrecy? Just checking.

  • Fluffy||

    Maybe not.

    But in the current climate of the massive abuse of the secret designation, if I woke up and found a baby basket on my doorstep full of files marked "US Government Secrets" I would dump them all online and let God sort it out.

    I wouldn't even review them first. I frankly couldn't fucking be bothered any more.

    Want me to give a shit what I'm releasing? Stop pissing on my citizenship by hiding half of the state's activities from me.

    Because the whole "You don't know what could happen if you release the info" stuff goes both ways.

    You can argue that Wikileaks is being reckless because they can't know what will happen to the people whose names are in the files.

    I'd argue that we also can't know what vital connections people might make if they have those names.

    What if one of the names was someone we later rendited somewhere as a "worst of the worst" terrorist? Wouldn't the data point that they actually were cooperating be useful to someone to show what bullshit our policy is and our claims are?

    Like John argued in an earlier thread, with bulk data you never know what connections someone analyzing the data might be able to draw. That's right. You don't.

  • ||

    Fluffy, you´re letting your hatred of the state get the better side of you, what about the safety of the individuals whose details are on the leaked info? Would you really be willing to sacrifice their lives to satisfy your emotions?
    Leaking bulk info without bothering to check what you are disclosing is irresponsible, and when lives are at risk unethical.

  • ||

    I am sure the people that died as a result of this are happy to be martyrs for your cause. If anyone ever reveals anything about you you don't want, blow me.

  • T||

    If anyone ever reveals anything about you you don't want, blow me.

    Well, John, according to you he can shoot them.

  • Fluffy||

    Not only that, T, but since John happily passes on the story about the exposure of Glenn Greenwald's online posting pseudonym or nyms, I guess that means if Greenwald shoots John dead we should all be OK with that.

    Probably John too would forgive him. He would look up from a pool of blood on the floor through half-opened and failing eyes, and give Glenn the thumbs-up. "What took you so long?" he'd ask. "I was asking for this."

  • Fluffy||

    I'm sure the women and children blown up in Pakistan and Afghanistan every day are happy to die for YOUR cause, John.

    Hey, collateral damage, right? I can play that moral game too, baby doll.

  • Gray Ghost||

    God, threaded comments suck.

    I've no comment or opinion on wikileaks' publishing of financial or personal data: haven't read the cases and frankly don't have the time.

    In the matter of publishing a company's confidential source code, if the code meets the requirements of a trade secret, and you acquired the code through misappropriation, then you definitely do not have the legal right to publish that code. Google "Uniform Trade Secrets Act" for more; many states---35 or so, IIRC---have incorporated it within their criminal code.

    On the military leaks...I don't have too much of a problem with detailing methods or lessons learned. It still constitutes aid and comfort to the enemy, IMHO, but I tend to fall on Fluffy's side of the dispute. I.E: Government classifies way too much stuff---usually to cover up for some screwup---and so have lost the benefit of the doubt when they claim harm.

    Revealing the names of collaborators though, is completely unacceptable. Wikileaks is condemning many of those people to horrific deaths. (Teach them to trust and help out the U.S. armed forces!) There's absolutely no reason for wikileaks to not have retracted those names. Their presence doesn't bolster wikileaks' point and endangers every Afghani, Iraqi, and Pakistani named in those documents. WLs' laziness in not removing those names is going to put a lot of blood on their hands.

  • Fluffy||

    This would mean that if Nancy Pelosi Inc. was building a device that would broadcast a signal to make everyone vote Democrat and I found out about it because someone at Nancy Pelosi Inc. emailed me the plans, I wouldn't be entitled to publish that information if it was a "trade secret".

    BZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong answer.

    If that's the case, then the Uniform Trade Secrets Act is unconstitutional.

    Of course, our courts would probably do something asinine like claim to be performing a "balancing test" before they let me publish, but that's only because judges are generally quislings where the Constitution is concerned. There's really no balancing test to perform here.

  • Meh||

    Didn't I tell you to stop with these silly hyperbole based rationalizations? Wikileaks releases massive amounts of private data just for the hell of it. Name me one piece of information which falls under the category of "saved me from a mind control ray" as opposed to "the arseholes have got more private information that doesn't help anybody who reads it".

  • Meh||

    And just an interesting thought experiment: if by some miracle I got ahold of the names (and all details required to track down) the people who have ever contributed to Wikileaks in any way and then I posted that information online while making sure my own identity remained secret what adjective would best sum me up? Also would you give away all that information?

  • ||

    what adjective would best sum me up?


    Umm..."Guy who posted Wikileaks employee/volunteer information"?

    Just a guess.

    Knock yourself out.

  • Fluffy||

    I wouldn't have any problem with that at all. Assuming you didn't commit a crime like breaking and entering or something to do it.

    If Assange's embittered evil twin brother had all that info and just decided to hand it to you or something, you're damn right you can publish it.

    I doubt the people at Wikileaks would disagree.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Nancy Pelosi Inc. mind control device? Really? That's your example that's supposed to be analogous to revealing a company's proprietary source code? You're better than this, Fluffy.

    In any event, a Federal analogue to the UTSA, the Economic Espionage Act, 18 USC 1831 et seq, provides at section 1833, partial protection for your whistleblower scenario. http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc.....-000-.html For a civil action under a state's incorporation of the UTSA, my guess is that you could inform the judge during your TRO hearing (or the equivalent) of the perils of the Pelosi death ray and why it was necessary to divulge whatever it was you did...

    The East Anglia stuff might be a bit more problematic, except that I have a hard time seeing any scientific collection of data as meeting the definitions of a trade secret. Not to mention that I have no idea how the intersection of U.K., U.S. Federal, and applicable state law would hash out.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Check that, I can see, say, a CRO's database for a new drug, being considered a trade secret during certain points of the New Drug Application process. I still don't think it applies to what the climate guys in East Anglia were doing though.

  • Fluffy||

    Actually, it is analogous.

    You have to remember that to me, the use of hyberbole or a reductio ad absurdum to make a legal point is legitimate because I don't think that the enumerated rights are bounded in more than the most limited possible ways, by compelling state interest or otherwise.

    So, yeah, to me, if it would be wrong to stop me from publishing the data about the Pelosi Mind Control Ray, it would be wrong to stop me from publishing the data on someone's encrpytion technology.

    You can make it illegal for me to USE it [to hack DRM or break into bank websites or something] and you can make it illegal for me to commercially duplicate it [to sell my own encrpyption technology] but I don't see how you can prevent me from just publishing it for laughs or because I'm a dick.

    "Wah! It's inconvenient for us if you publish it, because then other people besides you might use it to hack DRM!" is not a compelling argument to me.

  • ||

    Presumably these people were sacrificed because wikileaks is against the war in Afghanistan.
    At first I was sympathetic to wikileaks, assuming it was about whistleblowing - uncovering corruption. Releasing thousands of classified documents because you disagree with a policy, or political party lists because you dont like the party is political activism masquerading as transparency.

  • Meh||

    Wikileaks was never about "whistleblowing" it's just a bunch of arseholes who hide behind the scenes pouring out information designed to destroy or end lives. How can releasing source code be considered an act of whistleblowing? It's just called "being a dickhead". And now they've moved beyond being a dickhead into the realm of ending lives in the name of hatred of America, using tu quoque as a rationalization and now people who call themselves libertarians have jumped on the "fuck coalition forces" bandwagon because anything and everything to do with the American military is bad by default. Whistleblowing my fucking aching arse.

  • ||

    Well, at least you've managed to become even more shrill and unreasonable.

  • ||

    Yes. Yes. Yes. This has been another installment of "Simple Answers to Stupid Questions!"

  • MNG||

    Silly Seward, being "not-John or Sarah Palin"="Leftist" for John.

  • Suki||

    +1,000

  • Meh||

    These nested comments are a PiTA, who's the 1,000+ for?

  • Suki||

    It's for John.

  • Suki||

    And mark me down as a Wikileaks hater.

  • Meh||

    Good. Wikileaks has got to be the longest running, least funny and most harmful prank in the history of mankind.

  • Suki||

    +1

  • Meh||

    These nested comments are a PiTA, who's the 1,000+ for?

  • Pip||

    Anticipation of your double post?

  • Meh||

    Pressed preview twice (quick clicking mouse button I'm afraid).

  • ||

    Reason has a hard on wikileaks because their hearts are leftists. Their brains may be libertarian. But their emotional attachment is always with the Left.

    I'm really surprised that you would resort to this type of subjective compartmentalization. Is it really that hard to believe that governmental transparency would be appealing to minarchists, even in recognition of the handcuffs that this puts on covert ops?

  • ||

    But as Meh says above, the wikileaks do a lot more than leak government secrets. And further leaking government secrets is one thing. Leaking secrets that get innocent people killed is quite another.

    I would expect Reason to have a more complete understanding of the situation rather than seeing someone who is throwing egg on the face of the military and having the knee jerk reaction that they are somehow laudable. That is why I say they are cultural leftists.

  • tarran||

    How is someone who aids an occupying army "innocent"?

    If you pick sides in a conflict, you are, by definition, becoming a party.

  • ||

    If you pick sides in a conflict, you are, by definition, becoming a party.

    I don't think it is that easy. When you are already subjugated and are an occupied nation picking sides is a Morton's Fork, especially since neutrality is not a practical option.

  • Meh||

    What's with taking sides anyway? I support America over the Islamic savages and I support Iraqis who want a free, secular state and view people who try to murder American soldiers or freedom loving Iraqis as the scum of the earth.

  • ||

    I ...view people who try to murder American soldiers...as the scum of the earth.

    Do you believe that the American soldiers who have died in Iraq have been murdered? Who invaded whom?

  • Meh||

    So I take it allied forces had no right to invade and occupy Germany? I believe there is a difference between people who are fighting and dying and yes, killing, to secure freedom and people who are killing in the name of securing 72 virgins to fuck. Yes: a big. Fucking. Difference.

    And I don't suffer from passive aggressive syndrome either, I'll say it openly and honestly: anybody who wants to kill me or kill any innocent person to get his 72 virgins (or grapes) can die and I'll support all who will kill him. So stop with all this invasion/occupation bullshit.

  • ||

    So I take it allied forces had no right to invade and occupy Germany?

    Germany declared war on the United States after invading most of the other Allies. Germany refused to surrender to the Allies long before the United States Army or any Allied forces ever set foot in the country.

    anybody who wants to kill me or kill any innocent person...can die and I'll support all who will kill him.

    Since there are an awful lot of innocent Iraqis dying at the hands of the United States military in Iraq doesn't that put you in a bit of a moral quandary? Do you believe the U.S. Constitution empowers the federal government to preemptively invade a country whose agents have made no such threat?

    So stop with all this invasion/occupation bullshit.

    What action is it exactly that we are going to begin "withdrawing" from if it was not an invasion and occupation?

  • Meh||

    The morality or necessity of invading and occupying Iraq is a different question (Christopher Hitchens provides compelling evidence that Iraq was hardly at peace with the US, apparently firing on planes enforcing the no fly zone on a daily basis) but now the US is there I'm supporting civilization over savagery and freedom over the life of a dhimmi. What you want for yourself is your business.

  • ||

    The morality or necessity of invading and occupying Iraq is a different question.

    I was talking about the constitutionality of invading the country, not the morality. I find Hitchen's argument as compelling as I find the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

    I'm supporting civilization over savagery and freedom over the life of a dhimmi.

    Well I learned a new word today. And as I said, please offer any argument that Iraq represented a threat to the sovereignty of the United States. Meanwhile there are several hundred other countries being run by savages; are we invading each one?

  • Meh||

    "Meanwhile there are several hundred other countries being run by savages; are we invading each one?" God hasn't that one died yet? Like I said read what Christopher Hitchens said, it won't fit here. Your argument is based on the premise that poor old persecuted Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the West at all, Hitchen's arguments provide quite compelling evidence that that is not true. And if you don't like Hitchens read The Bomb in my Garden.

    And as for how much of a monster Hussein was compared to say Robert Mugabe then read the reports from human Rights Watch and Amnesty International about family members being forced to watch and applaud as their parents/spouse/children were gruesomely tortured to death in increasingly inventive and original ways. But I'll provide you with Hitchen's warning: what you read will make your blood freeze, you'll never get the images out of your head. Bring a healthy supply of brain bleach with you before reading.

  • ||

    Your argument is based on the premise that poor old persecuted Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the West at all

    My argument is based on the premise that Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. I don't doubt he was a repugnant, sociopathic tyrant but that hardly makes him unique.

    It is an ugly world. U.S. leaders stood idly by while the Khmer Rouge murdered millions, while the Hutus and the Tutsis murdered each other, while Stalin and Mao and Kim Jung-il/Kim Il-sung allowed millions to starve. I presume you are arguing that Iraq represented the greatest threat to you personally and the United States as a whole, that it was the country where finite military resources would offer the greatest "bang for the buck". I see no evidence to substantiate the argument that it was worth thousands of American lives, billions of dollars and who-knows-how-many innocent Iraqis.

  • Meh||

    I think the best course of action would have been take Hussein out in 91. We promised we would do so if he set fire to Kuwait's wells before leaving. He set fire to Kuwait's wells before leaving. And like I said the debate here is whether the people who are helping coalition forces should be condemned to death and whether an anti-American military knee jerk reaction should make us worship Wikileaks by default. The BNP list wasn't that big a deal because the UK is so tolerant very little harm (if any) came to those BNP members. This time Wikileaks releasing the names of people for the sin of having a different political opinion will cost lives; lives of people we should be supporting as allies.

  • ||

    So we need to walk on eggshells because someone else's society is less tolerant?

    This is a curious position.

  • ||

    And you really are desperate to paint those arguing with you as 100% Bona-Fide Wikileaks Fellators.

    Guess what? I have not once come out and praised them unconditionally. I don't think anyone else here that you've had running battles with has done likewise. IT IS POSSIBLE that an organization can provide a useful and necessary service, be praised for said service, but not be praised as an overall SuperFantastic Excellent Bundle of Hot Awesome in every single endeavor.

  • Meh||

    Sure, the Nazi party provided useful and necessary services at times. But 99.9999% of the time they were just arseholes. Wikileaks has leaked names of people who will now most likely lose their lives. Your knee jerk hatred of the US military (what John meant when he said that libertarians are leftists on all issues but economics) seems to be blinding you. I will not condone actions in which the consequence is the murder of innocent people through silly rationalizations like "Americans have killed people in Iraq" or "it's freedom of speech".

  • ||

    Hey dickface: I have friends and colleagues in that very same military who have been there and back a few times. I don't hate them. I actually quite like them.

    In closing, fuck you.

  • Meh||

    In closing: I envy your eloquence. Oh and fuck you too you fuckfaced bum balloon.

  • ||

    Hell, if you're going to descend to stock "troop-hater" arguments whenever I post anything at all (whether or not it is related), I may as well just drop to your level.

  • Meh||

  • Meh||

    "I knew when people knew nothing when they began by saing 'sure Saddam was a bad guy'". Yes. Bad. Special mass graves just for children. Special prisons set up just for rape. Family members forced to applaud and pay for the bullets used to kill their family members. Yeah he was bad. No. Fucking. Shit.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-THBItAIW4

  • DJ Drugs||

    And this makes it alright to steal my property to pay for bullets used to murder innocents? Cool!

  • ||

    And your knee jerk reaction is to say that because one aspect of an organization is bad, it is all bad.

  • ||

    I have sympathy for anyone who dies while operating on behalf of the United States. But those operations should be subject to the scrutiny of the public that is ultimately responsible for their actions. And not just selected elites with special privileges.

    If that makes their job harder, so be it. Welcome to a free state.

  • ||

    Wait, John. Your above beef was the military part and worried that people would get killed, but now that MP asked why you're surprised minarchists would be interested, you use Meh's reasoning as defense. Why not just answer MP's question?

  • Meh||

    "Meh's reasoning" is very simple: an organization that aims to destroy, intimidate and even kill people by making important private details public should be supported by slave-state supporting goons who believe in homogeneous collective thought and do not believe in diversity of opinion, it should NOT be supported by people who wish to call themselves libertarians.

    Forget treason, forget the death of people who are helping coalition forces in Iraq, they're only Iraqis after all and who cares about them? Just think what it would mean in your own country: every time you bought a magazine, visited a website or signed up for a newsletter your private details would be made accessible to people who would happily kill you for the crime of buying magazines, visiting websites, etc all in the name of "freedom of speech". How long would freedom of speech and freedom of thought last if people took that hideous perversion of justice and negation of logic seriously?

  • Fluffy||

    This situation already exists.

    When I had a subscription to the Economist, nowhere in my subscription request did their staff promise me anonymity.

    They could have published their entire subscriber list at any moment and I couldn't have said shit about it.

    If Reason decided to publish the IP addresses of every H&R visitor tomorrow, they'd be entitled to do so and I would have no grounds for demanding they stop. [Maybe they have a privacy policy posted somewhere I haven't seen - but they could always just change it.]

    I think that you are used to a privacy that arose merely from obscurity.

  • Meh||

    OK you've got me: there's no difference between people (or PHP programs) that record IP addresses and people who upload home addresses, family names and telephone numbers accompanied by messages like "why not hunt these people down". Sure children may get bullied because their parent's political affiliations, which they had the naive delusion to believe was their own fucking business in a free fucking country were revealed, but you know, IP addresses! IP addresses! Just the same thing. *facepalm* *bang my fucking head against the wall*

  • robc||

    the wikileaks do a lot more than leak government secrets

    Who the fuck cares? reason hasnt done an article on any of the other wikileaks stuff.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    My heart is with wikilikeaks because I'm a contrarian bastard. Not becuase I'm a leftist. So there are other options.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    U.S. Customs detains a WikiLeaks editor.

    Hoping maybe he had some state secrets from other countries he was trying to sneak into the U.S.

    ----
    France cracks down on Traveler and Roma camps.

    C'est le gyp.

  • Suki||

    That would make their argument at lest somewhat believable. If they were posting documents of abuses in Iran, Gaza, etc. Somehow the only things they find follows along with hate of the USA, hate of western civilization in general.

  • MNG||

    In one morning Suki defends the government vs. wikileaks and the AZ and VA anti-immigrant efforts. Isn't she/he the one that often asks why a non-libertarian like me posts here?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    But you're a real person, MNG (assuming you're not John's sockpuppet).
    You're held to a higher standard.

  • MNG||

    So I'd be a better hack if I just develop schizoid personalities?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Yes. No.
    Wait...

  • Suki||

    ChonyMNG still with the obsession/conspiracy fantasies? There is therapy you know.

  • MNG||

    Therapy without drugs won't help your multiple personality disorder John T.

  • Suki||

    Does your CD have any other tracks Chony? I am not John T and you probably know that. Ad hominem is all you have and you don't do that very well either.

  • MNG||

    Don't get your panties in a twist John.

  • everyone||

    For Christ's sake this is tedious, John T. We're all over it. Just go away.

  • Suki||

    MNG, just how many handles do you have? LOL! Somehow, none of them link back to an email address, blog or website.

  • Suki||

    It is anti-ILLEGAL immigration, genius.

  • MNG||

    But the libertarian position on immigration involves getting rid of illegal immigrants (free movement of labor and people). But hey, as long as you're pretending to be an Asian woman why not pretend to be a libertarian?

  • Suki||

    But the libertarian position on immigration involves getting rid of illegal immigrants (free movement of labor and people).

    No, a Libertarian position is like many of the Cosmotarians express, is open borders.

    Another Libertarian position, as expressed by me and several others here, is to only exclude candidates based on a history of violence, other safety factors.

    You have been having fits for a year, seems to match when I left the Left and embraced Libertarianism. Seriously, your obsession is strange. Just stop before you hurt yourself.

  • tarran||

    Another Libertarian position

    That's not libertarian. You keep using that word; I don't think you understand what that word means.

  • Suki||

    Your link is defective, MNG.

  • Suki||

  • Suki||

  • Suki||

  • ||

    Papers, please.

  • Suki||

    Will current driver's license and registration do, officer? I still have no idea why you pulled me over.

  • ||

    Rep. Maxine Waters faces a House trial on ethics charges.

    She's like a Tyler Perry creation come to life.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    It will be awfully entertaining when Waters pulls out a handgun during her trial.

  • WTF||

    Particularly if she pulls a Bud Dwyer.

  • Rhywun||

    "Is this thing on...?"

  • BakedPenguin||

    She's like a Tyler Perry creation come to life.

    Madea Goes to Congress.

  • Suki||

    Racist!

  • ||

    Is it the wig? The glasses? The incredible vapidity?
    Life imitates art.

  • Godwin||

    "France cracks down on Traveler and Roma camps."

    You know who also cracked down on Roma camps.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Everyone else?

  • DJF||

    Libertarians?

    Since they know the importance of property rights and understand that by letting unauthorized people stay on the property they could lose their property rights

  • Brad Pitt||

    I want a caravan for me ma.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    periwinkle

  • hmm||

    D'ya like dags?

  • Anomalous||

    Maybe you should try different bait, dude.

  • ||

    The Lamia?

  • DJ Drugs||

    Well, it is the scent of garlic that lingers on my chocolate fingers.

  • ||

    France cracks down on [illegal] Traveler and Roma camps.

    Perhaps Sarko can spare some time to deport the gypsy beggars that despoil the area between my place of work, the book store, and my source of Clif Bars.

  • Subsidize Me!||

    Clif bars are like crack for white people.

  • ||

    I believe the English authorities are too tied up bulldozing a trailer camp some Irish Travellers had built (on land they owned AFAICT) because it hadn't gotten all the required planning permits to actually deal with any travellers who are an actual nuisance to anyone.

    It's just another one of those stories that makes you realize what a joke it is when some Pommie or Frog gets on his high horse and starts lecturing Americans about racial and/or social harmony.

  • ||

    The dark night of fascism is always falling on America but somehow landing on Europe.

  • Suki||

    +1

  • Bill||

    Not always. It's starting to land here as well.

  • Pip||

    Fuck the Irish Travelers, swindlers of old ladies and the infirm. Whoring their daughters at the age of five.

  • ||

    They are scum. And there is a small group of them in the US. They all live in South Carolina and travel around the country ripping people off on construction and home improvement scams.

  • johnl||

    Which is what licensed contractors do.

  • Pip||

    My, how disingenuous.

  • ||

    Well, it's zoned as green belt land so it's a bit more than getting all the right building permits.

  • ||

    That was the part of the story I forgot about. I couldn't help but wonder if someone with the right connections would see that greenbelt zoning disappear.

  • ||

    Quite possibly, but that doesn't mean that it's automatically right for the non-connected to achieve that too ...

  • Rich||

    "We face huge challenges in Afghanistan," said Mr Obama. "But it's important that the American people know that we are making progress and we're focused on goals that are clear and achievable."

    Of course, the progress and goals to which I refer are not related to Afghanistan in any way.

    Continuing to study Obamaese ...

  • ||

    Connecticut's attorney general investigates the ebook market; so does the U.S. Department of Justice.

    From the DOJ article:

    the Kindle has drawn criticism from the National Federation of the Blind and other activist groups. While the Kindle's text-to-speech feature could read a book aloud, its menu functions required sight to operate.

    Fookin' great. This tech will likely be strangled in its toddler bed to be politically correct - soon after I just got my wife a Nook for her birthday.

  • ||

    So if blind people can't use it, no one should be able to use it. Let's sue a perfectly good product off of the market and steal millions. That is a great idea.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    As if the blind could use the standard books the ebook replaces (as opposed to special Braille editions).

  • ||

    It is just a shake down racket. They will take a few million from Amazon and Barnes and Noble and move on. They are no better than the mafia. Amazon built a product people like. And now they have to pay the mafia protection money.

  • MNG||

    Doesn't libertarianism allow private groups to criticize, boycott, etc., the maker of a product?

    The DOJ investigation is into the universities using them in the classrooms.

  • ||

    What does DOJ shaking down Amazon have to do with private organizations? And why shouldn't universities be able to use them in classrooms?

  • MNG||

    The National Federation for the Blind is what I'm talking about.

    And they should be able to use them as long as they make reasonable accomodations for disabled people.

  • ||

    "And they should be able to use them as long as they make reasonable accomodations for disabled people."

    What would those be? You can get them to read outloud better but that costs money. Or you can not use them at all. You are just telling everyone in the class that they have to pay a tax in case a blind person happens to want to take the class. And make no mistake, "reasonable accommodations" mean making the accommodation regardless of whether any handicapped person shows up.

  • MNG||

    You could get them to read out loud better or you could do what they do for traditional learning modalities, hire a notetaker for the disabled person.

    And yes they should construct the class so it would be reasonably accessible to disabled persons. We as a society have made a decision not to leave such folks behind if we can reasonably accomodate them.

  • ||

    Since you are someone who can afford it, that is special of you. What people like you never talk about are the people who pay higher bus fairs and the like to make accommodations. It is always about fucking the poor for the favored group isn't it?

  • Fluffy||

    To me, there is no meaningful difference between selling a product and selling labor.

    A very large percentage of the unjust law in this country is built on the illogical notion that there IS some sort of difference.

    As far as I am concerned, if universities shouldn't be allowed to sell education unless they can accomodate, say, the deaf, YOU should not be allowed to sell your labor unless you can also accomodate the deaf.

    So please withdraw yourself from the job market until you learn sign language.

    And braille.

    And every language. [Got to take care of national origin discrimination while we're at it.]

  • Pip||

    You know what pisses me off? All of the safety instructions on my city's new buses are in English only. How the hell am I supposed to continue with my impromptu study of the Spanish language?

  • ||

    Win!

  • ||

    The win was for Fluffy at 12:08. Still trying to get my threads threaded

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    I should be able to use it even if they give all blind people a big silent unseeable middel finger.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    MNG, you do know that understanding libertarianism better than some "libertarians" makes you more culpable, not less, right?

  • MNG||

    I plead the Fifth on that one ;)

  • ||

    Sounds like a whole new batch of people to sue. Just wait until the National Federation for the Deaf finds out the rest of can hear.

  • ||

    Huh?

  • ||

    Is someone murdering a dolphin?

  • ||

    Is that line from In the Company of Men?

  • ||

    Yes, but I couldn't remember the actual quote.

    But I will be joining the class action lawsuit against bakeries that will soon be brought by diabetics.

  • The Gobbler||

    My sister said she disliked the film because the actions of the characters were too over the top to be believable.

    I told her, no, they're not.

  • ||

    If you get into that discussion again, link her out to Reason threads for a few days.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    I'm also assuming I missed the part about the DOJ insisting that schools remove all chalkboards because they aren't accessible by all students.

    I was too upset about the bit where the DOJ hack was talking about his next project of making sure the Internet was fully accessible by everyone.

  • ||

    Chalk boards are already all gone. They were replaced with dry erase boards.

  • Jason||

    Chalk dust is dangerous if inhaled, you know.

  • ||

    Chalk dust is fine for people, but harmful to computers and other electronics.

  • ||

    There are people who have chalk allergies that cause welts on their fingers if they write with it. So rather than tell these people to invest in a $10 plastic chalk holder, they make the rest of us inhale fumes from dry erase marker chemicals and get pounding headaches.

  • ||

    The Kindle's text-to-speech functionality is shockingly good.

    I would expect that this functionality will make many, many more books accessible to the blind.

    As for the complaint that the controls aren't in braille, well, there's only a few. I have a cover on mine, and manage to use it without ever seeing the controls.

    The only reason to oppose the Kindle is a shakedown.

  • ||

    ""I have a cover on mine, and manage to use it without ever seeing the controls.""

    You've never, ever seen the controls? I'm guessing you know where they are becuase you remember where you saw them. No?

  • ||

    So if blind people can't use it, no one should be able to use it.

    Ages ago, I was in a meeting with some deaf activists about whether pay phones should be required to be deaf-enabled. This makes them quite a bit more expensive. I pointed out that this would mean that a lot of pay phones would just disappear, depriving the hearing of a service without adding anything for the deaf.

    They were cool with that.

  • ||

    There is a depressing story in Phillip K. Howard's The Death of Common Sense about public toilets in Manhattan. There is a serious shortage of them. And it causes some people to just piss on the street, which is really bad. So they found these toilets from Europe that were self cleaning and could be maintained by only charging a dime to use them. The handicapped advocates went apeshit because they were not big enough to be used by someone in a wheel chair. They tried to placate them by making it a law that any establishment with a public bathroom had to let anyone in a wheel chair use it. That wasn't good enough for them. And the bathrooms were never installed.

    The handicapped advocates are first class assholes.

  • ||

    Everyone is afraid to be an asshole back and that's why some disabled groups take advantage of the situation. They're just like everyone else in that they want free shit. It's not enough they don't have to wait in line, they want a special roller coaster car to fit their behemoth wheelchair. Fuck all that shit, Silent Bob.

  • ||

    So if blind people can't use it, no one should be able to use it.

    Sounds like the argument for gay marraige. Gay people can't use marriage as currently constituted, so we have to redefine it so they can.

  • The Ghost of Helen Keller||

    While the Kindle's text-to-speech feature could read a book aloud ...

    * ** **
    * * *

  • Scotticus Finch||

    Yeah! e-books are now destined to the same scrap-heap of history as laptop computers, smartphones, and universal remotes!

  • Fluffy||

    This is yet another example of an Iron Law of Law:

    "Blumenthal is a dick who is always wrong."

    Seriously. This guy makes Spitzer look like John Marshall.

    Amazon doesn't set the prices on the books in question, and neither does Apple.

    Apple decided to allow publishers to directly access their database to set their own prices for their own books at the iBookstore. The publishers then turned around and extracted the same privilege from Amazon.

    These agreements [while I don't necessarily like them, personally] actually expanded the number of parties with direct control of the retail pricing on these sites, since instead of two retailers setting the prices for these books, five big publishers [and a host of small ones] are setting the pricing for these books.

    Leave it to this Blumenthal idiot to open a price-fixing investigation of retailers who gave away their control of pricing and turned it over to literally hundreds of individual producers.

    Accusing these companies of price-fixing is like accusing the Chicago Board of Trade of price-fixing.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    When the Kindle was the only game in town, they were pretty tough on the publishers. Amazon pretty much told them it had to be $9.99 or less. Amazon felt that they needed to have a big price break on the e-version of titles so people would see the advantage of buying a $250 device.

    As Barnes & Noble with the Nook and Apple with the iPad got into the marketplace, Amazon had to back off on their policy of dictating the price, otherwise the publishers would sell via B&N or Apple. (The price of the Kindle also dropped quite a bit. The new ones can be had for $140)

    The whole thing was a complete reversal of the mp3 market. Back then it was Apple who was forced to back off of a lot of policies because Amazon's entry into the market broke their monopoly of the marketplace.

    Books & MP3's are both textbook examples of how the marketplace functions when it isn't screwed with. In each instance a big powerful corporation had its monopoly broken by others because there was money to be made.

  • Jason||

    Apple decided to allow publishers to directly access their database to set their own prices for their own books at the iBookstore.

    You don't need direct access to the database to change data in it. All you have to do is add price as another field that the publisher has access to.

  • Fluffy||

    Well, sure.

    I didn't mean to imply that publishers had the Oracle database Amazon uses open or something.

    They have a web interface or FTP upload site where they get to populate the data for their inventory of titles. That's what I mean by "direct access".

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Next they'll sue the color blue.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

  • Obama to Progressives||

    Shut the fuck up and get in the car bitch before I slap you again.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

  • Corduroy||

    Only answer is to repeal the Dems. Even if it means rewarding those idiots in the Republican Party.

  • ||

    • Rep. Maxine Waters faces a House trial on ethics charges.

    She is in some deep shit.

    I love it!

  • ||

    It would be cool if something actually stuck, both with her and Rangel, and their golden parachutes turned out to be backpacks full of silverware.

  • ||

    What is even better is that they are going to play the race card. Pelosi promised to "drain the swamp". Yet only black people are the ones being drained.

    And they actually will have a point. They covered up for Dodd and Frank. But now they are going to hang Rangle and Waters to show the world they care about ethics.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Pelosi promised to "drain the swamp". Yet only black people are the ones being drained.

    So Pelosi's efforts are running afoul of both discrimination laws and wetlands preservation regulations.

  • Spoonman.||

    Agreed, Dodd and Frank should be strung up too.

  • Mike M.||

    Out of all the desperate election ploys I've seen, this modified limited hangout of Rangel and Waters might be the most desperate one of all time.

    Despite all of Pelosi's frothing at the mouth over Robert Gibbs' comment, this proves that even she knows they're headed for a total beatdown.

  • Brett L||

    See, I'm cynical enough that they had to indict someone who could be found not guilty to lower the impact of Rangel's conviction. But I have the cynic's paranoia of not having been cynical enough.

    Its possible that both will be found innocent and the whole thing will turn into a racism auto de fe.

  • Subsidize Me!||

    And somehow, it will be blamed on the vast right-wing conspiracy.

  • ||

    It looks like Waters was busted with her involvement in the socializati.. oops, umm, ah, umm, oh, umm ah, the take over of the banks.

  • kc||

    couldn't happen to a more stupid person - how do these people get elected?*
    *rhetorical question

  • WTF||

    The plain and simple truth is we're fucked. Anyone who understands what the Constitution was supposed to mean and knows the history of this country is condemned to live out the rest of his or her days in deep, bitter frustration, because its meaning is being twisted and subverted to acheive politically expedient ends.

    In a different forum, this lefty progressive douchebag brought up Cuccinelli's suit against the federal health care legislation and basically said Congress could do anything it wanted under the "general welfare" power and taxing power. While from a modern pragmatic standpoint, it might be true to say Congree can GET AWAY WITH doing whatever it wants these days, the simple fact is that these actions are in no way supported by or in alignment with the historical evidence as to what the Constitution actually empowered Congress to do.

    It makes me alternately sick and spitting mad when I see these idiots slavishly devoting such support for this massive arrogation of power by Congress, because their team is in power and doing it. It seems to absurdly short-sighted. If Congress can tax us for NOT buying health insurance, there is no limit to what it can do. Where does it end? They had no answer to that question - and even more depressing, they didn't think this was problem or issue, except for knuckle-dragging right-wingers. Who, of course, are just stupid and racist.

    So in sum, we are fucked. Abe Lincoln posed the question in his Gettysburg Address whether this nation could long stand. As a house divided, I'm wondering myself. Just wondering when the shit will well and truly hit the fan.

  • #||

    "Just wondering when the shit will well and truly hit the fan."

    I've never been a gun person. I dont think we are going into open rebellion nor anything like that next week, but for the first time in my life I am considering buying some firearms just to have around for when we turn into greece or even worse.

  • Brett L||

    If you get a firearm, learn to shoot it. Many people (me included) find that they really were "gun people", they just never knew it until they went to the range regularly.

  • Spoonman.||

    I bought a gun for a similar reason. I don't think TEOTWAKI is likely, and I most definitely don't ever want to have to use the thing (I do go to the range for some target shooting now and again), but it seems silly not to be prepared.

  • It's What They Do||

    INDIANAPOLIS -- Relations between the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department and some members of the African-American community are still a sore spot in the weeks since the Brandon Johnson incident.

    Case in point -- an altercation in which an officer was injured during a presentation to a youth symposium last weekend that officials said was staged, leading to the suspension of a parks manager and animosity among officers, 6News' Jack Rinehart reported.

    Sgt. Matthew Grimes was asked to give a presentation to a church audience on July 24 at Municipal Gardens, in the 1800 block of Lafayette Road.

    During the presentation, an altercation broke out in the crowd, and Grimes intervened. The officer was thrown to the ground and drew his Taser, ready to stun one of the people involved, police said.

    At that point, someone stepped in and told the officer that the incident had been concocted to test the reaction of the officer to the situation, police said. Grimes suffered severe back spasms after the incident and was taken to Methodist Hospital for treatment.

    James Harrington, pastor of the Mt. Vernon Missionary Baptist Church, said he set up the scenario to test a white officer's reaction to a fight between two black men.

    "Their job is to protect and serve, and even though they have families and children, that they don't put any regard to their safety," Harrington said. "I don't think it was dangerous because it was in a controlled environment."

    Harrington denied that the officer was injured.

    http://www.theindychannel.com/news/24453132/detail.html

  • hmm||

    There will soon be either a glut or a shortage of cloths pins in France.

  • Warty||

  • Corduroy||

    That's a man baby

  • DJF||

    It looks like an ugly dude with long hair.

  • ||

    Some of the non transgendered models look that way.

  • Corey S.||

    Looks like Lady Gaga.

  • ||

    It's the perfect muse for a fashion designer. Slim, hipless, breastless, and with a surprise penis for dessert.

    I'll bet you that's not the first one.

  • ||

    Yup. Fashion designers are generally gay men. And don't become a gay man because you like a good womanly figure.

  • Subsidize Me!||

    The gay guys I know aren't big on trannies at all. They kind of resent the "t" in lgbt.

  • ||

    But a lot of them love a thin young guy, which is what most fashion models look like.

  • Subsidize Me!||

    Some gay guys are twinks, and others are bears.

  • ||

    Some are. But not all.

  • ||

  • Subsidize Me!||

    Sorry about the reference... It's a line from Sunny. Probably the funniest scene in the entire series.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Fortunately, not all. (No nudity, but possibly NSFW).

    But you're basically right. One of my pet peeves is feminists who bitch about the patriarchy shoving this image of a skinny, skinny, woman as the ideal. Most guys I know prefer a woman to look like a woman, with curves. It's gay men and women - who are also the vast majority of fashion designers - who push the Kate Moss / Twiggy image of female "beauty".

  • ||

    Also have you ever noticed that the female editors of fashion magazines and such are usually ugly as fence posts? It really is some kind of sick revenge fantasy for them to take all of these beautiful women and tell them they are fat and force them to starve themselves so that they have a little of their femininity left as possible.

  • Not this again||

    They're not pushing "female beauty", they're pushing clothes. The women are just hangers. You'll notice that the many straight male designers out there use the same models.

  • T||

    many straight male designers

    There's a word in this phrase that doesn't belong.

  • Rhywun||

    Well, if Project Runway is any guide... for every 16 designers, nearly half are women and 1 or 2 will be straight men. So yeah, "many".

  • Gray Ghost||

    "Most guys I know prefer a woman to look like a woman, with curves."

    See, the "surprising" appeal of e.g.
    Christina Hendricks
    , Kim Kardashian, etc...

  • ||

    LGBTQQIA

  • Questioning||

    Hey you left of a q at the end there.

  • Questioning||

    QIA?

  • ||

    Lesbian
    Gay
    Bisexual
    Transgender
    Queer
    Questioning
    Intersex
    Androgynous

  • ||

    Sorry, "Asexual" not "Androgynous."

  • Rhywun||

    Why not both??

  • ||

    LGBTQQIA only addresses sexualities, not presentations. Which is why androgyny, cross-dressing, genderqueer, genderfucking, and other form of appearance problematizing are left off.

    Although, quite a few might argue that "Queer" is a set that already contains all of these ideas.

  • Pip||

    Where the fuck is the H, for hetero?

  • ||

    Shut up, homophobe.

  • Warty||

    Look up the nude photo from the French Vogue magazine, if you dare. There's no hiding that's a man, even before you get to the shlong.

  • ||

    In MtoF transgender surgery, the only part that they don't use are the testicles. They are just discarded.

  • ||

    I think I would have been fine if I had died and never known that fact.

  • ||

    Classic flatmate prank - foolishly your flatmate has prepared a steak dinner and has chosen to eat it in front of the TV (unknowingly) coincident with Channel 5 showing one of their exploitation documentaries (gender reassignment surgery edition).

    Create a false sense of security with a bit of BBC to start, then flick over to the de-balling surgery at your leisure. ;-)

  • Warty||

    Flatmate? BBC? Coincident? You fucking limeys and your words.

  • ||

    I know. It's like they trying to speak American, and just can't quite pull it off.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I saw a sign at a low clearance entryway at Gatwick Airport that said "mind your head". I thought "not really, although I wish my face was better looking".

  • ||

    db's not a limey, he's a bloody Kiwi.

    Of course, they talk funny, too.

  • ||

    That's right, no soap-dodger I!

  • Rhywun||

    Hm... "BBC" is a bit suspect but "flat" is perfectly normal in some parts of America, at least where it's useful to distinguish between a "flat" and an "apartment".

  • Warty||

    "So long, balls!"

  • ||

    "I never gave you any attention anyway..."

  • Suki||

    I thought y'all were talking about the Jessee Jackson vs. Obama thing.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I thought they could be reused as knees for negroplasty patients.

  • JEP||

    negroplasty

    rascist!

  • JSinAZ||

    Ah - not so super, really. I guess the French will do just about anything for that extra frisson.

  • ¢||

    You know who also cracked down on Roma camps.

    Your joke is broken. "France and Nazis" is like "pigeons and birds."

  • ||

  • Warty||

  • Pip||

    I thought he died about 50 years ago.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    You're thinking of Abe Vigoda.

  • Jim||

    No, Abe is still as alive as he ever was.

  • ||

    Barney Miller will live forever.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I swear I though Ron Glass was dead. I must have been thinking of Jack Soo.

  • ||

    Jack Soo died during the show. I loved that show.

  • JSinAZ||

    Waters and Rangel are not in any trouble - the majority party has concocted a clever plan in which they ostensibly throw a few CBC members under the bus in an attempt to 1) motivate a segment of their electoral base to get to the polls in November by 2) tossing an irresistable set of guilty pols before the public as the face of corruption. This baits the R party with an issue which they will magnify with all their might.

    All of which is an attempt to build on the perceived backlash against anything remotely like AZ SB1070, and anyone like the evil Republican crackers what started it all.

    You heard it here first...

  • Mike M.||

    Nail right on the head. This is a transparently classic modified limited hangout.

    It's not going to work though; nothing can save their sorry asses now.

  • The Gobbler||

    Actually, Waters is in deep shit.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    No, this is the Limited Modified Hangout.

  • Pip||

    Controversial Minneapolis pastor: I'm attracted to men, but I'm not gay

    A Lutheran pastor in Minneapolis who opposes homosexuals being allowed to lead congregations said Monday he is attracted to men, but that he's not a hypocrite because he never acted on his urges.

    The Rev. Tom Brock told the Associated Press he has known for years he is sexually attracted to men, but doesn't consider himself gay because he never acted on it.

    In June, the Minnesota gay magazine Lavender reported that Brock was a member of a support group for Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction. Brock's church, the Hope Lutheran Church, placed him on leave while a task force looked into the matter. The Rev. Tom Parrish, the church's executive pastor, said the investigation determined Brock's story checked out.

    "I am a 57-year-old virgin," Brock told the Hope Lutheran congregation during services upon returning to the pulpit on Sunday.

    http://www.twincities.com/ci_15659495?source=most_viewed

  • ||

    France cracks down on Traveler and Roma camps.

    Probably a good idea.

    http://www.peterleeson.com/Gypsies.pdf
    "Gypsies believe the lower half of the human body is invisibly polluted, that super-natural defilement is physically contagious, and that non-Gypsies are spiritually toxic. I argue that Gypsies use these beliefs, which on the surface regulate their invisible world, to regulate their visible one. They use superstition to create and enforce law and order. Gypsies do this in three ways. First, they make worldly crimes supernatural ones, leveraging fear of the latter to prevent the former. Second, they marshal the belief that spiritual pollution is contagious to incentivize collective punishment of antisocial behavior. Third, they recruit the belief that non-Gypsies are supernatural cesspools to augment such punishment."

  • Rhywun||

    So that's where Hubbard got all his ideas.

  • Brett L||

    So, the short version is that they are corrupting our bodily fluids by fluoridation of the drinking water, right?

  • General Ripper||

    Ice cream, Mandrake? Children's ice cream!

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    I have loved ones in the military. One is in theater.

    This particular leak is troubling for reasons that should be obvious to everyone.

    But...in general directing sunlight into the hidden corners of government action---all governments, even the one that are mostly "good"---is a good thing.

    The "free" societies of the world gain realize a benefit relative the un-free ones when secrets are exposed.

    Basic principle: In a free society everything done by the government must become a matter of open public record eventually. Without exception.

    The world being a rough and tumble place there is some room for secrets to be maintained for a time, by all secrets must come with an expiration date, and it must be set on a reasonable human time scale. Mostly it should be set on a time scale that allows a fair chance of holding the people responsible to account for their choices.

    Anything else amounts to a claim that the government stands above the people it serves, and may therefore be identified as tyrannical.

  • Mike Laursen||

    France cracks down on Traveler and Roma camps.

    Good! They're all thieves, thieves, tramps, and thieves!

  • cynical||

    'Barack Obama promises to end the "military effort" in Iraq this month -- while leaving 50,000 troops on the ground.'

    Well, yes, but they won't actually be making an effort to win. Official policy is to throw the game now. Obama is an evil genie, so while he never lies, you have to parse his language carefully.

    "All governments are on a continuum of tyranny," he said. "In the US, a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt. In the US, we don't have censorship but we do have collaborating news organisations."

    Heh, go Wikileaks dude.

    Also, fuck the Handicapper General.

  • ||

    I was considering signing this "Even more cynical."

    Well, yes, but they won't actually be making an effort to win.

    How, precisely, do we define "winning" in the context of the Iraq war at this point? Is there some bodycount quota of Iraqis that we need to kill before they stop being so uppity as to think they can govern temselves differently than the Great White Father thinks they should, or what?

    As I recall, the reasons for invading Iraq were to:

    a) Remove S. Hussein from power, hence
    b) ending any WMD production there, thus
    c) ensuring that Iraq could no longer pose a military threat to its neighbors.

    a) done, b) done and c) done! - looks like WE WON!!

    Iraq today can't even keep the lights on anywhere for more than a hour or two a day, it is barely capable of feeding itself.

    There's no way that it can mount any kind of credible military effort against any of its neighbors, like Iran...oh..shit!!!

    What was that about unintended consequences?

  • ||

    +1

  • Ben||

  • hmm||

    I like pie.

    Why does my left big toe hurt?

    I wonder if I left the stove on.

    I wonder if I should get those pretentious toe shoe thingies.

  • nfl premier jerseys||

    Sounds Great!!What you had mentioned is quite reasonable! Beautifully written article sir.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    nfl premier jerseys
    Dallas Cowboys premier jerseys

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement