Reason Morning Links: More Bombing in Libya, China Blocks Gmail, Egypt Votes

|

NEXT: The U.S. & Odyssey Dawn: Whether We're Leading it or Not, We're Supplying Very Special Capabilities

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. http://www.newsbusters.org/blo…..es-its-cli

    Libya is Clinton and McCain’s war. Really? McCain?

    1. I saw that old bastard with Evil Joe Lieberman on CNN yesterday. Yup. His war. “Obama was too slow, but now we all have to get on the team and come on down for the big win” was more or less what he said.

      1. Clarification: Joe Lieberman has an Alternate Universe Evil Spock beard. He is not particularly Evil for a Senator.

    2. Kucinich is already calling for impeachment of Obama.

      1. Man! Meeting Kucinich’s standards is hard!

        1. Constitution is hard.

  2. Army Crime Lab Botches lots and lots of tests… and naturally there’s at least some attempt at a cover up.

    1. Outragous, but sadly not surprising. Is there any crime lab in America is not jacked up?

      1. Suck on it!

      2. You obviously are angling to get a job with some left-leaning firm, John.

  3. http://rhetorican.com/2011/03/…..f-lefties/

    How Obama crushed the dreams of a generation of lefties. Honestly, if that is true, I am kind of sorry I for all the bad things I have said about him.

    1. Sorry, missed [this] when posting my link.

      1. It is so great, it is worth posting twice.

    2. I was afraid that the article was not going to mention George Soros, made me wait until the last sentence!

    3. Obama, dreamcrusher? Honestly, I’m starting to like his presidency. But I’m just twisted that way.

    4. I like it as red meat for people who like to say, “We told you so!” but the leftist idiots who swooned over him will just rationalize all this stuff away – just like the GOP did with Bush – because their own guy is in charge.

      As far as practical aspects, perhaps it’s helpful as a guidebook for arguments that the GOP candidate had better use on the “independents” who voted for Obama last time, but the GOP had better already have these types of talking points memorized by now.

      1. Or maybe the GOP ought to be adults and not make stupid all encompassing statements and promises that can never be kept.

        1. being an adult means never promising not to lie, or never make promises you may not be able to keep. There’s a lesson in here somewhere. I think I rather enjoy watching reality consume the utopian dream world.

        2. Agreed.

        3. This plan would make them unelectable.

          1. Feature, not bug, Chin.

  4. Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage.

    I also support gay marriages. All marriages should be happy and merry.

    I don’t support gloomy marriages. That, and gay divorcees. No soup for those!

    1. I support gay marriage as well. I want it to be legal. I don’t want people arrested or fined for engaging in it. I just don’t want the government to recognize* it, or any marriage. So am I in that poll’s majority?

      * Recognize in this context means handing out special privileges and entitlements.

      1. it’s an option people don’t even understand.

        1. If government didn’t recognize marriage, how could they extort even more income taxes per capita from those who are married?

      2. Re: Fist of Etiquette,

        I just don’t want the government to recognize it, or any marriage

        I am with you, the government should not recognize gay or gloomy marriages. But I am all in favor of having gay marriages. Gloomy marriages suck.

        1. So then you don’t support self-defeating personality disorder marriages? You masochistophobe.

          The Fox Network has been subversively promoting that agenda for years, starting with Married… With Children, using it to brainwash us into accepting that lifestyle as normal.

        2. “Gloomy marriages suck.”

          So I take it you have met my ex-wife.

          1. “Take my ex wife…PLEASE!!!!”

      3. Recognize in this context means handing out special privileges and entitlements.

        Don’t know if this effects the calculus but there’s some special obligations/limitations as well.

        1. Don’t know if this effects the calculus but there’s some special obligations/limitations as well.

          Good point, but I don’t think that it does. Whether it’s the financial/legal benefits or just the (to me) ridiculous notion of legitimacy, I don’t see that people are mostly clamoring to get a slice of those obligations and limitations.

      4. Well, there needs to be something in place that will address certain issues, namely property transfer and children. Should a couple split, how is property divied… what about custody, child support, spousal support (alimony), and the dog?

        The State or a legally binding arbitration would have to be involved in divorce settlements.

        And what about issues not relating to divorce, such as a spouse dying or becoming an invalid. How is property and child custody handled?

        What about hospital visitations, medical decisions for those who are incapacitated, or any number of issues that are currently solved by state recognition of marriage?

        I’m all for ending state sponsored marriages, but there needs to be something to address these issues. A Contract may be viable, but it only involves the two (or more) parties. It cannot be binding on others. So a hospital does not have to recognize the contract made by the two parties, nor do any other entities.

        1. What do hospitals do for those of us not married? Let’s do that for everyone. What do courts do for child or property disputes of unwed couples? Let’s apply that to everybody.

          I’m not trying to be a total dick on this, but the solution to these social problems isn’t to create an exclusive (if expanding) group of people privileged with special automatic legal solutions that others do not enjoy.

          1. These problems are all solved by an existing social structure: marriage. You’d have to show how changing that with something else actually works better before you’ll get significant support for it.

            1. Most people enjoy the benefits of that official marriage license, so no, I don’t expect support for doing away with it, any more than I expect support for reforming the other state entitlements people like so very much getting. But you know that I still have to argue for it. That’s what Reason is for!

          2. What do hospitals do for those of us not married? Let’s do that for everyone.

            They defer to the closest living blood relation. Usually parents. Do you want to make the decisions for your spouse in a medical emergency or leave it to your in-laws?

            1. Am I Terri Schiavo?

            2. If they want to pay the medical bills, sure. If I’m paying them, then I want to call the shots. If the little lady or her insurance is paying them, then whoever she designated. If she didn’t designate anyone, then I guess it’s up to the Obama Death Panels.

              And for the record, if it ends up I get to make the decisions, I will find the episode of House M.D. that most closely matches my wife’s situation and go with whatever he says. I hope it’s lupus.

              1. It’s never lupus.

            3. It would not be difficult for every “married” couple to enter into a written contract defining their relationship and for legislatures (both state and national) to require that all such parties like hospitals and the like honor those agreements.

              That said, I can here the screaming now about how “poor people don’t have lawyers!!!” that would be brought forth as an argument in favor of keeping “blanket” marriage, so to speak.

              (nevermind the question of breeding poor people not being able to afford all of their kids, that is…)

              1. @WT:
                I’m sure there could be template marriage contracts that only need the parties’ names inserted and a few unique items added.

                It could be done cheaply. Heck, a real wedding costs money, even if done in front of a Justice of the Peace. It could still be done at the same price. But with a free market, it might be done even cheaper. I’m sure wedding chapels would have no problem catering to poor people wishing to elope. They do it anyway!

          3. For hospitals, refer to SugarFree. And if you have no parents to defer to, or they cannot be reached… then the doctors will make the decision. So, you don’t think someone’s spouse should have any input if the patient is unable to make those decisions?

            As far as child custody, it’s a bit more involved for unwed couples. First, you have to prove paternity (unless it is claimed). Proving paternity also costs the state money. Paternity is automatic in the case of a marriage, even if the divorce is because of infidelity or any reason. I know a bit about child support, considering I initiated CS cases before I got my current job.

            Property disputes happen, and I’m not sure of all the details involving unwed couples. Many states do not have common law marriages, so I’m assuming that people get back what they brought or put in, and debts are often split. But I have not seen an instance where alimony or anything is awarded.

        2. How is property and child custody handled?

          What about hospital visitations, medical decisions for those who are incapacitated, or any number of issues that are currently solved by state recognition of marriage?

          JUDGE JOE BROWN!!!!

    2. That, and gay divorcees. No soup for those!

      What about Oedipus Rex?

      1. Re: DNS,

        What about Oedipus Rex?

        I am sitting on the fence for that one, considering the vast numbers of MILFs out there….

    3. I support gay marriage, but I want an full BAN of gay divorce. That’ll teach ’em to want marriage.

      1. That’ll teach ’em to want marriage.

        I’m guessing waffles is Belgian…still bitter?

        1. Are you suggesting that I’m married to pancakes? I don’t think breakfast foods have civil rights, but there’s always a cause to take up.

          1. Waffles and pancakes, cats and dogs, frog and toad….wait, frog and toad are just “friends”…

  5. “There is no issue on our side; we have checked extensively,” Google said in a statement released Sunday. “This is a government blockage, carefully designed to look like the problem is with Gmail.”

    Color me silly, but isn’t Google a tad chummy with this administration? Perhaps a dress rehearsal for things to come here? Gmail sure is popular in the States… Ridiculous, such a thing could never happen here! How could a nation that gave you such hits as The Patriot Act ever consider an action like that here?

    1. isn’t Google a tad chummy with this administration? Perhaps a dress rehearsal for things to come here?

      Meh. Everyone knows most email (and all H&R comments) are written in code that even the Government cannot break.

  6. Egyptians head to the polls.

    I must still be in sleepy mode, because I could swear I read Epyptians give head to the pols…

    I thought “Gee, things are indeed improving over there!”

    1. I’ll say!

    2. *applies for Egyptian ambassadorship*

  7. Libyan claims that civilians had been killed.

    De rigueur, of course. But, there is a certain perversion in that, no?

    1. But, there is a certain perversion

      I believe the word you are searching for is “provision”?

    1. Petraeus defected to Yemen!!!

      1. That would be … interesting.

      2. I guess Move On was right.

    1. THAT BEA AUTHUR IS ONE HOT PIECE OF ASS!! GRRRRRRR!!

    1. Biden FTA,
      that they’re now using . . . the very economic condition they have created to blame the victim, whether it’s organized labor or ordinary middle-class working men and women.

      At least Crazy Joe acknowledged that organized labor is not ordinary middle-class working men and women. Someone should ask him to clarify.

    2. Was it rape, rape?

      Countown until Biden’s words are attributed to Rush Limbaugh: 3, 2, 1

    1. Missed [John’s] link to this above. Sorry.

      1. You’re fucking pathetic. You used to be the best linker this side of Radley Balko. Now look at you; it’s all Golden Girls and John’s sloppy seconds.

        1. Sometimes one and the same.

        2. Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!

  8. It’s good to hear that Egyptians are going to the polls. Once there are elections the likelyhood of politcal stability should be a lot greater.

    1. Yes, I suspect it will be the one man, one vote, one time kind of stability.

  9. Since the world has apparently decided that targeting civilians during a civil war is a crime against humanity, can someone get around to rewriting the history books and calling Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, at el. what they really were? War criminals. Sherman’s actions alone make Gadhafi look absolutely benevolent by comparison.

    1. Well said, comrade! Well said.

      Hopeless Drama over 10% Cut in HOPE Scholarships.
      http://libertarians4freedom.bl…..-hope.html

    2. William Tucumseh Sherman:

      “Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.”

      “War is cruelty. There’s no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over.”

      “But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.”

      Fuckin’ A.

      1. Excuse me, but there is a difference between making war and raping women, looting, and building civilian towns to the ground. Sherman was a monster. If the South had fought the way Sherman fought, we would have burned DC to the ground.

        1. …we would have burned DC to the ground.

          So, what was it like fighting in the War Against Northern Aggression?

          And the South was fighting for the right to continue to own people. They hit their quota on horrific practicies.

        2. You lost and I’m glad Sherman gave the south what it deserved. He and Licoln are heroes. Sorry paleo-assholes you can’t own the brown people anymore they get to have freedom too.

    3. Even Rush Limbaugh gets this one right: “Armies exist to kill people and break things.” They’re blunt instruments. You go to war, you’re gonna get some “collateral damage”. Hence, be verrrrrrrrry careful when making the decision to go to war.

      Now, there are distinctions between “targeting” civilians and “unavoidable deaths due to proximity”, etc. But…”civilians” gonna die in any war. Since biblical times, probably before that.

      You want to go back and be the 10M person to opine whether Sherman was an animal or a Tiger Blood? Winner, be my guest.

      War is Hell?

  10. Meanwhile, in the “Once you lose Farrakhan, you lost everything” department…

    “Farrakhan goes on a rant on Chicago radio about Obama calling for Qaddafi to step down, this is from yesterday.”

    1. If he has lost Farrakhan, Obama has lost crazy racist America.

      1. Obama has lost crazy racist America.

        Revs. Sharpton and Jackson and their minions haven’t detached their lamprey-like kiss on his ass. Yet.

        1. Kiss it. Kiss it.

          1. Heeeeeeey! That’s my line.

        2. Re: DNS,

          Revs. Sharpton and Jackson and their minions haven’t detached their lamprey-like kiss on his ass.

          To be fair, Sharpton and Jackson are not crazy racists, they’re just run-of-the-mill racists.

      2. You mean Arizona’s not with him any more.

        But I keeeeeeeeed, I keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed!

  11. So Reason isn’t going to provide a link to the coverage of Congress providing an authorization to bomb Libya?

    1. But Congress already gave their authorization to the Executive to bomb Libya… by not saying anything.

      1. Ah, a time saving measure. Eliminates the need for the executive office to dummy up some intel to give political cover to all the president-wanna-bes in the Senate so that they’ll write a blank check authorization to the executive.

        1. If you never back up your decisions with evidence, your evidence can never be proven wrong. Quite brilliant, really.

      2. Commerce Clause, bitches!

    1. The boyfriend later commented that she bit off more than she could chew…

      1. ** rimshot ** 😉

    2. This one is quite choice:

      Someone on Groupthink today was upset that people on Gawker were calling Jezzies walking vaginas or baby ovens and they were accused in turn of acting like 13 year old schoolboys. Like you say, imagine the collective howls of rage from Jezebel if Gawker told a story of a woman having her sexual organs mutilated by a man and then commentators made witticisms about it. It’s at times like this that I cannot take Jezebel’s occasional pious sense of self righteousness too seriously.

      1. It’s okay when WE hate on the inferior gender.

        1. How many of you cute l’il cupcakes wanna come over and fix me a sandwich and give me a blowjob?

    3. I’m sorry, but that’s even worse than a Radley Balko nut punch.

      OW!! God DAMN it!

  12. Dyslexics of the world UNTIE!

    1. I have a wee sign on the wall that says, “Misspellers of the world, UNTIE!”

      Yours is RAAAAAAAACIST! Or LEXICISSSSSSSST!

  13. Obama’s speech to the Brazilian people barely mentions the attacks on Libya he just ordered…

    “Obama, however, did not offer any sort of a progress report one day after he authorized the U.S. military to join a massive air assault with several allies to wipe out Moammar Gadhafi’s defenses and impose a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent the dictator from killing any more of his own people.

    Instead Obama tried to frame the situation in Libya in the broader context of the change that is sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa, and tied it to Brazil’s own revolution in 1984 that eventually ended 20 years of military dictatorship here.”

    Basically, he made some vague generalizations and threw a red herring or two at the unsuspecting audience.

    1. I seriously wonder if he is even President anymore. Have Bill and Hillary staged a palace coup and just not bothered to tell us?

      1. Have Bill and Hillary staged a palace coup and just not bothered to tell us?

        The pre-quake bimbo eruptions would have forewarned us.

    2. … and Ms. Boehner-homemaker is obviously outraged the prez did not ask Congress for a Declaration of war… well, not really:

      “The president is the commander-in-chief, but the administration has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is, better explain what America’s role is in achieving that mission, and make clear how it will be accomplished,” said Boehner.

      “He wears the pants in this family but he still has a lot of explaining to do when he comes back home!” said the haircurlers & rob-clad Speaker of the House.

      1. I think Mr. Boehner should weep in response.

        1. *applauds, standing*

  14. Wow, China is starting to get quite annoying.

    http://www.real-privacy.it.tc

    1. fugoff robot

    2. Come on, Anon-Bot. You can do much better that that.

      1. * than than *

        1. HERP DERP

      2. LEAVE THE BOT ALOOOOOOONE!!!!!!!1!!

  15. What annoys me about Libya is now I’m in the position of agreeing with people like Dennis Kucinich and Andrew Sullivan.

  16. Just found out that David Brooks is doing my commencement speech. He is such an ass. Solidified the idea that going to graduation ceremony as a grad student would be a piss poor idea.

    1. Would it be considered poor form to attend and heckle him mercilessly?

      1. Probably but at least it can help justify the high price of tuition.

    2. Put on an Obama mask, piss on his back, and tell him its raining. He’ll probably believe you.

    3. The late Carl Rowan spoke at mine. As I got my masters, I stepped out of line and went over to him on the dias, handed him a copy of “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” and suggested he read it. He at least carried it with him as he left the stage later.

  17. At least the Huckster-in-Chief is doing something useful, like trying to boost Boeing’s sales of combat aircraft.

    1. Oh, the OTHER Huckster. I’z thinking of Huckleberry Huckster.

      If he’s in in 2012, well, Ima get a BIGGER boat and move to international water for awhile.

      /Baldwin

  18. >>The Libyan government released four detained New York Times journalists Monday, six days after they were captured…the four had entered the rebel-controlled eastern region of Libya without visas over the Egyptian border

    Not terribly surprising that they were busted. What, did they think they were jumping the fence at Nogales or somethin’?

    1. We can add national sovereignty to things journalists believe in, but not for themselves.

  19. Also: Operation Odyssey Dawn? We couldn’t sneak in an Aeneid reference? What, too soon?

    1. Operation: Dido.

  20. The Big East Brought Down to Size

    The Big East Conference’s strut has officially been reduced to a stumble. When the dust settled and the N.C.A.A. tournament’s Round of 32 drew to a close Sunday night, just 2 of the league’s 11 teams were left standing, and both reached that point by eliminating teams from their own conference.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03…..l?_r=1&hp;
    * Giving him his due John had comments to this effect yesterday

    1. Jeez, MNG, I thought I read “The Big Breast Down to Size.”

      I need more coffee!

  21. Libyan government releases four NY Times journalists.

    Now that they are at war with America they figured they might as well get some good press coverage…

    1. Nice, MNG.

  22. Unintended Consequences File or No Pleasing Some Peopl File?

    When the Massachusetts Institute of Technology acknowledged 12 years ago that it had discriminated against female professors in “subtle but pervasive” ways, it became a national model for addressing gender inequity.

    Now, an evaluation of those efforts shows substantial progress ? and unintended consequences. Among other concerns, many female professors say that M.I.T.’s aggressive push to hire more women has created the sense that they are given an unfair advantage. Those who once bemoaned M.I.T.’s lag in recruiting women now worry about what one called “too much effort to recruit women.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/us/21mit.html?hp

      1. They gloat at men’s misfortune and hate them. But still can’t understand why no one will date them.

        1. Oh, I will date them… an tag them and brand them.

          We’re talking about heifers, no???

          1. At MIT?

            Why, yes. Yes we are.

        2. They gloat at men’s misfortune and hate them. But still can’t understand why no one will date them.

          He’s a poet and didn’t even know it!

      2. Lynx Mon 21 Mar 2011 10:19 AM
        “you only got in because of affirmative action”

        And you only got in because of The Patriarchy!

        Cry me a river.
        QoB @Lynx Mon 21 Mar 2011 10:24 AM
        Great quote I saw on Twitter for International Women’s Day on gender quotas in business and politics:

        Man: but how would you feel if you got a job solely because of your gender?
        Woman: I don’t know, how do men feel about it now?

        (I’ve quoted this here before, but hey.)

        This seems appropriate here: DURR HURR HURR

      3. Chrome has been balking at loading various Gawker pages the past couple of days, instead just showing me blank pages. I consider it a sign from Zod to look elsewhere.

        1. That would have to be the worst site redesign ever. Back/forwards navigation is completely broken on that shit pile.

  23. Re: MNG,

    Among other concerns, many female professors say that M.I.T.’s aggressive push to hire more women has created the sense that they are given an unfair advantage.

    The eggheads at M.I.T. are just learning what guys like you or me have known for years of experience:

    You can’t please a woman. Ever.

    1. preach it, brotha!

  24. many female professors say that M.I.T.’s aggressive push to hire more women has created the sense that they are given an unfair advantage.

    Impocerous!

  25. The news is too depressing. Let’s all ignore it and make shooter’s sandwiches instead.

    1. Holy FSM, if that wasn’t British food, I’d say it looks delicious.

    2. Meh, just eat the steak, no need to get fancy.

      1. I agree, but some idiots insist on putting bread where it doesn’t belong. We should encourage them to use as much steak as possible.

        1. The bread makes it portable. Even with ribeyes, I question the wisdom of being expected to bite through two layers of compressed bread and two medium rare steaks. I cannot believe the average set of British chompers could handle the strain.

          1. If portability is your thing then jerky would be the way to go. You can put beef jerky in your pocket.

            1. Please stop talking about jerking your beef.

              1. Pemmicanist!

          2. The steaks were probably traditionally “aged” to rancidity, so they probably had the same consistency as the mushrooms.

          3. Hence the cake slice style servings.

            1. It seems to me that a layering of steak paillards and the dressing would be far easier to eat.

    3. My buddy and I were discussing that yesterday. Might make one this weekend and serve it with some horseradish cream on the side (wonder if I can get any NZ watercress for with it?). Down the hatch with a couple of pints of a nice creamy ale, or maybe a kolsch.

      1. I’d ignore the suggestion to not rest the steaks. It seems like it is made in order to let the juices soak the bread, but a) properly cooked and rested steaks should retain its juices and b) putting the steaks in hot will make them continue to cook.

        I’d rest the steaks and spread whatever drippings accumulate on the interior surface of the bread evenly. Despite what Warty prefers, a soggy bottom would be a bad outcome.

        1. Mixing the steak juice from the plate in with the mushroom ragu might be nice too.

          1. Yeah, all the flavor and none of the moisture.

            And I see nothing about deglazing the steak pan. A little beer would work wonders, or a dry red wine… or more of the brandy.

            1. So you guys don’t actually want to taste the beef.

              Salt, pepper, and fire should be the only things that you make a (good)steak with. Use the salty blood that accumulates on your plate to flavor your potato.

              1. Why are you putting salt and pepper on it? Is the taste of beef not enough? Why are you cooking it? Just eat it raw.

                Pull out your balls and rest them on the edge of the sink while you’re tearing into a bloody hunk of meat. Cooking is for fags.

                1. First of all, covering a good steak with soggy mushrooms and hot wine syrup ain’t cooking, it’s masturbation.

                  Secondly, raw meat actually tastes pretty good, and I bet it tastes even better with my balls enjoying the cool metal edge of the sink.

  26. Since Obama is in Brasil, let’s celebrate two of its three major national accomplishments. The third is tits, of course.

    1. Always good to see that dude in his NZ rugby jersey.

  27. So I see nothing’s happened since I went to sleep last night. Good to know.

  28. Fuckin’ bombing brown people, how does it work?

    1. Like a charm, hmm, like a charm

  29. What happened to our civil war versus videos in the morning links? Did it go the same way as the war on nested comments, just because we have Obama in charge now?

  30. Amtrak CEO ditches broken train to travel by car to ribbon cutting of Wilmington’s Joe Biden station

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03…..z1HFlxb1eH

    1. He should have taken the bus! Why, that Carbon-footprint beast!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.