A.M. Links: Congress Critters Announce Payroll Tax Cut Deal, Gun Owners Stage Starbucks "Buycott," Foreclosures On the Rise Again
-
Republican negotiator on payroll tax cut extension: "We have reached an agreement and we're moving forward."
- Gun owners for Starbucks.
- Many of the inmates killed in a horrific Honduras prison fire had not even been charged, were awaiting trial.
- GM earns record $9.19 billion profit.
- Foreclosures pick up the pace.
- (Black) Democrats in Maryland stand in the way of gay marriage.
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: "Wende Museum: An Archive of the Cold War"
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Cost of Four Years of Obama: $5,170,000,000,000.00
http://moonbattery.com/?p=8125
And it's too much to ask that they give me $100 million. Pfft
They're lowballing it.
At least they didn't blackball it, which would be RACIST.
Looking to bring more bisexual passion to your life? Welcome to=== Datebi.C/0/M ===, the world's largest bisexual community for no strings attached encounters. Hundreds of thousands pretty girls and handsome guys eager for hookups, bisexual stands, and discreet affairs are active here. Come in and discover the excitement you deserve! u_u
What could possibly go wrong?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/ho.....-game.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....elves.html
Worst Band Name Ever:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/wei.....torum.html
There is/was a punk band from SoCal named 'The Fat Chick From Wilson Phillips'. That is the best band name ever.
I don't know what surprised me more: that Dave Mustaine is a Republican or that he was still alive.
Mustaine found God a while ago, either he or his kid went through some medical event, I think....
Are we sure he meant the candidate?
+1
Is that a flying W?
Worst Band Name Ever
Weigel?
"NRA Spokesman Ted Nugent's Top 10 Inflammatory Comments"
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201202150010
I had a laugh over his NBA comments.
"If the NBA had any true gay convictions, the NBA should host a Homosexual Night" during which "homosexuals could come down on the court, hold hands and prance around the court to music by the Village People. The NBA could then give each homosexual a pink basketball as a symbol of solidarity."
This would also mark the first time I decided to watch anything NBA-related outside of the postseason in about ten years.
Yeah that one was awesome:
"[t]hose among us who work tirelessly to shut down (and shout down, if the need arises) speech they disagree with must also be absolutely gay with pride and satisfaction over this fine."
Magnificent trolling there.
Let me float an idea I've been cultivating: The 3rd-party candidates should hold debates this year, and if the major-party candidates won't show up, invite celebrity spokespeople to make the case for the major-party candidates. Their desire for media exposure may (hopefully) outweigh the panicked calls from party headquarters not to legitimate the third-parties.
For the Republican candidate, why not invite Ted Nugent? That in itself should get public attention to the event.
For the Democratic candidate, invite any randomly-chosen scantily clad actress with a movie to promote. There should be no difficulty finding one.
The extra publicity for such a debate would destroy the traditional major-party tactic of boycotting third parties and keeping them out of the public consciousness.
Just a thought.
If the Dem candidate is Mila Kunis, I would be completely accepting of this.
I mean Dem and Rep *spokespersons* from the celebrity community.
Nugent would be able to make a better case for Romney than Romney himself. Mila Jovovich would certainly be able to make a good case for Obama.
And the entertainment media would bring public awareness of the event.
"Zooey Deschanel (sp?) looked stunning in a blue sleeveless gown as she defended President Obama in a candidate debate yesterday..."
As much as I love Mila Jovovich, if St. Paul and Satan joined forces and hired Cicero, Daniel Webster, and Yoda as their coaching staff, they still couldn't make a good case for Obama.
Remember Media Mutters is tax exempt.
Media Matters' auto-correct feature is broken, because it turned "hysterical" into "inflammatory."
Well, that's because they are non-partisan and non-political.
I can't wait for their expos? on Chuck Norris' 10 Most Controversial Punches.
Chuck Norris caused global warming by punching a hole in the ozone layer.
Chuck Norris doesn't breathe, he holds air hostage.
Awwwww
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci.....lanet.html
D'awwwww
Forget malnourished models, why can't we have more of this?
He has a very pleasing "I don't take no shit off you fuckers" look on his tiny face.
And now for something completely different, tentacle porn.
Much like The Santorums, cuttlefish reproduce by vomiting into each other's mouths.
Different? Wow, some of you people are screwed down so tight.
I like cuttlefish. Well, I like their name. It's so cute.
HOAX!!!
Normal sized Chameleon! One big fucking finger!
PWND:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c.....ore-107485
"Slow and Not-So-Furious
Time-to-crime statistics cast doubt on DOJ gun trafficking claims, document reveals"
http://freebeacon.com/slow-and-not-so-furious/
What do you expect when they only were able to ship a few thousand guns to Mexico? If it hadn't been for those damned meddling Republicans, they would have gotten a few hundred thousand guns down there and had some statistics to work with.
It's not just applicable to F&F. It throws water on all the arguments that sales restrictions (such as one gun per month) have any proximal effect.
Yeah because a billion dollar drug cartel that runs half of Mexico could never go to the Chinese, or North Koreans or their own military and police (most of whom are on the payroll) to get weapons. No, they would rather buy the guns in the US and smuggle them in.
The whole story was obvious bullshit from the beginning.
No need to even go that far. Central America has plenty of military weapons and equipment left over from their various insurgencies. AK's, G3's, FNL's, whatever you want.
I assume you meant either FNCs or FALs.
Jesus fucking christ RoboCain, lay off the cocaine in the mornings.
B00bies!
http://www.uncoached.com/2009/.....in-drewes/
I think corrupting Tim Tebow might be the holy grail of every budding skank in America.
Yeah, as if being a starting quarterback in the NFL isn't enough, he's got to add that on top of it.
Tebow might not be as dumb as the athie-fundies think.
Jesus! I'm awake now!
Disgusting.
Bless the lord for these thy holy boobs.
Liberals, Don't Homeschool Your Kids
Why teaching children at home violates progressive values
The money quote
Could such a go-it-alone ideology ever be truly progressive?by which I mean, does homeschooling serve the interests not just of those who are doing it, but of society as a whole?
Because your duty is not to pursue your own happiness or raise your kids as you see fit. No. Your duty is to society as a whole.
These people are fucking sick bastards.
Agreed.
The individual must always surrender to the will of the majority.
I love Star Trek, but Spock's catch phrase "The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few" always bothered me.
Spock was just kidding. He never thought Kirk would just let him die. I mean, come on, it's science fiction!
It's a logical position to take and I see nothing wrong with it, assuming it's a personal sacrifice. If other people are deciding that you are among the few who have to sacrificed, utilitarianism becomes monstrous.
+1
That was a great movie. If it had been all original and not Star Trek, I think it would be recognized more broadly as a great film rather than merely great Trek.
While it didn't work in the sixth film as well, I liked how Meyer interwove classical themes into the story and really hit on one of the big draws of Star Trek--the relationship among the principal characters.
One thing that sucked (to me, anyway) about all that Spock's Katra business with McCoy in the third movie is that it changed the whole "Remember" mind meld. When you first saw it, it was obviously meant to be Spock's moment to finally say, "Hey, dude, you're an ass, but I loved you. No homo." Making McCoy into a convenient host for a Spock parasite--not so cool.
While the latter shows go pretty much full on commie, TOS had a number of episodes that explicitly rejected utilitarianism, especially "A Taste Of Armageddon".
Back then, the awfulness of collectivism was more obvious. The Nazis had been defeated only twenty years earlier, and the Soviet Union was a dreary example to be avoided.
Barbara Babcock in her prime. Mmmmmmmm....
Errand of Mercy also looked down its nose at utilitarian paternalism, in a roundabout fashion.
What's funny is that the later lack of continuity with the Organians (where did they go?) is coupled with the continuity of humans and Klingons becoming best pals.
(where did they go?
They left on a high note.
The Organian Peace Treaty is part and parcel of ST lore going forward, although, they're "Ouch! Ouch! Hot weapons!" trick only seemed to work that one time.
All powerful alien race was a recurring theme in Star Trek; Metrons, Day of the Dove spinny things, Q's, etc.
Spock made a choice.
It's all about the context: One dude exposing himself to radiation in order to save the lives of his comrades on a starship--makes sense.
Sending your kid to public school even though you have the resources and desire to teach them better yourselve--highly illogical.
Because we're all such unbiased judges of our own abilities, teaching mong them.
And, of course, nothing erases that bias like getting paid to exercise that alleged ability.
He repeated the phrase many times throughout the different series and movies. It was not just Star Trek II that he uttered that phrase
Star Trek incorporated several political ideals that made me uncomfortable. The whole, "we don't have money and work for the betterment of society" thing being a close second to "the needs of the many".
That's more latter-day Star Trek. TOS had money. I think the original idea was to play with the concept of a post-scarcity society and how that would allow people to "do their thing."
Unfortunately, the later shows become more overtly political and, in many ways, authoritarian.
Agreed. I think the first mention of no money was The Voyage Home. (about the same time as "the needs of the many"). Then it continued down that path in TNG.
I wouldn't put too much in the "Needs of the many" quote. That was about self-sacrifice as a choice, not a political doctrine. It came up early to foreshadow Spock's willingness to die to save the ship. A necessary and very well-done dramatic device.
I know this is late, but yeah, that would've been a lot more fucked up if the bridge crew had gotten together and put it to a vote, then kicked Spock out when he got the most votes. Not nearly as noble, and morally repugnant.
I'm satisfied to imagine that the starfleet stuff is quasi-military and the regular people who we never see are living in some marvelous state of post-scarcity freedom. Do they explicitly say that there is no money in the later series?
It is explicitly stated in TNG.
I guess that would fit. I really haven't watched much Star Trek since I watched TNG when it was originally aired.
Mentioned in First Contact when Picard is talking to the black lady in his conference room on the Enterprise.
Could such a go-it-alone ideology ever be truly progressive?by which I mean, does homeschooling serve the interests not just of those who are doing it, but of society as a whole?
And what this also means is that telling yourself that you're helping the needs of the whole is making you feel good about yourself.
I *intend* to serve the interests of society. OK?
"But government is the only institution with the power and scale to intervene in the massive undertaking of better educating American children, 90 percent of whom currently attend public schools. (And it's worth remembering that schools provide not just education, but basic child care while parents are at work.)"
But don't mind that parenthetical statement: Our motives are pure, unlike the motives of homeschoolers!
But government is the only institution with the power and scale to intervene in the massive undertaking of better educating American children
I made it to the bottom of page 2, somehow.
I made it to the bottom of page 2, somehow.
Thank a teacher!
Ok, Thanks mom. 🙂
I barely made it to the end of the second paragraph. Too bad I wasn't homeschooled, I might have done better.
I couldn't even click the link.
Because, obviously, there can be only one institution involved in this undertaking.
The Statist Fallacy at work: If the government doesn't do it, it doesn't happen.
It's viewing everything through the statist lens that's corrupting this country. Look at NPR, for instance. Yes, it's got a liberal bias, but even when it's not picking sides, it almost always focuses on Washington as the alpha and omega of any issue. We've lost our way.
What is so pathetic about these people is that a simple reading of Adam Smith would inform them that acting in my best interest IS what promotes society as a whole! Read fucking Wealth of Nations since you are so smart and educated!
But government is the only institution with the power and scale to intervene in the massive undertaking of better educating American children
What the author doesn't understand is that the cultural shift towards acceptance of the homeschooling movement is an indication that the government has reached the limits of human scale, is viewed as being no longer capable of meeting everyone's educational needs, and that homeschooling (along with charter schools and the like) is a response to this dysfunction.
Hey now -- home schooling kids is bad for America no matter how smart, accomplished, and productive the kids turn out to be. Because fuck you, that's why.
what is so fundamentally illiberal about the trend: It is rooted in distrust of the public sphere, in class privilege, and in the dated presumption that children hail from two-parent families,
Remember kids, not everyone is fortunate enought to have a puppy, mommy's going to have to give ours away.
Rooted in distrust of a public sphere that just last week was caught inspecting children's packed school lunches and replacing those home-made meals with cafeteria chicken nuggets. For the childrens' health, of course. Another isolated incident!
Do they not know what illiberal means?
Not to mention class privilege. As if spending the time to teach your kids reading and math can be done only by the 1% or upper middle class.
I know a lot of families who decided to take an income hit and move further out in order to homeschool or let mom quit work to be a full time mom. The idea that it's the one percent doing this is ludicrous.
in class privilege
Last I heard, the well-heeled wouldn't dream of engaging in anything so...pedestrian as personally educating their own children. They have au pairs, nannies, tutors, and schools for that.
Columbia University sociologist Amy Stuart Wells found that adult graduates of integrated high schools shared a commitment to diversity, to understanding and bridging cultural differences, and to appreciating "the humanness of individuals across racial lines."
Excellent! Good to know that the indoctrination is working....now repeat after me....EVERYTHING IS ABOUT RACE.....EVERYTHING!!!
Don't understand calculus? No problem..you're tolerant! Can't compose a proper sentence? That's okay! English is the language of the oppressor! Science? Why you acting so white?
Fuck these people!
When all you have is a nail to drive, everything looks like a hammer
Think no textbooks, history lessons about progressive social movements, and college-level math for precocious 13-year-olds.
I'm sorry, where in school-school do 13-year-olds get to do college level math? Oh yeah, I remember now, in a room by myself, with no teacher and no classmates. Fuck your progressive history lessons, precocious children are the exact people to save from the horrorshow of public school.
From Star Trek fandom to intellectual elitism in the service of being alone. Yes, this is a libertarian chat, sure enough.
Go find a cock to slurp on.
I feel the need to note that my comment was not in the service of being alone but a demonstration that in public schools, these kids are alone too.
Take two. Among your circle, I'm sure they're small.
When I was a 13 year old capable of college level math, I got to sit around in public school for 5 years waiting to get to college. This includes me taking a college pre-cal class after school and my high school then refusing to allow me to skip their own pre-cal class.
My experience, too. I was way ahead for many years and got slapped down a couple of times for trying to work ahead.
In math, my dad (an electrical engineer by training), taught me some advanced ways of working certain problems. While I understand and agree that I needed to learn the more plodding way of doing things, the teacher telling me that I wasn't ready to leap ahead and shouldn't do that again rankled.
I have kids. They tend to have high levels of curiosity that can be used to get them to learn things at a remarkable pace. Unfortunately, we aim so low now that the advanced really get held back. Gifted programs and the like simply aren't enough.
Once the technology and the content are fully up to the task, kids won't be going to government schools anymore.
Okay, how many of us had engineer dads that taught us (allegedly) way too much?
My dad was a farmer and he taught me apparently too much.
*raises hand*
Oh, yes indeed.
My dad wasn't an engineer although he had studied engineering for a few years before joining the Navy, but he taught me about thermodynamics and power cycles to the point I understilood steam anddinternal combustion engines by the time I was 5. My Mom, an English major, had me reading books by age 3, and writing so well inkindergarten that i actually got yelled at for using both capital and lower case properly too early, as well as understanding punctuation. My parents were too good t teaching me, so much so that they embarrased my teachers.
My Dad is an MD, and he taught me way too much math, biology, and chemistry.
You know what would have made sitting around in class doing nothing more bearable? Being able to view the comments to Reason's posts on a smartphone.
Yep, I feel you buddy. My public school math life consisted of alternating years of doing nothing because there was no one qualified to teach me and sitting in a normal classroom doing nothing because I already knew it all.
Hmm. I guess I was somewhat lucky to have math classes appropriate to my ability in high school. We had a special advanced math track where we studied lots of algebra (real algebra, not 3x+5=2), number theory and logic and calculus.
But there are too many kids in situations like you describe where they just have to wait to go to college to actually learn much. I think all kids with any ability should be encouraged (or at least permitted) to test out of high school as soon as they can.
I did college level math in public school when I was 14. But I had to get up an hour early to do it.
Why teaching kids at home violates progressive values
...because it's the state's job to raise our kids for us, isn't it? It takes a village and all that shit. Good God "progressives" are such worthless pieces of shit.
Felony charges for marine in NYC, but amnesty for criminals. Fantastic!
I posted yesterday how he turned down a plea bargain.
http://www.theindychannel.com/.....etail.html
I agree with him in principle. He should not plea. But it is his own life, so he should make the choice he feels is right for himself. But I'd love to see this take down some of the gun laws in NYC. Doubt it will, though.
But I'd love to see this take down some of the gun laws in NYC. Doubt it will, though.
That would be great, but it's a bit much to hope for. All I'm hoping for is that they're unable to find a jury willing to convict the guy. But even that's a bit much to hope for, I'm afraid.
Bloomberg will go after this guy with everything he's got. After all, the only reason there's any gun crime at all in NYC is that other states don't have New York style gun control laws.
All I'm hoping for is that they're unable to find a jury willing to convict the guy.
He broke the law. If you don't like the law, change it.
Until then, the law is the law is the law.
If a law is unjust or just plain wrong, change it.
If you can't change it, you must obey because the law is the law is the law.
Also, fried chicken.
Also, fried chicken.
OK, I really need in on this one. What did I miss?
We learned yesterday that people hae actually fried chickens.
Good Lord! I've heard about this--chicken frying! Stop! Stop! Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! Good Father, could there be a God that would let this happen?
RACIST!!!
Gojira really likes to eat fried chicken. So much so, that he has decided to add it as a post script to all of his posts. Some other commenters have taken on the affectation.
Also, fried chicken.
I've never understood the rationale behind buy-back programs. So, the State acts as a fence, and pays more than a black market would for the goods, and this is supposed to lower crime?
No, it's supposed to transfer weapons from individuals to the state in exchange for the state returning some of their money to them.
Skeptical. What a pleasant way of phrasing it.
Exactly. Marriage is such a quaint notion.
The vast majority of my black acquaintances (read: billiards players) are not very tolerant of gays. I frequently overhear various forms of bigotry from them. Kinda irritating.
It's always interesting to me, given the number of black males on the down low.
I'd imagine that the one causes the other...
Yes, I should have said that "interesting" really means that I am fascinated by the self-hate. But it's a cultural thing.
I really don't know why Afro-Americans would object to gays marrying. Based on racially categorized illegitimacy rates, it's not really an institution they're using that much themselves.
And I suspect they are aware that they lost something when they stopped "using" marriage.
If it was possible to abolish marriage in a community in a generation, it should also be possible to reinstate it in another generation. Meantime, why perpetrate another assault on a beleaguered institution?
Like crack, it's a lot easier to get hooked on the government tit than to kick the habit.
Skeptical. What a pleasant way of phrasing it.
Ain't no muthafuckin man gonna put his junk inna nutha man's trunk!
Better?
WHACHA GONNA DO WITH ALL THAT JUNK
ALL THAT JUNK INSIDE YOUR TRUNK
My dear sir, we don't all speak in that manner.
White people like Wayne Brady because he makes Bryant Gumbel look like Malcolm X.
"Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?"
The Starbucks logo is the female head of a Mexican drug cartel.
The Goddess of Jittery Targeting
"It presents a tricky equation for President Obama, who cannot risk depressing turnout among blacks, as their votes will be critical in what is shaping up to be a closely fought campaign."
So if Obama is against gay marriage (for purely political reasons), does that mean gay marriage supporters are racist?
So if Obama is against gay marriage (for purely political reasons), does that mean gay marriage supporters are racist?
Now you're learning!
Uh... Ye...n...y..... *head explodes*
If Obama's best election strategy is to hope for turnout like 2008, he's the only person in the world who could lose to Romtorum.
You would hope he would change.
It means that the evil Republicans made him do it.
http://campaign2012.washington.....006/376896
Interesting story on why Santorum lost in 2006. What it really points to is what a dead ass loser candidate Romney is. How has Romney allowed Santorum to become the 'conservative' candidate without Romney mentioning Santorum's love of union money and endorsement of Arlan Spector for Senate? Spector was the biggest liberal Republican crap weasel ever to serve. And fellow crap weasel Santorum endorsed him selling out an actual conservative primary challenger. I had actually forgotten about that. Amazing that the Romney campaign is so incompetent it didn't bother to remind me of it.
Yes, even in PA. Despair over the potential of Romney has managed to trump hatred of Specter. I wonder if Specter was still in office if the pain of Santorum's endorsement would be easier to recall.
I saw DailyKos is trying to keep Santorum alive because the longer the fight continues, the worse Romney is. I think the mistake in this thinking is that a lot of conservatives are most likely hoping for a brokered convention and some new candidate to emerge. A long primary battle may hurt Romney but it helps the potential of an unknown.
While the idea of a new candidate from a brokered convention is appealing (more appealing than the current candidates), there's a huge risk. You basically need a guy to ramp up a presidential campaign on the spot. He will not have gone through a primary and will lack the required organization. Additionally, they will be making all of the mistakes that are safe to make in a primary in November or December on a national level with all of the bright lights that entails. A brokered convention leads to Obama II (aka Bush IV).
I agree with all of this. A brokered convention, absent a really compelling, popular Republican superstar candidate, is a bad idea.
I am still convinced that Colin Powell could beat Barack Obama.
But the primary process produced Obama and Bush. Once you are the nominee, you have the entire party at your disposal. So I don't think you would have a hard time putting together a campaign rather quickly.
And a brokered campaign might actually choose someone based on what kind of President they would be rather than how much money they can raise. Yeah, you might get someone worse, though given the candidates it is hard to see how. But there is a decent chance you would get someone better.
You'll likely end up with a candidate that is acceptable to everyone and no one. And you may have the party at your disposal, but you won't have the infrastructure, the boots on the ground and the polish.
The one advantage is the oppo will be a lot harder. Candidates that went through primaries have most of their dirt surfaced and package easily for Obama. The downside is they won't have had months to craft a strategy around defending themselves from the dirt.
Say what you will about Obama and Bush, but at the end of the day they won.
All valid points Mo. It is hard to say how it would work since we haven't had one. The last one was maybe Humphries? I want to say the RFK was pretty much a shoo in before he was killed in June of 1968 and they brought Humphries in off the bench. So he was kind of a brokered candidate.
I think it might work this year simply because all of the candidates are so generally disliked there will be few people heartbroken over their guy not getting it.
It's Humphrey. And I've been to his Waverly, MN mansion.
So then, who would be the most likely candidates to emerge from a brokered GOP convention? Palin? Bloomberg certainly has the $$$ and the name recognition. Jindal? Petraeus? Daniels won't do it. Powell ditto, plus has a few Vietnam-era skeletons. Pawlenty quit, which I thought was a deal-killer. Christie?
Santorum is a social conservative. None of the Republican candidates besides Paul is an economic conservative.
But they are all social conservatives. Even Paul is outside of drugs. The social conservatives own the Republican party. You would think they would be bright enough to vote on another issue.
None of them are as socon as Megavest.
And while Paul might have social conservative values, he is against making them Federal law.
He just wants them in the Constitution, that's all. Remember: the Founders were perfect judges of every issue, which I guess includes slavery, except abortion, which merits a living document!
Stupid troll is stupid.
No shit.
Paul is personally socially conservative (I don't think he even drinks going by a story about how he passed on all the frat invitations to party and drink)--probably the most out of all of them--but he's not a political socon. It isn't just drugs, but on every issue, which is to say "it doesn't matter what I believe for myself, it's not the fed's role"
His answer to a question on religion in the Florida debate sums it up, in contrast to all the other candidates, despite his own religiosity:
Exactly.
The only thing it would affect me in the way I operate as a president or a congressman is my oath of office and my promises that I've made to the people.
HATER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If that isn't worth a monetary donation I don't know what is.
Selling out conservatives is an admirable trait to Romney.
In terms of shear incompetence Romney's campaign is starting to seem a lot like McCain's in '08. It's highly likely that Obama is going to 2nd term regardless of who wins the Republican nomination.
Dear Prudie,
My fraternal twin and I (both men) are in our late 30s. We were always extremely close and shared a bedroom growing up. When we were 12 we gradually started experimenting sexually with each other. After a couple of years, we realized we had fallen in love.
Too bad it's doods
If it were chicks, that is a great Penthouse letter.
Chick incest is hot to you? Sorry John, that's a little far afield for me, and I have my own package of proclivities that would lose me my theoretical Illinois Senate Seat.
I was kidding RBM. And saying something is a "great Penthouse letter" is hardly words of praise.
Don't be ashamed of your fetishes, John! I was just ribbing you; if you like chick incest, I don't judge.
Chick incest is a bit odd for me too.
Chick incest is a bit odd for me too.
I'll be diplomatic about it: girl-on-girl is always hawt; however, if the girls in question choose not to disclose that they're sisters, then who am I to dig any deeper?
I knew a stripper once who did such things with her very hot sister in private shows. The rule was, the show was X money for the normal show. And then it was X+ some fee to be told the truth. I never bought such a show. But I would imagine people got their money's worth.
I was just ribbing you
Well, at least you two aren't brothers. Or are you...
Twins. I rest my case.
Damn, you burned me. I got nothin'.
Yeah, twins. It's like twins are this fantasy exception to the incest prohibition.
I mean, even back in the 70's a family show like Happy Days considered it funny and cool for Fonzie to be hooking up with twins (or triplets) simultaneously. I don't see how that's not an implicit incest reference. A menage a trois that includes twins is incest.
It was the 70s. Things were so much freer and more fun then.
It was the 70s. Things were so much freer and more fun then.
Except for women's grooming standards. Going down on a woman back then would be like french-kissing a toothless grizzly bear.
Speak for yourself Karl. I would take that over the bald eagle any day.
Speak for yourself Karl. I would take that over the bald eagle any day.
You seem to be a good guy, John, and I respect your opinions, even when they differ from my own. But I gotta tell ya, that is one difference between us that will never be reconciled. 😉
I will admit Karl, I am in a very old school minority on that one. But hey, to each his own.
I'm with John on this one. There is a whole wonderful spectrum of options between "Wookie" and "waxed bare". I enjoy the middle of that spectrum.
John prefers bear to eagle, admits he's a communist.
Bear vs. Eagle, with a fish in the middle! SFW.
http://jezebel.com/5881177/dan.....iry-potter
http://jezebel.com/5881177/dan.....iry-potter
Silly kid. I've never understood the argument that shaving/waxing it all off leaves a woman looking prepubescent. If that's the case, why don't we see women leaving landing strips under their arms or down their legs?
Women sohuld be devoid of any hair below the neck, and I would heartily support a law mandating this.
"Women sohuld be devoid of any hair below the neck, and I would heartily support a law mandating this."
Agreed. Sometimes we take this whole freedom thing too far, and we need to draw the line somewhere.
I made a joke comment about this in yesterday's AM Links while ripping on Jezebel:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/02.....nt_2841201
I'm a little surprised that my parents didn't put me into therapy when I was 8 and watching that show, because I'm pretty sure I asked them about this.
"Isn't that kind of gross? Doesn't that mean the girls are kind of out on a date with their own sisters? What's in it for them in this '3 girls 1 Fonzie' situation? Why would somebody do that?"
If my kid started asking me questions like that I'd freak out.
A menage a trois that includes twins is incest.
I agree, but porn star twins, like The Milton Sisters, try to sidestep the incest angle but not doing anything genital-related with each other during scenes.
OK, sure... Because touching your sister's labia is much more shocking to sensibilities than getting gagged by a cock that was just pulled out of her asshole.
It kinda is though, right?
my own package of proclivities
Ooh, I'll bet it's a huge package!
Danny Devito and Arnold Schwarzenegger?
Back in the early days of the Internet, I worked with this super-hawt woman who was into gay porn. She asked me to find her sights. Sometimes she would show me a picture she found interesting. There was one sight that had a series of H-core pics of two twin brothes. To this day it still bothers me that those incest pics got her wet.
"sites"
Back in the early days of the Internet, I worked with this super-hawt woman who was into gay porn.
Before she dated me, my ex-girlfriend dated a guy who liked her to fuck him in the ass with a strap-on, in addition to having her fist him. To the elbow, she said.
I think that guy and your ex-coworker would be a match made in heaven.
Bernanke is speaking an assemblage of bankers:
"Stop whining! I know what I'm doing. I'm the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, for crying out loud. Just because I'm wiping out the savings of millions of Americans and destroying the banking industry by holding interest rates at zero for the benefit of the government doesn't mean you have any legitimate cause to question my policies."
Not to be a heartless bastard, but so what? This can happen anywhere bail or bond can be denied. I don't see the point here.
Not to be a heartless bastard, but did the one guy with all the keys ever turn up?
Strictly speaking, I think it's inappropriate for persons awaiting trial to be co-located with convicted criminals.
We have guys out there like Joe Arpaio, who see part of their job description as finding innovative ways to abuse and humiliate their charges, to impress the voters with how they aren't "coddling criminals".
Personally, I think anybody put on one of Joe's chain gangs or deliberately stranded in open tents in the Arizona heat who was subsequently cleared of wrongdoing is morally entitled to cave Arpaio's head in with a tire iron.
If jail is designed in part or in whole to be a punishment, then that punishment should not be inflicted on anyone who hasn't been convicted by a jury, and we need something that is not standard "jail" for people who are awaiting trial and need merely to be detained because they can't post bail.
Strictly speaking, I think it's inappropriate for persons awaiting trial to be co-located with convicted criminals.
Pre trial detainees have to be segregated from post trial convicts. I think the courts have ruled it an 8th Amendment or a due process issue. I forget which.
But even the most activist U.S. courts haven't tried to enforce this in Honduras.
As least so far as I know.
I understand that Latin American prisoners spend a *lot* of time waiting for their trials. Can they afford separate facilities for all of them?
I concur entirely. However, I would say that the point remains: so what? After all, if we had a separate, lower-security wing in that prison for pre-trial detainees, this still could have happened to them.
My problem with this is that, and I may be reading too much into it, is that Riggs thinks this it is especially abhorrent because many of the detainees who died had not been convicted yet. My problem with that is twofold: a) even convicted prisoners don't deserve to DIAF and b) it's an emotional pander to those who are anti-any-criminal-justice.
So boo to that.
Those are two very good points.
I think maybe Riggs is arguing here against theoretical observers who heard the prison fire news and said, "So what? Damn criminals got what was coming to them." He is shaming these hypothetical speakers by pointing out that many of the victims were not convicted criminals at all.
An angle I hadn't considered. I never considered the enormity of the average American observer when it comes to prisoners, but "ha ha duurrrr prison rape is funny" should have reminded me.
In general, you can assume that most American observers are enormous.
Those folks think anyone arrested is a criminal anyway, so Riggs is wasting his time.
I don't think he sends pre-trial inmates to the tents. At least that was the impression I have gotten watching various "JAIL!!!!!" shows on Discovery. The "Pre's" had "Unconvicted" or something like that stenciled on their striped outfits.
Not to be a heartless bastard but be assured that most if not all of them were guilty. MS-13 is weeping today. Honduras has so many truly horrible criminals that you won't find many nickel/dime cases in their jails. (Disclaimer: Yes, of course, that is no reason to BBQ them.)
Let's just go ahead and gloss over the how of that.
Economists say that swinging a dead cat over your head when the moon is full should provide a lift to the U.S. economy...
Barley-corn, barley-corn,
Injun-meal shorts...
Let's just go ahead and gloss over the how of that.
The "how" is irrelevant; it just feels right, and that's all that matters.
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
http://www.forbes.com/sites/er.....ire-films/
Unfortunately I already know how it ends
Advice for Sarcasmic:
http://thegloss.com/beauty/kate-upton-fat-250/
Kate Upton is not fat. Kate Upton will be fat. I'm going to enjoy it while it lasts.
She's an inflatable life raft waiting for someone to pull the cord.
She is five feet ten with good hips. She will carry weight just fine. I bet you she is still hot when she is 40.
Apparently she was supposedly fat at one point, and then lost weight. So it's a sure bet the weight will return sooner or later.
Not necessarily. Sometimes reformed fat chicks are so scared by the experience of being fat, they never allow themselves to go back. The often are more likely to stay thin as they get older than naturally skinny chick who never learned how to eat properly.
You could be right. Or it could be a case of there's still a fat chick in there screaming to eat, and it's only a matter of time before her willpower cracks.
Generally if they have the discipline to take it off, they keep it off. That puts them in a better position as they get older than chicks who ate anything they wanted until they were 30 and then had to learn to be disciplined.
An entire society of yo-yo dieters laughs at this statement.
Yep.
She is only fat if you are a gay man or a bitter harpy pissed she is so much hotter than you.
She is only fat if you are a gay man or a bitter harpy pissed she is so much hotter than you.
I gravitate heavily toward women who are small and slender. Think Keira Knightley, Emma Watson, or Scarlett Johannsen. It's just my thing. But the notion that Kate Upton is anything less than perfect is absurd.
I like them all. I like the ones you list. And I also like the curvier ones like Kate Winslet or that British chick with the cooking show with the huge boobs. They all work for me.
All of them?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem.....sults.html
Not that she isn't hot, but I wouldn't put Scarlett Johannsen on the small and slender list.
Not that she isn't hot, but I wouldn't put Scarlett Johannsen on the small and slender list
Really? I was under the impression that she was quite petite. I could be wrong, though; I don't follow these things very closely.
I don't know how tall she is, but she definitely has girl stuff.
http://www.wwtdd.com/2012/02/s.....like-hell/
Yeah, I was having a "one of these is not like the other" moment on that one as well. ScarJo has gots some curves.
And John, Nigella Lawson. Yes, please. I could die a happy man if I could fall asleep in that booblage.
I'm with you. I like slender with more subtle curves. Not that I don't appreciate other shapes of proper proportion.
Keira Knightley is scary looking. Scarlett Johannsen is hot.
She's about 5 to 10 lbs over if she didn't have a kid.
This overheated hostility toward public schools runs throughout the new literature on liberal homeschooling, and reveals what is so fundamentally illiberal about the trend: It is rooted in distrust of the public sphere, in class privilege, and in the dated presumption that children hail from two-parent families, in which at least one parent can afford (and wants) to take significant time away from paid work in order to manage a process?education?that most parents entrust to the community at-large.
These people reject Communitarianism.
The horror.
The HORROR.
It's unmutual not to submit to the will of the people.
The funny thing about the accusation of class privilege is that it's itself rooted in class privilege.
My wife regales me with Tales of the Unschooled all the time, chats with Unschoolers online, knows a few here in Vermont. And you know what? A lot of them are poor. Specifically, they're poor because they make deliberate life choices to make either family or hippie-dippie stuff a priority over a career...or over having two careers.
When the writer here talks about how two parents "have" to work, what they mean (in many cases) in that two parents "have" to work to be affluent. If you're willing to live the lifestyle of a Vermont hippie, you don't really need two incomes at all.
So this "Wah! We need public schools to provide child care while both parents work!" stuff is class bias in favor of affluent suburbanites and against downscale non-materialist hippies.
But I thought non-materialist hippiedom was the most progressive thing you could be of all. Amiright?
The hippie is the noble savage emblem of the limousine liberal.
That is a really good point. It is funny how up scale feminism has gone from "freedom" and "choice" to "you must send your kid to school and enslave yourself to the labor market".
It is sublimation to the collective good again.
Feminists don't think all women should work just for the thrill of it, they think that women should work so that there are more women in the workforce, which will somehow magically bring about the end of patriarchal capitalism or something.
Don't do right by your child, do right by the billions of women you don't know and will never meet.
It goes back to it being a totalitarian ideology. No one can ever be neutral. You either buy into it and its entirety or you are the enemy. So a woman who stays home with her kids isn't neutral, she is on the other side.
We are so much stronger as individuals who agree to cooperate towards shared goals than as a collective that is compelled to work towards the goals of the collective's leaders.
No community, no group, no nation is happy. Only individuals can be. If we want to have a superior society, everything we do has to begin and end with the individual. It has to be that way, because that's the way it really is. In collectives, the will of the people is subverted to the will of the few in charge. Always. It's just another excuse for some "special" individuals to have better lives than others.
That is the thing Pro. To feminist no women can say "I don't want to be a trail blazer for other women. I just want to stay at home with my kids and be happy". That makes her an enemy. So one just as bad as a woman who actively works for the other side. To a totalitarian, you are either with them or against them.
To a totalitarian, you are either with them or against them.
PRESENT!
My mom stayed at home and raised us, while her sister did the correct feminist thing and had a career and sent her kids to daycare. Well, her kids are fuckups, and my siblings and I are not.
Not surprisingly, this rankles. My aunt even once had the gall to tell my mom that she deserved my mom's kids, and my mom deserved her kids.
Man, I bet that is a sister bitch fight from hell. Sisters are brutal to each other.
They had an evil stepmother straight out of a fairy tale, too, and my aunt has chosen to remember her as an angel. That produces the good fights, more than anything else.
Wait. Are you my cousin?
Oh god, to think there is someone with Warty's genes and a dysfunctional childhood.
Shudder.
Well, her kids are fuckups, and my siblings and I are not.
Come on now Warty, maybe just a little bit...
That doesn't mean anything. My mom quit her job to stay home and raise me, and I still turned into a fuck-up.
"Feminists don't think."
You could have stopped there.
Apparently, neither do anti-feminists.
What I can't figure out is how capitalism came to be regarded as patriarchal. I mean, aren't women owned businesses twice as likely to succeed as those owned by men?
I concur.
I attended a VERY hippy college with a VERY progressive teacher education program. Homeschooling was, for the most part, viewed with approval because it allowed parents to help their kids escape indoctrination from The Man. It was also seen as a a terrific manner for parents to invest themselves in their kids futures.
Chin. That was back before the liberals were the man. Now that they own the schools, the rules are different.
THREAD WINNER!
Lefties have many "TOP MEN"!
I know a couple, recently divorced, who home-schooled their three daughters. He probably earns 15-20k a year, while she was a stay-at-home mom. They loved the big government handouts - taking food stamps, free house/energy upgrades, etc etc. But somehow the guy still managed to travel to Europe at least once a year, always drink imported beer and whiskey, and live way beyond his means.
One of my former roommates is a homeschooled Vermont farmboy. He's at UVM for med school now.
I knew a kid in college who was homeschooled. He started college at age 14 majoring in Aerospace Engineering. Last I heard he had completed his PhD in particle physics by age 20.
The lack of flexibility in public schools wasted at least 2 years of my life.
The kid who designed the weaponry for the movie Thor was homeschooled. Nice kid, too.
http://www.damndirtyrino.com/2.....-trollops/
Old men have a fit that there were attractive women at CPAC. This is funny.
That article needs pics.
I put such pics up the other day and Sarcasmic and Sparky had a fit saying they were all ugly.
Lindsy Lohan is still hot:
http://www.wwtdd.com/2012/02/l.....-romantic/
That's a good look for her.
To Starbucks Or Not To Starbucks -That Ain't The Only Question
Do women not get hat tips? I posted this ages ago
Do women not get hat tips?
For pimping their blogs? No.
Did I forget to write Starbucks' buycot + tits, or Starbucks' buycot + cunt, or Starbucks' buycot; I'll be in my bunk?
-My bad
Nope, you forgot to link to a site that wasn't yours that someone might want to peruse.
Hmm,
http://reason.com/blog/2012/02.....nt_2808384
The Komen/planned parenthood rather serpentines with Starbucks and gun rights
http://reason.com/blog/2012/01.....nt_2800390
Which one will make sure to bee seen in a Starbucks Feb 14th?
Get back in the kitchen.
Is that where you keep your vibrator?
Back-to-back jaw-dropping moments on Morning Joe this morning:
Mika defending Rick Santorum's comments on contraception. And even drawing a distinction between a politician's personal opinions and the way he governs. I'm not sure how Santorum has earned this degree of leeway given his preference for legislating his preferences.
A few seconds later, Mike Barnicle, in his usual carefully considered way, threw out the theory that there's a disconnect now between the Catholic parishioner and the Catholic authority because of the way they handled the pedophilia scandals. Yes, Mike, all Catholic women were using birth control up until that very point and then said "screw it."
The whole thing about whether or not every day Catholics actually don't use birth control drives me crazy. Who cares? Since when is the church itself rights to free exercise up to a vote of its parishioners?
Since when is the church itself rights to free exercise up to a vote of its parishioners?
This is generally true in congregationalist denominations.
No. That means its doctrines are up for a vote amongst the parishioners. That is different. Arguing that it is relevant that most Catholics ignore the church is to say that the church only has the right to preach those things approved of by its parishioners. It is putting their free exercise rights up to a vote of their members.
Gotcha.
However, if the catholic church was run on congregationalist grounds, I think there would be a large number of catholic churches allowing birth control.
I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong here, but isn't one of the options available for Catholics when they break the rules that they can confess?
So, even if 100% of all Catholics use condoms and the pill every single time they have sex, aren't they still kosher if they confess it and do the pennance? Isn't the whole point of the various Christian religions that people are not perfect, and they will sin?
Back-to-back jaw-dropping moments on Morning Joe this morning:
Mika defending Rick Santorum's comments on contraception.
Mika's a fascist of the metro nanny variety and sees a kindred spirit in Santorum.
Isn't it amusing that, without true principles, their beliefs wrap back upon themselves and they become their adversaries?
Mika is just providing cover because the prog libs believe (correctly) that a Santorum v. Obama election will be a culture war election, which they have a much better chance of winning.
I saw this. My take is that given how contraception questions in the debates a few weeks back made people ask, "why questions about this?" coupled with HHS shortly thereafter requiring the Catholic church to provide birth control, coupled with Mika's pro-Santorum comments tells me that Team Obama feels the only way, the ONLY WAY their idiot is going to win re-election, is to make it about a woman's wight to choose and then pray to God that Santorum is the GOP candidate. No way this series of events wasn't pre-ordained.
Or what RC said about an hour ago.
"I'm a little ashamed about it [but] I have a mild fear or anxiety around little people," O'Donnell confessed before asking Handler point blank: "Would you ever do a little person?"
Handler's quick response: "No, that would be child abuse. I'd never do that."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....77510.html
That's a legitimate phobia. I know someone who is like that.
This just cries out for a Golden Girls Classic.
That dwarves/midgets are actually children?
No, but the admittedly bizarre mix of childlike stature with adult features and desires is just...a thing with some people. I don't have that phobia, but I totally get it.
I'm disgusted by midgetry. Disgusted and horrified. If a gang of midgets ever broke into my house at night, I'm certain I'd die of a heart attack before I could get my gun out of the nightstand.
My brother's g/f is terrified of them. It is a running joke in the family about her watching midget porn. The thought of such a thing absolutely horrifies her.
They appear to have crossed a line. But, does this mean I have to give up dwarf-lobbing?
I thought I smelled cabbage
FTA: Handler and O'Donnell's comments come at a very important time for little people rights.
On one hand, actor Peter Dinklage is winning awards for his work on the HBO series "Game Of Thrones."
On the other hand, there is the case of Martin Henderson, a British dwarf who claims he was partially paralyzed on his birthday when a stranger lifted and heaved him onto the hard ground outside an English pub.
"Peter Dinklage made him a hot topic when he mentioned him [Henderson] in his Golden Globes acceptance speech, but it remains to be seen whether he will be our Rosa Parks."
Please stop, RoboCain. Just give us the address to send money to and how much you want from each of us, but please STOP posting this stuff. I've gone through three keyboards and one monitor in the past 2 weeks because of you. The madness has to end.
Then just imagine the stuff I don't post because I think it's too stupid.
Uh-oh. They got Omar involved.
"Chalky" White's real name is Omar?
These are his daddy's tools!
You come at the king, you best not miss.
If other people are deciding that you are among the few who have to sacrificed, utilitarianism becomes monstrous.
But if we don't kill you, the lifeboat will sink!
China reduces holding of U.S. Treasuries to lowest level since June of 2010.
Anything the liberals want out of schooling can already be obtained for free at their local Citizen Training and Teacher Employment Facility.
It's not the root, it's the excuse.
Is that a false consciousness accusation I smell?
Do you really think people don't occasionally use religion to excuse what they wanted to do in the first place?
I am quite sure that they do, actually. However, the anti-gay strain runs strongly through the black community, and unless some other reasonable explanation, I am inclined to take the religious explanation on its face.
While agreeing that religion contributes, I'd say the father-less, matriarchy-gone-toxic intercity culture has a lot more to do with it. Without male role models, peers create and enforce the definition of masculinity. Combine that with the hyper-masculinity that an environment almost entirely free of monogamous commitment creates through competition for female attention, I can see religious anti-gay bigotry just being a reflection after it metastasizes from the ground up.
Matriarchy, SF?
Everyone knows that everything, everywhere, is the fault of the patriarchy.
Dudebro.
I speak truth to power, yo.
Sorry, no. There were males in my family. My father thougth gay was sick, my later stepfather the same, my uncles, etc.
I'm not religious, and intellectually, I know gay is OK. Emotionally though...gross.
An interesting aspect is that a lot of new-left liberal white Christians choose inner city churches to attend.
Maybe they like the music.
As well they should.
new-left liberal white Christians keepin it real!
It is funny how liberals live in denial of this. Homosexuals are sadly despised in every corner of the world except a certain breed of rich generally liberal white people. Doesn't make it right. But it is still what it is.
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/11/black_homophobia SHUT UP JOHN!
"Starbucks allowing guns to be carried in thousands of their stores significantly increases everyone's risk of being a victim of gun violence," Elliot Fineman, head of the Chicago-based council, said in a press release announcing the boycott.
"So, if she weighs the same as a duck... SHE'S A WIIIIIIITCH."
To good not to post again:
Brace Yourself for the Santorum Smears
"As the public debate around this issue continues, we encourage customers and advocacy groups from both sides to share their input......over a delicious venti mocha frappe.
Health Care - Why Can't it be This Easy? (A Real-World Example)
I live in Japan. I work in the public schools in a tiny town nestled deep in the mountains along a river valley. It's about as far from the Big City as it's possible to get in Japan.
Last Monday, I wasn't feeling great. My tonsils were hard as rocks and I was feeling tired. My throat hurt. I know I didn't have the flu so I went to work. After my last class the school nurse took my temp and discovered I had a fever. The principal told me to go to the doctor. I bowed and off I went.
There aren't any hospitals in my town, just little clinics, but they're good, too. I went in to see the doctor. At the front window I presented my national health care card and wrote a list of symptoms on a little square of paper. Then I waited for about 30 minutes. It normally doesn't take so long but the flu has been going around here and there were a lot of people waiting.
I went in and saw the doctor. He asked me some questions and examined me. He asked about my job and how the students were doing (as the only white guy in, literally, fifty miles, I kind of stand out, and my function in town is kind of obvious). The examination took fifteen minutes. Diagnosis: tonsilitis, with involvement of the lymph nodes, plus a touch of early-season hay fever adding itchy eyes and runny nose to my miseries. We chatted for a few more minutes and I waited again as he wrote a prescription.
I went to the window to pick up the prescription and pay the doctor's bill. Total: $10.
I went next door to the little pharmacy (actually the pharmacist's house, office on the first floor) and presented my prescription and my health care card. I got an antibiotic, a cough supressant, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory, something for my runny nose, a gargle, a nose spray, eyedrops, and medicinal throat lozenges. Seven day supply of each. These weren't cheapie drugs, either- most of them had Glaxo Smith-Kline emblazoned all over them. Total cost: $33.
It's a few days later and I feel great. Total cost to feel great and have peace of mind: $43.
So how does this magical system work?
Well, you pay into it according to your income. I know in the USA this is a weird concept, but if you make MORE money, you are expected to pay MORE into the system. I make about 35K a year (my wife is currently not working) and both of us are covered for about $150 a month.
What do we get for that money? Well, national health covers anywhere between 70 and 90 percent of the total bill, depending on what the procedure is. In the example above, both the doctor visit and the prescription drugs were covered 80%. This means the doctor got a total of $50 for his work, $40 from national health and $10 from me, for fifteen minutes of work, which works out to $200 an hour. Not a bad wage, huh? Can't really say that national health care is stealing any of his livelihood. Same goes for the drug companies and pharmacist. Of course, there are price controls here, to make sure things don't get out of hand.
Well, what about freedom to choose my own doctor? No problems there. I could have done the exact same thing at ANY doctor's office in Japan, from Okinawa to Hokkaido, from Tomiyama-mura (the smallest town in Japan) to the biggest hospital in Tokyo. The card is accepted anywhere, and is handled in exactly the same way.
Well, what if I still think this national health care stuff is nonsense, and I still want private insurance? Well, guess what, mister tinfoil hat lover? You can get it. In fact, many people do carry supplemental insurance here. While getting 80% of brain surgery covered is a great thing, a $200,000 operation will still dent you for $40,000, so many people buy insurance that will fill this gap. Aaaaand, if you want to opt out entirely, there are also private health insurance plans available, too! But guess what? Since the private plans are competing with national health, they actually DO cover you, they are competetively-priced, and they are regulated by the government so they don't do things like, say, suddenly refuse to cover you if they don't feel like it. Imagine, private insurance companies DOING WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO! This is called COMPETITION, and I hear it's a good thing for the free market and stuff, as opposed to COLLUSION and MONOPOLIES, which are bad.
In fact, when we first returned to Japan in '08, my wife and I were covered by one of these private plans while we waited to transition to national health care. The company was Inter Global and they operated out of New Zealand. Inter Global was about the same price as national health and covered the same stuff, with slightly different procedures. What was interesting was that they offered coverage in any country in the world, so that you could travel and not have to worry. Every country in the world... except the USA. I talked to the representative about this and he basically just laughed and told me, as politely as he could, that the USA's system was completely f$#&ed; up. I told him I knew that.
Well, the final argument goes... surely this system could never work in the USA, because of the bureacracy and corruption blah blah blah. Having lived in Japan on and off for nearly ten years I can definitely tell you that the USA's bureaucratic system is a wonder of streamlined efficiency compared to Japan's. Japan is a nightmare of red tape, both public and private. How so? In order for my wife to get her birth certificate, for example, she must travel to her home town and appear, IN PERSON, to request it. Most important records are still kept on paper on complicated documents, which is why many of the dead in the 3/11 disaster will never be identified, and why their next-of-kin face a daunting task- all land records were recorded on paper which washed away or burned. The banks are finally relaxing their standards so that you don't need a physical bank book or inkan (personal seal) to access the accounts (related- banks don't check photo IDs. If you have anyone's seal and bank book, you can drain their account and there will be no record or trace that you did so). I could go on and on but I hope I've made the point- things do not run smoothly here, at least not as smoothly as we are used to in the USA. So if the Japanese can make a health care system like this one so simple, then we can do better.
And if you've heard there's a funding crisis in Japanese health care, that's true, but part of it is due to a falling birthrate (which we are not experiencing) and part of it is due to corruption (money being drained off to go to other uses) which is preventable.
Again, this is real. This is a real system, that I use when I need it, and it works. All of the things the neocons warn about are just fantasies. There's no red tape, no rationing of health care, no exodus of doctors, no stealing money from doctors, no punishing drug companies or insurance companies, no loss of religious freedom or guns (if you've heard that Japan is gun-free, you've heard wrong- about half my neighbors own shotguns, and some of them go hunting for wild boar. Wild boar stew is delicious), no death panels or review boards or forced examiniations.
There are, however, voluntary examinations. Last year I got screened for liver and kidney function and prostate cancer. My wife got a breast cancer screening. All free. Last summer, a bus came and loaded up all the high school-age girls and took them to a hospital in Shimada (a bigger city south of us) so they could get their anti-cervical cancer shots (forget what it's called, sorry). I'm happy to report that there were no protests or wild-eyed 70 year-old men on TV claiming that this would turn them into sluts.
Japan, which is one of the great basitons of the free market and practice capitalism with a capital C, seems to have survived the socialist menace of keeping their people healthy just fine, thank you very much.
Why can't we just look, and learn, and adopt, and try to make better, instead of wallowing in lies and bullsh*t? Who actually believes the lies that spew from neocon pundit mouths? We who have lived in the rest of the world need to speak up and spread the truth. I'm starting now. Who's with me?
Because fuck you, that's why.
Why can't we just look, and learn, and adopt, and try to make better, instead of wallowing in lies and bullsh*t?
I dunno. Why can't you?
This wall of text brought to you by the Brool Story Co.
I just read this. While there is a perfectly fine debate to be had about the merits of a Federal insurer (or provider) in direct competition with the private market, this is still the longest strawman I've ever seen on this site.
As you describe it, the American health model has a high level structure identical to Japan's but has been so poorly executed as to be nearly worthless. I'm sure I could fisk the story and expound upon this, even pointing out areas where your lot are likely in agreement with us and where your story actually supports our default position, but that would take hours and I have work to do.
Just point a gun to our heads and save yourself the trouble. It's the easiest and most honest thing your lot can do.
"Your lot" was directed at the Occupado who brought on the wall of text. I accidentally replied to my own reply.
Well apologies all around. Slight undernourishment and a perpetual hangover are affecting the aim of my ire.
I just want to know if the commentator responsible for the comment in response to his own comment has been sacked.
I think it needs [brackets].
[+1]
Why can't we just look, and learn, and adopt, and try to make better, instead of wallowing in lies and bullshit?
Can't bring yourself to type "Bullshit"? Certainly not up to the task of correcting all the worlds problems!!
Prove to me that health care is an inalienable right, you whiny moocher.
Do hippies realise how whiny they sound when they start sentences with 'why can't we'? I always picture them weeping while they type.
"I went next door to the little pharmacy (actually the pharmacist's house, office on the first floor)"
Well it fucking better be zoned for mixed-use, dickhead.
Your "total cost" is off by a LOT. $43 was your total CO-PAY. Huuuuuuuuge difference.
WALL OF TEXT!!!!!!
It is sort of a half time break in the thread. We interrupt this thread for a wall on nonsense.
Wall of nonsense. I like that.
Did you know it's OK to suckerpunch someone in the back of the head as they stand (hands over head) defenseless and talk to someone else? Well you would if you were a Loudon County deputy.*
*No charges filed and the deputy was promoted shortly afterward.
It is okay. The taxpayers will pick up it the tab. It is not like he is costing anyone money or anything.
we don't know the full context, we don't know what he said, we can't tell if he has a weapon in his front waistband and he made a threat which caused the officer to react in a reasonable manner, just because it looks bad to the knee-jerk cop-haters here we don't really know all the facts yadda yadda yadda
You sound like the guy who responded to me in the comments section.* Thank God you're a spoofer.
*The commentator is my brother-in-law. Not sure if he's trolling me or sincere. He's an MP officer in the Army, and about as good a man as you could ever hope to meet. Perhaps he's just naive and thinks cops act the same as cop-soldiers.
No need for Dunphy, we already have this from the comments:
I wouldn't categorize all cops in this light. If you recall I am a cop. First off you are seeing the tail end of the video. What is not shown what happened before he arrived and how he reacted to the other officer. Yes his hands at one point were raised...but if you also watch it prior to him getting slammed he drops a hand down towards his waist. Also what was the guys history. Prior arrests..other run ins with the cops. Cell phone and dash cams yes are good not only to capture cops that do abuse their authority...but also to protect the officer. Thing about cell phones and what people capture is what they want to record. Unfortunately there are bad seeds in every job..but I would bet 99% of the officers do their job appropriately and within the limits if the law.
Pretty much what you predicted.
In that guy's defense, he's a soldier, not a cop, even if he is an MP officer. And he carries himself with such professionalism, he finds it hard to believe that most others don't. And he's my brother-in-law, so I'm used to this argument with him.
Unfortunately there are bad seeds in every job
How many of these other jobs involve carrying firearms, tasers, batons, and pepper spray, along with power to initialize violence against people in the name of the state?
I'm sorry, I chuckled when I saw that. It's so egregious it's funny, looked like something from MAD TV.
I hope they sue the shit out of this jurisdiction.
Interestingly, it was Garcia who wound up being charged following the November 2009 incident with assaulting a police officer.
Well, duh. He struck the officer in the fist with the back of his head. Obviously that is assault on a police officer.
Also interestingly, officer punchy has a job with another force, after being promoted following the 'assault'. Think his new employer will take action to protect the public from officer punchy in his new jursdiction?
His new employer promoted him to trainer.
Apparently they liked the video so much that they want all their officers trained in knocking out citizens who are no threat.
And people wonder why I hate cops.
Yup - and after he knocks cold another citizen, he'll just move on to yet another jurisdiction.
Eventually he will work his way up the ranks to chief and be in charge of handing out paid vacations to officers who follow his example.
In the video, Daniel is talking with a K9 officer when the other guy drives up, jumps out and strikes him. It wasn't clear from the story, but there was some type of confrontation earlier with the K9 officer, not the suckerpuncher. Maybe the charge stemmed from that?
Yeah... how likely is it that the guy assaulted a K-9 officer? If he did, you'd see him rolling around on the ground with a dog attached to his arm or leg.
Yeah, and that K-9 officer seems pretty casual, as do all the other people around, right up until Macho Man Randy Savage does his reverse forearm shiver to the head. I call bullshit on the charge against him. And, I call bullshit on the stop to begin with. From what I gathered (the facts and circs as I understand them--hurr durr), the family tried to pile into a cab and a deputy ordered them out. They guy and his wife stayed behind and the woman got into an argument with the cop for being ordered out of the cab. The cop was arresting her and the man was just pleading with him to be gentle while arresting her.
"Many of the inmates killed in a horrific Honduras prison fire had not even been charged, were awaiting trial."
So what? Is Reason of a mind that people awaiting trial should all be set free? It's not as if the prison said, "Hey, let's burn these fuckers."
Robocain, I see your lizard and raise you...
AWW! They are cuddling!
Cute, but mammal cuteness is easy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl.....a-17009359
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/c.....609022.htm
That's not a mammal, that's a goat. Goats are fucking mutant, crazy-eyed, alien, eating machines.
Who gives a shit if those people died? If they weren't guilty, why were they in jail?
Russian asshole tattoos his cat.
This is not a euphemism.
Wow
It's good to know that it's not just Americans who are crazy.
What a fucking prick. And fuck those assholes who bred those poor hairless cats, too. That was at least as cruel as creating the English bulldog.
At least the bulldog's ridiculousness used to have a purpose. Those cats are just cruel vanity projects.
The bulldog's purpose was to fight and die for foppish, compulsive gambling lords. If that's not a cruel vanity project, nothing is.
I first read that as, "Russian tattoos his cats asshole"!
Why can't we just look, and learn, and adopt, and try to help me defeat dyslexia, instead of wallowing in lies and bullsh*t?
Russian tattoo artist and he gives it a stupid American-style tattoo? WTF, I was expecting that cat to look like Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises.
He's sporting a tattoo of his cat's tattoo.
That's messed up.
He's sporting a tattoo of his cat's tattoo.
It's Russian assholes all the way down.
If you drink alcohol in an Illinois strip club, you're contributing to (eventual) violence against women and will need to pay an additional tax, if a state senator gets her way. Interestingly it looks like the clubs that don't serve alcohol won't be hit with the tax.
http://www.redeyechicago.com/n.....0572.story
I find it darkly hilarious that the gun grabbers claim that someone who is intending to shoot people at a Starbucks would be discouraged by a store policy against open carry. Or that they would open carry to begin with if that was their intention; I'd think an intended murderer would probably conceal his weapon until the time came to do the deed.
Of course, the reality is that the gun grabbers do not want gun carrying to be seen as a safe, normal part of society. After, say, a year of visiting restaurants and walking down streets where half the patrons and pedestrians are visibly carrying firearms, and not seeing the streets run red, the average person might conclude that guns aren't so bad after all.
I'm conflicted on open carry. It's technically legal in all parts of PA (except the usual exceptions of federal buildings, private property where the owner doesn't want it, airports, schools) but I've heard stories of police harrassing OCers in Pittsburgh. Plus, my "workplace" obviously does not allow OC, CC, or even storage of firearms.
On the other hand, I want to be part of the solution to the problem outlined above with "normalizing" gun possession.
Where I live it is legal as well.
Try it and you will likely spend the night in jail on some made up charge that will be dropped the next day, and have your weapon confiscated, never to be seen again unless you're willing to spend more on a lawyer than you did on the weapon.
I also find it rather riduculous that they think OC = increased chances of shootings. If anything it wshould be the opposite. If someone walks into a Starbucks planning on shooting the place up and sees guns strapped to people's hips, you'd think they would change their mind pretty quick, unless it was their intention to get themselves shot too.
You're giving them too much credit by accusing them of thinking.
They don't think.
They feel.
They feel that more guns equals more violence because they are scared of anyone other than a government goon carrying a gun.
Being emotionally unstable themselves, they know that they cannot be trusted with a firearm.
Therefor nobody (except people who have had government training) should have one.
There is no thinking involved.
It's 100% emotion.
You are correct.
http://www.alestlelive.com/opi.....f6878.html
Read her opening sentence. "we feel much safer". Feelings, not reality, matter to them.
I think your underestimating the risk of espresso-induced rage. The jitters don't help your aim, though.
Somebody must have posted this already, but it's worth clicking just for the cleavage
But the chain has provoked widespread anger with promotions including offering free food to morbidly obese customers.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....z1mYqDJAEI
I can't eat there because they put lard in everything. But I have routinely asked folks visiting Arizona if they have gone there. I know some who have, and they enjoyed the place. I did not know they had it in Las Vegas. Wonder how long it's been there.
In Soviet Union, cat tattoos you
http://www.newser.com/story/13.....mouth.html
Weird story. But lithium batteries can do some strange things. Laptops and cell phones have also gone boom.
2.5 million users of E-cigs, and this is a first.
The punchline? The fact that the journalist couldn't help himself. Prominent is a photo of different E-cigs with the caption: "Electronic smoking devices are not currently regulated by the FDA".
Not a problem in the universe that can't be solved by a couple thousand more regulations, right?
Georgia House introducing legislation to strengthen gun rights
Holy fucking awesome, Batman!
Brady Campaign State Scorecard rankings (PDF)
So, according to this chart, the best states to move to are Utah, Arizona, and Alaska. Stay the hell away from California!