Economic Growth

Reason Morning Links: Jack Kevorkian Is Dead, Jobs Numbers Are Out, Obama's Solicitor General Hates Rich People


  • Assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian died this morning of kidney disease. He was 83. 
  • John Edwards will be indicted today for using campaign funds to hide his relationship with Jay McInerney's ex-girlfriend. 
  • Jobs report ain't pretty.
  • Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI.) "wants to see how [the GOP] field develops" before he decides on a presidential run.  
  • Pres. Obama's solicitor general told a federal appeals court "that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money."
  • Global HIV rates are falling.
  • A 25-year-old arms dealer from Miami Beach has been banned from contracting with the federal government after selling defective cartridges.  

New at "Universidad Francisco Marroquin (aka University of Free Marketeers)"

NEXT: Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie Lead "Reason Day" at FreedomFest 2011, July 14-16 in Las Vegas

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian died this morning of kidney disease. He was 83.

    How ironic.

    1. I’m fine with assisted suicide of terminally ill patients. Perhaps they want to spare their families huge medical bills associated with extending their lives a little longer. another thing is many are suffering immensely.
      Healthy people, though, I’d really have to be convinced…

      1. It’s two issues… can a person kill themself, and should they be able to compel a physicians to help them.

        The physician part is easy… no you shouldn’t be able to compel a physician to help you kill yourself.

        And self-ownership implies the right to kill yourself.

        1. You kill me, SugarFree.

          1. Whatever you need, little buddy.

        2. I don’t think Dr. K was compelled. I’m with you on I don’t think a doctor should be forced to do it.

          Self-ownership, I know. But some people make the decision rashly… lost everything in the stock market, my wife left me/died, etc. Using a permanent solution to fix a temporary problem in life.

          1. Deciding for someone else what they can do with their life–even if it is just throwing it away–is not freedom.

            Now, of course, I have no problem trying to help people who are suicidal, it’s the making suicide a crime and getting the state involved is my objection.

            1. I eagerly await the law that makes suicide a crime punishable by death.

              1. Hey, that’s a good idea!

        3. Who in the world says that they should be able to compel a doctor to assist them? AFAIK the right to die movement was about allowing consenting doctors provide services to consenting patients. It’s an archetypical libertarian issue.

          1. The question was about healthy people killing themselves. There might be doctors willing to help them, but if there weren’t enough to help them all, coercion could become involved.

            The whole issue is solved by removing doctors as the gatekeepers to the various drugs.

            1. The whole issue is solved by removing doctors as the gatekeepers to the various drugs.

              Considering the near total reluctance of pro-lifers to support prosecuting women in abortion cases this could solve that problem as well.

            2. The reality is that doctors kill their patients all the time. The right mixture of morphine and other drugs will hasten death while the patient is completly unconscious. It is usually in the very late stages, when the family has given up hope and are ready to accept it.

              The problem lies in the situation where the PATIENT is ready, knows there is no hope, and is quite rational. Doctors avoid that like the plague.

              I don’t see medical ethics issues with with a healthy person wanting to kill himself. Doctors should not get involved in that. A .357 Mag, or .44 Mag. will do the trick nicely.

                1. True story – I saw Bud Dwyer blow his brains out live on TV when it happened. It caused quite the ruckus in the Pennsylvania media for the rest of the day. They showed the video over and over again, but stopped it right at the point where he put the barrel of the gun in his mouth. They would stop the video but let the audio continue, so you would see a still shot of him standing there with the gun in his mouth, while you heard BANG! and then lots of screams and yelling.

                  Of course, I got to see the whole thing, including him falling the floor with all the splattery stuff on the wall behind him. It was, to say the least, quite the surprise.

                  1. I liberated a PA House of Rep coaster from a former office mate. I was bummed when I saw that that it wasn’t from Dwyer’s office.

                2. Hey man, nice shot.

        4. “And self-ownership implies the right to kill yourself.”

          The philosophy that a person is endowed with an inalienable right to life implies that there is no such thing as a right to kill yourself.

          1. Nonsense. Having the right to a thing doesn’t mean I can’t dispose of that thing if I wish. If I decided to give all of my possessions away, would that somehow be incompatible with the existence of the right to own property?

      2. based on the facts i know, i never would’ve voted to convict kevorkian in assisting rational but terminally-ill victims take their own life.

        1. No one gives a shit what you’d have done.

          1. is that the royal “no one” skippy?

            1. It includes me.

        2. The problem was how many people Kevorkian was assisting were rational, or for that matter, even terminal?

      3. I see Matrix, you want to make that deeply personal decision for them. Nice.

        1. Methinks you’ve read more into that comment than is there.

          It is one thing to believe that freedom and self-ownership mean that an individual can commit suicide. it is another to make a personal judgment about whether a person’s reasons a sound ones.

          But that is true of many things. I still reserve the right to express a personal opinion about whether a person is acting rationally when choosing to do something I consider it is their right to do.

      4. many are suffering immensely.

        And let history shame us because many of these people would be willing to live my simply giving them ample opiates. That we’d let fellow humans suffer in order to appease an arbitrary convention called the law.

    2. I heard kidney disease is legal in Oregon.

      1. Hehehe.
        Yes, but did someone help him die of kidney disease with dignity?

        I’m sorry, but while I understand why we should have the right to end our lives, I disagree with the whole “death with dignity” bit. I see no possible dignity in death. Dignity is predicated on life.

        1. It’s the difference between going on your own terms relatively painlessly and going in insane pain/delirium/naseau, etc.

          1. Yeah, this is clearly one of those “walk a mile in his moccasins” issues. Nobody can imagine what someone else is going through with prolonged, intense physical suffering. It impacts everything about who a person is, changing their personality and perception of the world.

            Absolutely not a situation where some know-it-all that you’ve never met from halfway across the country should get a say in how you conduct your affairs.

        2. The word “dignity” definitely gets abused a lot these days. But I think that there can be something to the idea of “death with dignity”. I think a better way to put it might be “dying while you still have some dignity left” though.

        3. If your definition of dignity is spending 5 years breathing and eating through tubes, immobilized, having a nurse carry your pee away in plastic bags, being a daily burden to your family so that you can eke out every last blip on the monitors, by all means go for it. Some of us have a different take on dignity.

  2. “Jobs report ain’t pretty.”

    It is like 1937 all over again. Gee, runaway bureaucracy, crony capitalism and rampant uncertainty don’t exactly encouraging hiring.

    1. I think Obama should put Top Men on this right away. Top. Men.

      1. The best and the brightest I am sure.

      2. God save us from “smart” people.

      3. I find it insulting you use the Phrase “Top Men” we all know women would be better….

        1. Wise Latina women?

        2. I too prefer bottom women.

          1. Don’t dis the cowgirl.

            1. Seconded.

            2. A woman on top can still be the bottom.

      4. “Top. Men.” should be a reality show, wherein contestants engage in a series of ill-conjured challenges and popularity contests to determine who gets to run the country every 4 years or so.

    2. And that president was reelected four times and is now a mainstream icon.

      1. IOW, we are well and truly fucked.

      2. Yes, we are doomed.

    3. Awesome comment John. I am going to steal it.


    Forcible rapes have dropped 80% since 1979. Wow.

    1. Pfizer is currently performing R&D on a sasquatch version of viagra, so don’t expect that trend to continue.

    2. Yes, thanks rohypnol.

    3. With the increase in diabetes, maybe fewer rapists can manage the act?

      Did you see where FDA had changed the Food Pyramid to the Food Circle? Cuz, yeah, it was the shape that’s the problem. Right.…..-makeover/
      Oh, and it’s not really a circle. It’s two circles, one big and one small, representing a plate and a glass of milk. Add a small side salad and it would look like Mickey Mouse’s silhouette.
      And why is the government telling us how to eat? “Obama has made eliminating child obesity a priority”. The problem is they’re ignoring things that disagree with their supposed solution. Gluttony and sloth and “food psychology” can’t explain why obesity is rising in babies.

    4. Obviously, the solution to this problem is to clone STEVE SMITH.

      1. So what do we call her?

        Sarah Smith
        Susan Smith
        Shiela Smith
        Soiraine Smith
        Sacha Smith
        Serina Smith
        Sofie Smith
        Sharon Smith

        1. Wouldn’t STEPHANIE SMITH be the logical choice? Or Hillary Clinton?


    Forcible rapes have dropped 80% since 1979. Wow.

    1. Wow indeed!

      1. If we could only do away with porn we could get that to 100%.

        1. Yes, but then what would we do with all that extra internet bandwidth?

          1. We’d hand it over to the FCC for safe keeping.

            1. lockbox!

        2. Yeah. The explosion of the availability of porn over the last 30 years is a problem. I correlation doesn’t equal causation. But lack of correlation does equal noncausation last I looked.

    2. but… but… violent video games… and porn! They are contributing to rape!! That’s what these psycho lawyers and advocacy groups claim! WE MUST PROTECT OUR CHILDREN!!!

      1. No its heavy Metal Music thats the cause of all crimes My ex-husband Al would contend its Global Warming that causes the rape.

        1. Dungeons & Dragons.

          I’m sure someone told me it’s Dungeons & Dragons.

          // Little do they understand the true threat of D&D: d4s left in the carpet.

    3. That is awesome.

    4. Can’t wait to hear what the good folks at Feministing have to say about it.

      1. Will it piss them off if we tell them it’s because most chicks these days are giving it up willingly?

        1. Women aren’t dressing as sexy as they used to…

  5. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI.) “wants to see how [the GOP] field develops” before he decides on a presidential run.

    I wonder which strong Republican candidates he envisions entering the race.

    1. Who knows? Maybe someone’s going to dig up Harold Stassen.

    2. I wonder which strong Republican candidates he envisions entering the race.

      Paul Ryan, it sounds like.

      It will be interesting to see what he does if Mitt and the Repub establishment manage to get an early lead. If Ryan is serious about deficits and debt, he would have to oppose Mitt, who strikes me as exactly the type of Republican to go all squishy on spending.

  6. Part of the psychological mechanism for dealing with modern life is that you know things exist–horrible things–, but as long as you aren’t confronted with them, you can wad them up and throw them at the wastebasket of memory.

    Confront them now with me. Know what terrors lurk in the dusty corners of your mind.

    1. Yeah, I looked. Wow, those are…

      Wow. WORSE than Twilight. No, REALLY – worse than Twilight.

      I have to go lie down…

      1. I have no clue what happens after the first book/movie of Twilight, but there is definitely some wrong shit in that list.

    2. Anything that says “wronger than Twilight” I am not clicking on.

      1. I’ll lie down for you. It wasn’t NutraSweet-usual – you had to read, and stuff. It was HORRIBLE.

    3. Kind of sexist. Surely all the terrible fantasy sex can’t be written by women.

      1. It’s a fitting downside to their obsession with female science fiction writers.

        1. Instapundit published the following great letter concerning female sci fi authors and the feminist quest to create them.

          UPDATE: An author/reader emails:

          You know, what you said about therapists applies exactly to writing/reading, too. When young adult SF was dominated by male writers, they claimed girl readers were being discriminated against. Now, when almost all YA books are either written by females or have a female main character, they whine that boys are PREUJUDICED and won’t read female writers or girl characters. As the mother of boys and an ex tomboy, I want to slap them all. No I don’t want affirmative action for male writers/characters. I figure e-publishing will take care of that. I just want the whining to stop. (Yes, I am probably a horrible woman.)

          1. No genre that includes Ursula K. LeGuin could be said to be completely dominated by men. Proportions or absolute numbers don’t matter much so long as there are a few good role models for aspiring writers. You know, unless the said aspiring writers kind of WOULD want to write science fiction, but Angela in pom squad says that’s for nerds and dykes. no big loss if they don’t get into the field.

            1. Anyone who says the reason they can’t seem to write is because they lack good role models of the same gender was never going to be a writer anyway.

    4. Just call me Incubus Eidolon

      Step right up ladies and gentlemen, the lines forming here. I can get about 8 of you the first time, then probably 4 the second time, then I need a 40 minute break.

    5. “I thought homos deserved a place in the elite social structure on Pern.”

    6. That is some seriously wrong stuff. And I thought Geek Love was weird.

    7. Still the best take on Twilight I’ve yet seen. Not being very conversant with Mormonism, I had no idea.

      And yeah, that’s some creepy shit there, SF. But as long as these people confine themselves to writing things down instead of acting them out, it’s all good.

    8. I was surprised that Jacqueline Carey’s Kushiel’s Legacy series wasn’t on the list.

  7. Thank you for posting the MOARNING LYNX while I was ranting over at the Loder tripe-fest.


  8. Texas goes to loser pays civil suits. I’m interested to see whether the effect will be as drastic as fans of the concept like myself believe.

    1. I like loser pays may help deserving plaintiffs. We have loser pays for plaintiffs in civil rights suits. What it does is get defendants to pay up on deserving claims rather than stonewall and run the risk of having to pay the other side’s legal fees.

      1. I meant to link this for you yesterday John:…

        Maybe they read your post.

        1. LOL/ Thanks I hadn’t seen that.

    2. I wonder if this will have an effect on lawyer fees, as this sets up a kind of third party payor problem.

    3. I haven’t looked at the final bill, but my understanding is its a pretty weak loser pays rule. Basically, a beefed-up frivolous lawsuit penalty. And judges simply will not call a lawsuit frivolous, no matter what.

      Back in the day, everyone thought the new rules of civil procedure were really going to clean up the dockets because they had a rule allowing early dismissal of frivolous suits, with sanctions for the lawyer who brought it. Practically never happens. I see no reason for this to work out any differently.

      1. Yes RC. Rule 11 is a creature of law school civil procedure classes. I have never heard of anyone actually getting a Rule 11 sanction. If the courts would actually follow the rules, the system would function. The rules of the game are reasonable. It is the players and referees who are insane.

      2. Try asking for summary judgement in Philadelphia. “Your honor, the photo of the product that injured the plaintiff shows clearly the maker logo, and it ain’t ours.” Judge: “We’ll let it proceed to discovery (umpteen $$ later) to determine that.” This leads to settlement offers that fall just short of the cost of discovery.

        1. where do you think judges in Phila come from?

  9. After the Times propagated the blood libel that conservative media figures were behind the murders in Tucson, we wrote that this campaign of vilification “is really about competition in the media industry?not commercial competition but competition for authority.” Abramson’s quote confirms that we were precisely on target in assessing the Times’s view of its own authority.

    “If the Times said it, it was the absolute truth.” No. A newspaper is not a substitute for religion, and a lie is still a lie even if the New York Times says otherwise.

    But it remember it is the rednecks who are in the words of the Washington Post are “poorly educated and easily lead”.…..TopOpinion

    1. not blood libel. not even close. palin’s misuse notwithstanding

      1. They just accused her of inciting murder with no evidence. That is so much better.

        1. blood libel has a very specific meaning. end of story

          1. Blood libel was a wonderfully clever turn of phrase that made those who hurled such filth look like the fools they are. Scoreboard.

          2. Language changes over time. As much as a certain group which frequently plays the victim card would like to think otherwise.

            Shorter: Suck it up, whiner.

          3. Blood libel used to have a very specific, anti-Semitic meaning. However, Palin’s use of it was in line with other recent usages. The attempt to re-smear her for using the term pretty much fell flat.

            1. no it made look ignorant…again

              1. Faced it, urine. You got PWWWWWWNNNNNEEEEDDDD!!!!!!!!!11!!!!11!!!

  10. “Pres. Obama’s solicitor general told a federal appeals court “that Americans who didn’t like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.””

    Shades of Jimmy Carter’s first IRS Administrator, who in 1977 told Americans that if we think we are paying too much in taxes, we should take lower-paying jobs.

    He did not last long in his particular job.

  11. “that Americans who didn’t like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.”

    Choosing to make less money is an economic action, right? Why don’t they just mandate it, ICC-style?

    1. Choosing to make less money affects Interstate Commerce, therefore, Congress can seize all your belongings for The State, put you in prison, and sell your family as slaves.

      Right? Isn’t that how it works?

      1. Congress could also mandate under ICC that those high earners have to keep their high paying jobs so as to not reduce overall tax collections.

      2. now you’re getting it!

        1. no, choose Owebama out and keep your $$$$…

  12. John Edwards will be indicted today for using campaign funds to hide his relationship with Jay McInerney’s ex-girlfriend.

    What about those of us who are very happy that this is how he spent the money instead of making a better effort at being elected?

  13. The Weinergate Saga: Weiner’s Office Sics Police On Reporter After She Asks For An Interview

    Kramer walked in to Weiner’s office, announced herself as being from CBS 2 in New York City and said she’d like to see the congressman. Those few words created quite the stir. Doors slammed and people pretended she wasn’t there.

    Finally, brave press secretary David Arnold arrived?

    After Kramer left Weiner’s office, his staff called the Capitol Police.

    Police officers asked for identification. One cop told Kramer that if she went into Weiner’s office and didn’t leave if she was asked, she could be arrested.

    “If you go to an office and are asked to leave, you can be placed under arrest,” Officer Michael Miller said.

    Kramer responded, “But I wasn’t refusing to leave.”

    24 hours ago:

    “You know, we’re not treating this like it’s a federal offense or a capital offense crime,” [Weiner] said. “It happens hundreds of thousands of time every single day.”

    At one point, Weiner suggested he was saving taxpayer money by not calling for an investigation into such a trivial matter.

    1. Let’s face it, our elected representatives do not represent us. They have had a totally different American experience than a majority of the people they supposedly represent. An experience full of privilege and unlimited resources. Whereas, every second of my waking day is spent trying to get at least one woman to ask me about my penis.

      1. Maybe not so different.

    2. You know, the FBI could look into this without Weiner asking them to. A lot of their investigations do not start with “victim” complaints/requests, after all.

      But, an FBI in an Dem administration is not going to start an investigation that will likely hurt a Dem politician all on their own, now, are they?

      As for Weiner selflessly suffering and going into his own pocket to sort this out, the FBI is on record as saying it would take them five minutes to get to the bottom of it. So that doesn’t wash.

      You know who knows exactly what happened here? Twitter, Inc. But, like the FBI, they are welded to the Dem administration. Its interesting that, as far as I know, nobody has even asked them, not even Weiner.

      1. Giving your private dick a retainer is a small price to pay to prevent leaks.

      2. “”You know, the FBI could look into this without Weiner asking them to.””

        Or perhaps the TSA, they are probably better with Weiner.

    3. I know this is standard boilerplate language from me by now, but:

      Oh god, not the ^@%@!* -gate suffix again.

  14. Recent Demographic Health Surveys found that an estimated 74% of young men know that condoms are effective in preventing HIV infection, compared to just 49% of young women…

    The Vatican is losing them one way or another.

  15. lol, OK thats crazy when you think about it.

  16. John Edwards will be indicted today for using campaign funds to hide his relationship with Jay McInerney’s ex-girlfriend

    It baffles me that the last part is not more obsessed. He wrote an entire novel about her.

    SPOILER ALERT: She’s a vapid coke whore.

    1. Ah, so it was the shared vapidity that drew her and Edwards together.

      1. dont underestimate the power of coke

        1. Haha very nice

  17. http://blogs.the-american-inte…..n-dream-i/

    The always interesting William Russell Mead on the death of the American dream. I really do think 2008 was the death of the post New Deal American model. Let’s hope it is replaced with something better.

  18. This man is pretty much at the head of my “people with whom not to fuck” list.

    1. Gurkhas generally are.

    2. Do not make fun of the hats. You never, ever make fun of the hats.

    3. Holy crap, why don’t we know more about this story? That’s Audie Murphy level bad-ass.

    4. He almost has to be a badass, wearing a hat like that.

    5. Whats this guy supposed to be? The ultimate badass?

    6. Damn. What the hell would he have to do to get the Victoria Cross?

      1. Serve tea to the officers during the assault?

      2. Be Anglo.

    1. Senator Coburn smearing hard working federal employees?
      no, you can rub it and you can buff it…

  19. “that Americans who didn’t like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.”

    1) Mike, do you realize that you are quoting a paraphrase?

    2) The link is broken.

  20. The House is scheduling the Libya debate today. Boehner is offering a strongly worded resolution forbidding ground troops, demanding that Obama answer certain questions in 14 days, and noting that the House has definitely not approved this mission. However, it offers no definite consequences should President Obama ignore it.

    His resolution is a compromise and an attempt to head off stronger resolutions with actual bite, such as Dennis Kuchinich’s that would mandate withdrawal of US forces within 14 days. The latter was poised to pass.

    1. C-SPAN is rather fun right now.

    2. Boehner is so worthless.

    3. There’s no bite unless the Senate agrees anyway.


    Maybe the most hysterical and fearmongering news report I’ve ever seen.

    1. id argue the 2008 election campaign was the most hysterical and fearmongering

      1. Nice use of punctuation you stupid old hobbit.

    2. cocaine paste

      So long, toothpaste!

  22. A 25-year-old arms dealer from Miami Beach has been banned from contracting with the federal government after selling defective cartridges.

    “Pish posh! Listen, Spielbergo, Schindler and I are like peas in a pod! We’re both factory owners, we both made shells for the Nazis, but mine worked, damn it!”

    1. Having not seen Schindler’s List, I can only assume this is yet another Star Trek reference I don’t get.

      1. Simpsons reference. Whereas Schindler’s shells were intentional duds (supposedly), Mr. Burns is bragging about supplying the Nazis with working shells.

  23. Pres. Obama’s solicitor general told a federal appeals court “that Americans who didn’t like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money ‘Go Galt.'”

    Working link.


    A federal judge has ordered a Texas school district to prohibit public prayer at a high school graduation ceremony.

    Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery’s order against the Medina Valley Independent School District also forbids students from using specific religious words including “prayer” and “amen.”

    The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Christa and Danny Schultz. Their son is among those scheduled to participate in Saturday’s graduation ceremony. The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would “suffer irreparable harm” if anyone prayed at the ceremony.”

    School officials, sure they represent the government. But since when can a judge tell people what they can and cannot say at a public ceremony?

    1. I wonder if the Schultz are planning to move after their son graduates?

    2. when its taxpayer provided. ez to understand even for theotards

      1. It is a public ceremony. The roads are publicly funded. Do you not have 1st Amendment rights there? Publicly funded stadiums? Thanks for identifying yourself as the fascist fuck we all took you to be.

        1. The First Amendment is fascist? I did not know that.

          1. “Shall make no law” dipshit. That means private citizens can say what the fuck the want in public. I know you are a liberal and thus more than likely retarded. But that is simple enough even you ought to understand it.

          2. theotards think their gawd, and only theirs, provides broad exceptions.

            1. That doesn’t even make any sense.

              1. it dont need to make since cuz glen bick sez its tru

                1. glen beck is a mormon nationalist & his gawd is the bestest! try again

          3. Anyway, examine the following excerpt from the Fox News story:

            The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would “suffer irreparable harm” if anyone prayed at the ceremony.

            Notice where the quote ends? Nobody is being prevented (or can be prevented) from praying silently and privately wherever they wish. But Fox News (The Christian/Republican Cable News Network) chooses to frame the story as a ridiculous thought-control episode. It’s nothing of the sort. It’s just another affirmation of the Establishment Clause, which has plenty of case law to back it up.

            1. “Notice where the quote ends? Nobody is being prevented (or can be prevented) from praying silently”

              No one in the Soviet Union was prevented for dissenting silently, they just couldn’t say it out loud.

              Yeah, the freedom to do something silently is just the same as the freedom of speech.

            2. There’s plenty of First Amendment caselaw that speech restrictions at public institutions must be content-neutral.

              See for example this Court of Appeals ruling that public universities cannot discriminate on which student groups receive funding based on the groups’ viewpoint, which means that religious groups cannot be specifically prohibited from funding.

              Therefore, while a public school may not be able to officially sponsor a prayer, it also may not be able to ban a freely chosen student speaker from choosing to offer a prayer during her speech.

              1. That depends. Iirc there was a SCOTUS case where the students voted on other students to give prayers over the PA system every morning, and that was struck down.

                  1. From the wiki:

                    During the litigation, the school changed its policy: they would hold two elections under students, the first deciding if “invocations” should be held during football games and the second to elect the student to deliver them. The students elected in favor of prayer; therefore, they were given this right.

                    The majority opinion, written by Justice Stevens depended on Lee v. Weisman.[2] It held that these pre-game prayers delivered “on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school’s public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer” are not private, but public speech. “Regardless of the listener’s support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school’s seal of approval.”

                    1. True, but that’s also the case of more specific endorsement.

                      There are obviously cases that fall in the middle. If a school offers a content-neutral opportunity to speak, they can’t restrict someone from offering a prayer. But they can’t specifically set aside time for offering prayer.

                      The disputes tend to happen over situations where people argue that “everyone knows” that it’s intended to be a prayer, even though it doesn’t explicitly say so.

                1. The case where the Supreme Court ruled against the valedictorian who was punished and forced to apologize for mentioning Jesus in a commencement speech was one of the worst of the last 20 years. If you are going to let kids make speeches, they ought to be able to talk about religion if that is what is important to them and it is germane to the event “i.e. my faith in (insert religion here) is the rock of my life and is what gave me the strength and fortitude to win this award”.

                  But this case seems to go further than even that case and say that no one, speaker or no, can say anything religious. And that is flat out authoritarian.

            3. Hey Mr. Arrowmark…did you miss the other part of the First Amendment? The part that says that we citizens have the right to freely exercise our religious beliefs without government interference? Have you considered that it just might be possible that government barring one person’s expression of religious belief (to “protect” someone else from the “irreparable harm” of having to hear it) is a violation of the speaker’s free exercise rights?

              The Establishment Clause, like the entire First Amendment, is a limit on government authority, not a license for the government to restrict the rights of citizens. At some point, overzealous enforcement of the Establishment Clause infringes the rights of others under the Free Exercise Clause. And you at least come dangerously close to that point by saying that no one is allowed to utter prayers on public property.

            4. Of course, the whole dispute rests on a misreading of “establishment of religion.” This was originally meant, and understood to mean until, I believe, the ’60s, that the state couldn’t establish a state church.

              Not that nobody, nowhere, nohow, could ever refer, directly or indirectly, to a deity, under any circumstances, in connection with property or an event that was sponsored, or could be perceived as being sponsored, by the state.

              1. Agreed. I am athiest, and I think the courts have gone too far.

                I remember that rediculous supreme court opinion about some nativity scene. If you secularized the birth of Christ, say with Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer or Frosty the Snow-man, that would immunize said scene from issues with the establishment clause. I mean really. I’ve never been all that threatened by nativity scenes. And SCOTUS….these apparently the Peter Principle applies to them too.

                1. fucking shitty threads… I was agreeing with RC.

              2. RC perhaps you may know the case by name, but I vaguely remember SCOTUS upholding prayer at a school event as long as it wasn’t an employee of the school leading it.

            5. “But Fox News (The Christian/Republican Cable News Network) chooses to frame the story as a ridiculous thought-control episode.”

              Really? Did you read this part of story?

              “Should a student violate the order, school district officials could find themselves in legal trouble. Judge Biery ordered that his ruling be “enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for contempt of Court if not obeyed by District official (sic) and their agents.”

              Think about that carefully, the judge wants the school officials put in jail if they do not adequately censor and control the student speaker’s speech. How is that not thought control in addition to being ridiculous?

              Furthermore, calling parts of the graduation program an “invocation” and “benediction” is tantamount to an establishment of religion is absurd. A government establishing a religion has a very particular and precise meaning, that is not it.

          4. Students at a graduation aren’t “the state”, therefore there is no grounds to separate them from religion.

          5. The 1st Amendment in the real world is not fascist. The 1st Amendment as it exists in Judge Biery’s fevered brain is fascist as it requires government censorship on pain of incarceration.

        2. Why do you even respond to this cockdrip, John?

          1. Because I am almost as stupid and more hard headed than he is. You are right. What a waste of time.

          2. because his GAWD told him to!

        3. The idea is that high school graduation is an important benefit/part of the public schooling you get, and religion cannot be established there.

          I don’t think it is right to tell students they can’t pray, unless it was orchestrated/encouraged by the officials.

          1. Yes, the courts have generally drawn a distinction between “the school organizing the prayer” and “the school chooses student and other speakers, some of whom then, without coordinating with the school, including a prayer in their speech.”

        4. Establishment clause, John? Surprising that you conveniently overlook that since you claim to be a lawyer and all.

          1. The prohibition is being applied to people who shouldn’t properly be considered as part of the state, though, so the establishment clause does not apply to them — and if the establishment clause does not, then “free exercise” does, not to mention “shall make no law”.

        5. The 1st amendment says “congress shall make no law…” with the obvious intent that judges can make any law they want.

          1. The problem is that it says make no law for both free exercise and government establishment of religion. Graduation services are a government organized event vs. students exercising their religious beliefs.

            Would it be different for anyone here if a high school valedictorian were a muslim and stopped their speech, pulled out a prayer rug and began to engage in, and invite the crowd to participate in, Friday Prayers?

            1. No, the high school valedictorian should be allowed to say whatever she wants. I’m sure it would be different for many people– just as there are people who support vouchers that can go to Christian schools but wouldn’t like it for Muslim schools– but I wouldn’t consider it establishment.

              The government gives educational money that goes to religiously affiliated schools. There is a general agree that when the government makes money available for speech in a content-neutral fashion, that is not government establishment or endorsement of that speech.

            2. Funny that you went there. I was imagining my response to this ruling were I the valedictorian. I would have made my entire speech about free thought and free expression of ideas. I would have specifically mentioned my own beliefs and specifically called out the Schultz family for their douche-baggery.

              Then I would have explained that they have no right to restrain my speech, even if I’m a Wiccan – and proceeded to light a bundle of rosemary twigs. And perhaps I would have produced a statue of the Hindu monkey-god Hanuman and offered him a snack and a milk bath. And a produce an Islamic prayer rug as you suggest.

              You see, my ideas are mine alone, and I am free to share them with you, or not, as I see fit. You are free to listen and learn, or not, as you see fit. But you are not free to prevent me from speaking.

              This, among other reasons, explains why I wasn’t selected to deliver the valedictory speech in high school.

              1. Gee, Cyto, I wasn’t selected because I graduated somewhere in the bottom sixth of the class. Might that be one of your ‘other reasons’?

                1. Actually, no. They went to “selected by the faculty from the top 10 graduates” the year before I graduated because they didn’t like the guy who finished at the top of the heap the year before. My year they picked the teacher’s pet daughter of a wealthy manufacturing plant owner who was a big donor to the school (paid for a new football stadium – wow). She was actually a good choice for speechifying too – not that it entered in to their decision process.

                  When I was in school they had a bizarre GPA system that rewarded advanced classes with bonus points (up to 4.5 on a 4.0 scale). So even though I had a few battles my senior year, nobody could match my GPA due to bonus points.

                  1. For me it has to do with whether the religious speech came entirely from the student speaker or whether it was encouraged/organized by school officials. If the former, free exercise controls, if the latter, establishment clause does.

                  2. When I graduated, they gave the speech to the salutatorian because they were afraid of what the valedictorian might say. He was a wee bit unpredictable.

                  3. Grading has reached absurd levels. I went to my oldest son’s graduation last night, and the valedictorian had a 6.3 average. On a four-point scale. The best you could do when I was in school was a 4.25 or something like that. And we had about as many AP classes back then as they have now. Also, 40% of the class was wearing honors white, versus the vastly smaller number when I graduated (it was based on ranking, not whether you were one of the 40% who got better than a 4.0).

                    1. They didn’t even try to break it out at my graduation… we had 11 valedictorians.

          2. don’t you all see how correct the left is, they have moral relativism on their side…

    3. How the heck is someone going to “suffer irreparable harm” from hearing someone pray?

      Can’t they just stick their fingers in their ears and say “La la la la laaa”?


      1. Maybe they should be imprisoned and deported for attending such a forum?

      2. If the Judge later rules that it was improper to allow the prayer, but it’s already happened, how do you fix it?

        That’s what’s meant by irreparable, not that it’s especially bad.

        1. But where’s the harm?

          Hearing a prayer causes harm?


          1. Yes. They might magically be converted.

            If it could happen to Saul, it could happen to the Schultz family….

          2. Hearing a prayer causes harm?

            Yes, Sarcasmic. It is kind of like seeing SugarFree naked. Once it is seen, it cannot be unseen.

          3. Then we gotta listen to the Catholic invocation; then the Jewish prayer; then the Muslim prayer; then the Santerian curses; then the Unitarian Up-with-People invocation; then the Wiccans Spell-chant; then the Heaven’s Gate UFO/comet praise; ad nauseum.

            Just keep that shit at church so grads can get the fuck outta there.

      3. Hey, everyone knows that if you just say a prayer outloud in a public forum I will be dashed to pieces and Boom! the Salem Witch Trials start all over again.

        Dumb fucks.

      4. I’ve never been comfortable about this. From a free exercise and a free speech perspective, what business does the school have banning expression of a religious nature? Get the grades, get the forum.

      5. Ayesa Khan, an attorney representing the student and his parents, told KABB-TV she was delighted in the judge’s decision.

        “It caused him a great deal of anxiety,” she said, referring to her teenage client. “He has gone to meet with the principal to try and talk in a civilized way about long-standing problems, and the school district has continued to thumb its nose.”

        That the school official sent him on his way without administrating corporal punishment for wasting their time with his whiny little douchebag anxieties was the civilized way to deal with the Schulz kid.

        1. and somehow removing prayer is civilized…
          i’d like to see this Schultz kid explain the long-standing problems, like he’s a prisoner in an overcrowded cell with a grievance list…
          pathetic, wait til the real world “thumbs its nose”.
          “anxiety” won’t be all he’ll feel…

    4. the judge probably meant to say that “amen” was forbidden, but “Allahu Akbar” or others like “Aum shanti” are fine.

    5. I’m still trying to figure out what harm could be caused by exposure to prayer.

      1. the issue is public monies not exposure

      2. I’m still trying to figure out how in 21st century America there are still places so homogenous that kids getting all holy at HS ceremonies is considered in any way “normal”. Where I grew up this kind of shit was just not an issue and that was over 20 years ago. Maybe we were all godless heathens, or maybe we were afraid of “offending” anyone – or maybe we just thought it’s more proper to get down with jesus on your own time.

      3. Maybe the kid is possessed by Satan or something and their head would turn backwards or something.

    6. This wasn’t just a student praying in their speech, it was a student leading everyone else in prayer. There’s a huge difference there.

      1. At a taxpayer-supported school. The Constitution applies to all citizens, not just the biggest gang of ignoramuses.

      2. Really? I don’t see the difference, unless the audience is compelled to participate in the prayer.

        1. The audience does not have to be “compelled” to do anything. The fact that religious proselytizing is occurring on public property (the school) with the sanction of public officials (the teachers or school board) is enough to prohibit it under the Establishment Clause.

          1. time to look up the meaning of proselytizing…
            your stretch marks have stretch marks…
            this is clearly another judge invoking the “Because I Am Judge And I Say So” clause…

    7. Cool, let’s remind the entire conservative Christian community that public schools are actively hostile to their religious expression at a time when people are becoming skeptical about the quality of education provided by same and looking at school choice concepts. Smart thinking, libruls.


    Did pork coated bullet kill Bin Ladin? We can only hope.

    1. How awesome would that be.

    2. This urban myth goes back at least as far as the mid-19th century mutiny in India. Repeated again against the Moros in the Philipines in the Span-Am War. Rolled out every so often when Muslims are being shot by Anglo soldiers.

    3. In Islam consumption of pork is forbidden, but the Quran also states that if one is forced to consume the meat then they are guiltless and therefore not disqualified from paradise.

    4. I wanna be killed by bacon.

      1. I see an accident involving a forklift and two tons of porkbellies in your future…

        1. I should be more specific. I don’t want to be killed by a cop.

  26. Why isn’t Reason calling for the execution of Rand Paul?! What are you hiding?!

    1. Re: the Rand Paul thing

      Paul doesn’t have to bow to anyone on the issue of civil liberties, his effort on the Patriot Act shows him heads and above most other Congresscritters. And I hate this current climate where every word that every pol says is poured over until something is said that may not represent them well, but that said his comments were wrong, by his logic the commenters here would be put on the no-fly list…

      1. As I said, his comments were wrong, but his comments were exactly the sort of thing that people were demanding that he and others say in the aftermath of the Giffords shooting.

        1. People were demanding that people attending forums where overthrowing the government was spoken about be imprisoned and deported?

          1. People were demanding that the FBI take that attendance into account when investigating people, and demanded that the FBI follow up on reports that claimed that people who attended Tea Party events might become domestic terrorists.

            Sen. Paul didn’t say that everyone who attended such events should be arrested, he said that judges should be allowed to consider it as evidence when allowing the FBI to get a warrant or start an investigation, the same as people were asking for, yes.

            1. Exact Quote:

              But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after. They should be deported or put in prison.

              1. Exact quote out of context, yes. The full context makes that clear.

                You can’t say he wants to deport or put in prison all those people, unless you also endorse the idea that the Democrats and Obama Administration want to put all gun owners in prison.

                He was saying that attending those speeches is the sort of thing that should be taken into account, but that ordinary gun purchases should not.

                1. I don’t think any amoung ot context can weasel him out of that one! It says quite plainly and directly: if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after. They should be deported or put in prison.

                  Unless you want to argue he misspoke.

                  1. The context and explanation clearly absolves him. Follow the link. If you want to say that he misspoke originally, fine.

                    I was talking about what you would use…in order to target and in order to get a warrant….What I don’t want is the PATRIOT Act trolling through everyone’s records and saying if you go to a political speech or a political rally I disagree with, we’re going to throw you out of the country….

                    Let’s say that the police or the FBI or the CIA is investigating a group in Pakistan, and that group in Pakistan has made 25 phone calls to somebody in the United States. That to me is a warning sign, and probably enough to get a warrant. Say they also find that person is going to a radical Islamicist who is promoting the violent overthrow [of the U.S. government] and promoting the planting of IEDs to kill our soldiers. I think that is another warning sign that that person is a potential terrorist. Then I think you go to a judge and ask for a warrant.

                    1. JT, this is a totally different statement. I agree in this statement he is talking about probable cause for a warrant, but in the other quote he says people who attend these forums should be imprisoned and deported.

                  2. Be unclear? Live on the radio? Unpossible!

          2. He was responding to a question about the gun records thing– people have argued that the FBI needs a copy of all gun records to use as evidence for starting investigations, getting warrants, etc. He was saying that ordinary gun records goes too far to keep track of and use for the basis for warrants, but that attending a rally calling for the violent overthrow of the government is the kind of thing that could be admissible.

            It’s as irresponsible to claim that he wanted people imprisoned for attending those events as it is to claim that the Democrats and Obama Administration wanted all gun owners to be arrested for owning guns.

            1. “, but that attending a rally calling for the violent overthrow of the government is the kind of thing that could be admissible.”

              Yeah, but instead of using the word “admissible” he used the words “should be deported or put in prison.”

              1. So you’re saying that you didn’t bother to follow the link and read the context?

                He notes that it is already illegal to promote the violent overthrow of the US government, and we do put people in jail for that. People who attend a rally may at the rally promote the idea.

                Sen. Paul is getting attacked for saying that, while he doesn’t fully disagree with all our existing laws (thus trying to protect himself against the charges made after the Giffords shooting), that they go too far.

                Yet for some reason he is being attacked for saying that something that already is illegal, and that all politicians want to remain illegal, should be illegal. He was offering that as an example of how he’s not as extreme as the pro-PATRIOT Act people were claiming, that he’s not looking to legalize everything.

                1. It is only illegal to promote the overthrow of the government if there is found to be immediate incitement or steps are taken in that area. It certainly is not illegal to attend a speech where a speaker promotes the overthrow of the government.

              2. Yeah. Whether or not that was really what he meant, it was very poorly stated.

                1. yea poorly stated and poorly reported.

              3. Well, he made himself clear when he wasn’t on the radio:

                I was talking about what you would use…in order to target and in order to get a warrant….What I don’t want is the PATRIOT Act trolling through everyone’s records and saying if you go to a political speech or a political rally I disagree with, we’re going to throw you out of the country….

                Let’s say that the police or the FBI or the CIA is investigating a group in Pakistan, and that group in Pakistan has made 25 phone calls to somebody in the United States. That to me is a warning sign, and probably enough to get a warrant. Say they also find that person is going to a radical Islamicist who is promoting the violent overthrow [of the U.S. government] and promoting the planting of IEDs to kill our soldiers. I think that is another warning sign that that person is a potential terrorist. Then I think you go to a judge and ask for a warrant.

                All I’m saying is that attending a rally where you call for the violent overthrow of the United States?one, it’s against the law to say that, but attending the rally would be supportive evidence for a judge.

                1. Oh I see, it WASN’T out of context, he LATER tried to put it in a context.

                2. All I’m saying is that attending a rally where you call for the violent overthrow of the United States?one, it’s against the law to say that, but attending the rally would be supportive evidence for a judge.

                  It’s not against the law to call for the violent overthrow of the United States. The Senator needs to go back over that First Amendment thingamajig, and especially Brandenburg v. Ohio.

  27. The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would “suffer irreparable harm” if anyone prayed at the ceremony.”

    I would like to see these people burst into flames at the very “insinuation” of divinity. I would find that quite gratifying.

    Fekkin idjits.

    1. Quit saying THE WORD!!

      1. The B-b-bird, the bird…

    2. isn’t that a prayer?

  28. Austen Goolsbee says, “Don’t worry, we’ve got it totally under control.”

    1. Told ya!

  29. Pres. Obama’s solicitor general told a federal appeals court “that Americans who didn’t like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.”

    That link working for anyone else?

    1. I’m choosing to earn less money.

      1. just get a better accountant. Find one that is endorsed by the DNC, youll probably be auditproof.

  30. Kingpin in Trouble for Living Large

    It’s such a pity that, despite persistent GOP entreaties, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie still refuses to run for president. Actually, seems he’s refusing to run ? or even walk ? anywhere, preferring instead to take a state helicopter to his son’s high school baseball game.

    “Choppergate” began Tuesday evening when the Newark Star -Ledger reported, within hours of the event, that Christie and his wife arrived in the 55-foot long helicopter just before the game started, landing on an adjacent football field. He then ambled over to a black state car with tinted windows that drove the first couple the 100 yards to the stands.

    They stayed until the fifth inning, when they were driven back to the helicopter and off to the governor’s mansion in Princeton in time to meet with a group of GOP Iowa donors who want him to run in 2012.….._blog.html

    1. Douchebag.

      I mean Christie not you.

      1. I don’t think its a terrible big deal for the chopper, maybe he was in a hurry, but being driven from the chopper to the stands was a bit much.

        1. Yeah. The furor has caused him to pledge to pay the state back.

          1. “Furor” Thread Godwinned ?

            1. Don’t be a Duce.

        2. I don’t think its a terrible big deal for the chopper, maybe he was in a hurry

          Really? For a football game? It’s not like he had to be at the gym in 26 mins or something else vitally important.

          1. I’m no sports expert, but I’m pretty sure baseball uses innings, not football.

      2. 55-foot long helicopter

        I wonder if people would be upset about a 49-foot long helicopter?

        1. IM sure Airforce One is used for personal reasons so what. Sucks but it happens.

          WHy arent the greenies and blue collars going apeshit over this news


  31. The jobs report is Boooooooosh’s fault.

    And we saved twenty batrillion jobs in car factories, so STFU!

  32. Sarah Palin on Fox:

    “”We don’t have the $2 billion [to give to Egypt]. Where are we going to get it? From China? We are going to borrow from foreign countries to give to foreign countries. ? We want to know to know where those dollars are going because we don’t have the money to be providing foreign countries, not in this day and age when we are going broke.”

    By Sarah’s logic she just called for an end to aid for Israel, our biggest recipient. Boy, I’d like to see someone bring that up to her.

    Israeli flags!

    1. JEWS!!!!!11!

      1. What a moron you are.

        1. No. You display an unmistakable pattern.

          1. The charge of anti-Semitism, the first refuge of the fanatical Israeli supporter.

            1. JEWS!!!!!!1!!111!

    2. She makes a valid point. Why are we giving two billion to Egypt when we are going broke? You can make the equally valid point that why are we giving money to Israel when we are going broke?

      1. That doesn’t make her point any less valid.

      2. Israel is at least our ally. I doubt a Muslim Brotherhood lead Egypt will be.

      1. “You can make the equally valid point that why are we giving money to Israel when we are going broke?”

        That’s the point I’m making.

        1. See point number 2. She would say Israel is our ally and Egypt isn’t. Just because we shouldn’t give money to every country doesn’t mean should never aid any country.

          1. I see that, but if we should not be giving away money because we are broke that would include allies too.

            1. And I think we consider Egypt an ally since Camp David, right?

              1. I think post Mubarak that is up for debate.

            2. JEWS!!!!!11!

              1. Jayses!!!

                1. HE WAS A JEW!!!!!11!!!1111!!!!!!!!!!

                  1. WAS being the key word. repeat after me “JAY SEZ” is why israel rules!…or my gawd is greater than urs!

          2. I think the real word is “bribe”. We are bribing all of Israel’s neighbors and Israel to make peace.

            It mostly works for the governments, not so much for the population.

            The theory is that it would cost us more than $10 billion per year if they were to go to war. Kinda like when you first deal with the mob in New York and stand on principal – but then decide that it is cheaper to just pay the protection money to avoid all of the hassles the mob can bring upon your business.

            I don’t know if it is smart, but it is pragmatic.

            1. Cravenly so perhaps.

              1. Pragmatism/utilitaranism is by and large definitionly craven. Sticking to your principles requires courage, doing what is merely expedient does not.

            2. I don’t know if it is smart

              It’s US foreign policy, so your best bet is to assume no.

            3. sure pays for a hunka, hunka, Madras love…

      2. With allies like Israel, we don’t need enemies.

      3. “”Why are we giving two billion to Egypt when we are going broke?””

        I read something interesting on this. When we give other countries, there is usually strings attached. In this case, the string is that Egypt must use 1.3 Billion of that to buy US weapons.

        “”Israel is at least our ally. I doubt a Muslim Brotherhood lead Egypt will be.””

        I’m pretty sure Egypt is still considered an ally, and the agreement to give Egypt the money wasn’t with the Muslim Brotherhood. But yeah, it’s a good chance they will be a game changer, and not for the better.

    3. Well, Sen. Paul was consistent on that. He offered something to strike all aid. People asked him, “Does that include Israel?” He said yes.

      Newspapers immediately responded by saying that “Sen. Paul wants to cut all aid to Israel!” didn’t mention the other countries, and some op-ed writers darkly speculated that this might be because Tea Partiers are secret racists.

      1. Good for him on another front.

        Sadly, it’s Paul’s consistency that gets him labeled an extremist.

        1. Consistency in general gets people labeled as extremists.

          1. Not if you are consistently pro-state. Then you are a true leader!

            1. “I’m so ronely!”

    4. “I think that all of our energy subsidies need to be re-looked at today and eliminated,” Palin told RealClearPolitics. “We’ve got to allow the free market to dictate what’s most efficient and economical for our nation’s economy.”

      Dumb cunt is against central planning and corporate welfare as well as foreign aid. Is there no bounds to her stupidity?

      Bristol cheated on Dancing With the Stars too!

      1. palin is the proverbial bridge to nowhere

        1. u mean a bridge to russia?

  33. John Edwards, at his arraignment revealed his terrible mutant powers as his hair formed giant tentacles that ripped apart his enemies.

    scene from “X-Men: No Class”

    1. Reed is hard to miss in a room. His hipster look includes an often-changing and often-wild hair style ? from a mohawk to a flipped-up front like Jim Carrey’s in “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.” He wears thick, rectangular glasses and gauge earrings, which make the wearer’s lobes expand. On his blog, he declares himself “probably the coolest guy ever.”

      The Republicans should probably just give up now. With this guy on Obama’s team, there’s no way he can lose.

    2. “force multiplier”

      “Chief Digital Strategist Joe Rospars and Chief Integration and Innovation Officer Michael Slaby”

      It all reminds me of lame-ass business consultants that come in and tell you that you need (pick one or more of the following):

      – Tiger Teams
      – Lean Philosophy
      – 300 year strategy plans
      – Some other fancy sounding crap

      1. Tiger Teams sound good for productivity. Huh, there’s no actual tigers involved? Never mind then.

        1. Guys who can’t close get thrown to the tigers. I like it.

  34. It’s the worst crisis since 1929!!!!!!!!!

    Boooooooosh destroyed those jobs!!!!!

    Stop playing chicken with the debt ceiling!!!!!!


    1. Boooooooosh destroyed those jobs!!!!!

      I’m embarrassed to say that I was wondering for a second there what the Miami Heat had to do with the jobs report…

  35. Sony was hacked again. Today is going to be a good day.

    1. Seriously? Jeez E3 is going to totally suck for them.

  36. Right now, the same Bloomberg reporter who has spent the morning anxiously asking when QE3 will commence is doing a segment about inflation.

  37. Screencap from the newswires:

    Republican Weiner uncertain whether lewd photo was of him

    A Reuters headline editor doing some wishful thinking, perhaps? Obviously this should be corrected.

  38. I made the mistake of doing something last night I never have done before: I watched MSNBC for a few minutes.

    Oh. My. Fucking. God.

    I felt my IQ dropping second by second as the stupid oozed out of the TV screen.

    I could not believe the inane shit these fucking morons spewed.

    Best part? It was something called “The Ed Show”, with Rev. Al (Brawley) Sharpton. He read from a prompter (poorly) every question he asked the guest. It was painfully obvious he did not come up with these questions himself, based on the guest’s responses – the whole thing was completely scripted and orchestrated.

    The guest was some guy from Media Matters, and they were talking about Glenn Beck’s imminent departure from Fox.

    It’s pathetic and painful to watch these immature morons acting as if they’re doing some kind of serious news reporting, when it was so clear they were simply spewing pablum for their progressive weenie base audience to lap up.

    My head was about to asplode after about 4 minutes, so I had to change the channel while I still had enough intellectual capacity to press the buttons on the remote.

    Made me feel physically ill.

    1. It’s pretty terrible. It’s like Fox on steroids, and I have enough trouble with Fox.

      Ultra-partisan news shows are usually boring as hell.

      1. One thing I do like about Fox is that for years my liberal friends used to complain about pro-corporate and conservative bias in the ‘MSM.’ Everytime something wasn’t covered from the most liberal perspective possible they bitched. I told them “Jesus, you call that bias? You have no idea what bias could look like.”

        Then came Fox and they found out.

        Recently conservatives have worked a similar bitch about MSM bias, and I say to them “you have no idea what bias can look like.” Now MSNBC is showing them.

        1. my liberal friends

          You have friends?

          1. the stimulus checks have cleared…

  39. I think more should be done here on Reason on Kervorkian and the Right to Die movement. The latter strikes me as a fundamentally libertarian issue, one consenting adult providing services to another consenting adult on a monumentally personal and important life decision, with the state wanting to step in and stop it because it knows better what should be done.

    1. of course this is done all the time in nursing homes by withholding critical life support & providing only pallative care. wink, wink, nod, nod…everybody involved knows what’s going on.

  40. I always like Kevorkian’s paintings:…..d=0CCoQsAQ

  41. Miami cops threaten witnesses, smash everyone’s cells, hold guns on everyone’s heads while witness hides card in mouth during post-shootout paperwork:…..orced.html

    1. In Miami? Oh, come on! I find that hard to believe that a Miami cop, of all places, could possibly have done something like this.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.