Reason Morning Links: Microsoft "Quietly" Comes Out Against Online Piracy Act, Sheriff Joe Throws Support Behind Rick Perry, Bloomberg Digs Into Secret Fed Loans to Wall Street

|

  • CNET: "Microsoft has long been one of the most ardent proponents of expanding U.S. copyright law. But that enthusiasm doesn't extend to the new Stop Online Piracy Act." 
  • Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio will campaign for Rick Perry in New Hampshire this week. 
  • Bloomberg: "Banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed's below-market rates" during the financial crisis. 
  • The lone Republican member of the National Labor Relations Board is threatening to resign to prevent the board from having a quorum; unions are seething. 
  • Muslim medical students in the UK join Christian evaneglicals in the U.S. in opposing teaching evolution in public schools
  • Speaking of science: More parents are foregoing vaccinating their children. 

New at reason.tv: "Occupy Thanksgiving: A Message of Hope, Redemption, and Dada"

NEXT: Meet the Guest-Blogger: "Culinary Freedom" Fighter Baylen Linnekin of Keep Food Legal

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. Loan Republican?

    1. Well, they are all on loan…

      1. Just take out the loaner and give it drive. Maybe you’ll buy one later.

        1. “The peacekeeping strategy of the past was ‘Give as good as you get, but don’t be too predictable.’ The Takers discarded that. What did they come up with to replace it?”

          I struggled with it for a few minutes and finally said, “I guess I have to say that what the Takers came up with was themselves. They made themselves the peacekeepers.”

          “They did indeed, Julie. They appointed themselves the administrators of chaos, and they’ve been at it ever since, improvising generation after generation with varying degrees of success. They took the keeping of the peace into their hands at the beginning of their revolution, and it’s been there ever since. When they arrived in the New World, no one was keeping the peace here, as you know. Rather, the peace was being kept in the traditional way, by people giving as good as they got and remaining unpredictable. The Takers put a stop to all that, and now the keeping of the peace is in their capable hands. Crime is a multibillion-dollar industry, children deal drugs on street corners, and maddened citizens vent their rage on each other with assault weapons.”

          ~Daniel Quinn

    2. What are you? The Loan Ranger? 😉

      1. Is it Lois Loan?

    3. Evidently they don’t quite own him.

    4. “We think it’s really terrible to shut down a government agency over ideology!”
      (how about over jobs?)

  2. Speaking of science: More parents are foregoing vaccinating their children.

    Then I don’t know what parents are planning to blame their child’s “autism” on.

    1. Fast food!

    2. And I bet many of the same people who won’t vaccinate their kids for chicken pox, think mandatory vaccination for HPV is just great.

      I was having a discussion on facebook with some random liberal friend of a friend about gay marriage this weekend. What struck me was not that he supported gay marriage. It was that he really didn’t seem to understand why he supported gay marriage or the ramifications of allowing it. What he knew was that his team told him it was the right thing. Maybe it has always been so and I am just now noticing it. But issues really are decided on emotion rather than reason.

      1. OMG, ignorant team cheerleaders are ignorant!! Who knew!?

      2. what’s gay marrage got to do w childrens’ vaccines ?

        1. becuz vaccines causes teh gay, duh

        2. They are both examples of people mindlessly believing shit because their team told them to. Do we need to give out programs?

          1. which “team” said not to get vaccines?

            1. Team Blue. It is not the conservatives who jumped on that bandwagon of ignorance.

              1. the DNC said NOT to get vaccines? source please

            2. And more importantly, team blue said HPV vaccines should be mandatory and their idiot followers who normally avoided vaccines changed course for the HPV vaccine. Thus, following the team line mindlessly.

              1. rick perry is team red republicanz not team blue

              2. Your doing some pretty good nitpicking there to make a partisan point.

                Most the people I know that are against vaccines are so on limited government grounds. That hardly makes them team blue.

                1. TrickyVic|11.28.11 @ 10:20AM|#

                  Your doing some pretty good nitpicking there to make a partisan point.

                  Yep. Sounds about right.

          2. Uh, you could say that about pretty much any position, John. In fact, you could say it about both sides of any position.

      3. “And I bet many of the same people who won’t vaccinate their kids for chicken pox, think mandatory vaccination for HPV is just great.”

        I wouldn’t be so sure. The anti-vaccine nuts seem to have their own special kind of crazy. Though maybe they only worry about the early childhood ones.

      4. It is embarassing to me that many “libertarians”, at least on H&R, are in the “no immunizations” camp. Their reason is because it impinges on their “freedom”.

    3. Gluten, probably.

      1. Fluorescent light bulbs.

        1. And not wearing a tin hat to keep out the bad waves.

        2. Peanuts. High-fructose corn syrup. Red dye no. 5…

          1. Oh wait, I know…chem-trails!

          2. Red 5? I thought it was Yellow 5 that was the real culprit.

      1. We had to study Wakefield’s paper in my epidemiology class. I have no idea how anyone could believe the bullshit that emerged from that pile of crap.

        1. Agreed. But the wife of an influential NYC DJ believed it, so now it is Luddite Canon.

  3. evaneglicals?

  4. The momus may funnily controvert. The yay primaeval colorimeter was the algid faraj. A englishman is the automobilist. The plateally frontal belem has ceremonially transacted. The telephoto heathenism may durably interbreed.The unprofessional freshets were seasoning. The nova scotian tenotomy was extremly fancily blubbered. The windbreaker negatively pays back among the manservant. The stylishly koepanger murage was the reichstag. The accusatorially tridentine switzer has evanished. clozapine generic brand fluticasone nasal cost The nasty horning averagely electrotypes geometrically due to the maree. The legionary lagging supernormally sears behind the cupboard. The cespitose electricians were the invariablenesses. The filchers are betraying. The folkishly traditionalistic gallstone was the future. paroxetine hcl 20 mg information pdf insert package tricor

    1. James Joyce or Lewis Carroll: You decide.

      1. Joyce Carroll

      2. Bill Faulkner

  5. Who loaned a Republican to the NLRB in the first place?

    1. What a crock!

  6. Gluten, probably.

    1. Damn squirrels.

  7. http://campaign2012.washington…..titutional

    Amending the Constitution is still following the Constitution. Who would have thought such a thing?

  8. Do female athletes have to wear miniskirts to be taken seriously?
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com…..le2248483/

    1. No they just have to be attractive.

    2. They do if they want to attract viewers.

      1. Or, perhaps they do if they want viewers to know they are women.

    3. Bad choice of sport pic – there is nothing attractive about a female boxer.

      1. True – they should have used beach volleyball players.

      2. well maybe before they start their careers. Women should stick to jello wrestling as their most violent sport.

  9. *Insert obligatory outrage over improper use of the word ‘loan’here*
    Shut-Up, I know I’m late; it was a long weekend.

  10. Steve Jones emeritus professor of human genetics at university college London has questioned why such students would want to study biology at all when it obviously conflicts with their beliefs.

    In college, my religion was adamantly against calculus.

    1. Best to avoid the ghosts of departed quantities.

  11. First class passenger who ‘viewed child porn on Delta flight’ is university professor

    1) The moustache should have given him away.
    2) What do you want to bet he was watching Lupe Fuentes or some similar young-looking girl? I have a really hard time believing that even the most audacious pervert would watch child porn in public.

    1. It was for research!!!!

      Isn’t that how professors justify everything?

    2. I’m guessing that there’s less to this than meets the eye.

      There’s a better than average chance that some houswife with an overactive imagination construed Buffy the Vampire slayer as child pr0n because it takes place in a highschool

      1. He could have been watching “The Professional” too. OMG, pre-teen natalie portman!!

        1. I want the drugs Gary Oldman had.

    3. Can’t feel too sorry for the guy, even if wasn’t actually child pron. Keep that shit in your own damn house, the general public doesn’t need a front-row seat.

      Also, it’s pretty ballsy for these academics to cry about how underpaid they are when they’re taking first-class trips across the country.

  12. Muslim opponents to Darwinism maintain that Allah created the world, mankind and all known species in a single act.

    Given that one believes in a Supreme Being in the first place, is it such a rectifying leap to believe that His “single act” comprised everything that Darwinism espouses?

    Oh wait, now I get it: We’re in Act II of the cosmic play.

  13. “We think it’s really terrible to shut down a government agency over ideology,”

    Of course you do.

    1. “Muslim opponents to Darwinism maintain that Allah created the world, mankind and all known species in a single act.”

      It’s called the Big Wadd Theory.

  14. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..tional_pop

    Bloomburg even hates kitties. He really is one of the most awful men in the world.

    1. One of the hotel’s other traditions is the succession of cats that have had free run of the place for 80 years. But that tradition has ended.

      What a dick.

    2. Oh, the comments… the insane cat-hater is amazing. All we get are boring trolls compared to that blast of crazy.

      1. They are a species genetically-engineered through selective breeding. They have no more right to be out in nature than some genetically-engineered insect that, if released out into nature, would destroy all life. JUST AS CATS DO.

        None of my cats have destroyed all life yet. I’ve been cheated!

        1. Mine has tried to hunt all the bushy tailed tree rats in the yard to extinction. If only he could run off the armadillo, we’d be good.

        2. I had a cat once that tried to kill all life. Little bastard killed anything that moved – he didn’t destroy all life but he pretty much cleared out the neighborhood of birds, squirrels, mice, chipmunks, bats, etc.

        3. a species genetically-engineered through selective breeding

          So, just like evolution, then?

          1. Noooo.

            It has to happen out in nature for it to be evolution.

            Guided by humans means the selection is “unnatural”.

            Or so the PeTA and HSUS brigades tell us.

  15. Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn’t fit their apocalyptic global warming
    …The emails paint a clear picture of scientists selectively using data, and colluding with politicians to misuse scientific information.

    ‘Humphrey’, said to work at Defra, writes: ‘I cannot overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story.

    ‘They want their story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.’

    Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the centre of the affair, said the group findings did stand up to scrutiny.

    Yet one of the newly released emails, written by Prof. Jones – who is working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – said: ‘Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get ? and has to be well hidden.

    ‘I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.’…

    Climategate a ‘catastrophe’ for science?
    …Scepticism about global warming has spiked dramatically in the past two years. Pew also found that, after appearing on the public’s radar screen in 2007, the climate has become less important to voters with each annual survey. There are a number of possible reasons why. High unemployment makes voters hostile to the regulation of business. Scandals at Solyndra and other beneficiaries of Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus plan have shown an unseemly overlap between those who manage the government’s environmental initiatives and those who stand to make fortunes from them. “Green energy” has become the main avenue of US-style crony capitalism. Still, the emails leaked before the Copenhagen summit were more devastating than any of these things.

    …Voters in a democracy do not argue about science. They argue about the authority of scientists. And scientists’ claim to authority comes from the perception that, in fact, they do not let their vanities and rivalries influence their work. Where others pursue their grubby little self-interest, scientists pursue only the truth. The emails of 2009, however, showed that some prominent members of the climate-change establishment were not operating in a spirit of openness. Defending a scientist’s furtiveness on the grounds that “his science is good” is like defending a politician’s blunder on the grounds that he “did nothing illegal”. The emails were damaging because they undermined the scientists’ claim to be speaking as scientists rather than as interested parties.

    If scientists are shown to be colluding to arrive at a given result, then the halo around science dissipates. Any voter who does not want to be duped must suspend his scepticism. He must listen to scientists with no more deference than he does any other interest group. …

        1. Not short enough.

          1. perfect height for my “hockey stick”

    1. Any voter who does not want to be duped must suspend his scepticism.

      Wait, what? Isn’t suspending your scepticism how you get duped in the first place?

  16. Climate hoax promoter Michael Mann: “I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.”
    …I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy….

    Yet Another Climate-Change Scandal
    …Keenan is Doug Keenan, a skeptic and gadfly of the climate-change establishment. McIntyre is, of course, Steve McIntyre?the tenacious Canadian ex-mining engineer whose dogged research helped expose the flaws in Mr. Mann’s “hockey stick” graph of global temperatures. One can understand Mr. Mann’s irritation. His hockey stick, which purported to demonstrate the link between man-made carbon emissions and catastrophic global warming, was the central pillar of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report and brought him near-legendary status in the climate science community. Naturally he wanted to put Mr. McIntyre in his place….

  17. Newsbytes: BBC In Cahoots With Climategate Scientists, prime minister “green guru” publicly doubts climate change
    …Britain’s leading green activist research centre spent ?15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked ‘Climategate’ emails has revealed. The emails ? part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia ? shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade. They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output. BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage. ? David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 27 November 2011…

    The tribalistic corruption of peer review ? the Chris de Freitas incident
    …This is most certainly not the case in the emails that follow. There really is no hiding place for the authors, and no ambiguity. The emails will track how annoyance at the publication of a ‘contrary’ article in a journal develops into an attack on the editor, Chris de Freitas, an accomplished scientist. The attack includes a plot to see if they can get him sacked from his job at University of Auckland. Within the story, it is evident exactly what kind of ‘scientists’ the key authors are. The word scientist applied to these people has denigrated the meaning of the word….

    …Also assessing copyright as the ‘other’ Soon/Baliunas paper in Energy and Env. is essentially the same as that in CR. Hans wanted to try this first, but didn’t want to tell all what he was doing. Fears a backlash if de Freitas gets removed without due cause. So let’s all try and keep the emails down, and hope we can report something to all once the correspondence Hans initiates gets replies.

    Here, they are trying to get de Freitas through other means, which is copyright violation….

    …Clare Goodness was in touch w/ me indicating that she had discussed the matter w/ Von Storch, and that DeFrietas would be relieved of his position. However, I haven’t heard anything. A large segment of the community I’ve been in contact with feels that this event has already done its damage, allowing Baliunas and colleagues to attempt to impact U.S. governmental policy, w/ this new weapon in hand?the appearance of a legitimate peer-reviewed document challenging some core assertions of IPCC to wave in congress. They appear to be making some headway in using this to influence U.S. policy, which makes our original discussions all the more pressing now….

    1. Peer review was supposed to remove the argument from authority from science, but has now replaced it instead.

      Observe how much effort these guys, in both sets of emails, put into trying to dominate the peer review and publication process. If it was really all about the evidence, it wouldn’t matter if some skeptic got his paper published – the pro guys could just get more evidence and publish better papers. But they don’t seem confident in their ability to do that. They are desperate to the point of obsession and ethical breach with preventing the publication of any contradictory material at all – as if as soon as the magical title “peer reviewed paper” was applied to any skeptic’s work, the world would end. Because that title is now more important than the strength of the work itself.

      1. Fluffy, what happened, you lost all your titles?

      2. That is what makes this such a scandal. It is not so much that their work stunk to high heave, which it did, it is that they corrupted the peer review process. Now we don’t have anyway of trusting anything that has come out of the process. Who cares that people in other places were not part of the coverup and are claiming to do valid work. Thanks to Mann and company we have no way of knowing if their work is valid since it hasn’t been subjected to an unbiased peer review process.

        1. John|11.28.11 @ 9:46AM|#

          That is what makes this such a scandal. It is not so much that their work stunk to high heave, which it did,

          Like you have reviewed their work and have the expertise to determine that…gimme a break.

          it is that they corrupted the peer review process. Now we don’t have anyway of trusting anything that has come out of the process.

          You only think that because someone on your team told you to think that. Replace gay marriage with climate change and we are looking at the same issue you decry above.

          Who cares that people in other places were not part of the coverup and are claiming to do valid work.

          Claiming?

          Thanks to Mann and company we have no way of knowing if their work is valid since it hasn’t been subjected to an unbiased peer review process.

          No way of knowing? You realize that pre-publication peer review doesn’t end the process, but begins it, right?

          1. Read the e-mails. They corrupted the process and ensured that skeptical papers didn’t get published. They also broke the law and avoided FOIA request and refused to turn over their data to let other people review and check their work.

            One need only look at the UN reports on climate change and the obvious mistakes (things like believing a claim from an environmental group that the Himalayan glaciers would melt in 30 years) to see how badly compromised the peer review process is.

            Mann and company ruined an entire area of science. The entire subject needs to be reevaluated from the ground up. Nothing that has been published in the last 10 years at least can be trusted.

            If any other area of science were guilty of such egregious mistakes and such obvious subversion of the scientific process, you would agree. You only ignore the obvious because AGW tells you what you want to hear.

            1. Again, John, you are repeating things you have been told. You don’t know what you are talking about. You WANT these statements to be true, but they are hyperbole at best…mixed in with a good dose of fantasy.

              1. People like John et al., have pretty explicitly stated they have very strong ideological reasons to not want AGW to be widely recognized. Somehow we are supposed to think admittedly biased amatuers are the ones who have this whole thing right…

              2. What’s he uninformed about? What the fuck do you know that no one else knows about this story? I love the hysteria you warmers exude about this bullshit.

                1. What is he uninformed about? Look, amatuers are generally less than informed about complex scientific issues. I don’t claim to be informed about it either, but then again I’m the one deferring to those who are…

                2. dave c,

                  He is uniformed about the quality of the papers he criticizes, the peer review process, how science works, the implications of these emails for the science. Etc.

                  If you read hysteria into my response to John, you misread. I just find John’s claims of authority on the issue laughable. If you look at his posts over time, he has slowly cribbed together a set of talking points from Watts et al and now repeats them unthinkingly whenever the topic comes up. But he doesn’t know anything about science. He doesn’t know anything about climate science. He’s just been told there are political implications in the science that he is scared of…so he reacts unthinkingly.

                  1. Neu, have you read any of the new emails?

                    Jones and Mann are utter scumbags. Mann is a proven incompetent hack and bullshitter, and don’t even try to tell me McIntyre didn’t completely destroy his shitty “hockey stick”.

                    1. dave c,

                      Jones and Mann are utter scumbags.

                      Okay. But what has that to do with John’s claims. He is making broad statements about an entire area of science, the corruption of the peer review process, the need to throw out 10 years worth of results. He says these things because he has been told they are true. They show ignorance of the way science works.

                      Also, note that his arguments are aimed at the science, when his complaint is political. He has conflated the political implications with the scientific implications and doesn’t even notice it himself.

                    2. You are now admitting that Jones and Mann are scumbags? Yet, nothing has happened to them. And they are still wildly influential in the field. But somehow we are supposed to have faith in the field’s peer review process.

                      And I haven’t mentioned a single thing about politics in this thread. I have mentioned bad science and a corrupted peer review process. You are the one bringing up politics not me.

                      Project much NM?

            2. If any other area of science were guilty of such egregious mistakes and such obvious subversion of the scientific process, you would agree. You only ignore the obvious because AGW tells you what you want to hear.

              There are bad players in all areas of science, but the process weeds them out and science moves on. The claim that climate science is special in this regard is uninformed.

              1. It’s amazing how little people here know about how peer review works. There are of course people who try to game or bully the system. Everyone who publishes regularly knows this. But they also know there are dozens if not hundreds of journals in every field with hundreds of different reviewers and editors and so bullying them is like punching water.

              2. but the process weeds them out and science moves on.

                I guess that is why Mann and company’s careers have be ruined. Oh wait they haven’t. That is just the point. The bad science hasn’t been weeded out. In fact Mann and company ensured that it wasn’t.

                You claim I am just saying what I hear. Really? Like you are not. You and MNG have 50 responses to this post because the truth hurts. AGW is dead. No one believes the science anymore because the scientists have been so badly compromised by their own actions.

                1. You and MNG have 50 responses to this post because the truth hurts. AGW is dead.

                  50? Truth? Dude, you are so full of yourself sometimes it is sad. Maybe if you call me names it will make your original post more on target.

                  1. John is regularly factually challenged dude. Hyperbole for hyperbole’s sake and no integrity that would make one stop.

                    50 or ten, what’s the difference? And it is his careful mind that we should trust over that of every major scientific organization that has reviewed this subject…Sheesh.

                    1. Yes MNG. You guys have gone ballistic on this because you know the facts are against you. So instead you talk about if there are fifty or ten responses on this thread.

                      Changing the subject is really the only tactic you have left isn’t it?

                  2. Hyperbole Neu Mexican, how does it work? I didn’t mean the fifty literally. But pretend you didn’t know that so you can change the subject.

                    Are you taking dishonest argument classes from MNG?

                    1. “I didn’t mean the fifty literally.”

                      John means very, very little literally.

                    2. You used to make arguments on here MNG. Now you just scream and try to change the subject.

                      I can see now why Joe Boyle left. He knew he wasn’t going to be able to defend all this shit anymore. And he didn’t want to turn into what you have become.

                    3. Hyperbole Neu Mexican, how does it work? I didn’t mean the fifty literally. But pretend you didn’t know that so you can change the subject.

                      One of the ways hyperbole works is to deflect the argument to a new course…in this case to attack your opponent’s motivations rather than address his comments. You made authoritative claims about climate science, broad and sweeping claims with no argument to back them up. I challenged your authority to make them and your response was to say that I didn’t want to hear the truth. This is a tried and true method of changing the subject away from your original claims. You have not provided any support for your original claims. I will give you credit for trying in your first response. But, come on, really, all you did was continue to repeat claims you have heard. If you really think the IPCC reports prove the peer-review process is corrupt, you will need to make a better case for it than to say it is “obvious.”

                      I will stand by my claim. You are not competent to judge the scientific merits of any climate science paper ever published. That is the subject of my first post.

                      I am deflecting?

                      Interesting.

                    4. If you really think the IPCC reports prove the peer-review process is corrupt, you will need to make a better case for it than to say it is “obvious.”

                      How many mistakes have to get through before you question the entire process? The IPCC reports are riddled with errors. Any google search will tell you that.

                      When you combine those errors in the trademark document of the movement with the emails showing Mann and company specifically dissent, the case is made for the peer review process being corrupted.

                      You have no response to that. All you can do is scream “someone told you that”. Well, apparently someone told me the truth and you don’t like it.

                    5. When you combine those errors in the trademark document of the movement with the emails showing Mann and company specifically dissent, the case is made for the peer review process being corrupted.

                      How does this make the case? You would need to elaborate the connections more fully for me…I don’t see the “obvious” connections you are claiming.

                      1)Mistakes were made in an imperfect process.
                      2)Some guys acting inappropriately
                      3)….
                      4)….
                      Conclusion: the whole process is corrupt and we can’t trust any science from the last 10 years.

                    6. You admit the process is screwed up and that it resulted in a bad document, which is not just any document but the cornerstone document of the whole field. And you further admit that the most powerful scientists in that field acted improperly.

                      Yet somehow the peer review process within the field is doing just fine.

                      Face Neu Mejican, no amount of wrong doing will ever cause you to question things. It is a religion with you.

                    7. +John|11.28.11 @ 2:51PM|#

                      You admit the process is screwed up and that it resulted in a bad document,

                      How did you read that into what I said. Yes, in a 3000 page document, there are some mistakes. Not surprising. The one you cite is in the section where the science is least developed, but I notice that you don’t point out errors that go the other way. There are cases where the IPCC was too conservative in their estimates as well. Overall, however, the number of errors is not large. The document is not “riddled with errors.”

                      which is not just any document but the cornerstone document of the whole field.

                      It is important. Cornerstone…if you say so.

                      And you further admit that the most powerful scientists in that field acted improperly.

                      The MOST POWERFUL? Are you sure? And how much more powerful are they than those who disagree with them?

                      Yet somehow the peer review process within the field is doing just fine.

                      The IPCC process is NOT “the peer review process”…you realize that don’t you? The peer-review process within the IPCC MIGHT be open to criticism, but when you look at it holistically, I am not sure that charge sticks either, since Mann et al failed at “their attempts to manipulate it” that you feel are “revealed” in the emails.

                      Face Neu Mejican, no amount of wrong doing will ever cause you to question things. It is a religion with you.

                      You have no idea what I think about the issue, even after all of the discussions we’ve had on the topic. It is impressive. I think there are lots of claims made about AGW that are not supported. There is still lots of uncertainty in the understanding of climate and our impact on it. The area that is least developed is the area that attempt to determine/predict the implications of climate change and/or the impact of mitigation efforts on economies. On that I am with Nassim Taleb in my views.

                2. The bad science hasn’t been weeded out.

                  Here is where you are out of your depth John. You don’t know enough about their science to decide if it is good or bad. You just know that someone from your team has told you it is bad science. McIntrye’s paper, for instance, while interesting, is hardly making the kind of criticism that would be expected to “ruin” someones career. It resulted in a “yeah, that’s true, but it doesn’t change the results significantly” reaction from the community when it was reviewed. And, of course, there have been follow up papers criticizing McIntrye’s methods that are as damaging to his work as his is to anyone else’s.

                  In fact Mann and company ensured that it wasn’t.

                  They are not as powerful as you imagine John.

                  1. So, you don’t understand the science, fine. Please don’t project your ignorance onto everyone around you.

                    McIntyre’s paper got that reaction from warmers that wanted everything he said swept under the rug–or discredited–or destroyed. Likewise the rebuttals to his paper look more like creationist arguments than science. They dance around the point, investigate strawmen, and never really touch the center of the issue–that Mann’s formula is designed to make ‘hockey sticks’.

                    1. Azathoth,

                      Not sure why you think, for instance, that others pointing out that their paper exaggerated the scope of the claimed bias through their methodological choices and/or pointing out that they made methodological errors are “strawmen” or “creationist arguments.”

                      But more to the point, the paper was given appropriate credit for recognizing a methodological issue. And became part of the scientific discourse itself, where imperfections in it came to light. I have seen both political attacks on it and very serious scientific discussions of it and it’s implications. The balance of the scientific discussions come out on the “not too significant in the big picture” end of things.

                    2. No it wasn’t. Read the e-mails.

                    3. NM, all you have said on this thread is

                      “you are out of your depth the authorities say otherwise”

                      and

                      “you are just saying what people tell you”

                      You haven’t made a single substantive defense. And you admit you haven’t even read the e-mails. But somehow we are all supposed to believe you when you say they are no big deal.

                      And you wonder why we accuse you of believing in a religion.

                    4. John|11.28.11 @ 3:19PM|#

                      NM, all you have said on this thread is

                      “you are out of your depth the authorities say otherwise”

                      No, I have said you are out of your depth with your claim authority to declare the science as “bad” and the peer review process as corrupted beyond use. I haven’t stated an opinion on the quality of any specific research. I have simply pointed out that you are making claims that go beyond your own abilities/knowledge. You also criticize the process by which those that ARE qualified will make a determination of the quality. You claim, without any evidence (really, look at what yo posted) that the peer-review process is broken. It isn’t. There is not evidence presented here that the process is more flawed than it is in an other arena of science. Even assuming the intentions you attribute to Mann et al exist, they haven’t had any success in undermining the system. Critical papers continue to be published. Data continues to be available publicly, replication studies continue, etc. The process is just fine. No matter whether you find a couple of big players to be reprehensible.

                      “you are just saying what people tell you”

                      You haven’t made a single substantive defense.

                      Your talking points come straight from Watts up. Minus the details. You haven’t provided any meat to make a substantive counter argument against.

                      and you admit you haven’t even read the e-mails. But somehow we are all supposed to believe you when you say they are no big deal.

                      When did I “admit” that. I have read, I am sure, as much as you from both batches of emails. In context, they don’t seem to be as outrageous as you characterize them. Sure, I wouldn’t want to work in some of these labs…but there are lots of assholes in science. This behavior is not unique to climate science.

                      And you wonder why we accuse you of believing in a religion.

                      No I don’t. I know why you use this rhetoric. I do wonder why you think it has any validity

                    5. The ‘methodological error’ undermines the entire premise. Yet it’s treated as if it doesn’t exist. And the warmers move on, acting as if the whole thing never happened–and STILL using the flawed chart.

                      As with the original Climategate leaks, the friends of the perpetrators issue absolution and act as if it didn’t happen/matter.

                      But it did. And the only side that says the McIntyre paper isn’t significant is the side that has a lot to lose if it is.

                    6. The ‘methodological error’ undermines the entire premise.

                      That is up for debate, of course. You act as if one side has won the day here.

                      And the warmers move on, acting as if the whole thing never happened–and STILL using the flawed chart.

                      That’s not accurate as far as I can tell. People use updated data from a variety of sources.

                      But it did. And the only side that says the McIntyre paper isn’t significant is the side that has a lot to lose if it is.

                      Not sure that is true either. Von Storch and Zorita [2005], for example is hardly from friends of Mann et al. From my perspective it looks like a regular scientific debate. McIntrye is very sure his responses are the final word, but I don’t see him convincing too many from either camp among the serious scientists.

      3. Fuck those guys. I’d be publishing signed editorials in each edition of my journal forever calling them assholes and liers if they tried that shit. While rejecting their articles unread.

    2. Most of the lefties are too stupid to know it yet, but the war over the fraudulent, contrived issue of manmade climate change is over, and they lost resoundingly in a knockout. But a couple more years and even the dummies will likely have figured it out by then.

      1. See e.g. Nue Mexican above. It is more of a religion now. There will never be anything serious done about it. It is reduced to the level of other fundamentalist religions. It can do damage occasionally the way some people get evolution kicked out of schools. But it will never drive policy like they dreamed it would.

        1. Good to see you are staying on point with your talking points John. If you just repeat them enough their magical power will change reality.

          1. Repetition is Jr. Hannity tactic number 16!

            1. LOL. This from the person who screams Shirley Sherrod at least five times a week.

        2. …Libertarianism?

          It will never drive policy like they dreamed it would.

        3. See e.g. Nue Mexican above.

          Yes, se Neu Mejican above, where I point out that John is repeating things he has heard from others because he has FAITH that they are telling him the truth. Why? Because he wants them to be true.

          1. I don’t have faith in anything other than my eyes reading the e-mails. The e-mails say what they say. And you know how damning they are. That is why you are yelling so loud hoping no one notices.

            1. You’ve read 220,000 emails? Or have you seen articles which cherry pick some things that might look bad if you squint? You are repeating what others have told you is in the emails and what you are told the mean. Come on, it’s okay, you can admit it.

              1. No. I have read the emails that are qutoed all over the web. You can read them too. Have you read them? If not, how can you dismiss them so easily? Have you even bothered to read the pertinent and damaging ones? If so, what is your argument that they don’t say what I say they do? If not, how can you claim anything about their content.

              2. Cuz trusting Wattsup is OK, trusting scientists is not!

                You see the logic here. But this is from a guy who admitted the other day that he trusts the NY Times, but only when it criticizes Obama and that he’s not a partisan GOPer, the GOP is just better on every single issue.

                Don’t waste your time NM, John’s accuracy and honesty are about as reputable as Kim Kardashian at this point.

                1. I forget sometimes how stupid and dishonest you really are MNG. When the NY Times admits something that goes against liberals, it is because it is so true even they can’t deny it. It is called an admission against pecuniary interest. It is a simple concept. And it is not surprising you don’t understand it.

  18. As for the Muslim students walking out on evolution classes, the right thing to do is fail them, but I doubt that will happen. There are always some part of any curriculum one must learn even if one does not agree with it. As a Soviet Studies major way back when we studied the Communist Manifesto I didn’t walk out, I treated it as some arcane bit of knowledge and moved on.

    1. They will pass them and let them be doctors with no knowledge of biology. I wish them luck with that.

      1. Pity their patients.

        1. Allah, the All-Merciful, will heal their patients.

      2. You can get by without believing evolution. Outside the evolution class I had to take, my other bio classes weren’t super heavy in evolution.

        1. true, but if you’re so offended that biology includes a discussion of evolution, imagine what else you might not believe…either the students are disingenuous slackers or they’re going to have alot of issues with science based healing.

          1. If they’re really that against biology they’ll go into naturopathy and study homeopathy, reiki and ear-candling.

            It’s where all the science illiterates go.

            1. Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 http://www.plosmedicine.org/ar…..ed.0020124

      3. how do you know that?

      4. For most purposes, a physician with no knowledge of macro-evolution is about as objectionable as an engineer with no knowledge of Big Bang theory. It just is not applicable to what they actually do in their day to day job.

      5. I wish their patients luck with that.

      6. I’m guessing they probably won’t vaccinate their patients.

    2. I would have written my own Manifesto…and its their fault entirely for taking evolution classes in the first place. If you don’t want to have your ears sullied by bad words, leave university and go to eclesiastical school or something.

    3. Compare and contrast Muslim doc students opting out of evolution class with the mass of people opting out of vaccination and the big difference is actual harm.

      While the Muslim students are ignornat, I don’t foresee any actual harm. Most, if not all, modern medicinal treatments are only tenuously related to evolutionary theory.

      On the other hand, modern non-religious superstition about vaccines is causing actual harm to actual kids. To me, that’s the bigger story where informed reporting could alleviate a problem.

      1. Re: Abdul,

        Most, if not all, modern medicinal treatments are only tenuously related to evolutionary theory.

        *cough* Antibiotic resistance *cough*

        1. How about “macro-evolutionary”? Even most creationists (at least the one’s who learn enough science so that they can pretend to be scientific about their creationism) acknowledge things like the development of antibiotic resistance. It’s the evolution of new species that they generally reject.

          1. That’s more of what I was aiming for.

      2. Abdul, you make a valid point, but Reason has been covering the anti-vaccination and will continue to do so. Besides, doctors make decisions on antibiotic use that could cause the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. If these students think that species do not currently evolve, there is a problem.

        1. Bacteria? Ha! Allah tells us desease is caused by evil demon-filled vapors.

    4. My point wasn’t that they needed knowledge of evolution to be doctors, but that if you choose not to study or learn some facet of your curriculum it makes sense to fail you on that part of it. That’s all.

      Let’s assume that to get a degree in “Modern Applicable Anthropology” a student simply had to take a course in Astrology. Let’s say this student is absolutely opposed and offended by Astrology as the last great accepted bigotry (which it is) and complete nonsense and refuses to attend the class. You fail him.

      1. Good point. My undergraduate school required all students to take 2 classes from the social science departments. Can a science major opt out of them if he feels that the social sciences are tripe?

  19. Seriously, is Gluten-free the new vegetarianism?

    1. yeah, except for the whole gluten allergy thing actually existing.

      1. There are definitely people who are celiac but I get the feeling there’s a lot more who claim gluten sensitivity that are actually just whiny.

        It does have the positive effect that people who are legitimately celiac can get gluten-free foods, though.

        1. im sure, but i haven’t had anyone come berate me about my gluten heavy diet.

          1. Don’t worry, we’ll get around to you soon enough.

          2. Try throwing a party, inviting a bunch of university faculty, and not offering gluten free hors d’oeuvres.

            1. why would I invite university faculty to a party?

              1. Perhaps your significant other is a Ph.D candidate.

                1. god help us both. i might strangle her sponsor on general principle.

        2. Gluten intolerance? If there’s one thing in this country we don’t tolerate, it’s intolerance. Shun those who shun gluten! A good shunnin’ always does the job.

        3. If you had heard the thousands of patients that I have heard almost proudly informing you that they are “hypoglycemic” or “my temperature (or blood pressure) is always low” – none of which they are/do – you would understand that there are lots of folks who consider there to be a certain panache in this supposed uniqueness. The same very much goes for most of the food “allergies” that people exultantly announce. It is the product of a natural human desire to be exceptional. Gluten reactions and all those other things of course exist and physicians must be careful about them but large numbers of the claims are BS – and tiresome.

          1. Wait a second? Are you telling me that my allergic reaction to pan dae gi (roasted silkwork larvae) in Korea was just a pathetic cry for attention?

            Crap, that really was the only semi-interesting thing about me. Now what do I do?

            1. I guess you could now try one of those bramble armband tattoos.

          2. But this is false equivalence. You’ve also surely had patients who self-diagnosed themselves with cancer, heart attacks, etc, and were also wrong. Doesn’t meant that gluten intolerance is BS.

            I think there’s an evolutionary basis for gluten intolerance regardless how widespread it is.

            1. Interesting, what you’re saying is what I actually took out of Ice Nine’s post. The fact that people diagnose themselves with the flavor of the month disease just to feel special. I didn’t seem to me that he was specifically calling out gluten intolerant people. But, maybe I read it wrong.

            2. Doesn’t meant that gluten intolerance is BS.

              That, of course, would be why I said, “Gluten reactions and all those other things of course exist and physicians must be careful about them…”

              And, no, I made no false equivalence there. Those things I mentioned are indeed of a kind. The only equivalence stretch made in this conversation is your equating patients strutting minor “abnormalities” with patients fearfully concluding that they have fatal diseases for lack of knowledge of any other causes of their symptoms – two very different thought processes..

              1. The only equivalence stretch made in this conversation is your equating patients strutting minor “abnormalities” with patients fearfully concluding that they have fatal diseases for lack of knowledge of any other causes of their symptoms – two very different thought processes..

                Look at all the nerds who proudly “self-diagnose” themselves as aspies or ADHD-afflicted. It’s really nothing more than emotional compensation for their general passive-aggressiveness.

              2. Sure what you wrote was, “Gluten reactions and all those other things of course exist and physicians must be careful about them…”

                But what I heard in my mind was “Gluten reactions and all those other bullshit diseases.”

                My point in “equating” cancer and gluten intolerance was was simply that people will imagine that they can have both, and they are both valid diseases in my opinion even if much more intelligent experts such as yourself know the difference of strutting minor “abnormalities” and real diseases.

                I don’t think we are very well equipped to deal with gluten from an evolutionary standpoint.

                1. If what you heard in your mind is sufficient to you to assign false equivalence to my statement where there is none, there is not much I can do to avoid the ersatz “false equivalence”. That however would not be sufficient for most.

                  I’m trying to tell you that I don’t view gluten intolerance as anything other than “valid disease.”

                  I am not more intelligent than you simply because I have some expertise that you don’t, and very possibly not at all.

                  Your evolutionary angle on gluten intolerance is a valid point IMO FWIW.

          3. Fuckin’ acid reflux hypochondriacs. Idiots who are 150 pounds overweight and want to still eat pizza at 9:30 at night have so fucked up the market in acid reflux meds, those of us with actual issues have to jump through hoops to get the prescriptions we need for less than $300/month.

            1. Well, that’s not hypochondria – they really have reflux disease. Your chagrin over the self-induced aspect is valid, I guess, though you can do that with a number of illnesses.

    2. You can get gluten-free beer, now. It’s made with sorghum, and while not bad, it’s different.

    3. There’s a serious argument to be made that humans (unlike birds) aren’t well adapted to eating seeds, industrial seed oils and such.

      Of the anti-nutrients found in seeds, gluten can be pretty problematic and probably affects many people to some extent.

      Contrast this to a diet that is based on moral absolutes and grasps desperately at evolutionary evidence that humans are designed to eat leaves and bird seed.

      Of course people will find excuses to be dogmatic, whiny and annoying about whatever they believe in.

  20. NYT campaign to whip wobblers into line continues apace.

    But as we approach an election year, it is important to acknowledge the larger context: Obama has done better than many critics on the left or the right give him credit for.

    He took office in the worst recession in more than half a century, amid fears of a complete economic implosion. As The Onion, the satirical news organization, described his election at the time: “Black Man Given Nation’s Worst Job.”

    The administration helped tug us back from the brink of economic ruin. Obama oversaw an economic stimulus that, while too small, was far larger than the one House Democrats had proposed. He rescued the auto industry and achieved health care reform that presidents have been seeking since the time of Theodore Roosevelt.

    Despite virulent opposition that has paralyzed the government, Obama bolstered regulation of the tobacco industry, signed a fair pay act and tightened control of the credit card industry. He has been superb on education, weaning the Democratic Party from blind support for teachers’ unions while still trying to strengthen public schools.

    1. Regulation of the tobacco industry? They actually give that as a significant accomplishment? Wow. That would be called scraping the bottom of the barrel.

      1. Funny thing about that is Obama’s regulations may be against the MSA and tossed. The graphic warning labels for example.

    2. “As The Onion, the satirical TEAM BLUE news organization, described his election at the time: “Black Man Given Nation’s Worst Job.””

      FTFNYT.

    3. Despite virulent opposition that has paralyzed the government, Obama bolstered regulation of the tobacco industry, signed a fair pay act and tightened control of the credit card industry. He has been superb on education, weaning the Democratic Party from blind support for teachers’ unions while still trying to strengthen public schools.

      But, what about walking on water and healing the sick with his hands? Oh, and parting the seas too? Or am I thinking of some other Obama?

      1. But, what about walking on water and healing the sick with his hands?

        That’s what Tim Tebow is for.

  21. “We think it’s really terrible to shut down a government agency over ideology,” Peter Colavito, director of government relations for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), told The Hill. “I’m really struggling to find precedent for this.”

    Hey Peter, did you feel the same way when the Democratic state senators in Wisconsin fled to other states to shut down their state government in opposition to Scott Walker’s plans to alter collective bargaining for public union workers? I’m guessing not.

  22. http://rumors.automobilemag.co…..90583.html

    The Chevrolet Volt is undergoing a formal safety defect investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. General Motors released a statement and said the investigation is “not unexpected.” NHTSA previously crash tested a Chevrolet Volt and the vehicle caught on fire three weeks later due to damage to the battery pack and coolant line.

    1. Crash and burn…three weeks later.

    2. Gasoline powered card also have the potential to catch on fire. This is interesting, but pretty meaningless unless compared to the likelihood of other types of vehicles to catch on fire.

  23. …was based on monotheism. Have you ever really read Of Property and how many times he references the mythical Adam?

    The monotheistic hierarchy, top to bottom, is as follows:

    JEHOVALLAH
    MAN (submission [Islam] to God)
    WOMAN (submits to husband)
    ANIMALS (submit to husbandry)
    NATURE (rule over it, subdue it, Genesis 1:26,28)

    1. Say Amen, put your hand on the radio!

    2. Re: White Imbecile,

      Locke’s theory of property was based on monotheism.

      And?

      1. Thank you for basing your religio-economic dogmas on inspired magic I conveyed magically to goatherders in the Middle East. ~JEHOVALLAH

  24. Can anyone make sense of the CNET article about microsoft not supporting a piracy law ?

  25. Speaking of professors- apparently there was a testy exchange between Douglas Brinkley, University Historian and Don Young, Congressman!:

    Brinkley: “You don’t own me! I pay your salary. . . I work for the private sector, you work for the taxpayers.”

    Private sector? Seriously, Douggy?
    You’re affixed to the public teat just as securely to the Hon Doddering Buffoon, Representing the great state of Alaska.

    1. yeah, if I had been in congress, i would had to laugh at a professor berating me.

      He does teach at Rice however, which is a private university, but I can’t imagine he’s been picky about the source of his research funding.

      1. I went to graduate school at Rice, and while the school is private it, like all research universities, relies on the federal government for funding.

        1. yes i know…

        2. I went to Rice Undergraduate when Brinkley joined the faculty (he abandoned Tulane right after Katrina, classy) and can confirm that he is a giant douche even if Young deserved this.

    2. In my book, anyone who calls down a congresscritter in a hearing is automatically in the right.

      1. In the end though, its just two assholes that want me to do what they say arguing.

  26. Lasn ponders over Occupy’s failures in Canada. Decides it’s someone else’s fault.

    “I just had a feeling that there was a little bit too much of the loony left there,” Lasn said. “I had a feeling that we needed more of the young, new-left spunk that I felt was happening in Zuccotti Park. I didn’t see all that much of it here in Vancouver.”

    Lasn is quick to lay much of the blame on mainstream media, which he accuses of depicting the protesters as lawless rebels and their camp sites as dens of iniquity.

    By zeroing in on incidents of drug use and crime ? which take place in staggering numbers every day ? Canada’s news outlets failed to communicate the key message of the movement, he said.

    “The Canadian media really dropped the ball on this one,” Lasn said. “Instead of seeing it as a movement of young people fighting for a different kind of future, which is so beautiful and so valid, they basically saw it as a pesky irritation that had to be got rid of.”

    1. How loony a leftitst do you have to be to be called looney left by Lasn?

      1. But doesn’t “loony left” in Canadian mean the liberals who have money?

    2. “The Canadian media really dropped the ball on this one,” Lasn said. “Instead of seeing it as a movement of young people fighting for a different kind of future, which is so beautiful and so valid, they basically saw it as a pesky irritation that had to be got rid of.”

      “Instead of further enabling a generation of entitled brats into thinking their life should never have any difficulties, and they should never suffer the consequences of their actions, they basically showed that their movement wasn’t all it was portraying itself to be.”

      Notice the complaint this goon has–that the media didn’t adopt the preferred line of propoganda.

    3. Loony, leftist, Canada? I see what you did there.

    4. Maybe camping in Canadian parks didn’t catch on, because Canada is cold.

  27. I’ve got nuthin’ – still catching up after a nice little vacation.

  28. Fining people for selling raw milk, the Great White North edition.

    Schmidt admitted he supplied raw milk to 150 families who bought shares in his herd of cows. He went on a hunger strike from late September until early November to protest the guilty verdict.

    The farmer was given one year of probation for violating the Health Protection and Promotion Act. He also received an additional year of probation for operating a milk plant without a licence.

    Schmidt remained defiant on Friday, toasting his sentence with a glass of raw milk. He said he plans to appeal within 30 days and will not pay the fine.

  29. I don’t know what is more shocking, this proposal, or that it has taken so long for congress to make this proposal:

    “The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president?and every future president ? the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,”

    1. Any chance of finding an article on the subject from any outlet not associated with Alex Jones. You know, so it could be considered credible.

  30. Canadians come to blows over a flower. Video and a pretty catfight picture to offset the old-dogfight video.

    1. You can’t trust Canadians.

      1. Especially Canadians bearing flowers.

      1. Top…MEN

  31. Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial

    NDAA detention provision would turn America into a “battlefield”

    The Senate is set to vote on a bill today that would define the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.

    “The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president?and every future president ? the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,” writes Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

    Under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor this week, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.

    http://www.infowars.com/senate…..out-trial/

    1. This doesn’t surprise me. But is there a better source for it than infowars?

      1. wtf

        1. They are a bunch of nuts. If they are telling the truth here it is strictly by accident.

          1. wtf

            1. You may have noticed that this is a thread full of links to sources other than Reason. Also, pick a fucking handle.

      2. Here’s a link from Balko’s blog: http://www.aclu.org/blog/natio…..fine-being. Still biased, but at least the writer wasn’t wearing a tinfoil hat to keep the government and any space aliens from listening to his thoughts.

      3. “”But is there a better source for it than infowars?””

        Come on, you know how to source legislation. 😉

        But of course there are people jumping without looking and they are reporting.

        (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

        (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

        It’s got some interesting nuggets. I haven’t dug in yet but SEC 1061 – 1063 should be interesting too. It’s repealing reporting requirements.

        1. I couldn’t find a SEC 1031.

          Perhaps is secretly repeals (b)(1) of 1032. lol.

        2. Nothing a teensy-weensy, little amendment, next year, won’t fix.

          Seriously Vic, do you honestly expect them to stop there? Are you new here?

          1. Of course I don’t. But the claim that the S.1867 does it, appears to be false.

            1. There’s still the matter, which should trouble anyone, of allowing the military to potentially operate as Posse Comitatus.

              1. The PC applies to peace time. That’s one of the problems I have with never ending war. It elevates the role of the DoD.

        3. I am not saying it isn’t true. I would just like to read it from another source.

    2. is there an addy to send patriotic donations ?

      1. If you’re a KOCHsucker.

  32. WEST PALM BEACH (CB4)-A South Florida trio is facing up to two decades in prison after they were allegedly involved in a $1 million toilet paper scam in Palm Beach County.

    Federal prosecutors said the three conned elderly customers into buying unnecessary septic products, in some cases more than 70 years worth of toilet paper, CBS4 news partner The Miami Herald reported.

    According to the Herald, the three worked for FBK Products of West Palm Beach. They told more than a dozen of their victims that they needed the company’s special toilet paper to avoid ruining their septic tanks. They told their victims that the federal government changed regulations on toilet paper, the Herald reported. The federal government, though, does not regulate septic tank products.

    http://miami.cbslocal.com/2011…..aper-scam/

    I am SHOCKED to learn that the government does not regulate septic tank products.

    1. Fuck. Dont get me started on the bullshit people believe about septic tanks.

      1. Asswiper beware.

      2. … what’s all this about the bullshit people believe about septic tanks?

      3. wait, it should be part of the Commerce Clause! Gov’t can regulate anything that moves in interstate commerce.

  33. http://politicalticker.blogs.c…..-election/

    Bawrney is retiring. I guess there is only so much damage one man can do to the country. Now if he can just die a painful death so I can piss on his grave.

    1. Barney’s just doing what the Founders intended – a few years of service, then go back to normal life. Thrity-two years is is just a short stint, see.

    2. Remember that MA is losing a House seat. One of the Democrats was going to have to get redistricted out of existence. Now that one of them is retiring, they’ve got an easier decision to make.

      I can’t wait to see what happens here in New York.

      1. Maxine Waters will be senior Dem in the house!
        Christmas came early…

  34. http://www.nydailynews.com/new…..bled=false

    One of the peasants dared speak disrespectfully to their betters.

    1. The governor’s director of communications, Sherriene Jones-Sontag also seemed unfazed by the blowback to her office.

      “That wasn’t respectful,” she told the newspaper. “In order to really have a constructive dialogue, there has to be mutual respect.”

      Like ratting her out to her high school principal? Yeah, real respectful.

      Fucking cravenly tools.

      1. She could have yelled at him from the crowd, but seriously, why is the Brownback organization worried about tweets from a teenage girl. Its not like she threatened to kill Brownback, which is par for the course in most lefty commentariat.

        1. Oh, no doubt, this belongs in the annals of “Great Moments in Dumb Fuckery.”

        2. Its not like she threatened to kill Brownback, which is par for the course in most lefty commentariat.

          Like that moron who did just that to Nikki Haley. The guy even fit the stereotype of the emasculated leftist neckbeard.

    2. She’s cute, and look at that mansion she lives in. You know she hates her dad. Nothing like rich teenage girls who want to get back at daddy.

      1. I’m training mine to go out and do my bidding. She’ll make an excellent assassin.

        1. I think that the best sexy assassins are usually trying to posthumously impress/avenge their fathers. Now, I’m OK with you being murdered, but you need to know what you’re getting into.

          1. “Note to file: Warty again, today, vowed to murder me. I should consider taking some precautions.”

            1. Train adorable kitties to be assassins. Warty will be powerless to resist, or fight back effectively.

      2. Nothing like rich teenage girls who want to get back at daddy.

        The alpha males she encounters at Phaggot Striver University are going to call her the “gift that keeps on giving.”

    1. I have no idea who that is, but that’s a high-quality ass.

      1. Former Pussycat Doll and Lewis Hamilton’s recent ex.

        1. They named a coffee table book after the Spanish word for ‘Ass?”

          We’re getting closer to life imitating art every day.

          1. I always thought that culo meant asshole, but apparently it can mean both. Then again, Mazzucco is a Canadian of apparent Italian origins. Where I came from it meant asshole. I suppose Old Mex would be able to definitively weigh in on this, although slang varies by region.

            1. In French, cul means ‘bottom’ — front and back, though it seems to apply mostly to the rear.

              I always assumed the same applied to culo.

            2. “Culo” means asshole in Spanish – at least in Central American Spanish.

  35. Banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates” during the financial crisis.

    In other words, the Fed is serving the exact purpose it was created for: benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else. And useful idiot leftwingers vigorously defend it.

    1. And useful idiot leftwingers vigorously defend it.

      Only when a Democrat is in office.

  36. Update on the 6-year-old charged with sexual assault:

    http://www.channel3000.com/new…..etail.html

    Gag-order story on above subject:

    http://www.thonline.com/news/t…..f6878.html

    Note that comments have been disabled for above website. Wonder if Judge Dike had a hand in that, too?

  37. Muslim medical students in the UK join Christian evaneglicals in the U.S. in opposing teaching evolution in public schools.

    1) How does a student who doesn’t believe in evolution get in medical school?

    2) Remind me to not get medical treatment in the UK.

  38. From the article about evolution:

    ‘What they object to – and I don’t really understand it, I am not religious – they object to the idea that there is a random process out there which is not directed by God.’

    Earlier this year Usama Hasan, iman of the Masjid al-Tawhid mosque in Leyton, received death threats for suggesting that Darwinism and Islam might be compatible.

    The same criticism can apply to the randomness of diffusion. There are plenty of religious scientists in the West that believe scientific laws just describe the way G-d controls the universe. The problem is that death threats prevent Muslim scholars from advocating similar beliefs.

    1. einstein commented that his concept of God were the laws of thermodynamics which allow “reality” to exist.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.