Reason Morning Links: Post-Oprah Edition

|

The latest from Reason.tv: "Independents Day is June 28!"

NEXT: The State of Gay Rights

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. Sweat, Sodomy and Radical Socialism: A Shocking Look Inside America’s Most Dangerous Gay Bars
    …It will dismay most of my readers to know that the portrait drawn here is just the beginning of one’s career within the gay lifestyle. That small mistake of entering the wrong type of bar is simply the start of a wholesale commitment to a larger social agenda that traditional Christian society finds abhorrent and wrong. Coffee dates and Thai dinners inevitably follow your night out at the homosexual club. Outrageously priced jeans and skin care products! Golden Girls marathons and vintage furniture! …

    1. I thought the end of Oprah shows would give these Golden Gays something new to obsess over.

    2. That is some tasty Christwire.

      Twinkie Bars: Androgynous boys drowning in glitter and impossible hopes of celebrity dance before mirrors, doing their sad impressions of David Bowie. Is this really what mother expected when she sent her boy off to Vassar?

      But I have had enough of their Vassar bashing!

      1. Is this really what mother expected when she sent her boy off to Vassar?

        Why, yes it was. Even before I had the bottom work.

        1. That’s my girl!

      2. I can recall years ago, eating dinner with the missus in Ptown, out on the back deck of one of the restaurants, when we suddenly heard some very loud disco.

        We looked over at the bar next door where the music was playing and saw about a half-dozen of the local boys dancing in their underwear and cowboy boots under a disco ball.

        All we could do is laugh our asses off and order another drink for the show.

  2. Myth #1: The Right Is ‘Originalist,’ Everyone Else Is ‘Idiotic’
    …If you think that answer means that “commerce” today doesn’t extend to health insurance, you aren’t supporting a “living Constitution”–you are describing a dead society, whose fundamental law cannot be applied to the facts of our national life. …

    #7. Child Protective Services That Operate Like the Mob
    …Consider that, a few years ago, CPS employee Pat Moore was fired for refusing to put a child in a foster home simply because everyone in the foster family had a felony conviction, and the family occasionally hired a convicted sex offender to babysit….

    …When Vanessa Shanks’ child was taken away and she fought the decision in court, CPS responded rationally by taking away children of her relatives, and after Shanks finally won in court, they took away her attorney’s children….

    1. Be sure to look for my genius comment at the bottom of the ‘Orginialist’ article.


      1. Be sure to look for my genius comment at the bottom of the ‘Orginialist’ article.

        Nice. I notice none of the lefties have come up with a reply yet.

      2. Smackdown. Awesome comment.

      3. That indeed is a good response and is spot on.

      4. Upmod!

      5. Great comment. And this line “we don’t believe we can do whatever we want, just that the country can do whatever it needs to for the ‘common good'” is just astounding. Can the author really be that unselfaware that he things “needs for the common good” is in reality “anything we want”. Just exactly what do they want to do that they admit isn’t for the “common good”?

    2. I love how Garrett Epps bravely uses a column to confront and ridicule a commenter on a past article. That’s really tellin’ ’em, Garrett!

    3. I am treated like the Bible these days in that the preacher(judges) take a quote from here and another from there then add them up to something completely out of context to justify their dogma.

    4. wait wait, the commerce clause is the fundamental law of our civilization? Uh, win-the-future?

    5. “…When Vanessa Shanks’ child was taken away and she fought the decision in court, CPS responded rationally by taking away children of her relatives, and after Shanks finally won in court, they took away her attorney’s children….”

      I know it’s Cracked, and the facts are probably exaggerated a bit for the sake of humor, but I’m pretty sure that counts as justifiable homicide.

    6. There was some gold in the CPS article. Family members of Shanks had their kids taken away. Then when she won the lawsuit against the state, her attorney’s kids were taken away! I means, seriously, where are the burning torches and pitchforks over something like that?

      1. CPS is a government agency, so if they took her children away, it must mean that she was a horrible parent! And if her lawyer defended a horrible parent, it follows that she is in favor of horrible parenting! And we can’t leave kids in the hands of people like that! It’s for the children!

  3. Good news

    The Securities and Exchange Commission approved rules Wednesday that could make it highly lucrative for Wall Street whistleblowers and other corporate insiders to alert the agency to securities violations.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    1. Great. The govt can pay for tips to throw politically unpopular people in jail. Can’t see any danger in that….

      1. I think it is a good thing to provide some support for people to report lawbreaking which hurts consumers and investors, yes, especially considering the counter-pressures their employers could place on them*

        * of course libertarians don’t recognize any counter-pressure an employer can put on an employee because they are always free to quit and live off the fat of the land yada yada, but people in the real world see it as a counter-pressure

        1. This is because you lack any historical sense whatsoever.

          All societies that employ paid informers get paid results. All of them.

          It’s like we’re BOUND AND DETERMINED to turn the US into an Epcot Center recreation of the worst aspects of imperial Rome.

          1. i.e.: East Germany

          2. We are? Where’s my government bread and what time is the circus?

            1. You get cheese and Springer.

            2. We are? Where’s my government bread

              We’re more advanced than that, now you get a SNAP card and never ending unemployment “insurance”.

              and what time is the circus?

              24/7 on the intertubes.

          3. It is worse than that. At least the Romans new how to have fun.

            1. Another plate of wolf nipples, stat!

              1. If I have to live in Claudian Rome, where the fuck are my orgies, public blood sports and vomitariums?

                1. Feeding Christian to lions, can we bring that back?

                2. The pols have orgies all the time, you just aren’t invited, we have MMA, and vomitaria aren’t what you think they are, we have fire codes in their place.

          4. Again, the breaking of these laws potentially harms investors and consumers and there are strong counter-pressures to keep whistle-blowers silent, measures to counter that are ok with me.

            1. can you point me to the site where I can whistleblow on government employees ripping off the taxpayers?

              1. This might get you started.

              2. I’m all for protections for government whistleblowers, for many of the same reasons.

              3. http://www.osc.gov/wbdisc.htm

                Mmm, you’re lunch is tasty, kudos to your mom!

              4. I heard from an insider that, even as we speak, the president is in violation of the constiution and something called the “War Powers Act”. Where is my reward? I only accept gold or silver bullion. None of that funny money.

            2. no, I want one of those qui tam deals where I get a 25% cut.

                1. The IRS is looking for solid information, not an “educated guess” … this is not a program for resolving personal problems or disputes about a business relationship.

            3. Dude, that just doesn’t matter.

              Using paid informers ALWAYS sounds like a great idea.

              Until you do it.

              It’s like using mercenaries. Or debasing your currency.

              There are certain acts a society can take that always lead to bad outcomes in the end. Predictably and inevitably.

              If we weren’t talking about real lives here it would almost be comical.

            4. Wouldn’t it better to go strongly on the offensive against the individuals that punish whistleblowers (treating it as obstruction of justice/witness tampering sort of thing) rather than trying to counter corruption with corruption?

        2. You’re the same guy who was surprised yesterday that the USDA was abusing its enforcement power, right?

          1. I wasn’t suprised, I decried it.

            1. But you’re asking for more of it. You’re routinely shocked, shocked, to find the natural abuses of things that you advocate.

        3. How about if insider trading is done by our holy and precious govt officials?

          1. I’m surprisingly OK with that. As long as it’s Democrats.

        4. You know what happens when there’s a whisteblower accusation? They go through everybody’s work email. I thought you hated that sort of thing?

        5. LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA!

        6. What MNG? Libertobia won’t be perfect with their own gold shitting unicorns?

    2. I thought that was what short selling was for.

  4. More good news

    Mike Blasenstein and Michael Dax Iacovone, creators of the one-month-only Museum of Censored Art, have received the John Phillip Immroth Memorial Award for intellectual freedom by the American Library Association, one of the most well-known anti-censorship organizations in the country.

    The museum was responsible for showcasing the censored film, “A Fire in My Belly,” by gay artist David Wojnarowicz. The video was originally a part of the gay and lesbian art exhibition “Hide/Seek” at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, and contains an 11-second segment that shows ants running on a crucifix.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    1. No Mohammed. Pussies.

      1. Penn Jillette stated the reason why he and comedians who poke fun at religion do not say anything about Islam… because they don’t want their heads getting chopped off. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Islamic fundamentalists are crazy, and they are more trigger happy than Christian fundamentalists.

        1. Hardly. It suggests that their “freedom of speech” is something they only use to offend the weak and the meek. In other words, they’re bullies, who’ll shut up as soon as they find someone who will hit back.

          1. Unless the words involved are threats of violence, it’s impossible to be a bully with words.

            Saying “You are stupid and your beliefs are stupid and here’s why” is not an act of bullying.

            1. Aren’t you pretty much negating 90% of female bullying that way?

      2. Show Muhammed’s face! That would be bigotry!

        Pissing on Jesus, however, is art.

    2. […]and contains an 11-second segment that shows ants running on a crucifix.

      Oh, they are so brave and avant garde, mocking the dangerous christfags, and playing into the memes of the acameic and art world who all think exactly the same as they do! Show some cockroaches runing on a Koran and I might think they were a little bit brave with their speech.

      1. acameic = academic (PIMF)

      2. Serious question: Why is it (apparently) less offensive to *talk about*, say, cockroaches runing on a Koran than to *actually show* it? Is it a “graven images” thing? Does Allah cut us some slack in having human imaginations?

        1. “Does Allah cut us some slack in having human imaginations?”

          Yes but only in the invention of creative ways to kill infidels, especially Jews.

          1. Yes but only in the invention of creative ways to kill infidels, especially Jews.

        2. All who believe in me will return to the next life as cockroaches.

      3. You can’t just be glad that someone stepped up to show this censored art exhibit?

        1. Sure, but it’s not particularly courageous enough to win a top award.

          The documentary about Hillary Clinton was “banned” and “censored” by the government, but I wouldn’t go giving out awards for somebody showing it to a bunch of conservatives either.

        2. Because we’re reacting to YOU, a disingenuous hypocrite who only supports freedom that appeals to your own tastes.

        3. By MNG’s definition of censorship, the fact that the Museum of Censored Art is only on for a month means that in four weeks Mike Blasenstein and Michael Dax Iacovone, are going to censor “A Fire in My Belly”, again.

          Bastards.

    3. So “censored” in this case means “widely available, was part of a national exhibition but pulled after complaints,” right? Nothing to do with actually been banned or difficult to find, nothing to do with people actually even threatening, much less committing, violence, right?

      The ALA’s definition of “banned” books tends to include things like “was not chosen to be taught in middle school, even though it was still available in that same school’s library.”

      1. Yes, “censored” now seems to mean “sucks so bad no one wanted to look at it”. Kinda like Ishtar. Or Waterworld.

        1. I like Waterworld

        2. I’m pretty sure Gary Larson is the main reason why Ishtar is “censored”, or at least only popular in hell.

        3. Back away from the Waterworld comment. That is a very funny comedy.

      2. Here is a common web definition of censor: to suppress or delete as objectionable

        They suppressed (put an end to) the exhibit didn’t they?

        1. Sorry, but “failure to support and promote” is not the same as “censor”.

        2. Here are real dictionary definitions of censor. The primary definition has to do with officials, though it does have a secondary definition of any managing to forcibly alter another’s behavior because of moral objections.

          They didn’t prevent people from seeing the film who wanted to. That puts it in an entirely different category from, say, government crackdowns on porn, or the FCC banning the documentary about Hillary Clinton, or actual threats of violence that prevented anyone from being willing to show cartoons.

          These awards, by definition, go to things which are uncontroversial enough that large numbers of people will vote them awards.

          1. “They didn’t prevent people from seeing the film who wanted to.”

            Only because someone stepped up to show the canceled exhibit, which is the point.

            1. The point is that someone almost always steps up to show something when it’s only “censored” because someone else chooses not to show it. The film was always available.

              That’s a big difference from censorship (generally government) where a third party prevents something from being shown at all.

              Unless this alternative showing got a few credible death threats or the threat of government fines or prosecution, I am certain that there were worse incidents of censorship and braver people more worthy of an award.

            2. So, how does this compare to people not being allowed to order “The Real Hillary Clinton” over pay-per-view because of FEC regulations?

              1. So, how does this compare to people not being allowed to order “The Real Hillary Clinton” over pay-per-view because of FEC regulations?

                One is actual censorship by the government, the other is not. Guess which is which, MNG!

            3. As a First Amendment absolutist, I’ve gotta say that MNG has a twisted idea of “censorship.”
              If a work is legally available to someone who seeks it out, it has not been censored.

            4. You’re not allowed to not watch something that I like! That’s censorship!

            5. LA!

    4. Fuck the ALA. No, seriously. Fuck the ALA.

      Endless shame of the spineless American Library Association

      NEW YORK, January 13, 2011 (Nat Hentoff/Galesburg Register-Mail) – In April 2003, the security police of Fidel Castro arrested and imprisoned 75 journalists, members of opposition parties, and owners of independent libraries. The charge: “crimes against national sovereignty.” The librarians had been making available to Cubans books that were banned in the state’s libraries for containing “terrorist” material. Among them were a biography of Martin Luther King Jr….

      During the one-day trial, Castro’s judges ordered that all printed volumes confiscated during the raids of the libraries be burned. I obtained copies of those incendiary court rulings that then, and now, characterize the Cuban “revolution….”

      At first, I had expected immediate protests about the caged independent librarians from the American Library Association. The core credo of this largest national library association in the world has been “the freedom to read” — for everyone everywhere.

      Why should you care? Because banning books and imprisoning librarians mean banning literature, ideas — thought — and critically wounding freedoms that should be as essential as oxygen to citizens and a society.

      In the many columns I’ve written since about the abandoned Cuban librarians, I’ve cited the ALA’s refusal to demand the release of these librarians. In June 2003, for one of many examples, Michael Dowling, then director of the ALA’s International Relations Office, said: “There has been no definitive evidence that books are banned and librarians harassed.” There had been international press on the raids.

      ___

      Neugebauer illustrated her talk with slides of smiling children, attired in their obligatory “Pioneer” uniforms (schoolchildren who refuse to wear them are expelled) reading glossy new books in the bookmobile, along with information on library programs for adults and teenagers. In closing, she attributed the bookmobile’s success to cooperation from Cuba’s “mass organizations” which “link the Party to the masses.”

      The question and answer period following the presentation sparked a lively debate. Ms. Neugebauer was asked by a member of the Friends of Cuban Libraries why she testified during an ALA investigation that she has been unable to find any evidence of censorship in Cuba during her visits to the island over the past twenty years.

      Visibly annoyed, Ms. Neugebauer at first tried to stonewall the issue by declaring, “This question does not deserve an answer!”

      1. But people in Cuba have free healthcare Sugar Free.

      2. SugarFree, I’m reporting you to the Revolutionary Zeal Committee of the ALA. Your bourgeois sympathies have been noted.

      3. Noah Wyle wouldn’t have put up with this shit.

        1. Noah Wyle wouldn’t have put up with this shit.

          She wouldn’t either.

    5. I wonder how many of those “anti censorship” librarians have web filters on the computers/wifi in their libraries?

      1. Like lowering the state drinking ages with highway funds extortion, the libraries were mostly strong-armed into installing that stuff.

        1. Librarians are pussies–present company excepted. I was at meetings with the ALA when the Clinton administration was trying to turn the copyright dial to ’11’. The ALA made some noise, but they settled down and accepted the gutting of fair use in the digital environment.

          That was an interesting process, because there were a significant group of agencies that supported taking steps to ensure that fair use/first sale doctrine/etc. were not weakened in online works. Unfortunately, the administration was very beholden to the copyright lobby, so that got crushed pretty quickly. I’d gone so far as to draft amendment language to the Copyright Act and was supposed to brief the VP on the issue when the hammer came down.

  5. Good News: Oprah’s last show is aired.

    Bad News: the “Comeback” is already be planned.

    1. Yeah she’s coming back as “Ellen” with Gail in tow.

      Poor Steadman.

    1. And the “walking and chewing gum” special

      1. Whoa, whoa… slow down there, cowboy.

    2. Answer to both? The bidet.

      1. It’s not how you pick your nose that counts – it’s what you do with the boogers.

      2. [swooning]The French are so progressive![/swooning]

    3. it’s not exactly front-to-back/back-to-front, but more of a swirling motion, as if you were cleaning a dirty spot on a window. I’ve never actually seen this in practice

      I have. It’s quite effective.

    4. To be fair, many Jezebel readers needed two hands and a flashlight just to find their own ass.

      1. Yes, it is sad that they have such a hard time finding something so large.

      2. I think you mean that need two hands and a flashlight just to get to their ass.

        1. [spit-take]

        2. Don’t forget the flour.

      3. To be fair, many Jezebel readers needed two hands and a flashlight just to find their own ass.

        Of course, if they just located their head, they’d know exactly where it is.

    5. Isn’t hygiene a tool of the patriarchy? Or big Toilet Paper?

        1. WTF?? Damn less than symbol being read as HTML….

          Big TP —- Georgia-Pacific —- KOCHTOPUS

          1. Don’t you see that it all ties in? Fatten them up with corn syrup and they’ll have to buy more toilet paper to wipe their big asses.

            Profits, baby!

    6. Oh I do hope hope this is a variation on the “Bear and the Rabbit” joke? Only the punch line is where you wipe your ass with a Jezebel columnist!

    7. Who wipes?

    8. I’m supposed to wipe it myself? Who knew?

  6. one component of the Patriot Act in particular gives him immense pause: the so-called “business-records provision,” which empowers the FBI to get businesses, medical offices, banks and other organizations to turn over any “tangible things” it deems relevant

    I’m a “tangible thing”, aren’t I?

    1. Yes but don’t worry, once you have been groped, inspected, searched, measured, classified and fitted with a GPS tracker you will be released into the population until such time it is deemed that you are no longer a “tangible thing” and instead reclassified as a terrorist.

      1. “”and fitted with a GPS tracker””

        Ha. That’s just stupid to say these days since people are so willing to carry their own.

  7. A sweeping review of shifts in the labor force since 1960 suggests that a sizable portion of the national weight gain can be explained by declining physical activity during the workday. Jobs requiring moderate physical activity, which accounted for 50 percent of the labor market in 1960, have plummeted to just 20 percent.

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/…..pounds/?hp

    1. That can’t be true. Liberals have PROVEN that it’s because McDonald’s puts toys in Happy Meals.

      1. No, no, no. It was the corn starch the evil cereal companies started using so they could line their own pockets with the blood of your children.

    2. New Nanny state measure: keyboard must now be installed with hydraulics so that each press of a key requires 10 PSI of force, so that we can get a good workout.

      1. Keyboards should be attached to treadmills, where reasonable.

        1. Right idea, poor implementation! Keyboards should be like the giant piano keyboard in the charming Tom Hanks vehicle “Big”! Typing a simple paragraph will require you jumping from letter to letter much like hopping from stone to stone while crossing a creek. That’ll show those fatties!

        2. I remember back in the 90s when there was some question as to whether ‘obesity’ should be covered under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

          A chorus of wise liberal intellectuals responded “yes of course!” After all, obesity was genetic, and the evil knuckle-dragging right-wing haters who claimed that it was a result of diet and exercise were nothing but cruel bigots, insensitive to the plight of the disadvantaged, struggling through no fault of their own, in a thin man’s world.

          My how the “facts” have changed now that the opportunity for expansion of the state lies with the formerly opposing view.

          I’m sure this flip-flop is based on a cold reasoned analysis of new research, though. Funded by the state and given it’s Seal Of Objectivity[TM], of course.

        3. Justified by the Commerce Clause, no doubt.

          1. Because if you didn’t have the treadmill, and were just running in a straight line, you could cross state lines.

      2. You mean the Execusizer?

    3. I think there’s probably something to this.

      And I’ll give credit to the authors for not reflexively suggesting that government must DO SOMETHING! about this problem, although that’s likely to come soon enough and they probably lost a day’s pay from the Times for forgetting to put that in.

      1. Joe Biden leading a mandatory round of Iroquois Twists each morning?

    4. Until the 1960s, clinical investigators routinely pointed out that moderate exercise would lead only to insignificant increases in energy expenditure, and these could be easily matched by slight and comparatively effortless changes in diet. A 250-pound man will expend three extra calories climbing a flight of stairs, as Louis Newburgh of the University of Michigan calculated in 1942, and this in turn is the equivalent of depriving himself of one-fourth of a teaspoon of sugar or a tenth of an ounce of butter. “He will have to climb twenty flights of stairs to rid himself of the energy contained in one slice of bread!” Newburgh observed.

      Though more strenuous exercise would burn more calories, it would also lead to a significant increase in appetite. This is the implication of the phrase “working up an appetite.” “Vigorous muscle exercise usually results in immediate demand for a large meal,” noted the Northwestern University endocrinologist Hugo Rony in 1940. “Consistently high or low energy expenditures result in consistently high or low levels of appetite. Thus men doing heavy physical work spontaneously eat more than men engaged in sedentary occupations. Statistics show that the average daily caloric intake of lumberjacks is more than 5,000 calories while that of tailors is only about 2,500 calories. Persons who change their occupation from light to heavy work or vice versa soon develop corresponding changes in their appetite.” If a tailor became a lumberjack and, by doing so, took to eating like one, there was little reason to think that the same wouldn’t happen, albeit on a lesser scale, to an obese tailor who chose to work out like a lumberjack for an hour a day. In 1960, when the epidemiologist Alvan Feinstein examined the efficacy of various obesity treatments in a lengthy review in the Journal of Chronic Diseases, he dismissed exercise in a single paragraph. “There has been ample demonstration that exercise is an ineffective method of increasing energy output,” Feinstein noted, “since it takes far too much activity to burn up enough calories for a significant weight loss. In addition, physical exertion may evoke a desire for food so that the subsequent intake of calories may exceed what was lost during the exercise.”

      By this time, though, exercise had a profoundly influential proponent: the Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer, who would almost single-handedly overturn a century of clinical evidence and anecdotal experience. In the 1950s, when Mayer established himself as the leading authority on obesity in the United States, he did so based more on the romance of his background than his expertise as a clinical scientist: he was the son of the famous French physiologist Andr? Mayer, and he had fought in the French resistance during World War II.

      Mayer represented a new breed of obesity authority, of a kind that would now come to dominate the field. His predecessors?among them Louis Newburgh, Hugo Rony, Hilde Bruch, Frank Evans, Julius Bauer, and Russell Wilder?had all been physicians who worked closely with obese patients. Collectively, they had treated thousands of them. Their views on the cause of obesity differed, often radically, but their firsthand experience was unquestionable. Mayer was not a clinician. His training was in physiological chemistry; he had obtained a doctorate at Yale on the interrelationship of vitamins A and C in rats. In the ensuing decades, he would publish hundreds of papers on different aspects of nutrition, including obesity, but he never treated obese patients, so his hypotheses were less fettered by any anecdotal or real-life experience

      -Gary Taubes, Good Calories, Bad Calories. pp 260-261

      Exercise, especially high-intensity stuff, helps somewhat by having a metabolic effect, cycling muscle glucose and increasing insulin sensitivity. It has little to do was modern obesity. Jean Mayer was a scumbag and this NYT journalist is a idiot, but I repeat myself.

      1. with modern obesity…

    5. I thought it was because of tractor pulls. Back in my day, I had to pull my own shit, sans tractor.

  8. http://www.guardian.co.uk/poli…..scientists

    Climate scientists whine about having to comply with FOIA laws. WAAA. You know if you would get off the government tit, you wouldn’t be subject to FOIA.

    1. Are they just getting grants? Because that seems like getting a contract to me. Do government contractors have to comply with these provisions?

      Recently we had the GOP have a heart attack opposing pretty meager disclosure for government contractors, I guess you said the same thing about them?

      1. Don’t they work for public universities?

        That makes them run of the mill state employees, just like somebody in a governor’s office.

        1. Pretty different than someone in the governors office which is an executive branch which makes and enforces policy. More equivalent to wanting the email records of the DMV teller.

          1. Producing data on which basis policy is made and enforced is pretty damn different from a DMV teller, and you know that. A chief scientist is an executive who runs a lab; it’s ordinary bench jockeys who are similar to DMV tellers.

            And the DMV teller’s email records could easily be relevant– say if they included comments or instructions about how the driving violations of famous people were to be ignored.

            But MNG is only for whistleblowing against private institutions.

            1. “Producing data on which basis policy is made and enforced is pretty damn different”

              Holy shit what a vague thing! All kinds of data may later be used by policy makers, including the DMV teller’s transactions, the report the policeman fills out, the medical records of the local health department.

              And you guys know enough about government grants that there are large amounts of disclosures already made about how the grant money itself is used, right?

              Oh you didn’t?

              1. And you guys know enough about government grants that there are large amounts of disclosures already made about how the grant money itself is used, right?

                I suspect I know more about government grants in academia than you do. The government cares a lot about expense reports, but that’s not the same thing as making the data publicly available.

                As far as data goes, the official guidelines say only:

                NSF expects significant findings from research and education activities it supports to be promptly submitted for publication, with authorship that accurately reflects the contributions of those involved. It expects investigators to share with other researchers, at no more than incremental cost and within a reasonable time, the data, samples, physical collections and other supporting materials created or gathered in the course of the work. It also encourages grantees to share software and inventions or otherwise act to make the innovations they embody widely useful and usable.

                1. And now you are talking about something different than emails, but hey, keep moving those posts!

                  1. You’re the one moving the post, since you said “most of those requests were for emails, not databases.” It’s also true that he refused to share data, but you just want to focus on the emails.

                    When somebody refuses to share their data, yes, people get suspicious and start requesting everything. If the data had always been publicly available, there wouldn’t have been as much of a cry for the emails.

                  2. I asked you a few times if you were in favor of the data being shared, and you continue to dodge the question and refuse to answer it.

                    I generally think that they shouldn’t look for the emails, but I don’t have any sympathy for a guy who refuses to share his data. It does make things look worse.

                    It’s certainly not that he was willing to share the data while fighting the email subpoena, either; no, he fought all of it.

                    Keep attacking that strawman.

                  3. MNG: “Some of the harrassing FOIA’s are for things like email accounts not databases.”

                    So you admit that some of the requests are about data that he refused to share, and you also frame requests for raw data as “harassing.” I strongly disagree with the idea that requests for data is harassment instead of legitimate, and I very strongly think that data should be shared.

              2. Adjustments and, where essential, exceptions may be allowed to safeguard the rights of individuals and subjects, the validity of results, or the integrity of collections or to accommodate legitimate interests of investigators.

                You’re confusing the much more detailed restrictions on making sure that people don’t claim that they spent the money wrongly (though everyone in math familiar with awardees spending excess money on really nice but unnecessary computers because they have nothing else allowable to spend it one) with a hard requirement to make the data publicly available.

                If you mess up on the accounting forms, they’ll nail your ass. The accounting is a must. Sharing data, OTOH, is merely an “expectation within a reasonable time,” with many exceptions, and it’s only expected that you make it available to other researchers, not the public.

              3. Just like there’s a difference, MNG, between the Fly America Act actually requiring people to use US flag carriers for flights on government grants, and Paragraph 40, “Sense of the Congress on Use of Funds,” that merely says that Congress would like to tell people to try to spend as much as possible on American-made lab equipment. One is a hard and fast rule, the other is a request that can be ignored.

              4. Holy shit what a vague thing! All kinds of data may later be used by policy makers, including the DMV teller’s transactions, the report the policeman fills out, the medical records of the local health department.

                A chief scientist who runs a lab is more like an executive than a DMV teller, and you know it.

                An executive (or top scientist) at a private company damn sure would have their work emails and memos gone through by investigators if allegations of data misuse or securities fraud or anything else came about. Indeed, up above you’re cheering for it. And a DMV clerk’s work emails *would* be subject to investigation if accusations of fraud were made. Government employees, including DMV clerks, get big notices about “NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY” when using work email.

                Do you always have the concept that the law should be different for people you like than those you don’t like?

              5. Holy shit what a vague thing! All kinds of data may later be used by policy makers,

                Yeah all sorts of things could be. But in this specific case, the data he was producing had an enormous impact on public policy.

                Even if you want to establish some kind of rule that says that only things that have a substantial impact on public policy are subject to FOIA, by any measure his data would be included. And he resisted sharing that as well, which is why the investigation grew to include emails.

                1. MNG = John Thacker’s bitch today.

              6. So no doubt you opposed the request for the names of the energy executives who met with VP Cheney?

          2. I see no reason why a DMV teller’s work email shouldn’t be subject to FOIA.

            It would probably be full of tedious and trivial information, but that’s no argument against it being subject to taxpayer review, IMO.

      2. They should provide everything anyway. They should welcome people looking at their data and methods. If they want their conclusions used for public policy, than everything that goes into that data should be open to scrutiny. Sorry, but no “a guy in lab coat says it so you must do it” policy.

        1. Some of the harrassing FOIA’s are for things like email accounts not databases.

          1. But you do agree then that he shouldn’t be fighting the ones about the databases, right?

          2. Yeah, because know from climate gate there is never anything interesting or incriminating in an email account. And it is just so hard to burn a few CDS off of a server these days and pay some minimum wage drone to redact the privacy info. Poor dears.

            1. Yeah, because know from climate gate there is never anything interesting or incriminating in an email account.

              Well, yeah, as every independent review has found nothing afoul in the one you are implying. But any person who wasn’t on the war path and had a passing familiarity with doing collaborative research already knew that.

              “And it is just so hard to burn a few CDS off of a server these days and pay some minimum wage drone to redact the privacy info.”

              Having the personal email records exposed for fishing expeditions would greatly inhibit the mission of the college which is furthered by researchers being able to freely communicate with their research peers. The college knows that, that is why they are fighting it.

              1. Well, yeah, as every independent review has found nothing afoul in the one you are implying.

                No, the independent reviews found many things to criticize, though they didn’t feel that they found a smoking gun. Some reviews that were run by the guy’s own friends and employers exonerated him, but you’re calling that “independent?”

                But I’m sure you’d be equally at home with the idea of Wall Street judging its own.

                1. What John Thacker said. The climate gate emails speak for themselves MNG. No amount of insider run “commissions” telling us black is white and to ignore the man behind the curtain changes that. They just give people like you talking points. Nothing more.

                2. First announced in December 2009, a British investigation commissioned by the UEA and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, published its final report in July 2010. The commission cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data. The “rigour and honesty” of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt.[106] The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any “competent” researcher.

                  The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit.” It found that the CRU’s work had been “carried out with integrity” and had used “fair and satisfactory” methods. The CRU was found to be “objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda.” Instead, “their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible.”[

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…..ail_Review

                  1. And in other news, a panel of independent foxes has concluded that the chickens in the henhouse died of natural causes and completely exonerated their brother fox.

                  2. Again, the emails say differently. That report is a sham. And more importantly, it says there was no evidence of “deliberate” malpractice. What emails showed more than anything was that the actual data doesn’t show what the fanatics want us to believe. It showed they can’t reconstruct previous temperatures and they are really pretty unsure about the temperatures they do have.

                    Just because the commission found that they were not deliberate in their failure to admit how bad their research and conclusions actually are, doesn’t make that research and data any better.

                    1. There were more than one report, and they were by experts with better access to more info than you, but of course your judgment (careless enough to talk of “the report” when there several) is right and theirs is wrong, they were all in on the fix yada, yada.

                      Classic fevered conspiracy theorists thinking.

                    2. More importantly notice the hackitude in conservatives opposing meager disclosures of political giving by government contractors but supporting fishing expeditions of the personal emails of those who work with government grants (along likely with numerous non-government grants).

                      Hackery at its best.

                    3. More importantly notice the hackitude in conservatives opposing meager disclosures of political giving by government contractors

                      By conservatives, you also mean Steny Hoyer, right? One possible problem with disclosures of political giving is that politicians can turn things even more into a “pay for play” situation.

                      There is a logical distinction between the government wanting open records of what people are paid to produce (just like the government often wants ownership of what contractors produce) and gathering unrelated data.

                      And if someone is mixing personal emails on their work email account, that’s their problem.

                    4. It’s not hackery at all.

                      If you were the governor of my state, I would insist that the taxpayers were entitled to review ALL work product produced on state time and with state equipment, including your emails.

                      But I would not insist that you put a camera in your shower at home. Nor would I insist that you document political donations made with your salary after you cashed your check.

                      These are really very simple and straightforward distinctions.

                    5. “Hackery at its best.”

                      Give yourself credit, MNG. Yours is pretty good, too!

                  3. The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any “competent” researcher.

                    I can actually see the validity of clearing them on the data tampering charge, but the ONLY WAY to clear them of subverting the peer review process was by deciding definitionally to claim that the peer review abuses they openly admitted to weren’t a “subversion”.

                    Anyone who examines the record in even a cursory way can see that they deliberately sought to suppress material that challenged their positions. You can declare them “cleared” because of a unilateral declaration that this didn’t rise to the level of “subversion” all you want, but we all know what they did.

                    1. But fluffy, in MNG and his ilk’s view it was okay for them to corrupt the pier review process because they are right and their critics are wrong.

                  4. In other news, an “independent” investigation somewhere finds police not guilty of police brutality.

              2. So, hypothetically, they are free to commit fraud, collude, etc. via email?

          3. If it’s a work email on a server paid for by the taxpayers, fuck them they lose.

            You have no expectation of privacy on a work email account.

            They work for the taxpayers.

            If they ARE doing personal shit on their work email, that’s a good thing to know, too.

          4. “harrassing”

            I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

    2. The Obama Budget: 97 nos. You read that right. No “ayes.”

      The Paul Budget: 90 nos, 7 ayes. Only Coburn, DeMint, Hatch, Lee, McConnell, Paul, and Vitter voted for this libertarian dream of a budget, which cuts (non-defense) spending to 2008 levels and levels the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Education, and Hud.

      We beat Obama! Hope and Change, biotches!

  9. The final Oprah Winfrey Show is aired.

    And let this comment serve as the final internet post on the subject.

    1. Yeah, sorry, but hom much would you like to bet she airs a re-elect O-bomba/bumbler special?

    2. Until, of course, she runs for President.

  10. http://www.washingtontimes.com…..uestioned/

    House members, Democrats in particular, are just amazing stock pickers. Go figure.

    1. Hillary Clinton was a commodities trading genius.

      But she was smashingly successful with one series of trades that she made via the broker she shared with a big contributor, and then never traded again ever.

      Because, you know, that makes so much sense.

    2. No big thing, behold the financial acumen of Ashton Kutcher!

      In recent years, Mr. Kutcher has become a smart early investor in some of the most talked-about Internet start-ups

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05…..on.html?hp

      1. One of the Ramones turned out to be a pretty decent investor. And Philadelphia serial killer Gary Heidnik managed to turn $1,500 into $500,000 over a 12 year period.

        So, I guess what I’m saying is that democratic congressman are at least as smart as a drugged-out washed up punk rocker, and a lunatic.

        1. I find that unlikely.

      2. Because a pretty-looking face making millions investing is the exact same as a legislator who gets to vote on the laws and rules governing companies who might do business with the government is the EXACT SAME THING.

    3. It’s because they are so darn smart! And they work so hard!

      1. It’s NOT because they are not subject to insider trading laws! Not at all!

  11. Climategate scientists think public access to what the public paid for is harrassment:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/poli…..scientists

    Here in Virginia, the University of Virginia has spent $1/2 million fighting FOIA requests for Michael Moore’s work done at taxpayer expense. They just told a court they will comply with the law… after claiming it no longer exists, was at Dr. Moore’s home, giving pieces of it printed out and redacted, etc.

    1. “Here in Virginia, the University of Virginia has spent $1/2 million fighting FOIA requests for Michael Moore’s work done at taxpayer expense.”

      Like many profs at a major research university Moore had a lot of funding from a lot of places on a lot of projects. The AG wants his employer to give access to his personal email accounts for a fishing expedition and his employer, realizing the negative impact on their employees and their work and the institution’s mission have intelligently resisted.

      1. How much of that 1.2 million dollars was fighting the requests and obfuscating? I find it hard to believe that was all just copying costs or it would have cost that much had they you know complied with the law.

        The FOIA laws apply to every other university. But it doesn’t seem to be a problem. Perhaps it just gets expensive when you are lying and have something to hide.

        1. It was mostly spent fighting the request in court and they have easily won at every stage. The VA AG is just grandstanding.

          1. So it is mostly them not producing stuff. Again, don’t hide stuff and it isn’t expensive.

      2. realizing the negative impact on their employees and their workAGW narrative and the institution’s missionfunding have intelligently resisted.

        FIFY

        1. The institution is UVA idiot, a major and old univeristy (you know, Thomas Jefferson) which is not built around pushing a “AGW narrative.”

          1. Oh, so UVA doesn’t get any grants to study ‘climate change’ and therefore doesn’t have an incentive to promote the preferred narrative of the government which is providing those grants? Pull your head out of your ass, fucknozzle.

          2. They spend more time and money on their football team (with not much result lately, even our Terrapins whipped them) than they do on climate research.

            In the fevered mind of conspiracy theorists though the evil cabal is always at work. The irony of you pointing to someone pushing a narrativer is yummy indeed.

            1. It is not about some evil cabal. It is about group think. People who are skeptical of AGW don’t get grants, jobs or tenure. Everyone’s career and livelihood depends on it being true. That causes what can only be described as an historic case of confirmation bias.

            2. And how much of that football revenue makes its way to the climatology department? And no conspiracy is required to take notice of people pursuing their own financial and political interests. And if they would simply release their data and records, the issue would be laid to rest one way or the other, with no need for speculation. I think you need to look up the definition of irony, idiot.

            3. You sound suspiciously like LVQ.

            4. You mean like how a couple professors got their panties in a wad because of a Koch grant of about a $1 million to a Florida college?

            5. “They spend more time and money on their football team (with not much result lately, even our Terrapins whipped them) than they do on climate research.”

              Well, I’m convinced. It’s all innocent.

              Same with oil companies who spend more money on refineries than they do on lobbying!

              I see clearly now that it’s all above board thanks to MNG’s cutting logic!

          3. This is the same state and university where a previous state climatologist was fired by the governor / office defunded because the governor didn’t like his research and statements, right?

            I’m sure you’ll defend that decision, though, because in that case you disagreed with the UVA scientist in question.

  12. Thank you Oprah for teaching me to want to be a better person.

    1. Can’t forgive her for giving air time to that little Eckhart Tolle guy. I made it through one of his books, but it was painful. Just a bunch of muddle-headed Buddhism Lite.

    1. Is that what they mean by speaking truth to power?

    2. It’s okay when our guys do it!

      1. We are NOT a cover for incremental Socialism!

    3. He’s just angry because she wouldn’t touch him if he was the last living man on earth.

      1. To be fair, she used to date Keith Olberman. So her standards are pretty low.

        1. Why didn’t I know about this years ago when I had a shot?

    4. Dan Ackroyd’s copyright suit will be forthcoming

    5. Only if John Stossel were to call Rachel Maddow the same thing.

  13. Update on the adventures of Ball-punch Balko in the land of the Huffers – he posted some of the feedback on his article about the Guerena shooting, via FB.

    Mr. Balko, you should know that these raids happen all the time in America. Inform yourself with this report and online map from the Cato Institute . . .

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

    1. Wow…

    2. he’s got more than 3800 comments on that story. I hated to see him go (and he’s how I found this place) but this net good.

    3. “Bless their sweet heart.”

    4. Oh My Fucking God. Where the fuck is Steve Smith when you need him?

  14. Only with expanded efforts to study the actual results of regulation — after they have been adopted — can agency officials and the public know whether they are getting true value from the thousands of new regulations issued each year.

    Reviewer: So, the regulations we just blindly passed and which you enforce, are they necessary?

    Regulator: Oh, my, no. My agency is not only unnecessary but burdensome to our citizens. Please reduce my power and trim my workforce.

    1. Fist, are you the reincarnation of Ambrose Bierce?

      1. Zombified Ambrose Bierce, but with a cooler name.

  15. The final Oprah Winfrey Show is aired

    TV just got a lot lighter.

    1. But she still carries a lot of weight.

  16. http://www.wbur.org/npr/136496…..ial-crisis

    Apparently someone has finally written a book dropping the dime on Barney Frank’s old boyfriend and CEO of Fannie Mae. And Frank isn’t in jail why?

    1. Because jail is for the little people.

    2. Actually, Barney requested it. Something about the soap…

  17. http://althouse.blogspot.com/2…..sy-of.html

    David Brooks is such a douche that he actually is making me side with Glenn Greenwald.

  18. Government Role in Causing Financial Crisis Much Bigger than Thought
    (PDF)
    …US Agencies played a larger role in the housing crisis than we first reported. In January 2009, I wrote that the housing crisis was mostly a consequence of the private sector” However, over the last 2 years, analysts have dissected the housing crisis in greater detail. What emerges from new research is something quite different: government agencies now look to have guaranteed, originated or underwritten 60% of all “non-traditional” mortgages, which totaled $4.6 trillion in June 2008. What’s more, this research asserts that housing policies instituted in the early 1990s were explicitly designed to require US Agencies to make much riskier loans, with the ultimate goal of pushing private sector banks to adopt the same standards….

  19. Government Role in Causing Financial Crisis Much Bigger than Thought
    …US Agencies played a larger role in the housing crisis than we first reported. In January 2009, I wrote that the housing crisis was mostly a consequence of the private sector” However, over the last 2 years, analysts have dissected the housing crisis in greater detail. What emerges from new research is something quite different: government agencies now look to have guaranteed, originated or underwritten 60% of all “non-traditional” mortgages, which totaled $4.6 trillion in June 2008. What’s more, this research asserts that housing policies instituted in the early 1990s were explicitly designed to require US Agencies to make much riskier loans, with the ultimate goal of pushing private sector banks to adopt the same standards….

    1. This does not get enough emphasis – nor will it ever, since if it did the result would be less government power.

  20. NASA intends to send a robot to an asteroid in 2016.

    They already did that.

    1. What do they gain from getting a sample from an asteroid in space vs. a meteorite that’s already fallen to earth?

      1. When standing under the apple tree, do you pluck from the branch or eat the one at your feet?

  21. http://www.frumforum.com/paul-ryan-2012s-goldwater

    Can anyone on either side stand David Frum?

    1. Considering that Frum’s ideal remains exactly the policies of the GWB Presidency, it’s a reasonably small number.

  22. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..l_bizlocal

    DC mayor shakes down Wal*Mart. This plus the ANCs’ demands to executives should make that business decision a little easier.

    1. “Gray indicated he would be willing to go so far as to nix the company’s requests for building permits on privately owned sites, even for neighborhoods where residents favored Wal-Mart’s opening.”

      If that’s not a shakedown I don’t know what is.

      1. They should file extortion charges.

  23. Unwanted patient battling OHIP over surgery
    “Sevan Hajinian suffers from agonizing back pain, and the surgery to correct it would be so complex that she has been unable to find a Canadian surgeon willing to do it. For three years, she has been offered little more than painkillers and crutches ? making her the unwanted patient.

    The 50-year-old is in so much pain she requires eight Percocet pills a day. But she is locked in a health-care limbo: The only spine surgeon she has found willing to perform a decompression and fusion on her is based in New York City, and the Ontario Health Insurance Plan refuses to pay the cost, estimated at $175,000 (U.S.), including physician fees and a one-week hospital stay.”
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com…..le2035204/

    1. This is awful, but… at least she gets painkillers. In the land of the free, she’d get some Advil and be told to walk it off.

      1. You can’t get painkillers in the U.S.? Since when?

        1. 240 percocet pills a month means she MUST be dealing.

          Her doctor and pharmacist should immediately be arrested.

    2. Clearly this is why we need single-payer here in the US.

    3. Eight Percocet is the absolute maximum you should take a day (4g acetaminophen). If this keeps up, she will likely die of liver failure.

      1. Can’t you get opiates that don’t assasinate your liver? What is the point of dumping tylenol in when you could just pop an otc one with your percocet?

        I’m starting to believe Epi’s crazy idea that overdose from painkillers (not due to the opiate) isn’t so unintended. Though vicoprofen exists, that seems safer.

    4. Not to defend single-payer health care, but I can’t see any private insurer salivating at paying out on something like that, either.

  24. http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailyc…..utalicense

    I know the rabbit story has already been blogged on here. But there is one piece of it that is really disturbing.

    The inspector watched the store for an hour from his car before the meeting, and his physical appearance put off the small business owners.

    “He was covered head to toe in filth. Jeans is one thing, but these were slicked. He had ‘Grizzly Adams’-style hair,” Judy Dollarhite said.

    The inspector, whose name Judy Dollarhite could not recall, intimidated the couple, claiming to have interviewed their neighbors about their political beliefs. ”

    The government sent some fucking dirty hippie out to interview these people’s neighbors and bully them for their political views. These people are just fucking goons.

    1. It’s okay, government regulation of businesses is a good thing, the benefits of which outweigh the detriments, just ask MNG.

    2. The government sent some fucking dirty hippie out

      Yesterday on the way to the boat ramp I got stuck behind a DEP vehicle going 25 mph, and the road is 5 miles long. It turned out to be a hippy/hipster, complete with headband, ironic 80s shorts, shaggy hair and beard, and a sloppy fat chick. By the time I’d gotten my boat in the water, they managed to take a single water sample in a pipette and (slowly) drive off.

      1. That job sounds awesome, maybe only because I’m stuck indoors though. Grass is greener and all that.

  25. Apropos of nothing, except that I find it funny: The new reporter in my newspaper’s Washington D.C. bureau was hired from the American Association of Poison Control Centers.
    So she’ll have a bit of continuity, at least.

  26. Romney, Palin Lead Reduced GOP Field for 2012

    Ron Paul is in third in this, which means he’s really in second, since Palin won’t being running.

    1. Yeah, but Paul, like Romney and Palin, has far greater name recognition. You could argue that others, including Gary Johnson, have more upside.

      1. True, but name recognition doesn’t necessarily equal understanding of positions. I’m sure a lot of people only know Paul as “that crazy long shot”, which was how he was described 90% of the time in 2007-08.

  27. The winners were announced today for a new fellowship that has sparked heated debate in academic circles for questioning the value of higher education and suggesting that some entrepreneurial students may be better off leaving college.

    Gasp!

  28. Okay, so voting “aye” for the Paul budget is the litmus test for libertarians, I say.

    1. If Paul’s budget is the litmus test for libertarians, then for the life of me I can’t imagine what the hell Obama’s budget must be the litmus test for. At least someone voted for Paul’s!

    2. Hatch and McConnell’s votes were, I suspect, “less than sincere”.

      1. Ugh, good point. Okay, how about necessary but not sufficient.

  29. Here’s news that might make Tony and Minge’s heads explode right off their necks: corporate profits in the first quarter are down for the first time in two years.

    1. That just means Obama is cracking down on the GOP’s corporate masters.

    2. Explode with glee, maybe. This means Obama’s finally getting down to the work they voted him into office to do.

    3. Another data point that will be used to justify QE3.

    4. Good. This should help the economy get back on track.

  30. Jesse,

    “White House announces plans to reduce some regulations” is an odd summary of the article you’ve linked.

    FTA:

    Thirty federal agencies ? from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to the Social Security Administration ? have now submitted to the White House their plans for reviewing existing significant regulations

    “Plan to review” is a looooong step from “plan to reduce”

  31. “Mutual aid via Facebook in tornado country.”

    Sunday’s tornado in North Minneapolis missed my house by about 100 yards. Every thing east of my house was shredded. Homes and businesses destroyed. Thousands of trees downed. It looks like a war zone.

    1. Brutal cold and tornadoes? Well, at least you have that big mall.

      1. And there is always the humidity and large mosquito population in the summer.

        1. Large mosquitoes is right. I went canoeing at the Dells once and was carried off to the Wicked Witch of the West by her mosquito minions.

          1. Yes, anything under a .270 caliber just pisses them off. They are quite large and very tough.

        2. Don’t forget Prince, John, or whatever that douchebag is calling himself these days.

      2. Well, at least you have that big mall.

        Which will attract every zombie in the midwest when the ZA comes. At least it’s not Canada.

      3. Lots of Swedish-American chicks in Minnesota, though. Balances things out.

        1. And chicks from the upper midwest, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin tend to be very down to earth and know how to party. They are a much better alternative to NE uptight feminists and princess southern bells.

          1. Yes, but they also tend to be larger than necessary. Note I said “tend.”

          1. I nominate Pip for the Nobel Peace Prize.

  32. The problem AS USUAL in the FOIA debate about the researchers’ emails above is that we continue to insist on operating as public institutions which can only properly be run privately. In this case, a university.

    I think there are, in fact, definite downsides to making university researchers have to submit to this kind of treatment. Chilling effect, yada yada yada. But you know what? Too fucking bad. Next time don’t involve taxpayer money in university education. Then we won’t have this problem.

    It’s not my fault you can’t run your public universities in a way that provides accountability to the taxpayers while still making your researchers feel like they aren’t being harassed. That’s your fault. [The “you” here being the people who created the untenable situation known as public education.]

    1. That is a good point fluffy if their complaints were not bullshit. How many researchers are out there doing politically charged or unpopular research? You don’t the animal rights people wouldn’t harass medical researchers using animals if they thought it would work? Of course they would. But it wouldn’t work because the medical researchers have nothing to hide and would just hand over the data.

      If FOIA is such a burden on researchers, why are only climate researchers having this problem? Are climate skeptics really the only ones who have thought of this devilish way to shut down research?

      Bullshit. FOIA is not a chilling effect on research. These people are just frauds and don’t want to turn over the evidence that proves as much.

      1. If FOIA is such a burden on researchers, why are only climate researchers having this problem?

        Probably because only the climate scientists are subject to a witch hunt by creationistsclimate skeptics.

        1. And evolutionary biologists and animal researchers and no one else engaged in controversial research is? Oh poor climate researchers. Bullshit.

  33. US Agencies played a larger role in the housing crisis than we first reported.

    Huh.

    A little while ago, some guy from Toll Brothers was on Bloomberg saying the government needs to “stay out of the way” and let the housing market recover.

    Of course, by “stay out of the way” he means the government should continue, if not ramp up, the sorts of distortionary policies (like the mortgage interest deduction and allowing Fannie and Freddie to wade neck-deep into the market) which worked out so well last time.

  34. lol, Oprah is so full of herself I am surprised her head doesnt explode.

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

  35. Chilling effect

    Of course, the only way this “chilling effect” can have any power is if the researchers believe they deserve a guaranteed job for life.

    If they don’t like the constraints put on them, they should pack up their pencils and slide rules, and find a more salubrious place to conduct their explorations.

  36. Awesome insight into the ruling class from (Virginia’s?) “Walmart goes to DC” link:

    “They’re interested in developing four stores,” the mayor said in an interview after the meeting. “All of us said, ‘What about a fifth store?’ They hemmed and hawed, and it ultimately came down to ? you have a choice. You can do five stores or you can do no stores.”

    Being a crook, and attempting to strong-arm Walmart is not really that surprising, but the depth and breadth of his stupidity, and complete lack of understanding of how large profitable corporations conduct their capital investment planning is truly striking.

    1. The single most important priority for Democrats right now is jobs.

      Wait, no, brain fart. I said “jobs” when I meant “graft”.

  37. Mark Haines (CNBC) croaked.

    Adios, bozo.

  38. It just amazes me how little interest there is about govenment’s collection of citizen’s data.

    1. It’s only concerning when kkkorporashuns do it. Let’s hold some Senate hearings on Apple’s iphone log files.

      1. “”Let’s hold some Senate hearings on Apple’s iphone log files.””

        No one would show. The Metro news paper had an article on this issue. The headline was, Our iPhones are spying on us and we don’t care. It’s more than iPhones, and we still don’t care.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.