Reason Morning Links: Idaho Sues Feds Over Health Care, Dow Soars, Big (Rock) Star Dies

|

NEXT: Encourage Bottom-Up Redevelopment: Reason Saves Cleveland With Drew Carey, Ep. 5

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.

  1. Nothing Outside the State
    A popular slogan of the Italian Fascists under Mussolini was, “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato” (everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state). I recall this expression frequently as I observe the state’s far-reaching penetration of my own society.

    Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16
    Effective April 16, Walgreens drugstores across the state won’t take any new Medicaid patients, saying that filling their prescriptions is a money-losing proposition ? the latest development in an ongoing dispute over Medicaid reimbursement.

    1. OK, JL, what *does* happen when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?

      1. WHERE ARE YOU!?!

      2. Annihilation, Jim. Total, complete, absolute annihilation.

        1. This blog tasks me.

  2. “you get 36 states, that’s a critical mass. That’s a constitutional mass.”

    Are you serious?

    1. Yo, fuck that Constitution thang.

    2. Article V is kind of confusing. But I think any amendment has to be proposed by 2/3s of the Congress first. The states can only call for a full on convention.

      1. Constitutional conventions have to be called. Crazy shit would go down if one was actually called.

        1. I don’t want a convention.

            1. You of all people? You, Mr. I hate team red and team blue, would trust those very teams to re-write the constitution? If you think it through and think about who would actually be re-writing the Constitution (hint, it won’t be friendly peacelatarians you so love), you might reconsider that view.

              1. Right. I would much prefer the actual existing Constitution be followed to the letter.

        2. If this bill passes under deem and pass, and goes into law, with SCOTUS ruling that the validity of the law is a non-justiciable issue, then I do believe it will provide conclusive proof that our current Constitutional system is irretrievably broken, and a Constitutional convention would be lesser of two evils.

          1. If they broke this one, why wouldn’t they break the next one? A convention would just make things even worse by writing in already existing abuses.

          2. Those abuses are already on the books, John. How would a convention make it worse?

            Its a crap shoot, sure. But if the Great Leftist Powergrab of 2010 goes through, what do we have to lose, really?

            1. things like the electoral college and proportional representation in the Senate. Things that dipshits like MNG now don’t like because they stand in the way of socialist utopia. A convention would just make it easier for them to take over.

              1. That may take us closer to a revolution, however.

              2. If this passes and stands, John, how will the socialist idiots not have taken over, or at least paved the road to completing their takeover?

                Sure, things can always get worse. But on balance, I’d rather roll the dice with a constitutional convention than continue trudging down the well-paved road to serfdom.

                1. We have the greatest Constitution in the history of government. It could only get worse. And to the extent they could make it better, those parts would be just as easily ignored as our current one is ignored.

                  The problem is not with the document. It is with how we interpret it. No amount of change to the document will solve that problem and will only make it worse.

                  1. We have the greatest Constitution in the history of government.

                    Many of the anti-federalists preferred the previous one.

                    1. 230 years of stable government (sans one civil war) has proven them wrong.

                    2. 230 years of stable government (sans one civil war) has proven them wrong.
                      reply to this

                      They werent arguing against its stability. That proves nothing. And there were zero civil wars under the Articles of Confederation.

                  2. John, if this passes via deem and pass and the SCOTUS stands aside, I can see no real basis for saying that we still have the greatest constitution ever.

                    Little is left of that document now, and if the leftists get their way, there will be less than scraps. I’d rather take my chances with a new convention than have the greatest constitution in history safely locked away in a drawer, not bothering anybody.

                    1. Just because the liberals win a big victory doesn’t make it a Constitutional crisis. Even if they break their own rules to do so. It’s a Congressional crisis. If it’s a Constitutional issue, SCOTUS will get involved, but the rules Congress creates for themselves are not for SCOTUS to weigh in on. It’s a seperation of powers issue which I could see SCOTUS stepping aside.

                      “””I’d rather take my chances with a new convention than have the greatest constitution in history safely locked away in a drawer, not bothering anybody.”””

                      You’re locking the “greatest Constituion in history” in a drawer either way. I think there is more value by keeping the one we have so wrongs have a chance to be corrected one day, versus writing a new one that gives much standing to not so great ideas and locks the pre-2010 Constitution in a display case.

                    2. People writing in exceptions to the Bill of Rights. Do you really think anything besides the 3rd Amendment will stand as is in a new convention? Heck, they may strike the 3rd Amendment, just in case.

                    3. The 3rd Amendment protects nothing. We are engaged in an eternal war against terrorism, hence, they can quarter soldiers in your house anytime they want. They just have to do it in a manner “prescribed by law”.

              3. dipshit =/= Shit Facktory.

          3. I don’t want Team Red or Team Blue getting their hands into a constitutional convention. Convention bad. Once its been convened anything could be passed. Convention very bad.

            1. Extreme partisanship will prevent things from being added. Were both sides agree is where changes would be made which should scare the crap out of people. Health care in the Constition maybe, maybe not, but the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and pro-LEO activities would be big winners.

              If we had a convention to create a new Constitution, kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye.

              1. Ok, I don’t know about health care and the Constition, whatever that is, but I doubt we would see health care in the Constitution.

          4. As much as I’m for the Socialized Healthcare and against a Market Solution, I have to agree that the process is ridiculous.

            I hope that this doesn’t pass as well.

            1. Homegirl, I buy you some weed but I really don’t wanna pay for your healthcare. Or anyone else’s.

          5. If this bill passes under deem and pass, and goes into law, with SCOTUS ruling that the validity of the law is a non-justiciable issue, then I do believe it will provide conclusive proof that our current Constitutional system is irretrievably broken, and a Constitutional convention would be lesser of two evils.

            And after it passes the party responsible is going to get pummeled in the November elections for it. Punishment of legislative trickery at the ballot box is even more effective than punishment in the courts. No constitutional convention necessary.

        3. I, too, fear what would come out of a constitutional convention. If the states are any guide, we’d likely start inserting what is really legislation and inventing “rights” that mean that some people can take from others.

          On the other hand, if things keep going the way we are, it may be the only choice left within the system to avoid eventual tyranny.

          1. I can tell you right now what will happen.

            1. Demolition Man would have been a better one but not bad. Not bad at all.

              Be well.

            2. I vote Logan’s Run.

              1. Damn you and your good taste, Pro Lib!! Damn it straight to hell!

        4. I’m so glad to hear inflation is not an issue, because when a box of Wheaties costs almost five bucks I start to wonder predictii fotbal

      2. The thing is what could they pass? Some ammendment saying all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Goverment are forbidden to it? We already have that and it doesn’t do shit.

    3. That’s one constitutional mass they really need to flush.

  3. The Milgram experiments are so well known I can’t believe you can even run them anymore. Seriously, when someone tells you that they are running an experiment whereby you push a button and torture people, how do you not know you are being set up?

    1. (laughs up sleeve)

    2. Super well known to people who hang out on political blogs/forums, but not so well known by people who want to be/watch on reality tv/game-shows.

    3. The possibility of dead frenchmen is irresistible.

    4. I’ve always thought Milgram and his students themselves were naive — that subjects even then (it’s not a matter of “anymore”) saw thru it and played along.

  4. Regarding the Supremacy Clause, can someone explain to me how the federal government has supremacy over states with an issue not authorized by the Constitution for the federal government to handle? Isn’t that where the 10th Amendment applies?

    1. “That language is clear that federal law is supreme over state law,” said Freeman. “So it really doesn’t matter what a state legislature says on this.”

      Looks like we finally found something in the Constitution that a Democrat thinks it means what it says. So we’ve got that going for us.

    2. It’s where the whole Constitution applies. You don’t need the 10th to say that if the power isn’t listed in the Constitution, the federal government doesn’t have it. That is–well, was–the whole point of having enumerated powers and was one reason many thought the Bill of Rights wasn’t necessary.

    3. That very generally would be my argument. Just because Congress passes a law doesn’t mean it automatically trumps any inconsistent state law. The supremacy clause says that the laws made “in pursuance of” the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. The question is whether the law Congress passed is constitutional. If not, it can’t be the supreme law of the land.

      Problem is the infinitely elastic commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, and general welfare clause – at least they are infinitely elastic in the hands of certain justices.

  5. Idaho is first state to sue the federal government over potential health care mandate.

    The federal government will withhold more of its money from Idaho until the state shuts the fuck up about the healthcare bill.

    (Let’s see who can be the first to pick up on what’s most wrong with the above statement.)

    1. You know, if this health care bill leads to more federalism it will be a good thing, just like its a good thing that it has caused the Congress to not get anything else done since last summer….provided it doesn’t pass, or gets overturned by the Courts.

  6. Alex Chilton, RIP Big Star.

    1. If he was from Venus would he feed us with a spoon?

      And if he was from Mars that would be cool.

    2. I’m going to miss his automotive manuals.

      1. Amazing guy. Writing automotive manuals during the day and influential musician at night.

      2. Man, I’m not! Chilton’s suck ass! And not in a wholesome, family-friendly, Biblical way, but a BAD suck ass!

        1. Yeah, the whole “drop two bolts and remove the steering column” instruction on my old Taurus comes to mind. It’s a wee tad bit more complicated than that, guys. Thanks for nothing, fuckers.

    3. I liked Alex Chilton but I’m struck by how much I hate the bands that claimed him as a primary inspiration, especially REM.

  7. The Milgram experiments are so well known I can’t believe you can even run them anymore.

    Well known to the average person? I’d bet not.

    1. Perhaps not by name, but people are familiar with the study.

    2. They cover it in high school psych classes.

    1. Cops vs. Politicians

      Who are the biggest piece of shit drains on society?

      1. Are you serious?

        1. You caught us. Trick question. It’s JOOS, isn’t it, Cynthia?

      2. Political Cops

  8. PA appeals court threw out sexting case. They unanimously told the DA to go to hell.

    Hopefully this will return some sanity to DA offices.

  9. This is a GOP congressional memo. But it makes some good points about what a civil liberties and privacy nightmare that Obamacare would be.

    “New revenue is needed so the IRS can implement the new policies established by the bill and to carry out new responsibilities, including enforcing the individual mandate by reviewing insurance policies held by Americans, employer penalties and other new taxes. The IRS will have lots to do to implement and enforce the new taxes and mandates included in the bill. In fact, the Senate Democrats’ bill references or amends the Internal Revenue Code 180 times.

    While it is not possible to predict with certainty how many new IRS employees and agents will hire to complete all these new responsibilities, it is possible to compare current staffing levels and make an estimate. Take for example the IRS’ Taxpayer Services Division. Based on the current cost to employ this division’s workforce, an additional $1 billion per year would mean 12,500 new employees at the IRS. That’s more than 12,000 IRS employees that will be examining taxpayer records to enforce the government’s definition of “affordable” and “acceptable” insurance coverage, and working to comply with the bill to get people into government-run insurance.

    What will all these new IRS employees do? The bill gives the IRS many new powers and tasks the IRS with the responsibility to enforce the mandates on individuals to purchase insurance the government deems acceptable as well as employer mandates to provide insurance the government deems affordable. In short, the Democrats’ bill will give the IRS sweeping new powers and require the IRS to become a much more intrusive force in every American’s life.

    If any American is not covered by “acceptable” insurance or misreports that they have acceptable coverage when they do not have such coverage the IRS will come knocking with steep taxes and potentially heavy penalties in hand. If employers do not provide coverage or if they provide coverage that the government considers “unaffordable” the IRS will be at the employer’s door with taxes and possible penalties.

    Should the IRS be the primary agency to determine who gets help with premiums and to enforce the complex requirements of this massive 2,000 plus page bill? Should tax collectors track people down that thought they had “acceptable” coverage because their insurer told them it was when it wasn’t?

    Massive Amounts of Personal Data Will Be Sent to the IRS. Names and addresses of those covered under insurance plans, dates they were covered under “minimum essential coverage” during the year, whether the coverage is inside or outside of the Exchange, how much of the premium was subsidized based on income, and whatever else the Secretary of Treasury decides to include will be sent to the IRS.

    Who will have access to this data and for what reasons can it be accessed? Could the Secretary also require taxpayers to disclose additional information about their utilization of their health insurance?

    The Power to Tax Our Health Care. The Senate Democrats’ bill just doesn’t tax individuals and employers if they don’t comply with the complex mandates in the bill. The bill sends the IRS out to tax the very products Americans use to maintain and restore their own health. New taxes on medical devices, on prescription drugs, and on health insurance itself are all targets of the bill. And, with $10 billion in new enforcement resources, you can bet the IRS will be taking its full share out of the pockets of every American who uses any of these products or services.”

    1. You’re gonna piss Tom off with this.

    2. Look,

      We don’t have to mandate insurance. However, when someone doesn’t have insurance and

      a> declares bankruptsy
      b> applies for medicaid
      c> applies for other gov assistance

      they get these tax-payer provided benefits.

      1. Fair enough.

      2. Walgreens just stopped accepting new medicaid patients in Washington state. Only a matter of time till this catches on . . . assuming it hasn’t already.

  10. Police shooting in GA reported here by Balko

    The shooter had no power of arrest. Somehow that was “missed” by the DA, GBI, and grand jury.

  11. The Milgram experiment is very revealing of human behavior and teaches us something very important.

    It teaches us the limits of psychological testing and gullibility of psychologist.

    What people usually miss in tisking over the Milgram experiment is that the people who trusted the experimenters and continued to apply the fake shocks did in fake have a superior understanding of the circumstances. They trusted the experimenters, the supposed evil authority figures, and in reality no one was hurt. They could have simply parked a brick on the shock button and walked away.

    Psychologists commonly delude themselves that they can strictly limit the information that there subjects operate on but even individual carries a lifetime of knowledge around with them that the experimenters cannot erase. The validity of Milgram experiment rest on the untested (and untestable) assumption that the subjects suddenly forget all the global knowledge about how scientist and others behave in a liberal-democracy. It requires that the subjects suddenly develop amnesia about the likely consequences of a researcher actually electrocuting someone in the lab.

    The subjects of Milgram experiment trusted the researchers not because (as the standard interpretation claims) ordinary people are just quiveringly eager to follow fascistic authority but because they had the global knowledge that the researchers were highly unlikely to actually hurt anyone. They trusted their global understanding of how the world works instead of the stage theater that the researchers presented them.

    A better experiment would be to take a bunch of Americans to a prison camp and China and have Chinese state security officers demand that they shock Chinese prisoners. You would no doubt get a completely different set of responses because the global knowledge would inform the subjects that the targets of the shock really could come to harm.

    This is a common problem with a lot psychological/sociological research. If anyone is interested. I wrote about this Ivory Tower problem in Those Disgusted Conservatives Vs. The Chicken F*ckers

    1. Exactly. No one thinks that a lab in a college is really going to hurt someone. The experiments only tell you how much people trust authority not how sadistic they are.

      Beyond which, we know how people react to coercion. We have about a hundred years of real life experience involving totalitarian regimes. And we know that only a few of incredible courage actually stand up to the coercion. Rather than running dumb ass experiments in universities, they should be talking to survivors of places like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and North Korea.

      1. “”Exactly. No one thinks that a lab in a college is really going to hurt someone. The experiments only tell you how much people trust authority not how sadistic they are.””

        Milgram shows the deferrence to authority even when you receive sensory input that someone is being harmed. Haven’t seen the TV show, but in Milgram people pushing the button heard people screaming as if harm was actually being done. The higher number on the dial, the more screaming they heard. They didn’t really know if someone was being hurt, but the screaming would normally be a clue that someone was. but they deferred to authority, as in, the guy in the lab coat from a college wouldn’t really let them hurt anyone would they?

        “”Rather than running dumb ass experiments in universities, they should be talking to survivors of places like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and North Korea.”””

        We already know regimes will act that way. Milgram shows that everyday people will act that way if they are in company they trust, and will ignore the screaming victim in the other room based on that trust.

    2. “The subjects of Milgram experiment trusted the researchers not because ordinary people are just quiveringly eager to follow fascistic authority but because they had the global knowledge that the researchers were highly unlikely to actually hurt anyone.”

      That’s kind of the point, Shannon. Have you ever actually read about the Milgram experiments beyond the one-sentence summary you see in popular magazines? The subjects were NOT “quiveringly eager” to do anything, and nobody ever said they were; in fact, they often protested, but complied anyway. People trust authority. A whole lot. Often more than they trust the evidence of their own eyes and ears. “they had the global knowledge that the researchers were highly unlikely to actually hurt anyone” – the experiments included warning labels that said “danger” on the shock generator, and the “victim” complaining of a heart condition, answering only with wordless screams, and eventually falling silent, so the whole point is that the subject’s specific knowledge of the situation contradicts their “global knowledge” that the experimenter won’t actually do any harm. I realize it’s fun to sit there and proclaim from the comfort of your armchair that you are so brilliant you realize the true meaning of the experiment whereas generations of psychologists haven’t, but, uh, no.

      1. shhhhhhh jd, he’s hunting kulturkampf!

        “No one thinks that a lab in a college is really going to hurt someone.”

        then why the extreme reaction from participants?

        you misunderestimate the power of proper dramaturgy to a rather severe degree.

        1. this was interesting/horrifying from the story as well:

          “They also obeyed the chant of “Punishment!” from the studio audience — which did not know the game show was a fake — until the contestant fell silent and appeared to have died.”

      2. Have you ever actually read about the Milgram experiments beyond the one-sentence summary you see in popular magazines?

        Yes, I had a psych minor. It is very apparent from Milgram descriptions in this and other experiments that he ignores the function of global knowledge. If you read Milgram in general you will see that he always goes for the dramatic interpretation and often seems more salesman than scientist.

        Milgram liked to play up the most dramatic aspects of the experiments but he glosses over the fact that drawing any conclusions from the experiment relies on the assumption that the participants are acting solely on the information presented in the theater of the experiment. In other words, you have to assume that participants are basically characters in a play and that they have no mental processes other than those ascribed to them by the script.

        In reality, the participants not only were not following the script but ( and I can’t emphasize this enough) they did in fact make decisions that did not hurt anyone regardless how Milgram reported their responses. (I would add that it is psych 101 that self-reports of emotional states are scientifically useless.) This fact is routinely glossed over in discussions of Milgram’s experiments.

        It’s just bad science. Milgram did not and could not control for all the factors he needed to control to demonstrate his hypothesis that ordinary people would hurt others at the instance of an authority figure. There is nothing in his work that demonstrates that, outside the theater of the experiment, the subjects would have behaved the same way.

        (I would also add that Milgram’s experiments have never been rigorously repeated so basing any actions on them is automatically dubious.)

        Everyone who quotes Milgram approvingly seems to image that they would be the ones who would “think for themselves” and not push the button. In reality, the people who did not push the button were not thinking for themselves. They were actually submerging themselves in the theater of the experiment that was created by the researcher authority figure. They believed what the authority figure told them was happening even when they had very good reason to question that story.

        So, the “moral” of Milgram’s experiment is really the opposite of what people usually take it to be.

        It is important to understand the fallaciousness of Milgrams results because Milgram has been widely used as evidence for the need of elitist control of ordinary people. The subtext when Milgram is discussed is almost always that ordinary citizens are stupid and vicious and that they can’t be trusted to manage their own affairs. Leftists in particular often use it to support their claim that liberal-democracies are always on the verge of sliding into Fascism were it not for the heroic efforts of Leftists.

        Of course, like Milgram, they are creating a theater in which we are supposed to abandon our global knowledge of our society and instead just become one dimensional characters in their play.

        1. So again, what are you doing with the Stanford Prison Experiment, where authority figures telling them what to doesn’t seem to have anything to do with it?

    3. But then there’s the Stanford Prison Experiment, which seemed to show more or less the same thing–worse actually. They didn’t need to be given orders. …and that experiment wasn’t hampered by the kinds of things you’re talking about.

      The sad fact is that a lot of people are abusive simply because they’re in a situation where they have the opportunity to be abusive. …which is more disturbing than the suggestion that they’ll blindly follow authority, isn’t it?

      1. The sad fact is that a lot of people are abusive simply because they’re in a situation where they have the opportunity to be abusive

        That is true and the take away should be that we should minimize the situations in which one individual has power over others. Unfortunately, the usual take away from the experiment for most people seems to be that ordinary people are prone to abuse others and therefore must be placed under the authority of their betters.

        They didn’t need to be given orders. …and that experiment wasn’t hampered by the kinds of things you’re talking about

        It was still a theater of the experiment. Further, if you read the protocols closely you will see that Milgram set up dynamics in the experiment that were designed to provoke conflict. I have also read suggestions that Milgram selection of the guards might not have been random.

        There has been may real world situations, such as POW camps, in which untrained individuals have been forced to guard actually dangerous prisoners and they did not degenerate like Milgram’s subjects did. Neither have Milgram’s experiments been rigorously repeated.

        Both these factors make Milgram’s general body of work more like cautionary plays than actual science.

        1. Wasn’t the Stanford Prison Experiment run by Philip Zimbardo, and not Milgram?

  12. The subjects of Milgram experiment trusted the researchers not because (as the standard interpretation claims) ordinary people are just quiveringly eager to follow fascistic authority but because they had the global knowledge that the researchers were highly unlikely to actually hurt anyone. They trusted their global understanding of how the world works instead of the stage theater that the researchers presented them.

    Read Milgram’s book. Some of the button-pushers were begging to be ‘allowed’ to stop.

    1. People are so stupid when it comes to authority figures. That is what angers me most in my daily discussions with people about what the government should be permitted by us to do. “It’s the law, etc.” They all think the government is in charge and we have to do what they say. This is The United State of America where it is supposed to be understood that We the People are in charge yet these tools, the majority of idiots that live and work with us every day don’t even know that or understand why it’s important.

      You don’t have to beg anyone to let you stop, you moron. Just take your damn hand off the button and start punching the administrator.

    2. Yes, I’ve read it. Milgram is quite the salesman.

      Despite whatever emotion people might have displayed it doesn’t escape the fact that outside the theater of the experiment they did not actually hurt anyone. The actual consequences of their choices did result in harm. The actually made the correct real world decision.

      I would argue that consciously or unconsciously they knew that even if their natural empathy made it difficult for them to take an action that appeared to cause someone else pain. Neither can a researcher rely on the self-reporting of subjects.

      Milgram simply could not control for contextual global knowledge. We cannot ignore the fact that the subjects have a context beyond the theater of the experiment. We cannot generalize from his results to people’s real world behavior.

      1. I would gladly hook a deep-cycle marine battery to the taint of a psychology researcher. There would be no switch.

  13. The Democratic president’s proposal would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law, and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide

    How the hell is all that supposed to slow the cost of medical care?

    1. Your forgetting the parallel program of printing money that will make Medicare cost less because the money put towards it will be worthless.

  14. How the hell is all that supposed to slow the cost of medical care?

    You’re not wishing hard enough.

    1. Unicorns are friggin’ sweet, dude!

    1. And American Idol beats just about everything else on TV. Just sayin’

    2. Awesome. I love some of the comments –

      Brock Samson kicked Olberman’s ass!

      Hell, Dean Venture can kick Olberman’s ass.

  15. In an interview with Bret Baier of Fox News Channel yesterday, Obama made the rather remarkable claim that the “Louisiana Purchase” money given to Senator Mary Landrieu would also help people recover from the earthquake in Hawaii. Here’s the thing though: the last real earthquake in Hawaii that did any damage was back in 1975.

    Mr. President, you’re the most pathetic liar in the White House since Nixon.

    1. Nixon was as big of a liar as Obama. But Obama is much more pathetic. Nixon was at least smart.

      1. When Dick Nixon talked out of both sides of his mouth, he was lying out of both sides of his mouth.

      2. Wrong.

    2. As the update to the article says, it’s probably refering the the 500K or so incurred for the civil defense activation on the tsunami warning. But there was an earthquake about two years ago that although it caused no appreciable structural damage (an old historic Church in Hana collapsed), it knocked out all power to Oahu for about 24 hr or so which caused some significant economic dislocation.

      Not that either of these necessarily needs to be repaid by the feds of course.

  16. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010…..databases/

    Georgia wants to add non-sex-offenders to the sex-offender registry.You know, because….

    1. Because now that we’ve given the government the power to continue punishing people after they’ve served their sentence in some cases, it wants to use that power against everyone it can?

  17. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel
    /2010/03/sex-offender-databases/

    link fixed. sorry.

    1. Those people have genitals. Therefore, they are POTENTIALLY sex offenders and must be kept away from THE CHILDREN.

    2. Besides, that guy looks kinda creepy.

      1. Dangerman? I don’t think so. More of a badass look to him if I recall from many moons ago.

  18. More environmental lies revealed.

    For his study, he looked at breathing-related hospital admissions and pollution levels in 11 Canadian cities between 1974 and 1994. The period covered a time when pollution was worse and there were more dramatic changes in air quality, which he said would produce more robust results.

    He also factored in smoking rates, with their obvious effects on respiratory health, and income levels, which he said can also alter hospitalization statistics.

    Prof. McKitrick and two colleagues at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow used the Bayesian method of averaging, which he argued would, in essence, provide a more all-encompassing picture of the situation.

    The results were clear: lower smoking rates meant fewer respiratory-health hospital admissions, higher income levels were sometimes linked to slightly more admissions and air-pollution had no effect, he said.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2695102

  19. For his study, he looked at breathing-related hospital admissions and pollution levels in 11 Canadian cities between 1974 and 1994. The period covered a time when pollution was worse and there were more dramatic changes in air quality, which he said would produce more robust results.

    He also factored in smoking rates, with their obvious effects on respiratory health, and income levels, which he said can also alter hospitalization statistics.

    Prof. McKitrick and two colleagues at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow used the Bayesian method of averaging, which he argued would, in essence, provide a more all-encompassing picture of the situation.

    The results were clear: lower smoking rates meant fewer respiratory-health hospital admissions, higher income levels were sometimes linked to slightly more admissions and air-pollution had no effect, he said.

  20. Damn Balko. I’ve grown accustom to your early morning gut-punch. This is more like a series of jabs.

  21. Some of the button-pushers were begging to be ‘allowed’ to stop.

    People who beg to be allowed to stop don’t want to stop. They want clean hands.

    Ordinary people are quiveringly eager to deniably capacitate fascistic authority. See, e.g., cosmotarians.

    1. Boy, you’ve really got us cosmos there. We’ll screw anybody over as long as it comes with an invitation to drink martinis with our fascist masters.

      1. No. Cosmos just excuse and equivocate because they can’t believe that anyone with whom they identify with socially and culturally could ever be as bad as those with whom they don’t.

        1. I, for one, don’t think anyone I identify with socially and culturally could ever be as bad as John, but hey, that’s me.

          1. I certainly hope so.

          2. I’ve persuaded some friends to go to a concealed carry permit class with me this spring. After, we’re doing a tasting of premium bourbons.
            Now THAT’s some cosmotarian goodness.

            1. Oh — and they’re all in the media.

            2. No, that is just converting existing cosmotarians to proper side. The is noting cosmotarian about bourbon and firearms.

            3. Sounds paleo to me.

              1. Nope. Afterward we burn a Confederate flag, just to be sure.

                1. Sounds like a good time.

      2. You probably drink some colored martini that tastes like fruit, too.

  22. Joe Biden opens mouth, should have inserted foot

    Vice President Joe Biden asked for God’s blessing for the late mother of Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen during a White House celebration of St. Patrick’s Day ? except the elderly lady is very much alive.

    “Bring out yer dead!”

    1. In better times, Biden would be hugely popular, with entire television shows dedicated to highlighting and predicting his gaffes. People would treat him like a rock star, all while setting him up for his next silly moment.

    2. Yeah, around Joe you learn to stand upchuck.

    3. I guess he just figured it’s Europe, it’s socialized medicine, ergo dead old lady…

  23. Where’s the H&R Bracket Challenge? We’re 68 minutes from the first tip, damn it!

    1. Damn straight. And I would also like to take this opportunity to tell Tiger Woods thanks a lot for announcing your comeback in a game few people care about and taking up valuable air time that could have been spent talking about the tournament this week.

      1. “a game few people care about.”
        Either that’s pure snark, or I’m about to develop a man crush on John.
        I hates me some golf.

        1. I hate golf to. And I really hate it now that all talk about it now doesn’t even concern the game but instead how many women Tiger banged and “how sorry and addicted he was”.

          1. Strangly enough, I do like banging women.

            1. So do I. And I really don’t care about how Tiger is banging. And I especially don’t won’t to hear about how sorry he is he did it, especially when I know he is lying and would still be banging all of them had he not been married to a crazy Norwegian chick who tried to take a golf club upside his head.

              1. Actually, it’s the institution of marriage to blame for the whole thing. Had Tiger not been married, this would be a non-issue. (Assuming he didn’t have Rothlisbergerian issues.)

              2. a crazy Norwegian chick who tried to take a golf club upside his head.

                I’d be lucky to get a golf club upside the head. That doesn’t make her crazy.

            2. As far as I’m concerned, his wife is the only one who has acted appropriately in this whole sordid affair.

              He was married to her, and cheated on her with at least a dozen women. Any man who does that deserves to be beaten. Your married, but you wanna bang bimbos anyway? Get a divorce.

              1. True. But that is between you and your wife. I don’t care or want to hear about it.

                1. I thought the “South Park” last night nailed it pretty well.

                  1. I thought the “South Park” last night nailed it pretty well.

                    Err, so to speak.

  24. Reality show contestants willing to kill in French experiment

    I’m waiting for Texas to put “The Running Man” on public access.

    1. Is Richard Dawson dead yet?

  25. As for the Dow, I’m hoping most of my compadres on this board had the good sense not to sell at the bottom.
    I’m not all the way back, but I’ll no longer have to work until I’m 80 (at least until the next downturn).

  26. I’m so glad to hear inflation is not an issue, because when a box of Wheaties costs almost five bucks I start to wonder.

    1. It only costs five bucks if you pay that. Not that tough to find it for half or less, and Wheaties aren’t the only option.

  27. Don’t you guys feel bad about not supporting Obamacare now? Or are you all just racists who want to see a black man fail?

    President Obama’s pitch: Fate of presidency on the line

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s…..z0iXdqMLt8

  28. Don’t you guys feel bad not supporting Obamacare now? Or are you all a bunch of racists who just want to see a black man fail?

    President Obama’s pitch: Fate of presidency on the line

    1. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s…..z0iXdqMLt8

      And fuck the spam filter.

    2. That is from Politico. Fuck the God Damned spam filter. I hate you Reason.

      http://www.politico.com/news/

      stories/0310/34602.html

    3. That headline is from Politico. The spam filter won’t take the link. I hate you Reason staff. I really do.

  29. http://www.politico.com/news/s…..34602.html

    And fuck the spam filter.

  30. I got Kansas winning it all in one of my brackets, Ohio State in another. (And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Georgetown ended up in the Final Four.) That Midwest Region is a bitch.

    1. Well, you know the NCAA has to be kind to little Mikey Krzyzewski. So, they had to screw Ohio State, West Virginia and Georgetown and Kansas. We wouldn’t want little Mikey or any of his shills in the media to get upset would we?

      1. How the hell can you, of all people, spell Krzyzewski right?

        1. He probably does like I do and googles “Coach K” or “Duke”.

    2. Kentucky.

      1. It’ll just be vacated in three years or so, just before Calipari jumps to Central Florida.

        1. Ah, so you believe the program is ritually unclean?

  31. “There are serious implications of losing on President Obama’s ability to be effective for the rest of his three years in office,” Waxman told

    So seriously evil moleman, I mean Representative Waxman, there are downsides to defeating Obamacare right?

  32. they’re all in the media.

    Wait- as agents of the State Propaganda Apparat, don’t they already have government-issued weapons and absolute immunity from prosecution? Why do your media comrades *need* concealed weapon permits, Citizen?

    1. Maybe they have written that Michelle Obama is not the most beautiful woman in the world or something and lost their party privileges.

    2. Maybe they have written that Michelle Obama is not the most beautiful woman in the world or something and lost their party privileges.

      1. They were ok until they wrote it twice.

  33. Alex Chilton died? Big Star was just getting ready to play SXSW Saturday night. I’ll miss him.

  34. Play with yourself before other ones.

  35. Speaking of Austin, I’m sure all you geeks know about this, but I just learned that apparently, as a condition for joining the U.S., Texas was given the right to divide itself into up to five different states on its own terms. (Or is this some kind of weird falsehood from the fringes?)
    If they can, why don’t they? 10 senators sounds better than 2.

    1. I have heard that to. And I think it is true. I would love to see the pants wetting fit MNG would have if that ever happened.

      1. They do have that right, though I suspect that if they exercised it the 10 senators would not predictably vote as a block. It’s not as though Dallas, Galveston, and El Paso have identical interests. Nor do the people who have the most pull in Austin right now necessarily want to see that influence diluted. And the average voter probably has enough Texas Pride to be opposed (or at least wary) about a proposal to break the state up.

        1. Arguably, we don’t have the right anymore. The original terms of Texas joining the Union were annulled when we tried to bail out in 1861. We were readmitted under the same rules as all of the other former Confederate states.

          I seriously doubt we’d be allowed to get away with it. Plus, there’s a huge amount of Texas nationalism. Splitting the state up would go against that, so it’ll never happen.

    2. They wouldnt be the largest state anymore.

      (Well, real state, not like Alaska really counts)

    3. That is true, CN. There is a related folk-tale (not true) that Texas reserved the right to secede.

      As to why it hasn’t happened? Pure, irrational inertia is my guess. I can tell you that there are vast swathes of West Texas that would be happy to have their own Senator and not be under Austin’s thumb, but they are a minority. East Texas, where the numbers are, is complacent about the whole thing, so it’ll never happen.

      1. Every state has the right to secede. [Insert new war over topic]

    4. It’s a myth.

      It originates from the early incorporation negotiations when the sovereign nation of the Republic of Texas sought to join the US as a state. The sheer physical size of Texas and the lack of navigable rivers in the era before trains raised serious questions about the practical ability to govern such a large state. In some of the draft incorporation treaties, Texas had the right to subdivide.

      In the final treaty the provision was removed most likely because northern states did not like the idea of the sudden creation of five slave states with 10 slave Senators. However, by then the provision had been so discussed that many thought it had made the final treaty so it entered Texan folk lore.

      1. And even if it were a myth, “T” makes a good point above. Texas left the union and was re-admitted in 1965 after the civil war with no such provision.

  36. Every state has the right to secede.

    In that case…

    “Adios, suckers!!”

    1. Yeah, we’re out, too. Soon the nation of Disney World will rise from the ashes of the Great Florida Civil War to unite the Panhandle, Central Florida, and South Florida into one, brand-consistent whole.

      1. The Mouse is watching you, citizen.

        1. I kneel before the Mouse in whose Clubhouse we all metaphorically gather.

  37. Italy tries to ban molecular gastronomy.

    Hopefully, the trend will spread and eventually there will be fewer douchebags practicing it on Top Chef.

    1. Fuck you, Wylie Dufresne was awesome.

    2. Also, Richard should have won. Everyone knows it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.