Reason Morning Links: Discriminating Catholics Get Discriminated Against, Jersey Shore Cop Loses His Cool, Mexico Gov Rejects Call for Truce with Cartels

|

  • A judge has upheld Illinois' decision to cancel its adoption contract with a Catholic charity following the passage of new gay rights laws. 
  • Jersey Shore cop arrests resident for filming him, allegedly beats up resident's brother. 
  • Missed opportunity: "Mexico's federal security spokesman on Monday rejected a state prosecutor's call for drug cartels to join in some kind of truce, saying the gangs must be arrested and disbanded instead."
  • FBI investigates antiwar.com. 
  • Can Elizabeth Warren beat Scott Brown without Wall Street money behind her?
  • News from the bowels of America, AKA K Street: "Influence peddlers who once worked for Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi's regime are scrambling to publicly sever ties with the strongman while their competitors are helping his country's rebels gain a valuable foothold in Washington."

New at Reason.tv: "Power to the Entrepreneurs: A conversation with USD law professor Donna Matias"

NEXT: Rick Perry: Economic Wizard?

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. 9:01? Riggs, you crafty son of a bitch!

    More than 30% of Baltimore’s reported rapes were deemed unfounded, 5 times the national average.

    But, Jezebel tells me that women never ever ever lie about rape! Or in general!

    1. More than 30% of Baltimore’s reported rapes were deemed unfounded, 5 times the national average.

      But, that’s only because they were hung up on the oppressive rules of evidence and logic, developed by teh patriarchy to control wymyns, and don’t take into account womyns ways of knowing things. Or something.

    2. So that means that in colleges in Baltimore only 70% of women have been raped, right?

      1. It depends on what nutso Feminist theory we’re playing with today. Because we could go with the, “All penetrative sex is rape” or “All sex with men is rape”.

        1. Dude, even being looked at by a man you’re not attracted to is rape.

    3. note that more rapes are unfounded (or any crime report) than are DEEMED unfounded. in order to be deemed as such, there has to be substantial evidence that a report is actually false. however, some false reports can’t be verified as such (in any type of crime, to include rape) and thus don’t go down as unfounded, even though they never happened

    1. Re: Aqua Buddha,

      But don’t you understand? Fetuses cannot be masturbating, because they’re things. It’s not like they’re alive, or something.

      At least, that is what some have insinuated in this blog.

      1. figures that masturbation would be the distinction for old fart mex.

        1. *fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*

      2. Another vacuous “thought” from OM. This is getting to be like the sun rising in the east.

        1. Agreed.

          Someone must have left a turd in his punchbowl recently or something.

      3. Masturbo ergo sum?

    2. There’s really not much else to do.

  2. So is Libya won? Almost won?

    1. “Let me be clear: Mission accomplished!”

      1. Will Gadhafi surrender his bunker or go full Hitler? He’s down there surrounded by his all girl body guard squad. What a scene.

        1. “You never go full Hitler.”

        2. I bet he’s not even in-country any more.

          If he is, he’s a fool.

        3. Things don’t look good for the Ghaddafi clan, but alot of the stories coming from the rebel forces don’t seem to be true. For example Ghaddafi’s son being captured. This stupid civil war may not be over for a while.

          http://www.africanewscircle.co…..;Itemid=84

      2. yep victory! now secure that chem weapons base south of tripoli. first the taliban kicked outta helmut province, then binLaden killed, now libya is a win. not too bad for ol obama !

        1. *mmm slurp* Obama cock *glurble slurp*

          1. go home old mex to continue ur deep thinking on fetal masturbation

        2. Obama still sucks.

        3. Yep, just get the old government out, and a new, democratic one friendly to the US will just spring right up. That’s worked really well in the mid-East lately.

          1. The “democratic” part is optional.

            1. So is the “government” part.

        4. We’re so proud. He’s the imperial President we said we never wanted. But we did. Oh, how we did.

          1. he (ceasar) will give them death (in the circus), and they (the mob) will luv him for it!

        5. Helmut Province? Are there lots of Germans in Western Asia?

  3. Jersey Shore cop arrests resident for filming him, allegedly beats up resident’s brother.

    I can get behind this one if it was The Situation.

    1. I’m unclear as to whether The Situation is the cop, the resident, or the resident’s brother in your fantasy.

      Or maybe all three. It’s your demented imagination, not mine.

    2. Did FoE just say that he wants to get behind The Situation?

      1. IT’S ONLY GAY IF IT’S THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

    1. This would pose a dilemma for the Vatican.

      1. How so? That’s your original sin right there.

  4. A link about a masturbating fetus has a 25% chance of being marked spam. Just so you know.

  5. Women bare breasts for equality in Asheville.

    Men, unsurprisingly, just show up to ogle.

    1. I didn’t see anything worth ogling in that photo.

    2. Re: Au H2O,

      Women bare breasts for equality in Asheville.

      No four breasts are equal. These gals already lost the battle!

      1. But three breasts on woman ala Total Recall, should be way more equal.

      2. “I wish I had another pair of hands, so I could give those titties four thumbs down!”

        1. Charlie Murphy!

    3. What were they protesting against?

  6. Hawii’s genetically modified papaya trees are attacked.

    Still trying to find suspects, but for some reason, I doubt that it is

  7. The first bit of sex in Nicholson Baker’s House of Holes: A Book of Raunch appears on Page 5, where a minor character achieves a robust climax by the fingers of an amputated, still-sentient arm.

    Now that’s what I call literature!

    1. Ser Ilyn, bring me his head!

      1. Joffrey, do I need to slap you again? You can’t just go around lopping off people’s heads.

        1. So long as I am your King, Sugarfree will not go unpunished.

    2. God, SF, is there a level of degeneracy you haven’t sunk to yet?

      1. He gets paid to be a pervert, I have to do it for free. Incentives, people, incentives.

    1. My favorite part of this story is that Notch (the maker of Minecraft) publically challenged Bethesda to a Quake 3 duel as a way to settle the lawsuit. That guy is genius.

      1. And most people just refer to the games as Morrowind, Skyrim, etc.

        Also, it’s not really genius, because Bethesda (TES) and id (Quake) share a parent company. So he’d probably lose.

        1. Also, apparently this is ZeniMax’s doing. Bethesda’s not pursuing it, just the legal trolls of the parent company.

    2. Christ, Bethesda. It’s a fucking word. It’s not like Notch made a game that crashes every two goddamn seconds and is utterly unplayable for months after launch.

    3. Trademark, not copyright. This is the kind of idiocy you get when you combine corporate lawyers on retainer and defend it or lose it trademark law. Too many companies forget that when dealing with borderline infringement it’s perfectly OK to send a letter saying “please cease or contact us to discuss licensing” and then offer the use of their mark for a penny. The law does not compel us to be jerks, but lawyers may try anyway.

      1. Can’t copyright a word or even a phrase.

    4. Heh, I’ve been following this since it was posted on Notch’s blog (sorry, I need to see when 1.8 comes out with Adventurer’s mode and that’s the best way). I like the Quake challenge concept. It takes some balls. The lawsuit itself seems pretty ridiculous, and just pisses me off.

    5. On the other hand, if he was trying to trademark Scrolls, that’s just as stupid.

  8. Off duty Secret Service agent arrested for DUI.

    See, this is because those goddamn Republicans make it so hard to work for Obama.

  9. FBI investigates antiwar.com.

    Uh oh, FBI, be prepared to have your forums visited by a pissed-off Justin Raimondo.

    1. FBI has to do something to justify that budget.

    2. The Federal Bureau of Israelis is out to get him.

      1. You sir, have crossed the Jewbicon.

    3. He is one of the commenters on the linked story. He sounds slightly amused by the whole thing.

    1. America will have something to remember him by.

      1. His business casual bike-riding attire?

        1. I can’t believe he wears a helmut. What a cunt.

          1. I can’t believe he doesn’t wear a helmet all the time, if you know what I mean.

    2. Let me be clear: we have zero responsibility for any of this. It is all because of bad luck, the arab spring, stuff happening in Europe, the tsunami, and oh yeah, BOOSH!!

      1. …and dont forget we helped w the unfunded medicare Sr drug plan just before the 04 election.

        1. derp

        2. Yeah, honestly, I love Democrats using this. “Well, Bush didn’t fund an entitlement!” “Oh, so you want that entitlement eliminated?” “No, we just wanted the Bush tax cuts to expire.” “The ones on the Middle Class?” “No, not those ones- the ones on the rich!” “You realize that that still makes Medicare insolvent in 2024, right?”

  10. The ruling against Catholic Charities must be why these knuckleheads were moping around across from Union Station yesterday. (I think they’re the Catholic branch of the Tea Party (“Tradition, Family, and Property”).

    1. The state of Illinois wants to cancel its contract with Catholic Charities for placing children in adoptive and foster homes. The apparent reason is that Catholic Charities won’t give children to same-sex couples. Illinois doesn’t want to subsidize what it considers to be anti-gay discrimination.

      An Illinois court is fine with that. The state doesn’t have to subsidize discrimination.

      Meanwhile, the state of North Carolina has tried to cut off funds for Planned Parenthood. North Carolina doesn’t want to subsidize an abortion provider.

      A federal court has restored the funding. You don’t have to subsidize Catholic Charities, but you can’t stop subsidizing Planned Parenthood – that would be a “bill of attainder!”

      http://postbulletin.com/news/s…..id=1464458

      Catholic Charities should simply rename itself “Planning for Parenthood,” and perhaps they can get their funding restored.

      1. Please don’t reply to my comments if you aren’t actually replying to them.

        1. You know what I hate about airline food?

        2. What if I use the word “knuckleheads?”

          1. Seems like pandering then.

      2. A federal court has restored the funding.

        ^^ This is the problem. It is just another example of nanny-statism by the feds. Because they always know better.

        Basically, I don’t have a problem with either Illinois’ actions or North Carolina’s actions (given the information available in these articles, at any rate). I do have a problem with the federal court’s actions.

        1. Basically, I don’t have a problem with either Illinois’ actions or North Carolina’s actions (given the information available in these articles, at any rate). I do have a problem with the federal court’s actions.

          I have doubts that the federal court’s actions against North Carolina is consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in Maher v. Roe , 432 U.S. 464, 97 S. Ct. 2376, 53 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1977)

          1. Ah, but the money wasn’t going for abortions! So the federal judge just couldn’t see how there was anything wrong with giving money to Planned Parenthood, since the money had to be used for condom education and so forth. If they want to pay for abortions, they’ll just have to use the money that gets freed up when the state money comes in.

            Federal judges are *soo* economically literate!

            1. PP is supposed to keep the money for abortion promotion in separate accounts that never exchange funds with the non-abortion accounts. They routinely get caught illegally funneling money between the accounts, but any attempt to punish them for this winds up pretty much like this court case because they claim those eeeeevil pro-lifers are unfairly targeting them for political reasons.

              1. PP is supposed to keep the money for abortion promotion in separate accounts that never exchange funds with the non-abortion accounts. They routinely get caught illegally funneling money between the accounts, but any attempt to punish them for this winds up pretty much like this court case because they claim those eeeeevil pro-lifers are unfairly targeting them for political reasons.

                It is all for the good cause that if a girl in high school gets knocked up, she will be able to fit into that prom dress she saw at the store.

  11. Kate Winslet saves Richard Branson’s mom.

    Also, does Britain get hurricaines? I thought it didn’t.

    1. Branson owns his own island in the Caribbean.

      1. Then how the hell would the Caribbean have any kind of “Dunkirk” spirit? Fucking brits.

      2. I mean you can understand why dickheads like Clinton and Hefner and the like need to collect actors and other celebrities but don’t you find it disappointing that a cool, independent, intelligent, iconoclast like Branson finds it necessary?

    2. In other Kate Winslet news, Kate Winslet continues to get hotter.

    3. If you RTFA you’ll find that it happened in the British Virgin Islands as Haurricane Irene passed through.

      1. There was nothing virgin about those islands after I left them.

        1. STEVE SMITH LIKE THE WAY YOU THINK BUT SAND REALLY CHAFES WHEN YOU RAPE THE BEACH.

    4. I think that hurricanes occasionally make their way across the North Atlantic to northern Europe.

      1. Yes, occasionally very powerful ones do.

        Typically, Atlantic hurricanes follow a roughly parabolic path beginning in the southeast Atlantic and travelling westerly until they turn northerly and eventually easterly.

        Most run out of steam before they get to the easterly leg, especially if they come ashore on the mainland of North America.

        1. Wasn’t there some tropical storm type thing that hit the Spanish Armada?

          1. The Spanish Armada did get hit by really bad weather.

            The North Atlantic gets some nasty storms all by itself with no tropical influence.

            Summer storms tend to originate in the tropics, while winter storms (Nor’easters) tend to come from the high latitudes.

      2. I wish one would get to Texas. We need the damb rain.

    5. Just in case anyone missed it:

      Sir Richard, 61, was staying in another villa around 100 yards away with his wife Joan and son Sam and apparently ran naked towards the flames shortly after 4am.

      1. I’m sorry, but it’s obvious that he’s the Batman.

  12. A judge has upheld Illinois’ decision to cancel its adoption contract with a Catholic charity following the passage of new gay rights laws.

    Result: Less adoptions.

    Thank you, Illinois!

    1. But, but..we MEAN well!

      1. not us !

        1. I hate Illinois Nazis.

    2. Result: Less adoptions.

      That seems like a big assumption on your part.

      1. Also, “fewer” sounds better than less in this case and if you are a stickler, is also correct.

      2. Explain how removing a broker from the market would not lead to less adoptions.

    3. “Result: Less adoptions.”

      I’m not sure of that. If there is another provider, and one that would accept a larger pool of adoptive parents, it could actually mean more adoptions, no?

      1. The pool of adoptive parents can only have the world ‘larger’ or even ‘larger’ applied to it when it is compared to the pool of employed left-handed hurdy gurdy men who work with orangutans.

        In that tiny pool, most prospective adoptive parents want babies. This includes gay parents who want to adopt.

        What Illinois has done is make it harder for the way too large number of foster kids who aren’t babies to get adopted.

        1. They do that by having any sort of guidelines for adoption.

          1. Yep, we could totally solve the problem by letting convicted child molesters adopt kids. I don’t see what could go wrong.

      2. Here’s the reason why there will be less adoptions: Lawsuits.

        MNG asked why would there be less adoptions if the client base suddenly increased. That’s not the problem, MNG. The ruling, for all intents and purposes, has granted a right to a certain group of people: gays. EVEN if the Catholic adoption agencies accepted gays as potential parents, any presumed transgression, any seeming case of “discrimination” (like not accepting a gay couple’s application, no matter their viability and wherewithal as parents) would ipso facto become grounds for a frivolous LAWSUIT, making the adoption agencies prefer gays over straight couples ALL THE TIME as a matter of policy. This would be a disincentive for straight couples to seek these adoption agencies as they would be automatically discounted in favor of gay couples, all the time.

        ERGO, less adoptions.

  13. Economists recommend spending cuts, not tax hikes, to close deficits.

    Clearly, these economists are not a part of the famed Reality Based Community.

    1. FAR right ring extremists. Christians too probably. Kooks.

      1. “right ring”? LACIST!

      2. Koch Brothers!!!!!

  14. FBI investigates antiwar.com.

    Justin Raimondo cannot feel but flattered by the attention from the fascist thugs.

    Go, Justin!!!

    1. Yes, I imagine this should serve as confirmation that you’re doing good.

    1. De-regulate regulators of regulation?

    2. Let’s apply all their arguments to the practice of medicine and see if they agree.

    3. Let’s apply all their arguments to the practice of medicine and see if they agree.

      1. No one’s suggested this yet…maybe you should post it one more time.

      2. Fucking squirrels haven’t had any coffee yet.

    4. I’m sympathetic to the idea that regulation and lisencing keeps people out of a field, but I’m also sympathetic to the idea that some standards have to be in place for some fields. Finding out after the fact that the lawyer who drew up grandma’s will was incompetent is little solace.

      1. Private certification should work just fine. As long as you are not misrepresenting yourself, you ought to be able to give advice for money, on any subject, to anyone willing to employ you to do so.

        1. Private certification has problems, like we saw with the ratings agencies rating the debts of their own customers. Recently the NYT covered the BBB not taking action against their members because the latter paid the dues, etc.

          Imagine the information costs to consumers to try to figure out which person claiming to be an expert on investments, legal matters, etc., is a complete quack and which is not.

          1. Arguably the coverage you cite is itself the solution to those problems.

            1. Only at the most general level Xen. The press can’t stay on every quackish proprietor out there, and even when they do it’s pretty after the fact.

          2. All certification has its problems, as they are all subjective and cater to the whims of the sponsoring organization.

            I also agree that private certifications are not some sort of panacea. But their flaws are offset by the de-politicization of the process and the introduction of more freedom into the workforce.

          3. MNG, all of the problems you mention already exist in highly regulated professions like lawyers and doctors. As it is now, the certification will tell you nothing about how good of a doctor or lawyer the person you are seeing is. They are all certified. With private certification, there could be a lot more flexibility and, being market driven, could well provide far more useful information to consumers than the current system of government regulation and certification.
            This is one of those cases where the market solution will have problems (every solution to everything has problems), but it seems very unlikely that it would be worse than it is now.
            But for me, it is mostly a freedom issue. If you think you know something about law, and another person is willing to employ you to do whatever legal work they need, then as long as no one is willfully deceiving anyone, I find it completely unacceptable that such a transaction could be illegal.

      2. If you think legal licensing is any guarantee of quality or competence, then you need to spend more time around lawyers.

        In the medical field, the important credential is a private one: board certification. The licensing requirement is pure rent-seeking.

  15. Nancy Pelosi on the “nihilist” GOP.

    Hey Nancy, say what you will about the tenets of small governmentism, at least it’s a fucking ethos.

    1. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sways and chatters, as animated as the other congressional leaders are stolid. She waves her bangle-adorned hands. She grins whenever she pauses to take a breath. Every question gets a minutes-long, ranging disquisition. This morning, sitting in a cream suit in her airy cream office in the Capitol, Pelosi spoke with a group of reporters for more than an hour about the current crummy economic situation and crummier Congress. She smiled. But that hardly hid her voluble frustration.

      Impressive that Annie Lowery was able to type all that out with only one hand.

      1. She probably used Dragon Naturally Speaking. 😉

        1. House Minority Leader Nancy ehn Pelosi sways and, uh chatters, as animated as the other congressional leaders are stolid stolid stolid OH. She waves her bangle-adorned hands bang-bangle. She grins whenever she pauses to take a ahh breath. Every question gets a minutes-long, ranging OH MY GOD disquisition. This morning, sitting in a creamy cream suit in her airy creamy bream office in the Capitol, Pelosi spoke with. a. group. of. REPORTERS! for more than an hour about the current creamy crummy economic situation and creamier crummier Congress. She she she uh smiled. But that hardly hid her voluble frustration. Ah, Jesus.

          1. SugarFree, you can do better. I demand Pelosi femslash!

            1. So tired of writing about her dusty fuck-parts, I can’t even manage it.

        2. wouldn’t the moaning and gasps mess up the dictation software?

      2. Jesus Christ.

        I can’t think of anything else to say in response to that.

      3. I was hoping for a creamy economic situation to go with the cream suit and cream office.

        1. at least some creamy coffee or some bagels with a smear of creamy cream cheese.

    2. smaller? nah, just forces states, counties, & cities to raise taxes themselves

      1. It’s always fun to watch you trip over the truth, like Dick Van Dyke over the ottoman.

      2. becuz there is no alternative to raising taxes – none- spending can never ever be reduced, evar

        1. u mean like arizona death-panels kicking transplant patients off state medicare?

      3. If states, counties & cities want to provide those services, sure.

        What makes you think that the federal government has access to money other than that which the people living in the states, counties & cities.

        Oh, right you think we should just keep borrowing, borrowing and borrowing.

        Because that’s the only money the fedgov has access to that the states, counties & cities don’t.

    3. Nancy Pelosi: “Since all values proceed from the state, if you do not favor the expansion of the state, you clearly reject all values.”

      I don’t think that the people who insist on using the “libertarian = nihilist” meme realize exactly what it reveals about themselves.

      1. Did she actually say that?

  16. How Kids get Moms to buy unhealthy foods.

    Um…. is it because they’re shitty parents? I mean, your gonna blame the shitty parents, right? Oh, goddamnit, this is Jezebel, so… no such luck.

    1. Our study indicates that while overall media use was not associated with nagging, one’s familiarity with commercial television characters was significantly associated with overall and specific types of nagging.

      You know the only thing more annoying than nagging?

      “I’m hungry, let’s get dinner”
      “Ok, where do you want to go?”
      “Ohhh, I don’t know, you decide”

      Just be glad the brainwashing commercials are making your nagging children decisive.

      1. “I’m hungry, let’s get dinner”
        “Ok, where do you want to go?”
        “Ohhh, I don’t know, you decide”
        “OK, how about the diner down the street”
        “No, I’m not in the mood for that.”
        “Well, what are you in the mood for?”
        “I don’t know.”

        1. She knows where she wants to eat.

          She’s just not willing to say it, because you’ll immediately agree, and that’s not a long enough conversation for her.

          It’s either that, or she knows where she wants to eat, but wants you to think of it, too, so she can feel like it was a mutual decision and you didn’t just give her what she wanted because it makes no difference to you.

          In a just social order either of those would be grounds for a divorce with no property settlement or alimony.

          1. she knows where she wants to eat, but wants you to think of it, too, so she can feel like it was a mutual decision

            Pretty much this.

          2. Especially when the female in question has an arm-long list of dietary restrictions and you can (and will) eat anything that won’t get off the plate fast enough. But let’s play guess the restaurant that’s acceptable tonight because we have nothing better to do with our time. Do they sell food? Then I can probably find something there to eat. Pick one. I don’t care.

          3. She knows where she wants to eat, and is testing you to see if you can read her mind/meet her standards/be the man she wishes for, or whether you are, in fact, the knuckle-dragging barbarian she always suspected you were.

            1. This is why my significant other is a German Shepherd dog. She eats whatever I give her and likes it.

          4. Serious question: is this how women think? Keep in mind, I am a woman. If I want to eat at Boston Market, I’m gonna say I want to eat at fucking Boston Market.

            1. Marry me. Now.

        2. This sounds like my husband. It make me want to kill.

          1. But, as a Devil’s Advocate, shouldn’t you suggest the place that you most hate first?

            1. I am actually pretty easy-going when it comes to food. So is my husband, which makes it even more irritating. I have some theories about what is going on in this particular conversation as noted above by Montani Semper Liberi, but I have solved the impasse over the years by saying something along the lines of, “I am going to get Chinese/ Mexican/ Japanese/ Indian/ Whatever food for dinner. Do you want anything? If so, here’s the menu.”

    2. This was one of the big conflicts I had with my ex. She’d give in to the kids(!) and come home with all sorts of crap.

      I stand firm, unmoved by hot tears about how nice parents let their kids buy all the twizzlers they want, and my kids get healthy stuff.

      I think that in the case of parents who lack the will-power to say no, removing the marketing, advertising and checkout line candies will have little effect; They’ll still indulge their kids in unhealthy ways – only the form of the pandering will be different.

      In the case of my ex, she confuses saying “No, you can’t have what you want” with saying, “I don’t love you”. This insecurity is unwarranted; kids do understand that a person can love them and say “No” to them, especially if the parent is nor hurtful or emotional about it.

      1. I can say “no” all day long to them.

        I’m pretty sure they make it a game now to see what I’ll agree to.

        1. I’m pretty sure they make it a game now to see what I’ll agree to.

          Uh oh. That’s a suspiciously clever development. Calls for increased scrutiny.

          1. I just have to increase the hourly beatings.

    3. One way around this is I don’t let my kids watch tv. They watch DVD’s galore, but no tv. No tv, no ads.

      1. That doesn’t work.

        I have never seen a single advertisement for a product based on a Toy Story character.

        My kid wants Buzz Lightyear shit because he saw the DVD’s.

        1. Well, that might determine toy preference but I thought we were talking about food preferences.

          1. The funny thing is that very little of the advertising on kids’ shows is for food.

            Other than McDonald’s, which kids would like whether it was advertised on TV or not.

            Most of the ads on the kids networks actually appear to be directed to the housewife mother or female caregiver and not at the actual target audience of the shows. My kid doesn’t pester me for sugar cereals, but he is oddly fascinated by the cleaning products aisle and wanted to know if I would take him to see the movie The Help.

            (A big No, by the way. I was able to find a way to say No. Strangely enough.)

            1. “but he is oddly fascinated by the cleaning products aisle and wanted to know if I would take him to see the movie The Help.”

              You might want to take your son to the Bachman’s counseling center dude.

              What are you watching with him, Oxygen?

              1. Golden Girls!

              2. It’s that Sprout channel.

                I’m telling you, the advertisers have figured out that it’s a cheap way to advertise to women, since they turn the TV on for their kids and then hear it in the background.

                “I want to go look at Clorox Scrubbing Bubbles!”

                They do have some pure kids ads, too, which is how I got roped into seeing Hop.

                1. Ach! I’ve been sucked into the world of Sprout the last few weeks after we realized we had it in our cable plan. I think I’m actually beginning to understand that bird.

                  1. I hear that bird squeaking in my dreams. My daughter loves that shit.

          2. MNG, you’re really behind the curve on the liberal talking points. Product placement is the new bugaboo.

      2. Wow. I agree with MNG yet again.

        But I don’t know that it really matters. In the current CN household, the kids don’t watch TV, but do get about 15 minutes of vids each evening.
        With the previous CN brood however, the kids watched all the TV they wanted. That batch turned out really well (and could read at an earlier age than the new batch.)
        So if the younger ones are all screwed up, we’ll know that current theories are amiss.

        1. My parents severely restricted the amount of TV I could watch. Look how I turned out.

          1. “Honey? About the kids? From now on it’s all TV all the time!”

        2. The missus frets and clutches over the amount of boob tube the kids watch. Me? Not so much. I just kick them outside, or they return to their computer filled lair to play online games and chat. Ultimately, I kick them out for that as well.

          “I’m bored!”

          “Read something. I’m not your entertainment system.”

          1. “Read something. I’m not your entertainment system.”

            Heh. I tell them that my title is not “Cruise Director.” You’re in charge of your own amusement.

          2. This is why I’m glad I grew up in VT….there was actually shit to do outside that was way more interesting than TV. Now I’m an adult in a bigass city and I watch way too much TV because I hate city-type activities.

      3. My kid is constantly reciting jingles she’s learned.

        But that don’t mean dick when it comes to her food choices. Because her choices are limited to what we present to her.

    4. Ugh, it’s one of those links you can’t go back from.

      I honestly admire their ability to operate through that level of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand they claim that women are worthy of equality and independence (as I do). On the other hand they claim women are incapable of outwitting their children or overruling their whims.

      1. I don’t think its either extreme, it’s closer to that the advertisers complicate their lives by aiming to influence their easily influencable kids. To a non-libertarian some restrictions on tv advertisers may seem like a small price to pay for their lives to be less complicated.

        1. Sheep need the shepard.

        2. I’m a parent. Saying “no” is not complicated. Neither is serving one meal for the entire family. If the kids are pissy they can go hungry until they give in.

        3. To a non-libertarian some restrictions on tv advertisers may seem like a small price to pay for their lives to be less complicated.

          I guess to a liberal it’s always a small price to pay as long as you’re not the one paying it.

          1. “I’m from the government, and I’m here to make your life less complicated!”

          2. I don’t think that is fair, it could impact the parents (denying them information on Mickey Dees deals and such). They just might find the trade off acceptable.

            Not everyone starts off the moral calculus with giving liberty a plus 100 in any weighing, especially when the liberty interest seems, shall we say, a little less than fundamental.

            1. Restrict everyone’s liberty so I don’t have to tell my brats ‘no’.

            2. Not everyone starts off the moral calculus with giving liberty a plus 100 in any weighing
              See, here’s yer problem…

              1. I’d say in a democracy that’s more your problem CN…

                1. Mob rule is cool when the mob’s on your side.

                  1. haha, it’s funny to equate, say, mob rule in lynchings with mob rule with making advertisers show slightly less tv ads aimed at kids.

                    But again, when liberty is a deontological trump card all sense of degree is tossed out.

                2. I’d say in a democracy that’s more your problem CN…

                  And people wonder why I’m becoming an anarchist.

                3. “I’d say in a democracy that’s more your problem CN…”

                  Good thing Citizen Nothing lives in a constitutional republic with protections for free speech, rather than a democracy.

            3. I don’t think that is fair, it could impact the parents (denying them information on Mickey Dees deals and such). They just might find the trade off acceptable.

              That is utterly farcical.

              Some of the fantastic things you are willing to claim amaze me at times.

              And you’re a person who will routinely claim that libertarians have no empathy.

              Well, here I will demonstrate genuine empathy for you:

              I am able to perfectly stand in the shoes of people making the judgment that “some restrictions on tv advertisers may seem like a small price to pay for their lives to be less complicated”, and while standing there I can tell you that not one of them – not one – is “making a tradeoff” or any of that gibberish you just spouted.

              Every last one of them – every one – is simply deciding that the liberty of the advertisers inconveniences them slightly and is therefore of no concern whatsoever.

              My conclusion here is perfectly fair. Unless you consider “fairness” to be “engaging in fantasy to try to find some way that people are motivated by something less offensive than their obvious motivation”.

              1. “Every last one of them – every one – is simply deciding that the liberty of the advertisers inconveniences them slightly and is therefore of no concern whatsoever.”

                They might want to sometimes see the information that would be restricted, so they would be impacted as well. Sure, they are willing to restrict others like the advertisers, but my point is that most people don’t see such a restriction as some horrible terrible thing; they accept restrictions on themselves all the time as ‘the price of civilization.’

                In any debate there are several things of value at issue: liberty, sure, but also security, welfare, concepts of dignity, etc. The libertarians just pumps up the first to incredible heights, most people don’t. And therein lies your disagreement with most people in a nutshell.

                1. Sure, they are willing to restrict others like the advertisers, but my point is that most people don’t see such a restriction as some horrible terrible thing

                  Great. So now at least you admit that what we are, in fact, talking about is…

                  I guess to a liberal it’s always a small price to pay as long as you’re not the one paying it.

                  In other words, you now concede my 10:04 post was true. You just think that’s OK, because since there are several things of value here, it’s OK for the parents to obtain their thing of value while making advertisers pay for it. And only libertarians are crazy enough to think otherwise.

                  See how easy that was? This whole subthread was unnecessary.

                  Next time don’t leap up to say that I’m being “unfair”, when what you really mean is that I’m accurately describing the situation. All you had to write was “Yup, that’s what we’re doing, and it’s too damn bad! Suck it, advertisers and libertarians!” and the rest of this thread would not have had to exist.

              2. Oh, and I should add a reiteration of the fact that it’s very convenient when the “small price to pay” is paid by somebody else.

                As it routinely is, up and down the progressive agenda.

                I will also exercise my empathy to declare that when you typed your 9:56 post and typed the immortal words “To a non-libertarian some restrictions on tv advertisers may seem like a small price to pay for their lives to be less complicated,” there’s absolutely no way you were thinking of the “price” being some kind of reduction of information received by the parents. You absolutely, positively were arguing that, as far as you are concerned, the advertiser really shouldn’t regard the restriction put on him as that big a deal, and given the relatively trivial (in your view) impact on the advertiser, it’s OK for your hypothetical parents to purchase their convenience using that “small price”. You can deny that, but I simply won’t believe you.

                You retconned your argument after I called you on the fact that the benefit was being received by people who weren’t the ones paying the price.

                1. You’re wrong fluffy, and here is how easy it is to show this.

                  Look at the number of people who fly who still support invasive TSA search procedures. Do you want to argue they enjoy the searches and delays they bring? Yet it is not only non-fliers who support it.

                  People make these trade offs, even ones that effect them directly, all the time. Liberty is not the only value in town dude.

                  1. Look at the number of people who fly who still support invasive TSA search procedures. Do you want to argue they enjoy the searches and delays they bring? Yet it is not only non-fliers who support it.

                    So what?

                    The fact that in this example the people favoring the restriction of liberty are also subject to that restriction doesn’t change the fact that this is not the case in the TV advertising example.

                    In the TV advertising example, we clearly have a situation where the restriction is put on one set of people in order to obtain a benefit for a second set of people.

                    Fluffy: “That guy just robbed my store!”

                    MNG: “Fluffy, don’t be silly. Look at that store over there where people are paying for things instead of stealing them. Clearly that proves that nobody ever robs stores! Silly Goose!”

                    1. I don’t know what to tell you, neither you or I can reach into the minds of everyone who supports some restriction on kids tv advertising. I think my point is made though if it is even conceptually possible for someone to treat it as a trade off.

                      Of course my point doesn’t rest on this. Sure we might be willing to restrict some other person to make our lives better, and not every instance of that is going to make the person advocating it a moral monster. Again, it’s a matter of degree, something which seems to elude libertarians like a greased pig…

                    2. Sure we might be willing to restrict some other person to make our lives better, and not every instance of that is going to make the person advocating it a moral monster. Again, it’s a matter of degree, something which seems to elude libertarians like a greased pig…

                      You’re getting closer!

                      See how much time we could have saved if you’d just said that in the first place, instead of trying to deny that you routinely cavalierly declare prices you aren’t paying to be “a small price to pay”?

                      Come on, just say it – you know you want to: “Yup, that’s what we’re doing, and it’s too damn bad! Suck it, advertisers and libertarians!” Just let it out, you’ll feel better.

                    3. Sure we might be willing to restrict some other person to make our lives better, and not every instance of that is going to make the person advocating it a moral monster.

                      Actually, it does make you exactly that, presuming this person isn’t actually harming you. Merely inconveniencing you doesn’t rise to the threshold of the right to force someone else to meet your own personal standard.

                      But, don’t let me interrupt you massive rationalization.

            4. They are free to shut off the TV.

              Or use Tivo and skip the commercials.

            5. I’m sure all of the companies that need to market their products, and all of the people involved with selling advertising won’t be affected.

              But that’s OK, right? As long as little MNG doesn’t have to see an ad for sugary cereal.

              1. Gosh, if only tee-vee’s had a MUTE button on them.

                Sorry, I forgot that the difficutly in using that approaches the level of quantum phyziks.

        4. God forbid our lives get complicated with too many choices.

          Eat a chocolate to lower your akrasia, and be a goddamn parent.

        5. To a non-libertarian some restrictions on tv advertisers may seem like a small price to pay for their lives to be less complicated.

          Even beyond the question of whether that would infringe on free speech, we have to account for the precise manner in which “advertising” and “unhealthy” food is going to be defined. Would-be advertisers will find ways around the restrictions unless they’re so broad as to restrict non-advertising and/or advertising for healthy foods as well.

    5. Ultimately, the researchers concluded that the best way to reduce nagging for junk food is to limit the amount of ads for unhealthy items.

      Yes, because heaven forbid parents should ever learn to say no to their widdle precious ones.

      Interestingly the comments did not seem as stupid as I expected them to.

      1. Or just ban unhealthy food. Problem solved!

  17. Can Warren beat Brown? Let’s see:

    Massachusetts? Check.
    Democrat? Check.

    I’d give her a 60% chance if she did nothing but sit in her apartment through the entire campaign. I know a former daycare provider who voted for Coakley for Christ’s sake. Never underestimate the ability of Massholes to vote for Democrats.

  18. Jersey Shore cop arrests resident for filming him

    I cannot believe that ANYONE from Jersey Shore would prevent ANYONE from filming them. This is clearly an early April Fools story.

    1. The Jersey Shore from May through October is the closest approximation to a police state that exists in this country. From the update on the link:

      Here’s the first comment that was left on PINAC on the first video [referring to an incident in Wildwood].

      The biggest problem with Jersey Shore Cops is that the vast majority of them are Part Timers who are hired for the Summer Season only. They include Teachers, folks vying for Full Time and assorted Locals.

      The cr?me de la cr?me they are not.

      And here is the first comment on this video.

      Seaside Heights or what is commonly called sleazeside. Has a practice of hiring summer help that is less then qualified for the job in my opinion. They are officers in training. They get a job at sleezside so that they can get a job somewhere else.

      Sounds like these towns are just ripe for a civil lawsuit against them.

      This is part of the problem: there’s far too many cops (a problem that exists throughout NJ). The real cops aren’t much better than the anti-Benny brigades, though. The shore trash locals hate the tourists that come down every summer to keep their little towns from turning into wastelands and the local cops reflect this attitude to a T, regardless of season. Hell, Seaside and Point Pleasant still ticket and tow cars at metered parking spots on weeknights during the winter, though I’m sure the total amount of cash brought in from meters on a Tuesday in Feb won’t even cover the meter maid’s salary.

  19. Pack your bags, SugarFree! Jezebel is hiring interns.

    So… how willing are you, SF, to pretend to be a sassy gay man?

    1. Who has to pretend?

  20. Turkey claims to have killed 100 Kurds

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08…..l?_r=1&hp;
    It seems like this bloodshed could be prevented by recognizing a Kurdish state (the semi-autonomous one in Iraq for example) and allowing all Kurds interested in moving there from the region to do so. This should be pushed for.

    1. Homeland for The Kurds, no homeland for the JOOS!

      1. I think you meant no homeland for the Palestinians, didn’t you?

        I love the Likudian types, a movement based entirely on “a home for a people” that spends half its time denying a people a home.

        1. As long as those filthy JOOS are pushed into the sea, justice will prevail.

          1. Yes, yes, anyone who questions any aspect of Israeli policy wants to push the Jews into the sea.

            Thanks for demonstrating the sorry state of arguments of folks such as yourself. I couldn’t have done it better myself.

            1. Thanks MNG!

            2. And the fact that I support those who support pushing the JOOS into the sea should be ignored.

              1. Of course I’ve never supported those who want to push Israel into the sea. In fact I regularly condemn them. It’s just to tiny minds like yourselves any criticism of Israel policy=supporting every enemy of Israel.

                Again, thanks, you’re doing a remarkable job of demonstrating the sorry state of such arguments. They really are usually this bad.

                1. Thanks, MNG!

                  1. Thanks, Hamas/Fatah/PA!

                2. Ignore him, MNG. It’s probably Norman Podhoretz sitting naked at his laptop

      2. so MiNGe evidently believes likud, which holds ~25% of the seats, is infallable. does any criticism of israeli govt actions & policies, including internal israeli criticism, make one anti-semeitc?

        1. Yes it does you fucking jew-hating fuck Nazi fuck shit.

          1. You need a few more curse words, sport.

          2. i dont think fuck means what u think it does…u fucking fuckhead.

    2. I believe Turkey is the #1 opponent of this sort of plan. Iraq is likely a close second.

      1. I’m sure they do oppose it, but I’m almost as sure they don’t have a convincing reason for it.

        1. Which would be?

        2. They have reason enough for their purposes. Iraq wants to keep the stuff in those lands. Turkey doesn’t want to do anything to appease the PKK.

        3. Here’s a reason: it’s a violation of their sovereignty.

          You know, something liberals actually cared about back on 1/19/2009.

    3. I have a better idea. Let’s stop giving aid to the fucking Turkish government!

      Having been born there and having attended [primary school there, I can tell you with certainty that the whole Kurdish and Armenian problem is exarcebated by U.S. involvement.

      The Turkish government is a creature of the 20’s: it’s fascist, and justifies its existence along Wilsonian lines – that every ethnic group is supposed to have its own state.

      The cold war and the U.s. cultivation of the Turkish millitary to provide it with the manpower needed to face down the Soviets (the Turkish army is, in terms of manpower <Hardly boys voice>Huuuuge</Hardly boys voice>) has had a devastating effect of strengthening the military influence in politics. The CIA’s financial support of anti-communist leftist political parties have resulted in years of bad economic policies weakening the economy.

      The repression of Kurds, and to a lesser extent of Armenians is entirely the product of a strong nation state that has little incentive to live at peace with the people.

      Given 100+ years of being treated as untermenschen by Western Europeans, most Turks will rally around the state should the territorial integrity of the state be threatened by outsiders.

      The long term strategy for reducing massacres of Kurds and their cultural supression by the Turkish state is to
      a) stop strengthening it by giving it money
      b) stop strengthening it by giving it outside enemies to rally subject people to its ranks
      c) stop strengthening it by trying to promote certain political parties above others.

      1. ” Let’s stop giving aid to the fucking Turkish government!”

        I totally agree tarran, but watch it, with this kind of sentiment MiNGe is likely to start stalking you too and calling you an anti-Turkite…

        1. If you agree, why are you proposing to do to the Kurds what the U.S. does to the Turks?

          I was aghast to read you blathering about semi-autonomous zones. Did the genocides, wars and misery caused by Wilsonian interventionism on behalf of ethnic nationalism somehow fail to register?

          1. —“why are you proposing to do to the Kurds what the U.S. does to the Turks?”—

            When the right people support it, it can’t possibly end poorly, that’s why.

      2. I have a better idea. Let’s stop giving aid to the every fucking Turkish government!

        Fixed

        1. Thanks. I approve of your fix completely and unreservedly

      3. Turkey is the only democracy in the Middle East that doesn’t occupy its neighbors and deny them the vote.

    4. Yes, we must not allow the number of wars we’re fighting to decrease. If Libya is over (questionable itself), we have to start another one.

  21. And the award for the single most illogical sentence goes to…

    And yet it is their lack of politics that most clearly defines them. If the Egyptians in Tahrir Square wanted democracy and if the anarchists in Athens wanted more government spending, the hooded men in British streets want 46-inch flat-screen high-definition televisions.

    That word? I do not think it means what you think it means.

    1. Er, maybe that word has a different meaning outside tiny libertarian circles?

      1. Because words mean exactly what I want them to mean, no more, no less.

      2. Which would be?

        1. Only us nutters think anarachists should be for less government. In Europe they know the proper definition of “anarchy” entails an omnipotent government.

      3. An anarchist can’t want more government spending.

        There are NO circles in which the word “anarchist” can mean “someone who wants a bigger government”.

        Other than, you know, retard circles. I guess when retards get together to make plastic bead necklaces and shit, they might talk about how anarchists want more government spending. Other than that, no.

        1. You have to love someone so stupid that they use the handle “the Dictionary” but then fail to give a dictionary definition!

          1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
            2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
            3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.
            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchist

            And any of those definitions are consistent with demanding more government welfare programs how?

            I don’t write dictionaries. I just read them.

            1. Silly me, I assumed you knew the definition and could proceed from there.

              But I am sure that what MNG is saying is, “Well, to a reporter, an ‘anarchist’ is just someone who wears a mask and breaks things at a riot, and we should defer to that colloquial usage, even though it’s retarded and shows a clear total lack of any knowledge whatsoever about the meaning of the word, as well as a total lack of self-awareness.”

              Because to MNG only pedants know the meaning of an extremely common word.

              1. Amazingly you acknowledge the word is commonly used as I say it is and then you try to fall back on the argument that the only common, and therefore ‘correct’ use of the word is the way you see it!

                Dude, you don’t need me to refute you, you’re doing fine all by yourself!

                1. People routinely use the word “loose” when they intend to use the word “lose”.

                  Many, many people spell “ridiculous” as “rediculous”.

                  No matter how many times they make the mistake, they’re still dumbasses.

                  No matter how many times someone misuses the word “anarchist”, they’re still a dumbass.

                  You fail to understand the simple fact that “A lot of people make that same error” is not really a sufficient argument against making fun of a reporter for making the error.

                  Lots of people can’t find China on a map. But if video surfaces of Sarah Palin looking at a map and pointing to Brazil and claiming it’s China, I will make fun of her for being stupid. And you know what? So will you.

                  1. Don’t confuse misspellings with different meanings of words. But most importantly I think you misunderstand the nature of language and meanings. You seem to think they come from a magic book or something. Language is a functional thing dude, not something handed down on a stone tablet.

                    Do you need any further refudiation?

                    1. Yes, people can change the meanings of words. But your new meaning still has to be internally consistent.

                    2. And it can be consistent, only if one accepts certain libertarian philosophical points would anarchy, understood as equality in decision-making in all institutions, be internally inconsistent.

                      Like I said, Rosa Luxemburg has long been claimed by many anarchists. This is not some new innovations John.

                    3. There’s a long line of collectivist anarchists who think collectives will decide and guide people but also hold that such a situation could exist absent any real individual authority.

                      Now, maybe you think they are ultimately wrong on this. That’s nice. But you’re not the final arbiter of such a matter, and while it is an open question let’s not turn into pedants when journalists label these folks as they label themselves….

                    4. If I called myself a “libertarian” but then went around calling for the police to shut down any and every life style I didn’t like, you could make the same arguments in support of my position as you are now. And you would look equally ridiculous.

                      You, the same person who will make fun of Tea Party activists because they claim to be “pro small government” but won’t agree to end medicare and social security, will bend over and kiss your own ass defending these clowns.

                      Face MNG, you will obfuscate and excuse any behavior done by someone you think of as being on the Left no matter how bizarre, incoherent, dangerous or pathetic it is. If you will defend a bunch of people who go around terrorizing people and burning things because they want welfare yet claim to be anarchists, you will pretty much defend anything.

                      Why do you want to die on this hill? It is like a compulsion to you. Why is it so hard to kick around someone on the Left? It doesn’t help your cause to be seen doing anything but treating these clowns with scorn.

                    5. You mean like a Texas congressman who calls himself a libertarian and yet opposes free borders and regularly votes to effect that? I’ve seen people say Paul shouldn’t call himself a libertarian b/c of that, but how silly is that?

                      Look John, I’m afraid that you don’t get to be the final arbiter of who is a libertarian, a Christian or an anarchist. My you’re elitism is showing today, must be all that time in DC…

                    6. I’ll drop my spam name for this post.

                      It is absolutely undeniable that if Sarah Palin were to start referring to “dogs” as “bears” MNG would scoff at her idiocy.

                      But he is willing to defend to the death a careless and silly misuse of a different word with a clear meaning, just to be contrary.

                      He will now respond that the word “bear” is more clearly defined than the word “anarchist”, even though that’s obviously not the case.

                      The word “bear” and the word “anarchist” have equally clear meanings. If someone points at a bear and calls it a chupacabra, they are an idiot. If someone claims that a rioter demanding an increase in government spending in the existing state of Greece (not some fantasy Greece of the future after an anarchist rebellion, but the existing government of Greece with its current institutions) is an “anarchist”, they are an idiot.

                      Can the meaning of a word or a usage shift over time? Sure. But you know what? The meaning of the word “anarchist” has not shifted and still is what it is. Maybe in some future world with some different meaning of the word “anarchist” we wouldn’t be able to say that this reporter made a silly and humorous mistake. But we ain’t in that world yet.

                    7. The word anarchist clearly does not have such an “equally clear meaning.”

                      “Anarchism has been variously defined by sources. Most often, the term describes the political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy,[1][2] while others have defined it as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations.[3][4][5][6] Anarchists widely disagree on what additional criteria are essential to anarchism. According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, “there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance.”[7]

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

                    8. Yes, and there are eight species of bears in the world. But we still know what a bear is.

                      Tell me, of those two “species” of anarchist, which one could be said to logically favor an increase in spending by the current government of Greece, as its authority is currently constituted?

                    9. Over at Merriam-Webster we get this:

                      “: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power”

                      Notice the OR.

                      Libertarians have a certain definition of “authority” which equates it to state coercion, but not everyone shares this definition. So one can certainly believe in anarchism and some kind of state without leaping off the deep end of the dictionary (if we should limit meanings to such sources).

                    10. In other words, “anarchist” is a word that has become entirely devoid of meaning, and therefore useless as a descriptor of anyone’s political philosophy.

                    11. Exactly Fluffy. Put it in political terms. If Sarah Palin and her supporters started referring to themselves as “socialists” people like MNG and the major media would have a field day over her ignorance. Yet, when a bunch rioters do as much as the same thing, MNG will get all nuanced and post modern on us on the meaning of words.

                      It is not that he is partisan. It is that he is so insanely defensive about anyone looked upon as being on the Left. For God’s sake why would anyone want to claim or defend the looters in Greece?

                    12. In any event, since MNG is now reduced to arguing complete language nihilism (Yay! I get to accuse someone of being a nihilist today!) the argument is now irrelevant.

                      Since no words of the language have any meaning and since MNG cannot set himself up as the arbiter of any particular meaning or usage, there is no point to his 9:51 post.

                      No words have any meaning anywhere that anyone can assert, so he cannot assert that the usage is proper.

                      In fact, he cannot claim to even know what Senator Goldwater meant by his original post.

                      Maybe when Goldie typed the words “That word? I do not think it means what you think it means,” he was really trying to convey the content that half man / half lobster monsters had broken into his house and were trying to tickle him to death. Sure, we may think the words in that original post have nothing to do with lobster men or tickling, but it’s not like language is something written down on a stone tablet.

                      This means that MNG’s 9:51 post was a non sequitur. Of course, when I use the words “non sequitur”, I mean “evidence of douchebaggery”, except when I use it on a Wednesday, because on Wednesdays it means “the lobster men have reached my house now and they are fucking my cat”.

                    13. Truly awesome. And by that I mean truly awesome.

      4. I mean, MNG, it could be anarcho-communists…. but then they still want a stateless society, just one that is all “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”

        Really, all strains of anarchism believe in some form of a stateless society, so to protest for more government spending as an anarchist is just retarded.

        1. The word anarchist has long been used to just refer to ‘lawless’ folks, and often applied to rioters.

          Even in its technical meanings it can simply refer to someone who rejects all hierarchy and authority. That doesn’t mean stateless: it could be some form of radical participatory democracy where everyone has an equal part in state decision making and such.

          1. How in the world can you have a welfare state if there is no hierarchy and authority? To have welfare, you have to have taxes. To have taxes you have to have authority.

            Try again.

            1. Taxes could exist without the authority of any one person over another. Many anarchists are collectivist John, as long as everyone had an equal and active role in setting the taxes that would be fine.

              1. That makes no sense at all. Everyone having an equal role is called Democracy. But in the end, unless it is by unimanous decision, those who disagree will be forced to go along with the group and give up their taxes. That is what makes it taxes and not charity.

                You can’t be a collectivist if you don’t buy into the authority of the collective. You can’t be an anarchist if you believe in the authority of anyone. Ego, anarchists can’t be collectivist by any reasonable definition of the two terms.

                1. I don’t know what to tell you John, I realize the other day you were declaring who are Christians and who are not and today it is who are anarchist and who are not, but there are people who call themselves anarchist, seem to believe so fervently, and believe in such ideas.

                  Words don’t get some hard, fast and literal definition which is presered in stone from the Word Police.

                  It’s not uncommon for anarchist to claim Rosa Luxembourg for example. I’ve listend to many regale me with their ideas, for example, of participatory democracy in workplaces as the essence of anarchy.

                  1. “but there are people who call themselves anarchist, seem to believe so fervently, and believe in such ideas.”

                    There are. And those people are blithering idiots who don’t really understand much of anything. That is the point.

                    1. So these people call themselves anarchists, believe so fervently, are recognized regularly as such by reporters and editors, yet they are blithering idiots because….you say so?

                      And you call me elitist?

                      As with “who is a Christian” I tend to let people self-identify when it comes to their political beliefs.

                    2. They are blithering idiots because they believe in contradictory things and completely lack a coherent ideology.

                    3. As with “who is a Christian” I tend to let people self-identify when it comes to their political beliefs.

                      More MNG lies.

                      If I kept every last bullet point of my current ideology, but started walking around saying I was a Marxist, I think you would not just defer to my self-identification.

                      Or if you did, it would be solely for the purposes of trying to win this argument. In your mind, you would be thinking, “Fluffy is such a fucker, he knows he’s not a Marxist and he is saying that to be a dick. I’ll pretend to go along with it so he can’t call me on the fact that even I must acknowledge that some misidentifications are too obvious to be ignored.”

                    4. Whatever you think the definition of “anarchist” is, I think that we should all be able to agree that the “anarchists” protesting for more government by burning shit, are, in fact, blithering idiots.

                      And come on, if “anarchist” means anything it means someone who wants there to be no government. Sure, collectivist anarchists can exist. It would require people to live in small, voluntary groups, I think, but it is not inconceivable. It’s not as if a purely anarcho-capitalist situation is very likely to last very long either. But to call yourself an anarchist while protesting cuts in government is contradictory. Sorry.

              2. That’s not Anarchy. That’s pure Democracy.

          2. The word anarchist has long been incorrectly used by retards to just refer to ‘lawless’ folks, and often applied to rioters.

            FIFY

            That incorrect usage is precisely what is being mocked here.

            Even in its technical meanings it can simply refer to someone who rejects all hierarchy and authority. That doesn’t mean stateless: it could be some form of radical participatory democracy where everyone has an equal part in state decision making and such.

            No, because an anarchist would deny that whatever alternate institution they create, what with the radical participatory democracy and such, would be a “state”.

            The word “government” is the key word here. Do anarchists claim that their post-state institutions are governments or states? No.

      5. If by different you mean “the exact opposite,” then the point is yours, I guess.

      6. I remind you: MNG has a political science degree.

        1. Er, that’s right, but I don’t need one to remind you that words are used in various ways outside of any one dictionary definition or hyper-technical libertarian circles. It’s simply long been common to use the word “anarchist” to refer to anyone who is seen as engaged in some kind of radical action, like rioting.

          1. I reserve the right to make up my own definitions of words to suit my agenda.

            1. Aw, dudes. Don’t make me agree with MNG again.

          2. Usually the term I see used for people engaged in “some kind of radical action, like rioting” is rioter.

            1. I don’t know what to tell you, google anarchist rioters

              You’ll see it’s pretty common parlance.

              1. And Google is the penultimate search engine, so it must be right.

                1. Dude, I’m just using it to demonstrate how common this is. You think it is a terrible indicator of that?

                  1. Dude, I’m just using it to demonstrate how common this is. You think it is a terrible indicator of that?

                    A quick perusal of the search results shows that this use is not unexceptionable. Irregardless, it’s still incorrect. For all intensive purposes, “anarchist” cannot accurately describe individuals calling for more government action.

                  2. And if all your friends jumped off the bridge, would that make it right for you to jump off the bridge?

                2. What’s the ultimate search engine?

                  1. You’ve almost got it, Zeb.

              2. So modifying the word rioter with the adjective anarchist conveys a different meaning?

                Interesting.

          3. Yes, and “bemused” is commonly used to mean “wry amusement”, but that is not what that word means. “an”, “a”, and “anti” as prefixes “before” or “against”. Examples: amoral, asymmetrical, antagonist (vice protagonist), anemic, atheist and…ta da!…an-archist, literally meaning, “without archy” (ruler/rulers).

            1. And “liberal” means what, again?

              1. Despite the wisdom of Inigo Montoya, a word means precisely what the user meant it to mean.
                Using words improperly doesn’t promote understanding, of course.
                (And ridiculing improper use is a vital function of the grammatical elite, of which I are one.)

            2. If you want to believe that words are to be limited to the definitions someone writes down in a dictionary rather than that they derive their meaning through actual common usage, by all means, be my guest. You can even grab a dictionary and batton and join the word police for all I care.

              It’s commonly used in the way I defend, a simple google will tell you that.

              1. It’s commonly used in the way I defend, a simple google will tell you that.

                So, the real question is, what is your motivation in defending it in this manner? It has been demonstrated to you that there are better, more precise words to describe “black-masked looters” (rioters, malcontents, etc.), but you persist in “defending” this use. Why?

                And newsflash for you: we know that it is used in this way. We are making fun of that use and advocating against using it as such in the future. What, is all advocacy and discussion of language stupid to you now?

              2. You can even grab a dictionary and batton and join the word police for all I care.

                You heard him. Word Police Tactical Response Action over at MNG’s place.

                1. Fuck yeah!

                  1. Word Police|8.23.11 @ 11:00AM|#
                    Fuck yeah!

                    lol

              3. This isn’t an organic change to the meaning of the word “anarchy” occurring naturally over time — it’s an attempt by a political movement to hide its true nature by adopting the name of a very different political philosophy. It’s verbal fraud in a very real sense.

          4. I’m not saying I’m surprised. I’m already under the impression that political science begins with “first assume a State”.

            Admittedly, we start off with similar nonsense in physics, but we do eventually move on to nonspherical cows.

            1. No, you just move on to defining the cows in a different coordinate system. They’re still spherical.

              1. are they still cows though?

              2. 🙂 It’s a fair cop.

          5. It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless… By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

            But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one ? not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

      7. Er, maybe that word has a different meaning outside tiny libertarian circles?

        Right, just like “liberal” used to mean someone who favored liberty in all spheres of human endeavor. Now it means someone who favors govt involvement in everything outside our pelvises, and who knows how long that obstacle will remain.

  22. Japanese return 78 million in cash found in earthquake wreckage.

    To be fair, it is all in yen, so that’s probably only a couple of thousand bucks.

    1. In some countries, the headline would be:

      “Millions of empty wallets, purses returned”

    2. It’s a hair over $1 million.

      It’s also extremely commonplace around here to retrieve a lost wallet or cell phone at a police office. I’m sure some people stole what they found, but by and large I’d bet most people turned it in. My fianc?e got her $300-ish cell phone back that way. (I don’t lose things, because where I come from you only lose something once.)

      The fact that people here even carry cash already says a lot. I never have more than $30 in my wallet in the US, but here I usually have $200-300.

      1. I left a loaded wallet at a Pho shop. Still full when i picked it up.

        1. That reminds me, I want pho today.

          1. Pho is so fucking delicious!

            1. I’m still not clear how pho hasn’t become a national craze, rivaling other fastfood options.

              1. No idea. Lack of exposure? I took my dad to get Vietnamese about a year ago and he said it was the first time he’d ever tried it.

                It’s pretty easy to make a halfway decent imitation at home, too, and the ingredients are all pretty easy to find (rice noodles, bouillon, bean sprouts, basil lime, cock sauce).

  23. [Pelosi] admitted the difficulty of trying to pass jobs legislation when Congress has refused any more spending and when Republicans prioritize preserving the richest Americans’ wealth. In a moment of introspection, she wondered out loud about how many homes, pieces of “museum-quality art,” or big yachts a person could possibly need. “I have concluded that some of these people want something that is intangible,” she said. “Immortality!” But she said she had plans in the works, citing at least four places for bipartisan compromise: infrastructure investment, nudging China on its currency manipulation, “incentivizing” the private sector, and clean energy.

    She, however, is completely innocent of any longing for fame, self-aggrandizement or immortality. And she lives a life of monastic simplicity; I understand she has only a tin spoon and a wooden bowl to set her table with.


  24. A package bomb that injured two professors at a university here this month is the latest in a string of attacks by a new terror group inspired by the Unabomber. Its violent actions have put campuses across Mexico on alert and caused nanotechnology researchers worldwide to take precautions with their mail.

    Nanotechnology was singled out as a target for the attacks in manifestos posted on the Web by the group behind the bombs, which calls itself “Individualities Tending Toward Savagery.” It has been linked to attacks in France, Spain, and Chile, and to a bomb sent earlier this year to a scientist at another Mexican university who specializes in nanotech. An analyst who helped identify the Unabomber?who turned out to be a former professor?says the posts show signs of someone well-educated who could be affiliated with a college.

    The online rants credit the Unabomber as an inspiration.

    http://chronicle.com/article/N…..ts/128764/

    Now we know what White Indian does in his spare time.

    1. I refuse to believe he’s well-educated.

      1. True. He is probably one of the group’s retarded hangers on.

        1. I hope he forages for the wires and gunpowder. Before the white man came, both were plentiful in the unspoiled forest.

          1. *starts rewriting the lyrics to Big Rock Candy Mountain*

          2. He had to make a pickaxe out of sticks and wooden planks in order to get some redstone dust.

      2. I disagree. Truly epic levels of stupid demand graduate degrees from top universities.

          1. I thought it rude to point it out myself.

            Mainly because I don’t know where he went to school.

        1. because some interwebz dude named trespassers is a know-nothing, know-it-all about top university grad degrees

          1. ur returded lolwut

        2. Hey now. Mine is in geology. It mainly required a lot of math and lasers.

    2. Dude, someone took that Michael Chriton novel way too seriously.

    3. I thought he just shat all over H&R threads in his spare time.

    4. There’s always a chance that these attacks are coming from a nanotech researcher about to uplift himself into some kind of grey goo superbeing who doesn’t want any competition.

      If I was about to go all superbeing on your asses I’d be blowing up my research competitors too.

        1. I was also thinking of a novella I read that centers on a group of characters attempting to destroy a nascent strong AI developed by US researchers –

          – who then turn out to be the assimilated human servants of a different strong AI that doesn’t want any competitors.

        2. Can’t remember the title or author.

            1. Yup, that’s it.

              I could tell right on the first page, because I remember the part with the “traveling salesman path” math.

              That’s a really great story.

              I really owe Stross a fruit basket or something. Every time I forget the name of the author of a great story it turns out to have been him.

            2. “Antibodies” is likely another word of which MNG does not know the definition.

              1. It means “bodies.” Duh.

              2. It’s right up there with “regulate.”

  25. Jezebel on the politics of the American State Fair.

    Okay, at this point, and especially with Gawker ranking the states (which I will post a breakdown on when they finis it), I think there is some kind of competition on who can be the more elitist fuck.

    To wit, this quote:

    To the uninitiated, a visit to the state fair is a bizarre experience. There are pigs the size of small airplanes. There are cows made of butter. There is fried beer. All this is pretty foreign to anybody who grew up in an urban area, a fact David Foster Wallace acknowledged at the beginning of his famous and hilarious 1994 essay on the Illinois State Fair: “I suspect that every so often editors at East Coast magazines slap their foreheads and remember that about 90 percent of the United States lies between the coasts, and figure they’ll engage somebody to do pith-helmeted anthropological reporting on something rural and heartlandish.” Despite his Illinois heritage, Wallace views the fair with a combination of awe, disgust, and sheer dumbfoundedness, which pretty much describes the attitude of every liberal I’ve ever attended a fair with (the one exception was a wonderful lady who was really, really into horses). It also more or less describes the attitude a lot of liberals have to contemporary America itself.

    I mean, you wonder why places that don’t touch oceans tend to go red liberals? I mean, really?

    1. The real reason this is stupid is because the state fairs in Vermont and upstate New York and Massachusetts and just about every other state fair I’ve ever seen is balls-to-asses jammed full of liberals.

      The real stupidity is thinking that if you see a sign for a state fair you must be in Iowa.

      1. They have a great state fair like enterprise just outside of Boston called the Topsfield fair. People in bluer than blue Boston love it. It is great fun. Fun to eat the food, see the animals and such.

        It is not a liberal or a conservative thing. It is about a certain set of maladjusted douchebag faux intellectuals (of which DFW is a poster child) who just can’t understand or appreciate anyone but themselves. Most of this group are liberals but there are a few conservatives like that. And this paricular manifestation of the douchebaggery and emotional stuntedness has nothing to do with their political views.

        1. Of course bluer than blue Bostonians love it.

          It’s Stuff White Liberal People Like:

          Farmers
          Animals
          Community Activity
          Organic Produce
          Non-branded products
          Handicrafts
          Expensive strollers everywhere

          You have to be really silly or provincial to think that there are no liberals at state fairs.

      2. state fair + presidential wannabes + cameras = Iowa

      3. I recommend “nut to butt.” You don’t get to say “asses” but it rhymes.

      4. I love my midwestern city. It’s got everything I need (ok, no big league baseball, but AAA is a lot cheaper) and the state fair is four miles from downtown. (We invented the butter-cow sculpture, motherfuckers.) And I can afford a multi-acre compound a quick commute from my downtown office.
        If you want to find a gay NASCAR fan, this is the place to do it.

        1. Heh heh, CN is in Des Moines? We’ve got a couple of Iowa folks up on here.

          I’m in Grinnell

    2. The Texas State Fair, which I’m sure would give your standard New York liberal an aneurysm, is held just outside downtown Dallas, the ninth-largest city in the USA. “Foreign to anybody who grew up in an urban area” my ass.

  26. I disagree with the ruling against Catholic charities. Their religious freedom was squashed.

    1. Well, apparently, at least if I’m reading my Jezebel right, they want to eliminate the religious exemptions for birth control and abortion.

      Honest question: If a Catholic doctor is refusing to provide abortions on those grounds atm, why would you want to force them to provide abortions? Wouldn’t they just do a shitty job of it?

      1. it’s not on the provider side, but the coverage side. they want Catholic employers to cover birth control in the health plans that are offered to employees.

    2. I do think it is more complicated than “Discriminating Catholics discriminated against.” Often what is going on here is the state only allows licensed entities to do adoptions, and then they make non-discrimination a condition of getting the license. Then I think you can see it as the state preventing the entity from doing something it wants to do.

      It’s tricky, I can see both sides. But I would think for a libertarian they would have to say if the Catholic agency wants to do adoptions in their own way they should be allowed.

      1. Now that, my friend, that is metal.

      2. These deficits go to 11!!!

  27. That actually makes a lot of sense dude.

    http://www.web-anon.at.tc

    1. The best way to discredit Islamists animals is to let them have some authority.

  28. Finding out after the fact that the lawyer who drew up grandma’s will was incompetent is little solace.

    And this has never, ever happened to somebody who hired a member of the bar in good standing.

    1. And, if it did, that wasn’t a lawyer. It was a godforsaken paralegal.

    2. Well it’s obvious, isn’t it? If the state says you are competent, then it must be true. How could it possibly be otherwise?

  29. – who then turn out to be the assimilated human servants of a different strong AI that doesn’t want any competitors.

    Obviously a sentient corporashun bent on evilly reducing humanity to mindless wage slavery.

    1. You know what’s really scary? Corporations have been passing the Turing Test for some years now.

      1. If you read a corporate presser and think it was written by a person instead of a committee, you may not be able to pass the Turing Test yourself.

        1. I said they could pass it. I didn’t say they always sounded human.

  30. Now that, my friend, that is metal.

    1. Oops, threaded error!

      Disregard.

      1. Wait, what? How is this above the comment you meant to respond to?

        1. Hell if I know. This is a weird one.

  31. Greetings Now i’m for that reason happy I stubled onto any site,Nike Dunk High Prefer came across you will just by error, at the same time Document was first Nike Dunk 2008 Gold Black browsing relating to Bing just for something.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.