A.M. Links: Obama Releases 17-Minute Campaign Ad, Berkshire Hathaway Resembles Greedy Wall Street Bank, Trigger-Happy Sergeant Being Transferred Back to 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: "Why The Future Is Better Than You Think"

NEXT: Reason Writers Around Town: Jesse Walker on "Doonesbury," in Newsday

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. Consumer Prices in U.S. Rose in February as Gasoline Jumped

    The biggest jump in gasoline in more than a year accounted for about 80 percent of the increase in prices last month, leaving households with less money to spend on other goods and services. Federal Reserve policy makers say the advance in fuel costs will be temporary, and most see little risk inflation will flare out of control as unemployment exceeds 8 percent.

    1. Ben Bernanke still believes in the Phillips Curve, Stimulus Multipliers and Phrenology.

      1. I believe in a stimulus multiplier. You can multiply by numbers less than 1.

    2. Don't worry, they'll just find things that are going down in price to balance out that pesky CPI. Maybe they'll add baseball cards or beanie babies.

  2. The Obama campaign has released a 17-minute docudrama.

    "Government Supermen Are Our Superiors"

    1. This sounds like the way to win over moderates. You will totally get people who aren't already committed to your cause to watch a 17 minute ad.

      1. This sounds like the way to win over moderates.

        "You are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you."

        ~Ludwig von Mises letter to Ayn Rand, 23 January 1958

        "We do God's work."

        ~Lloyd Blankfein

        1. Wow. That's totally relevant to what I was talking about!

          1. Capitalism merely buys the best middle management (government) it can afford.

            You fibertarians are in denial of this basic fact.

            1. Thank you for your glorious insight on the matter. Your post was life changing.

                1. I believe the bro is mad. Y so serious?

                2. I think you mean Fibbertarian. Assuming you're trying to accuse libertarians of lying, and not a love of fiber.

                  Either way, it's super creative, and a devastating assault on the bedrock of libertarian beliefs. Do continue.

                  1. we demand fiber...

                    1. ...is just all the bullshit city-Statist lies.

                    2. Here, have some nuts to snack on.

                  2. I think you mean Fibbertarian. Assuming you're trying to accuse libertarians of lying, and not a love of fiber.

                    I don't think English is its native language.

        2. It was a private letter to Ayn so it probably wasn't intended to win over any moderate.

          And libertarians aren't egalitarians calling people superior and inferior is completely fine.

          And neither Mises (nor Rand) ever claimed to be a libertarian.

          Failure hat trick.

    2. If you want to see something hilarious, try the interview with Davis Guggenheim on CNN.


      1. Well, at least he isn't pretending that documentarians are unbiased purveyors of truth. His bootlickery is transparent there.

  3. The Race Grinds On
    What's the next curveball?

    Rank-and-file Republican voters aren't giving mainstream Republican professionals what they want ? a blessed end to the primary season that threatens to stretch into the early summer, more than a year after its absurdly early start.

    Those who live and breathe politics every day might have prefered Rick Santorum to win 80 percent of the vote in Alabama and Mississippi on Tuesday, breaking the back of the Mitt Romney campaign ? simply because it would change the storyline and introduce some novelty into the proceedings.

  4. Meghan McCain? In MY Playboy? (John edition)

    1. Meghan McCain loves sex. Except nobody would want to fuck her (except John of course).


      1. I used to think she was somewhat attractive. Until she gained that 75 lbs.

      2. She needs to go on her dad's fish heads-and-rice POW diet.

      3. Does face-slapping count as sex?

        1. Does face-slapping count as sex?

          If you're using your hand, then no.

      4. I would totally do her. But I've always preferred curvy girls with huge tracts of land.

        1. She looks totally hot in the Playboy pic.

      5. I have a pretty wide range of taste when it comes to women. John is not the only one that fuck the hell out of her.

      6. Yeah, she's a little chubby...but did you see those tits in the first picture? I'm a woman but even I would totally motor boat that!

    2. Funny, Playboy used to have interviews with intellectuals, and pictures of buxom chicks.

      Why on earth would they do it the other way around?

      1. We have a winner.

        That is how it is done, people.

  5. In U.S., Half Say U.S. Should Speed Up Afghanistan Withdrawal
    About one in four changed to this view because of recent events

    1. If only there were a candidate running for President that favored withdrawal and non-intervention. Oh, wait.....

      1. There is no such candidate, and even if there were he's simply unelectable. So there.

        1. He's unelectable because not enough people like his foreign policy. Got it.

  6. The government elected last spring in the United Kingdom committed itself to rapidly reducing the size of its deficit. This government austerity was supposed to give a big boost to the private sector. It actually did the opposite. Growth has fallen to a near standstill. The I.M.F. projects that the U.K. economy will grow by just 0.6 percent this year and an only slighter better 1.6 percent in 2013. This pace is not even fast enough to keep up with the growth of the U.K.'s labor market.

    It would be good if the politicians in Washington could learn these basic facts about the British economy. They might then realize that deficit reduction destroys jobs, it doesn't create them.


    1. Economic growth is government AND private spending. If government cuts spending growth "slows" by definition. When we borrow and spend 8% of last year's GDP and then talk about 3% growth, its like counting your credit card spending as income.

      1. But reducing government spurs the private economic juggernaut, right?

        1. Ideally. Although whether the crowdout effect of government borrowing can be separated from tax and regulatory burdens is unclear to me. In previous analogous circumstances taxes and/or regulations were often reduced at the same time. I wasn't arguing for the policy so much as pointing out that the GDP number used to measure economies is stacked to favor government deficit spending as a positive measure.

          1. I actually agree with the basic argument. I just cited this article due to a discussion here a few days ago where some equated Keynesianism with Creationism. Myself, I think Keynesian theory ultimately unconvincing, but there's evidence out there that a person could cite in its favor and still be reasonable imo. I don't think that's the case for creationism.

            1. No, if you rely upon Keynesian principles in support of your argument, you are waving the white flag.

            2. The problem I see with most people that support Keynesian theory (ala Tony) is they completely disregard the part where you're not supposed to always increase government spending.

              Isn't the whole point of his theory that you cut back spending in good times to create a better buffer when the bad times come around again. Thus allowing you to spend more during said bad times and hopefully pull the economy out of this shitter?

          2. whether the crowdout effect of government borrowing can be separated from tax and regulatory burdens is unclear

            ^This. Cutting government spending is only half the process of "getting government out of the private sector's way". Without reductions to the tax and regulatory burdens, there are still significant hurdles to entrepreneurship. The fact that they had any growth implies that the private sector picked up the slack from the "missing" government spending plus a little extra.

        2. It absolutely does, because the money gets put to more efficient use. It just doesn't happen overnight.

          1. So like Obama says about his economics:

            wait for it and believe

            1. In order for the government to spend any money, it first has to take a cut off the top for administrative purposes. While perhaps small, this is inherently inefficient. Also, government spending decisions are inherently influenced by factors outside the scope of traditional investment/spending decisions (rate of return and/or utility). These political agenda motivated decisions (Solyndra, GM bailout, $400/gallon fuel for the Navy) are also inefficient.

              Not saying that government spending can't be productive/useful - but examples are lacking.

              1. In order for agricultural city-Statist markets to have any money, it first has to take a cut off the top for administrative purposes.

                "Agriculture creates government." ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p. 73

                Once again, Fibertarians have it all backwards.

              2. Shorter Minge: Top. Men. can make better decisions for the stupid masses.

                1. Top. Men. can make better decisions for the stupid masses.

                  They can but they so rarely do.

            2. Isn't the difference between the two the fact that in order for the government to have money to spend it has one of two courses: Raise taxes, which results in less money in yours and my pocket; or Print more money, which devalues the dollars you and I have in our pockets?

          2. It absolutely does, because the money gets put to more efficient use. It just doesn't happen overnight.

            To totally blow MNG's mind, consider the possibility that a lower gdp from cutting government spending could in and of itself result in a better quality of life for the subjects of a country.

        3. But reducing government spurs the private economic juggernaut, right?

          (1) Without looking at private GDP, there's no way to know whether its happening or not given the automatic, by definition, reduction in GDP caused by lower government spending.

          (2) There's a lag. Increased private GDP should happen because capital is no longer being diverted to fund the government. That takes a little time.

          1. "Without looking at private GDP, there's no way to know whether its happening or not given the automatic"

            This is a common silly point I hear some libertarians make. When arguing if government can make the economy better they say "well, you have to look at measures that exempt government". Question beg much?

            "There's a lag."

            Obama and stimulus supporters say the exact same thing.

            1. Obama and stimulus supporters say the exact same thing.

              Really? So how do you explain the infamous stimulus unemployment chart, and the promise of a "recovery summer?"

              1. Yeah, I thought about that as I hit send. Better to say that "Obama and stimulus supporters say the exact same thing..when it seems to not be currently working" 😉

                1. Government spending should not be part of the measurement of economic productivity cuz it ain't.

                  1. When you assume what you are arguing it's amazing how well you argue!

            2. Obama and stimulus supporters say the exact same thing.
              we're three years into the Obama lag at this point and the evidence points to any growth as occurring in spite of POTUS rather than because of him. Giving political paybacks is a poor means of stimulating growth in anything other than contributions to re-election campaigns, though if that is the calculus, at least a portion of the spendulus was successful.

            3. I thought we were arguing about whether the private economy would benefit from reduced government spending.

              But reducing government spurs the private economic juggernaut, right?

              Yup, we were. So why doesn't it make sense to look at measures of the private economy?

            4. In determining the status of the "private economic juggernaut" you don't think examining private GDP is the way to go?

              1. No, see, I, and the article I cited, starts with concern over how "the economy" is doing. Not everyone agrees with many of you that we must assume at the beginning that the government could not be a part, or big part, of "the economy" doing well.

                But you guys do. Your theory is that government can only "get out of the way" and that releases "the private juggernaut" which ultimately makes "the whole economy" better. the overarching argument, about the whole economy, shouldn't start by assuming government can't help. That's my point.

                1. The issue/problem with governemnt spending is the motivation. Private investment/spending is, generally, driven by the expectation of a rate of return and/or some degree of utility to the investor/spender. Government spending seems to be motivated more by a political agenda than by expectation of a rate of return/degree of utility.

                  1. I think Restoras hits it on the head. If markets work and most private dollars are allocated in markets, then that money is working for a return. OTOH, government spending is not based on rational actors investing in expectation of a return, so there's no expectation of efficient allocation of capital.

                    And my additional complaint that any money borrowed and spent by the private sector in a given year is being repaid with interest being at least equal to the rate of default. Again, the government is not limited by this constraint.

                2. Your theory is that government can only "get out of the way" and that releases "the private juggernaut" which ultimately makes "the whole economy" better.

                  Which is why we think that economic measures that include government spending, and necessarily go down when government spending is included, don't exactly disprove our theory.

                  The alternative view seems to rely on the assumption that government spending is generally/in the aggregate/as a rule more productive than private spending. That diverting capital to the government will result in a bigger, better economy in the long run.

                  You've got your assumptions, and we've got ours. Frankly, I think its much more likely that private sector spending/investment is more productive than government spending/investment.

                  1. Frankly, I think its much more likely that private sector spending/investment is more productive than government spending/investment

                    We don't really need to look much beyond the heavily socialistic command economies of those countries behind the Iron Curtain for proof of this; or of the astounding growth that China has experienced in the past two decades.

                    1. Guys, minge is right. All you need for government efficiency is to set up a few "People's Committees" and then have them formulate a "Five Year Plan". What could possibly go wrong?

                    2. Why would we even look at government growth? That would only make sense if government growth was an end in itself. It isn't. Private sector growth (aka society aka the people) IS an end in itself, the people's prosperity is the only reason we even HAVE government. So yes, it makes sense to omit government growth as part of GDP.

                3. Your point is invalid. The government can only help by collecting money from people via taxation and respending it.

                  If the government takes 10% of my paycheck when, if it wasn't trying to fix every "problem", it only needed to take 2%, that means 8% of my paycheck can't get spent on what I need like food or a second car or a bigger apartment.

                  Now, if they were to take that 8% and spend it directly on another company, you might have a point. But that's not what they do. They carve that 8% up, mostly to pay bureaucrats, so that very little is actually getting spent to spur on the economy.

                  (For the purposes of my argument the government could fulfill all of its functions off of my 2%. I realize that is grossly inaccurate)

        4. No, I don't think that one can expect cuts in government spending to immediately result in more economic growth. In cases where government makes up a significant part of the economy, it will probably cause some economic pain. But it has to be done. Yeah, it would have been better to do it during boom times, but that just doesn't happen. If we keep spending at current levels until the economy looks better, nothing will get done until the next crisis when things will be even worse.

      2. I don't understand how government spending helps the economy.

        Whatever government spends was either taken under duress or borrowed.

        The money that was taken is money that could have been spent on something productive, and the money that is borrowed is money that could have been lent to someone doing something productive.

        Government spending is a drag on the economy, not a sign of growth.

        1. A+ work there, Sarcasmic.

        2. "The money that was taken is money that could have been spent on something productive"

          Well, you assume that in all cases private spending is more productive than government spending. Whatever the truth of that, it's not self-evident.

          1. I would argue it is, because private spending doesn't incur the costs associated with government spending. How much money does the government need to take in to be able to spend a dollar productively? I'd argue that in almost all cases, that number is higher than it is for a private sector organization.

            Except maybe Invisible Children. (joke, btw)

            1. I'd actually agree with you, and for the reason you cite, but I would change "almost all" to "generally"

          2. Well, you assume that in all cases private spending is more productive than government spending.

            No, you assume that private spending is in the aggregate more productive than government spending.

            That's an assumption I'm comfortable with.

            1. Do you mean "as a rule" when you say "in the aggregate?"

              1. Do you mean "in the aggregate" when you say "generally"?

                1. No. If you're saying "in the aggregate" you've got a bit more explaining to do I'm afraid.

          3. you assume that in all cases private spending is more productive than government spending.

            Cite examples of government spending that you think is productive.

            Even government spending that most of us see as necessary ie police, courts, fire protection, national defense; are non productive costs that should be kept as small as possible.

            1. And that doesn't even get into things like transfer payments or economic destructive government regulations.

          4. Well, you assume that in all cases private spending is more productive than government spending. Whatever the truth of that, it's not self-evident.

            We're working off different definitions of "productive". I define "productive" as "money spent on things I actually want", and so government confiscating my income and spending it on stuff politicians want is invariably less productive than me spending it how I please, because the government doesn't know what I want.

        3. I self identify with the non-productive.

        4. Even if you assume that the government is going to spend the money in exactly the productive and efficient way possible, without wasting a cent, the government is still a middleman that incurs the cost of bureaucrats, paperwork, and time. Government can never put your money to work as well you can.

          1. Exactly. The overhead of paying government drones who add nothing productive is always a net drain.

            1. To be fair, private corporations have their share of non-value added waste as well, but in the private sector there's more incentive to be as efficient as possible because market forces tend to weed out the stupid and/ or inefficient (unless you work in an industry like aerospace that's mostly reliant on government cost plus contracting). There's not as much incentive for the government to eliminate waste.

              1. Even aerospace, you're still competing for contracts so there's incentive to provide the most/best at as small a cost as possible. And the government never knowing what exactly it wants also drives up the cost.

                Though sometimes it boils down to if a company can deliver the product at all, at any cost.

    2. Where's Maggie when you need her?

    3. The 50's never happened, apparently.

    4. The government elected last spring in the United Kingdom committed itself to rapidly reducing the size of its deficit.

      >last spring

      So they want instant miraculous results or it doesn't work. I wonder if they're ever not disappointed. Or perhaps they're just disingenuous partisan hacks.

      1. Sounds like the UK government is run by NASCAR owners or TV executives.

      2. Or Dan Snyder

        1. Do they routinely drive out the performing employees?

          1. The U.S government does, so I can only extrapolate to the UK.

            (do the Redskins have any performing employees??)

            1. Never for more than one season.

      3. Its not helping, of course, that the Eurozone is experiencing a massive capital crisis and has rolled over into a recession.

    5. Typical MNG to cherry pick. Reducing the deficit did work in Canada and New Zealand, and it wasn't the conservative parties that did it.

      It Can Happen Here

      1. So there's evidence to cite for both views. Somehow I imagine I'm more comfortable with that than you are...

        1. It depends on the situation. This is one of the problems with overly simplistic Keynsian arguments. Each recession is a different beast.

          The early 80s Fed induced recession to kill inflation has different dynamics than a bubble popping, balance sheet destroying/financial crisis recession we have now.

          If you have a recession due to a temporary shock in confidence so that private spending suddenly slows, then maybe temporary stimulus can smooth out the business cycle. But when you have a bubble pop and therefore have to have a structural realignment mixed with balance sheet repair, stimulus spending seems to not be effective at all and may just prolong the process of realignment.

          It also matters what the current debt situation is. Are interest rates including a large risk premium already? If so more stimulus will be counterproductive. Ie Europe.

          So it all depends.

          1. It also depends on what tax you cut and what areas you spend on. Aggregate supply is not a homogeneous blob. Spending money on road construction is going to have a different effect that spending on healthcare.

        2. Iceland is the example you are looking for...

    6. Anybody else think they purposely went about "Shrinking" government in the worst way possible just to make this argument?

  7. Dear Prudie,

    Sometimes at work, while sitting in the bathroom stall, I hear a weird rubbing noise coming from a neighboring stall. Other co-workers have heard it, too, and after months of sleuthing we discovered that the noises were coming from an older gentleman in the office. Lately the sounds have been getting more graphic, a distinct wet noise. He's either masturbating or repeatedly wiping his behind?the point is, it's really weirding us out. Should we ask him about it, or talk to human resources?

    1. How about minding your own fucking business in the stall, pervert.

    2. Repeatedly wiping his behind in a toilet stall! The damn pervert!

    3. You're treading on SF's turf, watch your step.

      When I worked as an engineer out in CA, there was a guy who went to the stall every day at 11:30am to yank his wank. Everyone knew it, noone would go the bathroom during his "me" time.

      1. ewwwww!

        1. Wrong bathroom, sweetheart.

    4. The bathroom in our office has some sort of plumbing issue that makes it stink - more so than a public restroom should. It constantly smells like someone gave birth to a dead cat in there. It's to the point that you sant to get in there, leave your pile, and get out. Lingering long enough to rub one out is out of the question.

      1. Lingering long enough to rub one out is out of the question.

        Yer doin' it wrong?

        1. Yer doin' it wrong?

          Either that, or the smell of rotting poo is off-putting enough that rubbing one out in there would be close to impossible. Shooting pool with a rope, lighting a wet firecracker, all that stuff. Might be titillating for some, maybe, but not for me 🙂

      2. Pour some water down the floor drain.

        1. Pour some water down the floor drain.

          I'm 99-percent sure that's the source of the stink. I'd be happy to offer that suggestion to the building-management people. How often should that be done?

          1. Probably every week. No reason you can't do it yourself.

            1. Cool, I'll email the building-maintenance people. It'd be cool if the fix was that simple.

              1. Try bleach.

              2. Let us know when you successfully rub one out so we can close the work order.

          2. Sorry, clicked too soon. The water doesn't clean out the pipe; the floor drain should be set up so a little water blocks the air flow. So it doesn't take much.

  8. Karl Rove: Obama's Money and the Enthusiasm Gap
    The president's fund-raising troubles are evidence of disappointed Democrats.

    At the end of January, Team Obama had $91.7 million in cash in its coffers and those of the DNC. At the same point in 2004, the Bush campaign and Republican National Committee had $122 million in cash combined.

    The Obama campaign's high burn rate doesn't come from large television buys, phone banks or mail programs that could be immediately stopped. It appears to result instead from huge fixed costs for a big staff and higher-than-expected fund-raising outlays. These are much tougher to unwind or delay. Left unaltered, they generally lead to even more frantic efforts to both raise money and stop other spending.

    1. Am I to understand that Obamacamp, which cant stop overspending our money, also cannot stop overspending their own money? What a shocker.

      1. They're sucking their own tit.

  9. "In response to McCain's comments, Mabus said the Navy would never purchase any kind of alternative fuel at $400 per gallon. "

    The number I heard from a guy who does biofuel for a living was $65/gal in 2010 and previously cited stories hear had the price about $23/gal in 2011, which is more in line with a 50/50 blend costing $15/gal as cited in the article.

    1. Is he talking about real cost, or the subsidized price?

      1. Good question. The cost to the Navy, as I understand it, is the price per gallon. Although I can't rule out that they have provided government subsidized loans to their biofuel providers as well.

        1. I finally learned to ask that question right here on H&R.

    2. I'm in the Norfolk area, and I hear nothing positive, ever, about the biofuel program. It's a damned racket.

      The only possible purpose for it other than graft, is to provide a fuel source completely independent of the Middle East. That's a pretty shaky argument since we do have drillable oil resources.

      1. Its probably not the worst idea for the Navy to have some idea of the effect of biofuel on their ships' fuel systems. Its definitely a bad idea to make this a "hearts and minds" program.

    3. After seeing those prices, Secretary Chu retired to his bunk.

      1. Close second.

  10. 9:03AM? Morning links clock is not even right once a day.

    1. Get a fucking hobby.

  11. Would Obama's Mandate Fly With the Founding Fathers?

    Now, however, the state has taken quite a different approach. It is no longer simply indifferent to religious believers, but is actively working to move them out of both public life and those private services believers have provided for decades. Moreover, some political leaders treat religious liberty not as a right to be "secured," but as one that can be modified or altered in light of secular values the state now deems important. This is exactly contrary to the American tradition of religious liberty. Actions such as that by HHS treat religious persons as second-class citizens, whose entry and participation in public life is limited by their faith.

  12. U.S. soldier who murdered 16 Afghans is being brought back to the U.S.

    Good thing we don't have a presumption of innocence or anything there Riggs. Really?

    1. +100

      Side issue: How did Riggs talk about jihadi Maj. Hasan?

    2. Didn't he, like, confess and stuff? You know?

      1. So what? Murder is a techincal term. You are not guilty of it until you are convicted. Did he probably do it? Yes. Was he guilty of murder? Maybe. Maybe it was self defense. maybe he is nuts and not culpable. Too early to tell. He deserves the "accused" modifier just like anyone else.

        1. whatever

        2. I think both are right here; it can get tiresomely pedantic to always insert "alleged" in front of every story of every crime, but John is right that, especially in this case, a defense that excuses or mitigates culpability is going to be coming.

          1. From what I have been hearing, the defense seems likely to be that he was fucked in the head due to combat trauma, or something along those lines. His defense has been talking about how he had just seen someone's leg blown off.

        3. You are not guilty of it until you are convicted. Sorry, John, but I still maintain that you are guilty of murder or not regardless of the outcome of court cases. Now, its true that you aren't "legally" guilty until a court says so, but that is incidental to your actual guilt.

          The "allegedly" is ritually tacked on to news accounts of accused murderers to avoid libel suits.

          1. I still maintain that you are guilty of murder or not regardless of the outcome of court cases.
            guilty of trying to recover my own things, not of murder.

        4. Murder is a technical term, but it is also used non-technically. There are some police officers I could think of from stories I have read here that I will call murderers, even though they are never going to be convicted of anything.

      2. We do not know yet and neither do the reporters who speculate on it.

    3. Maybe it was one of those murder drones gone rogue.

      1. SKYNET IS LIVE.

        1. technology = greater power to the hierarchical elite

          1. We've said it before Spoofbot 4000 who calls itself White Indian or whatever, but we'll start listening to you when you start living without technology. Make sure to send you smoke signals during the day though, otherwise we might not know how well you are doing.

            1. Ok, we'll start listening to you when you start living without government roads.

              OK, numbnuts?

              1. I don't care if YOU (we , HAAHAHAH) listen to me. I'm a self-admitted failure at life, which (mostly) has nothing to do with the actions of other people so it would be best if no one, ever, in the history of the multiverse, listened to me. I use government roads because in most places in the United States is impossible to penetrate the bureaucracy installed just to theorize an alternative. The places where it has happened like in Indiana and some roads in California, were more or less pet projects by the politically connected or politicians themselves. In the end, we're all locked in the prison so getting by is the first goal anyway, but I don't think technology is the thing to blame. So I'll agree to disagree with you: No one should listen to either of us.

                1. Oh and it would be nice if my choices weren't: learn another language so I can leave the country/family/friends for another that will (hopefully) not force me to pay for roads, pay for roads through taxes, or prison rape. Wouldn't it just be easier to have people pay for the shit they use than to tell them to GTFO or threaten them with HIV-transmitting rape? I mean if we have to threaten people with horrible shit just because they don't want to pay for shit like roads, then we are too far gone as it is. Like Doug Casey says, the only way out is let this thing collapse.

                  1. Like Doug Casey says, the only way out is let this thing collapse.

                    Some men just want to watch the world burn. More and more lately, I'm one of them.

                    1. Like Doug Casey says, the only way out is let this thing collapse.

                      Some men just want to watch the world burn. More and more lately, I'm one of them.

                      Sadly, I too have begun to beleive the only way to fix things going forward is too let the entire edifice collapse. There are just too many entrenched special interests hell-bent on blocking the reforms we need.

                2. Dude, I heart your commentary. Keep coming back!

              2. Why? We pay our taxes to drive on the road. If forced to pay for something, we should have use of that thing. That's not inconsistent with opposition to public roads in concept (if that's your thing).

                1. Ignore the idiot troll. There's a reason it never answers actual questions and only posts other peoples' usually-irrelevant screeds.

        2. And breeding

    4. Good thing we don't have a presumption of innocence or anything there Riggs.

      Is Riggs the judge? On the jury?

      Then STFU.

      I don't like whiny progressives or conservatives.

      1. Yeah, the courts have a presumption of innocence. "We" can presume whatever we want to.

  13. A federal judge correctly dismissed a lawsuit against the city of New Orleans by a man who claimed that local law-enforcement authorities violated his constitutional right to bear arms

    Is this a news report or an opinion piece?

    1. It sounds more like a 5th amendment issue than a 2nd amendment issue since charges were dropped.

      1. It sounds more like a 5th amendment issue than a 2nd amendment issue since charges were dropped.

        Both. I say having your weapon stolen by government is an "affirmative denial" or whatever of your rights under the 2nd Amendment.

      2. I agree. I don't think it is a good 2nd amendment case. This is about property being seized without good reason. If you are not convicted, you should always get your stuff back.

    2. MSL,

      That was the opinion of the judges in that reviewed the case, not the reporter: "a divided panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday."

      Either way that is crap. You have the right to bear arms, just not the specific arms that you already own (ed).

      1. judges that reviewed - wow

      2. Either way that is crap. You have the right to bear arms, just not the specific arms that you already own (ed).

        Or, like one of the commentors there said, once the charges are dropped, why shouldn't the guy's property be returned? How is the gun any different from keys, wallet, cellphone, etc.?

        1. Exactly. Drop the charges = return his property. Not hard to understand, unless you are a NOLA prosecutor.

          1. Exactly. Drop the charges = return his property. Not hard to understand, unless you are a NOLA prosecutor.

            If it's a nice gun, like some high-dollar Kimber or something, then I'm sure it's found its way into some cop's or DA's personal collection by now.

            1. And, if it is a piece of crap and unregestered it probably found its way to a crime scene. Drop gun FTW.

            2. I hadn't thought of that. I bet that they aren't returning it because they don't have it anymore and they don't want to say why.

              1. A little OT but a friend who was a retired cop told me that relatives of suicides used to offer to give him suicide guns all the time. They didn't want to have anything to do with them. He always declined but said there were other officers he knew that had sizeable collectikns of suicide guns. One can imagine how much paperwork was filled out ion these transfers to law enforcement officers.

    3. It's that stupid inverse sentence-writing that drives me nuts.

      Read the whole sentence and what you'll see is that it actually says this:

      "A divided panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that a federal judge correctly dismissed a lawsuit against the city of New Orleans by a man who claimed that local law-enforcement authorities violated his constitutional right to bear arms."

      1. Exactly. You've restructured the reporters sentence to objectively report.

    4. It's a news report about the appellate court upholding the original judge's dismissal.

  14. How entrepreneurship and capitalism can promote things liberals say they care about like civic engagement and social change

    "like a lot of other things, petitions are going viral. And one website in particular has contributed to the phenomenon.

    Change.org offers tools to let individuals start their own online campaigns, a way to bring instant awareness to issues that range from the environment to human rights."


    1. A central hub for all the online petitions politicians will later ignore. Genius.

      1. Actually I heard a story yesterday about the feds changing their school lunch policy on preparing food with lean meat stuff in response to petitions, and the story linked tells of a prosecutor dropping a charge on an autistic kid because of a petition...

        1. Yes, and I'm sure the petition was the only expression of the public's outrage over those two events. Nobody received a single phone call or email, did they? Nope, just online signatures on a website somewhere.

          In order of decreasing importance, here's how politicians view things:
          People showing in their office to bitch
          People blowing up their phones lines
          People writing letters and faxes
          People sending emails
          and finally, trailing the pack by a considerable margin:
          Online petitions

          Elected officials don't give a shit that you can get a million signatures on an online petition, because the vast of majority of the people who signed it don't live in their district and don't vote. The efficacy of online petitions is vastly overrated by their proponents.

          1. Back when the bailouts were being debated/considered, I call the office of my local congresscritter to express my view that she note vote in favor. I made sure to leave my home address and phone number so they could verify my residency.

            I was rewarded with being added to her junkmail list soliciting contributions (which I am paying for). D'oh!

            1. My wife was the local precinct chair and election judge for years at our last house. We were on the mail list for every politician and GOP organization in the greater Houston area and half the state.

              On the plus side, you get lots of Christmas cards. The creepily posed family photos in identical outfits were always good for a laugh.

              1. The creepily posed family photos in identical outfits were always good for a laugh

                Every time a see one of those I just know the kids will end up in years of therapy.

                1. It's even weirder when the kids are all in their 20s/30s and have spouses.

              2. That is the very reason I don't donate to the political causes I would like to.

          2. Elected officials don't give a shit that you can get a million signatures on an online petition, because the vast of majority of the people who signed it don't live in their district and don't vote. The efficacy of online petitions is vastly overrated by their proponents.


  15. Scarce Oil? U.S. Has 60 Times More Than Obama Claims

    But the figure Obama uses ? proved oil reserves ? vastly undercounts how much oil the U.S. actually contains. In fact, far from being oil-poor, the country is awash in vast quantities ? enough to meet all the country's oil needs for hundreds of years.

    The U.S. has 22.3 billion barrels of proved reserves, a little less than 2% of the entire world's proved reserves, according to the Energy Information Administration. But as the EIA explains, proved reserves "are a small subset of recoverable resources," because they only count oil that companies are currently drilling for in existing fields.

    1. I hear that North Slope oil was supposed to run out a long time ago. Seems like the known reserves are not as well known as the critics say.

      1. debunked here:


        1. Peak Oil is no source.

      1. so the following agencies are just plain wrong?

        Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, EIA, U.S. Geological Survey,
        and the Bureau of Land Management.

        Good to know that all of those are deep in the pockets of Big Oil.

          1. no, how about you prove your point? Asshole.

            1. They prove their points by assertion and denial. Are you new here?

            2. I posted a link that debunks your Cornucopian bullshit.

              It's as pointless to debate with Cornucopian Fantasians (who have faith that resources on a finite planet are infinite) as it is to debate with Creationists.

              1. Peak Oil or no Peak Oil you're still going die.

              2. Cornucopian Fantasians sounds like a character out of Dickens. It would also be a crappy name for a rock band.

                1. Plus, it sounds a little racist.

              3. Listen dumbass, if oil wells actually start running dry and their production cannot be replaced with new wells, the private sector will make more progress on alternative fuels in a matter of weaks than the government pigs have in 40 years of pork redistribution.

                1. Just a little magical pixie dust, and you can fly, eh? I've heard your bullshit before, Brandon. It still stinks.

        1. In that case, the progs will be on board with abolishing those agencies, right?

      2. Editors


        So nobody who really knows anything about oil.

    2. Maybe my maths are wrong, but if the 60x thing is true, wouldn't that mean the US has more than the entire world proved reserves?

      1. See description just past that part.

      2. Fundamentalists will swallow anything.

    3. Anticosti Island off the coast of Quebec has an estimated 20 billion barrels.

      1. 30 billion - my mistake.

        1. Shale oil. Production of oil from oil shale has been attempted at various times for nearly 100 years. So far, no venture has proved successful on a significantly large scale. One problem is that there is no oil in oil shale. It is a material called kerogen.

          by Walter Youngquist, Consulting Geologist
          Eugene, Oregon, October 2000

          1. And what happens when you refine kerogen (waxy hydrocarbons)? Oh, that's right. You get petroleum distillates. Try understanding WTF you're talking about.

            1. hey, cuntbreath, we already knew that, if you were smart enough to click on the link

              "The shale has to be mined, transported, heated to about 4500C (8500F), and have hydrogen added to the product to make it flow. The shale pops like popcorn when heated so the resulting volume of shale after the kerogen is taken out is larger than when it was first mined. The waste disposal problem is large. Net energy recovery is low at best."

              1. So what's the problem? It goes right into the petroleum distillate stream. That's what we want. The whole liquid v. waxy hydrocarbon means jack and shit to the refineries.

                1. look it up, dumbass.

                  Then tell me about the EROEI of shale.

  16. Julianne Moore is looking her age.


    1. The Julianne Moore and Bernadette Peters juxtaposition at the bottom is creepy.

      1. No no no no no no YES!

        1. These people do not age well at all, do they?

          1. I think she looks pretty damn good for 51.

          2. A few years ago I saw Marcia Cross at a store in Manhattan, shopping for boots.

            She looked like Skeletor.

            1. Now Maria Shriver must kill her to reclaim the throne.

              1. Marcia Cross is easy. Maria Shriver will have a bigger battle with the once and future Skeletor

            2. She looks like Skeletor on TV - I can't imagine it in person. *shudder*

          3. Streep seems to be holding up pretty well given the Peak Oil issue and the predation of the AGRICULTURAL CITY STATE.

        2. I'm just sayin, there's no comparison between the personality-suck that is Julianne Moore and the woman who did this

          1. KAHHHHHHHHN!

            Madeline Kahn? VERY hawt for her day. But why would Julianne Moore make you think of her?

            Juliane Moore doesn't make "funny" pop into my head. She makes things pop in my jeans, but not in my head.

            1. Oops!! I confuse those two all the time, actually. But anyways, good excuse to watch some Mel Brooks clips....

              1. Admit it. You just watch for the double time harch.

          2. When did Madeline Kahn become Bernadette Peters?

    2. In other news: Sky is blue.

    3. She looked boneable in the previews for that Game Change piece of shit HBO was hocking for awhile. Too bad I'd rather watch an HBO original movie about what certain fucking assholes did at a certain Jekyll Island.

      1. I loved DRax from the Adam Warlock comics. Are you the smart Drax or the Hulk-me-smash Drax?

        1. You or one of your doppelgangers asked me this before. If this is shorthand for "I think you are an Idiot," Fuck off. If not, Smart Drax. If I wanted to reference a Hulk-like character, I don't see why I wouldn't reference the Hulk directly.

          1. You're not familiar with the stupid Drax character?

            1. Yes, I am. I read the Infinity Gauntlet/War/Crusade madness in all of its acid-flashback inducing glory, but I just prefer the smart reborn Drax conjured up by Abnett and Co. In the end, I just like the name for its combination of alliteration and ridiculousness. If this sound retarded, well, I did go to public school.

              1. No, not retarded at all. I liked both versions, and it makes a great handle for the reasons you mention.

    4. Dudes win that round.

  17. Katharine McPhee is still hot!


    1. You cannot tell how sweet an orange is by looking at the peel.

      1. What about a green bikini?


        1. Yummy!

          sarcasmic, last week I gave you a little grief about your emergency fund. I hope you know that I was just messing with you - no harm intended.

          1. No offense, but if I allow myself to be harmed by comments in an internet forum, there's a bigger issue at hand.

            1. All good. Just wanted to make sure that you knew I was not being serious - besides, even though I have listened to Dave Ramsey here and there over the years, I would not send Tony or Joe from Lowell to him for financial advice.

    2. Oh look, another Hollywood twit curling a tiny dog. How original.

      1. Dog curling as a sport sounds fun, especially when they try to run on highly polished ice.

    3. It must be me, but her legs look a little chunky in those jeans.

      1. They look fine to me.

        1. Agreed. One must take care never to be like Jason Alexander in Shallow Hal.

          1. Or like Jack Black.

    4. She is all kinds of yummy.

  18. Under current law, health plans in Arizona that cover other prescription medications must also cover contraception. House Bill 2625, which the state House of Representatives passed earlier this month and the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed on Monday, repeals that law and allows any employer to refuse to cover contraception that will be used "for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes." If a woman wants the cost of her contraception covered, she has to "submit a claim" to her employer providing evidence of a medical condition, such as endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome, that can be treated with birth control.

    The contraception war rages on.

    1. The contraceptive medication used to treat a medical condition is apparently more expensive than what you use to prevent pregnancy. At least, that's what I'm told.

      1. Untrue...if you're using birth control pills to treat polycystic ovaries or uterine cysts, it's the exact same stuff as the birth control pills that are being used as birth control The only differences are the active ingredients between brands and dosage levels.

    2. Arizona is like that friend who tries to help you win your argument but just fucks it up for you instead.

      1. Arizona is like that friend who tries to help you win your argument but just fucks it up for you instead.


        When Arizona tries to make a political statement, it always seems to go full retard.

    3. So they want to repeal one of their benefit mandates.

      Sounds like a good idea to me in principle.

      And in the particular, too. Birth control is elective. Insurance shouldn't be required to cover elective procedures or medications.

      1. I really don't understand why that poiont in controvesial. Everyone hates insurers, so we want to interact with them for every single aspect of our medical care, regardless of how minor it might be?

        1. As long as all medical cost flow through insurance companies via your employer, there will be a motivation to regulate their behavior and mandate that they provide the service people perceive they are purchasing...reform would be dismantling this odd use of insurance, but in the current world the rights of the employee to be autonomous in how they use the service are as worthy of consideration as those of the employer.

          1. So in order to mitigate the effects of a fucked up policy, we make another regulation. Glad to see you're onboard with the death spiral, NM.

            1. Don't know that I am. But whether or not BC is elective is just beside the point unless you take on the bigger issue.

          2. As long as all medical cost flow through insurance companies via your employer,

            Of course, we are debating whether "all medical costs" should be covered or not.

            I'm saying elective costs, like birth control, should not be.

            1. I know RC. We agree on the bigger issue. But most routine/basic costs are currently covered and birth control is something that 99% of women elect to use, so it is pretty much the prototype of routine costs.

              1. Routine/basic costs can include a lot of stuff that isn't elective.

                Just because you cover the former isn't any reason to cover the latter, no matter how common it may be.

                1. isn't any reason to cover the latter, no matter how common it may be.

                  That commonality, however, is the reason that there is a push-back against the idea that it isn't a basic healthcare cost. When employers and insurers cover many elective procedures/treatments (e.g., the oft cited viagra), the idea that a treatment used by 99% of women isn't worthy of the same coverage, well it highlights the reason that people bristle over the current healthcare system.

    4. If a woman wants the cost of her contraception covered, she has to "submit a claim" to her employer providing evidence of a medical condition

      Doesn't this go against HIPAA laws or something?

      1. HIPAA is not about protecting the privacy of medical records; rather it is more about regulating the release of those records.

      2. No, its not. If you want someone else to pay for something, you have to submit the medical records indicating that the expense is covered.

        1. Its not about protecting the privacy of medical records. Its about regulating their release.

          Show me some absolute language in the regs forbidding the release of an individual's medical records, under any circumstances, without said individual's consent.

          I believe the regs are at 564 CFR__________.

          How about the decisional law, R C? THere are cases where A and B share a hospital room and B claims that she sustained some injury due to the hospital's negligence and sues the hospital. In discovery, B seeks A's medical records.

          What result? There are several New York state decisions in which the courts rejected HIPAA defenses of A.

        2. Show me some absolute language in the regs forbidding the release of an individual's medical records, under any circumstances, without said individual's consent.

          There's no such absolute language. What HIPAA says is that you can't disclose medical records except as HIPAA allows, and it allows it for purposes of getting paid.

          It also allows it in response to court orders, with essentially no requirements placed on the order. For subpoenas that are not a court order, it basically requires only that the patient be given notice and an opportunity to object.

  19. George Will: Union business, on the taxpayers' dime

    This clause has been largely vitiated by Arizona courts' decisions allowing entanglements of government and private interests that supposedly serve a "public purpose" or provide a "public benefit." These are loopholes large enough to drive a truck through ? a truck carrying $900,000. That is the estimated value of the release time taxpayers are funding just for the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA), the police union. The $900,000 pays union officials to work exclusively performing undefined union business, including lobbying, on the city's time and the taxpayers' dime.

    1. That shit always has puzzled me about unions. My sister in law worked for one of the major airlines. At one point she was elected union Secretary. That was a full time job, so she went to work in the union offices doing union work, but the airline paid her her regular salary/benefits, and she got to keep her tenure, so when her term was up she returned to her regular job like she had never left. I thought the arrangement was absolutely bizarre. I guess it's just standard operating procedure.

      1. That is weird. I would have thought that unions would pay their own employees out of dues paid by workers.

    1. Since they were cops, we will never hear about this. If they had not been, it would be everywhere about Starbucks endangering people by allowing guns.

      1. Well the wife was (probably) banging a coworker....

        1. Okay, make that "more innocent, adorable dog."

      2. Needs more sequels.

  20. (Women) Are You Easily Seduced?

    What I found fascinating is that although many of these women suffered with intolerable heart break that they no longer wanted to feel, they also refused to take my advice or let me help them because they did not want to let go of the euphoria invoked by the memories of a man who broke their heart. When my clients explain to me their stories from beginning to end, I immediately see the red signs from the start. It also becomes clear to me that these men were able to manipulate and seduce these women because of their emotional vulnerabilities at the time.

    1. Robert Greene's book 'The Art of Seduction' referenced in the article is a masterwork.

  21. "In its majority opinion, a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit said some regulation of firearms falls outside the reach of the Second Amendment, just as obscenity and defamation aren't protected as free speech by the First Amendment."

    In almost every second amendment case, the obfuscation can be cleared up in two seconds by simply reading the second amendment. Fuckers." Some regulation...outside the reach...."

    They must be talking about this part - "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Clearly, some infringement is authorized there.

    1. Infringement: The action of limiting or undermining something

      It's an interesting issue, does every restriction imaginable "undermine" the Heller right?

      1. re?stric?tion/ri?strikSH?n/
        A limiting condition or measure, esp. a legal one.
        The limitation or control of someone or something, or the state of being limited or restricted.

        It is really a no-brainer.

        1. Yeah, but this:



          1.Erode the base or foundation of

          I guess I think that strikes me as something less than a total ban on any limitations...

          1. That is fucking amazing. Are you translating "shall not be infringed." as "less than a total ban on limitations..."?

            1. Apparently "limiting or undermining" actually means "limiting AND undermining"?

          2. By your definition infringement is limiting or undermining. 'Shall not be infringed' means zero limiting or undermining. It is a total ban.

            1. Does anything smell as bad as a self-righteous hoplophobe?

              1. There are no exceptions set forth in the 2A. None.

                Thus, any school of thought that postulates that a literal reading and construction of the 2A language is nuttery, is itself, absolute claptrap.

                There is no textual support for the proposition that the exercise of one's right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable rules and regulations. At bottom, those who argue that one's right to KBA must be subject to reasonable rules and regulations suffer from the fatal conceit.

                Legislation and regulations and police oversight et al NEVER made anybody safer, save the king's men.

                1. There are no exceptions set forth in the 2A. None.

                  Neither are there in 1A. But that certainly has not stopped the lawgivers.

              2. Vocab of the day!

          3. I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- you're not even trying anymore.

            1. I think MNG plays devils advocate a lot of the time, thus the air of not trying.

        2. It is really a no-brainer.

          Which is why I am convinced that one of the criteria for being a judge is not having a brain.

      2. Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest for a free lunch?

        MARX: NO!
        MISES: NO!

        You must be starved into working in our offices, factories, and army! Slavery is free market!

        1. "From time immemorial access to these spaces has been free to everybody. Even if the land is owned by private individuals, the owners as a rule have not the right to close it to tourists and mountain-climbers or to ask an entrance fee.
          Whoever has the opportunity to visit these areas, has the right to enjoy all their grandeur, and to consider them his own, as it were. The nominal owner does not derive any advantage from the satisfaction his property gives to the visitors.
          But this does not alter the fact that this land serves human well-being and is appreciated accordingly. The ground is subject to an easement that entitles
          everybody to pass along and to camp on it."

          1. Notice the idiot troll doesn't respond.

            1. fuckwit Fibertards

          2. Agricultural city-Statism (civilization) starves people into submission to work in offices, factories, and armies by eliminating the Non-State means of hunting and gathering a free lunch. Capitalism and Communism work the same way.

            1. When confronted with what Mises wrote, ignore! (It must be difficult to accept when someone you've ignorantly decided to oppose explicitly says people should be free to gambol un-infringed)

    2. But I don't think that that makes firearms a special class of property that is subject to different rules of seizure. This case is about their keeping property that they have no right to keep. The guy hasn't lost his RKBA, he's lost a gun (or had it stolen from him).

  22. Arizona bill would allow employers to fire female employees who used birth control as it's intended.

    They really don't want to win this issue, do they? First the Rush debacle and now this.

    1. I think "they've" (and I'm assuming you mean assclown so-cons) already realized they can't win so now they're just going to throw as much red meat to fire up their base as they can.

  23. It's worse than you think, much worse.
    Lube-shit-mix is against porn!


    If elected, he promises to "vigorously" enforce laws that "prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier."

    1. This asshole wants to fuck over one of the only surviving and truly American industries? Fuck this frothy semeny peace of shit.

      1. Why does Santorum hate good jobs?

  24. So yesterday was a beautiful day here in DC and at lunch I took a walk through the mall. But something was missing.

    With all the "drumbeat of War" with Syria and Iran and a third Carrier heading to the Middle East, it seemed something was missing.

    We've got "WMD" "Shock and Awe" and Flowers for the Liberators propaganda in the WashPost http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html

    Then I realized, the Anti-war activists, that filled the mall before the Iraq adventure, must have seen the light. Forever War is good and they look forward to many more wars against many more towelheads, gooks and hajis.
    God-Emperor O'Bama has shown us the light.
    Glory to the O'Bama.

    1. They moved on to the Gimmee Free Shit movement. Much more lucrative and they don't have to betray their masters desires to fuel the Perpetual Outrage Machine.

  25. Jonathan Weil: Stress Tests Pass Fed's Flim-Flam Standard

    The most important thing to understand about the Federal Reserve's latest stress tests is what they were not intended to do. Their purpose wasn't to test whether the nation's biggest banks could survive a financial blowup like that of 2008 without government assistance.

    Rather, the Fed designed its tests to measure the effects a hypothetical crisis would have on banks' regulatory capital. Capital is the financial cushion a company has available to absorb future losses. While the Fed would like for us to believe that regulatory capital is the same thing, it's quite different. And too often it bears little resemblance to reality.


  26. Speculators!

    Why Republicans Aren't Mentioning the Real Cause of Rising Prices at the Gas Pump


    1. I'm not clicking on a Robert Reich link. The stupid might rub off on me.

      1. It's so powerful, even having the link here is dangerous.

        1. The power...such evil...can't you all feel it, or am I mad?

      2. I knew it. Tinyurl would have been doubly appropriate here.

        1. You do know that for every speculator who is BUYing futures in oil, hoping prices go up, there is an equivalent speculator SELLing futures in oil, hoping prices go down. Thus, speculators CANNOT drive prices.

          You may be too ignorant to have known that, but Robert Reich is just being disingenuous.

    2. Hate to defend Reich but speculation was in fact acknowledged by many experts to be the cause of the last gas price run-up.

      1. I think "speculated" would be a better verb here than "acknowledged."

        1. OK but that sentence isn't going to win any writing competitions.

          I don't know how those guys determine such things but I speculate that it is by more than just guessing.

          1. Yes, I am sure there is no political motivation.

      2. How come no one blames the speculators when prices go down?

        1. Because it's Obama's doing whenever prices go down.

      3. There is no word I hate more than "speculator."

        What the fuck is a "speculator?" It differs from "investor" how? A speculator pays more attention to his money?

        It's infuriating. If it wasn't for the buying and selling of assets, we'd be even less productive than we already are.

        1. I think its a residual term left in our language from a time when "speculator" was probably double-speak for "jewish moneyed interests".

          Infuriating, I agree.

    3. $20/gallon gas (or pick any arbitrarily high price) is wicked if the money goes to the private sector.

      But the same $20/gallon gas suddenly, magically becomes virtuous if the money goes to the government.

  27. Arizona bill would allow employers to fire female employees who used birth control as it's intended.

    It appears the state is trying to do something to protect the rights of Catholic organizations operating in Arizona.

    That piece is merely spinning this as an attack on women's rights.

    I support the right of employers to fire their employees for various reasons.

    If president Obama were stupid enough to insist that organizations devoted to animal rights were required to abuse animals, I wouldn't have any problem with a bill that protected such animal rights organizations for firing their employees who mistreat animals. Even if abusing animals were perfectly legal!

    There may be reasons why employers shouldn't be allowed to fire their employees with impunity, but violating the basic principles of their employer shouldn't be one of them.

    1. Thank you for inspiration: It is like ordering vegans to serve meat in their cafeterias for health requirements sake. An amusing thought, but still wrong.

    2. There may be reasons why employers shouldn't be allowed to fire their employees with impunity

      An explicit contract for employment is the ONLY reason I can see that employers shouldn't be able to fire employees at any time. An explicit contract would be the only reason that an employee shouldn't also be allowed to quit at any time.

      I simply don't understand the idea of enslavement of employers. Just because I work for you doesn't give me a "right" to the job.

      1. Um...I'm not sure an employer should be able to walk away from an employee contract if an employee pressed legitimate rape charges against her employer.

        You may be right about an employer's right to terminate an employee for any reason, but there are situations where they shouldn't be able to do so with impunity.

        Employees do have rights, just like everyone else, and if an employer violates those rights, then the employer shouldn't be able to escape legal responsibility for that just by firing the employee.


    1. Johnson, who ran one of the most inept nomination "campaigns" ever has no grounds to be pissed.

      1. Hey now, you have to admit, he'd have done at least a little better if he'd gotten the media fellation that Huntsman did.

        1. Yep - and even better if he had particularly tried to get it.

          1. From the beginning, the bias was against another libertarian participating and in favor of a "moderate" like Huntsman winning.

            1. This. It didn't matter how well he had run his campaign. The media, and their pol masters, simply wouldn't have tolerated anther libertarian voice that called for the end of statism to take hold in the narrative they're desperately trying to control.

      2. If only he had read the future and known he'd be running against Ron Paul, I think he would have done it differently.

        If he hadn't been running against Ron Paul, he probably would have done quite well.

    2. Let the entertainment continue!

  28. Houston sued the city, District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro and former Police Superintendent Warren Riley in July 2009, nearly a year after Cannizzaro's predecessor dropped the charges against him stemming from a traffic stop.

    Houston claimed Cannizzaro's office had a policy of retaining firearms following arrests regardless of whether charges are filed. During an interview in 2009, Cannizzaro said his office decides on a "case by case basis" whether to return confiscated guns.

    "There is no policy that we will not return weapons," he said.

    So if they want to disarm you, all they have to do is charge you with some bullshit offense, take your firearm, drop the made-up charge, and keep your weapon. Nice scam.

    1. How is that remotely constitutional?

      It's all done according to (illegal) policy. Move along. Nothing to see.

      1. Need I say? - fuck you, that's how.

        1. I always forgot that Amendment.

          1. Is that an admendment or a commentary from the new Federalist papers?

      2. Sounds like his lawyers fucked up his case. They should be suing for Forth and Fifth Amendment violations - not Second.

        "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. "

    2. Why not a policy to retain cars, too? Why would that be any less "legal"?

      1. Asset forfeiture, baby! They don't have to convict you of the crime to keep your shit.

        See also the absurd federal cases of US vs. A Pile of Money.

      2. I thought DC did that.

      3. See also: asset forfeiture.

  29. 100% OT - pass on by if you don't care:

    I review a Chinese-made hybrid amplifier that uses a 6DJ8 buffer coupled to a LM3886 chip amp.

    and some more home studio synth tracks of my own making:

    1. Great and Wise Lord Humungous:
      I am in the market for a guitar amplifier. Most tube amps are out of my price range at the moment (would love a Hughes & Kettner Statesman); can you recommend something more affordable with tube-like tone and about 20W?

      1. sorry, not much of a guitar amp guru. I use a small Behringer practice amp for my Akai/Alesis combo, but it's not very tubey sounding.

        My brother used to play a Champ - only 5Ws of tube power, but it had great tone. Perfect for practice, it can also be mic'ed for live settings.

        Looks like Fender makes a neuvo version of it:

        1. Thank You!

          1. I work for an online music store. Shoot me an email and I can give you some advice.

  30. Must now see Iron Sky. Moon Nazis and hotties. What else do you want?

    1. moar pix of the blonde...plz

      1. I'd say either. The brunette is hot as balls.

        1. oh, agreed - but the blonde has really nice legs

          1. Snakeskin knee-high boots == your argument is invalid. Although if the brunette were wearing regular ropers with that outfit, I would be in my bunk for days.

            1. Snakeskin knee-high boots == your argument is invalid.

              You're dead to me, Brett. You hear me? DEAD.

              Just imagine those boots pointed at the ceiling.

              1. I'd prefer thigh-high boots pointed at the ceiling. Just sayin'.

              2. Wat? I'm agreeing with you. I just meant why ogle the blonde's legs when the brunette's are so appealing.

                1. Ah, sorry, I thought you were losing your mind for a moment there.

                  And yeah, brunette > blonde. Although I will confess to Kristen Bell having a strange effect on me.

                  1. Kristin Bell has a stange effect on lots of us.

    2. Yeah, that's on the short list. I'm surprised they didn't mention Dead Snow in the article, though. That was a fun piece of cinema.

    3. and the soundtrack is by Laibach, so for that reason alone I'm in

      1. This movie justs sounds better and better.

    4. And Udo Kier!! Actually born in the Third Reich!

  31. This is gonna be another manic thread weekend isn't it

  32. European Parliament committee gets 113% turnout on a vote.

    1. Who says leftism isn't spreading!

    2. Sounds like a Chicago election.

      1. golf clap for the newspeak description.

        "a temporary form of democratic surplus"

  33. So any thoughts on the upcoming movie Prometheus, with Noomi Rapace?

    1. Based on the trailers, it looks amazing and fairly kick-ass. In reality, who knows? Hopefully, Scott will conjure up some of his old magic.

  34. White rice link seen with Type 2 diabetes, says study

    at this rate, we'll be eating air.

    1. Don't bet on it. Air's got, like, carbon dioxide and pollution and shit and, like, we should ban it.

      BAN AIR.


    2. Jayz, a billion and a half diabetics in one place is kind of a scary thought.

    3. Bleached (preserved) starch or sugar has previously been implicated in blood sugar spikes. Reading the section in Gary Taubes "Good Calories, Bad Calories" on this last night. The evidence for highly processed starches (including beer and rice in addition to sugar and flour) and insulin resistance seems pretty firm.

      1. Reading Taubes is one reason I now consume < 50g of carbs a day - normally hitting 20-30g, and that usually comes from a small amount of fruit in the morning.

      2. I haven't gotten to that part yet. I'm not giving up my beer, though, so I guess the rest of it has to go.

        1. Unless you're a Trappist monk getting a quarter or more of your calories from beer daily, you're probably safe from getting it exclusively from beer.

        2. Amstel Light (5g of carbs) for me. Special occasions, I don't count 'em.

          1. Guiness, of all beers, has surprisingly few carbs - 9.9 grams/bottle.

            For your education and enlightenment:


      3. Thanks to Warty, BTW for pushing this in the comments section until I bothered to read it.

      4. "The evidence for highly processed starches (including beer and rice in addition to sugar and flour) and insulin resistance seems pretty firm."

        If by "pretty firm" you mean "unconvincing and laughable, appealing only to the least intelligent and discerning of readers" then yes.

    4. The study authors wrote in the British Medical Journal, "We found that higher white rice consumption was associated with a significantly elevated risk of Type 2 diabetes. This association seems to be stronger for Asians than for Western populations."

      The researchers noted that compared with brown rice, white rice has a lower content of many nutrients including fiber, magnesium and vitamins, some of which -- especially fiber and magnesium -- are thought to protect against diabetes.

      It doesn't cause it, it just doesn't protect against it well.

      1. Not wearing seatbelts doesn't cause injury, it just doesn't protect against it well.

        Fuck me silly, fibertards are so stupid.

    5. quit eating that crap

  35. McCain complains about the $20 a gallon price of Navy biofuel made on land.- I'm more worried about the quantity.

    A wing of carrier jets could drink 20,000 gallons in a single sortie.

    To be strategically interesting . biofuel from marine algae would have to be made on board.

    For a nuclear carrier that means making quantities sufficient to propel its aircraft

    For conventional ships it means producing enough biofuel on board to keep pace with nuclear battle groups.

    Ambitious to be sure, but if the whales and whale sharks aimlessly cruising the Indian Ocean run on algae why not convert our nuclear navy into a great black fleet of krill crematoria.

  36. That dude really knwos what tiem it is oh yeah!


  37. According to the greenies, there are too many humans. Also, they want us to use biofuels, which can be made from organic material.

    I think a 'two birds with one stone' solution is pretty obvious.

    1. Green fuel.

      1. Soylent gasoline is people.

        1. Can we use them as tires too?

        2. You gotta tell em! They'll be breeding us!

  38. If the new law goes into effect, it will force female employees who can't afford to pay full price for birth control to share private, sometimes embarrassing medical information with her employer in order to get her prescription covered.

    FFS, the Dems absolutely trolled the GOP on this stupid issue. Who the fuck can't afford birth control? But then, under this ObamaCare disaster, who is going to be able to keep their medical information private from either government bean counters or corporate moralists? We are so fucked.

    1. How's the corpse diddling going?

  39. http://comments.cftc.gov/Publi.....archText;=

    Hello, I am a current JPMorgan Chase employee. This is an open letter to all commissioners and regulators. I am emailing you today b/c I know of insider information that will be damning at best for JPMorgan Chase. I have decided to play the role of whistleblower b/c I no longer have faith and belief that what we are doing for society is bringing value to people...

    January is right around the time we started increasing our short positions quite significantly again and this most recent crash in gold and silver during Bernanke's speech on February 29th is of notable importance, as we along with 4 other major institutions, orchestrated the violent $100 drop in Gold and subsequent drops in silver.

  40. You do a magnificent work SeanHannity, but please consider this: I remember how difficult was to boicot bhorK (buying for him) American auto ind. But TEA People did prevealed: AGAIN, this year of TEA Lord FORM MOTORS CORP HAD MAYOR SALES THAN the bailedout ones (I'm not sure, media news are affected, talk radio is always on the defensive, SarahPalin, Bachmann, Chr.O'Donnel TEAwomen INSULTED ANYTIME BY neolib $tabli$ment$ OR ELSE: face acorn new faces pursuing you HELPED BY AUUUTHORITY WARG$, EVEN BY bhorK declaring it all by ITself: "A pig HAS LEAPSTICK...)

    1. What the fuck was that?

      1. Reminds me a little of Herc, with less brackets.

  41. I'm sorry, I'm pursued by terror logi$tick$ auuuthority&gangsters; (but I HAVE JAILED MANY, "I'll be fine", I'm 20ayers+ fighting acorn anyways)...
    oops: TEA Lord FORM (F O R D) MOTORS CORP HAD MAYOR SALES THAN the bailedout ones...
    psyco paragalism, next (you need a santuary already working like Mi, A MI ("Spanish") dade untangible or salaried ALMOST FRANCE ANTI-FRANCE 'legal or not' muslim ayatola mostly inmigration insurgency (castrocoyote here) civillian pre-invasions, you (none better to tell as a real pursued activist) recognize'm by how they speack their native tongs, but you need anamontes, fiu POLICE PSYCO-TRAINNER-RECLUIT (20AYER$+ NETS ALREADY BEING ARRESTED) castrocombos telling even on my face all: SO I DENOUNCE, A PATRIOTIC DENOUNCE IS ONE OF TEA SMARTESTS BOICOTS EVER:
    V O T E S


    1. HERC? Is that you?

      1. I think Jared Lauffner got internet access.

        1. Actually I think WI's brain just completely blew a fuse. Something tells me this is another weekend to avoid H&R. It's already starting.

          1. Which sucks, beacuse I will actually have some free time to spend on H&R this weekend.

    2. Somebody help! Quick! The Internet is leaking!



    1. Castrocoyotes: a good band name?

      Herc, I need more of you in my life.



    ((((((((((((((I (F)(BEEP)))))))))))
    ((((((((((((((((s o G)))))))))))))))
    We have work to do

  48. to the almost executed police for terror logi$tick$ (among gangsters, not "uniformed")
    I (f) told you, you haD no excuses, permited castrocoyote and steve to give their "opinions" on "my problems"?, on my family?,
    When you are gone bhorK, your f bailedout "smart" org$, acorn, newblackpanties, half hammas/ half chicken C$arumen, aclu, brothermuslimhood,ayers,alinski,dorne,rezco,"etc" new faces will suffer too, a mayor suffering for the cost of terror ligistick against America, and TEA allies... you'll be remebered
    comming up: names and IDing terror logi$tick$ IN TIMES OF WAR (against mostly terror MUSLIM suicider armies)

  49. psst: you can start IDing terror bhorK bailedout imbeciles here self-declaring everything while trying to "just stfu US"...
    sure imbeciles, you'll stop the minds of TEA Americans and TEA allies, "sure" imbeciles, try it, $pend the few ugly trillion$ more against TEA "bad" American good voter firepowers... start feeling it.... it's comming... to you soon

  50. comming up: far over TEA misty mountains cold\TEA fire was red

  51. Blech, argggg, garble garble garble.

    You mean like that? Bizarre that you would bother to make completely unintelligible posts. One assumes that you are attempting to portray those who hold your positions as being complete morons.

    You are quite convincing in that respect.

    1. Herc is the e.e. cummings of Hit and Run. Respect the poetry.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.