Immigration

Reason Morning Links: Nobody Won Last Night's Shouting Match, D.C. Surpasses Silicon Valley as the Richest City in U.S., Obama Makes a Comeback on Jobs

|

  • Who won last night's 87th two-hour Republican presidential debate? Depends! (Literally, the diaper company Depends was the winner.) Rick Perry seems to be back, that's for sure. Herman Cain and the entire Hispanic immigrant community got absolutely shredded. Nate Silver declared a seven-way draw.
  • President Obama is bouncing back from his polling lows. 
  • Bloomberg: "The U.S. capital has swapped top spots with Silicon Valley, according to recent Census Bureau figures, with the typical household in the Washington metro area earning $84,523 last year. The national median income for 2010 was $50,046." 
  • The Murdoch family is being torn asunder. 
  • Rick Perry has a special army that patrols the border. (Spoiler alert: they don't shoot none too good.)
  • The family of a schizophrenic man who was tasered to death by Michigan police is suing the police department.
  • Radical Chic: Rapper David Banner slams his fellow celebrities for turning Occupy Wall Street into a photo-op. 

New at Reason.tv: "David Bernstein on Rehabilitating Lochner and the Freedom to Contract"

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.

539 responses to “Reason Morning Links: Nobody Won Last Night's Shouting Match, D.C. Surpasses Silicon Valley as the Richest City in U.S., Obama Makes a Comeback on Jobs

    1. Indeed. Three for three this week!

      1. Restricting the free movement of free people with abstract lines drawn on the earth is the biggest of big-government regulation.

        Officer, am I free to gambol about forest and plain?

        1. Banhammer, por favor?

          1. We need to ban anybody calling for deregulation.

            Especially when our religio-economic philosophy has been show to be self-contradictory and intellectually bankrupt.

            Basically, censorship is less pain than constant embarrassment.

          2. I agree, ban this nut. Normal trolls and flamers are perfectly acceptable, but white indian, like Rather before him, is obviously someone who has serious IRL mental illness.

            1. …libertarians do “serious IRL mental illness” better.

              1. “libertarians do “serious IRL mental illness” better.”

                …they do have a “nervous” nature

            2. I oppose the banhammer if he would stick to White Indian as his name. incif handles that just fine.

              Like with Tony and MNG.

              1. What is this “incif” you speak of?

                  1. Thx Banjos.

            3. Re: Destrudo,

              Just ignore him. White Imbecile is the kind of girly-man that dreams of being Grizzly Adams but would cry like a little girl when trying to fish a few slippery fry if in his beloved “original affluent society.” I pitty him.

          3. Dean,

            This is really a question for Welch or Gillespie, but how does ad-ware work at a site like HnR? Do they make more money, the more times the resident lunatic(s) spam threads with their incoherent gibberish? It’s not hard to hit the ignore button in Chrome when I recognize shithead’s new handle, but I can’t imagine what threads look like without reasonable or incif. I imagine it must make interesting opinions difficult to follow, when almost half of some threads are taken up with its trolling.

            Still, it’s Reason’s living room, and if they’re o.k. with its behavior, I guess we have to be too.

            1. Free minds, free markets!*

              *Just don’t mention [whispering] the Jews!

              1. JOOOOSS!!!111!1

        2. Again, I already asked you on another forum and you didn’t answer: why not just support land value taxes as the sole basis for taxation? Then you can gambol on unused land that unproductive speculators abandon because they don’t want to pay taxes on it, at least until someone is willing to develop the land and pay the taxes…

          1. Far too many libertarians oppose the single land tax too.

            1. Yeah but a lot of libertarians are anarchists or conservative-leaning flat taxers. Also many don’t understand the economics.

              Notable libertarian economists like Friedman and Nock agreed that if taxes must be levied, land taxes would probably be the least damaging and distortionary. This premise is rooted in a long tradition stretching back to Smith, Ricardo and Paine.

        3. Look, asshole, what you post here is not germain to the topic at hand. Add to that it is aways the same one-note bullshit, and it becomes clear you are nothing more than dog shit.

          Fuck off.

          And if Reason doesn’t ban your shit-smeared ass, than I am inclined to believe they love you for your hit-count and will stop being a regular donor to the Reason Foundation because they will easily make up the differnce from you.

          1. The Gemans got nothin’ to do with it!

          2. Dear OO=======D,
            “Look, asshole, what you post here is not germain to the topic at hand”

            You are not in control, get the fuck over yourself, and use your $20 to buy a dictionary

            1. A typo? Is that all you got, maggot cunt?

              1. My Buford T Justice was better.

        1. I am eternal. You have plenty of time to get used to it.

  1. Nate Silver declared a seven-way draw.

    I declare it a loss for all involved. Especially the viewers.

    1. In the days of the internet, why would anyone watch a debate?

      1. Uh, maybe to get an honest feel for the individual we will be choosing to pilot the ship of state, and lead us and the world into prosperity and justice? Just kidding, probably masochistic tendencies.

  2. Have we won in Uganda yet?

    1. Looks like it’s all fun and games there.
      Don’t you be walking anywhere.
      http://www.businessweek.com/ap…..ENO300.htm

    2. Obama does not have enough Muslim Brotherhood operatives there yet to win. Still working on Libya.

      1. getting our enemies to fight our enemies works well – muslim bros vs the LRA in uganda deathmatch !

        1. Or we could just ignore our “enemies” who are absolutely no threat to us whatsoever.

          1. u really dont understand the realpolitik behind uganda do you?

            1. Dear Sir,

              I am impressed by your use of the word “realpolitik” in the above post, and infer that you are an individual of great wisdom.

              I wish to subscribe to your newsletter, from which I may learn the ways of the world.

            2. I saw The Last King of Scotland once.

            3. I’ll feed the moron troll this once. There is no realpolitik in Africa. Write the entire continent off, and it won’t fucking matter to anybody not living there. There’s your ugly moment of realpolitik, chum.

              1. The continent had one chance, and it lost it when the Rhodesians got fucked over by the Queen of England.

              2. incorrect T & sloppy – the realpolitik is a quid prop quo. since uganda contributed to the AU combat forces in somalia (because the US cannot after blackhawk down), the US contributed commandos to uganda to hunt-down the LRA leader

                1. WTF is a quid prop quo?

                  Is that a tit raised above a tat?

                2. Once again, Sir, let me express my awe for your deep understanding of international relations. That and your ee cummings-style delivery combine to create messaging that is both profound and accessible. Does your organization have internships available?

                  1. of course ! pls send ur bikini pics plus any triple x.

          2. I’m just wondering how the fuck long it’s going to take us to realize that you need to start in Western Australia in this game.

    3. Tim|10.19.11 @ 9:07AM|#

      Have we won in Uganda yet?

      Weeks, not months.

  3. Rapper David Banner slams his fellow celebrities for turning Occupy Wall Street into a photo-op.

    And further warns that they really won’t like him if he gets angry.

    1. …in an article accompanied by a photo and a video of himself at Occupy Wall Street.

      1. Ice Nine, he really gets these protests, unlike those phony celebs.

  4. Paul ad goes after Perry, Cain, Romney on TARP

    This should be a winner.

    Also, the Nate Silver piece says Paul is liberal on the Wall Street bailouts. WTF? He’s the most outspoken critic of the bailouts of anybody.

    1. Damn, these ads keep getting slicker and slicker. I like it.

      1. Damn, his ads have gotten GOOD.

    2. Maybe liberal is being defined as “hates the banks”, I have an otherwise intelligent friend who is a big Jon Stewart fan who basically defines it that way

      1. Does he like Fannie Mae and the Congressmen who arm twisted the banks into selling mortgages to high-risk people.

        1. Ask him yourself if you want to know

          1. As soon as you introduce me.

        2. “Fannie Mae and the Congressmen who arm twisted the banks into selling mortgages to high-risk people.”
          _
          citation needed

          1. Really? Okay.

            http://online.wsj.com/article/…..65427.html

    1. I remember having a discussion in high school with a friend about how the girls you’d never *want* to have sex with would often be the ones that would guard their lady-bits like a Mormon girl on prom night. These comments reinforce that idea.

      1. I actually think that is the most intelligent Jezzie thread I’ve read in quite some time.

        With a few exceptions, of course.

        1. I like this one:

          I also get crazy awkward nervous around dudes I like, but will happily flirt with dudes I can’t stand.

          Given the hive mind at jezz, I’ll lay you even money that she also thinks that “guys should learn to read signals better”.

          1. Here’s a gem that doesn’t even have anything to do with virginity…

            ———-
            “Also, those ‘twin stylists’ saying, ‘We like to think of beauty as an adjective.’
            Um, as opposed to what? I’m pretty sure it is an adjective. ”
            ——

            Who is that, Don Cherry? Beauty haircut, eh?

            And it’s even funnier that there are responses that can’t figure out what she was trying to say, and so they laugh because they’re so smart and she’s so stupid so how could it be them?

            Like I don’t think “Beauty is an adjective” is any kind of brilliant idea or even necessarily something that makes perfect sense, but I read the sentence once and I think I understood what she was trying to get across… adjectives describe nouns, and your (physical) beauty should “describe” you.

          2. Coeus, it’s clearly the fault of the men she likes that they aren’t throwing themselves at her and don’t take her awkwardness as attractive.

            Want to know what we call men who aren’t at fault? Women.

            1. Coeus, it’s clearly the fault of the men she likes that they aren’t throwing themselves at her and don’t take her awkwardness as attractive.

              Funny how feminists and beta-male nerds have the same outlook on dating.

              1. In the beta’s defense, they often act exactaly like the feminists say they should to attract women, and then find that it was a lie. No one is telling these feminists that alphas really like fat women with no tits and leg hair.

  5. No, it hasn’t produced a single job, and it might not for a long time, if ever, but this is what winning campaigns look like when a candidate is running against strong economic headwinds in an election likely to be defined by the economy.

    The Obama political team cares not if one job is created. Any policy put forth by the administration at this point is about re-election (job creation would be acceptable collateral happenings, to be sure). And since the Obama White House is populated solely with political hacks, no one is actually working to solve any problems that don’t have to do with poll numbers, so any jobs growth will be coincidental to their doings.

    1. If America is dumb enough to vote for him they get the government they deserve.

      1. …they deserve, good and hard.

        Because they say WE NEED GOVERNMENT.

        They say they want “limited government.”

        Which amounts to the silly notion that one can somehow have government for me and not for thee.

        How’s that working out for you?

        1. Troll fail

          1. How is somebody who calls for deregulation and less Statism a troll? LOL

          2. Not really. You replies to it.

              1. I like “replies” better. It has a ‘lord of the rings’ ring to it.

        2. Banhammer? I’m begging you, here.

          1. I told you people when we switched to indented threading what would happen if we didnt also have registration to go with it.

            I am the RON PAUL of threading! Hopefully it wont take 24+* years for my wisdom to be heeded.

            *his commercial shows a comment from 1988.

            1. You were absolutely right.

  6. Is This NASA Document Saving or Killing Manned Private Spaceflight?
    http://www.popularmechanics.co…..=pm_latest

    NASA, which wants to send its astronauts aboard privately built spacecraft, recently released the first draft of a document detailing how it would ensure those ships are safe. The contract is a tome of legalese, but buried inside the hundreds of pages are provisions that have some private space companies worried that NASA’s oversight could slow them down.

    1. That’s a red flag. NASA isn’t going to build snything but they want design control. Ugh.

      1. That’s already the way NASA has been operating for years. They don’t really design or build much of their own hardware. It’s kind of amusing that NASA is abandoning their traditional contractors because the contractors are bloated and slow. NASA wants to work with smaller corps that are more efficient and the first thing they do is impose all the requirements that made their original contractors bloated and slow in the first place.

        1. I’ve seen this mentality in the private sector too. The company I work for will have little startup divisions, or start working with a small partner.

          Suddenly this new division needs a massively complicated ERP software package, a full suite of desktop software, a HR manager, one or two QC people, corporate audits, etc etc. And suddenly this little division starts to struggle turning a profit.

        2. The story of Morton Thiokol’s managers being bullied, then giving in, to NASA pressures to launch Challenger is interesting (and totally not surprising). NASA, being a government operation, is a political entity, and politics and engineering don’t always mix so well together.

    2. airline crashes – how do it work?

      1. Apollo 1, 13, Challenger, Columbia, how’d they work?

        1. want me to count airline crashes during the same period?

          1. Better yet, why don’t you compare crashes as a proportion of flights. I bet NASA’s is worse.

            1. not a bad idea

            2. Much worse. There were a 135 Space Shuttle missions. Two of them ended in disaster. There is something like 90,000 airline flights per day in the world. If they had the accident rate the Space Shuttle did there would be about 1300 crashes per day in the world.

              1. To NASA’s credit, IIRC, 1/67 was around the projected mean missions between failure rate for the STS. (I thought it was in the 1/100 range) Awfully rough though when mission failure more often than not meant the total loss of vehicle and crew.

                Soyuz, FWIW, is not that much better. An interesting discussion comparing both launch systems can be found at this thread at airliners.net.

                1. I just finished reading Genius, about Richard Feynman, and there was a reference to NASA saying something about the shuttle having a 1/100,000 failure rate before Challenger blew up. I doubt that was an official, technical assessment, but it sounded like that’s the kind of thing that Congress heard.

                  1. Pro,

                    The engineers were saying 1/100. The managers and the politicians were saying 1/100,000. The managers just didn’t listen to the engineers and heard what they wanted to hear.

                    1. The engineers also said watch out for the O rings, among other things. Engineers and astronauts, sadly, don’t matter quite so much as the bureaucrats and politicians.

            3. Or deaths per mile traveled.

          2. Why not calculate them as a percentage of total flights, and compare to the percentage of deadly NASA manned missions?

            1. D’oh! Refresh.

          3. The useful number would be the rate of crashes per launch. I think commercial airlines do a lot better than NASA has done. Which is to be expected since space flight is inherently more dangerous. But it is absurd to claim that private commercial flight is more dangerous than NASA space flight.

            1. What is going to be sad is how the government will have a case of the vapors and regulate the industry to death after the first fatality. The fact that it is dangerous and the government run programs have killed people left and right will mean nothing.

    3. Jesus, please keep NASA from destroying commercial space.

      1. Dear god, make me a bird, so I can fly, far far away.

      2. The UN is trying to beat them to it.

        If you want commercial space flight, declare a 50-year space tax holiday and remove all regulations on space activities.

        1. We’re so close to opening up the solar system. If only the idiots would get out of the way.

          1. This is exactly what the idiots are afraid of.

            1. You’re probably right. Keep the uninhabited worlds pristine! Prevent incredible resource wealth! Don’t allow the wide-open frontier to demonstrate competing political and economic systems! Please no major technological breakthroughs that might usher change! Too many planets, too many choices!

              1. I’ve been hearing that it’s because the agricultural city-state is trying to prevent extraterrestrial gamboling.

  7. Bryant Gumblel is just as stupid as we thought he was

    Bryant Gumbel Calls NBA Commish “Plantation Overseer”

    http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news…..29268.html

    1. Like his past self-serving edicts on dress code or the questioning of officials, his moves are intended to do little more than show how he’s the one keeping the hired hands in their place.”

      Phew, I’m so glad I don’t work for the NBA where there’s a dress code unlike nearly every other job in the world.

      1. The minimum salary for an NBA veteran is over a million dollars. Can I please go and become a slave on that plantation for a while?

    2. “White people love Wayne Brady because he makes…Bryant Gumbel look like Malcolm X.”

      1. I miss Chappelle’s Show just for Negrodamus.

        1. Does Chappelle still do stand up?

          1. If this was a “Funky Finger Productions” reset – nice! (“Is he still doin’ stand up?”)

            if not – nice anyway

          2. Yes – he just shows up at clubs like the Comedy Cellar without advertising.

  8. The Hill piece about Obama making a comeback is seriously thin gruel. His approval rating is still in the dumper, and there’s no way in hell his “jobs” plan will ever pass.

    1. I always take those polls good and bad with a large grain of salt. You read it and all of these “independents” whoever they are, now trust Obama. And then next month there will be a poll saying they don’t. No one changes their opinion that much. They are just catching people who don’t pay attention and give a random answer.

      1. …on the margarita.

      2. the wingnutism in the debates repels indies & moderates.

        1. Use real words.

          1. how bout, romney’s your man!

            1. use real words that make sense.

              1. yea i know ur probs w romney, but he’s gonna be the nominee. deal w it

                1. First, he won’t be. And second, what is there to deal with? Just means I get my first Tuesday morning in November 2012 free.

                  1. cause u hate mormins just liek u hate blax lol deal w it racest

                    1. So my libertarianism is a sign of being a self-hating black? F*** you. Seriously, f*** you. I express my dislike of progressives and Obama openly to my family and friends and somehow they never equate my opinions with racism. But you know better, right, jagoff?

                    2. u shuld lern to hate joos liek me

                    3. My only desire is to do as I please without purposely harming others or their property, and suffering the consequences or reaping the benefits of my actions. What do Jews have to do with that? And, I should add that I think communities and markets can be as effective as goverments at imposing consequences.

                    4. Why am I even talking to o2? Welcome to my ignore zone, moron.

                    5. DD – ur not talking to o3. thats a spoofer.

                    6. ur not the real o3, spoofer. i am!

                  2. Just means I get my first Tuesday morning in November 2012 free.

                    Do you normally pay for Tuesday mornings?

    2. The jobs bill wasn’t intended to pass. It was intended to fail so Obama can go on the campaign trail (which he’s never left as far as I can tell) and blame everything on obstructionist Republicans like Harry Reid.

      1. Which is why the republican should have passed it.

        1. Ummmm…no, that’s pretty stupid.

  9. 5 reasons why income inequality is a myth ? and Occupy Wall Street is wrong
    http://blog.american.com/2011/…..-is-wrong/

    Sorry, the story just doesn’t hold together. According to left-wing think tanks, columnist and bloggers?and, of course, the Occupy Wall Street radicals?the top 1 percent have been exploiting the 99 percent for decades. The rich have been getting richer at the expense of the middle class and poor.

    Really? Just think for a second: If inequality had really exploded during the past 30 to 40 years, why did American politics simultaneously move rightward toward a greater embrace of free-market capitalism? Shouldn’t just the opposite have happened as beleaguered workers united and demanded a vastly expanded social safety net and sharply higher taxes on the rich? What happened to presidents Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry? Even Barack Obama ran for president as a market friendly, third-way technocrat.

    Nope, the story doesn’t hold together because the financial facts don’t support it. And here’s why…

    1. The favored liberal narrative to explain this is that today’s middle class Americans are too stupid to know just how much they’re being exploited by the evil, rapacious 1%.

      Thomas Frank wrote an entire book on this thesis called “What’s the Matter with Kansas”.

      1. Anybody ever point out that only 1% of computer users use Apple?

        1. Yes, idiots who don’t know what they are talking about. 5-10% of the PC market is now Macintosh. And even more have Apple products of some sort.

          1. Yes, idiots who don’t know what they are talking about. 5-10% of the PC market is now Macintosh. And even more have Apple products of some sort.

            “5-10% of the sports-watching public are now soccer fans. And even more are playing the sport as children.”

              1. I guess the mocking of the reflexive defensiveness of Apple nerds escaped you.

    2. stop blaming the victims per ron paul

      1. its not my fault i wuz born brainless

        1. ^spoof FAILZ !

          ron paul said to stop blaming the victims ! (10/18/11 WLC debate)

          hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

          1. ^reading compreheshun FAILZ! herp derp

            1. COOPER: We have another question. This one is a Twitter question.

              “How do you explain the Occupy Wall Street movement happening across the country? And how does it relate with your message?”

              PAUL: Well, I think Mr. Cain has blamed the victims. There’s a lot of people that are victims of this business cycle. We can’t blame the victims.

              http://politisite.com/2011/10/…..full-text/

  10. “…the typical household in the Washington metro area earning $84,523 last year. The national median income for 2010 was $50,046.”

    As a result, their public school system must be awesome.

    1. I hear the “metro area” school system is great. If you take away the north part of Virginia, the greatness falls off a cliff.

      1. My experience in Fairfax County as a student was that if you are on the honors track you’ll get the appropriate instruction. And a neighbor’s kid with autism seemed to do well with their special ed offerings. i think it’s the average kid that gets lost in the the increasingly large system.

        15 years later in talking to neighbors with school age kids, I’m getting the same story. however, the system has ramped up the zero tolerance stuff to the point that there’s been a backlash.

        1. Imagine how bad it must be in DC and MD!

          1. DC’s elementary schools in the good neighborhoods are surprisingly good. The high schools are a nightmare. Most people with money and kids in DC will send their kid to public school until about the sixth grade and then to a private middle school and high school.

            1. Obama did not send his kids to public grade school. He must have FU money.

              1. He sends them to Sidwell Friends which runs about 35K a year per child. 70K a year is definitely FU money.

            2. what’s happening in DC is a crime. I’m sure you followed the mayoral election. It basically came down to a vote for Fenty is a vote for that racist Rhee who wants to kick black folks out of a middle class job.

              1. Fucking horrible. They don’t want a decent education for their kids. They just want a jobs program for the black middle class. Rhee was actually making things a little better. And got canned for it.

                1. Education is for whitey.

        2. Yeah. The gifted and the slow got great instruction. The unexceptional horde in the middle? You were pretty much on your own. I can directly compare, since I was successively booted out each of the subject matter gifted programs throughout high school.

          This is not unique to Fairfax County, though.

  11. Wall Street to Dems: you can’t have it both ways
    http://www.politico.com/news/s…..66259.html

    “They were livid,” said one Democratic lobbyist with banking clients.

    The execs asked the lawmakers: “What are you doing? Do you even understand some of the things that they’ve called for?” said another lobbyist with financial services clients who is a former Democratic Senate aide.

    Democrats’ friends on Wall Street have a message for them: you can’t have it both ways.

    1. They don’t want to have it both ways. They will use popular resentment against the rich both to pursue votes (because voters are dumb enough that anti-Wallstreeters will vote for the Wall Street candidate) and to foment widespread unrest.

      But they won’t let that unrest spread unchecked — they’ll try to direct that unrest against their enemies. The 1% has factions, not solidarity, and the center-left crapitalist faction will direct OWS anger at the part of the 1% most likely to undermine their plans for wealth and power. If their enemies get scared out of politics or the country, great. If they get killed, even better.

      Even better, because the next part of the plan is to use public fear of those same anti-capitalist radicals to garner support from both the upper and middle classes to deal with the problem, through a combination of “compromise” economic policies intended to diffuse anger (by increasing central control of the economy, natch), and through expanded police powers.

      Socialism is not a threat to the U.S., we’re too far right of center and still have too much of an individualist frontier mentality. Fascism is a different story, and it’s a threat that lurks in both major parties.

      1. Well aren’t you little miss sunshine this morning. Basically what you are saying is true. Just depressing.

      2. But they won’t let that unrest spread unchecked — they’ll try to direct that unrest against their enemies.

        That’s kind of the hard part. And the Democratic party isn’t exactly run by chessmasters.

        1. French Revolution?

      3. And of course, the so-called 99% have even less solidarity than the 1% do. Once they get to the point of taking action beyond sitting around complaining there are going to be rifts.

        1. Look at what’s going on in Egypt (or the history of nearly every major populist-led revolution): the only thing all those people had in common was that they hated Mubarak. Now that he’s out, they’re all squabbling amongst themselves while the military runs the country.

      4. Best post in the thread.

    2. Democrats’ friends on Wall Street have a message for them: you can’t have it both ways.

      Ridikkkerous

      Having it both ways is the foundation of progressivism.

  12. Rick Perry seems to be back

    I thought sedated Perry was far better than last night’s 8-ball Perry. At least when he’s sedate you aren’t extremely aware of just how incoherent his thoughts are.

    1. How the writer has determined that “Rick Perry seems to be back” after that dolt’s performance last night is beyond me.

      1. It’s all relative. One-eyed man, etc.

      2. Yeah, I heard that several times in post-debate analysis. To me, he came off either as a total jerk or a stroke victim. The crowd seemed to agree with me.

        Frankly, I’m convinced Romney’s going to be the candidate. Which sucks, but there’s no question he’s the “surest thing” on stage. Cain crumbled, Paul’s the best policywise but still rambling and has largely reached his ceiling, Gingrich is trying to be the elder statesman to get a VP nomination and Bachmann/Santorum are equally scary and idiotic. I really hope Gary can get into at least one more debate, because I don’t really think any of the choices are good.

    2. I saw two minutes of the debate, during which Perry referred to Cain as ‘brother’ twice. Classy. I’d nominate him just to see the media sparks fly after Perry calls Obama ‘my brother’ in a Presidential debate.

      1. If one is basing the statement on color, at least with Obama he would be half right.

        1. Maybe Perry will refer to him as his ‘half-brother’. Then we’d have to try to figure out if he’s referring to Obama’s white half, or his idiot half. Perry is 100% on both characteristics.

          1. Did you just refer to his black half as the idiot half?

            RAAAAAAACIST!!!!!

          2. So if Perry is his half-brother is he a secret Kenyan too?

      2. I call everyone Brother.

        1. That’s my line now brother!

  13. I hope Wendi Deng wins the Murdoch wars.

  14. So I never watch these things. Pardon me for asking but what the hell happened last night in Las Vegas? Did they come to blows or something?

    1. Romney put his hand on Perry’s shoulder in the middle of a heated argument during which they were both trying to talk over each other. Romney also got into a similar argument with Santorum, with both talking at once. It’s the first time I’ve ever seen Romney pissed off. Pretty sure his handlers were hating it, as it was very “un-presidential”.

      1. Wow. I guess Romeny is figuring out that no one likes him.

      2. I think it should be pointed out that Romney did not touch Santorum. Not even robots want to get that on them.

      3. You said Santorum

      4. I don’t know, that’s not the impression I got. I thought Romney was rightly defending the fact that it was his turn to speak and Perry and Santorum wouldn’t STFU and let him answer. After Santorum shouted over Romney for 30 seconds during Romney’s time, he then rudely pointed that Romney’s time to respond is up. In my view, it made Perry and Santorum look bad and extremely unpresidential, and Romney was perfectly justified to get peeved.

        1. Fuck Flopny!

          1. Hey I hate the guy too. These are just my observations as one who has no horse in the game whether Perry, Romney or Cain wins because I won’t vote for any of them.

    2. Almost. Which is too bad, because it almost gave a glimmer to Romney’s lifeless eyes.

    3. Ron Paul: best debate by far

      Mitt Romney: Forced into defending/owning RomneyCare. Legitimately wanted to punch Perry in the face (if only).

      Newt Gingrich: largely (get it?) silent, more of the same meta-answers

      Michelle Bachmann: Ahoy, mothers! Double-walled fences!

      Rick Santorum: the family is greater than the individual, newly appointed attack dog

      Rick Perry: trainwreck

      Herman Cain: if anyone disagrees with 9-9-9 then they didn’t read his independent analysis

      1. Good to see they finally went after Romney on Romneycare. And I am sure he did want to punch Perry in the face. The truth no doubt hurts.

        1. The near-punching had little to do with health care topics.

    4. Almost. I can’t decide whether I was entertained or repelled.

      1. There’s a word for that:

        Irritainment.

        1. I like “enterpainment” myself.

          1. Larry David syndrome?

          2. I like “repelletainment”

  15. OWS all the time!

    Are You Smarter Than a Wall Street Occupier?
    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2….._quiz.html

    Over the past month, the crusaders at Zuccotti Park have braved the elements, tussled with police, and stood their ground against Mayor Bloomberg. But how much do the protesters actually know about the economic system that they’re fighting to change? To find out, we asked 50 occupiers a series of questions about Wall Street, taxes, and government. The results were mixed. See if you can do better.

    1. Yes, I am. The most interesting one is that the Occupados think that defense is the biggest chunk of the budget. Not to go Kulturkampf here, but I guarantee that this is borne from deliberate ignorance and/or lies, not genuine ignorance. It is important to the Occupados that defense take up much of the budget. Otherwise, they would be incoherent.

      1. That is largely due to propaganda. *I* thought the same thing for a long time, until I “discovered” libertarian friends who had to prove it to me. Congratulations to me, I inherited the same frustration of having to point out to some people, in almost every conversation about the feds, that defense is much smaller than they imagine. Best stupid cover for their ‘ideology’: “that is just what the government tells you.”

      2. Sort of like conservatives think foreign aid, welfare, and midnight basketball are the biggest budget items.

        1. If you think of Social Security and Medicare as social welfare programs, that makes them correct…your odious aspersion-casting of racism notwithstanding.

          1. Odious aspersion-casting of what?

            Is there some invisible ink text in my post?

    2. Turns out I am. But why’d they throw an opinion question in there?

    3. Q: What is the SEC?

      A: The Southeastern Conference.

      So, did they count that as a right answer or a wrong answer?

      1. I answered “the reciprocal of COS”

    4. “Braved the elements”? It has been a beautiful spell of Indian Summer for the past few weeks. Last night it got cold and rained – now we’ll see how long the hippie picnic continues.

    5. I didn’t take out $50K in student loan debt to get my Master’s, so yes, that does make me smarter.

  16. President Obama’s strategy on jobs is working ? even if Americans aren’t

    There were articles written about Obama starting a new “blame Congress” strategy. Obama started blaming Congress for everything, seeing as they’re less popular than him. Media over-analyzes.

    1. Is he adding that to blaming Bush or is this just an additional blame?

  17. He told the officer that his son, Matthew, was delusional and hearing voices. He feared his son would harm himself.

    Before the night was out, Matthew Bolick, repeatedly Tasered, was dead.

    On paper, I’m sure calling the police in a situation like this seems like a good idea.

    1. Along about the fourth or fifth time the tasering doesn’t subdue someone isn’t it time to give an alternative a try? I don’t know, maybe something like doing it the old-fashioned way with a gang tackle. And yes, for those cops that just need to give a subdued “perp” that last little tweak with the ol’ taser for sport, they could just throw in a kick to the ribs or something instead.

      1. He was 5’6″, 135 lbs. I understand some of the tasing occurred after he was cuffed. It is claimed that niether the shocking or the struggled caused his death, but an elevated body temperature caused by his condition. In any case, poorly trained LEO-

        The lawsuit said Parker tried to apprehend Bolick, and told him: “I will tase you in a heartbeat.” “You run, I will shoot you.” “Hit me one more time. Hit me one more time.”

        – were more of a hindrance than a help.

        And then there’s this:

        “It confirmed what we believed,” [City Attorney] Tobias said. “There is nobody associated with what occurred that night that would’ve wanted that outcome. But in the end there is only one person responsible for what happened and that is (Bolick).”

        1. Among so many other things, the “heartbeat” reference is rather unfortunate.

        2. Britney Spears would approve.

  18. COOPER: We have another question. This one is a Twitter question.

    “How do you explain the Occupy Wall Street movement happening across the country? And how does it relate with your message?”

    PAUL: Well, I think Mr. Cain has

    >[BLAMED THE VICTIMS].<

    There’s a lot of people that are victims of this business cycle. We can’t blame the victims.

    But then, when the bailout came and supported by both parties, you have to realize, oh, wait, Republicans were still in charge. So the bailouts came from both parties. Guess who they bailed out?

    >[THE BIG CORPORATIONS OF PEOPLE WHO WERE RIPPING OFF THE PEOPLE IN THE DERIVATIVES MARKET].<<br />
    But who got stuck? The middle class got stuck. They got stuck. They lost their jobs, and they lost their houses. If you had to give money out, you should have given it to people who were losing their mortgages, not to the banks.

    http://politisite.com/2011/10/…..full-text/
    _
    unlike many libtoids here, ron paul clearly says that:

    1) cain is BLAMING THE VICTIMS when denouncing OWS and…

    2) the big corps were RIPPING-OFF THE PEOPLE in the derivatives market….just like CUNA & AIG alledge [MALFEASENCE & MISREPRESENTATION] in their respective suits against BoA & JP Morgan.

    >>ron paul exposes moar RW lies about OWS & the CRA.

    1. But then, when the bailout came and supported by both parties, you have to realize, oh, wait, Republicans were still in charge.

      That will come as a hell of surprise to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who were Speaker and Senate Majority leader at the time.

      Are you that stupid or do you just think we are?

      1. Maybe he was talking of the first one that Bush was pushing and gave birth to the Tea Party movement?

        1. Even the first one was approved by a Democratic Congress.

      2. ron paul said that per the transscript link.

        1. and im too fucking stupid to care about whther the transcript is tru or not herp

          1. ^spoof FAILZ !

            the transcript is available online at the link i provided.

            and i heard paul say both quotes during the debates which the spoofer obviously didnt watch.

        2. yes but unlike you he thinks the banks shouldnt have been bailed out.

          Why cant’t you get it through your head that libertarians do NOT think coporations are flawless? What they beleiive is that they should be punished by market forces when they screw up, unlike you who wants the government to bail them out.

          1. except libtoids spout the same nonsense as gop wingnutz that the CRA, fannie, & congress was responsible for the banks malfeasence & misrepresentation to shareholders & investors.

      3. That was Paul! I suppose he was thinking of the Presidency, because Democrats controlled the House and Senate. House Republicans were the only ones that opposed TARP.

        1. TARP was totally bipartisan. Only a bunch of knuckledraggers in the House voted against it.

          1. Do recall it was defeated in the House the first time, before what has to be considered the most shameful week in the history of journalism managed to mitigate the public opposition enough to restore order in Congress and get them to vote to spend money.

  19. Saving Shalit, Encouraging Terror
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10…..ef=opinion

    My head told me that by giving in to Hamas’s demand for a thousand prisoners in exchange for Sergeant Shalit, Israel would encourage more abductions and free terrorists who would almost surely murder many more Israelis. But my heart told me that these bereft parents deserved all the support they could get. In the end, my heart won and I walked up to the tent, signed the petition and gave a donation.

    I knew I’d done wrong.

    1. Talk about the rule of emotion over reason.

      “Even though I knew more people would die, I supported it anyway”?

    2. One Israeli is worth more than 1000 Palestinian terrorists. MNG will be so upset.

      1. actually 470 some.

        once again, the netanyahu govt comes under heavy internal israeli criticism.

      2. JOOOOSS!!!11!!11

        1. JOOS criticising JOOS !

    3. I am just appalled by that decision. What were they thinking? A fundamental violation of the Iron Law:

      You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish

      Now, if the released terrorists had some kind of implant that allows the Israelis (and their missiles) to track them, that would be different. But I’m pretty sure that didn’t happen.

      1. RFID chip them for homing beacons? Wow. That’s a pretty sweet idea, RC. Ruthless and horrible, but still great.

        Note to self: when RC takes over the world, hide.

      2. Now that they’ve established that the exchange rate on Palestinian lives to Israeli lives is 1000 to 1, the residents of Gaza better dread the carpet bombing to come the next time some Hamas idiot successfully hits something with a rocket.

        1. ^ wingnutz fantasy

  20. SHOCKER: Jezebel home to multiple virgins in their mid to late 20s

    The featured comments are gold, I tells ya!

    Get a life.

    1. Get a your own life. That is SugarFree’s turf.
      FTFY

      1. Conservatives concern themselves about everybody’s virginity.

        Libertarians concern themselves about everybody’s virginity.

        Got liberals?

    2. I really do have a schandenfreud addiction.

  21. President Obama is bouncing back from his polling lows.

    Not very much. A 1.5 point move up in the aggregate set of polls isn’t exactly what I’d consider some big “bounce”.

    And Gallup, which is still the gold standard of polling organizations, still has him tied at their low mark of 38% among all adults. So let’s not get too carried away.

    1. It is entirely possible that a few hard lefties who were angry at him are now less angry because of his shout out to the OWS people. That would help him in the polls. But so what?

      1. and it entirely possible that indies & moderates are souring on the gop wingnutism.

        1. Wishful troll is wishful.

    2. Dead cat bounce

    3. Obama is viewed by most as a walking irrelevancy. No one expects him to win a second term.

      1. to me, Obama has reached the ‘crazy uncle’ stage. He just blathers on about something, but no one really pays all that much attention. Ah yes, another speech that we’ve already heard before.

        or Bush, some 2-3 years before his presidency ended. No matter what he said, no one really cared.

        1. I haven’t observed this much disinterest in a president since the end of the Carter years. If we had federal recall, Schwarzenegger would already be president.

          What’s utterly amazing is that the GOP candidates, with a couple of exceptions, are quite weak. But they don’t have to run on anything other than not being Obama. It’s a golden strategy.

          I think even hard-left voters realize the guy is incompetent, even for them.

          1. I have never seen a President be so irrelevant. People stopped listening to Bush after about 2006. But Bush still did things. He fired Rumsefeld, ran the war, got budgets through Congress. It really wasn’t until the fall of 08 when he just fell off the map and let Congress do the auto bailouts and let Paulson do TARP. He was totally irrelevant during the TARP debate. But that was in the last four months of an eight year Presidency. Obama is not even three years in and seems completely detached and irrelevant.

            1. As much as I disliked Bush, I tend to agree. Even after the loss of Congress, he managed to stay relevant (usually in annoying ways). I’d say the last 4-6 months, when he was well on the way out, were when he became mostly irrelevant.

              Obama is like a second term lame duck and has been for a big chunk of his presidency. Even before Congress split, he seemed like he was just cheering from the sidelines.

              I think part of the problem is that Obama is purely the product of the Democratic machine–he was groomed to run for an office he wasn’t prepared or equipped in the first place to handle. Bush was a similar situation for the GOP, though I think he at least was a partially known quantity before he took office.

              1. Bush got a lot of things through Congress in his first term. He was a very effective President from 2000 to about Katrina. All Obama has ever done is muscle a few things through by shear force of votes. He has never moved the polls and never convinced anyone to change their position or found a compromise on anything.

                1. He was a very effective President from 2000 to about Katrina.

                  It wasn’t Katrina that pushed him onto the downslope, it was things in Iraq going south. I know that conflicts with your narrative, but oh well.

                  1. And he also wasn’t president in 2000.

                  2. Fuck off Tulpa, what are you MNG this morning? And Katrina did a tremendous amount of damage to Bush. More than Iraq ever did. If Iraq was so unpopular and the reason why the Democrats took Congress, why were they terrified to defund it?

                    Speaking of narratives, you have one of your own, or really more of a fantasy.

                    1. If Iraq was so unpopular and the reason why the Democrats took Congress, why were they terrified to defund it?

                      Because if they defunded it would have opened them to accusations of not supporting the troops if Bush played hardball and kept the occupation going, and GOP attacks if Bush withdrew and something bad happened afterward.

                      Basically, the same dynamic that keeps unpopular policies in place for decades — no one wants to take responsibility for ending them.

                    2. Whatever Tulpa. Ending an unpopular war wouldn’t be good for them politically. That is just stupid. And they didn’t end Iraq in 2009 when they had the presidency either.

                      The peaceniks love to pretend that 06 was some kind of referendum on Iraq. It wasn’t. It was about Republican corruption and incompetence.

                2. “”He was a very effective President from 2000 to about Katrina.””

                  It’s generally easy when your party holds 2/3 of government.

              2. Bush at least had executive experience.

            2. Has Obama ever signed a budget or just continuing resolutions? He’s been lost since day 1.

              1. No, he has never gotten a single budget through Congress.

                1. That has more to do with Pelosi & Reid than Obama. It boggles the mind that they couldn’t pass any budget with the same party controlling the House and 60 votes in the Senate.

                  1. They did that on purpose, so they could preserve the spending explosion in the 2009 budget by default.

          2. But they don’t have to run on anything other than not being Obama.

            Unless on December 1, Obama announces he’s not running and Hillary Clinton starts her campaign, to everyone’s surprise except myself and Chelsea.

            1. They have no chance with Obama, but they’d have less of a chance doing something like that. She’ll excite the GOP base, which–correctly I think–reviles her, and there would be a split a mile wide among the Democrats. How do you think blacks would take such a move, too?

              No, the presidency will be in the hands of the GOP. Let’s pray it’s the least stupid of the candidates.

              1. The GOP base hates Obama much, much more than Clinton at this point, so that’s a net loss in excitement for that base.

                The black vote can be brought along if Obama voluntarily steps aside. If Hillary beat him in a primary it would be a different story of course.

                Hillary would kill any of the likely candidates in the GOP field (except perhaps Romney) among independents and especially women. This would represent an absolute disaster for the GOP. I will not be surprised to see it happen.

  22. Peopele wanting to make money off of their ideas is icky!

    There’s logical objections to IP brought up on reason, and then there’s, “But making money is icky!”

  23. The contract is a tome of legalese, but buried inside the hundreds of pages are provisions that have some private space companies worried that NASA’s oversight could slow them down.

    Simple solution: tell NASA to fuck off.

    1. Pretty much. Tell NASA that launch pads can be built anywhere in the world, so if they want to do shit in space, they’d better get with the program.

  24. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G…..r_exchange

    Israel releases over a thousand prisoners in exchange for 5 year hostage Gilad Shalit.

    I figured this guy was long dead. I wonder how many will be murdered by those released?

    1. I wonder how many will be murdered by those released?

      They wouldn’t have to ‘murder’ in self-defense if the Israelis would end their oppressive occupation and apartheid.

  25. Drug Tests for Buying a Gun?
    This idea would now seem to be endorsed by the Brady Campaign, as there is a White House petition for it as well. You can see the kind of juice the Brady Campaign has by the numbers appearing there. I’m wondering what other fundamental constitutional right requires you to pee pee in a cup before you can exercise it. It’s certainly interesting to see what new and strange ideas the Brady Campaign is supporting….

    Celebrated redistributionists discover healthy respect for private property
    …Occupy Wall Street protesters said yesterday that packs of brazen crooks within their ranks have been robbing their fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops ? and even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food.

    “Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.

    “I had my Mac stolen ? that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone. Last night, our entire [kitchen] budget for the day was stolen, so the first thing I had to do was . . . get the message out to our supporters that we needed food!”

    Crafty cat burglars sneaked into the makeshift kitchen at Zuccotti Park overnight and swiped as much as $2,500 in donated greenbacks from right under the noses of volunteers who’d fallen asleep after a long day whipping up meals for the hundreds of hungry protesters, the volunteers said….

    1. What happened to honor among socialists?

  26. House subcommittee chair: Is Obama admin. already collecting private health information?
    The Obama administration adamantly denies it, but rumors are circulating in Washington that his Department of Health and Human Services is already collecting Americans’ private health information, or at least preparing itself to do so.

    Rep. Denny Rehberg, the chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health & Human Services and Education formalized the rumors by asking about them in a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Thursday.

    “Specifically, I have been told that HHS has already procured a contractor to build a database and that this contractor has already taken steps to acquire personal health care data from a large claims database,” Rehberg wrote. “I would like to know if these reports are, in fact, true. If so, it would represent an egregious violation of the privacy rights that the American public rightfully demands.”…

  27. Total War: Hyrule

    Seriously, that looks badass. What army would y’all play as?

    1. An evil army of Wallmasters that takes over every structure in Hyrule. Wanna walk in your front door? I DON’T THINK SO.

    2. I’d go with the Zora’s, using their whirlpool teleporters to launch sneak attacks on poorly defended areas, before treating with the Dodongos for land dominance. Just need to control the crafting resources required to make bombs, and make sure no one gets their hands on the ice wand.

  28. Will Romney hire Obama’s climate-change guru Holdren?
    …In the development of greenhouse gas policy, Romney Administration officials have elicited input from environmental and economic policy experts. These include John Holden [sic], professor of environmental policy at Harvard University and chair of the National Commission on Energy Policy and Billy Pizer, and economist at Resources for the Future, an environmental policy think-tank based in Washington DC….

    Oh, Super: Romney Consulted With Obama Mass Sterilization Expert and Science Czar John Holdren
    …Barack Hussein Obama has clotted the executive branch with unaccountable “czars” ? unsavory characters too extreme to be confirmed for cabinet positions even by a hyper-partisan, Democrat-controlled Senate. Among the most alarming of these malevolent lunatics is Science Czar John Holdren, a participant in ClimateGate who has advocated de-developing America and putting sterilants in the public water supply?

    ?Holdren has also spoken in favor of forced abortions, confiscation of babies, targeted as well as mass involuntary sterilization, bureaucratic regulation of family size, and global authoritarian government. If there is a line between ultra-left ideologue and evil maniac, Holdren clearly crosses it. No one to the right of Pol Pot would want John Holdren advising our leaders.

    This brings us onto still more common ground between Barack Obama and Willard “Mitt” Romney. From an official memo released by Willard’s office when he was Governor of Taxachusetts, announcing “Strict New Clean Air Regulations” [i.e., Cap and Trade]?

    ?Sound familiar? Obama wanted to impose Cap & Trade nationwide, but it would so obviously cripple the economy that he couldn’t get it through a Democrat Senate that was radical enough to pass ObamaCare ? the national version of RomneyCare.

    Now to the even scarier part: In the development of greenhouse gas policy, Romney Administration officials have elicited input from environmental and economic policy experts. These include John Holden [sic], professor of environmental policy at Harvard University?

    Of course, that was back in 2005. By now everyone knows that global warming is a hoax, and CO2 is harmless. Everyone except Mittens, that is. He continues to proclaim that economic activity makes it be too hot out….

    1. His hair will destroy you.

    2. Romney seems stuck in the mid-20s or so. There’s lots of Repubs who want nothing to do with him.

      The field still needs a good housecleaning, so the anti-Romney voters can settle on one candidate and put them in the lead.

      Or, after last night’s debate, maybe the geniuses running these campaigns will realize that, to get past Romney, maybe, just maybe, they ought to, you know, attack him. God knows that being pro-ObamaCare and pro-AGW should be more than enough to send him to the showers.

  29. Here’s one instance in which I hope commenters here can support a union against these pc police

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports…..50815780/1

    Four U.S. senators and health officials from the cities hosting the World Series are urging the baseball players union to agree to a ban on chewing tobacco at games and on camera.

    1. Attention Senators: solve some real problems before you go busybodying about.

      1. On second thought, please don’t.

    2. Easier than solving real problems I suppose.

        1. Tim. Tim. Tim.

    3. Durbin, Lautenberg, Blumenthal, and Harkin. Four liberal democrat senators.

      Over two fucking fiscal years now without a real budget getting even one single “Yes” vote, and this is the crap that these shitheads are spending their time on. Just incredible.

      1. Exactly. Pander to the public while stealing from them blind. Useless bags of mostly water.

        1. Great phrase from a shitty TNG episode.

      2. Jaysus, is that not the pick of the litter of the Democrat doucheoisie?

        1. Schumer is missing. He was probably out getting a mammogram that day.

        2. Lautenberg stands as an eternal reminder of how stupid New Jersey voters are.

  30. Speaking of the series…

    A seven-game series is a wretched excess, and I’m going to tell you why, but nobody in charge is going to pay any attention to me because a best-of-seven series has just always been the way of the world.

    Exactly. It’s a 19th century anachronism…But what works best in entertainment is single elimination. You lose, you go home. All the reality shows are wisely based upon the premise that somebody has to get voted off the island. The Super Bowl, the World Cup soccer final, the finals of March Madness: one game, one chance. That’s what makes them so excruciatingly special.

    But best-of-seven drags on without suspense, and, as the odds suggest, about three times out of four, you never get to the seventh game.

    http://www.npr.org/2011/10/19/…..-is-enough

    1. So to start with, it’s an affectation, sort of like playing the Masters each day at 24 holes or the Super Bowl for six quarters just to make them seem more important.

      Dude. A six quarter Super Bowl would be awesome.

    2. You can’t have a single elimination game in baseball. The pitcher dominates the game too much. If it were single elimination an inferior team with one great or really hot pitcher would win. There is nothing excessive about a seven game series. It just ensures the best team wins.

      1. Exactly! Uh, wait, what??

        1. If it had been single elimination and they could have trotted Halliday out every day, they would probably have won.

          1. Halliday with Cliff Lee as closer.

        2. phillies got nothing on us !

      2. Fine – just have it at Coors Field.

      3. It’s a stupid, masturbatory article that’s only good for a couple random lulz.

        1. DeFord used to be a good writer too. I think he has Alzheimer or something.

      4. It ensures nothing of the sort.

        It does make it less of a 50/50 crapshoot, and more of a 60/40 crapshoot.

        1. That is not true. The better team almost always wins a seven game series.

      5. As it is, baseball playoffs are about which team has the hottest two starting pitchers. Unless you think that, e.g., the 2010 Giants or 2003 Marlins really were the best teams in baseball those years. Going to single elimination would make it that much worse.

    3. The Super Bowl, the World Cup soccer final, the finals of March Madness: one game, one chance. That’s what makes them so excruciatingly special.

      He lists a bunch of sports that play less than 20% of the games MLB plays and still doesn’t stumble upon the “we want the regular season to mean something” and the “after a regular season that long, we want a better chance at producing the best team” arguments.

      1. Not to mention that in the rest of the world it is the season winner who is champion in Soccer not the winner of a single elimination playoff.

      2. You’d think if they were that obsessed over season length, they’d target the NBA or NHL, which seem to run nearly year-round these days. I remember when both were known as “winter sports” even though the seasons never end until after schools get out for summer vacation.

    4. That’s nuts. You might as well toss a coin. In fact, there’s some question as to whether it’s fair to have a best-of-five series in the first round. I think seven is the right number.

      1. Whatever you say, man, but this is probably why MLB gets beat by Biggest Loser and the Kardashian show in the ratings. It is not engaging television.

        1. I think baseball is not engaging television only in the sense that it requires people to pay attention, understand the game, and not be fixated on instant gratification.

          I can remember several MLB playoff moments that were absolutley epic. I can’t remember a single super bowl moment, except the Helmet Catch, oh and a couple of entertaining commercials.

          1. For me baseball is very engaging on TV because of the timing. In football or basketball the play lasts a few seconds. In baseball an at bat goes on for minutes. And the game has a sense of timing to it. It really builds towards the end. I can’t see how anyone could say something like the three games at Yankee Stadium in the 2001 World Series that all ended on the final out were not engaging television.

            1. I think that our instant gratification, what you want me to wait/work for something?? culture has bred this attitude.

              1. Maybe so. I still like baseball. I just don’t watch it because it comes on so damned late.

          2. Baseball takes more understanding of the game to appreciate it, like soccer. So less appeal to the general audience.

            Football, on the other hand, while having complexities not understood by the casual watcher, does work to entertain people with only a passing knowledge of the game. Therefore, it has a much bigger audience.

            Incidentally, my favorite sport is football, so I’m not saying baseball is better. Just different.

            1. Good points, PL.

            2. I liked baseball more when I was a kid and had boatloads of free time to get more in depth with it. Of course, there was no Internet back then either.

              1. I think all televised sports are in danger of major ratings decline. Too much and ever-increasing competition.

          3. Hey guys, I get that for most of us, baseball can be fun and interesting, with a long season and long term strategy with culminating events. But here’s the thing: the ratings are not going to permit MLB to carry on as it currently is. Regardless of whether we think it’s engaging, most people do not.

            1. I am not so sure. They have managed to make their ballparks themselves an attraction. Most people go to games for the experience of it and don’t pay much attention to the game. They have really done a good job of adjusting their product to the market.

              The TV ratings will be good enough.

              1. Baseball is probably the sport where the live viewing experience is significantly different, and in a lot of ways better,than the tv experience.

                Jesus going to a ball game is fun. Especially the much cheaper minor league.

                1. Hudson Valley Renegades!

                2. Soccer and NHL hockey are the examples I use for live being better than T.V., but I suppose baseball works that way too. If only MLB grew a pair, and allowed the jumbotron to show replays…

                  One way to make baseball less boring is to make the at bats go faster. Put a clock on the pitchers and give the batter one time-out/leave the box per at bat. None of this, step out of the box, adjust their gloves and pads, kick their spikes, garbage. Just stay in the box and swing the damn bat already.

                  1. Just stay in the box and swing the damn bat already.

                    Amen to that. Every time I bring that up somebody goes on about how they’re professionals making millions of dollars to do this, they need that time to make sure they’re ready. My response: if they’re professionals they should be ready before they go up there and STAY IN THE FUCKING BOX!

                3. Jesus going to a ball game is fun. Especially the much cheaper minor league.

                  Going to a baseball game is a blast–the pace of the game is much more suited for a live audience because you can take in the whole scene, shoot the shit with the guy sitting next to you without missing too much, and just relax. The NBA and NFL, on the other hand, are perfect television sports (or at least they would be with fewer goddamn commercials).

              2. If an NFL team has a huge stadium, seating 100k, they will still only draw 800k in a season. An MLB team who draws under 2M sucks.

                1. Well, sixty-one home games versus eight, right?

                    1. Sorry–got 162 in my head when I was typing, I guess.

          4. Football is a better TV sport because dividing the action in small segments with 30 second gaps in between allows for commentary and analysis that simply blows away what you can do in any other sport.

            You can put a camera on each and every player on the field in football and find something interesting – and something competitive – about every play. I can watch receivers fight defensive backs on every play and be interested, even if the pass doesn’t go to that receiver. But how interesting would an isolation camera on the right fielder be on every pitch?

            1. Yes, except when the cameras are focused on players trotting on/off the field, players standing/sitting on the sidelines, and coaches standing about barking into headsets. Whcih is probably most of the telecast. Not that I don’t watch, mind you…

            2. but baseball is better on the radio

        2. Baseball, duh!

      2. Interestingly, the first few World Series were actually best of 9.

        1. I still think they should make the Super Bowl best of three.

          1. Best of three – IN ONE DAY!

    5. Speaking of sports, I am really hoping that we end up with 6 undefeated college teams (Oklahoma/OK State, LSU/Alabama, Stanford, Boise State, Clemson, Wisconsin) just so that maybe we can finally eliminate the goddamn BCS and get a fucking playoff system in place.

      Yes, playoffs are imperfect. They are still better than the bullshit BCS.

      1. No thanks. Screw Boise State sideways.

        1. Boise State, while not a complete joke, still isn’t relevant in the national title picture. What do you think Alabama, LSU, or Oklahoma would do to that team?

          If the SEC wins the national title yet again, I think popular calls for a playoff will increase. Of course, those so calling won’t admit to themselves that there’s a reason the SEC’s top teams keep cleaning up. But that’s okay, so long as the playoffs come.

          1. Yeah, but I’m tired of all this “on paper” bullshit that happens in college football.

            On paper, Boise State would get its ass kicked by LSU, which has better athletes, a deeper team, etc. But we don’t really know that LSU is better, because there is no playoff where they can kick Boise’s ass.

            Same thing for all the other undefeated. We don’t know, and we have a system which means that we’ll never know.

            Also, given that D2 and D3 schools managed a playoff, it should be easy for D1 schools to do.

            1. Like the deep Oklahoma team kicked Boise’s ass in the Fiesta?

              Or like the deep Alabama team kicked Utah’s ass in the Sugar?

              Which ass-kicking would it be like?

              Also, also, D1 does manage a playoff, I went to the D1 championship game the last year it was in Chattanooga — Montana v Villanova.

              1. Oh, please. Any “name” team can have a down year or have a let down in its bowl game when it blew a shot at a conference or national title.

                I want a playoff system. I think the rankings and bowl system is a crock of shit.

                1. I agree entirely with your 2nd paragraph. And your 1st is true, which is why the comment that LSU would kick Boise’s ass is obviously false. Boise St is good enough this year that if LSU played a B game, they would get beat. And no one plays an A game every week.

                  And they dont just let down after theyve blown their shot, it happens before hand multiple times every year.

                  1. This year, I don’t agree. I think LSU would wipe the floor with Boise State.

                    1. This year, I don’t agree. I think LSU would wipe the floor with Boise State.

                      And if they didn’t, it would just mean they had an “off” day. So the SEC’s dominance is totally unfalsifiable.

                2. Oh, please. Any “name” team can have a down year or have a let down in its bowl game when it blew a shot at a conference or national title.

                  If it happened once, maybe. Three times? No.

            2. Um, a point often missed by the Potatoheads is that if Boise State had to play a SEC, B10 or Big XII schedule, they wouldn’t even be in the conversation because they’d have a few losses every year.

              They play in a shit conference against shit teams with maybe, MAYBE, one good OOC game annually and manage to compee in a one-off game where they have 6 weeks to prepare. Whoopdy-fucking-doo. Do it 12 weeks straight with 3-4 top 25 teams sprinkled in and I’ll be a little more impressed.

              tl/dr? Gordon Gee was right.

              1. The problem with that kind of thinking is that the pollsters sometimes see through it.

              2. I think Boise could run the table with UGAs schedule this year. You know, other than the game against themselves.

                UGA misses Alabama, LSU, and Arkansas with their SEC schedule.

                With Lattimore now hurt, uga may get the chance to get destroyed by one of those three ithe SECCG, however.

                Im trying to figure out what few losses Boise would have playing that schedule. I dont see it.

              3. The problem is that Boise State never gets the chance to play the big boys in the regular season because that would require the consent of the big boy in question.

                If the AQ schools want to complain about differences in SOS, how about this system: if you want to be considered for a BCS bowl or the national championship, you have to leave a home and away game open on your schedule, and the BCS will fill both slots in with a team that was similarly ranked last year.

                Not sure what objection the AQ conference folks could raise to that other than “but omg we might have to play Boise State instead of Ohio University!”

                1. They got to play uga this year, at a “neutral” site in Atlanta. Last year, they got VT, at a “neutral” site in DC.

                  Two wins.

                  The big boys refuse to give them a home and home. Pussies.

                  1. Oregon did give them a home and home. And we saw what happened.

                2. That is a good idea Tulpa. Easy enough to implement, and we finally get to see premier out-of-conference matchups. That will help TV ratings. It will also work as sort of a de facto play off, by “thinning the herd”. Dig it.

              4. They play in a shit conference against shit teams with maybe, MAYBE, one good OOC game annually and manage to compee in a one-off game where they have 6 weeks to prepare.

                So? The Big Boys have just as much time to prepare and supposedly more talent. So what’s their excuse?

                Oklahoma and Nebraska dominated a mediocre Big 8 for decades, yet it never hurt their poll standings. For the most part, the Big 12 is a dogshit conference, yet Oklahoma is considered a national title contender.

                Hawaii won the WAC a couple years ago and got pummeled by Georgia. Boise wins their weak conferences AND still beats teams from the AQ conferences.

          2. What do you think Alabama, LSU, or Oklahoma would do to that team?

            Lose, just like every AQ conference team Boise State has ever faced in a BCS bowl.

            1. Boise played one good team Oklahoma and got lucky on a bunch of trick plays. If you think Boise would beat any of the top four, you are more delusional about sports than you are about politics.

              1. Boise goes at least 2-2 with the 4 games played in Boise.

                1-3 with 2 at home and 2 on the road.

              2. Boise played one good team Oklahoma and got lucky on a bunch of trick plays.

                As I mentioned below, the only reason Boise even did those trick plays was because Oklahoma had a huge comeback in the last few minutes of the fourth quarter. I’ve got that game on video, and Boise was dominating them from one end of the field to the other before the last 5 minutes or so. And quite honestly, mediocre teams don’t punk their opponents with 3 trick plays in the span of a couple minutes of game time.

          3. Boise State, while not a complete joke, still isn’t relevant in the national title picture. What do you think Alabama, LSU, or Oklahoma would do to that team?

            Alabama got the shit kicked out of it by Utah just a couple seasons ago. Boise beat an Oklahoma team in 2006 that had Adrian Peterson and was only in a position to make those circus plays because OU made a monster comeback towards the end of the fourth quarter. They’ve also kicked the shit out of some pretty good Oregon teams.

            The point is that even the top-shelf SEC/Big 12/Big 10 teams aren’t invulnerable, and a playoff would be much more conducive to determining a real national champion as opposed to an arbitrary bowl ranking system. Just take the champions from each conference, plus 2-4 wild cards based on record and NFL-style tiebreakers, and you’ve got your playoff system.

            The problem is that 1) in order to pull it off, the number of regular season games would probably have to be reduced back to 10 or 11 (like they were 20 years ago) instead of the current 13 or 14, and that cuts into national television deals, and 2) the bowl representatives have a great deal of power because they can promote them as economic money-spinners: even if attendance sucks, it’s still tourist dollars being spent when they normally wouldn’t be.

      2. OU and OSU play each other, as do LSU and Alabama. They can’t all be undefeated.

        1. Read it again.

      3. I like the bowl system. It makes the regular season mean something. And we are going to have a de facto playoff this year. OU/OSU and Alabama/LSU will be national semifinals. I agree with Moon, screw Boise, Wisconsin and Stanford. They are not as good as the other four teams.

        1. I enjoy Wisconsin. About every 3-4 years, we’re told that this is a great Wisconsin team. They’ll do some damage in the Big Ten, roll over some patsies, then lose to Kent State.

          1. Yeah. They have played one team that is even decent, Nebraska. And that was at home on a night when Nebraska’s quarterback completely melted down. I wouldn’t be surprised if Michigan State beats them this weekend.

            And Stanford has yet to play a team with a winning record. They are the joke. But the media loves Andrew Luck so they keep hyping them. That is until Oregon beats them 70-49.

            1. Luck is incredible though. Without him Stanford would be pretty lousy.

              Many of the top NFL scouts are rating him an 8.0 player, which is extremely rare.

              1. He’ll probably work out in the NFL, but I’ve heard this all before. Sometimes they’re right–Marino and Manning, for instance–sometimes they’re horribly wrong.

                QBs from sub-standard schools with not so amazing opponents are tricky to draft. Don’t accept the anointing by the media–do your own deep research.

                1. He seems to be the real deal. When guys bust it is usually because they are knuckleheads. That is why can’t miss prospects like Ryan Leaf and Jeff George turned out be losers. Luck seems to have his shit together. I bet he is a great one. But, that still doesn’t mean Stanford is that good.

        2. The regular season means MORE with a playoff than the current system. You cant go crazy like with basketball, but 11 conference champs + 5 at large makes the regular season more meaningful.

          My school was eliminated from our slim national title hopes last weekend. But, with a playoff, we could still win our league and get in. Or, UVA could somehow win the ACC and we finish 11-1 and get an at large. Or, we could lose one more and maybe, just maybe, with some luck, squeak into the last at large spot at 10-2, but probably not.

          But, now our games have no meaning, wrt the national title.

          And Boise’s games had no meaning from the beginning, even if they are the best team.

        3. Six team playoff is perfect and you can still have the bowl season. One and two get a bye, six plays at three and five plays at four the week after conference championship games. The semis are rotated around the major bowls on Jan 1 and a real championship game a week after.

          1. My idea would be to move the season forward a week. Then take the first weekend in December, where they now play the conference championship games, and have a four team playoff with the top two teams hosting the bottom two. On campus playoff games would be epic. Then have the bowl season and let the two winners play in the title game.

        4. Exactly this is what everyone forgets. With a playoff system when an 10-0 team plays their 5-5 traditional rival the game means nothing. As it stands now every game matters because a completely outclassed rival can play spoiler and knock their opponent out of the NC picture.

          1. That’s not the case if you tie it to conference championships, assuming their rival plays in the same one since it’s rare that rivalries are non-conference, Notre Dame’s selfish refusal to join a conference excepted. The whole super conference realignment is throwing this for a loop, but I think that’s a natural reaction to the NCAA’s stubborn refusal to act on the postseason issue.

        5. As an Ok State fan, even if OSU beats OU in the bedlam and wins the Big 12 (10) conference, then OSU will go to the Fiesta Bowl instead of the national championship. You would probably see Wisconsin or another team in instead… maybe they would want to go ahead and give it to Boise.

          LSU and Alabama gotta play each other for sure. That is not a guarantee either of them will win the SEC championship. Don’t coun’t So Carolina or UGA (my other team) out.

      4. The BCS is a really good system for picking the best 10 teams, but it’s pretty bad at getting 1 and 2 exactly right.

        I put together a 16 team playoff system following last season granting all of the conference champs an automatic bid and using BCS rankings to determine the wildcard contenders, seeded them by BCS ranking from 1 – 14 plus the Rose Bowl (since the Rose Bowl always wants special treatment), and sorted them into bowls based on, what seemed to me anyway, the closest matchup to the bowls’ current geography. Teams get reseeded for the second round and the games are played in bracket tournament matchups at the home stadiums of the favorites in the next two rounds. The final gets treated like the Super Bowl (grand stadium at a separate, predetermined neutral site) and is played the week before it.

        When I put this together I managed to get 14 of the top 16 BCS teams in the tourney and it gives any mid-major a chance to win the national championship while preserving the necessity of conference play and its historic rivalries as well as the bowl system. I thought it was a significant improvement and a decent compromise.

    6. That’s an incredibly silly idea. Even the best baseball teams win about 60% of their games. The very worst baseball team has a reasonable shot of beating the best in any single game. You might as well argue for a 16 game baseball season.

    7. One of the reasons I like baseball is that they play so many games. I have always though it ridiculous how few games they play in football. How does playing each team only once or twice give you any sense of which teams really are the best in the league?

      I could see shortening the NBA finals, though. That really does drag on a bit.

      1. If I were Supreme Overlord, one of the things I’d do is eliminate the wild card in baseball and return the leagues to two divisions each. Division winners play for the pennant (in seven games). That’s it.

        I’m open to going to the regular season team with the best record in each league winning without a playoff, too, though with MLB having so many teams, that might not work so well.

        1. If Im overlord of baseball, Im cutting the major leagues to 24 teams, with two divisions as you propose.

          But, Im freeing part of the minors and having a 24 team Major League D2, with relegation and promotion. Finish 6th in your division, welcome to the 2nd division. This means you, Cubs fans.

      2. If NFL played more games, the players would be dead or crippled- or the rules would have to be changed to flag football.

        1. Which is why we need cyborg players.

          1. Or criminals (you know, the ones who have been convicted). Instead of life in prison, or death row, just make them play football until they are dead or crippled.

        2. There is a flag football league already.

    8. Also, they should make it one inning, so I can watch a game without falling asleep.

  31. FINO Republicans: Federalists in Name Only
    Randy Barnett ? October 18, 2011 1:58 pm

    Over the summer I criticized a House Republican medical malpractice reform as “fair-weather federalism” in this op-ed in the Washington Examiner: Tort reform and the GOP’s fair-weather federalism. Now Senate Republicans are emulating their colleagues in the House by including medical malpractice reform as part of their new “jobs” bill.

    The law’s own justification for its constitutional authority should be chilling to anyone committed to limited federal power. The bill’s findings state that health care and health insurance are industries that “affect interstate commerce,” and conclude that Congress therefore has Commerce Clause power to regulate them ? even when it involves an in-state transaction between a doctor and patient, governed by in-state medical malpractice laws. Is there any industry that couldn’t be found to have an effect on interstate commerce?

    But that is not even the worst part of the constitutional justification included in the bill. Consider this statement of Congressional power:

    EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE? Congress finds that the health care and insurance industries are industries affecting interstate commerce and the health care liability litigation systems existing throughout the United States are activities that affect interstate commerce by contributing to the high costs of health care and premiums for health care liability insurance purchased by health care system providers.

    Yes, you read that right. Senate Republicans are claiming that Congress has power over the judiciary of the states because state courts are an activity that “affect[s] commerce.”

    With friends like these, constitutional federalism does not need enemies. Can we coin a new pejorative FINO: “Federalists in Name Only”?

    http://volokh.com/

    1. That is awesome.

    2. The Batcave gets the mortgage tax credit?

      1. Don’t be ridiculous. The Batcave gets the home office deduction.

        1. I stand corrected. Are Batarangs deductible?

          1. No, but they are depreciable.

            1. I’ve been using three year life, double declining balance; 1245 loss when one gets lost in the field.

  32. Liberals, Democrats Support Marijuana Legalization 2 to 1 More than Conservatives, Republicans

    Across numerous subgroups, liberals’ support, at 72%, is by far the highest…Majority support is also found among Democrats, independents, men, and political moderates.

    A large majority of those living in the West, which encompasses California, are in favor of making the drug legal. Support is significantly lower in the South and Midwest.

    Political conservatives and Republicans are the least supportive of legalizing marijuana. Seniors express a similarly low level of support.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/144…..juana.aspx

    1. Good for them. Too bad none of the politicians they vote for seem to be listening.

    2. i read that poll. seems the only groups under 50% are in the south, old, & women (slightly under 50%).

    3. Name me two Democrat political leaders that have listened to their constituents calling for marijuana legalization.

      While I wait on you to scour google to find a pair of obscure names, I’ll just say Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. A 10 term Congressman and a former Governor.

    4. I guess that’s why we legalized marijuana here in California.

  33. Student loan debt hits record levels
    http://www.usatoday.com/money/…..50818676/1

    The amount of student loans taken out last year crossed the $100 billion mark for the first time and total loans outstanding will exceed $1 trillion for the first time this year. Americans now owe more on student loans than on credit cards, reports the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

    1. To our nation’s dumb striver poors:

      HAHAURFUCKED

  34. WAAAH! People yell at me for writing stupid shit!

    Call out culture, a phenomenon that casual readers might not even notice, is to me, the most toxic aspect of blogging. Not because it is set to correct wrongs and engage in meaningful ways to actually enact change. No, call out culture is toxic because it has developed as a tool to legitimize aggression and rhetoric violence. Its intent, at the root, is seemingly positive. Constructive even. It works more or less like this: I say something ignorant. Perhaps I make a statement that can be constructed as bigoted or maybe “problematic”. A favorite word in call out culture, problematic is more often than not, used to mean “I didn’t like it” or alternatively, “I disagree with you”. But instead of saying you, the audience disagrees with me, you will call my statement “problematic”. And because we have established that we are at once consumers and producers of media content, you create a blog post or a tweet or a Facebook update “calling me out”. And more often than not, in your post, you tell your readers, other prosumers, to please join you in this call out. BECAUSE THIS IS A SERIOUS WRONG THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED! Unbeknown to me, there are now ten posts in ten different blogs and social media platforms calling me a “BIGOT AND THE WORST PERSON EVER”. Each time, every one of these posts escalating in rhetoric and volume. Each new post trying to outperform the previous one in outrage, in anger, in righteousness. This performance of acrimony and reproach turns into the “pile on”. And I will have to apologize for what I said. At this point, since I am nervous and probably anxious because I am being called THE WORST PERSON EVER, my apology will not be stellar. I might dig a deeper hole even, because hey, I cannot properly articulate when I feel that I am under duress. I might, at this point, say something that is truly, really “problematic”, not just perceived as such, but, to put it in plain words, I might say something shitty. AND OMG at this point the “call out” will escalate out of proportion. Now I am not just THE WORST PERSON EVER but since we have established that I was “a known feminist blogger” (and if I wasn’t up to that moment, I am now because my name is all over the internet!), then, it will be known that I, on my own, HAVE RUINED FEMINISM FOR EVER. And I, alone, will be proof of ALL OF FEMINISM’S PAST FAILURES. FOR EVER.

    This is especially funny given that this woman is the idiot who wrote about the feminist implications of Game of Thrones.

    As one commentator pointed out:

    I want to point out here that the same person that wrote that also wrote this “feminist” “critique” of A Game of Thrones that starts by insulting its fans and continues by making error after error?not just about nerdy things like plot points, but also about the whole point of many of the events of the series.

    For this she came under a lot of fire, some of it admittedly bullying of the type she describes in this post. But a lot of it was also completely reasonable and rational responses showing what she got wrong. In particular, Alyssa Rosenberg?who also considers herself a feminist?disagreed with pretty much everything Sady wrote. Sady responded to it on twitter thusly:

    “Feminist?” Can’t find a way to promote your work? Attack high-trafficked post by other women, play into nerd martyr complex, get $$$!

    So I can’t help but feel that this post is a response to the responses to a previous post she wrote that, in the most generous possible reading, was meant to provoke this kind of reaction. (Generous about her reading comprehension skills, that is.)

    So basically this woman is pissed that people dare call her out on his stupid shit.

    1. Where do whores go?

      1. The internet. Apparently.

    2. Her tears are delicious.

    3. She may be a hypocrite in the particular case of her GRRM “critique”– in fact, I agree she is– but in general she is 100% spot-on on her analysis of “call out” culture.

      1. No she is not. She is a bigot and a moron. She deserved everything she got and then some.

        1. Her being a bigot and a moron does not mean her description of “call out culture” is not accurate. It also doesn’t mean she didn’t deserve what she got.

          If you don’t think it is, imagine being a person of color or a woman who dares to publicly disagree or make a blog post that goes against feminist or racial received wisdom.

          You can see an aspect of this with people like Geneane Garafolo (or however you spell her stupid name) saying that people who support Herman Cain are racist. The piling on effect is very real, and that is what I am commenting, not whether or not someone made a stupid and ill-conceived post in the internet.

          1. Fair enough. But a lot of the commentary on it was not ranting but devastatingly rational. She acts like the only thing out there was the crazy stuff.

          2. That may be true, but you know what?

            Too damn bad.

            The point of blogging and internet commentary is to get people to pay attention to you.

            If some post I wrote inspired thousands of people across the US to denounce me in spit-fleckled rage, I would be absolutely delighted. Bring on the “call out culture”, I say. I would love to think that my ideological opponents were pounding their keyboards in Rage Against The Fluffchine.

        2. I should also say, I think part of the reason she is upset about this is because she didn’t go against received wisdom in her “critique.” And was surprised and taken aback by the backlash. The sci-fi/ fantasy community has had a series of this type of crap in the past few years. Google Racefail and/or Mammothfail, where you can read reams of social justice commentary of various stripes. All of which fit into the description of the “call-out.”

          So basically, as I see it, she is fine with calling out GRRM, but not so fine with having her own stuff called out. That doesn’t mean her description of the process isn’t accurate.

          1. The racist and sexist critiques of Sci Fi and fantasy are appalling. A normal person watches something the LOTR and sees evil vile creatures and thinks “wow orcs”. These twits see the same thing and think “hey black people”. But everyone but them is racist.

            1. I thought, “Hey, Maori. Wipe those islander fucks out, white men!”

              And then I wondered where The fuck was Tom Bombadill?

      2. No, she’s almost completely wrong. She’s a whiny snowflake. She’s “under duress” because somebody said mean things about her on the internet? Butch up, nancy. Don’t like it when people point out your stupid shit? Don’t say stupid shit. The internet is not a vehicle to validate your overdeveloped self-esteem.

        If you get all panicky and scared because mean people say mean things about you on the internet, I can’t help but think you’re woefully unprepared for life in general.

        1. I think DA is referring to the feminist habit of nitpicking shit for percieved social injustice. As I said below, normal people ignore it or mock it.

          1. Yes, to clarify, that is what I was talking about.

            I do love mocking them, but don’t generally love seeing people get shredded. In this particular case, she had it coming (and the irony is rather delicious and tasty), but have seen the dogpile effect happen all-too-often to hapless and even well-intentioned writers, especially, for some reason, in the sci-fi/ fantasy arena.

            1. Yeah, but the point is that it only really bothers you if you’re the kind of person who does it to others, since then you can’t mock it away or igonore it.

            2. have seen the dogpile effect happen all-too-often to hapless and even well-intentioned writers, especially, for some reason, in the sci-fi/ fantasy arena.

              If you look at the main audience for sci-fi/fantasy–a horde of emotionally underdeveloped nerds–the dogpile effect makes a lot more sense. Its these goons’ attempt to make up for the times they were mocked in high school by normals and couldn’t come up with their own “witty” comeback.

      3. Of course she is. But this shit happens to feminists because they do it to everyone else. It’s pretty difficult to pity them for it, since everyone else just ignores them or mocks them for doing it. The only reason they can’t take that tack is because they still want to be able to do it to others.

  35. Mike Rowe . . . is still hot
    http://meredithdunn.files.word…..rowe-1.jpg

    1. What do you plan to do about this, sarcasmic?

      1. uh, post a comment. Be sarcastic. Done.

        1. She wants somebody who will understand, not come and go in a heated rush.

    2. Mike Rowe is in fact dreamy.

    3. Never trust a man with a shovel in his hand, unless he shows you where the bodies are, first.

  36. Reason, a 23 year old feminist activist needs advice on what to do with her life.

    I’m sure you fine gentlemen will have some ideas for this “activist”.

    1. Get to liking them Ramen Noodle packs.

    2. Learn to smile, dress nice, get married, have kids, and have a nice life.

      I don’t think she’ll listen.

      1. That would also require her putting out once in a while and put up with an occasional male gaze. What kind of a monster are you Warty?

        1. Shit, learning to smile is a dealbreaker by itself. You know how proud feminists are of their frown-jowls?

          1. THAT’S NOT FUNNY.

    3. I hear donkeydickbukkake.com is hiring.

    4. You clearly have a thing for feminists.

    5. But as someone who spent most of her time community organizing in college, the question of career becomes tricky.

      Run for President. Duh!

    6. GET A BOOB JOB. MEN WILL RESPECT YOU MORE AS A PERSON. TRUST THE URKOBOLD.

        1. That guy is out there doing God’s work.

        2. ‘The fundamental rule is that for a girl to make it on to Page 3, she must have entirely natural breasts.

          I for one feel that this should be extrapolated to “Law of the Universe” status.

          1. I second that.

      1. Why would you use Keeley for that message? Girl is % 100 natural.

    7. And just the other day I was thinking about America’s shortage of professional activists. Good to see another well adjusted woman willing to take up the mantle.

  37. From Instapundit

    Justice Department documents made public Tuesday by Judicial Watch exposed an “accomplishment” of President Obama that his many admirers and enablers in the liberal mainstream media likely don’t want to talk about: a secret meeting on transparency in government. It happened on Dec. 7, 2009, and was convened by the Office of Information Policy in the Justice Department headed by Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder. The meeting’s purpose was to train Freedom of Information Act officers from federal agencies how to respond to FOIA requests, including tips on resolving disputes over what government documents can be made public.

    Judicial Watch obtained a series of pre-conference emails in which Justice Department officials sought approval from White House media officials for closing the meeting to reporters. That the December meeting was closed was no isolated incident. In one of the emails, Melanie Pustay, OIP’s director, said she has “always held parallel meetings, one for agency ‘ees [i.e. government employees] and then one that is open.” We can only wonder what Pustay tells government FOIA officers that she doesn’t want journalists to hear. . . .

    Unfortunately, keeping the meeting secret isn’t the only area in which the Obama administration’s record on this issue has proven to be woefully short of what the president promised. In both the Fast and Furious and Solyndra scandals, for example, Obama appointees have held back thousands of documents legitimately sought by congressional investigators while defending their refusal with arguments coined by President Nixon.

    Similarly, Obama’s secretary of labor, Hilda Solis, has gutted transparency regulations that required labor unions to disclose information about the organizations’ financial health, including union officers’ total compensation packages. Also killed was a requirement to report on union trusts, which often function like offshore accounts for corporations in providing a means of hiding assets. And gone is a requirement that would have made unions report on “no-show” jobs ? positions for which the union is paid but nobody actually does the work. The biggest losers when unions are able to conceal such information are union members.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..government

    1. didnt john write he’d stop these stupid long cut n paste jobs after his disaster yesterday in the links?

      1. It only seems long because of your poor reading skills.

        1. Well, the strange language you chose to use didn’t help him.

          1. evidently john’s word is “strange” because he posted yesterday to stop cut n paste jobs.

  38. Do not send your kids to Columbia Law School.

    For those to lazy to read the link, here is why:

    Columbia Law School has established the Center for Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies to examine how social structures and related identity categories such as gender, race, and class interact on multiple levels to create social inequality. The Center will be the first of its kind in the nation.

    Professor Kimberl? Crenshaw, who first advanced the term “intersectionality” in 1989, will direct the Center. As Crenshaw posited in her seminal work “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex,” legal and political systems often work to “obscure claims that cannot be understood as resulting from discrete sources of discrimination.” The new Center is dedicated to the task of revealing and combating the overlapping dynamics of discrimination that are often missed by one-dimensional conceptions of equal opportunity law and practice.

    Crenshaw has written widely on civil rights; black feminist legal theory; and race, racism, and the law. Her work has appeared in numerous academic journals such as the Harvard Law Review and the Stanford Law Journal, as well as in mainstream news outlets, including Ms. magazine and The Nation.

    Seriously, what is up with NYC schools and hippie bullshit? When did Vermont invade New York?

    1. The students will spend 200K or whatever it costs to get the credential. Then large law firms will hire them so they can flash that credential at their clients. Then the firm will train them and work them to death for five or six years before letting them go for not making partner. It is an insane system.

      1. The students will spend 200K or whatever it costs to get the credential. Then large law firms will hire them so they can flash that credential at their clients.

        Or, they’ll go work for gov’t and academia as the third assistant undersecretary for diversity and community outreach.

        If you look at Ms. Crenshaw’s fledgling department as an academy for training new government lawyers and bureaucrats, it all starts to make sense. Tell me that HUD won’t put a resume from a new CLS graduate with writing credit from this new center, on the top of their hiring list?

    2. New York invaded Vermont.

    3. This is what happens when communications become so advanced that anyone can put the stupid shit they believe out there for everyone to consume.

    4. It’s an effort to create discrimination charges where discrimination is not otherwise identifiable. More weapons for the employment lawyers.

    5. Professor Kimberl? Crenshaw, who first advanced the term “intersectionality” in 1989, will direct the Center.

      Neologism is the staple of the crackpot.

      As Crenshaw posited in her seminal work “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex,” legal and political systems often work to “obscure claims that cannot be understood as resulting from discrete sources of discrimination.”

      Got that? Good!

      What the crackpot means is that discrimination is ubiquitous, not sporadic, and that political systems try to hide that fact. If it sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory, then you are beginning to understand the mind of the progressive college professor.

    1. What, was she trying to desecrate Milton Friedman’s grave again or something?

    2. She was just hoping to have some female cop cop a feel and give her her first cheap thrill in years.

    3. Where do whores go?

      1. +1

  39. I haven’t inflicted any metal on here lately.

    Skeletonwitch

    Insomnium

    1. I’ll see you’re metal with Tom Waits new release (out October 24th)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Ta3H-ck6s&ob=av2e

        1. though on further reflection, perhaps you are metal

      1. Join the mob! Join the mob!

        Excellent.

      2. I just don’t think Tom is going to make it in The Blue Man Group though.

  40. mainstream news outlets, including Ms. magazine and The Nation.

    Wait, whut?

  41. her seminal work “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex,”

    I laugh out loud every time I read this.

    Does this make me a bad person?

    1. There’s a red light camera at that intersection, be careful.

    2. her seminal work “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex,”

      Is it because of the word “seminal?”

      1. I did not realize “seminal” was a synonym for “ludicrous” and “irrelevant”.

        1. Perhaps they meant it in they “covered in jizz” sense?

          1. As an artist, I am constantly struggling to find ways to challenge the limits of my chosen medium, which is sperm, and push my audience toward a higher level of both cognition and meta cognition–to see, in other words, the art beyond the art, the way the art steps beyond being an object of “art,” so to speak, and invokes a definition that calls into question the very fabric of life and existence and our species’ interaction with the physical and emotional world. For example, my last piece, “Jerking Off On The Orange Line,” was intended to push the boundaries of physical expression and inspire self-reflection among the three Catholic high school girls at the end of the car, whose expectation of a Metro ride without the opportunity to witness another human masturbating was challenged–I think, for the better. Its follow-up piece, “Running Pantless Through the Station,” was a breathless exploration of the nexus where the tyranny of law enforcement intersects with the vibrant pulse of individuality and liberal expression. “My Cock In Her Sleeping Mouth,” perhaps one of my most controversial pieces, explored the biological, social, physical, and emotional consequences of one-sided fellatio, and often misunderstood expression of deep, abiding affection. Its follow-up, “Ejaculate on Her Forehead,” takes this a step further, calling into question the ideas of what it means to “own” ones own skin. Symbolically, in turning her white with my love, I am exploring complex issues of race and challenging my audience to question their own biases, prejudgments, and narrow world views.

            1. do you publish a newsletter?

            2. TOTALLY NSFW:
              http://www.pricasso.com/index.html

              See also (ALSO TOTALLY NSFW)
              http://www.regretsy.com/2011/0…..hty-ducts/

            3. You ripped off Thomas Kinkade, man.

    3. You laugh at your peril, because this:

      revealing and combating the overlapping dynamics of discrimination that are often missed by one-dimensional conceptions of equal opportunity law

      not-so-secretly means “Come up with ways to make it illegal discrimination if you promote people who work long hours, because that means that people who work Mommy Hours won’t be promoted” and “Make it illegal to compensate employees using commissions and/or tips, because hot white chicks make more money that way than obese black chicks.”

      And yeah, that’s pretty much exactly what it means. Basically the end goal of all “conceptions of equal opportunity” with more than one dimension is, “Force all employers to pay and promote people even if their personal choices and/or loathsome personal characteristics make the employee less valuable and productive.” And the best angle for them to use to do that is discrimination law.

      1. Feminism is all about creating a privileged class of upper and middle class women who are entirely insulated from ever facing a bad consequence to their actions or making a hard decision. That is the entire goal.

        1. That pretty much describes Barbara Ehrenreich’s career in a nutshell.

  42. http://www.rutlandherald.com/a…../111019989

    Teachers on strike in my town.

    My kid is devastated.

    If only this strike had happened five years from now – he would have been totally pumped. Imagine a teacher’s strike when you’re a 5th grader – what could be better than that? But when you’re a kindergartener a teacher’s strike sucks.

    1. That is really sad.

    2. Imagine a teacher’s strike when you’re a 5th grader – what could be better than that?

      I had to laugh, because if my kid read this she’d be indignantly asking me why her teachers couldn’t go on strike.

  43. No Jezebel, tell me what you REALLY think about Men’s Rights Organizations

    Yeah, the way to get Jezebel to lose their shit is to bring up the idea that their so called “privileged classes” aren’t actually that privileged. It’s a challenge to their whole philosophy.

    1. An instant classic

    2. I will be using that line on somebody.

    3. I have an email contact that raves on and on about chemtrails and 9/11 conspiracies. Thank you for the humor (and a good idea)

  44. I wonder why we’re not at war with Iran yet. I mean every episode of Star Trek involving plots aganainst ambassadors (and there’s a ton) always mean heap big trouble. Obama is no Kirk.

    1. Because…..

      IT’S A FAAAAAKE!!!

  45. You know how proud feminists are of their frown-jowls?

    I prefer the term “bitchmouth”. If you look closely, you can see the lines around the corners of their mouths formed by pinching it down into a tight little circle which looks just like the other end of the alimentary canal.

    1. I have actually tried to make this face, it hurts. And it makes my husband laugh. But I am trying to imitate high maintenance type ladies who think everyone should always give them their way.

    2. We generally go for the phrase, “Excuse me, ma’am, but it looks like you got a little bitch on your face.”

      1. My wife made that face when we were arguing about something (stupid, of course) a few weeks ago, so I said, “Does your butt hurt? Cause it sure seems like your butt hurts.”

        Tip from me to my Commenter Colleagues – don’t say that to your wife. Ever.

        1. Does yours slap or does she make a little fist?

        2. My wife employs the glare when I’m being “inappropriate.” She stopped kicking me under the table because I would yell, “Stop kicking me under the table!” when she did it.

          1. I still get the footstep… like she’s hitting the brake on my speeding mind.

        3. Holy shit, that made me laugh – I will actually have to try that on my wife just for the lulz.

    3. Garbage out, garbage out.

    4. I have always called that “littlemouth”.

      As in the sentence, “You know, it’s really cute when you get littlemouth like that.”

      Littlemouth is not a pout because the lower lip is not extended. But while not as cute as a pout, it’s still pretty cute if you picture littlefists and littlefootstamping.

    5. When my mom made that face we knew that some serious shit was about to go down and we ran for cover. My wife, on the other hand, is a bit to docile for it to work properly so it usually just brings out a smile (which only makes it worse).

  46. Visiting H&R for the comments is pretty much like “reading” Playboy for the pictures – in both cases, the articles are superfluous.

    1. I don’t know. Does the reading Playboy for the articles joke work anymore? Seems to me that with the wide world of internet porn available today, there is not much point to reading Playboy unless you are interested in the articles.

    2. the articles are superfluous

      That’s why we don’t read them. This is a chat room, not a forum.

  47. don’t say that to your wife. Ever.

    I never had a wife, but I’ll add another one to that file, which I have used on more than one girlfriend.

    “I already HAVE a mother.”

    Total meltdown ensues.

    1. I have said that a few times. A meltdown ensues. But I still use it. Sometimes it is too true not say sometimes.

      And if you really want to get rid of a women just tell her “you know, your sister is just a lot hotter than you”. That will ensure she never speaks to you again.

      1. That only works when the sister isn’t dead.

        1. No, that just makes it even more wildly inappropriate and funny. And will get you dumped even faster.

    2. The version I used was “I’m not twelve, and you’re not my mother.” And yes, total meltdown.

  48. “you know, your sister is just a lot hotter than you”

    I’m pretty sure I could never say that one with a straight face.

  49. Harry Reid, the corpse that won’t go away, doesn’t get it. I know no one is surprised by this but WTF?

    1. Him and Pelosi are the two most criminally stupid politicians to hold power in at least a century.

      1. Hyperbole much?*

        *Rhetorical question. Relax.

        1. If you have anyone more criminally stupid than those two I would like to hear them. I know there is a lot of competition. But even someone like Chuck Schumer or Rick Santorum can occasionally make sense about something. Those two never even manage that.

          1. When has moobies ever made sense about anything? I’m gonna need a cite on that one.

            1. Schumer is pretty sharp as far as I can tell. Just happens to be a giant dick. You can’t blame everything bad on stupidity. A lot of very smart people are wrong about a lot of things.

              1. Still looking for that cite.

          2. Reid is just a stupid dope; Schumer is vile.

            Watch his performance in Waco: The Rules of Engagement and you’ll see what I mean.

      2. My wife sat next to Pelosi for a pedicure a few years ago.

        Her assistant was trying to make her focus on their talking points (Iraq War) for an upcoming appearance, but Pelosi just rambled on and on about her “pretty pink nail polish”. Like a fucking teenager.

        My wife thought she was retarded.

  50. Radical Chic: Rapper David Banner slams his fellow celebrities…

    For those not familiar with his work, I highly recommend not playing the uncensored version of “Play” for your -pre-teen children.

    Unless you’re good at explaining why a man would want to watch a woman ‘play with her monkey’.

    1. Is that David “The Hulk” Banner? I used to watch him on TV.

      1. No, it’s one of our modern poets of the same name…

        http://universalmotown.com/dis…..2&pid=1630

        I think the highlight is the line, “I beat it like mike when he fuck Billy jean”

        1. It’s kind of Hulkish, I guess.

  51. Love this:

    http://www.livescience.com/165…..droom.html

    6 Gender Myths Debunked!

    Except they’re not. 3 of the 6 don’t even try, they just make lame excuses. But this bullshit article has been posted on every feminist website in the Western Hemisphere….and no one has even questioned it!

  52. Nobody Won Last Nights Shouting Match but Bachmann Lost Project RunReasonway

    http://rctlfy.wordpress.com/20…..-bachmann/

  53. This thread is probably dead, but this is kind of a morning links type question:

    Why did they immediately have to shoot all those animals in Ohio?

    Did anyone hear that they had attacked anyone? As far as I know, all they did was exit opened cages and, you know, walk around.

    There are mountain lions in California. There are bears everywhere. There are wolves in Alaska and the Rockies. Do we immediately say, “Oh shit, wild animals are loose! Close the schools and call the snipers ASAP! Kill every last one of them or no one is safe!”

    Doesn’t this strike anyone else as a tiny little overreaction?

    Certainly something had to be done, since these animals weren’t just going to disappear into the hills and join the ecosystem – but why did that something have to be “Shoot them all on sight without trying to recapture them”?

    1. I saw that. How sad.

    2. I was wondering the same thing. They couldn’t hit them with tranquilizers? It is just horrible. I can’t believe I am the only person appalling. I think the flat foots are going to catch hell over this.

    3. Because they can – and people were starting to object to their dogs being shot.

    4. Dude, this was a cop’s wet dream. Or at least close. I mean, it’s not a meth lab at a puppy mill, but getting to shoot a lion has to be a close second.

    5. Consider that it’s mid-Ohio LEOs and I think you’re halfway to your answer, “redneck safari” and all of that. Jack Hanna, who I guess is a zookeeper emeritus with the Columbus Zoo, was quoted as saying that you couldn’t effectively tranquilize large animals at night—the incident started, IIRC, in the nighttime or near sunset—as the animals would wander off and endanger the workers/LEOs.

      Wild mountain lions and bears in the US are noted for being extremely shy of human contact. A lion or tiger that was brought up in a wildlife sanctuary might not have the same fear of people. Also, while a LEO might get some criticism from the ASPCA and PETA for aggressively shooting any escaped animal they could find, that criticism would pale in comparison to the shitstorm they’d get if one of those animals chomped on a toddler in the neighboring town. ‘Tiny little overreactions’ seems to be Ohio’s stock in trade.

      Finally, comments I read about this incident suggested that there were 24 hour response teams, employed by zoos and other wildlife sanctuaries, that were not consulted by the local LEOs on scene until most of the animals had been destroyed. Why they weren’t, is an open question.

      1. Why they weren’t, is an open question.

        They probably had no idea that such things even existed.

    6. You’re talking about the state where Kent State is located, right?

    7. There are mountain lions in Chicago.

      http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.c…..-a-cougar/

  54. Couldn’t even make to 500 comments? Punks

  55. Everyone has own ideas,we can’t interfere,but we just do what we want todo.
    http://www.chinahongji.com/pro…..Dryer.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.