Reason Morning Links: TV Ban in California, Social Security Feels the Recession, Public Corruption Probe in Florida

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

NEXT: Get Ready For The Great Union-Dem Slugfest Over Health Care Reform

Super Bowl

Hide Comments (138)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

Rich 15 years ago

Ban my TV?! I gave up doing laundry so I could shift the energy to that thing!
Adam 15 years ago

Wouldn't it be pretty easy just to buy a TV in some other state and bring it to CA? People willing to spend thousands on a big screen TV are probably willing to drive a few hours to get it. Are they going to start no-knock raids looking for illegal big screen TVs?
1. Rich 15 years ago
  
  Rhetorical question, right? I understand the Brits do stuff like that.
2. Geotpf 15 years ago
  
  I couldn't quite tell from the article, but it probably only applies to plasma TVs, which do use a lot of power. LCD TVs are superior to plasmas in almost every way except price. My new 47" LCD TV has a little Energy Star logo on it and probably is exempt.
  
  Not saying I neccessarily support the ban, but as a practical matter, you will still be able to buy a huge honking TV.
  1. John Tagliaferro 15 years ago
    
    I was just looking at deals on Overstock. Did not see any plasmas, all LCD. Thanks for the comment, you answered what I was going to ask.
  2. The Chad 15 years ago
    
    For the prices, plasmas do have much better contrast, black levels, and color saturation. To get comparable you would have to spend quite a bit more than even the reasonable LCD prices.
Jason 15 years ago

Rush Limbaugh dropped from NFL group seeking to by the St. Louis Rams.

Good, he shouldn't be allowed to own a football team because he has said some offensive things.
1. hmm 15 years ago
  
  If we based participation in the NFL on "offensive things" we would be watching kickers kicking field goals for two hours every Sunday and Monday.
  
  It's the NFL's choice. I find the people calling for him not to get a team pretty hypocritical, but in the end it's a private transaction. Until Congress regulates football.
  1. Baz Yzyrskiventerwalnikkowitze 15 years ago
    
    we would be watching kickers kicking field goals for two hours every Sunday and Monday
    
    Sweet!
  2. Mike M. 15 years ago
    
    Yeah, no kidding.
    
    The NFL is a league where it has been estimated that approximately 25% of its players get arrested for a variety of offenses ranging from drunk driving to premeditated first degree murder, but Rush Limbaugh is beyond the pale and has to be kept out.
  3. MattXIV 15 years ago
    
    The NFL does have an anti-trust exemption, FWIW. Not a regulation as much as a special exemption from regulations that makes maintaining a monopoly on pro football easier, but the gov't fingers are already in that pie.
    1. Geotpf 15 years ago
      
      No, that's baseball. The NFL doesn't have an anti-trust exemption.
      1. MattXIV 15 years ago
        
        Au contraire, mon frere.
2. hurlybuehrle 15 years ago
  
  In other news, when do the Eagles play the Ravens? I can't wait for the chance to see Ray Lewis and Michael Vick on the same field.
  1. Nipplemancer 15 years ago
    
    FelonBowl XIV
Kris 15 years ago

Social Security Administration says no cost of living increase for the first time since 1975

Just wait until their measure for cost of living goes negative.
1. Pope Jimbo 15 years ago
  
  If only. In Washington there is no retreat.
  
  Obama is already proposing a $250 add on for every SS recipient.
  
  AARP CEO A. Barry Rand said, "For nearly 35 years, millions of Americans have counted on an annual increase in their monthly Social Security checks to make ends meet."
  
  Since when did counting on something become justification for actually getting it? Should I try this on my boss? Will he go for it if I told him that I know times are tough but I was really counting on a big raise.
Mr. Bottomsworth, ESQ 15 years ago

I don't have a problem with this ban. Nobody needs a big screen TV.
Plus if we got rid of TV, the kids wouldn't be so fat.
1. briareus 15 years ago
  
  Congratulations, you're a radical statist.
John 15 years ago

"Good, he shouldn't be allowed to own a football team because he has said some offensive things."

And he is against Obama. Clearly your political views should determine what property you can and cannot own. And no worries about the government controling healthcare. They would never ration healthcare based upon the patient's political views. Never.
John 15 years ago

"California on the verge of banning big-screen, high-energy TVs."

So people just take a drive to nevada or Mexico or Oregon to buy one. Is the entire government of California retarded?
1. John Tagliaferro 15 years ago
  
  And when they start giving $200 rewards to people who turn in their neighbors and friends for the illegal equipment who will be laughing then?
  1. John 15 years ago
    
    And of course, no knock SWAT raids for illicit video equipment. Sadly, that joke is not funny anymore since it probably will happen.
    1. Morrissey 15 years ago
      
      but that joke isn't funny anymore
      it's too close to home and it's too near the bone
      too close to home and it's too near the bone
      more than you'll ever know
      
      i've seen this happen in other people's lives and now it's happening in mine...
2. j.i.am 15 years ago
  
  Yes. And driving to Oregon to buy a TV that almost certainly entered the US at a port in Los Angeles or San Francisco will save energy.
John Tagliaferro 15 years ago

Someone tell California that Limbaugh no longer has a TV show. No wait, they will then ban radio.
John 15 years ago

No Cost of living increase combined with hyper inflation. Well, that is one way to pay for entitlements.
1. CaptainSmartass 15 years ago
  
  No Cost of living increase combined with hyper inflation. Well, that is one way to pay for entitlements death panels.
  
  FTFY. If we let the old people starve to death we could save a ton of money on health care costs.
  1. Contrarian 15 years ago
    
    Step One: Eliminate Meals on Wheels.
@ 15 years ago

Rush Limbaugh dropped from NFL group seeking to by the St. Louis Rams.

Pretty lame (and tame) link, H&R. Where's the outrage? I realize that no dogs were shot or tortured (not counting NFL player Mike Vick's former hobby), but have you noticed the disgraceful media lynch mob who have gleefully spread false quotes in order to smear their No. 1 Enemy, Rush Limbaugh? It's a sad day for what's left of journalism when major television networks substitute anonymous wiki entries for facts in a blatant attempt to ruin a private citizen. Enlisting race-baiter-in-chief "The Reverend" Al Sharpton in their smear campaign is beyond contemptible. One needn't be a dittohead to be appalled. Why the silence on this site?
1. zoltan 15 years ago
  
  Outrage? Wasn't this a private transaction?
huangzhixian69 15 years ago

=== http://www.icfshop.com ===Our commitment,customer is God.

Welcome to --- http://www.icfshop.com ---- We are specialized in offering all kinds of top brand shoes, jeans, t-shirts, jacket, jerseys, watches, purses, handbags, belts, wallets , sunglasses and hats etc.
Accept paypal ,All the prices list on our website include shipping cost,insurance,tax etc..

$50 UGG BOOT, $30 nike shoes,air jordan shoes,nike shox shoes,gucci shoes
$33 true religion jeans, ed hardy jeans,coogi jeans,affliction jeans, Laguna Beach Jeans
$16 ed hardy T-shirts,Coogi T-shirts,Christian Audigier T-shirts,Gucci T-shirts,Polo T-shirts.
$30 coach handbag,gucci handbag,prada handbag,chanel handbag,$15sunglasses,$9 caps.

I wish you a happy shopping and happy every day!
1. Jim Stewert 15 years ago
  
  Fuck you, discount-clothes bot. I will end you! Five minutes after we meet, you will beg for the sweet release of death.
  
  RT
  http://www.anon-web-tools.net.tc
  1. Citizen Nothing 15 years ago
    
    Discount-clothes bot vs. anonymity bot.
    There's a cage match I'd pay to see!
2. CaptainSmartass 15 years ago
  
  Their customer is God.
  God does not exist.
  Ergo, they have no customers.
  1. briareus 15 years ago
    
    And yet they have an advertising budget.
    1. Geotpf 15 years ago
      
      So, basically a typical dot com circa 1999?
Kolohe 15 years ago

it's not 'anybody' and it's not the government that's not allowing Limbaugh to be part of the ownership group. It's the NFL and it's a business decision. I thought people here of all places would respect that. (drink?)

Limbaugh is perfectly free to start another sports league if he wants. (the rights to the XFL are still probably available. In fact I think the Arena League is in need of a sugar daddy, IIRC)
1. TrickyVic 15 years ago
  
  """ It's the NFL and it's a business decision. I thought people here of all places would respect that. (drink?)"""
  
  I would have though so too. So they dropped Rush, it shouldn't be a big deal. But the funny part is Rush is blaiming it on a vast left wing conspiracy. I see John got that memo.
  1. mitch 15 years ago
    
    Yeah, when you kowtow to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson its just a business decision, like when you give a mugger your wallet.
  2. Rachel Maddow 15 years ago
    
    Rush could start redeeming himself by apologizing for that comment that James Earl Ray deserves the Medal of Freedom.
    Denounce that kooky breeder Palin for not aborting her mongoloid brat and we'll consider his NFL team ownership seriously.
2. swillfredo pareto 15 years ago
  
  I thought people here of all places would respect that. (drink?)
  
  I'll respect an NFL owner the first time one of those pieces of shit doesn't shake down the community they currently hold hostage with their "private enterprise".
  1. Kolohe 15 years ago
    
    Fair enough.
    
    (although that too is just business, nothing personal)
3. CaptainSmartass 15 years ago
  
  I think people are justified in being upset that a private transaction was torpedoed due to one of the parties' political beliefs. If people can have the right to buy and sell property rescinded because the mob doesn't like what they've said, then private property doesn't really exist, does it?
  1. zoltan 15 years ago
    
    You're saying that owners of property shouldn't be allowed to not transfer that property if they disagree with the buyer's beliefs? How is that protecting property rights?
Anomalous 15 years ago

Business decision? I doubt it. I'm not a RL fan, but I seriously doubt that people would stop watching the NFL just because he has a minority stake in a team. Nobody stopped watching baseball because Marge Schott owned the Cincy Reds.
1. zoltan 15 years ago
  
  People won't stop watching the NFL even though it's full of criminals.
  1. tekende 15 years ago
    
    RACIST!
Pro Libertate 15 years ago

Speaking of other leagues, I watched part of a UFL game last night. Not bad, and there's quite a bit of NFL or near-NFL talent. It was weird watching Michael Pittman et al. play in front of a few thousand fans, though.

I can't see the Limbaugh thing being anything other than political. Except for the McNabb business, which wasn't really that big of a deal (though he was wrong--McNabb is a good QB), I can't think of anything major other than the fact that he's (1) generally controversial and (2) very vocally on the "wrong" side of the political spectrum.
1. TrickyVic 15 years ago
  
  But it wasn't his time as a commentator that gave the NFL a bad taste, it was the vast left wing conspiracy.
  1. John 15 years ago
    
    No it is them kowtowing to the race baiters like Al Sharpton. That is not a good thing. I don't care if Limbaugh owns a team in the billionaire welfare queen shakedown artst league or not. Their product has been unwatchable since the mid 1990s anyway. But when a private citizen is schmeered publicly by false quotes and bullied out of his ability to buy whatever property he wants, that sucks. It may not be end of the world sucks, but it still is a bunch of shit and the NFL, that employer of dog killers and murderers ought to be called out for it.
    
    Also, this was not a "business decision". If having someone controversial owning a team was bad for business, baseball would have suffered for Marge Schott.
    1. TrickyVic 15 years ago
      
      John, even if the other buyers, thought Limbaugh was a political hot potato, that's not evidence of the vast left wing conspiracy that Rush is claiming.
      
      """"This is not about the NFL, it's not about the St. Louis Rams, it's not about me," Limbaugh said. "This is about the ongoing effort by the left in this country, wherever you find them, in the media, the Democrat Party, or wherever, to destroy conservatism, to prevent the mainstreaming of anyone who is prominent as a conservative.
      
      "Therefore, this is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we're going to have."""
      
      The right obvious feels the need to play the outsider, even though it's not true. Rush is probably still the top in his field, even though he has lost some listeners. How much more mainstream can you get? It's like Fox news claiming they are not mainstream when they consistantly hold 6 of the top ten news shows.
      
      Rush's stated reason for being dropped is just batshit crazy. Sure, it's possible the other buyers didn't want him because of his views. But that would be between him and the other buyers, it's not a national issue.
      1. John 15 years ago
        
        So if the left had not gone batshit insane and spread a bunch of false statements by Limbaugh, he still wouldn't have gotten the team? We will never know but I don't think so. If the false statements hadn't been put out there and the NFL said no, I would agree with you. But, the schmeer job is what makes the whole thing stink.
        
        TrickyVic 15 years ago
        
        John it's more likey that he could have been part of it if it wasn't for his McNabb comments.
        
        Rush probably didn't get it because the other buyers that were part of his group didn't like him. In that respect America has always been that way. If other people on your team don't like you, they kick you out. Even if they don't like your political views. That's not new, nor is it a result of a vast left wing conspiracy as Rush claims.
        
        Rush is such a full of himself blowhard that I wouldn't want to share a cab with him. Rush would blame that on the left too, even though I'm not part of the left.
        
        TrickyVic 15 years ago
        
        Do you really think Rush being excluded is a major issue with regards to the course of this country?
        
        How full of yourself to do have to be to think that.
        
        John 15 years ago
        
        In and of itself no. But, let me ask you, do you think it is a good idea for the mob to be able to determine who gets to buy what business in this country? Long term? Suppose Michael Moore or George Soros want to buy a team and the Right goes nuts and makes up a bunch of shit about them. Should they be bullied out of getting one because they have controversial views? I don't think so.
        
        Authoritarianism can come in forms outside the government. Fascists and communists didn't always use the government to oppress people. They started out in free societies and just would show up at their opponent's events and beat the shit out of people and shout them down.
        
        This is clearly not to that extreme. But, when the mob gets together and schmeers someone because they don't like them and keeps them from doing what they want, that is not a good thing. Just because it is not the government doing it, doesn't mean it is not bullshit and shouldn't be objected to.
        
        TrickyVic 15 years ago
        
        You mean like the mobs of Christian rightwingers that were calling for product bans of companies that advertised on shows they didn't like?
        
        If a group of people looking to do business decide to oust someone because they are too controversal, they can. If Rush came out and said they kicked me out becuase they think I'm, X, Y, or Z, I wouldn't be giving Rush crap. But he is denying his own role in being ousted, and blaming it on others. He should man up and quit crying about the left.
        
        John 15 years ago
        
        I think the Christian Righ mobs suck to. And I think Rush is saying they kicked him out because he beleives XYandZ. He is also pointing out the media's and their willingness to print falshoods about him's role in that happening. If the media had never printed the lies and hadn't thrown a shitfit, the NFL would have sold to him. This is a league filled with idiot sons and accidental billionaires. Having a few controversial views or being outright stupid has never prevented anyone from buying an NFL team.
        
        TrickyVic 15 years ago
        
        Rush wasn't buying a team nor did the NFL refuse to sell him one. He was part of a group interested in buying the Rams, the group decided to oust Rush, not the NFL and not the American left.
        
        Rush isn't saying they kicked him because of what he believes. He clearly says it's not about him.
        
        "This is not about the NFL, it's not about the St. Louis Rams, it's not about me," Limbaugh said"
        
        TrickyVic 15 years ago
        
        Rush is exibiting one of the reasons I've grown to dislike the right. They preach personal responsiblity, yet consistantly blame others.
2. Randy 15 years ago
  
  As I recall, RL was being critical of the sports media's coverage of McNabb. McNabb was playing poorly and RL had the opinion that the media was going easy on him and that if McNabb were white, the media's coverage would have been much more critical than it was.
  
  Naturally, this didn't win him many friends in the sports media.
3. Russ 2000 15 years ago
  
  It was weird watching Michael Pittman et al. play in front of a few thousand fans, though.
  
  I'll never understand this thinking as long as I live. (I'm not picking on the poster specifically, the UFL is mocked in the media because of the size of the crowds, as if the NFL drew more than hundreds in its first few seasons.)
  
  You either like the game or you don't. The number of people in the stands is immaterial to your enjoyment of the game. If the crowd is the attraction for you more than the game, say so. Hell, I find crowds usually ruin the enjoyment of the sporting event.
  1. Pro Libertate 15 years ago
    
    Russ 2000,
    
    I wasn't criticizing the league; I was just noting that I'm used to seeing Pittman playing in the NFL.
    
    I actually thought it was decent football. Once the league expands, it should be reasonably entertaining. I think they're already producing better football than the XFL did. Of course, in alternate leagues, the USFL is the benchmark, unless you want to go back to the AFL days in the 60s.
Pro Libertate 15 years ago

On second thought, maybe "side" should've been in quotes.
R C Dean 15 years ago

I'm wondering if/when Rush is going to bring slander/libel suits against everyone who spread the false quotes. He can easily afford it, it would be a publicity bonanza for him, and even under the standards for "public figures" he would probably win.

On an unrelated racism note, Instapundit posted a story that charges still haven't been brought against the SEIU thugs who beat up the black guy at the Tea Party nearly three months ago.
1. kwais 15 years ago
  
  I hope he does bring slander/libel suits. It is the right thing to do, and would be entertaining also.
SugarFree 15 years ago

Let me show you the future, the horrible future:

Yeah but this goes for any issues within your mouth. Any small infection, from an untreated cavity, to larger scale ones that necessitate root canals or other surgical methods can lead to brain abscesses. I've heard of 8 year olds with such bad infections in their roots that it has nearly killed them. This is why dental health is super important and should be more affordable for prevention care.

Heir.
1. John Tagliaferro 15 years ago
  
  Xeones|10.15.09 @ 9:56AM|#
  You you'd the link, dude.
  1. SugarFree 15 years ago
    
    It worked when I previewed it. Dammit. It's just a silly Jezebel thread about tongue piercing and brain abscesses.
James Ard 15 years ago

Limbaugh's McBabb theory has been so proven correct by the Obama phenomenom.
James Ard 15 years ago

Hope Reason isn't spending extra money on the preview function.
Randy 15 years ago

I thought Rush was part of a group that is seeking to "buy" the Rams, not "by" them....
1. John Tagliaferro 15 years ago
  
  The writers don't get preview. Preview is for the people.
  1. Randy 15 years ago
    
    At least Radley didn't write "bye the Rams".
    1. bigbigslacker 15 years ago
      
      or "bi the Rams"
Xeones 15 years ago

You you'd the link, dude.
1. Xeones 15 years ago
  
  Gah, this is in response to Sweet'n'Low.
  1. John Tagliaferro 15 years ago
    
    I took care of the assist.
Seward 15 years ago

Look for a black market in these TVs to develop soon after this law comes into effect.
1. John Tagliaferro 15 years ago
  
  Racism!
Mike Laursen 15 years ago

And of course, no knock SWAT raids for illicit video equipment.

This is California. Our government is too lazy and disorganized to actually follow up. It'll be a photo opp and then forgotten for all practical purposes.
1. FrBunny 15 years ago
  
  Is everyone else seeing my reply to this above Laursen's post? Odd.
2. TrickyVic 15 years ago
  
  It will be selective enforcement. Plead guilty to the pot charge or will prosecute you for your big screen TV too.
3. CaptainSmartass 15 years ago
  
  No, they'll just file civil suits against the TVs themselves then auction off the TVs to parties out of state. Expect to see People of the State of California vs. Vizio 72" in the near future.
FrBunny 15 years ago

It'll be a photo opp and then forgotten for all practical purposes.

For individuals maybe, but big retailers won't just ignore the law and keep selling illegal teevees.
TrickyVic 15 years ago

FrBunny, there are some weird things happening. It was leaving my name off my posts on another thread. Another attempt by the left to deny rational people a voice!!! 😉
Kolohe 15 years ago

One last thing on Rush.

Look at this from another direction. The "company line" (which btw I support) on discrimiation laws is that they are superfulous because, market competition and social aprobabation will correct any sort of deliberate pre-arranged mismatch betwen different groups of people in hiring practices or customer service.

This mechanism design will, in theory, prevent seperate lunch counters as well as 'no blacks or irish need apply'. In practice, it probably will too, but it will also lead to outcomes like this, where persons who have non-mainstream views have market pressures (both economic and social) brought upon them.

That said, there is no constitutional right to an NFL franchise, and furthermore, this is a long friggin way from Chavezism, as some are saying today.
1. John 15 years ago
  
  That is true. But I don't think anyone is calling for the government to come in and force them to sell to Rush. This is just a food fight among Limbaugh's supporters and critics. Yes, the NFL is free not to sell to him. But, other people are free to criticize the NFL for not doing so. Just because it isn't and shouldn't be illegal doesn't mean it is not bullshit.
2. CaptainSmartass 15 years ago
  
  You're incorrect, Kolohe. There is a Constitutional guarantee of property ownership; there is also a guarantee to have unpopular opinions. People should be able to buy and sell property freely, regardless of their politics.
  
  Now, if Sharpton and his ilk had instead said they would organize a boycott of the Rams, and possibly the NFL in general, if Limbaugh became an owner, that would be different. That would be a perfectly cromulent application of their right to assemble and speak their minds. It's the difference between beating someone up because they might start a fight with you in the future, and making it clear that if they throw the first punch you'll throw the last one.
  1. Ska 15 years ago
    
    So the NFL has to let someone in even if they don't want to? Why is that again?
    
    If Jesus Christ wanted a football team and the NFL owners said no, then tough shit. It really doesn't have to get any more complex than that.
    1. John 15 years ago
      
      And if people want to tell the NFL to go to hell because they cowtow to pieces of garbage like Sharpton, they have a right to.
      
      Just because a private person does it, doesn't make it okay.
      1. Ska 15 years ago
        
        Certainly. I would tell the NFL to go to hell, too.
        
        Not so certain it has to do with Al Sharpton though. Maybe some NFL owners just happen to think Rush Limbaugh is a dick, and that's enough to keep him out.
        
        John 15 years ago
        
        If being a dick, kept you from owning an NFL team, there wouldn't be many owners. You want to talk about a collection of real no kidding assholes, look at NFL owners. Robert Irsay, Dan Schneider, Jerry Jones, George Preston Marshall, Al Davis, the list goes on and on. Being a dick does not disqualify you from anything in the NFL. As a matter of fact, it seems to be a requirement for ownership.
        
        Ska 15 years ago
        
        Self-approved dicks. Perhaps Limbaugh isn't the kind of prick they want in their club. Perhaps he's the helmet in a club full of anteaters.
    2. robc 15 years ago
      
      Who owns the team? The NFL or the Rams owners? Yeah, there is some contractural stuff, so the NFL has approval rights, but the franchise isnt the NFL's to sell.
      
      I guess the NFL could kick out the Rams if they sold to Limbaugh.
      1. TrickyVic 15 years ago
        
        Rush wasn't trying to buy a team nor did the NFL prevent him from buying one. He was part of a group that was interested in buying the rams. The group ousted Rush.
        
        It's perfectly ok for them to do that it's ok for Rush to bitch about it. But blaming everyone else, and claiming it's bad for America, is just bullshit.
SugarFree 15 years ago

Can you imagine looking up to utter "I do" and seeing the smiling face of Sonia Sotomayor?

I can imagine many undesirable things. What's your point, Jezebel?
1. tekende 15 years ago
  
  Oh, and also this from the comments:
  
  @Intern Katy: I hear you. Getting to meet Justice Sotomayor is about the only thing that would convince me to get hitched. That and my partner needing health insurance. I'd much rather contemplate the former.
Xeones 15 years ago

Can you imagine looking up to utter "I do" and seeing the smiling face of Sonia Sotomayor?

Hey, as long as she imparted some of her Latina wisdom to the newlyweds...
1. SugarFree 15 years ago
  
  "I call this move 'The Spicy Burrito.'"
  1. tekende 15 years ago
    
    That's the one where the lady eats a bunch of habanero peppers and then takes a dump while the guy is eating her out from behind, right?
Rich 15 years ago

Can you imagine looking up to utter "I do doo-doo" and seeing the smiling face of Sonia Sotomayor?

Yep.
SugarFree 15 years ago

Oh, if only Burlington Coat Factory was unionized so stuff like this wouldn't happen...
Xeones 15 years ago

I think Rich just implied that he would like a hot lunch from Sonia Sotomayor.
1. briareus 15 years ago
  
  The only thing better than a hot lunch from Sotomayor is a blumpkin from Pelosi.
Not a Libertarian 15 years ago

(unless I missed it here at Reason)

Why did I have to go to Gawker to find out about the World Health Organization's WAR ON BOOZE ?
J sub D 15 years ago

Good, he shouldn't be allowed to own a football team because he has said some offensive things.

You meant to write "Good, people should not be obligated to enter into business partnerships with others who have spouted offensive things" right?
J sub D 15 years ago

Threaded comments suck. See my previous post for an example of why they are unnecessary. A qoute buttom is far superior to threaded comments.

[/bitching]
Pro Libertate 15 years ago

Don't thread on me!
J sub D 15 years ago

Don't thread on me!

Me likes muchly.
briareus 15 years ago

Interesting that none of the comments so far involve the corruption story.

Luckily, Reason readers apparently care more about football and Rush Limbaugh than corruption.

Vive le Corruption!

[let the flames begin here...]
1. Bergholt Stuttley Johnson 15 years ago
  
  None of the comments condemns the Armenian Genocide either. Vive L'Empire Ottoman!
Pro Libertate 15 years ago

Oh, I care about corruption. I just think it's endemic, and, as a Floridian, I'm dubious about anything that Charlie "A Man, a Plan, a Tan - Hamilton" Crist has to say about it. Or about anything. Except about getting a deep, dark Coppertone tan.
J sub D 15 years ago

Oh, I care about corruption. I just think it's endemic, and, as a Floridian, I'm dubious about anything that Charlie "A Man, a Plan, a Tan - Hamilton" Crist has to say about it. Or about anything. Except about getting a deep, dark Coppertone tan.

An open question to the assembled Reasonoids,

Would a permanent grand jury charged with investigating government corruption and issuing indictments in your state be a good idea?

Michigan - YES!
1. SugarFree 15 years ago
  
  Yes, for Kentucky. But only if they put some sort of minimum IQ requirement for grand jury selection in. Even at 100, it would disqualify 2/3 of the state.
  1. briareus 15 years ago
    
    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume you are being sarcastic. IQ, strictly speaking, is not a valid method for arbitrarily barring someone from being a part of a justice system. You may as well start barring people for their skin color.
    1. SugarFree 15 years ago
      
      It's not an arbitrary reason. It's a damn fine reason. It's hard for people with no arms to be surgeons, very few people in wheelchairs play in the NBA professionally, how many people without a voice box work in radio? Maybe if they stop putting anyone who can scribble out a motor-voter card on grand juries, prosecutors wouldn't "be able to indict a ham sandwich."
      1. Pro Libertate 15 years ago
        
        I know tests were misused to exclude blacks from voting back in the day, but it's an awfully tempting way to excise some of the stupid from juries.
      2. briareus 15 years ago
        
        It's equally true that I have personally known less intelligent people who had no problem distinguishing right from wrong without the encumbrance of intellectually reasoning themselves into state worship.
        
        SugarFree 15 years ago
        
        I said an IQ of 100. I'm including plenty of less than intelligent people.
        
        Pro Libertate 15 years ago
        
        We can test for character, too.
2. John 15 years ago
  
  Yes for most states no for Michigan. Any investigation would lead right back to Granholm. And I am sorry. I am a big law and order guy. But, I can't sign on for prosecuting the retarded.
3. Pro Libertate 15 years ago
  
  This is a job. . .for the Censor!
  1. John 15 years ago
    
    I Sejanus available?
    1. Pro Libertate 15 years ago
      
      Cato, man, Cato.
      1. John 15 years ago
        
        I don't think Cato would play dirty enough to beat these people. I want my own scoundrel going after them. We can always shoot him later.
        
        Pro Libertate 15 years ago
        
        Cato was an asshole and a virtue-is-its-own-end kind of a guy. Just what we need in the Censorship.
        
        Bergholt Stuttley Johnson 15 years ago
        
        Are you talking about Cato the prude or Cato the insufferable prig? I would vote for the latter, if only to have him read out other politicians' love letters on the floor of the Senate.
        
        Pro Libertate 15 years ago
        
        Yeah, that would be great. Want to be in government? Then submit to the demanding standards of Cato the Asshole.
johnl 15 years ago

The grand jury should look into the last AG of Fl who refused to investigate corruption public and private.
Timon19 15 years ago

I'm sure no one here give a damn and the this discussion is probably damn near over, but the United States is massively loved in Honduras as of about 10pm Eastern Time last night.

A national holiday has been declared and US National Team defender Jonathan Bornstein is literally a hero in all of Honduras. The Honduran government has offered Bornstein an all-expense-paid vacation in their country.

Considering soccer has sparked a war in that part of the world (1969), it may very well go a long way to ending the current troubles there. The country is absolutely mental with what happened last night.
PC 15 years ago

Thursday's announcement comes a day after President Barack Obama called for a second round of $250 stimulus payments for seniors, veterans, retired railroad workers and people with disabilities.

Retired railroad workers? Did they throw that in there just to see if we were paying attention?
1. John 15 years ago
  
  If you are a senior citizen who is disabled, a veteran and a retired railroad worker, do you get a $1000?
2. Isaac Bartram 15 years ago
  
  No, the Railroad Retirement Board is an agency of the federal government that oversees railroad workers pensions and is separate from the SS Administration.
  
  Railroad workers do not pay FICA or receive SS or Medicare benefits. Instead they contribute to their own fund through their working lives and get separate pension and medical benefits.
R C Dean 15 years ago

Running errands today, I had Rush on. He very carefully did not say he wasn't going to file suit against the people spreading the slanders against him.

Although he did say he hadn't suffered any real harm from it, and may even be better off now that he's seen the NFL's true colors. So he's given away the damages phase of the trial, but the liability phase was going to be the circus anyway.

God, I hope he sues. CNN, ESPN, MSNBC, all in the dock trying to defend a flat-out lie they got from Wikipedia, that was flagged as "unsourced". Suh - weet.
MattXIV 15 years ago

While Rush neither has nor should have any kind of legal recourse regarding being dropped from the potential buyers, it requires a special kind of dickishness to not do business with someone based on their political views. To reject the opportunity to better yourself via mutally beneficial exchange simply because you can't stand to see the other party gain something is kind of twisted, IMO.
Pro Libertate 15 years ago

Rush was rejected because the NFL thought it was the Canadian rock band. We can't have Canadians messing with the NFL, after all. They already dominate hockey.
Funs blog 15 years ago

God, I hope he sues. CNN, ESPN, MSNBC, all in the dock trying to defend a flat-out lie they got from Wikipedia, that was flagged as "unsourced". Suh - weet.

Please log in to post comments

Latest

Report: California Continues To Spend a Lot of Money on Poor Quality Roads

Mahmoud Khalil Is an Easy Call

The 10 Worst Republican Budget Gimmicks

Elon Musk, Who Promised To Be 'Maximally Transparent,' Makes DOGE's Numbers Even Harder To Check

Trump's Threatened 200 Percent Tariffs on European Booze Are His Least Sensible Trade Move Yet

Recommended

Login Form