Obamacare

Reason Morning Links: Obama Considers Trading Individual Mandate for Tax Increases, DOJ Prepares Subpoenas for News Corp., NRCC Sets Sights on Blue Dogs

|

New at Reason.tv: "Do Parents Matter? Q&A with Bryan Caplan, Author of Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids"

Advertisement

NEXT: Friday Funnies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Democrats want to ditch the ethics committee set up by former Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

    Did it drain even one drop of water out of that swamp known as D.C.?

    1. Unfortunately, we’re about the only political group that realizes that the only way to reduce corruption is to reduce government power.

      1. That just means they’ll be corrupt in a limited fashion. The only way to address the corruption itself is through public accountability (and requires an uncorrupted public).

        1. Sounds like you can’t eliminate the corruption, if it relies on an Uncorrupted Public. So, ya know, limiting the corruption would be the best option in this imperfect world (with imperfect citizens) that we have.

          1. Why would a corrupted public want to limit the power of government?

    2. Also, nice timewarp, FoE…

      1. I think I might be Riggs’ sockpuppet.

        1. No, I’m Riggs’ sockpuppet!
          (and a lame one to boot)

          The PROOF is out there.

  2. NYT reports that House Republicans are willing to raise taxes if the White House will agree to abandon Obamacare’s individual mandate.

    Removing the individual mandate while requiring insurance companies to deny coverage to no one will usher in single payer faster than anything in Obama’s wildest dreams. The public outrage for even talking about this will really give Boehner something to cry about. This deal won’t happen.

    1. just another game of chicken. The mandate is generally hated but Obama-boy won’t give it up since it would mean the death of Obamacare, his ‘signature’ piece of legislation.

      Of course if it did open up the chance of single-payer…

      1. The mandate is generally hated but Obama-boy won’t give it up since it would mean the death of Obamacare

        Yes, that has been the crux of the post-passage fight all along. So, why would anyone think ObamaDems would even give this “deal” the time of day?

      2. Oh, and BTW…Racist!

      3. Frankly, I think at least some of the smarter Democrats think it will lead to single-payer and have been desperate to have it taken out by Republican dupes. They didn’t really want that abomination of a law (aside from the lobbying money), they wanted single payer. It’s a trap!

    2. Removing the individual mandate while requiring insurance companies to deny coverage to no one will usher in single payer faster than anything in Obama’s wildest dreams.

      Has anyone actually explained that to these morons? That the point of attacking the mandate is not to break the mandate off of PPACA (which would send the law into an uncontrollable berserker rage), but to hit it in its weak point for MASSIVE DAMAGE?

  3. Mexico City implements no-fault divorce law, hosts divorce expo.

    Well, well, well. A year after they allow gays to wed, this is the state of Mexican marriage. It looks like someone neeed to sign a L?der de la Familia Compromiso.

    And interest in that expo was mostly from the older ladies. Mexican lawyers have played it well crafting no-fault. Drum up tons of new and easy business, and flood the market with fresh cougars. Bravo.

    1. and flood the market with fresh cougars

      “…and in other news, all flights to Mexico for the next two years have been booked.”

    2. You know, this may be total bias, but my experience with “older” Mexican ladies has been mamasotas not mamasitas, but go check out the cougar market for me and let me know .

      1. Google translate isn’t recognizing your words….please help me understand

        1. mamasota = ‘big mama’
          mamasita = ‘little mama’

          1. Who was that comedian who had the bit where he thought that “the old Mexican women ate the young Mexican women?”

        2. 5′ tall and 6′ wide.

    3. well marbled cougars

    1. Stop stealing SugarFree’s shtick, you!

      1. Technically, I’m stealing from SF and Longtorso.

        1. I was talking about the link not working.

          1. Oh. Apparently I only read the first and last words in any sentence. D’oh.

            1. Happens to the best of us.

    1. and the State owns everything, even your precious bodily fluids.

      1. I do not deny the State my essence.

    2. Ludicrous taxation in Scandinavia? That’s unpossible!

      1. Don’t we sometimes have a Swedish libertarian lurking around here?
        Must be a sad existence…

          1. touche

          2. SHE’S a libertarian?

    3. This is why I just throw my bottles in the street.

      1. You’re supposed to throw them in a body of water. The water just washes them away.

    4. OH!MY!GOD! Please don’t let Obama find that link. It’s bad enough as it is.

      1. I would still show my bottle deposit income net of bottle deposits paid, which in my case means I’d need to figure out how to report it as another loss. Maybe some kind of self-employed recycling company on schedule C. That would give me enough time to figure out how to get around the hobby loss rules.

  4. Auburn man accused of stealing woman’s parrot, computer

    Police say a 43-year-old central New York man entered a woman’s home, stole her parrot, computer and dryer knobs and unplugged her refrigerator.

    Lee L. Baker Jr., of Auburn, is accused of burglarizing the home of the woman who had an order of protection issued against him.

    City police say they picked him up Monday on a warrant and charged him with felony burglary and two misdemeanors.

    No dogs or parrots were shot. Nothing else happened.

    http://www.syracuse.com/news/i…..aling.html

    1. Yeah, and what about all the good things Hitler did?

      1. the Autobahn! And the VW Beetle! the Blitzkrieg!

        1. the Autobahn!

          While Hitler might deserve a little credit for the Autobahn, I give all the props to Rolf and Florian.

          1. Props for a well stated Kraftwerk reference.

        2. The Space Program

          Ilsa movies

      2. And the aqueduct.

    2. Congradulations, dunphy!

      Nothing was supposed to happen, you low-expectations motherfucker!

      BTW, have you joined LEAP yet? Or does all the money you contribute to political causes still go to pro-prohibition groups?

      1. To paraphrase Chris Rock, does he want a cookie?

        I actually don’t think it’s dunphy posting this—he comes off as cleverer than that. I think it’s our usual handle-shifting, passive-aggressive troll.

        1. To paraphrase Chris Rock, does he want a cookie?

          Or to directly quote Don Rickles….

      2. Dunphy may be a humorless git, and he’s certainly an apologist for the po-po, but this doesn’t seem like his style. Are you just guessing here?

        Dunphy is also encouraged to refudiate this if its not his work.

        1. He’ll, we’re still waiting on dunphy to deny that he fucked those sheep.

          The persistent refusal t

    3. The Auburn Man, the Computer and What the Parrot Saw

      These modern day stag films.

      1. Your mind is a terrible thing. That is all.

    4. Massage parlor employees arrested after touching undercover officer’s penis

      NORTH ATTLEBORO – Police arrested two employees at a Route 1 massage parlor Thursday on prostitution-related charges after an undercover police officer posing as a customer allegedly was indecently touched after he was offered sexual contact for a fee.

      Nothing else happened. Supposedly.

      NA police raid Asian spa

      1. It’s good to see a spa story with a happy ending.

      2. I love stories about law enforcement with a happy ending…

        1. Really? Less than one minute? Damn your eyes.

          1. Less obvious: Those employees had it coming.

      3. Boy, I feel so much safer knowing I won’t have my genitals menaced by petite Asian women.

        Oh, wait… I don’t live in Massachusetts! *scary music cue*

      4. In other news Police have apparently solved every other crime in North Atleboro Massachusetts.

        1. +1

      5. “Route 1 massage parlor”

        The name pretty much tells you all you need to know.

        1. ALL GIRL STAFF!

      6. “allegedly was indecently touched”

        Would the outcome have been any different had he been touched decently?

      7. 3 Month investigation, several officers involved….apparently, there are no violent or property crimes in the jurisdiction, since they can spare plenty of cops to stamp out the scourge of tiny Asian hands selling happy endings. I thought I read somewhere that state and local governments were in financial trouble…guess I misunderstood….

        1. Remember that prostitution sting, I think it was in NC, a few years back that took months to do? IIRC, about half the cops in the Dept went and fucked the better looking ones, some underage even, before making the bust?

          I’ll try to find the link.

      8. Too bad, because they were just a couple minutes away?

    5. “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they debate you, then you win.”

      AII is obviously in the first stages of debate, so we’ve got them running scared.

  5. Rick Perry’s Army of God
    A little-known movement of radical Christians and self-proclaimed prophets wants to infiltrate government, and Rick

    10 Deleted Scenes That Would’ve Ruined The Film
    I’m actually thinking the deleted scene would have improved ‘Clerks’.

    1. Let me summarize that Cracked article from the 2nd link:

      We here at Cracked don’t understand that LOTS of footage gets shot that doesn’t make it into the final movie.

    2. “A little-known movement of radical Christians and self-proclaimed prophets wants to infiltrate government, and Rick”

      Perry does look a little like a Ken doll, but I’m pretty sure he’s not publicly down with “being infiltrated”.

    3. A little-known movement of radical Christians and self-proclaimed prophets wants to infiltrate government

      Like that would be any different in substance than the army of secular Puritans that already occupy the space.

    4. I’m actually thinking the deleted scene would have improved ‘Clerks’.

      Putting a daisy in a pile of crap doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a pile of crap.

  6. Reason.com acknowledges individual praising cop. Nothing else happens.

    http://www.pixiq.com/article/m…..his-rescue

    1. It probably wouldn’t kill the guy to ask before he takes a picture, though.

      1. It would definitely kill the candidness – and therefore the soul of the shot – however.

        1. Well, we’re all models for photographers’ use, after all.

          Hell, at least ask afterwards if the picture requires candidness or can’t be recreated. A little common courtesy would go a long way.

          I spent years dealing with people who thought a 6’9″ dad with little daughters was just too compelling a picture to pass up so maybe I’m not the most impartial judge, but it gets annoying as hell.

          1. We are in agreement. I’m just stating what the deal is from the photographer’s point of view. And most professional photographers will shoot first and ask questions later rather than lose that Pulitzer shot. In many of the places in the world where I’ve traveled, this guy’s reaction to the photo would be considered mild. I always ask first – and have therefore lost untold wonderful portraits.

            1. Understood. My mom is a photographer so I am not totally unsympathetic to the issues.

              1. When I’m in a portrait-rich environment (markets, etc) in some weird little “steal-my-soul-with-your-devil-camera” country, I set the camera up on a wall or table or something and pre-focus it on the “kill zone”. Then I snap away with the remote. Works pretty well.

            2. In many of the places in the world where I’ve traveled, this guy’s reaction to the photo would be considered mild.

              I was in Latvia when I saw a soldier turn to speak to a woman leaning in a window in a brightly colored house. It would have been a brilliant picture, but for the exact reason you mention, it wasn’t taken.

              1. Taking photos of soldiers and other military stuff is always dodgy for whole other reasons. (I was in Latvia last summer, myself – nice place, no?

        2. But taking pictures STEALS SOULS!

          1. The police department agrees with you.

      2. Good point, but Ice Nine’s remark is spot on. If I had been the photographer I would have explained that I was doing a “man on the street” montage, blah, blah, blah. I would then have offered to delete the photo if the guy still objected. Problem solved.

    2. Doesn’t it strike you as a little odd that it’s news when a cop does the right thing?

      1. Man bites dog. Gets mustard on shirt.

      2. But wait…there’s more

        “I told the police that if the man was willing to apologize to me and that he understood that grabbing someone because they took your photo was wrong, then I wouldn’t press charges. The man flippantly apologized and began to walk away.

        This blew the officer’s top. At this point the officer pulled out his handcuffs and told the man to never to walk away from an officer and that he would handcuff him if he didn’t cooperate.”

        Never turn your back to the emperor or its “off with your head”

        1. Well, he didn’t get a baton to the legs, so that’s something.

          1. That’s just because the officer’s partner wasn’t crouched with gun drawn. That guy may have had a can of beer at the ready.

            1. Hey! Hey!! Two cans, and tall boys at that!

              1. and tall boys at that!

                Didn’t “Assault Beer” become the preferred nomenclature yet?

    3. But I wonder, what would the cop done if the HIS photo had been taken ? Telling a private citizen he has not expectation of privacy in a public place is fine, fine. But it doesn’t speak to the double standard. Sorry for pissing on this bit of good news.

  7. Officer facing felony tampering, theft charges

    According to a news release from the Osawatomie Police Department, Hudson was charged with theft, tampering with evidence and the unlawful use of a financial card.

    Nothing else happened.

    http://www.kccommunitynews.com…..etail.html

    1. That has to be fake. I learned at Reason that cops never arrest their own.

      1. Yeah, this proves there’s no such thing as ‘professional courtesy’.

        PWN’D!

      2. No, they never arrest the non-fall guys. He must have let something slip to the media and thus violated the blue wall first.

    2. It was more fun yesterday, when the links were spread over various comment containers.

    3. Let me know what he actually gets convicted of and what the sentence is.

    4. You do notice he was arrested for an offense against the “department”. If he had beat or killed a citizen, he would have been following procedure.

  8. Democrats want to ditch the ethics committee set up by former Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

    We really hope not, otherwise we’re going to be in sooo much trouble. Woooo…

  9. Many expected Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to kill the OCE, which was championed by Pelosi when Democrats were in charge of the lower chamber. But Boehner, who voted against the creation of OCE in 2008, allowed the office to continue in the new Congress.

    “Many”, eh? Is it too much to hope that a claim like that gets sourced?

  10. I just heard on ESPN that NFLPA President DeMorris Smith is an Obama crony who got the job by selling his connections to Obama. And sure enough he may have totally fucked up the negotiations. Obama’s golden touch continues.

    1. DeMaurice, not DeMorris.

      I’m not sure how he’s supposed to have screwed up the negotiations, although the players getting 48% of total revenue seems as first glance to be considerably less than the 58% minus 1 billion that they were getting.

      He was an unusual choice to run their side, that’s for sure.

      1. He fucked it up by not keeping his members informed of the negotiations. So that now there are all these surprises in the agreement that the players didn’t know about. His job as the Union President isn’t just to get a deal, but to keep the players informed and to get a deal that the players will approve.

        1. Wait, is he union president or trade association president?

          1. That is what union execs do. Agreeing to a deal that is later voted down by your members is pretty much the worst thing that can happen to a union president.

        2. I am wondering how a union that was supposedly decertified months ago was able to negotiate a settlement for employees who, in the eyes of the law, the union no longer represents.

          On the other hand, I heard last night that the players are objecting to being “told” that they have to recertify the union and are threatening legal action against the owners for negotiating with a decertified union. These negotiations have been going on for weeks in full public view, with the player applauding the progress…NOW they are objecting to the union’s participation?

          1. They are dumb jocks I guess. But Smith gets paid a seven figure salary to make sure that shit like this doesn’t happen. Not agreeing to a deal is fine. That is what unions do. But agreeing to one that the membership later rejects is a serious fuck up.

            1. What I heard on ESPN is the owners put things in the CBA they voted on that the union would be unhappy with. Since the owners did the lockout then the players would have to face a vote of recertification and accepting the CBA, with the poison pills, or stay locked out. Common thing for management to do, creates friction between the union and members.

              1. And don’t look now, but the owners seem like they are going to ask the union to recertify via…CARDS!

                Oh noes!

                I remember the Boeing discussions when people had to admit they did not know labor law basics like the state purpose of the law, what a closed shop was, and that employers have long been able to invoke the use of cards. Amazingly days after rabid cons were still telling me how I got owned in those discussions, talk about confirmation bias…

                1. And don’t look now, but the owners seem like they are going to ask the union to recertify via…CARDS!

                  Wasn’t every NFL player a member of the NFLPA, though? I’m not so sure the comparison is completely valid, since the owners would understandably want the players to show they were union members in good standing before negotiating with a recertified union.

                  I’m not certain that all Boeing employees were union members, although I could be mistaken about that.

                  1. The cards will be used to recertify the union which decertified so the anti-trust suit could move forward (there is a labor exemption to anti-trust laws), which is what card check proponents want, but union initiated.

                    I’m not comparing the Boeing and NFL situation but chuckling over the ignorance of labor law that was displayed here in discussions of the former. The rage was positively correlated with ignorance it seemed…

                2. What color is the sky in your world MNG? I am sure it is a nice place for you. It must be nice to think that places like Detroit where unions destroyed every industry they ever touched don’t exist.

                  1. Wow, talk about a goal post change! We’re talking about the NFL labor situation and the coming use of OH NOES cards and John says “b-but, Detroit automakers!”

                    BTW John, how are those unionized German auto makers doing?

          2. They still want to be able to sue the NFL.

            1. From what I understand the real miscue by the union was not keeping those in the anti-trust suit informed; now they have to ask the to drop the suit when they have gained nothing via the negotiations but could via the suit.

      2. Gray Ghost outs himself as an ABBA fan.

        1. Not sure how that follows my comment, and my mother is one of the largest ABBA fans ever. I don’t know what Hell looks like, but one of the soundtracks in the waiting room is Voulez-Vous on continuous loop.

          And yeah, I thought one of the first thing litigators learned was to carry all settlement offers to their clients. Really surprising if he kept his clients in the dark about the contents of the Owners’ offers.

    1. But it’s an open question whether any president or policy mix could do much to revive the economy after the bursting of the credit bubble.

      No it’s not, you disingenuous motherfuckers.

      1. No kidding. What a bunch of crap. I don’t blame any president for the cyclical nature of the economy, but years of directly undermining it during a downturn is going to take its toll. We always used to lead the world in recovery, and now in many cases we’re lagging. That isn’t happening by accident.

        1. I don’t blame any president for the cyclical nature of the economy, but years of directly undermining it during a downturn is going to take its toll.

          This has to be taken into account, but I see this article more as CYA-mongering by the press. It’s the same chin-stroking mental masturbation that we saw in the “Is America Ungovernable?” articles from late 2009-early 2010. It’s a classic case of excuse-mongering for a President that’s not living up to the hype they’ve created for him since 2004.

          The entire tone of the article is a basic confirmation of what was discussed in comments yesterday–that Obama likes the idea of being President more than he actually likes being President. That he thought it was going to be just like all the episodes of the West Wing that he watched, where the earnest liberal President overcomes and outmaneuvers the Evil Forces of Conservatism to create a stable, hive-minded society devoted to Baby Boomer leftism.

          The man always seems genuninely pissed when people don’t roll over for him–his press conferences and townhalls typically degrade quickly into a rhetorical soup of intellectually lazy analogies and Gen-Y jive-talking that comes off as petulant and childish outside of college campuses and the media hugbox.

          He hasn’t even been in office for 3 years, and it already feels like 30.

    1. Government owned and run housing has been such a success everywhere it has been tried, what could go wrong? Obama might seriously be the dumbest human being ever to hold high office in this country, certainly the top ten. It is like nothing has happened in his world since 1946.

      1. More like the history books these jackasses learned from has blank pages where 1929-1940 should be.

      2. Dumbest. Fucker. Ever.

    2. And, of course, what are the methods used by central planners to determine “gluts” and the proper figures for “stability”?

      In 1933, Roosevelt became President and appointed Morgenthau governor of the Federal Farm Board. Morgenthau was nonetheless involved in monetary decisions. Roosevelt adopted the idea of raising the price of gold to drive down the value of the dollar, thereby raising the price of all goods ? especially farm goods. The idea came from Professor George Warren of Cornell University, and despite the opposition to the idea, Morgenthau was willing to help him. When Roosevelt told Morgenthau he was thinking of raising the price of gold by 21 cents, his entourage asked him why. “It’s a lucky number,” Roosevelt said. “Because it’s three times seven.” As Morgenthau later wrote, “If anybody knew how we really set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers, etc., I think they would be frightened.”

      1. headless chickens. EOM.

      2. TOP. MEN.

      3. Good thing we had an intelligent person like FDR running things. Much better than an idiot conservative who’d let the market set the price! Ugh!

    3. Holy shit. The fact that they are even considering this is appalling.

      1. Appall is what they do best.

        1. Bee on the pail.

          1. Blood on the scarecrow.

            1. Cat in the oven.

              1. Goat in the garden.

    4. I thought we were calling these Indian leopard roundups.

    1. Did they look under the driver’s seat of the Chrysler?

      1. Yes, but all they found were some fries that fell out of Michelle Obama’s McDonald’s bag.

    2. “The fact that the company has done so well — that they were able to go out and raise private capital to repay us the loan so quickly, is really the big story,” said Tim Massad, Treasury assistant secretary for financial stability.

      That’s why you’re still only an *assistant* secretary, Tim.

    3. Oh, it’s MUCH worse than that. Why in the world would CNN accept government assertions and figures for their sto….oh, never mind.

      1. And even if the figure was true, Crysler is no closer to being a profitable corporation today than it was three years ago. We spent that money for nothing other than for the Unions to steal it.

        1. The unions aren’t the only ones who made out like bandits. Not included in the $1.44 B: “team auto” allowed Chrysler to write off $4 B in debt.

          Fiat was flat out given 20% ownership. A call option was then granted, allowing Fiat to buy up to 16% of Chrysler stock at a reduced price, provided Chrysler paid back at least $3.5 billion of the remaining $7.6 billion owed to the Treasury Department.

          Private banks wouldn’t end Fiat more money. But Team Auto member Steven Chu (Secretary of Energy) pulled a low-interest Energy Department loan out of his ass for Fiat to develop fuel-efficient vehicles. Magically, it was just the right amount, $3.5 billion.

          In exchange, Fiat will develop a green economy car for Chrysler. It is expected to get 40 mpg ? almost as good as a 1978 Toyota.

          The call option and the Energy Department loan (to pay the Treasury Department loan) will allow Fiat to accumulate a 57% stake in Chrysler by the end of this year.

          Bottom line: Team Auto “rescued” Chrysler, an American company currently worth $5 billion, at a cost of $6.44 billion (the $4 billion cancelled plus the amount owed to the Bush administration) and converted it into an Italian company in the process.

          Great work. TOP. MEN.

        2. Oh, and after more than two years of “tough love”, nine of the 12 vehicles on Forbes’ “The Worst Cars on The Road” list for 2011 were from GM and Chrysler.

          None were from Ford, who got themselves out of trouble without taking a bailout.

    4. So they buy a car company with the compelling interest of saving the domestic automakers, then sell it to an Italian car company, losing $1.3 billion in the process. Only the government would be so brilliant.

      How many middle class workers slaved away to pay the $1.3b in tax money lost to turn an American company into a foreign one? Absolutely sickening. The fact that they’re trying to pass this off as a success is even more so.

  11. http://www.dispatch.com/live/c…..ml?sid=101

    What the hell is the matter with people?

    1. When South Park is reality, satire is impossible.

    2. Yeah, I thought Pelosi’s ethic committee was finished.

    3. “I’m not sure that there was a criminal violation….

      Really? Fer cerals?

    4. The inspections provided no clues to which child had diarrhea, Lieber said. The pool was thoroughly cleaned and reopened yesterday, he said.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PmMFaVzbzc

      1. Uh, right. See ya next summer.

      2. What a shame. They had the cane out and ready to go, too.

  12. Syracuse resident faces burglary, forcible touching charges

    A 17-year-old man is accused of breaking into a home and inappropriately touching a resident late Tuesday.

    Shaquille Thomas, 17, of 124 Elmhurst Ave., was charged with burglary, a felony, and forcible touching, a misdemeanor.

    A woman and her boyfriend were in a bedroom when they heard someone enter and call to the boyfriend by name, saying “you set me up.” The boyfriend ran from the house to get help and the suspect dragged the female to another room, sat on her on the floor and touched her inappropriately. The woman was yelling through the incident.

    The boyfriend returned with a neighbor. While the boyfriend pulled the female to safety, the neighbor fought with Thomas and held him in a headlock until police arrived.

    No boyfriends were shot. Nothing else happened.

    http://www.syracuse.com/news/i…..urgla.html

    1. yeah we get it Dunphy, the 2% of cops who are not dog killing, camera grabbing, evidence tampering lunatics do a lot of good work.

      1. And, once again it’s news that the cops actually managed to do the right thing, you know, like they are fucking SUPPOSED to.

        1. The cops didn’t do shit. The boyfriend and the neighbor did all the work. POS pig did little more than drive the perp down to the station.

      2. Sounds like the boyfriend and the neighbor did the good work, the cops arrived too late. Though I bet they put up some crime scene tape and wrote a report. Maybe citizens should be allowed to buy crime scene tape and government reports and we can cut out the middlemen.

        1. True, the cops are usually just the clean-up crew and arrive after the crime has already taken place. Unless they are busting in at 3:00 am to shoot your dog.

      3. Forcible touching? How odd. How is that different from battery?

        1. You have to apply the GoodTouch/BadTouch standard.

          1. “Show me on your dead dog where he touched you.”

        2. Forcible touching probably includes a life sentence on the sex offender list.

          1. Not sure about that, but it will get you kicked out of Stanford.

            1. The accusation will get you kicked out, anyway.

    2. The neighbor wasn’t charged with kidnapping for forcibly holding the man against his will?

      I’m shocked!

    3. ‘It smells like doo-doo’ quip prompted cops’ attack, Bronx teen Tyre Davis says

      A Bronx teen said two cops roughed him up when he mouthed off after one of them stepped in a pile of dog doo.

      Officers Joseph Murphy, 26, and Jose Ocasio, 28, were charged Monday with assault, accused of beating up Tyre Davis, 17, outside a police stationhouse Feb. 18.

      “It smells like doo-doo,” he remembers saying and then immediately regretting when he saw a uniformed cop scraping his shoe clean.

      “I was like, ‘Oh, man – why did I say that?'”Davis said.

      At that point, he said other officers in an unmarked van nearby scolded him for making a joke, then handcuffed him and took him to the 46th Precinct.

      He said Murphy and Ocasio followed him when he was released after getting a disorderly conduct summons and led him into an alley. One punched him in the right ear, the other in the forehead, he said.

      Davis said he fell and hit his head on a brick wall during the 30-second attack. “I thought I was going to die,” he said.

      Bronx teen arrested, beaten for mouthing off to cop

      1. Bronx teen arrested, beaten for mouthing off to cop

        And nothing else happened?

        1. HE WASN’T EVEN SHOT

      2. You forgot, “Nothing else happened.”

      3. Disorderly Conduct? For saying It smells like doo-doo?

        I had a friend in college who was stopped by a cop for questioning. She’s this little thing and hardly a threat to anyone. Anyways, the cop was getting a little in her face, so she started to feel scared. She pushed away from the guy to back away. And then she gets an assault charge for even touching the poor cop.

        1. Cops are delicate little flowers. Their perfumed forms can’t handle contact with the unwashed masses.

        2. Once a cop gets it in his mind that he’s going to arrest you, it is only a matter of time before he provokes an action that gives him an excuse.
          That action could be anything from turning your back to disobeying an order.

          If he don’t like you you will go to jail or at least be given a fine.

          That’s why cops love their job. They have arbitrary power to ruin someone’s day.

    4. This dipshit posted this at least twice on different threads.

      Whats ridiculous is that someone thinks there’s a real point there. Why don’t you stand up and defend it tough guy? No, you wont. You just piss on the stoop and run away. Way to impress the crowd with your moral superiority. “Cops dont’ always fuck up!” We know, shithead. If you think that’s an excuse for excusing the percentage who do and get away with it without so much as an apology, you’re fucking retarded.

      1. It means we’re winning, Gilmore, and that they’re starting to run scared. The progression is: ignore, mock, debate, lose. They’re at early-stage of debate.

        1. It sounds more like the late stages of mock to me, unless you think these comments represent an honest attempt to debate.

          1. I thought it was cover so you couldn’t argue that the HnR commentariate is nothing but a bunch of cop-bashing reactionaries.

          2. Well, there’s certainly a lot of slap-worthy petulance (“nothing else happened”) in the comments posted by AII, and I can’t characterize them as honest debate but I think they fall on the side of debate rather than mockery. Remember, there’s not a bright line.

    5. Cops find two black men walking on the street, but don’t kill them!

      1. [citation needed]

  13. At this point the officer pulled out his handcuffs and told the man to never to walk away from an officer

    I understand that it is unwise, stupid, blah-blah to walk away from a cop who has not arrested you. Is it illegal?

    1. It is whatever the cop says it is unless you’ve got it on video, and even that doesn’t matter because video can be erased.

    1. There’s a good reason why Curt ate a shotgun.

      1. Because people couldn’t be bother to spell his 4-letter name correctly?

        1. Why bother? The only Seattle sound I recognize is Hendrix.

  14. CERN ‘gags’ physicists in cosmic ray climate experiment
    The chief of the world’s leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva has prohibited scientists from drawing conclusions from a major experiment. The CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets”) experiment examines the role that energetic particles from deep space play in cloud formation. CLOUD uses CERN’s proton synchrotron to examine nucleation.

    CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told Welt Online that the scientists should refrain from drawing conclusions from the latest experiment.

    “I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them,” reports veteran science editor Nigel Calder on his blog. Why?

    Because, Heuer says, “That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.”…

    1. The next climate debate bombshell
      …Last year, Denmark’s University of Aarhus did another experiment with a particle accelerator that fully confirmed the Svensmark hypothesis: cosmic rays help to make more clouds and thus could cool the earth.

      The CERN experiment is supposed to be the big test of the Svensmark theory. It’s a tipoff, then, that CERN’s boss, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, has just told the German magazine Die Welt that he has forbidden his researchers to “interpret” the forthcoming test results. In other words, the CERN report will be a stark “just the facts” listing of the findings. Those findings must support Svensmark, or Heuer would never have issued such a stifling order on a major experiment.

        1. Hit of what?

          1. Pass it!

    2. I am sure if it supported global warming they would do the same. The AGW cult is going to kill all of science if we are not careful.

      1. Nah. There are enough Feynmanists in science for it to weather this storm, too.

        “I believe in limited government. I believe that government should be limited in many ways, and what I am going to emphasize is only an intellectual thing. I don’t want to talk about everything at the same time. Let’s take a small piece, an intellectual thing.
        No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literacy or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race. “

        1. If Feynman were alive today, he would absolutely destroy the AGW people. I don’t think he would be getting many fawning PBS specials.

        2. But, but, but if it isn’t defined by government and backed with threat of violence, how can it be true?
          The only thing keeping us from floating off the ground is the Law of gravity.
          It’s a Law. That means it was passed by Congress, right?
          And if they repeal it we’ll all float away, right?

          1. The only thing keeping us from floating off the ground is the Law of gravity…

            Yes, and imagine how easy it would be for Big Auto to meet the new CAFE stds if Congress would just repeal this arbitrary law. Down with Big Gravity!

            1. Big Gravity continues its assault. Fat, poor women hardest hit.

              1. How do they deal with the fact that Gaia is the #1 investor in Big Gravity?

        3. I do agree that as climate science becomes more mature, the hard scientists will drive out the bootlickers that currently dominate the field (at least in terms of publicity and government influence).

          1. Nature can’t be fooled. The truth will eventually come out. The problem is the damage these people will do in the mean time.

            1. Any change in the climate will be blamed on human activity and used as an excuse for more government action, and any non-change will be credited to government action and used as an excuse for more government action.

              Heads they win, tails you lose.

          2. Not so sure. The bootlickers are indoctrinating the upcoming scientists. Look at the rest of the academy in the last few decades for corroboration of this problem.

          3. /sarcasm off

            I wish, but I don’t think so. Once something becomes government policy, it becomes a tautology.

            Hard science has shown that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but policy does not change. It is illegal because it is illegal, and will remain that way.

            Hard science has shown that ethanol uses more energy to produce than you get from burning it, but policy does not change. It is mandated because it is mandated, and it will remain that way.

            /sarcasm on

            Lawyers are smarter than scientists. That is why matters of science are decided in court and Congress.

            1. The truth does come out in the end. The problem is that it can take decades for that to happen.

              1. You have more faith than I.
                Which is not surprising because if you have any faith at all you have more than I do, since I have none.

            2. The truth about AGW could be determined in a Student Court. Bring on your logic and persuasiveness rapists deniers.

            3. OK, but remember, we were responding to John’s assertion that “The AGW cult is going to kill all of science if we are not careful.”

              That policy makers will continue to be jackasses regardless is a no brainer.

              1. When science is decided by government policy, it is no longer science. Matters of science are not decided by lawyers and bureaucrats.

                So I must agree with John that if the AGW cult continues to put government force behind false science, science will indeed die.

                1. Yes, yes, any rational person would believe that you amatuer scientists and admitted ideologues with explicitly stated strong feelings about how acceptance of AGW would be used politically are right on this subject and the dozens of scientific professional associations and the thousands of their members with superior training and experience are wrong. Why who could think otherwise?

                  1. Credentialism, appeals to authority. How could anyone deny such iron clad logic?

                    1. Why say in 12 words what can just as easily be said in two?

                    2. How could anyone not be impressed with your sides consistent misunderstanding of what an appeal to authority entails?

                      It’s not a fallacy to claim that people with more experience and education on a subject are more likely to be right about that subject.

                    3. It’s not a fallacy to claim that people with more experience and education on a subject are more likely to be right about that subject.

                      But it is a fallacy to make acceptance that human activity is causing climate change an precondition to joining the group that is studying what is causing the climate to change.

                      It is called “begging the question”.

                    4. Dude, that is not “begging the question”, that’s just a social phenomena you’re talking about, and one that is highly unlikely for the reasons I explain below.

                    5. Begging the question, like all formal fallacies, has to do with ARGUMENTS, not what people do or demand.

                      Jesus, you logic-citers, have you ever cracked an actual logic textbook?

                    6. By definition using your conclusion as a premise is “begging the question”.

                    7. Look at how confused you are. Fallacies refer to arguments but you were talking about what a group is supposedly demanding.

                      “make acceptance that human activity is causing climate change an precondition to joining the group that is studying what is causing the climate to change.”

                      You not only misunderstand logic, you don’t know what it refers to!

                    8. It’s not a fallacy to claim that people with more experience and education on a subject are more likely to be right about that subject.

                      True, but that is not what you do. You claim that because they have credentials, they are immune from criticism and their dishonesty should be ignored.

                      You are the least self aware person I know. I don’t think you understand your own arguments. You just do shit like this without even knowing you are doing it.

                    9. “You claim that because they have credentials, they are immune from criticism and their dishonesty should be ignored.”

                      Where do I do that John? Please point this out.

                    10. Every time you deny that climate gate is relevent MNG. Everytime you claim that their avoiding FOIA laws is irrelevent MNG.

                    11. Do you not see the massive fallacy you are making? It’s called the fallacy of generalization and its in your use of the word “their” and “they” as in “they have credentials, they are immune from criticism and their dishonesty”.

                      At best (and I stress at best, because from hearing you talk about it what I gather is you fundamentally don’t understand what was going on in “climte gate”), what you have from climate gate is something to cast doubt on the work of THOSE INVOLVED in climate gate. Go look at the entire IPP report: it has dozens of authors and cites hundreds others who were not involved in climate gate. To argue the latter’s work and conclusions are suspect because of climate gate actually shows how fundamentally confused or dishonest you are on this subject.

                    12. I don’t think you understand your own arguments.

                      He feels that he is right, therefore he must be right.
                      His mind cannot be persuaded because his mind is not involved.

                    13. You’re an obvious ideologue who abhors the political implications of AGW, you have little experience or accomplishment in the relevant fields and seemingly a tenous grasp of basic logic, yet your opposition to the findings of people with far more training and accomplishment in this area than you is motivted by thinking and my deference to their superior training is motivated by feeling.

                      Right, sure.

                    14. Essentially you are telling me that scientists with their computer models can predict the future, and if we don’t give up more liberties to the government the world is going to end.

                      They’re really really smart so they must be right. Right?

                      I am a skeptic who can see a doomsday cult for what it is.
                      It goes something like this – the world is going to end unless we do something!

                      That’s a doomsday cult.

                      Shroud it in all the “science” you want, but it is still a doomsday cult.

                      Nobody can predict the future. Nobody. Anyone who says they can is delusional or a liar.

                      Anyone who believes them is delusional or dumb.

                    15. MNG:

                      You will never convince me that AGW scientists are not significantly more likely than the mean to be, as you put it, “obvious ideologues”.

                      Since Rachel Carson’s time, the ENTIRE REASON one would even seek to study environmental science in the first place is because you START OUT with ideological biases.

                      Sorry.

                      And before you shriek that I’m an obvious ideologue, too, remember that my opinion on AGW policy is the same whether the scientific claims made by climatologists are true or not. So I don’t particularly care about the science one way or the other.

                    16. Since Rachel Carson’s time, the ENTIRE REASON one would even seek to study environmental science in the first place is because you START OUT with ideological biases.

                      Good point.

                    17. It’s not a fallacy to claim that people with more experience and education on a subject are more likely to be right about that subject.

                      It becomes fallacious if you assert that they must be right.

                      Especially when you use that as a substitute for presenting an actual argument based on anything else.

                    18. So, these guys aren’t part of the scientific community, MNG?

                    1. Ah, Pippie, such language from such a comely lass!

                  2. If scientists receive their funding from X, then it would make sense that they have an interest in producing results that please the source of their funding.

                    Unless X is a government body interested in having power over others through taxation and regulation.

                    Once government becomes involved, then you can trust them.

                    If X was an evil profit grubbing core-pour-ray-shun, then of course you can’t trust the results.

                    But government can be trusted.

                    Government is honest and trustworthy.
                    Government never lies or cheats.
                    Government never abuses power.

                    Government is god.

                    1. Its statements like this that actually undermine your argument by displaying colossal ignorance of how scientific institutions in this nation work. A great deal of scientific funding is private. And we know that a great many private entities of considerable resources would not like to see AGW be used politically against them, so it’s pretty inconcievable that there is not plenty of funding for contrary research to be done.

                      As to government research we’ve had numerous federal and state administrations politically unfriendly to AGW, are we to believe that under, say, the Watt era the federal government was involved in promoting AGW for socialist reasons? The level of consipiracy thinking here reaches tin foil levels.

                      There are thousands of scientists in the relevant fields, dozens if not hundreds of journals with various editors and reviewers, hundreds of funding sources. The idea that there is a concentrated coordinated effort or even a one-sided incentive tendency is laughable to anyone who has ever been involved in that area.

                    2. Consensus is a tool of politics, not science.

                      Science is not something to be voted on. Voting is a tool of politics, not science.

                      Science is not determined by popularity. Popularity is a tool of politics, not science.

                      AGW is politics, not science.

                    3. Consensus is a tool of politics, not science.

                      True story. The Nazis had hundred of scientists denounce relativity as “Jewish Science”. When asked about it Einstein replied If it were true, only one of them would have to sign it.

                      Appealing to a “consensus” just shows you either don’t understand the argument or have no argument to make. “They all think this so it must be true” is the definition of an appeal to authority.

                    4. Everyone should read Feynman’s 1974 CalTech Commencement address. I had it beat into me by a Unit Ops lab teacher who was an alumnus of CIT from that era who did believe in specifically teaching “utter scientific integrity”.

                      ” But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves–of
                      having utter scientific integrity–is, I’m sorry to say, something
                      that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that
                      I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.

                      The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are
                      the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about
                      that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other
                      scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after
                      that.

                      I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science,
                      but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool
                      the layman when you’re talking as a scientist.”

                    5. Nice story.

                      If I were arguing that something were true simply because a lot of people say it is then you may have something. But what I’m arguing is that it is more likely that most people with training in the relevant field are right in what they say than a bunch of politically motivated amateurs. At 10:32 you even admitted this is “True”

                    6. John|7.22.11 @ 10:32AM|#
                      It’s not a fallacy to claim that people with more experience and education on a subject are more likely to be right about that subject.

                      True,”

                      So there you have it. You admit, as any rational, sane person would have to, that it is more likely that people with experience and training in the relevant field are right and amatuers are not.

                      So now you only have one argument, you can try to dispute the premise that more people in the relevant fields conclude some form of AGW is occuring.

                      Knock yourself out with that one.

                    7. I love how you cut out the second half of what I said. “More likely” doesn’t mean always. And that is not what you claim. You claim they are above criticism and that we should ignore the obvious flaws in their science. That is the problem. If they were not such obvious liars and hadn’t been caught in so much dishonestly, their credentials would be persuasive.

                      You, because you know you have a losing argument and can never admit that the other side has a valid point much less that you are wrong, ignore the problems with the science and appeal to credentials. That would be bad enough. But for you to then have the nerve to deny you are appealing to credentials makes you a troll.

                    8. So there you have it. You admit, as any rational, sane person would have to, that it is more likely that people with experience and training in the relevant field are right and amatuers are not.

                      So now you only have one argument, you can try to dispute the premise that more people in the relevant fields conclude some form of AGW is occuring.

                      Whoa whoa whoa whoa.

                      That’s not how it works, douche.

                      It’s not automatically a fallacious argument to advance a qualified and contingent argument based on “expert” opinion…

                      …but advancing it doesn’t place a burden of refutation on your listener.

                      Using “more likely” as a qualifier protects your argument from being called a per se fallacy, but it doesn’t constitute a proof, and therefore no one is obligated to try to refute any of its premises.

                      We can just say, “Yeah, it’s more likely, but it’s not proven, so – MEH MEH MEH MEH a hundred more MEH’s in a row.”

                    9. We can just say, “Yeah, it’s more likely, but it’s not proven, so – MEH MEH MEH MEH a hundred more MEH’s in a row.”

                      But they’re really really smart and MNG is really really stupid, so MNG is going to believe whatever they say and defend it by saying “They’re really really smart and I don’t understand anything they’re talking about which means they’re really really smart so they must be right because they’re really really smart and I’m a moron!”

                    10. Did anybody else notice how MNG tried to sneak his way from:

                      “My argument is not a logical fallacy when presented in this form”

                      to

                      “That means my argument is proven and now you have to refute it”?

                      What a sneaky little douche.

                    11. Switch the burden of proof and bug out.

                      It’s right next to the race card in the progressive bag of tricks.

                    12. Shorter MNG:

                      “You’re an ideologue! I win!”

                    13. It would be more likely that they are right, if they hadn’t been caught lying so many times. That is the fact you ignore and why you have nothing left but bare appeals to authority.

                    14. But what I’m arguing is that it is more likely that most people with training in the relevant field are right in what they say than a bunch of politically motivated amateurs.

                      Uh, no? You are arguing that some really really smart people can predict the future, and they’re predictions are right because they’re really really smart. Anyone who disagrees with them is a dumb politically motivated amateur who cannot divine the future, so they must be wrong.

                      In part you are correct. I cannot divine the future.

                      But neither can the climate priests scientists.

                      And the government should not be basing policy on their predictions.

                    15. You’re seriously confused on this subject. Of course truth is not a popularity contest. The question is, if most people who know more about subject X think Y about it, what’s more likely, that they are correct or that another group Z who has much less training and experience in that subject is correct? You’re confusing the basic argument I’m making yet we are to believe you have a better handle on the science here. WTF?

                    16. MNG, I am more likely to know what I am talking about with regard to the Law of War, even though that doesn’t stop you from claiming otherwise. But if I told you something like “it is legal to bomb grade schools with glass projectiles”, my credentials wouldn’t make me right. Who cares, what is more likely. The question is what about the problems with the science and the bad behavior on their part?

                    17. As I see it it comes down to this:

                      Should the government be basing policy on the predictions of glorified weathermen?

                      I say no. Hell no. No fuckity no no no!

                  3. Oh, and JOOS!

    3. We are the priests
      Of the temples of Climate.

  15. There is no way he can give up the individual mandate

    1. A-HEM!

  16. Once they start giving up big pieces of ObamaCare they risk losing it all.

    My prediction: The Supreme Court will strike ObamaCare down in a way that creates a govt friendly precedent. Something about as worthwhile as “Obama didn’t wear a red tie when he signed it”. That will

    a. Get the electoral albatross off the Dems neck.
    b. Allow Dems to tell their followers “we didn’t fail; we waz robbed”.
    c. Prevent a badly written law from doing damage that the Dems don’t have bipartisan cover for – if ObamaCare is gone they can say it would have done all sort of wonderful things w/o reality contradicting them.
    d. The “red tie” precedent means that next time the Prez will wear the right tie and Dems will claim that precedent now says their law is Constitutional.

    1. The hope for the above is that the Tea Partiers will take the fake precedent as a “win” and then go away forever, only to have something similar passed later.

      1. What drugs are you using now?

        1. I’m high on life.

    2. They are screwed. Since they passed it without a single Republican vote, they now own the healthcare in this country. And that means they get all of the blame for everything that goes bad.

      Reid Pelosi and Obama are supremely stupid politicians. Someone Tip O’Neil or Carl Albert would have never passed such a huge bill without some support from the other party for the very reason that they wouldn’t want to get all of the blame if things went wrong. We really do have the dumbest political class in history.

      1. Reid Pelosi and Obama are supremely stupid politicians. Someone Tip O’Neil or Carl Albert would have never passed such a huge bill without some support from the other party for the very reason that they wouldn’t want to get all of the blame if things went wrong.

        Which is why the libs on the SC will bail them out by overturning it on a fake pretense.

        1. No Kennedy will bail them out. It will go down by a five four vote. That will allow leftists to tell themselves that the promised land was in sight until the evil conservative courts denied them that. Most of what they do is about writing the failure narative so they feel better.

          1. Expect more “only extremists care about the Constitution” and “democracy has failed” articles.

  17. HAve we won in Libya yet?

    1. We *are* getting awfully close to the Aug. 2 deadline.

    2. I’ll get back to you on that right after my round of golf this weekend. Promise.

  18. IT’S DEADLINE DAY!!!

    Oh, right. Obama said never mind about that. Now we have until August 2nd before we DEFAULT ON THE DEBT AND ALL HELL BREAKS LOSE!

    1. Fatty Bolger|7.22.11 @ 9:01AM|#
      IT’S DEADLINE DAY!!!

      Odd are they announce a deal in the next few hours. I have $50 on it.

  19. Nothing on Greece’s “selective” default?

    1. Well, the IMF is part of the bailout so any country which puts taxpayer money into the IMF is part of the bailout. So the US taxpayer will probably get stuck with a bill that adds up to more then the spending cuts that are being talked about in Washington but you won’t here much talk about that since everyone in power is happy to hide the fact behind the IMF label. Just like the hide behind the NATO label when it comes to the war in Libya.

  20. http://www.investors.com/NewsA…..llende.htm

    Another cold war leftist myth bites the dust.

    1. shot himself “with a gold-plated submachine gun”

      what a super villian way to go.

      1. When you’re alone, and you fart, and you say “Pardon me” … that’s class.

      2. Gifted to him by Castro, no less!

    2. Absent a video of the suicide, or eyewitnesses, how can you know it was a suicide? Especially when an exhumed body is your forensic evidence. I mean, a contact gun shot wound to the head when someone else is holding the gun can look like a contact gun shot wound when the victim is holding the gun. All I would think you could do by forensic analysis is not rule out suicide as explaining the wound. You couldn’t look at the wound and definitely say it was suicide, excluding foul play.

  21. It’s funny the way Nick uses “environmental.” Specifically, he’s referring to the “non-shared environment,” the thing nobody understands. The term didn’t arise until the twin studies because most right-thinking people assumed huge environmental effects. Thus what everyone thinks of as the “environment” is now the “shared environment,” the thing that doesn’t matter much.

    Also, I enjoy mocking people who suggests things like copying schools in rich, educated neighborhoods as if the schools are successful because of however they’re structured. But Caplan is absurdly determinist.

  22. https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_2406852

    Is Rather the Chief Fellatio Coordinator for Police ™, or was that a quoting error, or something else?

    1. Rather claims someone regularly sockpuppets her.

    2. Rather claims someone regularly sockpuppets her.

      And why are my posts being eaten by the spam filter? Help! Help! I am being repressed!

      1. Your posts, like Montgomery Soctt, are just getting trapped in the transporter, obviously.

  23. In news unrelated to anything…

    The NY Bagel Tax has finally started to be enforced in the city.

    A bacon-egg-&-cheese went from about $3 to $3.50+

    Yeah, I know…. worst city in the world, yadda yadda yadaa. Thought you’d enjoy actual evidence of such.

    And yeah, it was 90 degrees at 8AM. Bring it on, haters!

  24. You know what’s fun when it’s a billion degrees? Rolling fucking blackouts. Fuck you, Cleveland Public Power. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck you.

    1. Actually, I guess it’s brownouts, not rolling blackouts. Fuck them even more.

      1. Ha ha~!

        AND you live in cleveland! Its a double whammy of screw! At least my overtaxed expensive bagels are *good*. And the airconditioning works all day.

        If ithe AC wasn’t working I think there would indeed be some kind of Do The Right Thing social meltdown/riots going on. Shit. Is. HOT. it was like 98 the other day. By 9AM. It was 87 at midnight last night. If Con Ed fails, we’re in a whole lotta trouble. Not even August yet…

        1. Bagels are disgusting, no matter where you are and how Jewy the Jew who made them is.

          But yes, I considered having a riot. Good thing the blackout was just during then night.

        2. My favorite part of living in NYC during the hot summer was getting on a subway without AC.

          You could smell the vomit/piss/BO much, much better.

    2. We couldn’t build a power plant or anything. That would be bad for the environment. Dying, in contrast is great for the environment. So just die like a good little prole and shut up.

    3. Guy in Cleveland complains about Cleveland, doesn’t move away.

      1. Anonopussy says something passive-aggressive. Fuck you, anonopussy.

        1. Guy in Cleveland says, “Fuck you,” stays in Cleveland, gets laughed at.

          1. Piss off, asscunt.

    4. Call Drew Carey.

  25. that actually makes a lot of sense dude.

    http://www.net-privacy.us.tc

  26. How Sci Fi prepares politicians for the future.

    See, this way, they know it’s bad for the children before they try it as a policy.

    Male infertility caused by MUTANT SPERM!!!

    Okay, reason: Which X-Man do you want to sire? And no, no one wants to give birth to Dazzler.

  27. U.S. police deaths up 14% so far in 2011, report says

    Steve Groeniger, senior director of communications for the fund, said the spike was significant given that 2010 was a particularly hard year for officers.

    “The real takeaway for us here is that in addition to fatalities across the board being up 14% … what really rises to the top is gunfire fatalities,” Groeniger said.

    Firearm fatalities have reached a 20-year high, replacing traffic accidents as the primary cause of law enforcement deaths, the report said. Forty officers were killed in firearms-related incidents in the first half of 2011, compared to 30 officers in all of 2010.

    I wonder how many of these firearms-related incidents were self-inflicted or from negligence on the officers’ parts?

      1. How boring. Cleveland lifer hates cops.

        1. How boring. Anonopussy has nothing to say. Nothing else happened.

    1. I wonder how many are from space aliens.

      1. I wonder why I’m such a little passive-aggressive shitstain. And nothing else happens.

        1. I wonder why Cleveland Warty pretends to be me.

          1. Bad guess, Anonopussy. You’re terrible at all sorts of things, aren’t you?

    2. I vote we take away their access to firearms and see if it declines.

  28. http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/?p=2327

    Interesting take ont he debt and the governing class.

    1. Apparently, the Brits hate the fact that we turn nouns into verbs by adding -ize to the end of them. And using zee for zed.

      1. Zed just sounds stupid. Suck it, Commonwealth.

        1. Ya, what are they, fucking Canadian?

        2. Zed’s dead baby

      2. You mean like sodomize?

        1. Don’t forget “plagiarize.”

        2. Brits don’t ‘sodomize’ they either ‘sodomise’ or ‘commit sodomy’

    2. BUGGER OFF!

    3. They have two choices – STFU; or deliberately expunge the foulness from “their own” language, and thereby become as insufferable as the French.

      Anyway, it’s cute how they call it an “invasion” – apparently the meaning of the word is different over there.

      1. I think they meant invazion.

        1. invasioun?

          1. Envasion.

    4. I’ll give them a few …. some are less “Americanisms” than Corporate Bullshit talk, and they annoy me too.

      E.g: “Touch base”, “Going forward”, “deliverable”, “Reach out to”, “issue” instead of a “problem”.

      You can see how they’d get Americanisms mixed up Corpo-BS, since they all probably work for American Companies by now.

      1. Touch base probably doesn’t mean anything if you didn’t grow up playing baseball or softball.

    5. The “American Invasion” business is so much BS. They didn’t do much research on which words were actually Americanisms. Language Log has been debunking this stuff all week. A bunch of the words are first attested in British writing, not American. Just more crap “journalism.”

    6. My favorite is how the word “table”, as in “table an issue” means the exact opposite in American vs British english. Makes for some confusion on international conference calls i’ve been on. (The Brit said he wanted to “table” and issue, and then he started talking about it ??)

    1. 48. “I got it for free” is a pet hate. You got it “free” not “for free”. You don’t get something cheap and say you got it “for cheap” do you? Mark Jones, Plymouth

      I say “for cheap”. Doesn’t everyone who speaks English?

      1. “on the cheap” is how the cool kids say it.

        1. el cheapo grande

      2. Oh, for cute!

      3. Makes as much sense as “good value for money.”

      4. And “for free” as opposed to just “free” actually dis-ambiguates between “I got it at zero cost” and “I got it unstuck”.

  29. Should more restaurants ban children?
    By Janice D’Arcy
    It’s been a few days since a casual-dining restaurant in little Monroeville, Pa. imposed a ban on children under 6 and now, reviews are in. If the Michelin Guide or Zagat’s offered a rating on popular support, it would have to consider McDains Restaurant.

    The child ban at McDains has received an inordinate amount of attention, as fans across the nation heralded the cranky 64-year-old owner as a hero for standing up to the current culture of selfish parents. E-mails to the owner are apparently running 11-to-1 in favor.

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

    1. As a parent, I say…Fuck Yeah.

      On those rare nights where I can shrug off my parental duties, I always prefer child-free places. Thankfully, I have plenty to choose from. They’re called Bars.

      1. Would that this were always true. I get that pubs in the U.K. are for the whole family, and therefore I shouldn’t be surprised when I see a hipster couple pushing a stroller into a U.S. pub-style bar, but it’s still annoying. It’s called a babysitter, people. Another downside of the indoor smoking ban.

    2. Yes.

      (I have a child under six)

      1. Good friends of mine have 5 year old twins. They have never figured out that it is their job to teach their daughters how to behave respectfully to others in public places. Every time they ask us to join them at a restaurant I cringe.

        1. I know people like that either. Parents don’t get it that their job as parents is to provide for the safety and welfare of their kids while teaching them the rules of civilization. Their job is not to be liked by their kids or be their kids friends or make their kids feel special. They are the adults. Why can’t they act like it?

        2. The number of times I’ve wanted to reach out and shake somebody like that is astonishing.

          Last time out, some little brat was crawling all over the place. The mother was going “please stop”, “I’m going to tell your father”, and then finally “I’m going to call the police”. Are you fucking serious? Talk about abdicating responsibility.

          In my six years as a parent, I believe that it’s been twice that I’ve taken my kid out and sat her in the car. No more dinner. No dessert. Just STFU and sit there. That has not had to happen since age 4.

          I cannot believe how many parents lack a backbone.

          1. “Just STFU and sit there”

            I see a possible sequal to Go the Fuck to Sleep.

          2. My daughter has some control issues. When she was 3 or 4, we were grocery shopping and she wouldn’t stop misbehaving, so I took her outside (after several warnings that would be the result).

            She flipped out and screamed and struggled, so I sat there, on a bench outside the store, trapping her in my lap as she screamed, cried and struggled. People kept stopping to look to see just what the fuck was going on and a couple people definitely wondered if I was abducting her. It was lovely, but I kept my cool for the 20 minutes this dragged on.

            Never had to do it again, even though she’s still an obnoxious shit who lives to push her mom’s buttons (and who will all-too-gladly comply).

            1. My daughter has some control issues. When she was 3 or 4, we were grocery shopping and she wouldn’t stop misbehaving, so I took her outside (after several warnings that would be the result).

              One of my exes had a daughter like this too–I’d do the exact same thing with her, just take her outside and let her pitch her fit until she calmed down.

              And yet my ex could never figure out why her kids took me seriously as an authority figure while they pissed all over her and never listened.

            2. The thing is, you really just have to yank em out of their chair and go sit in the car and exude no-fun beams while rest of family finishes meal one time for em to get the message. Least that the maximum number of times I’ve had to do it with any kid.

              1. I don’t get parents who don’t get this. Whenever I’m out at a restaurant or similar and there’s a screaming kid, I end up talking to whoever I’m eating with about how when we were kids, our moms would immediately get up and grab us (or, in my case, my brother, the misbehaver of the family) and take us outside, no questions asked. You scream in a restaurant, you are going to be out of that restaurant within seconds. Our moms did not mess around. I almost never see that now though.

        3. Dude, this is stupid.

          There is NO discipline it is safe to apply to a child in public in 2011.

          None.

          I can always keep a spanking threat in my back pocket if it’s needed – but ONLY AT HOME.

          I can’t REALLY punish my kid in public, and he already fucking knows it.

          So everyone who has contributed to our society of pussies gets to deal with a little bad kid behavior in public, now. Too bad.

          1. I don’t fucking care about those people.

            You want to call the cops? Be my guest, but I will still be a fucking parent.

        4. Show them an “out of control” teen episode of Maury and say “that’s their future if you don’t start acting like their parents rather than their friends.”

    3. As someone with a child under six, I support this restaurant.

    4. Absolutely yes. And don’t stop there. Other places I regularly encounter them are the subway, buses, sidewalks…

      1. Don’t forget planes!

  30. Feministing issues a call to their male allies.

    How dare someone point out that slut walks are semi-stupid. Yes, you should be able to walk around in high heels and a mini skirt through the bad part of town, just like you should be able to leave your door unlocked every day. Neither is a very good idea, however.

    Not an isolated incident: Ms. Magazine also positively reviews book saying that activists shouldn’t snitch on other activists when it comes to rape and domestic violence.

    Feministing also issued a positive review. See, rape charges are only for evil, white men who believe the wrong things. If your gay partner rapes you, you really shouldn’t get those mean, nasty police involved.

    1. Set your TRIGGER WARNING alarm, then read him here:

      I forget, what are trigger warnings?

      What on earth could make anyone feel comfortable comparing a woman to a slab of “raw meat”? Sexism.

      I have misunderstood your metaphor! Sexist!

      1. Trigger warnings are for those who need a fainting couch handy if they read about certain ‘uncomfortable’ subjects.

        1. What, like the back of a Volkswagen?

      2. What on earth could make anyone feel comfortable comparing a woman to a slab of “raw meat”? Sexism.

        Also, animal rights activism, if PETA ads are any indication.

    2. And the dude seems to have grabbed his ball and run home, which is delicious.

      1. “Delicious”? That’s not effete at all.

    3. semi-stupid?

      1. Well, I think they’re noble in the hypothetical, but the feminist establishment has gone a little too far in the idea that the victim of a crime has no responsibility.

        Yes, no one should be raped. You should be able to get blind drunk, completely naked, and get home safe. Similarly, no one deserves to get murdered, but if I go start hurling insults at crack dealers, I probably shouldn’t be shocked when I got shot.

        Should I have gotten shot? No. But did I create a situation which put me into shooting danger? Yes, I did, and perhaps I should alter my behavior somewhat for an imperfect world.

        1. racist!!11!

        2. They’re not noble in any hypothetical. They were protesting a cop telling them how to not get raped. They weren’t (at least originally) protesting rape or the male gaze or whatever, but some poor sap who was trying to help.

        3. Yes, no one should be raped. You should be able to get blind drunk, completely naked, and get home safe. Similarly, no one deserves to get murdered, but if I go start hurling insults at crack dealers, I probably shouldn’t be shocked when I got shot.

          The problem is they think that because no one deserves it, that should automatically mean that it should never happen. They act as if this little think called “reality” is nothing more than an inconvenience.

          Yeah, it’s awful when people get raped. Guess what, morons–don’t advertise yourself as the type of person that’s down with being treated like a fucktoy, especially in parts of society that are known to prey on the weak. All the “education” and “awareness” in the world doesn’t change the fact that if you walk down the street with your tits hanging out, especially in a bad part of town or by yourself, someone’s going to get the idea that you have no problem giving it up.

          1. Are you saying my anti-bear attack wilderness march with a picnic basket and pot of honey is a bad idea?

          2. You remind me of those chicks that wear the low cut blouse, and then say “my eyes are up here”….yeah, but your bare cleavage is down there, babe…you show it off, boys are gonna look.

    4. Last week I wrote a post about frustration with rape culture

      Seriously? How do I get into this culture? Do I need an invite from STEVE SMITH, like a country club?

  31. http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com…..wdown.html

    Gulf slowdown cost 230,000 jobs. yes, Obama really is that stupid.

    1. Holy fuck. It’s actually worse than that, according to the article. Obama must hate us for our freedom.

    2. A lot of the deepwater rigs are gone, along with their fleet of support boats, crews, and shore jobs. They’re off to W. Africa and Brazil, and I’m not sure when they’re coming back. OTOH, they had another W. GoM lease auction the other day; not sure how prices were.

      1. I guess Obama’s Petrobras payoff to Soros is paying dividends.

  32. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar…..mendment-w

    Hoyer Budget Amendment will make it impossible to raise taxes Oh noes!!

    1. This seems like a feature, not a bug.

    1. Shouldn’t that be “On the Cheap Oakley Sunglasses”?

      1. Oakley Sunglasses on the cheap

        1. Crap. Reading fail on my part.

    2. For cheap Oakley sunglasses.

  33. The Department of Justice is preparing to take on News Corp.

    Fox News should go all-Gunwalker, all the time. Maybe branch out into other DoJ malfeasance, some retrospectives on Waco and Ruby Ridge, J. Edgar Hoover, etc.

  34. What is Reason’s sudden fascination with Erick Erickson? The guy is a douche and frankly, who cares what he thinks. God (or equivalent) help us all if politicians become concerned what he thinks.

  35. radii footwear shoes good combination of color, these shoes with cool colorway create a classic look. This Radii Footwear is surely a nice one that worth your order.All radii footwear features Urban high top design, Genuine leather and woven nylon exterior. Perforated star detail throughout, adjustable velcro strap across ankle, lace up closure rubber sole, contrast flat sole, a unique look. It is great popular, special.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.