Reason Morning Links: OMB Knew Solyndra Deal Could Be Disastrous, Pot Grower Wins Restraining Order Against County, Gitmo Still Gitmo

|

  • Office of Management and Budget email sent January 31, 2011: "The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad. The timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up."
  • Other stimulus recipients have gone belly up
  • California pot grower wins restraining order to keep county from seizing his plants. 
  • An update from Gitmo: "Visitors can glimpse fading copies of Obama's Jan. 22, 2009 closure order in the recreation yards of the camp for low-value captives — al Qaeda foot soldiers, training camp wannabes, Taliban militiamen. An earlier admiral had guards hang the order for the captives to see while his team built a blueprint for closure. But recently, the guard force began taking some copies down. 'They were tattered or unreadable,' said Navy Cmdr Tamsen Reese, camp spokeswoman."
  • A group of Silicon Valley venture capitalists hopes to register five million conservative Christian voters for 2012. 
  • Rep. Dennis Kucinich lives

New at Reason.tv: "Smoking Bans Are No Match for New Yorkers"

Advertisement

NEXT: Friday Funnies

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

  1. Thanks, Mike! 😎

  2. 8:45 a.m.? Riggs, you magnificent bastard!

  3. Senior administration officials met with Senate Democrats for an hour and a half on Thursday to answer their complaints about President Obama’s jobs bill.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/ad…..-jobs-bill

  4. This is what I call service.

  5. More Young Adults Are Poor, Live With Their Parents
    http://moneyland.time.com/2011…..r-parents/

    “It’s not your imagination: It really is more crowded at mom and dad’s place. The Census Bureau made headlines yesterday with news that the nation’s official poverty rate hit 15.1%, the highest since 1993. Tough times have also translated into a rise in adult children moving back into (or never leaving) their parent’s homes. In the spring of 2011, 5.9 million young adults aged 25 to 34 lived with their parents, up from 4.7 million before the recession. And these adult kids still at mom and dad’s make very little money: Over 45% have incomes that’d put them below the poverty threshold.”

    1. So if you’re living in the basement of mom and dad’s McMansion, playing x-box and eating pizza while holding down a part-time job at Burger King, you’re in poverty.

      Gotcha.

      1. time for food stamps! And healthcare (on mom and dad’s policy) until you’re 26.

        1. Turning a norm (as robc notes below) into a reason to provide endless welfare is the problem.

          My family operates on an extended “family first” policy: we help our own to help themselves, then others in an iterative fashion. My great-grandparents rented, then mortgaged, then owned a 3-story row home in Newark that my grandparents, great aunts, uncles, on down the line lived in until it was eventually sold a few years ago. This is just families looking out for each other – the “welfare” being provided is private and motivated by whatever you want to call it: love, tribalism, protecting your genetic material so it will thrive…

        2. and, LH, I get your larger point that it’s ridiculous to use this as a reason to make taxpayers subsidize healthcare for 26-year-old “children.”

          Something is broke, and broken.

      2. It’s not always like this. I boomeranged to the ‘rents after I was laid-off from a job and was having a hard time finding something that could pay the rent. I had a part-time job I turned into a full-time one (in retail) to fill the gap between losing a higher-paying job and getting another higher-paying-than-retail job.

        It was my dad’s suggestion, I didn’t ask them if I could come home. It made sense; I paid them rent at a fraction of what I was paying living outside of the house and did exactly what I did when I was in high school: clean the house, cook meals a few nights a week, be respectful of their sleeping hours if I wanted to go out and come home late at night.

        It was good for the 8 months it lasted until I was able to move out again. I’m glad my parents were able to offer me shelter while I searched for work and was once again able to be independent. Ummm, isn’t that what families are for?

        My quibble is with claiming those living at home are below the poverty level. Perhaps if they were living on their own and trying to eat and provide shelter that would be true; but if you have someone (anyone) providing you private assistance that levels the poverty curve, can you really be considered living below the poverty level? And what is poverty when you can still provide food, shelter, transportation, cell phones (even smart phones and the data plan necessary to operate them)?**

        **I include this last part because a number of my former students from Paterson, NJ, who live below the poverty line, regularly post Facebook updates via their iPhones, Blackberries, and Droid phones.

        1. I include this last part because a number of my former students from Paterson, NJ, who live below the poverty line, regularly post Facebook updates via their iPhones, Blackberries, and Droid phones.

          Yeah, I’ve noticed how ‘poor’ people seem to somehow have money for smart phones and manicures, among other things.

        2. I agree with you. This is what makes it a good idea to maintain good relations with your parents.

          My only issue is including people who are not impoverished in the statistics for poverty. That’s purely a political ploy to push for more welfare, IMO.

          1. Income Inequality!!!11one!!1!

            You see, the income gap is getting larger and larger and more people are becoming poor than EVAR!!

    2. Multigenerations homes were the norm thruout human history.

      About 15 years ago I pointed out that the ~one generation where this wasnt true was getting whiny about Gen Xers being at home after college. Apparently the trend has continued, as has the whining.

  6. More Young Adults Are Poor, Live With Their Parents
    http://moneyland.time.com/2011…..r-parents/

    “It’s not your imagination: It really is more crowded at mom and dad’s place. The Census Bureau made headlines yesterday with news that the nation’s official poverty rate hit 15.1%, the highest since 1993. Tough times have also translated into a rise in adult children moving back into (or never leaving) their parent’s homes. In the spring of 2011, 5.9 million young adults aged 25 to 34 lived with their parents, up from 4.7 million before the recession. And these adult kids still at mom and dad’s make very little money: Over 45% have incomes that’d put them below the poverty threshold.”

    1. And your point is …?

      1. Kids today should pull up their damn pants, cut their hair and get a fucking job.

        …and get off my lawn.

        1. Shaking his cane!!!!!!

        2. I got a job without cutting my hair. In fact, I credit my locks for a goodly portion of my prowess. I suspect if I had cut it I might have gone the way of Metallica.

  7. Libyans turn page on Gaddafi’s ‘Green Book’

    With Gaddafi gone, many in Tripoli no longer have to hide their contempt for the toppled leader’s eccentric manifesto.David Poort Last Modified: 14 Sep 2011 14:32

    The book, translated into many languages and widely published, reads more as a collection of thoughts than as a coherent manifesto.

    Rejecting capitalism and a free press, Gaddafi claims that liberal democracy is in fact a lie, as real democracy could only be reached by following his ideas to the letter. Popular committees, directly chosen by the people, should form a democratic framework, he states

    “What’s in The Green Book is just theory. It didn’t work in Libya and even Gaddafi himself eventually admitted that. He said it might have worked in another country, and he specifically named Switzerland. But it wouldn’t have worked anywhere. It is simply not applicable.”

    “Political struggle that results in the victory of a candidate with, for example, 51 per cent of the votes leads to a dictatorial governing body in the guise of a false democracy, since 49 per cent of the electorate is ruled by an instrument of government they did not vote for, but which has been imposed upon them. Such is dictatorship.”

    http://english.aljazeera.net/n…..17195.html

    1. “.. Such is dictatorship”

      Well, such is democracy really, which the founders warned about. Of course, it’s not just limited to 51/49 as I don’t really see how it somehow becomes more justifiable if it were 75/25 (or even 99/1 for that matter) that the author seems to be implying.

      1. 99/1 seems all the worse: you just gotta kill that 1% then, which seems downright proper when they’re such a measly minority.

        1. They’re positively unAmerican!

        2. Utilitarianism?

    2. I think it’s a shame when fucking Libyans get liberal democracy better than us. Well, when I say “us”, I mean “Tony”.

  8. Economy: What’s a six-letter word that describes what you get when you combine spiking jobless claims and rising inflation? Answer: M-I-S-E-R-Y. And as new reports show, Obama is dishing out heaping portions of it.
    http://www.investors.com/NewsA…..erably.htm

  9. I’m telling you, the Democrats’ best shot to win the presidency in 2012 is to use the Solyndra scandal to impeach Obama, substituting the “mature” leadership of Hillary to right the ship.

    Also, strangely, the predictive typing assistant on my new phone suggests “Obama” as the logical word to follow “impeach.”!

    1. Meant to include this link.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..-poll.html

      1. So Shrillary is going to be Biden’s veep?

        1. Ah — wait a bit.
          I see it as if it were already done:
          In an attempt to add a bit of interest to the ticket (and stave off any possible rebellion), Biden steps aside for Hillary to run for Veep in 2012.

          1. That’s certainly possible, as it avoids the embarassment and rancor (and lights shining into dark places) of an impeachment trial while holding the presidency for the Dems while grooming Hillary for a successful run in ’16. But that run can only succeed if the e onomy picks

            1. …picks up before ’15 which is unlikely with the Dems’ forseeable policies. If Hillary wants the Presidency and does not want the baggage of being associated with 2 terms of Obama failure, her best move is to somehow force O out, either through impeachment over scandal, or through an internal party power play.

              1. ** rattles chains **

        2. No, Biden fulfills the remainder of Obama’s term and bows out gracefully to Hillary. Maybe even becomes her veep although the optics of a former president accepting that position might be awkward. Need a good rigbt-leaning democrat for veep.

          1. But see, I (for once) am serious. Obama will never be impeached, of course. But he could easily lose in 2012.
            What a genius move dumping Biden for Hillary in 2012 would be. (I hope the DNC doesn’t read this blog.)

            1. Never say never…but i agree (see above) that an impeachment is highly unlikely. If H wants to be Prez she needs O out of the way because even if he squeaks into a second term the Democratic brand will be damaged goods and a Republican following Obama in almost a sure thing.

          2. How crazy would people get if the first black president ever was impeached and removed from office?

      2. The thing about Obama is that I don’t think he likes the job.

        I think he’s miserable in the job.

        Can’t you see it in his face? His body language?

        He looks like Poppy Bush checking his watch, but with the amp turned up to 11.

        I can easily see him saying, “I will not seek, and will not accept, the nomination of my party for President in 2012.” Easily.

        And if he does that, it’s pretty much already too late for the nominee to be anyone but Hillary. No one else has time.

        1. Oh, he hates the work, but loves the title.

          1. And the vacations.

            1. And the Motown Parties at the whitehouse.

        2. I can see him doing that too. It is obvious he hates being President. You could tell that Reagan, Clinton and Bush II loved the job. They loved being President. It is written all over his body language that Obama hates the job. He would be happier as the Secretary of the UN or some other meaningless job where he gets to live well, feel important, make speeches but no one expects him to accomplish anything or ever holds him responsible for anything.

          But I really do think he is going to run. He is too vain and hates his enemies too much to throw in the towel. He should. But he won’t.

          1. Obama might make a “good” UN ambassador or something else where to his primary responsibility is to represent the US to the world according to policy set by someone else. But an executive he is not.

            1. I think he only ran for President because his bitch wife badgered him into it. And I think that is the only reason he is going to run for re-election. Michelle likes being queen.

              1. Troll-rating John to hide him in the Reasonable screen is not cool, guys.

                1. That happened in the middle of the day yesterday. Which makes me doubt the efficacy of the screen. I’d rather screen my own trolls, any way.

            2. Obama is a thinker, an ideologue, not a doer. What he wants is to be a figurehead who does no more than read and talk where his talk has no consequences in the real world (what he REALLY wants is to keep on keepin’ on in the university bubble which has no contact with the real world), not a dude who has to do shit. Because it’s painfully obvious that he has never had to do anything but read books and talk about them; he’s never had to do a goddamn thing in his life.

              1. In other words, he’s likely to take over Krugman’s NYT gig when his term ends.

        3. He loves being President. The crowds, the perks, the ego-stroking, can’t be beat.

          He hates actual governing, though. Too hard.

          1. I think he relishes being in the record books (1st not-fully-caucasion president). But I don’t think he actually enjoys any of the job.

          2. “He hates actual governing”

            He likes governing if one defines “governing” as issuing vague guidelines, saying, “Make it so!” and expecting a horde of grovelling toadies to fill in the details while he lives a lavish lifestyle. What he doesn’t like is opposition. We should make him dictator.

        4. Oh, he hates the Presidency, but it’s good to be the King.

          He won’t willingly give up the lifestyle.

    2. I am interested in your thoughts and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      1. mee too, its useful to know what WONT happen.

    3. Clinton isn’t a good SoS and really had no business in the Senate or in the SoS. But she’s a good candidate for the presidency?

      Besides all of that, of the 310 million in the U.S., we can’t find someone not named Clinton or Bush? Really?

      1. Having Presidents named Clinton and Bush has worked so well, why *not* keep doing it?

        1. How about a Washington or Jefferson?

          1. George for President!

            1. Movin’ on up!

              1. weezie n george definitely moved up after DNA testing revealed jefferson liked him some brown sugar real goodz

          2. How about a Washington or Jefferson?

            Naaa, there won’t be another Black president any time soon. The One has assured that.

            1. Not if they blame his failures on his white half.

              1. c.f. Michael Moore

      2. Whether she’s any good or not is beside the point. Add Hillary to the ticket and they re-energize the base and get teh womynfolk out working for the campaign.

        1. Dumping Obama would alienate an important part of that base, eliminating the chance of winning altogether. They can’t win.

          1. That’s where dumping Biden comes in. They can’t dump Obama, but dumping a Veep is a relatively painless maneuver.

            1. Don’t dump Smilin’ Joe entirely — make him Train Czar!

            2. Biden isn’t viewed as responsible for the two recessions Obama has presided over. That’s why the Republicans get the White House, even if they run a well-educated bicycle.

              1. I think you’re giving the American people too much credit, Pro L.

                1. Not really. We tend to hit the eject button if the economy gets bad enough. And it’s bad enough.

                  1. You haven’t heard? The economy is all Bush’s fault. Still. Would you rather have the failed policies of Bush that got us in this mess or the hopey changey policies of Obama which are totally, substantively different from the Bush ones?

              2. But they aren’t gonna run a “well-educated bicycle”…they’ve got a bunch of idiots in the race.

                http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..dates.html

                1. Idiots not directly responsible (in the common view) for the economy. A regular bicycle could beat Obama. He’s tainted on Bushian levels now. Maybe worse.

              3. “Biden isn’t viewed as responsible for the two recessions Obama has presided over. That’s why the Republicans get the White House, even if they run a well-educated bicycle.”

                What he said times a lot.

            3. Dumping Biden does nothing for Obama’s chances. The 23 senators facing reelection will settle for nothing less than dumping Obama.

          2. Im not sure that if the Solyndra scandal gets bad enough and reaches high enough, that even Obama fans might not be willing to desert him. Say what you want about Democrats, the folk who supported him out of naive idealism may be so turned off by his crony capjtalism at some point that

            1. …that they’ll want to leave him behind for what they see as a more proven model. They may be fools but Obama’s running out of goodwill and they may be willing to be fooled by someone else.

            2. But they don’t see Solyndra as crony capitalism – they see it as a man who deeply cares about the environment who went out on a ledge to protect gaia, and that it’s us evil libertarians who are to blame for companies like Solyndra going under because we want to cut off their gravy train.

      3. I think we’ve set the trend for absolutely unqualified candidates with Obama. So let’s go for broke and get some reality show star nominated.

        Some men just want to watch the world burn, and more and more lately, I’m one of them.

        1. I’d like to think we’d learned a small lesson from electing Obama.

          1. Snooki 2012!!

            1. That little oompa-loompa couldn’t do any worse than Obama

          2. “I’d like to think we’d learned a small lesson from electing Obama.”

            That Affirmative Action is a stunning failure?

      4. She would be a lousy President. But as Heinlein says the difference between bad and worse is greater than good and better. Right now we have worse. Nearly anyone would be a significant improvement.

        That said, Hillary is wildly popular among a certain group of people. I could totally see her being a formidable nominee even in what is shaping up to be the worst year for Democrats since the Civil War.

        1. Hillary recently has looked just really, really tired. I don’t know if she really has it in her to run for President.

          Veep? Sure. Its a nothingburger job – all perk, no heavy lifting.

          1. Yeah, she is getting old. She is nearly 70. And frankly, in this economy I don’t know why a liberal would want the job. The blue state model is dying. I can’t imagine any doctrinaire liberal who would want to preside over its end.

            1. “The blue state model is dying. I can’t imagine any doctrinaire liberal who would want to preside over its end.”

              The right woman could turn it all around.

      5. My vote is for Lord Doomcock, Warty being VP.

        1. Vote Warty 2012: Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.

          1. So Will Munny for president? Fuck it, why not.

    4. There is no way, short of his being assassinated or getting cancer, that the Democrats will not run Obama. To do so would be to take part in making the history books say that the first black President wasn’t good at the job.

  10. WTF?
    Following Irene disaster, Vermont’s unionized State Employees respond by demanding DOUBLE PAY:

    Officials at the Vermont State Employees Association say “emergency closed” language in the union contract means Waterbury employees working from remote locations are in many cases entitled to twice their normal hourly rates.

    http://www.timesargus.com/arti…..003/NEWS02

    1. You know, one day I am going to find something you guys actually give a shit about. One day.

      1. Got any posts about Palin at the ready?

      2. Hint: it’s boobs.

        1. Also, based on my limited observation:
          Vintage Sci-Fi
          Fantasy

          Your only other option may be starting a troll-thread about Israel.

          1. Rush. Don’t forget about Rush.

            1. We slap-a da bass.

              1. lulz

                That’s an underrated movie.

          2. Jew boobs in space. Yeah — that thread has potential.

        2. Boobs? Where? Where are the boo…oh.

        3. Especially boobs combined with lobsters.

      3. or Bachmann craziness.

        or movies

      4. Atheism trolling can work.

        As can negative statements about Ron Paul.

        Hunting and gathering was hot for a while, but that was a beanie baby type thing that cooled off really fast.

        “Outrageous lawsuit” is usually good.

        As is “Cop Shoots Dog”. I imagine “Dog Shoots Cop” would work even better.

        But you can never go wrong with boobs.

          1. Boobs? (scratches chin)

      5. Pizza and Beer seem to do well too.

        1. Propertarians?

        2. So long as you don’t start calling that nasty shit from Chicago “pizza”.

  11. The Obama administration was worried about the financial health of a troubled solar energy company even as officials publicly declared the company in good shape

    Oops.

    OTOH, wait for the spin that bankruptcy is a *good* thing, because Solyndra’s products can be bought very cheaply: “Thanks to the stimulus, America beats China in the solar panel market.”

  12. I guess Mr. Riggs is the only person at Reason to wake up before 11AM. Time to crack the whip on the old timers, they’re gettin’ complacent.

    In other news how about that RIMM, I think HP and RIMM should merge. Their senior management and boards appear to be bred from the same like of retarded rhesus monkeys.

    1. *cough* West Coast *cough*

      (sucks for those of us who aren’t living 3hours behind)

      1. It must suck to live in California and wake up to find that the day is already over.

        1. All of China is in one time zone, why aren’t we? (Chyna too, except the clit)

          God it would suck to live in the western edge of that country. If you played the markets you would be up like 6 hours before the sun, and falling asleep in the afternoon.

          Just trying to keep it classy in here guys

          1. except the clit

            Um, you misspelled micropenis.

        2. It sucks to live in California and wake up to find that California is already over.

          1. Eh. We’ll tax ourselves to prosperity.

          2. California may be broke, but it has saved or created more species than any other state.

        3. Let’s see. It’s been a beautiful summer here in California. We finally got our new patio built so we’ve been BBQ’ing and eating outdoors a lot. The fig tree we planted is coming along nicely.

      2. /shrug

        You service the world or a country you start when the earliest meaningful group starts. Considering Reason is a political site I’d assume there are more than a few east coast readers. No excuses!!! Lazy news people!!! Bad news people!!! No tripple latte with a danish for you!!!

      3. If only they had a Contributing Editor Emeritus for Life who lived in the EST… say, Nashville?

        1. Are you talking about Radley, or Glenn Reynolds?

        2. Except that Nashville isn’t in the EST, but Central Time.

  13. one can only aspire to the magnificence…in the company of hot female body guards posing w camo & gunz!

  14. In other news, the FTC proposes new rules to protect children online from evil websites
    http://www.pcworld.com/article…..k.rss_news

    1. The Commission has also proposed modifying the definition of “collection” so that operators may allow children to participate in interactive communities, without parental consent, so long as the operators take reasonable measures to delete all or virtually all children’s personal information before it is made public.

      This is just an example of the FTC’s proposed stimulation of the governmental-regulation and legal industries. Children, I hope we’ll be allowed to continue participating in this interactive community.

  15. Bar Rafaeli is still hot.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..p-top.html

    1. She always looks that happy when she’s leaving my apartment in the morning.

      1. then dont use helium to blow-up ur doll

    2. She is wildly hot. And to think that Leo dumped her. Goes to show the old adage about show me a woman and I will show you someone tired of listening to her shit is still true.

      1. Did he dump her or did she dump him?
        Maybe he’s a total dick and she got tired of his shit.
        I don’t know the whole story. Do you?

        1. I don’t follow these things that closely. But I thought he dumped her. Maybe I am wrong. Frankly, the older he gets the creepier Leo looks. He is Jack Nicholson creepy right now and he is not even 40. So, it wouldn’t shock me if she dumped him. Although from the interviews I have seen with her, she seems to have an IQ somewhere between a fence post and a house plant. So I could see how being with her would get old after a while.

          1. “Although from the interviews I have seen with her, she seems to have an IQ somewhere between a fence post and a house plant.”

            I’ve never seen any interviews with her so I wouldn’t know, but from what I’ve seen of Leo he does seem like a total dick.

            1. He seems like a complete dick. Ralfeli is just dumb. There is no reason to believe she is a bad person. Thus, she probably deserves better than that little twit.

              1. That would make a good TV show:

                Dick and the Dummy.

                1. Dick and the Dummy

                  Dick the Dummy and his Dummy.

                2. Hot Chicks with Douchebags

    3. EOM

    4. The bar for “super model” continues downward. Judging by the DM pics, this Bar is nothing special. Walk through a crowded shopping mall and see dozens of much hotter women.

  16. No link on the plan to funnel US dollars to European banks?

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/af…..inancials/

    Can someone help me out here? Can you direct me to the enabling legislation that allows the Federal Reserve to send as much money as it wants to European banks?

    Or does it matter? Is this just one of those times that we’re supposed to just understand that lawlessness is the order of the day, because that’s “pragmatic”?

    1. No link on the plan to funnel US dollars to European banks?

      You’d probably prefer those Euro banks burn orphans to stay warm, you bastard.

      1. Are there no spotted owls in Europe for them to burn in open-pit fires?

        Have they no dioxin to burn?

        1. Where have you been. The Greek collapse was directly caused by concerns that there would not be enough dioxin to burn this coming winter. (and fyi, those owls are for eatin, not fuelin)

          1. Wait, you can eat spotted owls?

            I thought they were only useful as fuel.

            (Goes to get spotted owl-killing blunderbuss and hunting monocle.)

            1. For truly high throughput owl killing you need to turn to a Punt Gun in an A gauge or larger. Otherwise you can be at it all day, and those seals aren’t going to club themselves.

              1. Can I control such a gun with the laser sight and Terminator head’s up display of my hunting monocle?

                1. Maybe, you aim the boat. 1.5lbs of shot at 1500fps might be a bit of recoil for hand firing.

              2. Otherwise you can be at it all day, and those seals aren’t going to club themselves.

                That’s what child labor is for! Multi-tasking.

          2. Worth repeating.

            “The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”

            Cicero, 55 BC

            1. Yeah, but that was, like, more than a hundred years ago.

    2. They don’t funnel money to European banks, they funnel to the IMF which funnels it to European banks.

    3. There is none. We are going to debase our currency in an attempt to save the European welfare state.

    4. After swearing up and down that there wouldn’t be a QE3, the Fed has to launder it to preserve the tatters of its credibility.

      That’s really all this is.

      Although I am still dying of curiousity to learn how the Fed is going to keep Treasury rates so low when it is still going to have to sell way more than $1TT worth next year, and apparently the Fed won’t be buying.

      Maybe the backroom deal is that all those NuBucks being shipped to Europe will have to be used to buy Treasuries.

      Bernanke is still fighting WWII here. He believes that the immolation of the dollar is the lesser evil to a round of deflation, and will continue to print dollars until inflation spikes.

      1. R C, would you sketch out an endgame scenario? Does your analysis find us going out with a bang or a whimper?

  17. The Shame of College Sports

    http://www.theatlantic.com/mag…..orts/8643/

    The list of scandals goes on. With each revelation, there is much wringing of hands. Critics scold schools for breaking faith with their educational mission, and for failing to enforce the sanctity of “amateurism.” Sportswriters denounce the NCAA for both tyranny and impotence in its quest to “clean up” college sports. Observers on all sides express jumbled emotions about youth and innocence, venting against professional mores or greedy amateurs.

    For all the outrage, the real scandal is not that students are getting illegally paid or recruited, it’s that two of the noble principles on which the NCAA justifies its existence?”amateurism” and the “student-athlete”?are cynical hoaxes, legalistic confections propagated by the universities so they can exploit the skills and fame of young athletes. The tragedy at the heart of college sports is not that some college athletes are getting paid, but that more of them are not.

    1. The problem could be solved in ten seconds if the NCAA would simply decide that they would insist on “technical” amateur status only.

      In other words, as long as the colleges don’t themselves pay the students or actively direct pay going to students, they’re amateurs and that’s that.

      All of this nonsense where they’re trying to detect if any booster anywhere ever bought somebody a pack of smokes is ridiculous. If kids and boosters want to go to elaborate lengths to funnel money to the kids while not having them violate their technical amateur status, they should win. Amateur status is a technical status only and ultimately attempting to define a “spirit of the law” for such a technical status can only end in what amounts to totalitarian control of the kids’ lives. If people are willing to say, “I’m giving the quarterback a job at my car dealership where he measures the length of the grass once a day,” then they have defeated your childish and petty rules about amateurism and you should just shut the fuck up and like it.

      1. The universities can have those rules in a heartbeat – but they would have to leave the NCAA.

        Which might be happening shortly anyway.

      2. The corruption began decades ago when colleges and universities first began issuing “atheletic” scholarships. The NCAA was essentially created to maintain the fiction that the beneficiaries of sports scholarships were still amateurs.

        To put it another way, college administrators recognized the inherent unfairness of subsidizing certain students not because they were academically gifted, but because they were atheletically gifted. To disguise this unfairness, they enacted rules that only apply to the atheletes so as to deflect attention away from unfair practice of rewarding atheletic prowess vs. academic prowess.

        1. This. There was a time when the Ivy Leagues were competitive in college sports at the highest levels, back when all the major universities still had serious standards of admission.

          1. And the SEC, with the lowest academic standards of the pack, brings in around $1 billion in revenues, mostly from football. They could give that all up and pretend to be Ivies or take the money, the free advertising and the alumni satisfaction and run.

            The problem was never that universities introduced athletic scholarships. Sports just weren’t profitable enough before then. Since, college sports have become huge money, growing by double digits every year. They began offering copious athletic scholarships when it made business sense; they were merely responding to massive changes in the market.

            And now that some individual athletes can generate tens of millions a year in terms of licensing and exposure, we shouldn’t even pretend that their obligations as a student or an athlete are even comparable to academic scholarship recipients.

      3. It will never happen because it would destroy the competitive balance more than it already is.

        1. The best thing that has created ANY competitive balance in college football (specifically) is scholarship limitations.

          The 95 (~1980) and then 85 (~1990) limit has balanced things out. Although it has led to other problems (oversigning, etc). With a tighter cap on roster size, the Fluffy plan wouldnt necessarily create more imbalance.

          1. 95 scholarship limit was 1978 thru 1991. 85 limit was 1994 to today (1992 and 1993 stepped down from 95 to 85).

            I was actually pretty close on my date guesses.

            1. That made a big difference. Back in the day a school like Oklahoma or Nebraska would have 130 or 140 scholarship players on the roster. They actually fielded junior varsity teams that played junior colleges and other JV teams. It allowed them to sign players and stash them on the bench or in redshirt until they maybe played as seniors. Those players are now three and four year starters at other schools.

              1. Pitt signed 100 one year, including something like 30 running backs, one of which was Tony Dorsett.

    2. Q: How many college athletes does it take to screw in a light bulb?

      A: One. But he does get three credits for it.

      1. And it covers pre-requisites for more advanced Electrical Engineering courses. That bulb-screwing jock is heading for a career in Semiconductor Power Regulation Design.

    3. remember this is really only about men’s BBall & football. the other zillion sports & athletes are amateurs in every sense of the NCAA meaning.

      1. One night spent with the NC women’s BB team will convince you that they are not amateurs.

    4. No the real scandal is that the NBA and NFL are using the tax supported colleges as a minor league feeder program.

      1. Why? They didn’t ask for it, and they don’t have employment agreements with the universities or the athletes. And the universities benefit from having a big-money pro league one step beyond, otherwise the caliber of college football and basketball athletes would plummet.

        It’s the universities that are in charge of how manage their sports programs, their membership in the NCAA cartel, and their decision on how little to pay players.

        1. pay? one must then pay ALL the athletes in ALL sports.

          1. Outside of football and basketball, most are paid fairly. A field hockey player on a full scholarship is probably not generating revenue beyond that (if anything, probably a good deal less).

            Duh.

          2. Of course! In the interest of *barf* fairness!

          3. “one must then pay ALL the athletes in ALL sports”

            The revenue from basketball and football support ALL the other sports at most schools. Crew teams and college golfers are paid what they are worth to the University – not much.

            1. however the NCAA cant make that distinction due to title 9

              1. If it were possible to fuck a concept in the ass, Title IX would be high on my list.

        2. The NFL most certainly does have a de facto agreement with the NCAA. Thus, Pryor has to sit five pro games i/o five college games. Try getting into the pros without playing football for an NCAA or NJCAA affiliated school as anything but a kicker. It wont happen.

  18. William Friedkin: ‘Exorcist’ director slams trend for comic book stories

    ‘Director William Friedkin on Tuesday decried a trend in cinema of infantilizing audiences with stories ripped from comic books, at the North American premiere of his new film “Killer Joe. “It’s harder and harder to do (original adult material) in this climate of American film… which is mostly concerned with movies that are comic books, and remakes,” he said. “‘

      1. A comedy starring Matthew McConaughey?! That is the very definition of original entertainment for adults! Revolutionary!
        Where’s my wallet?!

    1. If he’d read some newer comics he might understand that there are plenty of “adult” (not in the porn sense) story lines in the graphic literature. It’s like he hasn’t read a comic book since 1979.

      1. The Exorcist sucked.

        1. I’ll bet when he made The Exorcist some other dude bitched that nobody could get an original script filmed because every studio was ripping off paperback horror novels instead.

        2. “Your mother sews socks that smell!”

      2. I mostly like Friedkin’s work – heck, I’m a big fan of *Sorcerer. But really, nothing wrong with graphic novels.

        * Note, no sorcery involved.

        1. +1 for another Sorcerer fan.

      3. “You can make your superhero a psycopath, you can draw gut-splattering violence, and call it a ‘graphic novel’ but comic books are still incredibly stupid.”–Bill Watterson

    2. What sucks about the comic book movies they are making now is that they are all PG-13 because the studios want to bring in the tweener crowd. It makes the action scenes look cartoonish when the superhero or villain is on a killing streak but there is hardly any gore. I want to see realistic violence in my movies dammit!

      1. For realistic violence, see the last Rambo movie.

      2. Hey if we can make 9/11 PG-13, we certainly do it to Batman.

    3. I’ve read more than once that we’re simplifying our movies to better translate to the foreign market, which is now huge.

      1. “Ooh la la, zat Angeline Jolie she is so chaud!”

        “I cannot follow ze complicated plot, but ze explosions, zey are tres bon!”

        “Why has ze action slowed down? Why are ze characters just sitting zere talking? I did not take ze medical leave from ze job today just to see some chick film!”

        “Ah, ze truck is chasing ze car! I have forgotten which is ze good guy and which is the mal, but as we say in France, ze chase, she is everyzing!:

        1. You forgot Cameron Diaz, who only has a career because of foreign markets.

    4. What is driving the constant dumbing down of Hollywood movies (which includes the garish and often unnecessary use of CGI, the ‘tard-level dialogue, and the use of juvenile comic book stories) is the foreign market.

      To sell in foreign markets, you have to produce a kind of lowest-common-denominator story. And so they do.

      1. This sounds familiar to me somehow.

      2. Question of the Day: Bollywood makes lots of movies. India has lots of tech talent, much of it underutilized. Why doesn’t India produce movies with lots of eye-popping CGI?

        Serious question.

        1. My guess would be audience expectations. If the average Indian is willing to tolerate poor CGI, so long as it still has kickin’ dance scenes, then it’s cheaper to just keep doing it that way.

          1. Considering how much it costs to put together a big-budget CGI intensive movie in the U.S., I thought maybe there was a structural problem of achieving a critical mass of capital concentration for films in India.

            I would think that a quality, well-made story with Indian cultural overtones would sell well in foreign markets eager for novelty. Signing up well-known actors which appeal to the domestic market should be pretty easy as well.

            Somebody’s eventually going to make themselves into a mega-tycoon over there. Thar’s gold in them hills!

        2. They will.

  19. “Our goal is to raise up a body of believers and that they elect a lot of godly leaders,” said Bill Dallas, chief executive of United in Purpose.

    Yeah… I don’t think the problem is a lack of leaders thinking they’re gods.

    1. at understanding simple sentences and the meaning and use of adjectives.

  20. “The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad. The timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up.”

    OMB makes political determinations?

    1. And they make them well?

    2. OMB is not the CBO. They work for the administration and serve its political goals, including re-election.

      But naturally since the people at the OMB have to be able to do basic math, they’re probably smarter than most of the White House political staff, so it’s not surprising that they were the only ones who said, “Guys, this might bite us in the ass later.”

      I’ll bet the White House hacks said, “Later? What is this ‘later’ of which you speak? We need green jobs now!”

    3. OMB is kind of the whip by which the president keeps other agencies in line, and it’s quite political, at least at the top.

      1. While I knew they were Administration, I guess I didn’t realize they were overtly political.

        1. The CBO is considered much more independent. OMB estimates tend to be much more Administration-friendly.

          The GWB Administration liked to play the game of having preliminary OMB estimates be worse than really expected, so that they could revise upward and have “pleasant surprises” in, e.g., the deficit size.

        2. OMB isn’t just budget–it’s also an agency that helps the president to set policy at the agency level.

          The wiki description of what the OMB does (through its various subagencies) is accurate enough:

          The OMB’s predominant mission is to assist the President in overseeing the preparation of the federal budget and to supervise its administration in Executive Branch agencies. In helping to formulate the President’s spending plans, the OMB evaluates the effectiveness of agency programs, policies, and procedures, assesses competing funding demands among agencies, and sets funding priorities. The OMB ensures that agency reports, rules, testimony, and proposed legislation are consistent with the President’s Budget and with Administration policies.

          In addition, the OMB oversees and coordinates the Administration’s procurement, financial management, information, and regulatory policies. In each of these areas, the OMB’s role is to help improve administrative management, to develop better performance measures and coordinating mechanisms, and to reduce any unnecessary burdens on the public.

          Since my fellowship was at the OMB (OIRA), I will say something positive–the staffers there seemed a cut above those in other agencies. Lots of bright people who often had a jaundiced view of other bureaucrats at other agencies. This was back during the Clinton years, but remember, the staffers generally remain the same, only the political appointees change.

          From that experience, I realized that there are actually people who think the government is a hopeless disaster and believe that to be a bad thing who work there. Weird, but humans and cognitive dissonance go hand in hand.

          1. “the OMB evaluates the effectiveness of agency programs, policies, and procedures,”

            Clearly not doing their job.

        3. It really IS crap that politically oriented positions in the executive branch are funded by taxpayers.

          1. I completely agree. It should be illegal for people to overtly use public office for political purposes. As should be any official recognition of the political parties.

    1. I could listen to him all day. He’s dreamy.

      1. Seriously, I wish I was as articulate as him. When I have to give a presentation –

        *mumble* er, *mumble* … and this will work… er…

        1. Next time, try it with the accent. And attack your listeners while smiling at them.

          1. it’s the damned Brit accent! It makes everything better, ala Shamwow.

            1. You gettin’ this, camera guy?

              1. “You’re gonna love my nuts!”

    2. “Big is not beautiful. National differences cannot be eradicated.”

      Europe pols, desperately wanting to emulate the Union of States, which they so frequently denounce publicly out of envy, declared that culture doesn’t have to be a barrier preventing political union. As with all ambitious fools and their chosen gobsnockery, those pols are about to be confronted with the consequences. Unfortunately, most of them will not personally suffer. As always, it will be the “commoners” who bear the brunt.

        1. Thanks reasonable. You’ve saved me again!

          1. Curses! Foiled again!

    1. “Let me be very clear for the record: You were unfamiliar with Operation Fast and Furious while the operation was under way?” asked Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

      Unfamiliar: not well-known, not well acquainted

      “That is accurate,” Napolitano replied.

      Accurate: free from error especially as the result of care

      1. A hard and fast rule should be not to name government projects after a Vin Diesel movie. Nothing good can happen after such a mistake.

        1. Shit! Boys, cancel Operation Chronicles of Riddick, pronto!

          1. I don’t know…”Operation Pitch Black” or “Operation XXX” could be interesting.

  21. Rep. Dennis Kucinich can finally stop traversing the country in search of a new district. Ohio Republicans gave him a new lease on life this week.

    The Repugs like having him around.

    1. They’re not letting him leave until they have time to steal his Lucky Charms.

      1. u mean his hot wife?

        1. She was born the same year he was first elected mayor.

        1. She’s well above his weight class, but she ain’t that hot by normal standards. Don’t let the hair distract you.

          1. little people need love too

  22. Bernie Sanders goes full retard on “Oil Speculators.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html
    Really bern? Oil speculators? That is so last year. But I did learn the the Dodd-Frank requires something called the CFTC “to eliminate, prevent or diminish excessive oil speculation by Jan. 17, 2011.”

    If it’s got Dodd-Frank in it’s name it must be criminally stupid.

    1. last year? hardly…the moment obama said reserves would be released this summer, the oil futures market collapsed loosing the ~50c/gal the speculators had priced in

      1. specualtors are ticks on the milk cow

        1. ^^Tick’s Asshole^^

    2. As experts from Stanford University, Rice University, the University of Massachusetts, and authorities have concluded, rampant oil speculation was the prime driver of the record high prices for crude oil three years ago.

      Notably, the top speculators are noncommercial players, meaning they are companies that simply and buy and sell crude contracts with no interest in actually refining and selling the product. Each contract in the list represents 1,000 barrels of oil. The documents show the total volume of trades made on one specific day shortly before the record high price of $148 per barrel.

      To view a copy of the data, click here http://www.slideshare.net/lee_…..gswticr… for documents leaked by Sanders. To view an organized spreadsheet, click here. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&key=0A

      1. So what?

        Don’t want people to speculate in commodities?

        Don’t deliberately devalue the dollar.

        You fucking Leninists and your bitching about the way “speculators” undermine your economic master plans really irritate me.

        What you want is to be able to deliberately devalue the dollar but have no one trade on the obvious consequences of that action. And to that want I say, “Go fuck yourself.”

        When you create the conditions that make a particular speculation obvious, you don’t get to complain about the outcome.

        1. You seem angry…

          1. So find an article about the positive economic effects of speculation, so that way you know that at least Fluffy will comment on it.

            S T R A T E G Y

        2. pure conflation. tell me, why causes u to carry water for speculators?…who obviously increased the price of oil.

          1. why causes u to carry water for speculators?

            The fact that in a free country if someone wants to buy something they should be allowed to?

            And that the people who are creating inflation should not be permitted to prevent people from hedging against it by buying commodities?

            The other day I read an article where leftists are now bitching that they not only want “restrictions on speculation”, they also want “capital controls”.

            It’s economic policy by Scooby Doo villains. “Our plan to devalue the dollar would have worked, if it wasn’t for you nosy kids speculators! Next time we won’t let you buy commodities or other currencies, or move your money out of the country! You’ve got to sit there and let us destroy the value of your savings, or our plans won’t work right!”

            1. And of course speculators lose just as much as they win. People forget that. When a speculator agrees to buy December oil futures at say $100 a barrel and December rolls around and oil is at $80 a barrel, someone just made a mint off the speculator.

              And further, the futures markets allow companies to lock in costs and avoid the ups and downs of the commodities market. That is not a bad thing. Southwest Airlines made a killing a few years ago by investing in futures for jet fuel and keeping their costs fixed when the price of oil exploded. Were they evil speculators? I don’t think so. They were just a smart risk adverse company.

              1. And of course speculators lose just as much as they win.

                Bingo. Futures markets are a zero sum game. Every contract is two-sided: If speculator A makes a million on a long contract, speculator B on the short side of that contract loses a million dollars.

              2. Isn’t “speculation” just people buying stuff? They buy the oil thinking it will be worth it and in part all of this buying raises the price?

                Shit, nothing wrong with that. You going to prevent people from buying things they think will be a good investment?

            2. so only dems set monetary policy?

              1. Jesus. That finally made me resort to the ignore button. Takes a powerful lot of stupid to make me go there.
                Bu-bye!

            3. 100% correct.

          2. Price discovery. For every speculative bet to the upside, someone has to bet against it. The entire futures market seems based on the idea. Done with accountability to the outcome of your bet, it’s a great risk mitigation strategy.

            1. crap. should ‘a hit refresh before posting. you’ve already said as much (and more!).

  23. ‘They were tattered or unreadable,’ said Navy Cmdr Tamsen Reese, camp spokeswoman.

    Speaking, of course, of the CINC’s promises in general.

    1. There’s nothing in the streets
      looks any different to me
      And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye.

      Meet the new boss.

  24. Man sues London School of Economics for gender discrimination

    Wait… a feminist and gender studies department is anti-male? SAY IT AIN’T SO!

  25. Also, holy shit, never get in to a fact based debate on Gawker. I tried to debate entitlement reform, using links to prove its massive, unsustainable growth and the fact that we can’t collect more than 18% of GDP on average, and bascially got in response, “YOU’RE MEAN!!!!” and “I STUDIED ECONOMICS BUT REFUSE TO PROVIDE LINKS TO BACK UP ANY OF MY SHIT!”

    It’s just… fucking depressing, man.

      1. Not to be rude, but pretty dumb too for thinking that it was a good idea to go to Gawker and debate those imbeciles.

    1. Blog comments are for flinging poop, dude. You’ve been around here long enough to have learned that.

      1. It makes for smelly hands and the bars on the cage are so hard to clean!

    2. That’s your fault for going to Gawker, methinks.

    3. “the fact that we can’t collect more than 18% of GDP on average”

      From what I recall it seems true that in the US this is a fact, but its hardly a universal fact among developed nations, so maybe you and them are talking past each other here. You’re thinking it is an immutable fact because that has been our experience while they are thinking that the fact it happens elsewhere shows it can be done.

    4. Progressives are thieves and liars. They are angry that laws exist that prohibit theft from those they despise, but they get around it by using government to steal on their behalf. Then they tell lies to justify it. They are the reason we need police and courts and such. Without progressives an anarcho-capitalist state would actually work. Unfortunately they exist.
      Too bad we couldn’t identify them and euthanize them early. Life would be so much happier.

      1. “Progressives are thieves and liars….Too bad we couldn’t identify them and euthanize them early.”

        Jesus you are a simplistic nut. Seek help dude.

        1. Naw. We need slaves for the monocle factories. They’ll do nicely.

        2. People who celebrate institutionalized theft and fraud are thieves and liars.
          You can nuance it all day long, but some things really are that simple.

          1. You’re that simple, but that ain’t.

            Look, taxation has things in common with what we call theft and it has things not in common. Often that justifies calling them and considering them different things. Honest people can debate about this without one side calling the other theives that should be euthanized. You’re nuts dude.

            I mean, I’m betting that you agree to some form of government that some anarchist could wander on here and accuse you of teh slavery! for, that would not make you a theif or liar or warranting euthaniztion.

            1. “Look, taxation has things in common with what we call theft and it has things not in common.”

              The only difference between taxation and theft is that the individual doing the taking is an employee of the government.

              That is the only difference.

              When a law allows an employee of the government to do something that would be a criminal act if done by a citizen, then that law is wrong.

              1. There’s other differences. When one thinks of theft one traditionally is appalled by the fact that a person takes property with no account for the other’s consent for his own use. In taxation consent is sought and followed in the majority and the use is not for taker but decided by this majority.

                Maybe that difference is not so crucial but it certainly seems to warrant honest debate. But look, a person who wants to euthanize people who disagree with him on such a matter is not looking for honest debate so why should I bother?

                Interesting that all those people here who cried to the heavens about the suggestion that the environmental group wanted to blow up non-believers in AGW seem silent on this somewhat common type of advocacy of ‘euthanizing’ political opponents.

                1. “In taxation consent is sought and followed in the majority and the use is not for taker but decided by this majority.”

                  So it’s not theft if the thieves outnumber the victims.

                  Got it.

                  I suppose it’s not slavery if the masters outnumber the slaves, right?
                  I mean, if they took it to a vote the masters would win, then that would make it right. Right?

                  There’s no such thing as right and wrong, there is only the majority.

                2. I hereby withdraw my consent.

              2. Hey, buddy. Me and my pal Rocky think you should give us your wallet. But to be fair, the three of us are gonna vote on it.

                1. Yes, yes, this is the common response, but it does seem very different when the taker honestly values the consent of the takee (?) to the point that if the latter’s consent was the majority it would be followed by the taker.

                  And you’re ‘mugsy’ lil’ funny is of course meant to undermine my point about the money not being for the use of the taker but the direction of the consenters overall, which might be thought critical for distinguishing the two.

                  Think of Robin Hood and the long-standing popularity of his tale. If all theft was consisted of taking from the oppressive rich few and giving to the oppressed poor masses then it probably would not be seen as such an awful thing. Of course it is in the libertarian’s interest to gin up his analogies to make it seem most like the Sopranos or something instead…

                  1. “but it does seem very different when the taker honestly values the consent of the takee”

                    That’s a joke, right?
                    Do you really think these people in government value your or my consent?
                    All they value is their own power. That’s it.

                    1. Elections, what are they and how do they work?

                    2. Elections, what are they and how do they work?

                      Citizen Mugsy|9.16.11 @ 10:44AM|#
                      Hey, buddy. Me and my pal Rocky think you should give us your wallet. But to be fair, the three of us are gonna vote on it.

                    3. 95% re-election rate.

                      Not well.

                    4. less than a 20% approval rate for congress, 95% re-election rate.

                      Consent?

                    5. We’re sooooooooo glad that we don’t have to be held accountable for our constant misuse of your stolen funds.

                  2. it does seem very different when the taker honestly values the consent of the takee

                    Be sure to let me know when that happens, OK?

                    Don’t you, at the very least, agree that forcibly taking money from people who don’t want to give it is, at best, a necessary evil?

                    1. “Be sure to let me know when that happens, OK?”

                      It happens all the time. No taxation occurs without authorization via the representatives chosen by popular election.

                  3. “And you’re ‘mugsy’ lil’ funny is of course meant to undermine my point about the money not being for the use of the taker but the direction of the consenters overall, which might be thought critical for distinguishing the two.”

                    So how’s about this instead –

                    Hey, buddy. Me and my pal Rocky think you should give us your wallet. But to be fair, the three of us are gonna vote on it.
                    After we pay ourselves for the trouble of mugging you, er, uh, sharing wit you, we promise to buy you sumtin real nice. Oh, and the tree of us will vote on what exactly it is we’re buyin for ya.

                    You got a problem wit dat?

                    1. OMG, sarcasmic just restated the exact scenario with every element I pointed too, even embellishing on the cute mugsy language (wit).

                      You truly are monumentally stupid dude.

                  4. Robinhood, prince of THIEVES?

                    1. Yes, beloved by nearly all…That’s kind of my point (see it flying over your head?)

                      “If all theft was consisted of taking from the oppressive rich few and giving to the oppressed poor masses then it probably would not be seen as such an awful thing.”

                      Notice that third word?

                    2. Of course we can all ignore the fact that Robin Hood was actually taking usurous taxes confiscated by the nobility, and returning them to the people from which they were confiscated in the first place. Which sort of contradicts your whole point.

              3. “”The only difference between taxation and theft is that the individual doing the taking is an employee of the government.

                That is the only difference.””

                Really? The fact that taxation is authorized in the Constitution doesn’t count?

                1. I’m not a fan of taxation, but as a fan of the Constitution, I refuse to pretend that taxation isn’t mentioned.

            2. I’m a thief and liar and will now seek to rationalize it.

              1. I’d give you the definition of hyperbole, MNG, but I’m sure you know it already.

                1. I’m sure CN showed up during the heavy debate over that environmental debate waxing poetically about the value of hyperbole in political debate and urging restraint of judgment…

                  1. Ok, MNG. I speak a few languages, but apparently none of them is what you posted there.

                    1. When everyone was tearing out their hair and gnashing their teeth at the view that this environmental group’s video advocated destroying their political opponents I’m sure we would find you showing up urging restraint and reminding everyone of the wonderful value of political hyperbole?

                      But when someone whose ideas you agree with does something similar you do.

                      Funny that, (in any language)

                    2. I don’t want you euthanized because you are a political opponent.

                      I want you euthanized because I consider you to be a criminal incapable of rehabilitation.
                      If you and people like you were removed from society, then perhaps we could heal our government and remake it from the criminal enterprise that it has become back into the instrument of justice that it should be.

                    3. “I want you euthanized because I consider you to be a criminal incapable of rehabilitation.”

                      Whatever Jared.

                    4. “heal our government and remake it”

                      That line is perhaps the funniest thing I will hear all weekend, and I plan to watch the Sheen roast.

                      Man, I have to imagine you as Glen Beck weeping before a chalkboard as you say that…

                    5. I totally imagine you with a quivering finger and a fleck of foam on the side of your mouth as you rant about he evil core-pour-ray-shuns, rich productive people, and how it’s just not fair that they shouldn’t be forced at gun point to share with those who, like you, contribute nothing of value to society.

                    6. Zut alors!
                      What the hell are you raving about? What video?
                      I support (good) hyperbole in all its forms, from whatever source. Always have, always will.

                      Granted “Too bad we couldn’t identify them and euthanize them early” is a bit unsubtle for my taste. But to claim you don’t recognize it as mere hyperbole is disingenuous.
                      In fact you, MNG, take disingenuousness to Olympian heights. There is probably no one in this sector of the galaxy more disingenuous than you. Except, perhaps, for Sarah Palin.

                    7. “In fact you, MNG, take disingenuousness to Olympian heights.”

                      It’s a common trait among thieves and liars.

                    8. That, by the way, was hyperbole. You’d think you wouldn’t have to spell that out around here. But you’d be wrong. You’d be like, the wrongest anybody’s ever been. Ever.

              2. Believe you me, the poor are going to be not just thrilled, but quite a bit less poor.

    5. I’m impressed they actually gave you commenting privileges.

  26. Silvio Berlusconi calls Merkel an unprintable word.

    Wasn’t the rule always if the President said it, a newspaper would print it?

    1. HFS. If he’s banging those other women pictured in that article, he’s earned the right to say that about Merkel.

      1. Two words baby “Venezuelan Showgirl”. Do you really need to know anymore than that? And the one chick is named “Elvira”. That alone makes her worthy of attention.

          1. Berlusconi is a crook and mobster. But man does that guy know how to party.

            1. So, what you’re saying is that he’s Italian?

            2. Whenever some Euro-phile tries to lecture me on how European political figures are better than ours Berlusconi is my go to reply. The analogous situation would be like if we elected some mix of Charlie Sheen and Rupert Murdoch as POTUS.

              1. Yeah. We joke about it. But it is not our country. He is about as bad as you can possibly get as a leader without killing people. It is a shame for Italy.

                1. I think the North of Italy just got so tired of carrying the Southern part that they would elect a rooster who said as much, but I’m not expert on Italian politics. I just know that people who tell me that European politics is such a model of rational, steward-like governance need only be pointed to Italy’s current government and asked to politely stfu.

                  1. Or Greece for that matter.

                    1. Greece is an epic fail but they lack the Sheen-esque qualities of Italy’s leader, at least afaik.

                2. I don’t see how Berlusconi is such a shame for Italy.

                  He fucks around, but it’s not like he’s hiding it.

                  The Obamas seem to have a good marriage, but I’d trade Barack for Silvio straight up without a second thought.

                  1. Silvio is pretty corrupt dude, even by DC standards. He also seems to regularly abuse his power.

                    1. So on the corruption and abuse of power front, let’s call it a tie with Obama.

                      Silvio still comes out ahead on the bunga bunga.

                  2. It is not the fucking around fluffy. It is the stealing. From what I understand Berlusconi makes Chris Dodd look like an amateur in stealing government money.

                    1. Is there a lot of stealing?

                      I did not know that.

                    2. It’s a lot iirc, and lots of stuff like what John mentions (appointing his girlfriends to cushy jobs).

                    3. I don’t know specifics either, but I do know he owns at least one major soccer team – so… yeah.

                  3. And I am sorry. If you want to bang the Venezuelan showgirl, that is your business. But when you start putting your girlfriends on your cabinet, that is a problem.

                    1. But when you start putting your girlfriends on your cabinet, that is a problem WINNING!

                    2. “But when you start putting your girlfriends on your cabinet”

                      You have to be tall to do that … and have a healthy back … and she can’t be too big.

              2. Europeans aren’t any less corrupt; the difference is they’re more immediately wary of fascist movements popping up than we are.

                1. See, I don’t think Europeans get to lecture ANYONE on fascism…I’m hoping you can see why…

                2. Wow Tony. You are bringing the stupid early and often today. Most Western European countries have outright fascist parties that have actual followings. Look it up you half wit.

                  1. Have to agree with John here. Google “Le Pen” Tony

    2. un****able fat ****
      I think I see what he did there.

      1. And she can’t sue for libel because it’s true.

    3. Except this one OWNS the newspapers.

    4. All you FPS video game developers – start writing scenarios for WWIII being fought by Germans on Italian soil.

  27. That Custom-Tailored Obama Scandal You Ordered Is Finally Here

    http://www.salon.com/news/morn…..6/solyndra

    1. But, if in, let’s say, 1936, you spoke about the growing importance of air travel in front of, I don’t know, the Hindenburg, you’d be right about the future of air travel — but you’d still be on fucking fire!

      I laughed.

      1. But, if in, let’s say, 1936, you spoke about the growing importance of invested a half-billion tax dollars in air travel in a new dirigible manufacturer in front of, I don’t know, the Hindenburg, you’d be right wrong about the future of air travel — but you’d still be on fucking fire!

    2. The worst part of the whole Solyndra debacle is that Obama and the administration knew full well that this stupid experiment was already tried in Spain years ago, it failed completely and dismally, and yet they decided to go ahead and give the same idea a shot here anyway!

      The invincible ignorance and aversion to facts that exists among liberals is just staggering. I don’t think there’s any event that could possibly happen that could ever convince any of them one of their ideas might be wrong.

      1. Wait, it was Green and European ….. shit man …. lets try it one more time. It must be cool.

      2. The real world has no significance for people like Obama. So long as leftist writers write leftist ideas in books, leftist ideologues like Obama will believe it no matter how said writing works out in real-world practice.

        I still no people who are otherwise smart and who are not just entering college who insist that
        “on paper” Marxism is still the best.

  28. Don’t look now, but The Nation is bracing for a repeat of 1978!

      1. John, of all people, you are one of the most informed sports fans here. I’m referring to the Red Sox.

        1. Ah. My bad. And Yes, it might be.

  29. Hey, is Hit & Run going to mark Constitution Day tomorrow? Or today, as I believed the observed day this year is today.

    1. We could emultate the two big parties and play rock, paper scissors with the Constitution…

      1. Or remove the offending provisions with cleansing flame.

        1. I figure I (technically, my wife) will throw some dough down the Ron Paul hole again. It’s a money bomb day, right?

          1. “I figure I (technically, my wife)”

            You’re not a ‘kept man’ are you CN?

            1. I wish. But my employer looks askance at overt political activity.

              1. Hey, I was going to commend you if you said “yes” to that!

                1. I am!!

                  I stay home and watch the kids, wifey goes out and makes money and health insurance and what-not.

  30. I hate to actually defend the GOP again this week, but on NPR they were shocked and horrified that Boehner told the supercommittee to not raise taxes. I understood the group was a group to follow up on the specifics of promised spending cuts so of COURSE they shouldn’t raise taxes. Then NPR said that both sides see the supercommittee as a jobs creation tool, if so then hell even I think that no tax raise can be argued to create jobs. WTF?

    Also, I see that part of Obama’s terrible plan to pay for his terrible stimulus proposals is to cut charitable deductions. Holy crap that is stupid.

    1. Let me be clear. I will not hesitate to screw charities in order to provide government funding for my top bundlers. And anyone who won’t go along with this is unpatriotic.

      1. It does seem especially stupid in a bad economy to make it harder to give money to groups that work to alleviate the misery of said bad economy. But hey, why change this late in the game?

        1. I would call it cosmically stupid. I mean, can you imagine the RNC commercials?

    2. “I see that part of Obama’s terrible plan to pay for his terrible stimulus proposals is to cut charitable deductions”

      Didn’t know that. But it totally fits in with the whole charming mentality.

  31. The comments. They are amazing.

  32. link keeps disappearing

    gawker.com/5840024/ron-pauls-campaign-manager-died-of-pneumonia-penniless-and-uninsured

    1. For the people who don’t want to clicky: The best part is when someone says he sympathizes with people who need help but that doesn’t neccesarily mean that it’s the governments responsibility. He then mentions charities and how he donates his time and money to various ones every year. Tons of people proceed to lambaste his selfishness and assert that his libertarianism would destroy america and teh childrunz.

      1. I see a couple of problems with that view. One, we had private charity before we had government intervention in many areas and, since I don’t buy into conspiratorial ideas much, I think the population found, in their experience, that it was insufficient to handle many problems and so they supported and pushed and allowed for government intervention in these areas.

        Secondly, there are areas that even many minarchist don’t seem to think should be left up to charity. In theory policing could be left up to charity, you could have something like volunteer firefighters do. But some people think policing is something people should get by right not at the whim or “kindness of strangers.” And some people believe that, rightly or wrongly, about emergency health care for example.

        1. It was not mandated that hospitals MUST provide energency health care until the Reagan administration. I don’t recall people dying in the streets prior to that.

          1. Because you don’t recall something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen dude. I imagine that is an amazingly broadly true statement…

            1. Or, maybe it didn’t happen. Or perhaps you have some proof that it did?

              1. Heck, there are many stories of people today who don’t get some type of important care because it cannot be paid for. For all its flaws that’s largely what the movie Sicko is about. There’s many stories (go to google) about the number of people that, had they gotten care they did not at least in part because they could not afford it), would not have died or been seriously impaired.

                In a market economy people are not going to give people expensive treatments for nothing. The very example you start this discussion with is proof enough.

                1. I am sure that if you went through pre-1981 microfilm you would find a handful of stories about people being turned away from hospitals and dying. (Or, more commonly, dying in ambulances as they were moved from one hospital that refused them to another hospital that would take them.)

                  But you could find a similar number of stories of people dying waiting for surgery in Britain or Canada.

                  The simple fact of the matter is that if bodies were stacked up on the lawns of evil hospitals turning the poor away in 1981 anyone alive in 1981 would remember it. Since that definitely did not happen, the problem (if any) was on a small enough scale that it was invisible.

                  And here’s the thing about Snyder: he died of something that could have been cured cheaply if he had gone to the doctor. And that sucks, but it’s not merely a “insurance system failure” problem. Had he gone to his doctor and paid cash, his life could have been saved for less than the price of fixing the air conditioning in your car. It’s a problem that people are so reflexively determined to not pay for health care out of pocket that if they are between insurers they just plain old refuse to go to the doctor.

                  1. It’s a problem that people are so reflexively determined to not pay for health care out of pocket that if they are between insurers they just plain old refuse to go to the doctor.

                    I see it all the time: People who have hundreds of dollars to fix their car, and hundreds more to pay auto insurance, don’t have a dime to pay the doctor or buy health insurance.

                    1. I see it all the time: People who have hundreds of dollars to fix their car, and hundreds more to pay auto insurance, don’t have a dime to pay the doctor or buy health insurance.

                      How am I supposed to go on my 6 month long national park hiking tour if I have to use that money in order to pay for my own health insurance?

                2. In a market economy people are not going to give people expensive treatments for nothing.

                  They gave him the treatment for nothing. It failed.

                3. Heck, there are many stories of people today who don’t get some type of important care because it cannot be paid for.

                  Link to one such story that has been substantiated, pls. There have been plenty of claims to that effect, but as far as I know they all vaporized upon examination.

                  Oh, in this country, also. We all know the Brits deny care routinely because it costs too much.

            2. Because you don’t recall something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen dude.

              Likewise, because you think something doesn’t mean it’s true…a broad statement indeed…

              Same thread, moments earlier, you typed:

              I think the population found, in their experience, that it was insufficient to handle many problems and so they supported and pushed and allowed for government intervention in these areas.

          2. they died in the gutter, where they belonged!

        2. So people voted for mandated free shit instead of free shit that may or may not occur due to the distribution of said free shit being determined by people in the market. Got it, people vote for getting free shit. I think some people back in the 1700s already addressed this problem with the republic thing.

          Policing has been private in US history, welcome to the not so wild west. People vote for free shit every election. People want to raise service and lower taxes, two things that have remained at odds in the US since Uncle Sam started taking things over.

          The notion that somehow the people decided is a little narrow in scope. At one time the people decided black people were property, alcohol should be banned, Hitler would make a good leader (bam godwin) Obama would save us, and that leisure suits were a good idea. The people should decide, but when it comes to taking from bob because the people think it’s a great idea you start to run into some issues with the almighty wisdom of the “people.”

          1. “Policing has been private in US history, welcome to the not so wild west.”

            If you want to argue to the American public we should return to the wild west conditions of policing and everything else, by all means, please, please do so.

            You’re also conflating two things: the idea that something being popular makes it right (all your Hitler slavery rambling) with the idea that in a democracy often things don’t get passed for long that are very unpopular.

            Look, you can either believe that these laws were passed by some secret socialist cabal sneaking it past the people when there was no perceived problem or that the people continuted to elect people who enacted this legislation because they honestly saw a problem in this area. I tend to think the latter but I realize our worldviews are radically different (mine has less UN black helicopters I’d bet).

            1. You don’t need any such goofy conspiracy thinking. Take the very example mentioned. By libertarian reasoning only, why would any company give someone $400,000 dollars worth of services they know that person cannot cover? If not forced by law, why in the world would they do that? Sure, charitable orgs would, but this guy did not go to a charitable ward. They would have turned him out (or they wouldn’t have been in business very long).

            2. Look, you can either believe that these laws were passed by some secret socialist cabal sneaking it past the people when there was no perceived problem or that the people continuted to elect people who enacted this legislation because they honestly saw a problem in this area.

              That’s not really the point.

              I’m sure that when the law was passed everyone patted themselves on the back about how they were curing a horrible social problem.

              The problem is that over time this has dramatically worsened our health care problems systemically, because every time the discussion of uncompensated care comes up people say, “But we can’t allow hospitals to turn people away! Think how horrible that would be!”

              The point of reminding people about how recent such a situation really was is that most people have forgotten. I guarantee you that if you asked the average moron out there, they would think that hospitals have “always” had to take everyone who walked in, or would think that if hospitals could choose which patients to accept the country would look like a giant Victorian London or Calcutta. The cultural memory of how the situation actually looked, and how recently, is just gone.

              It’s like the FEMA example. FEMA didn’t exist until 1979. But it’s unthinkable to a certain segment of the moron population that states could react to disasters without FEMA. Because disasters in 1978 apparently utterly destroyed states and municipalities beyond repair, and led to widespread starvation and cholera and shit.

              1. Because disasters in 1978 apparently utterly destroyed states and municipalities beyond repair, and led to widespread starvation and cholera and shit.

                That doesn’t sound right to me, Fluffy.
                Oh, wait. You’re employing some kind of rhetorical device, aren’t you?
                Tricky.

            3. I like the quick quack dismissal. Gearing up for the next election cycle I see. So you’re saying people have no motivation other than “honestly” seeing a problem for voting a certain politician in or for a certain legislation? Clearly this is black and white, either a secret cabal or do-good politicians. Right? There can me no motivations at an individual level that could be influencing decisions its all one giant collective love fest culminating in the best laws ever!

              I gotta go, I hear the silent black helicopters coming for me…

        3. “we had private charity before we had government intervention in many areas and, since I don’t buy into conspiratorial ideas much, I think the population found, in their experience, that it was insufficient to handle many problems and so they supported and pushed and allowed for government intervention in these areas.”

          In the days before government charity, the U.S. was much, much less wealthy than it became after WWII. The decimation of WWII allowed the U.S. to create massive amounts of wealth despite increasing government interference in everything, providing the support needed to prop up unsustainable policies based on government control and redistribution.

          Nothing about the last century suggests that the current welfare state is superior in providing relief of real suffering over private charity. Why the welfare state was created in the first place is open to debate. Given the power of the new communications technologies and increased sophistication in their use, it seems a simplification to merely suggest that the people wanted a welfare state.

  33. From best of the web yesterday. Holy Cow. Explain to me again why we should believe anything the warmists say?

    Yesterday the worst writer in the English language was again peddling global warmist nonsense to gullible New York Times readers:

    I mean, here is the Texas governor rejecting the science of climate change while his own state is on fire–after the worst droughts on record have propelled wildfires to devour an area the size of Connecticut. As a statement by the Texas Forest Service said last week: “No one on the face of this earth has ever fought fires in these extreme conditions.”

    Even Friedman’s own paper knows better. An unsigned Aug. 26 post on the Times’s “Green” blog noted: “Scientists are always reluctant to pin any single weather event on climate change, and the Texas drought is no exception.” Friedman continues:

    Remember the first rule of global warming. The way it unfolds is really “global weirding.” The weather gets weird: the hots get hotter; the wets wetter; and the dries get drier. This is not a hoax. This is high school physics, as Katharine Hayhoe, a climatologist in Texas, explained on Joe Romm’s invaluable Climateprogress.org blog: “As our atmosphere becomes warmer, it can hold more water vapor. Atmospheric circulation patterns shift, bringing more rain to some places and less to others. For example, when a storm comes, in many cases there is more water available in the atmosphere and rainfall is heavier. When a drought comes, often temperatures are already higher than they would have been 50 years ago, and so the effects of the drought are magnified by higher evaporation rates.”

    According to Alistair Fraser, a professor emeritus of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, Hayhoe’s account is “high school physics,” as Friedman says it is–but it is also bunk:

    The idea that it is the air which determines the amount of water vapor which can be present through some sort of holding capacity is an eighteenth century idea which was shown to be false both empirically and theoretically about two hundred years ago! The fact that it is still taught in our schools and defended by teachers and (gulp) professors, is a testimony to the mindless persistence of myth.

    1. “. Holy Cow. Explain to me again why we should believe anything the warmists say?”

      John, you really should look into the fallacy of generalization for pete’s sake. Or for your sake.

      If I find a conservative, or even a lot of conservatives, saying something incorrect or crazy it doesn’t mean everything that every conservative says is incorrect.

      1. This is high school physics, as Katharine Hayhoe, a climatologist in Texas, explained on Joe Romm’s invaluable Climateprogress.org blog:

        A climatologist got basic physics wrong. And got it wrong in a very embarrassing and obvious way. Why should I believe anything she says? And further, why should the title “climatologist” confer any sort of authority given this mistake?

        1. ” climatologist got basic physics wrong. And got it wrong in a very embarrassing and obvious way. Why should I believe anything she says?”

          Are you serious? Do you want me to list some of the basic things you’ve gotten wrong in just the past month? Should we not believe anything you say now (actually that is not a bad rule…)?

          “why should the title “climatologist” confer any sort of authority given this mistake?”

          Er, because of the forementioned fallacy?

          Look, you’re not going to look it up so here’s a freaking link:

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

          Really, reading this would do wonders for your arguments, though it would likely force some change in your current political views…

          1. The science is settled! Consensus!!!

            1. Logical fallacies, how do they work?

              1. Let me give you a hint, appealing to a scientific consensus as evidence of truth is one of them.

                1. Is this the hundredth time I explain this to you?

                  Saying that AGW is true because most scientists say it is is indeed a fallacy.

                  Saying AGW is more likely true than not because most scientists say it is is not.

                  You know, even National Review used to have ads for logic classes on cassette in the back of the mag, you really, really need to make that purchase John.

          2. Sure I make mistakes. You do too. But I don’t make them areas that I make a living as an expert as. The list of mistakes made by climatologists is long and distinguished. The hockey stick lie. The Himalayan glaciers melting lie. That just names two. How mistakes have to occur before we stop believing them. Read the rest of the Best of the Web. This mistake is repeated in modern meteorology texts.

            That whole area of science has a massive credibility problem. Just because it doesn’t fit your narrative, doesn’t change what it is.

            1. It’s pretty plain to me that you don’t understand these ‘mistakes’ (especially the hockey stick thing). Things you or some commenter sees as a mistake often are not (see the popular meme from AGW deniers about thermodynamics; if you don’t know wtf you’re talking about you could read that and think ‘a ha, what a stupid mistake these AGW folks made!’).

              But apart from this, I repeat (sigh), that it is a basic fallacy to think that because a member of class X makes incorrect statement Y that all members of class X make incorrect statements about Y or any other subject. And that is EXACTLY what you did in your post.

              1. If we only had one mistake, you would have a point. But instead we have a litany of mistakes and lies stretching back two decades.

                1. “If we only had one mistake, you would have a point. But instead we have a litany of mistakes and lies stretching back two decades.”

                  John, we are not talking about your history of posting here…

                  1. Jesus, you two.
                    Someone get us some boobs in this thread, stat!

                    1. Thanks, Tulpa. Lord, I needed that..

  34. From the link on other rent-seekers tanking:
    “”Winning will require substantial investments. Last year, for example, the China Development Bank offered more than $30 billion in financing to Chinese solar manufacturers, about 20 times more than U.S.-backed loans to solar manufacturers,” Poneman wrote.”

    China leads in the ‘throw money down a rat hole’ event! And we should catch up!

    1. of course, that money is creating millions of jobs paying $3/hr. If only we could export union wages to China, we’d level the paying field for sure!

  35. The Olson twins have a younger sister. And she is really hot. Amazing.

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

    1. She managed to not get her sisters’ crazy eyes. (She can hope that she got their smarts, though.)

    2. She kinda looks like Maggie Gyllenhaal without the massive bags under her eyes. I dig.

    3. If the older ones didn’t have the eating disorders they appear to, they might be hot, too.

      1. I like the comment “They all remind me of troll dolls” — heck, they really do!

    4. Someone get us some boobs in this thread, stat!

      Now we’re talkin’!

      1. another thread saved!

    5. Hurry up and hack her cell phone already.

  36. The Bush Admin was working with Solyndra. Obama picked that up and the company was OK’d by the SBA. We gave Solyndra $535M, where the Chinese Gov’t gave Solyndra’s competitor the equiv of $20 Trillion. Using Technology stolen from Solyndra, is it any wonder why Solyndra could not compete…..? Ever hear of International Patent Rights? Neither have I….. The Righties will of course try to rewrite history and make this issue a political football. Nothing new there….. sad.

    1. Which is beside the point–if your own OMB is telling you, “Hey guys, the math doesn’t check out and this could be used to hammer us in 2012,” then it stands to reason that you’d get inside the OODA loop and disassociate yourself from it as fast as possible.

      Now Obama’s having to do damage control after the fact because President Putt-Putt was too busy working on his golf game to make that kind of common sense decision.

  37. “…is it any wonder why Solyndra could not compete…..?”

    Uh, wrong question.
    Right question: “Why should we compete with China in throwing money down rat holes?”

      1. If you love America you throw money in its hole!

  38. Solyndra newsflash:
    http://www.chron.com/news/arti…..173604.php

    The Obama administration restructured a half-billion dollar federal loan to a troubled solar energy company in such a way that private investors ? including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama ? moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default, government records show.

    This happened in Febulary, 2011.
    So … after the company started going downhill, the administration intervened to make sure their political interests, were prioritized over the countries financial interests.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.