Reason Morning Links: Amnesty, Abortion, and Acid

|

  • The administation pressures State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley into quitting after he criticizes the treatment of accused cablegate leaker Bradley Manning.
  • Anonymous releases emails that it says show fraud at the Bank of America.
  • Barack Obama wants to beef up background checks for gun buyers.
  • Detroit ponders a plan to convert 41 public schools into charter schools.
  • A Maryland bill to legalize same-sex marriage fails.
  • Alaskan militia activists are arrested for an alleged conspiracy to kill officials.
  • Usher donates his Qaddafi profits to Amnesty International and other human rights groups.
  • Planned Parenthood threatens to sue South Dakota if it adopts an anti-abortion law.
  • Owsley, RIP.

The latest from Reason.tv: "End the Fed."

NEXT: Why Gingrich Can't Win

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. Well sure, since the economy is doing so great, the fiscal sistuation of the country is hunky-dory, our energy dependence is a thing of the past, and entitlements have been downsized & rightsized, why wouldn’t you make it harder for people to defend their lives and property by beefing up background checks for gun purchases??

    Forget missing Bush or Clinton, I miss Carter.

    1. Billy Jeff misses Bush. Chris Matthews refers to President Carter, but means Obama.

    2. I’m not sure what he means by “beefing up” background checks. In typical presidential fashion, he sounds eloquent and all, and hits on all the right themes, but what exactly does he think should be done differently? Is he in favor of denying people’s consitutional rights because their college professors think they are weird? Because someone in the armed forces thinks they don’t fit in there?

      1. Fucking due process, how does it work?

      2. Fucking due process, how does it work?

      3. Fucking due process, how does it work?

      4. Fucking due process, how does it work?

    3. I want him to go after gun control. It will put a nail in his coffin. The only group he’s going to rally behind his now meme like “we need to seek agreement on …” bullshit lines are his base that is far left, which going to vote for him anyway. I think/hope the rest of the country realizes he doesn’t want agreement on anything, he wants his way and when he can get it he will implement it just like every other President.

      1. For how many months after he loses in 2012 will lefty publications decry that America wasn’t ready for a black president and that he was elected so he could fail?

        1. Months? If Obama doesn’t get reelected the left using racist card will be on the table for decades.

  2. Detroit ponders a plan to convert 41 public schools into charter schools.

    “Gentleman, we have screwed over, screwed up, and just plain gotten all the lulz we can out of fucking up education in Detroit. Let’s give them to a private company and then complain if they can make them shining perfect in a single year. To villainy!”

    1. Does Detroit have 41 students left?

      Will any of these charter schools focus on the skills children need to make it in the future? Skills such as flint-knapping; fire-starting; and shamanism?

      1. They will devote an entire semester to Clovis points.

        1. I say your semester doesn’t go far enough!

          1. There’s a great scene in the post-apocalyptic novel Earth Abides where the aging protagonist shows the young people of his tribe the best place to find quarters in the abandoned nearby city, because they make the best arrowheads after you beat them into shape.

            1. Ha! Foolish Detroit-ers aren’t nearly as resourceful. Instead, they fill socks with quarters to use as clubs on their quarry.

              A decent public education is more necessary than ever. With proper state-allocated resources, it is conceivable that students may be capable of learning rudimentary agriculture.

              1. Agriculture? Wouldn’t hunting and gathering be more beneficial? It’s not like we want to lead these poor kids on, filling their heads with a bunch of plow nonsense.

                1. Plows or gathering : teach the controversy.

                  1. Abdul: LOL!

                  2. Listen, if God had wanted us to use plows he would have given us massive steel horns.

            2. I prefer old monocles.

  3. I kid you [not], this keeps showing up in my YouTube “recently watched”, despite my not having watched it.

    YouTube: The Golden Gays [Musical] Spoof of Golden Girls

    1. Live by the sword, die by the sword. You reap what you sow. Chickens coming home to roost, etc, etc…

      1. I [blame] you, cap l. Which gay actor in the clip is [you], anyway?

      2. [sword]…I see what you did there.

    2. BTW, I’m not kidding. This really does keep randomly showing up in my YouTube “recently viewed” list even when I don’t watch it.

      1. (laughs up sleeve)

      2. I get posts on facebook that appear to be posted by me, but are not. WTF?

        1. Social networking. Huh! What is it good for?

        2. Fuckin’ social networking, how does it work?

  4. Anonymous releases emails that it says show fraud at the Bank of America.

    I hope the emails are peppered with terms and phrases like “trick” and “hide the decline”.

    1. I hope the emails are peppered with terms and phrases like “winner” and “hide the salami”.

      1. Spoken like a true Martian warlock.

    2. If Bank of America goes completely kaput is the balance on my B of A credit card wiped away? I’m in favor of this.

      1. Or my mortgage? Yay Anonymous!

      2. Nope, the FDIC sells it to someone else until we get one giant mega bank.

        1. I wonder if the transfer of your debts will be as full of nonsense as the mortgage market? If so, you might get out of it.

  5. Barack Obama wants to beef up background checks for gun buyers.

    Can we beef up background checks for presidential candidates?

    1. “Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it.”

      Careful what you ask for …

      1. The President of the United States let his name be run over that pile of crap paragraph? FSM wept great tomato-ey tears.

        1. Don’t blame me for that one.

          1. “America is robbed of more futures”

            Upon re-reading, it appears that the President is an advocate of the Laws of Thermodynamics. How gun control follows from this is beyond me.

      2. I can see Sarah Palin saying that.

        Of course, the segue to What Should Be Done would be a little different.

  6. Owsley, RIP.

    Wow, people are just dying all over the place. It’s so wierd!!!

    1. It is weird, and hilarious.

  7. Did anyone watch 60 minutes last night? There was a pretty good segment on TEP, which is a New York charter school that pays teachers $125k a year.

    1. Yeah it was a good piece. The quintessential problem with our teaching system here is that the idea of that school and the way it pays its teachers is revolutionary when in fact it works just like, eg., any law firm, or any other corporation works. You perform and work really hard and produce and – you get the big bucks. The other huge problem in our schools of course was expressed so succinctly by that NY Schools Superintendent: “There is simply no way that we can get rid of incompetent teachers.”

    2. First comment:

      Does anyone else think it’s ridiculous to ask these people to work 80 hours a week? No matter what the amount of money they are being paid it is simply unrealistic to think that a person will work that many hours for any length of time. This is too much to ask and it is why unions were formed in the first place. I guarantee these “excellent” teachers will be burned out in a few years.

      Yeah, we need unions to protect the poor, oppressed teachers making $125k.

      1. More commenting genius:

        A journalism 101 fowl: if you’re going to make tenure an element of this education story, then you should balance your story with a source to speak of the merits of this labor protection (which should be extended not only to teachers, but to nurses, firefighters, polices officers, construction workers, and journalists, among others) with a union representative, rather than represent only anti-tenure spokespeople.

        1. I would understand tenure for firefighters and “polices” officers but, really: journalists?

          I also find comments coming from frontal-lobeless people like the one above all the time. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic, that a whole generation of people lack thinking skills. The Public Education system has achieved its intended goals, beyond even the most sanguine expectations.

        2. > A journalism 101 fowl

          Chicken Little tells it like it is.

      2. Must be a comment from the reality-based community, which, you know, excludes law firms, the big four accounting forms, consulting firms, and i-banks.

  8. Obama revealed that he had asked Pentagon officials “whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of (Manning’s) confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards.”

    …Obama added that Pentagon officials “assure me that they are”

    Let me be clear, again. There are concerns that on issues I don’t care about but said I did to get elected, I will appeal to some other authority. I have it on good authority that this isn’t true.

  9. A Maryland bill to legalize same-sex marriage fails.

    Is legalize the correct term here? We keep using it. Are people being cited or jailed for attempting to wed privately? Or does “legalize” also mean adding state recognition of an event?

    1. In the sense that people get upset when you say “legalize marijuana” instead of “decriminalize marijuana”, I think legalize is an acceptable word choice.

      1. I prefer “redefine”.

        1. Redefine “marijuana”?

          It is what is.

      2. Funny, I get upset when people say “decriminalize marijuana” instead of “legalize marijuana”.

        1. Yes, but does the issue resonate with the voters?

    2. I get from a pure, legal perspective why gays want to get married.

      But it does seem that for some, the idea of legal recognition, and “society finally recognizing our love!” is big too, to which I respond: Why the hell do you need society to tell you to do shit?

      1. I oppose state sponsored marriage. I dont see why the gays want it (except for the reason you suggest).

        1. Tony hates it, but gays should push for domestic-partner parity, and quit pining for a permission slip/marriage license.

        2. So that the law treats gays the same way it does straights.

          1. How about we just get the law to treat singles the same way it treats marrieds, gay or straight?

          2. Which is what I just said, Tony. Obsessing over a piece of paper is a wasted effort.

      2. Goldwater – This is about using the government to force other people (i.e. the culture) to “assent to” the legitimacy of gay marriage. That’s what the gay marriage movement is about. And that’s why it’s resisted.

        A “civil unions movement” would succeed easily. Because people don’t care about that. They do care about redefining a term that’s meant something very specific for thousands of years, and which is enshrined in their traditional religious beliefs and practices.

        But as I’ve said here before, this is about forcing people’s minds. You will consider Bill and Ted married in the same way as Dick and Jane are married, under penalty of law. And if you even wrinkle your nose about it at work, you will face fines and penalties.

        Just what we don’t need: using government to force cultural change. Mao tried that – didn’t work too well.

        1. “The arguments one hears nowadays against treating gays like human beings all seem to be recycled from the arguments 150 years ago against treating women like human beings.

          In the 19th century, a married woman had no legal right to control her own property, to have access to her own children, or to resist being raped by her husband. Those who fought against this legalized oppression of women were accused of seeking the abolition of marriage.

          The male supremacists’ argument was that the subordination of the wife to the husband had so long characterized marriage that it should be considered part of the very definition of marriage, so that no relationship between legal equals could count as a marriage.

          If we were to apply that standard nowadays, we would have to say that there are no married couples in the United States today. If we’re not willing to say that, then we must admit that marriage’s history does not define its boundaries.

          Just as the 19th-century male supremacists rejected same-rights marriage as contradictory, so today’s hetero-supremacists reject same-sex marriage as “impossible”

          But if we reject the former argument, we must reject the latter for the same reason.

          The anti-marriage-equality act (calling it the defense-of-marriage act is the equivalent of calling the old prohibition on women’s and blacks’ right to vote the defense-of-voting act) is trivially unconstitutional; there’s no way that granting special rights to heterosexuals and denying them to homosexuals can be considered “equal protection of the laws.”

          More importantly (since justice is always more important than legality), the anti-marriage-equality act is a sin against human equality, and an oath to enforce it would be just as illegitimate as an oath to commit any other crime.”

          Roderick T. Long

            1. If you’re referring to your own comment, then yes.

          1. Rod Long was the name I used acting in adult films to pay my way through college.

            There are no doubt some H&R folk who are arguing that traditional marriage is too far perverted (no pun intended) by stretching the definition to include same sex or multiple partner unions. If you want to know who has two thumbs and thinks that simply expanding the state marriage entitlement to include a larger number of special recipients is moving equality in the wrong direction, it’s this guy. (I’m pointing at myself with my thumbs.)

            1. (Equality should probably have scare quotes around it.)

              1. You might want to take the time to research Long’s views (specifically on how he defines equality) before you make that inference.

                1. I’m aware of Long. What inference? The quote is about how marriage definitions have not been static throughout the years, so we can’t be slaves to the current definition. But he talks about rights when, in fact, state recognition of marriage is an entitlement.

                  My argument is that the past or present cultural definition of marriage should be irrelevant as far as the state is concerned. The state should not be incentivizing personal relationships on the ludicrous idea that people won’t couple, that families won’t form, without first paying for a notarized piece of paper. Government shouldn’t be creating – much less expanding – an exclusive benefits club. That is not promoting equality for those still on the outside looking in, and there will always be people excluded until it’s done away with completely or it’s expanded to every man, woman and child regardless of marital status, however defined.

                  1. I understand where you’re coming from, and I obviously agree with part of what you’re saying. So let’s approach this Socratically. Let’s say, hypothetically, that up until this point only white were allowed to use roads. Would our being against the state controlling roads, assuming we were in agreement here, suffice as a reason to keep non-whites from being able to use roads?

                    I think it’s worth stating that marriage is not always a net benefit, both fiscally and in general libertarian terms. For one, filing taxes jointly can push you into a higher tax bracket and can negate the presumed tax-benefits of marriage (my parents fell into this group). On the libertarian front, are you telling me that something that could amount to a cut in taxation on net is a “benefit”? If government ends up taking less out of my pocket at the end of the year, I’m not sure this qualifies as a net benefit in the way we usually mean it.

                    That being said, there are obviously married people in much lower income brackets where the net benefits might outweigh their total taxation. But I don’t think this negates the other points.

                    As an acknowledgment here, I used hold the same view you seem to hold here…some Rothbardians brought me to me senses =)

                    Oh – regarding the inference – I mean that his use of the term “equality” should be in scare quotes. He does not use the term equality in the way most people mean…his use of it is consistent with if not implicit in libertarian ideology.

                  2. Also,

                    Because the state monopolizes control of a certain type of contract or institution and then bestows “benefits” on its recipients that means that we lose the right to make such contracts? That logic seems a bit tenuous. If everyone had to have a permit to speak, we gave said people additional benefits, and then excluded certain groups of people from being able to get the permit, would speech no longer be a right?

                    1. The scare quotes was for my use, so people didn’t think I was being a dick wanting things to be less equal. In any event, we are in agreement that things, as they stand, are unfair with regard to marriage licenses. We seem to differ on how to address it.

                      As for benefits, they do exist, if only in option. In your parents’ example, they did have the option to file jointly if it was beneficial. Others do not have that option and therefore might have to pay more taxes even if they were in otherwise similar situations. It creates an inequity.

            2. Agreed. Marriage lost its way when it became a state-recognized institution with tax benefits and all. Better to get rid of the tax breaks for couples and then find out who really wants to be married.

            3. If your argument is that you don’t approve of the entitlements bestowed by marriage, then your argument should be to remove marriage from the purview of the state – not to to fight in the name of continued inequality under the law as such. It’s like arguing against black getting equal use of public facilities because you don’t approve of government providing that facility.

              1. your argument should be to remove marriage from the purview of the state

                You must be new here.

    3. Yes, I think “leaglize” is the right word. Legalize is not the opposite of criminalize.

      1. “Leaglize” it is, then.

      2. If the state were to issue pedestrian licenses like they do drivers licenses, we would get to say they’ve finally legalized walking.

        How about legitimize? It’s only one more syllable.

        1. I like recognize.. As a plus, it has an air of an old man belatedly noticing what is already there.

    4. Re: Fist of Etiquette,

      Is legalize the correct term here?

      No, it should be “legally recognize,” not “legalize.”

      Anybody can create a contract between two parties and call it a “marriage” and it would achieve almost the very same thing, except when filing your taxes and receiving Social Security.

    5. “legally recognize” would be the appropriate phrase.

  10. With TMI part II happening right now isn’t it bizarre how much Obama’s years look like Carter’s?

      1. Hey!!

        1. Miche, just wait until you find out who he lusted after in his heart…

          Also, Obama’s no Carter. Carter deregulated trucking and the airlines, and he considered legalizing pot. IOW, he was much better than Obama will ever be.

          1. That was Old

            That was Old Jimmuh. Present-day Jimmuh is a nutburger.

            1. Retarded nutburger, he says some completely stupid things. Things that even a senile old man wouldn’t say…

          2. Also he legalized home brewing of beer
            (but, sadly, not home distillation)

            1. Distillation is the meth of home brewing…

              1. Home brewing on steroids!

  11. Michigan bill would impose “financial martial law”

    Michigan lawmakers are on the verge of approving a bill that would enable the governor to appoint “emergency managers” — officials with unilateral power to make sweeping changes to cities facing financial troubles.

    Under the legislation, the Michigan Messenger reports, the governor could declare a “financial emergency” in towns or school districts. He could then appoint a manager to fire local elected officials, break contracts, seize and sell assets, eliminate services – and even eliminate whole cities or school districts without any public input.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50…..03544.html

    1. Hmmmmm…I like the sound of that.

    2. eliminate whole cities or school districts without any public input

      Kinda like a tsunami.

    3. Once again, the bad guys in Atlas Shrugged are 2D cardboard cutouts with no relationship to reality?

      1. It’s getting hot in here. WTF?

      2. No, no. That was the heroes.

    4. Not sure I like the idea of a governor having the unilateral power to fire local elected officials. I think the local population should have a recall if they don’t like the guy. That’s akin to POTUS firing a state governor.

      Seize and sell assets? Local assets, no… state assets? Okay.

      I’m also not so sure about just arbitrarily breaking a contract. A contract is a contract, even if it is a bad one. The government must uphold its end of a contract just as the contractor must uphold his/her end. But for the government to unilaterally void it is a serious violation of trust, and it should lead to huge lawsuits.

      1. You cant make a contract with the people who also determine validity of contracts…there is no such thing as a valid contract with the government.

      2. I think it would also lead to it being very difficult for a government to get someone else to do the work.

    5. Hm. On the one hand, I like the idea of disincorporating cities that don’t need to exist or are irreparably insolvent/ineffective; the Texas Education Agency does this with school districts on occasion. On the other hand, the governor shouldn’t be able to override local elections.

    6. Once the local officials are fired, could the governor’s manager unilaterally impose any property tax increases that would previously have required the vote of a local select board?

      Because it strikes me that’s a much more likely use of such “emergency powers” than the stuff they’re listing here.

  12. So we’re getting embedded video in every Morning Links now? Is youtube not getting enough traffic? Are the constant refreshes to Hit & Runner’s browsers not taking long enough for them?

    (Boom. Fist of Etiquette shows he’s not afraid to speak truth to power, unlike the rest of you sheep.)

    1. (Unless someone already complained, in which case, nevermind.)

      1. The silent majority love it. The same silent majority that loves nested comments.

        1. I love nested comments. And, I never shut up about it.

          1. Nested comments suck without tracking or read messages, which requires user accounts.

            Im ambivalent about those, but they two go together. Without user accounts, nested comments suck.

    2. YouTube is blocked where I work so I just get an annoyingly long message in big letters that I have to scroll over. Oh, the humanity!

    3. I’ve taken two drinks and canceled my (nonexistent)subscription.

    4. The connection has timed out.

      The server at reason.com is taking too long to respond.

    5. Hey H&R! Youtube blocked for me and embedded text warnings ruin my breafast links. Cut this shit out!

    6. Firefox + Flashblock

  13. China has surpassed the US in industrial goods production last month. This is the first time the US hasn’t held the top spot since 1895, when it took over from Great Britain. And all done in an economy much more planned and controlled than the US.

    Pretty scary, huh?

    1. No.

    2. I mean, yeah. It’s not like they’ve had coal shortages due to central planning recently or anything.

      Oh, wait. They totally did.

    3. What’s your deal? Does Daddy not give you enough attention at home or something?

    4. They have 4 times as many people as the US. This is not a surprise.

      1. But they are so efficient with their central planning that they’re managing to produce 1.05 times what we are with only 4 times as many people? Don’t you get it?

        1. I made a couple of trips to Guangzhou a few years back. The median in the mostly empty, 8-lane highway to the airport was being weeded, by hand, by a crew of little yellow people.

          If, and it’s a big if, China ever actually learns how to get real productivity out of its several billion sets of hands, they will leave the rest of the world in a wake of dust. But I don’t expect to see this in my life time.

    5. Re: The Truth,

      China has surpassed the US in industrial goods production last month. Pretty scary, huh?

      Yes. Stay under your bed.

      Please.

    6. Pretty scary, huh?

      “Libertarians” believe that uncle Ben’s magic money creation will ensure eternal prosperity. Things like industrial production, capital formation are irrelevant to them.

    7. Jesus, dude, did you lose a dick-length contest with an Asian or something?

  14. Gaza celebrates; Fayyad condemns terror attack

    Rafah residents hand out candy following murder of parents, three children in West Bank settlement of Itamar. Palestinian PM denounces act, says “we categorically oppose violence and terror, regardless of victims’, perpetrators’ identity”

    Gaza residents from the southern city of Rafah hit the streets Saturday to celebrate the terror attack in the West Bank settlement of Itamar where five family members were murdered in their sleep, including three children.

    Residents handed out candy and sweets, one resident saying the joy “is a natural response to the harm settlers inflict on the Palestinian residents in the West Bank.”

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articl…..06,00.html

    1. Palestinian PM denounces act, says “we categorically oppose violence and terror, regardless of victims’, perpetrators’ identity”

      I’m sure they’ve put their best men on tracking down the perpetrators.

      1. TOP MEN!

  15. Gotta love the term “gun violence”.

    Darn it, those violent guns just keep shooting people!

    How does this happen?

    Why do we have all these violent guns?

    Can’t we just have non-violent guns?

    Then we’d all be safe.

    1. Oh, “VIOLENCE”. Nevermind. I thought they were saying “gun VIOLINS”, which I’m totally against.

      1. I like ’em. They’re great for the staccato passages.

        1. You need a class III license for a gun that can play legato passages.

  16. http://legalinsurrection.blogs…..wasnt.html

    The tractor parade that wasn’t. Also, anyone else notice all the tractors were of the small kind prefered by aging hippies playing farmer rather than the big ones used by actual farmers?

    1. Actually most of them appeared to be restored collector’s items, the type which show up at farm shows and such.

      1. That would actually be a pretty cool parade.

        1. Come to the Antique Tractor and Engine Festival at Raitt Farm in Eliot Maine in July. Yeah, it’s a pretty cool parade.

      2. That was going to be the point I made. They certainly aren’t the type that a functioning farm would use though (assuming they were similar to the one in the linked photo).

        1. So we can call shenanigans? How about the way they figure the total number of tractors? Was it 30 or 50 or 60? At such small numbers someone should just count them as they drive down the middle of the street and get an accurate number.

  17. Ed Markey sez

    NO NUUUUUUUUUUUKES!

    What a fucking idjit.

  18. According to Kruganomics, the Japanese economy should be going gangbusters in a year or so, what with all the new jobs created by the earthquake. Right?

    1. So many windows, so little time.

    2. That fool probably does believe in the Broken Windows Fallacy.

      1. Krugman did say that rebuilding after 9/11 would create jobs, so I wouldn’t put it past him…

    3. Krugman probably thinks printing money and pouring it into the ocean will solve this Tsunami “crisis”

  19. Boy, that Usher is a real moral giant, no? (Apparently Qaddafi just turned bad.)

    1. I’ve aleays taken my moral bearings from R Kelly.

      1. I’ve started taking mine from Charlie Sheen…

  20. http://www.world-nuclear-news……02111.html

    It’s still getting worse. Industry folks are just starting to wake up to this new disaster. The old guard (that remembers TMI-related work shutdowns) is scared. At least I’m young enough to move my skills elsewhere. Nonetheless it’s hard to overstate the significance of even a whiff of nuclear disaster, let alone a full blown one.

    1. bah, double post and didn’t even mention that reactor 3 just blew it’s secondary containment too. still developing.

      1. Initial analysis is that the containment structure remains intact.

        1. it’s the thinner reinforced concrete shell that exploded, not the primary containment which is a true bunker. I did a walkdown of a GE BWR once. Given all the talk of the multiply redundant safety systems, this is very close to a worst-case scenario. Which is to say, it’s not that bad in terms of human life, but for new nuclear. People will not care about improved designs or relative risks because quite frankly radiation scares the shit out of people.

          1. People will not care about improved designs or relative risks because quite frankly radiation scares the shit out of people people don’t understand risk.

          2. Re: Waffles,

            Which is to say, it’s not that bad in terms of human life, but for new nuclear.

            Especially since the lamestream media and many politicians are already jumping into the anti-Nuke bandwagon after a disaster that could have been topped only by a colision of an asteroid damaged a couple of nuclear plants… and leveled a good number of towns… and killed people in California.

            1. Gasp! Nuclear plants aren’t designed for Chicxulub level impacts! We must ban them all!

          3. True on all that. BWR designs always seemed weird to me to begin with. But yeah, this is still basically worse case.

            1. And despite that, it still shows the superiority of western designed reactors over communist-designed ones like Chernobyl.

              Positive void coefficent? WTF?

            2. Thankfully, they’ve seemed to have kept up the water level in the spent fuel pool. All they’d need right now is a fuel cladding fire to add to the misery.

              Link to the TEPCO (the Tokyo Electric Power Company—the agency running Fukushima) site’s press release section: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/pres…..dex-e.html

              Not good. Thank God this crap is blowing offshore.

  21. http://www.world-nuclear-news……02111.html

    It’s still getting worse. Industry folks are just starting to wake up to this new disaster. The old guard (that remembers TMI-related work shutdowns) is scared. At least I’m young enough to move my skills elsewhere. Nonetheless it’s hard to overstate the significance of even a whiff of nuclear disaster, let alone a full blown one.

    1. I’m moving my skills to The Japan Syndrome.

      1. And I’m taking my talents to your throat.

      2. To be antipodally correct*, it would be the Brazil syndrome.

        *which of course, for North America, ‘China’ is not

  22. As long as those whose lives are shattered by gun violence don’t get to look away and move on, neither can we.

    Holy Sanctimonious Platitude, Batman!

    1. look away and move on

      Actually, that’s pretty much what you do.

  23. Anonymous releases emails that it says show fraud at the Bank of America.

    Umm … I think that’s called the Federal Reserve.

    1. They’re getting to that.

  24. Owsley gets busted for making LSD and they give him his acid lab equipment back. He gets popped for marijuana and gets two years in the clink. Nothing erratic or arbitrary about our “drug enforcement”…

    1. His LSD bust was in 1966. The government didn’t get around to making LSD illegal until ’68.

      1. Makes one wonder why he was busted for LSD, doesn’t it?

  25. The administation pressures State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley into quitting after he criticizes the treatment of accused cablegate leaker Bradley Manning.

    “Mr. Crowley, What went on in your head? Uncovering things that were sacred…”

    Too bad he didn’t believe “the most open administration in history” would attack him for showing a little transparency.

    I really want to hear the fucking Obamatrons defend this.

    1. Does anyone still defend Obama anymore? All I hear is variations on “but teh Bush!!!!”

      1. Does anyone still defend Obama anymore?

        Joe?

        Oh that’s right, he ran off so he wouldn’t have to face us calling Obama out. Well, he probably still defends him to others via the Blame Bush Plan.

        1. Now I learn Obama didn’t even write any of his books, for which he was labeled the next presidential literary genius since Lincoln.

          :’-( :’-( :’-(

          http://www.facebook.com/deconstructingobama

          1. For Christ’s sake. And did you say “lamestream media” above? You’re so disappointing.

          2. …labeled the next presidential literary genius since Lincoln.

            Since Kennedy, more likely.

      2. I hear “he listens to new information and makes informed decisions”. Guess that sounds better than “no, he really wasn’t qualified to be president”

        1. Those decisions being the same as the one Bush made…

    2. “This was more a situation where it wasn’t the right fit,” said [a senior W.H.] official, noting there were times when Crowley wasn’t on the same page as Clinton, let alone the White House.

  26. “I wound up doing time for something I should have been rewarded for,” he told the Chronicle’s Joel Selvin. “What I did was a community service, the way I look at it. I was punished for political reasons. Absolutely meaningless. Was I a criminal? No. I was a good member of society. Only my society and the one making the laws are different.”

    Well said, Owsley. And now is a good time for some drug rock.

  27. Planned Parenthood threatens to sue South Dakota if it adopts an anti-abortion law.

    Sue the State on what? “Threatening my business“? Welcome to the club!

    1. The Constitution doesn’t make any exceptions for ‘reasonable regulations’ when it comes to health privacy… except for paying for it. And deciding what kind is acceptable. And which drugs you can take. And which organs you can have removed from your body.

      But definitely not abortions!

      1. Using “reasonable regulations” to restrict the exercise of a Constitution right? Inconceivable!

        1. No concealed carry laws, suckers.

  28. There is a guy on Bloomberg right now who *seems* to have good info.

    He just said the fuel supply to the circulation pumps in the cooling system was interrupted, which allowed the overheating (this certainly sounds plausible). He also says the core is contained.

    I hope he’s right.

    1. I’m shocked the Japanese are worried about radiation.

  29. Usher donates his Qaddafi profits to Amnesty International and other human rights groups.

    Wow! I did not realize just how much money ushers could make! I am in the wrong busine…..

    Oh, a guy named “Usher”… Oooooh!

    1. I make 28% annually from “charities.”

  30. Good morning, Reasonoids!

    I set up a NCAA Tourney bracket for H&R posters. It’s a freebie and you can do it anonymously if you choose.

    Here’s the link:

    http://reasonhnr.mayhem.cbssports.com/e

    The password is: jacket

    Progressive scoring applies. One point for Rd 1, 2 for Rd 2, etc. Play-in games don’t count, so brackets must be done by Thursday at noon.

    Also, the only rule for the thing is: no rectal. I can’t stand that fucking idiot, so she is banned. Anyone who cannot abide that rule is an idiot, so they don’t belong anyway. Fuck ’em.

    1. I’m interested, but then it wants me to sign up for CBSSports and I just don’t care that much.

      I hate how many websites require registered usernames and passwords. Thank God for H&R!

      1. Thank God for H&R!

        Ahem.

    2. As a Colorado Buff fan, I don’t even think I can watch the tourney this year. I’ve been ill since the selection show yesterday.

      1. The rectal bleeding from the screwing you received should subside by the Final Four.

      2. Sorry, dude, you guys got fucked.

  31. EPA forced to reconsider the settled science, after labor unions made a ruckus.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/….._US_News_5

    Maybe Unions are good for the middle class after all!

  32. Today I was reminded of this old Henry Rollins essay about how lifting weights is awesome. I miss the days when he wrote about shit like this instead of lazy Republican jokes.

    Also, Children of Bodom.

    1. Anytime anyone ever mentions Get in the Van I die a little inside. I fucking hate Hank Rollins unless he’s been cartoonified and living an alternative lifestyle with my favorite Jersey Midget Glenn Danzig.

      1. That would be a pretty great TV show. Rollins and Danzig in a gay marriage in, I dunno, North Dakota or someplace.

        1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n7WnPw8Swg
          I don’t know about ND, but Hall & Oates are their satanic next-door neighbors

      2. He did fine as the racist henchman in Sons of Anarchy.

    2. Isn’t he also a huge drug warrior? For someone who wrote over and over about cops hassling kids who weren’t hurting anyone, I thought that was a strange disconnect (if it’s true).

      1. Yeah, he’s a buffoonish moron. But there was a time when I thought he was awesome, and it was mostly because of that essay.

      2. Rollins is a big drug warrior? Wow. I always felt he was a fuckhead. Now I know why.

    3. Dude CoB have bored me to tears since Follow the Reaper.

      1. Well, la-dee-fucking-da, Mr. Too Cool for School. Some of us haven’t evolved quite as much.

  33. Does anyone still defend Obama anymore? All I hear is variations on “but teh Bush!!!!”

    I got a highly amusing dose of spluttering dudgeon the other evening when I referred to the Presidential Suit as “George Bush, Junior”.

  34. Wow this is very good stuff indeed.

    http://www.anon-tools.es.tc

    1. http://www.spam.com/

      Creamy SPAM and Pasta Nachos

      Ingredients

      1 (12-ounce) can SPAM? With Bacon, cut into cubes
      1/2 (12-ounce) can SPAM? Oven Roasted Turkey, cut into julienne strips
      5 tablespoons packed brown sugar
      30 to 40 wonton wrappers
      1 (16-ounce) jar Alfredo sauce, divided
      2 cups cooked elbow macaroni
      1 1/2 cups shredded mozzarella cheese
      3/4 cup shredded Parmesan cheese
      1/2 cup chopped sun-dried tomatoes
      1/4 cup sliced green onions
      Vegetable oil, for frying

      Directions

      Heat oven to 200?F.
      In large skillet, place SPAM? with Bacon and SPAM? Oven Roasted Turkey; sprinkle each with brown sugar. Cook SPAM? over medium heat until golden brown.
      Cut wonton wrappers diagonally in half, making triangles. Cook wontons in hot oil until crisp and lightly browned; drain well on paper towels. Place fried wontons on baking sheets; place in oven.
      Meanwhile, in saucepan, heat Alfredo sauce. Stir 1 cup Alfredo sauce into macaroni.
      Top wontons with SPAM?? mixture, macaroni, cheeses and sun-dried tomatoes to serve. Drizzle with remaining Alfredo sauce.
      Return nachos to oven; heat 5 minutes or until cheese is melted. Top nachos with onions. Serve immediately.

      Yyy-ummy!

      1. Wait, they make Spam with Bacon?

          1. I’m livin’ the dream!

  35. Barack Obama wants to beef up background checks for gun buyers.

    Especially now that he has the Congress on his side and…

    … wrong timing, dude!

  36. Detroit ponders a plan to convert 41 public schools into charter schools.

    Maybe the city should ponder converting the semi-abandoned city into an amusement park, something like “Old Tucson.”

    1. Somebody suggested this, but nobody can pass the new background checks for the staged gunfights.

      1. Re: Rip Hamilton,

        but nobody can pass the new background checks for the staged gunfights.

        Darn. And yet you have people saying that DC’s policies create or save jobs.

      2. Re: Rip Hamilton,

        “Somebody suggested this, but nobody can pass the new background checks for the staged gunfight.”

        Don’t worry, none of your Pistons teammates can pass them either.

  37. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody’s guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.

    I’m going to have to assume that this means he wants to lose the election. Why not just refuse to run, dude?

  38. Why would anybody take a proposal to impose meaningless bureaucratic obstacles on gun ownership proposed by people known to support gun bans as an incremental step toward a gun ban?

    Really, people can be so unreasonable.

  39. Show of hands, please: how many of you called your broker and told him you wanted to invest in solar power at market open?

  40. The twits on “The View” are discussing Japan and nuclear energy. I never realized how dumb Joy Behar is until today……

    1. So you’ve never heard her speak before?

    2. It took you this long? Shame on you.

  41. Those Alaska militia members are morons.

    Anybody who stopped and thought for a moment and maybe wargamed out the issues they’re pissed off about would realize a couple of things:

    1. As soon as you declare you’re not paying your taxes, you will be under total surveillance.

    2. As soon as you are in a dispute with the police or with a prosecutor or judge, if anything actually happened to any of them a SWAT team would hit your place in about ten minutes.

    These two things being true, it’s obvious that if you want to kill officials and get away with it, you should pay your taxes and keep all your paperwork in order and only kill officials with whom you have absolutely no personal connection. If you are one of these militia guys, the entire system is your enemy, so you can kill any old federal or state judge and it’s just as good as killing the one you’re personally pissed off at. And you’re about a billion times less likely to get caught.

    1. Naturally, I’m only interested in this as a wargaming question.

      If I had better computer skills I’d build a simulation or something.

    2. If you’re going to fight the man, you have to hide in plain sight. Be a good little drone on paper and in the records, then they ignore you. Now you can blow shit up with impunity as long as you plan ahead.

      This is a purely theroretical discussion, mind you.

      1. Damn your violent rhetoric!

    3. Also, if you’re gonna have conversations about this stuff, turn on a fucking radio or something. Don’t hold meetings at known associates houses. Fuck, the only stupidity this story is missing is those idiots trying to buy a bomb from the FBI.

  42. Remember in the 80’s when all you heard was about how Japan was going to surpass the US economy and totally blow it out of the water? Seems kind of silly and odd in hindsight and given recent events.

    I need to stop having flashbacks.

    Poor people of Japan, I wouldn’t wish such a fate on even the worst enemy.

    1. Hey, maybe our supervolcano will blow and set us back behind Japan.

  43. According AP, Obama isn’t winning prizes for ‘transperancy’:
    “Two years into its pledge to improve government transparency, the Obama administration handled fewer requests for federal records from citizens, journalists, companies and others last year even as significantly more people asked for information.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011…..-progress/

    1. There’s one thing President Obama and I agree on. We both wish he was president of China.

  44. According to the teevee, the House of Saud is sending troops to quell the unrest in Bahrain.

    What say you, Mister President?

    1. The spice oil must flow.

    2. Don’t worry, I’m sure we will match their effort with one of our own in Iraq soon enough.

      Some will object and say that Obama promised an end to combat operations in Iraq. But Obama will just counter by saying that firing on protestors isn’t a combat operation.

  45. Alaskan militia activists are arrested for an alleged conspiracy to kill officials.

    So, what’s DHS trying to direct attention away from, anyway?

  46. In addition to being an LSD advocate, he adhered to an all-meat diet.

    Anti-hippy

    RIP

    1. Not a good diet. Not good at all.

      You need carbs too. I supplement Slim Jims with Cheetos. And then have Little Debbie Oatmeal Snack Cakes for dessert.

  47. Owsley, RIP.

    “The counter-culture figure moved to Australia in the 1980s after growing convinced that the northern hemisphere would be subsumed by another ice age.”

    I wonder if he thought it would happen so fast he’d be caught mid toke in a block of ice, like a woolly mammoth. Not that a mammoth would be caught mid toke, necessarily.

    1. And every penny of it borrowed.

      Sad.

  48. Maybe America was not ready for Black President, is too much controversial.

    1. In your country, verbs action you!

  49. Was pleased to see Reason quoted in one of my B School books this weekend. Class on corporate governance book has a chapter discussing argument between Friedman and Whole Foods’ Mackey on Shareholder Vs. Stakeholder theory from Reason Magazine. Props…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.