Reason Morning Links: Bachmann Bashes Gingrich Over Freddie Mac Pay Day, How (Governor) Romney Destroyed Public Records Before Leaving Office, Congress Strikes Deal on Pell Grants

|

  • Bachmann slammed Gingrich at the final GOP debate before the Iowa caucuses for lobbying for Freddie Mac: "You don't need to be within the technical definition of being a lobbyist to still be influence peddling with senior Republicans to have them do your bidding."
  • Gov. Romney spent $97,000 in taxpayer money to destroy email servers and public records before leaving office. 
  • Obama administration has chosen which states will receive its coveted "Race to the Top" vote-buying grants. 
  • Despite minor cuts, Congress will preserve the tuition-inflating Pell Grant program. 
  • The entire Internet is opposed to the Stop Online Piracy Act.
  • We are leaving half a billion dollars worth of neat toys in Iraq.  
  • Christopher Hitchens is dead

Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates.

New at Reason.tv: "Author D.J. Waldie on Being a 'Partisan of Suburban Places'"

Advertisement

NEXT: Chip Bok on the NTSB's Recommendation of a Cell Phone Ban

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. Breaking News! Charlize Theron is still hot!

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

      1. fails to conceal her curves

        She has *nipples*, too!

        1. She didn’t look like she was TRYING to “conceal her curves”.

          I’m not complaining.

          1. No complaints here, other than she was wearing too many clothes.

      2. That trout pout puts me off.
        But she did look fine with a machine gun for a leg!
        http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rose mcgowan machine gun&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=42597l43670l0l44909l7l7l0l3l3l1l235l785l0.2.2l4l0&safe=images&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=pFPrTsX-H-Tq0gHJ7eC7CQ&biw=1680&bih=890&sei=qlPrTrqqIqTv0gHDrYnZCQ

        1. I guess I Sugar Free’d that one, eh?

        2. I never got to her face.

          1. Seriously though, Planet Terror was a good movie.

            1. It was, although I preferred “Death Proof”. It was pretty cool when she got mortally killed to death by being thrown around in Kurt Russell’s kick ass Mopar.

              1. I couldn’t get into that one.
                To me it seemed like they were trying to make the worst movie ever just for the sake of making the worst movie ever.

                1. I liked both of them, but I liked Planet Terror more.

                  1. They were both fun, but I liked Death Proof better because of the excellent car chase.

                    1. So you’re saying you’re a foot fetishist?

                    2. Do you mean to imply there’s something wrong with that? In my experience, sexy feet=sexy woman.

                    3. Do you mean to imply there’s something wrong with that? In my experience, sexy feet=sexy woman.

                      Not wrong, just baffling.

              2. she got mortally killed to death by being thrown around in Kurt Russell’s kick ass Mopar

                Mopar is for fags. He drove a 1971 Chevy Nova. You are the worst person evar.

      3. The trout pout is horrendous but the curves make up for it.

      4. She is, but it’s sad that she smashed her face.

        1. It is. She was a beautiful woman. I honestly didn’t notice that when I posted the link. I just saw the body. But yeah, those lips look horrible. Who the fuck told these women that was a good idea?

          1. I dunno but it is popular.

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..ooked.html

            1. Goldie Hawn is fucking ugly.

          2. She was in a car accident.

            1. And her accident resulted in her needing surgery for her eyes, not paraffin lips.

              1. I think it’s a mix of both.

          3. Other women, John. The viciousness and treachery they’ll employ to get their rivals to uglify themselves knows no bounds. Sad that a gay man has to point this out to you.

            1. I know women are vicious. But I don’t know a single woman who finds that attractive.

              1. Isn’t that her point? “Honey, you need cologen injections – it’ll make you look younger and fabulous” while the same women is secretly thinking “Hah! You dumb bitch I can’t beleive you got the trout pout! Now I look beeter to your dude than you do!”

              2. Sigh. They don’t find it attractive, John, they just tell other women that to make them look foolish. Treachery.

    1. those legs… gargh… are a little weird looking.

      1. last 15 comments are about tit, leg and ass-why do you reduce women to chicken pieces, and think that they will want to be libertarians?

        1. what are you, a vegetarian?

        2. I prefer wings

        3. why do you reduce women

          1) It’s in our nature as men and quite frankly without this trait the species wouldn’t exist. Do you really think men would enjoy putting up with all the bullshit without the benefits of sex?

          2) Women want us to (at least, real women do) – they just don’t admit it.

          1. Restoras, no real women don’t. We want to be fucked with our brains; I see you have yet to meet her

            1. No, that’s what women do to men.

              1. fucking with our brains is not for little boys.
                – I mean’t in the sense that our mins is a latibule, and a man and woman who can share it -it’s just an act of redamancy

                1. Yes, we are all so very impressed with your expansive vocabulary. Now knock it off.

                  1. How libertarian of you, my dear Rev. but I am not a member of your flock
                    -so fuck off

          2. 2) Women want us to (at least, real women do) – they just don’t admit it.

            Untrue. I consider my beautiful wife to be a real woman, and she hates being treated like a piece of meat. By anyone.

            1. Wasn’t trying to suggest that women like or should be treated as meat though I acknowledge the comment is easily misconstrued. My bad. I do beleive that women like to be viewed as attractive, and when looking for a mate/partner, long-term or otherwise, will dress to accentuate thier assets. Thus drawing more attention to them than they would receive normally.

              Men, IMHO, should enjoy these efforts discreetly.

            2. I consider my beautiful wife to be a real woman
              …and I know she feels it 🙂

              I’m curious if you perceived you weren’t yet a real man before you matured?

          3. Restoras|12.16.11 @ 10:07AM|
            Women want us to (at least, real women do) – they just don’t admit it.

            rather|12.16.11 @ 10:17AM|
            Restoras, no real women don’t.

            I am so confused, am I real or not?

            And thank you for letting me know what “real” women think. Since we all think with one fucking collective mind and all.

            1. Seriously. That was a real WTF comment.

              1. ETA: Not yours, the one (from a man) about what “real women” want.

                1. Whether is comes from a man or a women is inconsequential. It is when anyone makes a claim that every person from the same sex thinks x way or they are not really a true member of that sex. BOTH Restoras and rather made a claim that real women think x way. I would have given Restoras a pass if he had said “most women” or “the women I know”. But the jackass went with real. And rather is just a cunt who always pulls this shit (in the past she has made a claim that I am a not a real women.) I fucking hate that shit.

                  1. Oh I totally understood where you were coming from, believe me. I frankly found both comments, well, repulsive.

                    I do disagree with you (somewhat) on one thing though. I think it is bizarre for a male individual to be telling everyone what “real women” like. How the fuck would he know. Or maybe we’re mostly talking about the same thing; all I know is that “real women” crap really stuck in my craw.

                  2. I surmised you were male by your comments

                    Tell me, do you have more male than female friendships?

                    Just asking because anyone who writes ‘cunt’ as much as you do is either has no female friends or works for a gynecologist

        4. I do that to men, too, Rather. Did you have some sort of point?

        5. You really don’t know anything about men, do you?

            1. In the biblical context?

          1. Krampus…after your last hot tip on a word for the day Kristen I am heading straight to m-w.com…but I am unsure how it will turn out this time.

            1. HOLY CRAP! I am glad I don’t live in those countries. That would have scarred me more than I already am.

              1. Haahaha!! Krauts are weird, donchya know.

        6. Re: rather,

          last 15 comments are about tit, leg and ass-why do you reduce women to chicken pieces, and think that they will want to be libertarians?

          Translation: “What? No librarians I can whore with?”

      2. I would not object to having those legs wrapped around my neck.
        No objection at all.

    2. Sarcasmic’s relentless Daily Mail bimbo-whoring makes me pine for the good old days of Johnny Longtorso’s Golden Girls fetish. Almost.

      1. You will know that I have left my joke of a job for one that actually gives me shit to do when those links cease.

    3. You envy Sandusky, don’t you.

  2. Shutdown averted: Deal reached on $1T omnibus package
    http://thehill.com/homenews/ho…..nding-deal

    House and Senate negotiators on Thursday night reached a tentative agreement on a $1 trillion omnibus spending bill that would avert a government shutdown, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee announced.

    1. And it includes a repeal of the 100 watt incandescent bulb ban.

      1. Does it really? Cool!

      2. Oh great. I swear to god I just ordered three cases of bulbs from Amazon yesterday afternoon.

        1. They don’t go bad. Just sayin’.

          1. just a little aside – I once made a stereo preamplifier use 71A globe tubes that were manufactured in the 1930s. They still worked after 70 years.
            http://tctubes.com/rca-71a-tri…..-pair.aspx

            1. While I understand the appeal. Tubes are cool. You do realize from an mathematical perspective a single-ended triode is probably the worst way to build a voltage amplifier.

              1. All I know is tube amps sound way better than anythign else.

              2. I won’t delve deep into the tubes vs ss debate – but the triode strength is simplicity simplicity simplicity. They also have a benign distortion spectrum.
                http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/FindingCG.html

                For power amplification, they are horribly inefficient though.

                1. Tubeheads!

                  Is there anyone manufacturing tubes in the US anymore, or are all of them coming out of Russia?

                  1. All my EL84s were made in Russia.

                  2. China – notably Shuguang – still makes ’em. And there is still a plant in Slovakia.

                    1. Are Groove Tubes made in the USA?

                      http://www.groovetubes.com/main.html

                  3. They aren’t made in the US anymore… but some places have NOS available.

                    Now all I need is a reliable supply of Allen Bradley 250k Type J Mil-spec pots….

                2. FET has a similar “distortion spectrum”. But if you want a space heater, why not a pentode push-pull? One issue with no negative feedback is that it is almost impossible to match two channels for stereo. Do the math and you’ll see that there are a ton of variables that need to have identical values.

                  1. FETs are more like pentodes than triodes in operation. Look at the curves. There is a whole school of feedback vs. no-feedback. I’m not devoted to either camp since I’ve heard good results from different topologies. I mostly run a SS system, with a tube amp just to drive the tweeter.

                    anyways – nice article on why tubes sound different than tubes (especially when overloading).
                    http://www.butleraudio.com/tubesvstrans1.html

                  2. I’ve heard rumors of a GT tube being made in the US – a 6L6GC type if I remember. But they mostly have their stuff made in Russia and China – test ’em and throw out the duds.

                    Honestly, I’ve had mixed results with modern tubes. But I’ve been out of the game for awhile, so I can’t honestly comment on the latest versions. When in doubt, I try to run the vintage stuff – but prices are silly high, which was one of my reasons to retreat into solid-state land.

                    but I’m no guitarist!

        2. HOARDER!!!

      3. And it includes a repeal of the 100 watt incandescent bulb ban.

        Its still on the books, as I understand it. They just defunded enforcement.

        Typical pansy-ass Big Gov Repubs. Just fucking repeal it, you pussies.

        1. So this rider has no practical significance, right? I mean what merchant is going to risk some big (I presume) fine for selling them when it is still illegal to do so? Somewhere, there is someone who could selectively enforce it and sometime, there is someone who will.

        2. According to Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70534.html ), it only delays enforcement through September 2012?!

          Anyone have the actual text handy?

        3. Its still on the books, as I understand it. They just defunded enforcement.

          Repeal, defund…if i throw enough shit against the wall, some of it will stick.

      4. And it includes a repeal of the 100 watt incandescent bulb ban.

        Oabama’s sure to veto it then.

    2. 1 trillion. It doesn’t sound real. How much of that is deficit? When will we stop tacking on to our impossibly high debt?

      1. We’ll stop tacking onto it when we can’t borrow anymore. Then, get ready for the printing presses to be running 24/7 as the government inflates it away.

        Did you know that in Weimar Germany, at the end of their inflation spiral, they were only printing on one side of the notes? I presume they did this to save time, and ink.

        1. Yeah, i knew that. I wonder if at the time the folks in charge there really believed there was a way out short of catastrophe.

          1. Mkaes me wish I knew German – would be fascinating and instructive to see what thier own feckless ditherers were up to. I’m sure that reparations had something to do with it, but how different is that from us having to pay back the Chinese et al?

      2. When we default

      3. Someone sent me this yesterday:

        The budget explained in simple English.

        I love it when complex things are put in simple terms that all can understand:

        * U.S. Tax Revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
        * Fed. budget: $3,820,000,000,000
        * New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
        * National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
        * Recent budget cut: $38,500,000,000

        Now, remove 8 zeroes and pretend it’s a household budget:

        * Annual family income: $21,700
        * Money the family spent: $38,200
        * New debt on the credit card: $16,500
        * Outstanding credit card balance: $142,710
        * Total budget cuts that some politicians are proud of: $385.

        1. That is really well done, esp the last part with figures people can relate to. I am going to pass this around. Thanks for posting it.

        2. Add the future obligations to SS etc of about $75 T, and you get

          * Mortgage: $750,000

      4. How much of that is deficit?

        I think around 40% of all spending is borrowed.

    3. And, of course, thank God for this, because only He knows how we would survive such a calamaity as a {GOV]ernment [SHUT]down. Teh horrerz…

      Fuck DC. Washington, not the comic people. Or the electricity.

    4. “While the final bill may not be perfect ….”

      Anyone who utters this should resign.

  3. Berlin, Germany – Migrating flocks of cranes flying overhead are normally a harbinger of spring and autumn in Europe. But due to rising temperatures, the birds are sticking around increasingly longer in the fall before heading south.

    The average temperature in November this year in Germany was five degrees Celsius, which is one degree higher than the usual average. And on some days, the temperature climbed to 20 degrees at noon, which explains why some migratory birds have chosen to spend the autumn and beginning of winter in Germany instead of flying on to warmer southern climes.

    Up until a few years ago, common cranes (Grus grus) normally migrated in September from their spring and summer habitat in Finland, Sweden and Russia to Spain and northern Africa, where they would spend the autumn and winter.

    But climate change is altering their natural migratory patterns.

    Three decades ago, “a few hundred cranes would spend a couple of weeks in our area,” recalls Hans Wagner, an elderly farmer who has lived his whole life near the tiny town of Linum, 25 km northwest of Berlin. “But now, there are sometimes more than 50,000.”
    http://www.aljazeera.com/indep…..56324.html

    _

    Please courtesy copy the Germans when canceling Climate Change.

    1. Clearly it being warmer in Germany proves the case that the entire world is warming and human CO2 emissions are the cause. And I thought weather wasn’t climate. I guess it isn’t unless it is.

      Sorry but your stupid is infecting my computer.

      1. Sorry but John’s memo canceling climate change isnt in german.

        1. Again, your stupid is infecting the board. WTF cares if Germany is warmer than usual other than the Germans?

          1. You seem to care.

            1. No. You do. You are the one who brought it up.

              1. IN GERMAN PLEASE. Mein Gott

                1. Sie sein ein Idiot und verschwenden die Zeit aller Beteiligten

                2. essen Schei?e, Arschloch.

                  1. Sadly, German has no word for worthless griefer troll.

                    1. Bah! Just make one up, then: wertlostrauertroll

                    2. Actually, John, it does. German uses compound nouns, so string together the words “wertlos,” “Griefer” und “troll” and you have the word wertlosgriefertroll.

                    3. Was using google xlate, since my German is rusty…Kristen is right.

                    4. try avian sign language since the cranes didnt get the memo either cancelling climate change. jeesch, u deniers are soo disorganized

    2. And during the MWP (long before fossil fuel) Northern Europe was warm enough to produce wine. Climate changes, I’ve never heard it claimed otherwise. what’s your point?

    3. Averages, how do they work?

      1. Please use ASL (avian sign lang) so the cranes may understand that climate change is cancelled.

        1. So one area of the earth warming for a few years decides the issue? You can’t be dumb enough to think that is convincing.

          1. You can’t be dumb enough to think that is convincing.

            Never underestimate the stupidity of a liberal.

            1. …or the evident stupidity of the stupid cranes or the stupid germans.

              1. I see you’ve never had any effective science classes. Or statistics.

                1. We’re only publicK sKool gradz

                2. I see you’ve never had any effective science classes. Or statistics.

                  Liberals don’t take classes and think for themselves. That would require judging the actual material and applying critical thinking.
                  No, they have experts to do that for them.
                  Then they choose what they believe based upon the expert’s credentials and popularity.
                  The more popular it is, the more likely it is to be true.
                  After all, what is more important that being popular?

                  1. u mean experts like cranes?

                    1. Cranes seem to be smarter than us – adapting to the environment instead of trying to make it something else.

                    2. there’s a whole list of animals having to adapt to the warm…oops, make that changed climate.

                    3. ^^WIN^^

                      It’s been raining this December in Minneapolis and you know what? I think it’s fucking wonderful. WONDERFUL!!!

  4. Debt crisis: Brussels accord on the verge of collapse
    Some of the world’s most powerful investment banks were downgraded by ratings agency Fitch as Germany’s cherished European fiscal compact appeared to be unravelling.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin…..llapse.htm

    1. Sooner is better

      1. Weeks away. Will be fun to watch.

        1. On the bright side, European imports are going to get cheaper next year. I’ve already started switching my supply base.

      1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin…..lapse.html

        the l in html got dropped in my paste

  5. Romney Ku Klux Klan Report Backfires on Media
    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes…..-on-media/

    That’s the lesson this week for MSNBC and for The Washington Post, both of which apologized for repeating a liberal blog’s claim that Mitt Romney had uttered a phrase on the campaign stump that was used in the past by the Ku Klux Klan.

    It appears that Mr. Romney did not in fact say the words “keep America American,” as AMERICAblog reported on Tuesday. The blog said that he had done so on two occasions, one last year and one last week, and stated (accurately) that “Keep America American” was a phrase employed by the K.K.K. in the 1920s.

    But Mr. Romney had actually said “keep America America” on both occasions, according to online video.

    1. Still – RACIST!

      Either way.

    2. See “Noble Lie” link posted below

    3. Even if he did say it, do we really need to worry that he meant the same thing by it as the KKK did? Come on.

      1. I am reliably informed that KKK members have also said that George Washington was a hero and that they pledge allegiance to the flag.

        Therefore, everyone who says these things is obviously communicating racist things in code.

        1. I remember reading that the KKK claimed to be a Christian group, therefore all Christians are racist.

          1. I heard they also said ‘Good Morning’

            1. So, when Romney says “Goooood Mormon!”, that’s one of them dog whistles?

    4. everyone knows the KKK are dems & support obama.

      1. Well it certainly was largely a Dem organization throughout most of the 20th Century.

        Now, thankfully, it has been relegated to a meaningless and impotent refuge for the truly bitter and ignorant misfits. You would fit right in.

        1. fit in? me & the rest of the obama supporters? wonder how that ol KKK hazing would go for us ?

        2. It also provides jobs and meth money for legions of FBI undercover agents, snitches, and informers. It also gives the SPLC a boogie man to scare up the donation money. Got to keep Mo Dees living the life he is accustomed.

    5. I can’t believe anyone trusted AmericaBlog. The dude that runs it is a notorious POS.

  6. Bachmann slammed Gingrich at the final GOP debate before the Iowa caucuses for lobbying for Freddie Mac

    The local conservative morning radio hosts in Pittsburgh have already started giving Newt the “his answer wasn’t too bad” treatment. Expect full-blown endorsing in the coming weeks. He’s both not-Romney and not-Paul. And their fantasy that super smart “idea man” (again, vomit) would debate Obama and they could vicariously embarrass smug Obama through him is too much to pass up.

    1. My problem with the whole “Newt would destroy Obama in a debate” is that I’m not so sure it would happen.

      Remember when Al Gore debated Ross Perot on Nafta?

      Everyone was sure going into that debate that wooden Al Gore would be destroyed by the glib Perot. But in the end, Gore looked much better than Perot.

      Why are people so sure that newk-tit would win? I look at him and am repulsed (btw, why no fat jokes about him like there were about Christie?).

      1. From the looks of it Bachmann pounded the shit out of him. I think some of the sparkle has been taken off the Newt is such a great debater thing.

        1. bachmann never landed a glove on newt. in fact, near the end, she was reduced to exclaiming “im a serious candidate for president !” when objecting to newt contradicting her.

          1. That is not what I saw. She killed him on his work for Freddie and Fannie. He didn’t have an answer. And she was dead right that just because he didn’t have the title lobbyist doesn’t mean that wasn’t exactly what he was. She made him look like the crooked insider he is.

            1. whadda u care since ur gonna have to vote for mitt in the general ?

              1. No dipshit, those voices in your head are not mine.

    2. And even if Newkular T thrashes Obama in a debate, will it really matter?

      I thought the next President would be they guy who wins the election, not the guy who wins the debates.

      This whole “Nominate the Titties so he can debate Obama” genuinely mystifies me.

      1. It is emotion. It understandably drives the right crazy that someone as dim as Obama is held up as some kind of intellectual. They just want to stomp him and say “hey your guys are dumb too”. But it would probably be a empty victory. Everyone knows Obama is a moron. Showing him up too much will just make people feel sorry for him.

      2. I rather see Paul debate Obama, otherwise it’s just progressive vs. progressive.

      3. It’s all Nixon’s fault. I don’t know how, but I felt like I should blame him.

  7. The goal of this competition is to get more children from birth to age 5 ready for kindergarten.

    With all due respect, what does this even mean? Teaching kids not to urinate in the water fountain? To encourage Mommy and Daddy to vote for Team Blue?

    1. Ve must prepare der kinder for der future!

    2. Ok, so I thought the whole point of being a kid was to not be ready for things when you are that young. That is the purpose of kindergarten, to make you ready for grade school. No, now we have to be competitive about our 4 year olds & kids even younger. Sheesh. I can’t remember my mom ever pressuring me to count to 20, learn the ABCs, etc. And my school was able to handle me. Shocking, how unprepared we were.

      1. Yeah. The point of kindergarten was to socialize kids to a school environment but still letting them eat paste as their major intellectual discovery. Teaching more stuff to 4 year olds has nothing to do with the system’s failures to teach stuff to 6-18 year olds. It is completely orthogonal and will do nothing to statistically affect average test scores or any other measure of learning and retention.

        1. Precisely. That’s why Head Start is a complete waste.

        2. Let them eat paste

      2. I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that there have been studies that have shown that pre-school programs don’t produce the touted benefits and in fact have some sort of negative effect. I’m also sure that I’ve read this of Head Start in particular. Can’t remember specifics; anyone know?

        1. It is complicated. But the research shows that pre-school is not better than staying at home with the family. A structured pre-school program is better, however, than most daycare settings. So whether it is a good idea or not is very dependent upon what it is replacing.

          1. But don’t those studies also find that the gains are short lived? The kids do better for a couple of years but by third or fourth grade they are right back in the same quartile they started in.

            1. Yes. This conclusion was reaffirmed in 2010 by the Dept. of Health & Human Services.

              However, a long-term (40 year) study performed in Ypsilanti, MI showed participants ahead in some significant ways: better high school graduation rate, higher rate of employment, higher annual income, lower incarceration rate…

            2. The best thing about a good preschool is a good kindergarten and the best thing about a good kindergarten is a good private grade school and the best thing about a good provate grade school is a good private high school…I don’t like it but it is reality. If we didnt basically outlaw private edcucation in this country it would be much easier to get a kid into a decent private setting. As it stands now I need to be a donor to the pope, and I am not catholic.

      3. I larned to read when I was 3.

        1. When did you larn to tipe?

        2. Still working on the spelling I see.

      4. I think one thing to keep in mind is that family sizes are much smaller now, and kids aren’t exactly roaming the neighborhoods in packs any more like they were even 30 years ago.

        That means that you have a lot of kids who will get extremely limited socialization without preschool.

        I was delighted to send my kid to preschool. My school district let him start at age 3, and I thought it was great that he got to be around the other kids. It may have forestalled him turning into Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory.

        1. It may have forestalled him turning into Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory.

          The world needs Sheldon’s. Not many, but a handful in each generation.

          1. It’s a tough call.

            If my fairy godmother came to me and said, “I will transform you into a world-historical physicist, who will discover the Theory of Everything and be famous for all time…but you will never get laid. Ever,” I think I would have to turn her down.

            And yes, I am more than happy to impose that choice on my kid, too. If it’s the right choice for me it’s the right choice for him.

            1. But Sheldon doesnt **WANT** to get laid, so its not a loss to him.

            2. Good point. It’s lonely at the top. I would never want to be Sheldon. He’s a douchebag. No matter how many scientific discoveries you make, the human condition will still exist.

              Hell, Einstein got along well with the ladies, why not the next great thinker?

          2. needs Sheldon’s what?

          3. What the world needs is more people who know how to use an apostrophe correctly.

        2. socialization = overrated. humans are social creatures and children will socialize with any number of different folks. As a matter of fact, back in the day (one room schools etc.) they were not segregated by age/ability. The older/smarter kids were expected to help teach the younger/dumber kids. I know several
          “severly” home schooled children, one is currently at Harvard (yeah I know, insert joke about how that proves HS=bad) and she is doing quite well there. She never “socialized” in a school setting.

        3. When I was in first grade, my school district offered my parents the chance to skip me ahead many years. Many.
          I am so thankful they chose not to.
          So instead of becoming a weird, twisted genius who saves the world, I am now a contented, moderately successful, moderately well-adjusted mediocrity. I’d make the same choice for my own children in a heartbeat.

      5. It was posted in education thread the other day, but Finland leads in test scores now and that dont start schooling until age 7.

        1. While I am absolutely against public schools, I don’t understand why people wait to start teaching their children.

          We started teaching our children their ABC’s as soon as they could talk. After they had that mastered, we got a refrigerator toy that taught them the sounds of each letter. They knew the letters and sounds by the time they were 2 and a half. It didn’t make any sense to stop teaching them, so we bought some “Bob books” and started teaching them to read. The result is that my 10 year old is currently reading War and Peace.

          1. War and Peace? You are a slave dirver.

          2. I think the Finns are expect to show up for the 1st day of school at age 7 knowing how to read.

            1. and drink vodka.

          3. Cool. But I might have started with something less depressing than Russian literature.

            1. Yes, Cliche Bandit, I am a slave driver, and proud of it.

              I didn’t start with Tolstoy. The boy has read The Jungle, The Iliad, The Odyssey, Moby Dick, Tale of Two Cities and Anthem off the top of my head. Wealth of Nations and Atlas Shrugged are not to far off in his future.

    3. Having worked with that demographic, I’m going to report that it means they have some vague idea what a book is. And probably how to count to ten. And a grasp of colors, etc…

      A lot of ghetto babies are just propped up in front of TV’s while their mom works on making her next baby.

  8. Some good news on the Space front:

    NASA Backs Off Its Document That Riled Private Space
    Earlier this year we reported on the fight brewing over the document NASA had drawn up to govern its dealing with private space companies. Those companies saw the possibility that NASA could exert control over designs, ask for changes, or delay projects. Today, NASA abruptly threw out the controversial document and said it would keep doing business the old way.
    http://www.popularmechanics.co…..=pm_latest

    1. Cool. Thanks for posting.

  9. We are leaving half a billion dollars worth of neat toys in Iraq.

    SWAT teams will have to figure how to deliver warrants using lumps of coal next year.

    1. A lot of it is air conditioners, clothes washing machines, generators, etc… Shit that would cost more to ship to North America than just replacing if needed.

      1. The article said that shipping this crap back would cost one billion dollars, twice what the stuff is worth. Leaving it there is a win for the Iraqis and the Americans.

        1. We’re providing a stimulus for the Iraqi people. And all it cost them were a little over 100,000 lives.

          They’d have probably been happier if we just cut each of them a check for $16 and not bombed them back to the stone age.

          1. Yeah, because life in Iraq was so awesome under Saddam Hussein.

            1. That’s their business, not ours.

  10. Gov. Romney spent $97,000 in taxpayer money to destroy email servers and public records before leaving office.

    When you’re gambling in 10,000 dollar units, you only buy the best drill bits and paper shredders.

    1. At least the first cyborg president understands destroying digital records is important to a coverup effort.

  11. DOJ investigating climategate. They are investigating the release of emails that were subject to FOIA and illegally withheld. And yes, they are going after the leaker.

    http://www.freak-search.com/en…..trike_back

    1. PS Memo to Norfolk police: if you do pop round this evening to
      confiscate my computer, that massive porn archive has nothing to do
      with me. It’s the kids’. Or the cat’s. Something like that.

      That would be my main worry as well.

  12. Congressman Paul, even though you are the only candidate to have served in the military and have raised more money than anyone from current members of the military, you have said you would not bomb half the world if they look at us funny. Are you still anti-military? And remember, the beep means your time is up.

    1. Well, uh [BEEP!]

      1. BARKBARKBARKBARKBARKBARKBARKBARK!!!

        “SHUT UP YOU IDIOTS, THEY CHANGED THE SOUJND! YOU DON’T NEED TO BARK ANY MORE! PLUS, I’M NOT WATCHING THE ‘DEBATE’, SO WHY ARE YOU BARKING?”

        BARKBARKBARKBARKBARKBARKBARKBARKBARK!

        /dogs bein’ dogs

      2. I have never heard a more dangerous response than that!

        1. Not starting a war is always more dangerous than starting one. Duh.

    2. Whaddaya mean the ONLY candidate?

  13. FDR’s Noble Lie
    …Most historians when pressed on the matter now grudgingly concede that Roosevelt lied when he told the American people that he would never send their boys to fight into foreign wars, but they excuse his treachery as a “noble lie,” a deception perpetrated against the public by the political elite to achieve a supposed greater good….

    1. To be fair, WW2 was a very popular war and they had plenty of volunteers in addition to draftees.

      1. Only after Pearl Harbor and even then 2/3rds of the force was drafted not volunteer.

      2. …because there wasn’t enough volunteers a draft was started early on…the war wasn’t so popular amongst the draftees…

        1. Lots of guys were gung-ho to sign up as fighter pilots. Not so many were thrilled to be dragging a machine gun through the mud or performing maintenance on a boiler in cruiser.

    2. The standard justification for U.S. entry into the war is that otherwise Hitler would have defeated Britain and Russia and completed his conquest of Europe.

      Uh, Germany declared war on the US first. I’m pretty sure no other justification is needed.

      1. Uh, Germany declared war on the US first. I’m pretty sure no other justification is needed.

        After the U.S. Navy had been waging an undeclared war for 9 months against the Germans.

        The U.S. govt wanted war with Germany, not the other way around.

        1. Then why did Germany declare it if they didn’t want war? Hitler was nuts. He wanted war with the US, for what reason only he knew.

          1. No, Germany declared war AFTER their allies, the Japanese, attacked Pearl & declared war on the US.

            1. No. The US declared war on Japan, not Germany. Later on 11 December, the Germans declared war on the US. The US did not declare war on Germany after Pearl Harbor.

              http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/…..DECWAR.htm

              1. The US declared war on germany to wit:

                Joint Resolution Declaring That a State of War Exists Between The Government of Germany and the Government and the People of the United States and Making Provision To Prosecute The Same, 11 December 1941

                ——————————————————————————–

                Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:

                Therefore be it

                Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

                Approved, December 11, 1941, 3:05 p.m., E. S. T.

                ——————————————————————————–

                Source: U.S., Department of State, Publication 1983, Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy, 1931-1941 (Washington, D.C.: U.S., Government Printing Office, 1943), pp. 849

                1. Recognizing that another nation has declared war on your nation, and that your government needs to prepare to fight them, is not initiating a declaration of war.

                2. That was done in response to the German declaration. The US did not declare war on Germany first.

                  1. John is entirely right here.

                    I tend to think that a DoW on Germany would have been forthcoming even if Hitler hadn’t been a fool, but that counterfactual can never be tested.

                    It’s one of the more fun counterfactuals – what happens if Hitler doesn’t play along and stick his own dick into the sausage maker? I tend to think Roosevelt had the juice after 12/7/41 to get anything he wanted. But I could be reading the political situation wrong.

                    1. You are reading the situation wrong: there was a broad array of groups opposed to war with Germany.

                      Groups that come to my mind immediately, are Anglophobes, Fascists, people of German/Italian/Irish descent, Taft conservatives, pacifists.

                      They made up a sizeable chunk of the population.

                      Roosevelt in 1941 was privately assuring Churchill that the U.S. military was 100% behind England, while angrily denouncing anyone who questioned U.S. neutrality in public.

                      Pearl Harbor changed people’s opinions dramatically.

                  2. and i never said they did. i wrote the germans declared war on the US AFTER their japanese allies bombed pearl.

          2. Germany had a mutual defensive pact treaty with Japan. Of course, that still doesn’t explain why Hitler honored that treaty after Pearl Harbor, since a treaty with Hitler was entirely worthless.

            After the fact, it is clear that Hitler declaring war on the U.S. was a fatal blunder for him.

            1. I would think invading Russia before he had defeated England would be a fatal blunder…

              Allowing the British army to evacuate Dunkirk by holding his army back rather than overrunning it…

              Denying Rommel the power to commit reserves prior to the invasion of Europe…

              When one looks at Hitler, one can only say that crystal meth is one hell of a drug.

              1. Having no heavy bombers in his air force as well.

                1. If you make a list of Hitler’s decisions on the military front, the majority of them are god-awful – from the invasion of Russia to the decision to use his jet-fighters as purely ground attack craft.

                  It’s amazing the German military was able to conquer and hold as much territory as it did despite his track record for making the wrong call.

                  1. Well, France spent too much money on the Maginot Line and didn’t form their armor in concentrated units, allowing concentrated units of panzers to pentrate thier lines and get behind all the units that were poised on the Belgium frontier, eliminating the bulk of the allies forces on the western front, IIRC. Russia – well it was a mess following Stalin’s purge of the officer corp, and I’m sure was technically backward.

              2. Tossing away an army in North Africa without securing Gibraltar first. Wasting his few battleships on glorious raids instead of using them in the Baltic or Mediterranean where they could have been useful.

                He really was an idiot.

                In Gingrich’s “1945” he had the Germans winning in Europe because Hitler was severely injured in an assasignation attempt.

                While Hitler was in the hospital, his Field Marshalls did NOT declare war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. Instead they fixed all his fuck-ups in Europe – eventually winning in Russia.

          3. The German strategy, initially, was not to seek war with the U.S.

            The U.S. entered the war well before Pearl Harbor with ‘neutrality’ patrols (having U.S. ships shadow German naval vessels, radioing their positions in the clear) and even engaging in ASW operations.

            Teh German declaration of war, while a blunder, was really making de jure what was de facto.

            I expect that Hitler didn’t understand how far on a limb Roosevelt had gone in his secret war. Prior to the bombing of pearl harbor, there was a great deal of opposition to the U.S. getting involved a second time in what was a European issue.

  14. for the coming Fiscalypse Now:
    The Poor Man’s Guide To Survival Gear
    http://www.alt-market.com/arti…..vival-gear

    The overall consensus within the prepper community is that survival planning is expensive, and yes, it certainly can be. Another consensus is that you “get what you pay for”; also true…to a point. My belief is that while no prepping model is free of expense or of quality concerns, perhaps there is a middle road that activists with thin wallets can take which will provide solid gear for less money, and that will serve most of the functions of high-end gear that is ten times as expensive. Let’s examine a foundation list of those items that can help get you started now?.

    many examples and samples in the link.

    1. Step 1: Buy gun and ammo
      Step 2: Take supplies from hippies who didn’t

      See: Lucifer’s Hammer. Sure you eventually become a cannibal tribe, but that’s later.

      1. If your strategy depends on finding industrious, planning-ahead hippies, it’s not a good strategy. (leaving aside the moral considerations of theft)

        The ammo is a good idea as an excellent barter commodity and of course for self-defense from those who mistake you for a hippie.

        1. I’m talkin’ about doing it cheapest, not rightest here.

        2. That is why you eventually become cannibals.

          If you buy guns and ammos AND supplies and land, then you become the main protagonist group.

          Having the ability to capture, defend and operate a nuke plant helps too.

      2. The link has some pretty good cheap gun advice.

    2. But doesn’t this make you a terrorist according to DHS?

      1. Having to ask does.

    3. “prepper community”

      Awesome. The “Preppers” can go join the “birthers” and “truthers” and “deniers” and others in the corner.

      “Preppers” = lulz

      1. I prefer the “fluffer community”.

      2. I kept reading that as “preppie”.

    4. The basic, absolutely indispensible stuff (water purification, fire starting methods, sleeping bags) is not terribly expensive, and that’s what you should buy first.

      The more rococo stuff can then be bought over time to minimize the financial hit.

      1. Fire, fire, fire…mmm hmmm…yeah….FIRE…..cool….

        1. Don’t come crying to me when a bandana is the difference between life and death.

          1. If you’ve organized your life so that a lack of a bandana will cause your death, you’ve done a piss poor job of planning.

      2. If you can afford a $1000+ rifle that shoots boutique rounds, you’re not doing it on the cheap.

        1. Remington 1903 30-06, Winchester I-forget-what 30-06, Marlin 336 30-30, a bunch of 12 gauges (Browning, Remington, Winchester).

          Common, accurate weapons, common, cheap ammo – that’s why I finally picked up a 9mm, too.

          I’ll leave the .29763 Lapuau Nosler Golden Shower handloadsz to others…gimme boxes and cases and boatloads of 30-06 and 30-30 and 9mm….always available, everywhere.

          1. I would say .223 and .308 are the most common rounds. The least expensive is 7.62 X 39, but it’s not widely available.

            1. Went to a gun show last weekend. There were thousands of rounds of .223, .308 and 7.62×39 available. Cheaper than Dirt often has sales on all three, I believe.

          2. I actually don’t have a rifle, largely because my life-state hasn’t settled to the point where I know what kind of gun control environment I’ll be in from one year to the next. (here in PA the laws are very lax) So I’m stuck with things that will probably be legal almost anywhere in the US.

          3. I’ve got a caliber non-proliferation policy in place. I won’t buy any guns that aren’t .45 ACP, 9mm, 12 gauge, or .308. I’ve got a 300 Win Mag. and 22-250 rifle, but once I get a truly top-flight .308 hunting rifle, I’ll probably sell them.

            1. .22LR, .223, .308, & .45 are the mainstays. I keep way too much ammo for those (especially .22LR). I’ve got 6.5 Grendel, .38 Special, .338 LM and some others, but I don’t stockpile in those calibers.

              I may be stocking up on 9MM, though. The wife’s hands are not getting any better and the .45 recoil spring may get to be too much.

              1. If you know how many guns you have you don’t have enough. If you have a friend that doesn’t have a gun, don’t loan him one.

    5. Holy shit, I just RTFA and this guy is giving terrible advice for someone trying to do this cheap.

      Fire and water purification have to be #1 and #2 and he barely mentions them.

      Electricity generation methods? are you kidding me? That’s like #40 on the list at best. And I’m not even touching his suggestion to buy livestock and “non-GMO” seed.

      I mean, it depends on what you’re prepping for. If you’re prepping for total societal collapse, then yeah, I guess becoming a farmer is a valid option (though you’re going to need land and electricity generation is again a low priority). But that ain’t cheap.

      If you’re prepping for a natural or artificial disaster lasting a couple of weeks to a couple of months…which is really all you can do cheaply…his list is terrible.

      1. If you think society is going to collapse, you need to get out of the city and onto a large piece of remote land.

        1. Agreed, and that’s kind of the problem…. getting ready to “survive” in such a scenario would entail pretty much abandoning the life that I’m leading now. Unless the danger of utter societal collapse is very high, it just doesn’t make sense.

          1. Right, how do you make a living in the middle of nowhere?

            1. If you’re looking around our wealthy and, compared to history, relatively peaceful and safe society, and thinking you need to spend lots of time and energy and money preparing for utter societal collapse, perhaps your number one priority should not be fire or water purification tablets, but a course on logic and common sense, or perhaps some psychiatric treatment and meds.

              1. I tend to agree that planning for complete collapse shows a vivid imagination and also a lack of understanding of how durable our social and economic institutions actually are, even in the case of a crisis.

                The Soviet Union’s political and economic structures both disintegrated in the course of a couple of years, and even there they never got to “Mad Max” or “Peak Oil Demented Fantasy” stage.

                I think at most you need a bolt-hole in a placid area where you can ride out an unpleasant crisis that lasts a few weeks or months. Your average New Mexico or Utah ranch is more than sufficient if you have basic security and self-defense arrangements and a good supply of nonperishable goods. Depending on the season the theoretical crisis starts, it might help if you educate yourself on how to grow the mother of all kitchen gardens.

                Beyond that your scenario just ain’t gonna happen, and if it ever did your planning would fail anyway, because three hundred million people just can’t starve fast enough for you to win. They’d live just long enough to strip you of everything you had prepared, even if you killed a few hundred of them first.

                1. My scenario? Maybe it’s just mis-threading, but I never said anything like that. Nor am I spending any “time and energy and money preparing for utter societal collapse”, nor am I expecting such a situation.

                  1. I was just joining the thread and using the imperial “Your”.

              2. Oh please. All it would take to plunge America into chaos would be long-lasting failure of the power grid.

                Our peaceful, stable society is utterly dependent on electricity.

      2. Well, see, my survivalist books are all on my iPad now…

  15. saying the proposals would pose major technological barriers for the Web and stifle new innovations.

    This is truly ominous. If it would only stifle innovations I wouldn’t be nearly so upset.

    1. I favor stifling old innovations.

    2. Stifle it, Edith!

  16. On Our Way to Climbing Everest
    …There are now 13 different Constitutional amendments being proposed by various groups and politicians, all focused on money and politics. One Republican Presidential nominee, Buddy Roemer, has based his entire campaign on the corrupting influence of big money. Tea Party advocates like Mark Meckler have come on board. Celebrities and entertainers are committing their resources, from Steven Van Zandt to The Goo Goo Dolls to Russell Simmons. And business leaders, like my friend Landon Rowland, former Kansas City Southern Railroad CEO, and Charlie Kolb, President of the Committee for Economic Development (the organization that wrote the original Marshall Plan), are starting to make waves….

    1. Deprive corporations of all constitutional rights. Good luck with that.

      1. Do people who say shit like that ever even think about what they are saying?

        1. I am not sure. They are either completely stupid or totally evil. But the result is the same in either case.

        2. Who the fuck knows. It’s so stupid that it makes me question the American Experiment.

    2. Do you know who else climbed Everest?

      1. Tenzing Norgay?

      2. Gary Johnson?

      3. George Mallory?

        1. No one ever mentions the Sherpa.

          1. Andrew Irvine?

    3. Celebrities and entertainers are committing their resources, from Steven Van Zandt to The Goo Goo Dolls to Russell Simmons.

      With those resources behind it, it can’t fail!

      Seriously, could we get anymore D-List?

      1. Wait, did you mean “D-Bag?”

  17. And the Romney administration got legal permission, Reuters reported Thursday evening, to destroy 150 boxes of government records.

    But illegality is not the only test, say advocates of open government, who wonder when the public will insist that all candidates for high office do more than give lip service to transparency.

    If only…

  18. and finally – answers to the topical question of the day.

    The New Full-Frontal: Has Pubic Hair in America Gone Extinct?
    http://www.theatlantic.com/hea….._page=true

    What’s happening to America’s vaginas? Is pubic hair going extinct?

    In a word, no. But it’s on the fast track to the endangered species list, and its chief predators include the porn industry, smaller bathing suits and lingerie bottoms, and the Kardashian sisters (case in point: Kim once famously proclaimed that women “shouldn’t have hair anywhere but their heads”).

    Pubic hair is, however, evolving. Once upon a time, all vulvas were coated in a protective layer of coarse, woolly tresses. Hard to believe, right? It’s kind of like the revelation that horses once had toes, or that the Ford Mustang once had tailfins. But like any evolving species, the vulva has morphed into something sleeker, starker, and altogether more modern. Today, it is smooth, baby-soft, and hairless.

    1. You know who else was smooth, baby-soft, and hairless?

      1. your mom?

      2. Actual babies?

    2. The pubic hair movement is damned. You can’t get any traction for your cause when your rallying cry is “Bush is back, baby!!!”

    3. I agree with Kim Kardasian?

    4. But like any evolving species, the vulva has morphed into something sleeker, starker, and altogether more modern. Today, it is smooth, baby-soft, and hairless.

      And not a moment too soon.

    5. I, for one, welcome our new hairless overlords.

    6. Back in the day we had to probe through the bush…

      1. it sounds like an African safari

        1. Sometimes it felt that way.

          1. Yep – You had to part the tall grass with both hands.

            1. Hmm, I think there is a biological reason that men had to use your two hands
              -it is very symbolic in life

    7. I’m enjoying reading the feminist commenters who think that men like the shaved look because they are secretly all pedophiles.

      1. Yeah, because women would like pubes so much if the penis was completely hidden by them.

    8. A natural blonde East Asian Studies major?

    9. Pubic hair is, however, evolving. Once upon a time, all vulvas were coated in a protective layer of coarse, woolly tresses. Hard to believe, right? It’s kind of like the revelation that horses once had toes, or that the Ford Mustang once had tailfins. But like any evolving species, the vulva has morphed into something sleeker, starker, and altogether more modern. Today, it is smooth, baby-soft, and hairless.

      Changes in fashion are not evolution. Pubic hair is there for a reason. It will come back in style eventually.

      1. Yeah, when Planet Of The Apes becomes a reality.

      2. I’m just hoping back hair comes back in style too.

    10. I’m going to start hanging around Lake Minnetonka.

  19. I thought you guys might enjoy this fine piece of essay-writing:

    Rich People Don’t Create Jobs. Here’s the Proof

    Summary: formerly disgraced trader Henry Blodget vomits all over basic argumentation principles.

    I found it on the front page of LinkedIn, of all places.

    I had my own thoughts about it here:

    http://viewfromacklen.com/wp/2…..al-theory/

  20. Everyone agrees SOPA is bad, and it’s also bad in principle.

    So naturally, it will pass Congress and avoid a veto.

  21. Ding Dong the Hitch is dead.

    1. RIP. I would love to know what was the last thing he said. I’m sure it will be on those great deathbed quotes lists someday.

      1. ather|12.16.11 @ 12:04AM|#
        I’d love to know his final words

        reply to this
        Jingles|12.16.11 @ 12:10AM|#
        Fuck.

        1. As with so many of your posts, the purpose of this one is a mystery.

      2. Is it hot in here, or is just me?

      3. Most people don’t get the chance to compose their last words and utter them at the very last moment of consciousness.

        1. Steve Jobs sister sad his kast words were “Oh wow, wow, wow!”

          But maybe she hear him wrong and what he was actually saying was “Oh ow, ow, ow!”

          1. Or maybe she made it up for a good story.

            1. My favorite (reported) last words are those of my homeboy James Thurber:
              “God Bless! God Damn!”

  22. The money to aid the nation’s youngest learners is part of the Obama administration’s cornerstone education initiative ? the “Race to the Top” grant competition ? which has states competing for federal dollars to create programs that make schools more effective.

    Replacing Obama’s partnering with teachers unions for the current “Race to the Bottom” education initiative?

  23. 1) So who won the Team Red “debate” the other day? I wasn’t paying attention.

    2) Happy Friday, Reason.

    3) If I were traveling at the speed of light in my car, and turned on my headlights, would anything happen?

    4) Have we won in Libya Iraq yet?

    5) Link THIS!

    1. Being that time effectively stops at light speed, how could you turn on your headlights?

      1. Nuh uh! There’s that whole thing now about how Einstein was wrong and there IS stuff faster than the speed of light, so

        nahnahnahnah, boo boo

        1. Whatever happened with the FTL neutrinos? I thought that they had found the mistake in the first case, but then I heard that the results were replicated again.

          1. I heard they’re hiding out with the Iraqi WMDs.

            We should have a UN commission go search for them.

          2. They need to find somewhere else to run the experiment to make sure it isn’t the equipment. As best they can tell, there is no known bias in the system and neutrinos continue to show up ahead of schedule. But not before they leave.

    2. 1) Fox News
      2) Woohoo!
      3) Yes
      4) No
      5) ‘Kay

      1. You are SO literal sometimes. I like that about you…

        PS #1 – lulz yep

    3. 3) travelling at the speed of light relative to what?

  24. OK, time to “earn” my “paycheck” by “doing work” instead of “fucking off on teh internets” on “company time”, so you all have a good day!

    The burdens of being a manager…

    *adjusts monocle, throws another dead baby on the fire*

  25. http://bostonherald.com/news/r…..position=3

    State police defy court order to release “black box” of the police cruiser that the LT Governor wrecked last winter. They say it “can be deceiving” because if the car spins out on the ice it makes it look like it was going faster than it was. Sure.

    Let’s think about this. LT Governor is out at 5:30 am “looking at storm damage” (is that what the kids are calling it these days?) and wrecks his state vehicle. And now the state is defying a court order to release the records of how fast he was going. Gee, could it possibly be he was drunk, coming back from a night partying and speeding?

    1. The black box includes a breathalyzer?

      1. No. But it would show his speed, direction, and location.

        1. 85 mph headed away from the local strip bar is my guess

          1. Or his girlfriend’s apartment.

            1. Or towards it.

              1. At 5:30 in the morning? That’s gross.

                1. What’s gross about morning sex?

                  Comprehension fail.

                  1. Was always my favorite – would have a smile on my face and a spring in my step until at least noon.

                    1. the morning part is the problem for me…now, 11:00am-12:00 sex? Thats cool.

      2. He demanded a breathalyzer when the police showed up on the scene to prove he wasn’t drunk.

        He was up to some kind of dumbfuckery but this being Massachusetts and him being a Democrat means we’ll never know. Hey, at least the car wasn’t in a river right?

        1. He sure as hell wasn’t out inspecting storm damage at 5:30 in the morning whatever he was doing.

        2. Because breathalyzers can’t detect hookers & blow.

        3. “I demand that you test me for everything except PCP”

    2. Unless he left his foot on the pedal throughout the “spin” there is no way the vehicle’s data should show it was going “faster”.

      I’d much rather know he was high and speeding away from his hooker’s hotel room than to know that a native Masshole didn’t know how to handle a car in a spin.

    3. State police have 10 days to either provide the information to the Herald or explain again why the data should be kept private, according to the ruling by the state Public Records Division.

      OK, they haven’t defied the court order, yet, but they’re playing a waiting game. Still not good, but not defying the court’s order which would be really, really bad.

  26. Oh, one more proposed drinking game add:

    “You know, Morning Links were a lot better when Johnny Longtorso was here….”

    Submitted for your collective consideration.

    1. I thought auqua rabbit and such was Johnny using a different handle?

      1. Shhhh!

        It’s just NOT the same…

      2. Yeah, I lost track after a bit he handle hopped so much. I figure somebody here is him, though.

  27. Hmmm one of the few things I liked about Hitchens is that he always was pissing off the Religious Right

    1. And the peacenik left. He was a WOT warriors warrior.

  28. “Austro-Libertarian. Anarcho-capitalist. Student at SUNY Buffalo. Advocate for peace, sound money, and individual liberty. I support Ron Paul.”

    Also, boobies.

    http://kathryndelong.blogspot.com/

    1. Holy crud! It’s a rare female of the AL-AC genus! Capture it and put it into the rare species breeding program!

      1. PraxGirl, TokenLibertarianGirl and now her. Gotta love trend of cute youtubing libertarian females.

        1. You sound sarcastic.

    2. Thanks for the shout out.

  29. Oh MNGeeeeeeeeeeeeeee…..

    Aren’t you going to talk to us about F&F?

    1. Dude, he has been gone all week. Ever since the shit really hit the fan. Maybe he’s Eric Holder.

      1. Maybe he is undergoing the final metamorphosis into one of us? Much introspection, denial, etc. then poof! a new libertarian!

      2. I think he’s locked up in John’s sex dungeon.

        1. He’s John’s new gimp?

        2. After I finally murdered Joe from Lowell, I needed a replacement.

          1. Eliminationist rehtoric, John. You’re on the list…

  30. Who had the best and worst year in Washington?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..index.html

    This was a rough year for the nation’s capital. The government shut down. The economy kept sputtering. The super committee was neither super nor committed. Lawmakers resigned in disgrace. And everyone hit the roof over the debt ceiling. So who had the worst year?

    1. I had an alright year…still gainfully employed, met a nice bald blue collar man, got a car, and had excellent snow conditions in Stowe in January. So you can put me up for consideration on the Best Year in Washington list.

      1. I had the best year in Washington, because I didn’t go within 500 miles of the place.

        Familiarity breeds contempt. Growing up in the VA suburbs helped make me the libertarian I am today.

        1. Yeah, thanks for reminding me that I’m fucking trapped here for the foreseeable future. Fucker.

    2. So who had the worst year?

      Oh, I know this one!

      The citizens.

      Amirite?

    1. What do the other two poll at? Is he taking votes from Romney or Obama?

      1. Good question. I asked them, since I can’t find it on their site. What’s also interesting is that Johnson ties or beats the two possible Democrats for the U.S. Senate seat. He should just get in the Senate and do some real good along side Rand Paul.

        1. He would do more good as a Senator than a spoiler third party candidate.

          1. I still think he will be RP’s running mate, as long as he doesnt screw it up by going 3rd party.

            1. Hell, maybe that’s why he hasn’t officially declared for the LP yet. He’s as hopeful as the rest of us about Paul’s chances.

  31. Why Ron Paul Can’t Win
    The candidate’s problem isn’t better-funded opponent or media bias?it’s his own views on foreign policy.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..on_LEADTop

    In his third run for president, and only a few weeks out from the 2012 Iowa caucuses, the Texas congressman has become the sleeper news of this nomination fight. Polls show him with real strength in Iowa, and stories are brimming with speculation about how the ardent libertarian might pull off a victory there, or how he might command crucial support in Western states, or how all this might upend the Romney-Gingrich narrative.

    It’s fun as far as it goes, but it misses the world. Or, rather, it misses Mr. Paul’s unpopular foreign-policy views, which make him the ultimate self-limiting candidate. And what makes those views more notable is the candidate’s stubborn refusal to modulate them?an obstinacy at odds with the rest of his 2012 campaign.

    1. His foreign policy views are plenty well known, and he’s doing just fine in Iowa and New Hampshire. If Republican voters stopped getting their orders from right wing media, he’d do even better. This war hype is sickening.

    2. Some of us call “stubborn” “principled”, but whatever.

      I’m so tired of this “he wants Iran to have a nuke and KILL us” shit. “Dont’ run all over the world intervening in EVERY goddammned playground fight” now = “isolationist foreign policy”. Fuck the MSM pundits in the ass with an IED.

    3. The WSJ obviously has an interest with mass murdering people abroad and wasting military lives.

      1. chickenhawks always want to send someone else’s kids to war.

        1. It’s called “civilian control of the military” you fucking douchebag, and without it we would have morphed into a military dictatorship decades ago, just like everyone else in history.

        2. You mean like Obama? I don’t Mali and Sinesha or whatever the fuck those brats’ names are joining up anytime soon.

          1. i musta missed all those US troops in libya

            1. u meant somolia didnt you?…all those US troops in somolia…& yemen

            2. You did. And Uganda, and the horn of Africa, and Afghanistan. And I guarantee you those little shits will never so much as volunteer at the USO.

              Every day Obama sends American kids off to die.

              1. Arent both of the Obama children under 18 though?

                1. They won’t be forever.

                2. Re: Cynical in New York,

                  Arent both of the Obama children under 18 though?

                  Yes, and the wars look to last just that long, enough for the little brats NOT to even volunteer at the USO.

      2. You are correct, sir. War sells newspapers.

    4. I loved how every time Baier asked Paul a question, the hypothetical got more ridiculous. It went from “If you have evidence Iran has a nuke,” to, “If you know for certain Iran has a nuke,” and finally, “If you know for certain Iran has a nuke and they close the Strait of Hormuz.” I was expecting the next question to be, “If Iran has launched a nuclear attack on the US…”

      1. And post it everywhere.

    5. Even to the extent that maybe, just maybe, the Pax Americana has to be maintained at this point, what Paul is suggesting isn’t total isolationism, and I doubt he could accomplish anything completely radical, anyway.

      Besides, if we fail to resolve our economic difficulties, our foreign adventures will be harder and harder to conduct.

      Vote for reining in government and fixing our economy. If you want an empire, let the next president work on it. For now, we have far more pressing needs.

  32. Liberal Rabbi says that if Tebow wins the Super Bowl Christians will go on the rampage.

    Joshua Hammerman, a rabbi and columnist for The Jewish Week, doesn’t much like Tim Tebow, the Denver Broncos’ demonstratively Christian quarterback. Commentary’s Seth Mandel quotes a “disturbing article” Hammerman wrote hammering Tebow, which contained this jaw-dropping passage:

    If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably.

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

    1. I didn’t know he played for the Lions.

      1. the Lions will never win the super bowl – oh wait, that’s your point! 😉

    2. Tebow is going to get crushed by the Pats on Sunday. He’s an overrated tight end who got crowned golden boy by that propaganda house ESPN.

      BTW the Rabbi is an idiot

      1. ESPN hates him. It is driving every one of the “experts” on ESPN crazy that he is succeeding. He was not crowned anything by ESPN, at least not in the NFL.

        And he is playing at home and the Pats have one of the worst defenses I have ever seen. I bet it is very competitive. They are not going to crush them.

        1. The Pats defense is in the shit pile right now. I think Brady and the O can get the score high enough that the D just has to keep them mildly in check but I think it will be an interesting game.

        2. He’s not succeeding; every team he’s beaten had an utterly inept offense.

          He needed a pair of 50+ yard FGs and some extremely boneheaded mistakes by Barber to beat the Bears without Cutler and Forte. That’s pathetic.

          1. He is 7-1 as a started. He is very much succeeding. The defense radically improved when he took over. Why? because he rarely throws interceptions and he slows the game down. That means the defense has to defend fewer possessions and almost never has a short field to defend.

            The guy is a real running quarterback. He is as fast and as athletic as Micheal Vick but is big enough to take the punishment. And he throws just well enough to get the job done. He is succeeding in proving the “experts” who say every quarterback has to have the same skill set wrong.

            1. You could accomplish the same “no turnover” objective by taking a knee on every snap. (no pun intended)

              The defense improved because their opponents during that stretch have had horrid offenses (with the exception of Detroit who blew them out). It’s the stars aligning to make this system look better than it is, and the Broncos are going to be fucked because they have to stick with this crap because they won a few games. Trust me, John Elway knows what’s up and he’s not happy about this turn of events.

              1. Since I think the Broncos are the vilest franchise in sports and Elway the spawn of Satan, that makes me very happy. And no, the defense is very good. Von Miller is the next Derrick Thomas. And when you run the ball and dominate time of possession, and don’t turn the ball over, it is easier to play defense. You watch, the Patriots won’t put up more than 24 points this weekend because they won’t have the ball enough.

                1. Even more vile than the Yankees?

                  1. Only pinko commie bastards don’t like the Yankees.

                    1. what about us?

                2. You don’t hear Derrick Thomas’ name mentioned much these days. One of the best linebackers ever.

                3. Since I think the Broncos are the vilest franchise in sports and Elway the spawn of Satan, that makes me very happy.

                  You’re a Browns fan?

              2. It’s the stars aligning to make this system look better than it is

                what system? As far as I can tell they arent running anything other than a standard pro offense with a few plays here and there thrown in.

                COMMITMENT is what they need. Balls to the wall WE ARE AN OPTION FOOTBALL TEAM is what Fox/Elway need to say.

                1. The Bandit disapproves MIGHTLIY with John/Suki/MNG The Donkeys are the Lord’s team (Hence sunsets and sunrises are blue and orange). All Praise be to Elway. Amen, AAAmen.

                  1. As long as no one speaks well of the Titans until Bud Adams dies, I’m fine with John’s assessment.

          2. He would do better if Fox and Elway would commit to running an offense he could run.

            More option plays, more rollout option run/pass. More running period. And more run blocking techniques. They may need to spend the off-season buying an entirely different offense line.

            1. Elway finally came out and mildly praised Tebow and said he was looking forward to teaching him in the off season. I am excited more about next year than this year.

            2. And then you can never get out of it, because all your offensive players haven’t been practicing pro-level offense plays.

              1. Running QBs are a dime a dozen, its the future of the NFL.

                The first to make the transition will be the big winners.

                1. It’s been the future of the NFL for a while now, hasn’t it? For at least the past decade. Funny how long it takes for the future to arrive.

                  1. NFLAids is a tough disease to beat.

        3. Have you seen any coverage of the Broncos? It’s all about Tebow being a winner. No mention is ever made of his kicker going 110 yards on 2 kicks, or his opponent running out of bounds, or his defense giving up points in the low teens. To them it is all the “quarterback”.

          1. It’s the same fallacy by which the president gets credit/blame for the economy’s performance.

          2. I watch it every morning. And I heard a lot about those two things. And a lot about how horrible he is and how the real football people know it. I don’t see any Tebow propaganda. I see ESPN grudgingly try to deal with the fact they are winning with him.

            1. Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. Does that make him better than Marino?

              1. That is an interesting question. Marino was great. But the fact that his teams never ran the ball put huge pressure on their defense. And it prevented him from winning. Is Marino better? Sure. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t win doing something besides throwing the ball every down.

                And Tebow is a lot better than Dilfer. Why do you hate the idea of a running quarterback so much? It makes the game so much more interesting.

                1. Marino is, in my opinion, by far the greatest QB to play the game. He did it without a strong running game and, for the most part, without much defense. Amazing. The closest I’ve seen to what he could do is probably Peyton Manning.

                  1. Marino is, in my opinion, by far the greatest QB to play the game. He did it without a strong running game and, for the most part, without much defense. Amazing. The closest I’ve seen to what he could do is probably Peyton Manning.

                    Marino isn’t even the best QB to ever play for the Dolphins. That would be Bob Griese…who won two Super Bowls.

                2. Why do you hate the idea of a running quarterback so much?

                  Most quarterbacks don’t run the ball much because eventually you get hit hard enough to get taken out of the game.

                  IIRC, Steve Young used to get chewed out for running as much as he did.

                  It makes for a much more interesting game when the D has to take the possibility of the QB running into account on every play.

                  1. Tebow is not most quarterbacks. The guy is huge. He could play running back. He is the only one who can take the pounding.

              2. Don’t you know the new NFL? The quarterback’s job isn’t to put up points, it’s the keep the other team from scoring them.

                1. Auric, there is more than one way to win. And yeah, if a quarterback can keep the ball out of the other team’s hands and score just enough to win, he has done his job just as well as a guy who throws for 400 yards and wins a shootout.

                  1. if a quarterback can keep the ball out of the other team’s hands and score just enough to win, he has done his job just as well as a guy who throws for 400 yards and wins a shootout.

                    So the Patriot defense is doing their job “just as well” as the Raven defense? They both have the same record, so the Pats giving up 21.1 points per game instead of 15.5 doesn’t mean they are doing worse?

                    1. It depends. If the Patriots defense is defending more possessions and being put in bad positions more than the Ravens defense, it might be. The raw stats don’t always tell the full story.

              3. Look, Tebow isn’t doing this by himself, but the turnaround has a lot to do with him. They’ve got a pounding rushing attack that kills defenses (hence the fourth quarter blasts)–which he’s a major part of–and he protects the ball pretty well. And it’s totally insane not to acknowledge that his own team is rallying around him. He’s got the leadership gene, whatever that is. The scary part is that his passing game seems to be improving.

                I think they have a good chance of beating the Patriots if their defense plays well. The Pats don’t have one of those. However, if the Patriots get ahead quickly, they’ll likely win.

                1. From what I’ve seen, the fourth quarter “blasts” are more from teams making dumb decisions (e.g. Barber goes out of bounds, Jets rush up the middle) or Denver being behind so the other team plays prevent so Tebow has wide open receiver 10 yards down the field.

                  1. Yes, that happened seven times? Come on.

                    I’m not suggesting that Denver and Tebow are the greatest power in the known universe, but what they’re doing is working for now. It’s been a while since a team was this committed to the run, and that’s not a bad strategy when you don’t turn over the ball much and have a good defense.

                    1. Yes, that happened seven times? Come on.

                      Dude, look at the teams they’ve beaten during that stretch. The only ones that have had decent offenses at any point this year were Oakland and Chicago, and he beat Oakland during Carson Palmer’s first start since 2009, and the Bears without their starting QB or RB.

                      It’s a combination of luck in scheduling and luck in the other teams making boneheaded mistakes.

                    2. Then it should stop altogether soon.

          3. the quarterback always gets the accolades (or the blame if you’re a Lions ‘fan’).

            1. 1-4; 7-1. I think part of the transformation is the defense finally finding its way, but it’s very hard not to give a good amount of credit to the one thing that changed.

              1. During the first 5 games the Broncos allowed 28 points per game. In this 7-1 run its only 15.8. That’s not Tebow.

                1. Time of possession is one of the defense’s best friends. It’s why a team that primarily runs and has a good defense can win and win big in this league. That’s how, for instance, the Giants beat the Bills in a game everyone thought the Giants had no hope in.

                    1. Denver is 25th in the NFL in time of possession.

                      Wow. That is something I would have given the Tebow style offense credit for. Clearly not the case.

                    2. Whether it’s actual time of possession or not, it’s clear that the running attack is wearing down defenses. Even with the Barber errors in the last game, the Broncos drove down the field without much trouble. Which happens in pretty much every one of their wins in the fourth quarter.

                    3. Even with the Barber errors in the last game, the Broncos drove down the field without much trouble.

                      Nope. They got good field position from Barber’s fumble in OT and still had to go for a 57 yard FG.

                      They had a grand total of one good drive in the game, the tying TD drive.

                    4. In the fourth quarter. Again.

                      I suppose it could be God intervening on Tim’s behalf.

                    5. And in the OT, of course.

                    6. If the defense was tired, why didn’t they drive further in OT? They didn’t go for a 57 yarder by choice.

                      ONE DRIVE in the fourth quarter they drove. If it were a matter of the D being tired it would have been evident on drives before that, and certainly in OT when they would have been even more tired.

                  1. Winning the time of possession battle is about more than running instead of passing. You have to get first downs, which Tebow is awful at.

          4. Bullshit, here in Denver the Tebow thing has split families and caused hookers to be murdered for crying ouit loud. The “media” is covering both factions, and believe me there are some zelots out there. For fucks sake Dave Logan JUST STOPPED refusing to take Tebow calls on his show.

        4. ESPN doesn’t hate Tebow. Colin Cowpie does, but that’s because Cowpie has been shilling for the New York QBs, and he thinks they’re not getting the credit Tebow is.

          Skippy Bayless, on the other hand, hates the Packers. Cowpie used to, until Aaron Rodgers shut him up by winning the Super Bowl.

    3. Maybe they should be trying to convert Aaron Rodgers to Judaism instead of worrying about Tebow.

      1. Packers are going all the way, they just find ways to win.

        1. They’re a great team this year. I have a suspicion they’ll stumble, but maybe not enough to stop them from going back to the Super Bowl.

          1. I’m imagining the overblown coverage if the Super Bowl ends up as an 18-0 Packers verses the Patriots.

            1. Won’t happen. The Pats have little chance of making it through with that “defense.”

              1. Bill Belichick – Best Coach ever. Worst GM ever.

                1. No way they come out of the AFC. The Ravens, Steelers and Texans (yes, I said the Texans) are too strong for them. Of course, the NFL mafia will find a way to disprove me…like they did in the Redskins game last week with a few phantom calls CBS wouldn’t even replay.

                  1. They’ll likely have the bye, so they’ll only have to win 2 games. If Brady plays like the first 2 games of the season it won’t really matter what the defense does. I’m not saying I think it will happen, just that it could.

                2. What has he won since it was discovered he was videotaping other team’s signals?

                  1. What has he won since it was discovered he was videotaping other team’s signals?

                    Really, people are still going on about this?

                  2. What has he won since it was discovered he was videotaping other team’s signals?

                    Like 60 something percent of his games?

              2. I don’t think it’s a super likely scenario, but I think it’s possible if Brady gets hot.

              3. As much as they’re my team, I don’t see them making it either. The defense just doesn’t have it this year.

                1. I agree with Sparky, although sometimes weird shit happens when Belichick finally says, “Fuck it, let’s try a wide receiver at defensive back and see what happens.”

                  The defense has actually improved since he started assigning players to it from the offense.

                  Who knew that Edelman was the best technical tackler on the team?

                  1. Hell, BJ Raji has a rushing TD for the Packers.

                    And they ran a 4-TE set against Oakland. 🙂

        2. Aaron Rodgers sucks. He can’t lead a fourth quarter comeback. 🙂

          1. He doesn’t even have one this year!

            1. I heard someone talking about that on the radio–I mean, seriously. Yes, it’s really hard to come back when you’re ahead.

              1. I think the much more important stat than the number of fourth quarter comebacks would be the percentage of comebacks out of comeback chances (say down by 10 or less in the fourth quarter).

  33. The money to aid the nation’s youngest learners

    This leapt off the page when I tried to read that WaPo “race to the Gravy Train” article.

    Seriously- I’d rather be Vlad the Impaler’s press secretary than be so debased and dishonest as to write stuff like that.

    What a heaping helping of Newspeak.

    1. Linky?

  34. Billions are spent annually in America on early education programs, but the quality and availability of those programs varies greatly. Roughly half of all 3-year-olds and about a quarter of 4-year-olds do not attend preschool, said Steve Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University.

    Oh, horror!

    1. And of course there is absolutely no evidence pre school helps kids over the long run. But why not keep wasting money promoting it?

      1. Because those are 5 years that children are under the care of their parents and aren’t forced to undergo state-sponsored indoctrination. That situation is unacceptable to progressives.

        Who knows what horrible things children are learning during those formative years that will later need to be corrected by real, credentialed teachers.

        1. Because those are 5 years that children are under the care of their parents and aren’t forced to undergo state-sponsored indoctrination. That situation is unacceptable to progressives.

          Occam’s Razor, right there.

    2. WTF, *half* of 3-year-olds are in school?! This explains a lot. No doubt the other half would be too except for the crippling poverty.

  35. What are the odds (I barely even scanned the list of recipients) those “youngest learners” just happen to reside in electorally pivotal states?

  36. ”Others seem to be more focused on attacks rather than moving the country forward,” Gingrich says in the ad. ”That’s up to them.”

    “Damn the torpedoes icebergs; full steam ahead!”

  37. In Hell Hath Frozen Over news – TSA finds weed in checked baggage, lets passenger keep weed, and doesn’t call in SWAT to arrest him at baggage claim?

    1. I’m sure the TSA took some as a fee/reward.

      1. Dude, they could have taken most of it, left a few crumbs in a bag, and still called in SWAT to shoot him at baggage claim.

        All I can think is they have different goons working the passenger Rapescans than they do in the basement working the baggage scans.

      2. A 50/50 split seems fair, right?

        1. I’d agree – maybe a bit more than fair given the trouble the passenger was saved.

  38. Fuck the NFL, and the crooks who run it.

    1. Right now MLB has more crocks with Bud Selig refusing to kick Fred Wilpon out of the club.

  39. http://www.mitchellrepublic.co…../homepage/

    Ron Paul leading in South Dakota GOP polls.

    But remember, he can’t win anywhere but the early states.

    1. How many electoral votes do those polls have?

      1. The same number as the polls where Romney is leading.

    2. Narrative!

      “Republican support is still spread out among the candidates months before the June primary,” says Paul Nielson, president of NBP. “Ron Paul leads. However, more South Dakota voters believe Gingrich and Romney will be the top two candidates, and President Obama fares poorly against both.”

  40. Ann Althouse raises a good point:

    Let’s assume the signature-gatherers hit the mark and trigger a recall. Walker can only be removed if the Democrats come up with an opponent who beats him in the recall election. What are they going to use for money?

    But the Democratic Party reported raising just under $1.2 million between July 1 and Dec. 10 to support its own role in the recall attempt. It has $360,000 in cash on hand.

    Meanwhile, Walker is still raking money in, and under state law there is no limit on donations, and some people are handing him checks in excess of $200,000.

    This money will flood into an immense advertising campaign next year. Next year, when all the presidential candidates are trying to get attention and when there’s a Senate race here in Wisconsin. Walker will continue to collect donations and spend it freely to promote the conservative agenda in Wisconsin, lending collateral assistance to the Republican candidates in the other 2012 elections. (And candidates in the regular elections have limits on the amounts donors can give them.)

    Wisconsin is a key swing state in the presidential election. And Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Herb Kohl could be the one that tips the Senate Republican. The Walker recall could spell nationwide disaster for Democrats.

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2…..on-to.html

  41. ooooh! oooooh!

    “SEC accuses former Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bosses of fraud”

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.co…..e-mac.html

    suing them in federal court

    It looks fo’real, too.

    In the lawsuits, the SEC said Syron, Mudd and others understated the lenders’ exposure to subprime mortgage loans. From 2007 to 2008, Freddie Mac executives said the company’s exposure was between $2 billion and $6 billion when it was actually as high as $244 billion, according to one SEC complaint.

    For the occupy Wall St types, this is in fact what they’ve been asking for = prosecution of the people most responsible for the financial crisis.

    However, i sincerely doubt they’ll even notice; Fannie and Freddie are too un-wall-st, not Evil Banker enough.

    1. Actually, on closer inspection, I’m not sure how kosher this whole lawsuit really is…

      In a statement, he said the federal government and investors were aware of “every piece of material data about loans held by Fannie Mae.”

      “The government reviewed and approved the company’s disclosures during my tenure, and through the present,” Mudd said today in the statement. “Now it appears that the government has negotiated a deal to hold the government, and government-appointed executives who have signed the same disclosures since my departure, blameless — so that it can sue individuals it fired years ago.”

      He has a point. Its a GSE. and the Federal Housing Finance Agency has access to their books at all times, & sits on the board…

      e.g. Is Freddie Mac a government agency?
      No. Freddie Mac was chartered by Congress as a private company serving a public purpose. On September 6, 2008, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), appointed FHFA as conservator of Freddie Mac. As conservator, FHFA has all rights, titles, powers, and privileges of Freddie Mac, and of any stockholder, officer, or director of Freddie Mac with respect to Freddie Mac and its assets; and title to the books, records and assets of Freddie Mac…i>

      Im actually thinking now that these guys are being set up to take a fall for what was in fact a broad fuckup by everyone involved, including HUD and the FHFA.

  42. That might actually be a good idea. Wow.

    http://www.RealPrivacy.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.