A.M. Links: Romney's Florida Win Driven By Economic Issues, Ron Paul Raises $13 Million, Spy Agencies Warn that Iran May Be Prepared to Launch Terrorist Attacks in the U.S.

|

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: Heather Donoahue on Growing marijuana and the beauty of "grey" markets

Advertisement

NEXT: Reason Writers on TV: Peter Suderman Talks Eurozone Debt Crisis on Freedom Watch With Judge Napolitano

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. You can’t miss this. —casualmingle dot ‘c o ‘m— is a wonderful place for seeking causal encounters and short term relationship, explore the excitement and your lost passion in your life. You will never regret for d,ating with s3xy beauties/guys in your area. Life is short, have fun.

  1. Hmmm, breakfast links….

    1. These aren’t the sausages you are looking for.

      1. But this is a sausage fest, right?

        1. Hey, we’ve got the Devil’s Advocate and Her Kromulence.

          1. I’m Korduroy these days 🙂

            (don’t forget Dagny T)

            1. I’m so out of touch: what happened to “Kallipygian?”

              1. I like to change it up. Plus, I lost my ass in a tear in the spacetime continuum so I can’t be kallipygan anymore.

            1. I’ve been too busy moving to the land of fruit and nuts to comment regularly. Sloopy and I are actually in a moving truck as I type this. I will be back when shit calms down. Fuck, the things we do for the people we love.

  2. Mitt Romney’s big win in Florida’s GOP primary was driven by economic concerns more than social issues.

    If only that were the primary (excuse the pun) concern of all voters.

    1. If it were economic concerns driving them, they’d have voted for Paul.

        1. next to Buchanan

          1. 3 delegates, baby!

        2. Yep. I voted for him and so did my wife. And a few other nonidiots.

          1. So was your wife a libertarian when you married her? Or did you sway her?

            Just curious.

            1. She was more apolitical but she’s got some libertarian views of her own.

            2. I tried for years to sway my wife toward libertarianism. Ron Paul succeeded at it.

  3. Chubby chaser specials!

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

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

    1. I refuse to click on those links. Why do you feel the need to torture us with fat women? It makes me wonder if perhaps you are not compensating for something.

      1. When I post links to thin women you accuse me of being a gay pedophile, so I thought I’d post links to women you might find attractive.

        Sheesh. Can’t win.

        Your wife must hate you.

        1. It is called the middle way. Just because you don’t like little boys, doesn’t mean you have to like fat women. You seem to spend a lot of time cruising for fat women at the Daily Mail. NTTAWWT.

          1. Beat me to it, John. He seems to be bereft of any notion that there are attractive women whose appearance lies somewhere between disturbingly cachectic and disgustingly obese.

          2. It’s not my fault your mom didn’t breast feed you.

            1. Not my fault yours did and you didn’t like it.

              1. I’m lactose intolerant. What can I say?

      2. Too skinny for you?

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

        1. Is that a woman or a little boy?

        2. Heidi is great. She is one of those women who actually got better looking after she had kids. Kind of filler her out a bit.

          1. I say the same about Kate Moss.

  4. Joan Rivers hits the bong!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..-show.html

    1. Too bad we can’t get Betty White hitting the bong.

      Can we?

      1. >implying Betty White doesn’t hit the bong

    2. I can’t wait until we start throwing people’s grandmas in jail or rehab for marijuana use. I’ve met a bunch of older folks who say they can’t wait to retire so they can smoke up without worrying about workplace drug testing. These are people ranging from laborers to welders, mechanics, engineers, and managers who have quit due to workplace drug policies. Disclosure: i have not partaken of illegal drugs but enjoy talking with those who have. It’ll go over really well when the drug war starts catching up to these folks.

    3. What’s worse for her, hitting a bong or all the plastic surgery she’s undergone?

  5. http://blogs.sacbee.com/capito…..ction.html

    California to run out of cash by mid March. Is it too much to hope to see them go dead broke?

    1. Just in time to get bailed out!

      1. That will help Obama’s chances in the swing states.

      2. Since Congress won’t bail them out, that leaves the Fed, which could open up a new QE service line by buying state debt.

        You read it here first.

        1. I had the same basic thought–Congress won’t do it as currently configured, but there’s probably an end-run available to the administration. There always is when there’s no limited government to stop you.

  6. A cop story with a happy ending.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..Kline.html

    1. Is it bad that my first thought reading that was the other two cops were involved and they whacked this guy to keep him from ratting?

      And why is it that a British Paper has better American news than the American ones?

      1. Suicide by cop. Nice.

      2. Perception is reality, John. 🙂

        The whole thing was botched; the guys running the investigation handled it in a completely hamfisted fashion.

    2. That seemed badly handled, even beyond the lieutenant on the scene disclosing the investigation to everyone. If the story they’re telling is the truth, it definitely seems like suicide by cop, with the police only too willing to oblige.

      1. They always are.

      2. ‘What happened to procedure?’ asked his father, Alberto Covarrubias Sr. ‘Why did they go to arrest him in the field? If it was so urgent why didn’t they just say there was a family emergency and he had to come to the station?’

        The same reason that do SWAT raids for piddling drug offenses. Because they can.

  7. Twitter’s new censorship rules are all about making money.

    How dare they want to make money by providing a service on the Internet!!!!!!

  8. Why does this look like a rerun of PM links?

    1. So far, it seems like a slow news week.

    2. Why? Why not?

    3. Why does this look like a rerun of PM links?

      Is it the commentary that gives it away?

      If clicking the Comments link brought you to last month’s, would anyone notice?

      Why am I asking you?

  9. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech…..e-tweeted/

    How dare Twitter want to make money by providing a service on the Internet!!

  10. The WSJ has a hilarious trend piece about the totally real, newsworthy, “trend” of “pacifist” gamers who try to complete Skyrim without killing anyone.

    Well worth reading for fans of mental gymnastics.

    1. I read that. I guess as some point maybe you get bored with killing shit and decide not killing is kind of a different challenge.

      1. Exactly. These people admit that they’re playing “pacifist” just as an extra challenge, but the author performs the stretch of the century by trying to make it seem like a sweeping, principled movement within today’s youth.

      2. I recall there was a way to beat New Vegas (at least the main storyline) without killing a single thing as well.

        1. If you got your Speech high enough, you could Speech check your way through almost every quest.

        2. I remember trying to play through Mass Effect/Alpha Protocol games without killing anyone. I just wanted to see if I got a bonus.

        3. Deus Ex was built to allow a non-lethal path through the game. Although you still had to kill bosses. If/when I replay it, I will give that a go.

          Right now in Skyrim, I am a vortex of death and destruction – heavily armed, armored, and enchanted to the point where I am nearly invincible and can kill most everything with one shot/one swing on “Normal”. I’m cranking up the difficulty level and building up my stealth for some variety.

          1. You could (fairly) easily complete the original Fallout without killing anyone… well, except for the two nuclear weapons you set off…

      3. I used to be a pacifist. Then I took an arrow to the knee…

      4. I tried to play Liberty City (GTA4) without killing any innocent bystanders (just mission objectives, cops and self-defense.) The body count was still over 700.

    2. There’s a new way to play video games- without killing. … Warning: Video contains some animated violence.

      WTF? Just maim them so they’ll wish they had been killed?

    3. One of the best parts of Deus Ex HR was doing a stealth+pacifist route.

      As for Skyrim, I could see how how a Sneak+Illusion character would be fun. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone makes a mod where you could knock someone out with your fists; the whole begging-for-mercy-then-getting-back-up and-attacking thing was weird.

    4. Sure, you can run around in Skyrim and not kill anyone. But you can complete neither the main quest nor any of the faction quests if you do so.

      It’s like bragging you can burn up an entire tank of gas in a car without it moving by letting it idle in your driveway.

      1. People spend a lot of time just goofing off in Skyrim though. Reading about different play styles and such, I sometimes get the sense that half the people who play the game basically ignore the missions.

        1. Granted. It’s mostly a problem I’m having with the article suggesting the game itself can be played without killing–as if it were just some depraved options some evil gamers choose to take–rather than part of the storyline you know you are signing up for when you play the game.

          There are thousands of games that you don’t kill anyone in. It’s like choosing a hard-R movie over a G and then complaining about all the violence, boobs, and swearing.

          1. Hell you can play through both Portal games and never see another human. Those are amazingly entertaining.

            1. But somehow you feel worse about killing the sentry turrets than about any orc.

              1. The hell you say. I hate those things.

      2. It’s like bragging you can burn up an entire tank of gas in a car without it moving by letting it idle in your driveway.

        That is what I do on “turn off all your lights” night.

        1. I just light a big bonfire and put a candle in every window.

      3. I wouldn’t mind if HtH allowed a sort of middle ground, like Batman mode. Go around thrashing the shit out of people, but not killing them.

        1. Skyrim could easily do that with a surrender system, rather than “surrendering” meaning the guy rests for a minute and then attacks again.

          1. Yeah, seriously. I felt like a dick for killing surrendering people until I finally laid off and then the fuck attack me.

            Now, it’s show no mercy.

          2. They could do something like Gothic, where you down people by doing damage, but then explicitly opt to end them when they’re down. But if they do, people should stay down for a good while (1 hr or so real time).

    5. Without killing shit, your options in Skyrim are pretty much limited to being a miner. Maybe someone will make an ebony lung mod.

      1. …And even then you have to call in an adventurer when the spiders show up and decide to make a home in your mine.

      2. I think some of these people are using Fury to have the critters kill each other off. So they’re like mafia dons trying to control from the back.

      3. If Skyrim had a more detailed economy, you could conceivably role-play as a merchant, and travel in between towns like a Khajiit caravan. Unfortunately everything pretty much sells for the same price so that would get pretty boring.

        1. If it had a real economy, they would have to grapple with the realities of hard money. Gee… how much is a gold ingot worth? I don’t know, how many gold coins does it weigh?

          1. I would have liked the ability to ruin the economy with the Transmute spell, though. Iron? Fuck iron. I want inflation.

            1. On my third play through, I ran straight to the Transmute spell book in that bandit camp north-northeast of Whiterun. Got to 100 in smithing without making a single iron dagger, leather items and jewelry only. I ran around dressed like a Viking pimp.

              1. Now that I think of it, a fantasy game where you play as a merchant would be kind of neat. It would be a typical adventure game but instead of you being a hero, you’re just a random trader who sells overpriced crap to adventurers. You could barter, travel and search for rare stuff, lobby the king for lower taxes, and form a joint-stock trading company once you have enough capital.

                1. Dekedin, there are a few games like that. One is a JRPG on Steam, can’t remember the name, but the dungeon crawling is optional and exists to supplement the merchant part.

                  Another would be The Guild. PC game, control a medieval guild.

                  1. AuH20, thanks for the recs.

                  2. Recettear?

                2. This sword will make you immune to dragon fire and it takes their heads right off! Buy now and you get this exclusive Ginsu dagger- slay and Orc and still slice this tomato…

              2. I ran around dressed like a Viking pimp.

                So it was like real life, then.

                1. Yeah, I’m not sure why he needed a game for that.

                2. I can pop off the horns on my helmet and drink mead with them.

          2. Isn’t it great that we have an unbelievably deep and wide game like Skyrim, and we chaff about how it doesn’t have a “real” economy?

            Still, a surrender option that was really a surrender would be cool. I have a hard time putting the knife into somebody begging for mercy, so I usually give them a minute to get back up, and see if I can get a beheading critical strike.

        2. This is one of the few ways in which Fable II really outshines the Bethesda games. Things sell for different prices in different towns. There are shortages in some places, and thus higher prices, and gluts in others, along with lower prices. Real estate values are impacted by whether you do Evil Shit in town, like killing villagers. (You have to imagine that property values in MagicTown won’t hold up if jackass heroes constantly wander in, steal stuff, and randomly kill villagers.)

          1. Yes, but sadly you can’t send in your hired goons, lower property prices, and then call them off like any REAL thug.

          2. I came here to say this.
            It was a great feature, and I would imagine it would have been easy to implement in Skyrim.

            1. They’ll be allowing mods at some point.

              1. There’s a decent mod for Morrowind that creates a bank, real estate, and allows you to buy stock in the three great houses. Something like that would be neat for Skyrim.

            2. I was going to say the exact same thing! I’ve been complaining to my BF for months about how Skyrim is freaking awesome but Fable II was way better on the economic side. We’re both super frustrated with how little cash so many of the merchants have in Skyrim and how it doesn’t change at all based on what you do.

              1. You can use perks to increase their funds, but it seems like too much trouble and not good enough, anyway.

                1. Yeah we’ve built up those perks quite a bit (pretty sure we can now buy and sell anything from anyone, which is useful at least), but it’s not that great.

                  The best thing moneywise, I think, is just to get married–you get a couple hundred G (I’ve had it go up to 700 a couple times) anytime you go visit your spouse, plus you can sell them shit on top of that.

                  Also, the whole “ability to invest in a shop”–I mean, what is the point of that? Does anyone know? You could do this in Oblivion, and I did it then, but it didn’t seem to do anything in terms of ROI. I don’t get it.

    6. I usually play these games as super good, but not that good.

      What’s difficult is when you run through as an evil character (which I’ll do the second time through, if I do that at all)–how evil can you be? Just slaughtering everyone can be counterproductive, so a slightly less chaotic mindset is needed.

      1. Did you ever play Fallout and Fallout 2 back in the day? Slaughtering everyone was a perfectly viable and fun option.

        1. No. I started with Fallout 3, and killing everyone meant whole series of quests became unavailable. I suppose depopulating the whole wasteland could be an option.

          1. I believe there’s a Kill Everyone strategy in New Vegas.

            1. Somehow, I’m not surprised.

            2. Apparently you can. I’ll have to try this.

      2. I picked up SWTOR and I’m playing a Sith through. It’s amazing what kind of a bastard you have to be to build dark side points.

        1. I remember in SW:KOTOR II using my Force powers to get two bad guys to jump to their deaths. I actually felt a little weird doing that, even though I was playing a nasty Sith character at the time.

          1. That was the best part of the game. Even though I played a Jedi, I still made them jump. I laughed my ass off.

            1. Bad Jedi, bad!

          2. why don’t I remember that scene? which planet?

            1. Nar Shaddaa.

        2. The problem with Bioware is that there are two moral options- Not Being a Dickhole or Cartoonish Supervillianry.

          For example:

          Good option: Help a widow find her son.
          Evil Option: Find the son, kill him, come back to the widow, tell her, kill her. Also, kill the dog. Fuck those people.

          There is never any sense of long term strategy evil. Like, “Help widow, but require she do a favor for you later, and have her shoot an NPC from another quest”. Or “String widow a long, bilk her broke, and then disappear into the night.” Or, really, anything that comes off as even remotely realistic.

          1. Mass Effect seems less black-and-white to me.

            1. Well, Mass Effect’s moral choices are more Good Cop-Bad Cop. Do you want to do the arrest by the book, or beat the guy with a phonebook? Either way, you’re taking down the bad guy, but one is the more “correct” way of doing it.

              On the other hand, Dragon Age is not very morally subtle a lot of the time.

              1. With some of these games, they have a mythological focus (especially KOTOR), which means things should be more black and white. Even with that series, the second entry had a small role for people who played more in the middle.

            2. Mass Effect seems less black-and-white to me.

              I think that has more to do with the fact that you can’t actually be a villain in ME, only an antihero.

              I wish it was a bit less binary though. For example, why should I have to get paragon points for activating Legion instead of selling it to Cerberus? You can go either way on that decision and have it be justifiable as a heroic or renegade action. Hopefully ME3 takes that situation and offers a 4 or 6 point decision matrix instead. Also, base more morality in interrupts (offer both paragon and renegade interrupts at the same time, for example) since those are always fun and consequential.

              1. The games are trying to be more “real”, but it’s going to take a while. They’re getting crazy complex even without lots of choices.

        3. “”It’s amazing what kind of a bastard you have to be to build dark side points.””

          I’m usually amuzed by the dark side choices in conversation. Some of the smartass comments are pretty good. It makes me want to start a Smuggler. I would be a big smartass and flirt every chance.

        4. I dunno… the SW:TOR Dark/Light choices really do vary in extent depending on the side you play. A lot of the Sith Dark/Light choices I’ve run into have been a choice between Killing person/ letting them live in a a slave.

      3. I play a rogue character. I do what ever helps me to get ahead. Did I mention my character is a Redguard I named Barack?

        1. So you have two enchanted daggers named “Hope” and “Change”?

          1. daggers? I’d have thought they’d be bludgeons.

    7. It was called Deus Ex, all right?

    8. Is there an anorexic Pac-man for old school gamers? How about a turtle-cruelty-free Mario?

    9. You could complete both Fallout 1 and 2 w/o killing anyone. Not sure how it’d be possible in either FO3 or New Vegas.

    10. So I’ve only had about 3 hours to play Skyrim, and I accidentally had to murder a bunch of people and now the guards won’t leave me alone and there are some I can only seem to stun. What’s the penalty for giving up and going to jail? Or should I just start over?

      1. Depending on how long you’re in jail, you might lose some learned abilities (but after three hours you probably don’t have any), and you’ll lose any stolen goods you have on you. I think that’s it.

        1. They don’t take weapons and gold? I thought it would be like GTA. That doesn’t seem so bad. How does it determine how long you’re in jail?

          1. The value of the bounty.

  11. Math Hates Ron Paul

    http://www.boilingfrogspost.co…..tic-point/

    1. Interesting website

      BTW I think the Newt Gingrich number is off. I could swear there was some casino mogul who gave him 5 million.

      1. It was Sheldon Adelson, and it was like 40 million to a super pac, not Newcular.

        1. Gotcha, thanks

  12. Ron Paul, meanwhile, raised $13.3 million for his campaign between October 1 and December 1 of last year, with 56 percent of the donations coming from sub-$200 donors.

    Plus, emerging Sugar Daddies?

    1. I went to Endorse Liberty to consider donating to them.

      Not surprisingly, they only accept PayPal.

      🙁

      1. They don’t accept BitCoin?!

        1. They would be the first…

        2. PayPal has some sort of thing against Bitcoin. I think you can’t use Bitcoin in any way with PayPal. Think about it, Bitcoin is a competitor to PayPal.

  13. Are there no poorhouses?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-bins.html

    1. In Soviet Union, baby box drops off you!

  14. Spending time in space may alter human genes.

    Newsflash: Lonely scientist started reading the Fantastic Four.

    1. On the other hand, aren’t genes “designed” to respond to altered environments?

    2. Eh. I’m pretty sure, but can’t be arsed to wiki it, that Yuri Gagarin and his wife were both astronauts and had at least one child after both had been in space who was well within the bellcurve in all aspects. So it doesn’t seem to fuck up our gametes too much. After that, well, breathing oxygen alters our genes, too. Seriously, free radicals (oxygen, mostly) cause genetic alterations all the time in single cells here or there. This is one of those everything in the article is true, nothing is truly scary articles.

      1. Spending time in massive magnetic fields used to simulate zero gravity might alter genes they mean.

        1. The title is worded completely wrong. The article only says the *expression* of some genes changed, which is actually expected. That is not the same thing as mutation, which is what the title implies.

      2. Yuri Gagarin did only one orbit. I’ll bet 90 minutes in LEO is much less than .1 REM

    3. Note that the study bases this claim on fruit flies held in magnetic levitation.

      Hmmm….I wonder if the multi-tesla magnetic fields might be as likely a candidate as the “weighless” environment.

      Just saying.

  15. Gingrich promising a scorched Earth primary campaign must be making him about as popular as an STD with the GOP.
    All he has are Rush Limbaugh and that 100 year old billionaire in his corner.

  16. Kristen Stewart still adorable:

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

    1. Kristen Bell: the thinking man’s Kristen.

        1. ^^^ I must be PMS’ing, cause I’m laughing my ass off at this.

      1. Did you see the last episode of House of Lies? not that great of a show, but the last episode is a must for Kristen Bell fans.

        1. So far, it’s been kind of meh, Californication seems to have gotten old, but Shameless is very entertaining.

          And it’s Showtime, so she could have taken off her bra.

          1. The series is only three episodes in, so I’m giving it time to develop. Great casting, though. Hopefully the writers will find the characters, remember they are on Showtime, and take off with it. Also, I’m a finance guy, so I relate to it in the same way a sex addict will relate to Californication. Or a transplanted rapper will relate to Fresh Prince of Bel Air.

        2. I actually just found out she’s in it the other day. I didn’t see her on any of the promotional materials.

          Is it good? I’ve heard mixed reviews.

          1. “Meh” about sums it up. Above average television, and following “Shameless” helps, but not a great show in its own right.

    2. If she could only learn to smile.

      1. http://thegloss.com/beauty/gal…..hange-708/

        http://www.gossipcop.com/krist…..ed-carpet/

        (You can also google “pictures of kristen stewart smiling”)

        1. (You can also google “pictures of kristen stewart smiling”)

          It’s sad that you have to.

          1. You don’t. See above.

            1. It’s not that she doesn’t smile so much as when she is smiling you can tell she can’t wait until she can stop.

        2. Must have been taken with a high speed camera.

      2. But then she wouldn’t be all mopey and emo and shit. Why anyone would care for mopey emo teens I don’t know.

  17. Ron Paul, meanwhile, raised $13.3 million for his campaign between October 1 and December 1 of last year, with 56 percent of the donations coming from sub-$200 donors.

    A lot of munchies going unsatisfied the last quarter of 2011.

  18. American spy agencies believe Iran is prepared to use terrorist attacks within the country.

    I hear this threat more and more all the time, and the more I hear it the less I believe it.

    I have no doubt that Iran has some spies implanted here, but as for the notion that they have a bunch of terrorist sleeper cells just waiting for the word to unleash mayhem, not buying it. If so, just go ahead and bring it on already.

    1. Noted.

    2. It wouldn’t surprise me to see the Iranian govt doing to U.S. citizens what the U.S. govt has been doing to Iranian citizens off an on since 1953.

      It would be awful, but not surprising.

      1. This. Being that we have drones flying over their country and that we’re almost surely involved in killing their scientists, it seems that they almost SHOULD be trying to pay us back in kind.

        I mean, if Iran had drones flying over Nebraska and killing scientists of ours, would we not somehow try and retaliate? Would we be wrong to do so?

    3. “”I hear this threat more and more all the time, and the more I hear it the less I believe it.””

      It’s all about the language. Sure they are probably prepared, but what does that mean. One could make the arguement that America is prepared to attack the world. We do have plans on invading countries that we don’t really plan on invading and we are prepared by having weapons, including nuclear, ships, aircraft, and people. It’s good to have a plan and to be prepared. It means nothing about intent.

      Iran is not looking for war, they know we can destroy their country. But they have a history of agitating.

    4. and all b/c some used-car salesman had delusions of grandeur. pathetic/hilarious.

  19. On the Spending time in space may alter human genes article, one important point is that they were experimenting by levitating fruit flies with strong magnetic fields.

    “We don’t know yet what is causing what ? the magnetism or the microgravity?”

    “Magnetic fields can cause things like proteins in the cell to align with the field lines, so these fields could be triggering responses we don’t yet understand,” Hill said.

    1. Soo…. fruit flies are magnetic?

      1. They are now.

      2. You can levitate pretty much anything with a strong enough magnetic field.

      3. All polar molecules are “magnetic”

    2. And: magnetics aside, wouldn’t the radiation in space be enough to cause genetic mutation?

      1. The radiation on Earth is enough to cause mutation, but since we don’t go through a generation every 24 hours, and we have more cells (less chance of a gamete mutating) I’m not sure how their rate of drift would compare to ours.

        1. The results are what one would expect, given that evolution says that organisms adapt to new environments by changing their genes.

          1. The question I have is how do the genes know that gravity has been altered?

            1. Haven’t you read the Wrinkle in Time series? They’re sentient!

              1. Mitochondria!!!!! Parasite Eve!!!

            2. Hormones that activate genes could end up in weird places. Your tissues tend to swell at the extremeties without gravity because your circulatory system has evolved to expect gravity. Longer resonance times of hormones and transcription enzymes could result. I don’t really know how to test that, but its my thinking-about-it-for-30-seconds theory.

              1. But the gravitational effect on these tiny molecules are negligent compared to the effect of a large magnetic field. Also, the article only says that the expression of genes change, which is already a known phenomenon with many environmental stimuli. It seems the title of the article is worded wrong.

                1. Yeah. Once I actually read the article, it seems like a no-brainer. So much biochemistry is predicated on tiny charge differentials. Introducing huge magnetic fields into such a systems seems like a pretty sure-fire way to alter how proteins behave, thus altering gene expression.

          2. Organisms don’t adapt to new environments by changing their genes. Genes change randomly, those that are best suited for the environment survive.

          3. Is your last name Lamarck?

  20. Spending time in space may alter human genes.

    Spend five years in space, and you have to have your jeans altered.

      1. This is the ad-bot we’ve been waiting for!

        1. I’m not spamming. 🙁

          Thought there were RPGers and Trekkies here, posted below then scrolled up and saw Spock and Kirk, thought I’d attach here.

          Maybe I am spamming though. Still.

          :*(

          1. Are those the remastered versions?

  21. Romney’s Super PAC was worth $23.6 million at the end of 2011, more than the candidate’s own campaign war chest.

    Unless Mitt open’s his wallet.

  22. VA Senator Proposes Rectal Exam For Men In Response To Abortion Ultrasound Bill

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..42627.html

    1. Sounds to me like he thinks the rectal exam would be a good thing. NTTAWWT

    2. That’s pretty damn funny. And 1 out of 10 don’t seem to mind.

    3. To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication.

      If she wants to approach equality, wouldn’t it make more sense to hassle dudes trying to get a vasectomy?

      1. Your first mistake is that this is made in an attempt to address equality rather than simply doing it to make a point.

    4. Right. I’m sure GPs will follow that step as thoroughly as they follow every other legal rule in prescribing ED meds. From what I’ve heard from guys who wanted those pills, it was essentially, “Doc, I wanna be able to fuck all weekend.”
      “So you have trouble becoming erect when you want to?”
      “Yeah, I’m pretty much worthless after the 12th drink.”
      “Here’s a script.”

      I’m pretty sure the same GPs would just write “rectal exam normal” and go on writing scripts.

      1. The ones who want to get sued for malpractice when the guy’s inevitable prostate cancer shows up, anyway. There are few better ways.

        1. I live in FL. I don’t know what the FMA’s official position on writing scripts is, but until very recently the practiced approach was, “the customer is always right”.

          1. I promise you that the FMA’s position is not that faking physical exams is alright. Ditto with malpractice law.

      2. You know what worries me, if I go to a doctor with a real problem are they just going to write me a script for whatever drug I want? I don’t want some doctor BSing me about a real problem just to give me a drug and get me out of his office.

    5. “VA Senator Proposes Rectal Exam”

      Why would science want to examine rather?

  23. Does this shirt go with my top hat?

    http://thegloss.com/fashion/th…..shirt-220/

    1. Whatever you think of the OWS movement, you have to admit that the issues they’re addressing are very real and serious: poverty, lack of jobs, lack of access to healthcare, and a lack of proper safeguards against investment banks screwing up the economy, to name a few. People are actually dying because of some of these things. To make light of this on a t-shirt meant to be worn by members of the monied classes seems like rubbing it in unnecessarily. A “let them eat cake” moment, if you will.

      Boo-fucking-hoo.

      1. They aren’t “addressing” any issues at all. It’s a bullshit marketing-backed scheme that represents and does nothing of use to anyone.

        In fact, because they’re so openly pointless, the vague statements they do make tend to lessen support for whatever is at stake not increase it.

        I suggest they go get jobs. The scam didn’t work.

      2. We’re working hard for justice by living like bums!

      3. I fucking hate the line “whatever you think of X, you have to admit [a bunch of shit you don’t have to admit].”

    2. The T-shirt looks just like the OWS camps without the bums.

  24. Data released Tuesday showed that seasonally adjusted housing prices have reached a post-bubble low, as the minor surge that began in 2009 fizzled, to be followed by the almost continuous slide of the past 18 months.

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

    Hope Change

    1. Nuh-uh! Shrike said everything is up up up!

  25. Is the Super Bowl Socialist?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..39035.html

    1. If only the economy could be more like the NFL.

  26. Thinking about some discussions last night. I consider myself to be pretty libertarian but I just don’t understand these kneejerk reactions by many fellow libertarians to oppose taxes.

    You all pay your electric bill right? Why? To keep the electricity going right? Taxes are the same thing, it’s the bill we pay to keep society going.

    I suppose you could argue that you should just get electicity and water and internet and cell phone service for free and not have to pay for it. But that doesn’t sound very much like personal responsibility to me. So why the demand to have courts and police and a military and education and roads and health care and all that for free?

    Now that’s not to say I don’t think there’s something wrong with helping people pay their bills like we already do but for those that are capable of actually paying for their bills on their own, why shouldn’t they? What’s wrong with personal responsibility?

    1. >So why the demand to have courts and police and a military and education and roads and health care and all that for free?

      Libertarians don’t want those things for free, it’s just that we think most of those services should be paid for by the people who actually use them. Power and water can be privatized, and we gladly pay for those. Why can’t any of the things you listed be privatized?

      It’s not an opposition to taxes themselves as much as an opposition to the idea that education and healthcare should be public goods.

      1. But privatizing them takes them away from the people who need them the most. By making these services universal and accountable to the people they work far better than letting just whoever can afford it dictate who gets protection.

        1. But privatizing them takes them away from the people who need them the most.

          WTF?

        2. “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”

          -Thomas Sowell

        3. So services should be distributed according to “need”? From each according to his ability and to each according to his need?

          What is sad is that you don’t have a clue about the evil that those words represent. Educate yourself.

          1. Why shouldn’t government services be distributed based on need?

            If we have a million dollars should that be given to a billionaire collecting Social Security? Wouldn’t it be better to split that up and provide food and clothing for say, just as an example, a thousand inner city kids for a year?

            1. Why shouldn’t government services be distributed based on need?

              As I said, you should educate yourself. Wiki/google “To each according to need, from each according to ability”. In the 20th century the sentiment expressed in those words resulted in the deaths of 100 million people.

              1. “In the 20th century the sentiment expressed in those words resulted in the deaths of 100 million people.”

                And then I looted their houses.

            2. If government didn’t attempt to cover every possible need (like poor kids without clothing and food) and allowed workers to keep, say, 20% more of our money, charity will more than cover the immediate needs.

              Many people (and from statistics, especially the Left) don’t give money to charity because they believe the government is already taking care of all the real problems. Or they give money to international charities in countries without safety nets and with far more pressing poverty.

              You should read more about charity in Victorian era Britain. By removing the social safety net that pauperized the poor, charitable giving skyrocketed like never before or since, covering most of the needs of the orphans, the handicapped and the aged while avoiding entitlements that discourage the poor from seeking work. In this day where we’re more technologically interconnected than ever, I find it hard to believe there would be a single American going without their most basic needs, even if the welfare state disappeared tomorrow.

              That said, I wouldn’t have a problem with locally administered public schools and local government facilitation to connect the needy/handicapped/orphaned/aged with charities that can help them.

            3. You don’t “need” more than a few hundred calories a day and some water. Anything beyond the bare minimum of survival is a bourgeois luxury. If you want more than starvation rations, comrade, you’re just going to have to wait your turn.

              My, don’t the nomenklatura in charge of the redistribution committee look quite fat and happy, though?

      2. How would you privatize the military?

        1. Mercenaries. Duh.

          Also, libertarians arent anarchists, so, you know, there might be one or two things we dont privatize.

          1. And if I don’t chip in on the mercenaries then my house won’t be defended but my neighbors’ will if they did?

            I wasn’t asking what libertarians, in general, though, I was asking what Dekedin thought, since he apparently doesn’t know of reasons why the military couldn’t be privatized.

            1. And if I don’t chip in on the mercenaries then my house won’t be defended but my neighbors’ will if they did?

              Exactly. You might get lucky and get some side benefit, but same applies to all kinds of private services.

            2. “”And if I don’t chip in on the mercenaries then my house won’t be defended but my neighbors’ will if they did?””

              What happens when your neighbor pays merchs to destroy your house?

              Many problems with privatizing the military. The cost for one. Loyalty is another. Plus, it would be so federally regulated that the word private would become a joke.

    2. You do realize that you don’t get to choose not to pay taxes right?

      1. Last I checked we still have elections in this country.

        1. Hey, Marshall, you gave me a great idea: Let’s vote to not have taxes!

        2. So because more people want my money for their own use, I have to pay? What’s the difference between that and the mob asking for protection money?

          1. Uhhh…the fact that you get a say?

            Like I said at the start, if you want to just get all of society for free, that’s your youthful prerogative, but I don’t understand why so many libertarians get upset when someone actually brings them the bill for the things they’ve been buying.

            1. Were that that was what the bill was actually for.

            2. Marshall, if 51% of America voted that you get raped every fortnight by a cocaine-enraged donkey, does it make it all right because you got to vote against your donkey rape weekend? I mean, you might eventually sway enough people to get your rape order revoked after all.

              1. This is simply an absurd hypothetical, rape is an actual violation of rights. Paying the bills you owe is not.

                The fact you would try to equate paying bills to rape shows just how far down the rabbit hole your own personal morals have gone.

                1. Uh-huh. Cool story, bro.

                  1. This “bills you owe” business is total nonsense, too. If somebody digs a pool for a neighbor and presents me with a bill, I should pay? When I neither authorized the activity or benefited from it?

                2. This is simply an absurd hypothetical, rape is an actual violation of rights. Paying the bills you owe is not.

                  Presuming that I owe the bills for which I am taxed is an actual violation of logic.

                3. People taking money from me by force is a violation as well. That is the point.

                  Throwing one statistically irrelevant vote into a sea of idiots who want to subsidize high speed trains and drone murder does not equal having a “say” in it.

                4. I was born owing $50,000 and I didn’t get shit for it.

              2. “I’m pro-cocaine-enraged-donkey-rape, and I vote.”

                1. RoboCain. Bad for cocaine-enrangement, bad for donky-rape. Bad for America.

            3. The majority can compel me to pay for any number of things that I receive no benefit from. If a majority of this country is willing to take productive people’s money and spend it, they win no matter how much me and the productive minority vote. A majority could also force, say, doctors into slavery to keep healthcare costs down. Also wrong.

              Want to change the tax system to something use-based? Fine. Want to reduce government to the point that my taxes pay for at least traditionally legitimate government functions? Fine.

              You don’t have to be an anarchist or a kid to oppose the hefty taxation we pay in this country. And for what? The waste here is insane, and the spending is totally out of control. Rather than control those things, the government just seeks to suck the economy completely dry.

              This idea that democracy is the end goal of a good political system is nuts. Tyranny can come from the majority just as easily as it can from a well-placed minority. What we need is limited government that doesn’t interfere much with the economy, doesn’t spend like a teenager with dad’s credit card, and doesn’t have the legal ability to meddle in things it has no business meddling in.

              1. The problem is you’re only analyzing things from your own personal point of view. You are not placing things into the proper context of the greater society. There are things you may “receive no benefit from” in your own perspective, but in reality there are huge benefits to society that trickle down to you.

                For example, if someones health care is taken care of they won’t get you sick. Or if they are provided with an education then they might avoid homelessness and eventually never break into your house to steal your TV.

                So in the end you DO benefit, you just can’t see the long term benefits and focus instead on the simple short term view in which you shouldn’t have to pay your bills but yet still get all the services.

                1. So in the end you DO benefit, you just can’t see the long term benefits and focus instead on the simple short term view in which you shouldn’t have to pay your bills but yet still get all the services.

                  And that’s TOTALLY not socialism.

                2. Let me see. Democracy voted for Socrates to die for “corrupting the youth”. But cocaine snorting donkey rape aside, you still don’t mind mob rule because anything bad is all hypothetical?

                3. You are not placing things into the proper context of the greater society.

                  That’s a good statist.

                4. There’s a way of handling such things. It’s called the market. To the extent we need government, we don’t need 90% of what we have today, and a big chink of that is simply socialistic redistribution of wealth.

                  No way, no how, you’re even remotely libertarian. Wanting to legalize weed or whatever it is you think is “libertarian” isn’t the crux. Limited (or even no) government with maximized individual freedom and happiness is.

                  Nothing we say or do is against cooperating with other people. What we object to, among other things, is coercion. In particular the arbitrary and irrational coercion we experience today.

                  1. and a big chink of that is simply socialistic redistribution of wealth.

                    Racist?

                    1. Oops.

                5. A shotgun and a large dog do more to keep the bums from stealing my TV than any “education” program ever will.

                  1. A shotgun and a large dog do more to keep the bums from stealing my TV than any “education” program ever will.

                    More than the police will ever do as well.

                6. “Or if they are provided with an education then they might avoid homelessness and eventually never break into your house to steal your TV.”

                  Christ what a moron.

                  1. Why did Tony start spelling his name “Marshall?”

              2. “”Rather than control those things, the government just seeks to suck the economy completely dry.””

                The majority wants their cake and eat it too. They want health care, Social Security and defense. They want to ingore the fiscal ramifications. It’s why November will be between Romney and Obama.

        3. We can vote to have more taxes or way more taxes. Hmmmm, what to choose…

    3. I consider myself to be pretty libertarian…

      Then you go on and spout a bunch of socialist nonsense.

      A Confusion of Terms

      Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

      We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
      http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

      1. There’s no reason to start going mad and throwing around “socialism” to smear someone asking an important question.

        As libertarians we’re supposed to support personal responsibility right? So why is it “socialism” to actually pay the bills you owe?

        1. Hmmm, why do I get a “bill” to pay for public schools that I do not use?

          1. Because without those children being educated and able to support themselves they’d probably be addicted to drugs breaking down your door in the middle of the night trying to take whatever they can get from your house to pawn off somewhere.

            Not to mention how a proper education helps them to either buy from you or provide for you. Something that they could never be capable of doing if it was left to parents alone.

            1. So, what you’re saying is you are not really very libertarian at all.

              1. What? No, I’m incredibly libertarian. Apparently far more libertarian than the people here.

                I support personal responsibility, yet people here seem to be arguing that anyone should be able to just do whatever they want and get away with it. I don’t think that’s supported by libertarian philosophy at all.

                1. anyone should be able to just do whatever they want as long as they dont initial force or fraud

                  FTFY

                  I don’t think that’s supported by libertarian philosophy at all.

                  With my fix that is exactly libertarian philosophy.

                  We keep seeing “bill we owe”. I call bullshit. I didnt ask for the product, I dont owe the bill.

                2. Other people’s children are not my personal responsibility, dude.

                  And your whole “But maybe those kids will break into your house” bit doesn’t impress me. I am happy to chip in to pay for police. I would also be happy to shoot burglars in the face.

                  You’re arguing that you think I should pay protection money – I should give people an education subsidy so they won’t rob me. That’s only one choice. My other choice is to shoot those fuckers in the face. Either option is me “exercising personal responsiblity”.

                  1. ” I am happy to chip in to pay for police. I would also be happy to shoot burglars in the face.”

                    That makes me wonder, are there any police force games? You start out as a rookie cop and advance in rank by getting points for shooting unarmed kids, tasing the mentally ill to death, shaking down drug dealers and prostitutes for money…you know, just like in real life.

            2. Because public schools are the only viable schools or the only way to get an education?

              1. Public schools are the only way to ensure everyone gets a proper education and to eliminate that cost on society.

                1. You need to reevaluate your understanding of the definition of “ensure.”

                  1. and the definition of “proper,” and the definition of “education.”

                2. Public schools are the only way to ensure everyone gets a proper education and to eliminate that cost on society.

                  You have some proof of this?

                3. “The Beautiful Tree” by James Tooley.

                  Read it. Think about it. And maybe when you realise that parents can and do take personal responsibility for their kids’ educations you’ll actually be a libertarian.

            3. So, how about those Vancouver and UK riots? I seem to recall plenty of well-off college kids looting and breaking things during both those incidences.

            4. this has to be a gag, right?

              1. I wish it was Thursday.

            5. Funny, I am paying the bill to send my child to get an education. I get no subsidy from the government. Maybe other parents should do the same instead of buying iPhones and Air Jordans.

            6. “Because without those children being educated and able to support themselves they’d probably be addicted to drugs breaking down your door in the middle of the night trying to take whatever they can get from your house to pawn off somewhere.”

              [citation needed]

        2. When you say things like “pay the bills you owe” and mean “pay for services used by someone else” then the word “socialism” is a descriptor, not a smear.

          Go upstairs Tony. Your mom made you breakfast and it’s getting cold.

          1. Tony has a mother? There goes my spore theory.

        3. But you’re not advocating paying your bills that you owe, taxes are different. When you pay taxes, and you’re not below the poverty line, you are paying other people’s bills. That’s not personal responsibility, that’s forced charity. I’ll gladly pay my own healthcare bills, just don’t ask me to pay someone else’s through taxes.

          1. The bills are societies bills, and what you’re paying for is a stable society. And those who benefit the most from society are those who need to pay the most just like those who buy HBO and Showtime and all the pay per view have to pay more per month on their cable bill. And just like those who use more electricity have to pay more on their electric bill.

            We accept this in everything else in life, but when it comes time to pay taxes and kept society afloat people lose their minds and start whining about how it’s “theft” to pay what they owe.

            1. Do you expect to get a serious conversation on this site?

              1. Has this dipshit presented any serious arguments? He’s repeating the same discredited bullshit.

            2. And just like those who use more electricity have to pay more on their electric bill.

              How do I use more street because I have more income?

              1. Uhhh…drive more places? Order and buy more things that use more roads to transport the goods?

                1. Uhhh… you seem to equate income with spending. Maybe you should favor toll roads so that the people who actually use them pay for them, rather than the ham-fisted use of income as a proxy.

                  The entities that own the trucks that make the deliveries pay road use taxes.

                2. I make a shit ton of money. I have driven only 180 miles since Thanksgiving, which is about average for me. Why shoild I pay more for roads than some poor custodian that drives 25 miles each way to work Monday-Saturday?

                3. Uhhh…drive more places? Order and buy more things that use more roads to transport the goods?

                  And I pay for those things via the extra gas taxes that I pay every time I fill up to use the roads.

            3. The bills are societies bills, and what you’re paying for is a stable society.

              Also TOTALLY, ABSOLUTELY not socialism.

              1. I think someone needs to look up the word “Socialism”. And then “Libertarianism”.

                From (urgh…) Wikipedia
                Socialists generally argue that capitalism concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society that controls the means of production and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This creates a stratified society based on unequal social relations that fails to provide equal opportunities for every individual to maximize their potential,[11] and does not utilise available technology and resources to their maximum potential in the interests of the public,[12] and focuses on satisfying market-induced wants as opposed to human needs.[citation needed] Socialists argue that socialism would allow for wealth to be distributed based on how much one contributes to society, as opposed to how much capital one holds.[citation needed]

                Socialists hold that capitalism is an illegitimate economic system, since it largely serves the interests of the owners of capital and involves the exploitation of other economic classes. As such, they wish to replace it completely or at least make substantial modifications to it, in order to create a more just society that would guarantee a certain basic standard of living.[13][14] A primary goal of socialism is social equality and a distribution of wealth based on one’s contribution to society, and an economic arrangement that would serve the interests of society as a whole.[citation needed]

                Libertarianism has been variously defined by sources. It is the political philosophy that holds individuals own themselves and thus have property rights in external things, or any political philosophy which approximates this view.[1] It may also be defined as the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society.[citation needed] Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating strict limits to government activity and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom.

                Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as “any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals”, whether “voluntary association” takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[2] According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.[3] Woodcock, an intellectual historian of anarchism, defines libertarianism as a critical individualist social philosophy, aimed at transforming society by reform or revolution, that fundamentally doubts authority.[4]

                tricky, eh? (obviously not commenting on Sparky)

                1. LH,
                  Although most socialists tend to be state welfarists, including our new friend Marshall, technically there’s nothing mutually exclusive about socialism and libertarianism. Libertarians advocate for free markets and self-government and tend to organize themselves in capitalist economic structures.

                  However, libertarians can advocate free markets and still voluntarily organize themselves into exclusive, self-sufficient communitarian societies with equality of outcome, guaranteed standards of living and mandatory community investment/involvement. They can still hold equality as a central value without invoking state redistributionism.

                  I argue that socialism only works successfully on a small, voluntary scale where freeloaders can be expelled via contractual agreement and their property is sacrosanct from imposition or intrusion by governments, corporations and robber barons. Libertarianism is completely compatible with that framework.

            4. Fuck a stable society. Who wants that?

              Hail Eris!!!!

            5. those who benefit the most from society are those who need to pay the most

              Who benefits more from a “stable” society? Seems to me in a free country that they benefit at least as much if not more than the rich so they should be paying more into it than they are now.

            6. That’s a nice, stable society you have there. Be a shame if someone ruined it.

            7. As far as I am concerned a night watchman state that keeps each person secure in his person and his effects is providing exactly the same benefit to every member of that society. You can’t point to any one person and say they’re “getting more” from that state. It doesn’t matter if one person (secure in his person and effects) makes a lot of money and another person (secure in his person and effects) doesn’t make any.

              So fucking spare me the “you’re getting more from society” nonsense.

              I may be getting more from individual persons within that society. But I have already paid those bills, thanks.

        4. Thinking about some discussions last night. I consider myself to be pretty libertarian but I just don’t understand these kneejerk reactions by many fellow libertarians to oppose taxes.

          Proven again: Everything before the ‘but’ is BS.

          1. Always and forever. Once they slap that ‘but’ on the end, the preceding statement becomes semantically null.

        5. So why is it “socialism” to actually pay the bills you owe?

          This is known as begging the question, Marshall, and is likely one reason you aren’t getting the most polite reception.

          Begging the question is frequently done in bad faith.

          The libertarian position is that the vast majority of taxes are spent on things that are actively harmful to society, so there isn’t any remote benefit that we’re just too stupid to see, but should pay for anyway.

          Plenty of libertarians wouldn’t object too much to taxation to support a minarchy. Our current maxarchy*, though, not so much.

          I do believe I just invented a word. A damn fine word, and one I will keep using.

        6. You’re advocating socialist policies. That’s not a smear, that’s identifying the political nature of your policies. If you don’t like being called socialist, change your policies.

      2. Damn that Bastiat. Like an arrow of logic stuck in the bullseye of my brain.

        1. An arrow to the knee of socialism!

    4. “Taxes are the same thing, it’s the bill we pay to keep society going.”

      No, it’s the money you pay to the government to keep them from stealing your shit, beating you, or throwing you in their rape dungeon. I mean, I guess if you consider empire, oppression, mass murder and handouts to lazy assholes and well-conncected billionaires to be important functions of society, then nevermind.

      1. You might want to check but it’s the government, through the police, that keep people from stealing, beating and raping.

        I’m not claiming government is perfect, but it’s the best option we have. And instead of demanding a right to free load we should be calling on government to represent the people, be controlled by democratic means and encourage personal responsibility. That’s the way to solve our problems.

        1. Police don’t stop crimes before they start, firemen don’t stop fires from being set.

        2. Re: Marshall,

          You might want to check but it’s the government, through the police, that keep people from stealing, beating and raping.

          If you live in a place where the ONLY thing keeping your neighbors from beating or raping each other, or stealing from each other is the police, then I pity you, for you would be living in a veritable war zone.

          In MY neck of the woods, what keeps people from beating or raping or stealing from each other is the people themselves, and sometimes Smith & Wesson. The police end up being no more than paleologists, at best.

          I’m not claiming government is perfect, but it’s the best option we have.

          Really? I would have to see – what are the other options, again?

        3. You might want to check but it’s the government, through the police, that keep people from stealing, beating and raping.

          This is true. Every time I’m not under direct police supervision, or think I can otherwise escape their eternal and omniscient vigilance, I go off on a good ‘ole stealin’, beatin’ and rapin’ spree.

          My mother sobs, “Didn’t we teach you better than that?”

          And I answer, “No cops, yo!”

          1. I lol’ed.

        4. You might want to check but it’s the government, through the police, that keep people from stealing, beating and raping.

          FIFY

    5. Taxes are the same thing, it’s the bill we pay to keep society going.

      What if I don’t want to ‘keep society going’?

    6. GOVERNMENT != SOCIETY

      They have nothing the fuck to do with each other at all.

    7. I consider myself to be pretty libertarian

      Based on the rest of what you’ve written, you’re not.

      1. Upon further review, I must congratulate you on being one of the most successful concern trolls on this site.

    8. Taxes are the same thing, it’s the bill we pay to keep society going.

      Two problems (setting aside the fundamental issue of theft):

      1. Most of the spending makes society worse.

      2. I don’t have another government I can switch to for a better benefit/cost ratio. (Unless I leave the country.)

  27. The Oscar-winning actor is the founder of the J/P Haitian Relief Organization, which aims to provide medical care, manage displacement camps, and offer other types of humanitarian assistance.

    Does the Haitian government control the country’s media? If not, Penn could probably add another aim for his organization.

  28. “An assessment by U.S. spy agencies concludes that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States,”…

    “U.S. officials said they have seen no intelligence to indicate that Iran is actively plotting attacks on U.S. soil. “

    1. They are just trying to increase the possibility of claiming their intelligence is correct which will then allow them to get their much deserved promotions and bonuses.

      They also plan on picking both the New York Giants and the New England Patriots in the office pool to win the Superbowl.

    2. “U.S. officials said they have seen no intelligence…”

      There, that’s better.

      1. “U.S. officials said they have seen no intelligence…”

        Better still…

  29. Sean Penn has been named an ambassador to Haiti.

    Good news: it’s tremors of laughter for Haiti in 2012.

    1. This dolt will be running for Congress next. And since he lives here in Marin County, he would of course win handily.

    2. He beat Madonna and locked her in a closet. How bad can he be?

      1. Odd how many avowed liberal male celebrities have turned out to be wife beaters in private, Penn, Jackson Brown, James Taylor to name three off the top of my head.

        1. But, but, they’re all for peace in the world.

  30. Courtesy of Megan Mcardle’s blog at the Atlantic, check out these horrifying youth unemployment rates in Europe. In Spain, it is now over 50%!

    Remember when we used to sing about how believed that children are our future? What a laugh that is.

    1. And just think, Obama and company want to sign us up for the very same system in the name of the Children.

      1. It’s OK, he’s going to outlaw ATMs so those kids can all have jobs as “bankers”.

    2. Hey, boys, what shall we do today?

      1. If you are German, you can dress up in funny uniforms and march on Poland.

        1. Been there, done that.

        2. You jest, but probably the most dangerous thing a country can have is a lot of bored, enemployed, pissed off “young people” sitting around. I doubt that any good has ever come of situations like that.

          1. Just add liberal arts degrees that they owe $200,000 for to that mix.

          2. especially after midnight!

    3. Maybe if they were allowed to raise revenues and provide services and education to youth rather than facing draconian austerity measures these numbers would be different.

      A program that provided undergrad and graduate university to everyone would help these people find their way out of poverty and into the middle class.

      1. comedy gold!!

      2. Ahh, I knew it was a regular trolling.

      3. Concern troll is self-caricatured.

        1. It doesn’t have to be “free” if we have a system in which people…what’s that? PAY THE BILLS THEY OWE.

          In other words, we provide an education to help them get ahead, and they pay it back through…what’s what? TAXES! Which funds the next generation.

          But first we need to get over the idea that we shouldn’t have to pay what we owe.

          1. but what happens if they don’t have money to pay? Free shit?

          2. Re: Marshall,

            In other words, we provide an education to help them get ahead, and they pay it back through…what’s what? TAXES! Which funds the next generation.

            Well, taxes certainly funds the next generation – of bureaucrats.

          3. So, in this fantasyland of yours no one mines, manufactures, farms, repairs, installs, contructs? No one makes anything but everyone has a post-graduate degree in something? And that creates a growing economy how?

            1. The Lloyd Dobler economy.

          4. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “we”, but Europeans are already paying taxes through the freaking nose. The average middle class person in western Europe has a considerably higher tax burden than the average middle class person in America.

          5. In other words, we provide an education to help them get ahead

            Even if it were possible to “provide” a graduate level education for everyone, if everyone has a graduate degree then how would anyone be able to get ahead? You get ahead by being able to stand out from the crowd. If everyone has graduate degrees then no one would stand out.

            But maybe that’s the point. In La-La Fantasyland there’s enough for all to prosper so long as everyone has the Highest Education possible. And we’ll live in gum drop houses on lollipop lane.

            Seriously you sound like someone who hasn’t spent a day in the real world. Which makes me guess that you’re 1) in a post graduate degree program of some kind yourself and have never set foot in an actual workplace (or off the collge campus) in your entire adult life) 2) a teenager or 3) some loser in his mom’s basebent who’s never held a job and had mommy to protect and provide for you your whole life or 4) a dipshit with no critical thinking skills. Of those 4 options only number 2 is excusable.

            1. “And we’ll live in gum drop houses on lollipop lane.”

              I love that song!

          6. “owe”

            I do not think that word means what you think it means.

            /Inigo Montoya

          7. I paid for my goddamn education.

            Go pay for your own, asshole.

      4. Re: Marshall,

        Maybe if they were allowed to raise revenues and provide services and education to youth rather than facing draconian austerity measures these numbers would be different.

        There are no draconian austerity measures being implemented in Spain. The fact is that Spain has a lot of regulatory measures aimed at keeping people on payroll no matter what, which raises the cost of hiring to the point NO employer wants to take a chance with young and inexperienced workers.

        I don’t know from where you get that “austerity” canard.

        A program that provided undergrad and graduate university to everyone would help these people find their way out of poverty and into the middle class.

        Well, one thing it would certainly do is create a lot of unemployed college graduates as the value of their education goes down (marginal value, how does that work?), unless they work hard to get PhDs or something.

        1. Austerity to Liberals like Marshall and Tony is getting a smaller spending increase than previously expected. Mindless idiots.

        2. I don’t know from where you get that “austerity” canard.

          He’s getting it from Paul “Alfred E.” Krugman, who has been writing the same column every week for months now whining about the European austerity which hasn’t even been implemented yet (though eventually they will certainly have to do it).

        3. There are no draconian austerity measures being implemented in Spain. The fact is that Spain has a lot of regulatory measures aimed at keeping people on payroll no matter what, which raises the cost of hiring to the point NO employer wants to take a chance with young and inexperienced workers.

          Which is why the unemployment rate was just as terrible before the so called auterity measures were implemented.

      5. “draconian austerity measures”

        You mean, like increasing spending by 8 percent every year and adding another trillion to the national debt?

    4. Re:Mike M.,

      Courtesy of Megan Mcardle’s blog at the Atlantic, check out these horrifying youth unemployment rates in Europe. In Spain, it is now over 50%!

      That’s what happens when you turn a job into an entitlement.

      1. That’s what happens when a job is “something someone gives me” rather than “something I make for myself”.

      2. Yup. Hard to fire, hard to hire.

    5. What would the U.S.’s % be, if our imprisonment rates were on par with those countries listed on the graph? I’m assuming that most of the people locked up would be on the unemployment rolls, but that could be unduly pessimistic. It wouldn’t surprise me if we had Portuguese levels of youth unemployment.

  31. Is John Corzine in jail yet?

    1. Odd how DOJ broke every rule in the book to indict and convict Ted Stevens as quickly as possible yet seem to be taking as much time as possible and giving Corzine every benefit of the doubt.

    2. His was a tragedy right out of Shakespeare you heartless thug.

    3. How can the US Federal government send him to jail. All Corzine did was take other peoples money and bet on European debt and that is exactly what the US Federal government is doing with taxpayers money.

      1. You seem to think the feds have a problem prosecuting people for doing the same things the feds are doing. I don’t know where you got that idea from.

  32. Sisko drinking Cisco?

    http://www.gossipcop.com/avery…..pace-nine/

  33. “Breast cancer charity giant Susan G. Komen for the Cure on Tuesday did not renew a grant to Planned Parenthood to fund breast exams. The move comes less than a year after Komen hired a new vice president, who has publicly stated her opposition to abortion”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..45568.html

    1. I stopped giving to my friends who do that Komen walk thing when I found out about how fucking litigious they are about the words “for the cure”. Fuck em.

    2. I know plenty of pro-lifers who refuse to donate to them because of their connection with Planned Parenthood. While it’s possible that there are people who only donated because of the PP connexion, I haven’t met any.

      So this could end up being a smart business move for them.

  34. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sci…..ality.html

    Mind reading could become a reality. Now where are my xray glasses?

    1. Jaysus, talk about the Law of Unintended Consequences! That would seriously fuck up the order of things.

    2. I worked with brain-computer interfaces like this for my master’s degree a while back. Most of these claims are vastly overhyped or just pure bullshit.

      1. Was that a masters degree in evil or just plain villainy? I got the evil one myself, but always wished I had gone into villainy instead.

        1. Scum and villainy. It’s an emerging discipline.

          1. …ah. Part of the multidisciplinary degree fad.

          2. I only took the Dastardly Deeds class from the villainy department.

            1. I was going to go into evil, but the police academy rejected my application, and I didn’t want to go to a second tier school

            2. I prefered the Dirty Deeds class myself.

          3. Did you go to Mos Eisley U? Go MEU Fighting Hutts!

            1. Tattoine State U has a better athletics programme:

              Brown Banthas for the win!

      2. Wow, that must have been something. What kind of waiver did you have to sign? Like if the janitor turned on the floor waxer while you were brained on to the system?

        1. Or is that how you got super powers?

        2. Every time you send him an email, he poops a little. Not much, but he definitely poops.

          1. Dude, I can read between the lines here. Quit sending Warty e-mails every thirty minutes, he is losing weight!

      3. “I worked with brain-computer interfaces like this for my master’s degree a while back…”

        And did your master ever get his degree?

        1. Bwahahaha
          +10

  35. Taxes are the same thing, it’s the bill we pay to keep society going.

    Why? Society sucks.

    1. Then why are you posting on the internet? Enjoying electricity, running water, cheap food, so on and so forth?

      Why not just run off into the forest and live on your own if you don’t want to pay your share of civilizations bill?

      1. government != society

        Taxes are the bill we pay to fund government, not society.

        1. But government is what sets the rules and guidelines for how society works.

          I mean, sure, you can want anarchy if you want, but I think most people realize we need rules to keep people in check and keep society moving forward.

          1. Is there a piece of legislation prohibiting you from cutting in front of people in line at the grocery store?
            No?
            Then why doesn’t everyone do it?

            You mean rules can exist without being backed by government force?

            No! No! It’s impossible! There can be no rules without government!

          2. We need rules to keep government in check. Society will move along as it pleases.

          3. Re: Marshall,

            But government is what sets the rules and guidelines for how society works.

            Yes, they’re like regular Parker Brothers.

            I mean, sure, you can want anarchy if you want, but I think most people realize we need rules to keep people in check and keep society moving forward.

            People realize that people need rules to behave like people… Ah, I see. Tiny has a question-begging playmate.

          4. yeah, those early Americans colonists just couldn’t get along without England telling them what to do.

      2. “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”

        Plato

      3. “Enjoying electricity, running water, cheap food, so on and so forth?”

        Unlike you apparently, I don’t get these goods and services from the government.

      4. Have you met White Indian? I think you guys could chat for hours…

  36. Can anyone else not view or post comments on the mobile site? Or from their phone at all? Even when I go to the main site on my phone and click “comments,” it just redirects me to the mobile site.

    1. No. It is the idiotic Reason mobile. Apparently Reason thinks that it is still 2001 and we are all using first gen cell phones.

      1. Thanks, John- I thought it was my phone just acting weird.

    2. The mobile site = Ceti Alpha Five

    3. Fewer drive-by comments on this site can only be a +.

  37. Sean Penn has been named an ambassador to Haiti.

    Haven’t those poor hatians been through enough?

  38. Is John Corzine in jail yet?

    I think he’s under house arrest; in his French chateau.

  39. Enjoying electricity, running water, cheap food, so on and so forth?

    OMFG you’re so right!

    I’m going to write a thankyew note to the Ministry of Plenty right now.

  40. I think Tony changed his name to Marshall.

    1. Pretty sure this is a regular trolling.

  41. Occucommies Throw Condoms at Catholic Schoolgirls

    http://moonbattery.com/?p=7535

    1. Catholic HS girls aren’t gonna be shocked by condoms. Half of ’em can apply one without using their hands.

  42. “Breast cancer charity giant Susan G. Komen for the Cure on Tuesday did not renew a grant to Planned Parenthood to fund breast exams. The move comes less than a year after Komen hired a new vice president, who has publicly stated her opposition to abortion”

    There’s no need to get out in the weeds of conspiracy theory, here. She probably just needed that money to redecorate the executive suite and get a nicer limousine.

  43. Most of these claims are vastly overhyped or just pure bullshit.

    This is why the services of a professional grant-writer are essential.

  44. American spy agencies believe Iran is prepared to use terrorist attacks within the country.

    Stooge up the headline with embellishment will ya? Not quite what Clapper. There is no excuse to getting fooled again.

    Disgraceful Reporting by the Boston Herald and Others
    Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on January 31, 2012 02:08 PM
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo…..04912.html

    The best way to get news is to read actual testimony, reports, transcripts, and speeches. The worst way is to read headlines, unless you like to be subjected to distortions and misunderstandings. In between, one can read news reports and then blogs, comments, and editorials about news reports.

    No matter what one reads, the next step is to think about the matter and place it in perspective based on important factors, past events, past news, past communications, history, and so on.

    Case in point: the testimony of Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper today. See here for his actual testimony in written form. Most important is that he said clearly that Iran is not building nuclear weapons and CIA chief David Petraeus said the same thing, and the latter said he had met with the head of Mossad to convey his view. This portion of his testimony was not reported in the Boston Herald article. Instead, it pieced together two unconnected parts of his testimony and left the impression that Iran was making enriched uranium in order to conduct an attack on the U.S.!! See here. This is disgracefully poor reporting and utterly misleading.

    Google provides headlines. Many of these, that I will not cite, are disgraceful too. They leave the impression that Iran has bolstered its threats unilaterally and is suddenly more willing to attack the continental U.S. This is not at all what Clapper said. He said that Iran is “now more willing to conduct an attack on the United States” in the case of a “real or perceived” threat by the U.S. to the regime. In other words, an attack on them or a U.S. threat on them that they considered deadly serious might possibly be met by their attacks on American soil. That’s his opinion, but even that doesn’t get reported accurately. For example, the Washington Post says, according to Google, “launch terrorist attacks inside the United States in response to perceived threats from America and its allies…” Notice that they added the word “terrorist” to Clapper’s testimony and they left out the part about a real threat. This is really pitiful and biased reporting.

    In fact, Clapper’s words are heavily hedged in three ways that the reporting doesn’t make clear. First, he said that it was the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador that is what is indicating to the CIA that “some Iranian officials” are more willing to attack the U.S. in response to real and perceived threats on their regime. OK, but that plot is alleged and the evidence for Iran’s involvement is vanishing. It was so far-fetched and so clownish, whom does it convince? Not me at any rate. Maybe the bright boys in the CIA. Clapper seems to be reaching for a convincing story. Second, other parts of his testimony make clear that there are big divisions and conflicts among Iran’s rulers. That is why he hedged by saying “some Iranian officials.” This is hardly a ringing statement that says that Iran has decided to target the U.S. Third, he says that the top leader “probably” has changed his calculus. How does he know that? It too is hedged language.

    In reality, the two short paragraphs on the threat from Iran do not deserve consideration even as major news and they do not deserve scare headlines, much less misinterpreted headlines or biased news reports. There have been numerous threats coming out of Iran about what damage it might choose to inflict if attacked. Their language has waxed as the U.S. threats have waxed. It doesn’t take a CIA with a huge budget to figure out what’s going on. The plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, such as it was, is actually peripheral to the ongoing threat dynamic.

    Fox News uses the phrase “emboldened Iran” when it says it is “more willing” to attack the U.S. Where do they get “emboldened” from? That too makes it sound as if Iran, for some unknown reason or unilaterally, has taken upon itself to make the U.S. a target.

    1. I am quite sure Iran could attack the US if it wanted to. But what does that mean? One guy shooting a few people in a mall is a “terrorist attack”. The issue is not if they can attack since pretty much any nation determined enough could. It is one kind of an attack and how much damage could it do? And that is the subject he didn’t talk about.

      I worry about Iran destabilizing the world’s oil supply or nuking Israel. I don’t worry about them doing much to the US proper.

      1. I am quite sure Iran could attack the US if it wanted to.

        LOL!

        One of our eleven aircraft carriers is more powerful than the entire Iranian air force.

        I’d bet one DDG could wipe out their navy.

        Yeah they could attack us. And Steve Urkel could attack Mike Tyson.

        1. OBL attacked the US and killed nearly 3000 people. Iran has a lot of non traditional assets at its disposal. I have no doubt they could launch terrorists attacks against the United States if they wanted to. But, how serious would those attacks actually be? Another 9-11? Doubtful.

          1. I have no doubt they could launch terrorists attacks against the United States if they wanted to.

            Would they really be terrorist attacks if they were launched by a foreign government?

            That would be a military attack, and an act of war.

            1. True. Whatever you want to call it, that is how they could attack us if they wanted to. It is not that hard to smuggle some nuts into the country and have them blow something up.

              1. True. Our SEALs do it all the time.

                1. Our seals go into shopping malls and markets and kill unarmed civilians? Really?

                  1. All you said was “blow something up”.

                    1. Fair enough. And yes, it can be done.

                  2. Our seals go into shopping malls and markets and kill unarmed civilians?

                    No, that’s the CIA’s job.

          2. Actually if the Iranians fired an anti-tack missile into the Whitehouse and took out Obama and his whole family, how would that be any different from what we are doing now in several countries?

            1. It wouldn’t. It would just be an act of war. It wouldn’t even be an act of terrorism. Obama is a lawful target. Of course, the US could lawfully respond with a few thousand cruise missiles with the Iranian leadership’s name and address on them.

            2. Although the act of sneaking into the country and hiding amongst the civilian population would be a war crime. But shooting at Obama would not be.

              1. Movie plot idea:

                Evil mastermind “produces” a “film” about an attack on the White House. Gets permission for filming in DC, puts up “set” with non-fake weapons, with “actors” who are non-fake soldiers wearing non-fake uniforms.

        2. Hi! My name is sarcasmic, and I’ve never heard of 4th Generation Warfare, but I’ll just spout my ignorance for all and sundry.

          1. Is 4th Gen what we’re calling asymmetric warfare now?

      2. The the left-media gins up the Iran threat, they can later–oh, say late October–make the “shouldn’t try to change horses mid-stream” argument.

        1. That is right. We are at war. We can’t change Presidents during a war.

      3. I dont worry about them nuking Israel. If we dont pressure them too much, Israel will take care of the Iranian nuke program well before that. Like they did with Iraq in 1981.

        Which republican presidental nominee supported Israel in 1981?

      4. Why would Iran attack the U.S. directly anyway? They could just supply arms to the Zetas.

        If it was up to me (me being Iranian spymaster, I mean), I would try to provoke a civil war. Hire a known (to AZ as well as federal authorities) Sinaloa member to assassinate, e.g., Joe Arpaio, make sure his identity is clear and on film, and “drop” a phone suggesting not only that the administration (esp. Holder and Napolitano) wanted him gone, but that more hits would be carried out against Republican politicians in the future. If you could guarantee it was a F&F gun, so much the better.

        Team Red will be calling for the President’s head, the Democrats will rally around him, and even if it doesn’t turn into a real civil war, the U.S. won’t have time to worry about Iran. If it buys them enough time to get nukes, they’re untouchable after that, like Pakistan and North Korea.

        1. “They could just supply arms to the Zetas.”

          Shhhhhhh…

    2. As I posted at 9:25, two sentences from the link , one that induces panic and one that does not:
      “An assessment by U.S. spy agencies concludes that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States,”…

      “U.S. officials said they have seen no intelligence to indicate that Iran is actively plotting attacks on U.S. soil. “

  45. I don’t understand why so many libertarians get upset when someone actually brings them the bill for the things they’ve been buying.

    Of course. “Society” shows up at my door and says, “Here’s your stuff; we know you didn’t really ‘order’ it, but we know you wanted it, because it’s what we would have wanted if we were in your situation, so just GIVE US THE FUCKING MONEY!”

    1. No, you had a say, and we all jointly agreed on what was needed.

      The fact you don’t want to opt out of all the things like police and fire and roads and education that everyone else has agreed to doesn’t mean you get to dictate for everyone else.

      We can have a system where we have everything everyone agrees to, and we pay for it together or we can have a system where one person, apparently P Brooks gets to deny everyone else the ability to have police or fire protection.

      The former is much easier. Identify the things we all need, pay for them, and then do it. That’s what responsible adults would do.

      1. “P Brooks” is an anarchist.
        Argumentation is futile.
        Toss him a coin and move along.

      2. Re: Marshall,

        The fact you don’t want to opt out of all the things like police and fire and roads and education that everyone else has agreed to doesn’t mean you get to dictate for everyone else.

        Your sentence makes no sense especially as a retort to what P Brooks is saying.

        We can have a system where we have everything everyone agrees to, and we pay for it together or we can have a system where one person, apparently P Brooks gets to deny everyone else the ability to have police or fire protection.

        Or “we” can have a society where dumbasses stop arguing through false dichotomies. Opting out of having a government provide things it was never meant to provide at all does not mean “dictating to everybody else” anything. As a matter of fact, the imposition of a police force and forced education IS dictating to everybody else.

        The former is much easier. Identify the things we all need, pay for them, and then do it.

        There’s already something like that – it’s called “the market.”

      3. Bullshit! If EVERYONE agreed, then no one would be bothered by paying the bill. But not EVERYONE agrees. The majority agreed, or so we’re told. So why should the minority who did not agree have pay for something THEY DON’T WANT?

        Let them keep their money for not using services they do not want. Then if they decide to use them, you can charge them then. But under your system… “nope, we decided, so you have to pay.”

        1. Everyone means everyone but you.

      4. I opted out of public education. When do I get my refund check?

      5. “No, you had a say, and we all jointly agreed on what was needed.”

        You have, at best, a very tenuous grasp on the meaning of concepts like “all” and “agree”.

      6. No, you had a say, and we all jointly agreed on what was needed.

        So if 2 of my friends join me in writing up a contract to buy your 400k house for 50 bucks, and we let you vote on it, and the vote is 3-1 in favor, we have “an agreement”?

  46. Transparent troll is transparent.

  47. I have been told The Iranians have a fleet of missile-equipped submarines patrolling off our coast RIGHT NOW!

    I believe this, and have asked Janet Napolitano to send a DHS agent to strip search me and make sure there isn’t one lurking in my ass.

  48. Transparent troll is transparent.

    Tedious troll is tedious.

    1. incif file will soon be growing by one.

  49. Spy Agencies Warn that Iran May Be Prepared to Launch Terrorist Attacks in the U.S.

    The testimony from James Clapper before the Senate does not indicate he mentioned “terrorist” attacks from Iran or by Iran.

    This reminds me of this:

    Disgraceful Reporting From The Boston Herald And Others
    Michael S. Rozeff on January 31, 2012

    No matter what one reads, the next step is to think about the matter and place it in perspective based on important factors, past events, past news, past communications, history, and so on.

    Case in point: the testimony of Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper today. See here for his actual testimony in written form. Most important is that he said clearly that Iran is not building nuclear weapons and CIA chief David Petraeus said the same thing, and the latter said he had met with the head of Mossad to convey his view. This portion of his testimony was not reported in the Boston Herald article. Instead, it pieced together two unconnected parts of his testimony and left the impression that Iran was making enriched uranium in order to conduct an attack on the U.S.!! See here. This is disgracefully poor reporting and utterly misleading.

    Google provides headlines. Many of these, that I will not cite, are disgraceful too. They leave the impression that Iran has bolstered its threats unilaterally and is suddenly more willing to attack the continental U.S. This is not at all what Clapper said. He said that Iran is “now more willing to conduct an attack on the United States” in the case of a “real or perceived” threat by the U.S. to the regime. In other words, an attack on them or a U.S. threat on them that they considered deadly serious might possibly be met by their attacks on American soil. That’s his opinion, but even that doesn’t get reported accurately. For example, the Washington Post says, according to Google, “launch terrorist attacks inside the United States in response to perceived threats from America and its allies…” Notice that they added the word “terrorist” to Clapper’s testimony and they left out the part about a real threat. This is really pitiful and biased reporting.

    1. Aargh! Preempted by killazontherum!

  50. How much will Democrats raise taxes when the GOP hands Obama the picture perfect candidate he wants to run against and they get their majorities back?

    Lets go down Obama’s checklist of how the billion dollar smear machine is going to portray Romney.

    1. Can be portrayed as Wall St’s boy toy who don’t care about the little guy. Says he doesn’t care about the poor. Hides money offshore.

    2. Can be portrayed as heartless Republican bass turd who imposed taxes on the blind and tried to impose them on the mentally challenged.

    3. Says he knows how to get economy going because of his corporate raiding experience but his state was 47th in job creation under him….and Romney’s excuse is he inherited a bad situation and had to work with opposition party.

    1. Obama say thanks for making my case
      Mitt.

      4. Has strange non mainstream religion whose founder prophesied a Mormon will save the US at a time when the Constitution is hanging by a thread. Has 4 years of video of many Republicans and Republican pundits basically saying exactly that. Has minions within the MSM who will use
      JFK excuse to make certain people know about the following:

      Dana Milbank White Horse Prophecy
      http://tinyurl.com/35k2nbh

      Brace Yourself for the Anti-Mormon Slime Machine
      http://tinyurl.com/843zon4

      The left will make sure he’s defending his religion is not polytheistic to make sure he’s constantly on the defensive.

      5. Motivates the base of his party even less than John McCain and Independents not very favorable either: Among independents, Romney’s unfavorable rating now tops 50 percent ? albeit by a single point ? a first in Post-ABC polling back to 2006. Just two weeks ago, more independents had favorable than unfavorable views of Romney; now, it’s 2 to 1 negative.

      6. Can be short circuited in debate and gets visibly petulant and condescending when attacked.

      7. Will most likely take the GOP ticket down the line down with him.

      I’m sure the Left’s list is longer.

    2. Have fun with those higher taxes Reasonoids. Obama says thanks for being purist and not making me run against Gingrich…because he’s basically only have those personal attacks which won’t cut it in the general see Bill Clinton circa 1992.

      Imagine the conundrum for Obama attacking Newt’s record as Speaker he’d be attacking things Bill Clinton likes to brag about ie balanced budgets, paying down debt, jobs jobs jobs etc… I wonder if the Clintonites have forgiven Obama after Obama played the race care on the Clintons last election.

      1. Re: Guest1776,

        Obama says thanks for being purist and not making me run against Gingrich…because he’s basically only have those personal attacks which won’t cut it in the general see Bill Clinton circa 1992.

        This is the same Gingrich that sat down with Pelosi to admonish us mere mortals for heating up the world.

        1. It’s funny, because between their verbal flatulence and their private chartered flights, those two combined probably produce about 25% of the nation’s greenhouse gas emiisions.

  51. The brain, it hurts from the stupid

    Oh, we got some good ‘uns here:

    Anyone who’s had any recent experience with the American education system knows that most of the time, it’s not an inherently queer-friendly place. From the locker room at gym to the video about where babies come from in health class, it’s a straight straight world out there. Despite our best efforts to make the educational sphere a more inclusive place for young queers — from anti-bullying initiatives to the FAIR Act in California — it remains an aggressively heteronormative space for kids who are very sensitive to the idea that there might be something bad, wrong, or unnatural about them. As major a victory as the FAIR Act was, with its assurance that kids would soon be able to learn about queer role models and historical figures in their public schools, even that may not be the slam dunk that activists had hoped for — California budget cuts mean that the next curriculum revision and textbook purchase have been pushed back to 2015, and individual school districts are being told to interpret the law as best they can without any new funding, and in spite of the fact that their funding overall has decreased by roughly 20% in the last few years.

    As long as the majority of students in any academic setting are straight, are heteronormativity and cisnormativity in the classroom inevitable?

    AND

    Stryker talks about how she comes out in every one of the classes she teaches, because the experience of living as a trans person informs how she approaches her discipline as well as the rest of her life. Or as she says, “You learn, through how you live your body in the world, how power operates and how institutions reproduce oppressive forms of normativity.”

    Finally…

    And not just to gay students — while it’s clear that Weston’s queer students value him as a role model, Stryker’s points hold true for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity: understanding sexuality and caring about sexual diversity is part of how you train students to be engaged members of society, and everyone learns through how you live in your body in the world how power and oppression operate. Systems of power and oppression operate through normative bodies and identities as well — but unless you’re aware of how normative they are, it’s very easy to ignore that. When teachers and educators teach from their own experience, they give their students the opportunity to learn more about themselves, and the positions of privilege or marginalization they occupy in the world.

    And my kids are now going to private school.

    1. I agree AuH20, how dare someone be GAY!

      1. No, I just feel that kids suck at learning history to begin with. I’m not against mentioning homsexuality either- Hull House was run by two lesbians, Elanor Roosevelt was gay, etc.

        However, I feel that increasingly, we will get sociologial bullshit creeping into classrooms: marginilization, normativitity, privelege, interlocking systems of oppresion, gender as different from sex and a performative act, etc.

        I’m not denying that there isn’t some truth to some of those theories, but do you really trust public school teachers, who can’t even be bothered to teach Hoover and the 1932 election right, to do it without a fucking massive statist, interventionist, liberal bias?

        1. but do you really trust public school teachers, who can’t even be bothered to teach Hoover and the 1932 election right, to do it without a fucking massive statist, interventionist, liberal bias?

          That statist bias is a given considering public school. However, I really don’t see anything too outrageous in the quotes you supplied from the article. I just see the author stating the simple fact that one teaches from their own experience. It is not fair to ask a teacher to become a sexless and genderless automaton.

          Of course, diversity in educator’s experiences is yet another strong argument for true diversity in education, i.e. choice.

          1. Eh, fair point. I guess I see a difference between, “Hey, I’m gay, and I’m teacher” which is a valuable point, and the shit that surrounds it, like “Systems of power and oppression operate through normative bodies and identities as well — but unless you’re aware of how normative they are, it’s very easy to ignore that.”

            See, I don’t think oppresion is based on the “norm”. Blacks made up about 50% of the population in the antebellum South. Nobles ruled peasants despite being an incredibly small amount of the population. Etc.

            I think that the problem is that these people don’t seem to want just for teachers to be human. They want teachers to be human who also teach the current in vogue feminist and gender and racial and sociological theories, and I am getting really tired of that kind of social engineering that must be enacted because of what some jerk learned in her “Depecitions of Trangender Identity in the Civil Rights Era MesoAmerican Community” class.

  52. I’m at a workplace holiday dinner and we are sharing each others’ quirks and habits. My boss says that people should be careful about what they say around me, no sexist jokes, etc. The only man in a small staff of women, says, “I know bitches like that.” Everyone reacted by going “ohhhhhh!”

    I am a young, queer woman who is out and political around the office, a non-profit disability rights organization. This made me feel humiliated and frustrated. Like I couldn’t do anything but go along with the joke without being labelled as a humorless feminist. I felt singled out as the only one who is interested in creating safe space for all in a disability rights organization.

    In the immortal words of the gay Miami Assasins from Archer, “She sound lovely.” Also, “Stereotypes exist for a reason.”

    Lastly, I would like to apologize for introducing you all to the microagressions site. Milk was a bad choice.

    1. And, as we all know, “non-profit disability rights organizations” are hotbeds of violent right-wing rhetoric, hatred, and bigotry.

    2. @AuH20:

      Once again, I am agog at the grim humorlessness of the perpetual victim. Not to mention the profound unawareness of self (and of ironry) a prissy little diatribe like that demonstrates.

      How could anyone resist the urge to say to her, “Honey, you’re not special?”

      1. I, however, am aware of irony. And sometimes how to spell it.

    3. I like how her idea of “creating a safe space for all” requires the repression of fellow employees.

      Its not so fucking safe for the guy who tells an off-color joke, is it, humorless young queer feminist disability rights worker lady?

      1. Insert babbling about how people have a right to be “free from fear” and “free from being offended” here.

    4. Lastly, I would like to apologize for introducing you all to the microagressions site. Milk was a bad choice.

      I hope you realized the extent to which you microaggressed against us all by doing so.

      Made me feel different, marginalized, like the NAP doesn’t matter, and like I didn’t have enough “feelings” being “hurt” to be considered a full “person.”

  53. Star Trek Online now Free To Play on Steam: http://store.steampowered.com/app/9900/

    1. Wait, they made that game? I thought it got shitcanned.

      1. Wait, they made that game? I thought it got shitcanned.

        No, the company that was supposed to design it went under, and then the property was given to Cryptic Studios. I’ve been playing the game for 2 years now. It’s all right, but it could have been a lot better. Unless you’re a real hardcore Trekkie, (which you’re not, Enterprise-lover :P) I can’t see it keeping someone’s attention for too long.

        1. Yeah, it’s certainly not…polished.

          But then again what massive RPGs are these days. Especially online. And especially made by Cryptic.

          Atmosphere is pretty spot-on though. Maybe the best since the Elite Force series.

        2. Hey! You leave Captain Jonothan Archer and Scott Bakula’s nuanced depiction of him out of this!

  54. aggressively heteronormative

    The HORROR!!!

    Obviously, Society must spend any amount imagineable to prevent these delicate blossoms from becoming aware that they are different from the vast majority of humanity.

    1. And what evidence do you have that the “vast majority of humanity” is as straight-as-an-arrow?

      1. The fact that the population of Earth is growing?

        1. The fact that the population of Earth is growing?

          Dude, even Socrates had a kid. Point is, we in America are actually such “delicate blossoms” that we giggle like 5-year-olds talking about cooties when we see two European men greet each other by kissing on the cheek.

          1. Given the hygeine habist of most Euros, I’m just faintly nauseated.

          2. What does that have to do with people not being straight? Are you suggesting that the majority of the population is really gay?

            1. What does that have to do with people not being straight? Are you suggesting that the majority of the population is really gay?

              I’m suggesting that in reality sexuality is not binary.

              1. Heroic Mulatto, I actually agree with this. However, I think that you can’t have it both ways. Either the Kinsey scale is right, and more people would be gay if society were more cool with it; OR sexuality is purely genetic, no nuture, and it’s okay to get pissed at that broad from SATC who said she chose to be a lesbian.

                See, I think it is contradictory to say, “Hetrosexuality is a societal construct” and then go, “I was born this way.” Because, the thing is, by that token, homosexuality is a social construct and you WEREN’T born this way.

                1. It’s not contradictory because one needs to remember that the expression of an organisms genes is influenced by environment (Phenotype vs. Genotype).

              2. I’m suggesting that in reality sexuality is not binary.

                I don’t even know what that is supposed to mean. People can fuck whatever they want as long as once in a while there is some hetero sex going on to propagate the species?

                1. Geez, you act as if you never heard of being “bi” before.

                  1. Bi is just hetero with extended benefits. Or is it homo with extended benefits?

                2. “People can fuck whatever they want”

                  If only that were true.

                  *sobs uncontrollably*

          3. Dude: the only thing that makes me giggle like a 5 year old is anything to do with farts.

  55. I’m in a Master of Social Work program at an Ivy League university, and my professors and administrators consistently tell me that I have a different background than my clients. They don’t know that I am from a working poor family, and I am a survivor of incest.

    No comment necessary.

  56. I am a young, queer woman who is out and political around the office, a non-profit disability rights organization.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Wheee!

  57. Apparently Lord Humongous’s secret private zoo has been outed:

    Scientists reveal secret of humongous mammals

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Scien…..us-mammals

  58. Just to be clear, I don’t give a shit if you want to dress up like Minnie Pearl and fuck goats while you’re high on STP; I just don’t want you to think I’m going to tiptoe around and pretend it’s a “normal” lifestyle.

    1. high on STP

      ?

        1. Ha, it automatically made a link out of the letters ftp. Fucking awesome.

      1. Can STP be used as an inhalent?

      2. Fuck, man, all the NASCAR fans are doing it.

    2. I just don’t want you to think I’m going to tiptoe around and pretend it’s a “normal” lifestyle.

      Normal to whom? Abnormal to a mostly Christian society like the United States? Of course. Abnormal to the “vast majority of humanity”? Not so much.

      1. Look, no matter how you dress it up, the only way to carry on the species is through standard hetero sex. That’s the way mammals are designed. Be gay if you want, nobody here will care. But strictly speaking, it isn’t “natural”.

          1. That’s not what it is at all. It’s not a fallacy that that’s the way nature works. Just because people want to do crazy shit doesn’t make it “normal” or “natural”. I don’t give one iota of a shit if you want to stick your dick in a tree, but I’m not going to pretend that is “normal” behavior.

            1. And here, dear Sparky, is your Black Swan (or bisexual ape, as the case may be). Isn’t it interesting that our closest genetic relatives are 100% bisexual?

              http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

      2. No, that’s not even what we’re arguing about.

        What we’re arguing about is now it’s not sufficient to grant full rights to homosexuals. We have to pretend that no one is heterosexual. Because as long as anybody sees any heterosexual conduct being depicted anywhere in the culture (say, a movie where straight people kiss, or a children’s book where the children have straight parents, or a biology textbook that explains how sexual reproduction actually works) makes fucking gigantic loser fucks feel Othered.

        How about Fuck You If You Feel Othered? That’s my policy. Fuck you. Feel Othered. The complaint department is closed, for the simple reason that your fucking feelings don’t matter to me. Go complain to Oprah.

        1. Well shit Fluffy, it all makes sense now. I feel othered by all the gay people making me feel like I’m the one with the problem. How about that?

          1. Only others can be othered, and you’re not an other.

            1. Well thanks for making me feel even more othered by the fact that I can’t be othered. I’m going to spend the rest of the day going on an othering spree now. Fuck em all.

    3. I wish I could get high on standard temperature and pressure…

    4. Strawman.

      No one’s saying it’s normal. It’s about it being value neutral and also not hidden in a corner and ignored.

      1. value neutral

        It’s bullshit terms like this that drive people crazy.

  59. Last! for now

  60. Fucking kidz today.

    1. Why didn’t you just day Dimethoxymethylamphetamine?

      Everyone has heard of that.

      I thought you meant getting a contact high at a rock show or something.

  61. Fuck you, Almanian.

  62. Who comes up with all this crazy stuff dude.

    http://www.puter-privacy.tk

  63. No way is the anon-bot going to get last!

  64. Again the voters proved they don’t pay attention. 25% of Florida voters said the deficit was the single biggest issue, but only 7% of them voted for Ron Paul.

    1. Although there’s no question that Paul is the only candidate serious about reducing the deficit/debt, I understand the impression that Romney, with his experience of reorganizing failing companies and getting their finances in order could be “the candidate to reorganize the failing government and get its finances in order.” In fact, if I were Romney, I’d run on that as the centerpiece of my campaign, along with the whole “yes, I was forced to lay off private sector workers for Bain. Likewise, I’ll be forced to lay off public sector workers as President” line. Of course his actual track record as MA governor doesn’t sync with that account, but as a candidate it’s still a winning tactic.

  65. His win was driven more by demographics than economics…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.