Reason Morning Links: WikiLeaks, Wyclef, Walt Disney World

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.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

  • Sidd Finch||

    Here's one to piss him off. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sci.....-olds.html

    "Astronauts who spend months in space become as physically weak as 80-year-olds, a study has found... The ISS is equipped with two treadmills and an exercise cycle."

  • -||

    The treadmill is an apt metaphor for the ISS.

  • ||

    Because we never used the ISS, tried to sell it on craigslist for three months and are now planning on putting out on the curb on trash day and wait to see how long it takes for someone to haul it off before the garbage guys get it?

  • -||

    Nice. Also because no matter how much you use it, you never get anywhere.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    A treadmill. Right. THAT's the Craigslist ad that has a stream of random guys going into your apartment to check out your 'equipment'.

    You aren't fooling anyone, SF.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    A treadmill. Right. THAT's the Craigslist ad that has a stream of random guys going into your apartment to check out your 'equipment'.

    You aren't fooling anyone, SF.

  • ||

    "Johnny Longtorso" sounds like a nightclub for gay Vikings.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    They prefer to be called ViQueens

  • Warty||

    "And now, in the 0kg division, Warty will attempt a squat of 0kg..."

  • Warty||

  • Johnny Longtorso||

  • Johnny Longtorso||

  • Norm Abram||

    Not sure exactly what a "saw drill" is, but I'm sure I could use one.

  • waffles||

    http://www.sawdrill.com/

    but I saw a chinese one that cuts through bone!

  • Larry Flynt||

    Not sure exactly what a "beaver saw drill" is, but I'm sure I could use one.

  • Fluffy||

    Do you think I should be worried that whenever anyone describes a piece of power equipment, my first thought is either, "You could really fuck somebody up with that" or "You could really mess up somebody's house with that"?

    If when I see a Troy Bilt wood chipper ad I think, "I wonder if you could fit a person in that feeder thing", does that mean I'm strange?

  • Madbiker||

    If it does, Fluffy, then you have a partner on your boat. I suspect there would be enough of us to fill a cruise ship, though.

  • ||

  • nobody||

    My hometown is most notable for the Woodchipper Murder.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helle_Crafts

  • ||

    A snow-plow driver eventually came forward and said he'd seen the husband using a woodchipper on a bridge over Lake Zoar in Newtown, CT, late at night during a severe snow storm on November 19, the night Helle Crafts was last seen.

    What was suspicious about this? I run a woodchipper off a bridge at night during a blizzard all the time.

  • Atanarjuat||

    "Senior Obama administration officials concluded the federal moratorium on deepwater oil drilling would cost roughly 23,000 jobs..."

    I assume that for the sake of honesty and transparency, the administration will subtract this number from any claim of jobs "created or saved".

  • Barack Obama||

    Let me be clear.

    My administration is committed to creating or saving any purported notion of transparency.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

  • -||

    Go for the grand slam, Johnny!

  • DG||

    Only half the people who signed up for mortgage relief have dropped out. For government work, a 50% success rate isn't failure. It's absolutely fantastic.

  • DJF||

    Especially since those 50% who dropped out can then reapply which means even more paperwork and bureaucrats both of which are considered to be marks of success by government.

    In fact I am surprised that they don’t mandate a 50% drop out rate since it would boost employment of mortgage workers.

  • ||

    "Miss Wormwood, I protest this "C" grade! That's saying I only did an "average" job! I got 75% of the answers correct, and in today's society, doing something 75% right is outstanding! If government and industry were 75% competent, we'd be ecstatic! I won't stand for this artificial standard of performance! I demand an "A" for this kind of work!"

    Got to love Calvin & Hobbes.

  • DG||

    From the Pakistan article:

    “We picked up Baradar and the others because they were trying to make a deal without us,” said a Pakistani security official... "We protect the Taliban. They are dependent on us. We are not going to allow them to make a deal with Karzai and the Indians.”

    With allies like this, who needs enemies?

  • Maverick||

  • Yonemoto||

    You don't suppose some of this is coming out because of Julien Assange?

  • Johnny Longtorso||

  • Daniella||

    "We'll teach them personal hygiene ... the personal things they don't get when they come from dysfunctional homes"

    Oh, wipe from front to back? Wow, that explains a lot of my problems ...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Republican candidate for governor Carl Paladino said he would transform some New York prisons into dormitories for welfare recipients, where they could work in state-sponsored jobs, get employment training and take lessons in "personal hygiene."

    Finally, we can start getting some use out of our underutilized prisons.

    Alternate joke:
    "Dropping that soap won't get your check here any faster, honey."

  • ||

    Paladino has long since drifted into Alan Keyes territory.

  • ||

    That is basically what the WPA was. And everyone loved that right?

  • Mike Laursen||

    Ooh, ooh, can we have some more of those big-ass murals?! And those cool trail marker signs with the letters all wood-burnt into them?

  • Fluffy||

    Well, since the New York prison system basically only exists to provide employment for upstate townies and to demonize, ritually humiliate, and enslave downstate minorities, it's not surprising to me that someone would make such a proposal.

    New York's prison system must not be stopped from fulfilling its mission of providing white townies with employment simply because black people are committing fewer petty crimes! Forward into the future!

  • ||

    Upstate NY has been occupied territory controlled by those south of Westchester for decades. I assure you that no coherent policy is in place to benefit Upstaters at the expense of their downstate rulers.

    It's probably more a result of the elites not wanting prisons on Long Island or in Westchester County.

  • Fluffy||

    I am subjected to upstate NY TV, and let me assure you:

    They love their prisons and view every policy issue touching on crime in any way through the prism of securing additional prison money or protecting existing prison money.

    If there was a law proposed in Albany to make heterosexual sex illegal, half of upstate NY would favor it and the TV news broadcasts would be full of town and county officials salivating at the prospect of the local prison being saved.

    When a round of prison closings was recently proposed, you would have thought that the baby Jesus had died up here from all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

  • DG||

    Buffalo, Rochester, and the Capital Region are part of downstate now?

  • ||

    Having lived in Syracuse, I was never sure that those in Albany actually realized that New York State extended westward beyond Westchester County.

  • Mike M.||

    Iran is now a nuclear power.

    It should now only be about a year or so before they have enough material for their first bomb. And won't that be just great.

  • ||

    Why are you even concerned about that? Now that the mosque is free to be built at Park51, America is doomed to become a Sharia country anyway so we'll actually be allies of Iran.

  • Mahmoud Ahmadinnerjacket||

    Tick, tick, tick, biotches.

  • Zeb||

    I think you are using the term "nuclear power" in a non-standard way. Generally that term is used to indicate a country which has usable nuclear weapons. Under your definition, the list of non-nuclear powers is rather short.

  • Mike M.||

    Most countries in the world have functional nuclear power reactors? I don't think so. Where are you getting that from?

  • ||

    Most countries would be a little wide in scope. However, change that to most modern countries and it's a little closer.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....by_country

  • Johnnybegood||

    All extant countries are modern. I think you mean developed.

  • ||

    http://www.americanthinker.com.....s_not.html

    Interesting and striking chart. The deficit in 2006, the last year before the Democrats took over was $200 billion dollars. It peaked under Bush at a little over 400 billion in 08. Then in 2009 it went to over a trillion.

    But Bush's deficits were just as bad as Obama's. And there is no difference between the two parties. And the Iraq war caused all the deficits. Right?

  • ||

    Revenues also fell during that time period. Obama's deficits are bad, no question about it, but Bush's deficits were worse precisely because they were run during a time of relative prosperity.

  • ||

    Give me a fucking break. It is worse to spend when you don't have the money than it is to when you do have the money. If Obama hadn't bailed everyone out and passed a worthless $750 billion stimulus and were truly a victim of falling revenues, you would have a point. But that is not what happened and you know it. And further, those budgets in 07 and 08 were passed by the Dem Congress before the crash.

    That is just Tony level retarded Tulpa.

  • Fluffy||

    John,

    Even the hare-brained Keynesian theory that supports deficit spending holds that we should deficit spend during times of economic weakness and run surpluses during times of economic strength.

    Not trying to excuse the Obama deficits, which are of course scandalous. Just trying to address your "It is worse to spend when you don't have the money than it is to when you do have the money" comment. It's not better to do that when you're already massively in debt.

  • ||

    But of course the Keynesian were saying in 2004 that we needed to deficit spend the keep the economy booming. Pretty much no time is ever a bad time for a deficit in their world.

    And further, deficits only matter as a percentage of GNP. If your GNP is growing and your deficits are not large by comparison and stable, they really don't mean a whole lot. They only start to mean something when your economy is not growing and they along with the debt hit a high percentage of your GNP, which would be now.

  • ||

    And further, deficits only matter as a percentage of GNP.

    Wrong.

  • ||

    No. Governments run deficits all the time. Just like you run a deficit in your own affairs. If you are making $250K a year, a few thousand dollars on your credit cards don't mean a whole lot if anything. If you have $100 thousand, then it starts to mean something. Businesses run deficits all of the time, but mostly it is on capital spending. Governments do the same on capital spending and the odd necessary war. The monetary amount doesn't tell you anything. It is the percentage of GNP that matters. If the economy was growing and thus revenues were growing at say 3% and the deficit was growing the debt at an increase of say 1%, the debt is getting smaller as a proportion of GNP every year. Hell, you don't even need to pay the debt off. Just get the economy growing and stop adding to it, or add to it at a smaller rate than the GNP is growing and every year it means less.

  • Fluffy||

    If your GNP is growing and your deficits are not large by comparison and stable, they really don't mean a whole lot.

    That sort of Brooksian justification for big-government conservatism doesn't pass the laugh test. It's mathematically illiterate. Running $200 billion deficits every year will eventually destroy you with debt service expenses, even if the deficit remains a static % of GDP.

    It's like saying, "Running up credit card debt isn't harmful as long as it's the right % of your income." That might be true in year 1, but if you do the same thing every year it's not true any more in year 15.

    Obama's deficits are much worse than Bush's, so we can definitely say that Obama is worse than Bush. But that doesn't make Bush's deficits good.

  • ||

    It is not justifying big government. There maybe good reasons not to run a deficit at all, or even run a surplus, but it eating the economy and leading to default is only one of them in cases of really big deficits.

    Let's say you are running a $200 billion deficit. And the economy is worth say $13 trillion and is growing at a 3% clip. That means the first year the economy adds $390 billion worth of wealth. That means the next year, the deficit, if it stays at $200 billion eats up only 1,4% of your GNP. The next year it gets less. And so forth. Not all deficit spending equals default or even a significant drag on your economy.

    Now, it is also true that what the government is doing with that money causes damage. But the deficit is not the issue. And further, it is not the deficit as it is the size of the government.

    Every dollar that is spent on government is a dollar that can't be spent on the private sector. I would rather have a small government that doesn't fully pay for itself and borrows than a huge government that taxes and pays for itself. The second example is much worse than the first, even though it doesn't run a deficit.

    It is the size of government that matters. Deficits are generally a meaningless boogieman, unless you decide to do what we are doing now and run them so large they eat the economy.

  • Fluffy||

    But after year 1, you are paying debt service on $200 billion of debt.

    After year 20, you are paying debt service on $4 trillion worth of debt.

    [Assuming you are debt free in year 0, which we weren't.]

    So your debt service has grown 20 fold and your economy hasn't yet doubled in size. The % of GDP represented by your $200 billion deficit keeps decreasing, but your fiscal situation grows more and more dire and unsustainable.

  • ||

    It does rise a percentage but it takes decades. And also, if you have a strong economy you ought to do better than 3%.

    I would still take my chances with a small government that doesn't pay for itself than a big government that does.

  • ||

    If you want to criticize Bush, criticize him for the right thing; expanding the size of government.

  • ||

    ""If you want to criticize Bush, criticize him for the right thing; expanding the size of government.""

    It's fair to hit Bush on his fiscal record. Expanding government isn't cheap. But I agree Obama has been worse.

  • ||

    It is worse to spend when you don't have the money than it is to when you do have the money.

    Bush was spending money we didn't have. That's what "deficit" means, genius.

  • waffles||

    Are you being serious? If Bush's deficit peaked in 2008 that means Obama inherited it and was forced to continue the spending. Bush's bailouts basically mandated the stimulus. There's no world where Obama can simply undo the untold damage of the bailouts. He has to push forward no matter what.

    You're clearly either being dishonest, a partisan hack, or both.

  • ||

    He was "forced to continue it". Did Bush stage a coup? Last I looked the Dems owned the entire government as of January 2009. They could have stopped all of that shit. And further, the Democrats controlled Congress when the bailout was passed. And Obama voted for it.

    And did Bush force him to pass a what we now know was worthless $750 billion dollar stimulus?

  • waffles||

    Let's imagine a world where the Dems own the entire government and decide to cut spending and reign in the size and scope of government. Hard, nay impossible to see, yeah?

    In the Dem playbook the only response to reprehensible deficit spending is more egregious deficit spending. Oh, and raise taxes while doing it. That's how it's Bush's fault, I think.

  • ||

    So it is Bush's fault that the Democrats have supported expanding the federal government for the last 70 years? WTF?

  • Leroy||

    Yes, John.

    If you didn't already know this, everything that ever has, is currently, or could possibly go wrong is Bush's fault.

    Even if he had no direct control over it, is out of power, was playing golf in Texas when it happened, it is still his fault.

  • ||

    If Bush's deficit peaked in 2008 that means Obama inherited it and was forced to continue the spending.

    Refresh my memory. Who controlled Congress in 2008?

  • ||

    Bush. He also held all the seats on the Supreme Court.

  • ||

    """Refresh my memory. Who controlled Congress in 2008?""

    What, was Bush's veto pen broke?

  • T||

    Apparently so, judging by how little use it got.

  • ||

    His interns accidentally put it in that hidden drawer from National Treasure. Sadly, Dubya got behind on his netflix subscription and missed that movie till last week.

  • -||

    $200 billion dollars

    That's redundant. Like you.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    W was John the Baptist to Obama's Jesus. The former paved the way for the latter.

  • ||

    Are y'all really arguing over whether Bush/TeamGreen or Obama/TeamYellow are the worse spenders?

    I thought we were making progress towards a real 3rd party, with the realization that both parties are out to steal your wallet and rape your mother. Oh well, GO TEAM ORANGE!!!!!!

  • ||

    According to the New York Times, you are only not a criminal because the government has chosen not to criminalize your actions.

    “But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22sun2.html?_r=1

  • ||

    That's more of a tautology than an outrage. Keep trying.

  • ||

    And you are more of an idiot. You could say that about anyone. I don't like Delay any better than anyone else. But that is a bizarre statement. Either someone commits a crime or they don't. To say that they are really a criminal but the government hasn't chosen to make them one yet, is to say that pretty much everyone on earth is a criminal at the discretion of the government. If you are not disturbed by that statement, you are just a fucking hack.

  • Fluffy||

    John is absolutely right here.

    What the Times really means to say is:

    "Delay obeyed the law, but we don't like what he did, and it should be illegal, so we're going to assign to him the same moral blame an actual criminal would receive. Because we're douchebags."

  • Fluffy||

    BTW just for clarification, the whole "should be illegal" bit is me speaking the tacit thoughts of the Times staff. It's not intended to reflect my own opinion.

  • ||

    I'll remember that next time you're complaining about a cop's blatantly unethical (but technically legal) behavior on one of these threads.

    No, it's not illegal for a cop to threaten to arrest a citizen who takes video of them, but cops who do that deserve as much blame as they would if it were illegal to make such threats.

  • ||

    "No, it's not illegal for a cop to threaten to arrest a citizen who takes video of them,"

    Yes it is. You can't threaten someone with taking their civil rights. It is not lawful for them to make the arrest. To threaten someone with an unlawful arrest is conspiring to violate their civil rights. And that is a federal crime. The feds in a just world would be after every one of those assholes.

    And further even if your example were true, people say the cops are assholes. If you want to call Delay an asshole, you won't get any argument from me. But he does not appear to be a criminal.

  • Fluffy||

    Since John has already taken out the trash here, I guess I just need to point and say, "What he said!"

  • ||

    OK, the particular example is not a good one, but the point remains. How about an officer saying it's illegal to record them? Unethical, not illegal.

    Of course, back to the actual NYT quote, you'll note that they explicitly say his actions weren't criminal....yet you and Fluffmeister are still huffing and puffing as if they said he WAS a criminal.

  • Leroy||

    The problem is they said...

    “But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.”

    With that line of reasoning, my morning coffee is only legal because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize it.

    The piece of cake I had for dessert last night, well it was only legal because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize it.

    That cigarette I smoked earlier today, well I can count myself among the felony-free populous only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize smoking.

    Oh, and Tulpa you're an idiot.

  • ||

    OK, smart guy, you tell me why any of these things are legal.

  • Leroy||

    The problem is they said...

    “But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.”

    With that line of reasoning, my morning coffee is only legal because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize it.

    The piece of cake I had for dessert last night, well it was only legal because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize it.

    That cigarette I smoked earlier today, well I can count myself among the felony-free populous only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize smoking.

    Oh, and Tulpa you're an idiot.

  • ||

    The only reason happiness isn't a crime is because Congress hasn't outlawed it yet. But they seem to be working on it.

  • Fluffy||

    How about an officer saying it's illegal to record them? Unethical, not illegal.

    As I have said before, I favor a federal law making it obstruction of justice and a civil rights violation for police to attempt to impede a citizen recording an arrest or other police action. Actually, given how widely the existing obstruction statutes have already been stretched, a new law may not be necessary and an enterprising prosecutor seeking to make an example of someone might be able to make charges stick in these cases even now.

    I really think you don't get what the Times is doing here, Tulpa. They basically are saying that Delay already is a criminal and that the only reason he technically hasn't broken any laws is because the legislature has temporarily overlooked the type of conduct he engaged in. If you don't find their formulation here sleazy, I'm frankly surprised.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    So, Tulpa, are you saying that anything unethical should also be illegal?

  • ||

    ""It is not lawful for them to make the arrest.""

    Just nitpicking,

    The phrase was, "threaten to arrest". Which is very different than arrest. I'm not so sure that an officer threatening to arrest you is unlawful, even absent a crime. Remember it's not necessarily unlawful for them to kill you because they made a mistake.

    Just sayin.

  • Fluffy||

    If I was at a company meeting where people were talking about a potential state investigation, and someone there said, "You all better delete all your email or I'll make sure you get raped!" it would be an open and shut case of obstruction of justice.

    If I'm videotaping police activity, I'm recording the actions of the perp and the actions of the officers. I'm capturing either evidence of criminal activity on the part of the perp or on the part of the officers. How it can possibly not be obstruction to order me to not create such evidence or to destroy it once it exists is beyond me. But since our quisling courts refuse to recognize pretty simple and plain facts, I'd like to see it written into a statute.

  • ||

    “But many of Mr. DeLay’s Tulpa's actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.”

    Hey Tulpa, lick my ass.

  • ||

    See, I don't get what the huff and puff is about. The attempted "gotcha" edit there is actually something I would agree with, so long as we're not talking about constitutional rights and such (which Mr DeLay's activities DON'T involve).

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Then why would they have written it, if it as vacuous as you are interpreting?

  • ||

    “But many of Mr. SugarFree's actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.”

    As a phrase, it means basically nothing. Good job, NYT.

  • ||

    But it implies that you are a criminal. Otherwise why say that? It is the implication that is important. You are a criminal Sugar Free, it is just that the government hasn't gotten around to dealing with people like you.

  • ||

    It's just a matter of perspective... I've always known that the Baboons of Congress could make anything illegal on a whim. I've seen them do it too many times not to.

    This won't even been in the top ten stupid things that the NYT says this week by, say, Thursday.

  • ||

    It is the ultimate, we can never admit we were wrong statement. The case never even got to trial. But the NYT can't admit that it was wrong about Delay being a criminal as opposed to a typical sleazebag Congress creature. So, they say something stupid and meaningless like that to avoid stating the obvious.

  • ||

    We aren't in disagreement, John. It just takes a move more dickish from the NYT to really shock me anymore.

    Any organization that would employ Krugnuts is capable of more assholery a simple Kentuckian like me can conceive.

  • ||

    This is a dog bits man story. No question.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Nope. Nope.
    “But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.”
    That's easily one of the stupidest things to be written in the NYT, or anywhere else, for that matter. It's a thing of breathtaking, almost diabolical, stupidity. You gotta work hard to achieve that kind of stupid.

  • ||

    You are a criminal Sugar Free, it is just that the government hasn't gotten around to dealing with people like you.

    Chill out. It's a long list, but it's getting shorter. We're just about done with smokers, then as soon as we finish with the fatties, we can go after the AbsentSweeteners.

  • ||

    I have links!

    Women rally to go topless
    America: Not So Sure We Like Mosques Anymore... or it's possible that we can't tell the difference between a community center and mosque.
    Lulz

  • ||

    HTML fail.

  • ||

    I used the right code. Fuckin' squirrels.

  • Brett L||

    You have link styles.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    You have SF's disease. The only cure is hours of gore porn and a non diet Mexican Coke.

    Make that two

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Minneapolis cops abuse zombie rights under the rubric of the War on Terror.

    Minneapolis will pay $165,000 to Zombies

  • Rich||

    they were arrested by police who said they were carrying equipment that simulated "weapons of mass destruction."

    So, how long until we get arrested for driving equipment that simulates "car bombs"?

  • Fluffy||

    The first law of copdom is abuse first, justify later.

    "Hey, you shot that poor guy who was just out mowing his lawn!"

    "He could have run the lawnmower at me and done a wheelie and chopped me to bits. I was defending myself!"

  • ||

  • Warty||

    You are a champion at purposefully missing the point and at picking retarded fights over nothing for no reason. Way to go.

  • ||

    One man's retarded fight is another man's glorious crusade.

  • Brett L||

    Way to drive home Warty's point.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Were the Retard Crusades before or after the Children's Crusade

  • ||

    At the time of The Crusades, retards where a precious natural resource in Europe and not to be squandered on Middle Eastern adventurism.

  • ||

    Retards are still a precious resource. Who else you gonna get to vote for Obamacare?

  • ||

    Go home and fight with your mother, bitch. I come here to read about Libertarian thought, not the impotant sparing of some useless cunt. Really, go fuck yourself.

  • ||

    @ Tulpa, not you my Beautiful Wartster.

  • Byron||

    You are a champion at purposefully missing the point and at picking retarded fights over nothing for no reason. Way to go.


    I prefer the term "disingenuous asshole" for Tulpa, as it is more succinct and perfectly apt.

  • ||

    From the article:
    I feel great that the city is being held accountable for the actions of their police,

    I'd feel better of the police were held accountable for the actions of the police. Otherwise, it's simply another instance of the taxpayers taking it up the ass while the machine continues on unabated.

  • ||

    ""I'd feel better of the police were held accountable for the actions of the police. ""

    I would too. But I can't really disagree with the public being held accountable for what public officials do in their name. If the public has a problem with it, they can take it up with their elected officials. But in reality, the public is getting what they asked for, a tough on crime society that gives crime fighters a special star next to their name that makes them a super-citizen.

  • Warty||

    Stupidest link of the day

    I particularly like the 100.

  • Corduroy||

    Cool graphics but I think they're a little premature. We'll be issuing new currency as a matter of need in about 15 years.

  • ||

    I particularly like the 100.

    What better way celebrate the proximate cause of so many having so few of them?

  • Ragin Cajun||

    The Obama bill anchors their sweeping concept for redesigning U.S. banknotes, which also includes plastering a tepee on the five, the Bill of Rights on the 10, and FDR on the 100 -- each in its own technicolor hue.

    So the only Presidents on the bills would be Obama and FDR? Geez Louise, that is some wishful, wishful thinking.

  • SIV ||

    Woodrow Wilson is already on the $100k bill so no need to change that.

  • ||

    The 10 is rather fun, you have to admit.

  • ||

    I see a nationwide movement to black out the 2nd with a Sharpie. "Not on MY money!"

  • ||

    Ha! Excellent work.

  • waffles||

    those bills are practically puking political correctness. I like it!

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Except for calling the Ojibwe the Chippewa. Maybe that is OK nationwide, but the res that I grew up near changed to the Ojibwe when I was a kid and are very touchy about it.

  • Chris||

    Did you read the comments?
    "Here's an idea, let's put Obama on the $5,000 bill. By the time he's through with the economy, that will likely be the smallest denomination with any spending power left."

  • ||

    Where is the whiskey bottle on the $5 bill?

  • ||

    Skip all the other shit, but can we get the bill of rights on every denomination?

    Now that I'm using currency for toilet paper, it would only be appropriate to wipe my ass with the BoR daily.

  • Timothy Geithner||

    What a waste. Everyone knows what really should be redesigned is the *penny*.

  • ||

    “But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.”

    This is what makes the New York Times a great newspaper.

  • ||

    On the ten dollar bill, we find

    4) The Right of Search and Seizure

    Yay Bill of Rights!!1

  • ||

    You gotta work hard to achieve that kind of stupid.

    Actually, once you accept the notion that all rights are granted by the State, it writes itself.

  • ||

    Exactly.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    ^^^^^^THIS!

  • WS||

    "Is he saying people are poor because they don't have any hygiene or any skills?"

    Could someone possibly be making a connection here? NAH!

  • hmm||

    Pauly Krugnuts confused about the difference between "giving" and not taking money.

    Or we’re told that it’s about helping the economy recover. But it’s hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and aren’t likely to spend a windfall.

    and

    How can this kind of giveaway be justified at a time when politicians claim to care about budget deficits?

  • ||

    Ah, see you missed the part about "when politicians claim". That shoulda been your 1st clue that its bullshit.

  • ||

    Whom do we credit for Paulie Krugnuts? It's tied with Mr. Brooks' "Krugabe" as being the most cogent.

  • hmm||

    It is from some genius' comments from another board. The name was mentioned here in an article.

  • hmm||

    It has the perfect assclowniness to derision ratio.

  • Paulie Krugnuts||

    "Austerians" are the new "tenthers".

  • ||

    Here's a surprise!

    FDA commissioner says agency needs more authority

    Food and Drug Administration chief Margaret Hamburg, beset with an egg-and-salmonella food safety challenge, said Monday the agency must move from a reactive to preventive enforcement strategy.

    Giving a series of network interviews in the wake of some 1,300 salmonella cases from tainted eggs, Hamburg said the FDA is taking the issue "very, very seriously." At the same time, she said Congress should pass pending legislation that would provide her agency with greater enforcement power, including new authority over imported food.

    ...

    She also had some practical advice for consumers: Reject over-easy eggs. She said that as federal investigators continue their work with the companies involved, consumers should strictly avoid "runny egg yolks for mopping up with toast."

    Looks like the days of telling sexually aggressive women, "the only thing I like over easy is my eggs" are themselves over.

  • ||

    consumers should strictly avoid "runny egg yolks for mopping up with toast."

    The Nanny is strong with this one.

  • Virginia||

    but but but the USDA's FSIS tests every facility!!??

    sweet, another fecal farm gets busted and the FDA will choose to fuck with small producers.

    FUCK the worthless FDA.

  • ||

    The FDA needs more power!

    Double the budget.

  • ||

    Now that the government is going to be footing the bill for everyone's medical care, they have justification to outlaw all egg types but scrambled. (While not dangerous for salmonella, hard-boiled is forbidden because it's easy to disguise soft-boiled as hard-boiled)

  • ||

    Coincidence!

  • Jason||

  • Byron||

    I like the cut of your jib, Ron Paul. Try to teach little Rand something on this issue, please.

  • RyanXXX||

    They're really pulling all the stops on Assange, huh? He's much too high-profile for them to just "eliminate," and there's always that big ol' INSURANCE file he has.

    So they try to smear his reputation like they did with Bradley Manning. Good for Sweden for not COMPLETELY bending over for us

  • Pip||

    "He's much too high-profile for them to just "eliminate," and there's always that big ol' INSURANCE file he has."

    No he's not. He'll be made an example of what happens when you do this shit. He won't make it to Christmas.

  • RyanXXX||

    Really? DId Woodward and Bernstein get killed? Howabout Dana Priest?

  • a||

    When can we expect Moynihan's next piece on Julian Assange's paranoia?

  • 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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement