Reason Morning Links: Wall Street Occupiers Still Occupying Wall Street, Goldman Sachs Tightens Its Couture Belt, EPA Discloses Some Big Plans

|

New at Reason.tv: "ManBearPig, Climategate and Watermelons: A conversation with author James Delingpole"

NEXT: Diagnosing in the Dark

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. first

    1. I am still in awe with myself for being first in the MLs.

  2. YES! This has never happened before. I would like to thank all the little people. suki, robolongtorso, and of course Mr. Riggs, who without his help I would have never bee able to post this early.

  3. Secret recordings raise new questions in ATF ‘Gunwalker’ operation

    Gunwalker: ATF Walked Guns Directly to Cartel Using Taxpayer Dollars
    …The existence of this letter provided to these reporters by a previously reliable source familiar with the Fast and Furious investigation, coupled with interviews of other sources across the country which put it into context, provides startling proof that the Federal government did not merely “lose track” of weapons purchased by “straw buyers” under surveillance by the ATF and destined for the Mexican drug cartels. In an undercover operation ordered by Fast and Furious supervisor David Voth, the U.S. government purchased firearms with taxpayer money from licensed firearms dealers, instructed them to conduct the sales “off the books,” and used an ATF agent, John Dodson, to deliver them directly to people that Dodson believed were conducting them across the border.

    According one source close to the Issa committee and knowledgeable of its workings, this revelation “puts a stake in the heart of the ‘botched sting operation’ lie.” He continued, “There never was any ‘sting,’ there was only a deliberate effort to provide weapons to the DTO’s (Drug Trafficking Organizations).” He added, “this was one hundred percent us ? our money, our guy, our (gun)walking.”…

    1. The gunwalker thing is just a wow. The administration was buying guns and giving them to Mexican drug gangs to score political points in the gun control debate. Holy shit.

      1. But Rick Perry stumbled over some words and there’s a white woman missing somewhere.

        1. And Palin slept with a black man back in the day. I do believe it. But even I am surprised this is being greeted by a “no big deal”. This is so bad I didn’t think even the media was capable of ignoring it. But I thought wrong apparently.

          1. Well, as ominous as this is, it makes more sense than the original story.

          2. This is so bad I didn’t think even the media was capable of ignoring it.

            Silly boy.

            1. Er, I think CBS in particular has given quite a bit of coverage to this story (though they might be forgiven if they haven’t run with a conclusion based on a “letter provided to these reporters by a previously reliable source familiar with the Fast and Furious investigation, coupled with interviews of other sources across the country which put it into context”).

              The problem with all the conjecture is that Art P.O.G. is wrong; there’s a perfectly sensible (though damning also) explanation for this operation. Allowing, even fostering sales of illegal materials in order to investigate networks involved in that trade is a not unheard of or uncomprehensible practice in law enforcement.

              1. Actually no. That is the point of the letter. It kills that explanation

                The existence of this letter provided to these reporters by a previously reliable source familiar with the Fast and Furious investigation, coupled with interviews of other sources across the country which put it into context, provides startling proof that the Federal government did not merely “lose track” of weapons purchased by “straw buyers” under surveillance by the ATF and destined for the Mexican drug cartels. In an undercover operation ordered by Fast and Furious supervisor David Voth, the U.S. government purchased firearms with taxpayer money from licensed firearms dealers, instructed them to conduct the sales “off the books,” and used an ATF agent, John Dodson, to deliver them directly to people that Dodson believed were conducting them across the border.

                According one source close to the Issa committee and knowledgeable of its workings, this revelation “puts a stake in the heart of the ‘botched sting operation’ lie.” He continued, “There never was any ‘sting,’ there was only a deliberate effort to provide weapons to the DTO’s (Drug Trafficking Organizations).” He added, “this was one hundred percent us — our money, our guy, our (gun)walking.”

                This source also provided context and explanation of how the letter came to exist in the first place.

                (It should be noted that although we would never reveal our sources for any story, it is important in this case for the readers to understand where we did NOT get it. Neither John Dodson nor his lawyer provided us this letter. Nor did they pass it through to us via a third party, as the DOJ has been known to do lately.)

                “Dodson was given this undercover assignment by Voth,” said the source, “to purchase weapons directly and provide them to the smugglers. He was operating under cover, pretending to be a ‘straw buyer.'” He continued, “I think Dodson demanded the letter from Voth to cover both himself and the FFL (Federal Firearm Licensee). He didn’t want to be hung out to dry” by Voth.

                A source also said that the undercover assignment was an effort by Voth to “dirty him (Dodson) up,” pointing out that by the time of the undercover assignment that Dodson’s vocal opposition to “letting guns walk” was well known to his superiors in the Phoenix ATF office.

                Sources also describe a second letter from Voth to another FFL authorizing Dodson to purchase two more Draco pistols. One source stated flatly: “Issa and Grassley have copies of both letters, and have had for a long time.”

                Subsequent to this undercover weapons buying and transfer to cartel smugglers by Dodson, say the sources, “Dodson just about came apart all over them (his supervisors).” In a “screaming match” that was heard throughout the Phoenix office by many employees, Dodson yelled at Voth and Assistant Special Agent in Charge George Gillett, “Why not just go direct and empty out the (ATF) arms room?” (to the cartels), or words to that effect.

                After this confrontation, say the sources, ATF managers transferred Dodson to a post as “liaison to the intel guys at FBI” in the Phoenix office. For clarification, it is worth noting that the Brian Terry murder investigation was at this time being carried out by the criminal investigations side of the FBI out of the Tuscon office, not Phoenix.

                Sources describe continuing harassment of Dodson as his access to the Phoenix office building was restricted. “They removed him from the (Fast and Furious) case as politically unreliable,” said another source, adding, “And of course after the Terry murder all the shots were being called by D.C.”.

                http://sipseystreetirregulars……-govt.html

                1. John, I hate to point out the number of unamed “sources” going on there and the accompanying conjecture.

                  “According one source close to the Issa committee”
                  “said the source”
                  “A source also said”
                  “Sources also describe”
                  “provided to these reporters by a previously reliable source familiar with the Fast and Furious investigation, coupled with interviews of other sources across the country which put it into context, provides startling proof”

                  With all those unnamed as-yet-unverifiable sources and ‘context’ supporting the conclusion it’s easy to see why you like it so much…

                  1. So you don’t believe stories with unnamed sources? Really? I somehow doubt you apply that to any other story. It says what it says. And it puts lie to the excuse you are giving. Do you have any evidence from any source named or unnamed that contradicts that? What do you have other than the assumption you have pulled out of your ass that they couldn’t have done that? I don’t see anything on your side other than an unsourced assumption.

                    1. When there is a more sensible and tangible explanation available I will always choose it over a more sensationalistic one resting on unnamed sources and conjecture, yes. But there’s always been big differences between us John.

                      It’s imminently sensible, though morally dubious, for law enforcment agencies to allow, foster and yes even engage in illegal sales in order to track networks of those sales. Indictments have been procured based on the program. That all makes sense to me, so I’m not going to run with the stringing together of various unnamed sources and not yet identified letters yet.

                    2. “When there is a more sensible and tangible explanation available I will always choose it over a more sensationalistic one resting on unnamed sources”

                      You don’t when that explanation has no evidence to support it. You cannot produce a single piece of evidence to support that other than “well they couldn’t have done that”. Show me some hard evidence supporting your claim to contradict the hard evidence in the linked article and you will have a point. But as it is you don’t.

                  2. Go argue with your mother, MNG. You’re her fault.

                    1. Hey John, don’t look know but the King of No-substance All Personal Invective just walked in.

                      Concern troll away.

                2. So what,

                  They had good intentions. More people would have been saved by increased gun control, if meddling tea baggers hadn’t screwed up the operation, so it was worth it.

                  The people murdered by Obama’s gun smuggling should thank him for the opportunity to serve the noble cause of gun control.

                  1. MNG: to be clear, what didn’t “make sense” to me, was how the ATF could’ve failed so badly at keeping track of the weapons if that was their original intent.

                    1. Did you see the indictment they’ve entered based on the program? I posted it here a while back. So just because we are not aware of how they kept track of them doesn’t mean they weren’t.

                      And even if they didn’t you don’t need a conspiracy theory to explain how a big federal agency like the ATF could f*ck something like that up.

                    2. So just because we are not aware of how they kept track of them doesn’t mean they weren’t.

                      If no one is aware of how they are going to keep track, why is there any reason to believe that anyone actually did keep track?

                      All you are left with MNG is unsupported assertions that things didn’t have to go this way. True, they don’t have to be that way. But we have good evidence that they did. And you have no evidence that it didn’t.

                    3. “If no one is aware of how they are going to keep track”

                      That “we” I said was not aware are folks like you and me John. I’m not sure “no one” was aware of them, in fact these indictments suggest there was some awareness of some of them.

                    4. “in fact these indictments suggest there was some awareness of some of them.”

                      How so? And further, how does that contradict the letter. It says

                      In a letter dated June 1, 2010, then Phoenix ATF Group VII supervisor David Voth instructed a Federal Firearms Licensee in Arizona as follows:

                      Dear Sir,

                      Per Section 925(a)(1) of the Gun Control Act (GCA) exempts law enforcement agencies from the transportation, shipment, receipt, or importation controls of the GCA when firearms are to be used for the official business of the agency.

                      Please accept this letter in lieu of completing an ATF Form 4473 for the purchase of four (4) CAI, Model Draco, 7.62×39 mm pistols, by Special Agent John Dodson. These aforementioned pistols will be used by Special Agent Dodson in furtherance of the performance of his official duties. In addition, Special Agent Dodson has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. If you have any questions, you may contact me at telephone number 602-605-6501.

                      Sincerely,

                      (Signature)
                      David Voth
                      ATF Group Supervisor
                      Phoenix Group VII


                      In the lower left-hand margin of the one-page letter is the hand-written notation:

                      “Picked guns
                      up 6/10/10
                      Paid Cash”


                      “Paid Cash” is underlined.

                      They sent an ATF agent directly to pick them up. There was no “straw buyers”. They just bought the guns and gave them to the cartels.

                  2. Here is why you are idiot:

                    “They had good intentions.”

                    What I said:

                    “there’s a perfectly sensible (though damning also) explanation for this operation”

                    I don’t have to believe this was some conspiracy to push gun control by fostering murder to condemn programs which allow the purchase of dangerous, illegal items to track networks, it’s morally dubious to start with.

                    You on the other hand, are an idiot. Thanks for demonstrating it so clearly!

                    1. I don’t have to believe this was some conspiracy to push gun control by fostering murder to condemn programs which allow the purchase of dangerous, illegal items to track networks, it’s morally dubious to start with.

                      That is absolutely true. You don’t have to. But you have an e-mail and a bunch of sources in the above article telling you that is what happened. What do you have that says it didn’t happen other than your blind faith that the government wouldn’t do something like that?

                    2. Your inner dunphy is showing.

                    3. [covers ears]

                      I KNOW NOTHING!!

                    4. Yeah, my inner dunphy is showing in condemning a widespread police technique (though not condemning it as a conspiracy theory like you). Yeah, that’s what dunphy is all about, condemning common police practices as immoral.

                      You really are an idiot pippie longstocking.

                    5. No MNG, you partisan is showing. You are bending over backwards not to believe that a Democratic Administration would be capable of such a thing all evidence to the contrary be damned.

                    6. i rarely get into the moral/immoral framework, because that’s so highly subjective and problematic on a # of fronts.

                      i prefer terms like simply bad policy, dangerous, right/wrong, good policy, etc.

                      getting into arguments about “morality” is usually a waste of time.

                    7. corraling for the sake of corraling is bad policy and should be illegal.

                      corraling AFTER orders to disperse are given and warning that arrests will be made otoh is good policy.

                    8. Is there anything the government does that isn’t morally dubious?

              2. Allowing, even fostering sales of illegal materials in order to investigate networks involved in that trade is a not unheard of or uncomprehensible practice in law enforcement.

                Yes, when arrests are made at the point of illegal sale (which didn’t happen here). Or when the illegal goods are tracked so arrests can be made later (which didn’t happen here).

                No, that explanation just doesn’t wash, at all. And never has.

      2. John|9.27.11 @ 9:04AM|#

        The gunwalker thing is just a wow. The administration was buying guns and giving them to Mexican drug gangs to score political points in the gun control debate. Holy shit.

        partisan outrage troll: one who feigns outrage at accusations against those on the other side, no matter how dubious or unsubstantiated.

        1. Yeah, a hundred or more dead bodies is really dubious and unsubstantiated.

          1. Their deaths had meaning because in dying they served the noble cause of gun control.

            You can only hope that your death will be half as worthwhile.

  4. And that pepper-spraying cop? Yeah, he has a record of roughing up protesters.

    Really, what’s the point of authority if you can’t use it to rough up some hippies?

    1. Not to mention, the entire point of a hippy is to be pepper-sprayed by a cop. Sounds like a co-dependent relationship, to me.

      1. We’d give anything for a spritz of pepper spray.

    2. FTA, another cop looked on in disbelief and said, “I can’t believe he just fucking maced her.”

      But had I, a private citizen, indiscriminately maced someone for no reason in front of a few cops, I would have been immediately cuffed and stuffed into a patrol car, sent to jail where I would spend days awaiting a bond hearing.

      Oh dunphy, you prick. Explain to us again how our “they’re all bad cops if they don’t arrest cops committing crimes” meme is wrong. What wouldmyou have done if you just saw a senior officer walk up and mace some people just for kicks? My guess is you would tighten up your gas mask and chuckle quietly with your fellow officers.

      None of you fucks are good cops because none of you would have arrested this scumbag.

      1. If {arg} contains {criticism} then
        call {no true scotsman}

        call {rule of law}

      2. Bruner said the protesters were considering organizing a citizen’s arrest of Officer Bologna, but maintained that the group remains committed to nonviolence, even in the face of this “graphic” abuse of power.

        From another article about Anonymous outing the cop.

        A citizen’s arrest of a cop. I would like to see how that plays out, since we’ve been told there are no special protections for LEO that civilians don’t have.

        1. If {arg} contains {special} then
          call {denial}

          call {rule of law}

        2. “committed to nonviolence” – frankly, the world these days is making me rethink nonviolence. I’m not saying that “lynch the pigs” is the right answer, but look at the Middle East, (where decades of nonviolence achieved basically nothing, but citizens squaring off against the government and indicating a willingness to escalate did) or events like this, where nonviolence only seems to mean that the police abuse you at will (and they don’t ever seem to tire of it).

          1. JD, one gives up nonviolence at great peril.

            Governments excel at making examples of enemies.

            1. No argument there, my friend. And I also think that violence is often the wrong thing for purely tactical reasons.

              The problem is that at this point in Western liberal democracies, the nonviolent protest seems to have run its course. People go and march around and chant, the government largely ignores them, everybody goes home at the end of the day, and nothing changes. This is at least partly because our governments have learned to stop overreacting, in contrast to dictatorships which respond to people gathering in the square by machine-gunning the crowd. For a protest to be useful, it has to be more than just marching around with a few catchy signs.

              1. this was certainly true at WTO. plenty of peaceful protest, and there was no police force to intervene. WHEN the (small cadre of mostly fuckstick anarchists) started smashing niketown (in nike shoes— how ironic), lighting shit on fire, throwing bottles at us, etc. that;’s when the wild rumpusing began

                noted also that there was an incredible lack of injuries and NO deaths, as compared to the WTO riots in europe where same did occur. the meme that european riot cops are “nicer” is utter hogwash.

        3. strawman. who said there are no “special protections”

          the argument was about widespread double standards.

          cops, for example, have qualified immunity. that obviously is a special protection, not NEARLY as strong as the absolute immunity that legislators and judges and prosecutors have, though

        4. This assholes name is Tony Bologny. He has to be an utter fuckstick after growing up with that name.

    1. this new game is even more fun -I’ll play

  5. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs downsizes its coffee cups, from 12 ounces to 10 ounces.

    That’s like going from SAE to metric. In other words, Communism.

    1. The old joke about making poor decisions faster seem relevant. Maybe Goldman wants their traders to fuck up with less energy and vigor.

  6. And to be on topic (morning links) here is a stupid game that makes the point it is hard to live on 9$/hr…see if you can point out all the bad choices.

    For the record, I live quite a long time on 7.10 an hour. And I still drank like a fish (granted it wasnt good beer but hey)

    1. Yeah, it was stupid all right. I made it through the month with $500 to spare just by sacrificing and belt-tightening. Likely not the message they were trying to convey, though.

      1. We should all play this and see how well we do.

      2. Yeah- I made it with $470 and that was with filling my grocery cart and paying for my son to play sports.

      3. I got away with $562 even after paying for the damage my accident caused, and paying car insurance, energy and gas bills in full.

        I turned down the car registration, and the government fines would be what kills me if I get caught. Moreover, if the government didn’t have income withholding on that $150 at the beginning, I’d have more flexibility. They just unintentionally made a libertarian case for getting government off the backs of the poor.

        1. Wow – second try $867. But then again, they impounded my car due to expired registration.

    2. Tried it out and it said I failed the typing test. I type 110 WPM, so obviously their program is poorly designed.

    3. For almost a decade, I lived on less than 25K per year. Some years, my gross income was only half that.

      Net savings at the ends of the decade? $20K. It’s about rational choices.

    4. I spent like a drunken sailor (Got a cool apartment right next to my waiter job and, filled my grocery cart to overflowing) and ran out of money on day 8. No prob – day 9 I’m at the welfare office.

    5. granted it wasnt good beer but hey

      Let me guess, Pabst Blue Ribbon.

      1. Hell NO!…Natty Light.

    6. So there’s an assumption that I am a single parent. FAIL.

      1. I was wondering about that – how am I suddenly saddled with a kid?

        1. That’s how kids happen. People don’t ask for them! They aren’t responsible for having a child!

          “I was just minding my business at a bar, then suddenly: children!”

          1. Reminds me of Ann Coulter comparing an unintended pregnancy with an unintended hangover.

            1. Doesn’t the former usually follow the latter?

        2. Or a pet, for that matter. “Your landlord suddenly finds out you have a pet! Now you have to pay a $350 pet fee!” Uh, was this not in the lease agreement, or did this pet materialize out of nowhere?

    7. This “test” is bullshit.

    8. straight out of college, I was making $13 an hour. Of course this mid-90s dollars, but I lived like a king. I rented a home with my brother, driving a 10yo car that my dad gave me. I had nothing but free money.

      Heck, I had more free cash in the past than I do now – but a single-income family with a mortgage, kid, 2-cars, etc will do that to you.

    9. Full fucking retard. Every time I made a frugal choice, it gave me a sob story about how most people can’t make those decisions. And even when I made the correct choice, it tried to hamstring me somehow.

      1. Oh, what a classic! You get a choice of being payed hourly, or by the piece at the warehouse job. If you opt for piecemeal, your pay is cut because you “can’t work fast enough”. If you choose hourly, your boss cuts your paycheck in 1/2 to “be fair to the piecemeal workers”.

      2. ?”You’re hungry at work. $6 salad or value menu?”

        Then, when you pick VM, “poor people are fat because they eat shit”.

        Wait a minute, how about a balanced brown bag meal from home for $1.50?

        “Oh, no. Many poor people can’t plan ahead far enough to brown bag, or eat balanced meals. And they smoke and drink because they’re poor. And beat their chillens. And it’s because of the minimum wage.”

        I’ll take FUCK YOU for $600, Alex…

  7. “Terra Nova” was poorly written and cliched. Discuss.

    1. this is an understatement and was not a surprise.

    2. You were dumb enough to watch something with Steven Spielberg’s name on it? You got what you deserved.

      1. The wife wanted to watch it, so I watched it. Fortunately, it was on DVR so we could skip the preposterous number of commercials.

        She paid the price by having to listen to my running commentary, which was of course hyper-critical.

        1. Were the dinosaurs at least impressive? Or did we reach peak Dino-CGI with the original Jurassic Park?

          1. It’s the second one. Some of the green-screen work in this was worse than the Star Wars prequels.

            1. So much this. The kid feeding the dino scene was wretchedly awful CGI.

        2. You were lucky. Mine made me endure Chaz Bono clomping around a dance floor with some lightly-clad babe. Very weird.

          1. But Nancy Grace had a nip slip!

            1. Yeah. The emergency titty tucking was a riot. She packs a pretty unmanageable load.

              1. That was disturbing on so many levels…

              2. I think I’m turned off for forever.

    3. What is Terra Nova?

      1. Nonsensical TV show on Fox. Which I know doesn’t narrow it down much…

        1. What is next from you SugarFree, the Canadian guy who plays hockey? I think I remember it now. It looks like a bad update of Land of the Lost with a healthy dose of Ghia worship I am sure.

          1. Ghia worship? Those were the worst cars VW ever came out with.

            1. Ghia was actually a great Italian design shop. They did more than just the VW you speak of.

          2. with a healthy dose of Ghia worship I am sure.

            You fucking heretics. It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.

            1. that’s what the science tape on 2XL said.

      2. It has dinosaurs and the male lead from the terrible Life on Mars remake.

        1. So it’s about intellegent design? Never figured Spielberg as a nut case.

      3. Seriously, what is cancer?

      4. From what I gather, time travel plus “Jurassic Park.”

      5. Wasn’t that super obvious from the two-minute preview clips? How much of the two hours did you get through?

        1. This was meant as a reply to the original comment, not John’s.

          1. See my above response to Warty; made it through the whole show, and just to top it off watched the “season summary” where they jumble together clips from all the upcoming episdoes.

            At that point, it was like watching a zeppelin crash into another zeppelin while a chorus line of midgets is doing the can-can. I simply could not look away.

      6. Thought it was one of my favorite P-Stars, then I noticed the “a” on Terra

    4. Thank you for making me feel good about my decisions to:

      1) not watch it live
      2) not dvr it.

    5. “Terra Nova” was poorly written and cliched.

      SPOILER ALERT! I haven’t watched it yet.

      1. Win

    6. Two words for you: Falling Skies aka God that show would be better without the Spielberg shit.

    7. I tend to assume anything on the big networks is going to suck big time, I made an exception with Lost.

      1. AND LOOK WHERE THAT GOT YOU!

      2. No love for Hawaii 5-0?

        I thought that would be a huge hit with this crowd. Cop slurping galore!

        1. Although I do not watch much TV, I am greatly anticipating the second season of the Walking Dead on Oct. 16th.

          1. Fuck that. Breaking Bad…..Boardwalk Empire. After that, things fall off the table pretty quickly.

  8. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs downsizes its coffee cups, from 12 ounces to 10 ounces.

    Yeah, their problem was that they didn’t have enough people asleep at the wheel.

  9. How did you even get on this show?

    1. What is “sleeping with the producer”

  10. he envisions the bill to include all those who apply for welfare be drug tested, and then to be randomly tested while on the program. He says through these drug tests they are not only saving taxpayers’ dollars, but pointing people in the right direction. “It’s an opportunity for them to confront their addiction, and for us to provide a source of help so they can get some rehabilitation.”

    Hey, let’s test people who get tax refunds, too!

    1. Anyone who gets a check from the government should have to take a piss test. Let’s start with the legislators.

      1. Test ’em all. Let Eric Holder sort ’em out.

    2. I will probably get torn apart for this, but I don’t see a problem with saying “If you’re gonna suck from the government tit, you have to prove you aren’t spending money on shit like pot or meth.” Hell let’s add alcohol in the mix too. Cause if you’ve got the money for all that, then why the fuck are you asking the government to rob me at gun point?

      1. We’re going to need to start a list:

        (1) Illegal drugs.
        (2) Alcohol.
        (3) Tobacco.
        (4) Cable/Satellite TV.
        (5) Unlimited data plan for your goddam smartphone.

        Etc.

  11. Y’know, SF, you bemoan the current state of Sci Fi, pointing out that Doctor Who is the worst, while completely forgetting the excellent and longer running Inspector Spacetime

    1. That was a good premiere. Many chuckles were shared on my couch.

      1. Not enough Annie’s Boobs.

        1. Though to be fair, is there such a thing as sufficient Annie’s boobs?

          1. No, never.

  12. Speaking of stupid, currently in Washington there are three people, two of whom are very critical, in the hospital because they cooked and ate the mushrooms growing in their yard. It has been a wet fall and mushrooms are everywhere. I am not much of an outdoors man but I seem to remember rule number one of being in the woods being “never eat mushrooms unless you know 100% what they are because many of them of deadly”. Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to eat a wild mushroom without knowing what it is? Just because it is local, sustainable and free range organic doesn’t make it edible.

    1. Does anyone here grow/gather their own (non-psychoactive) mushrooms?

      I always thought that would be a fun thing to get into.

      1. I think it would be too. But damn you would really have to know what you are doing. They call the small ones around here “widow makers”. Some of them are flat out deadly.

        1. I suggested to Mrs. Feathered Snake Deity that we should join some sort of mushroom hunting society and learn the trade.

          But I guess, from the female perspective, making “going for a walk” produce edible goodies ruins the fun.

          1. this sounds stupid but trust me…it is like easter for a six year old after you eat them the first time (never raw btw). So I say go for it.

            1. I’m not sure what sort of fungi grow in godless New England, but I’ll try convincing her again.

              1. many good kinds…morels and i believe boletes too.

                1. Ooooooo… morels…

              2. I’m not sure what sort of fungi grow in godless New England

                I do. They’re called Massholes.

                1. I do. They’re called Massholes.

                  They’re not all that fun…

          2. I like to think I understand women, but when I get too confident, I contemplate the phenomena of “going for a walk” and a fog of uncertainty settles over me once more.

            1. We have to talk.

            2. It made more sense 60 years ago when the purpose was to be seen by the neighbors.

        2. The edible ones that are easy to identitfy have no poisonous equal (disclaimer: even white buttons in the store have been know to case some GI problems for some people). The angel of death is VERY easy to identify and it baffles the mind why anyone would ever even touch it…the only cure is a liver transplant within about 24 hours.

          1. This angel of death looks quite innocent to the untrained eye:

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

            1. innocent yes, like anything edible? No.

      2. Yes, the King Boletes in Colorado are fucking awesome (call “Whites”, racist fungi)…Married an Eastern European so every year we go mushroom hunting. Last year in 2 hours I raked in over 20 pounds…outstanding.

        1. There’s a common, and ugly, mushroom that is known as the “Jew’s Ear.”

          Mycologists are some racist bastards.

      3. As a kid, my mom was really into Euell Gibbons.

        For every tasty morel mushroom we ate, we also had to put up with flour ground from cat tail roots.

        The other buzz kill is that the best time to pick morel mushrooms is also peak tick season. With lyme disease being what it is, I’m not willing to go pick them anymore.

        1. No offense, but the tick danger is overblown. I like to go hiking on the trails in the state forest next to my house, and while I certainly don’t want to get bitten by anything, I find that it’s much easier to spot ticks than the fear-mongers would have you believe.

          I try to make it a point to take a shower right when I get back from a walk, since I need it anyhow, and that’s a good time to check for ticks. Even then, you have several hours before they bite, and several more after that before they start to get engorged.

          The whole fear-mongering about wearing all-white and tucking your long-sleeved pants into your socks is nonsense. One of the only times I got bitten by a tick (and I found it before it got engorged) was in early spring on my forearm when I was wearing a long-sleeved T-shirt and a light jacket over that.

      4. Does anyone here grow/gather their own (non-psychoactive) mushrooms?

        I always thought that would be a fun thing to get into.

        You can buy spores, growing media, tools, etc. The little fuckers are really, really picky, though. Much harder than growing veggies.

    2. Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to eat a wild mushroom without knowing what it is?

      Don’t blame me! I was on Jimson weed when I did it!

      1. don’t forget the wild bush berries. Hey, if birds can eat them…

    3. These people are usually immigrants. Wild mushroom gathering is a huge hobby in Russia and Asia where they generally have fewer posionous varieties. Pravda used to publish guides to the best mushroom spots in Moscow parks. Probably the only honest reporting they ever did.

      The immigrants come over here, see a free fungus buffet just waiting on the ground, and wind up in the ER.

      1. In all fairness it isnt the lack of poisonous ones in Russia, they have just as many (most are actually poisonous). It is not uncommon to lose whole familes over there. The fact it happens less in the US is a testament to our fingertip resources like the tubes and what not. Plus, most smart people (Russians or otherwise) follow the simple rule “If you don’t know, don’t pick it”.

    4. I have mushrooms all over my property – in the wooded part and the yard – and none of them look tasty.

      But then again, I’m a reverse-vegan. I don’t eat anything without a face or anything that eats anything without a face.

      1. That is not food. That is what food eats.

      2. Basically everything with a face is eaten by fungi.

    5. Isn’t that what the ‘Into the Wild’ guy died from, eating mushrooms?

      1. He starved, he wasnt poisoned…dont believe eveything Sean Penn tells you.

    6. I kid you not, the latest indulgence of friends of our of their oldest (because, you know, you can never buy him too much shit or shit that it is just too fucking expensive), who is low-end Aspergers and seriously trending towards creepy-loner-stalker in college, is to buy him a book on wild mushrooms. So, you know, he can go out and collect them and cook them for the family meals.

      I wanted to tell them just how galacticaly fucking huge idiots they were being, (what could possibly go wrong?) but the wife insisted I behave. Needless to say, my kids have the strictest warning in the known universe to NEVER EAT ANYTHING OVER THERE.

      I saw that story this morning and lost my mind.

      1. They picked death caps, which bear a strong resemblance to straw mushrooms, which are common in southeast Asia.

      2. I feel bad making fun of these people, but… ‘”We thought they were organic?” Constantinopla told reporters.’
        Oh, they were, they were.

  13. The EPA says it needs roughly a quarter of a million more inspectors.

    And once they’re hired, 250,000 more. Someone has to inspect the inspectors.

    1. trial lawyers ARE Democrats!

      1. fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap…

    2. “There are many reasons why one might be unemployed in a tough economy. Current employment status serves as a poor proxy for successful job performance.”

      Let’s hope the airlines aren’t hiring pilots anytime soon.

      1. Current employment status serves as a poor proxy for successful job performance.

        Because, when its time to fire somebody, employers just flip a fucking coin.

    3. WTF? So no fair discriminating in hiring based on experience, either, right? Why don’t we just make r?sum?s illegal right now?

  14. Hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4 billion work hours required to address the actual increase in permitting functions would result in an increase in Title V administration costs of $21 billion per year.

    Wow. No wonder Herman Cain won the Florida straw poll.

    1. I don’t know what that means, so I’m going to assume it’s racist.

      1. That’s generally a safe assumption, but in this case incorrect.

      2. No amount of prejudice is racism if the person in question is a conservative.

    2. And of course no one would ever ask if the benefit of increasing the permitting functions justifies the expense of enforcing them. NOOOO It is for the environment. So the tax payers must bear any burden.

      1. imagine all those inspectors driving out to site every month every year, putting billions of miles on their state approved trucks and SUV’s (I’ll laugh if you insist they’ll be driving electric cars).

        Yeah, its about the environment.

        1. They’ll be walking and riding bicycles using mobility scooters and Segways.

        2. The president will grant them an indulgence, forgiving them their sins.

    3. The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the expanding needs of the bureacracy.

  15. Wait, so I haven’t been following the Wall Street Occupation, figuring that it was mainly more Guy Fawksers.

    Are they really protesting because politicians like money? “Stop offering them cash! They can’t help themselves!”

    Why not elect a better quality of person?

    1. Because better people don’t have the desire to run other peoples lives and so then usually don’t become politicians.

    2. Became a libertarian b/c I believe the only way to get money out of politics is to make government small enough that the utility of owning a politician is low.

      1. or publically fund all elections

        1. herp derp!

        2. Elections are publicly funded.

          I think you meant to say campaigns, which will never happen successfully in a way compatible with true liberal democracy — I can guarantee you that third parties, even ones with a relatively large base of support, will never, ever gain access to a publicly funded warchest equivalent to that offered the twin heads of the Establishment Party.

          Regardless, the “money in politics” argument can be summed up as follows: “CFR is necessary because most of our politicians are bought and paid for by special interests with access to wads of money. Our solution is to have those same corrupt politicians pass a law that makes bribing them illegal.” Derp.

          The only way CFR could be implemented properly and in good faith is if it wasn’t necessary.

          1. yep campaigns. thx

    3. A quality politician is one that will stay bought.

  16. Looks like the Yes Men hoaxed the BBC.

    http://news.google.co.uk/news/…..UM&topic=h

    1. As funny as it is, it does falsely reinforce the whole business == evil paradigm.

  17. Speaking of pepper spray… I took a domestic flight this weekend, went through the usual security procedures plus a full body rapescan. Guess which popular incapacitating agent I’d accidentally brought in my carry-on, and which wasn’t caught at any point?

      1. I’m going to pronounce that the winner.

    1. Guess which popular incapacitating agent

      iPod full of Ke$ha?
      A nude photo of Warty?
      The finely ground back hair of Pro Libertate?

      1. Well, I think he meant something that could be taken on accidentally, not items that only a terrorist would possess.

        1. Every morning, I wake up feeling like P. Diddy.

          Assuming P. Diddy is a broken down overweight white guy.

          1. That’s still so much better than waking up feeling P. Diddy.

      2. Back hair? Nah, I’m evolved.

        1. Gnomes steal it in the night.

          1. I’m part Neanderthal. Neanderthals aren’t all hairy like you Cro Mags.

    2. Trespassers will be pepper-sprayed?

    3. ur aftershave?

    4. dildo?

      1. “”A’ dildo, never ‘your’ dildo.”

    5. Anything off the Taco Bell value menu?

    6. As a type 1 diabetic I haven’t been questioned about syringes and vials in my carry-on since 2003 or so (and that was the only time in my 20+ years of air travel). At this point I deliberately don’t separate them from my bag just to see if anyone with the TSA will say anything. SugarFree, out of curiosity have you had a similar experience?

      1. I’ve never had any problem flying with insulin and syringes. I do put insulin in the “liquids” baggy, but I’ve never separated out the syringes.

        1. Yeah I don’t even bother to separate the insulin vials. Who knows what I might have in those dangerous vials that could take down the pilot and crew in the blink of an eye?!?!?!?!

    7. A hand grenade?

    8. Seriously, though, if you opened up a whole can of pepper spray in a an airplane, would that not seriously fuck up everyone’s day?

      Christ, it’s even a liquid–aren’t they supposed to keep an eye out for that?

  18. The daily kick in the gut. Today from the Wall Street Journal. It is behind a pay wall. So I will quote liberally.

    For centuries, a bedrock principle of criminal law has held that people must know they are doing something wrong before they can be found guilty. The concept is known as mens rea, Latin for a “guilty mind.”

    This legal protection is now being eroded as the U.S. federal criminal code dramatically swells. In recent decades, Congress has repeatedly crafted laws that weaken or disregard the notion of criminal intent. Today not only are there thousands more criminal laws than before, but it is easier to fall afoul of them.
    The Hunt for Sea Otters

    As a result, what once might have been considered simply a mistake is now sometimes punishable by jail time. When the police came to Wade Martin’s home in Sitka, Alaska, in 2003, he says he had no idea why. Under an exemption to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, coastal Native Alaskans such as Mr. Martin are allowed to trap and hunt species that others can’t. That included the 10 sea otters he had recently sold for $50 apiece.

    Mr. Martin, 50 years old, readily admitted making the sale. “Then, they told me the buyer wasn’t a native,” he recalls.

    The law requires that animals sold to non-Native Alaskans be converted into handicrafts. He knew the law, Mr. Martin said, and he had thought the buyer was Native Alaskan.
    More

    * Animal Terrorism Law Sets Unusual Standard for Crime

    He pleaded guilty in 2008. The government didn’t have to prove he knew his conduct was illegal, his lawyer told him. They merely had to show he had made the sale.

    “I was thinking, damn, my life’s over,” Mr. Martin says.

    Federal magistrate Judge John Roberts gave him two years’ probation and a $1,000 fine. He told the trapper: “You’re responsible for the actions that you take.”

    Mr. Martin now asks customers to prove their heritage and residency. “You get real smart after they come to your house and arrest you and make you feel like Charles Manson,” he says.

    The U.S. Attorney’s office in Alaska didn’t respond to requests for comment.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..TopStories

    1. From the comments

      This is written in a biased manner that is irresponsible for the WSJ. For example, statutory rape has never been about knowing the age of the other person, just that they are of a certain age. The erosion is falsely played up for some WSJ agenda that seems intended to create fear of government. Is the WSJ really Fox News all over again?

      Anyone who questions the government is just working for Fox News. And it has two people recommending it.

      1. The more of these ridiculous regs we come up with, the more people will mistakenly run afoul of them. Maybe that will wake some people up.

      2. For example, statutory rape has never been about knowing the age of the other person, just that they are of a certain age

        Yeah, which makes it a terrible law too.

        Fucking intent, how does it work!?

    2. solution:

      otter farms!

    3. Federal criminal law, by and large, is a huge mistake.

    4. “Under an exemption to the Marine Mammal Protection Act”

      Well, at least we know John won’t build a two minute hate based on an erronous claim there are no exemptions like he did with the ESA the other day…

      But on the ‘substance’ of the matter, while I doubt this is a strict liability statute, I think the proliferation of those is troubling.

      1. Nice to know you are troubled by it. You are such a great guy that way. You are such an amazing thinker and humanitarian. It is just astounding that you even lower yourself to give out your nuggets of wisdom to lower human beings. Now that you have said you are troubled by it. I am sure everyone here feels they can be troubled by it too.

        Smug much?

        1. What are you doing posting it if you are not troubled by it? Or are you upset that my troubled doesn’t reach your outrage?

          1. Seriously, John. MiNGe said he is troubled by it. What more do you want?

            1. I said it was nice of him. What do you want from me?

              1. John|9.27.11 @ 10:43AM|#

                I said it was nice of him. What do you want from me?

                The “Who Me?” troll: someone who, after an invective screed at someone, plays innocent with a variation on “I was just having a conversation.”

        2. John|9.27.11 @ 10:12AM|#

          Nice to know you are troubled by it. You are such a great guy that way. You are such an amazing thinker and humanitarian. It is just astounding that you even lower yourself to give out your nuggets of wisdom to lower human beings. Now that you have said you are troubled by it. I am sure everyone here feels they can be troubled by it too.

          Smug much?

          grudge troll: someone who responds with invective to an inoffensive post because of a previous disagreement with the poster, ignoring the content of the current post.

      2. We’ve had a distinction between torts and crimes for a long time for a reason.

        1. Yes we have. And negligence was never a crime for good reason. The rise of strict liability statutes began with environmental statutes in the 1970s. RCRA and CERCLA are both brutal. And like a virus is spread elsewhere.

          1. “The rise of strict liability statutes began with environmental statutes in the 1970s”

            Sigh, John, would you like to take the opportunity to walk back from this?

            1. If I had a couple hours to explain the history of environmental law in the 1970s and the nature CERCLA and RCRA, I would enlighten you. But I don’t. And frankly you don’t know enough about the subject to have an intelligent conversation about the subject. There are few things I can honestly claim to be an expert in. This would be one of those fields. And frankly, I don’t have time to waste trying to explain it to a layman such as yourself. I really don’t consider you knowledgeable enough in the field to bother with. Sorry.

              1. John|9.27.11 @ 10:24AM|#

                If I had a couple hours to explain the history of environmental law in the 1970s and the nature CERCLA and RCRA, I would enlighten you. But I don’t. And frankly you don’t know enough about the subject to have an intelligent conversation about the subject. There are few things I can honestly claim to be an expert in. This would be one of those fields. And frankly, I don’t have time to waste trying to explain it to a layman such as yourself. I really don’t consider you knowledgeable enough in the field to bother with. Sorry.

                self-esteem troll: someone who claims they could educate other posters about the topic (which they know more of than anyone), but don’t believe the others capable of understanding it. Typically typed near the point of tearing up.

                1. Are you talking about yourself Mr I have PHD MNG?

              2. At the federal level, I believe John is correct. At the state level, strict liability as a doctrine pops up now and again, but I seem to recall that it really got going with products liability.

                1. Yes it did Pro. But that is tort law, not criminal. law. The first real strict liability criminal statutes I know of were the environmental statutes. There may have been something before that but not much.

                2. Wrong, think of the FDA and such, it criminalized a great deal of behavior based on strict liability.

              3. Strict liability predates the 1970’s environmental laws by a lot John (think of food and drug laws). Once again you’re wrong (add it to the heap).

                1. Those are not criminal laws. Show me a piece of the FFCA in its 1938 form that has a strict liability criminal punishment. Do that or admit you are talking out of your ass. Sorry tort laws don’t cover it. We are talking about criminal laws.

        2. We’ve had a distinction between torts and crimes for a long time for a reason.

          There’s a drive-in in my town called “Buns ‘n Torts,” and I was on a blind date with a PI lawyer that wasn’t going all that well. Anyway, after watching a movie, we were looking for a quick bite, and as I drove by, I told her I didn’t really want to go there because even though I liked the buns, I didn’t care for the torts. The joke didn’t even register. We went to In-N-Out and I took her home.

          1. A blind date with a lawyer that wasn’t going well? Color me shocked.

  19. Doritos inventor dies

    Stoners respond, “Woah, bummer man.”

    1. Goodbye Mr. Chips.

      1. Good one.

  20. WaPo discovers what it’s like to be scheduled for deportation on your American-born kids’ first day of school.

    Exiling Americans for the sins of the father?

    1. The kids can stay. They’re citizens, after all.

      They just need somebody to agree to raise them while the parents are back in the old country.

    1. People are aware that black people aren’t really black, they’re all brown, right and white people aren’t white, they’re pink?

      dressing up as a ghost does not a KKK member make.

        1. To be fair, the Krazy Krispy Kone was an unfortunate mascot name…

          1. Hopefully everyone will forget this misstep after they introduce their new offering, the Grand Blizzard.

          2. “Well, you’re probably too young to remember the short-lived Itchy & Scratchy and Friends Hour. They had to come up with some friends. There’s Disgruntled Goat, Uncle Ant, Ku Klux Klam…”

            1. Milk, sugar, cream, sprinkles…and hate.

            2. i dropped into
              a clam chowder the
              other evening
              for a warm bath and
              a bite to eat
              and i heard a couple of
              clams talking
              it seems that they
              are sore on the
              oyster family and
              have formed an
              organization to
              do away with them
              they call it the
              ku klux klam
              yours for the frequent stew
              archy

        2. Yes, because the Grand Kleagle often dresses in a […] fluffy white top, flecked with colored sprinkles, curls slightly at its peak, and it sits atop a brown waffle cone.

          Jesus Christ, people are morons.

          1. The stupidity of people has never ceased to amaze me.

      1. “Children…they’re all pink on the inside.”

      2. People are aware that black people aren’t really black, they’re all brown, right and white people aren’t white, they’re pink?

        Most everyone is roughly the same shade of beige, with minor variations and a few outliers.

        1. I dated a woman who was part “black” whose skin on average was fairer than mine.

    2. Am I the only one who wonders why there are witches in our nurseries!?

      1. Apparently so.

        1. We have to expose them to all cultures and religions, Quetz, otherwise they’ll grow up racist.

    3. What the fuck…

      “People might criticise this as political correctness gone mad. But it is because of political correctness we have moved on enormously. If you think that we now take it for granted that our buildings and public highways are adapted so people in wheelchairs and with pushchairs can move around. Years ago if you were in a wheelchair, then tough luck. We have completely moved and we wouldn’t have done that without the equality movement.”

      These people are being paid to say this shit. They make money doing this.

      1. Maybe I’m being all “ableist” here, but I don’t see encouraging people in wheelchairs to use the highways as a good idea whatsoever.

        1. God, whenever I see shit like “Trigger Warning: Ablelism” I realize why the internet has a lot more feminists than the real world. The real world has no trigger warnings.

          1. I once had a “feminist” tell me she wanted to “smash your smug face in, you cunt” because I dare to say that I didn’t care if someone called me crippled or a crip, because I was and that dancing around that verbiage didn’t change that reality an iota.

            I LOL’d at a “feminist” calling another woman a “cunt” for daring to step off the rez, and so did a bunch of other people, to their credit.

        2. Then what are all those on-ramps and off-ramps for?

          1. That is not an uncommon sight around here.

            I wish I was kidding.

              1. I never think to get my camera out.

                By the way, those of you near a college campus… what the fuck is up with all the people who use rolling luggage instead of back pack? You’re going to class, not Motel 6.

                1. I have yet to witness this phenomenon on my campus. Personally, I prefer a satchel over a backpack. Maybe that makes me a pretentious douche, but whatever.

                  1. Satchels are fine for girls when the strap gets between their boobs and shows them off better. If that doesn’t describe you, you’d better use something different.

        3. What a hater.

          Whenever I see a differently abled dude in a wheelchair on the interstate, I always make sure to get behind them and give them a friendly push up to 70 or so. Seems like the least I can do.

    4. staff should be prepared to be economical with the truth when asked by pupils what their favourite colour is and, in the interests of good race relations, answer “black” or “brown”.

      Every time I think the Brits may have reached peak idiocy, they come out with something worse.

      1. Here you go. Have another peak.

        http://boingboing.net/2011/09/…..lists.html

        UK Labour Party wants journalism licenses, will prohibit “journalism” by people who are “struck off” the register of licensed journalists

        1. I had a professor who wanted this — wanted to make journalism a “profession” akin to a doctor or lawyer complete with the associated licensing and credentialing.

          1. Yeah. The government would never abuse that power. And I guess that whole 1st Amendment thing is just advisory. Sadly, the Brits don’t have a 1st Amendment. And I have no doubt the media would love such a rule. What a great way to shut down dissent and competition.

            1. and once we set up as newspapers as government-backed nonprofits with an “education” mission, our licensed and trained reporters will shine light on corruption at all levels of government.

        2. Given that “journalism” presently encompasses “publishing accounts of things you’ve seen using the Internet” and “taking pictures of stuff and tweeting them” and “blogging” and “commenting on news stories,” this proposal is even more insane than the tradition “journalist licenses” practiced in totalitarian nations.

          That’s not so bad. The “stricken off” can still talk in public … can’t they?

          1. Well they could, but Parliament is considering licensing the public’s ability to listen.

        3. Yes, because government controlling the licensing of journalists would in no way affect the journalists’ willingness to criticize the government.

          This was pretty much laughed off here long ago as impossible if you want to have a free press.

    5. Expert in what?

  21. Fucking Congress is useless. They can’t even shutdown the government.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ml?hpid=z1
    So Harry, how is this a “Win for everybody”?

    1. Everyone but the taxpayers.

  22. Don’t read the comments on the drug test article, it will make you sick. A bunch of statists all for drug testing to find “addicts”. Lets face it, drug testing is political. Most drugs leave your system soon, drug testing is basically marijuana testing; yet alcohol which is far worse and far more prevalent is not tested.

    1. Not this shit again.

  23. Wall Street occupiers enter week two of their mission to “end the influence money has over our representatives in Washington.”

    Yeah, good luck with that.

  24. Fidel calls Obama gibberish. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl…..a-15071936

  25. Jezebel tells you how to fart in public.

    I mean… seriously? They need an article to tell them about this?

    1. cause fat girlz luvs em some fartz!

      1. i wuz born when my momma farted

        1. sharted

        2. troll failz ! hahahahahaha

          1. NO ONE WANTS YOU HERE.

            1. thx may i have another?

  26. The EPA says it needs roughly a quarter of a million more inspectors.

    Well, even the Gestapo was, historically, undermanned, so it makes sense to want more inspectors…

    1. think the hundreds of thousands disappeared by the gestapo would comprende ur comparison w the EPA?

      1. comprende ur comparison

        Do you have some kind of an online translation program for that?

        1. He wants to know if you can understand comparing Ur with, I don’t know, Tenochtitl?n maybe?

          Say no.

        2. comprende = “includes” in Italian or Spanish

          ur = your

          We’ll assume, however, that “comprender su” was what was meant.

          comprehend your comparison

          1. Thank you. This is like Hit and Run forensics. I think it might be easier for 00 to speak English. But, hey if you guys feel sorry for him and want to translate for him, I guess that works too.

          2. comprende = “includes” in Italian or Spanish
            We’ll assume, however, that “comprender su” was what was meant.
            comprehend your comparison

            Negatory. You need to break out the ol’ Rosetta Stone (Spanish).

            1. Negatory. You need to break out the ol’ Rosetta Stone (Spanish).

              What? My vaguely remembered HS Spanish from the 80’s failed me. Dang.

            2. comprehende = comprehend

              ez pleasy lemon squeezy

              1. Re: Double Asshole,

                It’s not “comprehende.” It’s not even “comprende” you lousy ignorant piece of dog shit, as the word should be used in perfect future sense either in the infinitive along with the auxiliary form of the verb “to go” [i.e. “van a comprender” or “iran a comprender”] or in the perfect future tense of the verb itself [i.e. “comprenderan”]

                Please, leave the adult conversation to us, the adults, and go play in your safe foamy kiddie playground, you direct result of the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem, fully unionized.

                1. cause i never misspelt

      2. Re: Double Asshole,

        think the hundreds of thousands disappeared by the gestapo would comprende ur comparison w the EPA?

        Think te thousunds of plplz that lllost thir JOBZ bcause of da EPA would care abut your falz outrage, you direct result of the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem you?

        1. still wating on a anser about were all this [JOBZ] r tthat the boosh tax cuts vreated

          1. Re: Double Asshole,

            still wating on a anser about were all this [JOBZ] r tthat the boosh tax cuts vreated

            I don’t know what “vreated” means, you direct result of and poster child for the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem, fully unionized.

            1. ^u responded to a spoof sherlock

          2. Yeah, those jobs were created back in 2003-04 when the cuts were actually passed.

            Oh what’s that, you mean the Obama tax cuts that he and the dem held house and senate passed? Well tax cuts don’t do a whole hell of a lot of good if employers are worried about new regulations and how much a new employee is going to cost them.

        2. now comparing us govt w the gestapo? pure wingnutzism

          1. Re: Double Asshole,

            now comparing us govt w the gestapo? pure wingnutzism

            Why would that be, you stupid sack of shit? The left did it during Dubya’s reign, not that his did not deserve it.

            You’re not only a statist (which is no compliment, you sack of pus,) you’re a hypocrite.

            1. i hope o2 said that about lil w.

    2. So If I get one of these jobs, do i get to stick a probe up Warty’s ass to evaluate his methane production?

    1. I was wondering why the Sal Culosi story was at the top of most viewed.

  27. Also from the WSJ, the idiot that is Jennifer Granholm. She was on Fox shilling her book the other day. It was nauseating.

    At the top of Ms. Granholm’s claims is that she knows that low taxes and lean government are no prescription for growth because she tried supply-side and found it wanting. To prove her point, her appendix lists 99 business and 17 individual “tax cuts” she approved. She notes likewise that both state spending and the number of state employees dropped during her time.

    In fact, almost all Ms. Granholm’s “tax cuts” are tax credits or other forms of tax preferences. A less delicate way of saying this is that far from reducing rates for everyone, Ms. Granholm played favorites. That meant a more complicated tax code where trendy businesses (green jobs, anyone?) that would fail without subsidies are effectively underwritten by non-favored businesses and other taxpayers.

    A better indication of Ms. Granholm’s tax record would thus include the $1.4 billion tax increase in business and personal taxes in 2007, not to mention the tax hike she tried to inflict on her way out. Much the same might be said of her claims to fiscal discipline. Far from an effort to re-engineer government as Mitch Daniels did in neighboring Indiana, Ms. Granholm’s cuts were forced by the collapse in revenues resulting from the state’s failing economy.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..LEFTSecond

    1. cause tax cutz aint cutz unless we like ’em!

      1. English. You were getting better yesterday. Now you have slipped again. No idea what that post means.

        1. If you can understand what it wrote, just assume it’s a spoof.

        2. It’s pretty plain what he’s saying, if you take, as some here do, the absolutist position that any reduction in revenues=good and any increase=bad, then these tax credits, while not ideal, should still be a good thing.

          1. It is nice that you can translate for him. And while you are at it maybe you can read the article and respond to the points made in it. Namely that Granholm never did cut taxes as she claimed and that her tax increases resulted in a collapse in revenue.

            1. As you mention John the article is behind a paywall, so I can’t read it (don’t want to pay Ruppie Murdoch). From what you posted it appears that Granholm is arguing she tried lower taxes via tax credits and then later in 2007 went with a tax increase. 02’s point, which seemed rather plain to me, was as I restated and correct imo, for the reasons I stated.

              1. She never did cut taxes across the board, she handing out “credits” to favored patrons. But now she claims that across the board tax cuts don’t work because she tried them. No, she never tried them. That is the point.

                1. Sigh.

                  “if you take, as some here do, the absolutist position that any reduction in revenues=good and any increase=bad, then these tax credits, while not ideal, should still be a good thing.”

                  1. MNG,

                    We are talking about Granholm. And her book is wrong. She didn’t cut taxes like she said. And defy you to find anyone on here who thinks handing out tax credits to cronies is better than across the board tax cuts.

                    I am sorry but smugly sighing doesn’t make an argument. If you want to defend Grandholm, defend her. But the fact that you may have once read something on Hit and Run that you think is extreme doesn’t have anything to do with Grandholm.

                    1. Third time, read slowly:

                      “if you take, as some here do, the absolutist position that any reduction in revenues=good and any increase=bad, then these tax credits, while not ideal, should still be a good thing.”

                    2. No. They are not good thing when they are just credits to cronies. No one here would claim otherwise MNG. You are just being your usual smug disingenuous self.

                    3. ” am sorry but smugly sighing doesn’t make an argument.”

                      MNG = Al Gore

            2. John|9.27.11 @ 10:14AM|#

              It is nice that you can translate for him. And while you are at it maybe you can read the article and respond to the points made in it. Namely that Granholm never did cut taxes as she claimed and that her tax increases resulted in a collapse in revenue.

              assignment troll: someone who gives other posters directives about supposed responsibilities in a discussion.

              1. WaWAWa NM. It is just a bitch when people actually question your assumptions and expect you make an argument isn’t it?

          2. …any reduction in revenues=good and any increase=bad…

            Who believes that?

            The issue for libertarians, supply siders and market conservatives is individual tax rates, not revenues.

            Giving tax credits to favored businesses is not reducing individual tax rates, it is giving favorable treatment to cronies.

            Of course, cronyism is hardly surprising, coming as it does from the party that contrary to popular myth is the greatest purveyor of corporate welfare.

        3. BTW John, tut-tut on your post here, no substance, just ‘personal invective’

          Tsk-tsk

        4. John|9.27.11 @ 9:42AM|#

          English. You were getting better yesterday. Now you have slipped again. No idea what that post means.

          cleanse troll: someone who feels compelled to cleanse the discussion of undesirable participants.

          1. I have no idea what he types. I happily respond to 00 when I know what he is saying. But sorry, I don’t do molespeak.

            1. damn age diff

              1. You typed “age” when you meant to type “IQ”.

        5. It’s someone’s lolcat, right?

      2. Not everyone or every business would have gotten those credits, so no it wasn’t a tax cut. But she’s a democrat from Michigan so I understand why she doesn’t get it.

    2. Re: John,

      “To prove her point, her appendix lists 99 business and 17 individual ‘tax cuts’ she approved. She notes likewise that both state spending and the number of state employees dropped during her time.”

      You see, for Ms. Granholm, the reduction in the size of government is prima facie evidence of the “failure of supply-side economics.” I guess the reduction in the size of goverment during the Harding and Coolidge years and after WWII gave us all sorts of calamities from which the country has never recovered… Oh, wait – quite the contrary!

  28. Hey, white liberals abandoning Obama? You are racist.

    I suppose she has a follow up, but I need to wash my brain out with smart after reading that stupid.

    1. Well liberals did defend Bill Clinton even though he was a lot more conservative than Obama. She is wrong that that is racism. It is the result of liberals going nuts in the time since Clinton.

      1. Honestly, I think that it’s more of a result of the wing that never accepted welfare reform and the DLC gaining power as a result of Bush II and the internet, which allowed them to organize more effectively than the moderate Democrats.

        1. As a big proponent of the DLC back in the day and currently I can verify that it has lost a great deal of influence. The DLC’s whole message was that this is a nation that tilts to the right so Dems have to run as centrists with more limited proposals to enact liberal goals. A lot of people became very dissapointed with this not so much from welfare reform but from NAFTA, and then Obama’s election seemed to refute the idea the DLC pushed that the only way Dems can win is to put up a centrist.

          1. Before Obama won the DLC argued the way for Dems to win was to put forward a centrist candidate and hope the GOP picked an extreme candidate and then present yourself as the sane, balanced alternative. The hope was that the centrist would not inspire strong turnout from conservatives and would cut into indies, which leaned right.

            Obama’s side of the party has a different idea of how to win, it’s called ‘growing the electorate’, trying to get record turnout from groups that often don’t vote but lean left if they do.

            1. And that seems doomed to fail, honestly. Yeah, the left could win an election if ALL the poor people and ALL the young and ALL the homeless turn out, but there is a reason that those groups typically don’t, which is that those groups are largely apathetic because it is highly unlikely that even if you get a leftwingers wet dream president, much is going to change in a country like ours.

              I mean, you aren’t going to get a Sweedish style welfare state. You may get an NHS, but you probably aren’t going to get Council housing. And so on.

              1. I don’t think it is necessarily always doomed to failure, after all Obama pulled it off (much to my surprise) in 08, but he did it in a year that he could push ‘making history’ by electing the first black man. In such an occasion this can work, but regularly? I have my doubts.

                1. I mean in the long run its doomed to fail. And even at the Congressional level, the Democrats returned a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate, but had to bribe a lot of people to get Obamacare passed. And even then, they had already stripped out the public option to accomodate moderate Democrats and EVEN THEN it may not have passed the House had Obama not put in the abortion waiver by executive order.

                  And the thing is, that’s what the far left wanted: Not just Obamacare, but also the public option AND abortion covered.

                  Honestly, the far is left in this country reminds me of the British Labour supporters who hate Blair because he removed the clause concerning socialism, with the key difference being that Old Labour once actually held power.

                  1. I agree, it will never, ever work as a Congressional strategy. The DLC strategy (which if you think about it was used in 06) is the way to go imo.

    2. I don’t care if Obama’s elections demonstrate that electoral racism is no longer operative – there will be electoral racism!

      1. And if you don’t see it, that just means it’s subtle. And you’re racist.

  29. Energy September 22, 2011, 6:30 PM EDT
    A Tiny Alaska Village Stares Down Big Oil
    Far-flung Point Hope puts Shell’s plans for Arctic drilling on ice

    “There is no technology to clean up an oil spill, and it’s devastating if it happens,” says Cannon, who serves as the village president.

    Many of Cannon’s fellow villagers feel the same way, and the town has been remarkably effective at delaying the company’s plans to begin work in the region. Point Hope successfully challenged government-issued permits for emissions from the rigs, preventing Shell from drilling this summer. It also sued to challenge the government’s lease sale, convincing a court that more public comment and environmental studies were needed. Although Shell won its first lease to extract oil from beneath U.S. Arctic waters in 2005, it has yet to drill a single well, despite spending what it says is almost $4 billion on leases, research, engineering, lawsuits, and government-ordered studies.

    They don’t want Shell coming in and building up the place. They aren’t expecting to be offered jobs on the rigs. They don’t want money. Mostly, the people say, they want to be left alone. “No matter how much money you’ve got, that money goes,” says Ronald Oviok, who says he has caught more than a dozen whales in his 69 years. “I’ve got no money. I don’t really care for money.”

    http://www.businessweek.com/ma…..22011.html
    _

    big oil couldnt lie ’em off, or buy ’em off ! viva el inuit !11!!1

    1. I guess they can also stop using gas and oil products then. NIMBYISM is still NUBYISM no matter where it is paracticed.

      1. something wrong w the inuit exercising local control?

    2. Which Inuit?

      1. good ques. dunno

        1. Then what does “viva el inuit [sic]” refer to?

          1. dont know if point hope inuit have one or more tribal affiliations…which is outside the scope of the article. >regardless the inuit are pushing back on artic drilling

    3. Shell could sue the US government for breach of contract if they completed all of the required studies and then got held up.

      I don’t really care whether or not we get to drill in the artic or anywhere, but I do get pissed off at the government pulling the rugs out from under companies working in good faith.

      Sometimes the US is worse than Russia, just less personal bribes.

      1. the point hope inuit arent the fedz

    4. Re: Double Asshole,

      “There is no technology to clean up an oil spill, and it’s devastating if it happens,” says Cannon, who serves as the village president.

      And (of course!) village presidents are privvy to all sorts of technological advances or lack thereof in the oil processing industry. He talks ex cathedra.

      1. dont read all about it…and nothing happened.

  30. who needs oil when you’ve got whales?

    1. Well, in my opinion, riding whales is more trouble than it’s worth.

      1. got that right matey

      2. I see you are not of the water-Fremen.

  31. How to indoctrinate…er…teach boys about feminism.

    Oh, I’ll teach any future son about feminism. I’ll teach him never to sleep with one of them, because he doesn’t need to spend a night in jail on trumped up rape charges.

    1. Always, ALWAYS, have a camcorder set up in the closet or air duct when you crawl in the sack with a feminist. And if you have a “video surveillance in progress” sticker in your front window, it’s perfectly legal.

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

      Wait for the person to start to answer and loudly interrupt with

      ONE GOD DAMMIT!

      1. Or…

        THAT’S NOT FUNNY!

    3. The comments are pretty good.

      1. If by pretty good you mean ball achingly retarded.

    4. The comments are pretty good.

    5. “?Teach them that “feminism” means promoting women’s rights and interests.”

      “?Teach them that by taking a role in feminism they will be helping everyone, not just women.”

      The first bullet point seems to contradict the second. Helping everyone is promoting everyone’s interests. A creed that promotes one group’s interests are not promoting everyone’s.

      “?Teach them that because they are at the top of society’s hierarchy, they have a responsibility and an ability to be part of social change and justice for everyone.”

      That’s interesting. Feminists think that having external genitalia automatically puts you at the top of the hierarchy? Is that not the definition of sexist? As well as a huge oversimplification, particularly for a young boy, who likely having to obey rules set down by authority figures who are most likely women on a day to day basis.

      1. Re: MJ,

        The first bullet point seems to contradict the second.

        That’s because your logic is based on your male chauvinism, while theirs is different!

        Marxian polylogism – the refuge of the demagogue.

  32. Today’s laughable statist propaganda care of Wall Street Journal offshoot Marketwatch.

    (It even has ROADS!!!)

    1. That’s what I’m talking about!

    2. It is kind of funny that a company owned by Murdoch has someone like that writing articles there.

    3. 10.) Defeating totalitarianism

      It takes government to defeat government, ya know.

  33. Sly Stone is living in a “VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER.”
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/n…..PA0YogSJ/2
    Today, Sly is disheveled, paranoid — the FBI is after him; his enemies have hired hit men. He refuses to let The Post into his camper, but, ever the showman, poses flamboyantly with a silver military helmet and a Taser in front of his Studebaker.

    1. Is he available for parties then?

      1. Yes. That is the good news. The bad news is that he has a bad habit of tazering guests whom he thinks are FBI moles.

        1. That makes the party more interesting.

          1. Musical entertainment and comedy–all in one!

      2. That’s such an obvious FBI sting.

    2. What a shame. But he has been out there for years. Immensely talented guy. That is just a tragedy.

    3. Sounds like an elevator pitch for a new screenplay.

      1. Rich benevolent white man saves talented homeless black man from the streets and brings his career back. That could work.

        1. It’s all reality TV now.

        2. A Robin Williams vehicle?

          1. Robin Williams and Morgan Freeman, who BTW is marrying his step grand daughter.

            1. At least he’s not a racist Tea Partier.

        3. No, too un-PC. It’d be the homeless black man saving the rich white man from a life of shallow consumerism and resource hoarding.

          1. Even better. This is why we have writing teams doing these things.

  34. Lord Humungus, ruler of the Wasteland, is home for the day. Posting will be light as I work on my carpal tunnel playing Red Orchestra 2.

    from my FB: for anyone who cares – this is one helluva hard game. Like RO1, no health packs and very few second chances. Bullet drop, weapon kickback, no ammo counters, etc etc. It is also a little buggy (but improving). I had some random sound dropouts that have been fixed, but I’m still getting some complete game failures where I end up getting kicked completely out to Windows 7.

    The lean/cover command is a little difficult to master, but those who do can really dominate the game. Being an MGer at heart, I usuakky end up in the open more often, so finding a good place to setup shop is a little tricky.

    1. I’m just out of the tutorials in Deus Ex, and have just set foot on the mean streets of Detroit.

      Holy crap, what a game. Has a little of the weird JRPG flavor, awesome graphics, excellent gameplay. I agonized for fifteen minutes over what upgrades to get for my cybernetic augmentations, because I get the feeling they are few and far between.

      I’m putting several weeks of sleep deprivation into my calendar now. Might as well.

      1. Just be aware that there are three terrible boss fights (if you’re out of the tutorial, you can probably guess their identities, but I won’t spoil it) that will ruin your shit if you aren’t prepared for a straight up, no-stealth fight. If you start to see tons of high-end ammo lying around, get ready.

        Stick it out, though, it’s worth putting up with them to enjoy the rest of the game. The ending level is shit too, but it doesn’t take that long unless you want it too.

        The main plot has a pretty libertarian-friendly angle, so that was nice.

        1. Oh, and if you hack absolutely everything, explore every air vent, focus on nonlethal takedowns (especially double-takedowns) and win every speech challenge, you’ll have more Praxis than you know what to do with. Make sure to buy the two kits from the LIMB clinic in each hub (including return visits) and the final level.

  35. There wasn’t a single Liberal protesting on Wall Street when Congress was passing the bail out bill. Now they are camping out in droves. The upcoming presidential election makes all the difference.

    1. nor a single teapartier

  36. maybe this was already discussed:

    Is Your Choice Of Food A Fundamental Right?
    http://www.foodrenegade.com/yo…..tal-right/

    According to Wisconsin Judge Patrick J. Fiedler, you do not have a fundamental right to consume the food you grow or own or raise. The Farm To Consumer Legal Defense Fund, the pioneers in defending food sovereignty and freedom, recently argued before Judge Fiedler that you and I have a constitutional right to consume the foods of our choice. Judge Fiedler saw no merit to the argument and ruled against the FTCLDF. When they asked him to clarify his statement, these were his words:

    “no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;”

    “no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;”

    “no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice?”

    1. He pretty much HAD to rule that way, lest the opposite ruling be taken to its logical conclusion:
      “no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd common plant;

      “no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk product from their own cow plant;”

      “no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods controlled substance of their choice?”

  37. Find the comment with the most DERP

    I like this one, considering the Rothbard crowd’s view of the Kochs.

    The Real Tom Paine
    Sam Adams, Johns Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, you are not, sir. Your ideas revolution is being funded by people who have their own freedom in mind, and could care less about you.

    Ron Paul is a tool for the Kochs and their ilk.

    September 27, 2011 08:32 am at 8:32 am |

    1. It is so funny, the Kochs give like 15 million a year or so to politics? That is not even petty cash to liberal groups like the Annenberg fund. Man they sure seem to get a lot of millage out of their money, them being the focus of all evil in America and all.

      1. I have yet to find out why the Koch brothers are so bad? Nothing I have read from any liberal has explained why they are bad other than the fact that they donate to libertarian leaning candidates.

        1. Do they need any other reason? According to leftist thought, they give money to libertarian/conservative causes, which makes them bad. You might ask, sure, but don’t plenty of leftists give money to their own pet causes? But the Kochs don’t toot their own horn a lot about it, which means they must be SECRETLY CONSPIRING TO RULE AMERICA FROM THE SHADOWS. That’s about it, as far as I can figure.

  38. http://www.charlotteobserver.c…..ation.html

    Compassionate. Visionary. A champion of women and the poor.

    That’s the reputation that Wallace Kuralt built as Mecklenburg County’s welfare director from 1945 to 1972. Today, the building where Charlotte’s poor come for help bears his name – a name made even more prominent when his newscaster son, Charles Kuralt, rose to fame.

    But as architect of Mecklenburg’s program of eugenic sterilization – state-ordered surgery to stop the poor and disabled from bearing children – Kuralt helped write one of the most shameful chapters of North Carolina history.

    The Charlotte Observer has obtained records sealed by the state that tell the stories of 403 Mecklenburg residents ordered sterilized by the N.C. Eugenics Board at the behest of Kuralt’s welfare department.

    Wow. You know liberals are always preaching about how everyone else needs to come to terms with the past. When will liberals come to terms with their past support of Eugenics?

    1. Hasn’t MNG or Tony gone on and on about this in the past? I think his defense was to claim that Progressive Era progressives and today’s progressives are totally different and stuff, plus, what about CORPORATIONS?

      1. Of course progressive era progressives are totally different than the progressives now. But, modern southerners are no different than they were in 1963 and modern Republicans are just exactly like all of the worst aspects of any Republican who ever existed.

        Like I said, in Progressive world everyone, except them, is responsible for anything even remotely associated with their movement in the pase

      2. Just imagine if some rightwing media figure’s father was some Jim Crow Southern sheriff or other loathsome figure. There would be no end to the snarking on the left about it. There would be magazine pieces written about how him confronting his father’s evil.

        But with a figure on the Left like Kuralt, not so much.

        1. For that matter, think about how much Oliver Wendell Holmes is beloved by the left.

          1. Holmes killed natural law and told them that law and the Constitution could be anything they said it was. They couldn’t help but love him for that.

          2. Holmes killed natural law and told them that law and the Constitution could be anything they said it was. They couldn’t help but love him for that.

    2. those sorry dems became gop after the 64 voter rights act.

  39. Juliet Lewis is still fuckable.

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

    1. She is actually pretty cute there.

  40. Drinkers and tokers: America’s untermensch.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.