A.M. Links: Romney/Rice?, Chinese Company Accused of Selling U.S. Technology to Iran, Asbury Park Overturns Bikini Ban

|

redux?
  • Drudge reports Condoleezza Rice is emerging at the top of Mitt Romney's veep list. Sarah Palin says Rice would make a great VP pick despite being pro-choice. Juan Williams explained in May why Rice would be a game changer, citing the fact that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are still taking shots at her in their books as an asset.
  • The Obama campaign is ramping up its Bain attack, using a (flawed) report by the Boston Globe to accuse Mitt Romney of either lying to the American people or committing a felony in filings to the SEC. The Romney camp has demanded a retraction from the Globe (denied) and lambasted the Obama campaign official who accused Romney of potentially committing a felony.
  • The FBI is investigating Chinese telecom manufacturer ZTE. The company is accused of selling prohibited U.S. equipment to Iran and obstructing a probe by the Department of Commerce.
  • Meanwhile, Congress is up in arms over the fact that the U.S. team's Olympic gear by Ralph Lauren was made in China.
  • The United Nations is increasingly relying on mercenaries for security functions, according to a report from the Global Policy Forum, spending $44 million in 2009 and $76 million in 2010 on security contracts.
  • Asbury Park overturned a boardwalk bikini ban on the books since 1953. It hadn't been enforced in decades but a campaign started to start enforcement again.  
  • Publish something awesome between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012? Learn more about theBastiat Prize for Journalism.

Don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily AM/PM updates for more content.

Reason.TV: "Randy Barnett: Losing ObamaCare While Preserving the Constitution"

NEXT: Henry Payne on What Obama's Been Reading Lately

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. Juan Williams explained in May why Rice would be a game changer…

    Uh-oh. That phrase.

    1. steve schmidt (on palin) – “mein gott, vat heft vie done?”

  2. Rice would be by far the most interesting pick. I would love to hear the usual hacks explain how the former provost of Stanford, National Security Adviser and Secretary of State is the stupid and unqualified. The tears of feminist elites would be yummy.

    At this point, I am rooting for entertainment value more than anything else.

    1. Second!

      1. Romney is just going to choose her as a cover for white racists to vote against Obama.

        1. ah, the Pelosi argument. I actually saw a Dem strategist on a cable show last night re: her comment about Romney/NAACP..his take was that she ought to quit talking as she makes all Dems look stupid.

          1. Someone, I forget who, on MSNBC claimed Romney went to the NAACP knowing he would get booed and increase his appeal to racists.

            1. Cuz that racist vote is really leaning towards Obama instead right now. God you can’t make up stupid like that.

            2. and everybody conveniently ignores how Romney also got cheers and a standing O at the event. Ironically, the cheers do not fit the narrative of either wing of the media.

              1. From what I’ve read, the standing O was at the end of the speech, in direct response to Romney discussing his father’s role in the Michigan civil rights movement and how Mitt was raised to see every person “black or white” as a child of God.

                I don’t understand why conservative media wouldn’t want to publicize the hell out of that.

                I think he also was applauded for the tradition marriage remarks, but the standing O sounds like it was for civil rights and equality talk.

                1. because the conservative narrative is that the NAACP is a blatantly political organization more interested in carrying water for the Dem Party than in helping black folks. I flipped around the dial a few times to be sure. Lou Dobbs brought up the ovation; morning Fox couldn’t stop beating the booing horse. Maybe radio treated it differently. Other networks predictably made the boos the headline.

    2. The feminist outcries would be dwarfed by the cries from the NAACP et al… I seem to recall all sorts of accusations of house nigger and the sort directed against her.

      1. No. I think she commands respect from the aggrieved Black Democrat Party establishment in a way that no other TEAM RED figure can.

        1. please. You have evidently forgotten the vile, blatantly racial commentary directed at Rice from the left. No, to these folks, the only good black Repub is a dead one.

          1. From the “white left”. The NAACP gave her awards.

            1. Living in DC I heard a lot of respect for Rice from Blacks who had only scorn and hate for the Bush regime.

              The white left has only a few stereotypes of blacks but blacks have ton of them. One is about the very ambitious, educated sister from the South with very straight lace, conservative views.

            2. Point taken

      2. Yes the cartoons of her from the leftists were pretty despicable. But it’s not racist when they do it.

    3. Third!

      “She’s not a real Black/woman” in 3, 2, 1, ….

      1. And one thing about Rice is that she is a tough. She wouldn’t take shit off of the media. And the contrast of Rice, who grew up in Jim Crow Alabama and went to the same school as the little girls killed in the famous bombing, and Obama growing up with his rich white grandparents and the Choom Choom Gang in Hawaii would be priceless.

        1. Growing up in Georgia hasnt helped Clarence Thomas’s image with the left.

          1. It drives the left nuts. And that is the fun part.

            1. This is why I’d like to see it.

          2. Growing up in Georgia is canceled out by the white wife.

            1. If Rice gets a white wife, I’ll vote for Romney.

              1. I’d just stay in my bunk.

              2. Sweet

              3. Me too.

    4. I like the cut of your jib, sir.

    5. Why the hell she would want it is beyond me, though.

      1. All the reports I’ve seen say she’s not interested. Maybe that’s just a ploy.

        1. It’s terrible to float her name if she’s not interested. How is T-Paw going to follow that kind of buzz?

          1. Putin is sending warships to Syria. The EU is disintegrating.This is the kind of geopolitical scenario Condi studied and trained for all her life.How could she not want to be a player?

            1. Maybe, but she wouldnt be a part of dealing with any of that as VP. VP is pretty much a political non-entity– unless you are an someone like Biden who causes political embarrassment with his foot-in-mouth disease, which Rice isn’t.

              1. Was Cheney a player? Condi wouldn’t be a John Nance Garner VP.

              2. If the Senate ends up split 50/50, she could be a significant entity. And if something fucks up the space-time continuum, Condi will be huge.

    6. Condoleeza Rice is from Alabama. That’s almost as good as being from Mississippi when it comes to pissing off all the right people.

      1. See above, she was the same age and went to the same school as the little girls killed in that awful bombing. Like Clearance Thomas, she actually has some moral street creed on civil rights. I wouldn’t have wanted to grow up where she did.

        1. Like Clearance Thomas, she actually has some moral street creed on civil rights.

          As I said above, this isnt acknowledged by the left.

          1. You aren’t really black if you don’t vote Democrat?

            1. of course, not. Look who leads the charge against black conservatives/Repubs. It’s not just political figures; they despise the likes of Thomas Sowell, too.

              1. You mean “Uncle Tom” Sowell.

                I love that guy. And Walter Williams. But I’m so white, so – duh.

                1. I’ve always said that the best thing about a Walter Williams run for president would be watching him make Obama look like a child at the debates.

                  1. Williams could give his gift to the nation directly from the White House:

                    http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/gift.html

                    I have mine framed and hanging in my living room.

                    1. I haven’t seen that before, that’s pretty good. As an American of Polish descent, I appreciate the “gratuitous insults and speculations about the intelligence of Europeans of Polish descent” portion. How many Polish held slaves?

                    2. How many Polish held slaves?

                      Not in the US – but quite a few in Poland, if serfdom counts

                    3. The Poles were happy to turn a blind eye to Nazi atrocities, but Jews don’t count because they aren’t black.

                    4. The Poles didn’t just turn a blind eye. They actively participated in the Holocaust.

                    5. Which Poles are you thinking of here? Since they were targeted for either extermination or slavery, the Poles didn’t have much chance to take part in the holocaust, unless you count the Poles of German descent.

                    6. The poles who turned over the Jews to the Nazis, looted the cemeteries around Auschwitz for artifacts and refused to let the few surviving Jews return home after the war. Those Poles Eduard

                    7. You said *the* Poles. “The Poles didn’t just turn a blind eye. They actively participated in the Holocaust.”

                      Now you’ve narrowed it down to *some* Poles. And I would have thought only your first group – the informers – counts as “actively participat[ing]” in the Holocaust.

                      It would be as accurate to say that “the Poles” sheltered Jews, since many did.

                    8. Dunno, Student, but if people of Polish descent immigrated here, they still benefited from slavery and are probably racist and hate children.

                    9. That’s awesome.

                    10. That is fucking tits.

                    11. That is fucking tits.

                      I can’t believe I remembered this, but your judgement of what’s “fucking tits” is suspect.

                    12. Have you been waiting 6 months for him to call something else “fucking tits?”

                    13. Hey, I’ll take being remembered, even if it’s for that (but not for my Tulpical circumcision thread in last nights PM links. I don’t know what I was smoking but that was a fucking train wreck.)

                      And I finally got to see a few episodes of Breaking Bad. It’s totally better than Hell on Wheels.

                    14. Glad you didn’t take offense. If I was more secure in my sexuality, I would have included a winky-face. But I’m not.

                      Have you been waiting 6 months for him to call something else “fucking tits?”

                      I assumed we all were.

    7. Just great. That’s exactly what Romney needs; a Bush holdover and one of the architects of the Iraq War.

      The democrats and the scum in the media are already going to try and paint him as a Bush clone to begin with. Why he would spend even ten seconds considering something that would help prove them right is beyond me.

      1. They are going to have a hard time doing that considering that Obama has validated and followed pretty much every single one of Bush’s foreign policies. What is Obama going to say?

        1. I have to agree with John here.

          Personally, I consider Rice a failure on a McNamaran scale. But Obama can’t SAY that she is, without hoisting himself on his own petard.

          1. Chaney and Rumsfeld hate her. So she might not be failure you think she is.

            Regardless, you are right. Romney couldn’t name Hank Paulson as a running mate or anyone associated with domestic policy. But foreign policy, he has nothing to say. Indeed, nominating Rice just accentuates the fact that Obama followed the exact same foreign policy that Bush did.

            1. What about John Paulson?

              I dont know anything about his politics, but you gotta like a guy who made billions by figuring out how to short the housing market.

              There has to be some position in an adminstration for someone like that. If nothing else, Im pretty sure it would piss off Krugman.

              1. Treasury Secretary of Governor of the Fed both sound good to me.

              2. John Paulson has been doing a pretty good job of losing those Billions ever since. It’s not enough to be right. The timing has to be perfect. Paulson’s timing was perfect for shorting the housing market only because he was delayed in getting the financing.He’s been mistiming commodity and foreign exchange markets ever since.

                1. Yep. Lucky break in shorting the housing market. What has he done for me lately?

            2. Chaney (sic) and Rumsfeld hate her. So she might not be failure you think she is.

              I’m kind of astounded that so many here think positively of her. IMHO, she carried water for Bush on some of his most evil endeavors. Wars, Patriot Act… Am I wrong here? (I’ve made a lot of assumptions.)

              John, do you have a citation for the comment above? If true, I may have misjudged her.

              1. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld dissed her badly in their books Fancisco.

          2. Failure on a McNamaran scale? How so?

            1. 1/10th of the casulaties?

        2. He’ll come up with some bullshit claim that he’s made key nuanced changes that the knuckle draggers just don’t understand – proving how dangerous they are.

          And the legacy media will eat it up.

      2. I agree with Mike on this: to wit, Bush = evil conservative who brought down the financial world. Rice worked for Bush, therefore…

        1. Swing voters actually like that Obama has continued Bush’s foreign policies. That’s why they call them “swing voters”.

          1. Racist!

        2. Obama wouldn’t even have to say anything at all. There are only a few surefire ways that Romney can throw this election away, and one of those ways is to do something completely idiotic, like pick someone intimately involved in the Iraq War to be his running mate.

          1. You live in a bubble. People re-elected Bush in 2004 when the Iraq war was the main issue. No one but Libertarians was every angry about the Iraq war. Liberals pretended to be angry but at heart really didn’t care. Most of them voted to authorize it and they all continued it after they took power.

            Stop it with the “everyone hated the Iraq war” myth. It is just not true.

            1. OK, but I’m really not just talking about the Iraq War.

              We reached the point years ago where everyone except for a very small handful of Bushbots realized what a disaster for this country Bush was. That’s the only reason why a totally unknown, worthless piece of shit like Barack Obama could even get elected president of this country in the first place: because the reign of Bush turned out to be such a nightmare.

              As horrible as Obama is, nobody wants to go back to those years again! The people associated with Bush can’t be allowed to get anywhere near the White House again, and trust me, the American people won’t allow it to happen either.

              1. It’s not like the Obama years have been so much better. Team Red/Team Blue are just opposite sides of the same coin these days.

    8. Does the Chris Rock principle on VPs apply now that we have had Obama?

    9. Being on Cheney and Rumsfeld’s shitlist is a plus for me.

    10. John, you just changed my mind to agree with your position.

    11. Rice would be by far the most interesting pick. I would love to hear the usual hacks explain how the former provost of Stanford, National Security Adviser and Secretary of State is the stupid and unqualified.

      The left has never let reality get in the way of their smears.

      They have two meta themes: Stupid republicans and evil republicans.

      And they’ll use at least one of those against anyone that Romney picks.

      1. As an accomplished woman and hotshot academic Condi will have to fill the “evil” role.

        1. She already has. Voila: http://photos1.blogger.com/blo…../condi.jpg

      2. They have two meta themes: Stupid republicans and evil republicans.

        With Condi Rice, they can stick to the Evil Republican theme. If you saw or have read the transcript to her speech the Romney camp is talking about, you’d see what I mean. It was all about American presence and dominance around the world IRT the way other cultures live and trade with the rest of the world.

        She wants America to go from World Police to World Ruler, and that scares the shit out of me, because Romney’s talking the same nonsense just so he can get to the right of Obama in the foreign policy debate.

        1. I can’t decide what I think about Rice. At least she isn’t a moron. That would be a nice change.

        2. I’m not sure which is worse.
          Fascism at home or World empire.

          Two sides of the same coin.

          1. Constant wars for constant soldiers.

          2. Fascism at home. World empire is ethically wrong, but at least we might actually get something out of it.

            1. Looking at what it costs us to maintain forces overseas, I am not quite sure we have an “empire”. More like a “source of expense”.

              1. What we get out of it is the dollar being the reserve currency of the world, giving us the de facto ability to impose and inflation tax on the rest of the world. Which manifests itself as trading physical goods for ever depreciating financial products.

                Stupidly, our leaders funnel a lot of the gains from empire into idiotic bureaucratic bloat; but the gains are nonetheless real. Imagine how fucked we would be if the dollar was just another currency.

    12. Agree, Rice would be hilarious. Although I’d be throwing up a little inside on a daily basis, watching the double standards at work would be a sweet – like a fine bitters added to the baby tears cocktail.

    13. They will say she got all those credentials by sleeping with her superiors or flattering them or something else stupid or sexist just like they did with Palin.

    14. Except for her complicity in the Bush horrors I have nothing against Rice as far as qualifications.

      1. Strawmen made of wet straw are wet.

        1. You really don’t know what a straw man is do you?

    15. She seems like a well-qualified person if we ignore her positions. She was a gung-ho* Bushevik. And of course she’s pro-choice to balance out Romney’s prolife extremism, but prolife voters are supposed to put up with that For the Team.

      Why aren’t other voting blocs asked to take one for the team like this? Specifically, foreign-policy hawks? “It’s true that Vice-President Paul has a history of opposing military adventurism, but its OK, war hawks, he isn’t the President.”

      *sexist!

      1. Vice-Presidential duties include performing scrape-jobs?

        1. I’m simply saying – if the VP post is so unimportant, why not give it to (say) a foreign-policy dove, or an advocate of medical MJ? After all, the VP doesn’t set foreign policy or drug policy!

          But such a VP won’t be chosen,* because their constituencies are too highly valued by the Repug establishment. Too valuable to be fobbed off with rhetoric of “oh, don’t worry, it’s only the VP – the successor to the Pres, the holder of a position which could serve as a jumping-off point to the Presidency in one’s own right – it’s not like it’s anything for you to worry your pretty heads over!”

          *Possible exception: Sarah Palin’s state allowed (allows?) personal MJ possession for personal use, and she didn’t seem to flip out too much about it, but that’s not the same as her calling for an end to the War on Dope.

    16. At this point, I am rooting for entertainment value more than anything else.

      As a libertarian, it’s pretty much all I can realistically hope for out of the election.

  3. Meanwhile, Congress is up in arms over the fact that the U.S. team’s Olympic gear by Ralph Lauren was made in China.

    Congress is the only one allowed to get to sell things to the Chinese. And Ralph Lauren doesn’t make designer debt.

    1. #FirstWorldProblems

    2. another faux issue so that some in Congress can puff their chests. Is there even a place left in the US that could have filled this work order?

      1. Yeah, I loved how most of the people whining in the article were Dem congresswhores, when it’s (mostly) Dem policies (or at least stalking horses) like minimum wage and the EPA and such that are the main reason so many companies have gone out of business or relocated operations to China.

    3. It’s a faux issue, but I honestly don’t understand what the Polo people were thinking.

      It’s a limited-run textile, that they’re probably either hugely marking up, or giving away as a promotion. In either case, why try to save ten cents by having the sewing done in China?

      Losing the good press of being the apparel sponsor HAS TO cost them more than whatever the delta on sewing these things in LA somewhere was.

      1. my guess is the Polo people were doing what they always do – finding someone who could deliver the product on time and on budget. I doubt they considered any possible implications over the “Made in…” label. Aren’t they good liberals anyway? Folks like that always expect to be inoculated from criticism.

      2. I’m sure they just tossed this order into their usual channels.

        Folks who follow politics might have predicted that the idiots in Congress would get all panty-bunched on this, but really, its so stupid, so trivial, and so just plain nuts I can’t blame them for not seeing it coming.

      3. “In either case, why try to save ten cents by having the sewing done in China?”

        Because they are the experts at making clothes. I have some beautiful suits that were made in China.

    4. But this is Priceless!

      Good ole Harry…the gift that keeps giving!

      1. He’s right about them being ugly though.

    5. Congress, of course, all wear American Apparel.

      1. …which is also made in China*.

        *I don’t know off the top of my head where American Apparel brand clothes are actually made, this comment is for pure snark.

        1. If I recall right, they are actually made by illegal immigrants in SoCal. Domestic production was one of their big marketing pushes.

    6. Not sure what their problem is here. Ralph Lauren designed the ’08 uniforms, and they were most likely made in China then too. Not to mention every other country’s uniforms are probably made in China.

      You can’t slowly but surely strangle your entire manufacturing sector with bullshit laws and regulations for 50+ years and then be surprised when everything gets made elsewhere. Well, unless you’re a member of congress that is.

  4. British tax money at work:

    BBC Four is making a show this summer called Old Vicars Telling Jokes …
    This show is a new angle on a programme we produced last year called Old Jews Telling Jokes.

    http://www.ship-of-fools.com/f…..jokes.html

    1. If the jokes are dirty, it might be a funny show.

      1. Indeed – I’d watch that.

        1. Oy vey, guv’nor!

          Now, there was this skiksa, she was kind of a goer, if you know what I mean…

  5. Meanwhile, Congress is up in arms over the fact that the U.S. team’s Olympic gear by Ralph Lauren was made in China.

    Nothing says Olympic spirit like prisoner labor.

    1. You just tell the slaves to work harder, faster, longer and higher or whatever the motto is.

      1. Arbeit macht frei.

        1. Wrong sporting authority đŸ™‚

    2. If you put a gun in their back, they’ll do the job for a bowl of rice a day.

      1. Wasn’t there something about a stake as additional incentive?

        1. Yes, work harder or we’ll drive a stake up your…

    3. Isn’t that how the Russian and East German Olympic teams worked for decades?

      1. Nah, anabolic steroids is how they “worked”.

  6. Hey, so what was up with the Romney post midday yesterday? Was everyone cycling, or is this just the beginning of the campaign for smartest retard that is our presidential election?

    It was pretty entertaining, don’t get me wrong, but the back and forth insults (and also grammar lessons) seemed pretty over-the-top.

    1. Here was the thread I was referring to.

      1. Things are going to be tense around here for a while.

        1. No kidding. I thought the one simple joy of being a libertarian was that we could dish out the hate equally to both mainstream political parties. And now that’s being tainted. ruh roh!

          1. It’s pretty retarded to complain about Romney saying vote for the other guy if you want free stuff.

            I mean wtf? He’s the second coming of Ron Paul iIf that’s the worst you got on him.

            1. If I start to hear Romney say that more often, I will begin to believe him for it. But as it stands now, he is basically the Republican John Kerry (never wrong, never right, because he never stays in one place long enough to pin him down). The only thing he has truly been consistent on is his insistence that he’s not afraid to start a war with Iran, and would circumvent Congress to do it. If that’s where he is most consistent, that is truly a scary proposition (not that BO is any better).

              1. “…never wrong, never right, because he never stays in one place long enough to pin him down.”

                That is actually one of the best short summaries of Mitt I have seen. Strong work, g B.

              2. I’m skeptical as hell of Romney and won’t be voting for him in November.

                I’m just saying that Reason criticizing that statement of his was idiotic and happened simulatneously with left wing hacks using the same statement to show how mean Romney is.

                Which makes me think that some writers at reason are heavily influenced by the dc media bubble.

                1. Which makes me think that some writers at reason are heavily influenced by the dc media bubble.

                  Oh, I have no doubts about that. And it is certainly a shame that the focus was yet again on the boos he received and not the cheers for his comments on “traditional” marriage, since it could have then been pointed out how most black people don’t like gays and find it atrocious the two movements are compared to each other.

                  Overall, though, I feel the contempt for all mainstream politicians (and even the LP, what with the coverage of the insane convention) is distributed pretty equal. This was certainly a missed opportunity to point out something good said by Romney, but like I said above, and like (I think it was) Suderman pointed out in the article, he hasn’t ever been consistent enough in his views that voting Democrat means you just want free stuff. I think it was an anti-pander; drumming up SoCon support by calling out the NAACP for their race-baiting and welfare mentality.

              3. he never stays in one place long enough to pin him down

                We have to vote for it (him) to find out what’s in it.

                1. Someone at work actually said this to me. We don’t know what kind of president he will be, but he’s not Obama, so we have to vote for him. I tried to point out that the same argument got us Obama, but it obviously was ignored.

            2. I just wish he had actually said that to the NAACP, instead of just a bunch of reporters later that night. That would have showed some real courage.

          2. I think the deal is that not everyone posting here is a libertarian. When reason rips a Repub, all of the red sympathizers come out to complain. When reason rips a Dem, all the blue sympathizers come out. Having articles against one candidate or the other is a decent way to show who’s who in the commenter world.

            1. There’s certainly that aspect. Also, I was thoroughly confused by all the references to previous names… VG was accused of being LoneWacko, Randian is sloopy (or Banjos?)…

              All I know is I’m generic Brand and I’m a libertarian (unless I’m SugarFree. hmmm…)

              1. I don’t think VG was accused of being lonewacko, so much as people implying he sounded like lonewacko.

            2. And when reason rips Gary Johnson…wait, they haven’t…I guess I am a Libertarian.

          3. I’m-a have to agree with you. I thought contempt for politicians is what our common ground was. I see some politician-idoizing going on lately and it’s puzzling the fuck out of me.

            Whatever happened to the old meme “anyone who wants to be President (or in Congress) should be automatically disqualified”?

            They’re all lying sacks of shit, people. There isn’t one of them that’s just slightly less of a lying sack of shit than another – they’re all bad. Not only are they all bad at their jobs, they’re bad people. To their cores.

            1. Kareful Kristen, I said this in slightly different terms and got called a nihilist for it. I completely agree with your statement.

            2. I would normally agree with your statement (and I still use the word you bought me but the way) but with Gary (yes I want to marry him…blah blah STFU) I have never met anyone so genuine, which is probably why he isn’t doing very well.

              1. It’s not so much his genunineness (genuity?) as much as his consistency that I like about Gary Johnson. That is the same reason I loved Ron Paul for running, and hopefully Rand Paul in 2016. Their voting records and actual actions show what they are capable of, and they continue to espouse those same ideas.

                Obama and Romney, however, vote one way, speak another, and then chastise their opponents for doing the exact same thing they just did.

      2. Wow. I’m really sorry I missed participating in that one. And B.Penguin’s description of his visit to robc’s holler is a classic.

        1. Haha I didn’t stick around long enough to catch the hollow story. Not to be missed.

          1. I missed it too.

            Glad it was brought up again.

            Its clearly inaccurate, as Im unmarried. But other than that, he didnt modify much.

            1. Thanks, folks. I will say that robc’s engineering skills really showed in his stills.

              1. Stills and baling wire creations, you have to hand it to GaTech, they train good hillbilly engineers.

            2. Well, my servers went blinky yesterday due to stupid earth orbit slowing down so I missed it. Well shit, LoneWako, Tulpa, and SF accusing Lew Rockwell of causing racism…I couldn’t breath after about ten posts. And seriously, is that grammar thing airborne or must your comments touch?

      3. Meh. The main takeaway is that Randian and Tulpa don’t know what “parsimonious” means.

        1. You mean niggardly? Racist!

        2. Randian telling Tulpa he argues in bad faith is pot/kettle hilarious.

  7. Having dealt with ZTE in the past, I can say that they are not to be trusted in business dealings at all. I find it funny that anyone would trust them with anything of importance. How is it that they have access to prohibited US equipment and technology?

    1. Lol actually you can walk down to Best Buy and acquire “prohibited equiptment”

      Hell you could take any run of the mill Android smartphone and turn it into the control system for a missile that was more powerful than anything we had up through about 1990.

      1. True. My point was more about the culture at ZTE. Our experience was that if you gave them the slightest of opportunities, they would screw you over without so much as a shred of remorse. In this particular case, it seems they were handling high end surveillance equipment.

    2. This is pretty much the obvious consequence of farming out the production of things you don’t want sold everywhere to a foreign country you can’t exert any control over.

  8. Lindsay Lohan proves once again that celebrity ages are not like those of real humans

    1. She wasn’t ever particularly pretty for a actress anyway. Throw in the aging party girl puffy face and she looks downright awful.

      1. Disagree. During the Mean Girls time frame, she was very attractive.

        She was also ~18 when the movie came out, so was probably 17 when it was filmed.

        Its been all down hill as an adult.

        1. Most 17 year old girls who are not fat are very attractive. But for a movie star she was never that hot.

          1. Very few 17 year olds are THAT attractive.

            For example, in the same movie you had Amanda Seyfried, who is less than 1 year older than Lohan. Amanda is MUCH hotter today, but at that time, she wasnt especially attractive.

            1. Agreed.

        2. I would also say she was probably 3rd or 4th hottest in Mean Girls anyway, behind Rachel McAdams and Lacey Chabert (who have remained hot into adulthood) and possibly Tina Fey (not for me personally, but others may like).

          1. Rachel McAdams is smoking hot.

            1. Lacey for me.

              1. I’m with you Restoras. Rachel is definitely attractive, but I think of Lacey is a more approachable JLH since she’s not as well known.

                1. Rachel by a mile

      1. With enough makeup and photoshop we could make Warty look like that.

        1. I’m sure Clara Bow had her naysayers too.

    2. Well… at least she doesn’t have that awful, aging, bleached hair anymore.

      Trying to look on the bright side here…

    3. Lindsay, Gaga, and Lana Del Rey in one room: that’s a lotta crazy right there.

    4. Anderson Cooper is Gay? I guess that is why he is some sort of lady’s man.

  9. The University of Texas at Austin has opened a fact-finding ‘inquiry’ into allegations of research misconduct against a tenured faculty member who concluded in a recent published study that children of same-sex couples may be at a disadvantage when it comes to certain forms of success in adulthood. While the university has not opened a formal investigation nor taken any action against Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at UT-Austin, the case has provoked spirited critiques of his methodology as well as allegations that the Texas sociologist was unduly influenced by two politically conservative organizations that helped fund his study

    http://www.insidehighered.com/…..ting-study

    Good thing it is just conservatives who hate science.

    1. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

      There are, of course, certain subjects that should be off limits to research, right?
      Oh wait, no – that’s the opposite of what I was taught in Research Methods.

      Huh – WEIRD!

      1. I don’t know anything about the study. Maybe it isn’t valid. But what if it is not? What if the science does say that kids who grow up the children of same sex couples have a statistically significantly greater chance of growing up to be emotional basket cases? What then? That is an uncomfortable but pretty important thing to know.

        1. Exactly. The fact that there’s a row about WHAT he researched – and the results – is just delicious.

          As you noted – it’s the conservatives who hate science.

        2. It may be uncomfortable, but how is it important? Are you going to bad adoption by same sex couples based on a study?

          Jeez, two people with a strong history of ALS reproducing dramatically increases the chances their offspring will have ALS. Should we bar them from reproducing?*

          *For all I know, a ban may already be instituted in the PPACA.

          1. Would you allow someone who is an alcoholic to adopt? What about a couple that was emotionally dysfunctional and argued all of the time? I think both of those cases, even though they are not abuse per say and wouldn’t be a reason for CPS to take a biological child, would cause a couple not to make the cut with an adoption agency.

            So, yes, if the effects were really significant, I would say that gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. The mental health of the kid outweighs the civil rights issue.

            1. You make an argument to deny adoption to an entire class of people with anecdotes about individuals?

              Sorry, John, but that’s absurd.

              1. That is why you do the study. So you don’t have to rely on anecdotes. Let the science fall where it falls. But if the science shows that being raised by a gay couple causes issues, then yes, you wouldn’t let gay couples adopt anymore than you would let alcoholic couples.

                1. I understand what you’re saying John, but denying them the right to adopt opens a can of worms for taking children away from millions more. It’s just as anecdotal as what you provided, but my uncle is gay and adopted two sons and they are just as “normal” as I am.

                  What matters, as cliche as this sounds, is how much love and care a family can provide. It doesn’t matter if the marital love is homosexual; they obviously will not be homosexually attracted to their children. I would contend that it is far more dangerous for other various groups to have children (single parents, impoverished families) than homosexuals, but I’m not crying for them to have their kids taken away.

                2. Again, “emotional issues” are a lot different that the quantifiable effects an alcoholic can have. The gays can cause “emotional harm”, which is a catch-all and loaded phrase, while a pair of full-blown alkies may not provide a stable home environment, may neglect feeding the children, may not be able to maintain work, etc.

                  I just can’t see denying adoption rights to a group of people capable of providing the material needs of a child because their relationship may make it more likely the kid has emotional issues when they are adults. It’s fucking ridiculous to equate the two.

                  And I don’t have time to debate this this morning much longer, unfortunately. It’s an interesting topic, but I’ve got an important meeting I have to leave for in a few. We’ll have to pick it up some other time, because, IMO, this cuts to the core of equal protection rights, and I’d like to discuss it in more detail.

                  1. I just can’t see denying adoption rights to a group of people capable of providing the material needs of a child because their relationship may make it more likely the kid has emotional issues when they are adults.

                    Why not? If — and it’s a big if, but presuming it could be proven — the parents belonged to a group that would cause issues for the kid regardless of their individual actions or abilities, why shouldn’t that be at least a factor in adoption?

                    I don’t think the core of the issue is the equal protection rights of the potential parents, but what is best for the adoptee. There may well be circumstances under which parents of this type, whatever the type is, are still better than the alternatives, so I think an outright denial is probably too far, but making it a factor seems appropriate.

                    1. ^This^

                      Likewise, I disagree with denying adoption priveledges outright for homosexuals or any other sub-group of people, but I agree it is something that should be considered as one of many factors (household income, emotional stability of the prospective parent(s), any prior history of substance abuse, etc.)

            2. Unfortunately for your gay hate, John, the data on the mental damage wreaked by foster care is unequivocal.

              “If gay people adopt you, you might grow up to be Woody Allen” doesn’t even show up on the radar in comparative terms.

              This is the right’s equivalent to leftist race hustler bitching about whites adopting black children. No matter how much you squint to try to find a harm from interracial adoption, whatever you find is always going to remain trivial compared to the impact of foster care or abandonment. Always.

              Hell, I’d still let the Shakers scoop up orphans, and those folks were capital-C crazy.

              1. That being said, being angry at the researcher for daring to ask the question is absurd.

                The research is valid if it’s true, regardless of what policy recommendations someone might make based on the research.

                That being said, (yeah, I know – two “that being said’s” in one post) I’m sure this research was done with a grant of some kind. Are we in favor of federal or state grants for sociology research? I’m not.

                1. the man is a professor in sociology. Isn’t this the type topic folks in that field should be expected to research? Like other projects, his will spark similar inquiry that may offer contradictory results. I don’t think he’s making an AGW-equivalent, science-is-settled argument.

              2. No matter how much you squint to try to find a harm from interracial adoption, whatever you find is always going to remain trivial compared to the impact of foster care or abandonment. Always.

                First, babies are nearly impossible to adopt. New borne are never abandoned.

                Second, the facts are what they are. You can’t adopt a kid from an agency in this country without letting them look up your ass. And if you have so much as the slightest problem you get turned down.

                Now if you want to ban that practice and say agencies have no right to look at parents, fine. But as long as you say they can, they you have to at least look at what the science says.

                I don’t know that the science won’t say good things. This study might not be valid. I don’t hate gays. But I am not going to assume that just because all right thinking people love gays and consider them to be perfect, that the science might not cut the other way. I don’t know. That is why we do the science.

                1. there is a reason why most Americans who adopt go overseas to do it. John’s right on that score.

                  On the other hand, seems the kids whom gays adopt are often the kids that no one else in our society wants. I would rather those kids have two parents, irrespective of gender, giving a shit about them than a hapless foster system that treats them like meat.

                2. First, babies are nearly impossible to adopt. New borne are never abandoned.

                  [citation required]

                  You can’t adopt a kid from an agency in this country without letting them look up your ass.

                  No wonder the gays want to adopt so bad! /bad joke

                  Now if you want to ban that practice and say agencies have no right to look at parents, fine. But as long as you say they can, they you have to at least look at what the science says.

                  Here’s where you make your mistake in logic, John. You say individuals need to be examined in great detail for suitability to parent, but you want to exclude an entire group (potentially) based on a study? Are the rights/suitability/freedom of the individual parents of so little importance to you that you would dismiss them because a group they involuntarily belong to? Would you do the same for people more at risk for cancer, diabetes or another disease? I’m sure people with diabetes or cancer make it more likely the kid will grow up emotionally disturbed, what with the stronger likelihood they will die while their children are still young. Should we ban people from adopting that are at higher risk for developing either disease?

                  Seriously, you are casting a wide net. Each case for adoption should be analyzed on its own merits. Period. Full Stop.

                  1. You say individuals need to be examined in great detail for suitability to parent, but you want to exclude an entire group (potentially) based on a study?

                    We do that all of the time. There are tons of people who grow up with alcoholic parents who still have loving happy homes. Yet, being an alcoholic will get you taken off a foster parent list let alone and adoption list. Why not judge every family individually rather than making some things no gos from the start?

                    Again it depends on what the science says. You are making a mistake of logic because you are afraid to even admit the possibility that gays might not be perfect.

                    1. The difference is people aren’t born alcoholics. It is ridiculous to say that all gay people are the same, have the same personality, or would raise their kids in the same manner. The adoption agencies should look at individuals, but being gay shouldn’t a determining factor per se. I think this is where this type of study would fail. It assumes too much about a person just because they’re gay. I know gays might not be perfect. I have many friends who are gay and I’ve met gay people I can’t stand. I treat them as I would anyone else, like an individual, and love them or hate them based on the totality of their character (there is no middle ground).

                    2. Oh, but of course this type of study should be allowed and not penalized.

              3. Right. Even if same-sex adoption could be proven to be the second best option, that still puts it pretty high on the list of options.

          2. It’s taxed.

            1. Not sure if you meant they would just tax people with ALS that reproduced, but I think it safe to assume the Supreme Court would approve of the move.

              1. It’s not a tax, it’s a penalty.

                1. It’s a Penaltax. Tow the lion.

          3. No, you wouldn’t ban it. But scientists and/or academics do these kinds of studies all the time looking at religion, income, education, political philosophy and how it affects any number of things. And you don’t usually hear people saying that certain topics shouldn’t be researched.

            1. exactly. The guy is a sociology professor. What things is he supposed to research if not topics like this? There is also nothing that prevents a counter-study from reaching a different type of pre-determined conclusion, though pre-determined kinda goes against the grain of what science is supposed to be.

            2. And you don’t usually hear people saying that certain topics shouldn’t be researched.

              Except for global warming alarmists telling us all the science is settled.

              1. Well, yeah, but they’re funded by evil oil companies so they’re obviously wrong. As someone who works in academe (humanities though, not science) I’m still stunned when I read of one group of scientists discounting research of another group of scientists based on the funding source. I mean, a public accusation that a credentialled researcher would fake their research to make the fund-er happy is an amazing accusation.

                1. I find it ironic that the same people who poo-poo studies because the evil corporations funding them have a stake in the outcome are the first to embrace studies funded by government, ignoring that power-mongers also have a stake in the outcome.

              2. Racist!

                1. Er…sorry, that was for Sloopy the denier.

      2. There are, of course, certain subjects that should be off limits to research, right?

        One of those subjects is the hypothesis that diversity does *not* improve the company/country.

    2. it’s a sociology. Isn’t this the kind of research they do? Besides, who’s to say the research will not disprove the hypothesis, that there is little difference between kids of gays and those of straights.

    3. “There are many cases in [the study] where respondents have proven resilient and prevailed as adults in spite of numerous transitions, be they death, divorce, additional or diverse romantic partners, or remarriage,” wrote Regnerus, in a paper published last month by the peer-reviewed journal Social Science Research. However, he continues, the study also “clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults ? on multiple counts and across a variety of domains ? when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day.”

      Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/…..z20VeAMytS
      Inside Higher Ed

      It seems to me that what the study is saying, John, is that the outcome of having gay parents isn’t as as good as when the child’s parents are married and stay together.

      He doesn’t appear to be tracking, say, adopted kids by heterosexual couples vs. adopted kids by gay couples–he’s tracking them against kids who’ve had no such disruption in their lives and saying the ones without parental disruptions tend to do better.

      It isn’t clear to me at all from this study, i.e., that children adopted by gay parents tend to do worse than children who are never adopted and just bounce around in foster care until they’re 18.

      1. someone making the case that foster care beats being adopted by gays deserves to be laughed at. Often, the kids who are adopted by gay couples are the ones whom society treats as virtual throwaways. You cannot claim to love kids AND belief foster care is the better option.

        1. This

        2. Yeah, the foster system really stinks. And every time I hear someone say they want to abuse our rights “for the children”, I always think to myself, “If you really want to do something for the children, then why don’t you just adopt some foster children instead?”

      2. Think about it Ken. We are not talking about adopted kids. We are talking about adopted new bornes. IF kids do better with a hetero couple than with a gay couple. And a hetero couple and a gay couple both want to adopt the same kid, why wouldn’t this be a factor in making the decision?

        1. there is nothing genetic that makes straight parents inherently better than gays. Kids tend to do better when raised in two parent homes because those homes tend to be more stable, they are less likely to be cash-strapped, and the environment is more likely to be nurturing. That is just as likely to occur with Bob and Steve as it is with Muffy and Tyler.

          1. Wait, is Tyler a man or woman in this scenario? Or is that an othering question?

        2. Of course, the best possible outcome for the child should always be the rule–not sure a gay couple can’t be better than a heterosexual couple because of this study.

          I think most gay people who are adopting are adopting the child of their partner. Despite what we hear about with gay celebrities, I don’t think gay people adopt newborns very often. …but when they do, do you think being adopted by someone filthy rich like say Ellen DeGeneres, or somebody, could be a bad thing?

          If we’re comparing adoptive parents, how do rich parents fare against parents of more modest means? Is the difference in outcome between parents with different levels of income greater than the difference in outcome between gay parents and straight parents?

          …IF IF there’s a big difference at all.

      3. It isn’t clear to me at all from this study, i.e., that children adopted by gay parents tend to do worse than children who are never adopted and just bounce around in foster care until they’re 18.

        In fact, even IF IF the study had found that children adopted by gay couples tend to fare especially poorly as adults, I would want to know the cause of their poor performance before I drew any conclusions.

        IF IF the children of gay parents fare especially poorly, is it ultimately because of the stress placed upon them by those who treat them like they come from a home that’s socially unacceptable?

        ’cause the solution to that problem probably isn’t to make it harder for gay couples to adopt. Maybe the solution to that is to shame those who make the children of gay couples feel like social freaks.

        1. cause the solution to that problem probably isn’t to make it harder for gay couples to adopt. Maybe the solution to that is to shame those who make the children of gay couples feel like social freaks.
          reply to this

          Maybe we could use hollywood to make it seem like 1/4 of the country is actually gay and make sure every gay character in every show is noble and wonderful. How about that Ken. We have never tried that.

          Good luck with that Ken.

          1. I don’t know about that, John, but if people’s prejudices are the cause of a problem, I have a hard time with the solution being “Let’s give in to prejudice”.

            Like I said, I think the overwhelming majority of gay adoptions are when the partner of a gay parent adopts his or her partner’s child.

            Even if we made it so that gay people couldn’t adopt their partner’s child, there are still going to be children living with gay parents anyway. If someone’s out there making those kids feel like freaks, and it’s hurting them, then I think whoever’s causing those children pain should cut it out.

            Don’t see why I need Hollywood to get involved.

      4. Actually if this is the recent study I read about and am remembering it correctly this is not quite what he is saying.

        See he classified all people who had ever had a homosexual experience as “gay”. So a family where the dad was nominally heterosexual but was advertising for random hookups with guys counted as “Gay” as well as kids who were adopted into gay families.

        The net effect of his methodology was to push every dysfunctional “heterosexual” family into the gay category he could thereby artificially lowering the number of such families on the “Non gay” side and increasing them on the “gay” side which of course will tend to skew the numbers against children of “gay” parents.

        1. Every dysfunctional heterosexual family has the father looking for gay hookups?

          1. No but every family where either parent had ever had a homosexal experience of any sort was considered “gay”

            So a family where the father spent time in jail and had homosexual sex there – Gay
            A Family where either parent cheated with a member of the same sex – Gay
            A Family where the parents were swingers and engaged in same sex pairings occasionally – Gay

            And so on

            Thing is even within these groups dysfunctional families are not 100% of the group, however they tend to be heavier represented than in the general population. However considering them to be children of “gay” parents is disingenuious because their experiences in no way shape or form matches up with that of kids raised by an actual gay couple.

    4. Any research that deals with human subjects in any way is a minefield of potential “ethical violations”. If someone wants to pin one on you there’s a very good chance they’ll be able to do so regardless of how careful you are.

      1. I would think if you are simply removing personally identifiable info and aggregating data instead of doing the next Milgram experiment with live voltage, you’d be in a much better place.

    5. Liberals and conservatives are both really bad when it comes to latching onto any social “science” bullshit study that confirms their pre-existing biases and viciously attacking any that don’t.

      Sociology isn’t science. It’s all a bunch of bullshit so I say just ignore it and hopefully it will go away (hahaha, like that’s ever going to happen).

    6. I think John misses the point that governmental policy decisions should be based on principles. Not “scientific” studies and utilitarianism (at least for a libertarian). Science helps identify where harm may occur or rights may be violated but science should not dictate governance policy.

    7. But sociology isn’t science science.

  10. Meanwhile, Congress is up in arms over the fact that the U.S. team’s Olympic gear by Ralph Lauren was made in China.

    Yeah, we want every American citizen to go to college AND do manual labor in the manufacturing sector!

    1. Overeducated textile manufacturer employees is the American Way!

      That way they can quote Lenin in the original Russian while stitching your undies!

    2. I thought they were all throwing clay pots around Gatlinburg?

      It sure seemed that way when we were vacationing in Gatlinburg…

  11. Former Councilwoman Louise Murray pressed the council to enforce the ordinance, saying allowing boardwalk bar and restaurant patrons to wear skimpy attire threatened Asbury’s “classy” image.

    Ha! The idiot got the exact opposite of her wish.

    1. She should have focused on the security aspect. A scantily-clad woman catching your eye may prevent you from dodging the inevitable knife attack.

      1. In my experience, the knife attack comes at some point after you get her out the clothes, not while she’s still in them.

        1. Tell us about these experiences

          1. I think you can find them on sCinemax.

            1. More likely Lifetime or Oxygen. A story about a woman seducing men in order to kill them is “empowering” for women, or something.

    2. How she kept a straight face while calling anywhere on the Jersey Shore “classy” is beyond me.

      1. They ALL think they’re classy.

    3. threatened Asbury’s “classy” image.

      This is Asbury New Jersey we’re talking about, right? Because when I think “classy” I think of New Jersey.

  12. Webb ‘a no’ on Obama tax plan
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..28805.html

    1. Webb has called for taxes to be increased on dividends and capital gains instead

      Sigh.

      1. Nothing gooses an anemic recovery like more burdens on capital formation.

  13. The United Nations is increasingly relying on mercenaries for security functions

    I bet these for-profit hired guns aren’t even stern when they’re wording those sternly-worded letters for the UN.

  14. In this election, pick your elite
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    You know the stereotypes already. Both Obamas come from what might loosely be called the intellectual/academic meritocracy, the “liberal elite,” the post-WASP Ivy League, easily caricatured as the world of free-trade coffee, organic arugula, smug opinions and Martha’s Vineyard. The Romneys, by contrast, belong to the financial oligarchy, the “global elite,” the post-financial-deregulation world that is just as easily caricatured as one of iced champagne, offshore bank accounts, dressage trainers and private islands.

    The two groups have some important overlaps. Although Romney got some attention for holding a fundraiser in the Hamptons last week, Obama has raised more money in the Hamptons overall (the president scored particularly well in Sagaponack, by one account, where the median home price is $4.4 million).

    1. the intellectual/academic meritocracy

      isn’t this an oxymoron? From everything we see and read about this bunch, their ‘exceptionalism’ seems mostly based on their being credentialed; there is no actual merit involved.

      1. But, but, but…
        if you can’t rely on the credentials as markers of merit, then all of American education, to say nothing of all the ‘certifying’ and ‘credentialing’ groups are useless!

      2. Hey, do you think it’s easy to destroy the constitution, economy, public education…

        1. That’s why Obama needs at least two terms.
          /hint

    2. easily caricatured as the world of free-trade coffee, organic arugula, smug opinions and Martha’s Vineyard.

      Is it a caricature of its true?

  15. Rising costs push California cities to fiscal brink
    Throughout the state, local governments are slashing services to avoid bankruptcy. For some, it’s too late.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/lo…..3019.story

    1. Its almost like a trend, reaching upward toward Sacramento or something? Nah, that couldn’t happen! MORE TRAINZ!

  16. Taking a break from begging for money to buy a battery for his wheelchair, a man whose pockets were loaded with cash astonished onlookers by getting up for a walk on Wednesday in Haugesund, south-western Norway.

    http://www.thelocal.no/page/vi…..r-a-stroll

    1. Someone on here told the story of a woman who was out at the same highway exit ramp for a year with a sign that read “pregnant and homeless”.

      1. Maybe she kept using the money for abortions.

        1. OK, that is pretty damned funny, Golden One. Thanks for the morning smile.

      2. Of course she was pregnant all the time – before Obamacare homeless people couldn’t afford to give birth

    2. No surprise there. We watched a woman in a state subsidized motorized wheelchair, living in state subsidized housing, roll down the middle of our street for years, with a cat on a leash. She would never get out of the way for cars.

      One day the leash got tangled up in the wheel of the chair, she gets up, walks around, lifts the chair to unwind the leash, then rolls along on her way.

      The best part is she decided to cross the intersection at the wrong time and got run over by a school bus. You can’t make this stuff up.

      1. with a cat on a leash

        Scammers I expect. A cat on a leash I do not. And your punchline is just perfection

      2. got run over by a school bus.

        I envisioned the scene from Office Space where the guy is backing out of his garage and gets t-boned by a huge pickup.

        1. It was much more satisfying.

        2. That scene makes me crack up every time.

  17. “The United Nations is increasingly relying on mercenaries for security functions, according to a report from the Global Policy Forum, spending $44 million in 2009 and $76 million in 2010 on security contracts.”

    Hey, its not like those women and kids are going rape themselves! Needz moar Third World peacekeepers?

  18. Harry Reid vs. The Bimbos
    http://www.humanevents.com/201…..he-bimbos/

    In a fit of frustration, the Senate majority leader recently remarked that “fabulously rich so-called small business owners like Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton could qualify for these wasteful giveaways.” (By “giveaways,” Reid means tax rates that are not yet instituted.)

    By pointing out that these two stupendously wealthy airheads are supposedly beneficiaries of some undue “breaks,” Reid might believes he’s found the perfect tax villains. He’s wrong. Because, as counterintuitive as it may seem, Kardashian and Hilton are effective job creators, the kind that Reid shouldn’t be punishing.

    1. I wonder what form the Kardashian Kounter Attack will take? Maybe they could ask Harry about his magic underwear!

      1. They are the only people that I think would lose a debate with Reid.

        1. Oh I don’t know, they could definitely give him a run for his money

          1. It’d be pretty evenly matched, but I suspect the K’s would get distracted by something shiny before Reid put himself to sleep.

      2. Smother him with their ample asses?

    2. Every dollar given to heiresses silences a worthy cowboy poet.

      1. Plus, plus many, many numbers!

  19. TSA should explain ? or end ? its body scanner program
    http://overlawyered.com/2012/0…..m=facebook

    A year ago the D.C. Circuit told the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) that it needed to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking for its controversial program of full-body scanners at airports. The rulemaking process is intended to ensure that the agency lays out clearly the factual, legal and policy basis for its actions, with a chance for opponents to lodge objections and establish a basis for judicial review. As my colleague Jim Harper points out, the agency has dragged its heels about doing this ? a sort of passive resistance it would probably not tolerate from the hapless citizens stuck in its lines.

    1. Wait, don’t we have the scanners now, even though the rules haven’t been written?

  20. I think in my next life I’d like to come back as a Euro soccer star.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..-body.html

    1. She’s hot, but I would laugh every time I said her full name.

    2. I want to come back as a Brazilian soccer star or an Indian cricket star.

      1. That would be ok with me too.

    3. She actually has a nice bod for a Scand/Germanic type, nice WHR with a waste that actually is narrowed instead of the more typical pear shape.

      1. meh, *waist*.

          1. Let waste reign!

          2. Let’s rain waste!

    4. http://www.boston.com/ae/celeb…..onference/

      I’d like to come back as Robert Kraft.

    5. Two, please.

  21. Surface to air missiles in London.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..steel.html

  22. Gandhi was gay?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..i-gay.html

    1. I have always read he was more of just an asexual weirdo.

      1. Strange – he doesn’t look gay or anything in that photo with the, er, “female” companion.

    2. If Gandhi was in love with a German Jew, then why did he recommend that the Jews submit to the Nazis like lambs to the slaughter?

      1. because he wanted her to submit to him like a lamb to the slaughter

  23. Kristen Stewart is caught smiling!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..skirt.html

    1. Wow, and she doesn’t look stoned in those pictures either!

    2. The woman at the end dressed up as dinosaur Jesus with a lamb is definitely the highlight.

  24. The Romney camp has demanded a retraction from the Globe (denied) and lambasted the Obama campaign official who accused Romney of potentially committing a felony.

    At least by the end of this we should know everything there is to know about Mitt Romney, whether true or not. Stories like this are definitely telling us a few things about his opponent.

  25. Will beg for boobs.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..rgery.html

    1. Why not just strip for them like all the other A cup girls?

      1. This way she retains her dignity?

    2. I read that as “will beg for books”. I was pleasantly surprised. I was expecting a homely librarian.

      needz moar koffee…

  26. http://dailycaller.com/2012/07…..-speeches/

    Obama’s biggest mistake was he didn’t make enough speeches. The article makes a good point in that the press just mindlessly sits there and lets him get away with saying ridiculous things. I think it shows how racist and condescending they are to black people.

    1. John, your problem is that you just don’t hear Obama’s music.

      1. I think John is literally not on Obama’s planet.

  27. way OT: and for your listening (dis)pleasure, I have yet another (no!!!) free synth album out.
    http://projectcommunique.bandcamp.com/album/three

    lots of iPad apps here: DM1 drum machine, Rebirth RB-338, and Camel Audio’s Alchemy. Additional real world keyboards and sounds from the venerable Akai MINIAK and my DSI Mopho.

    I tried to go in a different direction here, moving away from my normal Tangerine Dream stuff.

    1. your cover art is a cemetery. So you’ve turned into a Goth?

      1. “We’re not Goths – we’re VAMPIRES!”

      2. *HISS* stay in the dark away from the evil rays of the sun!

        nah, just the prettiest graveyard I’ve ever seen nestled in the city of Charleston, SC.

    2. I tried to go in a different direction here, moving away from my normal Tangerine Dream stuff.

      So more Kraftwerkian?

      1. I wish I could be as spare as the masters of Krautrock.

        1. But I could never figure out why they say in Russian:

          Ja tvoi sluga, Ja tvoi rabotnik

          Since robot comes from the Czech surely it would’ve been more appropriate in Czech?

  28. 1. Harry Reid
    A sexual position where you climb on top and then do absolutely nothing. Named for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

    http://theothermccain.com/2012…..-olympics/

    1. That. That right there is some funny shit. Somebody at HnR needs to use this as alt+text.

  29. Condi’s a big Browns fan, so she has that going for her, at least.

    And I see that Nick Saban’s daughter is not a very nice girl.

    1. That sorority should be renamed to reflect its proper pronunciation – Fie Moo. This episode was ‘udderly’ ridiculous!
      – DrMallard, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA, 13/7/2012 02:35
      Click to rate Rating 50

      1. Now that is a cat fight. If the other girl is half as hot as the Sabin girl, too bad they didn’t put it up on Youtube.

      2. Hair pulling you expect. Punches to the head, not so much.

      3. playing a drinking game called ‘Power Hour’ – where students drink at the end of every song on YouTube

        That is not how you play power hour.

        Kristen Saban’s lawyer argued that Grimes was responsible for her own injuries.

        Are they arguing a Fight Club scenario?

        1. That is not how you play power hour.

          Do tell!

          1. Power Hour uses specific mix-tape of 1 minute song clips and as soon as the song changes you drink. Basically 60 sips/gulps an hour, which should be 4 or 5 beers. If they are getting shots poured that fast though, that’s pretty incredible.

            A power shower is a personal fave of mine where you drink a beer while taking a shower. (The beer is where the power comes from)

            1. Ok, if it’s a specific mix then I guess that’s acceptable. We didn’t have the yous tubes in my day (’98-’02) to keep time for us. We just used a watch.

            2. Back in my day we called that Century Club. and it is 8 1/2 beers as we used 1 oz shot glasses of beer every minute for 100 minutes…not a pussy little hour. Talk about shitfaced.

        2. Actually, in college for me the more enterprising power hours incorporated youtube clips. But it was still one minute and not the whole song.

          1. Actually more like 55 secs because everybody used some sort of 5 second drink clip.

        3. Are they arguing a Fight Club scenario?

          Not really sure what they’re trying to say. Are they trying to imply that the other sorority members who witnessed the fight are lying? Is this another incarnation of the “bitch(es) set me up defense”? Either that or they’re arguing “the bitch had it coming”, in which case “cojones grandes” Miss Saban. We’ll see how well that flies in court.

    2. You know why she is a big Browns fan? Because the Browns were really the first NFL team to not care how many of their players were black. As a result, the Browns had a huge following in the black community in the 50s.

      1. Yup. It didn’t hurt that they were the dominant team of the time, too.

        1. Of course actually judging their players by their talent rather than the color of their skin, probably had something to do with them being so dominant.

          1. Sure. Paul Brown also was the first coach to shake up the NFL’s run-run-run caveman mentality with a pass-heavy offense. So he had the first modern quarterback, the first modern offense, and his pick of black players. It’s no wonder he kicked a ridiculous amount of ass. Seriously, look up the Browns’ won-loss record from 1946 until he got fired by Pigfucker Modell in 1962. It’s absurd.

            1. And Brown went on to start the Bengles and make an expansion team respectable almost immediately. Modell is without a doubt one of the worst owners in pro sports history.

              1. Yeah, and the Bengals were always very good until he died and his idiot son took over.

              2. Bud Adams being a close second.

            2. I went ahead and looked it up. 111-44-5, a 70.9% winning percentage. Ridiculous.

              1. Jesus. 71% over 16 years? I finally get why people haven’t given up on the team.

      2. And the fact that they were called the Browns might have helped too. /racist joke

    3. it’s a big deal in AL, as you might imagine. Some are accusing the girl suing of being a gold digger and wanting publicity. Because nothing says good times like suing the daughter of bama’s football coach while going to school at UA and living in Tuscaloosa weeks before the season starts.

      1. Everyone in Tuscaloosa is aware that Nick Saban is an utter prick, right?

        1. long as the team wins, the only things that raise concern about Saban are the proverbial dead girl or live boy. These folks have been feeding off a dead Bear for nearly 30 years. In fairness, few towns care if the coach is a dick as long as the team wins.

          1. the proverbial dead girl or live boy

            Stop othering Penn State.

          2. Add University Park to that list.

            1. Well, that’s not a very fair analogy. People might have irrational loyalty to Saban. But Paterno cultivate a public image that, while most deserved for the first 50 years of his career, helped to cover up a dark secret for the last 10 years.

              With Saban’s perceived “prickishness” and the fact that he resides in a deeply divided state, where the media is just as loyal to Auburn as it is to Bama, he can never have the amount of trust that allowed Paterno’s crimes to go unpunished.

              I mean, the very fact that just merely his daughter’s civil suit made the news just goes to show how different things are from University Park.

          3. Richt catches crap for suspending and/or kicking off too many scumbags instead of letting them play.

          4. The entire state of Alabama is nuts. I live for the day that both schools turn each other in and get the death penalty. Sorry wareagle. But those ignorant hillbillies’ tears would be yummy.

            I love college football. And I tolerate a lot of the crazy. But the Alabama fans are just noxious. And the Auburn fans are not much better. They all need to get a live. Five years of death penalty would do them good.

            1. I don’t expect you to get it, John. You’re in a world that thinks Yankees/Red Sox is sports’ pre-eminent rivalry. Yes, some folks get out of hand over AU/UA and, in truth, it is easier to tolerate the further one lives away from it.

              On the other hand, there is no NFL, no NBA, no MLB, and not even a credible third major college team to divide loyalties in the state. And if you are looking to hand out death penalties, there are a lot of schools that are going to go ahead of either Auburn or bama.

              Hating the SEC is in vogue nowadays; that happens when a league pretty much owns college football. But last I checked, it was not AL making excuses for Paterno or Carroll or Tressell.

              1. You know what Alabama needs wareagle? A pro team. I went to college in Oklahoma. And that state used to be just as backwards and nuts as Alabama. I went back last year and am amazed at the transformation that having the Thunder has wrought. People stopped obsessing over OU football and the anual OU OSU game, which is actually a more bitter rivalry than Auburn Alabama in some ways. No one cares when Auburn plays Alabama in anything but football. OU OSU is a death match in every single sport. The presence of the Thunder made Oklahoma a better more relaxed and sane place. Pro sports did the same for Texas 30 years ago.

                Alabama needs a pro team desperately. When morons are poisoning trees and issuing death threats over radio call in shows to each other, something needs to give.

                1. People stopped obsessing over OU football and the anual OU OSU game,

                  This does not compute. The OK OSU game is the ONLY game that matters for lots people. Have a mediocre season, doesn’t matter, we beat the other team.

                  1. They still care Nihilo. But it is not like it was. The state seems a bit more sane now.

                2. the only pro teams have been a couple of efforts with failed leagues like the WFL and USFL. It probably would be a good thing to have some pro team to siphon away a bit of the crazy. As it is, there is almost an inverse relationship between a fan’s passion (if you can call it that) and that fan’s actual connection to either school. Actual graduates and employees tend to be more sane.

                  Having grown up in it, I see as the single greatest rivalry going, certainly in college football which is its own religion in the South. Again, much of that is due to the region’s NOT having pro sports until about the 60s. And for every tree killer, we have bama fans giving to a tree fund and Auburn folks going to Tuscaloosa after the tornadoes.

                  At this point, Birmingham may well be the biggest single-city tv market without a pro franchise. I don’t see any movement to change that. That leaves the Iron Bowl and the 364 days that surround it.

              2. And the SEC’s run is about over. These things go in cycles. USC is off probation and back this year. I expect Oklahoma to be very good this year. It is just a matter of time before Ohio State gets great again with Meyer as the coach. I don’t think Alabama is going to be near as good as they were last year. And LSU flat out wasn’t that good last year. And the bottom really has dropped out of the SEC. Outside of the top three teams last year, the SEC sucked. Florida, Georgia, USC were all pretty average teams. And they were the best of the rest.

                Mark my words, there will be an SEC team in the title game and it will get rolled. Things never last forever in college football. My guess is that it will be USC who will do the rolling USC has always owned the SEC.

                1. no, USC had not owned the SEC. bama has beaten them, AU has beaten them as well. Best thing USC did for the SEC was bringing an integrated squad to B’ham in 1970. A year later, the tide beat SC. In LA.

                  Six years is a hell of a cycle, by the way, and I see no sign of a letup. There will be 3 in the final top ten. And how is LSU not that good when, until the meltdown in NOLA, it beat everyone in its league plus Oregon and West VA by convincing margins.

              3. You’re in a world that thinks Yankees/Red Sox is sports’ pre-eminent rivalry.

                Which it is.

                1. Too one sided. Auburn Alabama is also way over rated. Most of the history of that game has been Alabama kicking Auburn’s ass.

                  Even though I can’t stand either team, I think the OU Texas and Michigan Ohio State revelrys are better. Both games are not so one sided. And both involve entire states who hate each other.

                  1. whatever. While bama has an overall lead, there has been more to it than the Bear era. Since then – and it’s been 30 years – AU is ahead. And sorry, it is anything but over-rated.

                    When OU/TX play, there are at least two schools that could give a shit who wins. Same with Ohio St/Michigan which really IS the most overrated. Michigan St folks could care less about Ohio St; oh sure, they would rather Michigan lose but it’s not the same thing.

                    1. When OU/TX play, there are at least two schools that could give a shit who wins.

                      You are somewhat right here, Bedlam is much more important to most.

                    2. To finish my post (FSCKing squirrels). Bedlam is import to those who went to the schools, Red River to Okies in general.

                      Gaining Ground

                    3. Only in the last five years when OSU got good Nihilo. Before that Texas was the game that mattered.

                2. It’s a good rivalry but since ’04 I think some of the steam has been let out of it.

                3. You’re in a world that thinks Yankees/Red Sox is sports’ pre-eminent rivalry.

                  Which it is.

                  I would argue that Chicago Bears/Green Bay Packers is just as pre-eminent, but for football. George Halas bailed out the Packers just so that the rivalry could continue.

            2. Hey, now. They don’t have professional football there, so cut them some slack.

              1. We don’t have professional football in Ohio, either.

                1. CN,
                  now that’s funny

              2. They all pale in comparison to Kentucky-Louisville in basketball.

                Same setup, of course: state crazy about a sport, no professional team, 2 historically top-10 programs a short drive apart.

                1. College sports rivalries of the 20th century…What happened to them?!

                  1. Penn State/Pittsburgh
                  2. Alabama/Tennessee
                  3. Notre Dame/Miami*, for crying out loud!

                  *Okay, maybe no one ever wants to see Notre Dame or Miami gain prestige ever again.

                  1. Best rivalry was the old Nebraska OU rivalry. Nine national titles in 30 years between. That game always meant something. And Alabama fans, if they are honest, still bear the scars, like Penn State fans and Florida fans after then, of having the misfortune of running into a top OU or Nebraska team in a national title game.

                  2. I miss the Convicts vs. Catholics games!

        2. Continuous adulation has a corrupting effect? Wow.

          1. for some probably. With Saban, it’s a genetic. He’s always been a horse’s ass. Just like Urban Meyer.

  30. A German neo-Nazi who drove into a group of leftists, leaving one with a brain injury, has been acquitted of attempted manslaughter. The judge found he was acting in self-defence.

    http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120713-43737.html

    1. I fear this is just a taste of the street battle over state power that’s coming.

      1. I hate German anti-Nazis.

        1. That ain’t no Hank Williams song!

          1. Ich gonna get zat zucker, if it’s zee last sing I do.

            1. But first make me some food. Four whole fried chickens and a Coke

              1. Ve had und Kollektiv kraftlish enough zo turn Ziege pissen unto Benzin!

    2. Just to add a little, the leftists were wearing masks and coming toward him while he was sitting in a car. It was not like he drove around searching for leftists to run over.

    3. drove into a group of leftists, leaving one with a brain injury

      And they managed to make that diagnosis how, exactly?

      1. He made some sort of pro-libertarian statement after waking from his coma.

    4. I didn’t realize that shit about history repeating was so literal. I hope Marx was right and we get the zany parody version.

  31. http://www.postandcourier.com/…..ion-ballot

    My reaction would be to ban the fourth of july, not alcohol or music on the beach.

  32. Oh no! There’s no way to track where the money goes!

    Customers pay for Internet time or phone cards and use them to bet points on computers loaded with games such as poker.

    DeWine is pushing lawmakers to enact more regulations for such facilities. He says the cafes could be generating hundreds of millions of dollars and there’s no way to track where that money goes.

    Fucking scumbag DeWine.

    1. So how long before they outlaw cash?

      1. They are trying. LEOs hate cash.

        1. They used to. Now they just find cocaine residue on it and confiscate it under civil forfeiture rules.

    2. Money changing hands without the government taking a cut?

      Horror!

    3. MOAR REGULASHUNS! seems to be the battle cry of today.

    4. The Internet cafes in FL are the sketchiest looking places ever. If they are generating millions of dollars, they aren’t wasting any on facilities.

    5. OK, still being newish here, is this the appropriate moment to break out “fuck off, slaver!” on DeWine?

      1. every moment is appropriate to break out “fuck off, slaver!”

        1. Right! Hey DeWine.. FUCK OFF, SLAVER!

          Say, I do feel better.

      2. DeWine is the prototypical Ohio Republican, right outta the Bob Taft mold. I’d hoped Kasich would be a change. That’s what I get for hoping.

        1. Are there some non-shit Republicans in Ohio? I don’t recall Paul getting much traction here.

          1. Are there some non-shit Republicans in Ohio?
            If there are, they’ve yet to make their presence known.

          2. I would be visiting the South plenty if Ohio wasn’t in the way. Hell, Ohio makes Michigan look like a Libertarian paradise – at least in terms of cops per square mile.

    1. To click or not to click, that is the question.

      1. Not worth it. Big fat woman.

        1. Yeah, well…”Norma Stitz”. Fan-freakin-tastic name.

          I did, however, get flashbacks of Big Boy’s turn as Flusia in Deuce Bigalow.

      2. Some things are better left unseen.

  33. Read this, then read it again while humming Star Trek fight music:

    Suit accuses Saban’s daughter of beating sorority sister

    1. Da nuh Da nuh DA nuh

  34. “The Obama campaign is ramping up its Bain attack, using a (flawed) report by the Boston Globe”

    THIS is why that piece of shit shouldn’t get another term. He willfully lies to the citizenry.

    1. This is becoming a pattern — hack journalist writes a bullshit article, Obama quotes it as fact, other journalists quote Obama, and around and around we go.

  35. Banana ba na na nah! Banana! Ba na na na banana na!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSJaDNre_p0

  36. Meh… I see the Libertarian takeover of the GOP is not going so well yet. The wretched old neocon coots are still firmly entrenched.

    Condi? Wow. Condi is smart and articulate, and cute in a sort of dark and evil way, and she is a freaking neocon war monger!!!

    Back in my quasi GOP/Neocon/Libertarian eclectic hybrid days, I really liked her. But now that I have went full on Libertarian, I mostly just think that she is a freaking neocon war monger. Gawd! Don’t the GOP ever learn from their stupid mistakes?

    1. I wouldn’t worry that she would talk Mittens into anything war-ish. He doesn’t seem decisive enough to go through with it.

    2. I don’t like Condi, but I wasn’t gonna vote for Mittens anyway. However, for many of the reasons others have stated above, I think it would actually be a shrewd tactical move for the GOP.

    3. The really funny thing is that she’s pro-choice.

      So the Mormon is going to choose as Veep a black pro-choice lesbian?

      You may as well put up shoot-on-sight roadblocks to force evangelicals to stay home.

      1. You may as well put up shoot-on-sight roadblocks to force evangelicals to stay home.

        Getting evangelicals to stay home should be everyone’s goal.

    4. I don’t think she’ll get too much support from the black community once they find out Led Zeppelin is her favorite musical act.

      1. I thought The Zep got rehabilitated by P-Diddy

        1. That’s pretty cool.

        2. That’s pretty cool.

      2. Well they can always go with Dread Zeppelin as a compromise.

      3. She’s also a big Skynyrd fan.

        1. *barf*

            1. Freebird, Freebird, Freebird!!!!

              1. Almost as bad as SHOOT THE PUCK! but not quite.

            2. Urk! *splash* Gag! *splash* *plop* Gack! *splash*

              Sorry. I can’t empty my stomach any quieter.

              1. Is there a more overrated band that LS? They suck, majorly.

                  1. No, they do. For me anyway. I do like Molly Hatchet, Allman Bros, and Pantera. But not LS.

                    1. How can you not like classics like Tuesday’s Gone or Simple Man (one of my personal faves)?

                1. It’s the whole style that sucks. Skynyrd, Eagles, Allman Brothers, Alabama, Steve Miller… barf barf barfity barf

                  1. You don’t like the Allman Brothers? You really are a philistine.

                    1. no kidding. eat a peach is in anybody’s top 20.

                    2. Anything that remotely resembles country makes me retch.

                    1. This is about your anti-Southern rock position, not your country one. I join your rejection of that genre, though I dispute that those bands are “country.”

                    2. I wouldn’t call them “country” either, though I do think they have some audible country influence.

                    3. If you can’t appreciate real country music, not the pop music for housewives they produce now, you are hopeless Sarcasmic. Hopeless.

                    4. If you can’t appreciate the music I like then you’re hopeless, John. Hopeless.

                      See how that works?

                    5. Anyone who rejects Nashville pop country is fine with me. There is a ton of great actual country that hasn’t been given the Nashville version of the LA casting couch “flavor-of-the-month” treatment.

                  2. I don’t like country at all and despise the Eagles, but love Skynyrd. WTF? Are you a damn yankee or something?

                    1. Damn Yankees = BAAAAARRRRRRRFFFFFFF!!!!!

        2. Ok, so she likes listening to some music that I like, while watching us bomb the crap out of civilians around the world, on CNN and FOX. Great…

    5. She’s not as bad as Rubio.

  37. Mayor designates parking spaces for men

    Unlike the 12 spaces set aside for women, which are wider, well-lit, and closer to the exit, the men’s spaces require the driver to pull in at an angle, and avoid hitting cement pillars. They are an “attraction” for any ambitious driver, Strobel told the daily S?ddeutsche Zeitung.

    “But men are, as a rule, a little better at such challenges,” he told the paper.

    1. About time.

    2. The man has a genius for offending absolutely everybody.

      1. I think he’s ready to be the mayor of DC.

  38. The Condi discussion shows that she would be a risky pick. Which means it ain’t gonna happen.

    1. I still think it’s Rubio. They’re leaking other possibilities to keep the media running around, digging up dirt on the rumored candidate(s).

      1. I have always thought it would be Rubio. Who is also a freaking neocon war monger. We are back to the GOP never learning anything here, surprise surprise…

        1. And no matter, I am still voting for Johnson, no matter who Mittens has as his veep. It could be Jesus Christ returned and I will still vote for Johnson. BTW, I saw Jesus sitting on a porch on my commute to work this mornin. Jeebus bees in Balmer, hon.

          1. I’m voting for Johnson as well, and a hearty “fuck you” in advance to our resident leftist twats who conflate voting for Ron Paul in a primary with “being a so-con Republican racist child-hater Scrooge McDuck global-warming denier” yadda yadda.

            1. The “orange line cosmos” hate Paul even more.

    2. I’ve felt this for a while. She’s (from a purely technical vote getting standpoint) absolutely what Romney needs, except the Bush taint makes her too dangerous. I also continue to think Rubio wants to be President, and nobody but Bush I has won the Presidency from the Veep slot in the modern era. And Mittens ain’t no Reagan.

      1. Nobody but Obama has won the presidency from the Senate since 1960, either. And before Kennedy you have to go back to Harding in 1920.

        There aren’t a lot of slots where it’s easy to jump to the presidency from.

      2. Bush taint

        Ewww.

      3. the Bush taint makes her too dangerous

        Yah, nobody likes a bushy taint…

  39. “That’s Raaacist!” update:

    http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/…..-raaacist/

    Good to see that *some* people know how to use the word properly.

    [“some people” = racist dog-whistle, I’m sure.]

  40. WHo hacked DC Mayor “Vince” Grey’s web site? That’s some funny shit.

    I gotta take a screen grab before it’s fixed.

    1. Looks like it’s not a hack job but a squatter. I still think it’s all silly n shit.

    2. Is that really his website, or one setup by a “fan”? Either way it’s hilarious.

    3. The schadenfreude with Grey is too much.
      Shocked, shocked that he’s corrupt.

      1. But he gave black people a way to stop that evil Asian lady from fixing their schools.

        1. what a joke that was. I don’t live in the city, so i shouldn’t really care. but what a waste.

          1. Just terrible. Basically black people said they would rather have horrible schools that acted like a jobs program than have a Korean women given them good schools.

            1. That’s only because, if she sticks around, she could have childins, who will grow up and start dirty businesses and restaurants in the currently highly functioning all black neighborhoods.

              1. Are you from Dallas too?

  41. I’m sure I’m not the only Tom Waits fan here. He made the talk show rounds this week, and it was great.

  42. The title of Radley Balko’s book is set:

    http://www.theagitator.com/201…..f-my-book/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.