Reason Morning Links: K Street, Hammamet, and the Constellation Ophiuchus

|

Advertisement

NEXT: Friday Funnies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good morning Reason!

    (Pumps fist Tiger style for being first)

    1. Does the Tiger fist pump tie you to the prostitution story too?

  2. Bhutan police raid homes of smokers

    Bhutan police can raid homes of smokers in a search for contraband tobacco and are training a special tobacco sniffer dog in a crackdown to honor a promise to become the world’s first smoke-free nation.

    1. “So progressive, so enlightened…”

    2. Cigarettes are a gateway drug to tobacco pipe smoking!

    3. Apparently my karma is fucked.

    4. You know what comes before inhaling tobacco smoke?

      Breathing.

      Breathing is the gateway activity! We need to restrict all this free access to air!

  3. The myth of an American ‘gun culture’
    …But even after slavery was abolished, the experience of African-Americans should convince liberals that armed resistance is sometimes appropriate. Robert F Williams, a black civil rights activists in the 1950s and 1960s, debated non-violence with Martin Luther King at the 1959 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) conference. Whereas King’s non-violence tactics are widely celebrated, they were not effective in getting local ordinances changed. On the other hand, after some members of Williams’ 200-strong black militia traded shots with KKK nightriders, KKK cavalcades were promptly banned from the streets of Montgomery, Alabama, something the NAACP branch had been requesting for years.

    As Williams said, guns were essential for those at the bottom of society as ‘racists consider themselves superior beings and are not willing to exchange their superior lives for our inferior ones. They are most vicious and violent when they can practice violence with impunity.’ Williams made the case for armed self-defence in a book chapter aptly titled ‘Self-Defense Prevents Bloodshed’. …

    1. “We need gun control! We have too many guns already! Besides, who in their right mind would want to have a bunch of ni**** and spi** and chin*** roving along the country with guns in their hands?”

      (The true reason for gun control)

      1. Being Mexican allows you to spell out “spicks”. I looked it up in my P.C. handbook.

        1. I thought “spicks” was spelled spi***!

          (One does not stop learning new things ever)

          1. I actually looked this one up and ‘spics’ can also be spelled ‘spicks’. The first one is the most accepted spelling, though.

            It is good to remember that ‘wacko’ does not have an ‘h’ in it, i.e. ‘whacko’. A common mistake.

      2. a bunch of ni**** and spi** and chin***
        Why does chink have an extra letter?

        1. They stole it from the spicks.

        2. It’s actually chinois, a derogatory term for mesh strainers.

          1. Wait, I thought chinois was an derogatory abbreviation of chinoiserie which began during the vicious Porcelain Wars of the 18th century.

            Should I not be learning my history off the internets?

            1. All versions of history are true at some point.

        3. Re: generic Brand,

          Why does chink have an extra letter?

          Because gun control advocates can’t spell, that’s why! (See how I have the quote between actual quotes? See? SEE? Si.)

      3. Can’t you see the Sheriff is a Ni?

        1. Only if he demands a shrubbery.

    2. “the experience of African-Americans should convince liberals that armed resistance is sometimes appropriate”

      Worked great with Shays Rebellion!

      1. A thought experiment, MNG:
        You’re a KKK nightrider — you know one black family is heavily armed, another is not.
        On which lawn do you burn your cross?

        1. I think in that time period if a black family had shot a nightrider the family would have been prosecuted and hung if not simply lynched.

          1. Which doesn’t answer the question.

            1. If I know that one family has gone “uppity” and acquired weapons to resist us then I probably target them actually, but we skip the cross burning and show up in force with our guns too.

              1. Those kkk guys were cowardly fucks. Do you think they would have pulled half of the shit they did if they though they might die doing it?

                Good to know that minge would have been the brave racist, doing battle with the “uppity” armed families.

          2. If the deck was stacked against you to the point where you were singled out for gun laws then I submit your personal ownership of guns was probably not going to help much.

            1. Then you clearly don’t know jack shit about actual history.

            2. Re: MNG,

              If the deck was stacked against you to the point where you were singled out for gun laws then I submit your personal ownership of guns was probably not going to help much.

              MNG-logic: Thus if they gang upon you, then you have no rights.

              In other words: Might makes right.

              Has it occurred to you what the meaning of “You can always take one with you” and “made them pay dearly for his life”? Or are you that meek and sheeply?

              1. Sorry. What IS the meaning of…

          3. Whoa whoa whoa MNG, you’re switching time periods on us. If you’re talking about the 1890s South, then you have to admit that MLK style nonviolent tactics would have been a nonstarter too.

            We’re talking about the 1950s and 1960s here.

          4. Maybe. Whereas the night rider would be dead, definitely. I’m not sure they were into martyrdom, otherwise they wouldn’t have felt the need to hide behind hoods.

      2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion

        “Ultimately, however, the uprising [Shay’s Rebellion] was the climax of a series of events of the 1780s that convinced a powerful group of Americans that the national government needed to be stronger so that it could create uniform economic policies and protect property owners from infringements on their rights by local majorities.”

        How’s that working out for ya?

  4. I don’t care what any astonomer says, I ain’t no damned Capricorn!!

    1. Does this mean the tax cuts were right?

  5. Dude, Grover’s talking about “tar babies”?

    This is really going to throw liberals for a loop. Now even the racists are against the war?!

    1. Makes sense that racists would turn against the war after a black president is running it.

      1. “Just a cotton-picking minute! We need to remove ourselves from all these tar babies so we don’t have to be so niggardly at home.”

    2. Its only racist when conservatives use it.

    3. I remember Henry Kissinger once speaking of “the tar baby that is Somalia” back in the early 90’s. Don’t know why no one ever gave him hell about it.

      1. There’s still time. I’m catching hell for using nigger in a book that I wrote in 1884.

  6. Police turn to drones for domestic surveillance

    Police could use the smaller planes to find lost children, hunt illegal marijuana crops and ease traffic jams in evacuations of cities before hurricanes or other natural disasters.

    Now let’s see, which of those would be most attractive to cities and states which are out of money?

    1. C*A*S*H

      1. Can we use the drones to assassinate bike riders who weave around traffic at stop lights to get in front, slowing everyone else down when the light turns green?

        1. Each person will be assigned their own drone. To, ahem, protect him or her.

          1. like r2d2, cool! but I think cell phones already take care of this. We don’t need big brother to watch us we already do it to ourselves.

            1. Cellphones lack armament, silly.

          2. Fuck yeah! This beats my dream of winning the lottery, buying an old truck, putting a 2″ steel pipe bumper on the front and smashing hypermiling, Prius driving asshats. Definitely better to blast them from a drone.

          3. A Few Notes On The Culture

            The Culture doesn’t actually have laws; there are, of course, agreed-on forms of behaviour; manners, as mentioned above, but nothing that we would recognise as a legal framework. Not being spoken to, not being invited to parties, finding sarcastic anonymous articles and stories about yourself in the information network; these are the normal forms of manner-enforcement in the Culture. The very worst crime (to use our terminology), of course, is murder (defined as irretrievable brain-death, or total personality loss in the case of an AI). The result – punishment, if you will – is the offer of treatment, and what is known as a slap-drone. All a slap-drone does is follow the murderer around for the rest of their life to make sure they never murder again. There are less severe variations on this theme to deal with people who are simply violent.

            1. Ah, yes, didn’t think about Banks.

              1. I want drug glands.

                1. Don’t forget the extended orgasms…

            2. All a slap-drone does is follow the murderer around for the rest of their life to make sure they never murder again.

              Cute, but why wait ’til they murder someone?

    2. Looks like “24” was a foreshadowing of reality.

    3. Damn, now we’ll have to listen to Democrats use the actions of drug dealers as an excuse for taking away our anti-aircraft capabilities.

    4. I would support my city buying a drone if they used the money from selling some of the helicopters to do it.

    5. I see a DIY SAM kit being a viable business plan.

      1. Do-it-yourself directed energy gun built from discarded consumer electronics.

  7. [Tierney’s] wife says she’s surprised by the sentence.

    Me, too.

  8. God told me U.S. president George W. Bush has a torture complex and mass graves at his “ranch” in Crawford, Texas. God said Bush has about 10,000 victims buried in Texas, with his semen, feces, urine and saliva in and on the bodies. “Bush spits on his victims a lot,” God said today. God told me last night that Bush has personally tortured more than anyone in history. God said most of Bush’s victims are children and babies. Bush is arranging to incinerate his victims now that God is telling me about his burial site, but God said today Bush has more victims on the way to his place in Texas, and they are being tortured in transit with mind-horrifying substances.

    __________

    I told these vicious bitches that Bush and the other monsters who paid them to betray me actually do rape and torture babies and children to death with extremely horrifying tortures, while I have been fighting that kind of thing with everything I have. I told them I saw a naked newborn in a fellow inmate’s solitary cell at Fayette County Detention and broke the pinkie knuckles of both hands trying to pound my way out of my cell to get over there to protect the baby. “They tortured the baby in jail. Bush knew they would,” God said this past summer, adding last night, “So did Clinton, McCain, Obama, Cheney, Kissinger, Biden, Gore, Prince Charles & the queen.”

    __________

    Sharon and I shared sweet love maybe a half-dozen times. As they were to do later with other women, the Bilderbergs allowed Sharon to be with me one last time, when she was menstruating. God said the Nazis tortured Sharon to death and were very brutal and vicious with her. She was a just a sweet, nice woman, and I’m sick to know that my favorite was abominated.

    _
    Begin your descent into madness here…

    1. Well, he *does* have three names.

    2. aint no way lil w tortured more than me.

      1. Please tell me that God is the name of his dog.

    3. Dammit he registered “inventingthevagina.blogspot.com” just before I was going to do it.

      1. “Goosebumps On An Android”

    4. “Children who are suffering from cholinergic poisoning should have one full Miller High Life beer every time they are poisoned, no matter how young the child, if they sip it slowly. This beer does not have a real strong, bitter flavor.”

      What in the world is this? Who is this guy?

      Please tell me this is some sort of weird internet troll art.

      1. He’s a local public library patron who keeps getting kicked out for screaming about Nazis.

        1. So will anyone do something about him before he gets a gun and shoots up a crowd?

          1. He claims to have been institutionalized 5 times already, and to have been in jail a few times. But then, I don’t count him as a reliable narrator.

            1. And now, when he shoots up the place, he will be inexorably linked by the media to SF (and to H&R and the rest of us, for that matter!)

              1. Think of the publicity!

                1. Don’t give them any ideas. Nick already has a picture of my house from space (it’s not where I live now, but don’t tell him that).

      2. Hmm. The writing is far more coherent and understandable than most of those crazy schizo sites about the FBI killing veterans or whatever. I think this might be a grand joke; I kinda doubt it’s an actual crazy guy.

    5. I wonder what this guy thinks about Fluoride in the water?

      1. The Bilderbergs have poisoned the whole world with so many manufactured diseases, including prions and viruses and extra-fortified bacteria and parasites, and with poisons and other filth that a body must know how to clean himself.

        1. Did you notice his obsession with “fisting”?

          1. Yes and his repeated comments about “pulling the genitals off children.”

            And his screenplay is amazing. Characters include “Ebony Bush,” and the married couple “Egbert and Madam Ovary.”

    6. September 2004 was a particularly bad month for me. God told me George W. Bush and the CIA were going to take me to the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and beat me. God told me Bush was plotting to give me mind-horrifying substances, mutilate my genitals and my face, fist me, break my severely injured neck, crush my hands, break ribs, beat me from head to toe and horrify me to death. God said He would rescue me after 16 hours. Bush eventually called off the beating, but God didn’t tell me this 2010. Now Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are plotting to do even more evil to me than they’ve done recently, God said.

      Nutra-sweet, that blog was even creepier than yours. Not more depraved or more disgusting but, Science, what a freak.

      1. The only post on the site that is anywhere near normal is about two truckers and a butt-plug(hyphenated?).

    7. Tuesday, December 21, 2010
      Mindtoilet is down
      Mindtoilet is down.

      Fuck!

      1. Mindtoilet? Is that the new name of SF’s blog?

        1. I’m so jealous I didn’t think of it first.

    8. I hope he’s trolling. The alternative is sad.

    9. and no one mentioned that he should start doing the Friday Funnies:

      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OKGH…..oon+ii.jpg

  9. Rep. John Tierney’s wife gets a 30-day sentence for tax fraud protecting her property from a dangerous and highly armed robber.

    More accurate.

    1. Her brother already plead guilty to tax evasion in 2002. Patricia Tierney has to be really daft to think that the $7 million that she managed for her brother since 2002 was somehow legit.

      1. Re: Jerry,

        Hiding your property from an assailant is not “legit”?

        1. My point is more that of class justice. Wesley Snipes is behind bars for tax evasion, yet this connected wife of a congressman goes free.

          1. Re: Jerry,

            My point is more that of class justice.

            I find the act of the armed mob you call (with a sick sense of humor) “the government” extorting property from an individual, and then having a judge punish that individual for trying to hide his or her property from the perpetrator, an example of “classLESS” justice.

        2. Not in the eyes of the assailant, who happens to be the one filing charges and holding the trial.

  10. They called the inquiry a “very serious interference in the private life” of the prime minister.

    OTOH, it’s done wonders for my private life.

  11. The girl Berlusconi slept with.

    Now I’m not sure I’d be willing to go to jail for that, but I understand where Silvio is coming from. It’s not his fault he was born with a penis.

    1. “The girl is 17, your honor!”
      “That is to be condemned! Why, that is sick!”
      “She’s also Muslim, sire!”
      “Well… Boys will be boys!”

      1. ahem, 17 is the age of consent

        1. 14, according to TFA. It’s just hookers that are treated differently.

    2. Berlusconi ridiculed opposition calls for him to resign over the affair, saying: “As always, I work without interruption and if occasionally I happen to look a beautiful girl in the face, it’s better to like beautiful girls than to be gay.”

      “Only queers think I shouldn’t be using my powerful position to get laid (NTTAWWT).”

      1. Re: Atanarjuat,

        “I happen to look a beautiful girl in the face, it’s better to like beautiful girls than to be gay.”

        Bravo la differenza!

        “Y’know how I know you’re gay? You don’t like beautiful girls!”

      2. The old English rule was “a live boy or a dead girl in the drawing room” would bring down the government. I’m surprised the Italians aren’t giving him a bigger majority.

    3. Girls like that make you realize even more just how pathetic Bill Clinton was on the mistress front.

      1. Did you ever see a picture of Clinton’s mother when she was in her 20s? It makes his attraction to Monica more understandable… and creepier….

        1. According to Freud men are attracted to women who remind them of their mothers and women are attracted to men who remind them of their fathers. So I’m not greatly surpised about Cigar Bill, even though I have my issues with Freudian psychological theory.

  12. New zodiac signs 2011: Why astrology is even sillier than we thought

    The Christian Science Monitor calls Astrology “silly.” OK. Sure.

    1. I thought Christian Science and Scientology were the same thing until I was about 21 years old. I’m still not quite convinced.

      1. Scientology has an updated canon that steals from Freud and Jung.

  13. Police investigate whether Italy’s prime minister engaged in “bunga bunga” with a 17-year-old prostitute.

    Hey, fine with me as long as he did not engage in “patty cake” or “hopscotch”… That would have been some sick shit right there…

    1. Is “bunga bunga” Italian for “hide the salami”?

  14. Can anyone out there in Reason-ville find the “this is why socialists rounded up people like the tea partiers” (in reference to Obamacare protests) quote from some leftist? I remember it (and I don’t think it was intended to be a literal demand on the speaker’s part), but can’t find it.

    1. “Socialists” meaning Stalin, Lenin, etc.

    2. If Longtorso can’t find it there must be quite the cover-up!

      1. Who said cover-up? I just can’t find a quote I remember reading.

    3. If you want to talk about lefty hate speech, just go back to that creepy ass envirotwat button bomber video.

      How exactly does literally having authority figures blast everyone that disagrees with their agenda into chunks of gore stack up against some crosshairs on a map?

  15. The world’s still ending in 2012, though, right?

    1. 2012? dammmm

      1. From some guys outside the Metro stop this morning I learned that it would occur on May 21st, 2011.

        They had math so it pretty much has to be true. You can’t argue against MATH!

        http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/may21/

    1. Life is too short to dance with self-conscious chicks.

    2. He still hasn’t paid for the crime that was the newest X-Files movie. I’m thinking the guillotine would be proper(and restitution of my 8 bucks).

      1. Ugh, that was so awful. I saw it for free and I still think they ought to pay me for my time.

    3. Ah, so now if you’re involved in a work of fiction and one of the characters says something offensive or mean or whatever, everyone else involved has to publicly denounce their statement? Okay, good to know.

      1. Yup. Don’t ever play Hitler in a movie.

        1. Now he tells me.

      2. It reminds me of the very first short story I ever read in a creative writing class. The narrator was a bastard, so I was called a bastard. But then, these were college freshmen, not, you know, adults.

        1. Its amazing how many people have problems with separating the narrator from the author. I’m sure there are plenty of people who started The Sound and the Fury who think Faulkner was a retard.

    4. Ragen, you didn’t attack him as a person, you just offered something nice, a way to show that everyone involved can look good. No crosshairs, no blood libel, just reaching out.

      As always, the comments are simply too stupid to make up. How in the fuck would the whale make a blood libel against an actor for calling fatties, fat?

    5. Fat chick just wants Bunga bunga!!

      1. Fat chicks can have all the bunga bunga they want.

        As long as they’re willing to pay for it.

  16. Arent Fox announced the hire on Tuesday, seven days after Dorgan’s last day as a U.S. senator.

    I hope that revolving door has water cooled bearings.

  17. Criminalizing Comments? Bill Would Make “False and Defamatory” Internet Postings a Crime

    http://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2011…..tings.html

    1. No way that could possibly be used in a partisan manner.

    2. Some nice comments @ link.

      “It is hereby declared illegal in the State of Vermont to introduce dopey, feel-good, and time-wasting legislation. A criminal penalty of 6 months in jail will be imposed for each such bill introduced.”

      1. shouldn’t it also be illegal to use facial hair to impersonate a baleen whale?

        To the Gulag with you!

    3. How can Michael Obuchowski write all these bills when he spends most of his time fucking sheep?

      1. You might get indicted.

  18. “New zodiac signs 2011: Thanks to a wobble in the earth’s axis, the astrological positions calculated some 2,000 years ago no longer apply.”

    They still apply, it is just that the predictions will be a little skewed, like by a month or so…

    1. There are naturally 13 zodiacal divisions. The Sumerians ignored the 13th because of their use of base 12 for calculations. (Reflected in the 24 hour day, 60 minutes hour and 60 second minute.) Astrological birth dates have been “wrong” for 5,000 years.

      1. Shh! Don’t say those things because people may think Astrology is a sham.

      2. Yup. 13 lunar cycles in a year, not 12. But we ignore these pesky things because 12 is easier to count.

        1. If only the Sumerians had had 13 fingers instead of 12.

          1. +13… err… 12

          2. CN – thanks, Ive already stolen that joke.

        2. 12.5 cycles, more or less. 29.5 days per cycle *12 is 354 days.

          If memory serves, the Jewish and Chinese lunar caledars each add 7 extra months every 19 years.

      3. Final Fantasy Tactics (great game) got it right. Summons all thirteen in the Zodiac spell.

        The random easter eggs of Beowulf, a robot, and Cloud Strife were interesting though. Still the best Final Fantasy game in my mind (suck it VII lovers!)

        1. Die you commie bastard. Thou SHALL NOT DEFAMRE THE GREAT SEPHIROTH AND CLOUD!!!!1!!11ONE!

          Fly fat ass, FLY!

          1. Yay Sephiroth!

        2. Good man. FF Tactics is the shit. Stealing a second copy of God Save The Queen FTW!!!

          And FF VI is also better than FF VII.

          1. FF VI being the US FF III – the one with Saban, Cyan, Gau, etc.

            Kefka. That one.

            1. That one’s my favorite.

      4. Don’t bring in your heretical notions about 13 zodiacal divisions.

        When I first learned that all of this 12 and 60 nonsense came all the way from Babylonian times, I was overwhelmed by the coolness of it all. There’s just something awesome about retaining something like that for 5,000 years.

        1. According to Douglas Adams, no one does math in Base 13.

          But we should*.

          *that last sentence is me, not DA.

          1. Argh!!!!

            Ignore that last post, I completely screwed up the Adams bit. It is “no one makes jokes in base 13”.

            1. Not base 42?

              1. No, base 13. But related to the 42.

                42 was the answer to the Q of LtUaE.
                The question (when Arthur had the caveman draw the scrablle letters) turned out to be “What do you get if you multiply six and nine?”

                Someone pointed out that 6×9=42 in base 13, and Adams responded as I quoted.

            2. I can’t think of any society that does arithmetic in an odd-number base. There have been a lot of science fiction stories where the aliens use base 3, but I don’t know of any real society that does. As a WEG, I’d bet it is because our species is bilaterally symmetric.

              1. Speak for yourself.

                1. Are you a halibut or a Motie?

                  1. My heart is slightly off center.

                  2. Speaking of Moties, Ive been meaning to suggest to Niven and Pournelle that they do with Bury & Renner like Niven did with the Man-Kzin Wars. Open up the period between Mote and Gripping Hand to other authors to write Bury/Renner stories.

                    Part 1 of The Gripping Hand on Maxroy’s Purchase would be the perfect size story. A series of novellas filling in their 25 years worth of adventures would rock.

              2. A friend of mine during his oral qualifiers (or one of the exams leading to his doctorate) was asked to explain Base -2 and why it would be useful.

                Its actually fun to play with. Turns out you can represent positive and negative numbers without the need for a sign bit.

                1. Uh base 2 is just binary. Not to degrade your friend or the school but a PhD qual test asked why binary code was useful?

                  What am I missing?

                  1. Uh base 2 is just binary…What am I missing?

                    Reading comprehension?

                    Did I type base 2? No I did not, I typed base -2, BASE NEGATIVE 2.

                    [kidding, I realize that could be interpreted as a dash, but duh, I thought my explanation wouldnt have cleared that up]

                    1. Examples of base -2 (using just 4 bits)

                      0000 = 0
                      0001 = 1
                      0010 = -2
                      0011 = -1
                      0100 = 4
                      0101 = 5
                      0110 = 2
                      0111 = 3
                      1000 = -8
                      1100 = -4
                      1101 = -3
                      1110 = -6
                      1111 = -5

                    2. oops, left some off:

                      1001 = -7
                      1010 = -10
                      1011 = -9

                    3. Ahh, sorry I took it as base-2 with a hyphen. Negative base didn’t even enter my simplistic melon.

                    4. Negative base didn’t even enter my simplistic melon.

                      It hadnt his until that day. So he had to derive it all on the fly on a white board. I had never considered it until he told me about it. Its actually pretty cool. I think it allows you to avoid all the 2s compliment bullshit. The tricky part is when adding, if you have to carry, you carry a negative one to the next column, not a 1.

                    5. Also, Im sure the U of Wisconsin-Madison accepts your apology.

                2. Come to think of it, I just realized that politicians use base i.

                  But then again, politicians are neither human nor civilized.

                  1. Dammit, I was about to post a similar joke. Or truth.

      5. If I had to put a qualifying question for the right to vote, it would be “Do you believe in astrology?”

        If the answer is ‘yes’, that person does not vote. (I think this would have a roughly equal impact on both Team Blue and Team Red.)

        1. Despite my raging atheism, I don’t think the franchise should be based on holding irrational beliefs. That is too subjective a determination. To particularly stupid people, freedom is an irrational belief, for example.

          Net tax payer is an adequate and objective qualifier.

          1. I agree that the franchise should not be based on any non-objective test. I was just saying that, if there were one, the astrology question would be the one I would choose.

            Despite my raging priapism, I believe in equal injustice for all.

            1. “If erection persists for more than four hours, call your friends and brag.”

              1. “If erection persists for more than four hours, seek medical help, for your wife”

      6. Base 10 is the worst system, considering the alternatives we could have. If we were in base 8 or base 16 we could easily convert numbers between binary, octal, and hexadecimal in our heads. Unfortunately, the numbers we actually understand won’t do that.

        If we had base 12, that version of the metric would be based on a number that is divided by 2, 3, 4, and 6, which is handy. Since 10 is only evenly divisible by 2 and 5, it doesn’t work out so well.

  19. One of the chief obstacles to widespread use of UAVs is their inability to “see and avoid” other aircraft

    Screw that! Can they see dogs?

  20. This Lawrence Taylor story really grinds my gears. Not only is he being thrown under the bus for prostitution, which should not be illegal (immoral maybe, but not illegal), but he is also forced to go on the sex offender registry because the girl is 16. She told him she was 19, but there is no excuse for that?? As Dave Chappelle once said, even 12 sometimes seems like “old enough.”

    This fits in well with the Berlusconi story. As mentioned in a thread yesterday, there should be a distinction made between pre-pubescent girls and girls who have already matured for the most part (I forget what the specific terms were). But alas, IT’S FOR TEH CHILDRENS!!!

    1. Chappelle said that publicly? That must have caused a shitstorm of bad publicity…

      1. Sorry it was 15-year olds. It was regarding the R. Kelly piss story. Something about if you’re not smart enough to get out the way of some pee maybe you really do need to be protected. But then he also mentioned Elizabeth Smart being a total dumbass versus some black girl that got kidnapped, chewed through the ropes binding her and escaped.

    2. “Police investigate whether Italy’s prime minister engaged in “bunga bunga” with a 17-year-old prostitute”

      Hey wait a minute…I thought the sexual practices of a nation’s leader were a private matter between “him, his wife, and his God,” and that he should be judged only on his public performance, not his private life.

    3. If we allow the excuse that “I thought she was older” to become a defense, you may as well repeal the statutory rape laws. The point is to keep minors from making stupid mistakes like having sex with older people, so if the ban magically disappears once the minor lies about their age, it’s pointless.

      1. But how are you supposed to know if she’s old enough? IDs can be faked, the girls can lie… It was obviously contractual sex based on the exchange of money, therefore it was “rape” in the general sense, it only became rape because she turned out to be 16.

        I think children are not given nearly as much credit as they should be. The book is only thrown at them if they A)are black; and B) killed someone. Otherwise they get off scot-free, even in false accusation cases of rape.

        1. How about you just don’t have sex with people you don’t know.

          This is one of those questions where we separate the libertarians from the libertines, I guess.

          1. I never realized you were a libertine, Tulpa. From the way you want to “keep minors from making stupid mistakes like having sex with older people” you come across more like a statist.

            Protecting minors from making stupid mistakes is harder than trying to develop a system where government can effectively run healthcare. And the rape statute is even more ridiculous when you consider that 18 is a relatively arbitrary number. Sure, we use it for legal purposes, but girls were getting married at the age of 13, 14 only a few hundred years ago. Just because life expectancies increase we suddenly up the time when they “mature”?

            The girl gamed the system; lied and said she was 19 so that she could still get paid. I believe most of the stories where the guy “honestly didn’t know she was underage” because truthfully, girls are developing at a lot younger ages now. While it would be hard to confuse 12 with 18, 16 for 18 is not that difficult at all.

      2. My understanding is that the defense here isn’t “I thought she was older”, but “She told me she was older”.

        Quite a difference if you ask me.

        1. You seem to have missed the second sentence of the comment you were replying to.

      3. Is the 16 year old prostitute required to register as a sex offender as well?

        If she told him she was 19 you’re saying she bears no responsibility for that?

  21. No way that could possibly be used in a partisan manner.

    Well, at least *we* have nothing to worry about…

  22. 5 Self-Defense Books for Women (Who Want to Lose a Fight)

    Letting someone go into the world with these fighting abilities as their self defense is like teaching an Indian exchange student how to say, “My vagina is in your sandwich,” and releasing him into America. I’ve seen it done, and it’s a disaster. Your only prayer with this garbage is that your attacker took enough karate when he was eight that he figures out what you’re trying to do and starts laughing.

    1. Hey, seanbaby is still around? Sweet.

    2. I always recommend Paul Vunak, king of the head butt and groin shot.

  23. 90 Pregnancies at one Memphis high school

    A new initiative to help combat the problem will soon be introduced

    Which means that soon everyone will be pregnant, even the dudes.

    1. 90 Pregnancies at one Memphis high school

      It’s a Miracle!

    2. The other girls in the school must not have cousins who live nearby.

    3. Holy shit!! Media causes babies and not fucking.

    4. So, a lot of easy chicks at this school? Sweet.

  24. Can I ask the “gun rights were for allowing an armed citizenry to resist their own government” crowd explain how this could be true if Shays Rebellion was a instigator of the Constitutional Convention? Seems strange the Founders would have wanted to codify such a thing in light of that event…

    1. Re: MNG,

      Can I ask the “gun rights were for allowing an armed citizenry to resist their own government” crowd explain how this could be true if [the] Shay[‘]s Rebellion was a instigator of the Constitutional Convention?

      Just like the Tucson Massacre is an instigator of more calls for gun control and abridging free speech. So what?

      “And after saying this, the wolf crossed the river, and baa-baa-baa! Ate the frightened little lamb. The tyrant always finds and excuse for his tyrannical acts.” Aesop.

      1. My point has to do with the “original intent.” But it also has to do with the more thorny question: allowing people guns to resist the government doesn’t just empower Joe Goodcitizen it empowers Jared Loughner’s, Daniel Shays and such.

        1. It’s worse. Considering that Joe Goodcitizen and his pals have very little chance of defeating the US army all you really empower are the Jared Loughners and Daniel Shays of the world to wreck havoc.

          1. Considering that Joe Goodcitizen and his pals have very little chance of defeating the US army

            Tell it to the Vietcong.

            1. Or the CSA? Or for that matter Shays himself.

              1. The CSA fought army to army. Your stance is that since just about every war has a loser, nobody can resist anything ever.

                You said non-regular-military can’t win. An example of a loss doesn’t prove that. Nobody said armed citizens were GUARANTEED a win.

                1. And unarmed citizens are pretty well guaranteed not to win.

                  And if things ever get to a point where a large portion of the country feels insecure and threatened by the government, I think that millions of armed citizens could accomplish something against the US military. I think that the recent wars have shown that even though the US could kick the ass of any nations military pretty neatly, dealing with armed people on their own ground is not so easy.

              2. Or the CSA?

                The CSA would be similar to those “state militias” that you’re so fond of.

              3. How about tell it to the Iraqi insurgents, who were eventually able to get concessions from the government thanks to their use of arms.

                Oh, and Shay’s rebellion resulted in better protections for small landholders so that more powerful individuals couldn’t confiscate all of their property. I’d say that rebellion was completely successful in its stated objectives.

              4. Have you ever heard of the Revolutionary War? The People defeated the greatest military in the world. They used guns, they obtained artillery, they got lucky a few times, they won.

              5. Have you ever heard of the Revolutionary War? The People defeated the greatest military in the world. They used guns, they obtained artillery, they got lucky a few times, they won.

              6. which is why they speak Russian in Afghanistan

          2. You’re assuming the entire army would just “follow orders”. I have a feeling the actual result would be quite different.

            1. Indeed, but that makes the “right to armed resistance” kind of moot. The real hope is in having citizen soldiers who would not carry out such orders. In other words a “well regulated militia” made up of citizens…

              1. Or that such soldiers would join with the existing unorganized militia. I bet that there are plenty in the Army who would just follow orders.

              2. Or both. No reason that a synergy between both isn’t possible. What about armed vets?

          3. Yup, no chance at all. Might as well just surrender like french man.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B…..le_Bighorn

        2. Re: MNG,

          But it also has to do with the more thorny question: allowing people guns to resist the government doesn’t just empower Joe Goodcitizen it empowers Jared Loughner’s, Daniel Shays and such.

          “If one of those crashes his car, then nobody should drive a car – nobody.”

          Same argument, MNG.

          1. Except in your analogy we are talking about an accident. Loughner, Shays and you are thinking of using the right in the way it was meant to be used. And that’s the problem it seems.

            1. Okay. If someone uses their car to go GTA highway rampage on some pedestrians, nobody should have a car? One person does not make the product bad.

              1. Again you are talking about someone purposefully misusing the right to drive while I’m talking about the thorny problem of people trying to properly use the right to resist tyrannical government via arms but with everyone having a different idea of when and what triggers that right.

                1. You’re still using an irrational person’s irrational act as if it had some rational basis. If his obsession had centered on an attractive woman who wouldn’t go out with him and he shot up a night club, would you still be making this argument?

                2. First of all stop calling your assertion thorny, it’s not nearly as complicated as you are trying to make it. Secondly, you seem to be using an almost automated or rigorous view of human actions, as if people would need to instantly decide all at once to revolt for your theory to work. Coming from a social science guy this means you are either completely clueless about your profession, or your not arguing in good faith and as before using totally absurd assumptions to make your theory work.

                3. I’m not sure what, if any state, you live in, but in the one I live in, it is made abundantly clear that driving is not a “right” it is a privilege, conferred on people by the state through the licensure process.

            2. Piltdown Man Shay’s Rebellion!

              1. you’d think someone with the handle sage would be more comfortable with the use of examples that illustrate problems with a theory during argument

                1. Please. You peed yourself after finding an example of the downside of an armed populace. What you found was the exception, not the rule. Just get on the ground when they order you to. You’re not even a man.

                  1. Yeah tuf gai, yeah.

                    I could name dozens of examples of that downside, I named Shays because of its proximity and relation to the founding since I originally was speaking of originalk intent. Dunce would be a better moniker if you keep up this level of thought…

            3. Re: MNG,

              Except in your analogy we are talking about an accident.

              That’s YOUR assumption. I never said “accident”.

              Loughner, Shays and you are thinking of using the right in the way it was meant to be used. And that’s the problem it seems.

              Ah. Did Loughner used his right in the same way I mean it? Because it is one thing to possess a gun or to use one to defend your life, quite another to go out and kill. It is the act itself that’s despicable – murder, not the right to have a gun.

              And YOU’RE despicable for even implying *I* or others mean to use a right to violate someone else’s rights. Only STATIST FUCKS (and crazy people it seems) would do that.

              1. I could name dozens of examples of that downside

                You could also say the same about all Human Liberty. Would you squash that also, for the children, one supposes?

                1. Yes he would.

        3. Perhaps part of your answer lies in the fact that “original intent” is a facile concept.

          And I believe your thorny question was addressed yesterday, when it was pointed out that our system has many examples of allowing freedoms despite the occasional negative outcome. Our legal system’s presumption of innocence, for instance.

          1. The downside of presumption of innocence is to sometimes free a guilty man, the downside of the right to armed restistance is Harper’s Ferry.

            1. The downside of the absence of the right is the UK, or worse. I don’t want our politicians to fear crazy people too much, but I would like them to fear sane people. Their lawmaking abilities can stop elections, but they can’t stop bullets.

        4. People commit murder with knives, therefore the people should not be allowed to have knives.

          People commit murder with baseball bats, therefore, baseball bats should be outlawed.

          People commit murder with free weights, therefore, free weights should be banned.

          People commit murder with lye, therefore lye should be criminalized.

          And so on, and so forth, ad infinitum.

    2. The Founders didn’t want a bill of rights at all, MNG. Hence the Second Amendment being an amendment to the document, not part of the original.

      1. I guess this depends on who falls into “the Founders.” Enough folks of that generation wanted one to get one and I doubt they were all repentant Loyalists.

        1. The Bill of Rights was the paranoids winning out over the optimists.

          As it turns out, the paranoids were right.

          1. As it turns out, the paranoids were right the optimists.

        2. Enough folks of that generation wanted one to get one and I doubt they were all repentant Loyalists.

          And the folks who wanted one were the Anti-Federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson, who were pro-Shays Rebellion, to the extent that they thought that the liberty to rebel should be protected.

        3. The “Founders” were not all of the same mind on many subjects.

        4. “Founders” usually refers to the authors of the unamended Constitution itself. Hence the importance of the “intent of the Founders” in Constitutional interpretation.

          Founding Fathers is a more broad group from what I can tell.

    3. Can I ask the “gun rights were for allowing an armed citizenry to resist their own government” crowd explain how this could be true if Shays Rebellion was a instigator of the Constitutional Convention?

      Easy. Shays’ Rebellion shocked the Federalists, who wanted a stronger government. However, the document that they produced was unacceptable to the Anti-Federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson (his famous quote about the tree of liberty being refreshed by the blood of tyrants was in a letter to a friend directly discussing Shays’ Rebellion).

      To assuage their concerns and guarantee that individual rights would still be protected under the new document, the Bill of Rights was added. The final Constitution was a compromise between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The initial part reflects the Federalists, the Bill of Rights was written by and for the Anti-Federalists. The Second Amendment, being part of the Bill of Rights, to the degree one wishes to analyze the motives of its authors, therefore should be properly read from the Anti-Federalist, not the Federalist point of view. Since Jefferson was explicitly in favor of the liberty that made Shays’ Rebellion as being necessary and good for democracy and against tyranny, the Second Amendment must be read, according to your own argument, as favoring that view.

  25. He’s a local public library patron who keeps getting kicked out for screaming about Nazis.

    “For” or “Against”?

    Inquiring minds, and all that…

    1. The story I was told is that he walked up a smoke detector that was beeping because the battery was low, and asked a librarian if she “wanted help detonating that thing.” When she laughed, he accused her of working with Nazis to help place explosives all over the library in an effort to kill him because God is his “biological father.” The police were called at that point.

  26. Is there any indication whether the Tunisian protesters want to install a nuthouse Islam government or just a democratic one?

    1. Can’t it be both?

      1. I’ve heard that they just want a marginally less corrupt one.

        But don’t we all?

  27. I thought Grover Norquist was dead.

    1. Wishful thinking will get you nowhere

  28. Let’s hear it for K 97!!!

  29. The astrology story is no big deal. I always read all twelve horoscopes and pick the one Inlike best.

  30. “”If you’ve got a fist in the tar baby Iraq and you’ve got a fist in the tar baby Afghanistan, then who’s afraid of you?”

    Uh oh, Grover might have to advocate clemency for some sisters now…

  31. Guys, sorry for hijacking this thread, but this is important news.

    Kiera Knightly is single. WOOHOO!!!

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBI…..l?hpt=Sbin

      1. I thought the very same thing.

      2. Your unarmed fat chick fetish is of no importance to us.

        1. Finding Knightly too skinny does not a fat chick fan one make.

          1. Ideal body type: Anne Hathaway in Ella Enchanted.

            1. Uh, right.

              THIS is an ideal body type:

              http://digitalgroup.info/wordp…..rdia-3.jpg

            2. The ideal body type is something like Stoya’s. Especially now that she’s moved on to being DPed.

            3. Ideal body type: Anne Hathaway in Ella Enchanted.

              Lexi Belle

              Her gluteals and ventrals are a constant source of inspiration to me.

        2. A girl who has less of a chest that Johnny Depp is fail.

          1. Wow. Lolspeak has eaten my brain. I’m blaming Warty for all the kitteh pics during the massacrebating.

      3. This isn’t FARK. We appreciate women who don’t look like beached whales here.

    1. They both look like they need a sandwich and a piece of pie.

    2. She has always been single. Your single until the 2nd ring is on the finger.

      BTW, there is a very low success rate with mentioning this to your engaged female friends.

      1. “Youre”. Ugh.

        1. Almost there, robc. One more go at it, and I’m sure you’ll get it right.

          1. Nope that was it. Apostrophes are for pussies.

            1. If apostrophes are for pussies.

              You used a contracted word that by default requires an apostrophe.

              Therefore, contractions are for pussies.

              /Loughner

              1. I’d agree.

    3. Fine by me skinny haters. I wans’t gonna share anyway.

  32. Meanwhile, this CAIR poster has got the right-wing’s panties in a twist.

    I dunno, it looks about right to me.

    1. Agreed, there’s nothing wrong with a poster saying “Use your Constitutionally guaranteed rights!”

  33. ARFARFARF I HAZ DA STICK!!

    1. Four day school weekend for King day? Kids today are so lucky.

      1. We used to get Gasparilla Day off when I was a kid. For people not familiar with Tampa, that’s when fake pirates invade, half the city gets drunk, and women disrobe for cheap trinkets. Now, that’s no longer a day off, because they replaced it with MLK Day.

        So, when people think about the cost of James Earl Ray’s evil act, throw that into the mix.

  34. “Why wouldn’t you talk to the FBI,” Gavin wondered.

    Why, indeed?

    1. Why would I?

  35. That CAIR poster reminds me of “Spy vs Spy”.

    1. xactly P Brooks.

  36. Look, I just find it hard to believe that in the immediate wake of Shays Rebellion there was a rush to codify and institutionalize a right to armed rebellion among the citizenry. More and more to me it seems the original intent of the 2nd was closer to what Stevens argued in his dissent (to guarantee protections for the state militias vis a vis the federal government).

    That still doesn’t mean you don’t get an individual right for, as Scalia argues in Heller, they may have wanted to codify an individual right for the purpose of institutionalizing state militias because such are “necessary for the security of a free state.” But then the individual right is not an armed right to rebellion but something more like traditional rights to own a firearm for hunting and self protection.

    1. So did you just learn about Shays rebellion yesterday and now you’re taking it for a walk, or what?

    2. Re: MNG,

      I just find it hard to believe that in the immediate wake of Shays Rebellion there was a rush to codify and institutionalize a right to armed rebellion among the citizenry.

      Your argument is quite irrational, since that is exactly what happened – the 2nd Amendment is still there. It’s like when the Enterprise was thrown light years away from a planet, in an instant, and Scotty exclaims “But that’s not possible!” To which Spock replies “Mr. Scott, since we’re here, your expression is not just ilogical, but not even worthy of refutation.”

      More and more to me it seems the original intent of the 2nd was closer to what Stevens argued in his dissent (to guarantee protections for the state militias vis a vis the federal government).

      Stevens’ argument was quite unconvincing since nobody who knows English would construe “the right of the people to bear arms” to mean “militias” and from there to mean “The Federal Government”. The people still means “persons”, last I read in the dictionary. You simply do not agree with the right of a person to bear a weapon, that’s all. Opinions and personal tastes are not, fortnately, arguments.

      1. More and more to me it seems the original intent of the 2nd was closer to what Stevens argued in his dissent (to guarantee protections for the state militias vis a vis the federal government).

        If that was their intent, why didn’t they just say so, instead of nattering on about the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Stevens is saying that the 2A means:

        The right of the several States to form and maintain militias shall not be infringed.

        How you can mean that and write the actual text of the 2A is a mystery to me.

        1. As I’ve argued before, my personal take is that the Founders couldn’t even imagine a government that would take away weapons used for hunting and personal protection, and therefore didn’t think it was necessary to mention it.

          And, of course, interpretations of the 2nd as a collective right also fuel this fantasy many on the left have that the states were and are not independent political entities that are bound together by a free trade alliance and a mutual defense pact and that the sort of overweening control that the federal government has over the states is exactly the tyranny the Anti-Federalists feared.

          1. Re: SugarFree,

            my personal take is that the Founders couldn’t even imagine a government that would take away weapons used for hunting and personal protection, and therefore didn’t think it was necessary to mention it.

            They DID think it as they just fought a war against a crown that started with soldiers trying to take guns away from citizens: Hence the 2nd Amendment.

            And, of course, interpretations of the 2nd as a collective right also fuel this fantas[…]

            Agreed, and it is interesting that the “interpretation” of this Amendment (a silly notion as the text is written in plain English) relies exclusively on the “collective rights” canard when the rest of the document is not read that way.

          2. Just taking the context of the Revolution happening a few years before, it’s obvious the Anti-Federalists wanted Americans to be able to defend themselves from tyrannical government. I mean, that’s what we had just done.

          3. To be fair, even the anti-Federalists didn’t intend the Second Amendment to apply to the actions of state and local governments. As it stood in 1790, state and local governments were free to ban guns to their hearts content.

            1. That’s right – because the states were still viewed as sovereign entities that had yielded only the specific measure of sovereignty set forth in the Constitution – and had retained all other powers not expressly delegated to the federal government. See 10th Amendment.

              All that went right out the fucking window when the FDR court decided that Congress had plenary power to regulate whatever the fuck it wanted to in the name of “commerce” and the Good n’ Plenty clause.

    3. There isn’t a right to rebellion there, that I can see. No government will allow people to violently overthrow it as part of the law — if it is behaving justly, there is no need to overthrow it, and if it is behaving tyrannically, it would remove even nonviolent means of challenging its power.

      There is a right to the means necessary to conduct an armed rebellion, in case ignoring the law becomes necessary.

      Let’s say you had a family history of demon possession. You know that there is a chance (though not a certainty) that you will one day flip and turn into evil personified. Once that happens, you will turn on and destroy everything the present you loves. So, you give the people you care about the means to have a fighting chance of destroying you, and command them not to hesitate when the time comes. But only if the time comes.

      1. It’s sort of like Superman entrusting Batman with a sample of Kryptonite. An evil Superman could grind Batman’s bones to paste in a microsecond, but at least Batman has a chance as long as he has the K.

        1. That’s an even better example.

          1. My superpower is creating comic book analogies to serious social questions.

            1. Who is this Batman you speak of?

              (tear)

        2. Superman can kill Batman from the other side of the solar system. He’s that powerful. Why get close enough to worry about Kryptonite.

          While we’re on the topic, since Kryptonite is clearly radioactive in some manner, why doesn’t Superman build or have built a Kryptonite detector?

          1. Because for all his might Supes just ain’t a very bright guy. He’s never really had to be. When you can punch all your problems out of existence, why think?

            1. ^^^^^^^^^^THIS A MILLION TIMES THIS!

              I’m so sick of the Superman defenders. The guy is a straight dumbass. It seems every year he is given a new power in some form or another, and even so he still manages to get beat. Don’t get me wrong, they’ve stretched the story on Batman as well. But at least his stuff makes sense because he has to invent the tools he works with. Superman is just gifted new abilities and still gets bested by Luther every other issue.

            2. Depends on the writer. Pre-Crisis Superman was written as “smarter than an army of Einsteins”, built Superman robots, had a photographic memory, and could speak every language on Earth.

              Pre-Crisis Supes was a physical god in all respects. Post-Crisis Supes is the big blue schoolboy who Batman and Luthor can think circles around.

          2. I’m not sure what the current continuity is, but after the 1986 Crisis, Kr wasn’t radioactive so much as it was poisonous by proximity. Some nonsense about pre-destruction Kryptonian religious zealotry-based xenophobia. Kryptonians made their whole planet poisonous to non-Ks, but it had the side effect of meaning Ks couldn’t leave their own planet. Jor-el had to reverse this effect in Kal-el for him to leave, thus making pieces of his homeworld poisonous. This was also meant to booster their intent to make Superman the only Kryptonian left, wiping Supergirl, and Superdog/horse/cat/monkey out of continuity. Despite being an advanced culture, they were homebodies, making a planetary disaster both inescapable and ensuring their wasn’t a viable population off-planet.

            Who knows how much they have deviated from that at this point.

            1. Okay, if it’s chemically poisonous, then he could still build a detector.

              Incidentally, since the man has total recall, he should be able to learn enough about his own biochemistry to come up with an antidote or some other prophylaxis to prevent kryptonite from harming him.

                1. I’ve seen that. Reminds me of the “Superman is an asshole” website.

                2. That was genius, SF.

                  1. Pinkerton’s Spider-Man comics are even funnier, in my opinion.

      2. Actually, werewolf would be a better analogy. You have a loved one chain you up and put you behind a series of locked/barred doors in preparation for the transformation (ie, checks, balances, freedom of speech, etc.); but you don’t really know how strong you will be — and if you manage to break through all those barriers, then the last defense is a silver bullet.

      3. Re: Cynical,

        There isn’t a right to rebellion there, that I can see.

        There isn’t a right written there to piss on a pot either, that I can see – can you hold it that long? Or will you drop this “positivist” shit and take a leak?

        No government will allow people to violently overthrow it as part of the law.

        You’re begging the question. Who cares what the government wants?

        Let’s say you had a family history of demon possession.

        What do you mean “let’s say“? Bwa ha ha ha!!!!

        1. The point is that the right to rebel is meaningless. If you have an ok government that goes bad, so bad you want to overthrow it, then you aren’t exactly waiting for their permission.

          Whereas the right to own guns is not — if an ok government lets you own guns, and then goes bad and (among other things) takes that legal right away, you still have the guns until they physically manage to remove them from your possession. That is significant.

          1. 2A is not the positive right to have a gun. It is a negative, inherent right of self-defense…against anyone, including the government, thieves (but I repeat myself), murderers (there I go again), Warty, home invaders (why do I keep doing that?), etc.

    4. I think the concept of “security” here is important, too.

      Pre-revolutionary militias often had to assemble rapidly, in response to Indian attack, for example.

      This was often done by having men with arms in their homes travel directly to a point of assembly to respond to the attack. Those men usually brought their own arms when doing so.

      That certainly was also a method of militia response during the Revolution as well. The Green Mountain Boys weren’t perpetually under arms, like Washington’s men. The British came down the Hudson and the GMB’s assembled from their homes.

      So I think it’s certainly reasonable to believe that “A free militia being necessary to the security of a free state” does in fact mean that a body of citizens with immediate access to their own arms was considered a prerequisite of the type of militia these states actually possessed.

      1. So I think it’s certainly reasonable to believe that “A free militia being necessary to the security of a free state” does in fact mean that a body of citizens with immediate access to their own arms was considered a prerequisite of the type of militia these states actually possessed.

        That’s because that is what it meant. A militia was made up of able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45. In some states and localities, those men were required to turn out when for militia practice and had to show up with a properly functioning and complete firearm (i.e., “lock, stock and barrel”). They could be penalized for not maintaining a useful firearm for militia duty.

        The 2A was intended to prevent the federal government from disarming the populace – the understanding was that free men had the right to own military-style arms, because that individual right was “necessary” for the state to be able to defend itself – since states did not have standing armies.

        Is that need exactly the same today as it was back then? I can accept an argument that it is not. But that need was identified only as *A* reason or justification for the right; it is not identified as the right itself. The right itself is of “the people” to “keep and bear arms.”

        It was understood and in fact taken for granted that indivduals had the inherent right to arms, as a birthright – even if just for taking with you on a walk through the woods, to defend yourself from robbers, or attacking wildlife, or just to shoot at birds, or whatever. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson expressly wrote about this, and John Adams and Tench Coxe identified the right to arms as being a unique quality of being an American, of which other countries were jealous and afraid.

    1. I was once accused of having the morals of a cat. I never did figure out whether that person was calling me selfish or complimenting my cleanliness.

      1. Mr. Clemens tells me that

        Cats are loose in their morals, but not consciously so. Man, in his descent from the cat, has brought the cats looseness with him but has left the unconsciousness behind (the saving grace which excuses the cat). The cat is innocent, man is not.

        and that

        Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. It is a trait that is not known to the higher animals. The cat plays with the frightened mouse; but she has this excuse, that she does not know that the mouse is suffering. The cat is moderate (unhumanly moderate: she only scares the mouse, she does not hurt it; she doesnt dig out its eyes, or tear off its skin, or drive splinters under its nails) man-fashion; when she is done playing with it she makes a sudden meal of it and puts it out of its trouble. Man is the Cruel Animal. He is alone in that distinction.

        1. Awesome. I guess I can live with “loose, but cruel”.

        2. On the other hand, we’re one of the few species that is capable of empathizing with other species in the first place. It’s what gives us the capacity for cruelty, but also for its opposite.

        3. This of course it totally wrong. Chimps have been known to gang up and attack other chimps for spite. Typically it involves ripping off the genitals.

          1. Also, orcas have been known to beat the living shit out of baby gray whales in a teaching moment but then leave, not eating the baby whale but leaving it with it’s mother to suffer until it dies or eventually heals from the brutality. The smart animals are capable of a lot, and we’re not the only smart animals.

    2. He may be the most loathsome creature in American politics.

      But he did manage to use The Word Of The Week: eliminationist. I’m sure his check’s in the mail.

      1. The title of Most Loathsome is a lofty one. It’s tough to award it to Krugman, since I don’t think he’s murdered anyone. I’ll give him the Least Tolerable award without complaint, though.

        1. His dripping disingenuousness and hyper-partisan hackery is especially offensive to me.

          1. dripping disingenuousness

            Remember, smugorrhea is curable.

            1. I’m pretty sure he has an anti-biotic resistant form. Like brain-MRSA.

            2. Uh, no – no, it’s not. Heh,heh,heh.

        2. The stuff about “eliminiationist rhetoric” is especially funny coming from the guy who called for Joe Lieberman (a Jew I might add) to be burned in effigy.

    3. Today’s G.O.P. sees much of what the modern federal government does as illegitimate

      And Spock has a beard!

    4. Dog morals:
      If you can’t eat it or fuck it, piss on it.

      I’d be remiss if I didn’t say at one time I may have had similar morals to a dog.

    5. Didn’t he just write in an article that he hates writing about political crap and prefers to explain economics to the plebs?

      He seems to be writing a lot of political crap since then.

    6. I like the part where he decries the violent rhetoric of the past two years.

      Our public discourse was so much less violent during the Bush administration!

    7. Krugman is such a douche.

      So he acknowledges that the dispute about the role of government is one in which one side sincerely, and not self-servingly, believes that certain government activities constitute tyranny.

      But then he demands that all discussions should not contain any language that “implies” the acceptability of violence.

      This means that TO KRUGMAN, even hinting at the possibility of the moral acceptability of violence in response to tyranny is wrong.

      ?????????

    8. Krugnugget of the day:

      We need to have leaders of both parties ? or Mr. Obama alone if necessary ? declare that both violence and any language hinting at the acceptability of violence are out of bounds.

      On your knees, peasant! The king is making a proclamation against violence! Unless you fail to pay your taxes!

    1. …why is this above the comment I posted 4 minutes before?

  37. Look, I just find it hard to believe that in the immediate wake of Shays Rebellion there was a rush to codify and institutionalize a right to armed rebellion among the citizenry.

    Do you realize that Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote about “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” was about Shays’ Rebellion?

    The Federalists were indeed shocked by Shays’ Rebellion, and wanted to strengthen the federal government to restrain the excesses of too much liberty. But, the resultant document was then unacceptable to the Anti-Federalists and the majority of the people until the Bill of Rights was added.

    The adding of the Bill of Rights was supported by the party around Thomas Jefferson, who was pro-Shays’ Rebellion. Therefore, since Jefferson wanted to add the Bill of Rights and thought that Shays’ Rebellion should be protected, this actually argues against your point on the 2nd Amendment.

    If we were discussing part of the pre-Bill of Rights text your argument would be better.

  38. Shorter Krugabe: “I miss Nixon.”

    1. I told you guys that you’d miss having me to kick around!

  39. The squirrels seem to be in the midst of some sort of “job action”.

  40. I guess Massacrebategate is still going on, so here’s a turkey chasing a laser pointer.

    1. Am I a sick bastard for waiting for the boom?

  41. So now I’m a Sagittarius instead of Capricorn! This is almost as earth-shattering as when I learned that chinese restaurant placemats had been misinforming me about which chinese zodiac sign I am.

  42. Holy cow! From the brickbats (which are now secretly hidden but still not daily). A cop ACTUALLY holds collegues accountable for bad behavior…that state trooper needs a medal, no joke.

    1. State Troopers are the only group of LEO that I have had encounters with where I didn’t want to beat the officer stupid with his/her own gun. I tend to think they represent as close to what a police force should as we’ve gotten. (note I said close)

    2. I think stories like this are the reason Steven Seagal was so popular for a time. In a world where the police officers who swear to protect and serve are doling out injustices, someone has to fight back.

    3. Well, not his colleagues. A totally different set of cops. But still…

      1. “colleague – a person who is member of one’s class or profession”

        I didnt say co-workers.

  43. Re: MNG,

    I’m talking about the thorny problem of people trying to properly use the right to resist tyrannical government via arms but with everyone having a different idea of when and what triggers that right.

    You’re already saying it, it’s right there in front of you: A government acting tyrannically. That is the trigger.

    And what’s with this “proper” way of using a right? Rights cannot be used as they are not things, they are part of the human condition. People ACT, or they DON’T ACT. People can justify their ACTIONS on the basis of protecting what is RIGHT for them: their lives, their property, their liberty.

  44. that state trooper needs a medal, no joke.

    No kidding. And those deputies should all be in jail.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.