Reason Morning Links: NLRB Goes Nuts, Stories From the Early Days of DHS, Registering Atheists Like Sex Offenders

Mike Riggs | 8.31.2011 9:00 AM

The National Labor Relations Board handed down three decisions yesterday that critics are comparing to watered-down card check.
Florida pastor demands that all atheists be required to register with the government.
WaPo has an interesting DHS retrospective up: "About 88 House and Senate committees and subcommittees maintain authority over parts of DHS and there's been no effort to consolidate the oversight."
The recession is reviving three-generation households.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki says there will be no permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq after the pullout later this year.
Rick Perry wipes the floor with Mitt Romney et al in a new Zogby poll.

New at Reason.tv: "Gov. Gary Johnson: Cut Spending by 43% - and Cut Social Issues from GOP Agenda"

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

NEXT: Your Lying Eyes

Hide Comments (451)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

Aqua Buddha 14 years ago

Berkeley offers college credit to 'fight the new Jim Crow'
Back in the day, if students wanted easy credits, they signed up for underwater basket-weaving. Now they just need a political cause.

The University of California, Berkeley is offering students college credit to work for an expressly political organization fighting for affirmative action and immigrant rights....

Mental illness rise linked to climate
RATES of mental illnesses including depression and post-traumatic stress will increase as a result of climate change, a report to be released today says.

The paper, prepared for the Climate Institute, says loss of social cohesion in the wake of severe weather events related to climate change could be linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and substance abuse.

As many as one in five people reported ''emotional injury, stress and despair'' in the wake of these events....
1. DJF 14 years ago
  
  So Berkeley is going to fight "Jim Crow" by working to expand a government system of judging people by their race and ethnicity?
  1. Aqua Buddha 14 years ago
    
    Shut up, racist.
  2. Some Progressive 14 years ago
    
    That's why I propose a White Tax - anyone who is Caucasian will have to pay a 10% tax on gross income to support their brothers in need. Those of mixed race will have a gradual deduction in the tax, depending on ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation.
    1. R C Dean 14 years ago
      
      I'm good for at least a 25% discount, then.
    2. Brett L 14 years ago
      
      I'm down, but my racism only goes to dohexaroon. After that, they're white.
    3. Gibby 14 years ago
      
      The "one drop rule" has never been more needed than now.
    4. Lord Humungus 14 years ago
      
      I'm sure some of our more "liberal" brethren would be perfectly happy with such a system.
      1. O2 14 years ago
        
        you can also be sure i gotta bridge to sell u.
        
        Lord Humungus 14 years ago
        
        really? where? can I charge a toll?
        
        O2 14 years ago
        
        meet me in brooklyn in 2 weeks and i'll show u the bridge inventory for sale...plus a few tunnels
      2. Sir Roderick Glossop 14 years ago
        
        I thought trolls lived under bridges instead of selling them.
2. Au H20 14 years ago
  
  So, when people from the UC system can't get a job, I think we'll all know why.
  1. Progressives 14 years ago
    
    But a college education makes them more qualified to run people's lives!!!
    1. mad libertarian guy 14 years ago
      
      Universities are NOT about providing an education anymore, but solely about creating policy makers.
3. wylie 14 years ago
  
  if students wanted easy credits, they signed up for underwater basket-weaving
  
  that doesn't sound easy at all.
4. Doug 14 years ago
  
  As many as one in five people reported "emotional injury, stress and despair" in the wake of these events....
  
  How does one know they've been pwned by a marketing gimmick? When one has bought into a claim that begins with "As many as".
Aqua Buddha 14 years ago

The 7 Most Unintentionally Hilarious Propaganda Campaigns
...This massive Internet army is colloquially known as the 50 Cent Party, since they are purportedly paid 50 Chinese cents (about $US 0.07) for each comment made in support of the government. They mostly stick to news, city and college campus websites -- basically, their job consists of trolling dissenters into oblivion. The Guardian claims there are around 300,000 people working for the 50 Cent Party, at least a few of which had signed up under the wrong impression....
1. free2booze 14 years ago
  
  So it's not a political movement organized by rapper 50 Cent?
2. Chan Li 14 years ago
  
  China is super cool, libertarians suck!
  1. Attila the Huh 14 years ago
    
    Huh?
  2. Li Chan 14 years ago
    
    Chan Li is right! And nobody paid me to type this message!
    1. Ice Nine 14 years ago
      
      They always treat dyslexics that way.
    2. Drake 14 years ago
      
      Sucker!
  3. Chan Chan 14 years ago
    
    I thought you were dead!
    1. Chan Li 14 years ago
      
      Nope!
  4. Bad Joke 14 years ago
    
    How High is a Chinese Mountain?
    1. Chinaman 14 years ago
      
      Yes.
3. Trespassers W 14 years ago
  
  Finally, a rational explanation for The Truth.
  1. Lord Humungus 14 years ago
    
    it makes sense.
  2. cynical 14 years ago
    
    I wonder how much they pay the NYT to print Friedman articles?
Bee Tagger 14 years ago

The National Labor Relations Board handed down three decisions yesterday that critics are comparing to watered-down card check.

What I got from this is that the NLRB would like to waterboard anyone who won't join a union.
1. Fist of Etiquette 14 years ago
  
  But not between 9:00AM and 9:45AM. That's the mandated break period. And only wth OSHA approved equipment.
  1. Bee Tagger 14 years ago
    
    Let's hope they'll at least play Deep Purple during the mandated smoke break.
  2. db 14 years ago
    
    They'll farm the waterboarding out to nonunion homeless people at less than minimum wage.
2. Enjoy Every Sandwich 14 years ago
  
  I'm just curious as to why "progressives" are so violently opposed to a secret ballot election. Why does the union have to know how I've voted? It only seems to serve one purpose, to identify me for coercive tactics.
  1. Zeb 14 years ago
    
    Yeah, it doesn't make much sense. Secret ballot should be the best thing to protect workers from targeted coercion by both employers and unions.
    1. R C Dean 14 years ago
      
      It doesn't make sense unless your goal is to protect workers from employers, but not unions.
    2. MNG 14 years ago
      
      Zeb, if you really want to know what the argument is, here it is: it has to do with the idea that currently the secret ballot elections for certification and such are not very much like our political elections at all, that one side has tremondous advantages. Unions are very limited in their access to the employees on the job while of course employers can order them to sit in anti-union rallies all day. It's also thought that card check is faster, in fact employers right now can invoke Gissell cards to decertify unions or to allow another union to challenge a currently certified union.
      
      The idea about intimidation is the way libertarians tend to think about most laws unless it involves unions, that is, there are already laws against that on the books. Card check wouldn't change that, at most it would subject workers to (gasp!) social pressure.
      1. Tony "Big Fish" Baccala 14 years ago
        
        ... at most it would subject workers to (gasp!) social pressure.
        
        You can't possibly be that naive.
        
        MNG 14 years ago
        
        Gun control people would say the same thing to you if you said "we need to make it easier for citizens to carry concealed weapons, most citizens will not misuse them and if they did there are already laws on the books for that."
        
        This is usually the libertarian way of thinking of such matters except when libertarians are being used by conservatives to attack unions.
        
        Tony "Big Fish" Baccala 14 years ago
        
        Apparently you can be that naive. Or dishonest, hard to tell which.
        
        Sir Roderick Glossop 14 years ago
        
        He's dishonest with us in order to defend his own beliefs. I suggest the sleep-cure.
      2. rac3rx 14 years ago
        
        ...Unions can only harass, intimidate, and threaten employees off the job while of course employers can order them to perform the work for which they were hired....
        
        There, FIFY.
      3. Fatty Bolger 14 years ago
        
        That's simply untrue, MNG. Card check is already used to get the election called, and the election can already be bypassed if there is over 50% support and the employer accepts the union, or the NLRB determines that an election would be unfair due to bad practices by the employer. So every advantage you mentioned is already in place. What unions want to get rid of is the final vote where employees get to safely and secretly make their real intentions known. Otherwise, union reps can just browbeat employees until they fill out and send in the cards, with no icky "election" with terrible "secret ballots" to get in the way.
        
        One of the new rulings eliminated a precendent that "allowed workers the opportunity to request a secret ballot election within a 45-day window following a "card-check" organizing effort." Because allowing workers a secret ballot vote without possible intimidation from either side would be just awful.
        
        MNG 14 years ago
        
        "the election can already be bypassed if there is over 50% support and the employer accepts the union"
        
        Right, so why no screams over the sacred nature of secret ballot elections on this respect?
        
        Fatty Bolger 14 years ago
        
        Because the employees could still request a secret ballot afterwards. This ruling seems to remove that ability, because that ability was based on the Dana Corp precedent. See, it's VITAL that the union not allow a secret ballot vote. Why is that? You're a smart guy, maybe you can figure it out.
      4. Skr 14 years ago
        
        Except that the union just has to get one person on their side at the particular workplace and he or she can harangue the others all day long. The employer is most likely going to be working in his or her office most of the day.
      5. Fluffy 14 years ago
        
        one side has tremondous advantages.
        
        Are you on fucking crack?
        
        The union has the monumental advantage that it can force the employer to conduct an election, instead of just firing everyone who wants to form a union.
        
        Remember, without special protections from the state, these standardizedd, formalized union elections wouldn't be happening at all. Union organizers would have to build their union one employee at a time, and call for a contract action once they thought they had the weight.
        
        robc 14 years ago
        
        Remember, without special protections from the state, these standardizedd, formalized union elections wouldn't be happening at all. Union organizers would have to build their union one employee at a time, and call for a contract action once they thought they had the weight.
        
        Exactly. And once that happens, the union can handle their internal votes however they want, secret or open.
        
        MNG 14 years ago
        
        Sure, I never argued libertarians could support the NLRA, just that within the NLRA card checks themselves should be no big deal.
        
        Remembe though that the NLRA ties unions hands too (prohibiting things like wildcat strikes and secondary boycotts that were very successful for unions though very disruptive to interstate commerce pre-NLRA).
      6. stonewyrm 14 years ago
        
        As long as I am paying you, you sit where I tell you and listen to what I want to say. Or quit.
        
        I bet the union would get people to come listen to their side, if they paid the same hourly rate.
        
        MNG 14 years ago
        
        "As long as I am paying you, you sit where I tell you and listen to what I want to say. Or quit."
        
        See, union opponents quite explicitly acknowledge the advantage and that these elections are nothing like political ones, so why not drop all the 'but the sacred nature of the secret ballot to a fair election' talk?
      7. Agammamon 14 years ago
        
        Actually they can't *order* anyone to sit in an anti-union rally all day - the employer can, however, *PAY* its employees to sit in one.
3. Drake 14 years ago
  
  Preferably the Soviet Union.
Fist of Etiquette 14 years ago

Florida pastord demands that all atheists be required to register with the government.

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communionless party?
1. Tim 14 years ago
  
  "Pastard"
2. Resident Commentator 14 years ago
  
  Meet Michael Stahl, otherwise known as "Pastor Mike." Stahl...hangs out a lot in a Christian-themed chat room.
  
  Crackpot in a chat room?
  That's hitting uncomfortably close to home.
  1. Chatroom Crackpot 14 years ago
    
    Is it going to be a national news story every time one of us puts forth an idiotic scheme?
    1. Janet Napolitano 14 years ago
      
      No.
    2. Resident Commentator 14 years ago
      
      Evidently.
  2. Eduard van Haalen 14 years ago
    
    His proposal sounds like Swiftian satire, but he won't let me see his blog, so I can't tell if he's serious.
    
    If he's serious, how influential is he, really?
    
    "Stahl lives in Miramar, Florida, and leads an online church called Living Water Church, which we think is a fancy way of saying he hangs out a lot in a Christian-themed chat room."
3. Agammamon 14 years ago
  
  I like how he thinks the atheists should be all for this scheme (just like the sex offenders). I mean who wouldn't just love random fuckers from the evangelical wing of the local church showing up at all hours to aggressively push that shit.
  
  I live in a heavily catholic town in a heavily catholic part of the country and I get along just fine with my neighbors at least in part because they have their assumptions about me and I have my apathy about their beliefs.
  
  Anyway I've already got the JW's coming by every couple of Saturday's - at least, contrary to stereotype, they're quiet, polite, and will take no for an answer.
John 14 years ago

http://www.politico.com/news/s.....62363.html

Liberals panicking over Rick Perry. I mean, think about it. If Perry wins, he could up our involvement in Afghanistan, get us into a new war, keep GUITMO open, sell guns to Mexican drug cartels and bring us back to the Bush deficits!!
1. Joe M 14 years ago
  
  See, if only he wasn't a fundamentalist who was okay with executing an innocent man, I might be more sanguine about his candidacy.
  1. John 14 years ago
    
    If only fundamentalists governors were the only ones okay with executing innocent people as opposed to the majority of them.
    
    I am not a fan of Perry either. But the fact that liberals panic over him more than they would any other Republican just shows they don't really have any political views beyond hating the other.
    1. Sarah Palin 14 years ago
      
      that liberals panic over him more than they would any other Republican
      
      What am I, chopped liver?
      1. John 14 years ago
        
        Yes. Once you are no longer a threat to be elected to anything, you will be held up as a paragon of reasonable thinking.
        
        The Palinator 14 years ago
        
        I'll be back.
    2. Joe M 14 years ago
      
      Well, I don't know about all that, since Romney consistently performs the best against Obama in head to head votes. I would argue that leftists aren't as concerned about Romney because he's not as conservative, even if he has a better chance of winning.
      1. Rev. Blue Moon 14 years ago
        
        Leftists won't be concerned about Romney until Romney is the candidate. Then they will turn on him like the hyenas on Scar, the same way they did with McCain last election.
        
        O2 14 years ago
        
        u mean like bush did in south carolina
        
        Red Rocks Rockin 14 years ago
        
        u mean like bush did in south carolina
        
        Yeah, it's funny how progs thought McCain was a reasonable politician until he ran for President.
        
        O2 14 years ago
        
        perhaps ur unfamilar w team bush trashing mccain in the Y2K south carolina primary.
        
        O2 14 years ago
        
        derp
    3. mad libertarian guy 14 years ago
      
      just shows they don't really have any political views beyond hating the other.
      
      Was this idea somehow cloudy before?
      
      For both teams, the only requirement one must have in order to meet their intellectual standards is that you hate the other team so much, that any opinion you have concerning any matter whatsoever be the opposite of what the other team says. Even if the very next day or year you find yourself arguing exactly the opposite of what you argue today, you cannot question it so long as it is the opposite of what the other team is saying.
      
      See Lybia, Kinetic Military Action in.
2. DJF 14 years ago
  
  Which shows that Perry is racist because he would steal the Obama administration agenda
  1. John 14 years ago
    
    And he is getting funds from "secret sources". This from the people whose President raised a hundreds of millions in anonymous internet contributions.
    1. Aqua-Assault-Rabbit 14 years ago
      
      Unicorns are not anonymous.
      1. sloopyinca 14 years ago
        
        No, but Palestinians with prepaid cards usually are.
        
        [adjusts tinfoil hat]
        
        Fluffy 14 years ago
        
        Those Palestinians just keep coming up with shitty strategies.
    2. Brett L 14 years ago
      
      If they aren't on a Democratic fundraiser list, they're "secret".
3. Joe M 14 years ago
  
  Perry, Sharpton said, "is looking to go to the O.K. Corral and start shooting. ? Rather than the left get caught sleeping, we better load up, because he is bringing it."
  
  Wow, that is some seriously violent rhetoric, Mr. Sharpton. If Perry gets shot, we know who to blame.
  1. Rich 14 years ago
    
    I happened onto the Reverend Al's radio show the other day. With all due respect, what does he do to mumble as he does?
  2. Eduard van Haalen 14 years ago
    
    Are you saying that Sharpton has used violent rhetoric that was coincidentally followed by violence? That's paranoid and hateful!
    1. Gibby 14 years ago
      
      What's up with your handle?
      1. Eduard van Haalen 14 years ago
        
        I first used it in a thread about the Netherlands, so I assumed a Dutch-sounding name.
        
        What's a "Gibby?"
      2. db 14 years ago
        
        Dude, it's called a "crank," and frankly, we don't like to talk about "The Accident."
4. MNG 14 years ago
  
  Of please. Liberals are not panicking over Perry for any other reason than that he is a very conservative governor of a very conservative state; it is not different than the way conservatives panicked over "the most liberal Senator in the Senate" getting the Presidential nomination (used on Kerry in 04 and Obama in 08).
  1. MiNGe 14 years ago
    
    Obama in 08
    
    How's that workin' out?
    1. MNG 14 years ago
      
      This is going to shock you, but while I did not support Obama for hte nomination and voted for him for Prez only to rebuke the GOP after eight years of misrule and am now thoroughly disgusted with him and would love to see someone take the nomination from him, I don't think he's some horrible thing. But you know what, I didn't think Bush was horrible either. Or Clinton, or Reagan. Even the ones I did not like I did not have the over-the-top passionate hatred and loathing of that I see regularly around here. But hey, different strokes for different folks.
      1. Jersey Patriot 14 years ago
        
        I like to consider my loathing to be bi-partisan and proportionate. If someone's going to murder children with bombs, I'm probably going to hate that person and think they ought to hang for their crimes.
Joe M 14 years ago

Well, the good news is, Ron Paul is practically tied for second now, haha. But damn, people, this is kinda wacky, everyone piling in for Perry before they've heard much of anything about him. Guess we like our cowboys in Amurrkah.
1. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
  
  Nobody knew anything about the president, either. We like our candidates blank.
  1. Joe M 14 years ago
    
    Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. The left picked an empty suit who people were able to fill with their hopes and dreams. Now the right is stealing their playbook.
    1. Mike M. 14 years ago
      
      The difference is that the media will thoroughly vet Perry ten ways to Sunday over the next year.
      
      Which is exactly what they should do, but the scummy vermin refused to do it to the jug-eared Jesus
      1. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
        
        The idea of the media being the Fourth Estate is a completely dead letter now. At least when talking about the traditional media.
    2. Gibby 14 years ago
      
      "Now the right is stealing their playbook."
      
      What bullshit. Perry has been governer of Texas for ten years. For good or bad, he has a record. Obama didn't.
      1. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
        
        That's a fair statement. I was speaking in general without thinking of Perry specifically. He can be much more easily vetted than Obama.
        
        Naturally, it's absolutely stupid to vote for a candidate with no record for the most powerful position in the world.
      2. Joe M 14 years ago
        
        Okay, I misspoke. He obviously has a long record to dissect, unlike Obama.
  2. I, Kahn O'Clast 14 years ago
    
    "blank' but wearing the appropriate label, in this case "conservative". That and one call for prayer is about all anyone knows, yet....
2. Pirate Ninja 14 years ago
  
  Those Cowboys wouldn't stand a chance if they'd invite me to the debates...
Bee Tagger 14 years ago

Florida pastord demands that all atheists be required to register with the government.

Oh, good, giving attention to pastors from Florida who say crazy things that represent the opinions of maybe 7 people in the world always works out really well.
1. Devil's Advocate 14 years ago
  
  I swear there must be something in the Florida drinking water that makes the pastors there go insane.
  1. Chupacabra 14 years ago
    
    You think it was his drinking water? I'm guessing it was something stronger.
  2. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
    
    That's right! Water from the dead!
    1. Nipplemancer 14 years ago
      
      It's just like homeopathy. You dilute the dead crazy folks into the water supply to make everyone crazy. It all makes sense now.
      1. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
        
        The company providing the deathstills is Scottish. I don't know what that means, but since I live in the area where this is occurring, note any strange interest in haggis, Scottish independence, or kilts developing. Also, I hate Scotch, so that's another telltale.
        
        Zeb 14 years ago
        
        "I hate Scotch"
        
        Then why should I listen to anything you have to say?
        
        Pro Libertate 14 years ago
        
        That's strange, Zebulon, because I had you pegged as a bourbon drinker.
        
        R C Dean 14 years ago
        
        I hate Scotch
        
        [Sighs, moves Pro L down a couple of notches]
        
        I, Kahn O'Clast 14 years ago
        
        I was once a big Scotch drinker but returned to my Bourbon ways some years ago. I suppose I lost the taste for the former when I gave up cigars.
        
        Pro Libertate 14 years ago
        
        Bourbon is my drink of choice. I would say it and/or Tennessee whiskey were the drinks of my ancestors, but there is the complication that I'm half-Scottish.
        
        Citizen Nothing 14 years ago
        
        So you're saying cigars masked the nasty bog taste? Ok, this I understand.
        
        Citizen Nothing 14 years ago
        
        Instead of a cruise, Reason should sponsor a Bourbon Trail tour. We could all stay at SugarFree's place.
        
        Pro Libertate 14 years ago
        
        I've been to the Jack Daniel's distillery in Lynchburg, but I haven't been to any of the distilleries in Kentucky.
        
        Citizen Nothing 14 years ago
        
        The Jack Daniel's distillery -- where tasting is not allowed -- is the cruelest hoax in all tourism.
        
        SugarFree 14 years ago
        
        Hey!
        
        Citizen Nothing 14 years ago
        
        I had one trip where -- on the clock, mind you -- I visited the Jack Daniel's and George Dickel distilleries, and then did a (grown-up) Space Camp weekend.
        I'd be happy to set up the First Annual reason Tennessee Whiskey/Space Camp Tour for a small fee. That bitch would sell out, guaranteed.
        
        Pro Libertate 14 years ago
        
        That's right--Huntsville is quite close to Lynchburg. Whiskey and spaceflight--what makes America great.
        
        mad libertarian guy 14 years ago
        
        We can camp in my back yard. Surely it's bigger than SF's house.
      2. JD 14 years ago
        
        Wouldn't homeopathic dead people in the drinking water have a high likelihood of bringing about the zombie apocalypse?
        
        Pro Libertate 14 years ago
        
        I had the same thought. Since they're starting here, if I start commenting only about wanting brains, it's possible there's something to this theory.
  3. Drake 14 years ago
    
    It's the heat and humidity. The Devil's Advocate should know that.
2. Joe M 14 years ago
  
  Frankly, I don't see why anyone would oppose this idea ? including the atheists themselves (unless of course, they're actually ashamed of their atheist religion, and would prefer to stay in the 'closet.').
  
  Or they don't feel like being harassed all day by a bunch of "witnesses".
  1. SugarFree 14 years ago
    
    Evangelicals aren't evangelical. That's just another atheist meme.
    1. Joe M 14 years ago
      
      Oh, well that's good news.
      1. SugarFree 14 years ago
        
        +1
        
        Fluffy 14 years ago
        
        That groaner of a pun got a +1?
        
        Joe M 14 years ago
        
        U mad?
      2. Fatty Bolger 14 years ago
        
        I hear ya.
3. Kevin 14 years ago
  
  I'm an atheist, and an atheist registry sounds like a wonderful idea! There will be some who suggest the registry should be at Target, but I like Amazon.com. It's got something for everyone. Just pick anything on my wish list. If several of you want to pitch in together to get one of the pricier items, feel free! Ooohh, I can't wait to see what comes in the mail. I'm just hoping it will be as nice as when all those sweet Jewish people in Europe got to go on vacation for free. I hear the German countryside is beautiful this time of year!
Aqua Buddha 14 years ago

The National Labor Relations Board handed down three decisions yesterday that critics are comparing to watered-down card check.

Who needs a Congress - too much risk of it falling into the wrong hands. Much better to find a handful of the morally pure and give them unaccountable power. Accountability breeds corruption, as it allows impure outsiders to influence our morally pure govt.
John 14 years ago

Meet Michael Stahl, otherwise known as "Pastor Mike." Stahl lives in Miramar, Florida, and leads an online church called Living Water Church, which we think is a fancy way of saying he hangs out a lot in a Christian-themed chat room.

This is the equivalent of giving a New York Magazine profile to Lone Wacko. Magazines like New York really do exists to make a certain breed of xenophobic Manhattan liberal feel better about themselves.
1. I, Kahn O'Clast 14 years ago
  
  Now here's something that John and I agree on! I thought the same thing: An article about some nobody who has some silly idea must be just a way of making New Yorkers feel superior. And I am not sure it's just the liberals. Plenty of NYC conservatives love that these stories are never about them but about some cracker somewhere else.
  1. dhex 14 years ago
    
    how else are we supposed to relate to the flyover plebians of 'merica?
    
    hilarious victimhood scripts aside, this is kind of ny mag's thing. they're a gossip rag that does heavy doses of political and fashion related type stuff. (and the occasional good feature piece, but that's rare). it's a brite, a la man bites dog, but with this looney tune.
  2. mad libertarian guy 14 years ago
    
    Bg city dwellers LOVE to assert their superiority over us flyover country folk at every chance possible.
    
    It's in the culture to think that dealing with absurdly high crime rates, absurdly abusive law enforcement tactics, pollution and any number of not so good things makes one superior.
Bee Tagger 14 years ago

The recession is reviving three-generation households.

Charlie Bucket's grandparents seemed plenty happy in their bed for 4.
1. alittlesense 14 years ago
  
  Sounds kinky to me.......
2. Devil's Advocate 14 years ago
  
  Honestly, at the way things are going I don't see my kid moving out until her late twenties. Hopefully it doesn't come to the spouse and kids moving in as well (assuming she gets married and has kids). It makes me a little sad, because getting away from our parents and having our own home was something of a rite of passage in my generation. I suppose she could rent with other people who aren't her parents, but that opens whole other cans or worms. Dunno.
  1. Marshall Gill 14 years ago
    
    Because she wouldn't be able to afford European vacations if she had to pay rent? Can't support yourself on less than $50k a year? $80k?
    
    I already own the boots that will kick my son out the door when he turns 18. How exactly would extending his childhood another decade benefit him?
    1. Devil's Advocate 14 years ago
      
      Heh. Admittedly I may be letting my mom-ly instincts cloud my judgment here: my Precious should feel no pain! (Although I and my husband did in our early married life, and it didn't kill us.) We'll see how it goes (although I like your boot-possession idea!).
      1. Marshall Gill 14 years ago
        
        Thomas Sowell has a book called Race and Culture. He describes the natural tendency of parents to keep their children from "having to go through what I did". While this is very understandable, it creates dependents. The hard times are when you build character. Allowing, or even causing, character building opportunities is the very definition of tough love. Sheltering children from them denies them this opportunity.
        
        Numeromancer 14 years ago
        
        Yea, I mean, the Juze bitch about Auschwitz, but really, didn't it make them better people?
        
        mad libertarian guy 14 years ago
        
        So you're really going to compare not having the ability to live at home until one's late twenties to suffering in a concentration camp?
        
        Are you that big a douche?
    2. Abdul 14 years ago
      
      Where can I get a pair of those boots?
  2. Fluffy 14 years ago
    
    I suppose she could rent with other people who aren't her parents, but that opens whole other cans or worms.
    
    But since during the 60's, 70's and 80's pretty much all unmarried young people who moved out of the house got roommates, when we lament the fact that our young people can't afford live singly today "like in the good old days" what days are we talking about, exactly?
    1. SugarFree 14 years ago
      
      Boardinghouses? Sleep in a closet and share a bathroom with 10 other people, eat all your meals out or at a common table. Which is totally unlike have roommate. Totally.
      1. Marshall Gill 14 years ago
        
        Common beds, common eating and bathing areas, big deal, did they have to share wireless internet connections?
  3. Zeb 14 years ago
    
    Assuming that everyone gets along well enough and are capable of leaving each other alone sometimes, and there is enough space, I think that extended families living together can be great. I lived with my parents until I was 25 (though I could have afforded to rent on my own) and because of that I was able to buy my own property. This might not work so well for someone less independent minded and thrifty, but it can be a good thing.
  4. I, Kahn O'Clast 14 years ago
    
    I will never understand why any 18+ person would ever want to live with their parents. But then my parents were the tail end of the Greatest Generation and completely void of any influence from the 60s so there were zero attempts to be my friend. I suspect the feelings about what would happen the day after High School were mutual.....
Fist of Etiquette 14 years ago

The recession is reviving three-generation households.

We're all Italians now.
1. Tim 14 years ago
  
  Shutup and go see what granma's cooking fer dinner.
  1. Fist of Etiquette 14 years ago
    
    Shut uppa you face.
    1. Vinny 14 years ago
      
      Whatza matta you?
      1. sloopyinca 14 years ago
        
        Ah, bafangu!
        
        Fist of Etiquette 14 years ago
        
        [insert image here]
        
        mofo 14 years ago
        
        I yell outta da window!
      2. I, Kahn O'Clast 14 years ago
        
        Why you look'a so sad?
        
        sloopyinca 14 years ago
        
        Its'a Mario time!!
        
        [stomps on turtle]
2. Chupacabra 14 years ago
  
  It's OK. We have better food.
3. gaijin 14 years ago
  
  Does this mean Jersey Shore is now educational programming?
Bee Tagger 14 years ago

Rick Perry wipes the floor with Mitt Romney et al in a new Zogby poll.

Yes! Romney sucks.
Crap! Perry sucks.
1. Fist of Etiquette 14 years ago
  
  It's all relative.
  1. steve 14 years ago
    
    That's the saddest indictment of all about the GOP's propects right now. Not a single one is wiping the floor w/ BO right now as you'd expect based upon approval ratings. The charismatic ones carry religious and/or economic baggage and the libertarians have neither charisma nor love from the press, even Paul who should at least resonate w/ the Jesus-phreaks.
    1. Brett L 14 years ago
      
      This is more an indicator of the TEAM spirit of American politics than an indictment of Perry/Romney/Paul or endorsement of Obama.
  2. JW 14 years ago
    
    Yes, but the floor is clean!
Aqua Buddha 14 years ago

This is the equivalent of giving a New York Magazine profile to Lone Wacko.

Which would be all kinds of awesome.
alittlesense 14 years ago

Oh great. Perry will manage to alienate boatloads of swing voters who will then give Obama another term. Why are the Dems so worried? The Republicans seem to have a limitless capacity for shooting themselves in the foot.
1. John 14 years ago
  
  Yeah because people are going to vote on evolution and guns as opposed to the depression and bankruptcy that are occurring.
  1. Joe M 14 years ago
    
    If the Dems are able to successfully campaign on Perry being a religious wacko, yeah maybe. But I fully expect Perry will start charging to the center if he wins the nomination, classic politician style.
    1. Chatroom Crackpot 14 years ago
      
      The religious wacko angle will only give much help in the Northeast and on the West coast. Places Obama already has in his pocket.
      1. Joe M 14 years ago
        
        Yeah, considering a big chunk of this country is quite Christian, it might not hurt as badly as all that.
      2. John 14 years ago
        
        Yes. And what happens is they go so over the top that Perry is bound to look like a reasonable guy compared to expectations.
  2. mad libertarian guy 14 years ago
    
    Never underestimate the Team BLUE machine to convince the masses of jobless college graduates with loads of debt that it really is in their best interest to ignore that they have been duped in to believing that a college education is the key to immediate and eternal prosperity and vote Team BLUE because otherwise the religious wackos will take over the earth and force open school prayer before every class starts.
    
    Really what the issue is is that liberals cannot separate the idea of believing something and using government force to shove said beliefs down one's throat. It's in their political DNA to do so. They don't see a difference between "people should help others in need" and "we should use the government to force people to help others in need". They simply cannot imagine believing a particular idea yet NOT using government force to enact said idea. They are convinced of their moral righteousness, and of the morality in using force to make other people not only believe in their code, but to force others in to enacting their social agenda.
    
    That said, it's in a Christian's religious DNA to "spread the word". It's part of their duty as a Christian, and most Christians I know have few problems with using government to force Christian moral ideology on to everyone.
    
    All I want is to be LEFT THE FUCK ALONE by all of them.
2. Bee Tagger 14 years ago
  
  Worried, like foxes. The more they fret out loud about candidates, the more Republicans love that candidate. Voila, that candidate wins the nomination.
  1. mad libertarian guy 14 years ago
    
    I've long said that the biggest fear of both teams is that the other somehow doesn't exist.
    
    They rely on the other in order to formulate their own platforms because they have no ideas; they are simply against what the other is for.
    
    Without using the other as a foil, they are BOTH dead. It's EXACTLY why someone like Paul is a such a huge threat. He attacks the way Team RED does things, and therefore is threatening the turf of Team BLUE, and they can't have that. THey both rely on the status quo in order to keep the sheeple voting for the duopoly.
Pastord Mike 14 years ago

if they are business owners, we would encourage all our Christian friends ... NOT to patronize them as we would only be "feeding" Satan.

Indeed, not patronizing them is "fucking over" Satan.
1. Devil's Advocate 14 years ago
  
  Wouldn't it be "patrondizing?"
  1. Amakudari 14 years ago
    
    *patrodnizing
2. Aqua Buddha 14 years ago
  
  NOT to patronize them as we would only be "feeding" Satan.
  
  Miroslav ?atan?
free2booze 14 years ago

Micro unions allow labor organizers to section off company employees by specific job descriptions. For example, if a union tried to organize a restaurant staff, leaders would target servers, busboys, dishwashers, cooks and hostesses separately.

Doesn't this seem bass ackwards? Shouldn't it be workers who have agreed to organize, seeking out someone to represent them, rather than the other way around?
1. SugarFree 14 years ago
  
  They are deluded, benighted poor souls who need to be taught that there are ways to work less for more pay and never be fired.
  1. T 14 years ago
    
    False consciousness really is the gift that never stops giving, isn't it?
    1. SugarFree 14 years ago
      
      It's the perfect excuse for every tyranny ever.
      1. T 14 years ago
        
        "You just think you're happy."
        
        "Well, you just think you're smart."
2. Union Thug 14 years ago
  
  Is your windshield smashed? No? Than STFU and be grateful we picked you out of the goodness of our hearts and in the name of freedom and solidarity.
  1. MiNGe 14 years ago
    
    Union thugs are just a conservative meme.
3. Union Rep 14 years ago
  
  We're just spreading the word, you know? Speaking of tools of the trade, I call this little baby "The Organizer."
4. cynical 14 years ago
  
  Just think of the union as a corporation selling political power to use against your boss. It's advertising.
Aqua Buddha 14 years ago

if they are business owners, we would encourage all our Christian friends ... NOT to patronize them as we would only be "feeding" Satan.

Miroslav Satan?
Fist of Etiquette 14 years ago

Rick Perry wipes the floor with Mitt Romney et al in a new Zogby poll.

...has trouble getting into the corners with such obtuse mopping tools.
1. Tim 14 years ago
  
  At least he didn't wipe his ass with him...
PantsFan 14 years ago

Ugly bridesmaid kept away from beautiful guests via ipad
http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....le2146082/
1. The Groom 14 years ago
  
  I had iPhone sex with her during the reception.
Warty 14 years ago

pastord

Excellent typo.

Do You Want Someone To Thank You For Being Masturbation Fodder?
1. SugarFree 14 years ago
  
  Now see, I was going to title that:
  
  "Jezebels Complain About Something That Will Never, Never, Ever Happen To Them."
  1. John 14 years ago
    
    Attractive women should be able to dress how they want where they want and men should never look at them or think about them unless of course the woman wants it. In which case the man is supposed to intuitively know that.
    1. Tim 14 years ago
      
      Now when an attractive woman catches me looking at her I just tell her that, yes those jeans do make you look fat.
      1. Rich 14 years ago
        
        Then you can tell her "Hey you're *cute* when you're angry!"
      2. T 14 years ago
        
        Too easy. I prefer commenst like "I have to know if you got dressed in the dark" or "I was just wondering if the crack whore knows you took her shoes".
        
        SugarFree 14 years ago
        
        "You look like your closet threw up on you."
        
        T 14 years ago
        
        These days, my go to catty comment is usually some variation on "That outfit might look good on you if it were a couple sizes larger".
    2. Lord Humungus 14 years ago
      
      MALE STARE!
  2. JW 14 years ago
    
    It's the Male Glaze.
    1. Male Gays 14 years ago
      
      Helloooooooooo!
  3. Red Rocks Rockin 14 years ago
    
    And of course, these are the same pigeons who think "Slutwalks" are super-keen and a positive message.
2. Bee Tagger 14 years ago
  
  There is nothing wrong with a fantasy. The creepy, potentially violating part is letting someone else into it without their prior consent or interest.
  
  How many words have been abused there? I can immediately point out "violate," "letting," and "consent."
  1. SugarFree 14 years ago
    
    You want what? I'm going to give them "creepy" though. Telling someone you make the bald man cry while thinking of them is pretty damn creepy. For example, my hackles rose when Episiarch finally confessed to me. Ugh. No. Wrong.
    1. Fist of Etiquette 14 years ago
      
      I think this is the real reason the Amish don't like to be photographed. They don't want people making Amish Jesus weep to their likenesses.
      
      Lesson to you all. Keep your sexy mugs off the internets if you don't want to cause sticky keyboards.
      1. SugarFree 14 years ago
        
        Epi told me he always thought of me as "the corndog in his mustard sandwich." Scarred for life. Confused and scarred.
        
        Fist of Etiquette 14 years ago
        
        Actually, I think that description's pretty flattering. Stop acting the victim.
        
        Fist of Etiquette 14 years ago
        
        Come to think of it, mustard? He should probably get that looked at.
        
        Devil's Advocate 14 years ago
        
        But has he turned his Gaze upon you? That's where the real violation come into play.
  2. JD 14 years ago
    
    The creepy, potentially violating part is letting someone else into it without their prior consent or interest.
    
    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that asking someone's permission to wank while thinking of them isn't any less creepy than informing them after the fact.
3. Amakudari 14 years ago
  
  I must say, the ladies got taste.
  1. SugarFree 14 years ago
    
    Look at the "Top Wanked" guy. Cousin It meets Emo Elmo.
    
    The Top Wanked is girl is pretty attractive, although I never trust photos on the web. She could be some sort of were-hippotaur from the waist down.
    
    Also, I am concerned by anyone that doesn't have a single friend to take their picture and must rely on a mirror.
    1. Nipplemancer 14 years ago
      
      Hippotaur! My new favorite word. Thanks SF!
4. Union Thug 14 years ago
  
  "he said he remembered it too, and also the tank top I wore, because he'd been jerking off to the memory."
  
  Okay, that guy is either a pick-up genius, or he has Aspergers.
  1. A Serious Man 14 years ago
    
    Forgot to change handle.
  2. Ice Nine 14 years ago
    
    I'd always wondered how to broach this topic with women at social events. The etiquette books just don't seem to do the subject justice.
5. Amakudari 14 years ago
  
  > Search for fianc?e's name
  > Already has +2
  
  She'll be so proud.
Amakudari 14 years ago

Or maybe [atheists are] just too busy eating babies and having blood-soaked sex orgies to be bothered by your meddlesome proselytizing, Pastor Mike. Did you ever think of that?

Shit, guys, they're onto us.
1. SugarFree 14 years ago
  
  Another:
  
  RILEDUPONE
  So do agnostics have to register only their first names?
2. Ice Nine 14 years ago
  
  As an atheist who has nothing at all against orgies and rough sex I've gotta say I'm pissed that over all these years I've managed to miss the "blood-soaked" sex orgies. How are they?
  1. SugarFree 14 years ago
    
    Meh. Depends a lot on whose blood.
    1. mad libertarian guy 14 years ago
      
      I prefer having rough sex orgies while getting sprayed by a supersoaker with the sweat of child laborers, followed up by the tears of those who cry for Obama.
  2. T 14 years ago
    
    Messier. You definitely want some plastic down.
  3. Atheist 14 years ago
    
    Blood soaked. Fortunately we recruited a good godless dry-cleaner couple early on. Who knew those big plastic bags made such good restraints?
The Ghost of Uncle Joe 14 years ago

Florida pastord demands that all atheists be required to register with the government.

Sounds good to me.
1. Pip 14 years ago
  
  You're movin' kinda slow.
Joe M 14 years ago

Local couple surprised by SWAT team visit

"I was sitting in my recliner watching television when I heard a loud noise," Mr. Robinson said. "A bunch of men shined a light in my eyes and pointed a gun at me. I can't remember what they were saying. I raised my arm to get the light out of my eyes to see them and they shoved me down on the couch. One man who had a badge stayed there with me guarding me so that I didn't leave. They never said who they were, they never showed me a warrant, and they didn't show me a picture of the guy they were looking for or tell me they were looking for someone until they were ready to leave."

Nothing else happened!
1. Tim 14 years ago
  
  It's like the night before CHristmas, only with guns.
2. WTF 14 years ago
  
  They should just be thankful they didn't have a dog.
3. Karl Hungus 14 years ago
  
  According to the article, the guy they were looking for was wanted for "rape by instrumentation." Or maybe the writer was referring to the raid itself.
John 14 years ago

http://www.reuters.com/article.....DV20110831

Hey, lets try to refill that housing balloon. It is bound to work this time.
A Serious Man 14 years ago

Ron Paul: I Don't Accept the Theory of Evolution
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories.....8876.shtml

Doesn't bother me since he's not the guy that would use the power of the Federal government to force that belief upon us, right?
1. SugarFree 14 years ago
  
  Wow. I mean, wow.
  1. Tim 14 years ago
    
    Wow? Or WoW?
    1. Pastord Mike 14 years ago
      
      WWJD?
  2. John 14 years ago
    
    That is a wow. But maybe it will finally convince people how unimportant the evolution debate should be.
2. Joe M 14 years ago
  
  Honestly, it kinda concerns me. Letting your religion get in the way of accepting scientific knowledge is pretty problematic.
  1. Amakudari 14 years ago
    
    Yes, mostly because it calls into question your ability to reflect critically on your own beliefs. But it's a far cry from those who want to force a religious tenet into law.
  2. sloopyinca 14 years ago
    
    Especially since religious faith and belief in the science of evolution are not mutually exclusive.
    
    This is a real head-scratcher.
    1. Zeb 14 years ago
      
      Indeed. I have always thought that a God who can design a whole universe that will eventually produce all of the variety and amazing stuff that exists now, without further intervention is much more impressive than a God who has to micro-manage everything and fix things as he goes along.
      1. Numeromancer 14 years ago
        
        It's not his fault; they keep changing the specs on him.
  3. Abdul 14 years ago
    
    My problem with the evolutin debate is that most people are using it as a proxy for something else--someone's (non)religious world view. Ron Paul was a doctor, he's not scientifically illiterate. However, refusing to accept evolution didn't appear to harm his medical practice.
    
    Teaching or not teacing it in schools is not really going to help most students.
    
    A significant number of Americans don't know whehter the solar system is heliocentric or geocentric. If it doesn't make the price of gasoline rise, who cares?
    1. wylie 14 years ago
      
      A significant number of Americans don't know whehter the solar system is heliocentric or geocentric.
      
      Look, at least we've almost stamped out the belief that Earth is flat.
    2. Joe M 14 years ago
      
      Come come, I'm sure they know, although they might not understand those specific terms.
3. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
  
  It bothers me some, but I agree, it's not that relevant, since he doesn't appear to have any interest in imposing his beliefs on me.
4. Rev. Blue Moon 14 years ago
  
  It is like ignorance is a badge of honor among Republicans. Democrats may be breathtaking stupid, but Republicans are willfully ignoring knowledge. That is disconcerting.
  
  Note: I mean this in the limited sense of biology. When it comes to economics and theories of government, you can switch the descriptions.
  1. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
    
    What's odd is that they'll say such things about evolution, but I bet Paul wouldn't make such a strong statement about cosmology, geology, physics, or any other science that has clearly stated that the universe has to be billions of years old.
    1. Joe M 14 years ago
      
      Is it just because some of the strongest advocates of evolutionary theory are atheists that Christian fundies get so bent out of shape about it?
      1. Mad Scientist 14 years ago
        
        No, it's because the fundies want to believe they were created in the image of god, not merely descended from some smart monkeys.
  2. mad libertarian guy 14 years ago
    
    The big difference, however disconcerting both might be, is that how one views biology is far less likely to fuck with me on a governmental level than those ignorant of the basic tenets of economics; those fucks are determined to fuck with me via the use of government force.
5. kinnath 14 years ago
  
  Ron Paul is a fundamentalist christian that thinks free individuals should be allowed to snort cocaine or inject herion if they feel like it.
  
  His views on evolution don't worry me in the slightest.
  1. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
    
    He could, of course, issue an executive order halting the course of evolution until it could be proven by the Evolution Commission. But, somehow, I don't see him doing that.
6. PIRS 14 years ago
  
  "Doesn't bother me since he's not the guy that would use the power of the Federal government to force that belief upon us, right?"
  
  We have more important things on our plate right now. Our economy is in the tank. We have a government that bombs any country that it doesn't like and we have TSA agents who molest grandmothers at airports. What a candidate thinks about evolution is the least of my concerns.
  1. Trespassers W 14 years ago
    
    What a candidate thinks about evolution is the least of my concerns.
    
    If only it didn't matter what other people's concerns were...
  2. Citizen Nothing 14 years ago
    
    It bothers me. Sorry, but it does.
7. Fluffy 14 years ago
  
  Doesn't bother me either.
8. Eduard van Haalen 14 years ago
  
  He believes in Darwinism when it counts: allowing natural selection to wipe out inefficient businesses and poor schools.
9. Trespassers W 14 years ago
  
  Hey, Ron, way to further marginalize yourself for absolutely no good reason.
  
  Let's hear more about why it's evil to point out that he's unelectable. That's always entertaining.
  1. Amakudari 14 years ago
    
    Unfortunately, a good number of Americans don't believe in evolution, and many are "undecided." Belief in evolution is a minority belief. He really doesn't marginalize himself with such a statement.
    1. Trespassers W 14 years ago
      
      The operative phrase here is "at the margins".
      
      I submit that anti-evolutionists who weren't already supporting RP aren't going to be moved toward supporting him by this statement.
      
      Independents, on the other hand, could easily be turned off. Just when they were entertaining the notion that he's not a crackpot, they get hit with this.
      
      Stupid, stupid move. I can't keep sending donations to someone who clearly doesn't care whether they get elected or not.
10. Warty 14 years ago
  
  Ugh.
John 14 years ago

http://washingtonexaminer.com/.....ol-run-ins

Drunken cop shoots at trannies. I guess there weren't any dogs around.
1. Old Mexican 14 years ago
  
  Nothing else happened.
  1. Rev. Blue Moon 14 years ago
    
    Of course, to see how outrageous this actually is, you had to go to the bottom of the article:
    
    He was arrested in 2004 for driving while intoxicated and operating while impaired, according to court records. He pleaded no contest and the charges were dropped after he completed a diversion program.
    
    He was suspended for between 30 and 90 days in that case, according to city records.
    
    On Christmas Day 1996, Furr and another officer were on duty when they got into a drunken argument with a mother and son. Police brass placed Furr on administrative leave and tried to fire him, but he was reinstated in 1998 after a change in police chiefs.
    
    But dunphy assured me that firings happen ALL THE TIME! Could he have been lying? Oh, there goes my innocence...
    1. Pip 14 years ago
      
      "Could he have been lying?"
      
      Let's ask his wife, Morgan Fairchild.
      
      At the risk of repeating m yself, I do not believe a single word he says. He's like "Jitterbug Boy" in the Tom Waites song:
      
      Well, I'm a jitterbug boy
      by the shoe-shine
      resting on my laurels
      and my Hardys too
      life of Riley on a swing shift
      gears follow my drift
      Once upon a time I was
      in show-biz too
      
      I seen the Brooklyn Dodgers
      playin' at Ebbets Field
      seen the Kentucky Derby too
      it's fast women, slow horses, I'm reliable sources
      and I'm holding up a lamp post
      if you want to know
      I seen the Wabash Cannonball,
      buddy, I've done it all
      
      because I slept with the lions
      and Marilyn Monroe
      had breakfast in the eye
      of a hurricane
      fought Rocky Marciano,
      played Minnesota Fats
      burned hundred-dollar bills,
      
      I eaten Mulligan stew
      got drunk with Louis Armstrong
      what's that old song?
      I taught Mickey Mantle
      everything that he knows
      
      and so you ask me
      what I'm doing here
      holding up a lamp post
      flippin' this quarter,
      trying to make up my mind
      and if it's heads I'll go to
      Tennessee, and tails I'll buy a drink
      if it lands on the edge
      I'll keep talking to you
      1. H man 14 years ago
        
        When in Rome, they do as he does.
        
        Abner 14 years ago
        
        I bet Dunphy has some great stories about working with (or training) the romano di polizia.
2. Pip 14 years ago
  
  Posted yesterday.
John 14 years ago

http://www.kob.com/article/sto.....ml?cat=500

I guess that is one way to get out of a ticket.
1. WTF 14 years ago
  
  KOB Eyewitness News 4 has obtained surveillance pictures of a State Police officer having sex with a woman on the hood of a car in broad daylight.
  
  Nothing. Else. Happened.
2. Eduard van Haalen 14 years ago
  
  Ticket, heck, that's one way to get out of a murder rap.
3. Mad Scientist 14 years ago
  
  Is the officer now going to have to register a sex offender for flashing his willy in public?
PIRS 14 years ago

"The National Labor Relations Board handed down three decisions yesterday that critics are comparing to watered-down card check."

I was wondering: Where in the U.S. Constitution does it mention The National Labor Relations Board?
1. THE FUCKING COMMERCE CLAUSE 14 years ago
  
  Right here, beyotch.
  1. PIRS 14 years ago
    
    Oh, I forgot, growing tomatoes on my own land for my own consumption is Interstate Commerce.
    1. Tim 14 years ago
      
      FREE THE HEINZ 57!
      1. PIRS 14 years ago
        
        +5
2. Joe M 14 years ago
  
  Article 1, Section VII, which apparently authorizes just about everything imaginable. Or whatever the commerce clause doesn't cover.
  1. James Madison 14 years ago
    
    Finally, somebody understands! I wrote the rest of it to let the rubes believe they are free.
  2. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
    
    All we need is the Preamble.
3. MNG 14 years ago
  
  The stated justification for the NLRA is indeed the commerce clause. The stated goal is to alleviate the labor strife that was endemic at the time it was passed, strife that very often disrupted commerce at a national level (hence the national guard and army commonly being called out to quell it).
  1. MNG 14 years ago
    
    If you don't think labor strife can negatively effect national commerce take a look at European nations when they have mass transit strikes and such.
    1. MiNGe 14 years ago
      
      Because 'labor strife' is exactly the same as "..Commerce...among the several states,.."
    2. Night Elf Mohawk 14 years ago
      
      Lots of things that aren't commerce can affect commerce. Now, if the Constitution said "regulate things that affect commerce among the several states" the whole line of powe-grabbing cases wouldn't be so laughably laughable.
      1. Hurricane Irene 14 years ago
        
        "Lots of things that aren't commerce can affect commerce."
        
        ^^THIS^^
        
        mad libertarian guy 14 years ago
        
        So maybe they should just outlaw hurricanes.
        
        If Top Men? agree to it, it's sure to work.
John 14 years ago

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08......html?_r=1

David Honeyboy Edwards dies at 96. Last living link the Robert Johnson and Charlie Patton. Damn.
Old Mexican 14 years ago

The National Labor Relations Board handed down three decisions yesterday that critics are comparing to watered-down card check.

"Who needs Congress?"
1. Tim 14 years ago
  
  Hookers, lobbyists, Defense Contractors, teenage girls will picture phones, welfare queens...
  1. Au H20 14 years ago
    
    Well, you forgot State Legislatures, the AAA to Congresses MLB.
O2 14 years ago

A troubling lesson from Libya: Don't give up nukes
Qaddafi stopped his nuclear program. Would NATO have bombed if he hadn't? Now, Iran watches as nonnuclear states are invaded and nuclear ones win favors.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Comme.....e-up-nukes
1. John 14 years ago
  
  That is exactly the lesson. Quadafi gave up his nuke program and look what it got him.
2. PIRS 14 years ago
  
  "A troubling lesson from Libya: Don't give up nukes"
  
  Yes, it is troubling to warmongers like Obama when countries decide to defend themselves.
  1. John 14 years ago
    
    Or sponsor terrorism and cause other problems. What if 9-11 had been traced back to a nuclear Iran? What would the US have done? Risk a nuclear war over a few thousand deaths? Not likely. It would have been a real bitch.
    
    This may come as a surprise to you. But some countries not named the United State like war too. Some of them are real assholes and not the kind of people anyone but them would want to have nukes.
    1. PIRS 14 years ago
      
      John,
      
      Since you brought up 911 let me ask you this : Do you know what motivated those hijackers? Here is a hint : it wasn't because they hated freedom.
      
      Here is another question for you : how often has Switzerland been the target of terrorism?
      1. John 14 years ago
        
        I will tell you what motivated them, they were assholes like most people. You know what motivated the Nazis to stick all of those people in ovens and the North Koreans to invade and try to enslave the South or the Soviets to occupy all of Eastern Europe and turn it into a prison camp? Do you think it was the victims of those aggressions crimes? I don't. I think it was because the people who did it sucked.
        
        Again, you will find this a surprise, but there is nothing special about the US. If we are peaceful and don't fuck with people, we will still get run over. That is how the world works.
        
        Chatroom Crackpot 14 years ago
        
        Except for two oceans, a navy, and an air force that could sink any invasion fleet in the world, then yes there is nothing special that would keep the US from being run over. Unless you forget about the rifle behind every blade of grass.
        
        Au H20 14 years ago
        
        Also, from a strategic point of view, you would have to invade and occupy LA... Good luck with that, buddy. The U.S. has been trying to do that FOR 150 YEARS! We even have an occupying army. IT'S CALLED THE LAPD!!!
        
        John 14 years ago
        
        We are unlikely to be invaded and occupied. But that is not the only thing people can do to us. Also, if the world turns into chaos it is kind of bad for business. People bitch and moan about the US involvement other places. But thanks to our involvement we have all these great countries like Germany and South Korea and Japan that are peaceful and democratic and make all this great stuff that we get to buy and trade with them.
        
        John 14 years ago
        
        We wouldn't have any of that if Libertarians ran the country except for the people with guns. And there are more ways to attack a country besides invading.
        
        PIRS 14 years ago
        
        "We wouldn't have any of that if Libertarians ran the country except for the people with guns. And there are more ways to attack a country besides invading."
        
        You would have far more people with guns and also people would not have the motivation to do it. You left that part out.
        
        Chatroom Crackpot 14 years ago
        
        I am fine with keeping up the navy and air force as long as they are used defensively. I would even keep up the nukes. But the rest of the world is none of our business.
        
        Joe M 14 years ago
        
        You're wrong. If we brought all our troops home, we'd have even more defensive power.
        
        PIRS 14 years ago
        
        JOhn,
        
        To understand what motivates a murderer is not the same thing as excusing what that murderer did. Every police force in the country tries to find out what motivated a crime - they do not do this in order to excuse the criminal. It is very clear if you listen to their own speeches and read their own literature that what they were upset about was our foreign policy.
        
        You have not answered my second question : how often has Switzerland been the target of terrorism?
        
        John 14 years ago
        
        No, what they are upset with is the fact that they live in a backward fucked up place and the world has passed them by. The would hate us regardless of our foreign policy. Do you really think you can reason with people who walk into schools and blow themselves up? You really think we can and should run our lives based on how not to offend them?
        
        Chatroom Crackpot 14 years ago
        
        I could care less if we offend them. They can only attack us if we let them. What they do in their backward hell holes is their business.
        
        PIRS 14 years ago
        
        "No, what they are upset with is the fact that they live in a backward fucked up place and the world has passed them by."
        
        You would think, that were this the case, that wealthy and educated people like Osama bin Laden would be the ones LEAST likely to support this movement.
        
        "Do you really think you can reason with people who walk into schools and blow themselves up?"
        
        Well gee, I suppose we never kill civilians in our military operations do we? We are dealing with asymmetrical warfare here. Because of that they out of necessity play by different rules.
        
        "You really think we can and should run our lives based on how not to offend them?"
        
        This depends by what you mean. I have no problem with running cartoons of Muhammad in the local newspaper or Dutch directors making documentaries about Spousal abuse. I DO have a problem with our country trying to dictate to other countries run their affairs.
        
        Hurricane Irene 14 years ago
        
        "Well gee, I suppose we never kill civilians in our military operations do we?"
        
        That is unbelievably stupid. I seem to recall a bunch of school girls being forced to burn alive in their school in Pakastan(?) because for them to be seen without the headscarf would be obscene.
        
        That has not one god damned thing to do with US foriegn policy. These fuckers ar nuts.
        
        http://www.google.com/search?s.....41l2.3l5l0
        
        mad libertarian guy 14 years ago
        
        So our foreign policy decisions over the last 50 years has absolutely nothing to do with why we were attacked? I'm not about to say that it was all our fault, but to say that we had no hand in creating the circumstances in which terrorism would flourish is simply stupid.
        
        It's nice to know who can be excluded from the conversation.
        
        Cosmo Liberal-tarian 14 years ago
        
        Bullshit.
        
        Every problem in the world is the fault of America and our sucky evil government.
        
        Because all the other governments in the world are peaceful and benevolent.
      2. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
        
        What motivates al Qaeda is that they want an Islamic empire, not the non-Islamic proto-empire of the U.S. With us occupying countries in the Middle East (even pre-9/11), that's not much of a hope. So they gambled on us backing off and licking our wounds if they hit us in the U.S. Big mistake, in hindsight, because we're now more involved than ever.
        
        They didn't attack us because of our culture and values. They may despise our secularism, but that's not why they attacked. They attacked because if we keep going the way we are, there's little hope at all of radical Islam surviving.
        
        PIRS 14 years ago
        
        Actually our foreign policy has helped SPREAD radical Islam. Those who apear too "Western" are associated with pepople they now consider the enemy - us. "Islamic empires" of the past have actually been tolerant compared to the non-Islamic governments of the same period. Look at Al-Andalus (What we now call Spain) and compare it to the Christian European countries of the same period. The Jews were not kicked out of Spain until AFTER the Christians took over.
        
        Cosmo Liberal-tarian 14 years ago
        
        "Islamic empires" of the past have actually been tolerant compared to the non-Islamic governments of the same period
        
        Indeed, the tolerant Ottoman empire was really trying to free Europe from horrible Christians. The Janissaries were the 16th century equivalent of freed slaves fighting their former masters (even though they had been free but no longer were).
        
        Pro Libertate 14 years ago
        
        Yeah, I'm not too keen on pronouncements of tolerance in connection with Islamic empires. They may not have forced conversions on everyone, but they did make non-Muslims into second-class citizens, they did invade and conquer countries by the boatload, they occasionally slaughtered non-Muslims, anyway, and they were generally oppressive regimes.
        
        Not to mention, revisionist crap like blaming the West for starting it all is insane. Spain was invaded as were lands of the Byzantine Empire in the east.
        
        R C Dean 14 years ago
        
        Partial agreement here, Pro L. I think that the reason radical Islam views us as an existential threat is in no small part because of our culture and values. And rightly so.
        
        Once most people get a good taste of democracy, whiskey, sexy, reciting the Koran in a madrassa and having a bunch of bearded nutjobs stick their noses in your business stops lookng like such a good deal.
        
        Pro Libertate 14 years ago
        
        Like I said, they don't care for our lifestyle, but the fact that we're projecting power in the region and are obviously going to squash any revival of militant Islam (in the sense of not allowing any empires of conquest to develop, even within the Middle East) is the real issue.
        
        If we withdrew completely, someone else would take on our role--Russia, Europe, maybe even a local power.
    2. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
      
      I hate to say this, but we do have a pretty much unbreakable first-strike capability. So a terrorist attack by a nuclear Iran could mean no more Iran, if we weren't willing to try to take out their nuclear capability with conventional means.
      
      This is one reason that, if we simply must be interventionists, I think it is a good idea to oppose nuclear proliferation. Countries like North Korea or Iran could force us into actions that we definitely don't want to face.
      1. John 14 years ago
        
        We do. But we would never use nukes unless they used them first. The problem is that when someone has nukes and then does something short of nukes, what are we going to do about it? Risk a nuclear war? That is a bit tricky. And as long as we are here, people are going to fuck with us. It would be nice if the peacenik libertarians were right and we could just disarm and ask the world to love us and everything would be okay. But that is not reality.
        
        Au H20 14 years ago
        
        John, I think it's not so much disarming as much as its not doing stupid shit like helping Britain with a coup against an democratically elected PM because he wanted to nationalize the oil in a country, and the CIA itself said he wasn't a commie. Which is exactly what we did in Iran, and we've been dealing with the blowback ever since.
        
        Barack Obama 14 years ago
        
        Thank God I canceled our missle defense program!
        
        Fluffy 14 years ago
        
        But we would never use nukes unless they used them first.
        
        I bet the city fathers of Hiroshima now wish they hadn't used their own nukes on the US first.
        
        "What were we thinking?" they call out from the afterworld.
        
        R C Dean 14 years ago
        
        Actually, I think our protocol is to use nukes as a response to any chemical/biological/nuclear attack.
        
        Now, a little pissy one that only killed a few hundred, we wouldn't nuke 'em for that. Probably. But something like a serious anthrax attack with casualties north of 10,000? I wouldn't be so sure, and I don't want the nutters to be so sure, either.
        
        Pro Libertate 14 years ago
        
        Those Americans are muy loco, hermano. No telling what they might do.
    3. Chatroom Crackpot 14 years ago
      
      How many countries has Iran invaded and occupied in the last 200 years?
      1. John 14 years ago
        
        One, its mortal enemy Iraq. And back in the day Iran was a first class empire. Nothing says it won't be again. I know it is a shock, but bad things happen that have nothing to do with the US. And people hate the US for all sorts of crazy reasons that have nothing to do with anything the US has done.
        
        Chatroom Crackpot 14 years ago
        
        Iraq crossed the border first, after we nudged Saddam to sack up.
        
        Rome and Greece were first class empires too. Should be be on guard against their legions?
        
        John 14 years ago
        
        If Greece is taken over by a cabal of religious nuts, makes proxie war against us in two countries and starts building nukes, we just might have to.
        
        Chatroom Crackpot 14 years ago
        
        So the US would not make proxie war against China if the Chinese had troops in Mexico? I have doubts about the proxie war claim, but there would be no proxie war if we had not invaded those two countries. I will give you the first 6 months of Afghanistan. We went in, busted up the training camps and chased Osama into Pakistan. We should have started pulling all troops out in Jan 2002.
        
        Pro Libertate 14 years ago
        
        I tend to agree. Go in, topple the offending government, tell them not to do it again, or we'll come back, then leave. Even adding a little time to help them rebuild infrastructure would be tolerable.
        
        Of course, the fact is that we rarely do that. If we go all-out, we want to leave behind a nominal ally, not a future enemy. We've been doing that for a long time.
        
        John 14 years ago
        
        If Mexico sponsored an attack on China that killed 2800 innocent Chinese, I would hope we would be helping the Chinese.
        
        Afghanistan attacked the US directly. But in your world we have no right to fight back. Yeah, a policy of never fighting back after attacked. Yeah, that will definitely keep people from attacking us.
        
        Chatroom Crackpot 14 years ago
        
        No, a group of foreigners inside Afghanistan attacked the US.
        
        Gibby 14 years ago
        
        "No, a group of foreigners inside Afghanistan attacked the US."
        
        We're they illegals?
        
        mad libertarian guy 14 years ago
        
        Greece has been taken over by religious nuts.
        
        It's the religion of socialism.
        
        sloopyinca 14 years ago
        
        Does it not strike you as just a little bit ironic, John, that the only country they invaded and occupied was also invaded and occupied by us...twice?
        
        So...our record of attacking* their arch-enemy is twice as long as theirs.
        
        *and counter-attack is probably more accurate in their case.
        
        John 14 years ago
        
        Doesn't it strike you as a bit ironic that we ironic that we invaded their arch enemy and destroyed its ability to invade them, yet they still hate us? Kind of puts lie to the idea that they will love us if we are just nice enough to them.
        
        sloopyinca 14 years ago
        
        I really don't care if they love us or hate us. Just so long as they don't attack us, I couldn't give a fuck about them.
        
        And this should be our nation's foreign policy, btw.
        
        Cosmo Liberal-tarian 14 years ago
        
        Bullshit
        
        The American government is the only organization in the world based on a malevolent, expansionist ideology.
        
        The mullahs in Iran only want to be left alone. Everything they do contrary to that desire of theirs is our fault because of something that we did 10, 20, 50 or 500 years ago.
        
        PIRS 14 years ago
        
        Cosmo Liberal-tarian.
        
        Nice straw-man argument.
        
        PIRS 14 years ago
        
        "Doesn't it strike you as a bit ironic that we ironic that we invaded their arch enemy and destroyed its ability to invade them, yet they still hate us? Kind of puts lie to the idea that they will love us if we are just nice enough to them."
        
        You mean Iran? They think they are next. Look at it this way - imagine if some other country had invaded and occupied both Canada and Mexico. Would you be a bit paranoid? If you think this is a stretch consider that both Afghanistan and Iraq border Iran.
      2. Pro Libertate 14 years ago
        
        The issue right now is whether we're going to continue to be the Earth's military, interventionist and ever-meddling. If so, we're stuck with dealing with containing problem countries.
        
        If not, then we have to be willing to sit back and let bad things happen overseas. In fact, even in peaceful, sedentary Europe, what would happen if they were forced to rearm by a U.S. withdrawal? Their history doesn't suggest that the current Pax Americana would continue. Still, there's a good argument to be made that we should mind our own business and only get involved when absolutely necessary.
      3. R C Dean 14 years ago
        
        How many countries has Iran invaded and occupied in the last 200 years?
        
        They've been clever about it, but I would count Lebanon as a casualty of Iranian expansionism.
        
        sloopyinca 14 years ago
        
        Don't you mean Syria?
        
        Not being a dick, because it's a serious question.
        
        Pro Libertate 14 years ago
        
        I was actually thinking both Lebanon and Syria. Isn't there some suspicion that part of Iran's nuclear program is being operated in Syria?
        
        R C Dean 14 years ago
        
        Syria, I think, was a pretty willing partner with Iran. Could be wrong.
        
        Lebanon, though, not so much.
3. sarcasmic 14 years ago
  
  The adage "An armed society is a polite society" could be expanded to say "A nuclear planet is a polite planet".
  
  Our government doesn't want other countries to have nukes for the same reason it doesn't want it's own people to be armed: bullies hate it when their victim can fight back.
  1. John 14 years ago
    
    I disagree. I would prefer other countries not have nukes because a nuclear war, even one not involving the United States would really suck.
    1. sarcasmic 14 years ago
      
      I would prefer other countries had nukes because then we would stop invading them.
      1. John 14 years ago
        
        And when they attack us via terrorism and the like, we will be pretty much fucked. In the end I think a lot of countries are going to get nukes and terrorism is going to become much more common. Basically, nukes are a license to fuck with the US until the US shows it is willing to nuke someone and take the return hit, which is unlikely.
        
        Do you guys really think that no on in the world would ever do anything bad? It is as if there was no wars in the world before the evil United States came along.
        
        Howard Zinn's Rotting Corpse 14 years ago
        
        It is as if there was no wars in the world before the evil United States came along.
        
        I like the cut of your jib.
        
        sarcasmic 14 years ago
        
        And when they attack us via terrorism and the like, we will be pretty much fucked.
        
        "They"? Terrorists are not soldiers. They are not government employees. They are not agents of the state.
        Governments have a high incentive to keep nukes out of the hands of potential terrorists. Terrorists might use them. Then that country is fucked if our government returns the favor.
        
        Basically, nukes are a license to fuck with the US
        
        Does Pakistan fuck with us? Does India fuck with us?
        Nukes mean the US can't invade. They're immunity from aggression.
        
        John 14 years ago
        
        Terrorists are often agents of the state. The people who attacked us on 9-11 were effectively agents of the Taliban. The people who blew up the nightclub in Berlin in 1986 and who bombed the plane of Lockerbee were agents of Libya. Most of the terrorism conducted in the 1970s was supported by the KGB.
        
        It is called asymmetric warfare. And it is the way small countries make war against large ones. You are pissing in the wind sarcasmic.
        
        Chatroom Crackpot 14 years ago
        
        The Taliban was riding the Washington gravy train. Why would they attack us?
        
        John 14 years ago
        
        Crackpot, go ask the Taliban.
        
        Chatroom Crackpot 14 years ago
        
        The Taliban didn't attack us. They offered to hand over Osama to a 3rd party if we would show evidence linking him to the attack.
        
        sarcasmic 14 years ago
        
        John - name for me a country that has been invaded by an army since it acquired nuclear weapons.
        
        Just one.
        
        sloopyinca 14 years ago
        
        Do illegul Messicans count?
        
        Chatroom Crackpot 14 years ago
        
        They can only attack us with terrorism if we hand out student visas like candy or import them as refugees. Otherwise they have a hell of a long walk through Siberia to get to us.
        
        Fluffy 14 years ago
        
        Basically, nukes are a license to fuck with the US until the US shows it is willing to nuke someone and take the return hit, which is unlikely.
        
        John, you don't understand deterrence theory.
        
        You know why the Soviets had thousands of nukes?
        
        Because that was the only way they could credibly survive a strike from us and have a counterstrike capability. (The reverse was also true, and drove our own expansion of our stockpile.)
        
        Even a state with as large a nuclear stockpile as the one everyone theorizes Israel has doesn't really have a counterstrike capability against the US. If we launched a first strike against Israel tomorrow morning, they would not be able to counterstrike - except maybe locally, if we had local forces in the Med area.
        
        Unless Iran develops a stockpile the side of the former Soviet Union's, if we decided to pave Iran over there would not be a damn thing they could do about it.
        
        We don't want a nuclear Iran not because of any physical threat that would pose to the US, but because of the damage they could do if they used nukes in their region. We don't want Israel nuked, we don't want the Saudis nuked.
        
        There's that whole range between "we get to dictate policy to you" and "we just atomized your whole country; have a nice day" that we are worried about. Basically if Iran had nukes we'd have zero influence over their behavior unless they did something serious enough for us to nuke them and completely annihilate them. That's not that big a deal, if all we're worried about is protecting the US from direct physical attack. It becomes a big deal because there's lots we want to be able to control that doesn't rise to that level of seriousness.
        
        John 14 years ago
        
        Thank you Fluffy. That is exactly what I am saying only said better. I think having zero influence over Iran is a bad think. I also think the Saudis getting nukes in response, which they would, is a really bad thing.
        
        sarcasmic 14 years ago
        
        We don't want a nuclear Iran not because of any physical threat that would pose to the US, but because of the damage they could do if they used nukes in their region. We don't want Israel nuked, we don't want the Saudis nuked.
        
        They're not going to nuke anyone.
        When was the last time Iran used its military for anything other than defense? Iraq started the Iran Iraq war.
        
        It's the same argument used to disarm citizens. We don't want John to shoot his neighbors so we can't let him own a gun.
        
        Our government doesn't want countries to have nukes for the same reason it doesn't want it's citizens to have guns.
        
        Bullies prefer unarmed victims.
        
        Au H20 14 years ago
        
        I think that it is also important to point out that even if Iran were a nice, parliamentary democracy, they may still want nukes.
        
        This is because Iran follows Shia Islam, and Shia Islam's whole narrative is one of, "Those goddamn Sunnis have always fucked with us!" I mean, one of their biggest holidays concerns the forced suicide of Ali's grandson.
        
        Also, I am not as worried by Iran, as I am about Pakistan. That shit is going to get real real quick.
        
        Fluffy 14 years ago
        
        They're not going to nuke anyone.
        When was the last time Iran used its military for anything other than defense? Iraq started the Iran Iraq war.
        
        No, you don't understand what I was saying.
        
        The math works like this:
        
        1. We want to be able to tell Iran what to do.
        
        2. If Iran had nukes, they could say, "We're going to ignore what you tell us to do. By the way, that's an awfully nice Saudi client state you've got there, it would suck if something terrible happened to it."
        
        3. Unless we were willing to completely destroy Iran and essentially exterminate her people over whatever policy issue had arisen in #1, we'd have to back down.
        
        I'm not saying we want Iran to not have nukes because we think they're itching to nuke Saudi Arabia. We don't want Iran to have nukes because if they even had the capability to do that, they could essentially ignore us in all lesser disputes.
        
        sarcasmic 14 years ago
        
        1. We want to be able to tell Iran what to do.
        
        Like I said. Bullies prefer unarmed victims. We're in agreement.
        
        Barack Obama 14 years ago
        
        "Like I said. Bullies prefer unarmed victims."
        
        Calling me a bully is racist.
        
        R C Dean 14 years ago
        
        We want to be able to tell Iran what to do.
        
        I honestly doubt our ambitions on this front extend much past "Iran, stop being a terrorism sponsor, stop killing our people, stop developing nuclear weapons, and stop trying to export your nutbar theocracy to your neighbors via violence and subversion."
        
        I honestly don't have a problem with that.
        
        sarcasmic 14 years ago
        
        I honestly don't have a problem with that.
        
        Our government can't do much of anything right at home. All it does is get in the way and fuck things up.
        What makes you think it will do any better on the other side of the planet?
        Seriously.
        
        db 14 years ago
        
        I'm not sure about this. I carry a gun all the time when I'm not at work, and yet I am willing to engage in arguments with others rather than threaten to shoot them if I don't get what I want.
        
        Gray Ghost 14 years ago
        
        I also think the Saudis getting nukes in response, which they would, is a really bad thing.
        
        I wonder sometimes if they do actually have them... Pretty much everything was for sale in the former U.S.S.R as it broke up, and I've never accepted that: A) The U.S.S.R had foolproof accounting of all of their devices, never mind their weaponizable fissionable material and B) that some of it didn't get sold off.
        
        Granted, nuclear weapons need a bit of care and maintenance. It also takes more than just a fissionable core and some heavy steel to make a device, but the Saudis have enough cash to be able to obtain those things and know-how on the market, I would think.
        
        Relating to John and Fluffy's point, I think that a nuclear attack in this country will not be by IRBM or a bomber, but will instead be by a device smuggled in. I don't think such devices or components are in the U.S. now---awfully embarrassing if they get discovered---but I don't think it'd be terribly difficult to bring them in. And I don't have a great deal of faith in orgs like NEST and others, to ferret them out.
        
        You can kiss the 4th Amendment goodbye though if an NBC attack happens here, massive retaliation throughout the MidEast or not.
        
        Skr 14 years ago
        
        Yeah those terrorist attacks by NoKo are getting tiresome.
4. O2 14 years ago
  
  this is why n korea will never completely disarm nukes
sarcasmic 14 years ago

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s.....0-11-06-29

Kid throws rocks at the wrong car, gets shot with a crossbow.

The best part: no charges are filed.
1. Old Mexican 14 years ago
  
  The crossbow part was cool. Did the user have CCW?
  1. sarcasmic 14 years ago
    
    Says the story is from San Diego so I doubt it.
    
    Looks to me like they put a bolt in the rock throwing kid and drove off.
    
    Good for them.
    1. T 14 years ago
      
      True Army stories:
      
      A guy I know came home one day to find his wife sitting on the couch with her boyfriend. Boyfriend says "I've been fucking your wife, and I'm gonna kick your ass". So the guy opens the front closet, pulls out a cocked & loaded crossbow, and literally nails the boyfriend to the couch. MPs are called, much comedy ensues.
      
      Our squadron commander was absolutely livid because there was no basis to charge the man with the crossbow. My roommate (Squadron Legal NCO) and the regimental JAG had to explain to the commander repeatedly that you can't charge the guy for self-defense.
      
      Good times, unless you got nailed to the couch.
      1. Red Rocks Rockin 14 years ago
        
        Feel-good story of the day.
      2. John 14 years ago
        
        I assume the dude died. What a horrible way to die. But unless the victim had the ability to use deadly force, it wasn't self defense. But if the state in question had the castle doctrine, the guy was good to go.
        
        T 14 years ago
        
        No, the guy pinned to the couch lived. Perforation of the intestine, surgery, etc.
        
        And this was Texas. So, yeah, pretty much good to go.
        
        Brett L 14 years ago
        
        Finding your wife in your bed with another man is codified in TX statute as justifiable homicide (him or her). Going to his house or a hotel to kill them is not.
        
        R C Dean 14 years ago
        
        So, I'd have to choose which one to shoot?
        
        T 14 years ago
        
        Shotgun or big bore rifle. Get both with one shot.
  2. Tyrion 14 years ago
    
    A Lannister always pays his debts.
2. Rich 14 years ago
  
  Nobody has been arrested.
  
  Yet. Check back in a few days.
Old Mexican 14 years ago

Rick Perry wipes the floor with Mitt Romney et al in a new Zogby poll.

Must be the Texan accent, y'all.
Very Funny Crackpot 14 years ago

Nothing else happened!
PIRS 14 years ago

"(unless of course, they're actually ashamed of their atheist religion, and would prefer to stay in the 'closet.')."

It tickles me when people describe atheism as a religion. This is like describing baldness as a hair color.
1. Joe M 14 years ago
  
  Sounds like you're ashamed of your hairskin.
  1. PIRS 14 years ago
    
    +10
  2. sloopyinca 14 years ago
    
    Fuck You!!!!!!!!!
2. cynical 14 years ago
  
  Not all religions are theistic.
  1. mad libertarian guy 14 years ago
    
    Environmentalism anyone?
John 14 years ago

http://www.investors.com/NewsA.....-Bacon.htm

Davis Bacon preventing the creation of "green jobs". Sorry greens, the Unions have the bucks.
1. Abner 14 years ago
  
  We're in a cool time right now. Unions vs. Greens; Greens vs. Environmentalist. Sweet!
Au H20 14 years ago

An Eye for an Eye goes Literal in Iran.

The Constant Fight to Keep the Military Innovating.

Funny... he's an officer, AND he works for a living? Does not compute!
Au H20 14 years ago

And the award for America's Drunkest Legislator goes to...

I call SHENANIGANS! because they did not include state and local. Living in New Mexico, we would clearly win this award. We have people signing government contracts while drunk.
Joe M 14 years ago

Marijuana 'grow houses' pose hazard to neighbors

Frequently, police and electricians are discovering that grow house operators bypass the electrical meter system, and connect to the main line ? a likely attempt to avoid raising red flags on excessive usage with NV Energy....

"There's a reason that there are big greenhouses," [Crader] said. "There's a reason that there are operations set up to grow vegetation indoors, and there's a reason why we don't do it in a residential house."

If only there were a way to solve this dilemma...
1. Tim 14 years ago
  
  Let's make stealing electricity illegal!
2. R C Dean 14 years ago
  
  There's a reason that there are operations set up to grow vegetation indoors,
  
  Gosh, what could that reason be?
3. db 14 years ago
  
  Years ago I lived in a small apartment in a house. I always wondered why my electric bills were so high (even had the meter replaced) until the new guy who moved into the basement apartment told me the previous occupants were running a grow room there. I figure they were tapping off my power until they realized I was taking twice-daily readings on my meter to figure out what was up. I naively never considered this possibility, however.
Au H20 14 years ago

On Obama: "I just have to say I feel really uncomfortable because I love loving him."

Why is this dude running for reelection? Does he know how much ass/money he'll make on the lecture circuit, especially if he makes these progs dreams come true and takes to the bully pulpit every night to yell about Republicans?
1. John 14 years ago
  
  For these people it is all about what makes them feel good, logic and reality be damned. He likes supporting the first black President. And he is going to do it no matter how big of an idiot or how bad of a president the guy is. Just pathetic.
  1. MNG 14 years ago
    
    Some people are so proud and ecstatic to see their county get over the horrible racial history that they had in electing a black man to the Presidency (when a mere fifty years ago the same black man would have had to ride in the back of a bus) that they overlook probably too much. Maybe that is not ideal, but it's hardly as horrible as you make it out to be.
    1. Rich 14 years ago
      
      proud and ecstatic to see their county get over the horrible racial history
      
      Listen to yourself.
      
      It's *more* horrible than John makes it out to be.
    2. Ice Nine 14 years ago
      
      Maybe that is not ideal, but it's hardly as horrible as you make it out to be.
      
      Not horrible at all - just monumentally idiotic.
    3. Citizen Nothing 14 years ago
      
      If they'd have gotten the same feeling from Walter Williams, then I'll buy it.
    4. Tony "Big Fish" Baccala 14 years ago
      
      You still haven't elected an Italian President, you racist fucks!
      1. Trespassers W 14 years ago
        
        Clinton was also the first Italian president.
      2. Ok, your turn's over. 14 years ago
        
        Nor a Polish one.
        
        Nor a Chinese one.
        
        Nor a Russian one.
        
        Nor a Mexican one.
        
        Au H20 14 years ago
        
        Well, obviously we haven't elected any of those groups, as they are foreign nationals.
  2. Tony 14 years ago
    
    Of course there are lots of people who vote against their own economic interests because their candidate claims to believe in Jesus harder than the other guy, or some equivalent bullshit.
    
    Just how do you think history will judge the Obama presidency and its critics?
    
    The first black president was a radical Marxist and the good white conservatives took him down and thank heavens they did?
    
    Doubtful. You should want him to succeed because it says nicer things about our country than actively hoping he fails. By succeed I don't mean implement a radical Marxist agenda, I mean improve the country to some degree. Why shouldn't everyone want that? Only people who are comfortable enough in their life situation for the most important thing to be proven right about political philosophy.
    1. Rahm Emanuel 14 years ago
      
      That's fucking retarded.
      1. Mr. FIFY 14 years ago
        
        Improving the country *would* be nice.
        
        When is Obama going to start doing that?
        
        BTW... as someone who has hated virtually every president in my lifetime... why should I start liking presidents NOW, let alone in the future?
        
        Mr. FIFY 14 years ago
        
        I forgot to mention the only exception to my hatred list, Tony:
        
        Gerald Ford. I didn't hate his guts.
        
        The rest of them, from Kennedy on down, can collectively fuck themselves.
        
        Tony 14 years ago
        
        Perhaps your expectations are too high.
        
        Invisible Finger 14 years ago
        
        Ford was also the only unelected POTUS.
        
        Which speak volumes for how useless democracy is. The most competent POTUS in the last 100 years (not that the bar is set high) was the only one not democratically elected.
        
        We'd do so much better if government officials were selected the same way as jurors.
        
        gozwa 14 years ago
        
        I've been saying that for years
    2. mad libertarian guy 14 years ago
      
      Because it can't be universally agreed upon as to WHAT would "improve the country", and him "improving the country" would likely involve means that don't actually improve anything, but make things appreciably worse because it will almost certainly involve an expansion of the state.
      1. Tony 14 years ago
        
        I guarantee you history will not be written by antigovernment dogmatists. At least not the dominant narrative of history.
        
        NotSure 14 years ago
        
        I don't know what government extremists like you read, but my history shows that the USSR does not exist anymore.
2. Spairmy 14 years ago
  
  "I love loving him."
  
  ** sniff **
  
  Then just let him go.
  1. John 14 years ago
    
    If you love someone, set them free.
    1. Abner 14 years ago
      
      If you love someone, set them free fuck their brains out.
3. Amakudari 14 years ago
  
  http://thankyourwank.com/wanke.....7/profile/
Au H20 14 years ago

Dad's "My Pyscho Ex Wife" blog becomes first amendment issue.

Pyscho Ex Wife? Aren't you repeating yourself there?
1. Pastord Mike 14 years ago
  
  My ex is both pyscho and psycho.
  1. Au H20 14 years ago
    
    That's like double crazy!!!
    
    Also, I blame Jezebel for fucking up my spelling.
John 14 years ago

http://pajamasmedia.com/lifest.....-mistrial/

Mistrial declared in massage parlor case when masseuse recognizes defense attorney as a client.
1. Au H20 14 years ago
  
  Seriously, why have we not legalized prostitution? I mean, from a public health perspective alone (testing for STDs would probably be required, and yes, I will get shit from y'all on this) it makes a lot more sense.
  1. John 14 years ago
    
    Because our entire society is retarded.
    1. Tony/O2/MNG/White Indian 14 years ago
      
      Present!
      1. the real O2 14 years ago
        
        i got ur present hanging
      2. Trespassers W 14 years ago
        
        It's not fair to lump MNG in with those people.
        
        Tony/O2/White Indian 14 years ago
        
        Damn straight!
      3. Joe M 14 years ago
        
        I'm sure MNG, OO, and Tony would favor legalized prostitution. White Indian is pure troll bullshit though.
        
        O2 14 years ago
        
        yep like the EU; zoned into restricted areas w police patrols, required health exams, mandatory condoms, declared income, etc
  2. robc 14 years ago
    
    why have we not legalized prostitution?
    
    "we" have. At least in parts of Nevada and ?Rhode Island?.
Au H20 14 years ago

Sao Paulo to Hold Straight Pride Parade

Given that, as far as I can tell, gay pride week's purpose is now for fucking... this will be about fucking, right?
1. Fluffy 14 years ago
  
  It can never be as much about fucking as gay pride week.
  
  If swingers made up 80% of the straight under-45 population, MAYBE it could get close. Maybe.
  1. Au H20 14 years ago
    
    Yeah, I love the ads in the alt weekly newspaper right around pride week. A lot of Foam Parties, whatever those are, and gay bars offering cheap drinks.
    1. mad libertarian guy 14 years ago
      
      As opposed to the ladies nights that happen every other week?
2. T 14 years ago
  
  I thought they already had Carnival for that?
Citizen Nothing 14 years ago

I'm sure someone has already linked this, but I just found it:
Ron Paul as GOP's leading crank
1. Reasonoid 14 years ago
  
  "Some people take comfort in backing candidates who never win. It encases their loserdom in a carapace of purity and righteousness."
  
  I don't get it.
  1. Citizen Nothing 14 years ago
    
    And some people take comfort in choosing between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
    
    I don't get it.
    1. mad libertarian guy 14 years ago
      
      Even worse, they've been convinced that if they don't vote for their team against the other team, no matter how their candidate might be or no matter how he/she is EXACTLY like the guy from the other team, that the world will end. For instance, people like Tony the Shill will still vote for Obama because if they don't, some Republican will start illegal wars, continue the insane war on drugs, keep Guantanamo open, etc etc.
      
      I may not be able to avoid the duopoly, but I sure as fuck don't have to support it with a vote, giving my stamp of approval on the surveillance/warfare state.
Citizen Nothing 14 years ago

Some people take comfort in backing candidates who never win.
This is some primo bullshit right here.
I'd be fucking ecstatic if one of my candidates every won. I'd throw a party that would last for days and become a thing of legend for generations.
1. mad libertarian guy 14 years ago
  
  ^^THIS^^
  
  If Ron Paul were to win even the nomination, much less the general election, a party would ensue, and there would be a SHIT LOAD of weed.

Please log in to post comments

Reason Morning Links: NLRB Goes Nuts, Stories From the Early Days of DHS, Registering Atheists Like Sex Offenders

Latest

The App Store Freedom Act Compromises User Privacy To Punish Big Tech

Is Shiloh Hendrix Really the End of Cancel Culture?

Good Riddance to Ed Martin, Trump's Failed Pick for U.S. Attorney for D.C.

Trump's Tariffs Are Already Raising Car Prices and Hurting Automakers

Trump's Antitrust Enforcer Says 'Big Is Bad'

Recommended

Login Form