Reason Morning Links: Kelly's Blunt Head Trauma, Taser's Rebranding Effort, Obama's Iraq Conundrum

|

New at Reason.tv: PBS Travel Guru Rick Steves: Smoking Pot is "My Civil Liberty"

Advertisement

NEXT: Remembering 9/11: Unity Gives Way to Politics, Flying After the Attacks, Robert Higgs Predicts the Growth of Government

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

  1. You call it taser, we call it a kinetic electric action device.

    1. Transdermal Electrodynamic Nervoconduction Device.

    2. I prefer the more technical Transdermal Electrodynamic Nervoconduction Device

      (and, Yo, fuck the spam filter.)

    3. What’s the alternative? Shooting people and then spend big money removing the bullet and giving the criminal scum free healthcare? Taser has saved law-enforcement a lot of money and headaches.

      So what if people die on rare occasions? They probably deserve it.

      1. Derp. The problem is that cops don’t use their tasers as an alternative to lethal force. They use them in situations where no weapon is needed or should be used.

        1. They use them in situations where no weapon is needed or should be used.

          But, but, but, Ma Authoritah.

          1. LEO I have talked to say the general policy is to use the taser as a compliance tool much more liberally than was used the baton.

            1. I can understand. I trapped some nuisance raccoons this summer in the garden. I offed the first one with a club. It took a couple of blows, and I really felt bad for the rest of the day.
              The following critters I dispatched with a single bullet to the head. My hands felt much cleaner, literally and figuratively.

          2. How can it really be Gregooooo if it doesn’t link to his crazy Web site?

            1. They started banning him off those links. That’s why he changes his handle so often as well.

              1. But it’s Morning Links! It’s got the word “links” right there in the title.

        2. like when their annoyed or need comic relief…

      2. Oh Grego, we missed your filthy analysis so much.

    4. I just read that Taser is an acronym, and that it stands for Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle. My apologies if that’s already common knowledge around here.

  2. Sometimes you want to say something, anything just to get on the map.

  3. The Knights of the Golden Circle (KGC, reorganized in early 1865 as The Order of the Sons of Liberty) was a secret society. Some researchers believe the objective of the KGC was to prepare the way for annexation of a golden circle of territories in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean for inclusion in the United States as slave states. The KGC recruited most of its members in the Southwest, in Texas, New Mexico Territory and California.[citation needed] During the American Civil War, some Southern sympathizers in the Northern states such as Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa, were accused of belonging to the Knights of the Golden Circle. By 1863, numerous citizens and active politicians in areas bordering the north of the Ohio River were KGC members or were in similar organizations it influenced.

    “It became strongest among Copperheads, some of whom felt that the Civil War was a mistake and that the increasing power of the federal government was leading to tyranny, though others were just supporters of slavery.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K…..den_Circle

    1. Olivia Munn is still hot.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..ikini.html

      1. that was meant to be stand alone

        1. Worked that way on me…

      2. A comely lass. But the Daily Mail needs to become equal opportunity.

        1. You want to come in her ass?
          What?

          1. She would undoubtedly be a likely candidate for that, were I inclined that way.

      3. On the big screen: The stunning brunette can next be seen starring alongside Sarah Jessica Parker in upcoming comedy I Don’t Know How She Does It

        One of these things in the picture does not belong.

        1. She really accentuates the horse face on the left.

      4. Just a little nit to pick with the article. The El Conquistador is located in Fajardo (Las Croabas to be more exact) not in San Juan. And if those pics were taken of her at the resort, they were likely not even on the main island, as the El Con doesn’t even have a beach on the main island. You have to go over to Palomino Island, which the hotel has exclusive use of.

        For anyone who ever stayed there, I used to be the chef of Ballyhoo Bar and Grill and then Stingray Cafe a long time ago.

    2. So now you just go and copy shit off of wikipedia and paste it here with zero context or argument?

      What I read there was “blah blah blah [citation needed] blah blah blah.”

      1. welcome to the true libtoid history. not randian, but copperheads. and ron paul is a neo-confederate. fit n finish. that is all

        1. O2 must have fallen without his Thudguard on.

        2. Conjecture. Hell, I can make up stuff too. Barak Obama is a martian invader!

        3. gibber nunsense histery. ron paul rand spic n span. signing off. DERP

        4. More stOOpidity from Double-Naught.

    3. Don’t know why I’m replying to this – but the Copperheads were predominantly Democrats.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copperheads

      I’m a semi-Civil War buff. It’s interesting enough where I wrote a few books revolving around the Civil War, but I’m not into re-enactments, etc.

      1. southern dems…who became gop after the 64 civil rights act. >recent research shows jessie james was a KGC agent who robbed banks to finance the continued armed resistance (sound familar ?).

        1. *S*T*R*E*T*C*H*

          1. and jessie probably lived in kansas till 1935 under the name jerry james. >a 1924 KGC roster lists jessie james checked-off for a meeting.

            1. I know I shouldn’t feed the troll but for all your accusations of our ideological fore bearers being racist slavers, you seem to gloss over an absolute first principle for most of us: self-ownership. As if by coming here and annoying continually we will somehow slip up and let our evil racist tendencies show through. It’s an amazingly airtight conspiracy we’ve got going on here and you caught us!

              1. “we” wont have long to wait for that good ol racism to rear its head. hell H&R libtoids try to immunize themselves by mockingly posting “racist” comments. stand-by, i ll keep u posted.

                1. derp im a stupid bag of fuck herp

                  1. It’s eminently mockable, stOOpid. When liberals yelp “racist!” at times when the fucking word does not belong in the conversation… well, you do the math, slick.

                    1. i didnt say anything about lub-rahls. i said libtoids use it to self-immunize. KGC rises again babiee!

                    2. i use lubrahls to self-lubridize. o2 rises again mabie! or mabie not. DERP out.

                    3. take ur malox old mex

        2. DERP says lolwut?

  4. There have been 12 deaths caused by Tasers and the company has been sued 170 times. In the cases of serious injury or death, Smith says the cause is typically a state called “excited delirium” and involves a suspect that is on drugs and hyper-agitated.

    The taser-wielder is minding his own business when all of the sudden a jittery drug enthusiast gets himself zapped.

    Axon is a small camera clipped on a headband similar to a Bluetooth. A cartridge on the officer’s belt shows what is being recorded.

    Law enforcement is going to have to figure out how to tase and arrest their own belt.

    1. Stop resisting!

      1. You need to show me more respect ……..

        1. Sir, please stop resisting!

    2. The taser-wielder is minding his own business when all of the sudden a jittery drug enthusiast gets himself zapped.

      Jittery-drug-enthusiats are more conductive. As a path to ground, they’re 10,000x more effective than your typical human. They might as well be standing in a puddle (even when theyre not standing in a puddle of their own making.)

      *cue Morbo with “TASERS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY, LINDA!!!” *

    3. Axon is a small camera clipped on a headband similar to a Bluetooth. A cartridge on the officer’s belt shows what is being recorded, though we’re nearly 100% positive that police departments nationwide will come up with any and every excuse possible to NOT use them.

      FIFY

      1. But dunphy assures me that his department is doing everything possible to consider the eventual implementation of a policy that will determine the feasibility of using such recording devices as a matter of procedure.

        1. Dunphy is no more a cop than I am.

          And I’ve been fucking his wife, Morgan Fairchild.

    4. Bath salts are then new pcp.

      1. Did you run across this recent article?

        http://www.startribune.com/local/129189483.html

        The newspaper ordered “bath salts” and “incense” online and then had them lab-tested. A varying range of results were found — some nasty and others quite interesting….

        1. Notice how they lump in the synthetic marijuana alternatives with the rest of them without providing any reasons why those in particular are harmful? Oh well it was good while it lasted. Here in Texas they may be completely banned.

  5. A human rights group has accused Cisco of helping the Chinese Government crack down on Falun Gong members.

    To be fair, China doesn’t have any potheads to harass.

  6. the White House responded that he wasn’t talking about dollars at all. “The point the president was making that is there is not a tax cut that has been enjoyed by such a broad section of the population,” an administration official said, pointing to a report that said that 95 percent of working families received some kind of tax cut

    Then he should mail every man, woman, and child a check for ten cents and be truly *historic*.

    1. yeah, I had sooo much money after that tax break. Why, I was able to uh…

    2. This is exactly what we hear about every tax cut, of course. Here’s a little thought experiment that demonstrates how a tax cut can simultaneously be enjoyed by everybody and be assailed as “a giveaway to the rich”.

      Imagine a model economy with three taxpayers:
      – Mr. Rich, who pays $100/year in taxes
      – Mr. Middle, who pays $10/year in taxes
      – Mr. Poor, who pays $1/year.

      Now imagine there’s a tax cut across the board and everybody pays 10% less in taxes.

      – Mr. Rich saves $10,
      – Mr. Middle saves $1,
      – Mr. Poor saves $0.1.

      That’s perfectly fair and equitable, right? Everybody is now paying only 90% of what they did before (regardless of how fair or unfair the previous distribution was). But it can also be spun this way:

      The total tax cut is $11.10 ($10 + $1 + $0.1). Of that, Mr. Rich receives 90% of the benefit ($10/$11.10). Hey presto, the tax cut is “a massive giveaway to the richest Americans”. Sound familiar? You can play around with the numbers, but the conclusion I come to is that under any reasonably progressive tax plan, any tax cut can be spun as “benefiting the rich”, ergo the complaint is usually pretty meaningless.

      1. Of course, the Democrats are well aware that any even-handed tax cut will mean more dollars in the hands of the people who pay the largest percentage and dollars of taxes. Their litany of “tax breaks for the rich” is entirely dishonest as well as evil.

        1. Tony buys that bullshit theory, JD. And there are a *lot* of Tonys around the country.

          1. It’s not inaccurate to say that our current political system is based on the ignorance of the majority of the voting class. Without that, most of what our government does wouldn’t be possible.

            1. The central problem of democracy is that 50 percent of the citizens are of below-average intelligence.

              1. Which is one reason why we need checks on democratic power.

              2. The central problem is that 80% believe that some other 50% are of below average intelligence.

  7. Many baby boomers don’t plan to leave their children an inheritance
    …Some worry that their kids will squander inheritance money or develop a sense of entitlement….

    1. a sense of entitlement

    2. Beging of sound mind and body, I spent it all.

      1. being . . . .

      2. You rang?

    3. Adding insult to injury, after looting their children through the Ponzi schemes aka Social Security and Medicare, the most self centered generation in history leaves no wealth for their children.

      1. I would expect nothing less from the “me” generation.

    4. …Some worry that their kids will squander inheritance money or develop a sense of entitlement….

      Hold on, let me get a screen for that projection.

    5. If nothing else, Baby Boomers are masters of projection.

    6. My parents say they will be nothing left by the time they go to the great fish-fry in the sky. Of course, being Dutch, that’s a bald-faced lie. They hate spending money.

      I once tried to convince the old man he needed a Corvette or vintage muscle-car.

      “Nah,” he said, “they’re not practical.”

      Me: “No shit. But they’re fun.”

      1. My in-laws are like this as well. Actually, my MIL is German, so perhaps it is the same phenomenon of which you speak. The spousal unit and I don’t even care about their money or their legacy to us; we have plenty of funds of our own. I just wish the in-laws would enjoy themselves a little as a reward for their lifetime of self-denial and scrimping and saving. My own father is the same way in some respects, but he at least doesn’t deny himself too much. I think this character trait has a lot to do with growing up in the Great Depression.

        1. Yeah. My grandparents waited to buy a house until they could pay cash. They were about 50 at the time. My parents had already owned a house for 10 years.

          1. Owned, or paying off a mortgage?

            1. or paying off someone else’s mortgage through rent.

    7. Baby boomers, the single demographic most responsible for the exponential growth of the welfare state, the “despite the fact that I would have an inheritance to give were I not busy cruising the Mediterranean and playing golf I’m still not about to let you touch my social security and medicare” group, the “I can save money so that I can gallivant in retirement yet somehow I’d be eating cat food in the gutter were it not for my free cheese” people, are worried about creating a sense of entitlement in their children?

      1. Woodstock. It’s all you need to know about them.

        1. They will leave this country as trashed as they left the concert site.

          1. “Roger Daltry doesn’t hoover for nobody.”

      2. It’s a maligned work, but there is one fantastic scene in Douglas Coupland’s Generation X where a character sets a Mercedes on fire that has a “We Are Spending Our Grandchildren’s Inheritance” bumpersticker.

      3. Ummm, the welfare state as we know it now was firmly in place before the first boomer was remotely near voting age.

        You can criticise boomers for having accepted what they were told was their entitlement by right (Social Security EG) but it was their parents that created it. And while boomers will take the most collectively none of them will get as much individually as their parents (the greatest generation*) did.

        The first boomers will not become eligible for Medicare until next year. They won’t be eligible for full SS retirement benefits until the year after. You need to find a new scapegoat.

        *Should probably be called the greatest generation of socialists.

        1. “single demographic most responsible for the exponential growth of the welfare”

          See the word “exponential”. Not only did their population bulge cause the growth, but they voted for more and more largesse without considering the long-term impact.

          1. No, boomers have not voted for more largesse.

            Again that would be the Greatest Generation doing all that voting for more largesse. You know, the ones doing the collecting now.

            Boomers did not become a significant voting bloc until the 1980s. This is a time when coincidentally the levels of individual benefits started to go down. And the retirement age went up.

            Furthermore, it took until the nineties for boomers to reach maturity as political figures.

            1. …..right……

              1. Actually, maybe it’s your reading comprehension that’s faulty, Reading Comprendo.

                I’m not letting the boomers of the hook for unquestioningly accepting the line line about entitelements that their parents fed them with their pabulum and applesauce. But to claim that boomers have a generationally unique sense of entitlement is nonsense. It’s sort of like how every generation of teenagers thinks it invented sex.

                Part of this anti boomersism comes from the notion that boomers were the spearpoint of the college protests and hippie culture in the 60s. This of course is wrong. The college protesters and the first hippies were wartime or late depression babies. Totally different demographic.

                1. So the Bush Medicare expansion was just a passive government plan from the 40s? Keep on smoking the good stuff.

                  1. Boomers weren’t the one’s pushing for that. It was AARP and current beneficiaries of medicare and SS that have always pushed for increases in or resisted reductions to any of those programs. Funny thing was that in the end they didn’t get what they wanted anyway.

                    Bush pushed it through, not for boomer votes but for geezer votes, something that the Republicans have a hard time getting given hoe the Democrats have been able to demagogue every attempt to reform SS. No matter how obvious it is that absolutely no one has any intention of changing benefits to current or near future beneficiaries the Democrats will always manage to convince the geezers that the Republicans are getting reading to throw them out into a snowback and grab all the benjamins in the Social Security Trust Fund and use them to light big fat cigars.

                    So, yeah, it’s all because of the boomers. That is, if boomers consist of the generation aged seventy and older.

                    But keep up the scapegoating if it makes you feel better.

    8. I hope my parents don’t leave me anything…I’ll be damned if I’m gonna deal with all those taxes and shit! All I want is the music box from the living room.

    9. But… but… entitlement programs…

  8. the widely held view among commanders that Iraq is not yet able to provide for its own security

    Is the US yet able to provide for its own security?

    1. Hey, the US would be plenty defended if we brought home all our troops overseas….oh, wait.

      1. And gave them Tasers.

    2. send the TSA. I’m sure they can wand, pat-down and porno-scan plenty of Iraqis.

      1. Awesome idea. Bring the troops home. Send the TSA to Iraq.

  9. Homeless man Kelly Thomas died of “blunt head trauma,” according to hospital records.

    There goes my theory that he was either coddled to death or possibly died of police professionalism.

    1. Homeless man Kelly Thomas died of “blunt head trauma,” according to hospital records.

      He fell.

      1. many, many times.

      2. Homeless man Kelly Thomas died of “blunt head trauma” completely unrelated freak heart attack, according to hospital records.

        1. No, that was Allen Kephart….
          http://rotwnews.com/section/cr…..death/7395

    2. Perhaps we should pass a law requiring all homeless people wear helmets.

      All they need to do is scale up this:

      http://www.thudguard.com

      1. Jesus Christ what a bunch of pussies we’ve become.

      2. Thanks for pointing that out. Our legal staff will be contacting Thudguard?.

      3. How long until thudguard is mandated?

        Think of CPS workers taking children for unprotected noggins!

        Makes you feel?

        1. Makes you feel?

          Like a slave to the corporate greed of The Risk Free Society?, aka, The Union of Statist Governments?. Their motto:

          “We will protect you in every way possible.”*

          *This includes future Darwin Award Winners.

      4. The damage to a falling toddler’s hands and knees can be an acceptable form of pain for learning

        WTF?!

      5. The demonstration video is terribly disappointing.

        1. needs more stunts.

      6. Perhaps people who favor this product needed one earlier in their life. Probably in utero.

        1. Helmets wouldn’t protect against Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

          1. Maybe fetuses shouldn’t drink. Ever think about that, smart guy?

            1. You want to ruin everyone’s fun.

            2. if they were more fun at parties, I wouldn’t be so in favor or abortion.

      7. Makes me want to grab a blackjack, a fifth of bourbon, and hit the nearest Babies ‘r Us.

        Nah, but I’ll be damned if I encourage my kid to grow up to become a gigantic pussy.

    3. Have the cops who killed him received their medals and promotions yet?

      1. PATIENCE. It takes time to finely craft those medals.

        1. They haven’t killed him until an official authority source says so. Investigators who, like you and I, were not at the scene (hopefully) are the only ones qualified to determine if the police officers who killed Kelly Thomas should be held accountable for killing Kelly Thomas.

          So you just stow those comments until then.

          1. I don’t know why they bother with these investigations, unless it’s so the killers get an extended paid vacation.
            It’s a foregone conclusion that the killing with be found justified.

            1. I don’t know why they bother with these investigations, unless it’s so the killers get an extended paid vacation.

              They also serve the purpose of wasting time while the furor over the incident dies down and the media and the people are distracted by something else when they find no wrongdoing.

              1. Plus, they probably don’t want to interrupt the killers’ vacation.

                “Don’t worry Joe, we’ll stall until you get back from Hawaii.”

    4. The perpatator’s wounds were self inflicted.

  10. Taser International is undertaking a rebranding effort to change their “people sometimes die when our products are used” reputation.

    Mistakes are sometimes made.

    Axon is a small camera clipped on a headband similar to a Bluetooth. Later, the footage can be uploaded to evidence.com,

    Footage is sometimes lost.

    1. Yeah, funny thing that, you’re not gonna believe ths but it turns out that during the struggle the officer had his thumb over the lens, accidentally.
      He forgot to turn it on. The batteries were in backwards. It was pointing at the sky the whole time. There was a loss of signal. It broke. It was broke. It broke after but before the video was saved.

      1. How did you get a copy of their manual?

    2. You people have this backwards. This was a homeless man. He was suffering and in great pain. The police did the humane thing here.

  11. WaPo fact checker: Obama lied about taxes.

    White House fact checker: WaPo lied about not being racist.

    1. WaPo fact checker: Obama lied about taxes.

      Fixed

    2. Average sentient being: WaPo lied about not knowing until now that Obama was a consummate liar.

  12. For you American history buffs, there’s a new book out I recommend: Destiny of the Republic, about James A. Garfield, his crazy assassin and the doctors who did more to kill the president than the bullet did.
    (I’m interviewing author Candice Millard this a.m.)
    It’s a fascinating bit of history I knew nothing about, and it reads really well.

    1. As I remember, at trial Charles J. Guiteau said something along the lines of “Sure, I shot the president, but his doctors killed him.”

      1. Yeah, from what I’ve read, Garfield basically died a painful slow death from sepsis due to the doctors jamming unsterilized probes into the wound to try to pull out the bullet.

      2. Exactly. Guiteau turns out to be a fascinating (if crazy) character. Alexander Graham Bell also shows up with a metal detector he invented to try to locate the bullet, but is thwarted by the docs.

      3. “Sure, I beat Kelly Thomas, but it was the blunt head trauma that killed him.”

  13. So to the extent that the experiment tells us anything about monetary regimes, it reinforces the case against anything like a new gold standard

    Nice. Krugman’s going to act like there’s no substantial differences between Bitcoin and a gold standard.

    1. Nothin wrong with Bitcoin that a little inflation and QE wouldn’t fix. It just needs to be BIG.

      1. Thank you for being vague on just how big it needs to be. It will help when I need to defend you when people are accusing you of being a hack.

        1. Cat!

        2. He doesn’t need to be vague in order to garner protection from the masses because he has all the cover he needs: Nobel Peace Prize.

          No matter how crazy he might veer, this will ALWAYS be used by our educated betters to show that he is one of the Top Men.

          1. It’s not the NPP; it’s one of those fake nobels is economics.

            1. Either way, leftists fall over in a pants-shitting fit of stupid when they hear “nobel”.

              1. Agreed. Just because he got one thing right doesn’t mean he knows everything about everything. The left is just so enamored with leaders and experts and authority that they want to believe these people know everything so they can tell us all what to do.

    2. Bear in mind that dollar prices have been relatively stable over the past few years ? yes, some deflation in 2008-2009, then some inflation as commodity prices rebounded, but overall consumer prices are only slightly higher than they were three years ago. What that means is that if you measure prices in Bitcoins, they have plunged; the Bitcoin economy has in effect experienced massive deflation.

      The horror!

      1. Deflation != increase in purchasing power against the dollar. Jeebus fuck. I suppose silver coins are undergoing massive deflation as well.

    3. I love how he doesn’t even have his facts straight. At this point in time, Bitcoins have a built in rate of inflation. All the evidence he points to for deflation can easily be explained by people buying bitcoins as an investment as opposed to buying things with them.

      I also love how there is no mention of the anonymous nature of bitcoins. I suppose in Krugnut’s world, no one would have any reason to keep anything from our perfect rulers.

  14. The recommendation would break a longstanding pledge by President Obama to withdraw all American forces from Iraq by the deadline

    However, sticking to that pledge would break a longstanding policy by President Obama of ignoring all of his pledges. What to do!

    1. President Obama should pledge to ignore all his pledges.

  15. BITCOIN IS PEOPLE!!!!

  16. Drunken elk rescued from Swede’s apple tree

    According to Johansson, it looked very much like the elk was severely drunk after eating too many fermenting apples.

    Drunken elk are common in Sweden during the autumn season when there are plenty of apples lying around on the ground and hanging from branches in Swedish gardens.

    http://www.thelocal.se/36002/20110907/

    1. I’d party with him. It’d be only fair before eating him.

  17. Jezebel reacts to the new college rape rules… exactly how you’d expect.

    Y’know, I was hoping that they would redeem themselves here, just once. Y’know, something along the lines of, “Despite the all too common prevalence of rape, our society’s rules must protect the innocent”… but no such luck.

    1. I could never figure out why a college rape victim would be okay with some collegiate court, but not want to take the case to actual court. For all the faults of the justice system, it must be a damn sight more professional than two seniors, a junior, and the tweedy faculty advisor trying to replicate a trial.

      Who thinks: “I was raped, but the perpatrator was expelled and still owes $10K in student loans, so I feel justice was served.”

    2. The Jezebel ilk of feminists will claim that they don’t hate men, but it seems to me that their actions speak louder than their words. I actually have had “feminists” claim in response to comments of mine they don’t care if men are oppressed in a specific case (such as the Duke non-rape case), because men in general are not oppressed. They disgust me.

      1. Oh, you mean like this:

        http://feministing.com/2007/04….._shame_me/

        And this:

        http://feministing.com/2006/05…..nt-page-1/

        Also, what the fuck happened to feministing, when it used to get hundreds of comments, and now a big topic gets 30? And that’s the leading topic for the year.

        1. Banning hyperdrive combined with the Feministing Community set-up. All the commenter on the main articles are too busy posting their own diatribes to commenting.

          It looks like they reap most of their “morning links” type posts from the Community pages as well.

        2. Maybe they all graduated?

          1. The supply of unattractive girls who’s father didn’t pay enough attention to them have been essentially flat for nearly 40 years.

            1. …girls who is father?…

              1. Fuck you. If I could fucking type, I wouldn’t hang out with you losers all day.

        3. It’s as if they are incapable of thinking of people as individuals rather than as members of special groups.

  18. On a related note to the last link: Jury declares new college sex rules negligent.

    Mark my words…. you will not see this story on Jezebel until it leads to a roll back of the rules, and then you will see it as a story about some poor woman no one believed was raped.

    1. One small step in the right direction. We’ll see what the two huge steps backwards are.

    1. so yes, another “Stimulus”. Or, as others have called it, another Hail Mary pass.

    2. Sending every American a check for $1000 would probably create more jobs than this “stimulus”. But then the half wit brother in law of the governor wouldn’t get a job with the paving company who gets all that infrastructure money.

    3. I’ll see your Mtorhead and raise you some Kaleidoscopes.

      1. Super excited for the new record.

        1. Me too.

          I was super excited about Opeth’s new record. Then I heard it.

          Holy fuck does it suck.

          1. The writing was on the wall for the last few albums that they were moving to pure prog. Lucky for me, I like prog.

            1. So do I.

              But the album still sucks. It’s all prog, but not good prog. It meanders pointlessly, the lyrics seem haphazardly applied to the songs, the riffs are generic, the transitions are absolutely terrible, and it’s generally a snooze fest. Much of the album is utterly unforgettable, which is a shame because I’ve already committed to 5 separate copies of it (1 Special Edition with coins or some such shit, 2 Vinyl Box Sets – 1 for playing one to sell in the future – and 2 signed CDs as part of a ticket to their show in Orlando), and I’ve bought tickets to 3 separate shows, one which I have to travel a good long ways. Had I heard this album first, there’s no fucking way I would have put out that kind of investment.

              The biggest problem is that their controlling factor when writing the album was that it not be metal. It’s effectively unmetal in the most Orwellian of senses; it’s as if they scrubbed clean any sense of metal from their writing sensibilities. It’s sterile. Not one metal lick or a single thing resembling a death growl to be heard. Where there might have been metal before was consciously made not-metal, and they’re just not very good at it.

              There is 1 song that is good (track 3), and the rest are either meh or fucking horrible. There are very few spots which are actually interesting, and nothing that makes you say to yourself “this fucking rules”.

              The production sucks too. They use top notch equipment and legendary sound engineers only to produce something that sounds like an amateur made it in his basement using equipment from 1978. The guitar tones are rubbish and the drums have that horrible resonance popular in the 70s that makes everything no matter how well played sound jumbled.

              Overall, it’s really fucking bad.

              In the event you were wondering, I’ve given the album about 10 listenings. There are FLAC leaks floating around if you’re interested.

              1. It’s on youtube, and I’ve been listening to it today. I’m not as negative about it as you, but I’m somewhat disappointed.

              2. I agree pretty much with Angry Metal Guy on this one.

      2. And it was Hawkwind, you fool.

    4. Brilliant. Because the one thing the federal government does too little of is spending money.

    5. A piece of the idiocy:

      “Obama has also called for public works projects, such as school construction.”

      Overpaid (Davis-Bacon) Unskilled labor building un-needed schools – that’s a winner.

      For tomorrow night’s speech drinking game – a shot for each time he says “fair” “fair share” “ren fair”. Hit yourself with a hammer if he says “corporate jets”. Man he hates those jets.

      1. He seems to love his own jet, though. And it’s probably the biggest executive jet flying.

        1. I understand he didn’t actually use the million-dollar buses to travel on his recent bus “tour.”

          He flew Air Force One from stop to stop and the bus picked him up at the airport.
          http://www.humanevents.com/art…..857&s=rcmp

          1. Um… that’s debunked right at the end of the article you linked.

            1. Well, if you’re going to insist on using facts, I can’t help you.

  19. I know! I’ll throw money at it!
    Wow. I did not see that coming.

  20. Lady Gaga is as ugly without makeup as with.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..shoot.html

    Don’t look unless you want to feel searing pain on your retina and optic nerve.

    1. a little makeup and paint will make a girl what she jolly well ain’t.

      1. doesnt shrink the nose

        1. Where do you think here magical powers come from?

            1. Meh. Untalented tranny is untalented.

    2. Yes, no make-up. Just lighting and filters and photoshopping. But no make-up. That would be artifice.

      1. I don’t get is why people pretend not to recognize that she’s at best a total butterface. It’s OK to be an ugly singer as long as you have talent. And she does have a certain talent, at least for costuming and self-promotion and sucking record executive dicks.

        1. Low self-esteem logic:

          If Lady Gaga is considered gorgeous when she is actually plain-to-ugly, then I–who is more attractive than plain-to-ugly–is therefore super-gorgeous.

          SEE ALSO: Sarah Jessica Parker.

          1. SEE ALSO: Sarah Jessica Parker.

            No, thank you.

            1. She was maginally cute in LA Story.

              1. She was manginally cute in LA Story.

                ftfy

    3. Not that bad. Not great, but not butt-ass-ugly either.

      That said, I thought they said “no makeup”. She might not be wearing the clown getup, but she’s fuckin’ pancaked in makeup in those shots.

    4. Looks like a toned-down Jersey Shore alum to me. Nutin special.

      http://30.media.tumblr.com/tum…..o1_400.jpg

    5. “The Fall’s Best Bag.”

  21. Waaaah!!! People won’t pay Feminsting editors to say stupid shit on the internet!

    Also, I love them bitching about their “day jobs” when those seem to consist of just getting paid to do all the stupid shit Feministing does otherwise.

    1. It’s not a feminist problem. It’s a generational one. Those of us younger than boomers were taught from the start of our careers that the top rung was already taken. Add to that the culture of free stuff that the internet insists upon, and the only way out is a trust fund or a day job. I’m on food stamps and living off of my kids’ child support.

      Look, a real example of irony in the wild. Don’t disturb it, kids.

      How do you get to the point where you think it’s acceptable to live on food stamps while you spend your time writing unread whiny bullshit on the internet? I don’t get it.

      On Saturday, there was a skinny little white hipster college fuck who in the grocery checkout line in front of me. He paid for all his expensive pseudo-healthy bullshit with a goddamn food stamp card. I looked for him in the parking lot after I paid, because I was going to yell at him and hopefully make him pee his pants, but he had gotten away. Next time, I’ll bring a Taser.

      1. It’s a failure of the free market!! People fail to see the value and importance of the things I write in my echo chamber.

      2. Those of us younger than boomers were taught from the start of our careers that the top rung was already taken.

        If she believed that shit, maybe that was her first problem. But then again, if she didn’t believe stupid crap, she wouldn’t be writing for Feministing.

      3. living off of my kids’ child support.
        That’s not just disturbing. That’s plain evil.

        1. CULTURE OF FREE STUFF

        2. living off of my kids’ child support.

          That one got me, too. Your kid’s child support is intended for your KIDS, not to allow you to avoid work so you can fuck off on Feministing all day.

        3. Yeah, that jumped out at me too. FFS.

      4. Add to that the culture of free stuff that the internet insists upon, and the only way out is a trust fund or a day job.

        Oh heavens- a day job!!! You know, like T.E. Fucking Lawrence had when he was a bank manager.

        Yes, that’s right snooty creative types: Arguably the best poet of the 20th century had no fucking problem working for a living.

        1. DO you mean TS Elliot?

          1. Yes, that one. TE Lawrence also worked a day job.

            1. Katrina vanden Heuvel?

        2. One of the greatest American poets, Wallace Stevens, was a vice president at The Hartford Insurance Co.

      5. No man in the picture? That’s a shock.

  22. ” . . . according to hospital records.”

    I wonder how much the “official” cause of death will differ from the hospital’s account, and if any variations will be the result of gently applied political pressure.

  23. I have no context for this video, or when it happened/if it’s been reported on or not. Cop beats a man handcuffed in the back of a police car. Also, it’s Ebaum’s World, so it may or may not be safe for work.

    http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81641069/

  24. I know this has been making the rounds, but HOLY SHIT, one sperm donor has 150 kids.

    How freaky would it be to be that dude? Any younger chick you date could be your daughter.

    1. How many times did he donate? Jeezer…

      1. Once? It only takes one sperm to get the job done. One donation is, what, millions of the lil fuckers?

        1. I guess it’s possible, but can they isolate individual sperm? Or do they just take a bunch and throw them at the egg and see what sticks?

        2. Actually it takes a bunch of sperm to impregnate an egg. A bunch of them go on a kamikaze mission to weaken the outer layer of the egg so that a single sperm can complete the mission.

          Which to my mind means that the donor donated at least 150 times.

    2. . . . and if you knocked up your own daughter, would the resultant progeny be your child or grandchild? If you knock up your own sister, do you get a daughter or a niece? Incest is kind of like time travel: the paradoxes boggle the mind.

      1. You’ll have to ask SF for the definitive version, but I think they prefer the “slash” naming. As in: This is my daughter/niece/cousin

        1. Let them daggum yankees have their hyphenated names, we got us sumthin better!

        2. We just call them all “belly fruit.”

      2. Over there is where my daddy met my pappy! /obscure MST3K

      3. Ah yes. A variation of he age-old “uncle-dad conundrum.”

  25. PROTIP: Do not fuck with nerds on the internet.

    But seriously, what a shallow bitch. Magic the Gatheirng is fucking awesome.

    1. I enjoy a good FNM once in a while.

    2. I dont get it. She hated the idea of dating someone who was better at his chosen avocation than she is at anything? WTF? She needs a surr nazi who will take her to the latest chick flick. Which is fine; she just has to surrender the idea that she isnt shallow.

    3. Not to mention the dude is also a champion pro poker player and managing partner at a hedge fund.

    4. I’d date the shit outta that guy!

    5. I prefer other types of nerdery to MtG, but that guy looks like he has tons of stuff on the ball, and he isn’t bad looking either (since she is shallow an I am sure she noted that). I’d date him (if I were still in the market). What a jerkish loser that woman is.

      1. Yeah, she doesn’t have the high ground here, but taking someone to see a one-man show about Jeffrey Dahmer for your first date (first time you meet in person, no less) is pretty odd. Definitely doesn’t help project those “not a serial killer” vibes you want to have when internet dating.

  26. The Liberal Solution to the economy: Longer weekends, higher wages, and 3 other ideas.

    I mean, remember how the 35 hour work week created so many jobs in France?

    1. If we all just work less and get paid more, we will get rich. Wow. It amazes me that anyone could be that stupid. That reads like an Onion Article.

    2. And the comments are nothing short of amazing. Did you know the key to the economy is for every one to make better wages? I guess those wages just come from unicorn farts. Every time I try to be Christian towards hard left liberals I see something like this and realize yes they really are this dangerously stupid.

      1. Did you ever read Economics in One Lesson, John? I’ve been re-reading it lately, and it’s incredibly frustrating to remember that every astonishingly stupid idea going around today has been tried and seen to be a failure before.

        1. I never have. I always look at the old Island metaphor. The world is nothing but a desert Island. And we are stuck on it. The only way to get richer is to figure out a way to work harder or more efficiently. There are no shortcuts.

        2. Economics in one lesson is to me the epitome of what is wrong with the right and libertarianism today.

          I know people who work in the field of economics. Like people who devote their lives in any field they are motivated by a genuine intellectual curiousity about their field. Little did they know all they needed to do was read Henry Hazlitt’s “everything I know about economics I learned in kindergarten.” Then they would have all the answers easily and get on libertarian message boards and proclaim that actual people with decades more study and experience with them don’t know EKON 101…

          1. Anyone who takes something incredibly complex and tries to say they can make it simple in “one easy lesson” or “for dummies” is themselves highly suspect imo. Sure, it makes lazy, unintelligent people feel like they actually have “the answers” about things, and that makes them sleep well at night, but it’s highly suspect.

            1. Anyone who claims that something is so incredibly complex that you can never be able to understand it is highly suspect imo. Sure, it makes lazy, unintelligent people feel like they should never bother to try to understand these things, and that makes them sleep well at night, but it’s highly suspect.

              That and it encourages those unintelligent people (like MNG and Tony) to blindly accept the word of these “experts” without any self evaluation, evaluation that would reveal that many of these “experts” are in fact frauds.

              1. I certainly don’t blindly accept the word of economic experts, especially considering there is such widespread disagreement among them on most issues worth arguing about.

                But yes, as a general idea I think it more likely that people with more experience and education in a subject will be correct on those matters than people without. That is called “sanity.”

                1. It would be sanity except that you only believe that when it confers your pre existing bias. So in your case it is called confirmation bias.

                  1. This is hilarious coming from you John.

                    Look, I argue the house liberal position here, and I am certainly more liberal than most, but politically I’m a moderate. I worked on the Ehrlich campaign here in MD. When I lived in VA I worked for three campaigns: Mark Warner, Virgil Goode and John Warner. The latter was probably my all time favorite pol.

                    It’s you that are a relentless partisan, you hate everything Democratic, everything liberal. You literally accuse them of killing people, making everyone poor and all manners of injustice. It’s your way of exorcising the hatred you plainly feel for the “DC elites” you have to mix with, we get that, but please don’t embarass yourself by accusing others of being biased and such.

                    1. Explain something to me MNG.

                      Government is supposed to punish injustice, no?

                      An individual taking property from another individual simply because they have a lot of it, and then giving it to someone else simply because they have less, is an injustice to the property owner, no?

                      Resolve for me how government can simultaneously punish injustice while also committing acts that, if committed by an individual, would be considered injustice.

                      Please explain because I see it as being logically incompatible.

                2. people with more experience and education in a subject

                  Economics experience? I’m with you that they’re better read on the subject of economics, but where do they get experience with economics?

            2. MNG: I’m curious if you ever read Hazlitt’s book and, if so, what your specific criticisms are beyond…making economics seem intuitive?

              Because from my perspective, Hazlitt does an excellent job of illustrating, over and over again, that there really is no such thing as macro-economics. Our intuitive understanding of how economics works in day to day life is the same as how economics acts on a more global scale.

              Just to give you an example of what I’m talked about: If it doesn’t make sense to say that a business owner benefits from having his factory burned to the ground, then it also doesn’t make sense to say an entire country can benefit from being having all of it’s factories bombed into rubble.

              1. twenty-something –
                MNG believes that some things are so incredibly complicated they can only be understood by “experts”.
                Anyone who claims they can distill something complicated down to a level where a ordinary person can understand it is full of shit.
                The only people he believes are the ones who tell him that he is too stupid to understand the subject matter (which is true), and then proceed to feed him a line of illogical bullshit which he then proceeds to parrot like the bird brain that he is.

            3. It’s clear the “G” in MNG doesn’t stand for genius.

          2. If only they would have worked harder so they could have understood the way to society getting richer is to for everyone to work less hard and “share the work available”.

            What is next, you want to tell us how the key to growth is breaking windows? The women who wrote that article is scary stupid. And if you can’t figure that out, you are just as stupid. In her defense, she seems like a nice person, which is more going for her than you have.

            1. John, you are, as usual, carelessly assuming this is MY economic viewpoint. I’m just explaining the argument as I’ve heard it from proponents and saying it doesn’t sound self-evidently wrong to me. This is why I said “The idea is…” in my first post.

              I understand the counterargument is that the guy who works 60 hours might make two 30 hour jobs for the unemployed guys. I’m not sure that is self-evidently true either mind you, but it has some appeal, yes.

              1. Either you think the argument is stupid or you don’t. If you think it is stupid, then say so. Don’t hmm haw around because she is a leftist and it hurts you to admit a leftist is stupid.

            2. “What is next, you want to tell us how the key to growth is breaking windows?”

              See, this is your problem (one of them), a constitutional inability to fairly view the arguments of people you happen to disagree with.

              People who advocate things like the “CCC” that I’ve read don’t necessarily argue it is good for overall growth, they say it is a measure for when the economy is down to distribute wealth to those who have it and are sitting on it to those who do not while also doing some general good and inculcating work ethic and skills.

              1. thinking that work is a zero sum game to be distributed like political favors is just as self evidently wrong as the broken windows fallacy.

                You are just a very odd person. You admit that it is stupid. But it is such a cultural and identity thing for you. You know it is wrong but since it is being said by a leftist you can’t admit to anyone just how wrong it is.

                You need a shrink. Seriously.

                1. See, again with the amazingly careless assumptions (the hallmark of movement conservatism)! I did not say “it is stupid” I said “I’m just explaining the argument as I’ve heard it from proponents and saying it doesn’t sound self-evidently wrong to me” and “I understand the counterargument”

                  For you this means “it is stupid.”

                  How sloppy is that? Jesus, it is you who are deranged, deranged by all that pajamasmedia and Hannity I guess…

                  1. The problem is that I am trying to give you too much credit.If you are so stupid that you can’t see how ridiculous the idea that work is a zero sum game, then you are too stupid to waste time talking to.

                    1. I doubt it is as zero sum as they seem to think it is, I also doubt it is so little zero sum as you seem to think it is…

                    2. This is how you work the false equivalency thing though. You come on and carelessly call some one or position utterly stupid and evil, I come on and say “well, I don’t think it is so self-evidently stupid and evil though I can see some problems with it” and then you say “my goodness what a partisan you are!”

                      I’m supposed to be the partisan because I’m hesitant to jump on your train (that so often goes off the rails).

                      Ho-kay.

                    3. Economics is incredibly simple.

                      politically I’m a moderate.
                      Ah. Here’s yer problem. (Actually, here’s our problem.)

          3. Little did they know all they needed to do was read Henry Hazlitt’s “everything I know about economics I learned in kindergarten.”

            Funny, because I never heard anyone claim that, let alone Hazlitt. It’s almost like you’re judging the book based on its title.

            1. Reading “Economics in One Lesson” would give 85.3 percent of Americans a better understanding of basic economics than they now have, and would at least allow them to ask intelligent questions of their masters.
              Hazlett was actually a brilliant economics journalist.

    3. A friend of mine posted that on Facebook, reminding me of the sad fact that I can’t discuss politics with most of my friends. But yeah, just about all of the “ideas” consist of making people less productive. Because that’s the way to a rich and prosperous country, don’t you know.

      1. I just don’t understand what kind of warped logic you must have to think the key to prosperity is for everyone to work less.

        1. The idea is that the less person A works then the more hours are opened up for work for person B.

          You can have A working 60 hours a week and B none or both working 30.

          1. The better idea would be to have both people working sixty ours a week. There is nothing about person A working that prevents person b from working

            IT IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME

            But thank you for helping us understand the self evidently stupid.

            1. “The better idea would be to have both people working sixty ours a week.”

              That would be terrible, 60 hours of work a week is a horrible way to live your life. I mean, when would you blog for example?

              1. I mean, why stop at 60?

                Wouldn’t it be great if everyone felt compelled to work 100 hours a week? Many of them might get the Nobel Prize.

              2. In those 60 hours you’re at work, like all of us. Duh.

                1. You’re employed?

                  Wow, there really are few limits to charity, you libertarians are right.

              3. You really are just a nasty piece of work MNG. I am sorry things haven’t worked out so well for you.

                1. John your entire mo is hate, hate for the elites you feel you have to mix with, hate for Obama and hate for liberals. Every morning you come on here and post about a dozen posts in Morning Links alone in which you accuse people of being evil ruiners of this country.

                  I’m a moderate, I come here and agree with a lot and disagree with a lot, rarely hating anything.

                  So take your projections elsewhere.

                  1. “John your entire mo is hate”

                    The man doth project a bit, no?

              4. Whatever you do MNG, don’t answer the argument. Just pretend it doesn’t exist and scream Shirley Sherrod or insult everyone. That is clearly the way to win friends and influence people.

                1. Do you come on here to win friends and influence people? Really?

                  How incredibly sad.

          2. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt MNG and assume you don’t believe such nonsense. You are by far and away the most narrow minded person on here. But I honestly, I don’t think of you as being retarded.

          3. Great!

            Let’s make everyone poor because they’ll only be working part time!

            1. Well, I’m not sure having one very well paid guy and one unemployed destitute guy is better overall than too average paid guys, but the idea is that part time jobs would have many of the benefits reserved for full time jobs today.

              1. part time jobs would have many of the benefits reserved for full time jobs today.

                Let’s assume you mean health insurance here, since that and paid vacation time are the only bennies anybody gives a rat’s ass about. If we remove preferential treatment and streamline insurance regulation to allow more consumer choice, it wouuldn’t matter if the company provided health insurance. You could afford it on your own, even working part-time.

                But you know that, right? I mean, I knwo it’s been explained to you before.

                1. I like your just-so stories. Can you tell me how the camel got its hump too?

                  1. Sure! Once upon a time, there was an MNG. It got an abscessed boil on its back. The boil grew and grew, until the MNG was forced to walk on all fours. The weight of the boil and the quadrupedal posture made showering impossible, so the MNG began to smell. The smell eventually grew so bad, polite society forced the MNG into the desert. And there it wanders to this day, a camel with a hump.

                    1. There’s as much logic and science in that as your original post.

                  2. I think it has something to do with you shoving your head up its ass.

                2. T – thought experiments only work on people who think.

                  MNG is immune to logic, so they don’t work on him.

                  1. Yeah, the guy who thinks folks that disagee with him on economics just want everyone to be poor is a master of logic and fair argument…

                    1. Where is your logic MNG?

                      How does punishing the creation of wealth result in a richer society?

                      How does looting, squandering and destroying existing accumulations of wealth result in a richer society?

                      How does the shifting of resources from productive purposes to politically correct purposes result in a richer society?

                      The opportunity to create and accumulate wealth is the goose that laid the golden egg.

                      Kill the goose and you make everyone poor.

                    2. If you had a fair bone in your body (or fair neuron in your brain, not sure of the analogy) you would see that those who disagree with you think that taxing the wealthy is not ‘punishing’ them for being creative, it is helping reduce power, and therefore opportunity inequality. The idea is to prevent some group from becoming obscenly powerful and to provide opportunities for another much larger group to become successful (further enriching society in general).

                      Maybe this is not how it works. But I don’t think this is a self-evident or a priori matter like you do, and certainly I don’t think it makes the proponents “evil people who just want to make everyone poor”

                      WTF, how simplistic is that?

                    3. The idea is to prevent some group from becoming obscenly powerful and to provide opportunities for another much larger group to become successful (further enriching society in general).

                      Wealth, without political influence, is not power.

                      The political machine powerful enough to reallocate society’s resources is guaranteed to be captured by the very people who you want to prevent from having power.

                      A government that sticks to punishing criminals, providing courts, and protecting the borders, while leaving the economy alone provides the best opportunity for people to become successful.

            2. Making everyone poor is the logical conclusion of socialism.
              The premise is that society needs to be cured of envy by making everyone equal.
              For example we know the rich don’t pay their fair share by virtue of the fact that they are rich. If they payed their fair share they wouldn’t be rich.
              They need to pay more be it in taxes or higher wages to the workers.
              Meanwhile policies need to be put into place to prevent future accumulations of wealth, otherwise we’d be back at square one.
              All existing accumulations of wealth need to be nickled and dimed to death through redistribution or even destruction of wealth.
              Destruction of wealth is acceptable because it lowers inequality.

              The end result, once the creation of wealth is punished and existing accumulations have been used up, is a society where everyone is equal.
              Equally poor, but that’s preferable to wealth envy for a socialist.

              1. I’m guessing these simplistic assumptions and conclusions about people you disagree with make you feel really good and also have the benefit of being able to be reached with very little effort. Good for you.

                1. I am guessing not having an argument and defending the indefensible makes life hard for you. Work is not a zero sum game. There is no reason why everyone or close to everyone in society can’t work if they choose to. And restricting the amount of work that any individual does in hopes of “sharing the work” is about as dumb of a solution imaginable.

                  1. I am sorry that I started a John-MNG hate fuck fest. Fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap!

              2. The premise is that society needs to be cured of envy by making everyone equal.

                Their entire political and economic premise is based on envy.

                It’s completely intellectually bankrupt.

                1. Yes, yes of course, it’s all envy. People that disagree with you are just evil and petty, that’s all. It’s that simple.

                  You remind me of Homer Simpson:

                  Homer: No he won’t, he hates me.
                  Marge: He doesn’t hate you. He just feels insecure because you’re getting through life so easily, and it’s been so difficult for him.
                  Homer: Yeah, yeah, that’s his problem, he’s a nut! It’s not about me being lazy, it’s about him being a crazy nut.

                  1. Maybe you could clear up the confusion and explain to us how wealth disparity automatically creates a power disparity.

                    I’ll try to be charitable to your argument, and employ a definition of “power” that includes “person A will starve immediately without a job and person B can give them a job”. I don’t accept that definition of power for a minute, but I’m willing to use it for the moment.

                    The problem is that very, very few people are actually in the position of person A.

                    The other problem is that this would mean that everyone who has a job that provides them with subsistence would therefore not be subject to the “power” of the wealthy, no matter how much income and wealth disparity there was.

                    It would also mean that taxing the rich more would not impact this so-called “power” disparity, as long as they remained rich – because they’d still be person B to all the person A’s in the world. They’d just be person B with slightly less assets.

                    So I need more information on how wealth disparity creates power disparity.

                    1. *MNG runs away*

          4. But what about the overhead cost of hiring an additional person? Now, there is the argument to be made that a person working beyond X number of hours per day is less productive after a certain amount of hours than if they would just work Y number of hours.

            But to have 1 person working 60 hours a week, you only pay for benefits once. You will, likely, pay overtime. If you have 2 people working for 30 hours, well, since that is only part-time, you may not have to pay benefits (except with law changes). And if you do pay benefits, you have to pay twice.

            You can also be the government and not have to follow many of your own labor laws.

          5. If it were that simple, I might actually agree with you. The slightly more realistic objections are
            -the economy is not a zero-sum game, as has been mentioned

            -now someone who is looking for a full-time employee can’t find one

            -workers and jobs aren’t fungible like that. If I am forced to work half my usual hours, that does no good whatsoever for anyone who isn’t a nearly exact replacement for me. If we force the salesman in Minneapolis to work half-time, how does that help the chemical engineer in Houston? If unemployment were perfectly evenly spread geographically and by profession, it might work, but it isn’t.

    4. OK, did I lose the joke? Was this person trolling or honestly this damned stupid?

      1. Who, MNG?

        A little of both, though of all of them he’s the most tolerable.

  27. http://www.hoover.org/publicat…..icle/91801

    Richard Epstein on the smorgasbord of job killing policies coming from the Democrats.

    1. That’s a right-wing publication, therefore it is meaningless.

      1. Actually it would be great to get more posts from something like the Hoover Institute. Sure, it has an explicit political leaning that should invite healthy skepticism, but it is a pretty reputable institution with many top scholars unlike, say, “pajamasmedia”…

        1. And it is also written by a Nobel laureate. Mighty white of you grant it your seal of approval. I am sure Professor Epstein will happy to know that.

          1. Epstein is a smart, accomplished guy. There are actually plenty of them on the right, though you wouldn’t know it looking at what passes for right wing media today.

            But hey John, when did Epstein win the Nobel?

            1. Did he win it for his work on the exception-less ESA or his work on Muslim bombers in Oslo?

              Or did you just get something wrong AGAIN?

              Forget a fount, you’re like a factory of misinformation…

            2. He didn’t now that I think about it. I always confuse him with Gary Becker, another Chicago who did win it in economics.

              1. You do a lot of confusing, but that don’t stop you from doing a lot of asserting…

                Good ol’ reliable John.

                1. Why are you such asshole MNG? No one else is like you on here. Even Tony doesn’t throw out personal insults. Do you I really get under your skin that badly? Do you enjoy being the most unpleasant person on here? You make the late Joe Boyle seem like a reasonable guy most days.

                  1. “Do you I really get under your skin that badly?”

                    Hilarious. John, the police would like to speak to you about a murder, the victim: English.

                    Seriously though you are the most combative person on this board. Whether it be Epi, fluffy, me, Tony, whoever (including at times the Reason staff) when you disagree with someone it takes about two posts before you are accusing them of being dishonest, closet liberals ruining the nation. You’re entire point of coming here is to rage sensationalistically.

                    On the other hand I’ve always gotten along with the folks here who are more moderate (like J sub D, kwais, hazel, etc). And I’ve been doing that for long before you posted here. So get bent with your “omg nobody likes you” fifth grade attitude.

                    1. I don’t care who you get along with. You are an asshole. You throw out personal insults, you make mendacious arguments, and you seem to be getting worse. Everyone has a bad day. But yours seem to be happening more and more. Knock it off.

                    2. You’re a tool John, a willing (or worse duped) tool of right wing media. I simply have fun pointing that out John, in part because I think that motivates movement conservatism in general. You’re a great poster boy.

                    3. I can forgive you for being stupid MNG. But you are just not a very nice person.

                    4. You know, MiNGe, there are a lot of us on here you failed to mention by name above that will take no offense to your omission.

                      Thanks a lot, buddy.

                    5. There’s been this massive proliferation of right wing goofballs here since Obama took office. At one time we had TallDave and LoneWhacko and that was about it, now about 50% of the posters are LGF rejects. Why don’t you people go back to LGF? I think the actual sad thing is you think you are going to come here and ‘convert’ the benighted libertarians to vote GOP.

                      Sheesh, at least in the many years I’ve been coming here I don’t try to fool people into thinking I’m one of them in order to “influence” them. I come here to debate and read the articles and find out what people who think differently than me think and how they justify it.

                      But these “Hit and Runpublicans” that are coming here now are making this a boring LGF copy site.

                    6. Fuck off you shithead. I was here for years. I was here arguing with Joe Boyle before you ever posted on here.

                      If you don’t like it, go away. No one will miss you. I promise.

                    7. Do you want to die on this hill John, like the ESA thing, the phantom Nobel, the mysterious non-existent Oslo muslim bombers, etc?

                      I was here arguing with Boyle before you. You probably don’t even remember TallDave and such (maybe you were him?).

                    8. Are you really so pathetic MNG that you want to match credentials as to who has posted here longer? Do you really take pride in that? Are you really that far gone? I have been posting on here since probably around 02 or 03. Certainly by 2004. I remember I was in Europe after I got back from Iraq and used to post on here in the afternoons there and mornings here. I am pretty damned sure I posted before I went to Iraq in 03.

                      That is a long time. Too long. But it is what it is. And I certainly didn’t show up after Obama was elected. So do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up about the Republicans who showed up after Obama was elected because I don’t see who the hell you are talking about.

                    9. John, you are too funny. Really.

                      John|9.7.11 @ 11:08AM|#
                      Fuck off you shithead. I was here for years. I was here arguing with Joe Boyle before you ever posted on here.

                      John|9.7.11 @ 11:17AM|#
                      Are you really so pathetic MNG that you want to match credentials as to who has posted here longer? Do you really take pride in that? Are you really that far gone?

                    10. No MNG, I was simply responding to your slander that I somehow showed up on here after Obama was elected. No, I don’t take pride in it. But it is what it is.

                      Now, do you want to take your slander back? Of course you won’t because lying and slandering is just how you roll. And you would never admit you were wrong about anything. Never.

                      Lets see MNG

                      MNG|9.7.11 @ 11:11AM|#

                      Do you want to die on this hill John, like the ESA thing, the phantom Nobel, the mysterious non-existent Oslo muslim bombers, etc?

                      You want to take that back? Of course not. You are constitutionally incapable of admitting any error at all. You just change the subject to something else when someone points out that you are wrong.

                      Get help.

                    11. No, I won’t take back the ESA thing or the Oslo thing or the phantom Nobel for Epstein. They were all things where I demonstrably showed you to be talking out of your ass.

                      But that’s becoming so easy it is starting to get boring.

                      I’m going back to my 60 hours of work now John, maybe I’ll get my Nobel prize like Richard Epstein’s, soon? Have fun making a tool out of yourself today.

                    12. You are a really sad person MNG. I am frankly sorry I ever screwed with you. As fun as it can be, it just not very Christian of me.

                    13. John|9.7.11 @ 10:40AM|#
                      Why are you such asshole MNG? No one else is like you on here. Even Tony doesn’t throw out personal insults.

                      John|9.7.11 @ 11:08AM|#
                      Fuck off you shithead.

                      Priceless. Like most movement conservatives John doesn’t even know what stance he was taking five minutes ago, much less five days, weeks or years. That way it can change to match the current right-wing outrage meme of the day. But it also makes it childishly easy to make these people look silly as they fold in on themselves even during a single thread…

                    14. Yes MNG, change the subject. Don’t admit you were wrong. Just change the subject. No one will notice I am sure.

                    15. MNG|9.7.11 @ 11:03AM|#

                      There’s been this massive proliferation of right wing goofballs here since Obama took office. At one time we had TallDave and LoneWhacko and that was about it, now about 50% of the posters are LGF rejects. Why don’t you people go back to LGF? I think the actual sad thing is you think you are going to come here and ‘convert’ the benighted libertarians to vote GOP.

                      Do you want to take that back and admit you were wrong? Here is your chance to prove to the whole board that you are actually a human being. Take it.

                    16. Er, who was the reply to John?

                      Lord you are careless….

                      sloopyinca|9.7.11 @ 11:00AM|#
                      You know, MiNGe, there are a lot of us on here you failed to mention by name

                      That “lot of us” is who I was referring to, you’re not part of the recent proliferation of Hit and Runpublicans, you’re a more longstanding shill, yes. My complaint was at the sheer growth of, well, people like you on the board. The actual, principled libertarians like Epi, Hazel, Thoreau, etc., are becoming rarer and rarer…

                    17. Who are these people? I don’t see there being any republicans on here. Name names or shut up. And again, if you don’t like it, go away, no one will miss you.

                    18. Just out of curiosity, WTF am I a shill for?

                      And if you say Team Red, I will be very disappoint. Unless Team Red has pushed for:
                      Closing Gitmo
                      Bringing all overseas troops home
                      Dramatically shrinking military budget
                      More open immigration
                      Drug legalization
                      End of Selective Service
                      Gay marriage equality (by eliminating state-sanction)

                      If and when the Republicans adopt these positions, then you can call me a shill. Until then, you are just flat out wrong.

                    19. Will you two get a goddamn room?

                    20. Hate fuck! Hate fuck! Hate fuck! Hate fuck! Hate fuck!

                    21. Exactly.

                2. This, coming from a guy that won’t take EAP up on his $100 bet.

  28. http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/0…..-failures/

    Rolling blackouts are coming thanks to the EPA.

    1. That’s a right-wing publication, therefore it is meaningless.

      1. The Houston Chronicle is right-wing? (Fuel Fix is their energy blog.) I did not know that. Compared to the Washington Post, I guess it is.

        How clean is the air now, compared to when the Clean Air Act was written? At what point do we say that the air is clean enough, and stop screwing around with the regulations?

    2. I thought Obama had suspended the ruling that would lead to the rolling blackouts. It was an obvious case of pandering, but a right decision is still a right decision.

  29. They mention Germany as an example for shortening work hours, then at the later point where they advocate earlier retirement, they seem to overlook Germany raising the retirement age.

  30. I almost feel sorry for Romney. He’s flip-flopped and pandered like no other pol I can think of in recent times and yet for all the throwing of his integrity under the bus the GOP is still just not into him.

    Interestingly considering his pandering runs to the right it seems his only hope is to run a McCain-esque campaign appealing to independents and Dems in the primaries, but McCain had the service record to cut deeply into national security conservatives that Romney doesn’t and his position lurching has probably killed that too.

    It’s truly a lesson in the pathetic…

    1. Agreed. He needs to just go away and beg for a VP nod. The tea party is gonna tear him a new asshole from the right and moderates are gonna tear him one from the left for selling out his principles. And if we’ve learned anything from Joe Biden, it’s that we don’t need a man with three assholes.

      1. Like I said, his only hope now is to try to appeal to Dems and Indies in the open primaries, but he’s crapped on them for so long in his pandering that’s unlikely to work. He’s the most pathetic pol I’ve seen in my life time (and I remember Dukkakis!)

        1. Dukakis in the grotesquely oversized CVC in the Abrams is still one of the funniest political pictures ever. He looked like a child playing Army in his dad’s uniform.

  31. Everybody see the Terps put it on Miami? They were uneven but it was still great. Hell, I even liked the new uniforms (though the ones for Boise State and Georgia were terrible).

    1. Dude, you liked the Terps new uniform? I think someone needs to make an appointment with Rand Paul.

      1. Lots of people hated it, but come on, the old uniforms were much worse. “Terps” in cursive, how original.

        1. Worst. Uniforms. Evar.

          Seriously, I thought there were three teams out there. Either that, or Miami (FL) were playing a team of court jesters.

          Either way, it’s doubtful we will be forced to watch them again unless they play a Thursday game, which is the only way ACC teams get on national TV anymore.

          1. If you live in the Mid-Atlantic region you get them all the time, trust me it’s terrible actually. The rest of the country will be getting something like Ohio State v. Texas while we in MD will be watching Boston College v. Duke…

            1. I had to get the GameDay plan or just go to bars when I lived in Richmond for that reason alone. Thankfully, tOSU was on ABC or ESPN virtually every week and I had some clout at a couple of bars because I was a notorious drunk, which meant I got to watch what I wanted, Hokies fans be damned.

              Of course, you probably think I’m a tOSU fan because they are scarlet and gray, and everyone knows scarlet is red and Team Red are my guys, right?*

              *-/sarcasm

              1. Hang on, sloopyinca
                Sloopyinca, hang on.

                1. Finally, someone gets my name!

                  1. Yes — few people know that the McCoys actually started out as a Peruvian flute band.

              2. I just want to note that by using little “t” in tOSU, you are violating university policy and can be executed for The Treason.

                1. I can never be executed for The Treason. I will bleed Scarlet and Gray till the day I die.

                  O-H…

            2. More like Ohio State vs. Toledo. But at least we get to see one real team.

  32. Been trying to post about this for a week and keep being a bit late for the morning links, but maybe someone is still reading.

    Last week headed out of ORD on business I was selected for the Rapiscan and opted out. It’s not the first time I’ve done so, and not the first time at ORD, but it was the first time that the TSA lady who came to screen me asked if I would mind telling her why I chose to opt out.

    Now, in the first- and fourth-amendment-free zone that is airport security, it’s kind of hard to give the real reason. I could have said I preferred not to discuss it, or, as my bf later suggested, that I was doing it for health reasons, but I tried to tone done my real reason so I could explain that it was at least political. I said something like, “I don’t believe in the scanners and I want everyone to see what goes on for airport security” (I’m also always adamant about not wanting to be screened privately).

    Well, TSA lady got pissed about this, to an extent that surprised me because I was really trying to be mild and nonconfrontational. She gave me some line about how she wasn’t embarrassed, because she’s just doing her job, and I said I wasn’t embarrassed either, and she said “good, then we’re on the same page,” in a very nasty way.

    Anyway, point is: do we think it is becoming TSA policy (formal or otherwise) to interrogate people about why they choose to opt out? Have other folks experienced this? What kind of answer would you give? At this point I think I wish I had declined to discuss it, but I don’t really know. It puts you in an impossible position.

    And for those who saw the NYT coverage about African-American women having their natural hair patted down, I can tell you that this African-American non-natural-haired TSA lady patted down my straight, less-than-chin-length hair. Racism averted! Or something.

    1. If they ask me this, I’ll be tempted to say, “Because fuck you, that’s why,” and see if anything happens.

      1. Let us know how that works out. I may follow your lead if I get on a plane any time soon.

    2. I always opt out and they always ask me why. My simple response is, “I’m not going through that thing for any reason. You’re just gonna have to put your hands down my pants.”

      It invariably gets a chuckle because the agent asking me knows he/she isn’t the one who will have to do the pat down and wiener groping.

      1. The last time I opted out (about two weeks ago) I got an old-fashioned back-of-hand feel-up instead of the new-and-improved cup-and-squeeze.
        What’s up with that?
        Not that I’m complaining.

      2. In my case, it was the agent who was doing it who asked–while she was doing it. I wouldn’t be thrilled with the initial guy back at the scanner asking why, but it would seem less stressful than having to come up with an answer as you’re being patted down.

    3. The only time I was….errr….invited to go through one of those Rape-Rape Scan machines, I did opt out. The TSA ladies didn’t ask why. The only question they asked was if I wanted to do teh groping in private (hell no!). The lady who felt me up was really nice. Had a “degree” in “criminal justice” from one of those daytime TV colleges. She was really interested in the givt agency I work for and asked what kind of jobs we had here that might suit her.

      1. givt = govt. Typing derp.

    4. I can see how they might use the interrogation as a way of detecting people that have something to hide. One would hope that they wouldn’t use the answer as an excuse to assault someone.

      I’d probably say that I was hoping to get felt up today and maybe moan slightly during the deed. It’d probably get me arrested though.

      1. I await some brave soul who loses bladder control during the gropedown.

  33. Even Paul Krugman would see the value in this deal-
    Enjoy a 5% discount on your bitcoin to gold purchases with the code BETALUVDISC5 .

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.