Reason Morning Links: Debt, War, and the Apocalypse

• Sen. Mitch McConnell floats the idea of a short-term hike in the debt limit.
• A NATO air strike in the war-that-allegedly-isn't-a-war kills several civilians.
• Ron Paul wins the Republican Leadership Conference straw poll; Jon Huntsman finishes second.
• The French government keeps an eye on Ramtha buffs, Raelians, and 2012 apocalyptos.
• More bad news for Bitcoin users.
• Clarence Clemons, RIP.

The latest from Reason.tv: "40 Years of Drug War Failure."

Comments

[J[o]h[nn]y L[o][n]gt[o]rs[o]]

Andrew Gold, Writer Of GOLDEN GIRLS Theme Song Dead At 59

[Fluffy]

Is that the Andrew Gold who wrote the 70's hit "Oh What A Lonely Boy"?

That song never made any sense to me. If you listen to the lyrics, it really should be called "Oh What A Dick This Boy Is". I always wanted to corner Gold and ask, "The guy in the song. What's his fucking problem? How about not being a douche?"

But now I guess I never will get a chance to do that.

[Mongo]

Yeah, man -- a truly wretched song.

[J[o]h[nn]y L[o][n]gt[o]rs[o]]

Is A Bigger, More Expensive Obamacare Coming Next Year?
A new employer survey by McKinsey & Co. finds more than half American companies are going to "dump" their workers into government sponsored plans.

The paper says more than 90 million workers with employer-provided care will end up in the "Obamacare" exchanges, increasing the cost of the plan by $400 billion over the next 10 years.

Further suggesting the point of "Obamacare" is to put all Americans in the program, McKinsey projects the annual public cost would eventually increase by $800 billion....

[[John]ny [Long]torso]

Rex Murphy: Climate scientists make a mockery of the peer-review process
...Much of what the world bizarrely allows to be called climate "science" is a closet-game, an in-group referring to and reinforcing its own members. The insiders keep out those seen as interlopers and critics, vilify dissenters and labour to maintain a proprietary hold on the entire vast subject. It has been described very precisely as a "climate-assessment oligarchy." Less examined, or certainly less known to the general public, is how this in-group loops around itself. How the outside advocates buttress the inside scientists, and even ? this is particularly noxious ? how the outside advocates, the non-scientists, themselves become inside authorities....

[John]

How are you supposed to have a consensus if you let people who disagree with you into the field?

[Lisbon Treaty]

Hold another vote next year!

and the year after
and the year after
and the year after
and the year after

[MNG]

This is silly. There are literally hundreds of journals with hundreds of editors and thousands of peer reviewers in the many fields that have produced findings that support AGW. Only a fevered conspiracy nut can buy into the idea that all those people are coordinating to keep "the Truth" from us all.

[shorter MNG]

LA LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU!

[John]

Yeah, that is why the people at East Anglia were working to suppress publications who were willing to publish skeptical views. I guess that is why the IPCC published a ridiculous prediction about the glaciers in Nepal melting.

They have only been caught lying multiple times. That is no reason not to believe them on everything else. They just lie by accident I guess.

[MNG]

Like I said, the people at East Anglica could be coordinating full time to supress this stuff and it would be fruitless because of the many journals and people involved, but of course you didn't reply to that point because it was the entire point of my post. Better to throw the next pile of mud on the wall and see what sticks.

[John]

It is a reply to your point. Yes, it is a giant case of group think. Look at the grief the professor in Colorado has received. He only kept his job because he has tenure and is so respected. No way would anyone new to the field ever be allowed in if they didn't buy into the theory. And time and time again, their errors and lies are pointed out by people outside the field. The fact that it took someone outside the field to point out the problems with the hockey stick and the ridiculousness of the IPCC claim about the glaciers shows you that the pier review process is broke. If there was proper pier review, the lies and mistakes would never get printed in the first place.

[MNG]

A giant case of group thing between hundreds of independent journals and editors and thousands of peer review experts from across the globe and varying institutions. Yes, that's the simplest explanation...

[John]

Again, if the peer review process worked, their opponents wouldn't find so many lies and distortions to embarrass them with.

[MNG]

There opponents are going to find what they see as "lies and distortions" because they are opposed, usually along ideological lines, to the implications of the research. You, and they, admit this. And yet we are supposed to believe it is ideological group think across thousands of scientists of differing nations, backgrounds, fields, etc., that is conspiring to create the consensus.

Right. Classic fevered conspiracy nut thinking.

[sarcasmic]

Let me get this straight.

Looking for causes of climate change that are not related to human activity is "ideological", and ruling out any possible cause other than human activity is not "ideological"?

Hmmmmm.

[John]

First, the scientists on the other side entire careers depend on the theory as being true. If it wasn't true, the amount of research money and positions available in the field would drop dramatically. So, they have every reason to engage in confirmation bias.

Second, the theory is used to justify every form of awful leftist totalitarianism that was discredited by the cold war. You don't think there are not scientists who believe in that junk and use AGW as an excuse to espouse it?

Third, the lies are lies. The glaciers in Nepal are not going to melt. The hockey stick was bogus. The use of tree rings to reconstruct historic temperature is bogus. The people at East Anglia violated FOIA and destroyed all of the original temperature data they based their conclusions on. The list goes on and on. The facts are what they are. No amount of appeals to authority change them.

[MNG]

"First, the scientists on the other side entire careers depend on the theory as being true."

This is nonsense. As everyone can rightly say the implications of AGW might be terrible for many very big industries, industries that would be happy to fund research that would explode the consensus. Additionally as you guys demonstrate this issue has become an ideological touchstone, often conservative Republicans are in charge of the the government, for your theory to be true we would have to believe that people like James Watt favored grants that would find AGW. It's a claim that only those profoundly ignorant with the way these grants from private and government entities work, but more importantly it's standard conspiracy theory paranoia: everyone is in on the fix!

"Second, the theory is used to justify every form of awful leftist totalitarianism that was discredited by the cold war."

Apart from the hyperbole in that line one only need note that what leftist ideologues do with the AGW science does not suggest the science itself is incorrect. If you want to argue against the use of it by leftist ideologues I'd be happy to join you. I'm just not going to make the fallacious leap you are about the implications making the science false.

"No amount of appeals to authority change them."

You don't know what an appeal to authority is about. It simply says that a mere appeal to an authority, as a matter of formal logic, does not totally support the conclusion linked to the authority. As a matter of informal logic relevant authority taken as more likely correct than a non-authority is just fine, any logic 101 textbook will tell you that (but it's in the back!). And these relevant authorities, who are more familiar with the field and data than you are, are aware of these issues you trumpet and conclude no big deal.

[Shorter MNG]

Only those opposing AGW are guilty of idealogical group think. Those in favor of the idea of AGW just happen to come to the same conclusion through fact.

[sarcasmic]

No serious climate change scientist believes that the cause is anything other than human activity.
To disagree or criticize shows that the scientist in question is not serious.

Who are you going to trust?
A serious climate change scientist, or a denier?

[MNG]

Why do you find this so astounding?

No serious evolutionary scientist believes that the cause is anything other than evolution.
To disagree or criticize shows that the scientist in question is not serious.

Is that so remarkable?

Interestingly the group think and ideological conspiracy gaming the process meme is totally what the guys at the Discovery Institute, Vaccine Deniers, Genetically engineered foods critics and other conspiracy nuts say about the consensus of research they oppose. Exactly. Go read their stuff.

[John]

It is called a tautology MNG. Look it up sometime.

[MNG]

It's a good thing then that they are not making such a tautology, any more than evolutionary biologists who don't want to see creationist research published are not doing so.

But then, your side denies evolution too quite a bit, don't they John?

[sarcasmic]

"the consensus of research they oppose"

Less than a century ago there was a scientific consensus that certain races were inferior to others. Scientists, medical professionals and politicians alike all agreed. In one country they used this scientific consensus as reason to start sterilizing the mentally deficient. That country was the USA.
They took it even further across the Atlantic.

Scientific consensus is never wrong and never abused by politicians seeking power over others.

Never question the consensus.

[Fist of Etiquette]

You don't have to be a "conspiracy nut" to recognize classic groupthink and group-serving bias when you see it. And everyone - hundreds of journals and thousands of reviewers - pulling from the same flawed, extrapolated data sources doesn't foster independent conclusions. But labeling those who challenge your conclusions as "conspiracy nuts" is easier than having to mount a scientific defense.

The ideology that makes MNG a believer is not less strong than the one that makes anyone else a skeptic.

[sarcasmic]

But labeling those who challenge your conclusions as "conspiracy nuts" is easier than having to mount a scientific defense.

No serious person denies that human activity is causing climate change.

All these gasses we're putting into the atmosphere must have an effect because they must. You can't burn all these fossil fuels and not change the makeup of the atmosphere. Changing the atmosphere must change the climate because it must. It can't possibly not have an effect. So it must have an effect.

See? It's irrefutable.

[MNG]

Yeah Fist, you, John, sarcasmic are flagrantly terrified about AGW research being used to promote programs you ideologically oppose yet it is all those scientists, not you guys, that are caught up in groupthink. How laughable.

[Anoynmous Coward]

Yeah Fist, you, John, sarcasmic are flagrantly terrified about AGW research being used to promote programs you ideologically oppose yet it is all those scientists, not you guys, that are caught up in groupthink.

Well MNG, you'll have to forgive political minded people when you say "we have a scientific problem that requires a political solution", then when the political minded people question your political solution, you reply with "shut up you! It's scientific!"

[MNG]

These examples of consensus you mention were not exploded by ideologues on a blog site but by the normal workings of the scientific community.

[Fist of Etiquette]

You don't have to be an ideologue to be wrong.

[R C Dean]

A couple of observations:

There is no need for unanimity in all articles and journals for the breakdown of the peer review process to have occurred.

Group-think is generally a top-down process, where the outlook of a few are propagated and enforced via various social/financial means.

Where a large number of scientists are drawing on the same data, which has been shown to be biased, then it should be no surprise that lots of them will get results that are biased.

Add these up, and it gets to be more . . . plausible.

[MNG]

"Where a large number of scientists are drawing on the same data, which has been shown to be biased"

See, this is where I know to suspect you guys. When this all came out I read the IPP. It has numerous chapters with literally hundreds of authors and perhaps thousands of citations. Only some of the chapters are even about the fields the Anglica folks work in, many are about evidence from wholly different fields. And yet you guys carelessly toss out the claim that "everyone" finding AGW friendly results is "working with the same data" that is "shown to be biased."

[Azathoth]

If you're so well read, why do you keep referring to 'Anglica' when everyone else is referring to East Anglia?

Surely, even you can find it odd that all the solutions for AGW seem to be identical to those suggested when they thought it was global cooling that we'd have to deal with. Gettin' too hot--do X, gettin' too cold do X. Even you should be able to see the problem with that.

[BigT]

Many of the IPCC Nobel Prize winners, John Christie for example, have disowned the report for its very selective use of data in drawing up its summaries. I've read parts of the reports and many, many primary sources. The AGW crowd starts with a conclusion and looks for data to support it. Some of the same occurs with the skeptics. Significantly, the skeptics find lots of data that make the AGW hypothesis very shaky. And the models are just ridiculously inaccurate and simplistic, ignoring causes and including arbitrary factors.

If AGW were truly happening, the AGW folks have done a very poor job of proving their case.

And among the emails (I downloaded the lot and read dozens) there was a presentation on how to convince people about AGW. That ain't science. And it makes the entire East Anglia cabal suspect.

[Piltdown Man]

What about ME? Dipshit

[Piltdown Man]

We can't let the deniers win

[Fluffy]

Hundreds?

List, please.

[Fluffy]

I ask because:

1. I don't think there are that many.

2. Among the ones that do exist, some are considered mainstream and credible and some aren't - and the primary way an in-group would marginalize work is to block it at mainstream publications and push it out to marginal ones. Because then they can engage in the standard academic ad hominem, namely, "You can't trust that paper because it was only published in a hack journal" which is then expanded to "You can't trust any of that academic's work because he let one of his papers be published in a pseudoscientific journal".

[John]

IF you read the climategate e-mails that is exactly what they were doing. The skeptics had managed to get published. And they were trying to figure out how to marginalize that publication.

[MNG]

We live in an internet wonder age fluffy. Find the IPP report. Look at every chapter, notice the authors, then look at the footnotes. Hundreds is probably a low estimate.

And if you want to know how many journals there are, go to a big university library and walk around in that section. Pick them up, in the front the editors are usually listed. And that doesn't count the peer reviewers.

[Fluffy]

Only a fevered conspiracy nut can buy into the idea that all those people are coordinating

When you email back and forth discussing the steps you're going to take to prevent publication of papers you don't like, that constitutes coordination.

So I guess your definition of "a fevered conspiracy nut" is "someone who can read".

Is it possible that the ability of the climate-science in-group to control the peer review process is being overestimated and propagandized? Yup. But you know what? That's too damn bad. As soon as these guys emailed each other about how they wanted to suppress papers, they brought this all down upon themselves and they deserve it all.

As soon as you, you know, actually engage in a conspiracy, you don't get to complain when other people assert that you are engaged in a conspiracy. Even if they inflate your role, and overestimate what that conspiracy might accomplish. Too bad.

[MNG]

"When you email back and forth discussing the steps you're going to take to prevent publication of papers you don't like, that constitutes coordination."

At most you've found that, what, half a dozen people were doing that? Among the hundreds of journals? Well, yes, you have to be a conspiracy nut to generalize from that to the claim that the peer review process for the entire field has been subverted in some way.

Again, all this is exactly, exactly like how evolution-deniers do it. They were going on and on there when they found that biologists pressured the Smithsonian's journal to not publish a creationist article a few years ago. That proved the gig was up and that evolutionists had created a false consensus by coordinated bullying of the peer review process!

So, are you going to join them in their similar claim and cast doubt on evolution now as you do with AGW in general?

[Azathoth]

MNG, there's no science on the creationists side. None. Evolutionary theory isn't valid because it's got a consensus--it's valid because it's testable. And those working in the field aren't hiding their data. Stephen J. Gould just got his liberal ass handed to him(postumously). His biases have now tarnished his work. The people who brought this to light aren't creationists. They're scientists. They're not getting reamed by the 'consensus'.

The cabal of climate scientists caught in the East Anglia mess--blacklisting, losing/destroying data, colluding, and all the rest is easily looked at as the tip of an iceberg--particularly when one considers how tightly the AGW community holds on to discredited findings.

And people who question those findings aren't refuted on a scientific basis--they're called names and denied funding. Which is eerily similar to what creationists try to do.

[sarcasmic]

To be accepted into the "scientific community" that concludes that human activity is the cause of climate change, you must agree to the premise that human activity is the cause of climate change.

Textbook example of begging the question.

[John]

Greek parasites hold Athens hostage demanding bailout of their welfare state. Give us a bailout or watch Athens go up in flames

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl.....y-protests

[MP]

Burn baby burn.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Disco Inferno!

[Mr Whipple]

Dick! Now I've got that song in my head.

[Rich]

"Being here makes me feel 18 again," begins one man, his polo shirt stretched tight over his paunch, before talking about his worries about his pension.

"There ain't no cure for the summertime blues."

[R C Dean]

When I was 18, I had no concern for the future, no idea how the economy worked, and no idea, really, how to be self-supporting.

So I would say he's undoubtedly right.

[WTF]

Give us a bailout or watch Athens go up in flames

So go ahead and burn it - no skin off my ass.

[Citizen Nothing]

I'd miss Athens. Really. But I haven't been there since they were Potemkining it before the Olympics.

[Restoras]

Yep, the pretty stone bits won't burn and all the good stuff is written down somewhere, so burn it.

[Clich? Bandit]

Should we call these protesters Persians? Who is playing Xerxes here?

[sloopyinca]

More importantly, couldn't the Greeks find 300 libertarians in the whole nation to come into the city and push all of those protesters off a cliff or something?

(Yeah, yeah, wrong city. Still, it'd be a glorious sight.)

[Clich? Bandit]

I am now picturing a string of nerds, geeks, a "Jacket", and a bare chested Brian Doherty charging at an angry mob of gyro vendors...Let us noit forget, Xerxes was actually very regretful of burning Athens and the next day ordered it rebuilt.

[cynical]

That sounds more like a job for fascists.

[Lord Humungus]

some threats are too good to not accept.

[The Gobbler]

I spoke with a Greek man on friday and asked him what he thought of the situation there. He said the problem is that people borrowed more money under false pretenses. He spoke of one guy who borrowed $3M from the bail out fund telling them it was to start a business. But he didn't use it for that. Instead, he bought two more houses and flys from Athens to London (staying at high-end hotels) just to watch a soccer match. He asys the guy has no intention of paying back the money. He told me this is very common in Greece. He also said that people don't pay their taxes. He believes that eventually the Greeks will be okay, but it is going to take awhile and will be a very difficult transition.

[JoshINHB]

Jaime Dimon is greek?

[Mike M.]

Just wait a few more years until our own communist losers are rioting in the streets of all our major cities. It's going to be a very ugly thing indeed.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

Seen the pictures from Wisconsin recently?

[Anoynmous Coward]

Do it.

[Bee Tagger]

Ron Paul wins the Republican Leadership Conference straw poll; Jon Huntsman finishes second.

This is the same way Morning Jo(k)e worded it. To keep the comparison going, I assume you'll be following this up with commentary that will never mention Ron Paul's name again.

[Brett L]

So Romney went from a close second to fourth, but he's the GOP guy. I'm sure this is the story. The "Anybody but Paul" wing of the news media (although Reason is obviously not included) is too strong.

[Bee Tagger]

What was astounding was that they reported on this story after someone on the show made the point that Rick Perry has some "wide lanes" to run in that no one else occupies should he decide to enter the race.

Some of those supposed lanes? Tea Party favorite and from Texas.

[OO]

sorta like a wide-stance eh?

[Brett L]

More evidence of ABP in the media.

"According to the polls, Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty now has the support of less than 5 per cent of Republican voters, far behind, among others, front-runner Mitt Romney (30 per cent) and celebrity-runner Sarah Palin (14 per cent). Statistically at least, he trails Herman Cain (12 per cent), the improbable one-time pizza company CEO whose motto is: 'I deliver.'"

Followed by 500 words on why Pawlenty could be the guy.

[TRTB]

Followed by 500 words on why Pawlenty could be the guy.

I realize that polls don't mean a whole lot at this stage. Still, that's pretty hilarious.

[Tim]

I went to Lowe's yesterday to buy some lightbulbs. A single Gubmint approved LED bulb with a 60 watt output goes for $39.97.

[Al Gore]

And your point is ...?

[Jeffrey Immelt]

And your point is...?

[Lord Humungus]

for us electronics geeks - G.E. stands for "Garbage Enclosed".

[sarcasmic]

Pretty sad when the international symbol for "good idea" is contraband.

[TPTB]

Don't worry. We're working to make that symbol illegal.

[Barry O]

Prices of light bulbs will necessarily skyrocket.

[[John]ny [Long]torso]

Union, Texas Congressional delegation agree: The EPA is threatening the Texas economy
...That Texas economic success story you've been hearing so much about in the news lately? The EPA's actions here threaten it very directly, by increasing electricity costs while throwing thousands of Texans out of work. If the EPA wants Texas' unemployment rate to climb up to the higher national average, this ruling may help that along....

The EPA assault on Texas
The necessary precondition for Texas's unique economic success ? a beacon in a deep recession ? is energy. And the EPA is closing in for the kill.

This would be one thing if Texas were an outlier among the 50 states in terms of dirty air or an otherwise demonstrably imperiled environment. But the truth is closer to the opposite: the air in Texas has been getting cleaner; in the urban areas, much cleaner....

[John]

NYT Editor whines that Sarah Palin is mean to reporters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06.....oblem.html

I guess no one had the heart to explain to him that her being mean to reporters is most of the reason she is popular. Maybe Keller should ask himself "why do they hate us?".

[MNG]

Palin has some incredibly high unfavorables herself.

Should she ask herself "why do they hate me?"

[John]

It is easy why they hate her. It is because it is a good way for dumb liberals to feel smart. The question is why does her being mean to reporters get her so much popularity. The reason for that is that a large percentage of the population hate people like Bill Keller's guts.

Palin is making millions. The New York Times is going broke. I think Keller owes himself a lot more introspection that Palin does. And it is not like she gives a shit what people like you and Keller think anyway.

[MNG]

I see, so Palin is hated because she is so great, the NYT is hated because it is so terrible. Gotcha.

[John]

There is no reason to hate Palin other than just class snobbery. You can not agree with someone and still not hate them, although maybe liberals are incapable of this these days. There is in contrast at least seventy year history of fraud and partisanship at the NYT that provide good, strong reasons to hate them.

[MNG]

"There is no reason to hate Palin other than just class snobbery."

Yes, because she's so perfect John, only a class snob could find something not to like!

Wipe the drool off your chin there sparky.

[John]

I never said she was perfect. I said she is not worthy of hate. There is a difference. You just don't see that because in your world it is okay to hate anyone who disagrees with you.

We got it MNG. That is how liberals roll.

[MNG]

Yeah John, you get on the internet and for about eight hours a day engage in hates on everything with a D beside its name and its me that hates everyone that disagrees with me...

For the record, I've said I don't hate Palin. I think I would vote for her over several GOP candidates.

[John]

Good for you MNG. I think the NYT does. And I don't hate you either.

[MNG]

Do you want to hug like the two guys at the end of StepBrothers?

[John]

It is called sarcasm MNG. I really do hate you if that makes you feel better.

[MNG]

John, one cannot read your constant, vitriol, profanity and misspelling strewn hates on everything to the left of you without knowing you are full of hate and rage.

[John]

NO MNG. I am just honest and do not coat my feelings in a layer of dishonest condescension like you do. And your posts are hardly models of grammar and rhetoric. I just don't spend my time pointing them out and being pedantic because well, I am not a douche bag.

[MNG]

Yes John, you are quite up front about your spittle flecked rage.

[Citizen Nothing]

There is no reason to hate Palin other than just class snobbery
What the fuck? I'm a proud member of the bluegrass and bourbon lovers who hate Palin club. (Be sure to get your tee shirts.)

[John]

Do you hate her? I am not saying you like her or would vote for her. But hate her? Why the hell hate her?

[Citizen Nothing]

Hate is a strong word, true. I suppose my feelings for her are more akin to what I feel for, say, Hillary.

[JoshINHB]

Jeebus Crist

You two are getting downright pathological.

Maybe y'all oughta start a John & MNG show. Could make you both millions.

[Janeane Garofolo]

There is no reason to hate Palin Obamam other than just class snobbery racism

[BigT]

Can't we hate someone who is a real threat to our freedom? Hating Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Franco, etc was certainly appropriate. Why not Obummer? He is powerful and can really fuck up our lives - and seems to take delight in it. My dislike for the man is growing daily. I don't want him to die, but maybe a severe stroke or a coma would be nice.

[Lord Humungus]

to a certain degree, I think Palin is playing off the hatred of the media - and making a few million dollars off of certain members of Team Red's base.

I'm inclined to believe that she's not going to run for president, but just leech some money off as a uh, spokesperson (as an aside, I still prefer to use spokesman) for a certain slice of Team Red.

But I'm jaded.

[John]

How is she "leeching money". Last I looked the woman had never done anything but made an honest living. Is writing books and hosting a talk show now "leeching"?

[MNG]

Talk show? You mean reality show. Talking is not her forte.

[John]

Didn't she have a rather successful show on Fox or am I making that up?

I know MNG, some day we will suspend the bill of rights and put people like Palin in camps where you think they belong. But until that great day, she gets to have a talk show and say what she thinks. It is horrible I know.

[MNG]

I remember her being a commentator but not her own show, but I'm not as regular a Fox viewer as you John.

And love the camp hyperbole John. Godwin in the morning, sailor take warning!

[Stormy Dragon]

A show financed with millions of dollars taken from Alaskan taxpayers by a law Palin herself passed right before she quit her job as governor to go into media.

[Lord Humungus]

Leeching is a admittedly a strong term - but to a certain extent I think she is taking financial advantage of her position as "the most hated woman".

Not that I blame her.

[Brett L]

I thought we were capitalists here! What she does is no less honorable than making millions having attractive young people sing autotuned covers of pop songs in prime time TV. Perhaps more honorable.

[Ska]

If I ever wondered how there are 200 posts in a morning links thread by 10:00, I just have to remember these back and forth convos.

[JoshINHB]

Nah,

It's more honorable if she clings to power, tells the dupes what to eat drink and smoke; And sends her goons to kill the pets of those that don't follow her will.

Making money off of entertainment? That's just icky.

[Bee Tagger]

At this point, I honestly can't tell who is the host and who is the parasite.

And yes, that applies to both John/MNG and New York Times/Sarah Palin.

[rather]

It may be a symbiotic relationship. Don't accidently kill John 🙁

[The Gobbler]

"And yes, that applies to both John/MNG"

When I see a John/MNG thread, I just scroll down until someone elses name appears. I honestly don't get those two.

[rather]

I love the Taylor & Burton threads 😉

[Trespassers W]

Those two have dual-handedly, hacktastically ruined Morning Links for me.

[MNG]

Trespassers: Scrolling is so haaard!

What a pussy.

[Axman]

These exchanges are no doubt very satisfying to John and MNG, but I do wish they'd get a room. Not the kind of thing I enjoy watching.

[rather]

I confess I'd watch and enjoy it too 😉

Pass me the cheetohs.

[Fatty Bolger]

She knows why.

[rather]

Yes, damn Palin for that female thingy.

[Cheeseburger]

How could she not have high unfavorables after nearly 3 years of nothing but attacks by people like Keller?

[MNG]

"How could the NYT not have high unfavorables after nearly 30 years of nothing but attacks by people like Palin?"

Jesus, this is too easy. Like fish in a barrel.

[cynical]

Cuz she's a tar baby. That's the point, to distract dumbasses like Sullivan and get them tangled up and sticky.

[John]

Obama wins Nobel War Prize. BWAAAA

http://policymic.com/articles/.....-war-prize

[Fist of Etiquette]

Not the Onion's best work.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

The Money Hole is my personal favorite

[The Government]

Mine, too!

[John]

E.J. Dionne thinks black people are so stupid that the simple act of getting a government ID is beyond the capability of most of them.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2.....ubtle.html

[MNG]

That's funny, I read that and it seemed like he had a completely different take...

[John]

Well, reading comprehension is never been one of your strong points.

[MNG]

It's almost as if you're totally mischaracterizing his article for some kind of partisan gain...

[DJF]

If this is the level of E. J Dionne intellect then maybe he is not smart enough to get a government ID

"""In Texas, for example, the law allows concealed handgun licenses as identification but not student IDs""'

Maybe because there is much higher standard about citizenship for concealed handgun licenses then there is for student ID's, especially since the courts have ruled that states have no right to keep out illegal aliens out of public schools

[MNG]

You do realize the student Id has to correspond to the registered voter list, right? The ID only identifies that the person is the person on the list, it doesn't get the person on the list.

[DJF]

I also realize that it has a very low standard for issuing, while a cancelled gun registration has a much higher standard. They hand out student ID's to anyone and the ones I have seen are pretty easy to fake.

[MNG]

Cap'n Anecedote!

[DJF]

Also if you don't have any ID better then a Student ID, how do you get registered in the first place? If you use the Student ID to register then the voting register itself is open to corruption. If you used a more secure ID then why don't you use it when you vote?

[MNG]

It's about only having the student ID when you get to the polls, not when you register.

[cynical]

And? If you need a harder form of ID to register, why would you not have it available when you go to the polls?

Sorry, but this sounds more like Democrats getting mad that they can't cheat their way to victory as easily anymore.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

And what are the requirements to get on the registered voter list, again?

Oh, right...a paper application.

[R C Dean]

You do realize the student Id has to correspond to the registered voter list, right? The ID only identifies that the person is the person on the list, it doesn't get the person on the list.

So you get an ID if "you" are on the list. Which would mean a student ID proves nothing more than "you" are on the list, I suppose.

But they already have the list. I don't see how an ID that is nothing more than a confirmation that the name on the ID is on the list does anything to prevent voter fraud.

[Fluffy]

It prevents you from showing up and claiming to be my Uncle Ed, who you know won't bother to vote that day.

[Citizen Nothing]

I actually think it's hilarious -- on several levels -- that the Dems are basically reduced to arguing that their core voters (of whatever color, creed, book-of-the-month-club selection) are too stupid, ignorant or otherwise incapacitated to get a government-issued ID card.

But them I'm a dick.

[sloopyinca]

The only issue I have with it is the cost associated with getting the government ID. It basically creates a poll tax for people who would otherwise not have a reason to get a government-issued ID.

I, for instance, would prefer to not have a government-issued driver's license and be forced to renew it every 4-5 years at the cost of $35 and the wasting of most of a day at the DMV. It's silly and is designed simply to line the coffers of the state.

Now, take the poor person who has no car and is plenty old enough to buy their booze and smokes without ID. Why should he/she have to pay that poll tax to vote? It's bullshit.

[MNG]

Well sloopy, you're thinking like a libertarian with a proper animus and suspicion of government putting such conditions on the electorate in its fundamental right to periodically hold it accountable, while many here are just acting like Republicans properly wanting to supress certain voting blocks.

[cynical]

Well, if you're saying that there should a special voter ID that is rigorously verified but free, then I won't argue with that.

Problem is that most democrats aren't arguing that, because what they really want is to protect their old tactics for stealing elections.

[Azathoth]

I strongly suspect that that poor person who's old enough to drink and get their own smokes without ID didn't crawl out of his mother's womb and head straight for retirement. At some point that person has done something that required ID.

[MNG]

"But them I'm a dick."

Noted.

I don't think the argument is stupidity or laziness. Libertarians constantly note the byzantine, unfriendly, nature of agencies like city hall. People with less resources and less know-how/experience in dealing with government bureaucracy are going to be less likely/successful in navigating that. It's hardly a remarkable idea unless you are just hoping to supress the Democratic vote in the first place.

[cynical]

"Libertarians constantly note the byzantine, unfriendly, nature of agencies like city hall. People with less resources and less know-how/experience in dealing with government bureaucracy are going to be less likely/successful in navigating that."

So, we're back again to the idea that anything that thwarts the lazy or idiotic is going to have a disparate impact on Democrats. You said it, not us.

[MNG]

I'm not sure you or I know wtf you are talking about here.

Have you ever voted? You walk in and give them your name. They look it up to make sure you are registered at that polling place and have not voted yet. Then they have to make sure you are the person on the list. That's when you produce the ID, student or otherwise. You don't get the ID from the polling place or whatever you are talking about.

[Azathoth]

Right. And a student ID is easier to fake. They don't have your picture in the book, MNG.

[Rich]

[The laws'] greatest impact will be to reduce turnout among African Americans, Latinos and the young.

Citation needed.

[MNG]

There's been tons of studies to this effect. There's this thing called Google, go nuts.

[NY Times]

World ends tomorrow. Women, minorities hardest hit.

[MNG]

Studies show that certain groups are less likely to have certain IDs on them. Grow up.

[MNG]

Go to Google Scholar and type in voter id laws affect minorities

Many of the articles are pdf's freely available and nearly all come to that conclusion.

I'm sure though it's just a conspiracy by Socialists rigging the peer review process though.

[NY Times]

Certain groups deemed too incompetent to procure IDs. Details below the fold.

[MNG]

You can have fun with the reasons, the result that these laws have these disparate impacts on these groups though it pretty well supported.

[R C Dean]

I wonder if minorities are also underrepresented in voter registration as well. I bet they are.

If disparate impact of a voting requirement on minorities is a reason to get rid of that requirement, then I guess we need to get rid of registration as well.

If not, why not?

[Fluffy]

I see no reason why not.

Did George Washington register to vote? Did he produce three forms of ID?

Not to make everyone drink or everything, but it seems odd to me that libertarians are so heartily embracing the system of government bureaucracy that surrounds identification.

But I guess the usual "I hate spics and that makes me forget that I am a libertarian" rules apply here as in everything else.

[John]

Look fluffy,

If you want to say that every person in the US, including non citizens and people who just happen to walk by to be able to vote, fine. Make the argument as to why that is a good idea.

But as long as we have rules about who votes and who doesn't, it makes sense to require an ID. Saying we shouldn't check IDs is just a dishonest way of saying that everyone should be able to vote no matter what. Or it is just saying that Mexicans and blacks are too stupid to function. I doubt you are saying the latter. So be honest and say the former.

[Fluffy]

That is not what I am saying.

I am saying that as recently as 1988, I was able to walk into a town clerk's office and register myself to vote without ID. I was then able to show up to vote at a polling place, say my name, get checked off a list, and then cast my vote - without anyone checking my ID.

The world did not end. The republic did not fall.

And that is the experience of just about everyone here who is as old as me or even somewhat younger, I'll wager.

So why is everyone freaking out that this system needs fixing?

The ONLY MOVING PART HERE is, "But gee, Fluffy, now there are more Mexicans around. And we're afraid those dirty Mexicans will try to sneak in and sully our voting!"

That's the only thing that is different between now and 1988. More Mexicans.

So there is really no way to deny that all of this is about Mexicans.

Was the 1988 Presidential election illegitimate, John? Did my "no ID" vote corrupt the electoral process?

Because if it didn't, what you are saying is, "Well, you're white and stuff. So it was OK to just let you stroll in and vote. But now we're knee-deep in spics so it's not OK anymore." I don't see how you can possibly be saying anything else.

[Apostate Jew]

A plus comment.

[MNG]

"it seems odd to me that libertarians are so heartily embracing the system of government bureaucracy that surrounds identification."

Libertarians aren't, GOP shills that post on this board are.

[cynical]

True, like illegal immigrants.

[Piltdown Man]

The burden is on you my good man.

[MNG]

And the stupid is on you my good troll.

[Pip]

Asshole much?

[Rich]

we encourage a greater examination into secure but non-discriminatory voting procedures.

Go nuts.

[free2booze]

I wonder who has killed more civilians during the non-war in Libya - Qaddafi or NATO?

[Lord Humungus]

it's a race to the finish

[MP]

I think it's about time that China started a humanitarian military action to prevent the ongoing NATO genocide of Libyan civilians.

[Bee Tagger]

Congress and the White House could raise the debt limit for a few months while they seek a comprehensive, long-term budget deal, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said on Sunday.

I would say it's so cute that Mitch McConnell thinks what he says matters to anyone. Except that it's not cute at all.

[Fist of Etiquette]

He should try weeping while he talks compromise so people will take him seriously.

[John]

Clearance Thomas has helped raise money for a Geechee cultural center. So therefore when he rules against Obamacare it won't be legitimate or something like that.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2.....-over.html

[Max Stirner]

http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/b.....olf-wp2901

NBC omits "under god" from pledge, hilarious reactions ensue.

[Bee Tagger]

Martha Burke's genius is finally revealed. She was in for the long con.

[Ska]

What, we live in a republic?!

[Tim]

More innocents killed by US: (from the link)
NATO said a military missile site was the intended target of the air strikes and acknowledged the civilian casualties.

Early on Sunday Libyan officials took reporters to a residential area in Tripoli's Souq al-Juma district where the reporters saw several bodies being pulled out of the rubble of a destroyed building.

Later, in a hospital, they were shown the bodies of two children and three adults who, officials said, were among those killed in the strike.

"Kinetic Atrocity Action"

[Samantha Power]

Nits grow into lice.

[MNG]

The Supreme Court's two former prosecutors sit on opposite ends of the court's long mahogany bench, and they take very different views of the criminal justice system.

Alito, a former career lawyer at the Justice Department and New Jersey's U.S. attorney from 1987 to 1990, is wary of petitions from the convicted complaining of defects and worried about lawyers exploiting loopholes to try to free the guilty. "Public safety" is his bottom line and a phrase often repeated in his writing.

Sotomayor was an assistant district attorney in New York for five years, and as a former district federal judge she is the only one of the justices who has presided over a trial or sentenced someone to prison.
She has been critical of courts that cut short the appellate process for some of those challenging their convictions and has rapped her colleagues for not agreeing to accept petitions from death row inmates who allege that their attorneys did an inadequate job of representing them.

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

[DJF]

Gates contradicts Obama. Obama says that the US does not have military engaged in a military operation in Libya so he does not need Congresses approval while Gates says we can't cut off funding since our troops are engaged in a military operation in Libya.

"Frankly, I think cutting off funding in the middle of a military operation when we have people engaged is always a mistake," Gates told "Fox News Sunday."

http://www.reuters.com/article.....MR20110619

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

That's the problem with lies, they're so hard to maintain.

[free2booze]

And if congress had the balls to impeach Obama, I'm sure Mr. Gates testimony would come in handy.

[P Brooks]

It has been described very precisely as a "climate-assessment oligarchy."

It's just "consensus-building".

[Fist of Etiquette]

A report by the watchdog, Miviludes, published on Wednesday said the picturesque village near Carcassonne should be monitored in the run-up to December 21, 2012, when many believe the world will end according to an ancient Mayan prophecy.

It's 2012 now? I thought we just had an apocalypse! And for this one it's not enough for me to just quit my job and sell my belongings? I have to move to France, too? Fuck that. This is where I draw the line.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

But they made a movie about this one, that makes it real.

[Clich? Bandit]

dude...Carcasonne is an awesome game. Right up there with Puerto Rico and Settlers of Catan. Been into Dominion lately too.

[MNG]

Sandy Levinson on Founder Veneration

The Founders, as I've written too many times before, are models for us not because of the particular system they designed--they did not think they were demigods who were getting it right for all time--but because they were willing to look at their situation with unblinking seriousness and do what they thought was necessary to rectify it. That is, they were capable of learning the "lessons of experience." In our orgy of Founder and Constitution veneration, we are rejecting the most important lesson they had to teach us. (It is as if we had an entrepeneurial grandparent whom we revered and drew from his legacy the lesson that one should invest in buggy whips or typewriters, since that's how he made his own fortune.)

http://balkin.blogspot.com/

[John]

That shows the warped view of the world liberals take. They think that considering the words of the Constitution to have real, unchanging meaning means venerating the founders. They think that because for liberals who is saying something is as important as what they are saying.

It is not about how good or bad the founders were. Maybe the founders were all dumb asses. But when they wrote the Constitution they meant it to mean something. And it is the Supreme Law of the land. If you don't like what they wrote, then change the damn law. But looking to the people who wrote a document to figure out what it meant is not venerating them. It is just figuring out what it means. It just shows how sick liberals have become with the disease of relativism that they would think otherwise.

[DJF]

If you think that the founders got something wrong then go to Congress and get the law changed or amend the Constitution and change it that way. Don't get a judge to reinterpret it to what you want since the judge has no right to make law.

[MNG]

"If you think that the founders got something wrong then go to Congress and get the law changed or amend the Constitution and change it that way."

Boy, movement conservatives are sure predictable. It's like they have a rol-a-dex of talking points for various subjects and they flip through and ENGAGE! Of course they don't often take the time to know wtf they are talking about, they assume the "liberal" wants what talk radio and Hannity have told them and they start debating the liberal under their bed instead of the one in front of them.

Sandy Levinson would agree with the quoted selection above, he's most famous for not only calling for amenmdments but for regular constitutional conventions.

[John]

Good for him as long as he doesn't think that judges can do it on their own.

[DJF]

But the link you posted has nothing about Constitutional amendments or conventions, so if you want to post something about that then you need to post something that says that. All you posted was some guy whining about buggy whips. Sorry if I am not aware of what you consider Sandy Levinson fame is about

[MNG]

And it also has nothing about what you bitched about, judges reinterpreting the law, so why did you launch into that? He was just bemoaning the constant Founder Veneration we have (are you denying we don't have some serious Founder Veneration issues?) and arguing that the best thing the Founders could have taught us was to not venerate anybody or thing.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Why is "Founder Veneration" a problem you feel needs resolved and/or countered in some way?

[MNG]

Read the post dude, sheesh.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

I said "you".

[Rev. Blue Moon]

So the issue with "Founder Veneration" is that David Brooks is a moron? You are not making any sense.

[Fatty Bolger]

The most important lesson the Founders had to teach us was that too much centralized power will be used and abused. They were not immune to that temptation themselves, and most of them knew it.

because they were willing to look at their situation with unblinking seriousness and do what they thought was necessary to rectify it.

I had no idea that Levinson was a Paul Ryan fan, though I'm sure he would be first to say that Ryan doesn't go far enough. Interesting!

[R C Dean]

My problem with the Living Constitution crowd isn't that Ye Olde Wordes may not be the best for our current situation.

Its that they can't be bothered to actually amend the damn thing to change it. Instead, they go by judicial fiat, instead of the actual amendment process.

[TrickyVic]

""My problem with the Living Constitution..""

The Constituition still lives? Doesn't seem like it.

[cynical]

Except that while technology is a straight line, governing philosophy is a circle. We would do well to get back to enlightenment thought and values.

[Rich]

Congress and the White House could raise the debt limit for a few months while they seek a comprehensive, long-term budget deal

OK. In 90 days, if a "deal" is not done *and* the "debt limit" permanently reduced to below what it is now, everybody must resign without pension. BWAHAHAHAA!!

The Obama administration has warned it will run *is* out of money to pay the nation's bills if Congress does not raise the $14.3 trillion debt limit

FTFY

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

a comprehensive, long-term budget deal

I triple pinky swear that I'll do it this time, I promise.

[MP]

long-term

i.e. Yet another punt five years down the road to another set of politicians.

[Sinic]

Republicans say they will not back any tax increases, while Democrats say they will not reduce health benefits for retirees under the Medicare program.

US Economy, R.I.P.

[P Brooks]

(It is as if we had an entrepeneurial grandparent whom we revered and drew from his legacy the lesson that one should invest in buggy whips or typewriters, since that's how he made his own fortune.)

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[The Ghost of Joe Kennedy]

Don't forget bootlegging.

[The Ghost of Ted Kennedy]

Don't drink and drive.

[The Ghosts of Joe and Ted]

Hinky dinky parlay voo ........

[P Brooks]

The Foundurz would have had Thomas Edison horsewhipped for inventing the electric light bulb!

They wold have locked Henry Ford up for bringing those infernal horseless carriages to a mass market!

[Fatty Bolger]

lol

[P Brooks]

Nonstop tinkering with the Constitution; what could go wrong?

Given the choice between a nationalized system of situational ethics and nihilism, I'll take nihilism.

[John]

Hey say what you want about National Socialism, but at least it is an ethic.

[sloopyinca]

We love you (no homo), John, but that might possibly be the worst quote job in the history of H&R.

[R C Dean]

I'm gonna need you to explain the difference, P.

If your ethics change depending on the situation, I'm not sure that you really have any ethics.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Careful - ethics can "change" depending on context. In principle, how I would act toward another person might depend on how he presents himself to me. If a drive-by occurs and an innocent bystander crawls towards me bleeding, I would help him. If Jared Lee Loughner got clipped and crawled toward me bleeding, I might not. Does that mean I have "situational ethics"?

[Fist of Etiquette]

The Bitcoin community faced another crisis on Sunday afternoon as the price of the currency on the most popular exchange, Mt.Gox, fell from $17 to pennies in a matter of minutes.

Skynet never should have left the gold standard.

[Brett L]

Ooh, I need to put in a buy order before they reprice all that stuff on Silk Road to reflect the crash.

[Chuck Schumer]

Gotcha!

[The Gobbler]

Saw Drums Across the River this weekend. It is an Audie Murphy western. At the end of the film, he pretty much waterboards (more accurately half-drowns) the bad guy in order to extract life and death information. In 1954, audiences cheered.

[MNG]

I'm betting Gobby would like to return to 1954 in more ways than one...

[The Gobbler]

You'd make more sense if you weren't syupid.

[shorter MNG]

Hurr durr *racist* hurr durr.

[The Gobbler]

Also saw The Majestic. A very libertarian film.

[The Gobbler]

Caught Gone with the Wind as well, great model for race policy.

[John]

That is what George Clooney said in his Oscar speech a few years ago.

[The Gobbler]

I am going to ask Reason to ban you for impersonating me. That is really lame.

[MNG]

Gobby's pussy hurts! Don't cry lil' guy.

[Pip]

Asshole much?

[Lord Humungus]

Triumph of the Will is as study in parade logistics.

[Brett L]

Senate eliminates railgun, super laser.

"The committee approved its version of the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill on Friday, priced to move at $664.5 billion, some $6.4 billion less than what the Obama administration wanted. The bill 'terminates' the Free Electron Laser and the railgun, a summary released by the committee gleefully reports."

Now we should auction off the technology to evil supergeniuses and put the proceeds of the auction into debt reduction.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Too bad the FEL actually seems to work, is ahead of schedule, and has non-military applications, unlike some of the other boondoggles the military has been involved in.

[Brett L]

That's why it had to be ended!

[MJ]

Now what's Val Kilmer gonna make ungodly quantities of popcorn with?

[Joe Biden]

Senate eliminates railgun

But, ... HIGH-SPEED TRAINS!!

[db]

I read that as "Free Election Laser" at first.

[Jerry]

So the Republican exit strategy on the debt ceiling issue is short-term ceiling hikes. Much bark, not much bite, what else can you expect?

[Brett L]

Charlie Brown and the fucking football. I stopped trying to kick the football long ago.

[John]

They will roll. They will cut a few positions in the bureaucracy that were supposed to be cut anyway and do a couple of accounting tricks and call it day. Like Boehner has any balls.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

I have absolutely zero faith in the Republican establishment to deal with this. I would love to be surprised but I'm not holding my breath.

[Pip]

"Clarence Clemons, RIP."

Not to speak ill of the dead, but they guy was a lousy sax player.

[Diddy Sayit]

For a lousy songwriter and singer.

** ducks **

[Apple]

Yeah, I thought he was boring and schmaltzy. I enjoy about half of Bruce's stuff, and there's a high correlation between the songs I don't like and the prominence of the sax.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

In regards to the whole Libya debacle, I'm pretty jaded but I simply did not forsee the almost total disappearance of the antiwar left. I was so used to hearing constant ranting for almost a decade about US imperialism and that evil warmonger Bush--who, don't get me wrong, was a fucking terrible President--that I deluded myself into thinking many of the people making these arguments were making them based upon principle or at least a general aversion to war.

Looking at that objective cultural barometer of the Facebook friends status feed, apart from a few precious exceptions who amusingly are hard left, you'd think that Sarah Palin was current Maximum Leader of AmeriKKKa with Bush as her right-hand man. Palin Palin Palin Palin Bush Bush blah blah blah, with some Scott Walker thrown in. Sick and tired of hearing the constant bitching and moaning about Palin.

I'm more concerned with the fact that President Hopey McChange is torturing Bradley Manning, blatantly ignoring the WPA, claiming the power to assassinate US citizens suspected of terrorism without due process, continuing the War on Some Drugs, and otherwise generally being Bush III and then some, but as one can clearly see from watching the legacy media, this is a problem that is hardly unique to my social circles.

There is no way in hell I was going to vote for McCain--I voted for neither of these schmucks--and I absolutely do not profess to any belief that he would have been better, but at least he would have been meeting some resistance because he's on the other team. The repeated conversations I find myself suffering through about how "well, yeah, Obama sucks, but he's the best option because I don't want the Republicans to win" just nauseate me to my very core.

[John]

The anti war left is done. In three years when they roll out on some Republican President, people are just going to laugh at them. I hope Obama at least left them a twenty on the table.

[Brett L]

Sadly, Cindy Sheehan was the only person in the movement with any integrity and she got rolled by the politicians.

[John]

Funny how the media, after exploiting the poor woman's grief for four years figured out she was kind of crazy after the black Jesus got into office.

[WTF]

In three years when they roll out on some Republican President, people are just going to laugh at them.

I'm not so sure - under a republican president, the major media will go back to treating the anti-war protests as a very serious issue and a matter of Great Moral Urgency.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

Inclined to agree. Stuff like this is the reason why I laugh whenever I hear the complaining from said major media about the "blogosphere".

I am eternally grateful I live in the age of the Internet.

[TrickyVic]

Obama's "no hostilities" thinking about Libya acutally make sense with respects to federal power. But it's scary and it should really make people think. What I mean by makes sense is that's exactly how much of our law enforcement thinks. A SWAT team breaking down your door isn't viewed as hostile, only when a homeowner opens fire does it become hostile. Hostile isn't when the government kills you, it's only when the target fights back.

[TrickyVic]

""only when a homeowner opens fire does it become hostile.""

Or is viewed as a threat.

[Lord Humungus]

so other than that, uh, how is the Road Corporation in Somalia going?

[Somalian Road Corporation]

Trying to get a real job for the first time in years after the DoJ decided that cracking down on online poker was a priority. Being self-employed is far preferable, sigh. Hopefully this is just a temporary setback.

[Lord Humungus]

Funny, I'm trying to leave my "real job" and become self-employed.

I was recently turned down for a consulting gig because the software company in question is a vendor to the current company I work for. It's the software company policy not to hire from their customer base. However, if I was recently laid-off, they would have hired me!

[Somalian Road Corporation]

Yeah, I really like schedule flexibility and not getting in hot water for showing up 5 minutes late/calling out too often and all the other dreary "real job" shit I've dealt with in the past.

I hope to find something soon, I know other poker players in the same boat who are making jokes about filling in resume gaps stating that they were in prison for rape rather than playing poker because it sounds better.

[SugarFree]

Policing Women's Personas; or How Zooey Deschanel Is Killing Feminism One Kitten At A Time

We all know these manic pixie Muppet Babies are really just in it for the peen. And instead of acting like a woman who might remind a skittish bro more of his teacher or his mother, we're going for the pubeless, twee, Anime-eyed version of whatever dream girl we assume they want or need.
Full size

It's like how we used to hide our interests around boys ('I hate math! It's so hard!'). Now, instead, we're singing the praises of Skittles Sours instead of emulating, say, Kathleen Turner? Barbara Stanwyck? Any female lead from the pre-awkward era who stuck out her tits and didn't talk like Rocky from the Bullwinkle cartoons? You realize the Harajuku girls who danced behind Gwen Stefani, are like "seriously, bitches?" And then they go to book club.

It's all to the same ends? women are trying to broadcast to men that we won't bite their dicks off. It's just that now, instead of lipstick, we're wearing glittery lip gloss, or that shit you get in the drug store that tastes like Dr. Pepper.

-

Modern Feminism: The Fear That Some Woman, Somewhere, Is Enjoying Her Life.

[Brett L]

I'd date this self-described "huge science geek". And I'm a man. Does that make me a bad modern feminist. (SFW)

[R C Dean]

I'm a man. Does that make me a bad modern feminist.

Yes.

[John]

But is she really helping feminism by marrying this guy?

http://blog.unitedwetab.com/2010/08/

[Lord Humungus]

I've said this before, but back in her college days, my wife-to-be was a raving feminist. She was part of a "Woman's Group" that met every week - they would rail against the male hegemony and the exploitation of womyn.

However, these same girls, er women, at parties would start primpin' and preening like high school girls and then complain about the failures of their relationships.

I was glad when my girlfriend left that group - it was partly political because I was considered "too much of a man" by the powers-that-be. My crime? I was guilty of saying complimentary things like "You look great!".

[John]

OF course if you hadn't said anything, you would have been guilty of being threatened by their feminine power.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Women do not like nice guys. "You look great" connotates a level of adoration and therefore weakness.

"Dat ass!" would have been completely acceptable and probably ignored by her nitwit friends.

Welcome to the logic of the feminist future.

[Fist of Etiquette]

STOP EDITORIALIZING IN YOUR HYPERLINKS.

I went there expecting to see Zooey Deschanel and no such thing happened.

[SugarFree]

Maybe you should learn to be attracted to old women with giant mounds of public hair that only watch Masterpiece Theater and never fuck on days that end in "y."

[Fist of Etiquette]

I didn't say I wasn't still titillated in her absence.

[robc]

Agreed. There was a tweet from Zooey in the story, but she wasnt even mentioned by name in the article.

[SugarFree]

Who is the black Zooey Deschanel?

The article, sadly, has no answers.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Rae Dawn Chong?

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Wouldn't the black chick from Clueless or Hillary from Fresh Prince fit the bill? Maybe Lark Voorheis? I know that I am referring to a much earlier period, but hey, you look for heroes where you can.

[Butts Wagner]

Rachel True?

[Rich]

that shit you get in the drug store that tastes like Dr. Pepper

Mr. Pibb? Lube? I gots to know ...

[TRTB]

Correct, Mr. Pibb Lube.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

Women who self-identify as "feminists" in this brave new world of 2011 are always so charming.

[MP]

Am I close-minded because I don't have the stones to click on these links? (I did once...regretfully.)

[Fluffy]

I think it's more like The Fear That Some Man, Somewhere, Finds Zooey Deschanel More Attractive Than Me.

That's the real comedy here: that it doesn't matter WHAT Zooey Deschanel does, unless you are so helplessly abased before male opinion that it will ruin your life if any male thinks you aren't as attractive as she is.

So Zooey can't kill feminism unless all feminists are already cringing and crawling in the mud at men's feet.

I bet every woman in America including my wife thinks that the Old Spice Guy is more attractive than me. But you don't see me losing any sleep over it. Mainly because I don't give a shit.

Feminists: "We pretend we don't give a shit, but secretly we care so much it's ruining our lives and destroying our movement!" Wow. Just wow.

[Au H20]

No, modern feminism is afraid women won't like the right things. They'll go see Transformers instead of reading Virgina Woolf. They'll play Xbox instead of going to the foreign film festival. Etc.

[P Brooks]

It's all to the same ends? women are trying to broadcast to men that we won't bite their dicks off. It's just that now, instead of lipstick, we're wearing glittery lip gloss, or that shit you get in the drug store that tastes like Dr. Pepper.

Ummm, what?

Industrial strength outrage, in cans, could eliminate the national debt.

[Colin]

"But Bitcoin is a fiat currency; its value ultimately depends on nothing more than public confidence."

Explain to me again why Bitcoin is an improvement.

[Brett L]

You need way less leverage to become the George Soros of Bitcoin?

[robc]

Bitcoin is about the best you can hope for from a fiat currency, in that it cant be printed into nothingness. But its still a fiat currency.

Any backed currency would be better than bitcoin, but bitcoin is better than any other fiat currency.

[cynical]

Decentralized. No inherent value, unlike commodity money, but produced by a decentralized and increasingly inefficient process (which is why they call it "mining")

[P Brooks]

Sen. Mitch McConnell floats the idea of a short-term hike in the debt limit.

This would be the very same Mitch McConnell who worked his ass off to torpedo Rand Paul's run for the Senate.

Eat shit and die, Mitch.

[John]

Women daters rate 80% of men "below average"

http://blog.okcupid.com/index......ne-dating/

But remember it is men who have unrealistic expectations of women.

[Fluffy]

When it comes down to actually choosing targets, men choose the modelesque. Someone like roomtodance
above gets nearly 5 times as many messages as a typical woman and 28 times as many messages as a woman at the low end of our curve.

Um, I interpret this statistic as amazingly pro-average-woman.

The average woman will get one fifth as many messages as the best looking one.

That's amazingly HIGH to me. I would think that the best-looking woman would get HUNDREDS OF TIMES as many messages as the average. But it's only five times as many.

It's as if Heidi Klum is at a club with an average woman, and only getting hit on by five times as many guys. Those are damn good odds for the average chick!

With regard to the "Women rate 80% of men 'below average'" thing, I think that's just a function of the fact that men are more honest about rating women outside of their personal taste.

Beyonce is a 1 to me. But if you asked me to rate her on some kind of survey or test, I would rate her a 9. Because that's her objective rating outside of my own personal taste.

Women don't do that.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Beyonce is a 1 to me.

Glad I am not the only one out there. I say this every time, and my wife still does not believe me. Neither does anyone else, of course. I am just plain not attracted to Beyonc

[CrackertyAssCracker]

Angelina Jolie is a 3 or a 4 to me. Looks just like her dad, except with stupid plastic-surgery looking lips. I think my wife actually belives me now though.

[MJ]

"It's as if Heidi Klum is at a club with an average woman, and only getting hit on by five times as many guys. Those are damn good odds for the average chick!"

The men are probably doing a little cost-benefit analyis with regards to Heidi Klum, there's too much competition there, you have better odds to get with the average chick.

[P Brooks]

I was guilty of saying complimentary things like "You look great!".

You FIEND!

[Lord Humungus]

and the male stare - you know, checking out girls like any 22yo would.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

I'm catching up on some ancient threads on another forum I used to frequent and keep running into mocking pre-election comments along the lines of "Good luck once Barack HUSSEIN Osama takes your guuuunnnssssss" and other stuff that's absolutely hilarious in light of Gunrunner/the "under the radar" gun control stories that have been mentioned here before.

A most unfortunate case of the electorate in a democracy getting exactly what they deserve.

[Warty]

You're still alive, John McCain?

Rotting Christ

[Warty]

AMANPOUR: This morning, the last Republican nominee gives a stern warning that his party is headed in the wrong direction.

MCCAIN: I do want to send a message, and that is that we cannot move into an isolationist party.

Shut the fuck up, Oldwacko.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

As an Arizona resident I do my best to get that dangerous idiot out of office, but, alas, most of the Republicans I've spoken with would vote for Joseph Stalin if he ran under a Republican ticket because they wouldn't want the Democrats to win.

[John]

McCain is such an ass he is eating this shit up. He loves playing concern troll.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

David Frum approaches Deepak Chopra levels of self-help aisle philosophy.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINIO.....?hpt=hp_c2

[Brett L]

He hates Palin, too?

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

It's a national pastime. Kind of like cornhole.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

The initiative has the backing of the leaders of the land, including President Barack Obama, himself to all appearances a devoted father.

Let's ask Bradley Manning's father what he thinks of the President's treatment of his son.

[Brett L]

A 1% jump in interest rates would cost the US $130B per year according to this. Let's keep borrowing more than we pay back!

[Alfred E. Keynes]

What, me worry?

[Mike M.]

Rory McIlroy: flash in the pan or the new Tiger Woods? Discuss.

[Alfred E. Keynes]

You don't finish near the top of the last four majors and win one if you're a flash in the pan.

Next Tiger? That's a pretty high bar. But Rory is still pretty spectacular.

[robc]

My prediction: He wins between 3 and 10 majors in his career. Yes, that is a very wide range, but he isnt a one and done major winner nor is he Jack/Tiger.

3 is Nick Price/Ernie Els, which is damn fine. No one has won exactly 10, but 9 is Gary Player/Ben Hogan. All time greats. They are currently tied for 4th. Hagen won 11.

[Mike M.]

I'll boldly pull a number out of my rear end and say he ends up with 8.

[Sparky]

Apparently, this is also FOR TEH CHILDRENZ! Mother charged with FELONY child injury for spanking her daughter.

http://www.volunteertv.com/nat.....72014.html

[rts]

Publicly naming and shaming Vancouver rioters.

Bottom-up justice or vigilantism?

[Joe M]

Sen. Mitch McConnell floats the idea of a short-term hike in the debt limit.

Perhaps if we built a large wooden badger...

[R C Dean]

So, if what is going on in Libya isn't a war, wouldn't that make everyone killed by NATO (civilian and otherwise) a murder victim?

[TrickyVic]

It's just an extention of it's ok to kill innocent people when you use airpower. War or not is just a minor detail which few cares. I don't see any anti-war protests on Obama's driveway.

[Brett L]

Pretty sure the definition of war in the US is US casualties. Until then, its just an exercise/action. See: War, Spanish-American; Conflict, Vietnam

[cynical]

No, a victim of terrorism.

[P Brooks]

wouldn't that make everyone killed by NATO (civilian and otherwise) a murder victim?

Not unless they work for an American government agency.

[Cytotoxic]

Maybe it's just me, but John Stewart just about transformed into a giant douche in this video.

http://online.wsj.com/video/jo.....carousel_1

[MJ]

That presumes he was not a giant douche before.