Reason Morning Links: Supreme Court Diversity, Marijuana Clinics Firebombed, a Bloody Day in Iraq


NEXT: The Bogus Constitutional Arguments of Arizona's Ultra-Restrictionists

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So Berry thinks Bush was right about Miranda rules too? Ha!

  2. Fake “yo-yo champion” hoaxes morning news shows across the Midwest.

    And he demonstrates once again that every local TV-news product is a clone of every other local TV-news product, right down to the actors, sets and hairstyles. And that they deserve to be hoaxed, preferably with rusty garden tools.

    1. I couldn’t get the Deadspin videos to work, but dig around on Google and YouTube and you’ll find plent about this guy… and it’s all funny as shit. I snorted coffee just now watching some of the videos.

      The guy is very talented, just not at the yo-yo.

      1. And he has a sure-fire strategy: make his hosts feel sorry for him until they are emotionally committed, then pull the rug out from under them while remaining in character. It’s Kaufmanesque and cruel and wonderful.

      2. Now that’s some funny and painful stuff.

      3. The guy is very talented, just not at the yo-yo.

        That is some *great* mind control.

      4. That guy is awesome! And he’s performing a real public service.

    2. Looks like the Montana story might be a hoax, too, or at least a “false flag” operation. They’re looking at pro-pot activists for the crimes and the guys have no alibi.

  3. Fake “yo-yo champion” hoaxes morning news shows across the Midwest.

    I’m continually amazed at the willingness of people to make complete assholes of themselves to try to gain fame.

    1. It’s like blog commentary with less anonymity.

      1. Yeah, commenting on blogs is gonna make you the next William Hung. It’s the next best thing to going on a reality TV show!

        1. Well, it’s mostly about narcissism, not fame.

      2. Oh, and we can’t forget this.

  4. Firebombing: “…one of the businesses that has surveillance video but is reluctant to hand over the tape because of privacy concerns.”

    So what’s the point of the camera?

  5. Obama was amenable … to question terrorism suspects for lengthy periods without informing them of their rights.

    Our rights go without saying.

    1. Our rights go without saying.

      1. Go, rights, go!

        1. There they go, wave goodbye all.

          Kidding aside. Miranda doesn’t establish rights, it just demands that you are informed of them. Screw Obama’s citizenship, I want to see his law school diploma. I don’t think he has one.

  6. “Anti-pot activists firebomb medical marijuana clinics in Montana”

    I can understand abortion clinics in California, but they might want to think twice in Montana. I’m sure cowards like these have no desire to go up against anyone willing and able to shoot back.

  7. The Miranda story would be page one top story on CNN (RIGHTLY SO) if Bush was still President. WTF??

  8. I thought the revenge of Michael Dukakis would come in the form of a glorious tank battle. I guess this could be almost as devastating.

    1. So what is his revenge? That everyone on his campaign would end up horrendously ugly?

  9. Anti-pot activists firebomb medical marijuana clinics in Montana.

    This has to be a hate crime.

    1. Or, was it an attempt to create the sweetest, mellowest, most righteous fog bank in the history of Montana?

  10. It’s a trap!

    Sasquatch Music Festival:…..c-Festival

    1. The instruments are all made from human parts.






      1. Sage, were you a square dance caller at one time or just an Electric Slide aficionado?




          1. Here comes Sasquatch with his pecker in his hand; he’s a one ball man and he’s off to the Festival….

            1. I just hope he eats the first act. My Morning Jacket suuuuuuucks.

              1. Dude you’re crazy. Evil Urges was a great album, and they have some good tunes. I saw them at Radio City in December ’08 and it was the best show I had seen in years.

                1. I just like ragging on them. I’ve meet them a few times through mutual friends. Not a fan of the music, but they seem like nice enough guys.

                  Also the source of the best Freudian slip ever by my boss: “I made out with that band.”

  11. Obama “open” to revising Miranda rules for terror suspects.

    Why aren’t progressives calling for Obama’s head on a platter?

    1. What makes you think progressives ever cared about individual rights?

      1. rhetorical question n. A question to which no answer is expected, often used for rhetorical effect.

        1. So what?

  12. So, what happens if the “terrorism” suspect knows his rights anyway, and won’t talk? Will the State’s next move be to formally “legalize” torture (i.e., stop pretending that they don’t do that)?

  13. Nothing about this?

    In a major victory for organized labor, unions will have an easier time signing up airline and railroad workers after the Obama administration Monday changed a 76-year-old rule on union elections.

    The change is the most significant so far in a string of White House moves designed to boost unions, which are struggling to reverse years of decline in membership.

    The new rule, announced by the three-member National Mediation Board, would recognize a union if a simple majority of workers who cast ballots approve organizing. The previous rule required a majority of the entire work force to favor unionizing. That meant workers choosing not to vote at all were effectively counted as “no” votes.


    The board proposed the rule change in October after a request from the AFL-CIO. That request came soon after President Barack Obama named Linda Puchala ? the former head of a flight attendant union ? to a seat on the board, shifting the balance of power.

    The final rule was approved 2-1, with chairwoman Elizabeth Dougherty issuing a fierce dissent. Dougherty, appointed by President George W. Bush, said the change is “an unprecedented departure for the NMB and represents the most dramatic policy shift in the history of the agency.”

    1. Good thing MNG is right and that the government has nothing to do with organizing, supporting, legitimizing, and forcing union concerns on private business (who, of course, freely sign the contracts with unions that are merely exercising the right of association.)

      1. “The new rule, announced by the three-member National Mediation Board, would recognize a union if a simple majority of workers who cast ballots approve organizing. The previous rule required a majority of the entire work force to favor unionizing. That meant workers choosing not to vote at all were effectively counted as “no” votes.”

        The horror, the horror!

        It’s amazing the mindset that finds such horror in reversing a rule that counts no vote at all as a no vote (that certainly seems reasonable, in the political elections you guys always bring up as the standard not voting is not counted as a vote against).

        And yes SF, if the union wins recognition here is what happens: the government compels the employer to….bargain in good faith! That’s right, they just have to bargain with the possibility of movement on issues. They can ultimately refuse every single demand.

        The horror!

        1. Damn, right on cue. I think he is stalking you Saccharin Man.

          1. Yes, replying to SF, who complains about me coming on this thread and upsetting him by disagreeing with his cherished beliefs but who can’t stop talking about me, is akin to stalking.

            I’m curious Groovus, does your moronism harm you in any other ways socially?

            1. A. Arguing is fine. Note that I don’t chide you for arguing, just for trolling.

              B. I’ll take the brains of a M.D. over the dribblings of a PhD in labor studies who got into school primarily on his ability to “Draw Tippy” correctly.

              1. A. Understood. Do you call out trollish comments by folks on your side?

                B. So you think Howard Dean smarter than Charles Murray?

                1. No, I don’t call them out. You get called out because of your professed affiliation with that most monstrous of philosophies, utilitarianism.

                  You profess to be concerned about the happiness of the majority over the individual, yet you spread misery by trolling to the majority here for individualistic pleasure.

                  And the B. point has nothing to do with MD over PhDs in general, it is just about you and Groovus. You’ve demonstrated time and again your manifest inability to grasp even simple concepts.

                  1. You actually get miserable when someone disagrees with or pokes fun at your political ideology on a blog? How sad…

                    1. If you want to think there is pride in being a compatriot to Dan T. and Edward, I’m not the one with the problem.

                      “Unhappiness” better for you than “misery”? But you better stick with semantics, joe jr. You don’t have a real argument anyway.

            2. I think that means he can’t drink alcohol or coffee, can’t play the lottery, and can’t smoke.

              1. *high five*

            3. Your lack of sarcasm detection MNG is truly staggering. I sense great anger in you, O Utilitarian One.

              I’m also curious, do you get enough fiber in your diet or do you abuse laxatives? I have noticed a definite change in tone with you over the last few weeks. I suspect, barring other genetic factors, you suffer from an electrolyte imbalance and quite possibly other globulin binding issues. You really should take your meds as directed.

              1. Yes Groovus, I’m the angry one. All the venom here aimed at “liberals”, “progressives”, Obama, etc., that’s cool headed disagreement. When it veers into anger you’re sure to call it out as such, eh?

                But nice to notice your partisanship slip showing today!

                1. Why yes, when it is appropriate, I do. My primary partisanship is to me and how my interests can better serve others, but with the least amount of detriment to me and my livelihood. I used to be a member of the worst kind of Union, the AMA and I dropped that ASAP. And yet on the education thread a week or so ago, we were in complete agreement and nary a word from you. I thought progressive embraced coming together?

                  Your disingenuous nature repulses me.

                  1. Groovus, I dont mind you feeding him, but please stop doing it after midnight.

        2. If there is no advantage for the union in being recognized, then what’s the point of having the vote at all? And is there no penalty for not negotiating is good faith? And if not, what’s the point?

          If the union wants it, then it must be to their advantage in negotiations with the an employer. Therefore, it is the government compelling businesses to do something they don’t want to. This invalidates the fantasy you spin that union contracts are freely signed by companies.

          1. Yes there is a penalty for bargaining in bad faith, but there is no penalty for bargaining in good faith but ultimately rejecting every demand. Since every demand the employer agrees to is one he could have said no to then yes I find these contracts to be voluntarily agreed upon.

            But yes the government does compel the good faith negotiation. Again, if that horrifies you I don’t know what to say…

        3. I mean really, does anyone here want to contend that people not voting should be counted as voting no? Imagine applying that to other situations, for example a referendum on ending affirmative action where every person who does not come to the polls is counted as vote against the referendum.

          It’s an excellent rule change.

          1. It’s an excellent rule change, if you’re a union hack and want to stop hemorrhaging membership.

            1. Please don’t use the words “hack” and “hemorrhaging membership”, bad memories. Bad memories man!

          2. Yes. I want a majority of the workers, not a majority of the workers that vote. If you don’t care enough to vote that implies you don’t care enough to want a union. Just because some determined subset of your coworkers does isn’t sufficient justification for forcing a union on the people that don’t give a shit.

          3. For yes/no voting, it’s not a bad idea. It has drawbacks, but so does the alternative. For multiple choice voting (ie, electing candidates) it doesn’t make much sense, unless “no candidate” was a viable winner and the law dealt with that.

      2. Hopefully this means people will show up to vote no, and will not be beaten up for doing so.

        But I’m not real optimistic.

        1. No, it’s simpler than that. They just spring the vote on people at a time when most of the non-union forces are gone. It wouldn’t be hard to arrange the vote on high volume vacation periods or the week between Christmas and New Year’s. The union fucks just make sure that they are at work on the right day.

          1. “They just spring the vote on people at a time when most of the non-union forces are gone.”

            And here, in a nutshell, is all the evidence one needs that when it comes to labor law SF knows not what he speaks of. The union will “spring the election”. The sheer ignorance of how union certification elections occur found in this statement is unbelievable. The NLRB conducts the election, not the union, and they by law give a certain “electioneering period.” It’s usually weeks long.

            SF, you clearly don’t know anything about how these elections occur. There is no shame in that, I only know because I happened to do some work on this in school, otherwise I wouldn’t expect an educated person to necessarily know about this. But why, knowing you don’t know, would you pontificate so on the subject?

            1. OK, I accept that I didn’t know that. Considering all the bedwetting about card-check, it always seemed that the votes were having a problem with people wanting to keep their votes private. But considering it’s just such an open and transparent process, I’m sure nothing even remotely shady goes on.

              And, of course, since the NLRB apparently descends on an employer for these votes, your fan dance about the government not being involved in siding with unions over the employer is still totally valid.

              1. What happens is a union petitions the NLRB for a certification election. I guess you could say the NLRB “descends upon” the employer in the sense that they supervise the election. If the union wins the union is certified and then the employer must bargain in good faith with that particular union. It’s meant to keep the employer from having to deal with multiple unions.

        2. They have laws against beating people up. Should have laws addressing the potential of people beating one another up? I’d like to see you apply that logic to gun rights brother.

          1. Did I say anything about “there should be a law,” man o’ straw? Unlike you, that’s not the first solution on my list.

            1. So you were against the previous law that counted not voting as a no vote.

              Cuz that was a law dude.

              1. Perhaps. But if you want to dig back further, I’m also against the law establishing the NLRB.

                Cuz that wuz also a law dude.

              2. There should be a law about using “dude” and “law” in the same sentence. 😉

          2. They have laws (namely, NLRA) against employers threatening or bribing employees during a union electioneering campaign, too. Considering preventing such “bad faith” actions was the ostensible reason given by supporters of card-check legislation last year, I take it you now oppose card-check legislation as superfluous?


        1. You have to wonder about a human ego so fragile that he gets so upset about someone disagreeing with his political ideology. I suspect bedwetting too…

    2. I really question the constitutionality of this. It is so blatant.

      1. I’m curious as to how you think this would unconstitutional?

        1. If it increases union membership, it doesn’t matter if it’s Constitutional. The ends justify the means.

  14. Hmmm…you don’t want people smoking pot so you light a whole bunch of it on fire in a residential area.

    1. Throw a big tent over the whole mess…HOTBOX!

  15. Why waste a lot of time and energy trying to get an actual law passed, when you can just pack a regulatory board with people who will rewrite the rules in favor of your preferred political allies?

  16. Being the deeply cynical, suspicious person I am, I predict:

    The perpetrators of these medical marijuana dispensary firebombings will never be apprehended.

    The Missouri River Drug Task Force will be brought in to “assist” in the investigation and will uncover “widespread violations” of Montana law which will “compel” them to call in the feds, and begin armed commando raids on facilities across the state.

    1. which is why the dispensaries don’t want to hand over their in-house security tapes – it’s self incrimination when the investigators start looking at them.

  17. the mindset that finds such horror in reversing a rule that counts no vote at all as a no vote

    It’s easy to see how this wold confuse you.

    1. Well, this is the same sort of idiocy that says that 50.1% of the people who showed up to vote who were a fraction of the registered voters, that were themselves a fraction of the eligible adults in the country consistences “consent of the governed.”

      1. Hey,this looks familar.

      2. Spot on, SF. You should think about taking over the role of MNG.

        1. I guess I could get someone to bash me in the head a few times with a hammer and then get a PhD cut out of the back of cereal box.

          1. Transorbital lobotomies are cheap, quick, and effective Saccharin Man. Or I could just put you on Haldol(halperidol).

            1. Based on my experiences with those on the substance, there is nothing remotely fun about Haldol. I also suspect that is not MSG’s problem. I would Dx a lithium deficiency.

              1. It wasn’t meant to be fun, this is MNG here. Li deficiency is a good possibility.

  18. In order to impose a major substantive change to working conditions, it seems only reasonable to me to require affirmative votes to be counted against the entire affected employee base.

    But I’m actually good at what I do, and it pisses me off to see lazy drunken fuck-ups not only kept on the job, but promoted ahead of more talented and industrious people, based on seniority. What do I know about fairness?

  19. does anyone here want to contend that people not voting should be counted as voting no?


    1. I perfectly comfortable with requiring a super-majority to unionize a facility (either by requiring a simple majority of all employees or by requiring a super-majority of votes cast).

      And yes that means that I don’t believe in democracy. I believe in protecting the rights of minorities.

      1. How does “minorities” fit into union membership decisions, kinnath?

        1. 50%-1 is a minority

  20. I live in Montana and I just got in an argument with my family over someone spraypainting “NOT IN OUR TOWN” on a medical marijuana clinic. My family claims to support property rights AND vandalism.

    1. Lot of that going around, Montanan.

      Say, is it possible that some of your family posts on FreeRepublic? That’s right up their alley!

      1. You know what, he just might! If you happen to see the argument that those who don’t support sodomy laws are trying to drive the human race to extinction, that’s my dad!

  21. Will the attack on the pot clinic be thoroughly investigated AND be treated as a terrorist attack, or will it be a cause for joy on the Professional Drug Worrier circuit?

    1. It isn’t terrorist if it’s righteous, silly. The DEA is doing God’s work. It says so in the Bible. Right next to the fag-bashing.

      1. Ahem, the DEA is a creation of Man, not my doing. I did say “Beware of False Prophets claiming to speak in My Name!”

        1. I smell either a false-flag attack by the left, or a true-flag attack by drug dealers who don’t want legalization of any kind.

          It’s just as plausible.

  22. I guess I could get someone to bash me in the head a few times with a hammer

    It *could* be the cumulative effect of a lifetime of auto-erotic asphyxia.


    1. Different manifestations of long term effects occurs. So your DD is unlikely. The pathology would be primary and the AEA would exacerbate the underlying condition.

      1. Go ‘way! Exacerbatin’!

  23. a true-flag attack by drug dealers who don’t want legalization of any kind.

    There are some disgruntled legacy providers who complain about how the “legal” dispensaries are wrecking their livelihoods.

  24. “It should be no surprise by now,” she wrote, “that many of the votes a Supreme Court justice casts have little to do with technical legal ability. and much to do with conceptions of value.” – Elena Kagan

    According to her own words, the US Supreme Court now reflects the views of FIVE Catholics and FOUR Jews.

    No Atheists, Lutherans, Baptists, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus or Shintos View Points Allowed.

    This is “Country” is only for Jews and Catholics.

    There are only 7 million Jews in America and they make up 45% of the US Supreme Court.

    Stephen Beyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and now Elena Kagan.

    The FOUR Jewish “judges” are there to protect the Jews of Goldman Sachs from legal liability and JAIL TIME in the “Great American Heist of 2009-2010”.

    Elena Kagan is a RACIST Zionist.

  25. Toyota rebounds, posts $1.2 billion quarterly profit.

    Good on them. Hope they trounce GM. We did our part by buying a Sienna minivan. Hasn’t exploded in a fireball yet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.