A.M. Links: DeMint Supporters Back Romney En Masse, Democrats Prepare for Bain Assault, Solyndra Employees to Receive Bonuses

Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates.

New at Reason.tv: "3 Takeaways from the New Hampshire Primary"

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.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Dread Cthulhu, without whom this accomplishment would not have been possible.
    Fist!

    And I see that Riggs is once again late. Was it 2-for-1 at Madame’s Organ last night?

  • Polar Bears didnt get memo !||

    Polar bears turn cannibalistic as climate change depletes arctic food supply
    Hunting grounds melt, animals feast on their own~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Dwindling Arctic Sea ice is cutting off polar bears’ food supply, forcing the starving animals to devour their own kind. While cannibalism among polar bears isn’t unheard of, experts say the behavior is becoming increasingly common.

    “There are increasing numbers of observations of it occurring,” photojournalist Jenny Ross told BBC News. “Particularly on land where polar bears are trapped ashore, completely food-deprived for extended periods of time due to the loss of sea ice as a result of climate change.”

    Ross explained how the higher temperatures melt ice more quickly, leaving the bears less time to fuel up on ice-dependent seals, the animals’ main source of food.

    “Weights of adults are decreasing, litters are smaller, fewer young bears are surviving, and the overall population size is shrinking,” she said.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....-1.1004751
    _

    Deniers have been advised many times to include [PUBLIC NOTICE TO ANIMALS] that climate change is cancelled !

    >From crains wintering in northern europe to blue whales & sharks in alaskan waters and now polar bears...all never informed about the cancellation.

  • ||

    BBC News? Ho ho, that's pretty funny.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    It's not so much the BBC News angle that makes the story suspect it's

    “There are increasing numbers of observations of it occurring,” photojournalist Jenny Ross told BBC News.

    [italics mine]

    So, Auntie Beeb is relying on the anecdotal observations of a photojournalist who is more than likely already convinced of the "scientific consensus" and reporting this as though it were fact.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The science is SETTLED!!

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    Of course, because we know that the scientific credentials of this photojournalist are impeccable.

  • ||

    Deniers...nice! So what are they denying? Warming or man-made warming? And if only the latter, how does polar bears starving prove the latter?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I for one can't wait to see the British vineyards.

  • Old Man With Candy||

    The British will do for wine what they've done for food, dentistry, and automotive electrical systems.

  • ||

    due to the loss of sea ice as a result of climate change

    I'm not seeing it:

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/e.....extent.htm

  • WTF||

    That's because you're a denier and want the polar bears to die, you monster.

  • AlmightyJb||

    They are the greatest threat to humanity.

  • ||

    where's a nice, meaty Occupy the Arctic protester when you need one?

  • Northwest passage||

    Ice free baby! Now those coast guard cuties cant ignore me anymoar.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I'm not seeing it:

    What do you see when you look at that graph?

    I see earlier years staying at the top of the distribution and later years at the bottom. That would indicate a loss over time. Now, of course, I would like to see some numeric analysis to determine the importance of that trend, but the graph certainly shows a loss of sea ice.

    These graphs may be more informative.
    http://arctic-roos.org/observa.....-in-arctic

  • ||

    I would like to see RC's graph with more than just 9 years of data points, but yes it does appear there has been a slight loss over time (every year graphed is still pretty tightly packed around the 12-13 range at the beginning and end of each year though). The question that pops into my mind is: So what?

  • Old Man With Candy||

    What about the same graph for the Antarctic?

  • ||

    ssssh! you'll ruin the magic show...

  • ||

    Both sets show 2007 was the worst year, 2003 the best, and the rest just kind of a tangle in the middle. I don't see how you get a trend out of that.

    The bottom set on NM's graphs show a reduction from an older average, though.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Both sets show 2007 was the worst year, 2003 the best, and the rest just kind of a tangle in the middle. I don't see how you get a trend out of that.

    Your graph shows the 5 lowest years being 2007 through 2011, and the 5 highest years being 2002 through 2006. Hardly a tangle, even if a few years break out of rank order.

    For more details, you might go here.
    http://arctic-roos.org/Members.....2-2008.pdf

    Here we directly compare observed variations in arctic sea-ice extent and CO2 since the beginning of the 20th century, identifying a strengthening linkage, such that in recent decades the rate of sea-ice decrease mirrors the increase in CO2, with r ~ –0.95 over the last four decades

    This should be a nice test case for the nuanced correlation versus causation discussion, since there is an existing hypothesis about a well understood physical mechanism to explain the correlation.

    Ready...go.

  • Bok Sux||

  • ||

    Runway models are 15 year olds hooked on coke. Everyone knows that.

  • ||

    indeed. I haven't seen a decent runway model since the 80's.

    Miss America's look healthier than 90% of the runway.

  • ||

    I me the current Miss America a few months ago. She has a fantastic body. Certainly thin and in shape. But not without curves.

  • Ice Nine||

    Did you get the "accomplishing world peace" issue worked out?

  • ||

    You know, she is the sweetest most lovely young women I have ever met. She really is Miss America. She is this beautiful blond with big blue eyes. She is from some little town in Nebraska. Her dad is a doctor and she is one of like six and was home schooled. Very smart. Extremely nice. And more than a bit naive. She really is Miss America. Even a cynic like me had to love her.

  • ||

    I know a recent Miss DC who interned with my old .org. She had a set of legs on her that never quit, on top of her incredible bod.

  • Ice Nine||

    Birth defect, or what?

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Bwahahahaha

  • ||

    Yeah, yeah, that was the 4th rewrite of that post, to get it past the fucking spam filter, which clearly has an inferiority complex about pageant queens.

  • ||

    BMI is bullshit, of course, but every day I get to see (and interact with) ridiculously hardbody mothers here in the Czech Republic. The idea that these hot hardworking hardbody mommys are unhealthy is simply ridiculous.

  • ||

    Pix or it didn't happen, PS.

  • ||

    You are hereby made a charter member of hot-czech-mommas.com with a small investment you can be a very rich man, or at least get the chance to 'screen' all the photos firsthand. An initial investment is required.

  • ||

    I have been to Prague. He is not lying. I want to move there. The one communist five year plant that worked was the one to boost production of incredibly hot women.

    What do you do there PS?

  • Chupacabra||

    They made hot Czech women in a plant?

  • ||

    A secret Soviet one.

  • ||

    I'm trying to think of which body parts I wouldn't part with, to work as a stage hand on Viv Thomas productions.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    I can think of one in particular.

  • anon||

    Considering BMI means absolutely jack shit, I am not impressed.

  • ||

    My BMI is now comfortably above 30. Obesity, motherfuckers!

  • ||

    BMI's lean towards saying someone's fat, so if your anorexic on a BMI scale, holy crap

  • Lord Humungus||

    yeah, I'm considered 'overweight'. To slip into the 'normal' range, I would have to lose ~15 pds - of Dutch leg muscle.

  • ||

    dibs on "Dutch Leg Muscle" as a band name.

  • ||

    ...I would have to lose ~15 pds - of Dutch leg muscle.

    Stop wearing those heavy wooden shoes.

  • Lord Humungus||

    but the make a nice der-glocken-clocken noise.

  • WTF||

    'Twenty years ago the average fashion model weighed 8% less than the average woman. Today, she weighs 23% less.'

    Of course, today the average woman is a freakin' land whale.

  • ||

    That is a bit harsh. I wouldn't say the average woman is a land whale. There are more out there than there used to be. But there still are a lot of hot women.

  • WTF||

    No doubt, but the higher percentage of fatties skews the stats to a heftier 'average'.

  • ||

    The problem is you can't see the two skinny ones hiding behind el tubo.

  • Abdul||

    Oh, they're behind her? I thought Katya ate them.

  • Chupacabra||

    They weren't battered and deep fried.

  • Brett L||

    Eh. If the average fashion model stayed the same weight, and that weight were 100lbs, that means that the average woman has gone from 110 to 125 lbs.

  • ||

    I hereby decree that all runway models must look like this from this day forth.

    http://www.popoholic.com/2012/.....ieve-damn/

    (Warning, site may be NSFW)

  • Abdul||

    Don't worry, John. Box Sux is just shilling for Big Model.

  • ||

    But I thought "Big Model" was an oxymoron.

  • ||

    And the plus-sized magazine, Jezebel, will be the first to tell you that BMI is complete horseshit, when it serves their purpose to do so.

    (Yes, yes BMI is complete horseshit... You Anti-BMI cultist don't need to pepper me with links.)

  • RoboCain||

    But their touring bikes run forever.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Many professional athletes meet the BMI criteria for obesity, too. BMI is simply one measure of health that means nothing in isolation.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Yep! When I was losing about 3 to 4 pounds a week on a high-fat diet, my doctor asked me what my weight goal was. "BMI under 30; not obese." He advised against me going below 33 with my build.

  • Chupacabra||

    Well sure.

    The average MLB pitcher and NFL lineman are fat fucks.

  • Ice Nine||

    Hair aside, you can immediately tell that one of them is a woman. 'Nuff said.

  • Wise Ass||

    Jeez, for a website called Male Fixations...

  • Bok Sux||

    Liberals Love Their Daddy
    Twelve years ago, I wrote an article entitled “Electing Our Daddy,” which pointed out that every four years Americans go to the polls not just to elect a president bur also to elect a daddy, one who will take watch over them and take care of them, send them to their room when they put bad things in their mouths, force them to share with others, and protect them from the boogeyman.

    Well, you’ll never guess what happened this week. A liberal named Carl Gibson wrote an article inappropriately entitled “Grow Up, Ron Paul,” which, hilariously, confirms what I stated in my article.

    The reason that Gibson’s article is inappropriately titled is because it suggests that Ron Paul’s (and libertarians’) desire to end the paternalistic state reflects that he’s not “grown up.” Gibson thinks a grown up should want the government to care of adults just as a parent takes care of his children....

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Carl Gibson is a spokesman and organizer for US Uncut, a nonviolent, creative direct-action movement to stop budget cuts by getting corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. He graduated from Morehead State University in 2009 with a B.A. in Journalism before starting the first US Uncut group in Jackson, Mississippi, in February of 2011.

    Nuff said

  • School Cheer||

    Morehead, Morehead, Morehead!
    Gimme Morehead 'til I'm dead!

  • Pip||

    It's an Indian word.

  • The Media||

    Kravin Morehead is my free name.

  • Abdul||

    US Uncut? Some sort of anti-circumcision lobby?

    Nannystaters, you can pry my circumcised shaft from my cold, dead hands!

  • ||

    B.A. in Journalism

    nonviolent, creative direct-action movement

    I think I know all I need to know.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I'll bet you Carl Gibson couldn't tell you the last time government spending actually went down on either a real or inflation-adjusted basis.

  • ||

    Shorter liberals, stop whining and listen to what our betters tell you.

  • o3||

    because gibson is teh lub-rahls eh? >at least its not a "they this & they that" kinda post

  • Pip||

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The reason that Gibson’s article is inappropriately titled is because it suggests that Ron Paul’s (and libertarians’) desire to end the paternalistic state reflects that he’s not “grown up.”

    It's not paternalistic, it's maternalistic. It's no coincidence that the more power women have gained politically, the more intrusive, scolding, and controlling the government has become.

    There's a reason it's called the "nanny state," after all.

  • o3||

    interesting thought

  • Lurker Jack||

    Absolutely, we give 'em the vote and we get two world wars, a great depression, war on terror, great recession, nannystate as far as the eye can see...and metrosexuals!

  • db||

    I thought DeMint like d some libertarian ideas? If this is a revvolt by his advisors hr should fire them all immediatwly.

  • ||

    He just figures Romney is going to win and doesn't want to endorse the losing candidate.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    In other words, he's spineless like the rest of Congress.

  • ||

    They didn't get there by having principles.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    It would be nice if somehow they grew their testicles back after being neutered by the party nominating process.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Either he's someone to never take seriously or the powers that be had a "conversation" with him about that statement he made.

    Both seem incredibly plausible.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    He's all about libertarianism but he's not about to throw his endorsement away. Come on.

  • ||

    He's more about corralling libertarians on the reservation. His record of voting definitely speaks otherwise.

  • Shorter Jin DeMint||

    We should say that we need to endorse some libertarian ideas so that maybe enough Libertarians will vote for Romney.

  • ||

    See Lucy Re:Football...

  • ||

    He's all about libertarianism but he's not about to throw his endorsement away.

    At some point, if you're all about X, you have to support X.

  • SIV||

    DeMint didn't endorse Mittens. It's just some guys no one outside SC GOP circles ever heard of. They may be "advisors" but the Senator doesn't sign their checks.

  • SIV||

    DeMint backed Romney in 2008 but has remained neutral in this presidential race.

  • anon||

    To be fair, Romney was the most conservative candidate at the time with a chance of winning.

    I mean, at least he didn't endorse McCain.

  • ||

    1. Who wants "advisers" whose opinions are an exact mirror of their boss? Yes-men are no very useful.

    2. Did DeMint endorse Paul or anyone else?

    3. Who is surprised that professional GOP insiders are endorsing Romney?

  • db||

    1. Who wants a group of advisors who as a monolithic whole endorse a candidate that is the polar opposite of ideas you profess to like?

    2. Not the point.

    3. Not surprised, but I'd still fire them if i were him, at least after ask gg them WTF they were trying to prove buly doing this as a group and vsry publicly.

  • db||

    1. Who wants a group of advisors who as a monolithic whole endorse a candidate that is the polar opposite of ideas you profess to like?

    2. Not the point.

    3. Not surprised, but I'd still fire them if i were him, at least after ask gg them WTF they were trying to prove buly doing this as a group and vsry publicly.

  • ||

    Minor threadjack but another reason to like RP:

    How to keep Paul and his supporters inside the tent is a problem now vexing party elders.

    "The thing about Ron Paul is, what does he want that we have?" Holt asked. "He has never been someone who was interested in being co-opted or in trading and dealing."

    "When I was a staffer in the Republican leadership in the House (of Representatives), whenever we were trying to find votes for whatever we were doing, he would tell us how he was voting and that was that.

    "There was nothing he wanted that we could offer him in exchange for his vote."

    http://news.yahoo.com/republic.....3QD;_ylv=3

  • ||

    The glory of unionism

    – private sector employees compensation growth in real dollars during the period 2000-2010 grew by more than 11% annually in right-to-work states, and by less than 1% in “forced unionism” states;

    – during the same period, growth in manufacturing GDP (in 2005 dollars) grew by 18.6% in right-to-work states against 8.3% in forced unionism states; and

    – private sector employees’ cost-of-living adjusted compensation was actually greater in right-to-work states than in forced unionism states in 2010.

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/in-rig.....-on-npr/2/

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    I think that the 1st and 3rd data-point probably hinge on the 2nd.

  • ||

    True. But it is hardly a surprise that when you run off and extort every business you can, you have fewer businesses.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    And that, if businesses move to a state for favorable conditions, demand for workers will increase and so will their compensation.

    My point is that it is unlikely that these states would have better salaries, etc, if every state was a right-to-work state.

  • ||

    Yes they would. Right now the competetive advantage of right to work states is giving right to work states higher incomes. If everyone was right to work, the states would be more even meaning the union states would rise.

    Further, since right to work creates more productivity, the overall well being of the entire country would improve. Universal right to work would not only allow the union states to catch up, it would make the entire country better off.

  • ||

    My point is that it is unlikely that these states would have better salaries, etc, if every state was a right-to-work state.

    How do you figure? These right-to-work companies are making bank by undercutting union salaries, presumably by as much as they can. The floor on their wages is what other non-union companies pay. I'm not sure I can see how union salaries have any affect at all on their pay scales.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    My assumption, and I could be wrong, is that the increased compensation in right-to-work states is due to increased demand for skilled labor.

    The increased demand, I'm also assuming, is due to companies moving to these states for their favorable regulatory environments.

    So I conclude that if all states were right-to-work, companies would be unlikely to move, and there would be no increase in demand for skilled labor.

    But, as I said, my premises are arguable.

  • MNG||

    Surely the "correlation doesn't mean causation" folks will chime in here.

    Surely.

  • ||

    It doesn't have to mean that. But it can. And in the absence of another plausible explanation, it probably does.

  • MNG||

    So John, when you've screeched "correlation doesn't mean causation" in the past when correlations suggest something you don't like, you wereed just being...

  • ||

    Good you are stupid. Correlation doesn't mean causation means that it doesn't always mean causation. The fact is if there is causation there will certainly be correlation. Just not always the other way around.

    Between this and your bizzaro view of the South, you are really on a stupid bender this morning.

  • MNG||

    "Good you are stupid."

    Joes law.

    "Correlation doesn't mean causation means that it doesn't always mean causation. The fact is if there is causation there will certainly be correlation."

    I'm really enjoying this because I've made this same argument to you many times and you've glossed over it. But you didn't like the suggested result back then, so you just kept shrieking "correlation doesn't mean causation!" Now you discover nuance. lol

  • ||

    You are enjoying it because you are too ignorant and dishonest to make an argument.

    The fact is that absent another plausible explanation, correlation is a good indication of causation. You don't have another explanation and there probably is correlation. You don't like that. So you turn into an ass and start spouting nonsense hoping to change the subject.

    Why can't you ever make an honest argument? It can't be fun being the way you are. It can't be good for you. Is it that hard to admit that gee maybe unionism has not been a good thing? Are you that personally and emotionally tied to your views?

  • MNG||

    "You don't have another explanation and there probably is correlation."

    There are literally dozens, if not hundreds of ways states might be different that could explain this kind of thing. Differences in many areas of policy, geography, climate, culture, etc. But I've said that.

    "Why can't you ever make an honest argument? It can't be fun being the way you are. It can't be good for you."

    Like Clockwork. Jr. Hannity Talking Point # 31, it usually takes about five posts before John goes into this tiresome "take your meds" routine. Talk about changing the subject.

  • Shorter MNG||

    fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap...

  • Please...||

    ...explain what's really going on.

  • Fluffy||

    I think there is an argument to be made that the correlation they're finding isn't a positive one, but a negative one.

    The non-right-to-work states had farther to fall during the recession, because of their labor market distortions.

    So I don't know if this correlation "proves" that right-to-work is a pro-growth strategy. It could instead be "proving" that states with greater union participation fall farther and faster during recessions.

  • MNG||

    Oh I see, as long as the correlation is negative it DOES prove causation.

    Or something.

  • Fluffy||

    Um, no.

    I'm saying that the data may not be proving what the author wants it to prove - but may or may not prove something else instead.

    Which is pretty much indistinguishable from the statement "correlation is not causation".

  • Brett L||

    What else correlates? It could be taxation, it could be that salaries were much lower (although probably not 1/10th of union states) so they are growing by the same amount but different percentages. I can't think of a lot of low-tax, light government states that haven't enacted RTW laws, so what else could it be.

  • MNG||

    "so what else could it be."

    Are you being serious? There are myriad ways states in different regions are different from one another. It could be any of those.

  • Brett L||

    Yeah. I'm sure BMW's desire to be near the Redneck Riviera was the reason they built their plant in AL there instead of Michigan, NY or CA.

  • MNG||

    I don't know what to tell you, if you don't think our regions differ in many areas of policy, geography, education levels, climate, and other factors that a potential employer might consider I don't think I could explain it all to you in one morning...

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    You could be right. However, right-to-work and closed shop states aren't confined to one particular region. There are right-to-work states in the south, the midwest, and the southwest. There are close shop states in the northeast, the midwest, and the west coast. If we are seeing the same patterns across every geographic region, that would seem to suggest that regional factors don't explain everything that is happening. Of course, we could see something like big growth in the south and smaller growth in other regions, which would indicate that region factors are a big contributor. We'd have to look more closely at the data.

  • MNG||

    I'm not arguing that there isn't more nuance needed than shouting "correlation doesn't equal causation," I'm pointing out, and razzing, that many regulars here in the past have felt perfectly fine invoking simply "correlation doesn't equal causation" when the correlation suggests something they don't like.

    It got to be so bad there for a while that during such discussions I would just break in and say "there is a correlation between simply shouting 'correlation doesn't equal causation" and being stupid.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    MNG, BMW is in fucking Spartanburg, SC. Until BMW got there, there wasn't a whole hell of a lot there, and there still isn't. I can't tell you execatly what went into BMW's decision but the fact that SC was a right to work state was undoubtedly a very major factor. There is no other obvious reason to build a major plant there.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    IIANM, SC had for some time an outstanding system of vocational training. It was set up by Strom Thurmond (or else expanded by him) when he was governor. Interestingly enough, although there were separate schools for blacks and whites the schools for blacks were outstanding and produced welders and other skilled workers that were among the best in the country.

    Whether or not the schools survived the change away from vocational training, I can't say but a steel fabricator I worked for in the early eighties had deliberately established a plant in SC because the availability of what one of the managers called "fantastic negro welders".

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    BMW is in South Carolina. Mercedes is in Alabama. I believe Kia is in Alabama as well, and Honda is is Tennessee (I think). Funny how none of the successful foreign manufacturers decided to invest in Michigan, New York, etc.

  • NeonCat||

    Kia is in West Point, GA, right by the AL state line.

    Ford and GM used to have plants around metro Atlanta. Used to.

  • JEP||

    I believe AL has Hyundai as well.

    Though what's funny is that their immigration law is messing with the foreign car manufacturers. A Mercerdes exec got pulled over and didn't have his proper papers with him, so they hauled him to jail.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    That may be the case. What is your theory for the higher gains in right-to-work states? Simply saying causation does not equal correlation is not really convincing unless you've got another reasonable theory.

  • MNG||

    "Simply saying causation does not equal correlation is not really convincing unless you've got another reasonable theory."

    Again, it is nice of you guys to discover this nuance all of a sudden.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Again, it's nice of you to try to attribute a uniform behavior to everyone who posts here. Please try to find a post where I've ever said correlation doesn't equal causation.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Please try to find a post where I've ever said correlation doesn't equal causation and didn't give another reason for the correlation.

  • MNG||

    You know what, the fact that you yourself felt that you needd to immediately qualify your own challenge tells me that even if I did the work for you you'd find some other qualification. Suffice it to say I know full well that when a correlation suggests something people here don't like it's common for them to scream "correlation doesn't mean causation" as if that's all that need to be said. When it cuts the other way all this nuance breaks out.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    I got distracted and hit submit too soon the first time. I was simply finishing my initial post. I don't have a problem with saying correlation doesn't equal causation, but in the absence of another plausible link, that just seems like a cheap trick to ignore evidence that you don't agree with. If you look above, I actually agreed with you that regional factors could be an issue, but we would need a closer look at the data.

  • MNG||

    My point is states differ on a wide variety of policies, from transportation policy, to tax policy, to education policy. They differ in climate, they differ in geography, they differ in distance to attractive things like big cities, other business hubs, ports. And a lot of this stuff varies by region and varies together (i.e., states with different geographical features and climates and historical patterns of settlement might have different histories and interests which make for different tendencies in policies in many areas, any of which could have economic impacts).

  • Shorter MNG||

    fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap...

  • ||

    Correlation does not in and of itself prove causation, of course.

    The missing link is the mechanism by which the observed outcome results from the posited cause.

    Too often, that mechanism is assumed. Here, we have some plausible explanations. Feel free to attack the explanations, but simply chanting correlation does not equal causation feels, I dunno, denierish.

  • ||

    ^^This^^ We do have a mechanism. Businesses don't like being forced to deal with unions, so they move to other states and make more money which in turn translates into better wages and more wealth.

  • MNG||

    Sigh. People around here act like there is no easily searchable archive section.

    Some past threads of "correlation does not equal causation" with the shoes on other feet:

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/01.....tcontainer

    http://reason.com/blog/2010/12.....tcontainer

  • MNG||

    MNG|12.1.10 @ 10:25PM|#
    So yes in Stats 101 you get taught "correlation is not causation!" And it is technically true. But if you just repeat that mantra you forget something important, that correlation is not worthless. In fact correlation is one of the first and necessary signs of causation. More to the point in history and life as a practical matter you often don't get much more than correlation (because of the difficulty of "controlling" for shit). If you do something and something bad happens over and over most sane people will stop doing it rather than stomping their feet and declaring "correlation is not causation!!!"

  • MNG||

    MNG|6.1.11 @ 4:45PM|#
    It's stupid because people learn this phrase as if it has talismanic power or something, without understanding everything that goes on in statistics.

    Yes, mere correlation does not warrant a firm conclusion of causation. But correlation is a necessary sign of causation (along with the correct temporal order, etc), and in many situations where controls cannot be really used (for example, historical situations) it's sometimes the best we have. While it may not totally establish a conclusion it can be the case that not assuming a relationship indicated by correlations can lead to perverse practical paralysis.

    See, I've had to point out the very point you are making here many times. But I'm betting you can't find any instances of you (RC, John, et al.,), doing the same. This sudden discovering of the nuances of "correlation doesn't equal causation" is charming!

  • ||

    Shorter MNG. I have no response to an argument I don't like. So instead I will just obfuscate and spout nonsense hoping everyone forgets the original point.

    You are such a troll.

  • ||

    Not to worry, John. Soon enough, MNG will be assuming that some correlation proves some causation based on some feeble and easily-refuted mechanism, and we can rub his nose in this thread.

  • MNG||

    Again RC, are you SURE you went to Harvard? I guess as Woody Allen says "even Harvard makes mistakes." Because otherwise I think they would have taught you how to follow a basic argument. As my posts demonstrate, I've LONG argued this nuanced view of caustion and correlation. It's you and John and others that I've been arguing that TO.

    So you're right that probably pretty soon someone will get their nose rubbed in today's discussion, but wrong as to who that will likely be. The next time a correlation is pointed out that suggests something contrary to your ideological orthodoxy I can safely predict people here will get the chorus of "correlation doesn't equal causation" going again. The same chorus I've long argued against with arguments that you've suddenly discovered.

  • MNG||

    John's projection is almost as breathtaking as his inability to understand basic arguments.

    My original post was razzing you and others for suddenly discovering the nuances of correlation doesn't equal causation, nuances that I've long had to argue TO YOU. So by posting examples of that I'm changing the subject...how?

  • anon||

    So wait, let me get this straight; in the face of overwhelming evidence MNG's argument is simply "Causation doesn't equal correlation, therefore your entire argument is invalid."

    Epic troll. Everyone realizes that correlation does not equal causation; however, we do have substantial statistical evidence to corroborate the claim. There is not substantial evidence to make any other claim in this particular case; furthermore, being economics, the controls necessary to supply the proof you apparently desire are impossible to obtain.

    With that being said:
    Shorter MNG: Unions are good, I don't care what you say. derp.

  • MNG's Logic||

    I was driving shitfaced and ran my car into a pole; but it wasn't because I was shitfaced.

  • Shorter MNG||

    fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap...

  • Bobarian||

    Just because you can show lots of correlation in support of your hypothesis that MNG is doing this on purpose (being a troll).
    The actual causation could be that MNG just doesn't know how to argue. There appears to be a lot of correlation for that hypothesis as well.

  • ||

    this

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Taliban: Peace Talks Not Harmed by Orrinating Marines Video

    Sooo... basically they're like, "Oh, no. It's fine. This is totally what we do to your guys."

    Also: what peace talks?

  • Karzai's government||

    Karzai's government "strongly condemned" the video and called the actions by American soldiers ... "insane."

    They were supposed to throw their shoes at the corpses.

  • tarran||

    The Taliban and the U.S. have been talking about having peace talks for several years.

    Recently aspart of the groundwork, the Taliban opened a mission in Qatar. The big outstanding issue is that the Taliban want to negotiate with the U.S. directly, and the U.S. insists that the negotiations be between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance.

  • Fluffy||

    Or maybe they are thinking, "Man, if I had a choice between someone peeing on me after I'm dead, and someone blowing up my kids with a drone, I choose A."

  • Rob||

    Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe those soldiers just had enlarged prostates?

  • Loki||

    When you've got to go, you've got to go.

  • AlmightyJb||

    As long as they want to keep throwing acid in the faces of little girls trying to attend school, I have no problem with our marines using them for target practice with their rifles and their guns.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Hillary has been trying to surrender to those guys since before the new carpet smell was gone from her Foggy Bottom office.

    If this is not a hoax, I would go with Marine Paul V. Kane as the ring leader in the video. A few months ago he was point man in a New York Times editorial of how to reduce US debt to China: Sell the free Chinese to Peking in exchange for $1.14 trillion in debt (that is about $49,793.8708 per person).

  • Hit & Run||

  • Homeland Security||

    We monitored you more closely when Postrel was editor.

  • Bee Tagger||

    +1

  • Hit & Run||

    We monitored you more closely when Postrel was editor.

    Drink!

  • invisible furry hand||

    You know, for a blog called "Hit & Run"...

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Geebus, can we get rid of DHS now?

  • ||

    Oh, go look at the HuffPo story on it. It's full of: public domain, what do you expect, no big deal-type comments.

    It's sickening what partisans are willing to accept as long as it's their guy doing it to them. It it were Bush's DHS doing this, the leftosphere would be calling for his impeachment. When it's Obama, they say it's the price of being safe.

    Fuck every one of them in the ear with Max's dick.

  • RoboCain||

    This.

  • ||

    ""It's sickening what partisans are willing to accept as long as it's their guy doing it to them. It it were Bush's DHS doing this, the leftosphere would be calling for his impeachment.""

    Maybe. But I don't see an outrage on the right about this kind of stuff either. Where are the republican pols jumping up and down making a stink out of the issue.

    It's obvious, when it comes to data collection/domestic intel gathering, it's a bi-partisan affair.

  • ||

    Well, you can start by looking at Drudge's Main Page, and take it from there. Just a bit more outrage than, say, when Bush got the Patriot Act through.

    And those same Team Red dickheads that were clamoring for safety when the DHS came about are bitching like crazy now that it's being run by Obama.

  • ||

    ""Just a bit more outrage than, say, when Bush got the Patriot Act through.""

    There was outrage when Bush got the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act through? How many of those that voted for it lost their seat for doing so?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It is absolutely a bipartisan affair, except that leftists conditionally support it publicly, and only when their guy is in charge.

  • Loki||

    Which makes them much more hypocritical about it. We already knew the Team Red douches were "give up your freedom for security" dickheads. What's infuriating is that so many of Team Blue folks pretended to care about civil liberties right up until 1/20/2009. And of course, if the republicunts win the presidency this year they'll go back to feigning righteous indignation again on 1/20/2013.

  • ||

    ""Which makes them much more hypocritical about it.""

    Bullshit.

    They are both equally hypocritical about it. Both give it lip service when their party isn't in power.

    How much more lip serivce can you get than reading it in a session of Congress like you're planning to abide by it like the republicans in the house did.

    Both teams are falling over themselves to be the biggest violator of it.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Unemployment benefit claims jump after holidays
    http://www.usatoday.com/money/.....52512422/1

    The Labor Department says applications jumped 24,000 to a seasonally adjusted 399,000, the most in six weeks. That followed three months of steady declines that brought applications to the lowest level in more than three years.

    Applications typically soar in the first two weeks of the year. That's because companies are letting go of temporary workers brought on to help during the holidays. The department attempts to adjust for those patterns, but the data can be volatile.
  • ||

    Recovery winter baby.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    There will probably be a few of those in 9 months too.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Who could have predicted that the holiday shopping season was the reason for the employment gains? Who?

  • db||

    Yeah, this was foremost in my mind every time i read about how employment has been picking up lately.

  • ||

    "In other news, Obama has mandated year round X-mas. Those not purchasing X-mas gifts year round will be penalized. Those unable to afford unlimited X-mas gifts will be eligible for tax-credits."

  • ||

    "The new year-round holiday will be dubbed Xbamamas."

  • Lord Humungus||

    Commerce Clause, bitchez!

  • ||

    didn't you notice when Owebama was taking his bows for the lower unemployment, he had a big red bow covering his backside...

  • Bee Tagger||

    The department attempts to adjust for those patterns, but the data can be volatile

    Unless it stands in the way of good news, of course.

  • ||

    what's with the new found rounding to the nearest thousand in the numbers? also, what's with the perpetual upward revisions to the prior week's numbers? Is BOLS using 4th graders to do their calculations on the back of a napkin?

  • SFC B||

    It's cause they're blatantly gaming the system. If they were honestly compiling and reporting the data you'd expect to see the occasional downward revision. That the revised unemployment numbers are never revised downward says to me they're lying through their teeth.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I haven't looked at it, but if it's almost always revised upwards and that is consistent regardless of the administration, this could point to a systematic bias or some process flaw...

    Versus lying anyways...

  • o3||

    u guys are close to rooting against teh [JOBZ]. wonder why...hummmmmmm

  • Rob||

    And you are too, Urine. More unemployment benefits, please!

  • o3||

    cept i work & pay my taxes.

  • Brandon||

    Ackowledging that the job reports are consistently wrong is not the same thing as "rooting against jobs," dipshit.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Gee, and here liberals and the media were doing a victory lap last week on the jobs report--"signs of recovery! moar jobz! it's getting better! the silver lining of the cloud!"

    Employment/population ratio and labor participation rate > U3.

    Every single time.

  • Bok Sux||

    This showed up last night, but deserves a repost:

    Roman Catholic church's paedophile investigator jailed for possessing thousands of child porn images
    A Catholic Church child safety co-ordinator who was in charge of investigating sexual abuse allegations was jailed for 12 months today for internet peadophile offences....

    ...The revelations that the church hired a peadophile in a key child protection role will add to the controversy surrounding the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales over its handling of sexual abuse....

  • MNG||

    Kind of like a peadophile Dexter's dream job.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Christ on a cracker....

    Yet, my wife's cousins remain staunchly Roman Catholic. Have faith in the Church they say.

  • Abdul||

    If you read the article, you find that the Church hired him because it needed a social worker to interview complaining witnesses in historical allegations of abuse. They had no evidence that he had pedophilic tendencies when they hired him.

  • MNG||

    "They had no evidence that he had pedophilic tendencies when they hired him."

    It was only later they found out they had something in common.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Too bad for him he wasn't part of the priesthood

  • Chinny Chin Chin||

    If you read the article-

    I only got this far, but whatever your point was, I don't like it.

  • ||

    That Catholic Church really needs a schism. Rome's bureaucracy is completely tone deaf and out of touch.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    It hasn't quite gotten to levels of the Borgias yet, but it's pretty damn close.

  • Chupacabra||

    More orgies!

  • Michael S. Langston||

    It could be they see their growth and survival globally to be contained within countries other than the US... so that they do their level best to make things right, but the heads of the church will focus on other regions more than they ever will the US.

  • T||

    No, Christ is a cracker. Or wafer. Whatever you want to call that little piece of bread they transubstantiate during mass.

  • The Gobbler||

    en croute

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Is there an organization on this planet more outdated, outmoded, backwards and just generally obsolete than the Catholic church?

  • Abdul||

    Their predecessor is still around. Ask Him.

  • ||

    The FCC?

  • Brandon||

    DEA? ATF?

  • ||

    Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if someone investigating pedophilia had child porn on their computers and knew their way around the child porn darknets. In fact, I'd kind of expect it, since that's part of what he is supposed to be investigating.

    What I'd also expect is that they would be let people know in advance what they were doing, and why. Doesn't sound like this guy did that.

  • Abdul||

    It doesn't seem like the porn on his computer was part of his duties. The church hired him to interview adults who claimed to have been abused as children, not to gather physical evidence.

  • Pete Townsend||

    you said it, man.

  • Bee Tagger||

    In the meantime, the family’s dreams for Rand have created something else: A hostage. Terrified Republican leaders worry that Ron Paul will take his rowdy mix of Republicans and independents and run a spoiler third party campaign he hasn’t quite ruled out. Ron Paul, they are making clear, has nothing to lose – but his son’s career.

    Nice son you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to him.

  • ||

    after overcoming Mitch McConnell's opposition in his election bid, would Rand really feel threatened by the GOP deciding he was persona non grata?

  • ||

    Yes he would feel threatened, particularly if he has his own Presidential ambitions. Being the son and successor of the guy who won the re-election for Obama would make it real difficult to win the Republican nomination in 2016.

  • AlmightyJb||

    I'm not sure I agree that Rand would automatically be blackballed by voters because of something his dad did. I think the gop is using this to scare Paul into not running 3rd party.

  • ||

    Paul is not running as a 3rd party because he has a legitimate shot at the Republican nomination. If he comes in 2nd, he has a decision to make.

    Do everything to pull the GOP towards Libertarianism - or - toss it all away and probably throw the election to Obama.

  • ||

    True, but doesn't that presume that he believes his ambitions require alignment with one of two parties? An independent (party) movement might have built some traction by then?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I wouldn't be nearly as worried about Rand's phantom future presidential bid as I would about his Senate re-election in 2016.

    KY wouldn't have any of a Rand whose dad gave the election to Obama.

  • ||

    Ron Paul has always understood that there are two parties--and no more. That's why he's a Republican Congressman.

  • invisible furry hand||

    Is that why in every recent photo he's holding a newspaper and mouthing "help me"?

  • ||

    Rand might have to go back to selling glasses and contacts for a living?

  • Rand Paul||

    Dammit, Jim, I'm a Doctor!

  • MNG||

    "Sen. Jim DeMint's South Carolina advisors will all endorse Mitt Romney today."

    Ah, the good old, predictable South, lining up to support whoever the establishment tells them to. I guess it's nice to know that in this topsy turvy world there are still some things that will always happen.

  • ||

    Or maybe a politician who doesn't want to get caught on the wrong side of nominee. Because no one but dumb Southerners would do that.

    You really are profoundly bigoted and ignorant. It even surprises me sometimes.

  • MNG||

    South Carolina does this every time. They line up and vote for the establishment candidate even if he doesn't seem aligned with what they favor. I guess that shit goes all the way back to the War of Northern Aggression where the rich plantation owners told the average white guy they should go die for the right of rich plantation owners to own slaves and they lined up in droves and did so.

  • ||

    That is so stupid and bigoted it does not merit response. Every year people jump on the band wagon of who they think is going to be the nominee. It is how politics works. If you were not such a stupid NE hick, you would get that.

  • MNG||

    "That is so stupid and bigoted it does not merit response."

    And yet....

    "If you were not such a stupid NE hick"
    You can't get even the most basic, preliminary facts in an argument straight. I lived most of life in Virginia John, hardly the NE.

  • ||

    You live in the DC area, where the NE begins. And I am not making any generalizations or stereotypes. I am making a specific observation about you. You are a bigoted hick. Lots of people form the NE are not. But you are.

  • MNG||

    I live below the Mason-Dixon line and lived 37 of my 41 years in Virginia John. But that makes me "NE" in your mind. But, we can all see examples of what "your mind" thinks on a variety of subjects, so no surprises...

  • ||

    The Mason Dixon line is a old demarcation. Maryland was a Southern state in 1860, but it is not now. And the NOVA suburbs are not either. The NE begins at DC. It is called the "I 95 corridor" for a reason. And further, slamming an entire state for the entirely predictable actions of one politician makes you an ignorant bigot no matter where you live.

  • MNG||

    John, like I said, you can't even get the most basic facts right. You just assume things and based on what is just an assumption you build elaborate rants. Not only is Maryland not the NE, but where do you get the idea I live in DC? There is a lot of Maryland that isn't DC John. DC is quite a drive for me.

  • ||

    You live in the DC area, where the NE begins.

    [looks at map]
    [looks at John]
    [looks at map again]

    I'd probably stop now if I were you. There's got to be a cool discussion going on over at FoxNews you would feel more at home on.

  • ||

    It is called the I95 corridor you doofus. It runs from Washington to Boston. The NE begins in Washington DC. Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia are most assuredly NE cities. And the rest of Virginia is a hell of a lot different than the NOVA suburbs.

  • ||

    Jesus wept, John. Just say you overreacted and let it go. If the I-95 corridor extends into VA now, then you might as well say it goes all the way to Raleigh-Durham and start telling those people they're from the NE.

    Seriously, you're being foolish in sticking to this.

    Sincerely,
    A man who lived in Virginia for 10+ years of his adult life.

  • Rhywun||

    I'm a NE'er and I'm pretty sure DC is not NE - we don't want it, either.

  • MNG||

    One of my faves from John was this story where the LA DA did some stupid thing and John launched on one of his usual long, overly-passionate rants about the evils of liberal democratic urban prosecutors. Of course the DA ended up being a GOPer. John didn't miss a beat, he just changed subjects and kept on going.

    He's our Hannity. Do you think Hannity would be slown down by a little thing like claiming DC is the NE? Nope. He'd reload, not retreat ;)

  • ||

    That is it MNG, you said something stupid and got called out for it, so now change the subject and mention Hannity. That will work. Do you really think people on here are so stupid they don't notice this?

  • MNG||

    "you said something stupid and got called out for it"

    John, YOU said something stupid. You said DC is in the Northeast of our nation. And the only other person to comment on it, sloopy, hardly an ideological chum of mine, has pointed out it is stupid.

    Lord your projection knows no end!

  • ||

    You wrote a ten line rant about slavery and plantations in South Carlina and everyone there being mindless followers because DeMint endorsed Romney? Do you care to defend that? No you don't because you can't. Better to jump up and down and scream like an angry Monkey about the subjective question of whether DC counts as the NE.

    Some days you really do take the stupid pills.

  • MNG||

    "Better to jump up and down and scream like an angry Monkey about the subjective question of whether DC counts as the NE."

    Ah, now who is changing the subject because he said something stupid. And nice walkback there (going from arguing it is obviously the NE to admitting it is "subjective").

    "Some days you really do take the stupid pills."

    I didn't say Maryland and VA are the NE.

  • ||

    I didn't say that either. I said DC was. And it certainly is. Having lived in the South, it is certainly not the South. It is the I 95 corridor. There is no law of nature that determines this. It is a subjective question. And I am hardly the only person who considers DC to be part of the NE.

    Again, just pick a topic, anything, and start screaming and hope that no one notices how stupid your original comment was.

  • ||

    Its called the Bos-Wash corridor, and its pretty much Yankees from DC north. So, yeah, I think John's got a point.

    DC isn't New England (which may be what you knee-jerk John-haters are thinking) but it is definitely the Northeast in every way that matters.

  • MNG||

    Sloopy is a "knee-jerk John hater?" For pointing out John is simply wrong on something that you even concede ("DC isn't New England").

    I think it's more likely your "knee jerking" into a defense of an ideological bedfellow RC.

  • Zeb||

    "its pretty much Yankees from DC north"

    As a Yankee, I resent that. Most New Englanders shouldn't be called Yankees these days, let alone people form DC.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    It's no secret that NOVA (Northern Virginia for you heathens), which now consists pretty much entirely of suburbs that feed the D.C. beast, really is no longer part of Virginia proper - i.e., "the south." Much of it has become a model U.N. and overtaken by an invasion of northern-minded liberals. The area just outside the beltway is very "blue" indeed. There is a huge difference between the sensibilities of, say, Alexandria or Arlington and, say, Richmond.

    Charlottesville, being a big college town, also has become a bastion of left-wing academics. A Volvo on every corner, it would seem, with Obama bumper stickers galore.

    But John generally is correct - is NOVA geographically "the northeast"? Arguably not. But as far as political sensibilities? Yeah, it's much more closely aligned with a NJ state of mind than with a Richmond, VA state of mind.

  • MNG||

    Oh, it's the NorthEast in a "political state of mind." Like Billy Joel is in a New York State of mind no matter where he's at. The guy could be in Singapore but he's really in New York....

    Look, he said the "NE." That's a geographical term. He didn't say "it's politically similar to the NE." When pressed he made an argument about a connecting highway. That wasn't a mindset argument he was going for.

  • ||

    NE is a geographical term and a subjective one. At what point does it actually begin? The Mason Dixon line? New York City? The Philadelphia suburbs?

    BSR made exactly my point. I consider Washington to be a NE city. That means culturally as well as geographically. It is afterall in the Northern and eastern halves of the country. That would make it "northeast" would it not?

    And again, you got called out for making an unbelievably bigoted and stupid statement. And your response rather than to take it back was to change the subject.

    That is just how you roll.

  • KDN||

    Culturally, the NE stops as soon as you can't get a decent piece of thin crust pizza. So while the Beltway is quite Northeastern in its politics and attitudes, it's really just a case of trying too hard to fit in. I wish they'd start voting Republican just to clear up any confusion.

  • ||

    ""NE is a geographical term and a subjective one.""

    If it's subjective, why are you arguing with people about their view of it?

  • ||

    I am not Vic. MNG is the one who freaked out. He is just changing the subject.

  • ||

    I'm gonna clear this shit up right here and now.

    DC is the Mid-Atlantic. The Mid-Atlantic is basically all coastal areas from Philly to Norfolk. The demographics, politics and general outlook of those areas are all quite similar. DC being the seat of the federal government is a bit of an outlier, but with the exception of those in government, the makeup of the area is pretty much in line with every other metro area I described.

    Get 60-80 miles inland from the Atlantic in any state from VA to PA, and you will see a totally different mentality and culture. You can't really say the same once you get to New Jersey on up.

    Again, this is just my opinion. But it happens to be incontrovertible. (Just kidding)

  • MNG||

    There are dozens of agencies, government and private, that group areas by region, and many that use the designation "Northeast." Can anyone point to even one of them that includes DC in that category?

  • MNG||

    The US Census places DC in the South, not the Northeast.

    http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf

    The FBI classifices DC with Southern states, not as a Northeastern state..

    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius20.....tions.html

  • ||

    Sloopy, the DC area and its burbs are effectively a northeastern city. Anywhere on I-95 between DC and Boston is. Yeah, DC is different that Delaware. But so what?

  • ||

    Sloopy, the DC area and its burbs are effectively a northeastern city. Anywhere on I-95 between DC and Boston is. Yeah, DC is different that Delaware. But so what?

    But so is Raleigh-Durham. Hell, so is Miami, FL for that matter.

    I'm sorry, but I just disagree. I'll leave it at that.

  • ||

    I agree with sloop here, Philly is a pretty good line of demarcation. DC as the Northeast made my eyebrow raise, but then again I think everything left of 128 is "Western Mass".

  • ||

    It takes two to argue.

  • MNG||

    "NE is a geographical term and a subjective one."

    Yeah, you were arguing a subjective, not geographical, use in pointing to them being connected by an interstate. Sure.

  • Shorter MNG||

    fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap...

  • Zeb||

    Nah, that's mid-atlantic. The NE starts in northern NJ.

  • MNG||

    Dude, John doesn't even say "Northeast" until several posts later. He said simply "NE." I wouldn't put it past him that he was arguing that DC was in New England.

  • ||

    You are such a petty child MNG. You really are pathetic. Again would you like to defend your ridiculous slander of South Carolina?

    Again, you were caught with your ass showing. Just pull your pants up and move on.

  • ||

    This is so classic MNG. He says something ridiculous, indefensible and embarrassing. Since I am the only one with the patience to pay any attention to him, I call him on it. MNG, knowing he can't defend what he said, immediately goes on the offensive and starts talking about some nitnoid point in my response. The plan being to divert attention from how stupid he is.

    Sorry MNG, your original post is still there for everyone to see. No amount of spamming the thread will change that.

  • Shorter MNG||

    fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap...

  • ||

    Aw, come on, John. Do you just hate MiNGe so much that you have to disagree with him when he points out an obvious truth?

    DeMint is going along for the ride because he's being told to. He has a hell of a lot more in common with Ron Paul philosophically than Mittens, and you know it. This immediate flip to the Romney camp is an orchestrated attempt by the GOP insiders to exert pressure on those that will hold the reins of power, should the GOP take the Senate over. DeMint is a coward that places self-preservation and -advancement over principle by supporting a guy who has almost nothing in common with him over the guy he shares around 80% of his values simply because he is deemed a threat by the establishment.

  • MNG||

    "Do you just hate MiNGe so much that you have to disagree with him when he points out an obvious truth?"

    That's a yes. More importantly, arguing against obvious truths is kind of what John does. That's what partisan hacks do a lot of the time.

  • ||

    Does it make you feel better to project MNG?

  • MNG||

    What am I projecting? You're an admitted partisan hack. You've said unequivocally that your GOP is ALWAYS and on EVERY ISSUE better. I've always said the opposite about the Dems.

    Need a refresher?

  • ||

    Of course he is being a coward. I never said otherwise. But he is being a coward because that is how politicians roll not because he is from South Carolina.

  • MNG||

    Well, my charge about S. Carolina is not based solely on this. This is just a confirming type of fact, along with the fact that in the past S. Carolina primaries S. Carolina dutifully lines up and pulls the lever for whoever the establishment tells them to. Even though S. Carolina is a socially conservative state they lined up and chose establishment candidates such as Bush I, Dole, McCain, and now Romney. That is what they do.

  • ||

    Your bigotries are based on other bigotries. WooHoo.

  • MNG||

    Past primary results=bigotry?

    Well, I guess if Dc is in the NE for you then pointing to past primary results could be a premise based on bigotry. It must be so freeing to free one's mind from basic facts before arguing!

  • SIV||

    DeMint is going along for the ride because he's being told to.

    Can you people even read?

    DeMint backed Romney in 2008 but has remained neutral in this presidential race

    Remained neutral, while making conservative media appearances touting Ron Paul and libertarian ideas early in the GOP primary season.

  • jacob||

    What do you mean by "you people?" !

  • ||

    Every year people jump on the band wagon of who they think is going to be the nominee. It is how politics works.

    If elections happened half as frequently, I would probably forget why I hate politics. Thanks for the reminder.

  • romulus augustus||

    Wasn't that Sen. DeMint on Fox this morning urging the GOP to take RP seriously and respond courteously?
    Suddenly they are scared that the treatment of RP ("no decent American, etc.") will cost them the 5% hardcore
    supporters that RP brings to the table.

  • ||

    To republicans (and democrats), we're just votes, not people.

  • o3||

    nope - to dems ur just republicans.

  • ||

    that's not what they tried to pull in '08.

  • ||

    Actually, to Dems we're just a source of income they can give to their supporters.

  • Bobarian||

    ^This^, most definitely this!

  • Brett L||

    Senator says nice things about Politician A who is in 2nd, staff endorses Politician B who is in 1st, senator endorses neither.

    Dog bites man.

  • SIV||

    And they're not even DeMint's staff. More like "fellow state party members".

  • ||

    Without getting into the bitchfest that is John and MNG, the headline of the article doesn't say DeMint was endorsing Romney, just advisors. It doesn't even say who the advisors are.

    But it is incredibly bigoted and douchey to lump all of the South together like you did MNG. We are not some monolithic constituency. Need I remind you that RP is from here.

    Now, if you want to say the same thing after Super Tuesday (if Romney does actually get the support of those states) then you might have a leg to stand on.

  • DJF||

    """Solyndra employees could receive bonuses of up to $50,000 in exchange for not quitting their jobs. "''

    Instead of giving them cash why not give them solar panels the company could not sell? After all the employees were saying that these are great products.

  • ||

    Yeah, they could give them each $100,000 worth of panels and let them sell them, tax-free, for half price. After all, they were the best product since the fleshlight, and would have been successful had those sneaky Chinks not screwed them over.

  • ||

    Tell me more about this so called "fleshlight" please. Exactly what are its capabilities? Is it expensive?

    CB

  • ||

    I read something about it on an, um, nature website a friend told me about.

  • Loki||

    A "biology" website, right?

  • Lord Humungus||

    The Bain Capital Bonfire
    Romney has a good story to tell, if he's willing to tell it.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....on_LEADTop

    The larger political point is that Mr. Romney has a good story to tell if he is willing to elevate this ugly rumble into a debate over free enterprise and America's future. This is not Mr. Romney's strength, as he prefers to talk in personal terms ("I'm an optimist!") or to lapse into his default mode as the corporate technocrat. This invites personal attacks in return and it leads him into mistakes like this week's gaffe that "I like being able to fire people who provide me services."

    Mr. Romney needs to rise above the personal and base his claim to office on a defense of the system of free enterprise that has enriched America over the decades and is now under assault. Mr. Obama will attack Mr. Romney as Gordon Gekko because the President can't win by touting his own economic record. Mr. Romney's GOP opponents (with the admirable exception of Rick Santorum) are embarrassing themselves by taking the Obama line, but Mr. Romney should view this as an opportunity to stake his campaign on something larger and far more important than his own business expertise.
  • Quetzalcoatl||

    With the exception of Santorum? I feel like there's another notable exception... perhaps a less "serious" exception...

  • Lord Humungus||

    what's his name again? I forgot. Rhymes with Saul or something.

  • Joe M||

    Ron Swanson

  • ||

    In defense of the WSJ, they did say GOP opponents.

  • MNG||

    " a defense of the system of free enterprise that has enriched America over the decades"

    Has it "enriched America?"

  • Third World||

    Has it "enriched America?"

    Why yes, yes it has.

  • DJF||

    It would enrich more if the government did not take 2+ trillion from it at the point of a gun.

  • MNG||

    I can understand that some of the Bain stuff is unfair. But one can be concerned about things like wealth distribution in America and some capitalist practices without being a socialist.

    When the company I work with got started we did business with some others that took a chance on us. They were loyal suppliers and or customers, and we had some loyal employees that took a chance and left jobs to come to us. During some down times for them and/or us we may have profite or recouped some losses by cutting these people loose, but my boss decide that these people stuck by us, we would stick by them. That doesn't make him evil, it makes him laudable imo, and it's not evil to suggest that if more people were like him this might be a better off nation. Sure, owners of companies have the right to be assholes, but that doesn't mean we have to celebrate it.

  • Fluffy||

    Actually, it wouldn't take a lot of effort to find lots of solid economic reasons why a boss would choose to act that way.

    But there's a distance between that kind of behavior and "the only justification for employers is the existence of employment" which seems to be the Democrat line.

  • MNG||

    "it wouldn't take a lot of effort to find lots of solid economic reasons why a boss would choose to act that way"

    Why strethc the concept of "solid economic reasons" to encompass things that don't seem like it to anyone involved? My boss told me he was going to take a hit and forego money for this, he thought it was simply worth it to live within his morals and "do the right thing." There is no sin in that imo.

  • Fluffy||

    There's a pretty big premium out there attached to trust.

    I'm not trying to assert that it's sinful. I'm saying the opposite: that we shouldn't immediately assume that the employer realizes no benefit from it and that it's altruistic, and therefore some kind of "anti-market" activity.

    A lot of things people do "because it's the right thing to do" end up being in their self-interest, rightly understood. That's why we talk about "rational self-interest" instead of just "self-interest".

  • MNG||

    I think that kind of talk leads to unfalsifiable and unuseful notions of "rational self-interest." It's a common problem of most forms of "psychological egoism."

  • Michael S. Langston||

    As long as your boss is the owner or has the backing of the owners or as Fluffy stated can prove real self-interest (like our downturn will be less than a year and laying off and hiring new workers will cost more in training, not to mention morale issues during the down time...) then it's actual immoral and illegal to keep people in jobs for which there is no money.

    Immoral, because if a real reason doesn't exist, all the boss is doing is sacrificing all other employees in the long term, as the business will inevitably close.

    Or, ff he doesn't own it, then legally, he has a fiduciary responsibility to the owners, and as such, without economic justification is acting against his contracted interests - both illegal and immoral.

  • Fluffy||

    I think we have different standards of what is "unfalsifiable".

    "God exists but has hidden himself away where we can never find him" is unfalsifiable.

    "Given sufficient facts about you and your situation, your rational self-interest is X" is not.

    To assert otherwise, you'd have to assert that there's no way to determine the truth value of the sentence "It is not in your rational self-interest for a piano to drop on your head and crush your skull right this moment."

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    It makes him laudable if he's spending his own money. If he has investors then he has to do what is best for the business, period. When I invest in a company I expect one thing from management: make my investment more valuable within the bounds of the law. If you want to be a social worker, then quit your corporate job.

    In any case, what you are talking about is a voluntary business decision. When you drift over into concerns about wealth distribution writ large, the spectre of government coercion is not far behind.

  • MNG||

    I believe in the fiduciary duty of management to increase investor's wealth, it's a good thing often and liberals are silly not to recognize this more. But that doesn't mean that a manager can't be motivated to some extent by other moral and civic considerations without being evil or crazy.

    This idea that management is supposed to maximize investor share and all other moral and civic values be damned is why so many people are wary of corporate involvement in politics. A human being with that kind of mindset is usually thought of as an asshole at best, a sociopath at worst.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    In many states there are statutes specifically permitting management to consider constiuencies other than the shareholders, and of course no one is against charitable contributions, community sponsorships, and the like. And it may very well make business sense to resist layoffs during a downturn. But IMO any action that impairs the long-run value of the business is a non-no, regardless of the social "feel good" aspect of the decision.

  • MNG||

    I actually agree with you more than you might think. Not laying off people and letting investors take a hit is not only not wise in the lng run (investors go bye-bye) but it also is wrong to the investor. It's like when you let someone else out when you are driving but screw the guy behind you...

    I'm just saying that it's not crazy or socialist to question the ethicality of some business practices, and the fact that investors profited from the practice doesn't always sheild it from any such criticism.

  • Joe M||

    But yeah, clearly, the WSJ is now the worst offender on ignoring Ron Paul.

  • ||

    Taranto's column yesterday just brushed Paul off with a couple of words about how he wasn't a serious candidate. I normally like Taranto, but this is starting to piss me off.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    For a former intern at a magazine called reason, etc.

  • ||

    US Uncut, a nonviolent, creative direct-action movement to stop budget cuts by getting corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.

    With puppets?

  • Ice Nine||

    video emerged that military authorities say appears to show U.S. Marines urinating on dead Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan.

    Who really gives a shit? Were that this were the worst atrocity that ever occurred in the history of warfare.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Yet another example of why we should not be using the military to establish a positive image of the USA abroad.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Hearts & minds, hearts & minds.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Good movie

  • Rich||

    Terminate your enemy with extreme prejudice, then treat the body with the respect it deserves.

  • Ice Nine||

    I'm sure those guys have very good reason to see the term "deserve" as subject to interpretation.

  • Average Afghani||

    Who really gives a shit?

    Umm... me, asshat.

  • Sparky||

    Why can't the US be just like economic powerhouse China?

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    The Rooster promises to bring these jobs back!

  • Foxconn = Gray Quarter||

    I used to build X-Boxes, but then I took a sidewalk to the head.

  • Solandrya Employee||

    I used to make solar panels, but then I took a 50K bonus to the bank.

    Stupid American taxpayers....thanks :)

  • db||

    At least the bonus gets taxed at the 25% lump sum rate so the govt still gets its kickback.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    It gets withheld at that rate, not taxed.

  • Ice Nine||

    That would be terrible if they jumped; how would they ever replace them?

  • Brett L||

    Isn't this the perfect example of global capitalism lifting all boats? I mean, not the committing suicide parts, but rather that the employees in fucking China have found a stick to beat their employer with for higher compensation.

  • Sparky||

    I thought that was pretty cool too. Although the next time they try it I suspect they'll just be shot off the roof and replaced.

  • Brett L||

    Not Foxconn workers. They make Apple stuff. Exploiting them for cheaper iPhones is one thing, but there are about 1M iPhone/pod/pad users who haven't been inducted to the inner circle of the cult yet who might buy Android.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Laffer: Class Warfare and the Buffett Rule
    Implementing a surtax on 'millionaires' would hurt just about everyone but the super rich like Warren Buffett.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....n_newsreel

    The "Buffett Rule" would not tax the vast majority of his shielded income, including either his unrealized capital gains, which are currently taxed at zero percent, or charitable contributions, which are tax deductible. If the "Buffett Rule" were applied as President Obama proposes, then Mr. Buffett's federal tax bill would have been $14.4 million, rather than the $6.9 million he actually paid. As a fraction of his true income, his effective tax rate would only have risen from 6/100ths of 1% to 12/100ths of 1%.
  • MNG||

    You mean the negative effects would...trickle down?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. The warm grandfatherly Warren Buffett is a myth. He would eat his own offspring if they stood between him and a dollar. He provides moral cover for those who provide him with what he wants, estate taxes.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    He wants estate taxes for everyone else. He has no intention of paying a dime in estate taxes himself. As Laffer's article points out, Buffett's gift to the Gates foundation is premised on the bequest being tax-free. He has stated that the various foundations to which he will bequeath his billions will be more efficient than the government. But he's just fine with the government inefficiently pissing away everyone else's money.

    The guy is an investing genius. Why anyone thinks that makes him a public policy wizard is beyond me.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    The guy is an investing genius. Why anyone thinks that makes him a public policy wizard is beyond me.

    Se also, George Soros (although, Soros is sound on drug policy).

  • Mitch||

    Old George is a leftist piece of shite.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    I'm no financeer, but isn't an unrealized capital gain not taxed because it is unrealized, and isn't actually a tangible gain yet? Much less calling it "income"...

  • T||

    Yup. Except for certain institutions who are required to 'mark to market'.

  • ||

    I thought mark to market was on the balance sheet, not the income statement, and didn't affect taxes. Could be wrong, though.

  • T||

    I believe you're correct, RC, in that it goes on the balance sheet. But everything affects taxes in some fashion.

    My biggest take away from b-school and working in business: if you see a business decision that is facially absurd, it was driven by tax or regulatory issues.

  • Brett L||

    Don't leave ego off the list for smaller companies.

  • Fluffy||

    One way that "unrealized capital gains being untaxed" can be said to favor the rich is that it favors mature enterprises and fortunes.

    To go from $0 to $1 billion, you're going to realize some of your capital gains. You're going to have taxable transactions. (Unless you start Facebook.)

    But if you are already a multi-billionaire, you can buy Exxon and never realize a capital gain again. You can just hold your assets and never turn them over.

    This has the effect of insulating existing fortunes from competition from "rising" fortunes. The income tax does the same thing. People who might rise up and aggregate income into capital and compete with existing holders of capital are hindered from doing so by the income tax, which makes it immensely harder to earn and save capital. (Which is one reason most people choose to borrow capital or solicit it in the stock market instead.)

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    To go from $0 to $1 billion, you're going to realize some of your capital gains. You're going to have taxable transactions. (Unless you start Facebook.)

    ____________________________

    I'm not sure about this. A company worth less than $1 billion is still a small cap concern, and the owners/founders starting to cash out is a horrible sign that will almost always tank the stock price. I doubt that Gates sold much stock before MSFT was worth well north of $1 billion, same for Google and lots of other companies. Now, of course, Page and Brin are selling regularly and paying millions in taxes.

    If the company is private, then there is often no opportunity cash out anyway.

    I suppose that when the founders ultimately diversify they can stash it all in Exxon and the like and never sell, but that rarely happens. At any rate a $1 million investment in Exxon would generate about $30k in annual dividends, which are taxable.

  • Fluffy||

    That is very true.

    All that I am saying is that the guy whose path to riches is:

    1. Start a restaurant and then sell it.
    2. Use profits to buy real estate and develop it, and then sell it.
    3. Use profits to start a small thrift, and then sell it.
    4. Use profits to start small manufacturer, and then sell it.

    ...will pay more in capital gains taxes then someone who already has billions invested in the world's largest insurance empire, if that billionaire never turns his holdings over.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    I'm no financeer, but isn't an unrealized capital gain not taxed because it is unrealized, and isn't actually a tangible gain yet? Much less calling it "income"...

    _______________________

    This is correct, but many liberals are chomping at the bit to classify an unrealized gain as income. It would be an administrative nightmare of epic proportions, since the unrealized gains and turn back into losses at a moment's notice.

  • ||

    That won't be a problem... treat it like gambling... winnings are taxed, but losses don't offset winning (beyond earlier winnings).

    CB

  • mad libertarian guy||

    How about not tax any of it considering most of it is already taxed at the corporate level?

  • MNG||

    Off today, is the new Mission Impossible worth matinee prices? Not lookin for Oscar worthy here, but don't want terrible.

  • Rich||

    Oh, it's not Oscar worthy, don't worry. Parts are entertaining, but you'll have to suspend belief big time, with your tongue in your cheek.

  • Bee Tagger||

    with your tongue in your cheek.

    So it's a makeout session movie?

  • ||

    "" but you'll have to suspend belief big time, with your tongue in your cheek.""

    That's generally not a problem for movie goers.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I'd say it was worth the matinee price--I liked it better than Warhorse, anyway.

  • MNG||

    It's between that and Warhorse. I like the idea of a WWI movie and animals are nice and all, but I'm fearful of a long, drawn out, overly sentimental Speilberg flick...

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The battle scenes in Warhorse are terrific, and there's some nice parts on an intermittent basis, but overall it really wasn't worth the price of admission. Just another Spielberg movie where the protagonist, once again, has a poor relationship with his father and uses acquaintances with others as a proxy for the lack of daddy-love.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Honestly, Spielberg needs to stick to making strictly war movies from here on out. Anything showing any depth or maturity of human relationships seems to be completely lost on him at this point.

    But for some reason, he seems to have an innate ability for putting together an effective, realistic portrayal of combat. He'd be perfect for something like All Quiet on the Western Front.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    A friend of mine said that the plot was too complex.

    And, yes, Tom Cruise is his favorite actor.

  • ||

    I liked that Tom Cruise movie where he played the cocky young guy. ;-)

  • ||

    And, yes, Tom Cruise is his favorite actor.

    I find it admirable that you dedicate so much time to the mentally challenged, winged-snake.

  • Chupacabra||

    "A friend of mine said that the plot was too complex."

    Still hanging out with toddlers, are you?

  • Sparky||

  • ||

    I was surprised to find that the little girl wasn't tasered to death.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    With friends like these, etc.

  • ||

    Horrible tragedy. But you know sometimes bad shit happens. If you are born with such a horrible allergy that one peanut will kill you, your chances of making it to adulthood are not great.

  • invisible furry hand||

    Not true. My big bro has made it to 48 despite being super-allergic (his last near-death experience was caused by a spring roll sealed with peanut oil). His allergy did, however, start off milder; as a child he had eaten nuts and only gotten sick. That meant that he knew what to avoid. Why didn't this 7 year old?

  • ||

    I didn't say you were doomed. I just said your chances were not good. If it only takes one slip up. It is pretty hard to go through life perfect. She probably did. But she was 7. And kids do dumb things. Pretty hard to be a kid when doing one dumb thing will kill you.

  • invisible furry hand||

    Fair enough John re doomed. But I suspect the chances of getting to adulthood are still better than "not good / not great". And yeah, kids do dumb things. My (poorly expressed) point however is that the allergy usually starts off relatively mild; the kid has often learnt from grim experience that this thing makes him/her sick, and they avoid it all by themselves. Of course, the longer they avoid it, the more severe the consequences if they are exposed. So usually you (i) ram it into the kid's head (ii) live in a peanut-free home and (iii) as Barely Suppressed Rage notes below, make sure there's an epi-pen at home and school for the near-inevitable fuckups.

  • ||

    But if a number of kids have this, eventually one is going to mess up and die. And that is what happened here. I am just saying it is a horrible tragedy but not one that teaches any lessons beyond, horrible things sometimes happen.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    But John. People are making laws and stuff. Surely that will make a difference.

  • ||

    Why didn't this 7 year old?

    I read about this the other day and that was the first thing to pop into my head.

    Something doesn't smell right about this story. Any modern mother I know would have tattooed this allergy, backwards, on the kid's forehead so he'd get a reminder every time he looked in the mirror.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    I agree.

    I bet a 7 year old SugarFree wouldn't have guzzled maple syrup just because a classmate gave it to him.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    But what if I insulted his thin little bird lips?

  • ||

    Any modern mother I know would have tattooed this allergy, backwards, on the kid's forehead so he'd get a reminder every time he looked in the mirror.

    Wait, so Charlie Manson is allergic to Nazis? Meh, learn something every day.

  • ||

    No, no, no, just the Manson Girls.

  • RoboCain||

    Some schools already have "no peanut" tables in the cafeteria.

  • WTF||

    Hell, some schools ban peanuts and peanut products entirely.

  • Sparky||

    Many public schools in MA do ban peanut products.

  • Zeb||

    I heard a story about a school in Canada which banned things that look like peanut butter, but aren't so that people wouldn't get confused and think that peanut butter is OK.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    My son's private school not only bans ALL products which contain any peanuts at all, but also any non-peanut products which are made in a facility that also makes peanut products.

    Fucking stupid.

    I don't buy this allergy bullshit. When I was a kid, fucking no one had peanut allergies. Now they're so fucking prevalent that some institutions won't allow even non-peanut products if there is a chance that something that contains peanuts was made in the same place?

  • ||

    I suspect a lot of the rise in allergies is due to the fact that we're more aware of it now and are getting kids tested at younger ages when there's suspicion.

    A lot of the kids who died of mysterious things like "crib death" or SIDS in previous decades were probably allergic reactions to food or something else in the environment. So they never made it to school age.

  • Abdul||

    They clone General Sherman to burn the peanut fields of ol' dixie down to the ground?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Police said detectives consulted with the Chesterfield Commonwealth's Attorney Office and it was determined that no criminal negligence was committed by the child who shared the peanut, school personnel or Amarria's mother.

    But they really had to think about it. In lieu of the satisfaction of putting a child on trial, we'll just have a national peanut registry.

  • MNG||

    Jesus, they had to actually follow this line of thought? Holy shit.

  • Rich||

    it was determined that no criminal negligence was committed by the child who shared the peanut, school personnel or Amarria's mother.

    WTF? *Someone* has to pay!

  • Brett L||

    Hopefully, but unlikely, the actual quote from the DA's office was "are you fucking kidding me?" when the DA asked the cops if they thought it was worth investigating.

  • Brett L||

    That makes no sense. But I forgot whether I was making the DA or the cops the sensible one, and now I can't believe either one.

  • Gimlet||

    Found A Peanut
    (Tune: Clementine, Author: Unknown)
    Found a peanut, found a peanut,
    Found a peanut just now,
    Just now I found a peanut,
    Found a peanut just now.

    Cracked it open, cracked it open,
    Cracked it open just now,
    Just now I cracked it open,
    Cracked it open just now.

    It was rotten, it was rotten,
    It was rotten just now,
    Just now it was rotten,
    It was rotten just now.

    Ate it anyway, ate it anyway,
    Ate it anyway just now,
    Just now I ate it anyway,
    Ate it anyway just now.

    Got a stomach ache, got a stomach ache,
    Got a stomach ache just now,
    Just now I got a stomach ache,
    Got a stomach ache just now.

    Called the doctor, called the doctor,
    Called the doctor just now,
    Just now I called the doctor,
    Called the doctor just now.

    Penicillin, Penicillin,
    Penicillin just now,
    Just now I took Penicillin
    Penicillin just now.

    Operation, operation,
    Operation just now,
    Just now an operation,
    An operation just now.

    Died anyway, died anyway,
    Died anyway just now,
    Just now I died anyway,
    Died anyway just now.

    Went to heaven, went to heaven,
    Went to heaven just now,
    Just now I went to heaven,
    Went to heaven just now.

    Wouldn't take me, wouldn't take me,
    Wouldn't take me just now,
    Just now Heaven wouldn't take me,
    Wouldn't take me just now.

    Went the other way, went the other way.
    Went the other way just now,
    Just now I went the other way,
    Went the other way just now.

    Didn't want me, didn't want me,
    Didn't want me just now,
    Just now they didn't want me,
    Didn't want me just now.

    Was a dream, was a dream,
    Was a dream just now,
    Just now it was a dream,
    Was a dream, just now.

    Then I woke up, then I woke up,
    Then I woke up just now,
    Just now I woke up,
    I woke up just now.

    Found a peanut, found a peanut,
    Found a peanut just now,
    Just now I found a peanut,
    Found a peanut just now.

  • ||

    One of my nieces is severely allergic to several food substances, including peanuts, and yes, there are kids who have threatened to slip something into her food, kids who wave peanuts in front of her face, etc.

    7-year-olds may not be in full control of their behavior yet, but they certainly can purposely harm someone.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Yup. This is just the next county over, across the river, from me. It was in the news a couple days ago. Very sad, indeed. To me, a big question is whether the school had on file a specific medical response plan for that kid and if so, whether they followed it. Evidently, when a kid has one of those horrible allergies, the doctors worth with the school to prepare and put in place a medical response plan for the school to follow in the event the kid has a reaction.

    I'm no doctor, but it would seem to me that you would at least have an epi-pen for the kid to use, or something.

    Of course, with "zero tolerance" and everything, the school faculty and staff are terrified to even let the kid have a baby aspirin, much less an antihistimine.

  • Sparky||

    That's assuming someone knew the girl had a severe allergy. The article doesn't really say but I wonder if the problem was that nobody knew.

  • invisible furry hand||

    She would have had prior exposure to peanuts in order to develop this allergy. Often the kid avoids peanuts by themselves after they've had a minor reaction; the longer they avoid it however the worse any future reaction will be. So it is possible no-one knew how severe the reaction would eventually be, but on the other hand the kid would most likely have avoided peanuts because of the unpleasant prior exposure. It's possible I suppose that the prior exposure happened when the child was too young to have remembered it, but presumably that would mean (i) a parent had noticed the minor reaction, removed peanuts entirely, but didn't bother seeking medical advice or tell the child to avoid them or (ii) the parent didn't notice and the child was lucky enough never to come across peanuts until the fatal one. Neither seems likely.

  • ||

    She would have had prior exposure to peanuts in order to develop this allergy.

    False. Very, very false.

    Food allergies can be present at birth.

  • RoboCain||

    Epinephrine isn't an antihistamine, but I get your point.

    Still, I wonder how I never heard about this when I was kid. It's not like peanut butter is anything new.

  • Sparky||

    Modern technology is capable of keeping people with serious illnesses alive longer. Add in over-prescription of antibiotics and use of anti-bacterial everything the body's own defense mechanisms aren't exposed to anything they can build up a resistance to.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Still, I wonder how I never heard about this when I was kid. It's not like peanut butter is anything new.

    ^^THIS^^

  • ||

    I found this linked from your story. Remember that dumbass Navy SEAL that thought it would be cute to put a loaded gun to his head and pull the trigger? They took him off life support and he died.
    Are the nominations for the Darwin Awards closed yet, cause this guy's a shoo-in.

  • jacob||

    Too soon

  • Chesterfield County||

    We're pleased to announce our War on Playgrounds.

    No longer will these dens of scum and villainy threaten Our Children!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The days of medical masks at airports and widespread panic may be coming back—that's because at least 12 humans are believed to have been infected with a new strain of swine flu that's not covered by this season's vaccine.

    I really thought 2012 was going to be the year we finally saw the feline flu get media in a panic. Oh well, maybe next year.

  • ||

    12 monkeys, wheeeee

    I see clouds of white...

  • ||

    What is DHS's position on wearing medical masks in airports? Can they force someone to take it off if it puts them at an elevated risk for catching a deadly disease?

    I'd be willing to bet we'll soon see masked DHS agents forcing fliers to take theirs off.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Is it Becoming Too Expensive to Be a Parent?
    http://shine.yahoo.com/parenti.....00449.html

    Parenting is a victim of an economic principle known as "Baumol's Cost Disease," according to an article in Slate. Baumol's cost disease is an economic concept that certain activities do not become more productive over time and therefore become much more expensive. For example, while manufacturing and farming have become more productive with each passing year due to technological improvements, efficiencies and better practices, other professions like customer service and performing arts have not. A violinist can only perform one piece of music at a time - so the cost of watching classical music concerts has grown more expensive over time, compared to all the other products and services that we buy.

    Parenting operates under the same principle. Parenting is a form of skilled labor, providing a "professional service," but it is impossible to become significantly "more productive" when you're a parent. Parents can only change one diaper at a time. They can only nurture one young mind at a time. It's very hard to be an active parent and still get work done - trust me, I work from home and I have two small kids, so I know this from experience.
  • ||

    Yes. Safety cost money. And we have decided to eliminate every possible risk from children' lives. And time costs money. Lowering risk takes time and money.

  • o3||

    nope - my kids are student-athletes & get hurt regularly.

  • ||

    Not what I am talking about. I am talking about the cost associated with supervising children much more and to a much older age than in the past, the cost of things like car seats and such.

  • Loki||

    It was much cheaper when you could just throw thme in the trunk or pickup truck bed...

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I got three of the critters, it ain't cheap I tells ya'

  • ||

    I track my expenses on mint.com and "Kids" is the 4th most expensive segment, after Home, Food and dining, and Automotive. And that's only the stuff that can be directly attributed to "Kids" and doesn't include food, shelter, driving their little asses all over the place, allowances, etc.

  • Abdul||

    You left out the winning conclusion:

    as life becomes more expensive, will people keep having kids?
    I hope so, because I love my kids and I think parenthood is worth it, despite the sacrifices and difficulties. But I'd like to see our society do more to help parents by reducing the costs of parenting - whether it's by bigger tax benefits for parents, or better workplace rules so that parents' careers don't suffer for taking a few years off to raise children.

    You know, I actually made the sacrifice to have lower income and more kids, but I never thought of getting the rest of you tax-paying suckers to help me out.

  • Lord Humungus||

    oh, we knew that was coming...

  • Sparky||

    Taking a few years off...

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You know, I actually made the sacrifice to have lower income and more kids, but I never thought of getting the rest of you tax-paying suckers to help me out.

    There are only to reasons for this: 1) you have principles that don't involve theft as primary option for you to support your choices, or 2) you're a sucker.

  • Loki||

    Don't you wish you did now? It takes a village you know.

  • ||

    Flex time and telecommuting are pretty awesome concepts if your job just requires you to be on the computer or the phone all day. But I don't know if companies should be forced to work like that.

  • cynical||

    You know what else hasn't gotten substantially more labor efficient? Eating, drinking, breathing, taking a shit. I wonder if one day people will decide that it isn't worthwhile to do those things.

  • Zeb||

    Having more kids used to be an economically productive thing, at least for families that made money from manual labor. Now having kids is just an economic drain on a family. Obviously not a reason not to have kids, but an interesting fact about modern life.

  • Loki||

    That's why we need to get crackin' on robot nannies.

  • RoboCain||

    Rosie O'Donnell (not hot) is still a hypocrite:

    http://www.wwtdd.com/2012/01/r.....mmerheads/

  • Abdul||

    It was self-defense--the hammerheads mistook her for a whale.

  • ||

    isn't an unrealized capital gain not taxed because it is unrealized, and isn't actually a tangible gain yet?

    Don't worry; they'll send you a refund when your portfolio goes into the shitter.

  • ||

    Parenting operates under the same principle. Parenting is a form of skilled labor, providing a "professional service," but it is impossible to become significantly "more productive" when you're a parent. Parents can only change one diaper at a time. They can only nurture one young mind at a time. It's very hard to be an active parent and still get work done - trust me, I work from home and I have two small kids, so I know this from experience.

    Some people should stick to writing about comparison testing different brands of diapers.

  • Lord Humungus||

    teaching economics through advanced puppetry...

  • Chinny Chin Chin||

    [Parents] can only nurture one young mind at a time.... I have two small kids

    "Fuck off, Ralphie. Daddy's nurturing Susie right now."

  • RoboCain||

    Eternal Union:

    "Three hundred staff at a factory that builds Xbox 360s have threatened to commit mass suicide if their wage demands are not met, it emerged today."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci.....e-pay.html

  • Sparky||

    Psst, look up.

  • RoboCain||

    Sorry, I missed that scrolling through the daily John/MNG fuckfest.

  • Sparky||

    That's understandable then.

  • RoboCain||

    Brittany Murphy is still dead:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....ffice.html

  • ||

    "According to RadarOnline, the Clueless actress..."

    OK, pick another movie, or use some damn quotation marks or italics. I really hope the writer wasn't saying this person was clueless.

  • RoboCain||

    Lindsay Lohan is still hot (again):

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....party.html

  • Joe M||

    Nah, she's got this unhealthy pallor about her. I bet she stinks like death.

  • RoboCain||

    She has always been untannably white.

  • ||

    Butterface...

  • Lord Humungus||

    off I go for round three at the dentist - who will win? I'm going to use my left hook more this time, hoping to run out the clock. With a little lick, the judges will decide in my favor.

    wait, wut?

  • Lord Humungus||

    *lick = luck

    though in some world, this may work.

  • Joe M||

    Kinky.

  • Brett L||

    Take more drugs before the match begins.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You ain't never heard of sedation dentistry? Son, you've got a thing or two to learn.

  • Lord Humungus||

    pfftt.... what's a little pain?

  • ||

    http://thehill.com/homenews/ad.....nfulfilled

    Today is the 10th Anniversary of GUITMO opening. Good thing we elected Obama so he could shut that thing down.

  • o3||

    no question obama let his mouth get ahead of the facts on gitmo. as he learned, some countries dont want their (terrorist) citizens returned.

  • ||

    You mean Bush may have had a point? You mean it wasn't an American Auschwitz? Well knock me over with a feather.

  • Joe M||

    New South Carolina poll: Romney 23.1% Gingrich 21.3% Santorum 13.5% Paul 13.3%

    I'm thinking a third place finish in South Carolina would be great news, especially since it's supposed to be a stronghold for "serious candidate" Rick Saltearum.

  • Jerry||

    If Gingrich can beat Romney, and Paul places third, that would be great.

  • RoboCain||

    I'm surprised Gingrich is over 20%

  • SIV||

    He won't be once the votin' starts.

  • Brett L||

    Don't underestimate the "I ain't votin for no goddamn Yankee" contingent.

  • Joe M||

    I just noticed that Huntsman is ahead of Perry in that poll!

  • ||

    A third place finish in S. Carolina would completely sink Santorum and probably make it Paul vs. Romney after Nevada.

  • Jerry||

    Paul seems to be doing well in the "other" race category in SC. I assume these are Hispanics. I wonder if he can get them out to vote, perhaps cater to them in the next debate. It would also help him in Florida, Nevada and Arizona.

  • Jerry||

    This is weird, in the previous poll, Hispanic was its own category with Gingrich getting 70% of their vote. In the new poll, it should be part of the "other" category, and Paul gets 44.1% of their vote while Gingrich only gets 10%. Gingrich definitely lost the Hispanic vote there.

  • ||

    Gingrich is not as tough on immigration as the other candidates.

    Kind of sad that Hispanics tend to vote based on whether a candidate will allow others of their ethnicity to break the law, but it is what it is.

  • ||

    Gingrich is not as tough on immigration as the other candidates.

    Kind of sad that Hispanics tend to vote based on whether a candidate will allow others of their ethnicity to break the law, but it is what it is.

  • Joe M||

    Damn, I goldsugared the link.

  • ||

  • #||

    paul has been polling better lately in SC. Maybe he can pull off third now. Would also be nice if titties wins SC. That would delay the Romney bankdwagon and keep the vote split. Increases Paul's chances of winning some states.

  • Fluffy||

    In my daydream Romney and Gingrich go scorched earth on each other and drop down to 19 each, and Paul and Santorum come up, so on primary night there's a breathless 4 way battle for first.

  • ||

    Something else to notice in that poll is that women might be over represented. Men were ~56% in the first two states, I think. Look how much better Santorum does among women. He could underperform substantially.

  • ||

    go look at the HuffPo story on it. It's full of: public domain, what do you expect, no big deal-type comments.

    It's sickening what partisans are willing to accept as long as it's their guy doing it to them. It it were Bush's DHS doing this, the leftosphere would be calling for his impeachment. When it's Obama, they say it's the price of being safe.

    I was just listening to the usual hogwash about Teh One Per Cent, and bankster bonuses, and all the same tired old shit last night, and it occurred to me (too late to say at the time):

    Whatever his other failings as a human being, Lloyd Blankfein will never send a team of armed goons to your house on a home invasion raid to smash down your door and potentially murder you because he disapproves of the plants you grow. Goldman Sachs investment bankers don't pull you over on the highway and force you at gunpoint to produce your identity papers and submit to interrogation and search.

  • ||

    All true.

  • RoboCain||

    Otoh, cops don't fuck up the economy...

  • ||

    Have you looked at the legacy costs for their pensions in most state budgets lately?

  • RoboCain||

    I know you h8 teh cops, but employees cost money.

  • ||

    I have no problem paying them a fair salary. I do take exception to them fucking the taxpayers by manipulating their retirement system to the point of bankrupting state after state.

    I feel the same about all publicly-financed retirement plans for state workers, not just cops.

    You have no problem letting cops work crazy overtime their last two years* just so they can increase their retirement pay 50% for the rest of their lives?

    *Overtime rules established by the union contract negotiated with the politicians whose campaign police unions largely finance.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You have no problem letting cops work crazy overtime their last two years* just so they can increase their retirement pay 50% for the rest of their lives?

    This sort of shameless gaming would be somewhat palatable if a lot of these public sector employees stayed in the communities that are paying their pensions. At least then, the community would be getting back something in property taxes and sales taxes.

    When these retirees move out of town or out of state, it puts that much more pressure on the home community to cough up for pensions and local services. These governments really need to have a residency rule of sorts where you only get 10-25% of your alloted pension if you move outside city or state limits.

  • ||

    But, but, but, that would be like slapping our brave, nay heroic, boys in blue in the face.

    After all, theyve put their lives on the line. They're entitled to fuck off to Florida with $100k a year in retirement from the ripe old age of 52 until death.

    They're heroes, goddammit!

  • ||

    Not so fast. I suspect that the deadweight and opportunity costs of the WOD and the criminalization of damn near everything are pretty fucking high.

  • ||

    All that black market revenue leaving the country.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Nah!

    Their over bloated, tax supported ranks that take people who are otherwise productive and throw them in jail for indeterminate periods of time don't affect the economy at all.

  • ||

    Mitt Romney never locked anybody in a cage.

  • RoboCain||

    Not if you don't count the family dog on the roof of the car.

  • o3||

    or the empty collar dragging from the rear bumper

  • ||

    Clarification time!

    Romney never locked anybody in a cage when he was at Bain Capital. As governor of Mass, he was responsible for locking lots of people up.

  • ||

    WHAT THE FUCK, SPAM FILTER?? (3rd try)

    A recent Miss DC interned with my .org a couple years ago. She was actually very nice, not off-putting by her status at all, and had a killer bod (natch), not to mention a set of legs that never stopped.

  • ||

    WHAT THE FUCK, SPAM FILTER?

  • ||

    And you guys give DHS way too much credit. They have this cockamamie idea that you can know about disasters via social media quicker than any other medium. So therefore if they monitor it, they will know about that shooting in Phoenix or that earthquake in LA before anyone.

    Now of course DHS is not a first responder. And the few minutes of extra warning they would get under even the best of circumstances is essentially meaningless since they are not first responders. But don't tell them that. They have a program. They are doing great things.

    It really is just a case of benign incompetence.

  • RoboCain||

    Or massive pork rolling...

  • ||

    It is a small program. It is not even real pork.

  • ||

    Bacon bits?

  • ||

    ""They have this cockamamie idea that you can know about disasters via social media quicker than any other medium. So therefore if they monitor it, they will know about that shooting in Phoenix or that earthquake in LA before anyone.""

    Of course it's a cockamamie idea, it's not the truth. Goverment oppression has always tried to watch the media with whatever tools available at the time.

  • ||

    It is the truth. I am very familiar with this program.

  • ||

    I wouldn't call Drudge "social media" He just links other news reports to his site.

    I'm sure familiar with a program, but they are not looking a Drudge, a secondhand new reporting website, for early warnings. They would be better off looking at the AP feed.

    ""It is the truth.""

    Yeah, put your faith in the Obama admin to be truthful.

  • RoboCain||

    "COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – The director of South Carolina’s Department of Motor Vehicles has told the State Law Enforcement Division that more than 900 people who were recorded as having voted were actually dead."

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/01.....ave-voted/

    Liberal brains enraged by anti-zombies:

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/01.....-the-dead/

  • ||

    But I thought vote fraud was a myth?

  • RoboCain||

    And only white people drive cars or have bank accounts.

  • Gimlet||

    Or buy drain cleaner.

    New Law Requires Photo ID To Buy Some Drain Cleaners

    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/20.....n-cleaner/

  • Neu Mejican||

    The myth is that only the other side does it.

  • ||

    Ok. Then why not prevent it?

  • Chupacabra||

    Agreed.

    But wouldn't requiring an ID to vote significantly limit voter fraud?

  • o3||

    it is. most often its either the widow incorrectly signing on her dead husband's line or folks moved & didnt register in time so they voted at their old precinct. >some fraud

  • Sparky||

    his undercover sting doesn’t demonstrate a need for voter ID laws at all. Federal law bans not only the casting of, but the ‘procurement’ of ballots ‘that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held.’

    What's the problem? It's banned by Federal law therefore it doesn't happen.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    "...but it is impossible to become significantly 'more productive' when you're a parent. Parents can only change one diaper at a time. They can only nurture one young mind at a time."

    Oh, bullshit. I tutored my then-4th grade daughter over the summer so I could homeschool her together with my then-5th grade daughter in 6th grade this fall.

    Both are rocking it, I am nurturing more than one young mind at a time, and I am more productive by teaching one set of material rather than two.

  • Spoonman.||

    I am curious - I'll probably be having kids soon and I'm not super comfortable with public schools, but I'm not sure how I ever would have learned to deal with people had I not gone to them.

    How do your daughters socialize with other kids, have friends, etc?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Last week I commented that there was someone else my age whose name I couldn't remember. It was you spoony. I'm ashamed that I forgot the "There is no Spoonman" joke I made one time.

  • Spoonman.||

    So if you are about my age and you also went to Cornell, what class were you in? I was 2010.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I finished an MEng in 2011, but did my undergrad elsewhere.

  • Spoonman.||

    Time on campus probably didn't overlap then since I finished in December 2009.

    Did you ever attend a meeting of the poorly-named "College Libertarians at Cornell University?" I had been their vice-president for a while.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I did not. I tend to avoid regularly scheduled/organized affairs (e.g. I love playing sports but will not sign up for a regular league), and I was pretty busy attending the "all your time in Ward or Upson pc lab" meetings. For one of my take home finals I spent 32 hours straight in the Upson lab.

    I'm actually going back there next month for college recruiting. Sadly it'll be during Superbowl week...

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    How do your daughters socialize with other kids, have friends, etc?

    ______________________

    Go outside to the park and play with kids in the neighborhood, for one. There are tons of homeschool groups that have meet-ups, for another. And then add in the 1,000 other ways that kids meet other kids other than through school.

    We homeschool a 7 year old boy and 8 year old girl. They've had no issues with socialization. Both are in swimming, gymnastics, and other activities where they meet other kids. Both play with other kids on our street. It's really no big deal. And both are reading years beyond their respective "grade levels."

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I only met other kids through school or being related to them. But I also grew up outside of the city/suburbs so there was no such thing as playing with other kids on the street.

  • ||

    They have this cockamamie idea that you can know about disasters hate speech and thoughtcrime via social media quicker than any other medium.

  • ||

    No Brooks. It really doesn't work that way. They are not trolling for thought crimes. They wouldn't be competent enough to do that if they wanted to. Put the tinfoil hat away.

  • ||

    And you'll never have to show your passport to travel internally in this country.

  • Sven||

    Thank God those American soldiers didn't pee on dead polar bears, that would have caused a global outrage

  • death panelist||

    I can't stand Hendrik Hertzberg's smug TEAM BLUE apologist cheerleading - but I admit I LOLed a bit at this...

    Paul, whose batty-grandpa personality and oddball mélange of pacifism, anarcho-libertarian radicalism, and crackpot economics attracts an equally eccentric congeries of Tea Partiers and bong partiers, has done Romney no discernible harm.
  • Bee Tagger||

    So that confirms he doesn't know the meanings of phrases he uses then. He feels comfortable enough to say "anarcho-libertarian" but then thinks pacifism is an odd inclusion.

  • ||

    hate, what hate...

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Shorter version:

    Will you Team Red schmucks get it through your thick skulls that it's Romney's turn and vote for him? Like it was McCain's turn last time?

  • ||

    When these retirees move out of town or out of state, it puts that much more pressure on the home community to cough up for pensions and local services. These governments really need to have a residency rule of sorts where you only get 10-25% of your alloted pension if you move outside city or state limits.

    Oh, nice.

    "We have a gigantic clusterfuck caused by stupid government policy; the best way to fix it is another stupid government policy!"

    How about this: we pay municipal employees (Cops/firemen/teachers/horticulturists/mayors) their full compensation in cash up front, and they will then be responsible for their own retirement investments and health care and insurance?

    Or is that just too crazy for you to wrap your head around?

  • ||

    ^This^
    Why can't they manage their own retirements like the rest of us?

  • Loki||

    ...because they're better than the rest of us?

  • ||

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....1326316978

    MOre from Balko on the guy in Florida they tied to a chair and pepper sprayed to death.

  • ||

    Ow. My nuts.

    Jebus fuck. I swear that the recruituing poster for becoming a LEO is "Do you have emotional disorders? Are you a control freak? Do you become enraged when anyone challenges your authority? Sub-average IQ? Ape-like arms that love to hit things? Then the ____ Police Department is for you!"

  • ||

    It is horrible. And what is worse is both the local DA and the US Attorney have ignored it. It just shows how callous and awful of a society we are. The guy was a nobody and mentally ill. So no one gives a fuck that they murdered him. If they had done that to a top shelf white girl, Nancy Grace would be on TV 24/7. But some fat unbalanced older guy, fuck him. It just makes me sick.

  • ||

    ""If they had done that to a top shelf white girl, Nancy Grace would be on TV 24/7.""

    Yeah, talking about how she deserved it. I've seen very little Nancy Grace so I'm no expert on her, but the times I heard her talk, she's never been pro-defendant.

    Here's her take on the Amanda Knox trial in Italy.

    http://news.yahoo.com/nancy-gr.....14101.html

    ""And what is worse is both the local DA and the US Attorney have ignored it. It just shows how callous and awful of a society we are""

    Indeed.

  • ||

    The US attorney probably doesn't give a shit, but there's little they can do anyway without some sort of protected-class targeting angle.

  • ||

    Using pepper spray on a restrained person is a violation of their civil rights. The US Attorney could go after them under 1982 if he wanted to.

  • ||

    Jesus. That's some Zeta shit right there.

  • ||

    FTA: While the Florida Sheriff's Association told HuffPost that it has no guidelines on the use of restraint chairs, there seems to be a strong consensus that the use of pepper spray, stun guns, or other compliance tools after a suspect has been restrained is at minimum excessive force, and possibly a crime.

    Since when was "excessive force" not automatically a crime?

    Jesus, does anybody wonder why I distrust out of hand an organization that has a different criminal threshold than society in general?

  • ||

    So, its just possible, maybe, that after strapping a guy to a chair, beating, shocking, and pepper spraying him, just might be a crime? Maybe?

    Every single one of these subhuman goons should be doing hard, hard time for murder 1. Period.

  • DK||

    ...after a suspect has been restrained is at minimum excessive force, and possibly a crime.

    How is this not an 8th Amendment issue? If someone is truly restrained, how is it not cruel and unusual punishment?

  • jacob||

    Hope Lee County loses.

    Also, I found an incorrect fact in Balko's article. There is no Dayton county in Ohio. Dayton is the largest city in Montgomery County. Sloopinca can back me up on this.

    Boom!

  • ||

    Since when was "excessive force" not automatically a crime?

    There is no such thing as "excessive" force when OFFICER SAFETY is on the line.

  • ||

    I want to see a cop on Death Row, if for no other reason than the hilarity of his "brother officers" holding a candle light vigil and singing folk hymns as they hold hands and sway to and fro.

  • ||

    It is not death row, but former FBI agent Jon Connolly helped Whitey Bulger murder people. He is now doing 40 years in a Florida prison. And his brother FBI agents are distraught about it. It is not quite a candlelight vigil. But it is as close as the internet can get. Enjoy Brooks.

    http://justiceforjohn.com/

    I am sure you will find their tears as yummy as I do.

  • ||

    Mounties, keeping Canuckians safe:

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2.....th-sample/

  • ||

    Bender is a lone wolf, a solitary eagle, a cuddly baby tapir...and that's why I love him.

  • protefeed||

    Is the GOP holding Rand Paul hostage?

    Democrats choose a blind date for their president. The non-libertarian wings of the Republican Party choose who is next in line, because they value militaristic hierarchies and loyalty.

    So, if Ron Paul finishes second to Mitt Romney (who finished second to McCain and thus was next in line in the minds of many non-l Rs), then Rand Paul is next in line after Romney either loses this election or gets through 4 or 8 years as POTUS, because that's the way the hierarchy works -- UNLESS Ron Paul betrays the core value of loyalty. If he betrays that, Rand Paul is toast.

  • ||

    Wait a minute, you can pass your place in line down to your kids now? I don't think it works that way.

  • W||

    I disagree

  • ||

    The US attorney probably doesn't give a shit, but there's little they can do anyway without some sort of protected-class targeting angle.

    They could always just charge the cops with torturing him. That doesn't seem so fucking hard.

  • ||

    Hello,my friends!Here's the most popular dating site for now__SeekCasual*com, a place for people who wanna start a short-term relationship.And also for finding soul mates.Over 160000 happy members are waiting their lovers.Join free and have a try,nothing to lose!

  • cathrine||

    "Datebi.com" is designed for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships.

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