Reason Morning Links: Shifting Speeches Edition


The latest from Matt Welch talks about subsidized homeowner insurance.


NEXT: The Conservative Reversal on Science

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

    1. Excellent. Too bad I need to work at work today.

      1. I know some 99ers who would gladly take your place and watch those videos for you, ya lazy bastard.

      2. I’m modifying figures for a review paper in Adobe Illustrator today, so they hit the spot. 🙂

  1. ‘Libyans don’t like people with dark skin, but some are innocent’

    I wonder why the Dems have stopped taking ‘victory’ laps?

    1. Brothers can’t catch a break.

    2. Libyans don’t like people with dark skin

      Let’s send the cast of Jersey Shore over there.

      1. They’re orange, not dark.

        1. OK, fine. Can we send them to Libya anyway?

          1. I didn’t say we can’t, just pointing out their hue. Drop them on the unspellable Michael Jackson impersonator.

    3. Oh come on, we all know that President Obama doesn’t care about black people. It’s one of the prerequisites for being President.

    4. Liberals are as bad at playing the patriotism card as conservatives are at playing the race card.

  2. modern heroes

    1. Freegans are vegans who are finding a way to live off the waste of Americans.

      Phew, just when I wondered if I was about to feel guilty for being so wasteful, I find out that I’m actually being charitable to freegans. Full steam ahead!

      1. I know a better way for freegans to live on the waste of each other: HumanCentiOuroboros.

        1. But what does the head of the human centipede live off of?

          1. Sapphire bullets of pure love!

            1. I took a shit on a Freegan once

            2. +1 for going with sapphire. it doesn’t get as much attention as the other gems, undeservedly so.

              1. sapphires – second only to diamonds in hardness

          2. take the head and suture it to the tail. Win-Win!

            1. Biological Keynesism!

  3. President Barack Obama has agreed to move the date of the speech back one day to Thursday, September 8th.

    So what you’re telling me is that I’ll get 2 nights in a row of good sleep, then?

    1. Sept. 8 is the kickoff to the NFL season.

      To quote a comment I made on a football board:

      Why can’t Obama just put the speech on the White House’s official website? There’s no point in his going to Congress other than a photo op. If he really needs video, upload the speech to Youtube.

      (The Constitution requires that the President inform Congress on the state of the union from time to time, but the Constitution doesn’t require that this be in person.)

      Frankly, we need to stop treating politicians as though they’re our superiors. We ought to treat them like we’re the upstairs people, and they’re the downstairs people.

      1. Why can’t Obama just put the speech on the White House’s official website?

        Gone are the days when we ignore what he says and bask in how he says it?

      2. We ought to treat them like…they’re the downstairs people.


        1. You need to change your handle, bub.

      3. Why can’t Obama just put the speech on the White House’s official website?

        For the same reason his office can’t put the text of bills online 5 days prior to them becoming law. While in some sci-fi way, I’m sure it’s technologically feasible to put text on the Internet, it’s not like they had billions of dollars to spend to do that sort of thing, and it’s certainly not a shovel-ready project or anything.

        1. Saying “shovel ready” at the president is just racist lynch-mob incitement.

          1. “Shovel ready” is codeword for “nigger rigging”.

            1. No, “nigger rigging” is just “jury rigging”. You’re thinking of “hanging blackberries”.

              1. Racist!

        2. Really, even his supporters likely don’t care about yet another pointless speech. Unless he’s going to say that the era of big government is over and move to repeal Obamacare and take other steps to shrink government.

          Since that’s not going to happen, nothing he can say is of interest. He probably stopped fighting Congress over this in fear that the debates would pull higher ratings than his lame speech.

          1. It might be interesting if the Republicans were to hold an MST3K-style live “debate” commenting on Obama’s speech as it happens.

          2. “He probably stopped fighting Congress over this in fear that the debates would pull higher ratings than his lame speech.”

            That was my thought too.

            1. “He probably stopped fighting Congress over this in fear with the certainty”

      4. As if the Constitution plays a role in any of Obama’s deliberations.

    2. Obama can fuck with people NFL fans trying to watch the opening night game. Yeah, that will help his approval ratings. He has to be the most tin eared President in my lifetime. Even Nixon understood that you don’t fuck with people’s football.

      1. A Wednesday speech definitely could have backfired on him, but pushing it back now adds fire to the narrative that House Republicans are pushing him around. I suppose they figured if they leapfrogged Thursday in deference to the NFL it would look like he wasn’t taking his own huge plan to save jobs seriously.

        He needs new handlers.

        1. The problem is that he has already spent so much capital on other speeches that he is screwed. People have tuned him out. If he had only made a few nationally televised speeches, this would be a big deal and people would listen. But since he does them with the frequency of infomercials, no one will care or listen no matter when he gives it.

          1. As much as NBC is in the tank for Obama…I can’t imagine them preempting one of their biggest ratings events of the year for yet another presidential speech. Obama would be wise to avoid overlapping with the game.

            1. I’d love to see the ratings differential on that.

            2. Is the game on NBC? I thought it was one of those NFL channel only affairs. Usually, that’s how all the Thursday games except for Thanksgiving work.

              1. Hm okay I figured it out.

          2. Good evening, I’m President Obama and I’d like to tell you about shovel-ready jobs they don’t want you to know about. Shovel-ready jobs that can fill your wallet AND take inches off your waistline. Stay tuned as we talk to some people for whom the Obama job and weight loss plan has already worked.

            1. This is the trouble with me doing work first thing in the morning. By the time I write my humorous stuff such as the above (at least I thought it was humorous) everybody’s already read the morning links, so it’s wasted.

              1. I thought it was funny. ::pats anonymous person’s head::

                Nice boobs, by the way. ::gropes boobs::

                Oh wait, that wasn’t you. Crap.

        2. Tuesday is also out of the question since it would give the Repukes the chance to line-by-line crush his planless jobs plans.

          1. Plus, calling Congresspersons back early from ducking their constituents has already been stated out of the question.

        3. I kind of think Boehner blew it. He should have grumbled and gone along with the Wednesday speech.

          They could have moved the debate back an hour, and spent the debate beating Obama’s “plan” to death.

          Everybody wins!

      2. At the link in the original post, the White House says that the speech won’t overlap with the game.

        Since the game starts at 8:30 and runs till about 11:30 ET, that means the speech can’t be in prime time, unless it’s very short (which would itself be a blessing).

        1. Oval Office speech = short. I don’t know if that’s usually the case when you’re gathering Congress together to speechify.

          1. Yeah, especially with Obama’s notorious penchant for being late.

            It would be interesting if he schedules it for 7:30 ET, shows up at 7:45, and is still talking at 8:29… would NBC have the balls to just cut right to the football game in the middle of his speech? Maybe put him in a little window off to the side like they do with the player introductions.

            1. NOOO! If they cut in late I might miss hearing that goddamn Hank Williams Jr. song for the 50th fucking time!

              1. That’s Monday Night Football which is ESPN. NBC’s football show starts with a Joan Jett song, massacred by Faith Hill.

                The song was done pretty well by Pink the first year, but then NBC remembered that they have to ruin everything and switched to Ms Hill.

                1. That’s even worse. Which Joan Jett song? I hope it’s:

                  Do you wanna touch (Yeah)
                  Do you wanna touch (Yeah)
                  Do you wanna touch me there, where
                  Do you wanna touch (Yeah)
                  Do you wanna touch (Yeah)
                  Do you wanna touch me there, where
                  There, yeah

                  1. The song is “I hate myself for loving you” with the lyrics changed. The title lyrics for instance have been changed to “I’ve been waiting all day for Sunday night”, which doesn’t even have the right number of syllables, if that gives you an idea of how bad it is.

                    But it seemed believable when Pink did it for some reason. I don’t know why they didn’t just have her do that “you better get this party started” song and slightly clean up the lyrics, it would have fit imho.

                  2. That’s a Gary Glitter song (originally). Did she cover it?

                2. Faith Hill’s first hit was a cover of Janice Joplin’s Take a Little Piece of My Heart. Epic fail doesn’t even begin to do it justice.

                3. “then NBC remembered that they have to ruin everything and switched to Ms Hill”

                  Everyone knows that you should either get a beer while FH is singing, dvr and fast forward past her performance or mute the sound and just look at her while pretending she is whispering words of seduction to you.

              2. Only the 50th? : / That song makes me cringe every time I hear it…

                1. If I wasn’t “ready for football” I’d change the channel you halfwits.

    3. It gets a little tedious that everything Obama does is transparently political. He HAD to know the conflict with the Republican debate would be a problem. Did he think two moves ahead to the possibility that Boehner wouldn’t acquiese ? Now what. I’m guessing he’ll claim that he tried to save the economy (with his speech), but those Republicans put politics ahead of the good of the country.

      1. I think they knew the conflict with the debate would allow the audacious joint session part to sail through unopposed. It worked to perfection.

        1. I guess. I doubt there was more than a 1% chance that his request for an address would be denied, though.

      2. Waddaya want from Obama? He couldn’t possibly have formulated and announced a jobs plan last week…or last month… or, or…last year!

        1. Or today, or tomorrow or Tuesday.

          1. Pivoting is hard!

  4. Suit to stop AT&T, T-Mobile merger: a boon for consumers?
    The Justice Department’s suit to block the merger could boost mobile-phone competition. If successful, the suit could preserve low-price plans that T-Mobile has been pushing.…..-consumers
    Leftist lamestream media cant be correct since the [FREEZE] markets always know best.

    1. but remember libtoids have no answer & are forced to deny the existence of collusion, dumping, insider trading, & myriad anti-competitive crimes

      1. Not as amusing as you pretending that you have solutions to any of those problems. Government causes more anti-competitive crimes than it solves. Your “solution” is to have Congressmen do the insider trading.

    2. If the low priced plans are profitable, why would AT&T stop offering them? If they are not profitable, then T-Mobile is engaging in the dumping you are so worried about.

      1. Oh, come on John, you know that’s just the way that Procrustes over here works. He’s already decided that people are guilty, now he just has to find the crime.

      2. They’re not AS profitable as the contract plans AT&T uses. T-Mobile couldn’t get away with the prices AT&T charges because they don’t have the brand recognition and don’t have access to the chic phones (in partic the iphone).

        And of course, one could just as easily ask why, if T-Mobile’s rates would be profitable for ATT, why isn’t ATT already offering low price plans.

        1. T-Mobile offers a lower priced product for people who don’t value or can’t afford brand or a fancy phone and just want service. Those people are still out there. And their business is still worth taking. So I don’t see why AT&T would stop offering the lower priced standard phone service T-Mobile offers or if not them someone else.

          1. Why wasn’t ATT already going for that market though? Your question cuts both ways.

            And the only other tier-1 carriers are Verizon and Sprint. They also make their money from contract plans.

            There are some cheaper carriers that use Sprint’s network (Virgin Mobile, Boost Mobile, etc) but their data traffic is low-priority on the network and aren’t allowed to roam off Sprint’s network like Sprint customers are.

            1. I would imagine AT&T wasn’t going for that market for two reasons. First, the margin is lower and they only have so big of a network. Therefore, they were better off using their resources on higher margin business. Second, they probably didn’t want their brand associated with a lower end service.

              If the buy T Mobile, maybe they drop that service and use their network and the additional capacity of the T-Mobile network to provide the high margin service. I guess that sucks for the people who like the low margin service. But, think about it. If the network can be more profitably used for the high margin service, why do any of the cell companies owe people forgoing profits to provide low margin service? I don’t see how or why they do. And see AT&T turning the T-Mobile network into a more profitable one as a good thing.

              1. T Mobile’s service actually has better customer satisfaction than ATT’s. They just don’t have the brand.

                1. Then that is T-Mobile’s fault. It is a pretty good trick to have a better product and still manage to lose out in the market place.

                  1. Not really…look at Michael Moore vs. other documentarists, Mac vs Windows, Dvorak vs Qwerty, etc.

                    In markets with high entry barriers it’s not unusual.

              2. “why do any of the cell companies owe people forgoing profits to provide low margin service?”

                Because affordable cell service is a human right?


        2. AT&T is buying T-Mobile to get two things: the T-Mobile cellular network and T-Mobile’s spectrum. It’s becoming harder and harder to increase the number of cell towers (or the number of transceivers on each tower) due to local regulations. The easiest was for AT&T to grow is buy existing towers. And, of course, spectrum is the limiting factor. So AT&T gets another chunk of spectrum to increase the services that it provides to its customer base.

          Since T-Mobile has a relatively high customer satisfaction rating and AT&T is in the cellar, it is likely that this merger benefits existing AT&T customers and T-Mobile customers take it in the ass.

          1. See my post above about customers who prefer a lower end lower priced service taking it in the ass because the network is going to be used for high margin products. If it wasn’t for the dumb ass NIMBYs and greens, the network would be large enough to accommodate the low margin business and everyone would be better off.

            1. Do you have any idea of what the barriers to entry in the cellular network market are? There’s a reason why the market is dominated by the big phone companies of old (ATT, Verizon, Sprint) and the descendant of the ancient 1990s cell phone companies (T-Mobile).

              You can’t just up and start a cellular network one day like you can open a restaurant. No one’s going to buy a plan from you if you have 3 towers.

              Like roads and electrical service…it’s a product that naturally lends itself to market power because upstart competitors are at an astronomical disadvantage.

              1. But if it were cheaper to build towers, AT&T would find it cheaper to just expand. And it would be easier for new companies to come into the market. Get rid of the barriers.

          2. Umm, no. AT&T estimated the cost of expanding from 80% to 97% LTE coverage at $3.8B and chose not to do it because it was too expensive.

            Then a couple of months later, they turn around and plan to spend $39B to buy TMobile to accomplish the same objective? Nope. This is about getting rid of competition, specifically from T-Mobile’s cheap tier-1 service.

            1. If the tier one service made as much money as the AT&T higher end service, AT&T couldn’t afford to buy them out. It is just a case of resources flowing to where they can make the most money.

            2. Re: Tulpa,

              Excuse me, but you would be a fool if you believed the conclusions drawn by that stupid reporter. It is one thing to spenn $3.9B to build an increase of your coverage and then LOOK FOR NEW CUSTOMERS, quite another to spend $39B with an in-place network with customers, service people and all. The memo is meaningless and the conclusions derived from it by the reporter only indicate the total lack of economics knowledge one finds in many so-called journalists.

              1. And increase the ATT network 30% not, 3%.

            3. I read your link, and I think the arguments that it is making are orthogonal to mine. No doubt that big corporations make strategic decisions to buy assests just to keep them out of a competitor’s hands. And no doubt, that AT&T doesn’t want to compete against a company that servicing a lower-value/lower-margin market.

              But none of that changes the fact that expanding networks is becomming harder and harder as the amount of physical space that can actually be used to install towers is getting used up in metropolitan areas. That and the fact that total bandwidth is limited by the spectrum (which is finite and allocated to a service provider by the federal government) drives the make/buy decision towward “buy”.

            4. AT&T has two different problems to deal with in expanding its customer base. 4G services have been rolled out in high-density urbans settings, but roll-out to medium-density and low-density is limited by a basic cost/benefit ratio (you cover more area to service fewer customers). The solution is just pay the cost and install the necessary equipment on the towers that already exist.

              The truly serious problem for AT&T is congestion in high-density urban settings — smart phones are overwhelming is existing network. The only two solutions are more towers and more spectrum.

              The idea of “expanding LTE coverage to 97% of the population” is the first problem which is actually a minor problem compared to the second.

          3. Re: kinnath,

            Since T-Mobile has a relatively high customer satisfaction rating and AT&T is in the cellar, it is likely that this merger benefits existing AT&T customers and T-Mobile customers take it in the ass.

            Ans surely since consumers are all robots, T-Mobile will continue to stoically take it in the ass despite the other options – right.

            There are assumptions, and then there are asses: Just because AT&T buys T-Mobile does NOT mean that AT&T will impose their shitty model on T-Mobile – they are not only buying towers and cables, they’re buying also a whole other business model they can implement against the older and clunkier model.

            I’m not just talking here – it is what happened in my company: WE, the bigger company, adopted the model of the company we purchased.

            1. The other options are Verizon and Sprint, which also are contract-focused and expensive, and tier-2 and below carriers which depend on Sprint’s network (Virgin, Boost) and/or have severely limited coverage (MetroPCS).

              1. Re: Tulpa,

                The other options are Verizon and Sprint, which also are contract-focused and expensive,

                Please don’t argue by relying on subjectivity – expensive for whom? You? Why would I trust YOUR subjective valuation instead of my own?

                and tier-2 and below carriers which depend on Sprint’s network (Virgin, Boost) and/or have severely limited coverage (MetroPCS).

                So what? There are people who would probably be happier to switch to a new plan the moment they feel AT&T is not working for them, and they would have a good case to break their agreements after the merger. So what?

            2. Just because AT&T buys T-Mobile does NOT mean that AT&T will impose their shitty model on T-Mobile

              No, but the odds that AT&T fucks existing T-Mobile customers to improve the service of existing and new AT&T customers are far greater than the other way around.

              1. I’m a T-Mobile customer. We’ll survive.

                1. Platinumtel FTW!!!

    3. Re: Double Asshole,

      The Justice Department’s suit to block the merger could boost mobile-phone competition. If successful, the suit could preserve low-price plans that T-Mobile has been pushing.

      And, of course, you believe that.

      Oh, and clean up those stains in your mom’s basement carpet. You stop looking at dirty pics on the Internet, young man!

  5. “Meanwhile, state officials are scrambling to find new temporary offices. Most state employees who work there have simply been told to stay home and wait for further instruction. ”


  6. Libyans don’t like people with dark skin

    Everybody’s skin is red on the inside.

    1. Pink on the inside, you might want to have a doctor check that

  7. Interesting that black population is growing in Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas, but nowhere else.

    Probably that notorious Southern racism.


    1. Note that I’m not claiming racism doesn’t exist. It does.

      But I don’t think the South is significantly more racist than the North, and the South has better economic activities.

      1. Civil Rights nostalgia is like Civil War nostalgia – it’s great if you realize the events you’re commemorating are part of the flow of history, but not so great if you think history simply repeats your favorite event without, as it were, moving on.

    2. They can invite some of the dark-skinned people from Libya.

    3. There was an interesting article in the New York Times I think a few months ago about the great reverse migration of Blacks from the industrial cities of the Northeast back to the South. It is a complete reversal of the great migration of the 20s and 30s. It is really one of the most interesting and important and least covered stories of the last ten years.

      1. Of course it isn’t covered – it doesn’t fit the metanarrative.

        Suppose you’re a New Yorker of liberal bent. And suppose you realize that black people are leaving your state and moving the the South. Your mind would seriously be at risk of being blown, so you’d just wank off while watching *Eyes on the Prize.*

        1. Agreed, at least from a media perspective.

          It’s a hugely complex issue that would involve analysis of several socio-economic trends over the last 30-40 years, and I think a lot of the intelligentsia are a bit nervous that shedding light in a comprehensive manner might not come out looking to good for their side.

          1. I think the overarching reasons are pretty simple- jobs, cost of living, ability to raise a family. (anecdotes coming up!) My parents moved to Nashville for those very reasons and so did my sister (I had a conversation with her about how much safer she feels raising my nephews there). They had much less trouble buying a house and for the first time in my life had money left over for things like vacations.

            In addition, if we’re talking a comparison between Northern and Southern cities, the differences in racism/segregation/etc. there really isn’t much of a contest. I have a friend and colleague from LA- he was stunned when I told him that the schools and neighborhoods I went to/lived in Nashville or South Carolina were far more integrated than the ones I went to in Philadelphia or Milwaukee. It just doesn’t fit with the “Mississippi Burning” stereotype that he had growing up in California. Of course, I can’t speak much for the rural areas.

            I agree that the “intelligentsia” does not want to come to grips with the fact that many of the economic and urban planning policies pushed for were detrimental for the very people they sought to help. Who knows if people will learn anything from it though.

        2. “Of course it isn’t covered – it doesn’t fit the metanarrative.”

          I saw a piece on PBS about this over two years ago. If I had a choice between living in Detroit or living in Atlanta, the choice would be easy regardless of my hue.

      2. John, I’ve lived all over the U.S., and the place with the most unabashed racists, I’ve experienced, is right here in Pittsburgh, in the northeast/rustbelt. Random white people here will, without shame or self-consciousness, go on race related rants dropping n-bombs all the while.

        Anecdote Warning!

        I used to live in a formerly working class neighborhood that has turned college drinking ghetto; fights, vandalism, people pissing/puking in the streets, etc. It is blatantly obvious that local troubles are caused by middle-class white kids. This withstanding, I cannot tell you how many times I’ve been told, by fucking strangers, that the neighborhood went to shit when the n**gers moved in. It’s not even that these people believe this bullshit, it’s that they think it’s so common that it’s okay to talk with strangers this way.

        1. My wife moved from Boston to Atlanta when we got married. She was astounded at how much more integrated and enlightened Atlanta was compared to Boston.

        2. I am not usually given to quoting James Carville, but I was amused by his statement to the effect that Pennsylvania is Philadelphia at one end, Pittsburgh at the other, and Alabama in between. Sounds like he may have been wrong about the extent of the Alabama, though.

          As far as the South goes, my GF is from Louisiana, and she often points out that New Orleans is overall more racially integrated than New York – it’s not that there aren’t neighborhoods that are more Black or more White, but you don’t find huge swaths of city that are 90% one race.

          1. I don’t know about the Amish but the rural parts of PA that I’ve lived in can be just as bad. You get these weird fuckers in patch towns that drive giant old pickup trucks with rebel flags in the back windows, hate minorities and blast gangsta rap from 15″ subwoofers. They also talk like they’re from south central L.A. It’s fucking odd out there.

        3. Reminds me of Buffalo. I saw more of that shit every year I lived there than across the entire 14 years I’ve lived in NYC.

        4. I used to live in a formerly working class neighborhood that has turned college drinking ghetto; fights, vandalism, people pissing/puking in the streets, etc.

          South Oakland…home of the flaming futon victory celebration.

          It’s the city’s reaction those reprobates that forced me to take my couch off the porch.

  8. Re Lybia, I thought only white people could be racist?

    1. White people and Chinamen.

    2. Racists become honorary white people for as long as they are being racist. The continuum is preserved.

      1. Oh, no you don’t. Just let them try getting a tee time at my country club.

      2. Ha ha, what SugarFree said.

    3. I thought only white people could be racist

      No, no, no. White People are just better at racism than any other race.

      1. Well, the Japanese were pretty good at it, too.

      2. Affirmative action is then required; perhaps a training program for non-whites so they have a level-playing field with whites when it comes to being racist.

        1. How do I reech these keeds?

  9. President Obama faces political catastrophe in the form of Solyndra ? a San Francisco Bay area solar company that he touted as a gleaming example of green technology. It has announced it will declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy. More than 1,100 people will lose their jobs.

    During a visit to the Fremont facility in spring of 2010, the President said the factory “is just a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism and the fact that we continue to have the best universities in the world, the best technology in the world, and most importantly the best workers in the world. “

    It’s not his statements the administration will regret; it’s the loan guarantees. The President was celebrating $535 million in federal promises from the Department of Energy to the solar startup. The administration didn’t do its due diligence, says the Government Accountability Office. “There’s a consequence if you don’t follow a rigorous process that’s transparent,” Franklin Rusco of GAO told the website iWatch News.<?I>…..for-obama/

    Shovel Ready!! Green Jobs!!!

    1. Yeah, I can totally see the MSM reporting on this.

      1. Actually in fairness the quote is from NBC Bay Area. I bet the manager of that station is getting a nasty call form headquarters this morning.…..16968.html

    2. “is just a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism and the fact that we continue to have the best universities in the world, the best technology in the world, and most importantly the best workers in the world.”

      Sadly, our politicians ain’t so hot.

      1. “Sadly, our politicians ain’t so hot.”

        Actually, we are damn good at doing what politicians do.

  10. Dude faces life for filming a cop…

    1. In refusing a plea deal, that guy has balls. Good for him.

      1. Trusting a jury, though? I don’t know.

        1. Oh it takes balls of steal. And he can also win on appeal. And he probably will. But damn, that is really putting your money where your mouth is.

    2. Anyone have this story from a source where the writer’s headgear is composed of no more than 10% tinfoil by mass?

  11. Nude model goes to jail.…..tacle.html

    1. Now that is a crime. She is beautiful.

      1. So they arrest her for public lewdness, but don’t give her a shirt after she’s been handcuffed? The only thing there is some jacket to protect the police car’s upholstery from paint stains.

    2. Publicity, biotches.

    3. Her modelling stats page.

      Without paint. She looks better with paint. So many girls try the Louise Brooks and so many fail.

      Both links SFW.

      1. I think she is wildly cute. She is not Bar Refeli or anything. But she definitely works in her own way.

        1. I’m not wild about that hair. I think the longer hair in the painting shots suits her better.

          5’3″, 96 lbs. At least she wouldn’t eat much.

          I even have a good pick-up line: “Hey, there. You ever fantasize about being crushed to death by Baron Harkonnen?”

          1. I was thinking she had more of a Jane Weidlen look. So my line would be “ever thought about forming a girl band with a couple of heroin junkies?”

            1. Good call. Did you ever watch The Go-Gos Behind The Music? They were some fucked up girls.

              1. Oh yeah. That is one of the best Behind the Music ever. Charlotte Caffey and Belinda Carlisle were junkies the entire time the band was together. The rest of them put up with their shit because they were the singer and the primary song writer. Then when they finally cleaned up, the two of them dumped the others who had put up with them all those years like a first wife. The description of the cat fight that occurred during the meeting when they both announced they had cleaned up but were breaking up the band was epic.

              2. I saw that – had no idea what badasses they were. It just turned me on for Belinda Carlisle (less-fat version) even more…

                1. Wow. I shouldn’t be surprised about Belinda, though. Any girl who used to play drums for Darby Crash probably likes to party.

              3. According to her wiki entry, Weidlen is an ordained minister and does weddings. I love it.

          2. 5’3″, 96 lbs.

            To each his own I guess, but I’m afraid I might break her. Give me a good sturdy woman.

        2. Bar Refeli? Zzzzz…

          1. Anti-semite.

      2. 6. TFCD/TFP is Very Rare, but it never hurts to ask, I occasionally make exceptions.

        7. No Nude TFCD/TFP

        SF – I figure you know the acronyms.

        1. It means she doesn’t work for free, and she certainly doesn’t pose nude for free.

          1. To expand: Time For CD / Time For Print

            Modelling time in exchange only for portfolio building work on CD (aka only the digital images) or for only professionally made prints.

      3. She’s good enough to eat as far as I’m concerned.

    4. This took place just outside my office building and somehow I missed it. I rteally should pay closer attention to the goings-on outside.

  12. Solyndra files for bankruptcy.

    And I had never even heard of Solyndra before seeing this article. The liberal obsession with solar panels is almost as stupid as their obsession with trains.

    1. You’d never heard of them, but you had been sending them your money.

    2. Solyndra is Donald Trump’s ex-wife.


    An Apple employee has apparently lost the next version of the Iphone in a bar again. Are they just that stupid or are they being paid off?

    1. “Lost” it in a bar. This stuff builds buzz and the tech press falls for it every time. It’s just a phone, people.

      1. Yeah. It has to be by design. No one is so stupid as to lose it in a bar like that. And certainly, there are not two people dumb enough to lose two new products in a row.

        1. How can they lose something with built-in GPS?

      2. It’s just a phone

        Barely. God i love my (going on 3yrs old) ‘burner’.

      3. It’s definitely PR, but really, really stupid PR.

        Fuck, I hate PR people.

    2. Apple needs to invest in some Zomm wireless leashes.

  14. The president schedules a big speech so it takes place during a Republican debate, then changes his mind.

    Not everybody has a TV or radio, and not everyone is able to attend to him at his convenience. Why doesn’t he just post it to his website? That way, anybody who cares could watch it whenever they liked. The MSM is going to tell people what to think anyway.

  15. Wow

    Governments around the world need to make immediate and dramatic policy changes to reverse a pandemic of obesity which could affect an extra 11 million people in the UK over the next 20 years, public health scientists have warned.The call to act?comes in a series of papers published on Friday in the Lancet medical journal. The journal begins with a strongly-worded editorial arguing that voluntary food industry codes are ineffective and ministers must intervene more directly?There was a particular need for leadership ahead of a UN summit in New York next month on preventing non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and cancer, said one of the authors, Boyd Swinburn, from the centre for obesity prevention at Melbourne’s Deakin University..Swinburn’s paper comes up with a clear primary culprit: a powerful global food industry “which is producing more processed, affordable, and effectively-marketed food than ever before”. He said an “increased supply of cheap, palatable, energy-dense foods”, coupled with better distribution and marketing, had led to “passive over consumption”.…..stuttaford

    1. Wow, you mean paying people not to work and sit around all days makes them fat? That’s some good police work there, Lou. Oh, wait, it’s the CORPORASHUNS and not cradle-to-grave multiple generation welfare that did it? Huh. Yeah. OK. Sure.

      1. McDonalds won’t let me get a job and they keep shoving cheeseburgers at me, HELP!!!!!!!!

    2. I sure am glad the idiots who went after cigarettes would never go after foods, that was just a slippery slope fallacy..wait, what?

      1. Goes back even further than that. Just because we banned the evil weed marijuana doesn’t mean we would ever go after people smoking cigarettes. Never. There is no stopping these people.

        1. I’m just wondering what’s next after food? Mandatory exercise?

          1. restricting television/internet access to a ‘healthy’ amount, to ‘encourage’ more exercise. That’s a necessary increment before the public calisthenics.

            1. But don’t let your 12 year old kid ride their bike alone, or you’ll be arrested.

              You know, cuz’ pedophiles.

              1. TO THE PEDOMOBILE!

            2. Restricted by taxing it significantly.

            3. But it’s ze televishion zat tells me to excercise.

          2. Discouraging people from smoking didn’t help their diets. I suggest subsidizing bulimia. People will buy food and stay thin. Win-win.

          3. Yes. Once the government owns your healthcare, they can just make you weigh in every six months and fine the shit out of you or deny you medical care if you don’t make weight. And of course people won’t make weight and will be too poor to pay the fines and will still need medical care. We can’t let them suffer can we? We have to do something to help them right?

            Then the fines become like traffic tickets and going to exercise class will be just like court mandated alcohol rehab or driver safety training. That is where these people want to go.

            1. The NHS is already delaying and denying treatment to the obese.

            2. I for one blame the soccer moms.

              1. As someone noted yesterday, I invite you to google “spread eagle soccer mom”.

                SugarFree was involved somehow, I know that…

                1. when I am not at work I will have to do that.

                  1. You work?

                    Man, you’re boss is even nicer than mine.

                    1. Must be because you are never seen on here.

                    2. I mean really John, I waste a lot of time on here but holy crap you must be on here all day, every day. What does your boss say about that?

                    3. First MNG, that question is totally out of line. It is really none of your business. And second, I do a lot of work. I just multi-task well.

                    4. You’re a hell of a multi-tasker I guess, dude you’re omnipresent on this blog alone.

                      No wonder you don’t see much need for unions with a boss like that.

                    5. If you notice, I am mostly on the morning and never on in the evenings and rarely in the afternoon. That is where most of my work is done. Most of my mornings are spent on conference calls listening to other people. Most of my real work is done in the afternoon and evenings.

                    6. Your boss doesn’t have a problem with you blogging while listening to work conference calls?

                    7. And also, sometimes I am in other time zones where morning here is evening for me.

            3. I predict that our wonderful government will attempt to “cure” preventable diseases by making it a crime to disobey a doctor’s orders.

          4. I’m just wondering what’s next after food? Mandatory exercise?


            1. god forbid the typical fat suburban sluggo actually exercise

              1. replace “typical fat suburban sluggo” with “typical fat hood rat welfare queen”

                1. yea both are sad sacks of sagging flesh

        2. Not as long as someone, somewhere is enjoying himself.

    3. Hey, you can always take a page from my Ukrainian playbook, I won’t mind.

    4. I’d take a railroad spike in the forehead over hearing “childhood obesity epidemic” one more time.

      How the fuck can obesity be communicable?

      1. beats me…pass the chips please

      2. If something isn’t an epidemic, how do we declare war on it ?

        1. I’m declaring a war on epidemics.


      3. Now they are calling it a “pandemic”. God I hate public health people. Government public health agencies should be concerned with vaccination for dangerous highly communicable diseases and controlling outbreaks of such diseases and that is all.

    5. The entire world needs to change because the British are fat? Please don’t ever talk to Americans about arrogance, British doctors.

      1. fat brits r also fat? u betcha!

    6. “Governments around the world need to make immediate and dramatic policy changes to reverse a pandemic of obesity which could affect an extra 11 million people in the UK”

      What an odd sentence, for many levels. Governments around the world need to take action to stop a pandemic in the United Kingdom. What?

      1. It’s neither an epidemic, nor a pandemic.

        I missed that in my earlier “I’m fucking tired of this misuse of terminology” rant.

    7. “increased supply of cheap, palatable, energy-dense foods”

      Ok, rare area where I have to agree with something John said a while back. Used to be it was imperative that we find cheap, energy rich foods, for you know, all the hungry people in the world, and of course they should be “palatable.” Now this is a problem?

    8. Governments around the world need to make immediate and dramatic policy changes to reverse a pandemic of obesity…

      Yup. End all farm subsidies. The biggest ones in the US are for 1) corn, 2)wheat, and (behind cotton and soy,) 5) rice.

  16. Sebelius slams insurance companies:…..44312.html

    She lies, obfuscates and omits important details so many times that I want to vomit in her general direction.

    1. Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as some guy vomits in our general direction.

      1. Absolutely not. We’re going to give that guy some free healthcare to fix his vomiting problem.

        1. What if I just have acid reflux. I need free healthcare, too, or it’s not FAIR.

      2. What you really need is some good ol’ fashioned bukkake.

      3. I like how she starts off stating that “there’s nothing you can do” when insurers raise rates, but she finishes by implying that you can choose to leave your insurer when they raise rates.

        Make up your mind Kathleen!

    2. She lies, obfuscates and omits important details so many times

      But that’s what her boss wants.

  17. In 22 of the country’s 100 largest metro regions, “minorities” are now the majority.

    Great. Now whenever I get a white doctor, I’m going to be wondering if he’s any good or if he got there through Affirmative Action.

  18. “Changing economics have affected a number of solar manufacturers in recent months, including unfortunately, Solyndra, a once very promising company that has increased its sales revenue by 2000 percent in three years and sold more than 1000 installations in 20 countries,” the Energy Department web post states. “As a result, Solyndra now plans to suspend its manufacturing operations and file for bankruptcy protection.”

    Atlas laughed.

  19. FEMA’S use of term ‘federal family’ for government expands under Obama…..08751.html

    Mafia family? A warm’n’fuzzy family? Creepy.

    1. I read that as “feral family”. As I think about that concept, I like it.

    2. stop that!

      1. ah, thread fail – supposed to go below.

  20. *looks in mirror*

    “White Injun…..White Injun…..WHITE INJUN….!!!”

    1. “Almost everyone wants more for something once they own it, than they will pay to get it,” says Knutson.
      I think he stole this line from Yogi Berra.

    2. I know several people in the UK putting stuff in storage right now – it’s because of job insecurity and multiple relocations while they settle into a single location with a company.

  21. This article was at the top of Google news:

    Gov. Jon Huntsman’s jobs plan: ‘Straightforward and common sense’

    Seriously, media, can you stop sucking his dick already? The GOP doesn’t want what he’s offering, and he’s almost polling worse than Gary Johnson, who, while also a former governor, somehow is being dismissed completely. Fucking bias, how does it work?

    1. Welcome to my world, Gary.

    2. Hunstman’s the democrat’s dream opponent for 2012, but they are too smart for themselves because he could beat Obama due to the fact that he is not Obama and that is the main qualification Americans will be looking for in a candidate, that he not be Obama.

      1. I think Bachmann’s the one Dems are hoping for more than anyone else, simply because it would be SO EASY to give her the Christine O’Donnell treatment, and on a national scale, no less.

      2. No, no, no.

        The #1 qualification for voters is that someone from their team be in the election. That’s all they need to know.

        Even liberals who rail against Obama now will vote for him next year, because if they don’t vote Team BLUE, they’ll be voting for more illegal wars, less transparency, a continuance of the drug war, et al.

  22. In 22 of the country’s 100 largest metro regions, “minorities” are now the majority.

    They live closest to the welfare offices.


    1. Hey, that was a really excellent text representation of a rimshot. Hmm, there should be an emotion for that.

      1. And an emoticon for rogue spelling corrections as well.

    1. Gary Johnson: Is GOP Debate Exclusion A ‘Conspiracy’?

      Welcome to my world, Gary. Better luck next time, 2016.

    2. Look pal, we can’t have some unknown, irrelevant, out of step former small state governor who nobody likes or respects and has no chance whatsoever of winning up there wasting everyone’s precious time.

      1. This. I knew it really stunk when they let Huntsman in and not Johnson. It’s rotten like mackerel in moonlight, it shines and stinks.

        1. +1

          Totally agree. I may not agree 100% with Gary, but I have to concede: He’s a million times better than most of the Repub candidates and certainly 1M times better than Obama. I would say just a tad below RP, of course.

          1. I think it would help Paul for Johnson to be included. Johnson would be a voice largely in agreement with Paul, and it would be a little more difficult to write Paul off as a wacko if a two-term governor came in saying the same thing.

            1. Agree PL. Paul gets marginalized as a voice in the wilderness. It would be a plus if more people realized he’s not the only libertarian in the Republican party.

        2. You think it stinks now? In 2016 all the GOP candidates will be Mormon.

          1. It will all be up to the magic underwear.

          2. Could be worse. They might all be JOOS!

      2. Look pal, we can’t have some unknown, irrelevant, out of step former small state governor who nobody likes or respects and has no chance whatsoever of winning up there wasting everyone’s precious time.

        Seriously, dude, you think this country would ever elect the former governor of, say, Arkansas to the Presidency? Hang it up, already.

        1. Oh that’s funny, because, you know…Arkansas…wait, whut ?

    3. It’s hard not to think that there are people who don’t want that small government message hit too hard. Paul and Johnson both doing it could force even the other candidates to move, well, up.

      1. It’s just that there is no neutral, good reason to exclude Johnson and not Huntsman. None.

        Plus this is amazingly early in the game. Someone who might be polling at 1% now might, especially with the exposure of a good debate performance, be quite higher later. This kind of thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

        As a former Governor I think he’s got the credentials to be included in the early ones.

        1. Yeah, National Review is no huge Gary Johnson fan, but they agree that it makes no sense to exclude Johnson while including Huntsman and others. This does stink.

  23. OK, so I just heard about the Obama speech kefluffle today, and imo the administration handled this, well, about as poorly as they have most things. Scheduling it on the same day as the GOP debate seems pretty fishy (and stupid, why not let as many people as possible see these people cut each other down), and then acting all butt-hurt when everyone didn’t just let him have that day and now moving it to the start of the NFL compounds the stupid. There are more than two days ahead of us, he forced this issue.

    1. I have to say that if I were Obama, I’d have hired the best and most experienced people out there to make me look good. Instead, he seems to have procured an unusual number of idiots.

      While it may just be incompetence of some official, I have a feeling this was some political ploy. Otherwise, they would’ve said, “Oops, sorry, we’ll reschedule” rather than trying to leverage it into some Mean Republican Meme.

      Pathetic that this administration has so little to offer that it stoops to these sorts of shenanigans.

      1. If you remember during the nomination process I said Obama would be a disaster in large part because he was so inexperienced and was therefore led by his handlers which were from a corrupt machine in a one party town. I think I said “what works in Chicago ain’t gonna fly nationally.” And we’re seeing that daily.

        1. I agree with that assessment. Peter Principle.

          1. Don’t think so. The PP would require that he had been a competent senator. At best, we don’t know what kind of a senator he was since he did nothing or was a full time presidential candidate during that time. Furthermore I think we can safely say that he wasn’t much of a lawyer. About the only competence he exhibited prior to reaching the pinnacle was as a “community organizer” and though the expectations there are minimal I’m really not sure about even that.

            1. Oh, I’d agree that he’s several steps past where the Peter Principle kicked in. He was a useful tool for others, no more.

              1. Yep. I submit that the point where the Peter Principle kicked in for Obama was preceded by that time he rolled that last excellent spliff.

                1. Dude. . .how fucked up would it be if you were president, rolling joints for your, heh, heh, heh, cabinet.

            2. He FAILED as a community organizer. He said so himself. It’s why he then went into law.

              It’s like the reverse of the scene in Being There when the black maid sees Chance on TV.

              Louise: It’s for sure a white man’s world in America. Look here: I raised that boy since he was the size of a piss-ant. And I’ll say right now, he never learned to read and write. No, sir. Had no brains at all. Was stuffed with rice pudding between th’ ears. Shortchanged by the Lord, and dumb as a jackass. Look at him now! Yes, sir, all you’ve gotta be is white in America, to get whatever you want. Gobbledy-gook!

      2. “I have to say that if I were Obama, I’d have hired the best and most experienced people out there to make me look good. Instead, he seems to have procured an unusual number of idiots.”

        Unfortunately, he was mainly stuck with progressives.

      3. While it may just be incompetence of some official, I have a feeling this was some political ploy. Otherwise, they would’ve said, “Oops, sorry, we’ll reschedule” rather than trying to leverage it into some Mean Republican Meme.

        I think it’s the problem of liberal media bias actually hurting the Obama Administration here. They actually thought that shoehorning this into the “Mean Republican Meme” would fly, because they assumed that all their friends in the media would run with that story.

        I.e., what Mickey Kaus calls “cocooning.”

      4. Otherwise, they would’ve said, “Oops, sorry, we’ll reschedule” rather than trying to leverage it into some Mean Republican Meme.

        Why not do both? Say “Oops, sorry, we’ll reschedule” while getting your pals in the media to run headlines like “GOP forces Obama to reschedule jobs speech” ( or “Speaker Says No, So Obama Delays Speech” (The New York Times), as sympathetic media noted?

      5. Pro L:

        But Obama hired Top Men?. The best and the brightest.

    2. Assuming that he actually wants people to listen to what he has to say, I have to think he’ll have enough sense to be finished with his speech before 8:30. Besides, he’s a sports nut and probably wants to watch the game almost as much as any other guy.

      The original decision to do it Wednesday was the typical silly, petulant, childish move which has become the man’s trademark.

      1. I would not put it past this guy to preempt the game. Really, it has been that bungling.

        1. BTW-I think the Saints are going to be great this year.

        2. I wouldn’t put it past NBC to cut to the game if he tries something like that.

      2. Yeah, he’s a sports nut just like Tony Blair was a working class bloke who loved fish and chips.

        Obama can’t throw a baseball 54 feet in the air off a pitching mound, and can’t name any players from his favorite baseball team’s history. He’s a poseur if ever there was one.

    3. The whole thing was so ham-fisted, wasn’t it? It’s one thing to schedule the speech as a big “Fuck You” to the GOP–especially knowing that such a move could easily be turned against him by the candidates. But then to capitulate to the schedule change and start whining about it on top of things just makes Obama seem petty AND weak.

      This guy needs an advisory team with a bit of common sense, stat, because it’s starting to look like Boehner’s living in his head rent-free.

      1. When you hire academics who have no experience anywhere outside of the ivory tower, common sense is the first thing that gets checked at the door.

    4. Someone on TV suggested that the GOP blew it. They could have pushed the debate back one hour, so it would start right after Obama finished. They would then have 8 GOP candidates positioned to debate the president’s job plan point for point.

      1. I think the GOP gets the tic on this one–all that going on an hour after the President does is allow him to set the terms of the debate. A party presidential debate really shouldn’t be an extended “opposing response” to one speech.

        The fact of the matter is Obama knuckled under to the opposing party and moved his speech. That’s a pretty clear win for Team Red no matter how it’s sliced.

      2. I’m with Pedophile on this one.

        That didn’t come out right. . . .

    1. Oh dear god why?

      Why take a hot guy and dress him up in clown undies? SO not sexy.

      And that second one… what has been seen can’t be unseen. Now pass me the gd brain bleach.

  24. Crony Capitalism + War, Marriage Made in Heaven (though only the taxpayer gets screwed…..59,00.html

    The bipartisan congressional Wartime Contracting Commission has released a new report that documents the widespread waste, fraud and abuse committed at the hands of private companies contracted by the US Defense Department to assist with the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Established in 2008, the commission has held countless meetings and hearings aimed at shedding light on the practices that governed how the US government commissioned private contractors over the course of the decade-long wars. Since 2002, the US government has spent $206 billion (144 billion euros) on such contractors and some 206,000 private security personnel have been deployed to the war zones, about equal to the number of American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Some of the most egregious cases of waste defy logic.

    1. First, every war is a giant money pit full of fraud waste and abuse. Read Gibbon sometime and you can find accounts of corrupt Romans ripping off the Army. It really is that endemic.

      Second, yeah it is horrific what is going on over there. The contractors are ripping us off something fierce. We don’t need half of the logistic people we have on the ground over there. And I can guarantee you that the big contractors have over both parties is a big reason why our footprint is so large and why we don’t think about fighting these wars a bit differently.

      Ironically the one person who would agree with both of us on that is Rumsfeld. He pissed off a lot of very powerful people in the Pentagon because he never wanted to have a huge footprint in Iraq or Afghanistan. The contractors own the Pentagon and own a large section of both parties in Congress.

      1. “War is good for business.”

        -Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #34

        1. A guy told me the other day that in his opinion the Star Trek races are thinly veiled ethnic/racial stereotypes. The tribal, emotional Klingons are supposed to be blacks; the reserved, unemotional Romulans are supposed to be Asians; the business obsessed Ferengi’s are supposed to be Jews. Has anyone else ever heard that? I never have before…It reminds me of people who complain that the bad guys in the LOTR were racial stereotypes.

          1. “Ferengi” is pretty clearly derived from the Arabic firanj (derived from the Persian farang), referring to “Franks”, which, of course, means people from Europe. When the term was coined, most of their exposure to “Franks” was to European traders, so the connection to Star Trek’s Ferengi seems pretty clear.

            In other words–and I think this was obvious in a heavy-handed way–the Ferengi are us. Not the Jews.

            1. Or they just made it up.

              1. That’s quite unlikely.

            2. Excellent analysis, I’ll throw this at him next time I see him…

              I guess I always thought the Ferengi were just one of a long line of abstractly crapping on capitalism in the media.

              I must say one of my favorite DS9 episodes was the one where Quark and Cisco are captured and work together to free themselves and when Cisco starts in on Quark for being so greedy and stuff Quark reminds him of his planet’s legacy of slavery and genocide and shuts Cisco up. You may think exploitation occurs in capitalism, but you have to admit its governments that tend to enslave and massacre people, not businesses…

          2. The Klingons and Romulans came from the original series. At the time, the US’s enemies were the Russians (emotional, hard- fightin’,partyin’, etc.) and the inscrutable Chinese, who we didn’t know much about. They sure seem to parallel the Klingons and Romulans, respectively. Especially since the Vulcans (Japanese? Koreans?) were related to the Romulans in some way, but their “paths diverged”).

            1. Ah, that makes some sense, the Klingons with their overly passionate ways and ‘gutteral’ language as Russians…

            2. I’m not sure about the Romulans necessarily being the Chinese analogue, but the Klingons were definitely the godless, Russkie commies.

              The Romulans were in large part what their name suggests–analogues to the Roman Empire. Stoical, warlike, etc.

              1. And would those last 2 adjectives apply to the average American’s perception of the Chinese and Japanese during the 1960’s?

              2. Keep in mind, I’m not saying that Roddenberry & the writers weren’t also using elements of Roman culture; I just think they were (deliberately or subconsciously) pulling from the geopolitics of the day.

            3. The war-like, belligerent Klingons were the Soviets, the secretive and mysterious and less-important-as-an-enemy Romulans were the Chinese, the passionless Vulcans were the British. This has been thoroughly established.

          3. I have, MiNGe. Except I always thought the Klingons were Muslims.

            Having said that, I find any Rule 34 that involves the Ferengi to be…..disturbing.

          4. In DS9, Odo is an archetype of the diasporic Jew, torn between his affection for the non-Jews (“solids”) whom he grew up around and his own race of “changelings”. The changelings, who are hard-to-kill (“Jews always win”) and hard to identify because they can assume the form of any individual in the populations in which they operate, make many efforts to acquire Odo’s cooperation with naked appeals based on species loyalty and sense of belonging he feels when with his own kind. Odo is repulsed by the way the empire run by the changelings, the Dominion, seeks to dominate the galaxy by subterfuge and force. The changelings justify their actions by claiming that solids so fear the changelings that the only way that changelings can feel safe is if they rule over everyone.

          5. In DS9, the short-lived Jem’Hadar are the warriors used to enforce the will of the changeling overlords of the Dominion Empire. Like negros, Jem’Hadar move faster and are stronger than others. The fact that the Jem’Hadar are controlled by their complete dependence on a substance, Ketracel White, which is distributed by the changelings to the Jem’Hadar by their agents, the Vorta, can be seen either as a metaphor for the dependence of American blacks on government programs or in light of the completely unproven conspiracy theory that American blacks have been deliberately addicted to drugs by somebody or other in order to keep them under control.

          6. Uh, the original series Klingons were supposed to be Soviets and they looked more Hispanic than anything else. Romulans were definitely evil schemers but they were very emotional; you might be thinking of the Vulcans.

            If anything, that says more about the guy offering this theory than anything else. The ST races were indeed painted with quite broad brushes, but of course that’s to be expected when 95% of the members of every species (including humans) on the show are either military, political, or scientist types.

            We only got rare glimpses of how farmers and plumbers in the Federation lived. Picard’s brother is the only regular guy 24th century Federation human we meet throughout the whole series, iirc (yes there were the people who had been in susp anim since the 20th century, and the people who’d been isolated from the federation for centuries on Turkana and other places, but they don’t really count.)

            1. I should note that I’m thinking of TNG primarily. DS9 did delve into a lot more regular people’s lives.

          7. Who are the Vorta in DS9 and what are supposed to represent? The Vorta are managers in service to the changelings. They are physically weak and have poor eyesight, but are loyal and follow orders. Do they perhaps represent bureaucratic drones mindlessly obeying their masters in the political class? The Vorta were created by the Founders of the Dominion just as bureaucratic positions are created by the political class.

          8. DS9 in the “culture war”:

            The “wormhole alien” meme reduces deity from the mysterious and unknowable to the merely strange, powerful, but ultimately ordinary realm of material existence.

            The Trill, a race of which Jadzia Dax is an example, can be of different sex depending upon the sex of their host or hostess. As such, the Trill call to mind the gender-bending of sex-change operations.

          9. I have always found more substance in the basic themes of DS9 than in the other members of the ST franchise. I suppose if one were really interested, analyzing the politics of the creators, producers and writers may prove to be most revealing. For instance, are they self-loathing Jews? There seems to be such a clear parallel between the shapeshifters and negative stereotypes of Jews that the question leaps right out. The sympathy with which Odo is portrayed and the lack of sympathy for the Founders seems to say a lot.

      2. Wait a minute John, I thought Rumsfeld hoped to accomplish that smaller footprint via more contracting, no?

        Also, the fact that this kind of waste is inherent to war is kind of my point, not an excusing point.

        1. But that smaller footprint would have meant fewer contractors overall. If there are fewer troops, fewer contractors.

          1. I thought he wanted less troops and to make up for that with more contracting…

            1. Yes and no. He wanted fewer troops with a larger mix of contractors. That is better for contractors than nothing. But not as good as hundreds of thousands of troops and a better mix of contractors which is what they got.

              1. I guess I was thinking he wanted a smaller contingent of troops with the slack taken up by a larger contingent of contractors doing what troops would have been doing had there been more of them there. I see what you are talking about is contractors providing troop services so less troops would mean less of them too.

            2. “I thought he wanted less troops and to make up for that with more contracting…”

              You thought wrong.

    2. There are two good articles presently up on Wired’s main page. The one about the Pentagon awarding no-bid contracts to a Russian firm that supplies Iran and Syria is especially galling.

    1. Waffle House could replace FEMA.

      1. I’d be willing to bet they’d be significantly less likely to house their customers in toxic trailers. Bad for future business.


    If you’re going to make rules, why not follow them?
    If you’re not going to follow them, why not get rid of them?
    If you’re going to make someone do a five year long citizenship dance then give the same rights to someone who didn’t, why have the citizenship dance?

    I know the answer to all of these questions is “because we’re the government and that’s how we roll.” All I can say is I’d be mighty pissed too if I invested lots of time and money for something then was then given away for free after I completed it.

    1. Workplace rules aren’t perks of citizenship, they’re restrictions on the behavior on employers.

      Besides, the appeal of illegals isn’t just their work ethic, it’s that as black market labor, you can do and ask a lot of them that you can’t of white market labor. If you made people that hired illegals put up with the same bullshit as when they hired legal workers (plus the additional bullshit of possible sanctions or having your workers randomly deported), the appeal of illegals would dry up pretty fast.

      1. Perhaps you’re right, but that’s not answering my questions.

        Presumably, the term illegal means against the law (aka crime). If it’s illegal, someone should be arrested. If you’re not going to arrest anyone, stop calling it illegal. If you’re going to stop calling it illegal, stop making some people go through a years-long ceremony to get the same benefits as those who don’t.

        I’m not saying more “illegal” immigrants should get arrested. I’m saying the government should stop defining these people as “illegal” if it has no relevance to their employment status. If someone who is illegal has all the same rights and status as someone who is not illegal then why keep calling people illegal?

        1. Good points, but minoer quibble.

          Citizenship and legal residence are no identically equal.

          To become a citizen a legal resident alien has to reside in the US for five years, then pass a test on history and government and swear an oath of allegiance to the United States of America. The five year wait is just to demonstrate sincerity and is not considered that draconian to most people. Incidentally, aliens who serve in the armed forces can have that waiting period shortened to three years.

          The “years-long ceremony” you refer to is the process of becoming a legal resident alien or “getting a Green Card”. Many resident aliens do not bother with citizenship and there is no legal requirement for them to do so.

          And it’s not a five years process. It can take up to five years for an applicant with a preferred status, eg eligible family member to get his or her application approved (after which, as noted above, it’s another five before they can become a citizen).

          For applicants in the general category, it can take well over five years just to get on a waiting list to have their applications considered. After that it can take several more years to get approved for legal resident alien status. I’ve seen twelve years total quoted in several places.

        2. Perhaps instead of hiring additional enforcement agents we should just hire more clerks to process the applications of people who want to come here.

          That and raising the general visa quota to a more realistic number than five thousand a year.

        3. “Presumably, the term illegal means against the law (aka crime). If it’s illegal, someone should be arrested.”

          From a practical perspective, illegal residence is down there on the list of crimes in terms of harm to society (at least on a per-capita basis), yet deportation can be a pretty severe consequence for the deportee once they’ve settled in.

          As a result, illegals have a strong desire to avoid the notice of the law. This becomes problematic when, e.g., they witness a murder, but know that if they tell the police what they saw, they can end up having their lives turned upside down. It just makes sense for the people that deal with other crimes that illegals might happen to know about to have a reputation for protecting their secret (it’s similar in principle to the special protections that other types of communications get in court). It’s also why those agencies need to be separate from those that investigate illegal immigration itself, so that the silence of the homicide detective or workplace regulator doesn’t translate into general immunity.

  26. TJ/Reset – go check out the comments from yesterday’s “99%ers” link.

    Looks like heller drank all his liquor at once – running around curb stompin’ the piss outta EVERYONE. I LOL’ed…

  27. “In 22 of the country’s 100 largest metro regions, “minorities” are now the majority.”

    I suspect it’s more like 100 of the country’s 100 largest metro regions… since women have minority status too…


    1. “since women have minority status too…”

      Who the fuck decided that one? Aren’t there more women than men in the US?

  28. so who here has watched Hardcore Pawn on TruTV? Beats the fuck out of Pawn Stars!

    1. So does watching mildew grow in my shower.

  29. Not if you measure by weight.

    1. Stupid squirrels. That was in response to Zeb.

  30. Solyndra is people!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.