Internet

Reason Morning Links: Alcoa, the Southern Strategy, and a New Sort of Sex Scandal

|

• Rod Blagojevich attempts to subpoena President Obama.

• Legislators look for ways to limit the effects of Citizens United.

• Alcoa profits from the regulatory state.

• The "Southern Strategy" debate resurfaces.

• Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch will move from Web-only broadcasts to television.

• Possibly a first: a politician accused of hiding his heterosexuality.

NEXT: Another Forensics Competency Test; More Bad News

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. Johnny, do they feel real?;-)

    2. Can you get it in latex?

    3. The yellow dish glove reminds me of my last girlfriend.

    1. About time. God, I hate fake tits.

      1. I genuinely believe that a strong majority of men hate fake tits.

        But I must concede that, for women who are on the extreme end of underendowed, it probably makes sense.

        If our politics was even the tiniest bit rational, we’d spend 90+% of our time talking about this stuff. I can’t believe there’s no solution to this sort of thing.

        1. There is a coterie of men who love tits, and love them as big as possible. These are also disproportionally the guys who frequent strip clubs, and strippers find that they make much more money the bigger their tits are. This creates a pressure for fake tits that tends to filter down to actresses and other women, because they see this demand for fake tits and financial rewards for them and think that this applies across the board.

          Remember that women haven’t the faintest clue what guys actually like; they only know what gets a reaction. Fake tits do get a reaction, and a large one–just from a certain spectrum of guys. And the rest of us don’t provide a negative reaction to fake tits externally; we just pass on by, hating them internally.

          1. Men just don’t say what they want. Why can’t a man just say it? If he doesn’t, how will his needs be met? It is more than erotic to hear the inner thoughts of a man’s mind.

        2. But I must concede that, for women who are on the extreme end of underendowed, it probably makes sense.

          If you seen Kate Hudson’s new boobs? She fits that rule and they look really nice (you know, from the little bit I can see). She massively increased her breast size up to a B cup. And that last sentence isnt sarcasm.

          1. Breaking gossip news has it that she is pregnant and might have let the implant story to go around in order to hide the fact briefly.

            Baby or plastic, they don’t look to bad.

            1. I can’t stand fake boobs, they may look nice new, but later on, yikes!

              Especially the when the intermammary sulcus keeps on spreading. It’s quite creepy.

      2. If I can touch them… they’re real.

  1. So the Dems want to introduce another bill that the Supreme Court will smack down again? What part didn’t they understand the first time with Citizens United?

    1. uh.. i think they missed the “Congress shall make no law… or abridging the fredom of speech…” part.

      1. hooray for fredom!

  2. Blagojevich was so funny on Celebrity Apprentice this season. He told everyone in New york about his innocence. You cant help but like the crook.

  3. Fuck, he stole my ‘ too

  4. Legislators look for ways to limit the effects of Citizens United.

    “Democrats fear it will unleash a flood of corporate spending that is likely to favor Republicans.”

    That’s an astonishing confession. Why do Democrats believe that businessmen–free people who provide services and make products that people want and create livelihoods for millions of their fellow citizens–would favor one political party over another?

    1. I honestly at times feel that that left do not look at businesspeople and others from the private sector as people. They’re some type of malevolent entities that need to be fought against in order to protect the poor and the simpletons who do not know any better.

      Then again, the right is just as guilty of this only their gaze is focused in a different direction.

      1. Keith Olbermann premised a question to a guest the other day with this: “We all know that government exists to protect us from big business, so…” The guest never blinked. He agreed wholeheartedly. That’s the Democratic party in a nutshell.

        1. Awwww ed, you’d still fu…errr. Actually, no you wouldn’t. Hell I wouldn’t fuck me!

          1. *tucks*

            I’d fuck me.

      2. I honestly at times feel that that left do not look at businesspeople and others from the private sector as people. They’re some type of malevolent entities that need to be fought against in order to protect the poor and the simpletons who do not know any better.

        Yes, because we all know it was a businessman who killed Lily Burk.

          1. Too lazy to google, eh?

            Here.

    2. You’re joking, right?

    3. And it is all a lie. The Democrats and big business love each other. Big taxes and regulation function as barriers to entry and keep small firms small and big firms big. If you look at Europe, you see an hourglass economy where there are lots of small firms, lots of big firms but few medium sized firms. That is great for the big firms because it means that the small firms will never become big firms and compete.

    4. If they followed the sentence with a “Despite the fact that most corporate spending favored Democrats in 2008,” it would have been both accurate and amusing.

  5. Janet lifted her head away from Precious, her mouth covered with cat fur and blood. “Don’t go outside, Mommy. The Pox is in the air. You can’t see it or taste it or smell it or see it or touch it or hear it but it’s there. The kitties are the first to go.” She took another bite.

    1. Why do you torture Warty with posts like this? Poor kittahs.

      1. I just saw who the author of that was. I have a feeling it’s non-fiction.

  6. I don’t know what the code meant. If I did, it would be too late. To understand the code is to carry out its instructions. Maybe I was to become a transmitter like Tyler, unwittingly passing the code on the main target. Maybe I was the main target and would begin the countdown to things once I got the code. I knew our only chance was for me to blast Tyler before he got to part two.

    So that’s what I did.

    Tenses are meant to be shifted, dammit.

  7. From Babbette Joseph’s website.

    I have a proud history in the struggle to end discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, age, income, and disability.

    And FTA:

    “My sexuality is not a qualification for office,” Kravitz [the challenger] said. “I bring it up only in the context that it’s important for the LGBT community to have a seat at the legislative table.”

    Josephs, 70, has been a supporter of gay rights since she was elected in 1984, according to the Inquirer, working to add sexual orientation to a hate-crimes bill.

    Hmmm, this doesn’t compute. It would appear the incumbent here is trying to minimize her opponent by discrediting his sexuality. Why does she hate the LGBT community?

  8. From Babbette Joseph’s website.

    I have a proud history in the struggle to end discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, age, income, and disability.

    And FTA:

    “My sexuality is not a qualification for office,” Kravitz [the challenger] said. “I bring it up only in the context that it’s important for the LGBT community to have a seat at the legislative table.”

    Josephs, 70, has been a supporter of gay rights since she was elected in 1984, according to the Inquirer, working to add sexual orientation to a hate-crimes bill.

    Hmmm, this doesn’t compute. It would appear the incumbent here is trying to minimize her opponent by discrediting his sexuality. Why does she hate the LGBT community?

    1. Why did that double post?

      1. Impure thoughts. Stop touching yourself, boy. God is watching. Yes, even in the shower.

        1. Damn! I was told that he couldn’t see through lather, kinda like S-man’s inability to see through lead.

          1. That is an interesting statement Saccharin Man, considering you are an atheist. And you have a very unusual interest in my hygiene habits.

            This is another symptom of “Sugarfreetonia”.

            1. I am like a rabid dog int he streets, fit only to be put down. Grr. Woff.

      2. residual carpus damage from a velociraptor encounter?

        1. LOL. Not lately. If I had radial or extensor carpal damage, I would be out of a job.

          1. fathom pain;-)

            1. Phantom pain. Freudian slip?

              1. Quite possibly. I caught it the first time. And I was fathoming pain, in a good way;-)

    2. This:

      “My sexuality is not a qualification for office,” Kravitz [the challenger] said.

      and this:

      “I bring it up only in the context that it’s important for the LGBT community to have a seat at the legislative table.”

      Can’t both be true.

      1. But RC, if you substitute any ethnicity for “sexuality” and “LGBT”, wouldn’t affirmtive action fall flat on it’s logical face?

        And the notion that only a member of a certain group is qualified to represent a certain group falls flat as well.

    3. First comment underneath the article:
      “Judging solely from the photo, I’d say he’s probably a practicing asexual.”

  9. Just pass legislation requiring a majority or two thirds shareholder approval before a corporation can use the shareholder’s money for political purposes. This can stand under the ICC Clause, or it can be tied to federal highway funds to goad the states into doing it through state corporate law reform.

    Surely everyone here would be ok with getting someone’s permission before you use their money for political purposes with which they may or may not agree, right?

    1. That wouldn’t pass 1st Amendment scrutiny. While we are at it, lets pass a rule that any organization that recieves any kind of state sanction cannot state a political opinion unless 2/3rds of the members agree to such a thing. That would be a huge infringment on people’s freedom to associate. And of course, your ilk would never subject unions to the same requirement.

      But hey, you are on record with saying that the Constitution means whatever you or a judge says it does, so why not.

      1. “you are on record with saying that the Constitution means whatever you or a judge says it does”
        Put up or shut up on that John. I denied that on five several occasions last night, your just too obtuse to get the difference between thinking that several interpretations can be defensible and all are equally true.

        “That wouldn’t pass 1st Amendment scrutiny”

        Sure it would, under the same rationale that you can limit unions from using members dues for political purposes they might not agree with. It’s just ensuring there is no compelled speech going on, it’s a shareholder rights protection measure.

        1. Of course there is a limited number of interpretations even given the most liberal view of the constitution. What you don’t understand is that not all of those interpretations work in your favor.

          1. I understand that fully (think Lochner). Never said otherwise (see search thingee in corner)

            1. Then I guess you think John Yoo’s version of the Constitution is perfectly reasonable.

            2. And you would also find it perfectly legitimate, if disagreeable, for the Court to reinstate Lockner.

    2. Dunno. Would that apply to union membership as well?

      1. Should it? We can debate that.

        Would it? I’m not sure. I don’t think unions are creatures of state legislatures so I doubt it.

        1. I will pray to the utilitarian gods for you to have the strength to follow your principles.

          1. Don’t worry I am sure he has already reached his minimum daily requirement of wish his neighbor’s livestock dead.

        2. It would appear to be more applicable to unions than corporations, actually. Purchase of corporate shares is an entireley voluntary activity. Try and make the same case for union dues.

          1. Not necessarily; many people are, though investments and retirement, not clear where they have shares, and many union members are voluntary (all are actually, noone is forced to seek employment at a unin shop). Either way isn’t it a good thing for holders to be informed of how management is spending their money so they can object, and another good thing to have management seek their permission?

            1. Purchase of 401-K/IRA/mutual shares are STILL voluntary. If you live in California and wish to teach, not so much for union membership.

              Either way isn’t it a good thing for holders union members to be informed of how management is spending their money so they can object, and another good thing to have management seek their permission?

            2. Buying shares in a company is not the same as paying union dues. When you buy stock, the money you spent is now the money of the person you bought it from (who is usually not the company whose stock it is). They get to spend it however they want to. And you get to sell your shares if you don’t think it is in your interest to own them anymore. The company you bought shares in has no obligation to represent your views beyond what your votes can accomplish. A union (in theory) exists specifically and exclusively to represent the workers’ interests.

            3. Hey, MNG… should union members have the ability to decide how any portion of their dues is spent on political activity?

              If not… why?

            4. Either way isn’t it a good thing for holders to be informed of how management is spending their money so they can object, and another good thing to have management seek their permission?

              I own an almost unfathomable number of equities (Thanks, Grandpa!).

              Two things:

              1) Do you have any idea how annoying it would be if I had to “vote” on whether those companies spent money on political endorsements? Do you ave any idea how that would clog up my mailbox?

              2) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

            5. Not in this case, since the requirement is transparently being used to make it more difficult for shareholders to spend money on lobbying, not to protect them. And it doesn’t even make the remotest amount of sense for nonprofit political corporations like Citizens United, where the entire point of the organization is to lobby.

              Shareholders already have recourse if the company’s lobbying efforts don’t promote the interests of the company — fact is, progressives don’t want corporations to lobby to make more money, and since people usually purchase shares of business corporations to make money, it’s thoroughly disingenuous to say that they’re “looking out for shareholder interests”.

              There’s no way in hell I think this proposal is being made in good faith or even on general principle — otherwise, why don’t we have require 2/3 majority of the population to support any budget proposed by Congress?

        3. Unions are creatures of government, and depend on special exemptions from monopoly laws to survive. Such a requirement could be easily imposed without even having to deal with bribing the states.

          1. Unions are creatures of government, and depend on special exemptions from monopoly laws to survive. Such a requirement could be easily imposed without even having to deal with bribing the states.

            Why do unions need special exemptions from monopoly laws?

            1. If you have to ask that question, you are in the wrong room.

            2. Why do unions need special exemptions from monopoly laws?

              Because unions constitute collusion and price fixing agreements among employees, and frequently engage in market division.

            3. The UAW from the ’40s thru the ’80s.
              The UMW (and many others) today.

        4. No, they’re creatures of the NLRA which forces employers to negotiate with them.

          1. ?????? And who created the National Labor Relations Act? The title sounds suspiciously like federal legislation.

          2. Well, Congress passed that 70 years ago, and congressmen are elected, and so therefore union membership is voluntary. You’re so dense, Tulpa.

            1. Or whenever the fuck they passed the fucking thing.

    3. Just pass legislation requiring a majority or two thirds shareholder approval before a corporation can use the shareholder’s money for political purposes.

      And how would that work any different from the normal shareholder voting process? A majority of voting shareholders can already approve or disapprove of any spending.

  10. Tim Carney might be the best muckraker in the business today. The fact that he doesn’t get into the mainstream media more often is a sad commentary on the state of the media.

  11. “Other provisions would mandate public disclosure of political spending and would bar companies that receive federal contracts worth more than $50,000 from spending money to influence federal elections, the summary says.”

    That sounds okay. But any government employee who recieves $50,000 in direct or indirect compensation should also be prevented from doing the same.

    1. But employees ain’t corporations, legal fictions aside. It’s at least rational to hold that corporations’s unique characteristics make them entities we don’t too involved in our polity.

      1. How is a corporation who recieves as little as $50K in compensation any less of a menevolent force than a single employee who gets a hundred? If the limit were a million you might have a point. But, at a number that is well lower than the compensation of most government employees, the employees are just as if not more damaging to the process.

        Indeed, if you had bothered to read the City Journal piece that was linked a few days ago (and a thread you conspicuously absent from) you would have read a very good history of California where public employees and their unions smeared politicians and tilted local elections in order to get more of the take, which is exactly what you claim corporations will do.

        1. Single employees are citizens, corporations are not.

          Also, single employees don’t have perpetual existence, limited liability, a duty to maximize profit, etc. all of which could be thought unhealthy for influencing the polity.

          Of course the individual members of the corporation can spend what they want, just like the employee of government.

          1. Why is perpetual existence a problem? Political parties have perpetual existence, should they be limited to? Indeed, any human association has perpetual existence. And a corporation’s “duty to maximize prophet” is not different than your’s or mine. A corporation is no different than any other human association. Ultimately, you want to say that free speech is only free if it is done alone. That effectively means our freedom of association is only free insofar as it doesn’t involve politics, which is both a wrongheaded and very authoritarian view of speech.

            1. And a corporation’s “duty to maximize prophet

              In Comedy Central’s case, it was to minimize it.

              1. That dude was no more a prophet than L Ron Hubbard. A scam is a scam is a scam.

            2. Political parties and politicians are much more dangerous to the political process than corporations. They have an strong interest in keeping their phoney-baloney jobs and maintaining the political status quo. Whether or not corporations will have a negative impact on political discourse, political parties and the politicians themselves are at least as bad. At least corporations have to produce something that someone is wiling to pay for (except those ones that live exclusively off of the government teat, they can die).

          2. Also, single employees don’t have perpetual existence, limited liability, a duty to maximize profit, etc. all of which could be thought unhealthy for influencing the polity.

            they just seem to have perpetual existence, zero liabilty, and a zeal for maximizing taxes and their compensation. what were you saying??

          3. Single employees are citizens, corporations unions, associations, partnerships, etc. are not.

            Also, single employees don’t have perpetual existence, limited liability, a duty to maximize profit, etc. all of which could be thought unhealthy for influencing the polity.

            Except for perpetual existence, you are quite incorrect. Individual employees can and generally do indeed have a duty to maximize profit. Individual employees have just about the same, or even less, liability exposure as a corporation. Individuals and corporations as entities are both liable for that which they do.

            “Limited liability” is a limitation on indirect, vicarious liability of passive owners.

            1. “Except for perpetual existence, you are quite incorrect”

              I respectfully disagree.

      2. I would say that public employee and their unions have a much better proven track record of corrupting government than corporations do.

        “Consider the California Teachers Association. Much of the CTA’s clout derives from the fact that, like all government unions, it can help elect the very politicians who negotiate and approve its members’ salaries and benefits. Soon after Proposition 13 became law, the union launched a coordinated statewide effort to support friendly candidates in school-board races, in which turnout is frequently low and special interests can have a disproportionate influence. In often bitter campaigns, union-backed candidates began sweeping out independent board members. By 1987, even conservative-leaning Orange County saw 83 percent of board seats up for grabs going to union-backed candidates. The resulting change in school-board composition made the boards close allies of the CTA.

        But with union dues somewhere north of $1,000 per member and 340,000 members, the CTA can afford to be a player not just in local elections but in Sacramento, too (and in Washington, for that matter, where it’s the National Education Association’s most powerful affiliate). The CTA entered the big time in 1988, when it almost single-handedly led a statewide push to pass Proposition 98, an initiative?opposed by taxpayer groups and Governor George Deukmejian?that required 40 percent of the state’s budget to fund local education. To drum up sympathy, the CTA ran controversial ads featuring students; in one, a first-grader stares somberly into the camera and says, “Pay attention?today’s lesson is about the school funding initiative.” Victory brought local schools some $450 million a year in new funding, much of it discretionary. Unsurprisingly, the union-backed school boards often used the extra cash to fatten teachers’ salaries?one reason that California’s teachers are the country’s highest-paid, even though the state’s total spending per student is only slightly higher than the national average. “The problem is that there is no organized constituency for parents and students in California,” says Lanny Ebenstein, a former member of the Santa Barbara Board of Education and an economics professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. “No one says to a board of education, ‘We want more of that money to go for classrooms, for equipment.’ ”

        With its growing financial strength, the CTA gained the ability to shape public opinion. In 1996, for instance, the union?casting covetous eyes on surplus tax revenues from the state’s economic boom?spent $1 million on an ad campaign advocating smaller classes. Californians began seeing the state’s classrooms as overcrowded, according to polls. So Governor Pete Wilson earmarked some three-quarters of a billion dollars annually to cut class sizes in kindergarten through third grade. The move produced no discernible improvements in student performance, but it did require a hiring spree that inflated CTA rolls and produced a teacher shortage. (The union drew the line, however, when it faced the threat of increased accountability. Two years later, when Wilson offered funds to reduce class sizes even more but attached the money to new oversight mechanisms, the CTA spent $6 million to defeat the measure, living up to Wilson’s assessment of it as a “relentless political machine.”)

        During this contentious period, the CTA and its local affiliates learned to play hardball, frequently shutting down classes with strikes. The state estimated that in 1989 alone, these strikes cost California students collectively some 7.2 million classroom days. Los Angeles teachers provoked outrage that year by reportedly urging their students to support them by skipping school. After journalist Debra Saunders noted in LA’s Daily News that the striking teachers were already well paid, the union published her home phone number in its newsletter and urged members to call her.

        Four years later, the CTA reached new heights of thuggishness after a business-backed group began a petition to place a school-choice initiative on the state ballot. In a union-backed effort, teachers shadowed signature gatherers in shopping malls and aggressively dissuaded people from signing up. The tactic led to more than 40 confrontations and protests of harassment by signature gatherers. “They get in between the signer and the petition,” the head of the initiative said. “They scream at people. They threaten people.” CTA’s top official later justified the bullying: some ideas “are so evil that they should never even be presented to the voters,” he said.”

        http://city-journal.org/2010/20_2_california-unions.html

        1. Yes, and BRAC applied to them as well.

          1. What the hell are you talking about?

            1. Are you talking about something you are ignorant of again? BRAC applied to unions as well as corporations. If you don’t know what we are talking about again google it, I ain’ got the time to always catch you up,

              Speaking of your ignorance, you do now admit you were wrong in attributing the Douglas’ penumbra opinon to Roe when it was Blackmun who did make that argument?

              1. WTF do base closures have to do with this discussion?

              2. It has 15 years since Con Law. And yeah Griswald and Roe kind of blend into the background. But you of course miss or just ignore the point. The first Amendment is about search and seizure by the government. It is not about pharmacies and doctors. It became about pharmacies over a period of years and multiple opinions. If you give the court a few decades you can end up with a Constitution that looks nothing like what you started with. See the commerce clause as another example.

                And doesn’t always go the way of freedom. The court has basically destroyed the 4th Amendment as it relates to search incident to arrest and automobiles. It didn’t do it in one fell swoop. It did it over years as it slowly bootstrapped one opinion on the next until we didn’t have any 4th Amendment rights in our cars anymore. That is what happens when the Constitution no longer means something solid. Either side can torture it to get what they want. You think that just because you like your side doing it that the other side won’t do the same, which is completely untrue.

                And what the fuck is BRAC? Base realignment? What the hell does that have to do with anything?

                1. the 4th Amendment not the 1st. Sorry for the typo.

                  1. *SIGH* We’ve been over this before. The meds don’t help if you refuse to take them.

                    1. Groundhog Day.

                  2. I think it’s referring to BCRA, or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, otherwise known as McCain-Feingold.

                    Now, you can answer its question, completely without irony, about naming the wrong justice the other day.

                  3. No way you’ve got a Ph.D. in anything. No way.

                    1. John claims to have been to law school. The terminal degree in law is a JD (Juris Doctor), not a PhD. But I can’t recall him saying he graduated. Or whether he passed the bar. However, he also claims to have been a federal prosecutor, which I believes requires one to be a member of the bar.

        2. “But with union dues somewhere north of $1,000 per member and 340,000 members…”

          Four billion bucks a year. Great Googly-Moogly.

          1. More like $400 million, which is not nothing, I grant you.

  12. “Negative, captain! The third ulogginaucht basin has snapped and I can’t grott the poletination spheres without some sort of virrulaumo retractor!” Faavrogg was in a near panic, a large chunk of sharp yuloplasm embedded in his lower tranjular region.

    Captain Smith stared straight ahead. The Tarmo fighter had maneuvered into attack position, its dewentar ray pointed directly at the Nonix’s outer shurt. The attacker’s beguplanktar relegnared the Nonix’s vadeenvedar at the looputanistic werttentrat!

    Smith quickly reached for the suicide switch. Better to die a Kullollich’s death than to suffer as a Rylanjulanio, he thought as he flipped it.

    1. *clap*

  13. Has anyone else heard being handicapped referred to as having diverse abilities? I heard it twice this week. Is there a progressive newsletter they all get or something?

    1. You scoff now, but wait until those handicapped folks are all cybernetically and robotically enhanced.

  14. Rod Blagojevich attempts to subpoena President Obama.

    Good luck with that.

    1. What about Clinton’s subpoena request that was honored? Precedent?

    1. Heh, I tend not to buy this study. Seems like they wish to pussify men even more.

      Or another TX for constipation.

    2. Libertarianism as a hormone imbalance? I guess it is easier than blaming it on free will.

      1. Or you could interpret it as trust in government being the imbalance situation.

      2. That’s like Kat Williams talking about how they prescribed ritalin for his three-year-old because all he did all day was run around. All day long, run, run, run. So they gave him the drug, which caused the kid to just sit there. So Kat asks the kid what he was thinking about. The kid says, “Running”

    3. Regarding the article itself and the issue of trust, I’ve always found that the more you trust people the less likely they are to let you down. Also, people trust you more when you trust them. And since so few people are actually open and trusting, whenever a person comes along who is, everyone loves them and they usually reap large social benefits. While that’s contrary to popular belief, I’ve found it to be true. Just think of the people you’ve met that you’ve instantly liked.

      1. I’m too busy thinking of the people I’ve met that I’ve instantly disliked.

    4. “Trust in government is at an all-time low, and there certainly are kinda macro reasons for that.”

      Understatement of the year.

    5. “So the underlying biological hypothesis is that stress — particularly stress that does not have a clear ending point — inhibits oxytocin release. So there could be an actual biological reason why trust in government is so low.”

      Fuck this guy.

      1. “Those who trusted their fellow man more also trusted government more.”

        I trust everyone automatically, actually. Like Qwerty said, it tends to work in my favor. It’s not that I distrust government, it’s that government is ineffective, so I don’t trust it to DO things.

    6. “Now, this is not Levi’s view. From her perspective, it works top down: Governments need to be trustworthy to get people to trust them.”

      No fucking shit.

    7. “The effect of trust at affecting economic growth is substantial compared to everything else that economists have looked at.”

      I buy that, but it’s not trust in government that is key. The more people trust each other, the easier money flows. The government steps in and slows the flow of money with pointless regulations because it doesn’t think we should be trusting each other.

      1. Actually, government is the result of people not trusting each other, so if the most economically prosperous nations are are the ones with the highest levels of trust, I bet they are nations with a relatively minimal government. Anyone feel like researching that for me? I’m too lazy.

    8. Thanks, Johnny, for providing me with my daily dose of spite.

      1. Stop talking to yourself, Chris. It’s a sigh of a hormonal imbalance.

    1. Personal fav: “Faavrogg was in a near panic, a large chunk of sharp yuloplasm embedded in his lower tranjular region.” OUCH!

      1. The proper nouns in that SS look like juxtopostional mad libs of bad diseases and cereal manufacturers.

      2. You have got to protect your tranjur region, dude. Especially if you ever want to enjoy the ladies of the Superwhore Supercluster.

        By the way, this wasn’t some random crap writer I plucked out the air. Check out the About Me and Links.

        1. His name is Dan T.? Boy, that does ring a bell somehow…

    2. I have been known to become completely hysterical over even a small chunk of yuloplasm in my lower tranjular region. So, yeah, I sympathize.

    3. Oh freddled gruntbuggly,
      Thy micturations are to me
      As plurdled gabbleblotchits
      On a lurgid bee
      That mordiously hath bitled out
      Its earted jurtles
      Into a rancid festering [drowned out by moaning and screaming]
      Now the jurpling slayjid agrocrustles
      Are slurping hagrilly up the axlegrurts
      And living glupules frart and slipulate
      Like jowling meated liverslime
      Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes
      And hooptiously drangle me
      With crinkly bindlewurdles,
      Or else I shall rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon
      See if I don’t.

      1. More cromulence, please.

    4. “Captain!” Hanngush had made his way over to the front Bulard panel. “The vorostratus scope indicates that we are under attack by a Henuliort Juy-Ast ship using twin golluck sprayers!”

      1. That sounds remarkably like a play-by-play of an abortion.

    5. My favorite is the story where he talks enough about guns to it clear that he knows absolutely nothing about guns.

  15. Just pass legislation requiring a majority or two thirds shareholder approval before a corporation can use the shareholder’s money for political purposes.

    Why just corporations? Why not all organizations? Unions, associations, partnerships, etc.?

    And what degree of specificity do you want to require? A single blanket permission, or approval of each and every line item?

    What counts as “political” purposes? If I want my lawyer to write challenge the constitutionality of a law, is that political? What about getting an opinion from a legislative agency? Commenting on proposed rules? Commenting on proposed legislation? A non-partisan get-out-the-vote campaign? Judicial elections? Requesting our alderman to put in a stoplight?

  16. “Rod Blagojevich attempts to subpoena President Obama.”

    It’s gettin’ good!

    1. lunch

  17. Some people are impossibly dense. I understand the distrust of “big business”, crony capitalism, the “politics of pull”, etc. Hell, I share in it.

    But it’s a chicken and egg thing, man.

    Yesterday, someone was complaining to me about business and government having their “hands down each other’s pants for generations”.

    I agreed with them, but carefully attempted to explain which party was the “top” in that particular relationship.

    I just as well could have explained it to the chair.

  18. Three bisexual softball players are suing the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance after it deemed them not gay enough to play in the Gay World Series and stripped their team of its second place finish.

    1. As the social stigma to being gay goes down, I think things like the “gay games” days are numbered. How do they know who is really “gay” and who is a ringer. What do you have to produce video tapes?

      1. Simple test: If you do not convulse after 58 seconds of any Lady Gaga song, you are gay.

        1. What if your convulsions are mistaken for dancing?

          1. Then you get to be considered half-gay until you complete a one-month tour as an unpaid roadie for a Black Sabbath cover-band.

            1. OR you’re ME!

            2. I’ll have to pass. I’ve heard enough shitty covers by craptacular metal bands to last me a lifetime. I’d rather listen to The Cardigans do “Iron Man” than another bunch of thrash metal wannabes prove how deep and nonconformist they are by covering “War Pigs” for the 900th time.

        2. It used to be me!
          (sob)

          1. Oh honey!!! You’ll always be my icon!

            IF YOU COULD TURN BACK TAWWWWWWWWM!!!!!

        3. PA PA PA POKER FACE POKER FACE PA PA PA POKER FACE POKER FACE

  19. Possibly a first: a politician accused of hiding his heterosexuality.

    Going just by the pictures, it looks like Kravitz is probably more of a bottom than Josephs is.

    1. sweet Warty

  20. George W. Bush’s early emphasis on that, and No Child Left Behind’s technical insistence on not letting minority students fall between the testing cracks, may be why Bush doesn’t, to my reading, have the same reputation as using race for electoral gain.

    He didn’t have to use race; he was too busy using homophobia to win his elections. You know, the whole “homosexuals are the biggest danger to our society” bullshit rhetoric he was peddling.

  21. Email marketing seems easier for some folks.But it is rewarding only when carried out in the most proffessional.So I would advise you to find a good email marketing program that can help you in your email marketing campaign right from a scratch(with a clean slate).
    .💡

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.