Reason Morning Links: Occupy Fomenter Suggests Calling it a Day, Murder-Drone-Deploying, U.S.-Citizen-Assassinating Obama Slams GOPers for Waterboarding Remarks, Online Piracy Act Staggers Into the Spotlight


  • Several GOP presidential candidates said Saturday night that they would bring back waterboarding if elected torturer-in-chief. President Barack Obama, who once threatened to drone-murder the Jonas Brothers but then murdered some Pakistani teenagers instead, responded thusly Sunday night:"Let me just say this: They're wrong. Waterboarding is torture," he said. "It's contrary to America's traditions. It's contrary to our ideals. That's not who we are. That's not how we operate. We don't need it in order to prosecute the war on terrorism. And we did the right thing by ending that practice." Bonus link: David Frum(py) on what the GOP candidates should have said
  • Congress critters are insider-trading, but it is not illegal because it is "honest graft." 
  • Rep. Lamar Smith's Online Piracy Bill is moving forward, albeit slowly. 
  • From The Guardian: "Adbusters, the Canadian activist group which helped spark the movement, is even considering calling on occupiers to declare 'victory' for phase one and go home for the winter – clear recognition that numbers are likely to dwindle anyway and make it increasingly difficult for the protests to maintain momentum and generate headlines." 
  • EFF, the Cato Institute, the Center for Democracy and Technology,Public Knowledge, and TechFreedom have all asked SCOTUS to do away with the FCC's power to regulate indecency. 
  • The Bush tax cuts aren't going anywhere. 

New at "Pot Prevails: Rob Kampia Discusses Marijuana's Recent Political Triumphs"


NEXT: I Occupied WALL Street(s) & All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt That Made Jay-Z Richer

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

  1. Megan Fox is still hot.…..s-Day.html

      1. Why does Riggs post links in the morning?

        1. So I can have an excuse to post a link to Megan Fox or Kate Moss from the Daily Mail.

          1. I feel like such a tool now.

  2. Courtney Love is, well, herself.…..ncert.html

    1. She looks pretty good for a 47 year old crack whore.

      1. Some people might take that as an insult about crack whores

  3. Why Is China Building These Gigantic Structures In the Middle of the Desert?…..the-desert

    This is crazy. New photos have appeared in Google Maps showing unidentified titanic structures in the middle of the Chinese desert. The first one is an intricate network of what appears to be huge metallic stripes. Is this a military experiment?

    1. Chinese innovation in the field of suburban planning. It’ll be all the rage.

    2. If you stand on your head, squint your eyes and look at it in the mirror it says, “Paul is dead.”

    3. Whatever it is, I’m sure Thomas Friedman loves it.

      1. We must not have a ‘crazy-shit-in-the-desert’ gap!

        1. I suggest Congress create a crazy-shit-in-the-desert investment bank to provide subsidies to GE.

          1. You’ve obviously never seen one of the wind farms in the Mojave.

    4. One of the comments shows an overlay with streets in DC. Can’t see it at work (stupid firewall), but if its a good match . . . .

      1. It wasn’t. Other commenters mocked him.

      2. It didn’t match up at all. Great example of the power of suggestion and the brain’s desire to find patterns where there are none.

      3. It’s not.
        Now, you might want to try some matches to coastal Taiwanese cities.

    5. Rice maze! New tourist attraction.

  4. Debbie Harry is still a weirdo.…..ivity.html

    1. Should add the Tag NSFW!!

      1. This is reason. Any link in the comments thread should be assumed NTSFW (and quite possibly illegal and/or vomit inducing) until proven otherwise.

  5. Obama Campaign Backers and Bundlers Rewarded With Green Grants and Loans…..graft.html

    Nevertheless, a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get?

    1. “Obama Campaign Backers and Bundlers Rewarded With Green Grants”

      At first I thought that read “Green Lanterns” and I thought, hey, that’s pretty neat.

  6. I love the EFF guys on over-the-wire freedoms, I just wish they’d get around to supporting freedom IRL, too.

  7. The Great Leap Forward!

    Obama administration to announce effort to expand health-care workforce…

    Grants can go to doctors, community groups, local government and other organizations that work with patients in federal health-care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. The funds are for experimenting with different ways to expand the health-care workforce while reducing the cost of delivering care. There will be an emphasis on speed, with new programs expected to be running within six months of funding.

    1. An expanded health-care workforce and reducing cost are not reconcilable.

      O is uh a douchenugget.

      1. Cheap illegal immigrants make great doctors and nurses!

  8. Dude discovers the hard way that hippos don’t make good pets.…..hippo.html

    1. I don’t know if it is an urban myth or not, but I have always heard hippos kill more people in Africa than crocodiles. Even if it is a myth, they are still big, nasty, dangerous animals. Stupid is too weak of a word for that guy.

      1. I actually like dangerous pet owners, because the karma is so often instant.

        1. I suppose it’s better than the dangerous pet owner’s friend getting her face ripped off in a fit of chimp rage.

      2. ” have always heard hippos kill more people in Africa than crocodiles”

        And that’s nothing next to the number of people killed by crocs riding hippos!

        1. Nah, lions on horses are much deadlier.

      3. It’s not an urban myth. Crocs are relatively harmless on land, while hippos are surprisingly fleet-footed. Hippos also attack boats which crocs don’t do.

        1. XOMG RACIST!!

        2. He’s not chasing him, that’s just what traffic looks like on that road. Both of them are headin to the Shell station obviously.

      4. I saw a statisitc somewhere that showed hippos killing more people, but I don’t remember where and don’t know if it was bs or not. But yes, I have heard it mentioned repeatedly.

    2. A 52-year-old man and his seven-year-old grandson were forced to scramble out of their canoe and climb a tree when they were approached by Humphrey.

      The terrified canoeists screamed and clapped in an attempt to drive the animal away from the tree – but Humphrey refused to move.

      Mr Els eventually managed to lure the hippo away with an apple, explaining that he had only approached the pair because he was hungry.

      Oh, that makes me feel much better.

      1. Skeptical hippo is skeptical.

  9. Sasha Gray is committed to literacy.


    Boys in class reported to think that Pizza Delivery Guy is awesomest occupation of all time.

    1. I love the tone. “How dare that whore read childrens books to our five year olds!” WTF does one have to do with the other.

      1. they might become little whores themselves – through the power of osmosis!

        1. And be able to find gainful employment reading their four lines of dialogue before stripping off and getting to it. All thanks to Ms. Grey.

        2. as long as they look like Sasha I’m down with that.

        3. Then Tiger Woods ought to be kept off TV too.

      2. I might have to enroll my kids in the class, just so I can attend parents night.

        1. Sasha Grey? Blech.

          1. I forget you like the Tramplin’ Fatties series.

          2. Agreed. Stoya is hotter.

      3. As usual I thought it wasn’t the “crime” it was the cover-up. After people found out, the school system went into denial mode.

        It wasn’t a good idea, and anybody with two brain cells would know it would cause problems.

        1. Why is it a bad idea? AFAIK, all the movies she appeared in had performers of legal age, she’s an adult, she’s got time and will to read to kids. What’s the downside?

          1. Why is it a bad idea? AFAIK, all the movies she appeared in had performers of legal age, she’s an adult, she’s got time and will to read to kids. What’s the downside?

            Some parents might have an issue with their kids being around someone who made their living as a porn star. I realize that, as a young male, you might find this confusing, but there are still some “squares” who don’t consider hardcore porn to be a mainstream, emotionally wholesome occupation and don’t want their kids exposed to anyone associated with that business.

            1. There’s a high likelihood that several of their kids’ teachers have done some “non-mainstream” stuff in their personal lives. They just don’t know about it like they know about Ms Grey’s performances.

              1. There’s a high likelihood that several of their kids’ teachers have done some “non-mainstream” stuff in their personal lives.

                Which is entirely beside the point. Like it or not, if a school is seen to be legitimizing hardcore pornography, it’s not going to be good for their public image. The school officials were foolish for not realizing this.

            2. By making it a big deal and a national story, now we can guarantee most of those kids know she’s not just an “actress”. The outrage means everyone is now going to go check out Sasha Grey, including the first graders. This is where “won’t you please think of the children” becomes self-defeating.

              If she was putting gerbils in her posterior in front of the children a la Mr. Slave, we’d have a serious issue. However, she’s just a pretty lady in normal clothes reading books to kids. So stupid to get worked up over.

            3. AHAHAHAHHAHAHA

              as if the parents haven’t seen porn in their life or rubbed one out.

            4. Yes. How dare we propagate the myth that porn actors are just people with jobs. The horror!

              1. Way to miss the point again, dingus.

        2. Uh, multi-millionaire at the age of 23?

          Yeah, how dare she maybe teach schoolchildren something about being successful.

          1. Most parents aren’t going to consider “stuffing ten cocks up your ass for 200 films” as the most ideal path to business success. Your parenting style may vary.

            1. If my son became a multi-millionaire by the age of 23, I could give two shits about how he did it.

              btw, is the chick really a multi-millionaire?

      4. Some of the comments in the article are hilarious, e.g. “Next week, Ms. Grey is going to teach math class and show how many times 10 can go into 1.”

          1. Ya I read that one, too. Classic

    2. Don’t pretend to not know that she’s spelled Grey.

      1. When I watched her body of work, I can’t say I paid much attention to the credits.

    3. “Former porn star”??? Damn, she got used up pretty quickly…

      1. I don’t think she was “used up”, but she hasn’t done porn for 2 years.

      2. I recently read some online article about the ‘longevity’ of female porn stars.

        Apparently the 18-21 set is always popular, but by the time the ‘actress’ hits 27, she got put into MILF roles.

        argh – can’t find the link.

        1. Too bad Johnny Longtorso isn’t here. Golden Girls porn was his specialty.

          1. I almost gagged up the drink of water I was taking as reading this – so thanks for that.

        2. The problem for Grey in particular is that she immediately jumped into the most extreme stuff upon entering the industry.

          The smart girls start with solo stuff only when they’re 18, then after they’ve made a name for themselves at 20 they do a few oral scenes, and then at 23 finally do a boy-girl scene (which is then a HUGE deal among the community), and so on.

          Sasha was already doing bondage anal toilet-licking when she was 19.

          1. I don’t see a problem considering how popular and successful she was.

            Also, I think what you are describing is not a deliberate strategy, but just what many “glamour models” wind up doing.

            1. Well yeah, it may happen just by chance, but if you were coming up with a strategy that would be it.

          2. She had to do the really hard stuff first because she’s just not that good-looking.

            1. True, she probably couldn’t have gotten paid for solo stuff for very long if at all, but there are LessAttractive women in porn who didn’t go into the really extreme stuff as quickly as she did.

    4. So she does something else on the night shift?

  10. The EPA’s Reliability Cover-Up
    Why did the agency erase its own doubts about the U.S. electrical grid?…..88278.html

    Some 830,000 Connecticut customers are only now having their power restored after a snowstorm knocked out the state’s grid last month?but the Environmental Protection Agency continues to claim that its regulatory agenda won’t degrade U.S. electric reliability. The reality is that the EPA’s own staffers are?or used to be?worried, and their political superiors have erased the warnings.

    1. If we had to piss away a few trillion in stimulus, couldn’t we have spent some of that fixing the electric grid? If there is a dumber movement in history than the Western Greens, I can’t think of it. These people literally want to tear down civilization.

      1. I agree, instead of bail outs and foreign wars, they could have spent that money on infrastructure.

        1. Or at least on trimming trees. I think that a lot of the problem in CT was all of the lovely tree lined avenues they are so fond of. The only infrastructure improvement which would help that would be to bury all of the lines.

          1. You can bury a lot of lines for a trillion dollars. Yeah, that is a lot of money to spend on burying lines. But at least we would have had something to show for it. Basically, they could have done almost anything else with the money other than what they did and we would have been better off.

            1. Right, almost anything would have been better, although not spending money we didn’t have would have been the best option.

              1. Not spend money we don’t have? As if that is ever an option. Take your hare-brained theories elsewhere.

            2. Not really. In a suburban/ urban area, you are looking at between 3 and 14 mil or so/ mile. Not to mention, when something is FUBAR with underground lines, or they need to be replaced/ upgraded after a few decades, it is an order of magnitude more expensive to fix the problem.

              It’s something that our company has looked at as a way of fixing reliability issues, but it just isn’t remotely cost-effective to retrofit most places.

          2. Buried cables and pipes are vulnerable in their own way.

            After each of the three hurricanes the that hit Central Florida in 2004 local utility owners found that when big trees get toppled their roots tend to pull up the buried infrastructure with it. Power lines, watermains, cable TV, telephone, you name it, they all managed to come out of the ground tangle up in the roots of the grand old live oaks.

            1. Yes, but suspended power lines are going to be destroyed in a hurricane too.

              1. Actually, overhead lines can take hurricane force winds just fine. The kinds of winds in tornados and supercells (both of which can occur inside tropical cyclones) not so much.

                It’s the falling trees and flying debris that takes them down.

                It’s damage to transformers and substations that causes most of the outages, mostly from debris and flooding.

                1. But my main point was not whether one was better than the other, it was that buried lines are not immune to storm damage.

                  I’m fairly sure that damage in winter storms is due to lines breaking under ice loads as well as damage to transformers from icing. That kind of damage can certainly be prevented by burying lines.

                  1. Yes, that shit can be virtually eliminated, but would it be cost – effective?

    2. “This matters because the draft report contradicts EPA leaders who have publicly portrayed anyone worried about reliability as an industry shill. More importantly, as a technical and legal matter, issues that are excluded from the Federal Register mean that the public is denied the opportunity to meaningfully comment on them.”

      The most transparent administration EVAR!

    3. In 1998 an ice storm went through north-eastern NY, the New England states, and Canada. Many people didn’t have power for a month. How long does it take to get power restored after an earthquake? After hurricanes it can take several weeks to get fully restored. This is not uncommon when it comes to natural disasters.

      1. This is a snowstorm we’re talking about. They don’t routinely cause mass power outages.

        1. [citation needed]

        2. [citation needed]

    4. This is purely anecdotal, but my feeling is that down here in Texas, we’re doing a lot better on grid reliability. Even after Ike, which did tens of billions of dollars in damages, a good portion of Houston was back online within a week. My house never lost power at all, amazingly.

      1. I recall seeing on a History Channel show that Texas has it’s own grid, completely isolated from the national grid.

        1. And, thank you Google…


          1. Awesome thanks!

        2. I saw that same one. And yes, it is true.

    5. The first sentence has nothing to do with the second.

  11. The EU’s architects never meant it to be a democracy
    The rise of a “technocracy” was always part of the plan for Europe.…..cracy.html

    So, as headlines scream that vain bids to save the euro threaten us with “Armageddon”, the EU’s ruling elite has toppled two more elected prime ministers, to replace them with technocratic officials who can be trusted to do Brussels’s bidding.

    1. You can have all the technocrats in the world, in the end the European project will self-descruct because of its own internal inconsistencies.

      1. You know who else started a destructive European project?

        1. The Holy Roman Empire?

        2. Tony Blair?

        3. Napolean Bonaparte?

        4. The guys behind the World Football League?

        5. Julius Caesar?

        6. The signatories of Versailles?

        7. Suleyman the Magnificent?

        8. Romulus and Remus?

        9. Yersinia pestus?

        10. The Walt Disney Corporation?

        11. The Spice Girls?

        12. Bernie Eccelstone?

        13. Matt Damon?

    2. The rise of a “technocracy”

      I keep seeing that term, and I really have no idea what it means.

      1. A “technocrat” is a professional something or other that is not a career politician. In other words “top men”.

        1. So a technocracy is a political class made up of people who aren’t members of the political class.

          Got it.

          1. So the goal is to take someone that has never won an election or held an elected office and put them in charge of everything.

            What could possibly go wrong?

        2. you know. it’s like the Soviet Union, minus all that icky communism stuff.

          1. I read a description of technocrats the other day (probably on Slate). It acknowledged that the most “technocratic” government to date was the former Soviet Union.

        3. Good, President Romney will fit in with them like a bug in a rug.

      2. It involves hiring former Goldman-Sachs employees to “fix” the problems caused by future Goldman-Sachs employees.

  12. Breaking news:

    Tebow > Oakland Raiders
    Tebow > Kansas City Chiefs

    1. It’s absolutely incredible that an NFL quarterback in this era can go 2 for 8 and somehow win the game.

      Maybe the Baby Jesus really loves this guy.

      1. Tebow strong like bull. No need pass.

      2. +1

        I read that a few times before it registered. 2-8, did he come out of the game injured. No. So they must have lost then, right? No.

      3. And when he absolutely needed it up 10-7 witht he Chiefs finally showing some life, Tebow threw an absolute perfect bomb that Aaron Rogers would have been lucky to have completed. The pass was perfect and completely out of nowhere given the throws he had made the rest of the day. Yeah, it kind of makes you think Jesus is a football fan.

        1. Tebow threw an absolute perfect bomb that Aaron Rogers would have been lucky to have completed.

          Let’s not get carried away. Tebow is in no way the passer Aaron Rogers is.

          1. Of course he is not. That is the point. But that throw was Aaron Rodgers quality. How the hell someone who is normally as lousy a passer as Tebow threw it is why you wonder if maybe God really is on his side.

            1. I’ve made Aaron Rodgers quality throws a couple of times in my life, does that mean you want me to start for your team?

              1. Throwing scum-filled kleenex into the wastebasket does not count.

                1. OK, that was good. LOL

            2. Well, your original comment was that Aaron Rogers “would have been lucky” to have completed that pass. My point is, no he wouldn’t. Nor would Tom Brady. Nor Drew Brees. Nor any number of “top tier” NFL quarterbacks. It’s, you know, what they do. Thus, my response.

      4. It’s absolutely incredible that an NFL quarterback in this era can go 2 for 8 and somehow win the game.

        When you’re running what is basically a version of the single wing, 2 of 8 isn’t a problem when one of those passes is a 56-yard touchdown pass.

        The most interesting thing about this whole situation is precisely what you hear from high school teams that play against that type of offense–“We knew what was coming, we had a great week of practice, and we still didn’t stop it. I don’t know what happened.”

        Not to stretch an analogy, but people tend to forget that the 1960s Packers won several championships running 4 or 5 basic plays and building their weekly game plans from that foundation. The difference is that they executed those plays better than anyone else, and still did well even when the other team knew exactly what play the Packers were running when they lined up.

        I don’t think it will last–none of the teams Denver’s beaten with Tebow at quarterback have been very good, and they’ll eventually have to throw in some screens and quick slants to keep defenses honest. But for the moment, it’s nice to see some throwback football with Denver running it down the other team’s throat.

        1. High school football is the correct analogy. The local sports talk here in Colorado has been how the Broncos cannot keep up this strategy of playing essentially high school football in the NFL, just to suit Tebow’s limitations. Either he gets better or they’ll have to dump him.

          1. His limitations are greatly exaggerated. Most of his passes have been on target*, he just isn’t finding open receivers. That’s something that should improve over time. Also, the play calling from the coaching staff has been abysmal. Orton wasn’t lighting it up with this team either.

            *His first start (against Miami), he threw some of the worst passes that I’ve ever seen from an NFL quarterback. Since then, I think he’s been reasonably accurate.

            1. His limitations are greatly exaggerated.

              Not from what I’ve seen. But I suppose that just makes me a “Tebow hater,” since that seems to be all it takes to bring down the wrath of the Saint Tebow acolytes.

          2. The local sports talk here in Colorado has been how the Broncos cannot keep up this strategy of playing essentially high school football in the NFL, just to suit Tebow’s limitations.

            A team with a running offense can win if they do nothing more than execute the plays. That’s really all there is to it–you beat the guy across from you.

            The local sports talk guys are freaking out mainly because they want to see an Elway-type situation with a QB flinging the rock all over the field. They seem to have forgotten that Elway didn’t get a Super Bowl win until Terrell Davis came along, and the offense basically became a series of toss left, toss right, blast, and bootleg plays.

            This also kind of gets to my beef with people thinking good football has to reflect some ridiculous Rube Goldberg approach to the game. The best teams, the real dynasties, aren’t the ones who come up with the most complex game plans, they’re the ones who execute the simple things on a consistent basis. Genius isn’t doing a bunch of things really well, it’s doing one or two things better than anyone else.

            1. Uh, Tebow is going to be lucky to win one of the next 6 games:

              Jets, @Chargers, @Vikings, Bears, Patriots, @Bills

              1. I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that Denver will do better than 1-6 during that stretch. The Jets have to work on a short week, in Denver, after losing a heartbreaker to New England. The Chargers are playing like shit right now, the Vikings are also starting an inexperienced QB, and the Bills’ defense is terrible.

                The only ones I can see them not really having a chance in are the Bears and Patriots games. The others will present some challenges, but it’s not as if they aren’t winnable. Hell, Denver’s always had trouble in Oakland and KC, and they still pulled out wins the last two weeks with a single-wing tailback running the offense. So we’ll wait and see what happens.

                1. The Lions were coming off a heartbreaking loss when they played the Broncos, too. They were looking to knock someone’s block off, and they sure did. You can bet the Jets will be the same way.

                  The Vikes are actually a decent team with Ponder at the helm, they’re just unfortunate to be in the NFL’s toughest division this year. And it will be in the Metrodome.

                  The Bills D is pretty bad but it’s going to be interesting seeing if T can adapt his game to playing in cruddy weather which is almost certain to be present in Buffalo in late December.

                  1. Considering Tebow’s game is almost exclusive run-oriented, I don’t think the weather in Buffalo will screw him up near as much as it would, say, Mark Sanchez. (Which is still an idiotic pick by the Jets considering they play in an open-air stadium in N.J., and Sanchez has slightly greater arm strength than I do.) Moreover, who’s going to be running the ball in Denver? With the—admittedly, minor—injuries to Moreno and McGahee, aren’t they down to Lance Ball and Tebow?

                    I see them maybe beating the Chargers, the Bills, and the Chiefs. Of those, I can’t imagine they’d be favored in any game besides the Chiefs.

                  2. The Lions were coming off a heartbreaking loss when they played the Broncos, too. They were looking to knock someone’s block off, and they sure did. You can bet the Jets will be the same way.

                    If they can force Denver into becoming a passing team, probably. It’s not just that Tebow isn’t that great of a passer, he’s also working with a reciever corps that would be backups on most good passing teams. I can’t fault the coaching staff for realizing, “Geez, our QB needs work in the passing game, our WRs aren’t anything special, but we have decent RBs and a QB that can also run. Maybe we shouldn’t be throwing the damn ball 50 times a game.” If the Jets can’t stop the running game, then they’re going to have a hard time knocking anyone’s block off.

                    1. I seem to recall hearing this weekend that NE has the worst run defence in the entire league.

            2. They seem to have forgotten that Elway didn’t get a Super Bowl win until Terrell Davis came along,

              Or until they violated the salary cap

        2. I think it can last Red Rocks. The option can work as an offense. What people don’t understand is that you can spread a team out horizontally just as effectively as you can spread them out vertically. Sure, you can put 10 guys in the box on defense. But I am going to run a fullback up the middle, the quarterback around the end, and a trailing behind running to the edge. Then I am going to let the quarterback read your defense and either keep it, hand it off to the fullback at the last moment or pitch to the tailback at the last moment. That means you have to have your defense cover the entire field edge to edge. That spreads you out just as thin as you would be if you were covering the pass. And since you have nine or ten guys in the box, if one of your guys misses a tackle, there is no one behind him to stop my runner.

          That offense is brilliant. Nebraska ran it down people’s throats for years in college. The only reason no one has ever run it in the pros is because it is hard to find a quarterback big enough and durable enough to take the poinding of a 16 game season. And because pro coaches are ego maniacs dedicated to coaching one way and shoving their “system” down any team they coach’s throats. But Tebow may actually be big enough and bad enough to take the beatings. It could actually work if Denver is willing to just go with it.

          1. It also relies on the inability of most teams to make one-on-one tackles. In college, that assumption is usually true: most defenders can’t be relied upon to tackle one-on-one in the open field. In the NFL, that isn’t true. The talent is much more equal between the teams and the defenses are overall much faster.

            I predict what will happen with Tebow is what is currently happening with Cam Newton; teams will get enough tape on him to learn his tendencies and figure out ahead of time how they want to stop him. The differences are that I think Newton has enough skill to adjust, and that it won’t take teams anywhere near as long to figure out Tebow as it took them to figure out Newton, or the Wildcat for that matter.

            Like other commenters, I am wondering where all of this work, that Tebow is supposedly doing, is supposed to show up? He doesn’t throw the ball—56 yd bomb aside—like even a good college QB. He doesn’t make reads like an NFL QB is supposed to. His footwork sucks, which hurts him on the first point. So what has he been working on all of this time? Winning, I guess, just like Charlie Sheen.

            It is hilarious though, thinking of Denver. They start Tebow, thinking he’ll suck and they’ll lose, setting themselves up better to draft Barkley or Griffin, and what does Tebow do? Suck horribly but keep winning. LOL.

            1. I disagree with you about the quality of the tackling in the NFL. I think it is horrible. There is such an emphasis on turnovers, no one ever wraps up.

              And the option doesn’t depend totally upon missed tacles. It depends on speed and deception as well. Every defender has to be diciplined and stay on the proper assigned guy. One missed assignment and it is over. That is hard to do even in the NFL, especially when you are the only team playing it.

              I think the NFL is totally stale and boring in no small part because every team runs the same execution based passing offense. I hate Denver more than any team in football. But I would love to see this work and them to get in the playoffs. It would drive their coaches nuts. And it would put lie to the experts’ claim that there is only one way to win.

              1. But I would love to see this work and them to get in the playoffs.

                It’s not going to. They play the Jets, at S.D., at Minny, Chicago, New England, at Buffalo, and finish with K.C. Though you have to play the game, do you really think they go better than 2-5 over that stretch? Hell, Chicago may kill him outright.

                Re, the NFL and tackling, turnovers are tremendously valuable. It may be rational to use a technique that gives up a bit of tackling efficiency if that dramatically increases the chance of a forced fumble. Miss a tackle, and you give up, what, another few yards usually? If the situation is changed, where blowing a tackle results in a giant gain (which isn’t necessarily the case defending the triple option; the CB or FS is usually available to make a stop if the DE/OLB screws up), then I think you’d see teams emphasize tackling more than trying to force a fumble. I agree with you that defending the wishbone etc… requires a great degree of defensive discipline and less free-lancing. I just disagree with the idea that the option can be as successful as a regular pro-style offense. However, if the rules on hitting QBs get more penal, I totally can see a spread option make its way into the pro game.

              2. There’s a reason no one in the NFL runs that offense.

                The most impressive win was against the Raiders, and they got some seriously lucky breaks in that game.

                The 45-10 loss to the Lions in Denver showed what a good NFL team will do to Tebow. And in two weeks he gets to play the defense that chewed up and spit the Lions out.

                1. that was a painful game, but not completely unexpected from the Lions.

                2. The most impressive win was against the Raiders, and they got some seriously lucky breaks in that game.

                  Sorry, but that’s just a silly comment. How on earth are two touchdown runs by the primary running back, 100 yards rushing by the QB, 3 interceptions by the defense, and a special teams touchdown a ” bunch of lucky breaks”? By that logic, Chicago got lucky yesterday against the Lions.

                  Maybe Denver won that game because they executed their game plan better than Oakland did. Is that really so hard to contemplate?

          2. Nebraska ran it down people’s throats for years in college.

            College football is not NFL football.

            Tebow will get killed eventually if they try to implement this shit full time, big boy or not.

            1. He is as big or bigger than running backs. And they get the ball 30 times a game. Tebow is every bit the physical speciman that Adrean Peterson is.

              1. The difference is that a QB gets blind-sided, while a running back very rarely is not in position to prepare for a hit. Getting both will shorten Tebow’s career – but not as much as his poor passing.

    2. The AFC West is why the NFL needs relegation. Send them down, bring up Oregon, OK State, Alabama, and LSU.

      1. The NFC West was represented in the playoffs last year by a team with a losing record.

        1. That was last year. The AFCW hasn’t produced a wild card team since 2006.

          1. and last year only one team (Denver) had a losing record. wild-card berths don’t prove a division’s superiority.

      2. you can’t put an amateur team in a professional league. And there aren’t really any professional “Division II” or semi-pro leagues in Football that run the same rules and last more than a couple years.

  13. President Barack Obama responded thusly Sunday night:”Let me just say this: They’re wrong. Waterboarding is torture,” he said. “It’s contrary to America’s traditions. It’s contrary to our ideals. That’s not who we are. That’s not how we operate. We don’t need it in order to prosecute the war on terrorism. And we did the right thing by ending that practice.”

    Wonder if the order to waterboard that al Qaeda guy they captured in Pakistan has gone out from the White House yet.

    1. You’re not like holding Obama and the Democrats to like the same standards and stuff that they held Bush and the Republicans to, are you?

      I mean that’s just like unfair and stuff, you know?

      1. Not to mention racist.

        1. No, that was mentioned, I’m sure.

        2. I think I’d like to play the race card. How do you play that?

    2. Water boarding is wrong. Sticking a TOW missile through the front door of an American citizen who as best anyone can tell didn’t do anything but shoot his mouth off a lot, just peachy.

      Obama knows he can’t torture. So his sollution is to just kill anyone who might be associated with a terrorist group. I leave it to you to decide if that is an improvement.

      1. “Sticking a TOW missile through the front door of an American citizen who as best anyone can tell didn’t do anything but shoot his mouth off a lot”

        I know, we should reserve that kind of thing for our real enemies like Assange…

        1. So killing American citizens is just great as long as we get the right ones. Good to know.

          1. Boy, you missed that joke.

            1. If Obama can whack Al Awaki, why can’t the next President whack Assange or whoever else they want? I got the joke. It is just not very funny anymore.

            2. The “REPUBLICANS DO IT TOO!!!!” joke?

              Your sense of humor is regressing.

          2. American citizens; I don’t know. But I could maybe make an exception for certain Australians.

            1. Codename: Albino Dingo

      2. Obama can torture. He’s a Democrat. He’s smart. He’s intelligent. He’s a constitutional scholar. He’s a talented speaker. He’s eloquent. He’s not Bush.
        If he allows for water boarding then it is OK.

        Disagree and you are obviously racist.

        1. I think the point of the debate exchange is that there are several GOP candidates who are so morally bankrupt that they not only do not think waterboarding persons (usually ones not convicted of anything) is wrong, but they want to use this as an issue to attract supporters. WTF?

          1. Yeah. Like the Democrats who used the issue to attract supporters in the last couple elections, and then did absolutely nothing to change policy.

            1. Didn’t Obama ban waterboarding in 09?


              1. Just like he closed Gitmo. Yeah. Whatever. Meet the new Boss.

                1. He called for Gitmo to be closed, Congress blocked it. Separation of powers, how does it work?

                  1. He has used executive orders to get around pesky Congress on numerous occasions. I guess Gitmo wasn’t that important now was it.

                  2. “As president, Barack Obama will close the detention facility at Guantanamo.”

                    Hmm. When I made this promise, was I ignorant of the separation of powers?

                    Being a disingenuous fuck, how does it work?

                    1. I’m so smart, I know how to work with or against this stupid constitution.

      3. As John is the one who has always said waterboarding is just peachy, I find this sudden concern for extrajudicial killings quaint.

        1. Not that I support waterboarding, but it’s silly to pretend that there isn’t a meaningful distinction between that and extrajudicial killing.

          Like people who are anti-abortion but pro-death penalty.

        2. +1
          Has John ever come out against extrajudicial killings of suspected terrorists pre-Obama?

          1. Looks like you two little lovebirds have something in common.

            You are in favor of the government killing people as long as you don’t like who is being killed and as long as your guys are in charge.

            You only disagree about who to kill and who should be in charge.

            But in principle you two are in complete agreement.

            Now please go get a room and suck each other off.

            1. Are you a complete idiot?

              You don’t see what my joke referred to?

              Let me help you out then: google Palin Assange assasination

              1. I would if I gave a shit about Palin.

                Alas I do not.

              2. That’s President Palin to you!

                …oops, not yet.

        3. First, I haven’t always said waterboarding is just peachy. Second, the point of the post, which went right over your head, is that if you take away the government’s ability to interrogate and more importantly detain, they will just stop caturing and start killing people. That is exactly what Obama has done. He didn’t even try to capture Al Awaki because he knew he was unlikely to get him to give up much information, and since we stopped doing military tribunals there was no way to try him for anything. He just would have sat in GUITMO embarassing Obama.

          That is the second order effects of banning water boarding and refusing to have military tribunals. The President isn’t going to just let people plot agains the US. So if he cant’ capture and try them, he will just kill them.

          Since you are a liberal, I doubt you will understand this. But sometimes there are no good choices and eliminating a seemingly bad choice just leaves even worse choices on the table. It would have been a lot better if we would have captured Al Awaki and tried him before a military tribunal rather than just killing him.

          1. This makes it sound like you’re not really concerned about human life, but are more interested in the information that could theoretically be extracted from people before they die. The efficacy of torture is not proven anyway.

          2. “He didn’t even try to capture Al Awaki because he knew he was unlikely to get him to give up much information”

            There’s other explanations, such as that it was simpler than going into Yemen and catching the guy.

            “if you take away the government’s ability to interrogate and more importantly detain, they will just stop caturing and start killing people”

            One problem with that idea is that many proponents of waterboarding additionally were gung-ho about extrajudicial killings.

            1. We have a MLAT with Yemen. Yemen captures people for us all of the time. I see no evidence that the Yemeni authorities would not have at least tried to capture him had we asked them to. If Obama asked the Yemenis to do it and they said no, I haven’t seen that and would like to see where he did.

              If they had tried to capture him and he had resisted or if the Yemenis refused to capture him, then this would be less problematic. But it appears that no effort was made to get the Yemenis to help and they just killed him as soon as they figured out where he was. That and the fact that he was nowhere near a combat zone is a real problem. You joke about Assange above. But given the precident set by Obama in this case, why couldn’t a President Palin of killed Assange? Why would it have been illegal?

              1. I’m not the one who defended Obama or Palin for suggesting extrajudicial killing John, I condemned Palin when she suggested it and Obama when he did it.

                I just don’t think extrajudicial killing is some necessary result of banning waterboarding. I oppose both.

          3. John|11.14.11 @ 10:40AM|#
            First, I haven’t always said waterboarding is just peachy.

            You might want to go re-read your comments on the topic over the years.

  14. An open letter to my son

    He left the locker room, went to his office and called his father. He was 28 years old, and he had to ask his father what to do. Sadly, remarkably, his father told Mike McQueary to leave the building and come home. Later, he advised McQueary to tell Joe Paterno what he had seen.

    Nick, please, I’m begging you. Don’t be like Mike.

    Don’t ever walk away when you see someone being hurt. Call 911. Distract the attacker. Inject yourself into the middle of the fight if you have to. Throw something at the attacker and then run away, if you have to.

    1. The cowardice and stupidity involved there is breathtaking. It might be one thing if a towel boy saw a PSU defensive tackle committing a crime. He could call 911 but could not physically stop the crime from ocurring. McQueary, on the other hand, is a 6’4” former scholarship athlete who witnessed a man in his 60s raping a youing boy — a rape he could have physically stopped at a moment’s notice, if he had wanted to.

      1. Sandusky, being the more trustworthy and senior official, would have been able to claim assault. It could have devolved into a he said, he said.

        I don’t think any of us can say how he/she would have reacted. It’s a shocking and disgusting scene. Lots of people are caught like the proverbial deer in such situations. Fight or flight – flight is very common and often the preferred reaction.

        But he should have informed the police AND university officials, ie Paterno if he was the appropriate outlet.

        1. He said/he said? Really? There’s the boy, and McQueary, and gods know what fluids Sandusky has left behind–against Sandusky’s word.

          Oh, I think any of us can easily say how we’d have reacted–we’d have done our best to make Sandusky’s head a chunky reddish smear on the tiles.

    2. The dad is just as guilty. Who tells their someone to call Joe Paterno rather than the police? Was Paterno a football coach or a cult leader. “No son, call dear leader. He will know what to do”. God those people are pathetic.

      1. The dad is more guilty. It’s somewhat understandable that Mike McQueary was too shocked to know what to do after seeing an old friend raping a little boy.

        1. True. I don’t agree with all of the people who say they know they would have beaten Sandusky within an inch of his life right there. Yeah maybe. But maybe not. I have never seen such a scene thank God. But I do know it takes a lot of nerve to physically attack someone. And I also know that when you see something truely shocking like that your first instinct is to run away. I can’t say I wouldn’t have just walked away in shock at first. But after I got my wits about me, I can assure you I would have called the cops. To this day they don’t know who that kid was. How do you walk away and let them both out of the building?

          1. I’ve spent years working with homeless youth, many of whom were sexually abused and many who were prostitutes and I can tell you without hesitation my immediate reaction would be to yell, “THE FUCK YOU DOING, ASSHOLE?” as I walked swiftly towards the rape in progress. I’d also be looking for a potential weapon (e.g., broom, bat…).

            As someone who coached at Woodward for years along with lots of gymnasts and coaches from Penn State, I am shocked Penn State just buried it all.

            1. That is what should have been done. And the rapist should have lost some vital organs.

          2. “But after I got my wits about me, I can assure you I would have called the cops.”

            Definitely, and it should have been police not affiliated with the college. College police might have covered it up as well – or they would be more likely to.

        2. Hm, no. On second thought, they’re equally guilty. The son for being too cowardly to stop the old pervert in the act, and the dad for telling his son to continue to be a coward.

        3. I don’t know that dad is more guilty, but they are both more guilty than Paterno, and yet they are still considering whether to fire him.

          1. One of the weird things about this scandal is that Penn State has been paying two guys who are going to be tried for perjury, and the retained the only first-hand witness to the assault, but fired JoePa.

            JoePa heard about the scandal, and delegated it to someone else. Corageous? No, but far less culpable than being a first-hand witness or actively lying about it.

            1. I think they knew this guy was a pervert for a long time before 2002. That is why they didn’t call the cops in 2002. They were worried about the embarassment of the whole truth coming out.

              1. “I think” is a good reason to fire someone. Yup.

            2. And in Joe’s case, all he had was somenoe else’s word. Could he verify it? Besides, it is a legal matter. It should have been brought to the attention of the police immediately.

              1. Joe’s best response would have been to advise McQeuary to go to the police. Joe was not a witness.

                If you are sitting in a bar and a guy comes in and sits down next to you and says: “I just killed my wife”, do you have an obligation to call the cops?

                1. Are you retarded fan? Joe wasn’t just sitting at the bar. Joe was the most powerful man in the atheltic department. And one of his assistents came to him and said he saw Sandusky raping a ten year old boy. And Joe’s response was to call the AD and cover the whole thing up.

                  Does that make Joe a criminal? No. But it does put lie to his entire career. When it mattered and when it was hard Joe did the wrong thing and let Sandusky continue to molest kids. He should have been fired. And he will always be remembered as a fake.

      2. You mean there’s supposed to be a difference between a football coach and a cult leader?
        Oh, right, cult leaders usually have to die before they’re discredited — a coach can do that by losing enough games.
        Coaching is child abuse — the use of the bodies of children for one’s own pleasure.
        OF COURSE there’s abuse going on — it’s the heart and soul of pre-adult athletics, and that heart and soul permeate the world of the adults who participate.

        no hugs for thugs,
        Shirley Knott

        1. Coaching is not child abuse. That is grade D- trolling.

          1. That’s exactly what a coach would say…

        2. Looks like Shirley didn’t make the team.

        3. Father: Did you make the team?

          Son: I did Knott!

          1. lmao

        4. *yawn

    3. LH, I’ve been doing some ruminating of late on concerns surrounding issues of apathy and chain-of-command thinking and consensus. And I’ve come to the conclusion that “consensus culture” is hurting everyone but criminals. Because we are always taught to second-guess our thoughts and beliefs, we never know when to recognize wrong-doing, or, once recognized, whether to report it.

      It’s part of a culture that legitimizes cultural/moral relativism by encouraging observers to doubt the truth seen by his or her own eyes. Maybe McQueary was not sure; after all, how did he know his perspective was the correct one? How did he know that he was not observing an instance wherein Sandusky was just helping the boy do (something? anything regarding showering?)?

      I’m getting a bit tired of having my own sense of right and wrong, my capacity for judgement, and my sense of compassion-cum-balance vis-a-vis right and wrong challenged simply because I am insufficiently open-minded or tolerant.

      1. This should say: challenged simply because others feelI am insufficiently open-minded or tolerant.

      2. That is a really good point Madbiker. I think the guys at the higher level just didn’t care and wanted to do anything to save their own jobs and not embarass the beloved program. But I think you hit the nail on the head with regards to McQueary.

        1. Hegelian dialectics is a downfall for our social fabric. Encouraging alternative viewpoints is not wholly evil; but teaching people that they are evil and antisocial if they don’t adopt and at least accept a portion of an alternative perspective is truly evil.

          I hear it bemoaned time and again that people lack the courage of their convictions; yet, who knows what his or her own convictions are, when we have to always have conversations and dialogues and fora on how to best come to terms with the existence of people who don’t think and feel in the same fashion?

          1. That is what evil is most of the time. Evil is eviocation. All of us are guilty of at least some small evils. What real evil does is successfully equivocate our small evils with really big evils. To put it in your terms it says to people “who are you to say that this big evil is completely wrong? Aren’t you guilty of things as well?” Thus begins the road to hell.

        2. Spot on, Mad. David Brooks nailed it on “Meet The Press” yesterday with the idea of “scripts”:

          If you’re alert to the sense of what evil is, what the evil is within yourself and what evil is in society, you have a script to follow. It’s not a vague sense. You have a script to follow. And this is necessary because people do not intervene. If–there’s been a ton of research on this. They say people, they ask people, “If you saw something cruel, if you saw racism and sexism, will you intervene?” Then they hire actors, and they put it right in front of them. People do not intervene. It’s called the bystander effect. It happens again and again, people don’t intervene. That’s why we need these scripts to remind people how, how evil can be all around.

          Those “scripts” are what you learn in church as a kid (I’m an atheist – but church-raised, incidentally), what you learn on the way to Eagle Scout, what you develop in boot camp, etc. They are in a word, the components of character and I lament the fact that they have become progressively less important in this society over the course of my lifetime.

          1. I think our legalistic society deters people from intervening. I saw this first hand this weekend. I was walking down the street, a very busy one, and a guy was literally assaulting his wife in broad daylight. The question was do I intervene? He was a big guy. But the thought of getting a beating didn’t bother me and I figured I might give as good as I got. He might have a weapon. That bothered me. But I didn’t think he had one and it was worth the risk.

            But here is the last thought that went through my mind. If I go over and stop this and get into an altercation with this guy, the police are going to show up and he (and possibly his abused wife) is going to claim I assaulted him. Chances are the cop will arrest us both and I will end up in jail for the night. Sure I would probably clear my name. But at what cost in time and money? That deterred me more than anything. Fortuneately a cop showed up literally as I was making this decision.

            I doubt I am the only one who thought that. We arrest people for everything in this society. And being arrested is a huge deal for someone with anything to lose. I think it is the legal risk as much as anything that keeps people from intervening.

            1. On Friday one of the receptionists in my office was sick on the couch in front, and I was going home early. I wanted to offer her a ride home as I figured she might not be good to drive, but I was to afraid of it being taken the wrong way to do the kind thing I wanted to do.


              Live and let live sounds great, and I’m all for it as long as no one tells me I’m wrong for the way I’m living. Hurt anyone, and you might be in for some pain. Wondering how any of us might be manipulated for some architectural gains may be unthinkable but I’m not sure it’s gone unnoticed in some people’s heads.

              I’ll go back to my particular bug-a-boo of education. By encouraging a constant and unforgiving stand that dissenters must embrace a view that not only encompasses but embraces, accepts, and internalizes concepts foreign to them, they will begin to doubt conviction and faith, indeed any foundation upon which they were raised, in order to subjugate their old-fogey beliefs to the more true New Way (TM!) of thinking.

            3. I can’t find the link now, but in the Chinese toddler run over story, where passers-by ignored him/her, the common thread was that it’s not uncommon for people who report crimes to be accused of committing them or for others who intervene to help someone injured are accused by authorities of causing the injury, so everyone minds their own business.

              Fuckin’ lovely, that communism is.

            4. Don’t get involved is a mantra for legal, physical and moral reasons.

              The approach I have developed, should such a situation ever occur, is to distract the perp in some way. Start a fire, fall down and start wretching, or simply start a screaming match with my companion (if any). This draws attention from other passersby and could get the perp to stop to see what is going on.

            5. This happened to me two weeks ago. I was walking into Gander Mountain when I happened by a man and (presumably) wife where the man was about three inches from her face and screaming at the top of his lungs about how she’s at fault for all their ills. To top it off they had two kids in the car crying. My intention was to just ask whether there was a problem and if everyone was okay, but a security guard game out and got there before I did.

              I’d like to think I’d physically intervene if I came upon a rape or a fight between people with clearly different levels of competence, but I can’t be sure, and so I can’t judge that McQueary is wrong for not having done more.

      3. Tolerance is a virtue for addressing small vices, not large ones.

        1. Part of the problem is equating vice with sin. Vices speak to virtue, sin speaks to evil.

      4. It’s part of a culture that legitimizes cultural/moral relativism by encouraging observers to doubt the truth seen by his or her own eyes.

        Uh no, this is about an organization that knew something was wrong and was trying to cover it up. There’s no cultural/moral relativism at work here, just a good old-fashioned cover-up.

        1. Cultural/moral relativism can go a long way in helping to cover up wrong-doing at various levels.

          I’m in agreement with you, to be sure. Everyone from McQueary on up should have done the right thing; but they did not. So, whether it was a feeling that he “saw something bad (maybe)” or “one our our own saw something wrong and we don’t want to risk tarnishing our reputation over a mistake,” some sort of tribalism took over. Some sort of thinking about what others might think, or how others might judge, or what consequences might befall me, happened in the minds of more than just McQueary and Paterno.

          The (tribal) organization, the monolith, that is Penn State, was at risk, and the witnesses had a choice: support the Empire, or orchestrate its end. Cover-up is not old, as you point out. And sometimes quasi-innocent actors are the fulcrum upon which justice hinges: do you sacrifice yourself, and your intimate knowledge, on the altar of judgement, to truth?

          1. I think you did way too much acid in years past.

            1. …or not enough? I loved every experience.

        2. …”an organization that knew something was wrong …”

          Individuals, not an organization.

          And, where’s the evidence these folks knew? Conclusion jumping is rampant on this case.

          1. Yeah there is evidence. It is called a grand jury report. Two of those people are under indictment for purjury and failure to report.

  15. Re: “honest graft.” Here’s an easy solution: 75% capital gains rate for sitting members of Congress. Surely no democrat would object, would they? I mean, talk about unearned income . . .

    1. But politicians are unselfish PUBLIC SERVANTS! if millions of dollars happen to fall in their laps, why should they be punished?

      1. But politicians are unselfish PUBLIC SERVANTS!

        Then the correct title for them is “Boy” or “Girl”, not “Congressman” or “Senator”.

  16. considering calling on occupiers to declare ‘victory’

    Do you know who else declared victory?

    1. Gaius Julius Caesar?

    2. The Harlem Globetrotters?

    3. Will they put up a “Mission Accomplished” banner to mark the occasion?

      1. yes

  17. Ants put the land their colonies are on on gambol lockdown from other ants. This is an evil aspect of Ant [Civilization] and Ant [Agriculture]

    This is evil!!!!…..212548.htm

    1. That isn’t news to anyone who played SimAnt.

    2. this made me lol

    3. lmfao

    4. “Although both parties benefit from the interaction, this research shows is that all is not well in the world of aphids and ants. The aphids are manipulated to their disadvantage: for aphids the ants are a dangerous liaison.”

      So which is it? Do the aphids benefit or are they at a disadvantage?

    1. I got a server error message:

      404 – File or directory not found.
      The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

      1. Lucky bastard.

      1. To be honest I have never read anything by either Matt Welch or Nick Gillespie that demonstrated any kind of intolerance for anyone with the exceptions of abusive law enforcement officials and corrupt and / or tyrannical political figures. Perhaps you can show us some examples.

        1. The fact they allow us all to comment here says all you need to know about their tolerance.

      2. From rectal’s site:
        “I have not the time, nor the interest to read libertarian diarrhea on how to reshape America”

        …except spending endless hours on Reason’s comment boards. What an arrogant, hypocritical, lying ass you are!

        1. A fan,

          I have a question for you. Do you care more about insulting people or convincing people? This is a serious question.

        2. A fan,”…except spending endless hours on Reason’s comment boards.” or, it could be I have an apprentice troll (I suspect more than two)

  18. In Favor of Dirty Jokes and Risqu? Remarks……html?_r=1

    The creativity and resourcefulness of the definitions, the broadness and rigor of the rules and codes, have always betrayed their more Orwellian purpose: when I was at Princeton in the ’90s, the guidelines distributed to students about sexual harassment stated, “sexual harassment may result from a conscious or unconscious action, and can be subtle or blatant.” It is, of course, notoriously hard to control one’s unconscious, and one can behave quite hideously in one’s dreams, but that did not deter the determined scolds.

    1. When you have a moral equivalency between making dirty jokes and raping children, this is what you get.

      1. There’s no equivalency–you can get paid for reporting dirty jokes!

  19. At WH, Google CEO rejects Obama’s ‘lazy’ comment

    Schmidt said that, as a matter of principle, he believes the country can “always” work harder to attract foreign business, “but I would have said that independent of any other fact.”

    Asked by a reporter, “Would you use the word “lazy”?” Schmidt rejected the term. “I would not.”

    1. I love it: the laziest president in American history (who is on another vacation as we speak by the way) is calling other people lazy.

      1. Mike, stop commenting on useless libertarian sites and GO MAKE MORE TAX REVENUE!

        How else can our leaders pay off their campaign contributors?


    “A former official in the Nixon administration, a Reagan appointee to the bench and a Federalist Society favorite, Judge Silberman is one of the most respected and conservative jurists. He penned – to the delight of the right – the D.C. Circuit’s 2007 decision that struck down the District of Columbia’s gun laws, concluding that the Second Amendment recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms.

    That this conservative luminary voted to uphold the constitutionality of the most controversial aspect of the president’s health-care proposal is welcome news – and not simply because we agree with this result.”


    I shat bricks


    Police in North Carolina were investigating Sunday after two students were robbed by several gunmen in a dorm room at Fayetteville State University.

    WRAL-TV reported four to six men with guns knocked on a dorm room door at around 2:00am local time, university spokesman Jeff Womble said. When the two students answered, a physical altercation ensued.

    Shots were fired, damaging some furniture in the room, but no one was struck. The two students were injured during the altercation, Womble said.


    1. They robbed students in a dorm?! Somewhere, Willie Sutton is weeping.


    Steven Chu won a nobel prize so I can’t say he is stupid. So I guess I will just go with evil.

    1. Wanna bet? Here you go: Steve Chu is stupid

    2. “Evil” works. You know who else was nominated for a Nobel Prize.

      1. not only nominated, but won. for making speeches. and being black.

        1. that’s what I won for!

        2. Hitler was black?!

    3. No, not stupid. I think that it is a big mistake to equate intelligence and being right about things.
      Scientists should not get involved in politics. I think that is the lesson here. Just because you are good at whatever Chu is good at doesn’t mean that you will make good public policy on energy. A scientists job is to describe how things are, not to decide what we should do about it.

      1. YES, STUPID about energy issues. This has been shown repeatedly – oil drilling ban, Solyndra, light bulbs, etc.

        And “Scientists should not get involved in politics.”

        Just who the fuck are you to tell us what to do or not do?

        Go join that Second Mile camp at Penn State.

      2. YES, STUPID about energy issues. This has been shown repeatedly – oil drilling ban, Solyndra, light bulbs, etc.

        And “Scientists should not get involved in politics.”

        Just who the fuck are you to tell us what to do or not do?

        Go join that Second Mile camp at Penn State.

      3. I don’t think it’s fair to simply say that scientists shouldn’t be involved in politics. I’d say that scientists shouldn’t think that their expertise can be applied successfully or morally to plan the actions of millions of individuals with rights and their own motivations.

    4. There’s a lot of talk about Obama in that piece, but it somehow neglected to mention that the phase-out was passed in 2007 and signed by Bush.

      1. I guess I won’t vote for that guy again. But in the mean time JP that doesn’t change my opinion of Chu. Who gives a shit that the best thing you can say about Obama is that he was only as stupid as Bush?

  23. Remember the “borderless” Internet? It’s officially dead.

    Hopefully, the rumors of its death are exaggerated.

    1. Fighting SOPA may be the most important fight of our age.

  24. “sexual harassment may result from a conscious or unconscious action, and can be subtle or blatant.”

    You may, in fact, be completely unaware of your oppressive hatred for the multifarious alternative sexual predilections of your peers. You may even “believe” you have said (or done) nothing wrong.

    That is why we are here; to show you what an odious slavish pawn of the cisgender patriarchy you are.

    1. the Male Gaze is forever strong!

      1. It’s kind of funny that people here laugh at those who talk about the “Male Gaze” when a good dozen or so postings here regularly are about rating how “hot” various women are…

        1. Oh, I get it, with great power comes great responsibility.

          Right? RIGHT?

          1. No, because it’s obviously wrong to admire beautiful women. Or something..

            1. You don’t think there’s reason for women to complain that they are judged based on their looks, as opposed to other qualities, so much?

                1. Well, I can see why they complain some. There’s certainly a double standard there (more emphasis on looks for women than men) and it can foster some really unhealthy mindsets for women (and men).

                  Either way, my point is that its certainly funny to see feminists mocked for being concerned about the reach of the male gaze by the same folks who constantly rate women on their looks here…I guess the feminists were right about how pervasive it is, eh?

                  1. Female commenters here have mentioned the hotness of various male celebrities etc. It only seems one-sided because there are more male commenters here. Anyway, you can’t pretend libertarians don’t admire women for their minds as well. Just look at Ayn Rand, for a good example.

                    1. I don’t deny women judge men by looks. Do you think this is as pervasice and prevalent in our society, and especially in the media? I don’t think so.

                2. You’ll have to excuse MNG.

                  He thinks that you should subvert millions of years of evolutionary impulses to find appealing physical attributes pleasurable and instead bury those impulses deep, deep down, and yield to the prevailing political winds so as to write sonnets to Elena Kagan, whose laser-like mind and skill at deftly dodging any inconvenient inconsistencies in her opinions, clearly makes her the better choice for a mate.

                  Oh, and also stop mindlessly oppressing women with your GAZE.

                  1. JW, you need to look up the Naturalistic Fallacy.

                    Even if men were hard wired to obsess about looks above all else regarding women more than women are (given how much of our culture fosters that I doubt that claim), it would not make it right, any more than if you could show that aggression had been bred into us via evolution would that make aggression right.

                    1. Yes, of course, how silly of me.

                      Approvingly looking at a woman is the same thing as raping her. Got it.

                    2. Who said that? Not me.

                      Are many feminist complaints about ‘the male gaze’ absurdly hyperbolic? Yes.

                      Is there any grounds for women to complain about the male gaze? Yes.

                      That’s my position here, no more, no less.

                    3. Is there any grounds for women to complain about the male gaze? Yes.

                      Well, there’s your problem.

                    4. I WOULD DEBATE A HAM SANDWICH! I”M THAT PATHETIC!!!11111

                    5. Even more pathetic: I’d lose.

        2. There are very few things more irritating than a man talking about what is and what is not offensive to women.

          1. Glad you popped up during all the discussions here in which male commenters criticized what women posters thought was offensive about the male gaze…

            1. Yes, because I am here 24/7/365…I neither eat nor sleep nor shit nor fuck!

        3. “male gaze” is a fiction, if women who perceive it are strong enough to recognize it as such.

          Gosh MaleGaze is powerful fucking magic to make women feel so downtrodden and to control their reproductive and voting and other habitual activities.

          1. It depends. If all is meant by male gaze is that women are judged more pervasively and more relentlessly on looks alone and that this has negative effects for women it seems quite reasonable to me.

            1. I’ve always thought feminism was about judging women on more than looks alone, and about female capacity for duty (in the home or otherwise).

              To say that women are only, wholly, objects, is to ratify and verify “male gaze” as reason to hate men. And it refutes feminism.

              When I see any word ending in “-ism” I see an implied “rule by -ism.” So when I see “feminism” is see “rule by femmes (women)” implied in the phrase. I do think women want “rule by women” to be implied by this, though, and that “male gaze” ought to imply the following: we can dress, and act, and go any place, and be anything we want, with impunity. Male gaze notwithstanding, we are in control, and there are no consequences to our behavior. And if we encounter any roadblocks whatsoever, we will blame male behavior for any and all perceived limitations we encounter.”

            2. Although I don’t equate appreciation with judgement, I think that would only have a negative effect on those with less looks. Just like judging people based on intelligence would have a negative effect on those with less intelligence. The same goes for age, money, health, morals, or any other quantity or quality.

          2. It’s a wonderful tool for female control over men via guilt and shame. Feminists who conjure the spectre of the evil Male Gaze are just following in the grand tradition of many millenia of religious sects.

  25. Brett L | 11.14.11 @ 9:08AM | # I love the EFF guys on over-the-wire freedoms, I just wish they’d get around to supporting freedom IRL, too.

    Yeah, this. In general they can’t seem ti figure out that their favorite ideas (like net neutrality) require handing over power to the government, then they complain about what the government does with it. I subscribe to the RISKS list and those folks know what they’re talking about technically but they can’t seem to carry their skepticism and caution toward complex technical systems on to ckmplex political systems. Lauren Weinstein is particularly obtuse in this realm.


    Before the end of 2011, Congress will vote on legislation that would essentially nationalize the permits that states issue for people to carry concealed weapons.

    Lawmakers should reject this bill, which would curtail the rights of Oregon and other states that do not allow or that limit carry-permit reciprocity with other states.

    The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., was recently approved by the House Judiciary Committee by a 19-11 vote. Just one Republican, Rep. Dan Lungren of California, opposed the bill, demonstrating how deeply conservatives’ traditional reverence for states’ rights has eroded.

    Contributor’s comment: Civil rights trump states’ rights.


    What states’ rights? Since they’re all fucked to shit anyway, I’m supporting this

    1. States’ rights is just code for racism anyway, so what the fuck. Concealed carry for all!

    2. Wait, what? I thought ‘states right’ was code for institutionalized racism. Are these people admitting that the GOP no longer supports racism?

        1. *shakes fist*

      1. Progressivist hypocrisy — never ceases to amaze, eh?

    3. Actually, this bill has some bad side effects. It only applies to states that have some form of licensed concealed carry, so for instance it doesn’t apply to IL. That means some may-issue states like NY and MD will probably just ban concealed carry altogether rather than be forced to honor permits from lax states like PA.

  27. Richard Nixon?

  28. How did he know that he was not observing an instance wherein Sandusky was just helping the boy do (something? anything regarding showering?)?

    “Oh look, son; I think you dropped your soap.”

    1. Potential New Soap Advertising Campaign: “You’re Not Fully Sodomized Until You’re ZESTfully Sodomized!

      1. “Manly, yes… but I like it, too!”

  29. “Peaceful” OWSer In Unprovoked Razor Attack Against Police

    “Peaceful” Portland OWSers With Homemade Grenades Arrested

    “That word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
    — Inigo Montoya


      1. … OF THE CORN …

    2. Actually, I don’t think the protesters are violent enough to the cops.


    “Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is ‘sticking to his story’ that Justice Department officials have changed their stories, and this week’s testimony by Attorney General Eric Holder, and recent revelations in the Fast and Furious scandal prove it.”

    “In a statement to the Judiciary Committee’s executive business meeting Thursday, he reiterated complaints voiced earlier in the week, and discussed by this column, that the Justice Department knew information it offered earlier this year about the gun trafficking sting operation was false.” …


    Wait, the Department of Justice is full of shit? Wow — I never would have guessed!

  31. White House now following classic arch of all failed socialist economies by calling Americans lazy. Up next, America is being sabataged by hoarders and wreckers.…..tten-lazy/

    1. Being able to say this after tying his healthcare reform around business’s neck takes some massive gall.

      “Because of our federalist system, sometimes a foreign investor comes in and they’ve got to navigate not only federal rules, but they’ve also got to navigate state and local governments that may have their own sets of interests. Being able to create if not a one-stop shop, then at least no more than a couple of stops for people to be able to come into the United States and make investments, that’s something that we want to encourage,” Obama said.

      1. so let’s get rid of state and local laws?

        1. You know who else got rid of state and local power?

        2. And while we’re at it, declare him Emperor and be done with the pretenses already!

          1. [::Orgasms, violently::]

            1. If you were Scarlett Johansson, I’d love to see that happen — but you’re a fucking gremlin, so I beg you to keep that shit to yourself.

              Thank you.

              1. Sexual Harassment!

            2. I could really have done without that.

      2. You know, he actually makes a pretty clear case for Ron Paul’s plan to eliminate five federal departments. The stealth libertarian agenda is showing its ass.

      1. I think he’s talking to Cousin Pookie:…


    “FL: Miami Cop Thomas Vokaty Disciplined for Retaliatory Stop of FHP Trooper”

    “?The apparent ongoing fight between City of Miami Police officers and Florida Highway Patrol troopers is both sickening and pathetic. These are people paid with taxpayer money to protect Dade County. Not get into to pissing matches.”

    “The MPD has declared that no such rivalry exists, but just yesterday the department disciplined one of their own for what appears to be an apparent retaliatory stop against an FHP trooper. At least they’re trying to quell the tension.” …


    Fauras, or whatever the fuck his name was: Mommy, mommy, the evil statie made me stawp!!!111111 WAAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAAHAHA!

  33. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes……&seid=auto

    NY: 3 Officers to Face Discipline for Detaining City Officials at Parade

    “The Police Department will discipline three officers for an episode in which a city councilman and another city official were detained and handcuffed after the West Indian American Day Parade in September, according to the New York Civil Liberties Union.”

    “The department’s Internal Affairs Bureau found that there was ‘sufficient evidence to partially substantiate’ the complaints by the councilman, Jumaane D. Williams, and the city official, Kirsten John Foy, according to letters that the two men received from the bureau’s chief, Charles V. Campisi.” …

    -!-!-!-Submitter’s Note: That’s what you get for roughing up important colored folks. Next time stick to hoi polloi who can’t fight back politically.-!-!-!-


    Yeah, you’ve got stick to the peasantry – don’t fuck with the nobles!

    1. This is what happens when police harass people who can afford decent legal representation.
      Since 99% can’t, the odds are on the police’s side.

      1. Finally, a 99% I can support!

  34. Obama believes torture is wrong.
    That must be why he’s unwilling to hold Congress’ feet to the fire on spending.


    “Yesterday, Andrew Rosenthal of The New York Times blasted the National Rifle Association while seemingly attempting to reinvent the paper’s position on gun control.”

    “In his post, Mr. Rosenthal declared:”

    “‘I want to be clear: The New York Times editorial board does not oppose gun ownership. We believe the Second Amendment confers a communal right on Americans to own guns ? not an individual one. But that’s actually a smaller point than you might think. All we really want are sensible restrictions based on public safety and common sense.'”

    —– Gun positions are the least of your worries, shithead — your rag isn’t exactly credible on much

    1. The New York Times editorial board does not oppose gun ownership. We believe the Second Amendment confers a communal right on Americans to own guns ? not an individual one.

      Then you oppose gun ownership.

      1. That’s not true. For example, you could think there is no constitutional right to own a car but still not oppose car ownership.

        1. Individuals own guns, not collectives — logically, he opposes gun ownership, and fuck him sideways

          1. “Individuals own guns, not collectives”

            That’s not true. Who owns the guns at the National Guard armory down the street?

            1. That’s the fucking government, MNG. Let’s not obfuscate intentionally, shall we?

              1. And who owns the government?

                1. I can’t tell whether you’re being serious, or whether you’re just fucking with us.

                  1. It’s always neat to talk to libertarians, if only for their outlier perspective. I keep forgetting you guys don’t buy into the entire “we the people” as who ultimately owns the government, but see it as run by some alien cabal.

                    1. “Individuals own guns, not collectives”

                      That’s not true.

                      So liberal position is that people don’t have a right to own guns but corporations do.

                      Got it.

                    2. yep

                    3. I’ll let you own the government, MNG, because I didn’t vote for it.

                2. And who owns the government?

                  The government. Duh.

                  1. I don’t know who owns the government, but I know who is paying for it!

                  2. “And who owns the government?”


                3. Goldman Sachs?

            2. Who owns the guns at the National Guard armory down the street?

              Not the people that actually get to shoot them, that’s for sure.

          2. “I want to be clear: The New York Times editorial board does not oppose gun ownership. We just don’t want any of you fuckers to have one, is all.”

            Hey… I’d be willing to award ’em points for simple, baseline honesty, at least.

            1. I don’t even think they are honest with themselves, never mind their readers.

        2. We believe the Second Amendment confers a communal right on Americans to own guns

          Raising the issue of who can exercise this “communal” right.

          1. Sagacious and infallible philosopher kings, duly anointed (and appointed) by virtue of their membership on The New York Times editorial board.

          2. Raising the issue of who can exercise this “communal” right.

            In any interaction with a public servant, like a policeman for instance, the “community” or “public” means “everyone but you”.

            So when something is a “communal” right it belongs to everyone but you, or more accurately it belongs to no one.

            1. The idea is that a communal right is oversaw like public property, by agents of the people authorized by their duly chosen representatives.

              1. So a communal right to bear arms really means the right of authorized overseers to bear arms.
                A communal right to bear arms really means the government can bear arms.
                Protecting the communal right to bear arms means nobody in the community can bear arms unless they are part of the government.
                Yeah. That makes sense.

                1. I’m not sure why this is radical for you. The idea of a communal right of gun ownership would be something like the much brought up nations that have citizen militias, but with the government owning and overseeing gun ownership. The idea is the people own and oversee the government, so for most people it’s not the problem it is for you guys.

                  1. Dude, government is the organization within society with the monopoly on violence.
                    Government, by definition, does not need permission to bear arms. Being that government is the people within society who can commit murder without consequence, it goes without saying that they can keep and bear arms.

                    Defining the government’s right to keep and bear arms serves no purpose.

                    Which obviously means that the purpose of the Second Amendment was not to declare that government overlords may keep and bear arms.

                    1. Federalism, how does it work?

                      The people who think the 2nd recognizes a communal right thought they were protecting the state militias from the feds dude, not to grant “the government” a right to bear arms.

                    2. thought they were protecting the state militias

                      So the 2nd Amendment grants the state governments the right to bear arms.

                      Got it.

                    3. Sort of. It grants the people the right to have state militias is how that reading goes. Anti-federalists wree very concerned about provisions allowing the feds oversight over state militias, and since they felt that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” they enshrined their existence to the People, not the feds.

                      I have to give this reading credit, it does not make that quoted part seem as superflous as the individual right reading does.

                    4. Federalism, how does it work?

                      No one here doubts your palpable confusion.

                  2. “It’s the Glorious People’s Community Armory!”

                  3. The idea is the people own and oversee the government…

                    If by own you mean I get to pay for it, and if by oversee you mean they give me some mirrors so that I can watch them fuck me in the ass, then I completely agree.

              2. So, the State has plenary power over what guns can be owned by who. Got it.

        3. Well…except the Constitution reads, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Which means it doesn’t read, “the right of the people to keep and bear cars shall not be infringed.”

          So, as usual, you’re just a twatwaffle with no legitimate point.

        4. HAM SANDWICH!!!!111111111!

    2. Maybe I’m just dumb, but what on earth is a “communal right”?

      Is it like a timeshare?

      1. You know what they are talking about, a lot of people think the 2nd Amendment was all about preventing the feds from doing away with state militias. An individual right to a state militia seems odd, so it’s considered a collective right.

        1. State militia means “National Guard”.

          So the Second Amendment protects the right of government employees to carry weapons.

          Without it our government would have no right to bear arms.

          1. “So the Second Amendment protects the right of government employees to carry weapons.”

            Well, sort of. I think the idea is that it protected the state militias around at the time. The state militias were kind of government employees when pressed into service I guess. But it was more of a protection of those militias. You’d have to read Steven’s dissent in Heller for the evidence there.

            1. Glad to know that the government needs to have it’s right to deal death protected. I mean, look at all the problems that have happened through history thanks to government’s right to keep and bear arms not being protected.

              1. Yeah, they might have euthanized those they politically disagree with!

                1. That could never, ever happen.

                  1. I keep telling people that!

                2. Well that’s pretty much what leaders on the left do when unchecked, correct?

        2. Is it now? In what universe?

      2. At any moment in time when you interact with a public servant, “public” means everyone but you.
        It’s the same idea with “communal right”.

        The community is everyone but the individual, which means nobody.

    3. “‘I want to be clear: The New York Times editorial board does not oppose gun ownership. We believe the Second Amendment confers a communal right on Americans to own guns ? not an individual one.

      What kind of reasoning is this? Does Rosenthal actually believe that all guns and bullets should be kept in a colonial-style community armory, or is he just pulling some passive-aggressive misdirection?

      1. What… we can’t have both — ?

      2. Dude, why the struggle in imagining this? It could be something like what the Swiss do, or many other nations that don’t recognize a individual right to guns but do, you know, have guns in their country.

        It’s not something I favor, but I fail to see why so many here seem to find it impossible to conceptualize…

        1. It could be something like what the Swiss do…

          These would be the same Swiss that mandate each household possess a full-auto rifle with a basic load of ammunition? Those rifles aren’t kept down at the armory, MNG; they’re in everybody’s houses. (Not that you’re allowed to fire them outside of organized drill/training, IIRC. And I’m not sure if you have to give it back at the conclusion of your time in their version of the Reserves.)

          If you want to argue that the 1789 rifled musket is so qualitatively different than an M4 that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to own the former, but not the latter, I’ll disagree with you, but see your point. But to say that it guarantees only a collective right, the states to have their own National Guard units, is frankly insane, given the history of the universal ownership of firearms in this country vs the traditions left behind in Great Britain.

    4. WTF is a “communal right” to own guns? So if a community formed the Harlem Militia, he would be OK with that?

    5. Communal is codeword for government. So, basically the Constitution gives the government the right to own guns, according to the New York Times. What the hell purpose does that serve? I mean, the Constitution already gave Congress the ability to raise an Army. Do they expect that they needed the 2nd Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights) in order for this Army to have firearms? Ridiculous! I guess if it werent for the 2nd Amendment, we’d have to use arrows, spears, and stones on our enemies, right?

      1. Again, the idea is that it protected state and local militias from the feds.

        They had just fought a war involving incidents in which a central government tried to control and confiscate local militia arms.

        1. This is why more and more the communal reading makes sense to me. It fits not only better with the text, but it also seems mired in the concerns of the time.

          The early founders were not concerned with the general populace being totally disarmed ironically because no one would have thought that would have been an issue that any politician would have been stupid enough to suggest…

          1. MNG, you need to familiarize yourself with the writings of the Founders on this.

            They were, in fact, completely on board with the idea that the right of individuals to own and bear arms needed protection from the State.

            1. It’s hard to separate any of that from their also easily cited concerns about state militias being taken over or disbanded by the feds, if only because back then state militias heavily depended on individual ownership of firearms used in militia service.

              Look, I like an individual reading for many of the policy reasons I suspect you do. I think the vast majority of gun owners will never harm anyone via that ownership, people should be empowered, government should trust them, and it could be some deterrent to tyranny.

              My only point is that the “collective right” reading of the 2nd has a lot going for it given the concerns of the time and the text itself.

              I don’t imply the individual right doesn’t have strong points in its favor too (namely the fact that miltias at the time were understood to rely on individual ownership and that the word “people” has usually been read in conection to an individual right elsewhere in the Constitution). I just think the collective reading makes a lot of sense.

              1. My only point is that the “collective right” reading of the 2nd has a lot going for it given the concerns of the time and the text itself.

                No, it doesn’t. It’s specious horseshit, made up loooong after the fact to justify abrogating the 2nd. You can argue ‘communal right’ all day long but there aren’t any primary sources from back in the day that didn’t regard it as protecting the rights of the individual.

              2. What is a “collective right”? How is it defined? What scholarly works on the concept are available?

                How is a “collective right” exercised?

                How do I determine if a right is “collective”? Are there, by any chance at all, any other rights aside from ownership of weapons that are “collective”?

                I suspect not. We are supposed to believe that “collective rights” exist solely for firearms ownership. A very convenient coincidence, what?


            MNG is a moron. But then, we already knew that.

          3. Well of course that would totally make sense to anyone who knows nothing about American history, has never read any of the Constitution’s supporting documents, the Federalist Papers, or any of the minutes from the Constitutional conventions.

      2. Nope, because it doesn’t say firearms, just arms. So we would have to only use Chuck Norris and his fists and roundhouse kicks to the face.

  36. the West Indian American Day Parade

    C’mon, meteor!

  37. Pennsylvania needs to change its law in the wake of a scandal over alleged child sexual abuse by a then-member of Penn State’s football coaching team, the governor said Sunday.

    A new law is needed to make sure reports of alleged child sexual abuse are made to government authorities, Tom Corbett said.…..?hpt=hp_t1

    Is this law going to be a….mandate?

    1. Don’t a lot of states have something like a Good Samaritan law, where it’s illegal to not render aid or report a crime or something along those lines?

      1. In America, those generally don’t hold up. Other countries have them, and specific professions have them (for instance, doctors and teachers are required to report suspected abuse).

      2. I was under the impression that the main purpose of Good Samaritan laws is to protect people from legal liability if they failed in some way in their efforts to render aid.

        This protection is supposed to protect both well-meaning layman and actual medical professionals (many medical professionals are no more expert at rendering first aid than a layman who has taken a Red Cross course) who voluntary step forward to help at accident sites and so on.

    2. I thought they already had one? And Penn State is going to get sued like crazy over this. And these clowns lied about it to the grand jury. I don’t think a new law would have detered them.

      1. Under the current law you if you come across that in your employment you are only required to report it to someone in charge, and then that person has a legal duty to call the department of welfare. The proposed law change is to make it so everyone would have a duty to report it to the department of welfare.

        Now I ask you, is that a government mandate?

        1. Yes it is. And these kinds of laws are a new development. Under the common law people never had the legal duty to report a crime or intervene to stop a crime.

          1. So I’m curious, how do people here feel about putting a person in prison for failing to report something bad that another person did? Where does the activity/inactivity distinction come in here for folks?

            1. I’m opposed to it, myself. What a tool for police state abuse that would be.

              And what a catastrophe if people took it seriously. Aside from the moral problem with everyone snitching 24/7, do we really think our current 911 system could sort the signal from the noise?

            2. Back when I was a retard wrangler, I was a mandated reporter, and it didn’t work out as awesome as expected.

              First, what is abuse? Teachers failing to intervene in a schoolyard fight? Notoriously manipulative kid telling you his mom “punched him in the hand?”

              Second, what happens when you report? My personal results go from “Nada” (no discernable actions taken) to retaliation against the victim by the perpatrators.

              Finally, I’m not sure JoePa or anyone else was a mandatory reporter. Their actual job duties didn’t bring them into contact with disabled adults or children which are the populations mandatory reporter laws usually protect.

              1. A “retard wrangler”?

                1. One of my campaing workers, duh!

            3. I think it is a terrible idea. The problem with it is that it creates a lot of false reports. With a law like that people er on the side of caution and report anything. That overwelms the CPS system. Better to absorb the occasional evil of people not reporting than to have too many false alarms. In the end, as horrible as the folks at PSU are, Sandusky is the real criminal not them. They just deserve to be fired.

              1. “They just deserve to be fired.”

                Only if their contracts or employee handbooks mandated doing something other than they did.

                1. Their negligence is going to cost PSU millions in law suits and millions more in lost donations from the embarassment. That alone is worthy of termination, handbook or no. Not every bad thing has to be spelled out in the handbook.

                  1. Handbooks=contracts in many places John.

                    Why do you hate contracts?

                    1. Actually, retard, most handbooks explicitly state that they’re NOT contracts because of employment contract concerns in employment-at will situations.

                      Why do you hate knowledge?

                2. So, if the handbook/contract somehow neglected to include, say, raping children, then you couldn’t fire someone who raped children?

                  I write very tight employment contracts, and have seen many others, and I have to say I have never seen “Raping children is a breach of this contract, and may result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.”

                  1. Ah, nice try RC, but they are not being charged with raping children, Sandusky is. They are accused of not reporting it to the ‘right’ people, but if their contract/handbook and the law only required them to report to who they did then they should not be fired (don’t you care about contract rights?)

                    1. I’m not sure how “tightly written” your contracts are, but it’s pretty standard boilerplate to have clause allowing termination of the person gets into trouble.

                      But the authorities have already said JoePa and the GA are not in legal trouble here.

                    2. it’s pretty standard boilerplate to have clause allowing termination of the person gets into trouble.

                      Oh, I’ve got those. But I’m not sure it actually raises to the level of “Contracts or employee handbooks mandated doing something other than they did.” See, we don’t actually prohibit our employees from raping children. Not a specific mandate, in other words, that a rapist do something other than what he did.

                    3. they are not being charged with raping children, Sandusky is

                      But yuor proposal was that, if it isn’t specifically listed in a contract or manual, then it can’t be grounds for firing.

                      So, under your approach, someone who actually rapes children (forget about not reporting it) couldn’t be fired unless their contract or the employee manual specifically listed it.

                    4. “yuor proposal was that, if it isn’t specifically listed in a contract or manual, then it can’t be grounds for firing.”

                      Nope, I said “Only if their contracts or employee handbooks mandated doing something other than they did.”

                      If they did exactly what the handbook or contract required of them in the situation, or if they did something other than what they were required to do, then they should not be fired.

                      If you’ve got a provision saying you can fire people for breaking the law, which most places do, then that covers any breaking of the law. But if you say “an employee will be fired if they don’t report illegality to the boss” and the employee does that, but no more, and that is not illegal, to fire them would be a breach of contract. To do otherwise would be to make the contract meaningless and the employment situation essentially “at will.”

                    5. “if they did something other than what they were required to do” should read “if they did nothing more than what they were explicitly required to do”

                    6. I’m mostly yanking your chain on this one, MNG.

            4. Agree with the above. Seems like it would cause more problems than it could fix, even in the best case scenario. How often does something this egregious really happen?

            5. “So I’m curious, how do people here feel about putting a person in prison for failing to report something bad that another person did?”

              Ich glaube, dass ist eine gro?artige Idee!

    3. But if they don’t know the victim’s name, what will they call the law?!

      1. I’m sure there is a list of dead white girls for such an occasion.

        1. Rachel Corrie’s Law


    OH: Judge throws out concealed carry charge against Bartlett

    “‘I thought it would turn out this way’? is all William E. Bartlett had to say Wednesday afternoon after a judge threw out a concealed carry charge against him that took on a worldwide half-life when the arrest video went viral.” …

    “The case gained notoriety after Ohioans for Concealed Carry (OCC) posted a police cruiser video of patrolman Daniel Harless berating and threatening Bartlett during the arrest. The video went viral, with more than 800,000 views to date on YouTube.” …

    —— Remember that incident, dudes?

    1. Is Ohio also going to pay for Bartlett’s criminal counsel, and what he probably had to pay his bondsman? How about his lost time from work, or mental anguish from getting booked into jail? No? Has or will Officer Harless face any sanction for his conduct? No?

      Then I don’t think we’re even.

  39. I see no issue with Obama’s threat to the Jonas’, they are a plague on humanity and probably deserve to be killed, if not punched in the face once for every song they ever sang. The electoral candidates are only making Pres. Obama look like a great man, I see no mud slinging in their recap of his intentions.

    1. Actually, for a teen pop rock band, they are not bad.


    … “Miller sued the town and two of its police officer after he was arrested in February 2008. Miller had been working for the former roller skating rink on Whitcomb Street and was at a nearby Speedway gas station watching teens. Miller said in his lawsuit that officer Curtis Minchuk asked him for his police identification and then, as Miller went to do so, Minchuk grabbed his arm and put Miller in a choke hold.”

    “Miller was charged with resisting law enforcement and battery on an officer. He was later acquitted of both charges.”


    Watching teens? o_O


    WA: Deputy will be fired for pattern of misconduct

    “As he has many times before, King County Sheriff’s Deputy Kevin Savage went in front of his bosses this week to answer allegations he’d crossed the line.”

    “Savage was informed a week earlier that his commanders were recommending termination for a long list of department violations.”

    “Now it’s final.”

    “‘The pattern of behavior and the lack of integrity are completely unacceptable for a member of this department,’ said Chief Deputy Steve Strachan in an internal email. Strachan sent the e-mail to managers in the Sheriff’s Office explaining why he’d decided to terminate Savage.” …

    “Altogether Savage has been the target of 22 internal investigations and has had 30 findings of misconduct …” …


    It took them 22 internal investigations and 30 incidents to fucking get the clue? Seriously?

  42. So, 170 msgs at 10:15. That’s two days in a row. Are we ready to conclude that The Thread From Hell did some damage around here?

  43. Either way, my point is that its certainly funny to see feminists mocked for being concerned about the reach of the male gaze by the same folks who constantly rate women on their looks here…I guess the feminists were right about how pervasive it is, eh?

    I am morally superior to you, because I have a dumptruck load of sand in my vagina.

  44. Sasha Grey has roughly 10x the references in her Wikipedia article than Reason Magazine. Just thought I’d leave this here.

    1. She also has 10x the VDs

  45. I’m wondering what the OWS folks are going to do when winter sets in and folks are completely bored with the story, leaving our intrepid protesters out in the snow with no TV cameras in sight. I wonder if they’ll feel the need to do something “spectacular” (in other words desperate) to get the attention back on them.

    1. The cops just busted up the encampment this morning.

  46. I’m sorry, Obama, did you say something? I couldn’t hear it over the death metal and gangsta rap your stooges are banging in my ears.

    1. The Meow Mix song is still under consideration, Bradley. I suggest you zip it.

  47. I just wanted to observe that when I looked at this story, there were 420 comments, and one of the lead stories was about pot.

    Buncha stoners.

  48. Very interesting blog. I want searching for this information for some time now.
    Thnak you for the post

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.