Reason Morning Links: New GOP "Contract," Deadly Year in Afghanistan, World Poverty Shrinks

|

Advertisement

NEXT: Public Employees vs. the Public Will

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. Good morning, Links!

  2. “Republicans and Democrats don’t agree on much these days, but both sides should agree on one point: thieves belong in jail not the United States Senate.”

    There’d be no one left to govern.

    1. “Republicans and Democrats don’t agree on much these days, but both sides should agree on one point: thieves belong in jail not the United States Senate.”

      The sentence that got left on the cutting room floor was, “That’s what the House is for.”

    2. It’s okay when WE do it!

    3. Where were these guys for the 40 years Ted Kennedy was a Senator. Or do we just look the other way when it comes to Murder?

  3. Even with global recession, population of humanity living in absolute poverty expected to shrink to 15 percent, down from 42 percent a decade ago.

    As reported last week the US poverty rate is at a recent high. How does US poverty compare to global “absolute” poverty? What percentage of Americans are in “absolute” poverty?

    There must be different definitions. Isn’t $20,000 a year for a household poverty in the US? That’s upper middle class in India. Then, how does cost of living factor in?

    How poor are we, really?

    1. RTFA, questions answered. $1.25/day is absolute poverty. That’s my gas to get to work.

      1. I spend several times that a day just on tips.

        1. That’s why I like to support the microfinanace .orgs. A little money goes a long way and you’re not just pissing money down a kleptokratic hole.

    2. I imagine that “poor,” like “rich” is somewhat inherently subjective(notice our current debate about what makes one “rich”) and is to a large degree culturally specific…

      1. I don’t give a fuck what anyone says, if you own a flat screen television then you are not poor.

        No ifs, ands, or fucking buts about it.

        Ditto for $120 sneakers made by those in actual poverty.

        1. but it’s only 19″ and I only get broadcast tv! I’m ppp-poor! Givvme money!

          1. Also, if you can’t fit into a single seat on the bus, but must take up two because of your significant heft…you are not poor.

            1. bbb-but I has a grandular prawblum!

        2. if you have a cable/satellite tv subscription, then you are not poor.

          i might go so far as to say that if you have a personal internet connection, then you are not in poverty

          1. personal meaning just yours? most people my age just piggy back on nearby wifi. you be below the poverty line and have tv, internet and spend your food stamps at whole foods.

            1. yes, as in you have an apartment and pay for a hardline internet connection and don’t split costs.

              Although, I have gone dutch on internet connections in apartment complexes and helped to chip in for the cost.

    3. The [US] poverty line is roughly three times the annual cost of a nutritionally adequate diet. It varies by family size and is updated every year to reflect changes in the consumer price index. In 2005, the poverty line for a family of four was $19,971.

      * * *

      Most Americans who experience poverty do so only temporarily. In the four years from 1996 through 1999, only 2 percent of the population was poor for two years or more. During the same period, 34 percent of the population was poor for at least two months. In short, persistent poverty is relatively uncommon.

      From hier.

      1. I will say a family of four making that amount is poor imo. I’d hate to be in that situation.

        1. I note that almost all of the source material cited in Attorney’s link emanates from the state. Thus, we need not stamp the impramatur of credibility on such numbers.

        2. I know a guy who raised two kids on $12/hour just fine. Granted that’s about $25,000/yr, but if you don’t have any major physical/physchological problems and you can’t manage to get and keep a $12/hr job, it’s you own fault.

        3. Granted, I wouldn’t want to be in that situation either, but from what I saw, it doesn’t entail anything I’d remotely call “suffering.”

          1. That’s enough money to become obese, own a car and a TV, and have a roof over one’s head.

            That is not fucking poor, no matter what the government says.

      2. The [US] poverty line is roughly three times the annual cost of a nutritionally adequate diet.

        This can’t be right. My family of three eats a more than nutritionally adequate diet for $45 a week. Three times that annual cost is $7020.

    4. What percentage of Americans are in “absolute” poverty?

      < 0.001%.

    5. the U.N. goal, in contrast, targeted people living on less than $1 a day (later raised to $1.25 to reflect inflation).

      Rounded off to the nearest percentage, that means 0% of Americans live in poverty.

      “Poor” in America is not poor.

  4. I am not currently in the United States, so someone tell me: are we in an atmosphere of All O’Donnell All The Time, or is that just here? I am tired of hearing about her already.

    1. You need to adopt an “Enough About O’Donnell” handle like the Enough About Palin guy.

      I think she’s kind of cute, so I don’t mind the attention on her. Her face on the tv at the gym is welcome (of course there is no sound…).

      1. They’re desperate to avoid discussing Chris Coons’s open Marxism and his tax hike happy past so they attack a woman because she went out on a bad date when she was a teenager.

        Let ’em keep it up. It’ll make her win in November a certainty.

        1. The “self-avowed Marxist” meme! Good morning to you!

          1. You can scoff at it all you like, MNG, but I wouldn’t trust a Marxist to mow my yard, let alone represent me in government.

            1. He wrote that as a title of a paper when he was 21, and it was obviously a joke (“bearded” Marxist).

              1. If that’s true, then Christine O’Donnell’s youthful fling with witchcraft should be just as much a non-story.

                However, we’re talking about a Democrat, and some of them DO take Marxism seriously.

        2. To be fair, if she took money from her campaign funds and paid her rent with it, she’s a crook.

          “Wah! Regular people can’t get involved in politics because they can’t afford it!” Maybe. But if she took the money, she’s a crook.

          1. Apparently, it is not that simple. They can pay themselves a salary. And as I explained below, they all launder the money into their pockets.

            She may be a crook. She may have gotten desperate and done something she should not have. Time will tell. I don’t know enough to say whether it is a deal killer or not. How much money are we talking about? What was her intent? Does she have any kind of defense? What is her side of the story? None of that is presented in the article. My guess is that this probably isn’t that big of a deal. But who knows.

          2. Why? Becasue anti-constitutional campaign finance laws say so?

            1. No, LM, because it is fraudulent to do so.

          3. From what I understand, she ran her campaing office out of her home, and the campaign paid rent on that office which was of course thn used to pay the mortgage. That doesn’t sound very despicable unless the rent was insanely high.

      2. Would it be ironic to jerk-off to pictures of O’Donnell?

        1. Also does “jerk-off” get a hyphen?

          I wouldn’t want to be wrong about this.

          1. Anal-retentive
            Anal retentive

            I just can’t decide.

            1. I am an anal-retentive fruit. Adjectival.
              I am a fruit and also anal retentive. Nounal.

            2. Get down with OCD,
              Minutia’s buggin’ me.

              Get down with OCD,
              Minutia’s buggin’ me.

    2. It’s really just a break from the ground zero sleeper cell mosque story.

    3. are we in an atmosphere of All O’Donnell All The Time

      Nah. Delaware just isn’t that significant. Most people don’t even know it’s a state.

      1. Hence: “Dela-where?”

    4. I am tired of hearing about her already.

      Do you browse the Internet strapped into a chair A Clockwork Orange style?

      1. Whenever possible.

  5. “Even with global recession, population of humanity living in absolute poverty expected to shrink to 15 percent, down from 42 percent a decade ago.”

    And yet…

    France, Spain urge global tax to fight poverty

    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20266544.htm

    1. Call me when France and Spain start signing and living up to free trade agreements with sub-saharan Africa.

  6. I can claim near ignorance on most topics, campaign finance laws included, but I thought that candidates were free to spend campaign funds however they wished. Or is that just with the remaining money at the end of the campaign? Or was it once that way and has now changed?

    1. Wouldn’t it be a form of fraud for me to ask you to give me money to defeat Mike Castle and then use it to pay my kids private school bill (or whatever, I don’t know what she is accused of spending it on)?

      1. She’s accused of using it to pay two months rent/mortgage on her house and to buy meals and gas.

        I eagerly await the report about any of the other 500+ members of Congress who used their campaign fund for fuel and food.

          1. I love his stuff!

          2. I was going for reductio ad absurdum.

            As pointed out elsewhere on this thread we bemoan the lack of non-rich people in politics. Yet when a non-rich person runs for a high office suddenly people are shocked that they’re using their new-found access to large sums of money to take care of their needs.

            Given the blatant corruption of our political class, when an organization that fancies itself as a non-partisan campaign finance watchdog says that a candidate is “Clearly a criminal” I’m expecting to find some sort of out-of-the-ordinary level of embezzelment. Meals, gas, and paying herself for the use of her home office? Lying on a tax filing (assuming it was even intentional)?

            If the rest of the Senate and House was held to the standard that CREW wants to hold O’Donnell to now when they were first running for office, how many of them would be “clearly a criminal”?

            Congress has written the rules of campaign finance so that only themselves, their wealthy benefactors, and their accompanying lawyers can fully comply with them, while still embezzelling their fair share through sweetheart gigs for their friends and family.

            Quite honestly, short of some sort of malicious fraud I would never find a non-incumbent candidate guilty of breaking campaign finance laws. The rules are too stacked against people outside the inner circle of politics. Breaking those rules in the only chance a true insurgent has against the establishment. I hope O’Donnell comes out and says she did exactly what it’s alleged she’s done. If she does that, hell, I’ll donate to her campaign. She can have a meal on me.

      2. Christ in Florida and, I’m guessing, Murkowski in Alaska taking money as a Republican and keeping it to run as an independent seems at least in the ballpark fraud-wise but he/she gets a total pass.

        1. That’s Crist. I’d consider voting for Christ but never Crist.

          1. I bet that, given the chance, you wouldn’t vote for Christ.

            1. Florida could use some divine assistance. Then again, we’re doing okay. Maybe Christ should go to California and lead them away from the abyss.

            2. He was certainly no Caesar.

            3. He’s not the messiah. He’s a very naughty boy.

              1. That’s Brian.

          2. I like Crist, but he is not the Messiah. Everyone knows that is Obama 🙂

          3. I’ll never run.

            1. Reporter: What’s been your position on the death penalty?

              Christ: Vertical.

            2. Render unto Ceasar and all that?

              1. Ah-ah-ah, Cav! Separation of church and state!

          4. Pro Lib: We don’t exactly have many choices. Rubio? Meek? As distasteful as Crist might be, I don’t think he would ever have the cojones to “lead” on an issue with less than 60% of the populace in favor.

            1. I’m voting for Rubio. I wouldn’t let Crist be the local dogcatcher.

          5. Dammit. I typed Christie out of habit and just backspaced.

        2. Some Republican contributors in Florida are suing Crist to get back contributions they made to him when he was still in the Republican primary. There was supposed to be a hearing today (Ft Myers, I believe) to decide whether they can get class action status.

      3. No, I don’t think so, if it’s a given that in order to run for Congress you have to quit your day job (or take a lot of time off of it). Giving you money to replace your lost income seems like a normal part of campaign contributions. Without that, only the independently wealthy would be able to run.

        That is the justification. The weird part about it is that it means that the wealthy who had high incomes the previous year are allowed to pay themselves much more than people who had low salaries the previous year. So if you were a millionaire in 2009, it’s considered okay to pay yourself a million out of contributions in 2010 if you take the whole year off, but if you made minimum wage, you can only pay yourself minimum wage out of contributions.

        1. Seems to me you’d be allowed to hire yourself as a campaign worker.

          1. Yes, but if you hire yourself you can’t pay yourself more than you earned previously. See Mickey Kaus on this issue– and he should know the regs (links to the relevant one), since he just ran a primary campaign.

      4. Wouldn’t it be a form of fraud for me to ask you to give me money to defeat Mike Castle and then use it to pay my kids private school bill (or whatever, I don’t know what she is accused of spending it on)?

        Wouldn’t it be a form of bestiality for you to fuck sheep, MNG (or whatever, I don’t know what you were accused of doing, or whether you actually did it.)

        See how that works?

    2. They are not supposed to pocket it for their own use. But, there are a million ways around. And up until around 2000 they got to keep any money that was left over after the campaign. They finally did get rid of that rule. But they grandfathered it and let a bunch of incumbents pocket millions.

      Even with the rules, politicians will hire their wives and idiot sons to high paying positions in their campaign. They will buy property and rent the campaign office space at high rates. They will use campaign cash to buy supplies from friends. There is a million ways to make sure that cash goes back to you. That is why representatives from safe seats will build huge war chests even in years they run practically unopposed.

      1. Sounds like she’s just crappy at playing the game then.

        1. So she’s got that going for her.

      2. They are allowed to pay themselves a salary. Mickey Kaus discussed it here. I assume since he was a proto-candidate, he’s done the research.

        1. I didn’t know that. If that is true, than this strikes me as an odd complaint. Did she take more than her salary? Is there a limit on the salary?

          1. Knowing all of this leads me to guess (GUESS) she didn’t do anything wrong. The lefties just don’t like her. This is starting to feel a bit like Palin Derangement Syndrome.

            1. My guess is that it’s Karl Rove as much as the lefties.

          2. The limit on the salary, as Kaus notes, is that you can’t pay yourself more than you earned last year in your previous job. It makes sense in some ways, but it’s horribly unequal from another perspective.

          3. I would think issues about whether you declared it as income and paid taxes could come up.

            TFA mentions that.

            Remember the government always has the IRS when they can’t get you on anything else.

      3. More fun with campaign contributors, though not necessarily in the capacity that is being discussed…

        http://www.suntimes.com/news/w…..03.article

  7. NPR had a great segment on the salmon issue recently. Interviewed opponents but also the designer of the salmon. It’s a remarkable accomplishment. I’m not opposed to requiring a label, but I’d be eager to try it myself.

    1. If this means delicious salmon can be had cheaper, year round, and without raping a fragile salmon ecosystem then hooray! I’m am totally for eating all genetically modified whatsits.

      1. The designer pointed out the implications for conservation. He made a great, convincing case imo. Of course there are still some people in a tizzy about it, though if you think about it it could be a huge plus for the environment.

        I guess the worry is that these fish will somehow replace the “real” salmon, and I can understand betting on a screw up (the designer at one point said “oh no, the FDA will be regulating to prevent that”!), but they are designing sterile fish so it seems like little threat to me, and the potential advantages are enormous.

        1. I saw Jurassic Park. They salmon will mutate back to being fertile, and then we’ll have salmonraptors roaming our waterways, destroying all in their path.

          I mean, Michael Crichton was a doctor, so he knows science and stuff, right?

          1. As much salmon as I’ve eaten in my life, it will be somewhat fitting for me to be eaten by salmon.

          2. As long as they don’t use “amphibian DNA” I think we are safe from salmonraptor. Amphibian DNA is highly unstable and dangerous, this is from an eel. In my expert opinion, eel are not amphibians.

    2. Salmon stocks have been depleting for years. If they could get a fast growing salmon that would take the pressure off of the other wild stocks, that would be a very good thing.

      1. I suspect that a lot of the sentiment behind this is the idea that like tree farms can’t be forests, fish can’t be a farm.

        Seriously, is there any kind of tedchnological adaptation that uses less resources and/or pesticides, etc that they don’t get all bunged up over?

        Eh, fuck ’em. Carry Nation nihilist fuckknuckles.

        1. No there isn’t. I dealt with these people when I was an environmental lawyer. There was an endangered species of bird on the Army post I was at. The fact was the bird like the Army training. The tanks cleared out small trees and such and created perfect habitat. The Army had been training there since World War II. And sure enough, it was the last place in the state where the poor bird lived. But do you think they would listen to reason? Hell no. Tanks were not natural. It didn’t matter that the tanks created habitat and if the birds could talk they would say “bring more tanks”. The world had to be natural and we needed to stop training there for the birds. It is just lunacy.

          1. Oh, god, I’m having flashbacks to woodpecker preservation on Ft. Bragg. Goddamn woodpeckers get blown into the area because of a hurricane and decide, hey, this place is great! Next thing you know, we’re shutting down the main gunnery ranges so we don’t scare the poor woodpeckers during mating season.

    1. Subhead: Roethlisberger decides to travel with team this week.

  8. Absolute poverty reduced from 42% to 15% in a single decade. That has to be one of the most rapid improvements in the human condition in history. I am proud to be alive to witness it.

    Seriously. Unceasing cynicism is exhausting. It’s great to read something unabashedly good, no matter what you think the causes are.

  9. How about that 49ers Saints game last night? That’s what football is all about men…

    1. This is what football is all about.

      1. No…

        This and this is what football is all about.

        1. Yes, it was a very good game. Too bad for Jerry Rice on his big night.

          1. Football is about beer and truck commercials. Lots and lots of them. And moving a sausage-shaped ball back and forth on an ugly, graphics-choked field between commercial breaks. And talking all about the five seconds of action you just witnessed and seeing it again and again through assorted-angle replays, until it happens again in another five minutes, after some more commercials.

            1. Also, having just clicked the links, what capitol l said.

              1. Football is the opiate of the masses.

                I wish the masses would just try real opiates and quit with the substandard substitutions…

  10. MI6 ‘used bodily fluids as invisible ink’
    British intelligence services experimented with using semen as an invisible ink to write top-secret letters, it has been disclosed.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..e-ink.html

    “It’s okay ma, I’m making ink.”

    1. That was a good one, +1

    2. There is no idea so goofy that some intelligence agency has not tried it. The CIA and the KGB used to be the kings of this, so it’s good to see the Brits trying to catch up.

    3. I’m guessing the project was canceled when the supervisor found that his subordinates were painting with a broader brush than he was.

      1. Nominated for post of the day.

    4. Did they get the idea from watching too much CSI?

    5. Mansfield Cumming? This story is a joke, right?

  11. “UK Proposes All Paychecks Go to the State First”
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/3926584…..tate_First

    1. That kind of shit might wind up being proposed here. Reason ought to do a story about it, just in case.

      “It’s not your money”, indeed. Tony and Chad would have a field day defending shit like that.

      1. I think that an action like that would be just the kind of thing that might finally cause all those 200 million or so privately-owned firearms we always hear about to become a little more public.

        I would think that any legislator who proposed or voted in favor of such legislation and any bureaucrat who tried to enact it would suddenly find themselves with a greatly decreased life expectancy.

          1. Who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes?

            And can I get in on concession sales?

            1. Wait, your last name is really Dibbler, isn’t it?

  12. Re: O’Donnell
    All pols use campaign dough for meals & gas.
    Now if the rent paid was for campaign hdqtrs, she’s free & clear.

    1. I think if you use it to pay for gas to campaign events and meals involving such, then it is OK. Taking your family out to Olive Garden, not so much.

      Those checks are usually literally made out to something like “O’Donnell for Senate” so if you use it for family night it is fraud.

      1. It’s not fraud if you use it to replace the salary that you lost when you took off to campaign. Amounts past that can be a problem, though.

        MNG, are you willing to state that millionaries ought to be able to pay themselves much more out of campaign funds that poor people running for the Senate?

        1. “”It’s not fraud if you use it to replace the salary that you lost when you took off to campaign. Amounts past that can be a problem, though.””

          That’s tricky. One’s salary may include money for alcohol, big screen TVs, and other fun items. Do you believe they could take campaign money and use it for those items?

          1. Yes, you can do that. You’re hiring yourself as a campaign worker to campaign full time. The rule is that you can hire yourself and pay the same salary as you made at your previous job, as Kaus noted (and linked to the reg.)

            In one sense, it’s a perfectly reasonable rule. In another sense, it’s ridiculous. But any method of “comparable worth” usually is.

        2. And what rule limits it to the level of their salary? Is that rule unconstitutional?

          1. Read the Kaus link I posted above. Candidates are allowed to compensate themselves up to the amount they made in the previous yearn. Yes, that rule is probably unconstitutional.

    2. “Now if the rent paid was for campaign hdqtrs, she’s free & clear.”

      Yes it was. I read that somewhere, but I’m too lazy to go look.

      This is just part of a smear campaign.

      1. Jesus! You’re a ratbagger too!?

  13. GOP to unveil a new “Contract With America” this week.

    The people already have a contract with the government, it’s called the constitution. Just abide by that and don’t forget about it when one of your idiot sons is president, shitbags.

    1. This, but they’ll blow it. The GOP is not called “The Stupid Party” for nothing.

  14. 2010 now the deadliest year for NATO since the war in Afghanistan began.

    They don’t love us for electing Maobama 🙁

    Nice touch calling it NATO after Bush left office!

    1. Hey Hey!
      Obama!
      How many troops,
      Won’t be coming home to momma?

  15. Democrats, for their part, are eager to have a look at the new GOP agenda. They are planning their own event on Thursday to outline the “Real Republican Agenda”

    Great!

  16. Instead of arguing about what might happen if we eat GE salmon, why doesn’t anybody talk about the known benefits of increasing salmon consumption? Families with a history of heart disease would clearly benefit, so let’s not give them that benefit because … maybe/who knows/something might happen in the future?

    1. And the benefits of eating genetic salmon in place of the wild ones. How about we give the wild fish stocks a break for a while? The ocean is an ecological disaster. This kind of stuff is our only hope.

      1. Ugh. I love to catch salmon, but really dislike to eat them. About the only way I can handle salmon is smoked.

        Give me jumbo perch, panfish and walleyes to eat any day of the week.

        I’m curious about how big these GE salmon would grow. Usually salmon have a 4 year life cycle. Would these grow double for the entire 4 years? Or would they max out at the top end at 2 years?

        1. http://www.news.com.au/technol…..technology

          check out the fish in the picture. That is big.

          1. I’m almost positive that’s a wild salmon, and a really old one at that (the hooked jaws are a sign of age).

            1. Now that I look at it it is. My God that is an evil looking fish.

        2. It’s Pacific salmon that spawn and die after 4 years. Atlantic salmon go back to the sea and then return to spawn again.

          Of course, in the case of these GM fish, neither situation would apply. Chicken, beef, swine, and so forth are processed when they reach marketable size, which depends on feed/growth ratios and customer preferences. My guess is that these fish would be fed till they were big enough to supply typical-sized fillets. They would probably take about the same amount of feed to reach that weight; the advantage is they would get there sooner. Time is money.

  17. I love this new Contract with America. Republican leadership making such bold proposals as:

    Extending the Bush tax cuts by two years!
    Reducing government spending to 2008 levels!

    Wow. They really don’t get it, do they? Even less than I would have thought. Those are some of the most tepid proposals I’ve ever seen.

    1. If they’ve learned not to expect to be in the majority in 2012, its a good start.

    2. They could ride the whirlwind if they just did something akin to 1994, even though we’d all be sitting back and saying it’s almost certainly bullshit. Instead, they’re doing this half-assed nonsense that confirms YET AGAIN that the only real difference between the parties is that one is in power and the other isn’t.

      Maybe that’s for the best. I’d be all for a GOP takeover of Congress if they’d turn on the repeal light, but I doubt seriously that that is going to happen. If might be better if they get the House by a large margin but only get a tie in the Senate. I’d rather they controlled the Senate in the first place to stop the more egregious nominations, but no way they get the Senate and not the House. The other way around is more likely.

      1. Could this be a strategy? “Democrats claim we’re crazy extremists, but our new Contract is totally mild and reasonable!”

        1. Vote for us! If you cross your eyes a little bit, we’ll look slightly different when in power!

          1. I didn’t say it was the best strategy.

    3. How about cutting spending back to 2000 levels? God forbid they take any responsibility for the massive spending the last time we had a Republican president/house/senate.

  18. Christine O’Donnell “clearly a criminal”

    I’d say there’s reasonable doubt.

  19. Billionaire Charles Munger thinks we should be glad the bailouts preserved Wall Street’s culture.

    “Now, if you talk about bailouts for everybody else, there comes a place where if you just start bailing out all the individuals instead of telling them to adapt, the culture dies.”

    Take it home, Mish:

    The one thing we desperately need is a culture change. Instead, we made too big to fail, too bigger to fail. We preserved a culture that benefits billionaires like Munger and greedy CEO’s that helped cause this mess. That culture benefits no one else.

    Yet Munger wants us to “suck it in and cope” and expect to be happy that he did not get wiped out.

    You know what? It would have been a damn good thing if the culture died and assholes like Munger got wiped out. Munger just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt Wall Street’s culture was not worth saving.

    1. Munger is such a corksoaker in that statement, but even if right, Mish sounds like a real icehole.

  20. Many people all over the world are below the poverty line and we expect more in next years. Job creation is still an issue and the financial system as a whole is already at its worst and the government has already known about this, even before the great recession has begun. The problem is they have just taken it for granted and is confident that they can use consumer’s money/consumer credit to increase its fake assets. To top it all, the American government does not have the political will to be honest with the American people about our financial condition. And so effects are pouring in and is passed on to us, working majority.
    We help Americans move to Asia for jobs and prosperity. Learn more at http://www.pathtoasia.com

    1. You realize that trying to solve the problem of people being “below the poverty line” makes as much sense as trying to solve the issue of people being “below average”, given that it’s just a statistical function of the distribution of incomes.

  21. Civ 5 out today. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. There goes my life.

    1. Damnit. I had this blocked out. If I can forget about it before I get home from work…

    2. Calm down, Cartman.

    3. Well, hell. With this and college football I’m probably done until at least Thanksgiving.

    4. I need to look at the specs and see if I can run it on my netbook. If I can, I’ll be in the running for least productive member of the workforce.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.