Reason Morning Links: Skinner Gets a Stay, Pope Criticized in Latest Catholic Sex Scandal, Pot Legalization Vote in California

|

NEXT: Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds Talks With Jonah Goldberg About Tea Parties, Elites & Populism, and Those Scary Libertarians

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. The Times of London has a good story on the Marijuana legalisation campaign.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t…..074842.ece

    Quote:

    “Those who are most concerned are perhaps the people who are growing it. In Humboldt County ? known as the “Emerald Triangle” or the “Napa Valley of Pot” ? marijuana farmers fear that if the drug is legalised prices will fall, destroying their livelihoods.”

    1. Poor Californians, they use “legalized alcohol” as something to prove their point? Does the alcohol age limit stop our teen-agers from drinking any more than they’re stopped from using pot? Take your blinders off, AMERICA! What do we see? From drugs or “legal” alcohol, we see our teen-agers losing their interest in anything but getting high, teen-agers who lose their interest in their jobs, their sports, their future. The only “friends” they want to chill with are those who “understand” them. In other words their pot-smoking, “don’t care about their future” friends. I have 3 teen-agers, all 3 have been lost at various points to their circles of “friends.” The only thing that has helped two of them to lift their eyes from rolling blunts long enough to see they need to DO something about their future is juvie. Whether it’s legal or not, none of them at their age had money to pay for it, which meant theft and dealing in order to buy their weed. The oldest probably won’t see he has a future past his next high until he’s been in jail long enough to completely dry out and see the loser future all his “friends” have in store for them. Sure, legalizing marijuana might remove the criminal side of the business of marijuana, but it won’t help our teen-agers. Whether it’s legal or not, pot and other drugs are still stealing our kids’ future. They need to be our focus.

      1. And how do we keep our kids of drugs if their legal, the law against pot sends the right message to America’s children.

        1. Solid effort but too over the top.

          B.

          1. Nah, too predictable. F+.

        2. Have you tried parenting?

          1. That shit takes work. F’get about it.

          2. +1

          3. I just tell ’em what my Daddy told me — “You ain’t never gonna amount to nothin'”.

            1. RV! +1.75

        3. Juanita would mop up the floor with your sorry assed troll skills.

        4. Robert –

          The same way we keep our kids from doing other stuff that’s not a good idea but legal.

          And anyway, the plan is to only legalize it for adults. People who sold it to kids would probably see penalties considerably higher (no pun intended) than those for giving alcohol to kids.

      2. No wonder your kids are on drugs. It’s because you are lame and suck at everything you do. Like parenting and trolling. Maybe you should get high with your kids.

        1. I get high with them. They’re good fun those kids, good fun.

      3. Have you considered that part of its popularity with teenagers is its illegality? What better way to rebel? Why do you think teens here have drinking problems while in europe they don’t (not as much as here, at least)? Because it’s illegal until they’re 21, while in Europe it’s legal as early as 16 in some places.

        1. that is why I drank at 14.

          1. 14 + 7 = 21

            Yeah, so did I, but those three extra years help foster a culture of drinking among youths (I should know, having only been able to legally drink for 5 years now). Personally, I don’t really give a shit about kids drinking. The best deterrent is to just let them. If it’s no longer rebellious, it’s no longer cool, and it follows that fewer kids would take it up regularly since the stuff tastes gross when you first try it. Further, why does it really even matter if kids drink in the first place? Health? Go support the salt ban, then, buddy.

      4. Ya ever think, that maybe, stupid runs in families, Bob?

      5. Just because you didn’t raise your kids right doesn’t mean pot should be illeagal.

  2. Ever wonder what’s wrong with public schools?

    Feast. Feast on the horror.

    joe from Lowell Says:
    March 24th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
    OT:
    I was in the school where I sub ? tough place ? and I asked my first two classes “Can anyone tell me what important event happened last night?”

    1. I’m sure Joe gave them a totally unbiased opinion so they could make up their own minds, because education isn’t indoctrination. I almost managed to type that w/o cracking up.

        1. FTA: Nathan said students should be encouraged to protest as long as they are informed on both sides of the issue. emphasis mine

          It really pisses me off when people say there are two sides to an issue when in most cases issues may be of hexagonal complexity.

          1. “”It really pisses me off when people say there are two sides to an issue when in most cases issues may be of hexagonal complexity.””

            No kidding.

            It’s preping them for the binary nature of partisan politics. Your for us, or against us. 😉

    2. I don’t find anything wrong that children had more important things to do than obsess over politics. I find it comforting actually. I am, however, horrified by the thought of Joe from Lowell without adult supervision proselytizing to children.

      1. “I am, however, horrified by the thought of Joe from Lowell without adult supervision proselytizing to children.”

        Hey, could be worse, like a Catholic priest or something…

        1. Well, Joe won’t try to molest them I don’t think. Of course the religion he is proselytizing about is a lot worse. But at least their bodies will be safe if not their minds.

      2. Joe is a sub teacher now? What happened to the lucrative city planning gig? How the mighty have fallen.

    3. National Chip and Dip Day

      1. Near Miss Day

    4. We sometimes amused ourselves by locking our subs out of the classroom. What do you suppose the kids do to joe?

    5. You know, you spend months or years imagining J from L sitting in his underground lair, raising mutant piranha, feasting on the screams of the innocent, and then one day you find out he’s a substitute teacher.

      In retrospect, though, it’s a commonly-used trope. Think of Frances Dolarhyde, for example.

    6. Linky link please?

      1. Sorry about that… Yglesias’ circle jerk.

        Heir

        1. Salamat.

    7. I wonder if it was a sex ed class.

      Of course, is crying while masturbating really something that needs to be taught? Because that’s all the “moves” he’s got.

      Well… that and looking the other way while a rotating crew of drinking buddies knock up your wife behind your back because worrying over the inherent power inequalities created by 10,000 years of patriarchal domination has made you limp-terrified of approaching “The Alter of the Goddess.”

      1. This post looks oddly familiar….

      2. You don’t like joe, do you?

      3. That is a fantastic second paragraph, SF.

    8. Also to be fair, merely asking a class about current events is perfectly legitimate in a social studies/civiics context.

      Discussion of political issues can be done fairly too but it’s tricky stuff. It’s hard for even a self aware genius like myself to not let personal bias seep in.

      1. My objection is that they let him out of his cage at all.

        Of course, maybe if he’s in the tough of a school he’ll get stabbed.

        1. “that tough”

          Stupid fingers.

        2. We can always hope.

      2. perfectly legitimate in a social studies/civics context

        But it was gym class!

    9. Does anyone else think this sounds a lot like something Mr. Garrison would ask?

      1. Yeah, but Mr. Garrison’s follow-up explanation would be surreal, disjointed, and have no connection to reality.

        Hmm. Now that I think about it, no difference at all.

    10. I sure he was talk about the hoops tournament. He is from the state where basketball was invented.

  3. “The justices ordered the execution postponed until they decide whether to review the case.” They may review the case. Was access to evidence denied or not?

    1. Was access to evidence denied or not?

      From what I have read, the defense had originally rejected a DNA test.

      1. So, it doesn’t sound like malfeasance on the part of the prosecutors.

        1. So, it doesn’t sound like malfeasance on the part of the prosecutors.

          I have heard that Skinner himself asked for the DNA test, but his lawyer overruled him, claiming that the test might implicate Skinner.

          Could this be sufficient legal reason for the Supreme Court to order a DNA test?

          1. How does his lawyer overrule him? Oh yeah, his lawyer was a former prosecutor. Isn’t there something about inept or compromised defense counsel that could get this guy at least a DNA test?

            1. There could be, but it’s difficult to get such a ruling after the fact. He could have overruled or fired his counsel beforehand, but he didn’t.

              The interest of the prosecutors is clear here. Any guilty defendant can refuse a DNA test (through his lawyer), go to trial, and then appeal wanting the test in order to take time and hope for luck either way. It’s also pretty easy after the fact to claim that you wanted the test but your lawyer refused to ask for it, so long as you didn’t actually try to get rid of your lawyer for doing so at the time.

            2. Oh yeah, his lawyer was a former prosecutor.

              You would be surprised as to how many defense lawyers were prosecutors.

              Johnnie Cochran was a prosecutor.

    2. http://www.amarillo.com/storie…..ews2.shtml

      From my local paper.

      1. “Skinner, splattered with the blood of at least two of the victims, was arrested about three hours after the bodies were found. Police found him in a closet at the trailer home of a woman he knew” Innocent, damn it.

      2. Could you repost the link?

        1. http://www.amarillo.com/

          and front page has a link.

    1. Nice link. ObamaCare will prove to be an immeasurably huge, legal clusterfuck. And yet, after (virtual) passage, the president continues the hard sell. Why?

      1. Because it’s all he knows.

        Worst. President. Ever.

  4. http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/96370/

    Instapundit has a nice list of the various acts of violence committed against Republican political offices during back in the 00s when we still had an anti-war movement. I am sure Steny Hoyer and Rachel Madow were shocked and horrified at time. They just forgot to mention it.

    1. The left side of the MSM is stroking and stoking this nonstory for all it’s worth. Sarah Palin mixes military and political metaphors (as politicians have done for centuries) and Rachel Maddow freaks out. And she’s MSNBC’s smartest retard!

  5. I was in the school where I sub ? tough place ? and I asked my first two classes “Can anyone tell me what important event happened last night?”

    That fucking guy. Christ on a pony, i’m glad my kid’s not in public school anymore.

    1. I hope one of the kids said “Yeah. My dad said we’re gonna lose our house because he and my mom can’t afford to pay for it and insurance.”

    2. Even with them not in one of Joe’s classes, I am glad my kid’s are not in public school anymore.

    3. I’m tempted to have a kid just so I can keep him out of public schools.

      1. No.

        1. I can say from experience that the private school kids seemed, on average, slightly smarter than we public school kids.

          1. They had better drugs, too.

            1. Pharmaceutical Samples

      2. You must not like your potential kids very much.

        Stanford study debunks school “choice” myths

  6. John, those GOPers wouldn’t have suffered that violence if they weren’t so evil. It’s their fault.

  7. All the ‘Nuance’ That’s Fit to Print
    The New York Times relaxes taboos about Nazi Germany.

    1. If you scroll down the rest of the way on that page, there’s some pretty funny/snarky titles/comments on the news.

      1. I read Best of the Web every day. It’s very well reasoned and written.

    2. That is from April 3, 2009. I knew something was up when they started talking about Ted Kennedy.

  8. California voters will vote on marijuana legalization this November.

    Go for it Granola Staters.

    Of course the cops are adamantly opposed to making something legal that most everybody between the ages of 18 and 60 has done to no ill effect (except the ones who got busted).

    They might have to start dealing with dangerous criminals instead of padding arrest their stats by fucking with peaceful, otherwise law abiding people over one of the most benign mind altering drugs out there.

    How can you not despise cops when they pay their own money to oppose this incredibly rational initiative?

  9. Dunno if Hank Skinner is guilty or not.
    He should still have the opportunity to test evidence that may shed reasonable doubt that he actually is the murderer.

    I’m still against the death penalty even if he was filmed in technicolor committing murder of a priest at high noon on the altar of a church full of sober Lutherans.

    1. Lutherans don’t have priests.

      1. Ah, another unforeseen implication of the healthcare bill, I see.

      2. Then who ritually butchers their captured enemies, you fucking retard?

        1. I am so going to make you my co-host.

          1. Not Andy Rickter?

            1. I’ll let Warty eat his heart to gain his courage. Warty shall also feast on the gin-pickled corpse of McMahon.

          2. Our house band will be Cannibal Corpse.

            1. And if they aren’t available, Alien Sex Fiend.

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

            2. “BoySkout” would be much more terrifying.

            3. Why not hire Christoph Waltz? His musical work is inspirational. And he has an Oscar, but you all may not be looking for any sort of lent credibility.

      3. Yes and no.

        You shouild have taken issue with the 100% sober congregation. 😉

        1. Given my Catholic upbringing, a drunk Lutheran would be considered 100% sober comparatively.

      4. Maybe the priest was visiting? Some ecumenical thing?

        1. + possible

    2. He should still have the opportunity to test evidence that may shed reasonable doubt that he actually is the murderer.

      I read the defense had the opportunity during the trial and rejected it.

      Would this make a difference?

    3. I don’t like the argument of “well, he had a chance to go for DNA testing earlier in the process but didn’t so tuff luck to him.” I’d like to think we care more about making sure we don’t fry innocent citizens than being able to say “had ya chance buster!”

      1. As someone who supports the death penalty I find this to be appallingly stupid. I think the chances are pretty high this guy is guilty as hell. And the DNA will be his. But executing him without doing that, in addition to the injustice of it, does nothing but give ammunition to death penalty opponents. Take the DNA, end any doubt that he is guilty and be done with him. Don’t make him a martyr.

      2. Exactly. If the prosecutors were not evil fucks, they would be the first to demand that any possible exculpatory evidence should be tested to eliminate any possibility that they are killing an innocent man.

        1. And there are no excuses since a Phoenix lab has offered to do the testing for free. No reason under the sun why not to cover all bases…unless the prosecutor has a reasonable doubt. Hmm.

          1. The prosecutors’ reasoning is obvious, even if not sufficient.

            They worry that any guilty defendant would refuse a DNA test (through his lawyer), go to trial, and then, if found guilty, would appeal wanting the test. That would maximize the length of the trial as well as the defendant’s chance of being found innocent if guilty.

            If you’re innocent, the rational game theory equilibrium is most likely to ask for the test at the start (esp. if the evidence is otherwise bad for you), but if you’re guilty, the correct move is clearly to take your chances with no confirming test, and then hope for an inconclusive lab result or mistake on appeal.

            It’s also pretty easy after the fact to claim that you wanted the test but your lawyer refused to ask for it, so long as you didn’t actually try to get rid of your lawyer for doing so at the time.

            1. He’s appealing, is he not? If he wants his DNA tested on his final appeal, I see no good reason to oblige before you fry him.

              I think most innocent people would request a DNA test before they get to the electric chair so this isn’t likely to happen as often as the prosecutors seem worried about. Even if it happens every time, better to be sure before you execute someone.

              1. I think most innocent people would request a DNA test before they get to the electric chair so this isn’t likely to happen as often as the prosecutors seem worried about. Even if it happens every time, better to be sure before you execute someone.

                What about people not on death row? You’re coming close to making a point that the death penalty should be preserved, because it increases the chance of justice.

                If not, and you expand it to everyone, then the prosecutors’ fear has more salience, even if still insufficient.

                1. No. I’m saying even if you’re not on death row, if you think DNA evidence will exonerate you, you’re most likely to do it as early as possible so you spend as few days incarcerated as possible, rather than wait until you are walking the Green Mile. So, I think the prosecutors fear is unfounded if he’s afraid people will wait until appeal.

                  Not that it should matter to him when they use it. If justice is to be served, the defendant should be able to use any exculpatory evidence at his disposal whenever he feels like it. Hopefully, it will work for him if he’s innocent or not if he’s guilty regardless of when he uses it. You seem to be suggesting inmates would rather wait until they can appeal rather than get the charges dropped before or during trial. I don’t think most will do that, nor do I care if they do. It’s up to them.

                  1. if you think DNA evidence will exonerate you, you’re most likely to do it as early as possible so you spend as few days incarcerated as possible, rather than wait until you are walking the Green Mile.

                    Agreed. But, conversely, if you think that the DNA evidence will confirm your guilt, then you’re best off refusing it at trial and then asking for it at the last moment, hoping for a miracle or a botched lab job.

                    So, I think the prosecutors fear is unfounded if he’s afraid people will wait until appeal.

                    No, I think we’ve just established you think that they’re quite correct that innocent people who expect to be cleared would ask for the test immediately, but guilty people would wait and save it for a last minute Hail Mary.

                  2. You seem to be suggesting inmates would rather wait until they can appeal rather than get the charges dropped before or during trial.

                    I’m suggesting that if you think it will exonerate you, you would do it as early as possible, but if you think it will confirm your guilt, it makes sense to wait until the last second. Isn’t that what you’re saying too?

        2. Yes, but you can’t make him submit to a DNA test beforehand either, I would think. Since it takes a sample from you, it’s like forcing you to testify against yourself. Otherwise one simple answer would be just to require DNA tests.

      3. Hello SF!

        1. Hey! Watch the initials, dude.

    4. to visit the Lutherans

    5. This whole problem would be solved if we had a national DNA database. But I’m sure that won’t be brought up.

  10. Senate Republicans find procedural errors in health care bill; it will now go back to the House.

    In related news: This year, for the first time, Social Security payouts will exceed funding revenues. According to the CBO, this was not expected to happen till 2016. Oops.

    1. Has the CBO ever been right, or even in the ballpark with one of its projections?

      1. No. But they’re the referee!
        So they might not be right, but they’re never wrong.

  11. According to the CBO, this was not expected to happen till 2016.

    Tell me about those ObamaCare CBO numbers again?

  12. OK, OK! We made them up! Now leave us alone!

  13. I’m not sure the TX legislation is an attempt to regulate immigration as it is an attempt to to regulate the effects of immigration, once it has been allowed to occur, on the locality.

    But I’m not sure this makes sense even to me…

    1. It is an equal protection issue. You cannot discriminate based on national origin. From an equal protection stand point, that law is no different than saying black people cant sign rental contracts.

      1. Are illegal immigrants a protected class like blacks are?

        When i clicked on the link it quoted the judge as basing her opinion on pre-emption.

        1. At the state level they are. That is why you can’t deny illegal immigrants access to schools and things like that. The feds have a right to deport them. And the states can even assist in that. But the states cannot discriminate against them.

          1. That is why you can’t deny illegal immigrants access to schools and things like that.

            Though IIRC there’s more complaints and litigation on the issue of charging in-state or out-of-state tuition at public universities, since there the states are allowed to discriminate against some US citizens.

            Texas is in better shape with regards to illegal immigrants and has less room to complain about them since it has no income tax. The illegal immigrants pay their share of property tax through rent, and pay sales tax for most things. It’s hard for them to evade taxes, so they deserve equal protection. They certainly deserve the right to sign private contracts.

        2. Yes, see Plyler v. Doe, a 1982 SCOTUS case striking down a Texas law.

      2. ?Conseguido le, Gringo!

      3. Holy smoke, I absolutely agree with John and cheer him on for his advocacy of the equal protection rights of illegal immigrants.

        1. We have the right to deport them. But once they are here we can’t discriminate against them. If you can say they can’t sign contracts, why couldn’t you say you won’t respond to an emergency call or visit a doctor? The Texas law makes no sense. And further, it would screw landlords by making their rental contracts illegal and thus unenforceable.

        2. Fluffy, every time I agree with John, I know an angel is having its wings ripped off.

    2. I’m not sure this makes sense even to me…

      Smell your own farts, too?

  14. the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act

    Why can’t congress come up with better names for their concoctions?

    How about renaming this puppy the “Yet Another Kludged Together Bunch of Crap to Get This Monkey Off Our Backs Act of 2010”?

  15. I love the smell of Politicians’ fear in the morning. It just makes me hot.

    Of course they are probably just getting wipped up for a little Reichstag fire, so that’s a letdown.

    1. FTL: House Democrats say they are unnerved.

      Oh, no, folks, this is “unnerving.”

    2. From the story: “at least 10 House Democrats reporting death threats or incidents of harassment or vandalism at their district offices over the past week”

      Notice how “death threats” is first on the list? 10 legislators out of over 400. Less than 2%. It’s an epidemic of violence!

      1. Notice also how “incidents of harassment” (which can be anything that hurts the widdle Congressscum’s feewings) is thrown in to beef up the count.

        And they could still only get to 10.

    3. Bonjour, scum!

    4. FTA: “Our democracy is about participation,” Hoyer said. “Our democracy is about differing and debate and animated debate and passionate debate. But it is not about violence.”

      Tell those SWAT assholes….asshole.

    1. Chocolate City, baby.

      1. Detroit (81.55% black) coming in at 18 of 20 kinda lays that generalization to rest I’d say.

        1. The colder the climate, the greater the shrinkage.

          1. how all those cities rate in basketball?;-)

    2. I would have guesses Washington DC.

      Ohhh you meant THAT kind of Dick!

    3. from 3 to 10 inches

      THREE?! Holy shit that is a tiny pecker.

      1. Like that extra 1/4 inch you have makes the difference;-)

    4. Can’t you people just be happy for the enormous cocks of New Orleans, whatever color they might be? Sheesh.

  16. Is there a reason the Republicans aren’t still offering amendments, as sort of an amendment filibuster?

    1. I’ve offered to write whatever number of amendments they need to keep things frozen in the muck. I’ve got one to build a Colossus with one foot where the White House used to be and the other where the Capitol used to be. Oops, mixed my tenses, didn’t I?

      In other news, robots to replace journalists.

      1. didn’t that already happen on MSNBC?

        1. No, those are biological constructs.

          1. I’ve always assumed that chimps were running things there.

            1. If only!

              1. The chimps would at least be funny. Chimps in suits are always funny.

                1. Always. Best way to test whether someone is human is to parade a chimp in from of him/her/it. If laughter ensues, human. If not, kill it before it kills you.

                  1. I wrote a song called “Monkeys With Diapers” and the video featured some Omama supporters and lefty pundits. The hate mail was precious.

                2. Yes they are!

                  http://thedarkprophet.files.wo…..015_ms.jpg

    2. I believe there’s a 20 hour limit on the amendment process.

    3. Yes. It’s reconciliation, the rules limited the time for debate to 20 hours.

  17. I asked my first two classes “Can anyone tell me what important event happened last night?”

    You got your period?

  18. athouse.blogspot.com

    Check out Althouse today suffering buyer’s remorse about Obama. It is quite entertaining. She has a video of Obama campaigning against the individual mandate. I would put the specific link up but the damn spam bot won’t let me. I hate you REASON!!

    1. Your link takes me to a Japanese site. I thought they loved Obama.

    2. Ann Althouse: The Retarded Paula Deen of Political Bloggers.

      1. I wound never eat anything that bitch made. What a skank.

    3. Anyone who is surprised that a leftist academic who came up through the Daley machine would strongarm a massive and unconstitutional expansion of the state over the objections of the populace,

      is too stupid to be allowed to vote ever again.

      1. You just disenfranchised most of the guilty white people in America.

      2. You can’t make an omelette . . .

      3. Perhaps, but you’ll never win an election without getting some of those people.

  19. LOL, is anyone actually surprised by this? I mean seriously.

    http://www.true-anonymity.pro.tc

    1. You’re doing it wrong! The LOL comes at the end. And you eff’d up the link. One more error, and I’ll have to report you to the Anon Overbot. You know what he’s like? Scary, huh? LOL

      Jess
      http://www.true-anonymity.pro.tc

  20. Satish Sawant was proudly driving his first car home from the showroom: A brand-new silver Tata Nano, draped with a celebratory garland of marigolds.

    Then there was smoke. And then there was fire.

    Minutes after the software engineer’s wife and five-year-old son clambered out of the back seat, smoke from the engine, located in the Nano’s rear, erupted into flames that engulfed the tiny car.

    His ordeal showed just the latest problem with the low-cost Nano

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…..z0jCUI1XPi

  21. New Catholic sex scandal spreads to the Pope, who critics say failed to defrock a Wisconsin priest accused of molesting boys.
    Like bureaucrats everywhere, covering their own asses is the first priority. Then comes protecting their meal ticket.
    At least stories like this should dispell the myth that the catholic church has some sort of moral authority to tell other people how to live their lives.

    1. Or that the pope is the manifestation of god on the earth.

  22. http://www.rasmussenreports.co….._care_bill

    55% of likely voters favor repeal of Obamacare. All those Obama gave me free healthcare and a pony types generally don’t vote.

  23. It appears Social Security has become insolvent, before anyone expected. This kind of unpredicted stuff won’t happen with health care, though.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03…..al.html?hp

    1. No it hasn’t. It has started paying more in benefits than it takes in. When the fabled trust fund* balance reaches zero, then social security will be insolvent.

      * I know there is no trust fund, that it’s an accounting gimmick and the money’s already been spent. What it really means in the accounting game is that social security will start redeeming government bonds instead of purchasing them. This will have the effect of driving the yield of said bonds up, exacerbating the deficit.

      1. Where is Al Gore’s lock box? Does he still have the key?

  24. Death threats, mean e-mails, whatever; same thing.

    Do not rebel against your masters.

    1. Capitol Police this morning have issued a list of Prohibited Behavior on the Hill, including:

      Sticking your tongue out at a Congressman.
      Telling a Senator that his pants are on fire.
      Replying “I know you are, but what am I?”

  25. He was so sensible and pragmatic, considering all the details, so carefully and intelligently. He wasn’t an ideologue. Where is the guy I voted for?

    SUCKER!!

  26. Where is the guy I voted for?

    He. Never. Existed.

    Jeebus, Ann, you’re supposed to be highly trained, analytic, and perhaps a little cynical.

    And you lapped up a steaming bowl of the most obvious BS since “I’ll pull out, honey, honest I will”.

    1. Ann likes to be hip. she is a baby boomer. And she didn’t want her baby boomer colleges at Wisconsin law thinking she was unhip. And Obama was so cute. So cool. He would never lie.

      There is a whole book that Virginia Postrel needs to write about the phenomena of social posing and the 2008 Obama movement. It really was the truimph of brand. Obama convinced people that he was the candidate of the smart and cool and McCain was the candidate of the uncool. Supporting him had nothing to do with ideas and everything to do with giving the voter a chance to project an image.

      1. Supporting him had nothing to do with ideas and everything to do with giving the voter a chance to project an image.

        Well we know that, despite wasting times on articles about the subjects, Reason contributors and readers don’t really care about Davis-Bacon, agricultural supports, free trade, or any of those other non-hot button issues. Libertarians are just the same as any other voter when it comes to why they vote– hot button issues and personality.

    2. But so did Peter Bagge, Ronald Bailey, Tim Cavanaugh (“All my life I’ve been waiting for a black president; Obama’s not monumentally unqualified, and his solid-if-boring book at least had some unkind words for teachers unions. Also my kids like him.”), Steve Chapman (“he shows an intelligence and temperament that suggest he will govern more pragmatically than ideologically”), and Julian Sanchez.

      1. I don’t get that. By any rational measure, Obama was “monumentally unqualified.” As has been proven in the last year.

        Interesting that the media is portraying the healthcare bill passage as some huge win. That’s facially ridiculous. The party controls the White House, controls Congress, yet passes a bill dramatically different than the one initially proposed after a year of waffling, paying God knows how much in political capital, electoral exposure, credibility, and “legal” bribes.

        Yeah, brilliant. I always expected that they’d pass some bill and celebrate it like Jesus’ second coming. These nonsuccess successes are just the kind of thing I’ve come to expect from this government. Mission accomplished!

        1. Yeah. Contrast this clusterfuck with Reagan’s reforms that he absolutely blitzed through Congress even though he only had a small majority in the Senate.

          And it wasn’t about qualifications. It was about emotion, white guilt, and brand. Obama gave people a chance to show not only that they were not racist, but also that they were smart and part of the “in set”. That temptation was just too great for some people.

          1. Contrast this clusterfuck with Reagan’s reforms that he absolutely blitzed through Congress even though he only had a small majority in the Senate.

            Nah, that argument won’t work. To hear Dems tell it, that’s because they’re saddled with all sorts of moderates and conservatives, whereas the Republicans are one unified set of hard-right, hard-libertarian evil masterminds who are also morons.

            1. Libertarian theocrats, mind you.

          2. It does show exactly how poor Obama is in “reaching the people.” Reagan went over an opposition Congress’ head and got enough popular support to get his way on a number of issues. Hence, “The Great Communicator.”

            Obama, on the other hand, can’t convince a Congress dominated by his own party, nor has he made his views popular in any real sense. The fact that some Democrats insist on having “faith” in the actions of their party only helps him maintain the illusion that he improves things by going to the people. He doesn’t.

            1. He is a terrible communicator. He can’t make a cogent argument. And he can’t communicate to anyone beyond a certain bread of white liberal who just can’t get over the fact that a real live black man is talking to them.

        2. Although to be fair, some of those just wanted to punish Republicans. Understandable, but with a certain huge Democratic majority in Congress, punishing the rest of us came in the bargain.

        3. Pay no attention to that watered down bill behind the curtain. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE BEING BEATEN AND LYNCHED.

      2. Don’t forget Christopher Buckley. Obama is erudite. He has written books. He is a Harvard man.

    3. And you lapped up a steaming bowl of the most obvious BS since “I’ll pull out, honey, honest I will”.

      With regard to Iraq, it’s the same BS.

  27. News of the day:

    Obama to Tea Parties: “Bring it on!”

      1. We’re gonna bust you up.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.