Cybersecurity Bill Filibustered, Kofi Annan Gives Up, Miley Cyrus Swatted: P.M. Links

|

  • And now for the bad news …

    The tyranny of Olympic training in China: The father of Olympic gold medalist Wu Minxia concealed for a year that her grandparents had died more than a year ago so as not to disrupt her training. She also hadn't been told her mother had been fighting breast cancer for years.

  • A GOP filibuster has blocked the Cybersecurity Act. Opponents said the bill gives the government too much authority over business practices.
  • Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has given up on Syria, resigning as international peace envoy to the nation as the civil war grows more and more intense.
  • The Russian trial of the punk band Pussy Riot for singing an anti-Putin song has the nation fascinated. The all-girl group faces seven years in prison for hooliganism.
  • Chick-fil-A claims record-setting sales due to day of support Wednesday for the company leader's views on "traditional marriage."
  • The latest victim of the nasty, dangerous SWAT-team "prank": Miley Cyrus. (H/t to Hit & Run commenter and linkmaster SugarFree)

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

NEXT: Cop Turned Criminal

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. Welcome to the incestuous world of reason links!

    1. It’s a trap!

      1. Incest always is.

        1. Someone warn NutraSweet!

          1. If he hasn’t learned by the first 4 times I don’t think warning him will help. On the other hand, he did discover that those Milky Ways were a trap all on his own.

  2. Gee, Kofi Annan failed. Does that mean there weren’t any bribes to take, so he went home?

    1. When the nation’s leader goes into hiding that’s probably a good sign it’s time to GTFO.

      1. Kofi Annan, not Assad.

        1. Assad went into hiding and hasn’t been seen in days. When that happens, it’s usually a good idea for people who don’t belong there to vacate post haste.

          1. Also, the US SoS called Assad a “coward”. She wouldn’t have done that if there were a chance he could retain power.

            I’d offer 5 to 4 odds he winds up getting Qaddafi’d; 5 to 2 he winds up in Russia.

          2. Oh, my mistake. I hadn’t heard about Assad.

  3. Chick-fil-A claims record-setting sales due to day of support Wednesday…

    I really wish appreciation day was on the same day as kiss-in day. That would have been entertaining.

    1. I believe that will be Friday. At any rate, so long as the people buy something while there I don’t think Chic-fil-A will have a problem with it. More money for them.

      1. You think. Like you don’t know for sure it’s on Friday and you’re not planning on staking the place out hoping to catch some hawt girl-on-girl.

        1. Most lesbian couples I see have at least one member is who is pretty butch, so that doesn’t really do it for me. You on the other hand can go knock yourself out.

          1. Cinemax has suggested to me that you’re wrong. (Or, for a more current reference, the internet.)

            1. I guess I should become a pizza delivery boy then. Those guys always seem to knock on the door when the lesbian housewives are naked.

            2. I’ve been going to Pride parades for years. Cinemax and the internet have lied to you. For every cute dyke there’s 20 more that look like the emblem on a Mack truck.

              1. Or just a Mack truck.

  4. And here I thought I was going to see Miley Cyrus’ fanny get paddled. NTTAWWT.

    1. Doesn’t do it for me. Disney uses those girls bodies’ up.

      1. That’s why I am glad that iCarly is on Nickelodeon. Miranda Cosgrove and Jeanene McGurty are hawt!

        1. Aren’t they a little old for you?

  5. A GOP filibuster has blocked the Cybersecurity Act. Opponents said the bill gives the government too much authority over business practices.

    The GOP, however, filibustered it because it’s an election year. Take what you can get.

    1. Doing it because it is an election year implies that voters actually objected to it. That is a lot better than I thought.

      1. a lot of voters also objected to last year’s ridiculous budget deal but it didn’t stop passage. A lot of those same voters think Allen West should be the VP nominee, the same West who went party over principle.

        1. They just confuse him with the infinitely better Adam West.

          1. clearly twin sons of different mothers.

            1. +1 for the Loggins and Messina reference.

        2. What budget deal? The Democrats haven’t passed a budget in three years.

      2. I think it was more that passage could be seen as a win for the White House.

    2. Beats not doing it at all, I guess.

  6. The Russian trial of the punk band Pussy Riot for singing an anti-Putin song has the nation fascinated.

    Here is what the trial will look like.

  7. Linkmaster? Say, I believe SF has been insulted in public. Oh, dear.

    The more I think about this Chick-fil-A business, the more I think it’s all about the election. The company is clearly conservative Christian, the view expressed was the personal one of the executive’s, not some corporate policy, there’s no allegation of discrimination, and, most of all, the illegal threats issued by government officials should rally people to the company’s defense, regardless of one’s position on gay marriage. It’s got “Let’s push some culture war issue since the economy sucks ass!” written all over it.

    1. I refuse to patronize Chick-fil-A because I am against any businessman who potentially hurts his own business for no good reason. Good Gaia, man, think of your franchisers.

      1. They’re making money hand over fist right now.

        1. Well, who could have predicted that? NO ONE, I say.

      2. Chick-Fil-A doesn’t have any operator-owned franchise. They’re all corporate owned.

        1. Funny, Chik-Fil-A seems to think they franchise.

          1. Notice that they call them “operators”. I can’t remember the exact deal, but the CFA arrangement isn’t a franchise in a traditional sense. Hell, it’s only $5k to “own” one, there’s your first clue something crazy is going on.

            1. From wikipedia:

              “Chick-fil-A uses a model significantly different from other restaurant franchises, notably in retaining ownership of each restaurant. Chick-fil-A selects the restaurant location, builds it, and pays the rent, while retaining ownership. Whereas franchisees from competing chains need about $2 million to operate a franchise, Chick-fil-A franchisees need only a $5,000 initial investment to become an operator. The company gets 10,000-25,000 applications from potential franchise operators for 60-70 slots they open each year. Chick-fil-A gets a larger share of revenue from its franchises than other chains, but the formula works well for operators ? franchisees make an average of $190,000 per year. In 2010 Chick-fil-A took the industry lead in average sales per restaurant, making an average of $2.7 million per restaurant in 2010 (McDonald’s was second with $2.4 million per restaurant).[10]”

              In other words, the “owner” doesn’t own shit. Practically, he’s a manager with a badass profit sharing plan.

              1. franchisees make an average of $190,000 per year

                Fuck, I’m in the wrong business. OTOH, running a restaurant is real work. Oh well.

        2. This is wrong. I’ve met an owner locally.

          1. From Chick-Fil-A’s own franchising page:

            This is not the right opportunity for you if you: ?Are seeking an investment or an equity
            position in a business.

            The “owner” you know doesn’t actually own anything. They just paid for the right to manage a store.

            1. It must mean something, because the owner I know of is raking in money. He’s no mere manager.

              1. I’m raking in money as an engineer. That doesn’t mean I own the company I work for.

                1. Maybe I’m wrong, but this guy seems to be pulling a whole lot more than $190,000 from the business.

                  1. Which probably means the guy running the Chick-Fil-A out in Nowhere, Wyoming is making a lot less than $190,000

        3. You’re all correct. Think of the Borg when you think of Chick-fil-a, except for being cybernetic aliens they’re just regular ol’ christfags. They’re real good at mechanically separating a chicken though, so there’s that.

    2. maybe…we could finally be seeing some push back on this PC bullshit. Even folks who support gay marriage think the mayors were ham-handed with their talk of blocking the company from locating in their cities.

      People who disagree with the CEO are free to take their business elsewhere. Jeff Bezos of Amazon donated 2-mi in SUPPORT OF gay marriage. I don’t hear any calls for boycotting his company and rightly so.

    3. A day or two after, Jezebel and the like were all abuzz that someone was bringing a workplace discrimination suit based on gender against CFA, but I don’t think it has even gone to trial yet.

      Nonetheless, for them, this “proved” how bad CFA is.

      Just as Wesley Snipes encouraged us to always bet on black, Jezebel seems to want to always bet on KULTUR WAR!!!

      …Which, as was pointed out earlier, makes them not too different than the precise social conservatives that they loathe and despise.

      1. No major employer in this country doesn’t get sued for discrimination. Just try firing a minority or a woman.

      2. Two sides, one coin.

    4. There *was* no allegation of discrimination. At first. Until HuffPo’s dogs sunk their ethics-less teeth into the matter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..25237.html

      Apparently, nothing is out of bounds when the narrative is at stake.

    5. the view expressed was the personal one of the executive’s, not some corporate policy

      No. Despite how some outlets have spun the story, the issue for the gay community is the corporate donations to Family Research Council which not only opposes gay marriage, but also divorce and pornography (ie, anything more racy than SI’s swimsuit issue).

      [From the Wikipedia article on FRC] The Family Research Council’s…Peter Sprigg…stated that gay behavior should be outlawed and that “criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior” should be enforced. Yep, real friends of liberty.

      That’s the beef, PL.

      1. Fine. Boycott the company. I have no objection to that. Just keep the government and calls for government action out of the picture.

        Their donations, of course, were known all along. This whole business is no surprise to anyone familiar with the company.

      2. Don’t eat there Tonio. But don’t use your government thugs to use coercive power to put them out of business.

        And so what if they do think that? Does that mean they are not entitled to own a business? Is someone who believes those things entitled to work at all? Even be in society?

        1. This is Tonio’s problem, my liberty ends when he wants his agenda enforced by the government.

          1. Even private boycotts are a problem in a way. Suppose Tonio convinced enough people that he was right. And that caused Chick FilA to go out of business. Is it really right to put someone out of business because they hold unpopular political views? There is no evidence that Chick Fil A has ever refused to serve or in any way discriminated against gays. They just gave money to someone he doesn’t like and hold views he objects to.

            Where does this end? If it is okay to boycott Chick Fila, why shouldn’t business fire any employee that holds similar positions? If you won’t patronize someone like that’s business, why would you wan them working for you?

            If you take Tonio’s thinking to its logical end, people who hold unpopular political views should by collective shunning be unable to work or really be any part of society. And that is fucked up.

            1. I think it is over the top, but I don’t give much of a crap about gay marriage, thinking there are other, far more important issues out there. Others see it differently, as is their right.

              From the libertarian perspective, I probably should be boycotting almost every company out there.

              1. I think that you should make it clear that someone like the head of Amazon is a buffoon for his political views. But you should not use that as an excuse of not patronizing his business. He may be wrong. But that has nothing to do with the value of his services.

            2. Boycotts are only wrong if you believe that a particular business has a pre-existing right or claim on my patronage or support, and naturally they do not.

              1. Again, Fluffy, taken to its extreme, how is a boycott not saying that people who hold the wrong views have no right to run a business?

                1. Again, Fluffy, taken to its extreme, how is a boycott not saying that people who hold the wrong views have no right to run a business?

                  You have a right to try your hand at business, but no right to expect customers.

                  And this isn’t a bug; it’s a feature.

                  Free trade is a civilizing influence precisely because the man operating a business will lose customers if he outrages the sensibilities of those customers.

                  We can’t argue for the right of property owners to racially discriminate (for just one example) by saying that the market will take care of this by punishing business owners who discriminate, and then turn around and say we have a problem with boycotts. You send a market signal when you patronize a business, and you send an equally important and valid market signal when you refrain from patronizing a business.

            3. Yeah, but the Family Research Council… ugh, Tony Perkins.

              They are the exact dicks who always get up and lecture about how the FCC shouldn’t have allowed anything racier than Bonanaza, and even that was stretching it.

              They are sort of grade-A dicks.

              1. They’re KULTUR WAR goose steppers. Creepy shits.

            4. Is it really right to put someone out of business because they hold unpopular political views?

              What you’re saying is that people should have the liberty to contract and engage in commerce, but only if it doesn’t put another party at a disadvantage.

              That sounds like Obama Commerce Clasue logic at work. Inactivity in a market should be prohibited.

              1. Sure they have the liberty to do anything they want. But no patronizing a business because you don’t like the owners politics makes you a fascist prick. Who cares about politics? He has a right to an opinion too.

                1. I don’t see where your decision against patronizing someone makes you either a fascist or a prick. You are making a personal choice, not advocating that govt enforce your view on everyone else.

                  There are actors I just can’t watch because of the stupid that flows when they stop pretending. I don’t advocate that others follow my lead or that said actors be stopped from talking.

                2. He has a right to an opinion too.

                  Absolutely.

                  I just don’t get your point that no one, ever, for any reason, should be held accountable for their words and deeds. No matter what someone says or does, I should cheerfully continue to throw money at them.

                  If my dry cleaner gratuitously insults my ethnic heritage and suggests that my mother was a cheap hooker, I should just shrug it off and continue to enrich him?

                  1. Fuck, I would.

                    My drycleaner is insanely polite, calling me Mr. Libertate, the whole nine yards. It’s like the old days, when servants knew their place.

                    1. Your dry cleaner addresses you in a dead language? That is special.

            5. I don’t have a problem with it in strict ethical terms, but it’s practically begging for retaliation in kind, and you just know the people who started the first boycott will be like “Wha? boycotting companies whose executives support liberal causes? That’s wrong!”

          2. This is Tonio’s problem, my liberty ends when he wants his agenda enforced by the government.

            I haven’t seen Tonio advocating any such thing.

            Other than being a big, fat meanie and caring a bit too much about it, he’s been decidedly libertarian about it.

            1. This is Tonio’s problem, my liberty ends when he wants his agenda enforced by the government.

              I haven’t seen Tonio advocating any such thing.

              Same here. He never advocated what you’ve accused him of. You owe him an apology.

      3. tonio,
        you can beef all you want but you cannot force the company to adopt your belief system. Jeff Bezos donated to pro gay marriage efforts but no one thinks Amazon should be shut down. CFA is free to give to whomever it wants.

        1. Tonio said none of the things you’re attributing to him. CFA is certainly free to give to whomever it wants. However, no one owes it to them to shut the fuck up about it; and, certainly, CFA isn’t entitled to anyone’s business. Tonio never said that the company should be forced to adopt his belief system, simply that one of the political organizations they support is disgusting. Why is it objectionable that a gay man might want to boycott a company that supports outlawing homosexual behavior (or one that gives money to an organization that supports outlawing homosexual behavior)?

        2. The difference between “our” boycotts and “their” boycotts is, as with all tactics, that “we” are right and “they” are wrong.

      4. The issue for the gay community is that they are mostly leftists. And leftists must always hate somebody. And while the issue of corporate donations to FRC has been simmering in the gay community for a while, the trigger was Dan Cathy’s statement that he supported traditional marriage.

        1. the trigger for the current outrage

  8. H/t to Hit Run commenter and linkmaster SugarFree

    Well, well, well. Look who regulars TMZ.

    1. Uh, that wasn’t completely obvious to you already?

      1. I WANTED TO POINT IT OUT ANYWAY. He may think he’s surfing them ironically or whatever, but his page views give them ad revenue to continue their war on our precious celebrities.

        1. Look, tuff gai, if that’s what it takes for NutraSweet to find links to new pictures of Alison Brie or Odette Annable, that’s what it takes.

          1. Just to help you in getting what you so desperately crave, nude is spelled n-u-d-e.

            1. Do work?!? When I can have NutraSweet do it for me, including filtering out the crap? Are you nuts? What do you think I pay him for (in scabs)?

              1. Oh, no, you should have him do your bidding. I just was correcting your directive–“new pictures” isn’t what you want.

    1. well, it doesn’t qualify her for sainthood. Then again, it’s not like she forced the married guy into participating. Are we sure some of these questions aren’t made up?

      1. I dunno, but if I were the editor I would have lead with the question on page 2 where the letter writer rented an old VHS documentary from her high school library and found a homemade porno depicting a teacher and student.

    2. To the right, More Slate Stories: Do Olympic Swimmers Ever Pee in the Pool?

      Keep up the hard-hitting journalism, Slate.

  9. I wonder if Swatting is going to get the cops to rethink how they charge into homes and potentially dangerous situations. You know, to consider that there might be some kind of mistake and there could be completely innocent, unsuspecting people inside. Maybe Swatting, as repulsive of a practice as it is, could have positive effects.

    1. HA HA! Good one.

      1. It was actually tough for me to type that without laughing.

        1. Just come out and say “Spanking”, Epi. You know you want to.

        2. It must have taken a LOT of self control. I certainly couldn’t read it without laughing.

    2. Maybe it would help make the case to the sort of dumbasses that don’t care about any story unless it involves a Kardashian that A) the cops are out of control (probably not until a celebrity actually gets killed, though), and B) that government is a weapon.

  10. Now that’s foreshadowing.

    A college student from Texas believes he is lucky to be alive after a terrible crash. He was texting and driving when his truck flew off of a cliff.

    Chance Bothe’s truck plunged off of a bridge and into a ravine. One of the last things he typed indicated what almost happened to him.

    He wrote, “I need to quit texting, because I could die in a car accident.”

    1. The moral of the story is, don’t be a fucking idiot.

      1. Whatever do you mean? He didn’t die, did he?

        1. I mean the populist ‘moral’ will be “we must ban texting while driving and treat it like DUI, and then enact harsher punishments for DUI.” When it should be “don’t be a fucking idiot and do stupid stuff like looking down at your phone while you are driving near a cliff.”

          1. we already have reckless driving. Seems texting and driving would qualify.

            1. He didn’t text AAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUGGHHHHH! as he was going off the cliff?

              1. Is that the Castle AAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUGGHHHHH?

                1. Do you suppose he meant the Camargue?

                    1. In France, I think.

                    2. Isn’t there a Saint Aauuuves in Cornwall?

                    3. No, that’s St. Ives.

  11. …and Elizabeth Warren wants us to be more like China.

    No wonder.

    1. They waited a whole year before informing her of the grandparents’ deaths. We can do better.

      1. You didn’t inform her. Others did the informing.

  12. http://www.riehlworldview.com/…..ption.html

    Harry Reid won’t answer sourced accusations of corruption.

    1. The asshole also took to the Senate floor to repeat the accusation that Romney paid no taxes for 10 years.

      1. They are getting desperate aren’t they?

      2. what a despicable little turd. Isn’t there some law against statements like Reid’s involving people’s tax returns, since those are private?

        1. It’s okay to do that if you’re a Democrat, wareagle.

        2. Isn’t it time that someone in the media ask him about the allegations of pederasty and bestiality that have dogged Harry Reid for years now?

    2. Hey, I have an idea! Let’s re-elect the corrupt fuck.

    3. Reid’s term isn’t up for a few years. He’s okay letting those accusations hang out there.

      1. The fact that he won his last election means that nuking the top of Nevada should be okay now. Once Penn Teller are out of town. And any commenters here.

        1. “Won” is a generous term for what happened.

          1. I’m feeling magnanimous in utter defeat of all that’s good and just.

    4. “I don’t think the burden should be on me,” he said. “The burden should be on him. He’s the one I’ve alleged has not paid any taxes.”

      WHAAAAAT?

      The burden should be on the person I’ve alleged is a child rapist. I mean, how can you let a child rapist off so easily!?

      1. The burden should be on Harry Reid to prove that he’s not a sheep fucker and tranny hooker. He’s the one I’ve alleged fucks sheep and likes to put on his wife’s bra and panties and give hummers and old fashioneds in the alleyway behind the Senate office building.

  13. Is anyone going to try to blow up a Chick-fil-A?

    1. If it happens, Team Blue will just blame [insert any non-leftwing hate group on the SPLC shit-list].

    2. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to chicken.

      1. “hate leads to Also, fried chicken.”

        FIFY’d by way of meme insertion. No charge, Man.

    3. I swear, this Chick-fil-A thing has become the Terry Schaivo of 2012.

      All this hand-waving by the culture warriors can’t possibly be good news for those of us who want to see Obama thrown out on his ass for his disastrous economic polices and general hostility to market solutions…

      But now, somehow, I’m the one who’s off topic, when I should be talking about Chick-fil-A?

      If we could get the idiot culture warriors on both sides to STFU for a few weeks, I just know we could we could kick the Obamatards out of the White House.

      1. See, here’s where you’re wrong. As it turns out, the culture war/First Amendment violation crap makes people go out to eat fried chicken in huge numbers. The resulting stimulation to the economy is so great that the U.S. GDP grows 20% in 2012. Obama is not credited, because he keeps bitching about people going to Chick-fil-A.

        1. It’s not the place of any American politician to determine where a business can or cannot build, especially when the CEO of a company is merely stating his views. CFA’s top dog doesn’t set gay-marriage policy.

          Wonder if Tony will chime in on this…

          1. Yeah, he should have the legal right to build his store and run it. But I have a right to think he’s an immoral bigot for his homophobia, and I have a right to think people who went to that store as part of an event to celebrate that homophobia are likewise immoral bigots.

            1. At least some of those people went to object to government trying to slap down a company because of its speech. Probably not the majority, no, but that’s the bigger issue here.

            2. I guess this is the part you don’t, or refuse to, get: I don’t especially care what the CFA guy said or what some of the people who get some of their charity money said.

              I do especially care when wannabe tinpot dictators say or imply that they are going to use their governmental power to throttle a business in “their” town because they don’t like someone’s opinion. Fuck that.

              It’s not a celebration of homophobia, it’s a celebration of STFU you Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, NYC, etc. dimwits. And I would view it exactly the same way whether they were trying to ban something based on words with which I agreed or with which I disagreed, because it isn’t about the content, it is about their right to say it without threats from the government.

              1. That’s right. Today, we’re all Illinois Nazis.

            3. homophobia

              Please. Attributing irrational fear as the only reason someone can hold a position is pathetic. Is the reason you don’t eat shit because you are shitaphobic?

              1. There’s a rational fear of gay people?

                1. There’s a rational fear of gay people?

                  There is in prison.

                  1. Actually, it’s the gay guys that are scared in prison.

                    The ones that are initiating the…um…surprise sex? For the most part, they don’t consider themselves gay.

                    It’s the catcher, not the guy pitchin’…

                    Wait a second, did I mention that Obama’s economic policies have been a complete disaster? Because they have been.

                    1. The ones that are initiating the…um…surprise sex? For the most part, they don’t consider themselves gay.

                      I know that. Obama doesn’t consider himself a tyrant. Doesn’t change what he does. What’s your point?

                    2. Okay, in jail, that might be a concern…for some people.

                      Is there any other rational reason to be afraid of gay people, or is that the only one?

                2. There’s a rational fear of gay people?

                  Yeah, being pissed about some shithead pol trying to shut down a business is means that I’m afraid of gay people

                  Jesus Christ Ken, that’s just fucking retrarded shark jumping.

              2. Attributing irrational fear as the only reason someone can hold a position is pathetic.

                What is the rational reason to fear gay people?

                Honestly, I can’t think of one.

                Using your analogy, it’s like trying to think of a good reason to eat shit.

                So don’t keep us in suspense! Why should rational people fear gay people?

                1. Please ignore my last two comments. This is what I meant to say:

                  “Attributing irrational fear as the only reason someone can hold a position is pathetic.”

                  Have you noticed that Obama’s economic polices have been a complete disaster?

        2. Honestly, I can’t say I know what it is that makes swing voters tick.

          Anybody that’s watched Obama for the past three and a half years–and is still undecided? God knows who they’re gonna break for or why.

          Maybe it’s the Kristy Yamaguchi endorsement that puts Romney over the top. For all I know, it’s Chick-effing-Fil-A…

          But there’s another group of voters out there that doesn’t get talked about much. They’re people who would probably vote against the president–if they cared enough to actually drive to the polling station. But when they think the vote is really about stupid shit like Chick-effing-Fil-A?

          They don’t care enough to actually drive to the polling station. Somebody needs to start taking these people into consideration.

          1. If you vote on anything but the wrecked economy that Obama and his party in particular want to wreck further, you’re a moron. Even we of the libertarian ilk can vote that way by voting for Johnson.

            1. I put my Gary Johnson sticker on my car this morning, and a donation in the mail drop this afternoon.

              1. I got a sticker yesterday in the mail.

            2. I agree.

              But swing voters are easily distracted by squirrels.

              The fewer squirrels the better.

              We don’t need a damn Terry Schaivo/Ground Zero Mosque/Chick-Fil-A squirrel running around right now. And that’s the kind of stuff the culture warriors (on both sides) are all about.

              That should be our libertarian Mission Statement right now: “To remind swing voters of the importance of sane economic policy”.

              Swing Voter: “Have you heard about the at Chick-Fil-A thing?”

              Ken Shultz: “Have you noticed that Obama’s economic polices have been a complete disaster?”

              1. And that’s to be expected, because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.

                If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.

              2. And that’s to be expected, because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.

                If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.

          2. if someone is genuinely undecided at this point, I question if they are smart enough to vote.

  14. “‘The least employers can do when they’re anticipating layoffs is to let workers know they’re going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future,’ Mr. Obama said in a news release on July 17, 2007, while campaigning for president.

    The Obama administration said Monday in guidance from the Labor Department that federal contractors don’t need to warn their employees that they could lose their jobs because of the looming budget cuts that are slated to begin Jan. 2.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com…..rnings-07/

    1. I heard this–unfuckingbelievable.

      1. The really reprehensible thing about this is that workers who don’t get a WARN notice have a private right of action.

        So if some business listened to this DoL guidance and didn’t issue a letter, and then laid people off, their workers could sue them and win. And DoL would then shrug and say, “Who, us? Oopsie.”

        1. Exactly. Jesus, the venality and dishonesty of this government is almost impossible to comprehend.

          1. I can comprehend it. It’s venal and dishonest.

  15. You’d think the DJ had said the ump made a cocksucking call.

    It led to one of the funnier scenes we’ll see from a minor-league game all season as umpire Mario Seneca took immediate objection to hearing “Three Blind Mice” playing after he had made a questionable call at Daytona’s Jackie Robinson Ballpark. The umpire wheeled around and motioned to the press box that Derek Dye ? a DJ intern on summer break from the University of Illinois ? was getting the old heave-ho.

    1. Power corrupts. Umpire thought he was God for a moment.

      1. I’d have followed with “Breaking the Law.”

        1. IMO, seeing as “Three Blind Mice” was the theme song for the Three Stooges movies, it makes more sense on that level.

          1. I meant followed the umpire’s objection.

    2. I didn’t realize the ump could eject people not on the team.

      1. Power corrupts, ProL.

        1. Why are you telling Auric this?

          1. Oops. I either need to drink less, or drink more. Still don’t have the ratios right.

          2. He has us confused because I’m like your son. Your younger, healthier, manlier, aerospaceier son.

              1. I wasn’t comparing myself to any of your other sons. I was comparing myself to you, beta.

  16. Hey! SugarFree!

    We don’t take too kindly to your type around here!

    1. Damn fool, I knew you were going to say that.

  17. Just have to point out that womens water polo unis are so tight (by necessity) that they are defacto thongs. Thank jeebus for this sport.

  18. “The tyranny of Olympic training in China: The father of Olympic gold medalist Wu Minxia concealed for a year that her grandparents had died more than a year ago so as not to disrupt her training. She also hadn’t been told her mother had been fighting breast cancer for years.”

    Why do you other Chinese culture?

  19. Chick-fil-A claims record-setting sales due to day of support Wednesday for the company leader’s views on “traditional marriage.”

    And my sense of alienation and misanthropy gets turned up another notch.

    1. Then ignore it, and/or don’t patronize CFA.

      I don’t, though I support them being left the fuck alone by politicians just trying to score points.

      1. I support them being left the fuck alone by politicians as well, but the reminder that a large number of your neighbors would be in favor of violence toward you if they could get away with it doesn’t help one’s opinion of your community.

        1. Oh yeah, because all those people who went out to support CFA yesterday are hell bent on destroying “the gays.” That’s a big pile of stupid right there.

          1. CFA has donated millions to the FRC, who’s legislative agenda includes legal bans on homosexuality. So yes, CFA does advocate violence toward homosexuals.

            1. just stop. You can’t ban homosexuality any more than you can ban rainbows.

              1. You can’t ban drugs either. That hasn’t stopped a lot of people from trying and causing a lot of violence toward their fellow citizens in the process.

            2. Yes, I saw a manager kicking the shit out of a couple out by the dumpster yesterday while the employees cheered him on.

              1. I’m sure most people in the KKK weren’t personally involved in lynchings. That doesn’t change the fact they were all advocating them.

            3. bans =/= violence

              1. And how exactly do you think those bans are enforced, other than by violence?

                1. on top of that, I submit that you are lying about the group’s desire to legislatively “ban” homosexuality. The only violence here is being carried on by you as in assaults on common sense and basic intelligence. You can’t outlaw what someone is.

                  1. FRC Senior Researcher for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg:

                    MATTHEWS: I’m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?

                    SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.

                    MATTHEWS: So, we should outlaw gay behavior?

                    SPRIGG: Yes.

                    1. I award the point to Stormy.

                    2. Sure that is what the FRC guy said and if that was all Stormy was claiming then she would win the point. She claimed that all of the people who supported CFA yesterday want to do violence to homosexuals.

                    3. Agreed. That’s assuming perfect knowledge on the part of all chick-fil-a patrons. But I was awarding the point for the reply to wareagle.

            4. I’m glad to see you continued to bring the stupid while I was driving home from work.

        2. Re: Stormy Dragon,

          […] but the reminder that a large number of your neighbors would be in favor of violence toward you […]

          I understand you completely! I have the same feeling, that my neighbors are out to get me because most of them buy their donuts at Shipley’s.

          Those conniving bastards! And what’s up with all those black helicopters?

        3. I think there are three attitudes here, in decreasing order of violence:
          1) The government shouldn’t be allowed to punish or threaten to punish business owners for their political views.

          2) Committed homosexual relationships should not receive the same legal privileges as committed heterosexual relationships (or they should, but should be called “civil unions” instead of “marriages”).

          3) Homosexuality is evil and should be banned.

          I’d imagine #3 is a minority, though maybe I’m just living in a bubble.

          1. Wait, increasing. Well, you know what I meant.

    2. It’s horrible when someone disagrees with you isn’t it?

      1. Dragon’s the type that has a one-way disagreement valve – it’s only okay to disagree as long as it’s not against leftism.

  20. Islamic Humour Ain’t No Laughing Matter
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ds-newsxml

    1. seems Islamic humor is more of an oxymoron.

  21. This is why America is fucked:

    Out on the street today, I passed a group of kids. Senior high age I would guess. Well, one of the kids was passionately — Passionately — explaining George Washington’s role during the Civil war.

    I. Kid. You. Not.

    1. Did he at least have him as a confederate?

      1. “Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!” – “Bluto” Blutarsky

        1. Well he is one of our smarter Senators.

      2. He probably had him as a vampire.

    2. There is a letter in Dear Prudence today talking about getting a “Civil War Video about Custer’s last stand”.

      1. Imagine that, renting a documentary and seeing a homemade teacher/student porno. I give Yoffe credit for the suggested title of “There’s Nothing ‘Little’ about this ‘Bighorn'”.

        1. Whether it is bad or not depends totally on the attractiveness of the people involved.

    3. that’s a lot of stupid but not epic stupid like all those Chicago high schoolers on video mob robbing a store last week.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..xf7zD_bZ0Y

    4. “George Washington man, he was in a cult, and the cult was into aliens.”

      Plus bonus Milla Jovovich.

      1. Am I the only one who thinks Stoya looks like a young Milla J?

    5. It’s possible. Maybe he didn’t quite die when we think he did.

      1. Maybe he’s not dead at all.

        1. If only. He could win as a write-in.

          1. Would he be eligible? I don’t remember if term limits were grandfathered in or not.

            1. George Washington can be king if he wants it.

              1. I’d vote for that.

                1. At least he doesn’t want the title. What do you think Julius Obama would do if Antony offered him a crown?

                  1. Stab him in the back and take it.

                    1. Good point–he’d be pissed that Antony was handling his crown in the first place.

                    2. Then he’d use state secrets to deny it ever happened.

                    3. Also I don’t know if he’d stab him for handling the crown, or just because he could.

        2. Dead or not he can and will still be voting in Chicago this election.

    6. He probably also thinks the Amerians won the war of 1812.

      1. Americans that is

      2. That’s silly, everyone knows Armenians won the war of 1812.

        1. We are not ruled by the Queen are we? Just because we didn’t conquer Canada, as was our God given right, doesn’t mean we lost.

        2. We’ve always been at war with Armenia.

          1. This explains the Kardashians.

            1. then the Armenians must be winning

  22. Opponents said the bill gives the government too much authority over business practices.

    Those trains aren’t going to schedule themselves, you know.

    1. not going to build themselves, either.

  23. Here’s my question about Reid’s claim:

    Is he saying Romney didn’t file returns for 10 years, or that he managed to fix it so he had $0 tax liability for 10 years?

    Because the latter’s not all that hard to believe, what with loss carry-forward and Romney drawing nothing but capital gains and dividend income for that period.

    1. He is saying the latter and that he achieved 0 tax by illegal means.

      1. When did he say that it was by illegal means?

        It seems very possible to me that Mitt really did (quite legally) have $0 tax liability for that period, and embarrassment about that fact is why he doesn’t want to release his returns.

        But how Reid knows this is also a highly interesting question. Somebody, somewhere would either have to commit a crime or breach a professional ethical duty for Reid to come into this information. So Romney’s people should demand that Reid detail how, exactly, he thinks he knows Romney paid no taxes.

        1. But Reid doesn’t think it’s his obligation to prove anything.

          1. Guilty until proven innocent is the standard in U.S. jurisprudence.

        2. Isn’t Romney a multi-millionaire? Is it really possible for him to have $0 tax liability? I can imagine him working it down to a low percentage a’la Buffett but zero seems unlikely in our vampire society.

          1. I have no idea about his personal situation, but I don’t think it’s entirely out of the question that someone who lived off their investments could offset gains with losses and have no taxable income at all, even before deductions.

      2. I just enjoy sitting back and watching a good Mormon fight.

    2. I speculate that there is something embarrassing in Romney’s returns.

      I suspect that his returns have already been leaked by the IRS to people in the Democratic Party.

      If it were criminal, they could get a criminal investigation launched a la Wesley Snipes, but it’s not.

      It’s something that makes him look like an elitist or would somehow hurt him in the polls.

      So that’s why they’re focused on the returns.

      They really are getting desperate.

    3. Does it really matter what he’s saying? What matters is what his mouth breathing minions are hearing.

      LOOPHOLES!!!

      OFFSHORING JERBZ!!!

      SEKRIT SWISS ACCOUNTS!!!!!

      HERP-A-DERP A DERPIDY DEE!!!

      1. It matters in the sense that accusing him of not filing is calling him a criminal. Accusing him of not having any tax liability is not.

        One problem is that if Mitt paid $0 in tax eventually some bright wit is going to say, “Look, Mitt, don’t release your tax returns if you want to preserve your privacy. Just give us line 76 from your 1040 for each of those years and we’ll call it square.” And then what does he do? If he refuses, it’s just about as damaging politically as if he releases the returns and shows $0 tax.

        1. I might actually vote for him if he made all that money and came out legally paying no taxes. We need that kind of financial wizardry in the White House.

          1. Balanced budget!

        2. Fluffy, I read somewhere today, don’t remember where, that Romney had already released his 2010 taxes and that he had paid a healthy bill, plus large charitable contributions.

    1. A modern Cool Hand Luke.

  24. Dude is talking some very serious smack alright. Wow.

    http://www.Anon-Got.tk

  25. “H/t to Hit Run commenter and linkmaster SugarFree)”

    You guys realize that because of this, he is going to win the gold medal in gloating in London?

    P.S Preview is still fucked up and this is the third time I;ve tried to post this pithy comment.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.