Obamacare Quirk Punishes Families for Employer-Provided Coverage, U.K. Officials Won't Apologize for Detaining David Miranda, IRS Extends Its Reach World-Wide: P.M. Links

Get Reason.com and Reason 24/7 content widgets for your websites.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.  You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here. Have a news tip? Send it to us!

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.

  • ||

    Four State Department officials suspended from their jobs after the lethal Benghazi attack are back at work.

    The four dead guys, however, remain in the ground.

  • Rasilio||

    No they aren't, Universal Soldier was a documentary

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    What's the country coming to when our scapegoatery isn't even permanent?

  • Damned Fool||

    Did we remember to stake them?

  • Xenocles||

    I don't see how that makes any difference at this point.

  • Velcro Bootstraps||

    ...took me a second...

  • hotsy totsy||

    Me too. Needs more screeching and hysteria.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    From the comments:

    You burn somebody's hamburger at McDonalds, it can cost you your job.

    You completely fail at your management job to provide security for our embassy in country going through revolution, and you keep your job.

    You knowingly lie to the American people about the material facts surrounding the event, on numerous nationally televised programs, and you get promoted.

    Just tell those whose job it is to provide oversight to your job, "What difference does it make now (that I completely failed and lied)?
  • Libertymike||

    You nailed it, Fatty.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Robert Mugabe won Zimbabwe's election fair and square, says the country's constitutional court...

    He had the right to rig the election under his taxing power.

  • Almanian!||

    I thought it was the Commerce Clause?

  • gaijin||

    Another good example of why any foreign policy should support as its objective liberty, not democracy.

  • JW||

    Mother Jones should be along soon to smear anyone who doesn't accept the court's ruling.

  • shamalam||

    It was a penalelection.

  • ||

    Robert Mugabe won Zimbabwe's election fair and square, says the country's constitutional court, so move on because there's nothing to see here. Or else.

    Like he even needs their approval to stay in office.

  • Brandon||

    Well, it's still nice to have.

  • NeonCat||

    He doesn't have to worry about the unexpected early retirement of any constitutional court justices now.

  • JW||

    "They like me! They really do!"

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Four State Department officials suspended from their jobs after the lethal Benghazi attack are back at work.

    Procedures were followed!

  • gaijin||

    Can they now be forced to testify?

  • R C Dean||

    They could always be forced to testify. Congress can subpoena anyone, regardless of whether their snout is in the public till.

  • gaijin||

    That's what I thought. But wasn't there some story about a commander in the region involved being unable to be called to testify because they retired or were on vacation?

  • Brett L||

    They "couldn't find" him.

  • R C Dean||

    It was an immediate sign that the Repubs in Congress weren't the least bit serious about investigating Benghazi. Absolutely nothing prevented them from subpoenaing everybody, and if they got an answer that so-and-so's whereabouts were just unknown, darn it, from subpoenaing people who ought to know where he is until somebody cracks.

  • Pro Libertate||

    You know, I'm beginning to think they're saving this all up for their likely takeover of both houses next year. I don't agree with that strategy, but I bet that's how the old guard is placating the more aggressive member of Congress.

  • Brandon||

    This seems to be a confused metaphor. Hands go in tills, snouts go in troughs. Get it right, Dean!

  • Bobarian||

    Yeah, tow the lion!

  • R C Dean||

    Pubsec snouts go right into the till. Its in their union contracts.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    California's second-highest court made it easier for cops to forcibly draw blood from motorists without a warrant.

    Hopefully they can also bill the patient for the medical procedure.

  • R C Dean||

    If Arizona ever tries to pass a law requiring hospital personnel to strap down a suspect and fish for a vein while he/she/it struggles, I will be volunteering to be the test case challenging the law.

  • ||

    There will be no struggle. Welcome to Pima County

  • Slammer||

    Eight people were injured in an explosion at a naval munitions depot in New Jersey. Clearly, tighter background checks are the answer

    Christie had the chili

  • gaijin||

    +1 I laughed out loud

  • Libertymike||

    +2 - I laughed out loud as well.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Eight people were injured in an explosion at a naval munitions depot in New Jersey.

    Sequester victims?

  • Andrew S.||

    What's the attraction to California? Is it the weather? Because I can't think of much of a reason to visit there, let alone live there.

  • Slammer||

    That state was the best. Geography, soil, freedom, weather, industry, every type of natural feature: mountains, ocean, forests, desert. And a sense of adventure. They totally fucked up what was once the best of everything America had to offer. It's really sad.

  • Almanian!||

    this, totally

  • Drake||

    Yes - It was special.

  • Brandon||

    For a while, it was also a bastion of freedom.

  • Duke||

    The same thing is happening to Colorado and Texas.

  • Libertymike||

    Cherry Creek Reservoir is not an ocean.

  • Brandon||

    I did my open water scuba certification in Chatfield, so...close enough.

  • Duke||

    Cherry Creek Reservoir is not an ocean.

    Yes, but the Cherry Creek Shopping Center has an ocean of great deals.

  • CatoTheElder||

    I love old Texas, but it never was a bastion of freedom.

    E.g.: the penalty for simple possession of marihuana was two years to LIFE back in the 1970s.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Yes, this.

    The South has not been a good example of freedom until fairly recently; arguably places like New York were the bastions of capitalism until FDR.

  • Irish||

    Hell, the South during Jim Crow not only had the horrible racial laws but was a bastion of New Deal economics. It was basically the least free place in the country, which makes it unsurprising that the South lagged the rest of the country economically for so long.

  • Duke||

    Well...if you’re talking about segregation south, then if you were black, you did not have your panoply of rights. But if you were white, you were very free. No restrictions at all on gun ownership, none of that fancy-pants city folks regulatory stuff went down here. If the south had treated black folks equally, then there is no way in hell it would have been less free than New York.

    I mean shit, my uncle carried his gun on the bus to school because he had been hunting that morning. And my dad rode his horse into town on the weekends. All of that is true too.

  • PapayaSF||

    We still have everything on your list except freedom and industry. Plus, some really great museums and restaurants.

  • Duke||

    Exactly. Who really cares about silly things like personal liberty when you have great museums and restaurants? If you disagree, just look east. Europeans are all filled with joy and everyone over there is doing just fine, thank you very much.

  • PapayaSF||

    Duh, I'm not dissing liberty.

  • Duke||

    I was being sarcastic like I thought you were.

    Humor detector, re-engaged.

  • PapayaSF||

    I was being somewhat mournful and defensive, I guess. Carry on.

  • ||

    The weather and the ocean are pretty awesome. And the landscape in places. I'd actually like to visit quite a bit (more than I do/have) but you couldn't pay me to live there, I don't think.

  • Almanian!||

    I declined to continue to pursue what would have been the BEST JOB EVAR! because...Cali. "This sucks, but no thanks...."

    Given my interests in cars, guns, low taxes and freedom, it just wasn't gonna work to live there. I haz a sad...

  • trshmnstr||

    I declined to continue to pursue what would have been the BEST JOB EVAR! because...Cali. "This sucks, but no thanks...."

    Yep, i've done that too, and will have to again, i'm sure.

  • ||

    The weather is great. The roads for motorcycling are absolutely wonderful. Beaches and coeds. Avocado trees growing in your yard. Plenty of nearby race tracks. And believe it or not, there are quite a few small-government types around if you're not in L.A. or San Francisco.

  • R C Dean||

    And believe it or not, there are quite a few small-government types around if you're not in L.A. or San Francisco.

    Or, apparently, the state capitol.

  • John||

    They just don't have the votes. The Central Valley has taken it up the ass for years thanks to the rich Greens in LA and San Fran.

  • PapayaSF||

    Yeah, it can be pretty lonely in SF. A few years ago I got turned down for a third date because I didn't think Citizens United was wrongly decided and didn't think bringing back the Fairness Doctrine was a good idea. My current girlfriend is mostly a liberal, but at least she's a sane and politically incorrect one.

  • Duke||

    I know a lawyer who moved her whole family to NYC to work for a liberal think tank solely to try and overturn Citizens United. This country is surreal.

  • Libertymike||

    Is she the breadwinner of the family?

  • jesse.in.mb||

    It's a terrible state, please don't visit. It's like a prison here.

    *finishes booking campsite in yosemite for the weekend*

    Acid rain, British weather, roving bands of terrorist-Mexican gangs...

    *packs up desk and rides bike home along this beach*

    Seriously. STAY. AWAY.

  • Xenocles||

    It's like I keep saying, California would be awesome if it weren't full of Californians.

  • jesse.in.mb||

    I still maintain it's the fault of CA being a cool enough state that it attracted the rejects of the rest of the country.

    I blame the hippy generation for moving here and then morphing from one kind of obnoxious douchebag into establishment obnoxious douchebags.

    At least when foreigners show up they bring delicious bahn mi or dim sum. WTF have Bostonians ever done for CA?

    Vote jesse.in.mb for governor and we'll drive the wretched hordes of east coast rejects from our shores!

  • carol||

    Hmmm, sounds a lot like the reasons why no one should come to Florida. Except in our case there are also gators, fire ants, pythons and UF fans.

  • Brandon||

    Florida has nothing like Yosemite, Santa Barbara, San Diego, Big Sur, Monterrey, Tahoe or Napa. Floridans took a hot, smelly, malarial swamp and made it slightly worse. That is nothing compared to Californians' destruction of a fucking paradise.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Our beaches are eleventy billion times better than California's, and our sea-borne fauna are less lethal.

    No mountains, though. When I'm God-Governor of Florida, I'm going to have a mountain range raised right down the middle, like Italy.

  • jesse.in.mb||

    Our beaches are eleventy billion times better than California's, and our sea-borne fauna are less lethal.

    I respect your sea cow population, Pro L. They are indeed harmless. But our sea otters will have none of it.

    The sand at Waikiki beach was shipped there from my CA beach. Also our sea fauna may be more dangerous but your roads are full of elderly NY drivers. I will risk shark attack in the Pacific before I drive again in Florida.

  • Pro Libertate||

    You know little of Florida, clearly, but I've spent much time in California.

  • ||

    Waikiki has shitty sand, jesse. There's a beach on the east side of Oahu that has sand so fine it's like flour. I think it's in Kapahulu.

  • jesse.in.mb||

    There's a beach on the east side of Oahu that has sand so fine it's like flour. I think it's in Kapahulu.

    I'll have to check it out next time I'm out that way. I just went to Mokuleia, Hanauma and Waikiki beaches. I was not really impressed.

    I was expecting much better sand in Waikiki having read it was from my local beach (not that anything in my area could be described as "so fine it's like flour").

  • prolefeed||

    The best beach sand on Oahu is at Kailua Beach.

    The coarse shit at Waikiki was trucked in from somewhere.

    The best beach sand in the U.S. is on the Florida panhandle at Pensacola / Navarre, unbelievably white and flour fine sand.

  • Brett L||

    My beach.

    Well, as SuperTroopers covered, you can't "own" the beach, but we do own the boardwalks that are the only way to get to it without molesting the sea oats (which is illegal).

  • Pro Libertate||

    The Panhandle has great sand.

  • Duke||

    The Panhandle has great sand.

    Ft. Walton and Destin sand are fantastic. The water is clear and the living is easy. And it’s only a few hours drive from my shack in da hood.

  • jesse.in.mb||

    Very nice Brett. How far out from the beach do you have to build? Whenever I go to east coast beaches they seem very spacious. We build right up to the edge and our beaches tend to feel cramped.

    I love the architecture too. Faux Mediterranean has come into vogue here, which is built pell mell next to '90s narco modernism and Spanish Colonial.

  • ||

    I hate all you guys anyway. This is the beach in Seattle. God just looking at that picture is depressing.

    I grew up with this.

  • Irish||

    That first picture is the saddest thing I have ever seen.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Seattle is nice for a lot of reasons, but that isn't one of them.

  • Pro Libertate||

    To be fair, Seattle is on a bay. Bay beaches often suck. What's the beach like on the other side of the Olympic peninsula?

  • ||

    They are horrible and windy and cold and the water is freezing and it sucks.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, then, I guess you at least have mountains and that giant volcano that kills you but not with lava with mudflow.

  • jesse.in.mb||

  • Duke||

    I still think my childhood beach is the prettiest:

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/loa.im.....6410-p.jpg

  • Tejicano||

    I grew up in El Paso. We used to say "plenty of beach, just no ocean."

  • Duke||

    I hate all you guys anyway. This is the beach in Seattle. God just looking at that picture is depressing.

    Hahahahaha! It looks just like an episode of Portlandia!

  • shamalam||

    This probably makes me weird. Well, actually there are many things that make me weird, but I like that Seattle beach. I will take a foggy, chilly beach any day over a fucking sand oven.

  • ||

    Italy with hurricanes...

  • Pro Libertate||

    Exactly! I wonder if we could grow olives then?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I agree with P_L, the beaches in FL are beautiful -- but you guys have to at least give an honorable mention to Puerto Rico's beaches. AZ is alright, but whenever I think of Puerto Rican beaches I can't help but damn myself for living in a landlocked state.

    http://images.fanpop.com/image.....80_960.jpg

  • Pro Libertate||

    Caribbean beaches are quite nice.

  • Duke||

    Our beaches are eleventy billion times better than California's, and our sea-borne fauna are less lethal.

    I totally agree Pro Lib. I didn’t care for the SoCal or French Riviera beaches I've visited. The best beaches I’ve ever been to were in Florida. But I haven’t been to the real Carribean yet and as a Hemingway fan, I’m sure Cuba’s beaches are unparalleled.

  • ||

    We have Mount Trashmore you fucking ingrate, lest you forget.

    In all seriousness, Florida can hold its own against Cali.

  • Gene||

    Yeah but our beaches are more nutritious, at least for algae. http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2.....r-quality/

  • BuSab Agent||

    Mybeach. And yes I live on a Great lake.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Well Dangnabit I Sugarfreed that. Try this.

  • Derpetologist||

    It is a veritable Mecca for researchers in my field.

  • John C. Randolph||

    The weather is perfect, and the Silicon Valley is the center of the universe for the computer industry.

    -jcr

  • Aloysious||

    Yay! They're here....

    fuck. Robert Mugabe. shit. jeezus.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Stand Up to Stand Your Ground: Anti-SYG law PSA recreates Trayvon Martin shooting using actual 911 audio from that night.

  • ||

    I always wonder how easy it is to keep your balance while proselytizing on a pile of dead bodies.

  • From the Tundra||

    Wear cleats.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    It's like a Trayvon Martin Passion play.

  • Damned Fool||

    "Father Obama, forgive them, for they know not what they do!"

  • Almanian!||

    If I had a dead son, he'd look like Trayvon...

  • Xenocles||

    [golf clap]

  • Almanian!||

    (Tall) Tales From The Hood(ie)

  • Enough About Palin||

    It's like 88 fucking degrees here in Minneapolis and even today the kids have their hoodies up (and their pants down). I get a kick out of the kids who sag their shorts; back in the 80's we called those leggings.

  • Zeb||

    It is amazing how long that fashion has lasted. You'd think that would have gotten old by now. The saggy pants, I mean. Hoodies have practical purposes, I suppose.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The British government is standing by its decision to detain David Miranda because... terrorism.

    Last I heard, it wasn't the entire British government standing by this.

  • PapayaSF||

    You silly people, haven't you heard they don't have Miranda Rights in the UK?

  • Slammer||

    The IRS set up an online registration system that all financial businesses in the world will have to use if they want to do business with Americans — or else face penalties or exclusion from U.S. markets. They'll have to register in English, and wade through complicated rules

    Clearly, more bureaucrats will have to be hired.

  • R C Dean||

    How is it that we have to have, by fed fiat, fucking multi-lingual interpretation available on demand for any language we might encounter, and forms in languages that we encounter with some frequency, but the fucking feds are free to just sail along English-only.

  • Redmanfms||

    FY,TW.

  • rxc||

    I have to fill out one of the new forms, and I can't understand it, in English. This whole law is a typical progressive mess.

  • ||

    So how long until this stuff is pealed back?

    I think even Hilary isn't stupid enough to keep it if she takes office.

    As soon as Obama leaves this stuff is gone within the year.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    That's a very good illustration of what happens with the regulatory state. It's easy, and for a certain kind of person, even fun to spend your day thinking of rules for other people to follow. Until you have to follow them yourself, and then it's "no way, that's bullshit!" and "that's too hard!"

  • BuSab Agent||

    That kind of person ALWAYS gravitates towards government jobs.

  • ||

    The IRS set up an online registration system that all financial businesses in the world will have to use if they want to do business with Americans

    Boosting the economy one step at a time!

    Seriously, the "fuck foreigners" attitude of the IRS is mindblowing. And their demands for compliance are beyond ridiculous.

  • Ted S.||

    Create a need for 20 million complaince officers.

    Voilà -- full employment!

  • ||

    Those windows--you didn't break them. We all did.

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    I get the feeling that soon a group of nations will create a reserve currency not the dollar and tell the U.S. to fuck off. You thought the Arab oil boycott was bad. Wait until everyone does it at once.

  • The Last American Hero||

    I think they tried this in Europe.

  • R C Dean||

    That project is well underway, in a variety of fronts. At some point, the Euros and the Chinese are going to get together and supplant the dollar with a new reserve.

    Really. There's a lot of groundwork being laid right now, definitely including an astonishing buildup in Chinese gold reserves, a whole bunch of bilateral currency agreements, etc.

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    What RC said. I know they failed in Europe but they tried and it's going to be tried again. Possibly with some sort of gold standard or some other mechanism a la bit coin.

  • R C Dean||

    Personally, I think it will be a central-bank-only clearing mechanism, based on a basket of commodities (gold, oil, etc.) and currencies (yuan, Euro, dollar? sure, why not).

  • ||

    I also think the Euro was not intended to do away with the US dollar. It was intended to do away with the Mark and the Franc and the pound...though it did not do so good getting rid of the pound.

    What is coming will actually be aimed at getting rid the dollar and American influence.

    Which would be fucking great if it worked.

    It has become obvious that the FED and rest of the US government is horrible at being the masters of the world's currency....and have made a pretty damn good case why no one should be the master.

  • Libertymike||

    Its coming.

  • CatoTheElder||

    I would not be surprised to learn that certain OPEC nations, ASEAN nations, and China haven't already agreed to do this. It would have to be kept secret for a while for an orderly liquidation of US debt securities.

    The US MSM would be the very last to know.

  • hotsy totsy||

    I hope so. Where does the IRS get the idea that it's the boss of the world? I really hope that it's defunded and cut down to about 10% of its present size, max.

  • ||

    I am so, so glad I didn't have to deal with this level of shit when I was an expat. It's one of those things that's pretty invisible because relatively few people live out of the country or have any idea what it really entails to do so, but uh yeah it motherfucking sucks and it's getting worse.

  • Almanian!||

    Really helps the ex-pats, doesn't it? "A bank account? Sorry. Mortgage...hahahahahaNO!" Fuck you, US government!

  • ||

    Since Obama became president the "fuck foreigners" stuff has increased exponentially. There was always a basic "fuck foreigners" attitude, but someone in his administration has clearly told the IRS that they should bleed/fuck/harass foreigners all they want.

  • Damned Fool||

    Obama's a citizen of the world, though. All foreigners are his countrymen, so he can't be oppressing them.

    / sarc

  • Bobarian||

    I think the point is to 'bleed/fuck/harass foreigners' just like he does Americans.

  • Tejicano||

    Obama is the first POTUS who spent a chunk of his childhood living overseas and his take away from that is - "There's a butt load of foriegners out there who've been living off the Fed's grid".

  • BakedPenguin||

    They're trying to ensure an even balance of trade. Which it will be, if all imports and exports cease.

  • Almanian!||

    Everyone wins!

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Fuck 'em. I'll move somewhere I can live well without needing enough income to be liable for any income tax. It's about the best that can be managed, especially during the time it takes to acquire citizenship somewhere else.

  • CatoTheElder||

    If you're an American, you can't get a bank account in most countries. Not because it's illegal, just because Americans are too much trouble due to FATCA.

    This is a big deal to expats.

  • Tejicano||

    Getting a bank account, if you are an American residing in a foreign country, is not so difficult in some - maybe most - countries. In Japan it isn't a big deal at all.

    I suppose this all depends on the amount of local bureaucracy the banks are already dealing with.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A quirk in Obamacare means that many families will be better off if their employers don't offer healthcare and they get taxpayer-subsidized policies through health exchanges instead.

    Single payer will be the ultimate quirk.

  • Slammer||

    It's almost like that was the plan all along, isn't it?

  • Coeus||

    No way is Krugman this dumb. It's mendacious bullshit.

    At the most fundamental level, you can’t guarantee adequate health care to everyone unless the people who don’t need help right now — the young, healthy, and affluent — are induced, one way or another, to contribute to the care of those who do need help. You can do this purely with taxes, via a single-payer system (and maybe even by having the government act as provider), or you can do it, Swiss or Massachusetts style, via a combination of regulation, taxes, and subsidies. But some way of corralling the lucky healthy into contributing is necessary.

    For the vast majority of this group, this is still a good deal — as Ezra Klein says, nobody stays young and healthy forever, and only a very small number of people are so rich that they are better off on a lifetime basis with no guarantee of insurance at all. But conservatives balk at the notion of any kind of redistribution, even if it makes almost everyone better off. So they are unable to come up with an alternative.

    What they have are fantasies — claims that somehow unleashing the magic of the marketplace can make health care so cheap that everyone can afford it. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this is true.
  • ||

    "the young, healthy, and affluent"

    Outside of everything else, he conveniently neglects to mention that first and third items are rarely the same group.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Medicare is already the most vile redistributive health insurance system imaginable.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    And now it has some stiff competition for the vileness prize?

  • T||

    I hate it when you make sense. Good thing it rarely happens.

  • Slammer||

    you can’t guarantee adequate health care to everyone

    Why should you?

  • trshmnstr||

    because of TEH FEELZZZZ!

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Because question begging is fun for reals

  • Irish||

    Except that it's redistribution from the young to the old which means that as our nation ages the young are going to get squeezed more and more. Since younger people are the ones who are going to have to start businesses, since the 70 year olds rarely open stores, squeezing the young results in a nation getting progressively more impoverished as capital is siphoned away from the people who need it to spur economic growth.

    I'm sure Krugman knew that already, though.

  • Redmanfms||

    Since younger people are the ones who are going to have to start businesses, since the 70 year olds rarely open stores, squeezing the young results in a nation getting progressively more impoverished as capital is siphoned away from the people who need it to spur economic growth.

    So, Europe.

  • Andrew S.||

    You lost me at "No way is Krugman this dumb". When does he ever say anything intelligent?

  • ||

    conservatives balk at the notion of any kind of redistribution, even if it makes almost everyone better off.

    So close. So deliciously close to the gleaming teeth of the fascist being revealed. Of course it must be because of crazy right-wing fantasies, and not because they don't just want to walk away from omelas.

  • R C Dean||

    I love the breezy assumption that redistribution makes "almost everyone" better off.

    Throw in a long enough timescale, and it makes almost everyone worse off.

    Throw in enough redistribution to be noticeable, and you have to have a big enough class of donors that you can't say "almost everyone" is cashing checks instead of writing them.

  • ||

    Even if it's almost everyone that's insufficient. We could take Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and The [evil] Koch Brothers, confiscate their wealth and throw 'em in Warty's rape dungeon and almost everyone would be better off. I bet there are some crazy tinfoil-hat wearing types around here that would object to that eminently sensible redistribution scenario solely because of our "fantasies" about "the magic of the marketplace".

    Asshole. (Krugman that is).

  • anon||

    you can’t guarantee adequate health care to everyone

    Then why do you assfucks keep fucking trying!?

  • gaijin||

    are induced

    So many other words spring to mind that would have been more accurate.

  • CatoTheElder||

    corralling the lucky healthy into contributing

    Arbeit macht frei.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Because if you're healthy, it's purely a matter of luck! Insurance companies never get this.

  • Bam!||

    Someone once put forward the theory that Krugman lets his wife write his column.

  • Aloysious||

    Yes. Yes, he is that dumb. Although, if you give him the chance, he will melt your brain telling you how undumb he is.

  • Slammer||

    God, I pray for the day he's caught beating up crack whores.

  • T||

    I'll bet he's the kind that pays the whores to beat him.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    +1

  • PapayaSF||

    "What they have are fantasies — claims that somehow unleashing the magic of the marketplace can make [automobiles/air travel/computers/dentistry/etc.] so cheap that everyone can afford it. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this is true."

  • OldMexican||

    you can't guarantee adequate health care to everyone unless the people who don't need help right now — the young, healthy, and affluent — are induced, one way or another, to contribute to the care of those who do need help.


    Let's plunder the young, turn them into slaves. That's his answer.

  • hotsy totsy||

    So why don't the old people do the "inducing" of the young? Older people, as a group, are a lot more affluent than young ones.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's interesting how often markets that are relatively unregulated and not subsidized by government do reduce prices or, if prices don't go down, you at least get more for your buck. Like, say, TVs.

  • Whahappan?||

    Usually it's both. Prices go down and quality goes up.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    the people who don’t need help right now — the young, healthy, and affluent

    Like present-me?

    are induced, one way or another, to contribute to the care of those who do need help

    Like future-me?

    He's talking about why there are interest rates, right?

  • hotsy totsy||

    There's absolutely no reason to believe that it's false.

  • ||

    We were bored, so we decided to kill somebody"

    The left is using the tragedy of a pointless murder to scream for background checks again, even though there is absolutely nothing to indicate there is a connection to the crime.

  • anon||

    Yeah, background checks would surely have prevented TEENAGERS from obtaining a pistol. /sic

    Pretty sure most states don't even allow teens to buy guns.

  • anon||

    Woops, meant Pistols, not guns.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I'll bet you read about that word usage in a clip from some magazine, didn't you?

    But yeah, it's already illegal for, IIRC, anyone under 21 to buy a handgun. And I will lay good money that one or all of these geniuses already had a sheet at the local constabulary.

    Criminals don't fucking obey the law: imagine that.

  • ||

    They felt that they were so close with Newtown. Now they have the taste in their mouth and they're going to flog every single fucking thing that happens on the off chance that they can get that close again. Remember, the vocal gun grabbers are a part of TEAM OUTRAGE, and they are addicted to their outrage orgies. Expect there to be constant outrage orgies going on in perpetuity now. Example: Treyvon Martin. That's the one they're simmering right now.

    They've become addicted and they're not going to allow there to be any time when they don't have at least one outrage orgy going on.

  • John||

    And you know that if three white teenagers had just happened to kill a random black athlete, the story would totally be about gun control. And since you can't buy a gun until you are 18 anyway, the clear answer here is confiscation.

  • Gray Ghost||

    John, they for damned sure wouldn't have made the races of the victim or perpetrators a secret. Even Fox went in on it, AIUI. Hilarious that we've got to read the news from Adelaide, Australia to get an idea of what's going on in Oklahoma.

  • jesse.in.mb||

    I am reminded of this SMBC

  • Coeus||

    Why is there no mention of race in the story? John was right. Zimmerman was never about racism. They were just using racism because it increases the emotional response.

  • ||

    Well, it was three black kids alleged to have done the shooting, so that aspect of things can't be used to advance any pet causes.

  • gaijin||

    If Obama had three sons...

  • Enough About Palin||

  • Libertymike||

    You should know better - the facts never seem to matter to the race baiters.

  • PapayaSF||

    No, for many it is about racism, because anything bad that happens to any black person is about white racism. Alternative explanations are too uncomfortable to contemplate.

  • R C Dean||

    Notice the complete lack of pictures of the perps on American media sites?

    Even though the Aussies have posted pix of the three black teenagers who did the deed?

    Funny, no? Imagine that three white teenagers greased a black athlete because they were bored. Would we see those pix? You bet we would.

  • Libertymike||

    Mere speculation, my friend, mere speculation!

  • Enough About Palin||

    Maybe the US media is holding back until they can get hold of pictures of these three kids from their fifth grade yearbook.

  • ||

    Elena Kagan says the justices ruling on electronic wiretapping and (likely) NSA spying still don't use email.

  • Ted S.||

    She doesn't want the NSA spying on her.

  • R C Dean||

    Their offices are right next to each other. What do they need email for, exactly?

  • ||

    The article says that in lieu of email they write up memos that are printed on really fancy ivory paper and brought to the other justices' offices. So it's not like their substitute method takes advantage of the proximity either.

  • Libertymike||

    In a nostalgic, sentimental way, its cool with me. Not the content of those memos, mind you.

  • NeonCat||

    They select interns on their ability to hand draw GIFs and flip them quickly for the amusement of the justices.

  • Libertymike||

    Nice.

  • Jerryskids||

    Speaking of still don't use e-mail, I haven't seen anybody post a link to news that Groklaw is shutting down rather than submit to existing in a surveillence state.

    "I'm really sorry that it's so. I loved doing Groklaw, and I believe we really made a significant contribution. But even that turns out to be less than we thought, or less than I hoped for, anyway. My hope was always to show you that there is beauty and safety in the rule of law, that civilization actually depends on it. How quaint."

  • Marc F Cheney||

    Someone did this morning.

  • Irish||

    I have discovered one of the most insane fucking books in the history of the universe.

    The article is from June 29, and I have absolutely no idea how I missed this gem. It's an excerpt on Salon about some book called "Christian Nation: A Novel" which is an alternate history book about how McCain won the 2008 election, then died or something, so Palin waved her right wing wand and magically turned us into a Christian theocracy.

    “San, dear,” Emilie interrupted, “if you are going to protect us from Christian extremist knuckleheads, you are going to need to speak more plainly. No one knows or cares about ‘cognitive dissonance.’ Just say what you mean. Most Americans will believe almost anything—golden tablets from God buried under a hill in upstate new york, alien souls bouncing around the universe and inhabiting our bodies, getting to fuck seventy-two virgins as a welcome present when you arrive in heaven—it’s all the same crap. If you are raised to believe it, or are dumb enough and desperate enough, then you’ll believe anything.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHA! Holy shit. That's some really wonderful dialogue. Is Frederic Rich Shrike's real name?

  • ||

    If you are raised to believe it, or are dumb enough and desperate enough, then you’ll believe anything.

    It's like a projection parody.

  • ||

    That's exactly what I thought. It's like I wrote it, but as a satire to point out that TEAM BLUE projects everything. Also as a satire for shitty writing.

  • Libertymike||

    Yes, if asked, I would say that Epi must be the author.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Jesus, Palin fucking still drives them insane.

  • Slammer||

    She still drives ME crazy.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Puritan America is not fiction.

    They would have put me in the stocks for unlawful fornication back in 1680.

  • Irish||

    Shrike, wouldn't someone have to have sex with you first?

  • Enough About Palin||

    Sheep fucking was illegal back in 1680 too, so I figure that's what he means by "unlawful fornication".

  • Libertymike||

    Ah, Irish, come on - can't you see that he set himself up to be the butt of the joke?

  • John||

    Oh look shreek showed up to screem and throw his own shit.

    CHRISTFAG!!!

  • gaijin||

    you mean, 300+ years ago?

  • Irish||

    I was in Spain recently and was fucking terrified that the Spanish inquisition was going to come for me. They did it 500 years ago, what's to stop them from coming back?

  • ||

    You were probably safe, given that you were expecting them.

  • T||

    The COngregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would like to remind everyone they haven't been the Inquisition since 1904.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Nothing, but now they'd just give you tapas and a quality yet inexpensive red.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    you mean, 300+ years ago?

    The "good old days" for conservatives.

  • seguin||

    Burning straw men has a long history too.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Yglesias: Obama's glorious healthcare plan is is already curbing the growth of healthcare spending

    The Kaiser Family Foundation completed a survey of health insurance premiums and found that the great slowdown in health care costs is continuing, with premiums rising 4%.

    The White House likes to push these stories out because they debunk conservative scare stories about Obamacare somehow causing costs to spiral out of control. But the administration has hesitated to take credit for the fall because it's actually quite hard to point to a specific provision in the law that's been fully implemented and that would have this kind of impact. But I actually think it deserves a fair amount of credit. Economic actors are forward-looking. Capital investments take years to plan. You had a big recession in 2008 and 2009 that naturally squeezed spending and depressed investment. And then you had the passage of a law in 2010 that sent a clear signal that the direction of policy is changing. Only some of the cost-cutting measures have been implemented, and a lot of the toothier stuff is still to come down the road. But the law's passage and the president's implementation raises confidence that an era of relative austerity for the health care sector is underway, and people are acting accordingly.

  • John||

    Even the most cravenly political administration in history isn't craven enough to try to link this to Obamacare. But that won't stop retard from going where other retards fear to thread. I really think that his handler at the White House views it as a challenge to come up with a talking point so dumb Sad Beard won't repeat it.

  • Libertymike||

    John, congrats as you have just penned one of your best lines ever:

    "But that won't stop retard from going where other retards fear to thread".

    Awesome. You are now on notice that I am going to use this line - with props given to you.

  • Irish||

    The Kaiser Family Foundation completed a survey of health insurance premiums and found that the great slowdown in health care costs is continuing, with premiums rising 4%.

    I'm going to guess that this is actually the result of the continuing recession causing people to be less likely to go in for unnecessary medical care, a fact which would result in premiums rising less quickly.

    I have no evidence for this, but I have just as much evidence as Yglesias does.

  • NoVAHockey||

    no, you're right. utilization is down.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....26626.html

  • NoVAHockey||

    so he completely ignores the drop in utilization. because a drop in demand would not no influence on the modest slowdown in spending

  • Andrew S.||

    We have a September 1-August 31 year for our insurance at work. Just went through open enrollment. For the second straight year, premiums have been left completely flat.

    Of course, that's after a ~50% rise in the prior two years, and while premiums have been flat the last two years, benefits have been going down.

  • R C Dean||

    while premiums have been flat the last two years, benefits have been going down.

    Ding. Ding. Ding.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Pro or con Obamacare the first opportunity for comparative purposes will be in 2015.

  • Brett L||

    Wait, what? Premiums are not health care costs. Kaiser is fully engaged in sucking the Administration's dick.

  • R C Dean||

    Indeed not. I expect that kind of cherry-picking dishonesty from shreek. Medicare spending, just to pick one area not reflected in premium costs.

    Over the next decade, annual net spending on Medicare will jump 80%, from $508 billion this year to $914 billion in 2023, according to CBO estimates. And it will also rise as a share of the economy from about 3% of GDP today to 5% by 2037.

    http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/0.....index.html

  • John||

    http://www.motherjones.com/kev.....bate-obama

    The dipshit who runs Hatetrios, I mean Atrios, is now whining that there are also people who seem to enjoy judging your worth by how righteously you dislike or like the Obama administration.

    The irony, it burns.

  • Coeus||

    The backdrop of my womanhood.

    What creeping may be going on through the back doors of my virtual properties is, on the average day, the least of my concerns. I am primarily consumed with threats of violence being done to me, with my address and phone numbers and photos of my home being posted online, with orchestrated campaigns of trouble-making in comments, with my photo being misused by bigots or turned into a pornographic joke or threat or both. The harassment that is the cost of being a woman online, which sometimes makes me fearful.

    This fear is part of the backdrop of my womanhood.
    I fear being denied medical care, being misdiagnosed, being refused by emergency crews, being told I must lose weight as a condition of care, because I am fat. I fear dying because of fat hatred.

    This fear is part of the backdrop of my womanhood.
  • Ted S.||

    I recognize the words as English, but do they mean anything put together?

  • Almanian!||

    "I'm fat. And a loser. Because PATRIARCHY!"

  • John||

    It reminds me of the scene in South Park where Mr. Garrison would be just a little too excited at the prospect of the police violating him.

  • Almanian!||

    "Now, Mister Hands, you STOP that! You're thinking bad thoughts Mister Hand! Stop it!"

  • John||

    Oh honey, that stuff only happens to the pretty girls. You are never going to get that kind of attention.

  • Irish||

    The harassment that is the cost of being a woman online, which sometimes makes me fearful.

    I know many women, and none of them have been seriously harassed by someone on line. I don't think that's normal.

  • ||

    Well, discounting the ones posting here.

  • John||

    That whole column is nothing but a cry for attention. Amanda so desperately wants someone to pay enough attention to bother to harass her.

  • Irish||

    Amanda so desperately wants someone to pay enough attention to bother to harass her.

    That's not Marcotte. It's someone named Melissa McEwan.

  • John||

    Then Melissa does.

  • Bobarian||

    I believe Amanduh gets [and deserves] a lot of harrassment on line.

  • Damned Fool||

    Not Amanduh.

  • ||

    I've come to the conclusion that projection must be in play with these writers who constantly write about their fears of being stalked online. And I therefore assume that they are the kind of person who has or has thought about stalking someone themselves, and it scares them because they know they would do it.

    Because they really have no rational basis for this fear otherwise.

  • John||

    It is that or they really want to be stalked. Remember, being a victim is something all of these people want to be. If you are not a victim, you are just not important. You just don't have any street creed. In the circles this woman runs, nothing would help her respect and credibility than being the victim of stalking. It is really that fucked up.

  • ||

    That's a good point, John, and one I miss because I don't think that way. Being a victim gets them attention. So make up a thing you supposedly fear, and bam! you're at least a potential victim, and you will get some attention.

    It's pathetic beyond belief.

  • John||

    The last thing I would want to be or be proud of is being a victim. But for these people being a victim is what makes someone special and worthy of respect.

  • ||

    I have to think it's more the victim thing, wanting to be a victim for attention. Because while projection might explain the alleged fear of being stalked, the fear of being sexually assaulted is much bigger, and always, always, always accompanied by some ridiculous statistics about how many people they know have been raped. Just like in that post:

    ...never let my guard down for a moment lest I be sexually assaulted and if I am and didn't follow all the rules it's my fault, which I already know firsthand from having been raped and seeing about 1 in 6 of my female friends and about 1 in 10 of my male friends going through it and getting victim-blamed, at least once and frequently more.

    (That's also prefaced by a complaint about the entire concept that she should actually do things that might help her physical safety, which is a whooooole thing unto itself.)

  • ||

    I'm glad you're here to parse that shit out for me, nicole, because I have no idea how you can stand reading it. Oh wait, yes I do, because you are the worst.

  • ||

    Being the worst is part of the backdrop of my womanhood, dude.

  • John||

    Sugar Free made a good point once (no kidding). When feminists trot out these bullshit statistics about how rape is so common and so rarely reported, they are encouraging rapists and rapes. If you listened to feminists, you would think rape is the easiest crime in the world to both carry out and get away with. If you are the kind of person who wants to do that, it doesn't exactly help with deterrence.

  • ||

    Thanks for femsplainin it to us.

  • Enough About Palin||

    Yup, just like that whore who did the fake "I want to hate-fuck that bitch" web threats. She's craving a hate-fuck.

  • ||

    I doubt they're actually afraid. They're concern whores, and this is the sort of thing that gets pearls tightly clutched.

  • Coeus||

    This one is on record as saying that re-tweeting her is stalking.

  • Irish||

    Well then what kind of a sick stalker are you for posting her article on here?

    Monster.

  • Coeus||

    Yes, she would indeed consider this stalking. Anyone who reads her drivel without fawning is obviously a dangerous individual.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    She's conflating criticism and mockery with stalking and threats.

    I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!

  • Coeus||

    She's conflating criticism and mockery with stalking and threats.

    Page one of the feminist handbook. Staking and threats are then linked to rape. Link everyting to rape.(that's the title of the first chapter.)

    Page two is about how double standards are fine when they work in women's favor, because...patriarchy!

  • ||

    Impressive. Nobody should read her stuff, then, because isn't that stalking too?

  • ||

    That's why I think she's lying about being afraid. Anyone this paralyzed by fear would spend all day in bed, hiding under the blankets. Writing a column for a blog site would be anathema without several layers of anonymity.

  • ||

    Writing about it is almost like setting out crumbs and saying "come scare the shit out of me". Which, if it happened, would give her world-class victim cred. Hmm.

  • ||

    Why do you think they engage in so much rhetorical bomb-throwing? Get people to argue with them, claim any argument as an attack, etc.

  • JW||

    Why are we discounting that she's just batshit insane?

  • ||

    How fucking hard is it to be semi-anonymous and be a journalist?

    Yet none of them do it. It is almost as if they really are not scared but want to the prospect of being stalked to be out there.

  • Slammer||

    Please, seek professional help. And don't ask me to pay for it. Thanks!

  • ||

    Why should I pay more because you can't put that tub of Ben & Jerry's down you fat cow?

  • R C Dean||

    The harassment that is the cost of being a woman online, which sometimes makes me fearful.

    Classic mental shortcut of the perpetually aggrieved. Nothing bad happens to anyone who is not a [designated victim group], apparently, because everything bad that happens to a member of [designated victim group] is because of [insert ism here].

    You see it all the time in employment cases. A totally ordinary employment decision is made, but because the employee is in a protected class, it can only be because of discrimination.

  • John||

    Having worked in that field in law school and done it a few times since, generally plaintiffs in those cases are being screwed by their employer. It is just almost never because they are a woman or a minority. All those laws do is allow members of protected class to sue over the usual screwing bad employers give everyone.

  • T||

    I've been on the other side. It's very hard to fire someone in a protected class, even if their performance suuuucks. You have to document copiously, and then the documentation itself is argued as evidence you're out to get them.

  • John||

    Yes it is. What happens is the smart employers just ignore the bad minority and women employees. Sadly, it is only the bad ones who ever do anything and that is rarely for the right reasons. The whole thing is fucked up.

  • R C Dean||

    Note that "totally ordinary employment decision" and "being screwed by their employer" are not exactly mutually exclusive.

    The punch line, of course, is that you would have to be a fool to hire a member of a protected class if you have another equally qualified applicant.

  • John||

    Pretty much. Of course if you don't ever hire any, you will get sued for that too.

  • Brett L||

    being told I must lose weight as a condition of care, because I am fat

    Well, I can tell you that if you end up on Medicaid or Medicare there is a good chance that this is true. ACO has only had demonstrable improvements in outcomes and costs on diabetes, high BP, and COPD, but since waistline girth is one of the major corellative factors, they are absolutely going to tell you to lose wait and hound you about it. Thank Obamacare for enforcing thin privilege.

  • PapayaSF||

    I fear becoming pregnant.

    Barring blind rapists, I'd say this should not be a worry....

  • PH2050||

    "Being refused by emergency crews"

    Sorry lady, but not all ambulances come equipped with the winch systems necessary for extremely heavy patients. I only saw one such system in Randolph County, NC. Then I was told that one patient had to be taken to the zoo for an MRI because none at the hospital could fit her midsection.

  • anon||

    The IRS set up an online registration system that all financial businesses in the world will have to use if they want to do business with Americans

    Surely this won't dissuade them from doing business with Americans. Nah, not at all!

    What was that about unintended consequences again?

  • Brandon||

    Who says these consequences are unintended?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Actress Sophie Turner, who plays Sansa Stark on 'Game of Thrones', has adopted the dog who played her dire wolf on the show

    From a lengthy article about Turner in The Coventry Telegraph:

    In between her hectic filming schedule, Sophie likes nothing more than to relax at home with her family and pet dog Zunni, who the family adopted from the series. She adds: “Growing up I always wanted a dog, but my parents never wanted one. We kind of fell in love with my character’s dire wolf, Lady, on set.

    “We knew Lady died and they wanted to re-home her. My mum persuaded them to let us adopt her.”
    SANSA STARK SAVED LADY. So for those of you still traumatized by the direwolf's death, try to keep this happy fact in mind. Now, if only we can get someone to adopt all the other Game of Thrones characters who died horribly...

    I'll gladly take in Oona Chaplin or the actress that played Roz.

  • jesse.in.mb||

    I could do worse than adopt a Renly.

  • ||

    You'll have to fight me for that one, jesse.

  • jesse.in.mb||

    I think I have a leg up on that one Nikki...then again you could be a formidable foe.

    Can I interest you in a Ned Stark? He seems nice.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Neither of you can have him. /Stannis

  • ||

    I wonder if Arya's wolf will ever come back.

    I know she dreams of her which is probably "worging" and which is probably far closer to the wolf then petting him....

    Still i want an Arya/wolf reunion.

  • seguin||

    It all depends on how much George R. R. Martin thinks he can milk the series.

  • Sevo||

    "Tesla says Model S receives top U.S. crash rating"
    http://www.sfgate.com/cars/art.....745580.php
    It's easy to throw iron at a design if you're not worried about the CAFE!

  • R C Dean||

    I doubt their propensity to burst into flames while sitting in your garage shows up in that crash test.

  • Killazontherun||

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ne.....6700172461

    Mr Fischer said he was deeply angered by the latest tragedy and said turning our backs on America would help send a stern message about the need for tighter gun control.

    Mr Fischer, who led Australia's gun control reforms alongside former prime minister John Howard in 1996, said choosing not to travel to the US would help build pressure on the US Congress to finally act.

    "Tourists thinking of going to the USA should think twice,'' Mr Fischer said.

    "This is the bitter harvest and legacy of the policies of the NRA that even blocked background checks for people buying guns at gunshows.

    "People should take this into account before going to the United States.

    "I am deeply angry about this because of the callous attitude of the three teenagers (but) it's a sign of the proliferation of guns on the ground in the USA.

    Yeah, those thugs look exactly like the kind of guys who buy their guns at shows.

    http://resources2.news.com.au/.....385700.jpg

    And, go ahead, boycott our country, I'm sure that a counter US boycott of yours would have zero effect on your bottom line, you dumb fuck asshole.

  • Ted S.||

    I think we know who boycotts the AM Links. ;-)

  • Killazontherun||

    It doesn't fit in with my life style choices.

  • ||

    Not to piss off any of our Aussie commenters but: FUCK AUSTRALIA!

    That is all.

  • Brandon||

    Someone's asking for a booting.

  • Coeus||

    The continuing adventures of Floridian Man

    A Florida man attacked his mother and her boyfriend with knives and a samurai sword after an argument about a missing can of shrimp. The Orlando Sentinel reported that 34-year-old Jayson Laughman is in custody after the attack, which took place Saturday morning in Volusia County, FL.
  • anon||

    Never trust people that buy canned shrimp is the lesson I learned from that story.

  • gaijin||

    I second your lesson a minute late it seems.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Sometimes you are thinking about a can of shrimp and someone says to you "can" or "shrimp" or "can of shrimp."

  • Pro Libertate||

    Plate o' shrimp.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Just adjusting for today's topic.

    Also, it's true about John Wayne. I had a job installing cable at his house, and he answered the door wearing a dress.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I wasn't correcting. I was, as BP notes below, experiencing a lattice of coincidence.

    After maybe the Hestonian Apocalyptic Trilogy, Repo Man should be the official movie of Hit & Run.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Lattice of coincidence.

  • gaijin||

    can of shrimp

    What kind of insane person would eat shrimp from a can?

  • Almanian!||

    A monster, clearly.

    why WOULD anyone buy canned shrimp, when fresh or frozen is so....available? And delicious?

  • anon||

    You hate food that doesn't make you shit yourself in 5 minuets flat?

  • Almanian!||

    No - I eat KFC sometimes.

  • Brett L||

    In Florida of all places.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, it's not like shrimp here are expensive. Canned shrimp here are, I dunno, immoral.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Any calls for background checks for sword purchases yet?

  • Damned Fool||

    Britain's been talking about knife control.

  • jesse.in.mb||

    First they came for our guns and I said nothing because I didn't carry a gun. Then they came for our knives and I didn't speak out because I mostly order take-away. Then they came for our slightly-sharpened-screwdriver shivs and there was nobody left to speak out for me!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Swords were already banned there, I believe.

  • Ted S.||

    The guy is really named Laughman?

  • Warrren||

    Lowell.

  • Enough About Palin||

    They'll have to register in English, and wade through complicated rules.

    RACIST!!!1111!!!

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Dick's Sporting goods, which voluntarily pulled AR-15s from its shelves following the Sandy Hook shooting, has surreptitiously resumed selling them at new offshoot store.

    Dick’s, which reported lackluster second quarter earnings on Tuesday, did not respond to Forbes’ requests for comment. A staffer at Cranberry Township’s Field & Stream confirmed to Forbes that semi-automatic rifles are indeed on sale but wasn’t sure how many remain in stock after an opening weekend that also saw a camouflage-clad couple wed at the store.

    Industry experts say Dick’s has to sell these weapons at its new spinoff to remain competitive. “I’m not surprised,” said James Chartier, an analyst at Monness, Crespi, Hardt & Co., Inc who covers Dick’s Sporting Goods and competitors like Cabela’s. “If you want to be authentic to the customer, you have to sell that product. You can’t be seen as caving in to political pressure.”

    Yeah, it's almost like Dick's recognizes its role is to provide customers with what they want.

  • John||

    It is almost like the gun grabbers are exceptionally stupid and easily distracted.

  • Andrew S.||

    Hey Reasonoids, honest question.

    Why do you continue to link to Krugman, Yglesias, Marcotte, et al on a daily basis? Are libertarians as a group just masochists?

  • John||

    I think it is healthy to ridicule them.

  • Andrew S.||

    Oh yeah, ridiculing is fine. But reading them just raises my blood pressure. And then I read their comments agreeing with them (which usually have a bunch of libertarian, and especially Koch bashing, like in the Krugman article linked above), and that raises it even more.

  • John||

    I dont read them. But I am happy to laugh at them when other posters do read them for me.

  • From the Tundra||

    It's like weight training - you need to apply increasing amounts of stress to make you stronger. It's the only way, man. You'll be better for it!

  • Andrew S.||

    Maybe this is part of Krugman's plan: Reading his articles will raise my blood pressure to dangerous levels, leading to a heart attack, leading to a need for expensive medical services, and eventually, I'll have to support single payer healthcare!

  • Irish||

    That's why you never read the New York Times comments.

    They have the IQ of Youtube commenters but are unbearably pretentious at the same time. There was a Buzzfeed list where they would post some of the worst comments on the internet, and one of them was this wall of text on New York Times about how humans are a blight on the Earth Mother and when we go extinct soon it will be a wonderful day.

    That's actually pretty close to the quality of most Times commenters.

  • Xenocles||

    Yeah, going into the comments is like trying to squat 500 pounds - you have to train yourself for a long time.

  • anon||

    It's a constant struggle between laughing and crying. Today, crying wins.

  • Bam!||

    Group bonding through mocking of our enemies.

    Quest for validation of ones thoughts.

  • Irish||

    For the same reason people look at car crashes. Morbid curiosity.

  • ||

    I think an important aspect of being libertarian is not getting your hopes up. And it's the end of the day so it kinda nudges me towards that evening drink[ing binge].

    And in any case one of my friends will post it on FB anyway as an exemplar of the latest Nobel-quality brilliance so I might as well get the vomiting out of the way early.

  • Coeus||

    Like john said, it is healthy to ridicule. But on another note, lets remember that these people have been getting their own way via legislation for the last 60 years. It's prudent to keep track of the latest idiocy.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    1) Because Marcotte and Yglesias are hilariously dumb.

    2) Because they are representative of a certain unthinking partisan mentality extant in both parties.

    3) Because they are uniquely representative of a particularly nasty totalizing strain of politics on the left.

  • John||

    All of that and more. They are also smug and completely lack any sense of self awareness. They deserve nothing but ridicule and scorn.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    They seem silly enough, though if you want a representative from the right I would nominate Kathryn Jean Lopez. Hard to match her strange ramblings.

  • John||

    Lopez is often held up for ridicule on here. Her writings on porn are comical. And if you want to make fun of her, start posting her stuff. I am sure you will find lots of support.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Lopez is hysterical. Really most of the National Review crowd could be held up as objects for ridicule, but Lopez is uniquely terrible in that regard. I've thought about linking to her; I'll probably start doing it when we have a Republican administration in office. Always fun to remind people the level of the current WH occupant's supporters.

  • Irish||

    Kathryn Jean Lopez

    I've never even heard of this person. Based on what I'm reading about her, she seems hilarious.

  • Azathoth!!||

    That's because, contra the idea that this "certain unthinking partisan mentality" IS extant in both parties, it is extremely difficult to find articles on the right that exhibit that certain unthinking partisan mentality. Even on NRO, things don't go unpoked at for long, either in the comments or with other writers going off on them.

  • Killazontherun||

    I don't read any of them except the excerpts I see here. I use to read Krugman before he took a dump on his entire credibility by becoming a party hack. Was even my favorite Keynesian in the 90s. Mankiw at Harvard occupies that spot now. He seems to be a decent, honest fellow even when he gets things wrong it comes from understandable disagreements.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Krugman was great until he started writing for the NYT. Agree with your assessment of Mankiw.

  • ||

    Are libertarians as a group just masochists?

    Yes.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Paul Krugman responds to accusations of plagiarism with his usual humility and grace

    A somewhat belated response to Roger Farmer, who accused me of cribbing from his writings. The truth is sadder; I haven’t read any of his stuff. I’ve tried, a couple of times, but found it very hard to penetrate and gave up — and several other economists I’ve talked to had the same reaction.

    Just to be clear, I’m not saying that there’s nothing there; there may well be, and maybe it’s even profound. But neither I nor most economists are going to make the effort of puzzling through difficult writings unless we’re given some sort of proof of concept — a motivating example, a simple and effective summary, something to indicate that the effort will be worthwhile. Sorry, but I won’t commit to sitting through your two-hour movie if you can’t show me an interesting three-minute trailer.

    And look, it has always been this way. Keynes’s General Theory is a famously difficult book — but it opens with three sparkling chapters, a sort of book within the book, that gives readers a very good sense of where he’s going and why it matters.

    He advocates stealing your money, so why would he be above stealing someone's ideas?

  • Slammer||

    How could I plagiarise it? I'm too stupid to read it.

    Really? That's your defense?

  • Irish||

    Just to be clear, I’m not saying that there’s nothing there; there may well be, and maybe it’s even profound. But neither I nor most economists are going to make the effort of puzzling through difficult writings unless we’re given some sort of proof of concept — a motivating example, a simple and effective summary, something to indicate that the effort will be worthwhile. Sorry, but I won’t commit to sitting through your two-hour movie if you can’t show me an interesting three-minute trailer.

    That says a lot about the sort of lazy dipshits who become economists and none of it is good.

  • paranoid android||

    The dismal science, indeed.

  • Killazontherun||

    Jesus, if I can make it through General Theory (though thanks to Hazlitt for the translation of mutable word usage on Keynes part), Human Action, and Principles of Economics, a professional should be doing that and more on a daily basis.

  • R C Dean||

    But neither I nor most economists are going to make the effort of puzzling through difficult writings

    Christ on a pogo stick, does he not understand how stupid that makes him look?

    Its like Barbie Krugman: "Math is hard!"

  • Brett L||

    Well, he does have a Nobel Prize.

  • Killazontherun||

    This has to be all so absurd for the great Nobelled one. It's like when Andrew Lloyd Weber had to face accusations he copied the theme of Phantom of the Opera from Pink Floyd's Echoes made by Roger Waters (which, uhm, he totally did).

  • Pro Libertate||

    Okay, so he needs a _______ for Dummies guide before he can analyze it? Jesus, how did this guy get a Nobel Prize? Did he plagiarize the work that got him the aware?

  • Pro Libertate||

    The award, that is.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    I'll defend Krugabe on this. Vita brevis.

  • tarran||

    Keynes’s General Theory is a famously difficult book

    Actually, it's incoherent; for example at one critical chapter confusing a firm's physical productivity with marginal productivity of its workers (see page 20 of Hazlitt's "Failure of the New Economics").

    Keynesianism is a great testament to how thoroughly a garbage theory can be adopted because of the psychological and monetary benefits it accrues for its proponents.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Economics is often nothing more than complicated rationalization. Nothing more.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Actually, it's incoherent;..."

    That's what makes it difficult.

  • ||

    And look, it has always been this way. Keynes’s General Theory is a famously difficult book — but it opens with three sparkling chapters, a sort of book within the book, that gives readers a very good sense of where he’s going and why it matters.

    No wonder this ratfucker doesn't understand how economics works. He's only ever read the first few chapters of the book that his entire spendthrift philosophy is based on.

  • Almanian!||

    Parody, parity - either way.

  • jesse.in.mb||

  • NeonCat||

    Eat wheat, no pray to wheat!

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    French cops caught on video brutally beating a woman

    The eight-minute video (see below), which has been watched more than 600,000 times on Youtube, shows the later stages of an arrest taking place on rue Pierre Coubertin in the town of Joué-les-Tours, in the Indre-et-Loire department.

    According to local daily La Nouvelle Republique, the two officers had stopped a car driving erratically on the street early on Sunday morning, and found the driver highly intoxicated.

    The latter became uncooperative and unruly when asked to submit to the alcohol test, and a female passenger intervened, allegedly biting one of the two officers, according to a representative of the Unité SGP police officers union, who spoke to France Bleu radio on Tuesday.

    The video begins with one officer attempting to subdue the driver and keep him on the ground, while the second officer grapples with one of the female passengers, striking her freely with his baton, including once, with force, on the face.

    A few moments later, the same officer goes to his vehicle to retrieve tear gas, according to French daily Le Parisien, which he sprays in the face of the woman, before also spraying a second woman directly in the face.

    What's French for 'stop resisting!'?

  • The Last American Hero||

    Les Allemands sont a venir!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Baise toi, c'est porquoi.

  • Aloysious||

    Kamerad?

  • jesse.in.mb||

    This is why parkour caught on in France.

  • PapayaSF||

    Another case of PapayaSF's Law in action: "Cases of police brutality or misconduct often involve the victim doing at least one stupid thing."

  • Enough About Palin||

    France had better hope these weren't drunken Australian tourists.

  • jesse.in.mb||

    drunken Australian tourists.

    Umm, drunken is redundant.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    You know when else the French stopped resisting?

  • Generic Stranger||

    A day that ends in Y?

  • NeonCat||

    It's like a description of some of the HnR commentariat.

  • jesse.in.mb||

    Only some?

  • NeonCat||

    I hope that the regrettably few libertarian ladies who grace us with their presence do not think of themselves as gentlemen.

    And while some may choose perversion, is it not more likely that many here had perversion thrust upon them, so to speak?

  • PapayaSF||

    Not everyone here is a gentleman.

  • Enough About Palin||

    Bullshit.

  • seguin||

    Hide the cravats! He's onto us!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Anthropologists Study the Genesis of Reciprocity in Food Sharing

    -"The meta-analysis clearly established that there is reciprocity in sharing both among humans and among other primates that remained significant even after controlling for other factors such as kinship, dominance relationships, and spatial proximity," said Jaeggi, a postdoctoral student in anthropology at UCSB. "Based on our meta-analysis of existing studies, we were able to find no significant differences between humans, monkeys, and apes."

    However, Jaeggi noted, humans tend to exchange food for food, while primates tend to barter food for other services, such as grooming or coalition support (e.g. assistance in dominance fights).

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/2/

  • Enough About Palin||

    "Based on our meta-analysis of existing studies, we were able to find no significant differences between humans, monkeys, and apes."

    RACIST!!1111!1!!!!!!

  • Generic Stranger||

    However, Jaeggi noted, humans tend to exchange food for food...

    Maybe in a modern economy, but in a barter society food was traded for lots of different things.

    Hell, bartering with food was how my great grandparents got by. They needed something, they'd butcher a few hogs, ride into town and start exchanging.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    David Sirota: I'm beginning to think that Obama has been lying to us about stuff

    So sure, I guess it’s possible Obama has merely been “wrong” but has not been lying. But the implications of that would be just as bad — albeit in a different way — as if he were deliberately lying. It would mean that he is making sweeping and wildly inaccurate statements without bothering to find out if they are actually true. Worse, for him merely to be wrong but not deliberately lying, it would mean that he didn’t know the most basic facts about how his own administration runs. It would, in other words, mean he is so totally out of the loop on absolutely everything — even the public news cycle — that he has no idea what’s going on.

    I, of course, don’t buy that at all. I don’t buy that a constitutional lawyer and legal scholar didn’t know that the FISA court is secret — aka the opposite of “transparent.” I don’t buy that he simply didn’t see any of the news showing that spying is happening in the United States. And I don’t buy that he didn’t know that there is evidence — both public and inside his own administration — of the NSA “actually abusing” its power.

    I don’t buy any of that because, to say the least, it makes no sense. I just don’t buy that he’s so unaware of the world around him that he made such statements from a position of pure ignorance.

  • R C Dean||

    Put it that way, its a tough call. Given his daily (golfing) schedule and vacations, I don't think complete and utter ignorance, and total exclusion from the loop, is at all implausible.

  • John||

    Is Obama stupid or a crook? Which is it Obots?

  • R C Dean||

    Interesting that even DemOp apparatchiks are beginning to see (and say!) that those are looking like the only two options.

  • John||

    They are going to admit that Obama was really well meaning but just didn't have enough experience and was too erudite and idealistic to be President and was thus let down by those people around him. The solution of course will be to elect someone tougher and more experienced like Hillary.

    These clowns are nothing if not predictable.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    I have a friend who is a College Democrat and she posted some status on Facebook complaining that you can't expect Obama to be responsible for everything his administration does because that's not what presidents do.

    I then posted this picture and she got all defensive. Pretty funny stuff.

  • John||

    They will never admit the first black President was anything but groovy. It means too much for them. All of the people around Obama are going to have to take the fall. The story will be Obama was just too smart, too good for America and the Presidency.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Just going to stir the pot here and say at least Obama's civilian death toll is probably lower than 200,000.

  • John||

    So was Bush's. Saying it was 200,000 is like saying FDR's was 45 million. If you look at the actual number of civilians who were killed at the hands of US ordinance, I bet Obama's and Bush's are pretty similar.

  • Irish||

    If you look at the actual number of civilians who were killed at the hands of US ordinance, I bet Obama's and Bush's are pretty similar.

    I seriously doubt it. There's no way Obama's war mongering has killed as many civilians as died in Afghanistan and Iraq during the U.S. invasions.

    Obama's civilians to terrorists ratio is probably really bad, but in terms of raw numbers I can't imagine he's been responsible for as many civilian deaths.

  • John||

    There's no way Obama's war mongering has killed as many civilians as died in Afghanistan and Iraq during the U.S. invasions.

    Then you know nothing about the initial invasions. They were bloodless. The casualties came afterwards. Obama fought two years of insurgency in Iraq and will have seven or eight in Afghanistan. Bush only fought five years in Iraq and seven years in Afghanistan. But Afghanistan was almost totally quiet for most of that. It didn't kick up again until 07 or so.

    Don't rewrite history to fit your narrative.

  • Irish||

    I wasn't rewriting history to fit my narrative. Would those Iraqi civilians have died if the country had not been destabilized by the invasion?

    I'm also not as anti-intervention as some people here, so don't act like my argument about civilian deaths in Iraq is based on anti-interventionist libertarianism. The insurgency that killed those civilians was the result of a power vacuum that occurred because we invaded. The fact that the initial invasion was bloodless is irrelevant. That would be like saying WWII was a success for Germany because Czechoslovakia didn't put up much of a fight.

    Obama fought two years of insurgency in Iraq and will have seven or eight in Afghanistan.

    Yes, but we were already there because of Bush and whoever took over was going to continue that for a while. Obama very well might have invaded Iraq just like Bush did if he were president in 2003, but I don't know that for sure.

  • John||

    Would those Iraqi civilians have died if the country had not been destabilized by the invasion?

    Since we can't know the counterfactual, we can't answer that. Again, that is like saying FDR's death toll is 45 million. Considering what is going on in Syria is it entirely possible that a civil war would have broken out that would have been much worse. Again, we don't know.

    The point is, hold Bush responsible for the people that the military actually killed during his term, not the action of every enemy. If you look at the number of actual deaths, Obama and Bush are probably pretty close.

    And Obama could have ended either of those wars and chose not to. So the deaths are his responsibility. No blaming Bush. Bush didn't make him stay.

  • PapayaSF||

    Ah, but some want to blame every dead Iraqi on the US. To be fair, you have to at least subtract the number Iraqis and others that Saddam would have killed

  • John||

    Yes, and subtract all of the Iraqis Al Quada killed. Again, they are holding the US responsible for the actions of its enemies.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Who was talking about Bush? I was talking about Truman.

    For a long time, I believed the BS about Japan not wanting to surrender. (To be fair, there was a faction in Japan that essentially called for national suicide.) However, the main body politic wanted to surrender in fucking May 1945. Their only condition was that their Emperor not be tried as a war criminal. That's it.

    Truman held out, the bombs were dropped, and we didn't prosecute the Emperor anyway. So we killed 200,000 people for absolutely nothing. But then, if we'd accepted Japan's surrender in May 1945, we wouldn't have North Korea, and Chaing Kai-Shek might have had a better chance at defeating Mao.

  • John||

    And now you believe all that BS about how invading Japan or starving them to death would have been better. We killed 200,000 people because the Japanese military refused to surrender and the alternatives were that much worse. Had Truman not used the bomb, the Japanese military would have never allowed the Emperor to surrender and the war would have dragged on killing millions more.

    You believe worse nonsense about Truman than you do about Bush. The Japanese were so going to surrender. That is why they didn't do so after the first bomb was dropped. They just didn't get around to it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If, during war, the massacre of a single village of women and children would terrify the enemy into surrender and prevent the need for further fighting with death tolls higher than the massacre, would you approve it?

    If no, what is the difference between that and what we did with Japan?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If, during war, the massacre of a single village of women and children would terrify the enemy into surrender and prevent the need for further fighting with death tolls higher than the massacre, would you approve it?

    No, because once you accept the utilitarian arguement that it's okay to do something wrong to an individual as long as you feel there's enough benefit to everyone else to make up for it, you can justify pretty much any sort of oppresion.

  • BakedPenguin||

    That's the point, John. While there was the "honorable death of the 100 million" club in the Japanese military, there was a much larger faction that realized the war was lost, and national suicide wasn't that great of an idea. They were the ones who sent messages through their Swedish embassy to the US that they would surrender so long as Hirohito wasn't prosecuted. That was their one demand, one the US wound up honoring anyway. This was in MAY of 1945.

    No invasion. no bombing. Korea remains undivided.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Who is "they", BP? I am familiar with the fact that some in the Japanese government sent that request, but the books I have read suggest that the US government did not recognize the initiators of such proposals as having enough power to follow through.

  • Redmanfms||

    However, the main body politic wanted to surrender in fucking May 1945.

    The "main body politic('s)" "wants" are irrelevant in a military dictatorship.

    Until the military was convinced that resistance was futile, surrender was effectively impossible, regardless of the terms.

    Though, the bombs supposedly had little to do with the military's acquiescence to the reality of Japan's defeat. It was the Soviet Union deciding to declare war on August 8th that had the most influence, again, supposedly.

    I can't remember the name of the book now, but it was a memoir of some muckity-muck and he claimed that because of the immense damage and death caused by the atomic bombs the initial reports weren't believed. They were afraid of what the Soviets would do when they invaded.

  • PapayaSF||

    The "main body politic('s)" "wants" are irrelevant in a military dictatorship.

    Exactly. And they almost didn't surrender after Nagasaki: there was an attempted military coup. Only the two bombs, another firebombing of Tokyo shortly after, and the attack by the USSR convinced them.

    The US had had years of experience with suicidal Japanese soldiers and airmen. Thousands (if not tens of thousands) of Japanese civilians on Okinawa etc. had committed suicide rather than surrender. Only in hindsight can anyone claim "Oh, but they were about to surrender!"

  • BakedPenguin||

    After reading your comments, and doing some supplementary reading, I see it's still controversial, and the peace feelers might well have been bogus. With your permission, I withdraw my pot stir.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Even if the Japanese didn't want to surrender, why bother to invade when they were trapped on an island? Just hang out off shore until they change their minds.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Because Korea, Manchuria, and several other places were under severe Japanese occupation and the Soviets were untrustworthy allies in occupation?

    Because politically, the US population wouldn't have supported the additional time and maintaining of a wartime economy to set up a blockade?

    Because a blockade would have resulted in more estimated casualties from starvation and disease than the estimated casualties from the bomb?

    I fail to see how a starving peasant in Hokkaido would have been comforted by the knowledge that he wasn't killed by an atom bomb.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    It's not about his comfort. If his government chooses to starve him, I'm not morally responsible for it because I fail to stop it. I am morally responsible if I blow him up.

    Stopping B from doing something bad to C, D, E... doesn't justify me doing something bad to A.

  • PapayaSF||

    Truman was also morally responsible for all the US soldiers and sailors. Ending the war as quickly as possible was best from their point of view.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Truman held out..."

    Truman was upholding Roosevelt's policy of unconditional surrender which FDR was embarrassed into because Eisenhower cut a deal with a Vichy French Nazi official during Operation Torch. The press raised a stink about it, it was kind of like the moral outrage Wikileaks has about realpolitik in today's diplomacy. That kind of moral purity gets people killed.

  • PapayaSF||

    I thought unconditional surrender was a demand of Stalin's that we went along with.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Interesting details in that photo: ash tray, plain manila file folders w/o presidential seals, painted over window panes, lots of desk knick knacks like Truman actually spent time working there.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Is Obama stupid or a crook?

    Yes.

  • ||

    I could totally see Obama being that ignorant.

  • ||

    But I buy it, David. I certainly buy it.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    I'll give him credit for pointing out this obvious problem with Obama apologia.

    If you delve into the comments you'll see some pretty somber proggies acknowledging his argument.

  • ||

    The thing is, one of us could have written that bit of the article, if you took out "don't". So he sees it. But he cannot allow himself to acknowledge it, because it means not only did they get completely fooled, it wasn't even by some evil mastermind; they got fooled by a simple, lazy conman.

    Process that, David.

  • John||

    it wasn't even by some evil mastermind; they got fooled by a simple, lazy conman

    That is the funny part and the thing people like this guy will never be able to come to terms with. They were taken in by the worst sort of urban machine con man. In any other age, Obama's career would have peaked at crooked Chicago Alderman. But they were so stupid and gullible they raised him up to be President.

  • CatoTheElder||

    ^THIS

  • paranoid android||

    There simply are no words for that. Wow.

    Fortunately, the comments seem to be almost universally to the tune of, "Are you fucking kidding me? Of course he's lying," which is a little heartening, I guess.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Another day, another Amanduh brainfart...

    For those who are watching to see what kind of stupid bullshit Fox News is trying to make a “scandal” this month, you’ve probably noticed an uptick in attempts to tie the words “abortion”, “Planned Parenthood”, and “Obamacare” together. They’re clearly hoping you’re not paying attention, because if you actually listen to the supposedly scandalous accusation, it amounts to being infuriated that some Planned Parenthood clinics are going to be part of a government program to help uninsured people navigate the new health care exchanges[...]

    Clearly, they’re being inconsistent here. If that’s the logic, then it’s equally scandalous for the government to give grants to Catholic charities and to lobster fishermen as it is for them to give grants to Planned Parenthood. After all, the Catholic Church does a lot of really immoral things, including making it harder for women around the world to control their fertility. Animal rights people have a lot of criticisms of lobster fishing. Fetuses don’t feel pain, but lobsters sure do when you boil them alive.

    I am pro-life, but you know what, Amanda makes a great point here: Lobsters do feel pain. You can't argue with that kind of airtight logic.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do think it is odd as I noted on a discussion last night that many anti-abortion 'Crisis Pregnancy Centers' get significant state and federal funding, but we do not hear much about that.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Neither one should receive funding, but unlike PP nothing that goes on in a Crisis Pregnancy Center involves the termination of a human life. Not everyone is a doctrinaire libertarian, and there are plenty of reasons outside of conventional libertarian thought to be appalled at government funding for organizations that either rhetorically support and participate in the ending of human life.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That strikes me as a poor distinction. To most pro-choice people there are no persons being 'terminated' at Planned Parenthood either, and at Crisis Pregnancy Centers people are being led to make incredibly poor life decisions.

  • ||

    He didn't say "persons" so don't be so disingenuous.

    No one can really argue that the whateveryouwanttocallit is composed of human DNA and is alive.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Yes, I am sure he was quite specific in what he said, as was I in reply.

  • ||

    Pretending that he said persons when he said human life is so Tulpical.

    You see when a man and a woman like each other they may lay down in front of the fire and make sweet love, like the song of the hummingbird. If they're really lucky (or unlucky as the case may be) the sperm fertilizes the egg and their two strands of HUMAN dna combine into one completely unique individual. It is scientifically alive and human. This is not up for debate.

    Now, whether or not it has rights is a different can of worms.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    To most pro-choice people there are no persons being 'terminated' at Planned Parenthood either

    In this context, I don't give a damn what "most pro-choice people" think is being killed at a Planned Parenthood and neither should you: the objective fact is that a human life is being terminated and that people will be (and should be) upset and morally bothered by that fact. PP is an organization that supports and practices partial birth abortion where it is legal and advocates for its legalization where it is not -- less euphemistically, they murder infants who happen to slip past the abortionist's knife and would murder more if you'd let them.

    If you don't see the distinction between that and what a lobster fisherman does, then congratulations: you can sit in the corner with the dunce cap alongside Ms Marcotte.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You quite consciously use the term 'human life' to try to game emotional support for your view. If you really want to be specific why not say 'human life at a very low level of development' (with low being quite an understatement).

    Of course, Ms. Marcotte herself doesn't think these are the same things, that is the point of her entire argument (arguing it is wrong to give PP money because some fetus may feel pain leads to the absurd view that lobster fisherman who make lobsters feel pain should not get funding). If you do not understand her argument perhaps you should not be so quick to pass out dunce caps here.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    If you really want to be specific why not say 'human life at a very low level of development'

    Because the level of development is immaterial to the conversation. PP aborts without regard to the level of development of the fetus and many of its associates and employees have articulated a moral support for infanticide, as well.

    This is not difficult Bo, and you are articulating distinctions that apply in the general debate on abortion but which have no bearing on the topic at hand. PP is a pack of baby killers. If you think that killing an infant is fine, go ahead and say so. Most people will disagree with you and put you in roughly the same category as people who believed that blacks are qualitatively different from other human life (and rightly so). If you don't, then you understand all that you need to about why someone would be appalled by PP funding without either being pro-life or a libertarian opposed to government funding of such ventures in general.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is silly to equate any embryo and most fetuses with 'a baby.' If you handed a mother either when they were expecting their baby they would be horrified and immediately ask what was wrong. 'Baby killers' in this context is as pathetic an attempt to cash in on the emotional resonance of 'babies' as the leftist who carries on about 'the children.'

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    And to top it off with a Sharpton-esque race baiting is the cherry on top of that emotional laden sundae.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Trouser: Looking at what PP says and does is material to whether people can object to it on non-libertarian grounds.

    Bo: But many pro-choicers would not regard early-stage fetuses as persons.

    Trouser: So what? PP is not "many pro-choicers". They have specific views which I am citing, including a partiality for PBA and in some cases infanticide.

    Bo: It's disingenuous to use PP's positions in a debate as to whether they should be funded by government since early-stage fetuses aren't equivalent to people!

    Trouser: ...?!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    And if you think that Peter Singer-like views on infanticide aren't regarded with about the same distaste as slaveowners or Nazis among the overwhelming majority of civilized people, then you don't get out much.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Can you point me to where Planned Parenthood has supported actual infanticide of fully born infants?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Just as soon as you point me to a meaningful distinction between PBA and infanticide.

    I never claimed that PP as an organization supported infanticide as a policy; merely that some of their high-level spokespersons and employees have articulated that view (and that besides that, it is highly consistent with the logic behind a PBA).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    This is what they call on the internet 'backpedaling,' no? You use the term 'babykillers' and infanticide when you really meant PBA. You will say 'but to me they are equivalent!' But of course you know full well they are not in usual parlance. You were trading on the emotional resonance of the first terms.

    And who cares what some PP employees think on the issue? I am sure CPC employees with terrible views (such as that women who are promiscuous 'deserve' unwanted pregnancy, STD's, etc) can be dug up rather easily.

    If they should be defunded both should be on one simple principle: coerced funding is wrong.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Your argument seems to me to boil down to: funding PP is worse than funding CPCs because PP is engaged in evil and CPCs are not! Of course if we are only interested in defunding 'evil' I point out that pro-choicers will see it in reverse of what pro-lifers will. That is why they are different groups.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Damn right, Bo -- killing infants is stone-cold evil and there is nothing wrong with wanting your government to have no part in that, even if you are not a libertarian. Do you have to be a libertarian to conclude that the Holocaust was wrong? I don't consider all pro-choicers to be on that level, but if an organization that kills infants and advocates for its "right" to kill more doesn't count as being on that same moral plane, then I'll be damned if I know what is. It isn't even remotely comparable to a Catholic queering up scare stories about contraceptives at a Crisis Pregnancy Center.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    And to hell with you and your dishonest debate tactics. This debate is about PP funding. I have never backtracked on anything I have said about PP -- I am agnostic on the topic of early-term abortions and can respect pro-choicers who hold such views, which has absolutely nothing to do with the monstrosities that PP supports. They are baby-killers -- that is a fact, not an opinion unless you are so mendacious as to suppose that a baby two seconds before exiting the birth canal is qualitatively different from a baby who makes the trip.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I understand you think it is murder and 'baby killing.' My entire point is that is the heart of the controversy, the other side thinks it is not and so restricting it amounts to forced pregnancy and worse.

    I am only pointing out that there is no distinction in denouncing state funding of either group unless one buys into the philosophy of either side. You are simply yelling 'I do buy into one side!'

    OK, I get that. But for everyone else, it's unprincipled.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Fuck you, dude. If you think that this is a matter of opinion but that infanticide is beyond the pale, there is no saving you. Go find some government agency and become its John Woo; there's no saving you from your own mendacity.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    And how the fuck is a restriction on PBA a requirement for forced pregnancy? Do you understand what a PBA is? If you are having a PBA, you kinda already went through a pregnancy, you dope.

  • Irish||

    I also question what your excuse is for not getting an abortion earlier. Was there something really good on T.V.?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I meant banning abortion in general.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is obvious you have some very strong emotions on this issue, it was not my intention to inflame them so. But, as Rand said, you cannot argue with emotion so I will let you have the last word and wish you a good day despite our disagreement.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    So... no meaningful distinctions, then.

    People are so wrong to equate you to Tulpa. John Woo fits you so much better.

  • ||

    That photo. So sad. Haunting. Disturbing.

    Sure that child didn't feel pain. Sure.

    I can't see, judging from the picture, how that's not killing life or murder.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    To perhaps put it better, unless one buys into the pro-life or pro-choice philosophies there is no reason to make a big deal of the funding of one but not to do the same about the other. You are replying you buy into one of them and base your distinction on that. OK, but let us have none of this nonsense about it being wrong to fund PP because the government should not 'take sides on this issue which people feel strongly about on both sides' (which is what Romney and others said).

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I don't give a fuck what Romney said. Answer my question: is there a meaningful difference between a PBA and infanticide? If not, then all your sophistry has absolutely no bearing on this topic, since PP is responsible for ~1000 PBAs a year.

    I would assume that you would understand why an otherwise pro-government leftist would be against our drone campaigns in Yemen and Pakistan, and not engage in sophistry about how unless you are a pacifist you would not buy into bla bla bla.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Quickly-there could be several distinctions between infanticide and a PBA. The health of the mother might be an issue with the former. Being born itself has long had significance in this culture. Etcetera. What is disingenuous of you is to assume everyone thinks they are the same but some just decide to be 'babykillers.'

    Now good day to you, honestly. I admire your passion on this subject though I disagree with your reasoning.

  • ||

    If you don't think somebody performing a PBA is a babykiller then there is no helping you.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "To most pro-choice people there are no persons being 'terminated' at Planned Parenthood either,..."

    Pro-choicers are excellent at bullshit rationalizations. So whaat?

  • NeonCat||

    So... Amanda wants us to boil Catholics instead of lobsters? Or should we convert the lobsters to Catholicism, give them an abortion and then boil them?

  • R C Dean||

    Paying Planned Parenthood to be insurance consultants (for which they are utterly unqualified) is a pretty thin pretext for channelling money to a favored group. Maybe that's what has people pissed off.

  • ||

    Note her blatant and direct projection about creating scandals and linking words and concepts. Oh Amanda, TEAM OUTRAGE is on your side for the most part.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    If ironic projection were a drug, Amanda would be its Walter White.

    Well OK, maybe its Jesse Pinkman.

  • OldMexican||

    After all, the Catholic Church does a lot of really immoral things, including making it harder for women around the world to control their fertility.


    Here's another case that shows the muddling of the concept of "morality", when a clueless liberal who is having a brain masturbation thinks that not wanting to pay for someone else's "fertility control" is somehow an evil act in itself.

  • ||

    I'm sure she's referring more to the fact that the Catholic Church has spent centuries telling people they will go to hell for practicing birth control, and less to anything to do with PPACA. It's not like that hasn't been an issue between feminists and Catholics for a long, long time.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Nikkis enthusiastic dissent,

    I'm sure she's referring more to the fact that the Catholic Church has spent centuries telling people they will go to hell for practicing birth control


    Telling people that they will go to hell is not the same as "making it harder" to obtain birth control. It is clear what she's talking about, and it is not about having theological differences with the Church.

  • ||

    You don't think it makes it harder for people to plan their fertility if they think it is a sin to do so?

    I mean, I wouldn't really know as I have absolutely no capax dei. But it's a generally accepted idea that religion makes it harder for people to do things they should have no problem doing because it makes them think they will burn eternally for it. If you read any feminist or skepticist writing prior to PPACA you would see the exact same line on RCs.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Indeed. Social pressure like the Church uses may not violate the NAP, but that does not mean it does not have some effect.

    Of course the Church has a right to push their view. But I have a right to push my view that theirs harms those who buy into it.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Nikkis enthusiastic dissent,

    You don't think it makes it harder for people to plan their fertility if they think it is a sin to do so?


    I don't understand how belief precludes a person from acting. You will have to explain that to me.

    But it's a generally accepted idea that religion makes it harder for people to do things they should have no problem doing


    That's a crock. Again, belief does not preclude you from acting, unless you're telling me that people are robots.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What is this, do you not think there are such things as moral and social suasion and pressure that, while falling short of the NAP and thus must be allowed, can still have some impact on people's choices?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Bo Cara Esq.

    What is this, do you not think there are such things as moral and social suasion


    Sure, for many things. That does not mean those things suddenly become unavailable. There IS a difference between social mores and a goddamned BAN. A BAN requires actual force, that is nice men pointing guns at your FACE.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I seem to recall the Catholic Church has also supported contraception bans in this (as a matter of history) and other countries as well.

  • ||

    Oooh they supported bans.

    How did that workout here? *Looks in drawer and sees 4 condoms left in the box*

    Guess that ship didn't fly.

  • Irish||

    Oooh they supported bans.

    How did that workout here? *Looks in drawer and sees 4 condoms left in the box*

    Just because they failed doesn't mean it was right for them to support bans.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Irish,

    Just because they failed doesn't mean it was right for them to support bans


    What bans? Where? When? There's a difference between objecting to certain products and outright curtailing their supply through acts of aggression. Unless you can show evidence of this, then you have no valid argument that asking people not to use contraception = "making it harder for women" to obtain contraception.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    As a historical matter? Are you saying you need citation of the Church supporting bans on the sale, possession or use of contraception (like the Comstock laws)?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Bo Cara Esq.

    Are you saying you need citation of the Church supporting bans


    What's with you and this idea that supporting a ban = BAN?

  • Irish||

    For most of its history, the Catholic Church banned condoms for members.

    Now I realize that the standard libertarian response, which I generally agree with, would be "well, you don't have to join." True enough, but when you're proselytizing in poorly educated countries with large rates of STDs and tons of orphans, it seems to me that there's something seriously immoral about arguing against condom usage and telling people that the choice is between condoms and their eternal souls.

    Not only that, but there are majority Catholic nations like the Philippines, which is 80% Catholic, that actually DO make it very difficult to get condoms. In the Philippines you need a prescription to get condoms, largely as a result of Catholic Church support for such a law, and there have been many people who have taken the Church's advice and begun agitating for a total condom ban.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Irish,

    For most of its history, the Catholic Church banned condoms for members.

    Now I realize that the standard libertarian response, which I generally agree with, would be "well, you don't have to join."


    I don't care what the "standard reply" would be because I am an individual with my own mind. MY reply is that you're taking the use of the word "ban" in the headline too seriously; it is clear the author is exaggerating. The church can certainly prohibit its members from using contraception as a matter of doctrine, but that does not mean a person is ipso facto PRECLUDED from getting contraception, like the feminist author is insinuating.

    Catholic nations like the Philippines, which is 80% Catholic, that actually DO make it very difficult to get condoms.


    Was that the Church, or the nice men with the guns that work for the State??? We also have bans on sugary drinks in some places in the U.S. - to whom do you want to ascribe that one, Irish? The Unitarians? The Amish?

  • Irish||

    I seem to recall the Catholic Church has also supported contraception bans in this (as a matter of history) and other countries as well.

    I'm also pretty sure Catholic missionaries have told people in third world countries not to use condoms. I think that telling uneducated people that condoms don't work is pretty immoral.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Agreed. At a minimum, it is a lie -- one that makes it that much more likely that contraceptives and abortion will be conflated, which should not be the case.

  • Derpetologist||

    If it's OK to kill things as long as they can't feel pain, that means if Amanda was anaesthetized, it would be OK to bludgeon her to death with a gender studies textbook.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Isn't she saying the opposite?

  • Derpetologist||

    Hold steady, you rascal. If I can get a good picture, it'll make the cover of every respectable journal.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Her argument clearly is not 'if something does not feel pain then it is OK to kill it.' It is 'because something might feel pain that is not a reason to not kill it, we do it with lobsters.'*

    *To be more specific it would be 'funding an agency that kills something that might feel pain is no reason to defund it, 'because something might feel pain that is not a reason to not kill it, we do it with lobsters.'*

    Of course my position is that those who want to fund PP should do so and those who want to fund anti-PP groups should do so, but no one should be forced to do either.

  • Derpetologist||

    As you can see, most derps are unable to recognize the moral difference between human and animal life.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    And some derpetologists unable to recognize the point others make, even when explained to them more than once.

  • PapayaSF||

    Fetuses don’t feel pain

    [Citation needed]

  • Enough About Palin||

    "Fetuses don’t feel pain, but lobsters sure do when you boil them alive."

    Amanduh, fetus boiler.

  • OldMexican||

    A quirk in Obamacare means that many families will be better off if their employers don't offer healthcare and they get taxpayer-subsidized policies through health exchanges instead.


    "I call it 'quirk'!"
    "In my experience, there is no such thing as 'quirk'!"

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Question for the maybe you should squat more, bro, crowd: I picked up Starting Strength last year after reading about it here as a lurker. Right now I am out of shape but am working my way back into it. What are respectable squat/bench/deadlift benchmarks for a 27 year old 5'10" male? What should I be shooting for?

  • From the Tundra||

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Thanks, much appreciated.

  • From the Tundra||

    Oh, and don't get too hung up on the numbers. Just keep getting stronger every week and you will soon surpass your initial goals anyway. Good luck! It's a gas.

  • ||

    Tundra is correct that the numbers don't mean much. Also realize that during your ramp up to adding a fair amount of muscle, you are going to need to eat more than you expect. If you level off and just maintain (which is what I am doing now during summer tennis season) you will want to reduce your caloric intake as well, but when you're adding 15-20lbs of muscle you have to feed that shit.

  • From the Tundra||

    Good points, Epi. Rippetoe really writes for hard-gainers, not older guys who are probably a little too fluffy already. Probably no need to GOMAD at 27. Just don't under-eat, especially protein. You will really be able to tell when you haven't been eating properly. Here's another good site about nutrition:
    http://thefitcoach.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/584/

  • ||

    Yup. For me, I already ate mostly protein and fat so I had no trouble. But the late night fridge raiding and shit took me completely by surprise because I never used to do that. That's when I realized I was going to have to significantly increase my intake.

  • From the Tundra||

    What do you do carb-wise? I have been on a fairly low carb diet for quite some time and feel like it doesn't hinder me (at 46) too much. I sometimes try to have a little extra carbs around workouts, but mostly protein/fat otherwise.

  • ||

    I will eat bread because it's sort of hard to get a sandwich for lunch without it (I could always get a Jimmy Johns Unwich!), and if I'm at brunch I'll eat my potatoes and toast if I'm hungry. I never do pasta or rice. My dinners are usually almost completely carb free, as are my weekday breakfasts. I'll grill up some corn occasionally. I never eat a meal which is basically all carbs.

    But this was the way I've been for a long time anyway, because I like it.

  • From the Tundra||

    #10 Unwich with avocado, ftw! Yeah, that's basically my diet, too. Sweet potatoes and, of course, the occasional Surly Furious make up the bulk of my carbs.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Any foods particularly good? I'm drinking more whole milk, and try to do high fat/high protein, but are there any foods in particular I should be eating?

  • ||

    Not really. Some people are against milk because of all the lactose (which is a sugar) in it. I don't drink milk myself but that's because I don't care for it. Really, what you want is protein and fat and vegetables.

    One thing to note will be that if you are building muscle, fish will never satisfy you. If I eat fish--and especially when I'm trying to gain--it's like I ate air. In an hour it's like I didn't eat. Chicken or turkey is similar but a little better. So I have to favor beef, lamb, pork, cheese, sausages, and a lot of eggs. In fact, I tended to mix them all; for instance, make steak and eggs with cheese for dinner.

    And one way that lot of people supplement their protein intake is with protein powder, which you might want to consider if you're going for big gains. Mix up a shake (I use water, some people will use milk) and take it to the lift with you, and sip it during.

  • Xenocles||

    Some of the more paleo-inclined will recommend a dozen eggs a day in place of GOMAD (presumably in addition to any other eggs you normally eat). You may want to mix if either milk or egg whites in excess bother you.

    And yes, don't be hung up on where you are with the work weight but on moving in the right direction and on doing the exercise right.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Quelle surprise!

    I don't accept the right-wing conventional wisdom that Team Obama destroyed the economy with sharia socialism. And I don't accept the left-wing conventional wisdom that Team Obama sacrificed the economy to appease the banksters. In the vast majority of contexts, I find myslef playing the role of Obama-defender and Geithner-apologist.

    I myslef am shocked by this development. It's good that Yglesias tells us these things; I would have never figured out that he was anything close to an Obama apologist without that vital clarification on his part.

  • John||

    It is just shocking that Sad Beard doesn't see any fault in Obama. He may be retarded. But he takes orders and puts ou the talking points he is given. He is a good soldier right down to his Velcro tie shoes and the food stains on his shirt.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The economy is far stronger than the wingnuts will admit.

    Auto sales are proof for wingnuts who don't trust the market indexes.

  • John||

    You in contrast are so retarded you can't even get the talking points that are given you right. It is really a sorry statement about Reason that its enemies thinks it deserves such a poor quality of sock puppet.

  • ||

    To be fair, he didn't "wreck the economy with sharia socialism". He just tried every Keynesian trick in the book and came up wanting.

  • John||

    That straw man, that every critic of Obama thinks he is a secret Muslim communist, is one of the talking points. Sad beard gets the talking point right. That is because even though he has an extra chromosome, he knows how to repeat what the Journalist and the White House tells him. Shreek's handlers give him the same talking points and he still fucks them up. I feel bad for the Dem op who has the shreek portfolio.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttwipe,

    The economy is far stronger than the wingnuts will admit.


    Liar.

  • John||

    He is not really a liar. He is just repeating badly what his handlers are telling him. He is just a very sad sock puppet.

  • Irish||

    I don't accept the right-wing conventional wisdom that Team Obama destroyed the economy with sharia socialism. And I don't accept the left-wing conventional wisdom that Team Obama sacrificed the economy to appease the banksters.

    Yglesias, not content to destroy one strawman as is his custom, takes on the noble task of destroying TWO strawmen at once.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    He is the very soul of scholasticism.

  • Damned Fool||

    Yeah, the old kind where instruction revolved around defending the established teachings.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Coroner reports that Michael Hasatings had THC and meth in his body at time of death

    Journalist Michael Hastings, who was killed in a fiery Los Angeles crash in June, died of "traumatic injuries" as a result of the accident and had traces of drugs in his system, Los Angeles coroner's officials said Tuesday.

    Hastings, 33, died June 18 in a single-vehicle accident. His car burst into flames and he was pronounced dead at the scene.

    Coroner's officials said Hastings had traces of amphetamine in his system, consistent with possible intake of methamphetamine many hours before death, as well as marijuana. Neither were considered a factor in the crash, according to toxicology reports.

    The cause of death was massive blunt force trauma consistent with a high-speed crash. He likely died within seconds, the report said.

    Hastings had arrived in Los Angeles from New York the day before the accident, with his brother scheduled to arrive later the day of the crash "as his family was attempting to get [Hastings] to go to detox," the report stated.

    Hastings was believed sober for 14 years, but had recently begun using drugs again in the past month or so, according to the coroner's office, based on interviews with family members.

    Gee, I wonder what kind of stress could have made him relapse.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Demand for health exchange market higher than expected.

    WASHINGTON — Estimates from 19 states operating health insurance exchanges to help the uninsured find coverage show that at least 8.5 million will use the exchanges to buy insurance, a USA TODAY survey shows. That would far outstrip the federal government's estimate of 7 million new customers for all 50 states under the 2010 health care law.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/.....a/2671489/

  • ||

    I doubt they talked to all 8.5 million people so that is a total extrapolation based on percentages that have no real bearing on reality.

    But I'm pretty sure quire a few people here said that the exchanges were going to be bloated way beyond the bullshit projections they were shoving down our throats 3 years ago.

  • R C Dean||

    Shreek, you idiot, you can't say that demand is "higher than expected" when you are quoting an article about how high demand is expected to be.

  • PapayaSF||

    All this means is that more people will be disappointed when the exchanges don't work as advertised, and upset when the unvetted employees steal their identities.

  • Derpetologist||

    Whenever derps colonize a new habitat, speciation is rapid. This derp appears to have carved out a niche by becoming more gullible and dishonest than its ancestors.

  • Whahappan?||

    Perhaps because more people than expected are losing their insurance, contrary to Obama's lie that "if you like your insurance, you can keep it?"

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Jezebel is right for once: Christine Quinn can't be anti-street harassment and pro-stop-and-frisk at the same time

    Quinn supports the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program, which I'd argue promotes a more harmful form of street harassment than getting hollered at. Basically, Quinn thinks some groups of people have a right to walk down the street without being harassed for no reason, but not others. Why should New Yorkers trust her to police their streets?

    Yesterday, Hollaback! and Quinn, along with her wife Kim Catullo and Council Member Diana Reyna, detailed plans for "assessing the safety of neighborhoods across the city, block by block, using community-led safety audits," according to a press release. "By gathering information in a coordinated way, the city will be able to better direct resources and more effectively combat harassment," it read.

    “People who violate women either by their actions or words won’t be able to hide any longer," Quinn said. "We will know who they are, what they do, where they do it – and we will put it to an end. By coupling valuable information with targeted resources we will arm ourselves with the tools we need to put an end to street violence and harassment. Public spaces belong to all New Yorkers, and street harassment is not a price women and LGBT New Yorkers have to pay for walking around New York City’s neighborhoods.”

  • PapayaSF||

    The amusing thing about her is that they had to soundproof her office because she was always screaming at people.

  • Killazontherun||

    Consistency from a proggie? That would mean not playing favorites, taking the very raison d'etre of politics out of politics!

  • OldMexican||

    The IRS set up an online registration system that all financial businesses in the world will have to use if they want to do business with Americans — or else face penalties or exclusion from U.S. markets. They'll have to register in English, and wade through complicated rules.


    Cui bono? All those American financial businesses who would feel threatened by all those competing firms establishing a business in the U.S.

    Talk about regulation capture...

  • Coeus||

    Building a new racial justice movement.

    Justice and Rights Aren’t the Same

    Justice can include civil rights laws, but civil rights laws don’t always include justice. The difference between the two is suggested for me in that old school precursor to jokes, “There oughta be a law.” There ought to be lots of laws and we won’t get them unless we recognize the limits of the laws we have now in relation to justice.
    “Civil” refers largely to political rights, but communities of color need change in economics and culture, too, the kind of change that hasn’t yet been encoded in the law. People of color should be able to see ourselves on television and in movies as something other than villains far more often than we do now, but there is no law that calls this a “right.” Food justice would mean that people could get access to fresh produce at reasonable prices within a short distance from their homes, yet no law punishes grocery store chains for abandoning poor neighborhoods of color. But laws and other structures could be crafted to change these arrangements that too many people currently accept as “just the way it is.” In fact, over time, the kinds of rules and regulations that once supported cultural rights, such as the fairness doctrine in communications law, have been steadily gutted by the same deregulation that created Fox News.
  • Derpetologist||

    Having 5 major liberal news networks is fair, but having 5 liberal networks and 1 conservative network is unfair.

    Seeing a majestic flock of derp like this is what gets me out of bed in the morning.

  • PapayaSF||

    To many of those people, the major networks and NPR are "centrist" because they aren't openly pushing the CPUSA line. But Fox News... OMG! They are so extreme!

  • Derpetologist||

    Partial Transcription of the Derp Rosetta Stone

    DERP- I'm a centrist; you're an extremist.

    ENGLISH- I'm sane; you're insane.

  • C. Anacreon||

    People of color should be able to see ourselves on television and in movies as something other than villains far more often than we do now, but there is no law that calls this a “right.” Food justice would mean that people could get access to fresh produce at reasonable prices within a short distance from their homes, yet no law punishes grocery store chains for abandoning poor neighborhoods of color.

    1. Funny, but just about every tv show and movie I see goes way out of its way to NOT have blacks as the villians. In fact, if I only went by what I saw on-screen, I'd think that all the criminals today are white supremacists or apartheid-lovers. The only movies out there with black street thugs as characters or black villains seem to be those made by black directors. I'm guessing he isn't criticizing them, though.

    2. So I can assume that there is huge demand for fresh produce in these neighborhoods, but no retailer will go there because they intentionally abandon poor neighborhoods of color? If that's the case, I have a great business plan to make a fortune. Oh, you say that food deserts are a disproven myth? Not to this author.

  • PapayaSF||

    Funny, but just about every tv show and movie I see goes way out of its way to NOT have blacks as the villains.

    No kidding. At least they got over the '70s thing of having mixed-race gangs of muggers (e.g. Jeff Goldblum in Death Wish), but Law & Order (while I watched it) seemed very good at casting street criminals with hard-to-say, not-white, not-black ethnic types.

  • paranoid android||

    In the old days (late 80's, so during the crime associated with the crack epidemic) it was pretty hard-nosed and realistic about it. The episode "Mushrooms" (from the first season, I believe) sticks out in my mind.

  • paranoid android||

    "It" being Law & Order

  • PapayaSF||

    Yes, based on reruns I've seen, L&W started out as less politically correct, but got more so as time went on. Another instance of O'Sullivan's Law.

  • Damned Fool||

    The difference between the two is suggested for me in that old school precursor to jokes, “There oughta be a law.”

    There's a reason this line is a precursor for jokes.

  • Killazontherun||

    Admit to failure and then double down by pretending the road map you lay out is the one you Marxoids have been advocating for fifty years.

    Why do you assume its necessary to change the economic order of our society for you to have a change whereas oppressed minorities like the Jews and Chinese thrive in capitalist societies? Do you think yourself weaker than they?

    Walter Williams has a better solution:

    (cont. beneath the fold)

  • Killazontherun||

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/201.....ck-people/

    Progressives treat blacks as victims in need of kid glove treatment and special favors, such as racial quotas and preferences. This approach has been tried in education for decades and has revealed itself a failure. I say it’s time we explore other approaches. One approach is suggested by sports. Blacks excel — perhaps dominate is a better word — in sports such as basketball, football and boxing to such an extent that blacks are 80 percent of professional basketball players, are 66 percent of professional football players and, for decades, have dominated most professional boxing categories.

    These outcomes should raise several questions.

  • Killazontherun||

    In sports, when have you heard a coach explain or excuse a black player’s poor performance by blaming it on a “legacy of slavery” or on that player’s being raised in a single-parent household? When have you heard sports standards called racist or culturally biased? I have yet to hear a player, much less a coach, speak such nonsense. In fact, the standards of performance in sports are just about the most ruthless anywhere. Excuses are not tolerated. Think about it. What happens to a player, black or white, who doesn’t come up to a college basketball or football coach’s standards? He’s off the team. Players know this, and they make every effort to excel. They do so even more if they have aspirations to be a professional player. By the way, blacks also excel in the entertainment industry — another industry in which there’s ruthless dog-eat-dog competition.

    Seeing as blacks have demonstrated an ability to thrive in an environment of ruthless competition and demanding standards, there might be some gains from a similar school environment.

  • Killazontherun||

    Jeez, got the case of the after supper sleepies --

    Admit to failure and then double down by pretending the road map you lay out is not the one you Marxoids have been advocating for fifty years.

    Why do you assume its necessary to change the economic order of our society for you to have a changce whereas oppressed minorities like the Jews and Chinese thrive in capitalist societies? Do you think yourself weaker than they?

  • PapayaSF||

    Yeah, well, but neither entertainment nor sports are known for requiring brains, and there is that persistent and politically awkward Bell Curve thing. Many people don't want tough and even-handed schools because the grades and graduation rates won't perfectly reflect demographics, and thus they will be "racist."

  • Killazontherun||

    Even taken as a given that you're correct, if the best we can hope for out of this is we get a ton of honestly earned B students with few obtaining A marks if it were administered as a social prerogative, would it not be superior than what we have now?

  • PapayaSF||

    Oh, yeah. One of the manias of the age is that everyone should go to college. There's nothing wrong with learning a trade and sticking with it. Save your money and it's not hard to become quite well-off. But the social pressure is all doctor/lawyer/pro sports/Hollywood.

  • califernian||

    Eliminate public schools. Problem solved.

  • PapayaSF||

    Food justice would mean that people could get access to fresh produce at reasonable prices within a short distance from their homes, yet no law punishes grocery store chains for abandoning poor neighborhoods of color.

    And here, in one sentence, is the paradox and tragedy of the "social justice" mindset. Start your own grocery store in a poor neighborhood of color and let us know how it turns out, jerk.

  • Sevo||

    Or move to where there is one.
    How hard is that?

  • PapayaSF||

    But remember that many "social justice" agitators are agitating on behalf of other people. They would never actually live in one of THOSE neighborhoods!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    There's a way to get fresh produce at a very reasonable price. First, you go down to your community garden. Next, you plant a seed in the ground. Then you wait a bit.

  • Irish||

    “Civil” refers largely to political rights, but communities of color need change in economics and culture, too,

    I like where this is going!

    the kind of change that hasn’t yet been encoded in the law.

    Goddammit.

    But laws and other structures could be crafted to change these arrangements that too many people currently accept as “just the way it is.” In fact, over time, the kinds of rules and regulations that once supported cultural rights, such as the fairness doctrine in communications law, have been steadily gutted by the same deregulation that created Fox News.

    And he is now arguing that Fox News should not be allowed to broadcast. Fucking scumbag.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Fox News is bad because it has some opinion broadcasting that skews right, but MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, etc. are all okay because they are right-thinking and mutual?

    I love how "fairness" and "equity" with these people never means fairness or equity.

  • Derpetologist||

    The Derp Rosetta Stone Continued:

    DERP- That's not fair. Equality is important.

    ENGLISH- I don't like that. Only my side is allowed to win.

  • PapayaSF||

    And, of course, the fact that most educational institutions and non-profits slant left is not to be mentioned, while they attack Cato or Heritage or ALEC or whatever for being dangerously partisan and extreme.

  • OldMexican||

    Left = Good
    Right = Bad

    Simplistic moral principles for simpletons.

  • PH2050||

    Hold on, I need to write this down.

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