Justices Appear Unhappy with Obama’s Recess Appointments, Canadian Teen Charged over Sexting, Oregon’s Health Exchange Still Broken: P.M. Links

  • If two out of three branches say no, will the president listen?Credit: massmatt / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-SAObservers at today’s Supreme Court arguments challenging President Barack Obama’s use or abuse (depending on your point of view) of recess appointments seem to think the justices are holding a dim view that the president can just bypass the Senate to get what he wants.
  • The Supreme Court, however, is declining to get involved in the decision striking down of an Arizona abortion law. The law banned abortion after 20 weeks but was ruled unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case means that the law is dead.
  • A Canadian teenager has been charged with child pornography possession over a sexting case.
  • After three months, Oregon’s health insurance exchange still doesn’t work at all. They’re hoping to have it up by March.
  • New York State Assemblyman Dennis Gabryszak (D-Buffalo) is retiring amidst a host of sexual harassment allegations.
  • For the drinkers: Japan’s Suntory Holdings Ltd. has acquired the company that makes Jim Beam and Maker’s Mark Whiskey.

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

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don’t forget to sign up for Reason’s daily updates for more content.

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Yowassup.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Hiya.

    Dating is one of those things that really is "when it rains it pours" isn't it?

  • Art Vandelay||

    Your first "golden shower", eh?

  • ||

    How so? (Let me live vicariously through your stories).

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Well, there's the older woman from last weekend. That was followed immediately by a redheaded engineer who went to my undergrad a couple years behind me messaging me online and asking me out. We went on a couple of dates last week and have another planned for tomorrow. A newish girl at my work gym hit on me this morning and invited me to a party at her place at the end of the week. Also the older woman started hinting about spending some time together when we are both in San Diego next week.

    All of this is after about a month of nothing.

  • Swiss Servator, Befehl!||

    Are you using "Sex Panther" or summthin'?

  • ||

    Axe body spray!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    After the holidays, women start thinking about nesting. And what's more of a catch than a strong, self-reliant libertarian type?

  • ||

    That, and the holidays are just damned depressing.

  • ||

    Good for you! I have before wondered at how the result happens that some interest = more interest. Is it that a person who is more confident (because they've gotten some attention) = becomes more attractive? Or is it that getting some attention leads to relaxing a little = more attention. Not that I am in the market.

  • Coeus||

    When it rains it pours. It's always been easier to date two more women when you're already dating one than it is to date one when you're dating none.

  • Coeus||

    google social proof

  • Heedless||

    There is a pretty awesome psychological study about this.

    A group of men (group A) was given a picture of a woman, and told she was on the other end of a phone call. Each man spoke with each woman for a few minutes, and then a second group of men (group B) gave each woman an attractiveness score based on only her side of the conversation.

    The photos were chosen to be attractive or unattractive, and bore no relation to the woman on the other end of the phone, and yet, when a man in group A was shown an attractive photo, the men in group B would rate the woman he spoke with as more attractive. Again, they could only hear her responses, so there is something in the way we respond to people who believe we are attractive that does, indeed, make us seem more attractive.

  • alittlesense||

    I hate you..

  • ||

    Good evening.

    I had to vacuum a little.

  • Rich||

    That sucks.

  • ||

    Especially a daycare.

    Filth.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    THAT WAS A PUN.

    Fisk would have gotten it.

  • ||

    Posters on H and R keep pitting Fisk versus Firefly. Next thing you know there'll be a war.

  • ||

    Shit.

  • ||

    Don't say I didn't warn you.

  • Entropy Void||

    Had to Hoover the flat, eh?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...the justices are holding a dim view that the president can just bypass the Senate to get what he wants.

    The next (kinda almost) recess the Supreme Court is so going to be reappointed.

  • ||

    First AND second? I salute you, sir.

  • Tonio||

    The topmost post doesn't count as a true first since it's not particular to and of the PM links.

  • ||

    This is true, but consider this: Fist is so confident in his ability to beat the rest of us that he can throw out a non-counting nonsense post purely as a handicap for his second, relevant post. And he's still first. He is just that good.

  • Tonio||

    Oh, I am totally in awe of Fist, but was trying to serve as a neutral arbiter rather than a cheerleader.

  • Bobarian||

    But the pom-poms and little skirt fit so well!

  • playa manhattan||

    I suspect a Cut N Paste.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Uh, it's copy and paste.

  • playa manhattan||

    Ha! You fell for my trap, you cheater!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Well the first wasn't a "true" first but I deserve your praise for other reasons anyway.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    My envy is burning a hole in my soul.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Is that a line from The Nightman Cometh?

  • playa manhattan||

    You've got to pay the toll!

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    New York State Assemblyman Dennis Gabryszak (D-Buffalo) is retiring amidst a host of sexual harassment allegations.

    The War on Women continues.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The War on Women continues.

    If it weren't for those woman hating Rethuglikkans, Democrats wouldn't be forced in to sexual harassment.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Japan’s Suntory Holdings Ltd. has acquired the company that makes Jim Beam and Maker’s Mark Whiskey.

    Time for the Sake Rebellion! Or to pour Jim Beam into the Sea of Japan! Or some kind of something.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Buried deep in all of this is the little factoid that Suntory gets all of Kentucky in the deal and that Suntory also gets rights to any and all octopus porn produced by SugarFree in perpetuity.

  • robc||

    Heard some radios guys this morning being semi-reasonable about this.

    First, they were trying to be upset about it being foreign owned, but failed to mention that Beam bought Makers from Allied Domecq, so it was Quebeci previously (although AD is now based in Bristol, UK).

    Second, they asked the reasonable question: Which is more American, a Ford made in Mexico or a Toyota made in Kentucky?

  • Rich||

    BZZZT!!

    A Toyota made in Mexico!

  • Cliché Bandit||

    The answer is the cheapest one of the highest quality.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    state of kentucky
    inbred as west virginia?
    you dishonor us

  • Bobarian||

    " octopus porn produced by SugarFree "

    This would surely gross out and destroy the libido of millions of Japanese perverts, allowing the US to resume its role as leader of the free world.

    An excellent plan!

  • ||

    ---"This would surely gross out and destroy the libido of millions of Japanese perverts"---

    I've seen Japanese porn during working trips to Japan. I don't think a little tentacle porn is going to bother them.

  • Bobarian||

    The important factor is 'produced by SugarFree'.

    You are obviously not familiar with true depravity.

    i.e. porn that Chthulu find a bit off-putting.

  • ||

    I've seen Japanese porn during working trips to Japan.

    I think the point was that Sug would do it either very poorly or in an even more depraved manner*, not that tentacle porn in itself would gross out "Japanese perverts".

    *NTTAWWT

  • db||

    You can't produce proper octopus porn unless you've been to Mihara, Japan. Just sayin'.

  • Tonio||

    I've heard of japanese tourists partaking in costume balls with a US Civil War era GWTW theme. I think it's time for US tourists in Japan to have imperial court themed balls and do public cosplay.

  • robc||

    public cosplay

    See any sci-fi or comic book or gaming convention.

  • RBS||

    The Japanese hang out at Old South?

  • Tejicano||

    Heck, I've been to a militaria show in Tokyo which featured a band - all in correct black SS uniforms - playing Nazi military music. All band members were Japanese, of course.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    For the drinkers: Japan’s Suntory Holdings Ltd. has acquired the company that makes Jim Beam and Maker’s Mark Whiskey.

    DIRECTOR (in Japanese): Mr. Bob-san. You are sitting quietly in your study. And then
    there is a bottle of Suntory whiskey on top of the table. You
    understand, right? With wholehearted feeling, slowly, look at the
    camera, tenderly, and as if you are meeting old friends, say the
    words. As if you are Bogie in "Casablanca," saying, "Cheers to you
    guys," Suntory time!

    INTERPRETER: He wants you to turn, look in camera. O.K.?

    BOB: That's all he said?

  • JW||

    When I heard the news, that was my first thought as well.

  • paranoid android||

    +1 darker, more mysterious

  • Floridian||

    I had the yamazaki 12 year old when it first came to the US. It was delicious. Unfortunately I waited to long to pick up a bottle of the 18 year old before prices skyrocketed. Oh well, lesson learned. Never stop buying whiskey. EVER.

  • Ted S.||

    Technically, wouldn't you have to wait six years longer than for the 12 year? ;-)

  • Floridian||

    Only on reason do you get whiskey-math jokes. This is why I come here.

  • John||

    High end saki is some really great stuff. It is hard to find here in the US. But I have had the pleasure of downing a couple of bottles friends have brought from Japan and they were fantastic.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    Well, he was talking about whiskey, and now you're talking about saki. But you got to voice your opinion about something, which is what counts.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    sake*

  • John||

    Otherwise, you wouldn't have the opportunity to be a prick. Why would I want to deny you that?

  • Marc F Cheney||

    Are you saying I wouldn't have the opportunity if not for you? Interesting.

  • John||

    No, I am saying you are such a massive prick, you are always in need of new opportunities.

  • Overt||

    Kurosawa Junmai Ginjo is available in many places, and is a good substitute to the stuff you get overseas (assuming you like the junmai ginjo style, which has a little wild funky flavor from the technique). It isn't as good as many of the best, but for the price, it hits way above its weight.

  • John||

    I will try that.

  • db||

    Good sake can be great. That crazy distilled rice liquor they serve in China, in the other hand...in the northern and western cities they don't think they have treated you right as a guest until they have forced at least a whole liter of that stuff down your throat.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    The 18 year old is distinctly superior.

    Sometimes I like to make it Suntory time.

  • ||

    I am thinking of making whiskey at home.

  • Brett L||

    Email me sometime, I have a PDF library that I can share of, uh, potential purification techniques for essential oils. And a nice writeup on ageing using oak chips in glass. Actually useful for any sort of cheap liquor. Did reasonable fix the email bug?

  • ||

    No, they didn't. Clicking on a user's handle redirects to the reason H and R front page.

  • CE||

    As long as I meet Scarlett Johansson when I go to Japan to make the new ads, I'm cool.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The best shot in the history of film is the opening scene of that movie.

    Whoops, my bad.

  • playa manhattan||

    So the Westboro Baptist "Church" was protesting my local high school this morning. For some reason. That is all.

  • Tonio||

    Nice.

  • robc||

    You misquoted:

    I prefer "Westboro" "Baptist" "Church".

    I think that is the most accurate.

  • playa manhattan||

    I know. I should have just called it a cult.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Not for "some" reason. Because they're serving Tator Tots to teen gays instead of, um, stoning them, I guess.

    Also, your district must be wealthy enough to sue.

  • playa manhattan||

    One of my friends theorized on Facebook this morning that they might have picked the area because some people still rollerblade around here.

  • Ted S.||

    Why would you stone tater tots?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Check your Bible. Cholesterol.

  • Bobarian||

    Almost as bad as trans-fats.

    Then you get Bloomburg involved...

    Nobody wants that.

  • BakedPenguin||

    No, they were feeding gay, stoned teens tater tots. Try to keep up, Ted.

  • RBS||

    Uh oh, EDG isn't going to like that at all.

  • Tonio||

    Tater Tots? Srsly?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Interestingly, I knew I spelt it wrong and thought I corrected it. I suspect the gays.

  • Brett L||

    I hope you threw rotten vegetables at them. (Is that a violation of the NAP?)

  • playa manhattan||

    I would have no problem doing it in private, but I would never give them attention in public. It's exactly what they want.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Do you have dead soldiers who zod is punishing because gays?

  • playa manhattan||

    No. They were protesting the Golden Globes last night in Hollywood, and didn't get the attention they were hoping for..

    The high school in the next town over (El Segundo) is a 1/4 mile from LAX, so they tried to make a scene on their way out of town.

  • Brett L||

    Now I'll have Left My Wallet in El Segundo stuck in my head for days.

  • playa manhattan||

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case means that the law is dead.

    IT WAS NEVER ALIVE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

  • Rich||

    But, if the lower court's decision had gone the other way, the law would be alive?

    "Hey, Justices, we know how we'd rule on this, right? OK, let's save ourselves some work and just decline to hear the appeal."

  • BakedPenguin||

    It was alive at the moment the legislator conceived of it. But then it was lawborted!

  • ||

    They’re hoping to have it up by March.

    So am I, but I'm starting to think this "Horny Goat Weed" may not be a legitimate ED pill.

  • Rich||

    8-)

    But when it finally gets up, you can count on it *staying* up!

  • ||

    Awesomeness from the transcript of the recess appointments arguments (by Francisco, arguing for respondent):

    The political branches of the government have no authority to give or take away the structural protections of the Constitution. They don't exist to protect the Senate from the President or the President from the Senate. These are liberty-protecting provisions that protect the people from the government as a whole. So if the Constitution is quite clear as to what those structural protections are, but the political branches, assuming for the sake of argument, have conspired to deplete them, that is illegitimate, and it should be rejected by this Court.

    Yee-ha, bitchez.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Free speech means women should never have to deal with abortion protesters

    The plantiffs in the lawsuit are arguing that their free speech rights entitle them to get in someone’s face and harass them. There’s a lot of tap-dancing around the issue, both in terms of minimizing what anti-choice harassers do at clinics and by trying to equate consensual interactions with non-consensual interactions.

    When you're out in public you consent to interactions with other people.

    They are trying to make it seem like an abortion clinic is simply a platform to “debate” the issue between various sides, instead of a medical center where some people are there to help the patients and some people are there to hurt them.

    Except that the front of the clinic is not a debate platform where everyone gets to stand up and make their arguments about abortion for an audience to decide. It’s a clinic. Both sides are not the same and not equal

    I wasn't aware government gets to decide where speech can take place. Does that mean those infamous 'free-speech zones' liberals threw a fit over during the Bush years are okay?

  • Tonio||

    In the sense that government protects private property by hauling off trespassers at the request of the owner, yes. In the sense that government should guarantee, not restrict, free speech rights on public property such as public sidewalks, yes.

  • John||

    I could agree to the principle that your free speech rights do not mean you can get in someone's face and scream at them. At some point the screaming goes beyond your right to say something.

    But the half wit feminists would never agree to such a principle. No way would they say that protestors on their side should be restricted.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    This is a Marcotte piece, so you must correct for the fact that she can't help but caricature her opponent's position.

    I agree that screaming in someone's face is socially unacceptable behavior that is threatening, but waving a sign and shouting at them from a sidewalk while respecting their personal space should be considered free speech, even if it is obnoxious.

  • John||

    Of course she is lying about the facts on the ground. But even if she wasn't, she still lacks the integrity to fairly apply even that principle.

  • paranoid android||

    The plantiffs in the lawsuit are arguing that their free speech rights entitle them to get in someone’s face and harass them.

    I'm looking forward to the author's scathing denunciation of the tactics of PETA/Greenpeace/AFL-CIO/Code Pink that I'm certain is forthcoming.

  • Brett L||

    Didn't the Greenpeace guys get routed by a bunch of traders at the London Commodities exchange 4 or 5 years ago?

  • Swiss Servator, Befehl!||

    The famous "Sod off, swampy" incident?

  • Brett L||

    Yep.

  • Killaz||

    If I owned a clinic, I would certainly buy up the nearby real estate, and neither would the lots be public. Would use these protestors to my advantage by charging a lot use fee to anyone coming in or out.

  • Killaz||

    Put in a spa too, make it very exclusive.

  • John||

    Those would all seem to be prudent measures. But the clinics never do any such thing. Makes me wonder if the protests have any real effect at all.

  • ||

    There are so many clinics, and so few protesters, I doubt it makes economic sense to buy all that up for the 1 day a year when they show up.

  • John||

    Which tells you that the protests are really not much of a problem or any kind of inhibition to women getting an abortion.

  • Irish||

    John, in no way are those prudent measures. Why on Earth would you spend the money to buy an entire lot just for periodic protests?

  • John||

    If you had a serious problem with protestors running off your business you would. The fact that these protests are periodic and don't make a dime's worth difference is exactly my point. It doesn't make sense to do such things. But it would if the protests had the kind of effect feminists claimed they do.

  • Killaz||

    However, feeding off of their perceptions and fears could be profitable. Here, real estate is cheap, so an exclusive day spa clinic is not as silly as it sounds on first brush. Maybe the psychology is not realistic. If you were a woman in that situation would amenities that added to your sense of comfort be attractive to you, or would you just want to get in and out as quickly as possible?

  • Killaz||

    Except for the statistically inevitable oddball in every political movement, I'm sure they are as harmless as the row of protestors I had to wade through to get in the adult video store back in the 80s. I felt kind of bad for them. Even less to do on a Saturday night than I had going on on the evenings I was too broke to go clubbing or to a strip joint.

  • Enough About Palin||

    There's a clinic across the street from my office downtown. I have seen protesters, but they were very well behaved, doing little more than trying to hand the woman a pamphlet as they entered he clinic. Seems fine to me.

  • Juice||

    They would just move the protest to right outside the adjoining lot.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The plantiffs in the lawsuit are arguing that their free speech rights entitle them to get in someone’s face and harass them. There’s a lot of tap-dancing around the issue, both in terms of minimizing what anti-choice harassers do at clinics and by trying to equate consensual interactions with non-consensual interactions.

    Yesterday, I was watching some fat female Prius driver on YouTube (no it wasn't Lindy West) harangue a family in a parking lot for running their diesel truck. Something tells me that Marcotte wouldn't have a problem with that kind of "non-consensual interaction."

  • mad libertarian guy||

    In my experience it isn't liberals who shouted against free speech zones, but were the ones who instituted them, particularly at universities specifically as a means to hide the crazy bible guy and anti-abortion protesters in a corner behind the maintenance building.

    Free speech zones is the liberal way of saying "see, we believe in free speech!"

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    "Wait a minute--just hold on and listen to me. No one's saying you can't own gun. Hell, no one's saying you can't carry a gun--you just can't carry a gun in town! That's not so bad, is it?"

  • Brett L||

    Law don't come around here, law dog.

  • Sudden||

    this

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I routinely drive past our local abortion clinic. I have never seen, nor heard of, the local anti-abortion protestors getting in anyone's face, yelling, screaming at, or harrassing anyone. They mostly stand on the sidewalk and hold up their posterboard signs for the drivers to admire.

  • Rasilio||

    A liberal friend of mine, who unfortunately used to be rather libertarian till she came down with Fibromyalgia posted this and my response was...

    "Yes, yes it does. It might suck but freedom of speech means anybody gets to say anything without interference or threat from the government. This does not protect them from torts (if you lie about someone and harm them they can damn well sue you and that is not an infringement of your rights) nor does it allow someone to "get in your face" and force you to hear them out as that is an inherent threat/initiation of violence so if the protesters are doing so the police are perfectly free to arrest them for assault without violating their free speech rights. However, the 1st Amendment means that yes they can stand there on the street corner and say whatever ugly hateful idiotic things they want."
  • Coeus||

    Yet they've made this woman a movement hero.

    Double standards are a feminists bread and butter.

  • RBS||

    You were probably a "hot mess" before gave birth.

    I don't even know what to call this trend of saddie pregos shaming the fitter pregos.

  • Ted S.||

    Well, I've never given birth, so I wouldn't know.

  • robc||

    But at least you have insurance that covers you if you do. Now.

  • Ted S.||

    I don't plan on getting hit by a bus, thank you very much.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    It can happen to anyone. At least that's how Tony got pregnant.

  • ||

    Nice.

  • robc||

    No one PLANS on getting hit by a bus.

    But, you know, sometimes in the spur of the moment, it seems like a good idea.

  • Killaz||

    Say, that DOES change things. Now when, 'you're not a woman, you wouldn't know' is used to stifle debate, its, 'well, my insurance says I'm one.'

  • Brett L||

    Women are fucking crazy about this shit. My wife was just bitching to me about crazy women running marathons six weeks after birth and how bad it makes her for actually taking her physician's advice of only doing light exercise for the first six weeks. But I think those women look just fine given the crazy shit that is birth. Once I saw 10 lbs of horror movie shit come out after they delivered the baby, I wasn't interested in anything sexual for a couple weeks.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    My boss' wife used to work in labor and delivery. He said she stopped a man from trying to have sex with his wife/lady a few hours after she had given birth.

    I'm with you though, besides being tired as fuck for a solid month or so, I was not interested for awhile.

  • Rich||

    she stopped a man from trying to have sex with his wife/lady a few hours after she had given birth.

    To be fair, the man was blind.

  • playa manhattan||

    A crying baby will pretty much do the same thing to your sex drive.

  • Killaz||

    I really don't recommend it. The English upper class had the right idea when they shipped them away to boarding school as soon as they were potty trained by the live in nanny.

  • The Other Kevin||

    Post-birth and newborn pictures are the same, in that they all look good to the people who are close to the mom or baby, but look terrible to everyone else in the entire world. Why on earth would they put those pictures out in public?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    What REAL Moms Look like After Giving Birth

    I'm pretty sure my mom wasn't that fat.

  • Juice||

  • playa manhattan||

    My wife looked pretty good after giving birth. From the waist up.

  • ||

    'Real' women as opposed to 'fake' good looking ones?

    Stupid article.

  • John||

    I really don't see how the President can win the NLRB case. The heart of the issue is who gets final say on when the Senate is in session. I find it difficult to believe the Court will say the President does. If the President gets the final word on when the Senate is in session over the Senate themselves, then why wouldn't he also get final say over when the Supreme Court is in session or other matters which have traditionally been the prerogative of the other branches? If he can say "well the Senate really isn't in session", it seems to me he could also say "this case really isn't within the jurisdiction of the Court". Oh, the Court determines that you say? You mean like the Senate determines when it is in session?

  • Ted S.||

    I really don't see how the President can win the NLRB case.

    Those aren't recess appointments; those are penaltaxes!

  • John||

    I think even Justice Penaltax is a bit uncomfortable with that kind of precedent.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Someday, the Court will determine that locking someone up for life without due process is okay, because it's just a tax.

  • John||

    You only have a privacy to the extent that it is a "reasonable expectation" as determined by public perception. Who says you don't have due process only to the point that your expectations of such are "reasonable"?

    I think we may have stumbled onto a new legal doctrine here. I can see a joint authored Harvard Law Review The Taxing Power and the Reasonable Expectation of Due Process

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's not reasonable to expect your government not to take all of your shit or not beat the living crap out of you. Look at human history--such things are the norm!

  • John||

    Exactly

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The Supremes have already stated that it's perfectly fine to keep molestors locked up after they've served their sentences because PSYCHOLOGY and the Necessary and Proper Clause say so.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    A1S5

    Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

    Seems pretty clear to me, who determines when Congress is adjourned.

  • Juice||

    The heart of the issue is who gets final say on when the Senate is in session. I find it difficult to believe the Court will say the President does.

    It depends on if it's an "extraordinary occasion."

    Article II. Section. 3.

    [the president] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper

  • John||

    The President calling for an emergency session of Congress is a completely different situation than the President determining the Senate is no longer in session when the Senate says otherwise.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Well he can tell them they aren't in session if they can't agree on it themselves... which clearly wasn't the case here.

  • Juice||

    I was just saying that the president has the power to convene or adjourn Congress from time to time and has a major say on when they are or are not in session. I'm not saying that Obama adjourned Congress in this case.

  • Killaz||

    For the drinkers: Japan’s Suntory Holdings Ltd. has acquired the company that makes Jim Beam and Maker’s Mark Whiskey.

    Come to think of it, when I did the Bourbon County tour there was a gaggle of Japanese along for the ride. Liked it so much, maybe they bought a few of the distilleries.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    I join with Jonah Goldberg in calling Obama's appointments, "bathroom break appointments."

  • Irish||

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Since the Nixon enemies list is the most often referenced of all enemies lists, can't this woman be happy that Hillary is being treated almost like a man?

  • Killaz||

    Holy crap, the double think is hardly worth the time and effort invested. Why don't they find a candidate that's less of an albatross instead? No, they just HAVE to follow the ass stench of the biggest bitch in the kennel.

  • Cytotoxic||

    She's the Democrat's McCain without the positive numbers.

  • Enough About Palin||

    No, they just HAVE to follow the ass stench of the biggest bitch in the kennel.

    It's like Hamlet!

  • Killaz||

    If you have played Borderlands 2 as much as I have, you'll randomly encounter at least once a Psycho that quotes a Hamlet soliloquy at great length. One of the wonderfully bizarre things about that game.

    Though, even as funny as it was, even the feminist oriented set ups were funny, I could tell by certain, shall we say, blunt factors in the script, I would loathe the lead writer.

    http://gearboxsoftware.com/com.....nclusivity

  • Anonymous Coward||

    If a woman does...

    Keep in mind that people on the Clintons' enemies have the ugly habit of turning up dead (see Vince Foster).

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Seattle Seahawks ban direct NFC Championship game ticket sales to California residents

    San Francisco 49ers fans wanting to cheer their team in NFC Championship Game in Seattle January 19th will not be able to buy tickets through the Seahawks, as the team is restricting sales to only zip codes in Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Hawaii, and parts of Canada.

    Tickets go on sale Monday, and California residents can still purchase tickets through the secondary ticket market like NFL Ticket Exchange, Stub Hub and others, or with a friend who has a credit card billed to an address in the Pacific Northwest.

    Banning California (and Carolina) addresses from purchasing tickets to CenturyLink Field protects the team’s “12th Man” advantage, but also creates a bit of an image problem for the team, suggesting they can’t survive on skill alone, according to 49er faithful.
    “I’m sure they’re not concerned about the appearance, but it still looks kind of weak,” writes NinersNation.com.
    The Seahawks tickets page offers no explanation of the ban, just simply stating, “Tickets will be available to fans with a billing address in WA, OR, MT, ID, AK, HI and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta.”

    Too teams who just straight-up....don't like each other.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    *ugh, two teams...

  • John||

    Since they got a free stadium via the taxpayers, does that make them effectively agents of the state and this a dormant commerce clause issue?

  • RBS||

    I think Pete Carrol and Jim Harbaugh should have a cage match at halftime.

  • ||

    What makes you think this policy is SF specific? It's just tribalism.

  • NoVAHockey||

    The Caps used to do this to Pens fans. They even did it to me and I was a partial season ticket holder. They actually said "You live in Alexandria, but we can tell by your purchase history you're a Pens fan, so we're not going to sell you playoff tickets."

    Pens destroyed them in game 7, so whatever.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Broncos did the same thing.

  • Killaz||

    Anyone else thought those third down conversions with officiated assists that gave SanFran three scoring drives in the first half was a bit convenient? Not that Carolina didn't help them in the second half. I expected Cam to half way suck with the pressure on him, but not the defense.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The officiating in that game was awful. Especially the discrepancy between the headbutt penalty on the Panthers and the no call on the Niners much more ferocious headbutt a few drives later.

  • Killaz||

    The one with four plus minutes left where the ref claimed the Carolina player attempted to punch the another, and the replay showed him hitting the ground away from the player he was defending against? Just wow. Conveniently robbed Carolina of time for another drive attempt. Guess they've been a little too successful at close games this season to allow that to happen.

  • califernian||

    Not to mention the fantasy 'roughin the qb' penalty on the 9ers in the 4th quarter rightb efore they got the interception to make it not matter anyway. But still...

  • Killaz||

    Little late, but I just got back in. I agree that not all bad calls went against Carolina. There were some ridiculous ones that went the other way as well. But I figured a SanFran fan could spot them better than me, other than the one against coach H., sheesh.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    That's fucking awesome.

    Montana has shoot on sight orders for Californians at the border. If only Colorado and Texas had acted as prudently.

  • ||

    SF is looking real strong.

    That should be one heckuva a game.

  • Winded||

    I've seen it here as well...back in 1990, the Bulls were playing the Bucks in the first round of the playoffs and the Bucks would not sell playoff tickets to an Illinois address. Since the Bucks rarely draw, any Chicago at Milwaukee game when the Bulls are even an average team has led to a mass northern migration of Bulls fans, as tickets are much cheaper and more plentiful than in Chicago.

    Anyway, when the Bucks found themselves a few thousand seats short of a sellout shortly before their two playoff games, they changed that policy. Better to leave the home team in a hostile environment than leave playoff revenue on the table.

  • Pi Guy||

    When the Orioles host the Yanks or the Red Sox, the stands are never more than 50% orange and black.

    My experience has been that the Sox fans are pretty cool and tell me and Mrs Pi how much they like stadium. On the other hand, I foresee a time where I push a Yankees fan over the scoreboard. Dog, they suck donkey balls.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

  • waffles||

    I'm completely unsurprised.

  • ||

    What, the porn gig wasn't enough to pay bills?

    Maybe she should increase her load.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Headline to a bunch of stories I didn't read:

    TSA confiscates more guns at airport checkpoints!

    WTF? Are more people bringing guns, or are the sleepyheads at the rapeyscans finally becoming more observant?

    What if CCW holders could carry their guns on? The lamentations would be epically delicious.

  • rts||

    U.S. FATCA tax law catches unsuspecting Canadians in its crosshairs

    A Calgary woman's developmentally disabled son is caught in a U.S. tax quagmire that she fears may cost him the money she spent years setting aside for his financial future.


    Her 40-year-old son was born in a Calgary hospital, but automatically received U.S. citizenship because both his parents were American. That simple fact may soon create financial woes for the Tapanila family.

    Apparently you cannot renounce US citizenship on someone's behalf, and he's developmentally disabled, so he can't do it himself.

  • Rich||

    The law "was intended to find rich American tax cheats hiding out in Switzerland," said Christians, who teaches tax law at McGill University, but it "will now punish poor, disabled Americans living in other countries, who are only American by birth."

    If FATCAT does in fact do what was intended, it's better than much legislation.

  • Jordan||

    that she fears may cost him the money she spent years setting aside for his financial future.


    Look at that fatcat, setting aside money for the future. That's what you get!

  • Matrix||

    "Uncle" Sam's gonna get his, sucka!

  • rts||

    Incandescent bulb ban leaves bird care centre with dim hope

    Ottawa’s Wild Bird Care Centre has put the call out for incandescent light bulbs, which it uses to provide warmth for injured and recovering birds, after the federal government banned manufacturers from making the bulbs.

    TOP. MEN.

  • John||

    Why do environmentalists hate birds so much?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Birds < windmills.

  • Tonio||

    And people who do small-scale incubation of chicks (baby chickens for you city folk) have long used light bulbs.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    WHen I have chicks in the brooder, I absolutely use incandescent.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I grew up with 80 peepers living on our enclosed patio warmed by a coal burning stove and a lamp for three months out of every year. If you were the one who woke them up at night cause you stumbled going to the bathroom or what not you were in deep shit. All in all though I miss their chicken meat and the eggs from the layers, but damn...I still shudder at the peeping.

  • playa manhattan||

    Update from the earlier lightbulb thread: My shipment of a 24 pack of 100 watt incandescents just arrived today. It was not hard at all to find them on the internet...

  • Andrew S.||

    "For the Drinkers"

    You mean there are libertarians who aren't drinkers? How else do you numb the pain?

  • Ted S.||

    Some of us drink things other than whisk(e)y.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Clear liquors are for rich women on diets

  • ||

    Some of us kill ourselves with Dr. Pepper instead of booze.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Weed.

  • Rasilio||

    I don't drink so yeah

    As far as how to numb the pain, got me. Lots of sex used to work but then I got married and had 4 kids

  • The Late P Brooks||

    [Observers]...seem to think the justices are holding a dim view that the president can just bypass the Senate to get what he wants.

    And a stern tut-tutting will be the result.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    After three months, Oregon’s health insurance exchange still doesn’t work at all. They’re hoping to have it up by March.

    Maybe had they concentrated on getting the site working instead of focusing on marketing it with Neo Americana hipsters they might have something.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

    Who the fuck am I kidding? The entire POINT of the law has nothing to do with getting people insurance, but with marketing Democrats as those who care and RETHUGLIKKKANS as robber barons who hate the poor.

  • Enough About Palin||

    How to Fight Income Inequality: Get Married

    If President Obama wants to reduce income inequality, he should focus less on redistributing income and more on fighting a major cause of modern poverty: the breakdown of the family. A man mostly raised by a single mother and his grandparents who defied the odds to become president of the United States is just the person to take up the cause.
    "Marriage inequality" should be at the center of any discussion of why some Americans prosper and others don't. According to Census Bureau information analyzed by the Beverly LaHaye Institute, among families headed by two married parents in 2012, just 7.5% lived in poverty. By contrast, when families are headed by a single mother the poverty level jumps to 33.9%.
    And the number of children raised in female-headed families is growing throughout America. A 2012 study by the Heritage Foundation found that 28.6% of children born to a white mother were out of wedlock. For Hispanics, the figure was 52.5% and for African-Americans 72.3%. In 1964, when the war on poverty began, almost everyone was born in a family with two married parents: only 7% were not.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Correlation and causation are not the same...

  • robc||

    Mixed bag here. A bit of both.

  • Irish||

    Sure, but there's a fairly obvious causal link here. Not only do married couples have the potential benefit of two incomes, but they can divide up household responsibilities and share expenses.

    Dividing up household responsibilities in particular is huge. It also means that someone can watch the kids while the other parent takes night classes to learn new skills and things of that nature.

    It's not exactly hard to see where a causal link would come in here.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Sure, but there's a fairly obvious causal link here. Not only do married couples have the potential benefit of two incomes, but they can divide up household responsibilities and share expenses.

    There may, in fact, be a causal link, but the cause isn't "marriage". I would buy money. I would buy division of labor. Not necessarily marriage.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Maybe not, but study after study confirms that children raised in two-parent households are far more likely to not have early pregnancies, not fall into a life of crime, graduate high school and college, and stay off social welfare programs.

    Encouraging something that clearly promotes positive social and economic outcomes is hardly subversive or draconian, unless social and economic dysfunction rather than stability is the goal of those in power.

  • Acosmist||

    Arrow of causation reversed, champ.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    If the odds of success are greater doing one thing than doing another, which do you believe people should choose?

  • John||

    Being a single mom is a ticket to poverty for most women. But it is out job Palin to make sure women never face such a choice and are free to get knocked up without any risk of facing any consequences.

    Don't you know that? Why do you hate woman?

  • Ted S.||

    Has EvH taken over your account? ;-)

  • Irish||

    Thomas Sowell pointed out that the poverty rate for married black couples has been in the single digits every year since 1992. To put that in perspective, 46% of black children are in families below the poverty line.

    Also, naturalized black people have a poverty rate of 11% while black people born in America have a poverty rate of 26%. That almost makes it seem as if marriage and culture are more important factors than race.

  • Pi Guy||

    Stop paying single mothers to support the children that they can't afford on their own and I'd be willing to bet that the number of single-parent families would drop like a lead balloon.

  • Pi Guy||

    I'd go long on the "stop paying unemployment past six months" bet as well.

  • Rich||

    RACIST!

  • Rasilio||

    That's it, mandatory marriage.

    Anyone over the age of 25 or who has children must be married or they will face a penal tax

  • John||

    Using Roberts' logic, why wouldn't such a tax to discourage single mothers by Constitutional?

  • ||

    And since they obviously don't know how to live their life properly, they should be forced to marry an insufferable psychology and/or women's studies student.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    A man mostly raised by a single mother and his grandparents who defied the odds to become president of the United States

    Uh, no--A man abandoned by both his parents and raised by his upper-middle class grandparents hardly overcame any odds, other than convincing white people that voting for him would sanctify them of the sins of their pigmentation

  • Byte Me||

    ^THIS.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Uh, no--A man abandoned by both his parents and raised by his upper-middle class grandparents hardly overcame any odds, other than convincing white people that voting for him would sanctify them of the sins of their pigmentation

    Ding ding ding.

    Voting for Obama was the baptism they needed in order to wash their sins away.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Folks, sometimes the mask comes off and... it ain't pretty.

    So what should the model legislation look like? For starters, the prosecution should not be required to prove that force or the overt threat of it was present, but instead simply be able to prove that the victim refused to have sex. Ideally, too, they would lay out "a workable definition of consent that aligns with contemporary sexual norms," Tuerkheimer writes. Women should not be assumed to be consenting to sex unless they say otherwise in blunt language[...] Instead of putting the victim on trial to determine if she fought hard enough or was sober enough for her rape to count, we can ask what's wrong with a man that would want to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with him. Shifting focus from the victim's choices to the rapist's choices is bound to improve the conviction rate to some degree.

    Yikes.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Because we just know that every single man indicted for rape is guilty, guilty, guilty!

    Thus, shifting the burden of proof is no big deal!

  • RBS||

    the prosecution should not be required to prove that force or the overt threat of it was present

    This is where I got lost.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Eh, I can understand that as wanting to include roofie-inspired rape, but requiring proof that a woman explicitly said, "yes, I want to have sex with you right now" else jail? That type of shifting of the burden of proof is insane.

  • Irish||

    Plus, how are we even supposed to prove that? Should I carry around a tape recorder or get some sort of pre-coital contract drawn up?

  • ||

    And then you'll have to prove the tape wasn't doctored or get a notary for the consent contract. It'll never end.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It's a pretty good way to turn "he said, she said" cases into "she said" cases, though.

    Which is of course the goal.

  • Coeus||

    When they guys in the hofstra case got off because the recording showed obviously consensual sex, feminists were screaming about the guys needing to be punished for taking a recording without consent. you can't win, because they don't want you to be able to win.

  • Cyto||

    Google "enthusiastic consent". This is a classic version of the bizarro world that is "enthusiastic consent".

    We were taught a version of it in our freshman orientation back in the early 80's. You have to ask for and receive permission at each phase of a sexual encounter: "I would like to kiss you on the neck." "May I put my hand on your thigh." etc. A woman must respond with an enthusiastic "yes" before you can proceed. Anything less and you are guilty of rape. There is no implied consent. Her hand on your johnson is not permission for you to fondle her boobs. You must ask explicitly.

    And "uh, sure" is not an enthusiastic yes, so if you proceed it is rape.

    Seriously, I'm not making this up - google it for yourself.

    And although there may be lip service paid to women seeking consent from men, you will quickly notice that the materials are all couched in terms that the man must seek permission from the woman, and not the other way around.

  • John||

    Women should not be assumed to be consenting to sex unless they say otherwise in blunt language[.

    And really not even then. If a drunk woman screams, "fuck me", these people would still call it rape. What they really want is the ability of any woman to send any man to prison at any time at her discretion.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I have a cunning plan. Women who want to ensure consent should hire agents to accompany them when they go on dates, out to bars, attend parties, etc. These agents shall, in accordance with certain pre-approved checklists, determine whether or not consent is given or not prior to the initiation of sex, which, of course, they will be present during to ensure consent remains in place.

  • John||

    You kid. But a good number of celebrities employ essentially just such a method only from the male end. They always make sure there is a security guard or assistant who is while not in the room, adjacent too the room and can testify in case of any allegations of rape.

  • Pro Libertate||

    This reminds me of the old HBO series, Rome, for some reason.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    That's why, if you ever reach a certain level of prominence, you film all of your sexual encounters. For your own protection.

  • Pro Libertate||

    This explains much that was unclear to me before.

  • Bobarian||

    The exchange of money for sex would be a further proof of consent. ProL's agents could be responsible for providing security during these exchanges as well.

    It's hard out here for a pimp

  • Enough About Palin||

    Abortion on Demand
    Incarceration on Demand

    Makes sense.

  • John||

    Incarceration on Demand. I am totally stealing that. The next time some nitwit tells me how the word of a woman alone is enough to convict on rape, I will respond "oh so you support incarceration on demand".

  • Andrew S.||

    At least Amanduh is one step up from the "all sex is rape" radfem viewpoint.

    (on topic kinda, any of you follow Maggie McNeil on twitter? Her account's been outstanding lately calling out the radfems, plus all kinds of pro-prostitution tweets)

  • Irish||

    Yeah, McNeil's awesome. She posts here once in a while when Reason has a prostitution related article.

  • ||

    Last I checked non-verbal communication was still communication.

  • MJGreen||

    Sleeping with a mute or most deaf women is 100% rape.

  • ||

    Her hands said "no", but her eyes said "yes".

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Instead of putting the victim on trial

    The character of an accuser/witness should never be called into question when the defendant faces the threat of long-term incarceration/social stigmatization. As a matter of fact, why even let the accused be present at the trial? That might hurt the accuser's feelings, or something.

    Shifting focus from the victim's choices to the rapist's choices

    Bzzt! I'm sorry, but do the words "presumption of innocence" not translate into your native language of Dumbass?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    They don't exist to protect the Senate from the President or the President from the Senate. These are liberty-protecting provisions that protect the people from the government as a whole.

    What lunatic deviltry is this?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Dear Prudence: Help! I just realized my wife and I are miserable, insufferable whiners!

    My wife and I are both complainers by nature. We dump most of it on each other, for the sanity of our friends and family, and it's been a comforting aspect of our relationship. She's several years younger than me and has been at the same job since finishing university. She hates it and has been talking about changing fields for years without actually doing anything about it. The things she complains about, though, are sort of part-and-parcel of any job. Recently, I was in a bad mood and I interrupted her complaining tirade by snapping, "I think you'd hate any job. It's not your job, it's you." I felt bad right away, but her reaction surprised me: She agreed. She said, very seriously, "You're right. I'm a negative, hateful person. What should I do about it?" It made me realize that I'm a negative, hateful whiner too. Do you have any ideas how we could improve this aspect of ourselves? She's seen a psychiatrist in a past and she found it very helpful, but she stopped because even with our insurance covering part of it, it was far too much for our budget.

    Sounds like they're doing everyone else a favor.

  • Brett L||

    At least there's hope.

  • ||

    Isn't there a family-oriented suicide booth in his neighborhood?

  • Enough About Palin||

    Should I be hearing this in a whiny voice?

  • BakedPenguin||

    I'm actually impressed that they're that honest with themselves. People that messed up usually push away self-awareness.

  • Killaz||

    Good for them. I don't think they are so unique, realizing you are at fault for most everything that happens to you even if it is just being a position to be a victim of the actions of another is part of the growth process.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    I am looking for cocktail recipe recommendations. As much as I love drinking bourbon neat or on the rocks, I want to mix it up.

    So, do any of you have a favorite recipe you'd like to share? Thanks in advance.

  • Brett L||

    Mexican Mule:
    1 part good tequila
    2 parts ginger beer
    splash of lime juice
    splash of pickled jalapeno juice

    stir and serve on the rocks. Some will recommend 1/2 part simple syrup or leaving out the jalapeno juice, but fuck them.
    Which reminds me, I need tequila.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    That sounds really good. Do you have a recommendation for a "good" tequila? I am a tequila novice.

  • Brett L||

    Anejo or viejo anejo grade. Dark, not clear. As long as you're mixing it like this the anejo is smooth enough. I bought something called El Ultimo Agave at the cheap ass liquor store and its good enough.

  • Tejicano||

    Understand that there are three classes of Tequila which are controlled by Mexican law : 1) Anejo (the best), 2) Reposado, and 3) everything else (blanco, silver, etc.). I have read that they might be adding Viejo Anejo as an even higher class but I have not seen that officially. Not all brands have approval to use the Anejo or Reposado titles although they might make an OK Tequila.

    Some of the brands I like are Olmeca, Chinaco, and 1800. Flavors can be quite different so there is some matter of personal taste - but a good Tequila is a completely different animal from the usual crap kids drink on spring break.

  • Rich||

    Have you tried garnishing it with a raw octopus tentacle?

  • NoVAHockey||

    I've been on a Manhattan kick recently. using high west double rye.

  • ||

    I just tried some of that (the High West). Great stuff. I'm somewhat loath to use it in a mix though.

  • Floridian||

    Mmmmm....rye. I've been drinking Bulliet's rye lately. Inexpensive and tasty.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    I am a big Bulliet fan. I haven't had the rye but I may pick some up tonight.

  • John||

    It is a scotch recipe, but it can be done with bourbon with a bit of a tweak. It is called a blood and sand.

    ¾ oz blended scotch
    ¾ oz blood orange juice
    ¾ oz sweet vermouth
    ¾ oz Cherry Heering
    Shake it and shill it over ice and strain it into a martini glass. Great drink.

    You can use bourbon but just replace the juice with some bitters and it becomes a bit of a cherry old fashioned.

    Louisville Jackass

    1 part bourbon
    1 part ginger beer
    1 part soda water
    add in crushed ginger for flavor.

  • Andrew S.||

    You can use bourbon but just replace the juice with some bitters and it becomes a bit of a cherry old fashioned.

    I am definitely going to have to try that this weekend.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Seconded. I am going to try the second one tonight, if I can get to the grocery store before it closes.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Bourbon
    Ice

  • NoVAHockey||

    needs more bourbon, i think

  • Pro Libertate||

    I stand corrected.

    Bourbon
    Bourbon
    Bourbon
    Ice

  • Bobarian||

    A splash of branch across the top of that is perfect...

  • Sudden||

    Neat, motherfucker

  • ||

    I really like the Toronto cocktail, which is 8:1:1 of Bourbon (or rye), Fernet Branca, and simple syrup. Doesn't ruin the bourbon taste; the bitters really make it feel rich.

  • Ted S.||

    "The Cocktail I Just Made Up on the Spot":

    1oz bourbon
    1oz artisanal mayonnaise
    1oz deep-dish "pizza"

    Put in martini glass and shake. Serve to your cosmotarian friends.

    ;-)

  • Marc F Cheney||

    The cocktail is winking at me. Does that mean it's OK to drink at work?

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Shake it in the martini glass? I don't want all that artisanal mayo flying around my kitchen.

  • Enough About Palin||

    Hot Buttered Rum

    Ingredients
    1 stick unsalted butter, softened
    2 cups light brown sugar
    1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
    1/2 teaspoon grated nutmeg
    Pinch ground cloves
    Pinch salt
    Bottle dark rum
    Boiling water
    Directions
    In a bowl, cream together the butter, sugar, cinnamon, nutmeg, cloves, and salt. Refrigerate until almost firm. Spoon about 2 tablespoons of the butter mixture into 12 small mugs. Pour about 3 ounces of rum into each mug (filling about halfway). Top with boiling water (to fill the remaining half), stir well, and serve immediately.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    That sounds amazing. Maybe I will make some for Thanksgiving next year.

  • ||

    At one point I was loving Negroni.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroni

  • GILMORE||

    Sex on the Beach with QBert and Darth Vader As A Naked Fat Japanese Guy Masturbates In The Surf

    1 oz Vodka
    1.5 oz Peach Schnapps
    1 dash(es) Grenadine
    fill with - Orange Juice
    1 oz Orange Curacao
    1.5 oz Beefeater Gin
    fill with - Jagermeister
    .50 oz Malibu Mango Rum
    .50 oz Herradura White Tequila
    .50 oz Triple Sec
    .50 oz Absolut Ruby Red Vodka
    2 oz Sour Mix

    http://www.barmeister.com/drinks/recipe/7008/

    Actually, that sounds disgusting.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Ron Zacapa.

  • ||

    I'm pretty late to this, but the Sazerac is my favorite cocktail.

  • GILMORE||

    Meh. Sazerac is just a fancy man's Old Fashioned. Besides, can you even get real Absinthe anymore?

    Though I suppose you win the thread because technically, yours is the only response that was in fact a proper "cocktail" (alcohol, sugar, bitters)

  • ||

    Ha, I'm drinking an Old Fashioned right now.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    A Canadian teenager has been charged with child pornography possession over a sexting case.

    Is one fucking Hat Tip too much to ask?

    I posted this two days ago.

  • GILMORE||

    Do you really believe Hat Tips are granted on MERIT?

    (chortles)

    Oh, Danny, Danny, Danny, you have so much to learn.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYJCHoEDNgs

  • playa manhattan||

    Did you email it to 24/7? Procedure matters.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    That doesn't work either.

  • BakedPenguin||

    email it directly to one of the editors, then. Ed's usually good about hat tips. The writers can't be reading every thread, what with Welch whipping them when they miss deadlines and such.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Don't they have any orphans?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Don't you remember, they tried that about 7 years ago? There was a spate of those really boring "help me, I'm an orphan trapped at libertarian magazine" articles.

    Dry stuff.

  • GILMORE||

    BakedPenguin|1.13.14 @ 5:23PM|#

    HOW TO GET A HAT TIP =

    email it directly to one of the editors, then

    "...mention you have a bomb planted on a city bus which will detonate if the hat is not tipped in precisely..."

  • ||

    Honorable H/T from me.

  • tarran||

    Remember the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming cultists on the scientific PR generating tour that got into trouble?

    The ship they abandoned has safely made it back to New Zealand.

    After spending a huge chunk of money in their panic, the 'rescued' cultists are stuck on a supply ship unloading supplies to scientists in Australia's Antarctic base.

    I find this hi larious.

  • John||

    I read somewhere that 98% of the news article on this didn't mention what they were down there to do.

    The funniest part is that the place they got trapped had been navigable in the early 20th Century.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    To be fair, the ice was blown into the area by winds.

  • tarran||

    They went into the Antartic without access to sufficiently experienced meteorological knowledge, failed to abort a tourist trip ashore despite losing a third of their transport and despite the captain frantically trying to get them aboard, then took advantage of the law of the sea to force other people to spend money to rescue them.

    Fuck 'em; the cultists deserve every bit of mocking they are getting. I hope the crew of the Russian ship sell the stuff their passengers left behind as they fled for their lives and drink the proceeds. :)

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Oh, they are assholes and deserve a slow agonizing death, for sure, but AGWers being trapped by moving sea ice isn't as ironic (and satisfying) as it would have been if the sea froze around them.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The Seahawks tickets page offers no explanation of the ban, just simply stating, “Tickets will be available to fans with a billing address in WA, OR, MT, ID, AK, HI and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta.”

    This makes me want to order some tickets and scalp them to Sloopy.

  • RBS||

    Has he recovered from the Orange Bowl?

  • Pro Libertate||

    The Orange Bowl, damn your hide!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Too late, they sold out in less than 30 seconds.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Is the 3rd season of GoT not yet on iTunes?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I know the DVD comes out mid-February. Would iTunes be the same time?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Spoiler alert:

    No dragon/zombie war yet. But titties.

    End spoiler alert.

  • Jordan||

    I gave up waiting for GoT to be legally released during season 1. HBO execs are dumb as dirt. Torrent that shit, son.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I do find it odd that they would release it so shortly after Christmas.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Supposedly the creators aren't too worked up about that. HBO? Maybe.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I don't do theft.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You've been stealing our hearts.

  • Brandon||

    What's a good torrent site these days?

  • ||

    I don't torrent often, but TPB is still running strong.

  • Rufus J. Fisk||

    Great prank to play, and must be videotaped. Escort a female friend with a fake baby bump walking into one of these clinics. then, wait about an hour, walk back out minus the baby bump. Add seasoning. ENJOY!!!

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    That was an episode of JFL Gags, right?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Parisian cabbies riot over Uber

    The rivalry between Paris cabbies and Uber turned violent today, as striking taxi drivers began attacking cars booked through Uber and another private-hire service.

    “Smashed windows, tires, vandalized vehicle, and bleeding hands,” passenger Kat Borlongan said on her Twitter feed, describing what happened after an Uber car picked her up at Charles de Gaulle Airport (aka Roissy Airport). “Attackers tried to get in the car, but our brave Uber driver maneuvered us to safety, changed the tire on the freeway, and got us home,” she said.

    Two other cars, booked through the local Chauffeur Privé service, were targeted in similar attacks near Orly Airport and the Montparnasse train station. “Eggs and stones were thrown, and there were violent blows that broke the cars’ windows and rear-view mirrors,” Chauffeur Privé said in a statement.

    The violence erupted during a strike by cabdrivers who are protesting increased competition from private car services. “We strongly condemn this severe violence,” Uber’s local spokesperson said in a statement. “Today’s incident will certainly not tempt Parisians into choosing a taxi for their next ride.”

    Thug-o-nomics: take a cab, or else!

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    There's a whole reason thread on this!

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Lady Victoria Hervey shows off skin in revealing Golden Globes 2014 dress

  • John||

    She has one hell of a body for any age. But for 37, she has an epically good body.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    That's just plain neked!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    8/10.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Salon: Sympathy for the Luddites

    What happens to the worker when the taxi monopolies are finally crushed. Competition lowers prices, which surely will lower per-capita driver earnings. Existing taxi drivers are worried that they can’t compete against part-timers. What happens when everyone is a part-timer? Is a larger pool of drivers engaged in competition so fierce that no one can make a living wage a better solution than a smaller pool of drivers who can pay the rent?

    Anyone want to answer that?

    If the general population is sharing equitably in the overall economic growth and productivity spurred by technological innovation, then we probably don’t need to obsess too much about the negative impact of disruption in any one particular sector of the economy. Economic historians generally dismiss the Luddite movement by noting that the Industrial Revolution ended up lifting vast sectors of the world’s population out of abject poverty.

    But there is growing concern that the current phase of technological progress is a different animal. The profits from new technological innovation are clearly not being distributed equally. This time around, it’s not clear at all that the base is broadening. Globalization and the digital revolution have us competing each other and machines. It’s getting harder to make a living, not easier.

    What planet do these people live on?

  • John||

    When were profits ever "distributed equally"? These clowns don't even understand the Luddite movement. It was never about equality. It was about the loss of ways of life and livelihoods.

  • tarran||

    Additionally, they are unfamiliar with how capital markets work. Specifically high profits attract investors trying to get into the action until the rate of profit gets driven down to the natural interest rate of the economy.

  • Irish||

    Given that the industrial revolution was a period that liberals are always telling me was overrun by robber barons, I'm also confused as to how she can be arguing that this time is different.

    Wasn't the industrial revolution also a period of high income inequality?

  • NoVAHockey||

    uber has become a great flash point. It separates those who understand economics from those who do not. I can't stop reading gawker's coverage of it. it's hilarious.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    I first read about the Paris rioting on a Gawker site. A slight majority were actually thrilled that 'class warfare' was being waged and the oppressed cab drivers were fighting back against the evil techies behind Uber.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    But there is growing concern among damn fools that the current phase of technological progress is a different animal.

    The number of people living in poverty has dropped epically in the last decade or two. If it's a different animal, then it's a tiger you should be riding.

  • ||

    It’s getting harder to make a living, not easier.

    Compared to when? Certainly not anytime before the 1950s. These types tend to point to the 50s and 60s as examples of times when you could "make a solid middle-class living", conveniently ignoring the rampant racism and sexism.

    So, that leaves the 70s onward. The 70s is obviously off the table. So maybe we can, to be charitable, entertain the 80s, 90s, or 00s as easier times to make a living in the West.

    Of course, there were several recessions in that period, so we're looking at stretches of 5ish years each that maybe could have been better.

    And for whom? For billions of people around the world, it is much easier than it has ever been. Not everything is about America or Western Europe.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Compared to when? Certainly not anytime before the 1950s. These types tend to point to the 50s and 60s as examples of times when you could "make a solid middle-class living", conveniently ignoring the rampant racism and sexism.

    There is a good point about that, but as you say, they don't take the historical events of the period into account (like the fact that women didn't make up half the workforce). Plus, they never confront the fact that inflation has completely nerfed the purchasing power of the dollar because they can't do math and think slow inflation is always good.

    You used to be able to pay your rent with the minimum wage in the 1950s, on average, in about a week-week and a half. That's pretty much impossible now, but that's because we've had a 60-plus year run in which inflation has occurred. There haven't been deflationary periods to offset the gains of those decades, so now it takes more dollars to maintain the accepted standard of living.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Is a larger pool of drivers engaged in competition so fierce that no one can make a living wage a better solution than a smaller pool of drivers who can pay the rent?

    Anyone want to answer that?

    My response: So what you're saying is that monopolies provide a better standard of living than a disparate set of providers?

  • John||

    http://www.roadandtrack.com/ca.....ive-review

    Never afford it new, but wow are the new Jaguar F types beautiful cars.

  • GILMORE||

    agreed

  • Irish||

    U.S. government allegedly allowed Mexican drug cartel to run billions of dollars of drugs in exchange for information on their rivals.

    Then there's this:

    Zambada-Niebla also alleged that Operation Fast and Furious was part of an agreement to finance and arm the cartel in exchange for information used to take down its rivals. (If true, that re-raises the issue regarding what Attorney General Eric Holder knew about the gun-running arrangements.)

    Not sure if I believe it, but if it's true...

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Why not? The FBI let Whitey Bulger run loose for decades killing and stealing before he outlived his usefulness to them.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Not sure if I believe it, but if it's true...

    It will continue to be ignored and marginalized as a "fake scandal" by the media?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Progressive wishcasting, continued

    Many conservative commentators shouted their disgust at his proposals (though not all may have read them), evoking the specter of Soviet breadlines and gulags. But beyond those circles, the article sparked a valuable conversation and even significant backing among Myerson’s target audience of “Millennials.”

    A job guarantee was at the top of his list — something that capitalists should indeed fear and struggling young workers are right to support.

    [...]

    Myerson cites economist Pavlina Tcherneva of the Levy Institute to describe how this program might work. The video above condenses a lecture by Tcherneva explaining what a job guarantee is, its economic impact, and what we can learn from her research on the Jefes (“Heads of Households”) Program in Argentina.

    The Jefes Program, in addition to driving an employment-led economic recovery, had radical social and political implications — so radical, the Argentine government had to shut it down. Many of the jobs created were proposed and organized by the workers themselves, and women were particularly empowered. Through Jefes, care work was valorized — and, in some cases like daycare, collectivized.


    Daycare communes will surely smash unemployment, comrade. And the evidence is solid: who ever heard of the Argentine government implementing any policy that would be ruinous to its own economy?

  • Irish||

    The Jefes Program, in addition to driving an employment-led economic recovery, had radical social and political implications — so radical, the Argentine government had to shut it down.

    When did this economic recovery occur? Before or after Argentina's economy collapsed?

    When you're using a country with 10% inflation (a number which is actually probably low since the government is known to lie) as your example, it's probably time to take a deep breath and stop being such a moron.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Google "Argentina blue dollar". Government inflation does not track -- at all -- with street value or with the Argentinian peso's international status as toilet paper.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    When you're using a country with 10% inflation (a number which is actually probably low since the government is known to lie) as your example, it's probably time to take a deep breath and stop being such a moron.

    But Argentina has totally recovered because Che.

  • John||

    Many of the jobs created were proposed and organized by the workers themselves, and women were particularly empowered.

    Isn't that just a retarded way of saying "starting a business"? There is nothing stopping you from organizing a job for yourself now. It is called going into business. You just have to provide a good or service people want. It is that part these half wits can never understand. They think the government paying you to to provide a good or service no one wants or wants less than the cost of making it is a "job". Ah no, it is welfare with a requirement to show up at an office all day.

    We have been through this movie before. All of the communists countries had "100% employment" and every prog half wit in the West marveled at how wonderful it was. And in time every communist country fell into deep poverty and despair because no one was making anything anyone wanted.

  • ||

    If it was up to them, we'd just go through this movie over and over and over again.

  • John||

    Yup. They just know the ending will be different this time.

    My guess is that the writer is under 40 and so profoundly ignorant of history he has no idea that this actually was tried under communism.

  • ||

    There is nothing stopping you from organizing a job for yourself now. It is called going into business.

    Well, there is plenty stopping people, but those barriers aren't the type progressives would like to acknowledge.

  • John||

    Fair point. But you know what I mean.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It is a bit amusing to see these sad sacks masturbate to cant that was worn out by the 70s -- but only because they hold no actual power. God help us if these idiots ever got "one of theirs" into office: they thought Obama was, but bad as he is he is nowhere near as awful as what, say, a President Elizabeth Warren would look like.

  • GILMORE||

    So, Jefe, would you say that I had a Plethora of Piniatas?

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    So, did anyone notice anything particularly odd about last night's Sherlock?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    ****SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS****


    Yeah, I really hope Sherlock didn't actually kill Magnussen. Because that means he was outwitted and resorted to an act of thuggish violence against a person who, if you think about it, didn't actually harm anyone even if he was an asshole.

    I'm reminded of Walter Block's moral defense of blackmail.

  • Rich||

    It didn't bark?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Study: Chidless couples happier than those with kids

    For centuries, having children has been held up by many as the ultimate source of fulfilment and meaning in life.
    However, according to one of the biggest studies ever conducted into Britain’s relationships, childless couples have happier marriages.
    The project has found that people without children are more satisfied with their relationships and more likely to feel valued by their partner than couples with children.
    The study, by the Open University, involved interviews and surveys with more than 5,000 people of all ages, statuses and sexual orientations.
    When people were asked to rate the quality of their relationship those without children emerged as happier overall.

    For both men and women, those who did not have children ranked the quality of their relationship more highly than those who did. They also did significantly more to “maintain” their relationship, such as taking time to go out together or talk, than those with children.
    Yet, when asked to rate how happy they were with their lives in general there was a gender divide. Mothers were happier overall than any other group, while childless women were the least happy. By contrast men with children emerged slightly less happy than those without.

    Suum cuique.

  • Irish||

    It doesn't say the people are happier; it says they're happier with the relationship.

    The part you quoted actually shows that women are much happier with children while men are slightly less happy.

  • John||

    I think maybe the state stepping in and making it impossible to discipline your kids and raising taxes such that most couples have to be two incomes to survive has something to do with that.

  • Irish||

    Again, it doesn't actually say that people with kids are less happy overall. It says they rate the relationship less highly, but they actually seem to say they're slightly happier overall when they have kids.

    Men are apparently very close in terms of happiness while women are far happier with children.

  • John||

    The people I know who are most happy with kids are couples where the mom stays home. Kids are just a lot of work. And when both parents work, that leaves a lot of work to be done at home. If one parent is staying home, they take on that work and both parties are happier.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    They are a lot of work but there is very little that compares to seeing your 3yo wear a top hat she bought for you.

    Did I mention I got a new Top Hat for x-mas?

  • John||

    She forgot the monocle?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    If one parent is staying home, they take on that work and both parties are happier.

    Sometimes (says the stay-at-home dad). I love having the ability to stay home with my boys and do everything I can to make sure they turn out to be respectable young men. I can do EVERYTHING. All of the ball games, chess matches, and archery in the back yard is something I want to do. But I often get that feeling of not contributing anything meaningful. All of the time (despite knowing that I contribute in a very meaningful way to my family's well being). I often find myself being jealous as my wife describes her work day, and how happy she is that she's being chosen to represent her company in Europe this fall, and how happy she is that she got that good raise she was hoping for and that her boss is essentially making a position just for her in order to best use her strengths. I often feel like the world is leaving me behind. Shit is happening in the world, and I can't take part in it because my boys need to get to school and back. That and fucking housework sucks.

    There is definitely economic value in staying home, but there is certainly a toll to be paid in doing so.

  • playa manhattan||

    I'm at about 1/2 time right now. I still keep an office, but I try to work from home most of the time. That said, I'm the primary, and I'm good at it. I don't know how good I would be if I had girls, though.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    That said, I'm the primary, and I'm good at it. I don't know how good I would be if I had girls, though.

    I'm pretty sure I'd be a fucking horrible primary if I had 2 girls instead of boys. I have no basis for girls. I had no sisters, and my cousins who are girls are 13 and 16 years younger than I am, and I only saw them once a year anyways. I'd go fucking insane having to wait for ballet to be over in a way that I don't when watching my son at baseball practice.

  • playa manhattan||

    It's pretty much a frat house around here. I have another one on the way, but don't know the sex yet.

  • Tejicano||

    Choosing to not know the gender of both my sons until they were born was one of the best ideas my wife ever had. Just something old school about finding that out on the day they were born.

  • playa manhattan||

    I like getting all of my shopping done in advance. What color do you paint the nursery?

  • Azathoth!!||

    grey. With a happy vulture motif. Good for any of the nine basic sexes as well as the four unstables.

  • playa manhattan||

    Any "Working Mom's Guilt" in your household?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Childless couples happier than those with kids

    NO SHIT!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Might have something to do with not having to put up with money draining, life sucking, running, yelling, screaming in the middle of the night, poop machines.

    But I'm just guessing.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    And did I mention smelly?

  • ||

    You forgot sticky, whiny, and time wasting (though that may have been covered under life sucking).

  • playa manhattan||

    But then who will you teach to hate the things that you hate?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Other people's kids.

    What do they say around here?

    Foreseeable outcomes are foreseeable.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    What could possibly go wrong? Even more progressive wishcasting

    Thankfully, there is an alternative: a job guarantee through a government-provided “employer of last resort” program offering a job to anyone who is ready and willing to work at the federal minimum wage plus legislated benefits[...] The program has no time limits or restrictions based on income, gender, education or experience. It operates like a buffer stock: in a boom, employers will recruit workers out of the program; in a slump the safety net will allow those who lost their jobs to preserve good habits, keeping them work-ready.


    Anyone who has worked a government job knows that "good habits" are the last thing one would expect to emerge from this program.

    Participants will be subject to all federal work rules, and violations will lead to dismissal. Anyone who is dismissed three times in a twelve-month period will be ineligible to participate in the program for a year. Workers will be allowed to organize through labor unions.

    '
    What a relief to know that labor unions will be involved, despite this proposal offering only temporary, minimum-wage positions and unions having done zilch for the little guy for the last 70 years. There's nothing employers love more than the can-do attitude which prevails in union work crews.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Proposals should include provisions for part-time work and other flexible arrangements for workers who need them, including but not restricted to flexible arrangements for parents of young children.


    But of course -- we have to check off all the items on the proggie wishlist. I'm sure we can work a reference to "higher education" in there somewhere...

    Estimated spending will be 1–2 percent of GDP


    Which we can definitely afford.

    Net program costs will be much lower, since spending on unemployment compensation and other relief will be reduced


    "Obamacare reduces the deficit, on net."

  • ||

    Did you notice the link by a commenter?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Yup. Does it surprise you that Nation subscribers would buy chartalist BS by the pound?

  • GILMORE||

    if you call something in the Nation 'socialist', all the readers will go off on a rampage screaming how they are no such thing and you must be some crazy reactionary to even suggest it.... and since you brought it up, socialists are awesome anyway.

    It reminds me of certain Japanese attitudes regarding war crimes in China.

    First = IT NEVER HAPPENED.
    Second = BESIDES THEY DESERVED IT.

  • John||

    It is called WORKFARE. It was done in the 1970s and was a massive failure. These fuckers never learn.

    It is bad enough that their ideas are offensively stupid. But what is worse is that they take ideas that have been tried and failed in the past and pretend they have come up with some great new idea no one has ever thought of before now.

  • GILMORE||

    This. 'Offensively Stupid' is exactly right. They are so fucking economically illiterate they somehow think their rightfully skeptical audience 'doesn't get it' or lacks the appropriate education to fully-appreciate how clever their *warmed-up rehash of failed socialist ideas* really are.

    The first commenter points this out. The second hems and haws about how first commenter lacks suitable economic information. He links to some. which is itself just a re-hash of the same authors economic magical-thinking.

    i.e. X writes something stupid. Y points out that its stupid. Z goes, "Aha! clearly you haven't read Q!" (which is a summary of X's ideas).

    That's how fucking dumb they are. They provide evidence for their argument by linking...to their argument.

    I am reminded of this character =

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw2T1jx8kzo

  • ||

    Anyone who is dismissed three times in a twelve-month period will be ineligible to participate in the program for a year.

    Now that's badass right there. Three strikes and you are on a very short thread, mister!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Anyone who is dismissed three times in a twelve-month period will be ineligible to participate in the program for a year.

    And this is a program that is simultaneously supposed to "preserve good work habits."

  • ||

    Anyone who is dismissed three times in a twelve-month period will be ineligible to participate in the program for a year.

    What fucking planet is this person living on?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The one where this program can be implemented successfully barring R obstructionism.

  • ||

    Something about Milton Friedman and spoons comes to mind.

  • ||

    Neil Young was awfully quiet during the Liberal party rule in the 1990s. But enter the Conservatives and...now he talks of integrity. I didn't see much of that under the benign dictatorial rule of Chretien rocked by specious behavior and scandals.

    http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2014/.....ccupation/

  • Killaz||

    Just like in '92 when all of those reports saturating news broadcasts of the homeless problem vanished. I guess it must have been solved!

  • The Last American Hero||

    See also, Seattle Women in Black, January 2009 Edition.

  • playa manhattan||

    As I recall, that problem re-emerged in '01.

  • ||

    Adscam? What's that? Canada's standing on the international scene took a massive hit but hardly a whimper. Harper on the other hand, apparently, has made us a 'failed state.'

    Hypocritical bastards. All of them.

  • paranoid android||

    Well I hope Neil Young will remember, oil sands don't need him around, anyhow.

  • ||

    Lynyrd Skynyrd. Nice.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Prog wishcasting, You're Not Proving What You Think You're Proving Edition

    In 1967, the President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty created a report called The People Left Behind. As the commission's name suggests, the focus of the report was on reducing rural poverty, a topic of great political interest at the time due to the recent rediscovery that there were a lot of poor rural people in the South. In light of all the recent chatter about a federal job guarantee program, I thought one of the proposals of this report might be of some interest[...]

    That the United States Government stand ready to provide jobs at the national minimum wage, or better, to every unemployed person willing and able to work.


    Too bad that never ended up happening. We might be seeing places like, oh I dunno, Texas, as vibrant centers of the American economy today instead of letting them languish in their current strait of desperate poverty. Certainly, not everywhere can be as successful as Detroit and California, but if only we'd implemented this program the South might have had a taste of those municipalities' success.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    In a recent survey, 66 percent of whites and 91 percent of Negroes favored "setting up large-scale Federal work projects to give jobs to all the unemployed," as one way to resolve race problems and prevent race riots.


    And since it never passed, the US continued to be wracked by race riots into the present.

  • paranoid android||

    As the commission's name suggests, the focus of the report was on reducing rural poverty, a topic of great political interest at the time due to the recent rediscovery that there were a lot of poor rural people in the South.

    Is the author being glib, or was the existence of rural poverty actually a surprise to people in 1967?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Yes, no one had ever heard about Southern poverty before 1967. Especially not the President, who was himself from Texas.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Participants will be subject to all federal work rules, and violations will lead to dismissal. Anyone who is dismissed three times in a twelve-month period will be ineligible to participate in the program for a year. Workers will be allowed to organize through labor unions.

    First demand by the union: No more dismissals!
    All worker discipline matters to be subject to arbitration by a five person review board consisting of four individuals selected by a workers' council and one manager approved by the workers' council and union leadership. DUE PROCESS!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Benefits package to be negotiated by union and a government board, half of whose members will be chosen from the union and the other half of which is subject to vetoing by union-friendly interests.

  • ||

    Google to acquire Nest (makers of fancy WiFi-connected thermostats).

  • playa manhattan||

    Evil. Now they know what the temperature is in my house?!?

  • Mensan||

  • Pro Libertate||

    Jesus. Here I was hoping that it was just a murder that happened to occur in a theater. But no, another crazy.

    That's the theater right off of I-75, right?

  • Mensan||

    Yeah, it's the one at SR 54 & I-75.

  • ||

    “I can’t believe people would bring a pistol into a movie,” he said.

    Yeah, the problem was that he brought a gun with him, not that he pulled it out and shot someone.

  • ||

    Charter offers $61 billion for Time Warner Cable.

  • RishJoMo||

    Who cares what the bought and paid for Justices think.

    www.Planet-Anon.tk

  • Entropy Void||

    For the drinkers: Japan’s Suntory Holdings Ltd. has acquired the company that makes Jim Beam and Maker’s Mark Whiskey.

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

    Shit.

  • GILMORE||

    Who cares? Its still made in Kentucky. Besides, the Japanese? They're funny when they're drunk. The 1980s "OMG The Japs are Buying Everything!"-panic should have subsided by now, I think.

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