Reason Morning Links: Former Xerox Exec May Replace Summers, GOP Blocks DADT Repeal, Twitter Grounded

|

NEXT: Ad Rage

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. Reid was a genius to hide his DREAM act behind DADT. He makes the Republicans admit their homophobia and gets his election hail Mary passed.

    1. Too early. He can’t run on being an ineffective, vituperative failure of a Senate Majority Leader for six weeks.

      Also, I’m sick to death of hiding these bullshit things in budgets. If changing the law is important, give it its own bill.

      1. Getting Republicans to admit their homophobia isn’t exactly a challenge.

  2. …traced the malicious code back to Delphin, who said he got the idea from another user who employed a similar code to make his profile and tweets rainbow-coloured.

    I think I saw something similar happen on a different site.

    1. Ftr, this kid is a libertarian and serious about it. Check out the feed on his profile.

  3. Baptist megachurch leader accused of making unwanted sexual advances on young parishioners.

    Amyone who thought that sexual abuse by clergy was strictly a Catholic priest phenomenon is an idiot. Sexual abuse by people in authority (almosy always male) is a human phenomenon.

    1. WHY RAPE HAVE TO BE HUMAN PHENOMENON? WHY NOT INCLUDE SASQUATCH, YETI, OTHER HOMINIDS?

      PREJUDICE AGAINST RAPE-CRAZY SASQUATCH IS LAST ACCEPTABLE PREJUDICE.

    2. True, but the celibacy rules of Catholic priesthood make their problem more pronounced. A lot of people with warped sexuality of one sort or another find it convenient to hide beneath a collar.

      1. Odds are probably higher that a kid gets molested by a public school teacher than a Catholic priest.

        The Celibacy rule is so the Church doesn’t have to support a priest AND his family.

        1. There are many ostensible purposes for the celibacy rule…the financial one you bring up, as well as the greater flexibility in moving unmarried men around from post to post and also some theological reasons.

          That doesn’t change the unintended consequences.

          1. One of the advantages of the congregationalist churches (offset by the splitter problem discussed below) is that the whole post-to-post problem is solved.

          2. Unintended consequences?

            Do you realize how many priest there are in the world and how tiny the fraction of them who’ve been accused of being pedophiles?

            There is probably a higher percentage of pedophiles in coaching and teaching and they are not constrained by celibacy oaths so that kind of dismisses the celibacy and unintended consequences theory.

        2. Odds are probably higher that a kid gets molested by a public school teacher coach than a Catholic priest.

        3. Of course, since most kids are around public school teachers 180+ days a year, while only a small minority are around Catholic priests at all.

          More Americans are killed in auto accidents than by hippopotamuses each year, but that doesn’t mean driving a car is more dangerous that pissing off a hippo.

          1. Are you saying that the longer a pedophile is around the children the more likely he/she is to molest the child?

            Perhaps its just a fact that pedophiles seek out positions where they can have influence over children, period!

            Also, most pedophiles tend to be men molesting little boys so why aren’t they considered homosexual pedophiles. IS it political correctness gone mad that supposes children don’t have a gender and pedophiles don’t have a preference?

    3. It’s understandable. I worked for the president of a multi-billion dollar corporation. We needed help on something and the person I needed to ask for help was a very attractive blonde woman. I could tell the entire time that I was speaking with her that she harbored some fear (or maybe self-doubt) of not succeeding. Not because she lacked competency, just fear of failing to fulfill the request of a person with tons of power (the boss I represented). Her body language made it perfectly clear.

      I gotta tell you, a beautiful woman showing fear of your authority is a real turn-on. I could see how someone in power could easily be tempted to capitalize on it.

      1. You are fucked up dude. Too bad you weren’t the one with any real authority.

        1. No. I think it’s built into our DNA.

          1. It makes you a weakling to be aroused by fear, DNA or not. But hey, keep throwing out those excuses if they make you feel better about how pathetic you are.

    4. Nah, women are just as bad as men. We’re just less likely to suspect them, and less likely interpret what they’re caught doing as “abuse”, for a variety of reasons.

    5. We should step back a second here because, although despicable, unwanted advances != sexual abuse.

      It just makes him a creepy perv who’s insanely hypocritical and worthy of heaps of public shame, not some form of criminal.

      1. Oops. Didn’t see the “young” next to “parishioners”.

        Need lern to reed.

        1. Depends on how young. 13-14? Not really that creepy. 8-9? Creepy.

    6. Hasn’t Eddie Long been in trouble for unwanted sexual advances for a long time?

      I seem to remember him being constantly in the news years ago.

  4. Bishop? Baptist? Oh, Missionary Baptist…nevermind.

    Using the term “baptist” can be very vague.

    1. Within the US, you have:

      Institutional Missionary Baptist Conference of America
      Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association
      National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
      Old Time Missionary Baptist

      So even the term “missionary baptist” isnt completely clarifying.

      1. Even being raised Baptist doesn’t really help you make any sense of it.

        1. I thought Monty Python explained it well.

          But, really, if you work from the basic premise of congregationalist churches, it it inevitable.

        2. Fun with confusing donomination names:

          “Churches of God, General Conference” is a baptist denomination.
          “Church of God General Conference” is an adventist denomination.

          Plural and a comma are the distinction. No one would ever confuse them, would they?

          1. I always loved seeing “Church of God” on a church’s sign. I mean, aren’t they all supposed to be that?

            1. The hottest woman I have ever known in my life was the daughter of a CoG minister (2nd listing above).

              But yeah, its a funny name. Church of Christ too.

              Then again, Christian Science is neither christian nor science. Discuss.

              1. Isn’t the Church of God, the snake handlers? I don’t care how hot a woman is. When she whips out the copperhead to test my faith, I am looking elsewhere.

                1. There are a brazillian different CoG denominations too.

                  They are pentecostal, but at least in the case of this specific one, not snake handling. Even though it was in far eastern Tennessee (you know that part of the map that needs its own special inset, yeah, that part of Tennessee).

                  1. robc, that reminds me. When I lived in Brazil I thought no one in the US would ever accept the Universal Church as a ‘legitimate’ church… sure enough, there’s one here in Mesa AZ and apparently a number of them back east.

                2. On the other hand, it gives you ample opportunity for sexual innuendo.

              2. The Church of Christ, Scientist?

                I’ve yet to see a depiction of Christ in a lab coat, wearing glasses and monitoring some kind of experiment. I can just see the Holy Lord Our Savior (no, not Obama) collecting empirical data, taking notes on a clipboard, holding a stopwatch, and then quickly entering the numbers into an Excel spreadsheet on his laptop.

                If I were a better artist, I’d draw it. I would not be too worried about the Christian Scientists declaring holy war on my neck, ala drawings of he-who-shall-not-be-drawn.

                1. Now, you really wanna do something cool, draw Mohammed (PBUH) in a lab coat/safety glasses/etc doing that.

                  Hijinks and hilarity ensue!

                2. “I’ve yet to see a depiction of Christ in a lab coat, wearing glasses and monitoring some kind of experiment.”

                  As if Christ needed glasses…

                  http://image3.examiner.com/ima…..abcoat.jpg

                3. I really thought I would be able to gis for an image of jesus in a lab coat. No such luck.

      2. If he were a missionary baptist, would he have to resort to the missionary position?

        1. You know you’re in trouble when you run into a Cleveland Steamer Baptist.

          1. Reformed Landmark Cleveland Steamer Baptist Convention or Old Time National Cleveland Steamer Baptist Association of America?

        2. The guy in the article was having sex with young men. Unless he’s also a yoga instructor, I think that rules out missionary.

          1. Not to be indelicate Mr. Penguin, but…no it doesn’t.

          2. I find your lack of imagination… disturbing.

            No homo.

    2. And just to add to the confusion, because Im sure most of you dont care at all, there is generally nothing to prevent a congregation from belonging to multiple conventions.

    3. Also, also, my church is currently searching for a new pastor…this will be the 3rd head pastor in the the ~30 years Ive been attending it. Of the previous 2, only 50% left due to sexual scandal (women, not boys, so we have that going for us, although same woman also took out the Minister of Music at the same time).

      1. Ah. There’s nothing like the secret goings on at an upright church.

        1. Turns out nothing is secret forever.

      2. If he’s not supposed to have deviant sex, why do you even call him a “head pastor?”

        Wow, these things write themselves. Unfortunately, they don’t laugh at themselves.

    1. The Kruginuts post all over Megan McCardle. She had a post on how Ireland is not a good counter example against austerity. When several people brought up the possibility of a bubble in US Treasuries, their arguments boiled down to;

      Things would be much worse if we didn’t do this.

      The private sector wastes money to. So it doesn’t matter that the stimulus is being stolen

      Get this. Pauli Krugnuts knew that there was a housing bubble in 2005. So if there was a bond bubble he would no about it.

      1. “Even if we managed to elect the most competent person to every office in the land, we would still not have good government if the citizenry were unwilling to fully finance it. If, as I hear Republicans repeatedly preach, it is a privilege to live in the United States, why don’t they want to pay for it?”

        Robert J. Switzer
        West Hollywood, Calif., Sept. 20, 2010

        Hey Switzer, why don’t you tell it to all your left-wing buddies on Capitol Hill and in the White House who don’t pay their taxes, you Krugnuttian jackass.

        1. I’m totally willing to fully finance a government that does what the Constitution authorizes.

          Now THAT would be one hell of a tax cut.

          1. Heck, if they cut the spending to that level, I will let them leave taxes in place until the debt is paid off.

            1. Actually, while I tend to concur, I belive there is a case to be made that running huge surpluses for an long period could also be bad for the economy.

              1. Is paying down debt the same as running a surplus?

                1. It would radically increase the money supply. People now hold bonds. If we started paying those bonds off, the bonds would become money.

                2. Yes. Well, technically you could keep the surplus cash in a pool in the white house for the prez to swim in, but realistically, yes.

                3. In government accounting, pretty much. The government really doesn’t have the facilities to do much with excess cash, so the thinking is (and this is all theoretical; it hasn’t happened in living memory) that a surplus would be used to retire debt.

        2. So is this the lefty version of “love it or leave it”? If you love America, you must pay?

          Around here, love that requires a cash transaction is usually called something else.

          1. It’s a statist adaptation:

            Pay for me or leave it.

    2. Can we mark this as the hour that the Enlightenment lost its standard of truth and became one giant Appeal to Authority rhetorical smokescreen, or did that hour pass decades ago?

      1. People have always appealed to authority. It is a an easy and lazy way to make an argument. The appeals to authority don’t bother me too much. It is the Kruginuts’ being so smug while making the appeal that drives me nuts.

        1. Yes, but so many people on all sides of the aisle argue an appeal from authority as if it were actually a scientifically proven fact. They fall into the fallacy of “because this person has authority on this matter, his/her statements on it must be true”.

          1. Yes, See every global warming thread for an example of that. People everywhere do it and always have. And sometimes appeals to authority are valid. Just because the authority says it, doesn’t mean it is wrong.

            1. If you appeal to The Jacket as authority, then it’s not a logical fallacy. Cause it’s The Jacket.

              Just sayin’…

            2. The whole point of the Enlightenment, from Acquinas through Einstein, was that there exists a Truth that is independent from the authority of Man, and can be observed by anyone who is careful, precise, and objective. The entire “consensus” mentality is antithetical to the idea of objective, rational truth.

          2. I would actually be happy to defer to Krugman’s authority, if he restricts himself to repeating the statements he made that won him the Nobel Prize.

            He won the Nobel Prize for work he did demonstrating how and why state-run “Industrial Policy” programs fail.

            I think that qualifies him to make statements in his column condemning industrial policies.

            I don’t see why it would mean we have to defer to him when he puts on his SuperKeynes costume.

  5. Trifle with the government? Just ask Jacob Maged
    …Maged, suitably broken to the saddle of government, removed from his shop window the placard advertising 35-cent pressings and replaced it with a Blue Eagle. “Maged,” reported the Times, “if not quite so ruggedly individualistic as formerly, was a free man once more.” So that is freedom — embracing, under coercion, a government propaganda symbol. …

  6. GOP filibusters defense bill that included DREAM Act and a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

    Fuck the GOP in the ass with a red-hot fireplace poker. If those reactionary fucktards think that my disgust with Obama and the Dems is going to make me vote for those intolerant bastards, they need to think again.

    1. Three Dems voted with them. And there is a difference between voting for cloture that you know is going to fail and voting for a bill you know will pass. If the bill had gone to a vote, it would have failed and a lot of Democrats who voted for cloture would have changed their vote.

      Amnesty and gays in the military are just not popular with the country. And until they are, they are not happening no matter who is in power.

      1. OFFS John. The 3 Dems, less than 10%, are d-bags for voting with the GOP. But every Republican voted to filibuster DADT.

        Oh and 78% of Americans support repealing DADT.

        1. “Oh and 78% of Americans support repealing DADT.”

          Got a link for that? And how many of that 78% (assuming it is true) would vote on the issue? And how many of the other 22% would vote on the issue?

          And the bill wasn’t just DADT, it was what amounted to amnesty as well. And the vast majority of the country is against that.

          If the Democrats care so much about DADT, why didn’t they just introduce a bill with just that instead of taking it onto a wildly unpopular amnesty bill that they knew the Republicans would vote against?

          The Democrats don’t give a flying fuck about gays or gay issues. They just feed rubes like you enough bullshit to keep you committed.

          1. Giving kids that grew up in the US citizenship for serving or going to college is barely amnesty. They’re suffering for the sins of their parents.

            Face it, anti-gay folks like you* are a dying breed.

            http://lmgtfy.com/?q=poll+dadt+support+78%&l=1

            * And if you’re not, why not call out the GOP for their support of DADT?

            1. I am calling out you for thinking that the Democrats are any better. You think Amnesty is great. Most of the country doesn’t. That is a totally different battle than gay rights.

              Why aren’t you calling out the Democrats for chaining gay rights to an unpopular amnesty bill?

              Face it, large sections of the Democratic voting block are actively hostile to gays. The Democrats pay nothing but lip service to gay rights issues. You are kidding yourself if you think either party cares.

            2. Mo, a kid who crosses the border illegally at age 17 and then goes to college (on the taxpayer dime in many states, natch) is eligible for the DREAM Act benefits.

              As I said above, most of the people who would gain from this bill are not people who grew up here and served with distinction in the military.

              1. Mo, a kid who crosses the border illegally at age 17 and then goes to college (on the taxpayer dime in many states, natch) is eligible for the DREAM Act benefits.

                False. To be eligible:
                * Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16.
                * Have proof of residence in the United States for a least five consecutive years since their date of arrival, compliance with Selective Service.
                * Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment.
                * Have graduated from an American high school or obtained a GED.
                * Be of “good moral character”

            3. You fail to see the point.

              The Dems don’t give a shit about the gays either. They prove this by attaching the DREAM act, which they KNOW republicans will not vote on, onto the repeal of DADT.

              If they really wanted to repeal DADT, they’d bring it to the vote without the tag-along. They don’t give a shit about it in reality though, but like to use things like this to trick dumbasses like you into fits of rage.

              Its a political stunt, and you’re just too god damned dense to see it.

              1. Most of the Dems I know are not gay-friendly (some homophobic) but are savvy enough to claim the human rights position on record.

      2. One Dem was Reid, who because of Senate Rules voted against it so he could re-introduce later. The other two were from Arkansas, but one was Blanche Lincoln, who is almost certainly not going to be a Senator in February of next year.

        1. which means there’s a shot she’ll switch when this thing comes up again in the lame duck session.

          1. And we might all get ponies for Christmas to. I bet DADT is still in effect come January of 2011. So after two years the Democrats having 59 and sometimes 60 votes in the Senate, a huge House majority and the White House, DADT will still be in place.

            But it is just the Republicans who want it kept in place? The Democrats just didn’t get around to it right?

    2. The GOP will be on the losing side of history for this one. Equality in military service makes a lot more sense to more people nowadays than same-sex marriage.

      1. If that is the case, then bring up DADT on its own. Why put it with an amnesty bill? The Democrats have had the Congress and the Presidency for almost two years. And now, a month and a half before the election, they bother to bring up DADT and tack it onto an amnesty bill? Give me a break. The Democrats knew it wasn’t going to pass. And they don’t want it to. If they did, they would have done it a long time ago.

        1. The only reason dems want to pass DADT is for the lawsuits that’ll be forthcoming. The trial lawyers see the military as a cash cow for sexual discrimination suits ie Lt. Kirk Fitzpatrick didn’t get promoted because he was gay. Etc…

          1. I meant repealing DADT so gays can serve openly gay.

    3. Do you know what the DREAM Act is?

      Didn’t think so.

      1. Just because you live on Terk Ur Jobs island doesn’t mean everyone else here does.

        1. The original poster implicitly assumed that the only reason for voting against this bill was to Oppress Teh Gay.

          1. No, the OP objected to GOP intolerance. That intolerance is equal for both Latin American immigrants and homosexuals.

            You saw only Teh Gay due to your own bias.

            1. Illegal immigrants, not Latin American immigrants. They are not the same thing — perhaps you should check your own biases at the door.

              And it’s abundantly clear he was talking about the DADT portion when he spoke of intolerance.

              1. BS on both counts.

                And it sure as heck isn’t illegal Polacks that get the GOP’s panties in a bind.

                The fact that the GOP doesn’t discuss immigration relaxation shows that they aren’t concerned with “Illegal”. They simply want to maximize their ability to kick wetbacks out.

                1. “The fact that the GOP doesn’t discuss immigration relaxation shows that they aren’t concerned with “Illegal”. They simply want to maximize their ability to kick wetbacks out.”

                  ^^This.^^

          2. Really? Mindrteading through the internet must be a valuable skill. You should open up a school.

            For the record I support the Dream act and repealing DADT. The reactionary fuckheads in the GOP apparently support neither.

            As I said upthread, you can STFU now.

      2. Yes I do. It allows people to get green cards who came here when they were minors by proving they are responsibles citizens.

        Unless you think a honorable discharge or a college degree isn’t enough to let these folks, many who fucking grew up here, enough to give them permanent residency you can STFU now.

        1. Military service is already a path to citizenship, so that’s a canard. And we all know how much weight the average college degree deserves.

          1. Only for legal aliens.

        2. I will give the honorable discharge, but fuck the college degree. Sorry but going to night school and getting Cs in Spanish doesn’t mean a whole lot.

          Yeah lets pass another bill that reinforces the bullshit myth that everyone should go to college and pumps up the higher education bubble a little more. That is just the ticket.

          If the Act didn’t contain the college provision, I would agree with it. How about if someone works an honest job for so many years and doesn’t commit a crime? The college part of it is just bullshit.

          1. They don’t even need a degree; they only need to complete 2 years worth of a bachelor’s program during a period of 6 years!

            1. Oh the humanity!

          2. I’m not exactly sure that two years of college is an any more meaningful marker of being a solid and responsible citizen than, say, two years as a carpenter’s or plumber’s apprentice.

            So, I’m sort of with John on this one.

            As for DADT, I heard that this vote would not, in fact actually have ended it. It merely authorized the DOD to end it if their study (due in, I beleive, January) shows that there would be no harm to preparedness or moral etc.

            So, McCain is just doing a pandering flip-flop (he’s on record as having said he has no problem with repeal if the JCS are) and Reid probably submitted the bill as a gotcha, though it could do as much harm to Dems as good to have voted on it, whether for or against.

            More political theatre, but, sadly, not particularly entertaining.

            1. Not a fan of the 2 years college thing. I would prefer it be 5 years military service or other gainful employment. If you came here as a kid and bust your butt, you should be able to gain legal immigration status.

        3. But why should the DREAM act be bundled with the semi-repeal of DADT? Reid and the Democrats didn’t want at this moment to repeal DADT. They wanted to pretend to do something to fulfull their election promises without actually doing it. And they sort of succeded. They stirred your anti-GOP feelings.

          1. Exactly Grizzly.

          2. Yes, that’s something of what I was getting at in my post just above yours.

          3. You’re probably right. The dems are douche bags for cynically pretending to want to repel DADT. OTOH, the repubs are douche bags for opposing DADT and being opposed to easing the trouble of getting ‘legal’ for those brought to the US by their parents.

            For a libertarian blog, there always seems to be a lot of conservative/repub cock sucking going on around here.

    4. most of the GOP is crappy on this issue, but to be fair in this case, the dems attached an amnesty amendment to this thing. This was never designed to pass. It was to make a headline “GOP blocks DADT” so the media would go regurgitate the dem talking points for the news cycle. If the Dems actually cared about repealing DATD, they would have offered a stand alone bill and 3-4 GOP senators hwo have suggested support for it in the past would have voted for it. GOP deuchbaggery aside, this shows that dems are more interested in collecting money from gay rights activists then actually delivering on policy.

      1. and similarly, the dems can now go to the hispanic groups who have been pissed at the dems doing nothing, and go blame the GOP for blocking it. Thats all this vote was… and ability to pump uo the dem base and stir up anti GOP sentiment.

      2. You should read comments on gay rights activists’ websites. The disgust with the Democrats and Obama is huge. The Dems are going to lose a lot of gay money and votes.

        1. trust me, I know they are pissed. I have a bunch of aquaintences in that movement. But the point still stands. The gay rights activists are now getting a taste of why so much of the republican base is in an establishment purging mode. Because all they do is take their money and votes and then do nothing.

    5. From a purely procedural perspective, I got no problem with voting down a spending bill that is larded with policy changes. I wish they’d do it every time.

    6. I’d think about voting against the act just because it’s called the “DREAM Act”.

      I have a visceral reaction against any proposed legislation that relies on a dumb acronym for its name, or the ones named something like “Jane’s Law”.

    1. Is Rape Ever Funny?

      I don’t usually find rape-jokes to be funny because they are usually told from a place of gender privilege and reinforce rape-culture by upholding the same trite conclusions about gender. Much like rape itself, rape jokes are usually made by men against women.

      1. Speaking of Jezebel… which one of you jokers tried to comment there using my email address?

        1. LOL. That is funny.

        2. ** laughs up sleeve **

      2. So all the jokes about men in prison aren’t rape jokes, they are “rape” jokes. Got it. And the rape jokes in “Fletch Lives” were funny.

      3. As far as I know, rape can be funny but it has diminishing returns. However, abortion is the word that gets funnier everytime I say it.

        1. STEVE SMITH PRACTICE RAPEBORITON! JUST RAPE UNTIL BABY COME OUT AND THEN RAPE FETUS! STEM CELLS KEEP STEVE SMITH YOUNG AND RAPING FOREVER!

        2. Nothin’ funnier than a dead baby. I don’t know where all the good dead-baby jokes went – they were HUGE when I was in high school.

          1. I have a recurring dream where I’m sitting in the audience of an infomercial for some kind of food processor. Suddenly a woman in the audience stands up and blurts out “will it work on this baby?”. She then tosses her infant down to the Billy Mays guy, and then I wake up.

            It makes me chuckle.

          2. Why do you put a baby into a blender feet first?

            So you can watch its expression.

            1. What do you get when you hit a baby in the head with a hammer?

              An erection.

              1. What’s funnier than nineteen dead babies in a garbage can?

                One dead baby in nineteen garbage cans!

          3. “Nothin’ funnier than a dead baby.”

            Guess you haven’t seen a dead baby in a clown suit.

      4. WHEN STEVE SMITH NEED A LAUGH, HE WATCH THE ACCUSED AND CRACKS UP EVERY TIME.

        WHAT YOU MEAN IT NOT COMEDY?

    2. Most of The Onion’s rape jokes work because they’re like Robert Downey Jr’s character in “Tropic Thunder” – that is, they’re not making fun of rape (or race) itself, they’re making fun of people who belittle rape or use the threat or accusation of it for personal gain.

      Seriously though, jokes about actual rape aren’t funny, they’re a massive buzz kill. They’re not funny about men in prison, about gays or lesbians, about women who are “asking for it,” etc. Talk about an awkward moment when some moron spits out one of those…

    1. an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will allow the repeal of any act of Congress or regulation when two-thirds of the states agree to the repeal. Virginia’s legislative leaders should bring pressure on Congress to propose such an amendment — by sponsoring an Article V application for a convention to propose this

      Cool. Doable. We’ll see.

      1. Not cool. The convention would codify all those other “rights” that are actually demands on other people’s money.

  7. Australian 17-year-old nearly brings down Twitter.

    And people noticed?

      1. What, did your Blackberry stop vibrating?

        1. STEVE SMITH GOING TO RAPE SKA IN UNFUNNY WAY!

          1. There’s gotta be a joke about some bad 90s punk-ska band(goldfinger?) already doing it for you, Steve.

  8. Nothing about the Jesse Jackson Jr. fiasco this morning?

    1. There’s a new one?

  9. Australian 17-year-old nearly brings down Twitter…

    …the microblogging site.

    Microblogs for microminds.

    1. “Brevity is the soul of wit.”

      Also, few words do not necessarily = small idea.

  10. What, no libertarian outrage about Great Britain’s proposal to require all paychecks to go to the government first, so they can pull out the required amount of tax and then allow you to have the rest?

    1. Somewhere, Rothbard is giving Friedman a sharp elbow jab in the ribs.

      1. They remove your elbows in hell.

        I keed, I keed! Satan loves anarchists!

    2. My outrage was expressed on other sites who reported it in a timely fashion.

      1. Will the Govenment be paying interest for the time it take them to process this shit?

    3. This proposal chills me. A very good friend, dating back to my kindergarten years, now lives in the UK. Her descriptions of the socialist lifestyle she lives don’t sound appealing at all; but it has been 11 years since she has lived in the states and seems brainwashed by every plan the UK has to distribute wealth and make life easier on its citizens (said with a healthy side of sarcasm).

      I wonder what she will think of this plan; I must contact her right away. For my part, seems like it opens a gaping doorway into overtaxing certain wealth brackets and not refunding any monies taken in “error.”

      Does this not, technically, make all UK workers de facto state workers, since the state gets to filter wages prior to them being given to the producers?

      I’m not terribly economically literate, so forgive me if my arguments seem simplistic or not well fleshed. I can’t put a name to the fear that this proposal inspires in me, but I am afraid nonetheless, mostly because I can see the US headed down this path in a few years.

      1. The hazards to government critics are enormous. Just look how the IRS is used to harass people… imagine if the IRS could just shut off your paycheck for a few months. “Oops!”

        1. That is part of what makes this sound frightening. I think of how my spending on real needs might be curtailed, how my own feelings of worth as a worker would diminish because I pay more since I earn more, how my speech would be dramatically restricted due to a need to keep my income flowing.

          PS, I think I’m done teaching. Not sure yet but job prospects are not good for the foreseeable year. Might make a move back to the private sector. More money, (usually) less hassle, and some real feeling of accomplishment at the end of my day. My only sorrow is that, as a full-time worker, I will have to abandon my kids to the care of strangers. At least I will be able to choose those strangers; no public daycare or schooling for our family.

          1. I have an employee that had to finally give us teaching and go back for a second masters. She just got so sick of all the bullshit that was encrusted around teaching. She loved working with the kids. It’s a shame.

            1. Go work with homeless youth. Yeah, there’s a lot of bureaucracy with that too, but it is tolerable.

              1. I’m trying to help her and her husband start a landscaping business. He has one of the worst fucking jobs in existence and hates it: he tracks sex offenders for the Kentucky state registry.

        2. imagine if the IRS could just shut off your paycheck for a few months. “Oops!”

          This is certainly true, but I bet it’d happen out of incompetence even more often.

    4. I agree that there’s plenty to be outraged about here but this seems to be a proposal that’s come out of the civil service, not the Cabinet. Though the fact that the Minister responsible let it get out indicates the possibility that the the government was willing to let the trial baloon go up.

      If it is a trial balloon, let’s hope it gets shot full of holes before it gains too much altitude.

      I seriously can’t imagine this turkey getting anywhere legislatively. Not under this government anyway. Perhaps the Assistant Deputy Undersecretary who let this get out forgot that Toady Bliar and New LieBore aren’t in power any more.

  11. The Gallery Of Movie Merkins NFSW

    Also… the comments discuss on the state of the Jezebelles’ pubes.

    1. Now THIS is why I visit reason.com

    2. Merkins of Distinction

      Band name?

  12. http://throwingthings.blogspot…..l-gym.html

    How did Reason and Jesse in particular, miss this link. Leonard Skinner dead.

  13. http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..iser_.html

    IN other news, Harry Reid is still a clown.

  14. Anne Mulcahy, eh? Two problems with that theory: (1) She’s got actual business experience, and (2) she went to Marymount College.

    I’ve been thinking about the Harvard obsession in government right now. Rather than taking people from the Law Review or other honors groups, I’d appoint someone who wrote for the Harvard Lampoon. Perfect for this government and for our times.

  15. Whatever happened to our belief in a fair progressive tax system that puts a proportionately greater burden on the wealthiest Americans ? a pay-what-you-can-afford approach ? because allowing an upper class to accumulate disproportional wealth at the expense of the middle class is destabilizing to a viable democracy?

    I never believed that.

    1. At the expense of the middle class? How does that happen again?

    2. It’s the royal/editorial “our”.

      Anyway, everyone knows it’s really the fault of the *middle* class for accumulating disproportional *poverty*.

    3. You don’t have to be a devotee of the Laffer curve to realize that steeply progressive tax rates tend to lower revenues as well as stifling economic activity in ways that affect everyone. Countries around the world are retreating from them without regard to the ideology of the party in power.

      Given this, one can only conclude that people advocating a return to the old steeply progressive tax rates don’t give a damn about “the Poor”; they just want to stick it to “those rich bastards”.

      And, I fucking swear, I’m ready to fucking choke the next motherfucker who talks about “the middle-class” to me. So make sure you’re out of reach if you do. 🙂

    4. Whatever happened to our belief in a fair progressive tax system that puts a proportionately greater burden on the wealthiest Americans

      You mean the tax system that derives the majority of its revenues from a small percentage of the well-off?

    5. I always assumed that a system where a large minority have no share in the costs of the system but get to reap its benefits would be “destabilizing to democracy”.

      Not to mention a system that increasingly causes people not to look at themselves as a community using common action to advance the interests of everyone, but instead as warring tribes trying to legally fuck over a nebulous Other.

  16. One DADT question:

    Can’t the President as CinC just void all discharges from the military based on DADT?

    It’s a disciplinary procedure, right? Wouldn’t the CinC be last in line for appeals of that procedure?

    If I was the President I would use my CinC authority to void DADT the same way I would use my pardon authority to effectively void most of the drug laws.

    1. I believe he has the authority not to enforce it by executive order. But he’s not that politically daring, especially when his party stands to lose big in the mid-terms.

    2. The President as CinC could issue an order to every military commander to no longer enforce the UCMJ provision against sodomy. He would be giving the middle finger to Congress. But he could do it.

      And if Obama really thought DADT was an important issue, he would do it.

    3. This is what I’ve been telling my gay Obamanut friends. “Really? You think he cares about you? Harry Truman desegregated the armed services with the stroke of apen with an executive order. How’s DADT going?”

  17. Public service announcement: If you value your employment, don’t get Civ 5. Fucking christ.

    1. Even if you aren’t a Civ fan, October brings us Fallout: New Vegas. Seriously taking off a couple of days to play it while the wife is at work. She doesn’t care if I play, but the look of horror and pity on her face when she points out that I haven’t moved in 8 hours is a bit too much for me to take.

      1. I just got Red Dead Redemption.

      2. I wasted several hundred hours on Fallout 3. New Vegas may kill me. Especially combined with Civ5 and Red Dead Redemption.

        1. Dragon Age 2 is going to be a huge timesuck. And hopefully Bulletstorm will live up to it’s trailer.

          1. It is. Played it through twice.

      3. So tired from Civ 5. Just one more turn.

      4. Dead Rising 2 coming out next week. Hopefully the load times are better than those on the DR2: Case Zero DLC.

    2. My wife ordered it for me back in May. Got super saver shipping, though, so it’ll be a little while before we get it.

      Want.

    3. I never understand how old people are who comment on this blog.

      1. I’m old enough to have played PONG for $0.25 a pop. High tech!

        1. I saw Car Wash at the drive-in.

          1. I saw it on a stereoscope.

            1. I saw it as a cave painting… when it was being painted, bitch.

              1. I do not own an X-Box, PS(any number), or Wii. But my daughters own a Wii and a PS2.

                Other than playing tennis on the Wii with my daughters, the last time I played a video game was the Doom series on my laptop, about 10 years ago.

                1. They’re coming out with a new Goldeneye 007 for the Wii this fall.

                2. The only video games I’ve got on my computer are classics, like a Pac-Man clone and a Tetris clone. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get the Q-bert clone to work on this computer. 🙁

                  Of course, there are also the card games, and I’ve got accounts on a Go server and a Scrabble server. But that’s not what people think of when they think video game.

              2. I remember watching as the wind and rain formed that cave. It was a welcome sight, because just sitting there watching the earth push up the rock mantle that it was formed out of was pretty fucking dull.

                1. So you’re some kind of unicellular organism?

              3. Paint? You youngster! I first saw it acted out by captive Neanderthal slaves before painting was discovered.

                1. I can’t even describe the first time I saw it. Language didn’t exist then.

                  1. You’re too late: Enough About Palin went pre-multicellular on us.

                    1. I’m tempted to say something about newfangled “matter”, but I’m too tired.

                    2. Pro Lib FTW!

                    3. I took the Big Bang to the prom. The first Big Bang, not that Sonia Boston chick.

                    4. Dude, the Big Bang is a guy.

  18. Ummmm…there’s a Civ 5?

    I am so out of touch.

    Civ 3 almost got me divorced. I’m almost afraid to google this.

  19. Feds: Privacy Does Not Exist in ‘Public Places’

    http://tinyurl.com/2ea8vhc

    How is attaching a GPS device much different than assigning someone to tail the suspect?

    If one finds such a device attached to their car can they destroy it without being prosecuted for destroying government property?

    Is there a such thing as a GPS detector?

    1. “Is there a such thing as a GPS detector?”

      I think they’re called satellites.

    2. “How is attaching a GPS device much different than assigning someone to tail the suspect?”

      Does someone tail you by hopping on your back and riding you around?

    3. But this means we can record police and other LEOs in public without fear of arrest, right?

    4. How is attaching a GPS device much different than assigning someone to tail the suspect?

      Because it requires modification of the targeted person’s property, which counts as a seizure in my book, which requires a warrant.

      The Feds are correct, however, that there is no right to privacy in public places. So cameras are OK, but attaching stuff to persons or their property requires a warrant or immediate probable cause.

  20. How is attaching a GPS device much different than assigning someone to tail the suspect?

    It seems quite different to me. First, they have to trespass on your property – twice – to get the GPS installed. The first trespass is when the officers walk up your driveway in the dark of night and affix the GPS tracking unit to your car. The second trespass is leaving the GPS unit affixed to your car.

    You might not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you’re out driving in public, in the respect that anyone who looks your way can see your car with you driving it, but it certainly seems to me to be a reasonabl expectation that nobody will sneak up your driveway at night and stick an electronic tracking device on your car that you don’t know about.

    It also is different in the respect that someone tailing you can lose you, for example at a short traffic light or in a traffic jam, or can be prevented from following you, for example, if you go visit a gated community or if your place of work has a gated parking lot for employees only. With a GPS tracker, they always will know exactly where you are, without ever having to leave their desk in the office.

    So the fact that you are in a “public place” should not automatically mean that there is no respect in which you still have some reasonable expectation of privacy.

    There was a SCOTUS case years ago about whether a person using a public telephone booth (anyone remember those?) had a reasonable expectation that nobody would listen to his telephone conversation. As I recall, the officers tailing this guy planted a listening device on the outside of the phone booth that could pick up his conversation inside the booth, and he claimed it was a violation of his reasonable expectation of privacy.

    The SCOTUS justices got all bogged down in analyzing whether the listening device detected the vibrations that were detectible outside the wall of the phone booth or whether it would to penetrate through to the interior in order to pick up the conversation, etc. I think the idea being akin to the “plain sight” doctrine. If someone standing next to the phone booth could hear what you were saying, then the fact that the microphone stuck to the glass could also hear you didn’t matter – you would have no reasonable expectation of not being heard. But if the device worked by picking up sounds that nobody else could hear outside, then it would be violating your reasonable expectation of privacy.

    There also was a case a few years back about the use of heat-sensing technology to see what was going on inside the house by pointing the sensors at the house from across the street. As I recall, the SCOTUS ruled that was an unreasonable search, because it is reasonable to expect privacy inside your own home and that heat-sensing technology was so expensive you would not reasonably suspect someone of using it to see what you were doing inside your house.

    The problem with those cases is that they effectively make your 4th Amendment protection rely on the level of availability of certain technologies. As these more sophisticated technologies become cheaper and more commonplace, the argument will be that it is no longer “reasonable” to expect privacy against their being use to see through your clothes or the walls of your house. E.g., backscatter x-ray, etc.

    Which, of course, is bogus, but there it is.

    1. “but it certainly seems to me to be a reasonable expectation that nobody will sneak up your driveway at night and stick an electronic tracking device on your car that you don’t know about.”

      I seem to recall a guy getting arrested for hiding a cell phone in his ex-girlfriend’s car so he could track her movements.

    2. It seems quite different to me. First, they have to trespass on your property – twice – to get the GPS installed. The first trespass is when the officers walk up your driveway in the dark of night and affix the GPS tracking unit to your car. The second trespass is leaving the GPS unit affixed to your car.

      Just playing devil’s advocate here.
      The gooberment tails you to the store then affixes the device. The goobermint shuts it off when you’re pulling up your driveway.

      “Is there a such thing as a GPS detector?”

      I think they’re called satellites.

      Doh! How about a detector that would let you know the gooberment has affixed a GPS to your car? Is there something one can make at from a trip to the local Radio Shack or should we just go with the theory that if you’re not doing anything wrong nothing to worry about?

      1. Seems to me there would be a market for adulterers for a device like a GPS detector. Yes/No?

      2. Whether the device is turned on or off, it’s still attached to your property. That’s seizure and requires a warrant.

  21. Found it.

    How can you detect if a gps is in your car?

    http://tinyurl.com/25t8m4o

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.