Reason Morning Links: Hello to Bill Daley, Goodbye to Ellen Weiss, A Passing Wave at the Constitution

|

  • Barack Obama picks a new chief of staff.
  • A former CIA officer faces charges for leaking classified material to the press.
  • Packages ignite in two government buildings in Maryland, leaving two workers with slightly burnt fingers.
  • Congress collectively reads the Constitution, though most legislators don't stick around for the whole thing.
  • NPR's news editor resigns following a review of the Juan Williams affair.
  • Egyptian Muslims show solidarity with Coptic Christians by serving as shields at Christmas Eve masses.
  • Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants to slow the growth of the military budget (but not actually reduce it) by cutting in some areas and increasing others.
  • The Richmond police accidentally release their homeland security and crowd control guides to local anarchists.

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.

262 responses to “Reason Morning Links: Hello to Bill Daley, Goodbye to Ellen Weiss, A Passing Wave at the Constitution

  1. Oceanic ‘Garbage Patch’ Not Nearly as Big as Portrayed in Media


    Methane from BP oil spill eaten by microbes

    Underwater bacteria had devoured nearly all the methane gas from BP’s blown-out well by August, says a study in Science

    1. Fucking ecosystems. How do they work?

      1. LOL. “So many miracles …”

      2. The tide goes in, the tide goes out.

        1. See, I told you there was a God.

        2. God created the microbes so we could continue drillin’ for oil here at home, become completely oil independent, and turn the entire Middle East to glass … save Israel. He told me so himself.

  2. Tomorrow’s headline:

    Ocean basteria, once teeming in life from the bountiful methane released from spill, now starving to death in their watery graves. Environmentalists in outcry.

  3. Why would the server squirrels have a problem w/ this?

    How One TV Show Turned A Generation Of American Boys Into Homosexuals

  4. Why would the server squirrels have a problem w/ this? Is it the lack of other text?

    The Golden Girls: How One TV Show Turned A Generation Of American Boys Into Homosexuals

  5. Why would the server squirrels have a problem w/ this? Is it the lack of other text? Does anything w/ this link get marked?

    The Golden Girls: How One TV Show Turned A Generation Of American Boys Into Homosexuals

  6. The Golden Girls: How One TV Show Turned A Generation Of American Boys Into Homosexuals

    http://christwire.org/2009/10/…..mosexuals/

    1. This is like the 100th time you have posted that stupid fucking link.

      Fucking get over it, Johnny.

      You are gay because you were born that way, and not because your mom made you dress up as Estelle Getty and play Golden Girls with her.

      1. Never! I’m hurting and need to lash out and you, capitol l, are my new bitch. I will fight you in threaded comments on the beaches. I will fight you in threaded comments in the streets. If H&R lasts a thousand years, the spam-generating bots who will make up the entirety of the commentariat will say this, and Joe leaving, were their finest hours.

        1. Surely you can’t be serious.

          1. I am serious, and quit calling me Shirley.

          2. Are YOU serious, Tim? Are you serious?

            1. I don’t know anymore.

        2. Huh? Go make linky.

    2. Maybe it was “Golden Girls”… or maybe it was high school team sports.

      1. I thought it was “Golden Shower Girls.” I saw that on DVD once, and I don’t recall Estelle Getty being in it – much less Betty White or Bea Arthur. Not sure about Rue McLanahan.

  7. Egypt’s Muslims attend Coptic Christmas mass, serving as “human shields”

    Now that is classy. I never thought I’d read such a headline. Maybe there is hope for the human race….maybe.

    1. THAT is a really great thing to read about. God bless them.

    2. It is great news.

    3. No, there is no hope for the human race.

      But it is a nice story.

    4. Awesome. We need more of that, and less of the other thing.

    5. Mixed feelings. Kudos to the Muslims who stepped up, but if your brethren didn’t consider it acceptable to kill those they disagreed with, you could have stayed home…

      1. The individuals who did this get the honors. They don’t have to share.

        1. Agreed. Nevertheless, it had to be said.

          1. No, really didn’t need to be said.

    6. Suicide balm.

    7. It is good to see such solidarity.

      Unfortunately, I suspect many terrorists who think mass murder of random Christians is legitimate would also consider it legitimate to kill these Muslims in the process as well. Then again, that would risk a public relations disaster with their main target audience (other Muslims), and the Jihadist propaganda machine would have a hard time spinning such an attack as resistance to some kind of Western crusade.

  8. “”””Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants to slow the growth of the military budget (but not actually reduce it) by cutting in some areas and increasing others.””

    Ah, the famous cutting the budget while actually increasing the budget fraud

    The way to actually cut the defense budget is first to cut the commitments to defend other countries. Today the US has formally or informally promised to defend a huge part of the Earth which means that even the massive amount of money spent today is not really enough. On the other hand if you return the US military back to its one justifiable role, to defend the US then it become much easier to cut the defense budget. Cutting the defense budget without cutting the worldwide commitments is just going to cost blood and money in the long run.

    1. But will happen to the millions of Germans who make a living catering to US bases?

      1. They should have jobs making precision made German cars and beer as god intended.

      2. They’ll reunite with France.

        1. I heard somewhere that no invading army has crossed the Rhine in 75 years, which may be a record going back to the 16th century.

          1. Is there anyone who reads that who doesn’t think that that means the invasion is due any day now?

            1. ‘Tis always possible that the army will speak Russian or Chinese instead, but yeah. I don’t think it’s been 100 years since before the Roman empire rotted out. 200-300 AD maybe?

              1. I would say the 800s. The Franks ruled both Germany and France. I don’t think there was invasion for a couple of hundred years there. But I could be wrong.

                1. Charlemagne’s 3 sons got France, Germany, and the Netherlands/Belgium respectively. IIRC, The two sons who inherited France and Germany immediately attacked the 3rd son, and then each other, so I think at least 1 army crossed the Rhine after Big Chuck crowned himself Emperor.

                  1. Nope, got that wrong. Chuck’s son Louis was the one whose sons went to war against each other. Still 792-832 was the Frankish peace.

                    1. And people say that primogeniture is bad.

          2. I think it is.

      3. But will happen to the millions of Germans who make a living catering to US bases?

        Perhaps they have other plans.

        1. If that was an American town, it would have been Waco’ed by now.

  9. Congress reads “Sanitized” Verion of the Constitution?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..inionsbox1

    “In fact, there is only one version of the Constitution – and it wasn’t what the lawmakers read aloud. What the Republican majority decided to read was a sanitized Constitution – an excerpted version of the founding document conjuring a fanciful land that never counted a black person as three-fifths of a white person, never denied women the right to vote, never allowed slavery and never banned liquor.

    The idea of reading the Constitution aloud was generated by the Tea Party as a way to re-affirm lawmakers’ fealty to the framers, but in practice it did the opposite. In deciding to omit objectionable passages that were later altered by amendment, the new majority jettisoned “originalist” and “constructionist” beliefs and created – dare it be said? – a “living Constitution” pruned of the founders’ missteps. Nobody’s proud of the three-fifths compromise, but how can we learn from our founding if we aren’t honest about it?”

    1. I think they replaced the word “slave” with “n*gger.”

      1. Hey cockbite, the word “slave” isn’t even in the US Constitution.

        And IIRC, you claim to have a Ph.D. in Political Science???

    2. “”Those portions superseded by amendment will not be read,” declared Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). ”

      Perfectly logical criteria; don’t read the parts that are no longer legally binding. We know what those are.

      1. Well, then they only needed to read, what….”general welfare…interstate commerce…Executive Branch….”?

        That pretty much covers it, I think.

      2. Exactly. Did they read the prohibition amendment?

        MNG are you pissed that they don’t plan to follow the 3/5s rule?

        1. There is no version of the constitution with parts crossed out. Also, they read the part about voting being for males over 21, which was superseded and the article 1 rules on taxation, superseded by the 16th. You don’t pick which parts of the constitution exist.

          1. But of course if they had read it, liberals would be having a fit. And beyond that, there is nothing offensive about it. The clause is about making sure that southerners didn’t get the extra representation in Congress for people they enslaved. They cut it out because it is irrelevant. And most liberals are too ignorant about history to understand what it means. It seems like a reasonable decision to me. If Democrats want to act like children, then they can expect to be treated like children.

            1. “If Democrats want to act like children, then they can expect to be treated like children.”

              They’re going to learn how to put condoms on bananas?

            2. ” if they had read it, liberals would be having a fit”

              Welcome to the nonfalsifiable universe of John and movement conservatives.

              1. Mine and that known movement conservative Sugar Free who said the same thing earlier. We know who you are MNG. And we know your moves.

                1. My entire back is covered with a tattoo of Reagan.

                  1. And my entire back is covered with a tattoo of SugarFree.

                  2. “My entire back is covered with a tattoo of Reagan.”

                    Is he naked?

                    1. Completely.

                  3. I’m not sure we really want to know what any particular H&R commentor’s back might be covered with…

              2. Shut up and peel that banana.

            3. I’m actually going to agree with MNG on this one. If this was truly about sticking to the restraints of the Constitution, then read the whole thing in its entirety. Let the Democrats bring up and try to make a stink about the 3/5s clause, and then make them look like asses when you point out that it’s one of the things that are no longer relevant because the process was followed properly and an amendment cleared that.

              1. It’d be the Rand Paul/Civil Rights Movement thing all over again.

                News channels would show, out of context, footage of republican congresspeople reading aloud that slavery should be allowed, that slaves count as 3/5 of a person, that alcohol should be prohibited.

                Would that really accomplish anything? Is that what you want, a month of the media calling republicans racist and teetotalers, a month of mocking and “serious” discussions about what kind of people should be representing us in congress and what sort of monsters would elect these racists?

                Because that’s what would happen.

                1. Would that really accomplish anything? Is that what you want, a month of the media calling republicans racist and teetotalers, a month of mocking and “serious” discussions about what kind of people should be representing us in congress and what sort of monsters would elect these racists?

                  Because that’s what would happen.

                  Well in case you’ve been gone since Obama took office, that happens already. And the Democrats and their news agencies will spin this out of context anyway, as they are doing now about “not reading the whole thing.”

                  I would much rather the Republicans come across as the educated ones and point out that certain clauses have been redacted through the constitutionally permitted amendment process than to be accused of selectively reading the Constitution, which is what we hate the Democrats for already.

                2. I wish this “3/5ths of a person” shit would stop. The Article 3 clause makes no comment concerning the personhood of slaves. The “federal ratio” counted the entire slave population of states, multiplied it by .6, and used that to determine representation and taxes for a state. Hell, a few delegates had the temerity to suggest they should not be counted at all for the purposes of representation, but for taxation. Benjamin Harrison suggested 1/2. In the end, it had more to do with seats and taxes than agonizing over whether black people were people or not.

                  But of course, the MSNBC narrative would be “Republicans read the Constitution; the Constitution permitted, at the time of its ratification, slavery; Republicans endorse slavery.”

                  1. But the “3/5ths of a person” shit is the Democrats favorite part — they threw a war over it, remember.

                    1. The bloodiest war in American history. But remember, Democrats are never guilty by association, only Republicans/Tea Partiers/VRWC/Libertarians/Koch Brothers/Emmanuel Goldstein can be held accountable for the misdeeds of others, regardless of their actual responsibility or affiliation.

            4. I was thinking that too, John. It seems a bit backwards to curse the 3/5ths compromise for supposedly not giving full representation, since it was the Southern states that wanted to count slaves fully, and the Northern states that didn’t want to count them at all.

            5. Talk about just making shit up to pitch a bitch fest. While channel surfing last night, I flipped through Rachel Maddow as she was snarking about the ‘selective reading’ crap – then had the newly signed homeless guy with the golden voice read one of the ‘important parts they left out’ – and the guy proceeded to recite the 18th Amendment. You know, the one prohibiting alcohol. The one that was completely repealed and is null and void.

              Yeah, this is a total attention whoring pitch a bitch fest, just to slag and slime, even if they have to fabricate the outrageous outrage just to do it. Stupid fucking twats.

              1. The cable news equivalent of a pedantic forum grammar Nazi.

              2. Rachel Maddow put the 18th Amendment on the air? That must mean that he supports Prohibition! It’s the only answer! And it makes perfect sense!

                It must be repeated ad nauseum and irrespective of any evidence to the contrary.

                (Paraphrased from the MSNBC Employee’s Handbook)

            6. “”But of course if they had read it, liberals would be having a fit. “”

              Wasn’t part of the idea to make liberals have a fit?

              “” They cut it out because it is irrelevant.””

              Did they leave “infringed” out of the 2nd amendment, or “Congress shall make no law” out of the first?

              I have to agree with MNG for the most part, the Rs ignored the parts of the Constitution that they felt justifed in ignoring, which is what Ds and Rs have done with the Constitution for well over a century with respects to law making.

    3. Alternate Universe MNG:

      Racist GOP Congressmen Read Unexpurgated Constitution To Advocate A Return To Slavery!

      1. ” Unexpurgated Constitution ”
        Is that the one with the centerfold ?

        1. Yes. And an interview with Gore Vidal.

          1. George Washington in a smoking jacket listening to jazz.

            1. The 10 best places in Philadelphia to have sex in a carriage.

            2. Is this the addition where he held an opponent’s wife’s hand in a jar of acid… at a party.

              1. *Edition

                Coffee not working, switching to drugs.

                1. Coffee not working, switching to drugs.

                  Dear BL:

                  Coffee
                  = Caffeine
                  = 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine
                  = Drugz

                  Please supply your name, street address (no POB), and e-mail address. Also please specify whether you are a user, dealer, or user-dealer. If involved in export-import, please specify country or countries involved. Finally, we need to know whether you own a dog. Cooperation at this time may result in judicial leniency. Act now, quantities are limited.

                  Yours &c &c,
                  Anon Agent

              2. I hate that video.

    4. What “liberals” always want us to learn from our founding is that freedom and capitalism are nothing but power plays by the white male patriarchy, that the USA is the most evil nation that ever existed, that, really, Karl Marx was right, and that we should in the end be more like Cuba.

      Well, if that’s their view I continue to offer Mr. Black’s classic toast: “Gentlemen. To evil.”

      1. Hyperbole much?

        1. Hyperbole much?

          Yes, but alas, just a little.

      2. Yesterday, I saw a hipster dude on the bus wearing a Free Palestine tee-shirt reading Economics: Marxian versus Neoclassical. It took all the self control I could muster not to shoot him

        1. Thanks for that. Last thing we need as an example of an intolerant, gun-slinging right-winger shooting someone for the antis to grab hold of.

          I’m surprised actually that I haven’t seen anything yet about the kid who shot and killed his vice principal – although I’m betting it’s out there; I just haven’t looked for it yet.

    5. Again with the 3/5’s rule?

      Geez, do some homework. The 3/5’s compromise was an anti-slavery win. Those opposed to slavery wanted them not to be counted at all, those who supported slavery wanted them to be counted 1 for 1. You can keep trying to re-write history to say they were looked at at 3/5’s of a white person, but you’re just showing your ignorance. The whole reason for the compromise was to eventually end slavery.

      1. Yeah. The 3/5ths rule was a total affront to slave holders. It said “if you want to enslave a third of your population, you are not going to get to count that third as population towards house seats”. The lost southern representation helped the cause of anti-slavery. The whole “3/5ths of a person” thing is just total ignorance on people’s part.

      2. The 3/5s rule was an anti-slavery loss. Slaves should have been in the same category as non-voting Indians and counted as 0 people.

        1. More of that delicious “compromise” that DC is famous for.

          “In any compromise between food and poison, poison wins…”

        2. “Slaves should have been in the same category as non-voting Indians and counted as 0 people.”

          Why so their owners could have more power in Congress and spread slavery further? Just what benefit did the slaves get by their owners and oppressors having more political power in Congress?

          That is just fucking stupid Mo.

          1. If slaves were counted as 0 people their owners would have less power, not more.

            1. “If slaves were counted as 0 people their owners would have less power, not more.”

              What are you talking about? The clause is about how you determine representation in the House. How many seats does each state get. The Southerners tried to claim that they should be able to count their slaves population and get more seats. The North said no way. If you are going to enslave those people and not treat them as citizens, they can’t count as population towards the House. The South could have counted their entire population if they had just freed them. But they didn’t do that. And they lost representation because of that. Had they counted the full slave population, the slaves still would have been slaves. And the South would have been more powerful and slavery would have spread further. The 3/5ths compromise was a good thing because it diminished the power of the slave holding states.

              1. Yeah, the South got to have NONVOTING slaves and yet use them to determine representation. Gary Wills shows how that compromise inflated Southern political power artifically for decades and preserved slavery far longer than it probably would have without it.

                1. Of course it did. IT was a compromise. They should not have been able to count any of them. But if they had counted them as full people like they did the non voting Indians, like you and Mo want, it would have been worse. The problem is that the 3/5ths compromise should have been a “zero compromise”. It is not that “they only counted blacks as 3/5ths of a person” like every uneducated liberal claims.

                  1. Reading comprehension John, give it a try. I said slaves should be counted as 0 like nonvoting untaxed Indians. Stop making shit up.

              2. John, math, like history, law etc., is not your strong suit, but if slaves had been counted as o people instead of 3/5 the South would have lost representation (namely the amount equal to 3/5 of the slave population in each state).

                1. Read my above post, you arrogant ignorant fuck.

                2. MNG,

                  You are the most misinformed person who posts on here. You don’t have a strong suit. And you can’t even read the posts or follow the arguments half the time.

                  1. This from the person trying to spin allowing Southern states to have slaves that could not vote count towards their political representation as a win for liberty…

                    1. They only got to count 3/5th, which is better than counting them all. It was a compromise. Was it perfect? No. But it was also a lot better than what the slave states wanted.

                    2. Even by your messed up logic wouldn’t .5 be closer to an exactly equal compromise between the two sides then?

              3. Right and counting slaves as .6 of a person instead of 0 gives slave states more power. Go back to 3rd grade and learn that the alligator’s mouth should be open toward the .6 not the zero. (I.e .6 > 0).

                1. your ingnorance regarding the history of the constitutional convention is truly impressive.

                2. Look Mo. The South wanted them to count as one person. What was the North supposed to do? Go to war?

                  1. I understand why the compromise was made, but I’m not going to pretend the side that got less than half of what they wanted “won”. It was a balance the north got the CR compromise and the south got 3/5s.

                    All of which doesn’t take away from the fact that you’re a moron for banging on a point that equated counting slaves as 0 would give slave states more power.

                    1. CR should be CT

                    2. “All of which doesn’t take away from the fact that you’re a moron for banging on a point that equated counting slaves as 0 would give slave states more power.”

                      No Mo. You are a moron for thinking that was my argument. If you and MNG would ever make an honest argument once in a while, the conversation would go better.

                    3. John, you misread his initial point, in your eagerness to make yours. Just accept it and move on.

                  2. John, zero is less than .6. Bow to Mo.

                    1. John doubles down when is caught wrong like most fanatics.

                  3. We didn’t want them to count at all, that’s why we went to war!

                3. I would also point out Mo, that you couldn’t treat them like the Indians. The Indians were considered nations and part of a separate sovereignty. Still are to this day. Slaves were not part of any sovereignty but the US. Yeah, slaves didn’t vote. But neither did women or non land holding males in most cases. It is very hard to make the case that slaves should not count at all in the population. Getting them cut by 40% was a remarkable achievement.

                4. Go back to 3rd grade and learn that the alligator’s mouth should be open toward the .6 not the zero.

                  Best laugh of the morning!

          2. “Why so their owners could have more power in Congress and spread slavery further?”

            The person who wrote this minutes later accused me of not following the arguments here…Wow.

            1. I keep giving you too much credit MNG. If your beef with the compromise is not the usual “blacks only count as 3/5ths of a person”, then you are dumber than even I think you are. And that is pretty dumb.

              When you think about it, the North cut 40% of one third of the Southern population out of the count. Considering that we were not in a position to fight a civil war over it, that is not a bad compromise. The problem is not with the document, it is with the slave holders.

              1. “”The problem is not with the document, it is with the slave holders.””

                Agreed 100%

                So why feel the need to leave it out when reading the Constitution?

                The reading of the Constituion was an exercise in selectivity. It will be business as usual on Captiol Hill.

        3. Er, should be untaxed Indians.

      3. You really should read Gary Wills book on this subject.

        1. MNG, clearly stated, if it had not been for the 3/5’s compromise, the South would not have ratified the constitution. It was a compromise, and it wasn’t perfect, but without it, slavery would have probably continued longer in the Confederate States of America – it’s own separate union.

          But at any rate, your insinuation that balck people were looked upon as 3/5’s of a person is just wrong. First, it was only slaves – not all black people. Second, if they had counted them as zero as you would have liked, you would now be saying that the constitution didn’t even recognize black people as being people.

          You can’t have your disingenous argument both ways.

          1. See, I wouldn’t do that because, unlike you, I don’t completely misunderstand what was going on with that clause. Counting slaves as persons for the purpose of representation only would only serve their Southern masters, not blacks, it would have been a blow against the South which wanted it “both ways” (to have their non-voting slaves and have them count towards representation as well).

    6. I think that’s a bullshit meme on the left. Let’s say the Democrats tried to do a similar grandstanding event. Would they read the original Constitution or the current version? Since the answer is obviously the former, the whole argument is silly. Unless the Democrats want to bring back slavery or something.

      Of course, I suppose you could read the parts that have been amended away and have James Earl Jones do a voiceover saying “Redacted.”

      1. I think the point is that its harder to hold the Constitution up as sacrosanct and untouchable if you look at the actual version. Cons do this with the Ten Commandment too, often wanting a sanitized version hung in classrooms, courtrooms, etc.

        1. Its not a fucking sacred text. It was written with an amendment process that has been used. Conservatives don’t believe it is The Word, just that the amendment process should involved 3/4 of the states or a Convention, not 9 appointed justices. For a fan of the 17th Amendment, you sure seem to be anti-democratic.

        2. Gosh, you’d think it was the supreme law of the land or something.

        3. I know MNG. Words are hard to understand. And it is really discriminatory to expect people to live by something that was written down. It is better to just make shit up as we go. Better to just let our robed overlords do the right thing, than you know have a rule of law or anything.

          1. Yeah, yeah, no judicial activism among conservatives, just the straight text (except the militia part of the 2nd, or the habeas corpus part of Art. I, etc,).

            1. Hold it. I thought conservatives wanted to hold it up as a sacred text? You mean it is liberals who want to pass the repeal amendment?

            2. …except the militia part of the 2nd…

              Funny, whenever free people in this country form a militia, it’s usually the progressives who shit themselves.

              But I’ll be happy to get together with some gun owning friends if that’s what’s required…

            3. except the militia part of the 2nd

              You mean that amendment that DOESN’T say “the right of the states to have militias shall not be infringed”? Or the one that DOESN’T say “the right of the organized state militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? I.e., that crazy amendment that says “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? That one?

              Kinda like the First Amendment doesn’t say “the right of newspaper organizations to free speech shall not be infringed” or “the right of churches to freely practice well-organizing religion shall not be infringed.”

      2. “”Would they read the original Constitution or the current version?””

        Where do I find this current version?

        1. Where do I find this current version?

          A Virginia landfill?

    7. “a fanciful land that never counted a black person as three-fifths of a white person”

      This historically ignorant snark fucking pisses me off — it was the slave owners that wanted slaves counted as a whole person, and only for the purposes of giving them extra representation. Free states didn’t think slaves should count at all, since they didn’t vote or have their interests represented (and didn’t want slavers to be able to grow votes on factory farms like chickens). Since there was a very real threat of British reinvasion, they wanted to avoid having the civil war right there and then and a deal was worked out to keep the federation intact.

      But I guess it doesn’t get one’s righteous indignation up as much to say it was a “land that wanted to give you 3/5 of an extra vote for each slave you owned.” Collectively speaking, of course.

      1. It pisses me off to. But Mo and MNG are incapable of making an honest argument. So what started as that ignorant snark turned into “they shouldn’t have counted at all”.

      2. Shit, maybe I’ll just not say what everyone else said next time.

        Hmm… nah.

    8. Free blacks were counted as a whole person.

      1. Those were the days.

    9. If they wanted to avoid the embarrassing bits of the Constitution, they should have just read the Bill of Rights. Maybe get Tom Hanks dressed as the guy from the Norman Rockwell town hall meeting to do the reading.

      1. Tom Hanks is a liberal, as evidenced by seeing him courtside at Lakers’ games.

        1. Damn! Tony Danza, then? Ah, never mind, it just wouldn’t be right without Tom Hanks.

          1. Ted Nugent would probably be willing.

    10. MNG, that’s stupid. In a very real way, the parts superseded by amendments aren’t in the Constitution anymore. It wasn’t a history lesson, it was a refresher in the law that allegedly governs them. Including the non-applicable parts would have made no sense for that objective.

  10. Conservative’s Constitution

    Mix of funny and fail

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..inionsbox1

    “We, the Real Americans, in order to form a more God-Fearing Union, establish Justice as we see it, Defeat Health-Care Reform, and Preserve and Protect our Property, our Guns and our Right Not to Pay Taxes, do ordain and establish this Conservative Constitution for the United States of Real America.”

    “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected not directly by the People, but by other people whom the People have elected to better represent the People.

    Any law enacted by Congress and signed by the President may be overturned by the vote of three or more States if they find it burdensome, offensive, annoying or in any way touching on Health Insurance, Property Rights or Guns.”

    1. yaaaawn….now yer just trollin’

      1. How can you tell?

        1. he hit the submit button. gives it away every fucking time.

    2. “”””The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected not directly by the People, but by other people whom the People have elected to better represent the People.””

      So if the author is so in love with direct voting for leaders of the Federal government he must be against the Supreme Court which after all is not elected by the public. And its not just the Supreme Court but all federal courts and all departments whose Secretaries are also not directly elected.

      1. And let’s not forget the unelected Regulators – when do we get to vote Carol Browner up or down?

        1. Carol Browner is long gone.

          You get to vote the EPA administrator down by voting out his or her boss, who appointed him or her.

          Current EPA administrator is Lisa Jackson.

          1. I know she’s not at EPA – she’s the Pres’ White House “Director of Energy and Climate Change Policy”…same idea, I shouldn’t have said “regulator”.

            “Unelected gummint officials” FIFM

  11. “Current training and intelligence reveals that protestors are becoming more proficient in the methods of assembly.”

    Crap! The Richmond police found out about the Internet!

    1. “The protesters have assembled something called the interwebz, we believe it is a series of tubes.”

  12. Congress collectively reads the Constitution, though most legislators don’t stick around for the whole thing.

    Can you blame them for taking off, with that freakshow of a language they wrote in over a hundred years ago?

    1. You see Price d-bagging it up last night after the Habs won?

      Christ on a fucking stick I hate the Habs. When are teams going to realize that beating the Pens for a point in January /=/ Stanley Cup…fuck!

      1. Yeah. Their Frenchness is too much. Those fans boo at every check.

        Stupid Kunitz. He was my boy. All he had to do was put it in the net to keep the shoot-oot going. I’m not jerking off into his jersey anymore, I’ll tell you that much.

        1. Habitues are fucking animals. I’m surprised they didn’t burn some flipped over cars in celebration, or kill some babies.

          People talk merde on Pistons fans, but the french Canadiens will riot at the drop of a hat(trick).

          1. Say that again, and I’ll trash your car.

            And yes, the nickname I use here does leave me conflicted whenever the Habs play the Pens…

        2. Spent after the hat-trick the other night?

          1. I think it’s a Chinese knockoff sweater. It was causing a rash.

      2. Fuck the Habs. Pens are taking the cup back this year. Bookmark it.

        1. Ideally after advancing to the finals after winning a game 7 in DC with a Nedved-style multiple overtime goal — shorthanded. after Ovi clangs a couple off the crossbar. something no amount of haggen daz will make you forget.

          1. That sounds like a good scenario, but I’d change Caps to Flyers and Ovi to Richards. The Caps are irrelevant to me until they show they can win the big games in the playoffs. Filthadelphia is the true competition in the conference, which is the way things should be.

          2. H?agen-Dazs was a name invented by Polish immigrants living in The Bronx. The words are nonsense; they have no meaning in any known language.

            1. they mean “fattening” in English…

        2. Too late, the Caps already won the cup.

          Hello! It’s called the Winter freaking Classic!

    2. Completely unintelligible babble from what, like, 100 years ago? Bah, fucking noobs.

  13. Women’s Tears Cause Men’s Manliness to Decline

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..eheadlines

    “The smell of a woman’s tears, the study found, is associated with a dip in testosterone, the principal male hormone, and a general decline in sexual arousal.”

    1. Just waiting for the STEVE SMITH joke.

      1. STEVE SMITH NO LIKE MAKE PEOPLE CRY! CRY MAKE STEVE SMITH NOT LIKE RAPE. STEVE SMITH WANT LIKE RAPE. CRY BAD. RAPE GOOD!

        1. But I would think that if they didn’t cry and struggle, STEVE SMITH wouldn’t enjoy it.

    2. The researchers now have two male criers and are recruiting more to study the effects of their tears on women and on other men.

      Just waiting for the John Boehner joke.

    3. That’s clearly wrong, as demonstrated by that Star Trek episode.

      1. Don’t forget the Serenity episode that featured Christina Hendricks. I’ll be in my bunk.

        1. Infidel! Serenity was the movie, Firefly was the series.

          1. Fuck. I’m going on like 3 hours of sleep and 1 cup of coffee. I’ll make sure to watch that episode of Firefly tonight as penance.

            1. I’m rewatching the series. My wife bought me the DVD set (I’d just checked it out at the library before).

              1. Ovation has been showing reruns of firefly.

              2. full series and movie is available for streaming on the NetFlix

            2. …1 cup of coffee….

              Sir:

              We have previously written to you about your addiction. Understand that “1” is a gateway quantity to “2” or even more. Please see post above.

              Yours &c &c,
              Anon Agent

            3. She was in two episodes.

    4. I’d like to see a study of the dynamics involved in “Hey, you’re *cute* when you’re mad!”

    5. There are counterexamples. For example, Glenn Beck’s tears cause a rise in John’s testerone. Because those tears are for America.

      1. You’re kind of an asshole, aren’t ya Minge?

        1. Oh, did I insult Pip’s fellow conservative boyfriend? Don’t cry like John Boehner or Glenn Beck now…

      2. I’ll give that a lul.

      3. + Below the belt MGN.

    6. But I thought it was even better when she cries.

    7. Tell that to the rapists

  14. Barack Obama picks a new chief of staff.

    Is this all that Daley charged to get Emanuel declared eligible to run as his replacement? Blagojevich at least asked for money.

  15. Who said, “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”? If you guessed Sen. Barack Obama step forward and claim your prize.

    1. Let me be clear.

      I claimed my prize in November 2008.

  16. http://www.cnbc.com/id/40961797

    Federal regulators are investigating whether California violated securities laws and failed to provide adequate disclosure about its giant public pension fund, according to a person with knowledge of the investigation.

  17. WHERE ARE THE MOSQUE STORIES, REASON???!11!!!won!

    Cause I’m pretty sure that’s more important than all this crap. But I suppose you and your Libertardian Saudi/Iranian cabal don’t want the world to know about what’s going on at Teh Hallowed Ground Zero?. Right?

    I am disappoint….

    1. what is this I don’t even

    2. Can’t you mosquerbate in private, dude?

  18. http://pajamasmedia.com/eddris…..m=facebook

    The surf board photo has to be the douchiest political photo in my lifetime. The lower level toadies in politics are almost always idiot sons and daughters. If you are rich and successful enough to be a big enough donor to buy those kinds of jobs, you have no interest in going to Washington and working. But your idiot son always does. And that is who gets these positions. And that is who goes into politics. And that goes a long ways to explaining why things are so bad.

    1. I have no idea what you’re talking about…

    2. I didn’t like the article, with its hints of longing for a president like Putin, some sort of action hero, rather than an ordinary schlub. Strikes me the sort of quasi-fascist mindset that empowers people like Putin in the first place.

      1. I agree with you. I just linked to it for the surfboard picture.

  19. DC Court to hear case requesting that convictions under DC’s unconstitutional gun laws be vacated. This ought to be a no-brainer, right? Or did the Muslim-Coptic story break my cynicometer?

  20. Jesse– Thanks very much for including my article on the Richmond FOIA docs in your roundup. I read Hit&Run; regularly and it was a pleasant surprise this morning. Thanks!

    1. Try to get it on Drudge. That’s where the real money is.

  21. NPR is purging itself as a gesture of goodwill to its new Republican overlords. Expect “Fresh Air with Terry Gross” to be sprinkled with feel good stories about small businesses and white men.

    1. Hey it is just a coincidence that they fired her on the day the Republicans took control of the House. Fuck them. Cut them off.

      1. Why do you hate Big Bird?

        1. Because he’s making billions on the public dime.

          1. Sesame Street is something of an exception in public broadcasting and actually makes more than enough money to pay for itself through merchandising.

            1. Small wonder with that one hour infomecial they run every weekday on PBS.

      2. I like them and I say cut them off. There is plenty of dead weight to be cut from public broadcasting.

    2. feel good stories about small businesses and white men

      Whoa! Cats and dogs living together, seventh sign….RUN FOR THE HILLS! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!

      /Iron Maiden

      1. Run TO the hills, not for. Always remember, you run “to” the hills, and “for” your life.

        1. But where is Bruce going to land that big ass plane?

    3. Speaking of which expect to see the muppets hold tea parties on Sesame Street.

      1. After the brutal way King Friday put down that revolt of the lesser puppets on Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, I don’t think you’ll be seeing any dissention on PBS again anytime soon.

        1. The streets ran yellow with polyurethane foam that day. The sound of rending felt haunts my dreams.

    4. Lamborn estimated that this would save $30 million to $100 million annually, but NPR says it receives only about $2.4 million annually in federal grants [emphasis mine]. A second bill would eliminate all federal funds from public radio and TV stations, saving about $430 million annually.

      If $30 to $100 million is set aside specifically for NPR and they claim to only receive $2.4 million, why have we been overpaying them all these years? That’s like the story last week that the CDC has lost millions of dollars in equipment over the last decade and a half. If you can apparently get by on a budget less than what you receive, why don’t we just cut your budget down to what you really use (at minimum)?

  22. Troy Polamalu says ‘Kala Christougena!’

    That fasting is a Christmastime difference between Eastern and Western Christians. While many Americans pile on the food from Thanksgiving to Christmas, Orthodox Christians start fasting Nov. 15 or 28

    Finally, a member of the media who makes no apology for the words Americans and Christians being synonyms.

    1. ?

      It’s still not true even if he is not apologetic.

      1. Mr. Head & Shoulders better pray for a miracle if they make it far enough to go up against the Pats. Steelers are going down hard.

      2. I guess, unlike some regulars around here, I haven’t earned the right to be deadpan sarcastic, yet.

        I’ll keep putting in my time.

        1. Zeb and cynical knew you were joking. They just out-sarcasmed you.

    2. Reading comprehension fail much?

      1. Ugh, see @11:09AM

  23. Congress reads “Sanitized” Verion of the Constitution?

    Was it the MSNBC version? You know, like that abominable “remix” of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence they use to promote their totally awesome “Lean Forward So We Can Jam This Up Your Ass” campaign?

    1. “”Was it the MSNBC version? “”

      Does it really matter, they were just reading some of the print on the piece of paper they are about to wipe their asses with.

  24. AND NOW, A READING FROM THE NECRONOMICOM;

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    1. [Pelosi’s face melts like that guy from Raiders of the Lost Ark]

      1. Didn’t it do that years ago?

        1. You’d have to ask her team of highly-paid and closely guarded blind/mute plastic surgeons.

          1. Probably performed on a non-descript train car in the DC area.

            Mulder is investigating.

    1. Isn’t the real problem here that DC is continuing to promote parkour? Which is not only so 6 years ago, but was also stupid in the first place?

      1. Until a better way for stupid people to maim themselves comes along, I’ll continue to enjoy parkour and backyard wrestling reenactments.

        1. Without parkour there would be no Assassin’s Creed series.

      2. I enjoyed Mirror’s Edge (and pretty much only for the parkour, since the story and fighting were meh).

  25. In Illinois, the state legislature is proposing increases in personal, corporate, and cigarette taxes. The corporate rate will increase from around 4% to around 8%. This is supposed to be a “temporary” increase.

    As an Indiana resident, I’m bracing for a mass exodus.

    1. Oh, c’mon. I’m sure the Illinois legislature, which is absolutely not known for corruption or overspending, will use the extra money wisely!

    2. That should fix everything.

    3. Well, for those out there who think that spending isn’t the problem, it’s a lack of income… here’s your chance to see if your theory works.

    4. Look on the plus side:

      Cigarette smuggling from Missouri will be a booming business.

    1. The judge dismissed on a technicality and the DA said he would not refile charges. But the AG is pressing on with charges. We’ll see if that boy gets reelected.

  26. Weiss’s resignation was met with shock inside NPR. Several people who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to comment publicly said that Weiss was given little choice but to resign, given the tone of NPR’s board and the pressure from Congress. Weiss was unavailable to comment. Schiller held a series of meetings with NPR’s staff Thursday, during which several people expressed dismay at Weiss’s resignation, saying it was too severe under the circumstances.

    Consequences, WTF????

    Only little people suffer consequences.

  27. Read the liberal comments on this op-ed:

    http://www.news-leader.com/art…..re-lawsuit

    The stupid is strong amongst southwest Missouri Democrats.

  28. Congress collectively reads the Constitution, though most legislators don’t stick around for the whole thing[…]

    … as they don’t really follow it, so what would have been the point?

  29. The Richmond police accidentally release their homeland security and crowd control guides to local anarchists.

    But at least they didn’t release them to Wikileaks, so all is swill

  30. “””Current training and intelligence reveals that protestors are becoming more proficient in the methods of assembly.”””

    If one believes in Constituion, this would be considered a good thing.

  31. Maybe Radley will visit this one in a few weeks when more details come out…

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..g-officers


    Undercover officers were on patrol near School Drive when someone reported a suspicious vehicle — which was the car police were using — at about 11:25 p.m. Wednesday, Montgomery County police said. The man called back at about 3 a.m., and police saw a man pacing outside a residence.

    An officer followed the man, identified as 31-year-old Phillip A. Watson, into his residence and called out to him. Police say Watson fired at the officer with a handgun. That officer, who police did not name, dropped to the floor and another officer fired at Watson, police said.

    Watson has been charged with attempted murder and other offenses.

    Alternate version:

    A concerned citizen, who reported suspicious activity to the police, was chased into his house by two men dressed as drug dealers who were shouting at him. He opened fire in response to a perceived threat to his life.

    1. Nosy neighbor… like the rest of us, shouldn’t he have learned the lesson that any modern American should have learned by now? Don’t hear, touch, or even see anyone around you – it will only lead to trouble.

  32. 80% of this nation’s problems would disappear if blacks were to disappear. Think about it. No negroes, no welfare state – no hip-hop, far, far less violent crime, better education for all and best of all, no Obama. I pray for the day that some enterprising scientist creates a race-selective germ to meet this desirable end!

  33. yukyukyukyuk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.