Reason Morning Links: Kagan Promises Modesty, Deference; June Bloodiest Month for NATO in Afghanistan, China May Shut Down Google


NEXT: Police Blackout

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 the IRS yesterday sent me a check yesterday, with an explanatory note saying I hadn’t claimed the “Make Work Pay” credit. I guessed I’d overlooked that line on the tax form, assuming it was some sort of low-income thing, and our household is not low income.

    Now I’m always happy to get a check in the mail, but is it churlish of me to be kind of pissed off? I mean, “Make Work Pay Tax Credit?”, as if people who work are some kind of special interest group? Why not just lower taxes in general? Why are they trying to make me feel grateful because I’m a worker, so I get to have some of my own money back?

    1. That tax cut was a pretty significant component of the stimulus package that gets regularly overlooked by people who equate OMG Stimulus! = Government Jobs. For most people, that credit came back to them in the form of reduced withholding, which was theorized (so much for that theory) to have a more substantive impact on economic activity than the lump sum stimulus that came out of the Bush administration. Self-employed individuals (like yourself?), who don’t have withholding, needed to claim it as a separate credit.

  2. “China threatens to shut down Google after discovering the company was redirecting users to its Hong Kong site to avoid Chinese censors. ”

    And some want to give our local Communists a “kill switch” to the Internet.

  3. I don’t think “we’re” the leading source of hate anymore

    David Weigel|6.14.10 @ 5:24PM|#

    Oh, it’s not rational. I liked this magazine — I hate that it’s now the internet’s leading source for hatred of me. Need to develop thicker skin is all.

    Good luck with the MSNBC gig

    1. I’m sure Scandal Boy will feel right at home there.

    2. If he’s going to be on TV, he’s going to need a much better zit cream.

      1. Not really. A combination of makeup and lighting can do wonders for a person’s complexion.

      2. He has rosacea, asshole. That’s a low blow.

        1. Sorry, I should have replaced “asshole” with “RATFUCKER”.

          1. LICK MY BALLS. LICK. THEM.

  4. Kagan promises “great deference” to other branches of government as Supreme Court justice.

    I would prefer a justice who gives “great deference” to the constitution.

    I’m sure the incompetent social engineers in congress and the power seeking for its own sake executive branch disagrees.

    1. Yeah. That is just her telling Congress “don’t worry I will continue the court’s tradition of letting you get away with unconstitutional shit”.

      It is appalling how shameless people are. Liberals sure as hell weren’t too interested in “deference” during the 60s and 70s when they were using the Courts to shove their agenda down the country’s throats. They sure as hell wouldn’t be interested in “deference” now if a state banned partial birth abortion, even though such measures are wildly popular.

    2. Plus, she only promised. It’s not like that requires any sort of risk these days. If she breaks her ‘promise’, she can either nuance her way around it, or just ignore it altogether and go about her left-leaning ‘compassionate’ interpretation of the Constitution without any consequence.

    3. This.

      *I* provide “great deference” by prefacing my remarks with “With all due respect,”.

    4. To be fair, she coupled that with a statement that individual rights in the BoR must be protected. But of course, this reveals a warped interpretational framework, where Congress has power to do anything that is not forbidden by the BoR, rather than that Congress only has the power to do that which is expressly stated in A1S8 *and* not forbidden by other sections or amendments.

      1. Individual rights must be protected except when they interfere with the rights of government to do things it thinks are good. Well, good is a strong word. Expedient?

        1. Individual rights must be protected except when they interfere with the rights of government to do things.


    5. Any senator who believes that deserves the screwing he or she is going to take once Kagan is on the Court.

  5. ‘Flying car’ cleared for take off:…..ities.html

    1. Finally. I am very thankful that the FAA did not exist when the Write Brothers were working on their first car.

      1. Make that their first aircraft. You know what I mean.

        1. Imagine if they’d owned a car factory instead of a bike shop. We’d already have flying cars.

        2. Here’s an article about the government’s expensive, failed attempt at building a flying machine a few years before the Wright brothers.

          …in 1898 the Department of War decided to fund a $50,000 program by Dr. Samuel P. Langley to develop a practical human flying machine. At the time, it was the largest research project ever funded by the Department of War.

          …from The Space Review

          1. Yeah for years the Smithsonian claimed that Langley was really the first to achieve powered flight. They claimed this on the basis that the Smithsonian was able to years after the fact take Langley’s airplane and modify it and get it to fly. No kidding. The Wrights were so pissed off, they gave the first Wright Flyer to the British Museum. It wasn’t returned to the US for decades and until the Smithsonian gave up on the fiction that Langley was first. It really had to hurt for them to admit the government wasn’t first.

      2. They and the lawyers and insurance companies make you bullet proof everything about an airplane. They are the ones who have made civil aviation the province of the rich.

    2. How can you (legally)drive a plane on the street? The FAA can class it as a light sport plane but it is still missing the government mandated automobile safety gear.The FAA doesn’t regulate flying cars when they are using government roads.

      1. They got an exemption for the automotive safety gear.

    1. What? The FEC modestly enforces The Law.


      Check out the Post today. I love the Post. It is all over the important aspects of the story.

      1. You’ve gotta love good old Rupert Murdoch.

      2. In this case I’ll have to forgive the guy that gave her the information.

      3. They need to remake the film “From Russia With Love”.

      4. I’m at a loss for words.

    2. That has to be a mistake, what with whole “Reset” thing. I mean, our Sec of State had a pretend button and everything.

    3. I can’t figure out what these people did. How is chatting up policy wonks a crime?

      1. Apparently the primary charges consist of money laundering and operating as an agent of a foreign government in secret without notifying the United States.

        Apparently, this circle has been under investigation by the feds for more than ten years! They must have never been able to successfully obtain any kind of actual classified information, or they would almost certainly be facing more serious espionage charges.

        1. The FBI is pathetic. They spent 10 years tracking down some Russians who were chatting up policy wonks. BFD. Meanwhile the Chinese are infiltrating DOD and our nuclear program.

  6. Kagan just put herself firmly on the record against don’t ask don’t tell. Doesn’t that reflect on her impartiality?

    1. It’s a reflection of her internalized homophobia.

  7. Is SugarFree writing for the Portland OR Police sex crimes unit now?

    The accuser said Gore maneuvered her into the bedroom. His iPod docking station was there, he told her, and he wanted her to listen to “Dear Mr. President,” a lachrymose attack on George W. Bush by the singer Pink.

    “As soon as he had it playing, he turned to me and immediately flipped me flat on my back and threw his whole body face down over atop of me,” she said. “I was just shocked at his craziness.”

    “He pleaded, grabbed me, engulfed me in embrace, tongue kissed me, massaged me, groped by breasts and painfully squeezed my nipples through my clothing, pressed his pelvis against mine, rubbed my buttocks with his hands and fingers and rubbed himself against my crotch, saying, ‘You know you want to do it.'”

    Finally she got away. Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her “to just suck it up; otherwise, the world’s going to be destroyed from global warming.”

    1. That is some fucked up make out music.

    2. Much as I hate Gore, that story doesn’t sound credible to me. She claims that she was only prevented from ending the massage session by Gore wrapping her in a bear hug, but several of the events she describes later are not possible if he was still in physical control of her.

      Add that to the fact that she’s reporting this four years after the fact, and you have an unproveable case. I’m as sympathetic to rape victims as anyone, but this one reeks of gold-digging.

      1. Add that to the fact that she’s reporting this four years after the fact

        The police report is 4 years old.Can you blame her for not pressing charges? Then all the polar bears would drown.

        1. The local authorities didn’t go forward with the case because there was insufficient evidence.

        2. You also might want to read your own link:

          She got a lawyer and made an appointment to talk with authorities. She canceled and did not tell police until January 2009 and even then did not press charges.

          OK, it was 2.5 years, not 4. Still way too long to be credible.

          1. So if a woman told you, and everyone else she knew, that some guy aggressively put the make on her to the point of assault and she didn’t go immediately to the police and press charges then she is a liar?
            No one is trying to get a rape conviction here so the standard of evidence sullying Al’s character is much lower.

            Hell, Ike Turner had his reputation ruined off one line in a ghost-written auto-bio of his minimally talented ex-wife more than 10 years later. Tina never filed a police report either. Glad you hold rich white Democrat pols to a higher standard.

            1. ” minimally talented ex-wife ”

              Please go fuck yourself in the ears given that you’re not using them for anything else..

              1. Ike is one of the most important figures in 20th Century music. Tina is a singer who used to be in his band.

    3. Coverage from the non-Byron York world:

      The Oregon masseuse claiming Al Gore made unwanted sexual advances towards her wanted big bucks for her big story.

      The red-headed, 54-year-old massage therapist asked the National Enquirer’s executive editor for $1 million, according to the Washington Post.

      And local authorities have said there is insufficient evidence to support the masseuse’s accusations.

      The woman, whose name has not been released, has since refused to be interviewed by police and does not want the investigation to continue.

      Gold digger, until proven otherwise.

      1. Gold digger, until proven otherwise.
        She didn’t ask for $$$ until the National Enquirer dug up her 4 year old police report.If she was gold-digging she would’ve capitalized on it back when it was fresh.

        1. Yeah and she was told by several people not to pursue it. As Glenn Reynolds said “come on Suzy if you say what Billy did to you, we might lose the big game”. Pathetic.

          1. She claims she was told that. Good to see we’re checking our critical thinking at the door when there’s an enemy of libertarianism involved.

            1. In 2007, a Portland paper learned what had happened.

              This is a very weird timeline for a “golddigging” attempt.
              False rape charge? Or heroic sacrifice for the polar bears?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.