White House Funnels Funds to IRS For Obamacare, Even Mitt Romney's Advisors Hate His Healthcare Law, Trayvon Martin Death Won't Go to Grand Jury: P.M. Links


  • The Supreme Court may or may not give President Obama's healthcare headline-bait a pass, but the IRS is still getting $500 million smackers to enforce the law.
  • Two of the five members of Mitt Romney's Health Care Policy Advisory Group are on record opposing his Massachusetts health care reform scheme.
  • In Washington state, the Supreme Court says police need a warrant before searching a car after an arrest. The U.S. Supreme Court already ruled that, after arrest, prisoners can be stripped naked and searched, so there's a little something for everybody.
  • In the Trayvon Martin case, special prosecutor Angela Corey will decide on her own, without a grand jury, whether to file charges against George Zimmerman.
  • A bill that would have ended the requirement that Kentucky's telephone companies offer everybody landline service is dead for this year. Landline service? Really?
  • Syrian troops are summarily executing rebels and civilians, reports Human Rights Watch.

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.

NEXT: Forty Acres and a Spaceship

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. Why doesn’t Romney disown MassCare? Just come out and say it was a huge mistake, and that he’s learned from bitter experience what a disaster ObamaCare will be.

    1. BTW — furst again!

      1. political ego…virtually no elected official is willing to publicly admit “I was wrong” about anything, no matter how well- or poorly-intentioned. It’s in their DNA.

        1. Somewhat more charitably: He has been hit with the flip-flop stick so many times he doesn’t want to flip on MassCare.

          He believes (delusionally, IMO), that his distinction between state and federal Obamneycare will get him off the hook.

          1. odd thing is a good portion of the public would probably be okay with something like “we thought it was a good means of getting handle on the costs of treating the uninsured, but it has not worked out that way. We need to work toward private sector solutions, not create new govt programs”.

            1. Because Romney doesn’t see anything wrong with MassCare that a little more money and a few more rules and regulations won’t fix. I suspect Romney truly has no philosophical differences with Obama, just as Obama had none with Bush.

          2. It doesn’t get him off the hook, but it’s at least an argument that it isn’t as bad.

            It’s much easier to move states than move countries.

            Obamacare is a lot more restrictive on liberty than Masscare.

            Still, it’s one of the bigger weights Romney is carrying around his neck.

      2. BTW —Stephen Furst again!

        1. Not to mention, Alan Furst again!

    2. Dude, and tarnish the historical legacy?

      Have you ever heard of a pol disowning *anything* they ever did or even admitting less than perfect results?

      1. Of course. What was I thinking?

        1. You may joke, but I’m dead serious.

          Pols will never publicly own up to any failure of their administration, beyond a throwaway line in a speech to build up to blaming the other guys.

          It’s like asking a red snapper to run the 40.

          1. Reagan owned up to being a New Dealer.

            1. That might mean something if Reagan had passed the New Deal.

              Instead he admitted to having supported it before he was ever elected to anything.

              Disowning MassCare would be like Reagan disowning his tax cuts after he was out of office (which would really only occur in a parallel universe in which he doesn’t have Alzheimer’s).

      2. I’d say he’s also hoping for the SC to make it go away as an issue.

    3. Because he is arrogant and stupid that is why. If he came out and said “I understand why the President thought this thing would work. I used to believe the same thing. But my experience has governor taught me otherwise”. He would seal the deal with his base and make Obama look like the neophyte he is to independents. What is the downside?

      1. No, you idiot. MA is now 98% covered while premiums fell over 20%.

        As odious as Milt’s mandate is it achieved its objectives.

        1. No you moron. Premiums went and the state is going broke because of it.

          Stop wasting our times with the voices that live in your head.

          1. Ignore, John. Just ignore. Serenity now.

            1. When did you join John on Team Red? Does he shave it to your liking?

              1. Team Red =!= Team shrike is stoopid

                1. And I’m serious. You really are stupid.

            2. Must ignore retarded trolls. must ignore.

              1. “The children … they did some redecorating … “

          2. You’re talking about individual premiums, which are only a small part of the market.

            1. In MA pretty much everybody is on either Medicaid (MassHealth) or on a employer provided plan.

        2. No, you idiot. MA is now 98% covered while premiums fell over 20%.

          ROFL! Really!?!

          Because as a resident I am pretty familiar with the fact that the premiums are ballooning outward while providers are rationing care via queues.

          I guess I should believe you rather than my lying eyes. ๐Ÿ˜€

          1. providers are rationing care via queues

            which, of course, we all know would never happen w/Obamacare because, that way, all that scary stuff about death panels would have merit.

          2. Ignore it, tarran. Just walk away. I saw a rig a few miles back that could haul that fat tank of gas.

            1. Did you know that Mel Gibson has only 16 lines in the whole movie?

              I think that’s one of the prime indicators of how awesome that movie was.

              1. Mel Gibson had 0 lines in Con Air, you know.

              2. Mel has plenty of lines in the first one and that movie is awesome too. If you haven’t seen the remastered, properly cut version, do yourself a favor and rent it.

                The Toecutter commands it.

                1. Can’t stand the first one. The murder of the little kid is too upsetting.

                  1. That’s what makes it so excellent. The brutality of that movie is its greatest feature.

                    1. By the same token, the kid in Alfred Hitchcock’s Sabotage gets killed. I think it’s wonderfully shocking (despite the lousy special effects); Alfred Hitchcock thought afterwards he made a serious mistake having the kid die.

                2. For the longest time I thought those were depicting present-day Australia. Who knew.

                  1. If ever you want to be depressed, take one of those movies and read up on what happened to the cast.

                    For example, the cute blond chick the pilot is hitting on died within a couple of years of making the movie from cancer IIRC.

                    1. Well, the Warrior Girl went on to star as one of the main characters in Farscape, so that’s not too bad. And I think Rigel’s voice was done by another Road Warrior alum.

                  2. Oh, they are. Well, the third one does, at least. Though I always thought Tina Turner would live in the USA and not Australia.

                    1. The pilot wound up as the Mouth of Sauron in LOtR, but his scene got cut.

                      Ha ha! / Muntz

                    2. They cut scenes in that movie?

                    3. They cut scenes in that movie?

                      Just wait till a few years from now when the completely-uncut, 36week edition is released.

                    4. And that was a great scene too. He comes out, looking all wicked weird and shit, and gloats about Frodo being dead, and Aragorn cuts his head off.

                      The movie should have had less Frodo/Sam romantic scenes and more battle.

                    5. The movie should have had less Frodo/Sam romantic scenes and more battle.

                      Why do you hate homosexuals halflings, Virginian?

                  3. Present-day Australia is much much worse. Same climate, more giant killer spiders and snakes.

            2. I always got a kick out of the weird things they did with the cast. For example, the Gyro-Captain (Bruce Spence) from the Road Warrior was ALSO the Pilot in Beyond Thunderdome.

              Also – one of the gang members in Mad Max was the guy who was going to commit suicide in Lethal Weapon…

              1. Also – one of the gang members in Mad Max was the guy who was going to commit suicide in Lethal Weapon…

                He’s probably Mel Gibson’s stunt double. Mel gives him a speaking part in his movies, cause it’s a better paycheck and hey… why not?

                1. I take it the guy’s not a Hebrew.

                  BTW, did you get the pix from Banjos?

          3. Rationing care via queues? That’s as disingenuous as leftist claims that the free market rations via ability to pay.

            It’s not fair, the movie theater rations Hunger Games tickets via queues!

            1. Care delayed is care denied, my friend.

              1. So is care that one can’t pay for, but we don’t call that “rationing”.

                1. So is care that one can’t pay for, but we don’t call that “rationing”.

                  Speak for yourself. Price rationing is one of the primary features of markets, and it’s what helps keep their operation efficient.

                2. I have to *shudder* agree with Tulpa on this. Insurance companies already routinely ration the care of their patients when deciding what they will or won’t cover…they just don’t use that word.

                  1. Massachusetts could have increased access to health care by simply licensing more doctors and allowing more hospitals to open. They weren’t serious about improving access to health care so they didn’t do that.

                    Instead they expanded government control of people’s health.

                  2. They do no such thing. You can still get all the care you want. But some things you’ll have to pay for yourself.

                    1. By that logic MA isn’t rationing care either, then, because you can still pay for it cash if you want to.

                    2. Whether it’s your insurance agency or the state’s insurance agency, neither is telling you that you can’t have procedure X done, they’re just telling you that they won’t pay for it. That’s rationing payment, not care.

                      You have to have a truly evil system like the Brits to ration actual care. They have gone and made it illegal to pay a doctor for his services.

                    3. Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you were attacking MA as “rationing”, but we are actually in agreement.

                      I hate this shit as much as everybody else, but it doesn’t serve to make things out to be even worse than they are. Making it illegal to pay a doctor outside of the insurance system, as you say they did in Britain, is indeed not just inefficient (like our system), but rather is truly evil.

                    4. They have gone and made it illegal to pay a doctor for his services.

                      Have they? I knew they did in Canada, but I thought that they still had private hospitals and insurance if you want it and can afford it in the UK.

                    5. According to Wikipedia, there are still private hospitals and insurance in the UK. The Canadian prohibitions on private healthcare also varies by province and is not universal.

                      Not that it makes it much better, but they aren’t quite that evil.

                  3. I have to *shudder* agree with Tulpa on this. Insurance companies already routinely ration the care of their patients when deciding what they will or won’t cover…they just don’t use that word.

                    No they don’t, Jim. They ration the payment of the care. There’s a big difference. Under Obamacare, the ability to go to private docs will be minimized to the point that actual care is rationed…same as in MA, IIRC.

            2. There is no price rationing of health care in this country. Roughly half of or hospitals are nonprofits. They employ/subsidize thousands of doctors. They are not allowed to turn away patients at the ER.

              Rationing by delay, though, is real denial of care, and the only way around it is to be connected.

          4. providers are rationing care via queues

            I can confirm this. A relative of mine just got put on a three week waiting list for an MRI. Good ol’ MA.

            1. So any time you have to wait in line, that’s “rationing”? I never realized that the corner deli had been rationing my salami all these years!

              Rationing usually refers to systems where you are allowed to obtain a certain amount of something, and once you exceed that amount, even if you have the money to buy it, it’s ready to be sold, and the seller is ready to process a transaction, you still can’t buy it.

              It doesn’t refer to situations where there’s a limited amount of something and it’s sold on a first come first serve basis.

              1. If the line is deliberately long so that there is a good chance you might die before you get any salami, then it’s rationing.

                Your obtuse contrarian act is look less and less like an act all the time.

                1. Has anybody tried to pay for some medical service cash money in MA? If the queue still applies, then it’s rationing. If it doesn’t (i.e. if the queue is strictly a result of insurance decisioning processes) then it isn’t being rationed anymore than regular insurance companies already do.

              2. Learn fucking marginal utility, Tulpa. Every price signal would be rationing under your broad usage of the word. It isn’t. That is scarcity you are describing. Rationing involves a conscience decision people through political means to say who can and can’t do something, and to whom shit will be allotted. Do I really need to elaborate how this differs from market actions?

                1. Strike ‘people’ above. Remains of a sentence I decided to be unnecessary.

                  1. What about “Conscience?” Decide proper diction is unnecessary too?

                    1. Thanks, but you’re still not getting paid to be my editor.

              3. rationing my salami

                that’s demands to be a euphemism.

                1. “I’ve been rationing my salami because I’m almost flexible enough to get my mouth to it.”

              4. So any time you have to wait in line, that’s “rationing”? I never realized that the corner deli had been rationing my salami all these years!

                That’s what you get for putting your salami in other men’s hands. NTTAWWT.

                It doesn’t refer to situations where there’s a limited amount of something and it’s sold on a first come first serve basis.

                Queueing is a form of rationing, though not as fair as an equal daily, weekly, monthly, or annual ration common in the military, or the civilian ration coupons. All three are “solutions” of a sort to the problem of scarcity.

            2. big debate on the physician website Sermo today about the word “provider”. Well, not really a debate, more each doc registering just how much they hate that word.
              “Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor, not a provider!”

              1. The term “provider” is new addition to the Newspeak dictionary for the eventuality that, between the government’s regulations and the AMA’s protectionism, your healthcare “provider” is more likely to be an LPN than an MD.

          5. And the results have been an enormous reduction in the cost of nongroup insurance in the state: The average individual premium in the state fell from $8,537 at the end of 2006 to $5,143 in mid-2009, a 40 percent reduction, while the rest of the nation was seeing a 14 percent increase.

            Gruber – link only if you like full humiliation.

            1. The CBO has not reported many of the details of their analysis, such as the age distribution of individuals in the non-group market or in the exchange. So these data do not provide a strictly apples to apples comparison of premiums for the same individual in the exchange and in the no-reform non-group market. And their conclusion may change as legislation moves forward.

              Keep polishing that turd, shriek. Make it sparkle.

              1. Look, I only said Romneycare achieved its objectives.

                I fucking hate Romney himself.

            2. Note the key qualifier -“non group”. That’s the individual market – small, and under community rating, free riding on the group market.

            1. LOL you cited Ezra Klein as a source.

              Who comendeered the shrike sock puppet? Even Shreek isn’t this fucking stupid.

              1. Fuck you, Klein cited a real and credible study.

                You are typical of a Creationist wingnut – impervious to facts. How does Hannity’s dick taste?

                1. From three years ago dipshit.

                2. I like the cherry picking of selecting only individual health plans – instead of the group plans that employers are being mandated to offer.

                  I guess Martha Coakley’s efforts at Cost Containment (approvingly cited by Ezra Klein recently) are just a waste of time, then.

                  1. Holy cow that’s expensive insurance. I have individual coverage and it costs me about $900 a year.

            2. That article is a three year old opinion piece by that dipshit Ezra Klien, who by the way, is almost as retarded as you.

              1. I see John got there first.

        3. shrike you missed your calling, you should have been a politician. You sling pure bullshit with the best of them.

  2. Landline service? Really?

    It’s Kentucky.

    1. but you can’t have dial-up without landlines.

    2. First lets get them to get the cars out of their front yards. Then work on getting them cell phones.

      1. Any cars you see in the front yard are ones we’re “getting around to” fixing someday. Just not today.

      2. the cars are actually good for reception, so good luck with that.

    3. If you live far enough into the sticks that the phone company doesn’t want to run lines, then, chances are, you probably cant get any cell reception either.

      1. Exactly. Mandating service is a stupid way to go about it, but landlines are pretty much the only way to have a phone in some of those places.

        Just let the market sort it out. If they want phone service so bad, they can pay to have the lines runs. As for emergencies services, you could cut down on 75% of the 911 calls if you could convince them not to let their kids ride on a four-wheeler.

        1. Right, because rural folks are rolling in money.

          The state has a legitimate interest in making sure the countryside doesn’t become a depopulated wasteland interuppted sporadically by fortress towns.

          1. Really? What “legitimate interest” might that be?

          2. The state has a legitimate interest in making sure the countryside doesn’t become a depopulated wasteland interuppted sporadically by fortress towns.

            Because, you know, that’s totally what happened before telephones were mandated.

            If the countryside can’t afford phones, then they don’t get phones. If it becomes a depopulated wasteland, then it needs to become that, because it isn’t economical to keep a bunch of people supported out in Bumfuck, [Insert State] for no other reason than paranoid fantasies about wastelands.

          3. Have you ever been to Eastern Kentucky? It is already a depopulated wasteland. Thanks for your (fake) concern about the rural folks, though.

            The state has no legitimate interest in regulating phone services anywhere. It’s only legitimate interest is in creating a system of courts and laws to protect phone companies and phone consumers from fraud and violence.

          4. It’s called libertarianism, Tulpa. If you don’t agree with it, feel free to go fuck yourself.

            1. He’s shown for years that he doesn’t agree with it, and I thought it was understood by all that he needs to fuck himself.

              Also, why do you people still insist on engaging with the last surviving whinetroll?

          5. The state has a legitimate interest in making sure the countryside doesn’t become a depopulated wasteland interuppted sporadically by fortress towns.

            Sounds pretty cool to me.

          6. the countryside doesn’t become a depopulated wasteland interuppted sporadically by fortress towns.

            Or what? Will you then “Waco” their asses in order to make sure they are properly socialized?

          7. a depopulated wasteland

            AKA, wilderness.

            1. So White Indian was right all along. He just thought we were all Tulpa.

          8. I’m saving my money so I can retire to a depopulated wasteland as far as I can get from any bureaucrat and government enforcer. Somewhere I can pretend I’m free.

        2. If the phone company doesn’t want to run phone lines to East Bumfuck, they can give up their state-enforced monopoly at any time. Otherwise they can stfu.

          1. and if the state believes the service is crucial, it can do away with said monopoly and invite competition to serve the outlying areas. Please. Rural does not equal either poor or stupid; most of those folks in the sticks chose to be in the sticks to avoid the general population.

          2. Spoof?

            If not, you realize you just wrote “state-enforced monopoly”, right? As in the state is enabling rent-seeking from the phone company. No state intervention, no monopoly. Therefore, you might agree that the state should not have a legitimate interest in regulating phone service.

            1. The point is that the utility companies fully embrace the state granted monopolies they enjoy. They would lobby heavily against any effort to disband these monopoly rights. They thus have little basis for bitching about the attached strings.

              1. Once again, this Gordian Knot can be cut by simply getting rid of the state involvement at all. No monopoly grant, and no forcing of service to places that can’t pay for it. Win/Win.

              2. ^^^ I agree.

                Too bad donut shops didn’t lobby to get their product into my home. I’m hungry for donuts right now. ๐Ÿ˜‰

            2. Here’s the problem (and I don’t have a solution).

              Delivering utility services requires property and / or right-of-ways that are next to impossible to obtain over a significant distance without government aid.

              Once utility poles and pipes are installed along a right-of-way, it is a natural monopoly with or without the government. Another phone or power company just cannot run another set of wires to your house.

              That is why the deregulation of the electric industry required companies to be broken up by generation, transmission, and distribution. At least generators are competitive in that model.

  3. “In the Trayvon Martin case, special prosecutor Angela Corey will decide on her own, without a grand jury, whether to file charges against George Zimmerman.”

    Even when prosecutors use a grand jury, they’re still deciding on their own. The vast majority of grand juries are just rubber stamps.

    1. ^THIS^ Grand Juries just add a patina of legitimacy to the witchhunt.

  4. “Landline service? Really?”

    Laugh if you want to, but when the electricity goes out, my princess phone plugged into a landline is the only phone working.

    I do have a cell phone, but redundancy is useful.

    1. The only time my land line was less than reliable was during the clusterfuck that was the Hurricane Rita evacuation. We were working phones and the internet trying to find better evacuation routes for the family & friends that left town. We got more than a couple ‘all circuits are busy’ messages. Other than that, the landline has been a rock. Way more reliable than electricity, cell phones, or cable.

    2. $25/month is a lot to pay for an item that’s useful only during long term, widespread power outages.

      The last time I had an issue with my cell phone during a power outage was the big Northeast blackout of 2003. I’ll take those odds.

  5. Corey has long had a reputation for not using grand juries if it wasn’t necessary. In Florida, only first-degree murder cases require the use of grand juries.

    Corey’s decision means she doesn’t have to rely on potentially unpredictable jurors, said David Hill, an Orlando criminal defense attorney.

    That doesn’t sound like it bodes well for Zimmerman, who is white Hispanic.

    1. I’m sure prosecutors everywhere hate having to rely on those damn unpredictble jurors.

    2. But what race is David Hill? Probably Canadian-African.

    3. No grand jury? What kind of backward state is Florida? I’d predicted this was an easy no true bill and those yankee-transplant alligator fuckers don’t even require a grand jury.

  6. http://accordingtohoyt.com/201…..ayest-3-2/

    Interesting rant on the SCI Fi writing establishment. Not being much of a sci fi reader, I would be curious what others think. Have the workshop fiction geeks really taken over sci fi too?

    1. *shrugs*

      I like most of what’s coming out of Clarion, and most of what’s published in Asimov’s, etc.

      I’ve also read some really good stuff in the indie/self-published market. (Beat to a Pulp definitely comes to mind.)

      With the Internet, there’s a market for everything nowadays. I don’t get the author’s righteous fury.

    2. It’s an interesting read, but I’d like to hear about what, exactly, the dictates of the establishment are that she’s so upset about having to conform to.

      There’s a hint of it here and there, such as with the “lesbian of color” v. “muscular man who plays baseball” comparison, but the article strikes me as being more targeted towards those who are already “in the know” so to speak about the constraints she wanting to rebel against.

      1. It’s a dude who wrote the essay, she’s just reposting it.

        As an avid genre reader, I’m guessing that currently the “Establishment” demands academic, “thinking man’s” Sci-Fi…big issues race/gender/class etc.
        To write a fun story with, for example, scientists that are two-fisted men of action that focuses on the neat-o toys and action is seen as vulgar.

        The indie publishing house I linked to in my previous post is part of the “New Pulp” movement, which the essay seems to be in favor of.

    3. I read it and dont have a fucking clue what I read.

      Im going to say whatever problems he has comes from being a bad writer.

      1. or she, as the case may be.

        1. I read it and dont have a fucking clue what I read.

          Im going to say whatever problems he has comes from being a bad writer.

          1. Okay, this time I didnt make it very far.

            1. Skimming down, I might even agree with her, but she fucking sucks as a writer.

              About 3 paragraphs in, I wanted to slit my wrist to avoid reading any more. Did she attend the Eric Flint school on writing or something?

              1. I scanned it, went “I don’t care what your thoughts are on writing because you’re a horrible writer”, and closed the tab.

                1. If these people are getting published anywhere makes me think I should start writing sci fi. The bar seems pretty low.

                  1. In Sci Fi the bar is low, my friend. Quite low.

        2. I strongly disagree with No. 5:

          You shall not commit grey goo. Grey goo, in which characters of indeterminate moral status move in a landscape of indeterminate importance towards goals that will leave no one better or worse off is not entertaining. (Unless it is to see how the book bounces off the far wall, and that has limited entertainment. Also, I’m not flinging my kindle.)

          “Grey Goo,” which is more properly called Noir, can be very entertaining if that’s what you’re in the mood for.

          1. I like how it declares that it “is not entertaining”. How the fuck do you know what I find entertaining? Nothing can be completely devoid of entertainment value to everyone on earth. There are people who found the Holocaust entertaining.

            1. Like you, right, Jimbo?

              1. Only the documentaries.

                Fun Fact: for a 9th grade psych class experiment, I purposefully placed two TVs next to eachother, and ran Holocaust documentaries on one, and reruns of Animaniacs and Freakazoid on the other, so see what effect, if any, it had on whether or not one can begin to associate depictions of mass death (in a real-world sense, not like in films, where you always know that it’s fake) with entertainment.

                My results were inconclusive as the sample size (me) was too small to be of real use.

                1. It’s fitting that you experiment on yourself, Jimbo. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

                  1. I would have gone for the penis joke I cleverly set you up for when describing myself as being too small.

                    1. It’s Epi. You have put it in for him.

                    2. It’s Epi. You have TO put it in for him.

                    3. First one was more accurate, Sage.

          2. What bullshit. In regular literature, that’s top-grade stuff.

          3. So, it’s Seinfeld?

          4. John Gardner ruined a generation of writers with his morality schtick.

    4. People who can’t get published railing against those that can. You can whine about having to play the game, but the game will go on fine without you. It’s no different than feminists grousing about beauty standards. They aren’t enforced by some sort of shadow conspiracy, but by conventions and collimated opinions.

      Besides, with the amazing flood of shit that is published and people who have the gumption to self-publish, I have to wonder at the worth of anything that can’t get published or what the authors don’t think enough of to publish themselves.

      1. I’ve self-published on Amazon Kindle. Cost a whopping $150, and that was only because I was too lazy to do the manuscript prep myself.

        And “my” book (really a reprint of a public domain work) has sold 25 copies, with zero, zip, zilch marketing other than whatever happens simply by being on Amazon.

    5. Sci-fi is in a dismal state, but I can’t figure out what they guy wants to do that the supposed establishment won’t allow. Seems like a nutty complaint when literally anybody can put a book up on Amazon, sell it for as little as 99 cents, and keep 35-70% depending on the price.

  7. Opponents, including Tom FitzGerald, executive director of the Kentucky Resources Council, have argued that such a change would be a burden on the poor and the elderly who either can’t afford cellphones or are simply uncomfortable with them.

    Thank God someone is thinking about the poor and the elderly. Two groups in Kentucky and America that can’t handle the convenience of a cell phone. Probably because the poor are stupid and the elderly are senile.

    They also forgot to invoke the children. Of course, children are embracing cellular phones so that wouldn’t work this time.

    1. curiously, many of the state-recognized poor – the free lunch crowd – already carry cell phones, with paid-for ring tones to boot. And what elderly person by now has not figured out this thing called the telephone? Good grief…the lack of self-awareness from folks like Tom is stunning, though it probably should not be.

    2. Hey, if someone is “uncomfortable” with something, then it is the government’s job to use taxpayer dollars to ensure they get to stick with whatever they ARE comfortable with.

      I’m not a big fan of these new-fangled automatic transmissions. I demand that the state gov’t cut me a check so I can buy stick.

      1. Sticks are still generally cheaper. The problem is that not all models offer them. Demand that the government mandate manual transmission options in every vehicle!

        1. What I hate is that a lot of models only offer sticks on the bare-bones packages. Want a stick AND an A/C? “Too bad.” Need some tunes to keep you from zoning out during a long drive? “FUCK YOU! Should have bought an automatic, sucker!”

          I think the automotive industry has something against people that can actually drive.

          1. I haven’t seen a new car in years that didn’t have A/C. I assumed it had been mandated.

            What new cars are you test driving that don’t have A/C?

            1. It was 3-5 years ago, so maybe things have changed. And they were Ford trucks.

              1. Ah, you may be right. Ford does so much fleet that they may still be making F150’s in 5 spds with no A/C. I doubt they’re making any passenger cars that way, though.

    3. Of course, children are embracing cellular phones so that wouldn’t work this time.

      No, no, it works BECAUSE the children are embracing it…to sext and xmit nudie pics, which we need to prevent. NO CELL PHONES!

      *dusts off hands*

  8. The Supreme Court may or may not give President Obama’s healthcare headline-bait a pass, but the IRS is still getting $500 million smackers to enforce the law.

    If it doesn’t work out with the Supreme Court decision, IRS directors can use the money to hand out iPods to each other in Las Vegas.

  9. Pigs gotta eat a guess

    Proving they’ve learned nothing from lessons of the past, some House Republicans are pushing to bring back the wide-scale use of earmarks to Congress. These pigs in elephants’ clothing want to end a three-year moratorium on earmarks and start trading pork projects for votes in order to pass legislation, even though their big spending, earmarking ways during the George W. Bush era cost them dozens of elections.


    1. Earmarks arent a problem. Its the total at the bottom of the page that is the problem.

      1. yeah, but they’re earmarks, so you can just, like, write-em off or somethin’

  10. T-U-C-C-I-L-L-E, the fuck? That’s not how you spell “Steigerwald”!

    What gives?

    1. take the Tuccille. Leave the gun.

    2. Maybe it means Lucy isn’t the lowest person on the totem pole at reason finally. Is that it? Are PM links the shit job? That would explain why Tim was doing them for a while.

      1. Wasn’t Balko doing them before he left? Maybe it’s just a shit job now for the same reason that no new coach wants to follow a successful coach.

        1. They didn’t have PM Links when Balko was still here.

  11. Romney’s campaign says the past criticism from his own advisers shows he’s willing to be open-minded about who he seeks out for health policy ideas.

    Let’s just go ahead and spin this as a candidate who doesn’t want yes men, and not because he can’t find enough Republicans who haven’t pitched a fit over Romneycare.

  12. I know many of you bumpkins are fraught out of your minds on the Brown/Warren race in MA.

    Turns out Warren raised $6.9 million in q1 – double Brown.


    Personally I like Brown. He is my idea of a sane (non Fundie) Republickin.

    1. Yes, we know you are a huge Bush supporter Shrike. You don’t have to keep coming out of the closet over and over again hoping to repeat the thrilling experience.

      1. shrike = Dondero?

    2. He’s a mushbag.

    3. So much for Citizens United handing over the country to rich Republican fatcats, eh?

    4. Shrike is the one guy on the planet who when he hears Warren’s shrill tone and her priggish and simple minded lecturing of the productive classes gets a raging hard on. One sick puppy but well trained to fetch the master’s slippers.

  13. What are these “$500 million smackers”, and how many is the IRS getting?

  14. The Supreme Court may or may not give President Obama’s healthcare headline-bait a pass, but the IRS is still getting $500 million smackers to enforce the law.

    No one can be more persuasive in convincing people to do a yearly checkup than a smiling IS agent – I guess.

    1. Brandon|4.9.12 @ 7:06PM|#

      Sticks are still generally cheaper.

      But a stick is not nearly as persuasive as a $500 million smacker.

  15. Shocking new Trayvon video!


    1. Mandatory conceal and carry.

    2. The tourist obviously didn’t have Derbyshire as a parent.

      1. I would have been racist of him to be worried by a large angry mob.

      2. Just curious – why would anyone voluntarily go to Baltimore when they did not have to?

        1. The Inner Harbor is so dreamy, BP.

        2. “Her heart was filled with laughter when she saw those city lights
          She said the prettiest place on earth is Baltimore at night”

          Derb didn’t say don’t go to Baltimore. He just said don’t go to certain places in Baltimore. And all those white people dercrying his “talk” are living by his rules.

          1. “Dercrying”? I learned a new word today.

            I am pretty sure it is le mot juste par excellence for practically all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the resistance to assimilation by the Obamaborg.

        3. Since Hammerjack’s is dead and gone, I can’t think of a reason.

        4. I go there sometimes to see concerts that didn’t come to DC. But I’m in and out. One club I go to regularly is right next to the place where the even took place. You don’t want to hang around there outside for too long.

  16. Wow is Ozzy Guillen a moron.


    1. Find the context to what he said.

      This is a huge story in the Miami media right now, but not because it has legs. This is pure media bias specifically looking to gain ratings in a community that has very specific feeling towards Castro.

      1. I’d like to see the full quote about his respect for Castro.

        I’m not in the Miami Cuban community, but I’d prefer that sports figures not express respect for Commie dictators. Unless his words were taken out of context, which is very possible, so I won’t take a position on the comments until I read all of them.

      2. The context was that he respected the man for being unkillable for over half a century.

        Earth to Guillen: When in Little Havana it’s best to not praise the man that drove your neighbor’s to your shore in rafts, even if all your doing is saying you respect his longevity. Best to either shut your mouth or be regretful that ever cigar bomb has failed.

        1. “The context was that he respected the man for being unkillable for over half a century.”

          The quote in context is not really any better than it is out of context. Castro may have been unkillable but he was also a person who, arguably, the world and his corner of it would be better off with him killed.

  17. Robert Mugabe: One of very few people in this world for whom I joyfully await (imminent) death. I hope his prostate burns like torture.

    1. Lets hope it is long and painful.

      1. ^^black-guy penis joke

    2. The asshole is 88 though.

  18. If only all scientists were as honest as this guy

    The scientists had read Kareiva’s recent essay, which takes environmentalists to task. The data couldn’t bear out their piety, he wrote. Nature is often resilient, not fragile. There is no wilderness unspoiled by man. Thoreau was a townie. Conservation, by many measures, is failing. If it is to survive, it has to change.

    How could this be coming from the Nature Conservancy?

    “We love the horror story,” Kareiva said. He was dressed in New Balance running shoes, a purple sweater and rumpled tan trousers. “We just love it. The environmental movement has loved it. That, I think, is … [a] strategy failure. And it’s actually not supported by science.”

    This is not some vague hypothesis, he added to murmurs. He’s seen it in the data.

    1. “The message [has been that] humans degrade and destroy and really crucify the natural environment, and woe is me,” he said. “The reality is humans degrade and destroy and crucify the natural environment — and 80 percent of the time it recovers pretty well, and 20 percent of the time it doesn’t.”

      One of the visitors, Lisa Hayward, an ecologist working on invasive-species policy at the U.S. Geological Survey, spoke up. How can that be so? “I feel that does not represent the consensus of the ecological community,” she said.

      “I’m certain that it doesn’t represent the consensus of the ecological community,” Kareiva shot back, with a smile and flash in his eyes. A circle of nervous laughter swayed around the room. “I’m absolutely certain of that! Wait two years.”

      1. Kareiva has never feared following the data, or dragging others with him. Already a respected ecologist, for the past decade he has shoved the Nature Conservancy toward a new environmentalism. The old ways aren’t working. Inch by inch, for better or worse, conservation must, he says, enter the Anthropocene Epoch — the Age of Man.

        Hopefully this guy can drag the rest of science from the “man is the worst thing ever and we must initiate massive wealth transfer programs and regulatory schemes designed specifically to keep humanity from any further economic and social progress.

        1. Thanks for the link to the article, mad lib guy. Really great story. Hopefully, more enviromentalist groups will start to use logic and science to guide their mission, as opposed to the emotion and speculation that is common today. EcoTrust is taking some interesting approaches to conservation/environmental issues/property rights/land stewardship as well.

          1. mad lib guy

            _______ you for the _______ article. Seriously though, that was a good one, despite the constant references to “man-made global warming”.

            1. Seriously though, that was a good one, despite the constant references to “man-made global warming”.

              One can buy AGW from A-Z yet dismiss the idea that we need to have world economy altering wealth transfers and regulatory schemes designed to halt all economic progress in order to deal with it. Though it often seems that way, it is not a “one believes in AGW therefore he must necessarily believe is the socialist answers to the problem” world. Though exceedingly rare, one can see market forces as the best way to deal with the problem (see Bjorn Lomborg), as seems to be the idea with Kareiva (or at least the narrator of the article). One can “believe” in AGW and see adaptation as the holy grail as opposed to halting or reversing it. It is possible to see AGW not as a problem to be fixed, but a set of circumstances to which we must adapt. Even if one doesn’t subscribe to the A in AGW, IF climate is changing, we will have to deal with it in some fashion. I prefer it be Kareiva’s approach.

              I don’t subscribe to AGW because I see the data as having been put through too many agenda tinted filters. But I won’t begrudge those who do, so long as they aren’t advocating me handing over my wallet and means of further economic advancement to “fix” it.

  19. Dude knows he is jsut totally rocking it man, I mean like wow.


  20. Police in Washington need a warrant to search a car for evidence after someone has been taken into custody.

    They don’t just arrest the car?

    1. The justices rejected arguments from prosecutors around the state who warned that forcing officers to obtain warrants to search a car after every arrest will be time-consuming.

      Obviously the only remedy now is a Judge Dredd setup.

      1. I find it hilarious that agents of the state see the primary responsibility of law is to make their job easier.

        1. Question: can a passenger leave with the car if they are not also arrested? What power do the cops have to keep the car there if an unarrested person wants to take it with the owner’s permission?

          I’m sure the answers are:
          Fuck you, that’s why!

        2. That was basically the argument in Sackett v. EPA.

          But seriously, the cops already arrest cash and cars all the time – why is a warrantless search a problem? Given a choice between giving a goon with a gun and a badge permission for a “voluntary” search or giving him your car (which is what arresting the car amounts to – you will never see your car again) plus an opportunity for a free prostate exam (which of course is now Constitutional, thank you very much) which are you going to choose?

          1. Cars? How about seizing trains.

  21. Another Friday, another Espionage Act charge brought by the Administration. This time against the guy who leaked the waterboarding program, here for telling journalist details that may have included the names of covert CIA agents. (Though other people may have leaked the same details.)

    Think Glenn Greenwald or others are regretting the anti-Scooter Libby campaign in the Valarie Plame case? This is its bitter fruit.

  22. Haha. The Miami Sun-Sentinel misses the most obvious answer when asked to list ways to keep your home safe. Guess which one it was?

    1. A moat?

      1. Not exactly. Unless you think having to deal with the EPA is “safe.”

    2. A paint-can booby trap to hit burglars in the kisser?

      1. Or go all Macaulay Culkin on them.

        God, I hated that little bastard.

      2. Ooh, ooh, covering your steps with tar and randomly placing nails pointing up on some of them?

    3. That would be the South Florida Sun Sentinel, or the Miami Herald.

  23. “Brace yourself: five to 10 years before fiscal crisis”
    Report of Simon Johnson flogging his book to an ‘economic institute’. From the copy: “Johnson described the current U.S. government as “a large insurance company with a large army.”
    According to the article, his ‘solution’ is repeal of the “Bush tax cuts”. Haven’t read the book, but I suspect some cuts may also be part of his suggestions.
    (and a thanks to Ms Lochhead for keeping an eye on things)

    1. “Johnson proposes tax increases to match the level of government most people seem to want”.

      I hope he means that in the same sense H.L. Mencken meant “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

  24. Drone used to arrest man in ND. He vows to fight charges.

    FTA: With a population of less than 70,000, it doesn’t make sense for the Grand Forks police department to own a helicopter, but the ability to call in a drone when necessary can provide a similar purpose.

    To me, it doesn’t make sense for them to have a SWAT team either. But maybe it’s because I hate women, children and the families of the brave officers who deserve to have their mom or dad come home alive every night.


    1. Also FTA: Macki is confident his team is trained to legally use drones.

      “We’ve had a relationship with Predator operations for three years, we’ve provided training for them and received training on the basic capabilities of the predator,” he says. “We’ve established a relationship with [Homeland Security]. Through that relationship, we’ve learned drones’ capabilities and when we can or cannot use a drone.”

      Let’s see. What big political event happened just over three years ago. Hmm, let me see…

      And people say the left is better on civil rights and privacy.

  25. Jezebel with a hard hitting expose on the “date rape drug” Dr. Boss Sexciter for Women

    Next week, they take on the seedy, insectile underbelly of Spanish Fly purveyors.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.