Reason Morning Links: Clouseau Edition

|

[Afternoon update: Delicious denies that it's shutting down.]

Advertisement

NEXT: The First War on Terror

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. Mao’s Great Leap to Famine

    Yet another reminder: Communism kills people.
    …Marxism is intellectualism for stupid people; it tends to attract the sort who can’t understand that an economic system that cannot feed its own population reliably has failed at the game of Life. Literally….

    1. Yeah, my bad. There’s a shitload of people here in the afterlife that are really pissed off at me.

      1. The good news is that our kids don’t have an obesity issue

        1. Hmm

        2. Why can’t Americans be this appreciative?

    2. “an economic system that cannot feed its own population reliably has failed at the game of Life”

      Yes, this is why so many people wanted to chuck capitalism amidst the Great Depression.

      1. Yes, I know, it’s Wikipedia, but…

        Roosevelt was keenly interested in farm issues and believed that true prosperity would not return until farming was prosperous. Many different programs were directed at farmers. The first 100 days produced the Farm Security Act to raise farm incomes by raising the prices farmers received, which was achieved by reducing total farm output. The Agricultural Adjustment Act created the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) in May 1933. The act reflected the demands of leaders of major farm organizations, especially the Farm Bureau, and reflected debates among Roosevelt’s farm advisers such as Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace, M.L. Wilson, Rexford Tugwell, and George Peek.[26]

        The aim of the AAA was to raise prices for commodities through artificial scarcity. The AAA used a system of “domestic allotments”, setting total output of corn, cotton, dairy products, hogs, rice, tobacco, and wheat. The farmers themselves had a voice in the process of using government to benefit their incomes. The AAA paid land owners subsidies for leaving some of their land idle with funds provided by a new tax on food processing. The goal was to force up farm prices to the point of “parity”, an index based on 1910?1914 prices. To meet 1933 goals, 10 million acres of growing cotton was plowed up, bountiful crops were left to rot, and six million baby pigs were killed and discarded.[27] The idea was the less produced, the higher the wholesale price and the higher income to the farmer. Farm incomes increased significantly in the first three years of the New Deal, as prices for commodities rose. Food prices remained well below 1929 levels.[28] A Gallup Poll printed in the Washington Post revealed that a majority of the American public opposed the AAA.[29]

        What were you saying about capitalism?

        1. As you note the AAA was created in 1933. The Depression had been going on a while just fine without it…

          1. Um….look at Stalin’s and Mao’s famines before complaining about the results of FDR Jr. (Hoover) and FDR Sr. (The Man Himself).

          2. I think he was saying that Roosevelt indeed “wanted to chuck capitalism amidst the Great Depression”, not that AAA caused it.

          3. Yes, this is why so many people wanted to chuck capitalism amidst the Great Depression.

            *Corduroy inserts evidence showing how the effects of the depression induced people to make non-capitalist, centrally planned, economic decisons*

            *MNG replies with flippant remark*

            One of those days again, huh MNG?

            1. *Corduroy inserts evidence showing how the effects of the depression induced people to make non-capitalist, centrally planned, economic decisons [sic] with the intent of reducing food production*

              Don’t forget this part. MNG claimed that capitalism failed to produce adequate food during the depression, but the point is that Roosevelt wanted to centralize decision making and use the power to make the situation worse which supports Johnny’s original point. At least if you allow that that part of Roosevelt’s programs was like unto Marxism.

          4. Just shut the fuck up, you asscunt contrarian.

            1. If it weren’t for asscunt contrarians, we’d have no comments on here at all.

              1. Wrong.

                1. i love this site.

          5. So you think the government’s actions to decrease the food supply during a recession is a sensible alternative to letting the free market continue producing more food, albeit at a reduced price?

      2. Even the Chinese gave up on communism. Unfortunately there’s still many true believers here in the U.S.

      3. I think what MNG is missing is that capitalism has never failed to produce enough food to feed its own population.

        Instead, capitalism tends toward periodic overproduction (hence the business cycle). The problem during the Great Depression wasn’t a lack of food, it was (on the one hand) too much food, causing farmers to go out of business, and (on the other hand) lack of jobs, causing some people to not be able to purchase the food that was (abundantly) produced.

        1. Aside from handing out food for free, what do we do in that situation? Get the jobless to work the farms in exchange for food? Serious question, I’m not clever enough for economic maths.

          1. (joke handle for a canceled comment where I channel MNG. I think it works here too, but the question is still serious.)

        2. [C]apitalism has never failed to produce enough food to feed its own population.

          Then how do you libertards explain Somalia? EXPLAIN SOMALIA!!!111!!!ONE!

          1. Inadequate infrastructure combined with corrupt central planning.

            Next question.

          2. It’s FUCKING SAND!!!

      4. ” this is why so many people wanted to chuck capitalism amidst the Great Depression.”

        Was there capitalism before, amidst, or after the Great Depression?

      5. Don’t forget the record drought happening during the Depression. The Dust Bowl years did not happen because of the stock market crash.

    1. Atheists and believers: Let’s worry about ‘government as God’

      The Voice of God is Government.

      1. awesome, baked! well done!

      2. Holy shit! I haven’t heard that one in more than 25 years.

    1. That’s it, Johnny. You’re now on my “naughty” list.

      1. I haven’t contributed to a morning links thread in forever. Cut me some slack.

        1. Santa is cracking down!

          1. Santa is just alright with me!

    2. That’s a hilarious poll, I don’t buy for a minute that any appreciable amount of docs would do that. After years of med school they are going to dump what still will be a high status/income job under Obamacare because there will be some added restrictions/costs? Yeah, right.

      1. Over/under on MNG’s comments today? Vegas has it at 256.

        1. Hey, if Chad and Tony would get off their asses and help out a little I could get back to actual work a little today!

          1. Feeble minds think in unison.

            1. Funny, I was just thinking the same thing!

        2. I’ll put $10 on the under.

          1. Do you think we can rig by having Episiarch piss him off early, so much that he never comments again? I like having MNG comment here but if I’m gonna place a bet…

      2. it’s not just obamacare. required “meaningful use” of electronic health records starts in 2015. so if they don’t invest in and start using an EHR system, they’re payments are going to get dinged. i can see not wanting to put up with that if I’m nearing retirement.

        1. their — ugh

      3. The fact that they’re even willing enough to consider it that they say “yes” to the poll means nothing at all? How many have to carry out this threat, or just not go into medicine at all in college, to harm the “healthcare system”?

        1. Does choosing NOT to go in medicine fall under the commerce clause?

          1. Now you’re getting it!

          2. exactly… wthis bill only will acceserbate the already existing problem of doctor shortages… how much you want to bet 5-10 years from now, or whenerver the dems get full power again, they will be passing a bill forcing doctors to practice under the argument that “the market failed.”

            1. What does exacerbate mean?

              1. It’s when you masturbate for exercise.

                1. Sorry, but the answer we were looking for was “it means to make things worse.”

                  Thank you for playing Place That Reference.

                  1. PS: I thought it was Mastercising.

      4. I don’t buy it either, but if it is only 20% that will precipitate a crisis. What will happen if universal
        coverage is ever instituted? In Germany, people make 50% more doctor visits that in the U.S. The U.S. ranks
        #1 in the world in “bed side manner” – that is, doctor’s taking the time to discuss diagnosis and self-help with the patient. I see a future where the
        doc, or his assistant, gives you about 5 minutes and a pamphlet instead of 30 minutes and some real understanding.

        1. “”I see a future where the
          doc, or his assistant, gives you about 5 minutes and a pamphlet instead of 30 minutes and some real understanding.””

          I see a future where you get 5 mins of teleconference time.

          1. Or, a session watching a YouTube clip of someone identified as a doctor talking about things that may relate to your problem.

          2. How about a web based program? Click through and your script is ready at Walmart.

        2. I see a future where the
          doc, or his assistant, gives you about 5 minutes and a pamphlet instead of 30 minutes and some real understanding.

          Future? Hell, I’ve gotten treatment pretty much meeting that standard already.

          The “assistant” or nurse comes in, asks you a bunch of questions, makes some notes on a clipboard, takes your temp and BP, tells you to put the little paper dress on and then wait for the doc.

          10 minutes later, the doc comes blasting in, looks at the clipboard, asks a few of the exact same fucking questions the assistant/nurse did, looks at you for 5 minutes, makes a few notes on the clipboard, then takes off, leaving a breeze in his/her wake, off to the next patient.

          Then a week later, you receive a bill for several hundred dollars.

          I had to go to a dermatologist a week or two ago (possible skin cancer, doncha know) and the doc, although she seemed like a nice lady, was in there less than 10 minutes total. She took two tiny samples for lab testing and left.

          A couple days ago, we received the bill in the mail – nearly $400.

          1. That’s part of the problem with health care. Doctors think their time is worth more than it is, and thanks to insurance, they are right. If everyone had to pay cash out of pocket, price competition would be more active.

            Price competition as it is, is not about customers finding the price they like, it’s doctors finding the insurance companies that pay them the most.

      5. I wonder what the breakdown on age is. A lot of physicians can retire and still maintain their lifestyle. They stay for ego and status. Something that might be less of an incentive when the system changes.

        1. Clearly, we need a smaller cap on the number of doctors that can be licensed, to preserve the egos and status of our precious MDs so they don’t retire early and reduce our supply of doctors.

          1. The AMA is on that already, never fear.

  2. Why doesn’t California just put a gun to its head and get it over with? This long, protracted suicide is a bit melodramatic.

    1. Although, I guess it’s fair to say the state is over-indexed in the drama queen department.

  3. A Pink Panther scene I’m sure libertarians will appreciate:

    (A beggar sits in front of a bank playing an accordian. There is a monkey sitting next to him as Inspector Clouseau walks up.)
    Clouseau: Do you have a license?
    Beggar: What?
    Clouseau: City ordinance 147-B prohibits the playing of any musical instrument in a public place for the purpose of commercial enterprize without a proper license.
    Beggar: I don’t understand.
    Clouseau: It is against the leu (law) for you to play your musical instrument.
    Beggar: Leu?
    Clouseau: What?
    Beggar: You say, it’s against the leu?
    Clouseau: Yes. Unless you have a proper license.
    Beggar: What kind of license?
    Clouseau: A license that permits the playing of any musical instrument in a public place for the purpose of commercial enterprize.
    Beggar: Commercial enterprize?
    Clouseau: Yes. You play that thing and people give you the muhnay.
    Beggar: People give the monkey the money.
    Clouseau: It is the same.
    Beggar: Oh, no. I am a musician and the monkey is a businessman. He doesn’t tell me what to play, and I don’t tell him what to do with his money. (Through the window of the bank, you can see that it is being robbed). One day I came home and I found him sitting in my living room. I let him stay, but he pays for his own room and board.
    Clouseau: Then the minkey’s (monkey’s) breaking the leu.
    Beggar: But he doesn’t play any musical instrument.
    Clouseau: City ordinance 132-R prohibits the begging.
    Beggar: How do you know so much about city ordinances?
    Clouseau: What sort of stupid question is that? Are you blind?
    Beggar: Yes.

    1. Ah, the venerated tradition of cops not identifying themselves in the course of their duties.

      1. I didn’t even think of that so much as the whole hassling a guy who is harmlessly going about his business and quoting petty city ordnances deal, while the whole time missing the actual crime of the bank robbery in the background (it turns out later that the guy with the monkey is the lookout for the bank robbers, not that Clouseau had the foggiest notion about that either.)

  4. Man strips to speedo at security area, gets banned by Jet Blue. And the cops continuing to make up shit (along with TSA) as they harass the man. I’m surprised this guy could stay so calm.

    1. Got a real link? Im not going to watch a 13 minute youtube video. or even a 3 minute one, for that matter. Text please. You know, in text form.

  5. How exactly are the Metro’s random bag searches *not* a direct violation of the 4th amendment?

    1. Because the 4th Amendment is a collective right. The government can search any person, but not every person at once.

    2. The 4th Amendment does not apply in a post-9/11 world.

    3. 4th Amendment? What’s that?

    4. I’m guessing the argument goes like this: only unreasonable searches are prohibited and given the dire danger of the terrorist threat and the momentary inconvenience of the searches blah blah blah.

      The problem with a lot of balancing thought re the 4th is the government always starts with a parade of horribles on one side of the balance and this skews the “reasonablenss” balance towards searches.

      1. The problem with a lot of balancing thought re the 4th is the government always starts with a parade of horribles on one side of the balance and this skews the “reasonablenss” balance towards searches.

        But of course you have no problem with “balancing” the First Amendment when it’s “for the children,” right MNG? When that parade of horribles is that children might learn that fast food is tasty, you’re perfectly willing to sign up for restrictions that end up being skewed as to actually restrict liberty.

        1. John
          Do you object to laws which bar selling porn to kids?

          1. Yes.

            Do you admit that your statement about “the government always starts with a parade of horribles on one side of the balance and this skews the “reasonableness” balance” applies to the balancing thought that you support as well?

            The people who want to do these extra searches justify them by claiming that “terorrism creates objective damage” to people, the same as your talk about children and fatty food.

            AFAICT, your objection has little to do with the theory you’ve outlined– which applies to nearly all government interventions– and simply to do with the fact that in practice and in this particular case you don’t agree with the restrictions nor with their effectiveness, but you agree with them in the other case.

            This despite the fact that in practice restrictions on items “aimed at kids” affects adults too; e.g., FCC regulation of the “family hour” in broadcasting or radio, or restrictions on what appears in the “kids’ medium” of comics and graphic novels.

          2. I object to that law.

          3. You can’t “bar selling porn to kids” without having the government decide what is and isn’t porn. You may think that that’s easy, and that you “know it when you see it.” I don’t.

            I think that it’s a blank check for the government to ban anything from kids and call it born. Considering what we’ve already seen with violent video games, or back farther in our nation’s history with Comstock and literature about contraception, or certainly what parents think about teaching kids about the existence of gay people, I’m amazed that you think it’s perfectly legitimate for the government poobahs to decide what is and isn’t porn and thus what ideas can be kept from all children.

            1. Imagine a gritty, realistic book, movie, or graphic novel largely aimed at adults. However, when the government decides what is and is not porn, in order to ban sales to children, media will generally strive to avoid that label, since porn ends up being placed with special regulations to ensure that children don’t buy it. This results in censorship and self-censorship of works aimed at or largely at adults, in an attempt to avoid the government-imposed label.

              You seem to think that “porn” or “not porn” or “aimed at kids” and “not aimed at kids” are simple easy to determine labels that the government would have no problem distinguishing. You completely ignore any problems for things that straddle the boundaries, or how things like 4Loko were punished for advertising aimed at almost-children.

              And you have the temerity to act like the people who want balancing tests for the Fourth Amendment are any different from you and your balancing tests for the First Amendment.

              1. Porn is easily definable. It’s the ever moving defintion the government puts forth that makes it seem difficult. That plays into not just straddling the boundries, but moving the boundry toward zero tolerance.

                But lets don’t pretend this is a selfing serving government action. They are acting on behalf of citzens concerned with the loss of family values.

                1. “Porn is easily definable.”

                  Bullshit. American Beauty would have been banned by some indency board back in the 50s.

                  1. Bullshit. American Beauty would have been banned by some indency board back in the 50s.

                    HA! Proof of America’s declining moral standards! SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET!!! (oh, and cable, and broadcast, and printshops. and Kinkos.)

                  2. Indecency isn’t porn.

                    1. Indecency isn’t porn.

                      It just depends what town in America you happen to be in.

          4. “”Do you object to laws which bar selling porn to kids?””

            I agree with Thacker.

            What kids look at should be a function of the parents. Said laws are just government playing the role of parent becuase they don’t trust the parent to do what government thinks is the right thing. That is the slippery slope that has led to the idea that government can tell your kids what to eat. A bad diet can do more harm to a kid than his curiosity of what’s under a girls skirt. So when it comes to harm, how much of a parental role/supervisor should the government play?

      2. MNG you’re right, once upon a time the police could not search you or your property unless they had a reasonable suspicion that you in particular were engaging in some criminal activity. It worked well enough until the courts started eroding that with “balancing tests” which has led to DUI checkpoints, airport gropings, etc etc. And as you note the govt. has no shortage of bogeymen with which to terrify us.

      3. In other words, MNG, it’s a variation on the Nixon gambit: “If the Government does it, that means it is reasonable.”

    5. “How exactly are the Metro’s random bag searches *not* a direct violation of the 4th amendment?”

      Because riding the Metro is a privilege.

      1. Exactly. You are deemed to consent to be searched whenever you engage in any mode of travel, because there are other modes of travel. As far as I know, the only mode of travel that does not waive your 4th Amendment rights is walking.

        1. Gotta love how our money is stolen to pay for these “privileges”, that we can’t use without waiving our Constitutional rights.

          1. Also had this thought. If I don’t get a driver’s license, shouldn’t I be exempt from taxes for roads? Oh, but I can’t pick and choose, that wouldn’t be fair to society. Fuck my wallet.

            @ RC

            As far as I know, the only mode of travel that does not waive your 4th Amendment rights is walking.

            You sure about that? Seems to me a cop could stop me on the street for whatever and start going through my pockets if I refuse to provide ID (see above: no license, and I sure as shit ain’t paying for a card just to buy booze, so, no ID to provide.)

            Maybe it wouldn’t stand up in court, provided I even had the resources to sue the rights-violating fuckwads.

            You’re the lawyer though, so maybe I should trust your understanding of my 4th Amendment protections rather than my own hypotheticals based on Balko stories.

            1. I know in my state you have no requirement to produce identification unless you’re under arrest or lawfully detained. I’m still fuzzy on what lawfully detained means, but the cops I know explain it as being under arrest.

              1. If you ask “am I free to go?” and they say no, you’re detained. If the LEO saying know is acting within the law, you are lawfully detained. This is also the point at which you can exercise your Miranda rights.

                1. Its a little more complicated that that. It is possible to be legally detained (a “brief investigative stop” based on reasonable suspicion which is less than probable cause) but not under arrest. This is what we lawyers call a “second tier” encounter where the cops think you may have committed a crime, based on some objective evidence, but it does not rise to the level of PC needed for an arrest. So you are not free to go, but Miranda does not apply either. They generally can detain and harass you for maybe 20-30 minutes before it has to become an arrest. Like a lot of 4th amendment law this is something the courts kind of pulled out of their ass to accomodate law enforcement.

              2. Sadly, not true in all states.

        2. As far as I know, the only mode of travel that does not waive your 4th Amendment rights is walking.

          We’re working on that.

        3. “” As far as I know, the only mode of travel that does not waive your 4th Amendment rights is walking.””

          If you are walking in a high crime neighborhood stopping you for a pat down might be considered reasonable. They believe that transportaion is no doubt a terrorist target, therefore the search is reasonable. That’s the arguement I’ve heard for the NYC Subway random searches.

          They believe the search is reasonable under the 4th, and if you do not consent, they use the privilege angle to prevent your entry.

    6. The framers could never have envisioned a world where people carried possessions hidden in bags. New technology like this forces Government to adapt.

      1. Have you seen the latest backpack technology? The weight of textbooks kids have to carry has caused the technology to evolve to the point where you could put an entire suitcase nuke in there without the straps breaking.

        Why does Jansport hate America?

        1. I have a UN peace keepers backpack. It can hold an entire case of Guinness. That includes the cardbord case itself.

    7. The standard justification for the legality of these searches is that you are free to refuse the search. You just can’t ride if you refuse.

    8. How exactly are the Metro’s random bag searches *not* a direct violation of the 4th amendment?

      “Balancing test.”

      Next!

  6. I will always remember Blake Edwards for 10.

    When I was a kid, I thought that movie was great because it was about nothing but tits.

    Then when I got older, I realized it was a pretty funny movie with a clever plot… and tits.

    1. My tits thank you for my career

      1. No Bo, the pleasure was all ours.

    2. Hold up, 10 is actually funny? C’mon netflix, don’t fail me now!

      1. Dudley Moore’s bumbling attempts at the swinging lifestyle are rather humorous.

  7. “An unmanned Mexican drone crashes near El Paso.”

    Holy crap, are they using drones to attack Americans like we are doing in Pakistan?

    1. I wonder if you can claim a salvage fee on that

  8. The omnibus bill going down is actually good news. The various slugs got called out for the usual stealing and they actually had to retreat a bit. Amazing.

    1. McConnell was quietly supporting the omnibus compromise along with the appropriators, but apparently public opinion forced him to switch sides and then twist arms on the GOP appropriators to oppose it. Reid and Inouye were left whining that GOP appropriators had said that they supported it but that their votes vanished.

      Still don’t trust the bastard inherently; need to keep the pressure on.

      1. Thank you tea party…

    1. I am not a woman. But I would think that one of the great pleasures of being a woman is the sexual power that comes with it. It has to be a lot of fun to have a bunch of dumb guys follow you around and buy you drinks and flirt with you and do all the things that dumb guys do. Hell, I am a dumb guy and I enjoy doing that. I would think that being on the receiving end would be even better. It is like being born with a super power and then convincing yourself that using it is really allowing yourself to be exploited.

      1. I think feminists often ignore what I think many women see as obvious advantages of being a woman, especially an attractive one. But I do guess it is tiresome to have your looks be the starting point for evaluation so much. I have a daughter and so I’ve noticed how much society sends the message to women that “being pretty” is important relative to sending the same message to men.

        1. But men get sent lots of stereotypical messages to. Part of growing up is coming to terms with those roles and messages and who you are or are not. And further, there is more to being an attractive woman than being pretty. There are some fairly plain women out there who still have a lot of charisma and sex appeal. Yes, some women and men have neither. But such is the way of the world. No amount of feminist preaching is going to change the reality that as a human animal, it sucks not to be attractive.

          1. The centrality of being pretty for women is more pronounced. Look at how many Seth Rogen’s are in films compared to Rosie O’Donnells. When we talk about female politicians here the talk soon leads to a judgment on how attractive they are, discussions about male pols rarely go that direction. Etc.

            I’m not denying that gender roles ar as rigid for boys as for girls in general. A fair amount of that for boys is homophobia.

            1. That is fucked up Hollywood versus the rest of the world. I have known plenty of Rosie O’Donnels who seem to have no trouble attracting men.

              1. That’s because men will fuck mud, John.

                I hate to break to our Jeze sisters, but there is nothing that you can wear that some man, somewhere, won’t find to be a turn on, up to and including gorilla costumes

            2. discussions about male pols rarely go that direction.

              Well, since Flake is the only attractive male politician in existance…plus, H&R being the sausage fest it is, sexy dudes don’t really come up as a topic so much.

        2. But I do guess it is tiresome to have your looks be the starting point for evaluation so much.

          Poor women. Us Manly Men never have such issues…oh wait, my long hair gets me judged immediately by pretty much everyone…so, ummm, suck it up ladies? Humans are shallow, learn to deal.

          1. And feminist never mention the millions of attractive women who have spent their entire lives being taken care of by one man or another. If there is a privileged class in this society, it is upper middle and upper class attractive white women.

            1. A patriarchal version of Stockholm Syndrome.

          2. You might or might not have heard of Jim Rohn (now deceased), who was a well-known motivational speaker, ala Zig Ziglar, Dale Carnegie, etc.

            He had a great way of putting it:

            “You say people shouldn’t judge you by how you look.

            Well guess what?

            THEY DO.”

      2. It is like being born with a super power and then convincing yourself that using it is really allowing yourself to be exploited.

        You don’t think Superman feels exploited sometimes? Sexist bitches.

      3. I’m sure it would be irritating if, for example, you really cared about libertarianism and put a video together with a lot of libertarian arguments for a libertarian audience, and most of the responses were not about your ideas, but instead along the lines of “Gosh, miss, you shore are cute”. If I was female, I would pretend to be male just so I could fucking talk to people about concepts that don’t have nipples.

        1. concepts that don’t have nipples.

          *Snore*

    2. The blogger chick at least understands that if she wants to attract men “tight and simple” is the way to go, all the stupid NY JAP feminism shit aside.

    3. Note of course men are not supposed to do that. The NYT would never run a story about guys in Star Wars outfits saying that “if women can’t accept them for who I am, then they aren’t worth having”.

      1. Cause if they did that, guys who wear Star Wars outfits and actually adopted such an attitude just might get laid.

    4. Is Man-Repelling Fashion A Feminist Statement?

      Judging most of the Feminists I’ve seen, nature has already taken care of that problem.

  9. http://dailycaller.com/2010/12…..g-problem/

    Fareed Zakaria, “the people of America are not worthy of their government.” With people like him, the governing class never is the one who has to make sacrifices. They never have to decide what government project they are willing to give up. It is always the people who must sacrifice and pay higher taxes so the governing class doesn’t have to.

    1. John I hope Santa is bringing you a pitchfork and a torch for Xmas ;)!

      1. I look at the deficit and think “maybe we just can’t afford a big entitlement state and two wars, what things are really important and what things are not?”. Zakaria and his ilk never seem to think that or have that debate. Instead, he looks at the problem and thinks “the American people just are not sacrificing enough”.

        1. I do have a problem with fellow liberals who don’t realize that every cent taxpayers give to the needy is a cent the needy should be gracious for and when they start talking about giving less they are not being evil. Forgetting that real people have been amazingly gracious enough to offer help to others is a critical failing of many liberals.

          1. to offer help to others

            If by “offer” you mean “surrendered under threat of imprisonment”, sure.

            1. Well, wylie, to be fair to MNG, he could be talking about private charity.

              But probably not.

              1. every cent taxpayers give to the needy

                The “taxpayers” part makes me think he wasn’t talking about private charity. Unless he just felt like referring to citizens as taxpayers for teh lols.

          2. MNG has a point. Even higher taxes would be easier to swallow if the recipients were grateful. How about the next time some cop pulls me over, he just says “thank you for paying my salary sir”

            1. MNG has a point. Even higher taxes would be easier to swallow if the recipients were grateful.

              No, he doesn’t, because it wouldn’t.

          3. every cent taxpayers give to the needy

            Taxpayers don’t give a penny to the needy via their taxes, just like taxpayers don’t own any GM shares via the bailout.

            When they pay their taxes, taxpayers send money to the government, not the needy. They have no control over what the government does with it, cannot designate where it goes, and in no sense give money to the needy.

            1. But do the Ends not Justify the Means?!

            2. When they pay their taxes, taxpayers send money to the government, not the needy.

              Is it necessary to point out that the politicians running the Government are some of the neediest motherfuckers on the planet?

    2. “not worthy of their government”…heh, what a bizarre yardstick for a person’s worth.

      1. If I am not worthy of my government, then please, take it away from me.

    3. the people of America are not worthy of their government.

      He’s right, you know. And to teach us a lesson we’ll not soon forget, they should take it away from us right now.

  10. http://www.strategypage.com/ht…..01216.aspx

    This is a great example of how stupid our government and particularly military leadership is. Is there anything more effective in the long term for westernizing Iraq and creating a more pro American sentiment in the middle east than intermarriage? Imagine if we had done this stupid shit in Germany after World War II? Letting American soldiers go drink and screw with Iraqis sounds like a pretty good way to build up mutual understanding and good will. But no, we can’t do that. We want feminized warrior monks for soldiers.

    1. And we are sacrificing a whole future generation of hot half-Persian girls.

      1. This really upsets me. Screwing is probably the best diplomatic weapon we have, and to just have bases full of onanists. It makes me sick.

      2. Probably. And the reason always given is that the locals get pissed when their women marry infidels. I say tough shit. I doubt the Nazis were too happy when their women married our guys. If they were so backwards and oppressive towards women, their women wouldn’t want to get out so badly.

        1. Look at all the hot Japanese, Filipino, and Korean genes introduced to America by carousing servicemen.

          1. Vietnamese too.

            1. Oh hell yes.

        2. I agree. The Nazi’s should have thought about that before they started all their bullshit. Plus, after the war, the only guys available in Germany for women to fraternize with were allied soldiers. All the German ones were dead, or in Soviet slave labor camps.

          1. Don’t forget the American women almost knocking down the walls of a German POW camp in Minnesota to get to the soldiers 😀

      3. ummm half arab if we are talking Iraq…persia = iran.

      4. And we are sacrificing a whole future generation of hot half-Persian girls.

        My ex is a hot half-Persian girl.

        It ain’t all it’s cracked up to be, believe me.

    2. I just had a mental image of Iraqi parrotheads singing “Why Don’t We Get Drunk and Screw”.

      1. Gag.

        Jimmy Buffet music makes me too nauseated to drink.

    3. If they would just get rid of the EagleCash cards and let GIs draw more cash from finance there would soon be a thriving on-base prostitution business.

      1. I bet there already is. Wherever there are large numbers of men, prostitutes are sure to follow.

        1. EagleCash makes it much more difficult. I’m almost certain that one of the biggest reasons that the Army went to using it instead of actual cash was to cut down on “illicit” transactions.

          1. I hate the military leadership.

          2. Is EagleCash like Disney Dollars?

            1. An EagleCash card is like a debit card in that you can load x amount on it from your bank account and then use it at AAFES approved vendors (who then get real cash from finance). So you can use it at Burger King or the PX, but not at SPC Derrierre’s house of fun (IYKWIMAITYD).

              1. IYKWIMAITYD?????

                1. If You Know What I Mean, And I think You Do.

        2. That’s what I told my wife!

          1. I was responding to the guy who said “Wherever there are large numbers of men, prostitutes are sure to follow.”

            We never had problems with branched comments in my day…

            1. Your post IS in the spot appropriate to replying to john’s post that you quoted. Not sure what you’re complaining about.

                1. He just thinks it was better under Postrl…WOO HOO START EARLY!

      2. Sounds like what we really need is some foreign aid dollars to buy those hookers some POS terminals.

      3. “”If they would just get rid of the EagleCash cards and let GIs draw more cash from finance there would soon be a thriving on-base prostitution business.””

        Back in the 80’s they were off base, and thriving. I’ve never heard of Eaglecash before, but when I looked it up, it claims to be use when troops are deployed. It doesn’t appear to be a out and out replacement. Is that correct?

  11. Hoping other states will follow suit, California regulators overwhelmingly approved the nation’s most extensive system giving owners of power plants, refineries and other major polluters financial incentives to emit fewer greenhouse gases.

    Translation: they hope other states will adopt it quickly so that their own citizens won’t have any place to flee to.

  12. The not to read Wikileaks on their personal time thing is not really different from them already warning people not to read fas.org or globalsecurity.org

  13. The pic of Harry Reid in the omnibus article shows him standing at a podium holding up… a Cato pocket constitution. Harry Byrd had a penchant for waving his around, too, and I’ve seen pics of Kucinich with one, too.

    All hail the omnipresent Cato pocket constitution! I know of no organization that has provided more prominent politicians with such an excellent photo-op prop.

    1. I carry one with me daily. I have a bizarre sentimental attachment to the beaten-down obsolete old thing.

      1. May it rest in peace.

      2. I have a bizarre sentimental attachment to that beaten-down obsolete old thing too…wish it still worked

  14. From a few days ago, but don’t recall seeing it covered: guy in rural indiana is being evicted from his 36 acres because apparently it’s illegal to live on land when you have has “no water, no sewer and no electricity in his recreational trailer that he calls home.”
    http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news…..plans-move

    1. Well, if we can take kids away from their parents for lack of proper amenities, why can’t we take adults away from themselves? I bet he ate a shitty diet too. Draw and Quarter the scumbag!

  15. A State Department memo tells employees not to read WikiLeaks “on their personal time.”

    Do the State Dept bigwigs think their employees don’t already know what a clusterfuck American foreign policy is?

    1. Bosses are like cats, they try to cover their piles of shit, even if its on a linoleum floor. In this case, their efforts are about as useless.

    2. “”Do the State Dept bigwigs think their employees don’t already know what a clusterfuck American foreign policy is?””

      They know that, they just don’t want them to prove it.

  16. Ah, Blake Edwards. The man who had sex with Mary Poppins.

    1. Wouldn’t you? I hear she brought the umbrella into bed for some highly erotic sexual maneuvers.

    2. and got her to show her quite lovely breasts to the world. I bet Mary had some tricks up her sleeve back in the day.

      1. “I’m gonna show my boobies!”

      2. Geez, John, you’ll be oogling the chicks at your funeral until they close the lid!

        1. Pretty much. I have told my wife that the day that I won’t chat up a attractive woman is the day I need to go into hospice care.

          1. They don’t count if they’re in a chat room.

            1. No they don’t. But they will always count in person.

        2. LaMont: “You ain’t nothing but a dirty old man.”

          Fred: “Yeah. and I’m gonna be a dirty old man until I’m a dead old man.”

    3. I wonder if he used a spoonful of sugar to help his medicine go down

  17. Yahoo plans to shut down several services you’ve never heard of. Also, can you believe Altavista is STILL online?!

    Fixed that headline for ya.

    1. AltaVista has one great feature; the NEAR operator. At one time that made it a superior tool. Too bad it got so far behind in hits returned that even NEAR doesn’t make it valuable any more.

  18. because apparently it’s illegal to live on land when you have has “no water, no sewer and no electricity in his recreational trailer that he calls home.”

    In real life, not having enough money to buy your way out of the law’s sights is the only crime.

    “Trailer” ipsa loquitor.

  19. apparently it’s illegal to live on land when you have has “no water, no sewer and no electricity

    Don’t you see? By *not* buying electricity, he’s stealing from IPL. It’s right there in the Commerce Clause.

    1. you know, pretty soon they really are going to block out the sun.

    2. I’m confused on how using the commerce clause to make people buy electricity will help Gaia in any way. Can’t we force them to buy solar panels or windmills instead?

      *baaaaaarrrrffffff*

      Wow, I actually got through my whole comment before puking. Sometimes I amaze even myself.

  20. …a budget bill collapses.

    F****n’ A, it’s the first official legislative victory for the Tea Party Movement! I don’t know how the heck it happened, but somehow those weak and squishy New England Republicans came to see sense. Hopefully it’s the start of a trend.

    1. Now imagine once the newly elected ones take office, if this could be pulled off without them.

      Hopefully McConnell and Boehner are going insane.

      1. Yep, we’re going to find out pretty soon just how serious the incoming House freshmen are.

        If they are truly determined to downsize the government (especially outside the defense sector), then we’re headed for the mother of all political battles next year, as we’re still facing a hostile president, a hostile media, and a hostile bureaucracy. Yesterday at least offered the first glimmer of hope in a long time.

        I personally think a government shutdown is a very distinct possibility.

        1. I personally think a government shutdown is a very distinct possibility.

          Got a schedule for that? I want to know when to stock up on beer and party favors. Maybe a pinata too.

          1. The House passed a CR that runs through Feb. 18. so that’s probably the date start date for any new bill

    2. “but somehow those weak and squishy New England Republicans came to see sense”

      As a cynic, I fear they were told they could get a bigger payday if they let the Rs in the House write the spending bill 6 weeks from now.

  21. Random bag checks are coming to the D.C. subway system.

    I’d rather do random box checks.

    1. You joined the wrong service, dude.

      Why-Em-Cee-Ay! Why-EM-Cee-Ay!

      1. Subway Policeman might have been talking about our sort of boxes….awww, who am I kidding.

    2. Yet another reason not to ride the subway.

  22. What’s up with Ron Paul? I saw a story that listed him as just one of 4 repub congresscritters who requested earmarks in the house omnibus.

    In the 2011 House budget, the groups found that House Democrats requested 18,189 earmarks, which would cost the taxpayers a total of $51.7 billion, while House Republicans requested just 241 earmarks, for a total of $1 billion.
    Where did those GOP earmark requests come from? Just four Republican lawmakers: South Carolina Rep. Henry Brown, who did not run for re-election this year; Louisiana Rep. Joseph Cao, who lost his bid for re-election; maverick Texas Rep. Ron Paul; and spending king Rep. Don Young of Alaska. The other Republican members of the House ? 174 of them ? requested a total of zero earmarks.

    1. Three things:

      1. Paul Sr doesnt oppose earmarks
      2. Paul Sr, in fact, thinks all spending should be earmarked, HOW to spend it is the responsibility of congress, not unelected bureaucrats.
      3. Paul Sr passes on almost all (rejecting only the ludicrous) requests from his district to the appropriate committees. He then votes against the bill. He figures if they are gonna pass it anyway, his district ought to get some of them dollars.

      Cleary, you asking the question says that you know very little about him, as this is well known and well covered, especially here.

      Also, note the Sr used above. Rand disagrees with his Dad on earmarks.

      1. You’re right, I’m definitely not a Ron Paul expert – I sat the 2008 election cycle out in antipathy.

        I don’t think I agree with his #2 you listed. From what I’ve seen on congressional earmarks, that would result in spending money even more insanely than we currently do. (plus the logistical nightmare of a few hundred people listing out everything that is spent.) I guess if you take his views on the size of government, this might be ok, but in today’s reality that would be a disaster.

        So he’s against wasteful spending of federal money unless it’s from his district? Or is he saying that he’s against it, but he’s still going to play the game for practical purposes? His voting against the bill doesn’t really mean much, since he admittedly knows that it’s going to pass anyway. Seems almost like a way of grabbing money and then denying responsibility by saying “see, I voted against it!”

        1. Or is he saying that he’s against it, but he’s still going to play the game for practical purposes?

          Pretty much this.

          And as far as #2 goes, the logistical nightmare of having to list out everything is a feature, not a bug. Today’s reality is already a disaster. This is sort of a deontological issue too, just because it causes a logistical nightmare doesnt mean its not the right thing to do. The answer is to do it right and then figure out how to avoid the nightmare (drastically cutting the amount of spending being the obvious answer).

          1. Its a 50-50 proposition that wouldn’t be a problem if the government was smaller. I’m quite sure I don’t agree that Constitution directs Congress to earmark every dollar. Reason regularly publishes the statistics showing that even over Ron Paul’s career, the use of earmarking has grown exponentially.

          2. I’m agreeing with Paul Sr on this more and more as I see news doofuses get their panties in a wad over “earmarks”.

            First of all our budget is what a trillion bucks? (order of magnitude?). And 8 billion dollars was earmarked? Whoopty fuckin crap.

            Secondly, it is the Legislatures job to earmark all the money. It’s the stuff they hand over to executive branch with no (or too little) instruction that we should be worried about.

            Thirdly, slappin earmarks onto the bill, but then voting against the bill is the exact right and sensible thing to do. I’m tired of it being portrayed as “cute” or “clever”. If every body else did this we would have a lot less spending. So it meets Kantian criteria for being good. All the congresscritters who like to get on TV and bitch about too many earmarks IN THE FUCKING BILL THEY VOTED FOR, need to shut the fuck up and start copying Ron Paul.

  23. http://latimesblogs.latimes.co…..obama.html

    No royal wedding invite for Obama.

    1. Ohhhh Snap! Wait…was that racist?

    2. Maybe they’ll send him an iPod pre-loaded with pictures from the event.

      But of course, it will be in the wrong format and he won’t be able to view them.

    3. HA-HA!

  24. http://www.koco.com/r/26162860/detail.html

    PERKINS, Okla. — A small-town bank in Oklahoma said the Federal Reserve won’t let it keep religious signs and symbols on display.

    What is that line of horseshit I always hear about how atheists only want to drive religious expression out of the government and not out of the public square at large? What a load of horseshit.

    I also don’t want to hear about how we don’t have nationalized banks in this country. If the regulators can tell a bank what they can put up on the walls, they might as well own the place. This is appalling on about five different levels.

    1. How do you know its atheists? It could be the Fed not wanting anyone to have a higher power than them.

      1. The feds interpret that to mean, for example, a Jew or Muslin or atheist may be offended and believe they may be discriminated against at this bank. It is an appearance of discrimination.

        Atheists specifically mentioned. Also John could have blamed the jews and the muslems.

        1. So the Fed reacted without a complaint? I don’t think offense should be assumed. Either someone at the Fed was offended (possible) or they preemptively acted (very possible) but in any event, since it was a private bank who gives a shit? If someone is actually discriminated against, fight that action. The symbols themselves are not discriminating against anyone. The Fed is discriminating, though, by not allowing people to display their religion. Fuckers.

  25. From the Brickbats: Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) road crews were supposed to put salt brine on the Capital Beltway to reduce icing. Instead, they accidentally sprayed magnesium chloride on the road. The magnesium chloride froze, leading to 11 accidents. Four people injured in those accidents had to be taken to the hospital. The entire outer loop of the Beltway had to be closed, and the SHA had to send out more trucks to spread sand and salt on the road.

    Magnesium chloride is a common de-icer/anti-icer for roadways. Anyone know why it didn’t work in this case?

    1. Sparked my curiosity, so I wiki’d de-icing and MgCl. Now it makes even less sense, since MgCl depresses the freezing point even further than NaCl.

      My only guess is that they used the anti-icing liquid when they should have been spreading de-icing crystals.

      /Armchair-MrPlow Off

    2. Just think how much worse it would have been if a private corporation were in charge of roads!!1!1

      1. Bodies piling up in the STREETS!!!! oh…wait, car accidents…ok, bodies in the streets is actually a possibility.

        New Tact: SOMALIA!!111oneoneone

  26. Where’s Warty?
    I have an Xmas gift for him

  27. I guess Mary Poppins did have a few things up her sleeve.

    Edwards and Andrews’ love story is the stuff of Hollywood legend: After overhearing him say that she was “so sweet she probably has violets between her legs,” Andrews sent him a note along with a bouquet of violets, and the pair married in 1968.

    http://www.pastemagazine.com/a…..-2010.html

    1. Today, saying that about a woman could get you on a registry.

    1. That’s funny and sad. Part of their solution to a gun in a carry on is a better pat down.

    2. Wow, according to the article, the TSA has a 70% failure rate when tested, and in the last test, they didn’t catch anything at some airports.

      1. 70% is the magic number. It’s also the estimated waste in government charity when compared to private charities that operate at a much better dollar to need ratio.

    3. He made it all the way thru to his destination and then turned himself in!?! He’s just volunteered for some jail time if he finds the wrong judge.

      What the hell did he think, they were going to pin a medal on him or something?

      … Hobbit

  28. Polo ShirtsGuangZHou HuiYuan Leather Manufactory is a fashion bag2010 World Cup Polo Shirts

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.