A.M. Links: Romney Leads in Florida, Political Ad Spending Rises, European Leaders Agree to New Deficit Pact, Occupy D.C. Still Occupying D.C.

|

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: Why geezers are Occupy Wall Street's true enemies: 

Advertisement

NEXT: Shikha Dalmia on Obama's Flawed Case for Insourcing

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. looking for the bilover?—datebi*cO’m— is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.sign up for free.

      1. Don’t spam up my greatest life’s achievment with your poor man’s Craigslist casual encounters site!

        1. lily knows your secret desires.

        2. Can you imagine it getting any poorer than Craigslist encounters?

          A poor man’s Craigslist? Jesus Christ, tell me no such thing exists!

          1. Worse has happened before. Hitler was the poor person’s Democrat.

          2. on the poor man’s Craigslist the phrase “Must be height-weight disproportionate” occurrs frequently.

            Or so I hear.

      2. No hop-ons.

        Oops, I meant to type that on my bi-lover profile.

        1. You’re gonna get a few hop-ons.

    2. Compared to the shit we’ve seen on this site, that was relatively mild. My dander actually isn’t up much about it.

      1. LOL–note that the persone tazing him is a woman that probably weighs all of 130 pounds, at the most. Given how much veganism and political correctness has turned twenty-something men into a bunch of skinny, noodle-armed wastrels, sending out rookie female cops to subdue these types is probably the best way for them to get experience without putting themselves in too much danger right away.

    1. Oh James, I am more fristy than the former senator from tenessee.

    2. He left poloticn’ for doctorin’

  1. I saw this over on Instapundit:

    Milton Friedman on greed.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..zej7TRfU9w

    1. He handed Donahue’s ass to him.

      1. He did, but I was struck by the seriousness of the conversation and that Donahue seemed to really be listening to what Friedman said. I doubt he was convinced, but it seemed like an honest discussion. What a marked difference between that and what passes for a talk show today.

        1. I consider Donahue to be the spiritual father of the crap that purports to be a “talk show” now. That said, the segment is much more restrained and thoughtful than current fare, excluding Charlie Rose.

          1. I consider Donahue to be the spiritual father of the crap that purports to be a “talk show” now.

            He was the father of all the “personal is political” talk show formats we see today, but Oprah and Geraldo Rivera are really the ones who permanently established talk shows as a medium to push specific cultural and political agendas. At least Donahue tended not to turn his shows into a circus or feminist hugbox.

          2. I would kill to have the level of discourse back that Donahue instigated on his show. He was an unabashed liberal, but he never shied away from having guests with contrary opinions on and he clearly encouraged others in attendance to speak their minds, no matter the views of the host. It wasn’t salacious or gratuitous. It was an actual conversation. Charlie Rose is about as close as you can come any more, but zzzzzzzzzz.

            Now, we have “Pinheads of the Week” or whatever ORLY calls it. :::sigh:::

        2. Donahue also had quite meaningful and substantive discussions with Ayn Rand as well. He wasn’t so bad, really. If only talk shows today would ask everyone the hard questions, and not just libertarians or objectivists.

          1. We forget how far things have fallen Donahue’s show was the Athenian college compared to something like O’Reilly or Special Ed Shultz. He was a leftist and did his best to make conservatives look bad. But he never screamed and he let everyone have their say.

          2. I love the clip where Rand says that men should express their emotions more, and the liberal housewife audience just went crazy. Uh, hey guys, you might want to read the “sex by engraved invitation” passage before you think Rand was some emotive weepy goofball…

    2. That needs to go viral.

      1. post it on FB – see how many friends you can lose in a day.

        1. My friends are normal. Except for the Monsanto haters. And the Troofers. Good call, might weed out a few thousand.

          1. “eh, I dunno…on second thought, good call”

            lol.

    1. This could explain a lot. 😉

  2. Suderman subscribes to the Cavanaugh school of thought when it comes to Links. Like Cavanaugh, he will shine too bright and burn out quick.

    1. What is this Cavanaugh School you speak of? I’m my own man, dammit!

      1. I’m sure that’s what Tim thought too.

        1. We are all unique and special snowflakes.

          1. The reprogramming will stick…eventually.

            1. Perhaps it was actually the Gentleman Lifeguard copying Suderman’s mojo during his brief stint at the helm of P.M. Links before young Riggs and Steigerwald took it over with their K.I.S.S. approach. Hopefully the two camps can find common ground.

              1. WTF? This is the second posed picture on here in the past week where the subject needs to learn how to properly wear a tie.

                The knot goes against the collar, Cavanaugh. This isn’t Miami fucking Vice!

    2. Are you comparing TC to a replicant that liked to kiss his maker?

  3. In related news, Romney likes Cheetos.

    He likes Newt, now?

    By the way, has anyone noticed how Romney’s Massachusetts accent doesn’t sound quite right?

    1. Quick fried to a crackly crunch!

  4. Joe Biden admits he opposed the bin Laden hit
    http://news.investors.com/Arti…..-obama.htm

    Vice President Joe Biden, apparently alone among the president’s senior advisers, suggested last spring that the commander-in-chief not send a special forces hit squad to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

    Biden apparently didn’t feel sufficiently certain that the al Qaeda founder and mastermind of all the 9/11 killings was in the house where he was suspected to be to prompt an armed covert incursion by American forces into the territory of an ally in the war on terror.

    1. I think that definitely means Joe is on the way out and doesn’t give a shit.

      1. I took it as a very calculated sacrifice strategy. Really pump up the difficult and courageous aspects of Obama’s decision at the very low cost of a meaningless Joe Biden.

        1. That seems like a shrike level crazy strategy. Why would you want your VP questioning the only thing you have to run on?

      2. I do, however, give a shit-eating grin.

    2. Biden showing some nuance in foreign relations, unpossible!

    3. What’s dumber, opposing the mission or admitting that you opposed the mission after it became a huge success?

      1. Whichever Joe did, that’s the dumbest. The man is a lightning rod for dumb.

      2. The one time Biden saw a potential gaffe coming his way, he made the wrong call.

    4. I thought that Biden was safely locked up in the White House basement. Did he escape again?

    5. I support Biden on this. When they described the evidence that Obama acted on I was appalled that he violated a sovereign country on such flimsy evidence.

      One adviso was quoted as saying ‘gutsiest call I ever saw’ as if that was a GOOD think and not just an admission that the president acted on insufficient evidence.

  5. I have to say that I prefer the modern, bad-ass Chester Cheetah to the hapless 80’s version.

  6. End ACTA: Why it’s even more insidious than SOPA & the Internet must rise in protest again
    …ACTA has been negotiated and debated largely in secret since 2006. At one point the meeting to discuss the bill was hidden in a Wildlife and Fisheries meeting to avoid scrutiny. During the negotiations, journalists, activists and bloggers who made Freedom of Information Act requests for the text of the bill were stonewalled under the auspices of national security.

    Even though the text of the bill was readily available to countries all over the world, American citizens were shut out of the conversation as long as possible.

    It is too late to stop ratification at home: President Obama signed the bill back in September, classifying it as an “executive agreement” to avoid having to present it to the Senate….

  7. A Fast & Furious fib
    Holes in Holder’s testimony?
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/o…..zVRyE486rN

    Friday, the feds disclosed documents that show that despite Holder’s claim during congressional testimony that he’d only learned of F&F “a few weeks” earlier (a claim later amended to “a couple of months”), he has known (or should have known) about it all along.

    1. But MNG assures us it was a simple mistake. They were just lying about it because the evil Republicans made them.

  8. Global warming activists seek to purge ‘deniers’ among local weathermen
    …According to the Washington Post, the reason for the campaign can be found in a 2010 George Mason University surveys, which found that 63% of television weathermen think that global warming is a product of natural causes, while 31% believe it is from human activity.

    So far, the campaign has identified 55 “deniers” in the meteorologist community and are looking for more. They define “deniers” as “anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change: that it is real, largely caused by humans, and already having profound impacts on our world.”…

    1. Not a sign of strength or confidence on their part. And what is it with Leftists and purges?

      1. I’m not sure we libertarians should stand on the porch of glass house and throw stones at other purgers. I keep trying to tell people: win first, then purge. Its like finishing your meat before you have pudding.

      2. They think it is the normal course of human events because they all dated self-cutting bulimics in high school. What they didn’t know is that those poor girls were purging and self-harming because they were dating morons.

    2. No one expects the Warming Inquisition!

    3. anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus

      Methinks they don’t know what that word means.

      1. I’m sure they meant “refudiate”.

    4. SILENCE THE HERETICS!

    5. But I’ll bet these very same people oppose SOPA/PIPA and are out fighting it because OMG censorship!

  9. Obama on Monday made his first foray into Google Plus

    I know the President won’t answer questions about MJ legalization, but what’s his take on Google’s new policies, which take effect *tomorrow* (or so they’d like us to believe).

    1. Let me be clear.

      Google says they will not share my college transcripts, medical records, or birth certificate with anyone, and I believe them.

  10. President Obama participates in Google chat, offers to help woman’s out-of-work husband find a job.

    What was more revealing? Addressing a question about systemic failures by trying to solve one questioner’s problems? Or that his answers, while trying to avoid any recognition of a terrible market for labor, ended up sounding like a stereotype of a Republican blaming the job-seeker for not finding a job yet?

    1. It’s come to this: the President of the United Sates as individual job counselor. Unreal.

    2. How about the fact that the White House went this route to avoid the possibility of difficult questions from the White House press corp?

  11. Obama to the nation: Onward civilian soldiers
    …People marching in serried ranks, fused into a solid mass by the heat of martial ardor, proceeding in lock step, shoulder to shoulder, obedient to orders from a commanding officer ? this is a recurring dream of progressives eager to dispense with tiresome persuasion and untidy dissension in a free, tumultuous society….

  12. Jeb Bush asked Romney to soften immigration rhetoric
    http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/…..ation.html

    Mr. Bush has made clear in television interviews and in conversations with friends that he is troubled by the sharpening tenor of the race, particularly on immigration.

    He voiced his concern directly to Mr. Romney, two people close to him said, urging him to moderate his oratory and views to avoid a collapse of support among Hispanic voters in the general election.

    1. According to Romney, such a conversation never took place.

      1. Wolf just checked, he personally endorsed the conversation.

  13. ‘Game Change’ debuts March 10.

    http://www.hbo.com/movies/game-change/index.html

    Definitely the top horror film since ‘W’.

    1. Does horror mean dreadfully boring, now?

      1. Perhaps that’s why I recoil in horror at Tonys blathering. It’s all clear now.

  14. and one more from The Hill

    Newt’s consulting more unpopular than Romney’s Bain record
    http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/…..-than.html

    Among all voters, Newt’s post-Speakership consulting work is viewed negatively by 24%/54%, for a whopping -30%.

    Meanwhile, Mitt Romney’s work at Bain is frowned on by 35%/40%, for a modest -5% rating. That ain’t a bad number, considering that Mitt’s work at Bain has been framed in a negative light for a month now and has received punishing blows from his GOP opponents and Democratic critics.

    1. I would hope so.

  15. So many user links.
    So little interest.

    1. I do what I have to.

    2. Well good thing you bothered to comment on it.

    3. don’t worry – we just started.

  16. According to the state of North Carolina if you blog about your dieting efforts you are acting as an “unlicensed dietitian”.

    http://www.diabetes-warrior.ne…..estigated/

  17. Time for a toy gun roundup.

    It’s California, you know they’re going to.

    1. At least he didn’t say “Suck on this.”

    2. Speaking as the parent of an AirSoft aficionado some of those things look a little too real.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F….._16fde.jpg

      The picture at the link is the real one. The one in my 7 year olds bedroom is the twin!

  18. Five myths about China’s power
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ingtonpost

    As China gains on the world’s most advanced economies, the country excites fascination as well as fear ? particularly in the United States, where many worry that China will supplant America as the 21st century’s superpower. Many ask how China has grown so much so fast, whether the Communist Party can stay in power and what Beijing’s expanding global influence means for the rest of us. But to understand China’s new role on the world stage, it helps to rethink several misconceptions that dominate Western thinking.

    1. #6 the girls aren’t all slanty “down there,” and it’s kind of racist that we having to keep disprove this.

      1. I’m having a McCabe & Mrs. Miller flashback.

  19. Delicious SugarFree bait

    Facts

    Fact #1- I attended a nutritional seminar January 12, 2012. I spoke up against the normal deceptions and falsehoods that cause diabetics harm.

    Fact #2- Someone took offense to my statements, found me on the internet and reviewed my site. They then reported me to the North Carolina Board of Dietitians.

    Fact #3 – I received a phone call from the director of the State Board of Dietitians. To be fair and honest? she was very nice, polite and informative.

    However?. She stated that I, as a non-licensed person could provide NO dietary or nutritional advice? period. It makes no difference if I am giving the advice away or if it’s for a fee.

    She also stated that having a ‘diabetes menu’ and or ‘diabetes meal plan’ was the equivalent of providing nutritional advice and was against the regulations.

    Fact #4 – She stated that the full “complaint board” would review my site and provide a written review of the investigation, hopefully by the end of this month, January. She added that even IF convicted, it would only be a misdemeanor but typically these cases end without litigation, if the person agrees to change their behaviors or websites.

    1. Sounds like a case for IJ.

    2. Big Brother is watching you!

      Everyone has an equal right to speak, but some are more equal than others.

    3. Do you claim to be licensed or have any FDA approval on the website? If not, then you know what they can do.

      1. Ruin your life?

      2. Anything they want?

      3. You know who else didn’t have FDA approval?

        1. Your mom? /bricked

    4. What the hell? Isn’t anyone blogging about their diet violating this asinine rule?

      Time for a funny 2nd-hand diabeetus story… my doctor was telling me about meal and diet planning, and that one of the ways they do it is by first having you write down everything you eat in a week, pass it to the dietitian and they make suggestions of easy changes to make, or give you a whole new meal plan if you think you can follow it. I outlined what I generally eat in a day, and she was fairly impressed and didn’t think I needed meal planning. She told me it was for the patient she saw a few days earlier who they found out was eating 800 grams of carbs a day.

      1. 800 fucking grams of Mountain Dew daily? I don’t see a problem.

        1. Mountain Dew syrup, I mean. “Put it in my veins!”

        2. To be fair, that’s only 18 cans of Mountain Dew a day. If you’re not supposed to drink 18 cans a day, than why do they sell them in 24 packs?

          1. Sounds like we have a multimillion dollar lawsuit all ready to go. Quick, go get a leg amputated and practice looking all sad about it while I roust up a shyster lawyer.

            1. NYC proved you don’t even need to lose the leg.

      2. good lord – I try to keep my daily carbs under 50g. Normally hit 20-30.

      3. Google sez that’s 1 3/4 pounds. Crikey.

        1. Something tells me it wasn’t 1.75 lbs of spaghetti noodles, either.

      4. ” 800 grams of carbs a day.”

        CARBS!!!!

        Seriously, you fucking idiots…

    5. “Man-o-man, do I hate them fancy lads.”
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMuScu9OpfA

    6. Warty, the Radley Balko of the dietary world.

      1. We have a proposal for Mr. Bliggins…

        1. First they came for Radley…

    7. Yeah, THAT will stand up to a 1st amendment suit. Really.

      /sic.

    8. Fact #2- Someone took offense to my statements, found me on the internet and reviewed my site. They then reported me to the North Carolina Board of Dietitians.

      This bitch needs to die in a fucking fire.

  20. WTF?

    Copies of the e-mails show that, starting in January 2009, the FDA intercepted communications with congressional staffers and draft versions of whistleblower complaints complete with editing notes in the margins. The agency also took electronic snapshots of the computer desktops of the FDA employees and reviewed documents they saved on the hard drives of their government computers.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    1. the plaintiffs accessed their personal Gmail accounts from government computers

      Emphasis added.

      1. And then used lawful activity they found there as an excuse to harass and fire them.

        1. Exactly. Pretty slick, eh?

      2. Even though they used a government computer, the govenrment has to have some reasonable cause to search your private stuff. there’s lot of caselaw on govermnet employers violating the 4th amendment of their employees. It’s hard for me to see a good reason for looking into private gmail accounts.

        1. Of course, their employer has full access to anything they do on employer time and employer computers.

          That said, the FDA shouldn’t have squashed them for this particular use of resources, even if it was on FDA time and FDA computers.

          Its got nothing to do with privacy – what you do on the boss’s time with the boss’s stuff isn’t private. Its got everything to do with the content.

          1. You’re right about private employers, but the 4th amendment applies to government employers. the supreme Court case was O’Connor v. Ortega.

          2. don’t know how the FDA operates, but here, we can use the internet for a lot of different things like checking e-mail, online shopping, reading the news and such. If the site is blocked, obviously we can’t use it, still, we are afforded a lot of freedom to use the computers and internet for personal matters.

        2. there’s lot of caselaw on govermnet employers

          I often fantasize about putting coleslaw on my employers. Wait, what?

          1. Baked Beans. Give her a call.

    2. FDA computers post a warning, visible when users log on, that they should have “no reasonable expectation of privacy” in any data passing through or stored on the system, and that the government may intercept any such data at any time for any lawful government purpose.

      But in the suit, the doctors and scientists say the government violated their constitutional privacy rights by gazing into personal e-mail accounts for the purpose of monitoring activity that they say was lawful.

      It’s a PR nightmare and probably violates some union rule somewhere, but I fail to see how there’s a constitutional right to privacy when you’re using your employer’s computers and network connections. That won’t stop me from enjoying watching the FDA take its lumps, though.

      1. If they had caught them using porn or something, I would agree with the FDA. But instead they caught them ratting out their superiors for lying to Congress and ignoring their advice. That didn’t sit to well with the hacks in charge.

        1. I’m in total agreement that this looks horrible for the FDA and will probably end up displaying Obama’s lack of concern for whistleblowers, yet again.

          My only issue is the absurd notion of constitutional right to privacy being asserted.

  21. Tax Foundation: Income Inequality Is Lower Now Than It Was Under Clinton
    http://www.taxfoundation.org/p…..27939.html

  22. Occupy D.C. protestors remained in their tents after a noon deadline to remove camping gear from the park yesterday.

    That kinda makes it sound like the occupiers were trying to remove their tents while inside them.

    And, for the love of Gaia, will someone please use the headline Intensities in Tent Cities for one of these stories?

    1. And, for the love of Gaia, will someone please use the headline Intensities in Tent Cities for one of these stories?

      If you were an endangered animal, I might just let you live for being so awesome.

    2. I’ll take the Penis Mightier for $200 Alex.

      1. Sha-dynasty

  23. http://bostonherald.com/news/c…..ition=also

    Elizabeth Warren took 44K to help Travelers Insurance screw asbestos victims in bankruptcy.

    1. Asbestos victims or asbestos lawyers?

      1. Both. The Asbestos litigation was crooked shit. They knew asbestos was dangerous for decades and still kept producing it and selling it.

        1. Only because the government set the standard by burying the health information during WW2.

    2. Lizzy the Limousine Liberal!

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: they strive to become the caricatures their opponents make them out to be.

      1. Yup. She had a lifetime job paying 400K a year. But she just had to have that extra 44k for helping to screw over people with cancer.

        1. John, this is worse than Newt attacking Bain Capital.

          Representing clients is what lawyers do, and shame on you for your demagoguery, especially against your own profession. What is the matter with you?

          1. No it is not. It would be one thing if she were some poor schlub working in a law firm and it was do it or take unemployment. But she is not. Yeah, lawyers do nasty things and represent nasty people. But she didn’t have to do that. She didn’t need the money. Why take that case versus the other offers?

            It would be one thing if she had made her reputation and living as a hired gun. Then I don’t think you could say anything. But she didn’t. She made her whole reputation as looking out for the little guy. I am sure the plaintiffs’ attorneys in that case would have liked her services too. Yet, she took the cash, that she didn’t need, to help a really bad defendant screw people over.

            That tells me she is a complete phony and greedy as hell. If she wants to run as the candidate of corporate greed, good for her. I might vote for her. But as long as she is claiming to actually give a shit about the little guy, then this stuff is relevant.

            1. That tells me she is a complete phony and greedy as hell.

              Politician. Duh.

            2. She did a job, a job lawyers do every day. Why is your sympathy suddenly running towards the plaintiffs? What if Warren did saved thousands of jobs at Travelers because it prevented these (many times bogus or specious) asbestos claims from driving a firm into bankruptcy?

              This is naked class-warfare “hate the lawyers” populism I expect from the hoi polloi and the OWSers, but not from an alleged “conservative”.

              1. No way. She doesn’t claim to be an ordinary lawyer. She claims to be different. Sorry, if you are going to base your whole political career on saving the economic victims, then you have to wear the hair shirt.

                Why would she take that job? She didn’t need the money. She certainly could have used her time elsewhere to more worthy causes. And those claim were not bogus. Asbestos made a lot of people sick. And the insurance companies used Chapter 11 to get out of paying them. And she gladly helped them do that for a price.

                That wouldn’t bother me if she didn’t claim to be something else. If she actually does care about the little guy and something besides her own bottom line, why would she take that job? It would be a lawyer who claimed to be a Libertarian taking a case helping the Communist Party defend legitimate fraud charges as a side job. I don’t think such a lawyer could claim he really cared much about his beliefs.

                1. I guess Travelers is just supposed to take all comers. “Hey guys, here’s a blank check! Do whatever you want!”

                  You are incredible, as in you literally defy credibility.

                2. If she actually does care about the little guy and something besides her own bottom line, why would she take that job?

                  Maybe she actually cared about the thousands of people who are well-paid by Travelers?

                  Maybe she thought the claims were out of control?

                  Maybe she’s a lawyer and was getting paid for her profession?

                  This is exactly on the level of talking about “scumbag lawyers” who defend criminal defendants. Populist right-wing Know-Nothing demagoguery, with a dash of quasi-Marxism tossed in.

                3. Sorry, if you are going to base your whole political career on saving the economic victims, then you have to wear the hair shirt.

                  How is this any different than my view that Santorum’s marriage is public business due to his platform of marriage regulation?

              2. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

                Representing clients is what lawyers do, and shame on you for your demagoguery, especially against your own profession.

                And you’re absolutely right. However, the real news here is that the woman is just a corporate whore like most other politicians, notwithstanting how she fancies herself.

                1. And you’re absolutely right. However, the real news here is that the woman is just a corporate whore like most other politicians, notwithstanting how she fancies herself.

                  How is she a corporate whore?

                  This is just an excuse for partisan “conservatives” to engage in class envy and warfare, just like whenever Christians get a chance to pound off about how they’re the oppressed minorities.

                  You saying Warren is a “corporate whore” is the language of Marxism and OWSers. Shame on you too.

                  1. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

                    How is she a corporate whore?

                    She is a Marxist who represented a corporation over the little guys – i.e. “Corporate Whore” if one goes by the Marxian definition of one.

                    You saying Warren is a “corporate whore” is the language of Marxism and OWSers.

                    Exactly – what I’m saying is that she’s full of shit just like every other politician. Here’s a Marxist (because she is) who would sell her fellow men for a bag of silver, notwithstanding how she fancies herself. I believe that is what John is arguing also.

                    1. You should have said “she is now the kind of person that her type would decry as a corporate whore” not “she’s a corporate whore”. That’s just lazy populist rhetoric on your part.

              3. not from an alleged “conservative”

                John isn’t a conservative, he’s tribal. She’s part of the other team, so he has to rationalize hating her every action. Same action by someone on his team and he would be defending it using the very argument you present.

                1. Good projection there NM. Name a single Democrat whose defense you haven’t risen too on here?

                  And calling me “tribal” is just another way of admitting you have no substantive defense to Warren’s hypocrisy.

                  1. Name a single Democrat whose defense you haven’t risen too on here?

                    I’ll let you run down the numbers.
                    The attacks on democrats are legion around here. I rarely step up to defend anyone. Mostly because I am a “pox on both houses” kind of guy.

                    And calling me “tribal” is just another way of admitting you have no substantive defense to Warren’s hypocrisy.

                    No, calling you tribal is just a way to describe your behavior. I don’t feel a need to defend Warren’s hypocrisy, particularly when, as I said below, you haven’t even done a cursory job of demonstrating that it exists.

                    More to the point, you don’t attack her policy, you attack her because she’s “not nice.” Do you want to attack a specific position she holds on the substance? Go ahead, there might be a point on which we disagree that we could have a substantive discussion about. But you weren’t doing that. You were slinging vague innuendo about hypocrisy. I commented on YOUR behavior. Not hers.

            3. Yet, she took the cash, that she didn’t need…She didn’t need the money.

              I had no idea morality was based on whether you “needed” something. If she made 44K over and above a 400K salary, that’s an 11% “raise” for the year. Would you forgo such a raise?

              I didn’t fucking think so.

              1. Would you forgo such a raise?

                If it involved representing people doing something I found morally objectionable, yes. And if I took the cash, I would more importantly forfeit the right to say much of anything about anyone else’s greed.

                That is the point here. Warren was perfectly free to take the money and the job. But doing so disqualified her from saying shit about what anyone else does for a living or how much money anyone else makes. And that pretty much disqualifies her from saying about anything she has said in her campaign.

                1. If it involved representing people doing something I found morally objectionable, yes. And if I took the cash, I would more importantly forfeit the right to say much of anything about anyone else’s greed.

                  She got paid for a job and therefore her entire political worldview is invalid?

                  Did Elizabeth Warren engage in any other counterrevolutionary and reactionary activity, Comrade?

                  1. “She got paid for a job and therefore her entire political worldview is invalid?”

                    Yes. Who is she to talk about greedy bankers and the rest of the 1%, when she in fact makes a fortune working for anyone, no matter how loathsome, who is willing to write her a check?

                    It doesn’t show her to be a bad person. It just shows that she doesn’t really believe a word of anything she says.

                  2. Rev:

                    John is entitled to judge Elizabeth Warren by the standard she herself promulgates.

                    It doesn’t matter if you can find logical holes in the position.

                    In fact, that’s the whole point: Elizabeth Warren is a no-good bitch whore with insane views on capitalism and the profit motive. Having gone out into the world and gained notoriety and a political following with those views, she now does not get to fail to live up to them in any way, or we get to crucify her with them, even though we don’t share them and even though they’re irrational and unfair.

                    1. That problem, Fluffy. Is that John accepts the leftist premises here. “She didn’t need the money” – are you kidding me?

                    2. No RVB. I only accept it when applying it to Warren. If Warren wants to go out and talk about how the rich are not taxed enough and don’t need the money they make, the I am going to look at the money she makes and judge if in my opinion she “needs it”.

                      She is so game on taking other people’s money and so convinced that they don’t need it. Well then, why did she take 44K to screw over cancer victims when she already had more than 99% of the people in this country?

                    3. That problem, Fluffy. Is that John accepts the leftist premises here. “She didn’t need the money” – are you kidding me?

                      It’s called “turning your adversary’s tactics against them,” and it’s as old as warfare itself. Hell, even a commie like Alinsky recognized this–it’s one of his own damn Rules.

                    4. John’s been quite clear I think that not needing the money was no reason to turn it down. This situation is not analogous to going after Romney on Bain because no one is criticizing her for her Travelers work per se. They’re criticizing her for doing what she CLAIMS is wrong on general principles and for trying to make others look bad for doing the same things she did.

                    5. Lizzie the Learjet Liberal loves to lounge in her limousine.

                      I’m a rabid capitalist–and there’s nothing hypocritical about pointing out Warren’s hypocrisy.

                      Honest capitalists can criticize Lizzie the Limousine Liberal all day long. Liberals like Learjet Lizzie, who criticizes capitalism from her perch at Harvard–wanting so desperately to head the agency that denies home loans to average Americans because they’re not smart enough to make choices for themselves?

                      Honest capitalists should openly ridicule her all day long.

                    6. Right – the solution is to ridicule one of the few things she has done that was value-added to a major employer in her community. For money. Hey!, I sure hope she learned her lesson to, you know, not make money.

                      Way to go, conservatives!

                    7. “Right – the solution is to ridicule one of the few things she has done that was value-added to a major employer in her community. For money. Hey!, I sure hope she learned her lesson to, you know, not make money.”

                      Rick Santorum giving blowjobs would make money and provide a needed service. Are you telling me that you wouldn’t ridicule him if he did such a thing? And how that any different than what Warren is doing here?

                    8. Right – the solution is to ridicule one of the few things she has done that was value-added to a major employer in her community.

                      It’s not about ridiculing the capitalist things she’s done–it’s about ridiculing all the anti-capitalist things she’s done and said…

                      “Warren also said that she supported the Occupy Wall Street protests. ‘I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,’ she added.”

                      —-Huffington Post

                      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..30974.html

                      Lizzie the Limousine Liberal made over $400,000 a year from Harvard. I don’t think that includes everything else she was making–and look what she says about the rich!

                      Isn’t that funny?

                    9. Have to disagree. Everybody should be judged by the “correct” standards, not their own.

                      I dont get why people give a damn about hypocracy.

                    10. “Everybody should be judged by the “correct” standards, not their own.”

                      I think pretty much everyone thinks “say one thing and do another” is bullshit, so, you really have no objection of any worth.

                  3. She got paid for a job and therefore her entire political worldview is invalid?

                    She if it came out that Rick Santorum gave blowjobs for money and didn’t profess any regret about doing it, that wouldn’t disqualify him from his moral crusading?

                    Of course it would. And this disqualifies Warren. Fuck Warren. If she wants to call into question how other people make a living and demand the government take more of their money, she needs to live by the code she would like to coercible impose on everyone else.

                    1. Except she doesn’t. She praises them for being innovators and creators, then points out that their achievements are supported by a network of others and that part of living in the society that helped them achieve is to pay taxes. Nothing in her rhetoric is inconsistent with her doing her job and making lots of money doing it. She just thinks people should pay their fair share of taxes after they’ve made the money. You’re railing against positions she doesn’t hold.

                    2. Re: Neu Mejican,

                      She praises them for being innovators and creators, then points out that their achievements are supported by a network of others and that part of living in the society that helped them achieve is to pay taxes.

                      You’re putting words on her mouth, Neu. She clearly said that without government these innovators you say she “praises” would not be able to do anything. She implied as much.

                      Even Jon Stewart laughed at such absurd notion, in her face.

                    3. She clearly said that without government these innovators you say she “praises” would not be able to do anything. She implied as much.

                      Please critique her point with more than a “John Stewart laughed” argument.

                      But, a world view that acknowledges the interdependence of members in our society, can still praise those that create in that context. Her position is very clearly articulated. She uses many words to praise “the job creators” – really.

                    4. So they can make the money NM, they just can’t keep it. She certainly has no problem keeping hers. And further, she says more than that. She thinks that the banks are crooked and taking advantage of people and need to be regulated. But she is perfectly willing to lend her services to an insurance company that was ripping off cancer victims.

                      Sorry, that makes her a hypocrite. She either doesn’t believe a word of what she says or more likely doesn’t think her own rules and morality should apply to her. Either way, it renders her unfit for office.

                    5. But she is perfectly willing to lend her services to an insurance company that was ripping off cancer victims.

                      What about the people who are employed by Travelers? What about the people who work in the asbestos industry?

                      Does the mere fact that someone has cancer entitle them to a blank check from every industry with which they have transacted business?

                      Populist victim-peddling – not only for breakfast Leftists!

                    6. Does the mere fact that someone has cancer entitle them to a blank check from every industry with which they have transacted business?

                      Generally no. But when said cancer came specifically from working around a product that company produced and sold even though it knew it was unsafe, yes.

                      And understand, this was bankruptcy not civil litigation. Liability had already been established. This was about getting out of liability that they knew was valid. That is why they went into bankruptcy.

                      This may come as a shock to you, but some plaintiffs do have a real case. Yes, companies do cause harm.

                    7. So they can make the money NM, they just can’t keep it. She certainly has no problem keeping hers.

                      You are saying she doesn’t pay her taxes? You are saying that she wants to keep her tax rates low and only raise them on “bad people”? Cuz, otherwise you fail to find a hypocritical position in her preferred policy. She says publically that she is in the group that would pay more taxes and that she is fine with that.

                      And further, she says more than that. She thinks that the banks are crooked and taking advantage of people and need to be regulated.

                      Some of the practices of the banks over the last couple of decades fit that description. Regulation can have a marginal effect in reducing that harm. So far she’s consistent.

                      But she is perfectly willing to lend her services to an insurance company that was ripping off cancer victims.

                      The vagueness here is impressive. For all you know her goal for taking the case was to help shape it into a win-win situation. But don’t let your bullshit fantasy get disrupted by your lack of knowledge of why she took the case, and how she acted during it.

                      Sorry, that makes her a hypocrite. She either doesn’t believe a word of what she says or more likely doesn’t think her own rules and morality should apply to her.

                      You have failed to demonstrate that even in a cursory sense.

                      Either way, it renders her unfit for office.

                      Because she’s from the other tribe. I get it.

                    8. For all you know her goal for taking the case was to help shape it into a win-win situation.

                      If she did that she would not be acting in the best interests of her client and be breaking the rules of professional responsibility. Is it your position that she is a dishonest lawyer because that she would have to be to do that.

                      I know this is hard for you to admit, but perhaps someone in your tribe acts with anything but purest motives. It is funny how you throw out the tribalism charge when you are worst tribalist on here.

                      Some of the practices of the banks over the last couple of decades fit that description. Regulation can have a marginal effect in reducing that harm. So far she’s consistent.

                      Nearly all of the practices of the asbestos industry were dishonest and resulted in people dying. Yet, she had no problem lending her legal expertise to help them avoid their moral responsibility to their victims to the fullest extent allowed by the law. Again, she either doesn’t believe the things she says or doesn’t think the rules apply to her.

                      You have failed to demonstrate that even in a cursory sense.

                      In other words you have no substantive response to what I am saying so you will say something stupid and mumble something about tribalism.

                      You really are like MNG’s retarded little brother. He at least tries to make a point once in a while.

                    9. If she did that she would not be acting in the best interests of her client and be breaking the rules of professional responsibility. Is it your position that she is a dishonest lawyer because that she would have to be to do that.

                      How is win-win not in the best interests of her client?

                      Nearly all of the practices of the asbestos industry were dishonest and resulted in people dying. Yet, she had no problem lending her legal expertise to help them avoid their moral responsibility to their victims to the fullest extent allowed by the law. Again, she either doesn’t believe the things she says or doesn’t think the rules apply to her.

                      Nearly all…yeah…I totally believe you. See how you morph into a anti-corporate crusader when it help your argument?

                      In other words you have no substantive response to what I am saying so you will say something stupid and mumble something about tribalism.

                      You don’t provide anything of substance to respond to…I do like the “I know you are but what am I” tact you’ve developed lately. It’s cute.

                    10. Except she doesn’t. She praises them for being innovators and creators, then points out that their achievements are supported by a network of others and that part of living in the society that helped them achieve is to pay taxes. Nothing in her rhetoric is inconsistent with her doing her job and making lots of money doing it. She just thinks people should pay their fair share of taxes after they’ve made the money. You’re railing against positions she doesn’t hold.

                      This isn’t true.

                      I don’t think you’re familiar with the full rhetorical and policy career of Elizabeth Warren, dude.

                      The reason she was originally put forth by Obama to be the Consumer Finance Watchdog / Czar is because she notoriously desires to tear up all existing credit card agreements and mortgages, and replace them with documents that are “easier for consumers to understand”.

                      That’s a direct attack on the ability of credit card issuers and mortgagees to write legally enforceable contracts.

                      There isn’t one single word in a credit card agreement that doesn’t represent thousands of man hours of past litigation. When Warren cavalierly talks about throwing all of those contracts out, she is explicitly trying to deny credit card issuers legal protections that have been hashed out in courtrooms over the course of decades.

                      She wants to do that because she thinks credit card issuers aren’t “nice”.

                      That being the case, fuck her. She doesn’t get to work for anyone that anybody anywhere might think isn’t “nice”. If credit card issuers aren’t nice, neither are asbestos manufacturers. “Well, our system requires zealous representation of both parties to a dispute,” is not a defense I am willing to listen to from a Bolshevik and legal nihilist like Warren. She lost the right to push that argument through her pustule-covered lips when she attacked the contracts written by the legal representatives of credit card issuers.

                    11. Well said Fluffy. I wish I could have said it as well. But I hope you know you are just being a tribalist. Neu Mexican I am sure will be along any minute to scold you for bringing up inconvenient facts.

                    12. Fluffy,

                      The reason she was originally put forth by Obama to be the Consumer Finance Watchdog / Czar is because she notoriously desires to tear up all existing credit card agreements and mortgages, and replace them with documents that are “easier for consumers to understand”.

                      Yep.

                      That’s a direct attack on the ability of credit card issuers and mortgagees to write legally enforceable contracts.

                      Nope.

                      There isn’t one single word in a credit card agreement that doesn’t represent thousands of man hours of past litigation.

                      Untrue (sorta). Lots of it is in there for the express purpose of obfuscation. While figuring out how to do this in a way that will stand up in court may result from many of those man-hours, the purpose isn’t “enforceable” in the “keep us from getting screwed” sense. It is more in the “be sure we have an option to screw the customers if we need it” sense. Really obvious and well documented practices revolve around this strategy.

                      When Warren cavalierly talks about throwing all of those contracts out, she is explicitly trying to deny credit card issuers legal protections that have been hashed out in courtrooms over the course of decades.

                      Again, nope.

                      She wants to do that because she thinks credit card issuers aren’t “nice”.

                      Do you think they are?
                      Some might be, but many design their business around innovative ways to screw the costumer. That’s harder to do if you have clear language in your contract. Any language in a contract that is not clear is there for some purpose other than mutual benefit. If you think otherwise you are too naive to live.

                    13. That’s a direct attack on the ability of credit card issuers and mortgagees to write legally enforceable contracts.

                      Nope.

                      That is weapons grade stupid. She wants to enforce set of contracting requirements on all lenders. That is definitely a restriction. WTF does Nope mean? Do you have any reasons for saying something so obviously ridiculous other than GO TRIBE?

                      Do you think they are?
                      Some might be, but many design their business around innovative ways to screw the costumer. That’s harder to do if you have clear language in your contract. Any language in a contract that is not clear is there for some purpose other than mutual benefit.

                      So what? Asbestos makers clearly were not nice either. Where does she get off going after everyone she thinks isn’t “nice” when happily took tens of thousands of dollars from one of the worst industries of the 20th Century to help them avoid paying their victims?

                      Why don’t you just put “GO TEAM BLUE” and save the trouble of insulting everyone’s intelligence?

                    14. So what? Asbestos makers clearly were not nice either. Where does she get off going after everyone she thinks isn’t “nice” when happily took tens of thousands of dollars from one of the worst industries of the 20th Century to help them avoid paying their victims?

                      What are you yabbering about? Read what I wrote…and explain how the claim that contracts should be in plain language so that everyone signing them understands what they are agreeing to is somehow preventing these businesses from writing enforceable contracts.

                      Worst of the century? Keep ratcheting it up…it always makes your arguments look more thought out.

                    15. …well said.

      2. No. It’s like how MSNBC is what they think FOX News is. They have an idea in their mind of what sort of horrible robber barons that their “opposition” is, and then they behave in a way that isn’t as bad as their imagined opposition.

        Lizzy Warren can rightly claim to be a crusader for the little people while also pulling in a salary that is an order of magnitude greater than “the little people” and be obscenely wealthy by most measures because she isn’t as bad as those enemies she has ni her mind.

  24. Rolling Stones Museum Manager tells feminists to go pound sand:

    Despite the pushback, the owner of the museum says he won’t budge ? saying, “They were damned expensive and they’re staying where they are ? That’s final.”

    1. R. Kelly will give him a fair price to take them off his hands.

    2. “how come you taste so good?”

    3. What is it with Germans and excrement fetishes?

      1. based on my, ahem, ‘porn research’, it seems that the Germans are a twisted lot. NTTAWWT.

      2. Youporn has an entire category labeled “German”. I just can’t get over the pasty, hairless men.

        1. Pasty? Hairless?

          We should talk.

          1. Add in mushy, undefined moobs and you too could be doing German porn!

            I like my male porn stars large & in charge (that’s a totally SFW Wikipedia link, BTW)

            1. 6’3″ but only 195? That isn’t my definition of “large”.

              1. 6’3″ but only 195? That isn’t my definition of “large”.

                I don’t think that’s Kristen’s definition either.

              2. Yeah, he coud stand to gain a little weight, but he’s pretty fucking hot regardless.

      3. Dude, what the hell is wrong with German people?

  25. I think one of my HS buddies got loose in Portland.

    “Portland police said Canterbury swung the Star Wars sabers ? one in each hand ? at three customers on Dec. 14 at about 9:50 p.m. at the store at 1800 Jantzen Beach Center. He then carried the light sabers outside the store and swung at police. Officers tried to use a Taser to subdue him, but Canterbury successfully deflected one of the wires away. “

    The Force > Tasers, again.

    1. “Star Wars kid” goes to Poland?

  26. YOUR WHINIEST MICROAGGRESSION OF THE DAY:

    I had a boss who treated me like his personal secretary, forwarded his phone to my desk, things like that. I have a master’s degree in computer science, more degrees than anybody else working there, but I was the only woman on the project, so obviously I had to answer his phone. 22 years ago at a workplace. Made me furious.

    1. A candidate for Grudge-Holder of the Year

    2. Good thing she does not hold a grudge…

      1. Sorry Rev, this isn’t totally pissweak. Unlike this burst of paranoid over-sensitivity:

        The learn-to-speak-German tapes I’ve been listening to will ask me to “Say ______ in German” and then will ask me to say the same thing “as if you were a woman” (because some aspects of the grammar are gendered and would be different depending on the speaker). But I already am a woman.

        1. I don’t know – I could probably buy into the assertion that the entire German language is sexist and “othering”.

        2. If you feel that a tape recording has aggressed against you, you have other problems to worry about.

        3. Smithers: Oh, you never cease to amaze me, sir.

          Burns: Mein Kriecher sagte mir, dass ich bin nie aufhoere, zu erstaunen.

          [My lickspittle told me I / never cease to amaze him.]

        4. “because some aspects of the grammar are gendered and would be different depending on the speaker”

          um,no.

    3. I like how she can’t see that maybe her boss trusted her the most to actually take messages and deal with customers, and can only think “SEXIST!”

      1. Meanwhile, the men are whining about not being trusted to handle secretarial responsibilities because men are too dumb to operate a pen and paper enough to take numbers and messages.

        Where’s their justice? It’s 22 years overdue!

        [This microaggression thing is fucking retarded.]

    4. How such a well-educated woman could fuck up both my dry-cleaning deliveries and making coffee, I’ll never know.

    5. Is this joe?

      “Haha, see? I told you Obama’s not human? he’s a gorilla!”

      A man I know, referring to a cartoon that portrayed Obama as a gorilla (which he honestly thought was funny). When I told him it was really racist, he said that it was comedy and that people have made cartoons of Bush as a monkey too “but nobody ever says anything about that.”

      1. Obama as gorilla? That sounds like a great Friday Funny premise. Bok would do wonders with it!

        1. Haha, my sides are aching in anticipation! Hopefully he’ll label all the characters! I love it when it does that!

    6. If she had a Master’s degree in computer science, why the fuck couldn’t she get a job somewhere else?

    7. I like

      “Oh? So I’m just going to put that you aren’t sexually active at this time.”

      My gynecologist’s reaction to me revealing, when she asked about my sexual activity, that I only have sex with women. Made me feel like nothing I do with women will ever “count” the way it would if I was with men.

      1. :femrage: “A WOMAN CAN GIVE ME A VENEREAL DISEASE AS WELL AS ANY MAN!!!”

    8. I have a master’s degree in computer science, more degrees than anybody else working there,

      The Culture of Credentialism at work, folks.

    9. The question I’d ask her is: was she still getting paid as a computer programmer/ engineer, which is considerably more than a secretary would make?

      If so sounds like it was her bosses problem that he was overpaying for a secrectary instead of utilizing his team members talents to the maximum extent possible. Sit back and enjoy getting overpaid.

  27. Greenpeace still getting in the way of progress.

    Greenpeace activists stormed the Romanian environment minister’s office Tuesday, with two chaining themselves to the radiator, to protest a controversial gold mine in Transylvania.

    Minister Laszlo Borbely said about 30 protesters entered the building in the morning demanding answers about the mine planned by Canada’s Rosia Montana Gold Corp., which environmentalists oppose.

    1. Something tells me these Greenpeace guys are all going to get really thin or turn into lizards or shit.

      You don’t get between gypsies and their gold, man.

      1. Gypsies? You do know that Roma and Romanian aren’t the same?

        1. Yes, I know.

          But the Roma population of the Balkans is quite high. Especially if you consider those groups who were subject to forced assimilation.

          And I thought I would make a humorous contrast between the Greenpeace environmentalist mystics and popular conceptions about Gypsy black magic.

          1. “THINNER”

            1. When I saw the movie I found myself thinking, “I wish the movie was about the guy who heard ‘Lizard’. That’s fucked up!”

              1. I thought mumps/acne guy was the worst (I cannot remember if that was in the movie or just the book). He was basically a walking pusbag.

                One of my favorite things to say to people still is that I will show them the Curse of the White Man from Town i.e. royally fucking your shit up with an M16.

      2. They’re probably already really thin. Not to mention pasty compexion since they’re probably all vegans. I’m sure some of them even pocket mulch.

    2. I think people should be a little more sanguine about development in Transylvania.

      1. I see what you did there…

    3. Greenpeace? Transylvania? A Gold Mine?

      There is a move script trying to self-form right before our eyes. Some kind of a vampire-cowboy crossover thing, with hipsters caught in the middle as fodder.

      1. I’d watch the hell out of that.

        1. Hippie blood is poisonous. Even to Dracula.

  28. Gentlemen, the newest drug that must be banned: Dirt

    “I’m holding a bowl of dirt up to my nose, in hopes of getting high on the fumes of my backyard compost pile. The microbe that I’m after today is M. vaccae, a living creature that acts like a mind-altering drug once it enters the human body. It has been shown to boost the levels of serotonin and norepinephrine circulating in the systems of both humans and mice. In other words, it works in much the same manner as antidepressant pills. And yes, it is possible to dose yourself by simply breathing in the smell of good dirt.”

    1. Schedule II narcotic, obviously.

    2. Snorting the compost pile, what’s next, eating your own shit?

        1. Not clicking that

      1. Properly made compost in fact smells great.

        1. Ice, I know all the other kids are doing it, and its all hep, but you’re literally killing yourself by huffing this “soil”.

          1. Gardening – the new gateway drug

  29. Ron Paul Under Las Vegas Sun – Stop Taxing Tips

    During any presidential election year, taxes are sure to be a large part of the debate. That’s especially true during these tough economic times.

    One side argues that high-income earners aren’t taxed enough and advocates higher taxes on this group to balance our budget and get our economy moving.

    The other side argues that taxes are too high and advocates for lower taxes on businesses, high-income earners and virtually all Americans as a way to stimulate our economy.

    But there’s one sector of American workers who are often overlooked by both sides during the never-ending debate on taxes.

    That’s service-industry workers, who, despite often being underpaid and overworked, are always overtaxed.

    According to the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, there are more than 300,000 service-industry workers in Nevada ? nearly 30 percent of the entire state workforce, which is larger than any other sector.

    The truth is the majority of service-industry workers are paid low hourly wages and are expected to earn the rest of their income from tips. However, unlike regular wages, a service-sector employee usually has no guarantee of, or legal right to, a tip. Instead, the amount of a tip usually depends on how well an employee satisfies a client. But even good service doesn’t always guarantee a tip ? especially during tough economic times.

    Not only that, but tips provide a substantial portion of the income of many service-sector employees, many of whom are young people just trying to make a few extra dollars to get through school or single parents often balancing two jobs while trying to make enough to raise a family.

    That’s why it’s an outrage that waiters, waitresses and other service-sector employees have to pay taxes on the tips they earn. And to add insult to injury, the IRS makes an estimate of how much service-sector workers will make in tips and taxes them on it even if the taxpayer did not actually earn as much as the IRS estimate!

    This is a serious problem that must be addressed, but I’m the only candidate running for president who is working hard to fix this problem.

    1. That’s awesome, too bad the service sector is made up of non-voting demographics almost exclusively.

    2. I’m sure a lot of people who work for tips do get overcharged for taxes. But I’m pretty sure that most people I have know who worked for tips have generally grossly under-reported their tip income for taxes.

      1. Re: Zeb,

        But I’m pretty sure that most people I have know who worked for tips have generally grossly under-reported their tip income for taxes.

        Yeah, wanting to keep more of their hard-earned cash – what’s up with that???

      2. Reporting isnt done anymore. As pointed out, the IRS estimates it and you pay the taxes based on that, whether higher or lower than if you reported correctly.

        I think the argument to be made is that tips arent income, they are gifts, and as long as no one tips you more than 11k? 12k? in a year, you shouldnt have to pay taxes on them.

          1. That’s 13k from any one source, right?

            1. Correct. There is a lifetime limit too, but I believe that is per source also.

    3. They’re still not getting more than 10% from me. It was good enough in my day and it’s still good. Seriously I don’t get tip % inflation.

      1. I’m a ski instructor, if you tipped 10% I’d be doing quite well.

  30. That soi-disant Euro debt deal is just more window dressing intended to string the rubes along while they desperately try to find a way out of the box.

    Still no money, still no real oversight of spending by broke countries.

    The markets ain’t buying it. Gold is up nicely today. Again.

    1. Last year I had the inkling of an idea to just buy a couple hundred dollars worth of gold every time I heard a Euro-saving deal was in the works. I wound up not doing it because I had to replace the tires on my car and I’m still paying alimony.

      I just looked up how much I’d now have if I’d done that instead of replacing my tires.

      I’m a sad panda.

      1. That’s what a lot of smiling people said in 2005 about houses. Buying when something is at its record high, as gold was a year ago, is generally going to get you skinned. But, yeah, the ol’ retrospectoscope really hurts when it goes in.

      2. You and me both. My two biggest early sells were gold and Master Card. Yes, I’m an idiot.

    2. Europe is toast. There’s now way out without defaulting and/or putting the pain to the unions/welfare state. What are Portugal’s bonds at today, 18% yield?

    3. Yeah, the big development isn’t being reported.

      Privately, the big players in Europe have agreed to stop pretending that Greece is capable of reform.

      That’s basically what the hold up is.

      There may not have been any way the Greek people would accept someone from the EU having veto power over their budget, but I don’t think there’s any way the EU will do what’s necessary to save Greece from itself without some further economic catastrophe. …and in that event, they’re more likely to push Greece into its own currency rather than save it.

      That’s not a Mexican standoff like it’s being portrayed in the Media either. That’s a private agreement to let Greece twist in the wind. They’ll talk up this or that to try to minimize the blow, give them more time, but Greece will need to solve its own problems eventually. …and I guess that’s just as it should be.

      It’s a good thing stuff like this can’t happen in California, right? …since California is so very precious and has a really nice ass.

  31. typically these cases end without litigation, if the person agrees to change their behaviors or websites.

    Bullying works!

    1. “That’s a nice website you have there. Be a shame if anything happened to it . . “

    1. I love its death scream.

  32. Here’s what I don’t understand about the Greece deal:

    Everybody knows and has known for some time that the real problem isn’t the default rendering Greek paper worthless.

    The real problem is that a default event triggers all the credit-default swaps sold based on underlying Greek debt.

    Supposedly the big European banks can survive the default event but not the CDS event.

    But the funny thing is that this has been known for some time, and all the CDS paper is also owned by the big European banks. Or most of it, anyway.

    So what I don’t understand is why the ECB hasn’t just gone out there and identified all the Greek default CDS agreements and just bought them from their current holders at a slight premium to the current market. Then they can let the Greeks default, and just not execute the swaps, or hand them back to the original issuers at the ECB acquisition price plus a penny.

    I mean, they’ve been talking about these scary credit default swaps for two fricking years. That’s a long time to let a timebomb tick without something speaking up and say, “Uh, why not just cut the blue wire?”

    1. M as in Mancy.

      1. You’re in the DANGER ZONE

        1. 1. Alligators
          2. Crocodiles
          3. Brain Aneurysms

    2. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that European governments forced their banks to buy that debt. Now they would like to blame the whole thing on the Greeks and pretend they had nothing to do with it.

    3. So what I don’t understand is why the ECB hasn’t just gone out there and identified all the Greek default CDS agreements and just bought them from their current holders at a slight premium to the current market.

      Greece is just the tip of the iceberg. What happens to Italian debt? Greece is the worst case, so they’re getting all the headlines.

      Germany is scared to death of inflation. It’s worse than our fear of the Great Depression. Their fear of inflation, and how they see that as having paved the way for the Third Reich, is more than just an economic theory to them. It’s almost central to their culture.

      Once they bail out Greece, the really big one will be expected to get bailed out, too. I think that’s more than just a concern to them–I think they’re obsessed with it.

      Add to this that German voters are likely to be even less happy about being forced to bail out Greece and others–than the Tea Party was in the U.S. with being forced to bailout Wall Street.

      I mean, they’ve been talking about these scary credit default swaps for two fricking years. That’s a long time to let a timebomb tick without something speaking up and say, “Uh, why not just cut the blue wire?”

      We did the same thing in the mortgage meltdown.

      New Century–the biggest subprime lender–went bust a full year before Lehman cratered. …and New Century lasted longer than most of the other smaller subprime lenders that went bust.

      They had a whole year!

      Sometimes problems don’t have any painless solutions. And if all the solutions are especially painful, you don’t implement any of them unless you have no other choice. I think we in the U.S. would have done better letting those investment banks go bust. If the same idea can be applied to Greece, Portugal, Italy and others, then the EU is on the right course–so long as they’re doing essentially nothing.

      Greece and Italy won’t make the necessary changes until they run out of other options. Any rope the EU throws them just makes the necessary changes happen later rather than sooner.

      1. All of this is true.

        But the thing about using the ECB to buy the CDS instruments is that it wouldn’t appear to require additional political intervention.

        The ECB isn’t supposed to directly buy government debt – but it’s got to have the power to buy SOMETHING or it can’t function as a central bank.

        So if it can buy negotiable instruments, why not buy the credit default swaps themselves?

        They should be able to do that using their existing authority and balance sheet, and not need Merkozy’s permission or assistance.

        God knows the Fed bought enough dogshit securities back in the day. And these aren’t even nonperforming (currently).

        I also don’t understand why the banks themselves haven’t been out there buying back the CDS they wrote, if they’re so scared of them.

        If I had written an option that required me to pay 1 dollar to someone if Greece defaulted, and that option was currently trading for 20 cents, I’d buy the damn thing back and protect myself from the additional 80 cent loss. And the banks have had TWO YEARS to do this.

        1. Part of the problem with the ECB buying CDS’s is, buy them with what? Where’s that money going to come from?

          Another part is, buy them for how much? The original TARP plan was to buy toxic derivatives, but it foundered on the pricing mechanism.

          I wouldn’t underestimate the amount of exposure American banks have to that garbage, either.

          The whole thing is huge moral hazard, anyway. Its another effing bank bailout – banks get to trade their garbage assets for cash.

          I think the CDS issue is kind of a sideshow, regardless. Even without their CDS exposure, many of these banks couldn’t survive a major write-down or default on sovereign debt anyway. Even if you “solve” the CDS problem, I don’t think you’ve saved the banks.

  33. Last!

    For now

  34. so, it looks like I might receive some tiny something from the WaMu bankruptcy.

    Better than nothing, which is what I was valuing it at.

    1. You’re getting ProL?

      He’ll make an excellent manservant.

  35. Interesting news from HuffPo for once.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..lp00000009

    A Republican member of the Indiana General Assembly withdrew his bill to create a pilot program for drug testing welfare applicants Friday after one of his Democratic colleagues amended the measure to require drug testing for lawmakers.

    “There was an amendment offered today that required drug testing for legislators as well and it passed, which led me to have to then withdraw the bill,” said Rep. Jud McMillin (R-Brookville), sponsor of the original welfare drug testing bill.

    1. Wait, what? Why would you kill your own bill? There’s no way the whole bill was going to pass after that amendment passed. But let the chamber kill it for you. Idiot.

      1. He was just that afraid it might pass. Although I’m not sure he should be that worried, alkyl nitrites only show up on very expensive drug tests.

    2. I want mandatory random drug testing for all of Congress and their staffs. We test the military don’t we? And then I want the results made public and a full criminal investigation done against all of the violators. Bring the little bastards who come up hot into the FBI to explain where they did the drugs and who they got them from.

      1. Better yet, start throwing the ones who test positive into prison for drug offenses and see how long that WoD lasts then.

        1. Minimum mandatories baby.

    3. Wait, slow down. An amendment to require drug testing for legislators passed?

      What, exactly, is the rationale that Drug Warriors trot out for exempting anyone, much less legislators, from drug testing? Why does it just go without saying that drug testing legislators is a nonstarter?

    4. I think some of us are missing the point with this one, who is the Dem who added the line about legislators? And how do I congratulate them?

  36. Greatest Books as voted on by authors

    I can get Lolita as the top book of the 20th century. Excellent contrast of style and content. Pale Fire coming in at 10? I’m not so sure. Same w/ 100 Years of solitude being the only book published after 1970. Biased against the living.

    1. List fails without Dune.

      Im serious.

      1. Dune
        Atlas Shrugged
        Sometimes a Great Notion

        The other 7 would be tough

        1. Personally, I’d put The Long Goodbye or Farewell My Lovely in there. But I’m not a lit snob. I think genre fiction has an important place in literature and Ray Chandler essentially created an entire writing style that has been emulated even in literary works to great effect. Also, he had some of the best descriptive language ever. “He stood out like a tarantula on an angel food cake.” will stay with me forever.

        2. “Atlas Shrugged”

          No, just, no.

      2. I would have accepted Stranger in a Strange Land as the alternative pick to Dune.

        1. Alternate? Why not both?

          However, not Stranger. Ugh. If we are only gonna put one Heinlein on the list, it would be Mistress.

          Which Im perfectly willing to add to my 20th century list.

          The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
          The Screwtape Letters
          The Mote in God’s Eye
          A Deepness in the Sky (1999 bitches!)

          Im up to 7.

          1. See, I’d use Twain’s Letters from Earth i/o The Screwtape Letters. Published posthumously and using a similar conceit to poke fun at humanity’s foibles.

            1. How much posthumously? Was it 19th or 20th century?

              1. Mark Twain died in 1910.

                1. shit, he died?

          2. Agreed. All fine works, there. Can we add “Marooned in Realtime?” That is the best fusion of mystery and scifi that I’ve read.

        2. Most impact? Yes. Best book by Heinlein? Hardly. In fact, SIASL contained all the seeds of Heinlein’s descent into self-referential solipsism that marred the latter third of his career, especially the blatant Mary Sue of Jubal.

          1. Fair enough. I withdraw Stranger. There are better and more influential sci-fi books.

          2. I think Dune is much more influential. The Spice is nothing but a precursor to the force in Star Wars.

            In the end though, I think it all begins with Tolkien. Even in Scifi, Tolkien just hit all of the universal themes.

      3. LOTR should have been on the list. It is too influential not to be.

        1. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (excluding #5).

          Im at 8.

          1. The Book of the Dun Cow (might as well throw one fantasy book on the list).

            Im at 9.

            Im sure Im missing something obvious.

            1. 1984. And Im done.

              Im not gonna try to order, so lets alphabatize:

              1984
              Atlas Shrugged
              The Book of the Dun Cow
              A Deepness in the Sky
              Dune
              The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy
              The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
              The Mote in God’s Eye
              The Screwtape Letters
              Sometimes a Great Notion

              Going down some other top list, trying to see if I missed anything obvious…Would I take F-451 over any of those? Maybe Hitchhikers.

              Anything else…Watership Down maybe…If I went American only, would add F-451 and Waterhsip Down in place of Screwtape and Hitchhikers.

              1. Screwtape is really good.

              2. Realized I have to knock off 1984 too if Im going to go American only. So what goes in its place? Slaughterhouse Five, maybe.

    2. SiFi always gets fucked. There should have been at least one or two sci fi books for the 20th Century. 100 years of solitude is really good. But no Kundera for the 20th Century and no Brothers Karamozov for the 19th. Meh.

      1. See, I hated 100 Years of Solitude, but I respect that the “mystical realism” innovation is a worthy literary device that GGM should get credit for. Joyce, O’Conner, Faulkner all deserve to be there for being innovators. But yeah, as stated above, genre has a way of inventing things that creep into literary works and is disrespected.

        1. I think Joyce is wildly overrated. I don’t see how a guy who is famous for writing two books (Ulysses and Finnegan’s Wake) that few can ever actually read cover to cover can be considered great.

          1. I continue to deny that any human has ever read either from cover to cover.

            (Technically, Joyce read every word as he wrote it, but I also deny that he read either from cover to cover.)

            1. Well. Someone has to write the cliff notes. But I couldn’t tell you who that is.

              1. A team of 10,000 psykers, who die in the process, for the glory of the Cliffperium.

            2. CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

    3. Missing from the 20th:

        A Clockwork Orange
        The Trial

      And from the 19th:

        David Copperfield

      (imho)

  37. If you are cool with anthropromorphized animals and christian allegory, I highly recommend the horribly underappreciated The Book of the Dun Cow, which I listed above.

    Somehow its categorized as a children’s book, which is just insane.

  38. Obama’s has been the most transparent administration to ever hold secret meetings about transparency. http://t.co/xZUCjjdz

  39. Political ad spending by outside groups is up 1,600 percent this campaign season versus the 2008 election.

    Can we end the horrific practice of pejoratively labeling spending that is done by people other than the media or the political insiders that control the campaigns as “outside spending”?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.