Reason Morning Links: DOD Arms Sale to Saudis, NPR Sacks Williams, DADT Back On Again

|

NEXT: Rahm's Residence and the Appeal of Absent Pols

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. Poor Juan Williams, he didn’t realize the depth and viciousness of the left’s intolerance for intolerance. Why can’t stop their bigotry and accept diversity of bias?

    1. – Walk down the street; Black; Black People; I’ll be mugged
      – Go to the bank; Jewish; Jews; they’ll steal my money
      – Drive my car; Asian; Asians; they will hit my car
      – Drive to the country; White; Whites; that I’ll be shot
      – Go to the Mall; Mexican; Hispanic; they might be illegal immigrants

      All of these are valid opinions certainly held by some Americans, but which ones will get you fired
      from NPR?

      1. We are tolerant of retards. Rejoice.

      2. All of these are valid opinions

        No, they are not.

        1. Sorry, valid is definitely the wrong word. By definition, no opinion is truly valid (unless it comes from a judge). It’s hard to defend intolerance, but someone has to stick up for the poor marginalized bigots in this country.

          1. Heh. That made me smile. Thanks for the clarification.

    2. You mean like the firings of Rick Sanchez, Helen Thomas and Octavia Nasr? It’s not like bigotry against Muslims is the only thing that gets you fired. The last two came with calls for the firing from the right.

      1. Helen Thomas

        I have no inside knowledge, but I’d bet that they were happy to find a reason to boot Helen Thomas that would not boomerang on them as picking on old people.

        1. I don’t doubt it. Probably the same thing for Rick Sanchez. I don’t think his ratings were that good and he’s a buffoon. However, there were calls for their firing for bigoted statements from many of the same people that are lamenting Williams’ firing.

          Though I would add, NPR was also probably looking for a reason to fire Williams because of his constant appearances on Fox, but were only happy for them to give them a reason to fire him for something “legitimate” besides the fact that he annoys their listeners.

          On a somewhat related note, when someone begins a comment with, “I’m no bigot”, you know they’re about to say some bigoted shit.

    3. Fear not, waffles, for I hear the drip drip drip of your venomous sarcasm even if others do not.

      1. Thanks, but I’d like to think my sarcasm tastes sweet like maple syrup.

        1. Syrup is venomous to me, you carb-loaded bigot!

        2. mmmmmm waffles or pancakes

    4. I’m pretty sure the issue here is not “intolerance”, it’s more like how gays in denial in a homophobic society are the first to rip someone to shreds when they out themselves. That is, a lot of other lefty journalists are scared shitless of Muslims, but that is prejudice, which is a vile evil in their book. It’s their guilt that drives them to tear him down.

      1. “That is, a lot of other lefty journalists are scared shitless of Muslims”

        Like the Washington Post for instance…

  2. Another minority gets harmed by the PC campaign to protect minority feelings…Way to go PC police!

  3. Fuck you, Tony. Fuck you and all your defenses of Obama suing to reinstate DADT. Fuck you.

    1. Tell him what you really think, but this time with feeling.

  4. 60 billion worth of explodie things I wonder who’s gonna sell Iran weaponry to keep things on a level playing field China, Russia, France, England,USA… Nothin to see here just business as usual

    1. “There’s an enormous amount at stake in terms of U.S. … credibility in the region”

      Guess I need more coffee, ’cause I have no idea what this means. Would someone *kindly* explain?

      1. It’s meaningless filler, I’m guessing. Someone thought they should say something smart-sounding and that’s what came out.

      2. I guess this can be read one of two ways:
        1. If we want to be credible about leaving, someone has to be able to blow shit up in Iran.
        2. Apparently having two puppet states in the region isn’t enough ‘credibility’ for the hawks. We need to refresh the Saudi military as well.

        I actually believe choice 3: These guys have hard currency, and weapons are the only export we have no one else can match.

        1. USA! Gun dealer to the world! #1!

          1. The Arsenal of Freedom.

    2. There is no explosive stuff. Just shells of old airplanes. The whole thing is a stimulus for the US defense industry and large sums of commissions to the Saudi Royals and their cronies.

      1. Huh? Just shells of old airplanes?

        There’s 80-some new jets, upgrades to 70-some existing ones, a crapload of helos, and sat-guided bombs, Harpoons and HARMS (I presume), among other things. The latter three most definitely are explodie things.

        1. No, they’re just really big Estes Model Rockets.

          1. We’re helping the muslim world feel good about its contribution to space and science.

    3. I think the US should start selling directly to foreign citizens.

      1. I am so picking up an FFL if they let that one go through. I’ll get rich selling to Mexican drug gangs!

        1. You need a store front for class I ffl.

    4. Pentagon planning $60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia.

      It’s been said before, but it’s worth repeating over and over again:

      This is the Republicans’ fault.

  5. NPR fires Juan Williams for saying he’s afraid of Muslims.

    I trust that DC will fire NPR for being afraid of Juan Williams.

  6. The Saudi deal ain’t exactly breaking news. It’s been pretty widely-known for months.

    Also, the Saudis are pretty much worthless as a check on Iran, no matter the equipment.

    1. So, it’s all about cash for our aerospace companies, then.

      1. What else would it be? At least it’s Saudi cash.

      2. And it will show up as exports in teh GDP numbers. Double win win.

  7. Juan Williams will have the last laugh here. I just have a suspicion on that. Bigger bullhorn and all.

    1. I’m sure Fox News will hire him full time.

      1. I think we can glean the true reasoning for the firing from this innocuous sentence near the end of the NPR article:

        Williams’ presence on the largely conservative and often contentious prime-time talk shows of Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives.

        In other words: despite our frequent touting of how neutral we are, NPR is a left-wing Democrat Party media source, and we will fight any attempt to lend credibility to media sources that are not aligned with this policy.

        1. So basically, like Sanchez, the employer has been waiting for an excuse. Right-to-work is a bitch. I think media personalities need a union and a bailout.

          1. I think media personalities need a union and a bailout.

            We wholeheartedly agree.

          2. But didn’t Sanchez say his stupid shit on his own show / network?

            1. Nope. Interview on sat radio, not on CNN.

    2. If there’s one thing Ailes is good at it’s hiring talent. Often long legged sometimes not so bright talent, but talent that gets ratings nonetheless.

  8. Pentagon planning $60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia.

    I don’t see what could possibly go wrong.

    1. This is kinda fucked up.

      Why?

      1. Well with all of Our Dear Leader’s (pbuh) hand-wringing about the influence of foreign money, here comes this far left foreign billionaire dumping lumps of money into the U.S., clearly trying to influence American politics.

        And he’s doing so by manipulating an entity that presents itself as a legimitate journalistic outlet. But this infusion of cash – from a foreign source – pretty much makes it look like no more than a sock puppet for George Soros’s far left-wing desires.

        It is precisely what the left accuses the right of doing with Fox News and other outlets.

        The whole damn system is fucked up.

        1. Soros is an American citizen.

          1. I’m beginning to wonder what that means anymore.

          2. Does he own any foriegn corporations?

        2. Since when does Media Matters look like anything other than a far left whinefest?

        3. “It is precisely what the left accuses the right of doing with Fox News and other outlets.”

          Turnspeak.

      2. Soros also recently, via his “Open Society Foundations,” gave NPR $1.8 million for an “Impact of Government” initiative that will eventually “add editorial resources and reporters to NPR member stations in all 50 states.”

        These “resources” apparently will be about 100 new journos for NPR.

        The dude is a real-life Senator Palpatine.

    2. Yet another blue tribe/red tribe pissing contest.

    3. Guess they won’t have to look for Juan Williams

    4. even if they did find something, it would come from Media Matters, so who would it convince? The true believers will remain true believers despite any evidence of scandal. It’s just weird that the lefty faithful think they’re any different than the righty faithful.

    5. It is a bit. But I value people’s privacy. It is fucked up for anyone to go looking to invade someone else’s privacy no matter what the reason.

    6. It looks like Bill King finally got Soros fully on board with going after Murdoch.

      Personally, and strictly from a business point of view, I think Murdoch is going to slaughter them. Especially since outright liberal spin media has failed miserably without government intervention.

  9. NYT on Guccione: “But he eventually lost his Penthouse empire due to Reagan-era censorship, a series of extravagant business failures and the Internet onslaught of free pornography.” When you can’t think of a way to lame G.W.B. I guess you go after Reagan. Can somebody remind me of any of Ed Meese’s attempts at censorship that didn’t actually HELP Penthouse.

    1. Reagan-era censorship??? How about the feninist movement announcing that pornography was a form a Violence Against Women? The PC codes at colleges that prohibited the display of magazines like Penthouse on the ground that they constituted “hate speech?” Mightn’t that have contributed somewhat to the “loss of his Penthouse empire?”

      1. That being said, the Meese commission was one of the more egregiously anti-American activities of the federal government in my lifetime. And to your point, it was an unholy alliance of the Moral Majority and Radical Feminists at play in the Meese commission. Luckily, they had no real power. They did manage to affect the culture enough to get a lot of local prosecutors ginned up to pursue charges against adult-toy retailers and “adult entertainment” venues.

        1. But then came the tidel wave known as the internet.

    2. “But he eventually lost his Penthouse empire due to Reagan-era censorship, a series of extravagant business failures and the Internet onslaught of free pornography.”

      Which of those three is gratuitous leftwing bullshit?

      1. That is funny. How did he lose his empire due to “Reagan era censorship” but Larry Flynt, who made much more graphic porn, did just fine?

        1. I think you highlight a key issue. Porn consumers have revealed a preference for more graphic porn.

          Penthouse occupies this middle ground between Playboy (which is viewed as relatively sophisticated) and Hustler/internet porn (which gives the porn consumer all of the penetration they desire).

  10. On a more serious note, now that Guccione has gone to the Great Penthouse in the Sky, can we be told what he smeared on the lens to get his famous “soft focus”? (I’ll wager SugarFree knows …)

    1. The soft focus effect can be achieved by smearing a thin, even layer of petroleum jelly on a camera lens or stretching a nylon stocking across the lens. But the easiest way for the Guccione “look” to be produced on a consistent basis is to purchase a lens with a deliberately induced spherical aberration that can be manipulated with aperture size. You an also employ diffuse lighting sources to minimize harsh shadows and intensify the edge softening effect.

      1. That may be the longest SF post Ive ever read with my brain scarring.

        1. Did you mean “without”?

          1. Probably. But due to previous SF posts, Im not sure.

      2. Thank you, Maestro.

        However, to put a fine point on my inquiry, do we know exactly how Bob *himself* did it?

        1. Some things are meant to be lost to history.

      3. He’s like Lord Voldemort, mention his name at your peril.

        1. It *is* a weird effect!

      4. Nope. Just smeared cum on the lens.

      5. wasn’t this technique featured in a Simpson’s episode?

  11. Breaking:
    Senate OKs sale of $60 Billion in porn to the Saudis.

    That would be progress

    1. No need. I’m willing to bet that the Saudis have access and consume porn more than anyone in the world.

      1. Saudis don’t have easy access, so I doubt they consume more than anyone in the world (that would be the Scandinavians and the Germans, I bet), but they sure as hell find ways to access it.

        1. A friend of mine was married to an Israeli woman. Her brothers served in the military as do all Israeli citizens. He was out on border patrol (this is like 20 years ago BTW) and came across a stash of Palisinian porn mags. It was mostly people fucking chickens and such.

          1. So the Israeli blockade is affecting Palestinian porn, too? The poor bastards…

            1. I am not a bastard!

  12. “Williams’ presence on the largely conservative and often contentious prime-time talk shows of Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives.”

    NPR’s presence as a taxpayer-funded employment program for left-leaning broadcasters has long been a sore point with me. I can I fire them?

    1. I thought they didn’t receive much taxpayer money anymore? Am I mistaken?

      1. That’s at least what their quarterly, month-long, self-aggrandizing commercials try to suggest.

      2. The factoids: About 10% Federal funding. 6% from state and local governments.

  13. So now that the 9th Circuit has come out with a stay on DADT, this guarantees DADT is dead, right? I mean, the 9th seems to be reversed something like 99% of the time.

    1. Obama wants to have it both ways.

      1. I wasn’t attacking the President so much as pointing out that the 9th Circuit gets reversed a huge amount of the time. I do hope no currently serving gay serviceman/woman was optimistic (to be polite) enough to come out over the last couple of days.

      2. Actually Obama has been consistent with his word on DADT. He has always stated he wanted to repeal DADT by the legislative process and not by judicial fiat.

  14. http://www.humanevents.com/art…..amp;page=1

    This is an example of the intent behind all attempts to regulate political speech, even just for “disclosure” purposes.

    1. You SFed the link

  15. Apparently the choices for PA governor aren’t as entirely terrible as I thought, as Tom Corbett (R) just came out for privatizing PA’s beer and liquor system, getting rid of the state stores. He still sucks for other reasons, but somewhat less than I thought.

    1. But what is his stance on the important issues like helmet to helmet hits in the NFL?

      1. I think those pansies need to man up and play through it.

    2. Heard that this morning, and hell, it’s enough for him to get my vote. He is a total douchebag who tried to supoena a blog that wrote nasty things that were true about him, but Corbett really won me over with this little trinket.

      Good lord, it’s easy to buy my vote. Meh.

    3. “”Apparently the choices for PA governor aren’t as entirely terrible as I thought, as Tom Corbett (R) just came out for privatizing PA’s beer and liquor system, getting rid of the state stores. He still sucks for other reasons, but somewhat less than I thought.””

      And if he can’t privatize the beer and liquor system, what are you stuck with?

  16. First they came for the potatoes and I said nothing….

    “Under an interim rule, the USDA agreed to bar WIC participants from buying potatoes with their federal dollars. Potatoes are the only vegetable not allowed.”

  17. http://www.mnn.com/food/health…..l-children

    Under an interim rule, the USDA agreed to bar WIC participants from buying potatoes with their federal dollars. Potatoes are the only vegetable not allowed.

  18. The left-wing, big government supporting Google uses Irish legal loopholes to pay a corporate tax rate of a mere 2.4 percent. Just incredible.

    1. Google’s income shifting — involving strategies known to lawyers as the “Double Irish” and the “Dutch Sandwich”

      Sounds kinky.

      1. Google is “flying a banner of doing no evil, and then they’re perpetrating evil under our noses,” said Abraham J. Briloff, a professor emeritus of accounting at Baruch College in New York who has examined Google’s tax disclosures.

        I cant think of anything more unevil than maximizing shareholder profit via tax minimization.

        1. Yeah. Kind of scary that a professor emeritus of accounting would make such a statement. Jesus. I sure hope I never hire any of his students to do my taxes.

          1. Not really. I finished a BS in accounting. (lol they call it a BS with math no more complicated than multiplying)

            Most of the professors that were American loved the idea of taxing for redistribution of both companies and individuals. The Asian professors were less enthusiastic about the idea, but they taught cost which was based in part on actually understanding regression analysis and other semi mathy things. The liberal lawyers and PhDs in accounting were all about taking for the better good.

            BS in accounting as a third undergrad, worst decision ever.

        2. When I think of evil, I think of trying to minimize my income taxes.

          WTF?

      2. have you tried googling it?

      3. I often enjoy a Dutch Sandwich while doing Double Irish. It’s great!

    2. I didn’t realize Google was a left-wing, big government supporting org. Seriously. But I’d be happy to be be persuaded that this is so.

      1. Google is one of the biggest supporters of so-called “Net Neutrality”; there’s been a few articles about it on here.

        Also, they are a big donor to the democrats, who are always pushing for higher taxes on “the rich”. Well, Google is rich by any reasonable definition, and they don’t want to pay their “fair share” of taxes any more than anyone else does.

        1. To be fair, Google did attempt to create a Net Neutrality pact with Verizon recently and it caused every single tech geek to go into a fit of rage at the “betrayal”.

    3. Corporate taxes are silly anyhow and derive from a fundamental misunderstanding of microeconomics.

      So good for Google.

      1. This.

        Ive for a long time thought the US needs to establish ourselves as the lowest corporate income tax country in the world (unless anyone else is at 0%, then we can tie). Also, we need banking secrecy laws that out-Cayman the Caymans.

        1. Well now that corporations aren’t people in the minds of the lefties, surely they should no longer pay taxes, right?

    4. Drudge has this on a headline of Google “robbing” the government of money. As if Google is this thief here…

      1. The Drudge headlines often are not supported in the article.

    5. They’re rent seeking shitballs just like 90% of corporation in the US.

      1. Precisely. I personally support the idea of paying the lowest amount of taxes possible and low taxes for businesses and individuals. But the head honchos of Google and the shitbag democrat politicians they give almost all their money to are the kinds of people that go ballistic at the idea that the current tax rates should be extended. They want the lowest possible tax rate for themselves and higher tax rates for everybody else.

  19. I often wish I had pursued a career as an advice columnist. I doubt I would have lasted every long.

    Dear Prudie,
    I am a 30-year-old woman who has been dating a lovely man for three months. He’s smart, funny, cute, and kind. I’ve felt so lucky to have found him. Here’s the problem: We recently became intimate for the first time, and he is, unfortunately, very poorly endowed?so small that I did some Google searching and think he might have a micropenis. I believe that sex is crucial to a relationship, and the thought of having a (potentially lifelong) relationship without an active sex life scares me. When you can’t feel anything during the act, that’s a problem. I know that there are other options in the bedroom, but I get pleasure by doing it the old-fashioned way. I feel awful about this?it’s obviously something that he can’t help, and it slays me that the universe would be so unjust to such a wonderful person. I’m conflicted. I see a potential future with him in every other way, but how do I deal with this? Do women who marry very poorly endowed men end up regretting it? If I let him go, what should I tell him that won’t absolutely crush him?

    Micropenis Don’t click it.

    1. My advice:

      Buy him a strap on.

      1. So that’s worked for you?

    2. I love Dear Prudence. Emily Yoffee is the only person at Slate with a tripple digit IQ. She gets some doozies. Did you see the one the other week where the woman’s husband keeps going on “camping trips” with his male best friend and openly hugs and kisses him. She was thinking that maybe something else was going on.

      1. Ever see the Kids in the Hall movie “Brain Candy”?

        1. No. Is it good?

          1. If you like the Kids in the Hall brand of humor, yeah, it’s pretty damn funny.

      2. And she got shredded in the comments for suggesting it too. WTF, people?

        1. The Slate comentators are not the brightest bulbs.

          1. Maybe most Slate commentators are insecure men with micropenii.

    3. My advice would be that I’m certainly glad I don’t have that problem.

      1. Lulz!

    4. “The only cure for micropenis is my bro-penis.”

      Something like that?

    5. Dear 30-year old woman,

      There’s nothing a little cunilingus will not cure.

      1. Obviously you’re not a woman. Or you’re a man with a micropenis and an unhappy woman.

      2. I can sort of relate to this woman. I was in a long-term relationship with a woman (not a 4-year-old girl BTW) who simply didn’t taste good. I have since learned that it was something that could be corrected but 30 years ago, who knew? So I dumped her because there was no way that I was going to spend my life with an inedible woman. BTW, Inedible Women might be a good band name.

    6. You have a truly horrible situation.

    7. I don’t understand why men don’t proactively fix this problem. If there is no question that your penis is small, you need to do something about it and not just let the woman sit around wondering why you’re not smart enough to fix it yourself. You can buy penis lengtheners and wideners (and, of course, strap-ons) at sex stores. This guy can’t be that delusional that he thinks his penis is actually useful.

      1. The link you shouldn’t click suggests that few things will actually work to lengthen the members to a significant degree.

        1. You just guaranteed I’m not clicking that link from work.

  20. Looks like Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s plan to privatize the state ABC liquor stores probably is dead. At least for now.

    He was trying to call a special session of the General Assembly to consider the plan, but that’s not happening. It’s going to wait for the general session, which will start in January and typically runs for about three-four months.

    It’s surprising how much opposition there is to it – and all of the reasons the opposition has cited are pretty bogus and easily shot down.

  21. Off topic, but CNN anchor Kyra Phillips just interviewed a gay Boy Scout leader and his son on air. The dad has been kicked out of the private organization for being gay. A Boy Scouts spokesman said (video) that you can’t be in the Scouts if you’re gay or an atheist. The very sympathetic Phillips’ first question to the dad: “So how does it feel to be lumped in with atheists?!” Egad.

    1. I was an Atheist Boy Scout. DADT worked for me.

      1. The scorn with which Phillips said “atheist” was shocking, and I’m not easily shocked.

        1. Yeah, I’ll bet her contract will be dropped forthwith!

          1. Some bigotries are more equal than others.

          2. She said atheists were scum, not Muslims.

      2. So was I, but the policy I backed up against was IALAL.

        If Asked, Lie A Lot.

        1. The Scouts have more commandments than Moses. How many Scouts are truly clean, cheerful and obedient? You know who else demanded obedience? Yeah, that’s right: Bill O’Reilly. I’ll bet that freak wears a leather thong.

          1. Yeah. They’re more of a 12-step program. It was always “friendly” and “reverent” that gave me trouble.

            1. I was never a Scout, but I still have a very nice Scout knife that my older brother (a Scout) stole from one of the other Scouts. I think he (my brother) must have been the worst Scout ever. But he believes in God and he isn’t gay, so there you have it. God forgives all. Except the gays and the atheists.

        2. Yup. Just say no.

    1. The end of the Bozo comic was amazing. This makes up for the micropenis horror you inflicted.

      1. I told you not to click it.

        Although, the micropenis research sheds new light on a high school friend of mine. More than one of his ex-girlfriend told me he had a dick no bigger than a thumb. No wonder he had so many guns and cars.

        1. Do you think he now drives a huge jacked up pickup? I always get a kick out of those guys. When they step down out of the truck they look like they’re going to point Dorothy to the yellow brick road.

          1. He was always more of the exotic sports car type. He bought his first Porsche at 15, for example.

            1. Yeah, but you can’t hang TruckNutz from a Porsche bumper.

    2. “76 piece ash tray set. Saves time! You’ll never empty an ash tray again! Ages 5 &up;. (2 inches)”

      Priceless!

  22. So who else made the horrible mistake of getting Fallout New Vegas? Terrible idea. I’ll never get anything done again.

    1. Me, but minus the time problems. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great, but it doesn’t make me obsessively compulsively play until 4 in the morning like Civ.

      1. Civ is absolutely evil.

    2. I’m holding off until my wife goes on a work trip Nov. 3rd-5th. I’m going to take those as vacation days. It’s going to be three straight days of booze, painkillers, caffeine and FONV.

    3. That good? I’m intrigued by the possibility of being a net drain on society.

    4. Started playing last night. I’m withholding judgment as yet, but F3 started out slowly too.

      That said, I think I played for about 2 hours.

  23. More evidence that William Gibson can actually see the future.

    1. All the more reason for him to go back to writing science fiction.

      1. ^this

    2. That is fucking awesome.

      God Japan is fucked up.

  24. Obama wants to have it both ways.

    Not that there is anything wrong with that

    1. It is when you are sleeping next to him.

      1. That’s not what you said last night?

        1. ^ He likes big butts and he cannot lie.
          You other brothers can’t deny.

  25. it seems my comments re: east german border guards was censored. Very disappointing reason.com

    1. oops wrong thread! apologies!

  26. There is a good reason for staying the anti-DADT injunction, even if the judges are inclined to uphold the district court ruling in full.

    Some servicemen may rely on the injunction to reveal their orientation with the expectation that they would not be dismissed from the service for that, and they would face dismissal if the injunction was struck down by the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court.

    Now, on to the merits of the actual case. Would not excluding gay people from service be rationally related to a legitimate government interest of keeping our troops safe? After all, having openly gay troops might be used by extremists in Afghanistan to inflame public opinion and incite violence. There could be grave concern that this would put American personnel at risk. And allowing openly gay people to serve can be a way of endangering our troops ? our sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, husbands and wives who are sacrificing for us to keep us safe.
    Now, you or I may disagree with that, or even think these rational bases are fucking stupid. But the test of rational basis review is not whether or not we agree with these bases, but if a rational person can conceivably do so. And General David Petraeus, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and President Barack Obama used these as reasons to oppose the proposed public burning of the Quran.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.