European Union

Reason Morning Links: Newt's Freddie Mac Connection Just Got Bigger, DOJ Continues to Degrade FOIA, Obama Invades Australia

|

  • Bloomberg News: "Newt Gingrich made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in consulting fees from two contracts with mortgage company Freddie Mac, according to two people familiar with the arrangement. The total amount is significantly larger than the $300,000 payment from Freddie Mac that Gingrich was asked about during a Republican presidential debate on Nov. 9 sponsored by CNBC, and more than was disclosed in the middle of congressional investigations into the housing industry collapse."
  • The National Security Archive reports that while the egregious FOIA rules recently proposed by the DOJ were withdrawn from consideration, the Department has other plans, "some of which are just as alarming as that which was taken off the table," including redefining who counts as a journalist.
  • President Obama has decided the empire is not big enough; establishes permanent U.S. military base in Australia.   
  • WSJ on churches versus local zoning boards. 
  • All of Europe is staring daggers at Angela Merkel and ze Germans, who just might escape the collapse of the European Union with their economy intact.  
  • #Newtone watch: Biden at labor rally: "Folks, you fired the first shot." 

New at Reason.tv: "Evolutionary Psychologist Gad Saad on Consumerism, Sex, Advertising, and Human Nature"

NEXT: Buyers Beware

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

  1. President Obama has decided the empire is not big enough; establishes permanent U.S. military base in Australia.

    Since Obama can’t actually slap the queen.

    1. For a guy who appears intent on crippling the US military, this news is really strange. Obviously it’s a dig at China, but I don’t understand why he wants to pick that fight right now.

      1. I think he’s preparing for the Kiwi threat. Have you seen those wetas?!

          1. As long as they are on home soil. If you can get them off the islands, they will choke when it matters.

            1. yeah, it’s been a while since I’ve followed Rugby – ever since I’ve dropped cable, it’s been harder to watch Australian Football and Rugby.

            1. You’re really trying to get some mileage out of that clip, aren’t you?

              1. It fits many situations. Until I discovered it recently, I had a whole different concept of “the 1970’s were a joke”.

          2. Also, I think it’s stupid that the other team just has to stand there so that the Kiwis can do their silly dance. I’d just keep on practicing or go sit in the dugout if I were the opponent and let them do all their shouting and gesturing to no one in particular.

            1. If I were coach, my team would just moon them.

              1. Or you could just send these guys out onto the field instead.

            2. Didn’t the French fullback (can’t remember his name) pass the time practicing his kicks at the 2007 World Cup?

        1. Hey, the Kiwis are no joke.

      2. For a guy who appears intent on crippling the US military

        [citation needed]

        This sounds like talk radio BS. What evidence is there of this?

        1. EVIDENCE?!
          NO!
          THIS. IS. THEINTERNET!!!!!!!!!!1111one

        2. You do realize that morale is in the toilet right? He threw away the hard work of the surge in Iraq, released the Irbil five against the wishes of the brass, ordered a surge in Afghanistan and told the Taliban when the surge would end. More soldiers and marines have died in the last two years there than in the previous eight. He fired Dave McKiernan without even talking to him – put in McChrystal without talking to him. If a budget deal isn’t reached it is DoD that gets all the cuts.
          Basically, he doesn’t give a damn, but he expects them to go and fight anyway. Christ, he can’t even remember the name of the first living recipient of the Congressional MofH winner since Vietnam!

    2. If he’s looking at one term anyways, the question becomes: Why not?

        1. and it happened in Vandalia

    3. Since Obama can’t actually slap the queen.

      Perhaps he can’t.

      1. That limp-wristed geek would probably break a bone if he tried.

        1. I hate it when people make me defend Obama.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdU_mJSWK-w

    4. Look to the future people. Once you nasty free market types get rid of all government support for green energy, we’ll be depleting all the oil supplies. Men will feed on men. A giant cross-dresser will stand atop a pickup truck and yell into that military base:

      “There has been too much violence. Too much pain. But I have an honorable compromise. Just walk away. Give me your pump, the oil, the gasoline, and the whole compound, and I’ll spare your lives. Just walk away and we’ll give you a safe passageway in the wastelands. Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror.”

        1. Is Abdul the newest incarnation of White Indian?

    5. For once, Obama is inadvertently on the side of the angels. There have been rumors, verified by our intelligence agencies, about a possible resurgence of Yahoo Serious. The Australians have asked us to beef up our presence to protect them, as well as the rest of the world, from this threat.

      1. Only the combined forces of Paul Hogan, Jacko and Men at Work can save us from this scourge.

        1. Don’t forget AC/DC. Of course, they’re mostly natives of Scotland, but still.

                1. it’s been a looooong time since I heard some Radio Birdman.

                  1. One of the most underrated bands. Damn I like this band. Also, don’t forget The Saints.

                    1. for Aussie female-fronted vox rock, I also dig the Divinyls
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMSyumchMWA

                    2. Niiiiiice. New wave/80’s rock performed by androgynous bands will never get old.

              1. Midnight Oil

                1. Are you mad? Oh wait… early Oils was great apart from the politics. Lead singer Peter Garrett is now flailing as a Federal Minister just as convincingly as he does here

            1. Australia’s best band, ever.

              Was the Birthday Party.

              1. architecture in helsinki

        2. Yahoo Serious Festival

          “I know those words, but that sign makes no sense.”

    6. The base in Australian is in order to protect future Exxon drilling platforms in the South China Sea. There’s oil in them there waters.

      1. Here’s a link about bases for oil.
        http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11…..wanted=all

      2. Weird then, that they would set up in Darwin, around 1800 miles away, rather than ask the Philippines nicely for our Subic Bay base back.

        I agree with you that it’s probably to protect mineral interests, but I think they’re probably closer to Darwin: perhaps Timor, New Guinea, or Irian Jaya.

        1. The prostitutes in Australia are a whole lot hotter than the ones in the Philippines, so if we have to have sailors and Marines anywhere that seems like a better choice.

        2. Good point. But I can see why they would want a base in Darwin for the ease of flying men in and out regardless of what the future political climate might be.

  2. I would think this kind of nonsense will spend the end of Newt’s campaign, if the GOP voters really care about the economy and, you know, electing someone that isn’t a two-faced hypocrite.

    1. I think Republican voters are looking for the Romney Alternative – first it was Bachmann until she went full retard on the vaccine question; then it was Perry until he went full retard on every question; then Cain until the harassment scandals and gaffes; now it’s Newcular Titties, until he is destroyed by whatever scandal or gaffes come along. Eventually maybe Paul will be the lone surviving Romney Alternative.

      1. Yeah, it’s actually working out really well. All the other candidates have had their moment in the spotlight, and they’ve crumbled, either showing themselves to be morons or from having old scandals unearthed. I wonder if the voters might start to go, gee, this supposedly wacky guy has principles, knows what the hell he’s talking about, and has no sex scandals. Why not vote for him?

        1. Then out comes the old racist newsletters.

          1. Sigh. Yeah, those could pose a problem.

          2. Round 3. He’s already survived two rounds of them, I dont see it hurting. If you dont know about them by now, you arent a primary voter.

            1. Could be. But, getting optimistic and assuming he pulls off the nomination, they could be a problem in the general.

              1. All he needs to do is let Rothbard take the fall – assuming that I’m right and it was Rothbard who penned those turkeys.

                1. As soon as it looks like he has a chance as the nom, he should get a comprehensive explanation planned.

                2. From the rumors I’ve heard it was Lew Rockwell.

                  1. The writing style is simmilar to Rothbard’s and not to Rockwell’s. Wendy McElroy claims that she was told by several people in the know that it was Rothbard. Lew denies having written it but won’t say who did.

                    Don’t get me wrong, I think Lew was the guy who got Rothbard involved. I think Ron Paul’s refusal to answer who penned them is to preserve Rothbard’s reputation – and by extension the Mises Institute’s reputation.

            2. When you say “survived”, it’s only because no one was really paying attention except people already following him. If he wins Iowa or something, expect it to be the headline story in every newspaper.

      2. “”Eventually maybe Paul will be the lone surviving Romney Alternative.””

        Yeah, and that’s when Romney has the win.

      3. You’re forgetting about santorum’s chance to shine.

        1. I’m pretty sure you can’t shine santorum.

        2. I can diagnose Santorum’s brain functionality by looking at a video.

    2. Perry
      Cain
      Gingrich
      Romney
      Paul

      1. Perry
        Cain
        Gingrich
        Romney
        Paul
        [Johnson]

        I saw Gary Johnson on Freedom Watch last night. He was very angry. Very, very angry.

        1. You forgot Buddy Roemer.

          1. He was Louisiana Governor from 1988-1992 as both a Democrat and Republican.

            Now *that* is bipartisanship.

        2. And if he turned into a giant green destructive beast he might finally get some media coverage.

    3. Didn’t Gingrich explain that he consulted with Freddie and they didn’t do anything he suggested?

      “And my advice as a historian, when they walked in and said to me, ‘We are now making loans to people who have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that’s what the government wants us to do,’ as I said to them at the time, ‘This is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible.’ “

      Still not a Newt fan, but this is pretty old stuff already.

      Next up: How Tom Friedman does not talk enough about how great China is, followed by everybody should have the freedom to take a crap in their neighbor’s front yard.

      1. “Still not a Newt fan”

        Don’t worry Suki-John T., he’ll start talking about bombing Iran soon and you’ll warm up to him.

        1. Start?

          At the last debate he openly called for us to launch terror attacks against Iranian targets, and for the murder of Iranian citizens.

          I don’t see how you could get better Iran War jerk-off material then Newt has provided so far without Newt personally coming to your house and lubing your dick.

          1. VISUAL NOT NEEDED

            1. At first he puts the lube on you real slow, and then works up to real fast. And then he sneaks away into the night, treasuring the palmful of your nutsack squeezin’s, clenching them in a fist against the rage of the night.

              1. Yeah, what robc said: If he put that in writing, and can produce it, he can spin this to his advantage.

      2. If he put that in writing, and can produce it, he can spin this to his advantage.

      3. Didn’t Gingrich explain that he consulted with Freddie and they didn’t do anything he suggested?

        You know what?

        That doesn’t pass the laugh test.

        Newt is not a finance guy.

        The only reason anybody would write Newt a consulting check is to buy his assistance with lobbying the Republican establishment.

        If somebody writes Pelosi a check for a million bucks tomorrow and claims they’re paying her to be a winery consultant, everyone would know it was bullshit. This is just as great an insult to our intelligence.

        1. ^^ This ^^

  3. Chinese TV Host Says Regime Nearly Bankrupt
    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n…..41214.html

    Firstly, that the regime’s debt sits at about 36 trillion yuan (US$5.68 trillion). This calculation is arrived at by adding up Chinese local government debt (between 16 trillion and 19.5 trillion yuan, or US$2.5 trillion and US$3 trillion), and the debt owed by state-owned enterprises (another 16 trillion, he said). But with interest of two trillion per year, he thinks things will unravel quickly.

    Secondly, that the regime’s officially published inflation rate of 6.2 percent is fabricated. The real inflation rate is 16 percent, according to Lang. etc etc etc

    1. If we owe the Chinese, then who do the Chinese owe? We should have just borrowed from those guys.

      1. Or “those guys” should just give out all our foreign aid.

        Gotta love the shell game.

        1. Yes, we borrow money from other countries to give to other countries. It’s just a big skim scam.

      2. Themselves. I’ve seen credible estimates on non-performing loans by the government to government owned businesses is in the $2T+ range. If they ever call the loans due, they’d have to write down their entire trade surplus.

      3. The turtles.

    2. Tech, housing, higher ed, China; it’s bubbles all the way down.

    3. They should be able to spot fake numbers when they see them. Any news from Cuba or North Korea?

  4. Seven of the Top Ten Wealthiest Members of Congress Are Democrats
    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011…..democrats/

    Yes America, there is a wealth gap. Seven of the top ten wealthiest members in Congress are Democrats. If Rep. Jane Harmon (D-CA) had not abruptly resigned from Congress last year after winning re-election, eight of the ten wealthiest members of Congress would be from the common man’s party.

    The results are based on a new study released today by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. The Center did an analysis of the financial statements filed by members of Congress for 2010 income and net worth.

  5. If You’re Stopped At a Red Light, Are You “Driving”?

    Yes, says a California court, at least for purposes of interpreting a California law that prohibits using a cell-phone while driving.

    From Volokh, link to opinion here:
    http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/op…..131301.PDF

    1. Perhaps a dumb law, but probably applicable in this case.

    2. Gotta agree.

      The car is in drive and you’re on the public way.

      1. So if I put it in park at the light, same result?

        1. If you found the car there at the stop light, and you have no intention of moving when the light turns green, then you got a case.

          1. I can’t believe the same people who flip over not buying something being defined as commerce are willing to accept sitting still as driving.

            1. “Driving” or “Operating a motor vehicle”?

            2. MNG, did you read about Zeno’s paradox and then decide it’s useless to go to work because you’ll never be able to make it there?

              1. Nah, don’t you know, I go to work and then get nothing done!

        2. It’s like when they say “No Parking” in front of the supermarket, but you’re usually okay if you leave it running in drive.

          1. i really don’t think it’s the state of the engine/transmission keeping you from getting towed in that scenario, just the brevity of the stay.

        3. If you put it in park at the light, I think you’re breaking a different driving law.

          If I put it in park in the middle of the Long Island Expressway, get out of the car, and talk on my cell phone, maybe I’m no longer breaking the “driving while phoning” law any more, but I’ve got other problems.

          1. Lots of people go in park at lights. I had a car that had trouble idling in drive and did that at every light.

            1. I bet that car was an emissions nightmare.

        4. Then you would be double parked.

    3. If You’re Stopped At a Red Light On the Shoulder, Are You “Driving”?

      1. Unless you’re drunk.

        1. If you are drunk, sitting in your driveway with the keys in the ignition, you’re driving.

          1. If you are drunk, sleeping in your driveway, keys in the console and the engine is cold to the touch, you’re driving in Sunny MN

    4. Pfft. In New Jersey, if you are just sitting in your car and the key is in the ignition (the car doesn’t have to be running), you are “driving”.

      Top that!

      1. In some state (I can’t remember where) sleeping in a car specifically for the purpose of avoiding driving while intoxicated counts as driving.

        1. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t!

        2. I believe that’s the rule here in the Great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

          1. FoE

            To clarify, I believe the rule in PA is if you are in the vehicle and the keys to the vehicle are within arms reach, and you are drunk, you are dui.

        3. Fucking incentives, how do they work?

        4. Must have been the taxi drivers lobby.

        5. When I was a kid, I had an uncle arrested in Houston for PI & DUI because he had too much to drink, came out of the restaurant (of which he was a part owner), got into the back of his truck which was in the restaurant’s parking lot, and went to sleep. The cops woke him up to arrest him. Luckily, my other Uncle is a lawyer and got the entire thing dismissed.

        6. I’ve heard varying accounts. If you don’t have the keys on you or in the ignition AND you are in the back seat sleeping, you can probably win out in FL.

    5. As long as the car isn’t perpendicular to the road.

    6. I’d say stopped at a light is driving. You still need to pay attention to what is happening around you and you may need to start moving at any moment.

      I don’t think that the law is necessary, but this doesn’t seem like an unreasonable application of the law.

      1. Keys in ignition? Check.

        Engine running? Check.

        Car on travelled portion of the road? Check.

        Conclusion? You be drivin’.

    7. Looks like California cops are instructed to get as much bullshit-based ticket revenue as possible.

      Car not moving = car not being driven.

      1. Am I no longer eating if I stop chewing momentarily? Am I no longer watching TV when I blink?

        It’s absurd to say a car stopped at a traffic light is not being driven, from a legal perspective.

        1. operating is broad. If you are on public property: defined as highway, another place open to the public, or a place for parking vehicles, AND there’s evidence the car has been driven recently – then you are operating. Want me to look up case law and I will.
          “Other instances in which operation of the vehicle may become a significant issue are cases involving accidents, or situations where the police arrive after a vehicle becomes immovable.”

  6. Elena Kagan Must Be Recused In ObamaCare Case
    http://news.investors.com/Arti…..hyself.htm

    Should a justice who participated in ObamaCare’s creation recuse herself from the court’s review of that law? Of course. But then a nominee who lies in confirmation hearings shouldn’t be on the court anyway.

    If Justice Elena Kagan were a person of character, she would sit out the Supreme Court’s hearing of the challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

    1. I know. Ideally her spouse could have led efforts to defeat it.

      1. her spouse

        Depending on the state.

      2. But Obama’s against gay marriage so she can’t have spouse.

      3. So your wife doing something is the same or worse than you doing it? There is no way to equate personally working as a legal advisor for the administration who drafted the law to your wife working in politics.

        If she did any work on Obamacare for the administration, she has to recuse herself. If she doesn’t, there will be a bar complaint and she will face sanction. There is a real possibility that Obamacare could be upheld 5-4 and one of the justices who voted to uphold it will be sanctioned by their bar for hearing the case. That will be a wonderful shitstorm.

        1. “to your wife working in politics.”

          The politics being to defeat the very thing you are ruling on?

          1. The whole thing with Kagan and Thomas is a mountain out of a molehill. Thomas was going to rule against this and whoever Obama might nominate would have, so who cares?

            Can you argue that working in an administration that is pushing X means you are predisposed to rule for X? Sure. But you can also argue that having a spouse pushing for Y makes you predisposed to rule for Y.

            Noone picks a SCOTUS nominee anymore unless they have a clear record of kowtowing to the party/movement of the nominator.

            1. And here is the predicted meme of “Kagan should only have to recuse herself if Thomas has to”. Pathetic.

              1. You don’t read very well. If you are worried about predisposing influence a good case can be made that both should be recused. But my point is, who cares? These nominees are not picked anymore for judicial independence but for party loyalty, most of them have executive toadying experience.

                You’re just worried about the numbers and the possible result.

                1. You’re just worried about the numbers and the possible result.

                  No, that’s what you’re worried about, which is why you are so desperate to draw a false equivalence between a clear case of judicial conflict on Kagan’s part and the activities of Thomas’ wife.

                  1. Unlike you I try not to be a “results-oriented” interpreter of the Constitution. The Constitution is full of shit I don’t like.

                    Additionally, if Obamacare is struck down I would think it wrongly decided but I’d be happy since I think it is a stupid and immora law. It is folks like you who think it is the Worst Evil Ever and Must Be Stopped that are doing the bean counting.

                    If you are really interested in the principles behind recusal, OK, but I simply don’t buy that you are.

                    1. Unlike you I try not to be a “results-oriented” interpreter of the Constitution. The Constitution is full of shit I don’t like.

                      If you are really interested in the principles behind recusal, OK, but I simply don’t buy that you are.

                      So now you just assume I am arguing from some principle other than what I stated so you can avoid the point of the argument. Thanks for confirming once again you can’t argue honestly. I don’t understand why John wastes his time.

                    2. Whatever WTF or whatever you are calling yourself for this discussion. You can surely find much more “honest” conversation on LGF if you hurry.

                    3. I don’t understand why John wastes his time.

                      Unbridled Tenacity.

                    4. (and dibs on using that as a band name)

            2. Please. Kagan has a blatant, glaring conflict of interest. Obviously, the justices all have their own political beliefs, but that’s a few orders of magnitude different.

              1. Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1: a judge shall uphold and promote the independence, intergrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

                Hmm, I think they put that rule first on purpose.

          2. Not the same. My being a judge does not deprive my wife of her 1st Amendment rights. She can work for whatever cause she wants. Unless you can show me that she and by extension me will gain some kind of financial gain by my ruling one way or another on a case, there is no conflict of interest.

            Judges are married to all kinds of people. This thing about Thomas’ wife is just a diversion to give liberals a way to change the subject from Kagen’s actual conflict of interest. There is no denying Kagen’s conflict of interest if she wrote so much as one sentence’s worth of legal advice to the administration on this issue. That is page 1 of judicial ethics right after don’t take bribes.

            1. You want to argue having a spouse push for Y doesn’t influence a judge to rule in favor of Y? Because that is what recusal laws are all about. So go ahead and argue that John, lord knows you’d argue the sky is black if you thought a Democrat said it was not.

              1. I don’t write the judicial ethics rules, I just read them. And there is nothing in there that says a judge should or must recuse himself becuase his wife worked on a political issue. If Thomas’ wife were an actual lawyer on the case, sure. But just working for a political cause is not grounds for recusal. It just isn’t. If you don’t like that, then change the rules.

                Meanwhile, providing legal advice previously to one of the parties is an absolute grounds for recusal. You can’t deny that so you are just whinning.

                1. Who’s whining? She’s going to hear the case John. If you don’t like it, you’re a lawyer, bring a “bar complaint” since you know so obviously the rules prohibit it I’m sure you will win…

                  1. I am sure there are plenty of conservative legal foundations who will beat me to it. It is going to be a complete shit storm. And if you cared about the legitimacy of the courts in this country you would be concerned about this. But instead you just scream scoreboard and worry about winning.

                    1. If you cared about the legitimacy of the courts you’d want to talk about the logic of the recusal rules, which is to prevent undue influence or bias. And then you’d have to somehow argue that having a spouse pushing for Y would not influence a judge on Y.

                      But you can’t do the latter and don’t really care about the former, so you don’t.

                    2. I am a partisan piece of shit.

                    3. But instead you just scream scoreboard and worry about winning.

                      No, no, John, that’s what we’re doing, because we don’t really believe the principles we’re arguing – MNG knows this!

                    4. Then what is your principle? Are you worried about bias? If so, you want to argue having a spouse working to defeat X would not potentially bias a judge ruling on X?

                      Bullshit buddy. You’re not worried about that at all, you’re counting heads to try to stop TEH SLAVERY.

              2. Recusal is, by and large, a personal question of whether the judge has a conflict of interest. It usually doesn’t extent to family unless the family member can benefit financially or has some role in the matter.

                If Thomas’ wife had a direct financial interest in the outcome of the case or was a litigant or witness, it would be relevant. Her being a political activist is not. By that token, Thomas’ own political views would be grounds for recusal.

                Incidentally, I believe even Breyer–not politically aligned with Thomas to be sure–has laughed off the idea of this being a conflict.

                With Kagan, she was solicitor general and participated in some of the pre-game on the anticipated litigation over the healthcare bill. There’s been some quibbling about how much she was involved, but there’s no question that she was and probably was a great deal more than has been disclosed. Even that possibility alone is more than enough to justify recusal.

                1. You are pointing to “the rules” of recusal and saying Kagan is obviously barred. If “the rules” are so obvious about this, then you have nothing to worry about, right?

                  On the other hand if you want to talk about when someone should be recused because their is a potential bias problem, fine. But if you do that you have to make the argument that having a spouse employed to push Y wouldnt create that problem for a judge ruling on Y.

                  1. I’m talking about how recusal works. You’re talking about a political result you want. The situation Thomas is in is generally not considered grounds for recusal.

                    Kagan can and is arguing that she wasn’t that involved in the pre-litigation. If that’s true, she could avoid recusal, but there’s significant evidence that it isn’t. Also, the big issue isn’t whether the justice could render a decision without improper influence, it’s about the appearance of bias. An attorney is supposed to be a zealous advocate of his/her client. In Kagan’s case, that was the government. For her to sit in judgment over a law that was enacted while she was SG is pretty bad.

                    Thurgood Marshall recused himself from something like half of the cases in similar circumstances in his first year or so on the bench.

                    1. “I’m talking about how recusal works. You’re talking about a political result you want.”

                      No, I’m talking about the principle behind recusal. It’s like if you have a conversation over whether pot should be illegal and you keep saying “pot should be illegal because it is a schedule one drug!!!” WTF Pro, you’re smarter than that.

                      “If that’s true, she could avoid recusal, but there’s significant evidence that it isn’t.”

                      You’re the lawyer and I have to tell you that “no evidence that it isn’t” does not equal “evidence that there is?” WTF?

                  2. You are pointing to “the rules” of recusal and saying Kagan is obviously barred. If “the rules” are so obvious about this, then you have nothing to worry about, right?

                    “Congress shall make no law” is pretty obvious, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have anything to worry about with regard to obvious language being ignored.

                  3. If “the rules” are so obvious about this, then you have nothing to worry about, right?

                    What we’re worried about is Kagan’s refusal to follow the rules. Why should she? She already lied to the Senate about her invovlement with ObamaCare as Solicitor General.

                2. Don’t waste your time, Pro L, MNG knows you’re just counting heads to stop TEH SLAVERY!

                  1. Boy, you’re really stuck on this, huh?

                    Try the NFL as a diversion dude.

                    1. At least you didn’t say TRAKTOR PULLZ.

            2. I thik the actual rule is that a justice can’t decide on a case that could have a financial impact on an associate (e.g., business partner, household member). Having a personal impact is immaterial.

              Mrs. Thomas certainly advocates for political results, but won’t earn any more or less if those results are accomplished through litigation.

              Kagan’s situation is different. She appears to have worked on a matter in her prior capacity as a lawyer. That calls into question her partiality.

              1. Sure it does.

                Do you want to argue that having a spouse pushing for X in her job doesn’t do the same for a judge ruling on X?

                1. Yes. That is exactly what we are arguing. The rules are what they are. Spouses are allowed to have political views. Again, if you can show me that Thomas’ wife is going to gain financially if Obamacare is struck down, the Thomas should recuse. But merely having a wife who is involved in politics and public advocacy for a cause before the court is not and has never been grounds for recusal.

                  Actually providing legal advice to one of the parties regarding the case at bar, which is what it appears Kegan has done, is an absolute disqualifier. Nominating Kegan was an idiotic decision given the likelyhood of the court hearing challenges to Obamacare.

                  1. “The rules are what they are.”

                    Dude, you really need to stop the rule-worhsip and read what I said to ProL.

                    “Spouses are allowed to have political views.”

                    1. We are talking about her paid job in politics.
                    2. Regardless of one, unless you just want to worship the rules some more, if the principle behind recusal is to prevent potential landmines of bias, would you like to actually argue that having a spouse employed or even just volunteering to push X could not place considerable potential bias on a judge when ruling on X?

                    1. Rules? Rules? We don’t need no stinging rules!

                  2. “Again, if you can show me that Thomas’ wife is going to gain financially if Obamacare is struck down”

                    I would contend that all of America is going to gain financially if Obamacare is struck down.

                2. Anyone here ever heard of Mary Matalin and James Carville?
                  Anyone…?
                  Bueller…?

                  1. Yeah, I’ve heard of them. They believe different things and are married. But you don’t think if one was pushing X and the other was a judge ruling on X there might not be serious potential for influence? WTF? If you want to argue a spouse cannot exert great influence on their spouse I give you the same invitation I’ve given to all: be my guest, I’d love to see this.

                    Look, if a person thinks both should be recused, or rather that both circumstances present problems then I’d say “that’s an honest opinion” and I’d probably agree. The same if the person thought both created problems but Kagans was worse, and only Kagan’s rises to recusal status.

                    But those who say there is no problem in the Thomas situation are full of shit imo. Their motives are not concern for potential bias in the judiciary.

                    1. What about children? Parents? Mothers-in-law? Third cousins twice removed? At what level of consanguinity should the line of concern be drawn?

                    2. The line at spouse is a long drawn line in our law dude, I don’t know what to tell you.

                      More importantly I can see the principle behind drawing that line. Spouses can have enormous influence on someone.

              2. And how will Kagan earn any more or less based on her ruling?

                1. Seriously, dude, you shouldn’t argue when you don’t know even the basics. The standard is conflict of interest. Financial benefit to the judge is one, but that also comes into play if a family member gains financially.

                  In the case of the justice himself, if he were a party to the case, represented either party, or were a witness, he’s out. Being related to one of the litigants would also do it.

                  1. And you shouldn’t argue without knowing what I’m talking about. I just spend paragraphs addressing your point about “the rules.” If the rules are so obviously in your favor then file a bar complaint, you’ll win, right?

                    But if you want to talk about the principles behind the rules rather than just quote them, I ask you: wouldn’t being married to someone whose job entails pushing X present great potential for influencing the other spouse when ruling on X?

                    1. I’m so glad that MNG is a legal expert, telling established lawyers the rules of their own profession. What’s next, how to do open-heart surgery?

                    2. Holy shit you are an idiot.

                      Let me take a second here to demonstrate that idiocy, far from telling them what the rules of their profession are I’ve over and over told them that I am NOT TALKING ABOUT THE RULES but the principle behind them.

                      MNG|11.16.11 @ 10:23AM|#
                      And you shouldn’t argue without knowing what I’m talking about. I just spend paragraphs addressing your point about “the rules.” If the rules are so obviously in your favor then file a bar complaint, you’ll win, right?

                      But if you want to talk about the principles behind the rules

                      MNG|11.16.11 @ 10:02AM|#
                      “The rules are what they are.”

                      Dude, you really need to stop the rule-worhsip and read what I said to ProL.

                      MNG|11.16.11 @ 9:53AM|#
                      You are pointing to “the rules” of recusal and saying Kagan is obviously barred. If “the rules” are so obvious about this, then you have nothing to worry about, right?

                      On the other hand if you want to talk about when someone should be recused because their is a potential bias problem

                      Are right wing trolls actually retarded (aplogies to Sarah Palin, don’t go all PC police on me honey)?

                    3. would you like to actually argue that having a spouse employed or even just volunteering to push X could not place considerable potential bias on a judge when ruling on X?

                      If you’re even going to include volunteering, basically you’re saying that any judge whose spouse has a political opinion that she or he might communicate to the judge will face spousal pressure and is therefore biased.

                      But wouldn’t that mean that all married judges everywhere would have to recuse themselves from all cases for all time?

                      Give me some sodium pentathol and/or an experienced waterboarder and I’ll extract political opinions on all subjects for all cases from every single last judicial spouse in the land.

                    4. Who would have thought fluffy would run in with a grossly overgeneralized hyperbolic strawman?

                      “basically you’re saying that any judge whose spouse has a political opinion that she or he might communicate to the judge will face spousal pressure and is therefore biased”

                      I’m talking about cases when you can demonstrate that a person’s spouse is employed at or has expended significant efforts towards pushing X and then their spouse is ruling on X.

                      The law, and ethics, recognizes degrees in all kinds of ways fluffy without having to “basically” go all out either or.

                    5. Take a wife with economic interests in X. Everyone agrees that this might push the wife to pressure the husband or make the husband have an interest closely removed.

                      But people are willing to sacrifice economic interests all the time to further political causes. So how is that not just as likely to influence the parties?

                      My real point is that this is a silly argument because most judges are picked after spending most of their adult lives demonstrating movement or party loyalty, often via working in the executive. They are already pretty biased when they get there on most things.

                      The only justice anyone has much doubts about here is Kennedy, and that has you guys up all night sweating. It’s plain, you’ve all expressed your horror and extremely strong opposition to this policy.

                    6. I’m talking about cases when you can demonstrate that a person’s spouse is employed at or has expended significant efforts towards pushing X and then their spouse is ruling on X.

                      Right, but the reason you think this is a problem is because you assume that in the privacy of their home the spouse is engaged in arguing with and influencing the judge.

                      And that would be true for any spouse with a poltical opinion.

                      That’s why I’m not hyperbolizing or overgeneralizing.

                      My wife has never been employed by or volunteered with any abortion rights group.

                      But I can assure you that if I was magically a SCOTUS judge tomorrow and Roe v. Wade was being relitigated my wife would be on my ass about it 24/7.

                      Her influence on me would not be in any way decreased by the fact that she never held an abortion rights advocacy job.

                      The important things would be 1) her strong opinion and 2) the fact that she is there.

                      If you think Thomas’ spouse is exercising influence on Thomas, I happily concede that’s possible. I just don’t see how you can argue that and not also argue that any spouse with a political opinion on a subject will create an identical recusal problem. The method by which the influence would be exerted and the degree to which influence would be exerted is exactly the same whether the spouse is a professional policy person or not.

                    7. It’s reasonable to think that a person who expends significant time or is employed pushing X would be more likely to bring that pressure than just someone with an opinion in the home, no?

                      “the degree to which influence would be exerted is exactly the same whether the spouse is a professional policy person or not.”

                      This is where you go off the rails I think, because of my points above.

                    8. It’s reasonable to think that a person who expends significant time or is employed pushing X would be more likely to bring that pressure than just someone with an opinion in the home, no?

                      Not really.

                      That’s entirely my point and the reason I used my wife as an example. That’s the data point most familiar to me, and it argues against what you’re saying.

                      I have never been employed in a political capacity and don’t even volunteer.

                      But picture being a SCOTUS judge and being married to me.

                      There is no way – literally no way – Thomas’ wife is putting more pressure on Thomas than I would put on my spouse.

                      It would be like they were living in a Chinese re-education camp during the Cultural Revolution.

                    9. My favor? Jeez, not everything isn’t about politics. This is about ethics.

                    10. Right. And ethics is
                      ABOUT
                      MORE
                      THAN
                      THE
                      CURRENT RULES!!!!!

                      Jesus christ. Do you think pointing to the fact that drugs are illegal ends debate on what substances should be illegal?

                      Like I’ve said, if the case falls within the rules so obviously then you needn’t worry, right?

                      But if you are arguing it is wrong because of some principle then show me how that principle doesn’t apply to Thomas’ situation too.

                    11. “I ask you: wouldn’t being married to someone whose job entails pushing X present great potential for influencing the other spouse when ruling on X?”

                      NO.

                2. Kagan’s earning is not in questions. She was a lawyer representing one side in trial preparation in the case before the court. From the inception of the customs/rules governing Recusal, that has been grounds for recusal. Period.

                  Having a wife with strong opinions about a case has not been. Period.

                  MNG, what happened to you. At one time you were someone who actually was worth debating. YOur decline has been as shcokcing as Kris Kristofferson’s decline from hunk to grizzled post-alky

                  1. That’s Rhodes Scholar Kris Kristofferson, thank you very much.

                    1. Rhoades Scholar Army Ranger Kris Kristofferson. What a badass that guy was.

                    2. Weren’t you wrong about this before?

                      Oh no, you wrongly claimed he was in Nam. Hard to keep up sometimes.

                  2. “MNG, what happened to you. At one time you were someone who actually was worth debating. YOur decline has been as shcokcing as Kris Kristofferson’s decline from hunk to grizzled post-alky”

                    Is this not the most tired debating point online? Even I’m guilty of it, but boy it is tiresome.

                    As for your quoting of the rules, how did you miss my response to that 9:53, 10:02, etc., etc. How did you miss those responses tarran, I mean, what’s happened to you? You used to be…

                    1. To me it sounds like you’re calling into question the entire concept that a judge shouldn’t judge their own work product.

                      Let’s say Kagan had previously been an appeals court judge instead, and had written the majority opinion in a case that was now facing SCOTUS review.

                      Would it be fair to the appealing party to have one of the justices hearing their appeal be the very person who had ruled against them before?

                      I would say no.

                      I think the entire point of an appeal should be for new judges to review the case and issue a ruling. That means that to me it would absolutely require recusal for a judge in that hypothetical position.

                      Well, in this case, Kagan wasn’t the judge in the previous matter – she was counsel for one side.

                      How would you like it if you were appealing a ruling that had gone against you in a lawsuit, and when you got to the appeals court you discovered that one of the judges was a chick who had been the other party’s lawyer? Would that be fair to you as a litigant?

                      That’s the position Kagan is in.

                    2. Actually, that must not be true, and ProL let that cat out the bag earlier:”Kagan can and is arguing that she wasn’t that involved in the pre-litigation.”

                      There’s obviously some case to be made that she was’nt involved here and that is why you guys are sweating it despite your protestations that this “obviously” falls under “the rules”

                    3. It defies credulity to believe that the Soliciter General was not consulted regarding the constitutionality of the signature inititive of the Administration. The soliticiter general represents the governmetn before the Supreme Court. To say that Kegan never advised the administration on tis is to say that the adminstration didn’t ask the opinon of the lawyer who was going to be expected to defend the law in court. That seems about as likely as Fannie Mae hiring Newt Gingrich for his opinion as an historian. Doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

                      Kagen knows the work she did on the issue. The fact that she hasn’t recused herself and has been very coy in saying publically what she did, just shows she has no personal integrity. Contrast her behavior with the behavior of Justice Marshall pointed out by Pro above. They really don’t make people like they used to.

                    4. I have learned one thing from this discussion: MNG is not married, and doesn’t really understand how marriage works.

                      Anyhow, resume beating your head against the wall, y’all.

                    5. Anyone who wants to deny that a spouse cannot significantly influence their husband is the one who is certainly not married dude.

                    6. So judges should be some kind of law monk and not have human contact to avoid the possibility of ‘significant influence’? Should they also avoid reading anything other than statutes and court cases to avoid letting something else ‘significantly influence’ them? Do they have to skip movies and television, too?

                      Keep trying to make the ‘significant influence’ argument and conflate that with ‘actually worked on the case’. Carry on with your bad self. My point still stands: you’re not married and you don’t understand marriage. If you did, you wouldn’t be making the fucking ridiculous argument that Thomas’s wife’s opinions and activities are in any way dispositive of his.

                    7. MNG, you’ve argued that a spouse with a financial stake in an outcome compromises the justice’s judgment. But I haven’t seen any explanation for how Thomas’s wife actually gains from a repeal of the mandate. As I understand it, she started a non-profit to fight Obamacare. How does she stand to gain financially from a decision against it? She’s already been paid; is there an automatic bonus for all those organizations who chose the correct side in the debate? Your argument clearly isn’t finished, and from the little I know of the situation, I’d agree with others that this is just Thomas’s wife engaged in political speech.

                      Really, wouldn’t she be *out of a job* if Obamacare is defeated in summer 2012? Going purely by financial interests, wouldn’t Thomas’s incentive be to uphold Obamacare so that his wife can continue to solicit funds in the fight against it? How is this any different than saying something ridiculous like, “An arms manufacturer would clearly support a peace treaty with the enemy, given the steps they’ve taken supporting the war effort.” Though they make weapons to ostensibly win the war, thus ending hostilities, their incentive is to see the war continue indefinitely. Is this not true for Thomas’s wife’s organization?

                    8. It’s not just marriage he doesn’t understand.

                    9. MNG, if there were a SC judge whose spouse lobbied/worked for in some capacity, on the pro-mandate argument of health care… would you be just as adamant as you are about Thomas and his wife?

                    10. I don’t like this rule, at least in this particular case. So I will argue that we should all pretend it doesn’t exist for now.

                      Where did I put that Lithium?

                    11. MNG, you’ve argued that a spouse with a financial stake in an outcome compromises the justice’s judgment. But I haven’t seen any explanation for how Thomas’s wife actually gains from a repeal of the mandate. As I understand it, she started a non-profit to fight Obamacare. How does she stand to gain financially from a decision against it? She’s already been paid; is there an automatic bonus for all those organizations who chose the correct side in the debate? Your argument clearly isn’t finished, and from the little I know of the situation, I’d agree with others that this is just Thomas’s wife engaged in political speech.

                      Really, wouldn’t she be *out of a job* if Obamacare is defeated in summer 2012? Going purely by financial interests, wouldn’t Thomas’s incentive be to uphold Obamacare so that his wife can continue to solicit funds in the fight against it? How is this any different than saying something ridiculous like, “An arms manufacturer would clearly support a peace treaty with the enemy, given the steps they’ve taken supporting the war effort.” Though they make weapons to ostensibly win the war, thus ending hostilities, their incentive is to see the war continue indefinitely. Is this not true for Thomas’s wife’s organization?

      4. Funny how Donks will all stand around and argue that spouses are separate people with separate lives, actions, and opinions, and thus shouldn’t be held to account for the acts of the other (a la, the “team” of Bill & Hillary Clinton) even when proven they acted in concert…but suddenly Justice Thomas is unable to establish his own opinion because of work independently performed by his wife?

        On the flip side, you have Justice Kagan, who actively participated in the preparation of the constitutional defense of Obama Care prior to passage, and she’s deemed completely capable of adjudicating this case objectively.

        Lefties reside in a strange and retarded little world. I think we should send them all there to live together.

        1. As a tax professional, the profession treats my ownership of one share of even the largest publicly traded company as impairing my independence – to the point that I’d either have to sell my share or the firm can’t audit the company. Even though I work in tax. Even though I’m not on the engagement. Even though there is no way for me to materially benefit from the firm’s work on the audit.

          It’s sort of scary to think our standards are that much more stringent than the SCOTUS.

  7. The Australia thing is awful. A base there will encourage adventurism in that area and all we need is another well off state that we protect…

    1. “””That area is close to Southeast Asia, a fast-growing region where the United States is aiming to establish itself as a counterbalance to the growing Chinese Power.””””

      So both Australia and the USA practice “free trade” with the communist dictatorship of China which gives that dictatorship trillion of dollars to build up its military and now they are saying that the US must be a military “counterbalance” to that Chinese dictatorship. A Chinese dictatorship which probably would have collapsed like the Soviet Union without the “free trade” which bailed out its failed economic system.

      If China is such a threat it seems stupid to trade with them, if its not a threat it seems stupid to waste money building defenses against a non existent threat.

      1. Of course, reopening a base in Taiwan would not be practical, since they are actually threatened by the Chicoms.

        1. We have to pretend Taiwan doesn’t exist so as not to upset the PRC, but it’s OK to upset them by plopping this base here.

          1. EpiMNG, still not into you. Bye.

      2. China isn’t really a threat until we default on the Treasuries that they own. They are already a little grumpy at us for trying to inflate our way out.

        1. and yet, extrapolating from friedman, the chinese cannot afford to have america default. >we have the leverage…but not the guts to exploit same.

          1. The EU is pushing that sentiment to the limits, now, as it is.

      3. “”If China is such a threat it seems stupid to trade with them, if its not a threat it seems stupid to waste money building defenses against a non existent threat.””

        True. However, it has been a must for decades that we have the biggest defense dick in the world.

    2. Darwin Australia to Beijing China – 3600 mis

      Anchorage Alaska to Moscow Russia – 4365 mis

      Good to see Obama taking foreign policy notes from Palin.

      1. Hah!
        +10

    3. A base there will encourage adventurism in that area and all we need is another well off state that we protect…

      We’re giving up trying to consolidate territories in Europe and Asia, and are now trying for the “Australia Breakout Strategy.”

      1. It’s always my favorite strategy. Fast continent. Eurasia is for suckers, break up from below.

      2. Everyone knows you can’t win at Risk unless you own Australia…sheesh!

        1. Not true.

          When beaten down in the early battles over australia, you can switch your focus to south america, use that to expand into africa, and then launch a retaliatory attack out of africa into australia. The trick is to make sure you take all of africa as soon as possible, so your 5 extra armies (africa + south america) quickly overtake the 2 extra your australia holding opponent has been gathering.

          Now, if you can’t get Australia OR South America, then shit starts getting tricky.

  8. Crotchless panties now available in kid sizes! http://www.9news.com/news/arti…..ids-store-

    Put your order in before R. Kelly buys out the supply.

    1. THERE NEEDS TO BE A LAW!!11!!!!!1!

    2. How about we buy up the supply and send it to Penn State?
      or Second Mile?

      no hugs for thugs,
      Shirley Knott

      1. crotchless != ass-less

    3. Great idea. Do they come in boys?

      Because I sure do.

  9. Businesses wary of supercommittee outcome
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..l_showdown

    Still, corporate executives in various industries have grown weary of the seemingly constant brinkmanship by congressional leaders that this year has brought the government to within hours of a shutdown and led to a downgrade of federal debt after the debt ceiling debate. They hunger for a crisper, more orderly type of policymaking.

    You know who else made crisper, more orderly types of policymaking?

    1. “Crisper”, huh?

      Could you give us a hint?

    2. The Pringles guy.

    3. Colonel Sanders?

      1. Regular or extra crispy?

    4. The Fry Guys?

    5. Granny Smith?

      1. She’s a bitter bitch.

        1. I heard she’s a tart.

  10. Another ObamaCare Glitch
    Congress made a legal mistake while rushing through the health law. Now it’s come back to haunt the administration.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..30662.html

    The law encourages states to create health-insurance exchanges, but it permits Washington to create them if states decline. So far, only 17 states have passed legislation to create an exchange.

    This is where the glitch comes in: ObamaCare authorizes premium assistance in state-run exchanges (Section 1311) but not federal ones (Section 1321). In other words, states that refuse to create an exchange can block much of ObamaCare’s spending and practically force Congress to reopen the law for revisions.

  11. #Newtone

    Can we stop with the # thing? Twitter is a relatively new fad, but already feels just as stupid as older fads.

    1. Let’s just insert #FuckTwitter everywhere we go.

    2. Don’t forget about me.

  12. establishes permanent U.S. military base in Australia.

    I saw that go by on the little ticker at the bottom of the teevee screen, earlier.

    WTF?

    Have the Maoris vowed to avenge themselves?

    1. It’s supposed to check the dreaded Chinese peril in the region…

    2. China. It is just a replacement for the Philipines.

      1. Australia is much wealthier than the Philipines. If they feel threatened why don’t they, I dunno, spend more on their army.

        1. This might be a benefit of just cutting spending across the board. Get everyone else to pay for their own damn defense.

      2. When did the Philippines fall out of favor?

        1. When they told the U.S. govt to pound sand and vacate some bases…

        2. They didn’t. They just asked us to leave in a fit of nationalistic ferver. And shortly aftwards most of our old facilities were destroyed by a volcano.

          1. “our old facilities were destroyed by a volcano”

            That’s a sign if I’ve ever heard of one…

          2. They didn’t want to be our South-Asian Peurto Rico? :'(

            1. Their loss, they might have got a SCOTUS judge out of it…

          3. The Moros fought the mighty US Army to a draw over 100 years and then lost their acronym to the internet. Moro Islamic Liberation Front for the loss.

    3. Uhh, Maoris are from New Zealand.

      The Australians are convicts.

  13. The decline and fall of Occupy Wall Street: the American Left has run out of steam and liberalism is in crisis
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n…..in-crisis/

    The failure of the Occupy Wall Street movement and its descent into Lord of the Flies-style chaos, and in many instances thuggery and criminality, is emblematic of the dramatic decline of the Left in the United States. The ragtag encampments that President Obama earlier described as expressing “the frustrations that the American people feel”, are now being swept from the streets of New York, Oakland, Portland, and across America, no doubt to great applause from locals who have had to put up for weeks with unsanitary tent cities on their doorstep. Nancy Pelosi should now be eating her words after having declared in October: “God bless them, for their spontaneity. It’s independent? it’s young, it’s spontaneous, and it’s focused. And it’s going to be effective.”

    1. Here’s the thing:

      Tony and MNG can come here and argue with us about whether there is class mobility in the US today – but even they concede it existed in the past.

      And the problem for the left is that our prior class mobility largely sifted out those members of the proletariat who could have made up the Bolshevik Vanguard or what have you.

      The people really, really economically hurting in the US today are too beaten down to do anything about it.

      I’m not talking about some middle manager who lost his job at 52 and is now a 99er.

      I’m talking about people who have worked their entire lives for $10 an hour or less and who are standing in 1000-person lines for Wal-Mart jobs. The people doing 3rd shift light assembly jobs and hoping to get Section 8 housing.

      100 years ago there would be the occasional genius in that group, as well as a large group of reasonably talented people who were smart enough to run an aggressive political organization. Now those guys have been completely sifted out and absorbed into the middle and upper classes and there’s no one left to lead.

      The “starving puppetry degree” guys of OWS are trying to step into the gap, but they’re just not really the right raw material for a class-based movement.

      1. Nah, there’s always a young, go-getter potential community organizer in the group fluff.

        1. He usually figures out pretty quick community organizing pays for shit and politics is where it’s at if you really want to make bank peddling bullshit

      2. The really oppressed and hurting people never start revolutions or rarely do. In pre revolutionary France it was the underclass who were hurting but they were not the ones who rebeled. In Imperial Russia it was the peasents who were oppressed. But the Bolsheviks hated them and killed millions of them the first change they got.

        Those people looking for jobs at Wall Mart are too busy trying to make a living to start a revolution. It is the trust fund babies and the angry lower elites who always start revolutions. And that is who the OWS people are.

        During the Russian revolution everyone kept thinking that at some point the peasents, who still by and large supported the Tsar, would rise up and murder the Bolsheviks and God knows who else. But they never did.

        I think America is much different and more collectively violent than Imperial Russia. For this reason and because the OWS people are a pretty pathetic lot, I am too worried about the Revolution coming anytime soon. This is just a comic replay of what happened in the 1960s. Go read about Obama buddy Bill Ayers sometimes. Same shit.

        1. I think America is much different and more collectively violent than Imperial Russia.

          Is this an elliptical way of pointing out middle aged white guys own most of the guns?

          1. Is this an elliptical way of pointing out middle aged white guys that live in red states own most of the guns?

            More accurate?

      3. 100 years ago there would be the occasional genius in that group, as well as a large group of reasonably talented people who were smart enough to run an aggressive political organization. Now those guys have been completely sifted out and absorbed into the middle and upper classes and there’s no one left to lead.

        Interesting observation – I think I’ve heard it before.

        1. Yes, I think Murray’s analysis is pretty compelling.

          Precisely because it doesn’t require a genetic component to be true.

        2. Orwell said the same thing, really.

          The proles cannot rise because any prole who shows any talent is drafted into the Outer Party.

      4. The “starving puppetry degree” guys of OWS are trying to step into the gap, but they’re just not really the right raw material for a class-based movement.

        Most of the self-styled “leaders” of the OWSer groups are really nothing more than overgrown children playing “Revolutionary” dress-up. They don’t have the intellectual or emotional maturity to direct the media narrative and get the public at large on their side beyond mere sympathy, especially now that their camps are becoming havens for disease and petty crime.

        This is probably why they’re working overtime to try and get a Kent State-type incident to occur with the police, because at this point, the public has gotten bored with their act.

        1. “Most of the self-styled “leaders” of the OWSer groups are really nothing more than overgrown children playing “Revolutionary” dress-up.”

          Jesus for being a person in a movement that supposedly hates collective judgments you certainly love ignorant generalizations.

          1. Jesus for being a person in a movement that supposedly hates collective judgments you certainly love ignorant generalizations.

            What exactly is ignorant about it? I’ve seen very few statements from quoted OWSers that amount to anything more than the most superficial blathering about concepts that are way beyond their understanding. “Down twinkles” is the perfect representation of that whole movement.

          2. Although I guess I should be flattered that you’re now conducting knee-jerk mewlings in my direction and not just John’s. You’re nowhere near pretty enough for me, though.

        2. Most of the self-styled “leaders” of the OWSerTea Party groups are really nothing more than overgrown children playing “Revolutionary War” dress-up.

          1. +100

            For all the times folks here throw out the “partisan hack” charge they fail to see what mirror images their bitching usually is of other partisans.

            I defended the Tea Party against ignorant generalizations and I do the same for OSW.

            1. Maybe so, but they were actually effective in that they got some of their candidates into Congress. What real difference has the OWS made?

            2. Dude, nobody finds the guys who put on tricorner hats more tedious and embarrassing than me.

              So, yes, those guys are indeed overgrown children playing dressup as well.

          2. Well…except…Tea Partiers claimed no leaders, generally held events with a definite stated purpose on weeknights or weekends, put on their little show, committed no crimes, caused no public health or safety problems, left the spaces they inhabited cleaner than what they found them, then got up the next day and went back to work at their productive jobs.

            OWS is nothing like the Tea Party.

    2. That’s a goddamn lie. Katrina says that “Progressives are on the move once more.” becuase of the OWS.

      And she’s never wrong.
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..tml?sub=AR

  14. WASHINGTON ? The portion of American families living in middle-income neighborhoods has declined significantly since 1970, according to a new study, as rising income inequality left a growing share of families in neighborhoods that are mostly low-income or mostly affluent.

    The study, conducted by Stanford University and scheduled for release on Wednesday by the Russell Sage Foundation and Brown University, uses census data to examine family income at the neighborhood level in the country’s 117 biggest metropolitan areas.

    The findings show a changed map of prosperity in the United States over the past four decades, with larger patches of affluence and poverty and a shrinking middle.

    In 2007, the last year captured by the data, 44 percent of families lived in neighborhoods the study defined as middle-income, down from 65 percent of families in 1970.

    About 14 percent of families lived in affluent neighborhoods in 2007, up from 7 percent in 1970, the study found.

    The study ? part of US2010, a research project financed by Russell Sage and Brown University ? identified the pattern in about 90 percent of large and medium-size metropolitan areas for 2000 to 2007.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45…..ork_times/

    1. Income inequality does not exist, and if it does it is deserved, and if it does not it is because of government.

      1. Try this: income inequality doesn’t mean much.

      2. Actually – yeah.

        If we look at your last clause and define that as either “by acting, or by failing to act” then your statement is pretty much axiomatic, whether from a libertarian perspective or even from YOURS.

        Since you’re demanding that the government fix income inequality, that means that if income inequality currently exists it’s because the government hasn’t fixed it yet.

        1. That’s silly given that the government sets the rules that result in whatever distribution follows.

          1. We know what results follow from what policies to some degree. Scandanvian nations with different policies consistently have less income inequality than we do. Government sets the rules and a result follows, so saying it is the government’s fault for inequality might be true, but in a tautological way. The fault with “your side” is imagining that there is some “natural order” of distribution that would be in place.

            1. yep, the “free trade” fiction & gop demonizing of middle-class, union families. >the relevant question is why your pay & benefits are NOT as good, if not better, than union families.

            2. Sacrifice all your people to me, I shall never be appeased!

              1. ^pay no attention to the man behind the curtain !

              2. Yes, yes, people that worry about equality just want to sacrifice everyone. Whatever makes you feel noble dude.

                1. Whatever makes you feel noble dude

                  Jesus. That’s rich.
                  Must…resist…urge…to…troll…

                2. It is not enough to worry about that most unclean devil of inequality. I demand that you worship me, the God of Equality! Only through the slavish devotion and worship of my minions can I bring about the nirvana of all people living equally in squalor.

            3. The fault with “your side” is imagining that there is some “natural order” of distribution that would be in place.

              Why would there not be a normal (natural order) distribution of incomes in an environment free of government intervention?

              Also, the notion of “income inequality” is flawed. How does someone making more money than me result in “inequality”? There are some CEO’s that I admire, that make 1,000 times my salary. But instead of complaining about income inequality, or lobbying my gov’t for more of the CEO’s money, I’m trying to increase my income. I went back to school, and finished my Finance degree. I go to at least one networking event a week. I’m always looking for a better job, and looking for dealmaking opportunities. Hell, I’m getting a certificate in CRE from UCLA, and in the spring, I’m going to start a certificate program in accounting. Hopefully in twenty years, with my knowledge, skills, and expertise, I will be a CEO too. The point is, I don’t begrudge people who have put in the time, and have the skills to earn 1,000 times my salary.

              I don’t want the gov’t to take CEO money. Instead, I’m doing all I can to make CEO money.

          2. Ummm…OK. But wouldn’t that also mean that by definition any income inequality is the government’s fault?

            So you’re now embracing a POV you were mocking at 9:21.

            1. saying it is the government’s fault for inequality might be true, but in a tautological way

      3. ^^ spooforrhea old malox ^^

    2. About 14 percent of families lived in affluent neighborhoods in 2007, up from 7 percent in 1970, the study found.

      Upward mobility: it’s not dead yet!

      1. Of course, we have to consider the definition(s) of “affluent”.

    3. The portion of American families living in middle-income neighborhoods has declined significantly since 1970, according to a new study, as rising income inequality left a growing share of families in neighborhoods that are mostly low-income or mostly affluent.

      I’m sure the efforts by the government to get housing prices to skyrocket has nothing to do with this whatsoever.

  15. From Monday: “TransCanada agrees to reroute Keystone XL pipeline.”

    “I can confirm the route will be changed and Nebraskans will play an important role in determining the final route,” Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s president of energy and oil pipelines, said in a statement about the Keystone XL pipeline.

    Pourbaix told a news conference in Lincoln, Neb., that rerouting the pipeline would likely need 50 to 65 extra kilometres of pipe and an additional pumping station.
    MAP Canada’s crude oil pipeline

    Pourbaix said the company supports a proposal introduced in the state legislature that, if passed, would ensure the pipeline route would avoid the ecologically sensitive Sandhills area.

    1. I think the opposition to the pipeline is stupid. People use gas and oil, we need to transport it, it seems this is as safe as anything else.

      1. Pssh. Common sense doesn’t penetrate those people’s heads.

      2. There are a handful of environmental activists who have convinced themselves that if this pipeline isn’t built, Canada’s Tar Sands oil won’t be burned.

        That is moronic.

        Canada can just build a pipeline to their own Pacific coast and sell the oil to China instead.

        1. The number one stupid thing among liberals today imo is: TRAINS!!!!

          Opposition to this pipeline is my number two.

          1. total uncorrect the nabraska legislater fear this pips will cuz contamation of big acifer nd tranes has ben use by teh milltary fer yeers

            1. Can you type more like a complete retard?

              1. Why bother? He’ll just claim it was a spoofer.

                1. sockpuppetry > tebow

                2. ^^ old mec spoff^

                  1. Nutrasweet for the win?

          2. “The number one stupid thing among liberals today imo is: TRAINS!!!!

            Opposition to this pipeline is my number two.”

            The obvious solution is to haul the oil from Canada to Texas via train.

            1. actually, if they cant build the pipeline, that is how some of it will be transported. The rest will be shipped to China on a Pacific coast terminal.

      3. absolutely incorrect.

        the nebraska legislature asked for the re-route to avoid a major aquifer…which the corporation had NOT taken into consideration.

        damn that state & local controlz…

        1. Yeah, because after 3 years of studies and hearings, no one had even once considered the Ogallala.

          You’re not even trying, are you?

      4. Yeah. Pipelines are better and safer than tanker ships.

    2. Reroute it through HERE!

      We need the jerbs!!

      1. My own question: Will eminent domain be employed to build this pipeline?

        1. I thought the current route went through existing public lands.

        2. I believe this was part of the issue. A few landowners refused to grant easements.

  16. Yale Bans Sex Week After Finding Organizers In Bed With The Porn Industry
    http://www.businessinsider.com…..n-industry

    We heard over and over from students, faculty, and staff that “Sex Week at Yale,” a student-sponsored event, is highly problematic. A student-initiated event begun in 2002, it has described itself as “a campus-wide interdisciplinary sex education program. Over time, this event clearly has lost the focus of its stated intention and in recent years it has prominently featured titillating displays, “adult” film stars, and commercial sponsors of such material.

    bonus Sasha Grey pic.

    1. Sasha Grey was one of the speakers at Yale’s Sex Week

      I suspect she wasn’t attired quite like the article’s photo shows her.

      1. You never know…

    2. Isn’t this a rerun from not too long ago?

      1. She’s very pro-education.

    3. What a crisis! Where will our nation’s Ivy league students go to learn how babies are made without a “campus-wide interdisciplinary sex education program”?

    4. A Sasha Grey pic is always a bonus.

    5. So these are the school kids she’s reading to? Dammit! Why didn’t I go to Yale?

    6. A student-initiated event begun in 2002, it has described itself as “a campus-wide interdisciplinary sex education program.

      Like college students need a campus event to be educated about the same thing that’s going on in their dorms every night.

      1. Its Yale. Some of those guys couldn’t get laid in a whorehouse with a stack of $100s without detailed instructions.

    1. Aww, I was expecting a German hand grenade.

  17. Shouldn’t the rest of Europe be happy the German economy didn’t implode? Historically, when the German economy craters they attempt to offset the losses by taking it from the rest of Europe.

    1. I think the rest of Europe is pissed because the German economy is accomplishing what the Germany army couldn’t.

    2. Not yet, but it is coming. It’s the old example – you owe the bank $100,000, you’re in trouble. You owe the bank $1,000,000, the bank’s in trouble.

  18. The Las Vegas monorail, which cost $650 million to build, is now worth only $16 to $20 million and is going bankrupt due to losses of around $40 million a year.

    1. Well, maybe the NCR shouldn’t be such dicks about who they let ride it.

      1. Bombing that fucking thing is always so satisfying.

      2. Hehe. got that game to hold me off til skyrim came out. Hours of lost productivity well spent

    2. It’s amazing that technology which was replaced by cars 50 years ago would not prove profitable today.

    3. Is there a public transportation project anywhere that meets the usage projections that justified the project? I ask because I’ve never seen one. Every time I look at one of these things up close, the anticipated ridership numbers are just pie-in-the-sky bullshit. After the project starts and they get a tenth of the projections, everybody stands around aghast that the numbers never materialized.

      Seriously, if my projections for anything were this bad, I’d never work again.

      1. Last I checked the railrunner from ABQ to Santa Fe exceeded projections…but I haven’t been paying attention lately.

        1. but I haven’t been paying attention lately.

          Obviously.

          New Mexico’s Rail Runner commuter rail raising fares, faces financial questions

          Train operators are increasing fares to generate as much as $650,000 to plug a hole in a nearly $24 million annual budget. To cut costs, weekend trains are being reduced during the winter and buses replaced two weekday trains. Two trains out of Santa Fe also were consolidated into one late-night run.

          But larger financial questions loom. The Rail Runner faces another budget shortfall in the upcoming fiscal year, which starts in July 2012, because of the potential loss of federal money accounting for nearly a quarter of yearly revenues.

          1. Hey, that doesn’t prove the usage projections weren’t met. They could just be losing money on every passenger.

      2. It depends–the Southwest Line in Denver, for example, exceeded ridership projections, but the line connecting from Parker Road on I-225 to I-25 ended up having some runs cut a couple years ago because they weren’t getting enough people.

      3. “Is there a public transportation project anywhere that meets the usage projections that justified the project?”

        Hiawatha light rail line. Minneapolis.

    4. Were you sent here by the Devil?

  19. She on time, but she late for they first date
    Cause he went and tried out all new condoms
    Slipped off in a threesome, good problems, right?
    Wrong.
    Askin’ him if she gonna play games
    With the super smash brothers, but none of them you
    I miss the sex when you kiss whenever you through
    Sixty-nine is the only dinner for two

  20. Crude oil back on the rise again, hits $100 for the first time since July.

    1. because the dollar gained & the US economic news & forcast is looking better.

      1. i dont unerstand even the most basic economic priciples derp

      2. Urine – Oil price goes DOWN when dollar gets stronger.

        Dumbass.

        1. no oil prive go up whne doller gerts strongrer this are basiclly microecnomics

          1. no, you have the backwards – dollar goes down, more dollars needed to buy a barrel of oil.

      3. They’ve been forecasting “recovery” for over two years now. Did they get their crystal balls recalibrated?

      4. Bernanke also wouldn’t be continuing ZIRP policies if he thought recovery was on its way.

  21. http://bigthink.com/ideas/41125

    Our libertarians were wrong, however, to think that we could flourish in abundance by understanding ourselves with ever-more-perfect consistency as free and productive individuals progressively untethered by biological direction.

    1. Our libertarians

      That’s racist!

    2. The progress of American individualism in the past generation has not been toward apathetic contentment (Tocquevillian individualism) but toward the intensification of personal self-obsession (Lockean individualism).

      There’s an unexamined assumption here that flaws the argument to a certain degree. Lockean individualism may not be a resting state, but rather a reaction to outside forces not allowing Tocquevillian individualism to ride its inertia.

      And, of course, if we truly had a minimalist entitlement state, continued demographic grow would be a necessary condition for it to exist into the future. (Side-stepping the insectile utilitarianism of children being “grown” so that their effort can be “harvested” for the benefit of other people.)

      1. *wouldn’t be a necessary condition” stupid typing grumble grumble

      2. The next stage in American progress, we can hope, is that we will discover, or rediscover, the truth that the free or personal being is necessarily a relational being.

        Which libertarians have been saying for years. We just like those relationships to be voluntary and consensual.

        1. The author seems to assume that libertarians are hostile monadalists. Which means he’s not real about real libertarians but the caricature of them in academia.

          1. *he’s not talking about real libertarians* sigh

            1. *pats SugarFree’s head*

              It’s OK – I didn’t take typing in high school, either. It’s for the proles – you’re spending your time on higher-level pursuits.

              Why don’t you have your monocled Ninja Monkey butler type for you?

              1. I hope a family of rabid raccoons ravages your scrotum into shreds.

                1. Well, good morning to you, too!

          2. I think it’s fairer to say the majority of libertarians are not hostile monadalists.

            Some, sure, because the hostile curmudgeon is strong within libertarians.

            1. HEY, HEY! I’m heterosexual – EXCLUSIVELY, thank you very much, pal!

              *spins on heal – walks off in a huff*

            2. But his is still addressing them as a group. To fairly assign an attribute to all, at a bare minimum the vast majority should share it (ideally all).

              The academic view of libertarians vacillates between false flag GOPers, Victorian-era robber barons, and right-wing Ted Kaczynskis, plotting the downfall of omnibenevolent collectivism from their heavily-armed cabin in the remote woods.

              He’s generalizing a portion of a false composite. Even taken together, those three strawmen make up very few real-life libertarians.

              1. …plotting the downfall of omnibenevolent collectivism from their heavily-armed cabin in the remote woods.
                It’s a fair cop.

                1. I have a heavily armed suburban house, but aside from that, yeah, it’s not entirely untrue.

                  More seriously, I think sometimes the academic distaste for libertarians is driven by the fact that libertarianism has a strong component of absolute morality to it. Your average po-mo academic finds that extremely distasteful.

                  1. ^THIS^

          3. He’s talking about the libertopia shown in Borderlands which is exactly the academic caricature of what a libertarian society would be.

        2. Communitarians implicitly believe that voluntary relationships aren’t actually relationships.

          You’re supposed to “participate” in related groups, which means you get to have some distant indirect role in decision-making, but if the decision goes against you, you grumble a little but then tough it out.

          Like a union election at a closed shop. In Sweden. That’s the model of a “relationship” to a communitarian.

          If you are able to withdraw from a relationship at will, that’s “applying the ethics of the marketplace” and means you’re a user, and not “related” to others at all.

  22. European economy has all but stalled, report says
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/…..34651.html

    The European Union economy grew a paltry 0.2 percent in July, August and September compared with the three months before, the EU statistics agency said. That is the same growth rate as the previous quarter, and far slower than the 0.7 percent before that.

    And the picture is probably even worse. The statistics did not include Italy and Greece, the two countries in the most debt trouble. And their debt crisis only got worse in October, the month after this snapshot was taken.

    Besides lowering standards of living and hurting the job market in Europe, a recession would be bad news for the U.S., which sells 20 percent of its exports to Europe, and for Asia.

    1. Economic stagnation is a tribute that must be paid to me, and I demand more!

    2. And it’s looking like the bond vigilantes may have had it with the E.U. Say goodnight, Gracie.

      1. I shall strike down with great vengeance and furious anger this bond market of which you speak.

  23. In a case seen as a test of the battered-woman defense, Barbara Sheehan, 50, was acquitted of second-degree murder last month after her lawyers successfully argued that she fired a gun at her husband only after he threatened to kill her.

    She was sentenced in state Supreme Court in Queens to five years in prison and two years of probation on the unlawful gun possession charge, based on her use of her husband’s weapons. She had faced a possible sentence of 3-1/2 to 15 years.

    1. Goddamn, but New York is so fucked. She might have got tried for her husband’s death down here, but there’s no prosecutor in the state who would have tried to charge her on some bullshit like that.

      1. New York should be renamed West England.

      2. In Texas they’d have jailed her for the same amount of time, but for being a bad shot.

        BAH DUMP BUMP!

    2. My head is full of fuck.

    3. Does this mean that if I’m in New York and a mugger with a gun attacks me, and I do some crazy Batman shit and get the gun away from him and shoot him with it, I’ll go to jail for violating the mandatory minimum gun laws?

      1. Yes.

        And, if you take the gun away from the guy and stick it in your pocket to give to the cops later you are also liable.

      2. Not only will the mandatory minimum gun law get you, you will likely be charged with attempted murder.

        There is no right to self-defense in NYC as best as I can tell and I’ve lived here for 21 years.

      3. A friend of mine told a story on Facebook recently. Him and some friends saw a guy trying to mug a couple. The guy in the couple wrestled the attacker down, sat on him and called the cops. The cops came, let the mugger go and hassled the guy for attacking the mugger.

        The saying is “see something, say something”, not see something do something.

        I’ve see it time and time again in the news where a person defending himself ends up being punished.

        NYC is bad about arrest anyone involved in a fight and let the courts sort it out.

        One of the cops charged in the planting drugs scheme claimed he didn’t know what the problem was because the courts would let them walk anyway. He was extremely indifferent to the arrest of an innocent person.

    4. We were talking about this case before here, and I wrote then that I thought it was a case of the jury baby-splitting, rather than making the hard decision of whether her conduct was justified or not. It seems like the jury disapproved of her conduct, couldn’t condone shooting her husband in a situation where they felt she wasn’t immediately in fear of her life, but didn’t feel like giving her 2nd degree murder for killing a wifebeating asshole. So they convicted on a lesser charge. This happens every day in our system.

      It’s hard to predict what a jury will do, but I can’t see them convicting if they truly felt he was going to kill her right then unless she shot him. When sitting in jury selection, we were told the two charges the accused was indicted for, as well as the sentence range for each charge. Maybe they don’t tell the jury the sentence in NY, but if they do, then the jury knew a vote to convict on the weapons charge meant she was getting at least 3.5 years. Doubt the judge would have been as lenient as 5 with 2 probation if they’d convicted for 2nd degree murder.

      Unfortunately, as you’d think from the name, baby-splitting often leads to ridiculous logic. Too bad the prosecutors couldn’t have found a lesser included offense that didn’t require such a ludicrous chain of reasoning. Yes, this is a horrible result from New York, and its reasoning will no doubt spawn some equally horrible cases. That too is a consequence of baby-splitting.

  24. She was sentenced in state Supreme Court in Queens to five years in prison and two years of probation on the unlawful gun possession charge, based on her use of her husband’s weapons.

    JUSTICE!

    1. well, maybe in Double O retard’s mind it is… afterall your safety is no reason to kill someone threatening to kill you. Their life is more important than that! Life insurance or health insurance can pay.

      1. nope – self defense is legit.

      2. Life insurance or health insurance can pay.

        For your funeral.

  25. “Folks, you fired the first shot.”

    It’s not eliminationist rhetoric when Democratz use it.

    1. Drudge is telling me a bullet hit the White House. The unions aren’t a very good shot.

  26. Be sure to get all your friends to sign the most important petition at “We the People” before time runs out.

    1. I did, in fact, go sign that petition.

    2. Skeletor speaks about Republican Candidates

      “I think the candidate — it is going to be and is the strongest candidate to beat Obama is Mitt Romney. And you know, I’m a little tired of these Johnny-come-lately conservative purists. Where were they when we were running John McCain? For Pete’s sake, Romney is a million times better than McCain. Romney speaks absolutely beautifully, he’s been magnificent in the debates. I think he’s a little bit of a country club Republican, too, but let’s just get a Republican in there and get Obama out.”

      And as Yoda would say, “that is why you fail.”

      1. I’m absolutely shocked that she was say something so mindlessly partisan.

        1. What’s more shocking is that she doesn’t actually have vocal cords. She produces speech by rubbing her chitinous mandibles against each other and the occasional quasi-glottal clack of her grinding molars.

        2. I’m shocked she wouldn’t say something more right-wing. Romney is about as conservative as Obama.

          1. She’s not a conservative, she’s a Team Red cheerleader.

      2. Bering married to one of these ‘conservative purists’, I can answer this one. They were lamenting the choice of John McCain and debating whether or not they’d stay home for the election. Just because Ann didn’t pay any attention to the huge amount of conservatives that thought the GOP let the media drive the choice of Johnny Mac doesn’t mean they weren’t out there complaining.

    3. YES!

  27. A followup on the ‘Forever Lazy’ post from yesterday.
    http://www.wisn.com/r/22904878/detail.html

    “We could have never guessed the types of success that we’ve had,” said Galganski. “Everything has just been a whirlwind. We’ve thought many times how blessed we are that things have fallen into place.”

    A place found with the help of some soft fabric and a simple philosophy.

    “Our passion has always been to start our own business and work for ourselves and make our work our passion and needless to say, laziness and comfort is one of our biggest passions,” Galganski said.

    I’ll give ’em props…

    1. Let’s face it, trying to capitalize on Americans desire to be lazy slugs can’t ever be a bad business plan.

      1. No one has ever gone broke over estimating the American penchant for laziness. Look at John Deere. Lazy farmers too lazy to hook up the team and steer the plow.

  28. Romney speaks absolutely beautifully

    But- what about the trousers? Are they creased sharply enough to slice a Christmas goose?

  29. MUST WATCH

    UKIP Nigel Farage – How dare you tell the Italian and Greek people what to do !!! Nov 2011

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..ns-cSUeVs#!

  30. A place found with the help of some soft fabric and a simple philosophy.

    Who would have guessed there were so many people secretly yearning to dress like Teletubbies?

    1. I missed the Forever Lazy discussion, but I don’t think the success of this product is proof that Americans are lazy.

      I think it’s proof that Americans are fucking cold now that Bernanke has pissed the dollar down so far that heating oil is $3.50 a gallon.

      I seethe with rage every time I hear my furnace come on, and I can afford the damn oil. But if someone brings out some kind of monk cowl that I can leave in the sun to solar charge during the day that will work like hunting socks at night, I would totally consider wearing it.

      1. A solar monk robe with heating elements?

        Hmm. Let me go talk to the sparkies down the hall…

  31. Sasha Grey.

    *sigh*

    That is all.

    1. the mission of almanian is to BOLDLY go where ALL men have gone before

      1. Nah, I just like watching

        1. This Ain’t Star Trek?

        2. Word

  32. Newt Gingrich lied. Is that a negative for a politician or a pre-requisite for POTUS?

  33. In Soviet Russia, morning Reason links YOU!

    Wait, whaaaa….? Huh?

  34. Why? Why not!

    Badfinger – No Matter What
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz4uWgdRJ6I

    Badfinger is one of the saddest stories in rock ‘n’ roll.

    1. I always thought that was the Beatles.

      1. well, considering Badfinger was originally signed to Apple, had a Beatles producer (no, not that one), and their first hit was penned by Paul McCartney…

      2. I always thought it was Pete Best.

    2. “If I’ve told them once… I’ve told them a thousand times… Spinal Tap and THEN the puppet show!”

  35. based on her use of her husband’s weapons.

    Hey, wait- isn’t New York a community property state?

  36. Opening a base in Australia is a brilliant move. The US economy is circling the drain, but counterclockwise, by sending US assets to the southern hemisphere Obama can reverse this process. Also, expect to see an announcement on Fannie and Freddie and affordable housing in Antarctica. Obama and the Coriolis force for the win!

  37. A report says that US industrial production just climbed a great deal and inflation is nil? How does this square with the Austrian view? What’s happening? This is an honest question not a trap.

    1. Inflation is not nil. Energy is up, food is up, but those are excluded from the official figure. Mfg is up, but it was never that down. Lower labor costs could contribute.

    2. It squares quite well with the view that govt statistics are bullshit.

    3. That’s OK, I’m glad the govt is lowballing the inflation numbers. Keeps gold and platinum cheap so I can buy more.

  38. Fucking Krauts! How dare they succeed!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.